Hinduism: A Short History (14 page)

The
Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras
are very brief in describing the state to be obtained through sacrifice: heaven. Their authors were probably convinced that one cannot know much about it. The very principles which they establish lead to the conclusion that those passages in the Vedas which describe heaven (because they do not enjoin certain acts) cannot be taken as authoritative. There is one short
sūtra
which says: “That one result would be ‘heaven’, as that is equally desirable for all.”
¹⁰⁷
And a short notice by the commentator: “Why so? Because heaven is happiness and everyone seeks for happiness.”
¹⁰⁸
The
Mīmāṃsā-Sūtras
do not treat the topic
mokṣa
. Nor does Śābara. Prabhākara and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, however, probably under the influence of Vedānta, deal with
mokṣa
. Śābara had declared that the views about heaven as exposed in
Mahābhārata
and
Purāṇas
can be neglected, since these books are composed by men. Vedic descriptions, too, are mere
arthavāda
, without authority.
¹⁰⁹
Both later Mīmāṃsāka schools agree, however, in saying that
mokṣa
consists in not having to assume a body again after death.
¹¹⁰
According to Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, anyone desiring
mokṣa
should perform only prescribed rituals without desiring rewards.
¹¹¹

Similarly, for Prabhākara
mokṣa
consists in the disappearance of all merits and demerits, and the cessation of rebirth. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa discusses the role of
jñāna
and
karma
in the process of liberation. Commenting on the text “the fire of knowledge destroys all
karmas”
he maintains that it is only the gross manifestation of
karma
that is referred to as destroyed, not the potency of
karma
. Therefore it cannot be totally uprooted by means of
jñāna
, because the potency of
karma
is not opposed to
jñāna
.

Knowledge can only prevent the formation of new
karma
but cannot destroy its potentiality. Therefore knowledge cannot be the cause of liberation.
¹¹²
Karmas
already acquired have to be borne out. Knowledge is only an auxiliary to
karma
insofar as it makes the performance of
nitya
(prescribed) and
naimittika
(optional) rituals possible without desire for their fruit.
¹¹³
In late Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, so it appears, the depersonalization and objectivation of human salvation has come to its logical extreme: “They raise
yajña
to the position of God,” says P. V. Kane, “and their dogmas about
yajña
seem to be based upon a sort of commercial or business-like system.”
¹¹⁴

THE CONTINUITY OF VEDIC RELIGION

Worship of Indra, the great god of the
Ṛgveda
, was over the centuries replaced by the worship of Viṣṇu, Śiva and Devī, as the references from the Purāṇas demonstrated. Vedic
yajña
was largely superseded by
pūjā
, the worship of images in homes and temples, at which flowers and fruits, and not animals and soma, are the main offerings. Among intellectuals, the orthodox Vedic exegesis of the Mīmāṃsākas has been pushed from center-stage by the speculative philosophies of Vedānta. However, it would be wrong to conclude that Vedic religion is a thing of the past only.

All Hindus claim that their religion is “vedic” and that they follow the
vaidika dharma
. Vedic, in the traditional Hindu understanding, means much more than the hymns of the
Ṛgveda
and the mythology associated with it. It denotes a way of life, inherited from ancestors, and a specific understanding of the world that is an essential element of all of Hinduism. While Vedic
yajñas
are no longer the main feature of Hindu religious celebrations, they are still performed at many occasions and there has been a noticeable increase in such sacrifices during the last few decades. Also Hindu Vedic scholarship has grown in the recent past and has struck out along new paths.

While Purāṇic temple-worship dominates everyday Hindu religiosity, Vedic rites are still performed at the important life-cycle rituals of birth, marriage, and death. At these occasions Vedic hymns in their original language are recited and ceremonies that may reach back thousands of years are re-enacted. Vedic religion is much more than a distant memory of times long past; it is an integral element of contemporary Hinduism that has not ceased to shape the lives and thoughts of Hindus.

Aurobindo Ghose, by giving a new, spiritual interpretation to key words in the Veda, opened up a new understanding of Vedic hymns that has inspired a whole generation. Thus he identified the word “cow,” so frequently occurring in the
Ṛgveda
, as “truth” and “light”; he designated Indra as the “Giver of Light” – a universal and timeless figure. “The principle, which Indra represents, is Mind-Power, released from the limits and obscurations of the nervous consciousness,” he explains, and “this Light is, in its entire greatness free from limitation, a continent of felicity; this Power is that which befriends the human’s soul and carries it safe through the battle, to the end of its march, to the summit of its aspiration.”
¹¹⁵

A rather more down to earth revival of Vedic religion has been accomplished by Upāsanī Bābā Mahārāj, the founder of the Upāsanī Kānya Kumārī Sthān, a Hindu religious order for women who function as Vedic priestesses. When he began educating young women in Sanskrit and training them to perform Vedic homa rituals, there was tremendous opposition from the orthodox brahmins. To make his point, he confined himself to a bamboo cage for fifteen months “for the liberation of his devotees.” Women aspirants to priesthood kept joining and when he died in 1941 one of them, Satī Godāvarī Mātājī became the head of the ashram. The ashram, situated in Sakori (Maharastra) in 1992 housed 48 members who had taken the vows of physical purity, celibacy, and daily worship. The women are trained to perform Vedic
śrauta
rituals as well as other ceremonies.
¹¹⁶
Apart from this organization, recently numerous women have been trained as
purohitas –
some of them because of a shortage of male priests, others because of a complaint from the public that the men were performing the rituals too sloppily and carelessly.

NOTES

1.

   A. A. Macdonell,

, p. 47. This opinion has been confirmed in the most recent work on the subject. See J. Gonda,

, pp. 40ff. See also L. Renou,

.

2.

   S. N. Dasgupta,

, vol. I, pp. 10ff.

3.

   According to tradition Vyāsa arranged the

text, Sakalya the

text.

4.

   G. V. Devasthali, “Various schools of Vedic interpretation,” in Chinmulgund and Mirashi,

, pp. 31ff.

5.

   Shrimat Anirvan, “Vedic Exegesis,”

, vol. I, pp. 311–332.

6.

   Ibid.

7.

   P. Lakshman Samp (ed. and trans.),

vols., 1926–67,

, I, 20.

8.

   A. A. Macdonell,

, p. 60.

9.

   Shrimat Anirvan, “Vedic Exegesis.”

10.

   E Max Müller,

, Preface to the third volume of the first edition, 1st Indian Edition, Vāraṇāsī, 1966, p. xli.

11.

   That is the view of the

of this school, Macdonell’s

, Strasbourg, 1897.

12.

   Boethlingk-Roth,

vols., St. Petersburg, 1852–1875 (reprint, Graz, 1964).

13.

   K. Aufrecht brought out a romanized text edition of the

in two volumes, Bonn, 1877 (reprint 1955); A. Weber edited the

(Berlin-London, 1852); T. Benfrey edited the

(Leipzig, 1848), Roth and Whitney the

(Berlin, 1856). Complete translations of the

into European languages were made by H. H. Wilson, M. Williams, R. T. H. Griffith, H. Grassmann, A. Ludwig, and H. E Geldner. It was also due to Roth’s

(Stuttgart, 1846) that interest in scholarly research into the

was aroused in Europe.

14.

   R. T. H. Griffith,

, vol. I, Preface, p. xiv.

15.

   K. F. Geldner,

, 3 vols., Lanman Harvard Oriental series, 1951ff. Cf. also L. Renou,

, vols. 1–17, Paris, 1955–69.

16.

   Bergaigne had already thought that the mythology of the Vedic Āryans was closely connected with their sacrificial cult which appeared to him to be an imitation of celestial phenomena, distinguishing male and female elements (sun-dawn; lightning-cloud, etc.). Cf. his

, vol. II, Iff. The most important among the new interpreters is L. B. G. Tilak. Cf. his

with the subtitle “Being also a new key to the interpretation of many Vedic texts and legends,” Poona, 1903.

17.

   Cf. Devi Chand,

(English translation), Hoshiarpur: Vedic Research Institute, 1959; Introduction, and the new Ṛgveda edition by Visva Bandhu in eight volumes, Hoshiarpur, 1963–66.

18.

   Cf. Swami Samarpananand Saraswati,

, Calcutta, n.d., which is supposed to “answer the calculated mischief done by some Western Vaidic scholars and their local proteges to the prestige and inviolability of the Vedas.”

19.

   Vasudeva S. Agrawala,

.

20.

   Śri Aurobindo Ghose,

, pp. 34ff.

21.

   Ibid., p. 29.

22.

   See J. Gonda,

, vol. I, pp. 55ff. Also some of the contributions in M. Witzel (ed.),

. Harvard Oriental Series, Opera Minor Vol. 2, Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books, 1997.

23.

   Cf. J. Gonda,

, Wiesbaden, 1975.

24.

   R. N. Dandekar,

, Poona, 1968. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class A, No. 21, University of Poona.

25.

   See Renate Söhnen, “Rise and Decline of the Indra Religion in the Veda,” in M. Witzel, (ed.),

. (1997), pp. 235–243.

26.

   The etymology of Indra is not clear as yet. A. A. Macdonell,

, p. 44, derives it from

drop; J. Gonda,

, I, p. 60, from

. drängend (pushing); R.N. Dandekar, “Vṛtrahā Indra,” derives it from

, which he brings in connection with the meaning “virile power.” S. S. Sastri, “Vṛṣakapi,”

X (1949), p. 195: “The word Indra is more appropriately derived from

(to rule) (cf.

X, 8,

. IV, 2, 2), and connected with

(sun, Lord) and Invakas or Ilvalas (stars near the head of Mrgasirśa) than from Indu.” Indra has been declared to be the sun-god (Hillebrandt), the rain-god (Oldenberg), a god of universal character (Roth), and god of fertility as well as battles (Hopkins). About a quarter of the hymns of the

are addressed to Indra, not counting those hymns where he is invoked under different names. Some of the most common epithets which are often used as his proper names are:

.

27.

   R. N. Dandekar, “Indra Vṛtrahā,” reprinted in

. Delhi, 1979, p. 141.

28.

   R. N. Dandekar, “Indra Vrtrahā.” V M. Apte, “Vedic Religion,” in R. C. Majumdar (general ed.),

, vol. I, pp. 375ff.: “The true character of Indra can be understood by ascertaining that of Vṛtra, his opponent ...”

29.

   Yāska,

II, 16.

30.

   The

has three different derivations of Vṛtra which are all accepted: from root