Hinduism: A Short History (27 page)

, pp. 62ff.

Roma Chaudhuri, “The Nimbārka School of Vedānta,” in

, vol. Ill, pp. 333ff.; Umesha Mishra,

.

108.

   Roma Bose (trans)

, vol. Ill, p. 116

109.

   Ibid.

110.

on

IV, 3, 5. Vallabha (an exponent of Śuddhāvaita), knows two kinds of

(a) for

self-dissolution in Brahman; (b) for

tasting of Viṣṇu’s

111.

IV, 4, 1.

112.

   “Life of Vallabha,” in S. N. Dasgupta,

, IV, 371–372. See also: R. Barz,

, Faridabad: Thompson Press, 1976 and M. C. Parekh,

, Rajkot: Śrī Bhāgavata Dharma Mission, 1943.

113.

   M. I. Marfatia,

, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1967, 70–76: “puṣṭi or the Doctrine of Grace.”

114.

   An extensive summary is given in the article on Vallabha in

, vol. XII, pp. 580–583 by D. Mackichan. The most recent discussion is in D. L. Haberman, “On Trial: The Love of Sixteen Thousand Gopees,”

, 33/1 (1993), pp. 44–70.

115.

, London, 1865.

116.

   A good survey of recent English and Hindī literature on Vallabha is provided by J. R. Timm in his article “Vallabha, Vaiṣṇavism and the Western Hegemony of Indian Thought,”

XIV/1 (1989) pp. 6–36.

117.

   Bhatt, “The School of Vallabha,” p. 356.

118.

   Dasgupta,

, p. 355.

119.

   Bhatt,

. p. 357: “One may be constantly angry with the Lord and still get

.

120.

   Bhatt, pp. 354–355.

121.

   Bhatt, p. 349.

122.

develops in the following seven stages: (1)

, (2)

, (3)

, (4)

, (5)

, (6)

, and (7)

. Compare these with the stages as developed by Rūpa Gosvāmi, discussed in the next section.

123.

   Dasgupta,

, p. 356.

124.

   Ibid., p. 332.

125.

   O. B. L. Kapoor, “The saṃpradaya of Śrī Caitanya,”

, XVIII/3 (Sept. 1973) points out significant differences between the teachings of Madhva and Caitanya and suggests that Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is a different

.

126.

   Cf. Rādhā Govinda Nath, “A Survey of the Caitanya Movement,” in

, vol. IV, pp. 186ff.; W. Kennedy,

S. K. De,

. A. K. Majundar,

.

127.

   Cf. W. Kennedy,

, pp. 29ff. See also Rādhā Govinda Nath, “The Acintya-Bhedābheda School,” in

III, pp. 366–386 and S. N. Dasgupta,

, IV, chap. 32: Caitanya and his followers; and chap. 33: The Philosophy of Jīva Gosvāmi and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana.

128.

III, 20; cf. W. Eidlitz,

, pp. 490–499.

129.

   Cf. S. K. De,

.

130.

   Cf. W. Kennedy,

, p. 92.

131.

   Ibid., I, 4; II, 8.

132.

II, 6.

133.

   S. K. De,

, pp. 388ff.

134.

II, 9; III, 20.

135.

   Cf. S. K. De,

, pp. 408ff. See also R. V. Joshi,

.

136.

   “Service of God” means for the Vaiṣṇava largely service of a

which, therefore, is an indispensable part of his religion. Almost all Vaiṣṇava scriptures contain long sections on rituals, especially the

and

of the

.

137.

IX, 27ff. Lokācarya Mai,

, 139ff.: “The extreme limit of the easy accessibility that is mentioned here is the worshiped image ... This form of the Lord is our refuge. He holds the divine weapons in his hands. He keeps one of his hands in a posture asking us not to fear. He wears a crown. His face is smiling. His feet are firmly pressed on a lotus. His sacred body reveals that He is the protector and an object of enjoyment.”

138.

   It seems that this is one of the most ancient “formless” images under which Viṣṇu receives worship.

139.

   Ibid., pp. 128ff.

140.

   D. C. Sircar,

, pp. 117ff.; cf. Megasthenes’ “testimony.”

141.

   Cf. D. C. Sircar,

, p. 127; Banerjea,

, pp. 408ff.

142.

   Banerjea,

, pp. 137, 152, 358ff. Ahichchhatra coins with (Viṣṇu symbol) sudarśanacakra and name Acyuta (Viṣṇu),

, vol. II, p. 173.

143.

, chap. 57, 31ff.

144.

   It mentions the statues as eight-, four-, or two-armed; the

and the

, the various objects associated with Viṣṇu (discus, conch, mace, arrow, etc.).

145.

   That is the system adopted by J. N. Banerjea,

, pp. 396ff.

146.

   Ibid., p. 398. T. A. G Rao,

, vol. I, pt. 1.

147.

   L. B. Keny, “The Iconography of Viṣṇu Nārayāna,” pp. 171ff. See also H. Zimmer,

, pp. 90–101.

148.

III, 85.

149.

   Without due initiation into Vaiṣṇavism and application of all prescribed paraphernalia all worship is considered useless.

150.

   See K. Schomer and W. H. McLeod (eds.),

. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987, esp. A. Vaudeville, “Sant Mat: Santism as the Universal Path to Sanctity,” pp. 21–40, with an extensive bibliography.

151.

   For more information see B. N. K. Sharma, “The Vaiṣṇava Saints of Karnātaka,” in CHI, vol. IV, 349–355.

152.

   More detail in S. C. K. Handoo, “Tulasīdāsa and His Teachings”

, vol. IV, pp. 395–407 and in previously mentioned literature on the Sants.

153.

   English translation by J. S. Hawley and M. Juergensmeyer.

154.

   Sūrdās, “Ja din mēn-panchi urī jaihai ...” My own translation. A translation of the complete poem will be found in

.

155.

   Cf. Kshitimohan Sen, “The Mediaeval Mystics of North India,” in

, vol. IV, pp. 381ff.

156.

   More about him in the author’s

and “The Response of Modern Vaiṣṇavism,” in H. Coward (ed.),

, Albany: SUNY Press, 1987, pp. 129–150.

157.

   It cannot be the purpose of that Short History to provide an exhaustive bibliography – it will suffice to mention a few titles that exemplify that new development: E Hardy,

, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983; V Deheja,

, Albany: SUNY Press: Albany, 1990; N. Cutler,

, Bloomington; Indiana University Press, 1987; Jayant Lele (ed.),

, Leiden: Brill, 1981; D. N. Lorenzen,

, Albany: SUNY Press, 1995.

6

A SHORT HISTORY OF ŚAIVISM

Many different traditions, elements, cults, and philosophies have, in the course of some five or six thousand years, coalesced into what we call today Śaivism, part of mainstream Hinduism, the second largest religious community in today’s India.

There is evidence for worship of Śiva in the Indus civilization. Sir John Marshall termed one of the figures found on a soapstone seal “Proto-Śiva.” He thought he recognized in it the Śiva Trimukha, Paśupati, and Mahāyogi. Another seal is reminiscent of the Hunter, a well-known mythological theme of later Śaivism. A further element of Śiva cult can be seen in the numerous
liṅgas
that have been found all over.

Another important source of Śaivism is the ancient Dravida culture. The most plausible etymology of the name Śiva traces the name to Tamil roots.
¹
Several features of Śaivism too can be explained more satisfactorily by comparison with Dravida culture. The basic Śiva mythology and philosophy seems to have grown in the Dravida country. While
liṅga
worship may have come to Tamil Śaivism from outside,
²
the idea of the cooperation of Śiva and Śakti in the image of Śiva-Umā belongs to ancient Tamilian mythology.

Another noteworthy source of Śaivism lies in tribal religions. The very name of the ancient Śibi
³
seems to associate them with Śaivism. Their original home had been in the Punjab and names of places like Śivapura and descriptions in ancient historic records of the Śibis going about clad in skins of wild animals and using a club as their weapon seem to indicate that their tradition did have an influence in the development of Śaivism.

A further trace of tribal elements in Śaivism may be the numerous Rudras, mentioned even later in classical Vedic and Śaiva literature. It is quite possible that these Rudras were particular gods of various tribes which had certain qualities in common: fierceness, howling, dread, and destruction. It is not difficult to think of these Rudras merging into the one Rudra-Śiva that became the chief god of the Śaivites. Tribals of our day are often worshipers of Śiva, whom they invoke under many names, but it seems that their Śaivism is derived from their Hindu neighbours, and not vice versa.
⁴

As a fourth source we can mention the Veda. It knows a Rudra as one of the gods to whom hymns are addressed, also a plurality of Rudras. The name Śiva is not used in the Veda as a proper name, but more as a general attribute ascribed to several gods. The fact that Rudra (or Rudras) play a far greater role in the
Atharvaveda
than in the
Ṛgveda
seems to prove that Rudra worship, or the beginning of Śaivism, was more a cult of the lower strata of population and not so much part of Brahmanic ritual. The worship of the
liṅga
must have been frowned upon for a long time by orthodox Brahmanism. We read several disparaging remarks with regard to
śiśna
worshipers, described as hostile to the Āryans.
⁵
According to B. K. Ghosh, the Vedic Rudra is “an apotropaic god of aversion – to be feared but not adored.”
⁶
Offerings to Rudra and the Rudriyas are not sacrificed in the fire as to the other gods, but laid down at crossroads or deposited in forbidding places.
⁷
Another tradition seems to combine with this Vedic Rudra when he is worshiped as
Rudra Bhūpati,
, “a dread figure who (according to the
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa)
usurped the dominion of
Prajāpati
over all cattle when the latter committed incest with his daughter. He appears at the sacrifice in black raiment and claims the sacrificial victim.”
⁸
Some scholars think that this form of Śiva also goes back to aboriginal religion: non-Āryan tribes worshiping a god of vegetation, closely connected with pastoral life.