Contents part I religious

Of the six schools of philosophy which were expounded by the ancient philosophers of India the most famous is of course the Vedanta philosophy. Not only has it the name but it has also a hold on the Hindus which none of its rivals has ever had. Every follower of the Vedas is proud of the Vedanta. He not only owns it but regards it as the most valuable contribution which India has made to the philosophic thought of the world. He regards Vedanta philosophy as embodying the end or aim of the teachings of the Vedas, a sort of culmination or flowering of the teachings of the Veda. He never suspects that there was any time in the history of India when the Vedanta Philosophy was regarded as repugnant and hostile to the Vedas. He would never believe that there was a time when the word Vedanta had a totally different meaning than the meaning which is now current and according to which the word Vedanta far from being used in the sense of culmination of Vedic thought was used to designate a body of thought contained in a body which was outside the range of the cannonical part of the Vedic literature. Yet that was in fact the case.

Most European scholars are agreed in deriving Upanishad from the root sad, to sit down, preceded by the two prepositions ni, down, and upa, near, so that it would express the idea of session, or assembly of public sitting down near a person. As Prof. Max Muller points out there are two objections to the acceptance of this derivation. Firstly such a word, it would seem, would have been applicable to any other

This is a 21-page typed first copy entitled ' The Riddle of the Vedanta : The chapter seems complete and does not contain any modofications by the author.—Ed.

portion of the Veda as well as to the chapters called Upanishad, and it has never been explained how its meaning came thus to be restricted. Secondly the word Upanishad, in the sense of session or assembly has never been met with. Whenever the word occurs, it has the meaning of doctrine, secret doctrine, or is simply used as the title of the philosophic treatises which contains the secret doctrine. There is a third explanation noted by Prof. Max Muller proposed by Sankara in his commentary on the Taittiriya-Upanishad II, 9, is that the highest bliss is contained in the Upanishad (param sreyo'syam nishannam). Regarding this Prof. Max-Muller says:

"The Aranyakas abound in such etymologies, which probably were never intended as real as plays on words, helping to account somehow for their meaning."

Prof. Max Muller however favours a derivation of the word Upanishad from the root sad to destroy and meant knowledge which destroys ignorance, the cause of Samsara, by revealing the knowledge of Brahma as a means of salvation. Prof. Max Muller points out that this is the meaning which the native scholars have unanimously given to the word Upanishad.

If it be granted that this is the true derivation of the word Upanishad it would be one piece of evidence in support of the thesis that there was a time in the history of India when Vedanta was regarded as a system of thought which was repugnant to the Vedas. But it is not necessary to depend upon the help of etymology to support the thesis. There are other evidences better and more direct. In the first place the word Vedanta was never used to denote " the last books of the Vedas " which they are. As observed by Prof. Max Muller[f13]:

"Vedanta as a technical term, did not mean originally the last portions of the Veda, or chapters placed, as it were, at the end of a volume of Vedic literature, but the end, i.e. the object, the highest purpose of the Veda. There are, of course, passages, like the one in the Taittirya-Aranyaka (ed. Rajendra Mitra p. 820), which have been misunderstood both by native and European scholars, and where Vedanta means simply the end of the Veda: yo vedadu svarah prokto vedante ka pratishthitah, ' the 0m which is pronounced at the beginning of the Veda, and has its place also at the end of the Veda". Here Vedanta stands simply in opposition to Vadadu, it is impossible to translate it, as Sayana does, by Vedanta or Upanishad. Vedanta, in the sense of philosophy, occurs in the Taittiriya-Aranyaka (p. 817), in a verse of the Narayania-Upanishad, repeated in the Mundak-Upanishad III, 2, 6 and elsewhere Vedantavignansuniskitarhah, 'those who have well understood the object of the knowledge arising from the Vedanta, ', not 'from the last books of the Veda', and Svetasvatara-up. VI, 22, vedante paramam guhyam, ' the highest mystery in the Vedanta '. Afterwards it is used in the plural also, e.g.Kshurikopanishad, 10 (bibl. Ind. p. 210) pundariketi vedanteshu nigadyate, 'it is called pundarika in the Vedantas ', i.e. in (he Khandogya and other Upanishads, as the commentator says, but not in the last books of each Veda."

More direct evidence on the point is that which is contained in the Gautama Dharma Sutras. In Chapter XIX verse 12 speaks of purification and says[f14]:

"The purificatory (texts are), the Upanishads, the Vedantas, the Samhita text of all the Vedas" and so on.

From this it is clear that at the date of Gautama the Upanishads were distinguished from Vedantas and were not acknowledged as a part of the Vedic literature. Hardatta in his commentaries says "those parts of the Aranyakas which are not (Upanishads) are called Vedantas ". This is unimpeachable proof that the Upanishads did not come within the range of the Vedic literature and were outside the cannon.

This view is also supported by the use of the Veda in the Bhagwat Gita. The word Veda is used in the Bhagwat Gita at several places. And according to Mr. Bhat2 the word is used in a sense which shows that the author did not include the Upanishads in the term.

That the Upanishads were excluded from the cannonical literature of the Vedas is provided by the opposition of the Upanishads to the views preached in the Vedas that the religious observances and sacrifices were the only means of salvation. A few citation from some of the Upanishadas will suffice to show their opposition to the Vedas. The Mundaka Upanishad says:

" Brahma was produced the first among the gods, maker of the universe, the preserver of the world. He revealed to his eldest son Atharva, the science of Brahma, the basis of all knowledge. (2) Atharvan of old declared to Angis this science, which Brahma had unfolded to him; and Angis, in turn, explained it to Satyavaha, descendent of Bharadvaja, who delivered this traditional lore, in succession, to Angiras. (3) Mahasala Saunaka, approaching Angiras with the proper formalities, inquired, 'What is that, 0 venerable sage, through the knowledge of which all this (universe) becomes known?' (4) (Angiras) answered, 'Two sciences are to be known— this is what the sages versed in sacred knowledge declared—the superior and the inferior. (5) The inferior (consists of) the Rig-veda the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharva-veda, accentuation, ritual, grammar, commentary, prosody, and astronomy. The superior science is that by which the imperishable is apprehended." The Chhandoyaga Upanishad says:

"(1) Narada approached Sanatkumara, saying, 'Instruct me, venerable sage'. He received for answer, 'Approach me with (tell me) that which thou knowest; and I will declare to thee whatever more is to be learnt.' (2) Narada replied, ' I am instructed, venerable sage, in the Rig-veda, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur-veda, the Atharva-veda (which is) the fourth, the Itihasas and Puranas (which are) the fifth Veda of the Vedas, the rites of the pitris, arithmetic, the knowledge of portents, and of great periods, the art of reasoning, ethics, the science of the gods, the knowledge of scripture, demonology, the science of war, the knowledge of the stars, the science of serpents and deities; this is what I have studied. (3) I, venerable man, know only the hymns (mantras), while I am ignorant of soul. But I have heard from reverend sages like thyself that ' the man who is acquainted with soul overpasses grief. Now, I venerable man, am afflicted; but do thou transport me over my grief. Sanatkumara answered, 'That which thou hast studied is nothing but name. (4) The Rig-veda is name; and so are the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvana, which is the fourth and the Itihasas and Puranas, the fifth Veda of the Vedas, etc. (all the other branches of knowledge are here enumerated just as above), all these are but names; worship name. (5) He who worships name (with the persuasion that it is) Brahma, ranges as it were at will over all which that name comprehends;—such is the prerogative of him who worships name (with the persuation that it is) Brahma, Is there anything venerable man' asked Narada, 'Which is more than name?', 'There is,' replied (Sanatkumara), 'something which is more than name'. 'Tell it to me', rejoined Narada."

The Brahadarnyaka Upanishad says:

"In that (condition of profound slumber,) a father is no father, a mother is no mother, the words are no words, the gods are no gods, and the Vedas are no Vedas, sacrifices are no sacrifices. In that condition a thief is no thief, a murderer of embryos is no murderer of embryos, a Paulakasa no Paulakasa, a Chandala no Chandala, a Sramana no Sramana, a devotee no devotee; the saint has then no relation, either of advantage or disadvantage, to merit or to sin; for he then crosses over all griefs of the heart."

This is what the Katha Upanishad has to say:

"This soul is not to be attained by instruction, nor by understanding, nor by much scripture. He is attainable by him

whom he chooses. The soul chooses that man's body as his own abode ".

"Although this soul is difficult to know, still it may easily be known by the use of proper means. This is what (the author) proceeds to say. This soul is not to be attained, known by instruction, by the acknowledgement of many Vedas; nor by understanding, by the power of recollecting the contents of books; nor by much scripture alone. By what, then, is it to be attained? This he declares ".

How great was the repugnance to the Upanishadas and the philosophy contained in them will be realized if one takes note of the origin of the words Anuloma and Pratiloma which are usually applied to the marriage tie among the Hindus. Speaking of their origin Mr. Kane points out that[f15]:

"These two words Anuloma and Pratiloma (as applied to marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the Vedic literature. In the Br. Up. (II. 1.15) and Kausitaki Br. Up. IV. 18 the word ' Pratiloma ' is applied to the procedure adopted by a Brahmana of going to a Kshatriya for knowledge about " Brahman ". Anuloma means according to the heir that is in the natural order of things. Pratiloma means against the heir that is contrary to the natural order. Reading the observations of Mr. Kane in the light of the definition of the word Pratiloma it is obvious that the Upanishads far from being acknowledged as part of the Vedic literature were if not despised, held in low esteem by the Vedic Brahmins. It is a riddle to find that the Brahmins who were opponents of the Vedanta should become subsequently the supporters and upholders of the Vedanta.

II

This is one riddle of the Vedanta. There is another. The Vedantists were not the only opponents of the Vedas and its doctrine of ritualism as a means of salvations. Madhava Acharya the author of the Sarva Darshana Sangraha mentions two other opponents of the Vaidikas, Charvaka and Brahaspati. Their attack on the Vaidikas was quite formidable in its logic and its.....

Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead, Then here, too, in the case of travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey. While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt. When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again ? If he who departs from the body goes to another world, How is that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred? Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans

Established here.All these ceremonies for the dead , There is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of veda were buffoons, knaves and demons.

All these ceremonies for the dead,—there is no other fruit anywhere. The three Authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves.

All the well-known formulas of the Pandits, jarphari, turphari, And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Aswamedha.

These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, While the eating of flesh was similarly commended by night prowling demons."

Why did the Vedic Brahmans compromise with the Vedantists but did not compromise with Charvak and Brihaspati. It is a riddle that awaits explanation.

Ill

Starting on this inquiry one is struck by the parallelism between Jaimini and Badarayana in the presentation of the subject matter. As Prof. Belvalkar points out the Vedant Sutras are very closely modelled upon the Karma Sutras. In the matter of methodology and terminology Badarayana very carefully follows Jaimini. He accepts Jaimini rules of interpreting the text of the Shruti. He uses Jaimini's technical terms in the sense in which they have been used by Jaimini. He uses the very illustrations which are employed by Jaimini.

The parallelism shows that Badarayana must have felt that he was the exponent of a rival philosophy which was being attacked by Jaimini and that in replying to the attack he must follow Jaimini's technique.

Question is did Badarayana take the stand of an opponent of Jaimini? .

That Jaimini was his opponent Badarayana himself admits, the attitude of Jaimini towards Vedanta. It is stated by Badarayana in his Sutras 2-7 and explained by Shankaracharya in his commentary. Jaimini contends that:

" No one undertakes a sacrificial act unless he is conscious of the fact that he is different from the body and that after death he will go to heaven, where he will enjoy the results of his sacrifices. The Texts dealing with self-knowledge serve merely to enlighten the agent and so are subordinate to sacrificial acts."

In short Jaimini says that all that Vedanta teaches is that self is different from the body and outlives the body. Such a knowledge is not enough. The Self must have the aspiration to go to Heaven. But it can't go to heaven unless it performs Vedic sacrifices which is what his Karmakand teaches. Therefore his Karmakand is the only way of Salvation and that the Jnankand from that point of view is quite useless. For this Jaimini relies on the conduct of men who have believed in Vedanta [f18] :

" Janaka, emperor of Videha performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed" (Brih. 3.1.1); "I am going to perform a sacrifice, sirs" (Ch. 5.11.5). Now both Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of the Self. If by this knowledge of the Self they had attained Liberation, there was no need for them to perform sacrifices. But the two texts quoted show that they did perform sacrifices. This proves that it is through sacrificial acts alone that one attains Liberation, and not through the knowledge of the Self as the Vedantins hold."

Jaimini makes a positive assertion that the scriptures unmistakably declare[f19] " that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts." Jaimini justifies it because he says*[f20] "the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to produce the results.)"

Jaimini refuses to give an independent position to Badarayana's Jnana kanda. He takes his stands on two grounds.

First[f21] "Knowledge of the Self does not independently produce any result."

Second[f22] according to the authority of the Vedas " Knowledge (of Self) stands in a subordinate relation to work." This is the position of Jaimini towards Badaryana's Jnanakanda. What is the position of Badarayana towards Jaimini and his Karma Kanda? This is explained by Badarayana in Sutras 8 to 17.

The first position[f23] taken up by Badarayana is that the Self spoken of by Jaimini is the limited self i.e. the soul and is to be distinguished from the supreme soul and that the supreme soul is recognized by the Scriptures.

The second[f24] position taken by Badarayana is that the Vedas support both knowledge of Self as well as Sacrifices.

The third[f25] position taken up by Badarayana is that only those who believe in the Vedas are required to perform Sacrifices. But those who follow the Upanishadas are not bound by that injunction. As Shankaracharya explains:

"Those who have read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices are entitled to perform work (sacrifice). No work (sacrifice) is prescribed for those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishadas. Such a knowledge is incompatible with work." The fourth[f26] position taken up by Badarayana is that Karmakanda is optional to those who have attained Bramhadnan. As Shankaracharya explains:

"That some have of their own accord given up all work. The point is that after knowledge some may choose to work to set an example to others, while others may give up all work. There is no binding on the knowers of the Self as regards work ". His last and final[f27] position is that:

" Knowledge of the Self is antagonistic to all work and so cannot possibly be subsidiary to work."

And as evidence in support of it he relies[f28] on the scriptures which recognizes Sannyasa the fourth Ashram and relieves the Sannyasi from performing sacrifices prescribed by the Karma Kand.

Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the attitude of the two schools of thought towards each other. But the one given above is enough as it is so very typical. If one stops to consider the matter the position wears a strange appearance. Jaimini denounces Vedanta as a false Shastra, a snare and a delusion, something superficial, unnecessary and unsubstantial. What does Badarayana do in the face of this attack? Does he denounce the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false Shastra, a snare and a delusion, something superficial unnecessary and insubstantial? No. He only defends his own Vedanta Shastra. But one would expect him to do more. One would expect from Badarayana a denunciation of the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false religion. Badarayana shows no such courage. On the contrary he is very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini's Karmakanda based on the scriptures and the scriptures have authority and sanctity which cannot be repudiated. All that he insists on is that his Vedanta doctrine is also true because it has also the support of the scriptures.

This is not all. What Badarayana does is to use the term Vedanta to cover these senses. He uses it so as to emphasize that the Upanishads do form a part of the Vedic literature. He used it also to emphasize what Vedanta or the Dnyanakanda of the Upanishads is not opposed to the Karmakanda of the Vedas that the two are complimentary. Indeed this is the foundation on which Badarayana has raised the whole structure of his Vedanta Sutras.

This thesis of Badarayana—which underlies his Vedanta Sutras and according to which the Upanishadas are a part of the Veda and there is no antagonism between the Vedas and Upanishads—is quite contrary to the tenor of the Upanishads and their relation to the Vedas. Badarayana's attitude is not easy to understand. But it is quite obvious that Badarayana's is a queer and a pathetic case of an opponent who begins his battle by admitting the validity of the premises of his adversary. Why did Badarayana concede to Jaimini on the question of infallibility of the Vedas which were opposed to the Upanishads? Why did he not stand for truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is a riddle that requires explanation.

 

APPENDIX III

THE RIDDLE OF THE TRIMURTI

To say that Hindu Religion is made up of sects is no less true than to say that Hindu Society is made up of castes. But not half the attention paid to the study of castes has been paid to the study of sects. This is as unfortunate as it is strange. Sects have played as great a part in India's history as castes have done. Indeed some sects just as some castes have made the history of India what it is.

The Chula-Niddessa a Buddhist treatize refers to various sects which were at one time prevalent in India. Classified on the basis of creeds and cults they may be listed as follows:

I CREEDS

Serial Name of the Sect. Essence of the creed No.

1 Ajivika Shravaka[f29] . Ajivika[f30]

This Riddle may be read along with the Riddle No. 11 which deals with The Rise and Fall of Gods. This title ' The Riddle of the Trimurti ' however does not find place in the original Table of Contents, nor was it available in the MS received by the Govt. This copy has been spared by Shri S. S. Rege—Ed.

Comparing the cults of the three Gods with the cults of the various Gods mentioned in the list, two conclusions are obvious. One conclusion is that the cults of Vishnu and Mahesha are new fabrications, later in origin than those mentioned in the Chula Niddessa. The second conclusion is that all the old cults have disappeared. Searching for the causes of this strange phenomenon it is quite clear that New Cults could not have come into being unless the Brahmins had taken up the cause of propagating these new cults. Similarly old cults could not have disappeared if the Brahmins had not ceased to propagate them. The question that puzzles the student of history is why did the Brahmins fabricate these new cults? Why did they give up the old cults ? The question not only puzzles but staggers the student when the God that has vanished in this revolution is no other than Indra. Indra is a Vedic God. He is the greatest of the Vedic Gods. The Brahmins worshipped Indra and praised him as the supreme God for hundreds if not thousands of years. What made the Brahmins give up Indra and become the devotees of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh? Were the reasons for transfer of loyalties by the Brahmins spiritual or commercial?

Who is this Shiva whom the Brahmins adopted as their God in preference to Indra? The story of Daksha Prajapati's Yajna and the part played by Shiva throws great light on Shiva. The story is that somewhere in the Himalayas king Daksha was performing an Yajna. This Yajna was attended by all Devas, Danavas, Pishachas, Nagas, Rakshasas and Rishis. But Shiva absented as Daksha did not give him invitations. Dadhichi one of the Rishis scolded Daksha for his failure to invite Shiva and to perform his puja. Daksha refused to call Shiva and said "I have seen many of your Rudras. Go away, I don't recognize your Shiva." Dadhichi replied " You have all conspired against Shiva, take care, your Yajna will never reach a successful finis." Mahadeo coming to know of this created a Rakshas from his mouth and this Rakshas destroyed the Yajna started by Daksha. This shows that there was a time when Brahmins refused to recognize Shiva as the God to be worshipped or it shows that Shiva was against the Yajna system of the Brahmanas.

The difference between the Aryans and the Non-Aryans was cultural and not racial. The cultural difference centred round two points. The Aryans believed in Chaturvarna. The Non-Aryans were opposed to it. The Aryans believed in the performance of Yajna as the essence of their religion. The Non-Aryans were opposed to Yajna. Examining the story of Daksha's Yajna in the light of these facts it is quite obvious that Shiva was a Non-Vedic and a Non-Aryan God. The question is why did the Brahmins, the pillars of Vedic culture, adopt Shiva as their God?

The third question that puzzles the student is the reformation and transformation which the Brahmins have made in the original format of Shiva and Vishnu.

The Hindus are not aware that Shiva is a non-Vedic, non-Aryan God. They identify him with God Rudra mentioned in the Vedas. So that to the Hindus Rudra is the same as Shiva. Now in the Taiteriya Samhita of the Yajur-Veda there is a hymn in praise of Rudra. In this hymn Rudra i.e. Shiva is described as the lord of thieves, robbers, dacoits, as the King of the degraded, of potters and blacksmiths. The question is how did the Brahmins venture to accept this king of thieves and robbers as their supreme God?

There is another reformation in the character of Rudra which the Brahmins have made while accepting him as their God Shiva. In the Ashvalayan Grihya Sutra the proper way of worshipping Rudra is prescribed. According to it the worship of Rudra was to be the sacrifice of a bull. The Sutra gives details of the season, and the Nakshatra for performing this sacrifice. It tells the householder to select the best bull from the stable. It prescribes its colour. It recommends that it should be fat. It should be consecrated with rice water or barley water. Then it should be slaughtered and offered to the Rudra addressing him by all his names and his tail, hide, head and feet should be thrown into the fire. Evidently Rudra was a ' himsak ' God to whom animal sacrifice was necessary. Shiva on the other hand has been an Ahimsaka God. He is not offered animal sacrifice. Question is what compelled the Brahmins to make Shiva give up his meat diet and be a vegetarian.

Hindus all over India accept without shame or remorse the virtue of Linga Puja—Phallus worship. This phallus worship is associated with Shiva and it is commonly held that the true way of worshipping Shiva is to worship the Shiva Linga. Was Linga puja always associated with Shiva? Some very interesting facts are brought to light by Prof. Dandekar in his essay on " Vishnu in the Veda ". Says Prof. Dandekar:

"The most significant word in this connection is Sipivista, which is exclusively employed in the Veda with reference to Vishnu. The passages where the word occurs in RV (VII. 99.7; VII. 100. 5-6) seems to have been kept obscure with a purpose. The Vedic poets evidently sought to make a guarded and casual reference to that aspect of Vishnu's personality which was indicated by the word, Sipivista. Many attempts have been made to explain the word, but few satisfy the requirements of philosophy and none brings out the true nature of Vishnu. It is not possible to separate philologically the word Sepa (Penis) from sipi. Other similar idg. forms are Sipha (a root pkt. chepa, lat. oippus, seipio (staff) etc. Even Nirukta (V. 7) seems to be vaguely supporting this view though its further explanation is not clear. Added to that word is a form from the root viz., thus making the whole word mean 'the changing phallus; the swelling and diminishing penis '. We may now easily understand why the Vedic poets speak in such guarded and obscure way about this form of Vishnu. In this connection it is very significant to note what Nirukta (V. 8-9) says of this name of Vishnu: The word sipivista has thus unmistakably preserved Vishnu's ancient phallic nature. There are also many other incidental references to Vishnu in the Vedic hymns and ritual, which clearly associate him with the notion of fertility, productivity and self life."

" One of the obscure features of the Vedic Shraddha-ritual is that the Angustha, without nail, is to be dipped into the offering intended for the pitars. This action is accompanied by an invocation to Vishnu. The Angustha is undoubtedly a symbol of the phallus. Vishnu is, in this rite, clearly connected with the phallic aspect of the Vedic ritual. In later literature we find Vishnu actually identified with the thumb. In the I. S. passage (VI. 2.4.2) we find another piece of evidence in this regard. Vishnu's entering into the mother earth is a symbolical description of a fertility rite. The words, Tanvardhanah, used with reference to Vishnu's (VII. 99.1; VIII. 100.2) may further be understood to be, indicative, of his phallic nature. Vishnu is significantly identified, in later literature, with Hiranyagarbha, and Narayana. Vishnu's close connection with Sinivali (AV. VII. 46.3), the 'broad-hipped' divinity protecting the feminine sex-functions, throws considerable light on this aspect of Visnu's personality. According to the Sankhyana-grahyasutra (I 22.13), the Mantra (X. 184.1) accompanies the garbha-ceremony, thus suggesting that Vishnu is the efficacious protector of the embryos. In AV (VII. 17.4), Vishnu is clearly connected with sex-functions. The two ephithets of Vishnu Nisiktapa (VII. 36.9) 'protector of the semen', and Sumajjani (1. 156.2) 'facilitating easy birth' speak for themselves. The word, Paumsya 'manly vigour' is Significantly used with reference to Vishnu in RV (E. 155.3-4). In the Vrsakapi-hymn (X. 86), Indra is said to have been exhausted, when a bold, lascivious monkey administered to him some medicine, through which Indra regained his manly power. This Vrsakapi is identified, in later literature, with Visnu, the word being also mentioned as one of his names in the Visnusahasranarna."

On the evidence produced by Prof. Dandekar phallus worship was in its origin connected with Vishnu. In the Puranas we do not find the Phallus worship associated with Vishnu. In the Puranas it is associated with Shiva. This is a most astounding transformation. Vishnu who was from the beginning associated with the Linga worship was dissociated from it and Shiva who had no association with the Linga worship has come to be identified with it. Question is what made the Brahmins dissociate Vishnu from Linga worship and fasten it on to Shiva?

There remains the last and the important question. It relates to the inter-relations of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha.

Nothing probably sums up so well the inter-relations between Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha as does the story of the birth of the God Dattatraya. Briefly the story is that one afternoon when Sarasvati, Laxmi and Parvati, the wives of the three Gods were sitting together chit-chatting, Narada, the sage on eternal tour, came to visit them. In the course of the conversation a question arose as who was the most chaste woman in the land. Narada held out that Anusuya the wife of Rishi by name Atri—as the purest and most chaste woman. This was violently disputed by the three, each one of whom claimed to have that title. Narada disproved their claim by recounting the many acts of adultery which one of them was guilty of. They were silenced but they became very angry. They wanted to retrieve their position vis-a-vis Anusuya. In their wisdom they decided that the only way by which this could be done was to have Anusuya seduced to illicit intercourse. Having decided upon their plan of action the three women told to their husbands when they returned in the evening what Narada said about them in the afternoon and scolded them by saying that they were the cause of their wives humiliation. For if they had committed adultery with Anusuya she and they would have been on the same level and Narada would not have found cause to humiliate them. They asked their husbands whether they cared for their wives and if they did were they not in duty bound to proceed forthwith to invade the chastity of Anusuya and to pull her down from the high pedestle of purity and chastity on which Narada had placed her. The Gods were convinced that what was suggested by their wives was their duty and that they could not shirk the task.

The three Gods started on an expedition to rob Anusuya of her honour and marched on to the hutment of Atri. The three Gods disguised themselves as three Brahmin Mendicants. When they arrived Atri was away. But Anusuya welcomed them and prepared food for them. When the meal was ready she asked them to sit and partake of the meal. The three Gods replied that they would take food at her house only if she agreed to serve them food in a naked condition. The rule of hospitality in ancient India was that Brahmin guest must not depart dissatisfied. Everything he asked must be given to him. In obedience to this rule Anusuya agreed to serve them naked. While she was serving food to them in this naked condition Atri arrived. On seeing Atri the three Gods who were taking food with Anusuya standing naked took the form of new born babes. The three Gods in the form of babes were placed by Atri in a craddle. In the craddle their bodies having become integrated into one and their heads having remained separate there arose the God Dattatraya who has one body and three heads representing the three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha.

The story has a stink of immorality in it and the close of it may have been deliberately designed so as to cover up the actual fact of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha having outraged Anusuya to lower her down to the level of their wives. Be that as it may the story illustrates the view once prevalent among the Hindus that three Gods Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha were co-equal in status and their functions are complimentary and not competitive. They were spoken of as forming Trimurti—three in one and one in three, all sustaining the world, Brahma by creating it, Vishnu by preserving it and Shiva by destroying it.

This state of harmony did not last long. The Brahmins who were the propagandists of these three Gods divided themselves into three camps each becoming devoted to one to the exclusion of the other two. The result of this was a systematic campaign of villification and degradation by the Brahmins devoted to one God of the other Gods.

It is interesting as well as instructive to note what the Brahmins have done to Brahma. There was a time when the Brahmins raised Brahma to the highest pinnacle of power and glory. They presented him as the creator of the Universe—the first Prajapati. He was their sole supreme God. The Brahmins had developed the theory of Avatar which holds that God when necessary incarnates into different forms, human or animal. This they use for twofold purpose, firstly to elevate the supremacy of a God in whom they are interested and secondly to reconcile the conflict between Gods as different personalities.

The Brahmins have run riot with this theory of Avatar and different Puranas have given different lists of Avatars as will be seen from the following:

Puranas are full of such conflicts, even wars among Gods. There were conflicts between Rudra and Narayana[f44], between Krishna and Shiva[f45]. In these conflicts the Brahmins have made Brahma the Arbitrator.

The same Brahmins who elevated Brahma to such pre-eminence turned against him, started degrading him and mud-slinging him. They started propagating the view that Brahma was really inferior to Vishnu and Shiva. Contrary to their previous utterances the Brahmins said that Brahma was born from Shiva[f46] and some said that he was born from Vishnu[f47]

The Brahmins completely inverted the relation between Shiva and Brahma. Brahma was no longer the God who could give salvation. The God who could give salvation was Shiva and they reduced Brahma to the position of a common devotee worshipping Shiva and Linga in the hope of getting salvation[f48]. They reduced him to the position of servant of Shiva by making him the charioteer of Shiva[f49].

The Brahmins did not stop with degrading Brahma. They villified him in the worst manner possible. They broadcast the story of his having committed rape on his own daughter Sarasvati which is repeated in the Bhagwat Purana[f50]:

"We have heard, O Kshatriya, that Svayambhu (Brahma) had a passion for Vach, his slender and enchanting daughter, who had no passion for him. The Munis, his sons, headed by Marichi, seeing their father bent upon wickedness, admonished him with affection: 'This is such a thing as has never been done by those before you, nor will those after you do it,- that you, being the lord, should sexually approach your daughter, not restraining your passion. This, 0 preceptor of the world, is not a laudable deed even in glorious personages, through imitation of whose actions men attain felicity. Glory to that divine being (Vishnu) who by his own lustre revealed this (universe) which abides in himself,—he must maintain righteousness '. Seeing his sons, the Prajapatis, thus speaking before him, the lord of the Prajapatis (Brahma) was ashamed, and abandoned his body. This dreadful body the regions received, and it is known as foggy darkness."'

The result of this degrading and defamatory attacks on Brahma was to damn him completely. No wonder that his cult disappeared from the face of India leaving him a nominal and theoretical member of the Trimurti.

After Brahma was driven out of the field there remained two parties of Brahmanas, one engaged in favour of Shiva and the other engaged in favour of Vishnu. Let us see what they did as protagonists of their rival deities. Neither party succeeded in driving out the cult of its rival God. The cult of Shiva and the cult of Vishnu have continued to exist and flourish. Notwithstanding the many cults that have subsequently come into existence they have not been eclipsed. This is largely due to the propaganda and counter-propaganda carried on by the Brahmin protagonists of Shiva and Vishnu. How well matched the propaganda and counter propaganda was, can be seen from the following few illustrations.

Vishnu is connected with the Vedic God Sun. The worshippers of Shiva connect him with Agni. If one has Vedic origin the other must have Vedic origin as well. One cannot be inferior to the other in the matter of nobility of origin.

Shiva must be greater than Vishnu and Vishna must not be less than Shiva. Vishnu has thousand names[f51]. So Shiva must have thousand names and he has them[f52]. Vishnu has his emblems[f53]. So must have Shiva and he has them[f54].

In the performance of deeds of glory the propaganda in favour of one is fully matched by counter-propaganda in favour of the other. One illustration of this is the story regarding the origin of the holy river Ganges[f55]. The devotees of Shiva attribute its origin to Shiva. They make it take its origin from Shiva's hair. But the Vaishnavas will not allow it. They have manufactured another legend. According to the Vaishnavite legend the blessed and the blessing river flowed originally out of Vaikunth (the abode of Vishnu) from the foot of Vishnu, and descending upon Kailasa fell on the head of Shiva. There is a two-fold suggestion in the legend. In the first place Shiva is not the source of the Ganges. In the second place Shiva is lower than Vishnu and receives on his head water which flows from the foot of Vishnu.

Another illustration is furnished by the story which relates to the churning of the oceans by the Devas and the Asuras. They used the Mandara mountain as the churning rod and huge serpent Shesha as a rope to whirl the mountain. The earth began to shake and people became afraid that the world was coming to an end. Vishnu took the Avatar of Kurma (tortoise) and held the earth on his back and prevented the earth from shaking while the churning was going on.

This story is told in glorification of Vishnu. To this the Shaivites add a supplement. According to this supplement the churning brought out fourteen articles from the depth of the ocean which are called fourteen jewels. Among these fourteen a deadly poison was one. This deadly poison would have destroyed the earth unless somebody drank it. Shiva was the only person who came to drink it. The suggetion is that Vishnu's act was foolish in allowing the rivals the Gods and Demons to bring out this deadly poison. Glory to Shiva for he drank it and saved the world from the evil consequences of the folly of Vishnu.

Third illustration is an attempt to show that Vishnu is a fool and that it is Shiva who with his greater wisdom and greater power saves Vishnu from his folly. It is the story of Akrurasura[f56]. Akrur was a demon with the face of a bear, who, nevertheless, was continuously reading the Vedas and performing acts of devotion. Vishnu was greatly pleased and promised him any boon that he would care to ask. Akrurasura requested that no creature; then existing in the three worlds, might have power to deprive him of life, and Vishnu complied with his request; but the demon became so insolent that the Devatas, whom he oppressed, were obliged to conceal themselves, and he assumed the dominion of the world ; Vishnu was then sitting on a bank of the Kali, greatly disquieted by the malignant ingratitude of the demon; and his wrath being kindled, a shape, which never before had existed, sprang from his eyes. It was Mahadeva, in his destructive character, who dispelled in a moment the anxiety of the Vishnu.

This is countered by the story of Bhasmasura intended to show that Shiva was a fool and Vishnu saved him from his folly. Bhasmasura having propitiated Shiva asked for a boon. The boon was to be the power to burn any one on whose head Bhasmasura laid his hands. Shiva granted the boon. Bhasmasura tried to use his boon power against Shiva himself. Shiva became terrified and ran to Vishnu for help. Vishnu promised to help him. Vishnu took the form of a beautiful woman and went to Bhasmasura who became completely enamoured of her. Vishnu asked Bhasmasura to agree to obey him in everything as a condition of surrender. Bhasmasura agreed. Vishnu then asked him to place his hands on his own head which Bhasmasura did with the result that Bhasmasur died and Vishnu got the credit of saving Shiva from the consequences of his folly.

The rivalry and the consequent enmity among these Gods is best illustrated by the legend as to which of them is the first born. The story as related in the Skand Purana[f57] says that one time Vishnu lay extended asleep on the bosom of Devi, a lotus arose from his navel, and its ascending flower soon reached the surface of the flood, Brahma sprang from that flower, and looking round without any creature on the boundless expanse, imagined himself to be the first born, and entitled to rank above all future beings; yet, resolved to investigate deep and to ascertain whether any being existed in its universe who could controvert his pre-eminence, he glided down the stock of the lotus and finding Vishnu asleep, asked loudly who he was ? ' I am the first born ' answered Vishnu; and when Brahma denied his primogeniture, they had an obstinate battle, till Mahadeo pressed between them in great wrath, saying It is I who am truly the first born. But I will resign my place to either of you, who shall be able to reach behind the summit of my head, or the soles of my foot. Brahma instantly ascended; but having fatigued himself to no purpose in the regions of immensity, yet loath to abandon his claim, returned to Mahadeo, declaring that he had attained and seen the crown of his head, and called as his witness the first born cow. For this union of pride and falsehood, the angry God ordained, that no sacred Shiva rites should be performed to Brahma and that the mouth of cow should be defiled. When Vishnu returned, he acknowledged that he had not been able to see the feet of Mahadeo, who then told him that he was the first born among the Gods, and should be raised above all. It was after this Mahadeo cut off the fifth head of Brahma who thus suffered the loss of his pride, his power and his influence.

According to this story Brahma's claim to be the first born was false. He was punished by Shiva for making it. Vishnu gets the right to call himself the first born. But that is allowed to him by the grace of Shiva. The followers of Brahma had their revenge on Vishnu for stealing what rightfully belonged to him with the help of Shiva. So they manufactured another legend[f58] according to which Vishnu emanated from Brahma's nostrils in the shape of a pig and grew naturally into a boar—a very mean explanation of Vishnu's avatar as a boar.

The rivalry among these Gods had taken the shape of rivalry among traders and results in indecent abuse of Shiva by Vishnu and of Vishnu by Shiva.

Such are the facts about the Trinity and its subsequent history. There is nothing new in the conception of Trinity. The conception of Trinity is an old one, older than Yaska. To reduce the chaos of innumerable Gods the early Brahmins were engaged lo select some Gods and to make them pre-eminent over the rest. The number of such pre-eminent Gods was fixed at three. Of these Agni and Surya were two. For the third place there was rivalry between Vayu and Indra. Consequently one finds the Irinity of Agni, Indra and Surya or Agni, Vayu and Surya. The new trinity is identical in its conception with the old though different in its personnel. Every member of this Trinity is new. It seems alter the first Trinity was dissolved no new Trinity existed for a considerable time. In the Chulla Nidessa there is mention only of Brahma Vratikas. There is no mention of Vishnu Vratikas or Shiva Vratikas. This means that at the time of the Chula Nidessa the cult of Vishnu and the cult of Shiva had not come into being. They were later on added to the cult of Brahma and constituted into a Trinity. Several questions rise in one's mind when one considers the part played by the Brahmins in the evolution and confounding of the Trinity.

The first that arises is the faithlessness of the Brahamins to their Gods. the easy manner in which they abandon one set of Gods for another. In this connection one is reminded of the Jewish priests and Nebuchad-Nez-Zar.

"Neb-U-Chad-Nez-Zar[f59] the king made an image of gold, whose height was three score cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits he set it up in the plain of Du-ra, in the province of Bab-y-lon.

"2. Then Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king sent to gather together the princes (satraps), the governors (deputies), and the captains (governors), the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king had set up.

"3. Then the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king had set up: and they stood before the image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar had set up.

4. "Then an herald cried aloud. To you it is commanded, 0 people, nations, and languages.

5. That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king hath set up;

6. And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.

7. Therefore at that time, when all the people heard, the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Neb-u-chad-nez-zar the king had set up."

8. Wherefore at that time certain Chal-de-ans came near, and accused the Jews.

9. They spake and said to the king Neb-u-chad-nez-zar, " O King, live for ever."

10. "Thou, 0 King, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image."

11. "And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."

12. "There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Bab-y-lon, Sha-drach, Me-shach and A-bed-ne-go; these men, 0 king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

13. "Then Neb-u-chad-nez-zar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go. Then they brought these men before the king.

14. Neb-u-chad-nez-zar spake and said unto them, "Is it true, 0 Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?"

15. "Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well; but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?"

16. Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go, answered and said to the king, " O Neb-u-chad-nez-zar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter."

17. " If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, 0 king."

18. "But if not, be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set

up."

19. "Then was Neb-u-chad-nez-zar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Sha-drach, Me-shach and A-bed-ne-go ; therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.

21. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

22. Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go.

23. And these three men, Sha-drach, Me-shach, and A-bed-ne-go, fell bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnance." Why did the Brahmins give up the first Trinity? There is no indication that they were compelled to foreswear those Gods. Was it love of gain or lucre?

The second question is why did the Brahmins who became the votaries of the three Gods follow the principle of live and let live ? Why was one sect bent on destroying the other. There was no doctrinal difference between these sects worth the name. Their theology, cosmology and philosophy were all one and the same. The riddle becomes all the great. Was this sectarian quarrel political? Did the Brahmins make religion a matter of politics? Otherwise what is the explanation of this quarrel?