Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c11: Chapter V

The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V

v1.c11.1

**[ 135 ] Religion of the Temple-Builders :** Primitive idea of religion. Buddhism. Hinduism. Śivaism ; its origin. Objections to its Aryan origin. Objections considered. Relation of Śiva to Rudra. The origin of the myth of Rudra. Relation of Rudra to the *Liṅgam*. Tāntric Doctrine of Śāktaism. Vaiṣṇavism ; its antiquity ; its development. The doctrine of Bhakti ; its modifications ; its relation to Sufism ; its development by Caitanya. The cults of Sūrya and Gaṇeśa.

v1.c11.2

“The lowest savages”, says Sir John Lubbock, “have no idea of a deity at all. Those slightly more advanced, regard him as an enemy to be dreaded, but who may be resisted with a fair prospect of success ; who may be cheated by the cunning, and, defied by the strong. Thus the natives of the Nicobar islands endeavour to terrify their deity by scare-crows, and the Negro beats his fetish, if his prayers are not granted. As tribes advance in civilization, their deities advance in dignity ; but their power is still limited ; one governs the sea, another the land ; one reigns over the plains, another among the mountains. The most powerful are vindictive, cruel, and unjust. They require humiliating ceremonies and bloody sacrifices”.¹ There is nothing to show that the Uriyā does now, or ever did, form an exception to this rule. In his most primitive state, as represented by the Paṭuā,² he has to this day no idea of a deity at all ; and it would be no violent presumption to suppose that in early prehistoric times, he was no better than the Paṭuā of the present day. The first step in advance brought him to face gods, inimical, fierce and cruel, whom he had “to cheat by cunning, or defy by strength”, and in this form he is met with in the Śabaras of the present day. The next step brings us to the Khonds who appease their gods with human sacrifices and bloody offerings. It is probable that the Uriyā appeared in all these different forms in different parts of Orissa when the *Vrātya* or degraded Kṣatriyas of Manu first came among them, and gave a new impulse to progress, (*ante* p. 2). Two such markedly dissimilar forms of humanity as the ancient aboriginal Uriyā and the Hindu, could not abide together without causing a ferment. The strong must have told upon the weak, and it is to be presumed that thereupon, as in other parts of India, the history of Aryan civilization repeated itself driving the more obstinate and resolute, i. e. those who were most attached to independence among the aborigines, from their homes to the shelter of hill sides and forests, and amalgamating, though partially, with the more docile and tractable, by admitting them into the pale of Hinduism as a servile race. The intercourse thus established led, as elsewhere, to extensive miscegenation, and the result was a mixed race, who professed forms of Aryan religion, tinctured more or less with the ancient faith of the country, according to the social status of the different orders of the people. The lowest stratum probably remained, as they continue to this day, nearly unchanged; while the highest bore a close similitude to the ordinary run of the Brāhmaṇical order of Northern India. On the whole, the bulk of the people were Hindus, and professed a Hindu faith; at least such is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the mention of the *Vrātya Kṣatriyas* by Manu.

v1.c11.3

¹ *British Association Report*, 1869, p. 144.

v1.c11.4

² *Journal, Asiatic Society of Bengal.* (XXV. p. 295 *et seq*) Dalton’s *Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal*, p. 157.

v1.c11.5

It was this mixed race and degenerate form of Hinduism that Buddhism first encountered when it made its appearance in Orissa. And as the earliest remains of human art that have yet come under notice in that province are unmistakably Buddhist, it is not necessary for the purposes of this essay to go beyond the earliest date to which they extend.

v1.c11.6

Buddhism

v1.c11.7

Remains of Buddhist monuments have been met with in almost every part of Orissa: Balasore, Jājapur, Asighar, Nālti, and different parts of the Puri district afford them in pretty abundance; but the most important are the caves of Udayagiri, and the carved rock of Dhauli. Both contain Pāli inscriptions in the oldest Indian, or the Lat, character, ³ and are unquestionably works of the third and fourth centuries before Christ. Taking this as the starting-point we have a period of over a thousand years to the time of Hiouen Thsang during which [**136**] Buddhism prevailed in the country. It is not to be supposed, however, that Buddhism must necessarily date its introduction into the country from the time of these inscriptions. It may fairly be inferred that the first missionaries of that faith must have made their appearance long before the promulgation of the edicts of Aśoka. It would be equally wide of the mark to imagine that it ever was universally accepted by the Uriyās, for there is nothing to show that Buddhism did succeed in any part of India, much less in Orissa, entirely to extirpate the pre-existing religion of the people. As a reformation of the current faith, it fought its way, and for a time, as the state religion, held its supremacy; but the Buddhist records themselves admit that it always lived side by side with Hinduism. In the middle of the seventh century, Hiouen Thsang found "the followers of error and of the truth living pell-mell" in the capital, and "many heretics, who frequented the temples of the Devas". ⁴ According to the Siyuki (*Lib.* X. fol. 10), amidst a hundred monasteries and ten thousand monks, "there were fifty temples of the gods" ⁵ devoted to Hinduism. This proportion must doubtless have varied considerably at different times, and under particular circumstances; but there is nothing to justify the conclusion that one of the two contending elements was ever wanting in Orissa, since the day of the first introduction of Buddhism into it.

v1.c11.8

³ A Pāli inscription is said to have been met with at Nālti, but I have not yet seen it.

v1.c11.9

⁴ Martin's *Hiouen Thsang*, p. 183.

v1.c11.10

⁵ *Ibid.* p. 425.

v1.c11.11

The form of Buddhism which prevailed in the time of Hiouen Thsang was that of the "Great Translation" or the *Mahāyāna*, ⁶ i. e., the most developed form as settled at the Third Convocation in the time of Aśoka. But the "Little Translation" was not unknown at the time, and the first missionaries who brought the faith to Orissa long before the date of Aśoka, must have preached one or more of the earlier forms of the faith. The sculptures extant, however, do not afford any information on the subject, and it would require more space and time than I can spare to discuss it in all its detail in this place.

v1.c11.12

⁶ *Ibid.* p. 113.

v1.c11.13

**Hinduism** : The temples of the Devas noticed by Hiouen Thsang were probably mostly Śivaite, for it was during the two centuries preceding his travels in India that the new impulse given to the worship of the Dread Destroyer, Rudra, by the Keśari dynasty, had manifested itself by raising to the honor of Śiva several lofty temples which preceded the completion of the great tower of Bhuvaneśvara. Seeing, however, that some of the Gupta Rājās were at least three centuries before followers of the Vaiṣṇava faith at Eran and Allahabad, it would not be presumptuous to conclude that that form of Hinduism was, likewise, known and practised by some of the Uriyās. Exception might doubtless be taken to the conclusion on the ground of no trace of its existence at the time having yet been met with. But such a line of argument would serve only to defeat itself; for it might be made to apply to Vedic Hinduism of which no tangible relics are extant, and written history, even such as are accessible, will easily set aside the objection in either case.

v1.c11.14

**Sivaism** : Exception might also be taken to Śivaism being reckoned as a Hindu form of worship, the opinion among some European orientalists being in favour of its non-Aryan, or Tamulian, origin. The question is of great importance in connexion with the history of the structures which form the subject of this essay, and it is necessary therefore to dwell on it at some length.

v1.c11.15

**Its origin** : The *pro* and *contra* of the question may be argued with equal force. On the one hand apparently the most incontrovertible arguments might be culled from the Hindu Śāstras, to prove the non-Aryan origin of Śivaism, often from works which are avowedly intended to glorify and promote that form of worship. While on the other, equally strong reasons might be adduced to show that it formed a part and parcel of the Brāhmaṇical orders from a very remote period in the history of man, and was one of the earliest objects of human faith even in the most ancient seats of civilization.

v1.c11.16

**Objections to Aryan origin** : The arguments in favour of the non-Aryan theory may be enumerated under the following eight heads:—

v1.c11.17

1st. Vedic denunciation of phallic worship.
2nd. Denunciations in the Smṛtis.
3rd. Numerical inferiority.

v1.c11.18

4th. Unholy character of the offerings to Śiva. 5th. Prohibition to build temples of Śiva within the limits of towns and villages. 6th. Anti-Vedic character of Śiva's chief worshippers. 7th. The shape of Śiva. 8th. The disreputable character of Śiva.

v1.c11.19

**[ 137 ] First objection :** The 1st argument is founded on a passage in the *Saṃhitā* of the *Ṛgveda*. In the 21st hymn of the 7th *Maṇḍala*, Vaśiṣṭha prays to Indra to preserve his sacrifice from being defiled by the worshippers of the phallus, who are taken for granted to be inimical to Vedic rites, and classed with Rākṣasas, evil spirits, and disorderly beings. The passage runs thus : “Let not the Rākṣasas, Indra, do us harm ; let not the evil spirits do harm to our progeny ; most powerful ( Indra ), let the sovereign lord ( Indra exert himself in the restraint of disorderly beings, so that the *Śiśnadevāḥ* may not disturb our rite”.⁷ The word *Śiśnadevāḥ* literally means “those who have the phallus ( *śiśna* ) for their god ( *deva* )”. Yāska takes it to imply “persons who do not observe *Brahmacarya*” or continence, i. e., unchaste, ( *abrahmacarya ityarthaḥ* ) in the same way as gluttons are described in the Bible by the phrase “whose god is their belly ;” but this explanation is not satisfactory, inasmuch as the unchaste are nowhere reckoned in the Veda to be as low as Rākṣasas or evil spirits, nor the contamination caused by contact with them such as to require divine intervention ; on the contrary, a simple expiatory offering with butter, or a certain number of repetitions of the *gāyatrī*, is held sufficient to render the unchaste fit for the priestly office. The word is of rare occurrence, and a very different word is ordinarily used to indicate those who are addicted to carnal enjoyment. It may, therefore, be presumed to imply the aboriginal phallic worshippers, who are, likewise, the Dasyus, Asuras, Rākṣasas, and other evil spirits of the Vedic writings.

v1.c11.20

⁷ na yātava indra jujuvurnā no vindana śabiṣṭavedyābhiḥ / na śardhadaryo viṣuṇasya jantormā śiśnadevā api gurṛtam naḥ // śisnena dīvyanti krīḍanta iti śiśnadevāḥ / abrahmacaryā ityarthaḥ / Dr. H. H. Wilson, after quoting this passage of Yāska, adds, “but it may have the sense of those who hold the Liṅga for a deity.” *Ṛgveda*, IV. p. 6.

v1.c11.21

**Second objection :** The 2nd refers to denunciations in the Smṛti. The passage which has to be quoted in support of this assertion occurs in the *Vaśiṣṭha Smṛti*, a work attributed to the same *ṛṣi* who denounces the *Śiśnadevāḥ* in the *Ṛgveda*. The work is of a much later date, and is most probably a compilation, such as the *Saṃhitā* of Manu unquestionably is ; but it is nevertheless a work of high repute, and forms one of the principal guides to modern Hindu domestic and religious rites. It has been thus rendered by Professor Max Müller :

v1.c11.22

“A Brāhman versed in the four Vedas, who does not find Vāsudeva, is a donkey of a Brāhman, trembling for the heavy burden of the Veda. Therefore, unless a man be a Vaiṣṇava, his Brāhmanhood will be lost; by being a Vaiṣṇava one obtains perfection, there is no doubt. For Nārāyaṇa (Viṣṇu) the highest Brahma, is the deity of the Brāhmans; Soma, Sūrya, and the rest are the gods of Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas; while Rudra and similar gods ought to be sedulously worshipped by the Śūdra. Where the worship of Rudra is enjoined in the Purāṇas and law-books, it has no reference to Brāhmans as Prajāpati declared. The worship of Rudra and the Tripuṇḍra (the three horizontal marks across the forehead) are celebrated in the Purāṇas, but only for the castes of Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras, and not for others. Therefore, ye excellent *munis*, the Tripuṇḍra must not be worn by Brāhmans”.⁸ The *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* follows this very closely and says: “Those who profess the cults of Bhava (Śiva) and those who follow his doctrines, are heretics and enemies of the sacred Śāstras”.⁹ Similar passages may be quoted from the other Purāṇas. The strong feeling of attachment which they evince towards the worship of Viṣṇu, is of course due to uncompromising sectarian zeal; but the question suggests itself, does the statement that the worship of Rudra as inculcated in the Purāṇas is designed for the Śūdras, owe its origin to that cause solely, or to anything more historical?

v1.c11.23

⁸ *Ancient Sanskrit Literature*, p. 55. caturvedī ca yo vipraḥ *et seq.* tripuṇḍram viprāṇām na dhāryam munisattamāḥ //

v1.c11.24

⁹ bhavavratadharā ye ca ye ca tan samanuvratāḥ / pāṣaṇḍinaste bhavantu sacchāstraparipanthinaḥ //

v1.c11.25

**Third objection :** The 3rd argument is based on the numerical inferiority of the Śivites. The number of Hindus who have accepted Śiva for their special divinity is limited. The various classes of houseless hermits apart, there are very few persons who have accepted the *bīja mantra* of this divinity, and worship him to the exclusion of all other gods. Doubtless all the Śāktas pay him high respect, but only as the husband of Umā, and not as the god elect for their salvation. The Vaiṣṇavas also look upon him with great veneration, but only as one of the triad, and a person who has attained the highest perfection in meditation, as the greatest of *Yogīs*, and not as the giver of salvation. These remarks may appear to Europeans irreconcilable with the fact that Śivite temples are infinitely more abundant in every part of India than those of all the other gods put together; but to Hindus who know the number of [ 138 ] the several classes of *gurus*, or spiritual guides, whose especial duty is to initiate people in the secret *mantras* of the different gods, they will cause no wonder: there is scarcely one in a hundred *gurus* whose vocation is to impart the *mantra* of Śiva; and he is generally the poorest, owing to his having the smallest number of disciples. Even by Europeans “it will be generally observed”, says Professor Wilson, “that these temples (of Śiva) are scarcely ever the resort of numerous votaries, and that they are regarded with comparatively little veneration by the Hindus. Benares, indeed, furnishes exceptions, and the temple of Viśveśvara is thronged with a never ceasing crowd of adorers. There is, however, little solemnity or veneration in the hurried maner in which they throw their flowers or fruits before the image, and there are other temples, the dwellings of other divinities, that rival the abode of Viśveśvara in popular estimation”.¹⁰

v1.c11.26

¹⁰ *Essays on the Religious Sects of the Hindus*, I. p. 188.

v1.c11.27

The hermits, who constitute the especial worshippers of Śiva, are all professional mendicants, living in rare instances “collected in opulent and numerous associations, but for the greater part detached, few, and indigent”. Their total number constitutes but a small fraction of the Hindu community.¹¹

v1.c11.28

¹¹ They include the Daṇḍis, the Daśnāmis, the Jogis, the Jaṅgamas, the Paramahaṁsas, the Aghoris, Urddhvabāhus, the Ākāśamukhis, the Nakhis, the Gudaras, the Rukharas, the Sukharas, the Ukharas, the Kaḍāliṅgis, the Sannyāsis, the Bramacāris, the Avadhūtas, and the Nāgās. For detailed descriptions of these, *vide* Wilson’s *Hindu Sects*, *Essays*, I. p 188, *et seq*.

v1.c11.29

From a survey of these facts the conclusion at which Professor Wilson arrived was, that “the adoration of Śiva has never assumed, in Upper India, a popular form. He appears in his shrines only in an unattractive and rude emblem, the mystic purpose of which is little understood, or regarded by the uninitiated and vulgar, and which offers nothing to interest the feelings or excite the imagination”.¹²

v1.c11.30

¹² *Essays on the Religious Sects of the Hindus*, I. p. 189.

v1.c11.31

**Fourth objection :** One most important mark of reverence to a god is the eating of the remnants of offerings made to him. This is called “taking the Mahāprasāda”, *mahāprasāda sevana*, and no votary can forego it. But in the case of Śiva, this is forbidden. At all the great temples of Viṣṇu, Kālī, Durgā, and other gods and goddesses, the most important daily ceremony consists in offering large quantities of various articles of food, and subsequently distributing the same among the faithful; and no image of a god is anywhere kept which has not its daily allowance of some choice food according to the means of its votaries. But Śiva has no such allowance assigned to him. With the exception of the presiding divinity of the great temple at Bhuvaneśvara and of two or three others, no image of Śiva, not even the idol in the celebrated fane of Benares, has anything like a large supply of sweetmeats, and rarely any cooked food¹³ served to it, and even the most orthodox Śivite thinks it positively sinful to eat of food offered to this divinity. The prohibition occurs in the *Bahvṛca Gṛhya Pariśiṣṭa*, and it runs thus: “Leaves, flowers, fruits, and water, become unfit to be eaten after being offered to Śiva: but they become pure after being brought into contact with an ammonite stone, *Śālagrāma*”.¹⁴ The Purāṇas, as also the Smṛti digests and the Tantras, have

v1.c11.32

¹³ *Paramānna* is given in small quantities.

v1.c11.33

¹⁴ > agrāhyaṁ Śivanaivedyaṁ patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ jalaṁ /

v1.c11.34

Śālagrāmaśilāsparśāt sarvaṁ yāti pavitratāṁ //

v1.c11.35

*Bahvṛca Gṛhya Pariśiṣṭa*. In the *Varāha Purāṇa* this Śloka occurs in a modified form, thus—

v1.c11.36

abhakṣyaṁ Śivanirmālyaṁ patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ jalaṁ
Śālagrāmaśilāyogāt pāvanaṁ tadbhavet sadā //

v1.c11.37

quoted it largely; and it is evident that it must be of very ancient date, otherwise the unanimity of the Hindus of all sects on the subject and the absence of offerings in the temples, would be unaccountable. But what is more to the point, Śākta and Śaiva Tantras, designed expressly for the glorification of the worship of Śiva, recognise the prohibition, and try to explain it away. Thus, in the *Liṅgārcana Tantra*, the great goddess Durgā is represented as very much troubled in mind as to why flowers and fruits offered to Śiva, instead of being sought for and prized as highly sacred by Brahmā and other gods, should be held positively impure; and Śiva thereupon explains the mystery by saying that as the poison he had swallowed at the churning of the ocean was sticking in his throat, and ever since causing him much pain and suffering, food taken by him through his topmost mouth got tainted by it, and consequently became unfit for consumption by weak mortals. “The wretch who accepts for consumption remnants of such offerings, becomes consumed, and there is no redemption for him”. He added, however, that flowers, leaves, &c., placed before him, i. e., before any of his side faces, could not be so tainted, and they are fit to be offered to Viṣṇu and carried about on the head.¹⁵ The *Kṛṣṇa-janmakhaṇḍa* of the *Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa* gives quite a different version of the affair. **[ 139 ]** According to it Rādhā is the questioner, and her lover Kṛṣṇa the interpreter, and the latter attributes the prohibition to a curse of Durgā. Once on a time Śaunaka had been on a visit to Kṛṣṇa at Goloka, and thence had brought away some choice food which had been presented to him by his host. This he distributed among his friends, and Śiva, obtaining a share, ate it, and was in an ecstasy of delight. When Durgā came to know of it, she upbraided him for not having given her a share. “Since”, said she, “you have not given me a portion of the inestimable food of Viṣṇu, henceforward whoever will eat of food consecrated to thee, Maheśvara, shall be born a dog for one generation in the Bhāratavarṣa”. Repenting afterwards of what she had said, she limited the curse to what was offered on the top of the *liṅgam*, and that too, she added, would

v1.c11.38

¹⁵ The meaning however is substantially the same.

v1.c11.39

Devyuvāca / durlabhaṃ tava nirmālyaṃ brahmādīnāṃ kṛpānidhe /
tatkathaṃ parameśāna nirmālyaṃ tava dūṣitam //
īśvara uvāca / madhyasthānasthitaṃ yattu tanmukhaṃ parameśvari /
śyāmalaṃ tattu īśānaṃ sadā ūrdhvaṃ śucismite //
kālāgnirūpiṇaṃ tattu sarvaśaktimayaṃ sadā /
tejomayaṃ maheśāni mukhamūrdhvaṃ varānane //
kṣīrodamathane devi utthitaṃ garalaṃ mahat /
tataḥ karatalīkṛtya tadviṣaṃ parameśvari //
nipītaṃ tadviṣaṃ sūkṣmaṃ tīkṣṇaṃ brahmāṇḍanāśanam /
tadviṣaṃ kaṇṭhadeśe tu sthitaṃhi sarvadā mama //
tataḥ prabhṛti deveśi mukhaṃ jvālayate sadā /
patraṃ vā yadi vā puṣpaṃ phalaṃ vā varavarṇini //

v1.c11.40

In practice the prohibition is respected in the way it is explained in this extract. See also the 13th and the 14th *Paṭalas* of the above extract.

v1.c11.41

become pure on being mixed with the remnants of offerings made to Viṣṇu.¹⁶ Ingenious as these explanations doubtless are, they cannot suffice to remove the suspicion, that Śiva was originally a god of the aborigines, and that the Hindus first hated him, then became indifferent, then tolerated him, and lastly, accepted him, as a great god; but, particular as they always have been regarding the use of food touched by the aboriginal races, the original repugnance to taste of food offered to the god by low caste people could not be got over, or at least the memory of it lasted so long that an explanation or reconciliation was called for.

v1.c11.42

¹⁶ yato na dattam naivedyam *et seq* pavitram hi bhavet tattu viṣṇornaivedyamiśritam // *Brahmavaivarta Purāṇa*, Chapter XXXVII.

v1.c11.43

**Fifth objection:** The prohibition to build temples for Śiva within the boundary of a town or village, can be looked upon only as a counterpart of the law which excludes Pariahs, Caṇḍālas and other low castes from the right of dwelling in a town or village inhabited by the higher orders of the Aryan race; and if so, it must follow that the divinity belonged to the low caste people, or the aboriginal races, and not to the Aryans. Doubtless the prohibition has long since ceased to be effective, and there is not a single town throughout the length and breadth of India, which, being largely inhabited by the Hindus, has, if not several, at least one Śivite temple of importance, but the memory of the prohibition implies that at one time or other such temples were looked upon with disfavour.

v1.c11.44

**Sixth objection:** The principal worshipper of Śiva were either avowed heretics, or men who had lost their character among the people for the impious lives they led. Rāvaṇa was a Rākṣasa, or cannibal, who rose to power of the highest order by his devotion to Śiva. Bāṇa was an Asura, or demon, who thrived by the blessing of the same divinity. Jarāsandha was a great tyrant, who kept thousands of Hindu Rājās in confinement, and led a most infamous life; he was a favourite of several great non-Aryan chiefs whom the Brāhmans took great pains to put down, and he also owned allegiance to Śiva, and to Śiva only. The Nāgas, who were of a Tamulian race, and more or less inimical to the Brāhmanical orders, were adorers of that god; and most of the other aboriginal races likewise did, still do, follow that divinity. While on the other hand no distinguished Aryan chief ever selected Śiva for his tutelary god. This would scarcely have happened had Śiva originally belonged to the Hindu Pantheon.

v1.c11.45

**Seventh objection:** The next exception taken to Śiva's Aryan-hood is due to the shape in which he is worshipped—an uncarved or rudely carved block, such as a rude primitive race, like the ancestors of the present Kols and Bhīls, might alone accept as the emblem of the godhead. The Aryans, familiar with the ritual of the Vedas in which no images are tolerated, could not themselves design it, much less identify it with so disgusting an object as the *liṅgam*. Certain it is that they have often felt shocked at the idea, but unable to denounce the divinity of Śiva, tried to explain it away. The *Vāmana Purāṇa* attempts it in this wise: When Śiva was influenced by Cupid, he roamed about naked, and in an amatory mood in the Dāruvaṇa forest, where dwelt a number of [ 140 ] sages with their families. He asked alms of the sages, but they averted their faces, ashamed to look at his nude figure. He then turned towards their huts, and saw the wives of Bhārgava, Aṅgirasa, Ātreya, &c, and they were at once overcome by his charming appearance, and induced to follow him to the neglect of their household duties. The sages, perceiving this, cursed him, so that the member of his body dropped off. Śiva immediately disappeared; but the fall of the member of his body caused a fearful commotion, and the earth shook repeatedly, showing threatening signs of immediate destruction; all creation trembled with fear; and the sages, in trepidation, sought the advice of Brahmā. That great divinity was, however, neither able to expound the cause of the misadventure, nor devise a remedy to prevent the destruction of the earth. He sought, therefore, the abode of Śiva in the company of Viṣṇu, and besought his aid. The advice he got was to adore the dislocated member; and this was accordingly done, and the earth was saved. Brahmā, thereupon, ordained that all the four orders of mankind should for all time come to worship it. Several *ṛṣis* subsequently laid down elaborate rules founded upon this ordinance, and the worship became general. Among the last is named the sage Kundodara who was by birth a Śūdra.¹⁷ Elsewhere the Purāṇa repeats the story, but with some variations. The *ṛṣis* are said to have been the Bālakhilyas, and the instrument of dismemberment their staves and brickbats, instead of a curse, although the latter is undoubtedly the most potent in Brāhmanical estimation. Viṣṇu is also excluded from the deputation.

v1.c11.46

¹⁷ tatrāpi gatvā madano dadarśa vṛṣaketanam *et seq.* liṅgaṃ citravane sūkṣmaṃ pratiṣṭhāpya cacāra ha: *Vāmana Purāṇa*, Chapter VI.

v1.c11.47

The author of the *Uttara-kāṇḍa* of the *Padma Purāṇa* was, however, not satisfied with the above story, and so he devised another. According to him, once on a time the renowned sage Bhṛgu repaired to Kailāsa on a visit to Mahādeva; but he was not allowed admission to the palace by Nandī, the warder, on the plea that his master was then in the company of his wife and not at leisure to receive him. The sage tarried long at the gate, but to no avail, and at last, losing all patience, cursed the god saying: “Despicable and deluded is Śaṅkara who fails to recognise me; and inasmuch as he has, stupefied by the society of women, insulted me, his form shall be that of the *yoni* and the *liṅgam*. Overcome by delusion as he recognises not me, a Brāhman, he ceases to be a Brāhman, and shall henceforward be unfit to be worshipped by the twice-born classes. Therefore [ 141 ] shall no water or rice or other offerings be made to him. Rice, water, leaves, flowers and fruits offered to Śiva, and remnants of offerings to him, shall doubtless be unfit to be received (by mankind)”. Having thus cursed Śaṅkara, the adorer of mankind, the mighty sage addressed Nandī, the fierce trident-holder of the Gaṇa race: “Those who in this world become worshippers of Rudra, and bear on their persons ashes, bones, or emblems of the *liṅgam*, are heretic impostors excluded from the dispensation of the Vedas”.¹⁸

v1.c11.48

¹⁸ Dilīpa uvāca / vedmi so'haṃ *et seq.* jagāma brahmalokaṃ vai sarvalokanamas-kṛtam // *Padmottarakhaṇḍa*, Chapter LXXVIII.

v1.c11.49

**Eighth objection:** The Purāṇas, both Śākta and Vaiṣṇavite, dilate largely on the disreputable character of Śiva. His favourite haunts are burning grounds and deserted places. He goes about naked, or dressed in a tiger skin, with snakes for garlands and ashes for cosmetics. His matted hair bespeaks a barbarian. His vehicle is a bull, and his attendants ghosts and goblins. By temper, most irascible, he is unsociable on account of being constantly stupefied with Indian hemp and *dhuturā* seeds. Hence the Devas often evinced great repugnance to associate with him, and, on one occasion, formally excluded him from the royal feast of Dakṣa. This can be only accounted for by supposing that the god was a stranger to the great body of the Aryan Devas, and not fitted by his character to enter into their brotherhood.

v1.c11.50

**Reply to the first objection:** The replies usually given to these objections, are, in Hindu estimation, entirely satisfactory, and even to Europeans will appear not without considerable weight, at least in some instances. The first argument founded on Vedic denunciation, having been explained away by the oldest commentator, Yāska, cannot fairly be now revived, particularly as some of the names of Śiva, such as Rudra, Mahādeva Bhava, &c., are mentioned in the Vedas as those of one of the great gods.

v1.c11.51

**Reply to the second objection:** The second argument may be met by opposing the ordinance of Manu against that of Vaśiṣṭha. Manu says, “Śambhu (Śiva) is the god of the Brāhmans; Mādhava, (Viṣṇu) of the Kṣatriyas; Brahmā of the Vaiśyas, and Gaṇeśa of the Śūdras”;¹⁹ and inasmuch as of all Smṛtis, the *Saṃhitā* of Manu is the most authoritative, it should override the work of Vaśiṣṭha. It is true that this verse is said to occur in *Vṛhad Manu*, and not in the current compilation, but its authenticity has not been questioned by the Hindus. The Purāṇic denunciations on the subject are obviously founded on sectarian jealousy, and the *Bhāgavata* may be opposed to the *Śiva*, *Liṅga* and other Śivite Purāṇas.

v1.c11.52

¹⁹ Viprāṇāṃ daivataṃ śambhuḥ kṣatriyāṇāṃ tu mādhavaḥ / vaiśyānāṃ tu bhavedbrahmā śūdrāṇāṃ gaṇanāyakaḥ //

v1.c11.53

**Reply to the third objection:** The argument founded on the numerical inferiority of the Śaivas, is of little moment, inasmuch as it cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that Śivaism is recent, and only recently gaining ground. On the one hand there are ample evidences in the Hindu Śāstras to show that it prevailed several centuries before the Christian era; and on the other, equally undoubted proofs may be adduced to show that Caitanya and his followers have, in later times, converted a great number of the worshippers of Śiva to adopt the Vaiṣṇava creed. In a country like India, where so many diverse forms of creeds and sects prevail, it is but natural to suppose that the relative proportions of the different classes of sectaries must constantly vary; but that cannot be an index to the origin of any particular form of worship. The number of Hindus in Kāśmīr is now very small, but that will not justify the supposition that Hinduism was not at one time the religion of its inhabitants.

v1.c11.54

**Reply to the fourth objection:** The reply to the argument founded on the aversion on the part of the Hindus to taste of the offerings made to Śiva, may be met with in the anxiety, so strongly evinced in all the later Hindu Sāstras, to raise the status of the Brāhmans above even that of the greatest of gods. A Brāhman’s curse is infallible, and Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Indra, and others, bow to it with the profoundest veneration. Viṣṇu once submitted to a kick from a Brāhman, and as an emblem of his veneration for his assailant is described to have ever since borne the mark [ 142 ] of it on his chest ; and if nevertheless, he is a Hindu divinity of high rank, Śiva may well preserve his position in the Indo-Aryan pantheon even after a Brāhman’s imprecation on the character of offerings made to him.

v1.c11.55

**Reply to the fifth objection :** This objection is by no means a weighty one. The Śivites may well say that æsthetic considerations may have had much to do with it than religion ; certain it is that in no part of India are Śivite temples excluded from the precincts of towns and villages. In Benares, scores if not hundreds, of such fanes stud every part of the town. At Bhuvaneśvara, the palace of Lalāṭendra Keśarī stood in close proximity to the Great Tower. The most remarkable fane in the heart of Ujjayinī, in the time of Vikramāditya, was the temple of Mahākāla, a form of Śiva ; and Kālidāsa calls special attention of the Cloud Messenger to visit it in his way to Kailāsa. Indeed, it is difficult to find a Hindu city which has not more than one Śivite temple within its boundary.

v1.c11.56

**Reply to the six objection :** The reply usually given to the sixth objection is, that Śiva is described in all the Śāstras as a god most inordinately attached to his votaries ; that, however sinful a man may be, he can always secure the grace of that divinity by his devotion ; and that the amount of devotion necessary to secure his grace, is much less than what is required for the mercy of the other gods. To indicate this peculiar character of Śiva, he is named Āśutoṣa or “the easily gratified” : and many are the stories told of the facility with which people obtained his favour by the performance of acts which can hardly be described as devotional. One of them is worthy of note. A hunter of a low caste once happened to be benighted in a forest, and failing to find his way home, mounted a *bel* tree to pass the night there. He had no food during the day, and his couch for the night was a thorny one, away from home and family, and tears were the only resource by which he could relieve himself of his painful feelings, and he shed them in abundance. One of them dropping on a ripe *bel* leaf hastened its fall, and brought it down on the head of an image of Śiva which happened to stand near the root of the tree. This so gratified Śiva, that he made himself manifest to the hunter, and showered blessings on him for his involuntary devotion.²⁰ Such a divinity, say the Śivites, cannot but be easily secured by people not usually particular in the observance of the mandates of religion. To the faithful this is a complete vindication ; but it may be added that the anti-Vedic people described in the Śāstras are generally those who were opposed to Viṣṇu and his followers, and the stories, therefore, may be accepted to represent in allegory the antagonism of the two rival sects of Śivites and Vaiṣṇavites, both Hindus, and not the rivalry of the aborigines and the Aryans.

v1.c11.57

²⁰ The night when this happened was the 14th of the wane in the month of Phālguna, and it has ever since been held sacred, and no good Hindu will allow it to pass without fasting and offerings to Śiva. The Government offices in Bengal are closed on this day, to enable the people to observe this fast.

v1.c11.58.1

**Reply to the seventh objection** : The seventh objection refers to the shape of the divinity. This, however, involves the quesition of phallic worship in ancient times. All the ancient nations of the earth regarded with awe the mystery of generation, and founded on it various myths and forms of religion, some looking upon it as the source of all evil ; others as the fountain of existence and blessing. The finest and most perfect allegory extant of the first class, is the Mosaic account of the fall of man. To the philosophic enquirer, this account means nothing more or less than that sin entered this world through the carnal desires of our first parents ; but it is so complete in all its parts, and so beautifully developed, that even the most fastidious critic fails to detect the smallest trace of anything offensive or indelicate in it. The tree, the apple, the serpent ²¹ are all well-known and generally-acknowledged phallic emblems among the followers of sexual forms of religion ; but they have been so artistically put together in the account in question, that they do not at first sight convey any improper idea. The Zoroastrian Aryans adopted the doctrine, and a counterpart of the Jewish account of the fall is given in the *Banduheṣ*, but in a form that has nothing of the charm of the Mosaic record.

v1.c11.58.2

We are there told that “Meschia and Meschiané, the first man and woman, were seduced by Ahriman under the form of a serpent, and they then committed in thought, word, and action the carnal sin, and thus tainted with original sin all their descendants.” ²² On the other hand the Semites and the Turanians looked upon it with feelings of veneration, and gave great prominence to sexual ideas. The Semites indulged in the idea very largely, and Egypt was its stronghold for a long period. All the Egyptian gods had their feminine counterparts, and the emblems of their faith were mostly of a sexual character. “There is reason to believe,” says Inman, ‘that the Vedic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and the Christian, were pure in their conception of the Almighty and of man's duty in this world. Some faiths seem to have been founded, we may say, upon the complete abnegation of all bodily propensities ; and amongst the Buddhist, Essenes, Christians, and others, the absolute celibacy of both sexes was regarded as the highest act and fruit of “a [ **143** ] saving faith.” ²³ This was, however, but temporary, for at one time or another the sexual theory got a footing in almost all ancient forms of religion, and it is difficult to notice a cult of former times in which traces of it may not be noticed. The early Aryans were free from it, and in the *Ṛgveda Saṃhitā* the gods are described mostly without reference to their wives ;

v1.c11.58.3

but this was only for a time, for in the age of the Brāhmanas, the domestic relations and ties of the Devas were fully developed, and the Hellenes carried the remembrance of them to people Olympus with a goodly host of male and female divinities. The cult of Priapus was the issue of this sexual anthropomorphism among the gods. Even that purest form of revealed religion, Christianity, was not able, in the early part of its history, to prevent the Gnostics and others, to import into it a variety of phallic symbols and observances, and there are not persons wanting who look even upon the cross and spires of churches as phallic emblems. Among the Indo-Aryans, the dogma of the oviparous genesis of the universe necessitated a feminine agency, and it opened the way to the cult of the *liṅgam* and *Yoni*. And even as in this cult "the phallus has been regarded as an emblem of the Creator, so the bull, the ram, the serpent, the torch, fire, the thyrsus, the sceptre, the caduceus, the knobbed stick, the crosier, the letter **T**, the cross, tall trees, upright stones, or stumps, spires, towers, minarets, poles, spears, arrows, swords, bows, clubs, and a vast variety of other emblems have been employed as symbolic of the phallus.

v1.c11.58.4

Again, as this organ represented the Creator and the sun, all were typified under such characters, as Bacchus, Dionysius, Hercules, Hermes, Mahādeva, Śiva, Osiris, Jupiter, Molech, Baal, Ashur, and innumerable others".²⁴ Most of the emblems here noticed are associated with Śiva. The bull, the type of fecundity, is his vehicle, the three pronged staff is his arm, and the serpent his ornament. Universally his image is the upright stone, dressed or undressed, and from the Island of Java to the furthest limit of Scandinavia, there is not a country where these uprights do not testify to the once prevalent currency of Śiva's worship in some form or other over a large tract of the earth. But there is nothing in all this necessarily to lead to the conclusion that Śivaism was non-Aryan, borrowed from the aborigines of India, and not self-evolved as the legitimate sequence of the oviparous theory of genesis, or of some other diseased forms of philosophical dogmatism.

v1.c11.59

²¹ It is a popular belief in Bengal that a woman dreaming of a serpent at night is soon after blessed with a child.

v1.c11.60

²² Lajard, *le Culte de Mithra*. *Apud Journal*, Anthropological Society, No. II. October 1870, p. 202.

v1.c11.61

²³ Inman's *Ancient Faiths embodied in Ancient Names*, II. p. 473.

v1.c11.62

²⁴ Inman, *Op. cit.*, II. 476.

v1.c11.63

**Reply to the eight objection :** Little need be said in reply to the last objection. It would not be logical to argue that the character of a god must necessarily be dependent on the social condition of his worshippers, and that his attributes are inevitably the reflex of those of the latter. Such a line of argument, if carried to its legitimate conclusion, would lead to such absurdities that few will care to accept it. Śiva's character is doubtless not a refined one. But there is nothing in it to make him inevitably the creation of an aboriginal myth. The poetical requirements of a good myth may be supplied, and is more likely to be better supplied by a cultivated Aryan mind than by a barbarian, and there is nothing to show that the Aryan civilization was such as could not tolerate such a god. None will assign to the Hindus a higher intellectual status than what was occupied by those who followed the cult of Priapus, and, therefore, there is nothing *a priori* to make the conception of Śiva impossible in the case of the Aryan people of this country.

v1.c11.64

**Relation of Siva to Rudra :** It may be argued further that Śiva (by which term I mean the divinity of the *liṅga* form of worship, for the term itself means "blessing" or "the blessed" ), is in the Hindu Sāstras identified with the Rudra of the Vedas, and if that be admitted the origin of the *liṅgam* may be indirectly assigned to the oldest source of Aryan Hinduism. This is a most important topic in connexion with the history of Śivaism, and it will, perhaps, not be inopportune to enquire here, how far the identification is sustainable.

v1.c11.65

**The myth of Rudra :** The Vedic conception of Rudra is that of a fierce divinity, typifying all that is terrible. All the other leading gods are personifications of the elements, of natural objects, and of physical phenomena. Indra rules the clouds and the thunder-bolt. Vāyu is the regent of the wind, and Varuṇa exercises dominion over the sea. Savitā is the presiding divinity of the sun, and Soma of the moon. Rudra, however, has no such firm substratum to rest upon. He has no control over the elements, and all physical phenomena are independent of him. In him we behold, not the spiritual essence of a concrete object, but the ideal embodiment of all that is frightful and terrible. He has no command over the air; but he lives in whirlwinds and cyclones, and is the father of the Maruts. He is not the master of the thunderbolt ; but the roar of that dread weapon of Indra is a manifestation of his wrath. The mountains owe him no allegiance ; but his abode is the snow-capped peak shooting far above the highest clouds, and threatening instant death to all living beings. He is tawny-coloured and of fierce aspect ; strong and impetuous. His hair is matted, and his person is draped with a tiger-skin, girdled with fierce and hissing serpents. Fiery and vigorous, there is [ 144 ] nothing more powerful than he. Malevolent by nature, he is "like a terrible wild beast". His weapons are sharp, and his bolts are piercing. "He is swift, and fleet, and speedy". "He dwells in billows and in roaring waters, in rivers and islands," in pathways and roads, in hollows and sides of mountains, in water-courses and rivers, "in barren land and inaccessible places". Nothing in creation is a more certain destroyer. "He kills in front, and from afar", the dire "slayer and vexer, and afflictor". In him robbers find their chosen lord, and huntsmen with ravenous dogs their patron.²⁵ With ghosts and imps , and goblins for boon companions, and armed with a thousand shafts, he roams the earth to the dire consternation of all. In short, he is all that is fierce and terrible, all that is frightful and appalling, all that is awe-inspring and heart-quaking ; or, in other words, the personification of the terrible in nature,—a unification of the presiding divinities, or spiritual essences, of various objects which excited the dread of a simple people, and which at an earlier period were looked upon as so many different divinities.

v1.c11.66

²⁵ Most of the epithets above given, have been taken from Dr. Muir's translations of extracts from the Vedas bearing on Rudra. *Sanskrit Texts*, IV. p. 274, *et seq.*

v1.c11.67

The birth of this divinity is thus described in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* of the Yajurveda : "This foundation existed. It became the earth (*bhūmi*). He extended it (*aprathayat*). It became the broad one (*pṛthivī*). On this foundation, beings, and lords of beings, consecrated themselves for the year (*samvatsara*). The lord of beings was a householder, and Uṣas was his wife. Now these 'beings' were the seasons. That ‘lord of beings’ was the year. That wife Uṣas was Auṣasī (the daughter of the dawn). Then both those beings, and the lord of beings, the year, impregnated Uṣas, and a boy (*Kumāra*) was born in a year. The boy wept. Prajāpati said to him, “Boy, why dost thou weep, since thou hast been born after toil and austerity”? The boy said, “My sin indeed has not been taken away, and a name has not been given to me : give me a name”. Wherefore when a son is born (to any man) let a name be given to him, that takes away his sin; and (let) also a second and third (name be given to him in succession that takes away his sin). Prajāpati said to him, “Thou art Rudra”. Inasmuch as he gave him that name, Agni became his form, for Agni is Rudra. He was Rudra, because he wept (*arodīt* from *rud*, to weep). The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati replied, “Thou art Sarva” (all). Inasmuch as he gave him that name, the waters became his from, for the waters are Sarva, because all this is produced from the waters. The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati replied, “Thou art Paśupati” (lord of animated beings). Inasmuch as he gave him that name, the plants became his form, for the plants are Paśupati. Hence, when beasts obtain plants, they become lords (or strong?). The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exit : give me a name”. Prajāpati said to him, “Thou art Ugra” (the fierce one). Inasmuch as he gave him that name, Vāyu (the wind) became his form. Vāyu is Ugra (or the fierce). Wherefore when it blows strongly, men, say, “Ugra blows”. The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati said to him, “Thou art Aśani” (thunderbolt) Inasmuch as he gave him that name, Vidyut (lightning) became his form. Lightning is Aśani. Hence they say that Aśani has struck a man whom lightning strikes. The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati said to him. “Thou art Bhava” (creation). Inasmuch as he gave him that name, Parjanya (the god of rain) became his form, for Parjanya is Bhava; because all this (universe) arises from Parjanya. The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati replied, “Thou art Mahādeva” (the Great god). Inasmuch as he gave him that name, Candramas (the moon) became his form. Prajāpati is the moon, Prajāpati is the great god. The boy said, “I am greater than one who does not exist : give me a name”. Prajāpati replied, “Thou art Īśāna” (the ruler). Inasmuch as he gave that name, Āditya (the sun) became his form. For the sun is Īśāna, because he rules (*īṣṭe*) over this universe. The boy said, “I am so much; do not give me any further names”. These are the eight, Kumāra (the boy) is the ninth. This is the threefoldness (*trivṛtta*) of Agni. Since there are, as it were, eight forms of Agni, the Gāyatrī metre has eight syllables. Hence men say, Agni pertains to the Gāyatrī. This boy (*Kumāra*) entered into the forms. Men do not see Agni as a boy, it is these forms of his that they see, for he entered into these forms”.²⁶

v1.c11.68

²⁶ Muir's *Sanskrit Texts*, IV. p. 284. In one of the Purāṇas a version of this story occurs, in connexion with the birth of Kārtikeya, the son of Śiva.

v1.c11.69

**Rudra as a destroyer** : In this passage Rudra is identified primarily with Agni, and secondly with all the principal objects of nature; his principal names are also recounted. The story is repeated in the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*, where the name Aśani is replaced by Bhīma, and a slightly different version of it is to be found in the *Śāṅkhāyana Brāhmaṇa*.²⁷ The character of Rudra as a destroyer, is however, not brought out in any of these stories, and for it I must quote another passage from the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* in which he is painted in that light, though it does not go to [ 145 ] the extent of assigning to him the role of the destroyer of the universe at statedtimes. It runs thus : “From Prajāpati, when he had become divided, the deities sprang forth. Only one god, Manyu, did not leave him, but continued extended within him. He (Prajāpati) wept. The tears which fell from him remained in that Manyu. He became a Rudra with a hundred heads, a hundred eyes, and a hundred quivers Then the other drops which fell from him in unnumbered thousands entered into these worlds. They were called Rudras, because they sprang from him when he had wept. This Rudra with a thousand heads, eyes, and quivers, stood with his bow strung, holding arrows, causing terror, and demanding food. The gods were afraid of him. They said to Prajāpati, we are afraid of this being, lest he destroy us. They collected for him this food, the *Śatarudriya*, and with it they appeased him. From the fact that they appeased the hundred-headed Rudra, it is wherewith the hundred-headed Rudra is to be appeased”.²⁸

v1.c11.70

²⁷ Muir’s *Op. cit.* p. 288.

v1.c11.71

²⁸ Muir’s *Original Sanskrit Texts*, IV. p. 291.

v1.c11.72

The word *manyu* means wrath, and the divinity is, therefore, the personification of wrath. Wrath is essentially one of the frightful aspects of nature, and the association, therefore, is most appropriate. For a perfect myth, it was necessary that all the elements calculated to excite the feeling of the terrible should be put together, and this has been accomplished in the conception of Rudra. The transition from fierceness and wrath to the type of the great destroyer which Śiva assumes as the third member of the Hindu triad of the creator, the preserver, and destroyer, was easy, and we find it so completed in the Purāṇas.

First 75 of 171 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)