Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s8: New or Vīra Śaivism.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s8

Language
English

New or Vīra Śaivism.

v3.c41.s8.1

While this new Vaishṇavism in different forms was thus developing in opposition to Śaivism in the east and the south i. e. in Andhra and Tamil land, Śaivism was again asserting itself in Karṇātaka in the rise of the Lingayat schism at this very time. It was in fact a strenuous re-assertion against Jainism which for a few years suddenly strove to obtain mastery over it in northern Karṇātaka under the Kalachūri usurpation, a frantic effort so to speak by Śaivism to regain its lost ground.

v3.c41.s8.2

Before we give the history of this neo-Śaivism, we must give a short summary of the history of Śaivism itself from the beginning as we gave the summary of the history of Jainism which it supplanted, in order that the Lingayat schism may be properly understood.

v3.c41.s8.3

Śaivism is no doubt as old as the Vedas, Rudra being praised even by Rigvedic Rishis both in his terrible as well as his gracious form as Śiva. When the Vedic philosophers developed the idea of a supreme God of which all other gods were manifestations, and when the thinkers of Upanishad days evolved the Para Brahman doctrine, there was a division among the Vedic worshippers. Some raised Viṣṇu to this highest position while others adopted Śiva as the highest God, though the predominant opinion seems to be in favour of Viṣṇu. (See अग्निर्वैदेवानामनमो विष्णु: परम: Ait. Ār.). The identification of Śiva with the Para Brahman appears to be a later idea, as it is not to be found in the oldest ten Upanishads but is to be found distinctly first in the later Śvetāśvatara. This difference of opinion was bound to arise since, as stated before, every religion in its growth splits itself into two stems (like a tree), these again giving rise to several branches. Vedic Aryan religion thus in the post-Vedic period divided itself into Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism. Śaivism appears to have, however, become the religion of the commonalty as the common people are more afraid of ghosts and demons, and as also of the terrific aspects of nature; and Rudra Śiva was early considered to be the god of demons and of diseases. Moreover, the phallic worship of the aboriginal people, to which there are plain allusions in the Vedas, was identified with Rudra worship in the post-Vedic period at a very early date; much earlier than Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar is disposed to assign it (p. 115). For non-mention, as we have often insisted, is not conclusive proof and because Patanjali refers to images of Śiva and not to the Linga form, or because the coins of Wema Kadphises give on the obverse the human figure of Śiva, it cannot follow that Linga worship was not known in their days. The plain reference to linga worship as the worship of Śiva in the Mahābhārata shows that it was already orthodox about 300 B. C. Of course, Śiva was then as now worshipped in both forms namely a human form with five heads and the Linga form. But the Linga worship became popular especially as it soon assumed a highly philosophical or esoteric meaning in which its original idea was entirely lost. Even now Linga worship is nowhere associated with any obscene idea. This esoteric blending of Aryan and Non-Aryan worship made it the worship of the common people at a very early period.

v3.c41.s8.4

Śaivism like Vaiṣṇavism also early developed its own separate philosophy and the Pāśupata philosophy is referred to in the Mahābhārata along with Pāñcharātra and Sānkhya, Yoga and Vedānta. (Indeed knowledge is therein said to be five-fold as above). The Vedānta Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa (150 B.C.) also refute both the Pāñcharātra and the Pāśupata tenets. What these doctrines were we are not able to find at first hand. They are quoted by Śankara in his Bhāshya or given by Mādhava in his Sarvadarshanasangraha. There are many Śaiva Āgamas but they are of recent date. All Śaiva sects believed strongly in asceticism and Hiuen Tsang speaks of Śaiva monks residing in Śiva temples. These appear mostly to be followers of the Āgama of Lakulīśa, a famous Śaiva philosopher probably of the sixth century, who arose in Gujarat (at Kāyāvatāra Tīrtha in Broach District). They are described minutely even in inscriptions as well of this sub-period as of the previous sub-period. Their names end usually in Śiva or in Rāśi (e. g. Hārita-rāśi, the guru of Bappā Rāwal). They had also an apostolic succession and in one inscription the saintly line is described with as great fulness as the kingly line. But the questions vital to our inquiry remain unsolved. We do not know whether these ascetics were Brahmins only or belonged to all castes, whether the Lakulīśa Āgama accepted the sanctity of Vedic sacrifices with animal slaughter and whether it prohibited animal food. The Śivatāntrika works have to be studied carefully for the elucidation of these points and with our limited knowledge of them it is difficult to express a definite opinion. No work of Lankulīśa himself has yet been found.* But it is very probable that the different Śaiva sects allowed all castes to become ascetics of their order and for them at least they prohibited animal food. But for lay devotees, it does not seem that Śaivism insisted on vegetable food as Vaishṇavism did and it is for this reason that Śaivism was the general religion of the common people and especially of all heroic Rajput families which came to the front in the seventh and eighth centuries by opposing the onward rush of the Mahomedans. The great deeds of Bappā Rāwal in this connection were inspired by his saintly guru Hāritarāśi. The other Rajput kingly families also, as we have seen, were followers of Śaivism during the past sub-period and even in this sub-period with a few exceptions. Such was the religious condition of the country generally and of Kuntala especially under the later Chālukyas who were staunch Śaivites, when Jainism suddenly made headway under the Kalachūri usurpation.

v3.c41.s8.5

∗ The Panchādhyāyi of Lakruīśa is not yet found though references to it are numerous.

v3.c41.s8.6

Though the accounts of the Jains and of the Lingayats as given in their Basava Purāṇa differ, certain central facts are common to both. Basava the founder of the Lingayat sect was a Brahmin who was for some time even minister to Vijjana, the Kalachūri commander-in chief of the Chālukyas who had just usurped their power. Basava appears to us to be himself a great reformer and thinker and we differ, with due deference, from the view of Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar that Basava was "merely a strenuous supporter of an existing sect" called Ārādhya. Basava's doctrines are so distinct and novel that he must be considered the founder of a new sect. The Basava Purāṇa in effect expresses this view when it represents that Basava was an Avatāra of Nandi sent by Śiva to establish Śiva worship which according to Nārada had disappeared from the land. He may have taken some tenets from an older sect called Ārādhya; but he certainly gave it a new and a distinct turn. His maternal uncle Baladeva was the minister of the king before him and he himself became minister after his uncle's death. It is said that his sister was married to the king while the Jains represent her to be a mistress of the king. It seems that the latter is a misrepresentation; and it is probable that Basava, not being a believer in the caste system, must have had no objection to this Pratiloma marriage. This itself shows that Basava made a most pronounced departure from old practice. Basava and the king who was a Jain must both have had a contempt for the caste system believed in by the orthodox; but their religions differed on other most vital points and naturally brought them into violent conflict. Basava spent large sums from the treasury on Jangamas or Lingayat religious men. The king thereon denounced Basava who fled. There are discrepant accounts as to what happened thereafter. But certain it is that Vijjana was assassinated by a Jangama (1167 A. D.). Thus began the feud between the Jains and the Lingayats. The Kalachūri usurpation was short-lived being supplanted by the Chālukya Someśvara, the rightful king in 1182 A. D. But the Lingayat sect spread in Kuntala or Southern Maratha country rapidly and finally almost drove Jainism out of the Karnātaka country.

v3.c41.s8.7

We must advert here to the peculiar doctrines of this new Vira Śaiva or valiant Śaivite sect which enabled it to drive out Jainism. In the first place Basava adopted Ahimsā as his main doctrine and thus satisfied the popular trend of opinion which was now entirely in favour of nonslaughter, and removed one vulnerable tenet of Hinduism which Jains successfully attacked. He also denied the Varnāśrama Dharma, another vulnerable point of Hinduism. He denied that Brahmins had any special sanctity and affirmed that every one was entitled to attain the highest goal. The Vaishnavas of the South could not give up the ancient varna system of the Hindus and stuck to it. But Basava boldly came forward to abandon caste and in his days intermixture between Brahmins and even Chāndālas took place. He even denied Sanyāsa and Tapa and thus going beyond the Jains scored a point over them and every one, he preached, must live by his own toil and never beg, not even the Jangamas, their priests. Basava is thus almost the first Indian thinker who preached the dignity of labour and stopped all beggary. He alone preached that only Kāyaka (work) led to Kailāsa. He insisted on a strictly moral life for all men with perhaps greater success than Jainism and Buddhism; for the Lingayats as a community eschew all frivolity and generally lead a highly moral life. Lastly, he stuck to the old Linga worship of the common people and did not thus disturb their god. Of course Basava had to infuse a higher esoteric meaning into the symbol and to insist upon his followers wearing constantly upon their person the sacred Linga. He had done away with the Brahmanic thread and he substituted for the same a silver thread with Linga attached to it. Having denied the Brahmins and the caste system, Basava had naturally recourse to the language of the people in which to preach to them. Basava cared not to copy the Jains in carrying on disputations with orthodox pandits in the Sanskrit language; but spoke pithy words of advice and doctrine in the Kanarese which have become the scripture of the Lingayats. For this reason also, Basava's sect secured victory over the Jains and even over the orthodox in the view of the common people. To the present day, among the agriculturists and the trading population in Karnātaka, the Lingayats are in preponderance from his time.

v3.c41.s8.8

It does not concern us to detail the various philosophical tenets of the Lingayats as compared with those of Rāmānuja or Śankara for which the reader may refer to the learned treatise of Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar on Śaivism. But we may mention that the Lingayats after denying caste, as usual with Hindus, developed a sort of caste system in which the Āchāryas and the Jangamas are Brahmins so to speak, the later being married. The Panchamas also consist of other castes though they are few in number. The Lingayat sect as a social reform is very much in favour of women who have the same Upanayana ceremony as men in early age, who are not compelled to observe untouchability in their monthly sickness and who are believed to be as capable of attaining the highest goal (Sāmarasya) as the men. The sect have prescribed a Gāyatrī of their own (Om Namah Śivāya) and have also a gotra-pravara system of their own. They are total abstainers from flesh and wine.

v3.c41.s8.9

NOTE—RICE ON VĪRAŚAIVAS AND THEIR APOSTLES.

v3.c41.s8.10

We give the following extract from Rice's History of Kanarese Literature in connection with the Lingayat sect and its founder Basava and other apostles (pp. 49-55). The Vīraśaivas (stalwart) are distinguished from three other Śaivas viz: 1 the Sāmānya and 2 Miśra who worship Vishnu as well as Śiva and 3 the Śuddha Śaivas who worship Śiva only but do not wear linga. The distinctive peculiarity of Vīraśaivas is that they (both men and women) always wear on the person a small stone linga in a silver or wooden reliquary suspended from the neck. The Jangamas or Lingāyat "religious" wear it on their head. The investiture with the linga like Upanayana is the most sacred rite of childhood.

v3.c41.s8.11

Basava taught that men of all castes and even outcasts were eligible to enter the Lingayat sect. Other peculiarities are that they do not cremate their dead but bury them; and they permit the remarriage of widows. Their scriptures consist of 28 Śaivāgamas. Śivagītā is also highly placed. Their leading doctrines are aṣṭāvaraṇam and shaṭsthala. Reverence is paid to 63 ancient saints (Tamil), only eight of whom are Vīraśaivas. Among the later saints are Basava and his chief disciples. Their principal Maṭha is at Chitaldrug in Mysore territory.

v3.c41.s8.12

Basava the reputed founder of the sect was an Ārādhya-Brahmin. In his childhood he resided at Kappadi at the junction of the Malaprabha and the Krishna where was a Śiva shrine named Sangameśvara. Here he became conscious of a call to revive the Vīraśaiva faith. When his father-in-law and maternal uncle who was a minister to Bijjala died he was called to succeed him. His sister Padmāvatī was married to the king. He had another sister whose son was Channa Basava his greatest disciple. In concert with him he began to propound his new doctrine and new mode of worshipping Śiva. Having charge of the king's treasury, he spent large sums in supporting the Jangamas. A Brahmin minister named Manchana accused him of embezzlement. The king tried to arrest him but he fled and being joined by his adherents defeated the king who was compelled to re-instate him.

v3.c41.s8.13

Of what followed there are different accounts. The Lingayats say that the king wanted to put out the eyes of two Lingayat devotees when Basava cursed Kalyan, directed one of his disciples to kill the king and retired to Sangameśvara where he was absorbed into the Linga. The Jains say that Basava sent the king a poisoned fruit and fled to Ulavi at the foot of the Western Ghats where he was besieged by the king's son and in despair he threw himself into a well.

v3.c41.s8.14

To Basava are attributed prose works (in Kanarese) expository of the Lingayat faith viz. Shatsthala-vachana, Rālajnāna-vachana, Shata challra-vachana, Rājayoga-vachana and Mantra gopya.

v3.c41.s8.15

His chief disciple was Channa Basava who is considered even higher than Basava, being looked upon as an avatāra of Śiva himself. As Basava was engrossed in state business, the religious movement was largely under his direction. It is said that after his uncle's death he was admitted to the royal favour. Other leading associates were Maḍivāla Māchayya, Prabhudeva and Sidaharāma of whom wonderful stories are told in Channa Basava and other Purāṇas.

v3.c41.s8.16

Thus during this sub-period, Jainism spread in the west and Śaivism in the south and Vaishṇavism in the east and even in the north as far as Kashmir. These two again were divided into several sects which developed different philosophical systems with their different concepts and different terminologies, so that the intellegentia of the country was torn by conflicting views on metaphysical questions. These schisms not only adopted different gods as the supreme deity but further represented other deities as subordinate to their highest God. Along with the two dominant schisms Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism, the worship of Durgā and Gaṇapati also developed their philosophies and Āgamas and separate modes of worship in which these gods were represented as the highest. These schisms probably also belong to this sub-period though we have no definite grounds to hold this. The social changes effected by these different schisms were also various and the lay followers who could not fight on high philosophic questions fought on minor points such as the supremacy of this god or that god or such questions as the sacred character of Brahmins, the necessity of nudity for monks or the fitness of women to attain salvation. The Hindu world was thus divided into different and differing sections which often warred with one another; and thus lost national strength for which unity of religious beliefs is an essential qualification. And the one point on which these differing schisms were unanimous was the Ahimsā, doctrine; they all discountenanced, if not actually prohibited, animal slaughter and animal food and thus added to the weakness of the Hindus for national defence. Even the new Śaivism of Kashmir propounded by Abhinavagupta and Kallata* appears to countenance Ahimsā for otherwise it could not have prospered in the reign of the thoroughly Vaiṣṇava king Avantivarman mentioned in the beginning. It may, however, be admitted that the generality of people in Northern India and in Mahārāṣtra were followers of the old Smārta religion in which all the five gods of Hinduism were treated as equally great. But in the south and the east Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism which had together supplanted Jainism fought with each other with great animosity and kings used their political power for the suppression of worships other than their own. We have seen how a Chola king called upon Rāmānuja to declare that Śiva was the highest God. Even to this day this animosity between even the lay followers of Śaivism and Vaishṇavism continues in Karnatak, Andhra and the Tamil land, the religion and philosophy of Madhva-a religious philosopher of the 14th century-adding a third party to the contest.

v3.c41.s8.17

∗ In Vol. I (p. 221) we said that we did not know who this Śrīkallata (said by Kalhaṇa to be born in the days of Avantivarman for the salvation of the country) was and that we surmised that he was a Vaiṣṇava writer. It appears, however, from Dr. Bhandarkar's Śaivism that he was a Śaiva philosopher but he must have been as above stated an advocate of Ahimsā.

v3.c41.s8.18

We were surprised to come across an attempt to combine the two antagonistic worships of Śiva and Vishṇu made by Vijayasena of Bengal in his Deopārā inscription (E. I. p. 307). He was a Śaiva but the Vaishṇava cult was probably spreading in Bengal from Orissa and his grandson Lakshmaṇasena, as we have seen, became a Parama Vaishṇava. Vijayasena, therefore, may have thought of combining the two worships, by combining the two gods Śiva and Vishṇu in the same image and in the temple he built and properly called Pradyumneśvara, he placed an idol which was composed of Śiva and Vishṇu joined together. The description of the idol given in this inscription is as follows: "We bow to this image called Pradyumneśvara wherein both the husband of Lakshmī and the husband of the daughter of the mountain reside and play in unity in which the two goddesses standing between their lords have somehow caused an obstacle in the carving of one undifferentiated body. The decoration of the Destroyer of the world is formed by a spotted silken cloth serving as the elephant's skin and the big necklace on the chest as the big serpent, sandal-wood paste as ashes and the string of sapphires in the hand as the rosary of Rudrākshas the Garudamaṇi being the Gonasa and the string of pearls as the necklace of bones".* This description shows to our mind that the same idol looked as Śiva and Vishṇu.

v3.c41.s8.19

Vijayasena was a Kshatriya from Deccan Karṇātaka and curiously enough this unifying spirit was exhibited in Mahārāshtra itself in the new Vaishṇava cult which arose about the end of this period in the worship of Vithoba of Pandharpur. Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar thinks that this worship came from the south and that the word Vithoba is a Kanarese form of Vishṇu.

v3.c41.s8.20

∗ लक्ष्मीलक्ष्मणशैलजादयितयोर्द्वैतलीलाग्रहं प्रद्युम्नेश्वरशब्दाल्छनमतिष्ठानं नमस्कुर्महे ।। यत्रालिङ्गनभङ्गकातरतया स्थित्वान्तरे कान्तयोः देवीभ्यां कथमप्यभिन्नतनुताशिल्पेऽन्तरायः कृता ।। २ चित्रक्षौमचर्मो ह्वयविनिहितस्थूलहारोरगेन्द्रः श्रीखण्डक्षोदभस्मा करनिहितमहानीलरत्नाक्षमालः ।। वेषस्तेनास्य तेने गरुडमणिलतागोनेसः कान्तमुक्ता नेपथ्यञ्चस्थिमालासमुचित-रचमः कल्पकपालिकस्य ।। ३ ।।

v3.c41.s8.21

But the Vithoba Vaishnavism was entirely different from the Vaishnavism of Rāmānuja. And the Prakrit form of Vishnu in Bengali and Ooriya is also Vishthu.* But the Vaishnavism of Pandharpur is different from the Vaishnavism of Bengal also. It has no lascivious aspect. It entirely eschews all reference to Gopīs. Even Rukmiṇī appears in Pandharpur at a later time. The Vishnu idol at Pandharpur is unaccompanied by any female deity. Its form is also unique, having both hands akimbo and it has a linga on the crown of its head. Who put up this idol is yet undiscovered as Pundalika the first devotee of Vithoba is a mythical person. The historical references given by Dr. Bhandarkar show that originally the place was holy on account of Vishnu idol only. The Bhimarathi is mentioned in an inscription of 1249 A. D. This leads us to believe that the Vithoba of Pandharpur must have been there about a hundred or at least fifty years before. In a stone-inscription in Pandharpur itself dated 1270 A. D., Bhānu, a son of Keshava is recorded to have performed an Aptoryāma sacrifice in which "crowds of people and Vithal and the gods were gratified." (Bhandarkar Vaishnavism p. 81-88). Pānduranga is a name of Śiva according to Hemachandra and there is a temple of Śiva at Pandharpur which pilgrims have to visit first, before visiting Vithoba. The Vitthal worship at Pandharpur is again unconnected with any philosophy and is a purely devotional worship as developed by Nāmadeva (1270 A. D.) and Jñāneśvara, the oldest leading Vaishnava saints of Mahārāshtra. The temple of Vithoba was built from subscription raised all over Mahārāshtra as appears from the Chauryāśi-stone-record in the temple itself of about 1300 A. D. Though the Vithoba cult developed in Mahārāshtra in the 13th century, it came into Pandharpur probably about the end or the middle of the 12th century† in the sub-period treated of in this volume. Strangely enough it was devoid of all animosity against Śaivism or against the Vedic religion of sacrifice and has no connection with any philosophy Dvaita or Advaita. It further does not renounce caste though people of all castes are admitted into this cult and are all equal before God and absolution through devotion is open to all, male or female, Brahmin or non-Brahmin. It truly carries on thus the pure Bhaktiyoga doctrine of the Bhagavadgītā.

v3.c41.s8.22

∗ The Kanarese form is Bittideva. † The Mahānubhāva cult arose in Saka 1188 or 1263 A. D. after this sub-period in Mahārāshtra itself no doubt with asceticism and complete renunciation of caste added to Ahimsā and the Bhakti of Dattātreya added to that of Vishnu. It has connection with the later history of the Deccan and its fall.

v3.c41.s8.23

It is unfortunate that these attempts at unifying Śaivism and Vaishṇavism did not catch and that Hinduism remained and remains split into two main schisms. It is not possible to ask Hinduism or Jainism to give up Ahimsā as it is but the logical outcome of their spiritual development. It is difficult also to decide whether monism is true or dualism and nothing is lost if people agree to differ on the question whether God and the world are one or are two. But surely, Hinduism can give up the controversy whether Śiva is greater or Vishṇu. Yet a Chola king persecuted people for believing that Vishṇu was greater and Adhirājendra called Krimikantha by the Vaishṇavas destroyed a Vaishṇava temple on the Chidambaram hill (I. A. 1912). Attempts were made by later thinkers like Tulasidas, in imitation of the plain attempt of the Mahābhārata, to reconcile the two worships, the animosity between which seems to be as old as the Mahābhārata, by showing that Śiva praises Vishṇu as the highest God and Vishṇu praises Śiva as the highest (see Upamanyu Ākhyāna in the Anuśāsana Parvan). But an attempt may also be made in the wake of Pradyumneśvara by combining the two gods in the same idol or like the idol of Vithoba in Pandharpur having a Śiva Linga on its head, a Śiva Linga may have an image of Vishṇu carved or fastened on its top. If such attempts at combining the two worships are systematically made, this split in Hinduism can be made up and one cause of weakness among the Hindus at least can be removed.

Linked texts (14)