Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s9: Note 1—Different Views on Moksha or Absolution.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s9

Language
English

Note 1—Different Views on Moksha or Absolution.

v3.c41.s9.1

There was a diversity of opinion among the Hindus and even the Jains as to who were fitted to attain Moksha or final deliverance from rebirth. Of course every religion has an idea of Moksha or absolution differing in its form; but in other religions there is no disqualification for any particular class of people. Al-Beruni says on this subject (Chap. IX Vol. I p. 104). "The Hindus differ as to who will attain Moksha. Some believe that only Brahmins and Kshatriyas will attain Moksha as they alone can study Veda. But others say that every one is entitled, as Vyāsa says, 'Learn the twenty-five and you will be liberated whatever your religion may be'. Again the Bhagavadgītā states that "even women, Vaiśyas and Śūdras will come to me if you follow me. What then Brahmins and Kshatriyas". Al-Beruni's knowledge of the subject is clearly accurate. Anciently it was believed that only through Veda Moksha could be achieved. This is not unnatural as Christians also believe that final beatitude can be attained only through the Bible and Mahomedans believe that it can be attained through the Koran only. The Upanishadic Aryans developed the further doctrine that Moksha could come only through Sanyāsa or renunciation and this idea was taken up by Buddhism and Jainism. (Christ seems to have taught the same doctrine). As women and Śūdras were debarred from both the study of the Veda and Sanyāsa, they were believed to be unfit for attaining Moksha. The liberal yet orthodox Bhagavadgītā preached the new doctrine of Bhakti or devotion and held that although women and Śūdras (Vaiśyas were also added to these) could not study Veda or do Sanyāsa like Brahmins and Kshatriyas according to the orthodox view, they could approach God through devotion and attain to final beatitude. Vyāsa laid stress on knowledge only as believed in Sānkhya and preached "Know God truly and you will be absolved". The liberal broad-minded view of the Bhagavadgītā is indeed creditable to the thinkers of the time of Śrī Krishna and Al-Beruni recognises it. But he attributes it to the circumstance that Śrī Krishna was himself a Śūdra. It is inexplicable how this wrong notion was entertained by Al-Beruni who had very accurate knowledge of the Hindu religious books. Shrikrishna was thought to be a son of Nanda who really was a Vaiśya. But in Al-Beruni's days, a Vaiśya was little better than a Śūdra; especially cowherds were Śūdras and hence probably this mistaken idea of Al-Beruni about the caste of Śrī Krishna. In the present sub-period the Hindus appear to have still believed that Brahmins and Kshatriyas alone could attain Moksha. The Kshatriyas yet retained their right to the study of the Veda. But the theory grew later on that they were debarred from performing Sanyāsa and hence Brahmins alone could attain final beatitude.

v3.c41.s9.2

The Vaishnava idea of final beatitude was different from the Vedantic but Rāmānuja was a strict orthodox philosopher and it seems to us that he insisted on Sanyāsa as a sine qua non for the attainment of Moksha. The Vīraśaivas or Lingāyats had a different idea of Moksha their highest God being Śiva; but they believed that every one including women could attain to Moksha i. e. to the service of Śiva in Kailāsa. The Buddhistic idea of Moksha was again different and their word for it was Nirvāṇa; but they insisted on the necessity of Sanyāsa which was open to all including women. The Jains originally were a little less liberal, as already stated, than the Buddhists and the Digambaras preached that Sanyāsa in the highest sense was necessary for attaining Kaivalya. We have already mentioned the disputation which was held between a Digambara philosopher and a Śvetāmbara, on this very subject at Dhar before a Paramāra king, the former holding that clothed monks and women were not fit to attain final deliverance. The idea of final deliverance from rebirth was common to all these different sections; but they differed as to the nature of Moksha and as to the persons who were fit to attain it as above and thus added to the state of religious disunion in the country.

v3.c41.s9.3

NOTE 2—RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN SOME PARTS.

v3.c41.s9.4

It may be noted that the kings of Northern India were tolerant and there are no instances of Śaiva kings persecuting Vaishṇavas and Hindu kings persecuting Buddhists or Jains or vice-versa. Indeed they were so tolerant that they also extended their liberality to the opposite faith. Thus Govindachandra a Parama Śaiva made a grant of 6 villages to two Buddhist saints for the maintenance of Bhikshus in a Vihāra in Jetavana (E. I. XI p. 22). On the other hand, we find the Buddhist king Madanapāla granting a village to a Brahmin for reading the Mahābhārata to his queen who appears to have been a Hindu. Indeed it may be remarked that in Northern India Saivites married Vaishṇava ladies and Buddhists married Hindu ladies. One of the queens of Govindachandra, a Parama Maheśvara, was a Buddhist princess. Jains and Hindus also intermarried and intermarry even now in Northern India. The Gāhadavāla kings from their inscriptions appear to have been very tolerant; for in the religious ceremony performed by them at the time of making gifts of land they, though Maheśvaras, worshipped both Śiva and Vishṇu while other kings are described as worshipping either Śiva or Vishṇu only.

v3.c41.s9.5

Again inspite of the destruction of Hindu temples by Mahomedans in Northern India in this sub-period, the Hindu kings of Gujarat and Mahārāshtra, as also the people, were tolerant enough to allow Mahomedans to build mosques in their towns especially on the sea-coast. Nay we find in Somnath itself a Khoja merchant from Hormuz in Persian gulf building a ‘Mijigiti’ (Masjid) with the consent of Parama Pāśupatāchārya Mahā Pandita Mahattara Dharmamūrti and Abhaya of the Panch Kula while Malikdeva was the local officer in behalf of Arjunadeva Chālukya who ruled in Anhilwad. The Mijigiti was not only given land for its building but some bazars were assigned for its maintenance by the Hindus and this whole thing was recorded in a stone inscription drawn up in Sanskrit dated St. 1320, Valabhi 945, Sinha 151 and Hijri 662 with the usual imprecations against any one interfering with the Masjid and the gift (Bhav.Insc.p. 225). This speaks volumes of the tolerant spirit of the Hindus of Gujarat. We have already noted that Jayasinha Siddharāja personally inquired into the complaint of a Mahomedan about Parsis throwing down a Masjid in Cambay and restoring it at his own cost (E. II.). The Rāshtrakūṭas again and even the Chālukyas before them, allowed Mahomedans to build Masjids in their territory, allowing Mahomedans to have even their own jurisdiction (Vol. II. p. 166). The Silāhāras of Thana again addressed their grants to Parsis and Mahomedans who were settled in Sanjan and who appear to have enjoyed special rights. This attitude of the Hindus of Gujarat and Mahārāshtra and their kings is indeed fit to be extolled and specially noticed. There is no wonder, therefore, if the people and kings of these two regions were tolerant towards the Jain religion. We have already shown how the Chālukya kings of Gujarat in this sub-period and later the Veghela kings gave encouragement to Jainism, honoured Jain Pandits and gave donations to Jain temples. Though the Chalukyas of Kalyan were not tolerant towards the Jain faith, the Silāhāra kings of Karhad, especially Vijayāditya, while they remained devotees of Mahalakshmi of Kolhapur, were very liberal to the Jains and gave their temples and ascetics many villages (E. I. III p. 207). Jainism probably spread both in Gujarat and the southern Maratha country during the reigns of these kings.

v3.c41.s9.6

In the previous chapters we have spoken of the ramification of caste and the change in marriage and other customs which took place in this sub-period of Hindu history. We have also spoken of the rise of new sects of Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas in this sub-period which caused religious disunion in the Hindu society. We will speak in this chapter of other aspects of Hinduism generally and show how Hinduism assumed its modern form at the close of the mediæval Hindu period and how essentially it differed from the Vedic form of Hinduism or what may be called Vedic Aryanism. It is impossible that Hinduism could have remained the same through the long period of 4000 years which elapsed from the recital of the Veda-saṃhitās by Vyāsa down to the conquest of Northern India by Mahomedans. Yet it seems that the Hindu religion still kept itself in touch with the religion of the Vedic Rishis.

Linked texts (3)