History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c23.117
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c23.117
- Language
- English
v2.c23.117.1
*Gaṇapatipūjana*:—This consists in inviting the presence of the elephant-faced god Gaṇeśa on a betelnut placed in a handful of husked rice. The word Gaṇapati is used in the Ṛgveda as an attribute of Brahmaṇaspati (the lord of prayer or holy lore). The well-known mantra (‘gaṇānāṁ tvā gaṇapatiṁ havāmahe’ Ṛg. II. 23. 1) which is used to invoke Gaṇeśa is addressed to Brahmaṇaspati. Indra is addressed as Gaṇapati in Ṛg. X. 112. 9. In the Tai. S. IV. 1. 2. 2 and Vāj. S. paśus (and the horse specially) are said to be the Gāṇapatya of Rudra. The Ait. Br. IV. 4⁴⁹⁵ expressly says that the mantra ‘gaṇānāṁ tvā’ is addressed to Brahmaṇaspati. In the Vāj. S. 16. 25 we have the plural (Gaṇapatibhyaśca vo namo’) and in 22. 30 we have the singular ‘Gaṇapataye svāhā’. The peculiar features of Gaṇeśa as described in the medieval works, viz. the head of an elephant, pot belly, mouse as vāhana (conveyance) are entirely wanting in the Vedic literature. In Vāj. S. III. 57 the mouse⁴⁹⁶ is said to be the paśu (animal to be offered to) of Rudra. In the Tai. Ār. (X. 15) there is a verse⁴⁹⁷ ‘We contemplate Vakratuṇḍa, therefore may the tusked (god) impel us’. In the Gṛhya and Dharma sūtras there is no reference to the worship of Gaṇeśa at the beginning of all auspicious rites. That is comparatively a later cult. In the Baud. Dh. S. (II. 5. 83-90, S. B. E. vol. 14. p. 254) the Devatarpaṇa includes the propitiation of Vighna, Vināyaka, Vīra, Sthūla, Varada, Hastimukha, Vakratuṇḍa, Ekadanta and Lambodara.
v2.c23.117.2
But this part of the Baud. Dh. S. is of doubtful authenticity. All the above are the appellations of Vināyaka (vide Baud. gṛhya-śeṣasūtra III. 10. 6). In the Mānava gṛhya II. 14 it is said that the Vināyakas are four viz. Śālakaṭaṅkaṭa, Kūṣmāṇḍarājaputra, Usmita and Devayajana. They are evil spirits and people when seized by them have bad dreams and see in them inauspicious sights such as shaved persons, persons with matted hair or wearing yellowish garments, camels, hogs, asses, cāṇḍālas. When seized by them, princes, though capable, do not get their kingdoms; maidens, though endowed with all accomplishments, cannot secure husbands; married women have no children or even virtuous wives lose their children in infancy; husbandmen lose their crops &c. The Mānavagṛhya then prescribes propitiatory rites to remove the effects of Vināyaka seizure. The Baijavāpagṛhya (quoted by Aparārka p. 563 on Yāj. I. 275) says⁴⁹⁸ that there are four Vināyakas, Mita, Sammita, Śālakaṭaṅkaṭa and Kūṣmāṇḍarājaputra and describes seizure by them and its effects in the same way as the Mānavagṛhya. These two show the first stage in the development of the cult of Vināyaka. Vināyakas are at this stage malevolent spirits who cause dangers and obstacles of various kinds. In this cult various elements from the terrific aspects of Rudra were probably first drawn upon and amalgamated with other elements drawn from aboriginal cults. The next stage is indicated by the Yāj. smṛti (I. 271-294). Here Vināyaka (I.
v2.c23.117.3
271) is said to be one appointed by Brahmā and Rudra to the over-lordship of the Gaṇas, he is represented not only as causing obstacles, but also as bringing success in the actions and rites undertaken by men. Yāj. enumerates the results of the seizure by Vināyaka in the same way as the Mānavagṛhya. Yāj. I. 285 says that Mita, Sammita, Śālakaṭaṅkaṭa and Kūṣmāṇḍarājaputra are the four names⁴⁹⁹ of the one Vināyaka and that Ambikā is the mother of Vināyaka. It is noteworthy that Yāj. does not employ any one of the well-known epithets of Vināyaka, viz. Ekadanta, Heramba, Gajānana, Lambodara &c. The Baud. gṛ. śeṣasūtra III. 10 prescribes a somewhat different procedure for propitiating Vināyaka and styles him 'the lord of bhūtas', and also 'hastimukha' and 'vighneśvara' and prescribes the offerings of apūpa and modaka to him. Thus Baudhāyana is nearer to the medieval conception of Gaṇeśa than even Yājñavalkya. The Ādiparva makes Gaṇeśa write the Mahābhārata to the dictation of Vyāsa; but this part is apocryphal as many mss. altogether omit this episode (*vide* J. R. A. S. for 1898 pp. 380-384, Winternitz). The other references in Vanaparva 65. 23 and Anuśāsana 150. 25 bear affinity to the description of Vināyaka in the Mānavagṛhya.⁵⁰⁰