Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3: Volume 3

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3

Language
English

Contents

Volume 3

Front matter

v3.c36.1

लाल बहादुर शास्त्री प्रशासन प्रकादमी Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration मसूरी MUSSOORIE

v3.c36.2

पुस्तकालय LIBRARY

v3.c36.3

| अवाप्ति संख्या *Accession No.* | ~~102315~~ 102315 |
| वर्ग संख्या *Class No.* | 294.5926 |
| पुस्तक संख्या *Book No.* | Kan V-2; Pt-2. |

v3.c36.5

This page appears to be completely blank.

v3.c36.6

Class B, No. 6

v3.c36.7

Class B, No. 6

v3.c36.8

PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE POONA

v3.c36.10

POONA Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona

v3.c36.11

BY PANDURANG VAMAN KANE, M. A., LL. M. ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, BOMBAY; SENIOR ADVOCATE, FEDERAL COURT OF INDIA; FELLOW AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOMBAY ASIATIC SOCIETY; AUTHOR OF 'HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETICS' &c.

v3.c36.12

VOL. II PART II

v3.c36.13

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona Copies can be had direct from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona (4), India Price Rs. 30 for both parts (Parts not sold separately)

v3.c36.14

Printed at the Aryabhushan Press, 915/1 Shivajinagar, Poona 4 by Mr. Vithal Hari Barve, and Published by Dr. R. N. Dandekar, M. A., Ph. D., Secretary, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4.

Chapter XIX. Devayajña

v3.c37.2

*Devayajña* :—As stated in the Tai. Ār. quoted above ( p. 696 ) the Devayajña was performed by offering fuel sticks into fire. According to the Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 13. 1, Baud.¹⁶⁸⁵ Dh. S. II. 6. 4 and Gaut. V. 8–9, the Devayajña consisted in offering into fire offerings ( of food or at least a fuel stick ) with ‘svāhā’ uttered after the name of the deities in the dative case. Manu also ( III. 70 ) looks upon homa as devayajña. The devatās to whom homa or devayajña was offered are different according to different gṛhya or dharma sūtras. For example, Āśv. gṛ. ( I. 2. 2 ) says that ‘ they are the deities of the Agnihotra ( i. e. Sūrya or Agni, and Prajāpati ), Soma Vanaspati, Agni and Soma, Indra and Agni, Heaven and earth, Dhanvantari, Indra, the Viśve Devas, Brahman’. According to Gaut. they are Agni, Dhanvantari, Viśve Devas, Prajāpati, Agni Sviṣṭakṛt. Vide Mānava-gṛhya II. 12. 2 where the deities are different from those in Āśv. gṛ. and Gaut. In later smṛtis a distinction is made between homa ( or devayajña ) and devapūjā. Yāj. in I. 100 speaks of the worship of gods immediately after tarpaṇa and then in I. 102 includes *homa* among the five yajñas. Manu II. 176 also makes this distinction. Medieval writers came to look upon Vaiśvadeva as the devayajña, while others held that homa to gods was different from Vaiśvadeva. *Vide* Haradatta¹⁶⁸⁶ on Āp. Dh. S. I. 4. 13. 1. According to Marīci and Hārīta quoted in the Smṛtimuktāphala ( āhnika p. 383 ) *devapūjā* is performed after the morning homa or after brahmayajña and tarpaṇa¹⁶⁸⁷ in the noon. In medieval and modern times the ancient idea of homa receded far into the back-ground and its place was taken by an elaborated procedure of *devapūjā* (worship of images kept in the house). Some space must be devoted to the origin and development of this phase of religious practice.

v3.c37.3

¹⁶⁸⁵ अह्रहः स्वाहाकुर्यादाकाष्ठात्तथैतं देवयज्ञं समाप्नोति । बौ. ध. सू. II. 6.4; देव-पितृमनुष्ययज्ञाः स्वाध्यायश्च बलिकर्म । अग्नौऽयग्निधन्वन्तरिविश्वे देवाः प्रजापतिः स्विष्टकृदिति होमः। गौ. V. 8-9. The mantras become सोमाय वनस्पतये स्वाहा, अग्नीषोमाभ्यां स्वाहा and so on ; when स्वाहा is said the offering is thrown into the fire.

v3.c37.4

¹⁶⁸⁶ वैश्वदेवोक्तप्रकारेणैव देवयज्ञः केचिद्वैश्वदेवाहुतिभ्यः पृथग्भूतानिमामाहुतिं मन्यन्ते । देवेभ्यः स्वाहेति च मन्त्रमिच्छन्ति । देवयज्ञेन यक्ष्ये इति संकल्पमिच्छन्ति । वयं तु न तथेति गृह्य एवावोचाम । हरदत्त on आप. ध. I. 4. 13. 1.

v3.c37.5

¹⁶⁸⁷ अथ देवपूजनम् । तच्च प्रातर्होमानन्तरमिति केचित् । विधेया देवतापूजा प्रातर्हो-मादनन्तरम् । इति मरीचिस्मरणात् । …… ब्रह्मयज्ञजपतर्पणानन्तरमित्यन्ये । तथा च हारीतः कुर्वीत देवतापूजां जपयज्ञादनन्तरम् । इति । स्मृतिमुक्ताफल ( आह्निक p. 383 ).

v3.c37.6.1

It is extremely doubtful whether images were generally worshipped in the ancient Vedic times. In the Ṛgveda and the other Vedas, there is worship of Agni, the Sun, Varuṇa and various other deities; but they were worshipped in the abstract, as powers and manifestations of the one Divine Person or as separate deities or functions behind natural phenomena or cosmic processes. There are no doubt passages where the deities of the Ṛgveda are spoken of as possessed of bodily attributes. A few verses may be cited in this connection. Indra is described in Ṛg. VIII. 17. 8 as ‘tuvigrīva’ (with a powerful or thick neck) and ‘vapodara’ (having big or capacious belly) and ‘subāhu’ (having well-shaped arms). Ṛg. VIII. 17. 5 speaks of the limbs and sides of Indra and prays Indra to taste honey with his tongue. In Ṛg. X. 96. 8 Indra is spoken as having dark green (*hari*) hair and beard and in X. 105.7 again it is said that the hair on his chin are dark-green and his chin is never injured (in battle).¹⁶⁸⁸ In Ṛg. II. 33. 5 Rudra is said to be ‘ṛdūdara’ (whose abdomen is soft), ‘babhru’ (of brown colour) and ‘suśipra’ (with a fine chin or nose). The Vāj. S. 16. 7 speaks of Rudra as having a dark-blue throat and red (complexion) and 16. 51 says he wears a skin (*kṛtti*). In Ṛg. I. 155. 6 Viṣṇu is said to approach a battle with his huge body and as a youth (‘bṛhac-charīra’ and ‘yuvā’). In Ṛg. III. 53.

v3.c37.6.2

6 Indra is asked to go home at once after drinking Somas, as he has a charming wife and delightful house. In Ṛg. X. 26.7 god Pūṣan is said to shake his beard. In Ṛg. IV. 53.2 Savitṛ is said to put on a yellowish *drāpi* (armour) and in Ṛg. I. 25. 13 Varuṇa is said to wear a golden *drāpi*. It is not necessary to multiply examples. It is possible to argue that all these descriptions are poetic and metaphoric. But there are two passages of the Ṛgveda that cause much more difficulty than the above. Ṛg. IV. 24. 10 asks ‘who will¹⁶⁸⁹ purchase this my Indra for ten cows and might return it after he (Indra) has killed enemies'? Ṛg. VIII. 1. 5 says 'O Indra! I shall not give thee for even a great price, not even for a hundred, a thousand or an *ayuta* (ten thousand)'. It may be argued that here there is a reference to an image of Indra. But this is not convincing. It is equally possible to hold that these are hyperbolic or boastful statements of the great devotion of the worshipper to Indra and that there is no reference to an image of Indra.

v3.c37.6.3

If we look at the Vedic cult described in the Brāhmaṇas where sacrifices of butter, cakes and boiled rice or other grain are offered to several deities in the fire, or animal and soma sacrifices are described at great length, it is clear that the ancient sages hardly ever thought of the worship of idols, but of deities in the abstract to whom they ascribed different functions and poetically represented them as being endowed like human beings with hands and feet and other limbs. It cannot be denied that here and there occur a few passages that suggest images as objects of worship. For example, in the Tai. Br. II. 6. 17 occurs the passage 'may the hotṛ priest worship the three goddesses, that are golden, that are endowed with beauty (or ornaments) that are great ones' &c. It looks as if golden images of the three goddesses are meant.¹⁶⁹⁰ One can say without much fear of contradiction that the religious practices among the higher strata of the Vedic Aryans did not include the worship of images in the house or in temples. But we have hardly any literary materials for judging what the religious practices of the lower or ignorant masses of Vedic India were. In Ṛg. VII. 21. 5 Vasiṣṭha prays to Indra 'may the *śiśna-devas* not overwhelm our ṛta' (religious order or practices); similarly in Ṛg. X. 99. 3 the prayer is 'may he (Indra) striking (or killing) the *śiśnadevas* overcome them by his form or power'.

v3.c37.6.4

Scholars are sharply divided in opinion about the meaning of the word¹⁶⁹¹ '*śiśnadeva*'. Some hold that it denotes people who were worshippers of the phallus (*vide* Vedic Index, vol. II. p. 382). Others hold that the word is used in a secondary or metaphorical sense for those who are immersed in sexual gratification and do not recognize anything else (as worthy of pursuit). Yāska in his Nirukta (IV. 19) quotes Ṛg. VII. 21. 5 and explains that the word means 'those who do not observe rules of *brahmacarya* (celibacy)'. The preponderance of authority and evidence is in favour of the second view. In Ṛg. VII. 104. 14(= Atharva VIII. 4. 14), the poet pleads 'if I be addicted to falsehood, O fire, or if I call upon the gods in vain (then you may injure me), but (not being so) why are you angry with me? May those whose speech is false incur slaughter at your hands'. Here 'anṛta-devāḥ' is practically the same as 'drogba-vācaḥ' in the fourth pāda. In the Tai. Up. I. 11. 2 we have the words 'mātṛdevo bhava, pitṛdevo bhava', where all that is meant is that 'one should be devoted to the parents'. Therefore 'śiśna-deva' could hardly mean 'those who worship phallus as god'. In Ṛg.¹⁶⁹² X. 87. 2 Agni is invoked as follows 'with thy tongue reach the *mūradevas*, in thy mouth envelope the eaters of raw flesh after cutting them into bits' and in Ṛg. VII. 104.

v3.c37.6.5

24 Indra is called upon to kill male and female *yātudhānas* (evil spirits or sorcerers) and it is added 'may the mūradevas perish bereft of their necks and may they not see the sun rising up from the horizon'. Yāska in commenting on Ṛg. X. 4. 4 explains 'mūra' as 'mūḍha' (stupid)¹⁶⁹³. It is possible to take 'mūra' as meaning 'mortal' or 'perishable' (since the root 'mṛ' assumes the form 'muriya' as in Ṛg. VII. 104. 15). From the above quotations it is clear that the Ṛgvedic poets knew of low people who practised witchcraft, who were mūradevas (i. e. either worshipped perishable objects or were stupid in their cult) and who were the enemies of the Aryans. There are also clear references to enemies who did not look upon Indra as God (Ṛg. X. 27. 6, X. 48. 7, X. 86. 1).

v3.c37.7

¹⁶⁸⁸ तुविग्रीवो वपोदरः सुबाहुरन्धसो मदे। इन्द्रो वृत्राणि जिघ्नते ॥ ऋ. VIII 17. 8; हरिमश्मशारुहरिकेश आयसस्तुरस्पैये यो हरिपा अवर्धत। ऋ. X. 96. 8; वज्रं यश्चक्रे सुहनाय दस्यवे हिरीमशो हिरीमान्। अरुत्तहन्नुरमृतं न रजंः ॥ ऋ. X. 105. 7.

v3.c37.8

¹⁶⁸⁹ क इमं दशभिर्ममेन्द्रं क्रीणाति धेनुभिः। यदा वृत्राणि जङ्घनदथैनं मे पुनर्ददत् ॥ ऋ. IV. 24. 10; महे चन त्वामद्रिवः परा शुल्काय देयाम्। न सहस्राय नायुताय वञ्चिवो न शताय शतामघ ॥ ऋ. VIII. 1. 5.

v3.c37.9

¹⁶⁹⁰ होता यक्षत्पेशस्वतीः। तिस्रो देवीः हिरण्ययीः। भारतीबृहतीर्महीः। तै. ब्रा. II. 6. 17. The three devīs are Bhāratī, Iḍā and Sarasvatī.

v3.c37.10

¹⁶⁹¹ मा शिश्नदेवा अपि गुर्ऋतं नः॥ ऋ. VII. 21. 5; श्नथिच्छ्वश्नवेवाँ अभि वर्पसा भूत् ॥ ऋ. X. 99. 3; 'मा शिश्नदेवाः अब्रह्मचर्याः शिश्नं श्नथतेः अपि गुर्ऋतं नः सत्यं वा यज्ञं वा' निरुक्त IV. 19.

v3.c37.11

¹⁶⁹² आ जिह्वया मूरदेवान्रभस्व क्रव्यादो वृक्त्व्यपि धत्स्वामन् ॥ ऋ. X. 87. 2 and अथर्ववेद VIII. 3. 2 (सायण renders मूरदेवान् राक्षसान्); पराचिषा मूरदेवान्छृणीहि परासुतृपो अभि शोशुचानः॥ ऋ. X. 87. 14 (=अथर्ववेद VIII. 3. 13 with slight variation at end); वि ग्रीवासो मूरदेवा ऋदन्तु मा ते दृशन्त्सूर्यमुच्चरन्तम् ॥ ऋ. VII. 104. 24 (अथर्ववेद VIII. 4. 24).

v3.c37.12

¹⁶⁹³ मूरा अमूर न वयं चिकित्वो महित्वमग्ने त्वमङ्ग वित्से (ऋ. 10. 4. 4.) ; मूढाः वयं अमूढः त्वमसि न वयं विद्मः महत्त्वमग्रे त्वं तु वेत्थ । निरुक्त VI. 8.

v3.c37.13.1

Phallic emblems have been found in the ancient ruins at Mohenjo-daro (*vide* Sir John Marshall's work, vol. I. pp. 58-63). Except these finds the earliest known *liṅgas* so far discovered do not go beyond the first century B. C. But centuries before Christ the worship of images had become widespread in India. According to Haradatta on Āp. gṛ. 20. 1-3, where the offerings to Īśāna, his consort and his son ‘Jayanta’ (the conqueror Skanda) are described, images of these three are worshipped. The Mānava-gṛhya¹⁶⁹⁴ II. 15. 6 prescribes that if an image (of wood, stone or metal) were to be burnt down or to become reduced to powder (of itself) or falls (from its pedestal) or breaks into pieces, or laughs, or moves to another place, the householder (in whose house it had been established) should offer ten oblations into fire with certain Vedic verses. In the Baud. gṛ. II. 2. 13 when describing the ceremony of Upaniṣkramaṇa (taking the infant child out of the house for the first time) it is said that the father after performing homa goes out of the house, worships the images outside (the house), feeds the brāhmaṇas, makes them pronounce benedictions and then brings back to the house the infant.¹⁶⁹⁵ The Laugākṣi gṛhya (18. 3) speaks of devatāyatana (a temple). Gaut. (IX. 13-14) forbids a man from answering calls of nature in front of images or from stretching one's feet towards them and (IX. 66) requires a man to circumambulate a temple (devatāyatana) that he may meet on his way.

v3.c37.13.2

The Śāṅ. gṛ. IV. 12. 15 does the same and uses the same word (S. B. E. vol. 29, p. 125) and in II. 6. 6 mentions a *deva-kula* (god's house). Āp. Dh. S. (I. 11. 30. 28) has a similar rule. Manu (II. 176) directs the brahmacārin to worship images, requires a person to circumambulate images that he may meet with when on a journey (IV. 39), not to cross the shadow of images (IV. 130) and ordains that witnesses be sworn in the presence of the images of gods and brāhmaṇas (VIII. 87). *Vide* also Manu III. 117 and IX. 285. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. (23. 34, 63. 27) mentions the images of gods (devatārcā) and speaks of the worship of Bhagavat Vāsudeva as an image. In Vasiṣṭha XI. 31, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 69. 7, 30. 15, 70 13, 91. 10 the word ‘devatāyatana’ or ‘devāyatana’ occurs. Unfortunately the dates of all these works are far from being certain. But no scholar will assign the Mānava, Baudhāyana and Śāṅkhyāyana gṛhyasūtras and the dharmasūtras of Gautama and Āpastamba to a later date than the 5th or 4th century B. C. Pāṇini, whom no scholar will place later than 300 B. C. (though there are some who place him several centuries earlier), teaches ¹⁶⁹⁶ that an image by attending on which a person maintains himself and which is not for sale has the same name as the god whose image it is e. g. an image is called Śiva or Skanda when the worshipper makes his livelihood by attending on the image of Śiva or Skanda (and appropriating the offerings placed before the image) which is not for sale.

v3.c37.13.3

Pāṇini also teaches (IV. 3. 98) that 'Vāsudevaka' is a person who is a votary of Vāsudeva and Patañjali expressly says that Vāsudeva was not a mere kṣatriya, but that the word is the name of God. Patañjali comments on the former sūtra and vouchsafes the very interesting information that the Mauryas who were greedy of gold established or manufactured images, to which this rule would not apply, but it would apply to the images of gods that were in Patañjali's day used for pūjā (worship). According to Patañjali the images manufactured by the Mauryas would be called Śivaka &c. Patañjali, while commenting on Pāṇini IV. 1. 54, gives as examples an image with a long or high nose. The Ādiparva 70. 49, Anuśāsana 10. 20-21, Āśvamedhika 70. 16 speak of devatāyatanas (temples) and Bhīṣma 112. 11 in speaking of terrible portents refers to images in temples trembling and shedding tears. Khāravela, king of Kaliṅga (latter half of 2nd century B. C.) is said to have re-established an image of Jina carried away by Nandarāja and he is described as 'sarvadevāyatana-saṁkhāra-kāraka' (one who looked after the preservation and repair of all temples). In Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra II. 4 (variously assigned to different dates from 300 B. C. to 250 A. D.) it is stated that in the centre of the capital shrines of Aparājita, Apratihata, Jayanta, Vaijayanta and temples of Śiva, Aśvins, Vaiśravaṇa, Lakṣmī and of Madirā (wine?) should be erected.

v3.c37.13.4

It follows from the above discussion that long before Pāṇini there had arisen professional men who made their livelihood by attending on images and that temples of deities must have existed even in the 4th or 5th century B. C.

v3.c37.14

¹⁶⁹⁴ यद्यर्चा दहेद्वा नश्येद्वा प्रपतेद्वा प्रभजेद्वा प्रहसेद्वा प्रचलेद्वा...एताभिर्जुहुयात्... इति दशाहुतयः। मानवगृह्य II. 15. 6.

v3.c37.15

¹⁶⁹⁵ अथोपनिष्क्रम्य बाह्यानि चित्रियाण्यभ्यर्च्य ... ... स्वाम् गृहानानेयति। बौ. गृ. सू. II. 2. 13. This is quoted in the संस्काररत्नमाला p. 887 where चित्रियाणि is explained as देवताः.

v3.c37.16

¹⁶⁹⁶ जीविकार्थे चापण्ये। पा. V. 3. 99; अपण्य इत्युच्यते। तत्रेदं न सिध्यति शिवः स्कन्दः विशाख इति। किं कारणम्। मौर्यैर्हिरण्यार्थिभिरर्चाः प्रकल्पिताः। भवेत्तासु न स्यात्। यास्त्वेताः संप्रति पूजार्थास्तासु भविष्यति। महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 429; दीर्घनासिक्यर्चा तुङ्गनासिक्यर्चा। महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 222 (on पा. IV. 1. 54); 'वासुदेवार्जुनाभ्यां वुन्' पा. IV. 3. 98; अथवा नैषा क्षत्रियाख्या। संज्ञैषा तत्रभवतः। महाभाष्य vol. II. p. 314; vide E. I. vol. 20 p. 80 and 'Vaiṣṇavism and Saivism' by Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar (1913) pp. 3-4.

v3.c37.17

The question whether the worship of images and the erection of temples spontaneously arose among the Vedic Aryans or whether they derived the idea from some other race or sectarians has been very often discussed. There are three principal views, viz. (1) that the worship of images was derived from śūdras and Dravidian tribes and absorbed in the brahmanical cult; (2) that the making of images was copied from the Buddhists; (3) that this practice was a natural and spontaneous growth. The second view is not very plausible. Images of Buddha were not made for a long time after his *nirvāṇa*. He was only represented at first by symbols. If modern chronology about Buddha's ministry is to be followed¹⁶⁹⁷ (he was born about 563 B. C. and died about 483 B. C.), it is almost impossible to hold that images of gods originally came to be made in imitation of images or statues of Buddha, since, as we saw above, temples and images of gods had already become widespread throughout India in the 4th or 5th century B. C.¹⁶⁹⁸ The first view is supported with arguments of some weight by Dr. Farquhar in J. R. A. S. for 1928 pp. 15-23. *Vide* also Dr. Charpentier in Indian Antiquary for 1927 pp. 89 ff. and 130 ff. But I do not hold that the reasons for this view are convincing. There is no apparent reason why only about 400 B. C. image worship should have been copied from the śūdras by the brāhmaṇas. The śūdra though given an inferior status had become a part of Indian Society at least a thousand years before 400 B. C., as the Puruṣasūkta shows. He had been serving the brāhmaṇas for centuries before that date and brāhmaṇas could in the times of the sūtras partake of food cooked by him and could take śūdra women in marriage. So, if the worship of images was a practice borrowed from the śūdras, it should have prevailed at least a thousand years before 400 B. C. The fact that the *devalaka brāhmaṇa* (one who maintained himself by attending on images either for a salary or by appropriating what was placed before the image) was not to be invited at a śrāddha and had thus an inferior status (Manu III. 152) is to be explained in a different way. The institution of worshippers of images had not an hoary antiquity behind it in the time of Manu, as that of priests officiating at the śrauta or gṛhya sacrifices had in his day; besides such men must have neglected the principal duty of a brāhmaṇa (viz. study of the Veda) and so they were looked down upon. Even in the times of the Brāhmaṇas the simple gṛhya sacrifices were being raised to the level of śrauta rites, which were gradually becoming less and less frequent. The Ait. Br. (11. 8) prescribes that when a man takes up an offering to a deity and is about to say 'vaṣaṭ' he should contemplate upon that deity for whom the offering is meant.¹⁶⁹⁹ This would naturally lead the worshipper to invest the deity with anthropomorphic attributes. The Nirukta devotes some space (VII. 6-7) to the consideration of the question of the form of the deities referred to in the Vedic *mantras*.¹⁷⁰⁰ Three views are propounded, viz. (1) they have an anthropomorphic form, (2) they have no anthromorphic form, (3) they may partake of both characters, i. e. the deities though really non-anthropomorphic may assume various forms for carrying out some purpose or activity. This last view contains the doctrine of *avatāras*. When Vedic sacrifices became less and less prevalent owing to various causes (particularly because of the doctrine of ahiṁsā, the various upāsanās and the philosophy of the Absolute set forth in the Upaniṣads), there arose the cult of the worship of images. Originally, it was not so universal or elaborate as it became in medieval and modern times.

v3.c37.18

¹⁶⁹⁷ See 'History of Buddhist thought' by Dr. E. J. Thomas (1933) for these dates.

v3.c37.19

¹⁶⁹⁸ Vide Mr. O. C. Ganguly's paper 'the antiquity of the Buddha Image' in Ostasiatische Zeitschrift Neue Folge XIV, Heft 2/3, where he adduces very weighty grounds for holding that the beginning of the cult of the worship of the image of Buddha lies somewhere between 150 B. C. to 50 B. C.

v3.c37.20

¹⁶⁹⁹ यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां ध्यायेद्वषट्करिष्यन्। ऐ. ब्रा. 11. 8, quoted by शंकराचार्य on वेदान्तसूत्र I. 3. 33.

v3.c37.21

¹⁷⁰⁰ अथाकारचिन्तनं देवतानाम्। पुरुषविधाः स्युरित्येकम्। ...... अपुरुषविधाः स्युरित्यपरम्। ...... अपि वा उभयविधाः स्युः अपि वा अपुरुषविधानामेव सतामेते कर्मात्मानः स्युः। निरुक्त VII. 6-7.

v3.c37.22

The literature on the subject of image-worship is vast. The principal topics are: the substances from which images are made, the principal deities of which images were or are worshipped, the proportions of the various limbs in manufacturing images, the consecration of images and temples, the ritual of image worship. The subject of consecration of images and temples will be dealt with later on under the topic of Pratiṣṭhā.

v3.c37.23

In the Bṛhat-saṁhitā of Varāhamihira (chap. 58, where images of Rāma, of Viṣṇu with eight or four or two arms, of Baladeva, Ekānaṁśā, Sāmba, Brahmā, Skanda, Śiva, Girijā as half of Śiva's body, Buddha, Jina, the Sun, the Mātṛs, Yama, Varuṇa, Kubera are described); in the Matsyapurāṇa chap.

v3.c37.24

258–264; in the Agnipurāṇa chap. 44–53, the Viṣṇudharmottara (III. 44 ff.) and other purāṇas, in the Mānasāra, the Caturvarga-cintāmaṇi of Hemādri (Vratakhaṇḍa vol. II part 1, pp. 76–222), in several āgama works, in the Devatāmūrti-prakaraṇa of sūtradhāra Maṇḍana of the 15th century (ed. by Upendra Mohan Sāṅkhyatīrtha, Calcutta, 1936) and similar works elaborate rules are given on pratimālakṣaṇa (the characteristics of the images of gods and goddesses). They cannot be dealt with here. In modern times many works and papers, several of them illustrated with plates and photographs, have been published on this subject.¹⁷⁰¹

v3.c37.25

¹⁷⁰¹ Besides the Annual Reports and Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, the following is a modest list of such works: Ars Asiatica (in French), some volumes of which such as vol. III (on Śaiva sculpture), vol. X (on Ajanta), vol. XV (about images at Mathurā) are specially useful; Ludwig Bachhofer's 'Early Indian Sculpture' in two volumes (1929, Paris) with 161 plates (from 300 B. C. to 200 A. D.); Brindaban Bhattacharya's 'Indian Images' vol. I (1921, a very useful work containing original Sanskrit texts from the Vedas to the latest works and several illustrations); N. K. Bhattasali's 'Iconography of Buddhist and Brahmanical Sculptures in the Dacca Museum'; Rai Bahadur Chanda's 'Medieval Indian Sculptures in the British Museum' (1936); 'Ancient India' (from the earliest times to the Guptas as to architecture and sculpture) by K. de B. Codrington 1926, with numerous plates; A. K. Coomarswamy's 'History of Indian and Indonesian Art'; A. Foucher's 'Beginnings of Buddhist Art' (1917 translated by L. A. Thomas and F. W. Thomas) and 'L' Arte Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhāra' (in two vols. 1905 and 1918); O. C. Gangoly's 'South Indian Bronzes' (1915, with 95 full page illustrations and 45 smaller plates); T. A. Gopinath Rao's 'Elements of Hindu Iconography' (in 4 parts, containing quotations from purāṇas, śilpaśāstras and other works and numerous illustrations); Grünwedel's 'Buddhist Art in India' (English translation by Agnes C. Gibson revised by James Burgess, 1901); E. B. Havell's 'Indian Sculpture and Painting' (London, 1908), 'the Ideals of Indian Art' (London, 1911), 'Hand-book of Indian Art' (London, 1920); H. Krishna Sastry's 'South Indian Images of Gods and Goddesses'; Nihar Ranjan Ray's 'Brahmanical Gods of Burma' (1932); V. A. Smith's 'History of Fine Art in India' (1911, with hundreds of illustrations); 'Mūrtivijñāna' (in Marathi) by G. H. Khare (1939, Poona).

v3.c37.26

Medieval digests like the Sm. C., the Smṛtimuktāphala, the Pūjā-prakāśa devote considerable space to the subject of devapūjā (image-worship) in its various aspects, the last work containing 382 pages in print on this subject. A very concise statement of only a few topics is attempted below.

v3.c37.27

The word 'devapūjā'¹⁷⁰² occurs in the Vārtika on Pāṇini I. 3. 25. The digests try to show that, just as *yāga* (sacrifice) consists in giving up materials accompanied by a mantra with reference to a deity that is then principally in view, so *pūjā* also is *yāga*, as therein also there is giving up (or dedication) of materials to a deity.¹⁷⁰³

v3.c37.28

¹⁷⁰² उपाद्देवपूजासंगतकरणयोः। वार्तिक on पा. I. 3. 25 उपान्मन्त्रकरणे. Vide महाभाष्य vol. I. p. 281 which shows that this वार्तिक was read somewhat differently by others even so early.

v3.c37.29

¹⁷⁰³ यजतिचोदना द्रव्यदेवताक्रियं समुदाये कृतार्थत्वात्। तदुक्ते श्रवणाज्जुहोति-रासेचनाधिकः स्यात् ॥ जै. IV. 2. 27-28, on which शबर distinguishes between याग, होम and दान as follows यजतिददातिजुहोतिषु सर्वेषूत्सर्गः समानः। तत्र यजति-र्देवतामुद्दिश्य उत्सर्गमात्रं, जुहोतिरासेचनाधिकः, ददातिरुत्सर्गपूर्वकः परस्वत्वेन संबन्ध इत्येष एषां विशेष इति।; तत्र पूजा नाम देवतोद्देशेन द्रव्यत्यागात्मकत्वाय्दाग एव। पूजाप्रकाश p. 1.

v3.c37.30

The next question is; who are entitled to perform *devapūjā*. Men and women of all varṇas and even the untouchables were to worship Viṣṇu who incarnated himself as man-lion, according to the Nṛsiṁhapurāṇa and Vṛddha-Hārīta¹⁷⁰⁴ (VI. 6 and 256). All the male members of a joint undivided family are to perform separately saṁdhyā, brahmayajña and agnihotra (if they have consecrated the śrauta and gṛhya fires) but devapūjā and vaiśvadeva will be only one for the whole family.¹⁷⁰⁵ The time for devapūjā is after tarpaṇa at noon and before vaiśvadeva; but some place it after vaiśvadeva. According to Dakṣa II. 30-31 all *devakārya* (duties and ceremonies in honour of gods) must be performed in the first half of the day.

v3.c37.31

¹⁷⁰⁴ ब्राह्मणाः क्षत्रिया वैश्याः स्त्रियः शूद्रान्त्यजातयः। संपूज्य तं सुरश्रेष्ठं भक्त्या सिंहवपुर्धरम्। मुच्यन्ते चामुभैर्दुःखैर्जन्मकोटिसमुद्भवैः। नृसिंहपुराण quoted in पूजाप्रकाश p. 1, शूद्रकमलाकर p. 33.

v3.c37.32

¹⁷⁰⁵ Vide शाकल quoted in the व्यवहारमयूख p. 133.

v3.c37.33

One of the peculiar tenets of Hinduism is *adhikāra-bheda* (difference in rights, duties, ceremonies and worship dependent on difference in intellectual, emotional and spiritual equipment). Not every one was capable of the same discipline and regimen. Image worship was not absolutely necessary for everybody and the ancient writers never thought that when they worshipped an image they were simply paying homage to a material object. They believed that they contemplated the One Supreme Spirit in the form of the image or symbol before them, which helped ordinary people to concentrate their mind on the Godhead to the exclusion of other external and engrossing objects and pursuits.

v3.c37.34

According ¹⁷⁰⁶ to Nārada, the Bhāgavata-purāṇa XI. 27. 9 and Vṛddha-Hārīta (VI. 128-129) Hari is to be worshipped in water, in fire, in the heart, in the sun, on the altar, in brāhmaṇas and in images. Śātātapa¹⁷⁰⁷ says 'the gods of ordinary men are in water, those of the knowing are in heaven, of the ignorant and of those of small intelligence are in wood and clay (i. e. images) and of the *yogin* in his own self (or heart)'. God is worshipped in fire by throwing oblations, in water by throwing flowers, in the heart by contemplation and in the orb of the sun by *japa*.

v3.c37.35

¹⁷⁰⁶ साकारा विकृतिर्ज्ञेया तस्य सर्वं जगत्स्मृतम्। पूजाध्यानादिकं कार्यं साकारस्यैव शस्यते॥ विष्णुधर्मोत्तर III. 46. 3; नारदोपि। अप्स्वग्नौ हृदये सूर्ये स्थण्डिले प्रतिमासु च। षट्स्वेतेषु हरेः सम्यगर्चनं मुनिभिः स्मृतम्॥ quoted in पूजाप्रकाश p. 10 and स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक p. 384); ऋग्विधान III. 29. 2 has the same words. 'हृदये प्रतिमायां वा जले सवितृमण्डले। वह्नौ च स्थण्डिले वापि चिन्तयेद्विष्णुमव्ययम् ॥ वृद्धहारीत VI 128-129; अर्चायां स्थण्डिलेऽग्नौ वा सूर्ये वाप्सु हृदि द्विजे। द्रव्येण भक्तियुक्तोर्चैत् स्वगुरुं माममायया॥ भागवत XI. 27. 9; vide also वृद्धहारीत VIII. 91-92.

v3.c37.36

¹⁷⁰⁷ अप्सु देवा मनुष्याणां दिवि देवा मनीषिणाम्। काष्ठलोष्ठेषु मूर्खाणां युक्तस्यात्मनि देवता॥ शातातप in आह्निकप्रकाश p. 382; अग्नौ क्रियावतां देवो दिवि देवो मनीषिणाम्। प्रतिमास्वल्पबुद्धीनां योगिनां हृदये हरिः॥ quoted in पूजाप्रकाश p. 8 (this is नृसिंहपुराण 62. 5 and ऋग्विधान III. 29. 3); हविषाग्नौ जले पुष्पैर्ध्यानेर्वा हृदये हरिम्। अर्चन्ति सूरयो नित्यं जपेन रविमण्डले॥ स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक p. 384).

v3.c37.37

The materials out of which images are to be made are precious stones, gold, silver, copper, brass, iron, stone, wood or clay. One made of precious stones was the best and the most inferior was that made of clay. The Bhāgavata-purāṇa (XI. 27. 12) says that images are eight-fold viz. made of stone, wood, iron, sandal-wood or similar paste, drawn (as a picture), made of sand, of precious stones and lastly mental¹⁷⁰⁸. The Matsyapurāṇa (258. 20-21) adds 'lead and bronze' to the above eight of the Skanda. *Vide* also Vṛddha-Hārīta VIII. 120. Among stones the Śālagrāma stone (a black stone containing fossil ammonite found in the Gaṇḍakī river near a village called Śālagrāma) and the stone from Dvārakā marked with a cakra (discus) are highly prized in the worship of Viṣṇu. Vṛddha-Hārīta (VIII. 183-189) highly extols Śālagrāma-pūjā. It is stated by Vṛddha-Hārīta that only *dvijas* can worship Śālagrāma and not śūdras. According to several purāṇa passages quoted in the Pūjāprakāśa (pp. 20-21) even women and śūdras can perform the worship of Śālagrāma¹⁷⁰⁹, but they should not touch it. Similarly they are not to worship *liṅgas* established in the past by sages &c. This worship of Śālagrāma is comparatively ancient. Śaṁkarācārya in his commentary on the Vedāntasūtra speaks in several places of Śālagrāma¹⁷¹⁰ being worshipped as a symbol of Hari. Five kinds of stones were used in worship, viz. Bāṇa-liṅgas from Narmadā in Śiva worship, Śālagrāma in Viṣṇu worship, metallic stone in Durgā worship, crystal for sun-worship and red stone in Gaṇeśa worship. The Rājatarangiṇī (II. 131 and VII. 185) refers to the establishment of Bāṇaliṅgas¹⁷¹¹ of Śiva in Kashmir taken from the Narmadā. About the images to be worshipped in the house it is stated in the Matsyapurāṇa (258. 22) that they should be in size as big as a part of the thumb up to 12 aṅgulas and not more; but an image to be established in a temple should be up to sixteen aṅgulas and not more or its proper height should be arrived at as follows: divide the height of the door into eight parts; taking seven parts divide them into one-third and two-thirds; the pedestal of the image should be one-third and the image should be two-thirds of the seven parts (i. e. ⅔ of seven-eighths of the height of the door). Vide Matsyapurāṇa 258. 23-25.

v3.c37.38

¹⁷⁰⁸ रत्नजा हेमजा चैव राजती ताम्रजा तथा। रैतिकी वा तथा लौही शैलजा मृन्मजा तथा॥ अधमाधमा विज्ञेया मृण्मयी प्रतिमा च या। सर्वकामप्रदा चैव रत्नजा चोत्तमोत्तमा॥ स्कन्दपुराण quoted in पूजाप्रकाश p. 11; शैली दारुमयी लौही लेप्या लेख्या च सैकती। मनोमयी मणिमयी प्रतिमाष्टविधा स्मृता॥ भागवतपुराण XI. 27. 12, quoted in पूजाप्र. p. 116.

v3.c37.39

¹⁷⁰⁹ शालग्रामशिला यत्र यत्र द्वारवतीशिला । उभयोः संगमो यत्र तत्र मुक्तिर्न संशयः ॥ नारद quoted in स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक p. 384); vide also पूजाप्र. p. 11 and आचाररत्न p. 78a quoting स्कन्दपुराण. द्विजानामेव नान्येषां शालग्रामशिलार्चनम् । वृद्धहारीत VIII. 190.

v3.c37.40

¹⁷¹⁰ एवमणीयस्त्वादिशुणगणोपेत ईश्वरस्तत्र हृदयपुण्डरीके निधाय्यो द्रष्टव्य उपदिश्यते यथा शालग्रामे हरिः । शंकर on वेदान्तसूत्र I. 2. 7; vide also on I. 2. 14 and I. 3. 14. (where he says यथा शालग्रामे विष्णोः संनिहित इति तद्वत्). Vide शूद्रकमलाकर p. 35 ' नूतनलिङ्गार्था शालग्रामादौ तु स्पर्शरहिता पूजा शूद्राद्यैः कार्या' and p. 37 quotes a passage from the भविष्यपुराण which allows even म्लेच्छs to worship Devī and *Liṅgas* made of clay or sand (पार्थिवलिङ्ग).

v3.c37.41

¹⁷¹¹ स्थाने स्थाने जलान्तश्च बहुसंख्यैर्निवेशितैः । अनयन्नर्मदाभक्तिं शिवलिङ्गैस्तरङ्गिणीः ॥ राजतरङ्गिणी II. 131.

v3.c37.42

Among the gods popularly worshipped the principal ones are Viṣṇu under various names and in various *avatāras*, Śiva in his various forms, Durgā, Gaṇeśa and the Sun.¹⁷¹² The worship of these deities (called pañcāyatanapūjā) is said to have been popularised by the great Śaṁkarācārya. In modern times these five devatās are still worshipped, but they are differently arranged according as the worshipper places one or other of the five in the centre. The following diagram will show the five positions:

v3.c37.43

¹⁷¹² आदित्यमम्बिकां विष्णुं गणनाथं महेश्वरम् । पञ्चयज्ञपरो नित्यं गृहस्थः पञ्च पूजयेत् ॥ संग्रह quoted in स्मृतिमु. (आह्निक p. 384). Vide पूजाप्रकाश p. 239 where a verse is quoted which supports the diagram in the text 'शम्भौ मध्यगते हरीनहरभूदेव्यो हरौ शंकरभास्येनागसुता रवौ हरगणेशाजाम्बिकाः स्थापिताः । देव्यां विष्णुहरैकदन्तरवयौ लम्बोदरेऽजेश्वरमार्याः शंकरभागतोऽतिसुखदा व्यस्तास्तु ते हानिदाः ॥'. This verse is quoted in the आचाररत्न (p. 81a) as from the यमलप्रकाश of बोपदेव.

v3.c37.44

East

v3.c37.45

| | Viṣṇupañcā-yatana | Śivapañcā-yatana | Sūrya-pañcā-yatana | Devī-pañcā-yatana | Gaṇeśa-pañcāyatana |
| North | Śaṁka- 2 Gaṇeśa 3 Viṣṇu 1 Devī 5 Sūrya 4 | Viṣṇu 2 Sūrya 3 Śaṁkara 1 Devī 5 Gaṇeśa 4 | Śaṁka- 2 Gaṇeśa 3 Sūrya 1 Devī 5 Viṣṇu 4 | Viṣṇu 2 Śaṁka- 3 Devī 1 Sūrya 5 Gaṇeśa 4 | Viṣṇu 2 Śaṁka- 3 Gaṇeśa 1 Devī 5 Sūrya 4 |

v3.c37.46

West

v3.c37.47

In medieval and modern times Viṣṇu has been deemed to have descended to earth ten times to preserve the world and its culture. A brief account of the development of this theory will not be out of place here. The ten well-known *avatāras* are Matsya (fish), Kūrma (tortoise), Varāha (boar), Narasiṁha (man-lion), Vāmana (dwarf), Paraśurāma, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalkin. There are faint glimmerings of the theory of avatāras and of these forms even in the earliest Vedic Literature. In Ṛg. VIII. 17. 13¹⁷¹³ it is said that Indra was the grandson of the sage Śṛṅgavṛṣa. This may be interpreted as meaning that Indra was supposed to have descended on the earth in a human form. In Ṛg. IV. 26. 1 the sage Vāmadeva exclaims¹⁷¹⁴ 'I was Manu and I was also the Sun'. This is referred to in the Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 10 and is often relied upon in support of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. It may be capable of that interpretation, but if that is not accepted it will at least tend to support the proposition that the Vedic sage thought that the Sun could be born on the earth as a human being (i. e. there was an avatāra of the Sun). There is another sense in which this passage of the Ṛg and that of the Bṛ. Up. are understood in the Vedāntasūtra I. 1. 30 viz. that Vāmadeva had realized that his soul was non-different from the Supreme Soul, Brahma. The elements of the avatāra of Matsya are probably suggested by the story of Manu who was saved from a flood by a great horned fish to whose horn Manu tied the rope of his ship when the flood rose. Vide Śat. Bṛ. I. 8. 1. 1-6 (S. B. E. vol. 12, pp. 216-218).¹⁷¹⁵

v3.c37.48

¹⁷¹³ यस्ते शृङ्गवृषो नपात् प्रणपात्कुण्डपाय्यः। न्यस्मिन्दध्र आ मनः॥ ऋ. VIII. 17. 13. निरुक्त VIII. 5 explains 'नपात् इति अनन्तरायाः प्रजाया नामधेयम्।'. सायण takes नपात् to mean पुत्र here.

v3.c37.49

¹⁷¹⁴ अहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चाहं कक्षीवाँ ऋषिरस्मि विप्रः। ऋ. IV. 26. 1; ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेत् । अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति । तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणां तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेति । बृह. उप. I. 4.10; शास्त्रदृष्ट्या तूपदेशो वामदेववत् । वेदान्तसूत्र I. 1.30.

v3.c37.50

¹⁷¹⁵ स औघ उत्थिते नावमापेदे तं स मत्स्य उपन्यापुप्लुवे तस्य शृङ्गे नावः पाशं प्रतिमुमोच तेनैतमुत्तरं गिरिमतिदुद्राव । शतपथब्रा. I. 8. 1. 5. Vide an interesting and learned article by Prof. Macdonell in J. R. A. S. 1895 pp. 165-189 on the mythological basis of some of the incarnations.

v3.c37.51

The tortoise avatāra was probably suggested by the legend that Prajāpati having assumed the form of a tortoise created living beings and that as the words *kūrma* (tortoise) and *kaśyapa* mean the same object all creatures are said to be descended from (or to belong to) Kaśyapa (Śat. Br. VII. 5. 1. 5, S. B. E. vol. 41, p. 390).¹⁷¹⁶ The peculiar exploit of the Boar incarnation, viz. raising up the earth from the bottom of the ocean, is alluded to in the Śat. Br. XIV. 1. 2. 11 (S. B. E. vol. 44, p. 451) 'a boar called Emūṣa raised the earth up and he was her lord Prajāpati.'¹⁷¹⁷ In the Ṛg. Viṣṇu is said to have pierced Varāha (I. 61. 7) and that he being incited by Indra brings to the worshipper a hundred buffaloes, rice cooked in milk, and the boar (called) Emūṣa (VIII. 77. 10). The Tai. Ār. X. 1 refers to this myth. In the Kāṭhaka S. VIII. 2 Prajāpati is said to have become a boar and plunged in water. Vide also Tai. S. VII. 1. 5. 1 and Tai. Br. I. 1. 3. Some elements of the story of the destruction of Hiraṇyakaśipu by Viṣṇu in the man-lion form are supplied by the story of the slaughter of the demon Namuci by Indra at dawn with the foam of waters, since Indra had agreed with Namuci that 'he would not slay him by day or by night, with the dry or moist or with the palm or with the fist, or with staff or bow &c.' (Śat. Br. XII. 7. 3. 1-4, S. B. E. vol. 44, pp. 222-223). Śat. Br. XII. 7. 3. 4 quotes Ṛg. VIII. 14. 13 which narrates that Indra cut off the head of Namuci with the foam of waters.¹⁷¹⁸ In the ancient Tamil work Śilappadikāram (translated by Prof. V. R. Diksitar) there is a reference to the Narasiṁha *avatāra*. The special achievement of the dwarf incarnation, viz. the request of the dwarf for as much space as would be covered by his three steps, has its counter-part in the Ṛgveda, where the principal exploits of Viṣṇu are the taking of three steps and making the earth steady or fast.¹⁷¹⁹ Vide Śat. Br. I. 2. 5. 1 for the Dwarf incarnation. In the Chāndogya Up. III. 17. 6 it is stated that the sage Ghora Āṅgirasa imparted a certain instruction to Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī.¹⁷²⁰ This may have supplied some part of the legends about Kṛṣṇa in the Great Epic and the Purāṇas.

v3.c37.52

¹⁷¹⁶ स यत्कूर्मो नाम । एतद्वै रूपं कृत्वा प्रजापतिः प्रजा असृजत यदसृजताकरोत्त द्यदकरोत्स्मात्कूर्मः कश्यपो वै कूर्मस्तस्मादाहुः सर्वाः प्रजाः काश्यप्य इति । शतपथब्रा. VII. 5. 1. 5.

v3.c37.53

¹⁷¹⁷ इयती ह वा इयमग्रे पृथिव्यास प्रादेशमात्री तामेमूष इति वराह उज्जघान सोऽस्याः पतिः प्रजापतिः । शतपथ XIV. 1. 2. 11; उद्धृतासि वराहेण कृष्णेन शतबाहुना । भूमिर्धेनुर्धरणी लोकधारिणी । तै. आ. X. 1. वराह may in the Ṛg. mean 'a boar-like cloud demon' or 'a boar'. Vide निरुक्त V. 4.

v3.c37.54

¹⁷¹⁸ नमुचेरासुरस्य व्युष्टायां रात्रावनुदित आदित्ये न दिवा न नक्तमिति शिर उदवासयत् । तस्मादेतदृषिणाम्यनूक्तम् । अपां फेनेन ...... सृधः ॥ इति । शतपथब्रा. XII. 7. 3. 3-4 ; ऋ. VIII. 14. 13 is अपां फेनेन नमुचेः शिर इन्द्रोदवर्तयः । विश्वा यदजयः सृधः ॥.

v3.c37.55

¹⁷¹⁹ इदं विष्णुर्विचक्रमे त्रेधा निदधे पदम् । समूढळमस्य पांसुरे ॥ त्रीणि पदा विचक्रमे विष्णुपौंपा अदाभ्यः । ऋ. I. 22. 17-18 ; vide also Ṛg. I. 154. 1-4, I. 155. 4, VI. 49. 13 &c ; न ते विष्णो जायमानो न जातो देव महिम्नः परमन्तमाप । उदस्तम्भा नाकमृष्वं बृहन्तं दाधर्थ प्राचीं ककुभं पृथिव्याः ॥ ... ... व्यस्तम्भा रोदसी विष्णवेते दाधर्थ पृथिवीमभितो मयूखैः ॥ ऋ. VII. 99. 2-3.

v3.c37.56

¹⁷²⁰ तद्धैतद्घोर आङ्गिरसः कृष्णाय देवकीपुत्रायाेक्त्वोवाचापिपास एव स बभूव । छान्दोग्य उप. III. 17. 6. Vide 'Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivisim' by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar p. 11 on Kṛṣṇa.

v3.c37.57

We saw above that according to Patañjali Vāsudeva was not a mere kṣatriya but an incarnation of God. Patañjali quotes a quarter of a verse which speaks of Kaṁsa being killed by Vāsudeva and refers to painted shows wherein the party of Vāsudeva were dressed in black and of Kaṁsa in red (*vide* Mahābhāṣya, vol. II. p. 36 and p. 119). Patañjali also speaks of Ugrasena as a member of the Andhaka clan and Viṣvaksena as a Vṛṣṇi and of Baladeva also (Mahābhāṣya, vol. II. p. 257 on Pāṇini IV. 1. 114) and of Satyabhāmā (vol. I. p. 111) and Akrūra (vol. II. p. 295). So the main story of Kṛṣṇa and persons connected with his ministry on earth as gathered from the Mahābhārata, the Harivaṁśa &c. were known to Patañjali and to some extent also to Pāṇini. The Besnagara Inscription of Heliodorus (E. I. vol. X. Appendix p. 63 No. 669) shows that even Greeks became devotees of Viṣṇu. The Eran Stone Inscription (vide Gupta Inscriptions p. 158 No. 36) refers to the Boar Incarnation. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa II. 4. 18 declares that even Kirātas, Hūṇas, Andhras, Pulindas, Pukkasas, Ābhīras, Suhmas, Yavanas, Khasas and others and even sinners, when they throw themselves on the mercy of Viṣṇu as devotees, are purified. It may therefore be assumed that the theory of the avatāras of Viṣṇu (whether ten or less or more) had been prevalent some centuries before the Christian era.

v3.c37.58.1

In the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa it is frequently stated that God comes down to earth often for punishing the wicked, for the protection of the good and the establishment of *dharma*.¹⁷²¹ In the Śāntiparva (339. 103-104) the *avatāras* are stated to be ten and they are the same as now accepted except that Haṁsa is mentioned instead of Buddha and Kṛṣṇa is called Sātvata. Among the Purāṇas also several do not mention Buddha as an avatāra. The Mārkaṇḍeya (47. 7) speaks of Matsya, Kūrma and Varāha incarnations and in 4. 53-56 begins with Varāha and mentions Nṛsiṁha, Vāmana and Māthura (i. e. Kṛṣṇa). The Matsya (47. 39-45) speaks of 12 *avatāras*, some of which are different from the usual ones and verse 106 states that Bhṛgu cursed Viṣṇu to be born as a human being seven times, as he killed a woman, viz. his wife. The Matsya-purāṇa (chap. 285. 6-7) mentions the well-known ten avatāras including Buddha and this passage is quoted by Aparārka on p. 338. The Matsya-purāṇa 47. 247 speaks of Buddha as the 9th (avatāra). The Nṛsiṁha-purāṇa chap. 36, the Agni-purāṇa chap. 2 to 16 and the Vārāha-purāṇa 4. 2 enumerate the well-known ten avatāras. The Vṛddha-Hārīta smṛti¹⁷²² (X. 145-146) enumerates ten avatāras, includes Hayagrīva in them (in place of Buddha) and expressly says that Buddha should not be worshipped. In the Rāmāyaṇa (Ayodhyā- kāṇḍa 109. 34) Buddha is reviled as a thief and an atheist.¹⁷²³ This passage may be an interpolation.

v3.c37.58.2

In the Bhāgavatapurāṇa there are three different lists of avatāras at I. 3 (where 22 avatāras occur in which Buddha, Kalkin, Vyāsa, Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa are separately enumerated), II. 7 (where besides the well-known avatāras, Kapila, Dattātreya and others are mentioned), and at VI. 8 Buddha and Kalkin are both mentioned in verse 17.¹⁷²⁴ The Kṛtyaratnākara (pp. 159–160) quotes a passage from the Brahmapurāṇa about a *vrata* on the 7th of the bright half of Vaiśākha where it is stated that Viṣṇu as Buddha started the Śākyadharma and that on the 7th day of Vaiśākha when the moon is in conjunction with the Puṣya constellation, the image of Buddha should be bathed to the accompaniment of sayings of the Śākya and gifts of garments should be made to Śākya ascetics. The same work (pp. 247–248) quotes a passage of the Varāhapurāṇa on the observances of Buddha-dvādaśī, when a golden image of Buddha was to be worshipped and given to a brāhmaṇa. In memoir No. 26 of the Archæological Survey of India, it is stated (p. 5) that in an inscription from South India of about the 7th century A. D. occurs a verse in a mutilated form in which Buddha is enumerated among the ten avatāras (...narasiṁhotha Vāmanaḥ Rāmo Rāmaśca Kṛṣṇaśca Buddhaḥ Kalkī ca te daśa).¹⁷²⁵ From the above discussion it follows that Buddha became in popular view an avatāra of Viṣṇu for the Hindus from about the 7th century A. D.

v3.c37.58.3

Even about that time he was not universally so treated and orthodox writers like Kumārila (who flourished somewhere about 650 to 750 A. D.) did not admit that he was an avatāra. In his Tantravārtika (p. 195 on Jaimini I. 3. 4) Kumārilabhaṭṭa says that the Śākya texts were promulgated by Buddha and others that had strayed from the path of the three Vedas and that acted contrary to the Vedas and asks ¹⁷²⁶ the question "what assurance is there that one, who, himself being a kṣatriya, transgressed the dharma laid down for kṣatriyas and betook himself to the profession of a religious teacher and accepted gifts, would impart instruction in dharma that would not lead to confusion? It has been said 'one should leave at a distance a person who does acts contrary to the other world. How can one who deceives himself confer benefit on another'"? The Bṛhatsaṁhitā of Varāhamihira (60. 19) states the persons who are to hold the office of worshipper in the temples of several deities, viz. the Bhāgavatas for Viṣṇu, the Magas (Śākadvīpīya brāhmaṇas) in temples of the sun, *dvijas* smeared with ashes in Śiva temples, those who know the group of *mātṛs* in the temples of the Mother Goddesses, brāhmaṇas in the temples of Brahmā, Buddhists in the temples of Buddha who was good to all and whose mind was full of peace, naked ascetics in the temples of Jinas; whoever is a devotee of a particular god should worship that god according to the procedure prescribed in his own cult.¹⁷²⁷

v3.c37.59

¹⁷²¹ Vide Hopkins' 'Epic Mythology' 1915, pp. 209-219 and Indian Historical Quarterly, vol. XI. p. 121 ff. for detailed information on the *avatāras* of Viṣṇu; note the following: असतां निग्रहार्थाय धर्मसंरक्षणाय च। अवतीर्णो मनुष्याणामजायत यदुक्षये॥ वनपर्व 272. 71; बह्वीः संसरमाणो वै योनीर्धर्तापि सत्तम। धर्मसंरक्षणार्थाय धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय च॥ आश्वमेधिकपर्व 54.13; भगवद्गीता IV. 7-8, वनपर्व 272. 61-70, 276. 8. &c.; अयोध्याकाण्ड I. 7, उत्तरकाण्ड 8. 27; हंसः कूर्मश्च मत्स्यश्च प्रादुर्भावास्तु द्विजोत्तम। वराहो नारसिंहश्च वामनो राम एव च। रामो दाशरथिश्चैव सात्वतः कल्किरेव च। शान्तिपर्व 339. 103-104.

v3.c37.60

¹⁷²² मत्स्यं कूर्मं च वाराहं नारसिंहं च वामनम्। श्रीरामं बलभद्रं च कृष्णं कल्किनमप्यथम्॥ हयग्रीवं जगद्योनिं पूजयेद्वैष्णवोत्तमः। नार्चयेद्भागवं बुद्धं सर्वत्रापि च कर्मसु॥ वृद्धहारीत X. 145-146.

v3.c37.61

¹⁷²³ यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्धस्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि । अयोध्याकाण्ड 109. 34.

v3.c37.62

¹⁷²⁴ अवतारा ह्यसंख्येया हरेः सत्त्वनिधेर्द्विजाः । भागवत I. 3. 26; अष्टाविंशतिमे प्राप्ते विष्णूः कलियुगे सति । शाक्यान विनष्टधर्मांश्च बुद्धो भूत्वा प्रवर्तयत् ॥ ब्रह्मपुराण quoted in कृत्यरे. p. 159; ‘स्थापयेत्तत्र सौवर्णं बुद्धं कृत्वा विचक्षणः । तमप्येवं तु संपूज्य ब्राह्मणेभ्यो निवेदयेत् ॥ ...... शुद्धोदनस्य बुद्धोभूत् स्वयं पुत्रो जनार्दनः । ...... भुक्त्वा राज्यश्रियं सोथ गतिं परमिकां गतः ॥ वराहपुराण quoted in कृत्यरे. pp. 247–248.

v3.c37.63

¹⁷²⁵ मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नरसिंहोथ वामनः । रामो रामश्च कृष्णश्च बुद्धः कल्की च ते दश ॥ वराहपुराण IV. 2; the inscription in the memoir 26 (p. 5) contains the verse in this form. Vide ‘Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism’ pp. 41–42 for the incarnations of Viṣṇu.

v3.c37.64

¹⁷²⁶ शाक्यादिष्वचनानि कतिपयदमदानादिवचनवर्जं सर्वाण्येव समस्तचतुर्दशविद्यास्थानविरुद्धानि त्रयीमार्गव्युत्थितविरुद्धार्चनैर्बुद्धादिभिः प्रणीतानि । ... स्वधर्मातिक्रमेण च येन क्षत्रियेण सता प्रवक्तृत्वप्रतिग्रहौ प्रतिपन्नौ स धर्ममविप्लुतमुपदेक्ष्यतीति कः समाश्वासः। उक्तं च। परलोकविरुद्धानि कुर्वाणं दूरतस्त्यजेत् । आत्मानं योतिसंधत्ते सोऽन्यस्मै स्यात्कथं हितः। इति। तन्त्रवार्तिक p. 195. The verse परलोक &c. is शान्तिपर्व 143. 13, the first half being somewhat different (though the sense is the same). A ब्राह्मण alone was entitled to accept gifts and propound dharma. Vide Manu X. 1.

v3.c37.65

¹⁷²⁷ विष्णोर्भागवतान्मगांश्च सवितुः शम्भोः सभस्मद्विजान् मातृणामपि मातृमण्डलविदो विप्रान् विदुर्ब्रह्मणः। शाक्यान्सर्वहितस्य शान्तमनसो नग्नाञ्जिनानां विदुर्ये यं देवमुपाश्रिताः स्वविधिना तैस्तस्य कार्या क्रिया॥ बृहत्संहिता 60.19. Vide Wilson's *Viṣṇupurāṇa* vol. V. p. 382 where an analysis of the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa (last 12 chapters) is given. Sāmba being cursed built a temple of Śiva and brought 18 families of Magas from Śakadvīpa, with whom the Bhojas (a sub-division of Yādavas) entered into matrimonial alliances, whence the Magas came to be called Bhojakas. In the Harṣacarita IV Bāṇa speaks of a Bhojaka astrologer called Tāraka who predicts on Harṣa's birth his greatness and the commentator states that 'Bhojaka' means 'Maga'. Vide Sherring's 'Hindu Tribes and Castes' vol. I. pp. 102–103 where he describes the Śākadvīpī brāhmaṇas as Māgadha brāhmaṇas and not as Magas. For Sun-worship and the Magas, vide 'Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism' pp. 151–155. Vide Weber's essay on the Magavyakti of Kṛṣṇadāsa for the Magabrāhmaṇas and E. I. vol. II. p. 330 ff, the Govindapura stone inscription of the poet Gaṅgādhara, who was a Maga, in śaka 1059 (1137–38 A. D.), where it is said that the Magas were sprung from the (*Continued from last page*) sun's own body, were brought from Śakadvīpa by Sāmba, the son of Kṛṣṇa, and that the first Maga was a Bhāradvāja. Vide also E. I. vol. IX. p. 279 the Ghaṭiyāla Inscriptions (near Jodhpur) of Pratīhāra Kakkaka written by Matṛravi, a Maga, in *saṁvat* 918 (861-62 A. D.) and Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, chap. 139-40 for further details, such as growing beards, being called Bhojakas &c. Bhīṣmaparva chap. 11 describes Sākadvīpa and verse 36 speaks of the country of Maṅgas (Magas?).

v3.c37.66

Kṣemendra (about 1066 A. D.) in his Daśāvatāra-carita and the Gītagovinda of Jayadeva (about 1180-1200 A. D.) speak of Buddha as an avatāra of Viṣṇu. Therefore at least before or about the 10th century A. D. Buddha had come to be looked upon as an avatāra of Viṣṇu throughout India.¹⁷²⁸ The total disappearance of Buddhism from India, the land of its birth, is a most striking phenomenon, which as stated by A. Schweitzer in 'Indian thought and its development' (tr. by Mrs. C. E. B. Russell, 1935) p. 137, cannot be satisfactorily explained. Though Buddha did not accept the authority of the Vedas and of brāhmaṇas, nor the existence of an individual soul nor the Supreme Soul, he believed in *karma* and *punarjanma* and in release from *saṁsāra* by renunciation and desirelessness. When his followers deified Buddha, when animal sacrifices had been almost stopped and his insistence on universal charity and kindliness and on self-restraint were universally accepted by the followers of the Vedic religion, Buddha came to be deemed an avatāra of Viṣṇu, as the *raison d'être* for a separate cult ceased and the decadence of morals among monks and nuns hastened the downfall of Buddhism, the finishing touches being added by the Moslem invasions from about 1200 A. D. No one can affirm that persecution had anything to do with the disappearance of Buddhism from India. Though it cannot be said that there was no religious persecution whatever at any time in India, the evidence for persecution is very limited and such persecution if any as may have existed was as nothing compared to the persecution of Christians by other Christians and of Jews in all centuries and particularly in the 20th century by several so-called Christian powers. The few well-authenticated cases of large-scale persecutions are those of Śaśāṅka who persecuted the Buddhists (vide Beal's 'Records of the eastern world,' vol. I p. 212, vol. II. p. 42, 91, 118, 121), of Mihirakula, of a Pāṇḍya king (in the 11th century ) who persecuted the Jainas. From Aśoka downwards, kings and the civil power always extended a generous tolerance to all sects ( vide Aśoka's Rock Edict No. 12 ). The father of the great emperor Harṣa was a worshipper of the Sun, while Harṣa's elder brother Rājyavardhana was a Buddhist and Harṣa, though himself a Śaiva, speaks of his brother with greater reverence than of his own father ( vide the Madhuban copperplate inscription in E. I. vol. VII p. 155 and I p. 67 ). Vide Barth's ' Religions of India ' pp. 133-134, Farquhar's ' Outlines of the Religious Literature of India ' pp. 169, 175 for general religious tolerance in ancient India.

First 86 of 3,964 passages. Read on

Linked texts (112)