GRUNDRISS DER INDO-ARISCHEN PHILOLOGIE UND ALTERTUMSKUNDE (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INDO-ARYAN RESEARCH) BEGRÜNDET VON G. BÜHLER, FORTGESETZT VON F. KIELHORN, HERAUSGEGEBEN VON H. LÜDERS UND J. WACKERNAGEL. III. BAND, 6. HEFT.

v1.c3.8

BY R. G. BHANDARKAR.

Part. I. Vaiṣṇavism

I. Introductory

v1.c4.s1.1

§ 1. The old Vedic gods became indissolubly involved in the elaborate and mechanical system of worship that had grown up. Speculations as regards the appropriateness of the rules and modes of worship and their efficacy as regards man's good in this world and the next became prevalent. But all this did not satisfy the religious spirit of the people. Religious speculation of a more natural order came to be established about the close of the Hymn-period and was continued into that of the Upaniṣads. The various problems about God, man and the world engaged the attention of many thinkers and a variety of solutions was arrived at. It is generally believed that the Upaniṣads teach a system of Pantheism; but a close examination will show that they teach not one, but various systems of doctrines as regards the nature of God, man and the world and the relations between them. The religio-philosophic systems of modern times, which are mutually inconsistent, quote texts from the Upaniṣads as an authority for their special doctrines. These references to the old books are correct in the most prominent cases, but when the advocates of the systems force into other texts of an opposite nature a meaning consistent with their own special doctrines, they are manifestly wrong. That the Upaniṣads teach not one but various systems must follow from the fact that they are compilations just as the Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā is. The speculations of the old seers were clothed by them in words, and these were handed down orally and came to form a large floating mass. When the idea of collecting these speculations arose, they were incorporated into books for the use of individual Vedic schools. Hence it is that we find certain verses, passages and whole sections occurring in one Upaniṣad reproduced in another¹).

v1.c4.s1.2

¹ See the passage about the superiority of Prāṇa and other bodily elements which occurs in ChU. (V, 1, 1) and in BU. (VI, 1, 1); that about the Pañcāgnividyā occurring in the former (V, 4,1) and the latter (VI, 2, 9); and that about proud Bālāki and Ajātaśatru which occurs in the KBU. (IV) and in BU. (II, 1), and others (TU. II, 8 and BU. IV, 3, 33). As to the recurrence of verses see MU., ŚU. and KU.

v1.c4.s1.3

No doubt, the idea of the immanence of God in the world is very prominent in the Upaniṣads. But if that is what constitutes Pantheism, the liberal religious thought of the present day in Europe also must be regarded as Pantheistic. With the immanence of God is associated his transcendence also, as stated in the Vedānta-Sūtra II, 1, 27¹). In addition to these two doctrines the Upaniṣads teach that God is the protector of all beings, is the lord of all and dwells in the heart of man, that seeing him as he is and everywhere is eternal bliss, that this is to be attained by contemplation and the purification of the soul, and that in the blissful condition the individual soul attains to a perfect similarity with the supreme soul²). They also teach the absorption of the individual soul into the supreme as of a river into the ocean and the unconsciousness of the soul when everything but himself fades away from his knowledge. In this respect the doctrine may be regarded as Pantheistic or as setting forth the illusory character of all phenomena. Speculation in the Upaniṣad times was very free and it veered round even to the denial of the soul as a substance³).

v1.c4.s1.4

¹ See the passage quoted by Śaṃkarācārya in his commentary on the Sūtra.

v1.c4.s1.5

² Paramam sāmyam upaiti. See MU. III, 1, 3. The opinion expressed by some eminent scholars that the burden of the Upaniṣad teaching is the illusive character of the world and the reality of one soul only, is manifestly wrong, and I may even say, is indicative of an uncritical judgment. As stated in the text, the Upaniṣads from the very nature of the compilations cannot but be expected to teach not one, but many systems of doctrine.

v1.c4.s1.6

³ See the passage from BU. III, 2, 13, quoted in my paper "A Peep into the Early History of India", Journ. Bombay Br. Roy. As. Soc. Vol. XX, p. 361.

v1.c4.s1.7

In the subsequent development of religious thought and worship these Upaniṣad doctrines played an active part. The Henotheism, so fully explained by Max Müller, and its ultimate result, the identification of the various gods, also influenced later thinkers. The conception that the supreme spirit manifests himself in various forms which we find expressed in the Upaniṣads is a development, in the opposite direction, of the idea that one God, for instance Agni, is the same as Varuṇa, Mitra, Indra and Aryaman⁴). If these several gods are one, one god may become several. This led to the conception of Incarnations or Avatāras, which plays such a prominent part in the later religious systems.

v1.c4.s1.8

⁴ RV. V, 3, 1—2.

v1.c4.s1.9

But for ordinary people an adorable object with a more distinct personality than that which the theistic portions of the Upaniṣads attributed to God was necessary and the philosophic speculations did not answer practical needs. Thus some of the old Vedic gods and others, which were new, became the objects of worship.

II. The Rise of a New Theistic System

v1.c4.s2.1

§ 2. The tide of free speculations culminated in the east into such systems as those of Buddhism and Jainism and, though they denied the existence of God as a creator or did not use the idea for the promotion of righteousness, and the former practically denied the existence of the human soul as a substance, still these systems had the needful personal element in the shape of their founders. In the west, however, a theistic system with a god who had come to dwell among men arose. The various religious systems and superstitions that prevailed in the fourth century B. C. are given in the following passage, occurring in the Niddesa, which though of the nature of a commentary is regarded as one of the books of the Pāli Buddhistic Canon¹: "The deity of the lay followers of the Ājīvakas is the Ājīvakas, of those of the Nighaṇṭhas is the Nighaṇṭhas, of those of the Jaṭilas (ascetics wearing long matted hair) is the Jaṭilas, of those of the Paribbājakas is the Paribbājakas, of those of the Avaruddhakas is the Avaruddhakas, and the deity of those who are devoted to an elephant, a horse, a cow, a dog, a crow, Vāsudeva, Baladeva, Puṇṇabhadda, Maṇibhadda, Aggi, Nāgas, Supaṇṇas, Yakkhas, Asuras, Gandhabbas, Mahārājas, Canda, Suriya, Inda, Brahmā, Deva, Disā is the elephant, the horse, the cow, the dog, the crow, Vāsudeva, Baladeva, Puṇṇabhadda, Maṇibhadda, etc., respectively." Here a Buddhist who cannot but be expected to show scant courtesy to religious systems other than his own, places the worshippers of Vāsudeva and Baladeva on the same level with those of fire, moon, sun and Brahmā, and even elephants, crows, dogs, etc. But the worship of Vāsudeva was destined to become the predominant religion of a large part of India even to the supersession of that of fire, sun, moon and Brahmā and, of course, of the superstitious adoration of the lower animals. And it will be now our duty to trace its rise and progress.

v1.c4.s2.2

¹ This passage has been furnished to me by Mr. Dharmanand Kosambi.

v1.c4.s2.3

§ 3. In his comment on Pāṇini IV, 3, 98, Patañjali distinctly states that the Vāsudeva contained in the Sūtra is the name of the "worshipful", i. e. of one who is pre-eminently worshipful, i. e. God²). The worship of Vāsudeva must be regarded to be as old as Pāṇini.

v1.c4.s2.4

² See JRAS. 1910, p. 168. [^3): Lüders, List of Brāhmī Inscriptions, No. 6. [^4): Ibid. No. 669.

v1.c4.s2.5

In an inscription found at Ghosuṇḍi in Rājputāna[^3) which unfortunately is in a mutilated condition, the construction of a wall round the hall of worship of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva is mentioned. From the form of the characters in the inscription it appears to have been engraved at least two hundred years B. C.

v1.c4.s2.6

In another inscription recently discovered at Besnagar[^4), Heliodora represents himself to have erected a Garuḍadhvaja or a column with the image of Garuḍa at the top in honour of Vāsudeva, the god of gods. Heliodora calls himself a Bhāgavata, was the son of Diya, was a native of Takṣaśilā and is spoken of as an ambassador of the Yavana and as such came on a political mission from Aṃtalikita to Bhāgabhadra who must have ruled over Eastern Mālwa. In this inscription occurs the name Aṃtalikita which in all likelihood is the same as Antialkidas of the Bactro-Greek coins. This name as well as the form of the characters show that it belongs to the earlier part of the second century before the Christian era. At that time Vāsudeva was worshipped as the god of gods and his worshippers were called Bhāgavatas. The Bhāgavata religion prevailed in the northwestern part of India and was adopted even by the Greeks.

v1.c4.s2.7

In the inscription No. I in the large cave at Nānāghāṭ¹), the names of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva, in a Dvandva compound, occur along with those of other deities in the opening invocation. This inscription appears from the form of the characters to belong to the first century before the Christian era.

v1.c4.s2.8

¹ Ibid. No. 1112.

v1.c4.s2.9

In the passage in the Mahābhāṣya in which Patañjali, to account for the appearance of the name Vāsudeva in P. IV, 3, 98, says that this is not the name of a Kṣatriya, but that of the Worshipful One, the question to be considered is whether Patañjali means this Vāsudeva to be quite unconnected with the Vāsudeva of the Vṛṣṇi race. From the occurrence of the names Vāsudeva and Baladeva close to each other in the passage from the Niddesa referred to above, and that of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva as worshipful or divine persons in a Dvandva compound in two of the three above inscriptions, it appears that the Vāsudeva referred to by Patañjali as the Worshipful One must be the Vāsudeva of the Vṛṣṇi race. But to account for the appearance of the name in the Sūtra, though the required form can be made up in accordance with the next Sūtra (P. IV, 3, 99), Patañjali says that Pāṇini looks at Vāsudeva in his capacity as a divine person and not as a Kṣatriya. One must take it in this sense, since the Ghosuṇḍi inscription noticed above, in which Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva are associated as worshipful persons, must be older than Patañjali himself. Besides, Patañjali begins the discussion of the Sūtra by first taking Vāsudeva as the name of a Kṣatriya and raising an objection against it. This objection is answered in one way, Vāsudeva being still regarded as a Kṣatriya, and it is only optionally that he gives another explanation, that that name is not the name of a Kṣatriya, but of a divine person. This optional explanation given in the last resort must, therefore, be understood in the sense given above. And from all the accounts of the Bhāgavata school contained in the whole literature it is clear that the worshipful Vāsudeva belonged to the Vṛṣṇi race.

III. Analysis of the Nārāyaṇīya Section of the Mahābhārata

v1.c4.s3.1

§ 4. Having thus established on irrefragable evidence the existence during the three or four centuries before Christ of a religion with Vāsudeva as its central figure and of a school of his followers known by the name of Bhāgavata, I will now proceed to examine the detailed accounts contained in the literature and especially in the Mahābhārata. This was not done before, because the date of the Mahābhārata or any portion of it cannot be ascertained with any approach to certainty. The Nārāyaṇīya section of the Śāntiparvan, to which we shall devote a detailed consideration, is, however, older than Śaṃkarācārya who quotes from it.

v1.c4.s3.2

Nārada is represented to have gone to the Badarikāśrama to see Nara and Nārāyaṇa. The latter was engaged in the performance of religious rites. Nārada asked Nārāyaṇa whom he worshipped, while he himself was the Supreme Lord. Nārāyaṇa told him that he worshipped his original Prakṛti (form), the source of all that is and that is to be. Nara and Nārāyaṇa as well as Kṛṣṇa and Hari, sons of Dharma, are represented as the four forms of the Supreme.

v1.c4.s3.3.1

Nārada flies into the sky to see that original Prakṛti and alights on a peak of Meru. There he saw white men without senses, not eating anything, sinless, with heads like umbrellas, making a sound like that of thundering clouds and devoted to Bhagavat. Then Yudhiṣṭhira asks Bhīṣma who those people were, and how they came to be what they were. Bhīṣma tells the story of the king Vasu Uparicara, who worshipped God according to the Sātvata Vidhi (form of ritual). He was a glorious king honoured by Indra, devoted to truth and holy. The best of the learned in the Pāñcarātra system were honoured with the first seat at dinner by him. The narrator then proceeds to mention the Citraśikhaṇḍins, who appear to be the original promulgators of this religion. The mountain Meru was the place where they revealed it. They were seven, consisting of Marīci, Atri, Aṅgiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasiṣṭha. The eighth was Svāyambhuva. From these eight emanated this excellent Śāstra. This they promulgated in the presence of the great Bhagavat, who said to the Ṛṣis: “You have composed a hundred thousand excellent Ślokas (stanzas), which contain rules for all the affairs of men and are in harmony with Yajus, Sāman, Ṛc, and Atharvāṅgiras, and lay down precepts about the religion of action as well as that of contemplation or repose. I created Brahman from my peaceful and Rudra from my wrathful nature. This Śāstra will be handed down from person to person until it reaches Bṛhaspati.

v1.c4.s3.3.2

From Bṛhaspati the king Vasu will obtain it. The king will follow this Śāstra and will become my devotee. After his death this Śāstra will be lost.” Telling all this the great god disappeared. Then the Citraśikhaṇḍins spread the religion until it reached Bṛhaspati. Then the old Kalpa having ended and the son of Aṅgiras, the priest of the gods, being born, the gods were happy. The king Vasu Uparicara was his first pupil. He learned this Śāstra from Bṛhaspati. At one time he brought forward an extensive horse-sacrifice, but no animal was killed on the occasion. The oblations were devised in accordance with the words of the Āraṇyakas. The god of gods showed himself to Vasu and accepted his oblation, but was unseen by anybody else. Since the oblation was taken away by Hari without showing himself to Bṛhaspati, the latter got angry and dashed upwards the sacrificial ladle. At that sacrifice, Ekata, Dvita, and Trita, sons of Prajāpati, and sixteen Ṛṣis, many of whom are now known as the authors of literary works, such as Medhātithi, Tittiri, and Tāṇḍya, are represented to have been present. When Bṛhaspati was angry, they all said that the great Hari was not to be seen by any man at random, but by one who was favoured by his grace.

v1.c4.s3.3.3

Ekata, Dvita and Trita said: “On one occasion we went to the north for the attainment of eternal bliss near the milky ocean and practised austerities for four thousand years and at the end a voice in the air declared: ‘Well, how can you see that great Lord? In the milky ocean there is a white island where there are men possessing the lustre of the moon, who are the devotees of the god, possess no senses, do not eat anything and being devoted solely to the god (Ekāntin or monotheistic) are absorbed in him, who is bright like the Sun. Go to that island; there shines my soul’. Accordingly we went to the white island, and, dazzled by the light of that being, were not able to see him. Then the truth flashed upon us that the god cannot be seen by us unless we have gone through austerities. After further austerities for a hundred years we saw the men of the lustre of the moon with their minds fully absorbed in the contemplation of God. The refulgence of each man was like that of the sun on the last day. Then we heard a sound: ‘*Jitaṃ* te Puṇḍarīkākṣa’ etc. (Triumphant art thou, Lotus-eyed one). A short time after a voice in the air declared: ‘Go you away as you came. That great being is not to be seen by one who is not devoted to him’. Then we returned without being able to see him. How then will you be able to see him?” Having heard this from Ekata, Dvita and Trita, Bṛhaspati finished the sacrifice.

v1.c4.s3.4

Vasu Uparicara had to live in a hole in the earth on account of the curse of the Ṛṣis, who in a controversy with the gods maintained that no animal should be sacrificed, but only vegetable grain, while the gods contended that a goat should be sacrificed. The question was referred to Vasu who declared in favour of the gods. Vasu was raised from the hole by Nārāyaṇa, whom he had devotedly worshipped, by sending his Garuḍa to lift him up. He was thence taken to the Brahma world.

v1.c4.s3.5

The story of Nārada’s visit to Śvetadvīpa is then continued. He praises the great being by uttering names expressive of his purity and grandeur, and the great being then manifested himself to him, saying that he was not to be seen by one who was not solely devoted to him (Ekāntin) and that, as Nārada was such a one, he showed himself to him. He then proceeds to explain to him the religion of Vāsudeva. Vāsudeva is the supreme soul, the internal soul of all souls. He is the supreme creator. All living beings are represented by Saṃkarṣaṇa, who is a form of Vāsudeva. From Saṃkarṣaṇa sprang Pradyumna, the mind, and from Pradyumna Aniruddha, self-consciousness. “Those who are devoted to me enter into me and are released.” The great being calls the four mentioned above his forms (Mūrtis). The production of one form from another is also mentioned; all these forms are, however, styled his forms (Mūrtis). He then proceeds to mention the creation of gods and all other things by himself and their final dissolution into himself. Then are mentioned his incarnations (Avatāras), viz. Varāha, Narasiṃha, the oppressor of Bali, Rāma of the Bhṛgu race and destroyer of the Kṣatriyas, Rāma Dāśarathi, and “he, who will come into existence for the destruction of Kaṃsa at Mathurā and after having killed many demons will finally settle at Dvārakā”. In this manner having done all things by his four Mūrtis, he destroyed Dvārakā with the Sātvatas and went to Brahmaloka. After Nārada had heard this from the supreme Nārāyaṇa, he returned to Badarikāśrama.

v1.c4.s3.6

What follows at the end of chapter 339 and in the next four chapters has little bearing on our subject, except that in one of them the etymological sense of Vāsudeva is given as one who covers the whole world and is the resting-place (adhivāsa) of all beings.

v1.c4.s3.7

In chapter 344 the path of those who are free from sin is given thus: — The sun is the gate, and after entrance all their material impurities being burnt, they remain as atoms in him; then released from him, they enter into the Aniruddha form and, becoming mind, enter into the Pradyumna form. Leaving that form, they enter into that of Saṃkarṣaṇa, i. e. the form of the individual soul (Jīva). Afterwards being free from the three Guṇas, they enter into the Supreme Soul, who exists everywhere and who is Vāsudeva. In chapter 346 Vaiśaṃpāyana relates to Janamejaya that the Dharma which Nārada got from ‘the Lord of the world’ Nārāyaṇa himself in all its details and peculiarities, was explained briefly to him (Janamejaya) in the Harigītā. In chapter 348 this Ekāntika Dharma is represented to be the same as that which was communicated to Arjuna at the beginning of the war. At the creation of each Brahmā this Dharma was revealed by Nārāyaṇa, and then at the end of the Brahmā it was lost. In the account of the fourth Brahmā the Dharma revealed is twice called Sātvata. In this manner it goes on up to the present or the seventh Brahmā, in which that Dharma was first communicated to Pitāmaha, and from him it passed in succession to Dakṣa, his grandson, the eldest Āditya, Vivasvat, Manu and Ikṣvāku. Later on it is stated that this original great eternal Dharma, difficult to be known and to be followed, is professed by the Sātvatas.

v1.c4.s3.8

This Dharma is associated with the non-slaughter of animals (Ahiṃsā), and when properly exercised, the lord Hari is pleased with it. Sometimes one Vyūha or form of the Lord is taught and sometimes two, three or four. Vaiśaṃpāyana winds up by saying that he has thus explained the Ekāntadharma.

v1.c4.s3.9

§ 5. Here we have two accounts, the second of which is interwoven with the first. The former, however, appears to relate to a more ancient condition of things. The points to be noticed are these: 1. At the sacrifice instituted by Vasu Uparicara no animals were killed. 2. The oblations were devised in accordance with the teachings of the Āraṇyakas which include the Upaniṣads. 3. The chief deity was the God of gods, who is also called Hari. 4. This Hari or God of gods is not to be seen by one who follows the sacrificial mode of worship, such as Bṛhaspati did, nor by persons who practise austerities for thousands of years, as Ekata, Dvita and Trita did, but by one who worships Him with devotion, as Vasu Uparicara did. Here then is an attempt to introduce a religious reform on more conservative principles than Buddhism and Jainism did. The repudiation of the slaughter of animals and the inefficacy of sacrificial worship and austerities are common to this religious reform with Buddhism. But that the supreme lord Hari is to be worshipped with devotion and the words of the Āraṇyakas are not to be rejected, are doctrines which are peculiar to it. Vasu Uparicara's story goes so far only.

v1.c4.s3.10

In the main account, according to which Nārada visited the white island, we have a reassertion of the doctrine that the Supreme Soul can be seen by one who worships him with devotion. The great Nārāyaṇa manifests himself to him and explains the religion of Vāsudeva and his three other forms (Vyūhas). He also mentions the future incarnations of Vāsudeva, and one of these is that assumed at Mathurā for the destruction of Kaṁsa. The Supreme Nārāyaṇa identifies himself with Vāsudeva in his four forms (Vyūhas). At the end it is stated that the religion is followed by the Sātvatas.

v1.c4.s3.11

These two accounts seem to represent two stages in the progress of reform. In the earlier one the worship of Vāsudeva and his three other forms is not known. The Supreme God is named Hari, and his worship has not thoroughly emancipated itself from the religion of sacrifices. The reform had no reference to specific historical personages and was promulgated by certain sages who are called Citraśikhaṇḍins and whose names had been handed down by tradition. The later account connects the reform with Vāsudeva and his brother, son and grandson, and the new religion is represented to have been identical with that taught in the Bhagavadgītā. This reformed system is said to have been promulgated by Nārāyaṇa himself. It thus appears that the idea of a religion of devotion arose in earlier times, but it received a definite shape when Vāsudeva revealed the Gītā to Arjuna, and led to the formation of an independent sect when his brother, son and grandson were associated with him as his forms presiding over certain psychological categories or as persons created by him for the purpose. That sect became conterminous with the race of the Sātvatas. We have now to consider who these Sātvatas were.

v1.c4.s3.12

§ 6. In the Ādiparvan Vāsudeva addressing the Vṛṣṇis says that Pārtha does not think them who are Sātvatas to be covetous. Vāsudeva is called Sātvata in Ādip. 218, 12; Kṛtavarman in Ādip. 221, 31; Sātyaki in Droṇap. 97, 36; and Janārdana in Udyogap. 70, 7. At the end of chap. 66 of the Bhīṣmaparvan Bhīṣma says: "This eternal god, mysterious, beneficent and loving should be known as Vāsudeva, and Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras worship him by their devoted actions. At the end of the Dvāpara and the beginning of the Kali age, he was sung or expounded by Saṁkarṣaṇa according to the Sātvata rites (Vidhi). At the end of chap. 12 of the third book of the Viṣṇu-Purāṇa it is stated in the account of the genealogy of the Yādavas and the Vṛṣṇis that Satvata was the son of Aṁśa, and all his descendants were after him called Sātvatas. The Bhāgavata represents the Sātvatas as calling the highest Brahman Bhagavat and Vāsudeva (IX, 9, 49) and having a peculiar mode of worshipping him. It mentions the Sātvatas along with the Andhakas and Vṛṣṇis, which were Yādava tribes (I, 14, 25; III, 1, 29), and calls Vāsudeva Sātvatarṣabha (X, 58, 42; XI, 27, 5). In Patañjali under P. IV, 1, 114 Vāsudeva and Bāladeva are given as derivatives from Vṛṣṇi names

IV. The Sātvatas and their Religion

v1.c4.s4.1

in the sense of sons of Vāsudeva and Baladeva. Instances given by the Kāśikā of the same are Vāsudeva and Aniruddha. Here Aniruddha means the son of Aniruddha, and therefore Vāsudeva must mean the son of Vāsudeva and not of Vasudeva, as will appear from what follows. In the latter work under P. VI, 2, 34 Sini-Vāsudevāḥ is given as a Dvandva of royal Vṛṣṇi names, each of them being in the plural, and Saṃkarṣaṇa-Vāsudevau as a Dvandva of royal Vṛṣṇi names, each being in the singular, so that Vāsudeva means both the individual of that name and his sons.

v1.c4.s4.2

From all this and such other passages from Patañjali it will appear that Sātvata was another name of the Vṛṣṇi race of which Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, and Aniruddha were members, and that the Sātvatas had a religion of their own according to which Vāsudeva was worshipped as the Supreme Being, and thus the account given above from the Nārāyaṇīya is amply confirmed.

v1.c4.s4.3

§ 7. It therefore appears that this religion of devotion to Vāsudeva ascends as high into antiquity as Pāṇini himself. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Kṣatriyas engaged themselves in active speculations on religious matters about the time of the Upaniṣads¹ and are mentioned even as the original possessors of the new kowledge. Siddhārtha and Mahāvīra founded in this period of intellectual fermentation new systems of religion in the east or the Magadha country which discarded or passed over in silence the doctrine of the existence even of God and laid down self-abnegation and a course of strict moral conduct as the way to salvation. They belonged to the Śākya and Jñātṛka races of Kṣatriyas, and Buddhism and Jainism might be considered to be the religions of those tribes. The west, however, was not so radical in its speculations, and the race of Sātvatas developed a system of religion which took up the ideas of a Supreme God and devotion to him as the mode of salvation. These Sātvatas and the worship of Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa seem clearly to be alluded to by Megasthenes, who was the Macedonian ambassador at the court of Candragupta, the Maurya. Candragupta reigned in the last quarter of the fourth century B. C. The statement of Megasthenes is that Herakles was specially worshipped by the Sourasenoi, an Indian nation, in whose land are two great cities, Methora and Kleisobora, and through it flows the navigable river Jobares. The Sourasenoi were the Śūrasenas, a tribe of Kṣatriyas, who lived in the region in which was situated Mathurā, corresponding to Methora in the above passage, and in which flowed the river Jobares, which has been identified with the Jumna or Yamunā. If the Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa worship prevailed in the time of the first Maurya, it must have originated long before the establishment of the Maurya dynasty, and my assertion that it owes its origin to the stream of thought which began with the Upaniṣads and culminated in the east in Buddhism and Jainism, and arose about the time of the latter, is confirmed.

v1.c4.s4.4

¹ Verhandlungen des VII. Internat. Orientalisten-Congresses zu Wien. Ar. Sect., pp. 108-9.

v1.c4.s4.5

The name expressive of the Supreme Spirit was, however, in the early period Vāsudeva alone. In the passage from the Niddesa and the three inscriptions Vāsudeva is the name that occurs.

v1.c4.s4.6

In the Bhagavadgītā (VII, 19) it is stated that “He who possesses knowledge gives himself up to me, believing Vāsudeva to be all.” Even in the Bhāgavata Mantra of twelve syllables which is usually repeated at the present day and which is mentioned by Hemādri, it is to Vāsudeva that obeisance is made¹). In Bhīṣmap. chap. 65 Brahmadeva, addressing the Supreme Spirit (Puruṣa Parameśvara), entreats him to become the increaser of the Yadu race and then, referring apparently to a foregone age, he says: “O Vāsudeva, this great secret I have communicated to thee through thy favour as it really is. Having created thyself as the God Saṃkarṣaṇa, thou didst procreate thy son Pradyumna. He created Aniruddha who is Viṣṇu himself, and he created me (Brahmadeva) who am made up of Vāsudeva and created by thee. Dividing thyself in this way, be born as a human being again.” In the beginning of chapter 66 of the same Parvan Prajāpati speaks of himself as having asked the supreme lord of all to dwell in the world of men as Vāsudeva (to become incarnate). This Supreme Spirit should, it is said, be known as Vāsudeva, and throughout the chapter that name alone is used in speaking of the eternal God. The substance of these two chapters seems to be that in a former age the Supreme Spirit Vāsudeva created Saṃkarṣaṇa and the rest up to the Brahmā himself, and on the present occasion the latter asked him again to be born in the Yadu race as Vāsudeva, dividing himself into four parts as on the previous occasion. Thus Vāsudeva was the name of the teacher of the religion of devotion, and there appears to be an implication here that he existed with the other three in a previous age. Even as a member of the Vṛṣṇi race the name Vāsudeva occurs in the examples quoted above from the Mahābhāṣya and Kāśikā and no other. In the passages quoted by me in my article on “Allusions to Kṛṣṇa etc.” (Ind. Ant. Vol. III, pp. 14 ff.) the name Kṛṣṇa occurs three times, Vāsudeva in three passages and Janārdana in one. But in Kielhorn’s edition of the Mahābhāṣya, which is more accurate than the Benares edition which I then used, the reading Kṛṣṇa in two of the three places is supported by one manuscript only and Vāsudeva occurs instead of Kṛṣṇa in one of the two places and the other is entirely omitted, so that Vāsudeva is used four times and Kṛṣṇa only once. In the Bhagavadgītā (X, 37) the Bhagavat says that of the Vṛṣṇis he is Vāsudeva. In the Buddhist Ghaṭajātaka the two eldest sons of Upasāgara and Devagabbhā are named Vāsudeva and Baladeva. In the prose narrative no other name is given, but the names Kaṇha and Kesava occur in the verses that are interwoven with the prose. The commentator remarks on the first verse that he is there addressed by his Gotra name Kaṇha, for he belonged to the Kaṇhāyana Gotra, thus showing his belief that Vāsudeva was the true proper name of the person. This belief he expresses again in his commentary on a verse occurring in the Mahāummaggajātaka, in which Jambāvatī is mentioned as the beloved queen of Vāsudeva Kaṇha. Here also Vāsudeva is mentioned as belonging to the Kaṇhāyana Gotra, and from the verse itself, in which Vāsudevassa Kaṇhassa occurs, it would appear that Kaṇha was the family name, the sense being Vāsudeva, the Kaṇha, so that the author of the verse itself would seem to regard Vāsudeva as the proper name of the individual, and thus he and the prose narrative agree.

v1.c4.s4.7

¹ Vratakhaṇḍa (Bibl. Ind.) p. 225. The Mantra is *Om namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya.*

v1.c4.s4.8.1

§ 8. Thus then Vāsudeva appears to be a proper name and not a patronymic, and when the Vāsudeva religion or the Bhāgavata school took its rise, that was the name by which the Supreme Deity was known. The conception of Vasudeva as his father must have arisen afterwards, as appears to me from the example Vāsudevaḥ given in the Mahābhāṣya in the sense of "son or descendant of Vāsudeva", and not "of Vasudeva", as must be inferred from the analogous instance of Bāladeva from Baladeva. Baladeva was associated with Vāsudeva and not with Vasudeva. Kṛṣṇa, Janārdana, and Keśava do not appear to be Vṛṣṇi names and were given to Vāsudeva in subsequent times when his worship had widely spread. All these three occur in Patañjali also, but the two latter only once so far as I know. But of these the name Kṛṣṇa is more important than the other two and many others that are used. It appears to be as much a proper name as Vāsudeva, though the latter has a religious signification specially attached to it. How then did this name Kṛṣṇa come to be used? It was the name of one of the Vedic Ṛṣis, the composer of hymn 74 of the eighth Maṇḍala. He speaks of himself as Kṛṣṇa in verses 3 and 4 of the hymn. The author of the Anukramaṇī calls him an Āṅgirasa or descendant of Aṅgiras. In the KB. (XXX, 9) apparently the same Kṛṣṇa Āṅgirasa is alluded to and is represented to have 'seen' the evening libation in its connection with the Brāhmaṇācchaṁsin priest. Kṛṣṇa occurs in a Gaṇa attached to P. IV, 1, 96.

v1.c4.s4.8.2

In the Gaṇa connected with P. IV, 1, 99 Kṛṣṇa and Raṇa are represented to form the Gotra names Kārṣṇāyana and Rāṇāyana, these mere Brāhmaṇa Gotras falling under the group of Vāsiṣṭhas. The former is the Gotra alluded to by the commentator on the verses in the Jâtakas noticed above. But he apparently does not confine it to the Brāhmaṇa class. Then the name Kṛṣṇa as the son of Devakī occurs in the Chāndogya-Upaniṣad (III, 17). He was the pupil of Ghora, who was an Āṅgirasa. If Kṛṣṇa was also an Āṅgirasa, which is not improbable, it must be inferred that there was a tradition about Kṛṣṇa as a sage from the time of the Ṛgvedic hymns to the time of the Chāndogya-Upaniṣad, and about a Gotra of the name of Kārṣṇāyana, which literally means collection of Kṛṣṇas, of which the original Kṛṣṇa was the founder. This tradition gave rise to the identification of the sage Kṛṣṇa with Vāsudeva, when he was raised to the rank of the supreme deity. Just as the name Janamejaya, the son of Parīkṣit, which occurs in the AB., was in subsequent times used as the name of the person to whom the Mahābhārata was narrated and a genealogy was given to him from Arjuna, the Pāṇḍava, so it is possible that Vāsudeva was identified with the sage Kṛṣṇa and a genealogy given to him in the Vṛṣṇi race through Śūra and Vasudeva.

v1.c4.s4.8.3

Perhaps the best explanation of the fact of Vāsudeva having been called Kṛṣṇa is that given by the commentator of the Gāthās or verses of the Jātakas, supported, as it appears to me, by the author of the Gāthās himself, that Kṛṣṇa was a Gotra name. The Gotra Kārṣṇāyana which corresponds to Kaṇhāyana is not only mentioned as a Brāhmaṇa Gotra belonging to the Vāsiṣṭha group in the Gaṇa alluded to above, but is stated to have belonged to the Pārāśara subdivision of that group in the Matsyapurāṇa (ch. 200)¹. Though this was a Brāhmaṇa and Pārāśara Gotra, it could be assumed for sacrificial purposes by a Kṣatriya, for according to Āśvalāyana (Śr. S. XII, 15) the Gotra and the ancestors invoked of the Kṣatriyas are those of their priests or chaplains, and the only Ṛṣi ancestors that all the Kṣatriyas have, are Mānava, Aila and Paurūravasa. The names of these do not distinguish one Kṣatriya family from another and, to answer the purposes of such a distinction, the Gotra and ancestors of the priest are assumed. Vāsudeva therefore belonged to the Kārṣṇāyana Gotra, though it was a Brāhmaṇa and Pārāśara Gotra, and as belonging to this Gotra he could be called Kṛṣṇa by name.

v1.c4.s4.8.4

Having come to be known by that name, all the traditions about the learning and spiritual insight of the old Kṛṣṇa and also of his being the son of Devakī were engrafted on him, and thus in the Sabhāparvan 38 Bhīṣma says that one of the two reasons for giving the highest honours to Kṛṣṇa was that he possessed the knowledge of the Vedas and dependent treatises (Vedāṅgas), and that he was also a sacrificial priest (Ṛtvij). The Hindu habit of thought of identifying one god with others by regarding the latter either as forms or incarnations of the former and thus evolving monotheism out of polytheism led to the identification of this Vāsudeva with other gods and with the boy Kṛṣṇa of Gokula. These we will notice later on.

v1.c4.s4.9

¹ Quoted also in Puruṣottama’s Pravaramañjarī, Mysore edition.

v1.c4.s4.10

§ 9. In the Nārāyaṇīya we have an explanation of the Bhāgavata or Pāñcarātra system. This system also we will notice in its ripened form later. In the meanwhile we will turn our attention to the statement that the Ekāntika-Dharma founded by Vāsudeva has been explained in the Harigītā and on the occasion when the armies of the Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas stood face to face and Arjuna lost heart. The allusion is of course to the Bhagavadgītā.

v1.c4.s4.11

This passage is noticed in the Bhaktisūtra 83 and its commentary, in which it is stated that Ekāntabhāva (which is the subject of the Nārāyaṇīya), or devotion to one only, is Bhakti alone, since the former is recognised in that passage as identical with the main topic of the Bhagavadgītā. But the Bhagavadgītā contains no allusion to the Vyūhas or forms of the Supreme, Saṃkarṣaṇa and others, while the latter form a characteristic of the Bhāgavata school. The Gītā, however, mentions as the Prakṛtis of Vāsudeva the five elements, the mind, Buddhi or knowledge, and egoism as well as Jīva (VII, 4, 5). The last is identified with Saṃkarṣaṇa in the Bhāgavata system, egoism with Aniruddha, and mind, with which probably Buddhi is associated, with Pradyumna. What appears to be the fact is this: The Bhagavadgītā was composed before the doctrines of the Bhāgavata school were reduced to a system, and it was then that the three of the Prakṛtis of the Supreme were personified into Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, who were members of the family of Vāsudeva. In the prevalent worship, however, Saṃkarṣaṇa alone is found associated with Vāsudeva in early times, as is seen from the inscriptions and the passage from the Niddesa noticed in the beginning. Patañjali also notices, under P. II, 2, 34, a verse in which it is stated that certain musical instruments are sounded in a gathering in the temple of Dhanapati, Rāma and Keśava. Here Rāma and Keśava are Balarāma and Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa, and it is clear that there were festive gatherings at their temples in Patañjali's time. If the passage in Patañjali under P.VI, 3, 6 "Janārdana with himself as the fourth", i. e. with three companions, may be taken to allude to the three Vyūhas, then it must be understood that the four Vyūhas, Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, were known in Patañjali's time. Still it is doubtful, and it may be taken for granted that the two Vyūhas, Vāsudeva and Saṃkarṣaṇa, only were known up to the time of the latest inscription which is to be referred to about the beginning of the first century before the Christian era, so that the system of four Vyūhas was not fully developed up to that time. If this reasoning is correct, it will be seen that the date of the Bhagavadgītā which contains no mention of the Vyūhas, or personified forms, is much earlier than those of the inscriptions, the Niddesa and Patañjali, i. e. it was composed not later than the beginning of the fourth century before the Christian era. How much earlier it is difficult to say. At the time when the Gītā was conceived and composed, the identification of Vāsudeva with Nārāyaṇa had not taken place, nor had his being an incarnation of Viṣṇu come to be acknowledged, as appears from the work itself. When his Virāj or universe-form was shown to Arjuna, as represented in the eleventh chapter, he is twice addressed by the latter as Viṣṇu on account of his dazzling brilliance which rendered everything hot and filled the whole universe. Here Viṣṇu is alluded to as the chief of the Ādityas and not as the supreme being, and Vāsudeva was Viṣṇu in this sense, as mentioned in chapter 10, because the best thing of a group or class is represented to be his Vibhūti or special manifestation.

v1.c4.s4.12

§ 10. A characteristic of a new system of religion that comes into vogue is that the followers are not satisfied with the idea that the person known as the founder originated the system. They push back the origin by many ages. Siddhārthaka was preceded by many Buddhas, and so was Mahāvīra by many Tīrthaṃkaras. So in the case of the Bhāgavata school we have seen that that system was taught by Nārāyaṇa at the beginning of each Brahman and in the existing Brahman it was first taught to Pitāmaha or Prajāpati and thence it passed to Dakṣa, Vivasvat, Manu and Ikṣvāku. This last order of its revelation is alluded to at the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Gītā which confirms the tradition noticed in the Nārāyaṇīya about the identity of the religion of the Gītā with the Ekāntika religion revealed by Nārāyaṇa. In this respect of pushing back the origin the Bhāgavata system resembles Buddhism and Jainism.

V. Substance of the Bhagavadgītā

v1.c4.s5.1

§ 11. We will now pass under review the main contents of the Bhagavadgītā, as from all appearances it is the earliest exposition of the Bhakti system or the Ekāntika Dharma.

v1.c4.s5.2

Chapter II. Arjuna is reluctant to fight because it involves the destruction of his near and revered relatives and of other men. Bhagavat endeavours to remove the reluctance by speaking of the eternity and indestructibility of the human soul. Here are two stanzas which occur, with a variation in one of the lines, in the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad. Then to fight is spoken of as the duty of a Kṣatriya for whom there is no other good than a just fight. This mode of thinking is characterised as being Sāṃkhya, and the Yoga mode then follows. The condition of mind in the Yoga mode is a determined will. Those who according to the precepts of the Veda perform rites for the fulfilment of various desires can not have a determined steadfast will. For attaining such a will one should think only of the deed to be done and not of the fruits to be derived from it. With a concentrated mind and without any attachment to other objects one should devote oneself to the deed alone. By such devotion to acts with a determined will man finally attains inflexibility of will (becomes sthitaprajña), and all his desires being uprooted, he attains complete serenity of soul or the Brāhmī condition. When he is in this condition at the time of death, he obtains quiescence in Brahman. This comes to the same doctrine as that stated in the Kaṭha and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣads, that when all desires in the heart are uprooted, the mortal becomes immortal and attains to Brahman¹. The discipline, however, prescribed for the attainment of this end is not simply moral, but religious also, since it is stated that after having controlled the senses which render the mind restless, a man should devote himself to Bhagavat.

v1.c4.s5.3

¹ *Yadā sarve pramucyante kāmā yesya hṛdi śritāḥ*, KU. VI, 14 and also BU. IV, 4, 7.

v1.c4.s5.4

§ 12. Chapter III. There are two paths, that of devotion to knowledge for the Sāṃkhyas and that of devotion to Karman or action for the Yogins. Every one is born for a life of activity, but the deeds done do not tie him down to the world, if he does them for worship (Yajña) and not for his private purposes. No Karman is necessary for one whose enjoyments consist in himself, who is satisfied with himself and contented in himself. But for other people action is necessary, and it must be done without any selfish desire. Janaka and others obtained perfection by devoting themselves to actions alone, i. e. by the pursuit of an active life. But the action should be dedicated to the Supreme, and one should not seek any fruit for himself. But such a frame of mind is not attainable by ordinary men, who are under the influence of their physical nature and sensual passions. Then a question is asked what it is that prompts man to sin. The reply is that it is desire and anger which are all-powerful and envelop a man's spiritual existence. Desire acts through the senses, but intelligence is superior to the senses, and superior to this latter is the will (Buddhi), and the soul is superior to Buddhi. Knowing oneself to be higher than Buddhi, one should curb oneself by efforts and kill desire which acts through the series, viz. senses, intellect, will. Here the superiority of one faculty over another is an idea borrowed from the Kaṭha-Upaniṣad. In connection with the teaching that action should be done disinterestedly, Bhagavat makes the closest possible approach to the Sāṁkhya doctrine that the soul being deluded by egoism (Ahaṁkāra) regards himself as the agent of the actions done by the qualities of nature (Prakṛti), and that, misled by the qualities of nature, he forms an attachment to qualities and actions.

v1.c4.s5.5

§ 13. Chapter IV. The chapter begins with Bhagavat’s mention of his communication of this system to Vivasvat in the first instance, as alluded to above. Incidentally the question of his existence at the time of Vivasvat comes up, and he then explains his being born again and again and assuming incarnations for the destruction of the wicked by means of his Prakṛti. They who know the incarnations and the celestial deeds of Bhagavat, are released from the body and are not born again. By means of knowledge men, being purified and their passions destroyed and being devoted to him and resorting to him and resting on him, attained to the condition of Bhagavat. Bhagavat resorts to men in the manner in which they resort to him; men everywhere follow his path.

v1.c4.s5.6

§ 14. Chapter V. Sāṁkhya and Yoga are brought into connection with Saṁnyāsa and Karmayoga. They are not independent of each other. Following either thoroughly, one obtains the fruit of both. The place which is obtained by Sāṁkhyas is obtained also by Yogas. For Jñānayajña or sacrifice of knowledge enabling a man to see all things

v1.c4.s5.7

The idea of action without attachment is further developed. Then metaphorical Yajñas are mentioned, such as the sacrifice of the senses into the fire of restraint, of the objects of the senses into the senses, of the operation of the senses and of the vital breaths into the fire of Yoga, which is the control of the self. All these Yajñas cannot be accomplished without acts. Of these the Yajña of knowledge is the best; for by its means one sees all things in one self and in God (Supreme Spirit). This highest knowledge brings about freedom from all sin, and destroys the polluting effect of action. The realisation of the Yoga sets aside the significance of the actions. This highest knowledge puts an end to all doubt and one becomes a spirit — a spirit totally free. When acts are done in this condition, they do not defile a person. Here the tendency to rationalise Yajñas or sacrifices, which set in in the Upaniṣad period, is seen in a developed form, since the restraint of the senses, the attainment of knowledge, and such other practices are characterised as Yajñas or sacrifices.

v1.c4.s5.8

Another point that deserves notice is the statement that Bhagavat deals with men in the manner in which they deal with him, that is, the spirit with which God is approached by men is reciprocated by God. This is followed by the affirmation that men everywhere, whatever the differences of their views, follow the path of Bhagavat. Here lies in germ the principle that all religions have a basis of truth in them.

v1.c4.s5.9

in himself and in God, and this knowledge bringing about freedom from sin, the same condition is attained to which an active life or pursuit of actions (Karmayoga) brings about, when the actions are done disinterestedly or without aiming at the fruit, with an eye directed towards Brahman only, the true essence of things. Though this is so, still Saṃnyāsa is difficult to be realised without Yoga. With Yoga one attains to it soon. A Yogin does not think that he does something when he sees, hears, eats, sleeps, etc. This is so when these acts are done without any attachment, the aim being the realisation of Brahman. The Yogins perform deeds by their body, mind, will, or simply by their senses, without any attachment for the sake of spiritual purification. By means of Yoga, Jñāna is obtained, and in this condition man looks at all things alike. When a man looks at all things with the same regard, what he aims at is the Brahman and in it he rests. This leads to the consideration of the final peace in Brahman and the method of attaining it. This peace in Brahman resembles the condition of an Arhat in Buddhism, but the Bhagavadgītā does not end there and adds that in this condition of deliverance a person comes to know the Supreme Soul as one to whom all kinds of worship and austere practices are directed as the lord of all worlds and the friend of all beings; and it is this knowledge that leads to peace.

v1.c4.s5.10

§ 15. Chapter VI. He who does not attach himself to the result of his actions and does what he ought to do, is Saṃnyāsin as well as Yogin. Karman or action is necessary to become a sage (Muni). When he has attained the dignity of a sage, the essence of it is peace. Then follows a description of the state of a man who has attained Yoga. Practice of Yoga, or contemplation, is then described. When a man goes through the Yoga practices, he attains serenity in Bhagavat, i. e. becomes absorbed in him in peace. All the functions of the mind are suspended in the condition of Yoga. Seeing himself by himself he rests in himself. Then follows an explanation of the process of abstraction and concentration. A Yogin sees himself in all things and all things in himself, looks at all things in the same light. The Supreme Spirit is not lost to him who sees him everywhere and sees everything in him, the Supreme Spirit. He who looks upon the Bhagavat as one, though he exists in all things, exists in him, though he moves about everywhere. He who regards all as himself (and looks upon them in the same light) in matters of happiness and misery is the best Yogin. Then Arjuna remarks on the difficulty of this Yoga. "The mind", he says, "is restless". But Bhagavat replies that it can be controlled by practice as well as by reflection on the vanity of things (Vairāgya). At the end Bhagavat teaches that he is the greatest Yogin, who, having faith in him, adores him with his whole soul centred in him.

First 71 of 828 passages. Read on

Linked texts (44)

Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Muṇḍakopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Kaṭhopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Śvetāśvataropaniṣad — Śvetāśvatara, Sanskrit
Maitrāyaṇīyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Jātaka — Pāli
Bhāgavatapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Chāndogyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Brahmasūtra — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit
Bṛhatsaṃhitā — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit
Taittirīyopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Bhagavadgītā — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit
Kathāsaritsāgara — Somadeva Bhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
Agnipurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Varāhapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mahāniddesa — Pāli
Vāyupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Nārāyaṇīya — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Jñānāmṛtasārasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
Taittirīyāraṇyaka — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Meghadūta — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit
Bhaktisūtra — Sanskrit
Harivaṃśa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
Indian Antiquary
Viṣṇupurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Īśopaniṣad — Sanskrit
Bhitari
Ōsiā
Pabhosā
Nānāghāṭ
Khoh
Dashavatara temple
Dharmaparīkṣā — Amitagati, Sanskrit
Gogha inscription of the time of Jahangir (Salim Shah), Samvat 1672 — Sanskrit

Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Minor Religious Systems v1: Volume 1

Contents

Volume 1

Front matter

Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde

Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems