Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Obscure Religious Cults as Background of Bengali Literature c20: Chapter XI: Speculations on the Conception of Dharma

Obscure Religious Cults as Background of Bengali Literature c20

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI: Speculations on the Conception of Dharma

(i) Hindu Conceptions of Dharma

c20.s1.1

As the Dharma cult represents a composite form of religion developing from a popular adoption of diverse religious practices, rites and ceremonies, so also is the idea of Dharma, which has been the receptacle of various conceptions of the sovereign deity found in various religious thoughts. Here, as we have hinted before, we have the unconscious mixture of the conception of the Upanisadic Brahman with the Puruṣa of the Sāṃkhya, Śiva of the Tantra, Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa and Rāma of the Vaiṣṇavas, Yama, the lord of justice and death, and also with Dharma, the popularly conceived godhead in general. These ideas of the Supreme Being have again coalesced with the idea of the supreme deity variously conceived in later Buddhism.

c20.s1.2

The idea of Dharma as the godhead has a fairly old history in the Hindu texts. The word *dharma* ordinarily means that which is to be held fast or kept, or that which holds fast or keeps, or law, statute, religion, piety, right, justice, equity, virtue, merit, nature or character of entities, an essential or characteristic quality, mark, peculiarity of an entity, or the entity itself. In its Vedic form (*dharman*) it meant the maintainer, the supporter, the arranger. When popularly personified, Dharma means the lord of all laws and ordinances, the lord of justice, the central figure of all religion, and in this last aspect Dharma is popularly conceived as God, the Lord Supreme, who is maintaining the whole world by administering order, discipline and justice. Even in the present day the custom among the common run of people is to swear by the name of Dharma, to appeal to Dharma for redress from distress, to invoke the blessings of Dharma in time of calamities.—and in all these cases Dharma is none but the supreme deity or God Himself. From as early a time as the time of the Vedas, the word Dharma is found used in its variously personified forms. In the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa (13. 4. 3) we find in connection with the enumeration of the kings and the subjects of all quarters and localities that Dharma Indra was the king of the gods. Here Dharma is identified with Indra, the lord supreme of the later Vedic literature.¹ In the Purāṇic literature we find mention of another Dharma, who is Righteousness, Justice, Law or Virtue personified; he was born from the right chest of Brahmā and had three offsprings, Śama, Kāma and Harṣa. Dharma or Dharma-rāja is well-known in the Purāṇic and epic literature of Sanskrit as the epithet of Yama who is the God of justice and the king of death. Even in popular Buddhistic literature Yama is widely known as the Dharma-rāja.² Dharma is, again, one of the attendants of the Sun-god; he is Justice or Virtue, identified with Viṣṇu; he is Prajāpati, and is said to be the son-in-law of Dakṣa. We find mention of many other personalities in the Purāṇic literature of the name of Dharma who were notable for various virtues and activities.

c20.s1.3

¹ Vide B. K. Chatterjee's introduction to the Śri-dharma-purāṇa of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa.

c20.s1.4

² Vide Kāraṇḍa-vyūha—printed in Calcutta in 1873 by Satyavrata Sāmaśrami in a series of Jaina works.

c20.s1.5

Of all these, however, Yama, the king of death and justice, is the most widely known by the name of Dharma or Dharma-rāja. In the Mahābhārata Yudhiṣṭhira is traditionally described as the son of Yama, and he himself was known as Dharma-putra (i.e., the son of Dharma) and the epithet Dharma-rāja is also found frequently used for him.

c20.s1.6

It is a very popular story of the *Mahābhārata* that Dharma in the guise of a Yakṣa put a few questions to Yudhiṣṭhira and the answers given by the latter was to the entire satisfaction of Dharma and Yudhiṣṭhira obtained boons from him. When Yudhiṣṭhira was bewildered at the superhuman form and glow of the disguised Yakṣa, the latter declared,—"I am Dharma, your father of supreme power—and am come here only to see you. My body is constituted of fame, truth, self-control, purity, simplicity (*ārjava*), modesty, steadiness (*acāpalya*), bounty, penance and physical and mental discipline (*brahmacarya*); non-violence, equity, peace, moral virtue, purity and non-exhilaration are my senses."¹ This Dharma once more came to test the righteousness of Yudhiṣṭhira in the guise of a dog when the latter was about to enter heaven (*Mahā-prasthānika-parva*, Ch. 3). In the *Skanda-purāṇa*, Yama, the son of Sūrya, is depicted as a great sage (*ṛṣi*) of the name of Dharma or Dharma-rāja. He was practising austere penances to propitiate Mahādeva (i.e., Śiva). The gods (including Indra) got frightened at the penances of Dharma and sent down a celestial damsel, Varddhiṇī by name, to disturb the penance of Dharma. In course of a dialogue with her Dharma said,—"I am Yama to all beings who are evil-doers,—and I am Dharma to all self-controlled people."² Lord Śiva was propitiated by the penances of Dharma and as desired by the latter the forest *Dharmā-raṇya* became a sacred place for pilgrimage through the boon of Śiva. Dharma himself preferred to be transformed into a bull and became the mount of Śiva.³

c20.s1.7

¹ *Mahābhārata*, Vana-parva, Ch. 312.

c20.s1.8

² *yamo' ham sarva-bhūtānām duṣṭānām karma-kāriṇām |* *dharma-rūpo hi sarveṣām manujānām jitātmanām ||* *sa dharmo'ham varārohe dadāmi tava durlabham |* *tat-sarvam prārthaya tvam me śīghram cāpasarasām vare ||* *Dharmā-raṇya-khaṇḍa*, (417-18) included within the *Brahma-khaṇḍa*.

c20.s1.9

³ *Skanda-purāṇa*, *Brahma-khaṇḍa*, *Setu-māhātmya*, Ch. III.

c20.s1.10

In the Bengali Manuscript Library of the Calcutta University we have a manuscript entitled *Dharma-itihāsa* (i.e., the history of Dharma MS., C. U. No. 6152) which is ascribed to the poet Guṇa-rāja-khān.¹ The *Dharma* of the text is none but the Lord Supreme, and it has been demonstrated with reference to the stories of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata how the genuine devotees in different times and places were, under various critical circumstances, protected through the infinite grace of the Lord.

c20.s1.11

¹ We do not think that this Guṇa-rāja-khān is the same as Mālādhara Vasu, the well-known translator of the Bhāgavata in the pre-Caitanya period.

c20.s1.12

Traditions in the *Dharma* cult often show a great tendency to identify *Dharma*, or Dharma-rāja with the Dharma-rāja Yama. As a matter of fact Yama himself, seated on his *Vāhana* (mount) of buffalo, is often identified with the Dharma-rāja of the Dharmites in many places of West-Bengal and the festivities in connection with the *gājana* of *Dharma* are known as the festivities of Dharma-rāja Yama. Often it has been found that in worshipping Dharma-rāja the priests utter the Mantra, — ‘Salute to Dharma-rāja, who is Yama and who is of various forms’ (*namaste bahurūpāya yamāya dharma-rājāya*).² In the ritualistic texts also we find corroboration of the fact. In the chapters on the river *Vaitaraṇī* of the *Śūnya-purāṇa* we find that *Dharma* himself is acting as the helmsman and carrying all the devotees of *Dharma* to heaven, which is situated on the other side of the direful river *Vaitaraṇī*. Rāmāi Paṇḍita himself is here helping all lay people on board. The name of the river *Vaitaraṇī* is so closely associated with the name of Yama in Hindu mythology that it takes no time to recognise that this Dharma-rāja is none but Dharma-rāja Yama.¹ In a chapter of the *Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna* we find the deity of the Dharmites unconsciously identified with Yama seated on his *Vāhana* of buffalo and accompanied by his well-known clerk, Citra-gupta, and his attendants, Kāla and Vikāla with iron chains in their hands; he is found administering law to all people of the world.²

c20.s1.13

² *Vide* an article *Rādha-bhramaṇa* by Pañcānan Banerjee, B. S. P. P., 1314 B. S. It is interesting to compare with the above Mantra the ordinary Mantra of Yama-tarpaṇa :—*yamāya dharma-rājāya mṛtyave cāntakāya* etc.

c20.s1.14

¹ Of course, in some other chapters (viz., the chapters on *Yama-purāṇa*, *Yama-dūta-samvāda*, *Yama-rāja-samvāda*) we find that the Purāṇic Dharma-rāja Yama and Dharma-rāja Nirañjana are differentiated. It is demonstrated with legends that Dharma-rāja Yama has no sovereignty over people who are devotees of Dharma-rāja Nirañjana or the Karatār and that, being sadly harassed on several occasions, Dharma-rāja Yama with the help of Rāmāi Paṇḍit made an exhaustive list of the priests and devotees of Dharma-ṭhākura of the five ages (including the void-age) so that he might instruct his officers not to meddle with them. About this disagreement of traditions we have nothing more to say than that here in the Dharma cult, which offers the best specimen of the religious psychology of untrained masses, nothing but anomaly and confusion can be expected.

c20.s1.15

² pp. 249 et seq. In one line of this chapter, however, Dharma and Yama are spoken of as two (*Yama dharma duijan boṣyā āchen-deva-sabhāy*); but in fact they are treated as one throughout the whole chapter.

c20.s1.16

In the liturgical texts of the Dharma cult the tradition of Dharma’s identity with Yama seems to be less popular than the tradition of his identity with Śiva and Viṣṇu; in the *Dharma-maṅgalas* again the tradition of the Śaivite nature of Dharma seems to be in a dwindling condition and the Vaiṣṇavite nature, either in the form of Viṣṇu in general or Kṛṣṇa or Rāma in particular, predominates. But before we deal in detail with this question it will be helpful to us to investigate into and examine the Buddhistic substratum of lord Dharma.

(ii) Buddhistic Substratum of Dharma

c20.s2.1

In the Sanskrit dictionary *Amarakoṣa* Dharma-rāja has been mentioned as a synonym for Buddha;³ in the Jātaka stories also the epithet Dharma-rāja refers to Buddha. It may be noted that the Dharmites still now observe the days of *Buddha-pūrṇimā* (i.e., Baiśākhī pūrṇimā, the birthday of Buddha) and Aṣāḍhī pūrṇimā (the day on which Dharma-cakra was first preached by Buddha) as highly auspicious festive days.¹ But it will not be fair to surmise from such identifications that Dharma or the Dharma-rāja, or rather the Dharma-ṭhākura of the Dharma cult directly represents Buddha. In discussing the Buddhistic substratum of the idea of Dharma we should remember that the Buddhism we are referring to here is not the Buddhism with which we are acquainted in any of the standard Buddhistic schools; it is that phase of later Buddhism which is so-called mainly historically as maintaining in a transformed, modified and corrupted form the continuity of the older thought. We may illustrate the exact nature of the relation of the Dharma cult with standard Buddhism with reference to an episode of the popular Pāli text Milinda-pañha. The question of king Milinda is whether the man who is reborn is the same as the man who is dead or is an absolutely new man. It is indeed very difficult to answer the question directly in consistence with the theory of momentariness of the Buddhists. The answer of the Elder Nāgasena is, therefore, indirect; he says that the man who is newly born is neither the same as the former, nor is he absolutely a new man; but inspite of the absence of personal identity the latter is to be associated with the former only because of the fact that the former is mysteriously responsible for the existence of the latter. The argument of Bhadanta Nāgasena may very aptly be repeated here in connection with the exact relation between the Dharma cult and Buddhism, or the conception of the Dharma-ṭhākura and the conception of the ultimate reality propounded in Buddhism proper. It may be repeated here that it will be wrong to suppose that any particular Buddhistic conception of the reality has, through processes of long transformation, coalesced with the Hindu conceptions of the supreme deity and has thus given rise to the composite conception of the Dharma-ṭhākura. Dharma-ṭhākura represents as much infiltration of ideas from popular Hinduism as from popular Buddhism, and this explains his extremely heterogeneous nature. In investigating into the Buddhistic substratum of the conception of Dharma, therefore, we shall only indicate the different lines in which Buddhistic ideas might have infiltrated in the mind of ordinary masses to give rise to the conception of a deity of such heterogeneous nature.

c20.s2.2

³ *Sarvajñaḥ sugato buddho dharma- tathāgataḥ*

c20.s2.3

¹ The author is indebted to Prof. Prabodh Chandra Sen, M.A., for giving him detailed information on this point.

c20.s2.4

We have seen before that the philosophic ideas of Mahāyāna Buddhism, with the spirit of catholicity and adaptation, had an innate tendency towards approximating the Upaniṣadic spirit. Whatever may be the position of Nāgārjuna and his followers, who have been the centre of great controversy, the conception of the ultimate reality of the Vijñānavādins as pure consciousness or the absolute uncreate cannot but be held to be positive in nature. The Tathatā-vāda of Aśvaghoṣa admits the Tathatā-nature (i.e., the nature of the Dharmas as thatness) to be something substantial, permanent and unchanging and as such it is something positive, though formless and unqualified. The conception of the Vijñapti-mātratā or the Abhūta-parikalpa, which is of the nature of consciousness, bereft of the duality of the knower and the knowable, seems to be just the previous step of the conception of the Brahman which in its absolute and unqualified nature transcends all knowledge, knower and knowability. It has always been vehemently argued by the Vijñānavādins that Śūnyatā was never spoken of by the Lord as pure 'nothing'; while it is the negation of all duality, it implies at the same time the reality of pure-consciousness or the absolute uncreate, which is unchanging, unthinkable, all-good, eternal, all-bliss, the ultimate element of the nature of liberation.

c20.s2.5

Again in the docetic conception of the Tri-kāya in the Mahāyāna system the Dharma-kāya or the body of the cosmic unity, or the organised totality of things, though not as a purely philosophical concept, but as an object of religious consciousness, approximates the idea of the Brahman. The word Dharma-kāya is often explained as the body of law; and it may also be remembered that Buddha is said to have told his disciples that his teachings should be recognised as his own immortal body. But the word dharma is generally used in the Mahāyāna texts in the sense of ‘entity’; and the Dharma-kāya means the ‘thatness’ (tathatā-rūpa) of all the entities; it is in other words the dharma-dhātu or the primordial element underlying all that exists. It has been also termed as the Svabhāva-kāya, i.e., the body of the ultimate nature. It is described as devoid of all characters, but possessing eternal and innumerable qualities. It is neither the mind, nor matter, nor something different from them both. The nature of the Dharma-kāya is described in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra¹ in the following manner,—‘The Dharma-kāya though manifesting itself in the triple world, is free from impurities and desires. It unfolds itself here, there, and everywhere responding to the call of Karma. It is not an individual reality, it is not a false existence, but is universal and pure. It comes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere; it does not assert itself, nor is it subject to annihilation. It is for ever serene and eternal. It is the One, devoid of all determinations. This body of Dharma has no boundary, no quarters, but is embodied in all bodies. Its freedom or spontaneity is incomprehensible, its spiritual presence in things corporeal is incomprehensible. All forms of corporeality are involved therein, it is able to create all things. Assuming any concrete material body as required by the nature and condition of Karma, it illuminates all creations.

c20.s2.6

¹ Quoted in Suzuki's Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, pp. 223-224.

c20.s2.7

Though it is the treasure of intelligence, it is void of particularity. There is no place in the universe where this body does not prevail. The universe becomes, but this body for ever remains. It is free from all opposites and contrarieties, yet it is working in all things to lead them to Nirvāṇa.”

c20.s2.8

This docetic conception of Buddhahood as implied in the theory of Tri-kāya gradually transformed itself in the monotheistic conception of a Being and latterly in the clear conception of a personal God. The Dharma-kāya Buddha became the Lord Supreme, the Sambhoga-kāya Buddha became the Dhyāni-Buddhas (viz., Vairocana, Akṣobhya and others) and the Nirmāṇa-kāya Buddha gave the idea of the human Buddhas (Mānuṣi Buddha).

c20.s2.9

All these various philosophical concepts about the ultimate reality in the different schools of Buddhism, including the docetic conception of Buddha as conceived in the theory of the Tri-kāya, lost their special significance in a popular idea of a Supreme Being—a personal God in later schools of Tāntric Buddhism, and the most common name by which He was known among the Tāntric Buddhists was the Lord Vajra-sattva.¹ Though it became customary with the Buddhist Tāntrikas to describe this Vajra-sattva with all sorts of negative attributes (of course, in addition to the positive ones), it is very easy to see that the conception of the Vajra-sattva behind all these positive and negative attributes is definitely positive and is that of a personal God. All Buddhistic ideas, viz., the idea of Śūnyatā, the idea of pure consciousness, the idea of the Bodhicitta, the idea of Mahā-sukha began in later days to acquire cosmological and ontological significance in the form of an all-pervading Being. The origin of the Dharma-ṭhākura with all his positive and negative, Buddhistic and Hindu attributes may historically be asociated with the conception of this Lord Supreme of the later Buddhistic schools.

c20.s2.10

¹ Vide Supra, pp. 28-29.

c20.s2.11

In connection with the evolution of the conception of Dharma the question of its relation with the Dharma of the three ‘jewels’ of Buddhism (viz., Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha) naturally attracts our notice. MM. H. P. Sāstrī and others have propounded the theory that in later times Buddha, the first of the three jewels, was naturally eliminated by the lay Buddhists with the growing influence of revived Hinduism, and the third jewel Saṅgha became the Śaṅkha (conch-shell), which is very important in connection with Hindu worship; and the second jewel, viz., Dharma became identified with the Buddhist Stūpa, which was worshipped as something like the symbol of Dharma,—and this Stūpa became the Dharma-ṭhākura of the Dharma cult in the form of a tortoise. In propounding such a theory, however, we should proceed a bit cautiously. As for the transformation of Saṅgha into Śaṅkha we may say that the frequent mention of Śaṅkha with various other necessaries of worship in the Śūnya-purāṇa cannot convince one of its Buddhistic origin; for Śaṅkha is no less important as one of the necessaries of worship in the proper Hindu liturgy than in the cult of Dharma. The story of Viṣṇu’s killing Śaṅkhāsura and giving the Śaṅkha to Padmālaya’s son, as narrated in the Oḍiyā text Siddhānta-Ḍombara, seems to us to have nothing in it to warrant the origin of this Śaṅkha in the Saṅgha of the Buddhists.¹ Of course in the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna we find a few confused lines on Śaṅkha; what we can at most infer from this is that Śaṅkha was held important in the worship of Dharma.¹ We sometimes find also salutation to Śaṅkha in connection with the opening chapter of salutation in the Dharma-maṅgalas.² This importance of Śaṅkha has nothing in it which may help us to construe some kind of relation between Śaṅkha and the Buddhist Saṅgha on any convincing ground.

c20.s2.12

¹ “We scarcely think it would be very wide of the mark to infer from this that the word Sankha here means nothing but a Buddhistic Sangha. In this interpretation of Sankha as Sangha, we are supported by the Sunya-Purāṇa, in which Sankha is very frequently used for Sangha. The common people in their ignorance of the teachings of Buddhism and its terminology, either misspelt Sangha as Sankha or mistook Sankha for Sangha which really means a congregation of Buddhistic monks.” Modern Buddhism And Its Followers, etc., by N. N. Bose, p. 19.

c20.s2.13

¹ It should however be remembered in this connection that in the Dharma-maṅgalas we frequently come across the details of Dharma-worship; but there we do not find any special attention paid to this Śaṅkha.

c20.s2.14

² Cf. śola śaṅkha bandiva asaṃkhya lakṣa muni | e cāri paṇḍit banda e cāri āmani || MS. entitled Dharmer Bandanā, C. U. No 2470, p. 1 (A).

c20.s2.15

We have already pointed out that Śūnyatā and Karuṇā, transformed as Prajñā and Upāya, were held very important in Tāntric Buddhism, and a tendency was manifest to interpret this Prajñā and Upāya as static and dynamic, or negative and positive, as female and male, and so on. Gradually the three jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha came to be interpreted in terms of Prajñā, Upāya and the world produced by them; Upāya as the male principle was identified with Buddha, and necessarily Dharma became Prajñā or the female principle and Saṅgha came to be interpreted as phenomenal world which is produced through the union of Prajñā and Upāya.³ These transformed forms of the three jewels are still

c20.s2.16

³ For a detailed discussion on the point see the chapter on Cosmogony, infra.

c20.s2.17

It may be noted here that in the gājana of Śiva, which is prevalent in some districts of East Bengal, and which is nothing but a Śaivite version of the Dharmer gājana of West Bengal (see infra, p. 823 F. N. No. 3) we find a few fragmentary verses on the origin and importance of Śaṅkha, and we may further notice that Gaurī or Pārvatī (i.e., the consort of Śiva) is particularly fond of putting on the bracelet made of Śaṅkha. We are quoting here some fragmentary verses:—sapta samudre janmen śaṅkha śona tār kathā | gaurike dhariyā nila akṣay baṭ-talā || śāś(?) khān kariyā śaṅkha tuliyā thuila dāle | paban bātāse śaṅkha śiva rām bale || hena bā śaṅkha śuddha nayare kon nare bale || śri-phāl kuṇḍal devī gāy haila gharma | biśva-karmā kāṭiyā dilā daś bhāi śaṅkha || daś bhāi śaṅkha devī pare daś haste | kon śaṅkhe bādya ghaṇṭā kon śaṅkhe jal | śiver ālay āmār yamer nāhi dāy | koṭi koṭi praṇām kari mahādever pāy || (Own collection).

c20.s2.18

ow preserved in the Jagannātha temple of Puri.. There the two male figures, with a female figure in the middle, widely known in their Hinduised nomenclature as Jagannātha and Balarāma with the image of Subhadrā in the middle, are in all probability the representations of the three jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Saṅgha transformed as Upāya, Prajñā and their son, *i.e.*, the phenomenal world. In the esoteric Buddhist literature the epithet Jagannātha (*i.e.*, the lord of the world) is widely used before Buddha or rather the Lord Supreme, and it is also a well-known adjective used before the Lord Supreme of the Hindus,—and thus through the medium of the epithet Jagannātha, the first of the three jewels could very easily be Hinduised and the Hinduisation of the other two was but a matter of course.

c20.s2.19

Buddha as Jagannātha. This theory of the transformation of Buddha, the first jewel of the Buddhists, into Jagannātha (and later on frankly conceived as Kṛṣṇa) has its corroboration in the tradition of the literature of the Dharma cult. Jayadeva, the famous Vaiṣṇava lyric poet, described Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu; and in the literature of the Dharma cult we find in connection with the description of the incarnations of God that in the ninth incarnation God was born as Jagannātha, who is none but lord Buddha, and he settled his residence on the sea-coast, where he has relieved the whole world by distributing to all (irrespective of caste and creed) his Prasāda (*i.e.*, the food offered to God and supposed to be accepted by him).¹ In another place we find that in this incarnation of Jagannātha the lord revealed himself to the Hindus and Muslims, who were all united together in his (*i.e.*, Jagannātha's) place, and in the country of Gauḍa

c20.s2.20

¹ Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna, pp. 206-207; also p. 208. See also Govinda-vijaya of Śyāma-dāsa, Vaṅgavāsī-edition, p. 3.

c20.s2.21

It may be pointed out here that in the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu, inscribed on the gateway of the temple of Jagannātha in Puri, Buddha, the ninth incarnation, has been replaced by Jagannātha.

c20.s2.22

(i.e., in Bengal) he has revealed himself as the Dharma-rāja.¹

c20.s2.23

¹ Dharma, the second jewel and Dharma-ṭhākura. [^Dharma and his Śakti]: Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna, pp. 214-15.

c20.s2.24

But though Buddha was the first of the jewels and had his prominence also in the temple of Jagannātha, he could not enjoy universal sovereignty for several reasons. In the first place, from the metaphysical standpoint Dharma represents Prajñā or Śūnyatā, which being the ultimate source of all origination and being often interpreted as the noumenal aspect of the reality, was infused with more cosmological and ontological value than Buddha, who represents Upāya or Karuṇā, metaphysically explained as the aspect of phenomenalism. This metaphysical valuation might have been there in the mind of common people in the form of a time-honoured tradition, and this may be why Dharma could supersede the claim of Buddha in being recognised as the supreme divinity among the Dharmites. In the second place, in later times lay people had no idea about what these three jewels might be; they could recognise only Dharma, who was, in common faith and tradition, known to them as the Supreme Lord, the Sovereign Deity over the universe, —some Invisible power administering law and justice; consequently Dharma became gradually recognised as the Lord Supreme. Moreover, with the growing influence of Hinduism it was not possible for ordinary people of lower social order to accept any one but Dharma out of the three jewels as their Lord.

c20.s2.25

The Dharma-ṭhākura of the Dharma cult is not generally associated with any Śakti or female counterpart. In the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna, however, we find a goddess, Kāminyā by name, whose worship follows the worship of Dharma along with the worship of many other gods and goddesses, and she is the goddess for removing blindness and leprosy. This Kāminyā is sometimes described as something like a Śakti of Dharma,¹ and as a matter of fact some of her descriptions resemble the description of the goddess variously described in the Buddhist and the Hindu Tantras. But the more important fact is that Dharma-ṭhākura, as the Sovereign Deity, has frequently been identified with Śiva and as such is always associated with his Śakti as Bhagavatī, Ādi-devī, Ādi-śakti, or as Bāśulī, Caṇḍī, Durgā, Pārvatī, etc. In the liturgical texts Dharma-ṭhākura is frequently styled as Maheśvara (the great lord) or Mahādeva (the great deity), Deva-deva (the God of gods)—epithets which are commonly used before the well-known deity Śiva. In some temples of Dharma Dharma-ṭhākura has been transformed completely into Śiva.² In the well-known religious ceremony of West Bengal known as the Gājana of Dharma, which is

c20.s2.26

¹ oṃkāra-bhūta-vedāya kāminā-sahitāya ca | mama sarvārtha-siddhy-artham dharma-rāja namo'stute || *Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna*, p. 86. oṃ ra'stikāyāṃ tathā devaṃ kāminā-sahitaṃ prabho | āyur-ārogyam aiśvaryam sampattiṃ dehi me sadā || *Ibid*, p. 87. ullūka-vāhanam dharmam kāmikhyā(?)-sahitaṃ śivam | dhauta-kunde (ndu)-dhavalam sarva-sampat-phala-pradam || *Ibid*, p. 77. This last verse is found in the *Śrī-dharma-maṅgala* of Māṇik Gāṅguli as :— uluka (sic. kam)-vāhanam dharmam kāminyā sahitam (sic. -te) śivam | dhauta-kundendu-dhavala-kāyam dhyāyed dharmam namāmy aham || p. 4.

c20.s2.27

² It is interesting to note here an incident described by MM. H. P. Śāstrī in an article in the Bengali monthly *Nārāyaṇa* (B. S. 1322, Māgha) in connection with the transformation of Dharma to Śiva. In a temple of Dharma MM. Śāstrī found a priest dividing into two equal portions the offerings to be presented to Dharma. He asked out of curiosity why such divisions were made. The reply of the priest was—" He is Dharma and Śiva at the same time and hence is the division." On further enquiry MM. Śāstrī came to learn that the Mantra with which the offerings were presented to the deity was,—" Salute be to Śiva, who is Dharma-rāja" (*śivāya dharma-rājāya namaḥ*). After several years of his first visit MM. Śāstrī went there once more and found that by this time a Gauri-paṭṭa (a symbolic representation of the female organ of the Śakti generally found placed beneath the symbolic representation of the male organ of Śiva) was placed by the Brahmins beneath the stone-image of Dharma so as to Hinduise him completely.

c20.s2.28

oṃkāra-bhūta-vedāya kāminā-sahitāya ca |
mama sarvārtha-siddhy-artham dharma-rāja namo'stute ||
*Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna*, p. 86.
oṃ ra'stikāyāṃ tathā devaṃ kāminā-sahitaṃ prabho |
āyur-ārogyam aiśvaryam sampattiṃ dehi me sadā ||
*Ibid*, p. 87.
ullūka-vāhanam dharmam kāmikhyā(?)-sahitaṃ śivam |
dhauta-kunde (ndu)-dhavalam sarva-sampat-phala-pradam ||
*Ibid*, p. 77.

c20.s2.29

This last verse is found in the *Śrī-dharma-maṅgala* of Māṇik Gāṅguli as :—

c20.s2.30

uluka (sic. kam)-vāhanam dharmam kāminyā sahitam (sic. -te) śivam |
dhauta-kundendu-dhavala-kāyam dhyāyed dharmam namāmy aham ||
p. 4.

c20.s2.31

the most celebrated function of the Dharmites current even to the present day, Dharma has been frankly made Śiva and the Gājana of Dharma really means the Gājana of Śiva. In the book *Ādyer Gambhīrā* by Mr. Haridās Pālit¹ we find an elaborate account of the Gājana of Dharma. Even a cursory glance on the verses that are sung with dancing and beating of double drums will show how confusedly Śiva and Dharma have been mixed together in these ceremonies and the verses themselves are really fragments found in the liturgical works of the Dharma cult and the Śivāyanas of Bengal. It is very interesting to note that this ceremony of Gājana is also found in some districts of East Bengal in the form of *Nila-pūjā*, (i.e., the worship of the deity Nila), and this elaborate religious ceremony, which takes place in the last week of the Bengali year and takes about a week's time to be completed, is never suspected by the people in these districts to be anything but a Hindu religious function primarily concerned with the Hindu deity Lord Śiva.² The fragmentary verses that are generally recited in connection with the various ceremonies of this function have striking affinity with the verses found in the liturgical works of the Dharma cult and also in the Gājana of Dharma of West Bengal not only in matter and spirit, but sometimes in language also with slight deviations.³

c20.s2.32

¹ Published under the auspices of the Māladaha National Educational Institute, B. S. 1319,

c20.s2.33

² A very brief account of this Gājana of East Bengal will be found in the *Vaṅga-Sāhitya-paricaya*, Part I, of Dr. D. C. Sen (published by the University of Calcutta), pp. 159-161,

c20.s2.34

³ We have collected from some villages in the district of Backergunge the fragmentary verses akin to those found in the liturgical works of the Dharma cult. They are recited in connection with the *Nila-pūjā* ceremony. It will be interesting to note that the cosmogonical ideas found in these verses are the same as found in the literature of the Dharma cult. We shall discuss this point later on in our discussion on cosmogony). Lord Śiva is occasionally styled here as Dharma or Dharma-rāja. In the *Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna* (pp. 242-245) we find a discussion on the origin and growth of the foetus; exactly a similar verse is found among the

c20.s2.35

The conceptions of Śiva and Śakti or the primordial male and the female have their bearing on the literature of the verses that are recited on the occasion of the Nila-pūjā. We find in the liturgical works of the Dharma cult salutation and prayers to the four quarters with a presiding deity in each; the same custom is also found in the Gājana of Śiva, and the peculiar fact to be noticed is this that here as well as in Dharma cult the ceremony begins from the west, which is not surely a Hindu practice. This practice however, seems significant and its significance has been explained before (Supra, p. 306). We are quoting here a specimen of the verses recited in Dik-bandanā:—

c20.s2.36

paścim paścim ādi paricay dvārī
maṇimay muktār hār |
śuddha kaṇṭhe kāñcan dvār |
kāñcan dvāre bākya nāme takya (?) rudra sthāpita |
tān rājā śrī-jagannāth bāhinī
tār dharma puruṣe dharma dharma hār |
tānāre sevile mukti kala pāi
nā yāva yama-puri śiva-puri ṭhāi ||
āgam bed gāyatrī bāṇī
kāñcan dvāre den puṣpāñjali |
he sādhuli, dik paścim, kārtik ganeś mahādev saṅginī,
dik paścim sapta-tāl kāṭhi
tine saṅge bālā khāṭi ||

c20.s2.37

Similar verses are recited in accompaniment with dances and beating of drums in the other three quarters, the presiding deity in the north being Śrī-sabhā-liṅga, in the east Śrī-muṇḍa-cakra and in the south Śrī-vaidya-nātha. Again, we have in the liturgical works of the Dharma cult descriptions of the construction of the temple of Dharma (commonly known as dharmera deula); with them we may compare the following verses on grha-nirmāṇa, i.e., constructing the house (for the Lord) on occasion of Śiva's Gājana:—

c20.s2.38

sapta samudre sthān sthiti tīrtha bārānasi |
yāita bahiyā kare stav śāiṭa śāiṭa ṛṣi ||
ṛṣi gaṇe kare stav bhāvīyā niranjan |
ghṛta śāil jakhiyā kare deul srjan |
arjun kāṭen pāthar dānave māre hurā |
kānde kariyā bahe dik sonār pāiṭkarā ||
rajata kāñcan kāñcan sāire |
rajata kāñcan kāñcan pāire ||
sveta cāmare chāiyā rāri cāl |
cāi cāl cāri pāir coyārī chanda |
ei ghar khānā dekhāy yena batriśer banda ||
medinī haila potā ākāś haila cāl |
sāgar dekhāy yena parvat samān ||
gayā talāiyā ghar tīrtha bārānasi |
ghare basiyā harinām duyāre tulasi ||

c20.s2.39

Dharma cult particularly in connection with the portions on cosmogony and cosmology,—and as we have to deal in detail with these ideas in a separate chapter, we do not propose to deal with them here.

c20.s2.40

The point to be emphasised here is that in the Buddhist Tantras a tendency was manifest always to conceive the Supreme Lord in the image of Śiva and the female counterpart of the Lord in the image of Śakti, and these Lord and Lady of the Buddhists were in still later times identified completely with the Śiva and Śakti of the Hindus. In the section on cosmogony of the Śūnya-purāṇa we find that goddess Ādyā, who is also called Gaurī (Durgā and Pārvatī), was unable to control her youth and sent Kāma (Cupid) to the Lord who was absorbed in deep meditation on the river Ballukā; Kāma disturbed the meditation of the Karatār. The whole scene here has been confusedly borrowed from the tradition of the disturbance of Śiva's meditation by Cupid for his (Śiva's) marriage with Pārvatī, Dharma-ṭhākura being conceived here exactly in the image of lord Śiva.¹

c20.s2.41

¹ In the chapter on the cultivation of lands (Atha Cāṣa) which seems te be a fragment inserted in the Dharma literature from the Bengali Śaivite literature, the Lord Supreme of the Dharmites has become lord Śiva, as conceived in the Bengali Śivāyanas.

c20.s2.42

maiśā (?) samāgam kāñcan doyār |
kāñcan doyār nay kedār doyār ||
kedār doyār nay muktir doyār |
muktir doyār nay simher doyār ||
pañca pāthar laiyā śiv basila āpani |
mandire āsilen ṭhākurāṇī ||

c20.s2.43

Again in the Śūnya-purāṇa, the Dharma-pūjā-vidhāna and the Śrī-dharma maṅgala of Mayūra-bhaṭṭa (B. K, Chatterjee's edition) we have funny legendary accounts of the origin of the metal copper, of the Beta-stick (beta=Skt. vetra), of the double drum (ḍhāk), etc., which are of great importance in connection with Dharma-worship. Similar legendary accounts (of course with more Hindu tinge) are found also in the fragmentary verses which we have collected in connection with Śiva's Gājana in East Bengal. Space will not allow us to quote them here and to compare them side by side with the accounts that are found in the Dharma-maṅgala literature. We have in our collection accounts of the origin of corn, of Beta, Ḍhāka, Śaṅkha, iron, thread, copper, the earthen pots and earthen vessel for incense (dhūpati), of incense, etc.

c20.s2.44

This identification is not, however, complete in the literature of the Dharma cult; there Lord Śiva has not yet been able to cast off or hide away completely his Buddhistic attributes,—there is still something of later Buddhism round the figure of Lord Śiva.

c20.s2.45

This conception of the Supreme Lord and the consort, as expounded in later Buddhism, developed itself into the idea of the Ādi-Buddha and Ādi-Prajñā in Nepaleese Buddhism. This Ādi-Buddha or the primordial Enlightened One is the Self-created One (Svayambhū) of the Svayambhū-purāṇa.¹ He is described there as the Lord Supreme, who is worshipped by all the gods, Yakṣas and Rakṣas in the mountain of Gauri-śṛṅga in the country of Nepal. He is described as of the nature of the ultimate substance (dharma-dhātu). He is often conceived as lord Vairocana with the other four Tathāgatas placed in the four quarters round him. Again, the Lord is often said to be Śākya-muni, who is called both Jagannātha as well as Dharma-rāja.² This Lord Supreme is called both Svayambhū (i.e., the Self-originated One) and Śambhu (literally, the Lord of Welfare), which is the most common epithet applied to Lord Śiva; the name Śiva also implies that the deity is welfare itself. The Ādi-Buddha, who is the Svayambhū and who is called the Dharma-rāja is sometimes described as of the nature of the three jewels (tri-ratna),³ It appears from the above that the three jewels were sometimes conceived in later times as the three attributes of the Ādi-Buddha. In the same text, again, Mañju-śrī is conceived as the Lord and he also is called the Dharma-rāja.¹ The Ādi-Buddha and the Ādi-prajñā have frankly been explained in the *Svayambhū-purāṇa* as of the Nature of Upāya and Prajñā or Karuṇā and Śūnyatā, and have again been described as Śiva and Śakti.² In the *Dharma-koṣa-saṃgraha*³ we find this idea of the Ādi-Buddha and Ādi-prajñā variously explained. It is said there that the Lord is called Ādi-Buddha, because he is the first knowable, and can only be inwardly intuited as he has no form to be perceived. He is called Nirañjana, because there is no stain (*añjana* = collyrium) in him, he being of the nature and form of the void like the sky. He is formless, supportless (*nirādhāra*); he is the Upāya, he is the Mahāvairocana.⁴ This Adi-Buddha is the Dharma-rāja. He is Dharma-rāja because he is the lord of all the entities (*dharmāṇāṃ rājā*), or because he shines in the world in his justice (*dharmād rājate saṃsāre rājate*), or because all the entities, or all justice shine from him (*dharma rājate yasmāt*).⁵ He is also called Dharmeśa, because he is the lord of all the divine virtues like the ten *kuśalas* (i.e., ten Buddhistic acts of righteousness) and is also the lord of all people who possess these virtues.¹ In another place he is explained to be Dharma-rāja, because he is associated with the knowledge of the perfectly pure ultimate element of all the Dharmas.² Again it is said, Dharma means the Dharma-dhātu (i.e., the ultimate element behind the Dharmas) and the ultimate support of this Dharma-dhātu; and he who shines with the Dharma-dhātu, is called the Dharma-rāja.³ He is the Dharma-dhātu in the form of Mahā-sukha or great Bliss. He is also called the lord of all beings—the Prajāpati.⁴ It will be clear from the above that Adi-Buddha, the Lord Supreme of Nepalese Buddhism, who was of the nature of Upāya, as contrasted with Prajñā, was widely known also as Dharma-rāja, and that will make it very clear how the Lord Supreme of the later Buddhists can also be associated with the Dharma-ṭhākura of Western Bengal and some parts of Orissa.

c20.s2.46

¹ Vṛhat Sayambhū-purāṇa, edited by H. P. Śāstrī, (Biblilotheca Indica).

c20.s2.47

² Ibid, p. 21.

c20.s2.48

³ namo buddhāya dharmāya saṅghāya ca svayambhuve | tri-ratna-mūrtaye tasmai ādi-buddha-svayambhuve || śri-svayambhū me śaraṇam ratna-traya-svarūpiṇam | sarva-pratidiśā me'dya svayambhuve kṛtāñjali ||

c20.s2.49

¹ *cf.* *nāmnā ca dharma-rājo'yaṃ patnibhyaḥ saha saṃyutam* || Ibid., p. 149. F. N. ; also p. 157

c20.s2.50

² *Ibid.*, pp. 179-180. See also the Chapter on Cosmogony, *infra*.

c20.s2.51

³ This work, which is preserved in manuscript in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (No. 8055), was written by Vajrācārya Amatānanda of the Mahābodhi-vihāra Lalita-paṭṭana, who was the first Residency Pundit in Nepal, at the request of Brian Hodgson in N. S. 946 (*i.e.*, 1826 A.C.). Mr. Hodgson has made a good use of this work in his papers on the language and literature of Nepalese Buddhism (*vide*, A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS in the Government Collection, under the care of the R.A.S.B.—prepared by H. P. Śāstrī, pp. 192-193). The text is evidently not very old; but we attach importance to it only because of the fact that being composed by an orthodox Pundit of Nepal, it is likely to contain genuine information, at least so far as Nepalese Buddhism is concerned.

c20.s2.52

⁴ He is called Mahā-vairocana, because, he is great (*mahān*) and at the same time illuminates or rather enlightens everything—*viśeṣeṇa rocayati sarvaṃ mahāṃścāsau*—MS. p. 1 (*B*).

c20.s2.53

⁵ *Dharma-koṣa, saṃgraha*, MS p, 3 (*A*).

c20.s2.54

¹ *dharmeśaḥ | dharmāṇāṁ daśa-kuśalādīnāṁ īśaḥ dhāraṇā-tmakānāṁ saṁsārī-kānāṁ ca | Ibid, MS. p. 8 (B).*

c20.s2.55

² *sa-viśuddha-dharma-dhātu-jñāna-yogena dharma-rāṭ | Ibid.* MS. p. 8 (B).

c20.s2.56

³ *dharmo dharma-dhātuḥ, (tasya) sādhiṣṭhanam yatra, tena vā -rājata iti dharma-rāṭ | Ibid. MS. p. 63 (A).*

c20.s2.57

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 63 (B).

c20.s2.58

Adi-Buddha is the Dharma-rāja

c20.s2.59

The above will confirm our previous statement that Dharma-ṭhākura does not represent the conception of any particular deity,—he rather represents the general idea of Godhead or of the sovereign deity over the universe, and as such he has been associated consciously with all the conceptions of Godhead or of the sovereign deity popularly current in Bengal and Orissa from the tenth century A.D. It is interesting to note that there is a Hindi text, entitled Dharma-parīkṣā⁵ which relates the character of Jina Deva as the principal God of the Jainas and Jina Deva is styled in the text as Dharma.

c20.s2.60

⁵ *Dharma-parīkṣā*, MS. No. 122, *vide Annual Report On The Search For Hindi MSS for the year 1900*—prepared by Śyāmasundar Dās (published by the Government of U. P., India).

c20.s2.61

After all these speculations on the origin and nature of Dharma, the supreme deity of the Dharma literature, let us now see how he is actually depicted in the literature of the Dharma cult, and these illustrations will, we hope, guarantee the relevancy and correctitude of our speculations.

Cites (11)