Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c7.s3: iii. The Epics.

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c7.s3

Language
English

iii. The Epics.

c7.s3.1

§ 46. The epics of India, the *Mahābhārata* and the *Rāmāyaṇa*, which were originally heroic narratives, became in the course of their history religious works, and are of extreme importance as evidence on the subject of the religion of the common people and with regard to the rise of the sects of Hinduism. But they are so vast that they are apt to fill the virgin inquirer with utter dismay; and in the case of the *Mahābhārata*, the contents present such an extraordinary medley—explained to us as arising from interminable interpolations and the operations of countless editors each with a policy of his own—that they deepen the feeling to blank despair. Yet, taken in the right way, they ought to prove very fruitful. The parts of each poem must be read at the points of the history where they appeared.

c7.s3.2

Scholars seem to be coming steadily nearer unanimity as to the three essential moments in the history of the epics. They are practically the same for both. All three stages are very fully represented in the *Mahābhārata*, but it is in the *Rāmāyaṇa* that the first and the second can be most easily studied, while the third, which is only faintly represented in it, attains enormous proportions in the *Mahābhārata*. They are as follows:

c7.s3.3

A. The epics composed as popular poems: sixth, fifth, or fourth century B. C.

c7.s3.4

B. The epics changed into sectarian poems by Vaiṣṇava priests: second century B. C.

c7.s3.5

C. Vaiṣṇava theism in both epics: the *Mahābhārata* becomes a huge encyclopaedia of theology, philosophy, politics, and law: first and second centuries A. D.

c7.s3.6

There is perhaps not quite so much unanimity with regard to the dates suggested as to the three distinct movements.¹ All would acknowledge further that fragments of material found their way into the *Mahābhārata* in still later centuries.

c7.s3.7

¹ Holtzmann, *MBH.* I. 5 ff.; 126 ff.; 152 ff.; Jacobi, *R.* 24 ff.; 60 ff.; 100 ff.; Macdonell, *SL.* 285-6; 305-12; Hopkins, *GE.* 397-8; Winternitz, I. 389 ff.; 423 ff.

c7.s3.8

§ 47. In this chapter, then, we deal only with the first stage. The roots of popular epic poetry lie very far back, in dramatic stories in the Vedic hymns and narratives in the Brāhmaṇas;² and it is probable that the first attempts at actual epics (possibly indeed a rudimentary *Mahābhārata*, or *Rāmāyaṇa*) go back as far as the age of the Brāhmaṇas; for since the epic is popular, and its language is Sanskrit, it must have originated at a time when the warriors in the chieftain's hall understood heroic songs in Sanskrit, that is, a time when the popular and the cultured speech were still near enough to be practically one. That in India, as in Greece, the epic arose from the song that glorified the noble deed, stands out clearly in the ancient evidence. The early songs were sung; and the more elaborate compositions founded on them were either sung or recited with eloquent declamation and dramatic gesture.¹

c7.s3.9

² Macdonell, 280-1; Keith, *AA.* 196 n. 19.

c7.s3.10

¹ Holtzmann, *MBH.* I. 52 ff.; Hopkins, *GE.* 363-7.

c7.s3.11

Scholars agree that the first rounded *Mahābhārata* and the first completed *Rāmāyaṇa* arose from these earlier efforts, and that they both appeared in the same age, between 600 and 300 B. C.;² but unanimity has not yet been reached on the question as to which came first.³ For our purpose, however, the question is of little importance. We need merely recognize that both were already in existence by 300 B. C. and that both may have arisen a good deal earlier. The features of the two epics, the place where they arose, the way in which they were formed from earlier pieces and other interesting problems, are discussed by the critics.⁴ Strictly speaking, the original epics ought not to come into our survey; for they were not composed as religious works, but as heroic poems. Yet their subsequent history changed them into religious works of very great importance, and the original material is a source of religious history all the more valuable because it is indirect.

c7.s3.12

² Macdonell, *SL.* 285; 306-7; Hopkins, *GE.* VI; Keith, *JRAS.* 1915, 318 ff.

c7.s3.13

³ Jacobi puts the *Rāmāyaṇa* first, *R.* 60 ff.; so Macdonell, *SL.* 306, but see also *ERE.* X. 576; Hopkins sets the *Bhārata* epic first, then the *Rāmāyaṇa*, then the *Pāṇḍu* epic, *GE.* 60-1; 238-9.

c7.s3.14

⁴ Jacobi, *R.* 119 ff.; Holtzmann, *MBH.* I. 15 ff.; Macdonell, *SL.* 310; Hopkins, *GE.* 79 and *passim*.

c7.s3.15

§ 48. We shall take the shorter epic first, as it is easier to detach the original *Rāmāyaṇa* from its accretions than to reach the genuine *Bhārata* amidst the immeasurable masses of extraneous material in which it is buried. Scholars agree that of the seven books of which the *Rāmāyaṇa* consists, the whole of the first⁵ and the seventh books are later additions. Thus Books II–VI represent the genuine old epic. But even in these books there are numerous passages that have been foisted on the text by reciters. Most of them are either variants, which make the details of the story harder to follow, or repetitions, which weary the reader intolerably; so that, before scanning text or translation, it would be well to put up a danger-signal beside each morass.¹ Estimates of the date of Vālmīki’s work vary from the sixth to the fourth century B. C.²

c7.s3.16

⁵ With the exception of verses 5 to 8 of Canto V, which Jacobi, *R.* 55, believes formed the first lines of Vālmīki's work.

c7.s3.17

¹ The following are the chief interpolations recognized by Jacobi: II. 41-9, 66-93, 107, 17-111, 117, 5-119; III. 1-14; IV. 17-18, 40-43, 45-7; V. 41-55, 58-64, 66-8; VI. 23-40, 59-60, 69, 74-5. Besides these, there is one very late canto which would confuse the reader seriously, viz. VI. 119.

c7.s3.18

² Jacobi, R. 100-112, inclines to the sixth, or even the eighth century. The latest careful review of the question is by Keith, JRAS. 1915, 318. He inclines to the fourth century as the true date, and Macdonell agrees: ERE. X. 576.

c7.s3.19

Vālmīki’s poem helps us to understand the religion the more because it is a secular work; for it gives us an undisturbed reflection of some aspects of the popular faith. And we do well to look at it carefully; for from a very early date the work has been read as a mirror of character; and in its enlarged form the Rāmāyaṇa is still the first of all Vishṇuite scriptures. Religion, then, in the original work is still frankly polytheistic and external. There are no sects. Every one acknowledges all the gods; and worship is made by means of sacrifice, usually animal sacrifice. There is no mention here of the philosophy of the Ātman. The sannyāsī never appears; but at every turn the ancient vānaprastha. There is no approach to anything like a theism. The idea of divine incarnation never occurs; Rāma from beginning to end is a man and only a man: he is a great hero, but there is no suggestion that he is in any sense a god. Most of the old gods of the Veda are mentioned; and there is no monarch among them, although Indra may receive a little more recognition than the others. A number of new divinities have taken their places among the famous early gods, especially Kāma, Kubera, Śukra, and Kārttikeya, and the following goddesses: Gaṅgā, the Ganges, with Lakshmī and Umā, the wives of Viṣṇu and Śiva. Semi-divine animals, Śeṣa, the snake, Hanumān, the monkey, Jambavān, the bear, Garuḍa, the eagle, Jaṭāyus, the vulture, and Nandī, Śiva’s bull, are quite prominent. Viṣṇu and Śiva, who in the later Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas are far more important than they are in the Rik, here maintain that prominence. Snakes, trees, rivers, and lakes are also worshipped. It is of importance to note that temples and images of the gods are common, and that animal sacrifice is the usual offering. There is no allusion to the phallus of Śiva. Innumerable superstitions haunt the religious consciousness. The doctrine of transmigration and karma is everywhere accepted and applied to life, but it is not yet full grown. Men do not understand all its implications, and parts of the old scheme of things still survive.

c7.s3.20

§ 49. The original heroic Mahābhārata is much harder to isolate, chiefly because it was redacted with greater care and persistence by the priests than the companion poem. It is referred to in the epic itself; for in the first section of the first book as it stands to-day, we are told that the Bhārata consists of 8,800 verses, of 24,000 verses, and of 100,000 verses. These three computations correspond to the three stadia in the composition of the poem referred to above. Thus the work we are thinking of here contained 8,800 verses. No scholar has yet undertaken to separate out the component passages, and reform the ancient work; so that it cannot be studied precisely in the same way as the original Rāmāyaṇa; but the student may form some idea of its character by reading one of the oldest episodes, Nala,¹ or Sāvitrī,² or the famous gambling scene,³ or some of the battle-scenes from Book VIII or IX, though even in these the trail of the redactor will be crossed here and there.

c7.s3.21

¹ III. 52 ff.

c7.s3.22

² III. 292 ff.

c7.s3.23

³ II. 46-73.

c7.s3.24

Then scholars are quite able to see the religious characteristics of the old poem, though they cannot extricate it from the clinging mass of fresh growth. The religion is polytheistic and ritualistic through and through; sectarianism has not yet appeared; there is no theism in it, no divine incarnation, no exposition of the Ātman doctrine. The three chief gods seem to be Indra, Brahmā, and Agni, but the whole of the old pantheon survives. Dharma, i. e. Law, and Kāma, Love, appear as divinities, and Kṛṣṇa appears also, but whether as god or man is not yet known with certainty.

c7.s3.25

Epic society is dominated by caste; yet there is far more social freedom than at later stages of Hindu history; and women in particular have a good deal of liberty. Brāhmans, in contravention of the regular rule, often become warriors. Hindus have not yet become vegetarians: everybody eats beef. The polyandry of Draupadī is clearly a historical trait which has persisted in the story, despite its naturally repulsive character.

c7.s3.26

§ 50. One of the chief problems of this period is the rise of the god Kṛṣṇa, who seems to have had as one of his epithets the title Vāsudeva. Some scholars believe that in the original *Mahābhārata* he was a man and only a man,¹ and that he was deified at a rather later date. Others affirm that he is always a god in the *Mahābhārata*.² Of these some suppose that he was originally a vegetation-spirit, others that he was a sun-god. It is certainly clear that he was already a god of some sort in the fourth century B.C.; for in Pāṇini’s grammar³ Vāsudeva and Arjuna appear as a pair of divinities. Megasthenes, a Greek ambassador at the court of Chandragupta about 300 B.C., has a sentence which seems to mean that Kṛṣṇa was worshipped at Mathurā and Kṛṣṇapur. In the *Mahānārāyaṇa Upanishad*,⁴ which is probably not later than the third century B.C., there is a litany in which the title Vāsudeva is used as an epithet of Viṣṇu, which seems to mean that Kṛṣṇa was already in some sense identified with Viṣṇu. Finally, in the *Mahābhāshya*⁵ of Patañjali, which was probably written about 150 B.C., Vāsudeva is spoken of as a divinity.

c7.s3.27

¹ Hopkins, *ION*. 105 (but see below); Grierson, *ERE*. II. 541; Garbe, *IC*. 210.

c7.s3.28

² Keith, *JRAS*. 1915, 548; Hopkins, *GE*. 395, n. 3; *RI*. 467–8.

c7.s3.29

³ IV. 3. 98.

c7.s3.30

⁴ I. 31.

c7.s3.31

⁵ On Pāṇini, IV. 3. 98.

c7.s3.32

Sir R. G. Bhandarkar¹ has a notable theory of his own on the subject. He distinguishes between Vāsudeva and Kṛṣṇa. He believes that Vāsudeva was originally a man belonging to the Sātvata tribe, that he lived in the sixth century B.C., if not earlier, and that he taught the people of his tribe a monotheistic religion. Some time after his death he was deified by his own people and identified with the one personal God whom he had preached. He was thereafter identified, first with Nārāyaṇa, then with Viṣṇu, and finally with the cowherd god of Mathurā, Gopāla Kṛṣṇa. From the sect which worshipped this god there arose, according to this theory, the famous poem, the *Bhagavadgītā*. Grierson,² Winternitz,³ and Garbe⁴ accept the theory, and support it ardently, but Hopkins⁵ and Keith⁶ hold that it can be shown to be unhistorical; and most scholars seem to follow them. There is certainly no clear evidence of the existence of a monotheistic faith during those early centuries.

c7.s3.33

¹ VS. Chaps. IV, VII, VIII, IX.

c7.s3.34

² ERE. II. 540 ff.

c7.s3.35

³ I. 373.

c7.s3.36

⁴ IC. 215 ff.

c7.s3.37

⁵ JRAS. 1905, 384.

c7.s3.38

⁶ JRAS. 1915, 548; ib. 1917, 173.

c7.s3.39

§ 51. In the Epics and the Sūtras we meet the first references to Hindu temple-and-image worship. But it is most noteworthy that, by the side of the minute instructions for the sacrifices given in the Kalpa-sūtras, no directions for the temple-cult appear. The latter seems to be merely tolerated by the side of the orthodox cult. Then, at a later date, when the Vaiṣṇavas and the Śaivas organized themselves as sects, worshipping Viṣṇu and Śiva by temple and image, they were condemned as unorthodox; and the taint remains to some extent to the present day. It is also important to realize that from the earliest times at which we catch glimpses of the organization of Hindu temple-worship, there are stringent rules to the effect that the priests must be Brāhmans, and that the temples are open to all men and women of the four castes—Brāhman, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, Śūdra—but to no others. What the history behind these facts is, it is as yet impossible to say with certainty.¹ One of the largest interests of the later history of Hindu worship is the slow but steady weakening of the old sacrificial cult under the pressure of the more attractive temple-system.

c7.s3.40

¹ So far as the evidence goes, it would seem that for many centuries after their entrance into India the Aryan people used no images, erected no temples, and recognized no sacred places. Their cult consisted of the sacrifices, and these were private and personal, and were carried out within a man's own house or domains, or wherever the performance was desirable. On the other hand, the facts of modern India suggest that the sacred spot, with its local shrine and image or symbol, open to all the people of the tribe, is a very old aboriginal institution. It seems as if the Aryans and the aborigines were very sharply divided in their conceptions of worship as well as in other matters. If this inference then is justifiable, it would be natural to conjecture that, when, at a very early period, masses of the aborigines were admitted to intercourse with the conquering Aryans and called Śūdras, they carried with them into the Aryan community their temple-and-image worship; and that this cult was at some later date regularized, either by the appointment of real Brāhmans as ministrants, or by the recognition of the actual incumbents as Brāhmans. If we could be sure that the second of these alternatives is what actually happened, we should then have a really adequate historical reason for the very curious fact that, to this day and all over India, temple-ministrants are held in much less consideration than other Brāhmans. There is one point which is absolutely clear, namely this, that the essential elements of the temple-cult—the sixteen operations, *ṣoḍaśa upachāra*—are so distinct in character from the sacrificial cult as to betray an alien origin.

Cites (5)