Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c9: Chapter IV

An Outline of the Religious Literature of India c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV

c9.1

A.D. 200 TO 550.

c9.2

§ 138. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains all sought during this period to give the best possible expression to their philosophies. The foundation texts of the six Hindu systems, of Jain philosophy, and of Vijñānavāda Buddhism were all written now, and numerous commentaries, most of which have been lost, were produced for their elucidation. Hindu sects are now far more numerous than formerly. Each has its own theology, in which its god is identified with the Brahman of the Upanishads; and each seeks to popularize its teaching and its cult by means of an interesting Puranic document.

c9.3

§ 139. We take the philosophies first, as they are probably the healthiest and most abiding elements of the religion of the time. Their interest to us lies in this, that the classic

c9.4

The history of India during the third century is a blank, but in A.D. 320 the family of the Guptas arose, and soon created an empire which recalled the glory of the old Mauryas, and gave North India a century and a half of strong, enlightened government. The peace and prosperity of these years provided the conditions in which religious literature and culture could do their best. It was then that the philosophic texts already mentioned, the early Purāṇas and a great series of Buddhist Mahāyāna Sūtras were written.

c9.5

Probably at some time during this period the Syrian Christian Church of Malabar came into existence.

c9.6

i. HINDUISM.

c9.7

A. The Philosophies.

c9.8

treatises, which form the foundation of study in all the six orthodox systems, appeared at this time. It is evident that each of these works is built on earlier systematic treatises, and is the result of centuries of thinking. But all earlier manuals are lost, having been rendered obsolete by the greater power, accuracy, and finish of these classic works.

c9.9

No definite date can yet be assigned for any one of these six books: we must be content to recognize that they arose within certain rather wide limits.¹ Yet the following points seem clear: (a) They were edited with reference to each other. There are so many cross-references from each to the others that scholars are satisfied that all six arose in a single period. At the time there must have been a great deal of public discussion, in the course of which the characteristic conceptions of each system were chiselled to the utmost perfection of form. (b) All six are clearly later than the didactic epic and Nāgārjuna. On the other hand, the lowest possible limit seems to be A.D. 450; for the oldest surviving commentary² comes from about that date. A.D. 200 to 450 would thus seem to be the extremest limits that can be allowed. (c) The wealth and intellectual activity of the Gupta Empire would provide the natural atmosphere and environment for the mutual intercourse and public discussion which lie behind the books. (d) Scholars are now inclined to believe, on the basis of Chinese evidence, that the author of the Sāṅkhya Kārikā flourished about the beginning of the fourth century.³ Asaṅga, the exponent of the Vijñānavādin school of Buddhism, which in all probability is the idealistic system attacked in the Yoga-sūtras, lived about the same time. Thus two out of the six treatises would stand related to the first half of the fourth century. (e) If, then, all six were edited with reference to each other, there would seem to be a number of lines of evidence converging to the fourth century as the most probable period for their emergence.

c9.10

¹ For this whole problem see Jacobi, JAOS. XXXI. 1 ff.; Suali, EI.; Keith, JRAS. 1914, 1089; 1915, 537.

c9.11

² Vātsyāyana's Nyāya-bhāshya. Śabara-svāmin's Mīmāmsā-bhāshya is probably as early.

c9.12

³ See § 146.

c9.13

§ 140. The form of these books is very strange at first sight to the Western student. Five of them are sūtras, and one consists of memorial verses, kārikās. No single document by itself provides anything like a clear, comprehensible account of the philosophy which it represents.¹ The system was expounded by the teacher; and the sūtra or the kārikā was little more than an index of topics which, committed to memory, enabled the student to carry the instructions of his teacher in his mind.

c9.14

¹ See Keith, JRAS. 1916, 613.

c9.15

But the two manuals which we deal with first are much more difficult to understand than the others. In them scarcely one single sūtra is intelligible without a commentary.² The method of reasoning³ also employed in these manuals is always elaborate and difficult, and sometimes obscure.

c9.16

² See Thibaut, SBE. XXXIV. xiii.

c9.17

³ It is explained by Max Müller, SS. 203-4.

c9.18

§ 141. There are six systems which are recognized as orthodox. Each is called a darśana, or view, because it embodies a way of looking at the world. They fall into three pairs, and are so arranged because of a close connexion between the pairs. The first pair depend definitely on the Vedas, while in the case of each of the other two pairs, the second philosophy adopted the metaphysics of the first.

c9.19

The first pair of systems fundamentally are not philosophies, but merely systematic expositions of the two main parts of the Veda. Each is called mīmāṃsā, which means investigation, exegesis. The Former Investigation, Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, deals with the sacrificial part of the Veda, and the Later Investigation, Uttara Mīmāṃsā, deals with the Upanishads. These two, then, really form the systematic theology of Hinduism. Since, however, the Upanishads are philosophic works, the Uttara Mīmāṃsā stands in the closest possible relation with the whole history of philosophy in India. The words Former and Later, as applied to these two mīmāṃsās, do not refer to the historical appearance of these systems, far less to the dates of the Sūtras, but to their place in study and in the life of the pious Hindu.

c9.20

a. The Karma Mīmāṃsā.

c9.21

§ 142. The purpose of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā, which is also called Karma Mīmāṃsā, i.e. Action Investigation, is to reach certainty on the subject of dharma, i.e. the whole religious duty of Hindus, but as a matter of fact sacrifice receives so much attention as almost to eclipse other elements of duty. All necessary instructions are given in the hymns and the Brāhmaṇas, but these are not systematic works, and in using them for the sacrifices priests met numerous difficulties. The Mīmāṃsā was meant to solve these problems by providing principles which should prove sufficient as guidance in the interpretation of the Vedic texts.

c9.22

Most of the sūtras of Jaimini's Pūrva-mīmāṃsā-sūtras are expositions of single texts or phrases, and are thus of little interest to the modern reader, but here and there great questions arise which are worthy of notice. For example, the absolute authority of the Veda requires for its establishment the doctrine of its eternity, and that leads in turn to the doctrine of the eternity of sound and the indefeasible connexion between the sound of a word and its meaning.¹

c9.23

¹ See ERE. VIII. 648.

c9.24

As the Veda contains many promises of rewards for those who perform the actions enjoined therein, and as these results are not seen arising at once from the actions, it seemed necessary to believe that sacrifice produces an invisible, transcendental result (apūrva), which will in time provide the promised fruit.

c9.25

The Pūrva Mīmāṃsā does not teach a philosophical system, yet certain metaphysical ideas are implied or find incidental expression in it. The existence of God is denied on the ground that an omniscient being is inconceivable; a realistic conception of the world is implied; the eternity of the world is stated in such terms as practically to preclude the belief in the periodic destruction and re-creation of all things; and the law of Karma is held so rigidly that it scarcely seems possible to believe in release from transmigration; and certainly the doctrine does not occur.¹

c9.26

¹ For these very early ideas see § 37.

c9.27

The system came into existence to help the Vedic sacrificer and the priests who acted for him; and it remains to this day the guide of orthodox householders of the twice-born castes. Hence, unlike the Vedānta, the Sāṅkhya, and the Yoga, it does not teach asceticism, and has never had ascetics associated with it.

c9.28

b. The Uttara Mīmāṃsā or Vedānta.

c9.29

§ 143. The manual of the Uttara Mīmāṃsā, or Later Investigation, is usually called the Vedānta-sūtras. Brahma-sūtras and Śārīraka-sūtras are also used, because the subject is Brahman, who is recognized as being the Śārīraka, or spirit ‘embodied’ in the universe. The work is attributed to Bādarāyaṇa, but the character of the work itself shows that a long succession of scholars stand behind the author, and the names of seven of these occur in the sūtras.²

c9.30

² Thibaut, *SBE*. XXXIV. xix.

c9.31

The work is a manual of exegetics for students of the Classical Upanishads, and is based on the belief that these treatises are in the fullest sense Revelation, and therefore contain a harmonious body of truth. As a matter of fact, although the Upanishads all set forth Brahman, one, spiritual, unknowable, as the basis of all things, they teach no settled system, but fling out guesses at truth from various standpoints. Necessarily, the effort to view the whole as an articulated body of clearly expressed ideas creates numerous difficulties. In so far as the obscurity of the sūtras permits us to judge, it would seem that the following outlines of a system are taught in the work:

c9.32

Brahman is one and formless, and consists of intelligence. He is the source of scripture (*śruti*) and is therefore omniscient; and he is to be known only from scripture. He is the material as well as the final cause of the universe. He has no purpose to fulfil, and is therefore inactive: his seeming activity is sport. The world, though produced from Brahman from time to time, has had no beginning and will have no end. Scripture also is eternal. The gods exist, and they feed in their own divine way on the sacrifices which the Veda enjoins.

c9.33

The individual soul is eternal, intelligent, all-pervading. It is a portion of Brahman; *it is Brahman*. Its individuality is but an appearance. Sacrificial works help a man to rise to knowledge of Brahman, but it is knowledge alone that confers release. The life of chastity and meditation on Brahman, as taught in scripture, is the path to knowledge. From Brahman comes the fruit of works, and therefore transmigration; from him comes also release.

c9.34

§ 144. At a very early date the *Vedānta-sūtras* became revered as an inspired work, and it has since been held by almost all Hindus to be infallible. Yet in spite of that, since no commentary by its author has come down to us, the exact meaning of its enigmatical phrases is in many cases far from clear, and many variant expositions have been formulated by Hindu thinkers. These scholars fall in the main into two groups, those, on the one hand, who follow Śaṅkarācārya (A.D. 788–850) in taking the identity of the individual soul with God in the strictest possible sense, and in accepting a monism so absolute that the material world is regarded as pure illusion, and the personality of God tends to be crushed out, and those, on the other, who, because they believe Brahman to be personal, regard the world as more or less real and the human soul as more or less distinct from him. The chief representative of this group is Rāmānuja, who flourished about 1100.

c9.35

Thibaut discusses in considerable detail the question whether Śaṅkara or Rāmānuja comes nearest the teaching of the sūtras and reaches the conclusion¹ that, while the kind of Vedānta represented in the Vedānta-sūtras must be left an open question, there is reason to suppose that in some important points their teaching is more closely related to the system of Rāmānuja than to that of Śaṅkara.² On the other hand, he is inclined to believe that the teaching of Śaṅkara stands nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than the Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa do; and he explains this striking fact by the supposition that the teaching of the Sūtras was influenced in some degree by the Bhagavadgītā.³

c9.36

¹ SBE. XXXIV. cxxvi f.

c9.37

² Cf. Keith, SS. 6, 52.

c9.38

³ SBE. XXXIV. cxxvi.

c9.39

For many centuries the Upanishads, the Bhagavadgītā and the Vedānta-sūtras have been recognized as the Prasthāna-traya, the Triple Source, of the Vedānta philosophy. It seems probable that in Bādarāyaṇa’s day the Gītā had already risen to great authority, even if it had not yet received its destined place in the Canon of the school. Being thus placed practically on a level with the Upanishads, the Gītā necessarily became recognized as absolutely orthodox.⁴

c9.40

⁴ For its original heterodoxy, see § 94.

c9.41

§ 145. It is of interest to realize that three of the distinct theories of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman which were afterwards embodied in commentaries on these sūtras had already received expression by Vedāntic scholars before the time of Bādarāyaṇa. According to Āśmarathya, the soul is neither absolutely different from God nor absolutely without difference; i. e. he held the theory called Bhedābheda; according to Auḍulomi the soul is altogether different from Brahman up to the time when, obtaining release, it is merged in it; i. e. he held the Satyabheda, or Dvaita, theory; while according to Kāśakṛtsna the soul is absolutely non-different from Brahman, i. e. he held the Advaita theory.⁵

c9.42

⁵ SBE. XXXIV. xix.

c9.43

From the date of the earliest Upanishads until now there has existed the great order of sannyāsīs who seek to follow this teaching. They are still the most numerous and the most highly respected order of monks in India. There are also a few nuns.

c9.44

c. The Sāṅkhya.

c9.45

§ 146. The primary authority for the Sāṅkhya system is the Sāṅkhya-kārikā,¹ a poem consisting originally of seventy verses and attributed to Īśvara Kṛṣṇa. It seems clear from Chinese authorities that this writer was also known as Vindhya-vāsin, and that he was a little senior to Vasubandhu, the famous Buddhist scholar.² Until recently it was believed that Vasubandhu's date was the first half of the fifth century, but fresh evidence which has become available has led most scholars to conclude that he lived from about A.D. 270 to 350.³ If that be so, we must place Īśvara Kṛṣṇa towards the beginning of the fourth century.⁴

c9.46

¹ See esp. Keith, SS. chap. vii.

c9.47

² JRAS. 1905, 162; 355.

c9.48

³ BEFEO. xi, 356 ff.; Thomas, JRAS. 1913, 646; 1031; 1914, 748; Franks, JRAS. 1914, 398 ff.; Takakusu, ib. 113; Keith, SS. 87.

c9.49

⁴ Keith, SS. 43; 57; 63.

c9.50

According to tradition, the Sāṅkhya-kārikā is really the Shaṣṭitantra rewritten, which, as we have seen above,⁵ was a manual of the theistic Sāṅkhya. The contents of the Shaṣṭitantra as sketched in the Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā⁶ seem to justify this tradition.

c9.51

⁵ § 99.

c9.52

⁶ Schrader, IPAS. 110 ff.

c9.53

The poem is an excellent piece of work. Unlike the obscure sūtras of the two mīmāṃsās, its verses are each quite comprehensible, although it would undoubtedly be extremely difficult for a beginner to form an intelligible conception of the system from the treatise by itself.

c9.54

It is well to recognize that with the Sāṅkhya we enter upon rationalistic speculation. It is held to be throughout consistent with scripture (śruti), but it is clear on the very surface that the leading ideas have been evolved not from Vedic texts but from observation and speculative thought. The appeal to scripture is more formal than real; yet the system has in consequence been recognized as orthodox, and therefore superior not only to Buddhism and Jainism but to the sectarian systems.

c9.55

§ 147. The end in view¹ is the removal of misery, and the means is true knowledge. Three kinds of evidence are available, perception, inference, and right affirmation (which includes scripture). The system is an atheistic dualism: there are two eternal existences, original nature (*prakṛti*), and spirits (*puruṣa*). Prakṛti is one, unconscious, productive; spirits are many, conscious, inactive, each a solitary, passive spectator of the operations of nature. It is implied that spirits transmigrate and suffer misery. Prakṛti is the universal material cause, unconscious, homogeneous, invisible, impalpable, knowable only from its products. Professor Keith writes: ²

c9.56

¹ Keith (*SS.* Chap. vii) gives a brilliant exposition and criticism of the system of the *Kārikā*.

c9.57

² *SS.* 78.

c9.58

The essential conception is that from unconscious nature there is developed for the sake of spirit a whole universe, that the development takes place for each individual spirit separately, but yet at the same time in such a manner that nature and its evolutes are common to all spirits.

c9.59

Prakṛti and all its products possess the three constituents, goodness (*sattva*), energy (*rajas*), and darkness (*tamas*), but while they are in equilibrium in prakṛti, they appear in its products in variant balance. From prakṛti issues Intellect (*buddhi*) called also the Great (*mahat*), a subtle cosmic substance, which constitutes in the individual his organ of thought and decision. From Intellect is produced Egoism or Individuation (*ahaṃkāra*), a subtle cosmic substance which marks every psychical movement with the word ‘mine’ and makes each spirit imagine itself an active human individual. From Egoism is produced Mind (*manas*), a subtle cosmic substance which enables the individual to apprehend and pass on to the intellect the impressions of things received by the senses, and to carry out the decisions of the intellect by means of the active organs. From Egoism there are also produced the five organs of sense, the five organs of action, and five subtle elements, or rudiments (tanmātras), which in turn produce the five material elements. Prakṛti, with its three first products and these four fives, make twenty-four principles, and spirit makes the twenty-fifth.

c9.60

The spirit, intelligent but inactive, is united with nature, unconscious but active, like a lame man carried on a blind man’s back, and, misled by the operations of Egoism, imagines himself an active individual, thinking, feeling, willing, acting, while he is but an inactive spectator of the unconscious and inevitable processes of nature. Yet nature is produced, so that she may display herself like a dancer, and so give the individual spirit an opportunity to realize the truth that he is not bound by nature but is a free, inactive spirit. By repeated reflective study of these principles the follower of the Sāṅkhya reaches the knowledge, ‘Neither I am, nor is aught mine, nor do I exist.’ Possessed of this knowledge, the purusha in peace and inaction contemplates nature, which is thereby precluded from her activity, and the purusha at death attains its true life of Isolation (kaivalya).

c9.61

§ 148. It seems clear that this complicated system was evolved from a number of early conceptions in the Upanishads.¹ It has in turn deeply influenced every form of Indian thought.

c9.62

¹ So Keith, SS. Chap. i, and 87.

c9.63

The Sāṅkhya offers the knowledge which leads to Kaivalya to Śūdras as well as to twice-born Hindus. It thus stands between the Vedānta, which is restricted to the twice-born, and the Yoga, which is open to all. There has existed since the early centuries an order of Sāṅkhya sannyāsīs, but there are few, if any, left now.

c9.64

d. The Yoga.

c9.65

§ 149. The manual of the Yoga system, the Yoga-sūtra, is attributed to Patañjali, and for centuries it was held that the reference was to the grammarian of the second century B.C., and consequently the Yoga-sūtra was believed by European scholars to be the earliest of the philosophic manuals. But since the sūtra shows a more developed system than anything that appears in the epic or in the Yoga Upanishads, and since the Vijñānavāda of Buddhism is criticized in it,¹ it is now recognized that the author must have been another Patañjali, and that his date cannot be earlier than the middle of the fourth century A. D. It is probable that the writing of the Sāṅkhya-kārikā and its great success led to the production of the Yoga-sūtra.² The rise of the Vijñānavādin, or Yogāchāra,³ system within Buddhism, about A. D. 300, would also be a challenge; for Yoga holds a large place in it.

c9.66

¹ Hopkins, JAOS. XXII b., 335, 336; Woods, Yoga, XV ff.; Keith, SS. 57.

c9.67

² Keith, SS. 57.

c9.68

³ § 178.

c9.69

The Yoga system accepts the twenty-five principles of the Sāṅkhya and adds to them the Lord (Īśvara), thus raising the number to twenty-six. But the interest of the Yoga centres, not in the understanding of these principles, but in the practice of the method of yoga and in devotion to the Lord, which it sets forth as the most efficient means for the attainment of the Isolation (kaivalya) of the soul (purusha or ātman).

c9.70

The Lord of the Yoga-sūtras is attached rather loosely to the main conceptions of the system.⁴ He is a special kind of soul (purusha-viśesha), omniscient, eternal, perfect, untouched by karma, transmigration, or human weakness. He is the teacher of the Primal Sages; and he helps the man who shows him devotion to reach the concentration which leads to Isolation, but he is not called the Creator nor otherwise related to world-processes. He is expressed by the mystic syllable, Om.

c9.71

⁴ Keith, SS. 56.

c9.72

Yoga-method seeks to gain complete mastery over the movements of the mind, first by means of moral abstentions, ascetic observances, and exercises both physical and mental, and then by fixed attention and deepening meditation, which lead on to ecstatic contemplation and the final discrimination between soul and nature, which secures Isolation.

c9.73

In its earlier stages the school of Yoga was open to all Hindus, and even to Outcastes,¹ precisely like Buddhism and Jainism. Yoga ascetics are called Yogīs.

c9.74

¹ Hopkins, GE. 114.

c9.75

e. The Vaiśeṣika.

c9.76

§ 150. As we have seen above, the Vaiśeṣika system already existed in the first century A. D., and it may be still older. The classic treatise, the Vaiśeṣika-sūtras, is attributed to Kaṇāda Kāśyapa. The Vaiśeṣika and the Nyāya systems apparently grew up side by side, and the two sūtra manuals seem to have been edited with close reference to each other.²

c9.77

² Keith, JRAS. 1914, p. 1085.

c9.78

The Vaiśeṣika is an atomistic realism. Nine classes of ultimate realities, dravyas, are recognized. There are first four classes of paramāṇus, i. e. minima, or atoms. Each paramāṇu is a changeless, eternal reality, yet invisible and without magnitude. The minima fall into four classes, according as they possess odour, flavour, light, or heat, which are regarded as characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire respectively. Two minima form a dyaṇuka, or binary atom, and a combination of three dyaṇukas forms a tryaṇuka, the smallest entity that possesses magnitude and may be termed a substance. The fifth ultimate reality, ākāśa, usually translated ‘ether’, is an indiscrete and all-pervading continuum, conceived as the medium necessary for the formation of substances from the unsubstantial minima. The sixth reality, kāla (lit. ‘time’) stands for the force which produces all activity, movement, and change, and thus gives the basis for the perception of time-differences. The seventh reality, dik (i. e. direction or position), acts so as to balance kāla, keeping things in position and preventing their dissolution amid the welter of change. The eighth reality is an infinite number of ātmans, the old Vedantic word for the self or soul. Each ātman is eternal, infinite, all-pervading. The ninth ultimate is manas, the organ through which the ātman comes into touch with the impressions of the senses. Like the paramāṇus, each manas is eternal and without magnitude. Like the Karma Mīmāṃsā and the Sāṅkhya, the original Vaiśeshika recognizes the Hindu gods but not the one God.

c9.79

The sūtras name six padārthas, categories or classes of things that can be named, dravya (entity, existence), guṇa (quality), karma (action), sāmānya (the relation of a thing to its genus), viśesha (differentia), and samavāya (inherence). The knowledge of these categories brings release.

c9.80

f. The Nyāya.

c9.81

§ 151. The Nyāya system, which can be traced from the first century, has adopted the Vaiśeshika metaphysic, and thus stands related to that system in much the same way as the Yoga stands to the Sāṅkhya; but, as sufficient evidence to enable us to trace the early history of the Nyāya has not come down, we cannot tell how it came into existence. As the special interest of the Nyāya is to prove the truths which lead to bliss and deliverance, one might conjecture that the system was formed by combining the method of an early school of dialectic with the Vaiśeshika metaphysic, or, as an alternative, that two schools seeking deliverance grew up side by side, the one seeking saving knowledge in an accurate scientific account of all things, the other feeling the necessity of presenting a demonstrative proof of the truth of the main positions which were held to be necessary for deliverance, and that, after the elaboration of the proofs, the metaphysic of the scientific school was adopted to complete the world-view. There is one further difference to be noted. Like the Yoga, the Nyāya posits a Lord (Īśvara), and is thus theistic, but in the sūtra he is referred to only as administering the fruits of action. The fundamental document is Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra.

c9.82

The sūtra enumerates sixteen topics. They are, 1. Proof, 2. Things to be proved, 3. Doubt, 4. Motive, 5. Example, 6. Conclusion, 7. The members of a syllogism, 8. Reductio ad absurdum, 9. Ascertainment, 10. Thesis, 11. Sophistical wrangling, 12. Cavilling, 13. Fallacious reasoning, 14. Futility, 15. Quibbling, 16. Talk that is beside the point. These subjects of discussion show where the centre of interest lies in the philosophy. In the course of its reasonings the Nyāya developed the logic of India.

c9.83

§ 152. In both the Nyāya and the Vaiśeshika the conception of the soul (ātman) is much richer and fuller than in other systems. Its functions are Involuntary vital action, Voluntary action, Desire, Aversion, Cognition, and Control of the organs of sense and of the manas or inner organ.

c9.84

These two schools seem to have sprung up among the orthodox twice-born householders; for neither demands asceticism, nor have ascetics been associated with them.

c9.85

It is very noteworthy that the Vaiśeshika was certainly atheistic to begin with, and the Nyāya may have been so also. Thus the ancient Hindu mind, which acknowledged all the gods but not the Supreme, lingered long among the twice-born. But gradually a belief in God won its way. From a very early date the Nyāya became theistic, and the Vaiśeshika followed later. The Nyāya is to this day professed by considerable numbers of orthodox Brāhmans in Bengal; while the Vaiśeshika seems to have been associated with Pāśupata Śaivism from the moment when it recognized the existence of the Supreme.

c9.86

§ 153. It is probable, though not certain, that each of the classical treatises was accompanied by a commentary prepared by the author; but unfortunately, if these existed, no single one of them has survived. Of all existing commentaries on the six manuals, only two seem to belong to our period, namely, Śabara Svāmin’s Bhāshya on the Purva-mīmāmsā-sūtras, and Vātsyāyana’s Nyāya Bhāshya. Jacobi conjectures¹ that both these works belong to the fifth century. It seems clear that Vātsyāyana’s Bhāshya at least falls within the limits of our period; for he comes before Dignāga,² the Buddhist writer, whose date is about A.D. 550,³ while the archaic character of Śabara's work is sufficient to justify our inclusion of it within the same limits.

c9.87

¹ JAOS. XXXI. 24; ERE. II. 201.

c9.88

² Vidyābhūshaṇa, MSIL. 86.

c9.89

³ Woods, Yoga, xix.

c9.90

The philosophies of Buddhism and Jainism are discussed elsewhere, but it may be useful to note here that the four Buddhist philosophical systems, Sarvāstivādin, Sautrāntika, Mādhyamaka, Vijñānavādin, are combated in these Hindu manuals, and that the classic treatise of the Vijñānavādins was probably written about the same time as the Sāṅkhya Kārikā; while Umāsvāti also, whose Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra is the fountain head of Jain philosophy, seems to have lived under the Guptas.¹

c9.91

¹ See § 185.

B. The Purāṇas.

c9.t1.1

§ 154. It would be difficult to exaggerate the popularity and importance of the religious poems known as Purāṇas. They are very widely used among the common people, both in the original and in numerous vernacular versions and adaptations. Indeed the epics and the Purāṇas are the real Bible of the common people, whether literate or illiterate, and they are the source of half the vernacular literature. On the other hand, the Purāṇas are of little intrinsic interest as compared with the Vedas, or the philosophic or classical literature; and hence they have been largely neglected by serious students. Wilson's essays laid the foundations for critical study, but little has been done since his time. It is thus impossible at present to give a trustworthy chronology of these poems, or to explain how each arose; yet something may be said to enable readers to grasp the significance of the more important sections of the literature.

c9.t1.2

Purāṇas are referred to in Vedic literature from the Atharvaveda downwards; quotations occur in the Dharmasūtras, and in the Epics; while there are definite references to the Bhavishya P. in the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra and to the Vāyu P. in the Mahābhārata. A passage in the Padma P. is copied in the Mahābhārata.² Yet even the earliest existing Purāṇas come from later dates. They contain sections and fragments belonging to early centuries, but as works they are late.

c9.t1.3

² Hopkins, GE. 47-50.

c9.t1.4

§ 155. The Purāṇas are a second type of popular literature, written in the same verse and open to the people with the same completeness as the epics; but they had a different origin. The word purāṇa means ancient, but as a name in literature it signifies not an ancient book but an ancient subject, Archaica. Indeed, originally a Purāṇa would seem to have been a book of origins, a sort of Hindu Genesis. The tradition is that a Purāṇa has five marks, i. e. it contains teaching on five distinct topics, as follows:

c9.t1.5

§ 156. But, like the epics, the Purāṇas were used by the sects as vehicles of sectarian teaching. Each sect and sub-sect

c9.t1.6

I. Creation.

c9.t1.7

II. Re-creation, i. e. at the opening of each kalpa, with a description of the Universe, Heaven, Hell, and earth.

c9.t1.8

III. Genealogies of gods and ṛishis, and an account of the origin of the Veda.

c9.t1.9

IV. The ages of the world and their regents.

c9.t1.10

V. Genealogies of kings.

c9.t1.11

This shows that a Purāṇa was conceived as a book of origins; and to this day the Purāṇas are the source of popular conceptions of creation, time, the universe, the earth, geography, and early history. We shall use the word ‘cosmic’ to describe this type of teaching as a whole, although considerable sections are rather legendary and historical than cosmic. Some very old material, belonging to this category, occurs in two or three of the earliest of our existing Purāṇas, whence it has been copied, with or without alteration, into most of the others. It can be most conveniently studied in the Viṣṇu. Further, in the genealogies of kings in the Vāyu, Brahmāṇḍa, and Matsya, there is material which has proved to be of historical value. As the latest kings named in these documents belong to the first half of the fourth century, the documents presumably are not much later.

c9.t1.12

sought to foist its own documents upon some popular Purāṇa, so that they might find their way into the hands and hearts of the people. The process seems to have begun, as in the epic, with Kṛṣṇa. It was quite natural to append his biography to the genealogies of the ancient kings, as is done in the *Harivaṃśa* and the *Viṣṇu P.* Thereafter, sectarian documents of many types found their way into the Purāṇas. As in the epic, the Vaiṣṇavas here took the lion's share, but the Śaivas did not fall far behind them, while other sects had to be content with slighter support.

c9.t1.13

Scholars are inclined to believe that the earliest of the existing Purāṇas took shape under the Guptas in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, although all have probably undergone more or less modification since then;¹ and it is probably true that every existing Purāṇa owes its present form and its survival to some sect. Thus we take the golden age of the Guptas as the dividing line. In earlier times there existed real old Purāṇas dealing with origins. They were meant for the whole people, and were a genuine national literature. But only fragments of these ‘cosmic’ Purāṇas survive. All existing Purāṇas come from the Gupta period or from later dates. Further, the Purāṇas have suffered so much from rewriting and interpolation that they cannot be treated like homogeneous texts. The date of each section must be considered by itself, and in most cases internal evidence alone is available. Most of the results must thus be treated as very tentative.

c9.t1.14

¹ Pargiter, *JRAS.* 1912, 248; Fleet, ib. 1912, 1046; Keith, ib. 1914, 740; 1915, 331.

c9.t1.15

§ 157. From quite an early time the Purāṇas have been spoken of as eighteen in number; for the phrase, ‘the eighteen Purāṇas’ occurs in a very late passage in the *Mahābhārata*.² What this early canon was like, we have no means of knowing, but it may possibly have included a few of the existing Purāṇas; for the passage referred to is probably not earlier than the fourth century. But the actual number of existing works recognized as Purāṇas is twenty; for the Harivaṃśa, which forms the conclusion of the Mahābhārata, is one of the earliest and greatest of the Purāṇas, and must be reckoned as such; and both the Śiva and the Vāyu, one of which is usually excluded from the list, ought to be included. There are besides many secondary documents, known as Upapurāṇas. The twenty recognized works are the following eighteen, as found in the list in the Viṣṇu: 1. Brahma, 2. Padma, 3. Viṣṇu, 4. Śiva, 5. Bhāgavata, 6. Nāradīya, 7. Mārkaṇḍeya, 8. Agni, 9. Bhavishya, 10. Brahmavaivarta, 11. Liṅga, 12. Varāha, 13. Skanda, 14. Vāmana, 15. Kūrma, 16. Matsya, 17. Garuḍa, 18. Brahmāṇḍa—with the Harivaṃśa and the Vāyu added.

c9.t1.16

² XVIII. v. 46; vi. 97; Hopkins, *GE.* 48.

c9.t1.17

§ 158. Thus the roots of the Purāṇic literature go back to early dates, but most of the material is late. Even a cursory study shows that there have been innumerable additions, excisions, and alterations made in the course of the centuries. Very few Purāṇas have a settled text: differing recensions exist, and countless fragments of many types are found in MSS., either incorporated in a Purāṇa, or claiming to belong to one. The sectarian Purāṇa is essentially an old text partially rewritten for a sectarian end, or an old text with a sectarian document incorporated in it; and this process of contamination has been continued through all the centuries since the Gupta period. Ancient legends about the sectarian gods, masses of sectarian theology, philosophy, ritual, and art, manuals of politics, war, astrology, medicine, rhetoric, and grammar, and māhātmyas (i. e. panegyrics) of temples and other places of pilgrimage, now form a large part of the contents of the Purāṇas. Thus even if the precise date of the original compilation of each of the twenty Purāṇas were definitely known, we should still be compelled to judge the age and origin of each section on its own merits. But very little of this critical work has yet been done; so that only tentative conclusions can be given at present; and critical

c9.t1.18

study will prove fruitful only if the Puranic material is examined in the closest possible relation to the history of the sects.

c9.t1.19

We propose to fit Puranic material into our outline of the history in two ways. First, we shall give a list in each chapter of those Purāṇas or sections of Purāṇas which seem to belong to its period; and secondly we shall use those sectarian Puranic documents whose connexions can be discerned to help to complete our sketch of the literature of each period.

c9.t1.20

§ 159. It is clear that the Harivaṃśa belongs to this period, but there is no absolute proof with regard to any other document. Yet we propose, tentatively, to assign the following Purāṇas and parts of Purāṇas to this period, since the evidence in each case seems to favour the ascription. They are briefly discussed below in the sections which deal with the sectarian literatures, and in each case the reasons for ascribing them to this period are stated.

c9.t1.21

§ 160. The slow yet steady weakening of the ancient sacrifices prescribed in the Śrauta-sūtras seems to be one of the chief features of orthodox life during this period, while the simpler rites laid down in the Gṛihya-sūtras were more and more practised and also widened in their scope. The popular gods took their place in the worship of the home, and were honoured with a ritual taken from the Gṛihya-sūtras. At this time also the word Smārta began to be used for the orthodox twice-born man who does not offer the Śrauta sacrifices, while

c9.t1.22

| The sect of | Viṣṇu : | *Harivaṃśa* and *Viṣṇu P.* |
| ,, | Śiva : | Sections in *Vāyu P.* |
| ,, | Brahmā : | First Khaṇḍa of *Padma P.*; portions of *Mārkaṇḍeya P.* |
| ,, | Durgā : | Hymns in *Harivaṃśa*; Caṇḍī Māhātmya of *Mārkaṇḍeya P.* |
| ,, | Sūrya : | Section of *Mārkaṇḍeya P.*; Brāhma Parvan of *Bhavishya P.* |

C. The Orthodox Twice-born and their Literature.

c9.t2.1

Śrauta became the term for the man who still keeps up several or all of the Śrauta rites. The word Smārta occurs first of all in this sense in the Pariśiṣṭas to Baudhāyana’s Gṛihya-sūtra. Smārta comes from Smṛiti; and the idea is that the Smārta’s worship depends upon smṛiti, i. e. the sūtras, and in particular on the Gṛihya-sūtra of the school to which he belongs.

c9.t2.2

For the whole group of orthodox twice-born men the final exposition of the Karma Mīmāṃsā, the Nyāya, and the Vaiśeṣika in sūtras—all three being systems which orthodox householders favoured—and the codification of the ancient dharma in the lawbooks during those centuries must have been of signal importance; while the writing of the Pariśiṣṭas now attached to the Baudhāyana Gṛihya-sūtras seems to have arisen directly from the emergence of the Smārtas.

c9.t2.3

The chief works on the sacred law belonging to this period are the Viṣṇusmṛiti, the Vaikhānasa Gṛihya and Dharma-sūtras, the Yājñavalkya Dharmaśāstra and certain Pariśiṣṭas or appendices tacked on to the Baudhāyana Gṛihya-sūtra. The earliest of these works is the Viṣṇusmṛiti, which is later than the Harivaṃśa, and the latest is the Yājñavalkya Dharmaśāstra, which borrows passages from the Viṣṇusmṛiti and speaks of Gaṇeśa. The Baudhāyana Gṛihya-sūtra is of peculiar interest for the history of the Smārta community; for it is sometimes called the Smārta-sūtra in MSS.;¹ and its Pariśiṣṭas contain rules for their cult.² It would be well if they could be critically edited. The Yājñavalkya Dharmaśāstra stands in close relationship to Manu and is also an orthodox work.

c9.t2.4

¹ Bühler, SBE. XIV. xxx.

c9.t2.5

² I am informed that the worship of the five gods is dealt with in them; see § 207.

c9.t2.6

The legal material of the Viṣṇusmṛiti is in prose sūtras, and seems to have been taken over almost unchanged from the Dharma-sūtra belonging to the Chārāyaṇīya-Kāṭhakas, one of the ancient schools of the Black Yajurveda; but some rules have been altered and a few new ones added. The reviser has also introduced a short chapter at the beginning, in which we are told that the goddess of the earth received this whole body of law from the lips of the supreme Vishnu, and added two at the end in praise of Vishnu and his consort Śrī. Krishna receives no special mention. The code is thus a Vaishnava work arranged for the use of some Vaishnava community, most probably the Bhāgavata, as is suggested at many points by the commentator Nandapaṇḍita.¹ The Vaikhānasa Sūtras are also Vaishnava, and as there are found in the Tamil south to-day Vaishnava temples in which Vaikhānasa, as distinct from Pāñcharātra, Saṁhitās² are used for the ritual, it is probable that this also was prepared for a special Vaishnava community.

c9.t2.7

¹ SBE. VII. pp. 155 n.; 208 n. 2; 268.

c9.t2.8

² See § 211 and § 212.

c9.t2.9

§ 161. It was seemingly during this period that the worship of Vishnu and Śiva as equal, or as one, was instituted; for the fullest exposition of the theory on which the cult rests occurs in the Harivaṁśa.³ One might think that the worship of Śiva and Vishnu as one was a compromise meant to reconcile warring sectaries, but facts suggest another explanation.

c9.t2.10

³ Chap. 184, lines 10660 ff. Cf. Muir, OST. IV.; also Winternitz, I. 386. For the Harivaṁśa, see § 159 and § 162.

c9.t2.11

The word Bhāgavata has two meanings in modern Hinduism. It is first an epithet used of Vaishnavas generally, as those who use the Bhagavat-śāstra, or body of works which revere Vishnu as Bhagavān. It is used, in the second place, of a special community of Vaishnavas, found to-day in most parts of South India, who really adore Vishnu, but recognize the equality of the two gods and keep up the use of Vedic rites. They are therefore recognized as Smārtas. It is of great importance to distinguish this community of Vaishnava Smārtas from the sectarian Vaishnavas called Pāñcharātras. We may be sure that the passage in the Harivaṁśa, which reflects the double worship, comes from the Bhāgavatas. An Upanishad was written later to establish the doctrine of the identity of Vishnu and Śiva, the *Skanda U.*¹ The godhead conceived in this way is designated *Harihara*, Preserver-Destroyer. An inscription dating from A.D. 528-9² shows that the Bhāgavata community was already in existence during this period; for it not only uses the word Bhāgavata but quotes their famous mantra, *Oṃ namo Bhagavate Vāsudevāya*.

c9.t2.12

¹ See § 210.

c9.t2.13

² The Khoh copper plates of Mahārāja Saṃkshobha, belonging to the year 209 of the Gupta era.

c9.t2.14

The presence in the *Harivaṃśa* of the classical text on the metaphysical equality of Viṣṇu and Śiva, and of several other passages which fit in with the theory,³ naturally suggests the question whether the *Harivaṃśa* may not be a Bhāgavata Purāṇa corresponding to the *Viṣṇu P.*, which clearly belongs to the Pāñcharātra Vaiṣṇavas. The emergence about the same time of two Purāṇas so similar in their attitude to Kṛṣṇa would thereby find an explanation. The contents and significance of the *Harivaṃśa* are dealt with below.

c9.t2.15

³ cxxxi. 741 ff.; cxlv. 8199 ff.; cclxvi-cclxxxi; cccxxiv. See Winternitz, I. 384 ff.

D. Vaiṣṇava Literature.

c9.t3.1

§ 162. The *Harivaṃśa* and the *Viṣṇu P.* are Krishnaite works prepared with the utmost care and skill from old materials, so that the popularity and the ancient influence of the Puranic literature may be used to strengthen the cult of Viṣṇu. It is suggested above⁴ that the *Harivaṃśa* may be a Bhāgavata document, while there is no doubt that the *Viṣṇu P.* sprang from the Vaiṣṇava sect known as Pāñcharātras. They must in any case be considered together. The *Harivaṃśa* clearly cannot be dated later than A.D. 400, and the *Viṣṇu P.* is so like it in most of its features that it is probable that it belongs to the same general date. Both contain a good deal of cosmic matter, but it is in their treatment of the Kṛṣṇa-legend that they are most significant. They presuppose the whole *Mahābhārata* story, but they tell in great detail the sports and exploits of his youth, which are merely alluded to in the epic. Perhaps three stages in the development of the legend may be detected. The dramatist Bhāsa, who probably dates from the third century A. D., has a play called Bālacharita, which tells the story of Kṛṣṇa’s youth, as its name indicates. In it the Hallīśa sport is merely an innocent dance. In the Viṣṇu P. there are already various erotic touches which go a good deal further; while in the Harivaṃśa the whole story of his youth is told at much greater length and the Hallīśa is treated as involving sexual intercourse.¹

c9.t3.2

⁴ § 161.

c9.t3.3

¹ Chanda, IAR. 86 ff.

c9.t3.4

In any case it is the life of Kṛṣṇa, and, above all, the legend of his youth that gives these works their significance; and the fresh material they contain, doubtless drawn from legends which had long been current in and about Mathurā, could scarcely be surpassed in power to attract, to interest, and to amuse the common people. Here we have Kṛṣṇa and his brother pictured in a series of feats of strength and cunning, killing giants and circumventing rogues, the whole lighted up with coarse country humour of the broadest type, and, alongside, scenes of rustic merrymaking in which the young god captures the hearts of all the young wives, and keeps up the dance and the revel all night long.

c9.t3.5

The Harivaṃśa had the immense good fortune to be accepted as a fitting close to the Mahābhārata, and in consequence has enjoyed unlimited popularity and influence. The Viṣṇu P. is the best representative of the whole class of sectarian Purāṇas, since it is purely Vaiṣṇava in its teaching from beginning to end, and yet retains with considerable faithfulness the character of the old unsectarian Purāṇas. It is divided into six books, all of which, with the exception of the fifth, are in the main ‘cosmic’ in character, though distinctly Vaiṣṇava in theology. The fifth book tells the story of Kṛṣṇa and is the heart of the Purāṇa, as has just been shown. In its theology the Viṣṇu follows, in the main, the Gītā and the other Vaiṣṇava documents of the didactic epic, but it speaks of Kṛṣṇa as being an incarnation of an exceedingly small portion of Viṣṇu.

c9.t3.6

The appearance of these two great works sufficiently attests the great place which Kṛṣṇa held in Hindu thought at the time. Thibaut's conjecture as to the influence of the Gītā on the Vedānta-sūtras, and the unquestioned fact that about this time the Song rose to a place of authority on an equality with the Upanishads¹ are further proofs of the influence of the Vaiṣṇava movement.

c9.t3.7

¹ See § 144.

c9.t3.8

§ 163. The Mahā² is a short Upanishad which voices the Vaiṣṇava conviction that Nārāyaṇa, i.e. Viṣṇu, is the eternal Brahman, that from him come the twenty-five principles of the Sāṅkhya system, and that Śiva and Brahmā are subordinate deities, creations of his meditative power. It is the oldest Vaiṣṇava Upanishad, and probably comes from our period. It is quoted by Rāmānuja.³

c9.t3.9

² Deussen, SUV. 743.

c9.t3.10

³ SBE. XLVIII. 522.

E. Śaiva Literature.

c9.t4.1

§ 164. In the didactic epic, as we have seen, a theology named Pāśupata is woven round the god Śiva. This system makes its appearance next in the earlier part of the Vāyu P. The bulk of the Purāṇa probably belongs to the fourth or fifth century, but the date of this Pāśupata section is not yet known. The material, however, stands so near the Śaiva material of the Epic in character that we are inclined to place it in this period rather than in the next. It contains a good deal of ‘cosmic’ material very little modified, the philosophy following in the main the teaching of the theistic Yoga. Chapters 11 to 15 deal with Pāśupata Yoga, the various forms of physical and intellectual practice which were traditional in the sect.⁴ Here also occurs a Māhātmya of Maheśvara, and a hymn of praise in honour of Nīlakaṇṭha, both names of Śiva.

c9.t4.2

⁴ Pāśupata ascetics are called ūrdhva-retasaḥ, Pāśupatās tapasvinaḥ, and bhasmoddhūlitavigrahāḥ.

c9.t4.3

§ 165. But there is one passage which introduces us to a sub-sect of the Pāśupatas, viz. the Lakulīśas. After an enumeration of the Kalpas, there comes an account of the ages (yugas) which form divisions of the present Kalpa. Of these twenty-eight are enumerated, and Śiva promises to become incarnate in each. The last of the prophecies runs that, when Kṛṣṇa shall be incarnate as Vāsudeva, Śiva, by means of his Yoga powers, will enter a dead body left unguarded in a burning-ground at Kāyārohana, and will appear as an ascetic named Lakulī. Kuśika, Gārgya, Mitra, and Kaurashya will be his disciples, and will practise Pāśupata Yoga, smearing their bodies with ashes and dust.¹

c9.t4.4

¹ Cf. the account of Pāśupata ascetics in Atharvasiras U.: see § 112.

c9.t4.5

Now an inscription in an old shrine near the temple of Ekliṅjī, fourteen miles from Udaipur, says that Śiva was incarnate in the country of Broach and carried a rod (lakula) in his hand, whence the place was called Kāyāvarohana, i.e. descent in a body. The Cintra praśasti says that Śiva became incarnate at Karohana, in the Lāṭa country, and that, for the strict performance of Pāśupata vows, there appeared in bodily form four pupils, Kuśika, Gārgya, Kaurushya, and Maitreya. Karwar in the Baroda State is held to be the place, and a temple of Lakulīśa still stands there.

c9.t4.6

We have then, in the prophecy of the Vāyu, the earliest notice of the Lakulīśa-Pāśupatas. The history of the sect has been worked out by Mr. R. D. Bhandarkar. A temple belonging to it was assigned by Fergusson to the seventh century; it can be traced in inscriptions from Rajputana south to Mysore, from the tenth century downwards, and large numbers of Lakulīśa images have been found in Gujarāt and Rajputana. These images are different from all other images of Śiva: in them the god has but two arms, he holds a short club in one of his hands, and the penis is naked and erect. The two arms find an explanation if Lakulī was a human ascetic; the club is the lakula from which he takes his name;

c9.t4.7

and the penis naked and erect recalls the liṅga-passages of the epic discussed above.¹

c9.t4.8

¹ See § 110. The epithet Ūrdhva-retas, which occurs in these passages, is used here of Lakulīśa ascetics in the sense of ‘chaste’.

c9.t4.9

It thus seems likely that the sect was founded by a Pāśupata ascetic named Lakulī, i.e. the club-bearer, who taught a form of Pāśupata doctrine, and was recognized as an incarnation of Śiva. Since the name Lakulī does not occur in the Mahābhārata, it is likely that the sect arose after the epic and before the Vāyu, perhaps about the third or fourth century.² Now, given the belief that Śiva has been incarnate in this, the twenty-eighth, Mahāyuga as Lakulī, attended by four disciples, the schematizing Indian imagination, which created a long series of Vaiṣṇava incarnations before Kṛṣṇa, a long series of Buddhas before Gautama, and a long series of Tirthakaras before Mahāvīra, would soon discover the names of the other incarnations and of the four disciples of each. The sect would then have a line of divine teachers worthy of comparison with the list of avatāras in the Vaiṣṇava sect; and that is precisely what we have in the Vāyu. It is very noticeable that the doctrine of avatāras, which was not adopted at the time of the epic, is now accepted, and that the very form of the story confesses that it is copied from the Kṛṣṇa-incarnation.

First 147 of 292 passages. Read on

Cites (92)