Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c20.s5: § 5. Deified States or Conditions

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c20.s5

Language
English

Contents

§ 5. Deified States or Conditions

v1.c20.s5.1

Of these divine figures special interest attaches to Aramati, ‘devotion’, who is also described as the great one: in the Avesta Aramaiti is a genius of the earth and also of wisdom, and there seems no real reason for objection to the view that the personification goes back to the Indo-Iranian period,¹ though it is doubtful whether we can see in the Rigvedic epithet ‘great’ a suggestion that the earth which often bears this epithet was placed under the care of this spirit, and still more whether we can believe Sāyaṇa’s assertion that Aramati is the earth. Another spirit who may with propriety be referred to the Indo-Iranian period is Puramdhi,² whose name occurs some nine times in the Rigveda: she is usually mentioned along with Bhaga, who himself is a representative of this class of gods, but who has become an Āditya, twice or thrice with Pūṣan and Savitṛ, and once with Agni and Viṣṇu. She clearly corresponds to the Avestan Pārendi, who is normally ranked as goddess of plenty and abundance: the view of Hillebrandt³ sees in her and in the Vedic Puramdhi a goddess of activity: the scanty evidence leaves us with no conclusive means of testing either version, especially as the two ideas can be made by a little ingenuity almost synonymous. A goddess Dhiṣaṇā⁴ who is mentioned about a dozen times in the Rigveda⁵ may also be a goddess of abundance or of impulsion. Anumati, ‘favour of the gods’, is twice personified in the Rigveda,⁶ and is besought to be propitious and to grant long life. In the Yajurveda and in the Atharvaveda she appears as a goddess who presides over propagation and favours love, and in the Sūtras she is clearly understood as connected with the moon, denoting the day before full moon.⁷ It is difficult to suppose that this view of the deity is anything but a later conception, for there is nothing to support it in the early mention of the deity. Sūnṛtā,⁸ ‘bounty’, is here and there personified in the Rigveda, while on the contrary the spirit of niggardliness, Arāti,⁹ ‘avarice’, is represented as a demon in the Atharvaveda. Asunīti,¹⁰ ‘spirit leading’, is besought in the Rigveda in one hymn to grant long life.

v1.c20.s5.2

¹ Hopkins, *op. cit.*, p. 136; Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 405; Moulton, *Early Zoroastrianism*, p. 98; Carnoy, *Muséon*, xiii. 127 ff.; Sāyaṇa, RV. vii. 36. 8; viii. 42. 3. That Ara is connected with ἔραζε is improbable.

v1.c20.s5.3

² Pischel, *Ved. Stud.* ii. 202–16; Bloomfield, *JAOS.* xvi. 19.

v1.c20.s5.4

³ *VOJ.* iii. 188–94, 259–73.

v1.c20.s5.5

⁴ Johannson (*Über die altindische Göttin Dhiṣaṇā und Verwandtes*) has based on this deity speculations on sexual elements in Vedic conceptions of deity, which to me as to Oldenberg carry no conviction (GGA. 1919, pp. 357–9).

v1.c20.s5.6

⁵ Pischel, *Ved. Stud.* ii. 82 ff.; Oldenberg, *SBE.* xlvi. 120 ff.

v1.c20.s5.7

⁶ x. 59. 6; 167. 3.

v1.c20.s5.8

⁷ Weber, *Ind. Stud.* v. 229; see above, p. 199.

v1.c20.s5.9

⁸ RV. i. 40. 3; x. 140. 2.

v1.c20.s5.10

⁹ AV. v. 7.

v1.c20.s5.11

¹⁰ x. 59. 5, 6.

v1.c20.s5.12

Most of these abstractions are clearly rather thin and feeble, and some at least seem more poetic than living realities. This is not, however, the case with the goddess Nirṛti, dissolution, or misfortune, who is found in the Rigveda¹¹ as a personification presiding over death. In the ritual the reality of Nirṛti appears in the many rites, which are mentioned in connexion with her, and which display certain marked peculiarities. The Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā¹ connects with her specifically dice, women, and sleep as the three most evil things. Her ceremonies are performed with black grain or with nail parings. The sacrificial fee in such cases is a black cow with imperfect horns. In the piling of the fire altar, black bricks are built in for her. In the consecration of the king the wife of the king who has failed to give him a child is brought into connexion with Nirṛti, and the oblations to that deity are offered in her house.² Other points in the ritual affecting her will be noted later on.

v1.c20.s5.13

¹¹ Macdonell, *Ved. Myth.*, p. 120.

v1.c20.s5.14

¹ iii. 6. 3.

v1.c20.s5.15

² Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 406. Following Speyer, Henry (*La magie dans l’Inde antique*, pp. 160 ff.) sees in her a goddess of earth; see TS. iv. 2. 5; KS. xvi. 12; VS. xii. 64. Cf. Arbman, *Rudra*, p. 261. Connexion with Nerthus is most dubious.

v1.c20.s5.16

Another deity which is of importance in the popular thought, but which is very late in appearing in the literature, is the goddess Çrī, first definitely recorded in literature in the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa.³ She was, however, as we know from representations of her which are found among the early records of Buddhist art,⁴ really a concrete goddess in the eyes of her votaries, though there is no reason to doubt her abstract origin. It is very possible, however, that she was assimilated to the goddess of the earth, which as Bhūmi is not rarely mentioned in the Sūtra literature. Çrī appears in the Sūtra literature, where we find at the offering to the All-gods that it is prescribed to make offerings at the end of the bed to Çrī, at the foot to Bhadrakālī, and in the privy to Sarvānnabhūti.⁵ Bhadrakālī suggests of course the name of Çiva’s fierce wife Kālī, and carries us to the very end of Vedic ideas, since Kālī does not occur in any Vedic text: the other two though localized cannot be regarded as in origin other than abstract deities, Sondergötter,⁶ having regard to the somewhat unimportant and artificial character of the place allotted to Çrī, and to the consideration that the names occur only in a list of oblations to the All-gods, and not in a separate list. In post-Vedic mythology Çrī or Lakṣmī is the wife of Viṣṇu, but of these conceptions the Veda save at the close is ignorant.⁷

v1.c20.s5.17

³ xi. 4. 3. 1; Saṁhitā references seen by Scheftelowitz (ZDMG. lxxv. 37–50) for both Çrī and Lakṣmī are dubious; VS. xxxi. 22; xxxix. 4; TS. ii. 1. 5. 2; TB. ii. 4. 6. 6; ÇB. xiv. 3. 2. 19 f.; BDS. ii. 5. 9. 10; Mahānār. Up. xxxv. 2; HGS. i. 11. 1.

v1.c20.s5.18

⁴ E. g. Rhys Davids, *Buddhist India*, p. 217.

v1.c20.s5.19

⁵ ÇGS. ii. 14. 10 ff.

v1.c20.s5.20

⁶ PGS. ii. 17. 13 ff.; GGS. iv. 2. 27.

v1.c20.s5.21

⁷ Thus such a Sūtra as the Bhāradvāja ignores both.

v1.c20.s5.22.1

Other examples of these abstract deities of the Sondergötter type are to be found in the Sūtras. Thus in the worship of the furrow, Sītā, which is itself concrete, we find that in addition to her there should be invoked the goddess Yajā, who is nothing else than the action of sacrificing, Çamā, which is exertion, and Bhūti which is prosperity: the guardians of the furrow there invoked are probably to be taken as personifications of nature, but conceivably may be treated as mere abstractions. But this constant mention of these kinds of deities with the most concrete is proof that they were not felt to be any different in essence by the people, for whom the Sūtras were composed. Thus in the ceremony of handing over the pupil¹ by the teacher to the charge of various powers the list includes besides Sarasvatī and the Açvins, Kaṣaka elsewhere unknown, perhaps Kṛçana or Karçana is meant, Antaka, Aghora, diseases, Yama, Makha, the sacrifice personified as often, Vāçinī, ‘the ruling lady,’ earth with Vaiçvānara, waters, herbs, trees, heaven and earth, welfare, holy lustre, the All-gods, all beings, and all deities, where the distinction between the older group of the All-gods² and the later conception of all the gods is noteworthy. A very remarkable list is given in the formula of the Tarpaṇa recorded in the Gṛhya ritual as accompanying the close of Vedic study.

v1.c20.s5.22.2

The deities honoured, all in the same manner, are Agni, Vāyu, Sūrya, Viṣṇu, Prajāpati, Virūpākṣa, Sahasrākṣa, Soma, Brahman, the Vedas, the gods, the seers, the metres, the Om, Vaṣaṭ and Mahāvyāhṛti calls, the Sāvitrī, which is treated with great respect in the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad, the sacrifice, heaven and earth, the Nakṣatras, the atmosphere, day and night, the numbers, the twilights, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, fields, herbs, trees, Gandharvas and Apsarases, serpents, birds, Siddhas, Sādhyas, Vipras, Yakṣas, Rakṣases—all classed as Bhūtas, beings—Çruti, Smṛti, firmness, delight, success, thought, belief, insight, memory, cows, Brahmans, movable and immovable things, and all beings, as well as various teachers and ancestors, paternal and maternal.³ In the list of offerings of the human sacrifice, a pure piece as we have it of priestly imagination, there is ample room for abstractions;

v1.c20.s5.22.3

a Brahman is offered to the Brahman class, a warrior to the royal power, a Çūdra to asceticism, a thief to night, a murderer to hell.⁴ More real are offerings at the Pravargya to glory, fame, strength, and prosperity, and at the Vājapeya to rivalry and desire to succeed.⁵ It is impossible to discern any distinction between such offerings and those prescribed for such more apparently concrete deities as the asterisms, Çravaṇa, Mṛgaçiras or Açvayuj, the full moon in the months Çrāvaṇa, Mārgaçīrṣa, or Açvayuja, the autumn, the winter, the quarters, &c.⁶ At the opening of Vedic study Pāraskara⁷ lays down offerings to the earth and Agni for a student of the Rigveda, the atmosphere and Vāyu for one of the Yajurveda, the heaven and the sun in the case of the Sāmaveda, and the quarters and the moon in the case of the Atharvaveda. In all cases offering is also to be made to Brahman, the metres, Prajāpati, the gods, the seers, faith, insight, Sadasaspati, and Anumati. Āçvalāyana’s list⁸ for this occasion includes besides faith and insight, knowledge, memory, and the Sāvitrī. In the Bali offerings⁹ of the householder we find the curious admixture of concrete and abstract deities; thus Pāraskara gives as recipients Brahman, Prajāpati, the deities of the house, Kaçyapa, Anumati, these offerings being made in the fire; in the water-pot offerings are made to Parjanya, the waters, and earth;

v1.c20.s5.22.4

to Dhātṛ and Vidhātṛ at the doorposts, and further offerings are prescribed for the deities of the quarters, Vāyu, Brahman, the atmosphere, the sun, the Viçve Devās and all beings, Uṣas, and the lord of beings. At the harnessing of the plough we find offerings made to Indra, Parjanya, the Açvins, the Maruts, Udalā-kaçyapa, Svātikāri—perhaps Sphātimkārī, ‘she who gives abundance’—Sītā, and Anumati. The Yava, barley, is invoked to ward off enemies, possibly an idea evoked by the apparent connexion of the word with the root *yu*.¹

v1.c20.s5.23

¹ HGS. i. 6. 5.

v1.c20.s5.24

² *Viçve* and *Sarve devāḥ*. Cf. AV. xi. 6. 19 f.; Kauç. lvi. 13.

v1.c20.s5.25

³ ÇGS. iv. 9; AGS. iii. 4; PGS. ii. 12.

v1.c20.s5.26

⁴ VS. xxx; TB. iii. 4. 1 ff.

v1.c20.s5.27

⁵ Hillebrandt, *Rituallitteratur*, pp. 135, 141.

v1.c20.s5.28

⁶ *Ibid.* pp. 77 f.

v1.c20.s5.29

⁷ ii. 10. 3 ff.

v1.c20.s5.30

⁸ iii. 5. 4.

v1.c20.s5.31

⁹ PGS. ii. 9; ÇGS. ii. 14. 5 ff.; GGS. i. 4. 5 ff.

v1.c20.s5.32

¹ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 407.

v1.c20.s5.33

We hear also in the Kauçika Sūtra² of an enumeration such as Agni, Brahman, Udaṅkya, Çūlvāṇa, Çatruṁjaya, Kṣātrāṇa, Mārtyuṁjaya, Mārtyava, Aghora, Takṣaka, Vaiçāleya, Hāhāhūhū, &c. Of these some have obviously reality of some kind or another: Takṣaka is a famous snake, and Hāhāhūhū seem to be two Gandharvas. We learn also³ of goddesses who weave, spin, spread out, and draw the threads of a garment, of night walkers and day walkers,⁴ of divine hosts and hosts not divine;⁵ in the funeral ritual⁶ Khyātṛ, Apākhyātṛ, Abhilālapant, and Apalālapant are addressed;⁷ and the list of some more or less abstract figures which are addressed as in some degree sacred might be considerably lengthened both from Vedic times and later on, such as the Ghoṣiṇī, who guards the cattle at pasture,⁸ or Dhanvantari, who in the epic becomes the physician of the gods,⁹ and who is possibly¹⁰ an old cloud deity, ‘whose boat is the cloud island’.

v1.c20.s5.34

² Kauç. lvi. 13.

v1.c20.s5.35

³ PGS. i. 4. 13. Cf. AV. xiv. 1. 45.

v1.c20.s5.36

⁴ AGS. i. 2. 7, 8.

v1.c20.s5.37

⁵ GGS. iv. 8. 4.

v1.c20.s5.38

⁶ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 407.

v1.c20.s5.39

⁷ Caland, *Todten- und Bestattungsgebräuche*, p. 62.

v1.c20.s5.40

⁸ ÇGS. iii. 9. 1.

v1.c20.s5.41

⁹ Kauç. lxxiv. 6; AGS. i. 2. 2; 3. 6; 12. 7; ÇGS. ii. 14. 2 (Bharadvāja Dhanvantari).

v1.c20.s5.42

¹⁰ Louis H. Gray, JAOS. xlii. 323 ff.

v1.c20.s5.43

One collective class is found early, the Bhūtas, beings, whence Rudra derives his style of Bhūtapati, lord of beings. The generality of the term is certain for the Vedic literature; the Bhūtayajña, offering to beings, is generic in character,¹¹ and there is not the slightest reason to doubt that this was its early sense. The theory¹² that there was originally a Bhūtayajña confined to certain inferior divine figures, which, owing to the ambiguity of the term, and the tendency of the priests to idealize the popular religion, came to be made into a sacrifice for all beings, is wholly unsupported and most implausible. The term Bhūt in modern usage has come to denote a malevolent spirit of the dead, one who has existed, and has ceased to exist, but this is palpably not its early meaning; indeed even in modern usage it is applied to nature spirits as well as to ghosts,¹³ and it is impossible to show that in the Vedic period it had any specific sense¹ referring to inferior or hostile demons. The wide sense of beings is natural enough for a religion which saw divinity readily on every side, and is probably merely a recognition of popular belief. It is a striking fact that in the medical literature² the Bhūtavidyā is by no means confined to evils brought about by evil spirits, but includes those caused by the gods. The tendency of the term to become narrowed down to hostile beings in later literature³ is interesting, but not surprising in view of the much more remarkable history of Asura. The origin of the limitation can be traced to the domestic ritual, in which the Bhūtayajña was artifically differentiated so as to create a distinct Devayajña, with the result that there seemed to be some opposition between Bhūtas and Devas, though the original Bhūtayajña covered all those beings to whom it was deemed wise to make offering when man partook of food.

v1.c20.s5.44

¹¹ ÇGS. ii. 14; AGS. i. 2. 3; PGS. ii. 9; GGS. i. 4; KhGS. i. 5. 20 ff.; also decisively ÇGS. iv. 9; ĀÇS. iii. 4. 1.

v1.c20.s5.45

¹² Arbman, *Rudra*, pp. 193 ff. His rendering of TS. vi. 2. 8. 3; MS. iii. 8. 5; KS. xxv. 6 (p. 213) is impossible.

v1.c20.s5.46

¹³ Arbman, pp. 168 ff.

v1.c20.s5.47

¹ Arbman, p. 180, suggests Gespenster.

v1.c20.s5.48

² Suçruta, i. 3. 10.

v1.c20.s5.49

³ Possibly in CU. vii. 1. 2, 4; 7. 1, but this is quite unproved. The wide sense occurs later, e. g. Manu, iii. 93.

v1.c20.s5.50

We have traces of classes of Sondergötter in the long enumerations in the Çatarudriya, whether we assume that these classes are assimilated to Rudra or treated as independent objects of devotion.⁴ In either case we have, as in the Roman Indigitamenta, priestly ingenuity working on primitive conceptions. A similar spirit is seen in the elaborate discrimination of aspects of gods, as when the Maruts are separately invoked as Svatavas, Sāṁtapana, Gṛhamedhin and Krīḍin, differences which are obviously rather hieratic than popular.⁵

v1.c20.s5.51

⁴ Arbman, pp. 230 ff.

v1.c20.s5.52

⁵ Hillebrandt, *Ved. Myth.* iii. 325 f.

Linked texts (21)