Reading section 22

[Footnote 468: The Samhitas hitherto best known to orientalists appear to be late and spurious. The Brihadbrahma Samhita published by the Anandasrama Press mentions Ramanuja. The work printed in the _Bibliotheca Indica_ as Narada Pancaratra (although its proper title apparently is Jnanamritasara) has been analyzed by Roussel in _Melanges Harlez_ and is apparently a late liturgical compilation of little originality. Schrader's work was published by the Adyar Library in Madras, 1916. Apparently the two forms Pancaratra and Pancaratra are both found, but that with the long vowel is the more usual. Govindacarya's article in _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 951 may also be consulted.]

[Footnote 469: The oldest are apparently the Paushkara, Varaha, Brahma, Sattvata, Jaya and Ahirbudhnya Samhitas, all quoted as authoritative by either Ramanuja or Vedanta Desika.]

[Footnote 470: It is quoted as equal to the Vedas by Yamunacarya, so it must then have been in existence some centuries.]

[Footnote 471: The story of Svetadvipa or White Island in the Santi-parvan of the Mahabharata states definitely that Narada received the Pancaratra there.]

[Footnote 472: There is much diversity of statement as to whether there are one or many Saktis.]

[Footnote 473: Vishnu is the name of God in all his aspects, but especially God as the absolute. Vasudeva is used both of God as the absolute and also as the first emanation (Vyuha).]

[Footnote 474: Kriyasakti and Bhutisakti.]

[Footnote 475: Jnana, aisvarya, sakti, bala, virya, tejas. These are called gunas but are not to be confounded with the three ordinary gunas.]

[Footnote 476: The words seem to have been originally proper names. See the articles in the _Petersburg Lexicon._]

[Footnote 477: Narayana like Vishnu is used to designate more than one aspect of God. Sometimes it denotes the Absolute.]

[Footnote 478: The above brief sketch is based on Schrader's _Int. to the Pancaratra_ where the reader can find full details.]

[Footnote 479: Comment on Vedanta sutras, II. 2. 42.]

[Footnote 480: And, as Schrader observes, the evolutionary system of the Pancaratra is practically concerned with only one force, the Sakti, which under the name Bhuti is manifested as the Universe and as Kriya vitalizes and governs it (p. 31).]

[Footnote 481: On Sutta-nipata, 790, 792. The doctrine of the Vyuhas is expounded in the Mahabharata Santip. CCCXL. 36 ff., 70 ff.; CCCXLI. 26 ff.]

[Footnote 482: Lueder's List of Brahmi inscriptions, No. 6, supposed not to be later than 200 B.C. and No. 1112 supposed to be of the first century B.C. Sankarshana is also mentioned in the Kautiliya Arthasastra, XIII. 3.]

[Footnote 483: Some Samhitas emphasize the distinction between the followers of the Veda and the enlightened ones who worship the Lord. See Schrader, _Pancaratra_, p. 97.]

[Footnote 484: Syam iti Sankalpa, Ahirbudh. Sam. II. 7. In some late Upanishads (_e.g._ Naradaparivrajaka and Brihatsannyasa) Cakri is used as a synonym for a Pancaratra.]

[Footnote 485: The same is true of Ramanuja, who never quotes the Bhagavata Purana.]

[Footnote 486: See the quotations from the Sattvata Samhita in Schrader, pp. 150-154. As in the Pancaratra there is the Para above the four Vyuhas, so some late forms of Buddhism regard Vairocana as the source of four Jinas.]

[Footnote 487: The Manicheans also had groups of five deities (see Chavannes and Pelliot in _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 333-338) but they are just as likely to have borrowed from Buddhism as _vice versa._]

[Footnote 488: See Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 565.]

[Footnote 489: Manu, I. 10-11, identifies him with Brahma and says, "The waters are called Narah because they are produced from Nara, and he is called Narayana because they were his place of movement (ayana)." The same statement occurs in the Narayaniya.]

[Footnote 490: They are said to have been the sons of Dharma (religion or righteousness) and Ahimsa (not-injuring). This is obvious allegory indicating that the Bhagavata religion rejected animal sacrifices. At the beginning of the Narayaniya (Santip. cccxxxv.) it is said that Narayana the soul of the universe took birth in a quadruple form as the offspring of Dharma, _viz._ Nara, Narayana, Hari and Krishna. Nara and Narayana are often identified with Arjuna and Vasudeva. _e.g._ Udyogap. xxlx. 19.]

[Footnote 491: Mahabhar. XII.]

[Footnote 492: It is an episode in Mahabhar. VI. and in its present form was doubtless elaborated apart from the rest. But we may surmise that the incident of Krishna's removing Arjuna's scruples by a discourse appeared in the early versions of the story and also that the discourse was longer and profounder than would seem appropriate to the European reader of a tale of battles. But as the Vedanta philosophy and the doctrine of Krishna's godhead developed, the discourse may have been amplified and made to include later theological views. Garbe in his German translation attempts to distinguish the different strata and his explanation of the inconsistencies as due to successive redactions and additions may contain some truth. But these inconsistencies in theology are common to all sectarian writings and I think the main cause for them must be sought not so much in the alteration and combination of documents, as in a mixed and eclectic mode of thought. Even in European books of the first rank inconsistencies are not unknown and they need not cause surprise in works which were not written down but committed to memory. A poet composing a long religious poem in this way and feeling, as many Hindus feel, both that God is everything and also that he is a very present personal help, may very well express himself differently in different parts. On the other hand the editors of such poems are undoubtedly tempted to insert in them later popular doctrines.]

[Footnote 493: The name appears not to be in common use now, but the Pasupata school is reviewed in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha (_c._ 1330).]

[Footnote 494: Sivabhagavata, see his comment on Panini, V. 3. 99 and V. 2. 76. The name is remarkable and suggests that the Sivaites may have imitated the Bhagavatas.]

[Footnote 495: I. xxiii. 209. The _Bibliotheca Ind._ edition reads Nakuli. Aufrecht (_Bodl. MSS._) has Lakuli. The same story is found in Linga P. chap. XXIV. Lakuli is said to have had four pupils who founded four branches. Lakulin does not play an important part in modern Sivaism but is mentioned in inscriptions from the tenth till the thirteenth centuries. The Sarva-darsana-sangraha describes the Nakulisa-Pasupata system and quotes Nakulisa who is clearly the same as Lakulin. The figures on Kushan coins representing Siva as holding a club may be meant for Lakulin but also may be influenced by Greek figures of Herakles. See for Lakulin Fleet in _J.R.A.S._ 1907, pp. 419 ff. and Bhandarkar _Vaishnavism and Saivism_, pp. 115 ff. The coins of Wema Kadphises bear the title Mahisvara, apparently meaning worshipper of the Great Lord. Temples in south India seem to have been named after Kayarohana in the seventh century A.D. See Gopinatha Rao, _Hindu Iconography_, II. p. 19.]

[Footnote 496: Mahabhar. XII.]

[Footnote 497: Mahabhar. XII. 13702 ff. It is recited by Daksha when he recognizes the might of Siva after the unfortunate incident of his sacrifice.]

[Footnote 498: Santi-parvan, section cclxxxv especially line 10, 470 ff.]

[Footnote 499: See Sarva-darsana-sangraha, chap. VI. and the comments of Ramanuja and Sankara on Vedanta Sutras, II. 2. 36.]

[Footnote 500: _E.g._ Sankara-dig-vijaya. The first notice of these sects appears to be an inscription at Igatpuri in the Nasik district of about 620 A.D. recording a grant for the worship of Kapalesvara and the maintenance of Mahavratins (= Kapalikas) in his temple. But doubtless the sects are much older.]

[Footnote 501: The principal are, the Pasupatas, the Saivasiddhantam of southern India and the Sivaism of Kashmir.]

[Footnote 502: The Sarva-darsana-sangraha, chap. VII. gives a summary of it.]

[Footnote 503: The Pasupatas seem to attach less importance to this triad, though as they speak of Pati, Pasu and the impurities of the soul there is not much difference. In their views of causation and free will they differed slightly from the Saivas, since they held that Siva is the universal and absolute cause, the actions of individuals being effective only in so far as they are in conformity with the will of Siva. The Saiva siddhanta however holds that Siva's will is not irrespective of individual Karma, although his independence is not thereby diminished. He is like a man holding a magnet and directing the movements of needles.]

[Footnote 504: There is some difference of language and perhaps of doctrine on this point in various Sivaite works. Both Sivaites and Pancaratrins sometimes employ the language of the Advaita. But see Schrader, _Int. to Pancaratra_, pp. 91 ff.]

[Footnote 505: The five Kancukas (or six including Maya) are strictly speaking tattvas of which the Saivas enumerate 36 and are kala, niyati, raga, vidya and kala contrasted with nityatva, vyapakatva, purnatva, sarvajnatva, sarvakartritva which are qualities of spirit. See Chatterji, _Kashmir Saivism_, 75 ff., 160, where he points out that the Kancukas are essentially equivalent to Kant's "forms of perception and conception." See too Schrader, _Int. to Pancaratra_, 64, 90, 115.]

[Footnote 506: See for names and other details Schomerus, _Der Saiva-Siddhanta_, pp. 7, 23: also many articles in the _Siddhanta-Dipika._]

[Footnote 507: They are taken from the Agama called Raurava. The Sivaites of Kashmir appear to have regarded the extant Siva-sutras as an Agama.]

[Footnote 508: The Sanskrit text and translation of the Mrigendra are published in the _Siddhanta-Dipika_, vol. IV. 1901 ff. It is sometimes described as an Upagama and sometimes as the Jnanapada of the Kamika Agama.]

[Footnote 509: So Tirumular. Nilakantha in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutras says: "I see no difference between the Veda and the Saivagama."]

[Footnote 510: Or Srikantha. The commentary is translated in _Siddhanta-Dipika_, vol. I. ff. In spite of sectarian views as to its early date, it seems to be influenced by the views and language of Ramanuja.]

CHAPTER XXVIII

SANKARA. SIVAISM IN SOUTHERN INDIA. KASHMIR. LINGAYATS

1

About the sixth century A.D. the decadence of Buddhism and the invigoration of Brahmanism were both well advanced. The Mahabharata existed as a great collection of epic and religious poetry and the older Puranas were already composed. Even at the present day authorities differ as to whether Siva or Vishnu commands the allegiance of the majority and naturally it is hard to describe the distribution of sects in earlier times. The monuments of the Guptas (for instance the ruins at Eran) suggest that they were Vishnuites but a little later the cult of Siva becomes more prominent. The Emperor Harsha (612-648) and his family were eclectic, honouring Siva, the Sun and the Buddha, but it is not recorded that they worshipped Vishnu. Bana who lived at his court indicates[511] that Sivaism was the predominant form of worship, but also mentions Buddhists and Bhagavatas. Hsuean Chuang on the other hand holds him up as a devout Buddhist. Great Sivaite shrines in different parts of India such as the temple of Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa and the Kailas at Ellora were probably constructed in the seventh century and it is likely that in the defeat of Buddhism the worshippers of Siva played an active part.

This conflict is connected with the names of Kumarila Bhatta (c. 725 A.D.) and Sankara Acarya (c. 800 A.D.). It clearly represents forces which cannot be restricted to the character of individuals or the span of human lives. The elements which compose Hinduism had been vigorous long before the eighth century and Buddhism, though decadent, continued to exist in India later. But probably the careers of these two men are the best record of the decisive turn of the tide. It is often said that they revived Hinduism, but however much they insisted on the authority of ancient tradition, the real result of their labours was not to re-establish the order of things which prevailed before the rise of Buddhism, but to give authority and solidity to the mixture of Brahmanism, Buddhism and popular beliefs which had grown up. Kumarila is said to have been a Brahman of Bihar who was a Buddhist monk but became a worshipper of Siva and so zealous a persecutor of his former faith that he persuaded a king of his time named Sudhanvan to exterminate it from the Himalaya to Cape Comorin. This is a monstrous exaggeration but he was doubtless a determined enemy of the Buddhists, as can be seen from his philosophical works.[512] He taught little about metaphysics or the nature of God, but he insisted on the necessity and efficacy of Vedic rites.

More important both as a thinker and an organizer was Sankara. There is some discrepancy in the traditions of his birth, but he was probably born about 788 A.D.[513] in a family of Nambuthiri Brahmans at Kaladi[514] in the Cochin state. Kaladi occupies a healthy position at some height above the sea level and the neighbourhood is now used as a sanatorium. The cocoanut trees and towered temples which mark many south Indian landscapes are absent, and paddy fields alternate with a jungle of flowering plants studded with clumps of bamboos. A broad river broken by sandbanks winds through the district and near the villages there are often beautiful avenues of great trees. Not far distant is Trichur which possesses a Vedic college and a large temple, forbidden to Europeans but like most edifices in Malabar modest in architecture. This is not the land of giant gopurams and multitudinous sculpture, but of lives dedicated to the acquisition of traditional learning and the daily performance of complicated but inconspicuous rites.

The accounts of Sankara's life are little but a collection of legends, in which, however, the following facts stand out. He was the pupil of Govinda, who was himself the pupil of Gaudapada and this connection would be important could we be certain that this Gaudapada was the author of the metrical treatise on philosophy bearing his name. He wrote popular hymns as well as commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras and Bhagavad-gita, thus recognizing both Vedic and post-Vedic literature: he resided for some time on the Narbudda and at Benares, and in the course of the journeys in which like Paul he gave vent to his activity, he founded four maths or monasteries, at Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath in the Himalaya. Near the latter he died before he was an old man. On his deathbed he is said to have asked forgiveness for going on pilgrimages and frequenting temples, because by so doing he had seemed to forget that God is everywhere.

It is clear that his work both as an author and organizer was considerable and permanent, and that much of his career was spent outside Dravidian lands. His greatest achievement was his exposition of the Vedanta, of which I treat elsewhere. He based his arguments unreservedly on the Vedic texts and aimed at being merely conservative, but those texts and even the ancient commentaries are obscure and inconsistent, and it was reserved for his genius to produce from them a system which in consistency, thoroughness and profundity holds the first place in Indian philosophy. His work did not consist, as he himself supposed, in harmonizing the Upanishads. In this department of interpretation he is as uncritical as other orthodox commentators, but he took the most profound thoughts of the old literature and boldly constructed with them a great edifice of speculation. Since his time the Vedanta has been regarded as the principal philosophy of India--a position which it does not seem to have held before--and his interpretation of it, though often contested and not suited to popular religion, still commands the respect and to some extent the adherence of most educated Hindus.

In practical religion he clearly felt, as every Indian reformer still must feel, the want of discipline and a common standard, Though the Buddhism of his day had ceased to satisfy the needs of India, he saw that its strength lay in its morality, its relative freedom from superstition and its ecclesiastical organization. Accordingly he denounced extravagant sects[515] and forbade such practices as branding. He also instituted an order of ascetics.[516] In doing this he was not only trying to obtain for Hinduism the disciplinary advantages of the Buddhist church but also to break through the rule prescribing that a Brahman must first be a householder and only late in life devote himself entirely to religion. This rule did the Brahmans good service in insuring the continuity and respectability of their class but it tended to drive enthusiasts to other creeds.

It does not seem that any sect can plausibly claim Sankara as founder or adherent. His real religion was Vedantism and this, though not incompatible with sectarian worship, is predisposed to be impartial. The legend says that when summoned to his mother's deathbed, he spoke to her first of the Vedanta philosophy. But she bade him give her some consolation which she could understand. So he recited a hymn to Siva, but when the attendants of that god appeared she was frightened. Sankara then recited a hymn to Vishnu and when his gentler messengers came to her bedside, she gave her son her blessing and allowed them to take her willing soul.

This story implies that he was ready to sanction any form of reputable worship with a slight bias towards Vishnuism.[517] At the present day the Smartas, who consider themselves his followers, have a preference for the worship of Siva. But the basis of their faith is not Sivaism but the recognition of the great body of Indian traditions known as Smriti. And that, next to Vedantism, was the essence of Sankara's teaching: he wished to regard tradition as a coherent whole, based on the eternal Veda but including authoritative Smriti to be interpreted in the light of the Veda, and thus he hoped to correct extravagant and partial views and to lead to those heights whence it is seen that all is one, "without difference."

The results of Sankara's labours may still be seen in the organization of southern Hinduism which is more complete than in the north. It is even said that the head of the Sringeri monastery in Mysore exercises an authority over Smarta Brahmans similar to that of the Pope.[518] This is probably an exaggeration but his decision is accepted as settling caste disputes, and even to-day the Sringeri math[519] is one of the most important religious institutions in India. The abbot, who is known as Jagadguru, is head of the Smarta Brahmans. The present occupant is said to be thirty-third in succession from Sankara and numbers among his predecessors Sayanacarya, the celebrated Vedic commentator who lived in the fourteenth century. The continued prosperity of this establishment and of other religious corporations in the Dravidian country, whereas the Mohammedans destroyed all monasteries whether Hindu or Buddhist in the north, is one of the reasons for certain differences in northern and southern Hinduism. For instance in northern India any Brahman, whatever his avocation may be, is allowed to perform religious ceremonies, whereas in the Deccan and south India Brahmans are divided into Laukikas or secular and Bhikshus or religious. The latter are householders, the name having lost its monastic sense, but they have the exclusive right of officiating and acting as Gurus and thus form a married clergy.

It is possible that the influence of Sankara may have had a puritanical side which partly accounts for the degeneration of later Indian art. His higher teaching inculcated a spiritual creed which needed no shrines, while for those who required rites he recommended the old Brahmanic ritual rather than the modern temple cultus. The result of this may have been that piety and learning were diverted from art, so that architecture and sculpture ceased to be in touch with the best religious intelligence.

The debt of Sankara to Buddhism is an interesting question. He indited polemics against it and contributed materially to its downfall, but yet if the success of creeds is to be measured by the permanence of ideas, there is some reason for thinking that the vanquished led the conqueror captive. Sankara's approval both in theory and in practice of the monastic life is Buddhistic rather than Brahmanical.[520] The doctrines of Maya and the distinction between higher and lower truth, which are of cardinal importance in his philosophy, receive only dubious support from the Upanishads and from Badarayana, but are practically identical with the teachings of the Madhyamika School of Buddhism and it was towards this line of thought rather than towards the theism of the Pasupatas or Bhagavatas that he was drawn. The affinity was recognized in India, for Sankara and his school were stigmatized by their opponents as Buddhists in disguise.[521]

2

The reader will perhaps have noticed that up to the career of Sankara we have been concerned exclusively with northern India, and even Sankara, though a native of the south, lived much in the north and it was the traditional sacred lore of the north which he desired to establish as orthodoxy. Not only the older literature, Brahmanic as well as Buddhist, but most of the Puranas ignore the great stretch of Dravidian country which forms the southern portion of the peninsula and if the Ramayana sings of Rama's bridge and the conquest of Lanka this is clearly an excursion into the realms of fancy. Yet the Dravidian districts are ample in extent, their monuments are remarkable, their languages are cultivated, and Tamil literature possesses considerable interest, antiquity and originality. Unfortunately in dealing with these countries we experience in an unusually acute form the difficulties which beset every attempt to trace the history of ideas in India, namely, the absence of chronology. Before 1000 A.D. materials for a connected history are hardly accessible. There are, however, many inscriptions and a mass of literature (itself of disputable date) containing historical allusions, and from these may be put together not so much a skeleton or framework as pictures of ancient life and thought which may be arranged in a plausible order.

It may be said that where everything is so vague, it would be better to dismiss the whole subject of southern India and its religion, pending the acquisition of more certain information, and this is what many writers have done. But such wide regions, so many centuries, such important phases of literature and thought are involved, that it is better to run the risk of presenting them in false sequence than to ignore them. Briefly it may be regarded as certain that in the early centuries of our era Buddhism, Jainism and Brahmanism all flourished in Dravidian lands. The first two gradually decayed and made way for the last, although Jainism remained powerful until the tenth century. At a fairly early date there were influential Sivaite and Vishnuite sects, each with a devotional literature in the vernacular. Somewhat later this literature takes a more philosophic and ecclesiastical tinge and both sects produce a succession of teachers. Tamil Sivaism, though important for the south, has not spread much beyond its own province, but the Vishnuism associated with such eminent names as Ramanuja and Ramanand has influenced all India, and the latter teacher is the spiritual ancestor of the Kabirpanthis, Sikhs and various unorthodox sects. Political circumstances too tended to increase the importance of the south in religion, for when nearly all the north was in Moslim hands the kingdom of Vijayanagar was for more than two centuries (_c._ 1330-1565) the bulwark of Hinduism. But in filling up this outline the possibilities of error must be remembered. The poems of Manikka-Vacagar have such individuality of thought and style that one would suppose them to mark a conspicuous religious movement. Yet some authorities refer them to the third century and others to the eleventh, nor has any standard been formulated for distinguishing earlier and later varieties of Tamil.