word
about_the_book.html
foreword.html
preface.html
Vedic Roots of Hindu Iconography
R. Nagaswamy
Foreword
Nature of the Vedic Religion
His Holiness Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati Swamikal,
The Senior Sankaracharya Mahaswamikal,
Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham
We should all strive to cultivate lofty and noble sentiments, and, eschewing all bad and selfish thoughts, live in a spirit of devotion to God and love for fellowmen. Human stature increases in proportion to the nobility of human thought and deed. The spirit of selfless service, the readiness to sacrifice, devotion to God, and love for and goodwill towards all, and hatred for none, are the outcome of a highly developed mind, and go by the name of culture. Culture known as kalā in Sanskrit, and arts like music, painting, etc., are regarded as the outward expression of this high culture.
It is interesting to note the verbal affinity that exists between the words kalā, culture, kal (the Tamil word for learn), kalāsālā, and college. A man of culture is kin with the whole world. He is the friend of all and enemy of none. For him the three worlds are his home land (svadeśo bhuvanatrayam). The culture of a people is judged by a soundness of the heart of the people taken as a whole, though there may be individuals with defects and deficiencies.
The touchstone of the culture of a nation is the inspired sayings of its immortal poets (mahā kavi), whose poems have stood the test of time. These immortal poems flow from the fullness of their heart and are the expressions of the noble culture which they represent and in which they are steeped. These great poets have no private axe to grind. Having no pet theories or sectarian siddhantās to bolster up, they have no need to import specious arguments in their poetry. They give expression to truth; their insight into truth gives them the courage of utterance. Their authority is accepted to prove the culture of the people in whose midst they flowered. Homer and Shakespeare are two among such great poets in the West, and in our country Kālidāsa and Bāṇa are poets without a peer. It is said that the ring finger came to be called anamikā in Sanskrit, because a person who wanted to take a count of great poets, counted first Kālidāsa on his little finger, but could not think of any fit person to count on the next (ring) finger. So that finger came to be known as nameless or anāmika. As regards the greatness of Bāṇa, there is a saying that other poets used the crumbs that were left over in Bāṇa's plate (bānocchiṣṭam jagat sarvam). Thus, these poets have come to be regarded as great masters. Their verdict is accepted as authority, not only in matters pertaining to culture, but in religious matters also.
In the context of our daily life, we are frequently called upon to determine the nature of our duties, or dharma. The question arises, what is our dharma and from what authority is it derived? Ordinarily, the enactments of the legislature, i.e., the laws of the State, regulate our public conduct. These laws derive their sanction from the constitution adopted by the representatives of the people. The laws are also enacted by the elected representatives of the people. It does not require much argument to show that the voters are of various grades of intellectual and moral calibre, and that not all the representatives they elect are the best that could be found. Such a state of affairs is inevitable in this imperfect world. Some of the laws may not also be perfect from the moral point or view. That is why occasionally we hear judges remarking that they decided a point according to law, though they are not convinced of its moral correctness.
In our day-to-day personal and moral conduct, signified by the expression dharma, our religion has declared that we should be guided by the ordinance of the Vedas. It is declared that Veda is the source of all dharma (vedo khila dharma mūlam). To illustrate the vastness of Veda, there is a story that what Sage Bharadvāja was able to learn was compared to a handful of dust taken from a mountain, the mountain representing the Vedas. If a doubt arises, which cannot be solved with references of the Vedas, we are enjoined to seek guidance from the Smṛtis. It is a mistake to regard the authors of the Smṛtis, like Manu, Yājñavalkya and Parāsara, as law-givers. Smṛtis are merely aide memoire or short notes, meant to indicate what are contained in the Vedas. The authors of the Smṛtis did not write anything new, apart from what is contained in the Śruti or the Vedas. There is the authority of Kālidāsa to this proposition. Describing the manner in which Sutīkṣna followed, for a short distance, her husband, King Dilīpa, when he took Nandini out to graze every morning, Kālidāsa states that she followed the footsteps of Nandini, like Smṛti following the meaning (footsteps) of Śruti. (śruterivarttham smritiranvagacchat). Kālidāsa has unambigously established that the Smṛtis derive their authority from the Vedas, and, in the same way as Sutīkṣna following Nandini only for a short distance, the Smṛtis only briefly indicate what the Śruti contains.
If we are unable to get the necessary guidance to clear our doubt either from the Śruti or from the Smṛtis, we are asked to be guided by the conduct of those who know and follow the Smṛtis. When this guidance is not available, we are asked to model our conduct on the action of good people who have conquered desires and ego, and are pure in heart. When even this source of guidance fails, we have to abide by the dictates of our conscience. That is how Duṣyanta reconciles himself to the love which sprang up in his breast at the sight of Sakuntala in Sage Kanva's āśrama. Being aware that it was wrong for a kṣatriya to fall in love with the daughter of a sage, he concludes that having entertained no evil thought before, his conscience could not have misled him into falling in love with a wrong person. pramāṇam antaḥkaraṇa-pravṛttayaḥ, says Kālidāsa. It is to be noted that Sri Vedanta Désika in his Rahasyatrayasāram has quoted this kavi-vākya, this authority of Kālidāsa, in support of a proposition enunciated by him, Kumarila Bhaṭṭa has also cited Kālidāsa's authority in his work.
In these days it is a fashion to give preference to conscience and to relegate all other Śāstric guidances to a secondary place, or, as is often done, to condemn them as antiquated, meaningless and irrational. But according to our Śāstras, the appeal to conscience must come as the last resort, when all the other guidances like Śruti, Smṛiti, etc., are not available. The modern view is at variance with the classical view of the authorities on dharma. The ancient view has stood the test of time and makes for enduring and eternal sanction in respect of ethical conduct. This view has been voiced in the utterances of Mahākavis like Kālidāsa, whose voice is the Truth, which is the glory and the prerogative of great poets.
Foreign critics of our Vedic religion fling at us the cheap gibe, “What a host of gods and goddesses you worship!” This charge of polytheism levelled against our religion is entirely wrong and is born out of ignorance of the fundamental teachings of the Vedas. This is what Bāṇa says on this subject:
rajo juṣe janmani satva-vṛttaye sthitau prajānām pralaye tamaspṛse
ajāya sarga sthiti nāsa hetave trayīmayāya triguṇātmane namaḥ
रजोजूषे जन्मनि सत्त्ववृत्तये, स्थितौ प्रजानां प्रलये तमस्पृशे ।
अजाय सर्गस्थितिनाशहेतवे, त्रयीमयाय त्रिगुणात्मने नमः ॥
In this verse Bāṇa says that the One God appears in the three forms of Brahma, Viṣṇu and Śiva, for a three-fold purpose, namely, creation, protection and dissolution, which functions are determined respectively by the qualities or guṇas of rajas, sattva and tamas. That One is the unborn (aja) and is the cause of these triple process. He is trayīmaya compound of the three aforesaid qualities. He is trayīmaya also in the sense that He is claimed by the trayī or the Vedas. Kālidāsa expressed more or less the same idea when he
एकैव मूर्तिबिभिदे त्रिधा सा समन्वयं ऐसां प्रचमावर्त्तम्
विष्णो हरः तस्य हरिः कदाचित् वेधाः तयोस्तावपि धातुराद्यौ
One mūrti (manifestation in form) appears as three, and there is no question of any One of the Three being superior or inferior to the other Two, says Kālidāsa. If Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva are One in essence, then, by the same token, all the gods of the Hindu pantheon are also One in the ultimate analysis. Then why this wrangling that one god is superior to the rest? Some assert that the deity they worship is alone the highest. To a man standing under the arch at one end of a bridge, all the other arches will appear smaller than the one under which he is standing. But we are aware that all the arches of a bridge are of the same span. Similarly, to the votary of a particular deity, all the other deities will appear inferior on account of his attachment to the deity of his choice. But the truth is that all deities are manifestations, in particular ways, of one God.
God is the final of all the things of the world. If we take the example of a tree, we will find that it is the soil and water that help the seed to grow into a mighty tree. The source from which the tree came into existence from a seed, is the soil and water. The tree is sustained during its existence by the same soil and water. When the tree dies, it resolves itself into the soil and water from which it sprang. The essence or truth of the three is the soil. It is the same for all the material things like trees which constitute the world. This principle of an identical source is applicable in the case of the other forms of creation, including animals endowed with intelligence. As there is a “universal soil” at the back of “individual” soil from which a tree springs, by which it lives and into which it disappears, so too there must be a Superior Intelligence (pēraṟivu) of which our intelligences are but minute fractions. That Superior Intelligence or chit is God. He is ānanda or bliss. He is the one existent or sat. He is responsible for creation in conjunction with rajo guṇa, for preservation motivated by satva guṇa and for destruction under the impact of tamo guṇa. Thus God is triguṇātma. One appearing as Three, ekaiva mūrtiḥ bibhide tridhāśā.
Parabrahman, which is without attributes (nirguṇa) which is pure or suddha sattva becomes the personal God or īśvara. īśvara has to perform these three functions of creation, protection, and dissolution. But the suddha sattva īśvara is static. He has to become dynamic to perform the act of creation. rajo guṇa supplies the energy to act, and so, in conjunction with it, the one primal God becomes Brahma, the Creator. What is created must be maintained and made to grow and flourish. That is accomplished by īśvara assuming sattva guṇa. In that aspect, He is Viṣṇu, whose consort is Laksmi, the embodiment and bestower of prosperity. To bring about death, or the end of things created association with tamo guṇa becomes necessary. That aspect of īśvara is Śiva. It is to be remembered that the samhāra kārya (dissolution) associated with Śiva does not signify cruelty on His part. It only betokens His mercy for the created, by which He gives rest to the ignorant souls, who have a balance of unrequited karma, for the duration of the pralaya, before they are pushed into the next cycle of birth to work out their residual karmās. These three attributes, rajo guṇa, sattva guṇa and tamo guṇa, do not really belong to īśvara. He is suddha sattva svarūpa. He gets mixed with each of the three guaṇs for definite purposes, and appears in different forms as a result. Only His appearances are different; not His essence.
This characterisation of Brahma, Viṣṇu and Śiva as denoting rajo guṇa, sattva guṇa and tamo guṇa respectively, is not absolute either. Viṣṇu, who is considered as symbolishing sattva guṇa, has, on occasions, taken upon Himself tamo guṇa, standing for destruction, as in His avatar as Narasimha. In the Rāma avatāra, when He fought Khara, Dūṣana, Kumbhakarṇa and Rāvaṇa, and also when he threatened to dry up the ocean, He assumed tamo guṇa. Vālmiki very appropriately describes, this aspect when he says that Rāma took upon himself intense anger, kopamāhāyan tīvram. Anger is the effect of tamo guṇa. Per contra, Śiva, whose nature is said to be tamo guṇa, being the manifestation responsible for destruction, likewise assumes sattva guṇa in His aspect as Naṭarāja and as Dakshiṇāmūrti.
Thus these forms of God are not distinct, and different. They are three manifestations of the same divinity assuming different aspects for different purposes, and according to the predilections and tastes of the worshippers. It is wrong to speak of gradations of excellences among them or to say that they are diverse and different. The forms may appear different, the names may be different, but the Truth is one. It is the One that becomes three, and then thirty-three, and then thirty-three crores, according to the numberless varieties of functions of divinity. This is the basic fact declared by the Mahākavis and their words must determine us in our devotion and religious practices.