Or consider another response:
(d) ‘Myths speak of God giving sva-dharma or own-nature and mode of acting to all beings, even to “demons”. So demons behave demonically. But these are stories;they must be interpreted properly. These stories may teach about the way evil can take a deep hold of one, or about the divine power or compassion in overcoming demonic evil. In any case, the demons in many stories eventually turn to God and win his grace. So here the demons are not forced to commit evil. To say that their sva-dharma is to be demonic is to say that they have acquired or built up strong dispositions to do evil. Many of us are demonic in this way, but God triumphs over all’.
Finally, (e) ‘Evil and good are what God says are evil and good. There is no sense in trying to second-guess God. God is absolute, and we simply submit and obey’. This last is not a very frequent answer to our problem, but it does occur. Most Hindus incline towards some form of relativism rather than to absolutist answers.
These, and combinations of these responses, are all answers that I have come across either in texts or in conversation with Hindus. This does not mean, of course, that there are no Hindus who have a very vague notion of God, good and evil, or who do not believe that God can do what we would inevitably or generally characterize as wrong or bad. We have already mentioned stray deeds or cults of human sacrifice to a deity practised in the past – which the vast majority of Hindus then and now would regard with horror (confirmed by the way these cults were invariably practised in secret, e.g. that of the so-called ṭhags or ‘Thugs’ in past centuries, who were supposed to lull travellers into a false sense of security and then ritually strangle their victims and rob them, in the name of Kālī8). If such cults existed, all one can say, beyond condemning them, is that, as a religion, Hinduism has no monopoly on perverse beliefs and practices. The history of religion across the globe is littered with such anomalies. The truth is that for most Hindu devotees, the Supreme Being has all the qualities one would generally ascribe to a concerned, engaged, loving deity.
(2) Attachment to the divine Form(s)
Under this heading, we are not looking, of course, at those traditions that affirm that the divine Reality, though personal, is yet entirely formless. One may still express devotion to such a God, no doubt, but this is not the kind of devotion we are discussing in this section. Here we are considering devotion to a God who manifests in some discernible form or other, and in the worlds of the Ancient Banyan, these forms can be varied and numerous. Let us begin with the theme of the personal, celestial, anthropomorphic form which a number of theologies maintain their deity displays to the liberated in heaven. Anticipating the enjoyment of this form's presence, trying to capture it in the imagination by divine favour (we shall return to this matter under a later heading), is one of the delights of Hindu religious experience. Also included under this section are the various ‘on to logical, avatāric and image forms of the deity. Some of these may be terrible in appearance, as we have seen, but in different ways they all inspire devotion – Kālī no less than the sweetly smiling Durgā, Śiva as Bhairava the Frightful no less than Śiva the peacefully meditating Yogi, Viṣṇu as the fearsome Narasiṃha, the Man-lion tearing apart the reprobate Hiraṇyakaśipu on his lap, no less than Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa, the serene bestower of blessings. The devotee knows that in essence the Godhead is lovable and gracious. The terrible forms, in the psychology of Hindu devotion, just serve to accentuate this fact.
The focus of bhakti here may be a single or a composite form, e.g. Ardhanarīśvara (Śiva as half-man, half-woman), or a conjoint one, e.g. Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa together, or an associate in some way of a major name, e.g. the Goddess Pārvatī as wife of Śiva, or, in Rāma's case, his wife Sītā, or his half-brother Lakṣmaṇa, or his devoted monkey-follower, Hanumān. In each case, this iṣṭadevatā or chosen deity represents the Godhead and is expected to lead the devotee to an experience of its depths.
Let us comment briefly now on the concepts of vyūha and avatāra, other forms of the divine. Vyūha or ‘projection’ is a term that derives from Pāñcarātra, which, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, is a Vaiṣṇava, Tantric tradition that rose to prominence in about the seventh century C.E. In this system, the Supreme Person, directly or through his sakti, exists and/or manifests in various modes or vyūhas. These modes are called Vāsudeva (not to be confused with the Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva of the Gita), Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Each of these ‘projections’ of the Godhead represents a state of being that has distinctive ontological and, sometimes, devotional attributes.
While the Purāṇas and the Itihāsas [epics] advocate the theory of avatāra, the Pāñcarātra literature advocates the Vyūha theory of creation ... In the Vyūha theory, Viṣṇu through his Śakti, Śrī-Lakṣmī, manifests his six attributes. And when the six attributes of Viṣṇu are manifested, a millionth particle of him as the will to create (sisṛkṣā) initiates creation. This particle then produces the three groups of [i] creation, [ii] pure [creation] and [iii] nonpure creation ... The manifestation of six attributes (jñāna etc.), which is the ‘absolute Lord’ itself, assumes four forms of manifestation, which is usually referred to as .... ‘caturvyūha’ [the four vyūhas]. In other words, vyūha-s are the first beings that come into existence.
(P.P. Kumar 1997:28)
Kumar quotes the scholar J. Gonda to the following effect:
The vyūha doctrine may be considered as another attempt at maintaining the fundamental monotheistic starting-point whilst incorporating some adorable doubles or manifestations of the Highest Being, and at assigning to these positions and functions a systematic explanation of the universe. At the same time it is an attempt at conceiving God as the unaffected and changeless One who nevertheless is the cause of all change; an attempt also at harmonizing theology with mythology and some elements of evolutionist [viz. Saṃkhya] philosophy.
(P.P. Kumar 1997:30)
The theological and devotional situation is highly complex, and we need not delve further into it here. As Gonda implies, the underlying idea is the desire to affirm the divine immanence in all levels and aspects of creation, and the will of the Supreme Being to manifest in multiple ways, suitable to different modes of receptivity. It is another example of the svarūpa-bahurūpa relationship that obtains with respect to the deity: the Godhead exists in its own form (svarūpa), yet is prepared to manifest variously (bahurūpa) in order to facilitate access and understanding of its outreach towards the world. We can now move on to the more widespread and popular theory of avatāra in Hinduism.
From the vyūha there can also arise the avatāra or descent’ of the deity, though in many avatāric theologies there may be no significant mention of the vyūha-idea. The concept of avatāra is distinctively a Vaiṣṇava one, not because there is no talk of avatāra in Śaiva or Śākta religion (on occasion there is), but because it is only in Vaisnavism that there is a developed (i) mythology, (ii) theology, and (iii) cultic practice of avatāra. The word avatāra is derived from’ ava-tṛ, which means ‘to come down, to descend. The avatāra, then, is a ‘coming down’ – not literally a spatial descent, for the deity is omnipresent – but a ‘descent’ from the transcendent to the empirical level. The reason for this descent can be various; it is invariably to save, protect, or punish, or to reveal or attest something (or perhaps a combination of these). It can be general or particular. In the Bhagavad Gītā, for instance, Kṛṣṇa says that he descends repeatedly ‘for the protection of the good and the destruction of evil-doers, and for the establishing of dharma (4.8). No doubt the meaning of ‘good,’ evil-doers, and ‘dharma has been variously interpreted, but the purpose is a general one. The Narasiṃha or Man-lion avatāra, on the other hand, occurred directly to save Viṣṇu's devotee, Prahlāda, from the murderous attacks of his demonic father, Hiranyakasipu.
The being that descends is the avatārin (masculine) or avatāriṇī (feminine). ‘avatāra’ refers to both the form of the descent (
e.g. human, animal) and to the individual that the avatārin/-iṇī descends as. So the personality of the avatāra may not be identical with the personality of the one who descends. The Kṛṣṇa to whom the words of the Gītā are attributed, clearly seems to be the avatārin himself, but in the later devotionalism of some cults the Kṛṣṇa of the Gītā is regarded as just one avatāra of Viṣṇu the avatarin, revealing only certain features of the Godhead or teaching a distinctive message. Other avatāKumar quotes the scholar J. Gonda1;ras may add to this revelation. From this it follows that there can be more or less full avatāras; in other words, there can be part-avatāras (aṃśa-avatāras) of the deity. Similarly, in the worship of some sects, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa seem to be not simply (partial-) avatāras of the Godhead, but, even in their human forms, the avatārinī and avatārin themselves (whereas another associated individual, e.g. Caitanya, may be regarded in that sect as only the avatāra of both Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa). It is the language of the devotion and theology concerned that will make the status of the descents clear, but it is important to bear these distinctions in mind and to realize that such distinctions obtain among the various sects.
Again, it is not only the deity that can descend. Hindus believe that a divine associate, e.g. Hanumān, or a liberated soul such as Nārada, can also appear as an avatāra. For followers of the Āvar tradition of south Indian saints, Nammāvār (ca. the ninth century C.E.) was a partial avatāra of Viṣṇu, while the tamarind tree under which he received enlightening knowledge was the avatāra of Seṣa, Viṣṇu's serpent vāhana or vehicle (which ultimately is a form of Viṣṇu himself; Hardy 1979). Thus the descent need not be only in human form: Narasiṃha was half-man, half-lion, the matsya avatāra was a fish (matsya), the varaha avatāra a boar (all being avatāras directly of Viṣṇu), and Śeṣa's avatāra was a tamarind tree. Many Hindus regard especially the non-human avatāras of the deity as signifying the deity's immanent presence in and power to manifest through all forms of being. They sometimes refer to the classical list of Viṣṇu's ten avatāras – the daśāvatāra list – as intimating this. These ten avatāras are, in their traditional order: (i) the fish (matsya); (ii) the tortoise (kūrma);(iii) the boar (varāha); (iv) the man-lion (narasiṃha);(v) the dwarf (vāmana);(vi) Rāma of the Axe (paraśu-rāma); (vii) King Rāma (of the Rāmāyaṇa, rāma-dāśarathi); (viii) Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva; (ix) the Buddha; (x) Kalkin (who will come on his white charger and bring the world to an end, in readiness for the start of the next cycle of cosmic time). In this list of ascending forms of life – from aquatic creature (fish) through animals of the borders between water and land (tortoise and boar), on to life-forms that develop into the human (man-lion) and progress from there (the dwarf representing primitive humans, Rāma of the Axe symbolizing early warrior/nomadic civilizations, and the Buddha the enlightened individual – though Kalkin is not easy to fit into this scheme) – we see, it is sometimes claimed, not only the providence of the deity at work, affirming, indwelling, sustaining, and directing the interactions and development of all creation, but also a first, unwitting glimpse, perhaps, into the ‘evolution’ of life. Whatever one may make of this claim, one should note that most Hindu tradition gives no ecological or evolutionary’ explanation of the list (current from about the sixth–seventh centuries C.E.), and that other lists exist enumerating many more avatāras without a discernible pattern of progression in them (e.g. the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in I.3, lists 22 avatāras). Finally, in historical cultic practice, there is no grading, devotionally, of the ten avatāras according to some scale of progression;people show attachment to one avatāra or other according to preference.
Note the presence of the Buddha in the daśāvatāra list. Some have interpreted this as a mark of Hindu tolerance, showing the capacity Hindus have to accommodate positively religious figures and insights from other traditions into their own. Perhaps this was the intention behind the poet Jayadeva's verse on the Buddha-avatāra in his list of the ten avatāras in the introductory Benediction of his famous twelfth century Sanskrit poem, the Gītagovinda (see Chapter 10; since the Benediction refers to Kṛṣṇaasthe avatarin, Jayadeva substitutes Balarama, Kṛṣṇa's half-brother, for Kṛṣṇa as no. 8 on the list). On the Buddha-avatāra, Jayadeva says:
O Kṛṣṇa, when you were the Buddha, it was wondrous to see
That a rebuke you did impart
Against the slaying of animals (scripture's sacrificial decree),
Revealed to a compassionate heart!
Conquer, O Hari [= Kṛṣṇa], Lord of the world!
(I.13)
In this interpretation, Kṛṣṇa came down as the compassionate, non-violent Buddha to deliver a rebuke to the Vedic practice of sacrificing animals! Others interpret the inclusion of Buddha in the list less sympathetically: it is a way, they say, for Hindus to undermine the distinctive impact of the Buddha. By making him into a descent of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, his unique, and in many respects anti-Vedic message, need not be taken seriously since the main purpose of his coming was to introduce a note of non-violence into Hindu ritualism; as such, this reformist message affirms rather than condemns Vedic dharma on the whole.
‘Avatāra is an expansive concept. It is not uncommon for modern and not-so-modern saintly figures coming from different religio-cultural traditions, whether internal or external to the subcontinent, e.g. Ramakrishna, Gandhi, Socrates, Jesus, to be hailed as avatāras by many Hindus. It is important to note that whatever empirical form it may take, the avatāra theologically – though this may not translate fully into devotional practice – is not regarded as constituted from creaturely substance in the way we are. Our psychophysical components – our minds and bodies – are made from prakṛti, consisting of the guṇas or ‘constituents’ of sattva, rajas and tamas (see the section on Samkhya in Chapter 9). This is the stuff from which all empirical reality is made. Prakṛti is shaped into the particular psychophysical beings we are – though we also harbour the spiritual dimension of puruṣa or ātman – as a result of our past karma. But this demonstrates that we are imperfect beings, subject to illusion, wrongdoing and error – which is what being under the sway of karma implies. The avatāra, however, whether of the deity or a liberated soul, by definition transcends karma, so the avatāra cannot be embodied by prakṛti in the way we are, cannot – if a human form, for example, is assumed – be really human in the way we are. This is why the Bhāgavata Purāṇa approvingly refers to Kṛṣṇa as a ‘counterfeit man’ (kapaṭa-mānuṣa, I.1.20). Kṛṣṇa only appears as human;he is not really or fully so in the way we are, for our human, prakrtic embodiment is the consequence of karma. From the Hindu point of view, this frees Kṛṣṇa from all natural and human constraints;he is thus able to display his lordship and grace, and be a fitting object of devotion and worship.9
The image of the deity too is sometimes spoken of as an avatāra (called the arca-avatāra). We shall return to this topic under the next section.
Let us now consider another interpretation of the Sanskrit in the heading of this section: besides ‘form’, rūpa also means ‘beauty’, so this kind of ‘attachment’ to the divine rūpa can also be an attachment to the (formless) beauty of God, best grasped perhaps by the devotee in mystical contemplation. Is this part of what the Liñgayat poet-saint Mahadevi (twelfth century C.E.) refers to in her Kannada poem to Śiva (translated below)?
I love the Handsome One:
he has no death, decay, nor form
no place or side
no end nor birthmarks.
I love him, O mother. Listen.
I love the Beautiful One
With no bond nor fear, no clan no land
No landmarks for his beauty.
So my Lord, white as jasmine, is my husband.
Take these husbands who die, decay, and
Feed them to your kitchen fires!
(Ramanujan 1973:134)
(3) Attachment to the Worship of the divine Image
We have
spoken at length of the divine image already (reckoned in some theological circles as an avatāra of the deity), so here it is only necessary to point out that as an embodiment of the deity (in most forms of popular Hindu worship), the image presents one of the most congenial ways for Hindus to display attachment or devotion to God. As a visible presence of the deity, the image lends itself to the bhakti of cultic worship (pūjā) through such practices as installing and housing it, admiring the image, attending to it by bathing and dressing it, and singing and dancing in its presence, etc., as also by the building and beautifying of temples, and so on.
(4) Attachment to Remembering the deity
‘Remembering’ (smaraṇa) can be achieved in different ways: one way is by formal readings or recitations of aspects of the recorded (mythic) life of the deity, including various deeds of this life (i.e. by means of pāṭha). But there are other ways. I have attended sessions in which the religious teacher reads an excerpt from scripture in the original language about a particular incident from the life of the deity, e.g. Kṛṣṇa, and then, after translating – sometimes by reference to the significance of particular words – explains with vivid imaginative detail what it might entail to be an observer of or participant in this incident. Guided audience participation – by way of repetition of key words of the episode described or adding to its graphic description – may well occur. This method enhances devotion and helps make the Divine Being a real presence in the heart and mind of the devotee.
Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Page 62