Among the Buddhists and Jainas the act of giving was not restricted to the kshatriya. Anyone who wished to make a gift, be they gahapatis, landowners, setthis, financiers, or artisans, could do so and donations were welcome. The donation became an investment, with merit acquired by the donor, as well as tangible wealth for the donee. The act of giving was essentially the action of an individual, although sometimes in association with a few kinsmen: it was not a function of a clan or even the extended kin group. Some donors to the Sangha were in occupations classified in the Dharmashastras as appropriate only for shudras. But they were in a position to make a donation. A concession was therefore made in some brahmanical texts allowing brahmans to receive gifts from shudras, although such brahmans were to be excluded from the annual rites commemorating ancestors, the shraddha.
Improved communications led to an increase in pilgrimages that opened up new places and new practices. Sending missions to various parts of the subcontinent and beyond, and proselytizing, resulted in fresh ideas filtering into Buddhism. The original doctrine was reinterpreted, a process that led to its split into two schools – the Hinayana or the Lesser Vehicle and the Mahayana or the Greater Vehicle. This was a schism more major than the sectarian splits. Apart from the doctrinal differences, the conflicting needs of the affluent and the impoverished could not be easily accommodated. These changes were likely to weaken the structure of Buddhism that had been inherited from earlier times.
Sectarian splitting-off was more common with religions tracing their origins to historical founders and institutions than among religions that grew around mythology and rituals. Arguments over the real meaning of the original teaching of the Buddha began, as often happens, soon after the death of the founder. Attempts were made to eliminate or modify these differences by a series of councils discussing diverse interpretations. The Theravada sect, which had its centre at Kaushambi, had collected the teachings of the Buddha into the Pali Canon. It was the oldest sect and claimed closeness to the original teaching. The Sarvastivada sect, originating at Mathura, spread northwards to Gandhara, central Asia and further. They collated material in Sanskrit, or what has come to be called hybrid Sanskrit. The Canon was also written in Gandhari Prakrit. The nuances of the earlier teaching could have been inadvertently changed in the process of translation, or by composing the text in a language different from that of the original. Added to this was the changing historical context of societies identified with Buddhism and the mutations they introduced into the teaching.
According to some Buddhist traditions, the schism between the Hinayana and the Mahayana was given recognition at the Fourth Buddhist Council, held in Kashmir in the early second century AD, which is often associated with Kanishka. The authenticity of this Council has been doubted, but it may have been an attempt to give status to the local Buddhist tradition that became the accepted form in the north-west and central Asia. The emergence of the Theravada after the Third Council held at Pataliputra, which was associated with Ashoka, may have provided the model. The more orthodox Buddhists maintained that the Hinayana preserved the original teaching of the Buddha, and that the Mahayana had incorporated new ideas not consistent with the original teaching. Eventually, there was an approximate geographical division, but with some overlap. Hinayana Buddhism found its strongholds in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and the countries of south-east Asia, whereas Mahayana Buddhism had its major following in central Asia, Tibet, China and Japan.
The Mahayana doctrine was also influenced by the formulations of some contemporary Buddhist philosophers. Among these the most outstanding was Nagarjuna, a convert to Buddhism from a brahman family of the northern Deccan. He is associated with the doctrine of the Void (Shunyata), which is sometimes read as saying that we are surrounded by emptiness and that whatever we see is an illusion. The Void however was nirvana, or the end to the cycle of rebirth, that every Buddhist was seeking. These ideas were further developed into a variety of sometimes opposing philosophical speculations, largely idealistic but with strands of rationalism and logic.There might even have been parallels to the mathematical concept of zero that was more widely used in the subsequent period.
Other aspects of Mahayana Buddhism, although germinating from the earlier teaching, were further encouraged through its interaction with various religions – Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism in particular – especially in the part of Asia stretching from northern India to the eastern Mediterranean and central Asia. Among these, prominence was given to the coming of the Buddha Maitreya to save the true doctrine. With this was connected the concept of ‘the suffering saviour’ – sometimes thought of as the bodhisattva who redeems humanity through his own suffering. Evidently the new beliefs current in the eastern Mediterranean were as familiar to the Buddhists as they were to the Zoroastrians, for whom the saviour to come was Saoshyant. Mahayana Buddhism also introduced cosmologies and eschatologies involving a complicated system of heavens, superimposed one upon the other, in which dwelt innumerable bodhisattvas, who became venerated virtually as deities. Common to most religions of this period was the attempt to attract greater support by incorporating popular cults, especially fertility cults. Numerous yakshas, yakshis, nagas and suchlike entered the mythology and cosmology of the major religions. There was also a noticeable focus on goddesses, sometimes imported from other areas such as west Asia.
The association of prosperity and power with a religion can sometimes lead to schisms. Jainism achieved popularity, particularly among the merchant families of the cities. It too suffered a schism, the Jaina monks being divided into the Digambara, ‘Sky-clad’, the naked or orthodox sect; and the Shvetambara, ‘White-clad’ or more liberal sect. They moved from Magadha westwards, settling in Mathura, Rajasthan, Ujjain, Saurashtra and along the west coast to Sopara, at all of which places they prospered. Their presence was particularly evident in Mathura and in central India, the former being a political and commercial centre and the latter being traversed by routes. Jainism became a noticeable presence in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Another group moved to Kalinga, where they enjoyed royal patronage under Kharavela. Moving further south, their main concentration was in Karnataka and the Tamil country. Sites such as Sittanavsal, with its beautiful mural, were monastic centres; but Shravana Belgola later developed into a considerable place of pilgrimage, with its immense statue ritually bathed at regular intervals. By and large Jainism, supported by a similar section of society as Buddhism, underwent crises much the same as those of Buddhism. However, it managed to maintain itself with more determination than Buddhism as a kind of ‘parish religion’, closely tied to the community.Hence the number of its adherents has remained small but fairly constant. Unlike Buddhism, it did not become a panAsian religion, possibly because its ritual observances were difficult to follow in the midst of other cultures.
Vedic Brahmanism had a clientele that was initially smaller but influential, drawing on royalty and court circles such as the ruling families of the Shungas, Satavahanas and Ikshvakus. Vedic sacrifices played an important role in the coronation of kings, legitimizing claims through ritual. But the Vedic tradition remained the preserve of brahmans. At this stage there were only marginal overlaps with the recently evolving Bhagavata and Shaiva sects. There was some rivalry with Buddhism and Jainism, largely arising from competition for patronage and a divergent following. Some of the Vedic gods had quietly passed into oblivion, for example Varuna and Mitra; some lost their pre-eminence, such as Indra and Agni; and others were emerging as new gods with additional attributes. At this time Vedic Brahmanism became differentiated from sects such as the Bhagavata and Shaiva – now referred to as Puranic Hinduism – and which took form towards the latter part of the period.
To use the general term Hinduism at this stage is historically something of an anachronism. The term ‘Hindu’ was not in use in the early first millennium AD, and those who were supporters of what today we call ‘Hindu’ sects used their sectarian labels to identify their religion. Therefore th
ey identified themselves by the broader labels of Vaishnava and Shaiva or, within these, by the narrower labels of Bhagavatas, Pashupatas and so on. The consciousness of a religious identity was that of the sect and not of an all-inclusive religion incorporating every sect. This makes a significant difference to understanding the nature of what today is called Hinduism.
The wider application of the term ‘Hindu’ originated with the Arabs after the eighth century AD, when it referred to all those who lived beyond the Indus. At a later date its meaning came to include those who followed the prevailing indigenous religions of India. Differentiation from Vedic Brahmanism has required that sects be described by another label, and Puranic Hinduism has come into use. It derives from the encapsulation of the change contained in the writing of the Puranas. The composition of these began in the early centuries AD. Each Purana is a manual on the worship of a specific deity and a guide for the worshipper. As a genre, it later gave rise to other categories of texts on mythology, legends about deities, the ritual of worship and the presumed histories of places sacred to the deities. Among these texts, the best known were to be the Agamas and the Mahatmyas. In the process, popular belief and worship were appropriated as necessary by upper-caste authors. Unlike Vedic Brahmanism, the mediation of a priest was optional and in later times was sometimes resisted by those for whom religion was essentially devotion to a deity.
As with Vedic Brahmanism, the Vaishnava and Shaiva sects were not founded by historical personages. They did not constitute a revealed religion but grew and evolved from a variety of cults, beliefs and rituals, some of which had filtered down from brahmanical practices. Others, which came from entirely different sources such as folk cults, could even be anathema to Vedic Brahmanism. Popular cults often became associated with the mainstream religion, a concession that the priests had to make to popular worship.
The origins of such sects were frequently tied to their earlier social identity, namely, as sects they incorporated their earlier beliefs from the time when their societies were organized as clans and on the basis of lineage. These identities would have changed when clans were converted into jatis, but some degree of belief and ritual would have continued out of habit and as a religious investment. The moorings of clan or kinship were replaced by membership of, and identity with, a jati, while the rituals of the clan priests would have been overlaid by rituals emerging from the consciousness of being a jati. A new form of worship evolved where the relationship between the worshipper and the deity did not require the intervention of priests. This process is more visible in the subsequent period but indications of change can be seen earlier. However, the intervention of the priest did not end and, after a brief period of distancing, the priests began to appropriate this new form of worship.
The form of worship was distinct from the Vedic sacrifice and evolved as the ritual of puja. As an offering to a deity it was a continuation of the sacrifice, except that the sacrifice of a living animal was optional and the deity was no longer an abstract notion but was represented by an icon housed in a temple. Both these changes were of substantial importance. The object of worship could be aniconic and of no recognizable form, such as a rock. Or it could be the representation of a concept, as was the case with the Shaiva worship of the phallic form, the lingam. A number of popular fertility cults were subsumed in this form. Even when images became anthropomorphic some were modified to include many arms, for instance, in order to accommodate a range of attributes associated with the deity so represented.
The worship of images was common to the Hellenistic world, but may have evolved in India through the focus on the worship of a single deity. Unlike the exclusion of other religious forms, which some claim was inherent to Vedic Brahmanism, these sects adapted their earlier religious practices to new forms and assimilated other cults into their mythology. This led to incorporating a variety of beliefs, such as the numerous incarnations of Vishnu. Viewed in the past as a form of willing co-opting and being co-opted, it is now also seen as a strategy for inducting those outside the boundaries of varna society, giving them a varna status and incorporating their beliefs in the form of additional mythology and iconography. Barring a few ritual specialists and clan chiefs, the status of such incorporated groups would inevitably be low, generally shudra. The incorporation may therefore not have been uncontested by those used to being equal members of a clan.
Although the worship of many deities continued, there was also the tendency to focus on a few. This may have encouraged some monotheistic thinking among the sects. Nevertheless the notion of a trinity of gods was encouraged, with Brahma as the Creator, Vishnu as the Preserver and Shiva as the god who eventually destroys the universe. Of the three gods, Vishnu and Shiva gained a vast following, and through ensuing centuries the Vaishnavas and the Shaivas remained major sects of Hindu belief. Brahma receded into the background.
Vishnu is said to observe the universe and, at times, when evil is rampant, to assume various incarnations in order to remove the evil from the world. He is believed to have been manifested in numerous incarnations, of which nine are popularly agreed upon. Some are animals and some humans. Epic heroes, such as Rama and Krishna, were projected as incarnations, and the epics, originally bardic poetry relating to rajas as clan chiefs and kings, acquired the status of sacred texts. They were revised for use as religious literature. In the course of redacting these epics many interpolations were included, the most famous being the addition of the Bhagavadgita to the Mahabharata. Texts such as these are multi-layered and where the history of interpolations can be observed it provides pointers to the role of the text. The tenth and final incarnation of Vishnu has yet to come, when Vishnu will take the form of the brahman Kalkin. He will set right the ways of the world, end oppression and reverse the attempts of those who have turned the world upside down by acting contrary to brahmanical norms, among which was the lower-caste appropriation of high status.
The idea of incarnations is a reminder of the theory of the previous births of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas. Kalkin echoes the Buddha Maitreya, the Buddha yet to come who will reinstate the norms of Buddhist belief and behaviour. Maitreya, although known from earlier texts, gained in popularity at this time when it was feared that Buddhism might decline unless a saviour appeared. From being the historical founder of a new way of life the Buddha became projected as a messianic, millenarian deity. These concepts of incarnations and saviours were not the result of one religion influencing another, but rather the existence of a universe of discourse among those who travelled, mixed and spoke with one another. This discourse is reflected in parallels of thought and belief among many religious ideologies of the time, particularly in the area including India, central Asia and west Asia.
Goddesses of various categories, often the focus of fertility rites, came to the forefront in the mythologies of Puranic Hinduism and were worshipped as primary and pre-eminent deities. This was in pan the crucible of what later evolved into the Tantric deities. Nature and animals were treated as sacred metaphors of deity, with a focus on trees, groves, rivers and mountains, as well as bulls and snakes. Together with these cults were a myriad of demi-gods and celestial beings of various ranks.
The concern with escaping rebirth brought certain concepts to the forefront, such as the seminal idea of karma and samsara, often referred to by the term ‘transmigration’. The idea had been mooted in the Upanishads, elaborated upon in Buddhist and Jaina teaching and now gained currency. The worship of an image, a departure from Vedic Brahmanism, focused attention on the individual deity and worshipper. The intention of the worship is attainment of moksha – freedom from rebirth for the individual soul. The centrality of the individual’s liberation, as it developed in the Shramanic religions, made an emphatic contribution to its popularity.
Actions in the present life determine the condition of the next birth. This is not fatalism, since one can modify one’s destiny by consciously performing good actions. What is fatalistic, however, is tha
t the morality of an action depends on whether or not it is in conformity with Dharma. In Vedic Brahmanism, and to some degree in Puranic Hinduism, the arbiters of Dharma were the brahmans and their normative texts, the Dharmashastras, justifying the ethics of varna. Buddhists and Jainas emphasized a different concept of social ethics, for example the Middle Way, that was not rooted in varna. The Gita proclaims that each man must do his duty according to the Dharma and not look towards the results of his actions. When Arjuna is disinclined to kill his kinsmen at the start of the battle at Kurukshetra his charioteer, Krishna, explains to him that he would be exempt from the sin of killing since this is the demand of war; and that Arjuna, the kshatriya hero, was upholding a righteous cause. Had the Buddha been the charioteer the message would have been different.
Another religion – Christianity – entered India by way of the trading ships from the west, although the date of its arrival remains controversial. The coming of Christianity is associated with the legend of St Thomas, who, according to the Catholic Church of Edessa, came twice on missions to India. The first took him to the north-west, to the Parthian King Gondophares. On the second occasion St Thomas is said to have arrived in Malabar in about AD 5Z, the assumption being that he was the disciple of Jesus Christ. Tradition has it that he was martyred at Mylapore near Madras, but historical evidence to back this claim is unavailable. Other versions from eastern Mediterranean traditions have him coming from Socotra to Muziris. Given the amount of travel between the two places because of the Indo-Roman trade, this is a plausible story. Interestingly, these traditions connect him with the most active areas in the trade, the north-west and south India. However, historical links that date to the mid-first millenium AD seem stronger with Edessa and the Persian Church. A group of Persian Christians led by Thomas Cana migrated to Kerala, where they were given a grant of land by the local king. The first coming of Christianity to India is more likely linked to the establishing of the Syrian Christian Church.
The Penguin History of Early India Page 41