Tell us about the word secularism.
This word originated in America. It means that the state will be separate from religion; that the laws of the state and those of religion will be kept distinct. Earlier, kings were heads of state and were considered to have been chosen by God. But, with the advent of secularism, the rule of the state could no longer be ordained by religion.
Another definition is respecting and acknowledging all religions and treating them alike. Yet another would be that all religions are problematic and one should keep away from them all—in this, secularism itself becomes like another religion. There is constant debate between these two definitions—is secularism about respecting all religions or being non-religious.
How would you define the term religion?
The word religion is merely 100–200 years old. It was primarily used for Christianity, then for Judaism, then Islam. When it came to India, they started using it for Hinduism. It wasn’t used here before that. People would want to know which panth (sect) or sampradaya, parampara (tradition) you were from or what you believed in.
Religion assumes the existence of God, rules, a messiah. Hindu dharma does not have any of these. The concepts of god, rules, heaven and hell are different in various panths and sampradayas. Some people believe in the gramadevata (village deity) or kuldevata (deity of the clan) but not in a paramatma (supreme god). We have so many varieties, that it’s hard to use the word religion for them all.
Has India had a tradition of nastikta?
Yes, it’s a very long tradition, beginning 4000 years ago. If you look back for the origin of the belief in a god who created the universe, such a concept was first mentioned only 2000 years ago by Krishna in the Gita where he says I created the universe.
The word sanatan means the world has always existed; time and space were always there. We don’t need a god, and there is no god who makes rules. The concept of genesis, that first there was nothing, then God arrived and created the universe, does not exist in Sanatan Dharma. At the most it will be said that when god was asleep, there was no naam (name) or roop (form) in the world; only Devi or prakriti. The definition of creation is very different.
Broadly, the believers of the Vedas were called astik and those who didn’t were called nastik (Buddhist, Jains, Charvaks). They did not accord importance to the Brahmins; they claimed to be shramans who would seek the truth by themselves. Among the astik Brahmins too a number of groups emerged. Here, darshan or point of view was important. There were those who believed in logical thinking (nyaya), analytical thinking (sankhya), synthesis (yoga), investigation (vedanta), inquiry (mimansa), etc. According to the Uttar Mimansa, you need to just perform yagnas and follow rituals—that is the truth.
In the Brahma Sutra it is said that the Vedas are apaurusheya. Does that mean they are alaukik (not worldly) or adhyatmic (spiritual)? Rather, it can be said that they are of nature (prakriti) since they are not of purusha (man). So that makes them natural principles. They are without beginning (anadi) or end (anant) because when did nature not exist? According to the Big Bang Theory in science, nothing existed before it—but perhaps they do not know it yet, and will discover it eventually that nature existed before all living beings and will continue to exist after.
The Puranas speak of the Creator, the Sustainer and the Destroyer. These do not mean creator of the world, but creator of sanskriti, culture. Likewise, preserver and destroyer of sanskriti, never prakriti.
In India traditions like Purva Mimamsa, Yoga, Sankhya, Buddhism, Jainism don’t give so much importance to the concept of god, so are known as nastik.
What is Charvak?
It’s a nastik parampara. Buddhism does not believe in the atma, karma or God, while Jainism believes in the atma, not karma, and has different concepts for God. Charvak does not believe in the atma, God or karma. That which I cannot see or experience, I do not believe in. Only that which I can experience is real, true. This is known as bhautik-vaad or laukik-vaad—materiality or emphasis on the physical world. What is alaukik, non-material, like karma, cannot be measured, and so I cannot believe in it. Charvak is a big parampara in India, but you can’t always identify it because it’s not a religious school or sampradaya.
In the Ramayana, when Bharata goes to meet Rama in the Chitrakoot forest, he is accompanied by a Charvak called Jabali. Bharata tries to persuade Rama to return to Ayodhya and become king, but Rama refuses, saying he cannot renege on the promise he made to his father. Then Jabali attempts to counter each of Rama’s reasons for not returning. He asks Rama, ‘Isn’t it silly to sacrifice worldly life and live in penury just to fulfil dharma?’ When Rama asks what will he say to Yama after his death, Jabali responds, ‘Why do you lose the present for what you don’t know will happen after you die? What about your responsibility to Ayodhya and its people?’ Rama says, ‘I want my father’s soul to rest in peace and him to be reborn.’ Jabali says, ‘Who has ever seen the soul? When and how does rebirth happen? Does it even happen?’ Rama insists, ‘If I don’t respect my father, I’ll be known as the biggest adharmi.’ Jabali replies, ‘Man’s most significant relationship is with himself. He enters and departs from this world alone. Why do you suffer for someone else’s promise? This, now, is the only moment that counts.’ Rama is surprised at Jabali’s logic and says, ‘If I were to listen to you, I’d definitely go to Naraka [underworld].’ Jabali says, ‘There’s nothing beyond this universe. Give importance to what you see; don’t waste your intelligence on things outside of that.’ Jabali’s argument is that there’s no soul and no rebirth, so there is no call to torture oneself with these thoughts. What he tells Rama is very practical.
But, according to the astik concept, truth is not merely that which you experience or feel through your senses (indriyan). There’s something beyond. For instance, karma is the belief in cause and consequence. Just our experiences do not make up the world. Many things happen which we can neither control nor understand—we can only believe in them. This belief is astikta.
The conversation between Rama and Jabali is a dialogue between astikta and nastikta.
Are Jains also nastik?
The word nastik is often seen as negative to mean that the person does not believe in anything—vishwas-heen. That’s not correct. Jainism believes in the atma. Their concept of god is different. God is a perfect being—the Tirthankaras who have found Truth and are in Siddha-loka (the realized world). They are free of karma, their ties to the physical world and they can teach you how to achieve mukti, freedom from this world. So the concept of god here is that of a teacher, one who teaches kaivalya gyan, how to attain liberation, not one who creates the universe.
Those who show you the right path . . .
Not the ‘right’ path, but the sanatan path—a path which has always been there. You are lost and need to be brought back on it. There’s no right or wrong here. If it’s not in your karma, you will not find this road now, but after ten births—what’s the hurry, the road will remain where it has always been!
Buddhism believes in neither god nor atma, because everything is destructible; it has the concept of unatma. Buddha was once asked about God and how the world was created, to which he gave an illuminating answer. He said, ‘If you were shot with a poisoned arrow, would you go looking for the attacker or for a doctor to heal you of the poison spreading in your body? I am the doctor. I am talking of removing the poison that sorrow is. I am giving you a path to relieve you of this sorrow-filled life.’
So, Buddha wasn’t interested in theological questions; his focus was practical.
Are you astik or nastik?
In times of sorrow, I am astik, and when things are going well, I become nastik.
In these modern times, people say many different things about their beliefs. What should one ideally follow?
I think people should follow their own system of beliefs, whatever it may be—astik, nastik, secular, religious, spiritual. But also respect everyone for their beliefs. Why control anyo
ne else? That is important. Our country is plural, diverse. We have lot of panths, many dialogues as in Jainism, so respect everyone and all beliefs. Each one has a different karma and thus a different dharma.
5
The Surya Vansh and the Chandra Vansh
I’ve heard that Rama was a Suryavanshi and Krishna a Chandravanshi, but what are the Surya Vansh and the Chandra Vansh?
In the Puranas, you will always find balance. Like Ganga–Yamuna, Shiva–Vishnu, vairagi–grihasti. To balance the lineages of the kings, there’re the Surya Vansh and the Chandra Vansh. At the beginning of each Purana, it is mentioned whether the story is about the Surya Vansh or the Chandra Vansh.
From where did the Surya Vansh begin?
Except for the gods, all Puranic characters originate from Brahma, who is the creator. Brahma is followed by Rishi Kashyapa, Surya, Manu, then Ikshvaku. The word Ikshvaku is related to sugar cane (iksh). Nobody knows why he had this name; a possible explanation is that sugarcane was produced only in India and he was India’s king. Everywhere else, sugar was produced from honey (madh). Ikshvaku’s descendants are the Suryavanshis.
What about the Chandra Vansh?
The two vanshas are related. Ikshvaku had a brother, Sudhyumna. Once, he goes into the forest where Shiva and Shakti are together. There is a spell on the forest that turns anyone who enters the forest while they are pairing into a female. Thus Sudhyumna becomes Ila, or Ikshvaku’s sister. Ila’s husband is Budh (Mercury) who is the son of Chandra, the moon god. So, Ila’s children are related to the moon and that is the Chandra Vansh.
There’s always something odd about the moon. The sun is pratapi, it produces its own light (pratap), while the moon takes it from the sun. All the stories about the moon and its vansh are never clear like the sun. The way the phases of the moon change, these may be hyper-emotional, crooked, where a man becomes a woman, etc.
Ila’s story is very interesting—that he was once a man and then a woman.
There are many variations of this story in all the Puranas. In one, it says that during Shukla Pakshya or the phase of the waxing moon, he is a man. And during the phase of the waning moon or Krishna Pakshya, she is a woman. In some versions, he is a man during the Uttarayan, the northern movement of the sun, that is, summer, and a woman during Dakshinayan, the southern movement of the sun (winter). As the year progresses, the gender changes—man, woman or in-between. Ila’s story is like that. Her children sometimes call her father, sometimes, mother. Her husband, Budh (Mercury) is said to be neither this nor that. You will find both the categories—both this and that, and neither this nor that.
This has a philosophical meaning as well. You cannot neatly classify everything into boxes. Gender is also a boundary. In the Surya Vansh, there are clear-cut boundaries, like Rama is maryada purushottam, the model man who follows rules. In the Chandra Vansh, there are greys, shadows, the space between black and white. The rules themselves are under question here—what are the rules, how are they to be defined. It’s all so fluid that it cannot be said for certain whether you are breaking them or not.
Budh’s story is interesting. Brihaspati (Jupiter) had a wife called Tara who did not love her husband as he was a strict rishi. Brihaspati’s qualities are associated with Suryavanshis—very rational and straightforward; a somewhat boring husband. She falls in love with Chandra, the moon god, who is emotional and romantic, and elopes with him. An enraged Brihaspati tells Indra to get his wife back. There’s a war among the gods and Indra forcibly takes Tara away. When she returns, Tara is pregnant. Chandra claims the child is his, while Brihaspati says it is his. When asked, Tara keeps silent. The child in the womb says, ‘I am Chandra’s son.’ Brihaspati is so angry that he curses the child and says, ‘You’ll be born napunsak [neuter gender], without genitals.’ That child is Budh. So in graphic depictions and idols, Budh is sometimes shown as a man, sometimes as a woman, and he marries Ila, who is a man and a woman. So this is the strange story of the Chandra Vansh.
What is the connection of these vanshas with the Ramayana and the Mahabharata?
The Ramayana is associated with the Surya Vansh and the Mahabharata with the Chandra Vansh. When you say Rama Rajya, it is associated with the perfection that was embodied by Rama. Kalidasa wrote a long poem called ‘Raghuvamsham’. In this, not only is Rama a great king, but so are all the previous kings, his ancestors. For instance, Raghu was a charitable king, associated with artha, wealth. Dilipa who protected his people from invaders was associated with dharma and order. Dashratha’s father, Aja, was associated with kama—he loved his wife so much that he passed away soon after her, unable to live without her. All these three qualities are present in Rama. He too loves his wife a lot but is torn between his country and his wife—this is an ongoing tension in the story. Basically, it is about integrity, commitment; one must abide by one’s word. Harishchandra sells his wife to keep his word, and Rama abandons his—these extreme behaviours are always found in the Surya Vansh.
Rama was a Suryavanshi and Krishna a Chandravanshi but both are avatars of Vishnu . . .
No one vansh is superior to the other. God does not compare the two or judge them. He’ll appear in both. Rama’s vansh is straightforward, clear-cut; Krishna’s is not. Krishna is leela purushottam. He knows that the people he is dealing with are never going to talk or behave honestly. To deal with a manipulative family, you have to become manipulative. In a straightforward family, you can be straightforward.
Did the Surya Vansh influence Rama or was it the other way round? Did Krishna influence the Chandra Vansh or vice versa? These are interesting questions that can be discussed and are worth thinking over. The admirable thing about our shastras is that they always talk of balance, of one thing complementing another. There’s never too much of one thing. Even in our food, sweet and sour are balanced, to bring out the taste. Likewise, the flavour of Bharatvarsha comes from both vanshas.
Are there any stories like Ila’s and Budh’s in the Surya Vansh?
One of Rama’s ancestors, Yuvanashva, has two wives but no children. So he does a yagna, and by mistake he, instead of his wives, drinks the potion from the yagna. As a result, he gets pregnant, and delivers a child from his thigh called Mandhata. So Mandhata’s father and mother are the same person.
A very ancient period is often referred to as being ‘from Mandhata’s time’. In one version of the story, Yuvanashva wonders how he is going to feed the baby since neither he nor his wives can produce milk. There’s a belief that gods have milk, not blood, running through their veins. So Indra cuts off his thumb and the baby feeds from it. So, when children suck their thumb, it is a trait said to have come from Mandhata!
Was Manu connected to both these vanshas?
Surya’s son is Manu and Manu’s children are Ikshvaku and Ila. Today, when we refer to the Manusmriti, we speak of the Dharma-shastra which is recent—about 1500 years old. The Mahabharata and the Ramayana speak of Manu who was the first man. When the British visited India and wished to know who was our equivalent of the Bible’s Adam, they found Manu—the founder of both the Surya and Chandra vanshas—and labelled him as India’s Adam. And they simplified the Manusmriti as ‘Adam’s rules’, which is not how it really is, because we have so many versions of the same thing here.
Geographically, where are the Suryavanshis and Chandravanshis placed?
There is some speculation about it, and it cannot be proved. The Mahabharata, the story of the Chandra Vansh, supposedly takes place north of the Ganga, Uttar Kuru. Indraprastha is in Delhi, Kurukshetra is in Haryana, Gurgaon or now Gurugram, Panchala is towards Punjab. The story of the Surya Vansh, the Ramayana, is set in the southern part, around Bihar: Ayodhya, Mithila, etc. Rama also travels past the Vindhyas into the Dandaka Aranya, and goes to Lanka in the south. Buddha too is associated with the Surya Vansh, as is Mahavira.
Some believe that the Chandra Vansh is older than the Surya Vansh, but in the Puranas, the Surya Vansh always comes first. It dominated the
Treta Yuga, and when I say Bharatvarsha, it is because Bharata was the king and he is a Suryavanshi.
Was there ever a union between the two vanshas, any overlapping or intersection?
Shakuntala’s father Vishwamitra was earlier King Kaushik who was a Suryavanshi, and she marries Dushyant who is a Chandravanshi. Another connection is in the Mahabharata. During the great war, Abhimanyu (a Chandravanshi) kills one of Rama’s ancestors, Brihadbala (a Suryavanshi). The Puranas mention various lists of lineages, which sometimes cross over, and it can be quite confusing. So one has to see the idea, not the details.
Karna is Surya’s son, so was he a Suryavanshi?
Interesting question. In the Ramayana, Sugriva is a Suryaputra, in the Mahabharata, it’s Karna. These are separate stories and have no connection with the vanshas. Surya is a Vedic god who may have children apart from the vanshas. So, although Sugriva is a Suryaputra, the main Surya Vansh character in the Ramayana is Rama. In the Mahabharata, Karna is a Suryaputra but the story is of the Chandra Vansh. These concepts cannot be mixed.
Is there any other story of the Chandra Vansh?
Ila’s son is Pururava whose son is Nahush. Nahush does so many yagnas that the gods are pleased with him. Once, when Indra has to perform tapasya for some time, he appoints Nahush as temporary king of the gods since he has all the desired qualities. However, Nahush gets carried away and begins to think of all the things in heaven—Chintamani, Kalpataru, Kamadhenu—as his. Even Indra’s wife! When he approaches her, she is shocked. To teach him a lesson, she tells him to ask the Sapta Rishi to bring him in his palki (palanquin) to her chambers, as they do for Indra. The Sapta Rishi are horrified at his request, but they agree. One of the rishis is Agastya who is short and walks slowly. Nahush gets impatient and kicks him. Agastya curses him and says that he will roam the earth as a snake and someone from his family will save him and in return he will teach them never to be so conceited. In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas meet Nahush in the forest and he advises them to never become arrogant like him or else they will lose their kingdom.
Devlok With Devdutt Pattanaik Page 3