Devlok With Devdutt Pattanaik

by Devdutt Pattanaik

  If you look at the entire Mahabharata from the point of view of the women—the stories of Kunti, of Gandhari—it’s a bit tragic.

  21

  Varaha and Narasimha

  Vishnu has many avatars; tell us about his Varaha avatar.

  Varaha means wild boar, as in the Asterix comics! There was a time when Bhu-loka, the world, sank into the ocean. Different reasons are offered for this. Some believe it happened due to ignorance, due to paap (sins) or in the aftermath of pralaya (doomsday). Some say asuras drove it into the ocean, and Vishnu took the form of Varaha and brought it out. Varaha’s characteristic is to dig into the earth. So Vishnu, in this form, scoops earth out of the ocean. In images, you’ll sometimes see Varaha holding Bhudevi on the tip of his nose or on his shoulder.

  What’s the story of Narasimha?

  Nara is human and simha is lion. So it’s a combination of lion and human. The story of this avatar is associated with an asura who cannot be killed by anything that is human or animal. So Vishnu becomes human and animal to defeat him; and he’s neither human nor animal. While we see sheer physical strength in Varaha, we see intelligence, strategy and cunning in Narasimha.

  But why lion?

  Lion is associated with kings and royalty in India. A king sits on a singha-asana (lion throne). To defeat a king, Vishnu takes on the form of a lion. In some images and artwork, a tiger is depicted. But most of the time, it’s a lion, with sharp teeth and a flowing mane but always a human body.

  There are many stories of half-animal, half-humans in the Puranas . . .

  In the Simhachalam Temple in Andhra Pradesh, Varaha and Narasimha have been merged. They call it the Varahanarasimha Temple. Both are worshipped as a combined form; they are not separated from each other. There’s a story in which the dwarpal (gatekeepers) of Vaikuntha—Jaya and Vijaya—upset some rishis and are cursed to be born as asuras. Vishnu tells Jaya and Vijaya that they cannot escape the curse, but assures them that he will come down to earth and save them. So Jaya as Hiranyaksha does an evil deed by taking the earth down into the ocean, forcing Vishnu to come to the rescue. Hiranyakashipu, Vijaya, too follows the same pattern. He receives a boon that makes him unconquerable by humans and animals. His terrible treatment of his son Prahlada compels Vishnu to take the form of Narasimha and release him.

  This is the concept of vipreet bhakti or reverse love. Here, anger too is a form of bhakti. Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu show vipreet bhakti. They are two brothers, joined to Vaikuntha as Jaya and Vijaya. That’s perhaps why Varaha and Narasimha are worshipped together in many places.

  Doesn’t Goddess Lakshmi also make an appearance in both their stories?

  The first avatar of Vishnu is the Matsya avatar, a helpless fish, and Lakshmi has no role here. The second is Kurma avatar, which supports the Amrita manthan, in which Lakshmi is born. But here again, the two are not associated. Then the animals start taking on an ugra roop, a violent form, with Varaha and Narasimha. Usually, Vishnu’s image is always relaxed, smiling, with mischievous eyes. But in the images of these two, they are very aggressive. A wild boar, as rural folk know only too well, is a very violent creature. If you hunt it, it will attack you. It is said that when Varaha looks at Bhudevi (a form of Lakshmi), his aggression is reduced. Lakshmi calms him down. Varaha is said to frolic in muddy water because he loves Bhudevi, Lakshmi, so much. In images, Varaha looks at Bhudevi lovingly as he carries her out of the ocean. And when he clasps the earth, his embrace is so tight that mountains and valleys are formed. His tusks sink into the earth from which trees are born. So it’s a very virile, sexual, intense relationship with Bhudevi. He is called Bhupati or lord of the earth. In the Shiva Purana, it is said that he was so deeply in love with Lakshmi that he forgot to return to Vaikuntha. Finally, Shiva had to attack him in the form of a bull and force him to go to Vaikuntha—as there was other work to be done!

  When he kills Hiranyakashipu as Narasimha, he drinks his blood and becomes extremely aggressive and frightening. To calm him, Lakshmi had to arrive. This is from the Shakta parampara. But in the Shaiva parampara it is said that Shiva took the form of Sharaba, a lion with eight legs, and overpowered Narasimha to calm him down.

  People say that these two stories are more a result of the rivalry between the Shaiva and Vaishnava maths, to prove one’s superiority over the other. A story to counter this one then emerges. When Sharaba too goes out of control, Vishnu takes the form of an eagle with two heads, Gandaberunda. In many places the two-headed eagle is a sign of royalty. You’ll see it in the emblem of the Karnataka flag. This eagle is so strong that it can lift even an elephant.

  What is Shiva’s connection with Varaha?

  Once, Shiva takes the form of a jyotirlinga called Lingobhava or a pillar of fire that has neither beginning nor end. Brahma and Vishnu try to find its beginning and end. That’s when Vishnu becomes a varaha and goes deep down into the earth looking for the base of this linga. He is unable to find it, so he returns and acknowledges Shiva’s greatness.

  What is Brahma’s connection with Varaha and Narasimha?

  Brahma is connected more with Varaha than with Narasimha. The Puranas are 2000 years old, and the Vedas came a long time before them. In the Vedic granth—the Brahman Granth—when the yagna parampara is discussed, yagna has been given the form of Varaha. In the original stories, that is, during the yagna parampara, Varaha is related to Brahma; these stories do not appear later when temples were built. According to one story, Varaha came out of Brahma’s nose. In another, Prajapati, an older name for Brahma, takes the form of Varaha, called Emusha, himself. In this form, he brings Bhudevi out of the ocean, places her on a lotus leaf and creates Bhu-loka. There is no mention of Vishnu here. Brahma is associated with Varaha but not Vishnu. In Puranic tales, however, Varaha is Vishnu’s form.

  In many images, Hanuman is also seen with Varaha and Narasimha. What’s his relationship with them?

  This is Panchmukhi Hanuman—Hanuman with five heads. His story comes from the Adhbut Ramayana. You must have heard about Patali Hanuman, one who lives in Patala, the netherworld. Once, in a battle with Ravana, Rama is abducted by Mahiravana rakshasa and taken to Patala, to be offered as human sacrifice (nara-bali) to Goddess Kali. To rescue him, Hanuman goes to Patala (hence his name) and takes an ugra, or violent, form—Panchmukhi Hanuman. His four extra heads are those of varaha, lion, horse and garuda. He kills Mahiravana, prays to Kali and saves Rama. In this form, he has all the qualities and powers of these four creatures.

  There’s a philosophical aspect to this. If you observe, Hanuman is a monkey who usually obeys Rama at all times, without applying his mind. He doesn’t take initiative, is not proactive. So, when Rama is kidnapped and he takes initiative, he discovers many of his own qualities. When you take initiative and responsibility, you learn many things about yourself.

  Vishnu’s many qualities are seen in his avatars. The Matsya avatar is helpless; Kurma depicts stability; Varaha and Narasimha convey aggression (physical and psychological), strength, the power to strategize. Just as in businesses, people try to get around laws, Vishnu as Narasimha finds a way to block the asura. Through the symbol or medium of animals, he is trying to tell us something.

  We hear a lot about the Vishnu avatars Rama and Krishna but not so much about Varaha and Narasimha.

  From the fifth up to the tenth century, when royal powers began to emerge, Varaha and Narasimha were very popular. Rama and Krishna gained in popularity from the tenth century onwards. The reasons are not clear. There is a possibility that India’s military might have reduced gradually. The rajas guna (royal qualities) ceased to be appreciated in India; Varaha and Narasimha seemed too rajasik. We needed satvik (calm, non-aggressive) qualities, hence, Rama and Krishna.

  Another reason may be the advent of Islam in India, via the Sultanate and the Mughals. Pigs are haram (forbidden) in Islam. When that became known to the local population, the importance of Varaha reduced. The kings too felt they should not associate with
the form of a boar. It also came to be associated with Dalits, whom Hindus have oppressed terribly. It’s one of the most negative things about our society. From the tenth century onwards, you see that Varaha lost importance in pujas as well as cuisine, whereas it used to be cooked in royal households before. It gradually became associated with dirt and garbage; Varaha got a negative image and so has a very minor presence now. We now choose to associate with only Rama and Krishna. They, too, are claimed to be vegetarians just to keep people happy, irrespective of what the shastras say or the fact that Rama was royalty.

  Who or what is Varahi?

  Varahi is a Tantric devi of the Shakta parampara. All the masculine gods have female counterparts in Tantra. Varaha–Varahi, Narasimha–Narasimhi, Vinayaka–Vinayaki, Shiva–Shivani, Vaishnav–Vaishnavi. Of these, Varahi is one of the more popular goddesses with a number of temples. In Odisha, there is a Varahi temple at Chaurasi. The goddess here is shown holding a fish; a fish is always associated with Tantra, although some speculate whether it’s related to Vishnu.

  There aren’t too many stories about these. One story goes that having failed to kill an asura, the gods pray to the Devi. She takes on the female forms of all the male gods, and this army of goddesses kills the asura. Although Varahi is an aggressive form, as a sow and mother, with its piglets around it, she is also seen as a symbol of mamata (motherly affection).

  In the Jagannath Temple at Odisha, next to the image of Varaha there’s also an image of Gadadevi? Who is this devi and what is her connection with Varaha?

  This is a local legend from the Sthal Purana. There are different types of Puranas, like the Maha Purana, Upa Purana and the Sthal Purana, which is associated with one place alone. There are many stories about the Jagannath Temple that are associated with Puri’s Sthal Purana. The temple has a large image of Varaha holding Bhudevi in one hand. In the other hand is Gadadevi. One of Vishnu’s weapons is the Sudarshan chakra and the other is the gada, or mace. The first is masculine and is a god; gada is feminine, a goddess. Varaha is associated with Gadadevi. Bhudevi sits on his shoulder or is held near his nose, while Gadadevi is held near his leg.

  The rural folk came up with their own interpretation of this image as they were unaware of who Gadadevi is. They said that the woman above was his wife, and the one below, his mother. They turned it into a saas–bahu (mother-in-law vs wife) story, that Varaha loves Bhudevi and has forgotten his mother.

  Gadadevi is basically a weapon, used by wrestlers and held by both Hanuman and Vishnu. It is interesting that a weapon has been given a female form.

  22

  Varna

  We use words like caste, varna, jaat. What do they mean?*

  In India, we use these words to understand a person’s status. Today, if you have more money or power, or a better education, then you have a higher status. In traditional Indian society, one’s status came from his jaat. Jaat is a big word, which implies you’re a member of a certain community. India has 4000 to 5000 jatis, throughout the country, across all regions. All those who invaded India, like the British, Portuguese, Mughals, Sultans and Central Asians, observed that an individual never existed by himself; he was always associated with a group. These groups followed a rule—roti (food) and beti (daughter). Under this, one community would not share their food or marry their daughters with other communities.

  For instance, when Ibn Battuta visited India, he thought they were like kabeele or tribal people. Later, the Sultans and Mughals said these were all different kaums (nations). These were different labels, but the word jaat was always used. The Portuguese explorers called it casta, a word that was used for the jatis in Europe. There, it was about pure blood, or mixed blood, whether someone was Jewish or Muslim, belonged to royalty, and so on. They felt the system of jatis was similar to their system of casta. So, the word caste was brought from Europe to India by the Portuguese. The British further confirmed that usage, and so the words jati and caste came to be associated.

  Then the British started researching the origins of the caste system. One group was in India, the other was studying in European universities. While translating the Vedas and the Puranas, they found the word varna. This word, they said, probably gave rise to the caste system. And they equated the words jati and varna; though in everyday language the word jati, and not varna, is used. Varna is a Sanskrit word and there are only four varnas as described in the Vedas and the Puranas. But there are thousands of jatis.

  Varna was used in the Vedas. Was it also used in the Puranas and Manusmriti?

  The Europeans understood varna as rang, or colour. They had issues of race and ethnicity in their countries, and so they said jati was similarly associated with race or colour. They brought their ideas here, but it is not so simple to understand varna. In the Vedas, in the Purusha Sukta, it is said that society is like a purusha (man), whose head is Brahmin, arm is Kshatriya, thigh is Vaishya and foot, Shudra—these are the four varnas. But here, as well as in the Bhagavad Gita, the implication is psychological—it is about one’s qualities, or guna. In the world, any society contains four kinds of people—the intellectuals (Brahmins), the physically strong or warriors (Kshatriya), the money-minded (Vaishyas), and the servile or the service-minded (Shudras). But jaat is used in sociological terms, how society is organized.

  In Vedic society, the reality was very different from these theoretical four varnas (chatur-varna). Brahmins performed yagnas, Kshatriyas were the ones controlling land (kshetra), and all others were called Vish (others). It was very difficult to classify cowherds, farmers, charioteers and potters. Who was Vaishya, who was Shudra? Mostly, if you were not a Brahmin or a warrior you were a Vish.

  The use of the four varnas to classify jati began 2000 years ago in the Manusmriti and other dharma-shastras. There were so many jatis—Kamma, Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, Maratha in Maharashtra, Jat in Haryana, Karana in Odisha—that they were all organized in four boxes, as it were. The Manusmriti joined varna and jati together.

  In the shastras, a new custom called shuddhikaran was introduced. Some jatis were described as shuddh (pure) and some as ashuddh (impure). This is a horrific concept. It was not only about identifying the jatis, but was also imposed on daily activities and cultural practices. For instance, in some houses, you cannot enter a temple or eat food without bathing, as you’re considered ashuddh. Menstruating women are considered ashuddh and kept apart. A few days after childbirth, people do not enter the new mother’s house and bar her entry into the kitchen, as she is believed to be ashuddh; this is known as the confinement period. Even if you have fever, you are ashuddh.

  But, they also termed entire jatis as ashuddh because of some of their practices—this is a most dreadful idea. The origin of this is not very clear. Some say Manu wrote it; others say it started with the Brahmins, who declared they were the purest. That they sat in temples and those whom they didn’t allow were ashuddh. Entire sections of people like the leather-industry workers, cleaners, or workers in crematoriums (dom) were marked as ashuddh. These could not drink water from the village well, because they would pollute the water. Some had to wear a pot around their neck so that their spit would not touch the ground. Some had to wipe their footprints behind them. The concept of shuddhikaran was extremely humiliating, and denied even basic humanity and dignity to these people.

  The rishis were disturbed by this, because this had nothing to do with Vedanta or self-knowledge (atma-gyan). They attempted to explain this through the gods’ examples. They posed the question: Who looks for aukaat, status? Only those who do not have self-knowledge. One who has understood or experienced the param-atma, the enlightened, expanded mind, will not go looking for aukaat. Shiva, who is a svayambhu param-atma himself, is beyond these shallow concepts of high and low. Once, Daksha Prajapati is organizing a yagna. When Shiva arrives, he’s turned away by the king who considers him ashuddh because of his association with bhoots and pishachas (ghosts). Shiva is unmoved. But Daksha Prajapati’s daughter, Sati, Shiva’s w
ife, is upset by this, and wants Shiva to be allowed in the yagna. Father and daughter quarrel about it. She says her husband is a param-atma, he has self-knowledge, he does not understand the king’s concept of high and low.

  How do the Ramayana and the Mahabharata explain varna?

  These epics were written 2000 years ago in Puranic times, by which time the meaning of varna had changed. The original meaning associated with psychology, disposition, had changed to social pattern, that is, the caste system. So Brahmins were associated with rites and rituals, Kshatriyas were landowners or soldiers, Vaishyas were merchants and Shudras were the service-oriented. There’s no clarity about where people like cowherds or farmers would have been placed. They weren’t involved in trading, so could they be Vaishyas? Or were they Shudras? There’s a lot of debate over these; people aren’t sure.

  In the Ramayana, Rama is a Kshatriya, a warrior who bears the responsibility for Ayodhya on his shoulders. Ravana is a Brahmin; his father was a Vaishnava. There is no clarity about any other varna. To which caste did the vanaras (monkeys) or the rakshasas (wild forest beings) belong? Were they par-jati (alien caste)—did they fall outside the four varnas? It is not clear. In the epic, a Kshatriya (Rama) kills a Brahmin (Ravana). That is, he commits Brahmahatya, the murder of a Brahmin, which is a paap, sin. We can see the hierarchy at play here. When Shabari, who is supposed to be from a lower caste, gives her half-eaten ber to Rama, the need for shuddhikaran is brought up. Rama’s touching Ahalya with his foot suggests that the impure has been purified.