Part 1: Choosing a Group and Area// ANCIENT HISTORY

lady2005

HinduMythology.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >Part 1: Choosing a Group and Area// ANCIENT HISTORY

Page i

Handbook of Hindu Mythology

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 2/21/2019 10:28 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AN: 100022 ; Williams, George M..; Handbook of Hindu Mythology Account: s4264928

Page ii

TITLES IN ABCCLIO’s Handbooks of World Mythology

Handbook of Arab Mythology, Hasan ElShamy Handbook of Celtic Mythology, Joseph Falaky Nagy Handbook of Classical Mythology, William Hansen Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, Geraldine Pinch Handbook of Inca Mythology, Catherine Allen Handbook of Japanese Mythology, Michael Ashkenazi Handbook of Native American Mythology, Dawn Bastian and Judy Mitchell Handbook of Norse Mythology, John Lindow Handbook of Polynesian Mythology, Robert D. Craig

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page iii

HANDBOOKS OF WORLD MYTHOLOGY

Handbook of Hindu Mythology

George M. Williams

Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page iv

or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data

Williams, George M., 1967–

Handbook of Hindu mythology / George M. Williams.

p. cm.—(Handbooks of world mythology)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 1576071065 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN 1851096507 (ebook)

1. Hinduism—Sacred books. 2. Mythology, Hindu. I. Series.

BL1111.4.W55 2003

294.5'13—dc22

2003017013

07 06 05 04 03 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an ebook.

Visit http://www.abcclio.com for details.

ABCCLIO, Inc.

130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911

Santa Barbara, California 931161911

This book is printed on acidfree paper .

Manufactured in the United States of America

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page v

Contents

Preface, xvii

1 Introduction, 1

The Living Power of Hindu Mythology, 2

Mythic Identities, 2

Alive within Hindu Myths, 3

Hindu Worldviews, 3

Historical Contexts of Hindu Myths, 5

PreAryan Period (c. 2500–1700 B.C.E., Indus Valley or Dravidian Civilization), 5

The Vedic or Samhitâ Period (c. 1500–900 B.C.E., Aryan Civilization), 6

The Brâhmanical and Aranyâka Period (c. 900–c. 600 B.C.E.), 7

The Upanishadic Period (c. 900–c. 600 B.C.E.), 8

The Epic Period (c. 400 B.C.E.–c. 400 C.E.), 8

The Purânic Period (c. 300–800 C.E.), 8

The Tântric Period (c. 900–c. 1600), 10

The Modern Period, 10

Sources: Oral Tradition, Texts, Scriptures—and Modernity, 11

Myth Cycles, Perspectives, and Communities, 11

Understanding Mythically, 12

Literalistic, 12

Sectarian, 13

PanIndian, 13

Reformed, 14

Hindu Mythology’s Contribution to World Mythology, 14

Hindu Mythic Themes: Universal, 15

Cosmogony, Theogony, and Anthropogony, 17

Cosmology, 18

Theogony and Theology, 19

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page vi

Theomachy, 22

Anthropogony, 25

Mythic Themes: Specific, 25

Dharma, 25

Karma, 26

Samsâra or Transmigration, 27

Kâla, 28

Cosmogonic Return to the One, 28

Renunciation, Sacrifice, and Magic, 29

Mâyâ as Illusion, 32

Notes, 33

2 Mythic Time, Space, and Causality, 35

Mythic Time, 35

Additional Systems and Units of Time, 39

Deśa (Space), 39

Nimitta (Causality), 41

3 Characters, Themes, and Concepts, 45

Âdi, 45

ÂdiKûrma, 45

Aditi, 45

Âdityas, 46

Agastya, Agasti, 47

Agni, 48

Ahalyâ, 51

Airâvata, 52

Ambarîsha, 52

Amrita, 53

Ananta, 53

Anasûyâ, 54

Andhaka, Andhak, 54

Angiras, 55

AniMândavya, 56

Anjanâ, 56

Apâlâ, 57

Apsara, 57

Arâ, 57

Arayanna, 58

Arishtâ, 59Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page vii

Arishtha, Arishthaka, 59

Arjuna, 59

Aruna, 62

Ashthâvakra, 64

Aśiknî, 64

Âstika, 65

Asura, 66

AśvaMedha, 67

Aśvatthâman, Aśvatthâmâ, 67

Âśvins, AśviniDevas, 67

Atibala, 68

Atri, 68

Aum, 69

Aurva, 69

Avatâra, 70

Ayodhyâ, 71

Bala, 71

BalaRâma, Balarâma, BalabhadraRâma, 72

Bali, 73

Bâli, 74

Bhadraka, 76

Bhadrakâlî, 77

Bhaga, 77

Bhagavad Gîtâ, Bhagavadgîtâ, 78

Bhâgavata Purâna, 79

Bhagavatî, 80

Bhagîratha, 80

Bhairava, 81

Bhairavî, 81

Bhakti, 82

Bharadvâja, 82

Bharata, 83

Bhîma, 84

Bhrigu, 85

Bhûmî, 85

Brahmâ, 87

Brahmacâri, Brahmacârya, 89

Brahman, 89

Brâhmanas, 90

Brahmânda, 90

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page viii

Brâhmin (also Brâhmana and Brâhman), 91

Brihaspati, 91

Buddha, 92

Cañcalâkshmî, 92

Canda and Munda, 93

Candaka, 93

Candikâ, 93

Candra, 94

Candrângada, 95

Candrasharman, 96

CaturMukhaLinga, 96

CaturVarna (Caturvarnyam), 97

Châyâ, 97

Ciranjîvi, Ciranjîvis, 98

Citraketu, 98

Citralekhâ, 99

Citrângadâ, 99

Citraratha, 100

Citrasena, 101

Cûdâla, 102

Cyavana, 102

Dadhîci or Dadhîca, 103

Dâkinîs, 104

Daksha, 105

Dâlbhya, 107

Damayantî, 107

Daśaratha, 108

Dattâtreya, 109

Deva, Devas; Devî, Devîs, 110

Devakî, 112

Devakulyâ, 113

Devasenâ, 113

Devayânî, 114

Devî, 114

Dhanvantari, 116

Dharma, 117

Dhritarâshthra, 118

Dhruva, 119

Dirghatamas, 120

Draupadî, 121

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page ix

Drona, 122

Durgâ, 122

Durvâsa, 125

Duryodhana, 125

Dushyanta, 127

Ekalavya, 127

Ekavîra, 128

Ganapati, 129

Gandakî, 130

Gândhârî, 130

Gandharvas, 131

Gândîva, 132

Ganeśa, 132

Gangâ, 135

Garuda, 138

Gautama, 139

Gavijâta, 141

GhantaKarna, Ghantâkanta, 141

Ghatotkaca, 142

Ghoshâ, 143

Ghritâcî, 143

Gotama, 143

Gunasharman, 144

Halâhala, 145

Hamsa, Hansa, 145

Hanuman, 146

Hara, 148

Hari, 149

Haridhâma, 149

Harimitra, 149

Hariscandra, 150

Haritâśva, 150

Harivamsa, 151

Havyaghna, 151

Hayagrîva, 151

Hemakânta, 152

Hemamâli, 153

Hiranyagarbha, 153

Hiranyahasta, 153

Hiranyakaśipu, 154

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page x

Hiranyâksha, 154

Idâ, 155

Ilâ, 156

Indra, 156

Indradyumna, 158

Indrâni, 158

Îśvara, 158

Jada, 159

Jahnu, 159

Jâjali, 160

Jamadagni, 160

Jâmbavân, Jâmbavât, 161

Jambha, 162

Jambu, 162

Jambuka, Jambumalika, 162

Janaka, 163

Janamejaya, 164

Jara, Jaras, 164

Jarâsandha, 165

Jatâyu, 165

Jatila, 165

Jâya, Jayas, 166

Ka, 166

Kabandha, 166

Kaca, 167

Kaikeyî, 168

Kailâsa, 168

Kaitabha, 169

Kakshasena, 170

Kakshîvân, Kakshîvât, 170

Kâkshîvatasutâ, 171

Kâla, 171

Kâlanemi, 172

Kalâvatî, 172

Kali, 172

Kâlî, 173

Kâlindî, 174

Kalipriyâ, 175

Kâliya, 175

Kalki, 176

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xi

Kalmâshapâda, 176

Kâma, Kâmadeva, 177

Kâmadhenu, 177

Kamsa, Kansa, 178

Kandu, 179

Kanva, 180

Kapila, 181

Karma (Karman), 181

Karna, 182

Kârttikeya, 183

Kaśyapa, 184

Kauthumi, 184

Ketu, 185

Krishna, 185

Krittikâs, 189

KshîrâbdhiMathanam, 189

Kubera, 190

Kubjâ, 191

Kucela, 191

Kumbhakarna, 192

Kuntî, 192

Kûrma, 194

Kurukshetra, 194

Lakshmana, 195

Lakshmî, 196

Lanka, 198

LankâLakshmi, 199

Likhita, 199

Lîlâvatî, 199

Linga, Lingam, 200

Mâdrî, Mâdravtî, 203

Magic, Blessings, Cursings, 203

Mahâbhârata, 203

Mahâdeva, 205

Mahâmeru, 205

Mahisha, Mahishâsura, 205

Mainâka, 206

MaitraVaruna, 207

Maitreyî, 207

Mâlinî, 207

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xii

MânasâPutra, MânasaPutra, 208

Mandakarni (Also Called Satakarni), 208

Mandodarî, 208

Mangala, 209

Mantharâ, 209

Mantra, 209

Manu, Manus, 210

Manvantara, 210

Marîci, 210

Mârkandeya, 211

Maruts, 212

Matsya, 212

Maya, 213

Mâyâ, 214

Mitra, 215

Môhinî, 215

Murukan, 216

Naciketas, Nâciketa, 216

Nâga, Nâgas, 217

Nahusha, 217

Nakula, 218

Nala, 219

Nalakubera, 219

Nandi, 220

Nara, 221

Nârada, 221

Naraka, Narakâsura, 222

Narasimha, 223

Nârâyana, 223

Om or Aum, 225

Pâncakanyâ, 226

Pândavas, 226

Pându, 226

Parâsara, 227

ParasuRâma, 227

Parîkshit, 229

Pârvatî, 230

Paśupati, Pâshupati, 233

Pitris, 233

Prahlâda, 234

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xiii

Prajâpati Prajâpatis, 234

Prakritî, 235

Pralaya, 236

Prâna, Prânas, 237

Purânas, 237

Purusha, 238

Pûshan, 238

Râdhâ, 239

Râhu, 240

Râkshasa, 240

Râma, 241

Râmâyana, 243

Râvana, 244

Renukâ, 245

Rigveda, 245

Rishi, 246

Rishyaśringa, 247

Rita, 247

Rudra, 248

Rudras, 249

Rukminî, 250

Śabarî, 250

Śaktî, 251

Śakuntalâ, 251

Samjñâ, 252

Samnyâsin, Samnyâsa, 253

Samsara, 254

Sañjaya, 254

SaptaMâtrîs, SaptaMâtrikâs, 256

SaptaNâgas, 256

SaptaRishis, 257

Sarasvatî, 257

Śâstras, 259

Satî, 260

Satyavâtî, 262

Sâvitrî, 263

Siddhi, Siddhis, 264

Śikhandî, 264

Śiśupâla, 265

Sîtâ, 265

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xiv

Śiva, 267

Skanda, 270

Soma, 271

Subrahmanya, 273

Śuddhi, 274

Śukra, 275

Sûrya, 276

Takshâka, 277

Tâladhvaja, 278

Tantra, Tantrism, 279

Tapa, 280

Tapas, 280

Târâ, 281

Tilottamâ, 282

Tîrthayatra, 282

Trita, 284

Tvashthri, 284

Úmâ, 284

Upanishad, 285

Urvaśî, 286

Ushâ, 287

Ushas, 287

Vâc, 288

Vadhrimatî, 289

Vaikuntha, 290

Vaivasvata Manu, 290

Vâlmîki, 291

Vâmana, 291

Varâha, 292

Varna, 293

Varuna, 294

Vâsuki, 294

Vâyu, 295

Vedas, 295

Vishnu, 297

Viśvakarman, Viśvakarma, 299

Viśvâmitra, 300

Vrindâvana, 302

Vritra, 303

Vyâsa, 304

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xv

Yajña, 304

Yama, 305

Yamunâ, 306

Yoga, Yogas, 306

Yuvanâśva, 308

Appendix: Chart on the Vedic Gods, 309

4 Selected Print and Nonprint Resources, 311

Print Resources, 314

Encyclopedias and Dictionaries, 314

Hindu Mythology (and Hindu Theology), 315

Hinduism, 320

Texts in Translation, 323

History, 323

Material Culture: Art, Architecture, 324

Selected Nonprint Resources, 325

Video and Film, 325

CDROM and DVD, 327

Web sites on Hindu Mythology, 328

Spelling, 328

Commercial vs. Scholarly Sites, 328

Online Sanskrit Dictionaries, 329

South Asian WWW Virtual Library, 329

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative (ECAI), 329

The Wabash Center Internet Guide: Hinduism, 330

American Academy of Religion Syllabus Initiative, 331

Miscellaneous Sites (Largely Personal and Commercial), 331

Glossary, 335

Index, 343

About the Author, 373

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page xvi

This page intentionally left blank

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page xvii

Preface

Writing the Handbook of Hindu Mythology proved to be a project that rounded out three decades of work as a historian of religion specializing in religion in India. I had sought out a colleague in India to fill in any gaps I might have in the nearly five thousandyear span of Hindu mythology, but in the end I needed to fill those gaps

with new study and translations of materials I had previously ignored. Hindu mythology was once something I had looked down upon with an intellectual contempt that

partial ignorance blesses. But now I look back with a bemused smile and hear the laughter of Hindu gods and goddesses at so rash a conceit. Just like the many

reversals in Hindu myths, my colleague’s withdrawal from the project allowed me to enter a magical landscape of complexity, reversals, and ambiguities that the more

rational approaches of philosophy, theology, and history do not allow.

It is difficult to give up scholarly trappings. I have spent the last seven years preserving Sanskrit manuscripts, digitizing some myself and training archivists and

librarians all over India to utilize these new tools. To be called a pioneer in anything leads to a little pride, but Indian culture humbles any Western scholar. To be invited

twice to the Sir Ashutosh Mukerjee Chair as a visiting professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore was a great honor, allowing access to some

of the oldest surviving sacred texts. But the real fruit of comparative textual studies lies in the future when scholars will have an abundance of versions of the same text

and will be freed by a notion of an inclusive text that encompasses all its versions. That all versions of a myth are necessary for a complete understanding of its richness

can only be hinted at in a book of this size, but versions of each myth are selected to be representative of the variations over time and among even contemporary

accounts.

For the Handbook there will be no attempt to surprise the reader with new interpretations. Rather, the intention of this study is to engage anyone interested in

Hindu mythology in its variety, its richness, its reversals, and its play (līlā). As a handbook for the general reader, a number of decisions have been made about the

transliteration of Sanskrit, the sacred language of India, that will aid in better

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page xviii

readability, pronunciation, and use in moving through the literature on a given topic. The Sanskritist will have no problem knowing a technical term when I use a more

popular Romanization of a Hindu term or the name of a god or goddess. Conversely, it is the general reader who suffers when we use the most accurate transliteration

of Sanskrit. I will use as few diacritics as possible to help the general reader in identifying precisely in Roman letters the term or name in question, but will resist making

these spellings too foreboding. Consequently, I will use an ś for one of the three “s” consonants in Sanskrit, as in Śiva. It is too often spelled “Siva,” which gives no help

in pronunciation, or “Shiva,” which helps in pronunciation but does not alert the beginner to the study of Sanskrit and hides the complexity of the multiple ways of

spelling the name of this deity. Long vowels will be marked to help in pronunciation. Sanskrit vowels are pronounced much like Spanish or Latin vowels except for the

short “a,” which is pronounced as a short “u” (but). Aspirated consonants (such as “bh” or “dh”) are best learned in oral practice from a teacher. “C” is pronounced as

“ch” in “check” but there is also an aspirated “ch” that doubles the aspiration. The beginner should be alert to the fact that a word like âcârya might also be

transliterated as “acharya” by some.

An old rule of thumb in a beginning Sanskrit class to try to learn the rhythm or cadence of the language is to give a consonant one count, a short vowel two counts,

and a long vowel three counts. Thus, diacritics will be used for long vowels to help the general reader’s pronunciation and to avoid some hidden pitfalls. Thus,

“brâhmin” (priest) is pronounced with the first syllable twice as long as the second. And the use of brâhmin for priest instead of brâhmana, or its often shortened

version, brâhman, chooses a later spelling rather than its more ancient form so that the reader will not confuse brâhmin with Brahman, the Absolute. Both words for

priest, brâhmin and brâhman, have a long vowel in the first syllable and omitting the diacritical mark leaves one with no distinction in the written word between a priest

and the Absolute—a confusion that priests have not minded, but one that needs to be avoided nonetheless.

This text will follow the academic custom of not capitalizing the words god and demon. This can be justified from most Hindu perspectives as well, since the

Absolute, the Supreme Being, is not being referred to as a whole. When the Absolute, or the entirety of the Godhead, is indicated, then God will be capitalized. There

is no theological truth intended, even though almost all capitalization has disappeared from current English prose. This choice will not seem scholarly enough for some

and may seem too Western for others. Hopefully, the reader should accept this practice for its face value as a modern attempt to avoid too much capitalization while

respecting a tradition.

The “n” used for neuter endings will be not used in instances where another

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page xix

term is more common in English. Such words as karma and dharma will be used instead of the older neuter forms karman and dharman. Karma and dharma will

be italicized when they are concepts but when they are personified as devas (gods), such as Dharma, they will be capitalized and not italicized.

Another aspect of transliterating Sanskrit involves the lack of spaces between words. Thus, any use of spaces is a concession to other languages used in its

transliteration. The same can be said concerning hyphenation. Since a mediumsized Sanskrit word can easily reach twenty letters, the general reader may have great

difficulty recognizing elements that can easily be learned, so either spacing or hyphenation is quite useful. Mahâśiva or Śivadeva are only eightletter words but they are

instantly recognizable as Mahâśiva or Śivadeva. The use of Mahâ (great) before a name—MahâLakshmî or Mahâlakshmî, MahâDevî or Mahâdevî, Mahâvishnu or

MahâVishnu—demonstrates variant forms of names. I will use these variants interchangeably to both teach the reader to recognize elements that can be learned easily

and to aid in the use of reference words and databases that employ alternate systems of spelling, spacing, capitalization, and hyphenation.

Capitalization is arbitrary when transliterating Sanskrit, as the written language made no distinction between upper and lowercases. I will use an upper case for the

proper name of an individual god or goddess while lowercasing names that apply to groups, such as devas, asuras, daityas, indras, and so on—all classes of gods or

demons.

I suspect that most of my colleagues will approve of these decisions about Sanskrit orthography. I also suspect that even a student in the first year of Sanskrit

studies will be able to move from these popular spellings to their Devanâgarî (Sanskrit alphabet) equivalents. If so, the Handbook should meet the needs of the widest

variety of readers.

There is a trend not to italicize wellknown religious literature such as the Christian Bible, but then one finds oneself looking to Webster’s Dictionary to see if the

Vedas should be italicized or not. For consistency’s sake, all Hindu scripture, wellknown or not, will be italicized.

Certain names have become so wellknown in English works and databases— u)—that hopefully the general reader and

those more familiar with Sanskrit and Hindu terminology will feel equally comfortable.

Footnotes have been integrated into the text in all but a few cases. Likewise, references to the precise scriptural text—for example, Mahâbhârata, Adi Parva,

chapter 167, verses 190–220, documenting Draupadî being cited as one of the five ideal women of Hindu mythology—have been omitted as too technical for current

purposes. Select entries have additional readings to help the general

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page xx

reader gain familiarity with the richness of bibliographic resources that are ever increasing.

Finally, certain concepts that are so common as to need no explanation in academic circles—such as sanskritization or brâhmanization (drawing an element of the

low tradition into the high tradition and giving it a Sanskrit name or term) or orthoprax/heteroprax (opposing praxis or practice rather than belief of the orthodox and

the heterodox)—will be discussed in chapter 1. Besides these common notions (and even they will be explained briefly), each article will attempt to be selfcontained or

need only the connected articles for fuller understanding.

Special thanks is due to ABCCLIO and its fine editorial staff: to Todd Hallman for his early leadership of the project, to Bob Neville, and to Anna Kaltenbach. I

am especially grateful for the careful reading of the manuscript given by Silvine Farnell. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not thank my Sanskrit professors who, decades

ago, introduced me to this wondrous language and its literature, and to a host of dedicated scholars like Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, who have influenced this work in

one way or another.

George M. Williams

April 2003

Semester at Sea, somewhere in the Indian Ocean

Co py ri gh t © 2

00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir

us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page 1

1 Introduction

Most Hindus do not separate myths from ordinary experience the way Hindu philosophers and theologians do. Hindu intellectuals make sophisticated distinctions between existential truths (what you experience with your own senses and know from your own experience) and what others teach. The Buddha taught his followers to

test everything in life and only believe what they had verified through their own life experiences. Most Hindu intellectuals are very comfortable with the Buddha’s

counsel as a beginning point for their explorations. Yet, even in the thinking of most intellectuals, and as for other Hindus, there has always been some room for the

imaginal—for myth.

Many historians of religions insist that what distinguishes a myth from a legend is myth’s dealings with gods and demons—legends deal with humans, especially

heroes and heroines. However, this distinction does not hold well in India. In Hindu narratives gods and demons are brought into even the most ordinary legend,

seemingly as a device of the storyteller that warrants it being heard. There is such a familiarity with the sacred that the supernatural adorns almost everything. From

another perspective, Lee Siegel has connected this attitude with India’s fondness for magic and the belief that magical powers are both a sign of the divine and an

attribute of those gifted by the divine. Siegel has shown, in The Net of Magic, that India utilizes magic so freely that one cannot easily gain attention without it. Thus

India’s mythology seems filled to a higher degree with magical or miraculous elements than other mythologies are. The extent of this infilling with the miraculous will be

explored in these pages.

This text will follow the academic custom of not capitalizing the words god and demon. This can be justified from most Hindu perspectives as well, since the

Absolute, the Supreme Being, is not being referred to as a whole. When the Absolute, or the entirety of the Godhead, is indicated, then God will be capitalized. There

is no theological truth claim intended.

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 2

THE LIVING POWER OF HINDU MYTHOLOGY A Hindu does not have to “believe in” the details of the myths. These details are open to variation. In fact, there are often many versions of the same story, and one

version may contradict the details of another. A Hindu can participate in the mythic meaning of a tradition simply by identifying with the myth’s ability to help one locate

oneself within the community’s worldview. Insiders will find themselves at home within the worldview of their tradition’s myths; outsiders will hear or read these myths

and find them strange and even “untrue.” That is the nature of being an outsider. For the insider, the myths will be validated simply in the experience of belonging to a

community. For the outsider, the same myths will be objects outside of one’s experience. However, even the outsider can see universal themes—mythology’s timeless

contributions to human reflection.

Any study of myth that does not recognize myth’s potential to be alive and existentially powerful, even in modern life, has missed something. Myths are not true in

any scientific sense—nor are they true philosophically, theologically, metaphysically, or ontologically (that should about cover all the perspectives that study absolute

truth). Myth’s power arises from its ability to articulate the existential need for identity. Myth answers questions about origin or creation (where we came from),

purpose and meaning (why we are here, what we should do with our lives), morality (what is right or wrong), and destiny (above all what happens at and after death).

Myths are not children’s stories. They are often violent and filled with sexuality. There are many reversals; sometimes the people who are supposed to be good (such as

teachers or priests) turn out to be bad examples in a particular version of a myth. That is why the hearer has to be alert—or have a good teacher. The many versions

treat a theme or topic from many different angles and teach more than a single “true answer.” The cast of characters, the themes, and even the core meanings of the

entire mythology become second nature to the insider. One comes to know what one’s culture believes about itself and what it expects.

MYTHIC IDENTITIES Cultural and religious identity in Hinduism is amazingly broad. In Hindu mythology there are as many as 330 million different role models (gods, or devas) that can

validate an individual identity. One’s identity is not stereotyped by being a Hindu; there is not just one way to approach life. One’s appropriation of this vast treasury of

wisdom is one’s own responsibility (that is what the notion of karma is about—personal responsibility for each and every action—and

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 3

svadharma—one’s own appropriation of truth and one’s responsibility to live what one’s own karma has necessitated).

Thus, a living mythology is quite different from a dead one. One does not study Hindu mythology in the same way one studies Greek mythology. Or if one does

study Hindu mythology as dead, or monolithic, one will never grasp its current power. There are still hundreds of millions of Hindus who appropriate Hindu mythology

into their own lives in a variety of ways. We will study Hindu mythology’s general patterns and articulations, constituting its macro, or larger, view. However, there are

microscopic versions of Hindu mythology: hundreds of millions of Hindus have their own understandings and live their own appropriations. One must never say, “I

know all about Hindu mythology,” even with a mastery of the macro level. A living mythology is full of surprises, since every Hindu potentially may appropriate Hindu

mythology in her own way. One must be humble and realize that every Hindu is the authority about her own appropriation of Hindu mythology and what each believes

is just that—what is true for her (and that is the micro level of mythology).

ALIVE WITHIN HINDU MYTHS Roy Amore and Larry Shinn, in Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings, described what it is like to grow up with Hindu myths and stories:

To grow up in India is to mature in a world alive with demons and water nymphs, goblins and irate goddesses. Wisdom is often measured not by degrees or

formal education, but by the ability to tell the right story or recite a passage of scripture appropriate to a particular situation. Mothers and fathers teach their

children religious and family responsibilities through stories. Householders scold their servants with reference to the fate of a character in a particular tale. In

classical times, the student priest had to commit to memory vast quantities of scriptures, which varied in subject matter from the techniques of sacrifice to

the proper conduct of the king in peacetime and at war. The moral tales and fables as well as myths relating the feats of the gods were common fare for any

person who sought to be educated.

HINDU WORLDVIEWS Before any attempt to describe a mythology that has remained alive for four millennia, a brief summary of the most basic Hindu beliefs, of the Hindu worldview, is

needed. A summary from the prevalent “Hindu Renaissance” point of

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 4

Pûjâ is worship, devotion, service to the divine, and a means to acquiring merit.

(TRIP)

view, given by Prof. D. S. Sharma, should be adequate for our needs. Sharma stated that Hindus share a unity within diversity, a unity that has five commonalities: (1)

a common scripture (the Vedas); (2) common deities (one supreme spirit, Brahman, with many manifestations); (3) a common set of beliefs in the evolution of the

world, the organization of society (varna dharma), the progress of the individual, the fourfold ends of human life (aśrama dharma), and the law of karma and

samsâra (rebirth); (4) common ideals; and (5) a common group of practices (varnaaśramadharma), leading toward deification through worship (pûjâ, japa,

bhakti), yoga, knowledge (jñâna), and meditation (dhyâna, samâdhi). Sharma admitted that there is great latitude in the ways Hindus understood each of these five

elements. It is that very latitude that myth often explores best. These basic concepts will be developed more at the end of this chapter.

This statement of commonalities represents an attempt to characterize the majority of Hindus in the present. Yet, even though a living mythological tradition

currently shares common beliefs, there has also been a “situated tradition”—with particularities that require attention to more aspects of the tradition. The entire tradition

must be studied within historical periods or contexts;

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 5

within myth cycles, perspectives, and communities; within cognitive ways of understanding; and within broad cultural themes. To these we now proceed.

HISTORICAL CONTEXTS OF HINDU MYTHS Myths are situated within historical periods. The same myth told in the medieval period of India as it was articulated in the Purânas (a body of scriptures of later

Hinduism) may differ from earlier contexts and meanings. For example, Śiva has not always been the same supreme deity that he became in some of the Purânas.

There was no Lord Śiva in the earliest extant stories of the Âryas (anglicized as Aryans), a people who were the Sanskritspeaking arrivals to the Indian subcontinent

approximately four millennia ago (though since the “arrival hypothesis” and the nonAryan origin of Śiva are controversial, both will be discussed later). The origins of

myths about Śiva appear to be among the native, tribal, or indigenous peoples who did not speak Sanskrit. So even the name of this god would have been in a tongue

that was not part of the central community that was evolving into what would later be called Hindu.

PreAryan Period (c. 2500–1700 B.C.E., Indus Valley or Dravidian civilization)

Indian culture has many roots. Two of the most important for modern Hinduism are the Indus Valley culture (c. 2500–1700 B.C.E.) and the Aryan culture (appearing in

the Indus region around 1500 B.C.E.). The indigenous culture of the Indus is shrouded in mystery, as its script has defied translation. However, its archeological remains

are extensive and seem to suggest some correspondences to later Hindu mythology. Indologists maintain a Web site to track activity and claims on the subject:

http://www.indology.org. The tiny “sealings” that may have been used to label grain bags depict mythical beings of great imagination—beasts that are often a composite

of real and imaginary creatures. Some have multiple heads, others a single horn. Taken together with the archeological sites, these sealings have allowed scholars to

construct a picture of the mythology of the Indus Valley culture (or Harappan culture, as it has been named after one of its principal cities): (a) male gods worshiped by

the ruling elite; (b) yogic practice and a lord of yoga, called the protoŚiva; (c) mother goddesses worshiped by the masses; (d) public baths for ritual bathing; (e) tree

spirits; (f) worship of snakes (later known in Sanskrit as nâgas) and theriomorphic (animalshaped) beings, images of which were often tied to ritual objects to indicate

their imminent sacrifice.

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 6

The oral Sanskrit prayers became the holy Vedas.

(TRIP)

(For a slightly dated but elegantly written summary of this culture, see Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology [New York: Viking Press, 1962],

pp. 155–171.)

The Vedic or Samhitâ Period (c. 1500–900 B.C.E. Aryan Civilization)

The Vedas, the sacred scriptures of the Âryas, define both a period of time and a culture. Almost all who consider themselves Hindu believe that the Vedas are eternal,

that they exist eternally at the most subtle level. However, they must have become manifested in the form that scholars study them at some point in time. Therefore, it

should not be offensive to even the most ardent Hindu fundamentalist that scholars have found that point of time to be less than four millennia ago, or more precisely,

circa 1500 B.C.E.

The Aryan culture appeared fullblown on Indian soil in the Rigveda, a collection (samhitâ) of more than a thousand hymns (riks), which later became the first of

three (triya) and then four Vedas. The three Vedas were the Rigveda, Sâmaveda, and Yajurveda. These, plus the Atharvaveda (a collection full of shamanic magic),

became the Samhitâs and the first limb of a later conception

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3.

A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 7

of the fourfold Veda that then included the Samhitâs (collections that included the Rigveda), Brâhmanas (commentaries), Âranyakas (forest texts), and Upanishads

(a treasury of mystical and devotional texts). But the fourfold Vedas evolved slowly in several stages.

The Vedic language was Sanskrit, with mythic and ritual elements memorized by priests, and unwritten for almost a millennium. Whether the Aryans were

indigenous or arrived as warrior nomads from the steppes of Russia is a matter of contentious debate, reflecting agendas of colonialism and independence,

postmodernism and Hindu fundamentalism. However interpreted, this culture contributed much to Hindu myths from its vast solar pantheon (Sûrya, Indra, Ushas) and

its fire rituals and sacrifices (agni yâgas, literally “fire sacrifices”). By approximately 1200 B.C.E. Rigvedic mythology had reached its greatest expanse, and its influence

over later Indian history was enormous. In fact, each succeeding age has related back to some remembered or imagined Vedic (i.e., Rigvedic) past, to which they have

usually claimed to be the heirs. The exception would be those who consistently used the caturyuga (four ages) theory of declining righteousness and thought that the

Vedas were no longer suited for an evil age—only later scriptures like the Purânas.

The Brâhmanical and Aranyâka Period (c. 900–c. 600 B.C.E.)

The mythological point of view changed between the period of the Samhitâs (collections) and that of the Brâhmanas (commentaries). The Brâhmanas were more

concerned with ritual and its effectiveness and less concerned with the older Rigvedic gods (devas). The role of Agni, the god of fire, had increased, and the symbolism

of the fire sacrifice was more explicit. In the later Brâhmanas there were thirtythree devas, enumerated as eight vasus, eleven rudras, and twelve âdityas—with two

gods unnamed. The period of the Brâhmanas and Âranyakas (forest texts) reached its fruition approximately 900 B.C.E. This period witnessed the ascendancy of the

brâhmanas (priests), referred to in English as brâhmans and brâhmins, to the top of a social hierarchy, the caste system. The foundation had already been laid for the

priestly assertion that their role was more essential than that of the Vedic gods, since they knew and controlled the sacrificial rituals. A tension between Brâhmanical

(sacrificial) religion and later forms of Hinduism that tended to subordinate Vedic sacrifice became a constant in both the liturgy and the mythology from this point

onward.

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t

la w.

Page 8

The Upanishadic Period (c. 900–c. 600 B.C.E.)

This period, the time of the major Upanishads (though minor Upanishads were produced for many more centuries), saw at first a reaction to and revolt against the

caste system led by priests and against the blood sacrifices to the Vedic gods. Later, however, these texts were coopted by the priestly (orthoprax) tradition and made

the fourth Veda—and for a majority of Hindus this most important and last section of the Vedas has been referred to in English as Vedânta (anta, or “end,” of the

Vedas).

About half of the Upanishads were mystical and unitive, speaking of experiencing the divine as the one (ekam), while the other half promoted devotion to one or

more deities. New gods and goddesses were celebrated, and devotional practices began to be introduced.

About this time (c. 600 B.C.E.) nonHindu elements (Buddhist, Ajivika, Jain, and later elements from invaders such as the Yanavas, Shakas, and Pahlavas) made

their “heteroprax” contributions (“other” or “alien practice”) to Hindu mythology—such as temples, indoor shrines, and rituals modeled after service to a divine king.

One can find ascetics (munis, yogis, samnyâsîs, tapasvins, and taposdhanas) on the periphery and among indigenous people (Dravidians, tribals). Renunciate

traditions contributed elements that questioned blood sacrifice and the killing of animals, and promoted asceticism (even the gods should constrain themselves),

vegetarianism, and much more. But within a few centuries, these too would be integrated into orthoprax, Brahmânical religion. All of these elements were picked up by

Hindu mythology and modified in the following periods.

The Epic Period (c. 400 B.C.E.–c. 400 C.E.)

The period of India’s great epics, the Mahâbhârata and Râmâyana, continued the expansion of mythology, emphasizing divine action on earth in incarnations and

manifestations. Gods and demons multiplied as did their stories. Epic mythology foreshadowed the rich polytheism of the next two periods. The Mahâbhârata

contained two appendices that were extremely important sources for later mythological development, the Bhagavad Gîtâ and the Harivamśa.

The Purânic Period (c. 300–800 C.E.)

The mythology of the Purânas can be broken into three periods (300–500; 500–1000; 1000–1800), or the whole period may simply be referred to as the Hindu

middle ages or medieval period. During the previous periods, everything had been prepared for the banquet of Hindu mythology. Its table was now a

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 9

Vishnu is centered in this slightly sectarian image, with Brahmâ and Śiva smaller and above with Krishna and Râma, his

avatâras or incarnations, below.

(TRIP)

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 10

smorgasbord of mythic delights. Everything from the past could be found on the table, but most elements were characterized by new mixtures, with Hindu sectarianism

on one hand (with each sect centered around one of the principle gods and goddesses—Vishnu, Śiva, or Devî) or Hindu universalism on the other (all paths are the

same; all paths lead to the Absolute). The three subdivisions within this period help locate in time historical developments within the sectarian communities, the rise and

decline of Tântrism and its influence on mainstream mythology, the tendencies in Purânic mythologizing of subordinating Vedic gods and past heroes to everincreasing

moral weaknesses, and the like. This is a period of exuberant polytheism.

The Tântric Period (c. 900–c. 1600)

Imbedded within the Purânic period was a shorter one of Tântra and Śâkta, so called from the śaktî, or cosmic energy, associated with the Divine Mother (Devî).

This period appeared fullblown by 900. Some say that it finally became visible again, having disappeared from historical sight at the time of the Aryan dominance of

indigenous, Indus Valley culture. Some say that it never died and that it continues secretly today. Others point to a revival encouraged by the New Age movement in

the West. And indeed, it is true in some way about every period of mythology in India. The old myths and beliefs do not really die but are reborn, though usually in a

metamorphosis, to continue into the present. During the Tântric period, the mythology of Tântra and Śâkta revived and enriched blood sacrifice and the pursuit of

pleasure as central themes. Tântra’s stories differed radically in meaning from those of epic mythology, which favored devotion, asceticism, and duty.

The Modern Period

The modern period is said to begin with Râja Rammohan Roy (1772–1833), who was a century ahead of his civilization, if not of world civilization. Roy

demythologized Hindu mythology a century before Rudolf Bultmann demythologized Christianity. Roy particularly opposed the Purânas and their polytheism,

championing a rational and sometimes mystical interpretation of the Upanishads. The analysis of “core mythologies” begun by Rammohan Roy is not within the scope

of this study; briefly, it promises a way for a culture’s mythology to be studied in order to see its influence even when that influence is unknown or denied.

The modern period also contributed two quite different approaches—the revivalism of such figures as Svâmî Vivekânanda (1863–1902) or Svâmî Dayânanda

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 11

Sarasvati (1824–1883) and of Hindu fundamentalism (ranging from the Hari Krishnas to the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh, simply known as the RSS). One of the

novel uses of mythology by Hindu fundamentalists has been in the conversion or reconversion of Indian tribals and nonscheduled classes (modern India’s name for

former outcastes). Myths were found or invented to make tribals or former “outcastes” Hindu and bring them within the cultural whole of a reconstructed Hindu

mythological community.

SOURCES: ORAL TRADITION, TEXTS, SCRIPTURES—AND MODERNITY Besides the scriptural tradition that names each of the periods of Indian history, there are oral traditions. Among the oral sources are storytellers (including astrologers,

palmreaders, priests, and teachers), plays (India’s great dramatic tradition, received by the masses in live performances), and even movies and television (some say

half of India’s movies and television shows are productions of the myths or retellings in some modern form). Allusions and references to the myths are made constantly

in everyday conversation and enrich life by giving it points of comparison with India’s long and complex mythology.

However, the sources that are easiest to study in English are the written resources—and many have been translated from Sanskrit and Hindi, as well as from

India’s regional languages, half of which are not related to Sanskrit. Some collections, like the Pañchatantra, are literary documents, not scripture. However, most of

the resources for the study of myths are considered sacred—they constitute Hindu scripture. Because of the Indian notion that most Hindu scripture is timeless, there is

some potential offense in handling it historically. Nevertheless, by using internal and external evidence (references within the text, words that are datable by looking in all

extant Indian literature and finding the very first occurrence of that word, historical and archeological findings), scholars (both Indian and nonIndian) are able to date

Hindu scriptures to the period in which they were composed, give or take one or two centuries.

MYTH CYCLES, PERSPECTIVES, AND COMMUNITIES Hindu myths are most often nested within much larger myth cycles. For example, the rebirth of Vishnu as a dwarf to rescue the gods (devas) from the rule of the demon

king Bali is nested within the Vishnu cycle of myths. One could view Vishnu from many perspectives. (For example, panHindu, sectarian, and nondualistic,

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 12

or advaitan. But whatever the perspective and its influence on interpretation, all knew the stories of Vishnu’s coming down to earth in at least ten different incarnations

(avatâras), including the dwarf avatâra. Minor characters in each of the myths would be known both individually and in relation to the larger stories.

Given this complexity, several approaches must be taken to study Hindu mythology. No single approach helps the student learn the entire story, discover the

elements both above and below this story (a process of nesting one story within another), and keep track of all the characters and special terms found in a single myth.

There are many versions of a story, both oral and written, and the stories are retold not only in Hindu versions but also in Buddhist and Jain versions. For scholarly

exploration one usually must pursue these variations in primary textual sources, dissertations, or journals that work with original languages and sources. However, these

variations are not unusual when the stories are told in daily life in India. In fact, myth tellers themselves often refer to another myth or indicate a specific version of a

myth. These cross references demonstrate just how familiar Indian audiences are with multiple versions of the myths, so that a myth maker or teller can “play the myths”

much like a musician who chooses the right chords to syncopate a rhythm or modify a melody, creating ever differing or familiar renditions at will.

UNDERSTANDING MYTHICALLY How do Hindus understand their myths? In a living tradition mythology functions dynamically within the culture—ranging from narrowly Hindu to broadly panIndian. At

the same time, there will be numerous ways that Hindus understand their myths. One might be tempted to say, as some scholars have, that there are as many ways as

there are Hindus. But there are several general patterns that deserve specific mention.

Literalistic

The literal understanding of the core mythology of one’s community is the beginning point. All children take stories literally until they are initiated into a myth’s special

kind of deception. (Some American children can believe in Santa Claus literally until five or six, but seldom longer than seven, and all experience “the wounding of

consciousness,” or “loss of naïveté,” perhaps at the hands of a

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page 13

knowledgeable peer.) However, religious myths may be lived and believed literalistically for a lifetime. Reform Hindus have appealed to psychology (specifically

theories of cognitive development, personality development, and child psychology) and even neurophysiology (specifically theories of brain development) to argue

against holding a majority of people at this stage of cognitive development.

Nevertheless, there is something special about medieval and modern Hindu culture that permits a literalistic understanding of Hindu mythology for a lifetime without

damage. Gods and demons are not outgrown. Priests, who might not be literalistic in their own faith, often justify the literalizing of Hindu myths for their “childlike”

followers.

Hindu fundamentalists in modern times have added a new dimension—taking a narrow view of a literalistic Hinduism that does not tolerate other views. Slogans

seldom translated into English include “India for Hindus” and “Drive Muslims and Christians out of India.” Literalized myths about the incarnation of Vishnu as King

Râma and about his birthplace, Ayodhya, figure prominently in their militant fundamentalism. Their power rests upon a noncritical, nonhistorical approach to living

myths.

Sectarian

Biology is informing us about our human behavior of taking our group or community to be the only one that is true. In religion this is called sectarianism—that only one

sect or religion is true; all others are not. There is an overlap between sectarian religion and sectarian mythology.

During the middle ages of India many examples of sectarianism in Hindu mythology emerged. This happened chiefly in Hindu devotionalism, where Vishnu, Śiva,

and Devî (the Mother Goddess) competed as supreme deities. Logically there can only be one supreme deity of the universe. Followers championed one or the other

of these three and literalized all of Hindu mythology into myth cycles that proved their god or goddess to be Supreme. (Followers of these three respective deities are

called Vaishnavas, Śaivas, and Śâktas.)

PanIndian

This is a cultural approach. The myths are known as stories (as Americans know the story of George Washington and the cherry tree). The myths inform cultural

expectations about truth telling, about relationships, about society. The myths

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny

fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er

U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 14

are felt. They inform one’s identity. They can be questioned and can even be doubted, but one identifies with a Hindu view of life and does not reject it. Thus, Hindu

mythology still helps one to be Indian.

Reformed

The reformed and panIndian way of understanding often overlap. Rammohan Roy, the great Hindu reformer, believed that the mythic frame of reference had to be

outgrown for Indians to “progress” from “superstition” to scientific and rational thinking and living. He foreshadowed modern movements in philosophy and theology to

“demythologize” religion. He used the principles in the Vedas, especially in the Upanishads, to critique Hindu mythology and pointed out that myth was not literally true

but only pointed to something higher than itself. Myth was never more than a symbol of truth. Thus, the myths and the gods were metaphors of truths, and if believed

literally myths became idols. He did not mean idol in the Purânic sense of mûrti—physical forms that help the worshipper to conceive of the formless divine.

Rammohan Roy meant that mythic thought and idols led to “idolatry”—worshipping something that was both false and dehumanizing. He thought it led to deceiving

oneself and others.

Living at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Roy did not have the benefit of modern psychological research on human cognitive development to reconstruct

what he had deconstructed. Roy did not see a value in mythology, even for children, but he might have modified his total rejection of mythology had he lived today.

Indeed, the basis for using mythology developmentally was part of his interpretation of myth—that myths served as pointers to the truth, to the Absolute, no more. Just

how deceptive they are and whether or not a “deceptive” notion might be developmentally necessary for easier comprehension is the issue he might have addressed if

he had been born in the twentieth or twentyfirst century. This has not been adequately addressed in modern Hinduism (for example, from Svâmî Vivekânanda to

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) and will have to remain beyond the scope of this study.

HINDU MYTHOLOGY’S CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD MYTHOLOGY Besides its adaptation from period to period within India, Hindu mythology has been assimilated into other mythologies or worldviews. Early explorers of India brought

back stories about yoga and the wonders of the faqirs (Persian for illusionists

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 15

or magicians). Translations of the Upanishads by Rammohan Roy were read by Emerson and Thoreau and influenced American Transcendentalism and its notion of

the oversoul. However, it was Hindu mythology’s influence on Theosophy and Christian Science that bore more direct fruit. The New Age movement is a second or

third generation of succession from this earlier influence. Hindu mythic themes and attitudes thrive in this new soil. Even as Ken Wilber was outgrowing and rejecting

the New Age movement of which he had been the greatest theorist, Hindu philosophy’s influence on him cannot be denied. It has become a fixture in American—and

more broadly Western—culture, creating new mythologies.

Finally, let us turn to Hindu mythic themes—those that are nearly universal in the mythologies of the world and those that are more specific to Hindu mythology.

HINDU MYTHIC THEMES: UNIVERSAL All mythologies probe the great themes of life: good and evil, the purpose of living, death and what lies beyond, struggle and suffering, challenge and determination,

hope and perseverance. Some themes address a time before human life began—cosmic time at the beginning, or what was before the beginning of time. Other themes

probe an ambiguity in existence that stretches concepts of good and evil, making them relative to an absolute perspective—ethics viewed from a divine or cosmic

viewpoint.

As already noted, Hindu myths presuppose entire core systems, of which there are many. Amazing contradictions populate Hindu mythology, and yet these have

not been a problem, as each hearer has been located in one of the many Hindu identities and its corresponding mythological core system. This applies both within a

given period (as in the Vedic period or in the present) and within the membership of a particular community (as a Vaishnava—a worshipper of Lord Vishnu—or as a

Tântra—a member of a sect with its distinctive core mythology and so on).

Myths speak of various ways that life has come to be as it is. There are a number of explanations as to why life is so miserable (if it is). Later Hindu myths with a

single deity who is responsible for everything—creation, fate, destiny—speak of divine play (lîlâ) as one reason behind human suffering. However, earlier conceptions

involved ritual and its effectiveness: that human beings were unhappy because the gods of the Vedic fire sacrifices had not been properly appeased. Some myths taught

that one’s fate was ruled by the cosmic justice of karma—that one always reaped exactly what one sowed, whether in this lifetime

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 16

or another. This would be “hard karma.” However, there could also be “soft karma,” karma softened by grace and devotion—myths that told of a god or the Supreme

forgiving all one’s past deeds and awarding heaven, even when it was not deserved by the “karmic facts.”

Thus, the myths accounted for evil or suffering in a variety of ways. Perhaps the most remarkable notion was the news that there is no evil at all. Apparent evil is

but an illusion (mâyâ) from a cosmic or divine perspective. So, finally, there is always hope. Hinduism is hardly pessimistic—as so many Westerners of the nineteenth

and twentieth centuries have charged. Each Hindu mythology, comprised of ever expanding circles of mythic elements and themes, had at its disposal all the Hindu

myths of all previous ages. And these included cosmologies and cosmogonies, theogonies and theologies, theomachies, anthropogeneses and anthropologies,

eschatologies and soteriologies. (See the table above.)

However, to speak of these constructions—cosmologies and so on—was to bring them to analytical consciousness as rational and narrative systems. That is what

a philosopher, a teacher, or a priest may do. The ordinary hearer only needs to draw from the psychological, spiritual, and social resources of myth. By the time there is

analytical consciousness, there is already distance, doubt, and danger of evolution and change. Mythology works best in the early stages of human and civilizational

development. However, the larger questions about life and death have changed little.

The mythic way of addressing them was distinct to each culture at that stage of development. So Hindu myths minister to persons struggling with life’s existential

crises and offer hope, suggest ways of cheating fate, and provide examples of those who have not been fortunate.

Scholarly Terms in the Study of Mythology

Anthropogony origin of humanity; how humans came to be the way they are

Anthropology study of humanity and its evolution

Cosmogony origin of the cosmos; how the cosmos came to be the way it is

Cosmology concerning [study of] the origin of the cosmos and its evolution

Eschatology concerning [study of] the end times

Theogony origin of the gods; how the gods came to be the way they are

Theology concerning [study of] the gods

Theomachy a battle with or among the gods (and demons)

Soteriology concerning [study of] salvation or release from suffering and chaos

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t

pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 17

Cosmogony, Theogony, and Anthropogony

How did the cosmos, the gods, and humans come into being? Which came first? Some Hindu myths say that humans created the gods, so the order has been debated.

Hindu mythology accounts for the origin of the cosmos (cosmogony) with four of the five general cosmogonic solutions human beings have advanced, leaving out

only the notion of creation from nothing. Many myths recall a cosmic battle, such as the one between Indra and Vritra. This kind of cosmogony is common in

mythology, where creation comes from a victory over chaos. In the earliest Rigvedic hymns Vritra was a water demon (chaos), and Indra gained a victory that brought

order (and thus creation). An even older cosmogonic myth had being come into existence as a cosmic egg, hiranyagarbha (a golden egg). It appeared or was

created—depending on the version. Creation by divine dismemberment was another cosmogonic solution—the dismembering of the cosmic man (purusha) or of Agni

the fire god, who resided or hid in the depths of the ocean; the latter joined two kinds of cosmogonic solutions (the separation of creative fire from chaotic water and

the creation by the ritual sacrifice of a god). The “earth diver” as a cosmogonic solution can also be found in Hindu mythology, in the story of when Vishnu in his

incarnation as Varâha plunged into the ocean and brought forth the earth (Bhûmî or Prithivî) from chaos. There were three more solutions in Hindu mythology to the

cosmogonic mystery: creation from mind, creation from sound (vâc), and creation from parents (coition). The later was the most common form of creation and re

creation in the later mythology of the Purânas and had many versions.

Prajâpati was the first creator or father of all, but he was soon replaced with Brahmâ. There was always something available for the production of life, the most

common source being the creator’s seed. Perhaps the most interesting cosmogony was the “emission” (prasarga) of Brahmâ’s sons from his own mind (making them

mânasâputras, mindborn sons).

Some of these myths spoke of the creator becoming androgynous and producing offspring—a selfembrace transcending the opposition of male and female. A

few accounts had Prajapati or Brahmâ create a woman (a minddaughter) with whom he begot all beings. These births could either be by ordinary sexual relations or

by magical means (tapas).

The creations (srishthis) had to be repeated again and again. Each age (kalpa) was followed by its destruction (pralaya), and there would eventually be fourteen

great creations. We are now in the seventh age. Each age was ruled over by its first human being, its Manu. And each age received the Vedas and was required to live

the dharma, but eventually would go into a decline that precipitated another

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 18

destruction and another creation. (For more on time and the creations, see chapter 2.) So, which came first: time, the cosmos, or a god who created one or both?

Hindu mythology is rich in answers.

Cosmology

What is the nature of the cosmos? What are the various realms or regions of the cosmos? Are there separate realms for the gods and demons?

In IndoEuropean mythologies there was usually a center of the earth directly under heaven, supported or separated from heaven by a sacred mountain or tree. In

India that sacred mountain was Mount Meru, wider at the top than the bottom. Meru was situated at the center of an island continent, surrounded by an ocean. Around

that island continent were six more concentric oceans and six donutshaped continents. Above were the heavens, below many underworlds and hells. The sacred

banyan tree was much like Meru in shape. A magical plant, soma (the plant of immortality and of healing), grew on the mountains of heaven but was brought to earth

by Indra. Once the monkey god Hanuman had a difficult time finding soma, so he simply brought a mountain with its magical herbs to Râma, an incarnation of Vishnu.

In a late myth about the struggle between the gods (devas) and demons (asuras), the snake Vâsuki was used as a rope to churn soma from the Great Milky

Ocean. The gods and demons had to work together to accomplish this, but then they fought over the spoils. Finally, soma was replaced with rituals, austerities, and

then devotion as means of sustaining or empowering the gods.

The sacred stories connected the landscape of India and Nepal to the gods. Wherever the devas touched the earth, there was a potential site for a temple or

shrine—and a place for pilgrimage (tîrthas), a central element in Hindu devotional life. Each temple or group of temples tended to develop their own mythologies,

stories that proclaimed their importance and made clear why they must be visited. “The most sacred place in India” varied over the centuries and according to sectarian

affiliations, but all lists would include most of the following: Badrinath, Hardwar, Varanasi (Benares or Kâśî), Pushkara, and Prabhâsa (Somnath). There were also

asura tîrthas (pilgrimage sites of demonic activities where demons had played a role), such as Gâyâ, where Vishnu vanquished the demon Gâyâ, perhaps as allusion to

the Buddha.

Once again myth has slipped over into what is thought of as the territory of religion: rituals, pilgrimage, temple worship, and religious merit. However, in India

Hindu mythology is still living and plays a central role in religion, pilgrimage, art, literature, drama, and the subjects of modern film and video.

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 19

Theogony and Theology

Where did the gods come from? What is their nature? Who are they? Are they like us in form and character? What is our relationship to them? What do they want

from us?

The origin of the gods varied most in Vedic mythology. In the earliest hymns some were simply there—Dyaus, the sky father, and Prithivî, the earth mother.

However, their time of honor was already over, and their myths were not even retold. Then there were the central triad of gods—Sûrya, Indra, and Agni. However, in

the Vedas the title of creator is bestowed on Prajâpati, lord of the beings or creatures. Yet there was no cosmogonic myth about him either. In the Brâhmanas and

Upanishads a cosmic force or process known as Brahman would be either the totality of all that existed or the only Real, while all else was merely apparent.

However, Brahman was not an object of human narration and thus not a proper subject of Hindu myth. In late theistic mythologies a supreme deity (Vishnu, Śiva, or

Devî) was described as bringing everything into being—even time and causality (see chapter 2).

Theogony is composed of two Greek words—theos, or god, and gonia, related to our genesis, or beginning. Thus, a theogony concerns the beginning of the

gods, where they came from, and their genealogy. Hindu polytheisms entail, like all polytheisms, stories about the life of the gods, their families, and their struggles for

order (theomachies). They have a life! So a portion of Hindu mythologies simply tells stories about the gods, answering basic questions about their origin and activity.

These stories are not pointless—they address social concerns and personal salvation (soteriology).

If we begin with the latest developments of Hindu mythologies in the Purânas, we find myths centered on a single god as the supreme deity of the universe. There

were three who competed for this honor: Vishnu, Śiva, and Devî. Since each of these deities was supreme for their devotees, there could be no myths of origin for

them. They each must be the cause and agency of everything that exists. In other religious traditions, we would find any study of a supreme deity leaving mythology and

entering a more rationalized theology. However, in Purânic “Hinduisms” myths were still constructed about the supreme deity, even though Supreme Being would be

beyond having a life that was imaginable in human terms or amenable to story.

The Śiva of Purânic mythology was either supreme or subordinate to Vishnu or Devî. Śiva’s core mythology included his marriage to Pârvatî or Umâ or both. He

had two sons, Ganeśa and Skanda (or Kârttikeya). His vehicle was Nandi, the bull. Kailâsa was his abode. Although all Hindus would probably know the entire myth

cycle and its elements, the themes of supremacy or inferiority

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 20

Śiva and key visual elements of his core mythology

(TRIP)

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r

U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 21

would totally alter the meaning (and even the details) of any episode depending on whether Śiva is seen as supreme or inferior to the Supreme Being. Both Vishnu and

Devî had their own myth cycles demonstrating that each could also claim supremacy and be seen as the sole origin of the universe.

In most later Hindu mythologies, Brahmâ was considered the creator god or at least given that title. He might be presented as having “mindchildren” or as being

the divine parent directly. In the latter kind of story, Brahmâ created a female with whom he then had children. Later Hindu thinkers charged Brahmâ with incest,

because this was seen as marrying his own daughter, who was called Vâc (speech). Brahmâ’s role was further compromised by the sectarian mythologies that made

Śiva, Vishnu, or Devî the author and creator of the universe—the only selfexistent (svayambhû) one. Eventually, Brahmâ was depicted as only sitting on a lotus flower

growing out of the navel of Vishnu, his function to create each new age, only to fall asleep or to be destroyed in the cyclic doomsday (mahâpralaya), to be reborn

anew from the thought of the real creator, Vishnu (or one of the other supreme deities). Later mythology changed the Vedic myth of the spontaneous appearance of the

golden egg (hiranyagarbha), from which the universe emerged, to its origin upon the release of Brahmâ’s seed into the primordial ocean. Both Brahmâ and the cosmic

egg had become subordinate parts of other myths.

The gods were also bothered by marital problems. The great ascetic Śiva, lord of yoga, was troubled as much as any human with love and family life. Some myths

resorted to magic to overcome Śiva’s asceticism (portraying the god as being shot by one of Kâma’s magical love arrows), some to feminine wiles, some to common

sense—surely Śiva would be attracted to his beautiful wife. Other myths had him chasing his wives from one lifetime to the next, even in the form of animals. Their

lovemaking in these myths even threatened the universe with an early destruction. From a mythological point of view these stories can be seen as an extension of the

cosmogonic battle to create, now projected into the chaos of malefemale relationships.

The gods must be followed through their mythic relationships. Vishnu has a wife or consort who goes by two names, Śrî and Lakshmî—although sometimes the

names belong to separate individuals. In later myths she was known as Mahâlakshmî and Bhadrakâlî. Vishnu’s second wife is Bhû Devî (the earth goddess). His vehicle

was Garuda, the sun bird. During his sleep at the end of an age, Vishnu reclined on his serpent—either Śesha (the remainder) or Ananta (the endless one, eternity). But

to complete the myth of Vishnu one must know the stories of each of his ten avatâras—fish, tortoise, boar, manlion, dwarf, Râma the Ax Wielder, Râma of the

Râmâyana, Krishna, the Buddha, and Kalki.

Śiva was first associated with Rudra and then became a being in his own

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 22

right. He was married to Pârvatî, by whom there were two children, Ganeśa and Skanda (or Kârttikeya). Durgâ is also his wife in some myths. His vehicle is Nandi (or

Nandin), the bull. He is lord of yoga, lord of the animals (pasupati), and lord of the dance (natarâja). He is the only god who left a part of himself to be worshiped by

his devotees, the linga. His manifestations have the same purpose as Vishnu’s incarnations of ending evil or granting grace, but his sovereignty over the universe was

preserved in another way. In one of his manifestations he is united with his feminine power (his śaktî, in other stories enjoying a separate existence as Śaktî, his wife) so

that he becomes androgynous. As a śarabha (a fierce mythical animal), he is able to conquer the boar avatâra of Vishnu—yet another manifestation of his supremacy.

Devî is encountered in many feminine manifestations; the first is Durgâ (who was at first associated with Vâc). Some of these manifestations are terrifying (Durgâ,

Mahishamardinî, Candikâ, Kâlî, Vindhyavasinî, Câmundâ, and many more), others quite benevolent (Satî, Umâ, Pârvatî, Śivâ, and Gaurî). Any of these goddesses

might be portrayed as a wife or consort of a god, or they can be a manifestation or the emphasis may be on her power as a manifestation of Devî—and therefore

beyond any subordination to a mere husband. Devî also appeared as Yoganidrâ (cosmic sleep), Vishnumâyâ (world illusion), Ambikâ (the mother), and Śaktî (divine

energy).

Theomachy

What kept creation from being perfect? Against whom do the gods fight? Who are the demons or the demonic forces? Where did they come from? Why do they seek

to destabilize the divine order that the gods created? How do they get their power? Will there ever be a final victory over evil and disorder?

Vritra, opponent of Indra in the Rigveda, had no genealogy (theogony). Vritra was a personification of chaos. Later demons (asuras) were born from the very

same Prajâpati (progenitor or grandfather) as the gods, Kaśyâpa. However, in many of the myths the asuras were the older brothers of the gods (or, much later,

cousins) and therefore were the rightful rulers of heaven and earth. How they lost their right to rule was a recurring theme of the myths. During the ritualistic periods of

the Vedas and Brâhmanas, it was the sacrifices that sustained the power of the gods, so they fought over their share. However, this situation taught nothing but brute

force, cunning, or deception. Later, as faith in the sacrifices waned, the myths found a way around this problem. Ascetic practice (tapas) could be engaged in by gods,

demons, and humans with equal results: one gave up pleasure to acquire power (siddhi or śaktî). This approach allowed an

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 23

Devî manifests as Durgâ to destroy Mahesha, the buffalo demon.

(TRIP)

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S.

or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page 24

ascetic morality by which there was a real struggle between forces of (relative) good and (relative) evil. During the later mythology even devotional practices were

thought to be as effective as purely ascetic ones. It was by these practices that magical powers (siddhis) could be acquired—invisibility, invincibility, or an immortality

that was always limited to an apportioned lifetime according to one’s species. (The myths allowed six individuals (ciranjivis) to attain true immortality, so that they

would never die.) Hindu theomachy never completely solved the problems involved in personifying the devas and the asuras and gave mixed messages about the

sources of evil and the purposes for good.

The gods (devas) typically fought the demons (asuras), and humans struggled with flesheating monsters (râkshasas). There were also other beings that might

just appear or be sent by the gods to steal ascetic power (śaktî), such as the Aśvins, gandharvas, or apsaras (the divine twins, celestial musicians, and celestial

damsels—see entries in chapter 3).

There would be many stories told of the gods in combat with demons (theomachies). Establishing and maintaining order was a recurring problem. Indra had to

defeat the serpentdragon Vritra, and various gods reestablished order again and again. Vishnu fought demons in each age, but only as an incarnation, or avatâra, such

as the fish, the boar, Krishna, or Râma, never in his own form as the Supreme. There were always contests for supremacy—if not with another god or a demon, then

with a sage like Nârada. Ascetic practice, or tapas (giving up pleasure in order to gain power), was the currency that made one a rival of the gods. Indra’s throne

heated up when god, demon, or sage gained too much power by their tapas. He was thus forewarned, so he could act to protect his office as king (indra) of heaven.

In the Purânas it was not always clear who was supreme. Of course, it was clear in the mind of a devotee of one of the three contenders for supremacy—Śiva,

Vishnu, and Devî (and that point of view is called sectarian). However, stories abounded about the contests between them. The devotees of one particular god wove a

version of the myth to show how their god was lord of the universe. For example, Devî took her śaktî (power—a feminine word ending in “î”) away from Lord Śiva.

This was proved linguistically by a clever argument based on Sanskrit’s syllabic spelling. With the i subtracted from the first syllable, śiva (the auspicious one) becomes

śava (the corpse). In another example of sectarianism, the story goes that Vishnu took the form of his boar avatâra, Varâha, and plunged into the cosmic ocean,

where he claimed that he had found the base of the cosmic linga (the divine phallic form of Śiva). Then he took the shape of the divine eagle (Garuda), and after his

flight he claimed that he had flown to the top of the universe and seen its top, though the linga was known to be infinite by Śiva’s followers. Nandi, Śiva’s bull vehicle,

could not stand by and allow such lies, so he kicked Vishnu in the forehead, knocking him silly (his devotees

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 25

thought that he was meditating). This blow left a hoofprint on the god’s forehead, which Vishnu’s devotees copied, making on their own foreheads a distinctive mark

(tîlaka) of three horizontal lines. These stories were endless.

Anthropogony

Where did we come from? Were humans always like this? How are we supposed to live? What are the correct traditions? What are the laws we should live by?

Besides all of the creation or evolution stories, there were stories about the four castes—brâhmins, kshatriyas, vaiśyas, and śûdras. When human origin was

traced to the dismemberment of the cosmic man (purusha), the castes were described as originating from different parts of his body. Humans were a part of the same

sacred web of being as animals, demons, and gods. Myths of declining goodness (the yugas, the four ages) explained that humans were once great heroes and teachers

(gurus, rishis), but now there was an everlessening attention to righteous living (dharma). The incarnations (avatâras) were necessitated by a loss of the correct

traditions found in the Vedas from which knowledge (jñâna) of the eternal truths came. The divine rule of King Râma, himself an avatâra, had clearly established the

correct laws that should govern all of human life. Hindu myths would have examples who are arch villains and true heroes and heroines, both illustrating how life ought

to be lived no matter what one’s station or circumstance. There are the five great women (pañcakanayâs): Ahalyâ, Draupadî, Mandodarî, Sîtâ, and Târâ. The five

Pandava brothers have all the attributes of greatness, and Arjuna certainly joins the select few as a great friend and devotee of Krishna. Sages such as Vyâsa and

Nârada abound with awesome powers. Kings, maidens, prostitutes, rouges—from all castes and in all stages Hindu mythology provides good and bad examples of our

possibilities and our frailties.

MYTHIC THEMES: SPECIFIC Dharma (life’s duty) and karma (ultimate responsibility), sin and error, knowledge and ignorance, mercy and grace, pollution and purification, mortality and

immortality, birth and fertility, asceticism and enjoyment, piety and ritualism, demons and gods—these weave their way throughout Hindu mythology.

Dharma

What is righteousness? How can we know and do good? What is our duty?

Dharma is one of the most pregnant notions in Hindu philosophy, religion, and mythology. It can be translated in English as religion, virtue, truth, or duty.

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 26

For our purposes it is the duty that one is born into (varnadharma, caste) and the responsibilities one must shoulder according to one’s stage of life (aśrama

dharma). In the Bhagavad Gîtâ Krishna told Arjuna that it is better for him to do his own duty (svadharma) than to try to do someone else’s. Arjuna was trying to

avoid the duty of a warrior and renounce war.

This varying standard according to caste and stage of life is constantly illustrated in the myths. In the Epic and Purânic periods dharma became the standard by

which good and bad karma could be judged, as it meant that one had performed one’s duty in that particular circumstance. But there will be a noticeable tension

between dharma and tapas, duty and austerities, especially the more magical austerities of the later myths. Unrighteous asuras (demons) are able to practice severe

tapas and gain their desires, usually for power over the devas (gods). But there are humans who also use the fruits of their tapas to get revenge, with some sages going

so far as to curse others from the power of their tapas with death or deformity. The ethical connections between dharma and tapas, duty and austerities, truth and

religious practice, will be given great latitude in some of the Purânic stories.

Karma

How does karma work? Does karma carry over from one lifetime to the next?

Karma is one of the causative principles of Hindu philosophy and mythology. It is the accumulated results of actions done as causative instruments for future

blessing or punishments. In this wideranging mythology karma has both its hard and soft versions—as will be discussed further in chapter 2 in “Nimitta (Causality)”:

one quite mechanistic in its strict sense of justice and punishment, the other allowing for interventions such as divine grace. Hindu mythology never defines its usages of

karma but appeals to its eternal law in every narrative.

There is probably no single myth that illustrates karma better than the story of Kamsa, the uncle of Krishna. This myth has a series of nested stories that go

forward and backward in time to examine the changing relationships of the principle characters and their karma. Kamsa’s karmic chain began at the beginning of a new

cosmic creation, at the beginning of this kalpa.

Kamsa was, in his first birth of this aeon, Kâlanemi, a son of Virocana, an asura (demon) and the brother of Bali. The brothers were famous demons, which

would suggest that there had been a lot of bad karma in the previous kalpa. Kâlanemi had six sons, whose bad karma from a previous lifetime was explicitly stated in

another myth. They had been the six sons of Marîci, a semidivine figure clouded in some mystery. Marîci was associated with Indra and was apparently a marut, with

powers of storm and battle. Marîci’s sons were so powerful

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny

fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S .

or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page 27

that they rivaled the creator, Brahmâ. They openly mocked him and accused Brahmâ of marrying his daughter, Sarasvatî. Weakened by their own actions, they were

victims of Brahmâ’s curse—that they would be reborn as asuras. Thus, they were born the sons of Kâlanemi, the future Kamsa.

The story goes back and forth to show good and bad actions of Kâlanemi and his six sons. Kâlanemi was later born as Kamsa, and his six sons were reborn

twice before being born as Kamsa’s nephews. At that point they were born to Devakî (mother of Krishna), and the Krishna nativity story tells how Kamsa killed each

of them. (For a concise retelling of this karmic puzzle, see the entry on Kamsa in chapter 3.)

After many lifetimes of opposing Vishnu’s incarnations, Kamsa, or Kâlanemi, was finally redeemed, as his karma burned out in the presence of the Lord’s grace.

The final fate of the six sons also demonstrated this dissolution of karma by grace.

Samsâra or Transmigration

Cosmogonic questions take on a specifically Hindu character when the answers involve transmigration. How does chaos become order? How does the undifferentiated

one become many? What is the interrelation of all living things in the cosmic web of being? How does rebirth work?

Samsâra (flow) points to a conception of the universe in constant change, a universe following nature laws (dharma) and rhythms (yugas), the declining ages of

each cosmic cycle. Humans fit into a chain of life that Hindu mythology explicates with stories about births and rebirths of the soul (jîva) on its path to find the divine.

While transmigration seems to be the common territory of all Hindu religions and philosophies, Hindu myths come at this concept from many differing points of

view and even conflicting solutions, sometimes offering alternatives that are in direct conflict with prevailing religious and philosophical views. One solution would

involve the notion of the gotra (an order of being), positing long chains of past lives in the various rebirth orders (gotras), and progression and regression within the

orders of being during many rebirths.

The problem of mythic and historical overlap can again be seen in the term gotra. Although gotra currently means the ancestry or lineage of a brâhmin

(something like a Brâhmanical clan), the term was historically used before the caste system came into existence and indicated a Vedic clan. Later in Hindu mythology

the notion of gotras was used as part of the solution to the problem of how all orders of living things could come from the same parents (one prajâpati

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 28

and his wife). According to the Mahâbhârata (an Epic), four prajâpatis participated in the moment of creation of the current kalpa, thus placing all living beings into

four orders, four gotras. But this notion of some separation in creation did not prevail, as it blurred the generally accepted idea of the interconnectedness of all beings.

Instead, a deep interconnection between the animal, human, demon, and divine orders was seen to exist. Myths connected all living beings to the same father or

grandfather (prajâpati).

Kâla

What is time (kâla)? Was there a beginning and will there be an end to time? What happens at the end of time? Is there something more in life than what is apparent?

What is our ultimate fate?

The various answers given by Hindu mythologies to these questions form the material of the next chapter. In the earlier periods of Hindu mythology knowledge of

time, space, and causality (kâladeśanimitta) seems to be the requisite in ordering the rituals that control the devas that grant life’s blessings and even arrange matters

concerning life and death. In some of the Hindu mythologies time (kâla) falls within the power and control of a supreme. In these instances it is the Supreme that rules

time and usually everything else; in such a case kâla as time and kâla as death are totally in the hands of God, as will be seen in chapter 2.

Cosmogonic Return to the One

The paradigmatic Hindu myth of the return to the one is that of the destruction of the cosmos by Śiva in one version or by Vishnu’s sovereign agency in another.

Everything goes back into the cosmic ground of being and will once again be recreated into all the multiplicities of life. Yet there is a paradox: Despite being dissolved in

the divine fire of cosmic destruction, one’s karma survives (at least the minor dissolutions, according to many myths) and one’s karmic chain continues until divine

grace intervenes.

Each recreation demonstrates the interconnectedness of life, as the myths connect the order of being—gods and demons, animals and birds, and humans, every

possible form of life—on the same web of being. In the mythic past, all were able to talk together, compete with each other, and even mate with each other. No other

modern mythology survives into its modern religious traditions

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 29

to the same extent that Hindu mythology extends into modern Hindu traditions. Stories of gods mating with animals or shapeshifting into animal form to have animal

progeny are still taken literally by many, which causes some adverse reaction in outsiders—and Hindu reformers. In primordial or mythic time there was shapeshifting

from one species to another (changing orders of being). Rishis mated with apsarâs (celestial damsels); gods like Indra were attracted to rishis’ wives and on occasion

raped them (also the behavior of demons).

All this was not taken as confusion but related to the problem of primordial unity (or chaos) before creation and differentiation into the separateness of creation.

Gods like Indra feared a return to the primordial unity where all orders of being are truly undifferentiated, but gods like Indra did not necessarily represent the highest

wisdom. A return to oneness was seen as a desirable goal by the truly wise. The paradigmatic situation was symbolized by a sage practicing austerities in order to

change the cosmic order—back to its original oneness.

A belief in an original undifferentiated oneness seems to be reflected in the myth of VishnuVarâha and Bhûmîdevî, when it tells of their continuous love play

(lîlâ), lasting for three hundred years (some versions say a thousand). This love play seems to be a recreation of the cosmogonic moment of nondifferentiation before

the separation of being and nonbeing and of male and female. There are no offspring, only an embrace. This lovemaking is without the desire for a climax or for

offspring. It is without passion. This divine play became a model for later Tântric practices in which the participants embraced as the divine androgyne. And even as a

divine couple became one, so also most myths would agree that the entire differentiated cosmos ought to seek oneness in the Absolute.

Renunciation, Sacrifice, and Magic

Renunciation, sacrifice, and magic are themes that are hardly unique to Hindu mythology. However, the part they play in the myths is distinctive. Renunciation

(tapasya), when it first appeared, was in marked contrast to the various kinds of life affirmation found in many early Hindu myths. Since it is so commonly accepted

that Hinduism in general and Hindu mythology specifically are lifenegating, one needs to be reminded that in the Vedic and Brâhmanical periods in particular, long life

and good health were worthy and constantly sought goals. There were originally three stages of life (aśramas)—student, householder, and retiree. One’s social and

religious duties overlapped in a series of sacraments (samskâras) that celebrated life and its activities. An artifact of that life affirmation was the desire for the boon of

immortality (ciranjîva). One sought to

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 30

become immortal because there was nothing to escape. This existence was the place of joy and blessing. Perhaps even reincarnation or transmigration (samsâra)

began as an affirmation of the goodness of life.

However, from the time of the Buddha (c.600 B.C.E.) Hindu mythology developed a new logic and emphasis. The pleasures and attractions of this life could be

renounced through ascetic practices (tapas), and by so doing one could acquire supernatural or transhuman powers (siddhis) or creative energy (mâyâ, śaktî). This

new desire for divine powers led to a search for knowledge (jñâna) about these powers and to practices (tapas, yoga, tântra) that helped in their acquisition.

Ascetic practices were developed extensively outside of Vedic religion—among the Ajivikas, Buddhists, Jains, and independent sages. But ascetic practice

became part of Hindu tradition in yoga and its supportive philosophies and theologies. It was a new form or conception of sacrifice. One would not perform a blood

sacrifice of an animal, involving its “murder” (as the Buddhist and Jains charged in their call for ahimsa, which literally means nonmurder and later became noninjury).

Asceticism embraced a change in consciousness that included an individual (not a clan or group) who controlled his or her own actions and desires. This mastery of the

“self” seemed godlike, and the myths taught that this is exactly how the gods and demons acquired their phenomenal powers—through austerities, not conquests or fire

sacrifices as earlier in the Vedic age. So not only was a new individual consciousness produced, but also austerity (tapas) and powers (siddhis) were connected in a

new way. Now the hearer of these new myths would learn of ascetic powers, those produced by yoga, fasting, vows, pilgrimages, donations of wealth, and other

tangible and intangible sacrifices. All of these led to an experience of nonattachment or nonaddiction to the ordinary things of life and the resulting power to operate in

the world with new strength—and even miraculous abilities (siddhis).

Myths often told of who practiced and what they achieved. Again, in primordial time animals, humans, demons, and gods all practiced austerities, acquired

powers, used them against each other, and admired great accomplishment (tapasya), even when it might be used for unworthy ends—as was almost always the case

with the demons (asuras).

Austerities (tapas) that generated powers (siddhis) were thus not always ascetic. Most myths not only linked austerities (tapas) with powers (siddhis) but also

linked the use of those powers with nonascetic and often immoral goals (killings, cursings, and the like). One practiced tapas in order to gain siddhis. The demons

(asuras) usually would quit their practices (fasting, yoga, meditation, worship) as soon as they acquired the siddhi they sought (immortality, invincibility, and the like).

But some did not and made defeat impossible except for intervention of the Supreme (in sectarian myths). Brahmâ, and sometimes

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 31

Indra or other devas, granted the boon (vara) of a particular siddhi simply because these austerities pleased the gods. At least so the mythmakers often said;

nevertheless, it seemed that Indra and the other gods were actually operating under some kind of compulsion—if austerities were done, a boon had to be granted.

Something very much like the law of karma seemed to be at work. Seen in this way, austerity (tapas) was analogous to Vedic sacrifice, which could be seen as

providing the devas with something they wanted so that they would give human beings what they wanted, but which actually operated rather differently. In fact the inner

logic of tapas was quite close to the “science” of controlling the gods with Vedic rituals, except that the rituals had been replaced by austerities. The rewards for

austerities could include heaven (svarga), but even in late mythology the powers were often used for more ordinary human desires. Myths about the way the asuras

would first practice tapas to obtain a boon from Brahmâ suggested that repeating a chant (mantra) of praise a thousand times either pleased Brahmâ or obligated him

to grant the desired boon. When tapas was equated with purification rituals, austerity was linked to the notion of penance. However, when one’s motive for becoming

purified by austerities was to obtain a siddhi of invincibility or immortality in order to be victorious in war, that only emphasized the connection to magic (mâyâ).

Many myths mention the use of magic directly. The myth of Bala, an asura (demon), mentioned that he knew and taught ninetysix kinds of magic to trouble the

devas (divinities). Hanuman was said to practice the eight superhuman powers (ashta siddhis). The asuras had a liferestoring magic (mritansañjîvanî) that they had

been using in their battles against the devas. It was this magic that necessitated giving amrita, a potion that bestowed immortality, which was churned up from the

Milky Ocean, to the devas. Śîlavatî was a wife who, by practice of austerities (tapas), was able to cast a spell that prevented the sun from rising.

The practical understanding of power as mâyâ (magical power) and śaktî (creative energy) rested on a “science” of observation and experimentation that proved

the effectiveness of both ritual and ascetic practices. Brâhmins had concluded that rituals worked when done precisely, as did incantations of mantras as prayers of

praise or formulas of magical control. Further, this understanding of mâyâ as control of the mysteries of life concluded that austerities (tapas) led to powers that

controlled nature, including the gods, or to the acquisition of any object of desire, including heaven (svarga) or immortality. The mythological view was the practical

one: that there were practices (rituals, austerities, devotion, or a combination of these) that gave mortals some control over the results of their action (connecting with

karma) and hope for the future. Many, many myths mention the use of magic directly, and many terms are used in the myths

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t

la w.

Page 32

for the practitioners of this art, as well as for the art itself: for example, mâyâvî (one with power) or tapasvinî (magician) and indrajala (magic or illusionism).

In Hindu mythology renunciation, sacrifice, and magic did not always follow the clear logic of the philosophical systems (darśanas), but the myths do intend to be

logical: Theirs is a logic of magic with earlier understandings of renunciation and ritual sacrifice. This might not be the true renunciation of the ascetic, but it constitutes

one of the main supports of a mythic worldview.

Mâyâ as Illusion

During the Upanishadic period a new meaning for the concept of mâyâ began to be illustrated in Hindu mythology. That theme was the illusory nature of the seemingly

real. This theological and philosophical notion could have totally undercut the assurances of Hindu mythology that attention to correct actions (karma) would have

positive results in this life and the next. But it did not. Paradoxically, mâyâ could be used as a new storytelling device as the succeeding periods became more and more

like Indian music. There was no actual musical score, but only an essence that needed to be maintained. There was no single account in which all the details had to be

consistent, coherent, and logical, since the myths pointed to a reality beyond, behind, above the illusion (mâyâ).

Metaphysically and epistemologically, mâyâ pointed to the process of mental creation and its correspondence to material creation. Like the mindcreations of

Brahmâ, this creation as projection by the Absolute (Brahman) seemed to involve a dreamlike state of the Absolute in which the world was dreamed into being. Later

mythology picked up this notion explicitly, when Brahmâ or, more properly, one of the supreme deities (Vishnu, Śiva, Devî) was the dreamer and creation was the

dream. This critical usage of mâyâ as illusion or dream allowed for a contradiction or rejection of the practical usages of mâyâ—performance of ritual or austerities to

acquire magical powers. Meditations to become one with the One (the cosmogonic embrace) or devotions to the supreme deity (to receive grace and love) allowed the

cosmogonic problem of multiplicity and improper order after creation to be finally corrected in oneness with the Supreme or with the Absolute.

With the broad outlines of Hindu mythology’s approach to the cosmogonic and cosmological mysteries of life sketched in, it is time to explore further a central

problem in mythology: mythic time, space, and causality. That will be the subject of chapter 2.

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t

la w.

Page 33

Notes

1. Roy Amore and Larry Shinn, Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 5.

2. D. S. Sharma, “The Nature and History of Hinduism,” in The Religion of the Hindus, edited by Kenneth Morgan (New York: Ronald Press, 1953), pp. 3–47.

3. J. P. Rao Rayapati, Early American Interest in Vedanta (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1973).

4. Ken Wilber, The Spectrum of Consciousness (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1977) and The Atman Project (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical

Publishing House, 1980).

5. There is a New Age genre of literature arising from this influence that is one reason that Ken Wilber has disassociated himself from the term. Examples would be the

books by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus: On the Discoveries of Notovitch, Abhedananda, Roerich, and Caspari (Summit University Press,

1984) and Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life before and after the Crucifixion (Dorset, UK: Element Books, 1986; 2d edition, 1991). This

genre has the same kind of scholarly weight as a depiction of Krishna as a warrior with superpowers who arrived in India on a UFO.

re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t

fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le

co py ri gh t la w.

Page 34

This page intentionally left blank

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 35

2 Mythic Time, Space, and Causality

When Svâmî Vivekânanda (1863–1902) spoke of time (kâla), he connected it with the concepts of space (deśa) and causality (nimitta), in much the same way as centuries of Indian philosophers had done. While the gods and goddesses were seen as being held within the operational power of kâladeśanimitta, the Absolute

would certainly not be. That would be true for both the impersonal Absolute, Brahman, as well as the theistic supreme deities, such as Śiva, Vishnu, or Devî. Svâmî

Vivekânanda’s handling of time as relative to the Absolute and time limiting all creatures (those who are created) is sufficiently representative of the interconnectedness

of time, space, and causality in most Hindu mythological periods to remind us that any division between these three concepts is purely for purposes of convenience.

MYTHIC TIME Mythic time provides a temporal plane that shapes all the cosmogonic elements of Hindu mythology (associated with the origin of every thing and every being, purpose,

duties, stages of life, meaning, and so on) and turns mere stories into a cosmic drama of necessity and urgency. One’s very actions (karma) are related, even though

they may be infinitesimal, to the greater stories of the transmigration (both evolution and involution) of the cosmos.

Mythic time (cosmic, divine) and existential time (the time of ordinary human experience) tend to interpenetrate each other in the living mythologies of India.

Human measurements of time—from the experience of divisions of time in a day to those of a yearly (human) calendar—blend into the ritual cycle commemorating

divine birthdays and other festival events. However, a ritual calendar pales when placed alongside a chart of mythic time. (See chart on p. 38.)

Birth and death are the normal markers for human or existential time. However, mythic time intrudes, and birth must be viewed as rebirth. For in mythic time, this

birth or lifetime was preceded by the prior “causes” in the karmic

an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed

un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 36

chain that shape this birth—always answering why one was born in this caste (varna), into this marriage group (jati), with these disabilities, and so on. Since one is

now human, there would have been many, many lifetimes and rebirths as animals and, prior to that, possibly as plants. There may even have been regressive rebirths, as

was made clear in the myth of Kamsa and the six sons (referred to in chapter 1 in the section on “Karma”; see also the entry on Kamsa in chapter 3). The mythic view

of rebirth is cyclic—there is no moment that one can declare as the absolute beginning of one’s own life cycle.

Quite telling is the fact that kâla is the word for both time and death. Kâla was personified as the god (deva) of time, but he was also referred to as Yama, the

god of death. (See entries in Chapter 3.) Kâla worked within a fixed universe: he would come only at the appointed time of death, which was governed not by him but

by a causality regulated by karma and the time believed to be allotted for each species, from plants and animals to humans and gods. Even Brahmâ, the creator, had a

fixed allotment of one hundred divine years (see chart below).

In the Mahâbhârata (Anusasana Parva, chap. 91, verse 36) the sage Ganita was given credit for calculating the course and duration of the yugas, the vast cycles

of time. The yugas were of extraordinary duration, but they were only parts of even larger cycles—kalpas and mahâkalpas (defined below).

There is a way in which time could be said to have a beginning, for in most later Hindu worldviews there was something outside of time that could begin and end it.

But, technically, these are rebeginnings. In the devotional (bhakti), or theistic, systems a supreme deity ruled time, bringing it into being along with Brahmâ, as in the

myth cycle of Vishnu, where Brahmâ is born at the beginning of each mahâkalpa. Also in the least mythological worldview, that of Advaita Vedânta and its foremost

philosophertheologian Śankara (c. eighth century C.E.), the Absolute (Brâhman) was both beyond and unaffected by kâladeśanimitta. These cosmic principles

subordinated both humans and gods to the rule of time, putting them on essentially the same level in the myths.

Each beginning of time was a creation (srishthi)—or, as already observed, a recreation. Even the notion of revealed knowledge (veda) did not fully reconcile the

many revealed versions of creation found in the many Hindu scriptures (both shruti and smritî, different orders of scriptures in their authority and origination).

There would be found in scripture creations from the mind (manas), and creations by division, sacrifice, dismemberment, coition, and so on. The logical

contradictions were noted by early thinkers, but later resolved by the simple device of stating that there were many creations, and these accounted for all of the

differences. There were minor creations (recreations) after each set of the four yugas (ages) and major creations after the mahâkalpas. (See chart on p. 38.) A

further notion removed one last discrepancy seen by some Hindu thinkers—the

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 37

various Prajâpatis (creative “grandfathers”) had proliferated in the later mythology so that even the notion of multiple creations did not remove all of the logical

problems. So the notion of gotras (families of created beings) placed all of the creatures of each creation within four gothas, each “grandfathered” by its own

prajâpati. (But what seemed to fix the problems in the conception seemed to disturb the fundamental insight concerning the interconnectedness of all being as

emanating from the One, as a projection from the One, and ultimately becoming one with the One.)

Mythic time had placed a judgment on this present moment in human or existential time. In the present, human history is occurring at the worst of all times, the

mythic time of the kaliyuga (defined below), a time of lessened spiritual possibilities because of loss of the full Vedas, and the inability to live the Hindu way of life (the

complete varnaaśramadharma, the ethical system involving the interrelationship of the individual and group’s obligations in every aspect and stage of life). It further

implied a current need for yet another restoration of the dharma, but with the likelihood that there would only be partial incarnations of God (amsaavatâras) before

the final dissolution (pralaya) of this kalpa and the coming of the tenth incarnation, Kalki (Kalkin), the last avatâra of this yugic cycle.

Mythic time is complicated by a crossreferencing with periods of time referring to Hindu scriptures. There is a notion that there was a time at the beginning of this

yugic cycle (in the kritayuga, also called the satyayuga, “age of truth”) that was Vedic. That is, those who lived in the kritayuga were able to live the truths of the

Vedas. However, by the kaliyuga human beings were in need of simpler scriptures, representational aids to worship the divine (idols and temples), and rules for living

that were adjusted to a dark (benighted) age—thus, the time governed by the devotional practices of the Purânas and consequently called Purânic time.

The Mahâbhârata (Bhisma parva, 4–12 and Santi parva 12.224) and the Manu Smritî (1.64–86) were among the first scriptures to record what later became

the prevailing view of mythic time. As mentioned before, the sage Ganita was credited with making the first calculations that defined mythic or divine time in terms of

human time. Thus, the yugas, caturyugas (the fourfold yuga cycle), kalpas, mahâkalpas, days and nights of Brahmâ, and lifetime of Brahmâ could be calculated in

human years. (See chart on p. 38.) Yet there were always variations in these calculations. The following chart is based on the Vishnu Purâna, which saw time (kâla)

as the body of Vishnu, the supreme creator of all, including the timespacecausality continuum (kâladeśanimittâ).

Creation (srishthi) is followed by an active phase of evolution (sthiti) and then of dissolution or involution (laya). At the end of one ardhakalpa there is a

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t

la w.

Page 38

Time: Human, Mythic, Cosmic

Sanskrit Term Comparative Explanation

kashtha 15 twinklings of the eye

kala 30 kashthas

muhurtta 30 kalas

ahorâtra (and vâra or

tithi)

30 muhurttas; a human day and night

405,000 kasthas

mâsa a lunar month 30 human days

paksha half of a lunar month 15 days waxing and 15 days

waning

ayana 6 human months 180 days

2 ayanas human lunar year of 360 days

southern ayana night of a deva (god) human lunar half year of 180

days

northern ayana a day of the gods human lunar half year of 180

days

—sandhya period that precedes each

yuga

it lasts for 400, 300, 200, and

100 divine years, depending on

the yuga

kritayuga 4,000 divine years 1,728,000 human years

(144,000+1,440,000+144,000)

—sandhyansa period that follows each yuga it lasts for 400, 300, 200, and

100 divine years, depending on

the yuga

tretayuga 3,000 divine years 1,296,000 human years

dvaparayuga 2,000 divine years 864,000 human years

kaliyuga 1,000 divine years 432,000 human years

caturyuga (four yugas),

or mahâyuga

12,000 divine years 4.32 million human years

manvantara, or

mahâyuga

4 yugas; the reign of a Manu 4.32 million human years

ardhakalpa a half kalpa, the night or day of

Brahmâ, 1,000 mahâyugas

4.32 trillion human years

kalpa 2 ardhakalpas; a day and

night of Brahmâ

8.64 trillion human years

a day or night of Brahmâ 1,000 ardhakalpas 4.32 quadrillion human years

a day and night of Brahmâ 2000 kalpas; reign of 14

Manus

8.64 quadrillion human years

a year of Brahmâ 360 Brahmâ days and nights 3.1104 human years

mahâkalpa 100 Brahmâ years; a Brahmâ

lifetime

3.1104 human years

laya the destruction at the end of a

manvantara or mahâyuga

pralaya after each day of Brahma, a

dissolution of the universe

mahâpralaya the great dissolution after the

lifetime of a Brahmâ

srishthi creation (literally, “discharge”)

prasrishthi creation before each kalpa

mahâprasrishti great creation before each

Brahmâ

mahâprasthiti the entire period of evolution in

the lifetime of one Brahmâ

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le

co py ri gh t la w.

Page 39

greater destruction of the cosmos (pralaya) followed by a great preservation (prasrishthi) and its subquent destruction (pralaya). The period before and after each

yuga (sandhya and sandhyansa, respectively) are periods of awakening and dissolution proportional to the time of the particular yuga. There are even notions of time

in terms of the lifetime of one Brahmâ—the great creation (mahâprasrishti), the great evolution (mahâprasthiti), and the great destruction (mahâpralaya). There is

no ending, as this cycle starts over again. Also, according to the Vishnu Purâna there is no purpose to cyclic time either, as it is just for the play (lîlâ) of Vishnu.

The list of words for mythical time is not exhaustive. Some of the myths were quite creative and invented more units of time. For example, in the story about

Mahâvishnu incarnating as Varâha, Vishnu and BhûmîDevî made love for a devavarsha—300 human years, less than one divine day.

Additional Systems and Units of Time

Astrological time (used to calculate horoscopes), calendar time (involving naming the days after reigning planets, or graha, the solar months for the twelve solar

mansions, and the lunar months for the twentyseven or twentyeight lunar mansions, or nakshatras), and musical and dance time all contributed to the total culture’s

conceptions and terminology about time. Of course, any myth might introduce these notions of time into a story set in mythic time without fear of inconsistency or

contradiction.

DEŚA (SPACE) In the Hindu continuum of kâladeśanimitta, space is the second component of the cosmogonic mystery. Deśa too must be created or brought into being and order at

each beginning, or rebeginning. What is the shape or dimensions of space? What is above and what is below? Where is the center? Where do the gods live? What are

the names of the regions? Where does space go at the destruction? The myths know and occasionally even ask these questions but never quite answer them.

There were many conceptions of space during the various periods of Hindu mythology. In the Vedic period there was a decidedly IndoEuropean threetiered

universe with three hierarchical regions, as well as the notion of the cosmic egg (Hiranyagarbha). The latter concept involves imagining space from “above” as an egg

enclosing existence, with the human beings within the egg looking up at

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 40

its roof, the heavens, and being supported below, so that the enclosure was a golden womb. This notion could be affirmed even as an hierarchical notion of ascending

regions or worlds (lokas) became the dominant conception.

The Vedic notion of space was limited to three regions: earth, midair, and the heavens. A member of the principle divine triad of the Vedic period ruled over each

region—Agni over earth (bhû), Indra over midair (bhuvas), and Sûrya over heaven (svar or svarga). Over time, these regions (lokas) were elaborated until, in the

Purânas, they had multiplied, with a loka for each of the major gods, arranged hierarchically. Mount Meru (Mahâmeru, the cosmic mountain) began with its base at

the center of an earth island known as Jambudvîpa (roseapple tree island). Meru, or Mahâmeru, was shaped like a banyan tree, smaller at its base and larger above.

In the upper regions of Mount Meru were the regions for the gods and their respective palaces (lokas). All had names—Brahmâloka, Indraloka or Svarga, Vaikuntha

(this name was also given to the watery realm where Vishnu rested on the serpent Ananta, or Śesha), Kailâsa (for Śiva), Mahodaya (for Kubera), Śraddhâvatî (for

Varuna), and so on.

Jambudvîpa was either the island at the center of a series of concentric islands or the first of seven donutshaped islands with Meru at the center; in either case,

Meru was at its center. Each island had an ocean filled with a different liquid surrounding it (salt, sugarcane juice, wine, ghee, buttermilk, milk, and sweet water). Some

sages and kings were said to have wandered until they reached the Himâlayas and then finally Mount Meru. Others needed divine transport to reach it. Not only could

the occasional human reach Meru, but also many other beings: animals (some divine like Hanuman and others who were just companions or vehicles of the gods),

semidivine beings (apsaras and gandharvas), and demons—even armies of them could invade Meru.

Jambudvîpa was divided into many lands, with Bhârata (India) subdivided into nine regions, each ruled over by descendants of the solar and lunar races of kings.

Bhârata was known for its sacred geography. Where gods and goddesses had touched the soil of India in their births, play, or rule, it had been made sacred. When

there had been dismemberment of a god or goddess and divine body parts had fallen to earth, those spots too were holy. (See the story of the dismemberment of Satî

after Daksha’s sacrifice in the entry on Satî in chapter 3.) At such spots, mythic space and mundane geography overlapped at least at the pilgrimage sites (tîrthas). All

these places became sites for pilgrimage (tîrthas) and for temples and templecities.

Sometimes what had been in divine or mythic space came down to earth. The Gangâ was a celestial river, from which, according to some versions, Śiva only

brought down one drop to make the mighty earthly Gangâ. A piece of Mount Meru was broken off and made Lanka. Conversely, what was sacred space

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 41

on earth, such as a river, a tree, or a mountain, could have been a goddess in her previous lifetime in heaven. Almost every river in India was mythically connected with

a goddess who had been reborn as a river—sometimes a blessing, sometimes a curse. Occasionally, a mortal was blessed to be reborn as a river (and thus a goddess).

Below the earth were the nether regions or underworlds. The nâgas (snakes) inhabited great rivers, the sea, and the primordial ocean, ruling over the treasures of

the internal, or inner region, known as pâtâla. However, the nâgas were also to be found in Śiva’s heavenly realm, Kailâsa, and in other places like graveyards in

association with Śiva.

The underworlds changed radically from period to period. As the kingdom of Yama, lord of the dead, the underworld was named Yamapurî (city of death).

Yama and Kâla were the same god, and so space and time are one in death. The Upanishadic lad Naciketas could report that the accommodations were fine and the

occupants well cared for in Yamapurî. However, subsequent rulers, all kings of the asuras, turned the place into a living hell. Probably influenced by Buddhist and Jain

conceptions of hell, medieval Hindu mythology treated the seven narakas (and some incorrectly added the Vedic netherworlds or pâtâlas) as places of torment and

punishment for evil deeds.

An alternate way of seeing the universe conceptualized space (deśa) as consisting of eight spheres (sphere translating vasu, “that which surrounds”). These

spheres included the earthly sphere (prithivî), the spatial sphere (antariksha), the heavenly sphere (dyaus), and the stellar sphere (nakshatra). In older mythology

divinities (devas) both inhabited the various spheres and ruled them. Agni ruled the earthly sphere, Vâyu (the wind) ruled the sphere of space, and Sûrya (the sun) ruled

the heavenly sphere. The constellations ruled the stellar sphere (leading to their designations in the lunar and solar calendars). This notion of deśa contained within it faint

memories of a mythological hierarchy that differed from those mentioned in chapter 1, memories of a time when Vâyu was the second member of the divine triad

instead of Indra.

NIMITTA (CAUSALITY) The last component of the cosmogonic puzzle in Hindu mythology was effective causality. Most Hindus had held that the effective cause (nimitta) of the universe would

have to reside inside of the timespacecausality continuum. Thus, time (kâla) and karma as the result of ritual or ethical actions could be controlled by the direct

actions of the ritualist or by heroic effort as in yoga or asceticism (tapasya).

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 42

If the gods (devas) were governed by karma, then they would be subordinate to the forces of existence (or reality, consciousness, creation, or whatever one

might call it). Therefore, the law or laws of causality would be prior to the gods, and a creator would only be like Brahmâ, a recreator—existing within and governed

by timespacecausality.

The way causality was conceived of as governing within the universe, the way the laws of karma operated, did not remain the same over the centuries. Causality

was not always seen as tight; it could be hard or soft. When causality was seen as tight, that meant that the universe was seen as following rules of causality that could

not be changed under any circumstances. There would be no miracles. One could only reap what one had sowed. There could be no gain or loss. There could be no

favoritism, no cheating, no deceit. Karma had to be tight, or hard, to be fair, just, equal.

A preponderance of evidence suggests that Brâhmanical ritualism (also known as Brâhmanism) was based on a belief in a tight causality. If the priest had the

correct knowledge (jñâna) of the proper rituals and sacrifices (yâyus, yâgas, yâjñas) and knew the correct formulas of address and praise for each god (deva), and

knew the sections of scripture (karma kanda) about Vedic ritualism that dealt with this “science,” the laws that governed this tight causality, only then could the priest

(brâhmin) expect perfect success in obtaining from the devas exactly what had been asked. In the nexttolast section of chapter 1, “Renunciation, Sacrifice, and

Magic,” the connection is made between the control exercised over the gods in the sacrificial ritual and the control exercised by the practice of austerities. Hindu myths

on asceticism also implicitly used a concept of tight causality to explain how demons (always the test case) could acquire power over the gods, bring disorder once

again to all of creation, and drive righteousness (dharma) from the world. Ascetic myths that used this tight causality believed so strongly in the superpowers (siddhis)

to be gained by ascetic practices that a Śankara had to come along and dismiss their ritual and ascetic “sciences” as mâyâ—changing the way this term was used

forever. Moreover, after Śankara, no one would think that mâyâ referred to a tight causality. Śankara had turned their magical science (mâyâ) on its head and, through

the “paradigm shift” that he achieved, mâyâ would subsequently mean “illusion” or “projection” (vivarta).

Hindu mythology could not work with Śankara’s concept of relative or illusory causality. Hindu myths about ascetic practice and ritual performance needed a tight

causality to provide the certainty needed for communal identity and karmic hope, so Purânic mythology countered with a concept of theistic causality. The world was

not an illusion; there was a supreme deity in whom all causality resided. What ritualists sought with their sacrifices and ascetics sought

re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er ,

ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

Page 43

with their renunciations, theistic Hindus could now achieve with devotional practice. A supreme deity, who both ruled kâladeśanimitta and transcended it, could

provide unmerited grace (something their good karma had not fully bought or earned) and liberation (moksha). The Supreme—be it Vishnu, Śiva, or Devî—could thus

provide a soft karma, granting refuge in a community of those who followed the eternal truths (sanâtana dharma) of the scriptures and who lived according to the

expectations of the stages of life (aśramas) and the obligations of the organic society (varna).

Hindu mythology, like Indian music, did not require a fully explained or precise cosmology. It knew the essence of the musical piece and had learned to enjoy

great latitude in performance and theory. In fact, lack of variation would be boring to Indian taste and sensibility. Nothing was discarded, and mythmakers could and

can draw on it all, without worrying about consistency or incoherence in their worldview.

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 44

This page intentionally left blank

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 45

3 Characters, Themes, and Concepts

ÂDI

An asura (demon)

The demon Âdi was the son of Andhak, who had been killed by Śiva. To gain revenge, Âdi did austerities (tapas) with the sole purpose of receiving a boon (vara)

from Brahmâ, the creator. In due course Brahmâ granted him the vara, so Âdi asked for invincibility in battle. But boons, especially to demons, are provisional, and

may be invalidated by a flaw in the wording of the request. The literal wording of Âdi’s request won for him invincibility only while in his asura form.

Not knowing this limitation and quite certain of his invincibility, Âdi went to Kailâsa, Śiva’s heavenly abode, to avenge this death of his father. Âdi first changed

into the form of a serpent. Since snakes are natural friends of Śiva, who is lord of all creatures, Âdi was allowed into Śiva’s presence. But once inside Śiva’s palace,

Âdi again changed his form to appear like Śiva’s wife, Pârvatî. Śiva recognized the deceit and killed Âdi, who had lost the boon of immortality by being in another form

than his own.

See also Andhak; Pârvatî; Paśupati; Śiva

ÂDIKÛRMA

An avatâra of Vishnu

The original (âdi) turtle, or tortoise (Kûrma), was involved in a creation, or recreation, myth, the Churning of the Milky Ocean. For the main entry see Kûrma.

See also Avatâra; KshîrâbdhiMathanam; Kûrma; Vishnu

ADITI

A devî (goddess), mother of the gods

There are few interesting myths to tell about Aditi, but her status and roles change so remarkably that she illustrates the fluidity of Hindu myths. Her name

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m

th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 46

literally means eternity (free, boundless, infinity), so philosophically she is a personification of time. Aditi slowly evolved as the prototype of the Great Mother, Devî, or

Śaktî.

In the early Rigveda she was described as the mother of seven (and later twelve) âdityas (children of Aditi), and was prayed to for protection. There are prayers

to her in this period asking her to give the Aryans children and cattle, protection and forgiveness.

In the epics (the Mahâbhârata and the Râmâyana), Aditi is the wife of Kaśyapa, a progenitor or grandfather of creation. She is explicitly the mother of Vishnu,

the twelfth âditya. But Aditi’s earlier praise as Devamâtri (mother of the gods) led to her highest role, in the early Purânas. The âdityas came to include all the devas,

so she became mother of the 330 million gods and goddesses who made up all the various classes of medieval polytheism. Her opposite, in both name and role, was

Ditî (bound, finite). Ditî’s children were the daityas (born of Ditî), who were also known as the asuras.

In the sectarian Vishnu Purâna, where Vishnu was the supreme god, Aditi was only the mother of Vishnu’s dwarf incarnation (Vâmana). In the Matsya Purâna

she was given a small part: she received a pair of earrings from Indra at the churning of the ocean.

In the Vedas Aditi was the wife of Daksha, grandfather of all creatures. But in the Vishnu Purâna Aditi had become the daughter of Daksha and wife of

Kaśyapa. Her role as the parent of the gods was continued into her rebirth as the mother of an incarnation of Vishnu. According to the Devî Bhâgavata, Aditi was

reincarnated as Devakî, the mother of Krishna.

All the variations did not go unnoticed. The great medieval commentator Yâska explained that all these variations could be true because the gods were born of

each other. Another explanation accounted for differences in parentage or marriage by saying that these were the results of rebirths, not just in this age but in the many

ages (yugas), with varying roles in each.

See also Âdityas; Kshîrâbdhimathanam; Daksha; Deva; Devakî; Kaśyapa; Krishna; Vâmana

ÂDITYAS

Devas (gods)

The sons born to Kaśyapaprajâpati (a grandfather or procreator) and Aditi (mother of the gods) are called the âdityas. In the hymns of the Rigveda, Aditi only had

seven or eight children. But by the time of the Brâhmanas there are twelve âdityas: Dhâtâ, Mitra, Aryaman, Rudra, Varuna, Sûrya, Bhaga, Vivasvân, Pusha, Savita,

Tvashta, and Vishnu. They are among the most important of the earliest

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 47

Vedic gods. This grouping could represent the twelve months, as they are celestial deities. In another context âditya (singular not plural) referred to the sun (Sûrya).

But as the centuries passed Aditi’s role as mother expanded to all of the devas. First, she became mother of Indra, who was called the king of the gods in later

mythology. The next addition to the myths spoke of twentyone children (besides the twelve) who were also called âdityas. And finally, as a prototype of the Great

Mother, Aditi became the mother of the entire world of devas, who have become 330 million, all born from the 33 children of Aditi.

In the earliest stage of their conception, the âdityas seem to have been personifications of light and of the phenomena of the heavens. The seven âdityas were the

sun, moon, and five planets. They were rulers of the celestial realm and symbols of kingship and sovereignty, especially Varuna, Mitra, and Aryaman. But their

importance must have been developed in myths prior to the Aryans’ arrival in India (or for those who find the Aryans a transformation of local tribes, before the

composition of the hymns of India’s earliest literature, the Rigveda). Their myths are not retold in the Rigveda, and their supreme importance receded rapidly. Three

more brother gods—Bhaga (the dispenser), Amsa (the share), and Daksha (the capability, “ritual skill”)—were celestial models for the social and ritual relationships of

the earliest Aryans. But their myths were also not to be found in the Rigveda, as the âdityas were in the process of being replaced by the Vedic fire ritual (the Agni cult)

and the Rigvedic triad of Agni, Indra, and Sûrya.

The myths of the seven âdityas can be found in Old Persia (Iran) in the form of their equivalents among the Persian gods (Amesha Spentas) of the Avesta.

See also Aditi; Agni; Deva; Indra; Kaśypa; Mitra; Sûrya; Varuna

AGASTYA, AGASTI

A rishi (sage) who conquered the Vindhya mountains

Agasti was mentioned in a hymn in the Rigveda dedicated to Mitra, a solar deity. That hymn said that two of the âdityas, Mitra (comradeship) and Varuna (binder,

“allseeing”), placed their semen in a pot and set it before Urvaśî, an unusually beautiful apsara (celestial maiden). Because she had aroused their desires, Mitra and

Varuna cursed Urvaśî to live on earth as the wife of the rishi Purûravas. Agasti (or Agastya) and Vasishtha were the sons born to her. Later versions expanded and

elaborated on the details.

Agastya was the form of his name used in later myths. It was said that his name came from his command that the Vindhya mountains bow down and worship him.

He received another name of Ocean Drinker (SamudraCuluka) when he drank up the ocean to reveal the demons hiding there and aid the gods in a victory over

them.

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 48

According to the Purânas Agastya happened upon his ancestors’ spirits (pitris) hanging upside down on a limb. They told him that they were in this condition

because the proper death rituals were not being performed and that he must bear a son to carry out his duties to his ancestors. So he created a baby girl from all the

beautiful parts of the beings of the forest and placed her in the king’s palace. And when she was of marriageable age, he asked the king to give her to him in marriage.

So he married Lopâmudrâ. He lived with her in a hermitage south of the Vindhya mountains. The myths about him include stories of how he ate the râkshasa (demon)

Vâtâpi, how he stamped down the Vindhya mountains, how he cursed the god Kubera, how he set the asuras on fire, how he made Indra send rain, and many more.

The râkshasas of South India were said to be in fear of this great sage. Râma visited his hermitage, and Agastya became his friend, advisor, and ally. He gave Râma the

bow of Vishnu. And when Râma returned to Ayodhyâ, Agastya joined him there as one of his priestly advisors.

In the epics and Purânas Agastya was also celebrated as one of the greatest writers of sacred literature. Agastya was said to have been an author of everything

from Vedic hymns to texts on medicine, but it was as the father of Tamil literature and science that he was most important in the south. There are temples in modern

Tamil Nadu in which Agastya worship is still practiced.

See also Haritâsva; Râkshasa; Urvaśî

AGNI

A deva (god), god of fire

At his earliest appearance in the Rigveda, Agni was a complex deity. He was the fire of the sacred sacrifices that were the heart of Vedic religion as well as the central

rituals of a seminomadic warrior culture. Agni was addressed as the deva who ruled earth, a third of the entire cosmos. Two other gods with the characteristic of fire

formed a triad with Agni. The solar fire (deified by many names, especially that of Sûrya) was ruler of heaven; and the fire of the middle air, lightning, was deified as

Indra, god of storm and god of war. A few Rigvedic hymns addressed Agni as one of the supreme triad (India’s first set of three), with Sûrya and Indra. Agni was also

the purifier of the offering to a Vedic pantheon and was next to Indra in the number of hymns dedicated to him. (Later this function as purifier of offerings was the only

important role left for him.) Phrases from these hymns suggest an Agni myth cycle and a separate cult. He was fathered by Dyaus (sky) and the waters, or born of Indra

between two clouds, had a triple existence (in heaven, middle air, and earth), and was lord of the house, friend of man, enemy of râkshasas (whom he crushes in his

teeth), beloved of the hôtris

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 49

The Great Mother as Kali

(TRIP)

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 50

(priests who make the Vedic sacrifices), and the one who knows when to make the offerings that gain boons from the other gods.

S. M. Bhardwaj, in his study Hindu Places of Pilgrimage in India, uncovered a connection between the Agni cult and the Aryanization of the regions eastward

along the Gangetic plain, north toward the Himalayas, and slowly south along the coast but barely into the interior. Recorded in the Mahâbhârata, the world’s largest

myth about an ancient war, were the places sanctified by Agni that provided great merit for those who visited and worshipped at these sacred sites (tîrthas). They had

become places to perform a fire ritual (i.e., they had been Aryanized). Thus Agni seems to have been central in spreading Aryan (literally, “noble”) culture from its

beginnings in northeast India throughout the subcontinent.

In the Atharvaveda, Agni takes the soul of the deceased from the funeral pyre to one of the worlds (lokas) of heaven (svarga), Indraloka or Brahmaloka, or to

hell (naraka). Fortunately for Agni, later accounts give this function to Yama, god of death.

There are many forces at work in Agni’s reduction over the centuries to a minor deity. There was the attack from outside the Vedic tradition by Buddhists and

Jains on the Vedic triad and its sacrificial system. The Agni cult included the killing and eating of animals. One of the responses inside the Vedic tradition was to begin to

internalize sacrifice, and another was to adopt the principle of ahimsa (noninjury, or literally “no murder”). In addition, later devotional Hindu traditions that

championed minor Vedic gods like Vishnu or nonVedic gods and goddesses like Śiva and Devî had a more subtle effect on Agni’s role. As these divinities rose to

supreme importance, Agni became a messenger to the gods and one of the eight guardians of the universe (ashthadikpâlakas).

Finally, in the Purânas, Agni becomes the name of a class of gods; his sons and grandsons were also Agnis. In the medieval period Agni had a scripture named

after him, the Agni Purâna, as he became merely the recipient of a revelation from the rest of the devas. This scripture is a vast collection dealing with the incarnations

of Vishnu, injunctions relating to the worship of gods, and a variety of subjects such as astrology, architecture, sculpture, and drama. In the scripture, Agni himself was

completely overshadowed by Vishnu, who is presented as the supreme lord of the universe.

The Holi Festival (a twoday holiday at the end of winter in February or March) is connected to Agni. According to one version of the myth that explains the

connection, he had been cursed by a sage (and great sages and yogis could become more powerful than the gods by practicing austerities, tapas). This brâhmin was

named Bhrigu. He worshipped Agni every day, feeding him with ghee (clarified butter). While Bhrigu took his morning bath, he would leave his beautiful wife Puloma

under Agni’s care and protection. But the asuras (demons)

in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s

pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 51

came one morning while Bhrigu was away and fed Agni so much ghee that he fell asleep. And they promptly stole Puloma. Bhrigu became so angry that he cursed Agni

so that he began to die. Vishnu was able to get the old sage to modify his curse, but once a sage’s curse had been made it could not be taken back. So now, only on

the day before Holi are worthless offerings thrown into the fire. On Holi Agni again receives his due—and is saved by divine grace. Another version has Ganeśa, the

elephantheaded son of Śiva, taking pity on Agni and fanning his flames back to life with his ears.

In the Kathikai Festival in Andra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, Śiva is worshipped in the form of the five elements, including Agni (fire). Another Shaivite festival

worshipping Śiva as lord of the elements (i.e., the universe) is the Batesar Mela at the ancient pilgrimage site of Bhuteshwar. It is quite likely that this was originally a

pilgrimage site (tîrtha) of the ancient Agni cult.

Agni was given a role in many Purânic myths: in the birth of Śiva’s son Skanda, in numerous battles with the asuras, as a dart emanating from Śiva, and in the

chorus of gods pleading their many cases with Brahmâ, Vishnu, or Śiva. But none of these roles indicated any memory of Agni in his glory in Vedic India.

Early verbal descriptions gave Agni two heads, four horns, three feet, and seven arms. Centuries later Agni was sculpted in stone or carved in wood with one or

two heads, two or three eyes, and two or four hands. He was given a chariot drawn by four parrots or was shown riding his animal vehicle, the ram. These images

included a wife, Svâhâ.

See also Indra; Skanda; Sûrya; Tapas

AHALYÂ

The first woman; one of the five perfect women

The story of Ahalyâ has as many dimensions as it has versions. She appeared in the epic Râmâyana but was also projected back to the beginning of the creation of this

age (yuga). One account stated that Brahmâ created her as the first and most beautiful woman on earth. Then he gave her to the rishi (sage) Gautama. In most tellings,

the rest of her story illustrated how a perfect woman should behave under the worst of circumstances. The villain was Indra, the Vedic god, reduced in the Râmâyana

to a minor but despicable role. In one version Indra changed his shape to appear to be Ahalyâ’s husband and deceived her. In another he first changed into a rooster,

crowed to make Gautama go outside for his morning devotions, and then took his place in bed. Another version attempted to mar her image, stating that Ahalyâ

recognized Indra and was flattered by his advances. When the rishi discovered Indra’s crime, he cursed him, at the same time putting a curse on his wife that took away

her beauty and expelled her into

wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r

ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 52

the forest. After many years of austerities and purification she was found by Lord Râma, rewarded for her devotion, and restored as chaste to her husband.

Ahalyâ was esteemed as one of the pañcakanyâ, the five ideal women of Hinduism, along with Draupadî, Mandodarî, Sîtâ, and Târâ.

See also Indra; Râma; Râmâyana; Rishis

AIRÂVATA

An elephant; the vehicle of Indra

Airâvata was the celestial elephantking and the vehicle of Indra. Airâvata was popularly known as the white elephant with wings. He was a descendant of the lineage

of the sage Kaśyapa. Airâvata came from a maternal line (Kaśyapa’s wife Krodhâvasâ, their daughter Bhadramatâ, her daughter Irâvatî, and then Airâvata). Such

parentage would certainly explain how it was possible for Airâvata to be born as king of the elephants. In mythic time gods might simply change into an animal species

with their spouses and have children of that species, or they might spend a rebirth in an animal species. So the storyteller does not have to say just how the descendant

of a sage became an elephant.

Another version of the birth of Airâvata stated that he was born or appeared out of the Churning of the Milky Ocean (Vishnu Purâna, chap. 22). But in this

account he had four tusks. Another Purâna, upon noticing the discrepancy, added a new dimension—the story of an Airâvata with four tusks was about the sixth cycle

of creations (manvantaras), but this was the seventh. Each cycle had its own Indra, with his elephant who was again named Airâvata.

Airâvata was used in another context as one of the eight elephants who guarded the eight zones of the universe (ashthadikpâlakas). Airâvata protected the

eastern zone.

See also Indra; Kaśyapa; Kshîrâbdhimathanam; Manvantara

AMBARÎSHA

A king of the Ikshvaku dynasty

Ambarîsha, king of Ayodhyâ (birthplace of Râma), was one of the sixteen great kings who ruled Bhârata (Marutta, Suhotra, Paurava, Sibi, Râma, Bhagîratha, Dilipa,

Mândhâta, Yayâti, Ambarîsha, Sasabindu, Gâyâ, Rantideva, Bharata, Prithu, and ParasuRâma).

In the Vâlmîki Râmâyana there was a story about the theft of one of Ambarîsha’s sacrificial cows by Indra. (In the Bhâgavata Purâna the theft was from King

Hariscandra.) Ambarîsha was forced to find a proper sacrifice to complete his rituals. So he bought the second of three sons, named Śunahśepha, of a

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t

pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 53

greedy brâhmin named Ricîka (also know as Ajîgartha). King Ambarîsha traded 100,000 ordinary cows for the sacrificial substitute—the young brâhmin

Śunahśepha. But Śunahśepha prayed to Indra, and Indra not only blessed him with long life but also bestowed upon King Ambarîsha the rewards of the sacrifice

(yâjña) as if it had been properly completed.

See also Ayodhyâ; Bharata; Hariscandra; Indra; ParasuRâma; Râma

AMRITA

Immortal; immortality; a drink or food

In the Vedas, amrita was a characteristic or quality of a suitable offering in the fire sacrifices to the gods. Soma (the divine plant) had more amrita than other offerings.

Later amrita (or amritam) was a substance produced by the Churning of the Milky Ocean (kshîrâbdhimathanam). There were different versions of this myth in the

Mahâbhârata, the Râmâyana, and the Purânas. According to one version the demons (asuras) had triumphed over the gods (devas), so the devas sought Lord

Vishnu’s help. He told them about amrita and how it would bestow immortality on those who drank it. Because the devas were able to take all of the amrita with

Vishnu’s help, they were able to prevail over the asuras.

In the Purânas there were many stories about the stealing of this ambrosia of immortality. But amrita was no longer the sole source of immortality. Immortality

was given by Brahmâ as the result of great austerities (tapas), but this was only a provisional immortality—a guarantee of living as long as one’s allotted time. In many

of the later myths it was the asuras who did the difficult austerities and gained immortality, which was only a kind of limited invincibility, in order to torment the gods.

Later mythology conflates amrita and soma as the drink of immortality.

See also Kshîrâbdhimathanam; Môhinî; Soma; Vishnu

ANANTA

A celestial snake

Ananta literally means “without end,” “infinite.” It was a descriptive term used of Vishnu and other gods. It was also used as a name of Vishnu’s serpent.

Ananta was the giant serpent that floated upon the Milky Ocean and formed the bed for Vishnu as he slept during the involution of the universe (pralaya). Ananta

(also known as Śesha) was the son of Kaśyâpa, the grandfather of all beings, by his wife Kadrû. Other serpents, such as Vâsuki, Takshâka, and Karkkotaka, were his

brothers. BalaRâma was a partial incarnation of Ananta.

See also BalaRâma; Kaśyapa; Pralaya; Takshâka; Vâsuki; Vishnu

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t pe rm is si on f ro m

th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 54

ANASÛYÂ

A heroine and role model for women

Anasûyâ was the wife of the sage Atri. As with all major figures in later mythology, her lineage was completely spelled out: granddaughter of SvayambhuvaManu

(Manu of his Yuga) and his wife Śatarupâ; daughter of Kardamaprajâpati (progenitor of his age) and Devahutî.

Anasûyâ (charity) was famous for the power of her austerities (tapas). Once Anasûyâ used her powers to bring rain when there had been a continuous drought;

even the Gangâ had dried up. Another time Anasûyâ changed ten days into night to help the gods. And when Sîtâ was drawn by her austerities to the forest hermitage

of Anasûyâ and Atri, Anasûyâ was able to give Sîtâ an ointment (created by austerities) that gave Sîtâ eternal beauty.

Anasûyâ played an important role in the story of Shîlâvatî’s curse, which prevented the sun from rising. (See entry under Aruna.) The gods asked Anasûyâ to help,

so she convinced Shîlâvatî to remove her curse and allow the sun to rise. Anasûyâ was given a boon, which she used to have sons born of the Trimûrti (Brahmâ,

Vishnu, and Śiva). Anasûyâ thus became the mother of Dattâtreya, Durvâsa (famed for both his psychic powers and his bad temper), and Candra. Her sons were

partial incarnations of Brahmâ, Vishnu, and Śiva.

See also Atri; Dattâtreya; Durvâsa; Prajâpati; Tapas

ANDHAK, ANDHAKA

An asura (demon)

In one version of his birth Andhaka was a daitya (demon), born of Ditî and Kaśyapa. He had a thousand arms, a thousand heads, and thus two thousand eyes, hands,

and feet (in another version, two thousand arms, two thousand legs). And even though he could see, it was said that he walked like a blind man. Andhaka means

“blind” or “blind one.”

In another version Andhaka was born from the love play (lîlâ) of Pârvatî with her husband, Lord Śiva. Pârvatî placed her hands over Śiva’s eyes in jest, only to

throw the universe into total darkness. But her touch heated Śiva so that a drop of sweat fell from his brow and became an angry, deformed, dark, hairy demon,

Andhaka. Pârvatî and her attendants were told by Śiva to protect “her son” and care for him.

On earth the demon Hiranyanetra (the golden eye) was practicing severe austerities (tapas) to win a boon from Śiva. And eventually the lord of yoga (Śiva) was

pleased and granted Hiranyanetra’s wish for a heroic son. Śiva gave his own son, Andhaka, to the demon yogi.

In the Kûrma Purâna, Andhaka desired the beautiful goddess, Pârvatî, and

Co py ri gh t © 2 00 3. A BC -C LI O. A ll r ig ht s re se rv ed . Ma y no t be r ep ro du ce d in a ny f or m wi th ou t

pe rm is si on f ro m th e pu bl is he r, e xc ep t fa ir u se s pe rm it te d un de r U. S. o r ap pl ic ab le c op yr ig ht l aw .

Page 55

went to Mount Mandara to abduct her. Śiva had gone to the Pine Forest to manifest himself there to its sages. He had left the gods, Vishnu and the rest, to attend to

and protect Pârvatî. The attendant gods became women in order to serve the empress of the universe. But when Andhaka (who in this myth may not be seen as being

already Pârvatî’s son) attempted to molest her, Śiva appeared and impaled him on his trident and began to dance. But by the mere touch of Śiva, Andhaka’s sins were

burned away. Śiva transformed this grotesque demon into a handsome young man. And when Andhaka prostrated before Pârvatî and Śiva, he was accepted as their

son.