Riddle In Hinduism
______________________________________________
Contents
Riddle no. 21 : The
theory of manvantara
Riddle no. 22 : Brahma is not dharma.
What good is Brahma?
Riddle no. 23 : Kali
Yuga—Why have the brahmins made it
unending?
Riddle no. 24 : The riddle of the Kali yuga
Appendix I : The
riddle of Rama and Krishna
PART III
POLITICAL
THE THEORY OF MANVANTARA
The Brahmins had a theory of the Government of their country
from Heaven. This seems to be the idea underlying what is called a Manvantara.
The idea underlying a Manvantara is related to the political Government
of the country. It is founded on the belief that the Government of the world is entrusted
to a corporation for a fixed period. This corporation consists of an officer called Manu
and Saptarishis (seven Rishis) and one Indra conducting the affairs of the country from
their seats in Heaven without consulting the people or ascertaining their wishes. The
period of the reign by one corporation is called a Manvantara after Manu the premier
authority in the ruling set. When the reign of one Manu is over he is succeeded by another
Manu and so on. As in the case of the Yugas, the Manvantaras also move in cycles. Fourteen
Manvantaras make one cycle.
The Vishnu Purana gives us an idea of these Manvantaras
which is as follows:
"Then Brahma created himself the Manu Swayambhuva, born
of, and identical with, his original self, for the protection of created beings; and the
female portion of himself he constituted Satarupa, whom austerity purified from the sin
(of forbidden nuptials), and whom the divine Manu Swayambhuva took to wife. Stopping here
for the moment one might ask—What does this mean? Does it mean that Brahma was a
hermaphrodite? Does it mean that Manu Swayambhu married his sister. Satarupa? How very
strange if this is true as the Vishnu Purana seems to suggest. The Vishnu Purana proceeds
to say:
" From these two are born two sons, Priyavrata and
Uttanpada, and two daughters, named Prasuti and Akuti graced with loveliness and exhalted
merit.
(This is an 11-page MS of which last four pages are in
the handwriting
of the author.—Ed.)
Prasuti he gave to Daksha and gave Akuti to the Patriarch
Ruchi, who espoused her. Akuti bore to Ruchi twins, Yajna and Dakshina, who afterwards
became husband and wife (again a case of a brother marrying his sister) and had twelve
sons, the deities called Yamas, in the Manvantara of Swayambhuva."
"The first Manu was Swayambhuva, then came Swarochisha,
then Auttami, then Tamasa, then Raivata, then Chakshusha; these six Manus have passed
away. The Manu who presides over the seventh Manvantara, which is the present period, is
Vaivaswata the son of the sun."
"I will now, enumerate, says the author of the Vishnu
Purana, the presiding Gods, Rishis, and sons of the Manu Swarochisha. The deities of this
period (or the second Manvantara) were called Paravatas and Tushitas; and the King of the
gods was the mighty Vipaschit. The seven Rishis were Urja, Stambha, Prana, Dattoli,
Rishabha, Nischara, and Arvarivat. And Chaitra, Kimpurusha, and others were the Manu's
sons.
"In the third period, or Manwantara of Auttamin,
Susanti was the Indra, the king of the gods, the orders of whom were the Sudhamas, Satyas,
Sivas, Pradersanas, and Vasavertis; each of the five orders consisting of twelve
divinities. The seven sons of Vasishtha were the seven Rishis; and Aja, Parasu, Divya, and
others were the sons of Manu.
" In the period of Tamasa, the fourth Manu, the
Surupas, Haris, Satyas, and Sudhis were the classes of Gods, each comprising twenty-seven.
Sivi was the Indra, also designated by his performance of a hundred sacrifices (or named
Satakratu). The seven Rishis were Jyotirdhama, Prithu, Kavya, Chaitra, Agni, Vanaka and
Pivara. The sons of Tamasa were the mighty kings Nara, Khyati, Santhaya, Janujangha and
others."
"In the fifth interval (Manvantara) the Manu was
Raivata; the Indra was Vibhu, the classes of gods, consisting of fourteen each, were the
Amitbhas, Abhutarasas, Vaikunthas, and Sumedhas; the seven Rishis were Hiranyaroma,
Vedasri, Urddhabahu, Vedabahu, Sudhaman, Parjanya and Mahamuni; the sons of Raivata were
Balabandhu, Susambhavya, Satyaka, and other valiant kings."
"These four Manus, Swarochisha, Auttami, Tamasa, and
Raivata, were all descended from Priyavrata, who in consequence of propitiating Vishnu by
his devotions, obtained these rules of the Manvantaras for his posterity.
"Chakshusha was the Manu of the sixth period in which
the Indra was Manojva;the five classes of Gods were the Adyas,
Prastutas, Bhavyas, Prithugas, and the magnanimous Lekhas
eight of each Sumedhas, Virajas, Havishmat, Uttama, Madhu, Abhinaman and Sahishnu were the
seven sages; the kings of the earth, the sons of Chaksusha, were the powerful Uru, Puru,
Satadhumna and others."
"The Manu of the present seventh Manvantara is the wise
lord of obsequies, and illustrious offspring of the sun called Manu Vaivaswata and deities
are the Adityas, Vasus and Rudras; their sovereign is Purandara; Vasishtha, Kasyapa, Atri,
Jamadagni, Gautama, Viswamitra and Bharadwaja are the seven Rishis; and the nine pious
sons of Vaivaswata Manu are the kings of Ikshwaku, Nabhanidishta, Karusha, Prishadhra, and
the celebrated Vasumat." So far the particulars of seven Manvantaras which are given
by the Vishnu Purana relate to Manvantaras which had run out at the time when the Vishnu
Purana was written. Whether the rule of the Manvantaras was an external one the Brahmins
have been silent. But the author of the Vishnu Purana knew that seven more Manvantaras
were to come. Below are given the particulars of these seven.
"Sanjana, the daughter of Vishwakarman was the wife of
the sun, and bore him, three children, the Manu (Vaivaswata), Yama and the goddess Yami
(or the Yamuna river). Unable to endure the fervours of her lord, Sanjana gave him Chhaya
as his handmaid, and repaired to the forests to practise devout exercises. The sun,
supposing Chhaya to be his wife Sanjana, begot by her three other children Sanaischara
(Saturn), another Manu (Savarni) and a daughter Tapati (the Tapti river). Chhaya upon one
occasion, being offended with Yama, the son of Sanjana, denounced an imprecation upon him,
and thereby revealed to Yama and to the sun that she was not in truth Sanjana, the mother
of the former. Being further informed by Chhaya that his wife had gone to the wilderness
the sun beheld her by the eye of meditation engaged in austerities, in the figure of a
mare (in the region of Uttara Kuru). Metamorphosing himself into a horse, he rejoined his
wife, and begot three other children, the two Aswins, and Revanta, and then brought
Sanjana back to his own dwelling. To diminish his intensity, Vishwakaraman placed the
luminary on his lathe to grind off some of his effulgence; and in this manner reduced it
an eighth: for more than that was inseparable. The parts of the divine Vaishnava
splendour, residing in the sun, that were filed off by Viswakaraman fell blazing down upon
the earth, and the artist constructed of them the discuss of Vishnu, the trident of Shiva,
the weapon of the god of wealth, the lance of Kartikeya, and the weapons of the other
gods: all these Viswakarman fabricated from the superflous rays of the sun."
"The son of Chhaya, who was called also a Manu was
denominated Savarni, from being of the same caste (Savarni) as his elder brother, the Manu
Vaivaswata. He presides over the ensuing or eighth Manvantara; the particulars of which
and the following, I will now relate. In the period in which Savarni shall be the Manu,
the classes of the gods will be Sutapas, Ambitabhas and Mukhyas: twenty-one of each. The
seven Rishis will be Diptimat, Galava, Rama, Kripa, Drauni; my son Vyasa will be the sixth
and the seventh will be Rishyasringa. The Indra will be Bali, the sinless son of Virochana
who through the favour of Vishnu is actually sovereign of part of Patala. The royal
progeny of Savarni will be Virajas, Arvarivas, Nirmoha, and others."
" The ninth Manu will be Dakshasavarni. The Paras,
Marichigarbhas and Sudharrnas- will be the three classes of divinities; each consisting of
twelve, their powerful chief will be the Indra Adbhuta Savana, Dyutimat, Bhavya, Vasu,
Medhatithi, Jyotishaman and Satya, will be he seven Rishis. Dhritketu, Driptiketu,
Panchahasta, Nirmaya, Prithusrava, and others will be the sons of the Manu.
" In the tenth Manwantara the Manu will be
Brahma-savarni; the gods will be the Sudhamas, Virudhas, and Satasankhyas; the Indra will
be the mighty Santi; the Rishis will be Havishaman, Sukriti, Satya, Appammurthi, Nabhaga,
Apratimaujas and Satyaketu; and the ten sons of the Manu will be Sukshetra, Uttamaujas,
Harishena and others."
" In the eleventh Manwantara the Manu will be
Dharma-savarni; the principal classes of gods will be the Vihangamas. Karnagamas, and the
Nirmanaratis, each thirty in number; of whom Vrisha will be the Indra; the Rishis will be
Nischara, Agnitejas, Vapushaman, Vishnu, Aruni, Havishaman, and Anagha; the kings of the
earth, and sons of the Manu, will be Savarga, Sarvadharma, Devanika, and others."
"In the twelfth Manvantara the son of Rudra-Savarni,
will be the Manu; Ritudhama will be the Indra; and the Haritas, Lohitas; Sumanasas and
Sukramas will be the classes of gods, each comprising fifteen Tapaswi, Sutapas, Tapomurti, Taporti, Tapodhriti, Tapodyuti
and Tapodhana will be the Rishis; and Devas, Upadeva, Devasreshtha and others will be the
manu's sons, and mighty monarchs on the earth."
"In the thirteenth Manvantara the Manu will be Rauchya;
the classes of gods, thirty-three in each, will be Sudhamanas, Sudharmans and Sukarmanas,
their Indra will be Divaspati;
the Rishis will be Nirmoha, Tatwadersin, Nishprakampa,
Nirutsuka, Dhritimat, Avyaya and Sutapas; and Chitrasena, Vichitra, and others will be the
kings."
" In the fourteenth Manvantara, Bhautya will be the
Manu; Suchi, the Indra; the five classes of gods will be the Chakshushas, the Pavitras,
Kanishthas Bhrajiras and Vavriddhas; the seven Rishis will be Agnibahu, Suchi, Sikra,
Magadha, Gridhra, Yukta and Ajita; and the sons of the Manu will be Uru, Gabhir, Gabhira,
Bradhna and others who will be kings, and will rule over, the earth." Such is the
theory of Manvantaras. We now hear of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Brahmanic
theory was just the opposite of it. It was a theory of the Dictatorship over the
Proletariat by the Heavenly fathers.
Be that as it may the question that primarily comes to one's
mind is: How these fourteen Manus who succeeded one another rule the people? What laws did
they make for the governance of the people? The only place where one can get an answer is
the Manusmriti.
Referring to the first chapter of Manusmriti we get the
following answer:
Ch. I. 1. The great sages approached Manu, who was seated
with a collected mind, and, having duly worshipped him spoke as follows:
2. Deign, divine one, do declare to us precisely and in due
order the sacred laws of each of the (four chief) castes (Varna) and of the intermediate
ones.
3. For thou, O Lord, alone knowest the purport of the rites
and knowledge of the Soul taught in this whole ordinance of the Swayambhu (Manu) which is
unknowable and unfathomable. Manu replies to them saying:
5. This universe existed in the shape of darkness
unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable,
wholly immersed as it were in deep sleep.
8. Swayambhu Manu desiring to produce beings of many kinds
from his own body, first with a thought created the waters and placed his seed in them.
9. That (Seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to
the sun; in that Egg he himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.
34. Then, I, desiring to produce created beings performed
very difficult austerities and thereby called into existence ten great sages, lords of
created beings.
35. Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu,
Prachetas, Vashishta, Bhrugu and Narada.
58. But he having composed these Institutes of the sacred
law, himself taught them, according to rule, to me alone in the beginning: next I taught
them to Marichi and the other sages.
59. Bhrigu will fully recite to you these Institutes; for
that sage learned the whole in its entirety from me.
From this it appears that the only Manu who made laws was
the Swayambhu Manu. According to Vishnu Purana, each Manvantara had its own Manu. Why did they not make laws
for their own Manvantara. Or was it the laws made by Swayambhu Manu were to be Eternal. If
so, why did the Brahmins have separate Manvantara.
BRAHMA IS NOT DHARMA. WHAT GOOD IS BRAHMA?
There are various forms of Government known to
history—Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy to which may be added Dictatorship.
The most prevalent form of Government at the present time is Democracy. There is however no unanimity as to what constitutes Democracy. When one examines the question one finds that there are two views about it. One view is that Democracy is a form of Government. According to this view where the Government is chosen by the people that is where Government is a representative Government there is Democracy. According to this view Democracy is just synonymous with Representative Government which means adult suffrage and periodical elections.
According to another view a democracy is more than a form of
Government. It is a form of the organization of Society. There are two essential
conditions which characterize a democratically constituted society. First is the absence
of stratification of society into classes. The Second is a social habit on the part of
individuals and groups which is ready for continuous readjustment or recognition of
reciprocity of interests. As to the first there can be no doubt that it is the most
essential condition of Democracy. As Prof. Dewey[f1] has observed: [Quotation
referred to by the author is not recorded in the original MS from ' Democracy and
Education ', by Dewey p. 98.] The second condition is equally necessary for a
democratically constituted society.
This chapter consists about 20 pages out of which first
two pages and the concluding six are in the handwriting of the author. The rest are typed
pages with all necessary modifications by Dr. Ambedkar.—Ed.
The results of this lack of reciprocity of interests among
groups and individuals produce anti-democratic results which have been well described by
Prof. Dewey[f2] when he says: [Quotation
from 'Democracy and Education ' of page 99 referred to by the author is not recorded in
the original MS.]
Of the two views about democracy there is no doubt that the
first one is very superficial if not erroneous. There cannot be democratic Government
unless the society for which it functions is democratic in its form and structure. Those
who hold that democracy need be no more than a mere matter of elections seem to make three
mistakes.
One mistake they make is to believe that Government is
something which is quite distinct and separate from society. As a matter of fact
Government is not something which is distinct and separate from Society. Government is one
of the many institutions which Society rears and to which it assigns the function of
carrying out some of the duties which are necessary for collective social life.
The Second mistake they make lies in their failure to
realize that a Government is to reflect the ultimate purposes, aims, objects and wishes of
society and this can happen only where the society in which the Government is rooted is
democratic. If society is not democratic, Government can never be. Where society is
divided into two classes governing and the governed the Government is bound to be the
Government of the governing class.
The third mistake they make is to forget that whether
Government would be good or bad democratic or undemocratic depends to a large extent up on
the instrumentalities particularly the Civil Service on which every where Government has
to depend for administering the Law. It all depends upon the social milieu in which civil
servants are nurtured. If the social milieu is undemocratic the Government is bound to be
undemocratic.
There is one other mistake which is responsible for the view
that for democracy to function it is enough to have a democratic form of Government. To
realize this mistake it is necessary to have some idea of what is meant by good
Government.
Good Government means good laws and good administration.
This is the essence of good Government. Nothing else can be. Now there cannot be good
Government in this sense if those who are invested with ruling power seek the advantage of
their own class instead of the advantage of the whole people or of those who are
downtrodden. Whether the Democratic form of Government will result in good will depend
upon the disposition of the individuals composing society. If the mental disposition of
the individuals is democratic then the democratic form of Government can be expected to
result in good Government. If not, democratic form of Government may easily become a
dangerous form of Government. If the individuals in a society are separated into classes
and the classes are isolated from one another and each individual feels that his loyalty
to his class must come before his loyalty to every thing else and living in class
compartments he becomes class conscious bound to place the interests of his class above
the interests of others, uses his authority to pervert law and justice to promote the
interests of his class and for this purpose practises systematically discrimination
against persons who do not belong to his caste in every sphere of life what can a
democratic Government do. In a Society where classes clash and are charged with
anti-social feelings and spirit of aggressiveness, the Government can hardly discharge its
task of governing with justice and fairplay. In such a society, Government even though it
may in form be a government of the people and by the people it can never be a Government
for the people. It will be a Government by a class for a class. A Government for the
people can be had only where the attitude of
each individual is democratic which means that each individual is prepared to treat every
other individual as his equal and is prepared to give him the same liberty which he claims
for himself. This democratic attitude of mind is the result of socialization of the
individual in a democratic society. Democratic society is therefore a prerequisite of a
democratic Government. Democratic Governments have toppled down in largely due to the fact
that the society for which they were set up was not democratic.
Unfortunately to what extent-the task of good Government
depends upon the mental and moral disposition of its subjects has seldom been realized.
Democracy is more than a political machine. It is even more than a social system. It is an
attitude of mind or a philosophy of life.
Some equate Democracy with equality and liberty. Equality
and liberty are no doubt the deepest concern of Democracy. But the more important question
is what sustains equality and liberty? Some would say that it is the law of the state
which sustains equality and liberty. This is not a true answer. What sustains equality and
liberty is fellow-felling. What the French Revolutionists called fraternity. The word
fraternity is not an adequate expression. The proper term is what the Buddha called,
Maitree. Without Fraternity Liberty would destroy equality and equality would destroy
liberty. If in Democracy liberty does not destroy equality and equality does not destroy
liberty, it is because at the basis of both there is fraternity. Fraternity is therefore
the root of Democracy.
The foregoing discussion is merely a preliminary to the main
question. That question is—wherein lie the roots of fraternity without which
Democracy is not possible? Beyond dispute, it has its origin in Religion.
In examining the possibilities of the origin of Democracy or
its functioning successfully one must go to the Religion of the people and ask—does
it teach fraternity or does it not? If it does, the chances for a democratic Government
are great. If it does not, the chances are poor. Of course other factors may affect the
possibilities. But if fraternity is not there, there is nothing to built democracy on. Why
did Democracy not grow in India? That is the main question. The answer is quite simple.
The Hindu Religion does not teach fraternity. Instead it teaches division of society into
classes or varnas and the maintenance of separate class consciousness. In such a system
where is the room for Democracy ?
The Hindu social system is undemocratic not by accident. It
is designed to be undemocratic. Its division of society into varnas and castes, and of castes and outcastes are
not theories but are decrees. They are all barricades raised against democracy.
From this it would appear that the doctrine of fraternity
was unknown to the Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought. But such a conclusion would
not be warranted by the facts of history. The Hindu Religious and Philosophic thought gave
rise to an idea which had greater potentialities for producing social democracy than the idea of fraternity. It is the doctrine
of Brahmaism*[f3].
It would not be surprising if some one asked what is this
Brahmaism? It is something new even to Hindus. The Hindus are familiar with Vedanta. They
are familar with Brahmanism. But they are certainly not familiar with Brahmaism. Before
proceeding further a few words of explanation are necessary.
There are three strands in the philosophic and religious
thought of the Hindus. They may be designaged as (1) Brahmaism
(2) Vedanta and (3) Brahmanism. Although they are correlated they stand
for three different and distinct ideologies.
The essence of Brahmaism is summed up in a dogma which is
stated in three different forms. They are (i) Sarvam
Khalvidam Brahma— All this is Brahma. (ii) Aham
Brahmasmi— Atmana (Self) is the same as Brahma.
Therefore I am Brahma. (iii) Tattvamasi— Atmana (Self) is the same as
Brahma.
Therefore thou art also Brahma.
They are called Mahavakyas which means Great Sayings and
they sum up the essence of Brahmaism.
The following are the dogmas which sum up the teachings of
Vedant—
I Brahma is the only reality.
II The world is maya or unreal. III Jiva and Brahma are— (i) according to
one school identical; (ii) according to another not identical but are elements of him and
not separate from him;
(iii) according to the third school they are distinct and
separate.
The creed of Bramhanism
may be summed up in the following dogmas— (i) Belief in the chaturvarna. (ii)
Sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas. (iii) Sacrifices to Gods the only way to
salvation. Most people know the distinction between the Vedanta and Brahmanism and the
points of controversy between them. But very few people know the distinction between
Brahmaism and Vedanta. Even Hindus are not aware of the doctrine of Brahmaism and the
distinction between it and Vedanta. But the distinction is obvious. While Brahmaism and
Vedanta agree that Atman is the same as Brahma. But the two differ in that Brahmaism does
not treat the world as unreal, Vedanta does. This is the fundamental difference between
the two.
The essence of Brahmaism is that the world is real and the
reality behind the world is Brahma. Everything therefore is of the essence of Brahma.
There are two criticisms which have been levelled against
Brahmaism. It is said that Brahmaism is piece of impudence. For a man to say " I am
Brahma " is a kind of arrogance. The other criticism levelled against Brahmaism is
the inability of man to know Brahma. 'I am Brahma' may appear to be impudence. But it can
also be an assertion of one's own worth. In a world where humanity suffers so much from an
inferiority complex such an assertion on the
part of man is to be welcomed. Democracy demands that each individual shall have every
opportunity for realizing its worth. It also requites that each individual shall know that
he is as good as everybody else. Those who sneer at Aham
Brahmasmi (I am Brahma) as an impudent Utterance forget the other part of the Maha Vakya namely Tatvamasi (Thou art also Brahma). If Aham Brahmasmi has stood alone without the conjunct
of Tatvamasi it may not have been possible to
sneer at it. But with the conjunct of Tatvanmsi
the charge of selfish arrogance cannot stand against Brahmaism.
It may well be that Brahma is unknowable. But all the same
this theory of Brahma has certain social implications which have a tremendous value as a
foundation for Democracy. If all persons are parts of Brahma then all are equal and all
must enjoy the same liberty which is what Democracy means. Looked at from this point of
view Brahma may be unknowable. But there cannot be slightest doubt that no doctrine could
furnish a stronger foundation for Democracy than the doctrine of Brahma.
To support Democracy because we are all children of God is a
very weak foundation for Democracy to rest on. That is why Democracy is so shaky wherever
it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize and realize that you and I are
parts of the same cosmic principle leaves room for no other theory of associated life
except democracy. It does not merely preach Democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of
one and all.
Western students of Democracy have spread the belief that
Democracy has stemmed either from Christianity or from Plato and that there is no other
source of inspiration for democracy. If they had known that India too had developed the
doctrine of Brahmaism which furnishes a better foundation for Democracy they would not
have been so dogmatic. India too must be
admitted to have a contribution towards a theoretical fouodation for Democracy.
The question is what happened to this doctrine of Brahmaism?
It is quite obvious that Brahmaism had no social effects. It was not made the basis of
Dharma. When .asked why this happened the answer is that Brahmaism is only philosophy, as
though philosophy arises not out of social life but out of nothing and for nothing.
Philosophy is no purely theoretic matter. It has practical potentialities. Philosophy has
its roots in the problems of life and whatever theories philosophy propounds must return
to society as instruments of re-constructing society. It is not enough to know. Those who
know must endeavour to fulfil.
Why then Brahmaism failed to produce a new society? This is
a great riddle. It is not that the Brahmins did not recognize the doctrine of Brahmaism.
They did. But they did not ask how they could support inequality between the Brahmin and
the Shudra, between man and woman, between casteman and outcaste ? But they did not. The
result is that we have on the one hand the most democratic principle of Brahmaism and on
the other hand a society infested with castes, subcastes, outcastes, primitive tribes and
criminal tribes. Can there be a greater dilemma than this ? What is more ridiculous is the
teaching of the Great Shankaracharya. For it was this Shankarcharya who taught that there
is Brahma and this Brahma is real and that it pervades all and at the same time upheld all
the inequities of the Brahmanic society. Only a lunatic could be happy with being the
propounder of two such contradictions. Truely as the Brahmin is like a cow, he can eat
anything and everything as the cow does and remain a Brahmin.
KALI YUGA—WHY HAVE THE BRAHMINS MADE IT UNENDING?
If there is any notion widespread among the Hindus and understood by every man and woman adult or old,
mature or immature it is that of the Kali Yuga. They are all aware of the fact that the
present Yuga is Kali Yuga and that they are living in the Kali Yuga. The theory of Kali
Yuga has a psychological effect upon the mind of the people. It means that it is an
unpropitious age. It is an immoral age. It is therefore an age in which human effort will
not bear any fruit. It is therefore necessary to inquire as to how such a notion arose.
There are really four points which require elucidation. They are (1) What is Kali Yuga ?,
(2) When did Kali Yuga begin ?, (3) When is the Kali Yuga to end ? and (4) Why such a
notion was spread among the people.
I
To begin with the first point. For the purposes of this
inquiry it is better to split the words Kali Yuga and consider them separately. What is
meant by Yuga ? The word Yuga occurs in the Rig-Veda in the sense of age, generation or
tribe as in the expressions Yuge Yuge (in
every age), Uttara Yugani (future ages), Uttare
Yuge (later ages) and Purvani Yugani (former
ages) etc. It occurs in connection with Manushy, Manusha, Manushah in which case it
denotes generations of men. It just meant ages. Various attempts are made to asertain the
period the Vaidikas intended to be covered by the term ' Yuga '. Yuga is derived from the Sanskrit root Yuj which means to join and may have had the same
meaning as the astronomical term 'conjunction'.
This chapter contains 45 typed pages. Only 9 pages of
this chapter at the beginning are numbered. While no other pages are numbered. Howsoever
the text of this chapter has been found to be complete and without any loss of
material.—Ed.
Prof. Weber suggests that the period of time known as Yuga was connected with four lunar phases.
Following this suggestion Mr. Rangacharya'[f4] has advanced the theory that " in all probability the
earliest conception of a Yuga meant the period of a month from new-moon when the Sun and
the Moon see each other i.e., they are in conjunction". This view is not accepted by
others. For instance, according to Mr. Shamshastry[f5] the term Yuga is in the sense of a single human year as in
the Setumahatmya which is said to form part of the Skanda Purana. According to the same
authority it is used in the sense of a Parva or half a lunation, known as a white or dark
half of a lunar month.
All these attempts do not help us to know what was the period which the Vaidikas intended to be covered by a Yuga.
While in the literature of the Vaidikas or theologians there
is no exactitude regarding the use of the term Yuga in the literature of the astronomers
(writers on Vedanga Jyotish) as distinguished from the Vaidikas the word Yuga connotes a
definite period. According to them, a Yuga means a cycle of five years which are called
(1) Samvatsara, (2) Parivatsara, (3) Idvatsara, (4) Anuvatsara and (5) Vatsara.
Coming to Kali it
is one of the cycles made up of four Yugas : Krita,
Treta, Dwapar and Kali. What is the origin
of the term Kali ? The terms Krita, Treta,
Dwapar and Kali are known to have been used .in the three different connections. The
earliest use of the term Kali as well as of other terms is connected with the game of
dice.
From the Rig-Veda it appears that the dice piece that was
used in the game was made of the brown fruit of the Vibhitaka tree being about the size of
a nutmeg, nearly round with five slightly flattened sides. Later on the dice was made of
four sides instead of five. Each side was marked with the different numerals 4, 3, 2 and
1. The side marked with 4 was called Krita, with 3 Treta, with 2 Dwapara and with 1 Kali.
Shamshastry gives an account of how a game of dice formed part of sacrifice and how it was
played. The following is his account3:
"Taking a cow belonging to the sacrificer, a number of players used to go along the streets of a town or village, and making the cow the stake, they used to play at dice in different batches with those who deposited grain as their stake. Each player used to throw on the ground a hundred or more Cowries (shells), and when the number of the Cowries thus cast and fallen with their face upwards or downwards, as agreed upon, was exactly divisible by four then the sacrificer was declared to have won: but if otherwise he was defeated. With the grain thus won, four Brahmans used to be fed on the day of sacrifice. "
Professor Eggling's references[f6] to the Vedic literature leave no doubt about the prevalence
of the game of dice almost from the earliest time. It is also clear from his references
that the game was played with five dice four of which were called Krita while the fifth was called Kali. He also
points out that there were various modes in which the game was played and says that
according to the earliest mode of playing the game, if all the dice fell uniformly with
the marked sides either upwards or downwards then the player won the game. The game of
dice formed part of the Rajasuya and also of the sacrificial ceremony connected with the
establishment of the sacred fire.
These terms—Krita, Treta, Dwapara and Kali—were
also used in Mathematics. This is clear from the following passage from Abhayadevasuri's
Commentary on Bhagvati Sutra a voluminous work on Jaina religion.
" In mathematical terminology an even number is called
' Yugma ', and an odd number ' Ojah '. Here there are, however, two numbers deserving of
the name ' Yugma ' and two numbers deserving of the name 'Ojah'. Still, by the word
'Yugma' four Yugmas i.e., four numbers are meant. Of them i.e., Krita-yugma: Krita means
accomplished, i.e., complete, for the reason that there is no other number after four,
which bears a separate name (i.e., a name different from the four names Krita and others).
That number which is not incomplete like Tryoja and other numbers, and which is a special
even number is Kritayugma. As to Tryoja: that particular odd number which is uneven from
above a Krityugma is Tryoja. As the Dwaparayugma:—That number which is another even
number like Krityugma, but different from it and which is measured by two from the
beginning or from above a Krityugma is Dwaparayugma— Dvapara is a special grammatical
word. As to Kalyoja:—That special uneven number which is odd by Kali, i.e., to a
Kritayugma is called Kalyoja. That number etc. which even divided by four, ends in
complete division, Krityugma. In the series of numbers, the number four, though it need
not be divided by four because it is itself four, is also called Krityugma. "
Shamshastry[f7] mentions another sense in which these terms are used.
According to him, they are used to mean the Parvas of those
names, such as Krita Parva, Treta Parva,
Dwapara Parva and Kali Parva. A Parva is a period of 15 tithis or days otherwise called
Paksha. For reasons connected with religious ceremonies the exact time when a Parva closed
was regarded as important. It was held that the Parvas fell into four classes according to
the time of their closing. They were held to close either (1) at Sunrise, (2) at one
quarter or Pada of the day, (3) after 2 quarters or Padas of the day or (4) at or after
three quarters or Padas of the day. The first was called Krita Parva, the second Treta Parva, the third Dwapara Parva and the fourth Kali Parva.
Whatever the meaning in which the words Kali and Yuga
were used at one time, the term Kali Yuga has
long since been used to designate a unit in the Hindu system of reckoning time. According
to the Hindus there is a cycle of time which consists of four Yugas of which the Kali Yuga
forms one. The other Yugas are called Krita, Treta
and Dwapar.
II
When did the present Kali Yuga begin ? There are two different answers to the question.
According to the Aitereya Brahmana it began with
Nabhanedishta son of Vaivasvata Manu. According to the Puranas it began on the death of
Krishna after the battle of Mahabharata.
The first has been reduced to time term by Dr. Shamshastry'[f8] who says
that Kali Yuga began in 3101 B.C. The second has been worked out by Mr. Gopal Aiyer with
meticulous care. His view is that the Mahabharat War commenced on the 14th of October and
ended on the night of 31st October 1194 B.C. He places the death of Krishna 16 years after
the close of the war basing his conclusion on the ground that Parikshit was 16 when he was
installed on the throne and reading it with the connected facts namely that the Pandavas
went of Mahaprasthan immediately after installing Parikshit on the throne and this they
did on the very day Krishna died. This gives 1177 B.C. as the date of the commencement of
the Kali Yuga.
We have thus two different dates for the commencement of the
Kali Yuga 3101 B.C. and 1177 B.C. This is the first riddle about the Kali Yuga. Two
explanations are forthcoming for these two widely separated dates for the commencement of
one and the same Yuga. One explanation is 3101 B.C. is the date of the commencement of the
Kalpa and not of Kali and it was a mistake on the part of the copyist who misread Kalpa
for Kali and brought about this confusion. The other explanation is that given by Dr.
Shamshastry. According to him there were two Kali Yuga Eras which must be distinguished,
one beginning in 3101 B.C. and another beginning in 1260 or 1240 B.C. The first lasted
about 1840 or 1860 years and was lost.
III
When is the Kali Yuga going to end ? On this question the
view of the great Indian Astronomer Gargacharya in his Siddhanta when speaking of Salisuka Maurya the
fourth in succession from Asoka makes the following important observation[f9]:
"Then the viciously valiant Greeks, after reducing
Saketa, Panchala country to Mathura, will reach Kusumadhwaja (Patna): Pushpapura being
taken all provinces will undoubtedly be in disorder. The unconquerable Yavanas will not
remain in the middle country. There will be cruel and dreadful war among themselves. Then
after the destruction of the Greeks at the end of the Yuga, seven powerful Kings reign in
Oudha. "
The important words are " after the destruction of the
Greeks at the end of the Yuga". These words give rise to two questions (1) which Yuga
Garga has in mind and (2) when did the defeat and destruction of the Greeks in India take
place. Now the answers to these questions are not in doubt. By Yuga he means Kali Yuga and
the destruction and defeat of the Greeks took place about 165 B.C. It is not mere matter
of inference from facts. There are direct statements in chapters 188 and 190 of the
Vanaparva of the Mahabharata that the Barbarian Sakas, Yavanas, Balhikas and many others
will devastate Bharatvarsna ' at the end of the Kali
Yuga".
The result which follows when the two statements are put
together is that the Kali Yuga ended in 165 B.C. There is also another argument which
supports this conclusion. According to the Mahabharata, Kali Yuga was to comprise a period
of one thousand years[f10]. If we accept the statement that the Kali Yuga began in
1171 B.C. and deduct one thousand years since then we cannot escape the conclusion that
Kali Yuga should have ended by about 171 B.C. which is not very far from the historical
fact referred to by Garga as happening at the close of the Kali Yuga. There can therefore
be no doubt that in the opinion of the chief Astronomer[f11], Kali Yuga came to end by about 165 B.C. What is however
the position? The position is that according to the Vaidika Brahmaris Kali Yuga has not
ended. It still continues. This is clear from the terms of Sankalpa which is a declaration which every Hindu
makes even today before undertaking any religious ceremony. The Sankalpa is in the
following terms[f12]:
"On the auspicious day and hour, in the second Parardha
of First Bramha, which is called the Kalpa of the White
Boar, in the period of Vaivasvata Manu, in the Kali Yuga, in the country of Jambudvipa in
Bharatavarsha in the country of Bharat, in the luni-solar cycle of the sixty years which
begins with Pradhava and ends with Kshaya or Akshaya and which is current, as ordained by
Lord Vishnu, in the year (name), of the cycle, in the Southern or the Northern Ayana, as
the case may be, in the white or dark half, on the Tithi. I (name) begin to perform the
rite (name) the object of pleasing the Almighty. "
The question we have to consider is why and how the Vedic
Brahmins manage to keep the Kali Yuga going on
when the astronomer had said it was closed. The first thing to do is to ascertain what is
the original period of the Kali Yuga ?
According to the Vishnu Purana:
"The Kritayuga comprises 4000 years, the Treta
3000',the Dwapara 2000 and the Kali 1000. Thus those that know the past have declared.
"
Thus Kali Yuga originally covered a period of 1000 years
only. It is obvious that even on this reckoning the Kali Yuga should have ended long ago
even according to the reckoning of the Vedic Brahmins. But it has not. What is the resason
? Obviously, because the period originally covered by the Kali Yuga came to be lengthened.
This was done in two ways.
Firstly, it was done by adding two periods called Sandhya
and Sandhyamsa before and after the commencement and the end of a Yuga. Authority for this
can be found in the same passage of the Vishnu Purana already referred to and which reads
as follows
"The period that precedes a Yuga is called Sandhya..... and the period which comes after a
Yuga is called Sandhyamsa, which lasts for a
like period. The intervals between these Sandhyas and Sandhyamsas are known as the Yugas
called Krita, Treta and the like. "
What was the period of Sandhya and Sandhyamsa ? Was it
uniform for all the Yugas or did it differ with the Yuga. Sandhya and Sandhyamsa periods
were not uniform. They differed with each Yuga. The following table gives some idea of the
four Yugas and their Sandhya and Sandhyamsa—
Unit of a Mahayuga Period
Yug |
Period |
Dawn |
Twilight |
Total |
Krita |
4000 |
400 |
400 |
4800 |
Treta |
3000 |
300 |
300 |
3600 |
Dwapara |
2000 |
200 |
200 |
2400 |
Kali |
1000 |
100 |
100 |
1200 |
Maha Yuga
|
|
|
|
12000 |
Maha Yuga
12000
The Kali Yuga instead of remaining as before a period of
1,000 years was lengthened to a period of 1,200 years by the addition of Sandhya and
Sandhyamsa.
Secondly a new innovation was made. It was declared that the
period fixed for the Yugas was really a period of divine years and not human years.
According to the Vedic Brahmins one divine day was equal to one human year so that the
period of Kali Yuga which was 1,000 years plus 200 years of Sandhya and Sandhamsa i.e.
1,200 years in all became (1200 x 360) equal to 4.32,000 years. In these two ways the
Vedic Brahmins instead of declaring the end of Kali Yuga in 165 B.C. as the astronomer had said extended its life
to 4.32,000 years. No wonder Kali Yuga continues even to-day and will continue for lakhs
of years. There is no end to the Kali Yuga.
IV
What does the Kali
Yuga stand for? The kali Yuga means an age
of adharma, an age which is demoralized and an
age in which the laws made by the King ought not to be obeyed. One question at once
arises. Why was the Kali Yuga more demoralized than the preceding Yugas? What was the
moral condition of the Aryans in the Yuga or Yugas preceding the present Kali Yuga? Anyone
who compares the habits and social practices of the later Aryans with those of the ancient
Aryans will find a tremendous improvement almost amounting to a social revolution in their
manners and morals.
The religion of the Vedic Aryans was full of barbaric and
obscene observances. Human sacrifice formed a part of their religion and was called
Naramedhayagna. Most elaborate descriptions of the rite are found in the Yajur-Veda
Samhita. Yajur-Veda Brahmanas, the Sankhyana and Vaitana Sutras. The worship of genitals
or what is called Phallus worship was quite prevalent among the ancient Aryans. The cult
of the phallus came to he known as Skambha and. 23 recognized as part of Aryan religion as
may be seen in the hymn in Atharva-Veda X.7. Another instance of obscenity which
disfigured the religion of the Ancient Aryans is connected with the Ashvamedha Yajna or
the horse sacrifice. A necessary part of the Ashvamedha was the introduction of the Sepas (penis) of the Medha (dead horse) into the
Yoni (vagina) of the chief wife of the Yajamana (the sacrificer) accompanied by the
recital of long series of Mantras by the Brahmin priests. A Mantra in the Vajasaneya
Samhita (xxiii. 18) shows that there used to be a competition among the queens as to who
was to receive this high honour of being served by the horse. Those who want to know more
about it will find it in the commentary of Mahidhara on the Yejur-Veda where he gives full
description of the details of this obscene rite which had formed a part of the Aryan
religion.
The morals of the Ancient Aryans were no better than their
religion. The Aryans were a race of gamblers. Gambling was developed by them into a
science in very early days of the Aryan civilization so much so that they had even devised
the dice and given them certain technical terms. The luckiest dice was called Krit and the
unluckiest was called Kali. Treta and Dwapara were intermediate between them. Not only was
gambling well developed among the ancient Aryans but they did not play without stakes.
They gambled with such abandon that there is really no comparison with their spirit of
gambling. Kingdoms and even wives were offered as stakes at gambling. King Nala staked his
kingdom and lost it. The Pandvas went much beyond. They not only staked their kingdom but
they also staked their wife, Draupadi, and lost both. Among the Aryans gambling was not
the game of the rich. It was a vice of the many.
The ancient Aryans were also a race of drunkards. Wine
formed a most essential part of their religion. The Vedic Gods drank wine. The divine wine
was called Soma. Since the Gods of the Aryans drank wine the Aryans had no scruples in the
matter of drinking. Indeed to drink it was a part of an Aryan's religious duty. There were
so many Soma sacrifices among the ancient Aryans that there were hardly any days when Soma
was not drunk. Soma was restricted to only the three upper classes, namely, the Brahmins,
the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. That does not mean the Shudras were abstainers. Those who
were denied Soma drank Sura which was ordinary, unconsecrated wine sold in the market. Not
only the Male Aryans were addicted to drinking but the females also indulged in drinking.
The Kaushitaki Grihya Sutra 1.11.12 advises that four or eight women who are not widowed
after having been regaled with wine and food should be called to dance for four times on
the night previous to the wedding ceremony. This habit of drinking intoxicating liquor was
not confined to the Non-Brahmin women. Even Brahmin women were addicted to it. Drinking
was not regarded as a sin. It was not even a vice, it was quite a respectable practice.
The Rig-Veda says:
"Worshipping the Sun before drinking Madira
(wine)." The Yajur-Veda says:
" Oh, Deva Soma! being strengthened and invigorated by
Sura (wine), by thy pure spirit please the Devas; give juicy food to the sacrificer and
vigour to Brahmanas and Kshatriyas." The Mantra Brahmana says:
" By which women have been made enjoyable by men, and
by which water has been transformed into wine (for the enjoyment of men), etc."
That Rama and Sita both drank wine is admitted by the
Ramayana. Utter Khand says:
" Like Indra in the case of (his wife) Shachi, Rama
Chandra made Sita drink purified honey made wine. Servants brought for Rama Chandra meat
and sweet fruits."
4
So did Krishna and Arjuna. In the Udyoga Parva of the
Mahabharat Sanjaya says:
"Arjuna and Shri Krishna drinking wine made from honey
and being sweet-scented and garlanded, wearing splendid clothes and ornaments, sat on a
golden throne studded with various jewels. I saw Shrikrishna's feet on Arjuna's lap, and
Arjuna's feet on Draupadi and Satyabhama's lap."
We may next proceed to consider the marital relations of men
and women. What does history say ? In the beginning there was no law of marriage among the
Aryans. It was a state of complete promiscuity both in the higher and lower classes of the
society. There was no such thing as a question of prohibited degrees as the following
instances will show.
Brahma married his
own daughter Satarupa. Their son was Manu the
founder of the Pruthu dynasty which preceded the rise of the Aiksvakas and the Ailas.
Hiranyakashpu married his daughter Rohini. Other cases of
father marrying daughters are Vashishtha and Shatrupa, Janhu and Jannhavi, and Surya and
U.sha. That such marriages between father and daughters were common is indicated by the
usage of recognizing Kanin sons. Kanin sons
mean sons born to unmarried daughter. They were in
law the sons of the father of the girl. Obviously they must be sons begotten by the
father on his own daughter
There are cases of father and son cohabiting with the same
woman, Brahma is the father of Manu and Satarupa is his mother. This Satarupa is also the
wife of Manu. Another case is that of Shradha. She
is the wife of Vivasvat. Their son is Manu. But Shradha is also the wife of Manu thus
indicating the practice of father and son sharing a woman. It was open for a person to
marry his brother's daughter. Dharma married 10 daughters of Daksha though Daksha and
Dharma were brothers. One could also marry his uncle's daughter as did Kasyapa who married
13 wives all of whom were the daughters of Daksha and Daksha was the brother of Kasyapa's
father Marichi.
The case of Yama and Yami mentioned in the Rig-Veda is a
notorious case, which throws a great deal of light on the question of marriages between
brothers and sisters. Because Yama refused to cohabit with Yami it must not be supposed
that such marriages did not exist.
The Adi Parva of the Mahabharata gives a geneology which
begins from Brahmadeva. According to this geneology Brahma had three sons Marichi, Daksha
and Dharma and one daughter whose name the geneology unfortunately does not give. In this
very geneology it is stated that Daksha married the daughter of Brahma who was his sister
and had a vast number of daughters variously estimated as being between 50 and 60. Other
instances of marriages between brothers and sisters could be cited. They are Pushan and
his sister Acchoda and Amavasu. Purukutsa and Narmada, Viprachiti and Simhika, Nahusa and
Viraja, Sukra-Usanas and Go, Amsumat and Yasoda, Dasaratha and Kausalya, Rama and Sita;
Suka and Pivari; Draupadi and Prasti are all cases of brothers marrying sisters.
The following cases show that there was no prohibition
against son cohabiting with his mother. There is the case of Pushan and his mother Manu
and Satrupa and Manu and Shradha. Attention may also be drawn to two other cases, Arjuna
and Urvashi and Arjuna and Uttara. Uttara was married to Abhimanyu son of Arjuna when he
was barely 16. Uttara was associated with Arjuna. He taught her music and dancing. Uttara
is described as being in love with Arjuna and the Mahabharata speaks of their getting
married as a natural sequel to their love affair. The Mahabharata does not say that they
were actually married but if they were, then Abhimanyu can be said to have married his
mother. The Arjuna Urvasi episode is more positive in its indication.
Indra was the real father of Arjuna. Urvashi was the
mistress of Indra and therefore in the position of a mother to Arjuna. She was a tutor to Arjuna and taught him music and dancing.
Urvasi became enamoured of Arjuna and with the consent of his father, Indra, approached
Arjuna for sexual intercourse. Arjuna refused to agree on the ground that she was like
mother to him. Urvashi's conduct has historically more significant than Arjuna's denial
and for two reasons. The very request by Urvashi to Arjuna and the consent by Indra show
that Urvashi was following a well established practice. Secondly, Urvashi in her reply to
Arjuna tells him in a pointed manner that this was a well recognized custom and that all
Arjuna's forefathers had accepted precisely similar invitations without any guilt being
attached to them.
Nothing illustrates better than the complete disregard of consanguity in cohabitation in ancient India than the following story which is related in the second Adhyaya of the Harivamsha. According to it Soma was the son of ten fathers—suggesting the existence of Polyandry—each one of whom was called Pralheta. Soma had a daughter Marisha—The ten fathers of Soma and