Friday 29 June 2012

WHY DID THE BRAHMINS DETHRONE THE GODS AND ENTHRONE THE GODDESSES?


The worship of Gods is a thing common to all. But the worship of Goddesses is quite uncommon. The reason is that Gods are generally unmarried and have no wives who can be elevated to the position of Goddesses. How repugnant is the idea of a God being married is well illustrated by the difficulties which early Christians had in persuading the Jews to accept Jesus as the son of God. The Jews retorted saying God is not married and how can Jesus be the son of God.
With the Hindus the position is quite otherwise. They not only worship Gods they also worship Goddesses. This is so from the very beginning.
In the Rig-Veda several Goddesses are mentioned such as Prithvi, Adili, Diti, Nishtigri, Indrani, Prisni, Usha, Surya, Agnayi, Varunani, Rodasi, Raka, Sinivali, Sradha, Aramati, Apsaras and Sarasvati.
Prithvi is a very ancient Aryan Goddess. She is represented either as wife of Dyaus heaven or of Parjanya. Prithvi is an important Goddess because she is said to be the mother of many Gods.
Aditi is chronologically one of the older Vedic Goddesses. She is described as the mighty mother of the Gods. The Gods, Mitra, Aryaman and Varuna are her sons. To whom Aditi was married does not appear from the Rig-Veda. We do not know much about Diti except that she is mentioned as a goddess along with and in contrast to Aditi and that the Daityas who were regarded in later Indian mythology as the enemies of the Devas were her sons.
The original title of the Chapter was ' Vedic and non- Vedic Goddesses '. From the subject dealt with in this chapter and from the concluding para, we have placed this at Riddle No. 12 in accordance with the subject mentioned in the Table of Contents. This is a 21-page typed copy having some modifications and also concluding para in the handwriting of the author.—Ed.

   The goddess Nishtigri is the mother of Indra and the goddess Indrani is the wife of Indra. Prisni is the mother of Maruts. Usha is described as the daughter of the sky, the sister of Bhaga and the kinswoman of Varuna and the wife of Surya. The goddess Surya is the daughter of Surya and the wife of the Gods Asvins or Soma.
The goddesses Agnayi, Varunani and Rodasi are the wives of Agni, Varuna and Rudra respectively. Of the rest of the goddesses are mere personifications of rivers or are mentioned without any details.
From this survey two things are clear. One is that a Hindu God can enter a married state and neither the God nor his worshipper need feel any embarrassment on account of the God acting as though he was no better than a common man. The second is that the God's wife automatically becomes a goddess worthy of worship by the followers of the God.
Leaving the Vedic times and coming to the Pauranic times we come across the names of various Goddesses such as Devi, Uma, Sati, Ambika, Parvati, Haimavati, Gauri, Kali, Nirriti, Chandi and Katyayini, Durga, Dassbhuja. Singhavahini, Mahishasuramardini, Jagaddhatri, Muktakesi, Tara,   Chinnamustaka,   Jagadgauri, Pratyangira, Annapurna, Ganeshjanani, Krishnakrora and Lakshmi. It is very difficult to construct a  who is who of these Goddesses. In the first place it is difficult to say whether each name stands for a distinct and separate Goddess or they are the names of one Goddess. It is equally difficult to be sure of their parentage. Nor can any one say with certainty as to who their husbands are.
According to one account Vma, Devi, Sati, Parvati, Gauri and Ambika are different names of the same Goddess. On the other hand Devi is said by some to be the daughter of Daksha, Ambika to be the sister of Rudra. Regarding Parvati the Varaha Purana in describing her. origin says[f76]:
"Brahma when on a visit to Siva on Mount Kailasa is thus addressed by him: " Say, quickly, 0, Brahma, what has induced you to come to me?' Brahma replies, 'There is a mighty Asura named Andhaka (Darkness), by whom all the gods, having been distressed, came for protection, and I have hastened to inform you of their complaints'. Brahma then looked intently at Siva, who bythought summoned Vishnu into their presence. As the three deities looked at each other, 'from their three refulgent glances sprang into being a virgin of celestial loveliness, of hue cerulean, like the petals of a blue lotus, and adorned with gems, who hashfully bowed before Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. On their asking her who she was, and why she was distinguished by the three colours black, white and red, she said, ' From your glances was I produced: do you not know your own omnipotent energies?' Brahma then praising her said, 'Thou shalt be named the goddess of three times (past, present and future), the preserver of the universe, and under various appellations shalt thou be worshipped, as thou shalt be the cause of accomplishing the desires of thy votaries. But, 0 goddess, divide thyself into three forms, according to the colours by which thou art distinguished. She then, as Brahma had requested, divided herself into three parts: one white, one red, and one black. The white was ' Saraswati of a lovely, felicitious form, and the co-operator with Brahma increation: the red was Lakshmi, the beloved of Vishnu, who with him preserves the universe; the black was Parvati endowed with many qualities and energy of Siva. "
Here is an attempt to suggest that Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati are different forms of one and the same divinity. When one remembers that Sarasvati is the wife of Brahma, Lakshmi is the wife of Vishnu and Parvati is the wife of Shiva, and also that Brahma. Vishnu and Shiva were at war, this explanation given by the Varah Puran seems very odd.
Who is Gauri? The Purana says that Gauri is another name for Parvati. The reason how Parvati was called Gauri[f77] is that when Shiva and Parvati lived on mount Kailasa, occasionally there were quarrels between them, and on one occasion Shiva reproached her for the blackness of her skin. This taunt so grieved her that she left him for a time. and, repairing to a deep forest, performed a most severe course of austerities, until Brahma granted her as a boon that her complexion should be golden and for this circumstance she is known as Gauri.
Taking the other Goddesses it is not quite certain whether they are different names for one and the same Goddess or whether they are different Goddesses. In the Mahabharata there is a hymn sung by Arjuna to Durga in which he says[f78]:
"Reverence be to thee, Siddha-Senani (generalaless of the Siddhas), the noble, the dweller on Mandara, Kumari (Princess), Kali,  Kapali,  Kapila,  Krishna-pingala.  Reverence to thee, Bhadrakali; reverence to thee, Maha Kali, Chandi, Chanda, Tarini (deliveress), Varavarini (beautiful-coloured). O fortunate Kalyani, O Karali, O Vijaya, O Jaya (victory)  younger sister of the chief of cowherds (Krishna), delighting always in Mahisha's blood'. O Uma, Sakambhari, thou white one, thou black one, 0 destroyer of Kaithabha! Of science, thou art the science of Brahma (or of the Vedas), the great sleep of embodied beings. 0 mother of Skanda (Kartikeya), divine Durga, dweller in wildernesses'. Thou, great goddess, art praised with a pure heart. By thy favour let me ever be victorious in battle."
From this hymn it does appear that some of the Goddesses listed above are simply different names of Durga. Similarly, Dasabhuja, Singhavahini,   Mahishamardini, Jagaddhatri, Chinnamustaka, Jagadgauri, Pratyangiri, Annapurna are the same as Durga or different forms of Durga.
There are thus two principal Goddesses. One is Parvati and the other is Durga. The rest are mere names. Parvati is the daughter of Daksha Prajapati and the wife of Shiva and Durga is the sister of Krishna and the wife of Shiva. The relationship of Durga and Kali is not quite clear. According to the hymn sung by Arjuna, Durga and Kali would appear to be one and the same. But the Linga Purana seems to suggest a different view. According to it[f79]. Kali is distinct from Durga.
A comparison between the Vedic Goddesses and the Puranic Goddesses cannot be avoided by a student whose business it is not merely to write history but to interpret history. On one point there is a striking contrast, between the two. The worship of the Vedic Goddesses was worship by courtesy. They were worshipped only because they were the wives of Gods. The worship of the Puranic Goddesses stand on a different footing. They claim worship in their own right and not because they are wives of Gods. This difference arises because the Vedic Goddesses never went to the battle-field and never performed any heroic deed. The Puranic Goddesses on the other hand went to the battlefield and performed great heroic deeds. Their worship was not by courtesy. It was based upon their heroic and thundering deeds.
There was agreat battle, it is said, between Durga and the two asuras which brought renown to Durga. The story is told in the Markandeya Purana in full details. It says*[f80]:
At the close of the Treta Age, two giants, named Sumbha and Nishumbha performed religious austerities for 10,000 years, the merit of which brought Shiva from heaven, who discovered that by this extraordinary devotion, they sought to obtain the blessing of immortality. He reasoned long with them, and vainly endeavoured to persuade them to ask for any other gift. Being denied what they specially wanted, they entered upon still more severe austerities for another thousand years, when Shiva again appeared, but still refused to grant what they asked. They now suspended themselves with their heads downwards over a slow fire, till the blood streamed from their necks; they continued thus for 800 years. The Gods began to tremble, lest, by performing such rigid act of holiness, these demons should supplant them on their thrones. The king of the Gods thereupon called a council, and imparted to them his fears. They admitted that there was ground for anxiety, but asked what was the remedy.
Acting upon the advice of  Indra, Kandarpa (the God of love), with Rambha and Tilotama, the most beautiful of the celestial nymphs, were sent to fill the minds of the giants with sensual desires. Kandarpa with his arrow wounded both; upon which, awaking from their absorption, and seeing two beautiful women, they were taken in the snare, and abandoned their devotions. With these women they lived for 5000 years; after which they saw the folly of renouncing their hopes of immortality for the sake of sensual gratifications. They suspected this snare must have been a contrivance of Indra; so, driving back the nymphs to heaven, they renewed their devotions, cutting the flesh off their bones, and making burnt offerings of it to Shiva. They continued in this way for 1000 years till at last they became mere skeletons; Shiva again appeared and bestowed upon them his blessing—that in riches and strength they should excel the Gods.
Being exalted above the Gods, they began to make war upon them. Aftervarious successes on both sides, the giants became everywhere victorious; when Indra and the Gods, reduced to a most deplorable state of wretchedness, solicited the interference of Brahma and Vishnu. They referred them to Shiva, who declared that he could do nothing for them. When, however, they reminded him that it was through his blessing they had been ruined, he advised them to perform religious austerities to Durga. They did so: and after some time the goddess; appeared, and gave them her blessing; then disguising herself as a common female carrying a pitcher of water, she passed through the assembly of the gods. She, then assumed her proper form, and said, 'They are celebrating my praise '.
'This new goddess now ascended Mount Himalaya where Chanda and Manda, two of Sumbha and Nisumbha's messangers resided. As these demons wandered over the mountain, they saw the goddess;    and being exceedingly struck with her charms, which they described to their masters, advised them to engage her affections, even if they gave her all the glorious things which they had obtained in plundering the heavens of the gods.
Sumbha sent Sugriva as messenger to the goddess, to inform her that the riches of the three worlds were in his palace; that all the offerings which used to be presented to the gods were now offered to him; and that all these offerings, riches, etc., would be hers, if she would come to him. The goddess replied that the offer was very liberal, but that she had resolved that the person she married must first conquer her in war, and destroy her pride. Sugriva, unwilling, to return unsuccessful, pressed for a favourable answer, promising that he would conquer her in war, and subdue her pride; and asked in an authoritative strain; ' Did she know his master, before whom none of the inhabitants of the worlds had been able to stand, whether gods, demons, or men? How then could she, a female think of resisting his offers ? If his master had ordered him, he would have compelled her to go into his presence immediately. She agreed that this was very correct, but that she had taken her resolution, and exhorted him, therefore to persuade his master to come and try his strength with her.
The messenger went and related what he had heard. On hearing his account, Sumbha was filled with rage, and, without making any reply, called for Dhumlochana his commander-in-chief and gave him orders to go to Himalaya and seize the goddess and bring her to him. and, if any attempted a rescue, utterly to destroy them.
The commander went to Himalaya, and acquainted the goddess with his master's orders. She, smiling, invited him to execute them. On the approach of this hero, she set up a dreadful roar, by which he was reduced to ashes. After which she destroyed the army of the giant leaving only a few fugitives to communicate the tidings. Sumbha and Nisumbha, infuriated, sent Chanda and Manda, who on ascending the mountain, perceived afemale sitting on an ass, laughing. On seeing them she became enraged, and drew to her ten, twenty, or thirty of their army at a time, devouring them like fruit. She next seized Manda by the hair, cut off his head and holding it over her mouth, drank the blood. Chanda, on seeing the other commander slain in this manner, himself came to close quarters with the goddess. But she, mounted on a lion, sprang on him, and, despatching him as she had done Manda, devoured part of his army, and drank the blood of the slain.
The giants no sooner heard this alarming news than they resolved to go themselves, and collecting their forces, an infinite number of giants, marched to Himalaya. The gods looked down with astonishment on this vast army, and the goddesses descended to help Maharnaya (Durga), who, however, soon destroyed her foes, Raktavija,  the  principal commander under Sumbha and Nishumbha, seeing all his men destroyed encountered the goddess in person. But though she covered him with wounds, from every drop of blood which fell to the ground a thousand giants, arose equal in strength to Raktavija himself. Hence innumerable enemies surrounded Durga, and the gods were filled with alarm at the amazing sight. At length Chandi, a goddess, who had assisted Kali (Durga) in the engagement, promised that if she would drink the giant's blood before it fell to the ground, she (Chandi) would engage him and destroy the whole of his strangely formed offspring. Kali consented, and the commander and his army were soon despatched.
Sumbha and Nishumbha, in a state of desperation, next engaged the goddess in single combat, Sumbha making the first onset. The battle was inconceivably dreadful on both sides, till at last both the giants were slain, and Kali sat down to feed on the carnage she had made. The gods and the goddesses chanted the praises of the celestial heroine, who in return bestowed a blessing on each." The Markandeya Purana also gives a short account of the valorous deeds of Durga done in the various forms it took. It says:
" As Durga she received the message of the giants; As Dasabhuja (the ten-armed) she slew part of their army; As Singhavahini (seated on a lion) she fought with Raktavija; As Mahishamardini (destroyer of a buffalo) she slew Sumbha in the form of a buffalo; As Jagaddhatri (the mother of the world) she overcame the army of the giants; As Kali (the black woman) she slew Raktavija; As   Muktakesi (with flowing hair) she overcame another of the armies of the giants; As Tara (the saviour) she slew Sumbha in his own proper shape; As Chinnamastaka (the headless) she killed Nisumbha; As Jagadgauri (the golden-coloured lady renowned through the world) she received the praises and thanks of the gods." A comparison between the Vedic and Puranic Goddesses raises some interesting questions. One of them is quite obvious. Vedic literature is full of references to wars against the Asuras. The literature known as Brahmanas replete with them. But all these wars against the Asuras are fought by the Vedic Gods. The Vedic Goddesses never took part in them. With the Puranic Goddesses the situation has undergone a complete change. In the Puranic times there are wars with the Asuras as there were in the Vedic times. The difference is that while in the Vedic times the wars with the Asuras are left to be fought by the Gods in the Puranic times they are left to be fought by the Goddess. Why is
that Puranic Goddesses had to do what the Gods in Vedic times did? It cannot be that there were no Gods in Puranic times. There were Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva gods who ruled in the Puranic times. When they were there to fight the Asuras why were the Goddesses enrolled for this purpose. This is a riddle which requires explanation.
The second question is what is the source of this power which the Puranic Goddesses possessed and which the Vedic Goddesses never had? The answer given by the Puranic writers is that this power was the power of the Gods which dwelt in the Goddesses. The general theory was that every God had energy or power which was technically called Sakti and that the Sakti of every God resided in his wife the Goddess. This had become such an accepted doctrine that every goddess is called a Sakti and those who worship the Goddess only are called Saktas.
With regard to this doctrine there are one or. two questions that call for a reply.
First is this. We may now take it that notwithstanding the many names of the Goddesses as we find in the Puranas we have really five Puranic Goddesses before us—namely, Sarasvati, Lakshmi, Parvati, Durga and Kali. Sarasvati and Lakshmi are the wives of Brahma and Vishnu who along with Shiva are recognized as the Puranic Gods. Parvati, Durga and Kali are the wives of Shiva. Now Sarasvati and Lakshmi have killed no Asura and have in fact done no deed of valour. Question is why? Brahma and Vishnu had Sakti which in conformity with the theory must have dwelt in their wives. Why then did Sarasvati and Lakshmi not take part in the battle with the Asuras? This part is only reserved for the wives of Shiva. Even here Parvati's role is quite different from that of Durga. Parvati is represented as a simple woman. She has no heroic deeds to her credit like the ones claimed for Durga. Like Durga, Parvati is also the Sakti of Shiva. Why was Shiva's Sakti dwelling in Parvati so dull, so dormant, and so inactive as to be non-existent ?
The second point is that though this doctrine may be a good justification for starting the worship of Goddesses independently of Gods, it is difficult to accept either the logical or historical basis of the doctrine. Looking at it purely from the point of view of logic if every God has Sakti then even the Vedic Gods must have had it. Why then was this doctrine not applied to the wives of the Vedic Gods? Looking at it from the point of view of history, there is no justification for saying that the Puranic Gods had Sakti in them.
Further the Brahmins do not seem to have realized that by making Durga the heroine who alone was capable of destroying the Asuras,
they were making their own Gods a set of miserable cowards. It seems that the Gods could not defend themselves against the Asuras and had to beg of their wives to come to their rescue. One illustration from the Markandeya Purana is enough to prove how imbecile the Puranic Gods were shown by the Brahmins against the Asuras. Says the Markandeya Purana.:
"Mahisha, king of the giants  at one time overcame the gods in war. and reduced them to such a state of want that they wandered through the earth as beggars. Indra first conducted them to Brahma, and then to Siva; but as these gods could render no assistance, they turned to Vishnu, who was so grieved at the sight of their wretchedness, that streams of glory issued from his face. whence came a female figure named Mahamaya (another name of Durga). Streams of glory issued from the faces of the other gods also. which in like manner entered Mahamaya: in consequence of which she became a body of glory, like a mountain of fire. The gods then handed their weapons to this dreadful being, who with a frightful scream ascended into the air, slew the giant and gave redress to the gods."
How can such cowardly Gods have any prowess? If they had none, how can they give it to their wives. To say that Goddesses must be worshipped because they have Sakti is not merely a riddle but an absurdity. It requires explanation why this doctrine of Sakti was invented. Was it to put it a new commodity on the market that the Brahmins started the worship of the Goddesses and degraded the Gods?.
 

Thursday 7 June 2012

CHAPTER 2, THE ANCIENT REGIME : THE STATE OF THE ARYAN SOCIETY


This essay consists of II typed foolscap pages tagged into a file. From the last sentence it appears that the Chapter is incomplete. —Editors

Buddhism was a revolution. It was as great a Revolution as the French Revolution. Though it began as a Religious revolution, it became more than Religious revolution. It became a Social and Political Revolution. To be able to realise how profound was the character of this Revolution, it is necessary to know the state of the society before the revolution began its course. To use the language of the French Revolution, it is necessary to have a picture of the ancient regime in India.
To understand the great reform, which he brought about by his teaching, it is necessary to have some idea of the degraded condition of the Aryan civilisation at the time when Buddha started on the mission of his life.
The Aryan Community of his time was steeped in the worst kind of debauchery; social, religious and spiritual.
To mention only a few of the social evils, attention may be drawn to gambling. Gambling had become as widespread among the Aryans as drinking.
Every king had a hall of gambling attached to his palace. Every king had an expert gambler in his employment as a companion to play with. King Virat had in his employment Kank as an expert gambler. Gambling was not merely a pastime with kings. They played with heavy stakes. They staked kingdoms, dependants, relatives, slaves, servants.*[f1] King Nala staked everything in gambling with Paskkar and lost everything. The only thing he did not stake was himself and his wife Damayanti. Nala had to go and live in the forest as a beggar. There were kings who went beyond Nala. The Mahabharat[f2] tells how Dharma the eldest of the Pandavas gambled and staked everything, his brothers and also his and their wife Draupadi. Gambling was a matter of honour with the Aryans and any invitation to gamble was regarded as an injury to one's honour and dignity. Dharma gambled with such disastrous consequences although he was warned beforehand. His excuse was that he was invited to gamble and that as a man of honour, he could not decline such an invitation.
This vice of gambling was not confined to kings. It had infected even the common folk. Rig-Veda contains lamentations of a poor Aryan ruined by gambling. The habit of gambling had become so common in Kautilya's time that there were gambling houses licensed by the king from which the king derived considerable revenue.
Drinking was another evil which was rampant among the Aryans. Liquors were of two sorts Soma and Sura. Soma was a sacrificial wine. The drinking of the Soma was in the beginning permitted only to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Subsequently it was permitted only to Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The Vaishyas were excluded from it and the Shudras were never permitted to taste it. Its manufacture was a secret known only to the Brahmins. Sura was open to all and was drunk by all. The Brahmins also drank Sura. Shukracharya the priest to the Asuras drank so heavily that in his drunken state he gave the life giving Mantra known to him only and with which he used to revive the Asuras killed by the Devas—to Katch the son of Brahaspati who was the priest of the Devas. The Mahabharat mentions an occasion when both Krishna and Arjuna were dead drunk. That shows that the best among the Aryan Society were not only not free from the drink habit but that they drank heavily. The most shameful part of it was that even the Aryan women were addicted to drink. For instance Sudeshna[f3] the wife of King Virat tells her maid Sairandhri to go to Kichaka's palace and bring Sura as she was dying to have a drink. It is not to be supposed that only queens indulged in drinking. The habit of drinking was common among women of all classes and even Brahmin women were not free from it. That liquor and dancing was indulged in by the Aryan women is clear from the Kausitaki Grihya Sutra 1. 11-12, which says ; "Four or eight women who are not widowed, after having been regaled with wine and food are to dance for four times on the night previous to the wedding ceremony."
That the drinking of intoxicating liquor was indulged in by Brahmin women, not to speak of women of the lower Varnas, as late as the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. in the Central region of Aryavarta, is clear from Kumarila Bhatta's Tantra-Vartika I (iii). 4, which states, "Among the people of modern days we find the Brahmin women of the countries of Ahicchatra and Mathura to be addicted to drinking". Kumarila condemned the practice in the case of Brahmins only, but not of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas men and women, if the liquor was distilled from fruits or flowers (Madhavi), and Molasses (Gaudi) and not from grains (Sura).
The sexual immorality of the Aryan Society must shock their present day descendants. The Aryans of pre-Buddhist days had no such rule of prohibited degrees as we have today to govern their sexual or matrimonial relationship.
According to the Aryan Mythology, Brahma is the creator. Brahma had three sons and a daughter. His one son Daksha married his sister. The daughters born of this marriage between brother and sister were married some to Kashyapa the son of Marichi the son of Brahma and some to Dharma the third son of Brahma.[f4]
In the Rig-Veda there is an episode related of Yama and Yami brother and sister. According to this episode Yami the sister invites her brother Yama to cohabit with her and becomes angry when he refuses to do so.[f5]
A father could marry his daughter. Vashishta married his own daughter Shatrupa when she came of age. [f6]Manu married his daughter IIa.[f7] Janhu married his daughter Janhavi.[f8] Surya married his daughter Usha.[f9]
There was polyandry not of the ordinary type. The polyandry prevalent among the Aryans was a polyandry when kinsmen cohabited with one woman. Dhahaprachetani and his son Soma cohabited with Marisha the daughter of Soma.[f10]
Instances of grandfather marrying his granddaughter are not wanting. Daksha gave his daughter in marriage to his father Brahma[f11] and from that marriage was born the famous Narada. Dauhitra gave his 27 daughters to his father Soma for cohabitation and procreation. [f12]The Aryans did not mind cohabiting with women in the open and within sight of people. The Rishis used to perform certain religious rites which were called Vamdevya vrata. These rites used to be performed on the Yadnya bhumi. If any woman came there and expressed a desire for sexual intercourse and asked the sage to satisfy her, the sage used to cohabit with her then and there in the open on the Yadnya bhumi. Instances of this may be mentioned. The case of the sage Parashara had sexual intercourse with Satyavati and also of Dirghatapa. That such a custom was common is shown by the existence of the word Ayoni. The word Ayoni is understood to mean of immaculate conception. That is not however the original meaning of the word. The original meaning of the word Yoni is house. Ayoni means conceived out of the house i.e. in the open. That there was nothing deemed to be wrong in this is clear from the fact that both Sita and Draupadi were Ayonija. That this was very common is clear from the fact that religious injunctions had to be issued against such a practice[f13]
There was prevalent among the Aryans the practice of renting out their women to others for a time. As an illustration may be mentioned the story of Madhavi.[f14] The king Yayati gave his daughter Madhavi as an offering to his Guru Galav. Galav rented out the girl Madhavi to three kings, each a period. Thereafter he gave her in marriage to Vishwamitra. She remained with him until a son was born to her. Thereafter Galav took away the girl and gave her back to her father Yayati.
Besides the practice of letting out women to others temporarily at a rent there was prevalent among the Aryans another practice namely allowing procreation by the best amongst them. Raising a family was treated by them as though it was a breeding or stock raising. Among the Aryas there was a class of persons called Devas who were Aryans but of a superior status and prowess. The Aryans allowed their women to have sexual intercourse with any one of the class of Devas in the interest of good breeding. This practice prevailed so extensively that the Devas came to regard pre libation in respect of the Aryan Women as their prescriptive right. No Aryan woman could be married unless this right of pre-libation had been redeemed and the woman released from the control of the Devas by offering what was technically called Avadan. The Laja Hoame which is performed in every Hindu marriage and the details of which are given in the Ashwalayan Grahya Sutra is a relic of this act of the redemption of the Aryan woman from the right of pre-libation of the Devas. The Avadan in the Laja Hoama is nothing but the price for the extinguishing  of the right of the Devas over the bride. The Saptapadi performed in all Hindu marriages and which is regarded as the most essential ceremony without which there is no lawful marriage has an integral connection with this right of pre-libation of the Devas. Saptapadi means walking by the bridegroom seven steps with the bride. Why is this essential? The answer is that the Devas, if they were dissatisfied with the compensation, could claim the woman before the seventh step was taken. After the seventh step was taken, the right of the Devas was extinguished and the bridegroom could take away the bride and live as husband and wife without being obstructed or molested by the Devas.```
There was no rule of chastity for maidens. A girl could have sexual intercourse with and also progeny from anybody without contracting marriage. This is evident from the root meaning of the word Kanya which means a girl. Kanya comes from the root Kam which means a girl free to offer herself to any man. That they did offer themselves to any man and had children without contracting regular marriage is illustrated by the case of Kunti and Matsyagandha. Kunti had children from different men before she was married to Pandu and Matsyagandha had sexual intercourse with the sage Parashara before she married to Shantanu the father of Bhishma.
Bestiality was also prevalent among the Aryans. The story of the sage Dam having sexual intercourse with a female dear, is well known. Another instance is that of Surya cohabiting with a mare. But the most hideous instance is that of the woman having sexual intercourse with the horse in the Ashvamedha Yadna.
(INCOMPLETE)

CHAPTER 1: ANCIENT INDIA ON EXHUMATION

Ancient India on Exhumation

There are two typed copies of this Chapter. Both of them contain additions and corrections in the handwriting of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. After consideration, we decided that the latter version should be included here. This essay, consisting of three pages only, seems to be an introduction to a larger subject Dr. Ambedkar probably had in his mind.—Editors.

Much of the ancient history of India is no history at all. Not that ancient India has no history. It has plenty of it. But it has lost its character. It has been made mythology to amuse women and children. This seems to have been done deliberately by the Brahminical writers. Take the word Deva. What does it mean? Is the word Jana Vishesh representing a member of the human family? It is made to appear superhuman agency. By this the pith of history contained in it is squeezed out.
Along with the word Deva occur the names of Yaksha, Gana, Gandharva, Kinnars. Who were they? The impression one gets on reading the Mahabharat and Ramayan is that they are imaginary beings who filled the horizon but did not exist.
But the Yaksha, Gana, Gandharva, Kinnaras were also members of the human family. They were in the service of the Devas. The Yakshas were guarding the palaces. Ganas were guarding the Devas. Gandharvas were amusing the Devas by music and dancing. The Kinnaras were also in the service of the Gods. The descendants of the Kinnaras are even now living in Himachal Pradesh.
Take the name Asura. The description of Asura given in the Mahabharat and Ramayana make out as though hey belonged to non-human world. An Asura is described to eat ten carts-load of food. They are monsters in size. They sleep for six months. They have ten mouths. Who is a Rakshas? He too is described as a non-human creature. In size, in his capacity for eating, in his habits of life he resembled the Asura.
There is a plenty of references to the Nagas. But who is a Naga ? A Naga is represented as a serpent or a snake. Can this be true ? Whether true or not, it is so and Hindus believe it. Ancient Indian history must be exhumed. Without its exhumation Ancient India will go without history. Fortunately with the help of the Buddhist literature, Ancient Indian History can be dug out of the debris which the Brahmin writers have heaped upon in a fit of madness.
The Buddhist literature helps a great deal to remove the debris and see the underlying substance quite clearly and distinctly.
The Buddhist literature shows that the Devas were a community of human beings. There are so many Devas who come to the Buddha to have their doubts and difficulties removed. How could this be unless the Devas were human beings
Again the Buddhist canonical literature throws a food of light on the puzzling question of the Nagas. It makes a distinction between womb-born Nagas and egg-born Nagas and thereby making it clear that the word Naga has two-fold meaning. In its original sense it stood for the name of a human community.
The Asuras again are not monsters. They too are a Jan-Vishesh human beings. According to Satpatha Bramhana, the Asuras are the descendants of Prajapati the Lord of the creation. How they became evil spirits is not known. But the fact is recorded that they fought against the Devas for the possession of the earth and that they were overcome by the Devas and that they finally succumbed. The point is clear that the Asuras were members of the human family and not monsters.
With this exhumation of debris, we can see Ancient Indian History in a new light.

REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN ANCIENT INDIA

Contents

PART I

Chapter 5: The Decline and Fall of Buddhism
Chapter 6: The Literature of Brahminism
Chapter 7: The Triumph of Brahminism

PART III
Chapter 8: The Morals of the House
Chapter 9:  Krishna and His Gita
Chapter 10: Analytical Notes of Virat Parva and Udyog Parva
Chapter 11: Brahmins Versus Kshatriyas
Chapter 12: Shudras and the Counter-Revolution
Chapter  13: The Woman and the Counter-Revolution

________________________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Note in the manuscript published in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 3 by the Government of Maharashtra:
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had proposed to write a treatise, i.e.,  `Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India'. The table of contents has been printed in the chapter of schemes. He had originally planned to write seven books to be included under this broad title. The Committee was able to find some pages and few chapters in his collection. The chapters are also incomplete. After scrutiny, the Committee came to a decision that `Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India' is to be presented in this volume with the available material though incomplete. Dr. Ambedkar considered the rise of Buddhism as revolution.  The Counter-Revolution pioneered by Brahmins' resulted into decline and fall of Buddhism.
As such the following chapters are included under this title.
1. Ancient India on Exhumation
2. The Ancient Regime—The State of the Aryan Society
3. A Sunken Priesthood
4. Reformers and Their Fate
5. The Decline and Fall of Buddhism
6. The Literature of Brahminism
7. Triumph of Brahminism
8. The Morals of the House—Manusmruti or the Gospel of Counter-Revolution
9. Philosophic   Defence   of   Counter-Revolution (Krishna and his Gita)
10. Analysis of Virat Parva and Uddyog Parva
11. Brahmins V/s Kshatriyas
12. The Shudras and the Counter-Revolution
13. The Women and the Counter-Revolution

The readers may compare these chapters with the proposed plan given in the last chapters of Schemes.—Editors

NOTES ON HISTORY OF INDIA

__________________________________________
[Reproduced from the handwritten manuscripts—ed.]

More important for the history of India were the conquests of the Sakas and Yueh-chih, nomad tribes of Central Asia similar to the modern Turkomans*[f1] The former are first heard of in the basin of the river Hi, and being dislodged by the advance of the Yueh-chih moved southwards reaching north-western India about 150 B. C. Here they founded many small principalities, the rulers of which appear to have admitted the suzerainty of the Parthians for sometime and to have borne the title of Satraps. It is clear that western India was parcelled out among foreign princes called Sakas, Yavanas, or Pallavas whose frontiers and mutual relations were constantly changing. The most important of these principalities was known as the Great Satrapy which included Surashtra (Kathiawar) with adjacent parts of the mainland lasted until about 395A.D.

The Yueh-chih started westwards from the frontiers of China about 100 B. C. and, driving the Sakas before them, settled in Bactria. Here Kadphises, the chief of one of their tribes, called the Kushans, succeeded in imposing his authority on the others who coalesced into one nation henceforth known by the tribal name. The chronology of the Kushan Empire is one of the vexed questions of Indian history and the dates given below are stated positively only because there is no space for adequate discussion and are given with some scepticism, that is desire for more knowledge founded on facts. Kadphises I (c. 15-45 A. D.) after consolidating his Empire led his armies southwards, conquering Kabul and perhaps Kashmir. His successor Kadphises II (c. 45-78 A. D.) annexed the whole of north-western India, including northern Sind, the Punjab and perhaps Benares. There was aconsiderable trade between India and the Roman Empire at this period and an embassy was sent to Trojan, apparently by Kanishka (c. 78-123), the successor of Kadphises. This monarch played a part in the later history of Buddhism comparable with that of Asoka in earlier ages[f2] He waged war with the Parthians and Chinese, and his Empire which had its capital at Peshawar included Afghanistan, Bactria, Kashgar, Yarkhand, Khotan[f3] and Kashmir. These dominions, which perhaps extended as far as Gya ,in the east, were retained by his successors Huvishka (123-140 A. D.) and Vasudeva (140-178 A. D.) but after this period the Andhra and Kushan dynasties both collapsed as Indian powers, although Kushan kings continued to rule in Kabul. The reasons of their fall are unknown but may be connected with the rise of the Sassanids in Persia. For more than a century, the political history of India is a blank and little can be said except that the kingdom of Slirastra continued to exist under a Saka dynasty.

Light returns with the rise of the Gupta dynasty, which roughly marks the beginning of modern Hinduism and of a reaction against Buddhism. Though nothing is known of the fortunes of Patali-putra, the ancient imperial city of the Mauryas, during the first three centuries of our era, it continued to exist. In 320 a local Raja known as Candragupta I increased his dominions and celebrated his coronation by the institution of the Gupta era. His son Samudra Gupta continued his conquests and in the course of an extraordinary campaign, concluded about 340 A. D. appears to have received the submission of almost the whole peninsula. He made no attempt to retain all this territory but his effective authority was exercised in a wide district extending from the Hugli to the rivers Jumna and Chambal in the west and from the Himalayas to the Narbuda. His son Candragupta II or Vikramaditya added to these possessions Malwa, Glijarat and Kathiawar and formorethan half a century the Guptas ruled undisturbed over nearly all northern India except Rajputana and Sind. Their capital was at first Pataliputra, but afterwards Kausambi and Ayodhya became royal residences.


The fall of the Guptas was brought about by another invasion of barbarians known as Huns, Ephthalites[f4] or White Huns and apparently a branch of the Huns who invaded Europe. This branch remained behind in Asia and occupied northern Persia. They invaded India first in 455, and were repulsed, but returned about 490 in greater force and overthrew the Guptas. Their kings Tormana and Mihiragula were masters of northern India till 540 and had their local capital at Sialkot in the Panjab, though their headquarters were rather in Barnyin and Baikh. The cruelties of Mihiragula provoked a coalition of Hindu princes. The Huns were driven to the north and about 565 A. D. their destruction was completed by the allied forces of the Persians and Turks. Though they founded no permanent states their invasion was important, for many of them together with kindered tribes such as the Glirjars (Gujars) remained behind when their political power broke up and, like the Sakas and Kushans before them, contributed to form the population of north-western India, especially the Rajput clans.

The defeat of the Huns was followed by another period of obscurity, but at the beginning of the seventh century Harsha (606-647 A. D.), a prince of Thanesar, founded after thirty five years of warfare, a state which though it did not outlast his own life, emulated for a time the dimensions and prosperity of the Gupta Empire. We gather from the account of the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Chaung, who visited his court at Kanauj, that the kings of Bengal. Assam and Ujjain were his vassals but that the Panjab, Sind and Kashmir were independent. Kalinga, to the south of Bengal was depopulated but Harsha was not able to subdue Pulakesin II, the Calukya king of the Deccan.

Let us now turn for a moment to the history of the south. It is even more obscure both in events and chronology than thatofthe north, but we must not think of the Dravidian countries as Uninhabited or barbarius. Even the classical writers of Europe had some knowledge of them. King Pandion (Pandya) sent a mission to Augustus in 20 B.C.[f5] Pliny[f6] speaks of Modura (Madura) and Ptolemy also mentions this town with about forty others. It is said that there was a temple dedicated to Augustus at Maziris, identified with Craganore. From an early period the extreme south of the peninsula was divided into three states known as the Pandya, Cera and Cola kingdoms[f7] The first corresponded to the districts of Madura and Tinnevelly. Cera and Kerala lay on the west coast in the modern Travancore. The Cola country included Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madras, with the greater part of Mysore. From the sixth to the eighth century A. D. a fourth power was important, namely the Pallavas, who apparently came from the north of the Madras presidency. They had their capital at Canjeevaram and were generally at war with the three kingdoms. Their king, Narasimha-Varman (625-645 A. D. ) ruled over part of the Deccan and most of the Cola country but after about 750 they declined, whereas the Colas grew stronger and Rajaraja (985-1018) whose dominions included the Madras Presidency and Mysore made them the paramount power in southern India, which position they retained until the thirteenth century.

As already mentioned, the Deccan was ruled by the Andhras from 220 B. C. to 236 A. D., but for the next three centuries nothing is known of its history until the rise of the Calukya dynasty atVatapi (Badami) in Bijapur. Pulakesin II of this dynasty (608-642), a contemporary of Harsha, was for some time successful in creating a rival Empire which extended from Gujarat to Madras, and his power was so considerable that he exchanged embassies with Khusru II, King of Persia, as is depicted in the frescoes of Ajanta. But in 642 he was defeated and slain by the Palavas.

With the death of Pulakesin and Harsha begins what has been called the Rajput period, extending from about 650 to 1000 A. D. and characterized by the existence of numerous kingdoms ruled by dynasties nominally Hindu, but often descended from northern invaders or non-Hindu aboriginal tribes. Among them may be mentioned the following :

1. Kanauj or Panchala. This kingdom passed through troublous times after the death of Harsha but from about 840 to 910 A. D. under Bhoja (or Mihira) and his son, it became the principal power in northern India, extending from Bihar to Sind. In the twelfth century it again became important under the Gaharwar dynasty.

2. Kanauj was often at war with the Palas of Bengal, a line of Buddhist kings which began about 730 A. D. Dharmapala (c. 800 A. D.) was sufficiently powerful to depose the king of Kanauj. Subsequently the eastern portion of the Pala Kingdom separated itself under a rival dynasty known as the Senas.

3. The districts to the south of the Jumna known as Jejak-abhukti (Bundelkhand) and Cedi (nearly equivalent to our Central Provinces) were governed by two dynasties known as Candels and Kalacuris. The former are thought to have been originally Gonds. They were great builders and constructed among other monuments the temples ofKhajurao. Kirdvarman Chandel (1049-1100) greatly extended their territories. He was a patron of learning and the allegorical drama Prabodhacandrodaya was produced at his Court.

4. The Paramara (Pawar) dynasty of Malwa were -likewise celebrated as patrons of literature and kings Munja (974-995) and Bhoja (1018-1060) were authors as well as successful warriors.
II

Saka Period

According to Vincent Smith, after first adopting A. D. 78 which appeared the most probable, finally chose 120 A. D. and we may agree that this date marks the beginning of the Saka period inaugurated by Kanishka.

The order in which the chief Kushan kings followed doubtful. It is generally agreed that Kanishka cameafte phises I (Kujula Kara Kadphises) and II (Vima Kadphises) former of these two, a Bactrinised Scythian, must, in Dr. Smith's view, have assumed power about 40 A. D. He seized Gandhara and the country of Taxila from Gondophares, the Parthian prince who, according to the apocryphal acts of the apostles, received St. Thomas. His son Vima (78-110) carved out a great empire for himself, embracing the Punjab and the whole western half of the Ganges basin.


There seems to have been an interval of about 10 years between Kadphises and Kanishka, the latter was the son of one Vajheshka and no relation of his predecessor, he seems to have been from Khotan, not Bactria, and indeed he spent the summer at Kapisi in Paropan. . . [f8] and the winter at Purushapura (Peshawar) the axis of his empire was no longer in the (midst)[f9] of the Graeco-lranian country.

The empire of Kanishaka did not last long. Of his two sons, Vasishka and Havishka only the second survived him.

The power of the Kushans in the third century was reduced to Bactria with Kabul and Gandhara, and they fell beneath the yoke of the Sassanids.

Kshatrappas or Satraps.

This title, which is Iranian, is borne by two dynasties founded by the Sakas ho had been driven from their country by the Yuch-chi invasion.

I. The first was established in Surashtra (Kathewar). One prince of this line Chasthana, seems to have held Malwa before the great days of the Kushans and to have become a vassal of Kanishka; he ruled over Ujjayini, which was the centre of the Indian civilisation.

II. The second line to which the name of Kshaharata is more particularly attached, was the hereditary foe of the Andhras ; it ruled over Maharashtra, the country between modern Surat and Bombay. It was this latter Saka state that was annihilated by the Satakarni and it was the former which arranged it, when Rodraman, the Satrap of Ujjayni conquered the Andhra King. The antagonism between the eastern & western states seems to have been accompanied by a difference of ideals. The Sakas, like all the Scythians of India or Serindia, such as the Thorkhans, retained from their foreign origin a sympathy for Buddhism, whereas the Andhras were keen supporters of Brahmanism.
The Guptas

The events of the third century are unknown to history and we have very, little information about the Kushan empire.

Day light returns in 318-19, when there arises in the old country of Magadha a new dynasty-Gupta.
The Guptas-Chandragupta II conquered the country of Malvas, Gujrathand Surashtra (Kathiwar) overthrowing the 1st great Satrap of the Saka dynasty of Ujjain. As an extension of his territory westward he made Ayodhya and Kausambi his capitals instead ofPataliputra. About 155 (B.C.) he conquered the whole of the lower Indus and Kathewar, waged war in Rajputana, and Oudh but took Mathura (Muttra) on the Jumna, and even reached Pataliputra. .

He was severely defeated by Pushyamitra (?). Bactriana was at least in the north, a barrier between Parthia and India. India was therefore less exposed to attack from Parthia. Nevertheless, there was at least one Parthian ruler, Mithradates 1(171-136) who annexed the country of Taxila for a few years, about 138.
End of the independence of Parthia and Bactria

The event that put an end to the independence of Parthia and Bactria was a new invasion, resulting from a movement of tribes, which had taken place far away from India in the Mongolian steppes.

About 170 (B.C.) a horde of nomadic Scythians, the Yuch-chi or Tokharians, being driven from Gobi, the present Kansu, by the Hiang-nu or Huns, started on a wild migration which upset the whole balance of Asia.

They fell on the Sakas, who were Iranianised Scythians dwelling north of the Persion empire and settled in their grazing grounds north of the Jazartes. The expelled Sakas fell on Parthia and Bactriana, obliterating the last vestiges of Greek rule, between 140 and 120 (B. C.) Then the Tokharians, being defeated in their turns by the Wu-Sun tribe, established themselves on the Oxus, and after that took all the country of the Sakas in eastern Iran at the entrance to India. That entrance was found in the first century after Christ.

The conquest of India was the work of the Kushans (Kushana), a dynasty which united the Yue-Chi tribes and established their dominion both over their own kinsfolk the Sakas of Parthia and over peoples of the Punjab.

The accession of the principal King of this line, Kanishka, was placed at uncertain dates between 57 B. C. and A. D. 200.

Pushyamitra—a mayor of the Palace as Sybrani Livi called him.

The Selected Empire ruled by Antiochos III (261-246 B.C.) and lost two provinces Parthia and Bactriana which emancipated themselves simultaneously. The Parthians whom the Indians called Pahalvas, were related to the nomads of the Turkoman steppes and occupied the country south-east of the Caspian. The Bactrians bordered on the Parthians on the north-east and were settled between the Hindu Kush and the Oxus ; the number and wealth of their towns were legendary. These two peoples seem to have taken advantage of the difficulties of Antiochos and his successors, Seleucos II (246-226 B.C.) and III (226-223 B.C.) in the west to break away.

The Parthian revolt was a natural movement, led by Arsaces, the founder of a dynasty which was to rule Persia for nearly 500 years.

The Bactrian rising was brought about by the ambition of a Greek satrap. Diodotos, represents an outbreak of Hellennism in the heart of Asia.

There is no doubt that the formation of these enterprising nations on the Indo-lranian border helped to shake the empire of Ashoka in the time of his successors.

The Punjab, once a Persian satrapy and then a province of Alexander, was to find itself still more exposed to attack, now that smaller but turbulent states had arisen at its doors. After Diodotos I & II, the King of Bactria was Euthidemes, who went to war with Antioches the Great of Syria. Peace was concluded with the recognition of Bactrian independence about 208. But during hostilities Syrian troops had crossed the Hindu Kush and enteming the Kabul valley had severely dispoiled the ruler Subhagasena. Demetrius, the son of Enthidemos, increased his dominion not only in the present Afghanistan but in India proper, and bore the title of King of the Indians (200-190). Between 190 and 180 there were Greek adventurers reigning at Taxila, named Paleon & Agathocles. From 160 to 140 roughly, Kabul and the Punjab were held by a pure Greek, Milinda or Minander, who left a name in the history of Buddhism.

Ill
Huns

In the last years of Kumargupta new Iranian peoples assailed the empire, but they were kept back from the frontiers. Under Skandagupta, the first wave of formidable migration came down upon the same frontiers. This consisted of nomad Mongoloids to whom India afterwards gave the genuine name of Huna, under which we recognised the Huns who invated Europe.

Those who reached India after the middle of the fifth century were white Huns or Ephthalites, who in type were closer to the Turks than to the hideous followers of Attila. After a halt in the valley of the Oxus they took possession of Persia and Kabul. Skandagupta had driven them off for a few years (455 A. D.) but after they had slain Firoz the Sassanid in 484, no Indian state could stop them. One of them, named Toramana, established himself among the Malavas in 500 and his son Mihirgula set up his capital at Sakol(Sialkot) in the Punjab.

A native prince Yeshodharman shook off the yoke of Mihirgula. The expulsion of the Huns was not quite complete everywhere. A great many resided in the basin of the Indus.

At the beginning of the 7th century a power arose from the chaos in the small principality of Sthanvisvara (Thaneshwar, near Delhi). Here a courageous Raja Prabhakar Vardhan organised a kingdom, which showed its mettle against the Gurjars, the Malwas and other neighbouring princes. Shortly after his death in 604 or 605 his eldest son was murdered by the orders of the king of Gauda in Bengal. The power fell to his younger brother Harsha.

~ B. R. Ambedkar (unfinished manuscript )


 [f1]But perhaps not in language. Recent research marks it probable that the Kushans or Yuch-chih used an Iranian idiom.

 [f2]Fleet and Franke consider that Kanishka preceded the two Kadphises and began lo reign about 58 B.C.

 [f3]He appears to have been defeated in these regions by The Chinese general Pan-chao about 90 A. D. but to have been more successful about fifteen years later.

 [f4]For authorities see Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 1908,p.401

 [f5]Strabo xv.4.73

 [f6]His(.Nai.yi.23.(26).

 [f7]The inscriptions of Asoka mention four kingdoms, Pandya, Keralaputra, Cola, and Satiyaputra.

 [f8]'Letters  missing in ms.ed.
 [f9]inserted as  eaten by termiteed.