Towards Understanding Hindu Myths

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The book takes a survey of important opinions and Schools regarding the meaning of myths, such as the Nature-myth school, the Ritual-myth school which believed that all myths and rituals are intimately connected to each other and that they are counterparts of each other, the Functional school and the Structural approach to the understanding of myths. It also takes note of the Historical and the Typological method. It examines all these methods are evaluates the role of metaphor and symbol in the formation, and hence understanding, of myths. Dwelling on some of the tribal and classical myths studies by such scholars as Kramer, Malinowski, Claude Levi-Strauss, Kirk and others, it tries to throw fresh light on the meaning of these myths by further comparison. Non-Hindu myths are put to comparison with those from the Hindu context. This forms part I of the book. In part II it presents a study of some Hindu myths and legends, explaining the various symbols, motifs and patterns therein and tries to arrive at the meaning of these myths and legends. Thus, the 'bones of the sage Dadhici' get related to the ribs of the sacrificial horse. The avatara of Nrsimha (Vishnu Man-lion) gets related to the actual practice of showing lion-heads on thrones and pillars from ancient Middle east to India, and Burma. The myth of Trisanku's bodily ascent to heaven has its source in a ritual at the Vajapeya sacrifice. The motif of the 'eighth', in relation to Krsna, has its source in early Vedic beliefs. Fresh light has been thrown on the myth of Renuka and Yellamma. The myth and ritual of Mahisasura-mardini gets a fresh scrutiny with new evidence from the Veda and south Indian folk-tales.

About the Author:

Prof. Sadashiv Ambadas Dange is very well known in India and outside India for his writings- particularly those concerning Vedic and Puranic myths, rituals and practices. He was R.G. Bhandarkar-Professor and Head, Deptt. Of Sanskrit at the Bombay University, and currently, lectures on the methodology of the understanding of myths for the Post-graduate Diploma Course in Comparative Mythology in the said Department, on invitation. Twice President of the Vedic Section of the All India Oriental Conference (Shantiniketana, 1980 and Ahmedabad, 1985), he was appointed National Lecturer in Sanskrit, in which capacity he lectured in various universities in India (1980-81). He formulated, and delivered, a course of fifteen lectures on Hindu Myths at the International Institute of Semiotics and Structural Studies, arranged by the Central Institute of Languages, Mysore University (1984 Dec - 1985 Jan), and five lectures on Indian Myths and Symbols at the National Centre for Performing Arts, Bombay (1988). Prof. Dange was Editor (Hon) for the Indian section of the Journal of Ultimate Reality and Meaning and consulting member of the Editorial Board for the Encyclopaedia of Human Ideas on Ultimate Reality and Meaning (Regis College, Ontario, Canada) for over a decade. For his contribution to the study of Sanskrit and Indology he was honoured by the Asiatic Society of Bombay, the State of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and by the President of India with the Certificate of Honour.

Prof. Dange's numerous publications include Legends in the Mahabharata; Vedic Concept of 'Field' and the Divine Fructification, Sexual Symbolism from the Vedic Ritual; Encyclopaedia of Puranic Beliefs and Practices (in five volumes), and others.

The idea in the present venture is not to treat all myths that obtain in the Hindu texts or in the oral tradition and to classify the various motifs that may reveal in such a collective study. That is a stupendous task which would require another effort. As the title show the aim in writing this book is to take a note of and re-examine some of the most important theories that evolved in the study of myths during the present century and to explore the feasibility of applying them to the understanding of Hindu myths. The conclusion is foregone for no one theory can act as the open sesame for going to the inner meaning of myths. Yet it was felt that a review of modern approaches towards the under standing of myths placed side by side with Hindu myths would be a welcome venture. This would also help clarify the confusion between the traditional concept behind the term mythology and its expected scientific meaning.

The idea of looking at Hindu Myths both from the Vedic texts and from the post Vedic ones form a rather untraditional angle in the light of wider studies of myths conducted by scholars who were however not Sanskrit based was pursued by me in my book. Legends in the Mahabharata published as far back as 1969 with the same angle other books dealing with Vedic myths symbols and ritual followed (Bhau Vishnu Ashtekar Vedic Lectures pastoral Symbolism from the Reveda at the University of Poona published by that university 1970 Vedic Concept of Field and the Divine Fructification University of Bombay, 1971 and Acharya Dr. Vishvabandhu Memorial Lecutrues, Vedic Myths in Social perspective Panjab University Chandigarh-Hosiarpur Published by VVRI Hoshiarpur, 1982). The Strain common to these lectures and publications was that Vedic Myths should not be studied in isolation and that in many myths the reflection of ritual provides the key to its meaning, if another ritual of a similar nature be compared. This is done by internal comparison. Thus has to be further substantiated where feasible by myths not only from the post Vedic records but also form other sources with the differences marked. About the myths form the Veda and Rgveda in particular it could be said with Gonda that. The Rgveda is much more varied than it has sometimes been supposed to be (Proceedings of the all India Oriental conference Twenty ninth Session, Bori Poona, 1980, p.1 this is from his address as the General president) as such a multi phased comparative method of study is a necessity.

A pointed effort to present a fresh analysis of Hindu myths on these lines was the result of an invitation to frame a course of two weeks and to deliver lectures from the central institute of languages, Mysore, which conducted an international institute of Semiotics and Structural studies form December 17, 1984 through January 12, 1985 during discussions in the class with students Indian and foreign who attended my lectures on Hindu myths and who were teachers in various colleges in India and outside India, the subject ripened. A further stimulus came when Dr. (Mrs.) Sindhu S. Dange, Prof. and head Department of Sanskrit university of Bombay was successful in starting the Post Graduate Diploma Course in Comparative Mythology in the said Department in 1990 and invited me to deliver lectures on the Methodology for the understanding of myths. To the best of my knowledge no other university in India has such a course at the time of writing this preface. In these lectures and in the discussions with mature participants of various discipline such as medicine, Histrionics, Architecture Dance art and Theatrical direction the topics of the present book tool shape.

Shri Vikas Arya the Publisher called on me when I happened to be in New Delhi in the Summer of 1993 and requested me for a book specially on myths. I agreed.

Prof. (Dr.) Sindhu Dange’s request to me to lecture to the students of comparative mythology gave me an opportunity to brush up my ideas in the discussions that followed after every lecture and also during the lecture for which she deserves my thanks. She also went through the typescript and offered useful suggestions at various stages as the book was being prepared for the press.

Mrs. Vidya Joshi, Lecturer in the J.J. School of arts Bombay did the design and the picture for the flap. Mrs. Vidya Kamat (M.A fine arts) who is a diploma holder of the course in comparative mythology and is doing her Ph.D. in the Department of Sanskrit Bombay University did the inside pictures. She is also an artist for the Times of India Bombay I Thank both these artists.

I deem it a privilege to dedicate this book to Prof. (Dr.) R.N. Dandekar with whom my acquaintance goes back to 1955 when my revered guru Prof. (late) H.D. Velankar introduced me to him. I have always felt myself accountable to him in my academic Endeavour.

Meaning of a myth is often elusive like the nature of the absolute! About the meaning of myths suggested here in the pages to follow scholars could say no not thus well I keep the avenue of my satisfaction open even with may be as I have suggested.

The study of Hindu myths has a pretty long history. One of the earliest efforts in this direction was of Charles Coleman (1832: Mythology of the Hindoos, London), and by about the close of the nineteenth century Wilkins presented his Hindu Mythology—Vedic and Puranic (1882: Calcutta). Another book that closely preceded that of Wilkins was that by Cox (1970: Mythology of the Aryan Nations) which followed the method of etymology and interpreting these myths as mostly nature-myths. Apart from the efforts of Max Muller, who led the nature-myth school from among the Sanskritists and whose studies on comparative mythology were very well known by the close of the nineteenth century through the beginning of the twentieth, A.A. Macdonell’s Vedic Mythology (1897, Strasburg) served as a model for E.W. Hopkins (1915: Epic Mythology. Strasburg), and was preceded by Fausboll (1903: Hindu Mythology according to the Mahabharata, London). From among the non-Sanskritists who wrote about the myths and legends of the Hindus, Donald Mackenzie’s multi-phased researches contain remarks about Hindu gods and their myths. However, when he says that Indra was the “elephant-rider” and that “a later Indian form of Indra was the elephant-god Ganesh, the son of Shiv and Parvati” (no year: Myths of Pre-Columbian America, London, pp30-31) it poses a problem of investigation. He confuses Varuna with vära1a (elephant) and mixes the later image of Indra riding the elephant, named Airavata. Airavata is mentioned in Mb. in the context of the churning of the ocean. As the beast comes out of the ocean, it is appropriated by Indra among the gods (Mb. Adi 18.40). Airavata does occur in AV(VIII.1O.29); but the word refers to a nãga (which word has the connotation also as elephant, in addition to ‘serpent’ in the later period) and has no association with Indra. Etymology has been useful, to a certain extent, in understanding myths; but, beyond a certain limit, it has to be used cautiously. Similar appears to be true, when the Asura ambara is seen as synonymous with Varui) a through a very late post-Vedic variation, Sathvara (with the interchange of b and v), arguing that the name ambara supports the Proto-Magadhi etymology (Parpola,1988: “The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and Ethnical Identity of the Das s”, Studia Orientalia, 64: 195- 302; also 1992: p. 298). The point is whether the ProtoMagadhi support could be extended back to the Vedic ambra, arid seeing the Asura, in fact, as Sathvara (‘cover of rain-water’), and another name of Varuna, a both could be traced to the root vr, ‘to cover’ and thence to ‘water’, with which the association of Varuna is already clear in V. A well attested trait about myths is, that earlier personalities get currency also in later period with added particulars and new garbs. Even in the case of ambara the trait is seen. He is seen in Mb. not only as an adversary of Indra (Vedic detail) (Mb. Adi 137. 43; Vana 168.81), hut also is said to be son of Kayapa and Danu., the traditional parents of demons (Adi 65.22). A new hero, Samba, is credited with his defeat (Vana 120.13). He is also said to have been killed by Krsna, through Pradyumna, who is his grandson (Sabba, Southern reading after the regular 38.29; also the regular version, Udyoga 68.4; Anus. 14.28). According to Mb. he was an ancient ruler, which statement could be compared with the one from RV, where he is said to be the Dasa chief and son of Kulitara (RV IV.30. 14). This would indicate that he was a real person,’ who became a mythical Asura later on. But, it is certain, that he had nothing to do with Magadha, or with a dialect that could be called Proto-Magadhi, as ambara’s mountain resort, at the period of the 1gveda, and earlier, has to be taken somewhere in the north-western side of present day India. Probably it was Gandhãra or Kashmir. It is clear, that relying too much on etymology is likely to lead us astray. Yet, the influence of Max Muller’s approach of etymology and his theory of the ‘disease of language’ cast a lasting influence on later Sanskrit scholars. So, Pandu, the father of the Pandava brothers was seen as the pale sun (paz4u), and Duryodhana (‘difficult to fight’) was interpreted as the sun in the winter season. So was the blind Dhrtarafra the powerless winter sun. Draupadi, called Krsna, was understood as the dark (krsna) earth, and Draupadi’ s (Krsl)a’ s) cloak, that was taken off from her body, was thought to be indicative of the barren earth in the winter season, being unmindful of the seasons in India and the changes as different from those in the West, and also that these are historical persons. According to this view, Mb accounts of war and strife indicated only the mythology of seasons, and that, later, the human element encroached upon this original superhuman central theme. Following the same line of understanding myths, Dahlmann, like Ludwig, believed that the polyandrous marriage of the Paiava brothers with Draupadi was purely a mythical element. C.J. Held (1935), who took a survey of earlier efforts to reach the inner meaning of the Mahabharata. cautioned about the excesses of etymology and the naturophobia, as did the newly emerging schools of the study of myths. These new schools, consisting mainly of non-Sanskritists, equipped with the tools of anthropology and ethnology, and also acquainted with Hindu myths, began striking against the theories of the Sanskritists who toed the line of Max Muller. Held’s was, avowedly, an ethnological approach (1935, p.39), though restricted to the Mahabharata, as that was of L. von Schroeder (1908 Mysterium und Mimus in Rigveda, Leipzig) relating to the Rgveda in the beginning of the twentieth century. But, this welcome effort of Schroeder was heavily criticized by A.B. Keith (1909 JRAS, pp.207ff; also 1911, pp. 105ff). While the anthropologists and the ethnologists outright nicknamed Max Muller as ‘solarist’, and even ‘sun’ (thus, “here comes the Sun”), dubbing his interpretations as ‘comic’4, Held’s reaction to Max Muller was rather soft. He says that, if we accept Max Muller’s version of mythology as a result of the ‘disease of language’, we can see in religion at the most a system of irrational aberrations of the human mind, but never religion as such (Held, 1935, p. 102). We may substitute ‘religion’ by ‘myths’ and say, that to accept the theory of Max Muller (etymology and nature based, in toto) we might see in myths only irrational aberrations of the mind of the persons to whom myths were suggested and of those who perpetuated them in tradition. But, that is hardly the case. Held rightly suggested that we must take a myth in its entirety. This is perfectly sound; because, a myth is a point of faith for the people whose tradition nurtured it. Held asks, “What is it that people believed in?”; he answers, “It is not the naturalistic substratum of the myth that the people believed in; but, it is the myth as a whole” (ibid. p. 104). However, Held leads myth to the scaffolds of ritual for its meaning when he says, “Myths do not, therefore, transport us into a purely imaginary heaven, but conduct directly or indirectly to the spot where the rites are celebrated” (ibid). This very clearly shows that Held goes on the lines of the Ritual-myth theory, or that he is, very probably, influenced by the views of Frazer and those who followed him. This was the line of thought which, at that period, was gaining strength. Held does not show any influence of, or even acquaintance with, the views of Malinowski (1926), who, about the time Held was formulating his views, had forked away from the Ritual-myth theory and had proposed that it is the function that is the crux in a myth.

It is to be noted, that Sanskrit scholars of this period, by and large, western or eastern, remained, practically, aloof from the various schools that proposed various methods for deciding the meaning of myths that were in the purview of their study and investigation, viz, the Hindu myths—Vedic and post-Vedic. The exception is of Max Muller, who had brushes with the anthropologists trying to uncover myths. Later scholars practically followed the lead of Max Muller. Though references to tribal practices were made, they were of a casual nature and for comparison. This continued till pretty long after the first half of the twentieth century rolled off. On the other hand, investigators about the nature and meaning of myths in the wider sphere, who were mostly non Sanskritists, studied also Hindu myths. This is clear from the passing mention we have made of some names. Further, Andrew Lang, not a Sanskritist by core, refers to Hindu myths and attempts to give their meaning. Thus, for example, he mentions the myth of Prajapati running after his daughter, giving also the source (Ait. Br.III.33). However, as is expected in such cases where information is taken from translations, he does less justice to the word ‘deva’ in the original (that, from the mighty bodies of the various gods a deva was produced) by retaining the rendering as “monster” (1884, p. 134). Apart from this harmless detail, he takes only that much portion of the whole myth which has developed into a star-myth, and which is needed for his chapter. This leaves the whole myth, the most essential part being the relationship between the ‘father’ and the ‘daughter’. In this he accepts (through translation, though) the version of the Ait. Br. (and, though not mentioned, that of eat. Br.). Lang objects to the nature-based interpretation of the myth of Urvai and Pururavas and says, that the myth revolves round the custom of married women—more particularly, a nuptial etiquette (ibid. p. 68ff). But, even here the whole myth is left out, attention being focused on the departure of Urvai as her husband did not abide by the promise he gave her, according to which he was not to see her without clothes on his body in broad daylight. As is very well known, the myth has its roots in RV; it is elaborated in the at.Br. and takes a new implication in the Puranic period. He also refers to the myth of the primeval boar fishing out the earth from the waters at the beginning of creation and the creation myth involving the cosmic egg (1913, pp. 230ff.). Etymology and ethnology could be worked together; but, even here caution is needed. In the absence of caution, and readiness to present a composite thought some fantastic etymologies might be presented.5 A balanced use of comparative material is seen with J. Gonda (1954: Aspects of Early Visuism). He saw a Chinese parallel in the Indra Vrtra myth, where Indra is said to have roused the ‘serpent’ (Vrtra) as the latter lay sleeping (RV I.103.7 sasantam Vajrenadobhayo’ him), for releasing rain. The imagery occurs also at another place about the passage in question Gonda says that, it strongly reminds us of the Chinese conception of the origin of the annual rain. The dragon who is the giver of rain sleeps during the winter season hidden deep in the ground on the second day of the second month the day of the first thunder storm he breaks the earth ascends to heaven producing that very thunder. This parallelism is perfectly agreeable. However we may add something. One feels it necessary to examine the motif of the sleep of the Rbhus in the house of agohya and the resultant rain where sleep gives rise to rain. The same is the case where Visnu is said to sleep for the four rainy months. The situations presents a contrast as far as the Hindu tradition is concerned. In the case of Visnu and the Rbhus rain is associated with their sleep. While in the case of the serpent and the Chinese dragon it is their non sleep ushers rain. Again it is the rousing up of the frogs that brings rains what Gonda ahs said about the dragon getting up from his earthly adobe and rising to heaven to thunder and shower rains is seen also in the Chinese myth of the blue boy Gonda’s approach to the understanding of the myths in connection with the early aspects of visnuism archaeological evidences and comes closer to the method of scholars working in the wider field in quest of the meaning of myths.