Both the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, the two texts usually designated jointly as the Sanskrit Epics (though placed in separate categories within the Indian tradition), are major sources for the history of religious and social ideas. Because their authors tend to present ideals and practices in a living situation, this material is potentially even more valuable, although the specific nature of the episodes at the same time raises greater difficulties and uncertainties in their interpretation. In addition, we must guard against too readily reading into various terms their later technical meanings, even in the didactic parts of the Mahābhārata to which scholars most often refer (partly because narrative issues are least obvious there). Moreover, a given word’s spread of meaning may well encompass both religious and in Western terms more secular meanings; an excellent example of this is the term mantra, which not only designates the Vedic utterances used in connection with sacrifice and similar rituals—and by extension can also commonly mean in both Epics something like a spell or charm, such as those used to empower weapons—but quite as frequently denotes the kind of consultation, counsel, or advice exchanged between kings and their counsellors (commonly mantrin). This issue is made all the more complex by the long period (perhaps fifth century bc to fourth century ad) over which both the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa have reached their present form, during which both society and religion undoubtedly changed appreciably.1
The pattern of religious activity revealed in the narratives of both Epics still owes much to Vedic ritual, in the same way that the pattern of deities is broadly Vedic, or more specifically late and post-Vedic. Indeed, sacrificial rituals in general bulk larger in the incidental references within both Epics than various ascetic practices. As well as features which are later marginalized, others such as tapas which can be traced back to a very early period come to play an increasing role in more developed Hinduism, as do other features which only come to the fore well after the Vedic period, such as the cult of pilgrimage. The influence the two Epics came to have on the various Hindu religious traditions, in particular on the bhakti tradition, and more generally on Indian culture, is shown not only by the many versions and summaries of them throughout the devotional literature (from the Purāṇas to contemporary pamphlets) but also in many other forms right up to the present day.
The extent to which Vedic ritual was still a living reality is seen in the degree to which the narrative of the Mahābhārata is structured around ritual concepts, especially the notion of sacrifice. This sacrificial background is depicted at length and in great detail in the first part of the Ādiparvan. The narrative opens with an awesome but incomplete sacrifice, Janamejaya’s snake sacrifice; a central episode is structured around performance of a rājasūya, also interrupted (by Yudhiṣṭhira’s defeat at the dice-game), and the main story is rounded off by Yudhiṣṭhira’s performance of an aśvamedha; the events of the Sauptikaparvan at the close of the battle can be seen as another sacrifice, indeed as a replay of Dakṣa’s sacrifice; and James Laine has seen initiation as a main theme of the Āraṇyakaparvan (Laine 1991). Similarly, the first recitation of the Rāmāyaṇa by Kuśa and Lava occurs within the context of Rāma’s aśvamedha, while the starting point of its whole narrative is the sacrifices performed by Daśaratha for the birth of sons: an aśvamedha and the apparently Atharvavedic putreṣṭi, ‘sacrifice for son(s)’.
Terms for sacrifice (yajña, medha, adhvara, kratu, iṣṭi) occur widely throughout the Mahābhārata narrative, as well as in the more didactic portions, although there is often tantalizingly little detail given. Indeed, sacrificial rituals are commoner in incidental references than various ascetic practices; for example, the office of the hotṛ priest is mentioned at 9.34.32d and various ritual items in neighbouring verses. The term āyatana is quite frequently used to designate the location of a ritual action and in the compounds yajñāyatana (nine occurrences) and devatāyatana (sixteen occurrences) may indicate some kind of structure, although there is no indication of its nature, if so (cf. Gonda 1969: 17–21).2 The most specific details about Vedic literature and ritual are found in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans (the didactic twelfth and thirteenth books). For example, in the Śāntiparvan we find the vedī altar (12.29.44b), a warning that women who make offerings into the fire go to hell (12.159.19–20), the term makha at 12.255.37b+f (also 330.52b), and the puroḍāśa cake at 38c. In the Anuśāsanaparvan, in order to praise Śiva, Brahmā utters the rathantara, Nārāyaṇa sings to him with the jyeṣṭha sāman, and Indra sings the Śatarudrīya (13.14.147), while elsewhere there is frequent mention of Vedic sacrifices, sacrificial priests, and implements; for example, the Agniṣṭut along with prāyaścittas (13.12.4), the antarvedi (13.60.3a), adhvaryu, chandoga, and atharvaṇa priests (13.95.75), the Gosava and Aptoryāma sacrifices (13.106.13–16), the Atirātra (13.109.38), and the Dvādaśāha (13.110.20d). However, such clustering in these two parvans indicates that these are learned references owed to brāhman redactors rather than part of the stock in trade of the earlier reciters of the Epic.
In the earlier parts of the Rāmāyaṇa the commonest ritual acts mentioned are the morning and evening worship (saṃdhyā) but the fullest descriptions of them occur in the later Bāla and Uttara kāṇḍas (at 1.22.2–3 and 7.72.20–73.2); however, there is no mention of a midday saṃdhyā. There was still clearly no bar on women performing many rituals—formal or informal—themselves, since Sītā performs the saṃdhyā when alone (5.12.48), Kausalyā performs pūjā to Viṣṇu and makes oblations into the fire (2.17.6–7), and Sītā worships the Gaṅgā as the exiles cross the river (2.46.67–73), while the second of these also illustrates the increasing trend towards the more informal types of worship which may be classed as pūjā. Sacrifice (yajña, occasionally adhvara or kratu), oblations (homa, rarely havis), and the sacrificial altar (vedi) are all mentioned occasionally in earlier passages, along with the best known of the individual sacrifices (agnihotra, aśvamedha, rājasūya, vājapeya), to which later another four are added (agniṣṭoma, āgrayaṇa, paurṇamāsī, pauṇḍarīka). Similarly, the only priest mentioned in the earliest material is the purohita, who has particularly close connections in any case with the king, but the praśastṛ and the sadasya are each mentioned once in slightly later parts. Little detail is given about performing sacrifice—usually no more than mention of the fire carrying the offering to the gods—and indeed as much is said about the very informal sacrifice of a blackbuck by Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa to consecrate their newly built hut (2.50.15–19) as about the more formal rituals. There is nothing equivalent to the detail found in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans, apart from the description of Daśaratha’s sacrifices in the Bālakāṇḍa. Rituals are also performed in the forest among the sages, who therefore clearly are vānaprasthas. In fact, in the main narrative, the performance of rituals is more often mentioned as an activity in hermitages than performance of austerities, although the emphasis is reversed in the Bāla and Uttara kāṇḍas. The agnihotra is quite often mentioned and one reason for Rāma helping the ascetics is because the Rākṣasas are interrupting their rituals (3.9.11, cf. 6.27.17–20).
There are frequent references throughout the Mahābhārata to caityas as places of worship, most often probably designating a sacred tree or similar site, as is suggested by the compounds caityavṛkṣa (6.3.37c, 12.69.39d, and as a variant at 3.188.56a) and caityadruma (12.59.63a) and by the comparison of a warrior’s fall to a caitya toppled by the wind (7.37.7). This presumably reflects an ancient popular form of worship, not necessarily connected with Buddhism and sometimes having clearly positive associations (e.g. 2.71.27 and 3.189.8).3 By contrast, examples of the later pattern involving image worship and temples are confined to the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans. There the pattern sometimes seems very late, for example in assigning the temple priest, devalaka, to the status of brāhmaṇacaṇḍāla (12.77.8), in the injunction that temple property, devasva, is not to be touched by a king even in extremity (12.134.2), or in the mention of dīpavṛkṣas which are probably temple lamp standards (12.195.9c).
There are almost no references in the Rāmāyaṇa to any kind of permanent building for ritual or worship; a separate room or hut for the fire, mentioned just three times, belongs basically with the older pattern of ritual and nothing more than this need be meant when, in preparing for his installation, Rāma worships Nārāyaṇa with oblations and then lies down with Sītā to sleep in Viṣṇu’s holy sanctuary (āyatana, 2.6.1–4). However, a caitya building with a thousand pillars, a stairway of coral, and a golden dais within Rāvaṇa’s aśoka grove (5.13.15–17) must be a substantial building. Although caityas are mentioned elsewhere occasionally, early references seem to be to non-Brāhmanical cult spots such as a sacred tree, particularly associated with the Rākṣasas, whereas in late passages excluded from the text (but already in the text of the Mahābhārata) they are quite often linked with āyatanas and both probably then designate some kind of building.
As an accompaniment to sacrificial rituals, the practice of murmuring Vedic mantras, japa, is well known but seems to have taken on a life of its own in the Epics. While that meaning of the term fits a good many of the contexts where it is used (often in a stock phrase of commendation for sages), some contexts suggest different nuances and in particular the possibility that it was seen by some as an alternative means to achieve a higher spiritual state, in competition or in parallel with the developing practices of tapas and of yoga (Brockington 2012). The most significant passage in this regard is the Jāpakopākhyāna (MBh 12.189–93), a passage appearing between one broadly on Sāṃkhya and another on the fourfold Yoga of meditation, where Bhīṣma declares that japa constitutes an independent discipline belonging to the Vedic sacrificial tradition and differing from Sāṃkhya and Yoga; from the concluding encomium on the jāpaka, the practitioner of this technique, the passage is obviously intended to meet the challenge of Yoga by presenting japa as a viable alternative, while simultaneously incorporating various elements associated with Yoga. Within another late passage, the Nārāyaṇīya (12.321–39), the practice of japa is also twice linked with one-pointedness of the mind (ekāgramanas/°tva at 12.323.32 and 325.2–3), in the first of these being also described as mental, as occasionally elsewhere, and on three occasions is alluded to as sung or chanted in a way that might suggest devotional hymns. There may be indications that such devotion is directed towards the deity Brahmā (the personification of Brahman, either a term for the Vedas or for the Absolute) in use of the term parameṣṭhin for the supreme deity and of brahmabhūta for the state aimed at.
Expiations, prāyaścitta, are rarely mentioned outside the Śāntiparvan and even there mainly in the context of Yudhiṣṭhira’s remorse for the slaughter in the battle, when Vyāsa gives a long list of faults requiring expiation (12.35.1–38.3) and starts by defining these as failure to do a prescribed action, performing forbidden actions, and acting wrongly (12.35.2). The actions proscribed range from a Vedic student being still asleep at sunrise through alienation from one’s father to murdering a brāhman. The expiations range from eating once a day, begging for one’s food, and carrying a skull (for a begging-bowl and as a sign of the crime) to performing an aśvamedha, but the list also provides for in effect buying one’s release, for example a brāhman-killer can get off by giving away a hundred thousand head of cattle (12.36.8). However, when Vyāsa has finished his homily, Yudhiṣṭhira just moves on to his next question. In the Rāmāyaṇa, there are only three occurrences of the term, all relatively late: king Romapāda is advised as the prāyaścitta for the drought affecting his kingdom to lure Ṛśyaśṛṅga there (1.8.14), king Ambarīṣa is advised as a prāyaścitta for a lapse in his sacrifice (Indra has carried off the sacrificial victim) to buy a human victim, Śunaḥśepa (1.60.8), and Rāma in his reply to Vālin declares that evils committed are wiped out by performing a prāyaścitta (4.18.31–2).
A major study by Minoru Hara showed that the term tapas occurs over 3,000 times in the Mahābhārata, mostly in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans (Hara 1979).4 Hara first noted occasional definitions of tapas occurring in the text; for example, one verse declares that tapas was supreme in the Kṛtayuga, knowledge in the Tretāyuga, sacrifice in the Dvāparayuga, and giving in the Kaliyuga (12.224.27), while another defines it in terms of concentration of the mind and sense organs (manasaś cendriyānāṃ cāpy aikāgryaṃ niścitaṃ tapaḥ 3.246.25cd, cf. 12.242.4ab). The definitions found in Bhīṣma’s and Kṛṣṇa’s discourses, though more systematic than most, are simply formal definitions which do not reflect actual usage; indeed, in these passages an attempt is being made to put a spiritual value on tapas while rejecting its older magical connotations. When the contexts in which the term occurs are examined, the linking of tapas with dharma is noteworthy, as well as its association with concepts of expiation. The efficacy of tapas is reckoned in terms of the goals aimed at: granting of boons, curses, supernatural knowledge, acquisition of higher rank or status, invulnerability, the ability to create or destroy at will, purification, and various other supernatural powers. Finally, Hara noted the opposing beliefs in its omnipotence (for example, sarvaṃ tat tapasā śakyaṃ tapo hi duratikramam, 12.155.5cd) commonly expressed throughout the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans and in its limitations (for example, in the face of death and destiny, or by comparison with either bhakti or jñāna), which suggest that tapas is basically just a means or instrument to achieve other ends.
Monika Shee subsequently examined the terms tapas and tapasvin in the narrative parts of the Mahābhārata (Shee 1986). Many occurrences are in various episodes involving ascetics, such as several accounts of Agastya, particularly his subduing of Vātāpi (3.94–7) and the cursing of Nahuṣa (of which the Udyogaparvan version seems the earliest). In the story of Yavakrī (or Yavakrīta) ascetic power alone, represented by Yavakrī, is presented as inferior to asceticism combined with or based on Vedic knowledge, represented by Raibhya (3.135–9).5 Pāṇḍu’s austerities (1.109–18) differ in being tapas undertaken by a kṣatriya, not a brāhman, and not so much to accumulate power as to reach release; whereas Pāṇḍu here regards it as self-evident that tapas is a means to gain mokṣa, this is far from being the case in the truly narrative passages.6 In her analysis of the various aspects of tapas revealed in these passages Shee demonstrates that originally tapas was not primarily connected with ideas of renunciation or salvation and so the links with yoga and saṃnyāsa are secondary; it was rather a form of power by which even the gods could be coerced and so was favoured by those who already have a hereditary disposition towards power, whether brāhmans or kings. The performance of tapas by śūdras is naturally therefore rejected, although in contrast with older views there is the story of a śūdra who lives an ascetic life and makes offerings to the gods and ancestors, thereby gaining enough merit to be reborn as a king (13.10). Among Shee’s other conclusions are that asceticism is regularly practised in pleasant surroundings (hermitages as idyllic locations). Overall, her findings agree with Hara’s that tapas is basically a means to achieve various powers. Indeed, the accumulation of tapas has often been compared by various scholars to a kind of spiritual bank balance or the energy stored in a battery, with the latter image suiting rather well its sudden and violent discharge by an ascetic through uttering a curse. However, particularly in the Śāntiparvan, we then find attempts being made to redefine tapas in more ethical terms, for example as non-injury, speaking the truth, non-cruelty, self-control, and compassion (12.80.17).
The term tapas is both absolutely and proportionately less frequent in the text of the Rāmāyaṇa than in the Mahābhārata (Brockington 2000).7 It is also much more frequent in the later Bāla and Uttara kāṇḍas than in the Ayodhyā to Yuddha kāṇḍas, with the adjectival form mahātapas occurring almost exclusively in those two books. This is partly, but not entirely, related to the greater participation of various sages in the narrative there. One contrast with the Mahābhārata is the paucity of linkage with dharma but in other respects the pattern is similar. There is some association with Vedic concepts such as japa, mantra, yajña, and svādhyāya, with Yoga, with self-control, and with truth (satya, satyavākya), but the most obvious associations are with power and with the results gained, alongside emphasis on possible obstacles and the effort involved. Thus tapas is regarded as a power-substance above all, the signs of which include heat and radiance or illumination, for example in Bharadvāja being marked by samādhi, tejas, and tapas (2.85.19). One of the clearest examples of the association between asceticism and power is Rāvaṇa declaring to Sītā that Rāma cannot equal him in tapas, bala, and vikrama (5.18.33). The frequency of the compound noun tapobala, especially within tapobalasamanvita, further illustrates the dominance of this aspect.
Most passages in the core books simply allude to performing austerities, especially in hermitages (where, however, performing rituals is more frequent8); because the forest is the natural place for asceticism, the compound tapovana often designates little more than the forest itself in contrast to city life. The nature of tapas is by no means always clear, however, and in some passages in the earlier books it almost seems that the term is being used to denote hardship in general, especially in some instances where kṣatriyas are referred to. Basically, however, the performance of tapas has a specific purpose and is seen as a form of power; tapas does not operate automatically but through the winning of boons or the uttering of curses. In the core books boons are granted by Brahmā alone as a reward for extremes of asceticism, but in the Bāla and Uttara kāṇḍas boons are granted by other gods or by exceptional human beings and curses are the prerogative of ascetics (often resulting in the discharge of their accumulated tapas); probably the best-known example is that of Gautama cursing Indra to lose his testicles (1.47.26–7 and 48.10) and Ahalyā to remain invisible (1.47.28–31 and 48.13–16; cf. Hara 1997), where Indra bases his claim on help from the other gods on his having created an obstacle to Gautama’s austerities (1.48.2–4). Another is Viśvāmitra cursing Rambhā sent by Indra to seduce him, which would have discharged his tapas in another way (1.63). Even when the reward gained by tapas is set beyond this life, it is seen simply as the winning of heavenly worlds and throughout there is a notable absence of mokṣa as the goal. But the results of tapas may just as often be purely material, though, with tapas itself simply a means to a mundane end.
The goals sought are typically invulnerability, long life, supernatural knowledge or vision, and the like. The minimal degree of attention paid to the theoretical aspects of tapas is clearly shown by the effective absence of the opposing beliefs in its omnipotence (common in the didactic parts of the Mahābhārata) and in its limitations. This does, however, fit well with tapas being basically just a means or instrument to achieve other ends, which is as true of the Rāmāyaṇa as of the Mahābhārata. The understanding of tapas throughout the Rāmāyaṇa is on the whole closest to that in the earlier parts of the Mahābhārata—essentially a means to achieve various powers.
Among the most detailed listings of the austerities undertaken by an ascetic is that of king Yayāti when he retired to the forest (MBh. 1.81.9–16): eating roots and fruit, living off gleanings and eating others’ leavings for a thousand years, living <just> on water for thirty autumns, living on air for a year, undergoing tapas between five fires,9 and standing on one leg and eating the wind for six months. Although the detail indicates the relative lateness of the episode, we should note that Yayāti is explicitly called muni and vānaprastha, also made offerings into the fire, and finally went to heaven. Such practices are most often mentioned in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans, commonly grouped in the same way. Those occurring more than once are: fasting (upavāsa, seventy-one times; nirāhāra, forty-three times), eating the wind (vāyubhakṣa, forty-one times), eating remnants (vighaśāsin, twenty-two times, but some in praise of householders as superior; cf. Wezler 1977–8), keeping arms raised (ūrdhvabāhu, seventeen times), standing on one leg (ekapāda(sthita), twelve times),10 drinking foam (phenapa, nine times and once of calves suckling), living on water (abbhakṣa, nine times), grinding one’s grain with stones (aśmakuṭṭa, nine times), living off gleanings (uñchavṛtti, eight times),11 drinking [i.e. living only on] sunbeams (marīcipa, eight times), using <only> the teeth as mortars (dantolūkhalin, six times), performing ablutions (saṃprakṣāla, five times), sleeping wherever evening overtakes one (yatrasāyaṃgṛha, four times),12 sleeping on the ground (sthaṇḍilaśāyin, twice; the concept occurs more often), and eating <only> leaves (patrāhāra, twice). Keeping one’s arms raised and standing on one leg illustrate a significant element of ascetic practice, that of remaining as motionless as possible, dramatically illustrated by the stories of Cyavana and Vālmīki becoming covered by anthills and of birds nesting in Jājali’s hair. Restricting one’s food in various ways up to complete fasting is clearly the commonest form of tapas, its possible extent indicated by the stock phrase, kṛśo dhamanisaṃtataḥ, ‘so emaciated one’s veins stand out’, found a dozen times in the Mahābhārata (see Hara 1995) but absent from the Rāmāyaṇa.
A comparable list of ascetic practices occurs in the Rāmāyaṇa when groups of sages approach Rāma for protection (3.5.1–5); besides Vaikhānasas, Vālakhilyas, and many of those in the Mahābhārata list, they also include several not found there: sages who plunge into water (unmajjaka), consume water <only> (salilāhāra), live in the open (ākāśanilaya), live on heights (ūrdhvavāsin), or wear wet clothes (ārdrapaṭavāsas).13 It is noteworthy that some of the ascetic practices in these lists are nowadays more commonly associated with Yoga but in the Epics are linked rather with tapas as a completely separate discipline. Moreover, gods and kings, as well as hermits, are described as engaging in such practices.14
It must also be emphasized that standardly in the Mahābhārata those who have retreated from active life to practise such austerities are described, explicitly or implicitly, as belonging to what is recognized as the third in the developed pattern of four stages of life (āśrama), that of the vānaprastha, the regular term for it in later literature.15 They are also commonly described as performing fire rituals and the like. There is little trace in the narrative parts of the Mahābhārata and none in the Rāmāyaṇa of the fourth āśrama, that of the saṃnyāsin who has totally renounced all rituals and all contact with society (Olivelle 1981; Brockington 1998: 214–16, 240–1, 428, and 448).16 Moreover, adopting an ascetic way of life does not mean abandoning family relations (for example, Viśvāmitra engages in extreme austerities but also produces several sons, Rām. 1.561–3) and adopting celibacy before producing offspring is typically condemned, as the story of Jaratkāru shows: he sees his ancestors hanging upside down in a cave and menaced by impending destruction which they declare can only be warded off by his rapidly finding a wife and producing offspring (MBh. 1.31.9–44 and 1.41.1–44.22).
One practice which has been popular from the Vedic period to the present is that of undertaking vratas (Hacker 1973; Lubin 2001). These are essentially a regimen involving a restriction of some kind, undertaken for a specific purpose and usually for a fixed period. In the oldest literature often related to Vedic study and worship, in more recent times the term is used most frequently for the vratas that particularly women undertake for some specific worldly purpose; this is already seen occasionally in the Epics, for example in Vinatā performing tapas intent on her vrata for the birth of a son (MBh. 1.27.24–5) and Pārvatī undertaking a dreadful vow and performing tapas in order to win Śiva (Rām. 1.34.18cd). Though commonly translated as ‘vow’, the term more exactly denotes the activity (whether positive or negative) that the individual first declares the intention (saṃkalpa) of performing. In both Epics, although sages are often described as ‘practising severe vows’ (munayaḥ saṃśitavratāḥ), two other compounds, dṛḍhavrata and dhṛtavrata, ‘of firm resolve, resolute’, are regularly applied to warriors’ tenacity in battle; indeed, in some contexts vrata means something nearer to ‘behaviour, code of conduct’, as in kṣatravrata, ‘the warrior code’.17
Examples of behaviour called a vrata are: Arjuna referring to the year incognito at Virāṭa’s court as his vrata of brahmacarya (MBh. 4.40.12–13) and his determination to kill anyone injuring Yudhiṣṭhira (4.63.53), Sāvitrī’s vrata to stand for three nights and to fast (3.280.3+20), and the merit gained in visits to a tīrtha being equal to a twelve-year vrata (3.82.80). The most frequent components of vratas or practices linked with them are fasting (upavāsa) and observances (niyama); a list of moral qualities starting with ahiṃsā and celibacy are termed the eight vratas at 14.46.35–6. The vrata of silence is rare and only mentioned in later passages.18
Pilgrimage to tīrthas is clearly a late feature in the Epics, mostly limited to the Tīrthayātrāparvans in the Mahābhārata (3.80–8 and 9.29–53), although these passages are our oldest evidence for this particular form of religious activity.19 As well as bathing, offerings to the gods and ancestors and fasting are regularly mentioned as activities—often designated vratas—to be performed at tīrthas. The rewards to be gained are rated in terms of the merit gained by performing aśvamedhas and similar Vedic sacrifices but as yet the scale is modest, since at Puṣkara, the tīrtha accorded the highest prestige, the rewards promised are the equivalent of ten aśvamedhas for bathing there, and reaching the world of Brahmā for a stay of twelve years (3.80.41–59). But pilgrimage may also be undertaken as a penance; for example, Janamejaya goes on pilgrimage to expiate the sin of killing a brāhman (12.146–8).
The term pūjā, which in later Hinduism standardly denotes the more informal types of worship through simple offerings made to images of deities, in both Epics occurs mainly in the sense of respect or honour paid to an individual; one of the fullest descriptions of this in the Mahābhārata occurs when Janamejaya greets Vyāsa’s arrival by offering him, ‘with the action laid down in the śāstras’, water to wash his feet, water to drink, a guest gift, and a cow (1.54.12–13), but many other instances list most of these items. Bhīma defines the highest dharma, when chiding Yudhiṣṭhira, as giving, sacrifice, honouring good people (satāṃ pūjā), holding on to the Veda, and uprightness (3.34.45), while ascetics offer pūjā to Damayantī during her search for Nala (3.61.65). This fits well with the occasional use (mostly in the Śāntiparvan) of the compound gurupūjā, ‘honouring one’s elders’.
The term occurs several times in the well-known episode of Śiśupāla objecting to Kṛṣna being offered the guest gift (2.34), before which Bhīṣma declares, ‘They say that six are worthy of the guest gift (arghya): one’s teacher, one’s officiating priest, a relative, a snātaka, a friend, and the king’ (2.33.23); at this point Kṛṣṇa is the leader of the Vṛṣṇi party and suggestions that he is divine come later (2.35.6–11, 37.14, 42.21–5). A definite religious sense of pūjā is found when Indra presents a bamboo pole to king Vasu which the king then erects ‘in Śakra’s honour’, so inaugurating the annual Indradhvaja festival (1.57.17–24). The Kuru ancestor, Duḥṣanta, visiting Kaśyapa’s heritage, is amazed to see pūjā made to abodes of the gods (devatāyatana) by brāhmans (1.64.40). There are also instances where actions typical of pūjā as later understood are performed or commended, although the term is not used; a well-known instance is Kṛṣṇa’s statement in the Bhagavadgītā that a leaf, flower, fruit, or water offered to him with devotion by a self-restrained person he accepts (6.31.26). But these occasional and mostly late instances are exceptional. Similarly, in the Rāmāyaṇa the only clear instance of its later meaning is when Kausalyā performs pujā to Viṣṇu and makes oblations into the fire (2.17.6–7) in anticipation of Rāma’s installation.20
The Mahābhārata contains several passages on yoga, as well as incidental references more widely;21 in contrast, neither yoga nor sāṃkhya occur in the Rāmāyaṇa in anything like their later meanings (Brockington 2003 and 2005). Even in the Mahābhārata, the term yoga and the term sāṃkhya, with which it is often associated,22 do not refer to the developed systems found later in Patañjali, Īśvarakṛṣṇa, and their commentators, but often have the more general meanings of ‘practice’ and ‘theory’ respectively, while in compounds yoga often has the sense of ‘discipline, regimen’. Yoga and yogins occur widely in the Mahābhārata in contexts which suggest this broader and, in part, different understanding of the terms,23 while the older practice of tapas and that of Yoga are often linked (e.g. 3.2.77, 3.3.10–11, etc.). Various individuals are linked with Yoga teachings; indeed, Vyāsa himself is the main teacher of Yoga, and is once called ‘the best of Yoga experts’ (12.26.4b), and Kapila is referred to as a sage (e.g. 3.106.2, 5.107.17, 12.211.9, 12.260–2).
Yoga refers to several spiritual methodologies or disciplines which seem to have originated, at least in part, in non-Brāhmanical circles and to be widely practised without regard to specific ideologies (cf. Bronkhorst 1993). The term ekāgramanas, ‘having a single-focused mind’, occurs, especially in the Mokṣadharmaparvan (12.168–353), as the name for a technique adopted in meditation, for example at 12.188.5, during an explanation of the fourfold ‘Yoga of meditation’ (dhyānayoga). Elsewhere, a description of the practice of Yoga (yogakṛtya) contains a reference to performing ‘one-pointedness of the mind and senses’ (manasaś cendriyāṇāṃ ca kṛtvaikāgryaṃ, 12.232.13ab, see also 24c). In the dialogue between King Karāla Janaka and the seer Vasiṣṭha (12.291–6), Vasiṣṭha defines Yoga in terms of one-pointedness and breath control (ekāgratā and prāṇāyāma, 12.294.8). The Anugītā (14.16–50) refers to the unequalled science of Yoga (14.19.14ab) in a passage directed towards seeing the self in the self, using also the term ekāntaśīlin, ‘devoted to one purpose’ (14.19.18c, 30c), as perhaps a later equivalent of ekāgramanas.24 As well as being explicitly associated with the practice of Yoga (e.g. 12.304.23) and meditation (dhyāna, e.g. 12.198.6), one-pointedness is also linked to the practice of recitation (svādhyāya at 12.188.5, japa at 12.192.16) and to asceticism (tapas, e.g. 3.246.25 and 12.242.4).
However, ekāgramanas is used not only of yogic discipline but also as a general term of commendation; for example, the Kurus as they march out against the Pāṇḍavas are Veda-knowing heroes, all having well performed their vows and having concentrated minds (5.197.3–4, cf. 6.53.3 and 10.4.29).25 Most dramatically, the man of concentration is one who could carry a full vessel of oil up a staircase while menaced by armed men without spilling a drop (12.304.22–3, cf. 12.289.32). In particularly late passages we find the disciplined yogin and the warrior slain in battle directly compared, in that both are able to pierce the orbit of the sun.
Indeed, the two most striking features of Yoga in the Mahābhārata are probably a concern with techniques of dying and use of the imagery of light (Brockington 2010). One example comes in the dialogue of the brāhman and the hunter (3.198–206; cf. Laine 1991: 276–80), where, after expounding the Sāṃkhya categories and the role of the prāṇas, the hunter declares that if one disciplines the mind during the night, eats little, and is pure of soul, one sees the self within oneself and, as though with a lighted lamp, ones sees with the lamp of the mind that the self is separate, and is then released (3.203.37–8). At the most basic level, this light image is widespread in the simile of the steady lamp applied to the yogin. On one occasion, this lamp image is followed by the statement that ‘like a smokeless fire, like the sun with its rays, like the fire of lightning in the ether, so the self is seen in the self’ (12.294.20), where there is perhaps a succession of ever more dazzling experiences.
The most striking example comes in the description of Droṇa’s death. Here, as Droṇa resolves to die, he abandons his weapons and applies himself to Yoga (yogayuktavān); he who possesses great austerities assents to it, resorts to Yoga, becomes a light, and ascends to heaven; as he goes it seems to those below that there are two suns and that the atmosphere is entirely filled with lights (7.165.35–40). Although the degree of duplication overall indicates the existence of more than one layer in its narration, this passage shows that it has been unified with accounts of yogic experience in terms of incomparable radiance. This has clear similarities to the account of Kṛṣṇa’s death (16.5; Schreiner 1988), while the term ‘becoming radiance’, jyotirbhūta, used within this description is used elsewhere of Kṛṣṇa as the supreme deity (13.143.35a), as well as of mythical figures or those achieving liberation, and seems almost a synonym of ‘becoming Brahman’, brahmabhūta. There is quite a close parallel in the death of Bhūriśravas, also described as yoga-yukta, earlier in the Droṇaparvan (7.118.16–18), while in the Karṇaparvan the dying Droṇa is called yuktayoga (8.5.61); in the later stages of the Epic, the dying Vidura, resorting to the power of Yoga and as it were blazing with splendour, enters the body of Yudhiṣṭhira (15.33.26–8).
There is no unanimity over what constitutes the practice of Yoga in the Mahābhārata, but rather a wide variety of configurations, with greater or lesser resemblance to the classical system, for example reference to eightfold Yoga (12.304.7) but also to seven dhāraṇās (12.228.13–15; cf. also 12.289.39–57, which contains the striking image that it is easier to stand on sharpened razor edges than to undertake the dhāraṇās of Yoga for the uncontrolled, 54). Yoga practice in the Mahābhārata tends to have four main aspects: general preparations through such things as moral conduct; diet, posture, and surroundings; breath control (prāṇāyāma, rarely mentioned);26 and withdrawal of the senses (pratyāhāra), concentration, and meditation. Especially in the Mokṣadharmaparvan, we find a variety of practices that are to some extent the precursors of the classical system.
We also find evidence of a trend towards theism, either by recognition of Īśvara or in the more elaborate form of the focus on Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavadgītā. Although Īśvara, the supreme deity, is recognized, he is not active and tends to be equated with the enlightened self; for example, in the ‘Account of Yoga’ (12.289) sāṃkhyayoga is clearly differentiated from other kinds of Yoga and it is stated that Sāṃkhya is non-theistic, emphasizes knowledge as the only means of salvation, and relies mainly on accepted teaching as a means of knowledge, whereas Yoga is theistic, emphasizes the power and strength of bodily discipline, and relies primarily on immediate perception as a means of knowledge. However, some of the passages which assert a twenty-sixth principle do not imply the later Yoga notion of a lord as a kind of super-soul, but rather mean the ‘person’, puruṣa, or ‘knower of the field’, kṣetrajña, in its enlightened state (e.g. 12.296.11), and several passages clearly imply a non-theistic doctrine; for example, in 12.241.1 the ‘knower of the field’ is equated with īśvara, meaning a yogin possessing powers. But the clearest theistic emphasis is found in the Bhagavadgītā, where the highest principle which is beyond the twenty-five is Kṛṣṇa, although it also includes passages of non-theistic Yoga, since its earlier chapters are mainly concerned with techniques of isolating the self and achieving self-control, in particular through the practices called buddhiyoga (6.24.48–52; cf. Malinar 2007: 73–5) and karmayoga, self-control through disinterested, so consequenceless, action (6.25; cf. Malinar 2007: 79–81).
Another issue that first appears in the Mahābhārata and continues to be important to the later tradition is ambivalence regarding the status of the powers (aiśvarya, bala, vibhūti, siddhi, etc.) that accompany yogic practice and are commonly ascribed to epic characters, both sages and kings or warriors (see Malinar 2011). We find clear warnings about the dangers of such powers for the practitioner, while at the same time such powers are recognized as an inevitable result of yogic practice and are frequently approved of or even made the primary goal of such practice (e.g. yogabala is a goal in its own right at 12.289; cf. yogaiśvarya at 12.228). Elsewhere specific practices are linked, for example breath control and plucking out one’s hair (3.81.51cd). Indeed, tapas and other Yoga practices are often simply efficacious methods to achieve mundane ends, since they produce power which can be manipulated and used to force one’s will on others. This feature persists even into the Mokṣadharmaparvan; examples include the magical power of flying through the air mentioned at 12.312.8cd (where Vyāsa cautions his son Śuka not to be tempted to use it), a long list of such powers at 12.228.21–37, the bhikṣukī Sulabhā entering king Janaka’s body (12.308; cf. Fitzgerald 2002), and even simply aṣṭaguṇam aiśvaryam at 12.326.51c. A striking instance occurs in the episode of Kāvya Uśanas, described as yogasiddha, who uses his yogic power to deprive Kubera of his wealth and then to evade Śiva’s trident and enter his mouth (12.278.13–20), for which he is finally granted a boon by Śiva and adopted by Pārvatī as her son.
Just as pūjā in the Epics usually means the honour paid to another person, so too bhakti standardly denotes the loyalty, commitment, or affection of one person to another: wife to husband, child to parent, subject to king.27 The only major passages in the Mahābhārata where it has religious connotations are the Bhagavadgītā (6.23–40) and the Nārāyaṇīya (12.321–39).28 Even in the Bhagavadgītā Kṛṣṇa discourses on the nature of the ātman and the discipline (yoga) of disinterested action in the first six chapters without once using the word bhakti, while in the middle six chapters, when he deals with the nature of the supreme deity, the term yoga is as frequent as bhakti, showing clearly how it is a matter of loyalty (which includes affection) towards a supreme deity and self-discipline, rather than ecstatic emotional attachment. A good example of this is when Kṛṣṇa declares that he will teach Arjuna the unchanging (avyaya) and ancient (purātana) Yoga ‘because you are my loyal follower and companion’ (bhakto ‘si me sakhā ceti, 6.26.3c). The religious practice required is therefore a relinquishing of personal interests and attachment to the deity in service to him and to the world. It is also intellectual in nature; for example, when Kṛṣṇa classifies devotees into four (6.29.16–18), two are the seeker of knowledge (jijñāsu) and the knower (jñānin, by implication the knower of Kṛṣṇa).
In general, the Nārāyaṇīya expounds the bhakti worship of a supreme deity, similar but not identical to that proclaimed by Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavadgītā, but the Nārāyaṇīya attaches greater value to rituals, sacrifices, tapas, and yoga. Nārāyaṇa, the supreme deity, is gracious to those who are entirely devoted to him (shown by being always employed in doing good to others and being desireless) and this path of devotion is superior to that of knowledge; the one on whom Nārāyaṇa looks with compassion succeeds in becoming awakened from the sleep of ignorance and darkness. Nevertheless, the frequency of mention of ekānta, ‘singleness of purpose’, in the first seven adhyāyas suggests the importance of the will for this single-minded devotion. But this one-pointedness is also linked with japa (12.323.32, 325.2–3) and with tapas (327.41); it is also attributed to Nārada as he practises all austerities (sarvakṛcchradharaḥ, 325.2d), having arrived at the White Island.
In the Rāmāyaṇa, most of the mere thirty-two occurrences of the term bhakti denote the loyalty of subjects to their king (and at 2.40.27 also the reciprocal concern of Rāma for the citizens) or the loyalty of wife to husband, e.g. Tārā to Vālin (4.16.6) or Sītā towards Rāma in her reply to Hanumān (5.35.62, 57.15, and 63.17; cf. 6.102.12, 104.16). The few explicit uses of bhakti in the sense of devotional worship come from the latest parts of the text, the end of the Yuddhakāṇḍa and the Uttarakāṇḍa: when Brahmā reveals his divinity to Rāma (6.105.5–28) he speaks of those who are devoted to Rāma worshipping him as the primordial supreme person (purāṇaṃ puruṣottamam, 28b); the vānaras are described as showing rāmabhakti (7.38.15d) and Hanumān, because of his bhakti to Rāma, asks to live as long as he shall hear the Rāmakathā on earth (7.39.15–16); and in the closing verses of the Uttarakāṇḍa Brahmā declares the rewards of thinking of Rāma with devotion at the point of death (7.100.17).29
References to subjects showing loyalty to Rāma are, of course, often held by later audiences and readers to imply the subjects’ religious devotion to him but, as the preceding analysis of how other significant terms are used has shown, the context always needs to be properly understood. Terms for sacrifice and similar rituals, being inherited from the Vedic background, are least affected. Sacrificial rituals in general actually bulk larger in incidental references within both Epics than ascetic practices. Terms for sacrifice occur widely throughout the Mahābhārata narrative, as well as in the more didactic portions. But expiations, prāyaścitta, are rarely mentioned outside the Śāntiparvan, no doubt because of their technical nature, and are almost invariably restricted to mere mentions.
Mention of tapas in the Mahābhārata is frequent but occurs mostly in the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans; however, the definitions in Bhīṣma’s discourses are simply formal statements which do not reflect actual usage but seek to put a spiritual value on tapas. Elsewhere its efficacy is measured in terms of its goals, which include curses, invulnerability, and power to create or destroy at will; basically, tapas is a means to achieve other ends. Restricting one’s food in various ways up to complete fasting is the commonest form; remaining motionless in its various forms is also significant in the Mahābhārata.
In both texts, although sages are often described as ‘practising severe vows’, two other compounds, dṛḍhavrata and dhṛtavrata, are regularly applied to warriors’ tenacity in battle and vrata itself can mean something nearer to ‘behaviour, code of conduct’. The most frequent components of vratas or related practices are fasting (as with tapas) and observances. Pilgrimage to tīrthas is a late feature, mostly limited to the Tīrthayātrāparvans in the Mahābhārata. The term pūjā occurs predominantly in the sense of respect paid to an individual, especially the formal greeting of a new arrival, of which some details occur widely, but which is a social more than a religious practice. However, practices typical of the later understanding of pūjā, such as making simple offerings of flowers or fruit to a deity, are beginning to appear, although the term itself is not yet commonly used.
The Mahābhārata contains several specific passages on Yoga, as well as many incidental references; however, there is no unanimity concerning which practices constitute its praxis, but rather a wide variety of approaches. Yoga practice tends to have four main aspects: general preparations through moral conduct and the like; diet, posture, and surroundings; breath control; and concentration and meditation. We find, especially in the Mokṣadharmaparvan, a variety of practices that in one way or another are precursors of the classical system. The Mahābhārata is ambivalent regarding the status of the powers that accompany yogic practice and are commonly ascribed to epic characters, both sages and kings or warriors. Clear warnings about the dangers of such powers for the practitioner occur alongside recognition that they are an inevitable result of yogic practice, even its primary goal. Indeed, both tapas and Yoga are often simply effective methods to achieve mundane ends, since they produce power which can be manipulated and used to force one’s will on others. Perhaps the two most striking features of Yoga in the Mahābhārata are concerned with techniques of dying and use of the imagery of light. We also find a trend towards theism, whether in the form of a recognition of Īśvara or in the much more elaborate form of the Bhagavadgītā’s focus on Kṛṣṇa.
This theistic impulse is expressed in the form of loyalty and service to the deity in the same way that a subject is loyal to his king or a wife to her husband, which is what the term bhakti mainly denotes within both the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. The only major Mahābhārata passages where it has a religious connotation are the Bhagavadgītā and the Nārāyaṇīya. In the Rāmāyaṇa, the few explicit uses of bhakti in the sense of devotional worship come from the latest parts of the text.
As this chapter shows, the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa occupy a pivotal position in the evolution of Hinduism. Although the pattern of religious activity revealed in their narratives still owes much to Vedic ritual (just as the pattern of deities is broadly Vedic), they also contain the seeds of many later developments in forms which are appreciably different from and correspondingly significant for our understanding of those developments.
John Brockington, Religious Practices in the Sanskrit Epics In: Hindu Practice. Edited by: Gavin Flood, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198733508.003.0004