Julius Lipner (1994:5–6) has famously compared Hinduism to a banyan tree, the branches of which send down aerial roots that on contact with the ground become new trunks. Since the new trunks grow new branches with more aerial roots, the one banyan tree can in time become a whole jungle. So Hinduism, Lipner argues, is a maze of different but interconnected centers, all of which can claim being the center of everything.The same simile can well be used for the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (henceforth, “the Bhāgavata”).1 It has three or four beginnings, operates with up to six narrative levels at a time, concerns itself with no less than ten main topics, and in general contains an amount of personae and dramatic events to make anyone’s head spin. It is easy to lose the thread of the book in all its meanderings, but there is always a connection among its seemingly independent topics. Many of the main topics of the text are concerned with the votaries of Bhagavān, the supreme Lord. In this essay, we will look at one way the Bhāgavata defines these true worshippers: by contrasting them with heretics.
Though being the Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa par excellence, the Bhāgavata is not sectarian in the way Purāṇic texts generally are. It uses the term “Vaiṣṇava” to denote a worshipper of Bhagavān only four or five times toward the end of the book,2 generally preferring terms such as bhāgavata, sādhu, mahat, sat, and sātvata. While Bhagavān is clearly identified with Krishna (Sheridan 1986:52–70), the text has great regard for Shiva as well, even letting him and his devotees once triumph over the devotees of Vishnu (see “Dakṣa’s Sacrifice and Heretical Śaivas” in the following). In the context of modern Hinduism—where some will consider even Jains and Buddhists Hindus—such inclusiveness may seem obvious, but there are many Purāṇic instances to the contrary. Even today, many Vaiṣṇavas will refuse to enter a Śaiva temple, and vice versa.
The line between good and bad people does not, therefore, strictly follow the divide between Vaiṣṇavas and Śaivas. Who then are the Bhāgavata’s heretics?
PĀKHAṆḌAS AND DEVIATION FROM THE VEDAS
The word “heresy” comes from the Greek hairesis, meaning “doctrine, school, or received opinion.” It did not get the negative connotation of “sect, division, erroneous teaching” before the writings of the early Christian teachers beginning in the second century C.E., where it became the antithesis of ekklesia, the church. In this sense, there can be no heresy in Hinduism, a religion that has never had any one overriding church or common system of belief. However, there is something that traditionally has been seen as a unifying bond for all orthodox Hindus: the Veda. No matter how theoretical and loose that bond may be, persons or groups that explicitly break the link to the Veda and especially its concomitant varṇāśrama (caste and life stage) orthopraxy have traditionally been considered unorthodox, or, indeed, heretics (Shulman 1984; Rudolph 1993:269–72). Thus, in the Bhāgavata, groups that today generally would be considered non-Hindu (Buddhists and Jains), and some groups that would be seen as Hindus (Paśupatas and Kāpālins), are all labeled as heretics.
The word translated in this article as “heretic” is the Sanskrit word pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa. The spelling pāṣaṇḍa is the most common one in other texts (indeed, Monier-Williams [1995:624] claims that the second variant is just wrong spelling), but the critical edition of the Bhāgavata prefers pākhaṇḍa, even providing a nirukti-etymology for it (see later).3
While heresy and heretics are not a major theme in the Bhāgavata, as they are in, for example, the Kalki Purāṇa, where the main theme is the victory of varṇāśrama over the heretics (Khan 1997:420), the Bhāgavata does make it clear that in the present, dark age of Kali, heresy is a real problem. When describing the rainy season in Vṛndāvana, Śuka compares the glow worms who at dusk outshine the stars because of the darkness to how in the age of Kali heresies will, because of sin, shine brighter than the Vedas (10.17.8). Elsewhere it is said that in the age of Kali, dharma will be filled with heresy (12.2.13), and the Vedas will be contaminated by heretics (12.3.32). With minds diverted by heresy, humans will generally not sacrifice to Lord Vishnu (12.3.43). Also, the destination of the heretics in the afterlife is worse than bleak (5.26.15):
But one who here deviates from his own Vedic path and turns to heresy—him they throw into the forest of sword-leaves, where they beat him with whips. Running here and there, such a person is from both sides cut all over his body by the edges of the sword-leaves of palm trees. “Alas! I am killed!”—fainting from the extreme pain and falling down at every step, he who kills his own dharma thus enjoys the fruit of following heresy.
These statements show clearly that heresy in the Bhāgavata means disregarding the Vedas—here understood primarily as following the varṇāśrama system—and turning away from Bhagavān. As we shall see, it is ultimately the second factor that is decisive.
THE ORIGIN OF THE HERETICS
The etiology of the pākhaṇḍas is explained in the fourth book of the Bhāgavata (4.17.1–39). When the ideal king Pṛthu wanted to perform one hundred horse-sacrifices, Indra became afraid that Pṛthu by these sacrifices was trying to usurp his position as king of heaven. To stop Pṛthu from gaining the full merit of the sacrifices, Indra disguises himself and secretly steals the sacrificial horse. To hinder Pṛthu from attacking him, he acted “as if shielding himself by the dress of a pākhaṇḍa, that which makes one mistakenly see dharma in adharma” (4.17.12).
When informed about the theft, Pṛthu’s son Vijitāśva takes up his bow and sets out after Indra, but on seeing Indra having knotted hair and covered with ashes, Vijitāśva considered Indra’s body dharmic and did not release his arrow. Vijitāśva may have been fooled, but the sage Atri is not, and he urges him to kill Indra for having destroyed the sacrifice. Pṛthu’s son again pursues Indra, who now sees no other choice than abandoning his false dress and the horse. Having regained the horse, Vijitāśva lets Indra go and returns to his father’s sacrifice. But Indra does not give up; again he snatches away the horse. A third time Vijitāśva pursues him, but seeing him carrying a staff with a skull on top, he again desists from killing him. Yet again Atri urges him on, and again Indra gives up the disguise and horse and disappears.
This is repeated time after time, and whatever false dress Indra takes, foolish people imitate. Because these various forms are all sin’s (pāpasya) pieces (khaṇḍa), people who adopt them are called pākhaṇḍas (4.17.23). Thus common people mistakenly see dharma in the crafty and talkative heresy (upadharma) of people who go naked, dress in red, or appear in other strange outfits. Finally, Brahmā has to intervene to stop Pṛthu and his son from trying to kill Indra, so that he would not create even more types of future pākhaṇḍas. Being the perfect king, Pṛthu consents and makes peace with Indra.
Common for all heretics here, then, is their physical attributes. At heart, they are rogues and rascals, but because they dress as ascetics and wear outlandish religious apparel, common people believe them righteous. While this passage refers to the origin of all types of heretics, three groups are singled out. First come two types of Śaivas: ascetics imitating the dress and appearance of Shiva and those carrying skulls, the Kapālikas. That the naked pākhaṇḍīs are Jains and those dressing in red Buddhists is evident and corroborated by the commentator Śrīdhara.4 We thus have three main groups of heretics: heretic Śaivas, the Jains, and the Buddhists.
However, in the eleventh book, Krishna explains the origin of heretics in another way in his teachings to Uddhava (11.14.8–9). Because of the variety of natures (prakṛti-vaicitryāt) of human beings, different schools are created, some of which are heretic. Their minds bewildered by my māyā (divine power of illusion), Krishna says, people will speak about the ultimate good in innumerable ways, according to their deeds and their whims.
DAKṢA’S SACRIFICE AND HERETICAL ŚAIVAS
Heretics are also mentioned in connection with the narration of Dakṣa’s sacrifice (BhP 4.2.4–4.7.61). This is one of the standard stories of the Purāṇas, everywhere retold differently depending on the sectarian flavor of the particular text (see O’Flaherty 1980:272–77 for an overview of different versions). The Bhāgavata version can be summarized as follows. Dakṣa’s brahmanical pride leads him to disregard Shiva and misunderstand him. His hate for Shiva further makes him slight his own daughter Satī at a sacrifice. She burns herself to death rather than let her husband be insulted in her presence, which leads to violence between the followers of Dakṣa and Shiva. At first, the brāhmaṇas seem to prevail, but in the end they are utterly defeated by Shiva’s followers. Dakṣa is beheaded; his followers go to Kailāsa on Brahmā’s advice to ask forgiveness of Shiva. Shiva pardons all of them, gives Dakṣa the head of a goat, restores his life, and heals all those wounded. The sacrifice is resumed; Lord Nārāyaṇa himself appears and explains how Brahmā and Shiva should never be seen as independent and different from him. Satī is eventually reborn as Durgā and again marries Shiva.
There is a flurry of cursing and counter-cursing in the dramatic middle of the story. After Dakṣa first curses Shiva, Shiva’s followers retaliate by cursing Dakṣa and his followers to become materialistic brāhmaṇas, interested only in the “villager’s pleasure” of family life and in “stretching the string of karman” (4.2.22). Bhṛgu, the leader of Dakṣa’s followers, then counter-curses Shiva’s followers with the following words (4.2.28–32):
May those who take a vow to follow Shiva, and those who follow them, become heretics, diverted from the path of the true scriptures. May fools who have given up their cleanliness, who wear matted locks, ashes, and bones, take Shiva-initiation, where wine and liquor is divine. Since you blaspheme the Vedas and the brāhmaṇas, the bridge that carries humanity, you have resorted to heresy. For this verily is the eternal, auspicious (Shiva) path for the people, that which the ancients followed, the authority for which is Janārdana. By condemning this highest and pure Veda, the eternal path of the saints, you will go into heresy, where your god will be the king of the ghosts.
The main point of the story is one of the main themes of the Bhāgavata: the superiority of the radical, world-transcending path of ascetic devotion over the orthodox, brahmanical path. While Dakṣa, Indra, Brahmā, and the other brahmanical gods time after time make fools of themselves, Shiva is one of the heroes of the Bhāgavata, one who never directly comes into conflict with Krishna. Indeed, Yama declares Shiva to be one of twelve great knowers of the secret and difficult-to-understand Bhāgavata dharma (6.3.20–21), and he is even said to be the best of the Vaiṣṇavas (12.13.14).
However, Shiva gives shelter to all kinds of suspicious persons, and some of them even get their too-liberal master into trouble. Vṛkāsura tries to test his boon to be able to crack anyone’s head just by touching it on Shiva himself (10.85.8–40), and Bāṇāsura manages to get Shiva involved in a fight with Krishna to fulfill his promise of protection (10.60.6–14). In other words, Shiva is good, but his devotees may be bad.
As noted earlier, the Bhāgavata (4.17.20) specifically mentions the Kāpālikas as one group of Śaiva heretics. Being long since extinct, not much is known about this group except from the writings of philosophical opponents. Most of the anti-Kāpālika writings probably speak in general about several Tantrically influenced groups of unorthodox Śaivas, but according to Lorenzen (1972) there is sufficient evidence to indicate the historical reality of a specific Kāpālika sect between about the fifth and fifteenth centuries C.E. They are one of the four historical Śaiva sects, and their ascetics are said to roam about with a skull begging bowl, their bodies smeared with ashes, wearing bone or skull ornaments and loincloths of animal skin, with their hair in matted locks. Their name comes from their imitating Shiva in carrying a special club called a khaṭvāṅga, a skull mounted on a stick (for the mythological background for this, see O’Flaherty 1980:278–86). Kāpālika ascetics are often described as lusty hypocrites who practice the Tantric reversals of conventional morality on a daily basis. Thus, in the previous quote, it is alleged that for them “wine and liquor is divine.”
In other versions of the same story, the Kālamukhas, a similar Śaiva sect, are also specified (O’Flaherty 1980:278). However, since Kāpālika, Pāśupata, and Kālamukha ascetics all indulged in similar practices and were influential in south India at the time of the compiling of the text, it is probable that the Bhāgavata refers in general to all kinds of heterodox Śaiva ascetics.
ṚṢABHA AND THE JAINS
The second group of heretics created by Indra were the naked ones, the Jains. Jainism gets its name from its founder, Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, a teacher also known as the Jina, or “Victor.” Mahāvīra was born Nirgrantha Jñātṛputra in a kṣatriya family in Kuṇḍagrāma near modern Patna, Bihar. The traditional dates for his life are 599 to 527 B.C.E. or 582 to 510 B.C.E., according to the Śvetāmbara and Digambara schools, respectively. He was an older contemporary of the Buddha, and while the two did not meet, the Buddha knew about him. His followers were at first called nirgraṇṭhas. He is said to have assembled a following of no less than 14,000 monks (known as śramaṇas or arhats), 36,000 nuns, 159,000 laymen, and 318,000 laywomen (Wiley 2004:5–7).
There is a Mahāvīra in the Bhāgavata, one of three of the ten sons of King Priyavrata and Barhiṣmatī that remained celibate throughout their lives, devoted to the life of paramahaṃsas (wandering saintly ascetics) (5.1.25), but apart from the name, there is no definite connection between the two. However, the Bhāgavata has much to say about Ṛṣabha, the mythical founder of Jainism.
Ṛṣabha, or Ādinātha, the first lord, is the first of twenty-four tīrthaṅkāras, “ford-crossers” or great teachers of Jain mythical history (Wiley 2004:7). He is mentioned only briefly in the canonical literature of the Jains, but he became an increasingly popular figure from the sixth century C.E., and his life is described in detail in various south Indian sources (Jaini 2000:338). The time before Ṛṣabha’s birth is said to have still been idyllic. Wish-fulfilling trees (kalpavṛkṣas) served all human purposes, and there was no need for kings, varṇas, or āśramas. Ṛṣabha was born to Nābhi and Marudevī in Ayodhyā. As was standard at that time, he married his twin sister, Sumaṅgalā. She eventually also gave birth to twins, Bharata and Brāhmī. By his other wife, Sunandā, Ṛṣabha had ninety-eight other children, out of which Bāhubalī was the most prominent. Since by the influence of time the wish-fulfilling trees died out and people became more sinful, Ṛṣabha organized the kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra varṇas, discovered fire, instigated laws, and taught his subjects agriculture and different crafts. Already at a young age, he gave up household life and made Bharata the next king. Discarding everything and practicing intense austerities, he wandered naked and long-haired around north India for over a thousand years until reaching enlightenment. After amassing huge numbers of followers, he attained mokṣa (liberation) at Kailāsa (Jaini 2000:327–29; Wiley 2004:179–80).
Ṛṣabha may be mentioned by name in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyana (Chatterjee 1978:3), and several Purāṇas mention him within the lists of descendants of Manu (Jaini 2000:329), but the Bhāgavata is noted for being the only Purāṇa to go into detail about his life, even bestowing upon him the status of being an avatāra of Bhagavān. Although he is not a central figure in the text, he is mentioned in four out of five lists of avatāras, only the shortest one leaving him out.5 He is said to be the son of Nābhi and Merudevī, and to show the path of the sober ones, the one that is honored by all āśramas (1.3.13), or the son of Nābhi and Sudevī, who was impartial and who engaged in the practice of jaḍa yoga, which is praised by self-reposed, sense-controlled, solitary sages as the highest stage of perfection (2.7.10). Being self-controlled, he is prayed to for protection against the fear arising out of duality (6.8.18). As a partial avatāra, Vishnu is further said to take the form of Ṛṣabha and others to teach ātma yoga for the benefit of the world (11.4.17). The Bhāgavata also has something to say about his future: in the ninth manvantara, or subdivision of the life of the universe, Ṛṣabha, Bhagavān himself, will be born as the son of Āyuṣmān and Ambudhārā. Through him, the Indra named Adbhuta will enjoy the riches of the three worlds (8.13.20). The last reference remains cryptic, but the details of what the other quotations hint at are given in the fifth book.
The story of Ṛṣabha is narrated in four chapters of the fifth book (5.3–6), in connection with the description of the descendants of King Priyavrata. Priyavrata’s grandson Nābhi is a virtuous king, but childless, so he undergoes severe austerities and has his brāhmaṇas perform a great sacrifice to Vishnu. Pleased with the brāhmaṇas of the sacrifice and to favor King Nābhi, Bhagavān decides to take birth as an avatāra in a pure form from his wife, with the desire to show the dharma of naked, celibate śramaṇa seers (5.3.20). As P. S. Jaini (2000:335) points out, the word for “naked” here (vāta-raśana, wind-girded) points back to the second verse of the famous Keśi-sūkta of the Ṛgveda (10.136), the hymn of the long-haired ascetics. The commentator Śrīdhara thinks that this word is meant to distinguish heretics.6 Both Jaini and Śrīdhara are probably right: from the following, it is clear that the Bhāgavata points to the Jains, but also intends to say that while the followers of Ṛṣabha of today are heretics, Ṛṣabha is not, and the ancient and correct way to follow him is hinted at already in the Veda.
The word śramaṇa is attested first in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (4.3.22), meaning wandering mendicant or ascetic in general, but eventually it came to designate especially Buddhist and Jain monks. In the Bhāgavata, śramaṇa is used for naked, celibate sages in general7—sages that as we shall see shortly may be heretical, but who in most cases represent the real heroes of the text and a new ideal of holiness. Using this word is thus again a way for the author of the Bhāgavata to indicate that there is an alternative to the popular, contemporary heretical movements.
But let us return to the story. Ṛṣabha is born with all the marks of Bhagavān, peaceful and detached, so that King Nābhi’s subjects immediately want him to be made king. Being envious of him, Indra stops the rain from falling, but Ṛṣabha creates his own rain. When Nābhi sees Ṛṣabha’s greatness, he makes him the king and entrusts him into the hands of the brāhmaṇas. To give an example to others, Ṛṣabha lives the life of a student with his guru. After finishing his education, he marries Jayantī, given him by a now repentant Indra, and lives a perfect household life with her, begetting one hundred sons. The oldest is the great yogi Bharata, from whom earth received its name. Following their father’s advice, being very learned, cultured, expert in offering sacrifices, and pure in their actions, eighty-one of his sons become brāhmaṇas, the rest remaining kṣatriyas.
Even though Ṛṣabha is the eternal, self-satisfied Lord himself, he performs actions to teach people in general the dharma that by the influence of time had become neglected, since whatever actions great men do, common men follow. Even though he fully knows dharma and the Vedas on his own, he rules by following the advice of the brāhmaṇas. He performs a hundred splendid sacrifices, and all of his subjects are completely satisfied.
So far, much of the Bhāgavata’s version of the story of Ṛṣabha corresponds with that of Jain sources. In both versions, he has a hundred sons, the oldest of which is Bharata, he is the ideal king, and so on. The role of the culture hero of the Jain version is however somewhat downplayed in the Bhāgavata. He does create his own rain, but it is King Pṛthu in the fourth book (4.15–23) who invents agriculture, divides men into varṇas, and so on.
Once, while touring the world, Ṛṣabha meets his sons in a gathering of sages in Brahmāvarta and instructs them. As noted by Jaini (2000:331–32), Ṛṣabha stresses the need for renunciation and devotion, warning his sons against the “knot of the heart” of coupling man and woman. While some of the rhetoric could perhaps be seen as misogynist in today’s world (for a discussion on this, see Jarow 2003:77–90), in its own context, Ṛṣabha’s discourse is remarkably nonsectarian, appreciable by anyone of an ascetic temperament, probably modern Jains as well. There is one exception, though: Ṛṣabha speaks very highly of the brāhmaṇas, praising them as superior to everyone else, even saying that as Bhagavān, he eats the food offered with devotion to brāhmaṇas with more delight than that offered in fire sacrifices (5.5.23). This eulogy of brāhmaṇas, as well as the several references to Ṛṣabha’s reverence for the brāhmaṇas earlier in the story, is naturally aimed at the traditional brāhmaṇa antipathy of the Jains. By connecting Ṛṣabha with brahmanical orthodoxy, the Bhāgavata seeks to undermine the antibrahmanism of Jains of its time by claiming that their own founder had no such ideas.
Having instructed his sons, Ṛṣabha places his son Bharata, the greatest of bhāgavatas, devoted to Bhagavān’s people, on the throne and renounces everything. Internalizing the sacred fire, he wanders naked around the world, keeping his hair loose. Appearing as an avadhūta, like a madman, a ghost, or someone deaf, dumb, blind, and senseless, he takes a vow of silence and keeps quiet even when people address him.
In addition to describing Ṛṣabha, the word avadhūta (one who has rejected) is used in the Bhāgavata to describe Śuka (1.8.25); Vidura as a pilgrim (3.1.19); world-renouncing saints in general (4.4.21); Bharata in his life as a deaf and dumb saint (5.10.16, 5.12.1); the sages Nārada and Aṅgiras (6.15.10); Krishna’s poor brāhmaṇa friend Sudāmā (10.77.24–25); the unorthodox, wandering saint that taught King Yadu (11.7.24–25, 11.9.33); and the brāhmaṇa of Avantī after he gave up his family life and wandered alone (11.23.33). Most of these are celibates, many are brāhmaṇas, but they are all poor wanderers, either naked or clad in rags or very simple clothes. Many commentators gloss the word avadhūta as a person who does not clean his body by methods such as rubbing it with oil.8 The avadhūta therefore presents a type of very visible, ragged, and dirty holiness, quite different from that of cultured, clean brāhmaṇas.
While thus traversing the earth, Ṛṣabha is surrounded by low and wicked people “like an elephant in rut by flies,” who threaten him, beat him, pass water and spit on him, who throw stones and filth on him, pass air toward him and shout at him, but, knowing that this body is an abode of evil and his own true nature and glory, he does not consider “me and mine” and therefore remains undisturbed (5.5.30). In the Jain version, Ṛṣabha encounters no such hostility, but in the Bhāgavata, practically all avadhūtas are harassed like this by people ignorant of their true nature.
To get rid of such people, Ṛṣabha takes to the “vow of the boa” (vratam ājagaram), lying down in one place, eating, drinking, evacuating, and passing water without moving, rolling in it all to soil his body. However, even his stool and urine are not ordinary, but wonderfully fragrant, so much so that the wind carries the fragrance up to 10 yojanas around! Thus he moves, stands still, sleeps, eats, drinks, and passes water like a cow, deer, or crow (5.5.32–34). This incident is probably meant to highlight Ṛṣabha’s otherworldliness, but also to distinguish him from his modern Jain ascetic followers, who because of their particular rules for evacuating and for not bathing are well known to be somewhat less fragrant.
Desiring to give up his body, Ṛṣabha then teaches the yogis how to pass from this world. He desists from all activity, but his body moves on for some more time like a potter’s wheel. He travels through the countries of southern Karnataka, Koṅka, Veṅka, and Kuṭaka. In a wood by Kuṭaka Mountain, Ṛṣabha wanders like a madman, naked, his hair loose, and with a stone in his mouth. There, bamboos being rubbed together by the force of the wind give rise to a terrible forest fire that burns up the forest together with him (5.6.7–8).
The death of Ṛṣabha here is thus very different from that in the Jain version. Jaini comments (2000:336) that keeping a stone in the mouth is not allowed by Jain monastic rules, but that Makkhali Gosāla, the founder of the similarly heretic Ājīvika school, is said to have died with a mango stone in his mouth. Perhaps the Bhāgavata confuses the two, though the Ājīvikas, as Jaini notes, were moribund at this time. More probably it is just another sign of Ṛṣabha’s apparent insanity. Forest fires are frightening and terrible things in the Bhāgavata, often used as metaphors of suffering and passion (e.g. 5.13.6), but there is also another person who chooses to end his life in one. Pṛṣadhra, Śrāddhadeva Manu’s son, became an avadhūta like Ṛṣabha after being cursed for a mistake by his guru and attained brahman after burning himself in a forest fire (9.2.3–14). Burning up in a forest fire is thus a kind of self-cremation or suicide, comparable to but probably considerably less painful than the famous Jaina practice of sallekhana, voluntary death by fasting.
Ṛṣabha’s story does not end with his death. The Bhāgavata tells us that having heard of the deeds of Ṛṣabha (5.6.9–11):
King Arhat of Koṅka, Veṅka, and Kuṭaka will, when adharma increases in the Kali age, try to imitate him. Giving up the fearless and good path of dharma, this fool will through his own whims introduce the improper and bad path of pākhaṇḍas. Because of this, in the age of Kali, bewildered by the Lord’s māyā, useless men without character, cleanliness, own regulations and duties will offend the gods and through their own whims take up wrong vows such as not bathing, not brushing the teeth, remaining impure, and plucking out their hair. Through the abundance of adharma in Kali, men’s understanding will mostly be taken away, and they will blaspheme the Vedas, brāhmaṇas, sacrifices, the Lord, and his followers. Ignorant of the truth and following such doctrines, people will fall into blind darkness, like blind persons led by other blinds persons.
Although the word Jain is not mentioned in this quotation, it is clear that it is the Jains who are the subjects of this “prophesy.” According to traditional accounts, Jainism came to south India with the great leader Bhadrabāhu in the fourth century B.C.E. (Saletore 1938:3). This tradition is not accepted by modern scholars (see, e.g., Chatterjee 1978:133), but it is a fact that Jainism has deep roots in the south. For several centuries, Jainism was strong both politically and popularly in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, but from the tenth century C.E., it had been eclipsed and even suppressed in the Tamil country, and from the twelfth in Karnataka as well. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is the resurgence of popular Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism. The Nāyanārs and Alvars managed to convert large groups of Jains into their faith, and they show in their hymns evidence of utter contempt for Jainism. Frescoes on the walls of the Golden Lily Tank of the Mīnākṣī Temple of Madhurai even show the persecution and impaling of Jains at the insistence of the Nāyanār Tirujñānasambandhar (Saletore 1938:279). With the advent of the Vijayanāgara empire (1336), Jain political influence also came to an end (Wiley 2004:12–13). In Karnataka, it was especially Vīrasaivism that eroded the base of Jainism (Saletore 1938:279–82), but there Digambara Jainism has managed to survive.
Even in south Karnataka, Jainism is a small minority today, but at the time of the writing of the Bhāgavata, the battle was still being fought. There was never a king named Arhat in Karnataka—arhat is a name for Jains in general (Saletore 1938:31)—but Jaini (2000:339) has identified the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Amoghavarṣa I (814–877) as the most likely person of whom the author of the Bhāgavata is speaking. Amoghavarṣa I was an apostate from Vaiṣṇavism, and under his patronage the Digambara monk Jinasena wrote the Ādi Purāṇa on the lives of Ṛṣabha and Bharata, a text probably serving as an important source for this part of the Bhāgavata. In this text, Jinasena is—from a Hindu perspective!—just as blasphemous as the Bhāgavata says that people in Kali will be, challenging the Vedas, brāhmaṇas, sacrifices, and the Hindu gods.
Now, the Bhāgavata claims that the avatāra of Ṛṣabha came to teach those overwhelmed by passion the path to liberation (5.6.12). Elsewhere it is claimed that the qualities of Bhagavān are such that even nirgraṇṭhas, a common term for Jain monks, worship him (1.7.10). Like Shiva, he is thus himself good, but his modern followers are too passionate to understand his real teachings. In trying to co-opt Ṛṣabha for Hinduism and simultaneously ridiculing and pouring scorn on the Jains, the author of the Bhāgavata is a latecomer to a game begun long before. From very early times, Jains of both schools engaged freely in fierce antibrahmanism (Chatterjee 1978:3). The Jains have their own Mahābhārata (see Bai and Zydenbos 1982) and Purāṇas, many of which spare no pains in ridiculing the Hindu gods (see Bandopadhyay 1999). Although it is unlikely that many Jains were converted into Vaiṣṇavism by reading the “true version” of Ṛṣabha’s life in the Bhāgavata, some Karnataka Jains today are aware of its existence and even positive toward it—because it says that Ṛṣabha visited their country!9
BUDDHA AND BUDDHISTS IN THE BHĀGAVATA
The Buddha is mentioned in all five lists of avatāras in the Bhāgavata,10 but not many details are given about him. It is “foretold” that he will be born in the beginning of the Kali age among the Kīkaṭas as the son of Ajana in order to trick the enemies of the gods (1.3.24); that he, by donning an attractive dress and by his verbosity on upadharma, will lure away from the path of the scriptures the enemies of the gods who torment the people within their invisible flying cities (2.7.37);11 that he is pure, but that he will trick the daitya- and dānava-demons (10.37.22); and that he by his doctrines will confuse the unworthy with regard to performing sacrifices (11.54.22). There is thus a big difference between the Buddha on one hand and Shiva and Ṛṣabha on the other. While the latter two try to teach good doctrines but some of their followers pervert them, the doctrine of the Buddha is wicked from the beginning.
Since many of these statements do not fit very well the well-known story of the historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, both medieval and modern Vaiṣṇava commentators disagree on whether all or even any of these statements refer to him (see, e.g., Rosen 2003). The main point is clear, however. The Buddha’s task is none too glorious: it is to deprive the demons of their strength by tricking them away from following the Vedas and offering sacrifices. However, as in the cases of Shiva and Ṛṣabha, he personally is “pure”; indeed, he is once invoked as protection from the “mad heretics” (6.8.19)!
Hindus came to regard the Buddha as an avatāra of Vishnu toward the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century C.E. (O’Flaherty 1980:188). Including the Buddha within the standard list of Viṣṇu’s avatāras is popularly seen as a typical example of Hindu inclusivism and a desire to bring heretics within the fold of the orthodox (see, e.g., Stutley 1985:91). In the Bhāgavata, there is certainly no attempt at reaching out to the Buddhists: they are useless heretics, and that is good, since they might otherwise cause real harm through their wickedness. In fact, compared to Buddhists and other stubborn heretics, barbarians are better off, since they can be purified by taking shelter of Bhagavān (2.4.18).
While discussing the concept of śāstra-pramāṇa, the evidence of scripture, Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava theologian Jīva Gosvāmī raises a question regarding the Buddha’s teachings. If he is Bhagavān, must not his teachings then also be authoritative? No, he answers, because the same scriptural texts that declare him to be Bhagavān also declare him to be the author of scriptures that trick the demons.12
These statements of the Bhāgavata are naturally not appreciated by Buddhists, but today not even all Hindus find them sufficiently politically correct. In a recent official statement, the Śaṅkarācārya of Kanchi, Śrī Jayendra Sarasvatī, declared that “in order to foster friendlier ties between the two communities [the Vedic and Śramaṇa traditions] we decide that whatever has happened in the past (cannot be undone, but) should be forgotten and such beliefs [on the Buddha being an avatāra of Vishnu] should not be propagated.”13
BUT WHY IS ŚUKA NOT A HERETIC?
Common for all the heretics in the Bhāgavata is their rejection of varṇāśrama society. Wandering the world as avadhūtas, carrying skulls, clad in strange clothes or even naked, they show no regard for ordinary, traditional forms of religiosity. Why then is not Śuka, Vyāsa’s son, the main speaker of the Bhāgavata, a heretic? He left home immediately after birth, without a care in the world for a proper education or for taking care of his parents. Alone, he wanders the world naked, without any signs of his social class, surrounded by jeering women and children (1.18.25). When Śuka meets King Parīkṣit at the beginning of the Bhāgavata (1.18.25–30), Parīkṣit is surrounded by hosts of great sages including Bhṛgu, Vaṣiṣṭha, and Gautama, all of whom can immediately see the qualities of Śuka and who receive him with honor. However, nothing is said about Śuka’s honoring them, even though they are all his seniors. Similarly, many other great heroes of the Bhāgavata behave in very unorthodox ways.
Moreover, the Bhāgavata repeatedly makes the point that devotion to Bhagavān overrides social rules even for ordinary people. In the story of Krishna begging food from some brāhmaṇas performing an Āṅgirasasattra (a sacrifice) (10.20), the brāhmaṇas refused to give anything on the plea of the sacrifice being incomplete, but their wives gladly not only gave plenty of food, but followed Krishna into the forest, returning home only after Krishna had reassured them that everything would turn out well. After coming to their senses, the brāhmaṇas cursed their brahmanical pride, which had hindered them from sacrificing directly to Bhagavān. Similarly, Jaḍa Bharata’s brāhmaṇa brothers were well educated in the Vedas, but they could not understand his true greatness (5.9.8). Finally, the subordination of the Veda to Bhagavān can probably not be shown more clearly than by having the Śrutis (Vedic texts) personified offer beautiful and profound praise to Bhagavān to wake him up after his cosmic sleep (10.84.15–41).
Still, even when breaking social norms, these heroes of the Bhāgavata never completely break with the Vedic tradition, and they most certainly do not abandon Bhagavān. For them, abandoning society is a way of getting closer to him. The fascination of the Bhāgavata with these persons has more to do with these people’s abandonment of sexuality and household life than social life in general. As Jarow (2003:86–90) points out, time and again the Bhāgavata warns against the “knot of the heart” of household life, of the dangers of sexuality or even seeing the sexual act—things that distract one from finding a solution to the problem of death.
CONCLUSION
Emerging from the banyan of the Bhāgavata, let us now focus on some of our findings. While centered on Bhagavān and especially Krishna, the Bhāgavata is not a sectarian text in the sense of some other Purāṇas. Here the outsiders are not Śaivas in general but the pākhaṇḍas, the strange followers of Shiva, the Jains, and the Buddhists. In all cases are the founders of these groups seen as personally pure and divine, but their modern followers as deluded. Only in the case of the Buddha is there a knowing deception involved—in the other cases, it is lust, sinfulness, and the generally bad influence of the age of Kali that is to blame.
All of these groups were active in south India at the time of the compilation of the Bhāgavata, and especially the ascetic Śaiva groups were probably seen as the important competitors of Vaiṣṇavism. The appropriation of the stories of Ṛṣabha and Bharata from the Jains shows Jainism to be another important adversary. It is also noteworthy that the Bhāgavata says nothing about exclusively north Indian groups such as the Sauras, further strengthening its probable southern provenance.
As we have seen, many of the great heroes of the Bhāgavata are avadhūtas, strange wanderers who live much like heretics, caring little for brahmanical society, but full of knowledge of and love for Bhagavān. No doubt such avadhūtas, regardless of their sectarian affiliation, were feared and despised but even more than that admired in society at the time of the writing of the Bhāgavata, a fact that necessitated the creation of a type of them fitting the Bhāgavata faith. Still, being Vedic in the Bhāgavata is much more a question of following Bhagavān than of following the Vedas per se—after all, as Sūta exclaims right at the beginning of the book (1.2.28):
The Vedas aim at Vāsudeva [Vishnu], sacrifices aim at Vāsudeva, yogas aim at Vāsudeva, rituals aim at Vāsudeva, knowledge aims at Vāsudeva, penance aims at Vāsudeva, dharma aims at Vāsudeva—the goal of life is Vāsudeva!
NOTES
1. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Bhāgavata in this essay are from the 1996–1998 Critical Edition (see bibliography), and all translations are my own. In working on this essay, I have benefited greatly from the electronic versions of the Bhāgavata available at the Gaudiya Grantha Mandira Internet text repository (www.granthamandira.com).
2. BhP 11.2.53, 11.11.41, 11.11.42, 12.13.14, and 12.13.18 (the last verse is not accepted in the Critical Edition).
3. In the seventh book (7.15.12–13), heresy is explained as upamā- or upadharma, one form of adharma, the others being obstructive dharma (vidharma), the dharma of others (para-dharma), the semblance of dharma (ābhāsa-dharma), and deceitful dharma (chala-dharma). However, this classification seems more theoretical than practical, since much of what is said about heresy elsewhere could fit just as well within most of the other types of adharma.
4. Bhāvārtha-dīpikā to BhP 4.19.25 (4.17.25 in the Critical Edition) nagnā jaināh, rakta-patā bauddhāh, ādi-śabdena kapālikādayah.
5. BhP 1.3.6–25, 2.7.1–38, 6.8.13–19, 11.4.3–22.
6. Bhāvārtha-dīpikā to BhP 5.3.20 vāta-raśānāṁ digvāsasām/pāṣaṇḍi-vyāvṛ-ttyartham āha/.
7. BhP 11.2.20c śramaṇā vāta-raśanā; 11.4.19a śramaṇān ṛṣīṁs; 11.6.47ab ṛṣayo vāta-vasanā śramaṇā ūrdhva-manthinah /.
8. Avadhūtam abhyaṅgādi-saṁskāra-rahita-deham: the commentators Gaṅgasāhāya, Vīrarāghava, Giridharilal Gosvāmīn, and Bhagavat-prasāda Ācārya on BhP 11.7.25.
10. BhP 1.3.6–25, 2.7.1–38, 6.8.13–19, 10.37.17–22, and 11.4.3–22.
11. The “flying cities” refers to the three magical cities that Maya Dānava made for the demons but which in the end were destroyed by Shiva. This famous story is retold briefly in BhP 7.10.53–69, without any references to the Buddha avatāra, however. Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty (1980:187–89) quotes a version from the Agni Purāṇa (16.1–14) where it is explained how Vishnu took the form of the Buddha, the son of Suddhodana, to lure away the demons of the triple cities from the Vedas.
12. Sarvasaṁvādinī, p. 17: “na ca buddhasyāpīśvaratve sati tad-vākyaṁ ca pramāṇaṁ syād iti vācyam; yena śāstreṇa tasyeśvaratvaṁ manyāmahe, tena tasya daitya-mohana-śāstra-kāritvenoktatvāt/.”
