Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Vaisnava. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Vaisnava. Sort by date Show all posts

Tantra - Tantric Civilization Of India

Tantric Civilization is a term used to describe a society that is Tantric texts and ideas became increasingly influential from the early common era through their expansion in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, and while these traditions were largely attenuated due to Muslim polities in South Asia, their influence was felt well into the nineteenth century and later modernity.

  • We might even talk of a 'tantric civilization' blooming throughout the medieval era, prior to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate's rule, and continuing thereafter in the South and Nepal.
  • While the notion of civilization originated with the formation of historical awareness in the West, it is a word that can be usefully applied elsewhere, and we may use it simply as a shorthand for macro-cultural forces at work.
  • While the focus is on the micro rather than the macro level of culture, when considering texts and their expression in practice, we must consider the broader historical contexts in which these texts and practices arose, as well as propose ways in which the micro-structure of tantric revelation internalization articulates with broader social and political forces.

We can consider 'civilization' to be a broader concept than 'society,' in that a civilization may contain multiple social systems and, unlike a social system, is not teleological: 

  • A civilization is not functional in the way that a society is in directly maintaining the specificity of power relations such as kinship and family dynamics.
  • A civilization, unlike 'culture,' may include a polity or structural politics that articulates with culture and social structure and is physically situated across a specific geographic region.
  • In earlier literature, there are Sanskrit equivalents for the word 'civilization,' such as Aryavarta, the homeland of the Aryans, a region to the north of the Vindhya mountains, which is contrasted to the country of 'barbarians,' mleccha) outside of this.
  • Aryavarta is the realm of karmabhumi (ritual activity), where liberation is attainable and dharma is upheld.
  • There are other words for 'civilization' that imply refinement, politeness, and sophistication, such as sabhya, which means 'to be at court' or polished and courteous, and suslla, which means 'cultured.' 
  • 'Tantric civilization' does not have a literal translation, but it does communicate the essential notion that tantric traditions have historical depth, textual semantic richness, and ideals represented in art and politics.

The Tantras and their traditions are concerned not only with individual practice leading to personal objectives of power and/or liberation, but also with larger cultural and political developments, especially temple construction and, closely linked to this, monarch legitimization.

Tantric civilization arose within the 'Sanskrit cosmopolis,' a transcultural formation centered on Sanskrit as a written, literary language of culture articulated in 'literature' (kavya) and the 'praise poem' (prasasti) found particularly in inscriptions issued from the courts of kings.

  • Imperial forms adopted into the idea that a righteous monarch is one who encourages proper language (sadhusabda) , which helped legitimize their power, but it cannot be reduced to this.
  • However, although there was the growth of vernacular languages as the preferred medium for expressing identity and ethnicity from approximately 1000 to 1500 CE, there was also the formation of a Sanskrit cosmopolis across South and Southeast Asia throughout the early years of the common period.
  • These deliberately defined themselves in reference to the Sanskritic model; one has done it in regard to Kannada, while the other has done so in connection to Malayalam literature development.
  • The development of the Tantras must be understood within this cultural-linguistic backdrop, especially given that they were written in Sanskrit at a period when regional vernaculars were forming.

This Sanskrit is not polished and highly literate in many texts, a characteristic referred to as 'divine' (aim), implying that the authors and redactors of these texts were not entirely at ease in this environment but saw it as necessary to situate these texts and traditions within the larger, 'high' literary culture of the Sanskrit cosmopolis.

  • While the great edifice of Sanskrit literature and traditions cannot be reduced to a means of articulating and legitimizing political authority in medieval India, it did express and legitimize a kingship ideology that sees polity as the expression of divine power, with that power being expressed in the construction of temples. This structure is influenced by the Tantras.
  • Despite the fact that legitimizing monarchs is not their primary purpose, they have come to be utilized in this manner.
  • The tantric writings are part of the Sanskrit cosmopolis, and as such, they must be considered alongside literature that reflects ideals contained in the 'goals of life' (purusartha), on the one hand, and the development of vernaculars, on the other.

Tantrism did have an effect on popular devotionalism (bhakti), particularly in its sexual, Vaisnava forms, and tantric civilization is seen at the village level, where tantric deities, particularly fierce goddesses and guardians, become essential for the community's existence.

Tantra is essential to understanding India's medieval cultural, religious, and political history.

  • Tantra has been the primary religious paradigm of the vast majority of the people of the Indian subcontinent for over a millennium.
  • It is against this backdrop that Indian religious civilization has developed. 
  • The body, or more particularly the divinization of the body, which is its en-textualization, is probably the core metaphor of this civilization.

You may also want to learn more about Tantra, Tantra Yoga, and related Hindu Paths, Practices and Philosophies here.

Hinduism - AGAMAS



    What Are Agamas?

    Agamas refer to sacred Hindu texts recorded in various forms collectively.

    The significance of texts of all kinds—prose and poetry, written and oral, spoken and sung (whether by a single expert or by a multitude), antique and vernacular, stable and fluid—distinguishes Hinduism, if Hinduism can be characterized as a single thing at all. 

    Here we explore the significance of texts in Hinduism, defines various textual categories, and provides links to entries that cover related topics. 

    Agamas can be Stable and Flowing, Written and Spoken. 

    Any utterance, long or short, that can be repeated in essentially the same manner on several occasions is referred to in this context as a "text." 

    There is a propensity to limit the word "text" to utterances recorded in writing, whether in handwriting, printed, or electronic form. 

    This inclination is supported by the nomenclature of mobile phones and text editing software. 

    When discussing Hindu culture, however, where certain texts exist without writing and are conveyed orally from one speaker to another, this limitation is improper. 

    Writing seems to have first arisen in India, apart from the Indus Valley script, about the middle of the last millennium BCE, but was not utilized for religious writings until much later. 

    With the exception of a few later ones, several of these—the Vedic texts—were written down during a period when there is no proof that writing existed. 

    Others, passed down within small communities, are only known to those outside those communities if they are written down or electronically stored by a third party. 

    There are texts in all of the Hindu languages that are interpreted in this broad meaning (including English and other languages of countries outside South Asia). 

    Many civilizations have incredibly stable ritual texts that must always be performed in precisely the same way—the same words in the same sequence, often even with the same vocal inflections—in order to avoid becoming insulting, ineffectual, or even catastrophic. 

    Vedic writings are one example of this. 

    Other texts may be changed by various reciters, scribes, or even the same person at different times by deleting, adding, or modifying specific words. 

    The art of the reciter may include improvised variation. 

    The Mahabharata and Ramayana, which change considerably in various regions of South Asia, are excellent examples of this. 

    Whether a text is written or spoken depends on whether it is stable or flowing. 

    While the Vedic writings have not altered despite being passed down orally for millennia prior to being recorded, there are hundreds of manuscripts and four distinct printed copies of the Mahabharata. 

    The idea that a text should be retained in tact without being recorded in writing runs counter to what literary historians and anthropologists have discovered about the nature of oral literature. 

    In societies where oral texts are fluid, significant study on oral transmission of texts has been conducted (Chadwick and Chadwick 1932–1940; Lord 1960; Ong 1982). 

    A typical orally transmitted text, like a ballad or an epic, exists as a variety of performances, each of which is somewhat improvised and not an exact replication of any prior performance. 

    This explains, for instance, the Mahabharata's several recensions and myriad modifications. 

    Some theorists (mostly from outside Indian studies) have questioned whether the Veda could have been conveyed unmodified without the use of writing, despite the fact that the oral transmission of the Veda in ancient and contemporary times is thoroughly proven (Scharfe 2002: 8–37, 240–51). 

    According to one anthropologist, the Vedic texts cannot have taken on a set shape before writing was discovered since the concept of a stable text can only exist in a community that is literate (Goody 1987). 

    He claims that the educational environment decontextualizes memory in literate societies by isolating learning from action (Goody 1987: 189). 

    In contrast, this was and is accomplished in India without the use of writing by isolating the study of the Vedas from the context of the yajna, where the texts would be used. 

    The practice of self-study (svadhyaya), in which the Veda-knower recites the texts he has learned, and the learning process are rituals in and of themselves. 

    A class of people who dedicate a major portion of their life to it must be able to do the mental labor-intensive task of oral transmission of a stable text. 

    It was accomplished by brahmans, whose standing relied on their knowledge; monks, similarly, transmitted Buddhist literature (Warder 1970: 205, 294). 

    Some of Paul Ricoeur's (1981: 147; cf. Graham 1987: 15) insights must be amended in a Hindu setting due to the potential of a stable oral text. 

    He contends that the act of writing simultaneously creates the text and distinguishes it from speech, and hence from the setting in which the words were first spoken and in which they had meaning. 

    Recontextualizing the text in the interpreter's own context is the goal of hermeneutics, according to Ricoeur. 

    However, according to the Hindu perspective, the Veda and other writings are not distinguished from speech and are texts even if they are not written. 

    The Veda is speech in and of itself; it is frequently referred to as sabda-brahman, "Brahman as sound," and is a manifestation of the original speech that was spoken at the beginning of the cosmos (om). 

    Not just the Veda, but also the Epics, Puranas, Tantras, and other works that are passed down verbally yet written down in manuscripts are subject to the rule that voice takes precedence over writing (Carpenter 1992). 

    As shown by commentary (see below), recontextualization, or giving a text a new meaning in a new context, did occur in ancient India, but it had previously happened with the Brahmanas and writings like Yaska's Nirukta, completely independently of writing. 

    Until the widespread use of printing in the nineteenth century, other literature relied either on less stable techniques of oral transmission or on perishable manuscripts, or both, whereas the Vedic texts have been maintained stable by a closely regulated methodology of oral transmission. 

    While more well-known writings like the Panchatantra are available in several manuscript and printed copies in various locales, showing the unbridled inventiveness of anonymous storytellers, many ancient Sanskrit texts have been passed down in pretty dependable manuscript form. 

    Similar fluidity may be seen in the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, and other smrti works. 

    While certain vernacular collections, like the poetry of Kabir, have a very consistent history, others don't. 

    Some academics have tried to reconstruct the original shape of such a work by contrasting the readings of various manuscripts using textual criticism techniques. 

    Others argue that these approaches are unsuitable for works that have always been available in a variety of versions reflecting regional and ideological differences. 

    Others who seek the original text via the variation versions and those who believe that these versions themselves are the appropriate subject of study continue to have disagreements (Narayana Rao 2004: 110–03). 

    Printing altered the situation in the nineteenth century by giving certain copies of previously fluid writings preference and making Vedic texts, which were previously the property of twice-born men who had received upanayana, accessible to everyone. 

    Then then, recording and broadcasting in the 20th century altered everything. 

    Specialist reciters are no longer required because to sound recordings and written volumes of mantras (Buhnemann 1988: 96). 

    The Ramayana and Mahabharata on television have prioritized certain interpretations more successfully than printed copies could (Brockington 1998: 510–13). 

    The Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas have certain stories that have rather solid literary forms, but popular storytelling is still a flexible art. 

    The vrat-katha is a significant kind of religious story that is told to a group of individuals engaged in a vrata

    The traditional form of a vrata includes the telling of the narrative, which explains how the vrata was established and what benefits come from following it. 

    However, a videotape might now take the role of the storyteller (Jackson and Nesbitt 1993: 65–70). 

    Hindu thinking places a high value on speech, as seen by the care with which texts are preserved and the respect accorded to individuals who recall them, both in the Vedic textual tradition and in less formal traditions (Graham 1987: 67–77). 

    However, in non-Vedic ritual writing has a place alongside speech despite the fact that speech is given priority and that the vocal aspect is dominant both in Vedic ritual and elsewhere. 

    Both inside and outside of temples, mantras are painted; home shrines often have metal sculptures of the om symbol, and some temples have neon signs. 

    On holy diagrams, this character and others that stand in for "seed mantras" are engraved (yantras). 

    Both Valmiki's Ramayana and the whole of Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas are engraved on the walls of contemporary temples in Varanasi and Ayodhya, respectively (Brockington 1998: 506n.). 

    In many temples, a printed copy of the Rigveda Samhita is on display; however, it is not meant to be read, but rather to be revered, much as the Sikhs revere the Adi Granth

    What exactly are "holy texts"? 

    The term "holy texts" is a useful method to distinguish between writings that obviously have a religious purpose within a given tradition and those that do not. 

    The Veda, the Dharmasastra, the poems of the Alvars and Nayan-mar, the mantras spoken or chanted in worship, bhajan songs, or books of instruction like the Siks.patr of Swami Narayana are just a few examples of texts that are discussed in this entry that are used in ritual or that convey religious ideas or precepts. 

    Even though the Pancatantra and the Kamasutra are included in this encyclopedia because of their importance to Hindu culture, we are not concerned with these writings since they are obviously not holy. 

    Although many of them include mythical content or express significant principles like karma or purity, the majority of ancient poetry and contemporary books are also unimportant to us. 

    The Mahabharata and the Ramayana, on the other hand, are the subjects of our interest since they not only include tales but also serve as a repository for religious doctrine and mantras and are dramatized and repeated during certain ceremonial occasions. 

    A priceless legacy of editions, translations, and other works has been left by the study of Hindu writings written in Sanskrit and other languages throughout the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries. 

    The belief that every religion had its own "Bible" or "scriptures," serving a comparable purpose to the Bible in Protestantism (in theological theory if not in observable practice), was supported and, to some measure, driven by that scholarly tradition. 

    This presumption, exemplified by Muller's Sacred Books of the East series, ignores the many ways that texts may be employed in various traditions as well as the various ways that their authority or holiness may be perceived (Timm 1992: 2). 

    Like "the holy" itself, the notion of "sacred texts" or "scripture" is imposed from outside and is not always present among participants. 

    We may interpret it as texts that are "considered, in some way, as the primary center of spoken interaction with ultimate reality" (Graham 1987: 68). 

    They can be interpreted as such because they were said by a particularly wise person, like Valmiki, or by a great number of wise people, like the Vedic rishis or a group of bhakti poets, or by a deity, like Siva; or they can be interpreted as wise because they were eternal and independent of any author, which in the Purva Mmamsa view is the assurance of the Veda's authority. 

    Some works (e.g., Bhagavadgta 18, 67-78; S vetas.vatara Upanisad 6. 22f.) make a claim to being holy by offering incentives for hearing or reciting them or banning teaching them to unauthorized individuals. 

    However, the way a text is used, not its contents, can indicate whether it is considered sacred. 

    This includes whether or not it is recited in ritual settings, whether it is treated as a source of truths or moral imperatives, and whether written or oral versions of the text are revered or protected from tampering. 

    Speaking of sacred texts implies that there is a community who holds those texts in high regard (W.C. Smith 1993: 17f.). 

    For various Hindu groups, various texts are sacred in various ways. 

    Adherence to a text may define what is, for convenience's sake, a "sect" in Hinduism (Renou 1953: 91–99). 

    The word "sect" essentially translates to "tradition" in Sanskrit; unlike in European contexts where it may denote anything that differs from a church or societal standards. 

    Even when a sampradaya's founder left no written works behind, later generations continued to produce literary works in both the vernacular and Sanskrit. 

    This was the situation with the Chaitanya-founded Vaisnava tradition, where the six Gosvamins of Vrindavana composed Bengali and Sanskrit texts that were considered canonical for the Sampradaya. 

    Even the non-hierarchical Bauls, who have no known founder, have their own fluid corpus of songs. 

    What Are Smritis And Srutis?

    Smrti and Sruti Although the term "holy texts" or "scripture" is not an indigenous one, Hindus themselves have categorized such books in a number of significant ways. 

    We may start by dividing knowledge into sruti, which means "hearing, revelation," and smrti, which means "memory, tradition." Sruti is the Veda; it is timeless and was comprehended by the ancient via extrasensory perception. 

    Even if the writers of Smrti writings were much smarter than modern humans are capable of becoming, they were still humans. 

    The word "sruti" does not relate to a fixed canon of writings since the bounds of the Veda are fluid. 

    Indeed, the phrase was not always limited to the Veda; in Manusmrti (12.95), books that are most likely Buddhist and Jain are condemned as "srutis that are outside the Veda" (Olivelle 2005: 234, 349). 

    Smrti is still not as exact. It contains the Kalpasutras, yet as they are a component of the Vedic ceremonial system, they are not typical of smrti writings. 

    The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Dharmasastras, the Puranas, the Agamas, and the Tantras are what are often meant by the word. 

    There may be disagreements on whether a text is authentic since none of these criteria are clearly established. 

    These works are often structured by a dialogue in which a mythological person learns something from a different figure, with the prestige of these individuals lending legitimacy to the lessons. 

    Conversations are often placed inside dialogues to provide a series of teachers and listeners, most notably in the Mahabharata. 

    As a result, their literary form places them in a setting of verbal instruction from an authoritative speaker to an attentive listener, a scenario that is repeated by a line of speakers and listeners down to the current reciter and his audience. 

    Smrti renders its listeners indirect receivers of linguistic communication from the divine, but Sruti makes audible the everlasting speech at the beginning of the cosmos. 

    The Smrti texts are publicly recited, with the reciter frequently interspersing a vernacular translation, in contrast to the Vedas, which must be protected from being heard by unauthorized people (such as non-twice-born men or women) and recited in a set ritual manner in the exact form in which they have been learned. 

    Despite the fact that printing and manuscripts have made such recitation easier, the majority of people encounter texts via voice. 

    The performance of reciting the Puranas is mostly oral, however it is carried out by a highly educated professional known as the pauranika, who not only reads the book aloud but also comments on it while referencing other works. 

    A similar performance erases the line between oral and written culture (Singer 1972: 150–55; see also Narayana Rao 2004: 103–14). 

    Since the proponents of smrti possessed in-depth knowledge of the Veda, historically, the authority of smrti is drawn from that of sruti. 

    Manu claims that the tradition (smrti) and behavior of people who know it are the second source of dharma after the Veda itself (Manusmrti 2, 6). 

    The Vedic redactor Vyasa is credited with writing the Mahabharata after compiling the Vedas (Mahabharata 1.1.52). 

    According to Mahabharata 1.1.204, "The epics (itihasa) and Puranas should be employed to reinforce the Veda, because the Veda dread an uneducated man lest he may ruin it." 

    The narrative is repeated in the Bhagavata Purana: Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata because women, sudras, and nominal brahman (those who do not fulfill the actual character of brahman by learning the Veda) could not access the Vedas (Bhagavata Purana, 1.5.25). 

    But it also adds a conclusion: Vyasa eventually wrote the Bhagavata Purana to instruct in Krishna worship because he was still unsatisfied (Bhagavata Purana 1.4. 26–31; 1.7.6–8). 

    The historical link between smrti and sruti weakens as we go from the Kalpasutras through the Dharmasastras and epics to the Puranas, Agamas, and Tantras

    The four yugas, the framework on which historical time is traditionally constructed, are used to acknowledge this historical variation in the tradition. 

    Only during the Kreta era could the Vedas be properly followed; during the Dvapara era, they were in danger of being lost, which is why Vyasa set them up. 

    The Vedas are poorly known and understood in the current Kali era, when the brahmans who should preserve them are degenerate and the status of the kshatriyas who once supported the yajna has been usurped by rebels; instead, the smrti texts, which contain the meaning of the Vedas, have taken their place. 

    The Kali era is claimed to outlaw several behaviors that are prescribed in the Vedic writings namely Kali Varjya(or kali-varjita). 

    These practices include animal sacrifice and niyoga, also known as levirate, in which a man's wife engages in sexual relations with his brother in order to produce a son for her dead husband. 

    The belief that the Bhagavata Purana, or any other specific smrti work, conveys the content of the Veda does not imply that specific sentences in one text may be connected to phrases in another. 

    Instead, it conveys the feeling that both have the absolute truth. 

    The Bhagavad Gita, which has been the subject of countless translations and commentaries since the late nineteenth century, is the smrti text that is currently printed the most widely. 

    Long before that, it served as the inspiration for numerous imitations, some of which are included in Puranas like the Ganesagta or the Devgta while the Anugta is contained within the Mahabharata itself (Gonda 1977: 271–76). 

    Although some people object to this, the Bhagavadgta is often utilized in funeral ceremonies and as a book for religious schools (Firth 1997: 84, 87). 

    Numerous smrti writings, whether they promote the worship of Siva, Visnu, or Sakti or another god, are well-known and acknowledged by devotees of other deities. 

    Many of the Puranas support this. 

    On the other hand, there are literature known as Agamas, Tantras, and Sam hitas that are particular to one or both of these deities. 

    The word "agama," which means "tradition," may be used to refer to works that provide guidance on ritual behavior and the pursuit of salvation generally, but it is particularly used to describe books that identify Siva as the ultimate god. 

    Tantra may also be used more broadly, however it is particularly employed in books on Sakti worship. 

    The Vedic Samhitas and the group of works dedicated to Visnu known as the Pancaratra Samhitas are the two principal usage of the term samhita. 

    Even while the phrases A gama, Tantra, and Samhita are often used to refer to Saivism, Saktism, and Vaisnavism, respectively, none of them are exclusive to any of these three. 

    However, the specific books they refer to are often just Saivism, Saktism, or Vaisnavism (Gonda 1977). 

    What Are Mantras, Vidhis, And Arthavada?

    The Veda is divided into mantra, vidhi, and arthavada categories according to a different categorization created in Purva Mimamsa. 

    1. A mantra is a passage of text chanted or spoken aloud during a rite. 
    2. A vidhi is a paragraph that instructs ritual practitioners on what to do and how to execute it. It is often translated as a "injunction." 
    3. Arthavada, which translates to "statement of purpose," explains why a ritual should be performed in a certain manner. 

    In practice, it refers to all Vedic texts that are neither mantras nor vidhis. 

    The Samhitas have mantras, but the Brahmanas and Aranyakas also commonly mention them. 

    The Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads also contain vidhi and arthavada

    Although the word "mantra" is often used outside of the Vedic setting, this categorization specifically pertains to Vedic writings. 

    Non-Vedic literature may also be categorized into sections that are employed in ritual, sections that prescribe, and sections that offer motivation for ritual action. 

    The phrases vidhi and arthavada are less common writings in both Sanskrit and the local language. 

    The sruti and smrti writings mentioned above are all in Sanskrit, and many Hindus who do not speak the language are acquainted with the sound of Sanskrit due to its usage in ritual. 

    There are holy scriptures in all Indian languages. 

    Bhakti, with its focus on the relationship between the devotee and the divine, which eliminates the necessity for the brahman and his ceremonial writings in Sanskrit, encouraged the use of literature in vernacular languages. 

    However, we need not assume that the earliest vernacular texts, starting with the Tamil poems of the sixth century, were also the first bhakti texts to be made available. 

    The use of vernacular languages from the beginning in Buddhist and Jain texts suggests that Sanskrit's dominance in the religious sphere had long been contested. 

    Along with the bhakti poetry, there are many vernacular Puranas, some of which are completely independent of Sanskrit and others that have been translated or altered from it (Rocher 1986: 72–77). 

    Many regional and educational themes are addressed in vernacular versions of the Ramayana, such as Kampan's Tamil translation Iramavataram and Tulsdas's Hindi Ramcaritmanas. 

    In the Ramlla dramas, especially at Dasahra, these, especially the latter, are not only recited but also performed (Brockington 1998: 505-07; Lutgendorf 1991). 

    It is less common to dramatize the Mahabharata, but South India and Sri Lanka both stage plays centered on Draupad (Brockington 1998: 507; Hiltebeitel 1988-91; Tanaka 1991). 

    Sanskrit writings are explicitly rejected in certain bhakti traditions, as in the tale of the Marathi poet Namdev who had a cow recite the Veda (Ranade 1961: 71). 

    The concept of the fifth Veda and the notion that vernacular texts with concepts such as the Tamil Veda, as well as smrti texts with concepts like the Bhagavata Purana (see above), contain the meaning of the Veda, were both expanded. 

    On the other hand, in many lineages, the creation of vernacular literature has been followed by the development of texts in Sanskrit. 

    For instance, the Sanskrit works of Yamunacarya, Ramanuja, and others came after the Tamil songs of the Alvars. 

    The Alvars were also followed by the Bhagavata Purana, which, because it was written in Sanskrit, made emotional bhakti accessible outside of the Tamil-speaking region. 

    However, the change from the vernacular to Sanskrit was accompanied by a change from an emotional to an intellectual form of bhakti (Hardy 1983: 36–43). 

    Vernacular works must obviously be regional, although this does not preclude their translation into or imitation in neighboring languages; for example, poetry credited to Kabr are also available in Bengali, Panjabi, and Hindi. 

    Tyagaraja's (1767–1847) Telegu songs are popular in areas of South India and the diaspora but are seldom recognized outside of that region (Jackson 1991). 

    Up until the nineteenth century, when English usage started to rise steadily throughout the Hindu world, Sanskrit was the only language in which texts could be made available. 

    The English writings of non-regional, non-sectarian Hinduism pioneers like Gandhi, Radhakrishnan, and Vivekananda—a Bengali, Gujarati, and Tamil—show the significance of English in this process. 

    In the last fifty years, Hindi has surpassed English as the language spoken across all of India. 

    Some Sanskrit writings are regional or even local, while vernacular texts are by their very nature local. 

    What Are Mahatmyas And Sthala-Puranas?

    In addition to texts from locally based sampradayas, there are texts from pilgrimage sites or temples. 

    These texts include Mahatmyas ('glorifications'), which extol the local deity and the advantages of visiting it, and Sthala-Puranas ('puranas of the place, local puranas'), which tell the history of the site's sanctity and the rules for visiting it. 

    Examples of these two types that overlap may be found in vernacular and Sanskrit languages (Rocher 1986: 71f. ; Gonda 1977: 276-81). 

    The readers or listeners of vernacular texts are not always able to understand them; Sanskrit is not the only language that is used in ritual without being fully understood. 

    The language of the Tamil bhakti poetry is not current spoken Tamil, although they are nevertheless widely performed in temples. 

    Tulsıdas’ Ramcaritmanas may have owed its popularity originally to its being in language familiar to its hearers, but it continues to be repeated in its original, now archaic form, its worth consisting in its holiness rather than its accessibility. 

    Sacred Poetry And Prose. 

    Most of the works we are interested in are in verse, however numerous mantras from the Yajur veda, all of the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, certain Upanisads, and the Kalpasutras are in prose (interesting as the earliest instances of prose in any Indian language). 

    Also written in prose are the non-Vedic sutras. 

    There are a few portions in the Mahabharata and Puranas that are written in prose. 

    Sanskrit literature, especially technical works like the Sam. 

    hyakarikas, the founding book of the Sam. 

    khya philosophy, was and remains heavily verse-based. 

    The sloka, a stanza of thirty-two syllables split into four halves, is by far the most popular poetry form. 

    Unlike the other meters employed in the complex literature known as kavya, it is adaptable and simple to utilize (see below). 

    Slokas have been written by countless anonymous authors of the Puranas and other texts, in addition to well-known poets, and are used even for quite unpoetic subjects were cited in prose works of religion that inspired debate, such as:

    1. Swami Narayan's Vacanamrta ('Immortality in words') in Gujarati, 
    2. Dayananda Saraswati's Satyartha Prakasa ('Light of truth') in Hindi, 
    3. or Vivekananda's writings in English. 

    What is Kavya?

    Even though kavya can be in prose, the term is occasionally translated as "poetry." It takes a significant amount of literary training to compose and appreciate this particular genre of Sanskrit literature. 

    It contains a variety of literary genres, such as verse epics, dramas, and one-verse epigrams. 

    Even today, despite the fact that few people are sufficiently educated to appreciate it, it is still being developed under the patronage of kings. 

    The Buddha-charita (also known as the "Life of the Buddha"), written by Asvaghosa in the first or second century CE, and inscriptions from the second century CE forward are the earliest instances that have survived. 

    Although textual scholars consider the Ramayana's only passages in which it claims to be the original kavya to be late and that it lacks the stylistic elaboration typical of kavya, it is still hailed as the genre's founding work (Brockington 1998: 23, 361). 

    Kavya, in contrast to smrti and other works, rigorously adheres to the grammatical rules established by Panini and other grammarians and makes use of sophisticated meters and aesthetic embellishments that are outlined in literary guides. 

    A thorough understanding of mythology as well as other disciplines is required to fully comprehend kavya, even though it generally does not come within the category of holy literature. 

    Kavya works frequently start with a prayer or deity's invocation. 

    Some, like Kalidasa's Kumarasam Bhava on the birth of Skanda, are based on mythological stories, while others, like his play Sakuntala, use epic tales. 

    The Gtagovinda and the Karnandana ('Delight of the ears'), poems from the Radhavallabh Sampradaya, which was formed by the poet's father, Hita Harivamsa, and focused on Krishna's beloved, Radha, are two instances of kavya compositions that are devotional throughout (Gonda 1977: 25–29; Entwistle 1987: 168). 

    The Kuncitan ghri-stava, written by Umapati Sivacarya in the year 1300 CE and translated as "Hymn of praise to [Nataraja's] curved foot," is one particularly intriguing example. 

    Each of its 313 verses concludes with a refrain that alludes to Siva's foot being raised in the dance and does so by way of a clever and moving fusing of mythological, theological, and philosophical ideas (D. Smith 1996). 

    What Is a Stotra?

    The stotra, a hymn of adoration to a deity, is a common type of religious text that is written in both Sanskrit and vernacular (Gonda 1977: 232–70). 

    In contrast to sloka or the meters used in kavya, many stotras use rhyme and a metre with a strong recurrent beat, and they frequently contain a refrain. 

    Many stotras are credited to Sankara (Mahadevan 1980; Hirst 2005: 24f.). 

    The Gtagovinda contains stotras, which are songs. 

    Another example is the poem Bande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, which was originally written to honor Bengal as a mother goddess but was later changed to refer to India. 

    Its grammar is so straightforward that anyone who knows Bengali or Hindi can understand most of the poem (Lipner 2005). 

    The nama-stotra is one kind of stotra, and it consists mostly of a list of names, epithets, and descriptions of a specific god (Gonda 1977: 268–70; Gonda 1970: 67–76). 

    An early example is the Sata-rudrya ('[hymn] of a thousand Rudras'), which is still chanted in Siva temples and is part of the Black Yajur veda (Vajasaney Samhita 4, 5). 

    The prayers are interspersed with numerous names and epithets that invoke Rudra (Gonda 1970: 70f.; Gonda 1977: 241; translated Keith 1914: 353-62). 

    Other Sanskrit prose was utilized in theological works such as Ramanuja’s Vedartha-samgraha (‘Compendium of the meaning of the Veda’), and for the huge library of comments detailed below. 

    It was used for literary works such as the Pancatantra, theater, and other literary works that did not fall under the rubric of holy writings. 

    Except for letters and other related documents, little little prose was produced in the common languages until the nineteenth century. 

    The bhakti poems are in verse, though some, like the Marathi abhangs and the Kannad vacans, have a more flexible verse structure. 

    Since 1816, Rammohan Roy and his Hindu and Christian adversaries have contributed prose works in Bengali and English to religious debates that had hitherto only been held in Sanskrit. 

    In his earliest work, Roy noted that many people had trouble reading Bengali prose and offered some brief tips on how to do so (Killingley 1982: 12; Das 1966: 131f.). 

    Newspapers, books, and other advances encouraged the use of prose in the vernacular languages during the nineteenth century. 

    These well-known instances are the Lalita-sahasra-nama ('Thousand names of the luscious [Goddess]') in the Brahmanada Purana and the Visnu-sahasra-nama ('Thousand names of Visnu'; Raghavan 1958: 421-36). 

    What Is The Purpose And Place Of Commentary In Sacred Texts?

    Hindu writings are meant to be analyzed and discussed. 

    Some comments, sometimes referred to as t.ka, just clarify challenging terms; the term for a more thorough commentary is bhasya. 

    Some comments, such as Saya's on Vedic literature, Sankara's on the Upanisads, or the countless commentators on the Manusmrti or Manavadharmasastra, explain every word in the original text on the grounds that nothing is without intent. 

    Some texts, like the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavadgta, have been discussed numerous times from various and frequently conflicting perspectives; one of the commentator's tasks is to disprove competing interpretations. 

    A commentary, particularly one on a sutra, may be a text of original authorship in and of itself, with subsequent commentary by members of the same school of thought elaborating on the first commentary's meaning in light of newer developments within the school. 

    Although it has been argued that the presence of substantial commentaries indicates a text's theological significance, a text that is religiously inspiring but not theologically significant may draw little to no attention (Clooney 2003: 461). 

    In addition to Sanskrit commentaries, vernacular commentaries exist. 

    Tamil commentaries on Tamil texts are one such example (Hardy 1983: 244f.). 

    Oral commentaries on the Puranas have also been mentioned.

    ~Kiran Atma

    You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

    Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.

    References And Further reading: 

    • J. A. B. van Buitenen, trans., Yamana’s Agamapramanyam or Treatise on the Validity of Pancaratra (Madras: Ramanuja Research Society, 1971).
    • Bruno Dagens, Architecture in the Ajitagama and the Rauravagama: A Study of Two South Indian Texts (New Delhi: Sitaram Institute of Scientific Research, 1984).
    • Mark Dyczkowski, The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).
    • Kamalakar Mishra, Kashmir Saivism: The Central Philosophy of Tantrism (Portland, Ore.: Rudra Press, 1993).
    • S. K. Ramachandra Rao, Agama-Kosa: Agama Encyclopedia (Bangalore: Kapatharu Research Academy, 1994).

    Shall there be Evil in the City? A Cross Cultural Examination of Evil


    Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? 

    ~ Amos, The Christian Bible

    The word theodicy comes from the Greek theos, which means heaven, and dike, which means justice; it was popularized by Leibniz, who used it to describe God's justice in the face of evil.

    A succinct summary of theodicy's implications: If God is wonderful in every way. He must desire to eradicate all evil; if He is all-powerful, He must be able to do so; but, because evil exists, then God is not perfectly good, or He is not all-powerful. C. S. Lewis stresses the lack of happiness rather than the existence of bad in a similar definition: If God were fair, He would desire to make His people absolutely happy, and if God were almighty, He would be free to do whatever He wanted. The animals, on the other hand, are not content. Therefore, God is either deficient in goodness or force, or both. It might seem that theodicy is only an issue in religions that believe in a single, all-powerful deity. If this is the case, the issue of evil may be addressed by embracing one of three alternatives to benevolent monotheism: either no soul beyond the world, a spirit oblivious to good and evil, or an evil spirit.

    In polytheism, where good and evil deities have their own spheres of authority, in Zoroastrianism, where [there are two forces], one benevolent but not strong, the other powerful but not benevolent, or in the Indian philosophy of karma, which dispenses with god entirely, no basic logical contradiction need exist. A theodicy is theoretically expected in any religion in which any deity is believed to be invariably benevolent and omnipotent, though it is most generally found in monotheistic religions. The word "theodicy" refers to the existential desire to justify misery and evil, and Talcott Parsons describes how such a theodicy emerges from events like premature death: Weber sought to demonstrate that issues like these, including the misalignment of natural human interests and desires in every case and culture with what currently occurs, are implicit in the essence of human life.

    They pose problems of the first order that have become known as the dilemma of bad, the sense of pain, and the like on a broad scale. The key modes of divergence between the great systems of religious thought are differences in the treatment of exactly certain problems. Not only is theodicy not exclusive to monotheism, but it is also the touchstone of all faiths, and it is an existential rather than a religious question, according to this perspective. A concept of theodicy that includes non-monotheistic religions: A theodicy occurs where a faith struggles scientifically to justify human misfortune or fortune considering its scheme of values. Theodicy is seen as a philosophical dilemma rather than a psychological one in this context; theories that struggle to justify misery or that contain logically untenable inconsistencies incite theodicy in this context.

    However, as we can see, theology, logic, and psychology cannot be completely removed from the theodicy battlefield. A theodicy cannot be resolved in the strictest sense. Any effort to overcome the cognitive or philosophical impasse raised by any theodicy is referred to as resolution. Where logic and theology collapse, other forms of religious thought—notably mythology—offer nonsensical resolutions, which, if psychologically satisfying, are suitable to adherents of the religion, however insufficient they might seem to trained philosophers. Where logic and theology collapse, other forms of religious thought—notably mythology—offer nonsensical resolutions, which, if psychologically satisfying, are suitable to adherents of the religion, however insufficient they might seem to trained philosophers.

    Three requirements for a satisfactory solution were developed after an exhaustive analysis of Western and Indian theodicy: common sense, accuracy, and completeness. Any approach that rejects God's beauty, omniscience, or benevolence, or the presence of evil, is a phoney one.- Hindu myths do, on occasion, refute any or more of these hypotheses, but they cannot be seen to have a rational answer. The classical solutions can be categorized into five main divisions, each with twenty-one subcategories: aesthetic or the entire is good because, or even if, the pieces are not; the principle of discipline or misery creates character; free will or bad is man's fault; delusion or evil is merely an illusion; and restriction or God's preference at the time of creation was minimal. He subsumes the arguments of contrast, recompense, and imbalance or good outweighs evil; teleology; justice and rebirth; privation or evil is merely the absence of good; and the concepts of prevention or our evils are essential to prevent greater evils, the impersonal wicked substance or evil matter, the personal wicked substance or Satan, metaphysical evil or the impeachment of God.

    All of these are mentioned in Hindu mythology in some way. Every single one of them has a mistake. It's helpful to consider the numerous concerns that come from three forms of evil: superhuman, or gods, powers, and fallen angels, human, and subhuman, which includes animals and plants. The classification into another triad is more important: spiritual evil, or sin; misery, or teleological evil, which is often more divided into ordinary and exceptional suffering; and natural evil, or death, or illness. The ethical thesis or God is good, the omnipotent thesis, and the omniscient thesis are the three philosophical theories of the issue of evil; either one of these may be paired with the hypothesis of the nature of evil without contradiction, but issues emerge when this hypothesis is combined with any two or more imaginary properties of Deity. The Hindu Vedantists propose the most satisfying theodicy, which sufficiently accounts for all three kinds of evil, or superhuman, mortal, and subhuman, absolving God of all guilt by the hypothesis of lila, the playful spirit in which God becomes interested in creation: After all, who would fault a kid for behaving joyfully and exuberantly? The solution is simple: the Hindus, since the Vedantic argument did not put a stop to Indian efforts to solve the issue.

    In India, there is a problem with evil. Despite the fact that all of the theses required to produce the theological issue of evil can be found in Indian metaphysical and religious literature, with many fascinating variants, and despite the fact that all three theological theses have been embraced and challenged, defended and targeted, the Indians are curiously quiet about the problem of evil, a problem that has afflicted Western culture. In all its metaphysical manifestations, classical and mediaeval Indian philosophy has shown no regard for the issue of evil. When a problem of evil arises, it manifests as a functional problem of bad, i.e. when one claims that everything is misery and that samsara [the cycle of rebirth] is evil in and of itself. When the subject of evil is brought up in older texts, it is more like an afterthought, or it appears secondarily in the sense of Who made the world? We attribute the strange silence in part to the satisfying existence of the rebirth doctrine's approach.

    According to the Indian viewpoint, the issue of Job cannot emerge because hardship can often be the result of actions taken not only in this life, but in previous lives as well. However, as we can see, not all Hindus found the theory of regeneration to be fully acceptable, and many did not accept it at all. The secondary occurrences of the problem of suffering—the problem of Job—in texts about the origins of the universe form a large body of literature on which this work is based. The misconception that Indians were unaware of the issue of evil is pervasive. According to Alan Watts, there is no Problem of Evil in Hindu thought, and a Hindu scholar agrees: Hinduism is unconcerned about the Problem of Evil. Similarly, it is often asserted that India has no sense of evil. In India, not only was there no dispute between good and bad, but there was also a lot of misunderstanding. He proposed an explanation for the confusion: many demons are said to have earned their supernatural prowess by good deeds done in previous lives. To put it another way, good may be used to construct bad. Both examples are simply popularized versions of the basic Indian belief that good and bad have no sense or purpose outside of the realm of appearances.

    This propensity to conflate good with bad, according to Sir Charles Eliot, is an inherent trait of pantheism, which finds it difficult to differentiate and denounce evil. Such statements are commonly founded on Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhism, which are more concerned with ignorance than with sin, valuing goodness only as an addition to wisdom, in which the philosophic saint rises above all good and evil; and many variations of Indian religion consider misery rather than sin as the world's fault.

    These views, however, do not extend to most of the Puranic Hinduism. The idea that evil is unreal in Indian thinking is another basis of the assertion that Indians do not have a problem with evil. False, in India, there is no such thing as maya [illusion], asat [nonexistence], or reality. The dilemma of evil is a fictitious one, and the brahmin treats it as fictitious problems should be treated. The counterargument is that, even though many Vedantists believed evil was objectively unreal, misery was still subjectively recognized as true. Evil, pain, waste, terror, and paranoia are real enough from the other Indian point of view—the same affective strain that denies the consequences of karma.

    Therefore, there is a context in which evil exists, as well as a sense in which karma and rebirth occur. The action and care of the faithful betray the dogma of unreality. Philosophers and theologians can create rational requirements but building and approving a logical response to an emotional question is challenging.

    The death of a young child is the most common example of exceptional evil offered in Indian texts. When one tells this child's parents, "You aren't actual, and neither is your son; thus, you can't really be hurting," one is unlikely to have any consolation. Such statements as "God can't stop it" or "God doesn't know about it" will not make the suffering go away. Only the ethical theory is emotionally non-essential: God isn't good, or God doesn't want man to be free of bad, or two very opposite arguments. And this is the line that Hindu mythological theodicy is most vigorously developing.

    Even a meaningful world order that is impersonal and supertheistic must face the problem of the earth's imperfections, according to Max Weber, who, while giving the doctrine of karma pride of place among the world's theodicies, remarked: "All Hindu religion was affected by [the problem of theodicy]; even a practical world order that is impersonal and supertheistic must face the problem of the world's imperfections." A very early example of an explicit declaration of the dilemma of God's evil-justice  can be found in a Buddhist text that mocks Hinduism's inability to grapple with the issue: Why doesn't Brahma straighten out the universe, which is so jumbled and out of whack? If he is the absolute ruler of the whole universe. Why did Brahma, Lord of the Many Born, ordain misfortune in the entire world? Why didn't he want to make everybody happy?

    Why did he create the universe based on deceit [maya], lies, and excess, as well as inequality [adharma]? Unjust is the king of beings. Though there is such a thing as dharma, he wanted adharma. On a village level, the issue of evil is still an important aspect of contemporary Hinduism, where the cult assumes the presence of a dominant god or Vishnu, Siva, or Brahma, who, while not all-powerful or all-kind in the monotheistic sense, has enough strength and love to assist humanity in their search for redemption, and to grant the worldly desires of his devotees. Theodicy is present in mythology from the Buddhist text to the present day, not only indirectly in the legends, but also explicitly in the questions asked by the sages to whom the myths are told: Why is there death? How could God do anything so heinous? What is the root of evil? The fact that many myths are about minor deities of an extravagantly anthropomorphic kind, ridiculous clowns who perform numerous peccadilloes of the kind infamous in the affairs of Zeus and Loki, has led scholars to mistakenly refute the existence of theodicy in Indian religion.

    This has helped to obscure the idea that there is a far more extreme mythology in which the deity commits cosmically important bad deeds. As C. G. Jung put it, "Of course, we cannot overwhelm an ancient deity with the demands of contemporary ethics." Things were very different for the inhabitants of early antiquity. There was simply everything about their gods: virtues and vices abound. As a result, they could be fined, imprisoned, duped, and pitted against one another without losing face, at least not for long. The man of that age had been so used to biblical inconsistencies that he was unconcerned as they arose. This is a fair definition of Indra in the Puranic era and of Siva in some Vaisnava myths, but it is not true when applicable to Indra in the Vedic period or Siva in Saiva myths; these gods do indeed have anything, but the worshipper is disturbed by the consequences, as the myths clearly indicate. Theodicy myths are prevalent in India; they do not seem to emerge or propagate during times of social, political, or economic upheaval. The solutions can adjust, but the dilemma remains the same.

    According to the Oxford English Dictionary, bad or adj. is the opposite of GOOD. The noun now seldom used is that which is the opposite of good, either physically or morally, and the second quoted example is the strongest of all mysteries-the root of bad, or Tait & Stewart. Unlike its English counterpart, the Sanskrit word papa can be used as an adjective or a verb, and it signifies both physical and moral non-goodness. However, Christian theology has long stressed the difference between moral evil, or evil that comes from us as humans: inhuman, unfair, malicious, and sinful thoughts and acts, and inherent evil, or evil that comes from outside of us, in disease, bacilli, earthquakes, storm, droughts, tornadoes, etc..

    This has resulted in an erroneous distinction being made between primitive religions, which are mainly concerned with the elimination of natural evils, and higher religions, which are concerned with sin. These two types of evil are scientifically distinct in Indian religions, but they are manifestations of a common entity for which a single interpretation must be found. People are evil-minded; adultery is evil; incest is evil. In the Rig Veda, papa, or henceforth to be translated as evil, also has a religious sense. People can do or carry out evil, which we can interpret as committing a sin. However, in Indian philosophy, sin will appear without the sinner's consent, so personal repentance is uncommon, and one can pray for deliverance from sins committed by others in the same manner as one can pray for sins committed by himself. As a result, the Rig Vedic poet prays to the gods, "O gods, deliver us today from both committed and uncommitted sin; both are sinful." Similarly, the Atharva Veda makes a distinction between natural and spiritual evil, but sees them as inextricably linked: Sleep, fatigue, and misery—these divinities are known as evils—and old age, baldness, and greyness invaded the body.

    Then came fraud, evil deeds, deception, truth, sacrifice, glory, and wealth. This conflation of natural and spiritual evil is aided by the Indian propensity to treat sin as an intellectual error rather than a character defect. Since the intellectual can't make a deliberate mistake, he can just make mistakes based on incomplete knowledge or misunderstandings that aren't his responsibility. Wrongdoing is not a sin, even though it is unfortunate. If bad is not the result of man's fault, karma would not be able to fix the dilemma. Some Rig Vedic hymns to Varuna, Tamil Saivism poetry, and a Sanskrit verse still recited by many sophisticated Hindus today are striking extraordinary examples of a real sense of sin and redemption in Hinduism: Evil am I, evil are my actions... However, cases of sin due to natural causes outnumber these by a thousand fold. Evil isn't so much what we do as it is what we don't want to happen to us. The which we do is the product of illusion, moha, or deceit, or maya. These illusions and deceptions are created by God. As a result, we are once again compelled to reject the ethical hypothesis that God is not good.

    In Hindu mythology, there is a fight between good and evil. There seem to be two clear explanations why a book about the issue of evil in Hindu mythology should not be written: Indologists have long claimed that there is no problem of evil in Indian thought, and philosophers believe that the issue belongs in philosophy or theology rather than mythology. However, neither Indologists nor philosophers can be taken too seriously, and I believe these two objections balance each other out: scholars have ignored the issue of evil in Indian thought because they have tried it in philosophy rather than mythology.

    In contrast to the nuanced claims of Hindu theologians, the theodicy established in Hindu mythology demonstrates a more popular, general, and spontaneous attitude toward evil. Furthermore, the myths are much more provocative and original than the textual discussions: Theologians seldom create high-quality poems or artwork. Their dogmatism limits their view of life's contradictory and ambivalent aspects. They lack cynicism and the perilous purity, candid and childlike, which are fundamental criteria for someone concerned with theories, or this is a product of their preparation. They lack or, and this is their virtue, their responsibility, the touch of amorality that must be at least a part of one's intellectual and intuitive pattern if one is not to succumb to predetermined prejudice and be cut off from some critical, highly ironic, and troubling insights. Since the main body of Hindu mythology—the mediaeval Puranas—was collected by Brahmins with extensive theological expertise, some of these texts devolve into the narrow-minded diatribes envisioned.

    Some writings, on the other hand, climb to the level of myth, giving a more simple and childlike approach to the issue of evil. In protection of their sacred ground, theologians have a response: Biblical myths are not generally suited to problem-solving. Their aim is to illuminate the religious meaning of any current or recalled reality or experience by unforgettable imagery. However, the experience the myth highlights and illuminates are the source of mystery in and of itself. The approach suffered from fundamental incoherence and inconsistencies as this pictorial representation of the problem was wrongly viewed as a solution to it. But, where the problem is fundamentally inconsistent, as theodicy is, this pictorial depiction of the problem is a great achievement; the theologian needs answers, but the myth is happy to wonder, like Gertrude Stein, what is the question? Furthermore, the myth's very forcefulness, or even crudeness, may be its greatest strength; William James, describing the deep melancholy and terror of the suffering sick soul, suggested that the deliverance must come in as strong a form as the complaint, if it is to take effect; and that seems to be a reason why the coarser religions, revivalist, orgiastic, with blood and miracles and supernatural occurrences, seem to be the most effective.

    When faced with the orgiastic and cruel gods of primitive Tantrism, the Upanisads' intellectual pessimism and melancholy culminated in the Puranic Hinduism's integrated theodicy. Another anti-mythological claim argues that myths about gods and spirits have little influence on the study of human suffering. This is complete and utter nonsense. Myths are not written by gods and demons; they are written by man and about man. The problems of the virtuous demon and the evil god are the problems of greedy low-caste men and sinful kings; the problems of the virtuous demon and the wicked god are the problems of ambitious low-caste men and sinful kings. No nation has ever had as many human gods as India, according to Sir James George Frazer; the demons are much more human and are clearly said to reflect human desires.

    Jung has made a strong case for myth's specific, truthful, and human nature: Myth is not fiction; it is made up of observations that are repeatedly replicated and can be observed. It's something that happens to humans, and guys, like Greek heroes, have mythical fates. The root theories of evil tend to be about origins, but they also contain a concern about the present situation. The pseudo-historical structure is merely a metaphor for metaphysical theories about the relationship between good and bad, gods and men, and the person and society. The myth elucidates the essence of evil with the use of a made-up origin story. Philosophical strategies are necessary but not sufficient; myths presuppose and often dismiss them.

    Philosophy provides the language in which the questions can be stated; myth is founded on philosophical principles, but it is then guided by a commonsense reasoning that rejects the Vedantins' more complex answers in favor of a more straightforward response, illuminated by the coarse ceremonial imagery that philosophy scorns. Myth is a two-way mirror that allows ritual and philosophy to see each other. It's the point at which people who are usually engrossed in their daily routines are faced with questions that they had previously left to the bickering of philosophers; and it's the point at which philosophers, too, come to terms with the deeper, flesh-and-blood dimensions of their philosophical inquiries.

    Methodological Notes: I explored different methods of research in a review of Saiva mythology and ended up using a slightly changed structuralist approach because it seemed relevant to the issue. The issue of evil does not readily lend itself to a structuralist solution, perhaps because too many of its jagged dimensions prove stubbornly irreducible, perhaps because it is almost always interpreted in logical rather than symbolic terms, even though symbolism is suitable to some aspects of it, or perhaps because it is almost always viewed in conceptual rather than symbolic terms, or perhaps because symbolism is appropriate to certain aspects of it.

    So, like a monkey piling up complicated science gadgets into a miscellaneous heap in order to pluck the banana from the top of the cage, I've used any method that would do the job-a bit of philology, a measure of theology, lashings of comparative religion, a soupcon of anthropology, even a splash of psychoanalysis-I've used any tool that would do the job-a bit of philology, a measure of theology, I believe that, despite the fact that I might have mishandled the specialist's machinery, I have not harmed or embarrassed it. My only justification for this undisciplined trespass is that it seems to succeed, allowing me to access at least some of the answers I've been looking for. I've sometimes drawn on myths documented by anthropologists familiar with the religions of Indian tribal groups, in addition to the classical Sanskrit texts on the subject. Even though this work varies greatly from the Puranas in many ways, the two traditions can be considered adjacent, if not contiguous; certainly, there has been considerable borrowing in both directions. This continuity between his materials and those of the Sanskrit tradition has been noted by Verrier Elwin, who has published many important analyses of tribal mythology.

    Since these tribal myths were all written within the last two centuries, they are likely to include signs of Christian missionary influence. However, those influences are typically evident, and the consensus between tribal and Puranic mythology is striking. I used some comparisons from Greek and Judeo-Christian myths. Theologians and comparative mythology scholars don't need me to point out the native varieties emerging in their own backyards, and for Indologists, it's probably best to simply point out that many Hindu ideas still appear outside of India, as the biblical quotations here show, rather than including a sketch of non-Indian myths out of context. It would be awkwardly pedantic to avoid referencing such concepts, such as the Fall or the Disappearance of the Golden Age, since they are so automatically evocative of their Western associations; however, these passing references are not intended to substitute for a rigorous comparative analysis. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that the current study will serve as raw material for a single aspect of such a cross-cultural examination, the Hindu facet, possibly in combination with analyses of the Western approach to the issue of evil such as those by John Bowker, John Hick, C. G. Jung, C. S Lewis, and Paul Ricoeur. I discovered that even without the comparative content, the Hindu texts alone offered an embarrassment of riches.

    The final objection to the historical approach stems from the fact that Hindu mythology does not follow a straightforward progression; archaic ideas reappear in later sources, frequently in direct conflict with later concepts. This is partly due to the Indian habit of preserving the old and merely introducing new innovations, such as Victorian wings added to Georgian buildings, but it may also mean a fundamental reluctance to dismiss any potential solution to the issue of bad. Nonetheless, some general historical patterns can be discerned, and I've highlighted these where it seems most fitting. To begin, I must admit that I chose my materials in a violently Procrustean manner. If the devil can quote scripture, certainly a scholar can do the same by quoting only certain passages that grant the devil his due when portraying god in a negative way. I see myself squarely on the side of the ghosts, who have previously gone unrepresented in Indological research.

    Of course, many Indian scriptures portray the gods as good and the demons as evil—a va sans dire—and a book based on these texts will be neither difficult to compose nor fascinating to read—a consideration that hasn't stopped a host of scholars from rewriting it over and over. The reader is supposed to conclude that Hindus believe their gods are good and their demons are bad; based on this chain of half-truths, I have set out to fix the imbalance by stating the less apparent corollary—that the gods are neither good nor evil in any consistent or relevant context of these crucial terms. I would also admit that this thesis has another flaw. South Indian Tamil texts are a world unto themselves, containing religious tracts and local myths that address the issue of evil in ways that are diametrically opposed to the attitudes prevalent in the Sanskrit texts on which my work is based, mostly from the North Indian tradition.

    The first of these emerges as a tentative solution in many Hindu scriptures, but the theories of the Collapse eventually accuse destiny rather than man, a logically coherent theory that is ultimately rejected: it is not emotionally rewarding, and it bypasses the basic components of theodicy. Most Hindus tend to assume that God is above destiny, that he intentionally or unwillingly programmed evil into his creation. Furthermore, the collapse of Manichean dualism, as well as the assumption that certain devils were benevolent rather than bad, relegated the blame to the gods. The compassionate intentions of the deity who understood the need of evil had been replaced by the malevolent needs of demonic gods who forced their own evil over all good and evil demons and men without prejudice. However, in bhakti philosophy, though God is still responsible for evil, he is once again benevolent, and it is then up to the person man to overcome the issue of his own evil within himself. These different approaches to the issue, which in other religions may have been removed or at least changed to strike a single theological tone, are all maintained in Hinduism in a rich chord of unresolved harmony. 


    Note: This essay is an excerpt from a work being compiled.