The Shanti Parva (169; 11-30) relates how at the beginning there was nothing but an immeasurable watery waste, completely silent and covered in darkness. In time Brahma, or the Grandfather of the world was born from this undifferentiated primordial unity. He then created the temporal and spatial dimensions of the triple world. He created air, fire, sun, the sky, the heavens, the underworld, the earth, the quarters, the year, the seasons, the months and so on. Then “taking on a corporeal body,” Brahmas sons were the rishis and Brahmins Marichi, Atri, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, Vashistha, Angiras and Pracetes as well as the powerful god, Lord Rudra. Pracetas had a son called Daksha who begot 60 daughters whom all the Brahmin rishis accepted to beget offspring. From these offspring, the whole universe of mobile and immobile creatures arose including the gods, the ancestors, gandharvas, apsaras, rakshasas, birds, animals, fishes, snakes and so on.
To all these creatures, Brahma taught the Vedas. The dharma was accepted by the gods – the Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, and others – and the great rishis like Bhirigu, Atri, Angiras, the Siddhas, Kashyapa, Vashishtha, Gautam, Agastya, Narada and others. However, the danavas or demons like Hiranyakshipu, Hiranyaksha, Virochana, Shambara, Viprachittli, prahvada, Nemuci, bali and others disregarded his instruction and “filled with anger and greed” they “worked for the destruction of dharma”. Resolved on adharma, they transgressed on all the boundaries of dharma, and concentrated on enjoying themselves. They considered themselves equal to the gods and vied with the rishis. They had no love or compassion for the creatures of the triple world and harassed them by the force of arms.
Hence, Brahma celebrated a great sacrifice for the good of his creation from which emerged a figure called asi or a sword. Brahma gave this sword to Rudra who began a great slaughter of the demons. Hence Brahma created or rather started a process of differentiation of the undifferentiated primordial unity producing the polarities of light and dark male and female and so on together with heaven, earth and the netherworld. This process once set into motion seems to be a self-sustaining and naturally evolving one. Of the seven Rishis and Rudra, the rishis, unlike the gods, are not immortals. They `seers’ of the Veda and ancestors of mortal men. They act as the creative demi usages, procreating on Daksha’s daughters to produce the lesser gods, demons and all other divine and semi-devine creatures making them all the progency of mortal seers.
But these creatures have contrasting natures because of which some accept the dharma, and others don’t, choosing to create disorder. The Asuras claim equality with the devas as they are both descended from Brahma but they are made lower beings because their demonic nature makes them favour adharma and disorder. They thus endanger the triple world and the welfare of the creatures therein. This makes Brahma’s creation not only hierarchical but also instable.
There are several creation myths. For example, in the adiparva, another myth is recounted by Vaishampayan to Janameyaya. Brahma according to this had six mind born sons, the great rishis Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaka and Kratu. Marichi begot Kashyapa who can be identified with the Daksha of the earlier myth. He begot thirteen daughters – Aditi, Diti, Danu, Kala, Anayus, Simhika, Muni, Krodha, Prava, Arishta, Vineta, Kapila and Kadru. And from them arose sons and grandsons without an end.
From Aditi were born the twelve Adityas who were the lords of the world. The last one was Vishnu and he was the most mentorious of them all. From Diti came only one son, the demon or daitya, Hiranyakashipu. He had five sons – Prahrada, Samhrada, Anutrada, Shibi and Bashkala. Prahrada begot three sons, Vinochana, Kumbha and Nikumbha. Virochana had only one son, Bali and he had Bena, a great asura or demon. From Darna were born forty sons, all denavas or demons. The first was the renowned king `Viprachithi’ and then followed notable demons like Shambara, Nanuchi, Puloman and son. Their sons and grandsons were innumerable.
Simhika gave birth to the asura Rahu, the enemy of the sun and the moon. From Krura were born endless sons and grandsons Krodhavasha. From Anayus were born four asura sons, Vikshara, Bala, Vira and Vitra. And from kala were born Kaleyas who, like `Time itself were powerful and destructive danavas. Vinata gave birth to birds and Kadru to snakes.Muni begot various gandharvas, and Parva to apsaras and to more gandharvas. But later on, Vaishampayana says that the Rakshasas, apes and kinnara came from Pulastya and from Pulaka came deer, lions, tigers and kimpurushas. According to this account Brahma had three more sons: Prajapati, who begot the eight Vasus; and Bhatr and Vidhatr. One of Prajapati’s sons, Dhruva begot Time who `drives the world.’
There are thus many creation myths in the Mahabharata which place Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh at the centre of creation. But in spite of variations, all the myths share some common characteristics. The first is that the creation is of hierarchical nature. Even the divine beings have a hierarchy, at the top being Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva who are considered by their respective devotees to be eternal, imperishable and self-created.
Whoever may be accepted as the creative agent of the world, the creation unfolds in a progressive fashion – downwards and outwards in the pyramidal fashion until the very lowest form of life comes into being. Therefore all creatures, from the very great gods to the lowest forms of life are linked in a great chain of being. Interestingly, man does not necessarily occupy the lowly position one might expect in the hierarchy. It is the progenitors of mankind, the great sears or Manu, who are normally created first and then they are responsible for the creation of the old Vedic gods and other forms of life.
The essential forms of life in the triple world are interrelated and all of them are the progeny of one parent be it Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. Therefore, the Vedic gods, the demons, rakshasas, and gandharvas are actually half brothers and just as brothers have different natures and may fight and compete, so do these cosmic creatures. However, they remain interrelated and inter connected.
Further, the triple world is fragile. Just as the great God creates truth, virtue and good, so also he creates hunger, evil and desire. Sometimes the creations faultiness manifest immediately as hungry creatures attempt to devour their creator. In other myths, these faults manifest slowly with the passing of the ages in Time. Once created, evil has to emerge sooner or later. In the Mahabharata creation myths this mixed bag of virtue and vice seems to be accepted as normal and the creator is not blamed for it. In fact, the differences, distinctions and contrasts are the very essence of the triple world without which creation could not have moved beyond the undifferentiated unity. Thus, good, truth, virtue and order are only perceivable if there is evil, untruth, non-virtue and chaos. Gods can only be distinguishable entities if they can be contrasted with demons and flesh eating rakshasas. But these contrasts are not polarities as they are interdependent.
In fact, the suggestion seems to be that God has no choice but to build certain distinctions and defects into hi9s creation. In the Mokshadharma Parva Bhishma recounts a narrative by rishi Narada regarding the origins of death. At one time he says, Brahma created creatures who were not subject to death, the greatest of all faults for mortals. And no one died, the number of creatures grew so much that the universe got overcrowded to the great distress of Earth who began to sink beneath the burden. Brahma was so very angry because he could find no way to destroy the excess of population, the flames came out of his body that burn it all the quarters of the universe. However, Shiva, filled with compassion at the plight of the creatures, beseeched Brahma not to destroy them out of anger. Rather, they should be subject to repeated birth and death. To this Brahma agreed and from the apertures of his body came out a darn woman wearing red garments with red eyes and palms, adorned with divine earrings and ornaments. Brahma commanded her to go and stay forth all the creatures. But the Goddess of Death, shedding tears beseeched and implored Brahma to spare her from such a terrible function. Although Brahma commanded her repeatedly, she disobeyed him and chose to practice tapas. Finally, she agreed very reluctantly because she feared Brahma’s curse and after he had assured her that no sin would accrue to her. Also, she would be assisted in her dreadful task by terrible diseases born of her tears and by Desire and Anger, which would afflict creatures when their time came. This shows that when Brahma chose to create a universe without distinctions of life and death, he found that these distinctions were necessary for overall creation. Therefore disorder, whether in the form of demons, rakshasas, hungry man or whatever constantly threatens the ordered stability and the very existence of the triple world. Therefore, there is a very precarious balance between the powers of cosmos and chaos.
The great Gods as creators create a hierarchical, interrelated and interdependent but fragile creation. But they have to face awkward consequences as its preserved and are compelled to counter the forces of disorder by a minimum standard of order. This is provided by dharma which is a major concern of Mahabharata. As Bhishma explains to Yudhishthira, “The promulgation of dharma was for the strength of creatures ….. Because it upholds they call it dharma. (All) creatures are maintained through dharma.” But dharma itself is confusing and ambivalent. It is born from the right brast of Brahma and is taught by him to all creatures by teaching them Vedas. It is also related that Brahma first created the Lords of Creation (Prajapati) who were Brahmins from his own tejas; and “Then, for attaining heaven, the Lord ordained truth, dharma, tapas, the eternal Vedas, good conduct and priority.”
The word dharma comes from the root dhr which means to uphold, sustain or support. Applied to triple world it signifies “The eternal laws with maintain the world.” From this general sense, dharma is capable of almost unlimited expansion covering every aspect of life and conduct. This has led to Varnastramadharma. But then there is also the Svadharma, or that which accords with one’s inherited nature. The two can often be in conflict.
In the Rigveda, rta and dharma were probably applied to human beings and deities in the region of sat. The demons dwelling below in the region of asat abhorred these standards. But gradually notions of dharma and svadharma spread to other groups also. In the triple world, the dharma of each category pertains to the nature of that category. One’s Svadharma is what one’s nature of that category. One’s svadharma is what one’s nature directs one to do. Hence it is the nature of snakes to bite, of rakshasas to eat human flesh and guzzle blood, demons to destroy, deceive, harm of gods to give; of seers of restrain their senses.
Hence it can become difficult to reconcile the svadharma with the absolute dharma. What is t he absolute dharma. There is no one answer but there is broad agreement. Bhishma tells Yudhishthira, “Freedom from anger, truthfulness of speech, sharing, patience, procreation on one’s wife, purity and friendliness, rectitude, and maintenance of dependents; these are the nine (duties) for all the Varnas.”
The question arises how to reconcile the Svadharma with the absolute dharma. A Chandole, for example, is required by his Svadharma to slaughter animals and so would find it difficult to observe precepts of purity, rectitude and non-injury. This becomes even more striking when demons attempt to adapt a virtuous life style consistent with the demands of absolute dharma. How cold the more demon’s form of creation reconcile their Svadharma to kill and be cruel to the precepts of non-injury, freedom from anger, patience and compassion.
Therefore, a weakness was built into the very system as the Svadharma of rakshas would be legitimate but it would ultimately promote disorder and the rule of adharma in the triple world and so had to be continuously destroyed. If the demonic forms fulfilled their Svadharma, the fragile rule of dharma would be threatened. Since it is such an instable balance, the intervention of the great Gods is constantly required to retain it.
In the eternal conflict between the gods and the demons, what is the role of men? The cause of the conflict between the gods the demons is a matter of scholarly conflict. According to Prof. O’Flaharty, the conflict is not between good and evil because the demons are not responsible for the origin of evil. They also do not always represent evil and misfortune as the gods also do not represent unmitigated good. As Prof. O’Flaharty points out, “the one invariable characteristic of the gods is that they are the enemies of the demons, and the one invariable characteristic of the demons is that they are opposed to the gods… the two groups, as groups are not fundamentally morally opposed.” She concludes: “The crucial distinction between gods and demons in power.”
The way the creation is described, the origin of bot evil and good are the great gods themselves who repeatedly create, preserve and destroy the triple world in which the demons and higher gods are merely subordinate actors. The demons could even claim to be victims of evil as they are created with a demonic svabhavs which they can never ultimately escape. But simply because the demons are not the creators of evil does not mean that they do not represent forces of evil.
In Vedic literature, the demons are considered a menace to the triple world not so much because they represent forces of evil but because they are forces of chaos and disorder. Again, gods represent forces of order which support rita. Therefore, they are a force of good although their actions may not seem so. therefore, the opposition is not so much between good and evil as between order and disorder.
That is why it is no wonder that the gods and rishis accepted dharma when Brahma taught them the Vedas, while the demons, full of anger, greed and pride worked for adharma. Another cosmogonic myth related how the asura called Krodhvashas did cruel deeds, the kaleyas were powerfull and destructive denavas and the rakshas were known as nairrtas or `sons of destruction.’ In the Vaishnavite myth Vishnu declares that whenever there is ascendancy of adharma, he would descent to earth and restore dharma.
In the Mahabharata, there is not just the problem of dharma and adharma; dharma itself is very complicated. When the problems dharma are placed adjacent to the concern for order, it becomes even more complex. This is seen in the efforts of demons like Prahvada, Bali, Vairochan, Namuchi, Vrtra, Vishvampa to throw up their Svadharma in favour of absolute dharma, they suffer. For example, Indra simply dispatches Vishvampa when he feels threatened. Or the Gods may be treacherous as Indra disposed of Vitra with the help of Vishnu. Indra resorts to outright deceit and fraud in the case of King Prahvada. Vishnu disposes off the far too generous Bali. Worse still, the demons dharma and virtue may just wane and disappear. In fact, when the demons adhere to absolute dharma, it becomes their weakness.
The unstated assumption seems to be that even when a demon throws away his svadharma, his svabhava or inherent nature remains which will ultimately prevail one way or another. Hence the demons, whatever may be their good intentions are ultimately demons and therefore a threat to the triple world. This is evident from the fact that when Indra destroys Vrtra through treachery, an auspicious breeze begins to blow and he is praised by all the gods, gandharvas, snakes, seers and others praise him and Vishnu. Indra’s displacement of Bali and return as the king of gods is similarly hailed.
Similarly, although the gods may behave deceitfully, treacheriously and selfishly, they remain gods and their actions are seen ultimately as working for the ascendancy of dharma and order. Also, while some demons act virtuously, they are not typrical of the demon class. More typical are the doings of Unda and Upasunda and the fearsome Kaleyas who set out to conquer the gods and despoil the triple world.
In this scheme of things, what part does man play? He may not be the principal actor but he has a strong supporting role. It is the sacrificial offerings made by men that support the gods in their struggle against the demons and the forces of adharma. The interrelationship of the triple world is explained by the gods when they approach Vishnu in their struggle against the demonic Kaleyas who had been slaughtering the Brahmins and destroying sacrifices.
“All the four kinds of creatures exist on gifts from her; (and) having been prospered, they prosper the dwellers in heaven with oblations and offering. For the worlds proceed so, relying the one on the other…. And when the Brahmins are destroyed,t he earth will go to its destruction. Then, when the earth is destroyed, heaven will go to its destruction.”
This same idea is repeated in another past creation myth. It is emphasized in Bhishma’s answer to Yudhishthira’s question on the origin of kingship. Initially there was no such institution and men dealt with each other according to dharma. But gradually men came under the sway of folly and became subject to desire, anger and sexual lust. Dharma and the Vedas were lost. The gods, stricken with fear, grief and suffering pleaded with Brahma to save them as unless men performed their religious rites, the gods would be reduced to equality with the mortals. The gods poured downwards towardsmen while the mortals rose towards the gods. To restore order and balance, Brahma created Kingship. Therefore, men performed sacrifices in which they offered shares and portions which was the very food for gods. The gods in turn exercised their beneficial influence to bring prosperity to the world. In the process both the gods and men derived sustenance from the earth.
If men and gods are natural other then men and demons must be opposed to each other. But in Mahabharata the antagonism is not absolute. It is because the demons insistently try to cut off the god’s source of supply. As Unda and Upasunda logically conclude: “The royal seers (and) the Brahmins prosper the energy, strength and the splendour of the gods with their great sacrifices (and) oblations. All of us united together must completely destroy al these mighty enemies of the asura.”
The gods intervene in many ways in the affairs of men and there does not seem ot be an insurmountable gulf between them. Apart from direct intervention, the Gods control the events in the triple world through the mechanism of Time. Time is often seen as an impersonal power and not just as a measure. It predetermines events which it brings to pass. However, Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna are all freely identified with kala and so this becomes another means by which God becomes immanent in creations. Time has an impressive potential for bringing decay and destruction and is regarded as a form of divine energy.
By origin Brahma is the father or grandfather of all beings in the triple-world including gods, demons and men. Since they are all equally his children, he must be impartial towards them but while Brahma himself recognizes this obligation, he also recognizes that his impartibility has to be limited by the need to maintain the overall ascendancy of dharma. Thus when the gods appeal to Brahma for the destruction of taraka, he agrees by saying: “I treat all creatures equally, (but) I cannot approve adharma here (in the triple world).
Brahma’s normal method of maintaining order is to “ordain” or “enjoin” certain events to happen or that the passage of Time should bring certain events to pass. Thus, by predetermining the principal or decisive actions where necessary, Brahma becomes to an extent, an agent of fate. But this does not make human beings marionettes in the hands of fate because Brahma only predetermines the principal event but not all events.
Whenever there is a crisis in the triple world, Brahma has to sort it out. Most of the crises occurs in the framework of the eternal conflict of gods and men on one side and demons on the other or dharma versus adharma. Within the framework however, all participants have their legitimate place including the demons although their svadharma has eventually adharma as its ends. Sometimes, man becomes the culprit when he attempts to join the ranks of gods. But in the interest of the preservation of overall order, man have to remain men so that the sustenance of the gods is guaranteed in the conflict between dharma and adharma. Brahma’s concern is the functioning of the whole system and not the welfare of one element to the exclusion of others.
Usually it is the demons who attempt to rise above their allotted positions. For instance, when the Kaleyas arise, they have to be put back by the intervention of Brahma or any other of the great gods. Or the demons start performing austerities and accumulate power through tapas. Then Brahma usually has to grant them boons. The demons invariably seek immortality leaves some point of vulnerability. The boons he grants may appear to be “criminal folly” but actually he has no choice because the demons cannot be allowed to go on accumulating unlimited power through tapas because this too would upset the triple order. As Peter Hill points out, “Brahma’s boons, rash as they may seem, are in the nature of a holding operation that provide time to fins a way out of the mess.” But Brahma can at times be very casual about finding a solution.
For example, Unda and Upasunda were grandsons of the great asura Hiranyakashipu. Of great valence and strength they did everything together and were like twins. As they grew older, both of them had a common desire to conquer the universe. They, therefore, performed terrible austerities which made the gods afraid and they set out to obstruct them. Again and again they tried to tempt their jewels and women but to no avail. Finally, Brahma intervened and asked them what boons they desired. As was to be expected, they wanted powers of magic, the wisdom of arms, the ability to assume any shape they desired and immortality. The last Brahma could not concede and after some bargaining accepted that Unda and Upasunda would be in no danger from any creature of the triple world save each other.
Bloated with power and the feeling of invincibility Unda and Upasunda tried to conquer the gods, who aware of Brahma’s boons, left their abodes and went to stay with Brahma. Unda and Upasunda then conquered hosts of yakshas, rakshasas, snakes, birds and all others. Finding their curses of no avail, Brahmins and ascetics abandoned their rides and practices and fled. All agricultural activity came to a stand still and the world became empty as though struck by Time. Finally, Brahma reflected on how to solve this problem. He then instructed Vishvakarma, the divine artifices, to create a perfect women who was irresistibly desirable. Unda and Upasunda fought over her and killed each other.
There are other myths where Brahma acts through others who might be Arjuna or another God like Vishnu or Shiva or Skanda, who is also Shiva’s son and the general of the army of Gods.
Time assumes the role of impersonal fate. The grieving Dhritrashtra is consoled by Sanjaya by attributing the entire destruction to the working of Time. “It was destined to be so, you must not grieve over it. (Even) with the foremost wisdom, who can avert fate. No one escapes the path ordained by the Ordainer. Life and death, happiness and unhappiness – all this is rooted in Time. Time ripens beings; Time destroys creatures. Time again brings to an end the (passing of) time that burns down creatures. Time develops all beings in the world, pure and impure. Time destroys all creatures (and) again sends them forth. Unchecked, impartial, Time moves amongst all beings.”
In the Shantiparva, Vyasa simlilarly explains to Yudhishthira that a man’s lot does not necessarily come through his actions but from the decree of Time:
`Nothing is attained through action or thought; nobody gives to (another) man. The Ordainer ordains through the revolution (of Time). Man attains all through Time. If the Time is not right, men as a species are not able to attain (their purpose) through intelligence or study of the scriptures. Sometimes even a fool obtains wealth, for through Time it is achieved without distinction.”
Similarly, the Asura Bali takes consolation after his defeat by attributing it to Time. When he meets Shakra, the new Indra he says:
“Regarding this as transitory, due to the changing of Time. I do not therefore grieve. O Sakra. For all this truly has an end. …I neither hate nor desire success and misfortune, life and death, and also the fruit of pleasure and pain. …the very learned and the little learned, the strong and the weak, the beautiful and the ugly, the fortunate and the unfortunate, Time – unfathomable in its strength – seizes them all. Knowing that I am under the dominion of Time why should I be disquieted? One only burns afterwards what is burnt (already); one only slays afterwards the (already) slain; one who is destroyed has been destroyed already; a man attains (only) what is to be attained (for him). …If I beheld Time not destroying creatures, (then) I would be (subject to) joy, pride and anger. O husband of Sci. … Time gives everything (and) Time takes everything away. All things are arranged by Time. O Sakra, do not brag of your manly energy. … Origin and strength never depend on oneself…. My mind is settled here: I will continue under the dominion of the Rules.”
For the individual, there was an obvious connection between the flow of Time and death, and with the ups and downs of life. Times means ceaseless change which is not just uncertain fluctuations in personal life but ultimately decay, destruction and death. As Brandon states: “Time is experienced as change: the phenomena, presented to us through our senses, alter, and the alteration may affect us in various ways, to our good or our ill. The logic of this experience gradually teaches each person that his situation is never secure; that it is ever subject to change. He finds this knowledge disturbing, and especially sine it tends to affect him more in terms of its menace of ill than its promise of good.…. But Time bears an even greater threat to the individual person than that of causing change in his environmental conditions: it teaches him that he is mortal…. Awareness of Time, accordingly, involves awareness of mortality. This means that Time not only threatens man with vicissitudes of fortune in his social or economic situation… It also menaces him with the very disintegration of himself – menace, too, that he knows will certainly be fulfilled, whether its event comes soon or late. Consequently, his sense of Time fills him with a profound foreboding of ill to his very self, and it stirs within him the instinct to escape, to find some abiding security from a destiny sure and so dreadful.
Therefore, Time is not a neutral measure but an active force that brings events to pass. This because particularly evident in an agricultural society where man has to rely on nature, the seasons, the weather and the soil for sustenance. Therefore he saw the hands of a supernatural power in the cycles of nature and the seasons, with their invariable birth and death, generation and decay, order and chaos, all of which were inescapable and irresistible. Also, it is a common experience of man that in spite of his best efforts, something unexpected or unintended twist of circumstances can wreck the desired outcome.
Time in Mahabharata is used as an impersonal destiny or fate. But it is also used as an instrument expressing the will of great God. For example, when Duryodhana plans to burn down varnavata, impelled by Time, a Nishada women arrives with her five sons to a feast held by Kunti. They all became drunk and loose consciousness. Bhima sets fire to the palace and kunti and the Pandavas escape. Duryiodhana finds the charred bodies of the Nishada women and her sons and concludes that his designs have been fulfilled.
When Duryodhana’s stubbornness leads to a breakdown of negotiations before the war, king Dhritrashtra could only explain a situation which he felt was well beyond his control by the destructive power of Time: “These foolish Kurus have fallen under the power of Time, and are perishing.” Reflecting later in how Duryodhana had refused to accept Krishna’s wise counsel, Dhritrashtra concluded that he was being “pulled along by Time: when Duryodhana and his followers left the court hissing like a great snake,” Bhishma stated, `I think this entire Kastriya class is cooked by time.
For the relationship between Karma & Time see Shantiparva, Chap 28 Verses1 16-43.
Janamejaya wanted to know from Vrishampayana why all the valiant chariot warriors who participated in the Mahabharata were born on earth. While Vaishampayana said that what Janamajaya had asked was a mystery even to the celestials but would attempt an answer.
When Janadagni had made the earth bereft of Kshatriyas, he went to Mr. Mahendra and began his penances. When the earth was so denuded of Kshatriyas, the race was renewed by cohabitation between Kshatriya women and the Brahmins. Thus sprang the Kshatriya race from Kshatriya women and their connection with ascetic women.
The new generation was blessed with a long life and was extremely virtuous. All was joy and happiness and proper order was followed. When the world was in this happy state, Krita yoga have come into the world, Asuras began to take birth in royal dynasties. They were the sons of Diti having been continually defeated by the celestials, the sons of Aditi. Deprived of sovereignty and heaven, they began to take birth on earth.
Wishing to enjoy sovereignty on earth, the powerful Asuras took birth among cows, horses, mules, camels, buffaloes, elephants and deer. They also took birth as Rakshasas and others.
Owing to the birth of these Asuras that were already born and those that were being born, the Earth became incapable of supporting herself. Among the sons of Diti and Danu, some being thrown off from heaven, took birth as men and became proud and insolent monarchs. Possessed of great powers, they covered the earth in various shapes – and became great oppressors of al classes of society. They began to persecute all other creatures with their strength, even frightening and killing them. Intoxicated with their own power and insolence, they even insulted the holy Rishis in their hermitages.
The earth, thus oppressed by Asuras of great strength, energy and abundant means, thought of approaching Brahma. Even the united strength of the Nagas, Shesha and other creatures such as the tortoise and the elephant, could not support the Earth as she was attacked by the powerful Danavas.
Hence Earth went to Brahma, the Grandfather of all creatures and asked for his protection. Brahma already knew why she had come and promised to appoint all the dwellers of heaven to help. He commanded all the celestials to take birth on earth to free her from her burden. They were to seek battles with the Danavas.
When all the celestials with Indra as their head, heard what Brahma found it appropriate, they went to Vaikuntha to meet Narayana as he was the slayer of all foes. Narayana or Hari bore the diseurs and the mace in his hands, wore a yellow coloured cloth, was greatly effulgent and had a lotus on his navel. He was the lord of Brahma himself, sovereign of all the gods, and had infinite strength. He had the auspicious wheel on his breat and was the central force of every one’s faculties. They requested him also to incarnate and this he accepted.
Hari consulted Indra on his incarnation together with all the celestials. After this Indra returned from the abode of Hari and after that the dwellers of heaven took birth in the races of brahmarishis and rajaristus. They killed the Danavas, Rakshasas, Gandharvas and Nagas and other calibons and creatures.
Janamejaya then wanted to know about the births of Devas, Danavas, Gadharvas, Apsaras, Manavas, Yakshas and Rakshasas from the beginning. Vaishampayana told him that Brahma had six mind born sons – mariachi, Atri, Angiras, Pustya, Pulaha and Kratu. Marichi had a son named Kashyapa and all creatures sprang from Kashyapa. Daksha had thirteen daughters – Aditi, Diti, Danu, Kala, Danayu, Sinhika, Krodha, Pradha, Vishva, Vineta, Kapila, Nuni and Kadru, The sons and grandsons these daughters were infinite in number.
From Aditi were born the twelve Aditya’s who were the lords of the universe. They were Dhata, Mitra, Aryamana, Shakra, Varuna, Angsha, Bhaga, Virasvana, Pusha and Savitri, the tenth being a daughter. The eleventh was Trashtra and the twelfth – Vishnu. The youngest was the best in merit.
Diti had one son, Hiranyakashipu and he had five sons, famous all over the world. The eldest was Prahlada, next was Sanghrada, the third was Anuhrada, the fourth Sivi and the youngest Vadikala.
Shukra had four sons who were also the preceptors of Asuras. The Devas and Gandharvas were progeny of Pradha. There is thus a long narration of the birth of all creatures.
Apart from the six mind born sons of Brahma, there was another called Sthanu – who had eleven gifted sons. Then the progeny of these eleven sons is narrated. The sons of Pulastya were the Rakshas, Monkeys, Kinnars and Yakshas.
Janamejaya then wanted to know the detailed account of births and deeds and achievements of the Devas, the Danavas, the Rakshasas, the Gandharvas, the lions, tigers, snakes, birds and other animals in short of all creatures that became incarnate in human form.
Among the Danavas, Viprachathi became Jarasandha. Hiranyakashipu came as the powerful Shichupala. The younger brother of Prahlada, Sanghrada became Shalya; the youngest brother Anutrads became Dhristakati. Diti’s son shibi became the monarch Druva on earth. The various Asuras who became powerful kings are then described in detail.
Duryodhana, was born from a portion of Kali. The sons of Pualstya became on earth the brothers of Duryodhana.
Time or Kala is a necessary condition of all life and thought. It is experienced directly as one lives and thinks in time. `Time’ is seen as the cause of unceasing creation and events.
(Anushasana Parva Chapt.I, Verses 50-7)
Kala determines every human situation (Adi Parva Chap 1, 248-251). Time creates all beings and it Time that destroys them. Destroying what is created, Time is then pacified by Time. Time is the doer of all that happens in the world, of good and bad alike. Time contracts and limits what is created and Time expands and sets free what is limited. Whatever was in the past, and what will come in the future and is now, are the creations of Time.
This is most forcefully seen in the conversation between Shakra, who has defeated Bali and become the new Indra, the king of gods. Shakra looks for Bali everywhere and finally locates him in a cave on the coast of Kerala. Seeing his victor with his glorious retime, Bali feels neither grief nor nostalgia. Fearless and calm, he stands upright and looks at Shakra. Thereupon the following conversation takes place between the two.
Shakra says to Bali that he has lost everything – wife, limitless wealth, throne, celestial slayers, jewels and all other possessions. In spite he did not seem to be grieving over his loss. Nor did he appear to have any pain.
Bali responds that although Shakra had now all the power while he had non. But the question arises from where does he get this power? He points out that Shakra was then what Bali had been earlier and that Shakra too would be in Bali’s position in future. For change is in the nature of things, transitory, shifting, one moment here and gone in the next. Shakra was not the cause of his misery. There is some other who is the source of the change and that is Time.
So why does Bali not grieve at his loss? Because it is futile to grieve. There is no other source of movement and change than Time. Creation and destruction, happiness and suffering, victory and defeat are not caused by human effort but Time. That is why Bali is neither elated at victory nor pained at defeat.
Similarly Arjuna is reduced to helplessness after the Great War and Krishna is destroyed as is his family. Gandhari curses Krishna that just as her whole family has been destroyed in the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas which he could have prevented but didn’t his own clan would be destroyed in a similar family feud. He himself would die unattended, far away from home, an ignoble death. Krishna says that he has already set in motion all that Gandhari has said her curse will only aid the cosmic design.
When news of Krishna’s death reaches the Pandavas in Hastinapura, Arjuna immediately leaves for Dwarka alone. Leaving aside his grief for his friend, his main task is to escort Krishna’s wives and other women of household to Hastinapura. There are also children, the infirm and the old to be provided for. As they begin to leave the city, Dwarka begins to get swallowed by the sea. But as Arjuna leads the caravan through the land of five rivers, they are attacked by Ahir robbers who wanted the women and their wealth. Arjuna desperately tries to protect them but in vain. He has lost all his skill in archery and is forced to conclude, “The knowledge of weapons” is not forever.
As Arjuna meditates on what he has been reduced to, Vyasa explains to him with philosophic detachment that when it is time for the rise, one’s intelligence, strength and knowledge also rise. When it is time to decline, they decline. Time is the cause of everything in the world. Time is the seed of creation and Time then destroys for no cause.
Two questions arise: if everything is predetermined by Time, what is the place of human action? What is the concept of Time?
In the opening chapter of Adi Parva, Sanjaya consoles the grieving Dhritrashtra by saying that all creatures pass from birth to death and then to rebirth through the irresistible operation of Time. It is time the ripens creatures and then rots them. In the Uttanka episode, as he goes through a series of ordeals to obtain a specific pair of earrings for his guru’s wife, he comes across two women weaving a piece of fabric composed of black and white strands on a gigantic wheel with 360 spokes rotated by six boys and a handsome man. All represent the creative and destructive movements of time.
So what of action? One of the most succinct classical formulation of the principle of Karma is “Even as one acts, even as he behave, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good, the doer of evil becomes evil … whatever deed one performs, that he becomes.” In many passages of Mahabharata, the idea is propounded that a person reaps the results of his acts performed in previous lifetimes and comes to good or ill fortune as a result of his acts alone. Vyasa says, “The acts done in former births never abandon any creature… (And) since man lives under the central of Karma, he must always be alert to ways of maintaining his equilibrium and of avoiding evil consequences,”
In the conversation between the wicked fowler and the saintly Gautami, the question arises who or what was responsible for the death of Gautami’s young son who had died because of a snake bite. A series of culprits is pointed. The snake, death, time and fate. One by one each of the accused denies culpability with regard to the boy’s death. In the end, Gautami, “invested with great patience and mental tranquility” divines the cause of her son’s death to be the boy’s own karma in a previous life time and adds that she too, “so acted (in the past) such that my son has died (as a consequence).”
When Mahabharata discusses the relative merits and demerits of human action, there appears to be a lack of agreement concerning the effectiveness of human action in producing results. The belief that human actions are effective stands in an unresolved state of tension with the claim that acts of god or the machinations of blind fate are the primary causative forces at work in the world.
But why do we come back to the physical world when we are already in the spiritual world which is supposed to be superior to the physical world. It is explained as follows. We have to return to the physical world because we have entertained many desires connected to the physical world that have remained unfulfilled; have incurred many debts that have to be repaid not necessarily of a materialistic nature; and we have to undergo the yet incomplete consequences of the deeds that we have done not only in the immediate past life but in all our previous lives on the physical planes. Desire is seen as the most potent force in our life and early or late all our desires get fulfilled. But our desires affect others and we do good or ill to others acting out of our desires, so a law of retribution operates. It is called the law of karma. No one can escape it. The Yogavashishtha says, “There is no place in the universe – no mountain, no sky, no ocean, no heaven- where one does not undergo the good and evil consequences of the deeds done by one.
This concept is believed unquestioningly by Hindus and Buddhists with minor variations. The belief is that all our voluntary acts, which affect others agreeably or disagreeably, favorably or unfavorably, are rewarded or punished in accordance with the spirit of the law of justice. A Hindu believes that the cosmic order is divine and therefore, just and properly maintained. The cosmic order is called Rta. It originates from the Rgveda according to which the universe is not a haphazard mass of elements and events, but an ordered whole in which each part inheres the whole and the whole is balanced by its parts. The ordering principle of nature, the inflexible law of harmony, the universal cosmic flow which gives to everything from the vast galaxies, down to the nucleus of an atom, their nature and course is Rta. Therefore, Rta can be seen everywhere. It governs the movement of galaxies, the repeated rounds of birth, growth and decay of all life forms. It lives in each human being as the pulsation of the heart beat and the innumerable thoughts, emotions and activities, actions and reactions that balance life.
Cosmic justice is part of the same cosmic order. It demands that there should be strict and equitable retribution in nature. There is some arrangement in nature to keep a strict balance of action and reaction. Cosmic agencies keep a account of all our deeds and place us in situations under which they can be rightly retributed and corrected. Thus, no one can escape the good or evil consequences of his acts and desires because acts follow desires. The consequences follow if not in this life than in some other life the desires and acts do not die. The personality of the doer also never dies It becomes back and can evolve on learning its lessons or it can continue as it is till the lessons are learnt. There would be chaos and rule of injustice in the universe if a person were to cease to exist without having undergone the consequences of his deeds. Death itself is not considered a punishment as it is a common experience of all living beings. Therefore, life presupposes a previous life to account for the inequality of circumstances and life. Death must lead to another life as an educating and evolutionary process. Therefore pre-existence and post-existence are implied in the law Karma which is nothing but a law of cosmic justice. Rebirth and reincarnation, hence, are not just intellectual constructs or intuitive insights postulated by the seers, but posited as a logical necessity of life itself and an explanation for its inequities.
Life then is not a meaningless accident. It is a continuous process governed by two principles: desire fulfillment and the law of karma. Sooner or later, in this birth or the next, we get whatever were desire or work for but we have to understand the good or evil consequences of our deeds in accordance with the principle of retribution. This formulation is used to give some kind of rational explanation of the contradiction found in all religious and spiritual traditions with regard to free will and destiny and the nature of the Divine. Is man a free agent or is he bound by Destiny making his exercise of free will merely illusory. Further, if there is a benevolent omniscient Divinity, then what accounts for suffering. The law of Karma does not mention a God at all. It is a law of cause and effect which presents human beings as free agents who are not being led by any other force than their own will. The only thing circumscribing the freedom is the consequences of their own past acts and desires. Hence our own desire and will determine our future and not any divine agency placing the responsibility squarely on our shoulders. Desire is the key to destiny because we act in accordance with desire.
The doctrine of Karma dispenses with the deity altogether. There is a need to explain suffering and evil. The Hindu Vedantists adequately account for all three types of evil – superhuman, human and subhuman, – absolving God from all blame by the hypothesis of lila, the playful spirit in which God becomes involved in creation. But this does not prevent questions on evil and suffering.
It has been believed that Indian did not recognize the problem of evil. There is no conflict between good and evil in India, only confusion. “Many demons are reputed to have won their demonic prowess by good actions performed in previous existences. In other words: good can serve to make evil…. All these examples are only particular and popular illustrations of the fundamental Indian doctrine, that good and evil have no meaning or function except in a world of appearances.” Statements of this kind are generally based on Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhism but do not apply to Puranic Hinduism.
Another source of the statement that Indians do not have a problem of evil is the belief that evil is unreal in Indian thought. “Wrong…. In India maya (illusion), asat (non-existent), by definition not real… The problem of evil is a false one (and) the Brahmin gives it the treatment false problem deserves.” However, though many Vedantists believed that evil was logically unreal, suffering was always subjectively accepted as real. Thus suffering, evil, waste, terror and fear are real subjective experiences.
The philosophical pessimism and melancholy of the Upanishads, when confronted with orgiastic and evil gods of primitive Tantrism, resulted in the integrated theodicy of Puranic Hinduism.
The Karma doctrine `solves’ the problem of evil by blaming it on itself: one’s present experience is the direct result of the action (karma), good and bad, accumulated in past lives and affixed to the transmigrating soul. Karma can be transferred to one person from another, whittled away by good deeds performed in present life but never entirely destroyed; it is the outward visible sign of past invisible deeds. The evil that we experience is thus justified by evils of the past and will be balanced by rewards in future births. It is not God’s fault or man’s or the devils’. It is part of the eternal cycle and ultimately all is justified and balanced. But in monotheistic devotional cults, karma becomes relatively unimportant and can be overcome by devotion. Moral guilt does not constitute a special problem in village Hinduism as it would if Karma were strictly interpreted. Ghosts and evil spirits as well as semi-gods who have achieved powers from asceticism are `agents working outside fate’ and devotion to God can overcome Karma. Thus the doctrine of Karma is deeply undermined by other important strains in Hinduism. Karma is often used as a makeshift excuse to account for the temporary weakness of a god. For example Gautama excused Indra for having seduced his wife Ahalya by ascribing the fault to karma rather than to Indra or Ahalya.
Karma `solves’ the problem of the origin of evil by saying that there is no origin – there is no beginning to time, simply an eternal cycle where future and past melt into one another. But this still does not answer the problem of why and how did the incarnating individual first go wrong. However, the cyclical nature of nature of time posits’ fall that happens over and over again within the cycle of rebirth. This takes us to the myth of the four eyes of men. And this presents a degenerative theory of time.
Most myths of the loss of the Golden Age do not blame man at all. He is the victim not the cause. In the Mahabharata it is said:
“Formerly Prajapati brought forth pure creatures, who were truthful and virtuous. These creatures joined the gods in the sky whenever they wished, and they lived and died by their own wish. In another time, those who dwelt on earth were overcome by desire and anger, and they were abandoned by the gods. Then by their foul deeds these evil ones were trapped in the chain of rebirth, and they became atheists.”
The `another time’ may signify the Kali Age or may simply signify the eventual appearance of evil inherent in desire and anger and the subsequent loss of purity and immortality. The original people were not mortals as they were not subject to decay or rebirth. They became physically corruptible when they became morally corruptible.
The degenerative nature of time makes the Golden Age only a temporary passing phase rather than the basic or natural state of men. Inevitable decay takes place which characterizes another myth of the origin of evil.
“In former times there was no king, nor was there any rod of chastisement; of their own accord, and by means of dharma, all creatures protected one another. But then they wearied of this, and delusion entered them. Religion and dharma were deteroyed, greed and desire overcame people and the gods became afraid, saying, “Now that dharma is destroyed, we will become equal with the mortals, for their dwelling will rise and ours will fall when they cease to perform the rituals.” (Then, for the benefit of the gods, Brahma established government and Visnu created kings – Vena and Prthu.)
The usual Vedic view is that gods wash men to be virtuous so that they continue to offer sacrifices to them. But a hunt of the later Puranic view also appears that the gods fear not only their own decline but also the rise of mankind. This makes them bring about moral corruption in men rather than reestablish dharma among them.
Another motif in Hindu mythology is the connection between procreation and evil. The implication is that sexual creation is the epitome of sur: Women are not only the abstract cause of a number of evils and sins in the world but are also used as specific instrument of the gods to corrupt individual sages and demons. This is the natural consequence of the misogyny of the Indian ascetic tradition and the Upanishadic doctrine of the chain of rebirth as reproduction traps man in the painful cycle of existence. Orthodox Hinduism too, was prone to misogyny in its caste laws restricting the freedom of women.
As this tendency developed, abstract goddesses were cited with increasing frequency as the cause of evil on earth. Death, originally a male god, began to appear as a goddess. The stallion, the symbol of Aryan supremacy in the Vedic period was replaced by the dangerous more in whom the doomsday fire linked ready to destroy the universe.
In the Mahabharata, men originally lived without fear of death and did not know sexual intercourse. In the Treta yuga, people were born by imagination, but in Dvapara there arose copulation and in `kali yuga came pairing. Then there was death. What is the difference between copulation and pairing is difficult to say but the latter might refer to the twins, the brother and sister Yama and Yami, the primeval couple in Vedic mythology, who are incestuous and therefore, immoral.
The symbol of paradise, is the self creating source of food. The magic trees are meant to be eaten. When the tree disappears, sin appears for hunger is born. This is just another way of saying that evil is natural to human beings. The original pure creatures had neither lust nor hunger.
In human terms, hunger is the epitome of aped dharma, the extremity in which normal social conventions cease to function:
“Once there was a twelve-year drought, when Indra sent no rain. All dharma was destroyed and people ate one another. The great sage Visvamitra came to a place inhabited by outcastes who ate dogs; seeing a dead dog, he tried to steal it, reasoning that theft was permissible in time of extremity. An outcaste tried to stop him from committing the sin of eating a dog, but in vain. Visvamitra ate the ramp of the dog and burned away his sin by performing asceticism, and eventually Indra sent rain.”
The initial premise of a twelve-year drought is a frequent motif in later myths of heresy, as is the complete reversal of moral roles – the sage being instructed by the outcaste.
It is actually the satisfaction of hunger rather than hunger itself that is the cause of evil. `When the starving creatures devoured one another, Adharma was born. His wife was Nirviti (destruction), who had three terrible, evil sons: Fear, Terror and Death.
The Mahabharata says that a king’s action makes the time – the best time being the Golden Age as it was the age of dharma. An individual sage can escape kaliyuga by trying to conform to the precepts of the eternal law. In doing this he is not turning backwards through time or reverting to the past. He is simply adapting himself to the true order of things or reinstating that order. The question arises that if a king or a sage can resist the kaliyuga why can’t god resist it. The simple answer is that God is the Kaliyuga Shiva, the great destroyer is often identified with Kaliyuga and is said to be the God of the kaliyuga.
In the Indian view, there is no significant distinction between what is and what ought to be. The universe is both good and evil and so God creator it thus. The goodness within an individual becomes valuable only when it is pitted against evil is recognized by Hindus in cosmological terms; good in the universe is valuable because it exists together with evil.
In the Rg Veda, gods and demons are opposed but the nature of this opposition is not clear. W. Norman Brown remarks, “The cause of the epic quarrel between the Adityas and the Danavas…. Is never stated, but we may reasonably assure that it lay in the antithesis between their natures.” However, they are brothers. This prompts Arjuna to ask, “Do the gods prosper without killing their kinsmen, the demons? The gods won their places in heaven by fighting. Such are the ways of gods and the eternal dictates of the Vedas.” Since they are brothers, gods and demons are locked in an enmity that is innate and therefore constant and perpetual. The belief is often expressed that the demons were not only the equals of the gods but also their superiors – the older brothers, the original gods from whom the gods state the throne of heaven.
In Epic mythology, the goddess of prosperity (Sri) is transferred, like good karma, from demons to gods:
Sri dwelt among the demons in former times because they followed the dharma of truth: but when she realized that they had been perverted, she preferred dwell among the gods. For at first the demons were firm in their own dharma and delighted in the road to heaven; they honoured their gurus and worshipped the gods. But then, witht eh passage of time and the change in their quality, their dharma was destroyed and they were in the grip of desire and anger. They became sinners and atheists, evil and immoral. The Sri left them.
Here the demons are destroyed by the same forces that corrupt mankind: the passage of time and the appearance of desire and anger.
Another Epic passage interprets the demons’ downfall in terms of the older, Brahmana concept of the demon’s natural disinclination to behave well:
Formerly the gods delighted in dharma and the demons abandoned harma. T hen pride entered those who dwelt in adharma, and from pride came anger. Laksmi (the goddess of good fortune) entered the gods, and Alaksmi entered the demons. Then the spirit of Kali entered the demons, and they were destroyed.
The cumulative effects of evil culminate in the arrival of the Kali Age, but the demons are responsible for initiating this process.
These myths generally account for the differentiation between gods and demons but do not usually involve mankind. The demons who lose the right to rule in heaven are driven down beneath the earth and are thus not necessarily any closer to mortals on earth than are the gods in heaven. In one myth, however, the fall of the demons is viewed in human terms:
Brahma created Brahmins out of own energy, and he gave them truth and dharma and purity conducive to heaven. He made men, demons, Raksasa, Pisacas, and others, but they became full of lust, anger and so forth, and they abandoned their svadharma and became other classes. Thus they became ignorant through greed, and those who do not understand the Godhead are of many sorts – Pisacas, Raksasas, and all the barbarian castes.
Two important assumptions seem inherent in this text. At first Brahma created only Brahmins, in each species – Brahmin men, Brahmin demons, and so forth; these, through their own fault, and in the familiar manner, lost their Brahmin status and became Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, as well as barbarians. In this context, men and demons fall together. But then it is said that those who fell in this way became Pisacas, Raksasa, and barbarians, which seems to imply that these demonic species did not exist at all before the Fall, that there was originally no such thing as a Brahmin Raksasa. This latter concept seems to have influenced the Abbe Dubois interpretation of the myth: “Brahmin giants (the most mischievour of the race)” were Brahmins who had been turned into giants (i.e. Raksasas) as a punishment for former crimes: “Occasionally they adopted a hermit’s life, without thereby changing their character, or becoming better disposed.” Either of these two contradictory original assumptions leads to the conclusion that present-day demons were once better than they are now, and fell ins tatus throught their own fault.
Hindu mythology rarely blames the demons for the corruption of mankind. Mahabharata states Prajapati created all creatures, including Raksasa, in eternal dharma, in which the gods dwelt. But then the lands of demons transgressed the command of the Grandfather and caused a decrease in dharma, because they were full of anger and greed. Then all of them – Prahlada, Virocana, and the others – strove against the gods, making this the pretext: “We are all of equal birth (jati), the gods and we.” Probably only the virtue of the demons was destroyed in this way but it seems to have caused some general corruption as well. The demons rightly claim that they and the gods were of equal birth and that they have been unjustly deprived of their birthright.
Since there was no devil in the Indian tradition who could be made responsible for evil, it resulted in the polarization of the two remaining forces – Good and man. God was made to replace the devil. Man became god’s enemy not because he was sinful but because he was godly and God was ungodly.
The evolution of this concept can be understood under the influence of three major trends: sacrifice, asceticism and devotion or bhakti. These can be broadly designated as vedic, post vedic or orthodox and devotion or bhakti. Each was a reaction to the preceding one. Although the vedic period includes the Rg vida, many brahmanas and Upanishad but some of the attitudes persist in the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas which belong to the post vedic period. As the latter group, broadly embeds the “orthodox” Hindu attitude, it also draws upon the Dharmashastras. But bhakti myths appear in some of these texts and in some Tantas but not in Dharmashastras.
In the Vedic period, gods and demons are clearly opposed to each other and gods and men are united against the demons. This is because of the emphasis on sacrificial offerings at this time. The gods were thought to live on the sacrificial offerings of devout men so they wanted men to be virtuous. But the demons disrupted the sacrifices in order to weaken the gods. Occasionally this action may have also corrupted the men but by end largely, men only served as pawns in the cosmic battle between the gods and the demons.
However, this alignment of god and men against the demons changed in the post vedic period with its emphasis on ascetic and meditative power rather than on sacrifices. Brahmins came to regard themselves as more important to the cosmic order than the gods themselves. The Brahmin authors began to feel that men and demons could threaten the gods with their ascetic virtue. The jealous gods, therefore, treated good men as their enemies and found the ascetic demons more dangerous than the demonic ones. In spite of the great importance as asceticism in Hindu philosophy, Hindu mythology is essentially anti ascetic. The ascetic is regarded as virtuous, good and holy but he causes trouble because he provokes the gods to overcome him by placing some form of evil in him.
Thus two distinct spheres of thought emerged within the ritual tradition, the Brahmins maintained that they alone could perform the sacrifice and so facilitate the purpose for which the sacrifice was being performed. The participation of the gods was not necessary. The second sphere was that of the Upanishadic texts which maintained that a man could achieve a kind of immortality equal or even superior to that of the gods through his own individual efforts without the help of any ritual sacrifice.
The role of the human priest was one of mediation between gods and men. When man became a force to be reckoned with, they could chose their part in the cosmic drama; divine heroes or demonic villains. The priests had already declared themselves as “gods on earth” or “human gods” and they willingly extended their benefits to their patrons. Thus the pattern established in Vedic myths of gods and men was now applied to gods and men. The Brahmins convinced their patrons that the gods regarded powerful human beings in the non rituals sphere as demons and treated them accordingly. Those who remained in the ritual sphere were gods. Hence excessive power or virtue in an opponent was to be destroyed. The priests thus became mediators between gods and their twofold challenger – men and demons. Gods were competing against men and demons for a limited quantity of what both sides desired – power, immortality, heaven. Therefore, in this context, the problem of evil as it is understood in the west does not exist.
In the vedic period, heaven and earth were joined or separated by other. All essential activity was carried on by gods in heaven and men on earth. The demons were outside the system altogether although they threatened both from outside. However, in the puranic period, the two worlds were heaven and hell, separated or joined by earth. Sumeru, the world mountain at the centre of the earth, the umbilical link between man and gods is now given a demonic counterpart, a mirror-image in the underworld – Kumeru. The world mountain which had provided access upwards, now extends down as well-and the gods oppose human and demonic ascetics who, by interiorizing these pillars within the spinal column, would mount to heaven.
A secondary result of the reaction against asceticism in the orthodox period was the emphasis on swadharma, one’s own role in the social order. This implies that each member of society has is own swadharma and so necessarily some of these must be evil roles, the benefits of these are enjoyed by castes too pure to indulge in them themselves. As these tasks are necessary, the cannot lead to damnation. The texts in this period see the conflict between good and evil in a temporal framework. Dharma is what is good and right for a particular occasion, what one should do given the social and familiar position occupied and in the face of the particular obstacles of the moment. Hence the need for apad-dharma.
The opposition between men and gods arises in this period arose not because of any sin committed by men but because of a structural opposition between men and gods resembling and often replacing the opposition between the demons and gods. The gods are in competition with man in the post-vedic period just as they are in competition with demons in the vedic period. In the Mahabharata too, demons and evil men are joined in battle against the gods although men are still mere pawns in the cosmic battle but this time on the side of evil. “In the ancient battle between gods and demons, the gods were the younger brothers, the demons the older. They fought a bloody battle for Sri, and the gods conquered the demons and attained heaven. Nevertheless, certain Brahmins, learned in the Vedas, obtained the earth, became deluded by pride, and assisted the demons. They became known as “dogs” or “jackals,” and the gods killed eighty-eight thousand of them, for those evil ones who oppose dharma are to be slain as the gods slew the venomous demons.”
The Hindu gods seem to be jealous and ambivalent in their relationship with men and fight to keep away from them those qualities that distinguish them – in particular the quality of immortality and the right to reside in heaven, for death and heaven distinguish man from God. In the Mahabharata when men begin to threaten them, the gods refuse to share some with them.
Dharma requires that certain rules must be obeyed. It is a principle of order, whatever that order may be. Dharma is both normative and descriptive. Swadharma is one’s nature which may be opposed to eternal dharma. For example, a demon priest may behave according to his demonic nature which may be the same as his demonic dharma but opposed to his priestly dharma. But Swadharma would imply that there is actually no conflict and that “should” and “is” are one. One should do what one’s nature inclines one to do. Thus the nature of the snake is to bite; of the gods to give, and of the sages to control their senses. Hence those who have “evil” dharmas must follow them; the dharma of thieves is to steal. Unlike in the West, there is no reason to strive against one’s evil nature. Nature, man and god all consist of a mixture of good and evil. The only wrong, the only “evil” is to strive against nature – in some cases, to strive against evil when the demon abandons his demon nature, it causes a problem.
In the Rg. Veda, order is called Rta. It is the vedic antecedent of dharma. It can be argued that it only applies to human beings and deities in the region of sat or reality and order. Below earth is the region of Asat, the dwelling place of demons who abhor the Rta. In Mahabharata, the demons try to follow the precepts of Eternal dharma and offer sacrifices.
The myths of treacherous “good” demon begin with the mysterious figure of Tvastr, whose complex relationship to Indra, king of the gods, is originally one of psychological significance based on kinship, later overshadowed by partisan opposition. Some Rg Vedic hymns seem to imply that Tvastr is Indira’s father and that Indra kills Tvastr. More certain is the fact that Tvastr is the father of Indra’s enemy. Vrtra, whose mother is the demoness Danu. Among Danu’s many demon sons (the Danavas) is Puloman, the father of Paulomi Saci, the wife of Indra (and, according to one text, the wife of Tvastr and mother of Vrtra). Indra marries Puloman’s daughter and then kills him, just as he kills Tvastr in order to obtain the Soma that Tvastr has hidden from him. In one tradition, Indra is Tvastr’s grandson: when Indra fled from Vrtra, he entered into some cows, who were Tvastr’s daughters, and they brought Indra forth. The parallels with later Siva mythology are close. Indra kills his father, Tvastr, when Tvastr excludes him from drinking Soma because Indra has killed Tvastr’s son, just as Siva kills his father-in-law, Daksa, when Daksa excludes him from the Soma sacrifice because Siva has killed Daksa’ father, Brahma. In both instances, the gods must perform elaborate expiations for having committed Brahminicide.
A slightly later text states both causes of the conflict (demon birth and treacherous behaviour) but introduces ambiguities regarding the true motives and divided loyalties of the demon: `The three-headed Visvarupa became the priest of the gods, for he wished to please them, since he was the son of a sister of the demons.” An alternative reading, however, states that he became the priest of the gods “because he wished to destroy them.” The first reading emphasizes his outward purpose, the second his secret purpose. Other texts of this period say nothing about Visvarupa’s demon birth or priestly function, but merely state that he was Tvastr’s son, that Indra hated him and beheaded him, and that Indra was forced to perform expiation for killing a Brahmin. Tvastr;s hated of Indra is emphasized in a brief variant of the myth in the fifth book of the Mahabharata, which also indicates the usual reason for Indra’s hatred of the demon (who wants to ursurp Indra’s place) and the usual attempt to avoid Brahminicide (by destroying the demon’s virtue):
Tvastr, in his hatred of Indra, created a three-headed son, Visvarupa, who desired to take Indra’s place. With his three heads he read the Vedas, drank wine, and looked as if he would swallow the universe. When Indra saw his great ascetic powers, his courage, his truth, and his infinite energy, he worried lest Visvarupa should become Indra, and he thought, “How may he become addicted to sensual pleasures, so that he does not swallow the triple world?” Though he sent celestial nymphs to seduce Visvarupa, this ruse failed, and Indra killed him.
The twelfth book of the Mahabharata preserves and reworks the older version of the enmity based on Visvarupa’s demon birth (his demon mother) and consequently almost entirely excluding Tvastr (the non-demonic father):
Visvarupa, the son of Tvastr and of a sister of the demons, was the priest of the gods; secretly he offered the share to the demons. Then the demons offered a boon to their sister, the mother of Visvarupa, saying “Sister! Yours son and Tvastr’s, the three-headed Visvarupa, priest of the gods, has been giving the share openly to the gods but secretly to us. Therefore the gods are growing stranger while we are warning away. You should prevent this, so that we may have the share.” Then Visvarupa’s mother went to him in Indra’s garden and said, “My son, why do you help the side of the enemy to increase while you destroy your mother’s side? You should not do this,” Visvarupa, thinking that one could not disregard his mother’s command, went to the demon king Hiranyakasapu and became his priest. Then Vasistha (who had been the priest of Hiranyakasapu until then) cursed the demon king: “Since you chose another priest, your sacrifice will not be completed, and you will be killed.” When Visvarupa performed asceticism in order to bring prosperity to his mother’s faction, Indra wished to break his vow; he sent many lovely celestial nymphs who disturbed Visvarupa’s mind and attracted him. When the demon asked them to stay with him, they said, “We prefer Indra,” and Visvarupa replied, “Today the gods will no longer have an Indra.” Then he grew great and with one mouth he drank up all the Soma that had been offered in sacrifices in all the worlds. When Indra saw him he became worried and asked Brahma for help. Indra then slew Visvarupa, from whose body Vrtra was born; and then he slew Vrtra.
The role of Agni as traitor can be seen in the context of many Rg. Veda myths as Agni treacherously flees from the gods and has to be bribed to come back. In the Mahabharata, this theme is embroidered with another betrayal. Agni betrays the sage’s wife to the Rakshasas and is cursed. So he flees from the sacrifice until the gods seek him out and bring him back.
The swallowing of the same is a frequent motif in the Vritra cycle. In the Mahabharata Kacha, the son of Brihaspati, is sent to steel the secret of immortality from the demons. Instead of swallowing it, he is himself swallowed by Shukra. But Shukar is persuaded to revive Kacha at the pleading of Devyani, the daughter of Shukra, whom he had led up the garden path and whom he abandons as soon as he has learnt the secret of revival and taken it back to the gods.
Thus the daughter of the demon guru, who reserves the gods from the guru, joins a long gallery of demon women who defect to the gods. These women seem to fall into two categories. The mother of the ambivalent demon makes him revert to his primary demonic allegiance, his blood loyalty. However, his wife or daughter, an erotic rather than a maternal female, betrays him. This distinction between the loyal mother and the treacherous enchantress, is typical of Hindu mythology which privileges the blood ties over the marital ones. However, the irony is that the loyal woman is on the “wrong” while the treacherous one is on the “right”.
Shukra’s knowledge is better than the knowledge and power of Brihaspati. Often this is the cause of the victory of the demons over that of the gods, in particular is the power to revive the dead. Sankra also gives “good” counsel – Brahmin counsel, not demon counsel – to Vrtra and Bali.
In Mahabharata Prahlada is an important figure. Son of the evil Hiranyakashipu, he is a king of demons and father of royal demons. His story is the mirror image of that of Indra and Vritra. Where Indira, the evil king of gods, kills the demon Brahmin and wins, although he must go through exposition of his sins; Prahlada, the good king of the demons, respects Brahmins and loses.
Prahlada in Mahabharata is a typically demonic demon – angry, lustful and opposing the gods. Prajpati tries to keep his son Indra from being killed by the demons while Prahlada keeps his son Virochana from being killed by the gods. Prahlada is one of the several demons who oppose dharma and fight against India. While Prahlada is an enemy of Indra because he is the king of demons, but he is also ruined because of his virtue:
“Prahlada took away the kingdom of the noble Indra; though he was a demon, he put the triple world in his power because of his virtuous nature and behaviour. Then Indra bowed to Brhaspati and said, “I wish to know about religious merit and moral virtue.” Brhaspati revealed knowledge to him but told him that he could learn more from Sukra. Sukra taught him but told him that Prahlada had special knowledge of religious merit. Then Indra took the form of a Brahmin and went to Prahlada and said, “I wish to know about religious merit.” Prahlada said that he was too buys, too involved in ruling the triple world, to spare him the time right then, but as “the Brahmin” waited patiently, Prahlada was pleased and taught him about eternal dharma. Then Prahlada asked the Brahmin to choose a boon, and the Brahmin said, “If you care for my welfare, O king, I wish to have your virtue.” Prahlada became afraid of him then, but he had to agree. Indra left, and Prahlada’s energy left him, saying, “I am your virtue, and I will leave you, to live in that fine Brahmin who was your pupil.” Then dharma left Prahlada, and truth departed, and good conduct, and finally prosperity.
Notable is the fact that Brihaspati sends Indra to learn from Shukra whose religious merit is superior to his own. The virtue of the demon king – his devotion to Brahmins, his eternal dharma, leads him to lose everything, even his Swadharma as king of the demons.
The Paradox of the Evil God
In Hinduism evil like good is an integral part of God and stems from him. Therefore, it is not a moral problem in India but a problem of power flows from within the closed universe of the world egy. There is a fixed quantity of everything including evil so that more here implies less there. God must be powerful to order the universe including mankind to remain alive and function properly. He has to rid himself of his sin to remain in power. The evil god must be kept powerful no matter how evil he becomes; for sin does not negate divinity, the loss of power does. Hence many cynical Hindu texts use the concept of power to determine what is and is not sinful: “No one in this world ever sees the fruits of dharma and adharma. Dharma is carried on power, like smoke on wind, dharma belongs to the powerful. All is pure for these who have power.”