RECONSTRUCTION OF KRISHNA IN BENGAL

RECONSTRUCTION OF KRISHNA IN BENGAL Author(s): Rohini Kar Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2018-19, Vol. 79 (2018-19), pp. 147-153 Published by: Indian History Congress Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26906241 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms RECONSTRUCTION OF KRISHNA IN BENGAL: POPULAR PERCEPTIONS AND HIS EXALTATION IN THE BRAHMAVAIVARTA PURANA Rohini Kar West Bengal I Krishna is often referred to as Krishna-Vasudeva. Worship of Vasudeva dates back to a distant past. The Buddhist Niddesa of the fourth century BCE mentions his worship, albeit disparagingly. In his comment on Panini IV, 3, 98, Patanjali distinctly states that the Vasudeva mentioned in the sutra of Panini is the name of God. In an inscription found at Ghosundi in Rajputana, is mentioned the construction of a wall around the hall of worship of Samkarsana and Vasudeva. This inscription dates back to the third century BCE. In another inscription discovered at Besnagar, Heliodorus is stated to have erected a Garudadhwaja or a column with the image of Garuda at the top in honour of Vasudeva, the god of gods. This belongs to the second century BCE. In the inscription No. 1 in the large cave at Nanaghat dating around the first century BCE, the names of Samkarsana and Vasudeva occur along with other deities. All this goes on to show the popularity of the cult of Vasudeva well before the beginning of the Christian era.1 In the course of time Vasudeva came to be identified with Narayana and Vishnu. Narayana is first mentioned in the Satapatha Brahmana and developed further in the period of later Aryanyakas and Brahmanas. R.G Bhandarkar states that the concept of Narayana was definitely prior to that of Vasudeva and in the epic times when the worship of Vasudeva became popular, the two were fused together.2 Similar process was followed in the event of Vasudeva’s identification with Vishnu too. Vishnu did not enjoy a high profile in the Rig Veda however his importance began to rise in the time of the Brahmanas while during the epic and puranic times he rose to the position of God par excellence. In epic times Vishnu was in every aspect the supreme spirit, and Vasudeva came to be identified with Vishnu. In the Bhismaparvan, the Supreme Spirit is addressed as Narayana and Vishnu and is identified with Narayana. It was much after this that Krishna too was fused with Narayana and Vishnu, and the name Vasudeva-Krishna received wide recognition. Krishna was not a God to begin with. In the Chandogya Upanishad he is referred to as the disciple of the sage Ghora Angirasa. He is also mentioned as a non-Aryan chief in the Rig Veda defeated by Indra. Thus we see that Krishna had no connection with divinity whatsoever, but it is particularly in the epics we see divinity being imposed upon him and the name This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 148 Ancient India Vasudeva-Krishna receiving wide currency. The view that is widely accepted is that Krishna was a hero of the Satvata clan who belonged to the Vrisni tribe and was later deified.3 Winternitz in his ‘History of Indian Literature’, points out how Krishna is repeatedly derided upon as ‘cowherd’ and ‘slave’. H.C Roychowdhury has made no distinction between Vasudeva and Krishna, however many scholars have expressed doubts if these two were at all the same to begin with. The question was first raised by A.Govindacharya Svami. According to him Bhagvatism emerged from Vasudeva, but the latter is not to be confused with the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. His argument rests on a passage of Padmatantra, a text of the Pancaratra worshippers which states that the image of the son of Vasudeva was to be made in accordance to that of Vasudeva. This view was refuted by Roychowdhury, who referring to Bhagavadgita, a text certainly older than Padmatantra shows that Vasudeva in this text has been described as a hero of the Vrisni race. It has been further stated by another scholar that it was the Pancaratrins who invented the myth of a superior Vasudeva, so to exonerate him of all wrong deeds like the killing of Drona, Duryadhana through treachery and the various sly and shrewd tactics that was adopted by him in the battle of Kuruksetra on which Vasudeva-Krishna stands the prime accused.4 It seems that Padmatantra belonged to that time when the supremacy of Vishnu was well established and with it the fact that all gods had emerged from him. Therefore it is only natural that such texts would differentiate between a ‘greater’ and a ‘lesser’ Vasudeva. However despite this, there are certain instances that lead one to infer that Vasudeva initially referred to a distinct god who was gradually fused with Krishna. It is generally held Patanjali differentiated between Vasudeva, the God and Vasudeva, the Ksatriya.5 Also, in one of the verses of Vishnu Purana, Vasudeva, the God is shown to be different from Vasudeva, the son of Devaki. Hence it is quite probable that Vasudeva, the God was later merged with the Vrisni hero, Krishna. It cannot be stated with precision at what point of time VasudevaKrishna came to be identified with Narayana-Vishnu but it seems that the process was complete long before the beginning of the Christian era.6 Krishna is also intrexicably linked to the child-god Gopala, which scholars think to be an Abhira import. Abhiras were a nomadic tribe. R.G Bhandarkar was of the view that Abhiras were a foreign tribe who had migrated to India in the first century of the Christian era, bringing with them various Christian legends that later made its way into the stories connected with Krishna’s birth and later exploits7 However this view does not hold ground and Roychowchowdhury along with many other scholars have proved the fallacy of this argument. The association of the erotic element in the worship of Krishna seems to be a result This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 149 of its Abhira association, who being a nomadic tribe certainly did not feel the need to regulate sexuality and hence had absolute no taboos regarding the free mixing of men and women. The relation of Krishna with several gopinis or cowherd girls prove this point. Thus Krishna saga has incorporated in its fold various strands of worship so much so that Vasudeva-Krishna-Gopala-Narayana-Vishnu are all assumed to be the same God. In the beginning Vasudeva-Krishna was only a manifestation of the black hair of Narayana in the Mahabharata, later in the same text he is referred to as one-eighth of the same god. In the Vishnu Purana he is a manifestation of a small part of Vishnu. It was only after the sixth century CE that he was given recognition as the complete avatara of Vishnu.8 Thus we see that Krishna’s ascendency to superiority was a gradual affair, the culmination of which is to be seen in the Brahmavaivarta Purana. II It is a known fact that from the fourth century CE to the end of the thirteenth century Vaisnavism as a Brahmanical faith co-existed in Bengal with Buddhism, Jainism and Saiva-Sakta worship. Inscriptions make it clear that Vaisnavism was followed by kings, merchants, scholars, agriculturalists, etc. Gradually the avatara, concept gained prominence in Bengal and we find evidences of the worship of Vamana or dwarf incarnation of Vishnu, Nrisimha or the man-lion incarnation and that of Varaha or Boar incarnation. Though the legends of Krishna were chiseled on the panels of the Paharpur temple, there is no particular evidence till the tenth century to suggest Krishna’s popularity. He is scarcely mentioned in inscriptions, he was considered just an Avatara of Vishnu, whose dalliance with the milkmaids is mentioned in one or two of the inscriptions. However certain developments led to the triumph of Krishna over the other incarnations of Vishnu and it seems to have reached its climax in the Brahmavaivarta Purana where Krisna came to be regarded not as a mere Avatara or incarnation of Vishnu but a Supreme Spirit, from whom Vishnu himself emerged and acted according to his dictates. What led Krisna to achieve this supreme position inverting the existing idea is something that is as interesting as it is baffling. It seems that in keeping with the heightened popularity of Krisna, a need was felt to compose a Purana which would raise Krishna to an exalted position. However, it must be remembered that this Purana in its final form is of relatively late date (composed between the tenth and the sixteenth century) and it is not the work of a single author. In the course of its development it had incorporated the ideas and views of many schools and sects like those of Saivas, Saktas, and tantras. Also according to some, the Brahmavaivarta Purana in its way to achieving the present form was influenced by the ideas of Madhavacarya (thirteenth century), Nimbarka (thirteenth-fourteenth century), Vallabhacharya and Caitanya (fifteenth- This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 150 Ancient India sixteenth century). How much was this Purana shaped by these ideas and if it also cast an influence on these ideas are some other facets that call for further investigation. The doctrines of most of the sects do not profess to choose any one particular incarnation over others. In actual practice one or the other incarnation was preferred. For example, the Ramanuja sect prefers Sri and Vishnu, or the Rama incarnation, but in Northern India, the other three sects have their gaze fixed on Krishna who occupy the centre of the Vaisnava faith. Though Krishna is treated as Param Brahman, yet he is also viewed as the youthful hero performing wonderful feats and dallying with the gopinis in Vrindavana. The Krishna legend was thus worked out with a wealth of devotional fancies along with its mystical and emotional attributes. Despite much erudite scholarship on this, the medieval faith as it spread across the various parts of the subcontinent was essentially poplar in character. After the epics and philosophical works came the popular Puranas dealing with the Krishna legend, poetizing and emotionalizing the tale of the amorous Krishna and his gopis. A case to point is the Bhagavata Purana that deals with Krishna concentrating mostly on his boyhood and youth. Although Radha is not mentioned, the Gopis figure prominently and their relationship with Krishna is highly emotionalized and sensualised in this Purana to the extent that the romantic love of the mistress for her lover, becomes symbol of the soul’s longing for god. However in the Bhagavata Purana, though Krishna receives preeminence he still is an amsa of Vishnu, but our present Purana even moves way ahead of it when it makes Vishnu subordinate to Krishna.9 It is he who embarks on the act of creation. Narayan, Mahesvara and Brahma emerged from his left side, right side and navel respectively. Similarly all other gods and goddesses too owe their existence to Krishna.10 III The image of Krishna in this Purana is unique, he is nirakar, meaning formless. He is a mass of radiance but beyond this effulgence, one can find the two-armed Krisna.11 Krishna is originally nirakar or formless, but takes the two armed form as the lord of the Goloka, his amsa or part rules Vaikuntha as the four armed Narayan and his kala or part of the part rules Svetadvipa as Vishnu.12 The ingenuity of this Purana lies in that it reconciles different ideologies to the Krishnaite framework, but not for once it undermines the superiority of Krishna. Krishna reigns supreme in this Purana, others just form appendages to this, further enriching the Krishnaite theology. This becomes clear if we take the instance of Siva. Siva is totally subservient to Krishna and thinks of him in times of distress. So pleased is Krishna with Siva that he states that whoever worships Siva will go to Goloka after death and that there is no distinction between Krishna and Siva.13 However all this does not at all exalt the position of Siva, rather the patronizing attitude of Krishna towards This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 151 Siva becomes all the more evident, Siva is nothing without Krishna’s grace and this is what this Purana tries to establish. Similar is the case when it comes to the question of reconciling the Krishnaite ideology with the Sakta ideology. Interestingly here also the supreme Goddess or the Mulaprakrti is made subservient to him. It was necessary to do so, because it is to the Mulaprakrti that all goddesses owe their existence, so if Mulaprakrti herself is put at a lower echelon than Krisna, then it would be easier to make Krishna exert hegemony over her and it is what this Purana precisely did. It was the samkhya conception of prakriti that contained the seed of her later transformation into a Goddess, but the mulaprakriti was a purānic formulation which was put to good use for the absorption of local goddesses, especially those of Bengal. The concept of mulaprakriti was more of a theoretical justification contrived to suit the requirements of Brahmanism. As the Sāmkhya does not admit of more than one Prakriti, therefore in deference to that mulaprakriti was conceived, theoretically one, but as the name suggests, the repository or sum total of all the secondary prakritis. Once the divisibility of prakriti was established in principle, it opened up endless possibilities, as now Brahmanism could usurp as many goddesses as was deemed necessary into its fold, in the name of mulaprakriti, with the help of a single theological justification. The Brahmavaivarta says that the mulaprakriti, who is Vishnumāyā and identical with Pūrnabrahma, is one but at the time of creation splits herself into five forms; Rādhā, Lakshmī, Sarasvatī, Savitrī, and Durgā. It further declares that all the goddesses and all women in this universe are derived from Prakriti and arranges them in descending order of importance. Some are her parts, some are parts of the parts, and still others are parts of the parts of the parts. Each one of them acknowledges Krisna as the supreme force because they all have emerged from Mulaprakriti who herself is a worshipper of Krishna. In this way there has been an attempt to reconcile the Krishnaite theology with that of Sakta. There is another way it has been done and that is by projecting Radha as the partner of Krisna in the act of creation in the Prakriti khanda. It was Krisna who with the urge to create, became twofold, the left half assumed the form of a woman while the right that of a man. This is a departure from the act of creation as described in the Brahmakhanda, because there Krisna alone is described to be responsible for creation, but here it is shown that He cannot do so without the help of this Sakti. The Prakriti khanda hence gives due recognition to the Feminine Force. In this way Vaisnava or to be more pertinent Krishnaite philosophy is reconciled with that of Sakta. Thus the Krishna legend was recast in Bengal to suit the needs of the changing times. It is no doubt that the Brahmavairta Purana marks the twilight zone of Puranic activities in Bengal, a time when Islam had already arrived and embarked on its proselytizing mission. Like the previous Puranas, This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 152 Ancient India the Brahmavaivarta too was concerned with propagating the Brahmanical way of life. The Sakta ideology was well established in Bengal and as in the case of Puranas like Kalika and Devi Bhagavat, the Brahmavaivarta could also have carried on its brahmanising mission under the banner of the Great Goddess, but it chose Krishna. Not only did it choose Krishna but by making Him the greatest of all Gods it dared to defy all existing notions. The reason behind this could be the new threat posed by Islamisation. When Islamisation was alluring people to its fold, the brahmanas perhaps wanted to resist this by inventing a theology that was at the same time novel and appealing to the masses than the hackneyed themes of most of the Puranas. May be this is the key to understanding the Krishnaite basis of our Purana and the reconstruction of Krishna myth in Bengal. NOTES AND REFERENCES: 1. R.G Bhanfarkar, Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, Munshiram Manoharlal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2001 (originally published in 1913), pp. 31-32. 2. Ibid., pp. 32-33 3. Ibid., p. 33-34. Also see Suvira Jaiswal, The Origin and Development of Vaisnavism: Vaisnavism From 200 BC to AD 500, Munshiram Manoharlal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 4. Hemchandra Roychowdhury, Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect, University of Calcutta, Calcutta, 1920, pp. 13-37. Also see Suvira Jaiswal, op. cit. 5. An oft quoted sutra of Panini, Vasudevarjunabhyam vun has led Patanjali to raise a question. Patanjali questioned why Patanjali used vun as a suffix when he could have easily used vun. As an answer to his self posed query he pointed out that this was because Panini wanted to give importance to Vasudeva and further added ‘Or it was not a Ksatriya name, it is the adoration of the honourable one’, because according to Panini the suffix vun should be used to be referred to the Ksatriyas. Since this was not the case here, it has led many to assume that Panini had referred to the God Vasudeva, different from the Vrsni hero. However as Suvira Jaisawal stated that this might not have been the case, maybe Patanjali too referred to Vasudva-Krishna who at this time was also well known as a ksatriya. See Suvira Jaiswal, op. cit., pp. 76-77; R.G Bhandarkar, op.cit. 6. Many think that the dedication of Garuda pillar to Vasudeva fosters his connection with Vishnu as according to Roychowdhury, both Garuda and Vishnu were solar deities. However Suvira Jaiswal refutes this view, because even in the second century BCE Vishnu was not identified with Vasudeva; if This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 153 that be the case how can the worshippers of Vasudeva erect a Garudadhwaja signifying Vasudeva’s connection with Vishnu. She feels that Garuda was a totem of a certain tribe and forging Garuda and Vasudeva together, the adherents of this faith perhaps tried to bring these cults together. However she expresses no doubt that the process of coopting Vasudeva into the cult of Narayana-Vishnu had started around second century BCE. The Nanaghat inscription of queen Nayanika invokes Dharma, Indra, Samkarsana, Vasudeva, Candra and Surya along with the Lokpalas Yama, Varuna, Kubera and Basav, It further elaborates grants made to brahmanas for a number of Vedic sacrifices that they performed for the donors. Inscriptions like this show the close relationship between adherents of Brahmanism and those of Vasudeva. Facing stiff competition from Buddhism, Brahmanism had no option but to mould itself to suit the needs of the changing times, hence it co-opted the popular gods and goddesses into its fold, hence Vasudeva-Krishna came to be identified with Narayana and Vishnu. See H.C Roychowdhury, op. cit., p 13 and Suvira Jaiswal, op. cit., pp. 89-90. 7. R.G Bhandarkar, op.cit. 8. Suvira Jaiswal, op. cit., pp. 90-91. 9. S.K De, Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, Firma K.L Mukhopadhyaya, 1961, Calcutta, pp. 4-8. 10. Brahmavaivarta Purana, I. 3. 1-73. 11. BVP. I. II.2-5 12. BVP. I. 28. 55-64; 65-73 13. BVP. I. VI. 26-46; I. IX.81-84 This content downloaded from 47.11.42.242 on Sun, 18 Dec 2022 07:32:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms