May 2015

SUKUMARI  BHATTACHARYA

Sukumari Bhattacharya was among the foremost Indologists of her times, introducing as some of them did new perspectives on Indian mythology that she elaborated in her work. I would like to draw on her study entitled, The Indian Theogony, which I regard as a fine representation of the new work. Her knowledge of both Indian and European mythology enabled her to do comparative studies. She had trained in both English Literature and in Sanskrit.

For her, comparative mythology did not stop with the juxtaposition of myths from various cultures, showing some similarities and some differences. She took two steps further. One was to describe the context in which a myth occurred and how it was related to its context. The context was the crucible from which the myth was born. This meant a much deeper study of how a myth took the form that it did. The other was to see whether a myth was modified over time and if so then in what way.

In a comparative study therefore it meant looking at the contexts of both or more societies and ascertaining whether the context differed in the various societies under study or whether a similar context gave rise to similar myths.  In the comparative study of Indo-European languages and their mythologies some of the gods are similar but occasionally they behave differently from one society to another. This becomes an important aspect of comparative studies. Where there are similarities these have been explained in various ways. Some have argued that there was a diffusion of ideas that accounts for similarities in myths, others maintain that where the social and economic context is similar the narratives are likely to be similar too. Yet others would argue that there is a collective unconscious that conditions the creation of myths. Whatever the explanation there is a link between mythology and the study of society.

Many scholars have worked on Indo-European and comparative mythology such as Stig Wikender, Mircea Eliade and Claude Levi-Strauss. Sukumari Bhattacharya used the work of the last two scholars in her own analyses of ancient Indian myths. Myths have  been described as, projections of the vital experiences of a society, or else more generally as the social assumptions of a society. Others would argue that they are just sheer fantasy, stories of an altogether other world, and that this fantasy world is necessary as a balancing factor to social reality.  Myths generally draw upon gods and humans although the levels can either be kept distinct or can merge. The gods are sometimes exemplars for human society but can also be viewed as acting in a manner that is not appropriate for human society. In the latter case such actions are meant to emphasize the boundaries of human behavior.  

The other aspect of the study of mythology that Sukumari Bhattacharya brings out to great effect is that myths are not static. They too have a life of their own and some myths change over time although retaining some basic features. She shows how the deities and stories from Vedic sources begin to change in the later section of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana and even more so in the Puranas. Some older deities change their personality and some new deities are introduced. The older Vedic deities are distinctly subsidiary or gradually fade away. Mitra, Varuna, Agni and Indra give way to the two dominant deities, Vishnu and Shiva.

The new deities represent two fundamental principles. After Brahma creates, it is Vishnu that preserves the creation and Shiva that is associated with its destruction. Sukumari Bhattacharya suggests that this duality is contradictory but is also as aspect of beliefs and practices of Vaishnavism and Shaivism. The Vedic yajna/sacrifice, as the major form of worship is replaced by puja and by the worship of images in temples. The latter is conducted  by one or two priests and not the sixteen required for the Vedic sacrificial ritual. The prayers and hymns are different. Social attitudes begin to change and where shudras and women were earlier excluded from the sacrificial ritual they are now accommodated a little more easily – but of course not altogether as we know that some temples and sects excluded the lower castes and women, who had a hard time trying to assert their presence. The new form of religion gives much greater importance to female deities and Durga, and Lakshmi are central to the pantheon. 

This saw the start of a new form of Hinduism. Sukumari Bhattacharya refers to it as the Hinduism that we know and practice, other scholars have preferred to call it Puranic Hinduism, as different from the earlier Vedic Brahmanism.  The concept of bhakti or devotion to a deity becomes important, some degree of non-violence is espoused and there is also the central doctrine of karma and samsara that becomes an important feature of belief and worship.

The questions that remain with us are many. Sukumari Bhattacharya raised some, and by implication encouraged the raising of others. Was Puranic Hinduism a resurgence of non-Vedic deities and worship, which somehow got hidden in the importance we have given to Vedic worship ?  Does it reflect the impact of the Shramanic religions – Buddhism and Jainism, as would be suggested by the new emphasis on ahimsa/non-violence. Was there also a revival of folk religion – the worship of sacred spaces, of trees and varieties of spirits - in which the mother goddesses were so significant and this would also take us back to the Harappan religion about which we know so little as yet.

The Indian Theogony is a work that is very informative on deities and myths from Vedic times and continues the theme up to the time of the Puranas. But more than that it does what good scholarship should always do – it encourages us to ask questions. In finding answers to these questions our knowledge about the subject moves forward.