Differences and similarities between religious forms

in the Vedic tradition and those in the later Hindu tradition

Copyright 1995 by John R. Mabry

In detailing the differences between Vedic and later Hindu religion, one inevitably runs into the problem of trying to pin down exactly what these traditions entail, as they are both fluid, and ever-changing systems. As Hopkins states, "The Brahmanical system had never been static. The Vedic texts reflect a dynamic process of growth and innovation from the early hymn collections through the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads."1 We cannot, in the space provided, be exhaustive in our approach to this comparison, and must rely upon generalities which, due to their incompleteness, must inevitably involve inaccuracies.

The Vedic tradition comes to us, according to commonly excepted Indology, from the Aryan invaders. It is primarily a tradition of priests and priestcraft, with a sizable pantheon of nature deities. The sacrifice, the chief act of worship, gradually progressed from being a ritual of hospitality for the gods, to a means of propitiation, and eventually, a means of controlling the universe.

Later Hinduism is, simplistically stated, the result of the synthesis of the Vedic tradition of the Aryan invaders with the Dravidian, Harappic, and other Native Indian traditions, which survived on the popular level in tandem with the Vedic system. Stuart Piggott writes,

"the links between the Harappa religion...and contemporary Hinduism are...of course of immense interest, providing as they do some explanation of those many features that cannot be derived from the Aryan traditions.... The old faiths die hard: it is even possible that early historic Hindu society owed more to Harappa than it did to the Sanskrit-speaking invaders."2

The eventual synthesis of the two into later Hinduism was occasioned not only by time and proximity, but also necessity. With the rise of heterodox systems (such and Buddhism and the Jains), Brahmanical (priestly) superiority came into question. As Hopkins writes "Brahmans still received respect, but that respect increasingly had to be earned by proven worth."3 The mandate was clear to the Brahmans: change or die. So it was that non-Vedic influences such as meditation, iconographic employment, and social concern were appropriated by Brahmanical orthodoxy. Hopkins continues,

 

"These emphases together undercut popular support for the non-Vedic movements and established the Brahmanical system once more at the center of the Indian religious life, but this time with much greater openness and flexibility and with much greater popular involvement."4

But for all of the considerable theological and cosmetic differences between Vedic religion and later Hinduism, there is a strong thread of continuity that is often ignored by scholars. Gonda writes,

Too often they failed to draw attention to a great variety of elements which though chronologically Vedic and incorporated in the coprora of Vedic literature preluded phenomena or institutions which are generally regarded as typically "Hinduist" and disregarded what notwithstanding considerable difference points to unmistakable continuity."5

As we explore more fully the specific differences between the two "religions," we shall also attempt to point out practices and attitudes which have survived the evolution.

Vedic religion honored a pantheon of deities that were tied in function and domain to nature, divine powers that controlled various aspects of the natural world. There was Vayu, the wind god, Agni, the fire god, Indra, the god of thunder and king of the gods, as well as many, many others. Through the fire sacrifice, Agni took the prayers and oblations from the worshipers to the realm of the gods, to whom the sacrificer appealed for practical assistance.

Eventually, however, the religious intuition of a greater power behind the devas, or nature deities, developed. Brahman was the one power, the One in whom all reality inhered. As Hopkins explains it,

Early Upanishadic thinkers viewed the gods of the Vedic ritual tradition as belonging to the phenomenal world; they were "the gods" in contrast to the cosmic reality of Brahman, "the many" in contrast to the One. Brahman was not a god or deva but the Absolute, the Real, knowledge of which freed men from attachment to the world and its gods. This point, once established, undercut the entire Vedic pantheon.6

This was a giant leap forward in the religious imaginations of the Vedic peoples. Instead of being earth-bound (at least, bound to their responsibilities on earth) as were the nature deities of the Vedas, deity took on Cosmic proportions. After this idea was established in the Upanishads, later sectarian systems were able to claim identity between Brahma and their deity of choice, leading to a further step forward, but instead of an outward and expansive step in the conception of an Ultimate Reality, it was a step back inward, in that the Ultimate reality was also intimately connected and concerned with the individual, creating the unique (to the Vedics) concept of the personal god, at once of cosmic proportions and indwelling the heart of each person. According to Hopkins, "Development of Upanishadic theism occurred only when the personal aspect of Brahman were transferred to a god already well established in both priestly and popular religion."7

This could only have happened, initially, to deities with Vedic prerequisites. The two major deities of later Hinduism, Siva and Visnu, are both of Vedic origin, though in the Vedic canon they are minor devas compared with Indra, Vayu or Agni. As their cults developed, however, they overtook not only the Vedic gods, already overshadowed by Brahman, but Brahman himself, if not in explicit theology, then certainly in terms of popular devotion.

As the gods of later Hinduism eclipsed the Vedic pantheon, Indra and the rest did not disappear altogether, but were subsumed into the sectarian systems in different ways, providing another example of Gonda's continuity. In some schools, Indra, Yama, Varuna and Kubera remained as the Guardians of the four corners of the universe. As Basham writes, "In late texts four further guardians of the intermediate quarters were added--Soma, Vayu, Agni and Surya."8 At least in Hinduism, old gods never die, they just get reappropriated.

The concept of a personal god also ushered in many changes. No longer was an aspirant dependent upon the priests to mediate between himself and the gods, but through the appropriation of mental disciplines such as meditation, direct contact with Ultimate Reality was possible for everyone who was willing to submit to the yoga, or discipline. As Hopkins writes,

"What was essential was not the specific identity of the Lord but his accessibility through meditation. It was this that distinguished all later theism from the earlier worship of Vedic gods and greatly influenced the way in which popular gods were absorbed into the post-Vedic Brahmanical system."9

Meditation originally arose in the early Upanishadic period as a way of internalizing the fire sacrifice, and achieving tapas, or heat, energy that makes the ritual practice efficacious. This lead to many streams of asceticism outside of Brahmanical circles. Asceticism, though having no place within orthodox Brahmanic systems, nevertheless lent the tradition various practices used to achieve tapas, such as fasting, mortification (to which the Buddha reacted so strongly), and meditation. Later Hinduism, however, integrated the various streams of heterodox asceticism--influenced also by Buddhist and Jain practice--into orthodox religious life.

One of the most significant changes was the replacement of the sacrifice with puja as the chief form of religious practice. As Gonda puts it,

The often extremely complicated Vedic "sacrifice," the center of the aniconic Aryan cult, involving the slaughter of animals and the participation of many (up to 16 or 17) specialized priests contrasts markedly with the basic rite of Hinduism, the so-called puja which generally consists of the worship of a god in the form of an icon, to which flowers, betel quids, water for washing the feet and other--as a rule vegetarian--presents are offered. The image in which the god is believed to have in some sense taken up his abode is honored, fed, fanned, and placed in a shrine or temple, erections and edifices which in the Vedic cult are conspicuous by their absence."10

Although the forms are very different, there are still striking similarities between the practices. As stated earlier, the sacrifice was originally a rite of hospitality for the gods, very like the purpose of the puja, about which Basham says, "Though devotees often ask for boons at the feet of the idol, puja is not so much an act of prayer as of homage and entertainment. The god is offered water for washing the feet, flowers and betel quids, like an honored guest."11

Also similar is the distinction between the rites of the professional clergy and the household rites performed by everyday people, present in both systems. The lines began to blur significantly in the Upanishadic period, however. Hopkins says,

A formal distinction was maintained between Srauta rites (rites using the Vedic hymns), which were necessarily performed by priests, and Griha ("domestic") rites, performed by the Aryan householder himself; but both the latter and the former were subject to priestly influence. Some domestic rites became almost indistinguishable from the priestly Srauta sacrifices; and, even where older ceremonies were retained, they were usually interwoven with elements of the priestly ritual.12

Today, puja is similarly performed in the home and in the simpler temple ceremonies.

Another change wrought by the Brahmanical syntheses was a reorientation in sacred literature on forms of behavior. In the Vedic period, scripture spoke almost exclusively about behavior in terms of ritual action, proper procedure, etc. But after about 500 b.c.e., social concerns began to be addressed. Texts began detailing proper action in the matters of everyday living, or "dharma," which Hopkins translates "what men ought to do."13

The purpose of religious observance likewise evolved. In the Vedic period, the gods were addressed chiefly to obtain "material rewards on earth and in heaven."14 The conception of afterlife was nebulous, and at best, one expected to join ones ancestors in the realm of the gods. However, in the Upanishads the concept of transmigration developed, along with the doctrine of Karma. Men still made sacrifices to the gods to obtain material boons, but it was generally accepted that "the totality of men's actions determined the conditions of their rebirth."15 Eventually, in most sects of Hinduism, the goal of spiritual practice became release from the cyclic pattern of death and rebirth. Different systems were developed, all promising ultimate liberation from one's karma, most notably Bhakti, the path of devotion (favored amongst Vaishnavites), and Jnana, the path of knowledge (favored amongst Sivaites).

This is, of course, only a beginning; the comparisons, and continuities, are endless. There is, however, no question that although the Vedic tradition and later Hinduism have startling differences, the latter is in fact the tree sprung from the former, and there is much continuity yet connecting them.

Notes

1. Hopkins, Thomas J. The Hindu Religious Tradition (Belmont: Dickenson Publications, 1971), 64.

2. Quoted in Gonda, J. Change and Continuity in Indian Religion (London: Mouton & Co., 1965), 20.

3. Hopkins, 62.

4. Ibid.

5. Gonda, 17.

6. Hopkins, 69.

7. Ibid.

8. Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India (New York: Grove Press, 1954), 314.

9. Hopkins, 72.

10. Gonda, 16.

11. Basham, 335.

12. Hopkins, 15.

13. Ibid., 73.

14. Ibid., 15.

15. Ibid., 73.