________________
Arvind Sharma
24. V. M. Vedekar op. cit., p. 221. 25 Max Muller, op. cit., p. 94. 26 M. Hiriyanna, op. cit, p. 187, also see Max Muller, op. cit, pp. 95-96. 27 Ibid., p. 96. Because Bphaspati is also the name of the chaplain of the gods
(Indra is called Brhaspati-purohita, ibid., p. 94) how is this apparent conflict to be resolved? They perhaps represent different persons but it has also been argued that the conflicting accounts as chaplain of the gods and as a heretic reflect two attitudes, in succession towards the same person. It has thus been suggested that "Brhaspati, with a lofty enthusiasm, flung away the fetters of religion, so that he might be freely righteous and noble. Some of the verses of the Vedic hymns ascribed to him are quite edifying. Whatever may be said of his followers, his own teachings were of an elevated character. Bphaspati bad many followers, and all of them were independent thinkers raising objections against the current superstitions. It is perhaps for the liberties he took with the gods that Bịhaspati was regarded as their teacher. But this state of things changed; a reaction against the school of Brhaspati set in, for which its negative attitude was perhaps responsible. The Vedic literature posterior to the Mantras is disfigured by anecdotes in which the pious sages poured out their wrath on the heads of those early oppositionists, viz. Bphaspati and his followers. The Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa relates an interesting anecdote which runs as follows: 'Once upon a time Brhaspati struck the goddess Gayatri on the head. The head and the brain were smashed to pieces. But Gayatri was immortal and so did not die. Every fragment of her brain remained alive'. Some scholars find an allegory behind this : Gayatri is the symbol of Hindusism; Bịhaspati tried to destroy it by introducing opposition. But Hinduism is eternal, it was not destroyed. In the Maitrāyani Upani sad we find another anecdote : Bphaspati assuming the form of Sukra brings forth false knowledge for the safety of Indra and for the destruction of the asuras. By it the asuras are taught that good is evil and evil is good; and they say that this new law which upsets the Vedas should be studied. Here Brhaspati is painted as a deceiver, a hypocrite. The Mahabharata records a story of this period, relating how Brhaspati, the sceptic, had a long discussion with Manu, one of the founders of the sacrificial cult and was in the end converted to the latter's view-point. The worst that is said of Brbaspati's teaching is that it is drawn from a study of the female intellet wbich is full of subtelty and deceit! The Vişnu Purāņa records that a number of demons, in ancient times, began to practise severe penances acording to the injunctions of the Vedas. This caused great apprehension to Indra. At his prayer Mayāmoba was created, and he preached to the demons the pernicious doctrines of Brhaspati, not for their benefit, but for their destruction. Thus they became enemies of the Brāhmaṇas, gave up their austerities, and were averse to the study of the Vedas. Then, as they had strayed from reilgious observances, Indra killed them. Almost similar is the account recorded in the Padma Purāna." (Hardas Bhatta. charyya, ed., The Cultural Heritage of India Calcutia: The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 1953 pp. 172-173). Also see M. Hiriyaona, op. cit., pp. 194-195.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
