Lecture 2

Origins and History of the Hindu Tradition

Return to: 22 July - 28 Ju...

Introduction
In this section of the course we are going to look at the origins of Hinduism before moving on to a
consideration of its historical development and the influence of this history on belief and practice.
As noted earlier, Hinduism has no founder or foundation event. We must be aware, however, that
the academic view of its history is rather different from that of the Hindu tradition itself. The
academic view is that in different parts of the world civilisation emerged gradually from earlier
primitive states and that this process began only around 5,000 years ago. Hence the earliest
possible date for the origins of Hinduism would be between 3000 and 2000 BC, when the
primitive peoples who inhabited the Indian subcontinent began to develop more sophisticated
social and cultural forms.

The traditional Hindu idea is derived from the Puranas and the Mahabharata, which present a
rather different view of the history and development of human civilisation. Rather than emerging
relatively recently from a primitive state of existence, it is stated there that humanity has lived in a
civilised condition for many thousands or even millions of years, and that in fact the level of
human civilisation has been declining for the past 5,000 years in the present age that is known as
Kali-yuga. These differences in understanding are clearly fundamental. However, one can accept
the academic view and still be a devout Hindu as belief in the literal truth of sacred texts is not
considered essential and in fact Hindus hold very different views on this issue.

Both the Western and the traditional Hindu perspective see the origins of Hinduism in the Vedas,
though Western academics are also drawn to the Indus Valley culture that is usually dated at
between 2500 BC and 1600 BC. In the 1920s archaeologists began to discover the remains of great
cities along the valley of the Indus River in what is now Pakistan. The original cities discovered
were Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, close to the Indus itself, but recent discoveries have shown that
this culture spread far to the east of the Indus Valley into the Punjab, Gujarat and beyond. The
people of this culture were almost certainly literate but their script has never been deciphered and
hence it is very difficult to learn much about their beliefs or culture. Archaeologists have, however,
made certain finds that might suggest links with Hindu belief and practice: the large bathing tank
might have a connection with notions of ritual purity and some of the figures represented on clay
seals or as statues may indicate the presence of Shaivism and possibly the origins of Goddess
worship. It might also be theorised that elements of contemporary Hinduism which are absent
from the Veda have their origins in cultures such as those discovered in the Indus valley, but in
truth scholars know very little and any such speculations must be regarded as pure conjecture.
 The remains of Mahenjo-daro

A street in Mahenjo-daro
Here is what W. Weaver wrote in 1972 about the Indus Valley culture in relation to the
development of Hinduism:

In 1920 archaeologists announced the discovery of extensive urban ruins in the Indus Valley which pre-
dated the earliest literary sources and which caused scholars working on the ancient texts to re-examine
their views on the different phases of Indian culture. The Rig Veda, which speaks in such derogatory terms
of the enemies subdued by the Aryan tribes, gives the impression that they were all savage barbarians. In
fact, some of them had developed a highly sophisticated way of life which compares favourably with that of
contemporary urban civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The extensive excavations carried out at the two principal city sites, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, both
situated in the Indus basin, indicate that this pre-Aryan culture was well established by about 2500 B.C.
and subsequent discoveries have revealed that it covered most of the Lower Indus Valley. What we know of
this ancient civilization is derived almost exclusively from archaeological data since every attempt to
decipher the script used by these people has so far failed.

The Indus cities were carefully planned and well constructed with wide streets, fired brick buildings, well-
equipped private dwellings, enormous granaries, and even elaborate drainage systems for the disposal of
sewage. In contrast to Egypt and Mesopotamia where a great many temples and religious monuments have
come to light, the Indus cities seem to have had very few public buildings. The only one of any note is the
Great Bath at Mohenjo-Daro which appears to have been used in the performance of certain rituals.
Nothing that can be clearly identified as a temple or a shrine has yet been discovered.

The people depended upon agriculture and trade for their livelihood. Wheat, barley and the date palm were
cultivated; animals were domesticated; and cotton textiles, ivory and copper were exported to
Mesopotamia, and possibly China and Burma in exchange for silver and other commodities.

Evidence of the religious beliefs and practices of these people is slight, since the Indus script cannot be read
and, apart form the bath at Mohenjo-Daro, there appears to be no religious architecture. A certain amount
of information has been derived from scenes depicted on seal-amulets and from the terra-cotta figurines
found at different sites throughout the area; but such evidence is open to wide interpretation. The
predominance of female figurines with seals depicting a horned goddess in association with the sacred
pipal tree are generally regarded as evidence of a mother-goddess who presided over fertility and birth and
who may have acted as guardian and protector of the dead.

In some of the mother goddess cults of the Ancient Near East, the Great Mother who symbolised the power
of fertility came also to be associated with the renewal of human life after death. In her role as mistress of
the blessed dead she protected and revived those committed to the earth from whence this new life sprang.
It is impossible to say, on the basis of the existing evidence, whether or not the Indus Valley goddess was
concerned so intimately with the fortunes of the departed; although it is worth noting that a good deal of
care and attention was given to the dead.

It would seem that inhumation was the most common method of disposing of the corpse. Some were
buried in a fully extended position and provided with an assortment of grave goods, including pottery
vessels which may have contained food and drink offerings. In addition, many examples of 'fractional'
burials have come to light. The provision of grave goods indicates that life in the hereafter was thought of
largely as a continuation of the present mode of existence so that through burial the dead were transported
to their subterranean abode presided over by the goddess.

Reference has also been made to the great bath at Mohenjo-Daro. It is certain that this strange monument
was not constructed merely for the purposes of hygiene since all the private dwellings were equipped with
excellent bathrooms. Since so many elements of the Indus culture appear to have found their way into early
Hinduism it is possible that ancient purification rites were taken over and reinterpreted by members of the
brahmin caste. If this is so the later practice of constructing pushkaras or artificial lotus ponds may be very
ancient indeed. These lotus ponds were used during historic times for various purification ceremonies
concerned with kingship and the priesthood. What is perhaps more significant from the point of view of the
religion of the Indus Valley dwellers is the suggestion by D.D. Kosambi1 that the bath was probably used in
the mother goddess cult. In a number of references these lotus ponds are said to be the abode of a group of
feminine water deities known as apsaras and renowned for their beauty and musical talent. If this ancient
belief associating goddesses with sacred baths is derived from pre-Aryan sources, then the cult at Mohenjo-
Daro may have involved some form of ceremonial bathing as a prelude to ritual cohabitation with female
representatives of the goddess, carried out in the small ante-chambers adjoining the bath. Although there is
no direct evidence to substantiate this theory, the practice of sacred prostitution associated with the mother
goddess cults elsewhere lends some support to the suggestion.

It would appear that the religion of the Indus Valley dwellers was not confined exclusively to the worship of
the goddess. One seal uncovered at Mohenjo-Daro depicts a three-faced, male god with arms outstretched,
seated on a low platform in a cross legged position (similar to that adopted by the later yogis). His arms are
adorned with bangles and his head is crowned with a fan-shaped head-dress form which two horns project.
The fact that he is surrounded by a number of animals and fertility symbols suggests that, like the goddess,
he was concerned primarily with the promotion of fertility. This remarkable figure has been interpreted as
a prototype of the later Shiva in his form as pashupati 'Lord of the Beasts' and 'Prince of Yogis', but until
more evidence is forthcoming this must still remain a matter for speculation.

The end of the Indus Valley Civilization seems to have been fairly abrupt and violent. Mohenjo-Daro was
set on fire and its inhabitants massacred. But long before the end came there seems to have been a gradual
process of internal decay and stagnation.

1 D. D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. Delhi, Vikas
Publications, 1996 (pp 66-68)

Now follow this link in order to view a slide show of sites and finds of the Indus Valley
Culture: www.harappa.com

When you have finished reading through Weaver's chapter on the Indus Valley culture, write down
your immediate impressions both in terms of the contents and also the way in which he discusses
the material. When you have done this, look through the observations presented below and
consider the extent to which they agree with your own impressions.

Discussion
I think what strikes me most about this piece is how so much theorisation about the origins of
Hinduism can be derived from so little evidence. The suggestions about ritual prostitution and the
goddess cult in relation to the afterlife seem so fanciful as to be almost fatuous. Bear in mind that
the only evidence on which this theorisation is based is the large bath near the citadel in Mahenjo-
daro and the preponderance of female figures found at the sites. It is also clearly apparent that
Weaver accepts the Aryan invasion theory as a fact and tries to set the destruction of the Indus
Valley culture in that context. The cities of the Indus are designated as 'pre-Aryan' and hence
evidence is naturally sought (and naturally found) for their violent destruction. In fact, there is
very little evidence to show that the Indus Valley Culture declined due to hostile invaders and
more recent writing on this subject makes it very clear that climate change was the most likely
reason for the abandoning of the Indus Valley cities. The suggestion of violent overthrow is an
interesting example of the tendency for scholarship to impose an existing idea and to interpret
data in terms of theory rather than fact.

Setting aside, however, grave reservations about the validity of this type of speculative scholarship,
I would make the following suggestions as to the possibility of certain identifiable links between
the Indus Valley Culture and the Hindu religious tradition:

The large bath in Mahenjo-daro does suggest that ritual bathing was practised.

The representation of female figures may be indicative that there was some tendency towards the veneration of a
goddess or goddesses.
Some clay seals showing a seated figure do suggest practices akin to the yoga techniques referred to in the
Upanishads, Bhagavad-gita and Yoga-sutras.

One of the figures shown in these sitting postures might be construed as representing Shiva Pashupati, although any
such suggestion must be treated with a good degree of caution.
Apart from these points there is little that can be said, although some might feel that the
unexpected discovery of an ancient civilisation in India lends weight to the Hindu view of the past
and the understanding that advanced urban culture has been present in the subcontinent from a
period of the remotest antiquity. More recent finds have revealed evidence that towns and cities
existed in Pakistan from as early as 3000 BC and also that the Indus Valley culture spread far into
India and was present along the Yamuna and in Gujarat as well. It might even be the case that the
cities of the Indus Valley Culture were built by Aryans although the evidence of the Rig Veda tends
to suggest that the Aryans were a pastoral people rather than city dwellers. The fact of the matter is
that we know very little about the religious beliefs of this early civilisation but it would seem to be
likely that the people who dwelt in these towns and cities did have at least some influence over the
subsequent development of Indian culture and religion.

The Aryans and the Vedas

Before the 1920s, scholars sought the origins of Hinduism in the Vedas alone, trying to piece
together the tiny fragments of historical data provided by the hymns of the Rig Veda and
suggesting possible dates for their composition. Traditional Hindu teaching insists that the Vedas
are eternal and some branches of orthodox philosophy go to some length to try to prove the
eternality of sound in order show that the Vedas have no point of origin. Other branches of Hindu
thought do not share this view and instead present the idea that the Vedas were revealed by the
Supreme Deity. The highly orthodox Purva Mimamsa system, however, rejects the idea of a Deity
and insists that the Vedas are free of any fault and are not composed by human beings. They are
therefore designated as apaurusheya, meaning not of human composition; the great rishis merely
'hear' them by means of their heightened spiritual perception and for this reason the Vedas are
also referred to as the shruti, 'that which is heard'.

The Vedas are composed in an early form of Sanskrit and refer to the people who follow their
teachings as Aryans, a term meaning 'civilised' or 'righteous' that was later given a racial meaning
which was adopted and perverted by the Nazis. There is little doubt that the Vedas originally
existed as oral texts that were handed down in different families and repeatedly committed to
memory; it seems likely that they were not written down for a thousand years or more after they
were first composed or 'heard'. The Vedas are religious books that contain hymns praising a
pantheon of gods in their Samhita portions, instructions for the performance of the ritual fire
yajña (sacrifice) in the Brahmana portions, and philosophical and religious teachings in passages
known as Upanishads and Aranyakas. Most Western scholars regard the hymns to the gods,
particularly those of the Rig Veda, as being the oldest parts though this is not a view shared by
traditional Hindu teachers who see all sections as being of equal antiquity.

In a future session we will look in more detail at the teachings and rituals revealed within the
Vedas but at this point we might pause briefly to consider the significance of the Vedas as
foundational works for the Hindu tradition and in particular the view that the foundation of
Hinduism is contained within the Vedic revelation. In our first session we noted the view that
acceptance of the Vedas might be regarded as a defining characteristic of Hinduism, as it marks a
distinction between Hindus on the one hand and Buddhists and Jains on the other. We need to be
aware, however, that Hinduism is not the religion of the Vedas and that the rituals and deities
referred to in the Vedic texts form a relatively small part of contemporary Hindu belief and
practice. The ritual of the Vedas is the sacrificial yajña in which offerings are made to the gods
through the sacred fire. This ritual is still sometimes performed today but it is secondary to main
forms of Hindu ritual, which take place in the temple or mandir where offerings are made to
images of the Deity. We should note that no reference to temple or image worship is to be found
anywhere within the Vedas. Moreover the gods revered and glorified by the Vedic hymns are for
the most part no longer worshipped today and have been replaced by other deities whose names
do not appear in the Vedas. So, for example, the main deity praised within the Vedas is Indra, the
god of the rains, who is no longer an object of worship for Hindus whilst popular deities such as
Krishna, Ganesha and Hanuman are not mentioned within the Vedic hymns. On the other hand,
some of the fundamental tenets of Hindu doctrine such as the ideas of rebirth and liberation have
their earliest expression within the Upanishad portion of the Veda. So whilst there is some truth in
the assertion that the origins of the Hindu tradition can be traced back to the Vedic revelation, we
must also be aware that most of what Hindus do and believe today is not derived from Vedic
sources.
The notion of an Aryan invasion of India
Western scholars have always maintained an invasion or migration theory, arguing that the Aryans
entered northern India from the West between 2000 and 1500 BC. Revisionist scholarship, usually
from within India, has challenged this view in recent years but it is still more or less an orthodoxy
of Western scholarship to regard the Aryans as outsiders who entered India from the north-west
after the decline of the Indus Valley culture. The differing views on this issue, however, go beyond
the realm of scholarly debate and are closely linked to politics and religious conviction. Many
Indian writers believe that the theory of an Aryan invasion is a reflection of the Orientalist
perspective. According to Kim Knott,

Most of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century scholars (we often refer to them as 'orientalists') who
first undertook the translation of Sanskrit texts and the reconstruction of the Aryan past were also British
administrators. In this capacity, they needed to acquire a good understanding of Hindu culture and
traditions in order to help in the establishment of British colonial rule in India. Inspired by what they
learnt about the similarities between Sanskrit and European languages and about the Aryan people
described in the Sanskrit texts, some of them drew conclusions about the common origins of Indo-
European societies and culture. The romantic view which they put forward was appealing to some people in
Europe and India because it suggested a common descent from noble (arya) origins. (Hinduism: A Very
Short Introduction, OUP, 2000, pp. 7-8)

The point that Kim Knott makes here is that the Aryan invasion theory had its origins and
inspiration in British imperialism. In the post-imperial era it is inevitable that all such tendentious
theorisations should be reappraised. That is not to say that they are axiomatically false, merely
that they are open to doubt because of their roots in a now discredited ideology. And indeed Indian
scholarship has produced some interesting evidence suggesting that some portions of the Veda
may be much older than the original dates ascribed by orientalists and still largely accepted by
Western academia.

If we try to consider the question dispassionately, we can say that the evidence for an Aryan
invasion is at best weak and at worst non-existent. All we can say for certain is that the Sanskrit
language and its derivative North Indian vernacular tongues are of the Indo-European group. In
other words Sanskrit shares a common origin with ancient Latin and ancient Greek, and Hindi,
Gujarati, Bengali, Punjabi, etc. are of the same linguistic group as virtually all the modern
European languages. Conversely, the Dravidian languages of India, such as Tamil, Malayalam,
Telugu and Kannada, are of an entirely different linguistic group and hence the people of North
India speak languages that are closer to the European tongues than they are to the languages of
South India. The connection can be easily identified by looking at common terminology. Here are a
few examples:
Sanskrit Latin English
fire agni ignis ignite
god deva deus divine
thunderbolt vajra vigor vigour
mother matri mater matriarch
father pitri pater paternal
knowledge vidya videre(to see) wisdom, vision
And if we look at the religion of the Romans and the Greeks, we can see that the Sanskrit dyaus
pitar, or 'Lord of the Sky', is expressed in the Latin name Dies piter (Jupiter), and also in the
Greek form Zeus pater. The languages of India today can be divided into two major groups. The
North Indian languages are spoken by 76% of the total population of the modern state of India;
these are all derived from Sanskrit and hence fall into the Indo-European group. The Dravidian
languages are spoken by 22% of the population and have no relationship with Sanskrit, apart from
the use of specific terms, particularly those related to religious belief and practice, which have been
absorbed into the vocabulary. There is also a third group of languages spoken by the Adi Vasins,
the tribal peoples of India, that are neither Indo-European nor Dravidian.

Although other evidence has been postulated including that based on the use of horses and chariot
technology and suggestions of commonality in archaeological finds, it is reasonable to assert that
the Aryan invasion theory rests overwhelmingly on linguistic evidence and theories of historical
linguistics that are the subject of dispute between the main scholars in the field. We might
presume that the Indo-European speakers of North India share some form of common ethnicity
with the peoples of Europe although it is now accepted that language and ethnicity cannot be
equated. For example, although the people of Britain came to be speakers of the English language
most authorities are now of the view that individuals of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity never formed more
than 10% of the English population. Hence we cannot be certain as to how it came about that most
of the Indian population came to be speakers of Indo-European languages; the notion of migration
from the West into India or forcible conquest is simply a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. It
is, however, noteworthy that the Vedas themselves make no mention of any homeland to the West
or of the Aryans as having ever lived anywhere apart from northern India. They do refer to conflict
with a non-Aryan population, the Dasyus who dwell in cities, but this is indicative only of internal
warfare not of any invasion from outside.

Nicholas Kazanas has argued strongly for a very early date for the composition of the Vedic hymns,
insisting that they are earlier than the Indus Valley Culture, which of course would completely
undermine the Aryan invasion theory. He presents a wide range of evidence to support this thesis.
We cannot go into detail here but his argument in relation to the Sarasvati River seems
particularly worthy of note:

1.The Sarasvati river

This is probably the most startling piece of evidence. Many hymns in all ten books of the RV (except the
4th) extol or mention a divine and very large river (nadi tama), named Sarasvati, which flows mightily
“from the mountains to the [Indian] Ocean” (giribhya samudrat; VII, 95, 2). This river gave sustenance to
many kings and the five Arya tribes that were settled along its banks (VI, 61; etc) and along the Indus,
Drsadvati and other rivers. In historic times the river appeared to be a minor stream, Sarsuti (<Saraswati)
or Ghaggar, which ended in the desert of Bhatnair, hundreds of miles away from the Ocean, so that modern
scholars (Roth, Griffiths, et al, Vedic Index II, 434) thought that the RV poets referred, in fact, to the Indus
which alone is large enough and justifies such references.

In the 1970's and 1980's, however, archaeological researches discovered the old route of the Sarasvati from
the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean and its various diversions due to tectonic and climatic changes and
unearthed along this route hundreds of small and large settlements, including some sizeable towns like
Kalibangan: in fact these constitute two thirds of the total Harappan settlements of 2,500 while those along
the Indus are only about 100 (Misra V.N. 1992). According to palaeoenvironmental scientists the
desiccation of Sarasvati came about as a result of the diversion of at least two rivers that fed it, the Satluj
and the Yamuna. “The chain of tectonic events . . . diverted the Sarasvati westward [into the Indus] and the
Palaeo Yamuna eastward [into the Ganga] . . . This explains the 'death' of such a mighty river [i.e.
Sarasvati] . . . because its main feeders, the Satluj and Palaeo Yamuna were weaned away from it by the
Indus and Ganga respectively (Rao 1991: 77-9; also Feuerstein et al 1995: 87-90). This ended at c1750 (BC)
but it started much earlier, perhaps with the upheavals and the large flood of 1900 (BC), or more probably
2100 (BC) (Elst 1993: 70; Allchins 1997: 117). In pre-Harappan times, of course, the settlements on the
Sarasvati were far fewer. Future excavations may reveal many more settlements.

The RV knows two very large rivers, the Sarasvati and the Indus. At 1200 (BC) there was only the Indus, as
in modern times. Clearly, then, when the RV describes the Sarasvati flowing down to the ocean, it is
referring to the river as it was long before 1750 (BC). How did the poets know of this naditama Sarasvati?

This suggests a date well before 2000 (BC). However, P.H. Francfort, utilizing images from the French
satellite SPOT, finds (1992) that the large river Sarasvati is pre-Harappan altogether and started drying up
in the 4th millennium; during Harappan times only a complex irrigation-canal network was being used in
the southern region . . . With this the date should be pushed back to c. 3800 (BC).

The conclusion of this discussion must be that the traditional and still largely orthodox academic
view of an Aryan invasion from the West is to be treated with some caution and with a recognition
of the orientalist milieu from which it arose. As the only solid evidence is linguistic and this does
not give any indication of if or when an invasion occurred, one may be best advised to keep an
open mind on this debate.

The real connection to the origins of Hinduism lies in the Vedic texts themselves and in particular
the hymns in praise of various gods that are found in the Rig Veda Samhita. These are certainly the
oldest Hindu sacred texts but, as the above discussion demonstrates, providing a certain date for
their composition is extremely difficult and is becoming ever more contested. Western scholars
have usually dated the Veda Samhitas, which contain the hymns, to somewhere between 1300 to
800 BC. The Hindu tradition regards them as eternal. On anybody's terms, however, these are very
ancient works.
Concluding words
If nothing else, the above discussion has served to demonstrate that there is no founder of
Hinduism and no foundation event that we can establish in terms of conventional history. It also
raises questions about the very nature of Hinduism as a world religion. As we have seen, some
writers prefer to think in terms of Hinduisms rather than Hinduism and we could certainly argue
that there are a number of discrete religious traditions existing under the broad heading of
Hinduism. Each of these could then perhaps be seen as a religion in its own right with its own
founder and its own foundation events. Examples are numerous; the Vira Shaivas were founded by
Basava in the 12th century, the Pushti Marg was founded by Vallabhacharya in the 16th century,
the Gaudiya Vaishnavas were founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the 16th century, and the
Swaminarayans were founded by Swaminarayan himself in the early 19th century.

So it might be that the picture becomes a little clearer if we divide Hinduism up into its component
parts but this, I think, would give rise to a serious misunderstanding of the tradition. The majority
of Hindus are not members of one of these subgroups and hence cannot be categorised in this way;
more importantly Hinduism does exist as a single entity that is somehow able to transcend its
divergent tendencies. If we accept that Hinduism is a single religious tradition, which I think we
must do, then the question of origins is one that must be explained without reference to founders
and foundation events. It is rather a tradition that has existed and flourished in India since the
remotest antiquity and the further back we go the more difficult it becomes to identify its
distinctive beliefs and practices. We can muse over the artefacts found in the Indus Valley cities
and we can minutely examine the words of the Vedas but these, like all the other materials we will
encounter, represent only one part and one stage in the progressive evolution of the Hindu
tradition and cannot be taken as the foundation point. As we proceed through the course we will
encounter a variety of religious ideas and explore a range of religious practices but despite this
enormous diversity Hinduism still exists as a single entity that moves forward from the mists of
antiquity and progresses through the ages down to the present day.

And this point brings us on nicely to the subject matter for our study of the historical development
of the Hindu tradition and in particular the way in which the history of India has had an influence
on the nature of the religion practised there. Perhaps the key point to take from our preliminary
studies here is the dynamic nature of Hinduism. Other religions which have a fixed foundation
point and a fixed canon of doctrine may show a tendency towards becoming fixed on that one
point. Free of any such event, Hinduism has developed a dynamic quality that enables it to evolve
as times change and, moreover, to adopt new ideas appropriate for a changed environment. For
this reason the history of the tradition and the history of the times through which it evolved
become essential for a full understanding of the nature and diversity of Hinduism.

The Ancient History of the Hindu Religious Tradition

It is not my aim here to offer a detailed account of the historical development of Hinduism, but
merely to sketch out its main phases. What is important to bear in mind is that the Hindu tradition
has always displayed a dynamic character, evolving, developing and reinventing itself whilst
remaining substantially faithful to its core principles. This has happened throughout past epochs
and it is certainly happening today, so we should not be surprised to discover that the ancient
forms of Hinduism practised in Vedic times are rather different from those we witness in the
present age.

Writing on this subject, Robert Zaehner expressed the following view:

Historically Hinduism may be divided conventionally and conveniently into four distinct periods. The
earliest of these, of which the principal literary monument is the Rig-Veda, is frankly polytheist and clearly
akin to the religions of other Indo-European nations. This then develops into a pantheistic monism in
which the All is seen to be centred on the One or is wholly identified with the One: in its extreme form the
individual human soul is identified with the Absolute. In effect this means that the gods are dethroned and
the human soul is set up in their place. This is the form of Hinduism recently both in India itself and far
beyond her borders in the Western world which lays all its stress on moksha, the liberation of the human
soul from time, space, and matter. This, for many, constitutes the highest religious truth of which all forms
of religion, both Hindu and otherwise, are but imperfect and impermanent manifestations.

The third phase, which is perhaps the most important, is the development within Hinduism of strong
monotheistic trends on the one hand and the crystallization and ossification of the caste system on the
other. Preoccupations with the liberation of the soul from the bondage of time and matter gives way to a
rapt adoration of God, that is to say, of the great traditional gods, Vishnu and Siva, now regarded as
absolute Lord. This religion of loving devotion or bhakti became the real religion of the mass of the people
and has remained so ever since. It was not easy to fit into the general scheme of classical Hinduism with its
almost deterministic view of the phenomenal world and its stress on moksha as the final end of man. How
it was done we shall see in the sequel.

It has too often been said that Hinduism as such regards the world as an illusion. This has never been true
of Hinduism as a whole but only of one (though at present predominant) school of Vedanta philosophy
which is itself only one among six philosophical schools: it has never been true of the sacred writings
themselves nor of popular religion. Nevertheless it is true to say that there is and, except in the very earliest
period, always has been a double tension within the Hindu religion—the striving after liberation from this
world which all admit to be the final goal of man on the one hand and man's obligation to do what is right
in this world on the other, the tension between moksha and dharma—and in the second instance the
tension of two types of dharma, the sanatana dharma or absolute moral order which can never be precisely
defined yet is felt to have absolute validity, and the dharma of caste and canon law as laid down in the
various law-books. These tensions are most plainly exhibited in India's Great Epic, the Mahabharata, which
sums up within its vast bulk every shade and nuance of classical Hinduism, both its orthodox formulations
and the outraged protest that these evoked.
Hinduism is, or was, as much a social system as a religion. Its primary presuppositions of transmigration,
the wheel of birth, death, and rebirth, and the hope of liberation from this bondage have already been
touched upon. This is the ideological framework in which it moves. Its social framework has from very
early times been the caste system, and this has, until very recently, become increasingly rigid, increasingly
complicated, and increasingly identified with Hinduism as such. Indeed until a century or so ago the
acceptance of the caste system was considered by the orthodox to be the sole effective criterion of whether
one was or was not a Hindu. In matters of belief it mattered not at all, nor did it much matter how one
interpreted 'liberation' or whether one rejected it outright so long as one fulfilled the duties prescribed by
one's caste. This was one of the hallmarks of the Hindu; the other, much less rigid because much less
detectable, was that one should recognize the Veda as revealed truth. To ignore caste or to reject the Veda
was to put oneself outside the pale of Hinduism. This it was, and not his philosophical views, that excluded
the Buddha and the dharma he founded from the Hindu fold.

The fourth phase of Hinduism we are living through today: it is the denial of its formal self and the
reassertion of its spiritual essence. This revaluation of Hinduism was prepared by the reform movements of
the nineteenth century, but only reached and touched the hearts of the entire Indian people with the advent
of a saint who seemed to incarnate all that was best in Hinduism, Mahatma Gandhi. For it was he who lent
his enormous prestige to the onslaught on what all that was finest in India had for centuries felt to be a
canker in the very heart of their religion, the caste system itself and its ugly corollary, the creation of a
disfranchised religious proletariat, the outcastes or untouchables. Gandhi exposed the glaring discrepancy
between the two dharmas, the 'eternal law' that is so 'difficult to know' but which was inscribed on India's
social conscience and what was now seen to be a man-made dharma which gave its sanction to a social
system which had developed into something monstrously unjust. The tension that through the centuries
had existed between the two dharmas was brutally exposed to the light of day; and it is no accident that
Gandhi met his death at the hand of an orthodox Hindu.

Thus while it was once possible to define a Hindu as one who performs his caste duties and accepts the
Veda as revealed truth, this simple formula can no longer satisfy, for Hinduism is today, more than any
other religion, in the melting pot: what were once considered to be essentials are in the process of being
discarded, but the hard core remains, and it is with this core that this book is principally concerned
(Zaehner, Hinduism, OUP, 1966 pp. 6-9)

In this passage, Zaehner reflects on our previous discussion of what it means to be a Hindu, and
makes some interesting contributions to that debate. Our focus here, however, is on historical
development. Zaehner suggests four phases in the history of the Hindu tradition and before we
proceed with the discussion I would like you to note down what these are and then check your list
against that given in the discussion below. You might also note down any misgivings you have
about the way he analyses the historical development of the tradition.

Discussion
The first two periods he suggests are linked to the ritualistic and philosophical portions of the
Veda. He identifies the hymns and sacrificial rites as representing the earliest form of Hinduism,
whilst the tendency towards belief in the all-pervading brahmanas taught by the Upanishads
follows on from this. The third period is characterised by the rise of monotheistic tendencies, most
notably those of the Vaishnavas and Shaivites who respectively regard Vishnu and Shiva as the
Supreme Deity. Alongside the development of Hindu monotheism, Zaehner identifies in this
period an increasing emphasis on caste divisions in Hindu society. His fourth period is the modern
era, the Hindu response to foreign domination with the emphasis on reform and renaissance, as
exemplified in the ideals of teachers such as Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda Sarasvati, Swami
Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi.

There is a lot to be said for Zaehner's analysis, but I would also suggest that there are a number of
objections that might be raised. I would list these as follows:

1. I think Zaehner should have made it clearer that these four periods are not discrete units but overlap
to a considerable extent. It is clear from the Upanishads that the practice of the Vedic ritual
substantially coincided with the development of the monistic spirituality that regards Brahman as the
single absolute principle. Likewise, monotheistic Hinduism existed and exists alongside the advaitic
notion of absolute oneness and continues to exist in the modern era. Indeed it remains more
prominent in contemporary Hindu thought than the neo-Hinduism of Gandhi and Vivekananda.
2. Zaehner perhaps recognises this point and for this reason does not make any reference to dates in his
discussion. However, I think this weakens his presentation somewhat as the question of dates
inevitably arises in the mind of the reader.
3. He also ignores the effect of outside influences in the development of Hinduism and again I think this
is a significant omission. The rise of Buddhism and Jainism in India between 500 BC and AD 500
had a major impact on Hinduism, as did the Islamic and British domination of India between around
AD 1200 and 1947.
4. I would also suggest that the contemporary or post-independence era represents a new period of
Hindu development that goes beyond the ideas of the modern reformers.

In light of the above suggestions I would like to suggest an alternative outline of the historical
development. This builds on Zaehner's analysis and again is very much a broad and perhaps rather
simplistic overview; nonetheless I think it might serve as a useful point of reference for future
studies:

1. Remote antiquity, the Vedic age

2. Renunciation and the quest for moksha
3. The age of Buddhism in India
4. A new era of Hinduism: Vaishavas and Shaivites
5. The coming of Islam
6. The period of British rule
 7. The modern era

Let us now look at the earliest of these periods building on our earlier discussion of origins and
noting both the main historical trends in India and the developments that took place in Indian
religion.

Remote Antiquity, the Vedic Age

We have already considered this period in some detail where we explored the origins of Hinduism
and it would be redundant to repeat that discussion here. As we have seen, an advanced urban
culture existed in northern India at a very early period, commencing perhaps as long ago as 3000
BC and in the Vedic literature we possess evidence of one form of religion practised in India during
this period. In truth, however, very little is known about this early period of Indian history. It is
apparent from the Vedas that conflicts took place between the kings of various tribes and that
there was an educated priesthood responsible for the performance of the fire ritual. But beyond
this there is very little that can be said with any certainty and it is noteworthy that most academic
works on the very early history of India rely on conjecture and inference and tend to focus on the
religion of the period as this is known about to some extent from the evidence of the Vedas. It is
important to be aware, however, that it is unlikely that all forms of religion practised in this early
period are represented in the Vedic texts. The Vedas describe the high ritual of the priestly and
political elites but we must presume that there were other forms of worship taking place, perhaps
at a popular level, and when we encounter non-Vedic strands of Hinduism emerging and becoming
widespread at a later period we cannot necessarily presume that they are post-Vedic. All we can
say is that we have evidence of their significance at a later date, not that they came into being after
the Vedas.

Renunciation and the Quest for Moksha

As Zaehner suggests above, it appears that some time around 700 BC new forms of religion rose to
a position of prominence in North India. Even within some of the hymns of the Rig Veda we find
speculations on the true nature of our existence and the suggestion that even the Vedic gods are
subject to higher control. This inquiry into the ultimate state of being dominates the Upanishad
portion of the Vedas and acts as a balance to the high ritualism encountered elsewhere in the Vedic
texts. Although the Upanishads are a part of the Veda, they are usually regarded as having been
composed at a later date, perhaps during a period of four or five hundred years beginning from
around 700 BC.

The Vedic ritual was primarily concerned with life in this world, the coming of the rains in the
proper season, the fertility of the earth so that ample food would be produced, and gaining victory
in conflicts with enemies. The sacred fire was seen as a manifestation of the god Agni who carried
the offerings made by the priests up to the gods. In reciprocation for the ritual offerings made by
humanity, the gods would ensure that victory, prosperity and fertility came to those who
performed the ritual. In the Upanishads, however, we find more profound questions being posed
and answers of a more mystical nature being postulated. These texts seek to discover the
fundamental basis on which all existence rests, the origin of the gods, one's own true nature and
whether or not there is a life after death.

During this late Vedic period we begin to get a clearer insight into the history of India although
this is largely confined to the northern regions. It appears that at this time larger political entities
were beginning to emerge ruled over by powerful royal elites. Some of the states of North India
were republics but the larger ones such as Magadha, Kosala and Vidarbha were monarchical,
although effective power would still have been exercised at a local level. It was also a period of
increasing urbanisation. We know that advanced urban communities had existed in North India
from the earliest times but after the decline of the Indus Valley culture it appears that there was a
long period during which society was tribal and largely pastoral. The prayers of the Vedas do not
reflect an urban community but rather reveal the concerns of agriculturalists over the cultivation
of land and the productivity of livestock. From around 700 BC, however, new cities began to arise
probably as a result of power coming to reside within royal dynasties. And it has been suggested
that urban living gave rise to a more individualised form of identity whereby people began to see
their existence in terms of selfhood rather than in relation to a collective tribal identity.

Whatever the merit of such theories, it does appear that during this period there was a remarkable
expansion of interest in a different form of spirituality that stood in contrast to the ritualised, this-
worldly religion found in the other portions of the Vedas. Now we find an emphasis on the idea of
the soul which transcends death but is repeatedly reborn in different forms. Here also we find the
notion that the actions one performs in this life will yield a result in a future existence as the
Upanishads provide the earliest expression of this doctrine of karma and rebirth. It has been
suggested that the idea of karma arose from the Vedic notion of ritual acts producing a desired
outcome and it certainly appears to be the case that the earliest teachers of these ideas were also
members of the priesthood, men such as Yajñavalkya who in one part of the Veda gives direction
on how to perform the ritual of sacrifice but also appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as a
teacher of the doctrine of reincarnation.

Inherent in this alternative ideology is a challenge to or even outright rejection of the value of the
Vedic ritual. Ritual acts might make life easier in the here and now but they could neither explain
nor resolve the fundamental problems of our existence and were moreover tainted by a materialist
ethos as well as the violence of animal slaughter which increasingly came to be regarded as
repugnant. In Upanishadic thought the goal of religion is seen not as making life better in the here
and now but rather finding absolute liberation from the miseries of this existence by escaping the
endless cycle of rebirth. For the achievement of this ultimate goal we find an increasing emphasis
on world denial, on a lifestyle based on the renunciation of conventional society and on a turn
towards asceticism. This ascetic tendency is less apparent in the early Upanishads, although
Yajñavalkya does eventually abandon his wife and home, but it becomes particularly emphasised
amongst the followers of the Buddha and most notably amongst the Jain adherents of the
teachings of Mahavira.
A stylised representation of the Buddha teaching his followers. Note the kings and warriors to his right as well as the
monks to his left.

Mahavira, the last founder of the Jain tradition, preaching in a palace setting
I noted above that I felt that Zaehner's historical divisions were overly rigid and here again I would
reiterate that point. It would be entirely wrong to conclude that the Vedic priesthood disintegrated
under pressure from the ascetic preachers or that wealthy patrons abandoned the performance of
the Vedic ritual. It is quite apparent that this was not the case--even a thousand years later we can
find Shankaracharya pursuing the same lines of argument in his great debate with Mandana
Mishra, a Vedic ritualist and disciple of Kumarila Bhatta, who in turn was a teacher of the Purva
Mimamsa school that sought to elevate the practical rituals of the Vedas above the theoretical
speculations of the Upanishads.

The life of Mahavira, showing his aristocratic birth and renunciation of the world to live as an ascetic
Moreover, it is in this same late Vedic period that we can observe the movement towards a more
rigid social structure with society divided into four varnas or social classes, the Brahmanas, the
Kshatriyas (royalty), the Vaishyas (farmers and traders), and the Shudras (workers and artisans).
Based on these divisions, it was no longer just the fire sacrifice that was a ritual act but one's whole
way of life. The tension between ritualised religion and the various forms of ascetic spirituality is
very apparent in this period. This is most notable in the writings of the Buddhists and the Jains
but can also be detected in the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad-gita where
Krishna condemns the rigid adherents of ritual religion as blind materialists (2.42-46).

In terms of the history of India we have only a limited knowledge. Buddhist sources refer to their
being sixteen major kingdoms in the north of India during the life of the Buddha (see map), which
is usually said to have been 563 BC to 483 BC although some modern scholars have suggested that
he may have lived 50 to 100 years after this period. Amongst these sixteen kingdoms two emerge
as being the most powerful, Kosala to the west centring on the modern state of Uttar Pradesh and
Magadha to the east with its capital in Bihar and its domain stretching eastwards to include
Bengal. These two kingdoms appear to have expanded their area of influence during this period
and brought smaller states under their control. Kosala also expanded into the northwest to include
most of modern Pakistan and part of Afghanistan as well, whilst Magadha spread northwards up
towards the Nepalese border.

Accounts of the life of the Buddha and the early Buddhist community give us some insight into the
political affairs of the time and the influence these had on Indian religion. We are told that during
the lifetime of the Buddha Prasenajit was the King of Kosala whilst Magadha was ruled first by a
king named Bimbisara and then by his son Ajatashatru. The Buddhist texts may exaggerate his
importance but it does appear that these powerful kings were influenced by the Buddha's teaching
and gave support to his followers, although the extent of their adherence is questionable,
particularly as Ajatashatru came to the throne of Magadha by imprisoning and then murdering his
father Bimbisara before launching aggressive wars to expand the borders of his kingdom.
Mahavira, the latest founder of the Jain tradition lived during the same period and it appears that
he and his followers also received support from the political leaders of the time, although there is
no record of any direct meeting between Mahavira and the Buddha.

One wonders about the reasons why such aggressive warrior kings should be drawn to religious
teachings that emphasised non-violence and the renunciation of the world. One explanation could
be that the Vedic priesthood, the Brahmana class, was becoming increasingly powerful because of
their jurisdiction over the complex set of rituals, and kings saw the promotion of non- or anti-
brahminical religious tendencies as a means of limiting that power and thereby sustaining their
own dominance over society. It is important to be aware, however, that opposition to the Vedic
ritual was not purely a symptom of the growing influence of Buddhist and Jain ideas. There is
plenty of evidence within the Mahabharata to show that there were many dissenting voices within
what we would today refer to as orthodox Hinduism which challenged the validity of ritualised
religion and in particular condemned as immoral the acts of violence necessitated by animal
sacrifice. The ideal of ahimsa is repeatedly emphasised within the Mahabharata where it is
proclaimed to be the very essence of dharma, and so to regard non-violence as a Buddhist or Jain
notion is erroneous. What we can see is a broad tendency towards de-ritualised religion, based on
non-violence, renunciation and the quest for liberation from rebirth, and that Buddhists and Jains
as well as Hindus were all a part of this religious trend.

Remains of the city of Rajgir, the ancient capital of Magadha

I would also emphasise that at this early date there were no rigid divisions between religions,
which is a characteristic of the modern-day understanding. In India at this time it seems that
Buddhism, Jainism and other ascetic movements were all part of the broad religious milieu of
northern India, and that if an individual was drawn towards the Buddhist or Jain revelation he
would not really see this as a conversion, it would merely be an attraction towards one of the many
forms of dharma available at the time. Thus we see in the early writings on Indian philosophy that
Buddhists and Jains are considered alongside the teachers of Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga without
there being any form of distinction made between Hindu and non-Hindu.

The discussion here has referred only to events and trends in northern India and in particular the
main kingdoms of the Gangetic plain. In the Deccan we know that the kingdom of Vidarbha
flourished at this time and was probably within the sphere of influence of the Vedic priesthood.
Further south, however, the cultural and religious milieu was entirely distinct. The speakers of the
Dravidian languages had their own political entities and their own forms of religion. Again
relatively little is known of the history of this period in the south, but it does appear that some of
the great dynasties of South India were already in place. Ashoka who ruled North and Central
India between 269 and 232 BC refers to the Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras as rulers of the south, and
so one must presume that they were established there at a relatively early date. In terms of
religion, it seems that the Dravidian speakers had their own deities and did not at this stage
employ a Sanskrit speaking priesthood to perform yajña. The deities we find reference to include
Mal, who was later identified with Krishna, and Murugan who was later identified with Skanda or
Subrahmanya, the elder of son of Shiva and Parvati. But at this early stage in the history of India it
appears that contact with the north and cultural influence was still very limited.

Ruins excavated at Shravasti, the ancient capital of Kosala

The Age of Buddhism in India

During the life of the Buddha and immediately after his death it appears that the kingdom of
Magadha continued to grow in strength whilst Kosala began to decline and ultimately became
subject to Magadha. The Buddha and Mahavira both spent considerable periods of their lives
within or adjacent to Rajgir (Rajagriha), the then capital of Magadha, and Shravasti, the capital of
Kosala. It is possible to see the ruins of both these ancient cities which are sacred to Buddhists in
particular because so many of the teachings of the Buddha were delivered there. It appears that
Ajatashatru met both the Buddha and Mahavira face to face and gave patronage to the followers of
both teachers, though most scholars believe that on a personal level he was more inclined towards
Jainism. He was, however, present at the first Buddhist council that took place near his capital
shortly after the death of the Buddha. Ajatashatru was also responsible for the foundation of a new
capital for Magadha in the famous city of Pataliputra, which was near to the modern city of Patna
in Bihar. Ajatashatru died in 461 BC and was followed by five descendants of his line, the last of
whom was overthrown in 413 BC with Shishunaga being appointed by the people to replace him.
The dynasty of Shishunaga lasted for only around fifty years before being usurped by Mahapadma
Nanda, who was said to be of mixed Shudra and Kshatriya birth.

The Nanda dynasty extended the power of the Magadha Empire so that its control over the
western regions that had previously been part of Kosala was strengthened. It is possible that the
Nandas began to move southwards as well and incorporated areas of the Deccan into their Empire,
perhaps extending as far south as Kanchi in Tamil Nadu. Although they increased the power and
wealth of Magadha and made Pataliputra into one of the great cities of the world, the Nandas were
represented by later historians as being unpopular (although the evidence we have for this comes
from their enemies). This may have been because of the heavy burden of taxation they levied from
the populace in order to maintain the huge standing army with which they sought to expand the
empire. Mahapadma Nanda's unpopularity may also have been due to the fact that he did not
merely exact tribute from the rulers he conquered but deposed them and incorporated their
territory into his own domain. At this time the Persians were active on the western borders and for
a time parts of the far northwest of India belonged to their Empire; it may well be that
Mahapadma Nanda was seeking to emulate the emperors of Persia and match their power and
wealth.

Mahapadma Nanda died in 362 BC and forty years later, in 321 BC his descendants were
overthrown by Chandragupta Maurya who thereby established a new dynasty on the throne at
Pataliputra. Chandragupta may have been related in some way to the Nandas but he was certainly
helped and advised by the famous Kautilya who composed the earliest sections of the Artha-
shastra. It appears that Kautilya was a resident of the city of Taxila in modern Pakistan, which had
been conquered by Alexander and the invading Greek army. When Kautilya came to urge King
Dhana Nanda to move against Alexander, the emperor appeared indifferent to the fate of these
distant provinces and as a result Kautilya began to plot the downfall of the Nandas. In 321 BC,
acting on the advice of Kautilya, Chandragupta was able to ferment a revolt that brought the
Nanda dynasty to an end and inaugurated the empire of the Maurya dynasty.

Under Alexander's leadership the Greeks had destroyed the Persian Empire and Alexander now
dreamed of ruling India as well. They won a hard fought victory over Parvateshvara (Porus), the
ruler of the Punjab, but Alexander's army refused to advance any further and thereby probably
saved Alexander from a crushing defeat when facing the vast army of the Nandas. Chandragupta
reclaimed most of the land lost to Alexander and made peace with Seleucus, the Greek governor of
their eastern province. He also appears to have strengthened the Empire's rule over central and
southern India, although the far south remained independent and never formed a part of the
Maurya Empire. Despite the fact that the Greek incursion into India had been checked in the far
northwest, long term contact was established between India and the classical world with extensive
cultural and economic links subsequently maintained.

The great Maurya emperors, Chandragupta, Bindusara and Ashoka ruled over virtually the whole
of India from 321 to 232 BC and managed to unite the region into a mighty empire. With the death
of Ashoka in 232 BC, however, the empire went into a state of rapid decline. The last of the Maurya
emperors, Brihadratha, was assassinated in 180 BC by his general Pushyamitra who established
his own dynasty in place of the Mauryas. By this time, however, the empire was beginning to
disintegrate, and over the ensuing centuries India became divided into a number of competing
kingdoms the most notable of which were the Shatavahanas (also known as the Andhras who
forged an empire in the eastern Deccan), the Sungas and the Kanvas. The Shakas who invaded
from the west also established themselves in the northwest whilst the Greeks continued to be
influential in the same region.
This period is notable for the rise of the Buddhist and Jain traditions, primarily as a result of the
patronage they received from the imperial dynasties, to the point where India was for a long period
as much Buddhist and Jain as it was Hindu. The general rule was that individual rulers would give
support to all forms of religion within their domain so that Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas, Vaishnavas
and Shaivites all existed side by side and kings who built extensive Buddhist shrines were also
known to employ a Vedic priesthood for the performance of the royal fire sacrifices. It is certainly
the case, however, that some rulers gave particular support to specific forms of Indian religion. We
have seen that Ajatashatru of Magadha was a major supporter of the Jains and legend has it that
Chandragupta Maurya gave up his throne to become a Jain ascetic. His son Bindusara is said to
have been a follower of the Ajivikas, another group of renunciant monks that has long since
disappeared. And of course Ashoka is well known for his renunciation of violence and his fervent
support for the spread of Buddhism throughout India and even as far as Sri Lanka. We know a lot
about Ashoka because of the rock-carved edicts which he left throughout his domain as a part of
his desire to spread the dharma of the Buddha to all people.

It is said that Pushyamitra, the founder of the Sunga

dynasty, was more inclined towards the Vedic religion but it is apparent that the rule of providing
patronage for all forms of religion was perpetuated for centuries after the ending of the Maurya
Empire and remained in place until the coming of Islam to India. Certainly the Shatavahanas gave
extensive support for Buddhist monks and were responsible for the construction of the famous
Buddhist shrine of Amaravati, parts of which can be seen today in a special gallery of the British
Museum. The pattern of religion which develops then is one of the expansion and partial
predominance of Buddhism and Jainism in India, which can be observed in the monuments and
cave temples constructed during this period and from inscriptions which record donations given to
support communities of Buddhists and Jains. Furthermore, the doctrines of the two traditions
became firmly established during the last few centuries BC and the first few centuries AD as the
leading Buddhist and Jain teachers sought to provide answers to questions about their teachings
raised both within and outside of their respective communities.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Vedic ritual disappeared at this time or that
Hinduism was submerged by the rising tide of Jainism and Buddhism. The information we have
reveals the religious tendencies of elite groups in society but we have little access to religion at a
popular level and one suspects that here Buddhist and Jain ideas might have had less of an impact.
Moreover, numerous inscriptions reveal that kings continued to employ the services of the Vedic
priesthood for the performance of yajñas. Simultaneously, we can note the beginnings of the rise
of forms of religion that venerated Vishnu or Shiva as a monotheistic Deity whilst some of the
great works of the Hindu tradition such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Bhagavad-gita were
probably composed at the same time. It is also the case that alongside the development of
Buddhist and Jain philosophy, those who accepted the Vedic tradition were also refining their own
ideas as can be observed in texts such as the Brahma-sutra, the Samkhya-karika and the Yoga-
sutra of Patañjali.

Objects from the elaborate Buddhist shrine of Amaravati built by the Shatvahana dynasty
In this brief overview of the early development of Indian religion we have noted how the Vedic
religion appears to have been supplanted to some extent by new forms of spirituality that focused
on the individual rather than the group, and considered future lives rather than existence in the
here and now. From around 250 BC onwards we find that Buddhism and the Jain religion achieve
a position of high significance in India with many rulers following their teachings and providing
support for renunciant communities. At the same time new forms of Hinduism were emerging that
were less closely related to the Vedic revelation and spoke of a single omnipotent Deity who
bestowed grace and love upon his worshippers. It is these new forms of monotheistic religion that
become increasingly predominant in the early centuries AD and which gradually come to take
precedence over the teachings of the Jains and Buddhists. In our next session we will follow this
trend more closely before moving on to consider the impact of foreign invasion on Indian religion.