Evolution of Hinduism through the ages

Evolution of Hinduism through the ages

The concept of 'Shristi Brisksha' (cosmic tree) has been mentioned
in the 15th chapter of the Bhagwad Gita 

The Indo-Aryan philosophy (some would prefer to term it 'Hindu philosophy, however) is very rich and diverse, with different schools of thought, each exercising a different system of belief regarding the core questions of philosophy and philology, such as 'What is the cause of existence?'. However, nearly every single philosophy (save and except a few, such as Carvaka philosophy) lays stress on understanding the Vedantas, which are among the greatest books composed by the ancients.

If you are reading this post, you are most certainly familiar with the Vedantas and Upanishads. Basically, the end of an early Vedic era marked the beginning of a more refined, logic-backed system of philology. The emergence of this new system was marked by a peculiar and yet stunningly beautiful concept, the concept of Brahman. What Brahman is, it is impossible to answer, as per the Vedantas. Shri Ramakrishna once proclaimed "Everything has been uttered, except the meaning of Brahman". However, the Vedantas nonetheless try to relate this concept to the pressing matters of the day.

Turning towards monotheism 

Lord Brahma, the creator

One of the most common questions about Hinduism is whether it is polytheistic or not. The answer can be complicated. The most accepted definition of Hinduism is that, it is polytheistic at the surface, monotheistic in the depth. It might be puzzling for the western audience to grasp this concept, but it indeed appears to be the reality when we turn our attention to the 3500 years old Vedic culture, and gradually trace its evolution over the ages. At the very beginning, there were multiple deities worshipped. Since Hinduism is practically a fusion religion, it has been influenced by many other religions, most of which have been absorbed into it. And the primary force behind the emergence of Hinduism was the Vedic religion, also known as Indo-Aryan religion. 

Although it is doubted by many, I personally support the Aryan Migtation Theory (AMT). Not only are there differences between the Indo-Aryan languages of the north (such as Bengali, Hindi and Bhojpuri) and Dravidian languages of the south (Tamil, Telegu, Malayalam etc.), but there are also remarkable similarities between the early Vedic religion and the Avestan (Zoroastrian) religion of the Iranians. Linguistic similarities between north-Indian languages and other Indo-European languages have already been established, and this clearly verifies the existence of the proto-Indo-European people (PIE). 

The earliest form of the proto-Indo-European religion was most possibly a dualistic worldview. The earth was regarded as the mother, the creator and nourisher, and the sky was seen as the divine protector, a paternal entity. Thus, the 'earth-mother' and 'sky-father' together must have constituted the earliest IE religions. But with time, scenes changed and multiple other divinities arose. As we can see in the earliest hymns of the Vedas, the Aryans of India are clearly a polytheistic group of folks, worshipping Indra, Varuna, Soma, Parjanya, Agni, Vayu and many other deities. Even some rather abstract concepts have also been personified as deities, such as the 'fire that emerged from waters', Apam Napat (the 'grandson of waters') and the forest Goddess Aranyani. However, as we progress more and reach the final portions of the Rigveda, we see that a strange change is sighted. 

Agni, the priest of the gods, was also regarded as
the god of sacrifice 

One of the most frequently cited (and sighted) hymns of the Rigveda is the HYMN 10:90, the Purusha Suktam. This glorious hymn glorifies Purusha, the cosmic man, as the origin of the universe and everything we see. It is said, that from his mind emerged the moon, his eyes gave birth to the mighty sun, from his mouth sprang Indra (lightning) and Agni (fire), and his breath (life, in some descriptions) created Vayu (the wind). Everything that had been, is or will be are but 'due to' him. Thus, this hymn clearly shows a marked transition towards monotheism, an attempt to explain everything on the basis of one, single, unified 'first cause'. Although it is debated whether Purusha Sukta was really a product of the Rigvedic era or just written later and added to it (many linguists seem to share this notion), we can safely say that it was composed at least before the beginning of the later-Vedic period. 

Monotheistic views 

By the time the Vedantic period began, the Rishis of ancient India were searching for philosophical answers to their problems. The different deities of the Rigveda symbolized the manifestations of different concepts such as rain, lightning, wind, water and fire. However, apparently this system of philology became too cluttered with time, and people started craving for harmony. Even in the early Vedic hymns, we often see that Surya, the sun god, has been often identified with other solar gods such as Vivaswana, Mitra, Aryaman, Bhaga, Aditya and others. Likewise, Indra has often been hailed as 'the power that raises the sun'. Thus, the average Vedic Aryan devoted his life to one, or at best a few of the deities. Thus, constant identifical of various deities with yet other deities gradually produced a way of uniting them. And this marked the beginning of the later-Vedic era. 

However, with time, we see that the Aryans must have realized that there must be something even beyond the deities and divine beings of nature. The reason behind this might have been improved observation of the nature by the people at that time. People saw that there was a certain sort of symmetry between various elements and aspects of nature. For example, in north India, the success of agriculture depended heavily on the effect of monsoon. Since hot, dry summers were painful and miserable for the farmers, the ancient Aryans considered dryness and draught to be evil. They equated it simply with Vrtra, the demon and antithesis of the gods. Vrtra is often called 'Ahi' (serpent), and has dragon-like attibutes. Following the common Indo-European model of 'hero/god vs dragon', Aryan religion gave rise to its own myth of hailing Indra as the liberator of mankind, and provider of bounty. Summer storms, which gave some relief from draught and heat, were thus deified. And thus emerged the concept of Indra. Monsoon winds have been identified with Indra and Parjanya (a possibly more ancient god of rain). Thus, the model self-justifies itself. 

Later, however, people started to grow dissatisfied with these simplistic models. They noticed a symmetry between draught and rain, and realized that this is not definitely a battle between a god and a demon. This triggered the sages to turn to more sophisticated explanations (or as I'd say, attempts to build them). Thus emerged the concept of Prajapati. Prajapati, the lord of all, is nowadays identified with Brahman, the creator. But although Prajapati, much like Brahma, is definitely a creator god, we must understand that he is much more ancient compared to Brahma. Brahma, as a member of the Hindu trinity (Trimurti, Brahma-Visnu-Shiva), gained prominence much later. And as is the custom in Indo-European religions, he 'absorbed' the concept of Prajapati, giving rise to the concept of Prajapati-Brahma (Brahman, the creator, the lord of all beings). 

Beyond monotheism: the rise of Brahman

The later-Vedic trinity, Brahma, Visnu
and Mahesware (Lord Shiva) 

With time, people began to question the Vedic methods. Constant sacrifices and battles made the Vaishya class of traders and businessmen restless. Thus, the concept of personal gods emerged in the civilian community. However, the wise sages continued their pursuit of knowledge, and devised a much more elegant system of theology. Assuming a primary creator (the monotheistic god) definitely rescues us from having to deal with the complex task of dealing with the system of nature through mutually independent forces (divinities). But it poses another question, a more subtle one, what is the reason behind creation? 

This marked the beginning of yet another transition. And thus was the glorious concept of Brahman emerged. Brahman is in many ways quite different from what the westerners would call 'god'. Although the Bhakti movement and populisation of the concept of a personal deity definitely interpreted the Vedantas in a new light, relating Brahman to 'Saguna Brahman' and 'Ishwara' (God, with attributes), the truest and purest form of Brahman is definitely 'Nirguna Brahman' (God, devoid of qualities and attributes). 

Brahman is basically seen as something that is beyond space and time, beyond explanation and throughts, and even beyond consciousness and perception. And yet, it has been said again and again that everything is due to the Brahman, and this it is implied that Brahman is the fundamental law of the universe, the divine symmetry, that determines the birth, gradual evolution and inevitable assimilation of the universe into itself. Brahman is neither male nor female, for all sorts of differences emerged only from within the Brahman. Brahman is thus the ultimate symmetry, that breaks to form assymetries. A splendid concept is the relationship between the Atman (individual soul) and the Brahman (universal soul, the ultimate reality). It is theorized philologically, that the living consciousness is a reflection of the Brahman. While Brahman and Atman both remain ultimately unaffected by materialistic features of the universe, it is implied that the Jivatma (Atman) is trapped into the world because of its affection towards materialistic nature and its features, while Brahman remains free from all such bindings. 

The universe itself is often used as the
physical manifestation of Brahman

The simple analogy of the ocean and its waves is often used to grasp the essense of the Vedantas. Brahman is identified with the endless, infinite ocean, and the waves on its surface sumbolize the nature. While nature has its birth, right from the essence (fundamental creative quality) of the Brahman, Brahman remains unaffected by it. 

It would be unwise to even attempt to suammize everything that has been said or composed about this elegant concept, so I guess I can safely conclude my brief article with the satisfaction that the primary goal was to explain the emergence of the concept of Brahman within Hinduism. And I believe that has been accomplished.