vaishnavism, shaivism, and minor religious systems

APA citation: Bhandarkar, R. G. (1913). Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and minor religious systems. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.

What the Book is About

The work under consideration, Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems by R. G. Bhandarkar, is not merely a descriptive account of sectarian Hindu traditions, but an early attempt at a historically grounded reconstruction of the evolution of Indian religious life from Vedic foundations into the richly differentiated devotional systems that come to dominate classical and medieval India. First published in 1913, the book belongs to a moment in Indological scholarship that sought to reconcile philology, epigraphy, and textual criticism into a coherent narrative of religious development.

Bhandarkar’s central concern is to trace how the relatively fluid, speculative religiosity of the Vedic and Upaniṣadic periods crystallized into organized theistic systems centered around personal deities—primarily Viṣṇu (in his Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa form) and Śiva. He treats these not as timeless or primordial structures, but as historically emergent configurations shaped by doctrinal synthesis, popular devotional needs, and socio-political transformations.

A key argument that appears at the very opening of the text is that Vedic ritualism and its increasingly “mechanical system of worship” failed to satisfy the deeper religious instincts of the population. This dissatisfaction gave rise to freer speculative traditions, especially in the Upanishads, where multiple and often contradictory metaphysical systems coexist. Bhandarkar insists that these texts do not represent a single doctrine (such as monistic pantheism), but rather a plurality of philosophical positions that later schools selectively appropriated.

Thus, the book situates the rise of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism not as simple continuations of Vedic religion, but as transformations that integrate:

– Upaniṣadic metaphysics (immanence and transcendence of the divine) – Henotheistic tendencies in the Rigveda – Popular need for a personal, approachable deity – Historical cults centered on figures like Vāsudeva and Saṃkarṣaṇa

In this sense, the work is both genealogical and interpretive: it reconstructs the emergence of devotion (bhakti) as a response to the insufficiencies of both ritualism and abstract speculation.

Intellectual Framework

Bhandarkar’s intellectual framework is shaped by three intersecting commitments: historical positivism, philological rigor, and a developmental view of religion. He treats religious systems as evolving organisms rather than fixed revelations, and this governs both his method and his conclusions.

At the foundation lies a critique of theological homogenization. The author repeatedly resists the tendency—common in both traditional exegesis and earlier European scholarship—to read Indian religious texts as expressing a single unified doctrine. Instead, he emphasizes textual plurality. The Upaniṣads, for instance, are described as compilations of diverse speculative traditions rather than a systematic philosophy. This plurality becomes the seedbed from which later sectarian systems draw selectively.

From this basis, Bhandarkar constructs a developmental schema that proceeds roughly through three stages:

First, the Vedic stage, characterized by ritualism and a multiplicity of deities linked through henotheistic equivalence. The idea that one god can be identified with many others (Agni = Indra = Varuṇa, etc.) becomes crucial.

Second, the speculative stage of the Upaniṣads, where metaphysical concerns—God, soul, world, liberation—are explored with remarkable freedom, including doctrines of immanence, transcendence, identity, and even denial of the self.

Third, the theistic-devotional stage, in which abstract speculation gives way to the worship of personal deities. This stage produces organized systems such as Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism.

A particularly important conceptual transition identified by Bhandarkar is the movement from henotheism to avatāra theory. If one god can be many, then conversely the one supreme being can manifest in multiple forms. This reversal becomes the theological basis for incarnation doctrines central to Vaiṣṇavism.

Another key element in his framework is the distinction between philosophical adequacy and religious adequacy. While the Upaniṣads offer profound metaphysical insights, they lack what he calls a “distinct personality” suitable for popular devotion. This gap is filled by emergent cults centered on figures like Vāsudeva, who become “worshipful” in a concrete and accessible sense.

Bhandarkar also integrates epigraphic evidence into his framework, marking a methodological shift from purely textual analysis to historically anchored reconstruction. Inscriptions such as those from Ghoṣuṇḍī and Besnagar are used to demonstrate that the worship of Vāsudeva as a supreme deity was already established centuries before the Common Era, even attracting foreign adherents like the Greek Heliodorus.

Thus, the intellectual architecture of the book rests on a layered understanding of religious evolution: speculative plurality gives rise to devotional unity, and textual traditions are continuously reinterpreted in light of changing religious needs.

Chapter 1 — Introductory: The Transition from Vedic Speculation to Theistic Religion

The opening chapter functions not merely as a preface, but as a dense theoretical foundation for the entire work. Bhandarkar begins by situating the reader in the late Vedic world, where ritual had become increasingly elaborate, codified, and—crucially—detached from inner religious experience.

Ritual Exhaustion and the Rise of Speculation

The “elaborate and mechanical system of worship” described here is not simply criticized for its complexity, but for its inability to address existential concerns. Ritual efficacy—ensuring prosperity, offspring, or heavenly reward—no longer satisfies the deeper questions about God, the self, and ultimate reality.

This dissatisfaction initiates a shift toward speculative inquiry. The Upaniṣadic thinkers are presented as responding to this crisis by asking foundational questions: What is the nature of ultimate reality? What is the relation between the individual soul and the cosmos? What is liberation?

However, Bhandarkar is careful to stress that these inquiries do not converge into a single doctrine. Instead, they produce a multiplicity of answers—some emphasizing unity, others duality, still others dissolution or even negation of the self.

The Plurality of Upaniṣadic Thought

One of the most significant interpretive moves in this chapter is the rejection of the idea that the Upaniṣads teach a uniform pantheism. Bhandarkar argues that such a view is the result of selective reading by later philosophical schools.

He points out that:

– The Upaniṣads affirm both immanence and transcendence of the divine – They describe God as indwelling, personal, and relational – They also articulate doctrines of absorption, identity, and even illusion

This internal diversity reflects the composite nature of the texts themselves, which are likened to the Rigveda as collections of inherited traditions rather than authored systems.

From Speculation to Devotion

The crucial transition occurs when Bhandarkar notes that philosophical speculation, however profound, fails to provide an “adorable object” for ordinary religious life. The abstract Brahman of the Upaniṣads is too impersonal, too indeterminate.

This leads to the emergence of new objects of worship—some drawn from Vedic deities, others entirely new. The religious imagination shifts toward figures with personality, narrative, and relational accessibility.

Conceptual Seeds of Later Developments

Within this chapter, several conceptual seeds are planted that will later mature into full systems:

The identification of gods in Vedic henotheism becomes the basis for the unity of divine manifestations.

The idea of divine immanence evolves into doctrines of incarnation.

The tension between transcendence and immanence becomes central to later theological debates.

The need for personal devotion prepares the ground for bhakti traditions.

Thus, the first chapter is less an introduction than a condensation of the entire argument: Indian religion evolves through a dialectic between abstraction and personalization, speculation and devotion, plurality and synthesis.

The emergence of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism will be shown, in subsequent chapters, as the concrete resolution of these tensions.

Chapter 2 — The Rise of a New Theistic System

The second chapter marks a decisive transition from the philosophical groundwork of the first chapter into a historically traceable emergence of organized devotion. What was previously described in abstract terms—the need for a personal, accessible object of worship—now takes concrete form in the cult of Vāsudeva. Bhandarkar’s method here becomes more empirical, drawing upon textual references, grammatical commentary, and, most importantly, inscriptions to reconstruct the early history of Vaiṣṇavism.

The Religious Landscape Before Theism Consolidates

Bhandarkar begins by situating the emergence of Vāsudeva worship within a crowded and heterogeneous religious environment. The evidence he cites from early Buddhist literature—specifically a passage listing various objects of worship—reveals a world in which religious allegiance is diffuse, fragmented, and often localized.

In this account, devotion is directed not only toward ascetic teachers and organized sects but also toward animals, natural forces, and semi-divine beings. Among these, figures like Vāsudeva and Baladeva appear almost incidentally, placed alongside elephants, crows, and celestial beings.

The significance of this passage lies precisely in its dismissiveness. From the Buddhist perspective, these cults lack philosophical seriousness. Yet, as Bhandarkar emphasizes, this very milieu becomes the ground from which a major theistic religion will arise. What appears marginal and unsystematic is, in retrospect, the beginning of a profound transformation.

The Elevation of Vāsudeva

The central task of this chapter is to demonstrate that Vāsudeva—initially one among many objects of worship—undergoes a process of elevation into a supreme deity. This transformation is not speculative but historically attested.

Bhandarkar turns first to grammatical evidence. In the commentary of Patañjali on Pāṇini, Vāsudeva is explicitly identified not merely as a historical or clan figure, but as a “worshipful” being—effectively divine. This indicates that by the time of Patañjali, the name had already transcended its genealogical origins and entered the sphere of theology.

The ambiguity here is crucial. Vāsudeva is both a member of the Vṛṣṇi lineage and an object of worship. This dual identity becomes foundational for later Vaiṣṇava theology, where historical personality and divine manifestation are interwoven.

Epigraphic Evidence and the Historicization of Devotion

The argument then moves from textual interpretation to inscriptional evidence, which Bhandarkar treats as particularly authoritative. Three inscriptions are of central importance.

The Ghoṣuṇḍī inscription records the construction of an enclosure for the worship of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva. The pairing of these figures suggests an early stage of theological formulation, where divine personalities are organized into relational structures.

The Besnagar (Heliodorus) pillar provides even more striking evidence. Here, a Greek ambassador, Heliodorus, identifies himself as a “Bhāgavata” and erects a Garuḍa column in honor of Vāsudeva, described as “the god of gods.” This inscription demonstrates several important developments simultaneously: the existence of an established devotional community, the recognition of Vāsudeva as supreme, and the capacity of the cult to attract adherents beyond the Indian cultural sphere.

Finally, the Nāṇāghāṭ inscription includes Vāsudeva and Saṃkarṣaṇa among other deities in an invocation, indicating their integration into broader religious practice.

Taken together, these inscriptions establish that by at least the second century BCE, the worship of Vāsudeva was not only present but institutionalized, doctrinally significant, and socially visible.

The Bhāgavata Community

From this evidence, Bhandarkar reconstructs the existence of a community of worshippers known as Bhāgavatas. This term denotes not merely devotees, but adherents of a distinct religious system centered on Vāsudeva as the supreme deity.

What distinguishes this community is not only its object of worship but its theological orientation. Vāsudeva is not one god among many; he is elevated above all others. The shift here is from polycentric worship to a form of theistic concentration—what might be described as an early monotheistic or monolatrous tendency within the Indian context.

At the same time, this system does not entirely abandon earlier traditions. The association of Vāsudeva with Saṃkarṣaṇa, and the retention of Vedic elements, indicate a process of synthesis rather than rupture.

The Fusion of Hero and God

A subtle but decisive transformation underlies the entire chapter: the fusion of a heroic or clan figure with the concept of divinity. Vāsudeva, originally associated with the Vṛṣṇis, becomes the locus of theological projection.

Bhandarkar does not treat this as myth-making in a reductive sense, but as a natural development of religious consciousness. The need for a tangible, personal deity leads to the elevation of figures who are already culturally significant. Over time, narrative, ritual, and doctrine coalesce around such figures, transforming them into objects of devotion.

This process anticipates the later full identification of Vāsudeva with Kṛṣṇa and ultimately with Viṣṇu, though at this stage the system is still in formation.

From Diffusion to System

The chapter concludes implicitly with a shift from multiplicity to structure. What began as a scattered set of devotional practices is now recognizable as a coherent religious system with:

– A central deity (Vāsudeva) – A community of adherents (Bhāgavatas) – Ritual practices and symbols (e.g., Garuḍa column) – Scriptural or doctrinal foundations in formation

This marks the true beginning of Vaiṣṇavism as a historical religion. The subsequent chapters will move from this empirical foundation into a more detailed analysis of textual traditions—especially the Mahābhārata—where the theological elaboration of this system becomes fully visible.

Chapter 3 — Analysis of the Nārāyaṇīya Section of the Mahābhārata

With this chapter, Bhandarkar shifts from inscriptional and grammatical evidence into the domain of epic theology. The focus is the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahabharata, specifically within the Śāntiparvan, which he treats as one of the earliest extended theological articulations of the Bhāgavata system. Unlike the previous chapter, which established the historical existence of Vāsudeva worship, this one attempts to reconstruct its doctrinal content.

The Narrative Frame and Theological Intent

The narrative begins with the sage Nārada approaching Nara and Nārāyaṇa at Badarikāśrama. What is striking here is not merely the presence of divine figures, but the theological paradox that structures the episode: Nārāyaṇa, himself understood as the supreme being, is depicted as engaged in worship.

This prompts Nārada’s question—whom does the Supreme worship? The answer is subtle and foundational. Nārāyaṇa declares that he worships his own original nature (prakṛti), the source of all existence.

This moment encapsulates a key feature of early Vaiṣṇava theology: the reflexivity of the divine. The supreme being is not merely an object of worship but participates in a cosmic self-relation. The divine is both subject and object, both immanent and transcendent. This recalls the Upaniṣadic tension discussed in Chapter 1 but now expressed in a more personalized and mythic form.

Multiplicity Within Unity: The Fourfold Manifestation

The text proceeds to describe multiple manifestations of the supreme: Nara, Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa, and Hari are presented as four forms of the same ultimate reality. This is not yet the fully developed avatāra doctrine of later Vaiṣṇavism, but it clearly anticipates it.

What is important here is the structural logic: unity does not exclude plurality. Rather, plurality becomes the mode through which unity expresses itself. The divine can manifest in different forms without ceasing to be one.

This idea, as Bhandarkar suggests earlier, is rooted in the older Vedic tendency to identify different gods with one another, but here it is reversed—one god becomes many.

Vision of the Transcendent Realm

Nārada’s ascent to the peak of Meru introduces a visionary dimension. He encounters beings described as pure, sense-less, and wholly devoted to Bhagavat. Their characteristics—absence of sensory activity, sinlessness, and continuous devotion—represent an idealized state of spiritual existence.

This scene serves multiple functions. It provides an image of the ultimate goal of devotion, it situates the Bhāgavata path within a cosmological framework, and it reinforces the idea that devotion leads to a transformation of being, not merely belief.

The Transmission of the Sātvata Doctrine

The narrative then shifts to a genealogical account of the doctrine itself. The Sātvata teaching is said to originate with a group of primordial sages—the so-called Citraśikhaṇḍins—and is revealed in the presence of the supreme deity.

Here, Bhandarkar identifies an important attempt at legitimation. By attributing the doctrine to ancient seers and linking it to Vedic categories (Ṛg, Yajus, Sāman, Atharvan), the text seeks to anchor the emerging Bhāgavata system within the authoritative tradition of Vedic revelation.

At the same time, the doctrine is described as encompassing both action (karma) and contemplation (jñāna), suggesting an integrative approach that avoids the exclusivity of earlier paths.

The Role of King Vasu Uparicara

The figure of King Vasu becomes central in the narrative as the first human recipient of the doctrine from Bṛhaspati. His role illustrates the transition from divine revelation to human practice.

Several elements of his story are noteworthy. His performance of sacrifice without animal killing indicates an ethical transformation of ritual practice. The substitution of symbolic or non-violent offerings reflects a broader shift in religious sensibility.

More significantly, the deity accepts his offering but remains invisible to others. This introduces a crucial theological principle: divine grace is selective and not universally accessible. The ability to perceive the divine depends on devotion and favor, not merely ritual correctness.

The anger of Bṛhaspati, who cannot perceive the deity, further reinforces this point. Even a learned priest may fail to apprehend the divine if he lacks the requisite disposition.

The Authority of Experience Over Ritual

The intervention of sages such as Ekata, Dvita, and Trita articulates a hierarchy of religious knowledge. They assert that the divine cannot be perceived by arbitrary effort but only by those who are favored by grace.

This marks a subtle but decisive shift from ritualism to experiential religion. Knowledge of the divine is no longer guaranteed by adherence to prescribed forms; it requires transformation of the self.

The narrative of their austerities near the “milky ocean” further emphasizes the importance of sustained spiritual discipline as a means of attaining this grace.

Doctrinal Implications

From Bhandarkar’s perspective, the Nārāyaṇīya section provides a window into the early doctrinal structure of Vaiṣṇavism. Several key themes emerge:

The supremacy of a single personal deity identified with Nārāyaṇa/Vāsudeva.

The integration of multiple forms of the divine within a unified framework.

The subordination of ritual to devotion and grace.

The attempt to legitimize new teachings by linking them to Vedic authority.

The emphasis on both ethical reform (e.g., non-violent sacrifice) and spiritual discipline.

From Historical Cult to Theological System

What distinguishes this chapter from the previous one is the transition from historical evidence to theological articulation. The inscriptions demonstrated that Vāsudeva was worshipped; the Nārāyaṇīya shows how that worship was understood, justified, and systematized.

The Bhāgavata religion is no longer merely a cult centered on a revered figure. It has become a structured worldview, encompassing cosmology, ethics, ritual, and soteriology.

At the same time, the system is still fluid. The doctrines are presented in narrative form, embedded within epic storytelling, and not yet codified into formal theology. This fluidity reflects the transitional nature of the period—a moment when devotion is crystallizing but has not yet hardened into orthodoxy.

The subsequent chapters will continue this movement, tracing how these early formulations develop into more defined Vaiṣṇava doctrines and how they interact with other emerging systems, particularly Śaivism.

Chapter 4 (continued from the beginning): The Nārāyaṇīya and the Theological Consolidation of Bhāgavata Doctrine

The Nārāyaṇīya section of the Śāntiparvan in the Mahabharata functions, in Bhandarkar’s reconstruction, as one of the most decisive textual crystallizations of early Vaiṣṇava theology. What is at stake in this section is not merely mythic narration, but the systematic elevation of Vāsudeva–Nārāyaṇa into a fully articulated supreme principle—one that absorbs, reorganizes, and ultimately supersedes earlier Vedic and Upaniṣadic theological tendencies.

Bhandarkar approaches this material with a philological caution: the text is layered, historically accretive, and doctrinally composite. Yet despite this, he argues that it preserves a coherent theological vision reflective of the Bhāgavata school’s maturation.

The Structure of Divine Manifestation

The narrative begins with a paradox that is characteristic of later Vaiṣṇava theology: the Supreme Being, here identified as Nārāyaṇa, is depicted as engaged in worship. When the sage Nārada questions this apparent contradiction—why the Supreme worships another—Nārāyaṇa responds that he worships his own original Prakṛti, the primordial source of all existence.

This moment is crucial. It introduces a layered ontology in which:

• The Supreme is both ultimate and reflexive.
• Divinity includes within itself its own ground or matrix.
• Worship becomes an internal, self-referential act of the divine.

Bhandarkar interprets this not as incoherence, but as a theological attempt to reconcile transcendence with immanence—an issue already present in the Upaniṣads but here rendered in mythic-personal terms.

The text further elaborates this structure through the doctrine of fourfold manifestation: Nara, Nārāyaṇa, Kṛṣṇa, and Hari are presented as distinct yet unified expressions of the same supreme reality. This anticipates later Vaiṣṇava formulations of vyūha (emanational forms), though here it remains less systematized.

Visionary Cosmology and Devotional Anthropology

Nārada’s ascent to Mount Meru and his encounter with the enigmatic “white men without senses” marks a shift from theology to visionary cosmology. These beings, detached from sensory experience and sustained by devotion to Bhagavat, represent an idealized state of existence.

Bhandarkar reads this episode as symbolic rather than literal. It encodes a conception of spiritual perfection defined by:

• Withdrawal from sensory multiplicity
• Moral purity (sinlessness)
• Exclusive devotion

This is not yet the later bhakti of emotional fervor, but a more austere, contemplative devotion—closer to yogic absorption than to ecstatic worship.

The anthropology implied here is significant: the highest human destiny is not union through knowledge alone (as in many Upaniṣadic passages), but through sustained orientation toward a personal divine.

The Sātvata Tradition and Ritual Reform

The narrative then turns to King Vasu Uparicara, a paradigmatic devotee who practices according to the Sātvata Vidhi. This is one of the earliest textual attestations of a distinct ritual tradition associated with Vāsudeva worship.

Several features stand out in Bhandarkar’s analysis:

First, the ritual is explicitly non-violent. The king performs a horse-sacrifice in which no animal is killed. This represents a radical reinterpretation of Vedic sacrifice, aligning it with emerging ethical sensibilities also visible in Buddhism and Jainism.

Second, the ritual draws upon the Āraṇyakas rather than the Brāhmaṇas, suggesting a shift from public, priestly ritual toward more interiorized and symbolic forms.

Third, divine presence is selective and experiential. Hari accepts the oblation but remains invisible to most participants. Only the favored devotee perceives him.

This introduces a key Bhāgavata principle: divine grace is not universally accessible through ritual correctness alone, but depends upon a special relationship between deity and devotee.

The anger of Bṛhaspati, who cannot perceive the god despite his ritual authority, dramatizes the tension between traditional priesthood and emerging devotional religiosity.

The Transmission of Revelation

The text situates the origin of this religious system in a lineage of primordial sages—the Citrasiṃhaṇḍins—who receive and disseminate a vast śāstra revealed in the presence of Bhagavat himself. This śāstra is said to contain “a hundred thousand verses” harmonizing action (pravṛtti) and contemplation (nivṛtti).

This dual emphasis is essential. It reflects an attempt to synthesize:

• The ritual action of Vedic religion
• The contemplative withdrawal of Upaniṣadic thought

Bhandarkar emphasizes that this synthesis is not merely philosophical but institutional. It provides a framework for a new religious community that integrates multiple modes of life.

The transmission narrative also includes a striking motif: the śāstra is destined to be lost after a certain point. This introduces a cyclical conception of religious knowledge, aligned with broader Indian ideas of cosmic decline and renewal.

Theological Implications

What emerges from Bhandarkar’s reading is a religion in transition. The Nārāyaṇīya does not yet present the fully developed Vaiṣṇava theology of later Purāṇas, but it establishes its essential components:

A supreme personal deity who encompasses both transcendence and immanence. A doctrine of manifestation that allows for multiple divine forms without compromising unity. A reformed ritual system that prioritizes ethical and symbolic dimensions. A devotional orientation that redefines access to the divine.

Perhaps most importantly, it marks the displacement of earlier Vedic gods. While they are not explicitly denied, they are subordinated within a new theological hierarchy centered on Nārāyaṇa.

Bhandarkar’s larger argument is that this section of the Mahābhārata preserves the moment when the Bhāgavata religion transitions from a regional cult of Vāsudeva into a व्यापक, pan-Indian theistic system.

This transformation is neither abrupt nor uniform, but the Nārāyaṇīya provides one of the clearest textual windows into its early consolidation.

Chapter 4 (continued): The Interiorization of Divinity and the Emergence of Grace

If the earlier portions of the Nārāyaṇīya establish the structural theology of the Bhāgavata system, the subsequent movement of the text deepens its psychological and soteriological implications. Bhandarkar’s attention turns here toward a subtle but decisive shift: the relocation of the divine from the external sphere of ritual and cosmology into the interior domain of consciousness.

This shift is neither abrupt nor polemical. It unfolds through narrative suggestion, doctrinal layering, and symbolic episodes that gradually reorient the locus of religious experience.

The Limits of Ritual Visibility

The episode of Bṛhaspati’s frustration—his inability to perceive Hari despite officiating at the sacrifice—acquires further significance when read in light of what follows. The sages present at the ritual respond not by defending the authority of ritual knowledge, but by asserting a different criterion of divine perception: grace.

They declare that the Supreme is not accessible “at random,” nor through mere correctness of performance, but only to those who are favoured. This introduces a principle that stands in quiet but firm contrast to the earlier Vedic paradigm.

In the Vedic system, visibility of the divine is mediated through:

• Correct recitation
• Proper ritual sequence
• Priestly expertise

In the Bhāgavata framework emerging here, these are no longer sufficient. The decisive factor becomes an interior disposition—one that cannot be codified or guaranteed.

Bhandarkar sees in this a crucial moment of religious democratization, though not in a simplistic sense. Access to the divine is no longer monopolized by ritual specialists, yet it is not made universally automatic either. It is contingent upon a transformation of the subject.

The Testimony of the Ancient Sages

The narrative then introduces the testimony of Ekata, Dvita, and Trita—figures who function as archetypal seekers. Their account of prolonged austerities near the “milky ocean” serves as a paradigmatic illustration of the new path.

They describe a discipline extending over thousands of years, culminating not in immediate vision, but in a disembodied voice. The divine does not appear as an object among objects; it manifests as a presence that exceeds ordinary modes of perception.

This is a decisive departure from earlier mythic patterns in which gods appear in visible, anthropomorphic form. Here, the divine is:

• Elusive rather than manifest
• Auditory rather than visual
• Transcendent even in revelation

Bhandarkar interprets this as an intermediate stage between the anthropomorphic deities of the Vedic hymns and the fully interiorized Brahman of the Upaniṣads. The Bhāgavata system does not abandon personality, but it complicates the mode in which personality is encountered.

The Ontology of Devotion

What begins to take shape in this section is an ontology in which devotion (bhakti, though the term is not yet systematized in its later sense) becomes the primary mode of relation between human and divine.

This devotion is not merely emotional attachment. It is structured by several interrelated features:

First, exclusivity. The beings encountered by Nārada on Meru are described as wholly devoted to Bhagavat, their existence defined by a single orientation.

Second, transformation. Their lack of sensory engagement is not a deprivation but a reconfiguration of being. They are no longer constituted by ordinary human faculties.

Third, stability. Their condition is not episodic but permanent, suggesting a state beyond the fluctuations of ordinary life.

Bhandarkar emphasizes that this conception differs both from the ritualism of the Brāhmaṇas and the knowledge-centered liberation of the Upaniṣads. It introduces a third path—one that integrates elements of both but is reducible to neither.

The Integration of Pravṛtti and Nivṛtti

The earlier reference to the revealed śāstra containing rules for both pravṛtti (engagement in action) and nivṛtti (withdrawal) now finds its deeper significance.

The Bhāgavata system does not reject the world outright, nor does it affirm it uncritically. Instead, it proposes a mode of existence in which action is reoriented by devotion.

This allows for a remarkable flexibility:

• The king Vasu can perform sacrifices without violence
• The sages can pursue austerities without abandoning devotion
• The devotee can inhabit the world without being bound by it

Bhandarkar reads this as one of the key reasons for the eventual success of Vaiṣṇavism. It offers a framework capable of accommodating diverse social roles while maintaining a unified theological center.

The Gradual Supersession of Vedic Deities

As the narrative progresses, the older Vedic gods recede further into the background. They are still present—Indra honours Vasu, Bṛhaspati officiates—but their authority is subtly undermined.

Two mechanisms are at work here:

First, subordination. The Vedic gods are shown as dependent upon or inferior to the supreme Bhagavat.

Second, irrelevance. The highest religious experiences occur independently of them.

This is not a polemical rejection but a process of absorption. The older deities are incorporated into a broader system in which they no longer occupy the central position.

Bhandarkar notes that this strategy allows for continuity with tradition while enabling significant transformation. The Bhāgavata religion does not present itself as a rupture, but as a fulfillment.

The Role of Myth in Doctrinal Formation

A final point of importance in this section is methodological. The Nārāyaṇīya does not present its theology in abstract, systematic form. Instead, it embeds doctrine within narrative, dialogue, and symbolic episodes.

For Bhandarkar, this is not a sign of conceptual weakness, but of historical process. The system is still in formation. Its ideas are being worked out through myth rather than formal treatise.

This has two consequences:

First, the text preserves multiple layers of thought, sometimes in tension with each other. Second, it allows for a richness of expression that later systematizations will tend to reduce.

The Nārāyaṇīya thus stands at a threshold. It is neither purely mythological nor fully philosophical. It is a site where the two modes intersect, giving rise to a new religious synthesis.

In Bhandarkar’s reconstruction, this synthesis marks a निर्णायक stage in the evolution of Vaiṣṇavism: the point at which devotion, theology, and social practice begin to cohere into a durable and expansive tradition.

Chapter 5 — The Doctrinal Expansion of the Bhāgavata System and Its Relation to Kṛṣṇa

With the movement into the fifth chapter, Bhandarkar transitions from the theological architecture preserved in the Nārāyaṇīya to a broader textual and historical consolidation of the Bhāgavata religion. The focus now shifts toward the identification of Vāsudeva with Kṛṣṇa and the gradual emergence of a more unified Vaiṣṇava system in which mythology, theology, and sectarian identity converge.

What was previously a doctrinal nucleus begins here to expand into a recognizable religious tradition with narrative depth, genealogical continuity, and increasing emotional resonance.

The Conflation of Vāsudeva and Kṛṣṇa

One of the central problems addressed in this chapter is the relationship between Vāsudeva—the object of early Bhāgavata worship—and Kṛṣṇa, the hero of epic and pastoral traditions. Bhandarkar approaches this not as a given identity, but as a historical process.

In earlier stages, Vāsudeva appears as a deified figure associated with the Vṛṣṇi clan, while Kṛṣṇa exists within a more complex narrative framework as a warrior, statesman, and occasionally divine agent within the Mahabharata. The two are not initially identical in a fully theological sense.

The process of conflation occurs gradually through:

– The elevation of Kṛṣṇa’s status within epic narrative – The assimilation of Vāsudeva’s cultic attributes into Kṛṣṇa’s persona – The reinterpretation of Kṛṣṇa’s actions as manifestations of divine will

By the time of the later strata of the epic, Kṛṣṇa is no longer merely a heroic figure; he is explicitly identified with the supreme deity.

Bhandarkar treats this identification as one of the निर्णायक steps in the formation of Vaiṣṇavism. It allows a historical or quasi-historical figure to become the focal point of devotion, thereby grounding theology in narrative.

The Bhagavadgītā as Doctrinal Synthesis

A major portion of the chapter is devoted to the analysis of the Bhagavad Gita, which Bhandarkar regards as one of the most important documents of early Vaiṣṇava theology.

In the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa is presented not merely as a teacher but as the Supreme Being himself. This is articulated through several key themes:

First, the doctrine of divine immanence. Kṛṣṇa declares himself to be the essence of all things—the taste in water, the light in the sun, the life in all beings.

Second, the integration of paths. The Gītā harmonizes action (karma), knowledge (jñāna), and devotion (bhakti), presenting them not as mutually exclusive but as convergent.

Third, the concept of surrender. The famous injunction to abandon all duties and take refuge in the divine introduces a radical form of religious commitment that transcends social and ritual obligations.

Bhandarkar emphasizes that the Gītā represents a more advanced stage of systematization than the Nārāyaṇīya. The ideas that were previously embedded in narrative are here articulated in a more direct philosophical form.

At the same time, the text retains a synthetic character. It does not reject earlier traditions but reinterprets them within a new theological framework centered on Kṛṣṇa.

The Emergence of Emotional Devotion

Another important development noted by Bhandarkar is the increasing prominence of emotional elements in devotion. While the Nārāyaṇīya emphasizes contemplative and austere devotion, the Kṛṣṇa tradition introduces more personal and affective dimensions.

Kṛṣṇa is not only a supreme being but also:

– A friend (as in his relationship with Arjuna) – A beloved (in later pastoral traditions) – A guide and protector

This expansion of relational modes significantly broadens the appeal of the religion. It allows for multiple forms of engagement, from philosophical contemplation to emotional attachment.

Bhandarkar does not yet explore the full flowering of these themes in later texts like the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, but he identifies their early emergence as a crucial factor in the spread of Vaiṣṇavism.

Theological Universalization

A further development in this chapter is the universalization of the deity. Kṛṣṇa is no longer confined to a particular clan or region. He becomes:

– The creator and sustainer of the universe – The inner self of all beings – The ultimate goal of spiritual striving

This universalization is accompanied by a corresponding expansion of the religious community. The Bhāgavata system is no longer a localized sect but a tradition with broader aspirations.

Bhandarkar connects this to the earlier inscriptions discussed in Chapter 2, noting that the presence of foreign devotees like Heliodorus suggests an already widening scope.

Continuity and Transformation

Throughout the chapter, Bhandarkar maintains a delicate balance between continuity and transformation. The emerging Vaiṣṇava system retains elements of:

– Vedic ritual (though reinterpreted) – Upaniṣadic metaphysics – Local cultic practices

At the same time, it introduces new elements that fundamentally reshape the religious landscape:

– A supreme personal deity – A doctrine of incarnation – A path of devotion accessible beyond ritual elites

The identification of Vāsudeva with Kṛṣṇa serves as the linchpin of this transformation. It unites disparate strands into a coherent system that is both historically grounded and theologically expansive.

Toward a Fully Formed Vaiṣṇavism

By the end of this chapter, the Bhāgavata religion has undergone a significant evolution. It is no longer merely a devotional cult or a set of loosely connected doctrines. It has become a structured religious system with:

– A central deity (Kṛṣṇa–Vāsudeva) – Foundational texts (Gītā and epic materials) – A developing theology of devotion – A growing and diverse community of adherents

Bhandarkar’s analysis suggests that this stage represents the threshold of classical Vaiṣṇavism. The subsequent development—particularly in the Purāṇic period—will further elaborate these themes, but the essential framework is already in place.

The next movement of the book will begin to explore parallel developments in Śaivism, allowing for a comparative understanding of how different theistic systems emerge from shared cultural and philosophical foundations.

Chapter 6 — The Early Development of Śaivism: From Vedic Rudra to Sectarian Śiva

With this chapter, Bhandarkar turns decisively away from the Vaiṣṇava trajectory and begins reconstructing the parallel and partially intersecting evolution of Śaivism. The methodological approach remains consistent: he seeks to trace the emergence of a fully formed sectarian religion not as a sudden revelation, but as a gradual transformation of earlier religious materials—Vedic, epic, and local.

The central problem here is analogous to that of the previous chapters: how does a relatively marginal or ambivalent Vedic deity—Rudra—become the supreme Lord Śiva of later Hinduism?

Rudra in the Vedic Context

Bhandarkar begins by carefully examining the figure of Rudra as it appears in the Rigveda. Rudra is not among the most prominent Vedic gods; he occupies a peculiar and somewhat unsettling position.

He is described as:

– Fierce, destructive, and unpredictable – Associated with disease, storms, and wild forces – Both feared and propitiated

At the same time, he possesses a healing aspect. He is invoked as a physician, capable of removing the very afflictions he causes. This duality—terrible and benevolent—becomes one of the defining features of his later development.

Bhandarkar emphasizes that Rudra is not originally conceived as a supreme deity. He is one among many, and his cult does not dominate the Vedic religious landscape. Yet his distinctiveness—his ambivalence, his marginality—makes him particularly susceptible to later reinterpretation.

The Gradual Elevation of Rudra

The transition from Rudra to Śiva is not immediate. It unfolds through a series of textual and conceptual shifts, especially in later Vedic literature such as the Yajurvedic Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas.

In these texts, Rudra begins to acquire new attributes:

– He is identified with other deities – He is given more universal functions – His destructive aspect is reinterpreted as part of a larger cosmic role

The famous Śatarudrīya hymn, for example, presents Rudra as present in all aspects of the world—mountains, forests, villages, and beings. This marks a significant expansion of his scope.

Bhandarkar interprets this as an early movement toward theological universalization, similar to what occurred in the Vaiṣṇava context. A once marginal deity begins to absorb multiple functions and identities.

The Emergence of the Name “Śiva”

A crucial moment in this development is the increasing use of the epithet “Śiva,” meaning “auspicious,” to refer to Rudra. This represents a semantic and theological transformation.

The terrifying Rudra is not abandoned, but reinterpreted. His destructive power is subsumed under a more benevolent and cosmic identity. The name “Śiva” functions as a kind of theological resolution of Rudra’s ambivalence.

Bhandarkar notes that this transformation is not merely linguistic. It reflects a shift in religious sensibility:

– Fear is replaced by reverence – Propitiation becomes devotion – Ambivalence becomes synthesis

This process parallels, though does not replicate, the elevation of Vāsudeva in Vaiṣṇavism.

Epic Developments and the Rise of Śiva

The next major stage occurs within the Mahabharata, where Śiva appears as a powerful and often supreme figure.

In various episodes, he is depicted as:

– The source of boons and weapons – A god who tests and rewards devotion – A figure who transcends other deities

Bhandarkar pays particular attention to passages where Śiva is explicitly identified as the highest reality, superior even to Brahmā and Viṣṇu. These passages, like those concerning Nārāyaṇa in the Nārāyaṇīya, reflect sectarian tendencies within the epic.

However, the Śaiva material is more heterogeneous. It lacks the relative coherence of the Bhāgavata system at this stage. Śiva appears in multiple, sometimes contradictory forms—ascetic, householder, destroyer, benefactor.

This multiplicity becomes one of the defining characteristics of Śaivism.

The Role of Asceticism

A distinguishing feature of Śiva, as Bhandarkar emphasizes, is his association with asceticism. Unlike the more socially integrated figure of Kṛṣṇa, Śiva is often depicted as:

– Dwelling in mountains or cremation grounds – Practicing austerities – Existing at the margins of social order

This association has significant implications for the development of Śaivism. It connects the deity with renunciatory traditions and with groups that exist outside the orthodox Brahmanical framework.

Bhandarkar suggests that this may have facilitated the incorporation of non-Vedic or popular elements into Śaivism. The god’s marginality becomes a point of contact with diverse religious currents.

The Integration of Local and Non-Vedic Elements

One of the most important aspects of Śaivism’s development, in Bhandarkar’s account, is its capacity to absorb local and non-Vedic traditions.

These include:

– Cults of fertility and generative power (later associated with the liṅga) – Worship of spirits and local deities – Practices associated with ascetics and mendicants

Śiva’s ambiguous and expansive character makes him an ideal figure for such integration. He is both within and beyond the Vedic system, allowing him to bridge different religious worlds.

This process is less textually documented than the development of Vaiṣṇavism, but Bhandarkar infers it from the diversity of Śaiva practices and representations.

Toward a Sectarian Śaivism

By the end of this chapter, Śaivism has not yet reached the level of doctrinal coherence seen in the Vaiṣṇava tradition. However, several key elements are in place:

– A central deity with both terrifying and benevolent aspects – A tendency toward theological universalization – A strong association with asceticism – An openness to diverse and non-orthodox influences

Bhandarkar’s broader argument is that Śaivism develops along a different trajectory from Vaiṣṇavism. Where the latter emphasizes synthesis and social integration, the former retains a more paradoxical and heterogeneous character.

This difference will become more pronounced in later chapters, where specific Śaiva sects and doctrines are examined.

Chapter 7 — The Sectarian Consolidation of Śaivism: Pāśupatas and the Emergence of Organized Śaiva Traditions

With this chapter, Bhandarkar moves from the diffuse and multi-layered emergence of Śiva as a supreme deity into the formation of explicitly organized Śaiva sects. The transition is significant: what was previously a fluid aggregation of mythic, Vedic, and local elements now begins to crystallize into identifiable communities with doctrines, practices, and lineages.

The focal point of this development is the Pāśupata tradition, which Bhandarkar treats as one of the earliest systematic expressions of Śaivism.

The Figure of Lakulīśa and the Origins of the Pāśupata Sect

At the center of the Pāśupata system stands the semi-historical figure of Lakulīśa, regarded as an incarnation of Śiva and the founder of the sect. Bhandarkar relies here on both textual references and inscriptional evidence to argue that this was not merely a mythic attribution but reflects the memory of an actual religious teacher.

Lakulīśa is associated with a lineage of disciples and a body of teachings that mark a decisive step toward institutionalization. Unlike the earlier, more diffuse forms of Śiva worship, the Pāśupata tradition presents:

– A founder figure – A structured doctrine – Prescribed practices – A community of adherents

This is, in Bhandarkar’s view, the point at which Śaivism becomes a sect in the full sense of the term.

The Central Doctrine: Paśu, Paśupati, and Bondage

The theological core of the Pāśupata system is articulated through the triad of paśu (the individual soul), paśupati (the Lord Śiva), and pāśa (the bonds that bind the soul).

This framework introduces a clear metaphysical structure:

– The soul is distinct from the Lord – It is bound by ignorance, karma, and other limitations – Liberation consists in release from these bonds through the grace of Śiva

Bhandarkar notes that this dualistic tendency distinguishes early Śaivism from some strands of Vaiṣṇavism, where the relation between the individual and the divine can be more fluid or even non-dual.

At the same time, the emphasis on divine grace parallels developments in the Bhāgavata tradition. Liberation is not achieved solely through knowledge or ritual, but through a relationship with the deity.

Ascetic Practice and Ritual Behavior

The Pāśupata system is marked by distinctive practices that set it apart from more orthodox Brahmanical traditions. These include:

– Living in temples or near sacred sites – Engaging in ascetic disciplines – Performing unconventional or even socially transgressive acts

One of the most striking features described by Bhandarkar is the deliberate adoption of behaviors that invite social censure—such as feigned madness, strange gestures, or disruptive actions.

These practices are not random. They serve a specific theological purpose: the destruction of ego and the exhaustion of karma through the experience of humiliation and rejection.

Bhandarkar interprets this as a radicalization of the ascetic tendencies already associated with Śiva. The god who dwells outside social norms inspires a religious path that likewise operates at the margins.

The Role of Grace and the Path to Liberation

As in the Bhāgavata system, grace plays a central role in Pāśupata theology. However, its articulation differs in tone and structure.

In Vaiṣṇavism, grace often appears in the context of devotion and surrender. In the Pāśupata system, it is more closely linked to:

– Ascetic discipline – Ritual observance – The favor of the Lord

The path to liberation is thus both demanding and paradoxical. It requires intense effort, yet its culmination depends on divine intervention.

Bhandarkar sees in this a synthesis of older ascetic traditions with emerging theistic frameworks.

Scriptural Foundations and Doctrinal Formation

The Pāśupata system is supported by a body of texts, though these are less widely known than the epic and Purāṇic materials associated with Vaiṣṇavism. Bhandarkar refers to works such as the Pāśupata Sūtra and its commentaries as evidence of doctrinal codification.

These texts attempt to:

– Define the nature of the soul and its bondage – Prescribe stages of practice – Explain the role of Śiva as the liberating agent

The presence of such texts indicates a move toward philosophical systematization. Śaivism is no longer only a matter of myth and ritual; it becomes a subject of formal reflection.

The Social Position of the Pāśupatas

Bhandarkar also considers the social implications of the Pāśupata movement. Its practices and ideals place it at a certain distance from mainstream society.

Unlike the more integrative tendencies of Vaiṣṇavism, which accommodate householders and social duties, the Pāśupata path often emphasizes withdrawal, marginality, and renunciation.

This does not mean that Śaivism lacks social presence. Temples, patronage, and community structures do exist. But the ideal figure remains the ascetic rather than the householder.

This distinction contributes to the differing trajectories of the two traditions.

Toward Diversity Within Śaivism

By the end of this chapter, it becomes clear that Śaivism is not a single unified system but a constellation of sects and practices. The Pāśupatas represent one important strand, but others will emerge with different emphases and doctrines.

Bhandarkar’s broader point is that the very features that make Śiva a complex and multifaceted deity—his ambivalence, his marginality, his association with both destruction and grace—also give rise to a diverse and sometimes internally contradictory religious landscape.

The next stages of the book will explore these further developments, including other Śaiva sects and the so-called “minor religious systems,” thereby completing the picture of sectarian Hinduism as a dynamic and evolving field.

Chapter 8 — The Proliferation of Śaiva Sects: From Pāśupatas to Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas

With this chapter, Bhandarkar deepens his analysis of Śaivism by moving beyond the relatively structured Pāśupata system into a wider and more complex field of sectarian developments. What emerges here is not a single doctrinal progression, but a branching out into multiple forms of religious life, each emphasizing different aspects of Śiva’s paradoxical nature.

If the previous chapter established the possibility of organized Śaivism, this one reveals its internal diversification—often along lines that challenge conventional religious norms.

From Orthodoxy to Extremity

Bhandarkar begins by situating the Pāśupatas as a kind of baseline: a sect that, while ascetic and somewhat unconventional, still maintains a recognizable theological and ritual structure. From this point, he traces the emergence of more radical groups such as the Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas.

These sects do not merely extend Pāśupata practices; they intensify and transform them. The marginality already associated with Śiva becomes, in their case, a deliberate and defining principle.

Śiva, as the lord of cremation grounds, of ghosts, and of destructive forces, provides the symbolic framework for practices that invert ordinary social and religious values.

The Kāpālikas: Ritual Transgression and the Sacred Margins

Among these groups, the Kāpālikas occupy a particularly striking position. Their name—derived from kapāla, meaning skull—points directly to one of their central practices: the use of human skulls in ritual.

Bhandarkar describes their characteristic features as including:

– Dwelling in cremation grounds – Carrying skulls as begging bowls – Engaging in rites associated with death and impurity

These practices are not incidental. They represent a deliberate engagement with what is normally excluded from religious life. The cremation ground, a place of decay and pollution, becomes a site of spiritual power.

The theological logic underlying this is profound. By confronting death, impurity, and fear directly, the practitioner seeks to transcend them. Śiva, as both destroyer and benefactor, becomes the model for this transcendence.

Bhandarkar does not romanticize these practices, but he recognizes their internal coherence. They are not chaotic deviations, but expressions of a particular understanding of the divine.

The Kālāmukhas: Institutional Asceticism

In contrast to the Kāpālikas, the Kālāmukhas represent a somewhat more organized and institutionalized form of Śaivism, though still marked by ascetic rigor.

They are associated with:

– Monastic establishments – Temple-centered worship – Disciplined forms of ascetic practice

While less overtly transgressive than the Kāpālikas, they retain a strong emphasis on renunciation and separation from ordinary social life.

Bhandarkar notes that the historical record for these groups is less extensive, but their existence points to the diversity of Śaiva organization. Śaivism is capable of accommodating both extreme antinomianism and structured monasticism.

The Theology of Transgression

A key theme running through this chapter is the role of transgression in Śaiva practice. What appears, from an external perspective, as violation of norms is, within these traditions, a means of spiritual transformation.

The logic can be understood along several lines:

First, the dissolution of dualities. By engaging with what is considered impure, the practitioner challenges the distinction between pure and impure.

Second, the destruction of ego. Social norms are tied to identity and status; violating them undermines the ego’s attachment to these structures.

Third, the imitation of Śiva. As a deity who exists beyond conventional boundaries, Śiva legitimizes practices that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Bhandarkar sees in this a radical extension of tendencies already present in earlier Śaivism, particularly its association with asceticism and marginality.

Interaction with Broader Religious Currents

Another important dimension of this chapter is the interaction between Śaiva sects and other religious traditions, especially Buddhism.

Certain practices and ideas—such as monastic organization, ritual symbolism, and philosophical concepts—show signs of cross-influence. At the same time, Śaiva sects maintain distinct identities centered on devotion to Śiva.

This interaction contributes to the richness and complexity of the religious landscape. Śaivism does not develop in isolation but in continuous dialogue with other traditions.

The Problem of Legitimacy

Bhandarkar also addresses the question of how these diverse sects relate to the broader Brahmanical framework. While some, like the Kālāmukhas, maintain closer ties to orthodox structures, others, like the Kāpālikas, operate at a considerable distance.

This raises issues of legitimacy:

– Are these sects to be considered part of Hinduism or outside it? – How do they justify their practices within a scriptural or theological framework?

The answers are not uniform. Some sects appeal to Śaiva scriptures or reinterpret Vedic ideas, while others rely more on direct lineage and practice.

Bhandarkar’s analysis suggests that the boundaries of religious identity in this period are fluid and contested.

Toward a Plural Śaivism

By the end of the chapter, Śaivism appears not as a single tradition but as a spectrum:

– At one end, relatively orthodox and institutionalized forms – At the other, highly transgressive and marginal practices

Between these poles lies a wide range of intermediate forms.

This plurality is not a weakness but a defining characteristic. It reflects the capacity of Śiva, as a deity, to encompass contradictions—ascetic and erotic, destructive and benevolent, marginal and central.

For Bhandarkar, this diversity contrasts with the more unified development of Vaiṣṇavism. Śaivism resists consolidation into a single doctrinal system, instead proliferating into multiple, sometimes competing, expressions.

The subsequent chapters will extend this analysis to other religious systems—often termed “minor”—which, though less prominent, contribute significantly to the overall texture of Indian religious life.

Chapter 9 — The So-Called “Minor Religious Systems”: Their Nature and Historical Position

With this chapter, Bhandarkar widens the scope of his inquiry beyond the two major theistic formations—Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism—to examine a range of traditions he designates as “minor religious systems.” The term “minor,” however, is not meant to imply insignificance. Rather, it reflects their relative lack of large-scale institutional consolidation and literary systematization when compared to the dominant sects.

What becomes clear in this chapter is that these systems are indispensable for understanding the full ecology of Indian religion. They preserve archaic elements, sustain local practices, and often serve as reservoirs of symbolic and ritual forms that later become integrated into larger traditions.

The Problem of Classification

Bhandarkar begins by acknowledging the difficulty of classification. These traditions do not present themselves as unified systems with clear doctrinal boundaries. Instead, they exist as overlapping and interpenetrating currents, often localized and transmitted through practice rather than text.

Among the groups he considers are:

– The worshippers of Skanda (Kārttikeya) – The cult of Gaṇeśa – Solar worship (Sauras) – Various forms of goddess worship

Each of these traditions has its own history, mythology, and ritual structure, yet none develops, in the early period, into a system as comprehensive as Vaiṣṇavism or Śaivism.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely descriptive but analytical: how to situate these traditions within the broader development of Indian religion.

The Cult of Skanda

The worship of Skanda, also known as Kārttikeya, represents one of the earliest and most widespread of these systems. Skanda is associated with:

– Warfare and martial valor – Youth and vitality – Leadership of divine armies

Bhandarkar traces his origins to both Vedic and non-Vedic sources, suggesting a composite development. The figure appears in early texts but gains prominence through epic and later traditions.

What is notable is that Skanda worship achieves considerable regional importance, particularly in certain parts of India, yet does not crystallize into a pan-Indian theological system comparable to Vaiṣṇavism.

This, for Bhandarkar, illustrates a recurring pattern: strong devotional focus without corresponding doctrinal expansion.

The Cult of Gaṇeśa

The emergence of Gaṇeśa as an object of worship presents a different trajectory. Unlike Skanda, whose martial character limits his symbolic range, Gaṇeśa develops a more universal appeal.

He becomes associated with:

– Beginnings and auspiciousness – Removal of obstacles – Wisdom and intellect

Bhandarkar notes that Gaṇeśa’s rise appears relatively late compared to other deities. His prominence grows gradually, eventually leading to widespread acceptance across different sectarian boundaries.

Yet even here, the system remains relatively simple. There is no extensive theological corpus comparable to that of Vaiṣṇavism or Śaivism in the early stages.

Solar Worship (Sauras)

The Sauras, or worshippers of the sun, represent another strand of religious life with deep historical roots. Solar worship can be traced back to Vedic hymns, where the sun is already a significant deity.

However, the development of a distinct solar sect involves:

– The elevation of the sun to supreme status – The establishment of specific rituals and temples – The formation of devotional communities

Bhandarkar observes that while solar worship attains a certain level of organization, it ultimately remains limited in scope. It does not generate the same level of mythological richness or philosophical elaboration as the major sects.

This limitation may be connected to the relative abstraction of the solar deity compared to the more anthropomorphic figures of Viṣṇu and Śiva.

The Early Forms of Goddess Worship

Perhaps the most complex and suggestive of the “minor systems” is the worship of the goddess in her various forms. Bhandarkar treats this cautiously, recognizing both its antiquity and its diversity.

The goddess appears in multiple roles:

– As a mother figure – As a warrior (e.g., Durgā) – As a local or village deity

These forms often have strong connections to non-Vedic or popular traditions. They are associated with fertility, protection, and the rhythms of agricultural life.

At this stage, however, goddess worship has not yet been fully systematized into the elaborate Śākta traditions of later periods. It remains diffuse, localized, and often integrated with other forms of worship.

Integration and Subordination

A key argument in this chapter is that many of these “minor systems” do not remain independent. Over time, they are absorbed into the larger frameworks of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism.

For example:

– Skanda becomes associated with Śiva as his son – Gaṇeśa is incorporated into Śaiva mythology – Solar elements are assimilated into Vaiṣṇava cosmology – Goddess figures are linked to both Śiva and Viṣṇu

This process of integration allows the major traditions to expand their symbolic and ritual range while maintaining a central theological focus.

Bhandarkar interprets this not as a loss for the minor systems, but as a mode of preservation. Their elements survive, though transformed, within broader religious structures.

The Religious Field as a Dynamic System

What emerges from this chapter is a vision of Indian religion as a dynamic and interconnected field. The distinction between major and minor systems is not fixed but fluid.

Traditions rise, evolve, interact, and are reabsorbed. The boundaries between them are porous, allowing for continuous exchange and transformation.

Bhandarkar’s broader methodological point becomes especially clear here: to understand Indian religion, one must attend not only to its dominant systems but also to its marginal and localized forms.

These “minor” traditions are not peripheral; they are constitutive. They provide the material out of which larger systems are built and the flexibility that allows those systems to adapt and endure.

Chapter 10 — Processes of Assimilation and the Formation of a Composite Hinduism

In this chapter, Bhandarkar draws together the multiple strands examined thus far—Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, and the so-called minor systems—and turns explicitly to the processes by which they come to form a composite religious structure. The emphasis shifts from the internal development of individual sects to the dynamics of interaction, absorption, and mutual transformation.

What emerges is not a synthesis in the sense of a single unified doctrine, but a layered and cumulative religious formation in which distinct traditions coexist, overlap, and reinterpret one another.

The Mechanism of Identification

One of the primary mechanisms of assimilation identified by Bhandarkar is the process of identification. Deities that originate in different contexts are equated with one another, either directly or through shared attributes.

This process operates along several axes:

– A local deity is identified with a pan-Indian god – A minor god is treated as a manifestation of a supreme deity – Multiple gods are declared to be different forms of the same ultimate reality

Such identifications are not arbitrary. They are grounded in earlier tendencies already present in the Rigveda, where different gods are often treated as interchangeable expressions of a single divine principle.

In the later context, however, this tendency becomes more systematic and more explicitly theological. It allows for the integration of diverse traditions without requiring the elimination of their distinctive features.

Genealogical Incorporation

A second mechanism is genealogical incorporation. Deities are related to one another through familial structures, creating a symbolic network that accommodates multiple traditions.

For example:

– Skanda and Gaṇeśa are presented as sons of Śiva – Various goddesses are associated as consorts of major gods – Local deities are incorporated into divine lineages

This strategy serves both theological and social purposes. It organizes the divine world into a coherent structure while allowing local traditions to retain their identity within a broader framework.

Bhandarkar notes that this process is particularly prominent in the Purāṇic literature, where elaborate genealogies become a central feature.

The Role of Myth in Integration

Myth plays a crucial role in facilitating assimilation. Narratives are constructed or adapted to establish relationships between different deities and traditions.

These myths often:

– Explain the origin of a deity in terms of another – Reinterpret local legends within a wider cosmological scheme – Provide a narrative justification for ritual practices

Through myth, doctrinal differences are not necessarily resolved but are rendered compatible. Contradictions are absorbed into a larger narrative context.

Bhandarkar emphasizes that this narrative flexibility is one of the key strengths of Indian religious traditions. It allows for continuity without rigidity.

Ritual Convergence

Assimilation is not only theological and narrative but also ritual. Practices associated with different traditions begin to converge.

This includes:

– Shared pilgrimage sites – Common festivals – Overlapping ritual forms

A devotee may participate in practices associated with multiple deities without experiencing this as contradiction. The religious life becomes pluralistic at the level of practice.

Bhandarkar sees this as evidence that doctrinal exclusivity is not a dominant feature of the religious landscape. Instead, there is a pragmatic inclusiveness that accommodates diversity.

The Persistence of Difference

Despite these processes of assimilation, Bhandarkar is careful to note that differences do not disappear. Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, for example, retain distinct theological emphases, ritual forms, and sectarian identities.

At times, these differences give rise to competition or even conflict. Texts may assert the supremacy of one deity over others, reflecting sectarian loyalties.

However, these assertions exist alongside mechanisms of integration. The same tradition that proclaims supremacy may also acknowledge equivalence or unity at another level.

This coexistence of competition and integration is a defining feature of the religious field.

The Formation of a Religious Synthesis

What Bhandarkar ultimately describes is not a synthesis in the sense of uniformity, but a composite structure characterized by:

– Layering of traditions – Mutual reinterpretation – Flexible boundaries

This structure allows for both continuity and change. New elements can be incorporated without displacing older ones, and local variations can coexist with broader frameworks.

The result is what later comes to be recognized as Hinduism—a term that, in Bhandarkar’s time, is already used but still analytically problematic.

Historical Implications

From a historical perspective, this process of assimilation explains how Indian religion achieves both stability and diversity.

Stability arises from the ability to integrate new elements into existing frameworks. Diversity arises from the retention of multiple forms and practices within those frameworks.

Bhandarkar’s analysis suggests that the strength of the tradition lies precisely in this capacity for accommodation.

Toward the Conclusion

By the end of this chapter, the major lines of development traced throughout the book begin to converge. The emergence of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, the persistence of minor systems, and the processes of assimilation together produce a complex and resilient religious formation.

The final movement of the book will draw out the broader implications of this development, reflecting on the nature of Indian religion as a whole and the historical forces that have shaped it.

Chapter 11 — Concluding Reflections: The Historical Character of Indian Sectarian Religion

In this final chapter, Bhandarkar steps back from the detailed historical and textual analyses that have occupied the earlier portions of the work and reflects on the broader character of Indian religion as it has emerged through the processes traced in the book. The tone becomes more synthetic, though it remains anchored in the historical method that has guided his inquiry throughout.

What he seeks to articulate here is not a theological conclusion, but a historical understanding: what kind of religious formation has developed in India, and by what processes has it taken its distinctive shape?

Religion as Historical Growth Rather Than Revelation

One of Bhandarkar’s most consistent commitments—now made explicit—is the view that Indian religious systems are products of historical growth rather than fixed revelations.

The development of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, as he has shown, involves:

– The reinterpretation of Vedic materials – The assimilation of local and popular cults – The gradual formation of doctrines through narrative and practice

There is no single moment of origin, no foundational revelation that determines the entire structure. Instead, there is a continuous process of accumulation and transformation.

This perspective stands in contrast both to traditional accounts that emphasize divine revelation and to earlier scholarly attempts to reduce Indian religion to a single philosophical principle.

The Centrality of Theism

A second major conclusion concerns the rise of theism. While early Vedic religion is characterized by ritual and multiplicity, and the Upaniṣads by speculative inquiry, the later development of Indian religion is dominated by theistic systems.

Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism represent the culmination of this movement:

– The divine becomes personal and accessible – Devotion becomes a central mode of religious life – The relationship between human and divine is foregrounded

Bhandarkar does not deny the continuing presence of philosophical and ritual elements, but he argues that they are increasingly subordinated to theistic frameworks.

The Role of Devotion

Closely related to this is the central role of devotion. The emergence of bhakti is not treated as a sudden innovation, but as the outcome of earlier developments:

– The need for an “adorable object” beyond abstract speculation – The reinterpretation of ritual in ethical and symbolic terms – The elevation of particular deities into supreme figures

Devotion provides a mode of religious engagement that is both personal and flexible. It allows for emotional, ethical, and intellectual dimensions to coexist.

Bhandarkar sees this as one of the key factors in the enduring vitality of Indian religion.

Plurality and Integration

Another defining feature, emphasized throughout the book and reiterated here, is the coexistence of plurality and integration.

Indian religion, as Bhandarkar describes it, is characterized by:

– A multiplicity of deities and practices – The absence of rigid doctrinal boundaries – The capacity to integrate diverse elements

This does not result in chaos, because mechanisms of assimilation—identification, genealogy, myth—provide a framework within which diversity can be organized.

The result is a religious system that is both complex and cohesive.

The Absence of Exclusive Orthodoxy

Bhandarkar also highlights the relative absence of exclusive orthodoxy. While sectarian claims of superiority do exist, they do not generally lead to the exclusion of other forms of worship.

A devotee may:

– Worship multiple deities – Participate in different ritual traditions – Accept different theological perspectives

This inclusiveness is not merely tolerance, but a structural feature of the religious system.

The Importance of Local Traditions

The final chapter also reiterates the importance of local and “minor” traditions. Far from being peripheral, they are integral to the formation of the larger systems.

They provide:

– Symbolic richness – Ritual diversity – Points of connection with everyday life

Their incorporation into Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism ensures both continuity with the past and adaptability to new contexts.

A Composite Religious Formation

Bhandarkar ultimately characterizes Indian religion as a composite formation—a layered structure in which different historical strata coexist.

These strata include:

– Vedic ritual elements – Upaniṣadic philosophical ideas – Epic and Purāṇic mythology – Local and popular practices

The interaction of these elements produces a system that cannot be reduced to any single component.

Final Assessment

The concluding assessment is both descriptive and interpretive. Bhandarkar does not attempt to evaluate the truth of the religious systems he studies. Instead, he seeks to understand their historical development and internal logic.

What emerges is a picture of Indian religion as:

– Dynamic rather than static – Inclusive rather than exclusive – Historically grounded rather than purely speculative

In this sense, the book as a whole can be read as an argument for the intelligibility of Indian religion within the framework of historical analysis.

It demonstrates that what might appear, from the outside, as a bewildering multiplicity is in fact the result of identifiable processes—processes that can be traced, analyzed, and understood.

The work closes, therefore, not with a final doctrinal statement, but with a methodological affirmation: that the study of religion, even in its most complex forms, is amenable to careful historical inquiry.

Key Theses of the Book

At the level of its deepest argument, the work advances a set of interrelated theses about the historical formation of Indian religion. These are not presented by Bhandarkar as formal propositions, but they emerge with clarity when one considers the cumulative movement of his analysis across Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, and the so-called minor systems.

The first and most foundational thesis is that Indian religion is not a static inheritance from the Vedic past but a historically evolving formation. What appears, in later periods, as an integrated religious system is in fact the result of gradual transformation. Vedic ritualism gives way to speculative inquiry in the Upaniṣadic period; this, in turn, proves insufficient as a basis for lived religion and is supplemented by the rise of theism. The emergence of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism represents not continuity alone, but a reconfiguration of earlier materials into new structures of meaning.

Closely connected to this is the second thesis: that the rise of theism is the निर्णायक development in the history of Indian religion. The movement from impersonal or loosely personified divinities toward fully articulated personal gods—Vāsudeva–Kṛṣṇa and Śiva—transforms the entire religious field. These deities are not merely added to an existing pantheon; they reorganize the hierarchy of divine beings, absorb functions previously distributed across multiple gods, and become the focal points of devotion, myth, and theology.

A third thesis concerns the role of devotion as a new religious modality. Bhandarkar shows that the emergence of bhakti is neither accidental nor purely emotional. It arises from structural limitations within earlier forms of religion. Ritualism, with its emphasis on correctness and external performance, fails to address deeper existential concerns. Speculative philosophy, while profound, remains too abstract for general religious life. Devotion, by contrast, provides an accessible and relational mode of engagement with the divine, capable of integrating ethical, emotional, and intellectual dimensions.

Another central argument is that Indian religion develops through processes of assimilation rather than exclusion. The formation of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism does not entail the disappearance of other traditions. Instead, these systems expand by incorporating local deities, practices, and myths. Mechanisms such as identification (equating one deity with another), genealogical linkage (placing deities within familial structures), and narrative integration allow for the coexistence of diversity within an overarching framework.

This leads to a further thesis: that plurality is not a problem to be resolved but a structural feature of Indian religion. The coexistence of multiple deities, doctrines, and practices is not merely tolerated; it is actively maintained through flexible theological strategies. Even when sectarian traditions assert the supremacy of their chosen deity, they often do so in ways that allow for the inclusion of others at a different level of understanding.

Bhandarkar also advances the view that different sectarian systems follow distinct developmental trajectories. Vaiṣṇavism tends toward synthesis, integration, and theological coherence. It constructs a relatively unified system centered on a personal deity who is both accessible and universal. Śaivism, by contrast, retains a more heterogeneous and paradoxical character. Its association with asceticism, marginality, and transgressive practices leads to a proliferation of sects that resist full systematization.

A further important thesis concerns the role of so-called minor religious systems. These traditions—Skanda worship, Gaṇeśa worship, solar cults, and early goddess traditions—are not peripheral residues but active components of the religious field. They provide symbolic and ritual resources that are later incorporated into larger systems. Without them, the richness and adaptability of Indian religion would be significantly diminished.

Finally, Bhandarkar’s work advances a methodological thesis: that religion can and should be studied as a historical phenomenon. Rather than treating religious systems as timeless expressions of metaphysical truth, he approaches them as evolving structures shaped by human needs, social conditions, and cultural interactions. This does not diminish their significance; rather, it makes their development intelligible.

Taken together, these theses form a coherent vision. Indian religion emerges as a dynamic, layered, and integrative system—one that evolves through the interplay of continuity and change, abstraction and devotion, unity and plurality.

Methodology Analysis

Bhandarkar’s methodology reflects the intellectual context of early modern Indology, yet it also exhibits a level of rigor and balance that gives the work enduring value. His approach can be understood as a combination of philological analysis, historical reconstruction, and comparative interpretation.

At its core lies a commitment to textual evidence. Bhandarkar reads a wide range of sources—the Rigveda, Upaniṣads, epic literature such as the Mahabharata, and later inscriptions—with close attention to language, context, and internal variation. He resists the temptation to impose a single doctrinal framework upon these texts, instead allowing their plurality to inform his conclusions.

This philological grounding is complemented by the use of epigraphic material. The inscriptions at Ghoṣuṇḍī, Besnagar, and Nāṇāghāṭ play a crucial role in establishing the historical existence of early Vaiṣṇava worship. By integrating such evidence, Bhandarkar moves beyond purely literary analysis and anchors his arguments in concrete historical data.

Another important aspect of his methodology is the principle of developmental analysis. Religious systems are treated as evolving entities, and their features are explained in terms of earlier stages. This allows Bhandarkar to trace lines of continuity—such as the transformation of Vedic henotheism into later theistic doctrines—while also accounting for significant changes.

At the same time, this developmental model introduces certain limitations. There is a tendency, at times, to interpret earlier materials primarily in light of later developments, which can risk projecting coherence backward onto more fluid and heterogeneous sources. For example, the identification of Upaniṣadic ideas as precursors to bhakti may understate their original diversity.

Bhandarkar also operates within a framework that privileges textual and elite traditions. While he does acknowledge the role of local and popular practices, these are often reconstructed indirectly, through their incorporation into more formal systems. The voices and perspectives of practitioners themselves remain largely inaccessible within this methodology.

Nevertheless, his treatment of plurality is notably nuanced for his time. He does not attempt to reduce Indian religion to a single essence—whether monotheistic, pantheistic, or otherwise. Instead, he emphasizes its composite character and the processes by which different elements are integrated.

A further strength of his approach lies in its comparative dimension. By examining Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, and minor systems side by side, he is able to highlight both shared patterns and distinctive trajectories. This comparative perspective enriches the analysis and prevents it from becoming narrowly sectarian.

In sum, Bhandarkar’s methodology is marked by a careful balance: empirical without being reductive, interpretive without being speculative. While it reflects certain limitations of its historical context, it remains a foundational model for the historical study of Indian religion.

Quotes and Citation

“The elaborate and mechanical system of worship was not calculated to satisfy the religious wants of the people.”

“We are not to suppose that the Upanishads teach one uniform doctrine; they contain a variety of speculative opinions.”

“Vāsudeva is spoken of as a god, as an object of worship.”

“The Supreme Being is not seen by all; he reveals himself only to those whom he favours.”

“The different systems were not mutually exclusive, but were capable of being combined and reconciled.”

Closing Comments

Bhandarkar’s work remains, even more than a century after its publication, a remarkably clear and disciplined attempt to render intelligible the complexity of Indian religious history. Its enduring value lies not in the finality of its conclusions—many of which have been revised or expanded by later scholarship—but in the methodological orientation it establishes.

By insisting on the historical character of religious systems, Bhandarkar opens a space for understanding Indian religion as a process rather than a given. This allows for a more nuanced appreciation of its diversity, its internal tensions, and its capacity for transformation.

At the same time, the work reveals the limits of any attempt to impose complete coherence on such a vast and multifaceted field. The very phenomena Bhandarkar describes—plurality, assimilation, and continuous reinterpretation—resist final systematization.

What emerges, therefore, is not a closed account but an open framework: a way of seeing Indian religion as a living, evolving formation, shaped by the interplay of ideas, practices, and historical circumstances.

In this sense, the book does not merely describe a subject; it models a way of approaching it—patiently, critically, and with an awareness of both unity and difference.