As already mentioned, it is not clear how the old Indus Valley Civilization ended.  The most recent research findings indicate a long period of decline and decentralization rather than any sort of abrupt invasion or natural disaster.  What is reasonably clear is that some time in the early part of the second millenium (just after ca., 2000 B.C.E.), semi-nomadic warrior tribes who had been living in the steppelands that range from Eastern Europe (and further even into the Mediterranean region) to Central Asia (and possibly in small settlements in South Asia as well) and who spoke one or another Indo-Aryan language begin to come into prominence.  The evidence is not clear as to the origins of these Indo-Aryan speaking groups--the best scholarly guess is that their original home was in the Caucasus region--or as to how and precisely when these Indo-Aryan speakers came into prominence in South Asia and elsewhere in the second millenium and thereafter. Presumably over a long period of time these nomadic Indo-Aryan tribes conquered local peoples as they moved, intermarried with the indigenous population and developed into a ruling elite.  They were known as Aryas or Aryans (meaning "noble ones"), and those Aryan tribes that were settled in Persia (ancient Iran) and India are known as Indo-Iranians or Indo-Aryans.

    In order to perform the fire ritual the priests had to master an extensive body of what can be called sacred "utterances," including hymns, chants and ritual instructions of one kind or another.  These liturgical utterances, not yet written texts since writing was not extensively used until many centuries later, are referred to as the Vedas, from the root meaning "to know."  In other words, the Veda-s are what the priests had to know in order to perform the ritual sacrifice (yajna).  Originally there were three basic ritual collections, namely, the Rig Veda (meaning the "Hymn Veda," a collection of over one thousand hymns), the Sama Veda (meaning the "Chant Veda," a collection of selected chants derived largely from verses of the Rig Veda) and the Yajur Veda (meaning the "Instruction Veda," a collection of instructions about the ritual performance).  Somewhat later a fourth set of sacred utterances was added called the Atharva Veda (not so much a ritual collection as a collection of incantations, chants and spells for curing illness).

    The purpose of the ritual sacrifice was to propitiate and "feed" the gods.  In return the gods would assist their Indo-Aryan devotees with long life, much cattle and earthly happiness.  This reciprocity between gods and priests maintained the cosmic order or "rita."  Especially important was Agni, not only the literal word for "fire" but also the name of a kind of priestly god who would carry the prayers and hymns of the priests to the realms of the gods.  Also important was the god Indra, an atmospheric warrior god who assisted the Indo-Aryans in their wanderings and their battles, and according to one old Vedic creation myth, destroyed the demon, Vritra, a cosmic serpent who had devoured all of the sources of creation and life (the sun, water, and so forth).  Indra killed Vritra with a great spear or weapon called the vajra ("thunderbolt" or "diamond-hard weapon") splitting open the body of the demon and thereby allowing the sources of creation to escape their bondage in the demon's body (Rig Veda I.32).

     Another important creation myth refers to a Cosmic Man or Purusha (Rig Veda X.90) who is sacrificed on the sacred fire altar.  From his sacrificed body, the world is created.  Says the hymn (in verses l0-ll): "When they divided the Man (purusha), into how many parts did they apportion him?  What do they call his mouth, his two arms, and thighs and feet?  His mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Warrior, his thighs the People, and from his feet the Servants were born." Some have suggested that this may represent one of the first references to the caste system, known as the varna (literally "color") system, but that is perhaps to read too much into the passage.  It may simply be calling attention to a division of labor among the Indo-Aryans and nothing more.

     Yet another creation myth (Rig Veda X.l29), probably one of the latest in the Vedic hymn collections, concerns a mysterious "That One" (tad ekam) who "breathed windless, by its own impulse."  "Other than that," the hymn continues, "there was nothing beyond.  Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning....  Desire came upon That One in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind."  The hymn ends on a paradoxical, skeptical note: "Whence this creation has arisen--perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not--the one who looks down on it in the highest heaven, only he knows--or perhaps he does not know." Somewhat later the Cosmic Man or Purusha and the mysterious "That One" are combined into a more personal, but still largely abstract, Prajapati ("lord of creatures").

     Other important gods were Varuna and Mitra, high celestial gods of cosmic power and order, Vayu, god of the wind, Dyaus and Prithivi, the gods of heaven and earth, Surya, god of the sun, Vishnu, the god who maintains or sustains the cosmos, Rudra, the "howling" god of storm, thunder and the mountain, later to be combined with the god, Shiva.  Interestingly enough, in this early Indo-Brahmanical context, Indra and Agni, and Varuna and Mitra were considerably more important than Vishnu or Rudra-Shiva.  It would be almost a millenium later that Vishnu and Shiva would emerge as principal gods in classical Hindu traditions.  The tendency in this Indo-Brahmanical context is to move away from personal gods in the direction of speculative abstractions that put ever greater emphasis on the importance of the priests for the performance of the ritual as well as for the interpretation of its meaning.

Back to top

     Initially these Indo-Aryan speakers were prominent in the old Indus Valley region, but over the next thousand years they spread their control over all of North India, intermarrying with the indigenous population and becoming a settled agricultural people.  During this thousand-year period many important changes occurred.  The sacrificial ritual became much more complex and came to be divided into two basic types: (a) what were called shrauta (from the word shruti meaning the sacred utterances of the Vedas or scripture) or great public rituals involving as many as seventeen priests and three sacred fires and lasting for several days and in some instances up to two years; and (b) what were called Grihya (meaning simply "domestic") or home-based oblations (called the Agnihotra or "fire offering") into a single fire in the domestic hearth.  Also related to the "domestic" rituals were the life-cycle rituals (called samskaras), from twelve to sixteen rites of passage, including such rituals as the marriage ritual, the ritual for conceiving a male child, a birth ritual, a name-giving ritual, and so forth.  Whereas most of the Indo-Aryan families were able to maintain the home-based rituals, only rich "sacrificers" (called yajamana-s) such as the chief or local ruler (rajan) could afford the great public rituals.

     One of the most elaborate public rituals was the Horse Sacrifice (ashvamedha) in which a horse was allowed to roam for a year followed by warriors of a particular local ruler or maharaja.  Wherever the horse roamed was claimed as land for the ruler and could presumably be challenged by other local rulers.  Finally at the end of the year a great Horse Sacrifice was held to celebrate the ruler's power and authority.  Other major public rituals were the Enthronment Ritual (rajasuya) and the Ritual of Building the Fire Altar (agnicayana), involving many days and the ritual use of the Soma drink.

Back to top

Back to top

     This particular tradition of speculation begins with playing on the word for "priest," the Sanskrit of which is "brahmana," and the relation between the notion of "priest," the notion of the world or cosmos (vishva, bhuvana, jagat), and the notion of the Self or Soul (called variously atman or purusha).  The root meaning of the word for "priest" or "brahmana" is "to speak" or "to pray," and there are several derivative terms that can be formed, including BRAH-man (with accent on the first syllable), brah-MAN (accent on the second syllable), Brahman (a neuter abstract noun), BrahmA (a masculine form), and, of course, brahmana, the actual word for "priest."  The term BRAH-man (with accent on the first syllable) means something like "prayer" and refers to the actual verses (called mantra-s) of the Vedic hymns, referring, in other words, to the objective content that the priest must know.  The term brah-MAN (with accent on the second syllable) means something like "pray-er," that is to say, the person doing the praying, referring, in other words, to the subjective capacity of the priest to speak or to pray.

     The priests proceeded to speculate, then, on both kinds of brahman.  The brahman as "prayer" is objective, relates directly to the external fire ritual, which in turn is made possible by the air or wind, which in turn is made possible by the sun and moon and all of the forces of the cosmos.  In other words, this is a line of speculation leading in a cosmological direction, and when inquiring into that ultimate first principle which makes all of this objective universe possible, they used the term Brahman (the neuter abstract noun).  It is the ultimate first principle of objectivity from which everything is derived.  In some other, slightly later Upanishadic contexts this first principle of objectivity is called the "principal" one (pradhana) or primal materiality (prakriti).

     The brahman as "pray-er," on the other hand, is subjective and refers to the priest's ability to speak or utter prayers.  Just as the "prayer" relates directly to the external fire altar, so the "pray-er" has an internal fire or burning (called tapas or the inner process of meditation and self-purification that burns off personal impurities).  And just as the external fire is dependent on the air or wind, so the internal fire is dependent on the breath or life-force (prana), and just as the external world is illumined by the sun, so the subjective inner world of the priest is illumined by knowledge (vidya, jnana).  When inquiring into that ultimate first principle which makes the subjective inner world of the priest possible, they used the term for the reflexive pronoun in Sanskrit, the Atman or "Self," or simply the word for "man" or "person" (purusha).

     The obvious question, then, is what, finally, is the difference, or, what is the relation between the Brahman (the first principle of objectivity) and the Atman (the first principle of subjectivity)?  The answer, according to the priestly tradition that will later become the monistic Advaita Vedanta, is that there is no difference.  When I have come to understand or "know" (vidya, jnana) the first principle of subjectivity by means of tapas (the inner ascetic "burning" of meditation and self-purification) or what amounts to the same thing, "disciplined meditation" or Yoga, I have come to understand the ultimate first principle of everything that is, the Brahman.  Such an answer obviously is tending towards monism, the view that finally objectivity and subjectivity coalesce into the pure consciousness that is Brahman or Atman. Hence, the priestly refrains in the famous Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.4.l0) and Chandogya Upanishad (VI.9.4 ff): "I am Brahman" (aham brahma-asmi), and "That are thou, Shvetaketu" (tat tvam asi, shvetaketu).  The realm of objectivity or materiality or multiplicity tends to dissolve, and, indeed, in later philosophizing the realm of objective multiplicity is said to be Maya, a sort of illusory, shifting kaleidoscope that does not truly exist in the sense that the pure consciousness of Atman or Brahman may be said to exist.

     A possible second answer, given by those Indo-Brahmanical thinkers that will later become the followers of the dualist Samkhya, is that there is a fundamental difference between objectivity or materiality (pradhana or prakriti) and pure consciousness (purusha).  When I have come to understand or "know" (vidya, jnana), as a result of my disciplined meditation or Yoga, that pure consciousness (purusha), if it is truly pure, can have no content whatever, and that, therefore, it must be totally distinct from every determinate formulation, then I must realize that pure consciousness is radically separate from all determinate objectivity or materiality (prakriti).  There is a truly existing realm of objective multiplicity--the world, in other words, is fully real--but my true Selfhood or my pure consciousness is totally distinct from that realm.

     Interestingly enough, both the monistic-tending Vedanta interpretation of what happens as a result of the pursuit of disciplined meditation (yoga) and the dualistic-tending Samkhya interpretation of what happens are almost identical with respect to the issue of the nature of Selfhood or pure consciousness (atman or purusha).  They differ mainly with respect to the interpretation of the realm of objective multiplicity, the Vedantin wanting to reduce multiplicity to the radical oneness of pure consciousness, the Samkhyan acknowlegding the separate reality of objective multiplicity but seeking to isolate a pure contentless consciousness over against it.

     Clearly these Upanishadic speculations are growing out of the sacrificial ritual as attempts to make sense of the relation of the ritual to the world and human experience, but at the same time they are also striking out in new directions.  The priests are obviously becoming much more independent.  Indeed, they are becoming more important even than the gods, for the priests by their understanding and manipulating of brahman, brahman and Brahman,  their internalization or interiorization of the fire-ritual in terms of tapas and Yoga, and their cosmological speculations in terms of cosmology, are coming to understand and thereby  to control both the objective world and the subjective world.  The priests are becoming all-powerful.  Domestic rituals, public rituals, the gods who are fed by the ritual process and even the cosmos itself are all now under the control of the priests.

     With this Indo-Brahmanical layer we have come close to the threshold of what will later become the "Hindu" traditions in India.  The sacred scriptures have been devised (the Vedas together with the Upanishad-s), basic rituals both public and domestic have been elaborated, a tripartite social order (not quite the caste system, to be sure, but clearly a prototype for it) has gradually transformed itself from a nomadic or semi-nomadic form into a settled or sedentary agricultural base, and patterns of speculation and proto-philosophizing have shown themselves that will prove to be of decisive importance in the development of later Hindu philosophy. Nevertheless, some crucial components of what will later be known as Hindu traditions are glaringly absent.  There are no temples, only the open-air fire altars of the priests.  There is very little focus on the notion of a personal god.  Vishnu and Shiva, though present in incipient forms, are not dominant figures.  There is little evidence of urban life of any kind beyond the level of village communities or small, settled communities related to local rulers or ruling clans.  Kingship has hardly developed beyond the level of local rulers or tribal confederacies in kinship lineages.  There are references to "forest schools" that exist outside of settled areas but not much concern with city-life or corporate life beyond the public rituals of local chiefs.  There is no mention of pilgrimage of any kind.  With one or two minor exceptions, there is little emphasis whatever on notions of Karma and rebirth, so prominent in later Hindu interpretations of the meaning of orthopraxy and ritual behavior (and present possibly also in earlier pre-Aryan village religiosity), suggesting that Karma and rebirth were originally not part of the Indo-Brahmanical traditions.  There is, to be sure, a growing concern over the possibility of re-death (punar-mrityu) , probably growing out of analogies with life-cycle stages.  Just as one passes through the various phases of life, so one might pass through death itself, thereby requiring a re-birth and a subsequent re-death.  Moreover, there are a few Upanishadic passages which mention the notion of Karma and rebirth, but they are always mentioned in the context of secret teachings, as if, in other words, the full doctrines of Karma and rebirth had not yet been developed or had not been assimilated into the Indo-Brahmanical belief-system.

Back to top