N. Gopala Pillai, M. A
from the Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference
Vol. IX (Trivandrum: Government Press, 1937), pp. 955-997
I have attempted to show that the very name Skanda is a foreign importation, that many prominent features of the Skanda cult are immigrants. Different strata of beliefs could be distinguished in the conglomerate mass of myths and legends woven around Skanda. Various races and ages have left the impression of their diverse contributions. Egyptian, Babylonian, Cushite, Dravidian and Greek and Indo-Aryan conceptions of a particular form of divinity have all coalesced into a complex faith. Each has impressed its indelible seal in its present form. Since the advent of Alexander, old faiths took a new turn, assumed a new cloak. That new trend is discernable. I have but advanced here a few evidences which go to prove my contention.
But there could be a serious objection. If the word Skanda has been introduced into India after Alexander’s conquest, Indian literature before the days of Alexander could not possibly refer to him. Are there not references in the pre-Alexadrine literature of India? There is no mention of Skanda in the Vedas. But it occurs once in the Upanisadic literature. In the Chāndogya Upanisad, a seer of the name Skanda Sanatkumāra is mentioned. It must, first, be noted that it is not a god Skanda yet, that is referred to. Secondly, the chronology of the Upanisads and of Vedic literature in general first stated by the Max Muller and accepted by the majority of the scholars is open to grave doubts. Thirdly, the passage where it occurs has been alleged to be an interpolation by competent authorities. [98]
The problem of Vedic Chronology is one of the most intricate problems of Sanskrit literature. Chronology is, in general, the weak point of the Indian Literary history. Whitney in the introduction to his Sanskrit grammar said “all dates given in Indian literary history are pins set up to be bowled down again.” Those words ring true even today.
Max Muller started from the few known facts of Indian history – the Invasion of Alexander, and the rise of Buddhism in his chronological theory. His arguments were as follows:
Buddhism is nothing but a reaction against Brahminism and it presupposes the existence of the entire Veda Samhitas, Brāhmanas, Āranyakas and Upanisads. Therefore, it must have arisen before 500 B.C.
Vedānga and Sūtra literature probably arose simultaneously with the origin and early spread of Buddhism. These works may be placed in the period from 600 to 200 B.C. But the Sūtra works presuppose the Brāhmanas. For these he set apart 200 years. Thus the Brāhmanas came to be dated from 800-600 B.C.
The Brāhmanas in their turn, presuppose the Samhitas. Let 200 years be allotted for the arrangement of the Samhitas. Thus the Samhitas were arranged from 1000-800 B.C.
But arrangements could not take place before composition. Another 200 years for composition. This Veda were composed during the period from 1200-1000 B.C.
The arguments, indeed, are simple. But from the starting point of the Sūtra period fixed during 600-200 B.C. through the generous and uniform intervals of 200 years, his hypothesis flounders on. And Max Muller himself had no absolute faith in his theory. He says, in his Gifford lectures on Physical Religion, “Whether the Vedic hymns were composed 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 years B.C., no power on earth will ever determine.” But those who followed him would not leave his theory forlorn. When he vacillated, his followers took it up in right earnest and said that he could not go back, they would support him. That is in short, the story of Vedic Chronology.
The premise that Buddhism presupposes the entire Veda from Samhitas to Upanisads can hardly be held. In fact the earliest Upanisads like the Brhadāranyaka and the Chāndogya show, let alone the later ones, traces of Buddhistic influence. Dr R. E. Hume, the learned translator of the thirteen principal Upanisads says:
“Yet, evidence of Buddhistic influence is not wanting in them. In Brhadāranyaka 3-2-13 it is stated that after death the different parts of a person return to the different parts of nature from whence they came, that even his soul (ātman) goes into space and that only his Karma, or effect of work remains over. This is out and out of the Buddhist doctrine. Connections in the point of dialect may also be shown. Sarvāvat is a word which as yet has not been discovered in the whole range of Sanskrit literature, except in Śatapatha Brāhmana and in Northern Buddhist writings. Its Pali equivalent is sabbava. In Brh 4-3-2-6 ‘r’ is changed to ‘l’, i.e. palyayate from pary-ayate -- a change which is regularly made in the Pali dialect in which the books of Southern Buddhism are written…Somewhat surer evidence, however, is the use of the second person plural ending ‘tha’ for ‘ta’. Muller pointed out in connection with the word acaratha (Mundaka 1-2-1) that this irregularity looks suspiciously Buddhistic. There are, however, four other similar instances.” [99]
In reference to the Chāndogya Upanisad, Prof. Keith says “By a division, which seems to have no precedent in Brahmanical texts, and which has certainly no merit, logical or psychological, the individual is divided into five aggregates or groups (khandha), the Sanskrit equivalent of which means ‘body’ in the phrase Dharma skandha in the Chāndogya Upanisad.”[100] “Trayo dharmaskandhāh” (Chāndogya 2.23). Beck compares it with the Dīgha Nikāya passage, where the three imperfect conceptions of self as body, as mind and as ideas are referred to.
The Upanisads, it must be noted, mark a break from the tradition of Vedic sacerdotalism. It is not a normal and regular development of the speculation of the Samhitas, what little there is. New thoughts and new theories radically opposed to already existing forms, strike us at every turn. Ritual acts are condemned. Priests are ridiculed.[101] The new and sublime doctrine of the soul and again the doctrine of transmigration appear here, for the first time. The Ksatriya is elevated, often, above the Brahmin. It is a revolt. It is as much a revolt as Buddhism. Buddhism was the expression of the revolt of a master mind against the darker forces of the world, against the inequalities of life, against the thraldom of a rigid social hierarchy, against dirt and sin and slavery. Whenever in the history of human thought, we find an abrupt break, a swift swerve from the regular course of normal evolution, the impact of a master mind will be evident somewhere. That came from the Buddha. But it is possible that the Buddha himself represented the normal reaction of a different race against the incursion of new Aryan tendencies. And Upanisadic literature reflects the tendencies of that new spirit. The hypothesis usually held, that Buddhism presupposes the Upanisads seems ill-founded. The converse might be nearer the truth.