Yonder world or afterworld in Atharvaveda
In handbooks of Vedic religion and Hinduism life after death in the Veda, especially in the Rgveda samhit a, is often represented in a rather simplified way. It is almost exclusively the heavenly continuation of life that receives attention.
Realizing that this cannot have been the destination of all human beings, some scholars assume a belief in hell. However, the data on hell are rather scarce in the oldest Vedic text.
It looks as if the opposition of hell and heaven was a later development.
In other, comparable, cultures instead of heaven an underworld plays a role (Baaren 1987: 118), e.g. in Greece. So a concept of a subterranean life after death might have preceded the later generally found idea of
immortality in heaven.
Some scholars have even assumed that originally annihilation was the ultimate destination of all beings (e.g. Converse 1971: 337), in spite of the fact that “Belief in some kind of existence after death is one of
the more common elements of religion, as history and anthropology show” (Baaren 1987: 116). The fate of the deceased might also be connected with the funeral customs. Since, however, life does not end
with the funeral rites but with death, ideas on souls leaving the body should also be taken into account.
In his handbook of Vedic religion Oldenberg (1917: 523 ff.) accepted the opposition of heaven and hell for the Rgvedasamhit a, but assumed an underworld comparable to Greek Hades as the original ultimate
destination of man. Since the traces of this situation as sketched by him were rather scarce and especially in later Vedism heaven represented the exclusive aim of the ritualistic texts, Oldenberg’s views were not
generally accepted.
In a likewise surprisingly neglected article of 1927/1928 Ernst Arbman tried to revive Oldenberg’s theory. In the latest handbook on Vedic religion Gonda (1978: 98, 181) completely overlooked Oldenberg’s and
Arbman’s views, though von Glasenapp in his concise handbook on Indian religions had correctly observed that originally the world of the forefathers was conceived as “ein unter der Erde liegendes Totenreich”
and that this subterranean realm was shifted to “ein uberirdisches Reich”; he added: “Die Vorstellung von der Unterwelt wird damit aber nicht aufgegeben” (1955: 84).
In 1994 Bodewitz published an article on life after death in theRgvedasamhita in which he continued the line of thought of Oldenberg and Arbman and tried to show that paradise in heaven was only found in the latest layers of this text. In the same year Klaus Butzenberger wrote a paper on this subject which was published in 1996. It is evident that Bodwitz article was brought to his attention in a very late phase. He refers to it, but does not discuss or criticize it, reserving his criticism for Arbman...Butzenberger (1996: 71 ff.) assumes that the Vedic concept of life after death in heaven developed in consequence of changing funeral
customs. When burial was substituted by cremation the realm of the dead became situated in heaven. Butzenberger, however, does not accept the association of the earlier practice of burial with a subterranean world of the dead.
The possible references to this underworld in the older layers of the Rgvedasamhit a are interpreted by him as referring to the grave.
Both hell and nether world would be absent in the older Veda. It even looks as if Butzenberger wants to regard the introduction of cremation as coinciding with the discovery of life after death. If that
assumption is made, it would be strange that burial was not completely given up at once, since cremation automatically results in a transfer to heaven according to Butzenberger. Excellent conduct and merits
would not matter any more. Butzenberger does indeed draw this farreaching conclusion and observes that suddenly a common eschatological perspective open to everybody was developed.
This is not convincing. As in other religions, the prospects of immortality in heaven in Vedism do not depend on automatisms like the technique of the funeral. You can’t buy a ticket to heaven. Heaven has
to be won by specified merits.
By focusing on cremation and burial, Butzenberger also misinterpreted the Vedic conceptions of the soul and neglected the crucial moment of dying. It is evident that he has barely read Arbman’s publication
on life after death (1927/1928), let alone Arbman’s articles of 1926/27 on primitive and Vedic conceptions of the soul, though these were elaborately discussed by me in a publication of 1991 included in
Butzenberger’s bibliography but entirely neglected by him. It is a pity that he also did not take into account the important material of the Atharvavedasamhit a on life after death and the soul.
As a text in its final shape theAtharvavedasamhit a is definitely much later than the Rgvedasamhit a, but part of its contents may reflect views which are older and more original. The references in this text to dark
and deep places and to downward paths to these places cannot be interpreted as concerning the grave for several reasons.
If we take into account the date of the text, we would not expect any mention of the grave, since cremation had already substituted burial.
Looking at the contents, which might reflect older ideas and institutions, here, too, one has to conclude that references to the grave are excluded, since this text deals e.g. with free-souls which temporarily have left the
body and should be called back to this world by Atharvanic magic. Such a free-soul which is described as having gone downward and which should come upwards, cannot be situated in a grave. Unconscious
people simply do not yet have a grave.
In Butzenberger’s view, however, there is no concept of a soul in the older layers of the Rgvedasamhit a and the totality of the person moves to yonder world (p. 65). Probably starting from the undoubtedly correct
assumption that in yonder world souls without a body cannot drink Soma or have sex he emphasized the undividedness of the deceased person. It is true that in heaven body and soul appear together, but
somewhere between death and the admission to heaven a so-called soul must be assumed acting apart from the body. This is also the case with seriously ill people who have lost consciousness and whose return to
the body the Atharvanic magicians try to realize.
Before presenting the main results of my examination of the Atharvaveda material I have to state that though the Paippal ada recension may be older and more original, I follow the arrangement of the Saunaka, since
this recension is better documented and major differences are not to be expected for our subject.
The non-heavenly associations with death are to be found both in books 1–7 (the most authentic Atharvan.
ic books) and in 8–12 and are almost missing in books 13–20. They can be distinguished into four categories: a) hell; b) the destination of unfavourable persons or items; c) places allotted to rivals and enemies; d) references to unconscious diseased who should not go down to the realm of death or should return from there.
The first category, which supposes sins and their punishment, is attested in six hymns.In five cases disrespectful behaviour towards Brahmins (especially the refusal to give a cow to them) forms the sin.
In one case (20, 128, 2) defiling a sister, harming a friend and slighting one’s elders are the offences. Hymn 8, 4 (= .R V. 7, 104; see Bodewitz 1994: 29 f.) deals with sinners in general (dusk rtas), liars, wicked people, demons, sorcerers etc.
The punished deceased go to hell. The term narakais used in 12,4, 36 and there it stands in opposition to Yama’s world. In the same hymn (12, 4, 3) the sinner falls into a pit (k ata), which proves that pit
and hell denote the same. In 5, 19, 3 the punished transgressors have to sit in a stream of blood, devouring hair. One may compare the Bhrgu story in Jaimin ıya Br ahmana1, 44, where likewise the maltreatment
of Brahmins is punished in this way. In the Br ahmana the place of punishment is the para lokato which Bhr
.gu’s free-soul went after he lost his consciousness. It is even possible that Yama under the name
of Krodha is ruling in that world (Bodewitz 1973: 109, n. 24).
According to Butzenberger (1996: 64, n. 30), who follows Arbman (1928: 233, n. 1) here, the first explicit references to a hell are found in AV. 5, 19, 3 and 12, 4, 36 (see above). He does not mention 12,
4, 3, probably on account of the fact that k ata resembles kart a,which he interprets as the grave, in some contexts just representing death or annihilation.
The sinners or wicked persons mentioned in 8, 4 (= R.V. 7, 104) are said to be thrown into a or the pit or cave (vavr e ant ar), in darkness which offers no support (an arambhan. et amasi) (8, 4, 3); in an abyss
(p ar s ane) (8, 4, 5); to be placed in the lap of Nirrti (8, 4, 9); to be pressed down below all the three earths (8, 4, 17). Oldenberg (1917: 538 f. discussing the Rgvedic source) here assumes a hell and observes
that the description is too detailed to be interpreted as a metaphor for pure annihilation, whereas Arbman (1928: 198 f.) rejects Oldenberg’s analysis and draws attention to the fact that this hymn (RV. 7, 104) is
full of references to death and annihilation. Since in the most original Vedic ideas about death life after death would be staying in some sort of Hades, the realistic references to a nether world would actually be
metaphorical denotations of death and not refer to a hell according to Arbman. Butzenberger (see n. 10) also assumes metaphorical descriptions of death, but now based on concrete references to all kinds of graves.
In my view we should anyhow assume here a reference to an actual nether world, whether this is a Hades or a hell. Sinners are (i.a.) mentioned in the hymn, but it is true that punishments beyond death
are missing. Living on after death seems to be implied by the wish that these evil beings should not return to the earth.
The fact that together with the sinners even demons are mentioned is not in favour of interpreting the destination of all the destroyed beings as an actual, undivided realm of the dead.
In 12, 5, 64 the transgressors have to go from Yama’s seat to the worlds of the sinners (p apalok
an) which are called the par av atas.No concrete further punishments are mentioned.
They who likewise have not correctly treated the Brahmins in 5,18, 3 do not go the world of the Pitrs. Their exact destiny and further punishment are not reported.
***
For the second category, in which sin does not play a role, again six hymns provide the material. The unfavourable items are the Sad anvas (insects?) and sorceresses (2, 14, 3), fever (5, 22, 2–4), birds of ill
omen (6, 29, 3), Pi s acas (6, 32, 2), witch-craft (8, 5, 9), the flesh-eating cremation-fire (12, 2, 1; 8–10) and death (Mrtyu) (12, 2, 21).
They should go to the lower house (adhar a_ ngrh as) (2, 14, 3), downwards (adhar akorny ak) (5, 22, 2–4; 12, 2, 1), to Yama’s house (6, 29, 3), to Yama’s subjects or vassals (12, 2, 8), to Yama (6, 32, 2),
to the world of the Pitrs (12, 2, 9), along the path of the Pitrs (12, 2,10), along a path which is different from that of the gods (12, 2, 21),to the farthest distances (p ar a:::par av atas) (8, 5, 9).It is obvious that heaven is not their destination. It is also clear that Yama here cannot be the heavenly god, since birds of ill omen and
Pi s acas can hardly be associated with the seat of Yama. The references to Yama’s subjects, the world of the fathers, paths used by the fathers etc. might point to Yama’s world in heaven, but the direction is explicitly
said to be downward (adhar ak). Even if the latter term would mean ‘southward’, heaven can hardly be regarded a suitable place for the cremation fire. References to the grave are excluded here.
***
In category c (rivals and enemies) again sin is not evident, but the place wished for the deceased is obviously not positive. Apart from the neutral designation ‘Yama’s dwelling-place’ (2, 12, 7) everywhere darkness, downward movements and far distances play a role: darkness (12, 3, 49); lowest darkness (1, 21, 2; 9, 2, 4; 9; 10; 17–18; 10, 3, 9; 13, 1, 32); downwards (n ıc air) (9, 2, 1; 9, 2, 15), (adhar a~ nc) (9, 2, 12),
adhara(7, 331, 1; 10, 3, 3; 13, 1, 31); farthest distance (p aram a/p ar apar av at) (3, 18, 3; 6, 75, 2). In 10, 3, 9 the term r ajasis used side by side with adham am .t amasand therefore seems to denote the dark
underworld. Cf. Greekerebos(Mayrhofer 1994: 426). It is striking that Yama’s dwelling-place is mentioned once in this category.
***
The three mentioned destinations refer to sinners, unfavourable items and enemies and might be taken together as hell,though sins and punishment often do not play a role. There are some common elements
such as darkness, a low position or a downward movement and far distance. It is remarkable that Yama is sometimes associated with the second and third destinations, but is explicitly not connected with that
destination which might be called hell.
***
In the last category the possible destination of every deceased human being is referred to. Death is described as undesirable and there is no prospect of life in heaven. References to the gloomy world of death
are found in five hymns.The deceased, who is probably unconscious, should come out of
the lap of perdition (n ırrter up asth at) (3, 11, 2; 7, 53, 3); he is taken upwards ( ud) out of the fetters of perdition (n ırtty ah.p a sebhyas) (8, 1,3); he knows the ascent (ud ayanam path as; ar ohan.
am; akr aman.am) (5, 30, 7); should rise upwards (utkram) (8, 1, 4); (uday) (8, 2, 8); come upwards out of the deep black darkness of death (ud ehi mrty or gambh ır at kr.s.n. ac cit t amasas p ari) (5, 30, 11); ascend (udroh; aroh) out of darkness (7, 53, 7; 8, 1, 8); come to the light (8, 2, 2); is taken from the lower ( adharasy as) to the upper earth (8, 2, 15); should not become someone living under the earth, abh umigr.ha(5, 30, 14); is freed from the otherworldliness (amutrabh uy ad adhi) of Yama (7, 53,
1); should not go down the path of darkness (8, 2, 10); should not go to the Pitrs (apparently living in darkness, since the directly following verse deals with the ascent out of darkness) (8, 1, 7); should not go to
darkness (8, 1, 10 and 8, 2, 1, addingr ajasto t amas), or to the lowest darkness (8, 2, 24). Darkness should not find him (8, 1, 16) or has goneaway from him (8, 1, 21).
The verbs used to indicate the removal from Yama’s deep and dark world (mostly with the magician as the subject) are udhar(8, 2, 15), ahar(3, 11, 2; 7, 55, 3; 8, 1, 3), udbhar(8,1,3;8,2,23), punar a
bhar(8,2,1),udgrabh(8, 1, 2) andutpar(8, 1, 18–19; 8, 2, 9).
This is a far cry from the description of life in heaven with Yama. One might try to explain all this as metaphors denoting death seen as total annihilation. However, the references to a particular downward
road, to a stay under the earth and to taking away the deceased or almost deceased or his soul from this location below to the world of the living are too specific.
***
How should we explain this pessimistic outlook in view of the many references to life after death in heaven? Of course, to some extent the different situations might explain the different expectations. In the
funeral ceremonies life in heaven is the expected prospect pictured by the priests. In the context of some sacrifices the same prospect may be sketched for the sacrificer. The theological and ritualistic functions
are of fundamental importance here.
In the text places where human beings should be rescued from death described as dark and down, magic
and medicine come to the fore. In most cultures doctors fight against the demon of death and when they fail priests and preachers promise eternal bliss after death.
Nevertheless I am under the impression that a more fundamental distinction should be made here. Life after death in heaven is a legacy from the latest layers of the RV. The ideas about a nether world (a Hades) which is not exclusively reserved for sinners and demons seem to represent older conceptions (which probably live on in later literature).
***
The bliss of heaven is described in the 18th book dealing with the funeral ritual. This is not surprising since this material is largely based on the 10th book of the R.V. Outside this book about 25 hymns 21
in the first 12 books refer to heaven. The majority of these hymns is partially or completely used in the typically Atharvanic rites called savasorsavayaj~ nasin which Brahmins receive all kinds of animals
or rice-messes as gifts or as oblations.
Actually, in almost all the hymns in which life after death in heaven plays a role, items are given to Brahmins or deposited in or with them by way of oblation. Let me summarize the qualifications for heaven gathered from the relevant hymns.
The Brahmins receive rice-messes and several kinds of animals, sometimes together with rice-messes, namely a cow,a goat,a sheep(3, 29, 1/3), and a draught-ox (4, 11, 6). The importance of sacrifice in
general, or combined with liberality, or specified by a reference to the full moon or the householder’s fire, is emphasized in five hymns.
Once a Brahmin complains about not being unemployed as a priest (7, 103). There is no mention of well-known srautarituals. We are in the sphere of the grhya or the specific Atharvavedic ritual in which the Brahmins more or less replace the gods. Once hospitality for Brahmins (9, 6) is equated with the sacrifice. In almost all these hymns the Brahmin as a receiver of a gift or of an oblation or of an investment for the heavenly future of the giver (once in the form of a house) form the central element.
How should we interpret this situation? I think that the discovery of heaven as the destination of normal human beings took place rather late, since it is not found in the family books of the Rgvedasamhit a. Soon
it became claimed by the ritualists for the sponsors of srauta sacrifices and the givers of enormous Daksinas. The poets of the Rgveda already referred to large numbers of cattle given by previous hosts and expected
to get at least as much now, though in the oldest layers they still could not promise heaven for their benefactors. In the late Br ahmanas and the old Upanisads many cows are given by kings to the winners of debates over even to partners in a discussion. At the well-known sacrifices the investments for sacrificial victims and fees were impressive. Though the text of the Atharvavedasamhit a contains more technical information about the srauta ritual than the Rgvedasamhit a, the position of the Atharvavedins originally was rather weak at this ritual.
The Atharvavedic savayajnas often required no more than a ricemess or one cow, not to mention the cheaper animals. In several cases sacrificial victim or oblation and the fee for the Brahmin were identical.
The merits obtained by these simple Atharvanic rites are sometimes equated with those of srautarituals, e.g. the daily Agnihotra (3, 28), the Pravargya (4, 11) and Soma sacrifices (4, 34). Even giving hospitality
to a Brahmin is equated with Soma ritual (9, 6).
Moreover the oblations, victims and gifts connected with the savayajnas were glorified in such a way that Bloomfield became irritated.
This concerns the rice-mess (4, 34; 35; 11, 3), the cow10, 9; 10), the goat (4, 14; 9, 5) and the draught-ox (4, 11).
The message is clear. Ritualized liberality towards Atharvavedic Brahmins is as effective as, and much cheaper than, srauta ritual.
Therefore these simple rites got the name of savas, as if they would belong to the Soma ritual, though the etymologies of the Somasavas and of the Atharvaniic savas are different.
These savayaj nas, though also found in the most original Atharvaveda section books 1–7, actually represent a late reaction to the claims made by Rgvedasamhit a book 10 or even later srauta texts.
The negative reports on life after death in the underworld represent the more original conceptions of the Atharvaveda. The occurrence of both ideas on yonder world in one and the same layer of the text has
a parallel in theRgvedasamhit a, where in book 10 life after death inheaven occurs besides a dark realm of the dead.
The subterranean position of Yama did not disappear in spite of his transfer to heaven in the latest layers of the Rgvedasamhit a and in the savayajnas of the Atharvavedasamhit a. See e.g. the situation of the epics as described by Hopkins who refers to “Yama’s r ajadh ani enveloped in darkness” and his observation: “All human beings who die have to go the Yama’s abode, but the inhabitants of Kurukshetra do not have to ‘see the province of Yama’, that is, on dying they will go direct to heaven” (Hopkins 1913: 109). On the nether world in the epic see also Kuiper (1979: 81–88).
Even in pre-epic texts we see references to dark worlds. Worlds wrapped in blinding gloom are said to belong to the Asuras in VS. 40, This might be regarded as denoting hell, but BAU. 4, 4, 11 “lokas
covered with blind darkness and called ‘joyless’ ” are the destination of those who simply do not have the right knowledge.
By way of conclusion I would like to draw attention to the association of sleep or dream and death. Yama is sleep’s lord and Varunas wife bore sleep (AV. 6, 46, 1). The bad dream should be given to the enemy, but
the good dream is the agent of Yama (19, 57, 3). However, in AV. 16, 5 svapna(sleep) is associated with all kinds of evil (“you are ender, you are death, you are son of perdition, son of extermination, of calamity”)
and is still called agent of Yama.
It is not only Yama who is equated with sleep and dreams. SB. 12, 9, 2, 2 directly identifies the Pitrs with
sleep (and men with being awake). Such Pitrs seem to be associated with the night rather than with the light of heaven.
Conclusion: the negative aspects of Yama and death did not disappear in spite of the discovery of heaven by some circles in the Vedic tradition.
***
Realizing that this cannot have been the destination of all human beings, some scholars assume a belief in hell. However, the data on hell are rather scarce in the oldest Vedic text.
It looks as if the opposition of hell and heaven was a later development.
In other, comparable, cultures instead of heaven an underworld plays a role (Baaren 1987: 118), e.g. in Greece. So a concept of a subterranean life after death might have preceded the later generally found idea of
immortality in heaven.
Some scholars have even assumed that originally annihilation was the ultimate destination of all beings (e.g. Converse 1971: 337), in spite of the fact that “Belief in some kind of existence after death is one of
the more common elements of religion, as history and anthropology show” (Baaren 1987: 116). The fate of the deceased might also be connected with the funeral customs. Since, however, life does not end
with the funeral rites but with death, ideas on souls leaving the body should also be taken into account.
In his handbook of Vedic religion Oldenberg (1917: 523 ff.) accepted the opposition of heaven and hell for the Rgvedasamhit a, but assumed an underworld comparable to Greek Hades as the original ultimate
destination of man. Since the traces of this situation as sketched by him were rather scarce and especially in later Vedism heaven represented the exclusive aim of the ritualistic texts, Oldenberg’s views were not
generally accepted.
In a likewise surprisingly neglected article of 1927/1928 Ernst Arbman tried to revive Oldenberg’s theory. In the latest handbook on Vedic religion Gonda (1978: 98, 181) completely overlooked Oldenberg’s and
Arbman’s views, though von Glasenapp in his concise handbook on Indian religions had correctly observed that originally the world of the forefathers was conceived as “ein unter der Erde liegendes Totenreich”
and that this subterranean realm was shifted to “ein uberirdisches Reich”; he added: “Die Vorstellung von der Unterwelt wird damit aber nicht aufgegeben” (1955: 84).
In 1994 Bodewitz published an article on life after death in theRgvedasamhita in which he continued the line of thought of Oldenberg and Arbman and tried to show that paradise in heaven was only found in the latest layers of this text. In the same year Klaus Butzenberger wrote a paper on this subject which was published in 1996. It is evident that Bodwitz article was brought to his attention in a very late phase. He refers to it, but does not discuss or criticize it, reserving his criticism for Arbman...Butzenberger (1996: 71 ff.) assumes that the Vedic concept of life after death in heaven developed in consequence of changing funeral
customs. When burial was substituted by cremation the realm of the dead became situated in heaven. Butzenberger, however, does not accept the association of the earlier practice of burial with a subterranean world of the dead.
The possible references to this underworld in the older layers of the Rgvedasamhit a are interpreted by him as referring to the grave.
Both hell and nether world would be absent in the older Veda. It even looks as if Butzenberger wants to regard the introduction of cremation as coinciding with the discovery of life after death. If that
assumption is made, it would be strange that burial was not completely given up at once, since cremation automatically results in a transfer to heaven according to Butzenberger. Excellent conduct and merits
would not matter any more. Butzenberger does indeed draw this farreaching conclusion and observes that suddenly a common eschatological perspective open to everybody was developed.
This is not convincing. As in other religions, the prospects of immortality in heaven in Vedism do not depend on automatisms like the technique of the funeral. You can’t buy a ticket to heaven. Heaven has
to be won by specified merits.
By focusing on cremation and burial, Butzenberger also misinterpreted the Vedic conceptions of the soul and neglected the crucial moment of dying. It is evident that he has barely read Arbman’s publication
on life after death (1927/1928), let alone Arbman’s articles of 1926/27 on primitive and Vedic conceptions of the soul, though these were elaborately discussed by me in a publication of 1991 included in
Butzenberger’s bibliography but entirely neglected by him. It is a pity that he also did not take into account the important material of the Atharvavedasamhit a on life after death and the soul.
As a text in its final shape theAtharvavedasamhit a is definitely much later than the Rgvedasamhit a, but part of its contents may reflect views which are older and more original. The references in this text to dark
and deep places and to downward paths to these places cannot be interpreted as concerning the grave for several reasons.
If we take into account the date of the text, we would not expect any mention of the grave, since cremation had already substituted burial.
Looking at the contents, which might reflect older ideas and institutions, here, too, one has to conclude that references to the grave are excluded, since this text deals e.g. with free-souls which temporarily have left the
body and should be called back to this world by Atharvanic magic. Such a free-soul which is described as having gone downward and which should come upwards, cannot be situated in a grave. Unconscious
people simply do not yet have a grave.
In Butzenberger’s view, however, there is no concept of a soul in the older layers of the Rgvedasamhit a and the totality of the person moves to yonder world (p. 65). Probably starting from the undoubtedly correct
assumption that in yonder world souls without a body cannot drink Soma or have sex he emphasized the undividedness of the deceased person. It is true that in heaven body and soul appear together, but
somewhere between death and the admission to heaven a so-called soul must be assumed acting apart from the body. This is also the case with seriously ill people who have lost consciousness and whose return to
the body the Atharvanic magicians try to realize.
Before presenting the main results of my examination of the Atharvaveda material I have to state that though the Paippal ada recension may be older and more original, I follow the arrangement of the Saunaka, since
this recension is better documented and major differences are not to be expected for our subject.
The non-heavenly associations with death are to be found both in books 1–7 (the most authentic Atharvan.
ic books) and in 8–12 and are almost missing in books 13–20. They can be distinguished into four categories: a) hell; b) the destination of unfavourable persons or items; c) places allotted to rivals and enemies; d) references to unconscious diseased who should not go down to the realm of death or should return from there.
The first category, which supposes sins and their punishment, is attested in six hymns.In five cases disrespectful behaviour towards Brahmins (especially the refusal to give a cow to them) forms the sin.
In one case (20, 128, 2) defiling a sister, harming a friend and slighting one’s elders are the offences. Hymn 8, 4 (= .R V. 7, 104; see Bodewitz 1994: 29 f.) deals with sinners in general (dusk rtas), liars, wicked people, demons, sorcerers etc.
The punished deceased go to hell. The term narakais used in 12,4, 36 and there it stands in opposition to Yama’s world. In the same hymn (12, 4, 3) the sinner falls into a pit (k ata), which proves that pit
and hell denote the same. In 5, 19, 3 the punished transgressors have to sit in a stream of blood, devouring hair. One may compare the Bhrgu story in Jaimin ıya Br ahmana1, 44, where likewise the maltreatment
of Brahmins is punished in this way. In the Br ahmana the place of punishment is the para lokato which Bhr
.gu’s free-soul went after he lost his consciousness. It is even possible that Yama under the name
of Krodha is ruling in that world (Bodewitz 1973: 109, n. 24).
According to Butzenberger (1996: 64, n. 30), who follows Arbman (1928: 233, n. 1) here, the first explicit references to a hell are found in AV. 5, 19, 3 and 12, 4, 36 (see above). He does not mention 12,
4, 3, probably on account of the fact that k ata resembles kart a,which he interprets as the grave, in some contexts just representing death or annihilation.
The sinners or wicked persons mentioned in 8, 4 (= R.V. 7, 104) are said to be thrown into a or the pit or cave (vavr e ant ar), in darkness which offers no support (an arambhan. et amasi) (8, 4, 3); in an abyss
(p ar s ane) (8, 4, 5); to be placed in the lap of Nirrti (8, 4, 9); to be pressed down below all the three earths (8, 4, 17). Oldenberg (1917: 538 f. discussing the Rgvedic source) here assumes a hell and observes
that the description is too detailed to be interpreted as a metaphor for pure annihilation, whereas Arbman (1928: 198 f.) rejects Oldenberg’s analysis and draws attention to the fact that this hymn (RV. 7, 104) is
full of references to death and annihilation. Since in the most original Vedic ideas about death life after death would be staying in some sort of Hades, the realistic references to a nether world would actually be
metaphorical denotations of death and not refer to a hell according to Arbman. Butzenberger (see n. 10) also assumes metaphorical descriptions of death, but now based on concrete references to all kinds of graves.
In my view we should anyhow assume here a reference to an actual nether world, whether this is a Hades or a hell. Sinners are (i.a.) mentioned in the hymn, but it is true that punishments beyond death
are missing. Living on after death seems to be implied by the wish that these evil beings should not return to the earth.
The fact that together with the sinners even demons are mentioned is not in favour of interpreting the destination of all the destroyed beings as an actual, undivided realm of the dead.
In 12, 5, 64 the transgressors have to go from Yama’s seat to the worlds of the sinners (p apalok
an) which are called the par av atas.No concrete further punishments are mentioned.
They who likewise have not correctly treated the Brahmins in 5,18, 3 do not go the world of the Pitrs. Their exact destiny and further punishment are not reported.
***
For the second category, in which sin does not play a role, again six hymns provide the material. The unfavourable items are the Sad anvas (insects?) and sorceresses (2, 14, 3), fever (5, 22, 2–4), birds of ill
omen (6, 29, 3), Pi s acas (6, 32, 2), witch-craft (8, 5, 9), the flesh-eating cremation-fire (12, 2, 1; 8–10) and death (Mrtyu) (12, 2, 21).
They should go to the lower house (adhar a_ ngrh as) (2, 14, 3), downwards (adhar akorny ak) (5, 22, 2–4; 12, 2, 1), to Yama’s house (6, 29, 3), to Yama’s subjects or vassals (12, 2, 8), to Yama (6, 32, 2),
to the world of the Pitrs (12, 2, 9), along the path of the Pitrs (12, 2,10), along a path which is different from that of the gods (12, 2, 21),to the farthest distances (p ar a:::par av atas) (8, 5, 9).It is obvious that heaven is not their destination. It is also clear that Yama here cannot be the heavenly god, since birds of ill omen and
Pi s acas can hardly be associated with the seat of Yama. The references to Yama’s subjects, the world of the fathers, paths used by the fathers etc. might point to Yama’s world in heaven, but the direction is explicitly
said to be downward (adhar ak). Even if the latter term would mean ‘southward’, heaven can hardly be regarded a suitable place for the cremation fire. References to the grave are excluded here.
***
In category c (rivals and enemies) again sin is not evident, but the place wished for the deceased is obviously not positive. Apart from the neutral designation ‘Yama’s dwelling-place’ (2, 12, 7) everywhere darkness, downward movements and far distances play a role: darkness (12, 3, 49); lowest darkness (1, 21, 2; 9, 2, 4; 9; 10; 17–18; 10, 3, 9; 13, 1, 32); downwards (n ıc air) (9, 2, 1; 9, 2, 15), (adhar a~ nc) (9, 2, 12),
adhara(7, 331, 1; 10, 3, 3; 13, 1, 31); farthest distance (p aram a/p ar apar av at) (3, 18, 3; 6, 75, 2). In 10, 3, 9 the term r ajasis used side by side with adham am .t amasand therefore seems to denote the dark
underworld. Cf. Greekerebos(Mayrhofer 1994: 426). It is striking that Yama’s dwelling-place is mentioned once in this category.
***
The three mentioned destinations refer to sinners, unfavourable items and enemies and might be taken together as hell,though sins and punishment often do not play a role. There are some common elements
such as darkness, a low position or a downward movement and far distance. It is remarkable that Yama is sometimes associated with the second and third destinations, but is explicitly not connected with that
destination which might be called hell.
***
In the last category the possible destination of every deceased human being is referred to. Death is described as undesirable and there is no prospect of life in heaven. References to the gloomy world of death
are found in five hymns.The deceased, who is probably unconscious, should come out of
the lap of perdition (n ırrter up asth at) (3, 11, 2; 7, 53, 3); he is taken upwards ( ud) out of the fetters of perdition (n ırtty ah.p a sebhyas) (8, 1,3); he knows the ascent (ud ayanam path as; ar ohan.
am; akr aman.am) (5, 30, 7); should rise upwards (utkram) (8, 1, 4); (uday) (8, 2, 8); come upwards out of the deep black darkness of death (ud ehi mrty or gambh ır at kr.s.n. ac cit t amasas p ari) (5, 30, 11); ascend (udroh; aroh) out of darkness (7, 53, 7; 8, 1, 8); come to the light (8, 2, 2); is taken from the lower ( adharasy as) to the upper earth (8, 2, 15); should not become someone living under the earth, abh umigr.ha(5, 30, 14); is freed from the otherworldliness (amutrabh uy ad adhi) of Yama (7, 53,
1); should not go down the path of darkness (8, 2, 10); should not go to the Pitrs (apparently living in darkness, since the directly following verse deals with the ascent out of darkness) (8, 1, 7); should not go to
darkness (8, 1, 10 and 8, 2, 1, addingr ajasto t amas), or to the lowest darkness (8, 2, 24). Darkness should not find him (8, 1, 16) or has goneaway from him (8, 1, 21).
The verbs used to indicate the removal from Yama’s deep and dark world (mostly with the magician as the subject) are udhar(8, 2, 15), ahar(3, 11, 2; 7, 55, 3; 8, 1, 3), udbhar(8,1,3;8,2,23), punar a
bhar(8,2,1),udgrabh(8, 1, 2) andutpar(8, 1, 18–19; 8, 2, 9).
This is a far cry from the description of life in heaven with Yama. One might try to explain all this as metaphors denoting death seen as total annihilation. However, the references to a particular downward
road, to a stay under the earth and to taking away the deceased or almost deceased or his soul from this location below to the world of the living are too specific.
***
How should we explain this pessimistic outlook in view of the many references to life after death in heaven? Of course, to some extent the different situations might explain the different expectations. In the
funeral ceremonies life in heaven is the expected prospect pictured by the priests. In the context of some sacrifices the same prospect may be sketched for the sacrificer. The theological and ritualistic functions
are of fundamental importance here.
In the text places where human beings should be rescued from death described as dark and down, magic
and medicine come to the fore. In most cultures doctors fight against the demon of death and when they fail priests and preachers promise eternal bliss after death.
Nevertheless I am under the impression that a more fundamental distinction should be made here. Life after death in heaven is a legacy from the latest layers of the RV. The ideas about a nether world (a Hades) which is not exclusively reserved for sinners and demons seem to represent older conceptions (which probably live on in later literature).
***
The bliss of heaven is described in the 18th book dealing with the funeral ritual. This is not surprising since this material is largely based on the 10th book of the R.V. Outside this book about 25 hymns 21
in the first 12 books refer to heaven. The majority of these hymns is partially or completely used in the typically Atharvanic rites called savasorsavayaj~ nasin which Brahmins receive all kinds of animals
or rice-messes as gifts or as oblations.
Actually, in almost all the hymns in which life after death in heaven plays a role, items are given to Brahmins or deposited in or with them by way of oblation. Let me summarize the qualifications for heaven gathered from the relevant hymns.
The Brahmins receive rice-messes and several kinds of animals, sometimes together with rice-messes, namely a cow,a goat,a sheep(3, 29, 1/3), and a draught-ox (4, 11, 6). The importance of sacrifice in
general, or combined with liberality, or specified by a reference to the full moon or the householder’s fire, is emphasized in five hymns.
Once a Brahmin complains about not being unemployed as a priest (7, 103). There is no mention of well-known srautarituals. We are in the sphere of the grhya or the specific Atharvavedic ritual in which the Brahmins more or less replace the gods. Once hospitality for Brahmins (9, 6) is equated with the sacrifice. In almost all these hymns the Brahmin as a receiver of a gift or of an oblation or of an investment for the heavenly future of the giver (once in the form of a house) form the central element.
How should we interpret this situation? I think that the discovery of heaven as the destination of normal human beings took place rather late, since it is not found in the family books of the Rgvedasamhit a. Soon
it became claimed by the ritualists for the sponsors of srauta sacrifices and the givers of enormous Daksinas. The poets of the Rgveda already referred to large numbers of cattle given by previous hosts and expected
to get at least as much now, though in the oldest layers they still could not promise heaven for their benefactors. In the late Br ahmanas and the old Upanisads many cows are given by kings to the winners of debates over even to partners in a discussion. At the well-known sacrifices the investments for sacrificial victims and fees were impressive. Though the text of the Atharvavedasamhit a contains more technical information about the srauta ritual than the Rgvedasamhit a, the position of the Atharvavedins originally was rather weak at this ritual.
The Atharvavedic savayajnas often required no more than a ricemess or one cow, not to mention the cheaper animals. In several cases sacrificial victim or oblation and the fee for the Brahmin were identical.
The merits obtained by these simple Atharvanic rites are sometimes equated with those of srautarituals, e.g. the daily Agnihotra (3, 28), the Pravargya (4, 11) and Soma sacrifices (4, 34). Even giving hospitality
to a Brahmin is equated with Soma ritual (9, 6).
Moreover the oblations, victims and gifts connected with the savayajnas were glorified in such a way that Bloomfield became irritated.
This concerns the rice-mess (4, 34; 35; 11, 3), the cow10, 9; 10), the goat (4, 14; 9, 5) and the draught-ox (4, 11).
The message is clear. Ritualized liberality towards Atharvavedic Brahmins is as effective as, and much cheaper than, srauta ritual.
Therefore these simple rites got the name of savas, as if they would belong to the Soma ritual, though the etymologies of the Somasavas and of the Atharvaniic savas are different.
These savayaj nas, though also found in the most original Atharvaveda section books 1–7, actually represent a late reaction to the claims made by Rgvedasamhit a book 10 or even later srauta texts.
The negative reports on life after death in the underworld represent the more original conceptions of the Atharvaveda. The occurrence of both ideas on yonder world in one and the same layer of the text has
a parallel in theRgvedasamhit a, where in book 10 life after death inheaven occurs besides a dark realm of the dead.
The subterranean position of Yama did not disappear in spite of his transfer to heaven in the latest layers of the Rgvedasamhit a and in the savayajnas of the Atharvavedasamhit a. See e.g. the situation of the epics as described by Hopkins who refers to “Yama’s r ajadh ani enveloped in darkness” and his observation: “All human beings who die have to go the Yama’s abode, but the inhabitants of Kurukshetra do not have to ‘see the province of Yama’, that is, on dying they will go direct to heaven” (Hopkins 1913: 109). On the nether world in the epic see also Kuiper (1979: 81–88).
Even in pre-epic texts we see references to dark worlds. Worlds wrapped in blinding gloom are said to belong to the Asuras in VS. 40, This might be regarded as denoting hell, but BAU. 4, 4, 11 “lokas
covered with blind darkness and called ‘joyless’ ” are the destination of those who simply do not have the right knowledge.
By way of conclusion I would like to draw attention to the association of sleep or dream and death. Yama is sleep’s lord and Varunas wife bore sleep (AV. 6, 46, 1). The bad dream should be given to the enemy, but
the good dream is the agent of Yama (19, 57, 3). However, in AV. 16, 5 svapna(sleep) is associated with all kinds of evil (“you are ender, you are death, you are son of perdition, son of extermination, of calamity”)
and is still called agent of Yama.
It is not only Yama who is equated with sleep and dreams. SB. 12, 9, 2, 2 directly identifies the Pitrs with
sleep (and men with being awake). Such Pitrs seem to be associated with the night rather than with the light of heaven.
Conclusion: the negative aspects of Yama and death did not disappear in spite of the discovery of heaven by some circles in the Vedic tradition.
***
Comments
Post a Comment