Vol. 4 · pages 176–180

165 APPENDIX III true nature of Vishnu. It is not possible to separate philologically the word Sepa ( Penis) from sipi. Other similar idg. forms are Sipha (a root pkt. chepa, lat. oippus, seipio (staff) etc. Even Nirukta (V. 7) seems to be vaguely supporting this view though its further explanation is not clear. Added to that word is a form from the root viz., thus making the whole word mean ‘the changing phallus; the swelling and diminishing penis’. We may now easily understand why the Vedic poets speak in such guarded and obscure way about this form of Vishnu. In this connection it is very significant to note what Nirukta (V. 8-9) says of this name of Vishnu: The word sipivista has thus unmistakably preserved Vishnu’s ancient phallic nature. There are also many other incidental references to Vishnu in the Vedic hymns and ritual, which clearly associate him with the notion of fertility, productivity and self life.” “One of the obscure features of the Vedic Shraddha-ritual is that the Angustha, without nail, is to be dipped into the offering intended for the pitars. This action is accompanied by an invocation to Vishnu. The Angustha is undoubtedly a symbol of the phallus. Vishnu is, in this rite, clearly connected with the phallic aspect of the Vedic ritual. In later literature we find Vishnu actually identified with the thumb. In the I.S. passage (VI. 2.4.2) we find another piece of evidence in this regard. Vishnu’s entering into the mother earth is a symbolical description of a fertility rite. The words, Tanvardhanah, used with reference to Vishnu’s (VII. 99.1; VIII. 100.2) may further be understood to be indicative of his phallic nature. Vishnu is significantly identified, in later literature, with Hiranyagarbha, and Narayana. Vishnu’s close connection with Sinivali (AV. VII. 46.3), the ‘broadhipped’ divinity protecting the feminine sex-functions, throws considerable light on this aspect of Visnu’s personality. According to the Sankhyana-grahyasutra (I. 22.13), the Mantra (X. 184.1) accompanies the garbha-ceremony, thus suggesting that Vishnu is the efficacious protector of the embryos. In AV (VII. 17.4), Vishnu is clearly connected with sex-functions. The two epithets of Vishnu Nisiktapa (VII. 36.9) ‘protector of the semen’, and Sumajjani (I. 156.2) ‘facilitating easy birth’ speak for themselves. The word, Paumsya ‘manly vigour’ is significantly used with reference to Vishnu in RV (E. 155.3-4). In the Vrsakapi-hymn (X. 86), Indra is said to have been exhausted, when a bold, lascivious monkey administered to him some medicine, through which Indra regained his manly power. This Vrsakapi is identified, in later literature, with Vishnu, the word-being also mentioned as one of his names “in the Vishnusahasranama.”

166 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES On the evidence produced by Prof. Dandekar phallus worship was in its origin connected with Vishnu. In the Puranas we do not find the Phallus worship associated with Vishnu. In the Puranas it is associated with Shiva. This is a most astounding transformation. Vishnu who was from the beginning associated with the Linga worship was dissociated from it and Shiva who had no association with the Linga worship has come to be identified with it. Question is what made the Brahmins dissociate Vishnu from Linga worship and fasten it on to Shiva? There remains the last and the important question. It relates to the inter-relations of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha. Nothing probably sums up so well the inter-relations between Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha as does the story of the birth of the God Dattatraya. Briefly the story is that one afternoon when Sarasvati, Laxmi and Parvati, the wives of the three Gods were sitting together chit-chatting, Narada, the sage on eternal tour, came to visit them. In the course of the conversation a question arose as who was the most chaste woman in the land. Narada held out that Anusuya the wife of Rishi by name Atri—as the purest and most chaste woman. This was violently disputed by the three, each one of whom claimed to have that title. Narada disproved their claim by recounting the many acts of adultery which one of them was guilty of. They were silenced but they became very angry. They wanted to retrieve their position vis-a-vis Anusuya. In their wisdom they decided that the only way by which this could be done was to have Anusuya seduced to illicit intercourse. Having decided upon their plan of action the three women told to their husbands when they returned in the evening what Narada said about them in the afternoon and scolded them by saying that they were the cause of their wives humiliation. For if they had committed adultery with Anusuya she and they would have been on the same level and Narada would not have found cause to humiliate them. They asked their husbands whether they cared for their wives and if they did were they not in duty bound to proceed forthwith to invade the chastity of Anusuya and to pull her down from the high pedestle of purity and chastity on which Narada had placed her. The Gods were convinced that what was suggested by their wives was their duty and that they could not shirk the task. The three Gods started on an expedition to rob Anusuya of her honour and marched on to the hutment of Atri. The three Gods disguised themselves as three Brahmin Mendicants. When they arrived Atri was away. But Anusuya welcomed them and prepared food for them. When the meal was ready she asked them to sit and partake of

167 APPENDIX III the meal. The three Gods replied that they would take food at her house only if she agreed to serve them food in a naked condition. The rule of hospitality in ancient India was that Brahmin guest must not depart dissatisfied. Everything he asked must be given to him. In obedience to this rule Anusuya agreed to serve them naked. While she was serving food to them in this naked condition Atri arrived. On seeing Atri the three Gods who were taking food with Anusuya standing naked took the form of new born babes. The three Gods in the form of babes were placed by Atri in a craddle. In the craddle their bodies having become integrated into one and their heads having remained separate there arose the God Dattatraya who has one body and three heads representing the three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha. The story has a stink of immorality in it and the close of it may have been deliberately designed so as to cover up the actual fact of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha having outraged Anusuya to lower her down to the level of their wives. Be that as it may the story illustrates the view once prevalent among the Hindus that three Gods Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha were co-equal in status and their functions are complimentary and not competitive. They were spoken of as forming Trimurti—three in one and one in three, all sustaining the world, Brahma by creating it, Vishnu by preserving it and Shiva by destroying it. This state of harmony did not last long. The Brahmins who were the propagandists of these three Gods divided themselves into three camps each becoming devoted to one to the exclusion of the other two. The result of this was a systematic campaign of villification and degradation by the Brahmins devoted to one God of the other Gods. It is interesting as well as instructive to note what the Brahmins have done to Brahma. There was a time when the Brahmins raised Brahma to the highest pinnacle of power and glory. They presented him as the creator of the Universe—the first Prajapati. He was their sole supreme God. The Brahmins had developed the theory of Avatar which holds that God when necessary incarnates into different forms, human or animal. This they use for twofold purpose, firstly to elevate the supremacy of a God in whom they are interested and secondly to reconcile the conflict between Gods as different personalities. The Brahmins have run riot with this theory of Avatar and different Puranas have given different lists of Avatars as will be seen from the following:

168 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES According to Hari Vamsha According to Narayani Akhyan According to Varaha Purana According to Vayu Purana According to Bhagwat Purana 1 Varaha Hansa Kurma Narasinha Sanatkumar 2 Narasinha Kurma Matsya Vaman Boar 3 Vaman Matsya Varaha Varaha 4 Parshuram Varaha Narasinha Kurma Nara-Narayan 5 Rama Narasinha Vaman Sangram Kapila 6 Krishna Vaman Parshuram Adivaka Dattatraya 7 Parshuram Rama Tripurari Jadna 8 Rama Krishna Andhakarh Rashabha 9 Krishna Buddha Dhvaja Prithi 10 Kalkin Kalkin Varta Matsya 11 Halahal Kurma 12 Kolhahal Dhanwantri 13 Mohini 14 Narasinha 15 Vaman 16 Parshuram 17 Ved Vyas 18 Naradeo 19 Rama 20 Krishna 21 Buddha 22 Kalkin These Avatars are all said by these Puranas to be the Avatars of Vishnu. But to begin, with when the Avatars had begun to be coined the story of the two Avatars—of the Boar 1 and the Fish 2—which in later times given to Vishnu was given by the Brahmins to Brahma. Again even when the Brahmins admitted Shiva and Vishnu as co-equal with Brahma they maintained the supremacy of Brahma over Shiva and Vishnu. The Brahmins made him the progenitor of Shiva 3 and propagated the view that if Vishnu 4 became the preserver of the world it was because of the command of the Brahma. With the plurality of Gods, conflicts between them were always present and some God to act as Arbitrator and settler of disputes was necessary. 1 Ramayana—Quoted in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts Vol. IV p. 33. 2 Mahabharata—Vana Parva & Linga Purana—Muir Ibid., pp. 38-39. 3 Vishnu Purana—Muir Ibid p. 392. 4 Ramayana—Muir Ibid p. 477.

169 APPENDIX III Puranas are full of such conflicts, even wars among Gods. There were conflicts between Rudra and Narayana1, between Krishna and Shiva2. In these conflicts the Brahmins have made Brahma the Arbitrator. The same Brahmins who elevated Brahma to such pre-eminence turned against him, started degrading him and mud-slinging him. They started propagating the view that Brahma was really inferior to Vishnu and Shiva. Contrary to their previous utterances the Brahmins said that Brahma was born from Shiva 3 and some said that he was born from Vishnu 4. The Brahmins completely inverted the relation between Shiva and Brahma. Brahma was no longer the God who could give salvation. The God who could give salvation was Shiva and they reduced Brahma to the position of a common devotee worshipping Shiva and Linga in the hope of getting salvation 5. They reduced him to the position of servant of Shiva by making him the charioteer of Shiva 6. The Brahmins did not stop with degrading Brahma. They villified him in the worst manner possible. They broadcast the story of his having committed rape on his own daughter Sarasvati which is repeated in the Bhagwat Purana 7: “We have heard, O Kshatriya, that Svayambhu (Brahma) had a passion for Vach, his slender and enchanting daughter, who had no passion for him. The Munis, his sons, headed by Marichi, seeing their father bent upon wickedness, admonished him with affection: ‘This is such a thing as has never been done by those before you, nor will those after you do it,—that you, being the lord, should sexually approach your daughter, not restraining your passion. This, O preceptor of the world, is not a laudable deed even in glorious personages, through imitation of whose actions men attain felicity. Glory to that divine being (Vishnu) who by his own lustre revealed this (universe) which abides in himself,—he must maintain righteousness’. Seeing his sons, the Prajapatis, thus speaking before him, the lord of the Prajapatis (Brahma) was ashamed, and abandoned his body. This dreadful body the regions received, and it is known as foggy darkness.” The result of this degrading and defamatory attacks on Brahma was to damn him completely. No wonder that his cult disappeared from the face of India leaving him a nominal and theoretical member of the Trimurti. 1 Mahabharat Shanti Parva Quoted in Muir Vol. IV. p. 240. 2 Mahabharat Shanti Parva Ibid. p. 279. 3 Mahabharat Anushasan Parva—Muir Ibid. p. 188. 4 Bhagwat Purana— Ibid. p. 43. 5 Mahabharat quoted in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts Vol. IV p. 192. 6 Ibid, p. 193. 7 Muir’s Sanskrit Texts Vol. IV p. 47.