1 Terminology

Terms likekarman andmokṣa do occur in Vedic texts before the Upaniṣads and there might be a connection with their use in the classical doctrine of transmigration. The termsaṁsāra is first used in rather late Upaniṣads, but there are other words and expressions referring to return and new birth which have induced some scholars to support the theory of Vedic origin.

2 Ideological Framework

There is a friction betweenkarman (action or ritual) andmokṣa (the release from the results ofkarman). If one assumes a Vedic origin of the doctrine ofkarman in the form of ritual, it should be taken into account that ritualkarman itself actually also aims at salvation. Vedic ritual has more aims, but especially in later Vedic texts its main goal is the obtainment of life after death in heaven. The concept ofmokṣa is likewise based on a doctrine of salvation. It is hardly imaginable that two antithetical doctrines of salvation could have been combined in the classical complex of concepts consisting ofkarman, rebirth andmokṣa.

Moreover, the classicalkarman doctrine sometimes has been too exclusively associated with ethics. This was even done by Yājñavalkya in his famous statementpuṇyo vai puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati pāpaḥ pāpena “One becomes good by good action, bad by bad action (after death)” (BĀU 3, 2, 13). The real issue is not the improvement of one’s own position after death, but getting rid of the results of all actions. This point of view was already represented inTB 3, 12, 9, 7–8na karmaṇā vardhate no kanīyān …na karmaṇā lipyate pāpakena “he does not increase or decrease bykarman … he is not polluted by evilkarman.” One should be indifferent towards oppositions like good and bad and refrain from all activities which are associated with particular aims. This means that thekarman doctrine actually is a doctrine of non-activity rather than being a doctrine of positive ethics. Themokṣa doctrine and thekarman doctrine belong together and thekarman doctrine which preaches non-activity in social life has to be associated withnivṛtti (“inactivity”) and Vedickarman (“ritual”) withpravṛtti. Therefore the classical doctrine ofkarman has connections with the so-called Śramaṇa tradition rather than having its roots in Vedic ritualism.¹⁴

In the classical doctrinekarman andmokṣa (sometimes denoted asdharma andsaṁnyāsa) are conflicting entities. In late Vedic texts, passages on overcomingpunarmṛtyu seem to combine ritualkarman withmokṣa in such a way that the performance of a particular rite produces some sort ofmokṣa: one lives on forever and will no more become the victim of death. How could this situation form the starting point of a theory which teaches that allkarman is an obstruction tomokṣa? Rather we should assume that some ritualists tried to adopt ideas onmokṣa and to adapt them to their own ritualistic views.

Originally one tried to obtain a personal continuation of life in heaven among the gods. The victory over redeath secures a personal, individual immortality, but this sort of immortality need not have any relation to the classical conception ofmokṣa which is based on an identification of the soul orātman with the highest, cosmic Principle (Brahman) or with the highest deity. This immortality is not personal and the released does not live on as an individual (separated from Brahman or god Brahmā).

Traces of the old ideals are still found in an Upaniṣad like ChU 8, 15, where one personally lives on in the Brahma-heaven rather than becoming merged with Brahman or with god Brahmā.

However, already in the ritualistic Brāhmaṇas there are some passages in which some sort of identification with the highest principle plays a role. According toŚB 11, 5, 6, 9 after release frompunarmṛtyu one will reachsātmatā (community of nature) with Brahman, which is almost the same as absorption into Brahman. An older text like ŚāṅkhB 21, 1 still did not reach this level of speculation and states that after having smitten away the evil of death (i.e. probably of redeath) man obtains identity of world and union with Brahman (i.e. one lives together with Brahman in the Brahman-heaven). An even more conservative view is found in other Brāhmaṇas¹⁵ where identity of world and union with several gods are mentioned; i.e. this union is no more than companionship.

It was the old Vedic ideal to live on among the gods in heaven with a complete body, even with genitals in order to continue the pleasures of earthly life. In late Vedic texts likeŚB 10, 4, 3, 10, however, we read that man may become immortal without the body. The body is even equated withpāpman (evil) that should be overcome in another Brāhmaṇa (JB 1, 252), in a passage also dealing with getting rid ofpunarmṛtyu (redeath). A later Jaiminīya text to be situated between the Brāhmaṇas and the Upaniṣads,JUB 3, 35–39, discussespunarmṛtyu and in that connection observes that the body is the victim of death and that the bodiless becomes immortal. The destruction of evil and getting rid of the body are mentioned together. Evil (pāpman) is no longer exclusively death, but especially the symbol of mortality, the body, of which one wants to become freed. Connecting these data with the reference tosātmatā (mergence and identity with Brahman) one has to conclude that in the latest layers of these ritualistic texts ritual was developing towardsmokṣa in the classical sense.

Nevertheless it is uncertain whether we may speak here of an actual continuity. It is as well possible that influences gradually penetrated from external circles into the ritualistic tradition. The almost classical idea ofmokṣa occurs only incidentally and in the latest Vedic passages, mostly in connection with passages on the release frompunarmṛtyu.

Thispunarmṛtyu conception seems to have been influenced by the concept ofpunarjanman (rebirth). Rebirth takes place in endless repetition and one may assume that redeath (punarmṛtyu) is a non-recurring event; it is the final and ultimate end of a life started on earth and continued (without rebirth as a baby) in heaven. However, in a few passages we find a recurringpunarmṛtyu, a problem hardly observed as such by almost all scholars. One may suppose that ideas about ever recurring rebirth have influenced some passages on the once-only redeath.

In the theory ofmokṣa good works (including rituals) secure only limited goals. One may win a heavenly world, but has to return to earth. I would not exclude the possibility that the ritualists tried to secure their own position by introducing the topic of the victory over redeath, an evil which was never mentioned before and was introduced together with its countermeasure. Why would one so much emphasize a problem which never had been acknowledged as such before?

In several handbooks we read that at the end of the Brāhmaṇa period Vedic people started to have doubts on the eternity of the heavenly bliss obtained by their rituals. I doubt whether the ritualists themselves spontaneously became pessimistic on their own efficacy. Therefore one may assume thatpunarmṛtyu was not their invention. The passages on the victory over redeath seem to be ritualistic answers to external criticisms and doubts. The ritualisticmokṣa preached by thepunarmṛtyu passages, however, did not secure the position of the ritualists. Ultimately themokṣa of the mystics prevailed and therefore the topic of thepunarmṛtyu almost eclipsed in the Upaniṣads as being outdated.

3 Textual Evidence

Thelocus classicus of the doctrine of transmigration is found in two Upaniṣadic parallels,BĀU 6, 2 and ChU 5, 3–10. Here the ever recurring origin of new life on earth is sketched by means of the ritualistic metaphor of five symbolic sacrifices starting with rain and ending with the seed that man offers into woman after having eaten the vegetarian food which had come into existence from the rain. The sixth sacrifice is the cremation of man generated at the fifth sacrifice. This human being rises upwards from the cremation fire along two possible paths. The one leads him back to earth by way of the rain, along the other he reaches heavenly immortality.¹⁶

From a philosophical point of view these passages are rather insignificant. The transmigration concerns seed rather than soul. Still these texts have played an enormous role in the Indian tradition of rebirth and release. Rebirth and release (and in one of the two versions evenkarma) occur together here for the first time.

In a more remote parallel, KauṣU 1, we see on the one hand further developments, such as the identification of the soul with god Brahmā or even with the Brahman, on the other hand there are connections with older passages in the Brāhmaṇas (JB) in which rebirth on earth and references tokarman are entirely missing. There are evenVorstufen in older Vedic passages in which the exchange of fluid between heaven and earth is described in a similar way, but in which neitherkarman, nor rebirth, normokṣa play a role at all.

An attentive philologist would be inclined to see here interesting traces of a gradual development. However, it seems improbable that within a period of about hundred years the ritualists could have evolved from a doctrine of cyclic migration of fluid (rain from heaven transformed into libations which again produce rain) to a complex of concepts referring tokarman, rebirth andmokṣa. The assumed continuity might as well be a gradual process of adaptation. New ideas are often traditionally formulated in borrowing circles and thus suggest more continuity than actually existing.

There are two indications for adaptation of external ideas by the ritualists. First the complex of rebirth andmokṣa (in one case in combination withkarman) is ascribed to non-Brahmins, namely the ruling Kṣatriyas, in the introduction of these passages in which the Brahmins are almost humiliated by the Kṣatriyas. Secondly, these passages end with the conclusion that sacrifice and other good works produce rebirth, whereas leaving this world, retreating to the wilderness and other practices leading to salvation than sacrifices are said to result in immortality (i.e.mokṣa). One may also qualify oneself for this immortality by knowing the discussed doctrine and the doctrine is presented with ritualistic terms, but this looks rather like a compromise for those who accept the theory without drawing the ultimate consequence of leaving the world and becoming a wandering ascetic. Between an introduction in which the Kṣatriyas are glorious and a conclusion in which the renouncers win immortality there is not much honour left for the ritualists.

In his interesting studies on the hermits in Vedic literature Sprockhoff (1981) also refers to the discussed passages. It may be true that these text places do not prove much on the presence of hermits (vānaprasthas) and the Āśrama system, but it cannot be denied that these people in the wilderness (araṇya) are clearly distinguished from the householder ritualists in the village and that they have not left the world of the ritualists on account of old age. Sprockhoff (p. 85) should have explicitly associated them with the religiously motivated renouncers.

The exact and concrete historical value of such passages may be doubtful, but the message is clear: ritual and good works are meritorious but belong to the sphere ofkarman and therefore do not produce release.

The alliance between Kṣatriyas and renouncers may be variously explained. The theory about the leading role of the Kṣatriyas, long ago proposed by Garbe and later rejected by others, was revived (with modifications) by Horsch (1966, 432–443). However, he did not discuss the fact that both Kṣatriyas (as proclaimers of the new doctrines) and renouncers (as practicians) play a role in these texts. His observation that in this period the (in his view non-Brahminical) Śramaṇas were prominent and that in particular Kṣatriyas were represented among them (p. 465) does not explain the leading role of powerful kings in these passages. It is uncertain whether the non-priestly circles, which seem to have proclaimed or practised new methods of salvation, were non-Aryan or inspired by non-Aryans. I have already discussed the acculturation between the original Aryans and the autochthons, which resulted in a society of Aryans which racially was not homogeneous. In the period in which the complex ofkarman, rebirth andmokṣa became manifest in Vedic literature (i.e. in the Upaniṣads) Aryan culture had already penetrated the North-East of the Indian subcontinent. The Kṣatriyas who were in power there may have been Aryanized rather than pure Aryans. Their actual power made them unassailable as long as they accepted the principles of Vedic religion. They were in the position to attack the ritualists. The renouncers placed themselves outside the socio-religious system and therefore were likewise unassailable. As I observed long ago (1973, 216) “One of the most important factors in this development of Kṣatriya influence may have been the fact that discussions on the ritual and on religion in general (thebrahmodyas) seem to have been delivered in thesabhā of the king who was not only the institutor of sacrifices, but also of debates.” This still fails to explain the link between kings and renouncers (and their doctrines).

A new explanation was put forward by Olivelle (1992, 36–38 and 1993, 60–62), who assumes that progressive Brahmins operating within the context of developing urbanisation challenged the conservative Vedic religion and changed it from within. On the question of the role of the kings he observes: “I think, however, that the proper, and certainly the more significant, questions are not why theseupaniṣadic doctrines were created by kings … but why the proponents of theseupaniṣadic doctrines ascribed them to kings … . I think … that the proponents of these doctrines must have found it advantageous to align their doctrines with the nobility in general and with kings in particular … . In general … I think that the alignment with the nobility must have served to distinguish these doctrines from the Vedic doctrines that were identified with Brahmins … . In this light, what appeared a problem for those scholars who upheld the noble provenance ofupaniṣadic doctrines, namely why Brahmins should have preserved and handed down these stories that belittled them, ceases to be a problem at all … . Aligning with kings gave their doctrines a new status and prestige and served to distinguish them from the old doctrines” (1993, 61–62).

This would amount to stating that the role of the Kṣatriya was no more than that of a code word for progressiveness and rejection of the Vedic village culture associated with rituals. In this assumed game of tactics and strategics progressive Brahmins who if not living in the towns at least were visiting them and the courts of the kings, would have flattered and manipulated the kings in their attempts to innovate Vedism which was dominated by the villages and the ritual.

In this antithesis between village and town the role of the wilderness (araṇya) and the renouncers living in it still remains unclear. It is hardly probable that renunciation and retirement in the wilderness with theological aims would have exclusively been an invention of more or less urbanized Brahmins.

It is of course possible that the development of towns and courts gave some enterprising Brahmins, who visited them in spite of the dissuasions of the Dharma texts, the opportunity to become acquainted with revolutionary ideas developed outside the mainstream of Vedism. This seems also to be realized by Olivelle, who states: “Within Brāhmaṇism itself, it was the urban Brahmins who, in all likelihood, were most influenced … by the rising prestige and influence of non-Brāhmaṇical religious movements.” However, he continues with: “Most urban Brahmins probably remained within their tradition but challenged and changed it from within. It is these changes, and not the threat posed by non-Brāhmaṇical groups as assumed by many scholars, that I believe were the catalysts for the creation of inclusivistic institutions and theologies … that sought to integrate the emergent ascetic worldview and way of life into the Vedic culture.” (1992, 36).¹⁷

This looks like an attempt to rescue the initiative of Brahmanism and the Brahmins. One may, however, as well assume that the initiative was taken by some early “non-Brahmanical religious movements” and that the assumed urban Brahmins only acted as mediators between the more or less heretical movements and traditional Vedism.

A few traces of renouncement and of non-ritualistic practices and ideas are already found in the Vedic ritualistic texts. The opposition is between traditional Vedic ritualists and those who tried other ways of salvation rather than between Vedic and non-Aryan culture. I believe that the complex ofkarman, rebirth andmokṣa did not originate from the mainstream of Vedic religion, the ritual, though elements are discernible in late Vedic texts (often without coherence). The continuity assumed by some scholars cannot convincingly be proved and does not seem acceptable to me. Unfortunately our information for the older period is confined to ritualistic sources. Fortunately the Upaniṣads, though as texts connected with the ritual tradition, betray completely different influences in some passages. In several respects there is not a real break between Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, but as far as transmigration andmokṣa are concerned there is a breakthrough, which was so sudden and fundamental that a gradual development out of the ritualistic view of life is hardly conceivable.

The question why the non-ritualists believed in rebirth and release cannot simply be answered. It may have some relation to the development from the optimistic view of life in the older Veda to the pessimism of the worldrenouncers. The causes of this pessimism have been variously interpreted: the climate weakened the Aryans or racial mixture produced the same result; socio-economic backgrounds might have created this pessimism. Even the rise of urban centres leading to disintegration of tribal security has been mentioned as a possible cause. Most of these hypotheses are not very convincing. They only try to explain what happened to the Aryans during the aftermath of their invasion. The most convincing explanation is that some socio-economic changes took place in the same period in which new religious ideas and ways of life developed. These changes involved a starting urbanization and concomitant new attitudes, some of which may have produced or increased the leaning toward asceticism and renunciation. For a survey of these aspects I refer to Olivelle’s treatment.¹⁸ However, village life was not replaced by urban life and traditional Vedism did not disappear. It may be true that new developments originated in the towns, but it looks as if these developments were brought about in spite of traditional Vedism rather than out of it.

The fact that the same names occur in the ritualistic Brāhmaṇa texts and in the more philosophic Upaniṣads has surprised scholars. Is it possible that someone like Yājñavalkya was interested in details of ritualism as well as in discussions on theātman? I would not exclude the possibility that here again Vedic tradition has tried to adapt itself to other approaches by attributing non-ritualistic views to famous names of Vedic ritual experts. Thereby more continuity was suggested than actually existing.