The Indian Theogony- A Comparative Study of Indian Mythology from the Vedas to the Puranas By Sukumari Bhattacharji

Book Description

Introduction

Orthodox Indian religion incorporates many elements that likely have primitive origins, yet the mythology as we know it today reveals little that is overtly primitive or easily identifiable as such. Consequently, sociological theories developed for the study of primitive societies cannot be directly applied to Indian religion and mythology without significant modifications and a narrow focus. Over generations, mythographers have continuously added to, altered, selected, rejected, embellished, and modernized these myths. As a result, the original traces of animism, totemism, manism, or fetishism—so evident in primitive myths—have become obscured within the rich Indian cultural context, leaving behind scant direct evidence of their existence.

For ethnographers seeking to understand Indian religion, fruitful exploration will only arise after extensive research into the diverse racial components of the Indian population and their mythological connections. However, it remains uncertain whether such investigations will yield substantial or credible findings. This uncertainty arises from two key reasons: first, the once-assumed link between race and religion is now widely discredited, and second, many ancient contributions from various racial groups have been irretrievably lost in the ongoing process of syncretism.

In the last two centuries, two prominent research trends have significantly influenced the study of Indian mythology. The first, represented by social anthropologists such as E. B. Tylor, Herbert Spencer, Lévy-Bruhl, Andrew Lang, and Émile Durkheim, focused on primitive and tribal cultures, developing theories based on totemism, animism, and other belief systems. The second trend, led by Indologists like Max Müller, J. J. Meyer, and A. Bergaigne, interpreted Indian myths primarily through linguistic analysis, often aligning with one of the theories proposed by their anthropological counterparts.