KUMARILA BHATTA.
In the Editorial note in reply to a Hindu Theosophist’s query, whether some Rishis of old do exist in the flesh and blood, you pertinently ask him whether he is prepared to accept literally the popular interpretation of—
(Ahalyáya járah surapati rabhudátmatanayám ; praja natho, &c. &c.,) wherein Indra is accused of adultery with Ahalya and Brahma of attempting criminal violence on the person of her own daughter ; and you refer him to Kamarila Bhatta (not Kulluka Bhatta as the printer’s devils make you say). For the edification of your readers, such as may not readily lay hold of the passage alluded to, I beg to transcribe the learned Bhatta’s rationalistic explanation of that mythical tradition. The translation in English that follows is from the pen of Dr. Max Müller, and is taken from his history of ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 529 :—
“ Prajápati, the lord of the creation, is the name of the sun ; and he is called so, because he protects all creatures. His daughter Ushas is the dawn. And when it is said that he was in love with her, this only means, that at sun rise, the sun runs, after the dawn, the dawn being at the same time called the daughter of the sun, because she rises when he approaches. In the same manner, if it is said that Indra was the seducer of Ahalyá, this does not imply that the god Indra committed such a crime, but Indra means the sun, and Ahalyá (from Ahan and li) the night ; and as the night is seduced and ruined by the sun of the morning, therefore is Indra called the paramour of Ahalyá. Kumarila Bhatta, I have only to add, lived in Southern India several centuries ago, and unlike Dayanand Saraswati Swami of our day, he is respected and his expositions of Purva Mimansa accepted by the orthodox pundits.
A. B. F. T. S.
Note:
[1] Hartmann, F. [Signed A. B. F. T. S.] (1883). Letters to the Editor. “Kumarila Bhatta.” The Theosophist, v. 4, no. 44 (May), 202-203] Culled by Robert Hutwohl, 2025.