{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14499/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14499","id":"gutenberg_14499","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14499","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","India","India -- Religion"],"text":"HANDBOOKS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\n\n\n\n\nEDITED BY MORRIS JASTROW, JR., PH.D.\n\n_Professor of Semitic Languages\nin the University of Pennsylvania_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVOLUME I\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHANDBOOKS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nRELIGIONS OF INDIA\n\n\n\nBY\n\n\n\nEDWARD WASHBURN HOPKINS\n\nPh.D. (LEIPSIC)\n\nPROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT AND COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY IN BRYN MAWR COLLEGE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  _\"This holy mystery I declare unto you:\n  There is nothing nobler than humanity.\"_\n\n  THE MAH[=A]BH[=A]RATA.\n\n\n\n\n\nLONDON\n\nEDWARD ARNOLD\n\n37 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND\n\nPUBLISHER TO THE INDIA OFFICE\n\n1896\n\n\n_(All rights reserved)_\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1895, BY\n\nEDWARD WASHBURN HOPKINS\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTO THE MEMORY OF\n\nWILLIAM DWIGHT WHITNEY\n\nTHIS VOLUME\n\nIS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED\n\nBY THE AUTHOR\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\nBY THE EDITOR.\n\n\nThe growing interest both in this country and abroad in the historical\nstudy of religions is one of the noticeable features in the\nintellectual phases of the past decades. The more general indications\nof this interest may be seen in such foundations as the Hibbert and\nGifford Lectureships in England, and the recent organization of an\nAmerican committee to arrange in various cities for lectures on the\nhistory of religions, in the establishment of a special department for\nthe subject at the University of Paris, in the organization of the\nMus\u00e9e Guimet at Paris, in the publication of a journal--the _Revue de\nl'Histoire des Religions_--under the auspices of this Museum, and in\nthe creation of chairs at the Coll\u00e8ge de France, at the Universities\nof Holland, and in this country at Cornell University and the\nUniversity of Chicago,[1] with the prospect of others to follow in the\nnear future. For the more special indications we must turn to the\nsplendid labors of a large array of scholars toiling in the various\ndepartments of ancient culture--India, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt,\nPalestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, China, Greece, and Rome--with the result\nof securing a firm basis for the study of the religions flourishing in\nthose countries--a result due mainly to the discovery of fresh sources\nand to the increase of the latter brought about by exploration and\nincessant research. The detailed study of the facts of religion\neverywhere, both in primitive society and in advancing civilization,\nand the emphasis laid upon gathering and understanding these facts\nprior to making one's deductions, has succeeded in setting aside the\nspeculations and generalizations that until the beginning of this\ncentury paraded under the name of \"Philosophy of Religion.\"\n\nSuch has been the scholarly activity displayed and the fertility\nresulting, that it seems both desirable and timely to focus, as it\nwere, the array of facts connected with the religions of the ancient\nworld in such a manner that the summary resulting may serve as the\npoint of departure for further investigations.\n\nThis has been the leading thought which has suggested the series of\nHandbooks on the History of Religions. The treatment of the religions\nincluded in the series differs from previous attempts in the aim to\nbring together the ascertained results of scholarship rather than to\nmake an additional contribution, though the character of the scholars\nwhose co\u00f6peration has beep secured justifies the hope that their\nproductions will also mark an advance in the interpretation of the\nsubject assigned to each. In accord with this general aim, mere\ndiscussion has been limited to a minimum, while the chief stress has\nbeen laid upon the clear and full presentation of the data connected\nwith each religion.\n\nA uniform plan has been drawn up by the editor for the order of\ntreatment in the various volumes, by following which it is hoped that\nthe continuous character of the series will be secured.\n\nIn this plan the needs of the general reader, as well as those of the\nstudent, for whom, in the first place, the series is designed, have\nbeen kept in view. After the introduction, which in the case of each\nvolume is to be devoted to a setting forth of the sources and the\nmethod of study, a chapter follows on the land and the people,\npresenting those ethnographical and geographical considerations,\ntogether with a brief historical sketch of the people in question, so\nessential to an understanding of intellectual and religious life\neverywhere.\n\nIn the third section, which may be denominated the kernel of the book,\nthe subdivisions and order of presentation necessarily vary, the\ndivision into periods being best adapted to one religion, the\ngeographical order for another, the grouping of themes in a logical\nsequence for a third; but in every case, the range covered will be the\nsame, namely, the beliefs, including the pantheon, the relation to the\ngods, views of life and death, the rites--both the official ones and\nthe popular customs--the religious literature and architecture. A\nfourth section will furnish a general estimate of the religion, its\nhistory, and the relation it bears to others. Each volume will\nconclude with a full bibliography, index, and necessary maps, with\nillustrations introduced into the text as called for. The Editor has\nbeen fortunate in securing the services of distinguished specialists\nwhose past labors and thorough understanding of the plan and purpose\nof the series furnish a guarantee for the successful execution of\ntheir task.\n\nIt is the hope of the Editor to produce in this way a series of\nmanuals that may serve as text-books for the historical study of\nreligions in our universities and seminaries. In addition to supplying\nthis want, the arrangement of the manuals will, it is expected, meet\nthe requirements of reliable reference-books for ascertaining the\npresent status of our knowledge of the religions of antiquity, while\nthe popular manner of presentation, which it will be the aim of the\nwriters to carry out, justifies the hope that the general reader will\nfind the volumes no less attractive and interesting.\n\n  UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: In an article by the writer published in the\n     _Biblical World_ (University of Chicago Press) for January,\n     1893, there will be found an account of the present status\n     of the Historical Study of Religions in this country.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nSOURCES.--DATES.--METHODS OF INTERPRETATION.--DIVISIONS OF SUBJECT.\n\n\nSOURCES.\n\n\nIndia always has been a land of religions. In the earliest Vedic\nliterature are found not only hymns in praise of the accepted gods,\nbut also doubts in regard to the worth of these gods; the beginnings\nof a new religion incorporated into the earliest records of the old.\nAnd later, when, about 300 B.C, Megasthenes was in India, the\ndescendants of those first theosophists are still discussing, albeit\nin more modern fashion, the questions that lie at the root of all\nreligion. \"Of the philosophers, those that are most estimable he terms\nBrahmans ([Greek: _brachmanas_]). These discuss with many words\nconcerning death. For they regard death as being, for the wise, a\nbirth into real life--into the happy life. And in many things they\nhold the same opinions with the Greeks: saying that the universe was\nbegotten and will be destroyed, and that the world is a sphere, which\nthe god who made and owns it pervades throughout; that there are\ndifferent beginnings of all things, but water is the beginning of\nworld-making, while, in addition to the four elements, there is, as\nfifth, a kind of nature, whence came the sky and the stars.... And\nconcerning the seed of things and the soul they have much to say also,\nwhereby they weave in myths, just as does Plato, in regard to the\nsoul's immortality, judgment in hell, and such things.\"[1]\n\nAnd as India conspicuously is a country of creeds, so is its\nliterature pre\u00ebminently priestly and religious. From the first Veda to\nthe last Pur[=a]na, religion forms either the subject-matter of the\nmost important works, or, as in the case of the epics,[2] the basis of\ndidactic excursions and sectarian interpolations, which impart to\nworldly themes a tone peculiarly theological. History and oratory are\nunknown in Indian literature. The early poetry consists of hymns and\nreligious poems; the early prose, of liturgies, linguistics, \"law,\"\ntheology, sacred legends and other works, all of which are intended to\nsupplement the knowledge of the Veda, to explain ceremonies, or to\ninculcate religious principles. At a later date, formal grammar and\nsystems of philosophy, fables and commentaries are added to the prose;\nepics, secular lyric, drama, the Pur[=a]nas and such writings to the\npoetry. But in all this great mass, till that time which M\u00fcller has\ncalled the Renaissance--that is to say, till after the Hindus were\ncome into close contact with foreign nations, notably the Greek, from\nwhich has been borrowed, perhaps, the classical Hindu drama,[3]--there\nis no real literature that was not religious originally, or, at least,\nso apt for priestly use as to become chiefly moral and theosophic;\nwhile the most popular works of modern times are sectarian tracts,\nPur[=]nas, Tantras and remodelled worldly poetry. The sources, then,\nfrom which is to be drawn the knowledge of Hindu religions are the\nbest possible--the original texts. The information furnished by\nforeigners, from the times of Ktesias and Megasthenes to that of\nMandelslo, is considerable; but one is warranted in assuming that what\nlittle in it is novel is inaccurate, since otherwise the information\nwould have been furnished by the Hindus themselves; and that,\nconversely, an outsider's statements, although presumably correct,\noften may give an inexact impression through lack of completeness; as\nwhen--to take an example that one can control--Ktesias tells half the\ntruth in regard to ordeals. His account is true, but he gives no\nnotion of the number or elaborate character of these interesting\nceremonies.\n\nThe sources to which we shall have occasion to refer will be, then,\nthe two most important collections of Vedic hymns--the Rig Veda and\nthe Atharva Veda; the Brahmanic literature, with the supplementary\nUpanishads, and the S[=u]tras or mnemonic abridgments of religious and\nceremonial rules; the legal texts, and the religious and theological\nportions of the epic; and the later sectarian writings, called\nPur[=a]nas. The great heresies, again, have their own special\nwritings. Thus far we shall draw on the native literature. Only for\nsome of the modern sects, and for the religions of the wild tribes\nwhich have no literature, shall we have to depend on the accounts of\nEuropean writers.\n\n\nDATES.\n\nFor none of the native religious works has one a certain date. Nor is\nthere for any one of the earlier compositions the certainty that it\nbelongs, as a whole, to any one time. The Rig Veda was composed by\nsuccessive generations; the Atharvan represents different ages; each\nBr[=a]hmana appears to belong in part to one era, in part to another;\nthe earliest S[=u]tras (manuals of law, etc.) have been interpolated;\nthe earliest metrical code is a composite; the great epic is the work\nof centuries; and not only do the Upanishads and Pur[=a]nas represent\ncollectively many different periods, but exactly to which period each\nindividually is to be assigned remains always doubtful. Only in the\ncase of the Buddhistic writings is there a satisfactorily approximate\nterminus a quo, and even here approximate means merely within the\nlimit of centuries.\n\nNevertheless, criteria fortunately are not lacking to enable one to\nassign the general bulk of any one work to a certain period in the\nliterary development; and as these periods are, if not sharply, yet\nplainly distinguishable, one is not in so desperate a case as he might\nhave expected to be, considering that it is impossible to date with\ncertainty any Hindu book or writer before the Christian era. For,\nfirst, there exists a difference in language, demarcating the most\nimportant periods; and, secondly, the development of the literature\nhas been upon such lines that it is easy to say, from content and\nmethod of treatment, whether a given class of writings is a product of\nthe Vedic, early Brahmanic, or late Brahmanic epochs. Usually, indeed,\none is unable to tell whether a later Upanishad was made first in the\nearly or late Brahmanic period, but it is known that the Upanishads,\nas a whole, _i.e._, the literary form and philosophical material which\ncharacterize Upanishads, were earlier than the latest Brahmanic period\nand subsequent to the early Brahmanic period; that they arose at the\nclose of the latter and before the rise of the former. So the\nBr[=a]hmanas, as a whole, are subsequent to the Vedic age, although\nsome of the Vedic hymns appear to have been made up in the same period\nwith that of the early Br[=a]hmanas. Again, the Pur[=a]nas can be\nplaced with safety after the late Brahmanic age; and, consequently,\nsubsequent to the Upanishads, although it is probable that many\nUpanishads were written after the first Pur[=a]nas. The general\ncompass of this enormous literature is from an indefinite antiquity to\nabout 1500 A.D. A liberal margin of possible error must be allowed in\nthe assumption of any specific dates. The received opinion is that\nthe Rig Veda goes back to about 2000 B.C., yet are some scholars\ninclined rather to accept 3000 B.C. as the time that represents this\nera. Weber, in his _Lectures on Sanskrit Literature_ (p. 7), rightly\nsays that to seek for an exact date is fruitless labor; while Whitney\ncompares Hindu dates to ninepins--set up only to be bowled down again.\nSchroeder, in his _Indiens Literatur und Cultur_, suggests that the\nprior limit may be \"a few centuries earlier than 1500,\" agreeing with\nWeber's preferred reckoning; but Whitney, Grassmann, and Benfey\nprovisionally assume 2000 B.C. as the starting point of Hindu\nliterature. The lowest possible limit for this event M\u00fcller now places\nat about 1500, which is recognized as a very cautious view; most\nscholars thinking that M\u00fcller's estimate gives too little time for the\ndevelopment of the literary periods, which, in their opinion, require,\nlinguistically and otherwise, a greater number of years. Brunnhofer\nmore recently has suggested 2800 B.C. as the terminus; while the last\nwriters on the subject (Tilak and Jacobi) claim to have discovered\nthat the period from 3500 to 2500 represents the Vedic age. Their\nconclusions, however, are not very convincing, and have been disputed\nvigorously.[4] Without the hope of persuading such scholars as are\nwedded to a terminus of three or four thousand years ago that we are\nright, we add, in all deference to others, our own opinion on this\nvexed question. Buddhism gives the first semblance of a date in Hindu\nliterature. Buddha lived in the sixth century, and died probably about\n480, possibly (Westergaard's extreme opinion) as late as 368.[5]\nBefore this time arise the S[=u]tras, back of which lie the earliest\nUpanishads, the bulk of the Br[=a]hmanas, and all the Vedic poems. Now\nit is probable that the Brahmanic literature itself extends to the\ntime of Buddha and perhaps beyond it. For the rest of pre-Buddhistic\nliterature it seems to us incredible that it is necessary to require,\neither from the point of view of linguistic or of social and religious\ndevelopment, the enormous period of two thousand years. There are no\nother grounds on which to base a reckoning except those of Jacobi and\nhis Hindu rival, who build on Vedic data results that hardly support\nthe superstructure they have erected. Jacobi's starting-point is from\na mock-serious hymn, which appears to be late and does not establish,\nto whatever date it be assigned, the point of departure from which\nproceeds his whole argument, as Whitney has shown very well. One is\ndriven back to the needs of a literature in respect of time sufficient\nfor it to mature. What changes take place in language, even with a\nwritten literature, in the space of a few centuries, may be seen in\nPersian, Greek, Latin, and German. No two thousand years are required\nto bridge the linguistic extremes of the Vedic and classical Sanskrit\nlanguage.[6] But in content it will be seen that the flower of the\nlater literature is budding already in the Vedic age. We are unable to\nadmit that either in language or social development, or in literary or\nreligious growth, more than a few centuries are necessary to account\nfor the whole development of Hindu literature (meaning thereby\ncompositions, whether written or not) up to the time of Buddha.\nMoreover, if one compare the period at which arise the earliest forms\nof literature among other Aryan peoples, it will seem very strange\nthat, whereas in the case of the Romans, Greeks, and Persians, one\nthousand years B.C. is the extreme limit of such literary activity as\nhas produced durable works, the Hindus two or three thousand years\nB.C. were creating poetry so finished, so refined, and, from a\nmetaphysical point of view, so advanced as is that of the Rig Veda.\nIf, as is generally assumed, the (prospective) Hindus and Persians\nwere last to leave the common Aryan habitat, and came together to the\nsouth-east, the difficulty is increased; especially in the light of\nmodern opinion in regard to the fictitious antiquity of Persian\n(Iranian) literature. For if Darmesteter be correct in holding the\ntime of the latter to be at most a century before our era, the\nincongruity between that oldest date of Persian literature and the\n\"two or three thousand years before Christ,\" which are claimed in the\ncase of the Rig Veda, becomes so great as to make the latter\nassumption more dubious than ever.\n\nWe think in a word, without wishing to be dogmatic, that the date of\nthe Rig Veda is about on a par, historically, with that of 'Homer,'\nthat is to say, the Collection[7] represents a long period, which was\ncompleted perhaps two hundred years after 1000 B.C, while again its\nearliest beginnings precede that date possibly by five centuries; but\nwe would assign the bulk of the Rig Veda to about 1000 B.C. With\nconscious imitation of older speech a good deal of archaic linguistic\neffect doubtless was produced by the latest poets, who really belong\nto the Brahmanic age. The Brahmanic age in turn ends, as we opine,\nabout 500 B.C., overlapping the S[=u]tra period as well as that of the\nfirst Upanishads. The former class of writings (after 500 B.C. one may\ntalk of writings) is represented by dates that reach from circa\n600-500 B.C. nearly to our era. Buddhism's _floruit_ is from 500 B.C.\nto 500 A.D., and epic Hinduism covers nearly the same centuries. From\n500 to 1000 Buddhism is in a state of decadence; and through this time\nextend the dramatic and older Puranic writings; while other Pur[=a]nas\nare as late as 1500, at which time arises the great modern reforming\nsect of the Sikhs. In the matter of the earlier termini a century may\nbe added or subtracted here and there, but these convenient divisions\nof five hundreds will be found on the whole to be sufficiently\naccurate.[8]\n\n\nMETHODS OF INTERPRETATION.\n\nAt the outset of his undertaking a double problem presents itself to\none that would give, even in compact form, a view of Hindu religions.\nThis problem consists in explaining, and, in so far as is possible,\nreconciling opposed opinions in regard not only to the nature of these\nreligions but also to the method of interpreting the Vedic hymns.\n\nThat the Vedic religion was naturalistic and mytho-poetic is doubted\nby few. The Vedic hymns laud the powers of nature and natural\nphenomena as personified gods, or even as impersonal phenomena. They\npraise also as distinct powers the departed fathers. In the Rig Veda\nI. 168, occur some verses in honor of the storm-gods called Maruts:\n\"Self-yoked are they come lightly from the sky. The immortals urge\nthemselves on with the goad. Dustless, born of power, with shining\nspears the Maruts overthrow the strongholds. Who is it, O Maruts, ye\nthat have lightning-spears, that impels you within? ... The streams\nroar from the tires, when they send out their cloud-voices,\" etc.\nNothing would seem more justifiable, in view of this hymn and of many\nlike it, than to assume with M\u00fcller and other Indologians, that the\nMarut-gods are personifications of natural phenomena. As clearly do\nIndra and the Dawn appear to be natural phenomena. But no less an\nauthority than Herbert Spencer has attacked this view: \"Facts imply\nthat the conception of the dawn as a person results from the giving of\ndawn as a birth-name.\"[9] And again: \"If, then, Dawn [in New Zealand\nand elsewhere] is an actual name for a person, if where there prevails\nthis mode of distinguishing children, it has probably often been given\nto those born early in the morning; the traditions concerning one of\nsuch who became noted, would, in the mind of the uncritical savage ...\nlead to identification with the dawn.\"[10] In another passage: \"The\nprimitive god is the superior man ... propitiated during his life and\nstill more after his death.\"[11] Summing up, Spencer thus concludes:\n\"Instead of seeing in the common character of so-called myths, that\nthey describe combats of beings using weapons, evidence that they\narose out of human transactions; mythologists assume that the order of\nNature presents itself to the undeveloped mind in terms of victories\nand defeats.\"[12] Moreover (_a posteriori_), \"It is not true that the\nprimitive man looks at the powers of Nature with awe. It is not true\nthat he speculates about their characters and causes.\"[13] If Spencer\nhad not included in his criticism the mythologists that have written\non Vedic religion, there would be no occasion to take his opinion into\nconsideration. But since he claims by the light of his comparative\nstudies to have shown that in the Rig Veda the \"so-called nature\ngods,\"[14] were not the oldest, and explains Dawn here exactly as he\ndoes in New Zealand, it becomes necessary to point out, that apart\nfrom the question of the origin of religions in general, Spencer has\nmade a fatal error in assuming that he is dealing in the Rig Veda with\nprimitive religion, uncritical savages, and undeveloped minds. And\nfurthermore, as the poet of the Rig Veda is not primitive, or savage,\nor undeveloped, so when he worships _Dyaus pitar_ [Greek: Ze\u00f9s pat\u00e1er]\nas the 'sky-father,' he not only makes it evident to every reader that\nhe really is worshipping the visible sky above; but in his\ndescriptions of gods such as Indra, the Dawn, and some other new gods\nhe invents from time to time, long after he has passed the savage,\nprimitive, and undeveloped state, he makes it no less clear that he\nworships phenomena as they stand before him (rain, cloud, lightning,\netc.), so that by analogy with what is apparent in the case of later\ndivinities, one is led inevitably to predicate the same origin as\ntheirs in the case of the older gods.\n\nBut it is unnecessary to spend time on this point. It is impossible\nfor any sober scholar to read the Rig Veda and believe that the Vedic\npoets are not worshipping natural phenomena; or that the phenomena so\nworshipped were not the original forms of these gods. Whether at a\nmore remote time there was ever a period when the pre-historic Hindu,\nor his pre-Indic ancestor, worshipped the Manes exclusively is another\nquestion, and one with which at present we have nothing to do. The\nhistory of Hindu religions begins with the Rig Veda, and in this\nperiod the worship of Manes and that of natural phenomena were\ndistinct, nor are there any indications that the latter was ever\ndeveloped from the former. It is not denied that the Hindus made gods\nof departed men. They did this long after the Vedic period. But there\nis no proof that all the Vedic gods, as claims Spencer, were the\nworshipped souls of the dead. No _argumentum a fero_ can show in a\nVedic dawn-hymn anything other than a hymn to personified Dawn, or\nmake it probable that this dawn was ever a mortal's name.\n\nIn respect of that which precedes all tradition we, whose task is not\nto speculate in regard to primitive religious conceptions, but to give\nthe history of one people's religious progress, may be pardoned for\nexpressing no opinion. But without abandoning history (i.e.,\ntradition) we would revert for a moment to the pre-Indian period and\npoint out that Zarathustra's rejection of the _daevas_ which must be\nthe same _devas_ that are worshipped in India, proves that\n_deva_-worship is the immediate predecessor of the Hindu religion. As\nfar back as one can scrutinize the Aryan past he finds, as the\nearliest known objects of reverence, 'sun' and 'sky,' besides and\nbeside the blessed Manes. A word here regarding the priority of\nmonotheism or of polytheism. The tradition is in favor of the latter,\nwhile on _a priori_ grounds whoever thinks that the more primitive the\nrace the more apt it is for monotheism will postulate, with some of\nthe older scholars, an assumed monotheism as the pre-historic religion\nof the Hindus; while whosoever opines that man has gradually risen\nfrom a less intellectual stage will see in the early gods of the\nHindus only another illustration of one universal fact, and posit even\nAryan polytheism as an advance on the religion which it is probable\nthat the remoter ancestors of the Aryans once acknowledged.\n\nA word perhaps should be said, also, in order to a better\nunderstanding between the ethnologists as represented by Andrew Lang,\nand the unfortunate philologists whom it delights him to pommel.\nLang's clever attacks on the myth-makers, whom he persistently\ndescribes as the philologists--and they do indeed form part of that\ncamp--have had the effect of bringing 'philological theories' into sad\ndisrepute with sciolists and 'common-sense' people. But the sun-myths\nand dawn-myths that the myth-makers discover in Cinderella and Red\nRiding Hood, ought not to be fathered upon all philologists. On the\nother hand, who will deny that in India certain mythological figures\nare eoian or solar in origin? Can any one question that Vivasvant the\n'wide gleaming' is sun or bright sky, as he is represented in the\nAvesta and Rig Veda? Yet is a very anthropomorphic, nay, earthly\nfigure, made out of this god. Or is Mr. Lang ignorant that the god\nYima became Jemshid, and that Feridun is only the god Trita? It\nundoubtedly is correct to illuminate the past with other light than\nthat of sun or dawn, yet that these lights have shone and have been\nquenched in certain personalities may be granted without doing\nviolence to scientific principles. All purely etymological mythology\nis precarious, but one may recognize sun-myths without building a\nsystem on the basis of a Dawn-Helen, and without referring Ilium to\nthe Vedic _bila_. Again, myths about gods, heroes, and fairies are to\nbe segregated. Even in India, which teems with it, there is little, if\nany, folklore that can be traced to solar or dawn-born myths. Mr. Lang\nrepresents a healthy reaction against too much sun-myth, but we think\nthat there are sun-myths still, and that despite his protests all\nreligion is not grown from one seed.\n\nThere remains the consideration of the second part of the double\nproblem which was formulated above--the method of interpretation. The\nnative method is to believe the scholiasts' explanations, which often\nare fanciful and, in all important points, totally unreliable; since\nthe Hindu commentators lived so long after the period of the\nliterature they expound that the tradition they follow is useful only\nin petty details. From a modern point of view the question of\ninterpretation depends mainly on whether one regard the Rig Veda as\nbut an Indic growth, the product of the Hindu mind alone, or as a work\nthat still retains from an older age ideas which, having once been\ncommon to Hindu and Iranian, should be compared with those in the\nPersian Avesta and be illustrated by them. Again, if this latter\nhypothesis be correct, how is one to interpret an apparent likeness,\nhere and there, between Indic and foreign notions,--is it possible\nthat the hymns were composed, in part, before the advent of the\nauthors into India, and is it for this reason that in the Rig Veda are\ncontained certain names, ideas, and legends, which do not seem to be\nnative to India? On the other hand, if one adopt the theory that the\nRig Veda is wholly a native work, in how far is he to suppose that it\nis separable from Brahmanic formalism? Were the hymns made\nindependently of any ritual, as their own excuse for being, or were\nthey composed expressly for the sacrifice, as part of a formal cult?\n\nHere are views diverse enough, but each has its advocate or advocates.\nAccording to the earlier European writers the Vedic poets are\nfountains of primitive thought, streams unsullied by any tributaries,\nand in reading them one quaffs a fresh draught, the gush of\nunsophisticated herdsmen, in whose religion there is to be seen a\nchildlike belief in natural phenomena as divine forces, over which\nforces stands the Heaven-god as the highest power. So in 1869\nPfleiderer speaks of the \"primeval childlike na\u00efve prayer\" of Rig Veda\nvi. 51. 5 (\"Father sky, mother earth,\" etc.);[15] while Pictet, in his\nwork _Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes_, maintains that the Aryans had a\nprimitive monotheism, although it was vague and rudimentary; for he\nregards both Iranian dualism and Hindu polytheism as being\ndevelopments of one earlier monism (claiming that Iranian dualism is\nreally monotheistic). Pictet's argument is that the human mind must\nhave advanced from the simple to the complex! Even Roth believes in an\noriginally \"supreme deity\" of the Aryans.[16] Opposed to this, the\n'na\u00efve' school of such older scholars as Roth, M\u00fcller,[17] and\nGrassmann, who see in the Rig Veda an ingenuous expression of\n'primitive' ideas, stand the theories of Bergaigne, who interprets\neverything allegorically; and of Pischel and Geldner, realists, whose\ngeneral opinions may thus be formulated: The poets of the Rig Veda are\nnot childlike and na\u00efve; they represent a comparatively late period of\nculture, a society not only civilized, but even sophisticated; a mode\nof thought philosophical and sceptical a religion not only ceremonious\nbut absolutely stereotyped. In regard to the Aryanhood of the hymns,\nthe stand taken by these latter critics, who renounce even Bergaigne's\nslight hold on mythology, is that the Rig Veda is thoroughly Indic. It\nis to be explained by the light of the formal Hindu ritualism, and\neven by epic worldliness, its fresh factors being lewd gods, harlots,\nand race-horses. Bloomfield, who does not go so far as this, claims\nthat the 'Vedic' age really is a Brahmanic age; that Vedic religion is\nsaturated with Brahmanic ideas and Brahmanic formalism, so that the\nRig Veda ought to be looked upon as made for the ritual, not the\nritual regarded as ancillary to the Rig Veda[18]. This scholar\nmaintains that there is scarcely any chronological distinction between\nthe hymns of the Rig Veda and the Br[=a]hmana, both forms having\nprobably existed together \"from earliest times\"; and that not a single\nVedic hymn \"was ever composed without reference to ritual\napplication\"; nay, all the hymns were \"liturgical from the very\nstart\"[19]. This is a plain advance even on Bergaigne's opinion, who\nfinally regarded all the family-books of the Rig Veda as composed to\nsubserve the _soma_-cult.[20]\n\nIn the Rig Veda occur hymns of an entirely worldly character, the\nlament of a gambler, a humorous description of frogs croaking like\npriests, a funny picture of contemporary morals [describing how every\none lusts after wealth], and so forth. From these alone it becomes\nevident that the ritualistic view must be regarded as one somewhat\nexaggerated. But if the liturgical extremist appears to have stepped a\nlittle beyond the boundary of probability, he yet in daring remains\nfar behind Bergaigne's disciple Regnaud, who has a mystical 'system,'\nwhich is, indeed, the outcome of Bergaigne's great work, though it is\nvery improbable that the latter would have looked with favor upon his\nfollower's results. In _Le Rig Veda_ [Paris, 1892] Paul Regnaud,\nemphasizing again the connection between the liturgy and the hymns,\nrefers every word of the Rig Veda to the sacrifice in its simplest\nform, the oblation. According to this author the Hindus had forgotten\nthe meaning of their commonest words, or consistently employed them in\ntheir hymns in a meaning different to that in ordinary use. The very\nword for god, _deva_ [deus], no longer means the 'shining one' [the\ngod], but the 'burning oblation'; the common word for mountain,\n_giri_ also means oblation, and so on. This is Bergaigne's allegorical\nmysticism run mad.\n\nAt such perversion of reasonable criticism is the exegesis of the Veda\narrived in one direction. But in another it is gone astray no less, as\nmisdirected by its clever German leader. In three volumes[21]\nBrunnhofer has endeavored to prove that far from being a Brahmanic\nproduct, the Rig Veda is not even the work of Hindus; that it was\ncomposed near the Caspian Sea long before the Aryans descended into\nIndia. Brunnhofer's books are a mine of ingenious conjectures, as\nsuggestive in detail as on the whole they are unconvincing. His\nfundamental error is the fancy that names and ideas which might be\nIranian or Turanian would prove, if such they really could be shown to\nbe, that the work in which they are contained must be Iranian or\nTuranian. He relies in great measure on passages that always have been\nthought to be late, either whole late hymns or tags added to old\nhymns, and on the most daring changes in the text, changes which he\nmakes in order to prove his hypothesis, although there is no necessity\nfor making them. The truth that underlies Brunnhofer's extravagance is\nthat there are foreign names in the Rig Veda, and this is all that he\nhas proved thus far.\n\nIn regard to the relation between the Veda and the Avesta the\ndifference of views is too individual to have formed systems of\ninterpretation on that basis alone. Every competent scholar recognizes\na close affinity between the Iranian Yima and the Hindu Yama, between\nthe _soma_-cult and the _haoma_-cult, but in how far the thoughts and\nforms that have clustered about one development are to be compared\nwith those of the other there is no general agreement and there can be\nnone. The usual practice, however, is to call the Iranian _Yima,\nhaoma_, etc., to one's aid if they subserve one's own view of _Yama,\nsoma,_ and other Hindu parallels, and to discard analogous features as\nan independent growth if they do not. This procedure is based as well\non the conditions of the problem as on the conditions of human\njudgment, and must not be criticized too severely; for in fact the two\nreligions here and there touch each other so nearly that to deny a\nrelation between them is impossible, while in detail they diverge so\nwidely that it is always questionable whether a coincidence of ritual\nor belief be accidental or imply historical connection.\n\nIt is scarcely advisable in a concise review of several religions to\nenter upon detailed criticism of the methods of interpretation that\naffect for the most part only the earliest of them. But on one point,\nthe reciprocal relations between the Vedic and Brahmanic periods, it\nis necessary to say a few words. Why is it that well-informed Vedic\nscholars differ so widely in regard to the ritualistic share in the\nmaking of the Veda? Because the extremists on either side in\nformulating the principles of their system forget a fact that probably\nno one of them if questioned would fail to acknowledge. The Rig Veda\nis not a homogeneous whole. It is a work which successive generations\nhave produced, and in which are represented different views, of local\nor sectarian origin; while the hymns from a literary point of view are\nof varying value. The latter is a fact which has been ignored\nfrequently, but it is more important than any other. For one has\nalmost no criteria, with which to discover whether the hymns precede\nor follow the ritual, other than the linguistic posteriority of the\nritualistic literature, and the knowledge that there were priests with\na ritual when some of the hymns were composed. The bare fact that\nhymns are found rubricated in the later literature is surely no reason\nfor believing that such hymns were made for the ritual. Now while it\ncan be shown that a large number of hymns are formal, conventional,\nand mechanical in expression, and while it may be argued with\nplausibility that these were composed to serve the purpose of an\nestablished cult, this is very far from being the case with many\nwhich, on other grounds, may be supposed to belong severally to the\nolder and later part of the Rig Veda. Yet does the new school, in\nestimating the hymns, never admit this. The poems always are spoken of\nas 'sacerdotal', ritualistic, without the slightest attempt to see\nwhether this be true of all or of some alone. We claim that it is not\nhistorical, it is not judicious from a literary point of view, to\nfling indiscriminately together the hymns that are evidently\nritualistic and those of other value; for, finally, it is a sober\nliterary judgment that is the court of appeals in regard to whether\npoetry be poetry or not. Now let one take a hymn containing, to make\nit an unexceptionable example, nothing very profound or very\nbeautiful. It is this well-known\n\n  HYMN TO THE SUN (_Rig Veda_, I. 50).\n\n  Aloft this all-wise[22] shining god\n  His beams of light are bearing now,\n  That every one the sun may see.\n\n  Apart, as were they thieves, yon stars,\n  Together with the night[23], withdraw\n  Before the sun, who seeth all.\n\n  His beams of light have been beheld\n  Afar, among [all] creatures; rays\n  Splendid as were they [blazing] fires,\n\n  Impetuous-swift, beheld of all,\n  Of light the maker, thou, O Sun,\n  Thou all the gleaming [sky] illum'st.\n\n  Before the folk of shining gods\n  Thou risest up, and men before,\n  'Fore all--to be as light beheld;\n\n  [To be] thine eye, O pure bright Heaven,\n  Wherewith amid [all] creatures born\n  Thou gazest down on busy [man].\n\n  Thou goest across the sky's broad place,\n  Meting with rays, O Sun, the days,\n  And watching generations pass.\n\n  The steeds are seven that at thy car\n  Bear up the god whose hair is flame\n  O shining god, O Sun far-seen!\n\n  Yoked hath he now his seven fair steeds,\n  The daughters of the sun-god's car,\n  Yoked but by him[24]; with these he comes.\n\nFor some thousands of years these verses have been the daily prayer of\nthe Hindu. They have been incorporated into the ritual in this form.\nThey are rubricated, and the nine stanzas form part of a prescribed\nservice. But, surely, it were a literary hysteron-proteron to conclude\nfor this reason that they were made only to fill a part in an\nestablished ceremony.\n\nThe praise is neither perfunctory nor lacking in a really religious\ntone. It has a directness and a simplicity, without affectation, which\nwould incline one to believe that it was not made mechanically, but\ncomposed with a devotional spirit that gave voice to genuine feeling.\n\nWe will now translate another poem (carefully preserving all the\ntautological phraseology), a hymn\n\n  To DAWN _(Rig Veda_ VI. 64).\n\n  Aloft the lights of Dawn, for beauty gleaming,\n  Have risen resplendent, like to waves of water;\n  She makes fair paths, (makes) all accessible;\n  And good is she, munificent and kindly.\n\n  Thou lovely lookest, through wide spaces shin'st thou,\n  Up fly thy fiery shining beams to heaven;\n  Thy bosom thou reveals't, thyself adorning,\n  Aurora, goddess gleaming bright in greatness.\n\n  The ruddy kine (the clouds) resplendent bear her,\n  The blessed One, who far and wide extendeth.\n  As routs his foes a hero armed with arrows,\n  As driver swift, so she compels the darkness.\n\n  Thy ways are fair; thy paths, upon the mountains;\n  In calm, self-shining one, thou cross'st the waters.\n  O thou whose paths are wide, to us, thou lofty\n  Daughter of Heaven, bring wealth for our subsistence.\n\n  Bring (wealth), thou Dawn, who, with the kine, untroubled\n  Dost bring us good commensurate with pleasure,\n  Daughter of Heaven, who, though thou art a goddess,\n  Didst aye at morning-call come bright and early.\n\n  Aloft the birds fly ever from their dwelling,\n  And men, who seek for food, at thy clear dawning.\n  E'en though a mortal stay at home and serve thee,\n  Much joy to him, Dawn, goddess (bright), thou bringest.\n\nThe \"morning call\" might, indeed, suggest the ritual, but it proves\nonly a morning prayer or offering. Is this poem of a \"singularly\nrefined character,\" or \"pre\u00ebminently sacerdotal\" in appearance? One\nother example (in still a different metre) may be examined, to see if\nit bear on its face evidence of having been made with \"reference to\nritual application,\" or of being \"liturgical from the very start.\"\n\n  To INDRA _(Rig Veda_, I.11).\n\n  'Tis Indra all (our) songs extol,\n  Him huge as ocean in extent;\n  Of warriors chiefest warrior he,\n  Lord, truest lord for booty's gain.\n\n  In friendship, Indra, strong as thine\n  Naught will we fear, O lord of strength;\n  To thee we our laudations sing,\n  The conqueror unconquered.[25]\n\n  The gifts of Indra many are,\n  And inexhaustible his help\n  Whene'er to them that praise he gives\n  The gift of booty rich in kine.\n\n  A fortress-render, youthful, wise,\n  Immeasurably strong was born\n  Indra, the doer of every deed,\n  The lightning-holder, far renowned.\n\n  'Twas thou, Bolt-holder, rent'st the cave\n  Of Val, who held the (heavenly) kine;[26]\n  Thee helped the (shining) gods, when roused\n  (To courage) by the fearless one.[27]\n\n  Indra, who lords it by his strength,\n  Our praises now have loud proclaimed;\n  His generous gifts a thousand are,\n  Aye, even more than this are they.\n\nThis is poetry. Not great poetry perhaps, but certainly not ground out\nto order, as some of the hymns appear to have been. Yet, it may be\nsaid, why could not a poetic hymn have been written in a ritualistic\nenvironment? But it is on the hymns themselves that one is forced to\ndepend for the belief in the existence of ritualism, and we claim that\nsuch hymns as these, which we have translated as literally as\npossible, show rather that they were composed without reference to\nritual application. It must not be forgotten that the ritual, as it is\nknown in the Br[=a]hmanas, without the slightest doubt, from the point\nof view of language, social conditions, and theology, represents an\nage that is very different to that illustrated by the mass of the\nhymns. Such hymns, therefore, and only such as can be proved to have a\nritualistic setting can be referred to a ritualistic age. There is no\nconvincing reason why one should not take the fully justified view\nthat some of the hymns represent a freer and more natural (less\npriest-bound) age, as they represent a spirit freer and less\nmechanical than that of other hymns. As to the question which hymns,\nearly or late, be due to poetic feeling, and which to ritualistic\nmechanism or servile imitation, this can indeed be decided by a\njudgment based only on the literary quality, never on the accident of\nsubsequent rubrication.\n\nWe hold, therefore, in this regard, that the new school, valuable and\nsuggestive as its work has been, is gone already farther than is\njudicious. The Rig Veda in part is synchronous with an advanced\nritualism, subjected to it, and in some cases derived from it; but in\npart the hymns are \"made for their own sake and not for the sake of\nany sacrificial performance,\" as said Muller of the whole; going in\nthis too far, but not into greater error than are gone they that\nconfuse the natural with the artificial, the poetical with the\nmechanical, gold with dross. It may be true that the books of the Rig\nVeda are chiefly family-books for the _soma_-cult, but even were it\ntrue it would in no wise impugn the poetic character of some of the\nhymns contained in these books. The drag-net has scooped up old and\nnew, good and bad, together. The Rig Veda is not of one period or of\none sort. It is a 'Collection,' as says its name. It is essentially\nimpossible that any sweeping statement in regard to its character\nshould be true if that character be regarded as uniform. To say that\nthe Rig Veda represents an age of childlike thought, a period before\nthe priestly ritual began its spiritual blight, is incorrect. But no\nless incorrect is it to assert that the Rig Veda represents a period\nwhen hymns are made only for rubrication by priests that sing only for\nbaksheesh. Scholars are too prone to-day to speak of the Rig Veda in\nthe same way as the Greeks spoke of Homer. It is to be hoped that the\ntime may soon come when critics will no longer talk about the\nCollection as if it were all made in the same circumstances and at the\nsame time; above all is it desirable that the literary quality of the\nhymns may receive due attention, and that there may be less of those\nuniversal asseverations which treat the productions of generations of\npoets as if they were the work of a single author.\n\nIn respect of the method of reading into the Rig Veda what is found in\nparallel passages in the Atharva Veda and Br[=a]hmanas, a practice\nmuch favored by Ludwig and others, the results of its application have\nbeen singularly futile in passages of importance. Often a varied\nreading will make clearer a doubtful verse, but it by no means follows\nthat the better reading is the truer. There always remains the lurking\nsuspicion that the reason the variant is more intelligible is that its\ninventor did not understand the original. As to real elucidation of\nother sort by the later texts, in the minutiae of the outer world, in\ndetails of priestcraft, one may trust early tradition tentatively,\njust as one does late commentators, but in respect of ideas tradition\nis as apt to mislead as to lead well. The cleft between the theology\nof the Rig Veda and that of the Br[=a]hmanas, even from the point of\nview of the mass of hymns that comprise the former, is too great to\nallow us with any content to explain the conceptions of the one by\nthose of the other. A tradition always is useful when nothing else\noffers itself, but traditional beliefs are so apt to take the color of\nnew eras that they should be employed only in the last emergency, and\nthen with the understanding that they are of very hypothetical value.\n\nIn conclusion a practical question remains to be answered. In the few\ncases where the physical basis of a Rig Vedic deity is matter of\ndoubt, it is advisable to present such a deity in the form in which he\nstands in the text or to endeavor historically to elucidate the figure\nby searching for his physical prototype? We have chosen the former\nalternative, partly because we think the latter method unsuitable to a\nhandbook, since it involves many critical discussions of theories of\ndoubtful value. But this is not the chief reason. Granted that the\nobject of study is simply to know the Rig Veda, rightly to grasp the\nviews held by the poets, and so to place oneself upon their plane of\nthought, it becomes obvious that the farther the student gets from\ntheir point of view the less he understands them. Nay, more, every bit\nof information, real as well as fancied, which in regard to the poets'\nown divinities furnishes one with more than the poets themselves knew\nor imagined, is prejudicial to a true knowledge of Vedic beliefs. Here\nif anywhere is applicable that test of desirable knowledge formulated\nas _das Erkennen des Erkannten_. To set oneself in the mental sphere\nof the Vedic seers, as far as possible to think their thoughts, to\nlove, fear, and admire with them--this is the necessary beginning of\nintimacy, which precedes the appreciation that gives understanding.\n\n\nDIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT.\n\nAfter the next chapter, which deals with the people and land, we shall\nbegin the examination of Hindu religions with the study of the beliefs\nand religious notions to be found in the Rig Veda. Next to the Rig\nVeda in time stands the Atharva Veda, which represents a growing\ndemonology in contrast with _soma_-worship and theology; sufficiently\nso at least to deserve a special chapter. These two Vedic Collections\nnaturally form the first period of Hindu religion.\n\nThe Vedic period is followed by what is usually termed Brahmanism, the\nreligion that is inculcated in the rituals called Br[=a]hmana and its\nlater development in the Upanishads. These two classes of works,\ntogether with the Yajur Veda, will make the next divisions of the\nwhole subject. The formal religion of Brahmanism, as laid down for\npopular use and instruction in the law-books, is a side of Brahmanic\nreligion that scarcely has been noticed, but it seems to deserve all\nthe space allotted to it in the chapter on 'The Popular Brahmanic\nFaith.' We shall then review Jainism and Buddhism, the two chief\nheresies. Brahmanism penetrates the great epic poem which, however, in\nits present form is sectarian in tendency, and should be separated as\na growth of Hinduism from the literature of pure Brahmanism.\nNevertheless, so intricate and perplexing would be the task of\nunraveling the theologic threads that together make the yarn of the\nepic, and in many cases it would be so doubtful whether any one thread\nled to Brahmanism or to the wider and more catholic religion called\nHinduism, that we should have preferred to give up the latter name\naltogether, as one that was for the most part idle, and in some degree\nmisleading. Feeling, however, that a mere manual should not take the\ninitiative in coining titles, we have admitted this unsatisfactory\nword 'Hinduism' as the title of a chapter which undertakes to give a\ncomprehensive view of the religions endorsed by the many-centuried\nepic, and to explain their mutual relations. As in the case of the\n'Popular Faith,' we have had here no models to go upon, and the mass\nof matter which it was necessary to handle--the great epic is about\neight times as long as the Iliad and Odyssey put together--must be our\nexcuse for many imperfections of treatment in this part of the work.\nThe reader will gain at least a view of the religious development as\nit is exhibited in the literature, and therefore, as, far as possible,\nin chronological order. The modern sects and the religions of the hill\ntribes of India form almost a necessary supplement to these nobler\nreligions of the classical literature; the former because they are the\nlogical as well as historical continuation of the great Hindu\nsectarian schisms, the latter because they give the solution of some\nproblems connected with \u00c7ivaism, and, on the other hand, offer useful\nun-Aryan parallels to a few traits which have been preserved in the\nearliest period of the Aryans.[28]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Megasthenes, Fr. XLI, ed. Schwanbeck.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Epic literature springs from lower castes than\n     that of the priest, but it has been worked over by\n     sacerdotal revisers till there is more theology than epic\n     poetry in it.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: See Weber, _Sanskrit Literature_, p. 224;\n     Windisch, _Greek Influence on Indian Drama_; and L\u00e9vi, _Le\n     th\u00e9\u00e2tre indien_. The date of the Renaissance is given as\n     \"from the first century B.C. to at least the third century\n     A.D.\" (_India_, p. 281). Extant Hindu drama dates only from\n     the fifth century A.D. We exclude, of course, from \"real\n     literature\" all technical hand-books and commentaries.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Jacobi, in Roth's _Festgruss_, pp. 72, 73\n     (1893); Whitney, _Proceed. A.O.S._, 1894, p. lxxii; Perry,\n     _P[=u]shan,_ in the _Drisler Memorial_; Weber, _Vedische\n     Beitr\u00e4ge._]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Westergaard, _Ueber Buddha's Todesjahr_. The\n     prevalent opinion is that Buddha died in 477 or 480 B.C.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: It must not be forgotten in estimating the\n     _broad_ mass of Br[=a]hmanas and S[=u]tras that each as a\n     school represents almost the whole length of its period, and\n     hence one school alone should measure the time from end to\n     end, which reduces to very moderate dimensions the\n     literature to be accounted for in time.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: _'Rig Veda Collection'_ is the native name for\n     that which in the Occident is called Rig Veda, the latter\n     term embracing, to the Hindu, all the works (Br[=a]hmanas,\n     S[=u]tras, etc.) that go to explain the 'Collection' (of\n     hymns).]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Schroeder, _Indiens Literatur und Cultur,_\n     p.291, gives: Rig-Veda, 2000-1000 B.C.; older Br[=a]hmanas,\n     1000-800; later Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads, 800-600;\n     S[=u]tras, 600-400 or 300.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: _Principles of Sociology_, I. P.448 (Appleton,\n     1882).]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Ib. p. 398.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Ib. p. 427.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Ib. p. 824.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Ib.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Ib. p. 821.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: Compare Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, V. p.\n     412 ff., where are given the opinions of Pfleiderer, Pictet,\n     Roth, Scherer, and others.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: ZDMG., vi. 77: \"Ein alter gemeinsam arischer\n     [indo-iranic], ja vielleicht gemeinsam indo-germanischer\n     oberster Gott, Varuna-Ormuzd-Uranos.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 17: In his _Science of Language_, M\u00fcller speaks of\n     the early poets who \"strove in their childish way to pierce\n     beyond the limits of this finite world.\" Approvingly cited,\n     SBE. xxxii. p. 243 (1891).]\n\n     [Footnote 18: The over view may be seen in M\u00fcller's _Lecture\n     on the Vedas_ (Chips, I. p. 9): \"A collection made for its\n     own sake, and not for the sake of any sacrificial\n     performance.\" For Pischel's view compare _Vedische Studien_,\n     I. Preface.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Bloomfield, JAOS xv. p. 144.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Compare Barth (Preface): \"A literature\n     preeminently sacerdotal.... The poetry ... of a singularly\n     refined character, ... full of ... pretensions to\n     mysticism,\" etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: _Iran und Turan_, 1889; _Vom Pontus bis zum\n     Indus_, 1890; _Vom Aral bis zur Gang[=a]_ 1892.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Or \"all-possessing\" [Whitney]. The metre of\n     the translation retains the number of feet in the original.\n     Four [later added] stanzas are here omitted.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: So P.W. possibly \"by reason of [the sun's]\n     rays\"; _i.e._, the stars fear the sun as thieves fear light.\n     For 'Heaven,' here and below, see the third chapter.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Yoked only by him; literally \"self-yoked.\"\n     Seven is used in the Rig Veda in the general sense of\n     \"many,\" as in Shakespeare's \"a vile thief this seven\n     years.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 25: _jet[=a]ram [=a]par[=a]jitam_.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: The rain, see next note.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: After this stanza two interpolated stanzas are\n     here omitted. Grassman and Ludwig give the epithet\n     \"fearless\" to the gods and to Vala, respectively. But\n     compare I.6.7, where the same word is used of Indra. For the\n     oft-mentioned act of cleaving the cave, where the dragon Val\n     or Vritra (the restrainer or envelopper) had coralled the\n     kine(i.e. without metaphor, for the act of freeing the\n     clouds and letting loose the rain), compare I.32.2, where of\n     Indra it is said: \"He slew the snake that lay upon the\n     mountains ... like bellowing kine the waters, swiftly\n     flowing, descended to the sea\"; and verse 11: \"Watched by\n     the snake the waters stood ... the waters' covered cave he\n     opened wide, what time he Vritra slew.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 28: Aryan, Sanskrit _ary\u00e0, \u00e1rya_, Avestan _airya_,\n     appears to mean the loyal or the good, and may be the\n     original national designation, just as the Medes were long\n     called [Greek: _Arioi_]. In late Sanskrit _[=a]rya_ is\n     simply 'noble.' The word survives, perhaps, in [Greek:\n     _aristos_], and is found in proper names, Persian\n     Ariobarzanes, Teutonic Ariovistus; as well as in the names\n     of people and countries, Vedic [=A]ryas, [=I]ran, Iranian;\n     (doubtful) Airem, Erin, Ireland. Compare Zimmer, BB. iii. p.\n     137; Kaegi, _Der Rig Veda_, p. 144 (Arrowsmith's\n     translation, p. 109). In the Rig Veda there is a god\n     Aryaman, 'the true,' who forms with Mitra and Varuna a triad\n     (see below). Windisch questions the propriety of identifying\n     [=I]ran with Erin, and Schrader (p. 584^2) doubts whether\n     the Indo-Europeans as a body ever called themselves Aryans.\n     We employ the latter name because it is short.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPEOPLE AND LAND.\n\n\nThe Aryan Hindus, whose religions we describe in this volume[1],\nformed one of the Aryan or so-called Indo-European peoples. To the\nother peoples of this stock, Persians, Armenians, Greeks, Italians,\nKelts, Teutons, Slavs, the Hindus were related closely by language,\nbut very remotely from the point of view of their primitive religion.\nInto India the Aryans brought little that was retained in their\nreligious systems. A few waning gods, the worship of ancestors, and\nsome simple rites are common to them and their western relations; but\nwith the exception of the Iranians (Persians), their religious\nconnection with cis-Indic peoples is of the slightest. With the\nIranians, the Hindus (that were to be) appear to have lived longest in\ncommon after the other members of the Aryan host were dispersed to\nwest and south[2]. They stand in closer religious touch with these,\ntheir nearest neighbors, and in the time of the Rig Veda (the Hindus'\nearliest literature) there are traces of a connection comparatively\nrecent between the pantheons of the two nations.\n\nAccording to their own, rather uncertain, testimony, the Aryans of the\nRig Veda appear to have consisted of five tribal groups[3]. These\ngroups, _janas_, Latin gens, are subdivided into _vi\u00e7as_, Latin vicus,\nand these, again, into _gr[=a]mas_. The names, however, are not\nemployed with strictness, and _jana_, etymologically gens but\npolitically tribus, sometimes is used as a synonym of _gr[=a]ma_.[4]\nOf the ten books of the Rig-Veda seven are ascribed to various\npriestly families. In the main, these books are rituals of song as\ninculcated for the same rites by different family priests and their\ndescendants. Besides these there are books which are ascribed to no\nfamily, and consist, in part, of more general material. The\ndistinction of priestly family-books was one, possibly, coextensive\nwith political demarcation. Each of the family-books represents a\npriestly family, but it may represent, also, a political family. In at\nleast one case it represents a political body.[5]\n\nThese great political groups, which, perhaps, are represented by\nfamily rituals, were essentially alike in language, custom and\nreligion (although minor ritualistic differences probably obtained, as\nwell as tribal preference for particular cults); while in all these\nrespects, as well as in color and other racial peculiarities, the\nAryans were distinguished from the dark-skinned aborigines, with whom,\nuntil the end of the Rig Vedic period, they were perpetually at war.\nAt the close of this period the immigrant Aryans had reduced to\nslavery many of their unbelieving and barbarian enemies, and formally\nincorporated them into the state organization, where, as captives,\nslaves, or sons of slaves, the latter formed the \"fourth caste.\" But\nwhile admitting these slaves into the body politic, the priestly\nAryans debarred them from the religious congregation. Between the\nAryans themselves there is in this period a loosely defined\ndistinction of classes, but no system of caste is known before the\nclose of the first Vedic Collection. Nevertheless, the emphasis in\nthis statement lies strongly upon system, and it may not be quite idle\nto say at the outset that the general caste-distinctions not only are\nas old as the Indo-Iranian unity (among the Persians the same division\nof priest, warrior and husbandman obtains), but, in all probability,\nthey are much older. For so long as there is a cult, even if it be of\nspirits and devils, there are priests; and if there are chieftains\nthere is a nobility, such as one finds among the Teutons, nay, even\namong the American Indians, where also is known the inevitable\ndivision into priests, chiefs and commons, sometimes hereditary,\nsometimes not. There must have been, then, from the beginning of\nkingship and religious service, a division among the Aryans into\nroyalty, priests, and people, i.e., whoever were not acting as priests\nor chieftains. When the people becomes agricultural, the difference\ntends to become permanent, and a caste system begins. Now, the Vedic\nAryans appear in history at just the period when they are on the move\nsouthwards into India; but they are no irrupting host. The battles led\nthe warriors on, but the folk, as a folk, moved slowly, not all\nabandoning the country which they had gained, but settling there, and\nsending onwards only a part of the people. There was no fixed line of\ndemarcation between the classes. The king or another might act as his\nown priest--yet were there priestly families. The cow-boys might\nfight--yet were there those of the people that were especially\n'kingsmen,' _r[=a]janyas_, and these were, already, practically a\nclass, if not a caste[6]. These natural and necessary social\ndivisions, which in early times were anything but rigid, soon formed\ninviolable groups, and then the caste system was complete. In the\nperfected legal scheme what was usage becomes duty. The warrior may\nnot be a public priest; the priest may not serve as warrior or\nhusbandman. The farmer 'people' were the result of eliminating first\nthe priestly, and then the fighting factors from the whole body\npolitic. But these castes were all Aryans, and as such distinguished\nmost sharply, from a religious point of view, from the \"fourth caste\";\nwhereas among themselves they were, in religion, equals. But they were\npractically divided by interests that strongly affected the\ndevelopment of their original litanies. For both priest and warrior\nlooked down on the 'people,' but priest and warrior feared and\nrespected each other. To these the third estate was necessary as a\nbase of supplies, and together they guarded it from foes divine and\nmortal. But to each other they were necessary for wealth and glory,\nrespectively. So it was that even in the earliest period the religious\nlitany, to a great extent, is the book of worship of a warrior-class\nas prepared for it by the priest. Priest and king--these are the main\nfactors in the making of the hymns of the Rig Veda, and the gods\nlauded are chiefly the gods patronized by these classes. The third\nestate had its favorite gods, but these were little regarded, and were\nin a state of decadence. The slaves, too, may have had their own gods,\nbut of these nothing is known, and one can only surmise that here and\nthere in certain traits, which seem to be un-Aryan, may lie an\nunacknowledged loan from the aborigines.\n\nBetween the Rig Veda and the formation or completion of the next Veda,\ncalled the Atharvan, the interval appears to have been considerable,\nand the inherent value of the religion inculcated in the latter can be\nestimated aright only when this is weighed together with the fact,\nthat, as is learned from the Atharvan's own statements, the Aryans\nwere now advanced further southwards and eastwards, had discovered a\nnew land, made new gods, and were now more permanently established,\nthe last a factor of some moment in the religious development.\nIndications of the difference in time may be seen in the geographical\nand physical limitations of the older period as compared with those of\nthe later Atharvan. When first the Aryans are found in India, at the\ntime of the Rig Veda, they are located, for the most part, near the\nUpper Indus (Sindhu). The Ganges, mentioned but twice, is barely\nknown. On the west the Aryans lingered in East Kabulistan (possibly in\nKashmeer in the north); and even Kandahar appears, at least, to be\nknown as Aryan. That is to say, the 'Hindus' were still in\nAfghanistan, although the greater mass of the people had already\ncrossed the Indus and were progressed some distance to the east of the\nPunj[=a]b. That the race was still migrating may be seen from the\nhymns of the Rig Veda itself.[7] Their journey was to the south-east,\nand both before and after they reached the Indus they left\nsettlements, chiefly about the Indus and in the Punj[=a]b (a\npost-Vedic group), not in the southern but in the northern part of\nthis district.[8]\n\nThe Vedic Aryans of this first period were acquainted with the Indus,\nSutlej (\u00c7utudri), Beas (Vip[=a]\u00e7, [Greek: Yphtsis]), Ravi (Parushni or\nIr[=a]vat[=i]); the pair of rivers that unite and flow into the Indus,\nviz.: Jhelum (Vitast[=a], Behat), and Chin[=a]b (Asikni,[9] Akesines);\nand knew the remoter Kubh[=a] ([Greek: K\u00f4phh\u00ean], Kabul) and the\nnorthern Suv[=a]stu (Swat); while they appear to have had a legendary\nremembrance of the Ras[=a], Avestan Ra[.n]ha (Rangha), supposed by\nsome to be identical with the Araxes or Yaxartes, but probably (see\nbelow) only a vague 'stream,' the old name travelling with them on\ntheir wanderings; for one would err if he regarded similarity or even\nidentity of appellation as a proof of real identity.[10] West of the\nIndus the Kurum and Gomal appear to be known also. Many rivers are\nmentioned of which the names are given, but their location is not\nestablished. It is from the district west of the Indus that the most\nfamous Sanskrit grammarian comes, and long after the Vedas an Indic\npeople are known in the Kandahar district, while Kashmeer was a late\nhome of culture. The Sarasvati river, the name of which is transferred\nat least once in historical times, may have been originally one with\nthe Arghand[=a]b (on which is Kandahar), for the Persian name of this\nriver (_s_ becomes _h_) is Harahvati (Arachotos, Arachosia), and it is\npossible that it was really this river, and not the Indus which was\nfirst lauded as the Sarasvat[=i]. In that case there would be a\nperfect parallel to what has probably happened in the case of the\nRas[=a], the name--in both cases meaning only 'the stream' (like\nRhine, Arno, etc.)--being transferred to a new river. But since the\nIranian Harahvati fixes the first river of this name, there is here a\nstronger proof of Indo-Iranian community than is furnished by other\nexamples.[11]\n\nThese facts or suggestive parallels of names are of exceeding\nimportance. They indicate between the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians a\nconnection much closer than usually has been assumed. The bearings of\nsuch a connection on the religious ideas of the two peoples are\nself-evident, and will often have to be touched upon in the course of\nthis history. It is of less importance, from the present point of\nview, to say how the Aryans entered India, but since this question is\nalso connected with that of the religious environment of the first\nHindu poets, it will be well to state that, although, as some scholars\nmaintain, and as we believe, the Hindus may have come with the\nIranians through the open pass of Herat (Haraiva, Haroyu), it is\npossible that they parted from the latter south of the Hindukush[12]\n(descending through the Kohistan passes from the north), and that the\ntwo peoples thence diverged south-east and south-west respectively.\nNeither assumption would prevent the country lying between the\nHarahvati and Vitast[=a][13] from being, for generations, a common\ncamping-ground for both peoples, who were united still, but gradually\ndiverging. This seems, at least, to be the most reasonable explanation\nof the fact that these two rivers are to each people their farthest\nknown western and eastern limits respectively. With the exception of\nthe vague and uncertain Ras[=a], the Vedic Hindu's geographical\nknowledge is limited by Kandahar in the west, as is the Iranian's in\nthe east by the Vitast[=a].[14] North of the Vitast[=a] Mount Tricota\n(Trikakud, 'three peaks') is venerated, and this together with a Mount\nM[=u]javat, of which the situation is probably in the north, is the\nextent of modern knowledge in respect of the natural boundaries of the\nVedic people. One hears, to be sure, at a later time, of 'northern\nKurus,' whose felicity is proverbial; and it is very tempting to find\nin this name a connection with the Iranian Kur, but the Kurus, like\nthe Ras[=a] and Sarasvat[=i], are re-located once (near Delhi), and no\nsimilarity of name can assure one of a true connection. If not\ncoincidences, such likenesses are too vague to be valuable\nhistorically.[15]\n\nAnother much disputed point must be spoken of in connection with this\nsubject. In the Veda and in the Avesta there is mentioned the land of\nthe 'seven rivers.' Now seven rivers are often spoken of in the Rig\nVeda, but only once does this term mean the country, while in the\n'Hymn to the Rivers' no less than twenty-one streams are enumerated\n(RV. X. 75). In order to make out the 'seven rivers' scholars have\nmade different combinations, that most in favor being M\u00fcller's, the\nfive rivers of the Punj[=a]b together with the Kabul and (Swat or)\nSarasvat[=i]. But in point of fact 'seven' quite as often means many,\nas it does an exact number, and this, the older use, may well be\napplied here. It is quite impossible to identify the seven, and it is\nprobable that no Vedic poet ever imagined them to be a group of this\nprecise number. It would be far easier to select a group of seven\nconspicuous rivers, if anywhere, on the west of the Indus. A very\nnatural group from the Iranian side would be the Her[=i]r[=u]d,\nHilmund, Arghand[=a]b, Kurum, Kabul, Indus, and Vitast[=a]. Against\nthis, however, can be urged that the term 'seven rivers' may be\nBactrian, older than the Vedic period; and that, in particular, the\nAvesta distinguishes Vaikerta, Urva, and other districts from the\n'seven rivers.' It is best to remain uncertain in so doubtful a\nmatter, bearing in mind that even Kurukshetra, the 'holy land,' is\nsaid to-day to be watered by 'seven streams,' although some say nine;\napropos of which fact Cunningham remarks, giving modern examples, that\n\"the Hindus invariably assign seven branches to all their rivers.\"[16]\n\nWithin the Punj[=a]b, the Vedic Aryans, now at last really 'Hindus,'\nhaving extended themselves to the \u00c7utudri (\u00c7atadru, Sutlej), a\nformidable barrier, and eventually having crossed even this, the last\ntributary's of the Indus, descended to the jumna (Yamun[=a]), over the\nlittle stream called 'the Rocky' (Drishadvat[=i]) and the lesser\nSarasvat[=i], southeast from Lahore and near Delhi, in the region\nKurukshetra, afterwards famed as the seat of the great epic war, and\nalways regarded as holy in the highest degree.\n\nNot till the time of the Atharva Veda do the Aryans appear as far east\nas Benares (V[=a]r[=a]nas[=i], on the 'Varan[=a]vat[=i]'), though the\nSarayu is mentioned in the Rik. But this scarcely is the tributary of\nthe Ganges, Gogra, for the name seems to refer to a more western\nstream, since it is associated with the Gomat[=i] (Gomal). One may\nsurmise that in the time of the Rig Veda the Aryans knew only by name\nthe country east of Lucknow. It is in the Punj[=a]b and a little to\nthe west and east of it (how far it is impossible to state with\naccuracy) where lies the real theatre of activity of the Rig Vedic\npeople.\n\nSome scholars believe that this people had already heard of the two\noceans. This point again is doubtful in the extreme. No descriptions\nimply a knowledge of ocean, and the word for ocean means merely a\n'confluence' of waters, or in general a great oceanic body of water\nlike the air. As the Indus is too wide to be seen across, the name may\napply in most cases to this river. An allusion to 'eastern and western\nfloods,'[17] which is held by some to be conclusive evidence for a\nknowledge of the two seas, is taken by others to apply to the\nair-oceans. The expression may apply simply to rivers, for it is said\nthat the Vip[=a]\u00e7 and \u00c7utudr[=i] empty into the 'ocean', i.e., the\nIndus or the \u00c7utudr[=i]'s continuation.[18] One late verse alone\nspeaks of the Sarasvat[=i] pouring into the ocean, and this would\nindicate the Arabian Sea.[19] Whether the Bay of Bengal was known,\neven by hearsay and in the latest time of this period, remains\nuncertain. As a body the Aryans of the Rig Veda were certainly not\nacquainted with either ocean. Some straggling adventurers probably\npushed down the Indus, but Zimmer doubtless is correct in asserting\nthat the popular emigration did not extend further south than the\njunction of the Indus and the Pa[=n]canada (the united five\nrivers).[20] The extreme south-eastern geographical limit of the Rig\nVedic people may be reckoned (not, however, in Oldenberg's opinion,\nwith any great certainty) as being in Northern Beh[=a]r (M[=a]gadha).\nThe great desert, Marusthala, formed an impassable southern obstacle\nfor the first immigrants.[21]\n\nOn the other hand, the two oceans are well known to the Atharva Veda,\nwhile the geographical (and hence chronological) difference between\nthe Rik and the Atharvan is furthermore illustrated by the following\nfacts: in the Rig Veda wolf and lion are the most formidable beasts;\nthe tiger is unknown and the elephant seldom alluded to; while in the\nAtharvan the tiger has taken the lion's place and the elephant is a\nmore familiar figure. Now the tiger has his domicile in the swampy\nland about Benares, to which point is come the Atharvan Aryan, but not\nthe Rig Vedic people. Here too, in the Atharvan, the panther is first\nmentioned, and for the first time silver and iron are certainly\nreferred to. In the Rig Veda the metals are bronze and gold, silver\nand iron being unknown.[22] Not less significant are the trees. The\nficus religiosa, the tree later called the 'tree of the gods'\n(_deva-sadana, a\u00e7vattha_), under which are fabled to sit the\ndivinities in heaven, is scarcely known in the Rig Veda, but is well\nknown in the Atharvan; while India's grandest tree, the _nyagrodha_,\nficus indica, is known to the Atharvan and Brahmanic period, but is\nutterly foreign to the Rig Veda. Zimmer deems it no less significant\nthat fishes are spoken of in the Atharvan and are mentioned only once\nin the Rig Veda, but this may indicate a geographical difference less\nthan one of custom. In only one doubtful passage is the north-east\nmonsoon alluded to. The storm so vividly described in the Rig Veda is\nthe south-west monsoon which is felt in the northern Punj[=a]b. The\nnorth-east monsoon is felt to the southeast of the Punj[=a]b, possibly\nanother indication of geographical extension, withal within the limits\nof the Rig Veda itself.\n\nThe seat of culture shifts in the Brahmanic period, which follows that\nof the Vedic poems, and is found partly in the 'holy land' of the\nwest, and partly in the east (Beh[=a]r, Tirhut).[23] The literature of\nthis period comes from Aryans that have passed out of the Punj[=a]b.\nProbably, as we have said, settlements were left all along the line of\nprogress. Even before the wider knowledge of the post-Alexandrine\nimperial age (at which time there was a north-western military\nretrogression), and, from the Vedic point of view, as late as the end\nof the Brahmanic period, in the time of the Upanishads, the northwest\nseems still to have been familiarly known.[24]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: We take this opportunity of stating that by the\n     religions of the Aryan Hindus we mean the religions of a\n     people who, undoubtedly, were full-blooded Aryans at first,\n     however much their blood may have been diluted later by\n     un-Aryan admixture. Till the time of Buddhism the religious\n     literature is fairly Aryan. In the period of \"Hinduism\"\n     neither people nor religion can claim to be quite Aryan.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: If, as thinks Schrader, the Aryans' original\n     seat was on the Volga, then one must imagine the\n     Indo-Iranians to have kept together in a south-eastern\n     emigration.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: That is to say, frequent reference is made to\n     'five tribes.' Some scholars deny that the tribes are Aryan\n     alone, and claim that 'five,' like seven, means 'many.']\n\n     [Footnote 4: RV. III. 33. 11; 53. 12. Zimmer, _Altindisches\n     Leben_, p. 160, incorrectly identifies _vi\u00e7_ with tribus\n     (Leist, _Rechtsgeschichte_, p. 105).]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Vi\u00e7v[=a]mitra. A few of the hymns are not\n     ascribed to priests at all (some were made by women; some by\n     'royal-seers,' _i.e._ kings, or, at least, not priests).]\n\n     [Footnote 6: Caste, at first, means 'pure,' and signifies\n     that there is a moral barrier between the caste and outcast.\n     The word now practically means class, even impure class. The\n     native word means 'color,' and the first formal distinction\n     was national, (white) Aryan and 'black-man.' The precedent\n     class-distinctions among the Aryans themselves became fixed\n     in course of time, and the lines between Aryans, in some\n     regards, were drawn almost as sharply as between Aryan and\n     slave.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Compare RV. iii. 33, and in I. 131. 5, the\n     words: 'God Indra, thou didst help thy suppliants; one river\n     after another they gained who pursued glory.']\n\n     [Footnote 8: Thomas, _Rivers of the Vedas_ (JRAS. xv. 357\n     ff.; Zimmer, loc. cit. cap. 1).]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Later called the Candrabh[=a]ga. For the Jumna\n     and Sarayu see below.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: This is the error into which falls Brunnhofer,\n     whose theory that the Vedic Aryans were still settled near\n     the Caspian has been criticised above (p. 15).]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Compare Geiger, _Ostiranische Cultur_, p. 81.\n     See also Muir, OST. ii. p. 355.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Lassen, I. p. 616, decided in favor of the\n     western passes of the Hindukush.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: From Kandahar in Afghanistan to a point a\n     little west of Lahore. In the former district, according to\n     the Avesta, the dead are buried (an early Indian custom, not\n     Iranian).]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Geiger identifies the Vita[=g]uhaiti or\n     Vitanghvati with the Oxus, but this is improbable. It lies\n     in the extreme east and forms the boundary between the true\n     believers and the 'demon-worshippers' (Yasht, 5, 77; Geiger,\n     _loc. cit._ p. 131, note 5). The Persian name is the same\n     with Vitast[=a], which is located in the Punj[=a]b.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: On the Kurus compare Zimmer (loc. cit.), who\n     thinks Kashmeer is meant, and Geiger, loc. cit. p. 39. Other\n     geographical reminiscences may lie in Vedic and Brahmanic\n     allusions to Bactria, Balkh (AV.); to the Derbiker (around\n     Meru? RV.), and to Manu's mountain, whence he descended\n     after the flood (Naubandhana): _\u00c7atapatha Br[=a]hmana_, I.\n     8. 1, 6, 'Manu's descent'.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: _Arch. Survey_, xiv. p. 89; Thomas, loc. cit.\n     p. 363.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: RV. x. 136. 5.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: RV. iii. 33. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: RV. vii. 95. 2. Here the Sarasvat[=i] can be\n     only the Indus.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Pa[=n]ca-nada, Punjnud, Persian 'Punj[=a]b,'\n     the five streams, Vitas[=a], Asikn[=i], Ir[=a]vat[=i],\n     Vip[=a]\u00e7, \u00c7utudr[=i]. The Punjnud point is slowly moving up\n     stream; Vyse, JRAS. x. 323. The Sarayu may be the\n     Her[=i]r[=u]d, Geiger, loc. cit. p. 72.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Muir, OST. ii. 351; Zimmer, loc. cit. p. 51\n     identifies the _K[=i]katas_ of RV. iii. 53. 14 with the\n     inhabitants of Northern Beh[=a]r. Marusthala is called\n     simply 'the desert.']\n\n     [Footnote 22: The earlier _\u00e1yas_, Latin _aes_, means bronze\n     not iron, as Zimmer has shown, loc. cit. p. 51. Pischel,\n     _Vedische Studien_, I, shows that elephants are mentioned\n     more often than was supposed (but rarely in family-books).]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Weber, _Indische Studien,_ I. p. 228;\n     Oldenberg, _Buddha_, pp. 399 ff., 410.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Very lately (1893) Franke has sought to show\n     that the P[=a]li dialect of India is in part referable to\n     the western districts (Kandahar), and has made out an\n     interesting case for his novel theory (ZDMG. xlvii. p.\n     595).]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE RIG VEDA. THE UPPER GODS.\n\n\nThe hymns of the Rig Veda may be divided into three classes, those in\nwhich are especially lauded the older divinities, those in which\nappear as most prominent the sacrificial gods, and those in which a\nlong-weakened polytheism is giving place to the light of a clearer\npantheism. In each category there are hymns of different age and\nquality, for neither did the more ancient with the growth of new\ndivinities cease to be revered, nor did pantheism inhibit the formal\nacknowledgment of the primitive pantheon. The cult once established\npersisted, and even when, at a later time, all the gods had been\nreduced to nominal fractions of the All-god, their ritualistic\nindividuality still was preserved. The chief reason for this lies in\nthe nature of these gods and in the attitude of the worshipper. No\nmatter how much the cult of later gods might prevail, the other gods,\nwho represented the daily phenomena of nature, were still visible,\nawe-inspiring, divine. The firmest pantheist questioned not the\nadvisability of propitiating the sun-god, however much he might regard\nthis god as but a part of one that was greater. Belief in India was\nnever so philosophical that the believer did not dread the lightning,\nand seek to avert it by praying to the special god that wielded it.\nBut active veneration in later times was extended in fact only to the\nstrong Powers, while the more passive divinities, although they were\nkept as a matter of form in the ceremonial, yet had in reality only\ntongue-worshippers.\n\nWith some few exceptions, however, it will be found impossible to say\nwhether any one deity belonged to the first pantheon.\n\nThe best one can do is to separate the mass of gods from those that\nbecome the popular gods, and endeavor to learn what was the character\nof each, and what were the conceptions of the poets in regard both to\nhis nature, and to his relations with man. A different grouping of the\ngods (that indicated below) will be followed, therefore, in our\nexposition.\n\nAfter what has been said in the introductory chapter concerning the\nnecessity of distinguishing between good and bad poetry, it may be\nregarded as incumbent upon us to seek to make such a division of the\nhymns as shall illustrate our words. But we shall not attempt to do\nthis here, because the distinction between late mechanical and poetic\nhymns is either very evident, and it would be superfluous to burden\nthe pages with the trash contained in the former,[1] or the\ndistinction is one liable to reversion at the hands of those critics\nwhose judgment differs from ours, for there are of course some hymns\nthat to one may seem poetical and to another, artificial. Moreover, we\nadmit that hymns of true feeling may be composed late as well as\nearly, while as to beauty of style the chances are that the best\nliterary production will be found among the latest rather than among\nthe earliest hymns.\n\nIt would, indeed, be admissible, if one had any certainty in regard to\nthe age of the different parts of the Rig Veda, simply to divide the\nhymns into early, middle, and late, as they are sometimes divided in\nphilological works, but here one rests on the weakest of all supports\nfor historical judgment, a linguistic and metrical basis, when one is\nignorant alike of what may have been accomplished by imitation, and of\nthe work of those later priests who remade the poems of their\nancestors.\n\nBest then, because least hazardous, appears to be the method which we\nhave followed, namely, to take up group by group the most important\ndeities arranged in the order of their relative importance, and by\nstudying each to arrive at a fair understanding of the pantheon as a\nwhole. The Hindus themselves divided their gods into highest, middle,\nand lowest, or those of the upper sky, the atmosphere, and the earth.\nThis division, from the point of view of one who would enter into the\nspirit of the seers and at the same time keep in mind the changes to\nwhich that spirit gradually was subjected, is an excellent one. For,\nas will be seen, although the earlier order of regard may have been\nfrom below upwards, this order does not apply to the literary\nmonuments. These show on the contrary a worship which steadily tends\nfrom above earthwards; and the three periods into which may be divided\nall Vedic theology are first that of the special worship of sky-gods,\nwhen less attention is paid to others; then that of the atmospheric\nand meteorological divinities; and finally that of terrestrial powers,\neach later group absorbing, so to speak, the earlier, and therewith\npreparing the developing Hindu intelligence for the reception of the\nuniversal god with whom closes the series.\n\nOther factors than those of an inward development undoubtedly were at\nwork in the formation of this growth. Especially prominent is the\namalgamation of the gods of the lower classes with those of the\npriest-hood. Climatic environment, too, conditioned theological\nevolution, if not spiritual advance. The cult of the mid-sphere god,\nIndra, was partly the result of the changing atmospheric surroundings\nof the Hindus as they advanced into India. The storms and the sun were\nnot those of old. The tempests were more terrific, the display of\ndivine power was more concentrated in the rage of the elements; while\nappreciation of the goodness of the sun became tinged with\napprehension of evil, and he became a deadly power as well as one\nbeneficent. Then the relief of rain after drought gave to Indra the\ncharacter of a benign god as well as of a fearful one. Nor were\nlacking in the social condition certain alterations which worked\ntogether with climatic changes. The segregated mass of the original\npeople, the braves that hung about the king, a warrior-class rapidly\nbecoming a caste, and politically the most important caste, took the\ngod of thunder and lightning for their god of battle. The fighting\nrace naturally exalted to the highest the fighting god. Then came into\nprominence the priestly caste, which gradually taught the warrior that\nmind was stronger than muscle. But this caste was one of thinkers.\nTheir divinity was the product of reflection. Indra remained, but\nyielded to a higher power, and the god thought out by the priests\nbecame God. Yet it must not be supposed that the cogitative energy of\nthe Brahman descended upon the people's gods and suddenly produced a\nreligious revolution. In India no intellectual advance is made\nsuddenly. The older divinities show one by one the transformation that\nthey suffered at the hands of theosophic thinkers. Before the\nestablishment of a general Father-god, and long before that of the\npantheistic All-god, the philosophical leaven was actively at work. It\nwill be seen operative at once in the case of the sun-god, and,\nindeed, there were few of the older divinities that were untouched by\nit. It worked silently and at first esoterically. One reads of the\ngods' 'secret names,' of secrets in theology, which 'are not to be\nrevealed,' till at last the disguise is withdrawn, and it is\ndiscovered that all the mystery of former generations has been leading\nup to the declaration now made public: 'all these gods are but names\nof the One.'\n\n\nTHE SUN-GOD.\n\nThe hymn which was translated in the first chapter gives an epitome of\nthe simpler conceptions voiced in the few whole hymns to the sun. But\nthere is a lower and a higher view of this god. He is the shining god\n_par excellence_, the _deva, s[=u]rya_,[2] the red ball in the sky.\nBut he is also an active force, the power that wakens, rouses,\nenlivens, and as such it is he that gives all good things to mortals\nand to gods. As the god that gives life he (with others)[3] is the\nauthor of birth, and is prayed to for children. From above he looks\ndown upon earth, and as with his one or many steeds he drives over the\nfirmament he observes all that is passing below. He has these, the\nphysical side and the spiritual side, under two names, the glowing\none, S[=u]rya, and the enlivener, Savitar;[4] but he is also the good\ngod who bestows benefits, and as such he was known, probably locally,\nby the name of Bhaga. Again, as a herdsman's god, possibly at first\nalso a local deity, he is P[=u]shan (the meaning is almost the same\nwith that of Savitar). As the 'mighty one' he is Vishnu, who measures\nheaven in three strides. In general, the conception of the sun as a\nphysical phenomenon will be found voiced chiefly in the family-books:\n\"The sightly form rises on the slope of the sky as the swift-going\nsteed carries him ... seven sister steeds carry him.\"[5] This is the\nprevailing utterance. Sometimes the sun is depicted under a medley of\nmetaphors: \"A bull, a flood, a red bird, he has entered his father's\nplace; a variegated stone he is set in the midst of the sky; he has\nadvanced and guards the two ends of space.\"[6] One after the other the\ngod appears to the poets as a bull, a bird,[7] a steed, a stone, a\njewel, a flood, a torch-holder,[8] or as a gleaming car set in heaven.\nNor is the sun independent. As in the last image of a chariot,[9] so,\nwithout symbolism, the poet speaks of the sun as made to rise by\nVaruna and Mitra: \"On their wonted path go Varuna and Mitra when in\nthe sky they cause to rise Surya, whom they made to avert darkness\";\nwhere, also, the sun, under another image, is the \"support of the\nsky.\"[10] Nay, in this simpler view, the sun is no more than the \"eye\nof Mitra Varuna,\"[11] a conception formally retained even when the sun\nin the same breath is spoken of as pursuing Dawn like a lover, and as\nbeing the 'soul of the universe' (I. 115. 1-2). In the older passages\nthe later moral element is almost lacking, nor is there maintained the\nsame physical relation between Sun and Dawn. In the earlier hymns the\nDawn is the Sun's mother, from whom he proceeds.[12] It is the \"Dawns\nproduced the Sun,\" in still more natural language;[13] whereas, the\nidea of the lover-Sun following the Dawn scarcely occurs in the\nfamily-books.[14] Distinctly late, also, is the identification of the\nsun with the all-spirit _([=a]tm[=a],_ I. 115. 1), and the following\nprayer: \"Remove, O sun, all weakness, illness, and bad dreams.\" In\nthis hymn, X. 37. 14, S[=u]rya is the son of the sky, but he is\nevidently one with Savitar, who in V. 82. 4, removes bad dreams, as in\nX. 100. 8, he removes sickness. Men are rendered 'sinless' by the sun\n(IV. 54. 3; X. 37. 9) exactly as they are by the other gods, Indra,\nVaruna, etc. In a passage that refers to the important triad of sun,\nwind and fire, X. 158. I ff., the sun is invoked to 'save from the\nsky,' _i.e._ from all evils that may come from the upper regions;\nwhile in the same book the sun, like Indra, is represented as the\nslayer of demons _(asuras)_ and dragons; as the slayer, also, of the\npoet's rivals; as giving long life to the worshipper, and as himself\ndrinking sweet _soma_. This is one of the poems that seem to be at\nonce late and of a forced and artificial character (X. 170).\n\nAlthough S[=u]rya is differentiated explicitly from Savitar (V. 81. 4,\n\"Savitar, thou joyest in S[=u]a's rays\"), yet do many of the hymns\nmake no distinction between them. The Enlivener is naturally extolled\nin fitting phrase, to tally with his title: \"The shining-god, the\nEnlivener, is ascended to enliven the world\"; \"He gives protection,\nwealth and children\" (II. 38.1; IV. 53. 6-7). The later hymns seem, as\none might expect, to show greater confusion between the attributes of\nthe physical and spiritual sun. But what higher power under either\nname is ascribed to the sun in the later hymns is not due to a higher\nor more developed homage of the sun as such. On the contrary, as with\nmany other deities, the more the praise the less the individual\nworship. It is as something more than the sun that the god later\nreceives more fulsome devotion. And, in fact, paradoxical as it seems,\nit is a decline in sun-worship proper that is here registered. The\naltar-fire becomes more important, and is revered in the sun, whose\nhymns, at most, are few, and in part mechanical.\n\nBergaigne in his great work, _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, has laid much\nstress on sexual antithesis as an element in Vedic worship. It seems\nto us that this has been much exaggerated. The sun is masculine; the\ndawn, feminine. But there is no indication of a primitive antithesis\nof male and female in their relations. What occurs appears to be of\nadventitious character. For though sun and dawn are often connected,\nthe latter is represented first as his mother and afterwards as his\n'wife' or mistress. Even in the later hymns, where the marital\nrelation is recognized, it is not insisted upon. But Bergaigne[15] is\nright in saying that in the Rig Veda the sun does not play the part of\nan evil power, and it is a good illustration of the difference between\nRik and Atharvan, when Ehni cites, to prove that the sun is like\ndeath, only passages from the Atharvan and the later Brahmanic\nliterature.[16]\n\nWhen, later, the Hindus got into a region where the sun was deadly,\nthey said, \"Yon burning sun-god is death,\" but in the Rig Veda' they\nsaid, \"Yon sun is the source of life,\"[17] and no other conception of\nthe sun is to be found in the Rig Veda.\n\nThere are about a dozen hymns to S[=u]rya, and as many to Savitar, in\nthe Rig Veda.[18] It is noteworthy that in the family-books the hymns\nto Savitar largely prevail, while those to S[=u]rya are chiefly late\nin position or content. Thus, in the family-books, where are found\neight or nine of the dozen hymns to Savitar, there are to S[=u]rya but\nthree or four, and of these the first is really to Savitar and the\nA\u00e7vins; the second is an imitation of the first; the third appears to\nbe late; and the fourth is a fragment of somewhat doubtful antiquity.\nThe first runs as follows: \"The altar-fire has seen well-pleased the\ndawns' beginning and the offering to the gleaming ones; come, O ye\nhorsemen (A\u00e7vins), to the house of the pious man; the sun (S[=u]rya),\nthe shining-god, rises with light. The shining-god Savitar has\nelevated his beams, swinging his banner like a good (hero) raiding for\ncattle. According to rule go Varuna and Mitra when they make rise in\nthe sky the sun (S[=u]rya) whom they have created to dissipate\ndarkness, being (gods) sure of their habitation and unswerving in\nintent. Seven yellow swift-steeds bear this S[=u]rya, the seer of all\nthat moves. Thou comest with swiftest steeds unspinning the web,\nseparating, O shining-god, the black robe. The rays of S[=u]rya\nswinging (his banner) have laid darkness like a skin in the waters.\nUnconnected, unsupported, downward extending, why does not this (god)\nfall down? With what nature goes he, who knows (literally, 'who has\nseen')? As a support he touches and guards the vault of the sky\" (IV.\n13).\n\nThere is here, no more than in the early hymn from the first book,\ntranslated in the first chapter, any worship of material phenomena.\nS[=u]rya is worshipped as Savitar, either expressly so called, or with\nall the attributes of the spiritual. The hymn that follows this[19] is\na bald imitation. In V. 47 there are more or less certain signs of\nlateness, _e.g.,_ in the fourth stanza (\"four carry him, ... and ten\ngive the child to drink that he may go,\" etc.) there is the juggling\nwith unexplained numbers, which is the delight of the later\npriesthood. Moreover, this hymn is addressed formally to Mitra-Varuna\nand Agni, and not to the sun-god, who is mentioned only in metaphor;\nwhile the final words _n\u00e1mo div\u00e9_, 'obeisance to heaven,' show that\nthe sun is only indirectly addressed. One cannot regard hymns\naddressed to Mitra-Varuna and S[=u]rya (with other gods) as primarily\nintended for S[=u]rya, who in these hymns is looked upon as the\nsubject of Mitra and Varuna, as in VII. 62; or as the \"eye\" of the two\nother gods, and 'like Savitar' in VII. 63. So in VII. 66. 14-16, a\nmere fragment of a hymn is devoted exclusively to S[=u]rya as \"lord of\nall that stands and goes.\" But in these hymns there are some very\ninteresting touches. Thus in VII. 60. 1, the sun does not make\nsinless, but he announces to Mitra and Varuna that the mortal is\nsinless. There are no other hymns than these addressed to S[=u]rya,\nsave those in the first and tenth books, of which nine stanzas of I.\n50 (see above) may be reckoned early, while I. 115, where the sun is\nthe soul of the universe, and at the same time the eye of\nMitra-Varuna, is probably late; and I. 163 is certainly so, wherein\nthe sun is identified with Yama, Trita, etc.; is 'like Varuna'; and is\nhimself a steed, described as having three connections in the sky,\nthree in the waters, three in the sea. In one of the hymns in the\ntenth book, also a mystical song, the sun is the 'bird' of the sky, a\nmetaphor which soon gives another figure to the pantheon in the form\nof Garutman, the sun-bird, of whose exploits are told strange tales in\nthe epic, where he survives as Garuda. In other hymns S[=u]rya averts\ncarelessness at the sacrifice, guards the worshipper, and slays\ndemons. A mechanical little hymn describes him as measuring the\n'thirty stations.' Not one of these hymns has literary freshness or\nbeauty of any kind. They all belong to the class of stereotyped\nproductions, which differ in origin and content from the hymns first\nmentioned.[20]\n\n\nSAVITAR.\n\nTurning to Savitar one finds, of course, many of the same descriptive\ntraits as in the praise of S[=u]rya, his more material self. But with\nthe increased spirituality come new features. Savitar is not alone the\nsun that rises; he is also the sun that sets; and is extolled as such.\nThere are other indications that most of the hymns composed for him\nare to accompany the sacrifice, either of the morning or of the\nevening. In II. 38, an evening song to Savitar, there are inner signs\nthat the hymn was made for rubrication, but here some fine verses\noccur: \"The god extends his vast hand, his arms above there--and all\nhere obeys him; to his command the waters move, and even the winds'\nblowing ceases on all sides.\" Again: \"Neither Indra, Varuna, Mitra,\nAryaman, Rudra, nor the demons, impair his law\" We call attention here\nto the fact that the Rig Veda contains a strong(stong in the original)\ncurrent of demonology, much stronger than has been pointed out by\nscholars intent on proving the primitive loftiness of the Vedic\nreligion.\n\nIn III. 62. 7-9 there are some verses to P[=u]shan, following which is\nthe most holy couplet of the Rig Veda, to repeat which is essentially\nto repeat the Veda. It is the famous G[=a]yatr[=i] or S[=a]vitr[=i]\nhymnlet (10-12):\n\n  Of Savitar, the heavenly, that longed-for glory may we win,\n  And may himself inspire our prayers.[21]\n\nWhitney (loc. cit.) says of this hymn that it is not remarkable in any\nway and that no good reason has ever been given for its fame. The good\nreason for this fame, in our opinion, is that the longed-for glory was\ninterpreted later as a revealed indication of primitive pantheism, and\nthe verses were understood to express the desire of absorption into\nthe sun, which, as will be seen, was one of the first divine bodies to\nbe accepted as the type of the All-god. This is also the intent of the\nstanzas added to I. 50 (above, p. 17), where S[=u]rya is \"the highest\nlight, the god among gods,\" mystic words, taken by later philosophers,\nand quite rightly, to be an expression of pantheism. The esoteric\nmeaning of the G[=a]yatr[=i] presumably made it popular among the\nenlightened. Exoterically the sun was only the goal of the soul, or,\nin pure pantheism, of the sight. In the following[22] the\nsin-forgiving side of Savitar is developed, whereby he comes into\nconnection with Varuna:\n\n  God Savitar deserveth now a song from us;\n  To-day, with guiding word, let men direct him here.\n  He who distributes gifts unto the sons of men,\n  Shall here on us bestow whatever thing is best;\n  For thou, O Savitar, dost first upon the gods\n  Who sacrifice deserve, lay immortality,\n  The highest gift, and then to mortals dost extend\n  As their apportionment a long enduring life.\n  Whatever thoughtless thing against the\n  race of gods We do in foolishness and human insolence,\n  Do thou from that, O Savitar, mid gods and men\n  Make us here sinless, etc.\n\nBut if this song smacks of the sacrifice, still more so does V. 81,\nwhere Savitar is the 'priest's priest,' the 'arranger of sacrifice,'\nand is one with P[=u]shan. He is here the swift horse (see above) and\nmore famous as the divider of time than anything else. In fact this\nwas the first ritualistic glory of Savitar, that he divides the time\nfor sacrifice. But he receives more in the light of being the type of\nother luminous divinities. In the next hymn, another late effort (V.\n82; see the dream in vs. 4), there may be an imitation of the\nG[=a]yatr[=i]. Savitar is here the All-god and true lord, and frees\nfrom sin. There is nothing new or striking in the hymns VI. 71; VII.\n38 and 45. The same golden hands, and references to the sacrifice\noccur here. Allusions to the Dragon of the Deep, who is called upon\nwith Savitar (VII. 38. 5), and the identification of Savitar with\nBhaga (ib. 6) are the most important items to be gleaned from these\nrather stupid hymns. In other hymns not in the family-books\n(II.-VIII.), there is a fragment, X. 139. 1-3, and another, I. 22.\n5-8. In the latter, Agni's (Fire's) title, 'son of waters,' is given\nto Savitar, who is virtually identified with Agni in the last part of\nthe Rig Veda; and in the former hymn there is an interesting\ndiscrimination made between Savitar and P[=u]shan, who obeys him. The\nlast hymn in the collection to Savitar, X. 149, although late and\nplainly intended for the sacrifice (vs. 5), is interesting as showing\nhow the philosophical speculation worked about Savitar as a centre.\n'He alone, he the son of the waters, knows the origin of water, whence\narose the world.' This is one of the early speculations which recur so\nfrequently in the Brahmanic period, wherein the origin of 'all this'\n(the universe) is referred to water. A hymn to Savitar in the first\nbook contains as excellent a song as is given to the sun under this\nname. It is neither a morning nor an evening song in its original\nstate, but mentions all the god's functions, without the later moral\ntraits so prominent elsewhere, and with the old threefold division\ninstead of thrice-three heavens.\n\n     TO SAVITAR (I. 35).\n\n  I call on Agni first (the god of fire) for weal;\n  I call on Mitra-Varuna to aid me here;\n  I call upon the Night, who quiets all that moves;\n  On Savitar, the shining god, I call for help.\n\nAfter this introductory invocation begins the real song in a different\nmetre.\n\n  Through space of darkness wending comes he hither,\n  Who puts to rest th' immortal and the mortal,\n  On golden car existent things beholding,\n  The god that rouses, Savitar, the shining;\n  Comes he, the shining one, comes forward, upward,\n  Comes with two yellow steeds, the god revered,\n  Comes shining Savitar from out the distance,\n  All difficulties far away compelling.\n  His pearl-adorned, high, variegated chariot,\n  Of which the pole is golden, he, revered,\n  Hath mounted, Savitar, whose beams are brilliant,\n  Against the darksome spaces strength assuming.\n  Among the people gaze the brown white-footed\n  (Steeds) that the chariot drag whose pole is golden.\n  All peoples stand, and all things made, forever,\n  Within the lap of Savitar, the heavenly.\n\n  [There are three heavens of Savitar, two low ones,[23]\n  One, men-restraining, in the realm of Yama.\n  As on (his) chariot-pole[24] stand all immortals,\n  Let him declare it who has understood it!]\n\n  Across air-spaces gazes he, the eagle,\n  Who moves in secret, th' Asura,[25] well-guiding,\n  Where is (bright) S[=u]rya now? who understands it?\n  And through which sky is now his ray extending?\n\n  He looks across the earth's eight elevations,[26]\n  The desert stations three, and the seven rivers,\n  The gold-eyed shining god is come, th' Arouser,\n  To him that worships giving wealth and blessings.\n\n  The golden-handed Savitar, the active one,\n  Goes earth and heaven between, compels demoniac powers,\n  To S[=u]rya gives assistance, and through darksome space\n  Extends to heaven, etc.[27]\n\n\nP[=U]SHAN AND BHAGA AS SUN-GODS.\n\nWith P[=u]shan, the 'bestower of prosperity,' appears an ancient side\nof sun-worship. While under his other names the sun has lost, to a\ngreat extent, the attributes of a bucolic solar deity, in the case of\nP[=u]shan he appears still as a god whose characteristics are bucolic,\nwar-like, and priestly, that is to say, even as he is venerated by the\nthree masses of the folk. It will not do, of course, to distinguish\ntoo sharply between the first two divisions, but one can very well\ncompare P[=u]shan in these r\u00f4les with Helios guiding his herds, and\nApollo swaying armed hosts. It is customary to regard P[=u]shan as too\nbucolic a deity, but this is only one side of him. He apparently is\nthe sun, as herdsmen look upon him, and in this figure is the object\nof ridicule with the warrior-class who, especially in one family or\ntribe, take a more exalted view of him. Consequently, as in the case\nof Varuna, one need not read into the hymns more than they offer to\nsee that, not to speak of the priestly view, there are at least two\nP[=u]shans, in the Rig Veda itself.[28]\n\nAs the god 'with braided hair,' and as the 'guardian of cattle,'\nP[=u]shan offers, perhaps, in these particulars, the original of\nRudra's characteristics, who, in the Vedic period, and later as\nRudra-\u00c7iva, is also a 'guardian of cattle' and has the 'braided hair.'\n\nBergaigne identifies P[=u]shan with Soma, with whom the poets were apt\nto identify many other deities, but there seems to be little\nsimilarity originally.[29] It is only in the wider circles of each\ngod's activity that the two approach each other. Both gods, it is\ntrue, wed S[=u]rya (the female sun-power), and Soma, like P[=u]shan,\nfinds lost cattle. But it must be recognized once for all that\nidentical attributes are not enough to identify Vedic gods. Who gives\nwealth? Indra, Soma, Agni, Heaven and Earth, Wind, Sun, the Maruts,\netc. Who forgives sins? Agni, Varuna, Indra, the Sun, etc. Who helps\nin war? Agni, P[=u]shan, Indra, Soma, etc. Who sends rain? Indra,\nParjanya, Soma, the Maruts, P[=u]shan, etc. Who weds Dawn? The A\u00e7vins,\nthe Sun, etc. The attributes must be functional or the identification\nis left incomplete.\n\nThe great disparity in descriptions of P[=u]shan may be illustrated by\nsetting VI. 48. 19 beside X. 92. 13. The former passage merely\ndeclares that P[=u]shan is a war-leader \"over mortals, and like the\ngods in glory\"; the latter, that he is \"distinguished by all divine\nattributes\"; that is to say, what has happened in the case of Savitar\nhas happened here also. The individuality of P[=u]shan dies out, but\nthe vaguer he becomes the more grandiloquently is he praised and\nassociated with other powers; while for lack of definite laudation\ngeneral glory is ascribed to him. The true position of P[=u]shan in\nthe eyes of the warrior is given unintentionally by one who says,[30]\n\"I do not scorn thee, O P[=u]shan,\" _i.e.,_ as do most people, on\naccount of thy ridiculous attributes. For P[=u]shan does not drink\n_soma_ like Indra, but eats mush. So another devout believer says:\n\"P[=u]shan is not described by them that call him an eater of\nmush.\"[31] The fact that he was so called speaks louder than the pious\nprotest. Again, P[=u]shan is simply bucolic. He uses the goad, which,\nhowever, according to Bergaigne, is the thunderbolt! So, too, the cows\nthat P[=u]shan is described as guiding have been interpreted as clouds\nor 'dawns.' But they may be taken without 'interpretation' as\nreal cows.[32] P[=u]shan drives the cows, he is armed with a goad, and\neats mush; bucolic throughout, yet a sun-god. It is on these lines\nthat his finding-qualities are to be interpreted. He finds lost\ncattle,[33] a proper business for such a god; but Bergaigne will see\nin this a transfer from P[=u]shan's finding of rain and of _soma_.[34]\nP[=u]shan, too, directs the furrow[35]\n\nTogether with Vishnu and Bhaga this god is invoked at sacrifices, (a\nfact that says little against or for his original sun-ship),[36] and\nhe is intimately connected with Indra. His sister is his mistress, and\nhis mother is his wife (Dawn and Night?) according to the meagre\naccounts given in VI. 55. 4-5.[37] As a god of increase he is invoked\nin the marriage-rite, X. 85. 37.\n\nAs Savitar and all sun-gods are at once luminous and dark, so\nP[=u]shan has a clear and again a revered (terrible) appearance; he is\nlike day and night, like Dyaus (the sky); at one time bright, at\nanother, plunged in darkness, VI. 58. 1. Quite like Savitar he is the\nshining god who \"looks upon all beings and sees them all together\"; he\nis the \"lord of the path,\" the god of travellers; he is invoked to\ndrive away evil spirits, thieves, footpads, and all workers of evil;\nhe makes paths for the winning of wealth; he herds the stars and\ndirects all with _soma_. He carries a golden axe or sword, and is\nborne through air and water on golden ships; and it is he that lets\ndown the sun's golden wheel. These simpler attributes appear for the\nmost part in the early hymns. In what seem to be later hymns, he is\nthe mighty one who \"carries the thoughts of all\"; he is\nlike _soma_ (the drink), and attends to the filter; he is \"lord of the\npure\"; the \"one born of old,\" and is especially called upon to help\nthe poets' hymns.[38] It is here, in the last part of the Rig Veda,\nthat he appears as [Greek: psuchopomp\u00f3s], who \"goes and returns,\"\nescorting the souls of the dead to heaven. He is the sun's messenger,\nand is differentiated from Savitar in X. 139. 1.[39] Apparently he was\na god affected most by the Bharadv[=a]ja family (to which is ascribed\nthe sixth book of the Rig Veda) where his worship was extended more\nbroadly. He seems to have become the special war-god of this family,\nand is consequently invoked with Indra and the Maruts (though this may\nhave been merely in his r\u00f4te as sun). The goats, his steeds, are also\nan attribute of the Scandinavian war-god Thor (Kaegi, _Rig Veda_, note\n210), so that his bucolic character rests more in his goad, food, and\nplough.\n\nBhaga is recognized as an [=A]ditya (luminous deity) and was perhaps a\nsun-god of some class, possibly of all, as the name in Slavic is still\nkept in the meaning 'god,' literally 'giver.' In the Rig Veda the word\nmeans, also, simply god, as in _bh\u00e1gabhakta_, 'given by gods'; but as\na name it is well known, and when thus called Bhaga is still the\ngiver, 'the bestower' _(vidhart[=\u00e1])_. As _bhaga_ is also an epithet\nof Savitar, the name may not stand for an originally distinct\npersonality. Bhaga has but one hymn.[40] There is in fact no reason\nwhy Bhaga should be regarded as a sun-god, except for the formal\nidentification of him as an [=A]dity\u00e0, that is as the son of Aditi\n(Boundlessness, see below); but neither S[=u]rya nor Savitar is\noriginally an [=A]dity\u00e0, and in Iranic _bagha_ is only an epithet of\nOrmuzd.\n\n\n  HYMNS TO P[=U]SHAN AND BHAGA.\n\n  To P[=U]SHAN (vi. 56).\n\n  The man who P[=u]shan designates\n  With words like these, 'mush-eater he,'\n  By him the god is not described.\n\n  With P[=u]shan joined in unison\n  That best of warriors, truest lord,\n  Indra, the evil demons slays.\n\n  'T is he, the best of warriors, drives\n  The golden chariot of the sun\n  Among the speckled kine (the clouds).\n\n  Whate'er we ask of thee to-day,\n  O wonder-worker, praised and wise,\n  Accomplish thou for us that prayer.\n\n  And this our band, which hunts for kine,[41]\n  Successful make for booty's gain;\n  Afar, O P[=u]shan, art thou praised.\n\n  We seek of thee success, which far\n  From ill, and near to wealth shall be;\n  For full prosperity to-day;\n  And full prosperity the morn.[42]\n\n\n  To BHAGA (vii. 41).\n\n  Early on Agni call we, early Indra call;\n  Early call Mitra, Varuna, the Horsemen twain;\n  Early, too, Bhaga, P[=u]shan, and the Lord of Strength;\n  And early Soma will we call, and Rudra too.\n\nThis stanza has been prefixed to the hymn by virtue of the catch-word\n'early' (in the morning), with which really begins this prosaic poem\n(in different metre):\n\n  The early-conquering mighty Bhaga call we,\n  The son of Boundlessness, the gift-bestower,[43]\n  Whom weak and strong, and e'en the king, regarding,\n  Cry _bh\u00e1gam bhakshi_, 'give to me the giver.'[44]\n\n  O Bhaga, leader Bhaga, true bestower,\n  O Bhaga, help this prayer, to us give (riches),\n  O Bhaga, make us grow in kine and horses,\n  O Bhaga, eke in men, men-wealthy be we!\n\n  And now may we be rich, be _bhaga_-holders,[45]\n  Both at the (day's) approach, and eke at midday,\n  And at the sun's departure, generous giver.\n  The favor of the gods may we abide in.\n\n  O gods, (to us) be Bhaga really _bhaga_,[46]\n  By means of him may we be _bhaga_-holders.\n  As such an one do all, O Bhaga, call thee,\n  As such, O Bhaga, be to-day our leader.\n\n  May dawns approach the sacrifice, the holy\n  Place, like to Dadhikr[=a],[47] like horses active,\n  Which bring a chariot near; so, leading Bhaga,\n  Who finds good things, may they approach, and bring him.\n\nAs this is the only hymn addressed to Bhaga, and as it proves itself\nto have been made for altar service (in style as well as in special\nmention of the ceremony), it is evident that Bhaga, although called\nAditi's son, is but a god of wealth and (like An\u00e7a, the Apportioner)\nvery remotely connected with physical functions. But the hymn appears\nto be so late that it cannot throw much light on the original\nconception of the deity. We rather incline to doubt whether Bhaga was\never, strictly speaking, a sun-god, and think that he was made so\nmerely because the sun (Savitar) was called _bhaga_. A (Greek: Zehys)\nBagaios was worshipped by the Phrygians, while in the Avesta and as a\nSlavic god Bhaga has no especial connection with the sun. It must be\nacknowledged, however, that every form of the sun-god is especially\nlauded for generosity.\n\n\nVISHNU.\n\nIn the person of Vishnu the sun is extolled under another name, which\nin the period of the Rig Veda was still in the dawn of its glory. The\nhymns to Vishnu are few; his fame rests chiefly on the three strides\nwith which he crosses heaven, on his making fast the earth, and on his\nmunificence.[48] He, too, leads in battle and is revered under the\ntitle \u00c7ipivishta,[49] of unknown significance, but meaning literally\n'bald.' Like Savitar he has three spaces, two called earthly, and one,\nthe highest, known only to himself. His greatness is inconceivable,\nand he is especially praised with Indra, the two being looked upon as\nmasters of the world.[50] His highest place is the realm of the\ndeparted spirits.[51] The hymns to him appear to be late (thus I. 155.\n6, where, as the year, he has four seasons of ninety days each). Like\nP[=u]shan (his neighbor in many lauds) he is associated in a late hymn\nwith the Maruts (V. 87). His later popularity lies in the importance\nof his 'highest place' (or step) being the home of the departed\nspirits, where he himself dwells, inscrutable. This led to the\nspirit's union with the sun, which, as we have said, is one of the\nfirst phases of the pantheistic doctrine. In the family-books Vishnu\ngets but two hymns, both in the same collection, and shares one more\nwith Indra (VII. 99-100; VI. 69). In some of the family-collections,\nnotably in that of the Visvamitras, he is, if not unknown, almost\nignored. As Indra's friend he is most popular with the Kanva family,\nbut even here he has no special hymn.\n\n  None born, God Vishnu, and none born hereafter\n  E'er reaches to the limit of thy greatness;\n  Twas thou establish'st yon high vault of heaven,\n  Thou madest fast the earth's extremest mountain. (VII. 99. 2.)\n\n  Three steps he made, the herdsman sure,\n  Vishnu, and stepped across (the world). (I. 22. i8.)\n\n  The mighty deeds will I proclaim of Vishnu,\n  Who measured out the earth's extremest spaces,\n  And fastened firm the highest habitation,\n  Thrice stepping out with step all-powerful.\n\n  O would that I might reach his path beloved,\n  Where joy the men who hold the gods in honor. (I. 154. 1, 5.)\n\nUnder all these names and images the sun is worshipped. And it is\nnecessary to review them all to see how deeply the worship is\ningrained. The sun is one of the most venerable as he is the most\nenduring of India's nature-gods.[52] In no early passage is the sun a\nmalignant god. He comes \"as kine to the village, as a hero to his\nsteed, as a calf to the cow, as a husband to his wife.\"[53] He is the\n'giver,' the 'generous one,' and as such he is Mitra, 'the friend,'\nwho with Varuna, the encompassing heaven, is, indeed, in the Rig Veda,\na personality subordinated to his greater comrade; yet is this,\nperhaps, the sun's oldest name of those that are not descriptive of\npurely physical characteristics. For Mithra in Persian keeps the\nproof that this title was given to the Indo-Iranic god before the\nseparation of the two peoples. It is therefore (perhaps with Bhaga?)\none of the most ancient personal designations of the sun,--one,\nperhaps, developed from a mere name into a separate deity.\n\n\nHEAVEN AND EARTH.\n\nNot only as identical with the chief god of the Greeks, but also from\na native Indic point of view, it might have been expected that Dyaus\n(Zeus), the 'shining sky,' would play an important r\u00f4le in the Hindu\npantheon. But such is not the case. There is not a single hymn\naddressed independently to Dyaus, nor is there any hint of especial\npreeminence of Dyaus in the half-dozen hymns that are sung to Heaven\nand Earth together. The word _dyaus_ is used hundreds of times, but\ngenerally in the meaning sky (without personification). There is, to\nbe sure, a formal acknowledgment of the fatherhood of Dyaus (among\ngods he is father particularly of Dawn, the A\u00e7vins, and Indra), as\nthere is of the motherhood of Earth, but there is no further\nexaltation. No exaggeration--the sign of Hindu enthusiasm--is\ndisplayed in the laudation, and the epithet 'father' is given to half\na dozen Vedic gods, as in Rome Ma(r)spiter stands beside Jup(p)iter.\nCertain functions are ascribed to Heaven and Earth, but they are of\nsecondary origin. Thus they bring to the god he sacrifice,[54] as does\nAgni, and one whole hymn may thus be epitomized: 'By the ordinance of\nVaruna made firm, O Heaven and Earth, give us blessings. Blest with\nchildren and wealth is he that adores you twain. Give us sweet food,\nglory and strength of heroes, ye who are our father and mother.'[55]\n\nThe praise is vague and the benevolence is the usual 'bestowal of\nblessings' expected of all the gods in return for praise. Other hymns\nadd to this something, from which one sees that these deities are not\nregarded as self-created; for the seers of old, or, according to one\npoet some wonderful divine artisan, \"most wondrous worker of the\nwonder-working gods,\" created them. Their chief office is to exercise\nbenign protection and bestow wealth. Once they are invited to come to\nthe sacrifice \"with the gods,\" but this, of course, is not meant to\nexclude them from the list of gods[56].\n\nThe antithesis of male and female, to Bergaigne's insistence on which\nreference was made above (p. 43), even here in this most obvious of\nforms, common to so many religions, shows itself so faintly that it\nfails utterly to support that basis of sexual dualism on which the\nFrench scholar lays so much stress. Dyaus does, indeed, occasionally\ntake the place of Indra, and as a bellowing bull impregnate earth, but\nthis is wholly incidental and not found at all in the hymns directly\nlauding Heaven and Earth. Moreover, instead of \"father and mother\"\nHeaven and Earth often are spoken of as \"the two mothers,\" the\nsignificance of which cannot be nullified by the explanation that to\nthe Hindu 'two mothers' meant two parents, and of two parents one must\nbe male,--Bergaigne's explanation. For not only is Dyaus one of the\n'two mothers,' but when independently used the word Dyaus is male or\nfemale indifferently. Thus in X. 93. I: \"O Heaven and Earth be wide\noutstretched for us, (be) like two young women.\" The position of\nHeaven and Earth in relation to other divinities varies with the fancy\nof the poet that extols them. They are either created, or they create\ngods, as well as create men. In accordance with the physical reach of\nthese deities they are exhorted to give strength whereby the\nworshipper shall \"over-reach all peoples\"; and, as parents, to be the\n\"nearest of the gods,\" to be \"like father and mother in kindness.\" (I.\n159; 160. 2, 5.)\n\nOne more attribute remains to be noticed, which connects Dyaus morally\nas well as physically with Savitar and Varuna. The verse in which this\nattribute is spoken of is also not without interest from a\nsociological point of view: \"Whatsoever sin we have committed against\nthe gods, or against a friend, or against the chief of the clan\n(family)[57] may this hymn to Heaven and Earth avert it.\" It was shown\nabove that Savitar removes sin. Here, as in later times, it is the\nhymn that does this. The mystery of these gods' origin puzzles the\nseer: \"Which was first and which came later, how were they begotten,\nwho knows, O ye wise seers? Whatever exists, that they carry.\"[58] But\nall that they do they do under the command of Mitra.[59]\n\nThe most significant fact in connection with the hymns to Heaven and\nEarth is that most of them are expressly for sacrificial intent. \"With\nsacrifices I praise Heaven and Earth\" (I. 159. 1); \"For the sake of\nthe sacrifice are ye come down (to us)\" (IV. 56. 7). In VI. 70 they\nare addressed in sacrificial metaphors; in VII. 53. 1 the poet says:\n\"I invoke Heaven and Earth with sacrifices,\" etc. The passivity of the\ntwo gods makes them yield in importance to their son, the active\nSavitar, who goes between the two parents. None of these hymns bears\nthe impress of active religious feeling or has poetic value. They all\nseem to be reflective, studied, more or less mechanical, and to belong\nto a period of theological philosophy. To Earth alone without Heaven\nare addressed one uninspired hymn and a fragment of the same\ncharacter: \"O Earth be kindly to us, full of dwellings and painless,\nand give us protection.\"[60] In the burial service the dead are\nexhorted to \"go into kindly mother earth\" who will be \"wool-soft, like\na maiden.\"[61] The one hymn to Earth should perhaps be placed\nparallel with similar meditative and perfunctory laudations in the\nHomeric hymns:\n\n  To EARTH (V. 84).\n\n  In truth, O broad extended earth,\n  Thou bear'st the render of the hills,[62]\n  Thou who, O mighty mountainous one,\n  Quickenest created things with might.\n  Thee praise, O thou that wander'st far,\n  The hymns which light accompany,\n  Thee who, O shining one, dost send\n  Like eager steeds the gushing rain.\n  Thou mighty art, who holdest up\n  With strength on earth the forest trees,\n  When rain the rains that from thy clouds\n  And Dyaus' far-gleaming lightning come.[62]\n\nOn the bearing of these facts, especially in regard to the secondary\ngreatness of Dyaus, we shall touch below. He is a god exalted more by\nmodern writers than by the Hindus!\n\n\nVARUNA.\n\nVaruna has been referred already in connection with the sun-god and\nwith Heaven and Earth. It is by Varuna's power that they stand firm.\nHe has established the sun 'like a tree,' i.e., like a support, and\n'made a path for it.'[63] He has a thousand remedies for ills; to his\nrealm not even the birds can ascend, nor wind or swift waters attain.\nIt is in accordance with the changeless order[64] of Varuna that the\nstars and the moon go their regular course; he gives long life and\nreleases from harm, from wrong, and from sin.[65]\n\nVaruna is the most exalted of those gods whose origin is physical. His\nrealm is all above us; the sun and stars are his eyes; he sits above\nupon his golden throne and sees all that passes below, even the\nthoughts of men. He is, above all, the moral controller of the\nuniverse.\n\n  To VARUNA (i. 25).\n\n  Howe'er we, who thy people are,\n  O Varuna, thou shining god,\n  Thy order injure, day by day,\n  Yet give us over nor to death,\n  Nor to the blow of angry (foe),\n  Nor to the wrath of (foe) incensed.[66]\n  Thy mind for mercy we release--\n  As charioteer, a fast-bound steed--\n  By means of song, O Varuna.\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n  ('Tis Varuna) who knows the track\n  Of birds that fly within the air,\n  And knows the ships upon the flood;[67]\n  Knows, too, the (god) of order firm,\n  The twelve months with their progeny,\n  And e'en which month is later born;[68]\n  Knows, too, the pathway of the wind,\n  The wide, the high, the mighty (wind),\n  And knows who sit above (the wind).\n\n  (God) of firm order, Varuna\n  His place hath ta'en within (his) home\n  For lordship, he, the very strong.[69]\n  Thence all the things that are concealed\n  He looks upon, considering\n  Whate'er is done and to be done.\n  May he, the Son of Boundlessness,\n  The very strong, through every day\n  Make good our paths, prolong our life.\n\n  Bearing a garment all of gold,\n  In jewels clothed, is Varuna,\n  And round about him sit his spies;\n  A god whom injurers injure not,\n  Nor cheaters cheat among the folk,\n  Nor any plotters plot against;\n  Who for himself 'mid (other) men\n  Glory unequalled gained, and gains\n  (Such glory) also 'mid ourselves.\n\n  Far go my thoughts (to him), as go\n  The eager cows that meadows seek,\n  Desiring (him), the wide-eyed (god).\n  Together let us talk again,\n  Since now the offering sweet I bring,\n  By thee beloved, and like a priest\n  Thou eat'st.\n\n  I see the wide-eyed (god):\n  I see his chariot on the earth,\n  My song with joy hath he received.\n\n  Hear this my call, O Varuna,\n  Be merciful to me today,\n  For thee, desiring help, I yearn.\n\n  Thou, wise one, art of everything,\n  The sky and earth alike, the king;\n  As such upon thy way give ear,\n  And loose from us the (threefold) bond;\n  The upper bond, the middle, break,\n  The lower, too, that we may live.\n\nIn the portrait of such a god as this one comes very near to\nmonotheism. The conception of an almost solitary deity, recognized as\nwatcher of wrong, guardian of right, and primitive creator, approaches\nmore closely to unitarianism than does the idea of any physical power\nin the Rig Veda.\n\nTo the poet of the Rig Veda Varuna is the enveloping heaven;[70] that\nis, in distinction from Dyaus, from whom he\ndiffers _toto caelo_, so to speak, the invisible world, which embraces\nthe visible sky. His home is there where lives the Unborn, whose place\nis unique, above the highest heaven.[71]\n\nBut it is exactly this loftiness of character that should make one shy\nof interpreting Varuna as being originally the god that is presented\nhere. Can this god, 'most august of Vedic deities,' as Bergaigne and\nothers have called him, have belonged as such to the earliest stratum\nof Aryan belief?\n\nThere are some twelve hymns in the Rig Veda in Varuna's honor. Of\nthese, one in the tenth book celebrates Indra as opposed to Varuna,\nand generally it is considered late, in virtue of its content. Of the\nhymns in the eighth book the second appears to be a later imitation of\nthe first, and the first appears, from several indications, to be of\ncomparatively recent origin.[72] In the seventh book (vii. 86-89) the\nshort final hymn contains a distinctly late trait in invoking Varuna\nto cure dropsy; the one preceding this is _in majorem gloriam_ of the\npoet Vasistha, fitly following the one that appears to be as new,\nwhere not only the mysticism but the juggling with \"thrice-seven,\"\nshows the character of the hymn to be recent.[73] In the first hymn of\nthis book the late doctrine of inherited sin stands prominently forth\n(vii. 86. 5) as an indication of the time in which it was composed.\nThe fourth and sixth books have no separate hymns to Varuna. In the\nfifth book the position of the one hymn to Varuna is one favorable to\nspurious additions, but the hymn is not otherwise obnoxious to the\ncriticism of lateness. Of the two hymns in the second book, the first\nis addressed only indirectly to Varuna, nor is he here very prominent;\nthe second (ii. 28) is the only song which stands on a par with the\nhymn already translated. There remain the hymns cited above from the\nfirst, not a family-book. It is, moreover, noteworthy that in ii. 28,\napart from the ascription of general greatness, almost all that is\nsaid of Varuna is that he is a priest, that he causes rivers to flow,\nand loosens the bond of sin.[74] The finest hymn to Varuna, from a\nliterary point of view, is the one translated above, and it is mainly\non the basis of this hymn that the lofty character of Varuna has been\ninterpreted by occidental writers. To our mind this hymn belongs to\nthe close of the first epoch of the three which the hymns represent.\nThat it cannot be very early is evident from the mention of the\nintercalated month, not to speak of the image of Varuna eating the\nsweet oblation 'like a priest.' Its elevated language is in sharp\ncontrast to that of almost all the other Varuna hymns. As these are\nall the hymns where Varuna is praised alone by himself, it becomes of\nchief importance to study him here, and not where, as in iii. 62, iv.\n41, vi. 51, 67, 68, and elsewhere, he is lauded as part of a\ncombination of gods (Mitra or Indra united with Varuna). In the last\nbook of the Rig Veda there is no hymn to Varuna,[75] a time when\npantheistic monotheism was changing into pantheism, so that, in the\nlast stage of the Rig Veda, Varuna is descended from the height.\nThereafter he is god and husband of waters, and punisher of secret sin\n(as in ii. 28). Important in contrast to the hymn translated above is\nv. 85.\n\n\nTO VARUNA.\n\n\"I will sing forth unto the universal king a high deep prayer, dear to\nrenowned Varuna, who, as a butcher a hide, has struck earth apart\n(from the sky) for the sun. Varuna has extended air in trees, strength\nin horses, milk in cows, and has laid wisdom in hearts; fire in water;\nthe sun in the sky; _soma_ in the stone. Varuna has inverted his\nwater-barrel and let the two worlds with the space between flow (with\nrain). With this (heavenly water-barrel) he, the king of every created\nthing, wets the whole world, as a rain does a meadow. He wets the\nworld, both earth and heaven, when he, Varuna, chooses to milk out\n(rain)--and then do the mountains clothe themselves with cloud, and\neven the strongest men grow weak. Yet another great and marvellous\npower of the renowned spirit (Asura) will I proclaim, this, that\nstanding in mid-air he has measured earth with the sun, as if with a\nmeasuring rod. (It is due to) the marvellous power of the wisest god,\nwhich none ever resisted, that into the one confluence run the rivers,\nand pour into it, and fill it not. O Varuna, loosen whatever sin we\nhave committed to bosom-friend, comrade, or brother; to our own house,\nor to the stranger; what (we) have sinned like gamblers at play, real\n(sin), or what we have not known. Make loose, as it were, all these\nthings, O god Varuna, and may we be dear to thee hereafter.\"\n\nIn this hymn Varuna is a water-god, who stands in mid-air and directs\nthe rain; who, after the rain, reinstates the sun; who releases from\nsin (as water does from dirt?). According to this conception it would\nseem that Varuna were the 'coverer' rather than the 'encompasser.' It\nmight seem probable even that Varuna first stood to Dyaus as cloud and\nrain and night to shining day, and that his counterpart, (Greek:\nHohyranhos), stood in the same relation to (Greek: Zehys); that were\nconnecte(Greek: Hohyranhos)d with (Greek: hyrhe\u00f4) and Varuna with\n_vari_, river, _v[=a]ri_, water.[76]\n\nIt is possible, but it is not provable. But no interpretation of\nVaruna that ignores his rainy side can be correct. And this is fully\nrecognized by Hillebrandt. On account of his \"thousand spies,\" _i.e.,_\neyes, he has been looked upon by some as exclusively a night-god. But\nthis is too one-sided an interpretation, and passes over the\nall-important, fact that it is only in conjunction with the sun\n(Mitra), where there is a strong antithesis, that the night-side of\nthe god is exclusively displayed. Wholly a day-god he cannot be,\nbecause he rules night and rain. He is _par excellence_ the Asura,\nand, like Ahura Mazdao, has the sun for an eye, _i.e.,_ he is heaven.\nBut there is no Varuna in Iranian worship and Ahura is a sectarian\nspecialization. Without this name may one ascribe to India what is\nfound in Iran?[77] It has been suggested by Bergaigne that Varuna and\nVritra, the rain-holding demon, were developments from the same idea,\none revered as a god, the other, a demon; and that the word means\n'restrainer,' rather than 'encompasser.'\n\nFrom all this it will be evident that to claim an original monotheism\nas still surviving in the person of Varuna, is impossible; and this is\nthe one point we would make. Every one must admire the fine hymn in\nwhich he is praised, but what there is in it does not make it seem\nvery old, and the intercalated month is decisive evidence, for here\nalone in the Rig Veda is mentioned this month, which implies the\nfive-year cyclus, but this belongs to the Brahmanic period (Weber,\n_Vedische Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 38). Every explanation of the original nature\nof Varuna must take into consideration that he is a rain-god, a\nday-god, and a night-god in turn, and that where he is praised in the\nmost elevated language the rain-side disappears, although it was\nfundamental, as may be seen by comparing many passages, where Varuna\nis exhorted to give rain, where his title is 'lord of streams,' his\nposition that of 'lord of waters.' The decrease of Varuna worship in\nfavor of Indra results partly from the more peaceful god of rain\nappearing less admirable than the monsoon-god, who overpowers with\nstorm and lightning, as well as 'wets the earth.'\n\nThe most valuable contribution to the study of Varuna is Hillebrandt's\n'Varuna and Mitra.' This author has succeeded in completely\noverthrowing the old error that Varuna is exclusively a night-god.[78]\nQuite as definitively he proves that Varuna is not exclusively a\nday-god.\n\nBergaigne, on the other hand, claims an especially tenebrous character\nfor Varuna.[79] Much has been written on luminous deities by scholars\nthat fail to recognize the fact that the Hindus regard the night both\nas light and as dark. But to the Vedic poet the night, star-illumined,\nwas bright. Even Hillebrandt speaks of \"the bright heaven\" of day as\n\"opposed to the dark night-heaven in which Varuna also shows\nhimself.\"[80]\n\nIn the Rig Veda, as it stands, with all the different views of Varuna\nside by side, Varuna is a universal encompasser, moral as well as\nphysical. As such his physical side is almost gone. But the conception\nof him as a moral watcher and sole lord of the universe is in so sharp\ncontrast to the figure of the rain-god, who, like Parjanya, stands in\nmid-air and upsets a water-barrel, that one must discriminate even\nbetween the Vedic views in regard to him.[81]\n\nIt is Varuna who lets rivers flow; with Indra he is besought not to\nlet his weapons fall on the sinner; wind is his breath.[82]\n\nOn the other hand he is practically identified with the sun.[83] How\nill this last agrees with the image of a god who 'lives by the spring\nof rivers,' 'covers earth as with a garment,' and 'rises like a secret\nsea (in fog) to heaven'![84] Even when invoked with the sun, Mitra,\nVaruna still gives rain: \"To whomsoever ye two are kindly disposed\ncomes sweet rain from heaven; we beseech you for rain ... you, the\nthunderers who go through earth and heaven\" (v. 63),--a strange prayer\nto be addressed to a monotheistic god of light: \"Ye make the lightning\nflash, ye send the rain; ye hide the sky in cloud and rain\" (_ib_.).\nIn the hymn preceding we read: \"Ye make firm heaven and earth, ye give\ngrowth to plants, milk to cows; O ye that give rain, pour down rain!\"\nIn the same group another short hymn declares: \"They are universal\nkings, who have _ghee_ (rain) in their laps; they are lords of the\nrain\" (v. 68). In the next hymn: \"Your clouds (cows) give nourishment,\nyour streams are sweet.\" Thus the twain keep the order of the seasons\n(i. 2. 7-8) and protect men by the regular return of the rainy season.\nTheir weapons are always lightning (above, i. 152. 2, and elsewhere).\nA short invocation in a family-book gives this prayer: \"O\nMitra-Varuna, wet our meadows with _ghee_; wet all places with the\nsweet drink\" (iii. 62. 16).\n\nThe interpretation given above of the office of Varuna as regards the\nsun's path, is supported by a verse where is made an allusion to the\ntime \"when they release the sun's horses,\" _i.e_., when after two or\nthree months of rain the sun shines again (v. 62. 1). In another verse\none reads: \"Ye direct the waters, sustenance of earth and heaven,\nrichly let come your rains\" (viii. 25. 6).\n\nNow there is nothing startling in this view. In opposition to the\nunsatisfactory attempts of modern scholars, it is the traditional\ninterpretation of Mitra and Varuna that Mitra was god of day (_i.e.,_\nthe sun), and Varuna the god of night (_i.e.,_ covering),[85] while\nnative belief regularly attributes to him the lordship of water[86].\nThe 'thousand eyes' of Varuna are the result of this view. The other\nlight-side of Varuna as special lord of day (excluding the all-heaven\nidea with the sun as his 'eye') is elsewhere scarcely referred to,\nsave in late hymns and VIII. 41.[87] In conjunction with the\nstorm-god, Indra, the wrath-side of Varuna is further developed. The\nprayer for release is from 'long darkness,' _i.e._, from death; in\nother words, may the light of life be restored (II. 27. 14-15; II. 28.\n7). Grassmann, who believes that in Varuna there is an early\nmonotheistic deity, enumerates all his offices and omits the giving of\nrain from the list;[88] while Ludwig derives his name from _var_ (=\nvelle) and defines him as the lofty god who wills!\n\nVaruna's highest development ushers in the middle period of the Rig\nVeda; before the rise of the later All-father, and even before the\ngreat elevation of Indra. But when S[=u]rya and Dawn were chief, then\nVaruna was chiefest. There is no monotheism in the worship of a god\nwho is regularly associated as one of a pair with another god. Nor is\nthere in Varuna any religious grandeur which, so far as it exceeds\nthat of other divinities, is not evolved from his old physical side.\nOne cannot personify heaven and write a descriptive poem about him\nwithout becoming elevated in style, as compared with the tone of one\nthat praises a rain-cloud or even the more confined personality of the\nsun. There is a stylistic but not a metaphysical descent from this\nearlier period in the 'lords of the atmosphere,' for, as we shall\nshow, the elevation of Indra and Agni denotes a philosophical\nconception yet more advanced than the almost monotheistic greatness\nattained by Varuna. But one must find the background to this earlier\nperiod; and in it Varuna is not monotheistic. He is the covering sky\nunited with the sun, or he whose covering is rain and dew. Indra\ntreats Varuna as Savitar treats Mitra, supplants him; and for the same\nreason, because each represents the same priestly philosophy.\n\nIn the one extant hymn to Mitra (who is Indo-Iranian) it is Mitra that\n'watches men,' and 'bears earth and heaven.' He is here (iii. 59) the\nkindly sun, his name (Mitra, 'friend') being frequently punned upon.\n\nThe point of view taken by Barth deserves comment. He says:[89] \"It\nhas sometimes been maintained that the Varuna of the hymns is a god in\na state of decadence. In this view we can by no means concur; ... an\nappeal to these few hymns is enough to prove that in the consciousness\nof their authors the divinity of Varuna stood still intact.\" If,\ninstead of 'still intact,' the author had said, 'on the increase, till\nundermined by still later philosophical speculation,' the true\nposition, in our opinion, would have been given. But a distinction\nmust be made between decadence of greatness and decadence of\npopularity. It has happened in the case of some of the Vedic inherited\ngods that exactly in proportion as their popularity decreased their\ngreatness increased; that is to say, as they became more vague and\nless individual to the folk they were expanded into wider circles of\nrelationship by the theosophist, and absorbed other gods' majesty.[89]\nVaruna is no longer a popular god in the Rig Veda. He is already a god\nof speculation, only the speculation did not go far enough to suit the\nlater seers of Indra-Savitar-hood. Most certainly his worship, when\ncompared in popularity with that of Agni and Indra, is unequal. But\nthis is because he is too remote to be popular.\n\nWhat made the popular gods was a union of near physical force to\nplease the vulgar, with philosophical mysticism to please the priest,\nand Indra and Agni fulfilled the conditions, while awful, but distant,\nVaruna did not.\n\nIn stating that the great hymn to Varuna is not typical of the\nearliest stage of religious belief among the Vedic Aryans, we should\nadd one word in explanation. Varuna's traits, as shown in other parts\nof the Rig Veda, are so persistent that they must be characteristic of\nhis original function. It does not follow, however, that any one hymn\nin which he is lauded is necessarily older than the hymn cited from\nthe first book. The earliest stage of religious development precedes\nthe entrance into the Punj[=a]b. It may even be admitted that at the\ntime when the Vedic Aryans became Hindus, that is, when they settled\nabout the Indus, Varuna was the great god we see him in the great hymn\nto his honor. But while the relation of the [=A]dityas to the spirits\nof Ahura in Zoroaster's system points to this, yet it is absurd to\nassume this epoch as the starting point of Vedic belief. Back of this\nperiod lies one in which Varuna was by no means a monotheistic deity,\nnor even the greatest divinity among the gods. The fact, noticed by\nHillebrandt, that the Vasishtha family are the chief praisers of\nVaruna, may also indicate that his special elevation was due to the\ntheological conceptions of one clan, rather than of the whole people,\nsince in the other family books he is worshipped more as one of a\npair, Varuna and Mitra, heaven and sun.\n\n\nADITI.\n\nThe mother of Varuna and the luminous gods is the 'mother of kings,'\nBoundlessness (_aditi_)[90] a product of priestly theosophy. Aditi\nmakes, perhaps, the first approach to formal pantheism in India, for\nall gods, men, and things are identified with her (i. 89. 10). Seven\nchildren of Aditi are mentioned, to whom is added an eighth (in one\nhymn).[91] The chief of these, who is, _par excellence_ the [=A]ditya\n(son of Aditi), is Varuna. Most of the others are divinities of the\nsun (x. 72). With Varuna stands Mitra, and besides this pair are found\n'the true friend' Aryaman, Savitar, Bhaga, and, later, Indra, as sun\n(?). Daksha and An\u00e7a are also reckoned as [=A]dityas, and S[=u]rya is\nenumerated among them as a divinity distinct from Savitar. But the\nword _aditi,_ 'unbound,' is often a mere epithet, of Fire, Sky, etc.\nMoreover, in one passage, at least, _aditi_ simply means 'freedom' (i.\n24. 1), less boundlessness than 'un-bondage'; so, probably, in i. 185.\n3, 'the gift of freedom.' An\u00e7a seems to have much the same meaning\nwith Bhaga, _viz.,_ the sharer, giver. Daksha may, perhaps, be the\n'clever,' 'strong' one ([Greek: dexios]), abstract Strength; as\nanother name of the sun (?). Aditi herself (according to M\u00fcller,\nInfinity; according to Hillebrandt, Eternity) is an abstraction that\nis born later than her chief sons, Sun and Varuna.[92] Zarathustra\n(Zoroaster, not earlier than the close of the first Vedic period) took\nthe seven [=A]dityas and reformed them into one monotheistic\n(dualistic) Spirit (Ahura), with a circle of six moral attendants,\nthereby dynamically destroying every physical conception of them.\n\n\nDAWN.\n\nWe have devoted considerable space to Varuna because of the\ntheological importance with which is invested his personality. If one\nadmit that a monotheistic Varuna is the _ur_-Varuna, if one see in him\na sign that the Hindus originally worshipped one universally great\nsuperior god, whose image effaced that of all the others,[93] then the\nattempt to trace any orderly development in Hindu theology may as well\nbe renounced; and one must imagine that this peculiar people, starting\nwith monotheism descended to polytheism, and then leapt again into the\nconception of that Father-god whose form, in the end of the Rig Vedic\nperiod, out-varunas Varuna as encompasser and lord of all. If, on the\nother hand, one see in Varuna a god who, from the 'covering,' heaven\nand cloud and rain, from earliest time has been associated with the\nsun as a pair, and recognize in Varuna's loftier form the product of\nthat gradual elevation to which were liable all the gods at the hands\nof the Hindu priests; if one see in him at this stage the highest god\nwhich a theology, based on the worship of natural phenomena, was able\nto evolve; then, for the reception of those gods who overthrew him\nfrom his supremacy, because of their greater freedom from physical\nrestraints, there is opened a logical and historical path--until that\ngod comes who in turn follows these half-embodied ones, and stands as\nthe first immaterial author of the universe--and so one may walk\nstraight from the physical beginning of the Rig Vedic religion to its\nspiritual Brahmanic end.\n\nWe turn now to one or two phenomena-deities that were never much\ntampered with by priestly speculation; their forms being still as\nbright and clear as when the first Vedic worshipper, waiting to salute\nthe rising sun, beheld in all her beauty, and thus praised\n\nTHE DAWN.[94]\n\n  As comes a bride hath she approached us, gleaming;\n  All things that live she rouses now to action.\n  A fire is born that shines for human beings;\n  Light hath she made, and driven away the darkness.\n\n  Wide-reaching hath she risen, to all approaching,\n  And shone forth clothed in garments white and glistening,\n  Of gold her color, fair to see her look is,\n  Mother of kine,[95] leader of days she gleameth.\n\n  Bearing the gods' eye, she, the gracious maiden,\n  --Leading along the white and sightly charger[96]\n  --Aurora, now is seen, revealed in glory,\n  With shining guerdons unto all appearing.\n\n  O near and dear one, light far off our foes, and\n  Make safe to us our kines' wide pasture-places.\n  Keep from us hatred; what is good, that bring us,\n  And send the singer wealth, O generous maiden.\n\n  With thy best beams for us do thou beam widely,\n  Aurora, goddess bright, our life extending;\n  And food bestow, O thou all goods possessing,\n  Wealth, too, bestowing, kine and steeds and war-cars\n\n  Thou whom Vasistha's[97] sons extol with praises,\n  Fair-born Aurora, daughter of Dyaus, the bright one,\n  On us bestow thou riches high and mighty,\n  --O all ye gods with weal forever guard us.\n\nIn the laudation of Varuna the fancy of the poet exhausts itself in\nlofty imagery, and reaches the topmost height of Vedic religious\nlyric. In the praise of Dawn it descends not lower than to interweave\nbeauty with dignity of utterance. Nothing in religious poetry more\ngraceful or delicate than the Vedic Dawn-hymns has ever been written.\nIn the daily vision of Dawn following her sister Night the poet sees\nhis fairest goddess, and in his worship of her there is love and\nadmiration, such as is evoked by the sight of no other deity. \"She\ncomes like a fair young maiden, awakening all to labor, with an\nhundred chariots comes she, and brings the shining light; gleam forth,\nO Dawn, and give us thy blessing this day; for in thee is the life of\nevery living creature. Even as thou hast rewarded the singers of old,\nso now reward our song\" (I. 48).\n\nThe kine of Dawn are the bright clouds that, like red cattle, wander\nin droves upon the horizon. Sometimes the rays of light, which stretch\nacross the heaven, are intended by this image, for the cattle-herding\npoets employed their flocks as figures for various ends.\n\nThe inevitable selfish pessimism of unripe reflection is also woven\ninto the later Dawn-hymns: \"How long will it be ere this Dawn, too,\nshall join the Dawns departed? Vanished are now the men that saw the\nDawns of old; we here see her now; there will follow others who will\nsee her hereafter; but, O Dawn, beam here thy fairest; rich in\nblessings, true art thou to friend and right. Bring hither (to the\nmorning sacrifice) the gods\" (I. 113).\n\nSince the metre (here ignored) of the following hymn is not all of one\nmodel, it is probable that after the fourth verse a new hymn began,\nwhich was distinct from the first; but the argument from metre is\nunconvincing, and in any event both songs are worth citing, since they\nshow how varied were the images and fancies of the poets: \"The Dawns\nare like heroes with golden weapons; like red kine of the morning on\nthe field of heaven; shining they weave their webs of light, like\nwomen active at work; food they bring to the pious worshipper. Like a\ndancing girl is the Dawn adorned, and opens freely her bosom; as a cow\ngives milk, as a cow comes forth from its stall, so opens she her\nbreast, so comes she out of the darkness (verses 1-4) ...She is the\never new, born again and again, adorned always with the same color. As\na player conceals the dice, so keeps she concealed the days of a man;\ndaughter of Heaven she wakes and drives away her sister (Night). Like\nkine, like the waves of a flood, with sunbeams she appears. O rich\nDawn, bring us wealth; harness thy red horses, and bring to us\nsuccess\" (I. 92). The homage to Dawn is naturally divided at times\nwith that to the sun: \"Fair shines the light of morning; the sun\nawakens us to toil; along the path of order goes Dawn arrayed in\nlight. She extendeth herself in the east, and gleameth till she fills\nthe sky and earth\"; and again: \"Dawn is the great work of Varuna and\nMitra; through the sun is she awakened\" (I. 124; III. 61. 6-7). In the\nritualistic period Dawn is still mechanically lauded, and her beams\n\"rise in the east like pillars of sacrifice\" (IV. 51. 2); but\notherwise the imagery of the selections given above is that which is\nusually employed. The 'three dawns' occasionally referred to are, as\nwe have shown elsewhere,[98] the three dawn-lights, white, red, and\nyellow, as they are seen by both the Vedic poet and the Florentine.\n\nDawn becomes common and trite after awhile, as do all the gods, and is\ninvoked more to give than to please. 'Wake us,' cries a later poet,\n'Wake us to wealth, O Dawn; give to us, give to us; wake up, lest the\nsun burn thee with his light'--a passage (V. 79) which has caused much\nlearned nonsense to be written on the inimical relations of Sun and\nDawn as portrayed here. The dull idea is that Dawn is lazy, and had\nbetter get up before S[=u]rya catches her asleep. The poet is not in\nthe least worried because his image does not express a suitable\nrelationship between the dawn and the sun, nor need others be\ndisturbed at it. The hymn is late, and only important in showing the\nnew carelessness as regards the old gods.[99] Some other traits appear\nin VII. 75. 1 ff., where Dawn is 'queen of the world,' and banishes\nthe _druhs_, or evil spirit. She here is daughter of Heaven, and wife\nof the sun (4, 5); _ib_. 76. 1, she is the eye of the world; and _ib_\n81. 4, she is invoked as 'mother.'\n\nThere is, at times, so close a resemblance between Dawn-hymns and\nSun-hymns that the imagery employed in one is used in the other. Thus\nthe hymn VI. 64 begins: \"The beams of Dawn have arisen, shining as\nshine the waters' gleaming waves. She makes good paths, ... she\nbanishes darkness as a warrior drives away a foe (so of the sun, IV.\n13. 2; X. 37. 4; 170. 2). Beautiful are thy paths upon the mountains,\nand across the waters thou shinest, self-gleaming\" (also of the sun).\nWith the last expression may be compared that in VI. 65. 5: \"Dawn,\nwhose seat is upon the hills.\"\n\nDawn is intimately connected not only with Agni but with the Twin\nHorsemen, the A\u00e7vins (equites)--if not so intimately connected as is\nHelen with the Dioskouroi, who, _pace_ Pischel, are the A\u00e7vins of\nHellas. This relationship is more emphasized in the hymns to the\nlatter gods, but occasionally occurs in Dawn-hymns, of which another\nis here translated in full.\n\n  TO DAWN (IV. 52).\n\n  The Daughter of Heaven, this beauteous maid,\n  Resplendent leaves her sister (Night),\n  And now before (our sight) appears.\n\n  Red glows she like a shining mare,\n  Mother of kine, who timely comes--\n  The Horsemen's friend Aurora is.\n\n  Both friend art thou of the Horsemen twain,\n  And mother art thou of the kine,\n  And thou, Aurora, rulest wealth.\n\n  We wake thee with our praise as one\n  Who foes removes; such thought is ours,\n  O thou that art possesst of joy.\n\n  Thy radiant beams beneficent\n  Like herds of cattle now appear;\n  Aurora fills the wide expanse.\n\n  With light hast thou the dark removed,\n  Filling (the world), O brilliant one.\n  Aurora, help us as thou us'st.\n\n  With rays thou stretchest through the heaven\n  And through the fair wide space between,\n  O Dawn, with thy refulgent light.\n\nIt was seen that Savitar (P[=u]shan) is the rising and setting sun.\nSo, antithetic to Dawn, stands the Abendroth with her sister, Night.\nThis last, generally, as in the hymn just translated, is lauded only\nin connection with Dawn, and for herself alone gets but one hymn, and\nthat is not in a family-book. She is to be regarded, therefore, less\nas a goddess of the pantheon than as a quasi-goddess, the result of a\npoet's meditative imagination, rather than one of the folk's primitive\nobjects of adoration; somewhat as the English poets personify \"Ye\nclouds, that far above me float and pause, ye ocean-waves ... ye\nwoods, that listen to the night-bird's singing, O ye loud waves, and O\nye forests high, and O ye clouds that far above me soared; thou rising\nsun, thou blue rejoicing sky!\"--and as in Greek poetry, that which\nbefore has been conceived of vaguely as divine suddenly is invested\nwith a divine personality. The later poet exalts these aspects of\nnature, and endows those that were before only half recognized with a\nlittle special praise. So, whereas Night was divine at first merely as\nthe sister of divine Dawn, in the tenth book one poet thus gives her\npraise:\n\n\n  HYMN TO NIGHT (X. 127).\n\n  Night, shining goddess, comes, who now\n  Looks out afar with many eyes,\n  And putteth all her beauties on.\n\n  Immortal shining goddess, she\n  The depths and heights alike hath filled,\n  And drives with light the dark away.\n\n  To me she comes, adorned well,\n  A darkness black now sightly made;\n  Pay then thy debt, O Dawn, and go.[100]\n\n  The bright one coming put aside\n  Her sister Dawn (the sunset light),\n  And lo! the darkness hastes away.\n\n  So (kind art thou) to us; at whose\n  Appearing we retire to rest,\n  As birds fly homeward to the tree.\n\n  To rest are come the throngs of men;\n  To rest, the beasts; to rest, the birds;\n  And e'en the greedy eagles rest.\n\n  Keep off the she-wolf and the wolf,\n  Keep off the thief, O billowy Night,\n  Be thou to us a saviour now.\n\n  To thee, O Night, as 'twere an herd,\n  To a conqueror (brought), bring I an hymn\n  Daughter of Heaven, accept (the gift).[101]\n\n\nTHE A\u00c7VINS.\n\nThe A\u00e7vins who are, as was said above, the 'Horsemen,' parallel to the\nGreek Dioskouroi, are twins, sons of Dyaus, husbands, perhaps brothers\nof the Dawn. They have been variously 'interpreted,' yet in point of\nfact one knows no more now what was the original conception of the\ntwain than was known before Occidental scholars began to study\nthem.[102] Even the ancients made mere guesses: the A\u00e7vins came before\nthe Dawn, and are so-called because they ride on horses _(a\u00e7va,\nequos)_ they represent either Heaven and Earth, or Day and Night, or\nSun and Moon, or two earthly kings--such is the unsatisfactory\ninformation given by the Hindus themselves.[103]\n\nMuch the same language with that in the Dawn-hymns is naturally\nemployed in praising the Twin Brothers. They, like the Dioskouroi, are\nsaid to have been incorporated gradually into the pantheon, on an\nequality with the other gods,[104] not because they were at first\nhuman beings, but because they, like Night, were adjuncts of Dawn, and\ngot their divinity through her as leader.[105] In the last book of the\nRig Veda they are the sons of Sarany[=u] and Vivasvant, but it is not\ncertain whether Sarany[=u] means dawn or not; in the first book they\nare born of the flood (in the sky).[106] They are sons of Dyaus, but\nthis, too, only in the last and first books, while in the latter they\nare separated once, so that only one is called the Son of the\nSky.[107] They follow Dawn 'like men' (VIII. 5. 2) and are in\nBrahmanic literature the 'youngest of the gods.'[108]\n\nThe twin gods are the physicians of heaven, while to men they bring\nall medicines and help in times of danger. They were apparently at\nfirst only 'wonder-workers,' for the original legends seem to have\nbeen few. Yet the striking similarity in these aspects with the\nbrothers of Helen must offset the fact that so much in connection with\nthem seems to have been added in books one and ten. They restore the\nblind and decrepit, impart strength and speed, and give the power and\nseed of life; even causing waters to flow, fire to burn, and trees to\ngrow. As such they assist lovers and aid in producing offspring.\n\nThe A\u00e7vins are brilliantly described, Their bird-drawn chariot and all\nits appurtenances are of gold; they are swift as thought, agile,\nyoung, and beautiful. Thrice they come to the sacrifice, morning,\nnoon, and eve; at the yoking of their car, the dawn is born. When the\n'banner before dawn' appears, the invocation to the A\u00e7vins begins;\nthey 'accompany dawn.' Some variation of fancy is naturally to be\nlooked for. Thus, though, as said above, Dawn is born at the A\u00e7vins\nyoking, yet Dawn is herself invoked to wake the A\u00e7vins; while again\nthe sun starts their chariot before Dawn; and as sons of Zeus they are\ninvoked \"when darkness still stands among the shining clouds\n(cows).\"[109]\n\nHusbands or brothers or children of Dawn, the Horsemen are also\nS[=u]ry[=a]'s husbands, and she is the sun's daughter (Dawn?) or the\nsun as female. But this myth is not without contradictions, for\nS[=u]ry[=a] elsewhere weds Soma, and the A\u00e7vins are the bridegroom's\nfriends; whom P[=u]shan chose on this occasion as his parents; he who\n(unless one with Soma) was the prior bridegroom of the same\nmuch-married damsel.[110]\n\nThe current explanation of the A\u00e7vins is that they represent two\nperiods between darkness and dawn, the darker period being nearer\nnight, the other nearer day. But they probably, as inseparable twins,\nare the twinlights or twilight, before dawn, half dark and half\nbright. In this light it may well be said of them that one alone is\nthe son of bright Dyaus, that both wed Dawn, or are her brothers. They\nalways come together. Their duality represents, then, not successive\nstages but one stage in day's approach, when light is dark and dark is\nlight. In comparing the A\u00e7vins to other pairs[111] this dual nature is\nfrequently referred to; but no less is there a triality in connection\nwith them which often in describing them has been ignored. This is\nthat threefold light which opens day; and, as in many cases they join\nwith Dawn, so their color is inseparable. Strictly speaking, the break\nof red is the dawn and the white and yellow lights precede this[112].\nThus in V. 73. 5: \"Red birds flew round you as S[=u]ry[=a] stepped\nupon your chariot\"; so that it is quite impossible, in accordance with\nthe poets themselves, to limit the A\u00e7vins to the twilight. They are a\nvariegated growth from a black and white seed. The chief function of\nthe A\u00e7vins, as originally conceived, was the finding and restoring of\nvanished light. Hence they are invoked as finders and aid-gods in\ngeneral (the myths are given in Myriantheus).\n\nSome very amusing and some silly legends have been collected and told\nby the Vedic poets in regard to the preservation and resuscitating\npower of the A\u00e7vins--how an old man was rejuvenated by them (this is\nalso done by the three Ribhus, master-workmen of the gods); how brides\nare provided by them; how they rescued Bhujyu and others from the\ndangers of the deep (as in the classical legends); how they replaced a\nwoman's leg with an iron one; restored a saint's eye-sight; drew a\nseer out of a well, etc, etc. Many scholars follow Bergaigne in\nimagining all these miracles to be anthropomorphized forms of solar\nphenomena, the healing of the blind representing the bringing out of\nthe sun from darkness, etc. To us such interpretation often seems\nfatuous. No less unconvincing is the claim that one of the A\u00e7vins\nrepresents the fire of heaven and the other the fire of the altar. The\nTwins are called _n[=a]saty[=a],_ the 'savers' (or 'not untrue\nones[113]'); explained by some as meaning 'gods with good noses[114].'\n\n\nHYMN TO THE HORSEMEN.\n\nWhether ye rest on far-extended earth, or on the sea in house upon it\nmade, 'come hither thence, O ye that ride the steeds. If ever for man\nye mix the sacrifice, then notice now the Kanva [poet who sings]. I\ncall upon the gods [Indra, Vishnu[115]] and the swift-going\nHorsemen[116]. These Horsemen I call now that they work wonders, to\nseize the works (of sacrifice), whose friendship is pre\u00ebminently ours,\nand relationship among all the gods; in reference to whom arise\nsacrifices ... If, to-day, O Horsemen, West or East ye stand, ye of\ngood steeds, whether at Druhyu's, Anu's, Turva\u00e7a's, or Yadu's, I call\nye; come to me. If ye fly in the air, O givers of great joy; or if\nthrough the two worlds; or if, according to your pleasure, ye mount\nthe car,--thence come hither, O Horsemen.\n\nFrom the hymn preceding this, the following verses[117]:\n\n     Whatever manliness is in the aether, in the sky, and among\n     the five peoples, grant us that, O Horsemen ... this hot\n     _soma_-drink of yours with laudation is poured out; this\n     _soma_ sweet through which ye discovered Vritra ... Ascend\n     the swift-rolling chariot, O Horsemen; hither let these my\n     praises bring ye, like a cloud ... Come as guardians of\n     homes; guardians of our bodies. Come to the house for (to\n     give) children and offspring. Whether ye ride on the same\n     car with Indra, or be in the same house with the Wind;\n     whether united with the Sons of Boundlessness or the Ribhus,\n     or stand on Vishnu's wide steps (come to us). This is the\n     best help of the horsemen, if to-day I should entice them to\n     get booty, or call them as my strength to conquer in\n     battle.... Whatever medicine (ye have) far or near, with\n     this now, O wise ones, grant protection.... Awake, O Dawn,\n     the Horsemen, goddess, kind and great.... When, O Dawn, thou\n     goest in light and shinest with the Sun, then hither comes\n     the Horsemen's chariot, to the house men have to protect.\n     When the swollen _soma_-stalks are milked like cows with\n     udders, and when the choric songs are sung, then they that\n     adore the Horsemen are pre\u00ebminent....\n\nHere the A\u00e7vins are associated with Indra, and even find the evil\ndemon; but, probably, at this stage Indra is more than god of storms.\n\nSome of the expanded myths and legends of the A\u00e7vins may be found in\ni. 118, 119, 158; x. 40. Here follows one with legends in moderate\nnumber (vii. 71):\n\n  Before the Dawn her sister, Night, withdraweth;\n  The black one leaves the ruddy one a pathway.\n  Ye that have kine and horses, you invoke we;\n  By day, at night, keep far from us your arrow.\n\n  Come hither, now, and meet the pious mortal,\n  And on your car, O Horsemen, bring him good things;\n  Keep off from us the dry destroying sickness,\n  By day, at night, O sweetest pair, protect us.\n\n  Your chariot may the joy-desiring chargers,\n  The virile stallions, bring at Dawn's first coming;\n  That car whose reins are rays, and wealth upon it;\n  Come with the steeds that keep the season's order.\n\n  Upon the car, three-seated, full of riches,\n  The helping car, that has a path all golden,\n  On this approach, O lords of heroes, true ones,\n  Let this food-bringing car of yours approach us.\n\n  Ye freed from his old age the man Cyav[=a]na;\n  Ye brought and gave the charger swift to Pedu;\n  Ye two from darkness' anguish rescued Atri;\n  Ye set J[a=]husha down, released from fetters.[118]\n\n  This prayer, O Horsemen, and this song is uttered;\n  Accept the skilful[sic] poem, manly heroes.\n  These prayers, to you belonging, have ascended,\n  O all ye gods protect us aye with blessings![119]\n\nThe sweets which the A\u00e7vins bring are either on their chariot, or, as\nis often related, in a bag; or they burst forth from the hoof of their\nsteed. Pegasus' spring in Helicon has been compared with this. Their\nvehicles are variously pictured as birds, horses, ships, etc. It is to\nbe noticed that in no one of their attributes are the A\u00e7vins unique.\nOther gods bring sweets, help, protect, give offspring, give healing\nmedicines, and, in short, do all that the A\u00e7vins do. But, as Bergaigne\npoints out, they do all this pacifically, while Indra, who performs\nsome of their wonders, does so by storm. He protects by not injuring,\nand helps by destroying foes. Yet is this again true only in general,\nand the lines between warlike, peaceful, and 'sovereign' gods are\noften crossed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Such for instance as the hymn to the A\u00e7vins,\n     RV. ii. 39. Compare verses 3-4: 'Come (ye pair of A\u00e7vins)\n     like two horns; like two hoofs; like two geese; like two\n     wheels; like two ships; like two spans'; etc. This is the\n     content of the whole hymn.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: _Deva_ is 'shining' (deus), and _S[=u]rya_\n     (sol, [Greek: \u00e1elios]) means the same.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: Let the reader note at the outset that there is\n     scarcely an activity considered as divine which does not\n     belong to several gods (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 4: From _su, sav_, enliven, beget, etc. In RV. iv.\n     53.6 and vii, 63.2, _pra-savitar_.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: RV. VII. 66. 14-15; compare X. 178. 1. In the\n     notes immediately following the numbers all refer to the Rig\n     Veda.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: V. 47, 3; compare vs. 7, and X. 189. 1-2.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Compare X. 177. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: X. 37. 9.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: V. 63. 7. Varuna and Mitra set the sun's car in\n     heaven.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: 1 IV. 13. 2-5; X. 37, 4; 85, 1. But _ib_. 149.\n     1. Savitar holds the sky 'without support.']\n\n     [Footnote 11: VII 63.1; I. 115.11; X. 37. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: III. 61.4; VII. 63. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: VII 78.3.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: I. 56,4; IX. 84. 2; Compare I. 92. 11; 115, 2;\n     123. 10-12. V. 44. 7, and perhaps 47.6, are late. VII. 75.\n     5, is an exception (or late).]\n\n     [Footnote 15: _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, I.6; II. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: Ehni, _Yama,_ p. 134.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: RV., IV. 54. 2. Here the sun gives life even\n     to the gods.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Ten hundred and twenty-eight hymns are\n     contained in the 'Rig Veda Collection.']\n\n     [Footnote 19: IV. 14.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: X. 37; 158; 170; 177; 189. Each has its own\n     mark of lateness. In 37, the dream; in 158, the triad; in\n     170, the sun as _asurah[=a]_; in 177, the mystic tone and\n     the bird-sun (compare Garutman, I. 164; X. 149); in 189, the\n     thirty stations.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: See Whitney in _Colebrooke's Essays_, revised\n     edition, ii. p. 111.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: iv. 54]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Two 'laps' below, besides that above, the word\n     meaning 'middle' but also 'under-place.' The explanation of\n     this much-disputed passage will be found by comparing I.\n     154. 5 and VII. 99. 1. The sun's three places are where he\n     appears on both horizons and in the zenith. The last is the\n     abode of the dead where Yama reigns. Compare IV. 53. The\n     bracketed verses are probably a late puzzle attached to the\n     word 'lap' of the preceding verse.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Doubtful.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: The Spirit, later of evil spirits, demons (as\n     above, the _asurah[=\u00e1]_). Compare Ahura.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: A numerical conception not paralleled in the\n     Rig Veda, though mountains are called protuberances\n     ('elevations') in other places.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: The last stanza is in the metre of the first;\n     two more follow without significant additions.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: The texts are translated by Muir, OST, V. p.\n     171 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, II. p. 428. Compare\n     Hillebrandt, _Soma_ p. 456.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: I. 138. 4.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: VI. 56. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: In I. 23. 13-15 P[=u]shan is said to bring\n     king _(soma),_ \"whom he found like a lost herd of cattle.\"\n     The fragment is late if, as is probable, the 'six' of vs. 15\n     are the six seasons. Compare VI. 54. 5, \"may P[=u]shan go\n     after our kine.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Compare VI. 54.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: He is the 'son of freeing,' from darkness? VI.\n     55. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: IV. 57. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: VI. 17. 11; 48. 11 ff.; IV. 30. 24 ff. He is\n     called like a war-god with the Maruts in VI. 48.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: So, too, Bhaga is Dawn's brother, I. 123. 5.\n     P[=u]shan is Indra's brother in VI. 55. 5. Gubernatis\n     interprets P[=u]shan as 'the setting sun.']\n\n     [Footnote 38: Contrast I. 42, and X. 26 (with 1. 138. 1). In\n     the first hymn P[=u]shan leads the way and drives away\n     danger, wolves, thieves, and helps to booty and pasturage.\n     In the last he is a war-god, who helps in battle, a\n     'far-ruler,' embracing the thoughts of all (as in III. 62.\n     9).]\n\n     [Footnote 39: For the traits just cited compare IV. 57. 7;\n     VI. 17. 11; 48. 15; 53; 55; 56. I-3; 57. 3-4; 58. 2-4; II.\n     40; X. 17. 3 ff.; 26. 3-8; I. 23. 14; all of I. 42, and 138;\n     VIII. 4. 15-18; III. 57. 2. In X. 17. 4, Savitar, too,\n     guides the souls of the dead.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: That is to say, one hymn is addressed to Bhaga\n     with various other gods, VII. 41. Here he seems to be\n     personified good-luck (\"of whom even the king says,' I would\n     have thee,'\" vs. 2). In Ihe Br[=a]hmanas 'Bhaga is blind,'\n     which applies better to Fortune than to the Sun.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: The hymn is sung before setting out on a\n     forray for cattle. Let one observe how unsupported is\n     the assumption of the ritualists as applied to this hymn,\n     that it must have been \"composed for rubrication.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 42: After Muir, V. p. 178. The clouds and cattle\n     are both called _g\u00e0s_ 'wanderers,' which helped in the\n     poetic identification of the two.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: Compare IX. 97. 55, \"Thou art Bhaga, giver of\n     gifts.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 44: _Bh\u00e1gam bhakshi_! Compare baksheesh. The word\n     as 'god' is both Avestan, _bagha_, and Slavic, _bogu_ (also\n     meaning 'rich'). It may be an epithet of other gods also,\n     and here it means only luck.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: Literally 'possessed of _bhaga,' i.e_.,\n     wealth.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: May Bhaga be _bh\u00e1gav[=a]n, i.e_., a true\n     _bhaga_-holder. Here and below a pun on the name (as\n     above).]\n\n     [Footnote 47: Mythical being, possibly the sun-horse.\n     According to Pischel a real earthly racer.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: I.22.17, etc; 154 ff.; VII. too.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: VII. 100. 5-6. Vishnu (may be the epithet of\n     Indra in I.61.7) means winner (?),]\n\n     [Footnote 50: VI. 69; VII. 99. But Vishnu is ordered about\n     by Indra (IV. 18. 11; VIII. 89. 12).]\n\n     [Footnote 51: I.154. 5. In II. 1. 3, Vishnu is one with Fire\n     (Agni).]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Thus, for example, Vishnu in the Hindu\n     trinity, the separate worship of the sun in modern sects,\n     and in the cult of the hill-men.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: X. 149.]\n\n     [Footnote 54: II.41.20.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: vi.70.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: I.160.4; IV. 56.1-3; VII. 53. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: I. 185. 8. _(J[=a]spati)._ The expiatory power\n     of the hymn occurs again in I. 159.]\n\n     [Footnote 58: I. 185. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: IV. 56. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: I. 22. 15.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: X. 18. 10 (or: \"like a wool-soft maiden\").]\n\n     [Footnote 62: The lightning. In I. 31. 4, 10 \"(Father) Fire\n     makes Dyaus bellow\" like \"a bull\" (v. 36. 5). Dyaus \"roars\"\n     in vi. 72. 3. Nowhere else is he a thunderer.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: 1. 24. 7-8. The change in metaphor is not\n     unusual.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: This word means either order or orders (law);\n     literally the 'way' or 'course.']\n\n     [Footnote 65: 1. 24 (epitomized).]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Perhaps better with Ludwig \"of (thee) in\n     anger, of (thee) incensed.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 67: Or: \"Being (himself) in the (heavenly) flood\n     he knows the ships.\" (Ludwig.)]\n\n     [Footnote 68: An intercalated month is meant (not the\n     primitive 'twelve days').]\n\n     [Footnote 69: Or 'very wise,' of mental strength.]\n\n     [Footnote 70: VIII. 41. 7; VII. 82. 6 (Bergaigne); X. 132.\n     4.]\n\n     [Footnote 71: Compare Bergaigne, _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, iii.\n     pp. 116-118.]\n\n     [Footnote 72: The insistence on the holy seven, the 'secret\n     names' of dawn, the confusion of Varuna with Trita. Compare,\n     also, the refrain, viii. 39-42. For X. 124, see below.]\n\n     [Footnote 73: Compare Hillebrandt's Varuna and Mitra, p. 5;\n     and see our essay on the Holy Numbers of the Rig Veda (in\n     the _Oriental Studies_).]\n\n     [Footnote 74: Varuna's forgiving of sins may be explained as\n     a washing out of sin, just as fire burns it out, and so\n     loosens therewith the imagined bond, V. 2. 7. Thus, quite\n     apart from Varuna in a hymn addressed to the 'Waters,' is\n     found the prayer, \"O waters, carry off whatever sin is in me\n     ... and untruth,\" I. 23. 22.]\n\n     [Footnote 75: But as in iv. 42, so in x. 124 he shares glory\n     with Indra.]\n\n     [Footnote 76: Later, Varuna's water-office is his only\n     physical side. Compare [=A]it. [=A]r. II. I. 7. 7, 'water\n     and Varuna, children of mind.' Compare with _v[=a]ri, o\u00f9r\u00e1_\n     = _v[=a]ra_, and _var[=i]_, an old word for rivers,\n     _var[s.]_ (= _var_ + _s_), 'rain.' The etymology is very\n     doubtful on account of the number of _var_-roots. Perhaps\n     dew _(ersa)_ and rain first as 'coverer.' Even _var = vas_\n     'shine,' has been suggested (ZDMG. XXII. 603).]\n\n     [Footnote 77: The old comparison of _Varena cathrugaosha_\n     turns out to be \"the town of Varna with four gates\"!]\n\n     [Footnote 78: In _India: What Can it Teach us_, pp. 197,\n     200, M\u00fcller tacitly recognizes in the physical Varuna only\n     the 'starry' night-side.]\n\n     [Footnote 79: _Loc. cit._, III. 119. Bergaigne admits Varuna\n     as god of waters, but sees in him identity with Vritra a\n     'restrainer of waters.' He thinks the 'luminous side' of\n     Varuna to be antique also (III. 117-119). Varuna's cord,\n     according to Bergaigne, comes from 'tying up' the waters;\n     'night's fetters,' according to Hillebrandt.]\n\n     [Footnote 80: _Loc. cit._, p. 13.]\n\n     [Footnote 81: One of the chief objections to Bergaigne's\n     conception of Varuna as restrainer is that it does not\n     explain the antique union with Mitra.]\n\n     [Footnote 82: II. 28. 4, 7; VII. 82. 1, 2; 87.2]\n\n     [Footnote 83: vii. 87. 6; 88. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 84: viii. 41. 2, 7, 8. So Varuna gives _soma_,\n     rain. As a rain-god he surpasses Dyaus, who, ultimately, is\n     also a rain-god (above), as in Greece.]\n\n     [Footnote 85: Compare \u00c7at. Br. V. 2.5.17, \"whatever is dark\n     is Varuna's.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 86: In II. 38. 8 _varuna_ means 'fish,' and 'water\n     in I.184. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 87: V. 62. I, 8; 64.7; 61. 5; 65. 2; 67. 2; 69.1;\n     VI. 51.1; 67. 5. In VIII. 47.11 the [=A]dityas are\n     themselves spies.]\n\n     [Footnote 88: Introduction to Grassmann, II. 27; VI. 42.\n     Lex. s. v.]\n\n     [Footnote 89: _Religions of India,_ p. 17.]\n\n     [Footnote 90: The Rik knows, also, a Diti, but merely as\n     antithesls to Aditi--the 'confined and unconfined.' Aditi is\n     prayed to (for protection and to remove sin) in sporadic\n     verses of several hymns addressed to other gods, but she has\n     no hymn.]\n\n     [Footnote 91: M\u00fcller (_loc. cit._, below) thinks that the\n     'sons of Aditi' were first eight and were then reduced to\n     seven, in which opinion as in his whole interpretation of\n     Aditi as a primitive dawn-infinity we regret that we cannot\n     agree with him.]\n\n     [Footnote 92: See Hillebrandt, _Die G\u00f6ttin Aditi_; and\n     M\u00fcller, SBE, xxxii., p. 241, 252.]\n\n     [Footnote 93: That is to say, if one believe that the\n     'primitive Aryans' were inoculated with Zoroaster's\n     teaching. This is the sort of Varuna that Koth believes to\n     have existed among the aboriginal Aryan tribes (above, p.\n     13, note 2).]\n\n     [Footnote 94: VII. 77.]\n\n     [Footnote 95: Clouds.]\n\n     [Footnote 96: The sun.]\n\n     [Footnote 97: The priest to whom, and to whose family, is\n     ascribed the seventh book.]\n\n     [Footnote 98: JAOS., XV. 270.]\n\n     [Footnote 99: Much theosophy, and even history (!), has been\n     read into II. 15, and IV. 30, where poets speak of Indra\n     slaying Dawn; but there is nothing remarkable in these\n     passages. Poetry is not creed. The monsoon (here Indra) does\n     away with dawns for a time, and that is what the poet says\n     in his own way.]\n\n     [Footnote 100: Transferred by Roth from the penultimate\n     position where it stands in the original. Dawn here pays\n     Night for the latter's malutinal withdrawing by withdrawing\n     herself. Strictly speaking, the Dawn is, of course, the\n     sunset light conceived of as identical with that preceding\n     the sunrise ([Greek: usas, h\u00ea\u00f4s], 'east' as 'glow').]\n\n     [Footnote 101: Late as seems this hymn to be, it is\n     interesting in revealing the fact that wolves (not tigers or\n     panthers) are the poet's most dreaded foes of night. It\n     must, therefore have been composed in the northlands, where\n     wolves are the herdsman's worst enemies.]\n\n     [Footnote 102: Myriantheus, _Die A\u00e7vins_; Muir, OST. v.\n     p.234; Bergaigne, _Religion V\u00e9dique,_ II. p. 431; M\u00fcller,\n     _Lectures_, 2d series, p. 508; Weber, _Ind. St_. v. p. 234.\n     S[=a]yana on I. 180. 2, interprets the 'sister of the\n     A\u00e7vins' as Dawn.]\n\n     [Footnote 103: Muir, _loc. cit_. Weber regards them as the\n     (stars) Gemini.]\n\n     [Footnote 104: Weber, however, thinks that Dawn and A\u00e7vins\n     are equally old divinities, the oldest Hindu divinities in\n     his estimation.]\n\n     [Footnote 105: In the Epic (see below) they are called the\n     lowest caste of gods (\u00c7[=u]dras).]\n\n     [Footnote 106: X. 17. 2; I. 46. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 107: I. 181. 4 (Roth, ZDMG. IV. 425).]\n\n     [Footnote 108: T[=a]itt. S. VII. 2. 7. 2; Muir, _loc. cit_.\n     p. 235.]\n\n     [Footnote 109: vii. 67. 2; viii. 5. 2; x. 39. 12; viii. 9.\n     17; i. 34. 10; x. 61. 4. Muir, _loc. cit._ 238-9. Compare\n     _ib_. 234, 256.]\n\n     [Footnote 110: Muir, _loc. cit_. p. 237. RV. vi. 58. 4; x.\n     85. 9ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 111: They are compared to two ships, two birds,\n     etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 112: In _\u00c7at. Br_. V. 5. 4. it to the A\u00e7vins a\n     red-white goat is sacrificed, because 'A\u00e7vins are\n     red-white.']\n\n     [Footnote 113: Perhaps best with Brannhofer, 'the savers'\n     from _nas_ as in _nasjan_ (AG. p. 99).]\n\n     [Footnote 114: _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, II. p. 434. That\n     _n[=a]snya_ means 'with good noses' is an epic notion,\n     _n[=a]satyadasr[=a]u sunas[=a]u,_ Mbh[=a]. I. 3. 58, and for\n     this reason, if for no other (though idea is older), the\n     etymology is probably false! The epithet is also Iranian.\n     Twinned and especially paired gods are characteristic of the\n     Rig Veda. Thus Yama and Yam[=i] are twins; and of pairs\n     Indra-Agni, Indra-V[=a]yu, besides the older Mitra-Varuna,\n     Heaven-Earth, are common.]\n\n     [Footnote 115: Perhaps to be omitted.]\n\n     [Footnote 116: _Pischel_, Ved. St. I. p. 48. As swift-going\n     gods they are called 'Indra-like.']\n\n     [Footnote 117: VIII. 9 and 10.]\n\n     [Footnote 118: Doubtful]\n\n     [Footnote 119: The last verse is not peculiar to this hymn,\n     but is the sign of the book (family) in which it was\n     composed.]\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE RIG VEDA (CONTINUED).--THE MIDDLE GODS.\n\n\nOnly one of the great atmospheric deities, the gods that pre\u00ebminently\ngovern the middle sphere between sky and earth, can claim an Aryan\nlineage. One of the minor gods of the same sphere, the ancient\nrain-god, also has this antique dignity, but in his case the dignity\nalready is impaired by the strength of a new and greater rival. In the\ncase of the wind-god, on the other hand, there is preserved a deity\nwho was one of the primitive pantheon, belonging, perhaps, not only to\nthe Iranians, but to the Teutons, for V[=a]ta, Wind, may be the\nScandinavian Woden. The later mythologists on Indian soil make a\ndistinction between V[=a]ta, wind, and V[=a]yu (from the same root; as\nin German _wehen_) and in this distinction one discovers that the old\nV[=a]ta, who must have been once _the_ wind-god, is now reduced to\nphysical (though sentient) wind, while the newer name represents the\nhigher side of wind as a power lying back of phenomena; and it is this\nlatter conception alone that is utilized in the formation of the Vedic\ntriad of wind, fire, and sun. In short, in the use and application of\nthe two names, there is an exact parallel to the double terminology\nemployed to designate the sun as S[=u]rya and Savitar. Just as\nS[=u]rya is the older [Greek: h\u00ealios] and sol (acknowledged as a god,\nyet palpably the physical red body in the sky) contrasted with the\ninterpretation which, by a newer name (Savitar), seeks to\ndifferentiate the (sentient) physical from the spiritual, so is\nV[=a]ta, Woden, replaced and lowered by the loftier conception of\nV[=a]yu. But, again, just as, when the conception of Savitar is\nformed, the spiritualizing tendency reverts to S[=u]rya, and makes of\nhim, too, a figure reclothed in the more modern garb of speech, which\nis invented for Savitar alone; so the retroactive theosophic fancy,\nafter creating V[=a]yu as a divine power underlying phenomenal\nV[=a]ta, reinvests V[=a]ta also with the garments of V[=a]yu. Thus,\nfinally, the two, who are the result of intellectual differentiation,\nare again united from a new point of view, and S[=u]rya or Savitar,\nV[=a]yu or V[=a]ta, are indifferently used to express respectively the\nwhole completed interpretation of the divinity, which is now visible\nand invisible, sun and sun-god, wind and wind-god. In these pairs\nthere is, as it were, a perspective of Hindu theosophy, and one can\ntrace the god, as a spiritual entity including the physical, back to\nthe physical prototype that once was worshipped as such alone.\n\nIn the Rig Veda there are three complete hymns to Wind, none of these\nbeing in the family books. In x. 186, the poet calls on Wind to bring\nhealth to the worshipper, and to prolong his life. He addresses Wind\nas 'father and brother and friend,' asking the power that blows to\nbring him ambrosia, of which Wind has a store. These are rather pretty\nverses without special theological intent, addressed more to Wind as\nsuch than to a spiritual power. The other hymn from the same book is\ndirected to V[=a]ta also, not to V[=a]yu, and though it is loftier in\ntone and even speaks of V[=a]ta as the soul of the gods, yet is it\nevident that no consistent mythology has worked upon the purely poetic\nphraseology, which is occupied merely with describing the rushing of a\nmighty wind (x. 168). Nevertheless, V[=a]ta is worshipped, as is\nV[=a]yu, with oblations.\n\n\n  HYMN TO WIND (V[=a]ta).\n\n  Now V[=a]ta's chariot's greatness! Breaking goes it,\n  And thundering is its noise; to heaven it touches,\n  Goes o'er the earth, cloud[1] making, dust up-rearing;\n  Then rush together all the forms of V[=a]ta;\n  To him they come as women to a meeting.\n  With them conjoint, on the same chariot going,\n  Is born the god, the king of all creation.\n  Ne'er sleepeth he when, on his pathway wandering,\n  He goes through air. The friend is he of waters;\n  First-born and holy,--where was he created,\n  And whence arose he? Spirit of gods is V[=a]ta,\n  Source of creation, goeth where he listeth;\n  Whose sound is heard, but not his form. This V[=a]ta\n  Let us with our oblations duly honor.\n\nIn times later than the Rig Veda, V[=a]yu interchanges with Indra as\nrepresentative of the middle sphere; and in the Rig Veda all the hymns\nof the family books associate him with Indra (vii. 90-92; iv. 47-48).\nIn the first book he is associated thus in the second hymn; while, ib.\n134, he has the only remaining complete hymn, though fragments of\nsongs occasionally are found. All of these hymns except the first two\nsimply invite V[=a]yu to come with Indra to the sacrifice, It is\nV[=a]yu who with Indra obtains the first drink of soma (i. 134. 6). He\nis spoken of as the artificer's, Tvashtar's, son-in-law, but the\nallusion is unexplained (viii. 26. 22); he in turn begets the\nstorm-gods (i. 134. 4).\n\nWith V[=a]yu is joined Indra, one of the popular gods. These\ndivinities, which are partly of the middle and partly of the lower\nsphere, may be called the popular gods, yet were the title 'new gods'\nneither wholly amiss nor quite correct. For, though the popular\ndeities in general, when compared with many for whom a greater\nantiquity may be claimed, such as the Sun, Varuna, Dyaus, etc., are of\nmore recent growth in dignity, yet there remains a considerable number\nof divinities, the hymns in whose honor, dating from the latest\nperiod, seem to show that the power they celebrate had been but lately\nadmitted into the category of those gods that deserved special\nworship. Consequently new gods would be a misleading term,\nas it should be applied to the plainer products of theological\nspeculation and abstraction rather than to Indra and his peers, not to\nspeak of those newest pantheistic gods, as yet unknown. The\ndesignation popular must be understood, then, to apply to the gods\nmost frequently, most enthusiastically revered (for in a stricter\nsense the sun was also a popular god); and reference is had in using\nthis word to the greater power and influence of these gods, which is\nindicated by the fact that the hymns to Agni and Indra precede all\nothers in the family books, while the Soma-hymns are collected for the\nmost part into one whole book by themselves.\n\nBut there is another factor that necessitates a division between the\ndivinities of sun and heaven and the atmospheric and earthly gods\nwhich are honored so greatly; and this factor is explanatory of the\npopularity of these gods. In the case of the older divinities it is\nthe spiritualization of a sole material appearance that is revered; in\nthe case of the popular gods, the material phenomenon is reduced to a\nminimum, the spirituality behind the phenomenon is exalted, and that\nspirituality stands not in and for itself, but as a part of a union of\nspiritualities. Applying this test to the earlier gods the union will\nbe found to be lacking. The sun's spiritual power is united with\nIndra's, but the sun is as much a physical phenomenon as a\nspirituality, and always remains so. On the other hand, the equation\nof Varunic power with Indraic never amalgamated the two; and these are\nthe best instances that can be chosen of the older gods. For in the\ncase of others it is self-evident. Dyaus and Dawn are but material\nphenomena, slightly spiritualized, but not joined with the\nspirit-power of others.\n\nMany have been the vain attempts to go behind the returns of Vedic\nhymnology and reduce Indra, Agni, and Soma to terms of a purely\nnaturalistic religion. It cannot be done. Indra is neither sun,\nlightning, nor storm; Agni is neither hearth-fire nor celestial fire;\nSoma is neither planet nor moon.\n\nEach is the transient manifestation of a spirituality lying behind and\nextending beyond this manifestation. Here alone is the latch-key of\nthe newer, more popular religion. Not merely because Indra was a\n'warrior god,' but because Indra and Fire were one; because of the\nmystery, not because of the appearance, was he made great at the hands\nof the priests. It is true, as has been said above, that the idol of\nthe warriors was magnified because he was such; but the true cause of\nthe greatness ascribed to him in the hymns lay in the secret of his\nnature, as it was lauded by the priest, not in his form, as it was\nseen by the multitude. Neither came first, both worked together; but\nhad it not been for the esoteric wisdom held by the priests in\nconnection with his nature, Indra would have gone the way of other\nmeteorological gods; whereas he became chiefest of the gods, and, as\nlord of strength, for a time came nearest to the supreme power.\n\n\nINDRA.\n\nIndra has been identified with 'storm,' with the 'sky,' with the\n'year'; also with 'sun' and with 'fire' in general.[2] But if he be\ntaken as he is found in the hymns, it will be noticed at once that he\nis too stormy to be the sun; too luminous to be the storm; too near to\nthe phenomena of the monsoon to be the year or the sky; too rainy to\nbe fire; too alien from every one thing to be any one thing. He is too\ncelestial to be wholly atmospheric; too atmospheric to be celestial;\ntoo earthly to be either. A most tempting solution is that offered by\nBergaigne, who sees in Indra sun or lightning. Yet does this\nexplanation not explain all, and it is more satisfactory than others\nonly because it is broader; while it is not yet broad enough. Indra,\nin Bergaigne's opinion, stands, however, nearer to fire than to\nsun.[3] But the savant does not rest content with his own explanation:\n\"Indra est peut-\u00eatre, de tous les dieux v\u00e9diques, celui qui r\u00e9siste le\nplus longtemps \u00e0 un genre d'analyse qui, appliqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la plupart des\nautres, les r\u00e9sout plus ou moins vite en des personnifications des\n\u00e9l\u00e9ments, soit des ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes naturels, soit du culte\" (ibid. p. 167).\n\nDyaus' son, Indra, who rides upon the storm and hurls the lightnings\nwith his hands; who 'crashes down from heaven' and 'destroys the\nstrongholds' of heaven and earth; whose greatness 'fills heaven and\nearth'; whose 'steeds are of red and gold'; who 'speaks in thunder,'\nand 'is born of waters and cloud'; behind whom ride the storm-gods;\nwith whom Agni (fire) is inseparably connected; who 'frees the waters\nof heaven from the demon,' and 'gives rain-blessings and wealth' to\nman--such a god, granted the necessity of a naturalistic\ninterpretation, may well be thought to have been lightning itself\noriginally, which the hymns now represent the god as carrying. But in\nidentifying Indra with the sun there is more difficulty. In none of\nthe early hymns is this suggested, and the texts on which Bergaigne\nrelies besides being late are not always conclusive. \"Indra clothes\nhimself with the glory of the sun\"; he \"sees with the eye of the\nsun\"--such texts prove little when one remembers that the sun is the\neye of all the gods, and that to clothe ones' self with solar glory is\nfar from being one with the sun. In one other, albeit a late verse,\nthe expression 'Indra, a sun,' is used; and, relying on such texts,\nBergaigne claims that Indra is the sun. But it is evident that this is\nbut one of many passages where Indra by implication is compared to the\nsun; and comparisons do not indicate allotropy. So, in ii. II. 20,\nwhich Bergaigne gives as a parallel, the words say expressly \"Indra\n[did so and so] _like a sun_.\"[4] To rest a building so important on a\nbasis so frail is fortunately rare with Bergaigne. It happens here\nbecause he is arguing from the assumption that Indra primitively was a\ngeneral luminary. Hence, instead of building up Indra from early\ntexts, he claims a few late phrases as precious confirmation of his\ntheory.[5] What was Indra may be seen by comparing a few citations\nsuch as might easily be amplified from every book in the Rig Veda.\n\nAccording to the varying fancies of the poets, Indra is armed with\nstones, clubs, arrows, or the thunderbolt (made for him by the\nartificer, Tvashtar), of brass or of gold, with many edges and points.\nUpon a golden chariot he rides to battle, driving two or many red or\nyellow steeds; he is like the sun in brilliancy, and like the dawn in\nbeauty; he is multiform, and cannot really be described; his divine\nname is secret; in appearance he is vigorous, huge; he is wise and\ntrue and kind; all treasures are his, and he is a wealth-holder, vast\nas four seas; neither his greatness nor his generosity can be\ncomprehended; mightiest of gods is he, filling the universe; the\nheavens rest upon his head; earth cannot hold him; earth and heaven\ntremble at his breath; he is king of all; the mountains are to him as\nvalleys; he goes forth a bull, raging, and rushes through the air,\nwhirling up the dust; he breaks open the rain-containing clouds, and\nlets the rain pour down; as the A\u00e7vins restore the light, so he\nrestores the rain; he is (like) fire born in three places; as the\ngiver of rain which feeds, he creates the plants; he restores or\nbegets Sun and Dawn (after the storm has passed);[6] he creates (in\nthe same way) all things, even heaven and earth; he is associated with\nVishnu and P[=u]shan (the sun-gods), with the A\u00e7vins, with the Maruts\n(storm-gods) as his especial followers, and with the artisan Ribhus.\nWith Varuna he is an Adity\u00e1, but he is also associated with another\ngroup of gods, the Vasus (x. 66. 3), as Vasupati, or 'lord of the\nVasus.' He goes with many forms (vi. 47. 18).[7]\n\nThe luminous character[8] of Indra, which has caused him to be\nidentified with light-gods, can be understood only when one remembers\nthat in India the rainy season is ushered in by such displays of\nlightning that the heavens are often illuminated in every direction at\nonce; and not with a succession of flashes, but with contemporaneous\nubiquitous sheets of light, so that it appears as if on all sides of\nthe sky there was one lining of united dazzling flame. When it is said\nthat Indra 'placed light in light,' one is not to understand, with\nBergaigne, that Indra is identical with the sun, but that in day\n(light) Indra puts lightning (x. 54. 6; Bergaigne ii. p. 187).\n\nSince Indra's lightning[9] is a form of fire, there is found in this\nunion the first mystic dualism of two distinct gods as one. This comes\nout more in Agni-worship than in Indra-worship, and will be treated\nbelow. The snake or dragon killed by Indra is Vritra, the restrainer,\nwho catches and keeps in the clouds the rain that is falling to earth.\nHe often is called simply the snake, and as the Budhnya Snake, or\nsnake of the cloud-depths, is possibly the Python (=Budh-nya).[10]\nThere is here a touch of primitive belief in an old enemy of man--the\nserpent! But the Budhnya Snake has been developed in opposite ways,\nand has contradictory functions.[11]\n\nIndra, however, is no more the lightning than he is the sun. One poet\nsays that he is like the sun;[12] another, that he is like the\nlightning (viii. 93. 9), which he carries in his arms (viii. 12. 7);\nanother, that he is like the light of dawn (x. 89. 12). So various are\nthe activities, so many the phenomena, that with him first the seer is\nobliged to look back of all these phenomena and find in them one\nperson; and thus he is the most anthropomorphized of the Vedic gods.\nHe is born of heaven or born of clouds (iv. 18), but that his mother\nis Aditi is not certain. As the most powerful god Indra is again\nregarded as the All-god (viii. 98. 1-2). With this final supremacy,\nthat distinction between battle-gods and gods sovereign, which\nBergaigne insists upon--the sovereign gods belonging to _une\nconception unitaire de l'ordre du monde_ (iii. p. 3; ii. p.\n167)--fades away. As Varuna became gradually greatest, so did Indra in\nturn. But Varuna was a philosopher's god, not a warrior's; and Varuna\nwas not double and mystical. So even the priest (Agni) leaves Varuna,\nand with the warrior takes more pleasure in his twin Indra; of him\nmaking an All-god, a greatest god. Varuna is passive; Indra is\nenergetic; but Indra does not struggle for his lordship. Inspired by\n_soma_, he smites, triumphs, punishes. Victor already, he descends\nupon his enemies and with a blow destroys them. It is rarely that he\nfeels the effect of battle; he never doubts its issue.\n\nThere is evidence that this supremacy was not gained without\ncontradiction, and the novelty of the last extravagant Indra-worship\nmay be deduced, perhaps, from such passages as viii. 96. 15; and 100.\n3, where are expressed doubts in regard to the existence of a real\nIndra. How late is the worship of the popular Indra, and that it is\nnot originality that causes his hymns to be placed early in each\ncollection, may be judged from the fact that only of Indra (and Agni?)\nare there idols: viii. 1. 5; iv. 24. 10: \"Who gives ten cows for my\nIndra? When he has slain his foe let (the purchaser) give him to me\nagain.\"[13] Thus it happens that one rarely finds such poems to Indra\nas to Dawn and to other earlier deities, but almost always stereotyped\ndescriptions of prowess, and mechanical invitations to come to the\naltar and reward the hymn-maker. There are few of Indra's many hymns\nthat do not smack of _soma_ and sacrifice. He is a warrior's god\nexploited by priests; as popularly conceived, a sensual giant, friend,\nbrother, helper of man. One example of poetry, instead of ritualistic\nverse-making to Indra, has been translated in the introductory\nchapter. Another, which, if not very inspiring, is at least free from\nobvious _soma_-worship--which results in Indra being invoked chiefly\nto come and drink--is as follows (vi. 30):\n\n  Great hath he grown, Indra, for deeds heroic;\n  Ageless is he alone, alone gives riches;\n  Beyond the heaven and earth hath Indra stretched him,\n  The half of him against both worlds together!\n  So high and great I deem his godly nature;\n  What he hath stablished there is none impairs it.\n  Day after day a sun is he conspicuous,\n  And, wisely strong, divides the wide dominions.\n  To-day and now (thou makest) the work of rivers,\n  In that, O Indra, thou hast hewn them pathway.\n  The hills have bowed them down as were they comrades;\n  By thee, O wisely strong, are spaces fastened.\n  'Tis true, like thee, O Indra, is no other,\n  Nor god nor mortal is more venerable.\n  Thou slew'st the dragon that the flood encompassed,\n  Thou didst let out the waters to the ocean.\n  Thou didst the waters free, the doors wide opening,\n  Thou, Indra, brak'st the stronghold of the mountains,\n  Becamest king of all that goes and moveth,\n  Begetting sun and heaven and dawn together.\n\n\nTHE MARUTS.\n\nThese gods, the constant followers of Indra, from the present point of\nview are not of great importance, except as showing an unadulterated\ntype of nature-gods, worshipped without much esoteric wisdom (although\nthere is a certain amount of mystery in connection with their birth).\nThere is something of the same pleasure in singing to them as is\ndiscernible in the hymns to Dawn. They are the real storm-gods,\nfollowing Rudra, their father, and accompanying the great\nstorm-bringer, Indra. Their mother is the variegated cow Pri\u00e7ni, the\nmother cloud. Their name means the shining, gleaming ones.\n\n  HYMN TO THE MARUTS (vii. 56. 1-10).\n\n  Who, sooth, are the gleaming related heroes,\n            the glory of Rudra, on beauteous chargers?\n  For of them the birthplace no man hath witnessed;\n            they only know it, their mutual birthplace.\n  With wings expanded they sweep each other,[14]\n            and strive together, the wind-loud falcons.\n  Wise he that knoweth this secret knowledge,\n            that Pri\u00e7ni the great one to them was mother.[15]\n  This folk the Maruts shall make heroic,\n            victorious ever, increased in manhood;\n  In speed the swiftest, in light the lightest,\n            with grace united and fierce in power--\n  Your power fierce is; your strength, enduring;\n            and hence with the Maruts this folk is mighty.\n  Your fury fair is, your hearts are wrothful,\n            like maniacs wild is your band courageous.\n  From us keep wholly the gleaming lightning;\n            let not your anger come here to meet us.\n  Your names of strong ones endeared invoke I,\n            that these delighted may joy, O Maruts.\n\nWhat little reflection or moral significance is in the Marut hymns is\nillustrated by i. 38. 1-9, thus translated by M\u00fcller:\n\n     What then now? When will ye take us as a dear father takes\n     his son by both hands, O ye gods, for whom the sacred grass\n     has been trimmed?\n\n     Where now? On what errand of yours are you going, in heaven,\n     not on earth? Where are your cows sporting? Where are your\n     newest favors, O Maruts? Where are blessings? Where all\n     delights? If you, sons of Pri\u00e7ni, were mortals and your\n     praiser an immortal, then never should your praiser be\n     unwelcome, like a deer in pasture grass, nor should he go on\n     the path of Yama.[16] Let not one sin after another,\n     difficult to be conquered, overcome us; may it depart,\n     together with greed. Truly they are terrible and powerful;\n     even to the desert the Rudriyas bring rain that is never\n     dried up. The lightning lows like a cow, it follows as a\n     mother follows after her young, when the shower has been let\n     loose. Even by day the Maruts create darkness with the\n     water-bearing cloud, when they drench the earth, etc.\n\nThe number of the Maruts was originally seven, afterwards raised to\nthrice seven, and then given variously,[17] sometimes as high as\nthrice sixty. They are the servants, the bulls of Dyaus, the glory of\nRudra (or perhaps the 'boys of Rudra'), divine, bright as suns,\nblameless and pure. They cover themselves with shining adornment,\nchains of gold, gems, and turbans. On their heads are helmets of gold,\nand in their hands gleam arrows and daggers. Like heroes rushing to\nbattle, they stream onward. They are fair as deer; their roar is like\nthat of lions. The mountains bow before them, thinking themselves to\nbe valleys, and the hills bow down. Good warriors and good steeds are\ntheir gifts. They smite, they kill, they rend the rocks, they strip\nthe trees like caterpillars; they rise together, and, like spokes in a\nwheel, are united in strength. Their female companion is Rodas[=i]\n(lightning, from the same root as _rudra_, the 'red'). They are like\nwild boars, and (like the sun) they have metallic jaws. On their\nchariots are speckled hides; like birds they spread their wings; they\nstrive in flight with each other. Before them the earth sways like a\nship. They dance upon their path. Upon their chests for beauty's sake\nthey bind gold armor. From the heavenly udder they milk down rain.\n\"Through whose wisdom, through whose design do they come?\" cries the\npoet. They have no real adversary. The kings of the forest they tear\nasunder, and make tremble even the rocks. Their music is heard on\nevery side.[18]\n\n\nRUDRA.\n\nThe father of the Maruts, Rudra, is 'the ruddy one,' _par excellence_\nand so to him is ascribed paternity of the 'ruddy ones.' But while\nIndra has a plurality of hymns, Rudra has but few, and these it is not\nof special importance to cite. The features in each case are the same.\nThe Maruts remain as gods whose function causes them to be invoked\nchiefly that they may spare from the fury of the tempest. This idea is\nin Rudra's case carried out further, and he is specially called on to\navert (not only 'cow-slaying' and 'man-slaying' by lightning,[19] but\nalso) disease, pestilence, etc. Hence is he preeminently, on the one\nhand, the kindly god who averts disease, and, on the other, of\ndestruction in every form. From him Father Manu got wealth and health,\nand he is the fairest of beings, but, more, he is the strongest god\n(ii. 33. 3, 10). From such a prototype comes the later god of healing\nand woe--Rudra, who becomes \u00c7iva.[20]\n\n\nRAIN-GODS.\n\nThere is one rather mechanical hymn directed to the Waters themselves\nas goddesses, where Indra is the god who gives them passage. But in\nthe unique hymn to the Rivers it is Varuna who, as general god of\nwater, is represented as their patron. In the first hymn the\nrain-water is meant.[21] A description in somewhat jovial vein of the\njoy produced by the rain after long drought forms the subject matter\nof another lyric (less an hymn than a poem), which serves to\nillustrate the position of the priests at the end of this Vedic\ncollection. The frogs are jocosely compared to priests that have\nfulfilled their vow of silence; and their quacking is likened to the\nnoise of students learning the Veda. Parjanya is the god that, in\ndistinction from Indra as the first cause, actually pours down the\nrain-drops.\n\n\n  THE FROGS.[22]\n\n  As priests that have their vows fulfilled,\n    Reposing for a year complete,\n  The frogs have now begun to talk,--\n    Parjanya has their voice aroused.\n\n  When down the heavenly waters come upon him,\n    Who like a dry bag lay within the river,\n  Then, like the cows' loud lowing (cows that calves have),\n    The vocal sound of frogs comes all together.\n\n  When on the longing, thirsty ones it raineth,\n    (The rainy season having come upon them),\n  Then _akkala_![23] they cry; and one the other\n    Greets with his speech, as sons address a father.\n\n  The one the other welcomes, and together\n    They both rejoice at falling of the waters;\n  The spotted frog hops when the rain has wet him,\n    And with his yellow comrade joins his utterance.\n\n  When one of these the other's voice repeateth,\n    Just as a student imitates his teacher,\n  Then like united members with fair voices,\n    They all together sing among the waters.\n\n  One like an ox doth bellow, goat-like one bleats;\n    Spotted is one, and one of them is yellow;\n  Alike in name, but in appearance different,\n    In many ways the voice they, speaking, vary.\n\n  As priests about th' intoxicating[24] _soma_\n    Talk as they stand before the well-filled vessel,\n  So stand ye round about this day once yearly,\n    On which, O frogs, the time of rain approaches.\n\n  (Like) priests who _soma_ have, they raise their voices,\n    And pray the prayer that once a year is uttered;\n  (Like) heated priests who sweat at sacrifices,\n    They all come out, concealed of them is no one.\n\n  The sacred order of the (year) twelve-membered,\n    These heroes guard, and never do neglect it;\n  When every year, the rainy season coming,\n    The burning heat receiveth its dismission.[25]\n\nIn one hymn no less than four gods are especially invoked for\nrain--Agni, Brihaspati, Indra, and Parjanya. The two first are\nsacrificially potent; Brihaspati, especially, gives to the priest the\nsong that has power to bring rain; he comes either 'as Mitra-Varuna or\nP[=u]shan,' and 'lets Parjanya rain'; while in the same breath Indra\nis exhorted to send a flood of rain,--rains which are here kept back\nby the gods,[26]--and Agni is immediately afterwards asked to perform\nthe same favor, apparently as an analogue to the streams of oblation\nwhich the priest pours on the fire. Of these gods, the pluvius is\nParjanya:\n\n  Parjanya loud extol in song,\n  The fructifying son of heaven;\n  May he provide us pasturage!\n  He who the fruitful seed of plants,\n  Of cows and mares and women forms,\n  He is the god Parjanya.\n  For him the melted butter pour\n  In (Agni's) mouth,--a honeyed sweet,--\n  And may he constant food bestow![27]\n\nThis god is the rain-cloud personified,[28] but he is scarcely to be\ndistinguished, in other places, from Indra; although the latter, as\nthe greater, newer god, is represented rather as causing the rain to\nflow, while Parjanya pours it down. Like Varuna, Parjanya also upsets\na water-barrel, and wets the earth. He is identical with the Slavic\nPerkuna.\n\nFor natural expression, vividness, energy, and beauty, the following\nhymn is unsurpassed. As a god unjustly driven out of the pantheon, it\nis, perhaps, only just that he should be exhibited, in contrast to\nthe tone of the sacrificial hymnlet above, in his true light.\nOccasionally he is paired with Wind; and in the curious tendency of\nthe poets to dualize their divinities, the two become a compound,\n_Parjanyav[=a]t[=a]_ (\"Parjanya and V[=a]ta\"). There is, also, vii.\n101, one mystic hymn to Parjanya. The following, v. 83, breathes quite\na different spirit:[29]\n\n  Greet him, the mighty one, with these laudations,\n    Parjanya praise, and call him humbly hither;\n  With roar and rattle pours the bull his waters,\n    And lays his seed in all the plants, a foetus.\n\n  He smites the trees, and smites the evil demons, too;\n  While every creature fears before his mighty blow,\n  E'en he that hath not sinned, from this strong god retreats,\n  When smites Parjanya, thundering, those that evil do.\n  As when a charioteer with whip his horses strikes,\n  So drives he to the fore his messengers of rain;\n  Afar a lion's roar is raised abroad, whene'er\n  Parjanya doth create the rain-containing cloud.\n  Now forward rush the winds, now gleaming lightnings fall;\n  Up spring the plants, and thick becomes the shining sky.\n  For every living thing refreshment is begot,\n  Whene'er Parjanya's seed makes quick the womb of earth.\n\n  Beneath whose course the earth hath bent and bowed her,\n  Beneath whose course the (kine) behoofed bestir them,\n  Beneath whose course the plants stand multifarious,\n  He--thou, Parjanya--grant us great protection!\n  Bestow Dyaus' rain upon us, O ye Maruts!\n  Make thick the stream that comes from that strong stallion!\n  With this thy thunder come thou onward, hither,\n  Thy waters pouring, a spirit and our father.[30]\n  Roar forth and thunder! Give the seed of increase!\n  Drive with thy chariot full of water round us;\n  The water-bag drag forward, loosed, turned downward;\n  Let hills and valleys equal be before thee!\n  Up with the mighty keg! then pour it under!\n  Let all the loosened streams flow swiftly forward;\n  Wet heaven and earth with this thy holy fluid;[31]\n  And fair drink may it be for all our cattle!\n\n      When thou with rattle and with roar,\n      Parjanya, thundering, sinners slayest,\n      Then all before thee do rejoice,\n      Whatever creatures live on earth.\n\n  Rain hast thou rained, and now do thou restrain it;\n  The desert, too, hast thou made fit for travel;\n  The plants hast thou begotten for enjoyment;\n  And wisdom hast thou found for thy descendants.\n\nThe different meters may point to a collection of small hymns. It is\nto be observed that Parjanya is here the fathergod (of men); he is the\nAsura, the Spirit; and rain comes from the Shining Sky (Dyaus). How\nlike Varuna!\n\nThe rain, to the poet, descends from the sky, and is liable to be\ncaught by the demon, Vritra, whose rain-swollen belly Indra opens with\na stroke, and lets fall the rain; or, in the older view just\npresented, Parjanya makes the cloud that gives the rain--a view united\nwith the descent of rain from the sky (Dyaus). With Parjanya as an\nAryan rain-god may be mentioned Trita, who, apparently, was a\nwater-god, [=A]ptya, in general; and some of whose functions Indra has\ntaken. He appears to be the same with the Persian Thraetaona\n[=A]thwya; but in the Rig Veda he is interesting mainly as a dim\nsurvival of the past.[32] The washing out of sins, which appears to be\nthe original conception of Varuna's sin-forgiving,[33] finds an\nanalogue in the fact that sins are cast off upon the innocent waters\nand upon Trita--also a water-god, and once identified with Varuna\n(viii. 41. 6). But this notion is so unique and late (only in viii.\n47) that Bloomfield is perhaps right in imputing it to the [later]\nmoralizing age of the Br[=a]hmanas, with which the third period of the\nRig Veda is quite in touch.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Compare I. 134. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: For the different views, see Perry, JAOS. xi.\n     p. 119; Muir, OST. v. p. 77.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, ii. pp. 159, 161, 166,\n     187.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: The chief texts are ii. 30. 1; iv. 26. 1; vii.\n     98. 6; viii. 93. 1, 4; x. 89. 2; x. 112. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Other citations given by Bergaigne in\n     connection with this point are all of the simile class. Only\n     as All-god is Indra the sun.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: i. 51. 4: \"After slaying Vritra, thou did'st\n     make the sun climb in the sky.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 7: [=A]dity\u00e1, only vii. 85. 4; V[=a]l. 4. 7. For\n     other references, see Perry (loc. cit.).]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Bergaigne, ii. 160. 187.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Indra finds and begets Agni, iii. 31. 25.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Unless the Python be, rather, the Demon of\n     Putrefaction, as in Iranian belief.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Demons of every sort oppose Indra; Vala,\n     Vritra, the 'holding' snake (_\u00e1hi_=[Greek: echis]), \u00c7ushna\n     ('drought'), etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: So he finds and directs the sun and causes it\n     to shine, as explained above (viii. 3. 6; iii. 44. 4; i. 56.\n     4; iii. 30. 12). He is praised with Vishnu (vi.69) in one\n     hymn, as distinct from him.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Bollensen would see an allusion to idols in i.\n     145. 4-5 (to Agni), but this is very doubtful (ZDMG. xlvii.\n     p. 586). Agni, however, is on a par with Indra, so that the\n     exception would have no significance. See Kaegi, Rig Veda,\n     note 79a.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Or 'pluck with beaks,' as M\u00fcller translates,\n     SBE. xxxii. p. 373.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: \"Bore them\" (gave an udder). In v. 52. 16\n     Rudra is father and Pri\u00e7ni, mother. Compare viii. 94. 1:\n     \"The cow ... the mother of the Maruts, sends milk (rain).\"\n     In x. 78. 6 the Maruts are sons of Sindhu (Indus).]\n\n     [Footnote 16: I.e., die.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: The number is not twenty-seven, as Muir\n     accidentally states, OST. v. p. 147.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: v. 58. 4, 5; I. 88. 1; 88. 5; v. 54. 11; viii.\n     7. 25; i. 166. 10; i. 39. 1; 64. 2-8; v. 54. 6; i. 85. 8;\n     viii. 7. 34; v. 59. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: He carries lightnings and medicines together\n     in vii. 46. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: \u00c7iva is later identified with Rudra. For the\n     latter in RV. compare i. 43; 114, 1-5, 10; ii. 33. 2-13.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: vii. 47, and x. 75.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: vii. 103.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: _Akhkhala_ is like Latin _eccere_ shout of joy\n     and wonder(_Am.J. Phil._ XIV. p. 11).]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Literally, 'that has stood over-night,' i.e.,\n     fermented.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: To this hymn is added, in imitation of the\n     laudations of generous benefactors, which are sometimes\n     suffixed to an older hymn, words ascribing gifts to the\n     frogs. Bergaigne regards the frogs as meteorological\n     phenomena! It is from this hymn as a starting-point proceed\n     the latter-day arguments of Jacobi, who would prove the\n     'period of the Rig Veda' to have begun about 3500 B.C. One\n     might as well date Homer by an appeal to the\n     Batrachomyomachia.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: x. 98. 6.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: vii. 102.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: Compare B\u00fchler, _Orient and Occident_, I. p.\n     222.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: This hymn is another of those that contradict\n     the first assumption of the ritualists. From internal\n     evidence it is not likely that it was made for baksheesh.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: _[A]suras, pit[=a] nas_.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Literally, 'with _ghee_'; the rain is like the\n     _ghee_, or sacrificial oil (melted butter).]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Some suppose even Indra to be one with the\n     Avestan _A[.n]dra_, a demon, which is possible.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Otherwise it is the 'bonds of sin' which are\n     broken or loosed, as in the last verse of the first Varuna\n     hymn, translated above. But the two views may be of equal\n     antiquity (above, p. 69, note). On Trita compare JRAS. 1893,\n     p. 419; PAOS. 1894 (Bloomfield).]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE RIG VEDA (CONTINUED).--THE LOWER GODS.\n\nAGNI.\n\n\nGreat are the heavenly gods, but greater is Indra, god of the\natmosphere. Greatest are Agni and Soma, the gods of earth.\n\nAgni is the altar-fire. Originally fire, Agni, in distinction from sun\nand lightning, is the fire of sacrifice; and as such is he great. One\nreads in v. 3. 1-2, that this Agni is Varuna, Indra; that in him are\nall the gods. This is, indeed, formally a late view, and can be\nparalleled only by a few passages of a comparatively recent period.\nThus, in the late hymn i. 164. 46: \"Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, they\nsay; he is the sun (the bird in the sky); that which is but one they\ncall variously,\" etc. So x. 114. 5 and the late passage iii. 38. 7,\nhave reference to various forms of Agni.\n\nIndra had a twofold nature in producing the union of lightning and\nAgni; and this made him mysteriously great. But in Agni is found the\nfirst triality, which, philosophically, is interpreted as a trinity.\nThe fire of the altar is one with the lightning, and, again, one with\nthe sun. This is Agni's threefold birth; and all the holy character of\nthree is exhausted in application where he is concerned. It is the\nhighest mystery until the very end of the Vedic age. This Agni it is\nthat is the real Agni of the Rig Veda--the new Agni; for there was\nprobably an Agni cult (as simple fire) long before the _soma_ cult.\nIndra and Agni are one, and both are called the slayers of the\ndemons[1]. They are both united as an indissoluble pair (iii. 12,\netc.). Agni, with, perhaps, the exception of Soma, is the most\nimportant god in the Rig Veda; and it is no chance that gives him the\nfirst place in each family hymn-book; for in him are found, only in\nmore fortunate circumstances, exactly the same conditions as obtain in\nthe case of Indra. He appealed to man as the best friend among divine\nbeings; he was not far off, to be wondered at; if terrible, to be\npropitiated. He was near and kind to friends. And as he seemed to the\nvulgar so he appealed to the theosophy which permeates the spirit of\nthe poets; for he is mysterious; a mediator between god and man (in\ncarrying to heaven the offerings); a threefold unity, typical of\nearth, atmosphere, and heaven. From this point of view, as in the case\nof Indra, so in the case of Agni, only to a greater extent, it becomes\nimpossible to interpret Agni as one element, one phenomenon. There is,\nwhen a distinction is made, an _agni_ which is single, the altar-fire,\nseparate from other fires; but it is seldom that Agni is not felt as\nthe threefold one.\n\nAnd now for the interpretation of the modern ritualists. The Hindu\nritual had 'the three fires,' which every orthodox believer was taught\nto keep up. The later literature of the Hindus themselves very\ncorrectly took these three fires as types of the three forms of Agni\nknown in the Rig Veda. But to the ritualists the historical precedence\nis inverted, and they would show that the whole Vedic mythological\nview of an Agni triad is the result of identifying Agni with the three\nfires of the ritual. From this crass method of interpretation it would\nresult that all Vedic mythology was the child of the liturgy[2].\n\nAs earthly fire Agni is first ignis:[3] \"Driven by the wind, he\nhastens through the forest with roaring tongues.... black is thy path,\nO bright immortal!\" \"He mows down, as no herd can do, the green\nfields; bright his tooth, and golden his beard.\" \"He devours like a\nsteer that one has tied up.\" This is common fire, divine, but not of\nthe altar. The latter Agni is of every hymn. For instance, the first\nstanza of the Rig Veda: \"Agni, the family priest, I worship; the\ndivine priest of sacrifice; the oblation priest, who bestows riches,\"\nwhere he is invoked under the names of different priests. But Agni is\neven more than this; he is the fire (heat) that causes production and\nreproduction, visibly manifest in the sun. This dual Agni, it is to be\nnoticed, is at times the only Agni recognized. The third form is then\nadded, lightning, and therewith Agni is begotten of Indra, and is,\ntherefore, one with Indra: \"There is only one fire lighted in many\nplaces\" (V[=a]l. 10. 2). As a poetical expression, Agni in the last\nform is the 'Son of Waters,' an epithet not without significance in\nphilosophical speculation; for water, through all periods, was\nregarded as the material origin of the universe.\n\nAgni is one with the sun, with lightning (and thunder), and descends\ninto the plants.[4] To man he is house-priest and friend. It is he\nthat has \"grouped men in dwelling-places\" (iii. 1. 17) like\nPrometheus, in whose dialectic name, Promantheus, lingers still the\nfire-creator, the twirling (_math_) sticks which make fire in the\nwood. He is man's guest and best friend (Mitra, iv. 1. 9; above).\n\nAn hymn or two entire will show what was Agni to the Vedic poet. In\nthe following, the Rig Veda's first hymn, he is addressed, in the\nopening stanza, under the names of house-priest, the chief sacrificial\npriest, and the priest that pours oblations. In the second stanza he\nis extolled as the messenger who brings the gods to the sacrifice,\nhimself rising up in sacrificial flames, and forming a link between\nearth and heaven. In a later stanza he is called the Messenger\n(Angiras =[Greek: aggelos]),--one of his ordinary titles:\n\n  To AGNI (i. 1).\n\n  I worship Agni; house-priest, he,\n  And priest divine of sacrifice,\n  Th' oblation priest, who giveth wealth.\n\n  Agni, by seers of old adored,\n  To be adored by those to-day--\n  May he the gods bring here to us.\n\n  Through Agni can one wealth acquire,\n  Prosperity from day to day,\n  And fame of heroes excellent.\n\n  O, Agni! whatsoe'er the rite\n  That thou surround'st on every side,\n  That sacrifice attains the gods.\n\n  May Agni, who oblation gives--\n  The wisest, true, most famous priest--\n  This god with (all) the gods approach I\n\n  Thou doest good to every man\n  That serves thee, Agni; even this\n  Is thy true virtue, Angiras.\n\n  To thee, O Agni, day by day,\n  Do we with prayer at eve and dawn,\n  Come, bringing lowly reverence;\n\n  To thee, the lord of sacrifice,\n  And shining guardian of the rite,[5]\n  In thine own dwelling magnified.\n\n  As if a father to his son,\n  Be easy of access to us,\n  And lead us onward to our weal.\n\nThis is mechanical enough to have been made for an established ritual,\nas doubtless it was. But it is significant that the ritualistic gods\nare such that to give their true character hymns of this sort must be\ncited. Such is not the case with the older gods of the pantheon.\nRitualistic as it is, however, it is simple. Over against it may be\nset the following (vi. 8): \"Now will I praise the strength of the\nvariegated red bull (Agni), the feasts of the Knower-of-beings[6]\n(Agni); to Agni, the friend of all men, is poured out a new song,\nsweet to him as clear _soma_. As soon as he was born in highest\nheaven, Agni began to protect laws, for he is a guardian of law (or\norder). Great in strength, he, the friend of all men, measured out the\nspace between heaven and earth, and in greatness touched the zenith;\nhe, the marvellous friend, placed apart heaven and earth; with light\nremoved darkness; separated the two worlds like skins. Friend of all\nmen, he took all might to himself.... In the waters' lap the mighty\nones (gods) took him, and people established him king. M[=a]tari\u00e7van,\nmessenger of the all-shining one, bore him from afar, friend of all\nmen. Age by age, O Agni, give to poets new glorious wealth for feasts.\nO ever-youthful king, as if with a ploughshare, rend the sinner;\ndestroy him with thy flame, like a tree! But among our lords bring, O\nAgni, power unbent, endless strength of heroes; and may we, through\nthy assistance, conquer wealth an hundredfold, a thousandfold, O Agni,\nthou friend of all; with thy sure protection protect our royal lords,\nO helper, thou who hast three habitations; guard for us the host of\nthem that have been generous, and let them live on, friend of all, now\nthat thou art lauded.\"\n\nAryan, as Kuhn[7] has shown, is at least the conception if not the\nparticular form of the legend alluded to in this hymn, of fire brought\nfrom the sky to earth, which Promethean act is attributed elsewhere to\nthe fire-priest.[8] Agni is here Mitra, the friend, as sun-god, and as\nsuch takes all the celestials' activities on himself. Like Indra he\nalso gives personal strength: \"Fair is thy face, O Agni, to the mortal\nthat desires strength;--they whom thou dost assist overcome their\nenemies all their lives\" (vi. 16. 25, 27). Agni is drawn down to earth\nby means of the twirling-sticks, one the father, one the mother[9].\n\"The bountiful wood bore the fair variegated son of waters and\nplants;[10] the gods united in mind, and payed homage to the glorious\nmighty child when he was born\" (iii. 1. 13). As the son of waters,\nAgni loves wood but retreats to water, and he is so identified with\nIndra that he 'thunders' and 'gives rain' (as lightning; ii. 6. 5;\niii. 9. 2).\n\nThe deeper significance of Agni-worship is found not alone in the fact\nthat he is the god in whom are the other gods, nor in that he is the\nsun alone, but that \"I am Agni, immortality is in my mouth; threefold\nmy light, eternal fire, my name the oblation (fire),\" iii. 26. 7. He\nis felt as a mysterious trinity. As a sun he lights earth; and gives\nlife, sustenance, children, and wealth (iii. 3. 7); as lightning he\ndestroys, as fire he befriends; like Indra he gives victory (iii. 16.\n1); like Varuna he releases the bonds of sin; he is Varuna's brother\n(v. 2. 7; vi. 3. 1; iv. 1. 2); his 'many names' are often alluded to\n(iii. 20. 3, and above). The ritualistic interpretation of the priest\nis that the sun is only a sacrificial fire above lighted by the gods\nas soon as the corresponding fire is lighted on earth by men (vi. 2.\n3). He is all threefold; three his tongues, his births, his places;\nthrice led about the sacrifice given thrice a day (iii. 2. 9; 17. 1;\n20. 2; iv, 15. 2; 1. 7; 12. 1). He is the upholder of the religious\norder, the guest of mortals, found by the gods in the heavenly waters;\nhe is near and dear; but he also becomes dreadful to the foe (iii. 1.\n3-6; 6. 5; vi. 7. 1; 8. 2; iii. 1. 23; 22. 5; vi. 3. 7; iii. 18. 1;\niv. 4. 4; 1. 6).\n\nIt is easy to see that in such a conception of a triune god, who is\nfearful yet kind, whose real name is unknown, while his visible\nmanifestations are in earth, air, and heaven, whose being contains all\nthe gods, there is an idea destined to overthrow, as it surpasses, the\nsimpler conceptions of the naturalism that precedes it. Agni as the\none divine power of creation is in fact the origin of the human race:\n\"From thee come singers and heroes\" (vi. 7. 3). The less weight is,\ntherefore, to be laid on Bergaigne's 'fire origin of man'; it is not\nas simple fire, but as universal creator that Agni creates man; it is\nnot the 'fire-principle'[11] philosophically elicited from connection\nof fire and water, but as god-principle, all-creative, that Agni gets\nthis praise.\n\nSeveral hymns are dedicated to _Indr[=a]gni_, Indra united with Agni;\nand the latter even is identified with Dyaus (iv. 1. 10), this\nobsolescent god reviving merely to be absorbed into Agni. As water\npurifies from dirt and sin (Varuna), so fire purifies (iv. 12. 4). It\nhas been suggested on account of v. 12. 5: 'Those that were yours have\nspoken lies and left thee,' that there is a decrease in Agni worship.\nAs this never really happened, and as the words are merely those of a\npenitent who has lied and seeks forgiveness at the hands of the god of\ntruth, the suggestion is not very acceptable. Agni comprehends not\nonly all naturalistic gods, but such later femininities as Reverence,\nMercy, and other abstractions, including Boundlessness.\n\nOf how great importance was the triune god Agni may be seen by\ncomparing his three lights with the later sectarian trinity, where\nVishnu, originally the sun, and (Rudra) \u00c7iva, the lightning, are the\npreserver and destroyer.\n\nWe fear the reader may have thought that we were developing rather a\nsystem of mythology than a history of religion. With the close of the\nVedic period we shall have less to say from a mythological point of\nview, but we think that it will have become patent now for what\npurpose was intended the mythological basis of our study. Without this\nit would have been impossible to trace the gradual growth in the\nhigher metaphysical interpretation of nature which goes hand in hand\nwith the deeper religious sense. With this object we have proceeded\nfrom the simpler to the more complex divinities. We have now to take\nup a side of religion which lies more apart from speculation, but it\nis concerned very closely with man's religious instincts--the worship\nof Bacchic character, the reverence for and fear of the death-god, and\nthe eschatological fancies of the poets, together with those first\nattempts at creating a new theosophy which close the period of the Rig\nVeda.\n\n\nSOMA.\n\nInseparably connected with the worship of Indra and Agni is that of\nthe 'moon-plant,' _soma_, the intoxicating personified drink to whose\ndeification must be assigned a date earlier than that of the Vedas\nthemselves. For the _soma_ of the Hindus is etymologically identified\nwith the _haoma_ of the Persians (the [Greek: omomi] of Plutarch[12]),\nand the cultus at least was begun before the separation of the two\nnations, since in each the plant is regarded as a god. The inspiring\neffect of intoxication seemed to be due to the inherent divinity of\nthe plant that produced it; the plant was, therefore, regarded as\ndivine, and the preparation of the draught was looked upon as a sacred\nceremony[13].\n\nThis offering of the juice of the _soma_-plant in India was performed\nthrice daily. It is said in the Rig Veda that _soma_ grows upon the\nmountain M[=u]javat, that its or his father is Parjanya, the rain-god,\nand that the waters are his sisters[14]. From this mountain, or from\nthe sky, accounts differ, _soma_ was brought by a hawk[15]. He is\nhimself represented in other places as a bird; and as a divinity he\nshares in the praise given to Indra, \"who helped Indra to slay\nVritra,\" the demon that keeps back the rain. Indra, intoxicated by\n_soma_, does his great deeds, and indeed all the gods depend on _soma_\nfor immortality. Divine, a weapon-bearing god, he often simply takes\nthe place of Indra and other gods in Vedic eulogy. It is the god Soma\nhimself who slays Vritra, Soma who overthrows cities, Soma who begets\nthe gods, creates the sun, upholds the sky, prolongs life, sees all\nthings, and is the one best friend of god and man, the divine drop\n(_\u00edndu_), the friend of Indra[16].\n\nAs a god he is associated not only with Indra, but also with Agni,\nRudra, and P[=u]shan. A few passages in the later portion of the Rig\nVeda show that _soma_ already was identified with the moon before the\nend of this period. After this the lunar yellow god regularly was\nregarded as the visible and divine Soma of heaven, represented on\nearth by the plant[17].\n\nFrom the fact that Soma is the moon in later literature, and\nundoubtedly is recognized as such in a small number of the latest\npassages of the Rig Veda, the not unnatural inference has been drawn\nby some Vedic scholars that Soma, in hymns still earlier, means the\nmoon; wherever, in fact, epithets hitherto supposed to refer to the\nplant may be looked upon as not incompatible with a description of the\nmoon, there these epithets are to be referred directly to Soma as the\nmoon-god, not to _soma_, the mere plant. Thus, with Rig Veda, X. 85 (a\nlate hymn, which speaks of Soma as the moon \"in the lap of the stars,\"\nand as \"the days' banner\") is to be compared VI. 39. 3, where it is\nsaid that the drop (_soma_) lights up the dark nights, and is the\nday's banner. Although this expression, at first view, would seem to\nrefer to the moon alone, yet it may possibly be regarded as on a par\nwith the extravagant praise given elsewhere to the _soma_-plant, and\nnot be so significant of the moon as it appears to be. Thus, in\nanother passage of the same book, the _soma_, in similar language, is\nsaid to \"lay light in the sun,\" a phrase scarcely compatible with the\nmoon's sphere of activity[18].\n\n\nThe decision in regard to this question of interpretation is not to be\nreached so easily as one might suppose, considering that a whole book,\nthe ninth, of the Rig Veda is dedicated to Soma, and that in addition\nto this there are many hymns addressed to him in the other books. For\nin the greater number of passages which may be cited for and against\nthis theory the objector may argue that the generally extravagant\npraise bestowed upon Soma through the Veda is in any one case\nmerely particularized, and that it is not incongruous to say of the\ndivine _soma_-plant, \"he lights the dark nights,\" when one reads in\ngeneral that he creates all things, including the gods. On the other\nhand, the advocate of the theory may reply that everything which does\nnot apply to the moon-god Soma may be used metaphorically of him.\nThus, where it is said, \"Soma goes through the purifying sieve,\" by\nanalogy with the drink of the plant _soma_ passing through the sieve\nthe poet may be supposed to imagine the moon passing through the\nsieve-like clouds; and even when this sieve is expressly called the\n'sheep's-tail sieve' and 'wool-sieve,' this may still be,\nmetaphorically, the cloud-sieve (as, without the analogy, one speaks\nto-day of woolly clouds and the 'mare's tail').\n\nSo it happens that, with an hundred hymns addressed to Soma, it\nremains still a matter of discussion whether the _soma_ addressed be\nthe plant or the moon. Alfred Hillebrandt, to whom is due the problem\nin its present form, declares that everywhere[19] in the Rig Veda Soma\nmeans the moon. No better hymn can be found to illustrate the\ndifficulty under which labors the _soma_-exegete than IX. 15, from\nwhich Hillebrandt takes the fourth verse as conclusive evidence that\nby _soma_ only the moon is meant. In that case, as will be seen from\nthe 'pails,' it must be supposed that the poet leaps from Soma to\n_soma_ without warning. Hillebrandt does not include the mention of\nthe pails in his citation; but in this, as in other doubtful cases, it\nseems to us better to give a whole passage than to argue on one or two\nverses torn from their proper position:\n\n     HYMN TO SOMA (IX. 15).\n\n     QUERY: Is the hymn addressed to the plant as it is pressed\n     out into the pails, or to the moon?\n\n     1. This one, by means of prayer (or intelligence), comes\n     through the fine (sieve), the hero, with swift car, going to\n     the meeting with Indra.\n\n     2. This one thinks much for the sublime assembly of gods,\n     where sit immortals.\n\n     3. This one is despatched and led upon a shining path, when\n     the active ones urge (him).[20]\n\n     4. This one, shaking his horns, sharpens (them), the bull of\n     the herd, doing heroic deeds forcibly.\n\n     5. This one hastens, the strong steed, with bright golden\n     beams, becoming of streams the lord.\n\n     6. This one, pressing surely through the knotty (sieve?) to\n     good things, comes down into the vessels.\n\n     7. This one, fit to be prepared, the active ones prepare in\n     the pails, as he creates great food.\n\n     8. Him, this one, who has good weapons, who is most\n     intoxicating, ten fingers and seven (or many) prayers\n     prepare.\n\nHere, as in IX. 70, Hillebrandt assumes that the poet turns suddenly\nfrom the moon to the plant. Against this might be urged the use of the\nsame pronoun throughout the hymn. It must be confessed that at first\nsight it is almost as difficult to have the plant, undoubtedly meant\nin verses 7 and 8, represented by the moon in the preceding verses, as\nit is not to see the moon in the expression 'shaking his horns.' This\nphrase occurs in another hymn, where Hillebrandt, with the same\ncertainty as he does here, claims it for the moon, though the first\npart of this hymn as plainly refers to the plant, IX. 70. 1, 4. Here\nthe plant is a steer roaring like the noise of the Maruts (5-6), and\nthen (as above, after the term steer is applied to the plant), it is\nsaid that he 'sharpens his horns,' and is 'sightly,' and further, 'he\nsits down in the fair place ... on the wooly back,' etc., which bring\none to still another hymn where are to be found like expressions,\nused, evidently, not of the moon, but of the plant, _viz._ to IX. 37,\na hymn not cited by Hillebrandt:\n\n     This strong (virile) _soma_, pressed for drink, flows into\n     the purifying vessel; this sightly (as above, where\n     Hillebrandt says it is epithet of the moon), yellow, fiery\n     one, is flowing into the purifying vessel; roaring into its\n     own place (as above). This strong one, clear, shining (or\n     purifying itself), runs through the shining places of the\n     sky, slaying evil demons, through the sheep-hair-sieve. On\n     the back of Trita this one shining (or purifying itself)\n     made bright the sun with (his) sisters.[21] This one,\n     slaying Vritra, strong, pressed out, finding good things (as\n     above), uninjured, _soma_, went as if for booty. This god,\n     sent forth by seers, runs into the vessels, the drop\n     (_indu_) for Indra, quickly (or willingly).\n\nSo far as we can judge, after comparing these and the other passages\nthat are cited by Hillebrandt as decisive for a lunar interpretation\nof _soma_, it seems quite as probable that the epithets and\nexpressions used are employed of the plant metaphorically as that the\npoet leaps thus lightly from plant to moon. And there is a number of\ncases which plainly enough are indicative of the plant alone to make\nit improbable that Hillebrandt is correct in taking Soma as the moon\n'everywhere in the Rig Veda.' It may be that the moon-cult is somewhat\nolder than has been supposed, and that the language is consciously\nveiled in the ninth book to cover the worship of a deity as yet only\npartly acknowledged as such. But it is almost inconceivable that an\nhundred hymns should praise the moon; and all the native commentators,\nbred as they were in the belief of their day that _soma_ and the moon\nwere one, should not know that _soma_ in the Rig Veda (as well as\nlater) means the lunar deity. It seems, therefore, safer to abide by\nthe belief that _soma_ usually means what it was understood to mean,\nand what the general descriptions in the _soma_-hymns more or less\nclearly indicate, _viz._, the intoxicating plant, conceived of as\nitself divine, stimulating Indra, and, therefore, the _causa movens_\nof the demon's death, Indra being the _causa efficiens_. Even the\nallusions to _soma_ being in the sky is not incompatible with this.\nFor he is carried thence from the place of sacrifice. Thus too in 83.\n1-2: \"O lord of prayer[22], thy purifier (the sieve) is extended.\nPrevailing thou enterest its limbs on all sides. Raw (_soma_), that\nhas not been cooked (with milk) does not enter into it. Only the\ncooked (_soma_), going through, enters it. The sieve of the hot drink\nis extended in the place of the sky. Its gleaming threads extend on\nall sides. This (_soma_'s) swift (streams) preserve the man that\npurifies them, and wisely ascend to the back of the sky.\" In this, as\nin many hymns, the drink _soma_ is clearly addressed; yet expressions\nare used which, if detached, easily might be thought to imply the moon\n(or the sun, as with Bergaigne)--a fact that should make one employ\nother expressions of the same sort with great circumspection.\n\nOr, let one compare, with the preparation by the ten fingers, 85. 7:\n\"Ten fingers rub clean (prepare) the steed in the vessels; uprise the\nsongs of the priests. The intoxicating drops, as they purify\nthemselves, meet the song of praise and enter Indra.\" Exactly the same\nimages as are found above may be noted in IX. 87, where not the moon,\nbut the plant, is conspicuously the subject of the hymn: \"Run into the\npail, purified by men go unto booty. They lead thee like a swift horse\nwith reins to the sacrificial straw, preparing (or rubbing) thee. With\ngood weapons shines the divine (shining) drop (_Indu_), slaying\nevil-doers, guarding the assembly; the father of the gods, the clever\nbegetter, the support of the sky, the holder of earth.... This one,\nthe _soma_ (plant) on being pressed out, ran swiftly into the purifier\nlike a stream let out, sharpening his two sharp horns like a buffalo;\nlike a true hero hunting for cows; he is come from the highest\npress-stone,\" etc. It is the noise of _soma_ dropping that is compared\nwith 'roaring.' The strength given by (him) the drink, makes\nhim appear as the 'virile one,' of which force is the activity, and\nthe bull the type. Given, therefore, the image of the bull, the rest\nfollows easily to elaborate the metaphor. If one add that _soma_ is\nluminous (yellow), and that all luminous divinities are 'horned\nbulls[23],' then it will be unnecessary to see the crescent moon in\n_soma_. Moreover, if _soma_ be the same with Brihaspati, as thinks\nHillebrandt, why are there three horns in V. 43. 13? Again, that the\nexpression 'sharpening his horns' does not refer necessarily to the\nmoon may be concluded from x. 86. 15, where it is stated expressly\nthat the _drink_ is a sharp-horned steer: \"Like a sharp-horned steer\nis thy brewed drink, O Indra,\" probably referring to the taste. The\nsun, Agni, and Indra are all, to the Vedic poet, 'sharp-horned\nsteers[24],' and the _soma_ plant, being luminous and strong\n(bull-like), gets the same epithet.\n\nThe identity is rather with Indra than with the moon, if one be\ncontent to give up brilliant theorizing, and simply follow the poets:\n\"The one that purifies himself yoked the sun's swift steed over man\nthat he might go through the atmosphere, and these ten steeds of the\nsun he yoked to go, saying Indra is the drop (_Indu_).\" When had ever\nthe moon the power to start the sun? What part in the pantheon is\nplayed by the moon when it is called by its natural name (not by the\npriestly name, _soma_)? Is _m[=a]s_ or _candramas_ (moon) a power of\nstrength, a great god? The words scarcely occur, except in late hymns,\nand the moon, by his own folk-name, is hardly praised except in\nmechanical conjunction with the sun. The floods of which _soma_ is\nlord are explained in IX. 86. 24-25: \"The hawk (or eagle) brought thee\nfrom the sky, O drop (_Indu_[25]), ... seven milk-streams sing to the\nyellow one as he purifies himself with the wave in the sieve of\nsheep's wool. The active strong ones have sent forth the wise seer in\nthe lap of the waters.\" If one wishes to clear his mind in respect of\nwhat the Hindu attributes to the divine drink (expressly drink, and\nnot moon), let him read IX. 104, where he will find that \"the twice\npowerful god-rejoicing intoxicating drink\" finds goods, finds a path\nfor his friends, puts away every harmful spirit and every devouring\nspirit, averts the false godless one and all oppression; and read also\nix. 21. I-4: \"These _soma_-drops for Indra flow rejoicing, maddening,\nlight-(or heaven-) finding, averting attackers, finding desirable\nthings for the presser, making life for the singer. Like waves the\ndrops flow into one vessel, playing as they will. These _soma_-drops,\nlet out like steeds (attached) to a car, as they purify themselves,\nattain all desirable things.\" According to IX. 97. 41^2 and _ib._ 37.\n4 (and other like passages, too lightly explained, p. 387, by\nHillebrandt), it is _soma_ that \"produced the light in the sun\" and\n\"makes the sun rise,\" statements incompatible with the (lunar) Soma's\nfunctions, but quite in accordance with the magic power which the\npoets attribute to the divine drink. Soma is 'king over treasure.'\nSoma is brought by the eagle that all may \"see light\" (IX. 48. 3-4).\nHe traverses the sky, and guards order--but not necessarily is he here\nthe moon, for _soma_, the drink, as a \"galloping steed,\" \"a brilliant\nsteer,\" a \"stream of pressed _soma_,\" \"a dear sweet,\" \"a helper of\ngods,\" is here poured forth; after him \"flow great water-floods\"; and\nhe \"purifies himself in the sieve, he the supporter, holder of the\nsky\"; he \"shines with the sun,\" \"roars,\" and \"looks like Mitra\"; being\nhere both \"the intoxicating draught,\" and at the same time \"the giver\nof kine, giver of men, giver of horses, giver of strength, the soul of\nsacrifice\" (IX. 2).\n\nSoma is even older than the Vedic Indra as slayer of Vritra and\nsnakes. Several Indo-Iranian epithets survive (of _soma_ and _haoma_,\nrespectively), and among those of Iran is the title 'Vritra-slayer,'\napplied to _haoma_, the others being 'strong' and 'heaven-winning,'\njust as in the Veda[26]. All three of them are contained in one of the\nmost lunar-like of the hymns to Soma, which, for this reason, and\nbecause it is one of the few to this deity that seem to be not\nentirely mechanical, is given here nearly in full, with the original\nshift of metre in the middle of the hymn (which may possibly indicate\nthat two hymns have been united).\n\n  To SOMA (I. 91).\n\n  Thou, Soma, wisest art in understanding;\n    Thou guidest (us) along the straightest pathway;\n  'Tis through thy guidance that our pious[27] fathers\n    Among the gods got happiness, O Indu.\n\n  Thou, Soma, didst become in wisdom wisest;\n    In skill[28] most skilful, thou, obtaining all things.\n  A bull in virile strength, thou, and in greatness;\n    In splendor wast thou splendid, man-beholder.\n\n  Thine, now, the laws of kingly Varuna[29];\n    Both high and deep the place of thee, O Soma.\n  Thou brilliant art as Mitra, the belov\u00e8d[30],\n    Like Aryaman, deserving service, art thou.\n\n  Whate'er thy places be in earth or heaven,\n    Whate'er in mountains, or in plants and waters,\n  In all of these, well-minded, not injurious,\n    King Soma, our oblations meeting, take thou.\n\n  Thou, Soma, art the real lord,\n  Thou king and Vritra-slayer, too;\n  Thou art the strength that gives success.\n\n  And, Soma, let it be thy will\n  For us to live, nor let us die[31];\n  Thou lord of plants[32], who lovest praise.\n\n  Thou, Soma, bliss upon the old,\n  And on the young and pious man\n  Ability to live, bestowest.\n\n  Do thou, O Soma, on all sides\n  Protect us, king, from him that sins,\n  No harm touch friend of such as thou.\n\n  Whatever the enjoyments be\n  Thou hast, to help thy worshipper,\n  With these our benefactor be.\n\n  This sacrifice, this song, do thou,\n  Well-pleased, accept; come unto us;\n  Make for our weal, O Soma, thou.\n\n  In songs we, conversant with words,\n  O Soma, thee do magnify;\n  Be merciful and come to us.\n\n  * * *[33]\n\n  All saps unite in thee and all strong powers,\n    All virile force that overcomes detraction;\n  Filled full, for immortality, O Soma,\n    Take to thyself the highest praise in heaven.\n  The sacrifice shall all embrace--whatever\n    Places thou hast, revered with poured oblations.\n  Home-aider, Soma, furtherer with good heroes,\n    Not hurting heroes, to our houses come thou.\n  Soma the cow gives; Soma, the swift charger;\n    Soma, the hero that can much accomplish\n  (Useful at home, in feast, and in assembly\n    His father's glory)--gives, to him that worships.\n\n  In war unharmed; in battle still a saviour;\n    Winner of heaven and waters, town-defender,\n  Born mid loud joy, and fair of home and glory,\n    A conqueror, thou; in thee may we be happy.\n  Thou hast, O Soma, every plant begotten;\n    The waters, thou; and thou, the cows; and thou hast\n  Woven the wide space 'twixt the earth and heaven;\n    Thou hast with light put far away the darkness.\n  With mind divine, O Soma, thou divine[34] one,\n    A share of riches win for us, O hero;\n  Let none restrain thee, thou art lord of valor;\n    Show thyself foremost to both sides in battle[35].\n\nOf more popular songs, Hillebrandt cites as sung to Soma (!) VIII. 69.\n8-10:\n\n  Sing loud to him, sing loud to him;\n  Priyamedhas, oh, sing to him,\n  And sing to him the children, too;\n  Extol him as a sure defence....\n  To _Indra_ is the prayer up-raised.\n\nThe three daily _soma_-oblations are made chiefly to Indra and\nV[=a]yu; to Indra at mid-day; to the Ribhus, artisans of the gods, at\nevening; and to Agni in the morning.\n\nUnmistakable references to Soma as the moon, as, for instance, in X.\n85. 3: \"No one eats of that _soma_ which the priests know,\" seem\nrather to indicate that the identification of moon and Soma was\nsomething esoteric and new rather than the received belief of\npre-Vedic times, as will Hillebrandt. This moon-_soma_ is\ndistinguished from the \"_soma_-plant which they crush.\"\n\nThe floods of _soma_ are likened to, or, rather, identified with, the\nrain-floods which the lightning frees, and, as it were, brings to\nearth with him. A whole series of myths depending on this natural\nphenomenon has been evolved, wherein the lightning-fire\nas an eagle brings down _soma_ to man, that is, the heavenly drink.\nSince Agni is threefold and the G[=a]yatri metre is threefold, they\ninterchange, and in the legends it is again the metre which brings the\n_soma_, or an archer, as is stated in one doubtful passage[36].\n\nWhat stands out most clearly in _soma_-laudations is that the\n_soma_-hymns are not only quite mechanical, but that they presuppose a\nvery complete and elaborate ritual, with the employment of a number of\npriests, of whom the _hotars_ (one of the various sets of priests)\nalone number five in the early and seven in the late books; with a\ncomplicated service; with certain divinities honored at certain hours;\nand other paraphernalia of sacerdotal ceremony; while Indra, most\nhonored with Soma, and Agni, most closely connected with the execution\nof sacrifice, not only receive the most hymns, but these hymns are,\nfor the most part, palpably made for ritualistic purposes. It is this\ntruth that the ritualists have seized upon and too sweepingly applied.\nFor in every family book, besides this baksheesh verse, occur the\nolder, purer hymns that have been retained after the worship for which\nthey were composed had become changed into a trite making of phrases.\n\nHillebrandt has failed to show that the Iranian _haoma_ is the moon,\nso that as a starting-point there still is plant and drink-worship,\nnot moon-worship. At what precise time, therefore, the _soma_ was\nreferred to the moon is not so important. Since drink-worship stands\nat one end of the series, and moon-worship at the other, it is\nantecedently probable that here and there there may be a doubt as to\nwhich of the two was intended. Some of the examples cited by\nHillebrandt may indeed be referable to the latter end of the series\nrather than to the former; but that the author, despite the learning\nand ingenuity of his work, has proved his point definitively, we are\nfar from believing. It is just like the later Hindu speculation to\nthink out a subtle connection between moon and _soma_-plant because\neach was yellow, and swelled, and went through a sieve (cloud), etc.\nBut there is a further connecting link in that the divinity ascribed\nto the intoxicant led to a supposition that it was brought from the\nsky, the home of the gods; above all, of the luminous gods, which the\nyellow _soma_ resembled. Such was the Hindu belief, and from this as a\nstarting-point appears to have come the gradual identification of\n_soma_ with the moon, now called Soma. For the moon, even under the\nname of Gandharva, is not the object of especial worship.\n\nThe question so ably discussed by Hillebrandt is, however, one of\nconsiderable importance from the point of view of the religious\ndevelopment. If _soma_ from the beginning was the moon, then there is\nonly one more god of nature to add to the pantheon. But if, as we\nbelieve in the light of the Avesta and Veda itself, _soma_ like\n_haoma_, was originally the drink-plant (the root _su_ press, from\nwhich comes _soma_, implies the plant), then two important facts\nfollow. First, in the identification of yellow _soma_-plant with\nyellow moon in the latter stage of the Rig Veda (which coincides with\nthe beginning of the Brahmanic period) there is a striking\nillustration of the gradual mystical elevation of religion at the\nhands of the priests, to whom it appeared indecent that mere drink\nshould be exalted thus; and secondly, there is the significant fact\nthat in the Indic and Iranian cult there was a direct worship of\ndeified liquor, analogous to Dionysiac rites, a worship which is not\nunparalleled in other communities. Again, the surprising identity of\nworship in Avesta and Veda, and the fact that hymns to the earlier\ndeities, Dawn, Parjanya, etc, are frequently devoid of any relation to\nthe _soma_-cult not only show that Bergaigne's opinion that the whole\nRig Veda is but a collection of hymns for _soma_-worship as handed\ndown in different families must be modified; but also that, as we have\nexplained _apropos_ of Varuna, the Iranian cult must have branched off\nfrom the Vedic cult (whether, as Haug thought, on account of a\nreligious schism or not); that the hymns to the less popular deities\n(as we have defined the word) make the first period of Vedic cult; and\nthat the special liquor-cult, common to Iran and India, arose after\nthe first period of Vedic worship, when, for example, Wind, Parjanya,\nand Varuna were at their height, and before the priests had exalted\nmystically Agni or Soma, and even Indra was as yet undeveloped.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: viii. 38. 4; i. 108. 3; Bergaigne, ii. 293.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: On this point Bergaigne deprecates the\n     application of the ritualistic method, and says in words\n     that cannot be too emphasized: \"Mais qui ne voit que de\n     telles exptications n'expliquent rien, ou plut\u00f4t que le\n     d\u00e9tail du rituel ne peut trouver son explication que dans le\n     mythe, bien loin de pouvoir servir lui-m\u00eames \u00e0 expliquer le\n     mythe?... Ni le ciel seul ni la terre seule, mais la terre\n     et le ciel \u00e9troitement unis et presque confondus, voil\u00e0 le\n     vrai domaine de la mythologie v\u00e9dique, mythologie dont le\n     rituel n'est que la reproduction\" (i. p. 24).]\n\n     [Footnote 3: i. 58. 4; v. 7. 7; vi. 3. 4.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: iii. 14. 4; i. 71. 9; vi. 3. 7; 6. 2; iv. 1.\n     9.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Or of time or order.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: Or 'Finder-of-beings.']\n\n     [Footnote 7: _Herabkunft des Feuers und des G\u00f6ttertrankes_.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: RV. vi. 16. 13: \"Thee, Agni, from out the sky\n     Atharvan twirled,\" _nir amanthata_ (cf. Promantheus). In x.\n     462 the Bhrigus, [Greek: phleghyai], discover fire.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Compare v. 2. 1. Sometimes Agni is \"born with\n     the fingers,\" which twirl the sticks (iii. 26. 3; iv. 6.\n     8).]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Compare ii. 1: \"born in flame from water,\n     cloud, and plants ... thou art the creator.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Bergaigne, i. p. 32 ff. The question of\n     priestly names (loc. cit. pp. 47-50), should start with\n     Bharata as [Greek: purphoros], a common title of Agni (ii.\n     7; vi. 16. 19-21). So Bhrigu is the 'shining' one; and\n     Vasishtha is the 'most shining' (compare Vasus, not good but\n     shining gods). The priests got their names from their god,\n     like Jesuits. Compare Gritsamada in the Bhrigu family (book\n     ii.); Vi\u00e7v[=a]-mitra, 'friend of all,' in the Bharata family\n     (book iii.); Gautama V[=a]madeva belonging to Angirasas\n     (book iv.); Atri 'Eater,' epithet of Agni in RV. (book v.);\n     Bharadv[=a]ja 'bearing food' (book vi.); Vasishtha (book\n     vii.); and besides these Jamadagni and Ka\u00e7yapa,\n     black-toothed (Agni).']\n\n     [Footnote 12: De Isid. et Osir. 46. Compare Windischmann,\n     _Ueber den Somacultus der Arier_ (1846), and Muir, _Original\n     Sanskrit Texts_, vol. ii. p. 471. Hillebrandt, _Vedische\n     Mythologie_, i. p. 450, believes _haoma_ to mean the moon,\n     as does _soma_ in some hymns of the Rig Veda (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Compare Kuhn, _Herabkunft des Feuers und des\n     G\u00f6ttertrankes_ (1859); Bergaigne, _La Religion V\u00e9dique_, i.\n     148 ff.; Haug's _[=A]itareya Br[=a]hmana_, Introduction, p.\n     62; Whitney in _Jour. Am. Or. Soc_. III. 299; Muir,\n     _Original Sanskrit Texts_, vol. V. p. 258 ff., where other\n     literature is cited.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: RV. X. 34. 1; IX. 98. 9; 82.3. The Vedic plant\n     is unknown (not the _sarcostemma viminale_).]\n\n     [Footnote 15: RV. III. 43. 7; IV. 26.6 (other references in\n     Muir, _loc. cit._ p. 262.) Perhaps rain as _soma_ released by\n     lightning as a hawk (Bloomfield).]\n\n     [Footnote 16: See the passages cited in Muir, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: A complete account of _soma_ was given by the\n     Vedic texts will be found in Hillebrandt's _Vedische\n     Mythologie_, vol. I., where are described the different ways\n     of fermenting the juice of the plant.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Although so interpreted by Hillebrandt, _loc.\n     cit._ p. 312. The passage is found in RV. VI. 44. 23.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: _Loc. cit._ pp. 340, 450.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Compare IX. 79. 5, where the same verb is used\n     of striking, urging out the _soma_-juice, _r[=a]sa_.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Compare IX. 32. 2, where \"Trita's maidens urge\n     on the golden steed with the press-stones, _\u00edndu_ as a drink\n     for Indra.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 22: On account of the position and content of this\n     hymn, Hillebrandt regards it as addressed to\n     Soma-Brihaspati.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: So the sun in I. 163. 9, II. 'Sharpening his\n     horns' is used of fire in i. 140. 6; v. 2. 9.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: VI. 16. 39; vii. 19. I; VIII. 60. 13.]\n\n     [Footnote 25 3: IX. 63. 8-9; 5. 9. Soma is identified with\n     lightning in ix. 47. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: _Hukhratus, verethrajao, hvaresa_.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Or: wise.]\n\n     [Footnote 28 3: Or: strength. Above, 'shared riches,'\n     perhaps, for 'got happiness.']\n\n     [Footnote 29: Or: thine, indeed, are the laws of King\n     Varuna.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: Or: brilliant and beloved as Mitra (Mitra\n     means friend); Aryaman is translated 'bosom-friend'--both\n     are [=A]dityas.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Or: an thou willest for us to live we shall\n     not die.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Or: lordly plant, but not the moon.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Some unessential verses in the above metre are\n     here omitted.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Or: shining.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: The same ideas are prominent in viii. 48,\n     where Soma is invoked as '_soma_ that has been drunk,'\n     _i.e.,_ the juice of the ('three days fermented') plant.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: In the fourth book, iv. 27. 3. On this myth,\n     with its reasonable explanation as deduced from the ritual,\n     see Bloomfield, JAOS. xvi. I ff. Compare also Muir and\n     Hillebrandt, loc. cit.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE RIG VEDA (CONCLUDED).--YAMA AND OTHER GODS, VEDIC PANTHEISM,\nESCHATOLOGY.\n\n\nIn the last chapter we have traced the character of two great gods of\nearth, the altar-fire and the personified kind of beer which was the\nVedic poets' chief drink till the end of this period. With the\ndiscovery of _sur[=a], humor ex hordeo_ (oryzaque; Weber,\n_V[=a]japeya_, p. 19), and the difficulty of obtaining the original\n_soma_-plant (for the plant used later for _soma_, the _asclepias\nacida_, or _sarcostemma viminale_, does not grow in the Punj[=a]b\nregion, and cannot have been the original _soma_), the status of\n_soma_ became changed. While _sur[=a]_ became the drink of the people,\n_soma_, despite the fact that it was not now so agreeable a liquor,\nbecame reserved, from its old associations, as the priests' (gods')\ndrink, a sacrosanct beverage, not for the vulgar, and not esteemed by\nthe priest, except as it kept up the rite.\n\nIt has been shown that these gods, earthly in habitation, absorbed the\npowers of the older and physically higher divinities. The ideas that\nclustered about the latter were transferred to the former. The\naltar-fire, Agni, is at once earth-fire, lightning, and sun. The drink\n_soma_ is identified with the heavenly drink that refreshes the earth,\nand from its color is taken at last to be the terrestrial form of its\naqueous prototype, the moon, which is not only yellow, but even goes\nthrough cloud-meshes just as _soma_ goes through the sieve, with all\nthe other points of comparison that priestly ingenuity can devise.\n\nOf different sort altogether from these gods is the ancient\nIndo-Iranian figure that now claims attention. The older religion had\nat least one object of devotion very difficult to reduce to terms of a\nnature-religion.\n\n\nYAMA\n\nExactly as the Hindu had a half-divine ancestor, Manu, who by the\nlater priests is regarded as of solar origin, while more probably he\nis only the abstract Adam (man), the progenitor of the race; so in\nYama the Hindu saw the primitive \"first of mortals.\" While, however,\nMitra, Dyaus, and other older nature-gods, pass into a state of\nnegative or almost forgotten activity, Yama, even in the later epic\nperiod, still remains a potent sovereign--the king of the dead.\n\nIn the Avesta Yima is the son of the 'wide-gleaming' Vivanghvant, the\nsun, and here it is the sun that first prepares the _soma (haoma)_ for\nman. And so, too, in the Rig Veda it is Yama the son of Vivasvant (X.\n58. 1; 60. 10) who first \"extends the web\" of (_soma_) sacrifice (VII.\n33. 9, 12). The Vedic poet, not influenced by later methods of\ninterpretation, saw in Yama neither sun nor moon, nor any other\nnatural phenomenon, for thus he sings, differentiating Yama from them\nall: \"I praise with a song Agni, P[=u]shan, Sun and Moon, Yama in\nheaven, Trita, Wind, Dawn, the Ray of Light, the Twin Horsemen\" (X.\n64. 3); and again: \"Deserving of laudation are Heaven and Earth, the\nfour-limbed Agni, Yama, Aditi,\" etc. (X. 92. 11).\n\nYama is regarded as a god, although in the Rig Veda he is called only\n'king' (X. 14. 1, 11); but later he is expressly a god, and this is\nimplied, as Ehni shows, even in the Rig Veda: 'a god found Agni' and\n'Yama found Agni' (X. 51. 1 ff.). His primitive nature was that of the\n'first mortal that died,' in the words of the Atharva Veda. It is\ntrue, indeed, that at a later period even gods are spoken of as\noriginally 'mortal,'[1] but this is a conception alien from the early\nnotions of the Veda, where 'mortal' signifies no more than 'man.' Yama\nwas the first mortal, and he lives in the sky, in the home that \"holds\nheroes,\" _i.e._, his abode is where dead heroes congregate (I. 35. 6;\nX. 64. 3)[2]. The fathers that died of old are cared for by him as he\nsits drinking with the gods beneath a fair tree (X. 135. 1-7). The\nfire that devours the corpse is invoked to depart thither (X. 16. 9).\nThis place is not very definitely located, but since, according to one\nprevalent view, the saints guard the sun, and since Yama's abode in\nthe sky is comparable with the sun in one or two passages, it is\nprobable that the general idea was that the departed entered the sun\nand there Yama received him (I. 105. 9, 'my home is there where are\nthe sun's rays'; X. 154. 4-5, 'the dead shall go, O Yama, to the\nfathers, the seers that guard the sun'). 'Yama's abode' is the same\nwith 'sky' (X. 123. 6); and when it is said, 'may the fathers hold up\nthe pillar (in the grave), and may Yama build a seat for thee there'\n(X. 18. 13), this refers, not to the grave, but to heaven. And it is\nsaid that 'Yama's seat is what is called the gods' home' (X. 135.\n7)[3]. But Yama does not remain in the sky. He comes, as do other\nPowers, to the sacrifice, and is invited to seat himself 'with\nAngirasas and the fathers' at the feast, where he rejoices with them\n(X. 14. 3-4; 15. 8). And either because Agni devours corpses for Yama,\nor because of Agni's part in the sacrifice which Yama so joyfully\nattends, therefore Agni is especially mentioned as Yama's friend (X.\n21. 5), or even his priest (_ib_. 52. 3). Yama stands in his relation\nto the dead so near to death that 'to go on Yama's path' is to go on\nthe path of death; and battle is called 'Yama's strife.' It is even\npossible that in one passage Yama is directly identified with death\n(X. 165. 4, 'to Yama be reverence, to death'; I. 38. 5; _ib_. 116.\n2)[4]. There is always a close connection between Varuna and Yama, and\nperhaps it is owing to this that parallel to 'Varuna's fetters' is\nfound also 'Yama's fetter,' i.e., death (x. 97. 16).\n\nAs Yama was the first to die, so was he the first to teach man the\nroad to immortality, which lies through sacrifice, whereby man attains\nto heaven and to immortality. Hence the poet says, 'we revere the\nimmortality born of Yama' (i. 83. 5). This, too, is the meaning of the\nmystic verse which speaks of the sun as the heavenly courser 'given by\nYama,' for, in giving the way to immortality, Yama gives also the\nsun-abode to them that become immortal. In the same hymn the sun is\nidentified with Yama as he is with Trita (i. 163. 3). This particular\nidentification is due, however, rather to the developed pantheistic\nidea which obtains in the later hymns. A parallel is found in the next\nhymn: \"They speak of Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni ... that which is one,\nthe priests speak of in many ways, and call him Agni, Yama, Fire\" (or\nWind, i. 164. 46).\n\nDespite the fact that one Vedic poet speaks of Yama's name as 'easy to\nunderstand' (x. 12. 6), no little ingenuity has been spent on it, as\nwell as on the primitive conception underlying his personality.\nEtymologically, his name means Twin, and this is probably the real\nmeaning, for his twin sister Yami is also a Vedic personage. The later\nage, regarding Yama as a restrainer and punisher of the wicked,\nderived the name from _yam_ the restrainer or punisher, but such an\nidea is quite out of place in the province of Vedic thought. The\nIranian Yima also has a sister of like name, although she does not\nappear till late in the literature.\n\nThat Yama's father is the sun, Vivasvant (Savitar, 'the artificer,'\nTvashtar, x. 10. 4-5),[5] is clearly enough stated in the\nRik; and that he was the first mortal, in the Atharvan. Men come from\nYama, and Yama comes from the sun as 'creator,' just as men elsewhere\ncome from Adam and Adam comes from the Creator. But instead of an\nHebraic Adam and Eve there are in India a Yama and Yam[=i], brother\nand sister (wife), who, in the one hymn in which the latter is\nintroduced _(loc. cit.),_ indulge in a moral conversation on the\npropriety of wedlock between brother and sister. This hymn is\nevidently a protest against a union that was unobjectionable to an\nolder generation. In the Yajur Veda Yami is wife and sister both. But\nsometimes, in the varying fancies of the Vedic poets, the artificer\nTvashtar is differentiated from Vivasvant, the sun; as he is in\nanother passage, where Tvashtar gives to Vivasvant his daughter, and\nshe is the mother of Yama[6].\n\nThat men are the children of Yama is seen in X. 13. 4, where it is\nsaid, 'Yama averted death for the gods; he did not avert death for\n(his) posterity.' In the Brahmanic tradition men derive from the sun\n(T[=a]itt. S. VI. 5. 6. 2[7]) So, in the Iranian belief, Yima is\nlooked upon, according to some scholars, as the first man. The funeral\nhymn to Yama is as follows:\n\n     Him who once went over the great mountains[8] and spied out\n     a path for many, the son of Vivasvant, who collects men,\n     King Yama, revere ye with oblations. Yama the first found us\n     a way ... There where our old fathers are departed.... Yama\n     is magnified with the Angirasas.... Sit here, O Yama, with\n     the Angirasas and with the fathers.... Rejoice, O king, in\n     this oblation. Come, O Yama, with the venerable Angirasas. I\n     call thy father, Vivasvant, sit down at this sacrifice.\n\nAnd then, turning to the departed soul:\n\n     Go forth, go forth on the old paths where are gone our old\n     fathers; thou shalt see both joyous kings, Yama and God\n     Varuna. Unite with the fathers, with Yama, with the\n     satisfaction of desires, in highest heaven.... Yama will\n     give a resting place to this spirit. Run past, on a good\n     path, the two dogs of Saram[=a], the four-eyed, spotted\n     ones; go unto the fathers who rejoice with Yama.\n\nSeveral things are here noteworthy. In the first place, the Atharva\nVeda reads, \"who first of mortals died[9],\" and this is the meaning of\nthe Rig Veda version, although, as was said above, the mere fact that\nVaruna is called a god and Yama a king proves nothing[10]. But it is\nclearly implied here that he who crossed the mountains and 'collected\nmen,' as does Yima in the Iranian legend, is an ancient king, as it is\nalso implied that he led the way to heaven. The dogs of Yama are\ndescribed in such a way as to remind one of the dogs that guard the\npath the dead have to pass in the Iranian legend, and of Kerberus,\nwith whose very name the adjective 'spotted' has been compared[11].\nThe dogs are elsewhere described as white and brown and as barking\n(VII. 55. 2), and in further verses of the hymn just quoted (X. 14)\nthey are called \"thy guardian dogs, O Yama, the four-eyed ones who\nguard the path, who look on men ... broad-nosed, dark messengers of\nYama, who run among the people.\"\n\nThese dogs are due to the same fantasy that creates a Kerberus, the\nIranian dogs[12], or other guardians of the road that leads to heaven.\nThe description is too minute to make it probable that the Vedic poet\nunderstood them to be 'sun and moon,' as the later Brahmanical\ningenuity explains them, and as they have been explained by modern\nscholarship. It is not possible that the poet, had he had in mind any\nconnection between the dogs and the sun and moon (or 'night and day'),\nwould have described them as 'barking' or as 'broad-nosed and dark';\nand all interpretation of Yama's dogs must rest on the interpretation\nof Yama himself[13].\n\nYama is not mentioned elsewhere[14] in the Rig Veda, except in the\nstatement that 'metres rest on Yama,' and in the closing verses of the\nburial hymn: \"For Yama press the _soma_, for Yama pour oblation; the\nsacrifice goes to Yama; he shall extend for us a long life among the\ngods,\" where the pun on Yama (_yamad \u00e1_), in the sense of 'stretch\nout,' shows that as yet no thought of 'restrainer' was in the poet's\nmind, although the sense of 'twin' is lost from the name.\n\nIn recent years Hillebrandt argues that because the Manes are\nconnected with Soma (as the moon), and because Yama was the first to\ndie, therefore Yama was the moon. Ehni, on the other hand, together\nwith Bergaigne and some other scholars, takes Yama to be the sun.\nM\u00fcller calls him the 'setting-sun[15].' The argument from the Manes\napplies better to the sun than to the moon, but it is not conclusive.\nThe Hindus in the Vedic age, as later, thought of the Manes living in\nstars, moon, sun, and air; and, if they were not good Manes but dead\nsinners, in the outer edge of the universe or under ground. In short,\nthey are located in every conceivable place[17].\n\nThe Yama, 'who collects people,' has been rightly compared with the\nYima, who 'made a gathering of the people,' but it is doubtful whether\none should see in this an Aryan trait; for [Greek: Aidaes Agaesilaos]\nis not early and popular, but late (Aeschylean), and the expression\nmay easily have arisen independently in the mind of the Greek poet.\nFrom a comparative point of view, in the reconstruction of Yama there\nis no conclusive evidence which will permit one to identify his\noriginal character either with sun or moon. Much rather he appears to\nbe as he is in the Rig Veda, a primitive king, not historically so,\nbut poetically, the first man, fathered of the sun, to whom he\nreturns, and in whose abode he collects his offspring after their\ninevitable death on earth. In fact, in Yama there is the ideal side of\nancestor-worship. He is a poetic image, the first of all fathers, and\nhence their type and king. Yama's name is unknown outside of the\nIndo-Iranian circle, and though Ehni seeks to find traces of him in\nGreece and elsewhere,[18] this scholar's identifications fail, because\nhe fails to note that similar ideas in myths are no proof of their\ncommon origin.\n\nIt has been suggested that in the paradise of Yama over the mountains\nthere is a companion-piece to the hyperboreans, whose felicity is\ndescribed by Pindar. The nations that came from the north still kept\nin legend a recollection of the land from whence they came. This\nsuggestion cannot, of course, be proved, but it is the most probable\nexplanation yet given of the first paradise to which the dead revert.\nIn the late Vedic period, when the souls of the dead were not supposed\nto linger on earth with such pleasure as in the sky, Yama's abode is\nraised to heaven. Later still, when to the Hindu the south was the\nland of death, Yama's hall of judgment is again brought down to earth\nand transferred to the 'southern district.'\n\nThe careful investigation of Scherman[19] leads essentially to the\nsame conception of Yama as that we have advocated. Scherman believes\nthat Yama was first a human figure, and was then elevated to, if not\nidentified with, the sun. Scherman's only error is in disputing the\ngenerally-received opinion, one that is on the whole correct, that\nYama in the early period is a kindly sovereign, and in later times\nbecomes the dread king of horrible hells. Despite some testimony to\nthe contrary, part of which is late interpolation in the epic, this is\nthe antithesis which exists in the works of the respective periods.\n\nThe most important gods of the era of the Rig Veda we now have\nreviewed. But before passing on to the next period it should be\nnoticed that no small number of beings remains who are of the air,\ndevilish, or of the earth, earthy. Like the demons that injure man by\nrestraining the rain in the clouds, so there are _bh[=u]ts_, ghosts,\nspooks, and other lower powers, some malevolent, some good-natured,\nwho inhabit earth; whence demonology. There is, furthermore, a certain\nchrematheism, as we have elsewhere[20] ventured to call it, which\npervades the Rig Veda, the worship of more or less personified things,\ndiffering from pantheism in this,[21] that whereas pantheism assumes a\nlike divinity in all things, this kind of theism assumes that\neverything (or anything) has a separate divinity, usually that which\nis useful to the worshipper, as, the plough, the furrow, etc. In later\nhymns these objects are generally of sacrificial nature, and the\nstones with which _soma_ is pressed are divine like the plant. Yet\noften there is no sacrificial observance to cause this veneration.\nHymns are addressed to weapons, to the war-car, as to divine beings.\nSorcery and incantation is not looked upon favorably, but nevertheless\nit is found.\n\nAnother class of divinities includes abstractions, generally female,\nsuch as Infinity, Piety, Abundance, with the barely-mentioned\nGung[=u], R[=a]k[=a], etc. (which may be moon-phases). The\nmost important of these abstractions[22] is 'the lord of strength,' a\npriestly interpretation of Indra, interpreted as religious strength or\nprayer, to whom are accredited all of Indra's special acts.\nHillebrandt interprets this god, Brahmanaspati or Brihaspati, as the\nmoon; M\u00fcller, somewhat doubtfully, as fire; while Roth will not allow\nthat Brihaspati has anything to do with natural phenomena, but\nconsiders him to have been from the beginning 'lord of prayer.' With\nthis view we partly concur, but we would make the important\nmodification that the god was lord of prayer only as priestly\nabstraction Indra in his higher development. It is from this god is\ncome probably the head of the later trinity, Brahm[=a], through\npersonified _brahma_, power; prayer, with its philosophical\ndevelopment into the Absolute. Noteworthy is the fact that some of the\nVedic Aryans, despite his high pretensions, do not quite like\nBrihaspati, and look on him as a suspicious novelty. If one study\nBrihaspati in the hymns, it will be difficult not to see in him simply\na sacerdotal Indra. He breaks the demon's power; crushes the foes of\nman; consumes the demons with a sharp bolt; disperses darkness; drives\nforth the 'cows'; gives offspring and riches; helps in battle;\ndiscovers Dawn and Agni; has a band (like Maruts) singing about him;\nhe is red and golden, and is identified with fire. Although 'father of\ngods,' he is begotten of Tvashtar, the artificer.[23]\n\nWeber has suggested (V[=a]japeya Sacrifice, p. 15), that Brihaspati\ntakes Indra's place, and this seems to be the true solution, Indra as\ninterpreted mystically by priests. In RV. i. 190, Brihaspati is looked\nupon by 'sinners' as a new god of little value. Other minor deities\ncan be mentioned only briefly, chiefly that the extent of the pantheon\nmay be seen. For the history of religion they are of only collective\nimportance. The All-gods play an important part in the sacrifice, a\ngroup of 'all the gods,' a priestly manufacture to the end that no god\nmay be omitted in laudations that would embrace all the gods. The\nlater priests attempt to identify these gods with the clans, 'the\nAll-gods are the clans' (_\u00c7at. Br._ v. 5. 1.10), on the basis of a\ntheological _pun_, the clans, _vi\u00e7as_, being equated with the word for\nall, _vi\u00e7ve_. Some modern scholars follow these later priests, but\nwithout reason. Had these been special clan-gods, they would have had\nspecial names, and would not have appeared in a group alone.\n\nThe later epic has a good deal to say about some lovely nymphs called\nthe Apsarasas, of whom it mentions six as chief (Urva\u00e7[=i], Menak[=a],\netc.).[24] They fall somewhat in the epic from their Vedic estate, but\nthey are never more than secondary figures, love-goddesses, beloved of\nthe Gandharvas who later are the singing guardians of the moon, and,\nlike the lunar stations, twenty-seven in number. The Rik knows at\nfirst but one Gandharva (an inferior genius, mentioned in but one\nfamily-book), who guards Soma's path, and, when Soma becomes the moon,\nis identified with him, ix. 86. 36. As in the Avesta, Gandharva is\n(the moon as) an evil spirit also; but always as a second-rate power,\nto whom are ascribed magic (and madness, later). He has virtually no\ncult except in _soma_-hymns, and shows clearly the first Aryan\nconception of the moon as a demoniac power, potent over women, and\nassociated with waters.\n\nMountains, and especially rivers, are holy, and of course are deified.\nPrimitive belief generally deifies rivers. But in the great river-hymn\nin the Rig Veda there is probably as much pure poetry as prayer. The\nVedic poet half believed in the rivers' divinity, and sings how they\n'rush forth like armies,' but it will not do to inquire too strictly\nin regard to his belief.\n\nHe was a poet, and did not expect to be catechized. Of female\ndivinities there are several of which the nature is doubtful. As Dawn\nor Storm have been interpreted Saram[=a] and Sarany[=u], both meaning\n'runner.' The former is Indra's dog, and her litter is the dogs of\nYama. One little poem, rather than hymn, celebrates the 'wood-goddess'\nin pretty verses of playful and descriptive character.\n\nLong before there was any formal recognition of the dogma that all\ngods are one, various gods had been identified by the Vedic poets.\nEspecially, as most naturally, was this the case when diverse gods\nhaving different names were similar in any way, such as Indra and\nAgni, whose glory is fire; or Varuna and Mitra, whose seat is the sky.\nFrom this casual union of like pairs comes the peculiar custom of\ninvoking two gods as one. But even in the case of gods not so\nradically connected, if their functions were mutually approximate,\neach in turn became credited with his neighbor's acts. If the traits\nwere similar which characterized each, if the circles of activity\noverlapped at all, then those divinities that originally were tangent\nto each other gradually became concentric, and eventually were united.\nAnd so the lines between the gods were wiped out, as it were, by their\nconceptions crowding upon one another. There was another factor,\nhowever, in the development of this unconscious, or, at least,\nunacknowledged, pantheism. Aided by the likeness or identity of\nattributes in Indra, Savitar, Agni, Mitra, and other gods, many of\nwhich were virtually the same under a different designation, the\npriests, ever prone to extravagance of word, soon began to attribute,\nregardless of strict propriety, every power to every god. With the\nexception of some of the older divinities, whose forms, as they are\nless complex, retain throughout the simplicity of their primitive\ncharacter, few gods escaped this adoration, which tended to make them\nall universally supreme, each being endowed with all the attributes of\ngodhead. One might think that no better fate could happen to a god\nthan thus to be magnified. But when each god in the pantheon was\nequally glorified, the effect on the whole was disastrous. In fact, it\nwas the death of the gods whom it was the intention of the seers to\nexalt. And the reason is plain. From this universal praise it resulted\nthat the individuality of each god became less distinct; every god was\nbecome, so to speak, any god, so far as his peculiar attributes made\nhim a god at all, so that out of the very praise that was given to him\nand his confreres alike there arose the idea of the abstract godhead,\nthe god who was all the gods, the one god. As a pure abstraction one\nfinds thus Aditi, as equivalent to 'all the gods,'[25] and then the\nmore personal idea of the god that is father of all, which soon\nbecomes the purely personal All-god. It is at this stage where begins\nconscious premeditated pantheism, which in its first beginnings is\nmore like monotheism, although in India there is no monotheism which\ndoes not include devout polytheism, as will be seen in the review of\nthe formal philosophical systems of religion.\n\nIt is thus that we have attempted elsewhere[26] to explain that phase\nof Hindu religion which M\u00fcller calls henotheism.\n\nM\u00fcller, indeed, would make of henotheism a new religion, but this, the\nworshipping of each divinity in turn as if it were the greatest and\neven the only god recognized, is rather the result of the general\ntendency to exaltation, united with pantheistic beginnings. Granting\nthat pure polytheism is found in a few hymns, one may yet say that\nthis polytheism, with an accompaniment of half-acknowledged\nchrematheism, passed soon into the belief that several divinities were\nultimately and essentially but one, which may be described as\nhomoiotheism; and that the poets of the Rig Veda were unquestionably\nesoterically unitarians to a much greater extent and in an earlier\nperiod than has generally been acknowledged. Most of the hymns of the\nRig Veda were composed under the influence of that unification of\ndeities and tendency to a quasi-monotheism, which eventually results\nboth in philosophical pantheism, and in the recognition at the same\ntime of a personal first cause. To express the difference between\nHellenic polytheism and the polytheism of the Rig Veda the latter\nshould be called, if by any new term, rather by a name like\npantheistic polytheism, than by the somewhat misleading word\nhenotheism. What is novel in it is that it represents the fading of\npure polytheism and the engrafting, upon a polytheistic stock, of a\nspeculative homoiousian tendency soon to bud out as philosophic\npantheism.\n\nThe admission that other gods exist does not nullify the attitude of\ntentative monotheism. \"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?\"\nasks Moses, and his father-in-law, when converted to the new belief,\nsays: \"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.\"[27] But\nthis is not the quasi-monotheism of the Hindu, to whom the other gods\nwere real and potent factors, individually distinct from the one\nsupreme god, who represents the All-god, but is at once abstract and\nconcrete.\n\nPantheism in the Rig Veda comes out clearly only in one or two\npassages: \"The priests represent in many ways the (sun) bird that is\none\"; and (cited above) \"They speak of him as Indra, Mitra, Varuna,\nAgni, ... that which is but one they call variously.\" So, too, in the\nAtharvan it is said that Varuna (here a pantheistic god) is \"in the\nlittle drop of water,\"[28] as in the Rik the spark of material fire is\nidentified with the sun.\n\nThe new belief is voiced chiefly in that portion of the Rig Veda which\nappears to be latest and most Brahmanic in tone.\n\nHere a supreme god is described under the name of \"Lord of Beings,\"\nthe \"All-maker,\" \"The Golden Germ,\" the \"God over gods, the spirit of\ntheir being\" (x. 121). The last, a famous hymn, M\u00fcller entitles \"To\nthe Unknown God.\" It may have been intended, as has been suggested,\nfor a theological puzzle,[29] but its language evinces that in\nwhatever form it is couched--each verse ends with the refrain, 'To\nwhat god shall we offer sacrifice?' till the last verse answers the\nquestion, saying, 'the Lord of beings'--it is meant to raise the\nquestion of a supreme deity and leave it unanswered in terms of a\nnature-religion, though the germ is at bottom fire: \"In the beginning\narose the Golden Germ; as soon as born he became the Lord of All. He\nestablished earth and heaven--to what god shall we offer sacrifice? He\nwho gives breath, strength, whose command the shining gods obey; whose\nshadow is life and death.... When the great waters went everywhere\nholding the germ and generating light, then arose from them the one\nspirit (breath) of the gods.... May he not hurt us, he the begetter of\nearth, the holy one who begot heaven ... Lord of beings, thou alone\nembracest all things ...\"\n\nIn this closing period of the Rig Veda--a period which in many ways,\nthe sudden completeness of caste, the recognition of several Vedas,\netc., is much farther removed from the beginning of the work than it\nis from the period of Brahmanic speculation--philosophy is hard at\nwork upon the problems of the origin of gods and of being. As in the\nlast hymn, water is the origin of all things; out of this springs\nfire, and the wind which is the breath of god. So in the great hymn of\ncreation: \"There was then neither not-being nor being; there was no\natmosphere, no sky. What hid (it)? Where and in the protection of\nwhat? Was it water, deep darkness? There was no death nor immortality.\nThere was no difference between night and day. That One breathed ...\nnothing other than this or above it existed. Darkness was concealed in\ndarkness in the beginning. Undifferentiated water was all this\n(universe).\" Creation is then declared to have arisen by virtue of\ndesire, which, in the beginning was the origin of mind;[30] and \"the\ngods,\" it is said further, \"were created after this.\" Whether entity\nsprings from non-entity or vice versa is discussed in another hymn of\nthe same book.[31] The most celebrated of the pantheistic hymns is\nthat in which the universe is regarded as portions of the deity\nconceived as the primal Person: \"Purusha (the Male Person) is this\nall, what has been and will be ... all created things are a fourth of\nhim; that which is immortal in the sky is three-fourths of him.\" The\nhymn is too well known to be quoted entire. All the castes, all gods,\nall animals, and the three (or four) Vedas are parts of him.[32]\n\nSuch is the mental height to which the seers have raised themselves\nbefore the end of the Rig Veda. The figure of the Father-god,\nPraj[=a]pati, 'lord of beings,' begins here; at first an epithet of\nSavitar, and finally the type of the head of a pantheon, such as one\nfinds him to be in the Br[=a]hmanas. In one hymn only (x. 121) is\nPraj[=a]pati found as the personal Father-god and All-god. At a time\nwhen philosophy created the one Universal Male Person, the popular\nreligion, keeping pace, as far as it could, with philosophy, invented\nthe more anthropomorphized, more human, Father-god--whose name is\nultimately interpreted as an interrogation, God Who? This trait lasts\nfrom now on through all speculation. The philosopher conceived of a\nfirst source. The vulgar made it a personal god.\n\nOne of the most remarkable hymns of this epoch is that on V[=a]c,\nSpeech, or The Word. Weber has sought in this the prototype of the\nLogos doctrine (below). The Word, V[=a]c (feminine) is introduced as\nspeaking (x. 125):\n\n     I wander with the Rudras, with the Vasus,[33] with the\n     [=A]dityas, and with all the gods; I support Mitra,\n     Va['r]una, Indra-Agni, and the twin A\u00e7vins ... I give wealth\n     to him that gives sacrifice, to him that presses the _soma_.\n     I am the queen, the best of those worthy of sacrifice ...\n     The gods have put me in many places ... I am that through\n     which one eats, breathes, sees, and hears ... Him that I\n     love I make strong, to be a priest, a seer, a wise man. 'Tis\n     I bend Rudra's bow to hit the unbeliever; I prepare war for\n     the people; I am entered into heaven and earth. I beget the\n     father of this (all) on the height; my place is in the\n     waters, the sea; thence I extend myself among all creatures\n     and touch heaven with my crown. Even I blow like the wind,\n     encompassing all creatures. Above heaven and above earth, so\n    great am I grown in majesty.\n\nThis is almost Vedantic pantheism with the Vishnuite doctrine of\n'special grace' included.\n\nThe moral tone of this period--if period it may be called--may best be\nexamined after one has studied the idea which the Vedic Hindu has\nformed of the life hereafter. The happiness of heaven will be typical\nof what he regards as best here. Bliss beyond the grave depends in\nturn upon the existence of the spirit after death, and, that the\nreader may understand this, we must say a few words in regard to the\nManes, or fathers dead. \"Father Manu,\" as he is called,[34] was the\nfirst 'Man.' Subsequently he is the secondary parent as a kind of\nNoah; but Yama, in later tradition his brother, has taken his place as\nnorm of the departed fathers, Pitaras.\n\nThese Fathers (Manes), although of different sort than the gods, are\nyet divine and have many godly powers, granting prayers and lending\naid, as may be seen from this invocation: \"O Fathers, may the\nsky-people grant us life; may we follow the course of the living\" (x.\n57. 5). One whole hymn is addressed to these quasi-divinities (x. 15):\n\n     Arise may the lowest, the highest, the middlemost Fathers,\n     those worthy of the _soma_, who without harm have entered\n     into the spirit (-world); may these Fathers, knowing the\n     seasons, aid us at our call. This reverence be to-day to the\n     Fathers, who of old and afterwards departed; those who have\n     settled in an earthly sphere,[35] or among peoples living in\n     fair places (the gods?). I have found the gracious Fathers,\n     the descendant(s) and the wide-step[36] of Vishnu; those\n     who, sitting on the sacrificial straw, willingly partake of\n     the pressed drink, these are most apt to come hither....\n     Come hither with blessings, O Fathers; may they come hither,\n     hear us, address and bless us.... May ye not injure us for\n     whatever impiety we have as men committed.... With those who\n     are our former Fathers, those worthy of _soma_, who are come\n     to the _soma_ drink, the best (fathers), may Yama rejoicing,\n     willingly with them that are willing, eat the oblations as\n     much as is agreeable (to them). Come running, O Agni, with\n     these (fathers), who thirsted among the gods and hastened\n     hither, finding oblations and praised with songs. These\n     gracious ones, the real poets, the Fathers that seat\n     themselves at the sacrificial heat; who are real eaters of\n     oblation; drinkers of oblation; and are set together on one\n     chariot with Indra and the gods. Come, O Agni, with these, a\n     thousand, honored like gods, the ancient, the original\n     Fathers who seat themselves at the sacrificial heat....\n     Thou, Agni, didst give the oblations to the Fathers, that\n     eat according to their custom; do thou (too) eat, O god, the\n     oblation offered (to thee). Thou knowest, O thou knower (or\n     finder) of beings, how many are the Fathers--those who are\n     here, and who are not here, of whom we know, and of whom we\n     know not. According to custom eat thou the well-made\n     sacrifice. With those who, burned in fire or not burned,\n     (now) enjoy themselves according to custom in the middle of\n     the sky, do thou, being the lord, form (for us) a spirit\n     life, a body according to (our) wishes.[37]\n\nOften the Fathers are invoked in similar language in the hymn to the\n\"All-gods\" mentioned above, and occasionally no distinction is to be\nnoticed between the powers and attributes of the Fathers and those of\nthe gods. The Fathers, like the luminous gods, \"give light\" (x. 107.\n1). Exactly like the gods, they are called upon to aid the living, and\neven 'not to harm' (iii. 55. 2; x. 15. 6). According to one verse, the\nFathers have not attained the greatness of the gods, who impart\nstrength only to the gods.[38]\n\nThe Fathers are kept distinct from the gods. When the laudations\nbestowed upon the former are of unequivocal character there is no\nconfusion between the two.[39]\n\nThe good dead, to get to the paradise awaiting them, pass over water\n(X. 63. 10), and a bridge (ix. 41. 2). Here, by the gift of the gods,\nnot by inherent capacity, they obtain immortality. He that believes on\nAgni, sings: \"Thou puttest the mortal in highest immortality, O Agni\";\nand, accordingly, there is no suggestion that heavenly joys may cease;\nnor is there in this age any notion of a _G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung_.\nImmortality is described as \"continuing life in the highest sky,\"\nanother proof that when formulated the doctrine was that the soul of\nthe dead lives in heaven or in the sun.[40]\n\nOther cases of immortality granted by different gods are recorded by\nMuir and Zimmer. Yet in one passage the words, \"two paths I have heard\nof the Fathers (exist), of the gods and of mortals,\" may mean that the\nFathers go the way of mortals or that of gods, rather than, as is the\nusual interpretation, that mortals have two paths, one of the Fathers\nand one of the gods,[41] for the dead may live on earth or in the air\nas well as in heaven. When a good man dies his breath, it is said,\ngoes to the wind, his eye to the sun, etc.[42]--each part to its\nappropriate prototype--while the \"unborn part\" is carried\n\"to the world of the righteous,\" after having been burned and heated\nby the funeral fire. All these parts are restored to the soul,\nhowever, and Agni and Soma return to it what has been injured. With\nthis Muir compares a passage in the Atharva Veda where it is said that\nthe Manes in heaven rejoice with all their limbs.[43] We dissent,\ntherefore, wholly from Barth, who declares that the dead are conceived\nof as \"resting forever in the tomb, the narrow house of clay.\" The\nonly passage cited to prove this is X. 18. 10-13, where are the words\n(addressed to the dead man at the burial): \"Go now to mother earth ...\nshe shall guard thee from destruction's lap ... Open wide, O earth, be\neasy of access; as a mother her son cover this man, O earth,\" etc.\nEnding with the verse quoted above: \"May the Fathers hold the pillar\nand Yama there build thee a seat.\"[44] The following is also found in\nthe Rig Veda bearing on this point: the prayer that one may meet his\nparents after death; the statement that a generous man goes to the\ngods; and a suggestion of the later belief that one wins immortality\nby means of a son.[45]\n\nThe joys of paradise are those of earth; and heaven is thus described,\nalbeit in a late hymn:[46] \"Where is light inexhaustible; in the world\nwhere is placed the shining sky; set me in this immortal, unending\nworld, O thou that purifiest thyself (Soma); where is king (Yama), the\nson of Vivasvant, and the paradise of the sky;[47] where are the\nflowing waters; there make me immortal. Where one can go as he will;\nin the third heaven, the third vault of the sky; where are worlds full\nof light, there make me immortal; where are wishes and desires\nand the red (sun)'s highest place; where one can follow his own habits\n[48] and have satisfaction; there make me immortal; where exist\ndelight, joy, rejoicing, and joyance; where wishes are obtained, there\nmake me immortal.\"[49] Here, as above, the saints join the Fathers,\n'who guard the sun.'\n\nThere is a 'bottomless darkness' occasionally referred to as a place\nwhere evil spirits are to be sent by the gods; and a 'deep place' is\nmentioned as the portion of 'evil, false, untruthful men'; while Soma\ncasts into 'a hole' (abyss) those that are irreligious.[50]\n\nAs darkness is hell to the Hindu, and as in all later time the demons\nare spirits of darkness, it is rather forced not to see in these\nallusions a misty hell, without torture indeed, but a place for the\nbad either 'far away,' as it is sometimes said _(par[=a]v\u00e1ti)_, or\n'deep down,' 'under three earths,' exactly as the Greek has a hell\nbelow and one on the edge of the earth. Ordinarily, however, the gods\nare requested simply to annihilate offenders. It is plain, as Zimmer\nsays, from the office of Yama's dogs, that they kept out of paradise\nunworthy souls; so that the annihilation cannot have been imagined to\nbe purely corporeal. But heaven is not often described, and hell\nnever, in this period. Yet, when the paradise desired is described, it\nis a place where earthly joys are prolonged and intensified. Zimmer\nargues that a race which believes in good for the good hereafter must\nlogically believe in punishment for the wicked, and Scherman,\nstrangely enough, agrees with this pedantic opinion.[51] If either of\nthese scholars had looked away from India to the western Indians he\nwould have seen that, whereas almost all American Indians believe in a\nhappy hereafter for good warriors, only a very few tribes have any\nbelief in punishment for the bad. At most a Niflheim awaits the\ncoward. Weber thinks the Aryans already believed in a personal\nimmortality, and we agree with him. Whitney's belief that hell was not\nknown before the Upanishad period (in his translations of the _Katha\nUpanishad_) is correct only if by hell torture is meant, and if the\nAtharvan is later than this Upanishad, which is improbable.\n\nThe good dead in the Rig Veda return with Yama to the sacrifice to\nenjoy the _soma_ and viands prepared for them by their descendants.\nHence the whole belief in the necessity of a son in order to the\nobtaining of a joyful hereafter. What the rite of burial was to the\nGreek, a son was to the Hindu, a means of bliss in heaven. Roth\napparently thinks that the Rig Veda's heaven is one that can best be\ndescribed in Dr. Watt's hymn:\n\n  There is a land of pure delight\n  Where saints immortal reign,\n  Eternal day excludes the night,\n  And pleasures banish pain;\n\nand that especial stress should be laid on the word 'pure.' But there\nis very little teaching of personal purity in the Veda, and the poet\nwho hopes for a heaven where he is to find 'longing women,' 'desire\nand its fulfillment' has in mind, in all probability, purely impure\ndelights. It is not to be assumed that the earlier morality surpassed\nthat of the later day, when, even in the epic, the hero's really\ndesired heaven is one of drunkenness and women _ad libitum_. Of the\n'good man' in the Rig Veda are demanded piety toward gods and manes\nand liberality to priests; truthfulness and courage; and in the end of\nthe work there is a suggestion of ascetic 'goodness' by means of\n_tapas_, austerity.[52] Grassman cites one hymn as dedicated to\n\n'Mercy.' It is really (not a hymn and) not on mercy, but a poem\npraising generosity. This generosity, however (and in general this is\ntrue of the whole people), is not general generosity, but liberality\nto the priests.[53] The blessings asked for are wealth (cattle,\nhorses, gold, etc.), virile power, male children ('heroic offspring')\nand immortality, with its accompanying joys. Once there is a tirade\nagainst the friend that is false to his friend (truth in act as well\nas in word);[54] once only, a poem on concord, which seems to partake\nof the nature of an incantation.\n\nIncantations are rare in the Rig Veda, and appear to be looked upon as\nobjectionable. So in VII. 104 the charge of a 'magician' is furiously\nrepudiated; yet do an incantation against a rival wife, a mocking hymn\nof exultation after subduing rivals, and a few other hymns of like\nsort show that magical practices were well known.[55]\n\nThe sacrifice occupies a high place in the religion of the Rig Veda,\nbut it is not all-important, as it is later. Nevertheless, the same\npresumptuous assumption that the gods depend on earthly sacrifice is\noften made; the result of which, even before the collection was\ncomplete (IV. 50), was to teach that gods and men depended on the will\nof the wise men who knew how properly to conduct a sacrifice, the\nkey-note of religious pride in the Brahmanic period.\n\nIndra depends on the sacrificial _soma_ to accomplish his great works.\nThe gods first got power through the sacrificial fire and _soma_.[56]\nThat images of the gods were supposed to be powerful may be inferred\nfrom the late verses, \"who buys this Indra,\" etc. (above), but\nallusions to idolatry are elsewhere extremely doubtful.[57]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Compare T[=a]itt. S. VII. 4.2.1. The gods win\n     immortality by means of 'sacrifice' in this later\n     priest-ridden period.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Ludwig (IV. p. 134) wrongly understands a hell\n     here.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: 'Yama's seat' is here what it is in the epic,\n     not a chapel (Pischel), but a home.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: This may mean 'to Yama (and) to death.' In the\n     Atharva Veda, V. 24. 13-14, it is said that Death is the\n     lord of men; Yama, of the Manes.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: It is here said, also, that the 'Gandharva in\n     the waters and the water-woman' are the ties of\n     consanguinity between Yama and Yam[=i], which means,\n     apparently, that their parents were Moon and Water; a late\n     idea, as in viii. 48. 13 (unique).]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The passage, X. 17, 1-2, is perhaps meant as a\n     riddle, as Bloomfield suggests (JAOS. XV. p. 172). At any\n     rate, it is still a dubious passage. Compare Hillebrandt,\n     _Vedische Mythologie_, I. p. 503.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Cited by Scherman, _Visionslitteratur_, p.\n     147.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Possibly, 'streams.']\n\n     [Footnote 9: AV. XVIII. 3. 13.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Compare AV. VI. 88. 2: \"King Varuna and God\n     Brihaspati,\" where both are gods.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: [Greek: Kerberos](=\u00c7abala)=_\u00c7[=a]rvara_.\n     Saram[=a] is storm or dawn, or something else that means\n     'runner.']\n\n     [Footnote 12: Here the fiend is expelled by a four-eyed dog\n     or a white one which has yellow ears. See the _Sacred Books\n     of the East_, IV. p. IXXXVII.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Scherman proposes an easy solution, namely to\n     cut the description in two, and make only part of it refer\n     to the dogs! (_loc. cit_. p. 130).]\n\n     [Footnote 14: The dogs may be meant in I. 29. 3, but compare\n     II. 31. 5. Doubtful is I. 66. 8, according to Bergaigne,\n     applied to Yama as fire.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: _India_, p. 224.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Barth, p. 23, cites I. 123. 6; X. 107. 2; 82.\n     2, to prove that stars are souls of dead men. These passages\n     do not prove the point, but it may be inferred from X. 68.\n     11. Later on it is a received belief. A moon-heaven is found\n     only in VIII. 48.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Especially with Ymir in Scandinavian\n     mythology.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: _Visionslitteratur_, 1892.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: _Henotheism in the Rig Veda_, p. 81.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: This religious phase is often confounded\n     loosely with pantheism, but the distinction should be\n     observed. Parkman speaks of (American) Indian 'pantheism';\n     and Barth speaks of ritualistic 'pantheism,' meaning thereby\n     the deification of different objects used in sacrifice (p.\n     37, note). But chrematheism is as distinct from pantheism as\n     it is from fetishism.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Some seem to be old; thus Aramati, piety, has\n     an Iranian representative, [=A]rma[=i]t[=i]. As masculine\n     abstractions are to be added Anger, Death, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Compare iv. 50; ii. 23 and 24; v. 43. 12; x.\n     68. 9; ii. 26. 3; 23. 17; x. 97. 15. For interpretation\n     compare Hillebrandt, _Ved. Myth._ i. 409-420; Bergaigne, _La\n     Rel, V\u00e8d._ i. 304; Muir, OST, v. 272 ff. (with previous\n     literature).]\n\n     [Footnote 24: _Mbh[=a]_.i. 74. 68. Compare Holtzmann, ZDMG.\n     xxxiii. 631 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: i. 89. 10: \"Aditi is all the gods and men;\n     Aditi is whatever has been born; Aditi is whatever will be\n     born.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 26: _Henotheism in the Rig Veda_ (Drisler\n     Memorial).]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Ex. xv. 11; xviii. 11.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: RV. x. 114. 5; i. 164. 46; AV. iv. 16. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Bloomfield, JAOS. xv. 184.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: \"Desire, the primal seed of mind,\" x. 129. 4.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: x. 72 (contains also the origin of the gods\n     from Aditi).]\n\n     [Footnote 32: x. 90, Here _chand[=a][.m]si_, carmina, is\n     probably the Atharvan.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Rudras, Vasus, and [=A]dityas, the three\n     famous groups of gods. The Vasus are in Indra's train, the\n     'shining,' or, perhaps, 'good' gods.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: ii. 33. 13; x. 100. 5, etc. If the idea of\n     manus=bonus be rejected, the Latin _manes_ may be referred\n     to _m[=a]navas_, the children of Manu.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: Or: \"in an earthly place, in the atmosphere,\n     or,\" etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: That is where the Fathers live. This is the\n     only place where the Fathers are said to be _n\u00e1p[=a]t_\n     (descendants) of Vishnu, and here the sense may be \"I have\n     discovered _N\u00e1p[=a]t_ (fire?)\" But in i. 154. 5 Vishnu's\n     worshippers rejoice in his home.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Or: \"form as thou wilt this body (of a corpse)\n     to spirit life.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 38: x. 56. 4; otherwise, Grassmann.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: vi. 73. 9 refers to ancestors on earth, not in\n     heaven.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: Compare Muir, OST. v. 285, where i. 125. 5 is\n     compared with x. 107. 2: \"The gift-giver becomes immortal;\n     the gift-giver lives in the sky; he that gives horses lives\n     in the sun.\" Compare Zimmer, _Altind. Leben_ p. 409; Geiger,\n     _Ostiran. Cultur_, p. 290.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: x. 88. 15, word for word: \"two paths heard of\n     the Fathers I, of the gods and of mortals.\" Cited as a\n     mystery, Brih. [=A]ran. Up. vi. 2. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: x. 16. 3: \"if thou wilt go to the waters or to\n     the plants,\" is added after this (in addressing the soul of\n     the dead man). Plant-souls occur again in x. 58. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: A V. XVIII.4.64; Muir, Av. _loc. cit._ p. 298.\n     A passage of the Atharvan suggests that the dead may have\n     been exposed as in Iran, but there is no trace of this in\n     the Rig Veda (Zimmer, _loc. cit._ p. 402).]\n\n     [Footnote 44: Barth, _Vedic Religions_, p. 23; _ib._, the\n     narrow 'house of clay,' RV. VII. 89. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: I. 24. 1; I. 125.6; VII. 56.24; cited by\n     M\u00fcller, _Chips_, I. p. 45.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: IX. 113. 7 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: _Avar[=o]dhana[.m] div\u00e1s_, 'enclosure of the\n     sky.']\n\n     [Footnote 48: Literally, 'where custom' (obtains), _i.e._,\n     where the old usages still hold.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: The last words are to be understood as of\n     sensual pleasures (Muir, _loc. cit._ p. 307, notes 462,\n     463).]\n\n     [Footnote 50: RV. II. 29. 6; VII. 104. 3, 17; IV. 5. 5; IX.\n     73. 8. Compare Mulr, _loc. cit_. pp. 311-312; and Zimmer,\n     _loc. cit._ pp. 408, 418. Yama's 'hero-holding abode' is not\n     a hell, as Ludwig thinks, but, as usual, the top vault of\n     heaven.]\n\n     [Footnote 51: _loc. cit._ p. 123.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: X. 154. 2; 107. 2. Compare the mad ascetic,\n     _m\u00fani_, VIII. 17. 14.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: X. 117. This is clearly seen in the seventh\n     verse, where is praised the 'Brahman who talks,' _i.e._, can\n     speak in behalf of the giver to the gods (compare verse\n     three).]\n\n     [Footnote 54: X. 71. 6.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Compare X. 145; 159. In X. 184 there is a\n     prayer addressed to the goddesses Sin[=i]v[=a]l[=i] and\n     Sarasvat[=i] (in conjunction with Vishnu, Tvashtar, the\n     Creator, Praj[=a]pati, and the Horsemen) to make a woman\n     fruitful.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: II. 15. 2; X. 6. 7 (Barth, _loc. cit._ p. 36).\n     The sacrifice of animals, cattle, horses, goats, is\n     customary; that of man, legendary; but it is implied in X.\n     18.8 (Hillebrandt, ZDMG. Xl p. 708), and is ritualized in\n     the next period (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 57: Phallic worship may be alluded to in that of\n     the 'tail-gods,' as Garbe thinks, but it is deprecated. One\n     verse, however, which seems to have crept in by mistake, is\n     apparently due to phallic influence (VIII. 1. 34), though\n     such a cult was not openly acknowledged till \u00c7iva-worship\n     began, and is no part of Brahmanism.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE ATHARVA VEDA.\n\n\nThe hymns of the Rig Veda inextricably confused; the deities of an\nearlier era confounded, and again merged together in a pantheism now\ncomplete; the introduction of strange gods; recognition of a hell of\ntorture; instead of many divinities the One that represents all the\ngods, and nature as well; incantations for evil purposes and charms\nfor a worthy purpose; formulae of malediction to be directed against\n'those whom I hate and who hate me'; magical verses to obtain\nchildren, to prolong life, to dispel 'evil magic,' to guard against\npoison and other ills; the paralyzing extreme of ritualistic reverence\nindicated by the exaltation to godhead of the 'remnant' of sacrifice;\nhymns to snakes, to diseases, to sleep, time, and the stars; curses on\nthe 'priest-plaguer'--such, in general outline, is the impression\nproduced by a perusal of the Atharvan after that of the Rig Veda. How\nmuch of this is new?\n\nThe Rig Veda is not lacking in incantations, in witchcraft practices,\nin hymns to inanimate things, in indications of pantheism. But the\ngeneral impression is produced, both by the tone of such hymns as\nthese and by their place in the collection, that they are an addition\nto the original work. On the other hand, in reading the Atharvan hymns\nthe collective impression is decidedly this, that what to the Rig is\nadventitious is essential to the Atharvan.\n\nIt has often been pointed out, however, that not only the practices\ninvolved, but the hymns themselves, in the Atharvan, may have existed\nlong before they were collected, and that, while the Atharvan\ncollection, as a whole, takes historical place after the Rig Veda,\nthere yet may be comprised in the former much which is as old as any\npart of the latter work. It is also customary to assume that such\nhymns as betoken a lower worship (incantations, magical formulae,\netc.) were omitted purposely from the Rig Veda to be collected in the\nAtharvan. That which eventually can neither be proved nor disproved\nis, perhaps, best left undiscussed, and it is vain to seek scientific\nproof where only historic probabilities are obtainable. Yet, if a\ncloser approach to truth be attractive, even a greater probability\nwill be a gain, and it becomes worth while to consider the problem a\nlittle with only this hope in view.\n\nThose portions of the Rig Veda which seem to be Atharvan-like are, in\ngeneral, to be found in the later books (or places) of the collection.\nBut it would be presumptuous to conclude that a work, although almost\nentirely given up to what in the Rig Veda appears to be late, should\nitself be late in origin. By analogy, in a nature-religion such as was\nthat of India, the practice of demonology, witchcraft, etc., must have\nbeen an early factor. But, while this is true, it is clearly\nimpossible to postulate therefrom that the hymns recording all this\narray of cursing, deviltry, and witchcraft are themselves early. The\nfurther forward one advances into the labyrinth of Hindu religions the\nmore superstitions, the more devils, demons, magic, witchcraft, and\nuncanny things generally, does he find. Hence, while any one\nsuperstitious practice may be antique, there is small probability for\nassuming a contemporaneous origin of the hymns of the two collections.\nThe many verses cited, apparently pell-mell, from the Rig Veda, might,\nit is true, revert to a version older than that in which they are\nfound in the Rig Veda, but there is nothing to show that they were not\ntaken from the Rig Veda, and re-dressed in a form that rendered them\nin many cases more intelligible; so that often what is respectfully\nspoken of as a 'better varied reading' of the Atharvan may be better,\nas we have said in the introductory chapter, only in lucidity; and the\nlucidity be due to tampering with a text old and unintelligible.\nClassical examples abound in illustrations.\n\nNevertheless, although an antiquity equal to that of the whole Rig\nVeda can by no means be claimed for the Atharvan collection (which, at\nleast in its tone, belongs to the Brahmanic period), yet is the mass\nrepresented by the latter, if not contemporaneous, at any rate so\nvenerable, that it safely may be assigned to a period as old as that\nin which were composed the later hymns of the Rik itself. But in\ndistinction from the hymns themselves the weird religion they\nrepresent is doubtless as old, if not older, than that of the Rig\nVeda. For, while the Rig Vedic _soma-_cult is Indo-Iranian, the\noriginal Atharvan (fire) cult is even more primitive, and the basis of\nthe work, from this point of view, may have preceded the composition\nof Rik hymns. This Atharvan religion--if it may be called so--is,\ntherefore, of exceeding importance. It opens wide the door which the\nRik puts ajar, and shows a world of religious and mystical ideas which\nwithout it could scarcely have been suspected. Here magic eclipses\nSoma and reigns supreme. The wizard is greater than the gods; his\nherbs and amulets are sovereign remedies. Religion is seen on its\nlowest side. It is true that there is 'bad magic' and 'good magic'\n(the existence of the former is substantiated by the maledictions\nagainst it), but what has been received into the collection is\napparently the best. To heal the sick and procure desirable things is\nthe object of most of the charms and incantations--but some of the\ndesirable things are disease and death of one's foes. On the higher\nside of religion, from a metaphysical point of view, the Atharvan is\npantheistic. It knows also the importance of the 'breaths,'[1] the\nvital forces; it puts side by side the different gods and says that\neach 'is lord.' It does not lack philosophical speculation which,\nalthough most of it is puerile, sometimes raises questions of wider\nscope, as when the sage inquires who made the body with its wonderful\nparts--implying, but not stating the argument, from design, in its\noldest form.[2]\n\nOf magical verses there are many, but the content is seldom more than\n\"do thou, O plant, preserve from harm,\" etc. Harmless enough, if\nsomewhat weak, are also many other hymns calculated to procure\nblessings:\n\n  Blessings blow to us the wind,\n  Blessings glow to us the sun,\n  Blessings be to us the day,\n  Blest to us the night appear,\n  Blest to us the dawn shall shine,\n\nis a fair specimen of this innocuous sort of verse.[3] Another example\nmay be seen in this hymn to a king: \"Firm is the sky; firm is the\nearth; firm, all creation; firm, these hills; firm the king of the\npeople (shall be),\" etc.[4] In another hymn there is an incantation to\nrelease from possible ill coming from a foe and from inherited ill or\nsin.[5] A free spirit of doubt and atheism, already foreshadowed in\nthe Rig Veda, is implied in the prayer that the god will be merciful\nto the cattle of that man \"whose creed is 'Gods exist.'\"[6]\nSerpent-worship is not only known, but prevalent.[7] The old gods\nstill hold, as always, their nominal places, albeit the system is\npantheistic, so that Varuna is god of waters; and Mitra with Varuna,\ngods of rain.[8] As a starting-point of philosophy the dictum of the\nRig Veda is repeated: 'Desire is the seed of mind,' and 'love, _i.e._,\ndesire, was born first.' Here Aditi is defined anew as the one in\nwhose lap is the wide atmosphere-- she is parent and child, gods and\nmen, all in all--'may she extend to us a triple shelter.' As an\nexample of curse against curse may be compared II. 7:\n\n     The sin-hated, god-born plant, that frees from the curse as\n     waters (wash out) the spot, has washed away all curses, the\n     curse of my rival and of my sister; (that) which the Brahman\n     in anger cursed, all this lies under my feet ... With this\n     plant protect this (wife), protect my child, protect our\n     property ... May the curse return to the curser ... We smite\n     even the ribs of the foe with the evil (_mantra_) eye.\n\nA love-charm in the same book (II. 30) will remind the classical\nstudent of Theocritus' second idyl: 'As the wind twirls around grass\nupon the ground, so I twirl thy mind about, that thou mayst become\nloving, that thou mayst not depart from me,' etc. In the following\nverses the Horsemen gods are invoked to unite the lovers.\nCharacteristic among bucolic passages is the cow-song in II. 26, the\nwhole intent of which is to ensure a safe return to the cows on their\nwanderings: 'Hither may they come, the cattle that have wandered far\naway,' etc.\n\nThe view that there are different conditions of Manes is clearly\ntaught in XVIII. 2. 48-49, where it is said that there are three\nheavens, in the highest of which reside the Manes; while a distinction\nis made at the same time between 'fathers' and 'grandfathers,' the\nfathers' fathers, 'who have entered air, who inhabit earth and\nheaven.' Here appears nascent the doctrine of 'elevating the Fathers,'\nwhich is expressly taught in the next era. The performance of rites in\nhonor of the Manes causes them to ascend from a low state to a higher\none. In fact, if the offerings are not given at all, the spirits do\nnot go to heaven. In general the older generations of Manes go up\nhighest and are happiest. The personal offering is only to the\nimmediate fathers.\n\nIf, as was shown in the introductory chapter, the Atharvan represents\na geographical advance on the part of the Vedic Aryans, this fact\ncannot be ignored in estimating the primitiveness of the collection.\nGeographical advance, acquaintance with other flora and fauna than\nthose of the Rig Veda, means--although the argument of silence must\nnot be exaggerated--a temporal advance also. And not less significant\nare the points of view to which one is led in the useful little work\nof Scherman on the philosophical hymns of the Atharvan. Scherman\nwishes to show the connection between the Upanishads and Vedas. But\nthe bearing of his collection is toward a closer union of the two\nbodies of works, and especially of the Atharvan, not to the greater\ngain in age of the Upanishads so much as to the depreciation in\nvenerableness of the former. If the Atharvan has much more in common\nwith the Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads than has the Rig Veda, it is\nbecause the Atharvan stands, in many respects, midway in time between\nthe era of Vedic hymnology and the thought of the philosophical\nperiod. The terminology is that of the Br[=a]hmanas, rather than that\nof the Rig Veda. The latter knows the great person; the Atharvan, and\nthe former know the original great person, _i.e._., the _tausa movens_\nunder the _causa efficiens_, etc. In the Atharvan appears first the\nworship of Time, Love, 'Support' (Skambha), and the 'highest _brahma_.\nThe cult of the holy cow is fully recognized (XII. 4 and 5). The late\nritualistic terms, as well as linguistic evidence, confirm the fact\nindicated by the geographical advance. The country is known from\nwestern Balkh to eastern Beh[=a]r, the latter familiarly.[9] In a\nword, one may conclude that on its higher side the Atharvan is later\nthan the Rig Veda, while on its lower side of demonology one may\nrecognize the religion of the lower classes as compared with that of\nthe two upper classes--for the latter the Rig Veda, for the\nsuperstitious people at large the Atharvan, a collection\nof which the origin agrees with its application. For, if it at first\nwas devoted to the unholy side of fire-cult, and if the fire-cult is\nolder than the _soma_-cult, then this is the cult that one would\nexpect to see most affected by the conservative vulgar, who in India\nhold fast to what the cultured have long dropped as superstition, or,\nat least, pretended to drop; though the house-ritual keeps some magic\nin its fire-cult.\n\nIn that case, it may be asked, why not begin the history of Hindu\nreligion with the Atharvan, rather than with the Rig Veda? Because the\nAtharvan, as a whole, in its language, social conditions, geography,\n'remnant' worship, etc., shows that this literary collection is\nposterior to the Rik collection. As to individual hymns, especially\nthose imbued with the tone of fetishism and witchcraft, any one of\nthem, either in its present or original form, may outrank the whole\nRik in antiquity, as do its superstitions the religion of the Rik--if\nit is right to make a distinction between superstition and religion,\nmeaning by the former a lower, and by the latter a more elevated form\nof belief in the supernatural.\n\nThe difference between the Rik-worshipper and Atharvan-worshipper is\nsomewhat like that which existed at a later age between the\nphilosophical \u00c7ivaite and Durg[=a]ite. The former revered \u00c7iva, but\ndid not deny the power of a host of lesser mights, whom he was ashamed\nto worship too much; the latter granted the all-god-head of \u00c7iva, but\npaid attention almost exclusively to some demoniac divinity.\nSuperstition, perhaps, always precedes theology; but as surely does\nsuperstition outlive any one form of its protean rival. And the simple\nreason is that a theology is the real belief of few, and varies with\ntheir changing intellectual point of view; while superstition is the\nbelief unacknowledged of the few and acknowledged of the many, nor\ndoes it materially change from age to age. The rites employed among\nthe clam-diggers on the New York coast, the witch-charms they use, the\nincantations, cutting of flesh, fire-oblations, meaningless formulae,\nunited with sacrosanct expressions of the church, are all on a par\nwith the religion of the lower classes as depicted in Theocritus and\nthe Atharvan. If these mummeries and this hocus-pocus were collected\ninto a volume, and set out with elegant extracts from the Bible, there\nwould be a nineteenth century Atharva Veda. What are the necessary\nequipment of a Long Island witch? First, \"a good hot fire,\" and then\nformulae such as this:[10]\n\n     \"If a man is attacked by wicked people and how to banish\n     them:\n\n     \"Bedgoblin and all ye evil spirits, I, N.N., forbid you my\n     bedstead, my couch; I, N.N., forbid you in the name of God\n     my house and home; I forbid you in the name of the Holy\n     Trinity my blood and flesh, my body and soul; I forbid you\n     all the nail-holes in my house and home, till you have\n     travelled over every hill, waded through every water, have\n     counted all the leaves of every tree, and counted all the\n     stars in the sky, until the day arrives when the mother of\n     God shall bare her second son.\"\n\nIf this formula be repeated three times, with the baptismal name of\nthe person, it will succeed!\n\n     \"To make one's self invisible:\n\n     \"Obtain the ear of a black cat, boil it in the milk of a\n     black cow, wear it on the thumb, and no one will see you.\"\n\nThis is the Atharvan, or fire-and witch-craft of to-day--not differing\nmuch from the ancient. It is the unchanging foundation of the many\nlofty buildings of faith that are erected, removed, and rebuilt upon\nit--the belief in the supernatural at its lowest, a belief which, in\nits higher stages, is always level with the general intellect of those\nthat abide in it.\n\nThe latest book of the Atharvan is especially for the warrior-caste,\nbut the mass of it is for the folk at large. It was long before it was\nrecognized as a legitimate Veda. It never stands, in the older period\nof Brahmanism, on a par with the S[=a]man and Rik. In the epic period\ngood and bad magic are carefully differentiated, and even to-day the\nAtharvan is repudiated by southern Br[=a]hmans. But there is no doubt\nthat _sub rosa_, the silliest practices inculcated and formulated in\nthe Atharvan were the stronghold of a certain class of priests, or\nthat such priests were feared and employed by the laity, openly by the\nlow classes, secretly by the intelligent.\n\nIn respect of the name the magical cult was referred, historically\nwith justice, to the fire-priests, Atharvan and Angiras, though little\napplication to fire, other than in _soma_-worship, is apparent. Yet\nwas this undoubtedly the source of the cult (the fire-cult is still\ndistinctly associated with the Atharva Veda in the epic), and the name\nis due neither to accident nor to a desire to invoke the names of\ngreat seers, as will Weber.[11] The other name of Brahmaveda may have\nconnection with the 'false science of Brihaspati,' alluded to in a\nUpanishad.[12] This seer is not over-orthodox, and later he is the\npatron of the unorthodox C[=a]rv[=a]kas. It was seen above that the\ngod Brihaspati is also a novelty not altogether relished by the Vedic\nAryans.\n\nFrom an Aryan point of view how much weight is to be placed on\ncomparisons of the formulae in the Atharvan of India with those of\nother Aryan nations? Kuhn has compared[13] an old German magic formula\nof healing with one in the Atharvan, and because each says 'limb to\nlimb' he thinks that they are of the same origin, particularly since\nthe formula is found in Russian. The comparison is interesting, but it\nis far from convincing. Such formulae spring up independently all over\nthe earth.\n\nFinally, it is to be observed that in this Veda first occurs the\nimplication of the story of the flood (xix. 39. 8), and the saving of\nFather Manu, who, however, is known by this title in the Rik. The\nsupposition that the story of the flood is derived from Babylon,\nseems, therefore, to be an unnecessary (although a permissible)\nhypothesis, as the tale is old enough in India to warrant a belief in\nits indigenous origin.[14]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: XV. 15.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: X. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: VII. 69. Compare RV. VII. 35, and the epic\n     (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 4: X. 173.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: V. 30.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: XI. 2. 28.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: XI. 9; VIII. 6 and 7, with tree-worship.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: V. 24. 4-5. On 'the one god' compare X. 8. 28;\n     XIII. 4. 15. Indra as S[=u]rya, in VII. 11; cf. xiii. 4;\n     XVII. 1. 24. Pantheism in X. 7. 14. 25. Of charms, compare\n     ii. 9, to restore life; III. 6, a curse against 'whom I\n     hate'; III. 23, to obtain offspring. On the stars and night,\n     see hymn at XIX. 8 and 47. In V. 13, a guard against poison;\n     _ib._ a hymn to a drum; _ib._ 31, a charm to dispel evil\n     magic; VI. 133, magic to produce long life; V. 23, against\n     worms, etc., etc. Aditi, VII. 6. 1-4 (partly Rik).]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Compare Muir, OST. II. 447 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: This old charm is still used among the\n     clam-diggers of Canarsie, N.Y.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: _Ind. Lit_^2 p. 164.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: _M[=a]it. Up._. vii. 9. He is 'the gods'\n     Brahm[=a]' (Rik.)]\n\n     [Footnote 13: _Indische und germanische Segensspr\u00fcche_; KZ.\n     xiii. 49.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: One long hymn, xii. 1, of the Atharvan is to\n     earth and fire (19-20). In the Rik, _\u00e1tharvan_ is\n     fire-priest and bringer of fire from heaven; while once the\n     word may mean fire itself (viii. 9, 7). The name Brahmaveda\n     is perhaps best referred to _brahma_ as fire (whence\n     'fervor,' 'prayer,' and again 'energy,' 'force'). In\n     distinction from the great _soma_-sacrifices, the fire-cult\n     always remains the chief thing in the domestic ritual. The\n     present Atharvan formulae have for the most part no visible\n     application to fire, but the name still shows the original\n     connection.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nEARLY HINDU DIVINITIES COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHER ARYANS.\n\n\nNothing is more usual than to attempt a reconstruction of Aryan ideas\nin manners, customs, laws, and religious conceptions, by placing side\nby side similar traits of individual Aryan nations, and stating or\ninsinuating that the result of the comparison shows that one is\nhandling primitive characteristics of the whole Aryan body. It is of\nspecial importance, therefore, to see in how far the views and\npractices of peoples not Aryan may be found to be identical with those\nof Aryans. The division of the army into clans, as in the Iliad and\nthe Veda; the love of gambling, as shown by Greeks, Teutons, and\nHindus; the separation of captains and princes, as is illustrated by\nTeuton and Hindu; the belief in a flood, common to Iranian, Greek, and\nHindu; in the place of departed spirits, with the journey over a river\n(Iranian, Hindu, Scandinavian, Greek); in the after-felicity of\nwarriors who die on the field of battle (Scandinavian, Greek, and\nHindu); in the reverence paid to the wind-god (Hindu, Iranian, and\nTeutonic, V[=a]ta-Wotan); these and many other traits at different\ntimes, by various writers, have been united and compared to illustrate\nprimitive Aryan belief and religion.\n\nThe traits of the Five Nations of the Veda for this reason may be\ncompared very advantageously with the traits of the Five Nations of\nthe Iroquois Indians, the most united and intelligent of American\nnative tribes. Their institutions are not yet extinct, and they have\nbeen described by missionaries of the 17th century and by some modern\nwriters, to whom can be imputed no hankering after Aryan primitive\nideas.[1] It is but a few years back since the last _avat[=a]r_ of the\nIroquois' incarnate god lived in Onondaga, N.Y.\n\nFirst, as an illustration of the extraordinary development of memory\namong rhapsodes, Vedic students, and other Aryans; among the Iroquois\n\"memory was tasked to the utmost, and developed to an extraordinary\ndegree,\" says Parkman, who adds that they could repeat point by point\nwith precision any address made to them.[2] Murder was compromised for\nby _Wehrgeld_, as among the Vedic, Iranic, and Teutonic peoples. The\nIroquois, like all Indians, was a great gambler, staking all his\nproperty[3] (like the Teutons and Hindus). In religion \"A mysterious\nand inexplicable power resides in inanimate things ... Lakes, rivers,\nand waterfalls [as conspicuously in India] are sometimes the\ndwelling-place of spirits; but more frequently they are themselves\nliving beings, to be propitiated by prayers and offerings.\"[4] The\ngreatest spirit among the Algonquins is the descendant of the moon,\nand son of the west-wind (personified). After the deluge (thus the\nHindus, etc.) this great spirit (Manabozho, _mana_ is Manu?) restored\nthe world; some asserting that he created the world out of water. But\nothers say that the supreme spirit is the sun (Le Jeune, Relation,\n1633). The Algonquins, besides a belief in a good spirit (_manitou_),\nhad also a belief in a malignant _manitou_, in whom the missionaries\nrecognized the devil (why not Ormuzd and Ahriman?). One tribe invokes\nthe 'Maker of Heaven,' the 'god of waters,' and also the 'seven\nspirits of the wind' (so, too, seven is a holy number in the Veda,\netc.).\n\nThe Iroquois, like the Hindu (later), believe that the earth rests on\nthe back of a turtle or tortoise[5], and that this is ruled over by\nthe sun and moon, the first being a good spirit; the second,\nmalignant. The good spirit interposes between the malice of the moon\nand mankind, and it is he who makes rivers; for when the earth was\nparched, all the water being held back from earth under the armpit of\na monster frog, he pierced the armpit and let out the water (exactly\nas Indra lets out the water held back by the demon). According to\nsome, this great spirit created mankind, but in the third generation a\ndeluge destroyed his posterity[6]. The good spirit among the Iroquois\nis the one that gives good luck (perhaps Bhaga). These Indians believe\nin the immortality of the soul. Skillful hunters, brave warriors, go,\nafter death, to the happy hunting-grounds (as in India and\nScandinavia); the cowardly and weak are doomed to live in dreary\nregions of mist and darkness (compare Niflheim and the Iranian\neschatology?). To pass over other religious correspondences, the\nsacrifice of animals, use of amulets, love-charms, magic, and sorcery,\nwhich are all like those of Aryans (to compare, also, are the burying\nor exposing of the dead and the Hurons' funeral games), let one take\nthis as a good illustration of the value of 'comparative Aryan\nmythology':\n\nAccording to the Aryan belief the soul of the dead passes over a\nstream, across a bridge, past a dog or two, which guard the gate of\nparadise. The Hindu, Iranian, Greek, and Scandinavian, all have the\ndog, and much emphasis has been laid on the 'Aryan' character of this\ncreed. The native Iroquois Indians believed that \"the spirits on their\njourney (to heaven) were beset with difficulties and perils. There was\na swift river to be crossed on a log that shook beneath the feet,\nwhile a ferocious dog opposed their passage[7].\" Here is the Persians'\nnarrow bridge, and even Kerberos himself!\n\nIt is also interesting to note that, as the Hindus identify with the\nsun so many of their great gods, so the Iroquois \"sacrifices to some\nsuperior spirit, or to the sun, with which the superior spirits were\nconstantly confounded by the primitive Indian[8].\"\n\nWeber holds that because Greek and Hindu gave the name 'bear' to a\nconstellation, therefore this is the \"primitive Indo-Germanic name of\nthe star[9].\" But the Massachusetts Indians \"gave their own name for\nbear to the Ursa major\" (Williams' 'Key,' cited Palfrey, I. p. 36; so\nLafitau, further west).\n\nAgain, three, seven, and even 'thrice-seven,' are holy not only in\nIndia but in America.\n\nIn this new world are found, to go further, the analogues of Varuna in\nthe monotheistic god Viracocha of the Peruvians, to whom is addressed\nthis prayer: \"Cause of all things! ever present, helper, creator, ever\nnear, ever fortunate one! Thou incorporeal one above the sun,\ninfinite, and beneficent[10]\"; of the Vedic Snake of the Deep, in the\nMexican Cloud-serpent; of the Vedic Lightning-bird, who brings fire\nfrom heaven, in the Indian Thunder-bird, who brings fire from\nheaven[11]; of the preservation of one individual from a flood (in the\nepic, Manu's 'Seven Seers') in the same American myth, even including\nthe holy mountain, which is still shown[12]; of the belief that the\nsun is the home of departed spirits, in the same belief all over\nAmerica;[13] of the belief that stars are the souls of the dead, in\nthe same belief held by the Pampas;[14] and even of the late Brahmanic\ncustom of sacrificing the widow (suttee), in the practice of the\nNatchez Indians, and in Guatemala, of burning the widow on the pyre of\nthe dead husband.[15] The storm wind (Odin) as highest god is found\namong the Choctaws; while 'Master of Breath' is the Creeks' name for\nthis divinity. Huraka (hurricane, ouragon, ourage) is the chief god in\nHayti.[16] An exact parallel to the vague idea of hell at the close of\nthe Vedic period, with the gradual increase of the idea, alternating\nwith a theory of reincarnation, may be found in the fact that, in\ngeneral, there is no notion of punishment after death among the\nIndians of the New World; but that, while the good are assisted and\ncared for after death by the 'Master of Breath,' the Creeks believe\nthat the liar, the coward, and the niggard (Vedic sinners _par\nexcellence!_) are left to shift for themselves in darkness; whereas\nthe Aztecs believed in a hell surrounded by the water called 'Nine\nRivers,' guarded by a dog and a dragon; and the great Eastern American\ntribes believe that after the soul has been for a while in heaven it\ncan, if it chooses, return to earth and be born again as a man,\nutilizing its old bones (which are, therefore, carefully preserved by\nthe surviving members of the family) as a basis for a new body.[17]\n\nTo turn to another foreign religion, how tempting would it be to see\nin Nutar the 'abstract power' of the Egyptian, an analogue of _brahma_\nand the other 'power' abstractions of India; to recognize Brahm[=a] in\nEl; and in Nu, sky, and expanse of waters, to see Varuna; especially\nwhen one compares the boat-journey of the Vedic seer with R[=a]'s boat\nin Egypt. Or, again, in the twin children of R[=a] to see the A\u00e7vins;\nand to associate the mundane egg of the Egyptians with that of the\nBrahmans.[18] Certainly, had the Egyptians been one of the Aryan\nfamilies, all these conceptions had been referred long ago to the\ncategory of 'primitive Aryan ideas.' But how primitive is a certain\nreligious idea will not be shown by simple comparison of Aryan\nparallels. It will appear more often that it is not 'primitive,' but,\nso to speak, per-primitive, aboriginal with no one race, but with the\nrace of man. When we come to describe the religions of the wild tribes\nof India it will be seen that among them also are found traits common,\non the one hand, to the Hindu, and on the other to the wild tribes of\nAmerica. With this warning in mind one may inquire at last in how far\na conservative judgment can find among the Aryans themselves an\nidentity of original conception in the different forms of divinities\nand religious rites. Foremost stand the universal chrematheism,\nworship of inanimate objects regarded as usefully divine, and the cult\nof the departed dead. This latter is almost universal, perhaps\npan-Aryan, and Weber is probably right in assuming that the primitive\nAryans believed in a future life. But Benfey's identification of\nTartaras with the Sanskrit Tal[=a]tala, the name of a special hell in\nvery late systems of cosmogony, is decidedly without the bearing he\nwould put upon it. The Sanskrit word may be taken directly from the\nGreek, but of an Aryan source for both there is not the remotest\nhistorical probability.\n\nWhen, however, one comes to the Lord of the Dead he finds himself\nalready in a narrower circle. Yama is the Persian Yima, and the name\nof Kerberos may have been once an adjective applied to the dog that\nguarded the path to paradise; but other particular conceptions that\ngather about each god point only to a period of Indo-Iranian unity.\n\nOf the great nature-gods the sun is more than Aryan, but doubtless was\nAryan, for S[=u]rya is Helios, but Savitar is a development especially\nIndian. Dy[=a]\u00fas-pitar is Ze\u00fas-pater, Jupiter.[19] Trita, scarcely\nTriton, is the Persian Thraetaona who conquers Vritra, as does Indra\nin India. The last, on the other hand, is to be referred only\nhesitatingly to the demon A[=n]dra of the Avesta. Varuna, despite\nphonetic difficulties, probably is Ouranos; but Asura (Asen?) is a\ntitle of many gods in India's first period, while the corresponding\nAhura is restricted to the good spirit, [Greek: kat hexoch\u00ean]. The\nseven [=A]dityas are reflected in the _Amesha \u00c7pentas_ of Zoroastrian\nPuritanism, but these are mere imitations, spiritualized and moralized\ninto abstractions. Bhaga is Slavic Bogu and Persian Bagha; Mitra is\nPersian Mithra. The A\u00e7vins are all but in name the Greek gods\nDioskouroi, and correspond closely in detail (riding on horses,\nhealing and helping, originally twins of twilight). Tacitus gives a\nparallel Teutonic pair (Germ. 43). Ushas, on the other hand, while\netymologically corresponding to Aurora, Eos, is a specially Indian\ndevelopment, as Eos has no cult. V[=a]ta, Wind, is an aboriginal god,\nand may perhaps be Wotan, Odin.[20] Parjanya, the rain-god, as B\u00fchler\nhas shown, is one with Lithuanian Perk\u00fana, and with the northern\nFi\u00f6gyu. The 'fashioner,' Tvashtar (sun) is only Indo-Iranian;\nThw[=a]sha probably being the same word.\n\nOf lesser mights, Angiras, name of fire, may be Persian _angaros_,\n'fire-messenger' (compare [Greek: haggelos]), perhaps originally one\nwith Sk. _ang[=a]ra_, 'coal.'[21] Hebe has been identified with\n_yavy[=a]_, young woman, but this word is enough to show that Hebe has\nnaught to do with the Indian pantheon. The Gandharva, moon, is\ncertainly one with the Persian Gandarewa, but can hardly be identical\nwith the Centaur. Saram[=a] seems to have, together with S[=a]rameya,\na Grecian parallel development in Helena (a goddess in Sparta),\nSelene, Hermes; and Sarany[=u] may be the same with Erinnys, but these\nare not Aryan figures in the form of their respective developments,\nthough they appear to be so in origin. It is scarcely possible that\nEarth is an Aryan deity with a cult, though different Aryan (and\nun-Aryan) nations regarded her as divine. The Maruts are especially\nIndian and have no primitive identity as gods with Mars, though the\nnames may be radically connected. The fire-priests, Bhrigus, are\nsupposed to be one with the [Greek: phlegixu]. The fact that the fate\nof each in later myth is to visit hell would presuppose, however, an\nAryan notion of a torture-hell, of which the Rig Veda has no\nconception. The Aryan identity of the two myths is thereby made\nuncertain, if not implausible. The special development in India of the\nfire-priest that brings down fire from heaven, when compared with the\npersonification of the 'twirler' (Promantheus) in Greece, shows that\nno detailed myth was current in primitive times.[22] The name of the\nfire-priest, _brahman_ = fla(g)men(?), is an indication of the\nprimitive fire-cult in antithesis to the _soma_-cult, which latter\nbelongs to the narrower circle of the Hindus and Persians. Here,\nhowever, in the identity of names for sacrifice (_yajna, ya\u00e7na_) and\nof _barhis_, the sacrificial straw, of _soma = haoma_, together with\nmany other liturgical similarities, as in the case of the metres, one\nmust recognize a fully developed _soma_-cult prior to the separation\nof the Hindus and Iranians.\n\nOf demigods of evil type the _Y[=a]tus_ are both Hindu and Iranian,\nbut the priest-names of the one religion are evil names in the other,\nas the _devas_, gods, of one are the _daevas_, demons, of the\nother.[23] There are no other identifications that seem at\nall certain in the strict province of religion, although in myth the\nform of Manus, who is the Hindu Noah, has been associated with\nTeutonic Mannus, and Greek Minos, noted in Thucydides for his\nsea-faring. He is to Yama (later regarded as his brother) as is Noah\nto Adam.\n\nWe do not lay stress on lack of equation in proper names, but, as\nSchrader shows (p. 596 ff.), very few comparisons on this line have a\nsolid phonetic foundation. Minos, Manu; Ouranos, Varuna; Wotan,\nV[=a]ta, are dubious; and some equate flamen with bl\u00f4tan, sacrifice.\n\nOther wider or narrower comparisons, such as Neptunus from _n\u00e1p[=a]t\nap[=a]m,_ seem to us too daring to be believed. Apollo (_sapary_),\nAphrodite (Apsaras), Artamis (non-existent _[r.]tam[=a]l_), P[=a]n\n(_pavana_), have been cleverly compared, but the identity of forms has\nscarcely been proved. Nor is it important for the comparative\nmythologist that Okeanus is 'lying around' (_[=a]\u00e7\u00e1y[=a]na_). More\nthan that is necessary to connect Ocean mythologically with the demon\nthat surrounds (swallows) the waters of the sky. The Vedic parallel is\nrather Ras[=a], the far-off great 'stream.' It is rarely that one\nfinds Aryan equivalents in the land of fairies and fays. Yet are the\nHindu clever artizan Ribhus[24] our 'elves,' who, even to this day,\nare distinct from fairies in their dexterity and cleverness, as every\nwise child knows.\n\nBut animism, as simple spiritism, fetishism, perhaps ancestor-worship,\nand polytheism, with the polydaemonism that may be called\nchrematheism, exists from the beginning of the religious history,\nundisturbed by the proximity of theism, pantheism, or atheism; exactly\nas to-day in the Occident, beside theism and atheism, exist spiritism\nand fetishism (with their inherent magic), and even ancestor-worship,\nas implied by the reputed after-effect of parental curses.\n\nWhen the circle is narrowed to that of the Indo-Iranian connection the\nsimilarity in religion between the Veda and Avesta becomes much more\nstriking than in any other group, as has been shown. It is here that\nthe greatest discrepancy in opinion obtains among modern scholars.\nSome are inclined to refer all that smacks of Persia to a remote\nperiod of Indo-Iranian unity, and, in consequence, to connect all\ntokens of contact with the west with far-away regions out of India. It\nis scarcely possible that such can be the case. But, on the other\nhand, it is unhistorical to connect, as do some scholars, the worship\nof _soma_ and Varuna with a remote period of unity, and then with a\njump to admit a close connection between Veda and Avesta in the Vedic\nperiod. The Vedic Aryans appear to have lived, so to speak, hand in\nglove with the Iranians for a period long enough for the latter to\nshare in that advance of Varuna-worship from polytheism to\nquasi-monotheism which is seen in the Rig Veda. This worship of Varuna\nas a superior god, with his former equals ranged under him in a group,\nchiefly obtains in that family (be it of priest or tribe, or be the\ntwo essentially one from a religious point of view) which has least to\ndo with pure _soma_-worship, the inherited Indo-Iranian cult; and the\nPersian Ahura, with the six spiritualized equivalents of the old Vedic\n[=A]dityas, can have come into existence only as a direct\ntransformation of the latter cult, which in turn is later than the\ncult that developed in one direction as chief of gods a Zeus; in\nanother, a Bhaga; in a third, an Odin. On the other hand, in the\ngradual change in India of Iranic gods to devils, _asuras_, there is\nan exact counterpart to the Iranian change of meaning from _deva_ to\n_daeva_. But if this be the connection, it is impossible to assume a\nlong break between India and the west, and then such a sudden tie as\nis indicated by the allusions in the Rig Veda to the Persians and\nother western lands. The most reasonable view, therefore, appears to\nbe that the Vedic and Iranian Aryans were for a long time in contact,\nthat the contact began to cease as the two peoples separated to east\nand west, but that after the two peoples separated communication was\nsporadically kept up between them by individuals in the way of trade\nor otherwise. This explains the still surviving relationship as it is\nfound in later hymns and in thank-offerings apparently involving\nIranian personages.\n\nThey that believe in a monotheistic Varuna-cult preceding the Vedic\npolytheism must then ignore the following facts: The Slavic equivalent\nof Bhaga and the Teutonic equivalent of V[=a]ta are to these\nrespective peoples their highest gods. They had no Varuna. Moreover,\nthere is not the slightest proof that Ouranos in Greece[25] was ever a\ngod worshipped as a great god before Zeus, nor is there any\nprobability that to the Hindu Dyaus Pitar was ever a great god, in the\nsense that he ever had a special cult as supreme deity. He is\nphysically great, and physically he is father, as is Earth mother, but\nhe is religiously great only in the Hellenic-Italic circle, where\nexists no Uranos-cult[26]. Rather is it apparent that the Greek raised\nZeus, as did the Slav Bhaga, to his first head of the pantheon. Now\nwhen one sees that in the Vedic period Varuna is the type of\n[=A]dityas, to which belong Bhaga and Mitra as distinctly less\nimportant personages, it is plain that this can mean only that Varuna\nhas gradually been exalted to his position at the expense of the other\ngods. Nor is there perfect uniformity between Persian and Hindu\nconceptions. Asura in the Veda is not applied to Varuna alone. But in\nthe Avesta, Ahura is the one great spirit, and his six spirits are\nplainly a protestant copy and modification of Varuna and his six\nunderlings. This, then, can mean--which stands in concordance with the\nother parallels between the two religions--only that Zarathustra\nborrows the Ahura idea from the Vedic Aryans at a time when Varuna was\nbecome superior to the other gods, and when the Vedic cult is\nestablished in its second phase[27]. To this fact points also the\nevidence that shows how near together geographically were once the\nHindus and Persians. Whether one puts the place of separation at the\nKabul or further to the north-west is a matter of indifference. The\nPersians borrow the idea of Varuna Asura, whose eye is the sun. They\nspiritualize this, and create an Asura unknown to other nations.\n\nOf von Bradke's attempt to prove an original Dyaus Asura we have said\nnothing, because the attempt has failed signally. He imagines that the\nepithet Asura was given to Dyaus in the Indo-Iranian period, and that\nfrom a Dyaus Pitar Asura the Iranians made an abstract Asura, while\nthe Hindus raised the other gods and depressed Dyaus Pitar Asura;\nwhereas it is quite certain that Varuna (Asura) grew up, out, and over\nthe other Asuras, his former equals.\n\nAnd yet it is almost a pity to spend time to demonstrate that\nVaruna-worship was not monotheistic originally. We gladly admit that,\neven if not a primitive monotheistic deity, Varuna yet is a god that\nbelongs to a very old period of Hindu literature. And, for a worship\nso antique, how noble is the idea, how exalted is the completed\nconception of him! Truly, the Hindus and Persians alone of Aryans\nmount nearest to the high level of Hebraic thought. For Varuna beside\nthe loftiest figure in the Hellenic pantheon stands like a god beside\na man. The Greeks had, indeed, a surpassing aesthetic taste, but in\ngrandeur of religious ideas even the daring of Aeschylus becomes but\nhesitating bravado when compared with the serene boldness of the Vedic\nseers, who, first of their race, out of many gods imagined God.\n\nIn regard to eschatology, as in regard to myths, it has been shown\nthat the utmost caution in identification is called for. It may be\nsurmised that such or such a belief or legend is in origin one with a\nlike faith or tale of other peoples. But the question whether it be\none in historical origin or in universal mythopoetic fancy, and this\nlatter be the only common origin, must remain in almost every case\nunanswered[28]. This is by far not so entertaining, nor so picturesque\na solution as is the explanation of a common historical basis for any\ntwo legends, with its inspiring 'open sesame' to the door of the\nlocked past. But which is truer? Which accords more with the facts as\nthey are collected from a wider field? As man in the process of\ndevelopment, in whatever quarter of earth he be located, makes for\nhimself independently clothes, language, and gods, so he makes myths\nthat are more or less like those of other peoples, and it is only when\nnames coincide and traits that are unknown elsewhere are strikingly\nsimilar in any two mythologies that one has a right to argue a\nprobable community of origin.\n\nBut even if the legend of the flood were Babylonian, and the Asuras as\ndevils were due to Iranian influence--which can neither be proved nor\ndisproved--the fact remains that the Indian religion in its main\nfeatures is of a purely native character.\n\nAs the most prominent features of the Vedic religion must be regarded\nthe worship of _soma_ of nature-gods that are in part already more\nthan this, of spirits, and of the Manes; the acknowledgment of a moral\nlaw and a belief in a life hereafter. There is also a vaguer nascent\nbelief in a creator apart from any natural phenomenon, but the creed\nfor the most part is poetically, indefinitely, stated: 'Most\nwonder-working of the wonder-working gods, who made heaven and\nearth'(as above). The corresponding Power is Cerus in Cerus-Creator\n(Kronos?), although when a name is given, the Maker, Dh[=a]tar, is\nemployed; while Tvashtar, the artificer, is more an epithet of the sun\nthan of the unknown creator. The personification of Dh[=a]tar as\ncreator of the sun, etc., belongs to later Vedic times, and foreruns\nthe Father-god of the last Vedic period. Not till the classical age\n(below) is found a formal identification of the Vedic nature-gods with\nthe departed Fathers (Manes). Indra, for example, is invoked in the\nRig Veda to 'be a friend, be a father, be more fatherly than the\nfathers';[29] but this implies no patristic side in Indra, who is\ncalled in the same hymn (vs. 4) the son of Dyaus (his father); and\nDyaus Pitar no more implies, as say some sciolists, that Dyaus was\nregarded as a human ancestor than does 'Mother Earth' imply a belief\nthat Earth is the ghost of a dead woman.\n\nIn the Veda there is a nature-religion and an ancestor-religion. These\napproach, but do not unite; they are felt as sundered beliefs.\nSun-myths, though by some denied _in toto_, appear plainly in the\nVedic hymns. Dead heroes may be gods, but gods, too, are natural\nphenomena, and, again, they are abstractions. He that denies any one\nof these sources of godhead is ignorant of India.\n\nM\u00fcller, in his _Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, has divided Vedic\nliterature into four periods, that of _chandas_, songs; _mantras_,\ntexts; _br[=a]hmanas;_ and _s[=u]tras_. The _mantras_ are in\ndistinction from _chandas_, the later hymns to the earlier gods.[30]\nThe latter distinction can, however, be established only on subjective\ngrounds, and, though generally unimpeachable, is sometimes liable to\nreversion. Thus, M\u00fcller looks upon RV. VIII. 30 as 'simple and\nprimitive,' while others see in this hymn a late _mantra_. Between the\nRig Veda and the Br[=a]hmanas, which are in prose, lies a period\nfilled out in part by the present form of the Atharva Veda, which, as\nhas been shown, is a Veda of the low cult that is almost ignored by\nthe Rig Veda, while it contains at the same time much that is later\nthan the Rig Veda, and consists of old and new together in a manner\nentirely conformable to the state of every other Hindu work of early\ntimes. After this epoch there is found in the liturgical period, into\nwhich extend the later portions of the Rig Veda (noticeably parts of\nthe first, fourth, eighth, and tenth books), a religion which, in\nspiritual tone, in metaphysical speculation, and even in the\ninterpretation of some of the natural divinities, differs not more\nfrom the bulk of the Rig Veda than does the social status of the time\nfrom that of the earlier text. Religion has become, in so far as the\ngods are concerned, a ritual. But, except in the building up of a\nFather-god, theology is at bottom not much altered, and the\neschatological conceptions remain about as they were, despite a\npreliminary sign of the doctrine of metempsychosis. In the Atharva\nVeda, for the first time, hell is known by its later name (xii. 4.\n36), and perhaps its tortures; but the idea of future punishment\nappears plainly first in the Brahmanic period. Both the doctrine of\nre-birth and that of hell appear in the earliest S[=u]tras, and\nconsequently the assumption that these dogmas come from Buddhism does\nnot appear to be well founded; for it is to be presumed whatever\nreligious belief is established in legal literature will have preceded\nthat literature by a considerable period, certainly by a greater\nlength of time than that which divides the first Brahmanic law from\nBuddhism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Compare the accounts of Lafitau; of the native\n     Iroquois, baptized as Morgan; and the works of Schoolcraft\n     and Parkman.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: _Jesuits in North America_, Introduction, p.\n     lxi.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: \"Like other Indians, the Hurons were desperate\n     gamblers, staking their all,--ornaments, clothing, canoes,\n     pipes, weapons, and wives,\" _loc. cit._ p. xxxvi. Compare\n     Palfrey, of Massachusetts Indians. The same is true of all\n     savages.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: _Ib._ p. lxvii.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Compare _\u00c7at. Br_. VI. 1. 1, 12; VII. 5. 1, 2\n     _sq_., for the Hindu tortoise in its first form. The\n     totem-form of the tortoise is well known in America.\n     (Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 85.)]\n\n     [Footnote 6: Charlevoix ap. Parkman.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Parkman, _loc. cit_. p. LXXII; Brinton, _Myths\n     of the New World_, p. 248. A good instance of bad comparison\n     in eschatology will be found in Geiger, _Ostir. Cult_. pp.\n     274-275.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Parkman, _loc. cit_. p. LXXXVI.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: _Sits. Berl. Akad_. 1891, p. 15.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Brinton, _American Hero Myths_, p. 174. The\n     first worship was Sun-worship, then Viracocha-worship arose,\n     which kept Sun-worship while it predicated a 'power beyond.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, pp. 85,\n     203.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: _Ib_. pp. 86, 202.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 243. The\n     American Indians \"uniformly regard the sun as heaven, the\n     soul goes to the sun.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 14: _Ib._ p. 245.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: _Ib._ p. 239-40.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: _Ib._ p. 50, 51.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: _Ib._ pp. 242, 248, 255; Schoolcraft, III.\n     229.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Renouf, _Religion of Ancient Egypt_; pp. 103,\n     113 ff.]\n\n      [Footnote 19: Teutonic Tuisco is doubtful, as the identity\n     with Dyaus has lately been contested on phonetic grounds.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: V[=a]ta, ventus, does not agree very well with\n     Wotan.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: _[=A]it. Br._ III, 34. [Greek: haggaron pur]\n     is really tautological, but beacon fires gave way to\n     couriers and [Greek: haggaros] lost the sense of fire, as\n     did [Greek: haggelos].]\n\n     [Footnote 22: But the general belief that fire (Agni, Ignis,\n     Slavic ogni) was first brought to earth from heaven by a\n     half-divine personality is (at least) Aryan, as Kuhn has\n     shown.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Compare the _kavis_ and _ugijs_ (poets and\n     priests) of the Veda with the evil spirits of the same names\n     in the Avesta, like _daeva_ = _deva_. Compare, besides, the\n     Indo-Iranian feasts, _medha_, that accompany this\n     Bacchanalian liquor-worship.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Ludwig interprets the three Ribhus as the\n     three seasons personified. Etymologically connected is\n     Orpheus, perhaps.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: [Greek: o de chalkeos asphales aien edos menei\n     ouranos], Pind. N. vi. 5; compare Preller[4], p.40.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: Wahrscheinlich sind Uranos und Kronos erst aus\n     dem Culte des Zeus abstrahirt worden. Preller[4], p. 43.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: When Aryan deities are decadent, Trita, Mitra,\n     etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: Spiegel holds that the whole idea of future\n     punishment is derived from Persia (_Eranische\n     Altherthumskunde_, I. p. 458), but his point of view is\n     naturally prejudiced. The allusion to the supposed\n     Babylonian coin, _man[=a]_, in RV. VIII. 78. 2, would\n     indicate that the relation with Babylon is one of trade, as\n     with Aegypt. The account of the flood may be drawn thence,\n     so may the story of Deucalion, but both Hindu and Hellenic\n     versions may be as native as is that of the American\n     redskins.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: IV. 17. 17.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: _loc. cit._ pp. 70, 480.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nBRAHMANISM.\n\n\nBesides the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda there are two others, called\nrespectively the S[=a]ma Veda and the Yajur Veda.[1] The former\nconsists of a small collection of verses, which are taken chiefly from\nthe eighth and ninth books of the Rig Veda, and are arranged for\nsinging. It has a few more verses than are contained in the\ncorresponding parts of the Rik, but the whole is of no added\nimportance from the present point of view. It is of course made\nentirely for the ritual. Also made for the ritual is the Yajur Veda,\nthe Veda of sacrificial formulae. But this Veda is far more important.\nWith it one is brought into a new land, and into a world of ideas that\nare strange to the Rik. The period represented by it is a sort of\nbridge between the Rik and the Br[=a]hmanas. The Yajus is later than\nRik or Atharvan, belonging in its entirety more to the age of the\nliturgy than to the older Vedic era. With the Br[=a]hmanas not only is\nthe tone changed from that of the Rig Veda; the whole moral atmosphere\nis now surcharged with hocus-pocus, mysticism, religiosity, instead of\nthe cheerful, real religion which, however formal, is the soul of the\nRik. In the Br[=a]hmanas there is no freshness, no poetry. There is in\nsome regards a more scrupulous outward morality, but for the rest\nthere is only cynicism, bigotry, and dullness. It is true that each of\nthese traits may be found in certain parts of the Rig Veda, but it is\nnot true that they represent there the spirit of the age, as they do\nin the Brahmanic period. Of this Brahmanic stoa, to which we now turn,\nthe Yajur Veda forms the fitting entrance. Here the priest is as much\nlord as he is in the Br[=a]hmanas. Here the sacrifice is only the act,\nthe sacrificial forms (_yajus_), without the spirit.\n\nIn distinction from the verse-Veda (the Rik), the Yajur Veda contains\nthe special formulae which the priest that attends to the erection of\nthe altar has to speak, with explanatory remarks added thereto. This\nof course stamps the collection as mechanical; but the wonder is that\nthis collection, with the similar Br[=a]hmana scriptures that follow\nit, should be the only new literature which centuries have to show.[2]\nAs explanatory of the sacrifice there is found, indeed, a good deal of\nlegendary stuff, which sometimes has a literary character. But nothing\nis for itself; everything is for the correct performance of the\nsacrifice.[3]\n\nThe geographical centre is now changed, and instead of the Punj[=a]b,\nthe 'middle district' becomes the seat of culture. Nor is there much\ndifference between the district to which can be referred the rise of\nthe Yajur Veda and that of the Br[=a]hmanas. No less altered is the\nreligion. All is now symbolical, and the gods, though in general they\nare the gods of the Rig Veda, are not the same as of old. The priests\nhave become gods. The old appellation of 'spirit,' _asura_, is\nconfined to evil spirits. There is no longer any such 'henotheism' as\nthat of the Rig Veda. The Father-god, 'lord of beings,' or simply 'the\nfather,' is the chief god. The last thought of the Rig Veda is the\nfirst thought of the Yajur Veda. Other changes have taken place. The\ndemigods of the older period, the water-nymphs of the Rik, here become\nseductive goddesses, whose increase of power in this art agrees with\nthe decline of the warrior spirit that is shown too in the whole mode\nof thinking. Most important is the gradual rise of Vishnu and the\nfirst appearance of \u00c7iva. Here _brahma_, which in the Rik has the\nmeaning 'prayer' alone, is no longer mere prayer, but, as in later\nliterature, holiness. In short, before the Br[=a]hmanas are reached\nthey are perceptible in the near distance, in the Veda of Formulae,\nthe Yajus;[4] for between the Yajur Veda and the Br[=a]hmanas there is\nno essential difference. The latter consist of explanations of the\nsacrificial liturgy, interspersed with legends, bits of history,\nphilosophical explanations, and other matter more or less related to\nthe subject. They are completed by the Forest Books, [=A]ranyakas,\nwhich contain the speculations of the later theosophy, the Upanishads\n(below). It is with the Yajur Veda and its nearly related literature,\nthe Br[=a]hmanas, that Brahmanism really begins. Of these latter the\nmost important in age and content are the Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig\nVeda and Yajur Veda), called [=A]itareya and \u00c7ata-patha, the former\nrepresenting the western district, the latter, in great part, a more\neastern region.\n\nAlthough the 'Northerners' are still respectfully referred to, yet, as\nwe have just said, the people among whom arose the Br[=a]hmanas are\nnot settled in the Punj[=a]b, but in the country called the 'middle\ndistrict,' round about the modern Delhi. For the most part the\nPunj[=a]b is abandoned; or rather, the literature of this period does\nnot emanate from the Aryans that remained in the Punj[=a]b, but from\nthe still emigrating descendants of the old Vedic people that used to\nlive there. Some stay behind and keep the older practices, not in all\nregards looked upon as orthodox by their more advanced brethren, who\nhave pushed east and now live in the country called the land of the\nKurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las.[5] They are spread farther east, along the\nbanks of the Jumna and Ganges, south of Nep[=a]l; while some are still\nabout and south of the holy Kurukshetra or 'plain of Kurus.' East of\nthe middle district the Kosalas and Videhas form, in opposition to the\nKurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las, the second great tribe (Tirh[=u]t). There\nare now two sets of 'Seven Rivers,' and the holiness of the western\ngroup is perceptibly lessened. Here for the first time are found the\n_Vr[=a]tya_-hymns, intended to initiate into the Brahmanic order\nAryans who have not conformed to it, and speak a dialectic\nlanguage.[6] From the point of view of language and geography, no less\nthan from that of the social and spiritual conditions, it is evident\nthat quite a period has elapsed since the body of the Rig Veda was\ncomposed. The revealed texts are now ancient storehouses of wisdom.\nReligion has apparently become a form; in some regards it is a farce.\n\n\"There are two kinds of gods; for the gods are gods, and priests that\nare learned in the Veda and teach it are human gods.\" This sentence,\nfrom one of the most important Hindu prose works,[7] is the key to the\nreligion of the period which it represents; and it is fitly followed\nby the further statement, that like sacrifice to the gods are the fees\npaid to the human gods the priests.[8] Yet with this dictum, so\nimportant for the understanding of the religion of the age, must be\njoined another, if one would do that age full justice: 'The sacrifice\nis like a ship sailing heavenward; if there be a sinful priest in it,\nthat one priest would make it sink' (_\u00c7at. Br_. IV. 2. 5. 10). For\nalthough the time is one in which ritualism had, indeed, become more\nimportant than religion, and the priest more important than the gods,\nyet is there no lack of reverential feeling, nor is morality regarded\nas unimportant. The first impression, however, which is gained from\nthe literature of this period is that the sacrifice is all in all;\nthat the endless details of its course, and the petty questions in\nregard to its arrangement, are not only the principal objects of care\nand of chief moment, but even of so cardinal importance that the whole\nreligious spirit swings upon them. But such is not altogether the\ncase. It is the truth, yet is it not the whole truth, that in these\nBr[=a]hmanas religion is an appearance, not a reality. The sacrifice\nis indeed represented to be the only door to prosperity on earth and\nto future bliss; but there is a quiet yet persistent belief that at\nbottom a moral and religious life is quite as essential as are the\nritualistic observances with which worship is accompanied.\n\nTo describe Brahmanism as implying a religion that is purely one of\nceremonies, one composed entirely of observances, is therefore not\naltogether correct. In reading a liturgical work it must not be\nforgotten for what the work was intended. If its object be simply to\ninculcate a special rite, one cannot demand that it should show\nbreadth of view or elevation of sentiment. Composed of observances\nevery work must be of which the aim is to explain observances. In\npoint of fact, religion (faith and moral behavior) is here assumed,\nand so entirely is it taken for granted that a statement emphasizing\nthe necessity of godliness is seldom found.\n\nNevertheless, having called attention to the religious spirit that\nlies latent in the pedantic Br[=a]hmanas, we are willing to\nadmit that the age is overcast, not only with a thick cloud of\nritualism, but also with an unpleasant mask of phariseeism. There\ncannot have been quite so much attention paid to the outside of the\nplatter without neglect of the inside. And it is true that the priests\nof this period strive more for the completion of their rites than for\nthe perfection of themselves. It is true, also, that occasionally\nthere is a revolting contempt for those people who are not of especial\nservice to the priest. There are now two godlike aristocrats, the\npriest and the noble. The 'people' are regarded as only fit to be the\n\"food of the nobility.\" In the symbolical language of the time the\nbricks of the altar, which are consecrated, are the warrior caste; the\nfillings, in the space between the bricks, are not consecrated; and\nthese \"fillers of space\" are \"the people\" (_\u00c7at. Br_. VI. 1. 2. 25).\nYet is religion in these books not dead, but sleeping; to wake again\nin the Upanishads with a fuller spiritual life than is found in any\nother pre-Christian system. Although the subject matter of the\nBr[=a]hmanas is the cult, yet are there found in them numerous\nlegends, moral teachings, philosophical fancies, historical items,\netymologies and other adventitious matter, all of which are helpful in\ngiving a better understanding of the intelligence of the people to\nwhom is due all the extant literature of the period. Long citations\nfrom these ritualistic productions would have a certain value, in\nshowing in native form the character of the works, but they would make\nunendurable reading; and we have thought it better to arrange the\nmultifarious contents of the chief Br[=a]hmanas in a sort of order,\nalthough it is difficult always to decide where theology ends and\nmoral teachings begin, the two are here so interwoven.\n\n\nBRAHMANIC THEOLOGY AND THE SACRIFICE.\n\nWhile in general the pantheon of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda is that\nof the Br[=a]hmanas, some of the older gods are now reduced in\nimportance, and, on the other hand, as in the Yajur Veda, some gods\nare seen to be growing in importance. 'Time,' deified in the Atharvan,\nis a great god, but beside him still stand the old rustic divinities;\nand chrematheism, which antedates even the Rig Veda, is still\nrecognized. To the 'ploughshare' and the 'plough' the Rig Veda has an\nhymn (IV. 57. 5-8), and so the ritual gives them a cake at the\nsacrifice (_\u00c7un[=a]\u00e7[=i]rya, \u00c7at. Br._ II. 6. 3. 5). The number of the\ngods, in the Rig Veda estimated as thirty-three, or, at the end of\nthis period, as thousands, remains as doubtful as ever; but, in\ngeneral, all groups of deities become greater in number. Thus, in TS.\nI. 4. 11. 1, the Rudras alone are counted as thirty-three instead of\neleven; and, _ib._ V. 5. 2. 5, the eight Vasus become three hundred\nand thirty-three; but it is elsewhere hinted that the number of the\ngods stands in the same relation to that of men as that in which men\nstand to the beasts; that is, there are not quite so many gods as men\n(_\u00c7at. Br._ II. 3. 2. 18).\n\nOf more importance than the addition of new deities is the subdivision\nof the old. As one finds in Greece a [Greek: Zeus katachthonios]\nbeside a [Greek: Zeus xenios], so in the Yajur Veda and Br[=a]hmanas\nare found (an extreme instance) hail 'to K[=a]ya,' and hail 'to\nKasm[=a]i,' that is, the god Ka is differentiated into two divinities,\naccording as he is declined as a noun or as a pronoun; for this is the\ngod \"Who?\" as the dull Br[=a]hmanas interpreted that verse of the Rig\nVeda which asks 'to whom (which, as) god shall we offer sacrifice?'\n(M[=a]it. S. III. 12. 5.) But ordinarily one divinity like Agni is\nsubdivided, according to his functions, as 'lord of food,' 'lord of\nprayer,' etc.[9]\n\nIn the Br[=a]hmanas different names are given to the chief god, but he\nis most often called the Father-god (Praj[=a]pati, 'lord of\ncreatures,' or the Father, _pit[=a]_). His earlier Vedic type is\nBrihaspati, the lord of strength, and, from another point of\nview, the All-god.[10] The other gods fall into various groups, the\nmost significant being the triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun.[11] Not much\nweight is to be laid on the theological speculations of the time as\nindicative of primitive conceptions, although they may occasionally\nhit true. For out of the number of inane fancies it is reasonable to\nsuppose that some might coincide with historic facts. Thus the\nAll-gods of the Rig Veda, by implication, are of later origin than the\nother gods, and this, very likely, was the case; but it is a mere\nguess on the part of the priest. The _\u00c7atapatha_, III. 6. 1. 28,\nspeaks of the All-gods as gods that gained immortality on a certain\noccasion, _i.e._, became immortal like other gods. So the [=A]dityas\ngo to heaven before the Angirasas (_[=A][=i]t. Br_. IV. 17), but this\nhas no such historical importance as some scholars are inclined to\nthink. The lesser gods are in part carefully grouped and numbered, in\na manner somewhat contradictory to what must have been the earlier\nbelief. Thus the 'three kinds of gods' are now Vasus, of earth,\nRudras, of air, and [=A]dityas, of sky, and the daily offerings are\ndivided between them; the morning offering belonging only to the\nVasus, the mid-day one only to (Indra and) the Rudras, the third to\nthe [=A]dityas with the Vasus and Rudras together.[12] Again, the\nmorning and mid-day pressing belong to the gods alone, and strict rule\nis observed in distinguishing their portion from that of the Manes\n(_\u00c7at. Br_. IV. 4. 22). The difference of sex is quite ignored, so\nthat the 'universal Agni' is identified with (mother) earth; as is\nalso, once or twice, P[=u]shan (_ib._ III. 8. 5. 4; 2. 4. 19; II. 5.\n4. 7). As the 'progenitor,' Agni facilitates connubial union, and is\ncalled \"the head god, the progenitor among gods, the lord of beings\"\n(_ib._ III. 4. 3. 4; III. 9. 1. 6). P[=u]shan is interpreted to mean\ncattle, and Brihaspati is the priestly caste (_ib_. III. 9. 1. 10\nff.). The base of comparison is usually easy to find. 'The earth\nnourishes,' and 'P[=u]shan nourishes,' hence Pushan is the earth; or\n'the earth belongs to all' and Agni is called 'belonging to all'\n(universal), hence the two are identified. The All-gods, merely on\naccount of their name, are now the All; Aditi is the 'unbounded' earth\n(_ib_. III. 9. 1. 13; IV. 1. 1. 23; i. 1. 4. 5; III. 2. 3. 6). Agni\nrepresents all the gods, and he is the dearest, the closest, and the\nsurest of all the gods (_ib_. I. 6. 2. 8 ff.). It is said that man on\nearth fathers the fire (that is, protects it), and when he dies the\nfire that he has made his son on earth becomes his father, causing him\nto be reborn in heaven (_ib_. II. 3. 3. 3-5; VI. 1. 2. 26).\n\nThe wives of the gods _(dev[=a]n[=a]m patn[=i]r yajati)_, occasionally\nmentioned in the Rig Veda, have now an established place and cult\napart from that of the gods (_ib_. I. 9. 2. 11). The fire on the\nhearth is god Agni in person, and is not a divine or mystic type; but\nhe is prayed to as a heavenly friend. Some of these traits are old,\nbut they are exaggerated as compared with the more ancient theology.\nWhen one goes on a journey or returns from one, 'even if a king were\nin his house' he should not greet him till he makes homage to his\nhearth-fires, either with spoken words or with silent obeisance. For\nAgni and Praj[=a]pati are one, they are son and father (_ib_. II. 4.\n1. 3, 10; VI. 1. 2. 26). The gods have mystic names, and these 'who\nwill dare to speak?' Thus, Indra's mystic name is Arjuna (_ib_. II. 1.\n2. 11). In the early period of the Rig Veda the priest dares to speak.\nThe pantheism of the end of the Rig Veda is here decided and\nplain-spoken, as it is in the Atharvan. As it burns brightly or not\nthe fire is in turn identified with different gods, Rudra, Varuna,\nIndra, and Mitra (_ib_. II. 3. 2. 9 ff.). Agni is all the gods and the\ngods are in men (_ib_. III. 1. 3. 1; 4. 1. 19; II. 3. 2. 1: Indra and\nKing Yama dwell in men). And, again, the Father (Praj[=a]pati) is the\nAll; he is the year of twelve months and five seasons(_ib_. I. 3. 5.\n10). Then follows a characteristic bit. Seventeen verses are to be\nrecited to correspond to the 'seventeenfold' Praj[=a]pati. But 'some\nsay' twenty-one verses; and he may recite twenty-one, for if 'the\nthree worlds' are added to the above seventeen one gets twenty, and\nthe sun (_ya esa tapati_) makes the twenty-first! As to the number of\nworlds, it is said (_ib_. I. 2. 4. 11, 20-21) that there are three\nworlds, and possibly a fourth.\n\nSoma is now the moon, but as being one half of Vritra, the evil demon.\nThe other half became the belly of creatures (_ib_. I. 6. 3. 17).\nSlightly different is the statement that Soma was Vritra, IV. 2. 5.\n15. In _[=A]it. Br._ I. 27, King Soma is bought of the Gandharvas by\nV[=a]c, 'speech,' as a cow.[13] With phases of the moon Indra and Agni\nare identified. One is the deity of the new; the other, of the full\nmoon; while Mitra is the waning, and Varuna the waxing moon (_\u00c7at.\nBr._ II. 4. 4. 17-18). This opposition of deities is more fully\nexpressed in the attempt to make antithetic the relations of the gods\nand the Manes, thus: 'The gods are represented by spring, summer, and\nrains; the Fathers, by autumn, winter, and the dewy season; the gods,\nby the waxing; the Fathers, by the waning moon; the gods, by day; the\nFathers, by night; the gods, by morning; the Fathers, by afternoon'\n(_\u00c7at. Br._ II. 1.-31; _ib_. II. 4. 2. 1. ff.: 'The sun is the light\nof the gods; the moon, of the Fathers; fire, of men'). Between morning\nand afternoon, as representative of gods and Manes respectively,\nstands midday, which, according to the same authority (II. 4. 2. 8),\nrepresents men. The passage first cited continues thus: 'The seasons\nare gods and Fathers; gods are immortal; the Fathers are mortal.' In\nregard to the relation between spring and the other seasons, the fifth\nsection of this passage may be compared: 'Spring is the priesthood;\nsummer, the warrior-caste; the rains are the (_vi\u00e7_) people.'[14]\n\nAmong the conspicuous divine forms of this period is the Queen of\nSerpents, whose verses are chanted over fire; but she is the earth,\naccording to some passages (_[=A]it. Br._. V. 23; _\u00c7at. Br._ II. 1. 4.\n30; IV. 6. 9. 17). In their divine origin there is, indeed, according\nto the theology now current, no difference between the powers of light\nand of darkness, between the gods and the 'spirits,' _asuras, i.e._,\nevil spirits. Many tales begin with the formula: 'The gods and evil\nspirits, both born of the Father-god' (_\u00c7at. Br._ I. 2. 4. 8). Weber\nthinks that this implies close acquaintance with Persian worship, a\nsort of tit-for-tat; for the Hindu would in that case call the holy\nspirit, _ahura_, of the Persian a devil, just as the Persian makes an\nevil spirit, _daeva_, out of the Hindu god, _deva_. But the relations\nbetween Hindu and Persian in this period are still very uncertain. It\nis interesting to follow out some of the Brahmanic legends, if only to\nsee what was the conception of the evil spirits. In one such\ntheological legend the gods and the (evil) spirits, both being sons of\nthe Father-god, inherited from him, respectively, mind and speech;\nhence the gods got the sacrifice and heaven, while the evil spirits\ngot this earth. Again, the two entered on the inheritance of their\nfather in time, and so the gods have the waxing moon, and the evil\nspirits, the waning moon (_ib._ III 2. 1. 18; I. 7. 2. 22).\n\nBut what these Asuras or (evil) spirits really are may be read easily\nfrom the texts. The gods are the spirits of light; the Asuras are the\nspirits of darkness. Therewith is indissolubly connected the idea that\nsin and darkness are of the same nature. So one reads that when the\nsun rises it frees itself 'from darkness, from sin,' as a snake from\nits slough (_ib._ II. 3. I. 6). And in another passage it is said that\ndarkness and illusion were given to the Asuras as their portion by the\nFather-god _(ib._ II. 4. 2. 5). With this may be compared also the\nfrequent grouping of The Asuras or Rakshas with darkness (_e.g., ib._\nIII. 8. 2. 15; IV. 3. 4. 21). As to the nature of the gods the\nevidence is contradict\u00f3ry. Both gods and evil spirits were originally\nsoulless and mortal. Agni (Fire) alone was immortal, and it was only\nthrough him that the others continued to live. They became immortal by\nputting in their inmost being the holy (immortal) fire (_ib._ II. 2.\n2. 8). On the other hand, it is said that Agni was originally without\nbrightness; and Indra, identified with the sun, was originally dark\n(_ib._ IV. 5.4.3; III. 4. 2. 15). The belief in an originally human\ncondition of the gods (even the Father-god was originally mortal) is\nexemplified in a further passage, where it is said that the gods used\nto live on earth, but they grew tired of man's endless petitions and\nfled; also in another place, where it is stated that the gods used to\ndrink together with men visibly, but now they do so invisibly (_ib_.\nII. 3. 4. 4; III. 6. 2. 26). How did such gods obtain their supremacy?\nThe answer is simple, 'by sacrifice' (_\u00c7at. Br_. III. 1. 4. 3;\n_[=A]it. Br_. II. I. I). So now they live by sacrifice: 'The sun would\nnot rise if the priest did not make sacrifice' (_\u00c7at. Br_. II. 3. 1.\n5). Even the order of things would change if the order of ceremonial\nwere varied: Night would be eternal if the priests did so and so; the\nmonths would not pass, one following the other, if the priests walked\nout or entered together, etc. (_ib._ IV. 3. 1. 9-10). It is by a\nknowledge of the Vedas that one conquers all things, and the sacrifice\nis part and application of this knowledge, which in one passage is\nthus reconditely subdivided: 'Threefold is knowledge, the Rig Veda,\nthe Yajur Veda, and the S[=a]ma Veda.[15] The Rig Veda, _i.e_., the\nverses sung, are the earth; the Yajus is air; the S[=a]man is the sky.\nHe conquers earth, air, and sky respectively by these three Vedas. The\nRik and S[=a]man are Indra and are speech; the Yajus is Vishnu and\nmind' (_ib._ IV. 6. 7. 1 ff.). An item follows that touches on a\nmodern philosophical question. Apropos of speech and mind: 'Where\nspeech (alone) existed everything was accomplished and known; but\nwhere mind (alone) existed nothing was accomplished or known' (_ib._\nI. 4. 4. 3-4, 7). Mind and speech are male and female, and as\nyoke-fellows bear sacrificed to the gods; to be compared is the\ninteresting dispute between mind and speech (_ib._ 5. 8). As dependent\nas is man on what is given by the gods, so dependent are the gods on\nwhat is offered to them by men (_T[=a]itt. Br._ II. 2. 7. 3; _\u00c7at.\nBr._ I. 2. 5. 24). Even the gods are now not native to heaven. They\nwin heaven by sacrifice, by metres, etc. (_\u00c7at. Br._ IV. 3. 2. 5).\n\nWhat, then, is the sacrifice? A means to enter into the godhead of the\ngods, and even to control the gods; a ceremony where every word was\npregnant with consequences;[16] every movement momentous. There are\nindications, however, that the priests themselves understood that much\nin the ceremonial was pure hocus-pocus, and not of such importance as\nit was reputed to be. But such faint traces as survive of a freer\nspirit objecting to ceremonial absurdities only mark more clearly the\nlevel plain of unintelligent superstition which was the feeding-ground\nof the ordinary priests.\n\nSome of the cases of revolted common-sense are worth citing.\nConspicuous as an authority on the sacrifice, and at the same time as\na somewhat recalcitrant priest, is Y[=a]j[.n]avalkya, author and\ncritic, one of the greatest names in Hindu ecclesiastical history. It\nwas he who, apropos of the new rule in ethics, so strongly insisted\nupon after the Vedic age and already beginning to obtain, the rule\nthat no one should eat the flesh of the (sacred) cow ('Let no one eat\nbeef.... Whoever eats it would be reborn (on earth) as a man of ill\nfame') said bluntly: 'As for me I eat (beef) if it is good (firm).[17]\nIt certainly required courage to say this, with the especial warning\nagainst beef, the meat of an animal peculiarly holy (_\u00c7at. Br._ III.\nI. 2. 21). It was, again, Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya (_\u00c7at. Br_., I. 3. I. 26),\nwho protested against the priests' new demand that the benefit of the\nsacrifice should accrue in part to the priest; whereas it had\npreviously been understood that not the sacrificial priest but the\nsacrificer (the worshipper, the man who hired the priest and paid the\nexpenses) got all the benefit of the ceremony. Against the priests'\nnovel and unjustifiable claim Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya exclaims: 'How can people\nhave faith in this? Whatever be the blessing for which the priests\npray, this blessing is for the worshipper (sacrificer) alone.[18] It\nwas Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya, too, who rebutted some new superstition involving\nthe sacrificer's wife, with the sneer, 'who cares whether the wife,'\netc. (_kas tad [=a]driyeta, ib._ 21). These protestations are na\u00efvely\nrecorded, though it is once suggested that in some of his utterances\nY[=a]j\u00f1avalkya was not in earnest (_ib._ IV. 2. 1. 7). The high mind\nof this great priest is contrasted with the mundane views of his\ncontemporaries in the prayers of himself and of another priest; for it\nis recorded that whereas Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya's prayer to the Sun was 'give\nme light' (or 'glory,' _varco me dehi_), that of [=A]upoditeya was\n'give me cows' (_ib_. I. 9. 3. 16). The chronicler adds, after citing\nthese prayers, that one obtains whatever he prays for, either\nillumination or wealth.[19] Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya, however, is not the only\nprotestant. In another passage, _ib_. ii. 6. 3. 14-17, the sacrificer\nis told to shave his head all around, so as to be like the sun; this\nwill ensure his being able to 'consume (his foes) on all sides like\nthe sun,' and it is added: But [=A]suri said, 'What on earth has it to\ndo with his head? Let him not shave.'[20]\n\n'Eternal holiness' is won by him that offers the sacrifice of the\nseasons. Characteristic is the explanation, 'for such an one wins the\nyear, and a year is a complete whole, and a complete whole is\nindestructible (eternal); hence his holiness is indestructible, and he\nthereby becomes a part of a year and goes to the gods; but as there is\nno destruction in the gods, his holiness is therefore indestructible'\n(_ib._ ii. 6. 3. 1).\n\nNot only a man's self but also his Manes are benefited by means of\nsacrifice.[21] He gives the Manes pleasure with his offering, but he\nalso raises their estate, and sends them up to live in a higher\nworld.[22] The cosmological position of the Manes are the\n_av[=a]ntaradi\u00e7as_, that is, between the four quarters; though,\naccording to some, there are three kinds of them, _soma_-Manes,\nsacrifice-Manes (Manes of the sacrificial straw), and the burnt,\n_i.e_., the spirits of those that have been consumed in fire. They\nare, again, identified with the seasons, and are expressly mentioned\nas the guardians of houses, so that the Brahmanic Manes are at once\nPenates, Lares, and Manes.[23]\n\nThe sacrifice is by no means meant as an aid to the acquirement of\nheavenly bliss alone. Many of the great sacrifices are for the gaining\nof good things on earth. In one passage there is described a ceremony,\nthe result of which is to be that the warrior, who is the sacrificer,\nmay say to a man of the people \"fetch out and give me your store\"\n(_ib._ i. 3. 2. 15; iv. 3. 3. 10). Everybody sacrifices, even the\nbeasts erect altars and fires![24] That one should sacrifice without\nthe ulterior motive of gain is unknown. Brahmanic India knows no\nthank-offering. Ordinarily the gain is represented as a compensating\ngift from the divinity, whom the sacrificer pleases with his\nsacrifice. Very plainly is this expressed. \"He offers the sacrifice to\nthe god with this text: 'Do thou give to me (and) I (will) give to\nthee; do thou bestow on me (and) I (will) bestow on thee'\" (_V[=a]j.\nS._ iii. 50; _\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 5. 3. 19). But other ends are\naccomplished. By the sacrifice he may injure his enemy, but in\noffering it, if he leaves too much over, that part accrues to the good\nof his foe (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 2. 1.7; 9. 1. 18).\n\nThe sacrifice is throughout symbolical. The sacrificial straw\nrepresents the world; the metre used represents all living creatures,\netc.,--a symbolism frequently suggested by a mere pun, but often as\nridiculously expounded without such aid. The altar's measure is the\nmeasure of metres. The cord of regeneration (badge of the twice-born,\nthe holy cord of the high castes) is triple, because food is\nthreefold, or because the father and mother with the child make three\n(_\u00c7at. Br._ iii. 5. 1. 7 ff.; 2. 1. 12); the _jagati_ metre contains\nthe living world, because this is called _jagat_ (_ib._ i. 8. 2. 11).\n\nOut of the varied mass of rules, speculations, and fancies, a few of\ngeneral character may find place here, that the reader may gain a\ncollective impression of the religious literature of the time.\n\nThe fee for the sacrifice is mentioned in one place as one thousand\ncows. These must be presented in groups of three hundred and\nthirty-three each, three times, with an odd one of three colors. This\nis on account of the holy character of the numeral three. 'But\n[=A]suri (apparently fearful that this rule would limit the fee) said\n\"he may give more\"' (_\u00c7at. Br._ iv. 5. 8. 14). As to the fee, the\nrules are precise and their propounders are unblushing. The priest\nperforms the sacrifice for the fee alone, and it must consist of\nvaluable garments, kine, horses,[25] or gold--when each is to be given\nis carefully stated. Gold is coveted most, for this is 'immortality,'\n'the seed of Agni,' and therefore peculiarly agreeable to the pious\npriest.[26] For his greed, which goes so far that he proclaims that he\nwho gives a thousand kine obtains all things of heaven (_ib._ iv. 5.\n1. 11), the priest has good precept to cite, for the gods of heaven,\nin all the tales told of them, ever demand a reward from each other\nwhen they help their neighbor-gods. Nay, even the gods require a\nwitness and a vow, lest they injure each other. Discord arose among\nthem when once they performed the guest-offering; they divided into\ndifferent parties, Agni with the Vasus, Soma with the Rudras, Varuna\nwith the [=A]dityas, and Indra with the Maruts. But with discord came\nweakness, and the evil spirits got the better of them. So they made a\ncovenant with each other, and took Wind as witness that they would not\ndeceive each other. This famous covenant of the gods is the prototype\nof that significant covenant made by the priest, that he would not,\nwhile pretending to beseech } good for the sacrificer,[27] secretly do\nhim harm (as he could by altering the ceremonial).[28] The theory of\nthe fee, in so far as it affects the sacrifices, is that the gods, the\nManes, and men all exist by what is sacrificed. Even the gods seek\nrewards; hence the priests do the same.[29] The sacrificer sacrifices\nto get a place in _devaloka_ (the world of the gods). The sacrifice\ngoes up to the world of gods, and after it goes the fee which the\nsacrificer (the patron) gives; the sacrificer follows by catching hold\nof the fee given to the priests (_ib._. i. 9. 3. 1). It is to be\nnoted, moreover, that sacrificing for a fee is recognized as a\nprofession. The work (sacrifice is work, 'work is sacrifice,' it is\nsomewhere said) is regarded as a matter of business. There are three\nmeans of livelihood occasionally referred to, telling stories, singing\nsongs, and reciting the Veda at a sacrifice (_\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 2. 4.\n16).\n\nAs an example of the absurdities given as 'the ways of knowledge'\n(absurdities which are necessary to know in order to a full\nunderstanding of the mental state under consideration) may be cited\n_\u00c7at. Br_. iv. 5. 8. 11, where it is said that if the sacrificial cow\ngoes east the sacrificer wins a good world hereafter; if north, he\nbecomes more glorious on earth; if west, rich in people and crops; if\nsouth, he dies; 'such are the ways of knowledge.' In the same spirit\nit is said that the sun rises east because the priest repeats certain\nverses _([=A]it. Br_. i. 7. 4). No little stress is laid on\ngeographical position. The east is the quarter of the gods; the north,\nof men; the south, of the dead (Manes; _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 2. 5. 17); while\nthe west is the region of snakes, according to _ib_. iii. 1. 1. 7. On\naccount of the godly nature of the east (\"from the east came the gods\nwestward to men,\" _ib_. ii. 6. 1. 11) the sacrificial building, like\noccidental churches, is built east and west, not north and south. The\ncardinal points are elsewhere given to certain gods; thus the north is\nRudra's.[30]\n\nIt has been said that the theological ideas are not clear. This was\ninevitable, owing to the tendency to identify various divinities.\nEspecially noticeable is the identification of new or local gods with\nothers better accredited, Rudra and Agni, etc. Rudra is the god of\ncattle, and when the other gods went to heaven by means of sacrifice\nhe remained on earth; his local names are \u00c7arva, Bhava, 'Beast-lord,'\nRudra, Agni (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 7. 3. 8; M[=a]it. S. i. 6. 6). Indra is the\nVasu of the gods. The gods are occasionally thirty-four in number,\neight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve [=A]dityas, heaven and earth, and\nPraj[=a]pati as the thirty-fourth; but this Praj[=a]pati is the All\nand Everything (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 6. 4. 2; iv. 5. 7. 2 ff.). Of these\ngods, who at first were all alike and good, three became superior,\nAgni, Indra, and S[=u]rya. But, again, the Sun is death, and Agni is\nhead of all the gods. Moreover, the Sun is now Indra; the Manes are\nthe seasons, and Varuna, too, is the seasons, as being the year (_\u00c7at.\nBr._ iv. 5. 4. 1; i. 6. 4. 18; iv. 4. 5. 18). Aditi, as we have said,\nis the Earth; the fee for an offering to her is a cow. Why? Because\nEarth is a cow and Aditi is Earth; Earth is a mother and a cow is a\nmother. Hence the fee is a cow.[31]\n\nThe tales of the gods, for the most part, are foolish. But they show\nwell what conception the priests had of their divinities.\n\nMan's original skin was put by the gods upon the cow; hence a cow runs\naway from a man because she thinks he is trying to get back his skin.\nThe gods cluster about at an oblation, each crying out 'My name,'\n_i.e._, each is anxious to get it. The gods, with the evil\nspirits--'both sons of the Father'--attract to themselves the plants;\nVaruna gets the barley by a pun. They build castles to defend\nthemselves from the evil spirits. Five gods are picked out as worthy\nof offerings: Aditi, Speech, Agni, Soma, the Sun (five, because the\nseasons are five and the regions are five). Indra and Wind have a\ndispute of possession; Praj[=a]pati, the Father, decides it. The\nheavenly singers, called the Gandharvas, recited the Veda to entice\n(the divine female) Speech to come to them; while the gods, for the\nsame purpose, created the lute, and sang and played to her. She came\nto the gods; hence the weakness of women in regard to such things.\nIndra is the god of sacrifice; the stake of the sacrifice is Vishnu's;\nV[=a]yu (Wind) is the leader of beasts; Bhaga is blind;[32] P[=u]shan\n(because he eats mush) is toothless. The gods run a race to see who\nshall get first to the sacrifice, and Indra and Agni win; they are the\nwarrior-caste among the gods, and the All-gods are the people (_vi\u00e7ve,\nvi\u00e7._). Yet, again, the Maruts are the people, and Varuna is the\nwarrior-caste; and, again, Soma is the warrior-caste. The Father-god\nfirst created birds, then reptiles and snakes. As these all died he\ncreated mammalia; these survived because they had food in themselves;\nhence the Vedic poet says 'three generations have passed away.'[33]\n\nVaruna is now quite the god of night and god of purification, as a\nwater-god. Water is the 'essence (sap) of immortality,' and the bath\nof purification at the end of the sacrifice (_avabh[r.]tha_) stands in\ndirect relation to Varuna. The formula to be repeated is: \"With the\ngods' help may I wash out sin against the gods; with the help of men\nthe sin against men\" (_\u00c7at. Br_. iv. 4. 3. 15; ii. 5. 2. 47). Mitra\nand Varuna are, respectively, intelligence and will, priest and\nwarrior; and while the former may exist without the latter, the latter\ncannot live without the former, 'but they are perfect only when they\nco\u00f6perate' (_ib_. iv. 1. 4. 1).\n\nOf the divine legends some are old, some new. One speaks of the\nsacrifice as having been at first human, subsequently changing to\nbeast sacrifice, eventually to a rice offering, which last now\nrepresents the original sacrificial animal, man.[34] Famous, too, is\nthe legend of the flood and Father Manu's escape from it (_\u00c7at. Br_.\ni. 8. 1. 1 ff.). Again, the Vedic myth is retold, recounting the rape\nof _soma_ by the metrical equivalent of fire (_T[=a]itt. Br_. i. 1. 3.\n10; _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 8. 2. 10). Another tale takes up anew the old story\nof Cupid and Psyche (Pur[=u]ravas and Urva\u00e7[=i]); and another that of\nthe Hindu Prometheus story, wherein M[=a]tari\u00e7van fetches fire from\nheaven, and gives it to mortals (_T[=a]itt. Br_. iii. 2. 3. 2; _\u00c7at.\nBr_. xi. 5. 1. 1; i. 7. 1. 11).[35]\n\nInteresting, also, is the tale of Vishnu having been a dwarf, and the\ntortoise _avatar_, not of Vishnu, but of Praj[=a]pati; also the\nattempt of the evil spirits to climb to heaven, and the trick with\nwhich Indra outwitted them.[36] For it is noticeable that the evil\nspirits are as strong by nature as are the gods, and it is only by\ncraft that the latter prevail.[37]\n\nSeldom are the tales of the gods indecent. The story of Praj[=a]pati's\nincest with his daughter is a remnant of nature worship which\nsurvives, in more or less anthropomorphic form, from the time of the\nRig Veda (x. 61.) to that of mediaeval literature,[38] and is found in\nfull in the epic, as in the Brahmanic period; but the story always\nends with the horror of the gods at the act.[39]\n\nOld legends are varied. The victory over Vritra is now expounded thus:\nIndra, who slays Vritra, is the sun. Vritra is the moon, who swims\ninto the sun's mouth on the night of the new moon. The sun rises after\nswallowing him, and the moon is invisible because he is swallowed (\"he\nwho knows this swallows his foes\"). The sun vomits out the moon, and\nthe latter is then seen in the west, and increases again, to serve the\nsun as food. In another passage it is said that when the moon is\ninvisible he is hiding in plants and waters (_\u00c7at. Br._ i. 6. 3. 17;\n4. 18-20).\n\n\nBRAHMANIC RELIGION.\n\nWhen the sacrifice is completed the priest returns, as it were, to\nearth, and becomes human. He formally puts off his sacrificial vow,\nand rehabilitates himself with humanity, saying, \"I am even he that I\nam.\"[40] As such a man, through service to the gods become a divine\noffering, and no longer human, was doubtless considered the creature\nthat first served as the sacrificial animal. Despite protestant\nlegends such as that just recorded, despite formal disclaimers, human\nsacrifice existed long after the period of the Rig Veda, where it is\nalluded to; a period when even old men are exposed to die.[41] The\n_anaddh[=a]purusha_ is not a fiction; for that, on certain occasions,\ninstead of this 'man of straw' a real victim was offered, is shown by\nthe ritual manuals and by Brahmanic texts.[42] Thus, in _\u00c7at. Br_. vi.\n2. 1. 18: \"He kills a man first.... The cord that holds the man is the\nlongest.\" It is noteworthy that also among the American Indians the\ndeath of a human victim by fire was regarded as a religious ceremony,\nand that, just as in India the man to be sacrificed was allowed almost\nall his desires for a year, so the victim of the Indian was first\ngreeted as brother and presented with gifts, even with a wife.[43]\n\nBut this, the terrible barbaric side of religious worship, is now\ndistinctly yielding to a more humane religion. The 'barley ewe'[44] is\ntaking the place of a bloodier offering. It has been urged that the\nhumanity[45] and the accompanying silliness of the Brahmanic period as\ncompared with the more robust character of the earlier age are due to\nthe weakening and softening effects of the climate. But we doubt\nwhether the climate of the Punj[=a]b differs as much from that of\nDelhi and Patna as does the character of the Rig Veda from that of the\nBr[=a]hmanas. We shall protest again when we come to the subject of\nBuddhism against the too great influence which has been claimed for\nclimate. Politics and society, in our opinion, had more to do with\naltering the religions of India than had a higher temperature and\nmiasma. As a result of ease and sloth--for the Brahmans are now the\ndivine pampered servants of established kings, not the energetic peers\nof a changing population of warriors--the priests had lost the\ninspiration that came from action; they now made no new hymns; they\nonly formulated new rules of sacrifice. They became intellectually\ndebauched and altogether weakened in character. Synchronous with this\nuniversal degradation and lack of fibre, is found the occasional\nsubstitution of barley and rice sacrifices for those of blood; and it\nmay be that a sort of selfish charity was at work here, and the priest\nsaved the beast to spare himself. But there is no very early evidence\nof a humane view of sacrifice influencing the priests.\n\nThe Brahman is no Jain. One must read far to hear a note of the\napproaching _ahims[=a]_ doctrine of 'non-injury.' At most one finds a\ncontemptuous allusion, as in a pitying strain, to the poor plants and\nanimals that follow after man in reaping some sacrificial benefit from\na ceremony.[46] It does not seem to us that a recognized respect for\nanimal life or kindness to dumb creatures lies at the root of proxy\nsacrifice, though it doubtless came in play. But still less does it\nappear probable that, as is often said, aversion to beast-sacrifice is\ndue to the doctrine of _karma_, and re-birth in animal form. The\n_karma_ notion begins to appear in the Brahmanas, but not in the\n_sams[=a]ra_ shape of transmigration. It was surely not because the\nHindu was afraid of eating his deceased grandmother that he first\nabstained from meat. For, long after the doctrine of _karma_ and\n_sams[=a]ra_[47] is established, animal sacrifices are not only\npermitted but enjoined; and the epic characters shoot deer and even\neat cows. We think, in short, that the change began as a sumptuary\nmeasure only. In the case of human sacrifice there is doubtless a\ncivilized repugnance to the act, which is clearly seen in many\npassages where the slaughter of man is made purely symbolical. The\nonly wonder is that it should have obtained so long after the age of\nthe Rig Veda. But like the stone knife of sacrifice among the Romans\nit is received custom, and hard to do away with, for priests are\nconservative. Human sacrifice must have been peculiarly horrible from\nthe fact that the sacrificer not only had to kill the man but to eat\nhim, as is attested by the formal statement of the liturgical\nworks.[48] But in the case of other animals (there are five\nsacrificial animals, of which man is first) we think it was a question\nof expense on the part of the laity. When the _soma_ became rare and\nexpensive, substitutes were permitted and enjoined. So with the great\nsacrifices. The priests had built up a great complex of forms, where\nat every turn fees were demanded. The whole expense, falling on the\none individual to whose benefit accrued the sacrifice, must have been\nenormous; in the case of ordinary people impossible. But the priests\nthen permitted the sacrifice of substitutes, for their fees still\nremained; and even in the case of human sacrifice some such caution\nmay have worked, for ordinarily it cost 'one thousand cattle' to buy a\nman to be sacrificed. A proof of this lies in the fact that animal\nsacrifices were not forbidden at any time, only smaller (cheaper)\nanimals took the place of cattle. In the completed Brahmanic code the\nrule is that animals ought not to be killed except at sacrifice, and\npractically the smaller creatures were substituted for cattle, just as\nthe latter had gradually taken the place of the old horse (and man)\nsacrifice.\n\nIf advancing civilization results in an agreeable change of morality\nin many regards, it is yet accompanied with wretched traits in others.\nThe whole silliness of superstition exceeds belief. Because\nBh[=a]llabheya once broke his arm on changing the metre of certain\nformulae, it is evident to the priest that it is wrong to trifle with\nreceived metres, and hence \"let no one do this hereafter.\" There is a\ncompensation on reading such trash in the thought that all this\nsuperstition has kept for us a carefully preserved text, but that is\nan accident of priestly foolishness, and the priest can be credited\nonly with the folly. Why is 'horse-grass' used in the sacrifice?\nBecause the sacrifice once ran away and \"became a horse.\" Again one is\nthankful for the historical side-light on the horse-sacrifice; but the\nwitlessness of the unconscious historian can but bring him into\ncontempt.[49] Charms that are said against one are of course cast out\nby other charms. If one is not prosperous with one name he takes\nanother. If the cart creaks at the sacrifice it is the voice of evil\nspirits; and a formula must avert the omen. _Soma_-husks are liable to\nturn into snakes; a formula must avert this catastrophe. Everything\ndone at the sacrifice is godly; _ergo_, everything human is to be done\nin an inhuman manner, and, since in human practice one cuts his left\nfinger-nails first and combs the left side of the beard first, at the\nsacrifice he must cut nails and beard first on the other side, for\n\"whatever is human at a sacrifice is useless\" (_vy[r.]ddhain v[=a]i\ntad yaj\u00f1asya yad m[=a]nu[s.]am_). Of religious puns we have given\ninstances already. Agni says: \"prop me on the propper for that is\nproper\" (_hita_), etc, etc.[50] One of these examples of depraved\nsuperstition is of a more dangerous nature. The effect of the\nsacrifice is covert as well as overt.\n\nThe word is as potent as the act. Consequently if the sacrificer\nduring the sacrifice merely mutter the words \"let such an one die,\" he\nmust die; for the sacrifice is holy, godly; the words are divine, and\ncannot be frustrated (_\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 1. 4. 1; iv. 1. 1. 26).\n\nAll this superstition would be pardonable if it were primitive. But\nthat it comes long after the Vedic poets have sung reveals a\ncontinuance of stupidity which is marvellous. Doubtless those same\npoets were just as superstitious, but one would think that with all\nthe great literature behind them, and the thoughts of the philosophers\njust rising among them, these later priests might show a higher level\nof intelligence. But in this regard they are to India what were the\nmonks of mediaeval times to Europe.\n\nWe turn now to the ethical side of religion. But, before leaving the\nsacrifice, one point should be explained clearly. The Hindu sacrifice\ncan be performed only by the priest, and he must be of the highest\ncaste. No other might or could perform it. For he alone understood the\nancient texts, which to the laity were already only half intelligible.\nAgain, as Barth has pointed out, the Hindu sacrifice is performed only\nfor one individual or his family. It was an expensive rite (for the\ngaining of one object), addressed to many gods for the benefit of one\nman. To offset this, however, one must remember that there were\npopular f\u00eates and sacrifices of a more general nature, to which many\nwere invited and in which even the lower castes took part; and these\nwere also of remote antiquity.\n\nAlready current in the Br[=a]hmanas is the phrase 'man's debts.'\nEither three or four of such moral obligations were recognized, debts\nto the gods, to the seers, to the Manes, and to men. Whoever pays\nthese debts, it is said, has discharged all his duties, and by him all\nis obtained, all is won. And what are these duties? To the gods he\nowes sacrifices; to the seers, study of the Vedas; to the Manes,\noffspring; to man, hospitality (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 7. 2. 1 ff.; in\n_T[=a]itt. Br_. vi. 3. 10. 5, the last fails). Translated into modern\nequivalents this means that man must have faith and good works. But\nmore really is demanded than is stated here. First and foremost is the\nduty of truthfulness. Agni is the lord of vows among the gods (RV.\nviii. 11. 1; _\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 2. 2. 24), and speech is a divinity\n(Sarasvat[=i] is personified speech, _\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 1. 4. 9, etc).\nTruth is a religious as well as moral duty. \"This (All) is two-fold,\nthere is no third; all is either truth or untruth; now truth alone is\nthe gods (_satyam eva dev[=a]s_) and untruth is man.\"[51] Moreover,\n\"one law the gods observe, truth\" (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 1.1. 4; iii. 3. 2. 2;\n4. 2. 8). There is another passage upon this subject: \"To serve the\nsacred fire means truth; he who speaks truth feeds the fire; he who\nspeaks lies pours water on it; in the one case he strengthens his\nvital (spiritual) energy, and becomes better; in the other he weakens\nit and becomes worse\" (_ib_. ii. 2. 2. 19). The second sin, expressly\nnamed and reprobated as such, is adultery. This is a sin against\nVaruna.[52] In connection with this there is an interesting passage\nimplying a priestly confessional. At the sacrifice the sacrificer's\nwife is formally asked by the priest whether she is faithful to her\nhusband. She is asked this that she may not sacrifice with guilt on\nher soul, for \"when confessed the guilt becomes less.\"[53] If it is\nasked what other moral virtues are especially inculcated besides truth\nand purity the answer is that the acts commonly cited as\nself-evidently sins are murder, theft, and abortion; incidentally,\ngluttony, anger, and procrastination.[54]\n\nAs to the moral virtue of observing days, certain times are allowed\nand certain times are not allowed for worldly acts. But every day is\nin part a holy-day to the Hindu. The list of virtues is about the\nsame, therefore, as that of the decalogue--the worship of the right\ndivinity; the observance of certain seasons for prayer and sacrifice;\nhonor to the parents; abstinence from theft, murder, adultery. Envy\nalone is omitted.[55]\n\nWhat eschatological conceptions are strewn through the literature of\nthis era are vague and often contradictory. The souls of the departed\nare at one time spoken of as the stars (_T[=a]itt. S_. v. 4. 1. 3.); at\nanother, as uniting with gods and living in the world of the gods\n_(\u00c7al. Br._. ii. 6. 4. 8).\n\nThe principle of _karma_ if not the theory, is already known, but the\nvery thing that the completed philosopher abhors is looked upon as a\nblessing, viz., rebirth, body and all, even on earth.[56] Thus in one\npassage, as a reward for knowing some divine mystery (as often\nhappens, this mystery is of little importance, only that 'spring is\nborn again out of winter'), the savant is to be 'born again in this\nworld' _(punar ha v[=a] 'asmin loke bhavati, \u00c7at. Br._ i. 5. 3. 14).\nThe esoteric wisdom is here the transfer of the doctrine of\nmetempsychosis to spring. Man has no hope of immortal life (on\nearth);[57] but, by establishing the holy fires, and especially by\nestablishing in his inmost soul the immortal element of fire, he lives\nthe full desirable length of life (_ib_. ii. 2. 2. 14. To the later\nsage, length of life is undesirable). But in yonder world, where the\nsun itself is death, the soul dies again and again. All those on the\nother side of the sun, the gods, are immortal; but all those on this\nside are exposed to this death. When the sun wishes, he draws out the\nvitality of any one, and then that one dies; not once, but, being\ndrawn up by the sun, which is death, into the very realm of death (how\ndifferent to the conception of the sun in the Rig Veda!) he dies over\nand over again.[58] But in another passage it is said that when the\nsacrificer is consecrated he 'becomes one of the deities'; and one\neven finds the doctrine that one obtains 'union with Brahm[=a],' which\nis quite in the strain of the Upanishads; but here such a saying can\nrefer only to the upper castes, for \"the gods talk only to the upper\ncastes\" (_\u00c7al. Br._. xi. 4. 4. 1; iii. 1. 1. 8-10). The dead man is\nelsewhere represented as going to heaven 'with his whole body,' and,\naccording to one passage, when he gets to the next world his good and\nevil are weighed in a balance. There are, then, quite diverse views in\nregard to the fate of a man after death, and not less various are the\nopinions in regard to his reward and punishment. According to the\ncommon belief the dead, on leaving this world, pass between two fires,\n_agni\u00e7ikhe_ raging on either side of his path. These fires burn the\none that ought to be burned (the wicked), and let the good pass by.\nThen the spirit (or the man himself in body) is represented as going\nup on one of two paths. Either he goes to the Manes on a path which,\naccording to later teaching, passes southeast through the moon, or he\ngoes northeast (the gods' direction) to the sun, which is his 'course\nand stay.' In the same chapter one is informed that the rays of the\nsun are the good (dead), and that every brightest light is the\nFather-god. The general conception here is that the sun or the stars\nare the destination of the pious. On the other hand it is said that\none will enjoy the fruit of his acts here on earth, in a new birth; or\nthat he will 'go to the next world'; or that he will suffer for his\nsins in hell. The last is told in legendary form, and appears to us to\nbe not an early view retained in folk-lore, but a late modification of\nan old legend. Varuna sends his son Bhrigu to hell to find out what\nhappens after death, and he finds people suffering torture, and,\nagain, avenging themselves on those that have wronged them. But,\ndespite the resemblance between this and Grecian myth, the fact that\nin the whole compass of the Rik (in the Atharvan perhaps in v. 19)\nthere is not the slightest allusion to torture in hell, precludes, to\nour mind, the possibility of this phase having been an ancient\ninherited belief.[59]\n\nAnnihilation or a life in under darkness is the first (Rik) hell. The\ngeneral antithesis of light (as good) and darkness (as bad) is here\nplainly revealed again. Sometimes a little variation occurs. Thus,\naccording to _\u00c7at. Br._ vi. 5. 4. 8, the stars are women-souls,\nperhaps, as elsewhere, men also. The converse notion that darkness is\nthe abode of evil appears at a very early date: \"Indra brought down\nthe heathen, _dasyus_, into the lowest darkness,\" it is said in the\nAtharva Veda (ix. 2. 17).[60]\n\nIn the later part of the great 'Br[=a]hmana of the hundred paths'\nthere seems to be a more modern view inculcated in regard to the fate\nof the dead. Thus, in vi. 1. 2. 36, the opinion of 'some,' that the\nfire on the altar is to bear the worshipper to the sky, is objected\nto, and it is explained that he becomes immortal; which antithesis is\nin purely Upanishadic style, as will be seen below.\n\n\nBRAHMANIC THEORIES OF CREATION.\n\nIn Vedic polytheism, with its strain of pantheism, the act of creating\nthe world[61] is variously attributed to different gods. At the end of\nthis period theosophy invented the god of the golden germ, the great\nPerson (known also by other titles), who is the one (pantheistic) god,\nin whom all things are contained, and who himself is contain in even\nthe smallest thing. The Atharvan transfers the same idea in its\ndelineation of the pantheistic image to Varuna, that Varuna who is the\nseas and yet is contained \"in the drop of water\" (iv. 16), a Varuna as\ndifferent to the Varuna of the Rik as is the Atharvan Indra to his\nolder prototype. Philosophically the Rik, at its close, declares that\n\"desire is the seed of mind,\" and that \"being arises from not-being.\"\n\nIn the Br[=a]hmanas the creator is the All-god in more anthropomorphic\nform. The Father-god, Praj[=a]pati, or Brahm[=a] (personal equivalent\nof _brahma_) is not only the father of gods, men, and devils, but he\nis the All. This Father-god of universal sovereignty, Brahm[=a],\nremains to the end the personal creator. It is he who will serve as\ncreator for the Puranic S[=a]nkhya philosophy, and even after the rise\nof the Hindu sects he will still be regarded in this light, although\nhis activity will be conditioned by the will of Vishnu or \u00c7iva. In\npure philosophy there will be an abstract First Cause; but as there is\nno religion in the acknowledgment of a First Cause, this too will soon\nbe anthropomorphized.\n\nThe Br[=a]hmanas themselves present no clear picture of creation. All\nthe accounts of a personal creator are based merely on\nanthropomorphized versions of the text 'desire is the seed.'\nPraj[=a]pati wishes offspring, and creates. There is, on the other\nhand, a philosophy of creation which reverts to the tale of the\n'golden germ.'[62] The world was at first water; thereon floated a\ncosmic golden egg (the principle of fire). Out of this came Spirit\nthat desired; and by desire he begat the worlds and all things. It is\nimprobable that in this somewhat Orphic mystery there lies any\npre-Vedic myth. The notion comes up first in the golden germ and\negg-born bird (sun) of the Rik. It is not specially Aryan, and is\nfound even among the American Indians.[63] It is this Spirit with\nwhich the Father-god is identified. But guess-work philosophy then\nasks what upheld this god, and answers that a support upheld all\nthings. So Support becomes a god in his turn, and, since he must reach\nthrough time and space, this Support, Skambha, becomes the All-god\nalso; and to him as to a great divinity the Atharvan sings some of its\nwildest strains. When once speculation is set going in the\nBr[=a]hmanas, the result of its travel is to land its followers in\nintellectual chaos.[64] The gods create the Father-god in one passage,\nand in another the Father-god creates the gods. The Father creates the\nwaters, whence rises the golden egg. But, again, the waters create the\negg, and out of the egg is born the Father. A farrago of\ncontradictions is all that these tales amount to, nor are they\nredeemed even by a poetical garb.[65]\n\nIn the period immediately following the Br[=a]hmanas, or toward the\nend of the Brahmanic period, as one will, there is a famous\ndistinction made between the gods. Some gods, it is said, are\nspirit-gods; some are work-gods. They are born of spirit and of works,\nrespectively. The difference, however, is not essential, but\nfunctional; so that one may conclude from this authority, the Nirukta\n(a grammatical and epexigetical work), that all the gods have a like\nnature; and that the spirit-gods, who are the older, differ only in\nlack of specific functions from the work-gods. A not uninteresting\ndebate follows this passage in regard to the true nature of the gods.\nSome people say they are anthropomorphic; others deny this. \"And\ncertainly what is seen of the gods is not anthropomorphic; for\nexample, the sun, the earth, etc.\"[66] In such a period of theological\nadvance it is matter of indifference to which of a group of gods, all\nessentially one, is laid the task of creation. And, indeed, from the\nVedic period until the completed systems of philosophy, all creation\nto the philosopher is but emanation; and stories of specific acts of\ncreation are not regarded by him as detracting from the creative\nfaculty of the First Cause. The actual creator is for him the factor\nand agent of the real god. On the other hand, the vulgar worshipper of\nevery era believed only in reproduction on the part of an\nanthropomorphic god; and that god's own origin he satisfactorily\nexplained by the myth of the golden egg. The view depended in each\ncase not on the age but on the man.\n\nIf in these many pages devoted to the Br[=a]hmanas we have produced\nthe impression that the religious literature of this period is a\nconfused jumble, where unite descriptions of ceremonies, formulae,\nmysticism, superstitions, and all the output of active bigotry; an\n_olla podrida_ which contains, indeed, odds and ends of sound\nmorality, while it presents, on the whole, a sad view of the\nlatter-day saints, who devoted their lives to making it what it is; we\nhave offered a fairly correct view of the age and its priests, and the\nrather dreary series of illustrations will not have been collected in\nvain. We have given, however, no notion at all of the chief object of\nthis class of writings, the liturgical details of the sacrifices\nthemselves. Even a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of one comparatively short ceremony would be\nso long and tedious that the explication of the intricate formalities\nwould scarcely be a sufficient reward. With Hillebrandt's patient\nanalysis of the New-and Full-Moon sacrifice,[67] of which a sketch is\ngiven by von Schroeder in his _Literatur und Cultur_, the curious\nreader will be able to satisfy himself that a minute description of\nthese ceremonies would do little to further his knowledge of the\nreligion, when once he grasps the fact that the sacrifice is but show.\nSymbolism without folk-lore, only with the imbecile imaginings of a\ndaft mysticism, is the soul of it; and its outer form is a certain\nnumber of formulae, mechanical movements, oblations, and\nslaughterings.\n\nBut we ought not to close the account of the era without giving\ncounter-illustrations of the legendary aspect of this religion; for\nwhich purpose we select two of the best-known tales, one from the end\nof the Br[=a]hmana that is called the [=A]itareya; the other from the\nbeginning of the \u00c7atapatha; the former in abstract, the latter in\nfull.\n\n\nTHE SACRIFICE OF DOGSTAIL (_[=A]it. Br._ vii. 13).\n\nHari\u00e7candra, a king born in the great race of Ikshv[=a]ku, had no son.\nA sage told him what blessings are his who has a son: 'He that has no\nson has no place in the world; in the person of a son a man is reborn,\na second self is begotten.' Then the king desired a son, and the sage\ninstructed him to pray to Varuna for one, and to offer to sacrifice\nhim to the god. This he did, and a son, Rohita, at last was born to\nhim. God Varuna demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'He is not\nfit to be sacrificed, so young as he is; wait till he is ten days\nold.' The god waited ten days, and demanded the sacrifice. But the\nking said: 'Wait till his teeth come.' The god waited, and then\ndemanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth fall\nout'; and when the god had waited, and again demanded the sacrifice,\nthe father said: 'Wait till his new teeth come.' But, when his teeth\nwere come and he was demanded, the father said: 'A warrior is not fit\nto be sacrificed till he has received his armor' (_i.e._, until he is\nknighted). So the god waited till the boy had received his armor, and\nthen he demanded the sacrifice. Thereupon, the king called his son,\nand said unto him: 'I will sacrifice thee to the god who gave thee to\nme.' But the son said, 'No, no,' and took his bow and fled into the\ndesert. Then Varuna caused the king to be afflicted with dropsy.[68]\nWhen Rohita heard of this he was about to return, but Indra, disguised\nas a priest, met him, and said: 'Wander on, for the foot of a wanderer\nis like a flower; his spirit grows, and reaps fruit, and all his sins\nare forgiven in the fatigue of wandering.'[69] So Rohita, thinking\nthat a priest had commanded him, wandered; and every year, as he would\nreturn, Indra met him, and told him still to wander. On one of these\noccasions Indra inspires him to continue on his journey by telling him\nthat the _krita_ was now auspicious; using the names of dice\nafterwards applied to the four ages.[70] Finally, after six years,\nRohita resolved to purchase a substitute for sacrifice. He meets a\nstarving seer, and offers to buy one of his sons (to serve as\nsacrifice), the price to be one hundred cows. The seer has three sons,\nand agrees to the bargain; but \"the father said, 'Do not take the\noldest,' and the mother said, 'Do not take the youngest,' so Rohita\ntook the middle son, Dogstail.\" Varuna immediately agrees to this\nsubstitution of Dogstail for Rohita, \"since a priest is of more value\nthan a warrior.\"\n\nThe sacrifice is made ready, and Vi\u00e7v[=a]mitra (the Vedic seer) is the\nofficiating priest. But no one would bind the boy to the post. 'If\nthou wilt give me another hundred cows I will bind him,' says the\nfather of Dogstail. But then no one would kill the boy. 'If thou wilt\ngive me another hundred cows I will kill him,' says the father. The\n[=A]pri verses[71] are said, and the fire is carried around the boy.\nHe is about to be slain. Then Dogstail prays to 'the first of gods,'\nthe Father-god, for protection. But the Father-god tells him to pray\nto Agni, 'the nearest of the gods.' Agni sends him to another, and he\nto another, till at last, when the boy has prayed to all the gods,\nincluding the All-gods, his fetters drop off; Hari\u00e7candra's dropsy\nceases, and all ends well.[72] Only, when the avaricious father\ndemands his son back, he is refused, and Vi\u00e7v[=a]mitra adopts the boy,\neven dispossessing his own protesting sons. For fifty of the latter\nagree to the exaltation of Dogstail; but fifty revolt, and are cursed\nby Vi\u00e7v[=a]mitra, that their sons' sons should become barbarians, the\nAndhras, Pundras, \u00c7abaras, Pulindas, and M[=u]tibas, savage races (of\nthis time), one of which can be located on the southeast coast. The\nconclusion, and the matter that follows close on this tale, is\nsignificant of the time, and of the priest's authority. For it is said\nthat 'if a king hears this story he is made free of sin,' but he can\nhear it only from a priest, who is to be rewarded for telling it by a\ngift of one thousand cows, and other rich goods.\n\nThe matter following, to which we have alluded, is the use of\nsacrificial formulae to defeat the king's foes, the description of a\nroyal inauguration, and, at this ceremony, the oath which the king has\nto swear ere the priest will anoint him (he is anointed with milk,\nhoney, butter, and water, 'for water is immortality'): \"I swear that\nthou mayst take from me whatever good works I do to the day of my\ndeath, together with my life and children, if ever I should do thee\nharm.\"[73]\n\nWhen the priest is secretly told how he may ruin the king by a false\ninvocation at the sacrifice, and the king is made to swear that if\never he hurts the priest the latter may rob him of earthly and\nheavenly felicity, the respective positions of the two, and the\ncontrast between this era and that of the early hymns, become\nstrikingly evident. It is not from such an age as this that one can\nexplain the spirit of the Rig Veda.\n\nThe next selection is the famous story of the flood, which we\ntranslate literally in its older form.[74] The object of the legend in\nthe Br[=a]hmana is to explain the importance of the Id[=a] (or Il[=a])\nceremony, which is identified with Id[=a], Manu's daughter.\n\n\"In the morning they brought water to Manu to wash with, even as they\nbring it to-day to wash hands with. While he was washing a fish came\ninto his hands. The fish said, 'Keep me, and I will save thee.' 'What\nwilt thou save me from?' 'A flood will sweep away all creatures on\nearth. I will save thee from that.' 'How am I to keep thee?' 'As long\nas we are small,' said he (the fish), 'we are subject to much\ndestruction; fish eats fish. Thou shalt keep me first in a jar. When I\noutgrow that, thou shalt dig a hole, and keep me in it. When I outgrow\nthat, thou shalt take me down to the sea, for there I shall be beyond\ndestruction.'\n\n\"It soon became a (great horned fish called a) _jhasha_, for this\ngrows the largest, and then it said: 'The flood will come this summer\n(or in such a year). Look out for (or worship) me, and build a ship.\nWhen the flood rises, enter into the ship, and I will save thee.'\nAfter he had kept it he took it down to the sea. And the same summer\n(year) as the fish had told him he looked out for (or worshipped) the\nfish; and built a ship. And when the flood rose he entered into the\nship. Then up swam the fish, and Manu tied the ship's rope to the horn\nof the fish; and thus he sailed swiftly up toward the mountain of the\nnorth. 'I have saved thee' said he (the fish). 'Fasten the ship to a\ntree. But let not the water leave thee stranded while thou art on the\nmountain (top). Descend slowly as the water goes down.' So he\ndescended slowly, and that descent of the mountain of the north is\ncalled the 'Descent of Manu.' The flood then swept off all the\ncreatures of the earth, and Manu here remained alone. Desirous of\nposterity, he worshipped and performed austerities. While he was\nperforming a sacrifice, he offered up in the waters clarified butter,\nsour milk, whey and curds. Out of these in a year was produced a\nwoman. She arose when she was solid, and clarified butter collected\nwhere she trod. Mitra and Varuna met her, and said: 'Who art thou?'\n'Manu's daughter,' said she. 'Say ours,' said they. 'No,' said she; 'I\nam my father's.' They wanted part in her. She agreed to this, and she\ndid not agree; but she went by them and came to Manu. Said Manu: 'Who\nart thou?' 'Thy daughter,' said she. 'How my daughter, glorious\nwoman?' She said: 'Thou hast begotten me of the offering, which thou\nmadest in the water, clarified butter, sour milk, whey, and curds. I\nam a blessing; use me at the sacrifice. If thou usest me at the\nsacrifice, thou shalt become rich in children and cattle. Whatever\nblessing thou invokest through me, all shall be granted to thee.' So\nhe used her as the blessing in the middle of the sacrifice. For what\nis between the introductory and final offerings is the middle of the\nsacrifice. With her he went on worshipping and performing austerities,\nwishing for offspring. Through her he begot the race of men on earth,\nthe race of Manu; and whatever the blessing he invoked through her,\nall was granted unto him.\n\n\"Now she is the same with the Id[=a] ceremony; and whoever, knowing\nthis, performs sacrifice with the Id[=a], he begets the race that Manu\ngenerated; and whatever blessing he invokes through her, all is\ngranted unto him.\"\n\nThere is one of the earliest _avatar_ stories in this tale. Later\nwriters, of course, identify the fish with Brahm[=a] and with Vishnu.\nIn other early Br[=a]hmanas the _avatars_ of a god as a tortoise and a\nboar were known long before they were appropriated by the Vishnuites.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: In _[=A]it. Br_. I. 22, there is an unexplained\n     antithesis of Rik, Yajus, S[=a]man, Veda, and Brahma; where\n     the commentator takes Veda to be Atharva Veda. The priests,\n     belonging respectively to the first three Vedas, are for the\n     Rig Veda, the Hotar priest, who recites; for the S[=a]man,\n     the Udg[=a]tar, 'the singer'; for the Y[=a]jus, the\n     Adhvaryu, who attends to the erection of the altar, etc.\n     Compare M\u00fcller, ASL. p. 468.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: It is the only literature of its time except\n     (an important exception) those fore-runners of later\n     S[=u]tra and epic which one may suppose to be in process of\n     formation long before they come to the front.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: There are several schools of this Veda, of\n     which the chief are the V[=a]jasaneyi, or 'White Yajus,'\n     collection; the T[=a]ittir[=i]ya collection; and the\n     M[=a]itr[=a]yan[=i] collection; the first named being the\n     latest though the most popular, the last two being the\n     foremost representatives of the 'Black Yajus.']\n\n     [Footnote 4: The different traits here recorded are given\n     with many illustrative examples by Schroeder, in his\n     _Literatur und Cultur_, p. 90 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Compare Weber, _Ind. Streifen_, II. 197.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: Weber, _Lit_. p. 73.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: The _\u00c7ata-patha Br[=a]hmana_ (or \"Br[=a]mana of\n     the hundred paths\") II. 2. 2. 6; 4.3.14.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: The chief family priest, it is said in the\n     _\u00c7at. Br_. II. 4. 4. 5, is a man of great influence.\n     Sometimes one priest becomes religious head of two clans (an\n     extraordinary event, however; only one name is reported) and\n     then how exalted is his position. Probably, as in the later\n     age of the drama, the chief priest often at the same time\n     practically prime minister. It is said in another part of\n     the same book that although the whole earth is divine, yet\n     it is the priest that makes holy the place of sacrifice\n     (III. 1. 1. 4). In this period murder is defined as killing\n     a priest; other cases are not called murder. Weber, _IS_. X.\n     66.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Barth, _loc. cit._ p. 42.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: He has analogy with Agni in being made of\n     'seven persons (males),' _\u00c7at. Br._ X. 2. 2. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Compare M[=a]it. S. IV. 2. 12, 'sons of\n     Praj[=a]pati, Agni, V[=a]yu, S[=u]rya.']\n\n     [Footnote 12: _\u00c7at. Br._ I. 3. 4. 12; IV. 3. 5. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Interesting is the fact that only priests may\n     eat sacrificial food and drink _soma_ at this period. When\n     even the king should drink _soma_, he is made to drink some\n     transubstantiated liquor which, the priests inform him, has\n     been 'made into _soma_' for him by magic, for the latter is\n     too holy for any warrior really to drink (VII. 19; VIII.\n     20). But in the more popular feasts there are indications\n     that this rule is often broken. Compare Weber,\n     _R[=a]jas[=u]ya_ p. 98.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: For the relations of the different castes at\n     this period, see Weber, in the tenth volume of the _Indische\n     Studien_.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: The Atharvan is not yet recognized as a Veda.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: And even the pronunciation of a word or the\n     accent is fateful. The famous godly example of this is where\n     Tvashtar, the artificer, in anger mispronounced\n     _indra-\u00e7\u00e1tru_ as _indra\u00e7atru,_ whereby the meaning was\n     changed from 'conqueror of Indra' to 'Indra-conquered,' with\n     unexpected result (_\u00c7at. Br._ I. 6. 3. 8; _T[=a]itt. S._ II.\n     4. 12. 1).]\n\n     [Footnote 17: The word is _a[.m]sala_, strong, or 'from the\n     shoulder' (?). In III. 4. 1. 2 one cooks an ox or a goat for\n     a very distinguished guest, as a sort of guest-sacrifice. So\n     the guest is called 'cow-killer' (Weber, _Ved. Beitr\u00e4ge_, p.\n     36).]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Compare _ib_. I. 9. 1. 21, \"let the priest not\n     say 'guard me (or us),' but 'guard this worshipper\n     (sacrificer),' for if he says 'me' he induces no blessing at\n     all; the blessing is not for the priest, but for the\n     sacrificer.\" In both passages, most emphatically,\n     _yajam[=a]nasy[=a]iva_, 'for the sacrificer alone.']\n\n     [Footnote 19: _Ya[.m] k[=a]ma[.m] k[=a]mayate so 'sm[=a]i\n     k[=a]ma[h.] sam[r.]dhyate_.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: [=A]suri's name as a theologian is important,\n     since the S[=a]nkhya philosophy is intimately connected with\n     him; if this [=A]suri be not another man with the same name\n     (compare Weber, _Lit_. p. 152).]\n\n     [Footnote 21: The regular sacrifices to the Manes are daily\n     and monthly; funerals and 'faith-feasts,' _\u00e7r[=a]ddha_, are\n     occasional additions.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Each generation of Manes rises to a better\n     (higher) state if the offerings continue. As a matter of\n     ceremonial this means that the remoter generations of\n     fathers are put indefinitely far off, while the immediate\n     predecessors of a man are the real beneficiaries; they climb\n     up to the sky on the offering.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Compare _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 8. 1. 40; ii. 6. 1. 3,\n     7, 10, 42; ii. 4. 2. 24; v. 5. 4. 28.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: This passage (_ib_. ii. 1. 2. 7) is preceded\n     by a typical argument for setting up the fires under the\n     Pleiades, the wives of the Great Bear stars. He may do or he\n     may not do so--the reasons contradict each other, and all of\n     them are incredibly silly.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: This last fee is not so common. For an\n     oblation to S[=u]rya the fee is a white horse or a white\n     bull; either of them representing the proper form of the sun\n     (_\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 6. 3. 9); but another authority specifies\n     twelve oxen and a plough (T[=a]itt. S. i. 8. 7).]\n\n     [Footnote 26: _\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 1. 1. 3; 2. 3. 28; iv. 3. 4.\n     14; 5. 1. 15; four kinds of fees, _ib_. iv. 3. 4. 6, 7, 24\n     ff. (Milk is also 'Agni's seed,' _ib_. ii. 2. 4. 15).]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Yet in _[=A]it. Br_. iii. 19, the priest is\n     coolly informed how he may be able to slay his patron by\n     making a little change in the invocations. Elsewhere such\n     conduct is reprobated.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: For other covenants, see the epic (chapter on\n     Hinduism).]\n\n     [Footnote 29: _\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 4. 2. 1 ff.; iii. 6. 2. 25;\n     iv. 3. 3. 3; iv. 4.1.17; 6. 6. 3; 7. 6, etc.; iii. 8. 2. 27;\n     3. 26; _[=A]it. Br._. i. 24.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: _ib_. ii. 6. 2. 5. Here Rudra (compare \u00c7iva\n     and Hekate of the cross-roads) is said to go upon\n     'cross-roads'; so that his sacrifice is on cross-roads--one\n     of the new teachings since the time of the Rig Veda. Rudra's\n     sister, Ambik[=a], _ib_. 9, is another new creation, the\n     genius of autumnal sickness.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: _\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 2. 1. 21. How much non-serious\n     fancy there may be here it is difficult to determine. It\n     seems impossible that such as follows can have been meant in\n     earnest: \"The sacrifice, _pray[=a]ja,_ is victory, _jaya_,\n     because _yaja_ = _jaya_. With this knowledge one gets the\n     victory over his rivals\" (_ib_. i. 5. 3. 3, 10).]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Although Bhaga is here (_\u00c7at. Br_. i. 7. 4. 6-7,\n     _endho bhagas_) interpreted as the Sun, he is evidently the same\n     with Good Luck [Greek: typhlhos ghar ho \u00calohhytos] or wealth.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: _\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18;\n     iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3\n     ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2.\n     4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4.\n     6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV.\n     viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of\n     Brahm[=a], the god from the priest, and this from\n     _brahm[=a]_, prayer. The first step is _brahma_--force,\n     power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahm[=a], the\n     one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in\n     the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahm[=a] of\n     gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified _brahma_, the\n     personal Brahm[=a] as god, called also Father-god\n     (Praj[=a]pati) or simply The Father (_pit[=a]_).]\n\n     [Footnote 33: _\u00c7at. Br_. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18;\n     iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3\n     ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2.\n     4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4.\n     6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV.\n     viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of\n     Brahm[=a], the god from the priest, and this from\n     _brahm[=a]_, prayer. The first step is _brahma_--force,\n     power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahm[=a], the\n     one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in\n     the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahm[=a] of\n     gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified _brahma_, the\n     personal Brahm[=a] as god, called also Father-god\n     (Praj[=a]pati) or simply The Father (_pit[=a]_).]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Compare _M[=a]it. S_ iii. 10. 2; _[=A]it.\n     Br_. ii. 8; _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 2. 3. 5; vi. 2. 1. 39; 3. 1. 24;\n     ii. 5. 2. 16, a ram and ewe 'made of barley.' On human\n     sacrifices, compare M\u00fcller, ASL. p. 419; Weber. ZDMG. xviii.\n     262 (see the Bibliography); _Streifen_, i.54.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: Weber has translated some of these legends.\n     _Ind. Streifen_, i. 9 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: _T[=a]itt. Br_. iii. 2. 9. 7; _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 2.\n     5. 5; ii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; vii. 5. 1. 6.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Compare _M[=a]it. S_. i. 9. 8; _\u00c7at. Br_. i.\n     6. 1. 1 ff. The seasons desert the gods, and the demons\n     thrive. In _\u00c7at. Br._ i. 5. 4. 6-11, the Asuras and Indra\n     contend with numbers.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: M\u00fcller, ASL. p. 529.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: _M[=a]it. S_. iv. 2. 12; _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 7. 4.\n     1; ii. 1. 2. 9; vi. 1. 3. 8; _[=A]it. Br_. iii. 33. Compare\n     Muir, OST. iv. p. 45. At a later period there are frequently\n     found indecent tales of the gods, and the Br[=a]hmanas\n     themselves are vulgar enough, but they exhibit no special\n     lubricity on the part of the priests.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: _Idam aham ya \u00e8v[=a] smi so asmi, \u00c7at. Br_. i.\n     1. 1. 6; 9. 3. 23.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: RV. viii. 51. 2; Zimmer, _loc. cit_. p. 328.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: Compare Weber, _Episch. in Vedisch. Ritual_,\n     p. 777 (and above). The man who is slaughtered must be\n     neither a priest nor a slave, but a warrior or a man of the\n     third caste (Weber, _loc. cit_. above).]\n\n     [Footnote 43: _Le Mercier_, 1637, ap. Parkman, _loc. cit_.\n     p. 80. The current notion that the American Indian burns his\n     victims at the stake merely for pleasure is not incorrect.\n     He frequently did so, as he does so to-day, but in the\n     seventeenth century this act often is part of a religious\n     ceremony. He probably would have burned his captive, anyway,\n     but he gladly utilized his pleasure as a means of\n     propitiating his gods. In India it was just the other way.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: Substitutes of metal or of earthen victims are\n     also mentioned.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: That the Vedic rite of killing the sacrificial\n     beast (by beating and smothering) was very cruel may be seen\n     in the description, _[=A]it. Br_. ii. 6.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: _\u00c7at. Br._ i. 5. 2. 4.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: _Sams[=a]ra_ is transmigration; _karma_,\n     'act,' implies that the change of abode is conditioned by\n     the acts of a former life. Each may exclude the other; but\n     in common parlance each implies the other.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: Weber, _Indischt Streifen_, i. p. 72.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 7. 3. 19: iii. 4. 1. 17.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: _\u00c7af. Br_. iii. 5. 4. 10; 6. 2. 24; 5. 3. 17\n     (compare 6. 4. 23-24; 3. 4. 11; 2. 1. 12); iii. 1. 2. 4; 3.\n     14; i. 7. 2. 9; vi. 1. 2. 14. The change of name is\n     interesting. There is a remark in another part of the same\n     work to the effect that when a man prospers in life they\n     give his name also to his son, grandson, _and to his father\n     and grandfather_ (vi. 1. 2. 13). On the other hand, it was\n     the custom of the Indian kings in later ages to assume the\n     names of their prosperous grandfathers (JRAS. iv. 85).]\n\n     [Footnote 51: Were it not for the first clause it would be\n     more natural to render the original 'The gods are truth\n     alone, and men are untruth.']\n\n     [Footnote 52: In _\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 4. 2. 5-6 it is said that\n     the Father-god gives certain rules of eating to gods, Manes,\n     men, and beasts: \"Neither gods, Manes, nor beasts transgress\n     the Father's law, only some men do.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 53: _\u00c7at. Br_. ii. 5. 2. 20. Varuna seizes on her\n     paramour, when she confesses. _T[.a]itt. Br_. i. 6. 5. 2.\n     The guilt confessed becomes less \"because it thereby becomes\n     truth\" (right).]\n\n     [Footnote 54: See _\u00c7at. Br._. ii. 4. 2. 6; 4. 1. 14; 1. 3.\n     9; 3. 1. 28: \"Who knows man's morrow? Then let one not\n     procrastinate.\" \"Today is self, this alone is certain,\n     uncertain is the morrow.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Some little rules are interesting. The\n     Pythagorean abstinence from _m[=a][s.][=a]s_, beans, for\n     instance, is enjoined; though this rule is opposed by Barku\n     V[=a]rshna, _\u00c7at. Br_. i. 1. 1. 10, on the ground that no\n     offering to the gods is made of beans; \"hence he said 'cook\n     beans for me.'\"]\n\n     [Footnote 56: Animals may represent gods. \"The bull is a\n     form of Indra,\" and so if the bull can be made to roar\n     (_\u00c7at. Br._ ii. 5. 3. 18), then one may know that Indra is\n     come to the sacrifice. \"Man is born into (whatever) world is\n     made (by his acts in a previous existence),\" is a short\n     formula (_\u00c7at. Br._. vi. 2. 2. 27), which represents the\n     _karma_ doctrine in its essential principle, though the\n     'world' is here not this world, but the next. Compare Weber,\n     ZDMG. ix. 237 ff.; Muir, OST. v. 314 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: Though youth may be restored to him by the\n     A\u00e7vins, _\u00c7at. Br._. iv. i. 5. 1 ff. Here the Horsemen are\n     identified with Heaven and Earth (16).]\n\n     [Footnote 58: _Cal. Br_. ii. 3. 3. 7. Apropos of the\n     Brahmanic sun it may be mentioned that, according to _Ait.\n     Br._ iii. 44, the sun never really sets. \"People think that\n     he sets, but in truth he only turns round after reaching the\n     end of the day, and makes night below, day above; and when\n     they think he rises in the morning, he having come to the\n     end of the night, turns round, and makes day below, night\n     above. He never really sets. Whoever knows this of him, that\n     he never sets, obtains union and likeness of form with the\n     sun, and the same abode as the sun's.\" Compare Muir, OST. v.\n     521. This may be the real reason why the Rig Veda speaks of\n     a dark and light sun.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: _\u00c7at. Br._. i. 4. 3. 11-22 ('The sinner shall\n     suffer and go quickly to yonder world'); xi. 6. 1 (compare\n     Weber, _loc. cit._ p. 20 ff.; ZDMG. ix. 237), the Bhrigu\n     story, of which a more modern form is found in the Upanishad\n     period. For the course of the sun, the fires on either side\n     of the way, the departure to heaven 'with the whole body,'\n     compare _\u00c7at. Br._ i. 9. 3. 2-15; iv. 5. 1. 1; vi. 6. 2. 4;\n     xi. 2. 7. 33; Weber, _loc. cit._: Muir, _loc. cit._ v. p.\n     314. Not to have all one's bones in the next world is a\n     disgrace, as Muir says, and for that reason they are\n     collected at burial. Compare the custom as described by the\n     French missionaries here. The American Indian has to have\n     all his bones for future use, and the burying of the\n     skeleton is an annual religious ceremony.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: Compare RV. iv. 28. 4: 'Thou Indra madest\n     lowest the heathen.' Weber has shown, _loc. cit._, that the\n     general notion of the Br[=a]hmanas is that all are born\n     again in the next world, where they are rewarded or punished\n     according as they are good or bad; whereas in the Rig Veda\n     the good rejoice in heaven, and the bad are annihilated.\n     This general view is to be modified, however, by such\n     side-theories as those just mentioned, that the good (or\n     wise) may be reborn on earth, or be united with gods, or\n     become sunlight or stars (the latter are 'watery' to the\n     Hindu, and this may explain the statement that the soul is\n     'in the midst of waters').]\n\n     [Footnote 61: There is in this age no notion of the repeated\n     creations found in later literature. On the contrary, it is\n     expressly said in the Rig Veda, vi. 48. 22, that heaven and\n     earth are created but once: \"Only once was heaven created,\n     only once was earth created,\" Zimmer, AIL. 408.]\n\n     [Footnote 62: When the principle of life is explained it is\n     in terms of sun or fire. Thus Praj[=a]pati, Lord of beings,\n     or Father-god, is first an epithet of Savitar, RV. iv. 53.\n     2; and the golden germ must be fire.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: Schoolcraft, _Historical and Statistical\n     Information_, i. 32. As examples of the many passages where\n     'water is the beginning' may be cited _\u00c7at. Br._ vi. 7. 1.\n     17; xi. 1. 6. 1. The sun, born as Aditi's eighth son, is the\n     bird, 'egg-born,' RV. x. 72. 8.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: Among the new curators of Atharvan origin are,\n     for instance, the sun under the name of Rohita, Desire\n     (Love), etc., etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: Illustrations of these contradictions may be\n     found in plenty _apud_ Muir iv. p. 20 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Nirukta, vii. 4; Muir, _loc. cit._ p. 131 and\n     v. 17.]\n\n     [Footnote 67: _Neu-und Vollmonds Opfer_, 1880. The\n     _D[=i]ksh[=a]_, or initiation, has been described by\n     Lindner; the _R[=a]jas[=u]ya_ and _Vajapeya_, by Weber.]\n\n     [Footnote 68: The water-sickness already imputed to this god\n     in the Rig Veda. This tale and that of Bhrigu (referred to\n     above) show an ancient trait in the position of Varuna, as\n     chief god.]\n\n     [Footnote 69: This is the germ of the pilgrimage doctrine\n     (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 70: Perhaps (M. ix. 301) interpolated; or the\n     first allusion to the Four Ages.]\n\n     [Footnote 71: These (compare _afri_, 'blessing,' in the\n     Avesta) are verses in the Rig Veda introducing the\n     sacrifice. They are meant as propitiations, and appear to be\n     an ancient part of the ritual.]\n\n     [Footnote 72: A group of hymns in the first book of the Rig\n     Veda are attributed to Dogstail. At any rate, they do allude\n     to him, and so prove a moderate antiquity (probably the\n     middle period of the Rik) for the tale. The name, in\n     Sanskrit \u00c7unas\u00e7epa, has been ingeniously starred by Weber as\n     Cynosoura; the last part of each compound having the same\n     meaning, and the first part being even phonetically the same\n     _\u00e7unas, [Greek: kunhos]_.]\n\n     [Footnote 73: _Ait. Br._ viii. 10, 15, 20.]\n\n     [Footnote 74: The epic has a later version. This earlier\n     form is found in _\u00c7at. Br._ i. 8. 1. For the story of the\n     flood among the American Indians compare Schoolcraft\n     (_Historical and Statistical Information_), i. 17.]\n\n     *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nBRAHMANIC PANTHEISM.--THE UPANISHADS.\n\n\nIn the Vedic hymns man fears the gods, and imagines God. In the\nBr[=a]hmanas man subdues the gods, and fears God. In the Upanishads\nman ignores the gods, and becomes God.[1]\n\nSuch in a word is the theosophic relations between the three periods\nrepresented by the first Vedic Collection, the ritualistic\nBr[=a]hmanas, and the philosophical treatises called Upanishads. Yet\nif one took these three strata of thought to be quite independent of\neach other he would go amiss. Rather is it true that the Br[=a]hmanas\nlogically continue what the hymns begin; that the Upanishads logically\ncarry on the thought of the Br[=a]hmanas. And more, for in the oldest\nUpanishads are traits that connect this class of writings (if they\nwere written) directly, and even closely with the Vedic hymns\nthemselves; so that one may safely assume that the time of the first\nUpanishads is not much posterior to that of the latest additions made\nto the Vedic collections, though this indicates only that these\nadditions were composed at a much later period than is generally\nsupposed.[2] In India no literary period subsides with the rise of its\neventually 'succeeding' period. All the works overlap. Parts of the\nBr[=a]hmanas succeed, sometimes with the addition of whole books,\ntheir proper literary successors, the Upanishads. Vedic hymns are\ncomposed in the Brahmanic period.[3] The prose S[=u]tras, which, in\ngeneral, are earlier, sometimes post-date metrical \u00c7[=a]stra-rules.\nThus it is highly probable that, whereas the Upanishads began before\nthe time of Buddha, the \u00c7atapatha Br[=a]hmana (if not others of this\nclass) continued to within two or three centuries of our era; that the\nlegal S[=u]tras were, therefore, contemporary with part of the\nBr[=a]hmanic period;[4] and that, in short, the end of the Vedic\nperiod is so knit with the beginning of the Br[=a]hmanic, while the\nBr[=a]hmanic period is so knit with the rise of the Upanishads,\nS[=u]tras, epics, and Buddhism, that one cannot say of any one: 'this\nis later,' 'this is earlier'; but each must be taken only for a phase\nof indefinitely dated thought, exhibited on certain lines. It must\nalso be remembered that by the same class of works a wide geographical\narea may be represented; by the Br[=a]hmanas, west and east; by the\nS[=u]tras, north and south; by the Vedic poems, northwest and east to\nBenares (AV.); by the epics, all India, centred about the holy middle\nland near Delhi.\n\nThe meaning of Upanishad as used in the compositions themselves, is\neither, as it is used to-day, the title of a philosophical work; that\nof knowledge derived from esoteric teaching; or the esoteric teaching\nitself. Thus _brahma upanishad_ is the secret doctrine of _brahma_,\nand 'whoever follows this _upanishad_' means whoever follows this\ndoctrine. This seems, however, to be a meaning derived from the nature\nof the Upanishads themselves, and we are almost inclined to think that\nthe true significance of the word was originally that in which alone\noccurs, in the early period, the combination _upa-ni-[s.]ad_, and this\nis purely external: \"he makes the common people _upa-ni-s[=a]din,\"\ni.e_., 'sitting below' or 'subject,' it is said in _\u00c7at. Br_. ix. 4.\n3. 3 (from the literal meaning of 'sitting below').[5] Instead,\ntherefore, of seeing in _upan[=i]sad_, Upanishad, the idea of a\nsession, of pupils sitting down to hear instruction (the prepositions\nand verb are never used in this sense), it may be that the Upanishads\nwere at first _subsidiary_ works of the ritualistic Br[=a]hmanas\ncontained in the [=A]ranyakas or Forest Books, that is, appendices to\nthe Br[=a]hmana, ostensibly intended for the use of pious\nforest-hermits (who had passed beyond the need of sacrifice); and\nthis, in point of fact, is just what they were; till their growth\nresulted in their becoming an independent branch of literature. The\nusual explanation of 'Upanishad,' however, is that it represents the\ninstruction given to the pupil 'sitting under' the teacher.\n\nAlthough at present between two and three hundred Upanishads are\nknown, at least by name, to exist, yet scarcely a dozen appear to be\nof great antiquity. Some of these are integral parts of Br[=a]hmanas,\nand apparently were added to the ritualistic works at an early\nperiod.[6]\n\nWhile man's chief effort in the Brahmanic period seems to be by\nsacrifice and penance to attain happiness hereafter, and to get the\nupper hand of divine powers; while he recognizes a God, who, though\nsupreme, has yet, like the priest himself, attained his supremacy by\nsacrifice and penance; while he dreams of a life hereafter in heavenly\nworlds, in the realm of light, though hardly seeking to avoid a\ncontinuation of earthly re-births; nevertheless he frees himself at\ntimes from ritualistic observances sufficiently to continue the\nquestioning asked by his Vedic ancestors, and to wonder whither his\nimmortal part is definitively going, and whether that spirit of his\nwill live independently, or be united with some higher power, such as\nthe sun or Brahm[=a].\n\nThe philosophical writings called Upanishads[7] take up this question\nin earnest, but the answer is already assured, and the philosophers,\nor poets, of this period seek less to prove the truth than to expound\nit. The soul of man will not only join a heavenly Power. It is part of\nthat Power. Man's spirit (self) is the world-spirit. And what is this?\nWhile all the Upanishads are at one in answering the first question,\nthey are not at one in the method by which they arrive at the same\nresult. There is no systematic philosophy; but a tentative, and more\nor less dogmatic, logic. In regard to the second question they are\nstill less at one; but in general their answer is that the\nworld-spirit is All, and everything is a part of It or Him. Yet,\nwhether that All is personal or impersonal, and what is the relation\nbetween spirit and matter, this is still an unsettled point.\n\nThe methods and results of this half-philosophical literature will\nmost easily be understood by a few examples. But, before these are\ngiven, it will be necessary to emphasize the colloquial and scrappy\nnature of the teaching. Legend, parable, ritualistic absurdities,\nbelief in gods, denial of gods, belief in heaven, denial of heaven,\nare all mingled, and for a purpose. For some men are able, and some\nare unable, to receive the true light of knowledge. But man's fate\ndepends on his knowledge. The wise man becomes hereafter what his\nknowledge has prepared him to be. Not every spirit is fitted for\nimmortality, but only the spirit of them that have wisely desired it,\nor, rather, not desired it; for every desire must have been\nextinguished before one is fitted for this end. Hence, with advancing\nbelief in absorption and pantheism, there still lingers, and not as a\nmere superfluity, the use of sacrifice and penance. Rites and the\nparaphernalia of religion are essential till one learns that they are\nunessential. Desire will be gratified till one learns that the most\ndesirable thing is lack of desire. But so long as one desires even the\nlack of desire he is still in the fetters of desire. The way is long\nto the extinction of emotion, but its attainment results in happiness\nthat is greater than delight; in peace that surpasses joy.\n\nIn the exposition of this doctrine the old gods are retained as\nfigures. They are not real gods. But they are existent forms of God.\nThey are portions of the absolute, a form of the Eternal, even as man\nis a form of the same. Absolute being, again, is described as\nanthropomorphic. 'This is that' under a certain form. Incessantly made\nis the attempt to explain the identity of the absolute with phenomena.\nThe power _brahma_, which is originally applied to prayer, is now\ntaken as absolute being, and this, again, must be equated with the\npersonal spirit (ego, self, _[=a]tm[=a]_). One finds himself back in\nthe age of Vedic speculation when he reads of prayer (or penance) and\npower as one. For, as was shown above, the Rig Veda already recognizes\nthat prayer is power. There the word for power, _brahma_, is used only\nas equivalent of prayer, and Brihaspati or Brahmanaspati is literally\nthe 'god of power,' as he is interpreted by the priests. The\nsignificance of the other great word of this period, namely\n_[=a]tm[=a]_, is not at all uncertain, but to translate it is\ndifficult. It is breath, spirit, self, soul. Yet, since in its\noriginal sense it corresponds to spiritus (comparable to athmen), the\nword spirit, which also signifies the real person, perhaps represents\nit best. We shall then render _brahma_ and _[=a]tm[=a]_ by the\nabsolute and the ego or spirit, respectively; or leave them, which is\nperhaps the best way, in their native form. The physical breath,\n_pr[=a]na,_ is occasionally used just like _[=a]tm[=a]._ Thus it is\nsaid that all the gods are one god, and this is _pr[=a]na,_ identical\nwith _brahma_ (Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad, 3.9.9); or _pr[=a]na_ is\nso used as to be the same with spirit, though, on the other hand,\n'breath is born of spirit' (Pra\u00e7na Up. 3.3), just as in the Rig Veda\n(above) it is said that all comes from the breath of God.\n\nOne of the most instructive of the older Upanishads is the\nCh[=a]ndogya. A sketch of its doctrines will give a clearer idea of\nUpanishad philosophy than a chapter of disconnected excerpts:\n\nAll this (universe) is _brahma_. Man has intelligent force (or will).\nHe, after death, will exist in accordance with his will in life. This\nspirit in (my) heart is that mind-making, breath-bodied, light-formed,\ntruth-thoughted, ether-spirited One, of whom are all works, all\ndesires, all smells, and all tastes; who comprehends the universe, who\nspeaks not and is not moved; smaller than a rice-corn, smaller than a\nmustard-seed, ... greater than earth, greater than heaven. This\n(universal being) is my ego, spirit, and is _brahma,_ force (absolute\nbeing). After death I shall enter into him (3.14).[8] This all is\nbreath (==spirit in 3.15.4).\n\nAfter this epitome of pantheism follows a ritualistic bit:\n\nMan is sacrifice. Four and twenty years are the morning libation; the\nnext four and forty, the mid-day libation; the next eight and forty,\nthe evening libation. The son of Itar[=a], knowing this, lived one\nhundred and sixteen years. He who knows this lives one hundred and\nsixteen years (3.16).\n\nThen, for the abolition of all sacrifice, follows a chapter which\nexplains that man may sacrifice symbolically, so that, for example,\ngifts to the priests (a necessary adjunct of a real sacrifice) here\nbecome penance, liberality, rectitude, non-injury, truth-speaking\n(_ib._ 17. 4). There follows then the identification of _brahma_ with\nmind, sun, breath, cardinal points, ether, etc, even puns being\nbrought into requisition, _Ka_ is _Kha_ and _Kha_ is _Ka_ (4. 10.\n5);[9] earth, fire, food, sun, water, stars, man, are _brahma_, and\n_brahma_ is the man seen in the moon (4. 12. I). And now comes the\nidentity of the impersonal _brahma_ with the personal spirit. The man\nseen in the eye is the spirit; this is the immortal, unfearing\n_brahma_ (4. 15. I = 8. 7. 4). He that knows this goes after death to\nlight, thence to day, thence to the light moon, thence to the season,\nthence to the year, thence to the sun, thence to the moon, thence to\nlightning; thus he becomes divine, and enters _brahma_. They that go\non this path of the gods that conducts to _brahma_ do not return to\nhuman conditions _(ib._ 15. 6).\n\nBut the Father-god of the Br[=a]hmanas is still a temporary creator,\nand thus he appears now (_ib._ 17): The Father-god brooded over[10]\nthe worlds, and from them extracted essences, fire from earth, wind\nfrom air, sun from sky. These three divinities (the triad, fire, wind,\nand sun) he brooded over, and from them extracted essences, the Rig\nVeda from fire, the Yajur Veda from wind, the S[=a]ma Veda from sun.\nIn the preceding the northern path of them that know the absolute\n(_brahma_) has been described, and it was said that they return no\nmore to earth. Now follows the southern path of them that only partly\nknow _brahma_:\n\n\"He that knows the oldest, _jye[s.]tham_ and the best, _\u00e7re[s]tham,_\nbecomes the oldest and the best. Now breath is oldest and best\" (then\nfollows the famous parable of the senses and breath, 5. 1. I). This\n(found elsewhere) is evidently regarded as a new doctrine, for, after\nthe deduction has been made that, because a creature can live without\nsenses, and even without mind, but cannot live without breath,\ntherefore the breath is the 'oldest and best,' the text continues, 'if\none told this to a dry stick, branches would be produced and leaves\nput forth' (5. 2. 3).[11]] The path of him that partly knows the\n_brahma_ which is expressed in breath, etc, is as follows: He goes to\nthe moon, and, when his good works are used up, he (ultimately mist)\nrains down, becoming seed, and begins life over again on earth, to\nbecome like the people who eat him (5. 10. 6); they that are good\nbecome priests, warriors, or members of the third estate; while the\nbad become dogs, hogs, or members of the low castes.[12] A story is\nnow told, instructive as illustrating the time. Five great doctors of\nthe law came together to discuss what is Spirit, what is _brahma_. In\nthe end they are taught by a king that the universal Spirit is one's\nown spirit (5. 18. 1).\n\nIt is interesting to see that, although the Rig Veda distinctly says\nthat 'being was born of not-being' (_\u00e1satas s\u00e1d aj[=a]yata_, X. 72.\n3),[13] yet not-being is here derived quite as emphatically from\nbeing. For in the philosophical explanation of the universe given in\n6. 2. 1 ff. one reads: \"Being alone existed in the beginning, one, and\nwithout a second. Others say 'not-being alone' ... but how could being\nbe born of not-being? Being alone existed in the beginning.\"[14] This\nbeing is then represented as sentient. \"It saw (and desired), 'may I\nbe many,' and sent forth fire (or heat); fire (or heat) desired and\nproduced water; water, food (earth); with the living spirit the\ndivinity entered fire, water, and earth\" (6. 3). As mind comes\nfrom food, breath from water, and speech from fire, all that makes a\nman is thus derived from the (true) being (6. 7. 6); and when one dies\nhis speech is absorbed into mind, his mind into breath, his breath\ninto fire (heat), and heat into the highest godhead (6. 8. 7). This is\nthe subtle spirit, that is the Spirit, that is the True, and this is\nthe spirit of man. Now comes the grand conclusion of the Ch[=a]ndogya.\nHe who knows the ego escapes grief. What is the ego? The Vedas are\nnames, and he that sees _brahma_ in the Vedas is indeed (partly) wise;\nbut speech is better than a name; mind is better than speech; will is\nbetter than mind; meditation, better than will; reflection, than\nmeditation; understanding, than reflection; power, than understanding;\nfood, than power; water, than food; heat (fire), than water; ether,\nthan heat; memory, than ether; hope, than memory; breath (=spirit),\nthan hope. In each let one see _brahma_; ego in All. Who knows this is\nsupreme in knowledge; but more supreme in knowledge is he that knows\nthat in true (being) is the highest being. True being is happiness;\ntrue being is ego; ego is all; ego is the absolute.[15]\n\nThe relativity o\u00a3 divinity is the discovery of the Upanishads. And the\nrelativity of happiness hereafter is the key-note of their religious\nphilosophy. Pious men are of three classes, according to the completed\nsystem. Some are good men, but they do not know enough to appreciate,\nintellectually or spiritually, the highest. Let this class meditate on\nthe Vedas. They desire wealth, not freedom. The second class wish,\nindeed, to emancipate themselves; but to do so step by step; not to\nreach absolute _brahma_, but to live in bliss hereafter. Let these\nworship the Spirit as physical life. They will attain to the\nbliss of the realm of light, the realm of the personal creator. But\nthe highest class, they that wish to emancipate themselves at once,\nknow that physical life is but a form of spiritual life; that the\npersonal creator is but a form of the Spirit; that the Spirit is\nabsolute _brahma_; and that in reaching this they attain to\nimmortality. These, then, are to meditate on spirit as the highest\nSpirit, that is, the absolute. To fear heaven as much as hell, to know\nthat knowledge is, after all, the key to _brahma_; that _brahma_ is\nknowledge; this is the way to emancipation. The gods are; but they are\nforms of the ego, and their heaven is mortal. It is false to deny the\ngods. Indra and the Father-god exist, just as men exist, as transient\nforms of _brahma_. Therefore, according to the weakness or strength of\na man's mind and heart (desire) is he fitted to ignore gods and\nsacrifice. To obtain _brahma_ his desires must be weak, his knowledge\nstrong; but sacrifice is not to be put away as useless. The\ndisciplinary teaching of the sacrifice is a necessary preparation for\nhighest wisdom. It is here that the Upanishads, which otherwise are to\na great extent on the highway to Buddhism, practically contrast with\nit. Buddhism ignores the sacrifice and the stadia in a priest's life.\nThe Upanishads retain them, but only to throw them over at the end\nwhen one has learned not to need them. Philosophically there is no\nplace for the ritual in the Upanishad doctrine; but their teachers\nstood too much under the dominion of the Br[=a]hmanas to ignore the\nritual. They kept it as a means of perfecting the knowledge of what\nwas essential.\n\nSo 'by wisdom' it is said 'one gets immortality.' The Spirit develops\ngradually in man; by means of the mortal he desires the immortal;\nwhereas other animals have only hunger and thirst as a kind of\nunderstanding, and they are reborn according to their knowledge as\nbeasts again. Such is the teaching of another of the Upanishads, the\n[=A]itareya [=A]ranyaka.\n\nThis Upanishad contains some rather striking passages: \"Whatever man\nattains, he desires to go beyond it; if he should reach heaven itself\nhe would desire to go beyond it\" (2. 3. 3. 1). \"_Brahma_ is the A,\nthither goes the ego\" (2. 3. 8. 7). \"A is the whole of Speech, and\nSpeech is Truth, and Truth is Spirit\" (2. 3. 6. 5-14).[16] \"The Spirit\nbrooded over the water, and form (matter) was born\" (2. 4. 3. 1 ff.);\nso physically water is the origin of all things\" (2. 1. 8. 1).[17]\n\"Whatever belongs to the father belongs to the son, whatever belongs\nto the son belongs to the father\" (_ib_.). \"Man has three births: he\nis born of his mother, reborn in the person of his son, and finds his\nhighest birth in death\" (2. 5).\n\nIn the exposition of these two Upanishads one gets at once the sum of\nthem all. The methods, the illustrations, even the doctrines, differ\nin detail; but in the chief end and object of the Upanishads, and in\nthe principle of knowledge as a means of attaining _brahma_, they are\nunited. This it is that causes the refutation of the Vedic 'being from\nnot-being.' It is even said in the [=A]itareya that the gods\nworshipped breath (the spirit) as being and so became gods (great);\nwhile devils worshipped spirit as not-being, and hence became\n(inferior) devils (2. 1. 8. 6).\n\nIt was noticed above that a king instructed priests. This interchange\nof the r\u00f4les of the two castes is not unique. In the K[=a]ush[=i]taki\nUpanishad (4. 19), occurs another instance of a warrior teaching a\nBrahman. This, with the familiar illustration of a Gandh[=a]ra\n(Kandahar) man, the song of the Kurus, and the absence of Brahmanic\nliterature as such in the list of works, cited vii. 1, would indicate\nthat the Ch[=a]ndogya was at least as old as the Br[=a]hmana\nliterature.[18]\n\nIn their present form several differences remain to be pointed out\nbetween the Vedic period and that of the Upanishads. The goal of the\nsoul, the two paths of gods and of _brahma_, have been indicated. As\nalready explained, the road to the absolute _brahma_ lies beyond the\npath to the conditioned _brahma_. Opposed to this is the path that\nleads to the world of heaven, whence, when good works have been\nexhausted, the spirit descends to a new birth on earth. The course of\nthis second path is conceived to be the dark half of the moon, and so\nback to man. Both roads lead first to the moon, then one goes on to\n_brahma_, the other returns to earth. It will be seen that good works\nare regarded as buoying a man up for a time, till, like gas in a\nballoon, they lose their force, and he sinks down again. What then\nbecomes of the virtue of a man who enters the absolute _brahma,_ and\ndescends no more? He himself goes to the world where there is \"no\nsorrow and no snow,\" where he lives forever (_Brihad [=A]ran_. 5. 10);\nbut \"his beloved relations get his virtue, and the relations he does\nnot love get his evil\" (_K[=a]ush[=i]t. Up_. 1. 4). In this Upanishad\nfire, sun, moon, and lightning die out, and reappear as _brahma_. This\nis the doctrine of the _G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung_, and succession of aeons with\ntheir divinities (2. 12). Here again is it distinctly stated that\n_pr[=a]na_, breath, is _brahma_; that is, spirit is the absolute (2.\n13).\n\nWhat becomes of them that die ignorant of the ego? They go either to\nthe worlds of evil spirits, which are covered with darkness--the same\nantithesis of light and darkness, as good and evil, that was seen in\nthe Br[=a]hmanas--or are reborn on earth again like the wicked\n(_[=I]\u00e7[=a]_, 3).\n\nIt is to be noted that at times all the parts of a man are\nsaid to become immortal. For just as different rivers enter the ocean\nand their names and forms are lost in it, so the sixteen parts of a\nman sink into the godhead and he becomes without parts and immortal\n(_Pra\u00e7na Up_. 6. 5); a purely pantheistic view of absorption, in\ndistinction from the Vedic view of heaven, which latter, in the form\nof immortal joy hereafter, still lingers in the earlier Upanishads.\n\nIt is further to be observed as the crowning point of these\nspeculations that, just as the bliss of emancipation must not be\ndesired, although it is desirable, so too, though knowledge is the\nfundamental condition of emancipation, yet is delight in the true a\nfatal error: \"They that revere what is not knowledge enter into blind\ndarkness; they that delight in knowledge come as it were into still\ngreater darkness\" (_I\u00e7[=a]_, 9). Here, what is not real knowledge\nmeans good works, sacrifice, etc. But the sacrifice is not discarded.\nTo those people capable only of attaining to rectitude, sacrifices,\nand belief in gods there is given some bliss hereafter; but to him\nthat is risen above this, who knows the ego (Spirit) and real being,\nsuch bliss is no bliss. His bliss is union with the Spirit.\n\nThis is the completion of Upanishad philosophy. Before it is a stage\nwhere bliss alone, not absorption, is taught.[19] But what is the ego,\nspirit or self (_[=a]tm[=a]_)? First of all it is conscious; next it\nis not the Person, for the Person is produced by the _[=a]tm[=a]_.\nSince this Person is the type of the personal god, it is evident that\nthe ego is regarded as lying back of personality. Nevertheless, the\nteachers sometimes stop with the latter. The developed view is that\nthe immortality of the personal creator is commensurate only with that\nof the world which he creates. It is for this reason that in the\nMundaka (1. 2. 10) it is said that fools regard fulfillment of desire\nin heavenly happiness as the best thing; for although they have their\n'reward in the top of heaven, yet, when the elevation caused by their\ngood works ends, as it will end, when the buoyant power of good works\nis exhausted, then they drop down to earth again. Hence, to worship\nthe creator as the _[=a]tm[=a]_ is indeed productive of temporary\npleasure, but no more. \"If a man worship another divinity,\n_devat[=a]_, with the idea that he and the god are different, he does\nnot know\" (_Brihad [=A]ran. Up_. 1. 4. 10). \"Without passion and\nwithout parts\" is the _brahma (Mund_. 2. 2. 9). The further doctrine,\ntherefore, that all except _brahma_ is delusion is implied here, and\nthe \"extinction of gods in _brahma_\" is once or twice formulated.[20]\nThe fatal error of judgment is to imagine that there is in absolute\nbeing anything separate from man's being. When personified, this being\nappears as the supreme Person, identical with the ego, who is lord of\nwhat has been and what will be. By perceiving this controlling spirit\nin one's own spirit (or self) one obtains eternal bliss; \"when\ndesires cease, the mortal becomes immortal; he attains _brahma_ here\"\nin life (_Katha Up_. 2. 5. 12; 6. 14; _Br. [=A]ran. Up_. 4. 4. 7).\n\nHow inconsistent are the teachings of the Upanishads in regard to\ncosmogonic and eschatological matters will be evident if one contrast\nthe statements of the different tracts not only with those of other\nwritings of the same sort, but even with other statements in the same\nUpanishads. Thus the Mundaka teaches first that Brahm[=a], the\npersonal creator, made the world and explained _brahma_ (1. 1. 1). It\nthen defines _brahma_ as the Imperishable, which, like a spider, sends\nout a web of being and draws it in again (_ib_. 6, 7). It states with\nall distinctness that the (neuter) _brahma_ comes from The (masculine)\n\nOne who is all-wise, all-knowing (_ib_. 9). This heavenly Person is\nthe imperishable ego; it is without form; higher than the imperishable\n(1. 2. 10 ff.; 2. 1. 2); greater than the great (3. 2. 8). Against\nthis is then set (2. 2. 9) the great being _brahma_, without passions\nor parts, _i.\ne_., without intelligence such as was predicated of the\n_[=a]tm[=a]_; and (3. 1. 3) then follows the doctrine of the personal\n'Lord, who is the maker, the Person, who has his birth in _brahma'\n(purusho brahmayonis_). That this Upanishad is pantheistic is plain\nfrom 3. 2. 6, where Ved[=a]nta and Yoga are named. According to this\ntract the wise go to _brahma_ or to ego (3. 2. 9 and 1. 2. 11), while\nfools go to heaven and return again.\n\nOn the same plane stands the [=I]\u00e7[=a], where _[=a]tm[=a]_, ego,\nSpirit, is the True, the Lord, and is in the sun. Opposed to each\nother here are 'darkness' and 'immortality,' as fruit, respectively,\nof ignorance and wisdom.\n\nIn the K[=a]ush[=i]taki Upanishad, taken with the meaning put into it\nby the commentators, the wise man goes to a very different sort of\n_brahma_--one where he is met by nymphs, and rejoices in a kind of\nheaven. This _brahma_ is of two sorts, absolute and conditioned; but\nit is ultimately defined as 'breath.' Whenever it is convenient,\n'breath' is regarded by the commentators as ego, 'spirit'; but one can\nscarcely escape the conviction that in many passages 'breath' was\nmeant by the speaker to be taken at its face value. It is the vital\npower. With this vital power (breath or spirit) one in dreamless sleep\nunites. Indra has nothing higher to say than that he is breath\n(spirit), conscious and immortal. Eventually the soul after death\ncomes to Indra, or gains the bright heaven. But here too the doctrine\nof the dying out of the gods is known (as in _T[=a]tt_. 3. 10. 4).\nCosmogonically all here springs from water (1. 4, 6, 7; 2. 1, 12; 3.\n1, 2; 4. 20).\n\nMost striking are the contradictions in the Brihad [=A]ranyaka: \"In\nthe beginning there was only nothing; this (world) was covered with\ndeath, that is hunger;[21] he desired,\" etc. (1. 2. 1). \"In the\nbeginning there was only ego (_[=a]tm[=a]).\" [=A]tm[=a]_ articulated\n\"I am,\" and (finding himself lonely and unhappy) divided himself into\nmale and female,[22] whence arose men, etc. (1. 4. 1). Again: \"In the\nbeginning there was only _brahma_; this (neuter) knew _[=a]tm[=a] ...\nbrahma_ was the one and only ... it created\" (1. 4. 10-11); followed\nimmediately by \"he created\" (12). And after this, in 17, one is\nbrought back to \"in the beginning there was only _[=a]tm[=a]_; he\ndesired 'let me have a wife.'\"\n\nIn 2. 3. 1 ff. the explicitness of the differences in _brahma_ makes\nthe account of unusual value. It appears that there are two forms of\n_brahma_, one is mortal, with form; the other is immortal, without\nform. Whatever is other than air and the space between (heaven and\nearth) is mortal and with form. This is being, its essence is in the\nsun. On the other hand, the essence of the immortal is the person in\nthe circle (of the sun). In man's body breath and ether are the\nimmortal, the essence of which is the person in the eye. There is a\nvisible and invisible _brahma ([=a]tm[=a])_; the real _brahma_ is\nincomprehensible and is described only by negations (3. 4. 1; 9. 26).\nThe highest is the Imperishable (_neuter_), but this sees, hears, and\nknows. It is in this that ether (as above) is woven (3. 8. 11). After\ndeath the wise man goes to the world of the gods (1. 5. 16); he\nbecomes the _[=a]tm[=a]_ of all beings, just like that deity (1. 5.\n20); he becomes identical ('how can one know the knower?'\n_vij\u00f1[=a]tar_) in 2. 4. 12-13; and according to 3. 2. 13, the doctrine\nof _sams[=a]ra_ is extolled (\"they talked of _karma_, extolled _karma_\nsecretly\"), as something too secret to be divulged easily, even to\npriests.\n\nThat different views are recognized is evident from _Taitt_. 2. 6: \"If\none knows _brahma_ as _asat_ he becomes only _asat_ (non-existence);\nif he knows that '_brahma_ is' (_i.e._, a _sad brahma_), people know\nhim as thence existing.\" Personal _[=a]tm[=a]_ is here insisted on\n(\"He wished 'may I be many'\"); and from _[=a]tm[=a]_, the conscious\n_brahma_, in highest heaven, came the ether (2. 1, 6). Yet,\nimmediately afterwards: \"In the beginning was the non-existent; thence\narose the existent; and That made for himself an ego (spirit,\nconscious life, _[=a]tm[=a]; tad [=a]tm[=a]nain svayam akuruta_, 2.\n7). In man _brahma_ is the sun-_brahma_. Here too one finds the\n_brahma[n.]a[h.] parimaras_ (3. 10. 4 = K[=a]ush[=i]t. 2. 12,\n_d[=a]iva_), or extinction of gods in _brahma_. But what that _brahma_\nis, except that it is bliss, and that man after death reaches 'the\nbliss-making _[=a]tm[=a],_' it is impossible to say (3. 6; 2. 8).\nEspecially as the departed soul 'eats and sits down singing' in heaven\n(3. 10. 5).\n\nThe greatest discrepancies in eschatology occur perhaps in the\n[=A]itareya [=A]ranyaka. After death one either \"gets _brahma_\" (i. 3.\n1. 2), \"comes near to the immortal spirit\" (1. 3. 8. 14), or goes to\nthe \"heavenly world.\" Knowledge here expressly conditions the\nhereafter; so much so that it is represented not (as above) that fools\ngo to heaven and return, but that all, save the very highest, are to\nrecognize a personal creator (Praj[=a]pati) in breath (=ego=_brahma_),\nand then they will \"go to the heavenly world\" (2. 3. 8. 5), \"become\nthe sun\" (2. 1. 8. 14), or \"go to gods\" (2. 2. 4. 6). Moreover after\nthe highest wisdom has been revealed, and the second class of men has\nbeen disposed of, the author still returns to the 'shining sky,'\n_svarga_, as the best promise (3). Sinners are born again (2. 1. 1. 5)\non earth, although hell is mentioned (2. 3. 2. 5). The origin of world\nis water, as usual (2. 1. 8. 1). The highest teaching is that all was\n_[=a]tm[=a],_ who sent forth worlds (_lok[=a]n as[r.]jata_), and\nformed the Person (as guardian of worlds), taking him from waters.\nHence _[=a]tm[=a],_ Praj[=a]pati (of the second-class thinkers), and\n_brahma_ are the same. Knowledge is _brahma_ (2. 4. 1. 1; 6. 1. 5-7).\n\nIn the Kena, where the best that can be said in regard to _brahma_ is\nthat he is _tadvana_, the one that 'likes this' (or, perhaps, is 'like\nthis'), there is no absorption into a world-spirit. The wise 'become\nimmortal'; 'by knowledge one gets immortality'; 'who knows this stands\nin heaven' (1. 2; 2. 4; 4. 9). The general results are about those\nformulated by Whitney in regard to the Katha: knowledge gives\ncontinuation of happiness in heaven; the punishment of the unworthy is\nto continue _sams[=a]ra_, the round of rebirths. Hell is not mentioned\nin the [=A]itareya Upanishad itself but in the [=A]ranyaka[23] (2. 3.\n2. 5). That, however, a union with the universal _[=a]tm[=a]_ (as well\nas heaven) is desired, would seem to be the case from several of the\npassages cited above, notably Brihad [=A]ran., i. 5. 20 (_sa\neva[.m]vit sarve[s.][=a]m bh[=u]t[=a]n[=a]m [=a]tm[=a] bhavati,\nYath[=a] i[s.][=a] devat[=a]ivam sa_); 'he that knows this becomes the\n_[=a]tm[=a]_ of all creatures, as is that divinity so is he'; though\nthis is doubtless the _[=a]nandamaya [=a]tm[=a]_, or joy-making Spirit\n(T[=a]itt. 2. 8).\n\nAgain two forms of _brahma_ are explained (M[=a]it. Up. 6. 15 ff.):\nThere are two forms of _brahma_, time and not-time. That which was\nbefore the sun is not-time and has no parts. Time and parts begin with\nthe sun. Time is the Father-god, the Spirit. Time makes and dissolves\nall in the Spirit. He knows the Veda who knows into what Time itself\nis dissolved. This manifest time is the ocean of creatures. But\n_brahma_ exists before and after time.[24]\n\nAs an example of the best style of the Upanishads we will cite a\nfavorite passage (given no less than four times in various versions)\nwhere the doctrine of absorption is most distinctly taught under the\nform of a tale. It is the famous\n\n\nDIALOGUE OF Y[=A]J\u00d1AVALKYA AND M[=A]ITREY[=I].[25]\n\nY[=a]j\u00f1avalkya had two wives, M[=a]itrey[=i] and K[=a]ty[=a]yani. Now\nM[=a]itrey[=i] was versed in holy knowledge (_brahma_), but\nK[=a]ty[=a]yani had only such knowledge as women have. But when\nY[=a]j\u00f1avalkya was about to go away into the forest (to become a\nhermit), he said: 'M[=a]itrey[=i], I am going away from this\nplace. Behold, I will make a settlement between thee and that\nK[=a]ty[=a]yani.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Lord, if this whole earth\nfilled with wealth were mine, how then? should I be immortal by reason\nof this wealth?' 'Nay,' said Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya. 'Even as is the life of\nthe rich would be thy life; by reason of wealth one has no hope of\nimmortality.' Then said M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'With what I cannot be\nimmortal, what can I do with that? whatever my Lord knows even that\ntell me.' And Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya said: 'Dear to me thou art, indeed, and\nfondly speakest. Therefore I will explain to thee and do thou regard\nme as I explain.' And he said: 'Not for the husband's sake is a\nhusband dear, but for the ego's sake is the husband dear. Not for the\nwife's sake is a wife dear; but for the ego's sake is a wife dear; not\nfor the son's sake are sons dear, but for the ego's sake are sons\ndear; not for wealth's sake is wealth dear, but for the ego's sake is\nwealth dear; not for the sake of the Brahman caste is the Brahman\ncaste dear, but for the sake of the ego is the Brahman caste dear; not\nfor the sake of the Warrior caste is the Warrior caste dear, but for\nlove of the ego is the Warrior caste dear; not for the sake of the\nworlds are worlds dear, but for the sake of the ego are worlds dear;\nnot for the sake of gods are gods dear, but for the ego's sake are\ngods dear; not for the sake of _bh[=u]ts_ (spirits) are _bh[=u]ts_\ndear, but for the ego's sake are _bhuts_ dear; not for the sake of\nanything is anything dear, but for love of one's self (ego) is\nanything (everything) dear; the ego (self) must be seen, heard,\napprehended, regarded, M[=a]itrey[=i], for with the seeing, hearing,\napprehending, and regarding of the ego the All is known.... Even as\nsmoke pours out of a fire lighted with damp kindling wood, even so out\nof the Great Being is blown out all that which is, Rig Veda, Yajur\nVeda, S[=a]ma Veda, Atharva (Angiras) Veda, Stories, Tales, Sciences,\nUpanishads, food, drink, sacrifices; all creatures that exist are\nblown (breathed) out of this one (Great Spirit) alone. As in the\nocean all the waters have their meeting-place; as the skin is the\nmeeting-place of all touches; the tongue, of all tastes; the\nnose, of all smells; the mind, of all precepts; the heart, of all\nknowledges; ... as salt cast into water is dissolved so that one\ncannot seize it, but wherever one tastes it is salty, so this\nGreat Being, endless, limitless, is a mass of knowledge. It arises out\nof the elements and then disappears in them. After death there is no\nmore consciousness.[26] I have spoken.' Thus said Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya. Then\nsaid M[=a]itrey[=i]: 'Truly my Lord has bewildered me in saying that\nafter death there is no more consciousness.' And Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya said:\n'I say nothing bewildering, but what suffices for understanding. For\nwhere there is as it were duality (_dv[=a]itam_), there one sees,\nsmells, hears, addresses, notices, knows another; but when all the\nuniverse has become mere ego, with what should one smell, see, hear,\naddress, notice, know any one (else)? How can one know him through\nwhom he knows this all, how can he know the knower (as something\ndifferent)? The ego is to be described by negations alone, the\nincomprehensible, imperishable, unattached, unfettered; the ego\nneither suffers nor fails. Thus, M[=a]itrey[=i], hast thou been\ninstructed. So much for immortality.' And having spoken thus\nY[=a]j\u00f1avalkya went away (into the forest).\n\nReturning to the Upanishad, of which an outline was given in the\nbeginning of this chapter, one finds a state of things which, in\ngeneral, may be said to be characteristic of the whole Upanishad\nperiod. The same vague views in regard to cosmogony and eschatology\nobtain in all save the outspoken sectarian tracts, and the same\nuncertainty in regard to man's future fate prevails in this whole\ncycle.[27] A few extracts will show this. According to the\nCh[=a]ndogya (4. 17. 1), a personal creator, the old Father-god of the\nBr[=a]hmanas, Praj[=a]pati, made the elements proceed from the worlds\nhe had 'brooded' over (or had done penance over, _abhyatapat_). In 3.\n19. 1, not-being was first; this became being (with the mundane egg,\netc.). In sharp contradiction (6. 2. 1): 'being was the first thing,\nit willed,' etc., a conscious divinity, as is seen in _ib_. 3. 2,\nwhere it is a 'deity,' producing elements as 'deities' (_ib._ 8. 6)\nwhich it enters 'with the living _[=a]tm[=a]_,' and so develops names\nand forms (so _T[=a]itt_. 2. 7). The latter is the prevailing view of\nthe Upanishad. In 1. 7. 5 ff. the _[=a]tm[=a]_ is the same with the\nuniversal _[=a]tm[=a]_; in 3. 12. 7, the _brahma_ is the same with\nether without and within, unchanging; in 3. 13. 7, the 'light above\nheaven' is identical with the light in man; in 3. 14. 1, all is\n_brahma_ (neuter), and this is an intelligent universal spirit. Like\nthe ether is the _[=a]tm[=a]_ in the heart, this is _brahma_ (_ib_. 2\nff.); in 4. 3. air and breath are the two ends (so in the argument\nabove, these are immortal as distinguished from all else); in 4. 10. 5\n_yad v[=a]v[=a] ka[.m] tad eva kham_ (_brahma_ is ether); in 4. 15. 1,\nthe ego is _brahma_; in 5. 18. 1 the universal ego is identified with\nthe particular ego (_[=a]tm[=a]_); in 6. 8 the ego is the True, with\nwhich one unites in dreamless sleep; in 6. 15. 1, into _par[=a]\ndevat[=a]_ or 'highest divinity' enters man's spirit, like salt in\nwater (_ib_. 13). In 7. 15-26, a view but half correct is stated to be\nthat 'breath' is all, but it is better to know that _yo bh[=u]m[=a]_\n_tad am[r.]tam_, the immortal (all) is infinity, which rests in its\nown greatness, with a corrective 'but perhaps it doesn't' (_yadi v[=a]\nna_). This infinity is ego and _[=a]tm[=a]_.[28]\n\nWhat is the reward for knowing this? One obtains worlds, unchanging\nhappiness, _brahma_; or, with some circumnavigation, one goes to the\nmoon, and eventually reaches _brahma_ or obtains the worlds of the\nblessed (5. 10. 10). The round of existence, _sams[=a]ra_, is\nindicated at 6. 16, and expressly stated in 5. 10. 7 (insects have\nhere a third path). Immortality is forcibly claimed: 'The living one\ndies not' (6. 11. 3). He who knows the sections 7. 15 to 26 becomes\n_[=a]tm[=a]nanda_ and \"lord of all worlds\"; whereas an incorrect view\ngives perishable worlds. In one Upanishad there is a verse (_\u00c7vet_. 4.\n5) which would indicate a formal duality like that of the\nS[=a]nkhyas;[29] but in general one may say that the Upanishads are\nsimply pantheistic, only the absorption into a world-soul is as yet\nscarcely formulated. On the other hand, some of the older Upanishads\nshow traces of an atheistic and materialistic (_asad_) philosophy,\nwhich is swallowed up in the growing inclination to personify the\ncreative principle, and ultimately is lost in the erection of a\npersonal Lord, as in the latest Upanishads. This tendency to\npersonify, with the increase of special sectarian gods, will lead\nagain, after centuries, to the rehabilitation of a triad of gods, the\n_trim[=u]rti_, where unite Vishnu, \u00c7iva, and, with these, who are more\npowerful, Brahm[=a], the Praj[=a]pati of the Veda, as the All-god of\npurely pantheistic systems. In the purer, older form recorded above,\nthe _purusha_ (Person) is sprung from the _[=a]tm[=a]_. There is no\ndistinction between matter and spirit. Conscious being (_sat_) wills,\nand so produces all. Or _[=a]tm[=a]_ comes first; and this is\nconscious _sat_ and the cause of the worlds; which _[=a]tm[=a]_\neventually becomes the Lord. The _[=a]tm[=a]_ in man, owing to his\nenvironment, cannot see whole, and needs the Yoga discipline of\nasceticism to enable him to do so. But he is the same ego which is the\nAll.\n\nThe relation between the absolute and the ego is through will. \"This\n(neuter) _brahma_ willed, 'May I be many,' and created\" _(Ch[=a]nd_.,\nabove). Sometimes the impersonal, and sometimes the personal \"spirit\nwilled\" _(T[=a]iit._ 2. 6). And when it is said, in _Brihad [=A]ran_.\n1. 4. 1, that \"In the beginning ego, spirit, _[=a]tm[=a],_ alone\nexisted,\" one finds this spirit (self) to be a form of _brahma (ib._\n10-11). Personified in a sectarian sense, this spirit becomes the\ndivinity Rudra \u00c7iva, the Blessed One (_\u00c7vet[=a]\u00e7vatara,_ 3. 5.\n11).[30]\n\nIn short, the teachers of the Upanishads not only do not declare\nclearly what they believed in regard to cosmogonic and eschatological\nmatters, but many of them probably did not know clearly what they\nbelieved. Their great discovery was that man's spirit was not\nparticular and mortal, but part of the immortal universal. Whether\nthis universal was a being alive and a personal _[=a]tm[=a]_, or\nwhether this personal being was but a transient form of impersonal,\nimperishable being;[31] and whether the union with being, _brahma_,\nwould result in a survival of individual consciousness,--these are\nevidently points they were not agreed upon, and, in all probability,\nno one of the sages was certain in regard to them. Crass\nidentifications of the vital principle with breath, as one with ether,\nwhich is twice emphasized as one of the two immortal things, were\nprovisionally accepted. Then breath and immortal spirit were made one.\nMatter had energy from the beginning, _brahma_; or was chaos, _asat_,\nwithout being. But when _asat_ becomes _sat_, that _sat_ becomes\n_brahma_, energized being, and to _asat_ there is no return. In\neschatology the real (spirit, or self) part of man (ego) either\nrejoices forever as a conscious part of the conscious world-self, or\nexists immortal in _brahma_--imperishable being, conceived as more or\nless conscious.[32]\n\nThe teachers recognize the limitations of understanding: \"The gods are\nin Indra, Indra is in the Father-god, the Father-god (the Spirit) is\nin _brahma_\"--\"But in what is _brahma?_\" And the answer is, \"Ask not\ntoo much\" (_Brihad. [=A]ran. Up_. 3. 6).\n\nThese problems will be those of the future formal philosophy. Even the\nUpanishads do not furnish a philosophy altogether new. Their doctrine\nof _karma_ their identification of particular ego and universal ego,\nis not original. The 'breaths,' the 'nine doors,' the 'three\nqualities,' the _purusha_ as identical with ego, are older even than\nthe Br[=a]hmanas (Scherman, _loc. cit_. p. 62).\n\nIt is not a new philosophy, it is a new religion that the Upanishads\noffer.[33] This is no religion of rites and ceremonies, although the\ncult is retained as helpful in disciplining and teaching; it is a\nreligion for sorrowing humanity. It is a religion that comforts the\nafflicted, and gives to the soul 'that peace which the world cannot\ngive.' In the sectarian Upanishads this bliss of religion is ever\npresent. \"Through knowing Him who is more subtile than subtile, who is\ncreator of everything, who has many forms, who embraces everything,\nthe Blessed Lord--one attains to peace without end\" (_\u00c7vet_. 4.\n14-15). These teachers, who enjoin the highest morality\n('self-restraint, generosity, and mercy' are God's commandments in\n_Brihad [=A]ran_. 5. 2) refuse to be satisfied with virtue's reward,\nand, being able to obtain heaven, 'seek for something beyond.' And\nthis they do not from mere pessimism, but from a conviction that they\nwill find a joy greater than that of heaven, and more enduring, in\nthat world where is \"the light beyond the darkness\" (_\u00c7vet_. 3. 8);\n\"where shines neither sun, moon, stars, lightning, nor fire, but all\nshines after Him that shines alone, and through His light the universe\nis lighted\" (_Mund_. 2. 2. 10). This, moreover, is not a future joy.\nIt is one that frees from perturbation in this life, and gives relief\nfrom sorrow. In the Ch[=a]ndogya (7. 1. 3) a man in grief comes\nseeking this new knowledge of the universal Spirit; \"For,\" says he, \"I\nhave heard it said that he who knows the Spirit passes beyond grief.\"\nSo in the [=I]\u00e7[=a], though this is a late sectarian work, it is\nasked, \"What sorrow can there be for him to whom Spirit alone has\nbecome all things?' (7). Again, \"He that knows the joy of _brahma_,\nwhence speech with mind turns away without apprehending it, fears not\"\n(_T[=a]itt_. 2. 4); for \"fear comes only from a second\" (_Brihad\n[=A]ran. Up_. 1. 4. 2), and when one recognizes that all is one he no\nlonger fears death (_ib_. 4. 4. 15).\n\nSuch is the religion of these teachers. In the quiet assumption that\nlife is not worth living, they are as pessimistic as was Buddha. But\nif, as seems to be the case, the Buddhist believed in the eventual\nextinction of his individuality, their pessimism is of a different\nsort. For the teacher of the Upanishads believes that he will attain\nto unending joy; not the rude happiness of 'heaven-seekers,' but the\nunchanging bliss of immortal peace. For him that wished it, there was\nheaven and the gods. These were not denied; they were as real as the\n\"fool\" that desired them. But for him that conquered passion, and knew\nthe truth, there was existence without the pain of desire, life\nwithout end, freedom from rebirth. The spirit of the sage becomes one\nwith the Eternal; man becomes God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Compare _\u00c7al. Br._ ii. 4. 2. 1-6, where the\n     Father-god gives laws of conduct; and Kaush[=i]taki Brahmana\n     Upanishad, 3. 8: \"This spirit (breath) is guardian of the\n     world, the lord of the world; he is my spirit\" (or, myself),\n     _sa ma [=a]tm[=a]_. The Brahmanic priest teaches that he is a\n     god like other gods, and goes so far as to say that he may\n     be united with a god after death. The Upanishad philosopher\n     says 'I am God.']\n\n     [Footnote 2: Compare Scherman, _Philosophische Hymnen_, p.\n     93; above, p. 156.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: Or, in other words, the thought of the\n     Brahmanic period (not necessarily of extant Br[=a]hmanas) is\n     synchronous with part of the Vedic collection.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: The last additions to this class of literature\n     would, of course, conform in language to their models, just\n     as the late Vedic Mantras conform as well as their composers\n     can make them to the older song or _chandas_ style.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Cited by M\u00fcller in SBE. i. _Introd_. p.\n     lxxxii.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: Compare Weber, _Ind. Lit_. p. 171; M\u00fcller,\n     _loc. cit._ p. lxviii.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: The relation between the Br[=a]hmanas (ritual\n     works discussed in the last chapter) and the early\n     Upanishads will be seen better with the help of a concrete\n     example. As has been explained before, Rig Veda means to the\n     Hindu not only the 'Collection' of hymns, but all the\n     library connected with this collection; for instance, the\n     two Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig Veda), namely, the Aitareya and\n     the K[=a]ush[=i]taki (or \u00c7[=a]nkh[=a]yana). Now, each of\n     these Br[=a]hmanas concludes with an [=A]ranyaka, that is, a\n     Forest-Book (_ara[n.]ya_, forest, solitude); and in each\n     Forest Book is an Upanishad. For example, the third book of\n     the K[=a]ush[=i]taki [=A]ranyaka is the K[=a]ush[=i]taki\n     Upanishad. So the Ch[=a]ndogya and Brihad [=A]ranyaka belong\n     respectively to the S[=a]man and Yajus.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: This teaching is ascribed to \u00c7[=a]ndilya, to\n     whose heresy, as opposed to the pure Vedantic doctrinc of\n     \u00c7ankara, we shall have to revert in a later chapter. The\n     heresy consists, in a word, in regarding the individual\n     spirit as at any time distinct from the Supreme Spirit,\n     though \u00c7[=a]ndilya teaches that it is ultimately absorbed\n     into the latter.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: \"God' Who' is air, air (space) is God 'Who',\"\n     as if one said 'either is aether.']\n\n     [Footnote 10: 'Did penance over,' as one doing penance\n     remains in meditation. 'Brooded' is M\u00fcller's apt word for\n     this _abhi-tap._]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Compare _Brihad [=A]ran. Up_. 6. 3. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: This is the _karma_ or _sams[=a]ra_ doctrine.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: In J.U.B. alone have we noticed the formula\n     asserting that 'both being and not-being existed in the\n     beginning' (1. 53. 1; JAOS. XVI. 130).]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Opposed is 3. 19. 1 and _T[=a]itt. Up_. 2. 7.\n     1 (_Br_. II. 2. 9. 1, 10): \"Not-being was here in the\n     beginning. From it arose being.\" And so _\u00c7at. Br_. VI. 1. 1.\n     1 (though in word only, for here not-being is the seven\n     spirits of God!)]\n\n     [Footnote 15: As the Vedic notion of not-being existing\n     before being is refuted, so the Atharvan homage to Time as\n     Lord is also derided (_\u00c7vet._ 6) in the Upanishads. The\n     supreme being is above time, as he is without parts (_ib_.).\n     In this later Upanishad wisdom, penance, and the grace of\n     God are requisite to know _brahma_.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: This Vedic [Greek: Adgos] doctrine is\n     conspicuous in the Br[=a]hmana. Compare _\u00c7at. Br_. VII. 5.\n     2. 21: \"V[=a]c ([Greek: Adgos]) is the Unborn one; from\n     V[=a]c the all-maker made creatures.\" See Weber, _Ind.\n     Stud_. IX. 477 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Compare J.U.B. i. 56. 1, 'Water (alone)\n     existed in the beginning.' This is the oldest and latest\n     Hindu explanation of the matter of the physical universe.\n     From the time of the Vedas to mediaeval times, as is\n     recorded by the Greek travellers, water is regarded as the\n     original element.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: The Gandh[=a]ra might indicate a late\n     geographical expansion as well as an early heritage, so that\n     this is not conclusive.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, has\n     sought to show that the pure Vedantism of \u00c7ankara is the\n     only belief taught in the Upanishads, ignoring the weight of\n     those passages that oppose his (in our view) too sweeping\n     assertion.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: See the Parimara described, _[=A]it. Br_.\n     VIII. 28. Here _brahma_ is wind, around which die five\n     divinities--lightning in rain, rain in moon, moon in sun,\n     sun in fire, fire in wind--and they are reborn in reverse\n     order. The 'dying' is used as a curse. The king shall say,\n     'When fire dies in wind then may my foe die,' and he will\n     die; so when any of the other gods dies around _brahma_.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Compare sterben, starve.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: The androgynous creator of the Br[=a]hmanas.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: We cannot, however, quite agree with Whitney\n     who, _loc. cit._ p. 92, and Journal, xiii, p. ciii ff.,\n     implies that belief in hell comes later than this period.\n     This is not so late a teaching. Hell is Vedic and\n     Brahmanic.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: This, in pantheistic style, is expressed thus\n     (\u00c7vet. 4): \"When the light has arisen there is no day no\n     night, neither being nor not-being; the Blessed One alone\n     exists there. There is no likeness of him whose name is\n     Great Glory.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 25: Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad, 2.4; 4. 5.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: _Na pretya sa[.m]j\u00f1[=a] 'sti._]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Some of the Upanishads have been tampered\n     with, so that all of the contradictions may not be due to\n     the composers. Nevertheless, as the uncertainty of opinion\n     in regard to cosmogony is quite as great as that in respect\n     of absorption, all the vagueness cannot properly be\n     attributed to the efforts of later systematizers to bring\n     the Upanishads into their more or less orthodox Vedantism.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: In 4. 10. 5 _kam_ is pleasure, one with ether\n     as _brahma_, not as wrongly above, p. 222, the god Ka.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: This Upanishad appears to be sectarian,\n     perhaps an early \u00c7ivaite tract (dualistic), if the allusion\n     to Rudra \u00c7iva, below, be accepted as original.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: As is foreshadowed in the doctrine of grace by\n     V[=a]c in the Rig Veda, in the _\u00c7vet_, the _Katha_, and the\n     _Mund_. Upanishads (_K. 2. 23; M_. 3. 2. 3), but nowhere\n     else, there enters, with the sectarian phase, that radical\n     subversion of the Upanishad doctrine which becomes so\n     powerful at a later date, the teaching that salvation is a\n     gift of God. \"This Spirit is not got by wisdom; the Spirit\n     chooses as his own the body of that man whom He chooses.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 31: See above. As descriptive of the immortal\n     conscious Spirit, there is the famous verse: \"If the slayer\n     thinks to slay, if the slain thinks he is slain; they both\n     understand not; this one (the Spirit) slays not, and is not\n     slain\" (_Katha_, 2. 19); loosely rendered by Emerson, 'If\n     the red slayer think he slays,' etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: The fact remarked by Thibaut that radically\n     different systems of philosophy are built upon the\n     Upanishads is enough to show how ambiguous are the\n     declarations of the latter.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Compare Barth, _Religions_, p. 76.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE POPULAR BRAHMANIC FAITH\n\n\nFor a long time after the Vedic age there is little that gives one an\ninsight into the views of the people. It may be presumed, since the\northodox systems never dispensed with the established cult, that the\nform of the old Vedic creed was kept intact. Yet, since the real\nbelief changed, and the cult became more and more the practice of a\nformality, it becomes necessary to seek, apart from the inherited\nritual, the faith which formed the actual religion of the people.\nInasmuch as this phase of Hindu belief has scarcely been touched upon\nelsewhere, it may be well to state more fully the object of the\npresent chapter.\n\nWe have shown above that the theology of the Vedic period had\nresulted, before its close, in a form of pantheism, which was\naccompanied, as is attested by the Atharva Veda, with a demonology and\nwitch-craft religion, the latter presumably of high antiquity.\nImmediately after this come the esoteric Br[=a]hmanas, in which the\ngods are, more or less, figures in the eyes of the priests, and the\nform of a Father-god rises into chief prominence, being sometimes\nregarded as the creative force, but at all times as the moral\nauthority in the world. At the end of this period, however, and\nprobably even before this period ended, there is for the first time,\nin the Upanishads, a new religion, that, in some regards, is esoteric.\nHitherto the secrets of religious mysteries had been treated as hidden\npriestly wisdom, not to be revealed. But, for the most part, this\nwisdom is really nonsense; and when it is said in the Br[=a]hmanas, at\nthe end of a bit of theological mystery, that it is a secret, or\nthat 'the gods love that which is secret,' one is not persuaded by the\nexamples given that this esoteric knowledge is intellectually\nvaluable. But with the Upanishads there comes the antithesis of\ninherited belief and right belief. The latter is public property,\nthough it is not taught carelessly. The student is not initiated into\nthe higher wisdom till he is drilled in the lower. The most unexpected\ncharacters appear in the r\u00f4le of instructors of priests, namely,\nwomen, kings, and members of the third caste, whose deeper wisdom is\npromulgated oftentimes as something quite new, and sometimes is\nwhispered in secret. Pantheism, _sams[=a]ra_,[1] and the eternal bliss\nof the individual spirit when eventually it is freed from further\ntransmigration,--these three fundamental traits of the new religion\nare discussed in such a way as to show that they had no hold upon the\ngeneral public, but they were the intellectual wealth of a few. Some\nof the Upanishads hide behind a veil of mystery; yet many of them, as\nWindisch has said, are, in a way, popular; that is, they are intended\nfor a general public, not for priests alone. This is especially the\ncase with the pantheistic Upanishads in their more pronounced form.\nBut still it is only the very wise that can accept the teaching. It is\nnot the faith of the people.\n\nEpic literature, which is the next living literature of the Brahmans,\nafter the Upanishads, takes one, in a trice, from the beginnings of a\nformal pantheism, to a pantheism already disintegrated by the newer\nworship of sectaries. Here the impersonal _[=a]tm[=a]_, or nameless\nLord, is not only an anthropomorphic \u00c7iva, as in the late Upanishads,\nwhere the philosophic _brahma_ is equated with a long recognized type\nof divinity, but _[=a]tm[=a]_ is identified with the figure of a\ntheomorphic man.\n\nIs there, then, nothing with which to bridge this gulf?\n\nIn our opinion the religion of the law-books, as a legitimate phase of\nHindu religion, has been too much ignored. The religion of Upanishad\nand Ved[=a]nta, with its attractive analogies with modern speculation,\nhas been taken as illustrative of the religion of a vast period, to\nthe discrediting of the belief represented in the manuals of law. To\nthese certainly the name of literature can scarcely be applied, but in\ntheir rapport with ordinary life they will be found more apt than are\nthe profounder speculations of the philosophers to reflect the\nreligious belief taught to the masses and accepted by them.\n\nThe study of these books casts a broad light upon that interval\nbetween the Vedic and epic periods wherein it is customary to imagine\nreligion as being, in the main, cult or philosophy. Nor does the\ninterest cease with the yield of necessarily scanty yet very\nsignificant facts in regard to eschatological and cosmogonic views.\nThe gods themselves are not what they are in the rites of the cunning\npriests or in the dogmas of the sages. In the Hindu law there is a\nreversion to Vedic belief; or rather not a reversion, but here one\nsees again, through the froth of rites and the murk of philosophy, the\nunder-stream of faith that still flows from the old fount, if somewhat\ndiscolored, and waters the heart of the people.\n\nAt just what time was elaborated the stupendous system of rites, which\nare already traditional in the Br[=a]hmanas, can never be known. Some\nof these rites have to do with special ceremonies, such as the royal\ninauguration, some are stated _soma_-sacrifices.[2] Opposed to these\n_soma_-feasts is the simpler and older fire-cult, which persists in\nthe house-rituals. All of these together make up a sightly array of\nsacrifices.[3] The _soma_-ritual is developed in the Br[=a]hmanas. But\nwith this class of works there must have been from ancient times\nanother which treated of the fire-ritual, and of which the more modern\nrepresentatives are the extant S[=u]tras. It is with S[=u]tras that\nlegal literature begins, but these differ from the ritualistic\nS[=u]tras. Yet both are full of religious meat. In these collections,\neven in the more special, there is no arrangement that corresponds to\nwestern ideas of order. In a completed code, for example, there is a\nrough distribution of subjects under different heads, but the attempt\nis only tentative, and each work presents the appearance of a\nheterogeneous mass of regulations and laws, from which one must pick\nout the law for which he is seeking. The earlier legal works were in\nprose; the later evolved codes, of which there is a large number, in\nmetre. It is in these two classes of house-ritual and law-ritual,\nwhich together constitute what is called Smriti, tradition-ritual (in\ndistinction from the so-called \u00c7ruti, revelation-ritual), that one may\nexpect to find the religion of the time; not as inculcated by the\npromoters of mystery, nor yet as disclosed by the philosopher, but as\ntaught (through the priest) to the people, and as accepted by them for\ntheir daily guidance in matters of every-day observance. We glance\nfirst at the religious observances, for here, as in the case of the\ngreat sacrifices, a detailed examination would be of no more value\nthan a collective impression; unless, indeed, one were hunting for\nfolk-lore superstitions, of which we can treat now only in the mass.\nIt is sufficient to understand that, according to the house-ritual\n(_g[r.]hya-s[=u]tra_) and the law-ritual (_dharma-s[=u]tra_, and\n_dharma-\u00e7[=a]stra_),[4] for every change in life there was an\nappropriate ceremony and a religious observance; for every day,\noblations (three at least); for every fortnight and season, a\nsacrifice. Religious formulae were said over the child yet unborn.\nFrom the moment of birth he was surrounded with observances.[5] At\nsuch and such a time the child's head was shaved; he was taken out to\nlook at the sun; made to eat from a golden spoon; invested with the\nsacred cord, etc, etc. When grown up, a certain number of years were\npassed with a Guru, or tutor, who taught the boy his Veda; and to whom\nhe acted as body-servant (a study and office often cut short in the\ncase of Aryans who were not priests). Of the sacraments alone, such as\nthe observances to which we have just alluded, there are no less than\nforty according to Gautama's laws (the name-rite, eating-rite, etc.).\nThe pious householder who had once set up his own fire, that is, got\nmarried, must have spent most of his time, if he followed directions,\nin attending to some religious ceremony. He had several little rites\nto attend to even before he might say his prayers in the morning; and\nsince even to-day most of these personal regulations are dutifully\nobserved, one may assume that in the full power of Brahmanhood they\nwere very straitly enforced.[6]\n\nIt is, therefore, important to know what these works, so closely in\ntouch with the general public, have to say in regard to religion. What\nthey inculcate will be the popular theology of completed Brahmanism.\nFor these books are intended to give instruction to all the Aryan\ncastes, and, though this instruction filtrates through the hands of\nthe priest, one may be sure that the understanding between king and\npriest was such as to make the code the real norm of justice and\narbiter of religious opinions. For instance, when one reads that the\nking is a prime divinity, and that, _quid pro quo_, the priest may be\nbanished, but never may be punished corporally by the king, because\nthe former is a still greater divinity, it may be taken for granted\nthat such was received opinion. When we come to take up the Hinduism\nof the epic we shall point out that that work contains a religion more\npopular even than that of the legal literature, for one knows that\nthis latter phase of religion was at first not taught at all, but grew\nup in the face of opposition. But for the present, before the rise of\nepic 'Hinduism,' and before taking up the heretical writings, it is a\ngreat gain to be able to scan a side of religion that may be called\npopular in so far as it evidently is the faith which not only was\ntaught to the masses, but which, as is universally assumed in the law,\nthe masses accept; whereas philosophers alone accept the _[=a]tm[=a]_\nreligion of the Upanishads, and the Br[=a]hmanas are not intended for\nthe public at all, but only for initiated priests.\n\nWhat, then, is the religious belief and the moral position of the\nHindu law-books? In how far has philosophy affected public religion,\nand in what way has a reconciliation been affected between the\ncontradictory beliefs in regard to the gods; in regard to the value of\nworks on the one hand, and of knowledge on the other; in regard to\nhell as a means of punishment for sin on the one hand, and\nreincarnation (_sams[=a]ra_) on the other; in regard to heaven as a\nreward of good deeds on the one hand, and absorption into God on the\nother; in regard to a personal creator on the one hand, and a First\nCause without personal attributes on the other?\n\nFor the philosophical treatises are known and referred to in the early\ncodes; so that, although the completed systems post-dated the\nS[=u]tras, the cosmical and theological speculations of the earlier\nUpanishads were familiar to the authors of the legal systems.\n\nThe first general impression produced by a perusal of the law-books is\nthat the popular religion has remained unaffected by philosophy. And\nthis is correct in so far as that it must be put first in describing\nthe codes, which, in the main, in keeping the ancient observances,\nreflect the inherited faith. When, therefore, one says that\npantheism[7] succeeded polytheism in India, he must qualify the\nassertion. The philosophers are pantheists, but what of the vulgar? Do\nthey give up polytheism; are they inclined to do so, or are they\ntaught to do so? No. For there is no formal abatement in the rigor of\nthe older creed. Whatever the wise man thought, and whatever in his\nphilosophy was the instruction which he imparted to his peers, when he\ndealt with the world about him he taught his intellectual inferiors a\nscarcely modified form of the creed of their fathers. How in his own\nmind this wise man reconciled the two sets of opinion has been shown\nabove. The works of sacrifice, with all the inherited belief implied\nby them, were for him preparatory studies. The elasticity of his\nphilosophy admitted the whole world of gods, as a temporary reality,\ninto his pantheistic scheme. It was, therefore, neither the hypocrisy\nof the Roman augur, nor the fear of results that in his teaching held\nhim to the inheritance he had received. Gods, ghosts, demons, and\nconsequently sacrifices, rites, ordeals, and formulae were not\nincongruous with his philosophical opinions. He himself believed in\nthese spiritual powers and in the usefulness of serving them. It is\ntrue that he believed in their eventual doom, but so far as man was\nconcerned they were practically real. There was, therefore, not only\nno reason why the sage should not inculcate the old rites, but there\nwas every reason why he should. Especially in the case of pious but\nignorant people, whose wisdom was not yet developed to a full\nappreciation of divine relativity, was it incumbent on him to keep\nthem, the lower castes, to the one religion that they could\ncomprehend.\n\nIt is thus that the apparent inconsistency in exoteric and esoteric\nbeliefs explains itself. For the two are not contradictory. They do\nnot exclude each other. Hindu pantheism includes polytheism with its\nattendant patrolatry, demonology, and consequent ritualism.[8]\n\nWith rare exceptions it was only the grosser religion that the vulgar\ncould understand; it was only this that they were taught and believed.\n\nThus the old Vedic gods are revered and worshipped by name. The Sun,\nIndra, and all the divinities embalmed in ritual, are placated and\n'satiated' with offerings, just as they had been satiated from time\nimmemorial. But no hint is given that this is a form; or that the\nVedic gods are of less account than they had been. Moreover, it is not\nin the inherited formulae of the ritual alone that this view is\nupheld. To be sure, when philosophical speculation is introduced, the\nFather-god comes to the fore; Brahm[=a][9] sits aloft, indulgently\nadvising his children, as he does in the intermediate stage of the\nBr[=a]hmanas; and _[=a]tm[=a] (brahma)_ too is recognized to be the\nreal being of Brahm[=a], as in the Upanishads.[10] But none of this\ntouches the practice of the common law, where the ordinary man is\nadmonished to fear Yama's hell and Varuna's bonds, as he would have\nbeen admonished before the philosopher grew wiser than the Vedic\nseers. Only personified Right, Dharma, takes his seat with shadowy\nBrahm[=a] among the other gods.[11]\n\nWhat is the speech which the judge on the bench is ordered to repeat\nto the witnesses? Thus says the law-giver Manu: \"When the witnesses\nare collected together in the court, in the presence of the plaintiff\nand defendant, the (Brahman) judge should call upon them to speak,\nkindly addressing them in the following manner: 'Whatever you know has\nbeen done in this affair ... declare it all. A witness who in\ntestifying speaks the truth reaches the worlds where all is plenty ...\nsuch testimony is honored by Brahm[=a]. One who in testifying speaks\nan untruth is, all unwilling, bound fast by the cords of Varuna,[12]\ntill an hundred births are passed.' ... (Then, speaking to one\nwitness): 'Spirit (soul) is the witness for the Spirit, and the Spirit\nis likewise the refuge of the Spirit. Despise not, therefore, thine\nown spirit (or soul), the highest witness of man. Verily, the wicked\nthink 'no one sees us,' but the gods are looking at them, and also the\nperson within (conscience). _Dyaus, Earth, the Waters_, (the person in\nthe) heart, _Moon, Sun, Fire, Yama, Wind, Night, the twin Twilights_,\nand Dharma know the conduct of all corporeal beings.... Although, O\ngood man, thou regardest thyself, thinking, 'I am alone,' yet the holy\none (saint) who sees the evil and the good, stands ever in thy heart.\nIt is in truth god Yama, the son of Vivasvant, who resideth in thy\nheart; if thou beest not at variance with him (thou needest) not (to)\ngo to the Ganges and to the (holy land of) the Kurus (to be\npurified).'\"\n\nHere there is no abatement in Vedic polytheism, although it is circled\nround with a thin mist from later teachings. In the same way the\nordinary man is taught that at death his spirit (soul) will pass as a\nmanikin out of his body and go to Yama to be judged; while the feasts\nto the Manes, of course, imply always the belief in the individual\nactivity of dead ancestors. Such expressions as 'The seven daughters\nof\nVaruna' (_sapta v[=a]ru[n.][=i]r im[=a]s,_ [=A]\u00e7v. _Grih. S_. 2. 3. 3)\nshow that even in detail the old views are still retained. There is no\nadvance, except in superstitions,[13] on the main features of the old\nreligion. So the same old fear of words is found, resulting in new\neuphemisms. One must not say 'scull,' _kap[=a]la_, but call it\n_bhag[=a]la_, 'lucky' (Gaut. 9. 21); a factor in the making of African\nlanguages also, according to modern travellers. Images of the gods are\nnow over-recognized by the priest, for they must be revered like the\ngods themselves (_ib_. 12; P[=a]r. _Grih. S_. 3. 14. 8. etc.). Among\nthe developed objects of the cult serpents now occupy a prominent\nplace. They are mentioned as worshipful in the Br[=a]hmanas. In the\nS[=u]tra period offerings are made to snakes of earth, air, and\nheaven; the serpents are 'satiated' along with gods, plants, demons,\netc. (\u00c7[=a][.n]kh. 4. 9. 3; 15. 4; [=A]\u00e7v. 2. 1. 9; 3. 4. 1;\nP[=a]rask. 2. 14. 9) and blood is poured out to them ([=A]\u00e7v. 4. 8.\n27.).[14] But other later divinities than those of the earliest Veda,\nsuch as Wealth (Kubera), and Dharma, have crept into the ritual. With\nthe Vedic gods appears as a divinity in Kh[=a]d. 1. 5. 31 the love-god\nK[=a]ma, of the Atharvan; while on the other hand Rudra the beast-lord\n(Pa\u00e7upati, Lord of Cattle), the 'kindly' \u00c7iva, appears as 'great god,'\nwhose names are \u00c7ankara, Prish[=a]taka, Bhava, \u00c7arva, Ugra, I\u00e7[=a]na\n(Lord); who has all names and greatness, while he yet is described in\nthe words of the older text as 'the god that desires to kill' ([=A]\u00e7v.\n2. 2. 2; 4. 8. 9, 19,[15] 29, 32; _[=A]it. Br_. 3. 34). On the other\nhand Vishnu is also adored, and that in connection with the [Greek:\nlogos], or V[=a]c (_ib_. 3. 3. 4). Quite in Upanishad manner--for it\nis necessary to show that these were then really known--is the formula\n'thou art a student of _pr[=a][n.]a_ (Breath,) and art given over to\nKa' (_ib_. 1. 20. 8.), or _'whom?'_ In [=A]\u00e7val[=a]yana no Upanishads\nare given in the list of literature, which includes the 'Eulogies of\nmen,' Itih[=a]sas, Pur[=a]nas, and even the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata (3. 3.\n1; 4. 4). But in 1. 13. 1, _Upanishad-rites_ (and that of a very\ndomestic nature) are recognized, which would corroborate the\nexplanation of Upanishad given above, as being at first a subsidiary\nwork, dealing with minor points.[16] Something of the sciolism of the\nUpanishads seems to lie in the prayer that of the four paths on which\nwalk the gods the mortal may be led in that which bestows 'freedom\nfrom death' (P[=a]r. 3. 1. 2); and many of the teachers famous in the\nUpanishads are now revered by name like gods ([=A]\u00e7v. 3. 4. 4, etc.).\n\nOn turning from these domestic S[=u]tras to the legal S[=u]tras it\nbecomes evident that the pantheistic doctrine of the Upanishads, and\nin part the Upanishads themselves, were already familiar to the\nlaw-makers, and that they influenced, in some degree, the doctrines of\nthe law, despite the retention of the older forms. Not only is\n_sams[=a]ra_ the accepted doctrine, but the _[=a]tm[=a]_, as if in a\nveritable Upanishad, is the object of religious devotion. Here,\nhowever, this quest is permitted only to the ascetic, who presumably\nhas performed all ritualistic duties and passed through the stadia\nthat legally precede his own.\n\nOf all the legal S[=u]tra-writers Gautama is oldest, and perhaps is\npre-buddhistic. Turning to his work one notices first that the\nM[=i]m[=a]msist is omitted in the list of learned men (28. 49);[17]\nbut since the Upanishads and Ved[=a]nta are expressly mentioned, it is\nevident that the author of even the oldest S[=u]tra was acquainted\nwith whatever then corresponded to these works.[18] The opposed\nteaching of hell versus _sams[=a]ra_ is found in Gautama. But there is\nrather an interesting attempt to unite them. Ordinarily it is to hell\nand heaven that reference is made, _e.g_., 'the one that knows the law\nobtains the heavenly world' (28. 52); 'if one speak untruth to a\nteacher, even in thought, even in respect to little things, he slays\nseven men after and before him' (seven descendants and seven\nancestors, 23. 31). So in the case of witnesses: 'heaven (is the\nfruit) for speaking the truth; otherwise hell' (13. 7); 'for stealing\n(land) hell' (is the punishment, _ib_. 17). Now and then comes the\nphilosophical doctrine: 'one does not fall from the world of\nBrahm[=a]' (9. 74); 'one enters into union and into the same world\nwith Brahm[=a]' (8. 25).\n\nBut in 21. 4-6 there occurs the following statement: 'To be an outcast\nis to be deprived of the works of the twice-born, and hereafter to be\ndeprived of happiness; this some (call) hell.' It is evident here that\nthe expression _asiddhis_ (deprivation of success or happiness) is\nplaced optionally beside _naraka_ (hell) as the view of one set of\ntheologians compared with that of another; 'lack of obtaining success,\n_i.e_., reward' stands parallel to 'hell.' In the same chapter, where\nManu says that he who assaults a Brahman \"obtains hell for one hundred\nyears\" (M. xi. 207), Gautama (21. 20) says \"for one hundred years,\nlack of heaven\" (_asvargyam_), which may mean hell or the deprivation\nof the result of merit, _i.e_., one hundred years will be deducted\nfrom his heavenly life. In this case not a new and better birth but\nheaven is assumed to be the reward of good acts. Now if one turns to\n11. 29-30 he finds both views combined. In the parallel passage in\n[=A]pastamba only better or worse re-births are promised as a reward\nfor good or evil (2. 5. 11. 10-11); but here it is said: \"The castes\nand orders that remain by their duty, having died, having enjoyed the\nfruits of their acts, with the remnant of their (merit) obtain\nre-birth, having an excellent country, caste, and family; having long\nlife, learning, good conduct, wealth, happiness, and wisdom. They of\ndifferent sort are destroyed in various ways.\" Here, heavenly joys\n(such as are implied by _ni[h.]\u00e7reyasam_ in 26) are to be enjoyed\nfirst, and a good birth afterwards, and by implication one probably\nhas to interpret the next sentence to mean 'they are sent to hell and\nthen re-born in various low births.' This, too, is Manu's rule\n(below). At this time the sacred places which purify are in great\nvogue, and in Gautama a list of them is given (19. 14), viz.: \"all\nmountains, all rivers, holy pools, places of pilgrimage (_i.e_.,\nriver-fords, _tirth[=a]ni_), homes of saints, cow-pens, and altars.\"\nOf these the _tirthas_ are particularly interesting, as they later\nbecome of great importance, thousands of verses in the epic being\ndevoted to their enumeration and praise.\n\nGautama says also that ascetics, according to some teachers, need not\nbe householders first (3. 1), and that the Brahman ascetic stays at\nhome during the rainy season, like the heretic monks (_ib_. 13). If\none examine the relative importance of the forms and spirit of\nreligion as taught in this, the oldest _dharma-s[=u]tra_,[19] he will\nbe impressed at first with the tremendous weight laid on the former as\ncompared with the latter. But, as was said apropos of the Brahmanic\nliterature, one errs who fails to appreciate the fact that these works\nare intended not to give a summary of religious conduct, but to\ninculcate ceremonial rules. Of the more importance, therefore, is the\noccasional pause which is made to insist, beyond peradventure, on the\nsuperiority of moral rules. A very good instance of this is found in\nGautama. He has a list of venial sins. Since lying is one of the most\nheinous offences to a Hindu lawgiver, and the penances are severe, all\nthe treatises state formally that an untruth uttered in fun, or when\none is in danger, or an oath of the sort implied by Plato: [Greek:\n_aphrodision orkon ou phasin einai_],--all these are venial, and so\nare lies told to benefit a (holy) cow, or to aid a priest; or told\nfrom religious motives of any sort without self-interest. This is\nalmost the only example of looseness in morals as taught in the law.\nBut the following case shows most plainly the importance of morality\nas opposed to formal righteousness. After all the forty sacraments (to\nwhich allusion was made above), have been recounted, there are given\n'eight good qualities of the soul,' viz., mercy, forbearance, freedom\nfrom envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from greed and\nfrom covetousness. Then follows: \"He that has (performed) the forty\nsacraments but has not the eight good qualities enters not into union\nwith Brahm[=a], nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a].[20] But he that has\n(performed) only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good\nqualities enters into union with Brahm[=a], and into the heaven of\nBrahm[=a].\" This is as near to heresy as pre-buddhistic Brahmanism\npermitted itself to come.\n\nIn the later legal S[=u]tra of the northern Vasistha[21] occurs a rule\nwhich, while it distinctly explains what is meant by liberality, viz.,\ngifts to a priest, also recognizes the 'heavenly reward': \"If gifts\nare given to a man that does not know the Veda the divinities are not\nsatisfied\" (3. 8). In the same work (6. 1) 'destruction' is the fate\nof the sinner that lives without observance of good custom; yet is it\nsaid in the same chapter (27): \"If a twice-born man dies with the food\nof a \u00c7[=u]dra (lowest caste) in his belly, he would become a village\npig, or he is born again in that (\u00c7[=u]dra's) family\"; and, in respect\nto sons begotten when he has in him such food: \"Of whom the food, of\nhim are these sons; and he himself would not mount to heaven ... he\ndoes not find the upward path\" (29, 28). In _ib_. 8. 17 the Brahman\nthat observes all the rules 'does not fall from _brahmaloka,' i.e_.,\nthe locality of Brahm[=a]. Further, in 10. 4: \"Let (an ascetic) do\naway with all (sacrificial) works; but let him not do away with one\nthing, the Veda; for from doing away with the Veda (one becomes) a\n\u00c7[=u]dra.\" But, in the same chapter: \"Let (the ascetic) live at the\nend of a village, in a temple ('god's house'), in a deserted house, or\nat the root of a tree; there in his mind studying the knowledge (of\nthe _[=a]tm[=a]_) ... so they cite (verses): 'Sure is the freedom from\nre-birth in the case of one that lives in the wood with passions\nsubdued ... and meditates on the supreme spirit' ... Let him not be\nconfined to any custom ... and in regard to this (freedom from worldly\npursuits) they cite these verses: 'There is no salvation (literally\n'release') for a philologist (_na \u00e7abda\u00e7[=a]str[=a]bhiratasya\nmokshas_), nor for one that delights in catching (men) in the world,\nnor for one addicted to food and dress, nor for one pleased with a\nfine house. By means of prodigies, omens, astrology, palmistry,\nteaching, and talking let him not seek alms ... he best knows\nsalvation who (cares for naught)' ... (such are the verses). Let him\nneither harm nor do good to anything.... Avoidance of disagreeable\nconduct, jealousy, presumption, selfishness, lack of belief, lack of\nuprightness, self-praise, blame of others, harm, greed, distraction,\nwrath, and envy, is a rule that applies to all the stadia of life. The\nBrahman that is pure, and wears the girdle, and carries the gourd in\nhis hand, and avoids the food of low castes fails not of obtaining the\nworld of Brahm[=a]\" (_ib_. 10. 18 ff.). Yama, the Manes, and evil\nspirits (_asuras_) are referred to in the following chapter (20, 25);\nand hell in the same chapter is declared to be the portion of such\nascetics as will not eat meat when requested to do so at a feast to\nthe Manes or gods (11. 34),--rather an interesting verse, for in\nManu's code the corresponding threat is that, instead of going to hell\n'for as long, _i.e_., as many years, as the beast has hairs,' as here,\none shall experience 'twenty-one rebirths,' _i.e_., the hell-doctrine\nin terms of _sams[=a]ra_; while the same image occurs in Manu in the\nform 'he that slaughters beasts unlawfully obtains as many rebirths as\nthere are hairs on the beast' (v. 35. 38). The passive attitude\nsometimes ascribed to the Manes is denied; they rejoice over a\nvirtuous descendant (11. 41); a bad one deprives them of the heaven\nthey stand in (16. 36). The authorities on morals are here, as\nelsewhere, Manu and other seers, the Vedas, and the Father-god, who\nwith Yama gives directions to man in regard to lawful food, etc. (14.\n30). The moral side of the code, apart from ritual impurities,\nis given, as usual, by a list of good and bad qualities (above),\nwhile formal laws in regard to theft, murder (especially of a\npriest), adultery and drunkenness (20. 44; i. 20), with violation\nof caste-regulations by intercourse with outcasts, are 'great\ncrimes.' Though older than [=A]pastamba, who mentions the\nP[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a], Vasistha, too, knows the Ved[=a]nta (3.\n17), and the M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_vikalpin--tarkin_, 3. 20, M. XII.\n111).\n\nFrom the S[=u]tras of B[=a]udh[=a]yana's probably southern school\nsomething of additional interest is to be gained. Here 'darkness'\ntakes the place of hell (2. 3. 5. 9), which, however, by a citation is\nexplained (in 2. 2. 3. 34) as 'Yama's hall.' A verse is cited to show\nthat the greatest sin is lack of faith (1. 5. 10. 6) and not going to\nheaven is the reward of folly (_ib_. 7); while the reward of virtue is\nto live in heaven for long (4. 8. 7). The same freedom in regard to\nascetics as occurs in other S[=u]tra works is to be found in this\nauthor, not in the more suspicious final chapters, but in that part of\nthe work which is accepted as oldest,[22] and agrees with the data\nfound in the Br[=a]hmanas, where the pre-buddhistic monk is called\nBhikshu, 'beggar/or Sanny[=a]sin 'he that renounces,' just as these\nterms are employed in the heretical writings. As among the Jains (and\nBuddhists), the Brahmanic ascetic carries a few simple utensils, and\nwanders about from house to house and village to village, begging\nfood. Some authorities (among the Brahmans) say that one may become an\nascetic as soon as he has completed his study, though ordinarily this\nmay be done only after passing through the householder stadium. On\nbecoming an ascetic the beggar takes the vow not to injure any living\nthing (B[=a]udh. II.10.17.2. 11, 29), exactly as the Jain ascetic\ntakes the vow of non-injury. More than this, as will be seen below,\nthe details of the Brahman ascetic's vows are almost identical with\nthose of the Jain ascetic. He vows not to injure living beings, not to\nlie, not to steal, to be continent, to be liberal; with the five minor\nvows, not to get angry, to obey the Teacher, not to be rash, to be\ncleanly and pure in eating.[23] To this ascetic order in the Brahman\npriesthood may be traced the origin of the heretical monks. Even in\nthe Br[=a]hmanas occur the termini technici of the Buddhist\npriesthood, notably the \u00c7ramana or ascetic monk, and the word\n_buddha_, 'awakened' (_pratibudh_). The 'four orders' are those\nenumerated as the householder, student, ascetic, and forest-hermit. If\none live in all four orders according to rule, and be serene, he will\ncome to peace, that is, salvation ([=A]pastamba, 2. 9. 21. I, 2).\n\nAccording to this later legal writer, who belongs to Southern\nIndia,[24] it is only after one has passed through all the preceding\nstadia that he may give up works (sacrifice, etc.) and devote himself\nto seeking the [=a]tm[=a],'wandering about, without caring for earth\nor heaven, renouncing truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain' (_ib_.\n10, 13). There follows this passage one significant of the opposition\nbetween purely Upanishad-ideas and those of the law-givers:\n'Acquirement of peace (salvation) depends, it is said, on knowledge;\nthis is opposed by the codes. If on knowledge (depended) acquirement\nof peace, even here (in this world) one would escape grief' (_ib._\n14-16). Further, in describing the forest-hermit's austerities (_ib._\n23. 4 ff.), verses from a Pur[=a]na are cited which are virtually\nUpanishadic: 'The eight and eighty thousand seers who desired\noffspring (went) south on Aryaman's path, and obtained (as their\nreward) graves; (but) the eight and eighty thousand who did not desire\noffspring (went) north on Aryaman's path and make for themselves\nimmortality,' that is to say 'abandon desire for offspring; and of the\ntwo paths (which, as the commentator observes, are mentioned in the\nCh[=a]ndogya Upanishad), that which gives immortality instead of death\n(graves) will be yours.' It is admitted that such ascetics have\nmiraculous powers; but the law-maker emphatically protests in the\nfollowing S[=u]tra against the supposition that a rule which stands\nopposed to the received rites (marriage, sacrifice, etc.) is of any\npower, and asserts that for the future life an endless reward\n('fruit'), called in revelation 'heavenly,' is appointed (_ib._ 8-11).\nThe next chapter, however, limits, as it were, this dogma, for it is\nstated that immortality is the re-birth of one's self in the body of\none's son, and a verse is cited: 'Thou procreatest progeny, and that's\nthy immortality, O mortal,' with other verses, which teach that sons\nthat attend to the Vedic rites magnify the fame and heaven of their\nancestors, who 'live in heaven until the destruction of creation'\n_([=a] bh[=u]tasamptav[=a]t_, 2. 9. 24. 5), But 'according to the\nBhavishyat-Pur[=a]na' after this destruction of creation 'they exist\nagain in heaven as the cause of seed' (_ib._) 6. And then follows a\nquotation from the Father-god: 'We live with those people who do these\n(following) things: (attend to) the three Vedas, live as students,\ncreate children, sacrifice to the Manes, do penance, make sacrifice to\nthe gods, practice liberality; he that extols anything else becomes\nair (or dust) and perishes' (_ib._) 8; and further: 'only they that\ncommit sin perish' (not their ancestors).\n\nThe animus of this whole passage is apparent. The law-maker has to\ncontend with them that would reject the necessity of following in\norder the traditional stadia of a priest's life; that imagine that by\nbecoming ascetics without first having passed through the preliminary\nstadia they can by knowledge alone attain the bliss that is obtained\nby union with _brahma_ (or Brahm[=a]). In other words the jurist has\nto contend with a trait eminently anti-Brahmanistic, even Buddhistic.\nHe denies this value of knowledge, and therewith shows that what he\nwishes to have inculcated is a belief in the temporary personal\nexistence of the Manes; in heaven till the end of the world-order; and\nthe annihilation of the wicked; while he has a confused or mixed\nopinion in regard to one's own personal immortality, believing on the\none hand that there is a future existence in heaven with the gods, and\non the other (rather a materialistic view) that immortality is nothing\nbut continued existence in the person of one's descendants, who are\nvirtually one's self in another body: _dehatvam ev[=a]'nyat,_ \"only\nthe body is different\" (_ib_) 2. As to cosmogony it is stated to be\n(not the emanation of an _[=a]tm[=a]_) but the \"emission (creation) of\nthe Father-god and of the seers\" (the latter being visible as stars,\n_ib_. 13, 14). In this there is plainly a received popular opinion,\nwhich reflects the Vedic and Brahmanic stage, and is opposed to the\nphilosophical views of the Upanishads, in other words of the first\nVedantic philosophy; while it is mixed up with the late doctrine of\nthe cataclysms, which ruin each succeeding^ creation. The equal\nannihilation of the wicked (_dhvamsanti_) and unorthodox (_dhvamsate_)\nis to be noticed. They are here subject neither to hell nor to\nrebirth, but they \"become dust and perish\" (_ib_. 8. 9).\n\nThroughout the whole legal literature one will find this same\nantithesis of views in regard to the fate of good and bad, although it\nis seldom that annihilation is predicated of the latter. Usually hell\nor rebirth are their fate--two views, which no one can really\nreconcile. They are put side by side; exactly as in priestly\ndiscussion in India and Europe it still remains an unsettled question\nas to when the soul becomes immortal.[25] Occidental experience\nteaches how easy it is for such views to stand together unattacked,\nalthough they are the object of speculation. This passage is perhaps,\nhistorically, the most satisfactory (as it is philosophically\nunsatisfactory) that can be cited in answer to the questions that were\nposed above. But from other parts of legal literature a few more\nstatements may be culled, to illustrate still further the lack of\nuniformity not only in popular belief, but in the teaching provided\nfor the public. First from the same work of [=A]pastamba, in 2. 11.\n29. 9-10 it is said that if a witness in court perjure himself he\nshall be punished by the king, \"and further, in passing to the next\nworld, hell\" (is his portion); whereas \"(the reward) for truth is\nheaven, and praise on the part of all creatures.\" Now, let one compare\nfirst _ib_. 2. 5. 11. 10-11: \"Men of low castes are reborn in higher\ncastes in successive births, and men of high castes in low castes, if\nthey respectively perform and neglect their duties.\" And then this\nVedantic passage of the same author (1. 8. 22 ff.): \"Let one (as\npenance for sin) devote himself to the Yoga (mental discipline) which\nhas to do with the highest _[=a]tm[=a]_ ... Nothing is known higher\nthan the acquisition of _[=a]tm[=a]_. We shall (now) cite some\n_[=a]tm[=a]_-acquisition-verses, viz.: All living creatures (are) the\ncitadel of him that rests in secret, the indestructible one, the\nimmaculate one. Immortal they that devote themselves to the moveless\none who has a movable dwelling ... the great one whose body is light,\nuniversal, free ... the eternal (part) in all creatures, the wise,\nimmortal, unchanging one, limbless, voiceless, formless, touchless,\npurest, the highest goal. He that everywhere devotes himself to Him\n(_[=a]tm[=a]_ as Lord), and always lives accordingly; that by virtue\nof Yoga recognizes Him, the subtile one, shall rejoice in the top of\nheaven ... He, _[=a]tm[=a],_ comprehends all, embraces all, more\nsubtile than a lotus-thread and huger than the earth ... From him are\ncreated all bodies; he is the root, he the Everlasting, the Eternal\nOne.\"\n\nThis discipline it will be observed is enjoined as penance and to get\nrid of faults, that is, to subdue the passions. As the same chapter\ncontains a list of the faults which are to be overcome before one\n\"arrives at peace\" (salvation) they may be cited here: \"Anger, joy,\nwrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lying, over-eating,\ncalumny, envy, sexual desire, and hate, lack of studying _[=a]tm[=a],_\nlack of Yoga--the destruction of these (faults) is based on Yoga\"\n(mental concentration). On the other hand: \"He that devotes himself,\nin accordance with the law, to avoiding anger, joy, wrath, greed,\ndistraction, injury, threats, lies, over-eating, calumny and envy; and\npractices liberality, renunciation, uprightness, kindness, subduing\n(of the passions), self-control; and is at peace with all creatures;\nand practices Yoga; and acts in an [=A]ryan (noble) way; and does not\nhurt anything; and has contentment--qualities which, it is agreed,\nappertain to all the (four) stadia--he becomes _s[=a]rvag[=a]min\"\n(ib._ 23.6), that is 'one belonging to the all-pervading' (All-soul).\nThere appears to be a contradiction between the former passage, where\nYoga is enjoined on ascetics alone; and this, where Yoga is part of\nthe discipline of all four stadia. But what was in the author's mind\nwas probably that all these vices and moral virtues are enumerated as\nsuch for all; and he slips in mental concentration as a virtue for the\nascetic, meaning to include all the virtues he knows.\n\nA few further illustrations from that special code which has won for\nitself a preeminent name, 'the law-book of Manu,'[26] will give in\nepitome the popular religion as taught to the masses; withal even\nbetter than this is taught in the S[=u]tras. For Father Manu's\nlaw-book, as the Hindus call it, is a popular \u00c7[=a]stra or metrical[27]\ncomposite of law and religion, which reflects the opinion of\nBrahmanism in its geographical stronghold, whereas the S[=u]tras\nemanate from various localities, north and south. To Manu there is but\none Holy Land, the Kurus' plain and the region round-about it (near\nDelhi).\n\nThe work takes us forward in time beyond even the latest S[=u]tras,\nbut the content is such as to show that formal Brahmanism in this\nlatest stage still keeps to its old norm and to Brahmanic models.\n\nIt deserves therefore to be examined with care from several points of\nview if one would escape from the belief of the philosopher to the\nmore general teaching. In this popular religion all morality is\nconditioned by the castes,[28] which is true also to a certain degree\nof the earlier Sutras, but the evil fruit of this plant is not there\nquite so ripe as it is in the later code. The enormity of all crimes\ndepends on who commits them, and against whom they are committed. The\nthree upper castes alone have religious privileges. The lowest caste,\noutcasts, women, and diseased persons are not allowed to hear the holy\ntexts or take part in ceremonies.[29] As to the rites, they are the\ninherited ones, sacrifices to gods, offerings to Manes and spirits,\nand all the ceremonies of house and individual, as explained above;\nwith especial and very minute rules of observance for each of the four\nstadia of a priest's life.[30] There is no hint in any of this of the\nimportance of the knowledge of the _[=a]tm[=a]._ But in their proper\nplace the rules of morality and the higher philosophical views are\ntaught. The doctrine of re-birth is formally stated, and the\nattainment of the world of Brahm[=a] _(brahma)_ by union of ceremonies\nand knowledge is inculcated. The ascetic should seek, by meditation,\nto go to Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_) for when he is utterly indifferent,\nthen, both here and after death, he gains everlasting happiness.\nTherefore he should study the Vedas, but especially the teachings in\nregard to the Supreme Spirit, and the Upanishads; studying the\nVed[=a]nta is a regular part of his final discipline (VI, 74-94). In\nanother part of the work the distinction made in the Upanishads is\nupheld, that religious acts are of two sorts, one designed to procure\nbliss, and cause a good man to reach equality with the gods; the other\nperformed without selfish motive; by which latter \"even the five\nelements are overcome,\" that is, the absorption into _brahma_ is\neffected. For \"among all virtuous acts the knowledge of the spirit,\n_[=a]tm[=a],_ is highest; through this is obtained even immortality.\nOne that sees spirit in all things and all things in spirit sacrifices\nto spirit and enters Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_)\" \"The spirit (or self) is\nall divinities; the All is based on spirit.\" And in Upanishadic vein\nthe Person is then proclaimed as lord of gods, whom \"some call fire,\nsome call Manu, some call Indra, some call air, and some call eternal\n_brahma._\" But though this be the view of the closing verses, yet in\nthe beginning of the work is this Person represented as being produced\nfrom a First Cause. It would be out of place here to analyse the\nconflicting philosophical views of the Manu code. Even his\ncommentators are uncertain whether he belonged to the pantheistic\nVed[=a]nta or dualistic S[=a]nkhya school. For them that believe in no\nManu the solution is simpler. Although Manu is usually called a\nPuranic Sankhyan, yet are both schools represented, and that without\nregard to incongruous teaching. Manu is no more Sankhyan than\nVedantic. Indeed in the main part of the work the teaching is clearly\nmore Vedantic. But it suffices here to point out that the\n_[=a]tm[=a]_-philosophy and religion is not ignored; it is taught as\nessential. Nevertheless, it is not taught in such a way as to indicate\nthat it is requisite for the vulgar. On the contrary, it is only when\none becomes an ascetic that he is told to devote himself to the\npursuit of the knowledge of _[=a]tm[=a]_. In one passage there is\nevidence that two replies were given to this fundamental question in\nregard to works and knowledge. For after enumerating a list of good\nacts, among which are knowledge and Vedic ceremonies, it is asked\nwhich among them most tends to deliverance. The answer is vital. Or it\nshould be, but it is given in an ambiguous form (xii. 85-6): \"Amid all\nthese acts the knowledge of self, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is the highest, for it\nproduces immortality. Amid all these acts the one most productive of\nhappiness, both after death and in this life, is the Vedic ceremony.\"\n\nKnowledge gives real immortality; rites give temporary bliss. The\nUpanishads teach that the latter is lower than the former, but each\nanswers the question. There were two answers, and Manu gives both.\nThat is the secret of many discrepancies in Hindu rules. The law-giver\ncannot admit absolutely and once for all that the Vedic ceremony is of\nno abiding use, as it can be of no use to one that accepts the higher\nteaching. He keeps it as a training and allows only the ascetic to be\na philosopher indeed. But at the same time he gives as a sort of\nperoration to his treatise some 'elegant extracts' from philosophical\nworks, which he believes theoretically, although practically he will\nnot allow them to influence his ritualism. He is a true Brahman\npriest.\n\nIt is this that is always so annoying in Brahmanic philosophy. For the\nslavery of tradition is everywhere. Not only does the ritualist, while\nadmitting the force of the philosopher's reasons, remain by Vedic\ntradition, and in consequence refuse to supplant 'revelation' with the\nhigher wisdom and better religion, which he sees while he will not\nfollow it; but even the philosopher must needs be 'orthodox,' and,\nsince the scriptures themselves are self-contradictory, he is obliged\nto use his energies not in discovering truth, but in reconciling his\nancestors' dogmas, in order to the creation of a philosophical system\nwhich shall agree with everything that has been said in the Vedas and\nUpanishads. When one sees what subtlety and logical acumen these\nphilosophers possessed, he is moved to wonder what might have been the\noutcome had their minds been as free as those of more liberal Hellas.\nBut unfortunately they were bound to argue within limits, and were as\nmuch handicapped in the race of thought as were they that had to\nconform to the teachings of Rome. For though India had no church, it\nhad an inquisitorial priestly caste, and the unbeliever was an\noutcast. What is said of custom is true of faith: \"Let one walk in the\npath of good men, the path in which his father walked, in which his\ngrandfathers walked; walking in that path one does no wrong\" (Manu iv.\n178). Real philosophy, unhampered by tradition, is found only among\nthe heretics and in the sects of a later time.\n\nThe gods of old are accepted by the orthodox as a matter of course,\nalthough theoretically they are born of the All-god, who is without\nthe need of ceremonial rites. To the other castes the active and most\nterrible deity is represented as being the priest himself. He not only\nsymbolizes the fire-god, to whom is offered the sacrifice, but he\nactually is the divinity in person. Hence there is no greater merit\nthan in giving gifts to priests. As to eschatology, opinions are not\ncontrasted any more. They are put side by side. In morality truth,\npurity, and harmlessness are chiefly inculcated. But the last\n(ascribed by some scholars to Buddhistic influence) is not permitted\nto interfere with animal sacrifices.\n\nSome of the rules for the life of a householder will show in brief the\nmoral excellence and theoretical uncertainty of Manu's law-code. The\nfollowing extracts are from the fourth, the Ten Commandments from the\nsixth, and the description of the hells (twenty-two in all)[31] from\nthe fourth and twelfth books of Manu's code. These rules may be\naccepted as a true reflexion of what was taught to the people by\nstringent Brahmanism as yet holding aloof from Hinduism.\n\nA householder must live without giving any pain (to living creatures).\nHe must perform daily the ceremonies ordained in the Veda. In this way\nhe obtains heaven. Let him never neglect the offerings to seers, gods,\nspirits (sprites), men, and Manes. Some offer sacrifice only in their\norgans of sense (not in external offerings); some by knowledge alone.\nLet him not explain law and rites to the \u00c7[=u]dra (slave) caste; if he\ndoes so, he sinks into the hell Boundless. Let him not take presents\nfrom an avaricious king who disobeys the law-codes; if he does so, he\ngoes to twenty-one hells (called Darkness, Dense-darkness, Frightful,\nHell, Thread of Death, Great Hell, Burning, Place of Spikes,\nFrying-pan, River of Hell, etc., etc., etc.). Let him never despise a\nwarrior, a snake, or a priest. Let him never despise himself. Let him\nsay what is true and what is agreeable, but not disagreeable truth or\nagreeable false-hood. Let him not dispute with anybody, but let him\nsay 'very well.' Let him not insult anybody. Remembering his former\nbirths, and studying the Veda again and again, he gets endless\nhappiness. Let him avoid unbelief and censure of the Vedas, reviling\nof gods, hatred, pride, anger, and cruelty. He that even threatens a\npriest will go to the hell Darkness for one hundred years; if he\nstrikes him he will be born in twenty-one sinful rebirths (according\nto another passage in the eleventh book he goes to hell for a thousand\nyears for the latter offence). Priests rule the world of gods. But\ndeceitful, hypocritical priests go to hell. Let the householder give\ngifts, and he will be rewarded. One that gives a garment gets a place\nin the moon; a giver of grain gets eternal happiness; a giver of the\nVeda gets union with Brahm[=a] (_brahma_; these gifts, of course, are\nall to priests). He that gives respectfully and he that receives\nrespectfully go to heaven; otherwise both go to hell. Let him, without\ngiving pain to any creature, slowly pile up virtue, as does an ant its\nhouse, that he may have a companion in the next world. For after death\nneither father, nor mother, nor son, nor wife, nor relations are his\ncompanions; his virtue alone remains with him. The relations leave the\ndead body, but its virtue follows the spirit: with his virtue as his\ncompanion he will traverse the darkness that is hard to cross; and\nvirtue will lead him to the other world with a luminous form and\nethereal body. A priest that makes low connections is reborn as a\nslave. The Father-god permits a priest to accept alms even from a bad\nman. For fifteen years the Manes refuse to accept food from one that\ndespises a free gift. A priest that sins should be punished (that is,\nmulcted, a priest may not be punished corporally), more than an\nordinary man, for the greater the wisdom the greater the offence. They\nthat commit the Five Great Sins live many years in hells, and\nafterwards obtain vile births; the slayer of a priest becomes in turn\na dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, etc, etc. A\npriest that drinks intoxicating liquor becomes various insects, one\nafter another. A priest that steals becomes a spider, snake, etc, etc.\nBy repeating sinful acts men are reborn in painful and base births,\nand are hurled about in hells; where are sword-leaved trees, etc, and\nwhere they are eaten, burned, spitted, and boiled; and they receive\nbirths in despicable wombs; rebirth to age, sorrow, and unquenchable\ndeath. But to secure supreme bliss a priest must study the Veda,\npractice austerity, seek knowledge, subdue the senses, abstain from\ninjury, and serve his Teacher. Which of these gives highest bliss? The\nknowledge of the spirit is the highest and foremost, for it gives\nimmortality. The performance of Vedic ceremonies is the most\nproductive of happiness here and hereafter. The Ten Commandments for\nthe twice-born are: Contentment, patience, self-control, not to steal,\npurity, control of passions, devotion (or wisdom), knowledge,\ntruthfulness, and freedom from anger. These are concisely summarized\nagain in the following: 'Manu declared the condensed rule of duty for\n(all) the four castes to be: not to injure a living thing; to speak\nthe truth; not to steal; to be pure; to control the passions' (VI. 92;\nX. 63). The 'non-injury' rule does not apply, of course, to sacrifice\n(_ib_. III. 268). In the epic the commandments are given sometimes as\nten, sometimes as eight.\n\nIn order to give a completed exposition of Brahmanism we have passed\nbeyond the period of the great heresies, to which we must soon revert.\nBut, before leaving the present division of the subject, we select\nfrom the mass of Brahmanic domestic rites, the details of which offer\nin general little that is worth noting, two or three ceremonies which\npossess a more human interest, the marriage rite, the funeral rite,\nand those strange trials, known among so many other peoples, the\nordeals. We sketch these briefly, wishing merely to illustrate the\nreligious side of each ceremony, as it appears in one or more of its\nfeatures.\n\n\nTHE MARRIAGE RITE.\n\nTraces of exogamy may be suspected in the bridegroom's driving off\nwith his bride, but no such custom, of course, is recognized in the\nlaw. On the contrary, the groom is supposed to belong to the same\nvillage, and special rites are enjoined 'if he be from another\nvillage.' But again, in the early rule there is no trace of that taint\nof family which the totem-scholars of to-day cite so loosely from\nHindu law. The girl is not precluded because she belongs to the same\nfamily within certain degrees. The only restriction in the\nHouse-rituals is that she shall have had \"on the mother's and father's\nside\" wise, pious, and honorable ancestors for ten generations\n([=A]\u00e7vl. I. 5). Then comes the legal restriction, which some scholars\ncall 'primitive,' that the wife must not be too nearly related. The\ngirl has her own ordeal (not generally mentioned among ordeals!): The\nwooer that thus selects his bride (this he does if one has not been\nfound already either by his parents or by his own inclination) makes\neight balls of earth and calls on the girl to choose one ('may she get\nthat to which she is born'). If she select a ball made from the earth\nof a field that bears two crops, she (or her child) will be rich in\ngrain; if from the cow-stall, rich in cattle; if from the place of\nsacrifice, godly; if from a pool that does not dry, gifted; if from\nthe gambler's court, devoted to gambling; if from cross-roads,\nunfaithful; if from a barren field, poor in grain; if from the\nburying-ground, destructful of her husband. There are several forms of\nmaking a choice, but we confine ourselves to the marriage.[32] In\nvillage-life the bridegroom is escorted to the girl's house by young\nwomen who tease him. The bridegroom presents presents to the bride,\nand receives a cow. The bridegroom takes the bride's hand, saying 'I\ntake thy hand for weal' (Rig Veda, X. 85. 36), and leads her to a\ncertain stone, on which she steps first with the right foot (toe).\nThen three times they circumambulate the fire, keeping it to the\nright, an old Aryan custom for many rites, as in the _deisel_ of the\nKelts; the bride herself offering grain in the fire, and the groom\nrepeating more Vedic verses. They then take together the seven solemn\nsteps (with verses),[33] and so they are married. The groom, if of\nanother village, now drives away with the bride, and has ready Vedic\nverses for every stage of the journey. After sun-down the groom points\nout the north star, and admonishes the bride to be no less constant\nand faithful. Three or twelve days they remain chaste, some say one\nnight; others say, only if he be from another village. The new husband\nmust now see to the house-fire, which he keeps ever burning, the sign\nof his being a householder.\n\n\nTHE FUNERAL CEREMONY.\n\nRoth has an article in the Journal of the German Oriental Society\n(VIII. 467) which is at once a description of one of the funeral hymns\no\u00a3 the Rig Veda (X. 18) with the later ritual, and a criticism of the\nbearing of the latter on the former.[34] He shows here that the\nritual, so far from having induced the hymn, totally changes it. The\nhymn was written for a burial ceremony. The later ritual knows only\ncremation. The ritual, therefore, forces the hymn into its service,\nand makes it a cremation-hymn. This is a very good (though very\nextreme) example of the difference in age between the early hymns of\nthe Rig Veda and the more modern ritual. M\u00fcller, _ib_. IX. p. I\n(_sic_), has given a thorough account of the later ritual and\nritualistic paraphernalia. We confine ourselves here to the older\nceremony.\n\nThe scene of the Vedic hymn is as follows: The friends and relatives\nstand about the corpse of a married man. By the side of the corpse\nsits the widow. The hymn begins: \"Depart, O Death, upon some other\npathway, upon thy path, which differs from the path of gods ... harm\nnot our children, nor our heroes.... These living ones are separated\nfrom the dead; successful today was our call to the gods. (This man is\ndead, but) _we_ go back to dancing and to laughter, extending further\nour still lengthened lives.\" Then the priest puts a stone between the\ndead and living: \"I set up a wall for the living, may no one of these\ncome to this goal; may they live an hundred full harvests, and hide\ndeath with this stone....\"\n\nThe matrons assembled are now bid to advance without tears, and make\ntheir offerings to the fire, while the widow is separated from the\ncorpse of her husband and told to enter again into the world of the\nliving. The priest removes the dead warrior's bow from his hand: \"Let\nthe women, not widows, advance with the ointment and holy butter; and\nwithout tears, happy, adorned, let them, to begin with, mount to the\naltar (verse 7, p. 274, below). Raise thyself, woman, to the world of\nthe living; his breath is gone by whom thou liest; come hither; of the\ntaker of thy hand (in marriage), of thy wooer thou art become the\nwife[35] (verse 8). I take the bow from the hand of the dead for our\n(own) lordship, glory, and strength.\" Then he addresses the dead:\n\"Thou art there, and we are here; we will slay every foe and every\nattacker (with the power got from thee). Go thou now to Mother Earth,\nwho is wide opened, favorable, a wool-soft maiden to the good man; may\nshe guard thee from the lap of destruction. Open, O earth, be not\noppressive to him; let him enter easily; may he fasten close to thee.\nCover him like a mother, who wraps her child in her garment. Roomy and\nfirm be the earth, supported by a thousand pillars; from this time on\nthou (man) hast thy home and happiness yonder; may a sure place remain\nto him forever. I make firm the earth about thee; may I not be harmed\nin laying the clod here; may the fathers hold this pillar for thee,\nand Yama make thee a home yonder.\"\n\nIn the Atharva Veda mention is made of a coffin, but none is noticed\nhere.\n\nHillebrandt (_loc. cit_. xl. 711) has made it probable that the eighth\nverse belongs to a still older ritual, according to which this verse\nis one for human sacrifice, which is here ignored, though the text is\nkept.[36] 'Just so the later ritual keeps all this text, but twists it\ninto a crematory rite. For in the later period only young children are\nburied. Of burial there was nothing for adults but the collection of\nbones and ashes. At this time too the ritual consists of three parts,\ncremation, collection of ashes, expiation. How are these to be\nreconciled with this hymn? Very simply. The rite is described and\nverses from the hymn are injected into it without the slightest\nlogical connection. That is the essence of all the Brahmanic\nritualism. The later rite is as follows: Three altars are erected,\nnorthwest, southwest, and southeast of a mound of earth. In the fourth\ncorner is the corpse; at whose feet, the widow. The brother of the\ndead man, or an old servant, takes the widow's hand and causes her to\nrise while the priest says \"Raise thyself, woman, to the world of the\nliving.\" Then follows the removal of the bow; or the breaking of it,\nin the case of a slave. The body is now burned, while the priest says\n\"These living ones are separated from the dead\"; and the mourners\ndepart without looking around, and must at once perform their\nablutions of lustration. After a time the collection of bones is made\nwith the verse \"Go thou now to Mother Earth\" and \"Open, O earth.\" Dust\nis flung on the bones with the words \"Roomy and firm be the earth\";\nand the skull is laid on top with the verse \"I make firm the earth\nabout thee.\" In other words the original hymn is fitted to the ritual\nonly by displacement of verses from their proper order and by a forced\napplication of the words. After all this comes the ceremony of\nexpiation with the use of the verse \"I set up a wall\" without\napplication of any sort. Further ceremonies, with further senseless\nuse of other verses, follow in course of time. These are all explained\nminutely in the essay of Roth, whose clear demonstration of the\nmodernness of the ritual, as compared with the antiquity of the hymn\nshould be read complete.\n\nThe seventh verse (above) has a special literature of its own, since\nthe words \"let them, to begin with, mount the altar,\" have been\nchanged by the advocates of _suttee_, widow-burning, to mean 'to the\nplace of fire'; which change, however, is quite recent. The burning of\nwidows begins rather late in India, and probably was confined at first\nto the pet wife of royal persons. It was then claimed as an honor by\nthe first wife, and eventually without real authority, and in fact\nagainst early law, became the rule and sign of a devoted wife. The\npractice was abolished by the English in 1829; but, considering the\nwidow's present horrible existence, it is questionable whether it\nwould not be a mercy to her and to her family to restore the right of\ndying and the hope of heaven, in the place of the living death and\nactual hell on earth in which she is entombed to-day.\n\n\nORDEALS.[37]\n\nFire and water are the means employed in India to test guilt in the\nearlier period. Then comes the oath with judgment indicated by\nsubsequent misfortune. All other forms of ordeals are first recognized\nin late law-books. We speak first of the ordeals that have been\nthought to be primitive Aryan. The Fire-ordeal: (1) Seven fig-leaves\nare tied seven times upon the hands after rice has been rubbed upon\nthe palms; and the judge then lays a red-hot ball upon them; the\naccused, or the judge himself, invoking the god (Fire) to indicate the\ninnocence or the guilt of the accused. The latter then walks a certain\ndistance, 'slowly through seven circles, each circle sixteen fingers\nbroad, and the space between the circles being of the same extent,'\naccording to some jurists; but other dimensions, and eight or nine\ncircles are given by other authorities. If the accused drop the ball\nhe must repeat the test. The burning of the hands indicates guilt. The\nTeutonic laws give a different measurement, and state that the hand is\nto be sealed for three days (manus sub sigillo triduum tegatur) before\ninspection. This sealing for three days is paralleled by modern Indic\npractice, but not by ancient law. In Greece there is the simple\n[Greek: _mudrous airein cheroin_] (Ant. 264) to be compared. The\nGerman sealing of the hand is not reported till the ninth century.[38]\n\n(2) Walking on Fire: There is no ordeal in India to correspond to the\nTeutonic walking over six, nine, or twelve hot ploughshares. To lick a\nhot ploughshare, to sit on or handle hot iron, and to take a short\nwalk over coals is _late_ Indic. The German practice also according to\nSchlagintweit \"war erst in sp\u00e4terer Zeit aufgekommen.\"[39]\n\n(3) Walking through Fire: This is a Teutonic ordeal, and (like the\nconflict-ordeal) an Indic custom not formally legalized. The accused\nwalks directly into the fire. So [Greek: _pur dierpein] (loc. cit_.).\n\nWater-ordeals: (1) May better be reckoned to fire-ordeals. The\ninnocent plunges his hand into boiling water and fetches out a stone\n(Anglo-Saxon law) or a coin (Indic law) without injury to his hand.\nSometimes (in both practices) the plunge alone is demanded. The depth\nto which the hand must be inserted is defined by Hindu jurists.\n\n(2) The Floating-ordeal. The victim is cast into water. If he floats\nhe is guilty; if he drowns he is innocent. According to some Indic\nauthorities an arrow is shot off at the moment the accused is dropped\ninto the water, and a 'swift runner' goes after and fetches it back.\n\"If at his return he find the body of the accused still under water,\nthe latter shall be declared to be innocent.\"[40] According to Kaegi\nthis ordeal would appear to be unknown in Europe before the ninth\ncentury. In both countries Water (in India, Varuna) is invoked not to\nkeep the body of a guilty man but to reject it (make it float).\n\nFood-ordeal: Some Hindu law-books prescribe that in the case of\nsuspected theft the accused shall eat consecrated rice. If the gums be\nnot hurt, no blood appear on spitting, and the man do not tremble, he\nwill be innocent. This is also a Teutonic test, but it is to be\nobserved that the older laws in India do not mention it.\n\nOn the basis of these examples (not chosen in historical sequence)\nKaegi has concluded, while admitting that ordeals with a general\nsimilarity to these have arisen quite apart from Aryan influence, that\nthere is here a bit of primitive Aryan law; and that even the minutiae\nof the various trials described above are _un_-Aryan. This we do\nnot believe. But before stating our objections we must mention another\nordeal.\n\nThe Oath: While fire and water are the usual means of testing crime in\nIndia, a simple oath is also permitted, which may involve either the\naccused alone or his whole family. If misfortune, within a certain\ntime (at once, in seven days, in a fortnight, or even half a year)\nhappen to the one that has sworn, he will be guilty. This oath-test is\nalso employed in the case of witnesses at court, perjury being\nindicated by the subsequent misfortune (Manu, viii. 108).[41]\n\nOur objections to seeing primitive Aryan law in the minutiae of\nordeals is based on the gradual evolution of these ordeals and of\ntheir minutiae in India itself. The earlier law of the S[=u]tras\nbarely mentions ordeals; the first 'tradition law' of Manu has only\nfire, water, and the oath. All others, and all special descriptions\nand restrictions, are mentioned in later books alone. Moreover, the\nearliest (pre-legal) notice of ordeals in India describes the carrying\nof hot iron (in the test of theft) as simply \"bearing a hot axe,\"\nwhile still earlier there is only walking through fire.[42]\n\nTo the tests by oath, fire, and water of the code of Manu are soon\nadded in later law those of consecrated water, poison, and the\nbalance. Restrictions increase and new trials are described as one\ndescends the series of law-books (the consecrated food, the hot-water\ntest, the licking of the ploughshare, and the lot), Some of these\nlater forms have already been described. The further later tests we\nwill now sketch briefly.\n\nPoison: The earliest poison-test, in the code of Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya (the\nnext after Manu), is an application of aconite-root, and as the poison\nis very deadly, the accused is pretty sure to die. Other laws give\nother poisons and very minute restrictions, tending to ease the\nseverity of the trial.\n\nThe Balance-test: This is the opposite of the floating-test. The\nman[43] stands in one scale and is placed in equilibrium with a weight\nof stone in the other scale. He then gets out and prays, and gets in\nagain. If the balance sinks, he is guilty; if it rises, he is\ninnocent.\n\nThe Lot-ordeal: This consists in drawing out of a vessel one of two\nlots, equivalent respectively to _dharma_ and _adharma_, right and\nwrong. Although Tacitus mentions the same ordeal among the Germans, it\nis not early Indic law, not being known to any of the ancient legal\ncodes.\n\nOne may claim without proof or disproof that these are all 'primitive\nAryan'; but to us it appears most probable that only the idea of the\nordeal, or at most its application in the simplest forms of water and\nfire (and perhaps oath) is primitive Aryan, and that all else\n(including ordeal by conflict) is of secondary growth among the\ndifferent nations.\n\nAs an offset to the later Indic tendency to lighten the severity of\nthe ordeal may be mentioned the description of the floating-test as\nseen by a Chinese traveller in India in the seventh century A.D.:[44]\n\"The accused is put into a sack and a stone is put into another sack.\nThe two sacks are connected by a cord and flung into deep water. If\nthe sack with the man sinks and the sack with the stone floats the\naccused is declared to be innocent.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Literally, transmigration, the doctrine of\n     metempsychosis, successive births; first, as in Plato:\n     [Greek: _metabol\u00ea tis tugchanei ousa kai metoik\u00eaois t\u00ea\n     psuch\u00ea ton topon tou enthende eis allon tochon_], then\n     _metabole_, from 'the other place,' back to earth; then,\n     with advancing speculation, fresh _metabole_ again, and so\n     on; a theory more or less clumsily united with the\n     bell-doctrine.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Weber has lately published two monographs on\n     the sacrifices, the R[=a]jas[=u]ya and the V[=a]japeya\n     rites, both full of interesting details and popular\n     features.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: The traditional sacrifices are twenty-one in\n     number, divided into three classes of seven each. The formal\n     divisions are (1) oblations of butter, milk, corn, etc.; (2)\n     _soma_ sacrifices; (3) animal sacrifices, regarded as part\n     of the first two. The sacrifice of the new and full moon is\n     to be repeated on each occasion for thirty years. A\n     _sattra_, session, is a long sacrifice which may last a year\n     or more.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: The latter are the metrical codes, a part of\n     Smriti (sm[r.]ti).]\n\n     [Footnote 5: The Five Paramount Sacrifices (Observances)\n     are, according to Manu III. 70, study of the Veda (or\n     teaching it); sacrifice to the Manes and to the gods;\n     offerings of foods to ghosts (or spirits); and hospitality.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: In the report of the Or. Congress for 1880, p.\n     158 ff., Williams has a very interesting account of the\n     daily rites of the modern orthodox Hindu ('_Rig Veda in\n     Religious Service_').]\n\n     [Footnote 7: We ignore here the later distinction between\n     the Ved[=a]nta and S[=a]nkhya systems. Properly speaking,\n     the latter is dualistic.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: At a later date Buddha himself is admitted into\n     the Brahmanic pantheon as an _avatar_ of the All-god!]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Sometimes regarded as one with Praj[=a]pati,\n     and sometimes treated as distinct from him.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Thus (for the priestly ascetic alone) in M.\n     vi. 79: 'Leaving his good deeds to his loved ones and his\n     evil deeds to his enemies, by force of meditation he goes to\n     the eternal _brahma_.' Here _brahma_; but in Gautama perhaps\n     Brahm[=a].]\n\n     [Footnote 11: That is, when the latter are grouped as in the\n     following list. Our point is that, despite new faith and new\n     gods, Vedic polytheism is taught not as a form but as a\n     reality, and that in this period the people still believe as\n     of old in the old gods, though they also acknowledge new\n     ones (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Compare Manu, ix. 245: \"Varuna is the lord of\n     punishment and holdeth a sceptre (punishment) even over\n     kings.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 13: In new rites, for instance. Thus in P[=a]rask.\n     _Grih. S_. 3. 7 a silly and dirty rite 'prevents a slave\n     from running away'; and there is an ordeal for girls before\n     becoming engaged (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Blood is poured out to the demons in order\n     that they may take this and no other part of the sacrifice,\n     _[=A]it. Br_. ii. 7. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: Here. 4. 8. 19, \u00c7iva's names are Hara, Mrida,\n     \u00c7arva, \u00c7iva, Bhava, Mah[=a]deva, Ugra, Bhima, Pa\u00e7upati,\n     Rudra, \u00c7ankara, I\u00e7ana.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: These rites are described in 6. 4. 24 of the\n     _Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad_ which consists both of\n     metaphysics and of ceremonial rules.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Especially mentioned in the later Vasistha\n     (see below); on _m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]_ a branch of the\n     Ved[=a]nta system see below.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: The commentator here (19. 12, cited by B\u00fchler)\n     defines Ved[=a]nta as the part of the [=A]ranyakas which are\n     not Upanishads, that is, apparently as a local 'Veda-end'\n     (_veda-anta_), though this meaning is not admitted by some\n     scholars, who will see in _anta_ only the meaning 'goal,\n     aim.']\n\n     [Footnote 19: The Rudra (\u00c7iva) invocation at 26. 12 ff. is\n     interpolated, according to B\u00fchler.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Here there is plainly an allusion to the two\n     states of felicity of the Upanishads. Whether the law-giver\n     believes that the spirit will be united with Brahm[=a] or\n     simply live in his heaven he does not say.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Gautama, too, is probably a Northerner. The\n     S[=u]tra, it should be observed, are not so individual as\n     would be implied by the name of the teachers to whom they\n     are credited. They were each texts of a school, _carana_,\n     but they are attributed uniformly to a special teacher, who\n     represents the _cara[n.]a_, as has been shown by M\u00fcller. For\n     what is known in regard to the early 'S[=u]tra-makers' see\n     B\u00fchler's introductions to volumes ii. and xiv. of the Sacred\n     Books.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Compare B\u00fchler's Introduction, p. XXXV, SBE.\n     vol. XIV.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: B[=a]udh. II. 18. 2-3. Compare Jacobi's\n     Introduction, p. XXIII ff. of SBE. vol. XXII.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: B\u00fchler (Introduction, p. XXXI) gives as the\n     district of the [=A]pastamb[=i]ya school parts of the Bombay\n     Presidency, the greater parts of the Niz[=a]m's possessions,\n     and parts of the Madras Presidency. Apastamba himself refers\n     to Northerners as if they were foreigners (_loc. cit.)_.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: In India the latter question is: does the soul\n     immediately at death unite with the _[=a]tm[=a]_ or does it\n     travel to it. In Europe: does the soul wait for the Last\n     Day, or get to heaven immediately? Compare Maine, _Early Law\n     and Custom_, p. 71.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: Thought by some scholars to have been\n     developed out of the code of The M[=a]navas; but ascribed by\n     the Hindus to Father Manu, as are many other verses of legal\n     character contained in the epic and elsewhere.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Although S[=u]tras may be metrical too in\n     part, yet is the complete metrical form, as in the case of\n     still later \u00c7[=a]stra, evidence that the work is intended\n     for the general public.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: The priest alone, in the post-Vedic age, has\n     the right to teach the sacred texts; he has immunity from\n     bodily punishment; the right to receive gifts, and other\n     special privileges. The three upper castes have each the\n     right and duty of studying the sacred texts for a number of\n     years.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Weber has shown, _loc. cit_., that the\n     \u00c7[=u]dras did attend some of the more popular ceremonies,\n     and at first apparently even took a part in them.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: The 'four orders' or stadia of a priest's\n     life, student, householder, hermit, ascetic, must not be\n     confused with the 'four (political) orders' (castes),\n     priest, warrior, farmer, slave--to which, from time to time,\n     were added many 'mixed castes,' as well as 'outcasts,' and\n     natural pariahs. At the time of Manu's code there were\n     already many of these half-assimilated groups.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Theoretically, twenty-one; but an extra one\n     has slipped in by mistake.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: The girl is given or bought, or may make her\n     own choice among different suitors. Buying a wife is\n     reprehended by the early law-givers (therefore, customary).\n     The rite of marriage presupposes a grown girl, but\n     child-marriages also were known to the early law.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: The groom 'releases her from Varuna's fetter,'\n     by symbolically loosening the hair. They step northeast, and\n     he says: 'One step for sap; two for strength; three for\n     riches; four for luck; five for children; six for the\n     seasons; seven for friendship. Be true to me--may we have\n     many long-lived sons.']\n\n     [Footnote 34: There is another funeral hymn, X. 16, in which\n     the Fire is invoked to burn the dead, and bear him to the\n     fathers; his corporeal parts being distributed 'eye to the\n     sun, breath to the wind,' etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: See below.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: Compare Weber, _Streifen_, I. 66; The king's\n     first wife lies with a dead victim, and is bid to come back\n     again to life. Levirate marriage is known to all the codes,\n     but it is reprehended by the same code that enjoins it. (M.\n     ix. 65.)]\n\n     [Footnote 37: The ordeal is called _divyam_\n     (_pram[=a][n.]am_) 'Gottesurtheil.' This means of\n     information is employed especially in a disputed debt and\n     deposit, and according to the formal code is to be applied\n     only in the absence of witnesses. The code also restricts\n     the use of fire, water, and poison to the slaves (Y[=a]j.\n     ii. 98).]\n\n     [Footnote 38: Kaegi. _Alter und Herkunft des Germanischen\n     Gottesurtheils_, p. 50. We call especial attention to the\n     fact that the most striking coincidences in details of\n     practice are not early either in India or Germany.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: Schlagintweit, _Die Gattesurtheile der\n     Indier_, p. 24.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: This is the earliest formula. Later law-books\n     describe the length and strength of the bow, and some even\n     give the measure of distance to which the arrow must be\n     shot. Two runners, one to go and one to return, are\n     sometimes allowed. There is another water-ordeal \"for\n     religious men.\" The accused is to drink consecrated water.\n     If in fourteen (or more or less) days no calamity happen to\n     him he will be innocent. The same test is made in the case\n     of the oath and of poison (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 41: In the case of witnesses Manu gives seven days\n     as the limit. When one adopts the oath as an ordeal the\n     misfortune of the guilty is supposed to come 'quickly.' As\n     an ordeal this is not found in the later law. It is one of\n     the Greek tests (_loc. cit_.). When swearing the Hindu holds\n     water or holy-grass.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: AV. ii. 12 is not a certain case of this, but\n     it is at least Brahmanic. The carrying of the axe is alluded\n     to in the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad (Schlagintweit, _Die\n     Gattesurtheile der Indier_, p. 6).]\n\n     [Footnote 43: Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya (_loc. cit_.) restricts this\n     test to women, children, priests, the old, blind, lame, and\n     sick. On _ph[=a]la_ for _agni, ib._ ii. 99, see ZDMG. ix.\n     677.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: Schlagintweit, _loc. cit_. p. 26 (Hiouen\n     Thsang).]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nJAINISM.[1]\n\n\nOne cannot read the Upanishads without feeling that he is already\nfacing an intellectual revolt. Not only in the later tracts, which are\ninspired with devotion to a supreme and universal Lord, but even in\nthe oldest of these works the atmosphere, as compared with that of the\nearlier Brahmanic period, is essentially different. The close and\nstifling air of ritualism has been charged with an electrical current\nof thought that must soon produce a storm.\n\nThat storm reached a head in Buddhism, but its premonitory signs\nappear in the Upanishads, and its first outbreak preceded the advent\nof Gautama. Were it possible to draw a line of demarcation between the\nUpanishads that come before and after Buddhism, it would be\nhistorically more correct to review the two great schisms, Jainism and\nBuddhism, before referring to the sectarian Upanishads. For these\nlatter in their present form are posterior to the rise of the two\ngreat heresies. But, since such a division is practically uncertain in\nits application, we have thought it better in our sketch of the\nUpanishads and legal literature to follow to the end the course of\nthat agitated thought, which, starting with the great identification\nof _jiva_, the individual spirit, and _[=a]tm[=a]_, the world-spirit,\nthe All, continues till it loses itself in a multiplication of\nsectarian dogmas, where the All becomes the god that has been elected\nby one communion of devotees.[2]\n\nThe external characteristics of Upanishad thought are those of a\nreligion that has replaced formal acts by formal introspection. The\nYogin devotee, who by mystic communion desires absorption into the\nworld-spirit, replaces the Sanny[=a]sin and Yati ascetics, who would\naccomplish the same end by renunciation and severe self-mortification.\nThis is a fresh figure on the stage of thought, where before were mad\nMunis, beggars, and miracle-mongers. On this stage stands beside the\nascetic the theoretical theosophist who has succeeded in identifying\nhimself, soberly, not in frenzy, with God.[3] What were the practical\nresults of this teaching has been indicated in part already. The\nfutility of the stereotyped religious offices was recognized. But\nthese offices could not be discarded by the orthodox. With the lame\nand illogical excuse that they were useful as discipline, though\nunessential in reality, they were retained by the Brahman priest. Not\nso by the Jain; still less so by the Buddhist.\n\nIn the era in which arose the public revolt against the dogmatic\nteaching of the Brahman there were more sects than one that have now\npassed away forgotten. The eastern part of India, to which appertain\nthe later part of the \u00c7atapatha Br[=a]hmana and the schismatic\nheresies, was full of religious and philosophical controversy. The\ngreat heretics were not innovators in heresy. The Brahmans permitted,\nencouraged, and shared in theoretical controversy. There was nothing\nin the tenets of Jainism or of Buddhism that from a philosophical\npoint of view need have caused a rupture with the Brahmans.\n\nBut the heresies, nevertheless, do not represent the priestly caste,\nso much as the caste most apt to rival and to disregard the claim of\nthe Brahman, viz., the warrior-caste. They were supported by kings,\nwho gladly stood against priests. To a great extent both Jainism and\nBuddhism owed their success (amid other rival heresies with no less\nclaim to good protestantism) to the politics of the day. The kings of\nthe East were impatient of the Western church; they were pleased to\nthrow it over. The leaders in the 'reformation' were the younger sons\nof noble blood. The church received many of these younger sons as\npriests. Both Buddha and Mah[=a]v[=i]ra were, in fact, revolting\nadherents of the Brahmanic faith, but they were princes and had\nroyalty to back them.\n\nNor in the Brahmanhood of Benares was Brahmanhood at its strongest.\nThe seat of the Vedic cult lay to the westward, where it arose, in the\n'holy land,' which received the Vedic Aryans after they had crossed\nout of the Punj[=a]b. With the eastward course of conquest the\ncharacter of the people and the very orthodoxy of the priests were\nrelaxed. The country that gave rise to the first heresies was one not\nconsecrated to the ancient rites. Very slowly had these rites marched\nthither, and they were, so to speak, far from their religious base of\nsupplies. The West was more conservative than the East. It was the\nhome of the rites it favored. The East was but a foster-father. New\ntribes, new land, new growth, socially and intellectually,--all these\ncontributed in the new seat of Brahmanhood to weaken the hold of the\npriests upon their speculative and now recalcitrant laity. So before\nBuddha there were heretics and even Buddhas, for the title was\nBuddha's only by adoption. But of most of these earlier sects one\nknows little. Three or four names of reformers have been handed down;\nhalf a dozen opponents or rivals of Buddha existed and vied\nwith him. Most important of these, both on account of his probable\npriority and because of the lasting character of his school, was the\nfounder or reformer of Jainism, Mah[=a]v[=i]ra J\u00f1[=a]triputra,[4] who\nwith his eleven chief disciples may be regarded as the first open\nseceders from Brahmanism, unless one assign the same date to the\nrevolt of Buddha. The two schisms have so much in common, especially\nin outward features, that for long it was thought that Jainism was a\nsub-sect of Buddhism. In their legends, in the localities in which\nthey flourished, and in many minutiae of observances they are alike.\nNevertheless, their differences are as great as the resemblance\nbetween them, and what Jainism at first appeared to have got of\nBuddhism seems now to be rather the common loan made by each sect from\nBrahmanism. It is safest, perhaps, to rest in the assurance that the\ntwo heresies were contemporaries of the sixth century B.C, and leave\nunanswered the question which Master preceded the other, though we\nincline to the opinion that the founder of Jainism, be he\nMah[=a]v[=i]ra or his own reputed master, P[=a]r\u00e7van[=a]tha, had\nfounded his sect before Gautama became Buddha. But there is one good\nreason for treating of Jainism before Buddhism,[5] and that is, that\nthe former represents a theological mean between Brahmanism and\nBuddhism.\n\nMah[=a]v[=i]ra, the reputed founder of his sect, was, like Buddha\nand perhaps his other rivals, of aristocratic birth. His father is\ncalled king, but he was probably hereditary chief of a district\nincorporated as a suburb of the capital city of Videha, while by\nmarriage he was related to the king of Videha, and to the ruling house\nof M[=a]gadha. His family name was J\u00f1[=a]triputra, or, in his own\nPrakrit (Ardham[=a]gadh[=i]) dialect, N[=a]taputta; but by his sect he\nwas entitled the Great Hero, Mah[=a]v[=i]ra; the Conqueror, Jina; the\nGreat One, Vardham[=a]na (Vardahmana in the original), etc. His sect\nwas that of the Nirgranthas (Nigganthas), _i.e_., 'without bonds,'\nperhaps the oldest name of the whole body. Later there are found no\nless than seven sub-sects, to which come as eighth the Digambaras, in\ncontradistinction to all the seven \u00c7vet[=a]mbara sects. These two\nnames represent the two present bodies of the church, one body being\nthe \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras, or 'white-attire' faction, who are in the north\nand west; the other, the Digambaras, or 'sky-attire,' _i.e_., naked\ndevotees of the south. The latter split off from the main body about\ntwo hundred years after Mah[=a]v[=i]ra's death; as has been thought by\nsome, because the \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras refused to follow the Digambaras in\ninsisting upon nakedness as the rule for ascetics.[6] The earlier\nwritings show that nakedness was recommended, but was not\ncompulsory.[7] Other designations of the main sects, as of the\nsub-sects, are found. Thus, from the practice of pulling out the hairs\nof their body, the Jains were derisively termed Lu\u00f1citake\u00e7as, or\n'hair-pluckers.' The naked devotees of this school are probably the\ngymnosophists of the Greek historians, although this general term may\nhave been used in describing other sects, as the practice of\ndispensing with attire is common even to-day with many Hindu\ndevotees.[8]\n\nAn account of the Jain absurdities in the way of speculation would\nindeed give some idea of their intellectual frailty, but, as in the\ncase of the Buddhists, such an account has but little to do with their\nreligion. It will suffice to state that the 'ages' of the Brahmans\nfrom whom Jain and Buddhist derived their general conceptions of the\nages, are here reckoned quite differently; and that the first Jina of\nthe long series of pre-historic prophets lived more than eight million\nyears and was five hundred bow-lengths in height. Monks and laymen now\nappear at large in India, a division which originated neither with\nJain nor Buddhist,[9] though these orders are more clearly divided\namong the heretics, from whom, again, was borrowed by the Hindu sects,\nthe monastic institution, in the ninth century (A.D.), in all the\nolder heretical completeness. Although atheistic the Jain worshipped\nthe Teacher, and paid some regard to the Brahmanical divinities, just\nas he worships the Hindu gods to-day, for the atheistical systems\nadmitted gods as demi-gods or dummy gods, and in point of fact became\nvery superstitious. Yet are both founder-worship and superstition\nrather the growth of later generations than the original practice. The\natheism of the Jain means denial of a divine creative Spirit.[10]\n\nThough at times in conflict with the Brahmans the Jains never departed\nfrom India as did the Buddhists, and even Brahmanic priests in some\nparts of India serve today in Jain temples.\n\nIn metaphysics as in religion the Jain differs radically from the\nBuddhist. He believes in a dualism not unlike that of the S[=a]nkhyas,\nwhereas Buddhistic philosophy has no close connection with this\nBrahmanic system. To the Jain eternal matter stands opposed to eternal\nspirits, for (opposed to pantheism) every material entity (even water)\nhas its own individual spirit. The Jain's Nirv[=a]na, as Barth has\nsaid, is escape from the body, not escape from existence.[11] Like the\nBuddhist the Jain believes in reincarnation, eight births, after one\nhas started on the right road, being necessary to the completion of\nperfection. Both sects, with the Brahmans, insist on the non-injury\ndoctrine, but in this regard the Jain exceeds his Brahmanical\nteacher's practice. Both heretical sects claim that their reputed\nfounders were the last of twenty-four or twenty-five prophets who\npreceded the real founder, each successively having become less\nmonstrous (more human) in form.\n\nThe Jain literature left to us is quite large[12] and enough has been\npublished already to make it necessary to revise the old belief in\nregard to the relation between Jainism and Buddhism.\n\nWe have said that Jainism stands nearer to Brahmanism (with which,\nhowever, it frequently had quarrels) than does Buddhism.[13] The most\nstriking outward sign of this is the weight laid on asceticism, which\nis common to Brahmanism and Jainism but is repudiated by Buddhism.\nTwelve years of asceticism are necessary to salvation, as thinks the\nJain, and this self-mortification is of the most stringent sort. But\nit is not in their different conception of a Nirv[=a]na release rather\nthan of annihilation, nor in the S[=a]nkhya-like[14] duality they\naffect, nor yet in the prominence given to self-mortification that the\nJains differ most from the Buddhists. The contrast will appear more\nclearly when we come to deal with the latter sect. At present we take\nup the Jain doctrine for itself.\n\nThe 'three gems' which, according to the Jains,[15] result in the\nspirit's attainment of deliverance are knowledge, faith, and virtue,\nor literally 'right knowledge, right intuition, and right practices.'\nRight knowledge is a true knowledge of the relation of spirit and\nnot-spirit (the world consists of two classes, spirit and non-spirit),\nthe latter being immortal like the former. Right intuition is absolute\nfaith in the word of the Master and the declarations of the [=A]gamas,\nor sacred texts. Right practices or virtue consists, according to the\nYoga\u00e7[=a]stra, in the correct fivefold conduct of one that has\nknowledge and faith: (1) Non-injury, (2) kindness and speaking which\nis true (in so far as the truth is pleasant to the hearer),[16] (3)\nhonorable conduct, typified by 'not stealing,' (4) chastity in word,\nthought, and deed, (5) renunciation of earthly interests.\n\nThe doctrine of non-injury found but modified approval among the\nBrahmans. They limited its application in the case of\nsacrifice, and for this reason were bitterly taunted by the Jains as\n'murderers.' \"Viler than unbelievers,\" says the Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra, quoting\na law of Manu to the effect that animals may be slain for sacrifice,\n\"all those cruel ones who make the law that teaches killing.\"[17] For\nthis reason the Jain is far more particular in his respect for life\nthan is the Buddhist. Lest animate things, even plants and\nanimalculae, be destroyed, he sweeps the ground before him as he goes,\nwalks veiled lest he inhale a living organism, strains water, and\nrejects not only meat but even honey, together with various fruits\nthat are supposed to contain worms; not because of his distaste for\nworms but because of his regard for life. Other arguments which,\nlogically, should not be allowed to influence him are admitted,\nhowever, in order to terrify the hearer. Thus the first argument\nagainst the use of honey is that it destroys life; then follows the\nargument that honey is 'spit out by bees' and therefore it is\nnasty.[18]\n\nThe Jain differs from the Buddhist still more in ascetic practices. He\nis a forerunner, in fact, of the horrible modern devotee whose\npractices we shall describe below. The older view of seven hells in\nopposition to the legal Brahmanic number of thrice seven is found (as\nit is in the M[=a]rkandeya Pur[=a]na), but whether this be the rule we\ncannot say.[19] It is interesting to see that hell is prescribed with\nmetempsychosis exactly as it is among the Brahmans.[20] Reincarnation\nonearth and punishment in hells between reincarnation seems to be the\nusual belief. The salvation which is attained by the practice of\nknowledge, faith, and five-fold virtue, is not immediate, but it will\ncome after successive reincarnations; and this salvation is the\nfreeing of the eternal spirit from the bonds of eternal matter; in\nother words, it is much more like the 'release' of the Brahman than it\nis like the Buddhistic Nirv[=a]na, though, of course, there is no\n'absorption,' each spirit remaining single. In the order of the\nRatnatraya or 'three gems' \u00c7ankara appears to lay the greatest weight\non faith, but in Hemacandra's schedule knowledge[21] holds the first\nplace. This is part of that Yoga, asceticism, which is the most\nimportant element in attaining salvation.[22]\n\nAnother division of right practices is cited by the Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra (I.\n33 ff.): Some saints say that virtue is divided into five kinds of\ncare and three kinds of control, to wit, proper care in walking,\ntalking, begging for food, sitting, and performing natural functions\nof the body--these constitute the five kinds of care, and the kinds of\ncontrol are those of thought, speech, and act. This teaching it is\nstated, is for the monks. The practice of the laity is to accord with\nthe custom of their country.\n\nThe chief general rules for the laity consist in vows of obedience to\nthe true god, to the law, and to the (present) Teacher; which are\nsomewhat like the vows of the Buddhist. God here is the Arhat, the\n'venerable' founder of the sect. The laic has also five lesser vows:\nnot to kill, not to lie, not to steal, not to commit adultery or\nfornication, to be content with little.\n\nAccording to the \u00c7[=a]stra already cited the laic must rise early in\nthe morning, worship the god's idol at home, go to the temple and\ncircumambulate the Jina idol three times, strewing flowers, and\nsinging hymnsand then read the Praty[=a]khy[=a]na (an old P[=u]rva,\ngospel).[23] Further rules of prayer and practice guide him through\nhis day. And by following this rule he expects to obtain spiritual\n'freedom' hereafter; but for his life on earth he is \"without praise\nor blame for this world or the next, for life or for death, having\nmeditation as his one pure wife\" (iii. 150). He will become a god in\nheaven, be reborn again on earth, and so, after eight successive\nexistences (the Buddhistic number), at last obtain salvation, release\n(from bodies) for his eternal soul (153).\n\nAs in the Upanishads, the gods, like men, are a part of the system of\nthe universe. The wise man goes to them (becomes a god) only to return\nto earth again. All systems thus unite hell and heaven with the\n_karma_ doctrine. But in this Jain work, as in so many of the orthodox\nwritings, the weight is laid more on hell as a punishment than on\nrebirth. Probably the first Jains did not acknowledge gods at all, for\nit is an early rule with them not to say 'God rains,' or use any such\nexpression, but to say 'the cloud rains'; and in other ways they avoid\nto employ a terminology which admits even implicitly the existence of\ndivinities. Yet do they use a god not infrequently as an agent of\nglorification of Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, saying in later writings that Indra\ntransformed himself, to do the Teacher honor; and often they speak of\nthe gods and goddesses as if these were regarded as spirits. Demons\nand inferior beings are also utilized in the same way, as when it is\nsaid that at the Teacher's birth the demons (spirits) showered gold\nupon the town.\n\nThe religious orders of the \u00c7vet[=a]mbara sect contained nuns as well\nas monks, although, as we have said, women are not esteemed very\nfavorably: \"The world is greatly troubled by women. People say that\nwomen are vessels of pleasure. But this leads them to pain, to\ndelusion, to death, to hell, to birth as hell-beings or brute-beasts.\"\nSuch is the decision in the [=A]e[=a]r[=a]nga S[=u]tra, or book of\nusages for the Jain monk and nun. From the same work we extract a few\nrules to illustrate the practices of the Jains. This literature is the\nmost tedious in the world, and to give the gist of the heretic\nlaw-maker's manual will suffice.\n\nAsceticism should be practiced by monk and nun, if possible. But if\none finds that he cannot resist his passions, or is disabled and\ncannot endure austerities, he may commit suicide; although this\nrelease is sometimes reprehended, and is not allowable till one has\nstriven against yielding to such a means. But when the twelve years of\nasceticism are passed one has assurance of reaching Nirv[=a]na, and so\nmay kill himself. Of Nirv[=a]na there is no description. It is\nrelease, salvation, but it is of such sort that in regard to it\n'speculation has no place,' and 'the mind cannot conceive of it'\n(copied from the Upanishads). In other regards, in contrast to the\nnihilistic Buddhist, the Jain assumes a doubtful attitude, so that he\nis termed the 'may-be philosopher,' _sy[=a]dv[=a]din_,[24] in\nopposition to the Buddhist, the philosopher of 'the void.'\n\nBut if the Jain may kill himself, he may not kill or injure anything\nelse. Not even food prepared over a fire is acceptable, lest he hurt\nthe 'fire-beings,' for as he believes in water-beings, so he believes\nin fire-beings, wind-beings, etc. Every plant and seed is holy with\nthe sacredness of life. He may not hurt or drive away the insects that\ntorment his naked flesh. 'Patience is the highest good,' he declares,\nand the rules for sitting and lying conclude with the statement that\nnot to move at all, not to stir, is the best rule. To lie naked,\nbitten by vermin, and not to disturb them, is religion. Like a true\nPuritan, the Jain regards pleasure in itself as sinful. \"What is\ndiscontent, and what is pleasure? One should live subject to neither.\nGiving up all gaiety, circumspect, restrained, one should lead a\nreligious life. Man! Thou art thine own friend; why longest thou for a\nfriend beyond thyself?... First troubles, then pleasures; first\npleasures, then troubles. These are the cause of quarrels.\" And again,\n\"Let one think, 'I am I.'\" _i.e_., let one be dependent on himself\nalone. When a Jain monk or nun hears that there is to be a festival\n(perhaps to the gods, to Indra, Skahda, Rudra, Vishnu,[25] or the\ndemons, as in [=A]c[=a]r[=a]nga S[=u]tra, ii. 1. 2) he must not go\nthither; he must keep himself from all frivolities and entertainments.\nDuring the four months of the rainy season he is to remain in one\nplace,[26] but at other times, either naked or attired in a few\ngarments, he is to wander about begging. In going on his begging tour\nhe is not to answer questions, nor to retort if reviled. He is to\nspeak politely (the formulae for polite address and rude address are\ngiven), beg modestly, and not render himself liable to suspicion on\naccount of his behavior when in the house of one of the faithful.\nWhatever be the quality of the food he must eat it, if it be not a\nwrong sort. Rice and beans are especially recommended to him. The\ngreat Teacher J\u00f1[=a]triputra (Mah[=a]v[=i]ra), it is said, never went\nto shows, pantomines, boxing-matches, and the like; but, remaining in\nhis parents' house till their death, that he might not grieve his\nmother, at the age of twenty-eight renounced the world with the\nconsent of the government, and betook himself to asceticism;\ntravelling naked (after a year of clothes) into barbarous lands, but\nalways converting and enduring the reproach of the wicked. He was\nbeaten and set upon by sinful men, yet was he never moved to anger.\nThus it was that he became the Arhat, the Jina, the Kevalin (perfect\nsage).[27] It is sad to have to add, however, that Mah[=a]v[=i]ra is\ntraditionally said to have died in a fit of apoplectic rage.\n\nThe equipment of a monk are his clothes (or, better, none), his\nalms-bowl, broom, and veil. He is 'unfettered,' in being without\ndesires and without injury to others. 'Some say that all sorts of\nliving beings may be slain, or abused, or tormented, or driven\naway--the doctrine of the unworthy. The righteous man does not kill\nnor cause others to kill. He should not cause the same punishment for\nhimself.'\n\nThe last clause is significant. What he does to another living being\nwill be done to him. He will suffer as he has caused others to suffer.\nThe chain from emotion to hell--the avoidance of the former is on\naccount of the fear of the latter--is thus connected: He who knows\nwrath knows pride; he who knows pride knows deceit; he who knows\ndeceit knows greed (and so on; thus one advances) from greed to love,\nfrom love to hate, from hate to delusion, from delusion to conception,\nfrom conception to birth, from birth to death, from death to hell,\nfrom hell to animal existence, 'and he who knows animal existence\nknows pain.'\n\nThe five great vows, which have been thought by some scholars to be\ncopies of the Buddhistic rules, whereas they are really modifications\nof the old Brahmanic rules for ascetics as explained in pre-Buddhistic\nliterature, are in detail as follows:[28]\n\nThe First vow: I renounce all killing of living beings, whether\nsubtile or gross, whether movable or immovable. Nor shall I myself\nkill living beings nor cause others to do it, nor consent to it. As\nlong as I live I confess and blame, repent and exempt myself of these\nsins in the thrice threefold way,[29] in mind, speech, and body.\n\nThe five 'clauses' that explain this vow are: (1) the Niggantha (Jain)\nis careful in walking; (2) he does not allow his mind to act in a way\nto suggest injury of living beings; (3) he does not allow his speech\nto incite to injury; (4) he is careful in laying down his utensils;\n(5) he inspects his food and drink lest he hurt living beings.\n\nThe Second Vow: I renounce all vices of lying speech arising from\nanger, or greed, or fear, or mirth. I confess (etc, as in the first\nvow).\n\nThe five clauses here explain that the Niggantha speaks only after\ndeliberation; does not get angry; renounces greed; renounces fear;\nrenounces mirth--lest through any of these he be moved to lie.\n\nThe Third Vow: I renounce all taking of anything not given, either in\na village, or a town, or a wood, either of little or much, or small or\ngreat, of living or lifeless things. I shall neither take myself what\nis not given nor cause others to take it, nor consent to their taking\nit. As long as I live I confess (etc., as in the first vow).\n\nThe clauses here explain that the Niggantha must avoid different\npossibilities of stealing, such as taking food without permission of\nhis superior. One clause states that he may take only a limited ground\nfor a limited time, _i.e_., he may not settle down indefinitely on a\nwide area, for he may not hold land absolutely. Another clause insists\non his having his grant to the land renewed frequently.\n\nThe Fourth Vow: I renounce all sexual pleasures, either with gods, or\nmen, or animals. I shall not give way to sensuality (etc).\n\nThe clauses here forbid the Niggantha to discuss topics relating to\nwomen, to contemplate the forms of women, to recall the pleasures and\namusements he used to have with women, to eat and drink too highly\nseasoned viands, to lie near women.\n\nThe Fifth Vow: I renounce all attachments, whether little or much,\nsmall or great, living or lifeless; neither shall I myself form such\nattachments, nor cause others to do so, nor consent to their doing so\n(etc.).\n\nThe five clauses particularize the dangerous attachments formed by\nears, eyes, smell, taste, touch.\n\nIt has been shown above (following Jacobi's telling comparison of the\nheretical vows with those of the early Brahman ascetic) that these\nvows are taken not from Buddhism but from Brahmanism. Jacobi opines\nthat the Jains took the four first and that the reformer\nMah[=a]v[=i]ra added the fifth as an offset to the Brahmanical vow of\nliberality.[30] The same writer shows that certain minor rules of the\nJain sect are derived from the same Brahmanical source.\n\nThe main differences between the two Jain sects have been catalogued\nin an interesting sketch by Williams,[31] who mentions as the chief\nJain stations of the north Delhi (where there is an annual gathering),\nJeypur, and [=A]jm[=i]r. To these Mathur[=a] on the Jumna should be\nadded.[32] The \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras had forty-five or forty-six [=A]gamas,\neleven or twelve Angas, twelve Up[=a]ngas, and other scriptures of the\nthird or fourth century B.C., as they claim. They do not go naked\n(even their idols are clothed), and they admit women into the order.\nThe Digambaras do not admit women, go naked, and have for sacred texts\nlater works of the fifth century A.D. The latter of course assert that\nthe scriptures of the former sect are spurious.[33]\n\nIn distinction from the Buddhists the Jains of to-day keep up caste.\nSome of them are Brahmans. They have, of course, a different\nprayer-formula, and have no St[=u]pas or D[=a]gobas (to hold relics);\nand, besides the metaphysical difference spoken of above, they differ\nfrom the Buddhists in assuming that metempsychosis does not stop at\nanimal existence, but includes inanimate things (as these are regarded\nby others). According to one of their own sect of to-day,\n_ahi[.m]s[=a] paramo dharmas_, 'the highest law of duty is not to hurt\na living creature.'[34]\n\nThe most striking absurdity of the Jain reverence for life has\nfrequently been commented upon. Almost every city of western India,\nwhere they are found, has its beast-hospital, where animals are kept\nand fed. An amusing account of such an hospital, called Pi[=n]jra Pol,\nat Saurar[=a]shtra, Surat, is given in the first number of the\n_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_.[35] Five thousand rats were\nsupported in such a temple-hospital in Kutch.[36]\n\nOf all the great religious sects of India that of N[=a]taputta is\nperhaps the least interesting, and has apparently the least excuse for\nbeing.[37] The Jains offered to the world but one great moral truth,\nwithal a negative truth, 'not to harm,' nor was this verity invented\nby them. Indeed, what to the Jain is the great truth is only a\ngrotesque exaggeration of what other sects recognized in a reasonable\nform. Of all the sects the Jains are the most colorless, the most\ninsipid. They have no literature worthy of the name. They were not\noriginal enough to give up many orthodox features, so that they seem\nlike a weakened rill of Brahmanism, cut off from the source, yet\ndevoid of all independent character. A religion in which the chief\npoints insisted upon are that one should deny God, worship man, and\nnourish vermin, has indeed no right to exist; nor has it had as a\nsystem much influence on the history of thought. As in the case of\nBuddhism, the refined Jain metaphysics are probably a late growth.\nHistorically these sectaries served a purpose as early protestants\nagainst ritualistic and polytheistic Brahmanism; but their real\naffinity with the latter faith is so great that at heart they soon\nbecame Brahmanic again. Their position geographically would make it\nseem probable that they, and not the Buddhists, had a hand in the\nmaking of the ethics of the later epic.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: We retain here and in Buddhism the usual\n     terminology. Strictly speaking, Jainism is to Jina (the\n     reformer's title) as is Bauddhism to Buddha, so that one\n     should say Jinism, Buddhism, or Jainism, Bauddhism. Both\n     titles, Jina and Buddha ('victor' and 'awakened'), were\n     given to each leader; as in general many other mutual titles\n     of honor were applied by each sect to its own head, Jina,\n     Arhat ('venerable'), Mah[=a]v[=i]ra ('great hero'), Buddha,\n     etc. One of these titles was used, however, as a title of\n     honor by the Jains, but to designate heretics by the Buddhists,\n     viz., T[=i]rthankara (T[=i]rthakara in the original), 'prophet'\n     (see Jacobi, SBE. xxii. Introd. p. xx).]\n\n     [Footnote 2: It is possible, however, on the other hand,\n     that both Vishnuite and \u00c7ivaite sects (or, less anglicized,\n     Vaishnavas, \u00c7aivas, if one will also say Vaidic for Vedic),\n     were formed before the end of the sixth century B.C. Not\n     long after this the divinities \u00c7iva and Vishnu receive\n     especial honor.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: The Beggar (\u00c7ramana, Bhikshu), the Renunciator\n     (Sanny[=a]s[=i]n), the Ascetic (Yati), are Brahmanic terms\n     as well as sectarian.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: The three great reformers of this period are\n     Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, Buddha, and Gos[=a]la. The last was first a\n     pupil and then a rival of Mah[=a]v[=i]ra. The latter's\n     nephew, Jam[=a]li, also founded a distinct sect and became\n     his uncle's opponent, the speculative sectarian tendency\n     being as pronounced as it was about the same time in Hellas.\n     Gos[=a]la appears to have had quite a following, and his\n     sect existed for a long time, but now it is utterly\n     perished. An account of this reformer and of Jam[=a]li will\n     be found in Leumann's essay, _Indische Studien_, xvii. p. 98\n     ff. and in the appendix to Rockhill's _Life of Buddha_.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: The Nirgranthas (Jains) are never referred to\n     by the Buddhists as being a new sect, nor is their reputed\n     founder, N[=a]taputta, spoken of as their founder; whence\n     Jacobi plausibly argues that their real founder was older\n     than Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, and that the sect preceded that of\n     Buddha. Lassen and Weber have claimed, on the contrary, that\n     Jainism is a revolt against Buddhism. The identification of\n     N[=a]taputta (J\u00f1[=a]triputra) with Mah[=a]v[=i]ra is due to\n     B\u00fchler and Jacobi (Kalpas[=u]tra, Introd. p.6).]\n\n     [Footnote 6: According to Jacobi, ZDMG. xxxviii. 17, the\n     split in the party arose in this way. About 350 B.C. some\n     Jain monks under the leadership of Bhadrab[=a]hu went south,\n     and they followed stricter rules of asceticism than did\n     their fellows in the north. Both sects are modifications of\n     the original type, and their differences did not result in\n     sectarian separation till about the time of our era, at\n     which epoch arose the differentiating titles of sects that\n     had not previously separated into formal divisions, but had\n     drifted apart geographically.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Compare Jacobi, _loc. cit_. and Leumann's\n     account of the seven sects of the \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras in the\n     essay in the _Indische Studien_ referred to above. At the\n     present day the Jains are found to the number of about a\n     million in the northwest (\u00c7vet[=a]mbaras), and south\n     (Digambaras) of India. The original seat of the whole body\n     in its first form was, as we have said, near Benares, where\n     also arose and flourished Buddhism.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Hemacandra's Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra, edited by Windisch,\n     ZDMG. xxviii. 185 ff. (iii. 133). The Jain's hate of women\n     did not prevent his worshipping goddesses as the female\n     energy like the later Hindu sects. The Jains are divided in\n     regard to the possibility of woman's salvation. The\n     Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra alludes to women as 'the lamps that burn on\n     the road that leads to the gate of hell,' ii. 87. The\n     Digambaras do not admit women into the order, as do the\n     \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: _Die Bharata-sage_, Leumann, ZDMG. xlviii.\n     p.65. See also above in the S[=u]tras. With the Jains there\n     is less of the monastic side of religion than with the\n     Buddhists.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Jains are sometimes called Arhats on account\n     of their veneration for the Arhat or chief Jina (whence\n     Jain). Their only real gods are their chiefs or Teachers,\n     whose idols are worshipped in the temples. Thus, like the\n     Buddhist and some Hindu sects of modern times, they have\n     given up God to worship man. Rather have they adopted an\n     idolatry of man and worship of womanhood, for they also\n     revere the female energy. Positivism has ancient models!]\n\n     [Footnote 11: The Jain sub-sects did not differ much among\n     themselves in philosophical speculation. Their differences\n     were rather of a practical sort.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: See the list of the Bertin MSS.; Weber,\n     _Berlin MSS_. vol. ii. 1892; and the thirty-third volume of\n     the German Oriental Journal, pp. 178, 693. For an account of\n     the literature see also Jacobi's introduction to the SBE.\n     vol. xxii; and Weber, _Ueber die heiligen Schriften der\n     Jaina_ in vols. xvi, xvii of the _Indische Studien_\n     (translated by Smyth in the Indian Antiquary); and the\n     Bibliography (below).]\n\n     [Footnote 13: A case of connection in legends between\n     Buddhist and Jain is mentioned below. Another is the history\n     of king Pa\u00easi, elaborated in Buddhistic literature\n     (Tripitaka) and in the second Jain Up[=a]nga alike, as has\n     been shown by Leumann.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: The Jain's spirit, however, is not a\n     world-spirit. He does not believe in an All-Spirit, but in a\n     plurality of eternal spirits, fire-spirits, wind-spirits,\n     plant-spirits, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: Compare Colebrooke's _Essays_, vol. II. pp.\n     404, 444, and the Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra cited above.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: This is not in the earlier form of the vow\n     (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 17: II. 37 and 41. Although the Brahman ascetic\n     took the vow not to kill, yet is he permitted to do so for\n     sacrifice, and he may eat flesh of animals killed by other\n     animals (Gautama, 3. 31).]\n\n     [Footnote 18: _Loc. cit_. III. 37-38. The evening and night\n     are not times to eat, and for the same reason \"The Gods eat\n     in the morning, the Seers at noon, the Fathers in the\n     afternoon, the devils at twilight and night\" (_ib_. 58). For\n     at night one might eat a a living thing by mistake.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: _Loc. cit_. II. 27.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: The pun _m[=a][.m]sa, \"Me eat_ will be\n     hereafter whose _meat_ I eat in this life\" (Lanman), shows\n     that Jain and Brahman believed in a hell where the injured\n     avenged themselves (Manu, V. 55; HY\u00c7. III. 26), just as is\n     related in the Bhrigu story (above).]\n\n     [Footnote 21: By intuition or instruction.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: _Loc. cit_. I. 15 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: _Loc. cit_. 121 ff. Wilson, _Essays_, I. 319,\n     gives a description of the simple Jain ritual.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Who says \"may be.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 25: Mukunda.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: This 'keeping _vasso_' is also a Brahmanic\n     custom, as B\u00fchler has pointed out. But it is said somewhere\n     that at that season the roads are impossible, so that there\n     is not so much a conscious copying as a physical necessity\n     in keeping _vasso_; perhaps also a moral touch, owing to the\n     increase of life and danger of killing.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: In the lives of the Jinas it is said that\n     J\u00f1[=a]triputra's (N[=a]taputta's) parents worshipped the\n     'people's favorite,' P[=a]r\u00e7va, and were followers of the\n     \u00c7ramanas (ascetics). In the same work (which contains\n     nothing further for our purpose) it is said that Arhats,\n     Cakravarts, Baladevas, and Vasudevas, present, past, and\n     future, are aristocrats, born in noble families. The\n     heresies and sectaries certainly claim as much.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: [=A]c[=a]r[=a]nga S. ii. 15. We give Jacobi's\n     translation, as in the verses already cited from this work.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Acting, commanding, consenting, past, present,\n     or future (Jacobi).]\n\n     [Footnote 30: SBE. xxii. Introd. p. xxiv.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: JRAS. xx. 279.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: See B\u00fchler, the last volume of the\n     _Epigraphica Indica_, and his other articles in the WZKM. v.\n     59, 175. Jeypur, according to Williams, is the stronghold of\n     the Digambara Jains. Compare Thomas, JRAS. ix. 155, _Early\n     Faith of A\u00e7oka_.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: The redaction of the Jain canon took place,\n     according to tradition, in 454 or 467 A.D. (possibly 527).\n     \"The origin of the extant Jaina literature cannot be placed\n     earlier than about 300 B.C.\" (Jacobi, Introduction to _Jain\n     S[=u]tras_, pp. xxxvii, xliii). The present Angas\n     ('divisions') were preceded by P[=u]rvas, of which there are\n     said to have been at first fourteen. On the number of the\n     scriptures see Weber, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Williams, _loc. cit._ The prayer-formula is:\n     'Reverence to Arhats, saints, teachers, subteachers, and all\n     good men.']\n\n     [Footnote 35: 'A place which is appropriated for the\n     reception of old, worn-out, lame, or disabled animals. At\n     that time (1823) they chiefly consisted of buffaloes and\n     cows, but there were also goats and sheep, and even cocks\n     and hens,' and also 'hosts of vermin.']\n\n     [Footnote 36: JRAS. 1834, p. 96. The town was taxed to\n     provide the food for the rats.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Because the Jains have reverted to idolatry,\n     demonology, and man-worship. But at the outset they appear\n     to have had two great principles, one, that there is no\n     divine power higher than man; the other, that all life is\n     sacred. One of these is now practically given up, and the\n     other was always taken too seriously.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nBUDDHISM.\n\n\nWhile the pantheistic believer proceeded to anthropomorphize in a\nstill greater degree the _[=a]tm[=a]_ of his fathers, and eventually\nlanded in heretical sectarianism; while the orthodox Brahman simply\nadded to his pantheon (in Manu and other law-codes) the Brahmanic\nfigure of the Creator, Brahm[=a]; the truth-seeker that followed the\nlines of the earlier philosophical thought arrived at atheism, and in\nconsequence became either stoic or hedonist. The latter school, the\nC[=a]rv[=a]kas, the so-called disciples of Brihaspati, have, indeed, a\nphilosophy without religion. They simply say that the gods do not\nexist, the priests are hypocrites; the Vedas, humbug; and the only\nthing worth living for, in view of the fact that there are no gods, no\nheaven, and no soul, is pleasure: 'While life remains let a man live\nhappily; let him not go without butter (literally _ghee_) even though\nhe run into debt,' etc.[1] Of sterner stuff was the man who invented a\nnew religion as a solace for sorrow and a refuge from the nihilism in\nwhich he believed.\n\nWhether Jainism or Buddhism be the older heresy, and it is not\nprobable that any definitive answer to this question will ever be\ngiven, one thing has become clear in the light of recent studies,\nnamely, the fact already shown, that to Brahmanism are due some of the\nmost marked traits of both the heretical sects. The founder of\nBuddhism did not strike out a new system of morals; he was not a\ndemocrat; he did not originate a plot to overthrow the Brahmanic\npriesthood; he did not invent the order of monks.[2] There is,\nperhaps, no person in history in regard to whom have arisen so many\nopinions that are either wholly false or half false.[3]\n\nWe shall not canvass in detail views that would be mentioned only to\nbe rejected. Even the brilliant study of Senart,[4] in which the\nfigure of Buddha is resolved into a solar type and the history of the\nreformer becomes a sun-myth, deserves only to be mentioned and laid\naside. Since the publication of the canonical books of the southern\nBuddhists there is no longer any question in regard to the human\nreality of the great knight who illumined, albeit with anything but\nheavenly light, the darkness of Brahmanical belief. Oldenberg[5] has\ntaken Senart seriously, and seriously answered him. But Napoleon and\nMax M\u00fcller have each been treated as sun-myths, and Senart's essay is\nas convincing as either _jeu d'esprit._\n\nIn Nep[=a]l, far from the site of Vedic culture, and generations after\nthe period of the Vedic hymns, was born a son to the noble family of\nthe \u00c7[=a]kyas. A warrior prince, he made at last exclusively his own\nthe lofty title that was craved by many of his peers, Buddha, the\ntruly wise, the 'Awakened.'\n\nThe \u00c7[=a]kyas' land extended along the southern border of Nep[=a]l and\nthe northeast part of Oude (Oudh), between the Ir[=a]vat[=i] (Rapti)\nriver on the west and south, and the Rohini on the east; the district\nwhich lies around the present Gorakhpur, about one hundred miles\nnorth-northeast of Benares. The personal history of the later Buddha\nis interwoven with legend from which it is not always easy to\ndisentangle the threads of truth. In the accounts preserved in regard\nto the Master, one has first to distinguish the P[=a]li records of the\nSouthern Buddhists from the Sanskrit tales of the Northerners; and\nagain, it is necessary to discriminate between the earlier and\nlater traditions of the Southerners, who have kept in general the\nolder history as compared with the extravagant tradition preserved in\nthe Lalita Vistara, the Lotus of the Law, and the other works of the\nNorth. What little seems to be authentic history is easily told; nor\nare, for our present purpose, of much value the legends, which\nmangonize the life of Buddha. They will be found in every book that\ntreats of the subject, and some of the more famous are translated in\nthe article on Buddha in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Brittanica. We content\nourselves with the simplest and oldest account, giving such facts as\nhelp to explain the religious significance of Buddha's life and work\namong his countrymen. Several of these facts, Buddha's place in\nsociety, and the geographical centre of Buddhistic activity, are\nessential to a true understanding of the relations between Buddhism\nand Brahmanism.\n\nWhether Buddha's father was king or no has rightly been questioned.\nThe oldest texts do not refer to him as a king's son, and this\nindicates that his father, who governed the \u00c7[=a]kya-land, of which\nthe limits have just been specified,[6] was rather a feudal baron or\nhead of a small clan, than an actual king. The \u00c7[=a]kya power was\noverthrown and absorbed into that of the king of Oude (Kosala) either\nin Buddha's own life-time or immediately afterwards. It is only the\nnewer tradition that extols the power and wealth which the Master gave\nup on renouncing worldly ties, a trait characteristic of all the later\naccounts, on the principle that the greater was the sacrifice the\ngreater was the glory. Whether kings or mere chieftains, the \u00c7[=a]kyas\nwere noted as a family that cared little to honor the Brahmanic\npriests. They themselves claimed descent from Ikshv[=a]ku, the ancient\nseer-king, son of Manu, and traditionally first king of Ayodh[=a]\n(Oude). They assumed the name of Gautama, one of the Vedic seers, and\nit was by the name of 'the Ascetic Gautama' that Buddha was known to\nhis contemporaries; but his personal name was Siddh[=a]rtha 'he that\nsucceeds in his aim,' prophetic of his life! His mother's name\nM[=a]y[=a] (illusion) has furnished Senart with material for his\nsun-theory of Buddha; but the same name is handed down as that of a\ncity, and perhaps means in this sense 'the wonderful.' She is said to\nhave died when her son was still a boy. The boy Siddh[=a]rtha, then,\nwas a warrior _r[=a]jput_ by birth, and possibly had a very\nindifferent training in Vedic literature, since he is never spoken of\nas Veda-wise.[7] The future Buddha was twenty-nine when he resolved to\nrenounce the world. He was already married and had a son (R[=a]hula,\naccording to later tradition). The legends of later growth here begin\nto thicken, telling how, when the future Buddha heard of the birth of\nhis son, he simply said 'a new bond has been forged to hold me to the\nworld'; and how his mind was first awakened to appreciation of sorrow\nby seeing loathy examples of age, sickness, and death presented to him\nas he drove abroad. Despite his father's tears and protests\nSiddh[=a]rtha, or as one may call him now by his patronymic, the man\nGautama, left his home and family, gave up all possessions, and\ndevoted himself to self-mortification and Yoga discipline of\nconcentration of thought, following in this the model set by all\nprevious ascetics. He says himself, according to tradition, that it\nwas a practical pessimism which drove him to take this step. He was\nnot pleased with life, and the pleasures of society had no charm for\nhim. When he saw the old man, the sick man, the dead man, he became\ndisgusted to think that he too would be subject to age, sickness, and\ndeath: \"I felt disgust at old age; all pleasure then forsook me.\" In\nbecoming an ascetic Gautama simply endeavored to discover some means\nby which he might avoid a recurrence of life, of which the\ndisagreeable side in his estimation outweighed the joy. He too had\nalready answered negatively the question Is life worth living?\n\nWe must pause here to point out that this oldest and simplest account\nof Gautama's resolve shows two things. It makes clear that Gautama at\nfirst had no plan for the universal salvation of his race. He was\nalert to 'save his own soul,' nothing more. We shall show presently\nthat this is confirmed by subsequent events in his career. The next\npoint is that this narration in itself is a complete refutation of the\nopinion of those scholars who believe that the doctrine of _karma_ and\nreincarnation arose first in Buddhism, and that the Upanishads that\npreach this doctrine are not of the pre-Buddhistic period. The last\npart of this statement of opinion is, of course, not touched by the\nstory of Gautama's renunciation, but the first assumption wrecks on\nit. Why should Gautama have so given himself to Yoga discipline? Did\nhe expect to escape age, sickness, death, in this life by that means?\nNo. The assumption from the beginning is the belief in the doctrine of\nreincarnation. It was in order to free himself from future returns of\nthese ills that Gautama renounced his home. But nothing whatever is\nsaid of his discovering or inventing the doctrine of reincarnation.\nBoth hell and _karma_ are taken for granted throughout the whole early\nBuddhistic literature. Buddha discovered neither of them, any more\nthan he discovered a new system of morality, or a new system of\nreligious life; although more credit accrues to him in regard to the\nlast because his order was opposed to that then prevalent; yet even\nhere he had antique authority for his discipline.\n\nTo return to Gautama's[8] life. Legend tells how he fled away on his\nhorse Kanthaka, in search of solitude and the means of salvation, far\nfrom his home to the abode of ascetics, for he thought: \"Whence comes\npeace? When the fire of desire is extinguished, when the fire of hate\nis extinguished, when the fire of illusion is extinguished, when all\nsins and all sorrows are extinguished, then comes peace.\" And the only\nmeans to this end was the renunciation of desire, the discipline of\nYoga concentration, where the mind fixed on one point loses all else\nfrom its horizon, and feels no drawing aside to worldly things.\n\nWhat then has Gautama done from the point of view of the Brahman? He\nhas given up his home to become an ascetic. But this was permitted by\nusage, for, although the strict western code allowed it only to the\npriest, yet it was customary among the other twice-born castes at an\nearlier day, and in this part of India it awakened no surprise that\none of the military caste should take up the life of a philosopher.\nFor the historian of Indic religions this fact is of great\nsignificance, since such practice is the entering wedge which was to\nsplit the castes. One step more and not only the military caste but\nthe lower, nay the lowest castes, might become ascetics. But, again,\nall ascetics were looked upon, in that religious society, as equal to\nthe priests. In fact, where Gautama lived there was rather more\nrespect paid to the ascetic than to the priest as a member of the\ncaste. Gautama was most fortunate in his birth and birth-place. An\naristocrat, he became an ascetic in a land where the priests were\nparticularly disregarded. He had no public opinion to contend against\nwhen later he declared that Brahman birth and Brahman wisdom had no\nvalue. On the contrary, he spoke to glad hearers, who heard repeated\nloudly now as a religious truth what often they had said to themselves\ndespitefully in private.\n\nGautama journeyed as a _muni_, or silent ascetic sage, till after\nseven years he abandoned his teachers (for he had become a disciple of\nprofessed masters), and discontentedly wandered about in M[=a]gadha\n(Beh[=a]r), 'the cradle of Buddhism,' till he came to Uruvel[=a],\nBodhi Gay[=a].[9] Here, having found that concentration of mind,\nYoga-discipline, availed nothing, he undertook another method of\nasceticism, self-torture. This he practiced for some time. But it\nsucceeded as poorly as his first plan, and he had nearly starved\nhimself to death when it occurred to him that he was no wiser than\nbefore. Thereupon he gave up starvation as a means of wisdom and began\nto eat. Five other ascetics, who had been much impressed by his\nendurance and were quite ready to declare themselves his disciples,\nnow deserted him, thinking that as he had relaxed his discipline he\nmust be weaker than themselves. But Gautama sat beneath the sacred\nfig-tree[10] and lo! he became illumined. In a moment he saw the Great\nTruths. He was now the Awakened. He became Buddha.\n\nThe later tradition here records how he was tempted of Satan. For\nM[=a]ra (Death), 'the Evil One' as he is called by the Buddhists,\nknowing that Buddha had found the way of salvation, tempted him to\nenter into Nirv[=a]na at once, lest by converting others Buddha should\nrob M[=a]ra of his power and dominion. This and the legend of storms\nattacking him and his being protected by the king of snakes,\nMucalinda, is lacking in the earlier tradition.\n\nBuddha remains under the _bo_-tree fasting, for four times seven days,\nor seven times seven, as says the later report. At first he resolves\nto be a 'Buddha for himself.'[11] that is to save only himself, not to\nbe 'the universal Buddha,' who converts and saves the world. But the\nGod Brahm[=a] comes down from heaven and persuades him out of pity for\nthe world to preach salvation. In this legend stands out clearly the\nsame fact we have animadverted upon already. Buddha had at first no\nintention of helping his fellows. He found his own road to salvation.\nThat sufficed. But eventually he was moved through pity for his kind\nto give others the same knowledge with which he had been\nenlightened.[12]\n\nHere is to be noticed with what suddenness Gautama becomes Buddha. It\nis an early case of the same absence of study or intellectual\npreparation for belief that is rampant in the idea of ictic\nconversion. In a moment Gautama's eyes are opened. In ecstacy he\nbecomes illuminated with the light of knowledge. This idea is totally\nforeign to Brahmanism. It is not so strange at an earlier stage, for\nthe Vedic poet often 'sees' his hymn,[13] that is, he is inspired or\nillumined. But no Brahman priest was ever 'enlightened' with sudden\nwisdom, for his knowledge was his wisdom, and this consisted in\nlearning interminable trifles. But the wisdom of Buddha was this:\n\n     I. Birth is sorrow, age is sorrow, sickness is sorrow, death\n     is sorrow, clinging to earthly things is sorrow.\n\n     II. Birth and re-birth, the chain of reincarnations, result\n     from the thirst for life together with passion and desire.\n\n     III. The only escape from this thirst is the annihilation of\n     desire.\n\n     IV. The only way of escape from this thirst is by following\n     the Eightfold Path: Right belief, right resolve, right word,\n     right act, right life, right effort, right thinking, right\n     meditation.[14]\n\nBut Buddha is said to have seen more than these, the Four Great\nTruths, and the Eightfold Path, for he was enlightened at the same\ntime (after several days of fasting) in regard to the whole chain of\ncausality which is elaborated in the later tradition.\n\nThe general result of this teaching may be formulated thus, that most\npeople are foolishly optimistic and that the great awakening is to\nbecome a pessimist. One must believe not only that pain is inseparable\nfrom existence, but that the pleasures of life are only a part of its\npain. When one has got so far along the path of knowledge he traverses\nthe next stage and gets rid of desire, which is the root of\nlife,--this is a Vedic utterance,--till by casting off desire,\nignorance, doubt, and heresy, as add some of the texts,[15] one has\nremoved far away all unkindness and vexation of soul, feeling\ngood-will to all.\n\nNot only in this scheme but also in other less formal declarations of\nBuddha does one find the key-note of that which makes his method of\nsalvation different alike to that of Jain or Brahman. Knowledge is\nwisdom to the Brahman; asceticism is wisdom to the Jain; purity and\nlove is the first wisdom to the Buddhist. We do not mean that the\nBrahman does not reach theoretically a plane that puts him on the same\nlevel with Buddhism. We have pointed out above a passage in the work\nof the old law-giver Gautama which might almost have been\nuttered by Gautama Buddha: \"He that has performed all the forty\nsacraments and has not the eight good qualities enters not into union\nwith Brahm[=a] nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a]; but he that has\nperformed only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good\nqualities, enters into union with Brahm[=a] and into the heaven of\nBrahm[=a]\"; and these eight good qualities are mercy, forbearance,\nfreedom from envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from\ngreed and from covetousness. Nevertheless with the Brahman this is\nadventitious, with the Buddhist it is essential.\n\nThese Four Great Truths are given to the world first at Benares,\nwhither Buddha went in order to preach to the five ascetics that had\ndeserted him. His conversation with them shows us another side of\nBuddhistic ethics. The five monks, when they saw Buddha approaching,\njeered, and said: \"Here is the one that failed in his austerities.\"\nBuddha tells them to acknowledge him as their master, and that he is\nthe Enlightened One. \"How,\" they ask, \"if you could not succeed in\nbecoming a Buddha by asceticism, can we suppose that you become one by\nindulgence?\" Buddha tells them that neither voluptuousness nor\nasceticism is the road that leads to Nirv[=a]na; that he, Buddha, has\nfound the middle path between the two extremes, the note is struck\nthat is neither too high nor too low. The five monks are converted\nwhen they hear the Four Great Truths and the Eightfold Path, and there\nare now six holy ones on earth, Buddha and his five disciples.\n\nSignificant also is the social status of Buddha's first conversion. It\nis 'the rich youth' of Benares that flock about him,[16] of whom sixty\nsoon are counted, and these are sent out into all the lands to preach\nthe gospel, each to speak in his own tongue, for religion was from\nthis time on no longer to be hid behind the veil of an unintelligible\nlanguage. And it is not only the aristocracy of wealth that attaches\nitself to the new teacher and embraces his doctrines with enthusiasm.\nThe next converts are a thousand Brahman priests, who constituted a\nreligious body under the leadership of three ascetic Brahmans. It is\ndescribed in the old writings how these priests were still performing\ntheir Vedic rites when Buddha came again to Bodhi Gay[=a] and found\nthem there. They were overcome with astonishment as they saw his power\nover the King of Snakes that lived among them. The gods--for Buddhism,\nif not Buddha, has much to do with the gods--descend from heaven to\nhear him, and other marvels take place. The Brahmans are all\nconverted. The miracles and the numbers may be stripped off, but thus\ndenuded the truth still remains as important as it is plain. Priests\nof Brahman caste were among the first to adopt Buddhism. The popular\neffect of the teaching must have been great, for one reads how, when\nBuddha, after this great conversion, begins his victorious wanderings\nin Beh[=a]r (M[=a]gadha), he converted so many of the young nobles\nthat--since conversion led to the immediate result of\nrenunciation--the people murmured, saying that Gautama (Gotama) was\nrobbing them of their youth.[17]\n\nFrom this time on Buddha's life was spent in wandering about and\npreaching the new creed mainly to the people of Beh[=a]r and Oude\n(K[=a]\u00e7i-Kosala, the realm of Benares-Oude), his course extending from\nthe (Ir[=a]vati) Rapti river in the north to R[=a]jagriha (_gaha,_ now\nRajgir) south of Beh[=a]r, while he spent the _vasso_ or rainy season\nin one of the parks, many of which were donated to him by wealthy\nmembers of the fraternity.[18]\n\nWherever he went he was accompanied with a considerable number of\nfollowers, and one reads of pilgrims from distant places coming to see\nand converse with him. The number of his followers appears to have\nbeen somewhat exaggerated by the later writers, since Buddha himself,\nwhen prophesying of the next Buddha, the \"Buddha of love\" (Maitreya)\nsays that, whereas he himself has hundreds of followers, the next\nBuddha will lead hundreds of thousands.\n\nAlthough, theoretically, all the castes give up their name, and, when\nunited in the Buddhistic brotherhood, become \"like rivers that give up\ntheir identity and unite in the one ocean,\" yet were most of the early\nrecruits, as has been said, from influential and powerful families;\nand it is a tenet of Buddhism in regard to the numerous Buddhas, which\nhave been born[19] and are still to be born on earth, that no Buddha\ncan be born in a low caste.\n\nThe reason for this lies as much as anything in the nature of the\nBuddhistic system which is expressly declared to be \"for the wise, not\nfor the foolish.\" It was not a system based as such on love or on any\ndemocratic sentiment. It was a philosophical exposition of the causal\nnexus of birth and freedom from re-birth. The common man, untrained in\nlogic, might adopt the teaching, but he could not understand it. The\n\"Congregation of the son of the \u00c7[=a]kyas\"--such was the earliest name\nfor the Buddhistic brotherhood--were required only to renounce their\nfamily, put on the yellow robe, assume the tonsure and other outward\nsigns, and be chaste and high-minded. But the teachers were instructed\nin the subtleties of the 'Path,' and it needed no little training to\nfollow the leader's thought to its logical conclusion.\n\nOf Buddha's life, besides the circumstances already narrated little is\nknown. Of his disciples the best beloved was [=A]nanda, his own\ncousin, whose brother was the Judas of Buddhism. The latter, Devadatta\nby name, conspired to kill Buddha in order that he himself might get\nthe post of honor. But hell opened and swallowed him up. He appears to\nhave had convictions of Jain tendency, for before his intrigue he\npreached against Buddha, and formulated reactionary propositions which\ninculcated a stricter asceticism than that taught by the Master.[20]\n\nIt has been denied that the early church contained lay members as well\nas monks, but Oldenberg appears to have set the matter right (p. 165)\nin showing that the laity, from the beginning, were a recognized part\nof the general church. The monk (_bhikshu, bhikku_) was formally\nenrolled as a disciple, wore the gown and tonsure, etc. The lay\nbrother, 'reverer' (_up[=a]saka_) was one that assented to the\ndoctrine and treated the monks kindly. There were, at first, only men\nin the congregation, for Buddhism took a view as unfavorable to woman\nas did Jainism. But at his foster-mother's request Buddha finally\nadmitted nuns as well as monks into his fold. When [=A]nanda asks how\na monk should act in presence of a woman Buddha says 'avoid to look at\nher'; but if it be necessary to look, 'do not speak to her'; but if it\nbe necessary to speak, 'then keep wide awake, [=A]nanda.'[21]\n\nBuddha died in the fifth century. Rhys Davids, who puts the date later\nthan most scholars, gives, as the time of the great Nirv[=a]na, the\nsecond decade from the end of the fourth century. On the other hand,\nB\u00fchler and M\u00fcller reckon the year as 477, while Oldenberg says 'about\n480.'[22] From Buddha's own words, as reported by tradition, he was\neighty years old at the time of his death, and if one allots him\nthirty-six years as his age when he became independent of masters, his\nactive life would be one of forty-four years. It was probably less\nthan this, however, for some years must be added to the first seven of\nascetic practices before he took the field as a preacher.\n\nThe story of Buddha's death is told simply and clearly. He crossed the\nGanges, where at that time was building the town of Patna\n(P[=a]taliputta, 'Palibothra'), and prophesied its future greatness\n(it was the chief city of India for centuries after); then, going\nnorth from R[=a]jagriha, in Beh[=a]r, and V[=a]i\u00e7[=a]l[=i], he\nproceeded to a point east of Gorukhpur (Kasia). Tradition thus makes\nhim wander over the most familiar places till he comes back almost to\nhis own country. There, in the region known to him as a youth, weighed\ndown with years and ill-health, but surrounded by his most faithful\ndisciples, he died. Not unaffecting is the final scene.[23]\n\n'Now the venerable [=A]nanda (Buddha's beloved disciple) went into the\ncloister-building, and stood leaning against the lintel of the door\nand weeping at the thought: \"Alas! I remain still but a learner, one\nwho has yet to work out his own perfection. And the Master is about to\npass away from me--he who is so kind.\" Then the Blessed One called the\nbrethren and said: \"Where then, brethren, is [=A]nanda?\" \"The\nvenerable [=A]nanda (they replied) has gone into the cloister-building\nand stands leaning against the lintel of the door, weeping.\" ... And\nthe Blessed One called a certain brother, and said \"Go now, brother,\nand call [=A]nanda in my name and say, 'Brother [=A]nanda, thy Master\ncalls for thee.'\" \"Even so, Lord,\" said that brother, and he went up\nto where [=A]nanda was, and said to the venerable [=A]nanda: \"Brother\n[=A]nanda, thy Master calls for thee.\" \"It is well, brother,\" said the\nvenerable [=A]nanda, and he went to the place where Buddha was. And\nwhen he was come thither he bowed down before the Blessed One, and\ntook his seat on one side. Then the Blessed One said to the venerable\n[=A]nanda, as he sat there by his side: \"Enough, [=A]nanda, let not\nthyself be troubled; weep not. Have I not told thee already that we\nmust divide ourselves from all that is nearest and dearest? How can it\nbe possible that a being born to die should not die? For a long time,\n[=A]nanda, hast thou been very near to me by acts of love that is kind\nand good and never varies, and is beyond all measure. (This Buddha\nrepeats three times.) Thou hast done well. Be earnest in effort. Thou,\ntoo, shalt soon be free.\" ... When he had thus spoken, the venerable\n[=A]nanda said to the Blessed One: \"Let not the Blessed One die in\nthis little wattle and daub town, a town in the midst of the jungle,\nin this branch township. For, Lord, there are other great cities such\nas Benares (and others). Let the Blessed One die in one of them.\"'\n\nThis request is refused by Buddha. [=A]nanda then goes to the town and\ntells the citizens that Buddha is dying. 'Now, when they had heard\nthis saying, they, With their young men and maidens and wives were\ngrieved, and sad, and afflicted at heart. And some of them wept,\ndishevelling their hair, and stretched forth their arms, and wept,\nfell prostrate on the ground and rolled to and fro, in anguish at\nthe thought \"Too soon will the Blessed One die! Too soon will the\nHappy One pass away! Full soon will the Light of the world vanish\naway!\"' ... When Buddha is alone again with his disciples, 'then the\nBlessed One addressed the brethren and said \"It may be, brethren, that\nthere may be doubt or misgiving in the mind of some brother as to the\nBuddha, the truth, the path or the way. Inquire, brethren, freely. Do\nnot have to reproach yourselves afterwards with this thought: 'Our\nTeacher was face to face with us, and we could not bring ourselves to\ninquire of the Blessed One when we were face to face with him.'\" And\nwhen he had thus spoken they sat silent. Then (after repeating these\nwords and receiving no reply) the Blessed One addressed the brethren\nand said, \"It may be that you put no questions out of reverence for\nthe Teacher. Let one friend communicate with another.\" And when he had\nthus spoken the brethren sat silent. And the venerable [=A]nanda said:\n\"How wonderful a thing, Lord, and how marvellous. Verily, in this\nwhole assembly, there is not one brother who has doubt or misgiving as\nto Buddha, the truth, the path or the way.\" Then Buddha said: \"It is\nout of the fullness of thy faith that thou hast spoken, [=A]nanda. But\nI know it for certain.\" ... Then the Blessed One addressed the\nbrethren saying: \"Behold, brethren, I exhort you saying, transitory\nare all component things; toil without ceasing.\" And these were the\nlast words of Buddha.'\n\nIt is necessary here to make pause for a moment and survey the\ntemporal and geographical circumstances of Buddha's life. His lifetime\ncovered the period of greatest intellectual growth in Athens. If, as\nsome think, the great book of doubt[24] was written by the Hebrew in\n450, there would be in three lands, at least, about the same time the\nsame earnestly scornful skepticism in regard to the worn-out teachings\nof the fathers. But at a time when, in Greece, the greatest minds were\nstill veiling infidelity as best they could, in India atheism was\nalready formulated.\n\nIt has been questioned, and the question has been answered both\naffirmatively and negatively, whether the climatic conditions of\nBuddha's home were in part responsible for the pessimistic tone of his\nphilosophy. If one compare the geographical relation of Buddhism to\nBrahmanism and to Vedism respectively with a more familiar geography\nnearer home, he will be better able to judge in how far these\nconditions may have influenced the mental and religious tone. Taking\nKabul and Kashmeer as the northern limit of the period of the Rig\nVeda, there are three geographical centres. The latitude of the Vedic\npoets corresponds to about the southern boundary of Tennessee and\nNorth Carolina. The entire tract covered by the southern migration to\nthe time of Buddhism, extending from Kabul to a point that corresponds\nto Benares (35\u00b0 is a little north of Kabul and 25\u00b0 is a little south\nof Beh[=a]r), would be represented loosely in the United States by the\ndifference between the northern line of Mississippi and Key West. The\nextent of Georgia about represents in latitude the Vedic province (35\u00b0\nto 30\u00b0), while Florida (30\u00b0 to 25\u00b0) roughly shows the southern\nprogress from the seat of old Brahmanism to the cradle of young\nBuddhism. These are the extreme limits of Vedism, Brahmanism and\nproto-Buddhism. South of this the country was known to Brahmanism only\nto be called savage, and not before the late S[=u]tras (c. 300 B.C.)\nis one brought as far south as Bombay in the West. The [=A]itareya\nBr[=a]hmana, which represents the old centre of Brahmanism around\nDelhi, knows of the [=A]ndhras, south of the God[=a]var[=i] river in\nthe southeast (about the latitude of Bombay and Hayti), only as outer\n'Barbarians.' It is quite conceivable that a race of hardy\nmountaineers, in shifting their home through generations from the\nhills of Georgia and Tennessee to the sub-tropical region of Key West\n(to Cuba), in the course of many centuries might become morally\naffected. But it seems to us, although the miasmatic plains of Bengal\nmay perhaps present even a sharper contrast to the Vedic region than\ndo Key West and Cuba to Georgia, that the climate in effecting a moral\ndegradation (if pessimism be immoral) must have produced also the\neffect of mental debility. Now to our mind there is not the slightest\nproof for the asseveration, which has been repeated so often that it\nis accepted by many nowadays as a truism, that Buddhism or even\npost-Buddhistic literature shows any trace of mental decay.[25] There\ncertainly is mental weakness in the Br[=a]hmanas, but these cannot all\nbe accredited to the miasms of Bengal. They are the bones of a\nreligion already dead, kept for instruction in a cabinet; dry, dusty,\nlifeless, but awful to the beholder and useful to the owner. Again,\ndoes Buddhism lose in the comparison from an intellectual point of\nview when set beside the mazy gropings of the Upanishads? We have\nshown that dogma was the base of primal pantheism; of real logic there\nis not a whit. We admire the spirit of the teachers in the Upanishads,\nbut we have very little respect for the logical ability of any early\nHindu teachers; that is to say, there is very little of it to admire.\nThe doctors of the Upanishad philosophy were poets, not dialecticians.\nPoetry indeed waned in the extreme south, and no spirited or powerful\nliterature ever was produced there, unless it was due to foreign\ninfluence, such as the religious poetry of Ramaism and the Tamil\n_Sittars_. But in secondary subtlety and in the marking of\ndistinctions, in classifying and analyzing on dogmatic premises, as\nwell as in the acceptance of hearsay truths as ultimate verities--we\ndo not see any fundamental disparity in these regards between the mind\nof the Northwest and that of the Southeast; and what superficial\ndifference exists goes to the credit of Buddhism. For if one must have\ndogma it is something to have system, and while precedent theosophy\nwas based on the former it knew nothing of the latter. Moreover, in\nBuddhism there is a greater intellectual vigor than in any phase of\nBrahmanism (as distinct from Vedism). To cast off not only gods but\nsoul, and more, to deny the moral efficacy of asceticism this was a\nleap into the void, to appreciate the daring of which one has but to\nread himself into the priestly literature of Buddha's rivals, both\nheterodox and orthodox. We see then in Buddhism neither a debauched\nmoral type, nor a weakened intellectuality. The pessimism of Buddhism,\nso far as it concerns earth, is not only the same pessimism that\nunderlies the religious motive of Brahmanic pantheism, but it is the\nsame pessimism that pervades Christianity and even Hebraism. This\nworld is a sorry place, living is suffering; do thou escape from it.\nThe pleasures of life are vanity; do thou renounce them. \"To die is\ngain,\" says the apostle; and the Preacher: \"I have seen all the works\nthat are done under the sun and behold all is vanity and vexation of\nspirit. He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. For what hath\nman of all his labor and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath\nlaboured under the sun? For all his days are sorrows and his travail\ngrief. That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one\nthing befalleth them: as the one dieth so dieth the other; yea, they\nhave all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:\nfor all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all\nturn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth\nupward? I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living\nwhich are yet alive. The dead know not anything, their love and their\nhatred and their envy is now perished; neither have they any more a\nportion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. The\nwandering of the desire, this also is vanity.\"\n\nThe Preacher is a fairly good Buddhist.\n\nIf pessimism be the conviction that life on earth is not worth living,\nthis view is shared alike by the greatest of earth's religions. If\npessimism be the view that all beauty ends with life and that beyond\nit there is nothing for which it is worth while to live, then India\nhas no parallel to this Homeric belief. If, however, pessimism mean\nthat to have done with existence on earth is the best that can happen\nto a man, but that there is bliss beyond, then this is the opinion of\nBrahmanism, Jainism, and Christianity. Buddhism alone teaches that to\nlive on earth is weariness, that there is no bliss beyond, and that\none should yet be calm, pure, loving, and wise.\n\nHow could such a religion inspire enthusiasm? How could it send forth\njubilant disciples to preach the gospel of joy? Yet did Buddhism do\neven this. Not less happy and blissful than were they that received\nthe first comfort of pantheism were the apostles of Buddha. His\nprogress was a triumph of gladness. They that believed in him rejoiced\nand hastened to their fellows with the good tidings. Was it then a new\nmorality, a new ethical code, that thus inspired them? Let one but\nlook at the vows and commandments respectively taken by and given to\nthe Buddhist monk, and he will see that in Buddhism there is no new\nmorality.\n\nThe Ten Vows are as follows:\n\n     I take the vow not to kill; not to steal; to abstain from\n     impurity; not to lie; to abstain from intoxicating drinks\n     which hinder progress and virtue; not to eat at forbidden\n     times; to abstain from dancing, singing, music and stage\n     plays; not to use garlands, scents, unguents, or ornaments;\n     not to use a high or broad bed; not to receive gold or\n     silver.\n\nThe Eight Commandments are as follows:\n\n     Do not kill; do not steal; do not lie; do not drink\n     intoxicating drinks; do not commit fornication or adultery;\n     do not eat unseasonable food at night; do not wear garlands\n     or use perfumes; sleep on a mat spread on the ground.\n\nThe first five of these commands are given to every Buddhist, monk, or\nlayman; the last three are binding only on the monk.[26]\n\nThese laws and rules were, however, as we have indicated in\nthe chapter on Jainism, the common property, with some unimportant\nvariations and exceptions, of the Brahman ascetic, the Jain, and the\nBuddhist. There was surely nothing here to rouse especial interest.\nNo. But there was one side of Buddhism that was new, not absolutely\nnew, for it formed part of the moral possession of that early band\nwhich we may call the congregation of the Spirit. The Brahman\ntheoretically had done away with penance and with prayer, with the\nVedic gods and with the Vedic rites. Yet was it impossible for him\npractically to absolve the folk of these. The priest might admit that\nhe knew a better way to salvation, but he still led the people over\nthe hard old road, and he himself went that way also, because it was\nthe way of the fathers, because it was the only way for them that were\nunwise, and perhaps, too, because it was the only way in which the\npriest could keep his place as guide and leader of the people.\n\nJainism smote down some of the obstacles that the Brahman had built\nand kept. Mah[=a]v[=i]ra made the way to salvation shorter, but he did\nnot make it easier for the masses. Asceticism, self-mortification,\nstarvation, torture,--this was his means of gaining happiness\nhereafter.\n\nBut Buddha cut down all obstacles. He made the lowest equal with the\nhighest. It is true that he was no democrat. It is true that his\nsuccess depended, in great part, on political influence, on the\nconversion of kings and nobles, men of his own class. It is true also\nthat Buddha at first, like every other Hindu theosophist, sought no\nsalvation for the world around him, but only for himself. But he was\nmoved with pity for the multitude. And why? The sages among them knew\nno path to happiness save through life-long torture; the common people\nknew only a religion of rites in which they took no interest, the very\nwords of which were unintelligible; and its priests in their eyes, if\nnot contemptible, at least were unsympathetic. And at the same time\nthe old caste-system oppressed and insulted them. It is evident that\nthe times were ripe for a more humane religion and a new distribution\nof social privileges. Then Buddha arose and said: \"He that is pure in\nheart is the true priest, not he that knows the Veda. Like unto one\nthat standeth where a king hath stood and spoken, and standing and\nspeaking there deems himself for this a king, seems to me the man that\nrepeateth the hymns, which the wise men of old have spoken, and\nstanding in their place and speaking, deems himself for this a sage.\nThe Vedas are nothing, the priests are of no account, save as they be\nmorally of repute. Again, what use to mortify the flesh? Asceticism is\nof no value. Be pure, be good; this is the foundation of wisdom--to\nrestrain desire, to be satisfied with little. He is a holy man who\ndoeth this. Knowledge follows this.\"\n\nHere is the essence of Buddhism, here is its power; and when one\nreflects that Buddha added: \"Go into all lands and preach this gospel;\ntell them that the poor and lowly, the rich and high, are all one, and\nthat all castes unite in this religion, as unite the rivers in the\nsea\"--he will understand what key was used to open the hearts of\nBuddha's kinsmen and people.\n\nBut, it will be said, there is nothing in this of that extreme\npessimism, of which mention has just been made. True. And this, again,\nis an important point to bear in mind, that whereas the logic of his\nown system led Buddha into a formal and complete pessimism, which\ndenies an after-life to the man that finds no happiness in this, he\nyet never insists upon this. He not only does not insist, but in his\ntalks with his questioners and disciples he uses all means to evade\ndirect inquiry in regard to the fate of man after death. He believed\nthat Nirv[=a]na (extinction of lust) led to cessation of being; he did\nnot believe in an immortal soul. But he urged no such negative\ndoctrine as this. What he urged repeatedly was that every one\naccepting the undisputed doctrine of _karma_ or re-birth in its full\nextent (i.e., that for every sin here, punishment followed in the\nnext existence), should endeavor to escape, if possible, from such an\nendless course of painful re-births, and that to accomplish this it\nwas necessary first to be sober and good, then to be learned, but not\nto be an ascetic. On the other hand the doctrine, in its logical\nfullness, was a teaching only for the wise, not for fools. He imparted\nit only to the wise. What is one to understand from this? Clearly,\nthat Buddha regarded the mass of his disciples as standing in need\nmerely of the Four Great Truths, the confession of which was the sign\nof becoming a disciple; while to the strong and wise he reserved the\nlogical pessimism, which resulted from his first denials and the\npremises of causality on which was created his complicated system.\nOnly thus can one comprehend the importance of Buddhism to his own\ntime and people, only in this light reconcile the discrepancy between\nthe accounts of a religion which roused multitudes to enthusiasm and\njoy, while on the other hand it stood on the cold basis of complete\nnihilism. Formally there was not an esoteric[27] and exoteric\nBuddhism, but practically what the apostles taught, what Buddha\nhimself taught to the mass of his hearers was a release from the\nbondage of the law and the freedom of a high moral code as the one\nthing needful. But he never taught that sacrifice was a bad thing; he\nnever either took the priest's place himself or cast scorn upon the\nBrahman caste: \"Better even than a harmless[28] sacrifice is\nliberality\" he says, \"better than liberality is faith and kindness\n(non-injury) and truth, better than faith, kindness, and truth is\nrenunciation of the world and the search for peace; best of all, the\nhighest sacrifice and greatest good, is when one enters Nirv[=a]na,\nsaying \"I shall not return again to earth.\" This is to be an Arhat\n(Perfect Sage).\n\nThese are Buddha's own words as he spoke with a Brahman priest,[29]\nwho was converted thereby and replied at once with the Buddhist's\nconfession of faith: \"I take refuge in Buddha, in the doctrine, in the\nchurch.\"\n\nA significant conversation! In many ways these words should be\ncorrective of much that is hazarded today in regard to Buddhism. There\nis here no elaborate system of metaphysics. Wisdom consists in the\ntruth as it is in Buddha; and before truth stand, as antecedently\nessential, faith and kindness; for so may one render the passive\nnon-injury of the Brahman as taught by the Buddhist. To have faith and\ngood works, to renounce the pomps and vanities of life, to show\nkindness to every living thing, to seek for salvation, to understand,\nand so finally to leave no second self behind to suffer again, this is\nBuddha's doctrine.\n\nWe have avoided thus far to define Nirv[=a]na. It has three distinct\nmeanings, eternal blissful repose (such was the Nirv[=a]na of the\nJains and in part of Buddhism), extinction and absolute annihilation\n(such was the Nirv[=a]na of some Buddhists), and the Nirv[=a]na of\nBuddha himself. Nirv[=a]na meant to Buddha the extinction of lust,\nanger, and ignorance. He adopted the term, he did not invent it. He\nwas often questioned, but persistently refused to say whether he\nbelieved that Nirv[=a]na implied extinction of being or not. We\nbelieve that in this refusal to speak on so vital a point lies the\nevidence that he himself regarded the 'extinction' or 'blowing out'\n(this is what the word means literally) as resulting in annihilation.\nHad he believed otherwise we think he would not have hesitated to say\nso, for it would have strengthened his influence among them to whom\nannihilation was not a pleasing thought.\n\nBut one has no right to 'go behind the returns' as these are given by\nBuddha. The later church says distinctly that Buddha himself did not\nteach whether he himself, his ego, was to live after death or not; or\nwhether a permanent ego exists. It is useless, therefore, to inquire\nwhether Buddha's Nirv[=a]na be a completion, as M\u00fcller defines it, or\nannihilation. To one Buddhistic party it was the one; to the other,\nthe other; to Buddha himself it was what may be inferred from his\nrefusal to make any declaration in regard to it.\n\nThe second point of interest is not more easily disposed of. What to\nthe Buddhist is the spirit, the soul of man? It certainly is not an\neternal spirit, such as was the spirit of Brahmanic philosophy, or\nthat of the Jain. But, on the other hand, it is clear that something\nsurvived after death till one was reborn for the last time, and then\nentered Nirv[=a]na. The part that animates the material complex is to\nthe Buddhist an individuality which depends on the nature of its\nformer complex, home, and is destined to project itself upon futurity\ntill the house which it has built ceases to exist, a home rebuilt no\nmore to be its tabernacle. When a man dies the component parts of his\nmaterial personality fall apart, and a new complex is formed, of which\nthe individuality is the effect of the _karma_ of the preceding\ncomplex. The new person is one's karmic self, but it is not one's\nidentical ego. There appears, therefore, even in the doctrine of\nNirv[=a]na, to lie something of that altruism so conspicuous in the\ninsistence on kindness and conversion of others. It is to save from\nsorrow this son of one's acts that one should seek to find the end.\nBut there is no soul to save.\n\nWe cannot insist too often on the fact that the religion of Buddha was\nnot less practical than human. He practiced, as he taught, that the\nmore one worked for others, was devoted to others, the less he cared\nfor himself, the less was he the victim of desire. Hence he says that\na true Nirv[=a]na may come even in one's own lifetime--the utter\nsurrender of one's self is Nirv[=a]na,[30] while the act of dying only\ndraws the curtain after the tragedy has ended. \"Except,\" Buddha says,\n\"for birth, age, and death, there would be no need of Buddha.\"\n\nA review of Buddha's system of metaphysics is, therefore, doubly\nunnecessary for our present purpose.[31] In the first place we believe\nthat most of the categories and metaphysical niceties of Buddhism, as\nhanded down, are of secondary origin; and, were this not so, it is\nstill evident that they were but the unimportant, intellectual\nappendage of a religion that was based on anything but metaphysical\nsubtleties. Buddha, like every other teacher of his time, had to have\na 'system,' though whether the system handed down as his reverts to\nhim it is impossible to say. But Buddha's recondite doctrine was only\nfor the wise. \"It is hard to learn for an ordinary person,\" says\nBuddha himself. But it was the ordinary person that Buddhism took to\nits bosom. The reason can be only the one we have given. For the last\nstage before Arhat-ship Buddha had ready a complicate system. But he\ndid not inflict it on the ordinary person.[32] It was not an essential\nbut the completing of his teaching; in his own eyes truth as\nrepresented by the Four Great Truths was the real doctrine.\n\nThe religion of Buddha, for the mass of people, lies in the Four Great\nTruths and their practical application to others, which implies\nkindness and love of humanity. For Buddha, whatever may have been the\nreluctance with which he began to preach, shows in all his teachings\nand dealings with men an enduring patience under their rebuffs, a\nbrotherly sympathy with their weakness, and a divine pity for their\nsorrows. Something, too, of divine anger with the pettiness and\nmeanness of the unworthy ones among his followers, as when, after\npreaching with parable and exhortation to the wrangling brothers of\nthe monastery of Kosamb[=i], he left them, saying, \"'Truly these fools\nare infatuate; it is no easy task to administer instruction to them,'\nand,\" it is added simply, \"he rose from his seat and went away.\"[33]\n\nThe significance of the church organization in the development of\nBuddhism should not be under-estimated. Contrasted with the lack of an\norganized ecclesiastical corporation among the Brahmans the Buddhistic\nsynod, or congregation, Sangha, exerted a great influence. In\ndifferent places there would be a park set apart for the Buddhist\nmonks. Here they had their monastery buildings, here they lived during\nthe rainy season, from this place out as a centre the monks radiated\nthrough the country, not as lone mendicants, but as members of a\npowerful fraternity. To this monastery came gifts, receipts of all\nkinds that never would have been bestowed upon individuals.\nUndoubtedly organization did much for the spread of Buddhism. Yet we\nthink its influence has been emphasized almost too much by some\nscholars, or rather the effect has been represented as too radical.\nFor the monasteries, as represented by tradition, with their immense\nwealth and political importance as allies of the heretical kings of\nthe East, are plainly of secondary growth. If one limit their national\nand political importance to a period one or two hundred years after\nthe Master's time, he will not err in attributing to this cause, as\ndoes Barth, the reason for the rapid rise and supremacy of Buddhism\nover India. But the first beginnings of the institution were small,\nand what is to be sought in the beginning of Buddhism is rather\nthe reason why the monasteries became popular, and what was the hold\nwhich Buddha had upon the masses, and which induced the formation of\nthis great engine of religious war. And when this first question is\nraised the answer must still be that the banding together of the monks\nwas not the cause but the effect of the popularity of Buddhism. The\nfirst monasteries, as Barth well says, were only assemblies of pious\nmen who formed a spiritual band of religious thinkers, of men who\nunited themselves into one body to the end that they might study\nrighteousness, learning together how to imitate the Master in holiness\nof living. But the members converted soon became so many that formal\nassemblies became a necessity to settle the practical disputes and\ntheoretical questions which were raised by the new multitude of\nbelievers, some of whom were more factious than devout. Brahmanism had\nno need of this. The Brahman priest had his law in tradition; his life\nand conduct were regulated by immemorial law. The corporations of\nthese priests were but temporary organizations for specific purposes.\nThey made no attempt to proselytize. Their members never exceeded the\nbounds of the caste. The cause, then, of the rapid spread of Buddhism\nat the beginning of its career lies only in the conditions of its\nteaching and the influential backing of its founder. It was the\nindividual Buddha that captivated men; it was the teaching that\nemanated from him that fired enthusiasm; it was his position as an\naristocrat that made him acceptable to the aristocracy, his magnetism\nthat made him the idol of the people. From every page stands out the\nstrong, attractive personality of this teacher and winner of hearts.\nNo man ever lived so godless yet so godlike. Arrogating to himself no\ndivinity, despairing of future bliss, but without fear as without\nhope, leader of thought but despising lovingly the folly of the world,\nexalted but adored, the universal brother, he wandered among men,\nsimply, serenely; with gentle irony subduing them that opposed him, to\ncongregation after congregation speaking with majestic sweetness, the\nmaster to each, the friend of all. His voice was singularly vibrant\nand eloquent;[34] his very tones convinced the hearer, his looks\ninspired awe. From the tradition it appears that he must have been one\nof those whose personality alone suffices to make a man not only a\nleader but a god to the hearts of his fellows. When such an one speaks\nhe obtains hearers. It matters little what he says, for he influences\nthe emotions, and bends whoever listens to his will. But if added to\nthis personality, if encompassing it, there be the feeling in the\nminds of others that what this man teaches is not only a verity, but\nthe very hope of their salvation; if for the first time they recognize\nin his words the truth that makes of slaves free men, of classes a\nbrotherhood, then it is not difficult to see wherein lies the\nlightning-like speed with which the electric current passes from heart\nto heart. Such a man was Buddha, such was the essential of his\nteaching; and such was the inevitable rapidity of Buddhistic\nexpansion, and the profound influence of the shock that was produced\nby the new faith upon the moral consciousness of Buddha's people.\n\nThe literature of early Buddhism consists of a number of historical\nworks embodying the life and teaching of the master, some of more\ndidactic and epigrammatic intent, and, in the writings of the Northern\nBuddhists, some that have given up the verbose simplicity of the first\ntracts in favor of tasteless and extravagant recitals more stagey than\nimpressive. The final collection of the sacred books (earlier is the\nSuttanta division into Nik[=a]yas) is called Tripitaka, 'the three\nbaskets,' one containing the tracts on discipline; one, the talks of\nBuddha; and one, partly metaphysical; called respectively Vinaya,\nSutta, and Abhidhamma. The Southern[35] P[=a]li redaction--for the\nwritings of the Northern[36] Buddhists are in Sanskrit--was commented\nupon in the fifth century of this era by Buddha-gosha ('Buddha's\nglory'), and appears to be older than the Sanskrit version of\nNep[=a]l. Some of the writings go back as far as the Second Council,\nand their content, so far as it concerns Buddha's own words, in many\ncases is doubtless a tradition that one should accept as\nauthoritative. The works on discipline, instead of being as dull as\none might reasonably expect of books that deal with the petty details\nof a monastery, are of exceeding interest (although whole chapters\nconform to the reasonable expectation), for they contain fragments of\nthe work and words of Buddha which give a clearer idea of his\npersonality and teaching than do his more extended, and perhaps less\noriginal discourses. They throw a strong light also on the early\nchurch, its recalcitrant as well as its obedient members, the quarrels\nand schisms that appear to have arisen even before Buddha's death.\nThus in the _Mah[=a]vagga_ (ch. X) there is found an account of the\nschism caused by the expulsion of some unworthy members. The brethren\nare not only schismatic, some taking the side of those expelled, but\nthey are even insolent to Buddha; and when he entreats them for the\nsake of the effect on the outer world to heal their differences,[37]\nthey tell him to his face that they will take the responsibility, and\nthat he need not concern himself with the matter. It is on this\noccasion that Buddha says, \"Truly, these fools are infatuate,\" leaves\nthem, and goes into solitude, rejoicing to be free from souls so\nquarrelsome and contentious. Again these tracts give a picture of how\nthey should live that are truly Buddha's disciples. Buddha finds three\ndisciples living in perfect harmony, and asks them how they live\ntogether so peaceably and lovingly. In quaint and yet dignified\nlanguage they reply, and tell him that they serve each other. He that\nrises first prepares the meal, he that returns last at night puts the\nroom in order, etc. (_ib_. 4). Occasionally in the account of unruly\nbrothers it is evident that tradition must be anticipating, or that\nmany joined the Buddhist fraternity as an excuse from restraint. The\n_Cullavagga_ opens with the story of two notorious renegades, 'makers\nof strife, quarrelsome, makers of dispute, given to idle talk, and\nraisers of legal questions in the congregation.' Such were the\ninfamous followers of Panduka and Lohitaka. Of a different sort,\nEpicurean or rather frivolous, were the adherents of Assaji and\nPunabbasu, who, according to another chapter of the _Cullavagga_ (I.\n13), 'cut flowers, planted cuttings of flowers, used ointment and\nscents, danced, wore garlands, and revelled wickedly.' A list of the\namusements in which indulged these flighty monks includes 'games\nplayed with six and ten pieces, tossing up, hopping over diagrams,\ndice, jackstraws,[38] ball, sketching, racing, marbles, wrestling,'\netc; to which a like list (_Tevijja_, II) adds chess or checkers\n('playing with a board of sixty-four squares or one hundred squares'),\nghost stories, and unseemly wrangling in regard to belief (\"I am\northodox, you are heterodox\"), earning a living by prognostication, by\ntaking omens 'from a mirror' or otherwise, by quack medicines, and by\n'pretending to understand the language of beasts.' It is gratifying to\nlearn that the scented offenders described in the first-mentioned work\nwere banished from the order. According to the regular procedure, they\nwere first warned, then reminded, then charged; then the matter was\nlaid before the congregation, and they were obliged to leave the\norder. Even the detail of Subhadda's insolence is not wanting in these\nrecords _(Cull_. XI. 1. and elsewhere). No sooner was Buddha dead than\nthe traitor Subhadda cries out: \"We are well rid of him; he gave us\ntoo many rules. Now we may do as we like.\" On which the assembly\nproceeded to declare in force all the rules that Buddha had given,\nalthough he had left it to them to discard them when they would. The\nConfessional (P[=a]timokkha), out of which have been evolved in\nnarrative form the Vinaya texts that contain it, concerns graded\noffences, matters of expiation, rules regarding decency, directions\nconcerning robes, rugs, bowls, and other rather uninteresting topics,\nall discussed in the form of a confession.[39] The church-reader goes\nover the rules in the presence of the congregation, and asks at the\nend of each section whether any one is guilty of having broken this\nrule. If at the third repetition no one responds, he says, 'They are\ndeclared innocent by their silence.' This was the first public\nconfessional, although, as we have shown above, the idea of a partial\nremission of sin by means of confession to the priest is found in\nBrahmanic literature.[40] The confession extends to very small\nmatters, but one sees from other texts that the early congregation\nlaid a great deal of weight on details, such as dress, as the sign of\na sober life. Thus in _Mah[=a]vagga_, V. 2 ff., certain Buddhists\ndress in a worldly way. At one time one is informed of the color of\ntheir heretical slippers, at another of the make of their wicked\ngowns. All this is monastic, even in the discipline which 'sets back'\na badly behaved monk, gives him probation, forces him to be\nsubordinate. In _Cullavagga_, I. 9, there is an account of stupid\nSeyyasaka, who was dull and indiscreet, and was always getting 'set\nback' by the brethren. Finally they grow weary of probating him and\ncarry out the _nissaya_ against him, obliging him to remain under the\nsuperintendence of others. For, according to Buddha's rule, a wise\nnovice was kept under surveillance, or rather under the authority of\nothers, for five years; a stupid uninformed monk, forever. Buddha's\nrelations with society are plainly set forth. One reads how his\ndevoted friend, King Seniya Bimbis[=a]ra, four years younger than\nBuddha, and his protector (for he was King of M[=a]gadha), gives him a\npark, perhaps the first donation of this sort, the origin of all the\nmonastic foundations: \"The King of M[=a]gadha, Bimbis[=a]ra, thought\n'here is this bamboo forest Venuvana, my pleasure-garden, which is\nneither too near to the town nor too far from it.... What if I were to\ngive it to the fraternity?' ... And he took a golden vessel (of water)\nand dedicated the garden to Buddha, saying, 'I give up the park to the\nfraternity with Buddha at its head.' And the Blessed One accepted the\npark\" (_Mah[=a]vagga_, i. 22).[41] Another such park Buddha accepts\nfrom the courtezan, Ambap[=a]li, whose conversation with Buddha and\ndinner-party to him forms a favorite story with the monks (_Mah[=a]v._\nv. 30; _Cull_. ii). The protection offered by Bimbis[=a]ra made the\norder a fine retreat for rogues. In _Mah[=a]v._ 1. 41 ff. one reads\nthat King Seniya Bimbis[=a]ra made a decree: \"No one is to do any harm\nto those ordained among the \u00c7[=a]kya-son's monks.[42] Well taught is\ntheir doctrine. Let them lead a holy life for the sake of complete\nextinction of suffering.\" But robbers and runaway slaves immediately\ntook advantage of this decree, and by joining the order put the police\nat defiance. Even debtors escaped, became monks, and mocked their\ncreditors. Buddha, therefore, made it a rule that no robber, runaway\nslave, or other person liable to arrest should be admitted into the\norder. He ordained further that no son might join the order without\nhis parents' consent (_ib_. 54). Still another motive of false\ndisciples had to be combated. The parents of Up[=a]li thought to\nthemselves: \"What shalt we teach Up[=a]li that he may earn his living?\nIf we teach him writing his fingers will be sore; if we teach him\narithmetic his mind will be sore; if we teach him money-changing his\neyes will be sore. There are those Buddhist monks; they live an easy\nlife; they have enough to eat and shelter from the rain; we will make\nhim a monk.\" Buddha, hearing of this, ordained that no one should be\nadmitted into the order under twenty (with some exceptions).\n\nThe monks' lives were simple. They went out by day to beg, were locked\nin their cells at night (_Mah[=a]v_. i. 53), were probated for light\noffences, and expelled for very severe ones.[43] The people are\nrepresented as murmuring against the practices of the monks at first,\ntill the latter were brought to more modest behavior. It is perhaps\nonly Buddhist animosity that makes the narrator say: \"They did not\nbehave modestly at table.... Then the people murmured and said, 'These\nBuddhist monks make a riot at their meals, _they act just like the\nBrahman priests.'\" (Mah[=a]v_. i. 25; cf. i. 70.)\n\nWe turn from the Discipline to the Sermons. Here one finds everything,\nfrom moral exhortations to a book of Revelations.[44] Buddha sometimes\nis represented as entering upon a dramatic dialogue with those whom he\nwishes to reform, and the talk is narrated. With what soft irony he\nquestions, with what apparent simplicity he argues! In the\n_Tevijja_[45] the scene opens with a young Brahman. He is a pious and\nreligious youth, and tells Buddha that although he yearns for 'union\nwith Brahm[=a],'[46] he does not know which of the different paths\nproposed by Brahman priests lead to Brahm[=a]. Do they all lead to\nunion with Brahm[=a]? Buddha answers: 'Let us see; has any one of\nthese Brahmans ever seen Brahm[=a]?' 'No, indeed, Gautama.' 'Or did\nany one of their ancestors ever see Brahm[=a]?' 'No, Gautama.' 'Well,\ndid the most ancient seers ever say that they knew where is\nBrahm[=a]?' 'No, Gautama.' 'Then if neither the present Brahmans know,\nnor the old Brahmans knew where is Brahm[=a], the present Brahmans say\nin point of fact, \"We can show the way to union with what we know not\nand have never seen; this is the straight path, this is the direct way\nwhich leads to Brahm[=a]\"--and is this foolish talk?' 'It is foolish\ntalk.' 'Then, as to yearning for union with Brahm[=a], suppose a man\nshould say, \"How I long for, how I love the most beautiful woman in\nthis land,\" and the people should ask, \"Do you know whether that\nbeautiful woman is a noble lady, or a Brahman woman, or of the trader\nclass, or a slave?\" and he should say, \"No\"; and the people should\nsay, \"What is her name, is she tall or short, in what place does she\nlive?\" and he should say, \"I know not,\" and the people should say,\n\"Whom you know not, neither have seen, her you love and long for?\" and\nhe should say, \"Yes,\"--would not that be foolish? Then, after this is\nassented to, Buddha suggests another parallel. 'A man builds a\nstaircase, and the people ask, \"Do you know where is the mansion to\nwhich this staircase leads?\" \"I do not know.\" \"Are you making a\nstaircase to lead to something, taking it for a mansion, which you\nknow not and have never seen?\" \"Yes.\" Would not this be foolish\ntalk?... Now what think you, is Brahm[=a] in possession of wives and\nwealth?' 'He is not.'\n\n'Is his mind full of anger or free from anger? Is his mind full of\nmalice or free from malice?' 'Free from anger and malice.' 'Is his\nmind depraved or pure?' 'Pure.' 'Has he self-mastery?' 'Yes.' 'Now\nwhat think you, are the Brahmans in possession of wives and wealth, do\nthey have anger in their hearts, do they bear malice, are they impure\nin heart, are they without self-mastery?' 'Yes.' 'Can there then be\nlikeness between the Brahmans and Brahm[=a]?' 'No.' 'Will they then\nafter death become united to Brahm[=a] who is not at all like them?'\nThen Buddha points out the path of purity and love. Here is no\nnegative 'non-injury,' but something very different to anything that\nhad been preached before in India. When the novice puts away hate,\npassion, wrong-doing, sinfulness of every kind, then: 'He lets his\nmind pervade the whole wide world, above, below, around and\neverywhere, with a heart of love, far-reaching, grown great, and\nbeyond measure. And he lets his mind pervade the whole world with a\nheart of pity, sympathy, and equanimity, far-reaching, grown great,\nand beyond measure.' Buddha concludes (adopting for effect the\nBrahm[=a] of his convert): 'That the monk who is free from anger, free\nfrom malice, pure in mind, and master of himself should after death,\nwhen the body is dissolved, become united to Brahm[=a] who is the\nsame--such a condition of things is quite possible' Here is no\nmetaphysics, only a new religion based on morality and intense\nhumanity, yet is the young man moved to say, speaking for himself and\nthe friend with him: 'Lord, excellent are the words of thy mouth. As\nif one were to bring a lamp into the darkness, just so, Lord, has the\ntruth been made known to us in many a figure by the Blessed One. And\nwe come to Buddha as our refuge, to the doctrine and to the church.\nMay the Blessed One accept us as disciples, as true believers, from\nthis day forth, as long as life endures.'\n\nThe god Brahm[=a] of this dialoge is for the time being playfully\naccepted by Buddha as the All-god. To the Buddhist himself Brahm[=a]\nand all the Vedic gods are not exactly non-existent, but they are dim\nfigures that are more like demi-gods, fairies, or as some English\nscholars call them, 'angels.' Whether Buddha himself really believed\nin them, cannot be asserted or denied. This belief is attributed to\nhim, and his church is very superstitious. Probably Buddha did not\nthink it worth while to discuss the question. He neither knew nor\ncared whether cloud-beings existed. It was enough to deny a Creator,\nor to leave no place for him. Thaumaturgical powers are indeed\ncredited to the earliest belief, but there certainly is nothing in\nharmony with Buddha's usual attitude in the extraordinary discourse\ncalled _[=A]kankheyya_, wherein Buddha is represented as ascribing to\nmonks miraculous powers only hinted at in a vague 'shaking of the\nearth' in more sober speech.[47] From the following let the 'Esoteric\nBuddhists' of to-day take comfort, for it shows at least that they\nshare an ancient folly, although Buddha can scarcely be held\nresponsible for it: \"If a monk should desire to become multiform, to\nbecome visible or invisible, to go through a wall, a fence, or a\nmountain as if through air; to penetrate up or down through solid\nground as if through water ... to traverse the sky, to touch the moon\n... let him fulfil all righteousness, let him be devoted to that\nquietude of heart which springs from within ... let him look through\nthings, let him be much alone.\" That is to say, let him aim for the\nvery tricks of the Yogis, which Buddha had discarded. Is there not\nhere perhaps a little irony? Buddha does not say that the monk will be\nable to do this--he says if the monk wishes to do this, let him be\nquiet and meditate and learn righteousness, then perhaps--but he will\nat least have learned righteousness!\n\nThe little tract called _Cetokhila_ contains a sermon which has not\nlost entirely its usefulness or application, and it is characteristic\nof the way in which Buddha treated eschatological conundrums: 'If a\nbrother has adopted the religious life in the hope of belonging to\nsome one of the angel (divine) hosts, thinking to himself, \"by this\nmorality or by this observance or by this austerity or by this\nreligious life I shall become an angel,\" his mind does not incline to\nzeal, exertion, perseverance and struggle, and he has not succeeded in\nhis religious life' (has not broken through the bonds). And,\ncontinuing, Buddha says that just as a hen might sit carefully\nbrooding over her well-watched eggs, and might content herself with\nthe wish, 'O that this egg would let out the chick,' but all the time\nthere is no need of this torment, for the chicks will hatch if she\nkeeps watch and ward over them, so a man, if he does not think what is\nto be, but keeps watch and ward of his words, thoughts, and acts, will\n'come forth into the light.'[48]\n\nThe questions in regard to Buddha's view of soul, immortality, and\nreligion are answered to our mind as clearly in the following passages\nas Buddha desired they should be. 'Unwisely does one consider: \"Have I\nexisted in ages past ... shall I exist in ages yet to be, do I exist\nat all, am I, how am I? This is a being, whence is it come, whither\nwill it go?\" Consideration such as this is walking in the jungle of\ndelusion. These are the things one should consider: \"This is\nsuffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of\nsuffering, this is the way that leads to the cessation of suffering.\"\nFrom him that considers thus his fetters fall away' (_Sabb[=a]sava_).\nIn the _Vang[=i]sa-sutta_ Buddha is asked directly: \"Has this good\nman's life been vain to him, has he been extinguished, or is he still\nleft with some elements of existence; and how was he liberated?\" and\nhe replies: \"He has cut off desire for name and form in this world. He\nhas crossed completely the stream of birth and death.\" In the\n_Salla-sutta_ it is said: \"Without cause and unknown is the life of\nmortals in this world, troubled, brief, combined with pain.... As\nearthen vessels made by the potter end in being broken, so is the life\nof mortals.\" One should compare the still stronger image, which gives\nthe very name of _nir-v[=a]na_ ('blowing out') in the\n_Upas[=i]vam[=a]navapucch[=a]_: \"As a flame blown about by wind goes\nout and cannot be reckoned as existing, so a sage delivered from name\nand body disappears, and cannot be reckoned as existing.\" To this\nUpas[=i]va replies: \"But has he only disappeared, or does he not\nexist, or is he only free from sickness?\" To which Buddha: \"For him\nthere is no form, and that by which they say he is exists for him no\nlonger.\" One would think that this were plain enough.\n\nYet must one always remember that this is the Arhat's death, the death\nof him that has perfected himself.[49] Buddha, like the Brahmans,\ntaught hell for the bad, and re-birth for them that were not\nperfected. So in the _Kok[=a]liya-sutta_ a list of hells is given, and\nan estimate is made of the duration of the sinner's suffering in them.\nHere, as if in a Brahman code, is it taught that 'he who lies goes to\nhell,' etc. Even the names of the Brahmanic hells are taken over into\nthe Buddhist system, and several of those in Manu's list of hells are\nfound here.\n\nOn the other hand, Buddha teaches, if one may trust tradition, that a\ngood man may go to heaven. 'On the dissolution of the body after death\nthe well-doer is re-born in some happy state in heaven'\n(_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na,_ i. 24).[50] This, like hell, is a temporary\nstate, of course, before re-birth begins again on earth. In fact,\nBuddhist and Brahmanic pantheists agree in their attitude toward the\nrespective questions of hell, heaven, and _karma_. It is only the\nemancipated Arhat that goes to Nirv[=a]na.[51]\n\nWhen it is said that Buddha preaches to a new convert 'in due course,'\nit means always that he gave him first a lecture on morality and\nreligion, and then possibly, but not necessarily, on the 'system.' And\nBuddha has no narrow-minded aversion to Brahmans; he accepts 'Brahman'\nas he accepts 'Brahm[=a],' only he wants it to be understood what is a\nreal Brahman: 'A certain Brahman once asked Buddha how one becomes a\nBrahman,--what are the characteristics that make a man a Brahman. And\nthe Blessed One said: \"The Brahman who has removed all sinfulness, who\nis free from haughtiness, free from impurity, self-restrained, who is\nan accomplished master of knowledge, who has fulfilled the duties of\nholiness,--such a Brahman justly calls himself a Brahman.\"'[52] \"The\n_Mah[=a]vagga_, from which this is taken, is full of such sentiments.\nAs here, in i. 2, so in i. 7: \"The Blessed One preached to Yasa, the\nnoble youth, 'in due course,'\" that is to say, \"he talked about the\nmerit obtained by alms-giving, the duties of morality, about heaven,\nabout the evils of vanity and sinfulness of desire,\" and when the\nBlessed One saw that the mind of Yasa, the noble youth, was prepared,\n\"then he preached the principal doctrine of the Buddhists, namely,\nsuffering, and cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the\nPath;\" and \"just as a clean cloth takes the dye, thus Yasa, the noble\nyouth, even while sitting there, obtained the knowledge that\nwhatsoever is subject to birth is also subject to death.\"[53]\n\nThe \"spirit and not the letter of the law\" is expressed in the formula\n_(Mah[=a]vagga_, i. 23): \"Of all conditions that proceed\nfrom a cause, Buddha has explained the cause, and he has explained\ntheir cessation.\" This is the Buddhist's _credo_.\n\nIn several of the sermons the whole gist is comprised in the\nadmonition not to meddle with philosophy, nor to have any 'views,' for\n\"philosophy purifies no one; peace alone purifies.\"[54]\n\nBuddha does not ignore the fact that fools will not desire salvation\nas explained by him: \"What fools call pleasure the noble say is pain;\nthis is a thing difficult to understand; the cessation of the existing\nbody is regarded as pleasure by the noble, but those wise in this\nworld hold the opposite opinion\" (_Dvayat[=a]nup. sutta_, 38).[55] But\nto him the truly wise is the truly pure: \"Not by birth is one a\nBrahman, not by birth is one an outcast; by deeds is one a Brahman, by\ndeeds is one an outcast\" (_Vasala-sutta_); and not alone in virtue of\n_karma_ of old, for: \"The man who knows in this world the destruction\nof pain, who lays aside the burden and is liberated, him I call a\nBrahman; whosoever in this world has overcome good and evil, both\nties, who is free from grief and defilement, and is pure,--him I call\na Brahman; the ignorant say that one is a Brahman by birth, but one is\na Brahman by penance, by religious life, by self-restraint, and by\ntemperance\" (_V[=a]settha-sutta_).\n\nThe penance here alluded to is not the vague penance of austerities,\nbut submission to the discipline of the monastery when exercised for a\nspecific fault.\n\nLater Buddhism made of Buddha a god. Even less exaltation than this is\nmet by Buddha thus: S[=a]riputta says to him, \"Such faith have I,\nLord, that methinks there never was and never will be either monk or\nBrahman who is greater and wiser than thou,\" and Buddha responds:\n\"Grand and bold are the words of thy mouth; behold, thou hast burst\nforth into ecstatic song. Come, hast thou, then, known all the Buddhas\nthat were?\" \"No, Lord.\" \"Hast thou known all the Buddhas that will\nbe?\" \"No, Lord.\" \"But, at least, thou knowest me, my conduct, my mind,\nmy wisdom, my life, my salvation (i.e., thou knowest me as well as I\nknow myself)?\" \"No, Lord.\" \"Thou seest that thou knowest not the\nvenerable Buddhas of the past and of the future; why, then, are thy\nwords so grand and bold?\" (_Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_.)\n\nMetaphysically the human ego to the Buddhist is only a collection of\nfive _skandhas_ (form, sensations, ideas, faculties of mind, and\nreason) that vanishes when the collection is dispersed, but the\nfactors of the collection re-form again, and the new ego is the result\nof their re-formation. The Northern Buddhists, who turn Buddha into a\ngod, make of this an immortal soul, but this is Buddhism in one phase,\nnot Buddha's own belief. The strength of Northern Buddhism lies not,\nas some say, in its greater religious zeal, but in its grosser\nanimism, the delight of the vulgar.\n\nIt will not be necessary, interesting as would be the comparison, to\nstudy the Buddhism of the North after this review of the older and\nsimpler chronicles. In Hardy's _Manual of Buddhism_ (p. 138 ff.) and\nRockhill's _Life of Buddha_ will be found the weird and silly legends\nof Northern Buddhism, together with a full sketch of Buddhistic ethics\nand ontology (Hardy, pp. 460, 387). The most famous of the Northern\nbooks, the Lotus of the Law and the Lalita Vistara, give a good idea\nof the extravagance and supernaturalism that already have begun to\ndisfigure the purer faith. According to Kern, who has translated the\nformer work again (after Burnouf), the whole intent of the Lotus is to\nrepresent Buddha as the supreme, eternal God. The works, treating of\npiety, philosophy, and philanthropy, contain ancient elements, but in\ngeneral are of later form. To this age belongs also the whole\ncollection of J[=a]takas, or 'birth-stories,' of the Buddhas that were\nbefore Gautama, some of the tales of which are historically important,\nas they have given rise to Western fables.[56] These birth-stories\nrepresent Buddha (often as Indra) as some god or mortal, and tell what\nhe did in such or such a form. It is in a future form that, like\nVishnu, who is to come in the _avatar_ of Kalki, the next Buddha will\nappear as Maitreya, or the 'Buddha of love.'[57] Some of the stories\nare very silly; some, again, are beautiful at heart, but ugly in their\nbizarre appearance. They are all, perhaps, later than our era.[58]\n\nThe history of Buddhism after the Master's death has a certain analogy\nwith that of Mohammedanism. That is to say it was largely a political\ngrowth. Further than this, of course, the comparison fails. The\nreligion was affected by heretical kings, and by _nouveaux riches_,\nfor it admitted them all into its community on equal terms--no slight\nprivilege to the haughty nabob or proud king who, if a believer and\nfollower of Brahman orthodoxy, would have been obliged to bend the\nhead, yield the path, and fear the slightest frown of any beggar\npriest that came in his way.\n\nThe M[=a]ruya monarch A\u00e7oka adopted Buddhism as a state religion in\nthe third century B.C., and taught it unto all his people, so that,\naccording to his own account, he changed the creed of the country from\nBrahmanism to Buddhism.[59] He was king over all northern India, from\nKabul to the eastern ocean, from the northern limit of Brahmanic\ncivilization to its southern boundary. Buddhist missionaries were now\nspread over India and beyond it. And here again, even in this later\nage, one sees how little had the people to do with Buddha's\nmetaphysical system. Like the simple confession 'I take refuge in\nBuddha, in the doctrine, and in the church' was the only credo\ndemanded, that cited above: \"Buddha has explained the cause of\nwhatever conditions proceed from a cause, and he has declared their\ncessation.\" In this credo, which is en-graved all over India,\neverything is left in confidence to Buddha. However he explained the\nreason, that creed is to be accepted without inquiry. The convert took\nthe patent facts of life, believing that Buddha had explained all, and\nbased his own belief not on understanding but on faith.\n\nWith the council of Patna, 242 B.C, begins at thousands of the\nmissionaries the geographical separation of the church, which results\nin Southern and Northern Buddhism.[60]\n\nIt is at this period that the monastic bodies become influential. The\noriginal Sangha, congregation, is defined as consisting of three or\nmore brethren. The later monastery is a business corporation as well\nas a religious body. The great emperors that now ruled India (not the\npetty clan-kings of the centuries before) were no longer of pure\nbirth, and some heresy was the only religion that would receive them\nwith due honor. They affected Buddhism, endowed the monasteries, in\nevery was enriched the church, built for it great temples, and in turn\nwere upheld by their thankful co-religionists. Among the six[61] rival\nheresies that of Buddha was predominant, and chiefly because of royal\ninfluence. The Buddhist head of the Ceylon church was A\u00e7oka's own son.\nStill more important for Buddhism was its adoption by the migratory\nTuranians in the centuries following. Tibet and China were opened up\nto it through the influence of these foreign kings, who at least\npretended to adopt the faith of Buddha.[62] But as it was adopted by\nthem, and as it extended beyond the limits of India, just so much\nweaker it became at home, where its strongest antagonists were the\nsectarian pantheistic parties not so heterodox as itself.\n\nBuddhism lingered in India till the twelfth or thirteenth century,\nalthough in the seventh it was already decadent, as appears from the\naccount of Hiouen-Thsang, the Chinese pilgrim. It is found to-day in\nTibet, Ceylon, China, Japan, and other outlying regions, but it is\nquite vanished from its old home. The cause of its extinction is\nobvious. The Buddhist victorious was not the modest and devout\nmendicant of the early church. The fire of hate, lighted if at all by\nBuddhism,[63] smouldered till Brahmanism, in the form of Hinduism, had\nbegotten a religion as popular as Buddhism, or rather far more\npopular, and for two reasons. Buddhism had no such picturesque tales\nas those that enveloped with poetry the history of the man-god\nKrishna, Again, Buddhism in its monastic development had separated\nitself more and more from the people. Not mendicant monks, urging to a\npure life, but opulent churches with fat priests; not simple\ndiscourses calculated to awaken the moral and religious consciousness,\nbut subtle arguments on discipline and metaphysics were now what\nBuddhism represented. This religion was become, indeed, as much a\nskeleton as was the Brahmanism of the sixth century. As the Brahmanic\nbelief had decomposed into spiritless rites, so Buddhism,\nchanged into dialectic and idolatry (for in lieu of a god the later\nchurch worshipped Buddha), had lost now all hold upon the people. The\nlove of man, the spirit of Buddhism, was dead, and Buddhism crumbled\ninto the dust. Vital and energetic was the sectarian 'love of God'\nalone (Hinduism), and this now became triumphant. Where Buddhism has\nsucceeded is not where the man-gods, objects of love and fear, have\nentered; but where, without rivalry from more sympathetic beliefs, it\nhas itself evolved a system of idolatry and superstition; where all\nthat was scorned by the Master is regarded as holiest, and all that he\ninsisted upon as vital is disregarded.[64] One speaks of the millions\nof Buddhists in the world as one speaks of the millions of Christians;\nbut while there are some Christians that have renounced the bigotry\nand idolatry of the church, and hold to the truth as it is in the\nwords of Christ, there are still fewer Buddhists who know that their\nBuddhism would have been rebuked scornfully by its founder.\n\nThe geographical growth of formal Buddhism is easily sketched. After\nthe first entrance into Kashmeer and Ceylon, in the third century\nB.C., the progress of the cult, as it now may be called, was steadily\naway from India proper. In the fifth century A.D., it was adopted in\nBurmah,[65] and in the seventh in Siam. The Northern school kept in\ngeneral to the 'void' doctrine of N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, whose chief texts\nare the Lotus and the Lalita Vistara, standard works of the Great\nVehicle.[66] In Tibet Lamaism is the last result of this hierarchical\nstate-church.[67] We have thought it much more important to give a\nfuller account of early Buddhism, that of Buddha, than a full account\nof a later growth in regions that, for the most part, are not Indic,\nin the belief that the P[=a]li books of Ceylon give a truer picture of\nthe early church than do those of Kashmeer and Nep[=a]l, with their\n\u00c7ivaite and Brahmanic admixture. For in truth the Buddhism of China\nand Tibet has no place in the history of Indic religions. It may have\nbeen introduced by Hindu missionaries, but it has been re-made to suit\na foreign people. This does not apply, of course, to the canonical\nbooks, the Great Vehicle, of the North, which is essentially native,\nif not Buddhistic. Yet of the simple narrative and the adulterated\nmystery-play, if one has to choose, the former must take precedence.\nFrom the point of view of history, Northern Buddhism, however old its\nelements, can be regarded only as an admixture of Buddhistic and\nBrahmanic ideas. For this reason we take a little more space, not to\ncite from the Lotus or the grotesque Lalita Vistara,[68] but to\nillustrate Buddhism at its best. Fausb\u00f6ll, who has translated the\ndialogue that follows, thinks that in the Suttas of the\nSutta-nip[=a]ta there is a reminiscence of a stage of Buddhism before\nthe institution of monasteries, while as yet the disciples lived as\nhermits. The collection is at least very primitive, although we doubt\nwhether the Buddhist disciples ever lived formally as individual\nhermits. All the Samanas are in groups, little 'congregations,' which\nafterwards grew into monasteries.\n\nThis is a poetical (amoebic) contest between the herdsman Dhaniya and\nBuddha, with which Fausb\u00f6ll[69] compares St. Luke, xii. 16, but which,\non the other hand reminds one of a spiritualized Theocritus, with whom\nits author was, perhaps, contemporary.\n\n     I have boiled the rice, I have milked the kine--so said the\n     herdsman Dhaniya--I am living with my comrades near the\n     banks of the (great) Mah[=i] river; the house is roofed, the\n     fire is lit--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     I am free from anger, free from stubbornness--so said the\n     Blessed One--I am abiding for one night near the banks of\n     the (great) Mah[=i] river; my house has no cover, the fire\n     (of passion) is extinguished--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     Here are no gad-files--so said the herdsman Dhaniya--The\n     cows are roaming in meadows full of grass, and they can\n     endure the rain--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     1 have made a well-built raft--so said the Blessed One--I\n     have crossed over, I have reached the further bank, I have\n     overcome the torrent (of passions); I need the raft no\n     more--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     My wife is obedient, she is not wanton--so said the herdsman\n     Dhaniya--she has lived with me long and is winning; no\n     wickedless have I heard of her--then rain if thou wilt, O\n     sky!\n\n     My mind is obedient, delivered (from evil)--so said the\n     Blessed One--it has been cultivated long and is\n     well-subdued; there is no longer anything wicked in me--then\n     rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     I support myself by my own earnings--so said the herdsman\n     Dhaniya--and my children are around me and healthy; I hear\n     no wickedness of them--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     I am the servant of none--so said the Blessed One--with what\n     I have gained I wander about in all the world; I have no\n     need to serve--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     I have cows, I have calves--so said the herdsman\n     Dhaniya--cows in calf and heifers also; and I have a bull as\n     lord over the cows--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     I have no cows, I have no calves--so said the Blessed\n     One--no cows in calf, and no heifers; and I have no bull as\n     a lord over the cows--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     The stakes are driven in and cannot be shaken--so said the\n     herdsman Dhaniya--the ropes are made of holy-grass, new and\n     well-made; the cows will not be able to break them--then\n     rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     Like a bull I have rent the bonds--so said the Blessed\n     One--like an elephant I have broken through the ropes, I\n     shall not be born again--then rain if thou wilt, O sky!\n\n     Then the rain poured down and filled both sea and land. And\n     hearing the sky raining, Dhaniya said: Not small to us the\n     gain in that we have seen the Blessed Lord; in thee we take\n     refuge, thou endowed with (wisdom's) eye; be thou our\n     master, O great sage! My wife and myself are obedient\n     to thee. If we lead a pure life we shall overcome birth and\n     death, and put an end to pain.\n\n     He that has sons has delight in sons--so said the Evil\n     One--he that has cows has delight in cows, for substance is\n     the delight of man, but he that has no substance has no\n     delight.\n\n     He that has sons has care with his sons--so said the Blessed\n     One--he that has cows has likewise care with his cows, for\n     substance is (the cause of) care, but he that has no\n     substance has no care.\n\nFrom Buddha's sermons choice extracts were gathered at an early date,\nwhich, as well as the few longer discourses, that have been preserved\nin their entirety, do more to tell us what was the original Buddha,\nbefore he was enwrapped in the scholastic mysticism of a later age,\nthan pages of general critique.\n\nThus in the _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_ casual allusion is made to\nassemblies of men and of angels (divine beings), of the great\nthirty-three gods, Death the Evil One and Brahm[=a] (iii. 21). Buddha,\nas we have said, does not deny the existence of spiritual beings; he\ndenies only their power to affect the perfect man and their\ncontrolling part in the universe. In the same sermon the refuge of the\ndisciple is declared to be truth and himself (ii. 33): \"Be ye lamps\nunto yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to\nthe truth as to a lamp.\"\n\nAnd from the famous 'Path of Duty' or 'Collection of truths':[70]\n\n     All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is\n     founded on our thoughts; it is made up of our thoughts. If a\n     man speaks or acts with an evil thought pain follows him as\n     the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the\n     carriage, (but) if a man speaks or acts with a pure thought\n     happiness follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.\n\n     Earnestness is the path that leads to escape from death,\n     thoughtlessness is the path that leads to death. Those who\n     are in earnest do not die;[71]\n\n     those who are thoughtless are as if dead already. Long is\n     the night to him who is awake; long is a mile to him who is\n     tired; long is life to the foolish.\n\n     There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey\n     and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides and\n     thrown off the fetters.\n\n     Some people are born again; evil-doers go to hell; righteous\n     people go to heaven; those who are free from all worldly\n     desires attain Nirv[=a]na.\n\n     He who, seeking his own happiness, punishes or kills beings\n     that also long for happiness, will not find happiness after\n     death.\n\n     Looking for the maker of this tabernacle I shall have to run\n     through a course of many births, so long as I do not find;\n     and painful is birth again and again. But now, maker of the\n     tabernacle, thou hast been seen; thou shalt not make up this\n     tabernacle again. All thy rafters are broken, thy ridge-pole\n     is sundered; thy mind, approaching Nirv[=a]na, has attained\n     to extinction of all desires.[72]\n\n     Better than going to heaven, better than lordship over all\n     worlds, is the reward of entering the stream of holiness.\n\n     Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one's mind,\n     that is the teaching of the Buddhas.\n\n     Let us live happily, not hating them that hate us. Let us\n     live happily, though we call nothing our own. We shall be\n     like bright gods, feeding on happiness.\n\n     From lust comes grief, from lust comes fear; he that is free\n     from lust knows neither grief nor fear.\n\n     The best of ways is the eightfold (path); this is the way,\n     there is no other that leads to the purifying of\n     intelligence. Go on this way! Everything else is the deceit\n     of Death. You yourself must make the effort. Buddhas are\n     only preachers. The thoughtful who enter the way are freed\n     from the bondage of Death.[73]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Compare Colebrooke's _Essays_, vol. ii. 460;\n     and Muir, OST. iv. 296]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Compare Oldenberg. _Buddha_, p. 155.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: Especially K\u00f6ppen views Buddha as a democratic\n     reformer and liberator.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Emile Senart, _Essai sur la l\u00e9gende du Buddha_.\n     1875.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: _Buddha_ (1881), p.73 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The exact position of Kapilavastu, the capital\n     of the \u00c7[=a]kyas, is not known, although it must have been\n     near to the position assigned to it on Kiepert's map of\n     India (just north of Gorakhpur). The town is unknown in\n     Brahmanic literature.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: This is Oldenberg's opinion, for the reason\n     here stated. On the other hand it may be questioned whether\n     this negative evidence be conclusive, and whether it be not\n     more probable that a young nobleman would have been well\n     educated.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Siddhartha, the boy, Gautama by his family\n     cognomen, the \u00c7[=a]kya-son by his clan-name, was known also\n     as the \u00c7[=a]kya-sage, the hermit, Samana (\u00c7rama[n.]a); the\n     venerable, Arhat (a general title of perfected saints);\n     Tath[=a]gata 'who is arrived like' (the preceding Buddhas,\n     at perfection); and also by many other names common to other\n     sects, Buddha, Jina, The Blessed One (Bhagavat), The Great\n     Hero, etc. The Buddhist disciple may be a layman, _\u00e7ravaka_;\n     a monk, _bhikshu_; a perfected saint, _arhat_; a saintly\n     doctor of the law, _bodhisattva_; etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: South of the present Patna. Less correct is the\n     _Buddha_ Gay[=a] form.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: The famous _bo_ or Bodhi-tree, ficus\n     religiosa, _pippala_, at Bodhi Gay[=a], said to be the most\n     venerable and certainly the most venerated tree in the\n     world.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: A _pacceka_ Buddha (Oldenberg. _Buddha_,\n     p.122).]\n\n     [Footnote 12:\n\n       \"Then be the door of salvation opened!\n       He that hath ears to hear let him hear.\n       I thought of my own sorrow only, and, therefore,\n       Have not revealed the Word to the world.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 13: He sometimes, however, quite prosaically\n     'makes' or 'manufactures' it.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: _Dhammacakkappavattana_. Rhys Davids in his\n     introduction to this _sutta_ gives and explains the eight as\n     follows (SBE. XI. p.144): 1, Right views; freedom from\n     superstition or delusion. 2, Right aims, high and worthy of\n     the intelligent, earnest man. 3, Right speech, kindly, open,\n     truthful. 4, Right conduct, peaceful, honest, pure. 5, Right\n     livelihood, bringing hurt to no living thing. 6, Right\n     effort in self-training and in self-control. 7, Right\n     mindfulness, the active watchful mind. 8, Right\n     contemplation, earnest thought on the deep mysteries of\n     life.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: Hardy, _Manual,_, p.496.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: \"A decided predilection for the aristocracy\n     appears to have lingered as an heirloom of the past in the\n     older Buddhism,\" Oldenberg, _Buddha_, p.157.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: _Mah[=a]vagga,_ 1.24. On the name (Gautama)\n     Gotama, see Weber, _IS_. L 180.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: The parks of Venuvana and Jetavana were\n     especially affected by Buddha. Compare Oldenberg, _Buddha_,\n     p.145.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Like the Jains the Buddhists postulate\n     twenty-four (five) precedent Buddhas.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Buddha's general discipline as compared with\n     that of the Jains was much more lax, for instance, in the\n     eating of meat. Buddha himself died of dysentery brought on\n     by eating pork. The later Buddhism interprets much more\n     strictly the rule of 'non-injury'; and as we have shown,\n     Buddha entirely renounced austerities, choosing the mean\n     between laxity and asceticism.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Or 'take care of yourself';\n     _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_, v. 23.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: The chief Buddhistic dates are given by M\u00fcller\n     (introduction to _Dhammapada_, SBE. vol. X.) as follows:\n     557, Buddha's birth; 477, Buddha's death and the First\n     Council at R[=a]jagriha; 377, the Second Council at\n     V[=a]i\u00e7[=a]l[=i]; 259, A\u00e7oka's coronation; 242, Third\n     Council at P[=a]taliputta; 222, A\u00e7oka's death. These dates\n     are only tentative, but they give the time nearly enough to\n     serve as a guide. From the Buddhists (Ceylon account) it is\n     known that the Council at V[=a]i\u00e7[=a]li was held one hundred\n     years after Buddha's death (one hundred and eighteen years\n     before the coronation of A\u00e7oka, whose grandfather,\n     Candragupta, was Alexander's contemporary). The interval\n     between Nirvana and A\u00e7oka, two hundred and eighteen years,\n     is the only certain date according to K\u00f6ppen, p.208, and\n     despite much argument since he wrote, the remark still\n     holds.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Englished by Rhys Davids,\n     _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na-sutta_ (SBE. XI. 95 ff.).]\n\n     [Footnote 24: _Ecclesiastes_.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: The common view is thus expressed by\n     Oldenberg: \"In dem schw\u00fclen, feuchten, von der Natur mit\n     Reichth\u00fcmern \u00fcppig gesegneten Tropenlande des Ganges hat das\n     Volk, das in frischer Jugendkraft steht, als es vom Norden\n     her eindringt, bald aufgeh\u00f6rt jung und stark zu sein.\n     Menschen und V\u00f6lker reifen in jenem Lande ... schnell heran,\n     um ebenso schnell an Leib und Seele zu erschlaffen\" (_loc.\n     cit_. p. 11).]\n\n     [Footnote 26: Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp. 160,139.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Buddha taught, of course, nothing related to\n     the thaumaturgy of that folly which calls itself today\n     'Esoteric Buddhism.']\n\n     [Footnote 28: That is a sacrifice where no cattle are slain,\n     and no injury is done to living beings.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: _K[=u]tadanta-sutta_ Oldenberg, _Buddha_, p.\n     175.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: Sometimes distinguished from\n     _pari-nirv[=a][n.]a_ as absolute annihilation.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Some scholars think that the doctrine of\n     Buddha resembles closely that of the S[=a]nkhya philosophy\n     (so Barth, p. 116), but M\u00fcller, Oldenberg, and others,\n     appear to be right in denying this. The Sankhyan 'spirit'\n     has, for instance, nothing corresponding to it in Buddha's\n     system.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: The twelve Nid[=a]nas are dogmatic, and withal\n     not very logical. \"From ignorance arise forms, from forms\n     arises consciousness, from consciousness arise name and\n     bodiness; from name and bodiness arise the six senses\n     (including understanding as the sixth) and their objects;\n     from these arises contact; from this, feeling; from this,\n     thirst; from this, clinging; from clinging arises becoming;\n     from becoming arises birth; from birth arise age and\n     sorrow.\" One must gradually free himself from the ten\n     fetters that bind to life, and so do away with the first of\n     these twelve Nid[=a]nas, ignorance.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: _Mah[=a]vagga_, X. 3 (SBE. XVII. 306).]\n\n     [Footnote 34 36 1: Compare Kern, the _Lotus_, III. 21, and\n     Fausb\u00f6ll, _P[=a]r[=a]yana-sutta_, 9 (1131), the \"deep and\n     lovely voice of Buddha.\" (SBE. XXI. 64, and X. 210.)]\n\n     [Footnote 35: As Southern Buddhists are reckoned those of\n     Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: As Northern Buddhists are reckoned those of\n     Nep[=a]l, Tibet, China, Corea, Japan, Java, Sumatra, Annam,\n     and Cambodia.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: \"Let your light so shine before the world,\n     that you, having embraced the religious life according to so\n     well-taught a doctrine and discipline, may be seen to be\n     forbearing and mild.\" (SBE. XVII. 305, David's and\n     Oldenberg's translation.)]\n\n     [Footnote 38: 'Removing pieces from a pile without moving\n     the remainder' must, we presume, be jackstraws.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: For instance, rules for eating, drinking\n     (liquor), and for bathing. The Buddhist monk, except in\n     summer, bathed once a fortnight only.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: No one is so holy that sin does not hurt him,\n     according to Buddhistic belief. The Brahman, on the\n     contrary, was liable to become so holy that he could commit\n     any sin and it did not affect his virtue, which he stored up\n     in a heap by cumulative asceticism.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: The offering and reception of gifts is always\n     accompanied with water, both in Buddhistic and Brahmanic\n     circles. Whether this was a religious act or a legal sign of\n     surrender we have not been able to discover. Perhaps it\n     arose simply from water always being offered as refreshment\n     to a guest (with fruit), as a sign of guest-friendship.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: Sakyaputtiya Samanas, _i.e_., Buddhists.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: In the case of a monk having carnal connection\n     with a nun the penalty was instant expulsion(_ib_. 60). The\n     nuns were subject to the monks and kept strictly in hand,\n     obliged always to greet the monks first, to go to lessons\n     once a fortnight, and so forth.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: Mah[=a]sudassana, the great King of Glory\n     whose city is described with its four gates, one of gold,\n     one of silver, one of Jade and one of crystal, etc. The\n     earlier Buddha had as 'king of glory' 84,000 wives and other\n     comforts quite as remarkable.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: Translated by Davids, _Buddhist Suttas_ and\n     _Hibbert Lectures_.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: What we have several times had to call\n     attention to is shown again by the side light of Buddhism to\n     be the case in Brahmanic circles, namely, that even in\n     Buddha's day while Brahm[=a] is the god of the thinkers\n     Indra is the god of the people (together with Vishnu and\n     \u00c7iva, if the texts are as old as they pretend to be).]\n\n     [Footnote 47: _Mah[=a]parinibb[=a]na_ iii, to which Rhys\n     Davids refers, is scarcely a fair parallel.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: The imitation of the original play on words is\n     Rhys Davids', who has translated these Suttas in SBE. vol.\n     XI. For the following see Fausb\u00f6ll, _ib_. vol. X.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: After one enters on the stream of holiness\n     there are only seven more possible births on earth, with one\n     in heaven; then he becomes _arhat_, venerable, perfected,\n     and enters Nirv[=a]na.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: Compare the fairies and spirits in _ib_. v.\n     10; and in i. 31, 'give gifts to the gods.']\n\n     [Footnote 51: We agree with Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp.\n     111, 207, that Buddha himself was an atheist; but to the\n     statement that Nirv[=a]na was the \"extinction of that\n     sinful, grasping condition of mind and heart which would\n     otherwise be the cause of renewed individual existences\"\n     should in our opinion be added \"and therewith the extinction\n     of individuality.\" Compare Rhys Davids' _Hibbert Lectures_,\n     p. 253.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Compare the definition of an 'outcast' in the\n     _Vasala-sutta_: \"He that gets angry and feels hatred, a\n     wicked man, a hypocrite, he that embraces wrong views and is\n     deceitful, such an one is an outcast, and he that has no\n     compassion for living things.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 53: Compare _ib_. 5. 36: \"In due course he spoke,\n     of charity, morality, heaven, pleasure, and the advantage of\n     renunciation.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 54: See especially the _Nandaman., Paramatthaka,\n     M[=a]gandiya_, and _Suddhatthaka Suttas_, translated by\n     Fausb\u00f6ll, SBE. vol. X.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Fausb\u00f6ll, in SBE. vol. X, Suttanip[=a]ta.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: The distinction between the Northern and\n     Southern doctrine is indicated by the terms 'Great Vehicle'\n     and 'Little Vehicle' respectively, the former the works of\n     N[=a]g[=a]rjuna's school (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 57: As M[=a]itrakanyaka Buddha came once to earth\n     \"to redeem the sins of men.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 58: Of historic interest is the rapport between\n     Brahmanic, Jain. and Buddhist tales. A case of this sort has\n     been carefully worked out by Leumann, _Die Legende von Citta\n     und Sambh[=u]ta_, WZKM. v. III; vi. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: \"The gods who were worshipped as true\n     divinities in India have been rendered false ... by my\n     zeal\"; inscription cited by Barth, p. 135. But A\u00e7oka was a\n     very tolerant prince. Barth's notion of Buddhistic\n     persecution can hardly be correct.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: K\u00f6ppen, _Die Religion des Buddha_, p. 198.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: Not to be confused with the seventeen heresies\n     and sixty-three different philosophical systems in the\n     church itself.]\n\n     [Footnote 62: For more details see Barth, _loc. cit_., p.\n     130 ff. According to tradition Buddhism was introduced into\n     Tibet in the fourth century, A.D., the first missionaries\n     coming from Nep[=a]l (Rockhill, p. 210).]\n\n     [Footnote 63: Barth justly discredits the tale of Buddhism\n     having been persecuted out of India. In this sketch of later\n     Buddhism we can but follow this author's admirable summary\n     of the causes of Buddhistic decline, especially agreeing\n     with him in assigning the first place to the torpidity of\n     the later church in matters of religion. It was become a\n     great machine, its spiritual enthusiasm had been exhausted;\n     it had nothing poetical or beautiful save the legend of\n     Buddha, and this had lost its freshness; for Buddha was now,\n     in fact, only a grinning idol.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: Here are developed fully the stories of hells,\n     angels, and all supernatural paraphernalia, together with\n     theism, idolatry, and the completed monastic system; magic,\n     fable, absurd calculations in regard to nothings, and\n     spiritual emptiness.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: At the same time the Ceylon canon was fixed by\n     the commentary of Buddhaghosha.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Later it follows the mystical school. Both\n     schools have been affected by Brahmanism. The Great Vehicle,\n     founded by N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, was recognized at a fourth\n     council in Kashmeer about the time of the Christian era.\n     Compare K\u00f6ppen, p. 199.]\n\n     [Footnote 67: On the Lamaistic hierarchy and system of\n     succession see Mayers, JRAS. IV. 284.]\n\n     [Footnote 68: For the same reason we do not enter upon the\n     outer form of Buddhism as expressed in demonology,\n     snake-worship (JRAS. xii. 286) and symbolism (_ib_. OS.\n     xiii. 71, 114).]\n\n     [Footnote 69: SBE. vol. x, part ii, p. 3.]\n\n     [Footnote 70: Dhammapada (Franke, ZDMG. xlvi, 731). In\n     Sanskrit one has _dharmapatha_ with the same sense. The text\n     in the main is as translated by M\u00fcller, separately, 1872,\n     and in SBE., voL x. It was translated by Weber, _Streifen_.\n     i. 112, in 1860.]\n\n     [Footnote 71: That is, they die no more; they are free from\n     the chain; they enter Nirv[=a]na.]\n\n     [Footnote 72: Buddha's words on becoming Buddha.]\n\n     [Footnote 73: It is to be observed that transmigration into\n     animal forms is scarcely recognized by Buddha. He assumes\n     only men and superior beings as subjects of _Karma_. Compare\n     Rhys Davids' _Lectures_, pp. 105,107. To the same scholar is\n     due the statement that he was the first to recognize the\n     true meaning of Nirv[=a]na, 'extinction (not of soul but) of\n     lust, anger, and ignorance.' For divisions of Buddhist\n     literature other than the Tripitaka the same author's\n     _Hibbert Lectures_ may be consulted (see also M\u00fcller, SBE.\n     X, Introduction, p. i).]\n\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nEARLY HINDUISM.\n\n\nWhile the great heresies that we have been describing were agitating\nthe eastern part of India,[1] the old home of Brahmanism in the West\nremained true, in name if not in fact, to the ancient faith. But in\nreality changes almost as great as those of the formal heresies were\ntaking place at the core of Brahmanism itself, which, no longer able\nto be the religion of a few clans, was now engaged in the gigantic\ntask of remodelling and assimilating the indigenous beliefs and\nreligious practices of its new environment. This was not a conscious\nact on the part of Brahmanism. At first it was undertaken almost\nunwittingly, and it was accomplished later not without repugnance. But\nto perform this task was the condition of continued existence.\nBrahmanism had to expand, or shrink, wither, and die.\n\nFor a thousand years almost the only source of information in regard\nto this new growth is contained in the epic poetry of the time, with\nthe help of a few additional facts from the law, and some side light\nfrom inscriptions. It is here that Vishnuism and \u00c7ivaism are found as\nfully developed sectarian beliefs, accepted by Brahmanism with more or\nless distrust, and in more or less fulness of faith. It is to the epic\nthat one must turn to study the budding and gradual flowering of the\nmodern religions, which have cast strict orthodoxy into the shade.\n\nOf the two epics, one, the R[=a]m[=a]yana,[2] has become the Old\nTestament of the Ramaite Vishnuites of the present day. The\nBh[=a]rata,[3] on the other hand, is scriptural for all sects, because\nit is more universal. The former epic, in its present form, is what\nthe Hindus call an 'art-poem,' and in its finish, its exclusively\nromantic style, and its total lack of nervous dramatic power, it is\nprobably, as the Hindus claim, the work of one man, V[=a]lm[=i]ki, who\ntook the ancient legends of Eastern India and moulded them into a\nstupid sectarian poem. On the other hand, the Bh[=a]rata is of no one\nhand, either in origin or in final redaction; nor is it of one sect;\nnor has it apparently been thoroughly affected, as has the\nR[=a]m[=a]yana, by Buddhistic influences. Moreover, in the huge\nconglomeration of stirring adventure, legend, myth, history, and\nsuperstition which goes to make up the great epic there is contained a\nfar truer picture of the vulgar custom, belief, and religion of the\ntime than the too polished composition of V[=a]lm[=i]ki is able to\nafford, despite the fact that the latter also has many popular\nelements welded into it. There are, in fact, only two national works\nin India, only two works which, withal, not in their entirety, but in\ntheir nucleus, after one has stripped each of its priestly toggery,\nreflect dimly the heart of the people, not the cleverness of one man,\nor the pedantry of schools. For a few Vedic hymns and a few Bh[=a]rata\nscenes make all the literature, with perhaps the exception of some\nfables, that is not markedly dogmatic, pedantic, or 'artificial.'[4]\nSo true is this that even in the case of the R[=a]m[=a]yana one never\nfeels that he is getting from it the genuine belief of the people, but\nonly that form of popular belief which V[=a]lm[=i]ki has chosen to let\nstand in his version of the old tale. The great epic is heroic,\nV[=a]lm[=i]ki's poem is romantic; the former is real, the latter is\nartificial; and the religious gleaning from each corresponds to this\ndistinction.[5]\n\nThs Bh[=a]rata, like other Hindu works, is of uncertain date, but it\nwas completed as a 'Great Bh[=a]rata' by the end of the sixth century\nA.D., and the characters of the story are mentioned, as well known, by\nP[=a]nini, whose work probably belongs to the fourth century B.C.\nFurthermore, Dio Chrysostomos, probably citing from Megasthenes,\nrefers to it; and the latter authority describes the worship of the\nchief gods of the epic; while the work is named in one of the domestic\nS[=u]tras, and a verse is cited from it in the legal Sutra of\nB[=a]udh[=a]yana.[6] On the other hand, in its latest growth it is on\na par with the earlier Pur[=a]nas, but it is not quite so advanced in\nsectarianism as even the oldest of these writings. It may, then, be\nreckoned as tolerably certain that the beginnings of the epic date\nfrom the fourth or fifth century before the Christian era, and that it\nwas quite a respectable work by the time that era began; after which\nit continued to grow for five centuries more.[7] Its religious\nimportance can scarcely be overestimated. In 600 A.D., far away from\nits native home, in Cambodia, it was encircled with a temple, and an\nendowment was made by the king providing for the daily recitation of\nthe poem. Its legal verses are authoritative; its religion is to-day\nthat of India as a whole. The latest large additions to it were, as we\nthink, the Book of Laws, the Book of Peace, and the genealogy of\nVishnu, which together form a sort of pseudo-epic. But portions of\nother books, notably the first, fourth, and seventh, are probably\nalmost as recent as are the more palpable interpolations.\n\nThe Bh[=a]rata (or the epic [Greek: _kat exoch\u00ean_] gives us our first\nview of Hinduism in its sectarian developments. But no less does it\nshow us a changing Brahmanism. The most typical change in the\nBrahmanism of this period, which covers all that time called by M\u00fcller\nthe era of the Renaissance, and ends with the pedantically piquant\nliterature of the drama,[8] is the abnormal growth of the ascetic\nreligious exercise. Older Brahmanism, like the sects, admitted Yogis\nand ascetics of various kinds, but their aim was to attain oneness\nwith God; and 'union' (with God) is the _yoga_ (Latin _jugum_ has the\nsame origin) which they sought. But it was not long before the starved\nascetic, with his wild appearance and great reputation for sanctity,\ninspired an awe which, in the unscrupulous, was easily turned to\nadvantage. The Yogi became more or less of a charlatan, more or less\nof a juggler. Nor was this all. Yoga-practices began to take\nprecedence before other religious practices. In the Br[=a]hmanas it is\nthe sacrifice that is god-compelling; but in the epic, although\nsacrifice has its place, yet when miraculous power is exerted, it is\ndue chiefly to Yoga concentration, or to the equally general use of\nformulae; not formulae as part of a sacrifice, but as in themselves\npotent; and mysterious _mantras_, used by priest and warrior alike,\nserve every end of magic.[9] Apart from acquisition of power, this\nYoga-training is, moreover, all that is needful from the point of view\nof righteousness. Physical prowess here is the one thing admirable. To\nstand for years on one leg, to be eaten by ants, to be in every way an\nascetic of the most stoical sort, is the truest religion. Such an\nascetic has no ordinary rules of morality. In fact, his practices are\nmost peculiar, for to seduce young women is one of his commonest\noccupations; and in his anger to cause an injury to his foes is one of\nthe ends for which he toils. The gods are nothing to him. They are\npuppets whom he makes shake and tremble at will. As portrayed in the\nepic, in terms of common sense, the Muni (silent saint) is a\nmorose[10] and very vulgar-minded old man, who seeks to intimidate\nothers by a show of miraculous power. In the matter of penances those\nof the law are extended beyond all bounds. The caste-restrictions are\nof the closest, and the most heinous crime is to commit an offence\nagainst caste-order. On the other hand, the greatest merit is to give\ngifts to priests. This had already proceeded far enough, as was\nindicated by a passage cited above from Manu. But in the epic the\ngreed and capacity of the priest exceeds all imaginable limits. He\ntakes whatever he can get and asks for more. He has, by his own\nshowing, scarcely one estimable trait. Avarice, cupidity, sensuality,\ngluttony, love of finery, effeminacy, meanness, and pride--everything\ncharged against him by the Buddhist--are his most marked\ncharacteristics. He appears, however, to be worse than he always was.\nFor nothing is plainer, from this very epic, than that the priests,\nalthough united as a caste, were sharply distinguished in their lives.\nThe ascetic described above represents the fourth period of the\npriestly life. Below these stood (apart from students)[11] hermits and\nhouseholders. The householders, or such of them as the epic\nunfortunately is busied with, the royal priests, seem to be those that\nare in reality priests only in name. In the king's palace, his\nconstant advisors, his most unscrupulous upholders in wickedness, they\ngave themselves up to quest of wealth and power. But one would err if\nhe thus dismissed them all. There were others that had no preferment,\nwho lived in quiet content in their own houses, and deserved none of\nthe opprobrium rightly bestowed upon their hypocritical brothers. The\nhermits, too, appear to have been a mild and inoffensive race, not\npresuming too much on their caste-privileges.\n\nTo offset rapaciousness there are tomes of morality of the purest\nsort. Even in the later additions to the epic one reads: \"Away with\ngifts; receiving gifts is sinful. The silkworm dies of its wealth\"\n(xii. 330. 29). One should compare, again, the exalted verse\n(Buddhistic in tone) of _ib_. 321. 47: \"The red garment, the vow of\nsilence, the three-fold staff, the water-pot--these only lead astray;\nthey do not make for salvation.\" There were doubtless good and bad\npriests, but the peculiarity of the epic priest, rapacious and\nlustful, is that he glories in his sins.\n\nThe chief objects of worship (except for the influence of the\nsectarian religions) were priests, Manes, and, for form's sake, the\nVedic gods. These gods, with the addition of the Hindu Plutus (Kubera,\nthe god of riches), are now called the eight 'world-guardians,' viz.,\nIndra, Yama, Varuna, Kubera, Agni, S[=u]rya, V[=a]yu, Soma, and are\nusually simple and shadowy subordinates of the greater new gods.\n\nIn the shifting of religious opinion and in the development of\ntheological conceptions what difference can be traced between the same\ngods as worshipped in the Veda and as worshipped in the epic? Although\nthe Vedic divinities have been twice superseded, once by the\nFather-god and again by the _[=a]tm[=a]_, Lord, they still remain\nadorable and adored, active in many ways, though passive before the\ngreat All-god. It is, indeed, extremely difficult, owing to the\nsuperstruction of sectarian belief, to get down to the\nfoundation-religion of the epic. The best one can do is to see in what\nway the old gods differ, as represented in the poem, from their older\nselves of the Rig Veda. From this point of view alone, and entirely\nirrespective of the sects, manifold changes will be seen to have taken\nplace. Great Soma is no more. Soma is there, the moon, but the glory\nof the Vedic Soma has departed. His lunar representative is of little\nimportance. Agni, too, is changed. As Fire in the Rig Veda is not only\nthe altar-fire, but also common, every-day fire, so, too, in the epic\nthis god is the material flame, and as such even performs his greatest\ndeeds for his worshippers. He takes on every form, even becoming a\npriest, and a dove. He remains the priest of the gods, but his day of\naction in war is over. He no longer wins battles. But he burns down a\nforest to aid his party. For the Vedic gods are now but weak partizans\nof the combatants. In the sectarian parts of the epic Agni is only a\npuppet. His new representative, Skanda, is the chief battle-god, a\nname almost unknown before. He himself is either the son of Vishnu or\na form of \u00c7iva. He is the All-god, the _[=a]tm[=a]_. It is he who\nburns the world when the time shall have come for the general\ndestruction.\n\nThe high and mighty Varuna of the Rig Veda is no longer great. He is\nno longer serene. He descends and fights on earth. Indra, too, battles\nwith Vritra as of old, but he is quite anthropomorphic, and of no\nmarked value in the contest of heroes. Not only this, but all the gods\ntogether are represented as weaker than a good hero, not to speak of a\npriestly ascetic. In a word, the gods are believed in, but with what a\nbelief! They no longer, as natural powers, inspire special respect.\nTheir nature-origin is for the most part lost. They are thoroughly\nanthropomorphic. Even S[=u]rya, the sun, in action if not in\nlaudation, is often more man than god. This gives a strange effect to\nthe epic battle-scenes as compared with those of Homer. Unless Vishnu\nis active on the field the action is essentially human. No great god\nor goddess stands ready to save the fainting warrior. He fights and\nfalls alone. Save for the caresses and plaudits of the half-gods, the\nmost that the Vedic gods can do is to wipe away the sweat from the\nhero's brow.[12] The All-god does not take the place of the band of\nwatchful and helpful gods pictured by Homer. Vishnu fights on the\nfield; he saves only his prot\u00e9g\u00e9s, and much as a mortal warrior would\ndo it. But the Vedic gods hang like a mist upon the edge of battle,\nand are all but idle spectators of the scene. Abstractions, as well as\nthe All-god, have routed them, and Dharma or Duty is a greater god\nthan Indra. But there is an older side to this, as we shall presently\nshow. On the moral side the heroes of the epic profess great belief in\nthe power and awfulness of this god Duty. And so far as go rules of\nchivalry, they are theoretically moral. Practically they are savage,\nand their religion does not interfere with their brutal barbarity. The\ntendency to cite divine instances of sin as excuse for committing it\nis, however, rebuked: \"One should neither practice nor blame the\n(wrong) acts of gods and seers,\" xii. 292. 17-18.\n\nFrom an eschatological point of view it is most difficult to get back\nof the statements made by the priestly composers,[13] who, in their\nvarious re\u00ebditings of the epic, uniformly have given the pantheistic\ngoal as that in which the characters believe. But it is evident that\nthe warriors were not much affected by this doctrine. To them there\nwas one law of righteousness exceeding all others--to die on the field\nof battle. And for such as did so, over and over again is the\nassurance given that 'happiness in Indra's heaven' is their reward.\nAnd probably a true note is struck in this reiterated promise. To the\nmass of the vulgar, union with _brahma_ would have been no attractive\nend.\n\nIt is interesting to see the remains of the older belief still\nflourishing in midst of epic pantheism. Although Indra has no such\nhymn as has S[=u]rya, yet is he still lauded, and he is a very real\nperson to the knight who seeks his heaven.[14] In fact, so long as\nnatural phenomena were regarded as divine, so long as thunder was\ngodly, it was but a secondary question which name the god bore;\nwhether he was the 'chief and king of gods,' or Vishnu manifesting\nhimself in a special form. This form, at any rate, was to endure as\nsuch till the end of the cycle. There are other Indras. Each cycle has\nits own (i. 197. 29). But sufficient unto the age is the god thereof.\nIf, relinquishing the higher bliss of absorption, the knight sought\nonly Indra's heaven, and believed he was to find it, then his belief\npractically does not differ much from that of his ancestor, who\naccepts Indra as an ultimate, natural power. The question arises\nwhether, after all, the Indra-worship of the epic is not rather\npopular than merely old and preserved. Certainly the reality of the\nbelief seems quite as strong as that of the ever-newly converted\nsectary. It may be doubted whether the distribution of theological\nbelief is very different in the epic and Vedic ages. Philosophical\npantheism is very old in India. The priest believes one thing; the\nvulgar, another. The priest of the Vedic age, like the philosopher of\nthe next age, and like the later sectarian, has a belief which runs\nahead of the popular religion. But the popular religion in its salient\nfeatures still remains about the same. Arjuna, the epic hero, the pet\nof Krishna, visits Indra's heaven and stays there five years. It is\nthe old Vedic gods to whom he turns for weapons, till the \u00c7ivaite\nmakes Indra send the knight further, to \u00c7iva himself. The old name,\nking of the Vasus, is still retained for Indra; and though the 'divine\nweapons,' which are winged with sacred formulae, are said to be more\nthan a match for the gods; though in many a passage the knight and the\nsaint make Indra tremble, yet still appear, through the mists of\nascetic and sectarian novelties, Indra's heaven and his grandeur,\nshining with something of their old glory. Vishnu still shows his\nsolar origin. Of him and of the sun is it said in identical words:\n\"The sun protects and devours all,\" and \" Vishnu protects and devours\n\" (of Vishnu, passim; of the sun, iii. 33. 71). A good deal of old\nstuff is left in the Forest Book amongst the absurd tales of holy\nwatering places. One finds repeated several times the Vedic account of\nIndra's fight with Vritra, the former's thunderbolt, however, being\nnow made of a saint's bones (ii. ch. 100-105). Agni is lauded (_ib_.\nch. 123). To the A\u00e7vins[15] there is one old hymn which contains Vedic\nforms (i. 3). Varuna is still lord of the West, and goes accompanied\nwith the rivers, 'male and female,' with snakes, and demons, and\nhalf-gods _(d[=a]ityas, s[=a]dhyas, d[=a]ivatas_). Later, but earlier\nthan the pseudo-epic, there stands with these gods Kubera, the god of\nwealth, the 'jewel-giver,' who is the guardian of travellers, the king\nof those demons called Yakshas, which the later sect makes servants of\n\u00c7iva. He is variously named;[16] he is a dwarf; he dwells in the\nNorth, in Mt. K[=a]il[=a]sa, and has a demoniac gate-keeper,\nMacakruka. Another newer god is the one already referred to, Dharma\nV[=a]ivasvata, or Justice (Virtue, Right), the son of the sun, a title\nof Yama older than the Vedas. He is also the father of the new\nlove-god, K[=a]ma. It is necessary to indicate the names of the gods\nand their functions, lest one imagine that with pantheism the Vedic\nreligion expired. Even that old, impious Brahmanic fable crops out\nagain: \"The devils were the older brothers of the gods, and were\nconquered by the gods only with trickery\" (in. 33. 60), an interesting\nreminiscence of the fact that the later name for evil spirit was\noriginally the one applied to the great and good spirit (Asura the\nsame with Ahura).[17] According to a rather late chapter in the second\nbook each of the great Vedic gods has a special paradise of his own,\nthe most remarkable feature of the account being that Indra's heaven\nis filled with saints, having only one king in it--a view quite\nforeign to the teaching that is current elsewhere in the epic. Where\nthe sectarian doctrine would oppose the old belief it set above\nIndra's heaven another, of Brahm[=a], and above that a third, of\nVishnu (i. 89. 16 ff.). According to one passage Mt. Mandara[18] is a\nsort of Indian Olympus. Another account speaks of the Him[=a]layas,\nHimavat, as 'the divine mountain, beloved of the gods,' though the\nknight goes thence to Gandham[=a]dana, and thence to Indrak[=i]la, to\nfind the gods' habitat (III. 37. 41). Personified powers lie all\naround the religious Hindu. And this is especially true of the epic\ncharacter. He prays to Mt. Mandara, and to rivers, above all to the\nGanges. Mt. Kol[=a]hala is divine, and begets divine offspring on a\nriver (I. 63). The Vindhya range of mountains rivals the fabled Meru\n(around which course the sun and all the heavenly bodies), and this,\ntoo, is the object of devotion and prayer.[19] In one passage it is\nsaid that in Beh[=a]r (M[=a]gadha) there was a peak which was\ncontinuously 'worshipped with offerings of flowers and perfumes,'\nexactly as if it were a god. The reason why flowers are given and worn\nis that they bring good luck, it is said in the same chapter (II. 21.\n15, 20, 51).\n\nWhat is, perhaps, the most striking feature of Hindu religious\nthought, as a whole, is the steadfastness with which survive, even in\nthe epic and in Buddhism, the forms and formulae of the older faith.\nAt a time when pantheism or nihilism is the avowed creed the ancient\ngods still exist, weak, indeed, yet infused with a true immortality.\nThis is noticeable even more in unnoticeable ways, in the turns of\nspeech, in little comparisons, in the hymns, in short, in the by-play\nof the epic. 'Withered are the garlands of the gods, and their glory\nis departed,'[20] but they still receive homage in time of need. And\nin that homage is to be seen, and from the same cause, the revived or\nsurviving worship of the Veda. Each god in turn is mighty, though Agni\nis the mightiest of the old divinities. In an epic hymn to him it is\nsaid: \"Thou art the mouth of the worlds; the poets declare thee to be\none and three-fold; as carrier of the sacrifice they arrange thee\neight-fold. By thee was all created, say the highest seers. Priests\nthat have made reverence to thee attain the eternal course their acts\nhave won, together with their wives and sons. They call thee the\nwater-giver in the air, together with lightning. On thee first depends\nwater. Thou art the creator and Brihaspati, thou art the two Horsemen,\nthe two Yamas, Mitra, Soma, Wind\" (i. 229. 23 ff.).[21] And yet this\nis in a pantheistic environment! The Rig Veda is directly invoked,\nthough, of course, not directly cited, in the old hymn to the\nHorsemen, who are, however, elsewhere put with low animals and\nGuhyakas, demons (i. 66).[22] They are the \"physicians of the gods,\"\nthe \"first-born\" the golden birds which weave the white and black of\ntime, create the wheel of time with all its seasons, and make the sun\nand sky (i. 3. 55 ff., \"_v[=a]gbhir [r.]gbhis_\"). Indra himself is\nextolled in Kadr[=u]'s hymn; he is the slayer of Namuci, the lord of\n\u00c7ac[=i]; he is the great cloud, cloud and its thunder, creator and\ndestroyer; he is Vishnu, 'Soma, greatly praised,' as well as fire,\nair, time in all its divisions, earth and ocean; when lauded he drinks\nthe _soma_, and he is sung in the Ved[=a]ngas (i. 25. 7 ff.). Praised\nwith this hymn in time of need of rain, Indra \"commanded the clouds,\nsaying, 'rain down the ambrosia'\" (26. 2); where there is still the\nrain as synonymous with ambrosia, and Indra not very differently\nconceived from his Vedic self. Thus in comparisons: \"As Indra standing\nin heaven brings bliss to the world of the living, so Vidura ever\nbrought bliss to the Pandus\" (i. 61. 15). But at the same time what\nchanges! The gods assemble and sing a hymn to Garuda, the epic form of\nGarutman, the heavenly bird, who here steals the _soma_ vainly guarded\nby the gods. Garuda, too, is Praj[=a]pati, Indra, and so forth.[23]\nThe gods are no longer divinities distinct from the dead Fathers, for\nthey are \"identical in being.\" So Agni says when the latter is cursed\nby Bhrigu: \"The divinities and the Manes are satisfied by the oblation\nin fire. The hosts of gods are waters, so, too, are the Manes. The\nfeasts of the new and full moon belong to the gods with the Manes;\nhence the Manes are divinities and the divinities are Manes. They are\nof one being (_ek[i]bh[=u]t[=a]s_). I (Fire) am the mouth of both, for\nboth eat the oblation poured upon me. The Manes at the new moon, the\ngods at the full, are fed by my mouth\" (i. 7. 7 ff.).[24] Such gods\nthe epic hero fears not (i. 227. 38 ff.). Hymns to them are paralleled\nby hymns to snakes, as in i. 3. 134 ff., against whom is made the\n\"_sarpasattram_ (snake sacrifice) of the Pur[=a]nas\" (i. 51. 6).\nDivinity is universal. Knights are as divine as the divinest god, the\nAll-god. Arjuna, the god-born man, to whom Krishna reveals the Divine\nSong, is himself god.[25] In this case whether god becomes human, or\n_vice versa_, no one knows.\n\nUnder the all embracing cloak of pantheism the heart of the epic\nconceals many an ancient rite and superstition. Here is the covenant\nof blood, the covenant of death (represented by the modern\n'sitting'[26]), and the covenant of water, which symbolizes both\nfriendship and the solemnity of the curse. The former are illustrated\nby Bhima's drinking blood as a sign that he will fulfil his vow,[27]\nand by R[=a]ma lying by Ocean to die unless Ocean grants his wish. Of\nthe water-rite that of offering water in hospitality and as a form in\nreception of gifts is general; that of cursing by 'touching water'\n(_v[=a]ry upasp[r.]\u00e7ya_), occurs in iii. 10. 32. For this purpose\nholy-grass and other symbols are known also,[28] and formulae yield\nonly in potency to love-philters and magic drugs. Another covenant\nbesides those just noticed seems to lie concealed in the avoidance of\nthe door when injury is intended. If one goes in by the door he is a\nguest who has anticipated hospitality, and then he dares not refuse\nthe respect and offering of water, etc, which makes the formal pact of\nfriendship. If, on the contrary, he does not go in by the door he is\nnot obliged to receive the offering, and may remain as a foe in the\nhouse (or in the city) of his enemy, with intent to kill, but without\nmoral wrong. This may be implied in the end of the epic, where\nA\u00e7vatth[=a]man, intent on secret murder of his foe, is prevented by\ngod \u00c7iva from entering in at the gate, but going in by stealth, and\n'not by the door' of the camp, gets to his foe, who lies asleep, and\nkills him (x. 8. 10). This might be thought, indeed, to be merely\nstrategic, but it is in accordance with the strict law of all the\nlaw-books that one, in ordinary circumstances, shall avoid to enter a\ntown or a house in any other way than through the door (Manu, iv. 73;\nGaut. 9. 32, etc.), and we think it has a moral significance, for this\n_a-dv[=a]ra_ (non-door) rule occurs again in the epic in just the\ncircumstances we have described. The heroes in this case are not\nafraid of their foe, who is in his town. They insult every one as they\napproach, but they find some other way of getting in than by passing\nthrough the gate, for the express purpose of being morally able to\nmake the king fight with them after they have entered his city. And\nthey cite the rule 'according to law,' which is that one may enter his\nfoe's house by _a-dv[=a]ra,_ 'not by door,' but his friend's house\nonly 'by door.' As they have not entered 'by door' they say they may\nrefuse the hospitality which the king urges them to accept, and so\nthey kill him (ii. 21. 14, 53). Stepping in through the door seems,\ntherefore, to be a tacit agreement that one will not injure the\nresident.[29]\n\nIn the epic, again, fetishism is found. The student of the 'science of\nwar,' in order to obtain his teacher's knowledge when the latter is\naway, makes a clay image of the preceptor and worships this clay idol,\npracticing arms before it (i. 132. 33). Here too is embalmed the\nbelief that man's life may be bound up with that of some inanimate\nthing, and the man perishes with the destruction of his psychic\nprototype (iii. 135). The old ordeals of fire and water are\nrecognized. \"Fire does not burn the house of good men.\" \"If (as this\nman asserts) he is Varuna's son, then let him enter water and let us\nsee if he will drown\" (iii. 134. 27 ff.). A human sacrifice is\nperformed (iii. 127); although the priest who performs it is cast into\nhell (_ib_. 128).[30] The teaching in regard to hells is about the\nsame with that already explained in connection with the law-books, but\nthe more definite physical interpretation of hell as a hole in the\nground (_garta_, just as in the Rig Veda) is retained. Agastya sees\nhis ancestors 'in a hole,' which they call 'a hell' (_n[=i]ray[=a]_).\nThis is evidently the hell known to the law-punsters and epic (i. 74.\n39) as _puttra_, 'the _put_ hell' from which the son (_putra_)\ndelivers (_tra_). For these ancestors are in the 'hole' because\nAgastya, their descendant, has not done his duty and begotten sons (i.\n45. 13; iii. 96. 15); one son being 'no son' according to law and epic\n(i. 100. 68), and all the merit of sacrifice being equal to only\none-sixteenth of that obtained by having a son. The teaching, again,\nin regard to the Fathers themselves (the Manes), while not differing\nmaterially from the older view, offers novelties which show how little\nthe absorption-theory had taken hold of the religious consciousness.\nThe very fact that the son is still considered to be as necessary as\never (that he may offer food to his ancestors) shows that the\nbeliever, whatever his professed faith, expects to depend for bliss\nhereafter upon his _post mortem_ meals, as much as did his fathers\nupon theirs. In the matter of the burial of the dead, one finds, what\nis antique, that although according to the formal law only infants are\nburied, and adults are burned, yet was burial known, as in the Vedic\nage. And the still older exposure of the body, after the Iranian\nfashion, is not only hinted at as occurring here and there even before\nthe epic, but in the epic these forms are all recognized as equally\napproved: \"When a man dies he is burned or buried or exposed\"\n(_nik[r.][s.]yate_)[31] it is said in i. 90. 17; and the narrator goes\non to explain that the \"hell on earth,\" of which the auditor \"has\nnever heard\" (vs. 6) is re-birth in low bodies, speaking of it as a\nnew doctrine. \"As if in a dream remaining conscious the spirit enters\nanother form\"; the bad becoming insects and worms; the good going to\nheaven by means of the \"seven gates,\" viz., penance, liberality,\nquietism, self-control, modesty, rectitude, and mercy. This is a union\nof two views, and it is evidently the popular view, that, namely, the\ngood go to heaven while the bad go to new existence in a low form, as\nopposed to the more logical conception that both alike enter new\nforms, one good, the other bad. Then the established stadia, the\npupil, the old teaching (_upanishad_) of the householders, and the\nwood-dwellers are described, with the remark that there is no\nuniformity of opinion in regard to them; but the ancient view crops\nout again in the statement that one who dies as a forest-hermit\n\"establishes in bliss\" ten ancestors and ten descendants. In this part\nof the epic the Punj[=a]b is still near the theatre of events, the\n'centre region' being between the Ganges and Jumna (I. 87. 5);\nalthough the later additions to the poems show acquaintance with all\ncountries, known and unknown, and with peoples from all the world.\nSignificant in xii. 61. 1, 2 is the name of the third order\n_bh[=a]ikshyacaryam_ 'beggarhood' (before the forest-hermit and after\nthe householder).\n\nIt was said above that the departed Fathers could assume a mortal\nform. In the formal classification of these demigods seven kinds of\nManes are enumerated, the title of one subdivision being 'those\nembodied.' Brahm[=a] is identified with the Father-god in connection\nwith the Manes: \"All the Manes worship Praj[=a]pati Brahm[=a],\" in the\nparadise of Praj[=a]pati, where, by the way, are \u00c7iva and Vishnu (II.\n11. 45, 50, 52; 8. 30). According to this description 'kings and\nsinners,' together with the Manes, are found in Yama's home, as well\nas \"those that die at the solstice\" (II. 7 ff.; 8. 31). Constantly the\nreader is impressed with the fact that the characters of the epic are\nacting and thinking in a way not conformable to the idea one might\nform of the Hindu from the law. We have animadverted upon this point\nelsewhere in connection with another matter. It is this factor that\nmakes the study of the epic so invaluable as an offset to the\nverisimilitude of belief, even as belief is taught (not practiced) in\nthe law. There is a very old rule, for instance, against slaughtering\nanimals and eating meat; while to eat beef is a monstrous crime. Yet\nis it plain from the epic that meat-eating was customary, and Vedic\ntexts are cited (_ iti \u00e7rutis_) to prove that this is permissible;\nwhile a king is extolled for slaughtering cattle (III. 208. 6-11). It\nis said out and out in iii. 313. 86 that 'beef is food,' _g[=a]ur\nannam_. Deer are constantly eaten. There is an amusing protest against\nthis practice, which was felt to be irreconcilable with\nthe _ahims[=a]_ (non-injury) doctrine, in III. 258, where the remnant\nof deer left in the forest come in a vision and beg to be spared. A\ndispute between gods and seers over vegetable sacrifices is recorded,\nXII. 338. Again, asceticism is not the duty of a warrior, but the epic\nhero practices asceticism exactly as if he were a priest, or a Jain,\nalthough the warning is given that a warrior 'obtains a better lot'\n(_loka_) by dying in battle than by asceticism. The asceticism is, of\ncourse, exaggerated, but an instance or two of what the Hindu expects\nin this regard may not be without interest. The warrior who becomes an\nascetic eats leaves, and is clothed in grass. For one month he eats\nfruits every third day (night); for another month every sixth day; for\nanother month every fortnight; and for the fourth month he lives on\nair, standing on tiptoe with arms stretched up. Another account says\nthat the knight eats fruit for one month; water for one month; and for\nthe third month, nothing (III. 33. 73; 38. 22-26; 167). One may\ncompare with these ascetic practices, which are not so exaggerated, in\nfact, as might be supposed,[32] the 'one-leg' practice of virtue,\nconsisting in standing on one leg, _ekap[=a]dena_, for six months or\nlonger, as one is able (I. 170. 46; III. 12. 13-16). Since learning\nthe Vedas is a tiresome task, and ascetic practice makes it possible\nto acquire anything, one is not surprised to find that a devotee\nundertakes penance with this in view, and is only surprised when\nIndra, who, to be sure has a personal interest in the Vedas, breaks in\non the scene and rebukes the ascetic with the words: \"Asceticism\ncannot teach the Vedas; go and be tutored by a teacher\" (III. 135.\n22).\n\nOne finds in the epic the old belief that the stars are the souls of\nthe departed,[33] and this occurs so often that it is another sign of\nthe comparative newness of the pantheistic doctrine. When the hero,\nArjuna, goes to heaven he approaches the stars, \"which seen from earth\nlook small on account of their distance,\" and finds them to be\nself-luminous refulgent saints, royal seers, and heroes slain in\nbattle, some of them also being nymphs and celestial singers. All of\nthis is in contradiction both to the older and to the newer systems of\neschatology; but it is an ancient belief, and therefore it is\npreserved. Indra's heaven,[34] Amar[=a]vati, lies above these\nstars[35]] No less than five distinct beliefs are thus enunciated in\nregard to the fate of 'good men after death. If they believe in the\nAll-god they unite with him at once. Or they have a higher course,\nbecoming gradually more elevated, as gods, etc, and ultimately 'enter'\nthe All-god. Again they go to the world of Brahm[=a]. Again they go to\nIndra's heaven. Again they become stars. The two last beliefs are the\noldest, the _brahmaloka_ belief is the next in order of time, and the\nfirst-mentioned are the latest to be adopted. The hero of the epic\njust walks up to heaven, but his case is exceptional.\n\nWhile angels and spirits swarm about the world in every shape from\nmischievous or helpful fairies to R[=a]hu, whose head still swallows\nthe sun, causing eclipses (I. 19. 9), there are a few that are\nespecially conspicuous. Chief of the good spirits, attendants of\nIndra, are the Siddhas[36] 'saints,' who occasionally appear to bless\na hero in conjunction with 'beings invisible' (III. 37. 21). Their\nname means literally 'blessed' or 'successful,' and probably, like the\nseers, Rishis, they are the departed fathers in spiritual form. These\nlatter form various classes. There are not only the 'great seers,' and\nthe still greater '_brahma_-seers,' and the 'god-seers,' but there are\neven 'devil-seers,' and 'king-seers,' these being spirits of priests\nof royal lineages.[37] The evil spirits, like the gods, are sometimes\ngrouped in threes. In a blessing one cries out: \"Farewell (_svasti\ngacchahy an[=a]mayam_); I entreat the Vasus, Rudras, [=A]dityas,\nMarut-hosts and the All-gods to protect thee, together with the\nS[=a]dhyas; safety be to thee from all the evil beings that live in\nair, earth, and heaven, and from all others that dog thy path.\"[38] In\nXII. 166. 61 ff. the devils fall to earth, mountains, water, and other\nplaces. According to I. 19. 29. it is not long since the Asuras were\ndriven to take refuge in earth and salt water.[39]\n\nThese creatures have every kind of miraculous power, whether they be\ngood or bad. Hanuman, famed in both epics, the divine monkey, with\nwhom is associated the divine 'king of bears' J[=a]mbavan (III. 280.\n23), can grow greater than mortal eye can see (III. 150. 9). He is\nstill worshipped as a great god in South India. As an illustration of\nepic spiritism the case of Ilvala may be taken. This devil,\n_d[=a]iteya_, had a trick of cooking his embodied younger brother, and\ngiving him to saints to eat. One saint, supposing the flesh to be\nmutton (here is saintly meat-eating!), devours the dainty viand; upon\nwhich the devil 'calls' his brother, who is obliged to come, whether\neaten or not, and in coming bursts the saint that has eaten him (iii.\n96). This is folk-lore; but what religion does not folk-lore contain!\nSo, personified Fate holds its own as an inscrutable power, mightier\nthan others.[40] There is another touch of primitive religious feeling\nwhich reminds one of the usage in Iceland, where, if a stranger knocks\nat the door and the one within asks 'who is there?' the guest answers,\n'God.' So in the epic it is said that 'every guest is god Indra'\n(_Parjanyo nn[=a]nusa[.m]caran_, iii. 200. 123. In the epic Parjanya,\nthe rain-god, and Indra are the same). Of popular old tales of\nreligious bearing may be mentioned the retention and elaboration of\nthe Brahmanic deluge-story, with Manu as Noah (iii. 187); the A\u00e7vins'\nfeats in rejuvenating (iii. 123); the combats of the gods with the\ndemons (Namuci, \u00c7ambara, Vala, Vritra, Prahl[=a]da, Naraka), etc.\n(iii. 168).\n\nTurning now to some of the newer traits in the epic, one notices first\nthat, while the old sacrifices still obtain, especially the\nhorse-sacrifice, the _r[=a]jas[=u]ya_ and the less meritorious\n_v[=a]japeya,_ together with the monthly and seasonal sacrifices,\nthere is in practice a leaning rather to new sacrifices, and a new\ncult. The _soma_ is scarce, and the _p[=u]tika_ plant is accepted as\nits substitute (iii. 35. 33) in a matter-of-course way, as if this\nsubstitution, permitted of old by law, were now common. The sacrifice\nof the widow is recognized, in the case of the wives of kings, as a\nmeans of obtaining bliss for a woman,[41] for the religion of the epic\nis not entirely careless of woman. Somewhat new, however, is the\nself-immolation of a man upon the pyre of his son. Such a case is\nrecorded in iii. 137. 19. where a father burns his son's body, and\nthen himself enters the fire. New also, of course, are the sectarian\nfestivals and sacrifices; and pronounced is the gain in the godhead of\npriests, king, parents, elder brother, and husband. The priest has\nlong been regarded as a god, but in the epic he is god of gods,\nalthough one can trace even here a growth in adulation.[42] The king,\ntoo, has been identified before this period with the gods. But in the\nepic he is to his people an absolute divinity,[43] and so are the\nparents to the son;[44] while, since the elder brother is the same\nwith a father, when the father is dead the younger brother worships\nthe elder. So also the wife's god is her husband; for higher even than\nthat of the priest is the husband's divinity (III. 206). The wife's\nreligious service is not concerned with feasts to the Manes, with\nsacrifice to the gods, nor with studying the Veda. In all these she\nhas no part. Her religion is to serve her husband (III. 205. 23), and\nto die, if worthy of the honor, on his funeral pyre. Otherwise the\nepic woman has religious practices only in visiting the holy\nwatering-places, which now abound, and in reading the epic itself. For\nit is said of both practices: \"Whether man or woman read this book (or\n'visit this holy pool') he or she is freed from sin\" (so in III. 82.\n33: \"Every sin committed since birth by man or woman is absolved by\nbathing in 'holy Pushkara\"). It may be remarked that as a general\nthing the deities invoked by women are, by predilection, female\ndivinities, some of them being mere abstractions, while 'the Creator'\nis often the only god in the woman's list, except, of course, the\npriests: \"Reverence to priests, and to the Creator ... May Hr[=i],\n\u00c7r[=i] (Modesty and Beauty), Fame, Glory, Prosperity, Um[=a] (\u00c7iva's\nwife), Lakshmi (Vishnu's wife), and also Sarasvat[=i], (may all these\nfemale divinities) guard thy path, because thou reverest thy elder\nbrother,\" is a woman's prayer (III. 37. 26-33).[45]\n\nOf the sectarian cults just mentioned the _brahmamaha_, I. 164. 20,\nelsewhere referred to, is the all-caste[46] feast in honor of\nBrahm[=a] (or of the Brahmans); as _ib_. 143. 3 one finds a\n_sam[=a]ja_ in honor of \u00c7iva; and distinctly in honor of the same god\nof horror is the sacrifice, _i.e._, immolation, of one hundred kings,\nwho are collected \"in the temple of \u00c7iva,\" to be slaughtered like\ncattle in M[=a]gadha (II. 15. 23); an act which the heroes of the epic\nprevent, and look upon with scorn.[47] As a substitute for the\n_r[=a]jas[=u]ya_, which may be connected with the human sacrifice\n(_Ind. Streifen_, I. 61), but is the best sacrifice because it has the\nbest largesse (III. 255. 12), the Vaishnava is suggested to\nDuryodhana. It is a great _sattram_ or long sacrifice to Vishnu (_ib_.\n15 and 19); longer than a Vishnuprabodha (26 Oct.). There is a Smriti\nrite described in III. 198. 13 as a _svastiv[=a]canam_, a ceremony to\nobtain a heavenly chariot which brings prosperity, the priests being\ninvoked for blessings (_svasti_). Quite modern, comparatively\nspeaking, is the cult of holy pools; but it is to be observed that the\nblessings expected are rarely more than the acquirement of\n_brahma_-worlds, so that the institution seems to be at least older\nthan the sectarian religions, although naturally among the holy pools\nis intruded a Vishnu-pool. This religious rite cannot be passed over\nin silence. The custom is late Brahmanic (as above), and still\nsurvives. It has been an aspect of Hindu religion for centuries, not\nonly in the view taken of the pools, but even occasionally in the\nplace itself. Thus the Ganges, Gay[=a], Pray[=a]ga, and Kuru-Plain are\nto-day most holy, and they are mentioned as among the holiest in the\nepic catalogue.[48] Soma is now revamped by a bath in a holy pool (IX.\n35. 75). As in every antithesis of act and thought there are not\nlacking passages in the epic which decry the pools in comparison with\nholy life as a means of salvation. Thus in III. 82. 9 ff., the poet\nsays: \"The fruit of pilgrimage (to holy pools)--he whose hands, feet,\nand mind are controlled;[49] he who has knowledge, asceticism, and\nfame, he gets all the fruit that holy pools can give. If one is averse\nfrom receiving gifts, content, freed from egoism, if one injures not,\nand acts disinterestedly, if one is not gluttonous, or carnal-minded,\nhe is freed from sin. Let one (not bathe in pools but) be without\nwrath, truthful, firm in his vows, seeing his self in all beings.\"\nThis is, however, a protest little heeded.[50] Pilgrimage is made to\npool and plain, to mountain, tree, and river. Even then, as now, of\nall pilgrimages that to Ganges was most esteemed: \"Originally all were\nholy; in the second age Pushkara[51] was holy; in the third age the\nPlain of the Kurus was holy; and in this age Ganges is holy\" (III. 85.\n90).[52] Besides Ganges, the Plain of the Kurus and Pray[=a]ga, the\njunction of Ganges and Jumna, get the highest laudation. Other rivers,\nsuch as the Gomal and Sarasvat[=i], are also extolled, and the list is\nvery long of places which to see or to bathe in releases from sin. \"He\nwho bathes in Ganges purifies seven descendants.[53] As long as the\nbones of a man touch Ganges-water so long that man is magnified in\nheaven.\" Again: \"No place of pilgrimage is better than Ganges; no god\nis better than Vishnu; nothing is better than _brahma_--so said the\nsire of the gods\" (iii. 85. 94-96). The very dust of Kuru-Plain makes\none holy, the sight of it purifies; he that lives south of the\nSarasvat[=i], north of the Drishadvat[=i] (_i.e_., in Kuru-Plain), he\nlives in the third heaven (iii. 83. 1-3=203-205[54]). This sort of\nexpiation for sin is implied in a more general way by the remark that\nthere are three kinds of purity, one of speech, one of act, and one of\nwater (iii. 200. 82). But in the epic there is still another means of\nexpiating sin, one that is indicated in the Brahmanic rule that if a\nwoman is an adulteress she destroys half her sin by confessing it (as\nabove), where, however, repentance is rather implied than commanded.\nBut in the epic Pur[=a]na it is distinctly stated as a \u00c7ruti, or trite\nsaying, that if one repents he is freed from his sin; _na tat\nkury[=a]m punar_ is the formula he must use, 'I will not do so again,'\nand then he is released from even the sin that he is going to commit a\nsecond time, as if by a ceremony--so is the \u00c7ruti in the laws,\n_dharmas_ (iii. 207. 51, 52).[55] Confession to the family priest is\nenjoined, in xii. 268. 14, to escape punishment.\n\nTwo other religious practices in the epic are noteworthy. The first is\nthe extension of idolatry in pictures. The amiable 'goddess of the\nhouse' is represented, to be sure, as a R[=a]kshas[=i], or demoniac\npower, whose name is Jar[=a]. But she was created by the\nSelf-existent, and is really very friendly, under certain conditions:\n\"Whoever delineates me with faith in his house, he increases in\nchildren; otherwise he would be destroyed.\" She is worshipped, _i.e_.,\nher painted image is worshipped, with perfumes, flowers, incense,\nfood, and other enjoyable things (II. 18).[56] Another practice that\nis very common is the worship of holy trees. One may compare the\nbanyan at Bodhi Gay[=a] with the 'worshipful' village-tree of II. 24.\n23. Seldom and late is the use of a rosary mentioned (_e.g_., III.\n112. 5, _aksham[=a]l[=a]_, elsewhere _aksha_), although the word is\nemployed to make an epithet of \u00c7iva, Aksham[=a]lin.[57]\n\nAs has been said already, an extraordinary power is ascribed to the\nmere repetition of a holy text, _mantra_. These are applied on all\noccasions without the slightest reference to the subject. By means of\n_mantra_ one exorcises; recovers weapons; calls gods and demons,\netc.[58] When misfortune or disease arrives it is invariably ascribed\nto the malignant action of a devil, although the _karma_ teaching\nshould suggest that it was the result of a former misdeed on the\nvictim's part. But the very iteration, the insistence on new\nexplanations of this doctrine, show that the popular mind still clung\nto the old idea of demoniac interference. Occasionally the na\u00efvet\u00e9\nwith which the effect of a _mantra_ is narrated is somewhat amusing,\nas, for instance, when the heroine Krishn[=a] faints, and the\nby-standers \"slowly\" revive her \"by the use of demon-dispelling\n_mantras_, rubbing, water, and fanning\" (iii. 144. 17). All the\nweapons of the heroes are inspired with and impelled by _mantras_.\n\nSufficient insight into the formal rules of morality has been given in\nthe extracts above, nor does the epic in this regard differ much from\nthe law-books. Every man's first duty is to act; inactivity is sinful.\nThe man that fails to win a good reputation by his acts, a warrior,\nfor example, that is devoid of fame, a 'man of no account,' is a\n_bh[=u]mivardhana, [Greek: achthos arour\u00eas]_ a cumberer of earth (iii.\n35. 7). A proverb says that man should seek virtue, gain, and\npleasure; \"virtue in the morning; gain at noon; pleasure at night,\"\nor, according to another version, \"pleasure when young, gain in\nmiddle-age, and virtue in the end of life\" (iii. 33. 40, 41). \"Virtue\nis better than immortality and life. Kingdom, sons, glory, wealth, all\nthis does not equal one-sixteenth part of the value of truth\" (_ib_.\n34. 22).[59] One very strong summing up of a discourse on virtuous\nbehavior ends thus: \"Truth, self-control, asceticism, generosity,\nnon-injury, constancy in virtue--these are the means of success, not\ncaste nor family\" (_j[=a]ti, kula_, iii. 181. 42).\n\nA doctrine practiced, if not preached, is that of blood-revenge. \"The\nunavenged shed tears, which are wiped away by the avenger\" (iii. 11.\n66); and in accordance with this feeling is the statement: \"I shall\nsatiate my brother with his murderer's blood, and thus, becoming free\nof debt in respect of my brother, I shall win the highest place in\nheaven\" (_ib_. 34, 35).\n\nAs of old, despite the new faith, as a matter of priestly, formal\nbelief, all depends on the sacrifice: \"Law comes from usage; in law\nare the Vedas established; by means of the Vedas arise sacrifices; by\nsacrifice are the gods established; according to the rule of Vedas,\nand usage, sacrifices being performed support the divinities, just as\nthe rules of Brihaspati and U\u00e7anas support men\" (iii. 150. 28, 29).\nThe pernicious doctrine of atonement for sin follows as a matter of\ncourse: \"Whatever sin a king commits in conquering the earth is atoned\nfor by sacrifices, if they are accompanied with large gifts to\npriests, such as cows and villages.\" Even gifts to a sacred bull have\nthe same effect (iii. 33. 78, 79; _ib_. 35. 34; iii. 2. 57), the\noccasion in hand being a king's violation of his oath.[60] Of these\nsacrifices a great snake-sacrifice forms the occasion for narrating\nthe whole epic, the plot of which turns on the national vice of\ngambling.[61] For divine snakes are now even grouped with other\ncelestial powers, disputing the victory of earthly combatants as do\nIndra and S[=u]rya: \"The great snakes were on Arjuna's side; the\nlittle snakes were for Karna\" (viii. 87. 44, 45).[62] They were\n(perhaps) the local gods of the Nagas (Snakes), a tribe living between\nthe Ganges and Jumna.\n\nThe religion of the epic is multiform. But it stands, in a certain\nsense, as one religion, and from two points of view it is worthy of\nspecial regard. One may look upon it either as the summing up of\nBrahmanism in the new Hinduism, as the final expression of a religion\nwhich forgets nothing and absorbs everything; or one may study it as a\nbelief composed of historical strata, endeavoring to divide it into\nits different layers, as they have been super-imposed one upon another\nin the course of ages. From the latter point of view the Vedic\ndivinities claim the attention first. There are still traces of the\noriginal power of Agni and S[=u]rya, as we have shown, and Wind still\nmakes with these two a notable triad,[63] whereas Indra, impotent as\nhe is, hymnless as he is,--save in the oldest portions of the\nwork,--still leads the gods, now godkins, of the ancient pantheon, and\nstill, in theory, at least, off a paradise to the knight that dies\nnobly on the field.[64] But one sees at once that the preservation of\nthe dignity of these deities is due to different causes. Indra cannot\neven save a snake that grasps his hand for safety; he wages war\nagainst the demons' 'triple town,' and signally fails of his purpose,\nfor the demons are as strong as the gods, and there are D[=a]navendras\nas well as D[=a]navarshis.[65] But Indra is the figure-head of the\nwhole ancient pantheon, and for this reason he plays so constant, if\nso weak, a r\u00f4le, in the epic. The only important thing in connection\nwith him is his heaven. As an individual deity Indra lives, on the\nwhole, only in the tales of old, for example, in that of his cheating\nNamuci (ix. 43. 32 ff.). Nothing new and clever is told of him which\nwould indicate power, only a new trick or two, as when he steals from\nKarna. It is quite otherwise with Agni and S[=u]rya. They are not so\nvaguely identified with the one god as is 'Indra and the other Vasus.'\nIt is merely because these gods are prominently forms of Vishnu that\nthey are honored with hymns in the epic. This is seen from the nature\nof the hymns, and also from the fact that it is either as fire or as\nsun that Vishnu destroys at the end of the aeons. For it is, perhaps,\nsomewhat daring to say, and yet it seems to be the fact, that the\nsolar origin of Vishnu is not lost sight of.\n\nThe pantheistic Vishnu is the _[=a]tm[=a]_, and Vishnu, after all, is\nbut a form of fire. Therefore is it that the epic Vishnu is\nperpetually lapsing into fire; while fire and sun are doubly honored\nas special forms of the highest. It is, then, not so much on account\nof a survival of ancient dignity[66] that sun and fire stand so high,\nbut rather because they are the nearest approach to the effulgence of\nthe Supreme. Thus while in one place one is told that after seven suns\nhave appeared the supreme gods become the fire of destruction and\ncomplete the ruin, in another he reads that it is the sun alone which,\nbecoming twelvefold, does all the work of the Supreme.[67]\n\nIndra has hymns and sacrifices, but although he has no so exalted hymn\nas comes to his 'friend Agni,' yet (in an isolated passage) he has a\nnew feast and celebration, the account of which apparently belongs to\nthe first period of the epic, when the worship of Indra still had\nsignificance. In i. 63, an _Indramaha_, or 'glorification of Indra,'\nis described a festivity extending over two days, and marked by the\nerection of a pole in honor of the god--a ceremony which 'even\nto-day,' it is said, is practiced.[68] The old tales of the fire-cult\nare retold, and new rites are known.[69] Thus in iii. 251. 20 ff.,\nPrince Duryodhana resolves to starve to death (oblivious of the rule\nthat 'a suicide goes to hell'), and since this is a religious\nceremony, he clothes himself in old clothes and holy-grass, 'touches\nwater,' and devotes himself with intense application to heaven. Then\nthe devils of Rudra called D[=a]iteyas and D[=a]navas, who live\nunderground ever since they were conquered by the gods, aided by\npriests, make a fire-rite, and with _mantras_ \"declared by Brihaspati\nand U\u00e7anas, and proclaimed in the Atharva-Veda,\" raise a ghost or\nspirit, who is ordered to fetch Duryodhana to hell, which she\nimmediately does.[70] The frequent connection of Brihaspati with the\nAtharva-Veda is of interest (above, p. 159). He is quite a venerable,\nif not wholly orthodox, author in the epic, and his 'rules' are often\ncited.[71]\n\nThat Vedic deity who, alone of pre-Vedic powers, still holds his proud\nplace, Yama, the king of departed spirits, varies in the epic\naccording to the period represented. In old tales he is still quite\nVedic in character; he takes the dead man's soul off to his own realm.\nBut, of course, as pantheism prevails, and eschatology becomes\nconfused, Yama passes into a shadow, and at most is a bugbear for the\nwicked. Even his companions are stolen from another realm, and one\nhears now of \"King Yama with his Rudras\" (III. 237. 11),[72] while it\nis only the bad[73] that go to Yama (III. 200. 24), in popular belief,\nalthough this view, itself old, relapses occasionally into one still\nolder, in accordance with which (_ib_. 49) all the world is hounded on\nby Yama's messengers, and comes to his abode. His home[74] in the\nsouth is now located as being at a distance of 86,000 leagues over a\nterrible road, on which passes a procession of wretched or happy\nmortals, even as they have behaved during life; for example, if one\nhas generously given an umbrella during life he will have an umbrella\non this journey, etc. The river in Yama's abode is called Pushpodaka,\nand what each drinks out of it is according to what he deserves to\ndrink, cool water or filth (_ib._ 46, 58).[75] In the various\ndescriptions it is not strange to find discordant views even in\nportions belonging approximately to the same period. Thus in\ncontradistinction to the prevailing view one reads of Indra himself\nthat he is _Yamasya net[=a] Namuce\u00e7ca hant[=a]_ 'Yama's leader,\nNamuci's slayer' (iii. 25. 10.), _i.e._, those that die in battle go\nto Yama.\n\nOn the other hand, in the later speculative portions, Yama is not\ndeath. \"Yama is not death, as some think; he is one that gives bliss\nto the good, and woe to the bad.\"[76] Death and life are foolishness\nand lack of folly, respectively (literally, 'non-folly is\nnon-mortality'), while folly and mortality are counter opposites. In\npantheistic teaching there is, of course, no real death, only change.\nBut death is a female power, personified, and sharply distinguished\nfrom Yama. Death as a means of change thus remains, while Yama is\nrelegated to the guardianship of hell. The difference in regard to the\nlatter subject, between earlier and later views, has been noted above.\nOne comparatively early passage attempts to arrange the incongruous\nbeliefs in regard to _sams[=a]ra_ (re-birth) and hell on a sort of\nsliding scale, thus: \"One that does good gets in the next life a good\nbirth; one that does ill gets an ill birth\"; more particularly: \"By\ngood acts one attains to the state of gods; by 'mixed' acts, to the\nstate of man; by acts due to confusion of mind, to the state of\nanimals and plants (_viyon[=i][s.]u_); by sinful acts one goes to\nhell\" (_adhog[=a]mi_, iii. 209. 29-32).[77] Virtue must have been, as\nthe epic often declares it to be, a 'subtile matter,' for often a tale\nis told to illustrate the fact that one goes to hell for doing what he\nthinks (mistakenly) to be right. Thus K[=a]u\u00e7ika is sent to hell for\nspeaking the truth, whereas he ought to have lied to save life (viii.\n69. 53), for he was \"ignorant of virtue's subtilty.\"[78] A passage (i.\n74. 27 ff.) that is reflected in Manu (viii. 85-86) says that Yama\nV[=a]ivasvata takes away the sin of him with whom is satisfied \"the\none that witnesses the act, that stands in the heart, that knows the\nground\"; but Yama tortures him with whom this one (personified\nconscience) is dissatisfied. For \"truth is equal to a thousand\nhorse-sacrifices; truth is highest _brahma_\" (_ib._ 103, 106).\n\nFollowing downward the course of religious development, as reflected\nin the epic, one next finds traces of Brahmanic theology not only in\nthe few passages where (Brahm[=a]) Praj[=a]pati remains untouched by\nsectarianism, but also in the harking back to old formulae. Thus the\ninsistence on the Brahmanical sacredness of the number seventeen is\npreserved (xii. 269. 26; iii. 210. 20, etc); and Upanishadic is the\n\"food is Praj[=a]pati\" of iii. 200. 38 (Yama in 40). There is an\ninteresting rehabilitation of the primitive idea of the A\u00e7vins in the\nnew ascription of formal divinity to the (personified) Twilights\n(Sandhy[=a]) in iii. 200. 83, although this whole passage is more\nPuranic than epic. From the same source is the doctrine that the fruit\nof action expires at the end of one hundred thousand _kalpas_ (_ib._\nvs. 121). One of the oddest religious freaks in the epic is the sudden\nexaltation of the Ribhus, the Vedic (season-gods) artisans, to the\nposition of highest gods. In that heaven of Brahm[=a], which is above\nthe Vedic gods' heaven, there are the holy seers and the Ribhus, 'the\ndivinities of the gods'; who do not change with the change of _kalpas_\n(as do other Vedic gods), III. 261. 19-23. One might almost imagine\nthat their threefoldness was causative of a trinitarian identification\nwith a supreme triad; but no, for still higher is the 'heaven of\nVishnu' (vs. 37). The contrast is marked between this and _[=A]it.\nBr._ III. 30, where the Ribhus with some difficulty obtain the right\nto drink _soma_.\n\nThere is an aspect of the epic religion upon which it is necessary to\ntouch before treating of the sectarian development. In the early\nphilosophical period wise priests meet together to discuss theological\nand philosophical questions, often aided, and often brought to grief,\nby the wit of women disputants, who are freely admitted to hear and\nshare in the discussion. When, however, pantheism, nay, even\nVishnuism, or still more, Krishnaism, was an accepted fact upon what,\nthen, was the wisdom of the priest expended? Apart from the epic, the\nbest intellects of the day were occupied in researches, codifying\nlaws, and solving, in rather dogmatic fashion, philosophical\n(theological) problems. The epic presents pictures of scenes which\nseem to be a reflection from an earlier day. But one sees often that\nthe wisdom is commonplace, or even silly. In dialectics a sophistical\nsubtlety is shown; in codifying moral rules, a tedious triteness; in\namoebic passes of wit there are astounding exhibitions, in which the\ngood scholiast sees treasures of wisdom, where a modern is obliged to\ntake them in their literal dulness. Thus in III. 132. 18, a boy of\ntwelve or ten (133. 16), who is divinely precocious, defeats the wise\nmen in disputation at a sacrifice, and in the following section (134.\n7 ff.) silences a disputant who is regarded as one of the cleverest\npriests. The conversation is recorded in full. In what does it\nconsist? The opponent mentions a number of things which are one; the\nboy replies with a verse that gives pairs of things; the other\nmentions triads; the child cites groups of fours, etc., until the\nopponent, having cited only one half-verse of thirteens, can remember\nno more and stops, on which the child completes the verse, and is\ndeclared winner. The conundrums which precede must have been\nconsidered very witty, for they are repeated elsewhere: What is that\nwheel which has twelve parts and three hundred and sixty spokes, etc.?\nYear. What does not close its eye when asleep, what does not move when\nit is born, what has no heart, what increases by moving? These\nquestions form one-half verse. The next half-verse gives the answers\nin order: fish, egg, stone, river. This wisdom in the form of puzzles\nand answers, _brahmodya_, is very old, and goes back to the Vedic\nperiod. Another good case in the epic is the demon Yaksha and the\ncaptured king, who is not freed till he answers certain questions\ncorrectly.[79] But although a certain amount of theologic lore may be\ngleaned from these questions, yet is it of greater interest to see how\nthe priests discussed when left quietly to their own devices. And a\nvery natural description of such a scene is extant. The priests\n\"having some leisure\"[80] or vacation from their labors in the king's\nhouse, sit down to argue, and the poet calls their discussion\n_vita[n.][d.][=a], i.e_., tricky sophistical argumentation, the\ndescription bearing out the justness of the phrase: \"One cried, 'that\nis so,' and the other, 'it is not so'; one cried, 'and that is so,'\nand the other, 'it must be so'; and some by arguments made weak\narguments strong, and strong weak; while some wise ones were always\nswooping down on their opponent's arguments, like hawks on meat.\"[81]\nIn III. 2. 15, the type of clever priest is 'skilled in Yoga and\nS[=a][.n]khya,' who inculcates renunciation. This sage teaches that\nmental diseases are cured by Yoga; bodily, by medicine; and that\ndesire is the root of ill.\n\nBut by far the most interesting theological discussion in the epic, if\none except the Divine Song, is the conversation of the hero and\nheroine in regard to the cause of earthly happiness. This discussion\nis an old passage of the epic. The very fact that a woman is the\ndisputant gives an archaic effect to the narration, and reminds one of\nthe scenes in the Upanishads, where learned women cope successfully\nwith men in displays of theological acumen. Furthermore, the\ntheological position taken, the absence of Vishnuism, the appeal to\nthe 'Creator' as the highest Power, take one back to a former age. The\ndoctrine of special grace, which crops out in the Upanishads,[82] here\nreceives its exposure by a sudden claim that the converse of the\ntheory must also be true, viz., that to those not saved by grace and\nelection God is as cruel as He is kind to the elect. The situation is\nas follows: The king and queen have been basely robbed of their\nkingdom, and are in exile. The queen urges the king to break the vow\nof exile that has been forced from him, and to take vengeance on their\noppressors. The king, in reply, sings a song of forgiveness:\n\"Forgiveness is virtue, sacrifice, Veda; forgiveness is holiness and\ntruth; in the world of Brahm[=a] are the mansions of them that\nforgive.\" This song (III. 29. 36 ff.) only irritates the queen, who at\nonce launches into the following interesting tirade (30. 1 ff.):\n\"Reverence to the Creator and Disposer[83] who have confused thy mind!\nHast thou not worshipped with salutation and honored the priests,\ngods, and manes? Hast thou not made horse-sacrifices, the\n_r[=a]jas[=u]ya_-sacrifice, sacrifices of every sort\n(_pu[n.][d.]arika,[84] gosava_)? Yet art thou in this miserable\nplight! Verily is it an old story (_itih[=a]sa_) that 'the worlds\nstand under the Lord's will.' Following the seed God gives good or ill\nin the case of all beings. Men are all moved by the divinity. Like a\nwooden doll, moving its limbs in the hands of a man, so do all\ncreatures move in the Creator's hands. Man is like a bird on a string,\nlike a bead on a cord. As a bull is led by the nose, so man follows\nthe will of the Creator; he never is a creature of free will\n(_[=a]tm[=a]dhina_). Every man goes to heaven or to hell, as he is\nsent by the Lord's will. God himself, occupied with noble or with\nwicked acts, moves about among all created things, an unknown power\n(not known as 'this one'). The blessed God, who is self-created, the\ngreat forefather (_prapit[=a]maha_), plays with his creatures just as\na boy plays with toys, putting them together and destroying them as he\nchooses. Not like a father is God to His creatures; He acts in anger.\nWhen I see the good distressed, the ignoble happy, I blame the Creator\nwho permits this inequality. What reward does God get that he sends\nhappiness to this sinful man (thy oppressor)? If it be true that only\nthe individual that does the act is pursued by the fruit of that act\n(_karma_ doctrine) then the Lord who has done this act is defiled by\nthis base act of His. If, on the other hand, the act that one has done\ndoes not pursue and overtake the one that has done it, then the only\nagency on earth is brute force (this is the only power to be\nrespected)--and I grieve for them that are without it!\"\n\nTo this plea, which in its acknowledgment of the Creator as the\nhighest god, no less than in its doubtful admission of the _karma_\ndoctrine, is of peculiar interest, the king replies with a refutation\nno less worthy of regard: \"Thy argument is good, clear and smooth, but\nit is heterodox (_n[=a]stikyam_). I have sacrificed and practiced\nvirtue not for the sake of reward, but because it was right. I give\nwhat I ought to give, and sacrifice as I should. That is my only idea\nin connection with religious observances. There is no virtue in trying\nto milk virtue. Do not doubt. Do not be suspicious of virtue. He that\ndoubts God or duty goes to hell (confusion), but he that does his duty\nand is free from doubt goes to heaven (becomes immortal). Doubt not\nscriptural authority. Duty is the saving ship. No other gets to\nheaven. Blame not the Lord Creator, who is the highest god. Through\nHis grace the faithful gets immortality. If religious observances were\nwithout fruit the universe would go to destruction. People would not\nhave been good for so many ages if there had been no reward for it.\nThis is a mystery of the gods. The gods are full of mystery and\nillusion.\"\n\nThe queen, for all the world like that wise woman in the Upanishads,\nwhose argument, as we showed in a preceding chapter, is cut short not\nby counter-argument, but by the threat that if she ask too much her\nhead will fall off, recants her errors at this rebuke, and in the\nfollowing section, which evidently is a later addition, takes back\nwhat she has said. Her new expression of belief she cites as the\nopinion of Brihaspati (32. 61, 62); but this is applicable rather to\nher first creed of doubt. Perhaps in the original version this\nauthority was cited at the end of the first speech, and with the\ninterpolation the reference is made to apply to this seer. Something\nlike the queen's remarks is the doubtful saying of the king himself,\nas quoted elsewhere (III. 273. 6): \"Time and fate, and what will be,\nthis is the only Lord. How else could this distress have come upon my\nwife? For she has been virtuous always.\"\n\nWe turn now to the great sectarian gods, who eventually unite with\nBrahm[=a] to form a pantheistic trinity, a conception which, as we\nshall show, is not older than the fifth or sixth century after Christ.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: The rival heresies seem also to belong to the\n     East. There were thus more than half a dozen heretical\n     bodies of importance agitating the region about Benares at\n     the same time. Subsequently the Jains, who, as we have\n     shown, were less estranged from Brahmanism, drifted\n     westward, while the Buddhist stronghold remained in the East\n     (both, of course, being represented in the South as well),\n     and so, whereas Buddhism eventually retreated to Nep[=a]l\n     and Tibet, the Jains are found in the very centres of old\n     and new (sectarian) Brahmanism, Delhi, Mathur[=a], Jeypur,\n     [=A]jm[=i]r.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: 'The wandering of R[=a]ma,' who is the\n     sectarian representative of Vishnu.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: The 'Bh[=a]rata (tale)', sometimes called\n     Mah[=a]-Bh[=a]rata, or Great Bh[=a]rata. The Vishnuite\n     sectarianism here advocated is that of Krishna. But there is\n     as much \u00c7ivaism in the poem as there is Vishnuism.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Dramatic and lyric poetry is artificial even in\n     language.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Schroeder, p. 453, compares the mutual relation\n     of the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata and R[=a]m[=a]yana to that of the\n     Nibelungenlied and the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach.\n     Jacobi, in his 'R[=a]m[=a]yana,' has lately claimed a\n     considerable antiquity for the foundation legends of the\n     R[=a]m[=a]yana, but he does not disprove the late completed\n     form.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: i. 78. 10; see B\u00fchler's Introduction.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Jacobi seeks to put the completed nucleus at\n     the time of the Christian era, but it must have been quite a\n     large nucleus in view of the allusions to it in precedent\n     literature. Holtztmann puts the completion at about 1000\n     A.D.; but in 700 A.D., it was complete, and most scholars\n     will agree with B\u00fchler that the present Mah[=a]-Bh[=a]rata\n     was completed by the sixth or seventh century. In 533 A.D.\n     it contained 100,000 distichs, that is, it was about the\n     size it is now.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: By the time the drama began the epic was become\n     a religious storehouse, and the actual epic story\n     represented not a fifth of the whole work, so that, with its\n     simple language, it must have seemed, as a literary\n     production, very wearisome to the minds that delighted in\n     the artificial compounds and romantic episodes of the drama\n     and lyric. But even to-day it is recited at great f\u00eates, and\n     listened to with rapt attention, as the rhapsodes with more\n     or less dramatic power recite its holy verses.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: The later law-books say expressly that women\n     and slaves have a right to use _mantra,\n     mantr[=a]dhik[=a]ri[n.]as._ But the later legal Smritis are\n     no more than disguised sectarian Pur[=a]nas.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Compare the visit of the old Muni on the\n     prince in iii. 262. 8. He is _paramakopana_, 'extremely\n     irritable'; calls for food only to reject it; growls at the\n     service, etc. Everything must be done 'quickly' for him. \"I\n     am hungry, give me food, _quick_,\" is his way of speaking,\n     etc. (12). The adjective is one applied to the All-gods,\n     _paramakrodhinas._]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Each spiritual teacher instructed high-caste\n     boys, in classes of four or five at most. In xii. 328. 41\n     the four students of a priest go on a strike because the\n     latter wants to take another pupil besides themselves and\n     his own son.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: The saints in the sky praise the combatants\n     (vii. 188. 41; viii. 15. 27); and the gods roar approval of\n     prowess \"with roars like a lion's\" (viii. 15. 33). Indra and\n     S[=u]rya and the Apsarasas cool off the heroes with heavenly\n     fans (_ib_. 90. 18). For the last divinities, see\n     Holtzmann's essays, ZDMG. xxxii. 290; xxxiii. 631.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: The original author of the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata\n     is reputed to be of low caste, but the writers of the text\n     as it is to-day were sectarian priests. It was written down,\n     it is said, by Gane\u00e7a, 'lord of the troops' of \u00c7iva, i. 1.\n     79, and some historic truth lies in the tale. The priests of\n     \u00c7iva were the last to retouch the poem, as we think.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Agni-worship is partly affected by the\n     doctrine that the Samvartaka fire (which destroys the world\n     at the cycle's end) is a form of Vishnu. In Stambamitra's\n     hymn it is said: \"Thou, O Agni, art the all, in thee rests\n     the universe ... Sages know thee as single yet manifold. At\n     the expiration of time thou burnest up the three worlds,\n     after having created them. Thou art the originator and\n     support of all beings\" (i. 232. 12). Elsewhere more Vedic\n     epithets are given, such as 'mouth of the gods' (ii. 31.\n     42), though here 'the Vedas are produced for Agni's sake.'\n     In this same prayer one reads, 'may Agni give me energy;\n     wind, give me breath; earth, give me strength; and water,\n     give me health' (45). Agni, as well as \u00c7iva, is the father\n     of Kum[=a]ra K[=a]rtikeya, _i.e_., Skanda (_ib_. 44).]\n\n     [Footnote 15: But the A\u00e7vins are \u00c7[=u]dras In the 'cast-hood\n     of gods' (the caste-order being Angirasas, [=A]dityas,\n     Maruts and A\u00c7vins), xii. 208. 23-25; and Indra in one\n     passage refuses to associate with them, xiii. 157. 17 (cited\n     by Holtzmann, ZDMG. xxxii. 321).]\n\n     [Footnote 16: Manibhadra, in iii. 64, is king of Yaksash; he\n     is the same with Kubera, _ib_. ch. 41 (V[=a]i\u00e7inavana).]\n\n     [Footnote 17: In the Cosmogony the gods are the sons of the\n     Manes, xii. 312. 9.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: When the gods churn the ocean to get ambrosia,\n     an ancient tale of the epic, Mandara is the twirling-stick.\n     It is situated in modern Beh[=a]r, near Bhagalpur.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: III. 42; 139. 14, where the Ganges and Jumna\n     are invoked together with the Vedic gods. So in III. 104\n     (Vindhya); and Damayanti prays to mountains. Mt. Meru is\n     described in III. 163. 14 (compare I. 17. 5 ff.). In I. 18.\n     1 ff., is related the churning of the ocean, where Indra\n     (vs. 12) places Mt. Mandara on Vishnu, the tortoise.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Mbh. I. 30. 37, _mamlur m[=a]ly[=a]ni\n     dev[=a]n[=a]m_, etc. The older belief was that the gods'\n     garlands never withered; for the gods show no mortal signs,\n     cast no shadows, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Compare the four hymnlets to Agni in i. 232. 7\n     ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: After the mention of the thirty-three gods,\n     and Vishnu 'born after them,' it is said that the A\u00e7vins,\n     plants, and animals, are Guhyakas (vs. 40), though in vs.\n     35: \"Tvashtar's daughter, the wife of Savitar, as a mare\n     (_va[d.]av[=a]_) bore in air the two A\u00e7vins\" (see above), in\n     Vedic style. For \u00c7ruti compare iii. 207. 47; 208. 6, 11.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: i. 23. 15 ff. His name is explained fancifully\n     in 30. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: It is at the funeral feasts to the Manes that\n     the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata is to be recited (i. 62. 37).]\n\n     [Footnote 25: Arjuna is an old name of Indra, and in the\n     epic Arjuna is Indra's son.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: The legal _dharma_ or sitting at a debtor's\n     door, which still obtains in India, is, so far as we know,\n     not a very ancient practice. But its application in the case\n     of heralds (who become responsible) is epic.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: This is the covenant (with friends) of\n     revenge; the covenant of mutual protection in the sacrifice\n     is indicated by the 'protection covenant' of the gods (see\n     the chapter on Brahmanism above, p. 192).]\n\n     [Footnote 28: See an essay on the Ruling Caste in the epic,\n     in JAOS. xiii. 232 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Reverend Doctor H.C. Trumbull has kindly\n     called our attention to Robert's _Oriental Illustrations_,\n     p. 148 ff., where it is said that in India today the\n     threshold is sacred. In reference to threshold offerings,\n     common in the law, Dr. Trumbull's own forthcoming book on\n     Covenants may be compared.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: But these are by no means the last examples of\n     human sacrifices. Several of the modern Hindu sects have\n     caused to be performed such sacrifices, even in this\n     century.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: This can hardly mean 'put out on the river' as\n     has been suggested as an explanation of the corpse 'thrown\n     aside' in accordance with the earlier text, AV. xviii. 2. 34\n     (_paropta_), where the dead are 'buried, thrown aside,\n     burned, or set out.']\n\n     [Footnote 32: It is assumed in XII. 364. 2 that \"leaves and\n     air\" are food enough for a great saint. Compare below the\n     actual asceticism of modern devotees.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: III. 25. 14: _saptar[s.]ayas ... divi\n     viprabh[=a]nti_. Compare _ib._ 261. 13, and the apocalypse\n     in VII. 192. 52 ff., where Drona's soul ascends to heaven, a\n     burning fire like a sun; In sharp contrast to the older\n     'thumbkin' soul which Yama receives and carries off in the\n     tale of Satyavant. Compare also Arundhati in I. 233. 29.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Described, as above, as a place of singers and\n     dancers, where are the Vedic gods and sages, but no sinners\n     or cowards (III. 42. 34 ff.).]\n\n     [Footnote 35: From another point of view the stars are of\n     interest. They are favorable or unfavorable, sentient, kind,\n     or cruel; influential in man's fate. Compare III. 200. 84,\n     85, where the sun is included with the _grahas_ (planets)\n     which influence men, and ib. 209. 21,\n     _tulyanak[.s]atrama[.n]gala_.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: Other of Indra's spirits are the singers,\n     Gandharvas and Apsarasas; also the horse-headed Kinnaras and\n     C[=a]ranas, who, too, are singers; while later the\n     Vidy[=a]dharas belong both to Indra and to \u00c7iva. In modern\n     times the South Indian Sittars, 'saints,' take their name\n     from the Siddhas.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: In _d[=a]nnavar[s.]i_ there is apparently the\n     same sort of compound as in _devar[s.]i_ and _brahmar[s.]i_,\n     all associated with the _siddhas_ in III. 169. 23. But\n     possibly 'demons and seers' may be meant.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: III. 37. 32-35 (_prapadye vi\u00e7vedev[=a]n!_).]\n\n     [Footnote 39: Weber finds in the Asuras' artisan, Asura\n     Maya, a reminiscence of Ptolemaios. He is celebrated in I.\n     228. 39, and II. 1, and is the generai leader of the\n     _d[=a]navas_, demons, perhaps originally a folk-name of\n     enemies.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: See below. The formal division is, _d[=a]iva,\n     hatha, karma, i.e._, man's fate depends on gods, Fate, and\n     his own acts; although _hatha_, Fate, is often implied in\n     _d[=a]iva_, 'the divine power.' But they are separated, for\n     example, in iii. 183. 86.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: Compare the tales and xii. 148. 9, _sat[=i]_\n     (suttee). In regard to the horse-sacrifice, compare Yama's\n     law as expounded to Gautama: \"The acts by which one gains\n     bliss hereafter are austerities, purity, truth, worship of\n     parents, and the horse-sacrifice.\" xii 129. 9, 10.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: Compare III. 200. 88, even _pr[=a]k[r.]ta_\n     priests are divine and terrible (much more in later books).\n     Here _pr[=a]k[r.]ta_, vulgar, is opposed to _samsk[r.]ta_,\n     refined, priests.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: III. 185. 26-31.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: \"My father and mother are my highest idol; I\n     do for them what I do for Idols. As the three and thirty\n     gods, with Indra foremost, are revered of all the world, so\n     are my parents revered by me\" (III. 214. 19, 20). The\n     speaker further calls them _paramam brahma_, absolute\n     godhead, and explains his first remark by saying that he\n     offers fruits and flowers to his parents as if they were\n     idols. In IV. 68. 57 a man salutes (_abhivadya_) his\n     father's feet on entering into his presence. For the worship\n     of parents compare XII. 108. 3; 128. 9, 10; 267. 31, XIII.\n     75. 26: \"heroes in obedience to the mother.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 45: The marked Brahm[=a] Creator-worship is a bit\n     of feminine religious conservatism (see below).]\n\n     [Footnote 46: Weber has shown that men of low caste took a\n     subordinate part even in the _r[=a]jas[=u]ya_ sacrifice.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: In II. 18. there is a brand-new festival\n     appointed in honor of a female fiend, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: III. 84. 83 (87. 11). We see the first idea in\n     the injunction of Indra to 'wander,' as told in the tale of\n     Dogstail in the Brahmana (see above).]\n\n     [Footnote 49: The usual formula (also Avestan) is 'pure in\n     thought, speech, and act.' The comparison of the six senses\n     to unrestrained wild horses is familiar (III. 211. 24).]\n\n     [Footnote 50: There is, further, no unanimity in regard to\n     the comparative value of holy places. In XII. 152. 11,\n     Sarasvat[=i] is holier than Kurukshetra, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 51: At Pushkara is Brahm[=a]'s only (?)\n     shrine--the account is legendary, but half historical. The\n     modern shrine at Ajm[=i]r seems to be meant.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Ganges, according to epic legend, was a\n     goddess who sacrificed herself for men when the earth was\n     parched and men perished. Then Ganges alone of immortals\n     took pity on men, and flinging herself from heaven became\n     the stream divine. Her name among the gods is Alakanand[=a],\n     the 'Blessed Damosel.']\n\n     [Footnote 53: In iii. 87.10, \"ten descendants and ten\n     ancestors.\" The epic, i. 170. 19, regards the Sarasvat[=i]\n     and Jumna as parts of the sevenfold Ganges, which descends\n     from the heavens as these three, and also as the Vitasth[=a]\n     (Rathasth[=a]), Saray[=u], Gomat[=i], and Gan[d.]ak[=i];\n     being itself 'V[=a]itara[n.][=i] among the Manes.' So xii.\n     322. 32.]\n\n     [Footnote 54: According to the commentator the \"(northern\n     altar of the Father-god) Kurukshetra-Samantapa\u00f1cakam,\n     between Tarantuka, Arantuka, R[=a]mahrada, and Macakruka,\"\n     mentioned in iii. 83. 208, lies in Benares; but this must be\n     a late addition, as Kurukshetra's position is without doubt.\n     Compare i. 2. i ff.; ix. 53. i, 23-25.]\n\n     [Footnote 55:\n     In _ib_. 47, _mah[=a] d[r.]tiriv[=a]dhm[=a]ta[h.]\n     p[=a]pas_, there is an interesting\n     reminiscence of Rig Veda, vii. 89. 2. The rules of virtue\n     are contained in Vedas and law-books, and the practice of\n     instructed men, _ib_. 83 (the 'threefold sign of\n     righteousness'). A \u00c7ruti cited from _dharmas_ is not\n     uncommon, but the latter word is not properly used in so\n     wide a sense. See note below, p. 378.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: Some scholars see in the use of the verb,\n     _pi\u00e7_, a Vedic picturing of gods; but in all instances where\n     this occurs it may be only the poet's mind-picture of the\n     god 'adorned' with various glories.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: In VII. 201. 69, \u00c7iva wears an\n     _aksham[=a]l[=a]._ In XII. 38. 23, the C[=a]rv[=a]ka wears\n     an _aksha_, for he is disguised as a _bhikshu_, beggar.]\n\n     [Footnote 58: It must be remembered that the person using\n     the _mantra_ probably did not understand what the words\n     meant. The epic says, in fact, that the Vedas are\n     unintelligible: _brahma pracuracchalam_, XII. 329. 6. But an\n     older generation thought the same. In Nirukta, I. 15,\n     K[=a]utsa is cited as saying that the _mantras_ are\n     meaningless.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: Compare xii. 174. 46: \"The joy of earth and\n     heaven obtained by the satisfaction of desire is not worth\n     one-sixteenth of the bliss of dead desire.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 60: By generosity the Hindu poet means 'to\n     priests.' In III. 200, where this is elaborated, sixteen\n     persons are mentioned (vs. 4) to whom to give is not\n     meritorious.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: Little is known in regard to the play. The\n     dice are thrown on a board, 'odd and even' determine the\n     contest here (III. 34. 5) _ayuja and yuja_. At times speed\n     in counting is the way to win (Nala). Dicing is a regular\n     part of the _r[=a]jas[=u]ya_ sacrifice (Weber, p. 67), but\n     not, apparently, an ancient trait.]\n\n     [Footnote 62: The snakes belong to Varuna and his region, as\n     described in v. 98. It is on the head of the earth-upholding\n     snake \u00c7esha that Vishnu muses, III. 203.12. The reverence\n     paid to serpents begins to be ritual in the Atharva Veda.\n     Even in the Rig Veda there is the deification of the\n     cloud-snake. In later times they answered to the Nymphs,\n     being tutelary guardians of streams and rivers (Buhler). In\n     i. 36, \u00c7esha Ananta supports earth, and it is told why he\n     does so.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: These three are the witnesses for the soul at\n     the judgment, xii. 322. 55. V[=a]yu, Wind, is said to be\n     even mightier than Indra, Yama, Indra and Varuna, _ib._ 155.\n     9, 10.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: But (in a later account) not if he dies\n     ignobly; for if one is slain by a man of low caste he goes\n     to hell, xii. 298. 7.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: Demoniac Indras (_i.e._, demon-leaders) and\n     seers, xii. 166. 26.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: 'The god of gods,' who rains blood in i. 30.\n     36, is declared by the commentator to be--Parjanya! The gods\n     are here defending Soma from the heavenly bird, Garuda, and\n     nearly die of fright.]\n\n     [Footnote 67: xii. 313. 1-7, with the same watery finale as\n     is usual.]\n\n     [Footnote 68: The morning prayer, etc, to the sun is, of\n     course, still observed, _e.g._, vii. 186. 4. Indra is\n     thanked for victory and invoked for rain (iii. 117. 11; i.\n     25. 7; Holtzmann, _loc. cit._ p. 326) in an hymn that is\n     less fulsome than those to Agni and S[=u]rya.]\n\n     [Footnote 69: 111. 222, Atharvan's rediscovery of fire. As\n     to \u00c7rutis they are probably no more valuable than Smritis.\n     The one given in iii. 208. 11, _agnayo\n     in[=a]i[.n]sak[=a]m[=a]s_, seems to be adapted (_cf._\n     [=A]\u00e7v. Gs. iv. 1; the adjective, by the way, is still\n     starred in Pw.). So [=A]\u00e7v. Gs. i. 15. 9, is repeated\n     Mbh[=a]; i. 74. 63, as a \"Vedic _mantragr[=a]ma_ \"\n     _(ang[=a]d ang[=a]t sambhavasi_, etc.).]\n\n     [Footnote 70: The devils are on the Prince's side, and wish\n     to keep him from death. The proverb is found _ib_. 252. 2;\n     _[=a]tmaty[=a]g[=i] hy adho y[=a]ti_. The holy-grass is used\n     in much the same way when R[=a]ma lies down by Ocean,\n     resolved to die or persuade Ocean to aid him. The rites (vs.\n     24) are \"in the Upanishad.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 71: According to XII. 59. 80-84, the 'treatise of\n     Brihaspati' comes from \u00c7iva through Brahm[=a] and Indra.]\n\n     [Footnote 72: In Buddhism Yama's messengers are Yakkhas.\n     Scherman, _loc. cit_. p. 57.]\n\n     [Footnote 73: Compare II. 22. 26: _gaccha yamak[s.]ayam_,\n     'go to Yama's destruction'; whereas of a good man it is\n     said, 'I will send Indra a guest' (VII, 27.8).]\n\n     [Footnote 74: _Yamasya sadana_. III. 11. 66. He now has\n     hells, and he it is who will destroy the world. He is called\n     'the beautiful' (III. 41. 9), so that he must, if one take\n     this Rudrian epithet with the citation above, be loosely\n     (popularly) identified with \u00c7iva, as god of death. See the\n     second note below.]\n\n     [Footnote 75: The old story of a mortal's visit to Yama to\n     learn about life hereafter (_\u00c7at. Br._ xi. 6.1; Katha Up.,\n     of N[=a]ciketas) is repeated in xiii. 71.]\n\n     [Footnote 76: v. 42. 6: _\u00c7iva[h.] \u00e7iv[=a]n[=a]m a\u00e7ivo\n     '\u00e7iv[=a]n[=a]m_ (compare xii 187. 27: 'only fools say that\n     the man is dead'). Dharma (Justice) seems at times to be the\n     same with Yama. M[=a]ndavya goes to Dharma's _sadana_, home\n     (compare Yama's _sadana_), just as one goes to Yama's, and\n     interviews him on the justice of his judgments. As result of\n     the angry interview the god is reborn on earth as a man of\n     low caste, and the law is established that a child is not\n     morally responsible for his acts till the twelfth year of\n     his age (i.108. 8 ff.). When Kuru agrees to give half his\n     life in order to the restoration of Pramadvar[=a], his wife,\n     they go not to Yama but to Dharma to see if the exchange may\n     be made, and he agrees (i. 9. 11 ff., a masculine\n     S[=a]vitr[=i]i).]\n\n     [Footnote 77: The hells are described in xii. 322. 29 ff.\n     The sight of 'golden trees' presages death (_ib._ 44).]\n\n     [Footnote 78: The ordinary rule is that \"no sin is greater\n     than untruth,\" xii. 162. 24, modified by \"save in love and\n     danger of life\" (Laws, _passim_).]\n\n     [Footnote 79: The same scenes occur in Buddhistic writings,\n     where Yakkhas ask conundrums. For example, in the\n     _Hemavatasutta_ and _[=A]tavakasutta_ the Yakkha asks what\n     is the best possession, what brings bliss, and what is\n     swettest, to which the answer is: faith, law, and truth,\n     respectively.]\n\n     [Footnote 80: _Karm[=a]ntaram up[=a]santas, i.e.,\n     vir[=a]mak[=a]lam upagacchantas_.]\n\n     [Footnote 81: II. 36. 3 ff. The phraseology of vs. 5 is\n     exactly that of [Greek: _ton \u00eatt\u00f4 ldgon kreitt\u00f4 poithnsi_],\n     but the Pundit's arguments are 'based on the law.']\n\n     [Footnote 82: See above. In a later period (see below) the\n     question arises in regard to the part played by Creator and\n     individual in the workings of grace, some claiming that man\n     was passive; some, that he had to strive for grace.]\n\n     [Footnote 83: Perhaps ironical. In V. 175. 32, a woman cries\n     out: \"Fie on the Creator for this bad luck,\" conservative in\n     belief, and outspoken in word.]\n\n     [Footnote 84: III. 30. 17. The _gosava_ is a\n     'cow-sacrifice.' The _pu[n.][d.]ar[=i]ka_ is not explained\n     (perhaps 'elephant-sacrifice').]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nHINDUISM (CONTINUED).--VISHNU AND \u00c7IVA.\n\n\nIn the epic the later union of the sectarian gods is still a novelty.\nThe two characters remain distinct enough. Vishnu and \u00c7iva are\ndifferent gods. But each in turn represents the All-god, and\nconsequently each represents the other. The Vishnu-worship which grew\nabout Krish[n.]a, originally a friend of one of the epic characters,\nwas probably at first an attempt to foist upon Vedic believers a\nsectarian god, by identifying the latter with a Vedic divinity. But,\nwhatever the origin, Krishna as Vishnu is revered as the All-god in\nthe epic. And, on the other hand, \u00c7iva of many names has kept the\nmarks of Rudra. Sometimes one, sometimes another, is taken as the\nAll-god. At times they are compared, and then each sect reduces the\ngod of the other to an inferior position. Again they are united and\nregarded as one. The Vishnu side has left the best literary\nrepresentation of this religion, which has permeated the epic. It is\npantheism, but not an impersonal pantheism. The Blessed Lord is the\nAll. This is the simple base and crown of its speculation. It is like\nthe personal development of Vedantic philosophy, only it is here\ndegraded by the personality of the man-god, who is made the incarnate\nAll-god. The Krishna of the epic as a man is a sly, unscrupulous\nfellow, continually suggesting and executing acts that are at variance\nwith the knightly code of honor. He is king of Dv[=a]rak[=a] and ally\nof the epic heroes. But again, he is divine, the highest divinity, the\n_avatar_ of the All-god Vishnu. The sectaries that see in \u00c7iva rather\nthan in Vishnu the one and only god, have no such representative to\nwhich to refer. For \u00c7iva, as the historical descendant of the Vedic\nRudra,--although even in his case there is an intrusion of local\nworship upon an older Vedic belief,--represents a terror-god, either\nthe lightning, the fairest of the gods, or, when he appears on earth,\na divine horror, or, again, \"a very handsome young man.\"[1] These two\nreligions, of Vishnu as Krishna and of \u00c7iva alone, are not so much\nunited in the epic as they are super-imposed upon the older worship of\nBrahm[=a], and indeed, in such a way that \u00c7iva-worship, in a\npantheistic sense, appears to be the latest of the three beliefs that\nhave influenced the story.[2]\n\nThe personal pantheism of the older Vishnuism has in its form and\nteachings so close a resemblance to the Christian religion that it has\nalways had a great attraction for occidental readers; while the real\npower of its \"Divine Song\" gives the latter a charm possessed by few\nof the scriptures of India. This Divine Song (or Song of the Blessed\nOne) is at present a Krishnaite version of an older Vishnuite poem,\nand this in turn was at first an unsectarian work, perhaps a late\nUpanishad. It is accepted by Vishnuites as a kind of New Testament;\nand with the New Testament it has in truth much in common. It must be\npointed out at the outset that there is here the closest connection\nwith the later Upanishads. The verse, like that of the Katha Upanishad\n(quoted above), which stands almost at the beginning of the Song, is\ntypical of the relation of the Song to the Upanishad. It will be\nnoticed how the impersonal 'That,' _i.e_., absolute being, _brahma_,\nchanges almost at once to the personal He (_[=a]tm[=a]_ as Lord). As\nshows the whole Song, _brahma_ throughout is understood to be\npersonal.[3] The caste-position of the priest in the Git[=a] is owing\nto the religious exaltation of the poem; and the precedence of\nS[=a]man is not unusual in the latest portions of the epic (see\nbelow).]\n\nTo understand the religion which reaches its culmination in the epic\nno better course could be pursued than to study the whole of the\nDivine Song. It is, however, too long a production to be introduced\nhere in its entirety; but the following extracts give the chief\nfeatures of the work, than which nothing in Hindu literature is more\ncharacteristic, in its sublimity as in its puerilities, in its logic\nas in its want of it. It has shared the fate of most Hindu works in\nbeing interpolated injudiciously, so that many of the puzzling\nanomalies, which astound no less the reader than the hero to whom it\nwas revealed, are probably later additions. It is a medley of beliefs\nas to the relation of spirit and matter, and other secondary matters;\nit is uncertain in its tone in regard to the comparative efficacy of\naction and inaction, and in regard to the practical man's means of\nsalvation; but it is at one with itself in its fundamental thesis,\nthat all things are each a part of One Lord, that men and gods are but\nmanifestations of the One Divine Spirit, which, or rather whom, the\nVishnuite re-writer identifies with Krishna, as Vishnu's present form.\n\nThe Divine Song, as it is revealed in the epic by Vishnu (-Krishna) to\nhis favorite knight, Arjuna, begins thus: \"Know that the 'That' in\nwhich is comprised the 'This' is indestructible. These bodies of the\nindestructible Eternal One have an end: but whoso knows Him as slayer,\nand whoso thinks Him to be slain, these two have not true wisdom. He\nslays not and is not slain. He is not born, he does not die at any\ntime; nor will He, having been born, cease to be. Unborn, everlasting,\neternal, He, the Ancient One, is not slain when the body is slain. As\none puts away an old garment and puts on another that is new, so He,\nthe embodied (Spirit), puts away the old body and assumes one that is\nnew. Everlasting, omnipresent, firm, unchanging is He, the Eternal;\nindiscernible is He called, inconceivable, unchangeable.\"[4]\n\nThe Song now turns into a plea that the warrior who is hearing it\nshould, as one born to be a soldier, be brave and fight, lest his\nsorrow for the slain be taken for fear; since \"nothing is better for a\nwarrior than a just fight,\" and \"loss of fame is worse than death.\"\nThen follows (with the usual inconsequential 'heaven') \"If thou art\nslain thou wilt obtain heaven, and if thou art victorious thou shalt\nenjoy earth; therefore, careless of pleasure and pain, get ready for\nthe fight, and so thou wilt not incur sin. This is the knowledge\ndeclared in the S[=a]nkhya; hear now that of the Yoga,\" and the Divine\nLord proceeds:\n\n\"Some are pleased with Vedic words and think that there is nothing\nelse; their souls are full of desires; and they think that going to\nheaven is the chief thing. Yet have the Vedas reference only to the\nthree qualities (of which all things partake). Be free from the three\nqualities (do not care for rewards). In action, not in fruit, is the\nchief thing. Do thy work, abiding by serene devotion (Yoga), rejecting\nevery tie; be indifferent to success and failure. Serene devotion is\ncalled indifference (to such things). Action is lower than devotion of\nmind. Devotion is happiness. Do thou, wise in devotion, abandon the\nfruit that is sprung from action, and, freed from the bonds of birth,\nattain a perfect state.\"\n\nS[=a]nkhya here means the philosophy of religion; Yoga is the\nphilosophical state of mind, serene indifference, religious\n_sang-froid_ the practical result of a belief in the S[=a]nkhya\ndoctrine of the indestructibility of the spirit. In the following\nthere is Vedantic teaching, as well as Sankhyan in the stricter sense.\n\n\nOn the warrior's asking for an explanation of this state of equipoise,\nthe Deity gives illustrations of the balanced mind that is free from\nall attachments, serene, emancipated from desires, self-controlled,\nand perfectly tranquil. As the knight is astonished and confused at\nthe contradiction, action and inactivity both being urged upon him,\nthe Deity replies that there is a twofold law, that of S[=a]nkhyas\nconsisting in knowledge-devotion, and that of Yogis in\naction-devotion. Idleness is not freedom from action. Freedom from\nattachment must be united with the accomplishment of such acts as\nshould be performed. The deluded think that they themselves perform\nacts, but acts are not done by the spirit (self); they are done only\nby nature's qualities (this is S[=a]nkhya doctrine). \"One should know\nthe relation between the individual and Supreme Spirit, and with\ntranquil mind perform good acts. Let the deluded ones be, who are\nerroneously attached to action. The wise man should not cause those of\nimperfect knowledge to be unsettled in their faith, but he should\nhimself not be attached to action. Each man should perform his own\n(caste) duties. One's own duty ill done is better than doing well\nanother man's work.\"\n\nThe knight now asks what causes one to sin. The Deity answers: \"Love\nand hate; for from love is born hate; and from anger, ignorance in\nregard to right and wrong; whence comes lack of reason, and\nconsequently destruction. The knowledge of a man is enwrapped with\ndesire as is fire with smoke. Great are the senses; greater, the mind;\ngreater still, the understanding; greatest of all is 'That'\"\n(_brahma_; as above in the _Ch[=a]ndogya)._ The Deity begins again:[5]\n\"This system of devotion I declared to Vivasvant (the sun); Vivasvant\ndeclared it to Manu, and Manu to kingly seers.\" (The same origin is\nclaimed for itself in Manu's lawbook.) The knight objects, not yet\nknowing that Krishna is the All-god: \"How did'st thou declare it\nfirst? thy birth is later than the sun's.\" To whom the Deity: \"Many\nare my births, and I know them all; many too are thine, but thou\nknowest them not; unborn and Lord of all creatures I assume phenomena,\nand am born by the illusion of the spirit. Whenever there is lack of\nrighteousness, and wrong arises, then I emit (create) myself.[6] I am\nborn age after age for the protection of the good, for the destruction\nof the wicked, and for the sake of establishing righteousness. Whoso\nreally believes in this my divine birth and work, he, when he has\nabandoned his body, enters no second birth, but enters Me. Many there\nare who, from Me arising, on Me relying, purified by the penance of\nknowledge, with all affections, fear, and anger gone, enter into my\nbeing. As they approach Me so I serve them.[7] Men in all ways follow\nafter my path. Some desire the success that is of action, and worship\ngods; for success that is born of action is speedy in the world of\nmen. Know Me as the maker of the four castes, know Me as the unending\none and not the maker. Action stains Me not, for in the fruit of\naction I have no desire. He that thus knows Me is not bound by\nacts.[8] So he that has no attachment is not bound by acts. His acts\nbecome naught. _Brahma_ is the oblation, and with _brahma_ is it\noffered; _brahma_ is in the fire, and by _brahma_ is the oblation\nmade. Sacrifices are of many kinds, but he that sacrifices with\nknowledge offers the best sacrifice. He that has faith has knowledge;\nhe that has knowledge obtains peace. He that has no knowledge and no\nfaith, whose soul is one of doubt, is destroyed. Action does not\ndestroy him that has renounced action by means of indifference. Of the\ntwo, renunciation of action and indifference, though both give bliss,\nindifference in action is better than renunciation of action.\nChildren, not Pundits, proclaim S[=a]nkhya and Yoga to be distinct. He\nthat is devoted to either alone finds the reward of both. Renunciation\nwithout Yoga is a thing hard to get; united with Yoga the seer enters\n_brahma_. ... He is the renouncer and the devotee who does the acts\nthat ought to be done without relying on the reward of action, not he\nthat performs no acts and builds no sacrificial fires. Through his\nself (spirit) let one raise one's self. Conquer self by self (spirit).\nHe is the best man who is indifferent to external things, who with\nequal mind sees (his spirit) self in everything and everything in self\n(God as the Spirit). Such an one obtains the highest bliss, _brahma_.\nWhoso sees Me in all and all in Me I am not destroyed for him, and he\nis not destroyed for Me.\"\n\nThe knight now asks how it fares with a good man who is not equal to\nthe discipline of Yoga, and cannot free himself entirely from\nattachment. Does he go to destruction like a cloud that is rent,\nfailing on the path that leads to _brahma_? The Deity replies:\n\"Neither in this world nor in the beyond is he destroyed. He that acts\nvirtuously does not enter an evil state. He obtains the heaven that\nbelongs to the doers of good, and after living there countless summers\nis reborn on earth in the family of pure and renowned men, or of pious\ndevotees. There he receives the knowledge he had in a former body, and\nthen strives further for perfection. After many births he reaches\nperfection and the highest course (union with _brahma_). There are but\nfew that strive for perfection, and of them only one here and there\ntruly knows Me. Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, understanding,\nand egoism (self-consciousness)--so is my nature divided into eight\nparts.[9] But learn now my higher nature, for this is my lower one. My\nhigher nature is alive, and by it this world is supported. I am the\ncreator and destroyer of all the world. Higher than I is nothing. On\nMe the universe is woven like pearls upon a thread. Taste am I, light\nam I of moon and sun, the mystic syllable _[=O]m_ ([)a][)u]m), sound\nin space, manliness in men; I am smell and radiance; I am life and\nheat. Know Me as the eternal seed of all beings. I am the\nunderstanding of them that have understanding, the radiance of the\nradiant ones. Of the strong I am the force, devoid of love and\npassion; and I am love, not opposed to virtue. Know all beings to be\nfrom Me alone, whether they have the quality of goodness, of passion,\nor of darkness (the three 'qualities' or conditions of all things). I\nam not in them; but they are in Me. Me, the inexhaustible, beyond\nthem, the world knows not, for it is confused by these three qualities\n(conditions); and hard to overcome is the divine illusion which\nenvelops Me, while it arises from the qualities. Only they pass\nthrough this illusion who come to Me alone. Wicked men, whose\nknowledge is taken away by illusion, relying on a devilish (demoniac)\ncondition, do not come to Me. They that have not the highest knowledge\nworship various divinities; but whatever be the form that any one\nworships with faith I make his faith steady. He obtains his desires in\nworshipping that divinity, although they are really bestowed upon him\nby Me.[10] But the fruit of these men, in that they have little\nwisdom, has its end. He that sacrifices to (lesser) gods goes to those\ngods; but they that worship Me come to Me. I know the things that\nwere, that are, and are to be; but Me no one knoweth, for I am\nenveloped in illusion. I am the supreme being, the supreme godhead,\nthe supreme sacrifice, the Supreme Spirit, _brahma_.\"\n\nThe knight asks \"What is _brahma_, the Supreme Spirit, the supreme\nbeing, the supreme sacrifice?\" The Deity: \"The supreme, the\nindestructible, is called _brahma_. Its personal existence is Supreme\nSpirit (self). Destructible existence is supreme being (all except\n_[=a]tm[=a]_). The Person is the supreme godhead. I myself am the\nsupreme sacrifice in this body.\"\n\nThen follow statements like those in the Upanishads and in Manu,\ndescribing a day of _brahma_ as a thousand ages; worlds are renewed;\nthey that go to the gods find an end of their happiness with the end\nof their world; but they that go to the indestructible _brahma_, the\nDeity, the entity that is not destroyed when all else is destroyed,\nnever again return. There are two roads (as in the Upanishads above),\none, the northern road leading to _brahma_; one, the southern road to\nthe moon, leading back to earth. At the end of a period of time all\nbeings re\u00ebnter the divine nature (Prakriti[11]), and at the beginning\nof the next period the Deity emits them again and again (they being\nwithout volition) by the volition of his nature. \"Through Me, who am\nthe superintendent, nature gives birth to all things, and for that\ncause the world turns about. They of demoniac nature recognize me not;\nthey of god-like nature, knowing Me as the inexhaustible source,\nworship Me. I am the universal Father, the Vedas, the goal, the\nupholder, the Lord, the superintendent, the home, the asylum, the\nfriend. I am the inexhaustible seed. I am immortality and death. I am\nbeing and not-being. I am the sacrifice and he that offers it. Even\nthey that, with faith, sacrifice to other gods, even they (really)\nsacrifice to Me. To them that ever are devout and worship Me with love\n(faith), I give the attainment of the knowledge by which they come to\nMe\" (again the doctrine of special grace). \"I am the beginning, the\nmiddle, and the end of all created things. I am Vishnu among sun-gods;\nthe moon among the stars; Indra among the (Vedic) gods; the S[=a]man\namong the Vedas; among the senses, mind; among created beings,\nconsciousness; among the Rudras I am \u00c7iva (\u00c7ankara); among\narmy-leaders I am Skanda; among the great sages I am Bhrigu (who\nreveals Manu's code); among the Siddhas[12] I am Kapila the Muni.... I\nam the love that begets; I am the chief (V[=a]suki and Ananta) among\nthe serpents; and among them that live in water I am Varuna; among the\nManes I am Aryaman; and I am Yama among controllers;[13] among demons\nI am Prahl[=a]da ...; I am R[=a]ma; I am the Ganges. I am among all\nsciences the highest science (that in regard to the Supreme Spirit); I\nam the word of the speakers; I am the letter A among the letters, and\nthe compound of union among the compounds.[14] I am indestructible\ntime and I am the Creator. I am the death that seizes all and I am the\norigin of things to be. I am glory, fortune, speech, memory, wisdom,\nconstancy, and mercy.... I am the punishment of the punisher and the\npolity of them that would win victory. I am silence. I am knowledge.\nThere is no end of my divine manifestations.\"\n\nThe knight now asks to see the real form of the deity, which was\nrevealed to him. \"If in heaven the glory of a thousand suns should\nappear at once, such would be his glory.\"\n\nAfter this comes the real animus of the Divine Song in its present\nshape. The believer that has faith in this Vishnu is even better than\nthe devotee who finds _brahma_ by knowledge.\n\nThe philosophy of knowledge (which here is anything but Vedantic) is\nnow communicated to the knight, in the course of which the distinction\nbetween nature and spirit is explained: \"Nature, Prakriti, and spirit,\nPurusha (person), are both without beginning. All changes and\nqualities spring from nature. Nature is said to be the cause of the\nbody's and the senses' activity. Spirit is the cause of enjoyment\n(appreciation) of pleasure and pain; for the Spirit, standing in\nnature, appreciates the nature-born qualities. The cause of the\nSpirit's re-birth is its connection with the qualities, (This is\nS[=a]nkhya doctrine, and the same with that propounded above in regard\nto activity.) The Supreme Spirit is the Support and great Lord of all,\nthe _[=a]tm[=a]_, while _brahma_ (=_prakriti_) is the womb in which I\nplace My seed, and from that is the origin of all things. The great\n_brahma_ is the womb, and I am the seed-giving father of all the forms\nwhich come into being. The three 'qualities' (conditions, attributes),\ngoodness, passion, and darkness, are born of nature and bind the\ninexhaustible incorporate (Spirit) in the body. The quality (or\nattribute) of goodness binds the soul with pleasure and knowledge;\nthat of passion (activity), with desire and action; that of darkness\n(dulness), with ignorance. One that has the attribute of goodness\nchiefly goes after death to the highest heaven; one that has chiefly\npassion is born again among men of action; one that has chiefly\ndarkness is born among the ignorant. One that sees that these\nattributes are the only agents, one that knows what is higher than the\nattributes, enters into my being. The incorporate spirit that has\npassed above the three attributes (the origin of bodies), being\nreleased from birth, death, age, and pain, obtains immortality. To\npass above these attributes one must become indifferent to all change,\nbe undisturbed by anything, and worship Me with devotion.... I am to\nbe learned from all the Vedas; I made the Ved[=a]nta; I alone know the\nVedas. There are two persons in the world, one destructible and one\nindestructible; the destructible one is all created things; the\nindestructible one is called the Unchanging one. But there is still a\nthird highest person, called the Supreme Spirit, who, pervading the\nthree worlds, supports them, the inexhaustible Lord. Inasmuch as I\nsurpass the destructible and am higher than the indestructible,\ntherefore am I known in the world and in the Veda as the Highest\nPerson.\"\n\nThe references to the S[=a]nkhyas, or S[=a]nkhya-Yogas, are not yet\nexhausted. There is another in a following chapter (vi. 18. 13) which\nsome scholiasts say refers to the Ved[=a]nta-system, though this is in\ndirect contradiction to the text. But the extracts already given\nsuffice to show how vague and uncertain are, on the whole, the\nphilosophical views on which depends the Divine Song. Until the end of\nthese citations one hears only of nature and spirit, the two that have\nno beginning, but here one finds the Supreme Spirit, which is as\ndistinct from the indestructible one as from the destructible.\nMoreover, 'nature' is in one place represented as from the beginning\ndistinct from spirit and entirely apart from it, and in another it is\nonly a transient phase. The delusion (illusion) which in one passage\nis all that exists apart from the Supreme Spirit is itself given up in\nfavor of the S[=a]nkhya Prakriti, with which one must imagine it to be\nidentified, although from the text itself it cannot be identical. In a\nword, exactly as in Manu, there are different philosophical\nconceptions, united without any logical basis for their union. The\n'system' is in general that of the S[=a]nkhya-Yogas, but there is much\nwhich is purely Ved[=a]nta. The S[=a]nkhya system is taught elsewhere\nas a means of salvation, perhaps always as the deistic Yoga (i. 75. 7:\n\"He taught them the Sankhya-knowledge as salvation\"). It is further\nnoticeable that although Krishna (Vishnu) is the ostensible speaker,\nthere is scarcely anything to indicate that the poem was originally\ncomposed even for Vishnu. The Divine Song was probably, as we have\nsaid, a late Upanishad, which afterwards was expanded and put into\nVishnu's mouth. The S[=a]nkhya portions have been redressed as far as\npossible and to the illusion doctrine is given the chief place. But\nthe Song remains, like the Upanishads themselves, and like Manu, an\nill-assorted cabinet of primitive philosophical opinions. On the\nreligious side it is a matter of comparative indifference whether that\nwhich is not the spirit is a delusive output of the spirit or\nindestructible matter. In either case the Spirit is the goal of the\nspirit. In this personal pantheism absorption is taught but not death.\nImmortality is still the reward that is offered to the believer that\nis wise, to the wise that believes. Knowledge and faith are the means\nof obtaining this immortality; but, whereas in the older Upanishads\nonly wisdom is necessary (wisdom that implies morality), here as much\nstress, if not more, is laid upon faith, the natural mark of all\nsectarian pantheism.\n\nDespite its occasional power and mystic exaltation, the Divine Song in\nits present state as a poetical production is unsatisfactory. The same\nthing is said over and over again, and the contradictions in\nphraseology and in meaning are as numerous as the repetitions, so that\none is not surprised to find it described as \"the wonderful song,\nwhich causes the hair to stand on end.\" The different meanings given\nto the same words are indicative of its patchwork origin, which again\nwould help to explain its philosophical inconsistencies. It was\nprobably composed, as it stands, before there was any formal\nVed[=a]nta system; and in its original shape without doubt it precedes\nthe formal S[=a]nkhya; though both philosophies existed long before\nthey were systematized or reduced to Sutra form. One has not to\nimagine them as systems originally distinct and opposed. They rather\ngrew out of a gradual intensification of the opposition involved in\nthe conception of Prakriti (nature) and M[=a]y[=a] (illusion), some\nregarding these as identical, others insisting that the latter was not\nsufficient to explain nature. The first philosophy (and philosophical\nreligion) concerned itself less with the relation of matter to mind\n(in modern parlance) than with the relation of the individual self\n(spirit) to the Supreme Spirit. Different explanations of the relation\nof matter to this Supreme Spirit were long held tentatively by\nphilosophers, who would probably have said that either the S[=a]nkhya\nor Ved[=a]nta might be true, but that this was not the chief question.\nLater came the differentiation of the schools, based mainly on a\nquestion that was at first one of secondary importance. In another\npart of the epic Krishna himself is represented as the victim of\n'illusion' (iii. 21. 30) on the field of battle.\n\nThe doctrine of the Bhagavad G[=i]t[=a], the Divine Song, is by no\nmeans isolated. It is found in many other passages of the epic,\nbesides being imitated in the Anug[=i]t[=a] of the pseudo-epic. To one\nof these passages it is worth while to turn, because of the form in\nwhich this wisdom is enunciated. The passage immediately following\nthis teaching is also of great interest. Of the few Vedic deities that\nreceive hymnal homage chief is the sun, or, in his other form, Agni.\nThe special form of Agni has been spoken of above. He is identified\nwith the All in some late passages, and gives aid to his followers,\nalthough not in battle. It will have been noticed in the Divine Song\nthat Vishnu asserts that the Song was proclaimed to the sun, who in\nturn delivers it through Manu to the king-seers, the sun being\nespecially the kingly god.[15] In the third book there is an hymn to\nthe sun, in which this god is addressed almost in the terms of the\nDivine Song, and immediately preceding is the doctrine just alluded\nto. After the explanation is given that re-birth affects creatures and\ncauses them to be born in earth, air, or water, the changes of\nmetempsychosis here including the vegetable world as well as the\nanimal and divine worlds,[16] the very essence of the Divine Song is\ngiven as \"Vedic word,\" viz., _kuru karma tyajeti ca_, \"Perform and\nquit acts,\" _i.e._, do what you ought to do, but without regard to the\nreward of action (iii. 2. 72, 74). There is an eightfold path of duty,\nas in Buddhism, but here it consists in sacrifice, study, liberality,\nand penance; truth, mercy, self-control, and lack of greed. As the\nresult of practicing the first four, one goes on the course that leads\nto the Manes; as the result of practicing the last four, one goes on\nthe course that leads to the gods. But in practicing any virtues one\nshould practice them without expectation of reward (_abhim[=a]na_,\narri\u00e8re pens\u00e9e). The Yogi, the devotee, who renounces the fruit of\neverything, is the greatest man; his powers are miraculous.\n\nThere follows (with the same light inconsistency to be found in the\nDivine Song) the appeal for action and the exhortation to pray to the\nsun for success in what is desired. For it is explained that the sun\nis the father of all creation. The sun draws up clouds with his heat,\nand his energy, being transmuted into water, with the help of the\nmoon, is distilled into plants as rain, and in this way the food that\nman eats is full of solar energy, and man and all that live by food\nmust regard the sun as their father. Preliminary to the hymn to the\nsun is given a list of his hundred and eight names,[17] among which\nare to be noticed: Aryaman, Soma, Indra, Yama, Brahm[=a], Vishnu,\n\u00c7iva, Death, Time, Creator, the Endless One, Kapila, the Unborn One,\nthe Person (Purusha; with which are to be compared the names of Vishnu\nin the Divine Song), the All-maker, Varuna, the Grandfather, the Door\nof Heaven, etc. And then the Hymn to the Sun (iii. 3. 36 ff.):[18]\n\"Thou, O Sun, of creatures art the eye; the spirit of all that have\nembodied form; thou art the source of all created things; thou art the\ncustom of them that make sacrifice; thou art the goal of the\nS[=a]nkhyas and the hope of the Yogis; the course of all that seek\ndeliverance ... Thou art worshipped by all; the three and thirty\ngods(!) worship thee, etc.... I think that in all the seven worlds[19]\nand all the _brahma_-worlds there is nothing which is superior to the\nsun. Other beings there are, both powerful and great, but they have no\nsuch glory as the sun's. Father of light, all beings rest in thee; O\nLord of light, all things, all elements are in thee. The disc of\nVishnu was fashioned by the All-maker (one of the sun's names!) with\nthy glory. Over all the earth, with its thirteen islands, thou shinest\nwith thy kine (rays)....[20] Thou art the beginning and the end of a\nday of Brahm[=a].... They call thee Indra; thou art Rudra, Vishnu, the\nFather-god, Fire, the subtile mind; thou art the Lord, and thou,\neternal _brahma_.\"\n\nThere is here also a very significant admixture of Vedic and\nUpanishadic religion.\n\nIn Krishna, who in the Upanishads is known already by his own and his\nmother's name, pantheism is made personal according to the teaching of\none sect. But while the whole epic is in evidence for the spuriousness\nof the claim of Krishna to be regarded as incarnate Vishnu (God),\nthere is scarcely a trace in the original epic of the older view in\nregard to Vishnu himself. Thus in one passage he is called \"the\nyounger brother of Indra\" (iii. 12. 25). But, since Indra is at no\ntime the chief god of the epic, and the chapter in which occurs this\nexpression is devoted to extolling Krishna-Vishnu as the All-god, the\nwords appear to be intended rather to identify Krishna with Vishnu,\nwho in the Rig Veda is inferior to Indra, than to detract from\nVishnu's glory. The passage is cited below.\n\nWhat now is the relation of Vishnu-Krishna to the other divinities?\nVishnuite and \u00c7ivaite, each cries out that his god includes the other,\nbut there is no current identity of Brahm[=a], Vishnu, \u00c7iva as three\nco-equal representations of one God. For example, in iii. 189. 5, one\nreads: \"I am Vishnu, I am Brahm[=a], and I am \u00c7iva,\" but one cannot\nread into this any trinitarian doctrine whatever, for in context the\npassage reads as a whole: \"I am N[=a]r[=a]yana, I am Creator and\nDestroyer,\n\nI am Vishnu, I am Brahm[=a], I am Indra, the master-god, I am king\nKubera, Yama, \u00c7iva, Soma, Ka\u00e7yapa, and also the Father-god.\" Again,\nVishnu says that the Father-god, or grandparent of the gods, is\n'one-half of my body,\" and does not mention \u00c7iva (iii. 189. 39). Thus,\nalso, the hymn to \u00c7iva in iii. 39. 76 ff. is addressed \"to \u00c7iva having\nthe form of Vishnu, to Vishnu having the form of \u00c7iva, to the\nthree-eyed god, to \u00c7arva, the trident-holder, the sun, Gane\u00e7a,\" but\nwith no mention of Brahm[=a]. The three gods, Brahm[=a], Vishnu, \u00c7iva,\nhowever, are sometimes grouped together (but not as a trinity) in late\npassages, in contrast to Indra, _e.g._, ix. 53. 26. There are many\nhymns to Vishnu and \u00c7iva, where each is without beginning, the God,\nthe uncreated Creator. It is only when the later period, looking back\non the respective claims of the sects, identifies each god with the\nother, and both with their predecessor, that one gets even the notion\nof a trinity. Even for this later view of the pseudo-epic only one\npassage will be found (cited below).\n\nThe part of Brahm[=a] in the epic is most distinctly in process of\nsubordination to the sectarian gods. He is holy and eternal, but not\nomniscient, though wise. As was shown above, he works at the will of\nVishnu. He is one with Vishnu only in the sense that all is one with\nthe All-god. When Vishnu 'raises the earth' as a boar, Brahm[=a] tells\nthe gods to go to him.[21] He councils the gods. His heaven is above\nIndra's, but he is really only an intermediary divinity, a passive\nactivity, if the paradox may be allowed. Not like Indra (to whom he is\nsuperior) does he fight with All-gods, or do any great act of his own\nwill. He is a shadowy, fatherly, beneficent advisor to the gods, his\nchildren; but all his activity is due to Vishnu. This, of course, is\nfrom the point of view of the Vishnuite.\n\nBut there is no Brahm[=a]ite to modify the impression. There existed\nno strong Brahm[=a] sect as there were Vishnu and \u00c7iva sects.\nBrahm[=a] is in his place merely because to the preceding age he was\nthe highest god; for the epic regards Creator, Praj[=a]pati,\nPit[=a]maha, Brahm[=a] as synonymous.[22] The abstract _brahma_, which\nin the Upanishads is the same with the Supreme Spirit, was called\npersonally Brahm[=a], and this Brahm[=a] is now the Brahmanic\nFather-god. The sects could never get rid of a god whose being was\nrooted alike in the preceding philosophy and in the popular conception\nof a Father-god. Each age of thought takes the most advanced views of\nthe preceding age as its axioms. The Veda taught gods; the\nBr[=a]hmanas taught a Father-god above the gods; the Upanishads taught\na Supreme Godhead of which this Father-god was the active\nmanifestation. The sects taught that their heroes were incarnations of\nthis Supreme, but they carried with them the older pantheon as well,\nand, with the pantheon, its earlier and later heads, Indra and\nBrahm[=a]. Consequently each sect admits that Brahm[=a] is greater\nthan the older Vedic gods, but, while naturally it identifies its\nspecial incarnation first with its most powerful opponent, and thus,\nso to speak, absorbs its rival, it identifies this incarnation with\nBrahm[=a] only as being chief of lesser divinities, not as being a\nrival. One may represent the attitude of a Krishna-worshipper in the\nepic somewhat in this way: \"Krishna is a modern incarnation of Vishnu,\nthe form which is taken in this age by the Supreme Lord. You who\nworship \u00c7iva should know that your \u00c7iva is really my Krishna, and\nthe chief point is to recognize my Krishna as the Supreme Lord. The\nman Krishna is the Supreme Lord in human form. Of course, as such,\nbeing the One God in whom are all things and beings, he is also all\nthe gods known by names which designate his special functions. Thus he\nis the head of the gods, the Father-god, as our ancestors called him,\nBrahm[=a]; and he is all the gods known by still older names, who are\nthe children of the secondary creator, Brahm[=a], viz., Agni, Indra,\nS[=u]rya, etc. All gods are active manifestations of the Supreme God\ncalled Vishnu, who is born on earth to-day as Krishna.\" And the\n\u00c7ivaite says: \"\u00c7iva is the manifestation of the All-god,\" and repeats\nwhat the Vishnuite says, substituting \u00c7iva for Vishnu,[23] but with\nthe difference already explained, namely, that the \u00c7iva-sect has no\nincarnation to which to point, as has the Vishnuite. \u00c7iva is modified\nRudra, and both are old god-names. Later, however, the \u00c7ivaite has\nalso his incarnate god. As an example of later \u00c7iva-worship may be\ntaken Vishnu's own hymn to this god in vii. 80. 54 ff.: \"Reverence to\nBhava, \u00c7arva, Rudra (\u00c7iva), the bestower of gifts, the lord of cattle,\nthe terrible, great, fearful, god of three wives;[24] to him who is\npeace, the Lord, the slayer of sacrifices (_makhaghna_)[25] ... to the\nblue-necked god; to the inventor (or author) ... to truth; to the red\ngod, to the snake, to the unconquerable one, to the blue-haired one,\nto the trident-holder; ... to the inconceivable one ... to him whose\nsign is the bull; ... to the creator of all, who pervades all, who is\nworshipped by all, Lord of all, \u00c7arva, \u00c7ankara, \u00c7iva, ... who has a\nthousand heads a thousand arms, and death, a thousand eyes and legs,\nwhose acts are innumerable.\" In vii. 201. 71, \u00c7iva is the unborn Lord,\ninconceivable, the soul of action, the unmoved one; and he that knows\n\u00c7iva as the self of self, as the unknowable one, goes to\n_brahma_-bliss. This also is late \u00c7ivaism in pantheistic form. In\nother words, everything said of Vishnu must be repeated for \u00c7iva.[26]\n\nAs an example of the position of the lowest member of the later\ntrinity and his very subordinate place, may be cited a passage from\nthe preceding book of the epic. According to the story in vi. 65. 42\nff., the seers were all engaged in worshipping Brahm[=a], as the\nhighest divinity they knew, when he suddenly began to worship \"the\nPerson (Spirit), the highest Lord\"; and Brahm[=a] then lauds Vishnu as\nsuch: \"Thou art the god of the universe, the All-god, V[=a]sudeva\n(Krishna). Therefore I worship thee as the divinity; thou, whose soul\nis devotion. Victory to thee, great god of all; thou takest\nsatisfaction in that which benefits the world.... Lord of lords of\nall, thou out of whose navel springs the lotus, and whose eyes are\nlarge; Lord of the things that were, that are, that are to be; O dear\none, self-born of the self-born ... O great snake, O boar,[27] O thou\nthe first one, thou who dwellest in all, endless one, known as\n_brahma_, everlasting origin of all beings ... destroyer of the\nworlds! Thy feet are the earth ... heaven is thy head ... I,\nBrahm[=a], am thy form ... Sun and moon are thy eyes ... Gods and all\nbeings were by me created on earth, but they owe their origin to thy\ngoodness.\" Then the creation of Vishnu through Pradyumna as a form of\nthe deity is described, \"and Vishnu (Aniruddha) created me, Brahm[=a],\nthe upholder of the worlds; so am I made of Vishnu; I am caused only\nby thee.\"\n\nWhile Brahm[=a] is represented here as identical with Vishnu he is at\nthe same time a distinctly inferior personality, created by Vishnu for\nthe purpose of creating worlds, a factor of inferior godliness to that\nof the World-Spirit, Krishna-Vishnu.\n\nIt had been stated by Holtzmann[28] that Brahm[=a] sometimes appears\nin the epic as a god superior to Vishnu, and on the strength of this\nL. von Schroeder has put the date of the early epic between the\nseventh and fourth centuries B.C, because at that time Brahm[=a] was\nthe chief god.[29] von Schroeder rather exaggerates Holtzmann's\nresults, and asserts that \"in the original form of the poem Brahm[=a]\nappears _throughout_ as the highest and most revered god, while the\nworship of Vishnu and \u00c7iva as great gods is apparently a later\nintrusion\" (_loc. cit._). This asseveration will have to be taken _cum\ngrano_. Had von Schroeder said 'pantheistic gods' he would have been\ncorrect in this regard, but we think that both Vishnu and \u00c7iva were\ngreat gods, equal, if not superior to Brahm[=a], when the epic proper\nbegan. And, moreover, when one speaks of the original form of the poem\nhe cannot mean the pseudo-epic or the ancient legends which have been\nwoven into the epic, themselves of earlier date. No one means by the\n'early epic' the tales of Agastya, of the creation of Death, of the\nmaking of ambrosia, but the story of the war in its earliest shape;\nfor the epic poem must have begun with its own subject-matter. Now it\nis not true that Brahm[=a] is regarded 'throughout' the early poem as\na chief god at all. If one investigate the cases where Vishnu or \u00c7iva\nappears 'below' Brahm[=a] he will see, in almost every case that\nHoltzmann has registered, that this condition of affairs is recorded\nnot in the epic proper but in the Brahmanic portions of the\npseudo-epic, or in ancient legends alone. Thus in the story of the\nwinning of ambrosia, of Agastya drinking ocean, and of R[=a]ma,\nBrahm[=a] appears to be above Vishnu, and also in some extracts from\nthe pseudo-epic. For the real epic we know of but two cases that can\nbe put into this category, and neither is sufficient to support the\nhypothesis built upon it.\n\nFor Krishna, when he ingeniously plots to have Bh[=i]ma slay\nJar[=a]sandha, is said to have renounced killing Jar[=a]sandha\nhimself, 'putting Brahm[=a]'s injunction before him' (ii. 22. 36),\n_i.e._ recalling Brahm[=a]'s admonition that only Bh[=i]ima was fated\nto slay the foe. And when Krishna and S[=a]tyaki salute Krishna's\nelder brother they do so (for being an elder brother Baladeva is\nKrishna's _Guru_) respectfully, 'just as Indra and Upendra salute\nBrahm[=a] the lord of _devas_' (ix. 34. 18). Upendra is Indra's\nyounger brother, _i.e._, Vishnu (above). But these passages are scanty\nproof for the statement that Brahm[=a] appears throughout the early\nepic as the highest god;[30] nor is there even so much evidence as\nthis in the case of \u00c7iva. Here, too, it is in the tale of the churning\nof ocean, of Sunda and Upasunda, of the creation of the death-power,\nand in late didactic (Brahmanic) passages, where Brahm[=a] makes \u00c7iva\nto destroy earth and \u00c7iva is born of Brahm[=a], and only in such\ntales, or extracts from the Book of Peace, etc, that Brahm[=a] appears\nas superior. In all other cases, in the real action of the epic, he is\nsubordinate to Vishnu and \u00c7iva whenever he is compared with them. When\nhe is not compared he appears, of course, as the great old Father-god\nwho creates and foresees, but even here he is not untouched by\npassion, he is not all-knowing, and his r\u00f4le as Creator is one that,\nwith the allotment of duties among the gods, does not make him the\nhighest god. All the old gods are great till greater appear on the\nscene. There is scarcely a supreme Brahm[=a] in the epic itself, but\nthere is a great Brahm[=a], and a greater (older) than the sectarian\ngods in the old Brahmanic legends, while the old Brahmanhood reasserts\nitself sporadically in the \u00c7[=a]nti, etc, and tells how the sectarian\ngods became supreme, how they quarrelled and laid the strife.\n\nSince the adjustment of the relations between the persons of the later\ntrinity is one of the most important questions in the theology of the\ncompleted epic, it will be necessary to go a little further afield and\nsee what the latest books, which hitherto we have refrained as much as\npossible from citing, have to say on the subject. As it seems to be\ntrue that it was felt necessary by the \u00c7ivaite to offset the laud of\nVishnu by antithetic laud of \u00c7iva,[31] so after the completion of the\nBook of Peace, itself a late addition to the epic, and one that is\nmarkedly Vishnuitic, there was, before the Genealogy of Vishnu, an\nantithetic Book of Law, which is as markedly \u00c7ivaitic. In these books\none finds the climax of sectarianism, in so far as it is represented\nby the epic; although in earlier books isolated passages of late\naddition are sporadically to be found which have much the same nature.\nEverywhere in these last additions Brahm[=a] is on a plane which is as\nmuch lower than that of the Supreme God as it is higher than that of\nIndra. Thus in viii. 33. 45, Indra takes refuge with Brahm[=a], but\nBrahm[=a] turns for help to \u00c7iva (Bhava, Sth[=a]nu, Jishnu, etc.) with\na hymn sung by the gods and seers. Then comes a description of\n\u00c7ankara's[32] (\u00c7iva's) war-car, with its metaphorical arms, where\nVishnu is the point of Civa's arrow (which consists of Vishnu, Soma,\nAgni), and of this war-car Brahm[=a] himself is the charioteer (_ib._\n34. 76). With customary inconsistency, however, when \u00c7iva wishes his\nson to be exalted he prostrates himself before Brahm[=a], who then\ngives this youth (_kum[=a]ra_), called K[=a]rtikeya, the 'generalship'\nover all beings _(s[=a]in[=a]patyam_, ix. 44. 43-49). There is even a\n'celebration of Brahm[=a],' a sort of harvest festival, shared, as the\ntext tells, by all the castes; and it must have been something like\nthe religious games of the Greeks, for it was celebrated by athletic\ncontests.[33] Brahm[=a], as the old independent creator, sometimes\nkeeps his place, transmitting posterity through his 'seven mind-born\nsons,' the great seers (iii. 133; xii. 166. 11 ff.). But Brahm[=a]\nhimself is born either in the golden egg, as a secondary growth (as in\nxii. 312. 1-7), or, as is usually the case, he is born in the lotus\nwhich springs from the navel of musing[34] Vishnu (iii. 203. 14). In\nthis passage Brahm[=a] has four faces (Vedas) and four forms,\n_caturm[=u]rtis_ (15), and this epithet in other sections is transferred\nto Vishnu. Thus in vii. 29. 26, Vishnu(Vishu in the original) says\n_caturm[=u]rtir aham_, \"I have four forms,\" but he never says\n_trim[=u]rtir aham_ ('I have three forms'). There is one passage,\nhowever, that makes for a belief in a trinity. It stands in contrast\nto the various Vishnuite hymns, one of which may well be reviewed as\nan example of the regular Vishnuite laudation affected by the Krishna\nsect (iii. 12. 21 ff.): \"Krishna is Vishnu, Brahm[=a], Soma, the Sun,\nRight, the Creator ('founder'), Yama, Fire, Wind, \u00c7iva, Time, Space,\nEarth, and the cardinal points. Thou, Krishna, art the Creator\n('emitter'); thou, chief of gods, didst worship the highest; thou,\nVishnu called, becamest Indra's younger brother, entering into sonship\nwith Aditi; as a child with three steps thou didst fill the sky,\nspace, and earth, and pass in glory.... At the end of the age thou\nreturnest all things into thyself. At the beginning of the age\nBrahm[=a] was born from thy lotus-navel as the venerable preceptor of\nall things (the same epithet is in vs. 22 applied to Vishnu himself);\nand \u00c7iva sprang from thy angry forehead when the demons would kill him\n(Brahm[=a]); both are born of thee, in whom is the universe.\" The\nfollowing verses (45 ff.) are like those of the Divine Song: \"Thou,\nKnight Arjuna, art the soul of Krishna; thou art mine alone and thine\nalone am I; they that are mine are thine; he that hates thee hates Me,\nand he that is for thee, is for Me; thou art Nara ('man') and I am\nN[=a]r[=a]yana ('whose home is on the waters,' god);[35] we are the\nsame, there is no difference between us.\" Again, like the Divine Song\nin the following verses (51-54) is the expression 'the sacrifice and\nhe that sacrifices,' etc, together with the statement that Vishnu\nplays 'like a boy with playthings,' with the crowds of gods,\nBrahm[=a], \u00c7iva, Indra, etc. The passage opposed to this, and to other\nidentifications of Vishnu with many gods, is one of the most flagrant\ninterpolations in the epic. If there be anything that the Supreme God\nin \u00c7ivaite or Vishnuite form does not do it is to extol at length,\nwithout obvious reason, his rivals' acts and incarnations, Yet in this\nclumsy passage just such an extended laudation of Vishnu is put into\nthe mouth of \u00c7iva. In fact, iii. 272, from 30 to 76, is an\ninterpretation of the most na\u00efve sort, and it is here that we find the\napproach to the later _trim[=u]rti_ (trinity): \"Having the form of\nBrahm[=a] he creates; having a human body (as Krishna) he protects, in\nthe nature of \u00c7iva he would destroy--these are the three appearances\nor conditions (_avasth[=a]s_) of the Father-god\". (Praj[=a]pati).[36]\nThis comes after an account of the four-faced lotus-born Brahm[=a],\nwho, seeing the world a void, emitted his sons, the seers, mind-born,\nlike to himself (now nine in number), who in turn begot all beings,\nincluding men (vss. 44-47). If, on the other hand, one take the later\nsectarian account of Vishnu (for the above is more in honor of Krishna\nthe man-god than of Vishnu, the form of the Supreme God), he will see\nthat even in the pseudo-epic the summit of the theological conceptions\nis the emphasis not of trinity or of multifariousness but of unity.\nAccording to the text the P[=a]\u00f1cak[=a]laj\u00f1as are the same with the\nVishnuite sect called P[=a]\u00f1car[=a]tras, and these are most\nemphatically _ek[=a]ntinas, i.e_., Unitarians (xii. 336; 337. 46; 339.\n66-67).[37] In this same passage 341. 106, Vishnu is again\n_caturm[=u]rtidh[r.]t_, 'the bearer of four forms,' an entirely\ndifferent conception of him (below). So that even in this most\nadvanced sectarian literature there is no real threefoldness of the\nSupreme as one in three. In the following chapter (xii. 335. 1 ff.)\nthere is a passage like the great Ka hymn of the Rig Veda, 'whom as\ngod shall one worship?' The sages say to Vishnu: \"All men worship\nthee; to whom dost thou offer worship?\" and he says, 'to the Eternal\nSpirit.' The conception of the functions of Brahm[=a] and \u00c7iva in\nrelation to Vishnu is plainly shown in xii. 342. 19: \"Brahm[=a] and\n\u00c7iva create and destroy at the will of Vishnu; they are born of his\ngrace and his anger.\" In regard to \u00c7iva himself, his nature and place\nin Vishnuism have been sufficiently explained. The worship of this god\nis referred to 'Vedic texts' (the _\u00e7ata-rudriyam_, vii. 202. 120);[38]\nVishnu is made to adore the terrible god (_ib_. 201. 69) who appears\nas a mad ascetic, a wild rover, a monster, a satire on man and gods,\nthough he piously carries a rosary, and has other late traits in his\npersonal appearance.[39] The strength of \u00c7ivaism lay in the eumenidean\n(\u00c7iva is 'prospering,' 'kindly') euphemism and fear alike, which\nshrank in speech and mind from the object of fear. But this religion\nin the epic had a firmer hold than that of fear. It was essentially\nphallic in its outward form (VII. 201. 93-96), and as such was deeply\nrooted in the religious conscience of a people to whom one may venture\nperhaps to ascribe such a form of worship even in the time of the Rig\nVeda, although the signs thereof in great part have been suppressed.\nThis may be doubted,[40] indeed, for the earlier age; but there is no\nquestion that epic \u00c7ivaism, like \u00c7ivaism to-day, is dependent wholly\non phallic worship (XIII. 14. 230 ff.). It is the parallel of Bacchic\nrites and orgies, as well as of the worship of the demons in\ndistinction from that of good powers. \u00c7iva represents the ascetic,\ndark, awful, bloody side of religion: Vishnu, the gracious, calm,\nhopeful, loving side; the former is fearful, mysterious, demoniac; the\nlatter is joyful, erotic, divine. In their later developments it is\nnot surprising to see that Vishnuism, in the form of Krishnaism,\nbecomes more and more erotic, while \u00c7ivaism becomes more and more\nghastly and ghoulish. Wild and varied as are the beliefs of the epic,\nthere is space but to show a few more characteristic sides of its\ntheology--a phase that may seem questionable, yet, since the devout\nHindu believes the teachings of the epic, they must all to him\nconstitute one theology, although it was gradually amalgamated out of\ndifferent creeds.\n\nIn connection with \u00c7iva stands, closely united, his son, Gane\u00e7a,\n\"leader of troops,\" still worshipped as one of the popular gods, and\nthe battle-god, Skanda, the son first of Agni then of \u00c7iva, the\nconqueror of the demons, _d[=a]navas_, and later representative of\nIndra, with whom the epic identifies him. For it is Skanda that is the\nreal battle-god of the later epic; though in its original form Indra\nwas still the warrior's refuge, as attests the stereotyped\nphraseology. In III. 225-232 honor and praise are ascribed to Skanda\nin much the same language with that used to portray his father, \u00c7iva.\n\"The god of a thousand arms, the Lord of all, the creator of gods and\ndemons\" are phrases used in his eulogy. He too has a list of names;\nhis nurse is the \"maiden of the red (bloody) sea,\" called\nLoh[=i]t[=a]yan[=i]. His terrible appearance and fearful acts make him\nthe equal of \u00c7iva.[41] His sign is a _kukku[t.]a_, cock; _ib_. 229.\n33.\n\nAssociated, again, with Skanda are the spirits or 'mothers,' which\nafflict people. The belief in mother-gods is old, but its epic form is\nnew. The exactness and detail in regard to these beautiful monsters\nshow at least a real belief, which, as one on a lower plane besides\nthe higher religion, cannot be passed over without notice. As in other\nlands, people are 'possessed' by evil spirits, called possessors or\nseizers (_grahas_). These are Skanda's demons,[42] and are both male\nand female. Until one reaches the age of sixteen he is liable to be\npossessed by one group of 'seizers,' who must be worshipped in proper\nform that their wrath may be averted. Others menace mortals from the\nage of sixteen to seventy. After that only the fever-demon is to be\nfeared. Imps of this sort are of three kinds. One kind indulge only in\nmischievous sport: another kind lead one to gluttony; the third kind\nare devoted to lust. They are known as Pi\u00e7[=a]cas, Yakshas, etc., and\nwhen they seize a person he goes mad. They are to be kept at bay by\nself-restraint and moderation (III. 230. 43-56). In IX. 46 and III.\n226 the 'mothers' are described. They are witches, and live in\ncross-roads, cemeteries, and mountains. They may be of Dravidian\norigin, and in their epic form, at any rate, are a late intrusion.[43]\n\nJust before the Divine Song begins, the knight who is about to become,\nilluminated or 'disillusioned' offers a prayer to the terrible goddess\nDurg[=a], also one of the new, popular, and horrible forms of divine\nmanifestation. In this hymn, VI. 23, Durg[=a] (Um[=a], P[=a]rvat[=i],\nK[=a]li, etc.) is addressed as \"leader of the armies of the blessed,\nthe dweller in Mandara, the youthful woman, K[=a]li, wife of \u00c7iva, she\nwho is red, black, variegated; the savior, the giver of gifts,\nK[=a]ty[=a]yan[=i], the great benefactress, the terrible one, the\nvictorious one, victory itself ... Um[=a], the slayer of demons,\"[44]\nand the usual identification and theft of epithets then follows: \"O\nthou who art the Vedas, who art Revelation, who art virtue,\nJ[=a]tavedasi, ... thou art _brahma_ among the sciences, thou art the\nsleep of incorporate beings, the mother of Skanda, the blessed one,\nDurg[=a] ... thou art the mother of the Vedas and Ved[=a]nta ... thou\nart sleep, illusion, modesty, happiness ... thou art satisfaction,\ngrowth, contentment, light, the increaser of moon and sun.\"\n\nTurning from these later parasites,[45] which live on their parent\ngods and yet tend to reduce them, we now revert to that happiness\nhereafter to which looks forward the epic knight that has not been\ntempted to 'renounce' desire. In pantheistic passages he is what the\nlater remodeller makes him. But enough of old belief remains to show\nthat the warrior really cared a great deal more for heaven than he did\nfor absorption. As to the cause of events, as was said above, it is\nFate. Repeatedly is heard the lament, \"Fate (impersonal) is the\nhighest thing, fie on vain human effort.\" The knight confesses with\nhis lips to a belief in the new doctrine of absorption, but at heart\nhe is a fatalist. And his aim is to die on the field of battle, that\nhe may go thence directly to the heaven that awaits the good and the\nbrave.[46] Out of a long description of this heaven a few extracts\nhere selected will show what the good knight anticipates:\n\n     \"Upward goes the path that leads to gods; it is inhabited by\n     them that have sacrificed and have done penance. Unbelieving\n     persons and untruthful persons do not enter there; only they\n     that have duteous souls, that have conquered self, and\n     heroes that bear the marks of battle. There sit the seers\n     and gods, there are shining, self-illumined worlds, made of\n     light, resplendent. And in this heaven there is neither\n     hunger, nor thirst, nor weariness, nor cold, nor heat, nor\n     fear; nothing that is terrible is there, nothing unclean;\n     but pleasing sights, and sounds, and smells. There is no\n     care there, nor age, nor work, nor sorrow. Such is the\n     heaven that is the reward of good acts. Above this is\n     Brahm[=a]'s world, where sit the seers and the three and\n     thirty gods,\" etc.\n\nOver against this array of advantages stands the one great \"fault of\nheaven,\" which is stated almost in the words of \"nessun maggior\ndolore,\" \"the thought (when one lives again on the lower plane) of\nformer happiness in the higher life is terrible grief\" (vs. 30),\n_i.e_., this heaven will pass away at the end of the world-period,\nwhen the Eternal draws all in to himself again (iii. 261); and the\nthought that one has been in heaven, while now he is (re-born) on\nearth, is a sorrow greater than the joy given by heaven.[47]\nOne is reminded by the epic description of heaven of that poet of the\nUpanishads who describes his heavenly bliss as consisting in the fact\nthat in that world \"there is neither snow nor sorrow.\" The later\nversion is only an amplification. Even with the assurance that the\n\"fault of heaven\" is the disappointment of being dropped to earth\nagain in a new birth, the ordinary mortal is more averse from the\nbliss of absorption than from the pleasure of heaven. And in truth,\nexcept to one very weary of his lot in life, it must be confessed that\nthe religion here shown in all its bearings is one eminently pleasant\nto believe. Its gist, in a word, is this: \"If you feel able to endure\nit, the best thing to do is to study the plan of the universe, and\nthen conform to it. By severe mental discipline you can attain to this\nknowledge, and for reward you will be immortally united with God.\" To\nthis the sectarian adds: \"Or believe in my god and the result will be\nthe same.\" But both philosopher and sectarian continue: \"If, however,\nyou do not want to be united with the Supreme Spirit so soon as this,\nthen be virtuous and devout, or simply be brave if you are a warrior;\ndo whatever the rules of morality and caste-custom bid you do, and you\nwill go to heaven for thousands of ages; at the end of which time you\nwill be re-born in a fine family on earth, and may again decide\nwhether to repeat the process of gaining heaven or to join God and\nbecome absorbed into the World-Spirit at once.\" There were probably\nmany that chose rather to repeat their agreeable earthly experience,\nwith an interlude of heaven after each death, than to make the\nrenunciation of earth and heaven, and be absorbed once for all into\nthe All-god.\n\nThe doctrine of 'the ages'[48] is so necessary to a true understanding\nof the rotative immortality offered as a substitute for the higher\nbliss of absorption (that is, genuine immortality), that an account of\nthe teaching in this regard will not be out of place. The somewhat\npuzzling distinction between the happy life of them that fail to\ndesire absorption, and yet are religious men, and the blissful life of\nthose people that do attain absorption, is at once explained by a\nclear understanding of the duration of the time of the gods' own life\nand of the divine heaven. Whereas the Greek notion of four ages\nincludes within the four all time, all the four ages of the Hindu are\nonly a fraction of time. Starting at any one point of eternity, there\nis, according to the Hindu belief, a preliminary 'dawn' of a new cycle\nof ages. This dawn lasts four hundred years, and is then followed by\nthe real age (the first of four), which lasts four thousand years, and\nhas again a twilight ending of four hundred years in addition. This\nfirst is the Krita age, corresponding to the classical Golden Age. Its\ncharacteristics are, that in it everything is perfect; right eternal\nnow exists in full power. In this age there are neither gods nor\ndemons (D[=a]navas, Gandharvas, Yakshas, R[=a]kshas, Serpents),\nneither buying nor selling. By a _lucus a non_ the derivation of the\nname Krita is _k[r.]tam eva na kartavyam, i.e_., with a pun, it is\ncalled the '_sacred_ age' because there are no _sacrifices_ in that\nage. No S[=a]ma Veda, Rig Yeda, or Yajur Veda exist as distinct\nVedas.[49] There is no mortal work. Fruit comes by meditation; the\nonly duty is renunciation. Disease, lack of mental power, moral\ndefects (such as pride and hate) do not exist; the highest course of\nthe ascetic Yogis is universally _brahma (paramakam_). In this age\ncome into existence the Brahman, Kshatriya, V[=a]i\u00e7ya, \u00c7[=u]dra,\n_i.e_., the distinct castes of priest, warrior, husbandman, and slave;\nall with their special marks, and all delighted with their proper\noccupations. Yet have all the castes like occupations, like refuge,\npractice, and knowledge. They are joined to the one god (_eka deva_),\nand have but one _mantra_ in their religious rites. Their duties are\ndistinct, but they follow only one Veda and one rule. The four orders\n(of the time of life) are duly observed; men do not desire the fruit\nof their action, and so they obtain the highest course, _i.e_.,\nsalvation by absorption into _brahma_. In this age the 'three\nattributes' (or qualities) are unknown. After this age follows the\ndawn of the second age, called Tret[=a], lasting three hundred years,\nthen the real age of Tret[=a], three thousand years, followed by the\ntwilight of three hundred years. The characteristics of this age are,\nthat men are devout; that great sacrifices begin (_sattram\npravartate_); that Virtue decreases by one quarter; that all the\nvarious rites are produced, together with the attainment of salvation\nthrough working for that end, by means of sacrifice and generosity;\nthat every one does his duty and performs asceticism. The next age,\nDv[=a]para, is introduced by a dawn of two hundred years, being itself\ntwo thousand years in duration, and it closes with a twilight of two\nhundred years. Half of Virtue fails to appear in this age, that is,\nthe general virtue of the world is diminished by a half ('the Bull of\nJustice stands on two legs'). The Veda is now subdivided into four.\nInstead of every one having one Veda, four Vedas exist, but some\npeople know only three, or two, or one, or are even Veda-less\n(_an[r.]cas_). Ceremonies become manifold, because the treatises on\nduty are subdivided(!). The attribute of passion influences people,\nand it is with this that they perform asceticism and are generous (not\nwith disinterestedness). Few (_ka\u00e7cit_) are settled in truth;\nignorance of the one Veda causes a multiplication of Vedas (_i.e_., as\nVeda means 'knowledge,' the Vedas result from ignorance of the\nessential knowledge). Disease and sin make penance necessary. People\nsacrifice only to gain heaven. After this age and its twilight\nare past begins the Kali, last of the four ages, with a dawn of one\nhundred, a course of one thousand, and a subsequent twilight of one\nhundred years. This is the present sinful age, when there is no real\nreligion, when the Vedas are ignored, and the castes are confused,\nwhen _itis_ (distresses of every form) are rife; when Virtue has only\none leg left to stand upon. The believer in Krishna as Vishnu, besides\nthis universal description, says that the Supreme Lord in the Krita\nage is 'white' (pure); in the Tret[=a] age, 'red'; in the Dv[=a]para\nage, 'yellow'; in the Kali age, 'black, _i.e_., Vishnu is Krishna,\nwhich means 'black.'[50] This cycle of ages always repeats itself\nanew. Now, since the twelve thousand years of these ages, with their\ndawns and twilights, are but one of countless cycles, when the Kali\nage and its twilight have brought all things into a miserable state,\nthe universe is re-absorbed into the Supreme Spirit. There is then a\nuniversal (apparent) destruction, _pralaya_, of everything, first by\nfire and then by a general flood. Seven suns appear in heaven, and\nwhat they fail to burn is consumed by the great fire called Samvartaka\n(really a manifestation of Vishnu), which sweeps the world and leaves\nonly ashes; then follows a flood which completes the annihilation.\nThereafter follows a period equal to one thousand cycles (of twelve\nthousand years each), which is called 'Brahm[=a]'s night,' for during\nthese twelve million years Brahm[=a] sleeps; and the new Krita age\nbegins again \"when Brahm[=a] wakes up\" (iii. 188. 29, 69; 189.\n42).[51] All the gods are destroyed in the universal destruction, that\nis, re-absorbed into the All-god, for there is no such thing as\nannihilation, either of spirit or of matter (which is illusion).\nConsequently the gods' heaven and the spirits of good men in that\nheaven are also re-absorbed into that Supreme, to be re-born in the\nnew age. This is what is meant by the constant harping on\nquasi-immortality. Righteousness, sacrifice, bravery, will bring man\nto heaven, but, though he joins the gods, with them he is destroyed.\nThey and he, after millions of years, will be re-born in the new\nheaven and the new earth. To escape this eventual re-birth one must\ndesire absorption into the Supreme, not annihilation, but unity with\nGod, so that one remains untouched by the new order at the end of\nBrahm[=a]'s 'day.' There are, of course, not lacking views of them\nthat, taking the precept grossly, give a less dignified appearance to\nthe teaching, and, in fact, upset its real intent. Thus, in the very\nsame Puranic passage from which is taken the description above (III.\n188), it is said that a seer, who miraculously outlived the universal\ndestruction of one cycle, was kindly swallowed by Vishnu, and that, on\nentering his stomach (the absorption idea in Puranic coarseness), he\nsaw everything which had been destroyed, mountains, rivers, cities,\nthe four castes engaged in their duties, etc. In other words, only\ntransference of locality has taken place. But this account reads\nalmost like a satire.\n\nOne of the most striking features of the Hindu religions, as they have\nbeen traced thus far, is the identification of right with light, and\nwrong with darkness. We have referred to it several times already. In\nthe Vedic age the deities are luminous, while the demons and the abode\nof the wicked generally are of darkness. This view, usually considered\nIranian and Zoroastrian, is as radically, if not so emphatically,\nIndic. It might be said, indeed, that it is more deeply implanted in\nthe worship of the Hindus than in that of the Iranians, inasmuch as\nthe latter religion enunciates and promulgates the doctrine, while the\nformer assumes it. All deeds of sin are deeds of darkness, _tamas_.\nThe devils live underground in darkness; the hells are below earth and\nare gloom lighted only by torture-flames.\n\nThe development of devil-worship (the side-scenes in the theatre of\n\u00c7ivaism) introduces devils of another sort, but the general effect\nremains. The fire-priest Bhrigu says: \"Untruth is a form of darkness,\nand by darkness one is brought to hell (downwards); veiled in darkness\none sees not the light. Light is heaven, they say, and darkness is\nhell,\" xii. 190. 2-3. This antithesis of evil as darkness, good as\nlight, is too native to India to admit of the suggestion that it might\nhave been borrowed. But an isolated and curious Puranic chapter of the\nepic appears to have direct reference to the Persian religion. All\nHindu gods have sacrifices, even \u00c7iva the 'destroyer of sacrifice.'\nNow in iii. 220, after a preliminary account of the _p[a]\u00f1cajanya_\nfire (vs. 5 ff.) there is given a list of 'gods that destroy\nsacrifice,' _dev[=a]s yaj\u00f1amu[s.]as,_ fifteen in number, who 'stand\nhere' on earth and 'steal' the sacrifice. They extend over the five\npeoples in three divisions of five each. The first and third group\ncontain names compounded with Bh[=i]ma and S[=u]ra respectively; while\nthe third group is that of Sumitra, Mitravan, Mitraj\u00f1a, Mitravardhana,\nMitradharman. There are others without the _mitra_ (vs. 10). The\nappellation _dev[=a]s_ seems to take them out of connection with\n\u00c7iva's demoniac troops, and the persistency of _mitra_ would look as\nif these 'gods' were of Iranian origin. There may have been (as are\npossibly the modern S[=a]uras) believers in the Persian religion\nalready long established among the Hindus.\n\nThe question will naturally present itself whether in the religious\n_olla podrida_ known as the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata there are distinct\nallusions to Buddhism, and, if so, in how far the doctrines of this\nsect may have influenced the orthodox religion. Buddhism does not\nappear to have attacked or to have attracted the 'holy land,' whence,\nindeed, according to law, heretics are 'banished.' But its influence\nof course must have embraced this country, and it is only a question\nof in how far epic Brahmanism has accepted it. At a later period\nHinduism, as has been observed, calmly accepts Buddha as an _avatar_\nof Vishnu. Holtzmann, who is inclined to attribute a good deal to\nBuddhism, sees signs of it even in the personal characteristics of the\nepic heroes, and believes the whole poem to have been more or less\naffected by anti-Buddhistic feeling. If this were so one would have to\ngive over to Buddhism much also of the humanitarianism to be found in\nthe moral precepts that are so thickly strewn through the various\nbooks. In our opinion these signs-manual of Buddhism are not\nsufficiently evident to support Holtzmann's opinion for the whole\npoem, and it is to be noted that the most taking evidence is drawn\nfrom the latest parts of the work. It is just here that we think it\nnecessary to draw the line, for while much of late date has been added\nin earlier books, yet in the books which one may call wholly late\nadditions appear the strongest indications of Buddhistic\ninfluence.[52] A great deal of the Book of Peace is Puranic, the book\nas a whole is a Vishnuite addition further enlarged by \u00c7ivaite\ninterpolation. The following book is, again, an offset to the Book of\nPeace, and is as distinctly \u00c7ivaite in its conception as is the Book\nof Peace Vishnuite.[53] It is here, in these latest additions, which\nscarcely deserve to be ranked with the real epic, that are found the\nmost palpable touches of Buddhism. They stand to the epic proper as\nstands to them the Genealogy of Vishnu, a further addition which has\nalmost as much claim to be called 'part of the epic' as have the books\njust mentioned, only that it is more evidently the product of a later\nage, and represents the Krishna-Vishnu sect in its glory after the\nepic was completed. Nevertheless, even in these books much that is\nsuspected of being Buddhistic may be Brahmanic; and in any concrete\ncase a decision, one way or the other, is scarcely to be made on\nobjective grounds. Still more is this the case in earlier books. Thus,\nfor instance, Holtzmann is sure that a conversation of a slave and a\npriest in the third book is Buddhistic because the man of low caste\nwould not venture to instruct a Brahman.[54] But it is a command\nemphasized throughout the later Brahmanism that one must take refuge\nin the ship that saves; and in passages not suspected of Buddhistic\ntendency Bh[=i]shma takes up this point, and lays down the rule that,\nno matter to which caste a man belongs, his teaching if salutary is to\nbe accepted. It is even said in one passage of the Book of Peace that\none ought to learn of a slave, and in another that all the four castes\nought to hear the Veda read:[55] \"Let him get instruction even from a\n\u00c7[=u]dra if he can thereby attain to salvation\"; and again: \"Putting\nthe Brahman first, let the four castes hear (the Veda); for this\n(giving first place to the priest) is (the rule in) reading the\nVeda.\"[56] And in many places are found instructions given by\nlow-caste men. It may be claimed that every case which resembles\nBuddhistic teaching is drawn from Buddhism, but this would be to claim\nmore than could be established. Moreover, just as the non-injury\ndoctrine is prior to Buddhism and yet is a mark of Buddhistic\nteaching, so between the two religions there are many points of\nsimilarity which may be admitted without compromising the genuineness\nof the Brahmanic teaching. For Buddhism in its morality is anything\nbut original.[57]\n\nAnother bit of instruction from the Book of Peace illustrates the\nattitude of the slave just referred to. In sharp contrast to what one\nwould expect from a Buddhist, this slave, who is a hunter, claims that\nhe is justified in keeping on with his murderous occupation because it\nis his caste-occupation; whereas, as a Buddhist he ought to have\nrenounced it if he thought it sinful, without regard to the\ncaste-rule. The Book of Peace lays it down as a rule that the giving\nup of caste-occupation is meritorious if the occupation in itself is\niniquitous, but it hedges on the question to the extent of saying\nthat, no matter whether the occupation be sinful or not, if it is an\ninherited occupation a man does not do wrong to adhere to it. This is\nliberal Brahmanism. The rule reads as follows: \"Actors,\nliquor-dealers, butchers, and other such sinners are not justified in\nfollowing such occupations, _if they are not born to the profession\n(i.e_., if they are born to it they are justified in following their\ninherited occupation). Yet if one has inherited such a profession it\nis a noble thing to renounce it.\"[58]\n\nThe marks of Buddhistic influence on which we would lay greater stress\nare found not in the fact that Mudgala refuses heaven (iii. 261. 43),\nor other incidents that may be due as well to Brahmanism as to\nBuddhism, but in such passages of the pseudo-epical Book of Peace as\nfor example the _dharmyas panth[=a]s_ of xii. 322. 10-13; the\nconversation of the female beggar, _bhikshuk[=i]_, with the king in\n321. 7, 168; the _buddha_ of 289. 45; the Buddhistic phraseology of\n167. 46; the remark of the harlot Pingal[=a] in 174. 60:\n_pratibuddh[=a] 'smi j[=a]g[r.]mi_ (I am 'awakened' to a sense of sin\nand knowledge of holiness), and the like phrase in 177. 22:\n_pratibuddho 'smi_.[59] Of especial importance is the shibboleth\nNirv[=a]na which is often used in the epic. There seems, indeed, to be\na subtile connection between \u00c7ivaism and Buddhism. Buddhism rejects\npantheism, \u00c7ivaism is essentially monotheism. Both were really\nreligions of the lower classes. It is true that the latter was\naffected and practiced by those of high rank, but its strength lay\nwith the masses. Thus while Vishnuism appealed to the contemplative\nand philosophical (R[=a]maism), as well as to the easy-going middle\nclasses (Krishinaism), \u00c7ivaism with its dirty asceticism, its orgies\nand Bacchanalian revels, its devils and horrors generally, although\ncombined with a more ancient philosophy, appealed chiefly to the\nmagic-monger and the vulgar. So it is that one finds, as one of his\ntitles in the thirteenth book, that \u00c7iva is 'the giver of Nirv[=a]na,'\n(xiii. 16. 15). But if one examines the use of this word in other\nparts of the epic he will see that it has not the true Buddhistic\nsense except in its literal physical application as when the\n_nirv[=a][n.]a_ (extinguishing) of a lamp, iv. 22. 22, is spoken of;\nor the _nirv[=a][n.]a_ of duties (in the Pa\u00f1car[=a]tra 'Upanishad,'\nxii. 340. 67). On the other hand, in sections where the context shows\nthat this must be the case, Nirv[=a]na is the equivalent of 'highest\nbliss' or 'highest _brahma_,' the same with the felicity thus named in\nolder works. This, for instance, is the case in xii. 21. 17; 26. 16,\nwhere Nirv[=a]na cannot mean extinction but absorption, _i.e_., the\n'blowing out' of the individual flame (spirit) of life, only that it\nmay become one with the universal spirit. In another passage it is\ndirectly equated with _sukham brahma_ in the same way (_ib_. 189. 17).\nIf now one turn to the employment of this word in the third book he\nwill find the case to be the same. When the king reproaches his queen\nfor her atheistic opinions in iii. 31. 26 he says that if there were\nno reward for good deeds hereafter \"people would not seek Nirv[=a]na,\"\njust as he speaks of heaven ('immortality') and hell, _ib_. 20 and 19,\nnot meaning thereby extinction but absorption. So after a description\nof that third heaven wherein is Vishnu, when one reads that Mudgala\n\"attained that highest eternal bliss the sign of which is Nirv[=a]na\"\n(iii. 261. 47), he can only suppose that the word means here\nabsorption into _brahma_ or union with Vishnu. In fact Nirv[=a]na is\nalready a word of which the sense has been subjected to attrition\nenough to make it synonymous with 'bliss.' Thus \"the gods attained\nNirv[=a]na by means of Vishnu's greatness\" (iii. 201. 22); and a\nthirsty man \"after drinking water attained Nirv[=a]na,\" _i.e_., the\ndrink made him happy (_ib_. 126. 16). One may best compare the Jain\nNirv[=a]na of happiness.\n\nWhile, therefore, Buddhism seems to have left many manifest traces[60]\nin the later epic the weight of its influence on the early epic may\nwell be questioned. The moral harangues of the earlier books show\nnothing more than is consistent with that Brahmanism which has made\nits way unaided through the greater humanitarianism of the earlier\nUpanishads. At the same time it is right to say that since the poem is\ncomposed after Buddha's time there is no historical certainty in\nregard to the inner connection of belief and morality (as expounded in\nthe epic) with Buddhism. Buddhism, though at a distance, environed\nepic Brahmanism, and may well have influenced it. The objective proofs\nfor or against this are not, however, decisive.\n\nWhether Christianity has affected the epic is another question that\ncan be answered (and then doubtfully) only by drawing a line between\nepic and pseudo-epic. And in this regard the Harivan\u00e7a legends of\nKrishna are to be grouped with the pseudo-epic, of which they are the\nlegitimate if late continuation. Again one must separate teaching from\nlegend. To the Divine Song belong sentiments and phrases that have\nbeen ascribed to Christian influence. Definitive assurance in this\nregard is an impossibility. When Vishnu says (as is said also in the\nUpanishads) \"I am the letter A,\" one may, and probably will, decide\nthat this is or is not an imitation of \"I am alpha,\" strictly in\naccordance with his preconceived opinions. There are absolutely no\nhistorical data to go upon. One may say with tolerable certainty that\nthe Divine Song as a whole is antique, prior to Christianity. But it\nis as unmistakably interpolated and altered. The doctrine of _bhakti_,\nfaithful love as a means of salvation, cannot be much older than the\nSong, for it is found only in the latest Upanishads (as shown by\ncomparing them with those undoubtedly old). But on the other hand the\n_pras[=a]da_ doctrine (of special grace) belongs to a much earlier\nliterature, and there is no reason why the whole theory with its\nstartling resemblance to the doctrine of grace, and its insistence on\npersonal affection for the Lord should not have been self-evolved. The\nold omnipotence of inherited knowledge stops with the Upanishads, To\ntheir authors the Vedas are but a means. They desired wisdom, not\nknowledge. They postulated the desire for the Supreme Spirit as the\ntrue wisdom. From this it is but a step to yearning and love for the\nSupreme. That step is made in the Divine Song. It is recognized by\nearly Buddhism as a Brahmanic trait. Is it necessarily imported from\nChristianity? The proof is certainly lacking. Nor, to one accustomed\nto the middle literature of Hindu religion, is the phraseology so\nstrikingly unique as would appear to be the case. Taken all in all,\nthe teaching of Christianity certainly may be suspected, but it cannot\nbe shown to exist in the Divine Song.\n\nQuite different is the case with the miraculous matter that grew up\nabout the infant Krishna. But here one is out of the epic and dealing\nwith the latest literature in regard to the man-god. This distinction\ncannot be too much insisted upon, for to point first to the teaching\nof the Divine Song and then to the Krishna legends as equally\nreflecting Christianity is to mix up two periods as distinct as\nperiods can be established in Hindu literature. And the result of the\nwhole investigation shows that the proofs of borrowing are as\ndifferent as these\nperiods. The inner Christianity thought to be copied by the re-writer\nof the Divine Song is doubtful in the last degree. The outer\nChristianity reflected in the Puranic legends of Krishna is as\npalpable as it is shocking. Shocking, for here not only are miracles\ntreated grotesquely, but everything that is meant spiritually in the\nOccident is interpreted physically and carnally. The love of the\nBridegroom is sensual; the brides of God are drunken dancing girls.\n\nThe 'coincidences,' as some scholars marvellously regard them, between\nthe legends of Christ and Krishna are too extraordinary to be accepted\nas such. They are direct importations, not accidental coincidences.\nWhatever is most marvellous in the accounts of Christianity finds\nitself here reproduced in Krishnaism. It is not in the doctrine of\n_avatars_, which resembles the doctrine of the Incarnation,[61] it is\nin the totality of legends connected with Krishna that one is forced\nto see Christian influence. The scenes of the nativity, the adoration\nof the magi, the miracles during the Saviour's childhood, the\ntransfiguration, and other stories of Christ are reproduced with\nastonishing similarity. One may add to this the Christmas festival,\nwhere Krishna is born in a stable, and the use of certain\nchurch-utensils in the temple-service. Weber has proved by collecting\nand explaining these 'coincidences,'[62] that there must be identity\nof origin. It remains only to ask from which side is the borrowing?\nConsidering how late are these Krishna legends in India[63] there can\nbe no doubt that the\nHindu borrowed the tales, but not the name; for the last assumption is\nquite improbable because Krishna (=Christ?) is native enough, and\nVishnu is as old as the Rig Veda. That these tales are of secondary\nimportance, as they are of late origin, is a matter of course. They\nare excrescences upon real Vishnuism (Krishnaism) and the result of\nanthropomorphizing in its fullest extent the image of the man-god, who\nis represented in the epic as the incarnation of the Supreme Spirit.\nThe doctrine of the incarnation is thoroughly Indic. It is Buddhistic\nas well as Brahmanic, and precedes Vishnuism as it does Christianity.\nThe legends are another matter. Here one has to assume direct contact\nwith the Occident.[64] But while agreeing with Weber and disagreeing\nwith Barth in the determination of the relation of this secondary\nmatter, we are unable to agree with Weber in his conclusions in regard\nto the one passage in the pseudo-epic that is supposed by him[65] to\nrefer to a visit to a Christian church in Alexandria. This is the\nfamous episode of the White Island, which, to be sure, occurs in so\nlate a portion of the Book of Peace (xii. 337. 20 ff) that it might\nwell be what Weber describes it as being. But to us it appears to\ncontain no allusion at all to Christianity. The account in brief is as\nfollows: Three priests with the insignificant names \"First, Second,\nThird,\"[66] go to the far North (_di\u00e7 uttar[=a]_) where, in the \"Sea\nof Milk,\" they find an Albion called 'White Island,' perhaps regarded\nas one of the seven or thirteen 'islands,' of which earth consists;\nand there Vishnu is worshipped as the one god by white men of\nextraordinary physical characteristics.\n\nThe fact that the 'one god' is already a hackneyed phrase of\nphilosophy; that there is no resemblance to a trinitarian god; that\nthe hymn sung to this one god contains no trace of Christian\ninfluence, but is on the other hand thoroughly native in tone and\nphraseology, being as follows: \"Victory to thee, thou god with\nlotus-eyes; Reverence to thee, thou creator of all things; Reverence\nbe to thee, O Vishnu;[67] thou Great Person; first-born one\"; all\nthese facts indicate that if the White-islanders are indeed to be\nregarded as foreigners worshipping a strange god, that god is strictly\nmonotheistic and not trinitarian. Weber lays stress on the expression\n'first-born,' which he thinks refers to Christ; but the epithet is old\n(Vedic), and is common, and means no more than 'primal deity.'\n\nThere is much that appears to be foreign in the epic. This passage\nseems rather to be a recollection of some shrine where monotheism\nwithout Christianity was acknowledged. On the other hand, even in the\npseudo-epic, there is much apparently borrowed which yet is altogether\nnative to Brahmanic land and sect. It is not in any passage which is\nproved to be of foreign origin that one reads of the boy of twelve\nyears who entered among the wise men and confuted their reasoning\n(above, p. 382). It is not of course due to Christian influence that\nthe great 'saint of the stake' is taken by the 'king's men,' is\ncrucified (or literally impaled) among thieves, and lives so long that\nthe guard go and tell the king of the miracle;[68] nor is it necessary\nto assume that everything elevated is borrowed. \"When I revile, I\nrevile not again,\" sounds indeed like an echo of Christian teaching,\nbut how thoroughly Hindu is the reason. \"For I know that self-control\nis the door of immortality.\" And in the same breath, with a connection\nof meaning patent only when one regards the whole not as borrowed but\nas native, follow the words that we have ventured to put upon the\ntitle-page of this volume, as the highest and at the same time the\ntruest expression of a religion that in bringing the gods to men\nraised man to equally with God--\"This is a holy mystery which I\ndeclare unto you: There is nothing nobler than humanity.\"[69]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: He appears in different complete\n     manifestations, while Vishnu appears only in part, as a\n     'descent,' _avatar, i.e_., Vishnu is incarnate, \u00c7iva appears\n     whole.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: The original story perhaps antedates the\n     Brahmanic Brahm[=a]. But, for all one knows, when the poem\n     was first written Brahm[=a] was already decadent as chief\n     god. In that case two strata of religious belief have been\n     formally super-imposed, Vishnuism and \u00c7ivaism.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: While agreeing with Telang that the original\n     G[=i]t[=a] is an old poem, we cannot subscribe to his\n     argument (SBE. VIII. p. 19) that the priority of the\n     S[=a]man over the Rig Veda is evidence of antiquity; still\n     less to the argument, p. 21, from the castes.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Compare Manu, i. 7: \"He the subtile,\n     indiscernible, eternal, inconceivable One, who makes all\n     creatures.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Possibly the original opening of another poem.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The _avatars_ of Vishnu are meant. The very\n     knight to whom he speaks is later regarded (in South India)\n     as incarnate god, and today is worshipped as an _avatar_ of\n     Vishnu. The idea of the 'birth-stories' of the Buddhists is\n     thought by some scholars to have been connected historically\n     with the _avatars_ of Vishnu.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: This is one of the notes struck in the later\n     Upanishads, the doctrine of 'special grace,' originating\n     perhaps still earlier in the V[=a]c hymn (see above).]\n\n     [Footnote 8: That is, one that also has no desires may act\n     (without desiring the fruit of action.)]\n\n     [Footnote 9: This is a S[=a]nkhya division.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: This cleverly contrived or profound\n     universality of Vishnuism is one of the greatest obstacles\n     to missionary effort. The Vishnuite will accept Christ, but\n     as a form of Vishnu, as here explained. Compare below: \"Even\n     they that sacrifice to other gods really sacrifice to Me.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Prakriti (_prak[r.]t[=i]_), nature; the term\n     belongs to the S[=a]nkhya philosophy, which recognizes\n     nature as distinct from spirit, a duality, opposed to\n     _adv[=a]ita_, the non-duality of the Ved[=a]nta system,\n     where the S[=a]nkhya 'nature' is represented by\n     _m[=a]y[=a]_, 'illusion.' Otherwise the word Prakrit is the\n     'natural,' vulgar dialect, opposed to Sanskrit, the refined,\n     'put-together' language.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Saints, literally 'the successful ones.']\n\n     [Footnote 13: Alluding to the later derivation of Yama from\n     _yam_, control.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: \"The letter A,\" as in the Upanishads (see\n     above, p. 226).]\n\n     [Footnote 15: Compare a parallel list of diadochoi in xii.\n     349. 51.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: One of the Jaina traits of the epic,\n     _brahm[=a]di[s.]u t[r.]u[=a]nte[s.]u bh[=u]te[s.]u\n     parivartate_, in distinction from the Buddhistic\n     metempsychosis, which stops short of plants. But perhaps it\n     is rather borrowed from the B[.r]ahman by the Jain, for\n     there is a formal acknowledgment that _sth[=a]var[=a]s_\n     'stationary things,' have part in metempsychosis, Manu, xii.\n     42, although in the distribution that follows this is almost\n     ignored (vs. 58).]\n\n     [Footnote 17: It is rather difficult to compress the list\n     into this number. Some of the names are perhaps later\n     additions.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: In contrast one may note the frequent boast\n     that a king 'fears not even the gods,' _e.g._, i. 199. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Later there are twenty-one worlds analogous lo\n     the twenty-one hells.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Elsewhere, oh the other hand, the islands are\n     four or seven, the earlier view.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: iii. 142. The boar-shape of Vishnu is a\n     favorite one, as is the dwarf-incarnation. Compare\n     V[=a]mana, V[=a]manaka, Vishnupada, in the list of holy\n     watering-places (iii. 83). Many of Vishnu's acts are simply\n     transferred from Brahm[=a], to whom they belonged in older\n     tales. Compare above, p.215.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: In i. 197, Praj[=a]pati the Father-god, is the\n     highest god, to whom Indra, as usual, runs for help. \u00c7iva\n     appears as a higher god, and drives Indra into a hole, where\n     he sees five former Indras; and finally Vishnu comes on to\n     the stage as the highest of all, \"the infinite,\n     inconceivable, eternal, the All in endless forms.\" Brahm[=a]\n     is invoked now and then in a perfunctory way, but no one\n     really expects him to do anything. He has done his work,\n     made the castes, the sacrifice, and (occasionally)\n     everything. And he will do this again when the new aeon\n     begins. But for this aeon his work is accomplished.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Thus in XII. 785. 165: \"Neither Brahm[=a] nor\n     Vishnu is capable of understanding the greatness of \u00c7iva.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Or \"three eyes.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 25: Compare III. 39. 77: \"The destroyer of\n     Daksha's sacrifice.\" Compare the same epithet in the hymn to\n     \u00c7iva, X. 7. 3, after which appear the devils who serve \u00c7iva.\n     Such devils, in the following, feast on the dead upon the\n     field of battle, though, when left to themselves, 'midnight\n     is the hour when the demons swarm,' III. 11. 4 and 33. In X.\n     18 and XIII. 161 \u00c7iva's act is described in full.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: \u00c7iva, called Bhava, \u00c7arva, the trident-holder,\n     the Lord ([=I]\u00e7[=a]na), \u00c7ankara, the Great God, etc.,\n     generally appears at his best where the epic is at its\n     worst, the interpolations being more flagrant than in the\n     case of Vishnuite eulogies. The most devout worshipper of\n     Vishnu is represented as an adherent of \u00c7iva, as invoking\n     him for help after fighting with him. He is \"invincible\n     before the three worlds.\" He is the sun; his blood is ashes.\n     All the gods, with Brahm[=a] at their head, revere him. He\n     has three heads, three faces, six arms (compare iii. 39. 74\n     ff.; 83. 125); though other passages give him more.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: \u00c7iva has as sign the bull: Vishnu, the boar.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: ZDMG. xxxviii. pp. 197, 200.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: _Lit. u. Cultur_, p. 461.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: Holtzmann now says (in _Neunzehn B\u00fccher_, p.\n     198) that the whole episode which terminates with Baladeva's\n     visit an addition to the original. Holtzmann's monograph on\n     Brahm[=a] is in ZDMG. xxxviii. 167.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: A good example is that of the two visions of\n     Arjuna, first the vision of Vishnu, then another vision of\n     \u00c7iva, whom Arjuna and Vishnu visit (vii. 80).]\n\n     [Footnote 32: \u00c7ankara and \u00c7iva mean almost the same; 'giver\n     of blessings' and 'prospering' (or 'kindly'), respectively.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: _Brahma[n.]as sumahotsavas_ (compare the\n     commentator). The _sam[=a]ja_ of Brahm[=a] may be explained\n     by that of \u00c7iva mentioned in the same place and described\n     elsewhere (iv. 13. 14 ff.; i. 164. 20).]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Not _sleeping_, Vishnu, despite _svapimi_,\n     does not slumber; he only muses.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: Man (divine) and god human, but N[=a]r[=a]yana\n     is a new name of Vishnu, and the two are reckoned as two\n     inseparable seers (divinities).]\n\n     [Footnote 36: This is the only really trinitarian passage in\n     the epic. In i. 1. 32; xiii. 16. 15, the belief may be\n     indicated, but not certainly, as it is in Hariv. 10,662. See\n     on this point Holtzroann, ZDMG. xxxviii. p. 204. In xiv. 54.\n     14 the form is V[=i]shnu, Brahm[=a], Indra.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Compare 339. 114, \"thou art\n     _pa\u00f1camah[=a]kalpa_.\" The commentator gives the names of\n     five sects, S[=a]ura, \u00c7[=a]kta, G[=a]ne\u00e7a, \u00c7[=a]iva,\n     Vaishnava. The 'five times,' implied in Pa\u00f1cak[=a]ta, he\n     says are day, night, month, seasons, and year (_ib_. 66). In\n     340. 117 (which chapter is Pancar[=a]tric), Brahm[=a] \"knows\n     that Vishnu is superior.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 38: V[=a]j. S. xvi. 1-66; T[=a]itt. S. iv. 5.\n     1-11.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: \u00c7iva has no ordinary sacrifice: he is (as\n     above) in general a destroyer of sacrifice, _i.e_., of Vedic\n     sacrifice; but as Pa\u00e7upati, \"Lord of beasts,\" he claims the\n     bloody sacrifice of the first beast, man.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: The usual opinion is that phallic worship was\n     a trait of southern tribes foisted upon northern \u00c7ivaism.\n     Philosophically \u00c7ivaism is first monotheistic and then\n     pantheistic, To-day it is nominally pantheistic but really\n     it is dualistic.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: There are indications in this passage of some\n     sectarian feeling, and the fear of partisan warfare (229);\n     in regard to which we add from Muir and Holtzmann the\n     passage XII. 343. 121, where is symbolized a peaceful issue\n     of war between Vishnuism and \u00c7ivaism.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: Grahas are also planets, but in this cult they\n     are not astrological, as show their names.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: They are possibly old, as Weber thinks, but\n     they seem to have nothing in common with the ancient female\n     divinities.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: Compare another hymn to Durg[=a] in IV. 6. 5\n     ff. (late). Durgi was probably an independent local deity,\n     subsequently regarded as \u00c7iva's female side. She plays a\n     great r\u00f4le, under various names, in the 'revived'\n     literature, as do the love-god and Gane\u00e7a. In both hymns she\n     is 'Vishnu's sister,' and in IV. 6 a 'pure virgin.']\n\n     [Footnote 45: One comparatively new god deserves a passing\n     mention, Dharma's son, K[=a]ma, the (Grecian?) love-god,\n     'the mind-shaker,' 'the limbless one,' whose arrows are like\n     those of Cupid (I. 66. 32; 171. 34; III. 46. 2). He is an\n     adventitious addition to the epic. His later name of Ananga\n     occurs in XII. 59. 91. In I. 71. 41 and 171. 40 he is\n     Manmatha. The Atharvan god also has darts, III. 25, a mark\n     of this latest Veda.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: Compare ii. 22. 18: \"Great holiness, great\n     glory, penance, death in battle, these are each respectively\n     productive of heaven; the last alone is a sure cause.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 47: This description and the sentiments are quite\n     late. The same sort of heaven (without the philosophical\n     bitterness, with which compare above, p. 229) is, however,\n     found in other passages, somewhat augmented with nymphs and\n     facile goddesses.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: This doctrine is supposed by some scholars to\n     be due to outside influence, but the doubt is not\n     substantiated, and even in the Rig Veda one passage appears\n     to refer to it. Doubtless, however, the later expanded view,\n     with its complicated reckonings, may have been touched by\n     foreign influence.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: _Na [=a]san s[=a]ma-[r.]g-yajur-varn[=a]s_. In\n     xii. 342. 8 the order is Rik-Yajus-Atharvan-S[=a]man. The\n     habit of putting S[=a]man instead of Rik at the head of the\n     Vedas is still kept in the late litany to \u00c7iva, who is \"the\n     S[=a]man among the Vedas\" meaning, of course, the first and\n     best. In the same place, \"\u00c7iva is the Itih[=a]sa\" epic\n     (xiii. 14. 323; and _ib_. 17. 78, 91), for the epic\n     outweighs all the Vedas in its own estimation.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: iii. 149. 14; 188. 22; 189. 32; probably with\n     a recollection of the colors of the four castes, white, red,\n     yellow, black. According to xii. 233. 32, there is no\n     sacrifice in the Krita age, but, beginning with the Tret[=a]\n     age, there is a general diffusion of sacrifice in the\n     Dv[=a]para age. In another passage of the same book it is\n     said that marriage laws arose in the Dv[=a]para age (207. 38\n     ff.).]\n\n     [Footnote 51: The teaching varies somewhat in the allotment\n     of years. See Manu, I. 67.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Weber thinks, on the other hand, that the\n     parties represent respectively, \u00c7iva and Vishuu worship,\n     _Ind. St_. i. 206.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: This book also is closely in touch with the\n     later Pur[=a]nas. For instance, Citragupta, Yama's\n     secretary, is known only to the books of the pseudo-epic,\n     the Vishnu Pur[=a]na, the Padma Pur[=a]na, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 54: _Neunzehn B\u00fccher_, p. 86.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: The epic does not care much for castes in some\n     passages. In one such it is said that members of all castes\n     become priests when they go across the Gomal, iii. 84. 48.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: xii. 319. 87 ff. _(pr[=a]pya j[=n][=a]nam_ ...\n     _\u00e7[=u]dr[=a]d api_); xii. 328. 49 (_\u00e7r[=a]vayee caturo\n     var[n.][=a]n_). The epic regards itself as more than\n     equivalent (_adhikam)_ to the four Vedas, i. 1. 272.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: Some ascribe the _sams[=a]ra_ doctrine to\n     Buddhistic influence--a thesis supported only by the fact\n     that this occurs in late Brahmanic passages and Upanishads.\n     But the assumption that Upanishads do not precede Buddha is\n     scarcely tenable. The Katha, according to Weber (_Sits.\n     Berl. Ak._ 1890, p. 930), is late (Christian!): according to\n     Oldenberg and Whitney, early (_Buddha_, p. 56; _Proc. AOS._\n     May, 1886).]\n\n     [Footnote 58: xii. 295. 5-6.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: Noteworthy is the fact that parts of the\n     \u00c7ivaite thirteenth book seem to be most Buddhistic (ch. i.;\n     143. 48, etc.), and monotheistic (16. 12 ff.): though the\n     White Islanders are made Vishnuite in the twelfth. Compare\n     Holtzmann, _ad. loc_.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: Nirv[=a]na, loosely used; termini technici;\n     possibly the evils of the fourth age; the mention of\n     (Buddhist) temples, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: On this point we agree neither with Weber, who\n     regards the _avatars_ as an imitation of the Incarnation\n     (_Ind. St._ ii. p. 169), nor with Schroeder, who (_Literatur\n     und Cultur_, p. 330) would derive the notion from the\n     birth-stories of Buddha. In our opinion the _avatar_-theory\n     is older than either and is often only an assimilation of\n     outlying totem-gods to the Brahman's god, or as in the case\n     of the flood-story the necessary belief that the 'fish' must\n     have been the god of the race. Some of these _avatars_ are\n     Brahmanic, presumably pre-Buddhistic.]\n\n     [Footnote 62: Krishna's Geburtsfest (_janm[=a][s.]tam[=i]),_\n     1867.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: Since they do not appear till after the real\n     epic we date them tentatively as arising after 600 A.D. Most\n     of them are in still later Pur[=a]nas.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: Incidental rapport with the Greeks has been\n     pointed out in other instances; the _surang[=a]_, a mine, of\n     the late tale in i. 148. 12, etc (_Ind. St._ ii. p. 395),\n     has been equated with syrinx; Skanda with Alexander, etc. It\n     is needless to say that each of these is only a guess in\n     etymology. But Greek influence is perceptible in the Greek\n     soldiers and names of (Greek) kings that are found in the\n     epic.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: _Ind. St._ i. 423; ii. 169. Weber believes\n     that little is native to India which resembles Christianity\n     in the way of theology; lore of God, special grace,\n     monotheism, all to him are stolen. We regret that we must\n     disagree with him in these instances.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Ekata, Dvita, Trita. A Dvita appears as early\n     as the Rig Veda. Ekata is an analogous formation and is old\n     also.]\n\n     [Footnote 67: Hrish[=i]ke\u00e7a is 'lord of senses,' a common\n     epithet of Vishnu (Krishna).]\n\n     [Footnote 68: i. 107. 1 ff. The spirits of the dead come to\n     him and comfort him in the shape of birds--an old trait,\n     compare B[=a]udh. Dh. \u00c7[=a]st. ii. 8. 14. 10; \u00c7at. Br. vi.\n     1. 1. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 69: xii. 300. 20.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE PUR[=A]NAS.--EARLY SECTS, FESTIVALS, THE TRINITY.\n\n\nArchaeologia, 'ancient lore,' is the meaning of Pur[=a]na\n_(pur[=a]na_, 'old'). The religious period represented by the extant\nwritings of this class is that which immediately follows the\ncompletion of the epic.[1] These works, although they contain no real\nhistory, yet reflect history very plainly, and since the advent and\ninitial progress of Puranic Hinduism, with its various cults, is\ncontemporary with important political changes, it will be necessary\nbriefly to consider the circumstances in which arose these new creeds,\nfor they were destined to become in the future the controlling force\nin the development of Hindu religion.\n\nIn speaking of the extension of Buddhism we showed that its growth was\ninfluenced in no small degree by the fact that this caste-less and,\ntherefore, democratic religion was adopted by post-Alexandrine rulers\nin the Graeco-Bactrian period. At this time the Aryans were surrounded\nwith foreigners and pagans. To North and South spread savage or half\nHinduized native tribes, while soldiers of Greece and Bactria encamped\nin the valley of the Ganges. Barbarians had long been active in the\nNorth, and some scholars have even claimed that Buddha's own family\nwas of Turanian origin. The Brahmans then as now retained their\nprestige only as being repositories of ancient wisdom; and outside of\ntheir own 'holy land' their influence was reduced to a minimum by the\nsocial and political tendencies that accompanied the growth of\nBuddhism. After the fourth century B.C. the heart of India, the\n'middle district,' between the Him[=a]laya and Vindhya mountains from\nDelhi to Benares,[2] was trampled upon by one Graeco-Bactrian horde\nafter another. The principal effect of this rude dominion was\neventually to give political equality to the two great rival\nreligions. The Buddhist and the Brahman lived at last if not\nharmoniously, at least pacifically, side by side. Members of the same\nreigning family would profess Buddhism or Brahmanism indifferently.\nOne king would sometimes patronize both religions. And this continued\nto be the case till Buddhism faded out, replaced by that Hinduism\nwhich owed its origin partly to native un-Aryan influence (paganism),\npartly to this century-long fusion of the two state religions.\n\nTo review these events: In the first decades of the fourth century\n(320 or 315-291 B.C.) Candragupta, Sandrocottos, had built up a\nmonarchy in Beh[=a]r[3] on the ruins left by the Greek invasion,\nsharing his power with Seleucus in the Northwest, and had thus\nprepared the way for his grandson, A\u00e7oka, the great patron of Buddhism\n(264 or 259). This native power fell before the hosts of Northern\nbarbarians, which, after irruptions into India in the second century,\ngot a permanent foothold there in the first century B.C. These\nNorthern barbarians (their nationality is uncertain), whose greatest\nking was Kanishka, 78 A.D., ruled for centuries the land they had\nseized; but they were vanquished at last in the sixth century,\nprobably by Vikram[=a]ditya,[4] and were driven out. The\nbreathing-space between Northern barbarian and Mohammedan was\nnominally not a long one, but since the first Moslem conquests had no\ndefinitive result the new invaders did not quite overthrow Hindu rule\ntill the end of the tenth century. During this period the native\nun-Aryan tribes, with their Hinduizing effect, were more destructive\nas regards the maintenance of the old Brahmanic cult than were\noutsiders.[5]\n\nWhen Tamerlane invaded India his was the fourth invasion after the\nconquest of the Punj[=a]b by the Moslem in 664.[6] In 1525 the fifth\nconqueror, Baber, fifth too in descent from Tamerlane, founded the\nMogul empire that lasted till the fall of this dynasty (nominally till\n1857). But it must be remembered that each new conqueror from 997 till\n1525 merely conquered old Mohammedan dynasties with new invasions. It\nwas all one to the Hindu. He had the Mohammedan with him all this time\nonly each new rival's success made his lot the harder, But Baber's\ngrandson, the Great Mogul, Akbar (who reigned from 1556 to 1605), gave\nthe land not only peace but kindness; and under him Jew, Christian,\nHindu, and Mohammedan at last forgot to fear or fight. After this\nthere is only the overthrow of the Mohammedan power to record; and the\nrise of the Mahratta native kingdoms. A new faith resulted from the\namalgamation of Hinduism with Mohammedism (after 1500), as will be\nshown hereafter. [8] In the pauses before the first Mohammedan\ninvasion, and between the first defeat of the Mohammedans and their\nsuccessful second conquest, the barbarians being now expelled and\nBuddhism being decadent, Brahmanism rallied. In the sixth century\nthere was toleration for all faiths. In the seventh century\nKum[=a]rila renewed the strength of Brahmanism on the ritualistic side\nwith attacks on Buddhism, and in the ninth century \u00c7ankara placed the\nphilosophy of unsectarian pantheism on a firm basis by his commentary\non the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tra.[7] These two men are the re-makers of\nancient Brahmanism, which from this time on continued in its\nstereotyped form, adopting Hindu gods very coyly, and only as spirits\nof small importance, while relying on the laws as well as the gods of\nold, on holy _[=a]c[=a]ra_ or 'custom,' and the now systematized\nexposition of its old (Upanishad) philosophy.[8] Its creative force\nwas already spent. Buddhism, on the other hand, was dying a natural\ndeath. The time was ripe for Hinduism, which had been gathering\nstrength for centuries. After the sixth century, and perhaps even as\nlate as 1500, or later, were written the modern Pur[=a]nas, which\nembody the new belief.[9] They cannot, on account of the distinct\nadvance in their cult, have appeared before the end of the epic age.\nThe breathing spell (between barbarian and complete Mohammedan\nconquest) which gave opportunity to Kum[=a]rila to take a high hand\nwith Buddhism, was an opportunity also for the codification of the new\ncreeds. It is, therefore, to this era that one has probably to refer\nthe first of the modern sectarian Pur[=a]nas, though the ritualistic\nTantras and [=A]gamas of the lower \u00c7ivaite sects doubtless belong\nrather to the end than to the beginning of the period. We are\nstrengthened in this belief by the fact that the oldest of these works\ndo not pretend to antedate Kum[=a]rila's century, though the sects\nmentioned in the epic are known in the first centuries of the\nChristian era. The time from the first to the seventh centuries one\nmay accordingly suppose to have been the era during which was\ndeveloping the Brahmanized form of the early Hindu sects, the\nliterature of these and subsequent sects being composed in the\ncenturies succeeding the latter term. These sects again divide into\nmany subdivisions, of which we shall speak below. At present we take\nup the character of the Pur[=a]nas and their most important points of\ndifference as compared with the sectarian parts of the earlier\npseudo-epic, examining especially the trinitarian doctrine, which they\ninculcate, and its history.\n\nSave in details, even the special 'faith-scriptures' called Tantras go\nno further than go the Pur[=a]nas in advocating the cult of their\nparticular divinities. And to this advocacy of special gods all else\nin this class of writings is subordinated. The ideal Pur[=a]na is\ndivided into five parts, cosmogony, new creations, genealogies of gods\nand heroes, _manvantaras_ (descriptions of periodic 'ages,' past and\nfuture), and dynasties of kings. But no extant Pur[=a]na is divided\nthus. In the epic the doctrine of trinitarianism is barely formulated.\nEven in the Harivan\u00e7a, or Genealogy, _va[.n]\u00e7a_, of Vishnu, there is\nno more than an inverted triunity, 'one form, three gods,' where, in\nreality, all that is insisted upon is the identity of Vishnu and \u00c7iva,\nBrahm[=a] being, as it were, perfunctorily added.[10] In the\nPur[=a]nas, on the other hand, while the trinity is acknowledged,\nreligion is resolved again into a sort of sectarian monotheism, where\nthe devotee seems to be in the midst of a squabbling horde of\ntemple-priests, each fighting for his own idol. In the calmer aspects\nof religion, apart from sectarian schism, these writings offer,\nindeed, much that is of second-rate interest, but little that is of\nreal value. The idle speculations in regard to former divinities are\nhere made cobweb thin. The philosophy is not new, nor is the spirit of\nreligion raised, even in the most inspired passages, to the level\nwhich it has reached in the Divine Song. Some of these Pur[=a]nas, of\nwhich eighteen chief are cited, but with an unknown number of\nsubordinate works,[11] may claim a respectable age; many of them are\nthe most wretched stuff imaginable, bearing about the same literary\nand historical relation to earlier models as do the later legal\nSmritis. In fact, save for their religious (sectarian) purport, the\nPur[=a]nas for sections together do not differ much in content from\nlegal Smritis, out of which some may have been evolved, though,\nprobably, they were from their inception legendary rather than\ndidactic. It is more probable, therefore, that they appropriated\nSmriti material just as they did epic material; and though it is now\nreceived opinion that legal Smritis are evolved out of S[=u]tras, this\nyet can be the case only with the oldest, even if the statement then\ncan be accepted in an unqualified form. In our own opinion it is\nhighly probable that Pur[=a]nas and later legal Smritis are divergent\ndevelopments from the same source.[12] One gives an account of\ncreation, and proceeds to tell about the social side; the other sticks\nto the accounts of creation, goes on to theology, takes up tales of\nheroes, introduces speculation, is finally wrenched over to and\namplified by sectarian writers, and so presents a composite that\nresembles epic and law, and yet is generally religious and\nspeculative.\n\nA striking instance of this may be seen in the law-book of 'Vishnu.'\nHere there is an old base of legal lore, S[=u]tra, interlarded with\nPuranic material, and built up with sectarianism. The writer is a\nVishnuite, and while recognizing the trinity, does not hesitate to\nmake his law command offerings to Krishna V[=a]sudeva, and his family\n(Pradyumna, Aniruddha), along with the regular Brahmanic oblations to\nolder spirits.[13] Brahmanism recognized Hindu deities as subordinate\npowers at an early date, at least as early as the end of the S[=u]tra\nperiod; while Manu not only recognizes Vishnu and \u00c7iva (Hara), but\nrecommends an oblation to \u00c7r[=i] and K[=a]l[=i] (Bhadrak[=a]li, here,\nas elsewhere, is Durg[=a]).[14]\n\nIn their original form the Pur[=a]nas were probably Hesiodic in a\ngreat extent, and doubtless contained much that was afterwards\nspecially developed in more prolix form in the epic itself. But the\nworks that are come down as Pur[=a]nas are in general of later\nsectarian character, and the epic language, phraseology, and\ndescriptions of battles are more likely taken straight from the epic\nthan preserved from ante-epic times. Properly speaking one ought to\ngive first place to the Pur[=a]nas that are incorporated into the\nepic. The epic M[=a]rkandeya Pur[=a]na, for instance, is probably a\ngood type of one of the earlier works that went by this name. That the\npresent Pur[=a]nas are imitations of the epic, in so far as they treat\nof epic topics, may be presumed from the fact that although they often\nhave the formulae intact of the battlefield,[15] yet do they not\nremain by epic descriptions but add weapons, etc., of more modern date\nthan are employed in the original.[16]\n\nThe sectarian monotheism of the Pur[=a]nas never resulted in\ndispensing with the pantheon. The Hindu monotheist is a pantheist, and\nwhether sectarian or philosophical, he kept and added to his\npantheon.[17] Indra is still for warriors, Maruts for husbandmen,\nalthough old views shift somewhat. So for example, in the K[=u]rma\nPur[=a]na the Gandharvas are added for the \u00c7[=u]dras.[18] The\nfourfoldness, which we have shown in the epic to be characteristic of\nVishnu, is now represented by the military epithet _caturvy[=u]has_\n(agmen quadratum), in that the god represents peace, wisdom, support,\nand renunciation; though, as a matter of fact, he is _avy[=u]ha,\ni.e_., without any of these.[19] Starting with the physical 'god of\nthe four quarters,' one gets even in the epic the 'controller of\nfour,' or perfect person, conceived like [Greek: an\u00ear tetrag\u00f4nos].\nTennyson's 'four-square to all the winds that blow' is a good\nconnecting link in the thought. The Pur[=a]nas are a mine of legend,\nalthough most of the stories seem to be but epic tales, more or less\ndistorted. Nala 'the great-great-grandson of R[=a]ma' is described\nafter the history of R[=a]ma himself; the installation of P[=u]ru,\nwhen his father had passed over his eldest son, and such reminiscences\nof the epic are the stock in trade of the legendary writers.[20]\n\nThe origin of the four castes;[21] the descriptions of hell,\nsomewhat embellished,[22] where the 'sinful are cooked in fire';[23] the\nexaltation of Vishnu as Krishna or K[=a]ma in one, and that of \u00c7iva in\nanother--these and similar aspects are reflections of epic matter,\nspirit, tone, and language, only the faith is still fiercer in\nreligious matters, and the stories are fainter in historical\nreferences. According to the Pur[=a]na last cited: \"There is no\nexpiation for one that bows to a phallic emblem,\" _i.e_., \u00c7ivaite, and\n\"all the B[=a]uddhas are heretics\";[24] and according to the K[=u]rma\nPur[=a]na: \"Vishnu is the divinity of the gods; \u00c7iva, of the devils,\"\nalthough the preceding verses teach, in the spirit of the Divine Song,\nthat each man's divinity is that which he conceives to be the\ndivinity. Such is the concluding remark made by Vasistha in\nadjudicating the strife between the Vishnuite and \u00c7ivaite sectaries of\nthe epic heroes.[25] The relation that the Puranic literature bears to\nreligion in the minds of its authors is illustrated by the remark of\nthe N[=a]rad[=i]ya to the effect that the god is to be honored \"by\nsong, by music, by dance, and by recounting the Pur[=a]nas\" (xvii. 9).\n\nSome of the epic religious ceremonies which there are barely alluded\nto are here described with almost the detail of a technical handbook.\nSo the N[=a]nd[=i]ya (xix.) gives an elaborate account of the raising\nof a _dhvaja_ or standard as a religious ceremony.[26] The legal rules\naffecting morality and especially caste-intercourse[27] show a laxity\nin regard to the rules as formerly preached. Even the old Puranic form\nof the epic is reproduced, as when M[=a]rkandeya converses again with\nYudhistris, exactly as he does in the epic.[28] The duration of the\nages; the fruit of sacrifices, among which are still mentioned the\n_r[=a]jas[=u]ya, a\u00e7vamedha_, and other ancient rites;[29] the virtue\nof holy-places;[30] the admixture of pure pantheism with the idea of a\npersonal creation[31]--these traits are again just those which have\nbeen seen already in the epic, nor is the addition of sections on\ntemple-service, or other more minute details of the cult, of\nparticular importance in a history of religious ideas.\n\nThe Pur[=a]nas for our present purpose may all be grouped with the\nremark that what is ancient in them is a more or less fugitive\nresemblance to the epic style and matter;[32] what is new is the more\npronounced sectarianism with its adventitious growth of subordinate\nspiritualities and exaggerated miracles. Thus for instance in the\nVar[=a]ha Pur[=a]na there are eleven, in the Bh[=a]gavat Pur[=a]na\ntwenty (instead of the older ten) _avatars_ of Vishnu. So too the god\nof love--although K[=a]ma and his dart are recognized in the late\nAtharvan--as a petty spirit receives homage only in the latest\nS[=u]tra (as Cupid, [=A]pastamba, ii, 2. 4. 1), and in late additions\nto the epic he is a little god; whereas in the drama he is prominent,\nand in the Pur[=a]nas his cult is described at length (though to-day\nhe has no temple). The 'mother'-fiend P[=u]tan[=a], who suckles babes\nto slay them, is scarcely known to the early epic, but she is a very\nreal personality in the late epic and Pur[=a]nas.\n\nThe addition to the trinity of the peculiar inferior godhead that is\nadvocated in any one Pur[=a]na, virtually making four divinities, is\ncharacteristic of the period.\n\nIn proportion as sectarian ardor is heightened religious tone is\nlowered. The Puranic votary clinging to his one idea of god curses all\nthem that believe in other aspects of the divinity. Blind bigotry\nfills the worshipper's soul. Religion becomes mere fanaticism. But\nthere is also tolerance. Sometimes in one and the same Pur[=a]na rival\nforms are honored. The modern Hindu sects are in part the direct\ndevelopment of Puranic doctrine. But most of the sects of to-day are\nof very recent date, though their principles are often of respectable\nantiquity, as are too their sectarian signs, as well as the animals of\ntheir gods, some of which appear to be totems of the wild tribes,\nwhile others are merely objects of reverence among certain tribes.\nThus the ram and the elephant are respectively the ancient beasts of\nAgni and Indra. \u00c7iva has the bull; his spouse, the tiger. Earth and\nSkanda have appropriated the peacock, Skanda having the cock also.\nYama has the buffalo (compare the Khond, wild-tribe, substitution of a\nbuffalo for a man in sacrifice). Love has the parrot, etc; while the\nboar and all Vishnu's animals in _avatars_ are holy, being his chosen\nbeasts.[33]\n\n\nEARLY SECTS.\n\nA classification of older sects (the unorthodox) than those of the\npresent remains to us from the works of \u00c7ankara's reputed disciple,\n[=A]nanda Giri, and of M[=a]dhava [=A]c[=a]rya, the former a writer of\nthe ninth, the latter of the fourteenth century. According to the\nstatements made by these writers there were a great number of sects,\nregarded as partly heterodox or wholly so, and it is interesting in\nexamining the list of these to see that some of the epic sects (their\nnames at least) are still in full force, while on the other hand the\nmost important factions of to-day are not known at all; and that many\nsects then existed which must have been at that time of great\nantiquity, although now they have wholly passed away.[34] These last\nare indeed to the author of the critique of the sects not wholly\nheterodox. They are only too emphatic, in worshipping their peculiar\ndivinity, to suit the more modern conceptions of the Hindu reviewer.\nBut such sects are of the highest importance, for they show that\ndespite all the bizarre bigotry of the Pur[=a]nas the old Vedic gods\n(as in the epic) still continue to hold their own, and had their own\nidols and temples apart from other newer gods. The Vedic divinities,\nthe later additions in the shape of the god of love, the god of\nwealth, Kubera,[35] the heavenly bird, Garuda, the world-snake, \u00c7esha,\ntogether with countless genii, spirits, ghosts, the Manes, the\nheavenly bodies, stars, etc., all these were revered, though of less\nimportance than the gods of Vishnuite and \u00c7ivaite sects. Among these\nlatter the \u00c7ivaite sects are decidedly of less interest than the\ncorresponding Vishnuite heresies, while the votaries of Brahm[=a]\n(exclusively) are indeed mentioned, but they cannot be compared with\nthose of the other two great gods.[36] To-day there is scarcely any\nhomage paid to Brahm[=a], and it is not probable that there ever was\nthe same devotion or like popularity in his case as in the case of his\nrivals. Other interesting sects of this period are the\nSun-worshippers, who still exist but in no such numbers as when\n[=A]nand[=a] Giri counted six formal divisions of them. The votaries\nof these sub-sects worshipped some, the rising sun, some, the setting\nsun, while some again worshipped the noonday sun, and others, all\nthree as a _tri-m[=u]rti._ Another division worshipped the sun in\nanthropomorphic shape, while the last awakens the wrath of the\northodox narrator by branding themselves with hot irons.[37]\n\nGane\u00e7a,[38] the lord of \u00c7iva's hosts, had also six classes of\nworshippers; but he has not now as he then had a special and peculiar\ncult, though he has many temples in Benares and elsewhere. Of the\ndeclared \u00c7ivaite sects of that day, six are mentioned, but of these\nonly one survives, the 'wandering' Jangamas of South India, the\n\u00c7ivaite R[=a]udras, Ugras, Bh[=a]ktas, and P[=a]\u00e7upatis having yielded\nto more modern sectaries.\n\nSome at least among the six sects of the Vishnuite sects, which are\ndescribed by the old writers, appear to have been more ancient. Here\ntoo one finds Bh[=a]ktas, and with them the Bh[=a]gavatas, the old\nP[=a]\u00f1car[=a]tras, the 'hermit' V[=a]ikh[=a]nasas, and Karmah[=i]nas,\nthe latter \"having no rites.\" Concerning these sects one gets scanty\nbut direct information. They all worshipped Vishnu under one form or\nanother, the Bh[=a]ktas as V[=a]sudeva, the Bh[=a]gavatas[39] as\nBhagavat. The latter resembled the modern disciples of R[=a]m[=a]nuja\nand revered the holy-stone, appealing for authority to the Upanishads\nand to the Bhagavad Git[=a], the Divine Song. Some too worshipped\nVishnu exclusively\nas N[=a]r[=a]yana, and believed in a heaven of sensual\ndelights. The other sects, now extinct, offer no special forms of\nworship. What is historically most important is that in this list of\nsects are found none that particularly worship the popular divinities\nof to-day, no peculiar cult of Krishna as an infant and no\nmonkey-service.\n\nInfidel sects are numerous in this period, of which sects the worst in\nthe old writers' opinion is the sensual C[=a]rv[=a]ka. Then follow the\n(Buddhist) \u00c7[=u]nyav[=a]ds, who believe in 'void,' and S[=a]ugatas,\nwho believe that religion consists only in kindness, the Kshapanakas,\nand the Jains. The infamous 'left-hand' sectaries are also well known.\n\nTo one side of the Puranic religions, from the earlier time of which\ncomes this account of heresies, reference has been made above: the\ndevelopment of the fables in regard to the infant Krishna. That the\ncult is well known in the later Pur[=a]nas and is not mentioned in\nthis list of wrong beliefs seems to show that the whole cult is of\nmodern growth, even if one does not follow Weber in all his signs of\nmodification of the older practice.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS FESTIVALS.\n\nFor the history of the cult there is in these works much to interest\none in the description and determination of popular festivals in honor\nof the great sectarian gods. Further details of more specific nature\nare given in other works which need not here be regarded. By far the\nmost important of these festivals are those that seem to have been\nabsorbed by the sectarian cults, although they were originally more\npopular. Weber in the paper on the _r[=a]jas[=u]ya_, to which we have\nhad occasion several times to refer, has shown that a popular element\nabided long in the formal celebrations of the Brahmanic ritual.[40]\nis soundly beaten; that gaming creeps into the ceremony as a popular\naspect; that there was a special ceremony to care _katsenjammer_\ncaused by over-drinking; and that the whole ceremony was a popular\nspring festival, such as is found to-day (but without the royal part\nin the play).\n\nUndoubtedly the original celebration was a popular one. Today the most\ninteresting of these popular f\u00eates is in all respects the New Year's\nFestival and the Spring Festival. The latter has been cut up into\nseveral parts, and to show the whole intent of the original ceremonial\nit is necessary to take up the _disjecta membra_ and place them side\nby side, as has been done by Wilson, whose sketch of these two\nfestivals, together with that by Gover of the New Year's Feast called\nPongol, we give in abstract, premising that, however close be the\ncomparison with European festivals of like nature, we doubt\nwhether there is any historical connection between them and the Hindu\ncelebrations.\n\nWe begin with the more popular New Year's, the Pongol:[41] The\ninteresting feature of this South India festival is that the Hindus\nhave done their best to alter its divinities and failed. They have,\nindeed, for Indra and Agni got Krishna formally accepted as the god in\nwhose honor it is supposed to be held, but the feast remains a native\nfestival, and no one really thinks of the Puranic gods in connection\nwith it. Europe also has seen such dynamic alterations of divinities\nin cases where feasts would insist till patrons of an orthodox kind\nwere foisted upon them to give an air of propriety to that which\nremained heathenish.[42] The Pongol is a New Year's festival lasting\nfor three days. The first day is for Indra; the second, for (Agni)\nS[=u]rya;[43] the third (to which is added, as a wind-up, a fourth\nday), for cattle. The whole feast is a harvest-home and celebration of\ncattle. The chief ceremony is the cooking of rice, which is put to\nboil with great solemnity, and luck for the next year is argued from\nits boiling well. If it does so a universal shout arises,[44] all rush\nabout, congratulate, and give presents to each other, and merry-making\nfollows. On the cattle-days the beasts are led about with painted\nhorns and decorated with ribbons, and are then chased and robbed by\nthe boys. The image of Gane\u00e7a is the only one seen, and his worship is\nrather perfunctory. On the evening of the last day the women have a\nparty, paying obeisance to a peacock, and indulging in a family\nreunion of very simple character. On this occasion the girl-wife may\nreturn for a few hours to her mother. It is the only general f\u00eate for\nwomen during the year.\n\nNot unlike this festival of the extreme south is the New Year's\ncelebration at the mouth of the Ganges. Here there is a grand fair and\njewels are cast into the river as propitiation to the river-goddess.\nNot long ago it was quite customary to fling children also into the\nriver, but this usage has now been abolished.[45] Offerings are made\nto the Manes, general and particular, and to the All-gods. As with the\nPongol, the feast is one of good-fellowship where presents are\ndistributed, and its limit is the end of the third day. After this the\nfestivities have no religious character. Thousands of pilgrims\nassemble for this f\u00eate. Wilson, who gives an account of this\ncelebration, compares the ancient Roman New Year's, with the _mutui\namoris pignora_ which were sent at that season. The gifts in India are\nsweetmeats and other delicacies, ominous of good for the next\nyear.[46]\n\nOn the 2d of February occurs a feast to \u00c7r[=i], or Lakshm[=i],\nVishnu's bride, patroness of all prosperity to her worshippers. At\npresent it is a literary festival on which all books, inkstands, pens,\netc., are cleaned and worshipped, as adjuncts to Sarasvat[=i], the\ngoddess of learning. This is rather significant, for Sarasvat[=i] is\nproperly the wife of Brahm[=a], but the Vishnuites of Bengal have made\nher the wife of Vishnu, and identified her with \u00c7r[=i]. It is to be\nnoticed that in this sole celebration of abstract learning and\nliterature there is no recognition of \u00c7iva, but rather of his rival.\n\u00c7iva and Gane\u00e7a are revered because they might impede, not because, as\ndoes Sarasvat[=i], they further literary accomplishment. Sarasvat[=i]\nis almost the only fair goddess. She is represented not as a horror,\nbut as a beautiful woman sitting on a lotus, graceful in shape, a\ncrescent on her brow.[47] The boys, too, celebrate the day with games,\nbat and ball, prisoner's base, and others \"of a very European\ncharacter.\" The admixture of sectarian cults is shown by the\ntransference to this Vishnuite feast of the \u00c7ivaite (Durg[=a])\npractice of casting into the river the images of the goddess.[48] When\napplied distinctly to Sarasvat[=i] the feast is observed in\nAugust-September; when to Lakshm[=i], in October-November, or in\nFebruary. There is, however, another feast, celebrated in the North\nand South, which comes on the exact date fixed by the Romans for the\nbeginning of spring, and as an ending to this there is a feast to\nK[=a]ma, Cupid, and his bride Rati ('Enjoyment'). This is the Vasanta,\nor spring festival of prosperity and love, which probably was the\nfirst form of the Lakshm[=i]-Sarasvat[=i] feast.\n\nAnother traditional feast of this month is the 10th[49] (the eleventh\nlunar day of the light half of M[=a]gha). The eleventh lunar day is\nparticularly holy with the Vishnuites, as is said in the Brahma\nPur[=a]na, and this is a Vishnuite festival. It is a day of fasting\nand prayer, with presents to priests.[50] It appears to be a mixture\nof Vedic prayers and domestic Vishnu-worship. On the 11th of February\nthe fast is continued, and in both the object is expiation of sin. The\nlatter is called the feast of 'six sesamum acts,' for sesamum is a\nholy plant, and in each act of this rite it plays a part. Other rites\nof this month are to the Manes on the 14th, 22d, and 24th of February.\nBathing and oblation are requisite, and all are of a lustral and\nexpiatory nature. Wilson remarks on the fact that it is the same time\nof year in which the Romans gave oblations to the Manes, and\nthat Februus is the god of purification. \"There can be no reasonable\ndoubt that the Feralia of the Romans and the \u00c7r[=a]ddha (feast to the\nManes) of the Hindus, the worship of the Pitris and of the Manes, have\na common character, and had a common origin.\"[51]\n\nThe 27th of February is the greatest \u00c7ivaite day in the year. It\ncelebrates \u00c7iva's first manifestation of himself in phallic form. To\nkeep this day holy expiates from all sin, and secures bliss hereafter.\nThe worshipper must fast and revere the Linga. Offerings are made to\nthe Linga. It is, of course, a celebration formed of unmeaning\nrepetitions of syllables and the invocation of female \u00c7aktis, snapping\nthe fingers, gesticulating, and performing all the humbug called for\nby \u00c7ivaite worship. The Linga is bathed in milk, decorated, wrapped in\n_bilva_ leaves, and prayed to; which ceremony is repeated at intervals\nwith slight changes. All castes, even the lowest, join in the\nexercises. Even women may use the _mantras_.[52] Vigil and fasting are\nthe essentials of this worship.[53]\n\nThe next festival closes these great spring celebrations. It bears two\nnames, and originally was a double feast, the first part being the\nDol[=a] Y[=a]tr[=a], or 'Swing-procession,' the second part being the\nexecrable Holi. They are still kept distinct in some places, and when\nthis occurs the Dolotsava, or Dol[=a] Y[=a]tr[=a], follows the Holi.\nThey are both spring festivals, and answer roughly to May-day, though\nin India they come at the full moon of March. We have followed\nWilson's enumeration of all the minor spring feasts, that they may be\nseen in their entirety. But in ancient times there was probably one\nlong Vasantotsava (spring-festival), which lasted for weeks, beginning\nwith a joyous celebration (2d of February) and continuing with lustral\nceremonies, as indicated by the now detached feast days already\nreferred to. The original cult, in Wilson's opinion, has been changed,\nand the Dol[=a] Y[=a]tr[=a] is now given over to the Krishna-cult,\nwhile the Hol[=i] divinity is a hobgoblin. The Dol[=a] Yatr[=a] begins\nwith fasting and ends (as Hol[=i]) with fire-worship. An image of\nKrishna is sprinkled with red powder (_ab[=i]r_), and after this\n(religious) ceremony a bonfire[54] is made, and an effigy, Holik[=a],\nis put upon it and burned. The figure is carried to the fire in a\nreligious procession headed by Vishnuite or Brahman priests, of course\naccompanied with music and song. After seven circumambulations of the\nfire the figure is burned. This is the united observance of the first\nday. At dawn on the morning of the second day the image of Krishna is\nplaced in a swing, _dol[=a]_, and swung back and forth a few times,\nwhich ceremony is repeated at noon and at sunset. During the day,\nwherever a swing is put up, and in the vicinity, it is the common\nprivilege to sprinkle one's friend with the red powder or red\nrose-water. Boys and common people run about the streets sprinkling\nred water or red powder over all passengers, and using abusive\n(obscene) language. The cow-herd caste is conspicuous at this\nceremony. The cow-boys, collecting in parties under a koryphaios,\nhold, as it were, a komos, leaping, singing, and dancing[55] through\nthe streets, striking together the wands which they carry. These\ncow-boys not only dress (as do others) in new clothes on this\noccasion,[56] but they give their cattle new equipments, and regard\nthe whole frolic as part of a religious rite in honor of Krishna, the\ncow-herd. But all sects take part in the performance (that is to say,\nin the Hol[=i] portion), both \u00c7ivaites and Vishnuites. When the moon\nis full the celebration is at its height. Hol[=i] songs are sung, the\ncrowd throws _ab[=i]r_ the chiefs feast, and an all-night orgy ends\nthe long carousal.[57] In the south the Dol[=a] takes place later, and\nis distinct from the Hol[=i]. The burning here is of K[=a]ma,\ncommemorating the love-god's death by the fire of \u00c7iva's eye, when the\nformer pierced the latter's heart, and inflamed him with love. For\nthis reason the bonfire is made before a temple of \u00c7iva. K[=a]ma is\ngone from the northern cult, and in upper India only a hobgoblin,\nHol[=i], a foul she-devil, is associated with the rite. The whole\nperformance is described and prescribed in one of the late\nPur[=a]nas.[58] In some parts of the country the bonfire of the\nHol[=i] is made about a tree, to which offerings are made, and\nafterwards the whole is set on fire. For a luminous account of the\nHol[=i], which is perhaps the worst open rite of Hinduism,\nparticipated in by all sects and classes, we may cite the words of the\nauthor of _Ante-Brahmanical Religions_: \"It has been termed the\nSaturnalia or Carnival of the Hindus. Verses the most obscene\nimaginable are ordered to be read on the occasion. Figures of men and\nwomen, in the most indecent and disgusting attitudes, are in many\nplaces openly paraded through the streets; the most filthy words are\nuttered by persons who, on other occasions, would think themselves\ndisgraced by the use of them; bands of men parade the street with\ntheir clothes all bespattered with a reddish dye; dirt and filth are\nthrown upon all that are seen passing along the road; all business is\nat a stand, all gives way to license and riot.\"[59]\n\nBesides these the most brilliant festivals are the R[=a]s Y[=a]tr[=a]\nin Bengal (September-October), commemorating the dance of Krishna\nwith the _gop[=i]s_ or milk-maids, and the 'Lamp-festival'\n(D[=i]p[=a]l[=a]), also an autumnal celebration.\n\nThe festivals that we have reviewed cover but a part of the year, but\nthey will suffice to show the nature of such f\u00eates as are enjoined in\nthe Pur[=a]nas. There are others, such as the eightfold[60]\ntemple-worship of Krishna as a child, in July or August; the marriage\nof Krishna's idol to the Tulasi plant; the Awakening of Vishnu, in\nOctober, and so forth. But no others compare in importance with the\nNew Year's and Spring festivals, except the Bengal idol-display of\nJagann[=a]th, the Rath Y[=a]tr[=a] of 'Juggernaut'; and some others of\nlocal celebrity, such as the D[=u]rg[=a]-p[=u]j[=a].[61] The temples,\nto which reference has often been made, have this in common with the\ngreat \u00c7ivaite festivals, that to describe them in detail would be but\nto translate into words images and wall-paintings, the obscenity of\nwhich is better left undescribed. This, of course, is particularly\ntrue of the \u00c7iva temples, where the actual Linga is perhaps, as Barth\nhas said, the least objectionable of the sights presented to the eye\nof the devout worshipper. But the Vishnu temples are as bad.\nArchitecturally admirable, and even wonderful, the interior is but a\ndisplay of sensual immorality.[62]\n\n\nHISTORY OF THE HINDU TRINITY.\n\nIn closing the Puranic period (which name we employ loosely to cover\nsuch sects as are not clearly modern) we pause for a moment to cast a\nglance backwards over the long development of the trinity, to the\nunits of which are devoted the individual Pur[=a]nas. We have shown\nthat the childhood-tales of Krishna are of late (Puranic) origin, and\nthat most of the cow-boy exploits are post-epic. Some are referred to\nin the story of \u00c7i\u00e7up[=a]la in the second book of the\nMah[=a]bh[=a]rata, but this scene has been touched up by a late hand.\nThe Vishnu Pur[=a]na, typical of the best of the Pur[=a]nas, as in\nmany respects it is the most important and interesting, represents\nKrishnaite Vishnuism as its height. Here is described the birth of the\nman-god as a black, _k[r.][s.][n.]a,_ baby, son of Nanda, and his real\ntitle is here Govinda, the cow-boy.[63] 'Cow-boy' corresponds to the\nmore poetical, religious shepherd; and the milk-maids, _gopis_ with\nwhom Govinda dallies as he grows up, may, perhaps, better be rendered\nshepherdesses for the same reason. The idyllic effect is what is aimed\nat in these descriptions. Here Krishna plays his rude and rustic\ntricks, upsetting wagons, overthrowing trees and washermen,\noccasionally killing them he dislikes, and acting altogether much like\na cow-boy of another sort. Here he puts a stop to Indra-worship,\nover-powers \u00c7iva, rescues Aniruddha, marries sixteen thousand\nprincesses, burns Benares, and finally is killed himself, he the one\nborn of a hair of Vishnu, he that is Vishnu himself, who in 'goodness'\ncreates, in 'darkness' destroys,[64] under the forms of Brahm[=a] and\n\u00c7iva.[65]\n\nIn Vishnu, as a development of the Vedic Vishnu; in \u00c7iva, as\naffiliated to Rudra; in Brahm[=a], as the Brahmanic third to these\nsectarian developments, the trinity has a real if remote connection\nwith the triune fire of the Rig Veda, a two-thirds connection, filled\nout with the addition of the later Brahmanic head of the gods.\n\nTo ignore the fact that Vishnu and Rudra-\u00c7iva developed inside the\nBrahmanic circle and increased in glory before the rise of sectaries,\nand to asseverate, as have some, that the two chief characters of the\nlater trinity are an unmeaning revival of decadent gods, whose names\nare used craftily to veil the modernness of Krishnaism and\n\u00c7ivaism,--this is to miscalculate the waxing dignity of these gods in\nearlier Brahmanic literature. To say with Burnouf that the Vishnu of\nthe Veda is not at all the Vishnu of the mythologists, is a statement\nfar too sweeping. The Vishnu of the Veda is not only the same god with\nthe Vishnu of the next era, but in that next era he has become greatly\nmagnified. The Puranic All-god Vishnu stands in as close a relation to\nhis Vedic prototype as does Milton's Satan to the snaky slanderer of\nan age more primitive.\n\n\u00c7iva-worship appears to have been adapted from a local cult in the\nmountainous West, and at an early date to have been amalgamated with\nthat of his next resemblance, the Vedic Rudra; while Krishna-worship\nflourished along the Ganges. These are those Dionysos and Herakles of\nwhom speak the old Greek authorities. One cult is possibly as\nvenerable as the other, but while \u00c7ivaism became Brahmanized early,\nKrishnaism was adopted much later, and it is for this reason, amongst\nothers, that despite its modern iniquities \u00c7iva has appealed more to\nthe Brahman than has Krishna.\n\nMegasthenes tells us a good deal about these Hindu representatives of\nHerakles and Dionysos. According to him there were Dionysiac festivals\nin honor of the latter god (\u00c7iva),[66] who belongs where flourishes\nthe wine, in the A\u00e7vaka district, north of the Kabul river. From this\nplace \u00c7iva's worship extended into the East, M[=a]gadha (Beh[=a]r),\naround Gokarna in the West, and even to the Kalinga country in the\nextreme Southeast. But it was especially native to the mountainous\nNorthwest, about the 'Gate of Ganges' (north of Delhi, near\nSaharampur), and still further north in Kashmeer. In the epic, \u00c7iva\nhas his throne on K[=a]il[=a]sa,[67] the Northern mountain, in the\nHim[=a]layas, and Ganges descend from the sky upon his head.\n\nOn the other hand, Herakles, of the Ganges land, where grows no wine,\nis plainly Krishna, who carries club, discus, and conch. The Greek\ncities Methora and Kleisobora are Mathur[=a] and Krishna-pur,\n'Krishna-town'; the latter on the Jumna, the former near it on the\nsame river, capital of the clan which venerated Krishna as its chief\nhero and god, the Y[=a]davas. Megasthenes says, also, that Herakles'\ndaughter is Pandaie, and this agrees with the P[=a]ndya, a southern\ndevelopment of the epic Gangetic P[=a]ndavas, who especially worship\nKrishna in conjunction with the Y[=a]davas. Their South-Indic town,\nMathur[=a], still attests their origin.\n\nIn speaking of the relative antiquity of Vishnuism and \u00c7ivaism one\nmust distinguish the pantheistic form of these gods from the single\nforms. While \u00c7ivaism,_per se_, that is, the worship of \u00c7iva as a great\nand terrible god, preceded the same exaltation of Krishna, as is shown\nby their respective literary appearance, and even by Megasthenes'\nremark that the worship of Dionysos preceded that of Herakles by\nfifteen generations, yet did Krishnaism, as a popular pantheism, come\nbefore \u00c7ivaism as such. Although in the late \u00c7vet[=a]\u00e7vatara Upanishad\n\u00c7iva is pantheistic, yet is he not so in the epic till some of the\nlatest passages make him the All, in imitation of Krishna as All-god.\nProbably \u00c7ivaism remained by the first philosophy, Sankhyan dualism,\nand was forced into Krishna's Vedantic pantheism, as this became\npopular. At first neither was more than a single great god without any\nphilosophy.[68]\n\nIn one of the early exegetical works, which is occupied somewhat with\nphilosophical matter, there is evidence that a triad existed between\nthe Vedic triad of fires and the Puranic triad. Fire, Wind (or Indra),\nand the Sun (S[=u]rya), are stated in a famous passage to be the only\nreal gods, all the others being but names of these. But, although in\nform this triad (Nirukta, vii. 4, 5) is like the Vedic triad,[69] it\nis essentially a triad in a pantheistic system like that of the epic\nand Pur[=a]nas, for it is added that \"all the gods are parts of one\nsoul.\" In explanation it is said: \"Fire is the earth-god, Wind, or\nIndra, is the god of the atmosphere, and the sun is the god of the\nsky.\" Now in the Rig Veda Indra is closely united not only with Agni\nbut with Vishnu, albeit in this period Vishnu is his subordinate. The\nnearest approach of this Vishnu to his classical descendant is in one\nof the latest hymns of the Rig Veda, where it is said that the seven\nseeds of creation are Vishnu's, as in later times he comprises seven\nmales. In the philosophy of the T[=a]ittir[=i]ya Samhit[=a] the three\nplaces of Vishnu are not, as in the Rig Veda, the two points of the\nhorizon (where the sun sets) and the zenith, but 'earth, air, and\nsky.'[70] That is to say, in the Brahmanic period Vishnu is already a\ngreater god than he had been. Nay, more, he is explicitly declared to\nbe\n\"the best of the gods.\"[71] That best means greatest may be shown from\nthe same work, where in savage fable it is recited that all the gods,\nincluding Indra, ran up to him to get his strength.[72] But especially\nin the Upanishads is Vishnu the one great god left from the Rig Veda.\nAnd it is with the philosophical (not with the ritualistic) Vishnu\nthat Krishna is equated.\n\nOf \u00c7iva, on the other hand, the prototype is Rudra ('red'), his\nconstant sobriquet. In the Rig Veda he is the god of red lightning,\nwho is the father of the Maruts, the storm-gods. His attributes of a\nfulgurant god are never lost. Even as \u00c7iva the All-god he is still the\ngod of the blue neck, whose three-forked trident and home among the\nmountains remind us of his physical origin. He is always the fairest\nof the gods, and both early and late he is terrible, to be averted by\nprayer, even where his magic 'medicines' are asked for. To him are\naddressed the most suppliant cries: \"O Rudra, spare us, strike not the\nmen, slay not the kine.\" In the Atharva Veda at every step one finds\ncharacteristics which on the one hand are but exaggerations of the\ntype formulated in the Rig Veda, and on the other precursors of the\nsigns of the later god. In \u00c7ivaism, in contradistinction to Vishnuism,\nthere is not a trace of the euhemerism which has been suspected in the\nKrishna-Vishnu cult. The Rudra of the Rig Veda already begins to be\nidentified with the triune fire, for he bears the standing epithet of\nfire, \"he of three mothers.\"[73] And this name he keeps, whether as\nRudra, who is \"brilliant as the sun\" (RV. i. 43. 5), whose weapon is\n\"the shining one that is emitted from the sky and passes along the\nearth\" (_ib_. vii. 46. 3); or again, as the \"red boar of the sky,\"\nthe \"holder of the bolt\" (_ib._ ii. 33. 3), and, above all gods, \"the\nterrible\" (x. 126. 5).\n\nComing to the Brahmanic period one finds him a dweller in the mountain\ntops, of a red color, with a blue neck, the especial lord of the\nmountains, and so of robbers; while he is also the 'incantation-god,'\nthe 'god of low people.' Some of these are Rudra's attributes; but\nhere his name is already \u00c7iva, so that one may trace the changes down\nthe centuries till he finds again in the epic that \u00c7iva is the lord of\nmountains, the patron of thieves (Hara, robber?), and endowed with the\ntrident, the blue neck,[74] and the three mothers of old. In the\nmiddle period he has so many titles that one probably has to accept in\nthe subsequent \u00c7iva not only the lineal descendant of the Vedic Rudra,\nbut also a combination of other local cults, where clan gods,\noriginally diverse, were worshipped as one in consequence of their\nmutual likeness. One of the god's especial names is here Bhava, while\nin the earlier period Bhava and Rudra are distinct, but they are\ninvoked as a pair (AV).[75] What gives \u00c7iva his later tremendous\npopularity, however, is the feature to which we have alluded in the\nchapter on the epic. In the epic, all the strength of \u00c7iva lies in the\nLinga.[76] Both Bhava and Rudra, as \u00c7arva, the archer--his local\neastern name--are represented as hurling the lightning, and it is\nsimply from identity of attributes that they have become identified in\nperson (AV. x. i. 23). Rudra's title of Pa\u00e7upati, or 'lord of\ncattle'[77] goes back to the Vedic age: \"Be kind to the kine of him\nwho believes in the gods\" is a prayer of the Atharva Veda (xi. 2. 28).\nAgni and Rudra, in the Rig-Veda, are both called 'cattle-guarding,'\nbut not for the same reason. Agni represents a fire-stockade, while\nRudra in kindness does not strike with his lightning-bolt. The two\nideas, with the identification of Rudra and Agni, may have merged\ntogether. Then too, Rudra has healing medicines (his magical side),\nand Agni is kindest to men. All Agni's names are handed over in the\nBr[=a]hmanas to Rudra-\u00c7iva, just as Rudra previously had taken the\nepithets of P[=u]shan (above), true to his robber-name. To ignore the\nheight to which at this period is raised the form of Rudra-\u00c7iva is\nsurely unhistorical; so much so that we deem it doubtful whether\n\u00c7iva-invocations elsewhere, as in the S[=u]tra referred to above,\nshould be looked upon as interpolations. In the M[=a]itr[=a]yan[=i]\nCollection, the Rudrajapas, the invocations to Rudra as the greatest\ngod, the highest spirit, the lord of beings (Bhava), are expressly to\n\u00c7iva Giri\u00e7a, the mountain-lord (2. 9; Schroeder, p. 346). In the\n[=A]itareya Br[=a]hmana it evidently is Rudra-\u00c7iva, the god of ghastly\nforms (made by the gods, it is said, as a composite of all the 'most\nhorrible parts' of all the gods), who is deputed to slay the\nFather-god (when the latter, as a beast, commits incest with his\ndaughter), and chooses as his reward for the act the office of 'lord\nof cattle.'[78] This is shown clearly by the fact that the fearsome\nRudra is changed to the innocuous Rudriya in the next paragraph. As an\nexample of how in the Br[=a]hmanas Rudra-\u00c7iva has taken to himself\nalready the powers of Agni, the great god of the purely sacrificial\nperiod, may be cited \u00c7at. Br. vi. 1. 3. 10 and 2. 1. 12. Here Agni is\nKum[=a]ra, Rudra, \u00c7arva (Sarva)[79], Pa\u00e7upati (lord of beasts),\nBh[=a]irava (terrible), A\u00e7ani (lightning), Bhava (lord of beings),\nMah[=a]deva (great god), the Lord--his 'thrice three names.' But where\nthe Br[=a]hmana assumes that these are names of Agni it is plain that\none has Rudra-\u00c7iva in process of absorbing Agni's honors.\n\nThe third element in the Pur[=a]nic trinity,[80] identified with the\nFather-god, genealogically deserves his lower position. His rivals are\nof older lineage. The reason for his inferior position is,\npractically, that he has little to do with man. Being already created,\nman takes more interest in the gods that preserve and destroy.[81]\nEven Brahm[=a]'s old exploits are, as we have shown, stolen from him\nand given over to Vishnu. The famous (totemistic) tortoise legend was\noriginally Brahm[=a]'s, and so with others of the ten 'forms' of\nVishnu, for instance the boar-shape, in which Vishnu manifests\nhimself, and the fish-shape of Brahm[=a] (epic) in the flood-story.\nThe formal _trim[=u]rti_ or _tr[=a]ipurusha_ ('three persons') is a\nlate figure. It would seem that a Harihara (Vishnu and \u00c7iva as one)\npreceded the trinity, though the dual name is not found till quite\nlate.[82] But, as we showed above, the epic practically identifies\nVishnu and \u00c7iva as equals, before it unites with these Brahm[=a] as an\nequal third.\n\nThere arises now the further question whether sectarian Vishnuism be\nthe foisting of Krishnaism upon a dummy Vishnu. We think that, stated\nin this way, such scarcely can have been the case. Neither of the\ngreat sects is professedly of priestly origin, but each, like other\nsects, claims Vedic authority, and finds Brahmanical support. We have\nsaid that Vishnu is raised to his position without ictic suddenness.\nHe is always a god of mystic character, in short, a god for philosophy\nto work upon. He is recognized as the highest god in one of the oldest\nUpanishads. And it is with the philosopher's Vishnu that Krishna is\nidentified. Krishna, the real V[=a]sudeva (for a false V[=a]sudeva is\nknown also in the epic), is the god of a local cult. How did he\noriginate? The king of serpents is called Krishna, 'the black,' and\nVishnu reposes upon \u00c7esha Ananta, the world-snake; but a more\nhistorical character than this can be claimed for Krishna. This\ngod-man must be the same with the character mentioned in the\nCh[=a]ndogya Upanishad, 3. 17. 6. One may notice the similarities\nbetween this Krishna and him of the epic cult. Krishna, son of\nDevak[=i], was taught by his teacher, Ghora [=A]ngirasa, that\nsacrifice may be performed without objective means; that generosity,\nkindness, and other moral traits are the real signs of sacrifice; and\nit is then said: \"The priest Ghora [=A]ngirasa having said this to\nKrishna, the son of Devak[=i]--and the latter was thereby freed from\n(thirst) desire--said: \"When a man is about to die let him resort to\nthis triad: 'the imperishable art thou,' 'the unmoved art thou,'\n'breath's firmness art thou'; in regard to which are these two verses\nin the Rig-Veda:[83] 'till they see the light of the old seed which is\nkindled in the sky,' and 'perceiving above the darkness the higher\nlight, the sun, god among gods, we come to the highest light.'\"\nKrishna thus learned the abolition of sacrifice, and the worship of\nthe sun, the highest light (Vishnu), as true being--for this is the\nmeaning of the philosophical passage taken with its context. Kings and\npriests discuss philosophy together in this period,[84] and it would\nconform to later tradition to see in the pupil the son of a king. It\nis, moreover, significant that the priest, Ghora [=A]ngiras\u00e0, is named\nspecially as priest of the sun-god elsewhere (K[=a]ush. Br. 30. 6), as\nwell as that Krishna [=A]ngirasa is also the name of a teacher. It is\nsaid in this same Upanishad (3. 1. 1) that the sun is the honey,\ndelight, of the gods; and this chapter is a meditation on the sun,[85]\nof which the dark (_k[r.][s.][n.]a_) form is that which comes from the\nItih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas, the fore-runners of the epic (3. 4. 3).\nThis is taught as a _brahma-upanishad_, a teaching of the absolute,\nand it is interesting to see that it is handed down through Brahm[=a],\nPraj[=a]pati, and Manu, exactly as Krishna says in the Divine Song\nthat his own doctrine has been promulgated; while (it is said further)\nfor him that knows the doctrine 'there is day,' his sun never sets (3.\n11. 3-4). It is a doctrine to be communicated only to the eldest son\nor a good student, and to no one else (_ib. 5), i.e_., it was new,\nesoteric, and of vital importance. Here, too, one finds\nSanatkum[=a]ra, the 'ever young,' as Skanda,[86] yet as an earthly\nstudent also (7. 1; 26. 2), just like Krishna.\n\nIt cannot be imagined, however, that the cult of the Gangetic Krishna\noriginated with that vague personage whose pupilage is described in\nthe Upanishad. But this account may still be connected with the epic\nKrishna. The epic describes the overthrow of an old Brahmanic Aryan\nrace at the hands of the P[=a]ndavas, an unknown folk, whose king's\npolyandrous marriage (his wife is the spouse of his four brothers as\nwell as of himself) is an historical trait, connecting the tribe\nclosely with the polyandrous wild tribes located north of the Ganges.\nThis tribe attacked the stronghold of Brahmanism in the holy land\nabout the present Delhi; and their patron god is the Gangetic Krishna.\nIn the course of the narrative a very few tales are told of Krishna's\nearly life, but the simple original view of Krishna is that he is a\ngod, the son of Devak[=i]. The few other tales are late and\nadventitious additions, but this is a consistent trait. Modern writers\nare fain to see in the antithesis presented by the god Krishna and by\nthe human hero Krishna, late and early phases. They forget that the\nlower side of Krishna is one especially Puranic. In short, they read\nhistory backwards, for theirs is not the Indic way of dealing with\ngods. In Krishna's case the tricky, vulgar, human side is a later\naspect, which comes to light most prominently in the Genealogy of\nVishnu and in the Vishnu Pur[=a]na, modern works which in this regard\ncontrast strongly with the older epic, where Krishna, however he\ntricks, is always first the god. It is not till he becomes a very\ngreat, if not the greatest, god that tales about his youthful\nperformances, when he condescended to be born in low life, begin to\nrise. An exact parallel may be seen in the case of \u00c7iva, who at first\nis a divine character, assuming a more or less grotesque likeness to a\nman; but subsequently he becomes anthropomorphized, and is fitted out\nwith a sheaf of legends which describe his earthly acts.[87] And so\nwith Krishna. As the chief god, identified with the All-god, he is\nlater made the object of encomiums which degrade while they are meant\nto exalt him. He becomes a cow-boy and acts like one, a god in a mask.\nBut in the epic he is the invading tribe's chief god, in process of\nbecoming identified with that god in the Brahmanic pantheon who most\nresembles him. For this tribe, the (Yadavas) P[=a]ndavas, succeeded in\noverthrowing the Brahmanic stronghold and became absorbed into the\nBrahmanic circle. Their god, who, like most of the supreme gods of\nthis region among the wild tribes, was the tribal hero as sun-god,\nbecame recognized by the priests as one with Vishnu. In the Upanishad\nthe priest-philosopher identifies Krishna with the sun as the 'dark\nside' (_k[r.][s.][n.]a_, 'dark') of Vishnu, the native name probably\nbeing near enough to the Sanskrit word to be represented by it. The\nstatement that this clan-god Krishna once learned the great truth that\nthe sun is the All-god, at the mouth of a Brahman, is what might be\nexpected. 'Krishna, the son of Devaki,' is not only the god, but he is\nalso the progenitor of the clan, the mystic forefather, who as usual\nis deified as the sun. To the priest he is merely an _avatar_ of\nVishnu. The identity of Krishna with the Gangetic god described by\nMegasthenes can scarcely be disputed. The latter as represented by the\nGreek is too great a god to have passed away without a sign except for\na foreigner's account. And there is no figure like his except that of\nKrishna.\n\nThe numerous _avatars_[88] of Vishnu are first given as ten, then as\ntwenty, then as twenty-two,[89] and at last become innumerable. The\nten, which are those usually referred to, are as follows: First come\nthe oldest, the beast-_avatars_, viz., as a fish; as a tortoise;[90]\nas a boar (rescuing earth from a flood); and as a man-lion (slaying a\ndemon). Next comes the dwarf-_avatar_, where Vishnu cheats Bali of\nearth by asking, as a dwarf, for three steps of it, and then stepping\nout over all of it (the 'three strides' of the Rig Veda). Then come\nthe human _avatars_, that of Para\u00e7u-R[=a]ma (R[=a]ma with the axe),\nKrishna, R[=a]ma[91] (hero of the R[=a]m[=a]yana epic), Buddha, and\nKalki (who is still to come).\n\nThe parallels between the latest Krishna cult and the Biblical\nnarrative are found only in the Pur[=a]nas and other late works, and\nundoubtedly, as we have said in the last chapter, are borrowed from\nChristian sources. Krishna is here born in a stable, his father, like\nJoseph, going with his virgin spouse to pay taxes. His restoring of a\nbelieving woman's son is narrated only in the modern J[=a]imini\nBh[=a]rata, These tales might have been received through the first\ndistant Christian mission in the South in the sixth century, but it is\nmore likely that they were brought directly to the North in the\nseventh century; for at that time a Northern king of the V[=a]i\u00e7ya\ncaste, \u00c7il[=a]ditya (in whose reign the Chinese pilgrim, Hiouen\nThsang, visited India), made Syrian Christians welcome to his court\n(639 A.D.).[92] The date of the annual Krishna festival, which is a\nreflex of Christmastide, is variously fixed by the Pur[=a]nas as\ncoming in July or August.[93]\n\nAs Krishna is an _avatar_ of Vishnu[94] in the Bh[=a]rata, and as the\naxe-R[=a]ma is another _avatar_ in legend (here Vishnu in the form of\nPara\u00e7u-R[=a]ma raises up the priestly caste, and destroys the\nwarrior-caste), so in the R[=a]m[=a]yana the hero R[=a]ma (not\nPara\u00e7u-R[=a]ma) is made an _avatar_ of Vishnu. He is a mythical prince\nof Oude (hence a close connection between the R[=a]m[=a]yana\nand Buddhism), who is identified with Vishnu. Vishnu wished to\nrid earth of the giant R[=a]vana,[95] and to do so took the form of\nR[=a]ma. As Krishnaism has given rise to a number of sects that\nworship Krishna as Vishnu, so Ramaism is the modern cult of R[=a]ma as\nVishnu. Both of these sects oppose the Vishnuite that is not inclined\nto be sectarian; all three oppose the \u00c7ivaite; and all four of these\noppose the orthodox Brahman, who assigns supreme godship to \u00c7iva or\nVishnu as little as does the devotee of these gods in unsectarian form\nto Krishna or R[=a]ma.\n\n\u00c7iva is on all sides opposed to Vishnu. The Greek account of the third\ncentury B.C. says that he taught the Hindus to dance the kordax, but\nat this time there appears to have been no such phallic worship in his\nhonor as is recorded in the pseudo-epic. \u00c7iva is known in early\nBrahmanic and in Buddhistic writings, and even as the\nbearer-of-the-moon, Candra\u00e7ekhara, he contrasts with Vishnu, as his\nlightning-form and mountain-habitat differ from the sun-form and\nvalley-home of his rival. This dire god is conceived of as ascetic\npartly because he is gruesome, partly because he is magical in power.\nHence he is the true type of the awful magical Yogi, and as such\nappealed to the Brahman. Originally he is only a fearful magical god,\ngreat, and even all-pervading, but, as seen in the Brahmanic\n\u00c7atarudriya hymn, he is at first in no sense a pantheistic deity. In\nthis hymn there is a significant addition made to the earlier version.\nIn the first form of the hymn it is said that Rudra, who is here \u00c7iva,\nis the god of bucolic people; but the new version adds 'and of all\npeople.' Here \u00c7iva appears as a wild, diabolical figure, 'the god of\nincantations,' whose dart is death; and half of the hymn is taken up\nwith entreaties to the god to spare the speaker. He is praised, in\nconjunction with trees, of which he is the lord, as the one 'clad in\nskins,' the 'lord of cattle,' the 'lord of paths,' the 'cheater,' the\n'deceiver.' When he is next clearly seen, in the epic, he is the god\nto whom are offered human sacrifices, and his special claim to worship\nis the phallus; while the intermediate literature shows glimpses of\nhim only in his simple Brahmanic form of terror. It has long been\nknown that \u00c7ivaite phallic worship was not borrowed from the\nSoutherners, as was once imagined, and we venture with some scholars\nto believe that it was due rather to late Greek influence than to that\nof any native wild tribe.[96]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Parts of the epic are called Pur[=a]nas, as\n     other parts are called Upanishads. These are the forerunners\n     of the extant Pur[=a]nas. The name, indeed, is even older\n     than the epic, belonging to the late Vedic period, where are\n     grouped together Pur[=a]nas and Itih[=a]sas, 'Ancient\n     History' and 'Stories'; to which are added 'Eulogies.' Weber\n     has long since pointed out that even when the 'deeds of\n     kings' were sung at a ceremony they were wont to be so\n     embroidered as to be dubbed 'fiction' by the Hindus\n     themselves. India has neither literary history (save what\n     can be gleaned from genealogies of doubtful worth), nor very\n     early inscriptions. The 'archaeology' of the Pur[=a]nas was\n     probably always what it is in the extant specimens,\n     legendary material of no direct historical value.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Strictly speaking to the present\n     Allah[=a]b[=a]d, where is the Pray[=a]ga, or confluence of\n     Yamun[=a] and Gang[=a] (Jumna and Ganges).]\n\n     [Footnote 3: M[=a]gadha; called Beh[=a]r from its many\n     monasteries, _vih[=a]ras_, in A\u00e7oka's time.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: So, plausibly, M\u00fcller, _loc. cit_. below.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: The tribes became Hinduized, their chiefs became\n     R[=a]jputs; their religions doubtless affected the ritual\n     and creed of the civilized as much as the religion of the\n     latter colored their own. Some of these un-Aryan peoples\n     were probably part native, part barbaric. There is much\n     doubt in regard to the dates that depend on accepted eras.\n     It is not certain, for instance, that, as M\u00fcller claims,\n     Kanishka's inauguration coincides with the \u00c7aka era, 78 A.D.\n     A great Buddhist council was held under him. Some\n     distinguished scholars still think with B\u00fchler that\n     Vikram[=a]ditya's inauguration was 57 B.C. (this date that\n     used to be assigned to him). From our present point of view\n     it is of little consequence when this king himself lived. He\n     is renowned as patron of arts and as a conqueror of the\n     barbarians. If he lived in the first century B.C. his\n     conquest amounted to nothing permanent. What is important,\n     however, is that all Vikram[=a]ditya stands for in legend\n     must have been in the sixth century A.D. For the drama, of\n     which he is said to have been patron, represents a religion\n     distinctly later than that of the body of the epic\n     (completed in the sixth or seventh century, B\u00fchler, _Indian\n     Studies_, No. ii.). The dramatic and astronomical era was\n     but introductory to Kum[=a]rila's reassertion of Brahmanism\n     in the seventh century, when the Northern barbarian was\n     gone, and the Mohammedan was not yet rampant. In the rest of\n     Northern India there were several native dynasties in\n     different quarters, with different eras; one in Sur[=a]shtra\n     (Gujar[=a]t), one again in the 'middle district' or 'North\n     Western Provinces,' one in Kutch; overthrown by Northern\n     barbarians (in the fifth century) and by the Mohammedans (in\n     the seventh and eighth centuries), respectively. Of these\n     the Guptas of the 'middle district,' and the Valabh[=i]s of\n     Kutch, had neither of the eras just mentioned. The former\n     dated from 320-321 (perhaps 319), the latter from 190\n     (A.D.). The word _samvat_, 'year,' indicates that the time\n     is dated from either the \u00c7aka or Vikram[=a]ditya era. See\n     IA. xvii. 362; Fergusson, JRAS. xii. 259; M\u00fcller, _India,\n     What Can It Teach Us_? p. 282; Kielhorn, IA. xix. _24;_\n     xxii. 111. The Northern barbarians are called Scythians, or\n     Huns, or Turanians, according to fancy. No one really knows\n     what they were.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The first host was expelled by the Hindus in\n     750. After a period of rest Mahmud was crowned in 997, who\n     overran India more than a dozen times. In the following\n     centuries the land was conquered and the people crushed by\n     the second great Mohammedan, Ghori, who died in 1206,\n     leaving his kingdom to a vassal, Kutab, the 'slave sultan'\n     of Delhi. In 1294, thus slave dynasty having been recently\n     supplanted, the new successor to the throne was slain by his\n     own nephew, Allah-ud-din, who is reckoned as the third\n     Mohammedan conqueror of India. His successor swept even the\n     Dekhan of all its Hindu (temple) wealth; but his empire\n     finally broke down under its own size; preparing the way for\n     Timur (Tamerlane), who entered India in 1398.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: \u00c7ankara himself was not a pure Brahman. Both\n     Vishnuites and \u00c7ivaites lay claim to him.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Coy as was the Brahman in the adoption of the\n     new gods he was wise enough to give them some place in his\n     pantheon, or he would have offended his laity. Thus he\n     recognizes K[=a]l[=i] as well as \u00c7r[=i]; in fact he prefers\n     to recognize the female divinities of the sects, for they\n     offer less rivalry.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: There was a general revival of letters\n     antedating the Brahmanic theological revival. The drama,\n     which reflects equally Hinduism and Brahmanism, is now the\n     favorite light literature of the cultured. In the sixth\n     century the first astronomical works are written\n     (Var[=a]hamihira, who wrote the _B[r.]hat Sa[.m]hit[=a]_),\n     and the group of writers called the Nine Gems (reckoned of\n     Vikram[=a]ditya's court) are to be referred to this time.\n     The best known among them is K[=a]lid[=a]sa, author of the\n     _\u00c7akuntal[=a]_. An account of this Renaissance, as he calls\n     it, will be found in M\u00fcller's _India, What Can It Teach Us_?\n     The learned author is perhaps a little too sweeping in his\n     conclusions. It is, for instance, tolerably certain that the\n     Bh[=a]rata was completed by the time the 'Renaissance'\n     began; so that there is no such complete blank as he assumes\n     prior to Vikram[=a]ditya. But the general state of affairs\n     is such as is depicted in the ingenious article referred to.\n     The sixth and seventh centuries were eras that introduced\n     modern literature under liberal native princes, who were\n     sometimes not R[=a]jputs at all. Roughly speaking, one may\n     reckon from 500 B.C. to the Christian era as a period of\n     Buddhistic control, Graeco-Bactrian invasion, and Brahmanic\n     decline. The first five centuries after the Christian see\n     the two religions in a state of equilibrium, under Scythian\n     control, and the Mah[=a]-Bh[=a]rata, the expanded\n     Bh[=a]rata, is written. From 500 to 1000 is an era of native\n     rulers, Brahmanic revival in its pure form, and Hindu\n     growth, with little trouble from the Mohammedans. Then for\n     five centuries the horrors of Moslem conquest.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Har. 10,662. Compare the laudation of 'the two\n     gods' in the same section.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: As the Jains have Angas and Up[=a]ngas, and as\n     the pseudo-epic distinguishes Nishads and Upanishads, so the\n     Brahman has Pur[=a]nas and Upapur[=a]nas (K[=u]rma\n     Pur[=a]na, i. p. 3). Some of the sects acknowledge only six\n     Pur[=a]nas as orthodox.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: As an example of a Puranic Smriti (legal) we\n     may cite the trash published as the\n     V[r.]ddha-H[=a]rita-Sa[.m]hit[=a]. Here there is polemic\n     against \u00c7iva; one must worship Jagann[=a]th with flowers,\n     and every one must be branded with the Vishnu disc\n     (_cakra_). Even women and slaves are to use _mantras_, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: The lateness of this law-book is evident from\n     its advocacy of _suttee_ (XXV. 14), its preference for\n     female ancestors (see below), etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Manu, III. 89; XII. 121.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: As, for example, in K[=u]rma Pur[=a]na, XVI.\n     p. 186, where is found a common epic verse description of\n     battle.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: A good instance of this is found in Brihan\n     N[=a]rad[=i]ya Pur[=a]na, X., where the _churik[=a]_ and\n     _drugha[n.]a_ (24) appear in an imitative scene of this\n     sort; one of these being later, the other earlier, than the\n     epic vocabulary.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Perhaps the most striking distinction between\n     Vedic and Puranic, or one may say, Indic Aryan and Hindu\n     religions, is the emphasis laid in the former upon Right; in\n     the latter, upon idols. The Vedic religion insists upon the\n     law of right (order), that is, the sacrifice; but it insists\n     also upon right as rectitude, truth, holiness. Puranic\n     Hinduism insists upon its idols; only incidentally does it\n     recommend rectitude, truth, abstract holiness.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: KP. i. p. 29.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: K[=u]rma, xii. p. 102. Contrast _ib_. xxii. p.\n     245, _caturvy[=u]hadhara Vishnur avy[=u]has procyate_\n     (elsewhere _navavy[=u]ha_). Philosophically, in the doctrine\n     of the epic P[=a]\u00f1car[=a]tras (still held by some\n     sectaries), Vishnu is to be revered as Krishna, Balar[=a]ma,\n     Pradymana, Aniruddha (Krishna's brother, son, and grandson),\n     representing, respectively, _[=a]tm[=a], j[=i]va,_ supreme\n     and individual spirit, perception, and consciousness.\n     Compare Mbh[=a]. xii. 340. 8, 72.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: KP. xxi. p. 236; xxii. p. 238, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: _ib._ I, p. 23.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Compare Brihan N[=a]radiya Pur[=a]na, xiv. 10,\n     _bah[=u]ni k[=a][s.][t.]hay[=a]ntr[=a][n.]i_ (torture\n     machines) in hell. The old tale of N[=a]\u00e7iketas is retold at\n     great length in the Var[=a]ha Pur[a=]na. The oldest\n     Pur[=a]na, the M[=a]rkandeya, has but seven hells, a\n     conception older than Manu's twenty-one (compare on MP. x.\n     80 ff., Scherman, _loc. cit_. p. 33), or the later lists of\n     thousands. The Padma Pur[=a]na, with celebrates R[=a]ma, has\n     also seven hells, and is in part old, for it especially\n     extols Pushkara (Brahm[=a]'s lone shrine); but it recommends\n     the _taptamudra_, or branding with hot iron.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Nar. xiv. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: xiv. 54 and 70.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: KP. xxii. pp, 239-241.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: As will be shown below, it is possible that\n     this may be a ceremony first taken from the wild tribes. See\n     the 'pole' rite described above in the epic.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Compare for instance _ib_. xxviii. 68, on the\n     strange connection of a \u00c7[=u]dr[=a] wife of a Guru.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: KP. xxxvi. It is of course impossible to say\n     how much epic materials come from the literary epic and how\n     much is drawn from popular poetry, for the vulgar had their\n     own epoidic songs which may have treated of the same topics.\n     Thus even a wild tribe (Gonds) is credited with an 'epic.'\n     But such stuff was probably as worthless as are the popular\n     songs of today.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: KP. xxx. p. 305; xxxvii. p. 352.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: _ib._ p. 355.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Compare N[=a]rad[=i]ya, xi. 23,27,31 'the one\n     whom no one knows,' 'he that rests in the heart,' 'he that\n     seems to be far off because we do not know,' 'he whose form\n     is \u00c7iva, lauded by Vishnu,' xiii. 201.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Even Vishnu as a part of a part of the Supreme\n     Spirit in VP. is indicated by Vishnu's adoration of\n     _[=a]tm[=a]_ in the epic (see above).]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Compare Williams' _Brahmanism and Hinduism_.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: \u00c7ankara's adherents are chiefly \u00c7ivaite, but\n     he himself was not a sectary. Williams says that at the\n     present day few worship \u00c7iva exclusively, but he has more\n     partial adherents than has Vishnu. _Religious Thought and\n     Life,_ pp. 59, 62.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: The two last are just recognized in Brahmanic\n     legal works.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: See Wilson's sketch of Hindu sects. The author\n     says that there were in his day two shrines to Brahm[=a],\n     one in [=A]jm[=i]r (compare Pushkara in the epic), and one\n     on the Ganges at Bithur. The Brahma Pur[=a]na is known also\n     as S[=a]ura (sun). This is the first in the list; in its\n     present state it is Vishnuite.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Sun-worship (Iranian?) is especially\n     pronounced in the Bhav[=i]shya(t) Pur[=a]na. Of the other\n     Pur[=a]nas the L[=i]nga is especially \u00c7ivaite (_linga_ is\n     phallus), as are the Matsya and older V[=a]yu. Sometimes\n     \u00c7iva is androgynous, _ardhan[=a]r[=i]\u00e7vara_, 'half-female.'\n     But most of the Pur[=a]nas are Vishnuite.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: On the Gane\u00e7a Pur[=a]na see JRAS. 1846, p.\n     319.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: The worshippers of Bhagavat were originally\n     distinct from the P[=a]\u00f1car[=a]tras, but what was the\n     difference between them is unknown. The sect of this name in\n     the pseudo-epic is not \u00c7[=a]kta in expression but only\n     monotheistic. Probably the names of many sects are retained\n     with altered beliefs and practices. The Vishnu Pur[=a]na, i.\n     11. 54, gives a model prayer which may be taken once for all\n     as the attitude of the Vishnuite: \"Glory to V[=a]sudeva, him\n     of perfected wisdom, whose unrevealed form is (known as)\n     Brahm[=a], Vishnu, and \u00c7iva\" (Hira[n.]yagarbha, Purusha,\n     Pradh[=a]na).]\n\n     [Footnote 40: Weber shows for instance, _loc. cit_., that\n     Indra takes the place of older Varuna; that the house-priest\n     yields to the Brahm[=a]; that in this feast in honor of the\n     king he]\n\n     [Footnote 41: Gover, JRAS. v. 91; IA. xx. 430.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: In Hinduism itself there is a striking example\n     of this. The Jagann[=a]th ('Juggernaut') temple was once\n     dedicated to Buddha as _loka-n[=a]th_ or _jagan-n[=a]th_,\n     'saviour of the world' Name, temple, and idol-car are now\n     all Vishnu's!]\n\n     [Footnote 43: That is, Rain and Sun, for all Indra's warlike\n     qualities are forgotten, absorbed into those of \u00c7iva and his\n     son, the battle-god. The sun crosses the equator at noon of\n     the second day, the 'Mah[=a] Pongol.']\n\n     [Footnote 44: \"Now every neck is bent, for the surface of\n     the waters disturbed. Then with a heave, a hiss, and a surge\n     of bubbles, the seething milk mounts to the top of the\n     vessel. Before it has had time to run down the blackened\n     sides, the air resounds with the sudden joyous cry of\n     'Pongol, oh Pongol, S[=u]rya, S[=u]rya, oh Pongol,' The word\n     Pongol means \"boiling,\" from the Tamil word _pongu_, to\n     boil; so that the joyous shout is, 'It boils, oh S[=u]rya,\n     it boils.' In a moment a convulsion of greetings animates\n     the assembly. Every one seizes his neighbor and asks, 'Has\n     it boiled?' Both faces gleam with delight as the answer\n     comes--'It has boiled.' Then both shout at the top of their\n     voices--'Oh Pongol, Pongol, oh S[=u]rya, oh Indra, Pongol,\n     Pongol.'\" Gorer, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: The Crocodile, _makara_, like the parrot, is\n     sacred to K[=a]madeva, Love. But as Ganges also is holy it\n     is difficult to say for which divinity the offering was\n     intended. Some, indeed, interpret _makara_ as dolphin.]\n\n     [Footnote 46: A feast now neglected, though kept up by\n     strict Brahmans, occurs on or about the 20th January. The\n     orthodox adherents of the \u00c7ivaite sects and \u00c7[=a]ktas also\n     observe it. It is a \u00c7r[=a]ddha, or funeral feast to the\n     Manes. Also on the 26th and 30th January there are rites\n     nearly obsolete, the first being signalized by offerings to\n     Yama; the second, a \u00c7ivaite feast (to his spouse, as 'giver\n     of bridegrooms'). The list is more celebrated in the South\n     than in the North. It is interesting chiefly as a parallel\n     to St. Valentine's day, or, as Wilson says, the nearer feast\n     of St. Agnes (21st January) on the eve of which divination\n     is practiced to discover future husbands. It is this time\n     also that the Greeks call 'marriage-month' (Gamelion); and\n     the fourth day from the new moon (which gives the name to\n     this Hindu festival, _caturth[=i]_, \"fourth day\") is the day\n     when Hesiod recommends the bringing home of the bride.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: In case any writing has to be done on this day\n     it is done with chalk, not with the pens, \"which have a\n     complete holiday\" (Wilson).]\n\n     [Footnote 48: The invocations show very well how the worship\n     of Brahm[=a] has been driven out in honor of his more\n     powerful rivals. For Sarasvat[=i] is invoked first as \"Thou\n     without whom Brahm[=a] never lives\"; but again as \"Thou of\n     eight forms, Lakshm[=i], Medh[=a], Dhav[=a], Pusht[=i],\n     G[=a]ur[=i], Tusht[=i], Prabh[=a], Dhriti, O Sarasvat[=i].\"\n     The great festivals, like the great temples, are not very\n     stricly sectarian. Williams says that in \u00c7iva's temple in\n     Benares are kept monkeys (sacred to Vishnu).]\n\n     [Footnote 49: Between this and the last occur minor\n     holidays, one to avert small-pox; one (February the 4th)\n     sacred to the sun (Sunday, the seventh day of each lunar\n     fortnight, is strictly observed); and one to the Manes.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: Fasting is not necessarily a part of civilized\n     religion alone. It is found in the Brahmanic and Hindu\n     cults, but it obtains also among the American Indians. Thus\n     the Dacotahs fast for two or three days at the worship of\n     sun and moon. Schoolcraft, _Histor. and Statist_., iii.\n     227.]\n\n     [Footnote 51: The last clause (meaning 'common historical\n     origin') were better omitted.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Except the mystic syllable _[=O]m_, supposed\n     to represent the trinity (_[=O]m_ is _a, u, m_), though\n     probably it was originally only an exclamation.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: A small Vishnu festival in honor of Vishnu as\n     'man-lion' (one of his ten _avatars_) is celebrated on the\n     13th of March; but in Bengal in honor of the same god as a\n     cow-boy. On the 15th of March there is another minor\n     festival in Bengal, but it is to \u00c7iva, or rather to one of\n     his hosts, under the form of a water pot (that is to\n     preserve from disease).]\n\n     [Footnote 54: The bonfire is made of fences, door posts,\n     furniture, etc. Nothing once seized and devoted to the fire\n     may be reclaimed, but the owner may defend his property if\n     he can. Part of the horse-play at this time consists in\n     leaping over the fire, which is also ritualistic with same\n     of the hill-tribes.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Compare the Nautch dances on R[=a]macandra's\n     birthday. Religious dances, generally indecent, are also a\n     prominent feature of the religions of the wild tribes (as\n     among American and African savages, Greeks, etc., etc.).]\n\n     [Footnote 56: The 'Easter bonnet' in Indic form.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: In sober contrast stands the yearly orthodox\n     \u00c7r\u00e1ddha celebration (August-September), though Brahmans join\n     in sectarian f\u00eates.]\n\n     [Footnote 58: Wilson draws an elaborate parallel between the\n     Hol[=i] and the Lupercalia, etc. (Carnival). But the points\n     of contact are obvious. One of the customs of the Hol[=i]\n     celebration is an exact reproduction of April-Fool's day.\n     Making \"Hol[=i] fools\" is to send people on useless errands,\n     etc. (Festum Stultorum, at the Vernal Equinos, transferred\n     by the Church to the first of November, \"Innocents' Day\").]\n\n     [Footnote 59: Stevenson, JRAS. 1841, p. 239; Williams,\n     _loc. cit._; Wilkins, _Modern Hinduism_, ch. III.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: The daily service consists in dressing,\n     bathing, feeding, etc It is divided into eight ridiculous\n     ceremonies, which prolong the worship through the day.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: The brilliant displays attracted the notice of\n     the Greeks, who speak of the tame tigers and panthers, the\n     artificial trees carried in wagons, the singing,\n     instrumental music, and noise, which signalized a f\u00eate\n     procession. See Williams, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 62: Such, for instance, is the most holy temple of\n     South India, the great temple of \u00c7r[=i]rangam at\n     Trichinopoly. The idol car, gilded and gaudy, is carved with\n     obscenity; the walls and ceilings are frescoed with\n     bestiality. It represents Vishnu's heaven.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: From this name or title comes the Gita\n     Govinda, a mystic erotic poem (in praise of the cow-boy god)\n     exaltedly religious as it is sensual (twelfth century).]\n\n     [Footnote 64: VP.l. 2. 63. The 'qualities' or 'conditions'\n     of God's being are referred to by 'goodness' and\n     'darkness.']\n\n     [Footnote 65: All this erotic vulgarity is typical of the\n     common poetry of the people, and is in marked contrast to\n     the chivalrous, but not love-sick, Bh[=a]rata.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Compare Duncker, LII^5. p. 327, More doubtful\n     is the identification of Nysian and Nish[=a]dan, _ib_. note.\n     Compare, also, Schroeder, _loc. cit._ p. 361. Arrian calls\n     (\u00c7iva) Dionysos the _[Greek: oitou dot\u00eara Iud\u00eais]_\n     (Schwanbeck, Fig. 1.).]\n\n     [Footnote 67: This remains always as \u00c7iva's heaven in\n     distinction from Goloka or V[=a]ikuntha, Vishnu's heaven.\n     Nowadays Benares is the chief seat of \u00c7ivaism.]\n\n     [Footnote 68: The doctrine of the immaculate conception,\n     common to Vishnuism and Buddhism (above, p.431), can have no\n     exact parallel in \u00c7ivaism, for \u00c7iva is not born as a child;\n     but it seems to be reflected in the laughable ascription of\n     virginity to Um[=a] (Civa's wife), when she is revered as\n     the emblem of motherhood.]\n\n     [Footnote 69: In RV. v. 41. 4, the Vedic triad is Fire,\n     Wind, and (Tr[=i]ta of the sky) Indra; elsewhere Fire, Wind,\n     and Sun (above, p. 42), distinct from the triune fire.]\n\n     [Footnote 70: In the Rig Veda the three steps are never thus\n     described, but in the later age this view is common. It is,\n     in fact, only on the 'three steps' that the identity with\n     the sun is established. In RV. 1. 156. 4, Vishnu is already\n     above Varuna.]\n\n     [Footnote 71: \u00c7at. Br. xiv. 1. 1. 5.]\n\n     [Footnote 72: For other versions see Mulr, _Original\n     Sanskrit Texts_, iv. p. 127 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 73: Later interpreted as wives or eyes.]\n\n     [Footnote 74: For an epic guess at the significance of the\n     title _n[=i]laka[n.][t.]ha_, 'blue-throated,' see Mbh[=a] i.\n     18. 43.]\n\n     [Footnote 75: AV. iv. 28; viii. 2; xi. 2. Thus even in the\n     Rig Veda pairs of gods are frequently besung as one, as if\n     they were divinities not only homogeneous but even\n     monothelous.]\n\n     [Footnote 76: Brahm[=a]'s mark in the lotus; Vishnu's, the\n     discus (sun); \u00c7iva's, the Linga, phallic emblem.]\n\n     [Footnote 77: The grim interpretation of later times makes\n     the cattle (to be sacrificed) _men_. The theological\n     interpretation is that \u00c7iva is the lord of the spirit, which\n     is bound like a beast.]\n\n     [Footnote 78: The commenter, horrified by the murder of the\n     Father-god, makes Rudra kill 'the sin'; but the original\n     shows that it is the Father-god who was shot by this god,\n     who chose as his reward the lordship over kine; and such\n     exaltation is not improbable (moreover, it is historical!).\n     The hunting of the Father-god by Rudra is pictured in the\n     stars (Orion), Ait. Br. iii. 33.]\n\n     [Footnote 79: See Weber. _Ind. St._ ii. 37; Muir, iv. 403.\n     \u00c7arva (\u00c7aurva) is Avestan, but at the same time it is his\n     'eastern' name, while Bhava is his western name. \u00c7at. Br. i.\n     7. 3. 8.]\n\n     [Footnote 80: The epic (_loc. cit_. above), the Pur[=a]nas,\n     and the very late Atharva \u00c7iras Upanishad and M[=a]itr. Up.\n     (much interpolated). Compare Muir, _loc. cit_. pp. 362-3.]\n\n     [Footnote 81: According to the epic, men honor gods that\n     kill, Indra, Rudra, and so forth; not gods that are passive,\n     such as Brahm[=a], the Creator, and P[=u]shan (xii. 15. 18),\n     _ya eva dev[=a] hant[=a]ras t[=a]l loko 'rcayate\n     bh[=r.]\u00e7a[=.m], na Brahm[=a][n.]am_.]\n\n     [Footnote 82: Barth seems to imply that Harihara (the name)\n     is later than the _trim[=u]rti_ (p. 185), but he has to\n     reject the passage in the Hari-va[.n]\u00e7a to prove this. On\n     Ayen[=a]r, a southern god said to be Hari-Hara\n     (Vishnu-\u00c7iva), see Williams, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 83: RV. viii. 6. 30; 1. 50. 10. Weber refers\n     Krishna further back to a priestly Vedic poet of that name,\n     to whom are attributed hymns of the eighth and tenth books\n     of the Rig Veda (_Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i]_, p. 316). He\n     interprets Krishna's mother's name, Devak[=i], as 'player'\n     _(ib)_ But the change of name in a Vedic hymn has no special\n     significance. The name Devak[=i] is found applied to other\n     persons, and its etymology is rather _deva_, divine, as\n     Weber now admits (Berl. Ak. 1890, p. 931).]\n\n     [Footnote 84: In the epic, also, kings become hermits, and\n     perform great penance just as do the ascetic priests.\n     Compare the heroes themselves, and i. 42. 23 _raja\n     mah[=a]tap[=a]s_; also ii. 19, where a king renounces his\n     throne, and with his two wives becomes a hermit in the\n     woods. In i. 41. 31 a king is said to be equal to ten\n     priests!]\n\n     [Footnote 85: In fact, the daily repetition of the\n     S[=a]vitr[=i] is a tacit admission of the sun god as the\n     highest type of the divine; and Vishnu is the most\n     spiritualized form of the sun-god, representing even in the\n     Rig-Veda the goal of the departing spirit.]\n\n     [Footnote 86: Skanda (Subrahmanya) and Gane\u00e7a are \u00c7iva's two\n     sons, corresponding to Krishna and R[=a]ma. Skanda's own son\n     is Vi\u00e7[=a]kha, a _graha_ (above, p. 415).]\n\n     [Footnote 87: \u00c7iva at the present day, for instance, is\n     represented now and then as a man, and he is incarnate as\n     V[=i]rabhadra. But all this is modern, and contrasts with\n     the older conception. It is only in recent times, in the\n     South, that he is provided with an earthly history. Compare\n     Williams, _Thought and Life,_ p. 47.]\n\n     [Footnote 88: _Ava-t[=a]ra_, 'descent,' from _ava_, 'down,'\n     and _tar_, 'pass' (as in Latin in-_trare_).]\n\n     [Footnote 89: In the _Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na_.]\n\n     [Footnote 90: The tortoise _avatar_ had a famous temple two\n     centuries ago, where a stone tortoise received prayer. How\n     much totemism lies in these _avatars_ it is guess-work to\n     say.]\n\n     [Footnote 91: Balar[=a]ma (or Baladeva), Krishna's elder\n     brother, is to be distinguished from R[=a]ma. The former is\n     a late addition to the Krishna-cult, and belongs with Nanda,\n     his reputed father. Like Krishna, the name is also that of a\n     snake, Naga, and it is not impossible that Naga worship may\n     be the foundation of the Krishna-cult, but it would be hard\n     to reconcile this with tradition. In the sixth century\n     Var[=a]hamihira recognizes both the brothers.]\n\n     [Footnote 92: Edkins, cited by M\u00fcller, _India_, p. 286.]\n\n     [Footnote 93: Weber, _Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i]_, pp. 259, 318.\n     Weber describes in full the cult of the \"Madonna with the\n     Child,\" according to the Pur[=a]nas.]\n\n     [Footnote 94: On the subsequent deification of the Pandus\n     themselves see 1A. VII. 127.]\n\n     [Footnote 95: Hence the similarity with Herakles, with whom\n     Megasthenes identifies him. The man-lion and hero-forms are\n     taken to rid earth of monsters.]\n\n     [Footnote 96: Greek influence is clearly reflected in\n     India's architecture. Hellenic bas-reliefs representing\n     Bacchic scenes and the love-god are occasionally found.\n     Compare the description of \u00c7iva's temple in Orissa, Weber,\n     _Literature_, p. 368; _Berl. Ak._, 1890, p, 912. \u00c7iva is\n     here associated with the Greek cult of Eros and Aphrodite.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nMODERN HINDU SECTS.[1]\n\n\nAlthough the faith of India seems to have completed a circle, landing\nat last in a polytheism as gross as was that of the Vedic age, yet is\nthis a delusive aspect, as will appear if one survey the course of the\nhigher intellectual life of the people, ignoring, as is right, the\ninvariable factor introduced by the base imaginings of the vulgar. The\ngreater spirituality has always expressed itself in independent\nmovement, and voiced itself in terms of revolution. But in reality\neach change has been one of evolution. To trace back to the Vedic\nperiod the origin of Hindu sectarianism would, indeed, be a nice task\nfor a fine scholar, but it would not be temerarious to attempt it. We\nhave failed of our purpose if we have not already impressed upon the\nreader's mind the truth that the progress of Brahmanic theology (in\ndistinction from demonology) has been one journey, made with rests and\nhalts, it is true, and even with digressions from the straight path;\nbut without abatement of intent, and without permanent change of\ndirection. Nor can one judge otherwise even when he stands before so\nhumiliating an exhibition of groundling bigotry as is presented by\nsome of the religious sects of the present day. The world of lower\norganisms survives the ascent of the higher. There is always\nundergrowth; but before the fall of a great tree its seeds sprout,\nwithal in the very soil of the weedy thicket below. So out of\nthe rank garden of Hindu superstitions arise, one after another, lofty\ntrees of an old seed, which is ever renewed, and which cultivation has\ngradually improved.\n\nWe have shown, especially in the chapters on the Atharva Veda and on\nHinduism, as revealed in epic poetry, how constant in India is the\nrelation between these two growths. If surprised at the height of\nearly Hindu thought, one is yet more astonished at the permanence of\nthe inferior life which flourishes beneath the shady protection of the\nsuperior. Even here one may follow the metaphor, for the humbler life\nbelow is often a condition of the grander growth above.\n\nIn the Rig Veda there is an hymn of faith and doubt\n\n  To INDRA.[2]\n\n  He who, just born, with thought endowed, the foremost,\n  Himself a god hemmed in the gods with power;\n  Before whose breath, and at whose manhood's greatness,\n  The two worlds trembled; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  He who the earth made firm as it was shaking,\n  And made repose the forward tottering mountains;\n  Who measured wide the inter-space aerial,\n  And heaven established; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  Who slew the dragon, loosed the rivers seven,\n  And drove from Vala's hiding place the cattle;[3]\n  Who fire between the two stones[4] hath engendered,\n  Conqueror in conflicts; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  Who all things here, things changeable, created;\n  Who lowered and put to naught the barbarous color,[5]\n  And, like victorious gambler, took as winnings\n  His foe's prosperity; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  Whom, awful, they (yet) ask about: 'where is he?'\n  And speak thus of him, saying, 'he exists not'--\n  He makes like dice[6] his foe's prosperity vanish;\n  Believe on him; and he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  In whose direction horses are and cattle;\n  In whose, the hosts (of war) and all the chariots;\n  Who hath both S[=u]rya and the Dawn engendered,\n  The Waters' leader; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  Both heaven and earth do bow themselves before him,\n  And at his breath the mountains are affrighted;\n  Who bolt in arms is seen, the _soma_-drinker,\n  And bolt in hand; ('tis) he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\n  Who helps the _soma_-presser, (_soma_)-cooker,\n  The praiser (helps), and him that active serveth;\n  Of whom the increase _brahma_ is and _soma_,\n  And his this offering; he, ye folk, is Indra.\n\nHere _brahma_, which word already in the Yajur Veda has taken to\nitself the later philosophical signification, is merely prayer, the\nmeaning which in the Rig Veda is universal.\n\nThe note struck in this hymn is not unique:\n\n  (THE POET.)\n\n  Eager for booty proffer your laudation\n  To Indra; truth (is he),[7] if truth existeth;\n  'Indra is not,' so speaketh this and that one;\n  'Who him hath seen? To whom shall we give praises?'\n\n  (THE GOD.)\n\n  I am, O singer, he; look here upon me;\n  All creatures born do I surpass in greatness.\n  Me well-directed sacrifices nourish,\n  Destructive I destroy existent beings.[8]\n\nThese are not pleas in behalf of a new god. It is not the mere god of\nphysical phenomena who is here doubted and defended. It is the god\nthat in the last stage of the Rig Veda is become the Creator and\nDestroyer, and, in the light of a completed pantheism, is grown too\ngreat to retain his personality. With such a protest begins the great\nrevolt that is the sign of an inner evolution extending through the\nBr[=a]hmanas and Upanishads. Indra, like other gods,[9] is held by the\nrite; to the vulgar he is still the great god;[10] to the philosopher,\na name. The populace respect him, and sacerdotalism conserves him,\nthat same crafty, priestly power, which already at the close of the\nRig Vedic period dares to say that only the king who is subject to the\npriest is sure of himself, and a little later that killing a priest is\nthe only real murder. We have shown above how the real divinity of the\ngods was diminished even at the hands of the priests that needed them\nfor the rites and baksheesh, which was the goal of their piety. Even\nPraj[=a]pati, the Father-god, their own creation, is mortal as well as\nimmortal.[11] We have shown, also, how difficult it must have been to\nrelease the reason from the formal band of the rite. Socially it was\nimpossible to do so. He that was not initiated was excommunicated, an\noutcast. But, on the other hand, the great sacrifices gradually fell\nover from their own weight. Cumbersome and costly, they were replaced\nby proxy works of piety; _vidh[=a]nas_ were established that obviated\nthe real rite; just as to-day, 'pocket altars' take the place of real\naltars.[12] There was a gradual intrusion of the Hindu cult; popular\nfeatures began to obtain; the sacrifice was made to embrace in its\nworkings the whole family of the sacrificer (instead of its effect\nbeing confined to him alone, as was the earlier form); and finally\nvillage celebrations became more general than those of the individual.\nSlowly Hinduism built itself a ritual,[13] which overpowered the\nBrahmanic rite. Then, again, behind the geographical advance of\nBrahmanism[14] lay a people more and more prone to diverge from the\ntrue cult (from the Brahmanic point of view). In the latter part of\nthe great Br[=a]hmana[15] there is already a distrust of the Indus\ntribes, which marks the breaking up of Aryan unity; not that breaking\nup into political division which is seen even in the Rig Veda, where\nAryan fights against Aryan as well as against the barbarian, but the\nmore serious dismemberment caused by the hates of priests, for here\nthere was no reconciliation.\n\nThe cynical scepticism of the Brahmanic ritualists, as well as the\ndivergence of opinions in regard to this or that sacrificial\npettiness, shows that even where there was overt union there was\ncovert discord, the disagreement of schools, and the difference of\nfaith. But all this does but reflect the greater difference in\nspeculation and theology which was forming above the heads of the\nritualistic bigots. For it is not without reason that the Upanishads\nare more or less awkwardly laid in as the top-stone on the liturgical\nedifice. They belong to the time but they are of it only in part. Yet\nto dissociate the mass of Brahmanic priestlings from the Upanishad\nthinkers, as if the latter were altogether members of a new era, would\nbe to lose the true historical perspective. The vigor of protest\nagainst the received belief continues from the Rig Veda to Buddha,\nfrom Buddha till to-day.\n\nThe Vedic cult absorbed a good deal of Hinduism, for instance the\nworship of Fate,[16] just as Hinduism absorbed a good deal of Vedic\ncult. Nor were the popular works obnoxious to the priest. In the\nCh[=a]ndogya Upanishad[17] the Itih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas\n(fore-runners of the epic) are already reckoned as a fifth Veda, being\nrecognized as a Veda almost as soon as was the Atharvan,[18] which\neven in Manu is still called merely 'texts of Atharvan and Angiras'\n(where texts of Bhrigu might as well have been added). Just as the\nlatter work is formally recognized, and the use of its magical\nformulas, if employed for a good purpose, is enjoined in epic[19] and\nlaw (_e.g._ Manu, xi. 33), so the Hinduistic rites crept gradually\ninto the foreground, pushing back the _soma_-cult. Idols are formally\nrecognized as venerable by the law-makers;[20] even before their day\nthe 'holy pool,' which we have shown to be so important to Hinduism,\nis accepted by Brahmanism.[21] Something, too, of the former's\ncatholicity is apparent in the cult at an early date, only to be\nsuppressed afterwards. Thus in [=A]it. Br. II. 19, the slave's son\nshares the sacrifice; and the slave drinks _soma_ in one of the\nhalf-Brahmanical, half-popular festivals.[22] Whether human sacrifice,\nsanctioned by some modern sects, is aught but pure Hinduism, \u00c7ivaism,\nas affected by the cult of the wild-tribes, it is hard to say. At any\nrate, such sacrifices in the Brahmanic world were obsolete long before\none finds them in Hinduism. Of Buddhistic, Brahmanic, and Hinduistic\nreciprocity we have spoken already, but we may add one curious fact,\nnamely, that the Buddhism of \u00c7ivaism is marked by its holy numbers.\nThe Brahmanic Rudra with eight names[23] and eight forms[24] is\nclearly \u00c7ivaite, and the numbers are as clearly Buddhistic[25] Thus,\nas Feer has shown, Buddhist hells are eight, sixteen, etc, while the\nBrahmanic hells are seven, twenty-one, etc. Again, the use of the\nrosary was originally \u00c7ivaite, not Buddhisttc;[26] and Buddha in Bali,\nwhere they live amicably side by side, is regarded as \u00c7iva's\nbrother.[27]\n\nTwo things result from this interlocking of sectarian Brahmanism with\nother sects. First, it is impossible to say in how far each influenced\nthe other; and, again, the antiquity of special ideas is rendered\ndoubtful. A Brahmanic idea can pretty safely be allotted to its first\nperiod, because the literature is large enough to permit the\nassumption that it will appear in literature not much later than it\nobtains. But a sectarian idea may go back centuries before it is\npermanently formulated, as, for example, the doctrine of special grace\nin a modern sect.\n\nOne more point must be noticed before we proceed to review the sects\nof to-day. Hindu morality, the ethical tone of the modern sects, is\nolder than the special forms of Hindu viciousness which have been\nreceived into the cult. A negative altruism (beyond which Brahmanism\nnever got) is characteristic of the Hindu sects. But this is already\nembodied in the golden rule, as it is thus formulated in the epic\n'Compendium of Duty':\n\n  Not that to others should one do\n  Which he himself objecteth to.\n  This is man's duty in one word;\n  All other rules may be ignored.[28]\n\nThe same is true of the 'Ten Commandments' of one of the modern sects.\nIt is one of the strong proofs that Christian morals did not have much\neffect upon early Hinduism, that, although the Christian Church of St.\nThomas, as is well established, was in Malabar as early as 522,[29]\nand Christians were in the North in the seventh century, yet no trace\nof the active Christian benevolence, in place of this abstention from\ninjury, finds its way into the epic or Pur[=a]nas. But an active\naltruism permeates Buddhism, and one reads in the birth-stories even\nof a saviour Buddha, not the Buddha of love, M[=a]itreya, who was to\nbe the next Buddha on earth, but of that M[=a]itrakanyaka, who left\nheaven and came to earth that he might redeem the sins of others.[30]\n\nWhether there is any special touch between the older sects and those\nof modern days[31] that have their headquarters in the same districts\nis a question which we have endeavored to investigate, but we have\nfound nothing to substantiate such an opinion. Buddhism retired, too\nearly to have influence on the sects of to-day, and between Jainism\nand the same sects there does not seem to be any peculiar rapport even\nwhere the sect is seated in a Jain stronghold.[35]] The Jains occupy,\ngenerally speaking, the Northwest (and South), while the Buddhists\nwere located in the Northeast and South. So \u00c7ivaism may be loosely\nlocated as popular in the Northeast and South, while Vishnuism has its\nhabitat rather in the jain centres of the Northwest (and South).\n\nWe have mentioned in the preceding chapter the sects of a few\ncenturies ago, as these have been described in Brahmanic\nliterature.[33] The importance, and even the existence of some of the\nsects, described in the _Conquest of \u00c7ankara_, has been questioned,\nand the opinion has been expressed that, since they are described only\nto be exposed as heretical, they may have been creations of fancy,\nimaginary sects; the refutation of their principles being a _tour de\nforce_ on the part of the Brahmanic savant, who shows his acumen by\nimagining a sect and then discountenancing it. It does not, indeed,\nseem to us very probable that communities were ever formed as 'Agnis'\nor 'Yamas,' etc, but on the other hand, we think it is more likely\nthat sects have gone to pieces without leaving any trace than that\nthose enumerated, explained, and criticised should have been mere\nfancies.[46]] Moreover, in the case of some of these sects\nthere are still survivors, so that _a fortiori_ one may presume the\nothers to have existed also, if not as sects or communities, yet as\nbodies professing faith in Indra or Yama, etc. The sects with which we\nhave to deal now are chiefly those of this century, but many of these\ncan claim a definite antiquity of several centuries at least. They\nhave been described by Wilson in his famous _Sketch_, and, in special\ncases, more recently and more fully by Williams' and other writers.\n\n\nTHE \u00c7IVAITES.\n\nWhile the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic\nbackground, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day\nsimply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the\nformer comprising the R[=a]ma sects, and the latter most of the\nKrishnaites. On the other hand, in \u00c7ivaism one must distinguish quite\nsharply in time between the different sects that go by \u00c7iva's name. If\none look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most\ndegraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any\nphilosophy, and that idealistic \u00c7ivaism is a remnant of the past. But\nhe will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old\nVedantic aspects of \u00c7ivaism. On the contrary, wherever \u00c7ivaism is\npantheistic it is a \u00c7ivaism which obtains only in certain ancient\nschools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders\nwho have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard\n\u00c7iva merely as a name for the One God. It is necessary, therefore, as\nit is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between\nthe beliefs of the vulgar and the learned. For from the earliest\nperiod the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter,\nbut at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.\n\nThe older S[=a]nkhya form of \u00c7ivaism was still found among the\nP[=a]\u00e7upatas,'adherents of the Lord' (Pa\u00e7upati) and Mahe\u00e7varas\n('adherents of the great Lord'), who are mentioned in the epic and in\ninscriptions of the fifth century. In the ninth century there was a\npurely philosophical \u00c7ivaism which is Vedantic. But neither in the\nfact (which is by no means a certainty) that \u00c7ankara accepted \u00c7iva as\nthe name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic \u00c7ivaite philosophy of\nKashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely\nidealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Som[=a]nanda, is\nthere any trace of a popular religion. \u00c7iva is here the pantheistic\ngod, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired\nschoolmen. On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in\nthe twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if\n\u00c7ivaite, only nominally Vedantic. Thus what philosophy the Jangamas\nprofessedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not\npantheistic) disciples of \u00c7iva's priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha),\nwho taught \u00c7iva-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the\nLinga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India\nunder the name of Jangamas, 'vagrants,' or Ling[=a]yits,\n'phallus-wearers,' are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic\nmysticism. So in the case of the Tridandins, the Da\u00e7an[=a]mis, and\nother sects attributed to \u00c7ivaism, as well as the Sm[=a]rtas (orthodox\nBrahmans) who professed \u00c7ivaism. According to Wilson the Tridandins\n(whose triple, _tri_, staff, _da[n.][d.]i_, indicates control of word,\nthought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the R[=a]m[=a]nuja sect,\nthough some of them claim to be Vedantic \u00c7ivaites. Nominally \u00c7ivaite\nare also the Southern 'Saints,' Sittars (Sanskrit Siddhas), but these\nare a modern sect whose religion has been taught them by Islam, or\npossibly by Christianity.[36] The extreme North and South are the\ndistricts where \u00c7ivaism as a popular religion has, or had, its firmest\nhold, and it is for this reason that the higher religions which obtain\nin these districts are given to \u00c7iva. But in reality they simply take\n\u00c7iva, the great god of the neighborhood, in order to have a name for\ntheir monotheistic god, exactly as missionaries among the American\nIndians pray to the Great Spirit, to adapt themselves to their\naudience's comprehension. In India, as in this country, they that\nproselyte would prefer to use their own terminology, but they wisely\nuse that of their hearers.\n\nWe find no evidence to prove that there were ever really sectarian\n\u00c7ivaites who did not from the beginning practice brutal rites, or else\nsoon become ascetics of the lowest and most despicable sort. For\nphilosophical \u00c7ivaites were never sectaries. They cared little whether\nthe All-god or One they argued about was called Vishnu or \u00c7iva. But\nwhenever one finds a true \u00c7ivaite devotee, that is, a man that will\nnot worship Vishnu but holds fast to \u00c7iva as the only manifestation of\nthe supreme divinity, he will notice that such an one quickly becomes\nobscene, brutal, prone to bloodshed, apt for any disgusting practice,\nintellectually void, and morally beneath contempt. If the \u00c7ivaite be\nan ascetic his asceticism will be the result either of his lack of\nintelligence (as in the case of the sects to be described immediately)\nor of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who\nwill save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the\ncase with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no\nbetter than \u00c7ivaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites,\nexclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal,\nhaters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually\nadmirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are\nto-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really\nVishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never\nbeen the case with real \u00c7ivaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed\nout, \u00c7ivaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The \u00c7ivaite\nneeds for his cult only a phallus pebble, _bilva_ leaves and water.\nThe Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for _leitourgiai_. But\n\u00c7ivaism is cheap because \u00c7ivaites are poor, the dregs of society; it\nis not adopted because it is cheap.\n\nWe think, therefore, that to describe \u00c7ivaism as indifferently\npantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been\npantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because \u00c7iva at\nthat time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual\nsects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical\nrelation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we\nshall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of\nthe mutual relations between \u00c7ivaites and Vishnuites in the past.\n\nMonotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression\nof the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. \u00c7ivaism,\nKrishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure \u00c7ivaism\nhas remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian\nexpressions, but also in the Brahmanic \u00c7ivaism of the early epic, and\nin the \u00c7ivaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the\nliterature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-\u00c7ivaism which\nstarts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work\n\u00c7iva's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such\nattempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing\nimportance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If\nthe movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for\nthe masses, it at once gives up \u00c7iva and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping\n\u00c7iva, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism.\n\u00c7ivaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]\n\nOn the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic\n(tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism. Now\nVishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox\n(Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic\npantheism. The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox.\nIt was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest\ndistinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya.\nThe marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the\nepic. It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this\nheterodox Vishnuism became possible. Vishnuism was soon rescued from\nthe dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression\nof pantheism. But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his _alter ego_,\nand in the epic the two are finally one All-god. Vedantic philosopliy\ncontinued to present Vishnu rather than \u00c7iva as its All-god, until\nto-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system. But\nwith Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of\nthe All-god. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as\nRamaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while R[=a]ma is the\ngod of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a\npantheistic god; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually\nreverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more\naffected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more prone, by whatever\nsectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens\nthat Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic god\nthan is R[=a]ma. Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the\nline not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and\nunintelligent people. For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done\nfor Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard\nresembles \u00c7ivaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent\n(though wealthy) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god,\nwithout much more thought of his being an All-god _avatar_ than is\nspent by the ordinary \u00c7ivaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism\nwhich has been foisted upon \u00c7iva.\n\nBut we must now give an account of the low sectaries, the\nmiracle-mongers, jugglers,[40] and ascetic whimsicalities, which\ntogether stand under the phallic standard of \u00c7ivaism. Ancient and\nrecent observers enumerate a sad list of them. The devotees of the\n'highest bird' are a low set of ascetics, who live on voluntary alms,\nthe result of their affectation of extreme penance. The\n[=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to\nlower them again. The [=A]k[=a]\u00e7amukhas, 'Sky-facers,' hold their\nfaces toward the sky till the muscles stiffen, and they live thus\nalways. The Nakhls, 'Nail' ascetics, allow their nails to grow through\ntheir clenched hands, which unfits them for work (but they are all too\nreligiously lazy to work), and makes it necessary for the credulous\nfaithful to support them. Some of these, like the K[=a]naph[=a]ts,\n'Ear-splitters,' who pierce the ear with heavy rings, have been\nrespectable Yogis in the past, but most of them have lost what sense\ntheir philosophic founders attached to the sign, and keep only the\nlatter as their religion. Some, such as the [=U]kharas and\nS[=u]kharas, appear to have no distinctive features, all of them being\nthe 'refuse of beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength\nof nudity, and subdue their passions literally with lock and key. The\n'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[=u]daras and K[=a]p[=a]likas, are\ndistinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The\nformer, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by\nname since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas\nboth show that very likely others among these wretches are but the\nresidue of ancient \u00c7ivaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps\nBuddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, \u00c7iva\napparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself,\nand he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the\nresemblance of a decent god.\n\nThere is a well-known verse, not in Manu, but attributed to him (and\nfor that reason quite a modern forgery),[41] which declares that\n\u00c7ambhu (\u00c7iva) is the god of priests; Vishnu, the god of warriors;\nBrahm[=a], the god of the V[=a]i\u00e7yas (farmers and traders); and\nGane\u00e7a, the god of slaves. It is, on the contrary, \u00c7iva himself, not\nhis son Gane\u00e7a, who is the 'god of low people' in the early\nliterature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a\ngod of priests till he is carefully made over by the latter. Nowadays\nsome Brahmans profess the \u00c7ivaite faith, but they are Vishnuite if\nreally sectarian.\n\n\nNo Brahman, for instance, will serve at a \u00c7iva shrine, except possibly\nat Benares, where among more than an hundred shrines to \u00c7iva and his\nfamily, Vishnu has but one; and though he will occasionally perform\nservice even in a heretic Jain temple he will not lower himself to\nworship the Linga. Nor is it true that \u00c7iva is a patron of literature.\nLike Gane\u00e7a, his son, \u00c7iva may upset everything if he be not properly\nplacated, and consequently there is, at the beginning of every\nenterprise (among others, literary enterprises) in the Renaissance\nliterature, but never in the works of religion or law or in any but\nmodern profane literature, an invocation to \u00c7iva. But he is no more a\npatron of literature than is Gane\u00e7a, or in other words, \u00c7ivaism is not\nmore literary than is Gane\u00e7aism. In a literary country no religion is\nso illiterate as \u00c7ivaism, no writings are so inane as are those in his\nhonor. There is no poem, no religious literary monument, no Pur[=a]na\neven, dedicated to \u00c7iva, that has any literary merit. All that is\nreadable in sectarian literature, the best Pur[=a]nas, the Divine\nSong, the sectarian R[=a]m[=a]yana, come from Vishnuism. \u00c7ivaism has\nnothing to compare with this, except in the works of them that pretend\nto be \u00c7ivaites but are really not sectaries, like the Sittars and the\nauthor of the \u00c7vet[=a]\u00e7vatara. \u00c7iva as a 'patron of literature' takes\njust the place taken by Gane\u00e7a in the present beginning of the\nMah[=a]bh[=a]rata. Vy[=a]sa has here composed the poem[42] but Gane\u00e7a\nis invoked as Vighne\u00e7a, 'Lord of difficulties,' to help the poet write\nit out. Vy[=a]sa does the intellectual work and Gane\u00e7a performs the\nmanual labor. Vishnuism, in a word, is the only cultivated (native)\nsectarian religion of India; and the orthodox cult, in that it is\nVedantic, lies nearer to Vishnuism than to \u00c7ivaism. Why then does one\nfind \u00c7iva invoked by philosophy? Because monotheism in distinction\nfrom pantheism was the belief of the wise in the first centuries after\nthe Christian era, till the genius of \u00c7ankara definitively raised\npantheism in alliance with orthodoxy to be the more esteemed; and\nbecause \u00c7iva alone, when the choice lay between him and Vishnu, could\nbe selected as the One God. For Vishnuism was now merged with\nKrishnaism, a new vulgar cult, and \u00c7iva was an old and venerated god,\nlong since a member of the Brahmanic pantheon. The connection between\n\u00c7ivaism and the S[=a]nkhya system gave it a more respectable and\narchaic appearance in the eyes of the conservative Brahman, while the\noriginal asceticism of \u00c7iva undoubtedly appealed much more to\nBrahmanic feeling than did the sentimentalism of the Vishnuite. In the\nextreme North, in the ninth century, philosophy and \u00c7ivaism are\nnominally allied, but really sectarian \u00c7ivaism was the cult of the\nlowest, not of the highest classes. Many of the professed \u00c7ivaites are\nto-day tending to Vedantism, which is the proper philosophy of the\nVishnuite; and the \u00c7ivaite sects are waning before the Vishnuite\npower, not only in the middle North, where the mass of the population\nis devoted to Vishnu, but even in \u00c7iva's later provinces in the\nextreme South. The social distribution of the sectaries in the Middle\nAges was such that one may assign older Vishnuism to the middle\nclasses, and \u00c7ivaism to the highest on its philosophical and decently\nascetic side, but to the lowest on its phallic and magical side.\n\nBut none of the \u00c7ivaite sects we have mentioned, imbecile as appear to\nbe the impostors that represent them, are equal in despicable traits\nto the \u00c7[=a]ktas. These worshippers of the androgynous \u00c7iva (or of\n\u00c7akti, the female principle alone), do, indeed, include some\nVishnuites among themselves, but they are originally and prevailingly\n\u00c7ivaite.[43] Blood-offerings and human sacrifices are a modern and an\nancient Trait of \u00c7iva-worship;[44] and the hill-tribes of the Vindhya\nand the classical drama show that the cult of Aghor[=i] is a \u00c7ivaite\nmanifestation which is at once old and derived from un-Aryan sources.\nAghor[=i] and all female monsters naturally associate with \u00c7iva, who\nis their intellectual and moral counterpart. The older Aghoris exacted\nhuman sacrifice in honor of Devi, P[=a]rvat[=i], the wife of \u00c7iva.[2]\nThe adoration of the female side of a god is as old as the Rig Veda,\nbut \u00c7ivaism has combined this cult with features probably derived from\nother independent local cults, such as that of P[=a]rvat[=i], the\n'mountain goddess.' They are all united in the person of \u00c7iva's wife\nof many names, the 'great goddess,' Mah[=a]dev[=i], the 'hard'\nDurg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], Um[=a], etc.[45] And it is to this ferocious\nshe-monster that the most abject homage of the \u00c7ivaites is paid. So\ngreat is the terror inspired by Durg[=a] that they that are not\n\u00c7ivaites at all yet join in her festival; for which purpose,\napparently, she is dubbed Vishnu's 'sister.' But it is not\nblood-guiltiness alone which is laid at the door of this cult. The\nsectarian religions have an exoteric and an esoteric side, the\nreligion of the 'right hand' and of the 'left hand.' It is the latter\n(to which belong many that deny the fact) wherein centre the\nabominations of \u00c7ivaism; in less degree, those of Vishnuism also.\nObscenity is the soul of this cult. Bestiality equalled only by the\norgies of the Indic savages among the hill-tribes is the form of this\n'religion.'[47] It is screened by an Orphic philosophy, for is not\nNature or Illusion the female side of the Divine Male? It is screened\nagain by religious fervor, for it is pious profligacy that prompts the\nrites. It is induced practically by an initial carousal and\ndrunkenness; and this is antique, for even the old _soma_-feasts were\nto a great extent drunken revels, and the gods have got drunk from the\ntime of the Vedas[48] to do their greatest deeds. But in practice,\n\u00c7akti-worship, when unveiled, amounts to this, that men and women of\nthe same class and family indulge in a Bacchanalian orgy, and that, as\nthey proceed, they give themselves over to every excess which liquor\nand lust can prompt. A description of the different rites would be to\nreduplicate an account of indecencies, of which the least vile is too\nesoteric to sketch faithfully. Vaguely to outline one such religious\nfestival will suffice. A naked woman, the wife of the chief priest,\nsits in the middle of the 'holy circle.' She represents Durg[=a], the\ndivine female principle. The Bacchic orgy begins with hard drinking.\n\u00c7iva as Bh[=a]irava, 'the dreadful,' has his human counterpart also,\nwho must then and there pair with the impersonated Durg[=a]. The\nworship proper consists in the repetition of meaningless _mantra_\nsyllables and yells; the worship improper, in indulgence in 'wine and\nwomen' (particularly enjoined in the rite-books called Tantras). Human\nsacrifice at these rites is said to be extinct at the present day.[49]\n\nBut blood-lust is appeased by the hacking of their own bodies.\nGarments are cast in a heap. Lots are drawn for the women's\ngarments[50] by the men. With her whose clothes he gets each man\ncontinues the debauch, inviting incest in addition to all other\nexcess.[51]\n\nThe older Vishnuite sects (P[=a][=n]car[=a]tras, etc.) may have had\nsome of this filth in their make-up; but mass for mass the practices\nare characteristic of \u00c7ivaism and not of Vishnuism.[52] Especially\n\u00c7ivaite, however, is the 'mother worship,' to which reference was made\nin the chapter on epic Hinduism. These 'mothers' are guardian\ngoddesses, or fiends of disease, etc. One may not claim that all\n\u00c7[=a]ktas are \u00c7ivaites, but how small a part of Vishnuism is occupied\nwith \u00c7akti-worship can be estimated only by surveying the whole body\nof worshippers of that name.\n\nWe cannot leave the lust and murder of modern \u00c7ivaism without speaking\nof still another sect which hangs upon the heels of K[=a]l[=i], that\nof the Thugs. It may, indeed, be questioned whether \u00c7iva should be\nresponsible for the doings of his spouse, K[=a]l[=i]. But like seeks\nlike, and there is every historical justification in making out \u00c7iva\nto be as bad as the company he keeps. Durg[=a] and K[=a]l[=i] are not\nvainly looked upon as \u00c7iva's female side. So that a sect like the\nThugs,[53] which worshipped K[=a]li, may, it is true, be taken out of\nthe \u00c7ivaite sects, but only if one will split \u00c7ivaism in two and\nreproduce the original condition, wherein \u00c7iva was one monster and\nK[=a]li was another; which is scarcely possible after the two have for\ncenturies been looked upon as identical. With this in mind it may be\ngranted that the Thugs payed reverence to K[=a]li, rather than to her\nlord. Moreover, many of them were Mohammedans; but, for our purpose,\nthe significant fact is that when the Thugs were Hindus they were\nK[=a]li-\u00c7ivaites. And we believe that these secret murderers, strange\nas it seems, originated in a reformatory movement. As is well known,\nit was a religious principle with them not to spill blood.[54] They\nalways throttled. They were, of course, when they first became known m\n1799 (Sherwood's account), nothing but robbers and murderers. But,\nlike the other \u00c7ivaite monstrosities, they regarded their work as a\nreligious act, and always invoked K[=a]li if they were Hindus. We\nthink it probable, therefore, that the sect originated among the\nK[=a]li-worshippers as a protest against blood-letting. Admitting that\nrobbery is under \u00c7iva's protection (\u00c7iva is 'god of robbers'), and\nthat K[=a]li wanted victims, a sect probably claimed that the victims\nshould be throttled, and not bled. Not that this was necessarily a new\nreform. There is every reason to suppose that most of \u00c7iva's females\nare aboriginal wild-tribe divinities. Now among these savages one sees\nat times a distinct refusal to bleed human victims. Thuggery may then\nhave been the claim of an old conservative party, who wished to keep\nup the traditional throttling; though this is pure speculation, for,\nat the time when the sect became exposed, this means of death was\nmerely the safest way to kill. They insisted always on being called\nThugs, and scorned the name of thief. They were suppressed by 1840.\nReynolds describes them as \"mostly men of mild and unobtrusive\nmanners, possessing a cheerful disposition.\"[55]\n\n\n\nTHE VISHNUITE SECTS.\n\nThere is a formal idealistic \u00c7ivaism, as we have shown, and there was\nonce a dualistic Vishnuism; but in general the Vishnuite is an\nidealist. To comprehend the quarrels among the sects of this religion,\nhowever, it will be necessary to examine the radical philosophical\ndifferences of their founders, for one passes, in going from modern\n\u00c7ivaism to Vishnuism, out of ignorant superstition into philosophical\nreligion, of which many even of the weaker traits are but recent\nHinduistic effeminacy substituted for an older manly thinking.\n\nThe complex of Vishnuite sects presents at first rather a confused\nappearance, but we think that we can make the whole body separate\nitself clearly enough into its component parts, if the reader will\npause at the threshold and before entering the edifice look at the\nfoundation and the outer plan of Vedantic philosophy.\n\nAt the beginning of Colebrooke's essays on Hindu philosophy he\nthus describes four of the recognized systems: \"The two\nM[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]s... are emphatically orthodox. The prior one,\n_p[=u]rva_[56] which has J[=a]imini for its founder, teaches the art\nof reasoning, with the express view of aiding the interpretation of\nthe Vedas. The latter, _uttara_[57] commonly called Ved[=a]nta, and\nattributed to Vy[=a]sa (or B[=a]dar[=a]yana), deduces from the text of\nthe Indian scriptures a refined psychology, which goes to a denial of\na material world. A different philosophical system, partly heterodox,\nand partly conformable to the established Hindu creed, is the\nS[=a]nkhya; of which also, as of the preceding, there are two schools;\none usually known by that name,[58] the other commonly termed\nYoga.\"[59]\n\nThe eldest of these systems, as we have already had occasion to state,\nis the dualistic S[=a]nkhya. It was still highly esteemed in the ninth\ncentury, the time of the great Vedantist, \u00c7ankara.[60] A theistic form\nof this atheistic philosophy is called the Puranic S[=a]nkhya, and\nPata[.n]jali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the\ndualistic S[=a]nkhya stands the Ved[=a]nta,[61] based on the\nUpanishads that teach the identity of spirit and matter.\n\nAs representative of the metaphysics of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta\nsystems respectively stand in general the two great religions of\nIndia. The former, as we have shown, is still potent in the great Song\nof the epic, and its principles are essentially those of early\n\u00c7ivaism. The latter, especially in its sectarian interpretation, with\nwhich we have now to deal, has become the great religion o\u00a3 India. But\nthere are two sectarian interpretations of Vishnu, and two\nphilosophical interpretations of the All-spirit in its relation to the\nindividual soul or spirit.[62] Again the individual spirit of man\neither enjoys after death immortal happiness, as a being distinct from\nthe All-spirit; or the _jiva_, individual spirit, is absorbed into the\nAll-spirit (losing all individuality, but still conscious of\nhappiness); or the individual spirit is absorbed into an All-spirit\nthat has no happiness or affection of any kind.\n\nNow the strict philosophy of the Ved[=a]nta adopts the last view _in\ntoto_. The individual spirit (soul, self) becomes one with the\nuniversal Spirit, losing individuality and consciousness, for the\nuniversal Spirit itself is not affected by any quality or condition. A\ncreative force without attributes, this is the All-spirit of \u00c7ankara\nand of the strict Vedantist. To \u00c7ankara the Creator was but a phase of\nthe All-spirit, and the former's immortality ended with his creation;\nin other words, there is no immortal Creator, only an immortal\ncreative power.\n\nIn the twelfth century arose another great leader of thought,\nR[=a]m[=a]nuja. He disputed the correctness of \u00c7ankara's\ninterpretation of Vedantic principles. It is maintained by some that\n\u00c7ankara's interpretation is really correct, but for our purpose that\nis neither here nor there.[63] \u00c7ankara's _brahma_ is the\none and only being, pure being, or pure thought. Thought is not an\nattribute of _brahma_, it is _brahma_. Opposed to this pure being\n(thought) stands _m[=a]y[=a]_, illusion, the material cause of the\nseen world. It is neither being nor not-being; it is the cause of the\nappearance of things, in that it is associated with _brahma_, and in\nso far only is _brahma_ rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each\nindividual is _brahma_; the finite part is _m[=a]y[=a]._ Thus\nB[=a]dar[=a]yana (author of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras) says that the\nindividual is only illusion.\n\nR[=a]m[=a]nuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a _brahma_ that is not\nonly universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme\nconscious and willing God. Far from being devoid of attributes, like\n\u00c7ankara's _brahma_, the _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja has all attributes,\nchief of which is thought or intelligence. The Lord contains in\nhimself the elements of that plurality which \u00c7ankara regards as\nillusion. As contrasted with the dualistic S[=a]nkhya phiiosophy both\nof these systems inculcate monism. But according to \u00c7ankara all\ndifference is illusion; while according to R[=a]m[=a]nuja _brahma_ is\nnot homogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is\ntruly manifested. \u00c7ankara's _m[=a]y[=a]_ is R[=a]m[=a]nuja's body of\n_(brahma)_ the Lord. \u00c7ankara's personal god exists only by collusion\nwith illusion, and hence is illusory. The _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja\nis a personal god, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world.\nMoreover, from an eschatological point of view, \u00c7ankara explains\nsalvation, the release from re-birth, _sams[=a]ra_, as complete union\nwith this unqualified _brahma_, consequently as loss of individuality\nas well as loss of happiness. But R[=a]m[=a]nuja defines salvation as\nthe departure from earth forever of the individual\nspirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].\n\nR[=a]m[=a]nuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the\npresent time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a\npersonal god to be loved or feared, the hope of bliss hereafter. In\nits essential features it is a very old belief, far older than the\nphilosophy which formulates it[66]. Thus, after the hard saying \"fools\ndesire heaven,\" this desire reasserted itself, and under\nR[=a]m[=a]nuja's genial interpretation of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras the\npious man was enabled to build up his cheerful hope again, withal on\nthe basis of a logic as difficult to controvert as was that of \u00c7ankara\nhimself[67].\n\nThus far the product of Vedantism is deism. But now with two steps one\narrives at the inner portal of sectarianism. First, if _brahma_ is a\npersonal god, which of the gods is he, this personal All-spirit? As a\ngeneral thing the Vedantist answers, 'he is Vishnu'; and adds,\n'Vishnu, who embraces as their superior those other gods, \u00c7iva, and\nBrahm[=a].' But the sectary is not content with making the All-god one\nwith Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna,\nsome say as R[=a]ma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to\nthe All-spirit deist, may be illustrated most clearly by comparison\nwith Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal god as\nthe absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power\nis a\npersonal god, Jehovah; again, Jehovah may or may not be regarded as\none with Christ. The minuter ramifications of the Christian church\nthen correspond to the sub-sects of Krishnaism or Ramaism.[69]\n\nThe Occidental and Oriental conceptions of the trinity are, however,\nnot identical. For in India the trinity, from the Vishnuite point of\nview, is an amalgamation of \u00c7iva and Brahm[=a] with Vishnu,\nirrespective of the question whether Vishnu be manifest in Krishna or\nnot; while the Christian trinity amalgamates the form that corresponds\nto Vishnu with the one that corresponds to Krishna.[70] To the\northodox Brahman, on the other hand, as Williams has very well put it,\nKrishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is himself only an\nincarnation, that is, a form, of God.\n\nHaving now explained the two principal divisions of the modern sects,\nwe can lead the reader into the church of Vishnu. It is a church of\ntwo great parties, each being variously subdivided. Of these two\nparties the Krishnaites are intellectually the weaker, and hence\nnumerically the stronger. All Krishnaites, of course, identify the\nman-god Krishna with Vishnu, and their sub-sects revert to various\nteachers, of whom the larger number are of comparatively recent date,\nalthough as a body the Krishnaites may claim an antiquity as great, if\nnot greater, than that of the Ramaites.\n\nBut the latter party, in their various sub-sects, all claim as\ntheir founder either R[=a]m[=a]nuja himself or one of his followers;\nand since, if the claim be granted, the R[=a]ma sects do but continue\nhis work, we shall begin by following out the result of his teaching\nas it was interpreted by his disciples; especially since the\nKrishnaites have left to the Ramaites most of the philosophizing of\nthe church, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the moralities\nand immoralities of their more practical religion. As a matter of\nfact, the Ramaites to-day are less religious than philosophical, while\nin the case of the Krishnaites, with some reservations, the contrary\nmay be said to be the case.\n\n\nTHE RAMAITES.\n\nSince the chief characteristic of growth among Hindu sectaries is a\nsort of segmentation, like that which conditions the development of\namoebas and other lower organisms, it is a forgone conclusion that the\nRamaites, having formed one body apart from the Krishnaites, will\nimmediately split up again into smaller segments. It is also a\nforegone conclusion, since one is really dealing here with human\ntypes, that these smaller segments will mutually hate and despise each\nother much more than they hate their common adversaries. Just as, in\nold times, a Calvinist hated a Lutheran more than he did a Russian\nChristian (for he understood his quarrel better), so a 'cat-doctrine'\nRamaite hates a 'monkey-doctrine' Ramaite far more than he hates a\nKrishnaite, while with a \u00c7ivaite he often has an amicable union;\nalthough the Krishnaite belittles the Ramaite's manifestation of\nVishnu, and the \u00c7ivaite belittles Vishnu himself.[71]\n\nThe chief point of difference theologically between the Ramaites is\nthe one just mentioned. The adherents of the 'cat-doctrine' teach that\nGod saves man as a cat takes up its kitten, without free-will on the\npart of the latter. The monkey-doctrinaires teach that man, in order\nto be saved, must reach out to their God (R[=a]ma, who is Vishnu, who,\nagain, is All-god, that is, _brahma_), and embrace their God as a\nmonkey does its mother.[72] The resemblance to the Occidental sects\nhere becomes still more interesting. But we have given an earlier\nexample of the doctrine of free grace from the epic, and can now only\nlocate the modern sects that still argue the question. The 'monkey'\nRamaites are a sect of the North (_vada_), and hence are called\nVada-galais;[73] the 'cat' or Calvinistic Ramaites of the South\n(_ten_), are called Ten-galais. Outwardly these sects differ in having\ndiverse _mantras_, greetings, dress, and especially in the\nforehead-signs, which show whether the 'mark of Vishnu' shall\nrepresent (Vadagal belief) one or (Tengal) two feet of the god\n(expressed by vertical lines[74] painted fresh daily on the forehead).\nThe Ten-galais, according to a recent account, are the more numerous\nand the more materialistic.[75]\n\nAll the Ramaites, on the other hand, hold that (1) the deity is not\ndevoid of qualities; (2) Vishnu is the deity and should be worshipped\nwith Lakshm[=i], his wife; (3) R[=a]ma is the human _avatar_ of\nVishnu; (4) R[=a]m[=a]nuja and all the great teachers since his day\nare also _avatars_ of Vishnu.\n\nIn upper India, about the Ganges, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's disciple,\nR[=a]m[=a]nand (fifth in descent), who lived in the fourteenth\ncentury, has more followers than has the founder. His disciples\nworship the divine ape, Hanuman[76] (conspicuous in both epics), as\nwell as R[=a]ma. They are called 'the liberated,' Avadh[=u]tas, but\nwhether because they are freed from caste-restrictions,[77] or from\nthe strict rules of eating enjoined by R[=a]m[=a]nuja, is doubtful.\nR[=a]m[=a]nand himself had in turn twelve disciples. Of these the most\nfamaous is Kab[=i]r, whose followers, the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s (sect),\nare widely spread, and of whom no less a person than N[=a]nak, the\nSikh, claimed to be a successor. But it will be more convenient to\ndescribe the Sikhs hereafter. Of R[=a]m[=a]nand's other disciples that\nfounded sects may be mentioned Kil, whose sectaries, the Kh[=a]kis, of\nOude, unite successfully R[=a]ma-worship, Hanuman-worship, and \u00c7ivaite\nfashions (thus presenting a mixture like that of the southern\nM[=a]dhvas, who unite the images of \u00c7iva and Vishnu). The R[=a]s\nD[=a]sa sect, again, owes to its founder the black \u00c7[=a]lagr[=a]ma\npebble, an object of reverent awe, which gives rise to a sort of\nsub-cult subsequently imitated by others.[78] Another widely-spread\nsect which claim R[=a]m[=a]nand as their founder's teacher is that of\nthe D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s. This branch also of the Ramaites we shall\nmore appropriately discuss under the head of deism (below). Finally,\nwe have to mention, as an outcome of the R[=a]m[=a]nand faith, the\nmodern R[=a]m[=a]yana, Ramcaritmanas, the new bible of the sect,\ncomposed in the sixteenth century by Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa ('slave of\nVishnu'),the greatest of modern Hindu poets. What the Divine Song and\nthe Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na are to the Krishnaite, the older (epic)\nR[=a]m[=a]yana of V[=a]lm[=i]ki and Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa's new poem (of\nthe same name) are to the Ramaite.[79]\n\n\nTHE KRISHNAITES.\n\nThere are two great sects that worship Vishnu as especially manifested\nin the human form of Krishna. But, as distinguished from the\nphilosophical Ramaite, the Krishnaite is not satisfied with a\ndeclaration of faith in the man-god, and in fact his chief cult is of\nthe child-god Krishna, the B[=a]la Gop[=a]la or Infant Shepherd. This\nrecalls the older Krishna (of the Harivan\u00e7a), whose sporting with the\nmilk-maids is a favorite topic in later Krishnaite literature. As a\nformulated cult, consisting for the most part of observances based on\nthe mystic side of affection for the personal saver of man (the\n_bhakti_ principle of 'devotion,' erotically expanded[80]), this\nworship obtains both among C[=a]itanyas and Vallabhas, sects that\narose in the sixteenth century.[81]\n\nC[=a]itanya, born in Bengal in 1485, of whom it is fabled that wise\nmen came and gave homage to him while he was yet a child, was active\nin Bengal and Orissa, where his sect (named after him) is one of the\nmost important at the present day. C[=a]itanya preached a practical as\nwell as a theoretical reform. He taught the equality of all\nworshippers of whatever caste, and the religious virtue of marriage.\nAt the present day caste-feeling and religious profession are somewhat\nat variance. But a compromise is affected. While in the temple the\nhigh-caste C[=a]itanyas regard their lowly co-religionists as equals;\nwhen out of it they become again arrogantly high-caste, Making a\nvirtue of marriage instead of celibacy caused the sect to become\npopular with the middle and lower classes, but its adherents are\nusually drawn from the dregs of the populace.[82] The principle of\nlove for God (that is, for Krishna) is especially dwelt upon by\nC[=a]itanya. The devotee should feel such affection as is felt by a\nyoung man for a girl. To exercise or inspire this rapt and mystic\ndevotion, recourse is had to singing, dancing. and other familiar\nmeans of arousing religious fervor. If the dancing devotee swoons it\nis a sign that God accepts his love. At the present day C[=a]itanya\nhimself is regarded as the incarnate deity. He and his two chief\ndisciples, who (like all Gosains, religious Teachers) are divine, form\na little sub-trinity for the sect.[83] This sect, like so many others,\nbegan as a reform, only to become worse than its rivals.\n\nVallabha or Vallabh[=a]e[=a]rya, 'Teacher Vallabha,' was also of the\nsixteenth century, but his sect belongs especially to the Northwest,\nwhile the sphere of C[=a]itanya's influence was in the Northeast. He\nlived near the Ganges, is said to have been a scholar, and wrote a\ncommentary on the early life of Krishna in the tenth book of the\nBh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na, and on the Divine\nSong. In Bombay and Kutch his disciples are most numerous, the\nEpicureans of Vishnuism. For their precept is 'eat and enjoy.' No\nmortification of the senses is allowed. Human love typifies divine\nlove.[84] The teachers acquired great renown and power, assuming and\nmaintaining the haughty title of _mah[=a] r[=a]jas_ ('great kings').\nThey are as gods, and command absolutely their devotees.[85] Here the\nworship of the Infant Krishna reaches its greatest height (or depth).\nThe image of the infant god is daily clothed, bathed, anointed, and\nworshipped. Religious exercises have more or less of an erotic\ntendency, and here, if anywhere, as one may learn from Wilson,\nWilliams, and other modern writers on this sect, there are almost as\ngreat excesses as are committed among the \u00c7ivaite sects. As a sect it\nis an odd combination of sensual worship and theological speculation,\nfor they have considerable sectarian literature. The most renowned\nfestival of the Infant Krishna is the celebration of the stable-birth\nof Krishna and of the Madonna (bearing him on her breast), but this we\nhave discussed already. Besides this the Jagann[=a]th procession in\nBengal and Orissa, and the great autumnal picnic called the R[=a]s\nY[=a]tra, are famous occasions for displaying Krishnaite, or, indeed,\ngeneral Vishnuite zeal. At the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra assemble musicians,\ndancers, jugglers, and other joy-creating additions to the religious\nfeast, the ostensible reason for which is the commemoration of\nKrishna's dances with the milk-maids. The devotees belong chiefly to\nthe wealthy middle classes. These low sects worship Krishna\nwith R[=a]dh[=a] (his mistress, instead of Lakshm[=i], Vishnu's wife).\nHere, too, as Krishnaites rather than as Vishnuites, are found the\n'left-hand' worshippers of the female power.[86]\n\nThis sensual corruption of Vishnuism, which is really not Vishnuism\nbut simple Krishnaism, led to two prominent reforms within the fold.\nAmong the Vallabhas arose in protest the Caran D[=a]s[=i]s, who have\ntaken from the M[=a]dhvas of the South their Ten Commandments (against\nlying, reviling, harsh speech, idle talk, theft, adultery, injury to\nlife, imagining evil, hate, and pride); and evolved for themselves the\ntenet that faith without works is dead. The same protest was made\nagainst the Vallabhas by Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. He was born about\n1780 near Lucknow, and advocated a return to Vallabha's purer faith,\nwhich had been corrupted. Probably most of the older reformers have\nhad much the same career as had Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. Exalted by\nthe people, who were persuaded by his mesmeric eloquence, he soon\nbecame a political figure, a martyr of persecution, a triumphant\nvictor, and then an ascetic, living in seclusion; whence he emerged\noccasionally to go on tours \"like a bishop visiting his diocese\"\n(Williams). He is worshipped as a god.[87] The sect numbers to-day a\nquarter of a million, some being celibate clergy, some householders.\n\nIn contrast to Vishnuism the following points are characteristic of\northodox Brahmanism (\u00c7ankara's Vedantism): The orthodox believe that\nthere is one spirit in three forms, co-eternal impersonal\nessences--being, knowledge, and joy. When it wills it becomes\npersonal, exists in the object, knows, rejoices, associating itself\nwith illusion. In this state it has three corporeal forms, causal,\nsubtile, gross. With the causal body (identified with illusion,\nignorance) it becomes the Supreme Lord, that is, the totality of\ndreamless human spirits. With the subtile form it becomes the golden\nseed, or thread-spirit (dreaming spirits); with the gross form it\nbecomes V[=i]r[=a]j, V[=a]i\u00e7v[=a]nara, the waking spirit. The lowest\nstate is that of being wide awake. The personal god (Brahm[=a],\nVishnu, \u00c7iva, of the sectaries) is this it as influenced by the three\nqualities, _rajas, sattva, tamas_ (passion, truth, and ignorance),\nrespectively. Three essences, three corporeal forms, and three\nqualities constitute, therefore, the threefold trinity of the\northodox, who are called Sm[=a]rtas, they that 'hold to\ntradition.'[88] What the sectary rejects, namely, the scriptures (Veda\nand Upanishads, etc.) and the caste system, that the orthodox retains;\nwhat the sectary holds, namely, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's qualified\nnon-duality, and absolute godhead in \u00c7iva or Krishna, that the\northodox rejects (although he may receive the sectary's god into his\npantheon). Some of the sects still keep respect for caste, excusing\ntheir respect on the ground that \"it is well enough for God to ignore\nsocial distinctions, but not for man.\" But caste-distinctions are\ngenerally ignored, or there is positive hate of the Brahman. In\nantithesis to the orthodox, the sectaries all hold one other important\ntenet. From the idea of _bhakti_, faith or devotion, was developed\nthat of love for Krishna, and then (as an indication of devotion) the\nconfession of the name of the Lord as a means of grace. Hence, on the\none hand, the meaningless repetition of the sect's special _kirttan_\nor liturgies, and _mantra,_ or religious formula; the devotion,\ndemanded by the priest, of _man, tan, dhan_ (mind, body,[89] and\nproperty); and finally, the whole theory of death-bed confessions.\nSinner or heretic, if one die at last with Krishna's name upon the\nlips he will be saved.[90]\n\nOf the sub-divisions of the sub-sects that we have described, the\nnumbers often run into scores. But either their differences are based\non indifferent matters of detail in the cult and religious practice;\nor the new sect is distinguished from the old simply by its endeavor\nto make for greater holiness or purity as sub-reformers of older\nsects. For all the sects appear to begin as reformers, and later to\nsplit up in the process of re-reformation.\n\nTwo general classes of devotees, besides these, remain to be spoken\nof. The Sanny[=a]sin, 'renouncer,' was of old a Brahman ascetic.\nNowadays, according to Wilson, he is generally a \u00c7ivaite mendicant.\nBut any sect may have its Sanny[=a]sins, as it may have its\nV[=a]ir[=a]gins, 'passionless ones'; although the latter name\ngenerally applies to the Vishnuite ascetics of the South.\n\nApart from all these sects, and in many ways most remarkable, are the\nsun-worshippers. All over India the sun was (and is) worshipped,\neither directly (as to-day by the Sauras),[91] or as an incarnate\ndeity in the form of the priest Nimba-[=a]ditya, who is said to have\narrested the sun's course at one time and to be the sun's\nrepresentative on earth. Both Puranic authority and inscriptional\nevidence attest this more direct[92] continuance of the old Vedic\ncult. Some of the finest old temples of India, both North and South,\nwere dedicated to the sun.\n\n\nDEISTIC REFORMING SECTS.\n\nWe have just referred to one or two reforming sects that still hold to\nthe sectarian deity. Among these the M[=a]dhvas, founded by (Madhva)\n[=A]nandat[=i]rtha, are less Krishnaite or R[=a]maite than\nVishnuite,[93] and less Vishnuite than deist in general; so much so\nthat Williams declares they must have got their precepts from\nChristianity, though this is open to Barth's objection that the\nreforming deistic sects are so located as to make it more probable\nthat they derive from Mohammedanism. Madhva was born about 1200 on the\nwestern coast, and opposed \u00c7ankara's pantheistic doctrine of\nnon-duality. He taught that the supreme spirit is essentially\ndifferent to matter and to the individual spirit.[94] He of course\ndenied absorption, and, though a Vishnuite, clearly belonged in spirit\nto the older school before Vishnuism became so closely connected with\nVed[=a]nta doctrines. It is the same Sankhyan Vishnuism that one sees\nin the Divine Song, that is, duality, and a continuation of\n\u00c7[=a]ndilya's ancient heresy.[95]\n\nHere ends the course of India's native religions. From a thousand\nyears B.C. to as many years after she is practically uninfluenced by\nforeign doctrine, save in externals.\n\nIt is of course permissible to separate the reforming sects of\nthe last few decades from the older reformers; but since we see both\nin their aim and in their foreign sources (amalgamation with cis-Indic\nbelief) only a logical if not an historical continuance of the older\ndeists, we prefer to treat of them all as factors of one whole; and,\nfrom a broader point of view, as successors to the still older\npantheistic and unitarian reformers who first predicated a supreme\nspirit as _ens realissimum_, when still surrounded by the clouds of\nprimitive polytheism. Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u], the two most important\nof the more modern reformers, we have named above as nominal adherents\nof the R[=a]m[=a]nand sect. But neither was really a sectarian\nVishnuite.[96] Kab[=i]r, probably of the beginning of the fifteenth\ncentury, the most famous of R[=a]m[=a]nand's disciples, has as\nreligious descendants the sect of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s. But no less\nan organization than that of the Sikhs look back to him, pretending to\nbe his followers. The religious tenets of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s may\nbe described as those of unsectarian Unitarians. They conform to no\nrites or _mantras_. Kab[=i]r assailed all idolatry, ridiculed the\nauthority of all scriptures, broke with Pundit and with Mohammedan,\ntaught that outer form is of no consequence, and that only the 'inner\nman' is of importance. These Panth[=i]s are found in the South, but\nare located chiefly in and about Benares, in Bengal in the East, and\nin Bombay in the West. There are said to be twelve divisions of them.\nKab[=i]r assailed idolatry, but alas! Discipline requires\nsubordination. The Guru, Teacher, must be obeyed. It was not long\nbefore he who rejected idolatry became himself a deity. And in fact,\nevery Teacher, Guru, of the sect was an absolute master of thought,\nand was revered as a god.[97]\n\nIn the fifteenth century, near Laho[.r]e, was born N[=a]nak (1469),\nwho is the nominal founder of the Sikhs, a body which, as N[=a]nak\nclaimed, was a sect embodying the religion of Kab[=i]r himself, of\nwhom he claimed to be a follower. The Granth, or bible of the Sikhs,\nwas first compiled by the pontiff Arjun, in the sixteenth century.\nBesides the portions written by N[=a]nak and Arjun himself, there were\ncollected into it extracts from the works of 'twelve and a half' other\ncontributors to the volume, Kab[=i]r, R[=a]m[=a]nand, etc.[98] This\nGranth was subsequently called the [=A]digranth, or First Book, to\ndistinguish it from the later, enlarged, collection of several books,\none of which was written by Guru Govind, the tenth Sikh pontiff. The\nchange from a religious body to a church militant and political body\nwas made by this Govind in the eighteenth century.[99] The religious\nsect settled in the Punj[=a]b, became wealthy, excited the greed of\nthe government, was persecuted, rose in revolt, triumphed, and\neventually ruled the province. One of the first to precipitate the\nuprising was the above-mentioned Arjun (fourth pontiff after\nN[=a]nak). He played the king, was accused of rebellion, imprisoned,\nand probably killed by the Mohammedans. The Sikhs flew to arms, and\nfrom this time on they were perforce little more than robbers and\nplunderers. Govind made the final change in organization, and,\nso to speak, at one blow created a nation, for the church at his hands\nwas converted into the united militant body called Kh[=a]ls[=a] under\nthe Guru as pontiff-king, with a 'council of chiefs.' They were vowed\nto hate the Mohammedan and Hindu. All caste-distinctions were\nabrogated. Govind instituted the worship of Steel and Book (sword and\nbible). His orders were: \"If you meet a Mohammedan, kill him; if you\nmeet a Hindu, beat and plunder him.\" The Sikhs invoked the 'Creator'\nas 'highest lord,' either in the form of Vishnu or R[=a]ma. Their\nfounder, N[=a]nak, kept, however, the Hindu traditions in regard to\nrites. He was a travelled merchant, and is said to have been in\nArabia. As an example of the Sikh bible may serve the following\nextracts, translated from the original dialect by Trumpp and Prinsep\nrespectively:\n\n  _From Trumpp_:\n\n  True is the Lord, of a true name,\n  But the import of (this) language is Infinite.\n  They say and beg, give, give!\n  The Liberal gives presents.\n  What may again be put before (him)\n  By which his court may be seen?\n  What word may be spoken by the mouth,\n  Which having heard he may bestow love?\n  Early reflect on the greatness of the True Name.[100]\n  From his beneficence comes clothing,\n  From his look the gate of salvation.\n  N[=a]nak (says): Thus it is known,\n  That he himself is altogether truthful.\n\n  _From Prinsep_:\n\n  Thou art the Lord, to thee be praise;\n  All life is with thee.\n  Thou art my parents; I, thy child.\n  All happiness is from thy mercy.\n  No one knows God.\n\n  Highest Lord among the highest,\n  Of all that is thou art the regulator,\n  And all that is from thee obeys thy will,\n  Thy movements, thy pleasure; thou alone knowest.\n  N[=a]nak, thy slave is a free-will offering unto thee.[101]\n\nThe religious side of this organization remained under the name of\nUd[=a]sis,[102] or Nirmalas ('spotless ones'). The [=A]digranth was\nextended by other additions, such as that of Govind (above), and now\nconstitutes a large heterogeneous collection of hymns and moral rules.\nSeven sub-sects of the religious body were developed in course of\ntime. The military body has a well-known history. They were complete\nmasters of the Punj[=a]b in 1764, and remained there as an independent\nrace till that province was occupied by the British in 1848. Both\nKab[=i]r and his follower N[=a]nak were essentially reformers. They\nsought for a religion which should rest on the common truths of\nHinduism and Mohammedanism.[103] As a matter of form the political\nparty of Govind, the Govind Singhs, or Simhis, worshipped the Hindu\ngods, and they showed respect for the Brahman priests for a long\nwhile; but they rejected the Vedas and caste--the two most essential\nfeatures of orthodoxy.[104]\n\nD[=a]d[=u], the second great reformer, who shows Mohammedan influence\nquite as plainly as does Kab[=i]r, also claimed R[=a]m[=a]nand as his\nteacher. The sects that revert to D[=a]d[=u], D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s,\nnow number more than half an hundred. Some of the votaries are\nsoldiers; some are mendicants. The founder lived about the end of the\nsixteenth century. The outward\npractices of the sects differ somewhat from those of other sects. Like\nPersians, they expose their dead. They are found about [=A]jm[=i]r and\nother districts of the North, in the seats of the Jains. Their faith\nand reformatory tendency may be illustrated by the following extract,\nas translated by Wilson:[105]\n\n\"He is my God who maketh all things perfect. O foolish one, God is not\nfar from you. He is near you. God's power is always with you. Whatever\nis to be is God's will. What will be will be. Therefore, long not for\ngrief or joy, because by seeking the one you may find the other. All\nthings are sweet to them that love God. I am satisfied with this, that\nhappiness is in proportion to devotion. O God, Thou who art truth,\ngrant me contentment, love, devotion, and faith.... Sit ye with\nhumility at the feet of God, and rid yourselves of the sickness of\nyour bodies. From the wickedness of the body there is much to fear,\nbecause all sins enter into it. Therefore, let your dwelling be with\nthe fearless, and direct yourselves toward the light of God. For there\nneither sword nor poison have power to destroy, and sin cannot enter.\nThe greatest wisdom is in preventing your minds from being influenced\nby bad passions, and in meditating upon the One God. Afford help also\nto the poor stranger. Meditate on Him by whom all things were\nmade.\"[106]\n\nThis tradition of reform is maintained by others without intermission\ndown to the present century, and the M[=a]dhvas and Sv[=a]mi\nN[=a]r[=a]yana, of whom we have spoken above as being more directly\nconnected with sectarian bodies, are, in fact, scarcely more concerned\nwith the tenets of the latter than were Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u]. Thus\nthe seventeenth century sees the rising of the B[=a]b[=a]l[=a]ls and\nS[=a]dhus; and the eighteenth, of the Satn[=a]mis, 'worshippers of the\ntrue name,' who, with other minor bodies, such as the N[=a]ngi\nPanthis, founded by Dedr[=a]j in this century, are really pure\ndeists, although some of them, like the Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, claim to be\nfollowers of Kab[=i]r. And so they are, in spirit at least.\n\n\nTHE DEISM OF TO-DAY.[107]\n\nAnd thus one arrives at modern deism, not as the result of new\ninfluences emanating from Christian teaching, but rather as the\nlegitimate successor of that deism which became almost monotheistic in\nthe first centuries after our era, and has ever since varied with\nvarious reformers between two beliefs, inclining now to the\npantheistic, now to the unitarian conception, as the respective\nreformers were influenced by Ved[=a]nta or S[=a]nkhya (later\nMohammedan) doctrine.\n\nThe first of the great modern reformers is R[=a]mmohun Roy, who was\nborn in 1772, the son of a high-caste Krishnaite Brahman. He studied\nPersian and Arabic literature at Patna, the centre of Indic Mohammedan\nlearning. When a mere boy, he composed a tract against idolatry which\ncaused him to be banished from home. He lived at Benares, the\nstronghold of Brahmanism, and afterwards in Tibet, the centre of\nBuddhism. \"From his earliest years,\" says Williams, \"he displayed an\neagerness to become an unbiassed student of all the religions of the\nglobe.\" He read the Vedas, the P[=a]li Buddhist works, the Kur[=a]n,\nand the Old Testament in the original; and in later years even studied\nGreek that he might properly understand the New Testament. The\nscholastic philosophy of the Hindus appeared to him, however, as\nsomething superior to what he found elsewhere, and his efforts were\ndirected mainly to purifying the national faith, especially from\nidolatry. It was at his instigation that the practice of widow-burning\nwas abolished (in 1829) by the British. He was finally ostracized from\nhome as a schismatic, and retired to Calcutta, uniting about him a\nsmall body of Hindus and Jains, and there established a sort of church\nor sect, the [=A]tm[=i]ya Sabh[=a],'spiritual society' (1816), which\nmet at his house, but eventually was crushed by the hostility of the\northodox priests. He finally adopted a kind of Broad-church\nChristianity or Unitarianism, and in 1820, in his 'Precepts of Jesus'\nand in one of his later works, admits that the simple moral code of\nthe New Testament and the doctrines of Christ were the best that he\nknew. He never, however, abjured caste; and his adoption of\nChristianity, of course, did not include the dogma of the trinity:\n\"Whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of\nthe Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of\npolytheism\" (Final Appeal). Founded by him, the first theistic church\nwas organized in 1828 at Calcutta, and formally opened in 1830 as the\nBr[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; ('the Congregation of God'). In doing this he\nwished it to be understood that he was not founding a new sect, but a\npure monotheistic worship. The only creed was a confession of faith in\nthe unity of God. For himself, he abandoned pantheism, adopted the\nbelief in a final judgment, in miracles, and in Christ as the 'Founder\nof true religion.' He died in 1833 in England. His successor,\nDebendran[=a]th T[=a]gore,[108] was not appointed leader of the\nBr[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; till much later; after he had founded a church of\nhis own ('the Truth-teaching Society'), which lasted for twenty years\n(1839-1859), before it was united with the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j. In the\nmeantime Debendran[=a]th become a member of the latter society (1841).\nHe established the covenant of the Sam[=a]j, a vow taken by every\nmember to lead holy lives, to abstain from idolatry, to worship no\ncreated object, but only God, the One without a second,[109] the\nCreator, Preserver, Destroyer, the Giver of Emancipation.\n\nThe church was newly organized in 1844 with a regularly appointed\npresident and minister, and with the administration of the oath to\neach believer. This is the [=A]di Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, the First\nCongregation, in distinction from the schism which soon took place.\nThe first quarrel in this church was due to a difference of opinion in\nregard to the authority of the Vedas. Some members rejected them,\nothers maintained their infallibility; while between these extremes\nlay various other opinions, some members questioning the infallibility\nof the Vedas but maintaining their authority. By a majority vote it\nwas eventually decided that the Vedas (and Upanishads) were not\ninfallible.\n\nIn the meantime in other provinces rival Sam[=a]jas had been formed,\nand by 1850 there were several of these broad-minded Congregations,\nall trammelled by their environment, but doing their best to be\nliberal.\n\nWe pause here in the compilation of the data recorded in this\nparagraph to assert, independently of Professor Williams, who has\ngiven us the historical facts, but would doubtless not wish to have\nimputed to himself the following judgment which we are led to pass,\nthat the next step of the Sam[=a]j; placed it upon the only ground\nwhere the objects of this church can be attained, and that in the\nsubsequent reform of this reform, which we shall have to record below,\na backward step has been taken. For Debendran[=a]th changed the\nessential character of the Sam[=a]j from pantheistic theism to pure\ndeism. The inner circle of the society had a narrower declaration of\nfaith, but in his Br[=a]hma Dharma, published about 1850,\nDebendran[=a]th formulated four articles of faith, to subscribe to\nwhich admitted any one into the Sam[=a]j. These articles read as\nfollows: (t) Brahma (neuter) alone existed in the beginning before the\nuniverse; naught else existed; It [He] created all the universe. (2)\nIt [He] is eternal, intelligent, infinite, blissful, self-governed\n(independent), without parts, just one (neuter) without a second,\nall-pervading, the ruler (masculine noun) of all, refuge of all,\nomniscient, omnipotent, immovable, perfect, without parallel (all\nthese adjectives are neuter). (3) By worship of this One alone can\nbliss be obtained in the next world and in this. (4) The worship of\nthis (neuter) One consists in love toward this (One) and in performing\nworks pleasant (to this One).\n\nThis deism denies an incarnate God, scriptural authority, and the good\nof rites and penance; but it teaches the efficacy of prayer and\nrepentance, and the belief in God as a personal Creator and Heavenly\nFather.[110] Intellectual--anything but emotional--it failed to\nsatisfy many worshippers. And as a church it was conservative in\nregard to social reforms.\n\nIn 1858 Keshub Chunder Sen, a Vishnuite by family, then but twenty,\njoined the Sam[=a]j, and being clever, young, eloquent, and\ncultivated, he, after the manner of the Hindus, undertook to reform\nthe church he had just entered, first of all by urging the abolition\nof caste-restrictions. Debendran[=a]th was liberal enough to be\nwilling to dispense with his own thread (the caste-mark), but too\nwisely conservative to demand of his co-religionists so complete a\nbreak with tradition and social condition. For the sacred thread to\nthe Hindu is the sign of social respectability. Without it, he is out\nof society. It binds him to all that is dearest to him. The leader of\nthe older Sam[=a]j; never gave up caste; the younger members in\ndoing so mix religion with social etiquette, and so hinder the advance\nthey aim at. Sen urged this and other reforms, all repugnant to the\nsociety in which he lived, changes in the rite at the worship of\nancestors, alterations in the established ritual at birth-ceremonies\nand funerals, abolition of polyandry and of child-marriages, and,\nworst of all, granting permission to marry to those of different\ncastes. His zeal was directed especially against caste-restrictions\nand child-marriages. Naturally he failed to persuade the old Sam[=a]j\nto join him in these revolutionary views, to insist on which, however\nsensible they seem, cannot be regarded otherwise than as indiscreet\nfrom the point of view of one who considers men and passions. For the\nSam[=a]j, in the face of tremendous obstacles, had just secured a\nfoot-hold in India. Sen's headlong reforms would have smashed to\npieces the whole congregation, and left India more deeply prejudiced\nthan ever against free thought. Sen failed to reform the old church,\nso in 1865 he, with some ardent young enthusiasts, reformed themselves\ninto a new church, ceremoniously organized in 1866 as the Br[=a]hma\nSam[=a]j; of India, in distinction from the Calcutta Sam[=a]j, or\n[=A]di Sam[=a]j. A futile effort was made to get all the other local\ncongregations to join the new Sam[=a]j, the last, of course, to be the\nfirst and head of the organization.\n\nThe new Sam[=a]j renounced caste-restrictions and Brahmanism\naltogether, but it was tainted with the hysterical _bhakti_ fervor\nwhich Sen inherited from his childhood's religion, and which (if one\nmay credit Williams' words) \"brought the latest development of Indian\nTheism into closer harmony with Christian ideas.\" The chief leader of\nthis Sam[=a]j besides Sen was his cousin Prot[=a]p Chunder Mozoomdar,\nofficial secretary of the society. Its literary organ is the _Indian\nMirror_.\n\nThe reform of this reform of course followed before long. The new\nSam[=a]j was accused of making religion too much a matter of emotion\nand excitement. Religious fervor, _bhakti_, had led to \"rapturous\nsinging of hymns in the streets\"; and to the establishment of a kind\nof love-feasts ('Brahma-feasts' they were called) of prayer and\nrejoicing; and, on the other hand, to undue asceticism and\nself-mortification.[111] Sen himself was revered too much. One of the\nmost brilliant, eloquent, and fascinating of men, he was adored by his\nfollowers--as a god! He denied that he had accepted divine honors, but\nthere is no doubt, as Williams insists, that his Vishnuite tendency\nled him to believe himself peculiarly the recipient of divine favors.\nIt was charged against him that he asserted that all he did was at\nGod's command, and that he believed himself perennially inspired.[112]\nIf one add to this that he was not only divinely inspired, but that he\nhad the complete control of his society, it would appear to be easy to\nforesee where the next reformer might strike. For Sen \"was not only\nbishop, priest, and deacon all in one,\" says Williams, \"he was a Pope,\nfrom whose decision there was no appeal.\" But it was not this that\ncaused the rupture. In 1877 this reformer, \"who had denounced early\nmarriages as the curse of India,\" yielded to natural social ambition\nand engaged his own young daughter to a Koch (R[=a]jbanshi) prince,\nwho in turn was a mere boy. The Sam[=a]j protested with all its might,\nbut the marriage was performed the next year, withal to the\naccompaniment of idolatrous rites.[113] After this Sen became somewhat\ntheatrical. In 1879 he recognized (in a proclamation) God's\nMotherhood--the old dogma of the female divine. In 1880 he announced,\nin fervid language, that Christianity was the only true religion: \"It\nis Christ who rules British India, and not the British Government.\nEngland has sent out a tremendous moral force in the life and\ncharacter of that mighty prophet to conquer and hold this vast empire.\nNone but Jesus, none but Jesus, none but Jesus, ever deserved this\nbright, this precious diadem, India, and Jesus shall have it....\nChrist is a true Yogi.\" He accepts Christ, but not as God, only as\ninspired saint (as says Williams). More recently, Sen proposed an\namalgamation of Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity as the true\nreligion.\n\nMeanwhile the Sam[=a]j was rent by discord. Sen's opponents, the new\nreformers, were unable, however, to oust the brilliant leader from the\npresidency. Consequently they established a new church, intended to be\na General Congregation, the fourth development (1878) of the Br[=a]hma\nSam[=a]j. And so the fight has gone on ever since. At the present day\nthere are more than a hundred deistic churches, in which the\ndevotional exercises consist in part of readings from the Vedas,\nBible, Kur[=a]n, and Avesta. The [=A]rya Sam[=a]j is one of the most\nimportant of the later churches, some of which endeavor to obtain\nundefiled religion by uniting into one faith what seems best in all;\nothers, by returning to the Vedas and clearing them of what they think\nto be later corruptions of those originally pure scriptures. Of the\nlatter sort is the [=A]rya Sam[=a]j. Its leader, Day[=a]nanda, claims\nthat the Vedas are a true revelation. The last reformer of which we\nhave knowledge is a bright young high-caste Hindu of upper India, who\nis about to found a 'world-religion,' for which task he is now making\npreliminary studies. He has visited this country, and recently told us\nthat, if he had time, he could easily convert America. But his first\nduty lies, of course, in the reformation of India's reformations,\nespecially of the Sam[=a]jas!\n\nThe difficulty with which all these reformers and re-reformers have to\ncontend is pitifully clear. Their broad ideas have no fitting\nenvironment. Their leaders and thinkers may continue to preach deism,\nand among their equals they will be heard and understood. They are,\nhowever, not content with this. They must form churches. But a church\nimplies in every case an unnatural and therefore dangerous growth,\ncaused by the union either of inferior minds (attracted by eloquence,\nbut unable to think) with those that are not on the same plane, or of\nambitious zealots with reluctant conservatists. Many join the church\nwho are not qualified to appreciate the leader's work. They overload\nthe founder's deism with the sectarian theism from which they have not\nreally freed themselves. On the other hand, younger men, who have been\neducated in English colleges and are imbued with the spirit of\npractical reform, enter the church to use it as an instrument for\nsocial progress. So the church is divided, theists and reformers both\nbeing at odds with the original deists; and the founder is lucky if he\nescapes being deified by one party and being looked upon by the other\nas too dull.[114]\n\nIndia is no more prepared as a whole for the reception of the liberal\nviews of the Sam[=a]j; than was the negro for the right to vote.\nCenturies of higher preliminary education are needed before the people\nat large renounce their ancestral, their natural faith. A few earnest\nmen may preach deism; the people will remain polytheists and\npantheists for many generations. Then, again, the Sam[=a]jas have to\ncontend not only with the national predisposition, but with every\nheretical sect, and, besides these, with the orthodox church. But thus\nfar their chief foe is, after all, their own heart as opposed to their\nhead. As long as deistic leaders are deified by their followers, and\nregard themselves as peculiarly inspired, they will preach in vain.\nNor can they with impunity favor the substitution of emotion for ideas\nin a land where religious emotion leads downwards as surely as falls a\nstone that is thrown.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: In the following we keep to the practice we\n     have adopted in the early part of the work, giving\n     anglicized words without distinction of vowel-length, and\n     anglicizing as far as possible, writing thus S[=a]nkhya but\n     Sankhyan, Ved[=a]nta but Vedantist. In modern proper names\n     we have adopted in each case the most familiar form.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Rig Veda, II. 12. Compare X. 121. We omit some\n     of the verses.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: See note, p. 20, above.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Metaphor from earthly fire-making; cloud and\n     cliff (Ludwig); or, perhaps, heaven and earth.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: 'Made low and put in concealment' the D[=a]sa\n     color, _i.e._ the black barbarians, the negroes. 'Color'\n     might be translated 'race' (subsequently 'caste').]\n\n     [Footnote 6: D[=i]ce, _vijas_, literally 'hoppers' (and so\n     sometimes, interpreted as birds). The same figure occurs not\n     infrequently. Compare AV. iv. 16. 5, _ak[s.][=a]n iva_.\n     'Believe,' _\u00e7r['a]d-dhatta, i.e_., cred-(d)[=i]te, literally\n     'put trust.']\n\n     [Footnote 7: Sometimes rendered, \"a true (laudation) if any\n     is true.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 8: viii. 100. 3-4. The penultimate verse is\n     literally 'the direction(s) of the order magnify me,' the\n     order being that of the seasons and of seasonable rites.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Compare the 'devil-worship of U\u00e7anas,' and the\n     scoffs at P[=u]shan. The next step in infidelity is denial\n     of a future life and of the worth of the Vedas.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: In the Buddhistic writings Indra appears as\n     the great popular god of the Brahmans (with Brahm[=a] as the\n     philosophical god).]\n\n     [Footnote 11: His body is mortal; his breaths immortal, \u00c7at.\n     Br. x. 1. 4. 1; xi. 1. 2. 12.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: On these curious pocket-altars, double\n     triangles representing the three gods and their wives, with\n     Linga and Yon[=i], see JRAS. 1851, p. 71.]\n\n     [Footnote 13: In the Tantras and late Pur[=a]nas. In the\n     earlier Pur[=a]nas there is as yet no such formal cult.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Embodied in the tale of Agni's advance, IS. i.\n     170.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: \u00c7at Br. ix. 3.1. 18.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: On this _quasi_ deity in modern belief compare\n     IA. XVIII. 46. It has happened here that a fate Providence\n     has become supreme. Thus, too, the Mogul Buddha is realty\n     nothing more or less than Providence.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: 7. I. 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: In RV. X. 90. 9, _chandas_, songs,\n     incantations, imply a work of this nature.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Unless it be distinctly _good_ magic the epic\n     heroes are ashamed to use magical rites. They insist on the\n     intent being unimpeachable.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: [=A]p. I. II. 30, 20, etc. Compare Weber,\n     _Omina_ p. 337, and see the Bibliography.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: T[=a]itt. S. VI. I. 1, 2, 3,\n     _t[=i]rthesn[=a]li._]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Compare Weber's account of the R[=a]jas[=u]ya,\n     p. 98; and, apropos of the Da\u00e7apeya, _ib._ 78, note; where\n     it is stated that _soma_-drinking for the warrior-caste is\n     still reflected in this (originally independent) ceremony.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: The list given above (p. 464) of the 'thrice\n     three names' is made eight by suppressing Kum[=a]ra, and the\n     'eight names' are to-day the usual number.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: \u00c7[=a]nkh. (K[=a]nsh.) Br. vi. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: The Brahmanic multiple by preference is (three\n     and) seven (7,21,28,35), that of the Buddhist, eight. Feer,\n     JA., 1893, p. 113 ff., holds the Svargaparva of the epic to\n     be Buddhistic on account of the hells. More probably it is a\n     \u00c7ivaite addition. The rule does not always hold good, for\n     groups of seven and eight are sometimes Buddhistic and\n     Brahmanic, respectively.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: Leumann, _Rosaries_.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Friederich,; JRAS. viii. 157; ix. 59. The only\n     established reference to Buddha on the part of Brahmanism,\n     with the exception of late Pur[=a]nas of uncertain date, is\n     after Kshemendra (1066 A.D.). Compare Holtzmann, s.\n     _Geschichte_, p. 103.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: _Na tat parasya sandadhy[=a]t pratik[=u]la[.m]\n     yad [=a]tmanas_. This is a favorite stanza in the epic, and\n     is imitated in later literature (Spr\u00fcche, 3253, 6578,\n     6593).]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Burnell in the _Indian Antiquary_, second and\n     following volumes; Swanston, JRAS. 1834; 1835; Germann, _Die\n     Kirche der Thomaschristen_.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: Above, cited from Hardy.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Some of the multitudinous subcastes\n     occasionally focus about a religious principle to such an\n     extent as to give them almost the appearance of religious\n     devotees. Thus the Bhats and Ch[=a]rans are heralds and\n     bards with the mixed faith of so many low-caste Hindus. But\n     in their office of herald they have a religious pride, and,\n     since in the present day they are less heralds than\n     expressmen, they carry property with religious reverence,\n     and are respected in their office even by robbers; for it\n     this caste that do not hesitate to commit _traga_, that is,\n     if an agreement which they have caused to be made between\n     two parties is not carried out they will kill themselves and\n     their families, with such religious effect that the guilt\n     lies upon the offending party in the agreement, who expiates\n     it by his own life. They are regarded as a sort of divine\n     representative, and fed themselves to be so. A case reported\n     from India in this year, 1894, shows that the feeling still\n     exists. The herald slew his own mother in the presence of\n     the defaulting debtor, who thereupon slew himself as his\n     only expiation.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: As, for example, between the D[=a]d[=u]\n     Panth[=i]s and the Jains in Ajmir and Jeypur. The last was a\n     chief Digambara town, while Mathur[=a] (on the Jumna) was a\n     \u00c7ret[=a]mbara station. For a possible survival of Buddhism,\n     see below, p. 485, note.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: The _Sarcadar\u00e7a[n.]asa[=n.]graha_ of S[=a]yana\n     (fourteenth century) and the _\u00c7a[=n.]kara-vijaya,_ or\n     'Conquest of \u00c7ankara.']\n\n     [Footnote 34: Thus the Dabist[=a]n enumerates as actual\n     sects of the seventeenth century, 'moon-worshippers,'\n     'star-worshippers,' 'Agni-worshippers,' 'wind-worshippers,'\n     'water-worshippers,' 'earth-worshippers,' '_trip[=u]jas_'\n     (or worshippers of all the three kingdoms of nature), and\n     'worshippers of man' (_manu[s.]yabhakt[=a]s_), \"who\n     recognise the being of God in man, and know nothing more\n     perfect than mankind\" (ii. 12), a faith which, as we have\n     shown, is professed in the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: _Religious Thought and Life_.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: The Kashmeer \u00c7ivaites claim \u00c7ankara as their\n     teacher. The sect of Basava started in the south, Mysore.\n     They have some trashy literature (legends, etc.) which they\n     dignify by the name of Pur[=a]nas. B\u00fchler has given an\n     account of the Kashmeer school. For further details see\n     Barth, pp. 184, 206.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p.62 ff. To this\n     and to the same author's _Thought and Life_, we are indebted\n     for many facts concerning the sects as they appear to-day,\n     though much in these books is said after Wilson or other\n     scholars, whose work is now common property, and calls for\n     no further acknowledgment.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: It is, perhaps, necessary to keep repeating\n     that Hindu monotheism does not exclude other gods which, at\n     the hands of the one god, are reduced to sprites, angels,\n     demons, etc. But it ought not to be necessary to insist on\n     this, for an American monotheist that believes in angels and\n     devils is the same sort of monotheist. The Hindu calls the\n     angels 'gods' or 'divinities,' but they are only attendant\n     hosts of the One.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: Some of the \u00c7ivaite sects are, indeed,\n     Buddhistic in origin, a fact which raises the question\n     whether Buddhism, instead of disappearing from India, was\n     not simply absorbed; much as Unitarianism in New England has\n     spent its vitality in modifying the orthodox creed. Thus the\n     _karma_ of Buddhism may still be working in the person of\n     some modern Hindu sects. See the next note below.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: Most of the Yogi jugglers are \u00c7ivaites (when\n     they are not Buddhistic), and to-day they share with the\n     (Mohammedan) fakirs the honor of being not only ascetics but\n     knaves. The juggler Yogi is, however, a figure of\n     respectable antiquity. The magical tricks practiced on the\n     epic heroes are doubtless a reflex of the current mesmerism,\n     which deceives so cleverly to-day. We have shown above a\n     Buddhistic strain of Mah[=a]tmaism in an early Buddhistic\n     tract, and Barth, p. 213, suggests a Buddhistic origin for\n     the K[=a]naph[=a]ts. See also Holtzmann, _loc. cit._ The\n     deistic Yogis of Gorakhn[=a]th's sect are respectable enough\n     (see an account of some of this sort in the Dabist[=a]n, II.\n     6), but they are of Buddhistic origin. The K[=a]naph[=a]ts\n     of Kutch (Danodhar) were once a celibate brotherhood. JRAS.\n     1839, p. 268.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: See JAOS. xi. 272. To ascribe this verse to\n     the 'older Manu' would be a grave slip on the part of a\n     Sanskrit scholar.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: i. 1. 76.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: The Dabist[=a]n, without any animus, reports\n     of the \u00c7[=a]ktas of the seventeenth century that \"\u00c7iva is,\n     in their opinion, _with little exception_, the highest of\n     the deities\" (II. 7). Williams calls \u00c7[=a]ktaism \"a mere\n     offshoot of \u00c7ivaism\" _Religious Thought and Life_, p. 184.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: The Dabist[=a]n rather assumes as a matter of\n     course that a body of Yogis would kill and eat a boy of the\n     Mohammedan faith (II. 12); but here the author may be\n     prejudiced.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: The present sect of this name consists only of\n     a few miserable mendicants, particularly savage and filthy\n     (Wilson).]\n\n     [Footnote 46: All of them now represent \u00c7akti, the female\n     principle. Linga-worship has also its counterpart,\n     Bhaga-worship (here Yoni), perhaps represented by the altar\n     itself. Compare the Dabist[=a]n, II. 7, on the \u00c7ivaite\n     interpretation of the Mohammedan altar. To Durga human\n      beings were always sacrificed. After mentioning a gold idol\n     of Durg[=a] (to whom men were sacrificed yearly), the author\n     adds: \"Even now they sacrifice in every village of the\n     Kohistan of Nandapur and the country adjacent, a man of\n     good family\" (_ib._). Durg[=a] {above, p. 416) is Vishnu's\n      sister.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: The sexual antithesis, so unimportant in the\n     earliest Aryan nature-hymns, becomes more and more\n     pronounced in the liturgical hymns of the Rig Veda, and may\n     be especially a trait of the older fire-cult in opposition\n     to _soma_-cult (compare RV. X. 18. 7). At any rate it is\n     significant that Yoni means the altar itself, and that in\n     the fire-cult the production of fire is represented as\n     resulting from the union of the male and female organs.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: Nevertheless the Brahmanic, and even the\n     Hinduistic, law-codes condemn all intoxicating liquors\n     except in religious service. To offer such drink to a man of\n     the lower castes, even to a \u00c7[=u]dra, is punishable with a\n     fine; but to offer intoxicating liquor to a priest is\n     punishable with death (Vishnu, V. 100).]\n\n     [Footnote 49: Formerly performed by the Kar[=a]ris. \"The\n     \u00c7[=a]ktas hold the killing of a man to be permitted,\"\n     Dabist[=a]n, II. 7. \"Among them it is a meritorious act to\n     sacrifice a man,\" _ib_.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: Hence the name of K[=a][=n]culiyas\n     _[ka[=n]culi_, a woman's garment).]\n\n     [Footnote 51: This has no parallel in Vishnuism except among\n     some of the R[=a]dh[=a] devotees. Among the R[=a]dh[=a]\n     Vallabh[=i]s the vulgarities of the \u00c7ivaites are quite\n     equalled; and the assumption of women's attire by the\n     Sakh[=i] Bh[=a]vas of Benares and Bengal ushers in rites as\n     coarse if less bloody than those of the \u00c7ivaites.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Of course each god of the male trinity has his\n     \u00c7akti, female principle. Thus Brahm[=a]'s \u00c7akt[=i] is\n     S[=a]vitr[=i] (in the epic), or Sarasvat[=i], or V[=a]c;\n     that of Vishnu is \u00c7r[=i], or Lakshm[=i], or R[=a]dh[=a];\n     that of \u00c7iva is Um[=a], Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], etc. Together\n     they make a female trinity (Barth, p. 199); So even the\n     Vedic gods had their (later) wives, who, as in the case of\n     S[=u]ry[=a], were probably only the female side of a god\n     conceived of as androgynous, like Praj[=a]pat[=i] in the\n     Brahmanic period.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: Historically, Thags, like Panj[=a]b,\n     Santh[=a]ls, etc, is the more correct form, but phonetically\n     the forms Thugs, Punj[=a]b, Sunth[=a]ls or Sonth[=a]ls, are\n     correct, and [=a], the indeterminate vowel (like o in\n     London), is generally transcribed by u or o (in Punj[=a]b,\n     Nep[=a]l, the [=a] is pronounced very like au, and is\n     sometimes written so, Punjaub, etc).]\n\n     [Footnote 54: The Jemidar, captain, gives the order to the\n     Buttoat, strangler, who takes the _rumal_ (yard of cotton)\n     with a knot tied in the left end, and, holding his right\n     hand a few inches further up, passes it from behind over the\n     victim's head. As the latter falls the strangler's hands are\n     crossed, and if done properly the Thugs say that \"the eyes\n     stand out of the head and life becomes extinct, before the\n     body falls to the ground\" (Notes on the 'Thags, Thugs, or\n     Thegs,' by Lieutenant Reynolds; of whom Lieutenant-Colonel\n     Smythe says that he knew more than any other European about\n     the Thugs, 1836). The Buttoat received eight annas extra for\n     his share. Each actor in the scene had a title; the victim\n     was called Rosy. For their argot see the R[=a]maseeana.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Thugs (defined as 'knaves' by Sherwood, more\n     probably 'throttlers') must be distinguished from Decoits.\n     The latter (Elphinstone, i. 384) are irreligious gangs,\n     secretly bound together to sack villages. Peaceable citizens\n     by day, the Decoits rise at night, attack a village, slay,\n     torture, rob, and disappear before morning, 'melting into\n     the population' and resuming honest toil. When the police\n     are weak enough they may remain banded together; otherwise\n     they are ephemerally honest and nocturnally assassins. The\n     Thugs or Ph[=a]ns[=i]gars (_ph[=a]ns[=i]_, noose) killed no\n     women, invoked K[=a]li (as Jay[=i]), and attacked\n     individuals only, whom the decoys, called Tillais, lured\n     very cleverly to destruction. They never robbed without\n     strangling first, and always buried the victim. They used to\n     send a good deal of what they got to K[=a]li's temple, in a\n     village near Mirz[=a]pur, where the establishment of priests\n     was entirely supported by them. K[=a]li (or Bhav[=a]n[=i])\n     herself directed that victims should be strangled, not bled\n     (so the Thug legend). Their symbol was a pick, emblem of the\n     goddess, unto whom a religious ceremony was performed before\n     and after the murder was committed. Local small bankers\n     often acted as fence for them.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: This is called either\n     P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (Karma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]) or simply\n     M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a].]\n\n     [Footnote 57: Or \u00c7[=a]r[=i]raka-m[=i]m[=a]msa, or\n     Brahma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_m[=i]m[=a][=m.]sa,_ reflexion,\n     philosophy).]\n\n     [Footnote 58: Kapila's system, usually known as the\n     S[=a]nkhya.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: And attributed to Pata[=n.]jali. Compare\n     Deussen, _System des Ved[=a]nta,_ p. 20.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: Born In 788. But some scholars refer him to\n     the seventh century. See IA. xiii. 95; xvi. 41. His name, a\n     title of \u00c7iva, indicates his nominal sect.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: For the meaning of Ved[=a]nta (whether 'end of\n     Veda,' or 'goal of Veda') compare Deussen, _loc. cit._ p. 3,\n     note (above, p. 253, note).]\n\n     [Footnote 62: The Supreme Spirit or All-Spirit is either\n     purely non-dualistic or qualifiedly non-dualistic; in the\n     latter event he is, says the sectary, identical with Vishnu,\n     who may be represented either by Krishna or R[=a]ma\n     (sub-sects). Pure non-duality (unconditioned _[=a]tm[=a]_)\n     was taught by \u00c7ankara.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_..\n     Compare Williams, _loc. cit_. In our own view the\n     unsystematic Upanishads teach both doctrines (above, p. 228,\n     note).]\n\n     [Footnote 64: Before K[=a]m[=a]nuja it was taught by\n     \u00c7[=a]ndilya that _brahma_ (and the individual spirit) was\n     conditioned, a doctrine supposed to be that of the old\n     Bh[=a]gavatas or P[=a][.n]car[=a]tras; but this is quite\n     uncertain. The \u00c7[=a]ndilyan chapter of the Ch[=a]ndogya\n     Upanishad (above, p. 221) may be thus interpreted, _vis_,\n     that the (conditioned) individual spirit is identical with\n     _brahma_.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: Thibaut, _Introduction to the Ved[=a]nta\n     S[=u]tras_, SBE. XXXIV. p. XXXI; Deussen, _System des\n     Ved[=a]nta_, p.469.]\n\n     [Footnote 66: Philosophical illusion, _m[=a]n[=a]_, appears\n     first in late Upanishads.]\n\n     [Footnote 67: The author of the Dabist[=a]n (seventeenth\n     century) tells a Berkeleyan story in regard to \u00c7ankara's\n     doctrine of illusion. His enemies wished to test his belief\n     in his own philosophy; so they drove an elephant at him, on\n     which the philosopher ran away. \"Ho!\" they jeered, \"Did you\n     not maintain that all was a mere illusion? Then an elephant\n     is illusion. Yet you take to flight before it.\" \"Yes,\"\n     replied the philosopher, \"all is illusion; there was no\n     elephant, and there was no flight\" (II. 4).]\n\n     [Footnote 68: The Sm[=a]rta (orthodox) Brahman believes, on\n     the other hand, that Vishnu, \u00c7iva, and Brahm[=a] are all\n     mere forms of the Supreme [=A]lm[=a].]\n\n     [Footnote 69: If Mohammed were regarded as one with Allah\n     there would be an Occidental parallel to the Krishna and\n     R[=a]ma sects.]\n\n     [Footnote 70: Whether the Hindu trinitarianism derives from\n     the Occident or not (the former view being historically\n     probable, but not possible to prove) the importance of the\n     dogma and its place in Hindu theology is very different to\n     the condition of things in the Christian church. In India\n     trinitarianism is merely a convenience in adjusting the\n     claims of two heterodox sects and orthodoxy, each believer\n     being willing to admit that the god of the other is his own\n     god, only with the understanding that the last is a superior\n     manifestation. In late \u00c7ivaism both Vishnu and Brahm[=a] are\n     indeed called the 'sons of God' (\u00c7iva). but in the sense\n     that they are distinctly subordinate creatures of \u00c7iva\n     (JAOS. iv. 147).]\n\n     [Footnote 71: But some Hindus worship both Vishnu and \u00c7iva\n     without insisting that one is higher than the other.\n     Moreover, there is a Mahratta sect of Vishnuites who\n     complacently worship Buddha (Vishnu's ninth _avatar_) as\n     Vi[t.]h[t.]hala or P[=a]ndura[.n]ga. These are simply\n     eclectic, and their god is without or with quality. Buddha\n     is here not a deceiver, but an instructor (JRAS. 1842, p.\n     66; IA. XI. 56, 149).]\n\n     [Footnote 72: The \u00c7ivaites, too, are divided on the\n     questions both of predestination and of free grace. The\n     greater body of them hold to the 'monkey doctrine'; the\n     Pa\u00e7upatas, to the 'cat.']\n\n     [Footnote 73: Sanskrit _kal[=a]_, school\n     (_marka[t.]a-ny[=a]ya_ and _m rj[=a]ra-ny[=a]ya_). The\n     Southern school has its own Veda written in Tamil. Williams,\n     JRAS. xiv. 301. According to the same writer the Ten-galais\n     hold that Vishnu's wife is finite, created, and a mediator;\n     the Vada-galais, that she is infinite, and uncreated.]\n\n     [Footnote 74: All Vishnuites have the vertical sign;\n     \u00c7ivaites have a horizontal sign (on the forehead).]\n\n     [Footnote 75: _Proceed. AOS_. 1894, p. iii. The Vada-school\n     may be affected by \u00c7ivaism.]\n\n     [Footnote 76: A divine monkey appears in the Rig Veda, but\n     not as an object of devotion.]\n\n     [Footnote 77: The teachers of the Ramaites are generally\n     Brahmans, but no disciples are excluded because of their\n     caste. R[=a]m[=a]nuja adopted the monastic system, which\n     \u00c7ankara is said to have taken from the Buddhists and to have\n     introduced into Brahmanic priestly life. Both family priests\n     and cenobites are admitted into his order.]\n\n     [Footnote 78: What the Linga is to \u00c7ivaite the\n     \u00c7[=a]lagr[=a]ma is to the Vishnuite (who also reveres the\n     _tulas[=i]_ wood). The \u00c7[=a]lagr[=a]ma is a black pebble;\n     the L[=i]nga is a white pebble or glass (Williams). The\n     \u00c7ivaites have appropriated the _d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass as sacred\n     to Gane\u00e7a. Sesamum seeds and _d[=u]rv[=a]_ are, however,\n     Brahmanically holy. Compare \u00c7at. Br. iv. 5-10, where\n     _d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass is even holier than _ku\u00e7a_-grass. The\n     rosaries used by the sects have been the subject of a paper\n     by Leumann, and are described by Williams. Thirty-two or\n     sixty-four berries of _eleocapus ganitrus (rudr[=a]ksha_)\n     make the \u00c7ivaite rosary. That of the Vishnuite is made of\n     lotus-seeds or of _tuls[=a]_ wood in one hundred and eight\n     pieces.]\n\n     [Footnote 79: For an account and list of the works of\n     Tulas[=i]d[=a]s[=a] (Tuls[=i]d[=a]s), compare IA. xxii. 89,\n     122, 227. Jayadeva (twelfth century), the author of the\n     G[=i]ta Govinda (translated by Jones, Lassen, and Ruckert),\n     is sometimes reckoned falsely to the adherents of\n     R[=a]m[=a]nand, but he is really a Krishnaite.]\n\n     [Footnote 80: The _bhakti_ doctrine is that of the extant\n     \u00c7[=a]ndilya S[=u]tras, which make faith and not works or\n     knowledge a condition of salvation. They are modern, as\n     Cowell, in his preface to the work, has shown. Cowell here\n     identifies K[=a]\u00e7yapa with Ka[n.][=a]da, the V[=a]i\u00e7eshika\n     philosopher, his school holding that the individual spirits\n     are infinite in number, distinct from the Supreme Spirit.]\n\n     [Footnote 81: The infant-cult is of course older than these\n     sects. For an account of the ritual, as well as its\n     intrusion into the earlier cult of the Pur[=a]nas, with the\n     accompanying resemblances to Madonna-cult, and the new\n     features (the massacre of the innocents, the birth in the\n     stable, the three wise men, etc.) that show borrowing from\n     Christianity, compare Weber's exhaustive treatise referred\n     to above, the _K[=r.][=s.][n.]ajanm[=a][=s.][=t.]am[=i],\n     Krishna's Geburtsfest_.]\n\n     [Footnote 82: Williams, _loc. cit._]\n\n     [Footnote 83: 'Gosain' means shepherd, like Gop[=a]la. Some\n     of the sects, like the Kart[=a]bh[=a]js, recognize only the\n     Teacher as God. Williams states that in Bengal a fourth\n     member has been added to this sect-trinity. On Dancing-girls\n     see IA. XIII-165.]\n\n     [Footnote 84: The philosophical tenet of this sect 'pure\n     _adv[=a]ita_' (non-duality) distinguishes it from the\n     qualified duality taught by R[=a]m[=a]nuja. This is a\n     reversion to \u00c7ankara. The C[=a]itanya sect teaches not\n     absorption but individual existence in a heaven of sensuous\n     (sensual) pleasure.]\n\n     [Footnote 85: \"In the temples where the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas\n     (priests) do homage to the idols men and women do homage to\n     the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas.... The best mode of propitiating the\n     god Krishna is by ministering to the sensual appetites of\n     his vicars upon earth. Body and soul are literally made over\n     to them, and women are taught to deliver up their persons to\n     Krishna's representatives,\" Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 309.]\n\n     [Footnote 86: On these sects see Wilson, Hunter (Statistical\n     Account), Williams, JRAS. xiv. 289. The festival verses in\n     honor of the Madonna are: \"Honor to thee, Devak[=i], who\n     hast borne Krishna; may the goddess who destroys sin be\n     satisfied, revered by me. Mother of God art thou, Adit[=i],\n     destroying sin. I will honor thee as the gods honor thee,\"\n     _etc_. (Weber, _Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i]_, p. 286). The\n     birth-day celebration is not confined to Krishnaites; but in\n     the R[=a]ma sect, though they celebrate the birth, they do\n     not represent the man-god as a suckling. In other respects\n     this feast is imitated from that of Krishna (Weber, p. 310,\n     note). The R[=a]macandra celebration takes place in the\n     spring. The birth-day of Gane\u00e7a is also celebrated by the\n     \u00c7ivaites (in August-September).]\n\n     [Footnote 87: He himself claimed to be an incarnate god. He\n     adopted the qualified non-duality of R[=a]m[=a]nuja. See\n     Williams' account of him and of the two great temples of the\n     sect, _loc. cit_.]\n\n     [Footnote 88: From Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 291 ff. The\n     three qualities (sometimes interpreted as activity, purity,\n     and indifference) are met with for the first time in the\n     Atharva Veda, where are found the Vedantic 'name' and 'form'\n     also; Muir, v. p. 309. The three qualities that condition\n     the idealist Vedantist's personal Lord in his causal body\n     are identical with those that constitute the 'nature,'\n     _prak[=r.]ti_, of the S[=a]nkhya dualist.]\n\n     [Footnote 89: Among the Vallabhas (above, p. 505). The\n     Teacher is the chief god of most of the Vallabhas (Barth, p.\n     235}. For the Vi[t.]h[t.]hal view of caste see 1A. XI.152.]\n\n     [Footnote 90: It is true of other sectaries also, Ramaites\n     and \u00c7ivaites, that the mere repetition of their god's name\n     is a means of salvation.]\n\n     [Footnote 91: Now chiefly in the South. The Dabist[=a]n\n     gives several divisions of sun-worshippers. For more details\n     see Barth, p. 258. Apollonius of Tyana saw a sun-temple at\n     Taxila, JRAS. 1859, p. 77.]\n\n     [Footnote 92: More direct than in the form of Vishnu, who at\n     first is merely the sun. Of the relation with Iranian\n     sun-worship we have spoken above.]\n\n     [Footnote 93: They brand themselves with the Vishnu-mark,\n     are generally high-caste, live in monasteries, and profess\n     celibacy. They are at most unknown in the North. They are\n     generally known by their founder's name, but are also called\n     Brahma-Samprad[=a]yins, 'Brahma-adherents.']\n\n     [Footnote 94: So the P[=a]\u00e7upata doctrine is that the\n     individual spirit is different to the supreme lord and also\n     to matter (_p[=a]\u00e7a_, the fetter that binds the individual\n     spirit, _pa\u00e7u_, and keeps it from its Lord, _pa\u00e7upat[=i]_).\n     The fact is that every sectary is more a monotheist than a\n     pantheist. Especially is this true of the \u00c7ivaite. The\n     supreme is to him \u00c7iva.]\n\n     [Footnote 95: Wilson gives a full account of this sect in\n     the _As[=i]atick Researches_, xvi, p. 100.]\n\n     [Footnote 96: Of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s Wilson says: \"It is\n     no part of their faith to worship any Hindu deity.\" A glance\n     at the Dabist[=a]n will preclude the possibility of claiming\n     much originality for the modern deism of India. This work\n     was written in 1645, and its Persian author describes, as a\n     matter of every-day occurrence, religious debates between\n     'Jews, Nazarines, Mussulmen, and Hindus,' who meet more to\n     criticise than to examine, but yet to hear explained in full\n     the doctrines of their opponents, in just such tourneys of\n     argument as we showed to be popular among the priests of the\n     Upanishads and epic. Speaking of the Vedas, the author says\n     that every one derives from them arguments in favor of his\n     own creed, whether it be philosophical, mystical, unitarian,\n     atheistic, Judaic, or Christian. Dabist[=a]n, vol. II, p.\n     45.]\n\n     [Footnote 97: Before election the Guru must be examined. If\n     the faithful are not satisfied, they may reject him. but,\n     having elected him, they are bound to obey him implicitly.\n     He can excommunicate, but he may not punish corporally. This\n     deification of the Guru was retained by the Sikhs, and the\n     office was made hereditary among them (by Arjun), till\n     Govind, the tenth pontiff, who left no successor, declared\n     that after his death the Granth (bible) should be the sole\n     authority of the church.]\n\n     [Footnote 98: The 'half' contributor was a woman, and hence\n     was not reckoned as a complete unit.]\n\n     [Footnote 99: The word Sikh means 'disciple' (of N[=a]nak).\n     The name the Sikhs assumed as a nation was Singhs\n     (_si[.m]has_), 'Lions of the Punj[=a]b.']\n\n     [Footnote 100: The 'true name,' _sat n[=a]m_, is the\n     appellation of God.]\n\n     [Footnote 101: JRAS. 1846, p. 43, Prinsep's compilation\n     (Wilson). Compare Trumpp, ib. V. 197 (1871); and\n     [=A]digranth, 1877.]\n\n     [Footnote 102: This sect was founded by a descendant of\n     N[=a]nak.]\n\n     [Footnote 103: It was not till Mohammedan persecution\n     influenced them that the religious Sikhs of N[=a]nak became\n     the political haters and fighters of Govind.]\n\n     [Footnote 104: It is said that Govind sacrificed to Durg[=a]\n     the life of one of his own disciples to prepare himself for\n     his ministry. Trumpp, [=A]digranth; Barth, p. 204. The lives\n     of the later Gurus will be found in Elphinstone's history\n     and Prinsep's sketch (a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ by Barth, p. 248 ff.).]\n\n     [Footnote 105: With some small verbal alterations.]\n\n     [Footnote 106: The conclusion of this extract shows the\n     narrower polemic spirit: \"Pundits and Q[=a]z[=i]s are fools.\n     What avails it to collect a heap of books? Let your minds\n     freely meditate on the spirit of God. Wear not away your\n     lives by studying the Vedas.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 107: For the data of the following paragraphs on\n     the deistic reformers of to-day we are indebted to an\n     article of Professor Williams, which first appeared in the\n     thirteenth volume of the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic\n     Society,_ and has since been published in the same author's\n     _Brahmanism and Hinduism._]\n\n     [Footnote 108: Born in 1818.]\n\n     [Footnote 109: _ekam[=a]tr[=a]dvit[=i]ya_ (masculine); with\n     this form contrast below, in the Br[=a]hma Dharma (religion)\n     of Debendran[=a]th, the neuter _ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_. The\n     only God of the first Sam[=a]j; is a person; that of the\n     reform is exoterically Nature.]\n\n     [Footnote 110: But, as will be noticed in the four articles\n     (which are in part a compilation of phrases from the\n     Upanishads) the personality of Brahm[=a] is not insisted on\n     for the outer church. For this reason, although the inner\n     church doubtless understands It as He, yet this neuter\n     should be preserved in the translation. The articles are so\n     drawn up as to enable any deist to subscribe (without\n     Vedantic belief as a condition of acceptance) to the\n     essential creed of the Congregation. One or two sentences in\n     the original will reveal at a glance the origin of the\n     phraseology: _brahma_ (being) _v[=a] ekam idam-agra\n     [=a]s[=i]t; tad ida[.m] sarvam as[r.]jal; tad eva nityam,\n     ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam; tasmia pr[=i]tis ...\n     tadup[=a]sanam_. Compare Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad: _sad_\n     (being) _idam agra [=a]s[=i]d ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_; and\n     the V[=a]jasaney[=i]-Br[=a]hmana Upanishad: _brahma v[=a]\n     idam-agra [=a]s[=i]t_, etc.]\n\n     [Footnote 111: It is interesting to see this fervor, or\n     ecstatic delirium, surviving from the time of the Rig Veda,\n     where already (albeit only in the latest hymns, which are\n     quite Brahmanic) flourishes the mad _muni:_ and fervid\n     ascetism ('heat,'_tapas_) begins to appear as a means of\n     salvation. RV. x. 109, 136.]\n\n     [Footnote 112: \"I regard myself as Christ and C[=a]itanya,\"\n     reported by Sen's own missionary as the words of the former.\n     Sen's disciples deny some of these assertions, but they seem\n     to be substantiated, and Sen's own language shows that he\n     claimed miraculous powers. Compare the discussions on this\n     point, JRAS. xiii. 281 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 113: This was afterwards excused on the ground\n     that the marriage would not have been legal without these\n     rites. But Sen presumably was aware of this in advance. From\n     the performance of the rites he had the decency to absent\n     himself. It should be said, however, in Sen's behalf, that\n     the marriage itself had nothing revolting about it, and\n     though in consenting to it Sen violated his faith, as is\n     evident from the protest of the Sam[=a]j, yet was the\n     marriage not an extreme case of child-marriage, for both the\n     'children' were sixteen. Sen's own excuse (he thought excuse\n     necessary) was that he was inspired when he consented to the\n     nuptials.]\n\n     [Footnote 114: The theistic tendency in the Hindu mind is so\n     exaggerated that even now it is with the greatest difficulty\n     that the vulgar can be restrained from new idolatry. Not\n     only priests, but even poets are regarded as gods.\n     J\u00f1[=a]ndev and Tuk[=a]r[=a]m, the hymn-makers of the\n     Mahratta Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, are demi-gods to-day (IA. xi. 56.\n     149). A few striking examples are almost requisite to make\n     an Occidental reader understand against what odds the deism\n     of India has to contend. In 1830 an impudent boy, who could\n     train snakes, announced that he could also work miracles.\n     The boy was soon accepted as Vishnu's last _avatar_; hymns,\n     _abhangs_, were sung to him, and he was worshipped as a god\n     even after his early demise (from a snake-bite). A weaver\n     came soon after to the temple, where stood the boy's now\n     vacant shrine, and fell asleep there at night. In the\n     morning he was perplexed to find himself a god. The people\n     had accepted him as their snake-conquering god in a new\n     form. The poor weaver denied his divinity, but that made no\n     difference. In 1834 the dead boy-god was still receiving\n     flowers and prayers. Another case: In the eighties some\n     Englishmen on entering a temple were amazed to see revered\n     as an _avatar_ of Vishnu the brass castings of the arms of\n     the old India Co. This god was washed and anointed daily.\n     Even a statue of Buddha (with the inscription still upon it)\n     was revered as Vishnu. In 1880 a meteorite fell in Beh[=a]r.\n     In 1882 its cult was fully established, and it was\n     worshipped as the 'miraculous god.' A Mohammedan inscription\n     has also been found deified and regularly worshipped as a\n     god, JRAS. 1842, p. 109; 1884, pt. III, pp. I, LIX.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nRELIGIOUS TRAITS OF THE WILD TRIBES.\n\n\nBesides the phases of pure Aryan and modified Aryan religions which\nhave already been examined, there are represented in India several\nother aspects of civilized religion; for, apart from Brahmanic and\nsectarian worships, and apart from Tamil (southern) imitations of\nthese, there are at present in the country believers of the Jewish\nreligion to the number of seventeen thousand; of Zoroastrianism,\neighty-seven thousand; of Christianity, two and a quarter millions; of\nMohammedanism, more than fifty-seven millions. But none of these\nfaiths, however popular, comes into an historical account of India's\nreligions in a greater extent than we have brought them into it\nalready, that is, as factors of minor influence in the development of\nnative faiths till, within the last few centuries, Mohammedanism,\nwhich has been the most important of them all in transfiguring the\nnative theistic sects, draws a broad line across the progress of\nIndia's religious thought.\n\nAll these religions, however, whether aboriginal or imported, must\nagain be separated from the more general phenomena of superstition\nwhich are preserved in the beliefs of the native wild tribes. One\ndescends here to that lowest of rank undergrowth which represents a\ntype of religious life so base that its undifferentiated form can be\nmated with like growths from all over the world. These secondary\nreligions are, therefore, important from two points of view, that of\ntheir universal aspect, and, again, that of their historical\nconnection with the upper Indic growth above them;[1] for it is almost\ncertain that some\nof their features have conditioned the development of the latter.\n\nThe native wild tribes of India (excluding the extreme Northern\nTibeto-Burman group) fall into two great classes, that of the\nKolarians and that of the Dravidians, sometimes distinguished as the\nYellow and the Black races respectively. The former, again, are called\nIndo-Chinese by some writers, and the geographical location of this\nclass seems, indeed, to show that they have generally displaced the\nearlier blacks, and represent historically a yellow wave of\nimmigration from the Northeast (through Tibet) prior to the Aryan\nwhite wave (from the Northwest), which latter eventually treated them\njust as they had treated the aboriginal black Dravidians.[2] Of the\nKolarians the foremost representatives are the Koles, the Koches, the\nSunth[=a]ls, and the Sav[=a]ras (Sauras), who are all regarded by\nJohnston as the yellow Dasyus, barbarians, of the earliest period;\nwhile he sees in the V[=a]i\u00e7yas, or third caste of the Hindu political\ndivisions, the result of a union of the Northwest and Northeast\nconquerors. But, although the V[=a]i\u00e7yas are called 'yellow,' yet,\nsince they make the most important numerical factor of the Aryans,\nthis suggestion can scarcely be accepted, for there is no evidence to\nshow that the yellow Mongoloid barbarians were amalgamated so early\nwith the body politic of the Aryans. The chief representatives of the\nDravidians,\non the other hand, are the Khonds and Gonds of the middle of\nthe peninsula, together with the Or[=a]ons and the Todas of the\nextreme South.[3] All of these tribes are of course sub-divided, and\nin some degree their religious practices have followed the bent of\ntheir political inclinations. We shall examine first the religions of\nthe older tribes, the Dravidians, selecting the chief features or such\ntraits as have peculiar interest.\n\n\nTHE DRAVIDIANS.\n\nGonds: These savages, mentioned in early literature, are the most\nnumerous and powerful of the wild tribes, and appear to have been less\naffected by outside belief than were any other, except the related\nKhonds. Their religion used to consist in adoring a representation of\nthe sun, to which were offered human sacrifices.[4] As among the\nOr[=a]ons, a man of straw (literally) is at the present day\nsubstituted for the human victim. Besides the sun, the moon and stars\nare worshipped by them. They have stones for idols, but no temples.[5]\nDevils, witchcraft, and the evil eye also are feared. They sacrifice\nanimals,\nand, with the exception of the R[=a]j Gonds,[6] have been so little\naffected by Hindu respect for that holiest of animals, that they\nslaughter cows at their wedding-feasts, on which occasion the\nbacchanalian revels in which they indulge are accompanied with such\nexcess as quite to put them upon the level of \u00c7ivaite bestiality. The\npure Gonds are junglemen, and have the virtues usually found among the\nlowest savages, truth, honesty, and courage. Murder is no crime, but\nlying and stealing are sinful; for cowardice is the greatest crime,\nand lying and stealing (instead of straightforward and courageous\nrobbery and murder) are regarded as indications of lack of courage.\nBut the 'impure,' that is the mixed Gonds that have been corrupted by\nmingling with Hindus and other tribes, lie and steal like civilized\npeople. In fact, the mixed Gonds are particularly noted for servility\nand dishonesty. The uncivilized Gonds of the table-lands are said\nstill to cut up and eat their aged relatives and friends, not to speak\nof strangers unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. Among the\npure Gonds is found the practice of carrying an axe, which is the sign\nof their religious devotion to the sacrifice-god.[7] The favorite\nreligious practice used to be to take a prisoner alive, force him to\nbow before the god-stone, and at the moment when he bent his head, to\ncut it off. To this and to self-defence against other gods (wild\nbeasts) the hatchet is devoted, while for war are used the bow and\nknife. One particular celebration of the Gonds deserves special\nnotice. They have an annual feast and worship of the snake. The\nservice is entirely secret, and all that is known\nof it is that it is of esoteric, perhaps phallic character. Both at\nthe sun-feast and snake-feast[8] licentious and bacchanalian worship\nare combined, and the latter trait is also the chief feature of\nwedding and funeral sports. In the former case (the natives of the\nsame tribe intermarry, but with the same pretence of running off with\nthe bride that is found in the Hindu ritual)[9] there is given a\nwedding feast by the bridegroom's father, and the feast ends with a\n_causerie de lundi_ (the favorite drink of the Gonds is called\n_lundi_); while on the latter occasion there is a mourning feast, or\nwake, which also ends in general drunkenness.\n\nThe Khonds: Even more striking is the religion of the Khonds. Their\nchief rite is human sacrifice to the earth-goddess,[10] Tari; but,\nlike the Gonds, they worship the sun as chief divinity. Other gods\namong them are the river-god, rain-god, spring, wealth, hill-god, and\nsmallpox-god. All their religious feasts are excuses for excess both\nin drinking and otherwise. One of their beliefs is that there is a\nriver of hell, which flows around a slippery rock, up which climbs the\none that would escape torment. Their method of sacrificing a human\nvictim is to put him into the cleft of a tree, where he is squashed,\nor into fire. They seem to have an odd objection to shedding blood for\nthis purpose, and in this respect may be compared with the Thugs.\nAnother very interesting trait is the religion which is intertwined\nwith business, and its peculiar features. Victims offered either to\nthe sun or to the war-god serve to mark boundary lines. Great is the\npatience with which\nthese victims, called _merias_, are waited for. The sacrificer\ncaptures fit specimens when they are young, and treats them with\nparticular kindness till they are almost grown up. Indeed, they are\ntreated thus by the whole village. At the appointed time they are\nslowly crushed to death or smothered in a mud bath, and bits of their\nflesh are then cut out and strewn along the boundary lines. Boys are\npreferred, but either boys or girls may be used. This sacrifice is\nsometimes made directly to the 'Boundary-god,'[11] an abstraction\nwhich is not unique; for, besides the divinities recorded above,\nmention is made also of a 'Judgment-god.' Over each village and house\npreside the Manes of good men gone; while the 'father is god on earth'\nto every one. They used to destroy all their female children, and\nthis, together with their national custom of offering human\nsacrifices, has been put down with the greatest difficulty by the\nBritish, who confess that there is every probability that in reality\nthe crime still *obtains among the remoter clans. These Khonds are\nsituate in the Madras presidency, and are aborigines of the Eastern\nGh[=a]ts. The most extraordinary views about them have been published.\nDespite their acknowledged barbarity, savageness, and polytheism, they\nhave been soberly credited with a belief in One Supreme God, 'a theism\nembracing polytheism,' and other notions which have been abstracted\nfrom their worship of the sun as 'great god.'\n\nSince these are by far the most original savages of India, a completer\nsketch than will be necessary in the case of others may not be\nunwelcome. The chief god is the light-or sun-god. \"In the beginning\nthe god of light created a wife, the goddess of earth, the source of\nevil.\" On the other hand, the\nsun-god is a good god. Tari, the earth-divinity, tried to prevent\nBella[12] Pennu (sun-god) from creating man. But he cast behind him a\nhandful of earth, which became man. The first creation was free of\nevil; earth gave fruit without labor (the Golden Age); but the dark\ngoddess sowed in man the seed of sin. A few were sinless still, and\nthese became gods, but the corrupt no longer found favor in Bella (or\nBoora) Pennu's eyes. He guarded them no more. So death came to man.\nMeanwhile Bella and Tari contended for superiority, with comets,\nwhirlwinds, and mountains, as weapons. According to one belief, Bella\nwon; but others hold that Tari still maintains the struggle. The\nsun-god created all inferior deities, of rain, fruit, *hunt,\nboundaries, etc., as well as all tutelary local divinities.[13] Men\nhave four kinds of fates. The soul goes to the sun, or remains in the\ntribe (each child is declared by the priest to be N.N. deceased and\nreturned), or is re-born and suffers punishments, or is\nannihilated.[14] The god of judgment lives on Grippa Valli, the\n'leaping rock,' round which flows a black river, and up the rock climb\nthe souls with great effort. The Judgment-god\ndecides the fate of the soul); sending it to the sun (the\nsun-soul), or annihilating it, etc. The chief sins are, to be\ninhospitable, to break an oath, to lie except to save a guest, to\nbreak an old custom, to commit incest, to contract debts (for which\nthe tribe has to pay), to be a coward, to betray council. The chief\nvirtues are, to kill in battle, to die in battle, to be a priest, to\nbe the victim of a sacrifice. Some of the Khonds worship the sun-god;\nsome the earth-goddess, and ascribe to her all success and power,\nwhile they hold particularly to human sacrifice in her honor. They\nadmit (theoretically) that Bella is superior, but they make Tari the\nchief object of devotion, and in her honor are held great village\nfestivals. They that do not worship Tari do not practice human\nsacrifice. Thus the \u00c7ivaite sacrifice of man to the god's consort is\nvery well paralleled by the usage that obtains among them. The Khond\npriests may indulge in any occupation except war; but some exercise\nonly their priestcraft and do nothing else. The chief feast to the\nsun-god is Salo Kallo (the former word means 'cow-pen'; the latter, a\nliquor), somewhat like a _soma_-feast. It is celebrated at harvest\ntime with dancing, and drinking, \"and every kind of licentious\nenjoyment.\" Other festivals of less importance celebrate the\nsubstitution of a buffalo for human sacrifice (not celebrated, of\ncourse, by the Tari worshippers). The invocation at the harvest is\nquite Brahmanic: \"O gods, remember that our increase of rice is your\nincrease of worship; if we get little Rice we worship little.\" Among\nlesser gods the 'Fountain-god' is especially worshipped, with a sheep\nor a hog as sacrifice. Female infanticide springs from a feeling that\nintermarriage in the same tribe is incest (this is the meaning of the\nincest-law above; it might be rendered 'to marry in the tribe').\n\nOf the Or[=a]ons, or Dhangars,[15] we shall mention but one or\ntwo good parallels to what is found in other religions. These\nDravidians live in Bengal, and have two annual festivals, a harvest\nfeast and one celebrating the marriage of heaven and earth. Like the\nKhonds, they recognize a supreme god in the sun, but, just as we\nshowed was the case with the Hindus, who ignore Brahm[=a] because they\ndo not fear him, so here, the Or[=a]ons do not pray to the sun, on the\nground that he does them no harm; but they sacrifice to evil spirits\nbecause the latter are evil-doers. These savages, like the Burmese\nMishmis, have no idea of a future life in heaven; but in the case of\npeople killed in a certain way they believe in a sort of\nmetempsychosis; thus, for instance, a man eaten by a tiger becomes a\ntiger. In the case of unfortunates they believe that they will live as\nunhappy ghosts; in the case of other men they assume only annihilation\nas their fate.[16] It is among this tribe that the mouse-totem is\nfound, which is \u00c7iva's beast and the sign of Gane\u00e7a.[17]\n\nTHE KOLARIANS.\n\nThe Sunth[=a]ls: These are immigrants into the West Bengal jungles,\nand have descended from the North to their present site. They are\ncalled the finest specimens of the native savage. The guardian of the\ntribe is its deceased ancestor, and his ghost is consulted as an\noracle. Their race-god is the 'Great Mountain,' but the sun represents\nthe highest spirit; though they\nworship spirits of every sort, and regard beasts as divine; the men\nrevering the tiger, and the women, elephants. The particularly nasty\nfestival called the _bandana_, which is celebrated annually by this\ntribe, is exactly like the 'left-hand' cult of the \u00c7aktas, only that\nin this case it is a preliminary to marriage. All unmarried men and\nwomen indulge together in an indescribable orgie, at the end of which\neach man selects the woman he prefers.[18]\n\nThe Koles ('pig-stickers'): Like the last, this tribe worship the sun,\nbut with the moon as his wife, and the stars as their children.\nBesides these they revere Manes, and countless local and sylvan\ndeities. Like Druids, they sacrifice only in a grove, but without\nimages.[19]\n\nAll these tribes worship snakes and trees,[25]] and often the only\noath binding upon them is taken under a tree.[21] The\nsun-worship, which is found alike in Kolarian and Dravidian tribes,\nmay be traced through all the ramifications of either. In most of the\ntribes the only form of worship is sacrifice, but oaths are taken on\nrice, beasts, ants, water, earth, etc. (among some P[=a]h[=a]riahs on\nthe arrow). Some have a sort of belief in the divinity of the chief,\nand among the Lurka Koles this dignity is of so much importance that\nat a chief's death the divine dignity goes to his eldest son, while\nthe youngest son gets the property. In regard to funeral rites, the\nKoles first burn and then bury the remains, placing a stone over the\ngrave.\n\nBesides the Or[=a]ons' totem of the mouse, the Sunth[=a]ls have a\ngoose-totem, and the Garos and Kassos (perhaps not to be included in\neither of the two groups), together with many other tribes, have\ntotems, some of them _avatars_, as in the case of the tortoise. The\nGaros, a tribe between Assam and Bengal, are in many respects\nnoteworthy. They believe that their vessels are immortal; and, like\nthe Bh[=a]rs, set up the bamboo pole, a religious rite which has crept\ninto Hinduism (above, p. 378). They eat everything but their totem,\nimmolate human victims, and are divided into 'motherhoods,'\nM[=a]h[=a]ris, particular M[=a]h[=a]ris intermarrying. A man's sister\nmarries into the family from which comes his wife, and that sister's\ndaughter may marry his son, and, as male heirs do not inherit, the\nson-in-law succeeds his father-in-law in right of his wife, and gets\nhis wife's mother (that is, his father's sister) as an additional\nwife.[22] The advances are always made by the girl. She and her party\nselect the groom, go to his house, and carry him off, though he\nmodestly pretends to run away. The sacrifice for the\nwedding is that of a cock and hen, offered to the sun. The god they\nworship most is a monster (very much like \u00c7iva), but he has no local\nhabitation.\n\nOf the Sav[=a]ras or Sauras of the Dekhan the most interesting deity\nis the malevolent female called Th[=a]kur[=a]n[=i], wife of Th[=a]kur.\nShe was doubtless the first patroness of the throttling Thugs (_thags_\nare _[t.]haks_, assassins), and the prototype of their Hindu\nK[=a]l[=i]. Human sacrifices are offered to Th[=a]kur[=a]n[=i], while\nher votaries, as in the case of the Thugs, are noted for the secrecy\nof their crimes.\n\nBirth-rites, marriage-rites, funeral rites (all of blood), human\nsacrifice, _tab[=u]_ (especially among the Burmese), witchcraft,\nworship of ancestors, divination, and demonology are almost universal\nthroughout the wild tribes. In most of the rites the holy stone[23]\nplays an important part, and in many of the tribes dances are a\nreligious exercise.\n\nDescendants of the great Serpent-race that once ruled M[=a]gadha\n(Beh[=a]r), the Bh[=a]rs, and Ch[=i]rus (Cheeroos) are historically of\nthe greatest importance, though now but minor tribes of Bengal. The\nBh[=a]rs, and Koles, and Ch[=i]rus may once have formed one body, and,\nat any rate, like the last, the Bh[=a]rs are Kolarian and not\nDravidian. This is not the place to argue a thesis which might well be\nsupported at length, but in view of the sudden admixture of foreign\nelements with the Brahmanism that begins to expand at the end of the\nVedic period it is almost imperative to raise the question whether the\nBh[=a]rs, of all the northern wild tribes the most cultivated, whose\nhabitat\nextended from Oude (Gorakhpur) on both sides of the Ganges over all\nthe district between Benares and Allah[=a]b[=a]d, and whose name is\nfound in the form Bh[=a]rats as well as Bh[=a]rs, is not one with that\ngreat tribe the history of whose war has been handed down to us in a\ndistorted form under the name of Bh[=a]rata (Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata). The\nBh[=a]ratas, indeed, claim to be Aryans. But is it likely that a race\nwould have come from the Northeast and another from the Northwest, and\nboth have the same name? Carnegy believed, so striking was the\ncoincidence, that the Bh[=a]rats were a R[=a]jput (Hindu) tribe that\nhad become barbaric. But against this speaks the type, which is not\nAryan but Kolarian.[24] Some influence one may suppose to have come\nfrom the more intelligent tribes, and to have worked on Hindu belief.\nWe believe traces of it may still be found in the classics. For\ninstance, the famous Frog-maiden, whose tale is told in the\nMah[=a]bh[=a]rata, reminds one rather forcibly of the fact that in\nOude and Nep[=a]l frog-worship (not as totem) was an established cult.\nThe time for this worship to Begin is October; it is different to\nthunder-worship (July, the _n[=a]ga_-feast), and the frog is\nsubordinate to the snake. And, again, the snake-worship that grows so\nrapidly into the Hindu cult can scarcely have been uninfluenced by the\nfact that there are no less than thirty snake-tribes.[2]\n\nBut despite some interesting points of view besides those\n\n\ntouched upon here, details are of little added value, since it is\nmanifest that, whether Kolarian or Dravidian, or, for the matter of\nthat, American or African, the same rites will obtain with the same\nsuperstition, for they belong to every land, to the Aryan ancestor of\nthe Hindu as well as to the Hindu himself. Even totemism as a survival\nmay be suspected in the 'fish' and 'dog' people of the Rig Veda, as\nhas recently been suggested by Oldenberg. In the Northeast of India\nmany tribes worship only mountains, rivers, and Manes, again a trait\nboth Vedic and Hinduistic, but not necessarily borrowed. Some of these\ntribes, like the Kh[=a]s[=i]as of Oude, may be of R[=a]jput descent\n(the Khasas of Manu, X. 22), but it is more likely that more tribes\nclaim this descent than possess it. We omit many of the tribal customs\nlest one think they are not original; for example, the symbol of the\ncross among the [=A]bors, who worship only diseases, and whose symbol\nis also found among the American Indians; the sun-worship of the\nKatties, who may have been influenced by Hinduism; together with the\ncult of Burmese tribes too overspread with Buddhism. But often there\nis a parallel so surprising as to make it certain that there has been\ninfluence. The Niadis (of the South), for example, worship only the\nfemale principle. Many other tribes worship _\u00e7akti_ almost\nexclusively. The Todas worship stone images, buffaloes, and even\ncow-bells, but they have a celibate priesthood! We do not hesitate to\nexpress our own belief that the _\u00e7akti_-worship is native and drawn\nfrom similar cults, and that the celibate priesthood, on the other\nhand, is taken from civilization.\n\nSuch a fate appears to have happened in modern times to several\ndeities, now half Brahmanized. For example, Vet[=a]la (worshipped in\nmany places) is said in the Dekhan to be an _avatar_, or, properly\nspeaking, a manifestation of \u00c7iva. What is he in reality? A native\nwild god, without a temple, worshipped in the open air under the shade\nof a tree, and in an\nenclosure of stones. Just such a deity, in other words, as we have\nshown is worshipped in just such a way by the wild tribes. A\nmonolith[26] in the middle of twelve stones represents this primitive\nDruidic deity. The stones are painted red in flame-shape for a certain\ndistance from the ground, with the upper portion painted white.\nApparently there is here a sun-god of the aborigines. He is worshipped\nin sickness, as is \u00c7iva, and propitiated with the sacrifice of a cock,\nwithout the intervention of any priest. The cock to Aesculapius\n(\"_huic gallinae immolabantur_\") may have had the same function\noriginally, for the cock is always the sun-bird. Seldom is Vet[=a]la\npersonified. When he has an image (and in the North he sometimes has\ntemples) it is that of an armless and legless man; but again he is\noccasionally represented as a giant 'perfect in all his parts.'[27] To\nthe Brahman, Vet[=a]la is still a mere fiend, and presides over\nfiends; nor will they admit that the red on his stones means aught but\nblood. In such a god, one has a clue to the gradual intrusion of \u00c7iva\nhimself into Brahmanic worship. At first a mountain lightning fiend,\nthen identified with Rudra, a recognized deity, then made\nanthropomorphic. There are, especially in the South, a host of minor\nHindu deities, half-acknowledged, all more or less of a fiendish\nnature in the eyes of the orthodox or even of the \u00c7ivaite. Seen\nthrough such eyes they are no longer recognizable, but doubtless in\nmany instances they represent a crude form of nature-worship or\ndemonology, which has been taken from the cult of the wild\ntribes, and is now more or less thoroughly engrafted upon that of\ntheir civilized neighbors.[28]\n\nOne of the most interesting, though not remarkable, cases of\nsimilarity between savage and civilized religions is found in the\nworship of snakes and trees.[29] In the N[=a]ga or dragon form the\nlatter cult may have been aided by the dragon-worshipping barbarians\nin the period of the northern conquest. But in essentials not only is\nthe snake and dragon worship of the wild tribes one with that of\nHinduism, but, as has been seen, the tatter has a root in the cult of\nBrahmanism also, and this in that of the Rig Veda itself. The\npoisonous snake is feared, but his beautiful wave-like motion and the\nwater-habitat of many of the species cause him to be associated as a\ndivinity with Varuna, the water-god. Thus in early Hinduism one finds\nsnake-sacrifices of two sorts. One is to cause the extirpation of\nsnakes, one is to propitiate them, Apart from the real snake, there is\nrevered also the N[=a]ga, a beautiful chimerical creature, human,\ndivine, and snake-like all in one. These are worshipped by sectaries\nand by many wild tribes alike. The N[=a]ga tribe of Chota N[=a]gpur,\nfor instance, not only had three snakes as its battle-ensign, but\nbuilt a serpent-temple.[30]\n\nTree and plant worship is quite as antique as is snake-worship. For\nnot only is _soma_ a divine plant, and not only does Yama sit in\nheaven under his 'fair tree' (above, p. 129), but 'trees and plants'\nare the direct object of invocation in the Rig Veda (V. 41. 8); and\nthe Brahmanic law enjoins upon the faithful to fling an offering,\n_bali_, to the great gods, to the waters, and 'to the trees';[31] as\nis the case in the house-ritual. We shall seek, therefore, for the\norigin of tree-worship not in the character of the tree, but in that\nof the primitive mind which deifies mountains, waters, and trees,\nirrespective of their nature. It is true, however, that the greater\nveneration due to some trees and plants has a special reason. Thus\n_soma_ intoxicates: and the _tulas[=i]_, 'holy basil,' has medicinal\nproperties, which make it sacred not only in the Krishna-cult, but in\nSicily.[32] This plant is a goddess, and is wed annually to the\n\u00c7[=a]lagr[=a]ma stone with a great feast.[33] So the _\u00e7am[=i]_ plant\nis herself divine, the goddess \u00c7am[=i]. Again, the mysterious rustle\nof the _bo_ tree, _pipal_ may be the reason for its especial\nveneration; as its seeming immortality is certainly the cause of the\nreverence given to the banian. It is not necessary, however, that any\nmystery should hang about a tree. The palm is tall, (\u00c7iva's) _a\u00e7oka_\nis beautiful, and no trees are more revered. But trees are holy _per\nse_. Every 'village-tree' (above, p. 374, and Mbh[=a]. ii. 5. 100) is\nsacred to the Hindu. And this is just what is found among the wild\ntribes, who revere their hut-trees and village-trees as divine,\nwithout demanding a special show of divinity. The birth-tree (as in\nGrecian mythology) is also known, both to Hindu sect and to wild\ntribe. But here also\nthere is no basis of Aryan ideas, but of common human experience. The\nancestor-tree (totem) has been noticed above in the case of the Gonds,\nwho claim descent from trees. The Bh[=a]rs revere the (\u00c7ivaite!)\n_bilva_ or _bel_, but this is a medicinal tree. The marriage-tree is\nuniversal in the South (the tree is the male or female ancestor), and\neven the Brahmanic wedding, among its secondary after-rites, is not\nwithout the tree, which is adorned as part of the ceremony.\n\nTwo points of view remain to be taken before the wild tribes are\ndismissed. The first is that Hindu law is primitive. Maine and Leist\nboth cite laws as if any Hindu law were an oracle of primitive Aryan\nbelief. This method is ripe in wrong conclusions. Most of the matter\nis legal, but enough grazes religion to make the point important. Even\nwith the sketch we have given it becomes evident that Hindu law cannot\nbe unreservedly taken as an exponent of early Brahmanic law, still\nless of Aryan law. For instance, Maine regards matriarchy as a late\nBrahmanic intrusion on patriarchy, an inner growth.[34] To prove this,\nhe cites two late books, one being Vishnu, the Hindu law-giver of the\nSouth. But it is from the Southern wild tribes that matriarchy has\ncrept into Hinduism, and thence into Brahmanism. Here prevails the\nmatriarchal marriage*rite, with the first espousal to the\nsnake-guarded tree that represents the mother's family. In many cases\ngeographical limitations of this sort preclude the idea that the\ncustom or law of a law-book is Aryan.[35]\n\nThe second point of view is that of the Akkadists. It is claimed by\nthe late Lacouperie, by Hewitt, and by other well-known writers that a\nprimitive race overran India, China, and the rest of the world,\nleaving behind it traces of advanced religious ideas and other marks\nof a higher civilization. Such a cult may have existed, but in so far\nas this theory rests, as in a marked degree it does rest, on\netymology, the results are worthless. These scholars identify\nGandharva with Gan-Eden, K[=a]\u00e7i (Benares) with the land of the sons\nof Kush; Gautama with Chinese ('Akkadian') _gut_, 'a bull,' etc. All\nthis is as fruitful of unwisdom as was the guess-work of European\nsavants two centuries ago. We know that the Dasyus had some religion\nand some civilization. Of what sort was their barbaric cult, whether\nFinnish (also 'Akkadian')[36] or aboriginal with themselves, really\nmakes but little difference, so far as the interpretation of Aryanism\nis concerned; for what the Aryans got from the wild tribes of that day\nis insignificant if established as existent at all. A few legends, the\nDeluge and the Cosmic Tree, are claimed as Akkadian, but it is\nremarkable that one may grant all that the Akkadian scholars claim,\nand still deny that Aryan belief has been essentially affected by\nit.[37] The Akkadian theory will please them that cannot reconcile the\nRig Veda with their theory of Brahmanic influence, but the fault lies\nwith the theory.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: The Dasyus, heathen, or pagans, are by no means\n     a wholly uncivilized mass to the poets of the Rig Veda. They\n     have wealth, build forts, and are recognized as living in\n     towns or forts. We learn little about them in Brahmanic\n     literature, except that they bury their dead and with them\n     their trinkets. Their graves and dolmen gray-stones are\n     still found.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: Some scholars think that the Dravidians entered\n     from the Northwest later than the Kolarians, and, pushing\n     them to either side of the peninsula, descended through them\n     to the South. The fact that some Kolarian tribes closely\n     related by language are separated (to East and West) by\n     hundreds of miles, and have lost all remembrance of their\n     former union, favors this view of a Dravidian wedge\n     splitting and passing through the Kolarian mass. But all\n     here is guess-work. The Dravidians may have been pushed on\n     by Kolarians that entered later, while the latter may have\n     been split by the Aryan invasion; and this seems to us more\n     probable because the other theory does not explain why the\n     Kolarians did not go South instead of taking to the hills of\n     the East and West.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: The whole list of these tribes as given by\n     Cust, _Sketch of the Modern Languages of the East Indies_,\n     is as follows: The Kolarians include the Sunth[=a]ls,\n     Mund[=a]ri Koles (Koches), Kh[=a]rians, Juangs, Korwas,\n     Kurs, Sav[=a]ras, Mehtos, Gadabas, P[=a]h[=a]rias; the\n     Dravidians include the tribes called Tamil, Telugu,\n     Kanarese, Malay[=a]lim, Tulu, Kudagu, Toda, Kota, Khond,\n     Gond, Or[=a]on, R[=a]jmah[=a]li, Keik[=a]di, Yeruk[=a]la.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: The sacrifices of the wild tribes all appear to\n     have the object of pleasing or placating the god with food,\n     animal or vegetable; just as the Brahmanic sacrifice is made\n     to please, with the secondary thought that the god will\n     return the favor with interest; then that he is bound to do\n     so. Sin is carried away by the sacrifice, but this seems to\n     be merely an extension of the simpler idea; the god condones\n     a fault after an expression of repentance and good-will.\n     What lies further back is not revealed in the early texts,\n     though it is easy to make them fruitful in \"theories of\n     sacrifice.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Of course no tribe has what civilization would\n     call a temple, but some have what answer to it, namely, a\n     filthy hut where live the god and his priest. Yet the Gonds\n     used to build roads and irrigate very well.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The (R[=a]j) Gonds were first subdued by the\n     R[=a]jputs, and where the Hindus and Gonds have intermarried\n     they are known as R[=a]j Gonds. Others have become the\n     'Mohammedan Gonds.' Otherwise, in the case of the pure or\n     '[=A]ssul' (the greater number), neither Hindu nor\n     Mohammedan has had much influence over them, either socially\n     or religiously. The Gonds whipped the British in 1818; but\n     since then they have become 'pacified.']\n\n     [Footnote 7: It is often no more than a small hatchet stuck\n     in the belt, if they wear the latter, which in the jungle is\n     more raiment than they are wont to put on.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: The snake in the tree is common to many tribes,\n     both being tutelary. The Gonds are 'sons of the forest\n     Trees,' and of the northern bull.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: It seems to us that this feature need not be\n     reckoned as a sign of exogamy. It is often, so far as we\n     have observed, only a stereotyped form to express\n     bashfulness.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Some say earth-_god._ Thus the account given\n     in JRAS. 1842, p. 172, says 'male earth-god as ancestor,'\n     but most modern writers describe the divinity as a female.\n     Some of the Khonds worship only earth (as a peacock). This\n     is the peacock revered at the Pongol.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: The Gonds also have a boundary-god. Graves as\n     boundaries are known among the Anglo-Saxons. Possibly Hermes\n     as boundary-god may be connected with the Hermes that\n     conducts souls; or is it simply as thief-god that he guards\n     from theft? The Khond practice would indicate that the\n     corpse (as something sacred) made the boundary, not that the\n     boundary was made by running a line to a barrow, as is the\n     case in the Anglo-Saxon connection between barrow and\n     bound.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Some may compare Bellerophon !]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Tutelary deities are of house, village,\n     groves, etc. The 'House-god' is, of course, older than this\n     or than Hinduism. The Rig Veda recognizes V[=a]stoshpati,\n     the 'Lord of the House,' to whom the law (Manu, III. 89,\n     etc.) orders oblations to be made. But Hinduism prefers a\n     female house-goddess (see above, p. 374). Windisch connects\n     this Vedic divinity, V[=a]stos-pati, with Vesta and Hestia.\n     The same scholar compares Keltic _vassus, vassallus_,\n     originally 'house-man'; and very ingeniously equates\n     Vassorix with Vedic _vas[=a][.m] r[=a]j[=a]--vi\u00e7[=a][.m]\n     r[=a]j[=a]_, 'king of the house-men' (clan), like\n     _h[.u]skarlar_,'house-fellows,' in Scandinavian (domesticus,\n     *_ouk(tes)_). Windisch, _Vassus und Vassallus_, in the\n     _Bericht. d. k. S\u00e4chs. Gesell_. 1892, p. 174.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: That is to say, a dead man's spirit goes to\n     heaven, or is re-born whole in the tribe, or is re-born\n     diseased (anywhere, this is penal discipline), or finally is\n     annihilated. Justly may one compare the Brahmanic division\n     of the Manes into several classes, according to their\n     destination as conditioned by their manner of living and\n     exit from life. It is the same idea ramifying a little\n     differently; not a case of borrowing, but the growth of two\n     similar seeds. On the other hand, the un-Aryan doctrine of\n     transmigration may be due to the belief of native wild\n     tribes. It appears first in the \u00c7atapatha, but is hinted at\n     in the 'plant-souls' of the RV. (above, pp. 145,204,432),\n     possibly in RV. I. 164. 30,38; B\u00f6tlingk, _loc. cit_., 1893,\n     p. 88.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: This tribe now divides with the Lurka Koles\n     the possession of Chota Nagpur, which the latter tribe used\n     to command entire. The Or[=a]ons regard the Lurka Koles as\n     inferiors. Compare JRAS. 1861, p. 370 ff. They are sometimes\n     erroneously grouped with the Koles, ethnographically as well\n     as geographically. Risley, _Tribes and Castes of Bengal_, p.\n     XXXII.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: Something like this is recorded by Brinton,\n     _Myths of the New World_, p. 243, as the belief of an\n     American tribe, which holds that the fate of the dead\n     depends on the manner of death, the funeral rites, or \"some\n     such arbitrary circumstance\" (as in Greece).]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Compare the epic 'Mouse-people,' M[=u]shikas,\n     as well as Apollo's mouse. Possibly another Hindu mark of\n     sectarianism may be traced to the wild tribes, the use of\n     vermilion markings. This is the most important element in\n     the Bengal wedding rite (Risley).]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Above the Sunth[=a]ls, who inhabit the jungle\n     and lower slopes of the R[=a]jmah[=a]l hills, live the\n     P[=a]h[=a]r[=i]as, who never tell a lie (it is said), and\n     whose religion in some aspects is worth noticing. They\n     believe in one god (over each village god), who created\n     seven brothers to rule earth. The P[=a]h[=a]r[=i]as descend\n     from the eldest of these brothers. They believe in\n     transmigration, a future state, and oracles. But it is\n     questionable whether they have not been exposed to\n     Buddhistic influence, as 'Budo Gosain' is the name of the\n     supreme (sun-)god.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: In the ninth century Orissa was formed of the\n     territories of Khonds, Koles, and Sav[=a]ras. In the old\n     grouping of tribes these, together with the Gonds and Bhils,\n     were the \"five children of the soil\" between the Vindhya\n     mountains, the east chain of the Gh[=a]ts, and the mouth of\n     the God[=a]var[=i] to the centre of the valley of the\n     Nerbudda. The last mentioned tribe of Bhils (Bheels) is\n     almost devoid of native religion, but is particularly noted\n     for truth, honesty, and fidelity. JRAS. 1844, pp. 181, 189,\n     192; 1852, p. 216 ff. It is an ancient race, but its origin\n     is not certain.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Trees are revered by the Brahmans also, as by\n     the American Indians. Schoolcraft, i. 368. The tree-spirit\n     is an advance on this (Brahmanic and Hinduistic).]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Thus the Bhils' wedding is simply a mutual\n     promise under the _sing[=a]_ tree. These savages, however,\n     live together only so long as they choose. When the family\n     separates, the father takes the elder children, and the\n     mother takes the younger ones. They are polygamous. It is\n     from this tribe that the worship of Aghor[=i], the Vindhya\n     fiend, accepted as a form of K[=a]l[=i], was introduced into\n     \u00c7ivaite worship. At present their religion is a mixture of\n     Hindu and native superstition. Thus, like the Gonds, they\n     worship stone images of gods placed in a circle, but they\n     recognize among these gods several of the Hindu divinities.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Rowney, _Wild Tribes_, p. 194. The goose-totem\n     of the Sunth[=a]ls is also Brahm[=a]'s sign. As Vishnu is\n     carried on an eagle, and \u00c7iva on a bull, so Brahm[=a] rides\n     a goose (or flamingo). The 'ten ancestors' demanded of the\n     Brahman priest were originally on the mother's side as well\n     as on the father's. Weber, _R[=a]jas[=u]ya_, p. 78. The\n     matriarchal theory is, however, southern. (Compare the\n     oblations to the ancestresses in Vishnu's law-book, 74.)]\n\n     [Footnote 23: The marriage-stone, as in the Hindu rite is\n     quite common. Of lesser superstitions the _tab[=u]_,\n     analogous to the avoidance of unlucky names among the\n     Hindus, may be mentioned. Friendship among girls is cemented\n     by a religious ceremony. After this, among the Or[=a]ons,\n     the two avoid each other's name, calling each other only 'my\n     flower' or 'my meet-to-smile' (Rowney). In this tribe\n     exogamy is 'more respectable,' but not necessary. The girls\n     are generally bought, and have fixed prices, but we have\n     seen the customary price (twenty-five pigs) cited only for\n     Assam among the Meeris. If one man cannot pay so much,\n     several unite, for polyandry prevails all through the\n     northern tribes (JRAS. XI. 38), and even in the Punj[=a]b.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Sherring (JRAS. V. 376) says decidedly that\n     Bh[=a]rs, or Bh[=a]rats, and Ch[=i]rus cannot be Aryans.\n     This article is one full of interesting details in regard to\n     the high cultivation of the Bh[=a]rat tribe. They built\n     large stone forts, immense subterranean caverns, and made\n     enormous bricks for tanks and fortifications (19 X 11 X\n     2-1/2 inches), the former being built regularly to east and\n     west (_surajbedi_). One of their chief cities lay five miles\n     west of Mirz[=a]pur, and covered several miles, entirely\n     surrounding the Puranic city of Vindhyacal, built in the\n     midst of it. Six or seven hundred years ago the Bh[=a]rs\n     held Oude and Benares. Carnegy's opinion is given in his\n     _Races, Tribes, and Castes of the Province of Oude_ (Oudh).\n     The Bh[=a]rs, says Elliot, _Chronicles of Oonayo_, built all\n     the towns not ending in _pur_, _mow_, or _[=a]b[=a]d_\n     (Hindu, Mongol, Mohammedan). Their sacra (totems?) are the\n     bamboo, _bel_-tree, tortoise, and peacock.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: JRAS. XII. 229; IA. XXII. 293.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: Among the southern Koders the dolmen form\n     grave-stones; perhaps the religious employment of them in\n     this wise led to the idea of the god-stone in many cases;\n     but it is difficult to say in monolith-worship whether the\n     stone itself be not a god; not a fetish, for (as has been\n     said by others) a fetish is a god only so long as he is\n     regarded as being useful, and when shown to be useless he is\n     flung away; but a god-stone is always divine, whether it\n     grants prayers or not.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: Wilson's note to Stevenson's description,\n     JRAS. 1838, p. 197. The epic disease-gods are not unique.\n     The only god known to the Andaman Islanders (Bay of Bengal)\n     was a disease-devil, and this is found as a subordinate\n     deity in many of the wild tribes.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: In the current _Indian Antiquary_ there is an\n     exceedingly interesting series of papers by the late Judge\n     Burnell on Devil-worship, with illustrations that show well\n     the character of these lower objects of worship.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: The standard work on this subject is\n     Fergusson's _Tree and Serpent Worship_, which abounds in\n     interesting facts and dangerously captivating fancies.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: JRAS. 1846, p. 407. The ensign here may be\n     totemistic. In Hinduism the epic shows that the standards of\n     battle were often surmounted with signa and effigies of\n     various animals, as was the case, for example, in ancient\n     Germany. We have collected the material on this point in a\n     paper in JAOS. XIII. 244. It appears that on top of the\n     flag-staff images were placed. One of these is the\n     Ape-standard; another, the Bull standard; another, the\n     Hoar-standard. Arjuna's sign was the Ape (with a lion's\n     tail); other heroes had peacocks, elephants, and fabulous\n     monsters like the _\u00e7arabha_. The Ape is of course the god\n     Hanuman; the Boar, Vishnu; the Bull, \u00c7iva; so that they have\n     a religious bearing for the most part, and are not\n     totemistic. Some are purely fanciful, a bow, a swan with\n     bells, a lily; or, again, they are significant of the\n     heroe's origin (Drona's 'pot'). Trees and flowers are used\n     as standards just like beasts. Especially is the palm a\n     favorite emblem. These signa are in addition to the\n     battle-flags (one of which is blue, carried with an ensign\n     of five stars). On the plants compare Williams, _Brahmanism\n     and Hinduism_, p. 338.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: [=A]pastambo, 2. 2. 3. 22; Manu, III. 88.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Vule _apud_ Williams.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: _ib_. The Rig Veda, X. 81. 4, knows also a\n     'tree of creation.']\n\n     [Footnote 34: _Early Law and Custom_, p. 73 ff.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: Thus it is common Aryan law that, on the birth\n     of a child, the mother becomes impure for ten days, either\n     alone or with the father. But the latter's impurity is only\n     nominal, and is removed by bathing (Manu, V. 62, and\n     others). B[=a]udh[=a]yana alone states that \"according to\n     some\" only the father becomes impure (1. 5. 11. 21). This is\n     the custom of a land described by Apollonius Rhodius (II.\n     1010}, \"where, when women bear children, the men groan, go\n     to bed, and tie up the head; but the women care for them.\"\n     Yet B[=a]udh[=a]yana is a Southerner and a late writer. The\n     custom is legalized only in this writer's laws. Hence it\n     cannot be cited as Brahmanic or even as Aryan law. It was\n     probably the custom of the Southern half-Hinduized\n     environment.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: American Indians are also Dravidian, because\n     both have totems![* unknown symbol]]\n\n     [Footnote 37: For the Akkadist theory may be consulted\n     Lacouperie in the _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, i. 1,\n     25, 58; iii. 62 ff.; v. 44, 97; vi. 1 ff.; Hewitt, in\n     reviewing Risley's _Tribes and Castes of Bengal_, JRAS.\n     1893, p. 238 ff. See also Sayce's _Hibbert Lectures_. On the\n     Deluge and Tree of Life, compare the _Babylonian and\n     Oriental Record_, iv. 15 and 217.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nINDIA AND THE WEST.\n\n\nIf in Hinduism, and even in Brahmanism, there are certain traits\nwhich, with some verisimilitude, may be referred to the immediate\nenvironment of these religions, how stands it in respect of that wider\ncircle of influence which is represented by the peoples of the West?\nWith Egypt and Phoenicia, India had intercourse at an early date, but\nthis appears to have been restricted to mercantile exchange; for India\ntill very late was affected neither by the literature nor by the\nreligion of Egyptians or Syrians.[1] Of a more direct sort seem to\nhave been the relations between India and Babylon, and the former may\nowe to the latter her later astronomy, but no definitive proof exists\n(or even any great historical probability) that Babylon gave India\neven legendary additions to her native wealth of myths.[2] From the\nIranians the Hindus parted too early to receive from Zoroastrianism\nany influence. On the contrary, in our opinion the religion of\nZoroaster budded from a branch taken from Indic soil. Even where\nPersian influence may, with propriety, be suspected, in the later\nIndic worship of the sun, India took no new religion from Persia; but\nit is very possible that her own antique and preserved heliolatry was\naided, and acquired new strength from more modern contact with the\nsun-worshippers of the West. Of Iranian influence in early times,\nalong the line of Hindu religious development, there is scarcely a\ntrace, although in 509 B.C. Darius's general conquered the land about\nthe Indus.[3] But the most zealous advocate of Persia's prestige can\nfind little to support his claims in pre-Buddhistic Brahmanic\nliterature, though such claims have been made, not only in respect of\nthe position of secondary divinities, but even as regards\neschatological conceptions. It is not so easy to refute an improbable\nhistorical theory as it is to propound it, but, on the other hand, the\n_onus probandi_ rests upon him that propounds it, and till now all\narguments on this point have resulted only in increasing the number of\nunproved hypotheses, which the historian should mention and may then\ndismiss.\n\nThe Northern dynasty that ruled in India in the sixth century seems to\nhave had a hand in spreading Iranian sun-worship beyond the Indus, but\nwe doubt whether the radical effect of this dominion and its belief\n(it is described by Kosmas, an Egyptian traveller of the time) is as\ngreat as has been claimed.[4]\n\nFrom Greece, the Hindus received architectural designs, numismatic,\nand perhaps a few literary hints, but they got thence neither\nreligious myths, nor, with the possible exception of the cult of the\nlater Love-god and fresh encouragement to phallic\n-worship, new rites;[5] though they may have borrowed some fables, and\none even hears of a Buddhistic king endeavoring to buy a sophist of\nAntiochus. But there is no ground for assuming philosophical influence\non Brahmanism.\n\nChristianity came late into the religious life of India, and as a\ndoctrine made upon her no deep or lasting impression. Certain details\nof Christian story have been woven into the legends of Krishna, and\nsome scholars believe that the monotheistic worshippers depicted in\nthe pseudo-epic were Christians. But in respect of the latter point it\nis enough to say that this account of foreign belief had no new\nmonotheizing effect upon the pantheism of India; the strange\n(unbrahmanic) god was simply accepted as Vishnu. Nor do we believe\nthat the faith-doctrine of Hindu sectarianism and the trinitarianism\nof India were derived from Christian sources. But it must be admitted\nto be historically possible that the creed of the Christians, known to\nthe Hindus of the sixth and seventh centuries, may have suggested to\nthe latter the idea of the trinity as a means of adjusting the claims\nof Brahmanism, Krishnaism, and \u00c7ivaism.[6]\n\nBut from the Mohammedan India has taken much, albeit\nonly in the last few centuries. When Alexander entered India there\nwere still two bodies of Indic people west of the Indus. But the trend\nwas eastward, as it had been for centuries, and the first inroad of\nthe Mohammedan had little further effect than to seize a land forsaken\nby Aryans and given over to the hordes of the North. The foundation of\nthe new empire was not laid till the permanent occupation of the\nPunj[=a]b and annexation of Lahore in 1022-23. In the thirteenth\ncentury all Hindustan acknowledged the authority of the slave sultan\nof Delhi.[7] Akbar died in 1605. By the end of the century the Mogul\nrule was broken; the Mahratta princes became imperial. It is now just\nin this period of Mohammedan power when arise the deistic reforming\nsects, which, as we have shown, were surrounded with deists and\ntrinitarians. Here, then, we draw the line across the inner\ndevelopment of India's religions, with\nKab[=i]r, N[=a]nak, D[=a]du, and perhaps even Basava. In the\nphilosophy of the age that succeeds the epic there are but two phases\nof religion, pantheism for the wise, a more or less deistic polytheism\nfor the vulgar[8] (in isolated cases may be added the monotheism of\ncertain scholastic philosophers); and so Indic religion continued till\nthe advent of Islamism. Nevertheless, though under Mohammedan\ninfluence,[9] the most thoughtful spirits of India received monotheism\nand gave up pantheism, yet was the religious attitude of these\nthinkers not averse from that taken by the Sankyan philosophers and by\nthe earlier pantheists. From a philosophical point of view one must,\nindeed, separate the two. But all these, the Unitarian Hariharaist,\nthe real pantheist of the Upanishads, who completed the work of the\nVedic quasi-pantheist, and the circle that comprises Kab[=i]r,\nN[=a]nak, and D[=a]du, were united in that they stood against\nencircling polytheism. They were religiously at one in that they gave\nup the cult of many divinities, which represented respectively\nnature-worship and fiend-worship (with beast-worship), for the worship\nof one god. Therefore it is that, while native advance stops with the\nMohammedan conquest, one may yet claim an uninterrupted progress for\nthe higher Indic religion, a continual elevation of the thoughts of\nthe wise; although at the same time, beside and below this, there is\nthe circle of lower beliefs that continually revolves upon itself. For\nin the zo\u00f6latry[10] and polytheism that adores monsters to-day\nit is difficult to see a form of religion higher in any respect than\nthat more simple nature-polytheism which first obtained.[11]\n\nThis lower aspect of Indic religions hinges historically on the\nrelation between the accepted cults of Hinduism[12] and those of the\nwild tribes. We cannot venture to make any statements that will cast\nupon this question more light than has been thrown by the above\naccount of the latter cults and of their points of contact with\nHinduism. It may be taken for granted that with the entrance into the\nbody politic of a class composed of vanquished[13] or vanquishing\nnatives, some of the religion of the latter may have been received\nalso. Such, there is every reason to believe, was the original worship\nof \u00c7iva as \u00c7arva, Bhava, and of Krishna; in other words, of the first\nfeatures of modern sectarian Hinduism, though this has been so\ninfluenced by Aryan civilization that it has become an integral part\nof Hindu religion.[14]\n\nBut, again, for a further question here presents itself, how much in\nIndia to-day is Aryan? We are inclined to answer that very little of\nblood or of religion is Aryan. Some priestly families keep perhaps a\nstrain of Aryan blood. But Hindu literature is not afraid to state how\nmany of its authors are of low caste, how many of its priests were\nbegotten of mixed marriages, how many formed low connections; while\nboth legendary and prophetic (_ex post facto_) history speak too often\nof slave-kings and the evil times when low castes will reign, for any\nunprejudiced person to doubt that the Hindu population, excluding many\npure priests but including many of the priests and the R[=a]jputs\n('sons of kings'), represents Aryanhood even less than the belief of\nthe Rig Veda represents the primitive religion; and how little of\naboriginal Aryan faith is reflected in that work has been shown\nalready.\n\nAs one reviews the post-Vedic religions of civilized India he is\nimpressed with the fact that, heterogeneous as they are, they yet in\nsome regards are so alike as to present, when contrasted with other\nbeliefs, a homogeneous whole. A certain uniqueness of religious style,\nso to speak, differentiates every expression of India's theosophy from\nthat of her Western neighbors. What is common and world-wide in the\nforms of Indic faith we have shown in a previous chapter. But on this\nuniversal foundation India has erected many individual temples,\ntemples built after designs which are not uniform, but are all\nself-sketched, and therefore peculiar to herself. In each of these\nmental houses of God there is revealed the same disposition, and that\ndisposition is necessarily identical with that expressed in her\nprofane artistry,[15] for the form of religion is as much a matter of\nnational taste as is that which is embodied in literature,\narchitecture, and painting. And this taste, as expressed in religion,\nisolates Brahmanic and Hinduistic India,\nplacing her apart, both from the gloom of Egypt and the grace of\nGreece; even as in her earliest records she shows herself individual,\nas contrasted with her Aryan kinsfolk. Like Egypt, she feels her dead\never around her, and her cult is tinged with darkness; but she is fond\nof pleasure, and seeks it deliriously. Like Greece, she loves beauty,\nbut she loves more to decorate it; and again, she rejoices in her\ngods, but she rejoices with fear; fear that overcomes reason, and\npictures such horrors as are conjured up by the wild leaps of an\nuncurbed fancy. For an imagination that knows no let has run away with\nevery form of her intellectual productivity, theosophy as well as art.\nThis is perceptible even in her ritualistic, scientific, and\nphilosophical systems; for though it is an element that at first seems\nincongruous with such systems, it is yet in reality the factor that\nhas produced them. Complex, varied, minute, exact, as are the details\nwhich she loves to elaborate in all her work, they are the result of\nthis same unfettered imagination, which follows out every fancy,\npleased with them all, exaggerating every present interest, unconfined\nby especial regard for what is essential.[16] This is a heavy charge\nto bring, nor can it be passed over with the usual remark that one\nmust accept India's canon as authoritative for herself, for the taste\nof cosmopolitan civilization is the only norm of judgment, a norm\naccepted even by the Hindus of the present day when they have learned\nwhat it is. But we do not bring the charge of extravagance for the\nsake of comparing India unfavorably with the Occident. Confining\nourselves to the historical method of treatment which we have\nendeavored heretofore to maintain, we wish to point out the important\nbearings which this intellectual trait has had upon the lesser\nproducts of India's religious activity.\n\nThrough the whole extent of religious literature one finds what are\napparently rare and valuable bits of historical information. It is\nthese which, from the point of view to which we have just referred,\none must learn to estimate at their real worth. In nine cases out of\nten, these seeming truths are due only to the light imagination of a\nsubsequent age, playing at will over the records of the past, and\nseeking by a mental caper to leap over what it fails to understand. To\nthe Oriental of an age still later all the facts deducible from such\nstatements as are embodied in the hoary literature of antiquity appear\nto be historical data, and, if mystic in tone, these statements are to\nhim an old revelation of profoundest truth. But the Occidental, who\nrecognizes no hidden wisdom in palpable mystification, should hesitate\nalso to accept at their face value such historical notes as have been\ndrafted by the same priestly hand.\n\nNor would we confine the application of this principle to the output\nof extant Brahmanic works. The same truth cuts right and left among\nmany utterances of the Vedic seers and all the theories built upon\nthem. To pick out here and there an _ipse dixit_ of one of the later\nfanciful Vedic poets, who lived in a period as Brahmanic (that is, as\nritualistic) as is that which is represented by the actual\nritual-texts, and attempt to reconstruct the original form of\ndivinities on the basis of such vagaries is useless, for it is an\nunhistorical method which ignores ancient conditions.\n\nIn less degree, because here the conditions are more obvious, does\nthis apply to the religious interpretation of the great body of\nliterature which has conserved for posterity the beginnings of\nHinduism. But upon this we have already animadverted, and now need\nonly range this literature in line with its predecessors. Not because\nthe epic pictures Krishna as making obeisance to \u00c7iva is Krishna here\nthe undeveloped man-god, who represents but the beginning of his\n(later) greatness, and is still subject to the older \u00c7iva. On the\ncontrary, it is the\nepic's last extravagance in regard to \u00c7iva (who has already bowed\nbefore the great image of Krishna-Vishnu) that demands a furious\ncounter-blast against the rival god. It is the \u00c7ivaite who says that\nKrishna-Vishnu bows; and because it is the \u00c7ivaite, and because this\nis the national mode of expression of every sectary, therefore what\nthe \u00c7ivaite says is in all probability historically false, and the\nsober historian will at least not discover 'the earlier Krishna' in\nthe Krishna portrayed by his rival's satellites.\n\nBut when one comes to the modern sects, then he has to deplore not so\nmuch the lack of historical data as the grotesque form into which this\nsame over-vivid imagination of the Hindu has builded his gods. As the\nscientific systems grow more and more fancifully, detailed, and as the\nliturgy flowers out into the most extraordinary bloom of weird legend,\nso the images of the gods, to the eye in their temples, to the mind in\nthe descriptions of them, take to themselves the most uncouth details\nimagined by a curious fancy. This god is an ascetic; he must be\nportrayed with the ascetic's hair, the ascetic's wild appearance. He\nkills; he must be depicted as a monster, every trait exaggerated,\nevery conceivable horror detailed. This god sported with the\nshepherdesses; he must have love-adventures related in full, and be\nworshipped as a darling god of love; and in this worship all must be\npictured in excess, that weaker mortal power may strive to appreciate\nthe magnitude of the divine in every fine detail.\n\nThese traits are those of late Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism. But\nhow marked is the contrast with the earlier Vedic age! The grotesque\nfancy, the love of minutiae, in a word, the extravagance of\nimagination and unreason are here absent, or present only in hymns\nthat contrast vividly with those of the older tone. This older tone is\nAryan, the later is Hindu, and it is another proof of what we have\nalready emphasized, that the Hinduizing influence was felt in the\nlater Vedic\nor Brahmanic period. There is, indeed, almost as great a gulf between\nthe Dawn-hymns and the \u00c7atapatha as there is between the latter and\nthe Pur[=a]nas. One may rest assured that the perverted later taste\nreproduces the advance of Hindu influence upon the Aryan mind exactly\nin proportion to the enormity displayed.\n\nOn the other hand, from the point of view of morality, Brahmanic\nreligion is not in any way individual. The race, whether Aryan or\nHinduistic, had as fragile virtue as have other folks, and shows the\nsame tentative efforts to become purer as those which characterize\nevery national advance. There is, perhaps, a little too much formal\ninsistence on veraciousness, and one is rather inclined to suspect,\ndespite M\u00fcllers brave defence of the Hindu in this regard, that lying\ncame very naturally to a people whose law-givers were so continuously\nharping on the beauty of truth. The vicious caste-system necessarily\nscheduled immorality in accordance with the caste order, as certain\ncrimes in other countries are estimated according to the race of the\nsinner rather than according to any abstract standard. In the matter\nof precept we know no better moral laws than those promulgated by the\nBrahmans, but they are the laws that every people evolves for itself.\nReligious immorality, the excess of \u00c7akti worship, is also not\npeculiar to the Hindu. If one ask how the morality of India as a whole\ncompares with that of other countries, we reply that, including\nreligious excesses, it stands level with the personal morality of\nGreece in her best days,[17]\nand that without the religiously sensual (Hindu) element, it is\n_nominally_ on a par with that of London or New York. There are good\nand bad men, and these make good and bad coteries, which stand inside\nthe pale of a religious profession. There is not much theoretical\ndifference. Few of the older gods are virtuous, and Right, even in the\nRig Veda, is the moral power, that is, Right as Order, correct\nbehavior, the prototype both of ritual and of _[=a]c[=a]ra,_ custom,\nwhich rules the gods. In the law-court the gods are a moral group, and\ntwo of them, Varuna and Agni, hate respectively the sins of adultery\nand untruth. In the law it is, however, Dharma and the Father-god or\nhis diadochos, who, handing down heavenly precepts, gives all moral\nlaws, though it must be confessed that the Father-god is almost the\nlast to care for morality. And pure Brahmanism stops with Brahm[=a].\nIn modern Hinduism, to kill, lust, steal, drink, so far from\noffending, may please a god that is amorous, or bloodthirsty, or, like\n\u00c7iva, is 'the lord of thieves.' Morality here has God himself against\nit. In the Rig Veda, to sin is merely to displease a god. But even in\nBrahmanism, as in Buddhism, there is not that intimate connection\nbetween goodness and godness that obtains in Christianity. The\nBrahman, like the Buddhist, was self-controlled, in order to exert\ncontrol upon the gods and the course of his own future life. He not\nonly, as is perhaps the case elsewhere, was moral with an ulterior\nmotive, but his moral code lacked the divine hand. It was felt as a\nsystem which he applied to himself for his own good. He did not assume\nthat he offended a god by not following it, except in two special\ncases, as in sins against Agni and Varuna. Ulterior motives are\ndeprecated, but because he that seeks absorption into God must quit\ndesires.[18]\n\nWe have said that the moral code of the Hindus at its best seems to be\non a par with the best as found elsewhere. Not to lie, not to steal,\nnot to injure another illegally,[19] to be brave, to be loyal, to be\nhospitable,--these are the factors of its early and late law. In\ncertain late cases may be added 'to be self-restrained.' But if these\nlaws be compared with those of the savage races it will be found that\nmost of them are also factors of primitive ethics. Therefore we say\nthat the Hindu code as a whole is savage and antique, and that,\nexcluding religious excess and debauchery, it is on a par with the\nmodern ethical code only nominally. In reality, however, this savage\nand ancient code is not on a level with that of to-day. And the reason\nis that the ideal of each is different. In the savage and old-world\nconception of morality it is the ideal virtue that is represented by\nthe code. It was distinct laudation to say of a man that he did not\nlie, or steal, and that he was hospitable.[20] But to-day, while these\nfactors remain to formulate the code, they no longer represent ideal\nvirtue. Nay rather, they are but the assumed base of virtue, and so\nthoroughly is this assumed that to say of a gentleman that he does not\nlie or steal is not praise, but rather an insult, since the imputation\nto him of what is but the virtue of children is no longer an encomium\nwhen applied to the adult, who is supposed to have passed the point\nwhere theft and lying are moral temptations, and to have reached a\npoint where, on the basis of these savage, antique, and now childish\nvirtues, he strives for a higher moral ideal. And this ideal of\nto-day, which makes fair-mindedness, liberality of thought, and\naltruism the respective representatives of the savage virtues of\nmanual honesty, truth-speaking, and hospitality, is just what\nis lacking in the more primitive ideal formulated in the code of\nsavages and of the Brahman alike.[21] It is not found at all among\nsavages, and they may be left on one side. In India all the factors of\nthe modern code are entirely lacking at the time when the old code was\nfirst completely formulated. Liberality of thought comes in with the\nera of the Upanishads, but it is a restricted freedom. Altruism is\nunknown to pure Brahmanism. But it obtains among the Buddhists, who\nalso have liberality of thought and fair-mindedness. Hence, from the\npoint of view of the higher morality, one must confess that Buddhism\noffers the best parallel to the best of to-day. On the other hand,\nBuddhistic altruism exceeds all other.\n\nWe have sketched the sphere of influence exerted by the West upon\nIndia, and found it on the whole inconsiderable. The Indic religions\ntill the twelfth century assimilated what little they drew from\nforeign sources, and stand before the world as a peculiar growth,\nnative to the soil in all their essential characteristics.[22]\n\nBut to the other side of India's contact with the West we have as yet\nbarely alluded. India has given as she has received. What influence\nhas she had upon Western cults and beliefs? The worship that\nsubstituted idols for ideal forms we have traced back to the end of\nthe Vedic period. It is not, however, a mark of early Brahmanism, nor\nis it a pronounced feature before the age of Buddhism. But in Buddha's\ntime, or soon after, flourished the worship of images, and with it the\nrespect for relics. The latter feature of the new religion made\nnecessary shrines to keep the holy objects, sacred museums, which soon\nbecame the formal _st[=u]pas,_ above-ground\nand under-ground, and these made the first temples of India.[23] Fully\ndeveloped, they became the great religious buildings affected by\nBuddhism, with their idol service, prostrations, repetitions of\nprayers, dim religious light (lamp-service), offerings of flowers,\nfruits, etc. From this source may have been derived many of the\ndetails in the Roman Catholic worship, which appears to have taken\nfrom Buddhism the rosary, originally a mark of the \u00c7ivaite.[24] By\nwhat is, to say the least, an extraordinary coincidence, each of these\nchurches is conspicuous for its use of holy water, choirs, sacred\npictures, tonsure, vestments, the bell in religious service, the\norders of nuns, monks, and the vows of the monastic system.[25] The\nmost curious loan made by the Roman and Greek churches is, however,\nthe quasi-worship of Gotama Buddha himself (in so far as a Romanist\nworships his saints), for, under cover of the Barlaam and Josaphat\nstory, Buddha has found a niche as a saint in the row of canonized\nCatholic worthies, and has his saint-day in the calendar of the Greek\nand Roman churches.[26] But it is not his mother who is the Virgin of\nLamaism, which has made of Buddha the Supreme God.\n\nBesides external phases of the religious cult, India has given\nto the West a certain class of literary works and certain\nphilosophical ideas. The former consists, of course, in the\nfable-literature, which spread from India to Eastern Europe (Babrius)\nand has preserved in many tales of to-day nothing more than Buddhistic\nBirth-stories or other Indic tales (the Pa[.n]catantra) and\nlegends.[27] Of these we can make only passing mention here, to turn\nat once to the more important question of philosophical and religious\nborrowing.\n\nIt has been claimed, as we have incidentally stated, that the Logos\ndoctrine was imported from India. Were this so, it would, indeed, be a\nfact of great historical importance, but, interesting as would be such\na loan, we cannot see that the suggestion is based on data of cogent\ncharacter. The history of the doctrine in India and Greece is simply\nthis: V[=a]c, Speech or Word, appears in the Rig Veda (in the hymn\ncited above, p. 143) as an active female divine power, showing grace\nto mortals. In the Brahmanic period V[=a]c becomes more and more like\nthe Greek Logos, and it may truthfuly be said that in this period \"the\nWord was God.\" In Greece, on the other hand, the conception of Logos\nbegins with Heraclitus, passes on to the Stoics; is adopted by Philo;\nbecomes a prominent feature of Neo-Platonism; and reappears in the\nGospel of St. John. It is certainly legitimate to suppose that\nHeraclitus might have received the idea indirectly, if not directly,\nfrom contemporary Eastern philosophers; but the fact that he did so\nremains unproved; nor is there any foundation for the assumption of\nborrowing other than the resemblance between the Grecian and Indic\nconceptions. But this resemblance is scarcely marked enough in\nessential features to prejudice one in favor of Weber's theory\n(amplified by Garbe), as it is not detailed enough to be striking, for\nV[=a]c is never more than one of many female abstractions.\n\nWith the exception of the one case to be mentioned immediately, we are\nforced to take the same position in regard to the similarity between\nother forms of early Greek and Hindu philosophy. Both Thales and\nParmenides were indeed anticipated by Hindu sages, and the Eleatic\nschool seems to be but a reflexion of the Upanishads. The doctrines of\nAnaximander and Heraclitus are, perhaps, not known first in Greece,\nbut there is no evidence that they were not original to Greece, or\nthat they were borrowed from India, however much older may be the\nparallel trains of thought on Indic soil.\n\nQuite as decidedly, however, as we deny all appearance of borrowing on\nthe part of the founders of other early Grecian schools, must we claim\nthe thought of India to be the archetype of Pythagorean philosophy.\nAfter a careful review of the points of contact, and weighing as\ndispassionately as possible the historical evidence for and against\nthe originality of Pythagoras, we are unable to come to any other\nconclusion than that the Greek philosopher took his whole system\nindirectly from India. His 'numbers,' indeed, are the S[=a]nkhya only\nin appearances.[28] But his theory of metempsychosis is the Indic\n_sams[=a]ra_, and Plato is full of Sankhyan thought, worked out by him\nbut taken from Pythagoras. Before the sixth century B.C. all the\nreligious-philosophical ideas of Pythagoras are current in India (L.\nvon Schroeder, _Pythagoras_). If there were but one or two of these\ncases, they might be set aside as accidental coincidences, but such\ncoincidences are too numerous to be the result of chance. Even in\ndetails the transmigration theory of Pythagoras harmonizes with that\nof India. Further (after Schroeder und Garbe) may be mentioned the\ncurious prohibition against eating beans; the Hesiodic-Pythagorean\n[Greek: _pros \u00ealion m\u00ea omichein_]; the vow of silence, like that taken\nby the Hindu _muni_; the doctrine of _five_ elements (aether as\nfifth); above all, the so-called Pythagorean Theorem, developed in the\nmathematical\n\u00c7ulvas[=u]tras[29] of India; the irrrational number [square root\nsymbol]2; then the whole character of the religious-philosophical\nfraternity, which is exactly analogous to the Indic orders of the\ntime; and finally the mystic speculation, which is peculiar to the\nPythagorean school, and bears a striking resemblance to the\nfantastical notions affected by the authors of the Br[=a]hmana.[30]\nGreek legend is full of the Samian's travels to Egypt, Chaldaea,\nPhoenicia, and India. The fire beneath this smoke is hidden. One knows\nnot how much to believe of such tales. But they only strengthen the\ninference, drawn from 'the Pythagorean school,' the man's work itself,\nthat the mysticism and numbers with which he is surrounded are taken\nfrom that system of numbers and from that mysticism which are so\nastonishingly like his own. All subsequent philosophies borrowed from\nPythagoreanism, and in so far has India helped to form the mind of\nEurope.[31]\n\nBut we cannot omit a yet more important religious influence exerted by\nIndia upon the West. As is well known, Neo-Platonism and Christian\nGnosticism owe much to India. The Gnostic ideas in regard to a\nplurality of heavens and spiritual worlds go back directly to Hindu\nsources. Soul and light are one in the S[=a]nkhya system before they\nbecome so in Greece, and when they appear united in Greece it is by\nmeans of the thought which is borrowed from India. The famous 'three\nqualities' of the S[=a]nkhya reappear as the Gnostic 'three classes,'\n[Greek: pneumagikoi], [Greek: psuchikoi], [Greek: ulikoi].[32] In\nregard to Neo-Platonism, Garbe\nsays: \"The views of Plotinus are in perfect agreement with those of\nthe S[=a]nkhya system.\"[33] Porphyry, the disciple of Plotinus, has\nthe Yoga doctrine of immediate perception of truth leading to union\nwith the deity. As is well known and undisputed, this Porphyry copies\ndirectly from the treatise of Bardesanes, which contains an account of\nthe Brahmatis;[34] while in many instances he simply repeats the\ntenets of the S[=a]nkhya philosophy. The means of communication may\nhave been Alexandria, where met the trades of the East and West.\nPerhaps the philosophers of India as well as of Greece were brought\ntogether there. But, if the East and West had a mutual meeting-ground,\nthe ideas common to both occupy no common place in their respective\nhomes. In Greece, Pythagoreanism and Gnosticism are strange, and are\nfelt as such by the natives. In India these traits are founded on\nancient beliefs, long current, universal, nationally recognized. The\nquestion of giver and receiver, then, admitting the identity of\nthought, can scarcely be raised. If two men meet, one a Methodist and\none a Baptist, and after they have conversed the Methodist be found\ntotally immersed, he will not be credited with having invented\nindependently his new mode of baptism.\n\nIndia's influence as an intellectual factor in modern European thought\nhas thus far been of the slightest. Her modern deism is borrowed, and\nher pantheism is not scientific. Sanskrit scholars are rather fond of\nciting the pathetic words of Schopenhauer, who, speaking of the\nUpanishads, says that the study of these works \"has been the solace of\nmy life; it will be the solace of my death\"; but Schopenbauer knew the\nUpanishads only in a very free form of translation, and it can\nscarcely have been the loose philosophy so much as the elevated spirit\nof\nthese works that solaced the unphilosophical bitterness of his life.\nThis general impression will doubtless continue to be felt by all that\nstudy the best works of Brahmanism. The sincerity, the fearless search\nof the Indic sages for truth, their loftiness of thinking, all these\nwill affect the religious student of every clime and age, though the\nfancied result of their thinking may pass without effect over a modern\nmind. For a philosophy that must be orthodox can never be definitive.\nBut, if one turn from the orthodox completed systems to the tentative\nbeginnings of the Ved[=a]nta (in the Upanishads), he finds as the\nbasis of this earlier speculation only an _a priori_ meta-physical\nassumption.[35]\n\nApart from philosophical influence there is at present more or less\ninterest in Europe and America in Indic superstition and spiritualism,\nand half-educated people will doubtless be influenced for some time to\ncome by Mah[=a]tmaism and Yogism, just as they are moved by native\ns\u00e9ance-spirits and mesmerism. Blavatskyism (which represents no phase\nof Buddhism) will always find disciples among the ignorant classes,\nespecially in an agnostic or atheistic environment, so that one should\nattribute the mental attitude of such minds to their lack of culture\nrather than to India; for if Mah[=a]tmaism had not been discovered,\nthey would still profess it under another name. Buddhism, too, apart\nfrom Hartmann, may be said to have some influence on popular thought,\nyet it is a very unreal Buddhism, which amounts only to the adoption\nof an altruistic creed. But we know of none among the many that\nprofess themselves 'Buddhists' who has really adopted Buddhistic\nprinciples, and but few who even understand those principles. A bar to\nthe adoption of Buddhism lies in the implicit necessity\nof renunciation for all who would become perfected, and in the\nexplicit doctrine of _karma_ in its native form. The true Buddhist is\nnot satisfied to be a third-class Buddhist, that is, simply a man that\nseeks to avoid lust, anger, and ignorance. He will become a\nsecond-class Buddhist and renounce the world, give up all family ties\nand earthly affections, and enter the Order. But he will not do this,\nthinking that he is thereby to become perfect. For, to be a\nfirst-class Buddhist, he must get wisdom. He must believe in the\nimpermanence of everything, and in the awful continuation of his own\n_karma_ as a resultant group, which, as such, will continue to exist\nif, to the purity and peace of the lower classes of Buddhists, he fail\nto add in his own case the wisdom that understands the truth of this\n_karma_ doctrine.[36] Now no modern mind will believe this hypothesis\nof _karma_ and no modern will even enter the Order. Nevertheless,\nwhile one may not become a true Buddhist in the native sense, it is\npossible to be a Buddhist in a higher sense, and in its new form this\nis a religion that will doubtless attract many Occidentals, though it\nis almost too chaste to win adherents where marriage is not regarded\nas detrimental to high thinking. But if one substitute for the\nBuddhistic _karma_ the _karma_ of to-day, he may well believe that his\nacts are to have effect hereafter, not as a complex but as individual\nfactors in determining the goodness of his descendants and indirectly\nof his environment. Then there remains the attainment of purity,\nkindness,[37] and wisdom, which last may be interpreted, in accordance\nwith the spirit of the Master, as seeing things in their\ntrue relations, and the abandonment of whatever prevents such\nattainment, namely, of lust, anger, and ignorance. But to be a true\nBuddhist one must renounce, as lust, all desire of evil, of future\nlife, which brings evil; and must live without other hope than that of\nextinguishing all desire and passion, believing that in so doing he\nwill at death be annihilated, that is, that he will have caused his\nacts to cease to work for good or ill, and that, since being without a\nsoul he exists only in his acts, he will in their cessation also cease\nto be.\n\nAt least one thing may be learned from Buddhism. It is possible to be\nreligious without being devout. True Buddhism is the only religion\nwhich, discarding all animism, consists in character and wisdom. But\nneither in sacrificial works, nor in kindness alone, nor in wisdom\nalone, lies the highest. One must renounce all selfish desires and\nlive to build up a character of which the signs are purity, love for\nall, and that courageous wisdom which is calm insight into truth. The\nBuddhist worked out his own salvation without fear or trembling. To\nthese characteristics may be added that tolerance and freedom of\nthought which are so dissimilar to the traits of many other religions.\n\nSo much may be learned from Buddhism, and it were much only to know\nthat such a religion existed twenty-four centuries ago. But in what,\nfrom a wider point of view, lies the importance of the study of Hindu\nreligions? Not, we venture to think, in their face value for the\nreligious or philosophical life of the Occident, but in the\nrevelation, which is made by this study, of the origin and growth of\ntheistic ideas in one land; in the light these cast by analogy on the\norigin of such ideas elsewhere; in the prodigious significance of the\nreligious factor\nin the development of a race, as exhibited in this instance; in the\ninspiring review of that development as it is seen through successive\nages in the loftiest aspirations of a great people; and finally in the\nlesson taught by the intellectual and religious fate of them among\nthat people that have substituted, like the Brahman ritualist, form\nfor spirit; like the Vedantist, ideas for ideals; like the sectary,\nemotion for morality. But greatest, if woeful, is the lesson taught by\nthat phase of Buddhism, which has developed into Lamaism and its\nkindred cults. For here one learns how few are they that can endure to\nbe wise, how inaccessible to the masses is the height on which sits\nthe sage, how unpalatable to the vulgar is a religion without\ncredulity.\n\nEver since Cotton Mather took up a collection to convert the\nHindus,[38] Americans have felt a great interest in missionary labor\nin India. Under the just and beneficent rule of the British the Hindus\nto-day are no longer plundered and murdered in the way they once were;\nnor is there now so striking a contrast between the invader's precept\nand example as obtained when India first made the acquaintance of\nChristian militants.\n\nThe slight progress of the missionaries, who for centuries have been\nworking among the Hindus, is, perhaps, justified in view of this\npainful contrast. In its earlier stages there can be no doubt that all\nsuch progress was thereby impeded. But it is cause for encouragement,\nrather than for dismay, that the slowness of Christian advance is in\npart historically explicable, sad as is the explanation. For against\nwhat odds had not the early missionaries to struggle! Not the heathen,\nbut the Christian, barred the way against Christianity. Four hundred\nyears ago the Portuguese descended upon the Hindus, cross and sword in\nhand. For a whole century these victorious immigrants, with unheard-of\ncruelty and tyranny, cheated, stripped, and slaughtered the natives.\nAfter them came the Dutch, but, Dutch or Portuguese, it was the same.\nFor it was merely another century, during which a new band of\nChristians hesitated at no crime or outrage, at no meanness or\nbarbarity, which should win them power in India. In 1758 the Dutch\nwere conquered by the English, who, becoming now the chief\nstandard-bearers of the Christian church, committed, Under\nVarisittart, more offences against decency, honor, honesty, and\nhumanity than is pleasant for believer or unbeliever to record; and,\nwhen their own theft had brought revolt, knew no better way to impress\nthe Hindu with the power of Christianity than to revive the Mogul\nhorror and slay. (in their victims' fearful belief) both soul and body\nalike by shooting their captives from the cannon's mouth. Such was\nChristian example. It is no wonder that the Christian precept ('thou\nshalt love thy neighbor as thyself') was uttered in vain, or that the\nfaith it epitomized was rejected. The hand stole and killed; the mouth\nsaid, 'I love you.' The Hindu understood theft and murder, but it took\nhim some time to learn English. One may hope that this is now\nforgotten, for the Hindu has not the historical mind. But all this\nmust be remembered when the expenditures of Christianity are weighed\nwith its receipts.[39]\n\nIn coming to the end of the long course of Hindu religious thought, it\nis almost inevitable that one should ask what is the present effect of\nmissionary effort upon this people, and what, again, will eventually\nbe the direction which the native religious sense, so strongly\nimplanted in this folk, will take, whether aided or not by influence\nfrom without.\n\nAlthough it is no part of our purpose to examine into the workings of\nthat honest zeal which has succeeded in planting so many stations up\nthe Indic coast, there are yet some obvious truths which, in the light\nof religious history, should be an assistance to all whose work lies\nin making Hindu converts. To compile these truths from this history\nwill not be otiose. In the first place, Christian dogma was formally\nintroduced into South India in the sixth century; it was known in the\nNorth in the seventh, and possibly long before this; it was the topic\nof debate by educated Hindus in the sixteenth and seventeenth. It has\nhelped to mould the Hindus' own most intellectual sects; and, either\nthrough the influence of Christian or native teaching, or that of\nboth, have been created not only the Northern monotheistic schools,\nbut also the strict unitarianism of the later Southern sects, whose\nscriptures, for at least some centuries, have inculcated the purest\nmorality and simplest monotheistic creed in language of the most\nelevated character.[40] In the second place, the Hindu sectary has\ninterwoven with\nhis doctrine of pantheism that of the trinity. In the third place, the\northodox Brahman recognizes in the cult of Christianity, as that cult\nis expressed, for instance, in Christmas festivities, one that is\ncharacteristic, in outward form and inner belief, of a native\nheterodox sect. In the fourth place, the Hindu sectary believes that\nthe native expression of trinitarian dogma, faith-doctrine, child-god\nworship, and madonna-worship takes historical precedence over that of\nChristianity; and the orthodox Hindu believes the same of his\ncompleted code of lofty moral teachings. Vishnuism is, again, so\ncatholic that it will accept Christ as an _avatar_ of Vishnu, but not\nas an exclusive manifestation of God. In the fifth place, the Hindu\ndoctors are very well educated, and often very clever, both delighting\nin debate and acute in argument It follows, if we may draw the obvious\ninference, that, to attack orthodox Brahmanism, or even heterodox\nHinduism, requires much logical ability as well as learning, and that\nthe best thing a missionary can do in India, if he be not conscious of\npossessing both these requisites, is to let the native scholars alone.\n\nBut native scholars make but a small part of the population, and among\nthe uneducated and 'depressed' classes there is plenty for the\nmissionary to do. Here, too, where caste is hated because these\nclasses suffer from it, there is more effect in preaching equality and\nthe brotherly love of Christianity, doctrines abhorrent to the social\naristocrats, and not favored even by the middle classes. But what here\nopposes Christian efforts is the splendid system of devotion, the\nmagnificent f\u00eates, the gorgeous shows, and the tickling ritualism,\nwhich please and overawe the fancy of the native, who is apt to desire\nfor himself a pageant of religion, not to speak of a visible god in\nidol form; while from his religious teacher he demands either an\nasceticism which is no part of the Christian faith, or a leadership in\nsensuous and sensual worship.\n\nWhat will be the result of proselytizing zeal among these variegated\nmasses?[41] Evidently this depends on where and how it is exercised.\nThe orthodox theologian will not give up his inherited faith for one\nthat to him is on a par with a schismatic heresy, or take dogmatic\ninstruction from a level which he regards as intellectually below his\nown. From the Sam[=a]jas no present help will come to the missionary;\nfor, while they have already accepted the spirit of Christianity,\nliberal Hindus reject the Christian creed.[42] At a later day they\nwill join hands with the missionary, perhaps, but not before the\nlatter is prepared to say: There is but one God, and many are his\nprophets.\n\nThere remain such of the higher classes as can be induced to prefer\nundogmatic Christianity to polytheism, and the lowest class, which may\nbe persuaded by acts of kindness to accept the dogmas with which these\nare accompanied. It is with this class that the missionary has\nsucceeded best. In other cases his success has been in inverse ratio\nto the amount of his dogmatic teaching. And this we believe to be the\nkey to the second problem. For, if one examine the maze of India's\ntangled creeds, he will be surprised to find that, though dogmatic\nChristianity has its Indic representative, there yet is no indigenous\nrepresentative of undogmatic Christianity. For a\ngod in human form is worshipped, and a trinity is revered; but this is\nnot Christianity. Love of man is preached; but this is not\nChristianity. Love of God and faith in his earthly incarnation is\ntaught; but this, again, is not Christianity. No sect has ever\nformulated as an original doctrine Christ's two indissoluble\ncommandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets.\n\nIt would seem, therefore, that to inculcate active kindness, simple\nmorality, and the simplest creed were the most persuasive means of\nconverting the Hindu, if the teacher unite with this a practical\naffection, without venturing upon ratiocination, and without seeking\nto attract by display, which at best cannot compete with native\npageants.[43] Moreover, on the basis of undogmatic teaching, the\nmissionary even now can unite with the Sam[=a]j and Sittar church,\nneither of which is of indigenous origin, though both are native in\ntheir secondary growth. For it is significant that it is the Christian\nunion of morality and altruism which has appealed to each of these\nreligious bodies, and which each of them has made its own. In\ninsisting upon a strict morality the Christian missionary will be\nsupported by the purest creeds of India itself, by Brahmanism,\nunsectarian Hinduism, the Jain heretics, and many others, all of whom\neither taught the same morality before Christianity existed, or\ndeveloped it without Christian aid. The strength of Christian teaching\nlies in uniting with this the practical altruism which was taught by\nChrist. In her own religions there is no hope for India, and her best\nminds have renounced them. The\nbody of Hinduism is corrupt, its soul is evil. As for Brahmanism--the\nBrahmanism that produced the Upanishads--the spirit is departed, and\nthe form that remains is dead. But a new spirit, the spirit of\nprogress and of education, will prevail at last. When it rules it will\nundo the bonds of caste and do away with low superstition. Then India\nalso will be free to accept, as the creed of her new religion,\nChrist's words, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as\nthyself.' But to educate India up to this point will take many\ncenturies, even more, perhaps, than will be needed to educate in the\nsame degree Europe and America.[44]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: Lassen interprets _ophir_ as Abh[=i]ras, at the\n     mouth of the Indus. The biblical _koph_ is Sanskrit _kapi_,\n     ape. Other doubtful equivalents are discussed by Weber,\n     _Indische Skizzen_, p. 74.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: The legend of the Flood and the fancy of the\n     Four Ages has been attributed to Babylon by some writers.\n     Ecstein claims Chaldean influence in Indic atomic\n     philosophy, _Indische Studien_, ii. 369, which is doubtful;\n     but the Indic alphabet probably derived thence, possibly\n     from Greece. The conquests of Semiramis (Serimamis in\n     the original) may have\n     included a part of India, but only Brunnhofer finds trace of\n     this in Vedic literature, and the character of his work we\n     have already described.]\n\n     [Footnote 3: Senart attributes to the Achaemenides certain\n     Indic formulae of administration. IA. xx. 256.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Certain Hindu names, like those to which we\n     called attention in the epic, containing Mihira, _i.e.,_\n     Mithra; the Magas; _i.e.,_ Magi; and recommendations of\n     sun-worship in the Pur[=a]nas are the facts on which Weber\n     bases a theory of great influence of Persia at this later\n     period. Weber claims, in fact, that the native sun-worship\n     was quite replaced by this importation (_Indische Skizzen_,\n     p. 104). This we do not believe. Even the great number of\n     Persians who, driven out by Arabians, settled in Gujar[=a]t\n     (the name of Bombay is the same with Pumbadita, a Jewish\n     settlement in Mesopotamia) had no other effect on the\n     Brahmanic world that absorbed them (_ib._ p. 109) than to\n     intensify the fervor of a native cult.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Weber ascribes to Greek influence the Hindus\n     first acquaintance with the planets. On a possible dramatic\n     loan see above, p. 2, note. The Greeks were first to get\n     into the heart of India (as far as Patna), and between the\n     court of Antiochus the Great and the king S[=a]ubhagasena\n     there was formal exchange of ambassadors in the third\n     century B.C. The name of Demetrius appears as Datt[.a]mitra\n     in the Hindu epic. He had \"extended his rule over the Indus\n     as far as the Hydaspes and perhaps over M[=a]lava and\n     Gujarat\" (about 200 B.C.; Weber, _Skizzen_). In the second\n     century Menandros (the Buddhists' 'Milinda') got as far as\n     the Jumna; but his successors retreated to the Punj[=a]b and\n     eventually to Kabul (_ib_.) Compare also Weber, _Sitz. d.\n     k\u00f6nig. Preuss. Akad_., 1890, p. 901 ff., _Die Griechien in\n     Indien_. The period of Greek influence coincides with that\n     of Buddhist supremacy in its first vigor, and it is for this\n     reason that Brahmanic literature and religion were so\n     untouched by it. There is to our mind no great probability\n     that the Hindu epic owes anything to that of Greece,\n     although Weber has put in a strong plea for this view in his\n     essay _Ueber das R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a_.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: The romance of a Russian traveller's late\n     'discovery,' which Sanskrit scholars estimate at its true\n     value, but which may seem to others worthy of regard, is\n     perhaps, in view of the interest taken in it, one that\n     should be told correctly. Nicholas Notovitch asserts that he\n     discovered seven years ago in the Tibetan monastery of\n     Himis, a work which purports to give a life of Christ from\n     birth to death, including sixteen years spent in India. This\n     life of 'Issa' (Jesus) is declared to have been written in\n     the first century of the Christian era. Unfortunately for\n     the reputation of the finder, he made a mistake in\n     exploiting his discovery, and stated that his manuscript had\n     been translated for him by the monks of Himis 'out of the\n     original P[=a]li,' a dialect that these monks could not\n     understand if they had specimens of it before them. This\n     settled Notovitch's case, and since of course he did not\n     transcribe a word of the MS. thus freely put at his\n     disposal, but published the forgery in a French\n     'translation,' he may be added to the list of other\n     imposters of his ilk. The humbug has been exposed for some\n     time, and we know of no one who, having a right to express\n     an opinion, believes Notovitch's tale, though some ignorant\n     people have been hoaxed by it. If the blank sixteen years in\n     Christ's life ever be explained, it may be found that they\n     were passed in a Zoroastrian environment; but until real\n     evidence be brought to show that Christ was in India, the\n     wise will continue to doubt it. As little proof exists, it\n     may be added, of Buddhistic influence in the making of the\n     Gospels. But this point is nowadays scarcely worth\n     discussing, for competent scholars no longer refer vague\n     likenesses to borrowing. Certain features are common to the\n     story of Christ and to the legends of Buddha; but they are\n     common to other divine narratives also. The striking\n     similarities are not found in the earliest texts of the\n     Southern Buddhists. [=I]\u00e7a for Jesus is modern, Weber, _loc.\n     cit._, p. 931.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: Elphinstone, I. pp, 140, 508; II. chap. I. The\n     'slave dynasty' of Kutab, 1206-1288. It was the bigoted\n     barbarity of these Mohammedans that drove Brahmanic religion\n     into the South.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: Though immediately before it the Harihara cult,\n     survival of Sankhyan dualism, is practically monotheistic.\n     Basava belongs to the twelfth century.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: The literary exchange in the realm of fable\n     between Arabia and later Sanskrit writers (of the twelfth\n     century) is very evident. Thus in Indic dress appear at this\n     time the story of Troy, of the passage over the Red Sea, of\n     Jonas, etc. On the other hand, the Arabians translated\n     native Hindu fables. See Weber, IS. iii. 327, _Ueber den\n     Zusammenhang griechischer Fabeln mit indischen_, and\n     _Indische Skizzen_, p. 111, and _Die Griechen in Indien_.\n     Arabia further drew on India for philosophical material, and\n     Alber[=u]ni himself translated Kapila's work (Weber,_loc.\n     cit_.).]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Whereby cows, snakes, cats (sacred to one of\n     the \u00c7ivaite 'mothers'), crocodiles, monkeys, etc, are\n     worshipped.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Pantheists in name alone, most of the lower\n     caste-men are practically polytheists, and this means that\n     they are at bottom dualists. They are wont to worship\n     assiduously but one of the gods they recognize.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Where Brahmanism may be said to cease and\n     Hinduism to begin can be defined but vaguely. Krishnaism is\n     rank Hinduism. But \u00c7ivaism is half Brahmanic. For the rest,\n     in its essential aspects, Hinduism is as old as the Hindus.\n     Only the form changes (as it intrudes upon Brahmanism).]\n\n     [Footnote 13: It is highly probable that the mention of the\n     Northwestern \u00c7[=u]dras in Mbh[=a]. VI. 9. 67 refers to the\n     Afghan S[=u]droi, and that the slave-caste as a whole, which\n     bears the name \u00c7[=u]dra, received this appellation first as\n     conquered tribes of Afghanistan.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Brahmanism has always been an island in a sea.\n     Even in the Brahmanic age there is evidence to show that it\n     was the isolated belief of a comparatively small group of\n     minds. It did not even control all the Aryan population.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: We refer partly to literature, that of the\n     drama and novel, for instance; and partly to the fine arts.\n     But in connection with the latter it may be remarked that\n     painting, and the fine arts generally, are expressly\n     reckoned as the pursuit of slaves alone. For instance, even\n     as late a jurist as he that wrote the law-code of 'Vishnu'\n     thus (chap. ii.) parcels out the duties and occupations of\n     the four castes: The duty of a priest is to teach the Veda,\n     his means of livelihood is to sacrifice for others and to\n     receive aims; the duty of the warrior is to fight, his means\n     of livelihood is to receive taxes for protecting the other\n     castes; the duty of the V[=a]i\u00e7ya is to tend cattle, his\n     means of livelihood 1s gain from flocks, farm, trade, or\n     money-lending. The duty of a slave, \u00c7udra, is to serve the\n     three upper castes; his means of livelihood is the fine\n     arts.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: It is this that has exaggerated, though not\n     produced, that most marked of native beliefs, a faith which\n     Intertwines with every system, Brahmanic, Buddhistic, or\n     Hinduistic, a belief in an ecstatic power in man which gives\n     him control over supernatural forces. Today this Yogism and\n     Mah[=a]tmaism, which is visible even in the Rig Veda, is\n     nothing but unbridled fancy playing with mesmerism and\n     lies.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: The Hindu sectarian cults are often strangely\n     like those of Greece in details, which, as we have already\n     suggested, must revert to a like, though not necessarily\n     mutual, source of primitive superstition. Even the sacred\n     free bulls, which roam at large, look like old familiar\n     friends, [Greek: aphet\u00f4n dni\u00f4n taur\u00f4n en tps tou IIoseid\u00f4nos\n     Ierps] (Plato, _Kritias_, 119); and we have dared to\n     question whether Lang's 'Bull-roarer' might not be sought in\n     the command that the priest should make the bull roar at the\n     sacrifice; and in the verse of the Rig Veda which says that\n     the priests \"beget (produce) the Dawn by means of the roar\n     of a bull\" (vii. 79. 4); or must the bull be _soma_? For\n     M\u00fcller's defence of the Hindu's veraciousness, see his\n     _/India, What Can It Teach Us_, p. 34.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: Some exception may be taken to this on the\n     ground that moral laws really are referred to the Creator in\n     one form or another, This we acknowledge as a theory of\n     authority, but it so seldom comes into play, and there is so\n     little rapport between gods and moral goodness, that the\n     difference in this regard is greater by far than the\n     resemblance. A Christian sins against God, a Hindu sins\n     against himself. The Christian may be punished by God; the\n     Hindu punishes himself (the _karma_). The latter may say\n     that moral laws are of God, but he means that they are\n     natural laws, the violation of which has the same effect as\n     touching fire.]\n\n     [Footnote 19: The _lex talionis_ is in full force in Hindu\n     law, even in the codes of Hinduism; for example, 'Vishnu,'\n     V. 19.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: Deceit of a foe is no sin in any system. \"All\n     is fair in war.\"]\n\n     [Footnote 21: This idea may be carried out in other\n     instances. The bravery of civilization is not the bravado\n     that savages call bravery, and modesty is now a virtue where\n     boasting used to be reckoned as the necessary complement of\n     bravery. As for hospitality in the old sense, it is not now\n     a 'virtue' not to kill a guest.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: India's relations with Rome were late and\n     wholly of mercantile character.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: It is interesting, as showing incidentally the\n     close connection between Buddhism and \u00c7ivaism in other than\n     philosophical aspects, that the first Indic grotto-temple\n     mentioned by foreigners (in the third century A.D.) was one\n     which contained a statue of an androgynous (\u00c7ivaite) deity\n     (Weber, _Indische Skizzen_, p. 86, note).]\n\n     [Footnote 24: Rosaries are first mentioned in the AV.\n     Pari\u00e7ista, XLIII. 4. 11 (Leumann, Rosaries).]\n\n     [Footnote 25: In Lamaism there is also the tiara-crowned\n     pope, and the transubstantiation theory; the reverence to\n     Virgin and Child, confessions, fasts, purgatory, abbots,\n     cardinals, etc. Compare David's _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 193.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: The literature on this subject is very\n     extensive (see the Bibliography). On Buddhism and\n     Christianity see Bohlen's _Altes Indien_, I. 334 (Weber,\n     _Indische Skizzen_, p. 92). At a recent meeting of the\n     British Association E.B. Tylor presented a paper in which is\n     made an attempt to show Buddhistic influence on\n     pre-Columbian culture in America. On comparing the Aztec\n     picture-writing account of the journey of the soul after\n     death with Buddhistic eschatology, he is forced to the\n     conclusion that there was direct transmission from Buddhism.\n     We require more proof than Aztec pictures of hell to believe\n     any such theory; and reckon this attempt to those already\n     discussed in the eighth chapter.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: It is a mooted question in how far the\n     influence in this line has been reciprocal. See _Indische\n     Studien_, iii. 128.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: The S[=a]nkhya has no systematic connection\n     with the 'numbers' of Pythagoras.]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Compare on the \u00c7ulvas[=u]tras, Thibaut, J.A.\n     Beng. xliv. p. 227; Von Schroeder, _Pythagoras und die\n     Inder; Literatur und Cultur_, p. 718 ff, who also cites\n     Cantor, _Geschichte der Mathematik_, p. 540, and refutes the\n     possibility, suggested by the latter, of the loan being from\n     Greece to India on the ground that the \u00c7ulvas[=u]tra are too\n     old to belong to the Alexandrine period, and too essentlal a\n     part of the religious literature to have been borrowed; and\n     also on the ground that they are not an addition to the\n     \u00c7r[=a]utas[=u]tra, but they make an independent portion (p.\n     721, note).]\n\n     [Footnote 30: Compare Garbe (_loc. cit_. below), and his\n     _S[=a][.m]khya Philosophic_, p. 94.]\n\n     [Footnote 31: This view is not one universally accepted by\n     Sanskrit scholars. See, for instance, Weber, _Die Griechen\n     in Indien_. But to us the minute resemblance appears too\n     striking to be accidental.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Lassen, and Weber, _Indische Skizzen, p_. 91.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Garbe, in a recent number of the _Monist_,\n     where is given a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the relations between Greek and\n     Hindu philosophical thought.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Weber, _loc. cit._]\n\n     [Footnote 35: The existence of a soul (spirit) in man is\n     always assumed in the Upanishads. In the pantheistic system\n     (the completed Ved[=a]nta) the verity of traditional belief\n     is also assumed. The latter assumption is made, too, though\n     not in so pronounced a manner, in the Upanishads.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: The Upanishad philosopher sought only to save\n     his life, but the Buddhist, to lose it.]\n\n     [Footnote 37: This is not a negative 'non-injury' kindness.\n     It is a love 'far-reaching, all*pervading' (above, p. 333).\n     The Buddhist is no Stoic save in the stoicism with which he\n     looks forward to his own end. Rhys Davids has suggested that\n     the popularity of Tibet Buddhism in distinction from\n     Southern Buddhism may have been due to the greater weight\n     laid by the former on altruism. For, while the earlier\n     Buddhist strives chiefly for his own perfection, the\n     spiritualist of the North affects greater love for his kind,\n     and becomes wise to save others. The former is content to be\n     an Arhat; the latter desires to be a Bodhisat, 'teacher of\n     the law' (_Hibbert Lectures_, p. 254). We think, however,\n     that the latter's success with the vulgar was the result\n     rather of his own greater mental vulgarity and animism.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: Hurst's _Indika_, chap. XLIX, referring to\n     _India Christiana_ of 1721, and the correspondence between\n     Mather and Ziegenbalg, who was then a missionary in India.\n     The wealthy 'young men' who contributed were, in Hurst's\n     opinion, Harvard students.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: The Portuguese landed in Calcutta in 1498.\n     They were driven out by the Dutch, to whom they ceded their\n     mercantile monopoly, in 1640-1644. The Dutch had arrived in\n     1596, and held their ground till their supremacy was wrested\n     from them by Clive in 1758, The British had followed the\n     Dutch closely (arriving in 1600), and were themselves\n     followed soon after by the Germans and Danes (whose activity\n     soon subsided), and by the French. The German company, under\n     whose protection stood Ziegenbalg, was one of the last to\n     enter India, and first to leave it (1717-1726). The most\n     grotesquely hideous era in India's history is that which was\n     inaugurated by the supremacy of the Christian British. Major\n     Munroe's barbaric punishment of the Sepoys took place,\n     however, in Clive's absence (1760-1765). Marshman, I, p.\n     305, says of this Munroe only that he was \"an officer of\n     undaunted resolution\"! Clive himself was acquitted by his\n     own countrymen of theft, robbery, and extortion; but the\n     Hindus have not acquitted him or Hastings; nor will\n     Christianity ever do so.]\n\n     [Footnote 40: For specimens of the sacred Kural of\n     Tiruvalluvar N[=a]r[=a]yana*N[=a]yan[=]r, see the examples\n     given by Pope, _Indian Antiquary_, seventh and following\n     volumes. The Sittars, to whom we have referred above, are a\n     more modern sect. Their precept that love is the essential\n     of religion is not, as in the case of the Hindu idolators,\n     of erotic nature. They seem to be the modern representatives\n     of that Buddhistic division (see above) called S[=a]ugatas,\n     whose religion consists in 'kindness to all.' In these sects\n     there is found quietism, a kind of quakerism, pure morality,\n     high teaching, sternest (almost bigoted) monotheism, and the\n     doctrine of positive altruism, strange to the Hindu idolator\n     as to the Brahman. The Prem S[=a]gar, or 'Ocean of Love,' is\n     a modern Hindu work, which illustrates the religious love\n     opposed to that of the Sittars, namely, the mystic love of\n     the Krishnaite for his savior, whose grace is given only to\n     him that has faith. It is the mystic rapt adoration that in\n     expression becomes erotic and sensual.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: Hinduism itself is unconsciously doing a\n     reforming work among the wild tribes that are not touched by\n     the Christian missionary. These tribes, becoming Hinduized,\n     become civilized, and, in so far as they are thus made\n     approachable, they are put in the way of improvement; though\n     civilization often has a bad effect upon their morals for a\n     season.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: The substitution of the doctrine of redemption\n     for that of _karma_ is intellectually impossible for an\n     educated Hindu. He may renounce the latter, but he cannot\n     accept the former. The nearest approach to such a conception\n     is that of the Buddhistic 'Redeemer' heresy referred to\n     above. In all other regards Samaj and pantheism are too\n     catholic to be affected; In this regard they are both\n     unyielding.]\n\n     [Footnote 43: We question, for instance, the advisability of\n     such means to \"fill up the church\" as is described in a\n     missionary report delivered at the last meeting of the\n     Missionary Union of the Classis of New York for the current\n     year: \"A man is sent to ride on a bicycle as fast as he can\n     through the different streets. This invariably attracts\n     attention. Boys and men follow him to the church, where it\n     is easy to persuade them to enter.\" But this is an admission\n     of our position in regard to the classes affected. The\n     rabble may be Christianized by this means, but the\n     intelligent will not be attracted.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: After the greater part of our work had passed\n     the final revision, and several months after the whole was\n     gone to press, appeared Oldenberg's _Die Religion des Veda_,\n     which, as the last new book on the subject, deserves a\n     special note. The author here takes a liberal view, and does\n     not hesitate to illustrate Vedic religion with the light\n     cast by other forms of superstition. But this method has its\n     dangers, and there is perhaps a little too much straining\n     after original types, giant-gods as prototypes and totemism\n     in proper names, where Vedic data should be separated from\n     what may have preceded Vedic belief. Oldenberg, as a\n     ritualist, finds in Varuna, Dawn, and the Burial Service the\n     inevitable stumbling-blocks of such scholars as confuse\n     Brahmanism with early Vedism. To remove these obstacles he\n     suggests that Varuna, as the moon, was borrowed from the\n     Semites or Akkadians (though be frankly admits that not even\n     the shadow of this moon lingers in Vedic belief); explains\n     Dawn's non-participation in _soma_ by stating that she never\n     participates in it (which explains nothing); and jumps over\n     the Burial Hymn with the inquiry whether, after all, it\n     could not be interpreted as a cremation-hymn (the obvious\n     answer being that the service does imply burial, and does\n     not even hint at cremation). On the other hand, when\n     theoretical barbarism and ritualism are foregone, Oldenberg\n     has a true eye for the estimation of facts, and hence takes\n     an unimpeachable position in several important particulars,\n     notably in rejecting Jacobi's date of the Rig Veda; in\n     rejecting also Hillebrandt's moon-_soma_; in denying an\n     originally supreme Dy[=a]us; in his explanation of\n     henotheism (substantially one with the explanation we gave a\n     year ago); and in his account of the relation of the Rig\n     Veda to the (later) Atharvan. Despite an occasional\n     brilliant suggestion, which makes the work more exciting\n     than reliable, this book will prove of great value to them\n     that are particularly interested in the ritual; though the\n     reader must be on his guard against the substitution of\n     deduction for induction, as manifested in the confusion of\n     epochs, and in the tendency to interpret by analogy rather\n     than in accordance with historical data. The worth of the\n     latter part of the book is impaired by an unsubstantiated\n     theory of sacrifice, but as a whole it presents a clear and\n     valuable view of the cult.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nADDENDA.\n\n\nPage 154, note 3: Add to (RV.) x. 173, AV. vi. 88.\n\nPage 327, third line from the top: Read Buddhaghosha. According to\nChalmers, as quoted by T.W. Rhys Davids in his recent lectures, traces\nof mysticism are found in some of the early texts (as yet\nunpublished). The fact that the canonical P[=a]li books know nothing\nof the controversy (involving the modification of traditional rules)\nof the second council gives a terminus to the canon. Senart, on the\nother hand, thinks that the vague language of the A\u00e7oka inscriptions\nprecludes the fixing of the canon at so early a date.\n\nPage 340, note 4: The gods here are priests. The real meaning seems to\nbe that the Brahman priests, who were regarded as gods, have been put\nto naught in being reduced to their true estate. Compare Senart,\n(revised) _Inscriptions de Piyadasi_, third chapter. A\u00e7oka dismissed\nthe Brahman priests that his father had maintained, and substituted\nBuddhist monks.\n\nPage 436, note 2: From B[=e]r[=u]n[=i] it would appear that the Gupta\nand Valabh[=i] eras were identical (319-20 A.D). See Fleet, Indian\nAntiquary, xvii. 245. Many scholars now assign Kum[=a]rila to the\neighth century rather than to the end of the seventh.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.[1]\n\n\nGENERAL WORKS.\n\n#Journals#: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Soctety (JRAS.);[2] Journal of\nthe German Oriental Society (Zeitschrift der Deutschen\nMorgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft, ZDMG.); Journal Asiatique (JA.);\nJournal of the American Oriental Society (JAOS.); Branch-Journals of\nthe JRAS.; Calcutta Review; Madras Journal; Indian Antiquary (IA.).\nSome of the articles in the defunct Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des\nMorgenlandes (ZKM.), and in the old Asiatick Researches (AR.) are\nstill worth reading. Besides these, the most important modern journals\nare the transactions of the royal Austrian, Bavarian, Prussian, and\nSaxon Academies, the Mus\u00e9on and the Revue de l'histoire des religions.\nOccasional articles bearing on India's religions or mythology will be\nfound in the American Journal of Philology (AJP.); the Wiener\nZeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes (WZKM.); the Babylonian and\nOriental Record (BOR.); K\u00fchn's Zeitschrift f\u00fcr vergleichende\nSprachforschuhg (KZ.); Bezzenberger's Beitr\u00e4ge (BB.); and the\nIndogermanische Forschungen (IF.).\n\n#Histories, studies, etc.#: Prinsep, Essays (Indian Antiquities);\nLassen, Indische Alterthumskunde. Histories of India by Elphinstone\n(religious material, chapters iv book i, and iv book ii), by\nElliot, by Marshman (complements Elphinstone), and by Wheeler\n(unreliable); The Rulers of India; Hunter's Indian Empire and Brief\nHistory. Mill's excellent History of India is somewhat prejudiced.\nDutt's History of Civilization in Ancient India is praise-worthy\n(1890). Invaluable are the great descriptive Archaeological Surveys by\nCunningham, Burgess, and B\u00fchler, and Hunter's Statistical Account of\nBengal. Literary History:[3] Colebrooke, Essays, reedited by Cowell,\nwith notes by Whitney; Wilson, Essays; Weber, Indische Studien (IS.);\nBenfey, Orient and Occident (OO.); M\u00fcller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature\n(ASL.), Science of Religion; Weber, Vorlesungen \u00fcber Indische\nLiteraturgeschichte (also translated), Indische Streifen, Indische\nSkizzen; L. von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur; Whitney,\nOriental and Linguistic Studies, Language and the Study of Language;\nDuncker, Geschichte des Alterthums (third volume, may be bought\nseparately); Williams, Indian Wisdom (inaccurate but readable).\n\n\nVEDIC RELIGION.\n\n#Literature#: Roth, Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Weda;[4] Benfey,\nVedica und Verwandtes; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben (AIL.);\nR[=a]jendralala Mitra, Indo-Aryans(unreliable); Bergaigne, La Religion\nV\u00e9dique (also JA. ix, xiii); De Gubernatis, Letture sopra la Mitologia\nVedica; Pischel and Geldner, Vedische Studien;[5] Regnaud, Le Rig Veda\net les origines de la mythologie indo-europ\u00e9enne, and Les hymnes du\nRig Veda, sont-ils pri\u00e8res? (Ann. d. Mus. Guimet, Bibl. d'\u00e9tudes, t.\ni, and special studies). Regnaud's point of view renders nugatory most\nof what he writes on the Veda.[6] The most useful collection of Vedic\nand Brahmanic Texts that illustrate Hindu Mythology and Religion is to\nbe found in Muir's Original Sanskrit Texts (OST.), especially the\nfourth and fifth volumes.[7] For the Sacred Books of the East (SBE.)\nsee Hems below.\n\n#Translations of the rig veda#: Complete, by Grassmann and by Ludwig;\npartial, by Roth, Benfey, Langlois, Bergaigne; in English chiefly by\nWilson, M\u00fcller, Muir, Peterson, Griffith. Of these the German\ntranslation of Grassmann is often inaccurate;[8] that of Ludwig, often\nunintelligible. Benfey has translated a number of specimens, OO., BB.,\ni, vii, and in Kleinere Schriften. The incomplete translation of\nWilson has been carried on by Cowell; those of Peterson and Griffith\nare publishing in India; Langlois' is useless. M\u00fcller's partial\ntranslations will be found in various volumes, Ancient Sanskrit\nLiterature, India: What Can it Teach Us, Chips, Hibbert Lectures,\nJRAS. ii. 448, iii. 199, etc.; and all the Hymns to the Maruts, SBE.\nxxxii. Whitney has translated the cosmogonic hymn, PAOS., May, 1882;\nand Deussen has just published the philosophical hymns, Geschichte der\nPhilosophie, i, 1. A group of Vedic hymns in English dress will be\nfound in Muir, OST. v.; extracts (without connection) are given by\nBergaigne, in La Religion V\u00e9dique, and special essays in JA. (above).\nIn German a capital little collection is the Siebzig Lieder of Geldner\nand Kaegi. The best general introductory manual for the study of the\nRig Veda, accompanied with frequent translations, is Kaegi's Der Rig\nVeda (translated into English by Arrowsmith).\n\n#Translations of the atharva veda# are all partial. The handiest\ncollection is Grill's Hundert Lieder des Atharva Veda. Specimens will\nbe found translated by Aufrecht, IS. i. 121 (book xv); (Roth) Bruce,\nJRAS. 1862, p. 321 (book xii. 1); Kuhn, Indische und Germanische\nSegensspriiche, KZ. xiii. 49, 113; Weber, IS. iv. 393, v. 195, 218,\nxiii. 129, xvii. 178 (books i-iii, xiv); Grohmann, _ib._ ix. 381;\nLudwig, vol. iii, of his translation of the Rig Veda; Zimmer, AIL.:\nVictor Henry, books vii and xiii (Les hymnes Rohitas);[9] Bloomfield,\nSeven Hymns, and Contributions AJP. vii. 466, xi. 319, xii. 414, JAOS.\nxv. 143, xvi. 1; ZDMG. xlviii. 541; Florenz, BB. xii. 249 (book vi.).\nOf The S[=a]ma V[=e]da: Stevenson (1842) in English (inaccurate) and\nBenfey (1848) in Gcrman have made translations. On the Yajur Veda\nsee Schroeder, Literatur und Cultur, and below.\n\n#Vedic mythology#: Windischmann, Ursagen der Arischen V\u00f6lker, Bay.\nAk., 1858; Kuhn, KZ. iv. 88, Herabkunft des Feuers (Prometheus);[10]\nRoth, Die h\u00f6chsten G\u00f6tter der Arischen V\u00f6lker, ZDMG. vi. 67 (_ib._\nvii. 607); Wilson, Preface of Langlois: Cox, Aryan Mythology; Whitney,\nOriental and Linguistic Studies, ii. p. 149, JAOS. iii. 291, 331;\nM\u00fcller, Second Series of Science of Language, Biographies of\nWords.[11] General interpretation of divinities, M\u00fcller, Muir,\nBergaigne, Kaegi, Pischel-Geldner, _loc. cit._ The last books on the\nsubject are Oldenberg's scholarly volume, Die Religlon des Veda (note,\np. 571, above), and Phillip's The Teaching of the Vedas (1895), the\nwork of a charlatan.\n\nSPECIAL STUDIES OF VEDIC DIVINITIES:\n\n#Aditi#: Roth, IS. xiv. 392; Hillebrandt, Ueber die G\u00f6ttin Aditi;\nM\u00fcller, SBE. xxxii. 241; Colinet, \u00c9tude sur le mot Aditi, Mus\u00e9on, xii.\n81. [=A]dityas, Roth, ZDMG. vi. 67 (above); Darmesteter, Ormazd et\nAhriman.\n\n#Agni#: L. von Schroeder, Apollon-Agni, KZ. xxix. 193[12] (see epic,\nbelow).\n\n#Apsaras# (see Gandhanas).\n\n#Aryaman# (A\u00e7vins, Mitra, etc.): Bollensen, ZDMG. xli. 494.\n\n#Asura# as Asen, Schrader, p. 599; P. von Bradke, Dy[=a]us Asura. See\nDy[=a]us.\n\n#A\u00e7vins#: Myriantheus, Die A\u00e7vins oder Arischen Dioskuren; _not_\nDioskuroi, Pischel, Vedische Studien, Preface, p. xxvii; as\nconstellation, etc., Benfey, OO. ii. 245, iii. 159; Gemini, Weber,\nlast in R[=a]jas[=u]ya, p. 100; as Venus, 'span-god,' Bollensen, ZDMG.\nxli. 496; other literature, Muir, OST. v. 234; Colinet, Vedic Chips,\nBOR. iii. 193 (n[=a]satya, Avestan n[=a]onhaithya, n[=a] as\n'very').[13]\n\n#Brihaspati#: Roth, ZDMG. i. 66; Muir, v. 272; Hillebrandt, Vedische\nMythologie, i. 404.\n\n#Dawn# (see Ushas).\n\n#Dy[=a]us#: P. von Bradke, Dy[=a]us Asura, also Beitr\u00e4ge, ZDMG. xl.\n347; not the same with Teutonic Tiu, Bremer, IF. iii. 301; as\n'all-father' of primitive Aryans, M\u00fcller, Origin of Religion, p. 209;\nfollowed by Tiele, Outlines of History of Ancient religions, p. 106;\nsee Hopkins, PAOS. Dec. 1894; form of Word, Collitz. KZ. xxvii. 187;\nBB. xv. 17.\n\n#Earth# (see Nritus).\n\n#Gandharvas#: KZ. i. 513; Meyer, Gandharven-Kentauren (list of\nApsarasas); Pischel, VS. i. 78; Hillebrandt, Vedische Mythologie, i.\n427.\n\n#Haritas# (sun's steeds) as Charites, KZ. x. 96; ib. 365; Sonne, _loc.\ncit. s_. S[=u]ryra; M\u00fcller, Science of Language, ii. 388.\n\n#Heaven# (see Dy[=a]us and Varuna).\n\n#Indra# (etymology, Benfey, OO. i. 49; PW. sv.; a\u00f1dra, A.-Sax. 'ent,'\n'giant,' BB. i. 342;[17]] nar, [Greek: _anor-_, Jacobi, KZ. xxxi. 316;\nIndra's bolt, vadha, 'wetter,' Delbr\u00fcck, KZ. xvi. 266): Perry, Indra\nin the Rig Veda, JAOS. xi. 117 (see epic, below).\n\n#K[=a]ma#: Weber, ZDMG. xiv. 269, IS. v. 224, xvii. 290; Muir, v. 402.\n\n#Manu#:[15] Roth, ZDMG. iv. 430; Weber, IS. i. 194 ('man and moon'),\nZDMG. iv. 302; Muir, OST. i. 161; Kuhn, KZ. iv. 91; Burnouf, Preface\nof Bh[=a]g. Pur[=a]na, p. iii; Ascoli (m[=a]nus, mactus), KZ. xvii.\n334; Maspiter as 'man,' Corssen, KZ. ii. 32;[16] Manu's wife, Weber,\nZDMG. xviii. 286. Compare also KZ. xii. 293, xix. 156, Mannus (see\nLaws, below).\n\n#Maruts# (dubious etymology, Grassmann, KZ. xvi. 161; P. von Bradke,\n_loc. cit. s._. Dy[=a]us): von Bradke, Wunderliche Geburt, Festgruss\nan Roth, p. 117 (Brahmanic, same point of view in parody, RV. x. 102,\nZDMG. xlvi. 445). Hymns to Maruts, translated by M\u00fcller, SBE. xxxii.\n\n#Mitra#: Windischmann, Abh. K.M., 1857; Weber, IS. xvii. 212 (see\nVaruna).\n\n#Namuci#: Lanman, JAS. Beng. viii. 1889; Bloomfield, JAOS. xv. 143.\n\n#Nritus# as Nerthus, Hoffmann; (Roth) Bruce, Vedic Conceptions of the\nEarth, JRAS. 1862, p. 321; Prithiv[=i], ZDMG. xli. 494.\n\n#Parjanya#: B\u00fchler, Zur Mythologic des Rig Yeda, OO. i. 214; Hirt, 1F.\ni. 481, 'oak-god.'[4]\n\n#Purandhi#: Pischel, VS. i. 202; Hillebrandt, WZKM. iii. 188, 259;\nColinet, BOR. ii. 245, iv. 121 ('abundance'), Congress, 1892.\n\n#Pri\u00e7ni# (p[r.]\u00e7ni) as Frigy, KZ. ii. 478; 'freckles,' KZ. xix. 438.\n\n#P[=u]shan#: Muir, OST. v. 171; Bergaigne, La Relig. V\u00e8d. ii. 420;\nHillebrandt, ved. myth., i. 456 (with soma); gubernatis, letture, p.\n82 (as setting sun); pischel, vs. i. 11 (s[=u]ry[=a] and p[=u]shan);\nperry, notes on the vedic deity p[=u]shan, drisler memorial, p. 240.\n\n#Ribhus# ([r.]bhavas, etymology, 'alf,' 'Orpheus'; or Orpheus from\n[r.]gh, [Greek: orchietai], Kuhn KZ. iv. 103; Wackernagel, KZ. xxiv.\n297); Ludwig, iii. 187, as Seasons. N\u00e8ve, \u00c9tudes sur les hymnes\n(1842), and Essai sur le mythe des Ribhavas (1847, misleading, Ribhu\nas apotheosis).\n\n#Rohitas#: Henry (above).\n\n#Rudra# (etymology, Pischel, VS. i. 57[18]): Weber, Vedic Conception\nof, IS. ii. 19; Pischel, Vedica, ZDMG. xl. 120; Rudra's mouse\nand Smintheus, KZ. iii. 335; Grohmann, Apollo Smintheus und die\nBedeutung der M\u00e4use in der Mythologie der Indogermanen.\n\n#Sarany[=u]# (sara[n.]y[=u]): [Greek: ertngis], ZDA. vi. 117; KZ. i.\n439 (storm; riddle, _ib_. 440); Bloomfield, JAOS. xv. 172; as Dawn,\nM\u00fcller, Lectures, Second Series; Saram[=a], and S[=a]rameyas as\nHermeias, _ib._; Aufrecht, ZDMG. xiii. 493 (RV. x. 108, translated).\n\n#Soma#: Windischmann, Ueber den Somacultus der Arier, Abh. M\u00fcnch. Ak.,\niv; Roth, ZDMG. xxxv. 681, xxxviii. 134; Ehni, _ib._ xxxiii. 166;\nHillebrandt, Vedische Mythologie, i; Soma and the eagle, Kuhn,\nHerabkunft (above); Roth, ZDMG. xxxvi. 353; Bloomfield, JAOS. xvi (p.\n1, further literature), Festgruss an Roth, p. 149; Weber, Vedische\nBeitr\u00e4ge, p. 3 (Sitz. Berl. Ak. 1894, p. 775); and Agni ritual,\nKnauer, Vedische Fragen, Festgruss an Roth, p. 61.\n\n#Surya# (see Haritas): sonne, hymn to, kz. xii-xv; form of word, j.\nschmidt, kz. xxvi. 9. see p[=u]shan (and hinduism, below).\ns[=a]vitr[=i], whitney, colebrooke's essays, ii. iii.\n\n#Trita#: Macdonnell, Mythological Studies, JRAS. 1893, p. 419 (ap[=a]m\nnap[=a]t, lightning; Trita as Thridhi, name of Odin, 'third' form of\nfire); form of word, BB. ix. 99; Perry, see Indra (p. 26); Bloomfield,\nPAOS. 1894, p. cxix. Other literature, Kaegi, _loc. cit._, note 112 d.\n\n#Ushas# (U[S.]AS): Muir, v. 181; Bergaigne, i. 241, etc; Sonne, KZ. x.\n416; M\u00fcller, Science of Language, ii. 391, etc.\n\n#Vv[=a]c#: logos, Weber, IS. ix. 473.\n\n#Varuna# (varu[n.]a): Roth, ZDMG. vi. 71; Weber, IS. xvii. 212; Muir,\nv. 58; Bergaigne, iii. 110; Hillebrandt, Varu[n.]a und Mitra;\nDarmesteter, Ormazd et Ahriman; Sonne, KZ. xii. 364; Pischel, VS. i.\n188; Geldner, _ib_. 142; Ludwig, iii. 314; Oldenberg as a borrowed god\n(PAOS. 1894); as water, Geldner, BB. xi. 329; form of word, Bolensen,\nZDMG. xli. 504 (var 'hell sein'); Bohnenberger (Roth), Varu[n.]a nach\nden Liedern des Rig Veda (Mitra as appellative becomes a new god, p.\n85);[19] as svar, Regnaud, Rev. xix. 79.\n\n#Vastoshpati# ('house-lord'): Windisch, Vassus und Vassallus, Bericht.\nd. k. S\u00e4ch. Gesell. 1892, p. 174 (vassus for vast).\n\n#V[=a]ta#, vayu (v[=a]ta is [Greek: a\u00eat\u00eas], 'wind'): Stokes, BB. xix.\n74, compares Irish fath, 'breath,' but gives also f\u00e1th, a kind of poem\n(vates, v\u00f4ds, English 'wood' as 'mad'). V[=a]ta, Wuotan, Zimmer, ZDA.\nvii. (19) 179\n\n#Vishnu# (vi[s.][n.]u like jishnu, ji[s.][n.]u, vi, 'fly,' the\nheavenly bird?): Muir, iv and v (older texts relative to Vishnu),\nPAOS. Dec. 1894.\n\n#Yama#: Roth, ZDMG. ii. 216, iv, 417 (Jemshid), JAOS. iii. 335, IS.\nxiv. 393; Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic Studies, i. 46; M\u00fcller,\nScience of Language, ii. 528, 534; Westergaard, with Weber's notes,\nIS. iii. 402; Muir, JRAS. i. 287; OST. v. 284; Bergaigne, i. 86, ii.\n96, etc; Grassmann, KZ. xi. 13, 'binder'; Ehni, Der Vedische Mythus\ndes Yama; Hillebrandt, Vedische Mythologie, i. 489; Bloomfield, JAOS.\nxv. 163, 172; Hopkins, PAOS. 1891, p. xciv; Scherman,\nVisionsliteratur; Leumann, KZ. xxxii. 301 (Yam[=i][20]); L. von\nSchroeder, Literatur, p. 217 (Ymir, Praj[=a]pati); Br\u00e9al, Hercule et\nCircus; Benfey, Vedica, 149; Van den Gheyn, Cerb\u00e8re (1883);\nCasartelli, Dog of Death, BOR. iv. 265.[21] Yama's sadana, Pischel,\nVS. i. 242.[22]\n\n#Veda and brahmanism#: Oldenberg, Die Hymnen des Rig Veda, and ZDMG.\nxlii. 199, Ueber die Liedverfasser des Rig Yeda (see Hinduism, below);\nRoth, _ib_. iv. 514, divisions of the Rig Veda; Bergaigne, Recherches\nsur l'histoire de la Samhit[=a] du Rig Veda, JA. (1886 and following\nyears), also on the liturgy, _ib_. 1888; JA. x. No. 3; Pincott, JRAS.\nxvi. 381; Hillebrandt, Spuren einer \u00e4lteren Rig Veda Recension, BB.\nviii. 195; Lanman, JAOS. x. 580; Brunnhofer, KZ, xxv. 374, BB. x. 234\n(Collitz, BB. vii. 183); Roth, on the worth of tradition, ZDMG. xxi.\n1; Whitney, on Translation of Veda, OLS.; PAOS. Oct. 1867; Goldst\u00fccker\non S[=a]ya[n.]a, in Preface to P[=a][n.]ini. Cult against mantra,\nRoth, ZDMG. vii. 604; viii. 467; Weber, _ib._ viii. 389; Pischel and\nGeldner, Preface to Vedische Studien and ZDMG. xlviii. 702; Colinet,\nLes Principes de I'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se v\u00e9dique, Mus\u00e9on, 1890; Bloomfield,\nContributions (above); E. Hardy, Die Vedisch-brahmanische Periode d.\nRelig. d. Alt. Ind.; Muir, Priests and Interpreters of the Veda, JRAS.\nii. 257, 303; Haug, Contribution, 1863, and Interpretation of the\nVeda, Congress, 1874; Ludwig, Die philosophischen und religi\u00f6sen\nAnschanungen des Veda; also Ludwig, Rig-Veda, iii (Mantra-Literatur),\npp. 262, 284, 301, and his works, Ueber Methode bei Interpretationen\ndes Rig Veda, and Ueber die neuesten Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet der RV.\nForschung. Further (Vedic and later literature), Oldenberg, ZDMG.\nxxxvii. 54; _ib_. xxxix. 52; Windisch, Verh. d. Geraer Philologen\nVersammlung, Vedische Wettfahrtt in Festgruss an Roth; Weber, Episches\nim Vedischen Ritual, Sitz. Berl. Ak., 1891; Schermann, Philosophische\nHymnen (also Visionsliteratur).\n\n#Vedic and brahmanic belief#: Pott, Vedic and Orphic Kosmic Egg,\nOvidiana, KZ. viii. 179 (Peleus as _Urschlamm I_); von Bradke,\nBeitr\u00e4ge z. altind. Religions und Sprachgescbichte, ZDMG. xl. 347,\n655; Schrader, chapter xiii; Zimmer, AIL.; Roth and B\u00f6htlingk,\nVedische R\u00e4thsel, ZDMG. xxxvii. 109; (and eschatology) xlvi. 759;\nWindisch, _ib_. xlviii. 353.[23] Eschatology: Weber, Eine Legende,\nZDMG. ix. 237 (Bhrigu) and 308; Burnell, a Legend from the\nTalavak[=a]ra, Congress, 1880, IA. xiii. 16, 21; Benfey, Orient und\nOccident, iii. 169, and Hermes, Minos, Tartaros; Whitney, PAOS., Nov.,\n1858, May, 1886; B\u00f6htlingk, Bericht d. k. S\u00e4chs. Gesell, 23. April,\n1893, p. 88; Henotheism: Whitney, _loc. cit_., Oct. 1881, see IA.\nxi. 146; Hopkins, Drisler Memorial. Social position of priests\n(castes), Weber,[24] Nachtr\u00e4ge, p. 795; Collectanea, IS. x; Muir,\nJRAS. ii. 257; OST. i; Hopkins, Four Castes, also JAOS. xiii;\nSchlagintweit (Caste at Present), ZDMG. xxxiii. 549. Cult: E. Hardy,\n_loc. cit_. above; on _Om_ see Bloomfield, PAOS. Oct. 1889; Cult of.\nManes, Caland, Altind. Ahnencult, and Ueber Totenverehrung bei Einigen\nder IE. V\u00f6lker; Winternitz, WZKM. iv. 199; Whitney, OLS. i. 46; Kaegi,\n_loc. cit_., note 265, with literature. Funeral: Roth, ZDMG. viii.\n467; M\u00fcller, _ib_. ix. pp. i and xiiii (sic); Wilson, JRAS. 1854, p.\n201; Regnaud, \u00c7r[=a]ddha v\u00e9dique, Rev. d'hist. d. relig. xxv. 1;\nDonner, pi[n.][d.]apit[r.]yaj\u00f1a; Lanman, Mortuary Urns, PAOS. May,\n1891. Wedding: Weber, Hochzeitsspr\u00fcche, IS. v. 177; Stenzler,\nP[=a]raskara, ZDMG. vii. 527; Haas, Heiratsgebr\u00e4uche d. alten Inder,\nIS. v. 267; Schr\u00f6der, Die Hochzeitsbr\u00e4uche der Esten; Winternitz, Das\nAi. Hochzeitsrituell. Omens, Ordeals, etc.: Weber, Zwei Vedische\nTexte \u00fcber Omina und Portenta, Wurfel-Orakel, Vedische Beitr\u00e4ge;[25]\nSchlagintweit, Gottesurtheile; Stenzler, ZDMG. ix. 661; Kaegi, Alter\nund Herkunft der germanischen Gottesurtheile (with further\nliterature); Jolly, Beitr\u00e4ge zur Rechtsgeschichte, ZDMG. xliv. 347.\nThe earliest essay on Ordeals was presented by Warren Hastings, 1784,\nAsiatick Researches, i. 389. Star-lore: Colebrooke; Weber, IS. ii.\n236; Haug, Introduction to [=A]it. Br.; Weber, Die Vedischen\nNachrichten von d. Nakshatra; Sitz. Berl. Ak. 1861, p. 267;[26]\nM\u00fcller, Ancient Hindu Astronomy and Chronology; Burgess, JRAS. xxv.\n717; Jacobi, Methods and Tables. Witchcraft, Medicine: Kuhn, KZ.\nxiii. 49; Grohmann, IS. ix. 381; Bloomfield, Contributions, AJP. vii,\nxi, xii; Pictet, KZ. v. 24, 321; Jolly, Knoblauch, Festgruss an Roth,\np. 18; medicine and divination, Bower MS.,\nJASB. 1891; IA. xxi. 29, 129; WZKM. v. 103. Blood-money: Roth, ZDMG.\nxli. 672; Aryan and Indic, B\u00fchler and Schroeder, Festgruss an Roth;\nJolly, _loc. cit._., p. 339. Sacrifices: Hillebrandt, Das altind.\nNeu-u. Vollmondsopfer, and Nationale Opfer, Festgruss an B\u00f6htlingk;\nLindner, Die Diksk[=a], and _loc. cit._, Ernteopfer; Weber,\nV[=a]japeya and R[=a]jas[=u]ya, Sitz. Berl. Ak., 1892, 1893, and Zur\nKenntniss d. Ved. Opferrituals, IS. x. 321, xiii. 217; Schwab, Das\nAltindische Thieropfer. Suttee and Human Sacrifices: Colebrooke,\nDuties of Faithful Hindu Widow, Asiatick Researches, iv. 209; Wilson,\nJRAS. 1851, p. 96, 1854, p. 201, 1859, p. 209; M\u00fcller, Chips, ii. 34;\nHall, JRAS. iii. 183, 193; R[=a]jendral[=a]la Mitra, Indo-Aryans, ii.\n114; Weber, ZDMG. vii. 585, xviii. 262 (Manu, Minotaur, _ib._ p. 286),\nInd. Streifen, i. 54; Zimmer, AIL. p. 328; Hillebrandt, ZDMG. xl. 711.\n\n#Ritual, etc#: (above and) M\u00fcller, ZDMG. ix. p. xliii; Garbe, ZDMG.\nxxxiv. 319 (Pravargya); Rarity of Soma-sacrifice, Haug, ZDMG. xvi.\n273; Hindu Doctrine of Atonement, Stenzler, Congress, 1874, p. 205;\nAtharva Ritual, Garbe, V[=a]it[=a]na S[=u]tra; Magoun, Asur[=i] Kalpa;\nAgni Sacrifice, Thibaut, Agni Citi, Pandit, JAS. Beng., xliv, 1875,\n\u00c7ulva S[=u]tra; Koulikovski, Les Trois Feux Sacr\u00e9s, Rev. xx. 121.\nSerpent-worship: Stier, Sarpedon, KZ. xi. 234; Fergusson, Tree and\nSerpent Worship; Cuthbert, Serpent Temples, JRAS. 1846, p. 407;\ncompare _ib_, 1891; Winternitz, Sarpabali, Schlangencult, Mit. d.\nanthrop. Gesell., Wien, xviii; IA. xv. 258; B\u00fchler, _ib_. vi. 270;\nSnakes and Buddha, Bendall, Meghas[=u]tra, JRAS. xii. 286; Senart,\nBuddha; Oldham, JRAS. xxiii. 361. Idols: Weber, Omina und Portenta,\np. 337; Ludwig, Nachrichten; Bollensen, ZDMG. xxii. 587, xlvii. 586;\nM\u00fcller, Chips, i. 37;[27] Muir, OST., v. 453; Kaegi, Rig Veda, note\n79^a. Ages and Holy Numbers:[28] Roth, Ueber den AV., and Ueber den\nMythus von den f\u00fcnf Menschen-Geschlechtern bei Hesiod; Weber, Cycles,\nIS. ix. 460; ZDMG. xv. 132; Kaegi, Die Neunzahl; Schroeder, seven as\nholy number, KZ. xxix. 224; Hopkins, Holy Numbers of the Rig Veda.[29]\nSee Star-lore, above.\n\n#Brahmanism#: Specimens, Muir, OST. iv; S[=a]man, Benfey, Griffith;\nSha[d.]vi[.m]\u00e7a, Weber, Omina (above); M[=a]it. S., Haug, IS. ix. 174;\nvon Schroeder, Literatur, and ZDMG. xxxiii. 177; \u00c7atapatha, partial\ntranslation, Eggeling, SBE., xii, xxvi, xli; Muir, JRAS. 1862, p. 31\n(OST.); Weber, IS. i. 161 and Ind. Streifen, i. 9; first chapter,\nZDMG. iv. 289; Brunnhofer (relation of parts), BB. x. 234; [=A]it.\nBr., Haug; Weber, IS. ix. 177; Deluge, etc., Bopp, S\u00fcndfl\u00fct; Weber,\nZDMG. v. 525, Ind. Streifen, i. 9; Roth, ZDMG. vi. 243; Lindner, Ir.\nFluthsage, Festgruss an Roth. Upanishads:[30] Cowell, Roer, Bib.\nInd.; Whitney, B\u00f6htlingk (Ka[t.]ha, Ch[=a]ndogya, Ait\nK[=a]ush[=i]tak[=i], Kena, B[r.]had[=a]ra[n.]yaka); Weber, IS. i, ii,\nix; M\u00fcller, SBE., i, xv (all the chief works);[31] Oertel,\nJ[=a]imin[=i]ya, PAOS. 1894; list of, M\u00fcller, ZDMG. xix. 137;\nConcordance of Upanishads, Jacob. For a general introduction the best\nwork in English are the translations in the Sacred Books. Gough's\nPhilosophy of the Upanishads has many translations, but the book is\notherwise not to be recommended. On [=a]tm[=a] as [Greek: autm\u00ean], see\nKZ. xvii 145. Philosophy: Deussen, Das System des Ved[=a]nta, 1883,\nis now the standard work;[32] to which should be added the same\nauthor's S[=u]tra; Jacob's Ved[=a]ntas[=a]ra; and Thibaut, Ved[=a]nta\nS[=u]tra, SBE. xxxiv.[33] For the S[=a]nkhya, Davies, S[=a]nkhya; and\nBallantyne, Aphorisms; but the best work is now Garbe, Die S[=a]mkhya\nPhilosophie (1894). A good general introduction to Hindu Pantheism has\nbeen given by Lanman, Beginnings of Hindu Pantheism. The best general\nsummary[34] of Hindu philosophies is found in the revised edition of\nColebrooke's Essays. Other special studies include Roth, Brahma und\ndie Brahmanen,[35] ZDMG. i. 66 (on _brahma_); M\u00fcller, _ib_. vi. 1,\n219, vii. 287 (Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kenntniss der Ind. Phil.); Roer, _ib_.\nxxi. 309, xxii. 383 (Die Lehrspr\u00fcche der Vai\u00e7eshika Philosophie);\nMuir, Theism in Vai\u00e7eshika Philosophy, JRAS. 1862, p. 22; Ballantyne,\nNy[=a]yas[=u]tras; Windisch, Ueber das Ny[=a]yabh[=a]shya, 1888, an\nSitz der denkenden Seele, Beitr. d. k. S\u00e4chs. Gesell., 1891, p. 55;\nBallantyne and Cowell, \u00c7[=a][n.][d.]ilya's Aphorisms (text by B.,\ntranslation by C., Bib. Ind.); Regnaud, Le Pessimisme Br[=a]hmanique,\nAnn. du Mus. Guimet, i, and Mat\u00e9riaux pour servir \u00e0 l'histoire de la\nphilosophie d'Inde. The Sarvadar\u00e7anasa[.n]graha is translated by\nCowell and Gough. The S[=u]tras of the six systems have all been\ntranslated (with the texts) in India. On the date of \u00c7ankara see\nPathak, IA. xi. 174; and Telang and Fleet, _ib_. xiii. 95, xvi. 41;\nLogan, _ib_. xvi. 160.\n\n#House-rules and law#: All the most important manuals of custom and\nlaw have been translated by Stenzler, B\u00fchler, Jolly, Oldenberg,\nBloomfield and Knauer (SBE. ii, vii, xiv, xxv, xxix, xxx, xxxiii;\nStenzler, P[=a]raskara, [=A]\u00e7val[=a]yana and Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya;\nOldenberg, IS. xv. 1, \u00c7[=a]\u00f1kh[=a]yana; Knauer, Gobhila, also Vedische\nFragen, Festgruss an Roth; Bloomfield, Gobhila, ZDMG. xxxv. 533).[36]\n\nJAINISM.\n\nColebrooke's Essays (Cowell), ii. 402; Lassen, iv. 763; Wilson,\nEssays, i. 319; Weber, IS. xv. 263, xvi. 211, xvii. 1,[37] and Berlin\nMSS., vol. ii, 1892; Klatt, Stotra (MSS.), ZDMG. xxxiii. 445; Leumann,\nBerichte von den Schismen der Jaina, IS. xvii. 91; Jacobi, Stutayas\nand Stotra, ZDMG. xxxii. 509, IS. xiv. 359, also origin of sects,\nZDMG. xxxviii. 1, Introduction to Kalpa S[=u]tra (Abh. k. M.,[38]\n1879, Mab[=a]v[=i]ra is N[=a]taputta). Compare also Jacobi, ZDMG.\nxxxiv. 247; Oldenberg, _ib_. 748; Jacobi, _ib_. xxxv. 667, xl. 92;\nBurnell, IA. i. 354; Rice and B\u00fchler, _ib_. iii. 153, vii. 28, 143,\netc; Burgess, _ib._ xiii. 191; Windisch, Hemacandra's Yoga\u00e7[=a]stra,\nZDMG. xxviii. 185. Jacobi has translated Ac[=a]r[=a]nga and Kalpa\nS[=u]tras for SBE. xxii. Hoernle, Digambara Pattavalis, IA. xx. 341,\nxxi. 57. A popular essay on Jains by Williams appeared JRAS. xx. 279.\nOn Jain tradition compare B\u00fchler, Sitz. Wien. Ak. 1883, WZKM. i. 165,\nii. 141, iii. 233, iv. 313, v. 59, 175 (Mathur[=a], Congress, 1892, p.\n219). On Gos[=a]la compare Hoernle, Bib. Ind., Uv[=a]saga Das[=a]o\n(seventh Anga) with Leumann's review; and Rockhill, Life of Buddha, p.\n249. Compare also Jain Bh[=a]rata and R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a of Pampa,\nRice, JRAS. xiv. 19; Leumann, Da\u00e7avaikalika-S[=u]tra und Niryukti,\nJinabhadra's J[=i]takalpa, Sitz. Berl. Ak. 1892, Die Legende von Citta\nund Sa[.m]bh[=u]ta, WZKM. v. 111, vi. 1; Thomas, Early Faith of A\u00e7oka\n(to show prior Jainism; a dubious contention) JRAS. ix. 155. On the\nJain nurture of vermin see JRAS. 1834, p. 96. On dates compare Jacobi,\nKalpas[=u]tra and Oldenberg (above). The \u00c7atru\u00f1jaya M[=a]h[=a]tmyam\n(Weber, Abh. k. M., 1858) is probably not an early work (B\u00fchler, Three\nNew Edicts, IA. vi. 154). On Weber's view in regard to Jain-Greek\nlegends see his essay Ahaly[=a]-Achilleus, Sitz. Berl. Ak., 1887. See\ntoo Barth, Revue, xix. 292 ff., xx. 332.\n\nBUDDHISM.\n\nColebrook's Essays; Wilson, Buddha and Buddhism, JRAS., 1856, pp. 229,\n357; Bennett, Gaudama, JAOS. ii. 3; R. Spence Hardy, Eastern\nMonarchism and Manual of Buddhism; E. Hardy, Der Buddhismus nach\n\u00e4lteren P[=a]liwerken; Burnouf, Le Lotus de la Bonne Loi and\nIntroduction \u00e0 l'histoire du Bouddhisme indien (Nepal); K\u00f6ppen, Die\nReligion des Buddha; Weber, Ueber den Buddhismus, Ind. Skizzen, and\nStreifen, i. 104; Barth\u00e9lemy Saint-Hilaire, Le Bouddha et sa religion\n(now antiquated); Oldenberg, Buddha; Kern, Der Buddhismus; T.W. Rhys\nDavids, Manual of Buddhism, and Hibbert Lectures; Copleston, Buddhism;\nMonier Williams, Buddhism;[39] Mary Sumner's Histoire (ed. Foucaux);\nSenart's Essai sur la l\u00e9gende du Buddha, JA. 1873, p. 114; 1874, p.\n249; 1875, P. 97, and published separately. Valuable is the same\nauthor's article, JA. viii, 1876, Notes, and work (containing) Les\nInscriptions de Piyadasi; compare IA. xvii. 188; ZDMG. xl. 127\n(b\u00fchler). on N[=a]g[=a]rjuna (second century) see Beal, IA. xv. 353.\nOf historical interest, if otherwise valueless, are Schoebel, Le\nBuddha et le Bouddhisme, 1857; and Holmboe, Traces de Buddhisme en\nNorv\u00e8ge avant l'introduction du christianisme. Lillie, Buddha and\nEarly Buddhism, also influence of Buddhism on Christianity, and JRAS.\nxiv. 218, Buddhist Saint Worship, and _ib_. xv. 419, on Ceylon\nBuddhism; Beal, Schools, IA. ix. 299.\n\n#Buddhist texts#: Burnouf, Foucaux, above; Weber, Dhammapada,[40]\nZDMG. xiv. 29: M\u00fcller, Science of Religion, and SBE. x, with\nFansh\u00f6ll's Sutta Nip[=a]ta; J. Weber and Huth, Tib. Buddhist\nS[=u]tras, ZDMG. xlv. 577; Pischel, Assal[=a]yana Sutta; Childers,\nKhuddaka P[=a]tha, JRAS. iv. 309.; Davids, Buddhist Suttas translated\nfrom the P[=a]li; and Davids and Oldenberg,[41] Vinaya Texts, SBE. xi,\nxiii, xvii, xx; Kern, Lotus, _ib_. xxi; Davids, Milinda, _ib_. xxxv;\nCowell and M\u00fcller, Mah[=a]y[=n]na S[=u]tras, _ib_. xlix; Foucaux,\nLalita Vistara, Ann. du MG. vi, xix; Pratimokha, above, and Beal and\nGogerly, JRAS. 1862, p. 407; Dickson, _ib_. vii. 1, viii. 62;\nChilders, _ib_. vii. 49; viii. 219; Rogers (and M\u00fcller),\nBuddhaghosha's Parables; Foulkes, IA. xix. 105; Carus, Gospel of\nBuddha.\n\n#Nirv[=a][n.]a#: Out of the immense literature we select M\u00fcller\n(Buddhist Nihilism), Science of Religion, p. 141; Oldenberg, Buddha,\np. 273; Frankfurter, JRAS. xii. 548; Rhys Davids, Manual, and Hibbert\nLectures, tenth Appendix.\n\n#Date of nirv[=a][n.]a#: Westergaard, Buddha's Totesjahr, Ueber den\n\u00e4ltesten Zeitraum der Ind. Geschichte; Cunningham, Bhilsa Topes;\nB\u00fchler IA. vi. 149 ff., Three New Edicts of A\u00e7oka; Kern, Jaar-telling;\nM\u00fcller, Acad. March 1, 1884, SBE. x.: Davids, Ancient Coins and\nMeasures of Ceylon, p. 57; Oldenberg, Vinaya Pitaka, SBE. xiii. p.\nxxii.[42]\n\n#Foreign buddhism#: Stan. Julien, Histoire de la vie de Hiouen Thsang,\nM\u00e9moires (compare JA. Dec. 1857), Voyages des P\u00e9lerins Bouddhistes;\nWassiljew, Der Buddhismus; Bigandet, Life of Gaudama; Fergusson,\nHiouen Thsang's Journey from Patna, JRAS. vi. 213, 396; Wilson, _ib._\n1859, p. 106 ('Summary Account'); JAS. Beng. i; As. Researches, xx\n(Csoma, Asiatic Buddhism); Beal, Diamond S[=u]tras (etc., JRAS.);\nGutzlatf (Sykes), Buddhism in China, JRAS. 1854, p. 73; 1856, pp. 316,\n357 (Wilson, Notes, Inscriptions); Edkins, Chinese Buddhism; Beal\n(Chinese), Dhammapada, The Romantic Legend, and Travels of the\nBuddhist Pilgrim Fah-Hian,[43] Life of Buddha, BOR. _passim_; M\u00fcller,\nBuddhist Pilgrims, Chips, i; K\u00f6ppen (above); Hodgson, Memoirs; Burnouf\n(above); Schlagintweit, Buddhistic Idols in Tibet, JRAS. 1863, p. 437,\nand (Ann. du Mus\u00e9e Guimet, iii) Buddhism in Tibet (Lamaism in the\nsecond part); Rockhill, The Life of Buddha, and The Land of the Lamas;\nLamaistic succession, Mayers, JRAS. iv. 284; Lamaist extension of\nBuddhist Confession, IA. xxiii. 73; Lamaism and Catholicism, Davids,\nHibbert Lectures; Modern Lamaism, Waddell, Buddhism of Thibet or\nLamaism; Schiefner, T[=a]ran[=a]tha's Geschichte (and Tibetische\nLebensbeschreibung); Tibet texts (above); Bastian, Buddhist Literature\nof the Burmese, ZDMG. xvii. 697, and Buddhist Psychology, _ib._ xx.\n419; F\u00fchrer, Buddhist Manu, BBRAS. xv. 329; Jardine and Forchhammer,\nNotes on Buddhist Law (in Burmah); Friederich, Buddhism in Bali, JRAS.\nviii 158, ix. 59; dharma\u00e7[=a]stra, IA. xiii. 24; Crawfurd, Hindu\nReligion in Bali, AR. xiii. 128;[44] in Ceylon, Foulkes, IA. xvii.\n100.\n\n#Buddhist legends#: Burnouf, Introduction; Davids, Buddhist Birth\nStories, and BOR. iv. 9; Beal, JRAS. vi. 377; Fausb\u00f6ll, Two\nJ[=a]takas, JRAS. v. i., Five and Ten (1872); Feer, JA. 1875\n(v, vi);[45] Fausb\u00f6ll, Weber, IS. v. 412; A\u00e7vaghosha (fifth ccntury);\nWeber, Streifen, i. 186; Cowell, A\u00e7vaghosha; L\u00e9vi, JA. 1892, p. 201;\nBeal, SBE. xix. Hells: Feer, \u00c9tudes Bouddhiques, l'Enfer indien, JA.\n1892, p. 185, 1893, p. 112;[46] K\u00f6ppen, p. 239; Senart, Notes, JA.\nviii. 477. Symbols: Cunningham, JRAS. 1851, pp. 71, 114; Hodgson,\n_ib._ 1861, p. 393; Sewell and Pincott, _ib._ xix. 238 and xxii.\n299;[47] IA. vii. 176; _ib._ xv. 61, 89, 217, and following volumes\n(sacred trees); Lillie, Saints and Trees, JRAS. xiv. 218. Topes,\nTemples: Cunningham, above, p. 108, and St[=u]pa of Bharhut, Bhilsa\nTopes (synods, schisms); Fergusson, Rock-cut Temples of India, JRAS.\n1844, p. 30, and Topes of S[=a]nchi and Amar[=a]vat[=i]; Beal, JRAS.\nv. 164; Burgess, Arch. Surv. of Western India, and Cave Temples of\nIndia (symbols) with Fergusson; the latter, History of Indian and\nEastern Architecture, Tree and Serpent Worship; Simpson, JRAS. xxi. 49\n(temples from tombs); M\u00fcller, Dagobas from Ceylon, ZDMG. xii. 514[48]\n(also dates). Women leaders of Buddhist Reformation, Miss Bode, JRAS.\nxxv. 517.\n\n#Brahmanism and Buddhism#: Burnouf, Bh. P. Introd. p. 137 (Indra\nhighest god); Williams, JRAS. xviii. 127; Holtzmann, Zur Geschichte,\np. 103; (and Jainism) Leumann, Die Legende von Citta und Sambh[=u]ta,\nWZKM (above); Bastian, Brahmanic Inscriptions in Buddhist Temples (of\nSiam), JAOS. viii. 377.\n\n#Buddhist heresies#, D[=i]pava[.m]sa (above); doctrines, Wassiljew\n(above); Le Buddhisme et les Grecs, L\u00e9vi, Revue, xxiii. 36.\n\nHINDUISM.\n\nEPIC: Ktesias, IA. x. 296 ff.; McCrindle, Ancient India as\ndescribed by Ktesias and by Megasthenes and Arrian;[49] date of\nBh[=a]rata, B\u00fchler, Kirste, Ind. Studies, No. ii; in Cambodia,\nBarth, Inscriptions Sanskrites du Cambodge; of R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a,\nWeber, R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a, IA., reprint; Jacobi, R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a,[50]\nFestgruss an B\u00f6htlingk, p. 44, GGA., Nos. 16 of 1892, 1893; epic\nlanguage, Franke, Was ist Sanskrit? BB. xvii. 54; epos and Veda,\nOldenberg, ZDMG. xxxvii. 54, xxxviii. 439, xxxix. 52; Weber, Episches\nim Vedischen Ritual,[51] Sitz, Berl. Ak. 1891; Ludwig, Ironie,\nFestgruss an B\u00f6htlingk. R\u00e9sum\u00e9, Wheeler, History (unreliable);\nWilliams, Indian Wisdom. Translations, Wilson, Sabh[=a], JRAS. 1842,\np. 137; Thomson (1855), Davies, Lorinser, and Telang (SBE. viii),\nBhagavad G[=i]ta, etc; Milman, Nala; Muir, IA. vii, viii, Metrical\nTranslations, and OST.; Arnold, S[=a]vitr[=i], Idylls, etc. (free);\nHoltzmann (Sr.), Indische Sagen; Foucaux, 'Kairata Parva'; Sadous,\nfragments (1858); H. Fauche (several books of Bh[=a]rata); Pratapa\nChandra Roy (almost all); Griffith, R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a, Schoebel. (Mus.\nGuimet, xiii), Gorresio, Fauche, _id_. Studies, Holtzmann, Indra,\nApsaras, Brahm[=a],[52] ZDMG. xxxii. 290, xxxiii. 631, xxxviii. 167,\nAgni, Arjuna (each separately), Zur Geschichte, Neunzehn B\u00fccher\n(literature); Hopkins, Manu in Epic, JAOS. xi. 239, Ruling Caste,\n_ib_. xiii, etc.; Sauer, Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata and Wate (primitive epic,\nunconvincing); N\u00e8ve, Morals and Women (antiquated); Weber,\nMother-Worship, Zwei Ved. Texte, and West, IA. x. 245; Roussel, Les\nid\u00e9es religieuses, Mus\u00e9on, xii. 263, 295. For Philosophy, see above.\nPur[=a][n.]as, Modern Sects: Lassen, i. 481; Wilson, Analysis,\n1838-39 (essays); Burnouf, Bh[=a]gavata; Wilson, Vishnu; R\u00fcckert,\nM[=a]rka[n.][d.]eya, Wortham, JRAS. xiii. 103, 355 (partial); _ib_.\nxvii. 221; Wolheim, Padma (Latin, partial); Stevenson, Ga[n.]e\u00e7a,\nJRAS. 1846, p. 319; Ante-Brahmanic Religions, and Feudalism, _ib_.\n1846, pp. 330, 390; in Dekhan, _ib_. 1838, p. 189; Sykes, Traits,\n_ib_. 1860, p. 223; G[=i]ta-Govinda, Lassen (Latin), R\u00fcckert,\nZKM. i. 132. Fables: WZKM. vii. 215; Pratapa Chandra Gosha,\nDurg[=a]p[=u]j[=a]; T[=i]rtha: Williams, Hinduism (list), IA. v. 209,\nCunningham, Survey; Hunter, Indian Empire (sects), Orissa, and Report;\n\u00c7ivaite sects, Sen[=a]th[=i] R[=a]ja, Mus. Guim. vii; Krishna, Weber,\nZDMG. vi. 92; Berl. Ak., 1867, p. 217, IS. xiii. 354; N\u00e8ve, Des\n\u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00e9trangers, etc; Phallus, IA. iv. 211, v. 183, Kittel, Ueber\nd. Ursprung des Linga Cultus (refutes Wurm, Geschichte der Indischen\nReligion); Stevenson, JRAS. 1846, p. 337; P[=a]\u00f1car[=a]tra, Hall,\nV[=a]savadatta. C[=a]rv[=a]ka, Colebrooke, Muir, _loc. cit_.\nVar[=a]hamihira, see above. Fate: IA. xviii. 46. Sects: Jones, AR. ii.\n334; names of week-days, Cunningham, IA. xiv. i; Grierson, _ib_. 322;\nDikshit, _ib_. xvi. 113; Wilson's Sketch of the Religious Sects of the\nHindus, AR., Essays; Hunter's Statistical Account of Bengal; Kitt's\nCompendium of Castes and Tribes; Elphinstone's History; M\u00fcller, Chips,\niv. 329; Williams, Religious Thought and Life, and Brahmanism and\nHinduism; W.J. Wilkins, Modern Hinduism; Wilson, On the Sikhs, JRAS.\n1846, p. 43; Prinsep, Origin of Sikh Power; MacGregor, History of\nSikhs;[53] Kab[=i]r; Trumpp, [=A]digranth, JRAS. v. 197, Congress,\n1880, p. 159, and [=A]digranth (complete), IA. vi ff.; Die Religion\nder Sikhs. Vishnuism, Williams, JRAS. xiv. 289. Mohammedanism in\nHinduism, Dabist[=a]n, vol. ii.[54] Ritual: B\u00fchler, IA. 1883; temples;\nHurst, Indika (especially p. 294); Burgess, IA. xii. 315; Williams,\nThought and Life, p. 448 (see Buddhism). Thugs: Reynolds, JRAS. 1837,\np. 200; Sherwood, AR. xiii. 25, Ph[=a]ns[=i]gars; Shakespear, _ib_.\nxiii. 282; also Sleeman, Report, and Ramaseeana (Thugs' Argot and\npapers on Thugs); Elphinstone, i. 369, 371 (Bh[=a]ts and Ch[=a]rans),\n384 (Thugs and Decoits). C[=a]itanyas, Hunter, Statistical Account,\nWilliams and Wilkins, _loc. cit_.; On 'pocket-altars,' JRAS. 1851, p.\n71; Vidh[=a]nas, Burnell, Meyer; K[=a]nph[=a]tis, Celibates, of Kutch,\nJRAS. 1839, p. 268; Ling[=a]yits, Kittel, above, and IA. iv, v; Tulsi\nD[=a]s, R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a, works of Ramavat sect, Grierson, IA. xxii.\n89, 122, 227; Pandus as gods, IA, vii. 127; their fish-emblems, _ib_.\nxxii. 61; Bombay Dancing Girls, IA. xiii. 165; Sun-worship, temples,\nSt. Julien, Voy. iii. 172; Burgess, Survey, p. 216; in Taxila, JRAS.\n1859, p. 77; in Pur[=a][n.]as, Lassen, ii. 832, 919; IA. vi. 11, vii.\n69, 71, viii. 30 ([=a]dityabhaktas). Theistic Reformers: Wilson,\nEssays; Hunter, Account; M\u00fcller, Chips; Williams, JRAS. xiii. I, 281;\nTiru Valluvar, Graul, Kural, and Pope, IA. vii ff.; N[=a]ngi\nPanth[=i]s, IA. xiii. 1; Tamil \u00c7ivaites, Foulkes, Catechism; JAOS. iv.\n129; Ph[=a]ndarpur Vishnuites, Vi[t.]h[t.]ala Bhaktas (Kab[=i]r),\nStevenson, JRAS. 1842 p. 64; especially Mitchell, IA. xi. 56, 149,\nhyrons of Tuk[=a], and celebration, Congress, 1892, p. 282.\nFestivals:[55] above, V[=a]japeya; Hillebrandt, Sonnwendfeste; JRAS.\n1846, p. 60; Gover, _ib_. v. 91; IA. xx. 430; Holi, JRAS. 1838, p.\n189; 1841, p. 239; Vet[=a]la, _ib_. 1838, p. 192; Dekhan deities,\n_ib_. 1842, p. 105.\n\nWILD TRIBES.\n\nJohnston. Yellow Men of India; Hunter, _loc. cit_.; Hewitt, Early\nHistory of Northern India (speculative), JRAS. xx. 321, etc.; Oppert,\nOriginal Inhabitants, Madras Journal, 1887, 1888; Breeks, Account of\nPrimitive Tribes, etc. (Nilagiris, Todas); Hodgson, Aboriginal Tribes,\nJAS. Beng., xxv. 31; Samuelis, Native Dress and Religious Dances,\n_ib_. 295; Neumann, English Realm in India, ii; Latham, Ethnology of\nIndia; Macpherson, JRAS. 1842, p. 172, and 1852, p. 216(Khonds);\nBriggs, Aboriginal Races, _ib_. 275; Sherring, Hindu (Bengal) Tribes;\nthe Sacred City of the Hindus; also Bhar-tribe by the same, JRAS. v.\n376; Risley, Tribes and Castes of Bengal; Rowney, Wild Tribes; Khonds,\nKoles,[56] S[=a]uras, Gonds (and Bh[=i]ls) JRAS. 1852, p, 216 (1844,\np. 181); also _ib_. 1842, p. 172; Marshman, History, iii. p. 108\n(Khonds); thirty Snake-tribes, JRAS. xii. 229; _ib_. 1859, p.1,[57]\nFrye, Uriya and Khonds, religious dances, p. 16; creed and sacrifice,\npp. 20, 36; Marshman ii. p. 164 (infanticide); Kitt, Compendium of\nCastes and Tribes found in India; Santh[=a]ls, JRAS. 1852, p. 285; IA.\nxxii. 294 (emigration); Avery, Aboriginal Tribes, IA. xiv. 125;\nCarnegy, Races Tribes and Castes (Oude); Dalton (Bengal), Descriptive\nEthnology; Social Customs in Kashmeer and Oude, IA. xviii. 287, 386;\nCampbell, Sant[=a]l folklore (totemistic origin from goose);[58]\nKork[=u]s, Kolarian Tribe in middle of (Dravidian) Gonds, JRAS. xvi.\n164; Newbold, Chenchwars, wild tribe in forests of eastern Ghauts,\nJRAS. 1845, p. 271; Cain, Koi, southern tribe of Gonds, JRAS. xiii.\n410 (witches, Pandus, etc); Dunbar, Lurka Koles, JRAS., 1861, p. 370;\nDravidians, Kittel, and Caldwell, _loc. cit._; Polyandry, Thomas,\nJRAS. xi. 37; Simpson (rites, sacrifices, etc.), P[=u]jas in the\nSutlej valley, JRAS. xvi. 13; Burnell, Devil-worship of Tuluvas, IA.\n1894; Waddell, Frog-worship (Nepal), IA. xxii. 293; Steere, Swahili\nTales, IA. _passim_.[59] A volume has lately been published on the\nChittagong Hill Tribes[60] by Riebeck with superb illustrations; and\nphotographic illustrations of racial types may be studied in Watson's\nand Kaye's volumes, The People of India. Discussion (biassed) of\n_r[=a]jputs_ of Scythian origin, Elphinstone, i. 440. On Dravidian\nliterature, see Elliot, IA. xvi. 158. On Gipsies, Grierson, _ib._ 35;\netymology, _ib._ 239.\n\n\nGEOGRAPHY, INDIA AND THE WEST.\n\nSchmidt, Die Urheimath d. Indog. u. d. europ\u00e4ische Zahlsystem, Sitz.\nBerl. Akad. 1890, p. 297; Hirt,[61] Die Urheimath d. Indogermanen, IF.\ni. 464; Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschlchte, p. 616; Lassen,\nIndische Alterthumskunde, i. 643; Vivien de Saint Martin, \u00c9tudes sur\nla G\u00e9ographie du V\u00e9da; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 3; Aufrecht,\nZDMG. xiii. 498 (Ras[=a] as Milky Way); Ludwig, Nachrichten \u00fcber\nGeographie, etc.; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language;\nOldenberg, Buddha, p. 399 (we cite from the first edition); Thomas,\nRivers of the Rig Veda, JRAS. xv. 357.[62] On the relations of the\nHindus and the West: Weber (relations with Semites), Indische\nSkizzen, and Die Griechen in Indien, in Sitz. Berl. Akad. 1890, p.\n901; Steinthal, ZDMG. xi. 396; Grill, _ib_. xxvii. 425; Stein, IA.\nxvii. 89. Leo's view in regard to German-Indian unity (reviewed, ZDMG.\nviii. 389) is worth citing as a curioslty.[63] Brunnhofer's works have\nbeen cited above, p. 15. On the Beziehungen der Indier zum Westen a\nvaluable article has lately been written by Franke (ZDMG. xlvii. 595).\nWeber, Ueber d. P[=a]ras[=i]praka\u00e7a d. K[r.][s.][n.]ad[=a]sa, as well\nas in his R[=a]jas[=u]ya, V[=a]japeya, Vedische Beitr\u00e4ge, etc., has\ntreated of the relations with Persia (Fables, IS. iii. 327). In the\nworks cited above the same author has discussed the relations with all\nother Western nations, including the Greeks, on which Sykes, Notes on\nReligious State of India, JRAS. 1841, p. 243, is readable; Bohlen,\n_Altes-Indien,_ and L\u00e9vi, La Gr\u00e8ce et I'lnde d'apr\u00e8s les documents\nindiens (revue des \u00e9tudes grecques, 1891) should be read.[64] The\nsubject of Early Christianity in India has been treated by Burnell,\nIA. iii. 308, iv. 153, etc. (see also above, p. 479); while Priaulx,\nin JRAS. 1861, 1862, has written a series of interesting articles on\nIndia's Connection with Rome. The Indian travels of Apollonius of\nTyana, JRAS. 1859, p. 70, etc., are of no value beside those of\nKtesias and Megasthenes. The origin of the Hindu Alphabet and the\nnative system of Dates have to do with the originality of parts of\nHindu literature, but these outlying subjects, which have a literature\nof their own, we can only touch upon. A good _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\ndiscussion in regard to the alphabet will be found in JRAS. xvi. 325,\nby Cust; a new theory of Franke's, ZDMG. xlvi. 731. Hal\u00e9vy derives the\nalphabet from Greece. But see now B\u00fchler, Ind. Studies, iii, 1895\n(North Semitic, seventh century, B.C.) The native eras are discussed\nby Cunningham, Book of Indian Eras; and in M\u00fcller's India, What Can It\nTeach Us? p. 282. On the native date for the beginning of the\nKali-yuga, _i.e._ this age (the year 3101 or 3102 B.C), JRAS. iv. 136,\nand Thomas, edition of Prinsep's Antiquities, may be read.[65] A\ngeneral survey of primitive Aryan culture will be found in Schrader,\n_loc. cit._, to which may be added on Vedic (Aryan) metres, Westphal,\nKZ. ix. 437; and Allen, _ib._ xxiv. 556 (style, Heinzel, Stil d.\naltgerm. Poesie). On the name [=A]rya, besides _loc. cit._ above, p.\n25, may be added, Windisch, Beitr. z. Geschichte d. D. Sprache, iv.\n211; Pott, Internat. Zt. f\u00fcr allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, ii. p. 105\nff. Criticism of a too great confidence in the results of the\ncomparattve method, AJP. xv. 154; PAOS. 1895.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n     FOOTNOTES:\n\n     [Footnote 1: This bibliography is meant only to orient the\n     reader in regard to exegetical literature. It is not\n     complete, nor does it give editions of texts. The order\n     follows in general that of the chapters, but the second and\n     last paragraphs respectively must be consulted for\n     interpretation and geography. Works that cover several\n     fields are placed under the literature of the first. The\n     special studies on Vedic divinities have been arranged\n     alphabetically.]\n\n     [Footnote 2: On account of the inconvenient form in which\n     appeared the earlier numbers of the JRAS. we cite the Old\n     Series only by date. All references without date refer to\n     the New Series (vol i, NS., 1864).]\n\n     [Footnote 3: On the artistic side Emil Schlagintweit's great\n     work, Indien in Wort und Bild, contains much of interest to\n     the student of religious paraphernalia. See also below under\n     wild tribes.]\n\n     [Footnote 4: Roth, Morality of the Veda; Whitney, Result of\n     Vedic Researches (JAOS. iii. 289 and 331); Whitney, History\n     of the Vedic Texts, _ib_. iv. 245.]\n\n     [Footnote 5: Under this title Roth has an essay (on the\n     comparison of texts), KZ. xxvi. 45.]\n\n     [Footnote 6: See below. Defence of the same by the author,\n     WZKM. vii. 103.]\n\n     [Footnote 7: JRAS, i. 51 ff., and subsequent volumes,\n     Contributions to a Knowledge of the Vedic Theogony and\n     Mythology and Progress of the Vedic Religion toward Abstract\n     Conceptions of the Deity.]\n\n     [Footnote 8: It cannot be too much emphasized that\n     Grassmann's translation should never be used for comparative\n     purposes. At the same time, for a general understanding of\n     the contents of the whole Rig Veda it is the only book that\n     can be recommended. Ludwig's translation is so uncouth that\n     without a controlling knowledge of the original it is often\n     meaningless.]\n\n     [Footnote 9: Bloomfield, AJP. xii. 429. Compare also\n     Regnaud, Le Mythe de Rohita. The same author has published\n     various Vedic articles in the Rev. de l'histoire des\n     religions, vols. xv-xxvi. Whitney's complete translation of\n     AV. will soon appear.]\n\n     [Footnote 10: Sexual side of fire-cult; whirlwind of fire,\n     M[=a]tari\u00e7van, Schwartz, KZ. xx. 202; compare Hillebrandt,\n     ZDMG. xxxiii. 248.]\n\n     [Footnote 11: Neisser's Vorvedisches im Veda, BB. xvii. 244,\n     is not a mythological study.]\n\n     [Footnote 12: Apollon here is Saparye[n.]ya, 'worshipful.'\n     This derivation is attacked by Froehde, Apollon, BB. xix.\n     230 (compare Fick, _ib._ xviii. 138), who derives Apollon\n     from [Greek: phellh\u00f4n], 'word,' comparing [Greek: hapellhaxein],\n     'conciliare,' _pell_ being 'spell' (in Gospel, etc.),\n     'inter-pellare.' Thus Apollo would be 'prophet,' 'w\u00e2rspello.'\n     On _vahni_, Agni, compare Neisser, Vedica, BB. xviii. 301\n     (xix. 120, 248).]\n\n     [Footnote 13: Oldenberg, _loc. cit_., interprets A\u00e7vins as\n     morning and evening stars! The epithet (of Agni and A\u00e7vins)\n     _bhura[n.]yu_ has been equated with Phor[=o]neus, we forget\n     by whom.]\n\n     [Footnote 14: Oldenberg's (Die Religion des Veda)\n     Old-Man-of-the-Mountains-Indra thus gets etymological\n     support.]\n\n     [Footnote 15: For convenience included in this list.]\n\n     [Footnote 16: Maspiter is Mars-pater.]\n\n     [Footnote 17: Hirt equates Parjanya, Perkunas, Fj\u00f6rgyn, as\n     originally epithet of Dy[=a]ns-Zeus, with [Greek:\n     ph\u00eagotaios], the 'Oak-god.' See also Zimmer, ZDA. vii. (19)\n     164.]\n\n     [Footnote 18: M\u00fcller explains Rudra as 'howler'; Leo\n     identifies him with Wuotan; Jones with Apollo, Kuhn. KZ.\n     iii. 335; as A. Sax. Rodor, _ib_. ii. 478: P. von Bradke.\n     ZDMG. xi. 361. Oldenberg's delineation of Rudra in Die\n     Religion des Veda is based on the Brahmanic Rudra-\u00c7iva (see\n     PAOS. Dec 1894).]\n\n     [Footnote 19: Kerbaker, Varuna e gli Aditya (Naples,\n     Proceedings of the Royal Academy) is known to us only by\n     title.]\n\n     [Footnote 20: The author justly remarks that no sociological\n     data can be made of Yama's wife or sister.]\n\n     [Footnote 21: Dog sees Death, sharp sight of dog causes\n     myth.]\n\n     [Footnote 22: Other less important examples of etymological\n     ingenuity are Scherer, Brahman as flamen ([Greek: Brhagkos],\n     Bragi, see Kaegi, Rig Veda, note 82); abhrad[=i]t[=a] as\n     Aphrodite, Sonne, KZ. x. 415; Ahaly[=a] as Achilleus, Weber,\n     Sitz. Berl. Ak., 1887; Id[=a] as Iris (Windischmann),\n     Poseidon, pot\u00eddas, i[=d.]aspati (Fick, KZ. xxi. 462); but in\n     KZ. i. 459 Poseidon is patye davan. On the form compare BB.\n     viii. 80; x. 237; KZ. xxx. 570. Prellwitz, BB. ix. 327,\n     agrees with Fick and Pott as to i[d.]as representing\n     [Greek: oidma] and compares [prosklh\u00f4tios]. Garga is Gorgo,\n     Kern, JRAS. iv. 431; P[=a]jasya is Pegasos, etc, KZ. i. 416,\n     xxix. 222; Parvata is Pelasgos, Burda, KZ. xxi. 470; but\n     compare Stier, _ib_. xi. 229, where Pelasgoi are 'cranes';\n     and Pische, _ib_. xx. 369, where they are [Greek:\n     parhrhhasioi]. Sabheya is Yavi[s.][t.]ha (not Hephaistos, as\n     says Kuhn), M\u00fcller, _ib._ xviii. 212; and v[r.]trahan is not\n     Bellerophon (as says Pott), _ib_. iv. 416, v. 140 (bellero\n     is varvara). \u00c7ar\u00e1d is Ceres, M\u00fcller, _ib_. xviii. 211;\n     svav[=a]n is [Greek: enas], Autrecht, ZDMG. xiii 499; svar\n     'sing' in Silenus, Siren: Buddhaguru in Pythagoras, etc.\n     Helena is Saram[=a], and Hermes 1s S[=a]rameya. M\u00fcller,\n     Chips, ii. 138, note. Compare for further clever guesses\n     Cox's Aryan Mythology, M\u00fcller's Lectures, Second Series, and\n     Biographies of Words.]\n\n     [Footnote 23: Compare Deussen, Geschichte der Philosophie,\n     i. 105. On Vedic and Sanskrit Riddles, _loc. cit_.; also\n     Haug, Vedische R\u00e4thselfragen (also Brahma und die\n     Brahmanen); F\u00fchrer, ZDMG. xxxix. 99.]\n\n     [Footnote 24: There is an essay on this subject by Kern,\n     Ind. Theorieen over de Standenverdeeling, which we have not\n     seen.]\n\n     [Footnote 25: Sitz. Berl. Ak. 1858, 1859, and 1894,\n     respectively. The Wurfel-Orakel (and Schiefner) is published\n     also in Ind. Streifen, i. 274. The essay on Omina and\n     Portenta contains translations of parts of the\n     Sha[d.]vi[.m]\u00e7a Br[=a]hma[n.]a, of the S[=a]ma Veda, and of\n     the K[=a]u\u00e7ika (AV.) S[=u]tra.]\n\n     [Footnote 26: (Whitney) Burgess, S[=u]ryasiddh[=a]nta,\n     JAOS. vi; JRAS. 1863, p. 345; Whitney, _ib_. i. 316; Lunar\n     Zodiac, Or. Ling. St., ii. 341; Kern, translation of BS.,\n     JRAS. iv-vii; IS. x, xiv, xv; Weber, Ueber altir[=a]nische\n     Sternnamen, Sitz. Berl. Ak., 1888; see also Whitney, JAOS.\n     viii. 1, 382; Burgess, _ib_. 309; Weber, IS. ix. 424, x.\n     213; Whitney _vs_. Ludwig, PAOS., 1885. On the twelve\n     intercalated days, 'Twelfth Night,' see Weber, IS. v. 437\n     (\u00c7abal[=i]-homa), xvii. 224.]\n\n     [Footnote 27: The statement is here made that the Vedic\n     religion knows nothing of idols; but see the other cited\n     works which seem to disprove this.]\n\n     [Footnote 28: The 'Fifteen Puzzle' is Indic (IA. x. 89, xi.\n     83).]\n\n     [Footnote 29: Triton und Euphemos, oder Die Argonauten in\n     Libyen, by Water, in 1849, treats of the holy seven in a\n     ridiculous way. Not less ridiculous is the author's attempt\n     to explain everything by the Moon-Cult, thus anticipating\n     modern vagaries.]\n\n     [Footnote 30: A curious though useless classic is Anquetil\n     du Perron's Oupnekhat, 1801, the first European version of\n     the Upanishads (through the Persian).]\n\n     [Footnote 31: Whitney, AJP. vii. 1, xi. 407; Jacob, IA. xv.\n     279; Whitney Trans. Phil. Ass. xxi. 88; B\u00f6htlingk, Bericht\n     d. k. S\u00e4chs. Gesellschaft, 1890, and separately.]\n\n     [Footnote 32: Compare Windischmann, Sancara, 1833; Ecstein,\n     IS. ii. 369; and Bruining-Bijdrage tot de Kennis van den\n     Ved[=a]nta, 1871.]\n\n     [Footnote 33: Compare two native expositions, JRAS. x. 33\n     (Vedantic conception of _brahma_), and WZKM. ii. 95\n     (\u00c7ankara's _advaita_ philosophy); also M\u00fcller, Three\n     Lectures.]\n\n     [Footnote 34: Compare Ballantyne's Hindu Philosophy,\n     Williams' Indian Wisdom, Brahmanism and Hinduism, Religious\n     Thought and Life, and also the excellent chapters in Weber's\n     Lectures (above), and in Schroeder's Literatur und Cultur.\n     Of Deussen's Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie one half\n     volume has appeared.]\n\n     [Footnote 35: Haug has an article on the M[=a]it. Sa[.m]h.\n     with the same title, Brahma und Die Brahmanen.]\n\n     [Footnote 36: House-ritual: [=A]\u00e7val[=a]yana, Gobhila,\n     \u00c7[=a][.n]kh[=a]yana, P[=a]raskara, Kh[=a]dira,\n     Hira[n.]yake\u00e7in, [=A]pastamba. Law: [=A]pastamba,\n     G[=a]utama, Vasistha, B[=a]udh[=a]yana, Y[=a]j\u00f1avalkya,\n     Vishnu, N[=a]rada, Brihaspati, Manu. The last is also\n     translated by Loiseleur, Jones, Burnell and Hopkins (besides\n     B\u00fchler, SBE., above).]\n\n     [Footnote 37: Ueber die heiligen Schriften, translated into\n     English by Smyth in the Indian Antiquary, 1893.]\n\n     [Footnote 38: Feer, JA. 1888 (xii), p. 209. Leumann has\n     published in the same German series the Aupap[=a]tika\n     S[=u]tra, but as yet only the text (1883) has appeared.]\n\n     [Footnote 39: Of the many manuals we recommend especially\n     those of Rhys Davids for ontology (also J[=a]takis. First\n     Part) and Oldenberg (now in second edition). For Northern\n     Buddhism K\u00f6ppen's Religion is still excellent, although it\n     is vitiated by the point of view taken by the author, who\n     regards Buddha as an emancipator, a political innovator,\n     etc. Davids has two recent articles on Buddhist sects, JRAS.\n     xxiii. 409; xxiv. 1 (see abo below).]\n\n     [Footnote 40: L. von Schroeder, Worte der Wahrheit. On the\n     word Dhammapada, Franke ZDMG. xlvi. 734.]\n\n     [Footnote 41: Also Oldenberg, D[=i]pava[.m]sa, with text.]\n\n     [Footnote 42: For Nirv[=a]na and its date all the manuals\n     may be consulted. See also D'Alwis, Nirv[=a]na (with\n     translation); Edkins, JRAS. xiii. 59, Congress, 1880, p.\n     195; Childers, Dictionary, JRAS. v. 219, 289, vii. 49, etc.;\n     Fergusson, _ib._ iv. 81 (Indic Chronology); M\u00fcller, Origin\n     of Religion, p. 130, note, and Introduction to Buddhaghosha,\n     and to Dhammapada (above). We incline to accept 471 to 483\n     as the extreme limits of the date of Buddha's death (Kern,\n     380; Davids, 412).]\n\n     [Footnote 43: On Hsing (671) see Beal, IA. x. 109, 194;\n     M\u00fcller, India. 'F\u00e0-Hien's travels are now published by\n     Legge, 'Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms.' There are other\n     editions. See also Sykes, JRAS. 1841, p. 248; Beal, _ib._\n     xix. 191.]\n\n     [Footnote 44: On Japanese Buddhism there have been published\n     some texts by Japanese scholars (ed. M\u00fcller, Ary\u00e1n Series of\n     Anecdota Oxoniensia). See JRAS. xii. 153.]\n\n     [Footnote 45: Chalmers, J[=a]takas (ed. Cowell, vol. 1) is\n     announced. Compare JRAS. xxiv. 423. On Barlaam u. Joasaph\n     see now the exhaustive essay of Kuhn, Abh. d.k. Bayerisch.\n     Ak. 1894 (with all literature).]\n\n     [Footnote 46: By the same, Avad[=a]na\u00e7ataka, Mus. Guimet,\n     xviii (JA. 1879, xiv). The Da[t.]havam\u00e7a, Mellon\u00e9, Ann. du\n     MG. vii.]\n\n     [Footnote 47: Triratna and tri\u00e7ula. The articles following\n     are by Murray-Aynsley (Asiatic Symbolism), on svastika,\n     trees, serpents, evil eye, etc. On the evil eye and the\n     poison-girl, vi[s.]akany[=a], see now the interesting essay\n     of Hertz (Abh. d. Bayern. Akad, 1894), who connects the\n     superstition with the religious practice described above, p.\n     505, note 2.]\n\n     [Footnote 48: For older essays see also Sch\u00f6nberg, ZDMG.\n     vii. 101 (rock-temples); JAS. Beng. xxv. 222 (Khandgiri\n     temples); Yule, JAS. Beng., 1857, Ancient Buddhistic Remains\n     (on the Irawady): Sykes, Miniature Caityas in Buddhist\n     topes, JRAS. 1854, pp. 37, 227.]\n\n     [Footnote 49: \u00c7iva is here falsely interpreted as Herakles,\n     p. 39. Compare too Weber, IS. ii. 409, and his\n     Ahaly[=a]-Achilleus, Berl. Ak. 1887. The original Greek is\n     edited by Schwanbeck. On Darius' conquest see Marshman, i.\n     p. 10.]\n\n     [Footnote 50: Sixth or eighth century, developed with\n     Buddhistic or Greek influence.]\n\n     [Footnote 51: An example of the survival of the Hindu cult\n     in the \u00c7r[=a]uta ritual is given by Weber, IS. v. 437,\n     \u00c7abal[=i]-homa.]\n\n     [Footnote 52: Weber on Skanda, IS. iii. 478.]\n\n     [Footnote 53: Compare also Malcolm, AR. xi (1812), 197; ZKM.\n     v. 1, Die Religion und der Staat der Sikh.]\n\n     [Footnote 54: The Dalast[=a]n or School of Manners,\n     translated from the Persian, with notes by Shea and Troy,\n     1843.]\n\n     [Footnote 55: Williams' Hinduism and the third chapter of\n     Wilkins' Modern Hinduism contain a list of the modern\n     festivals. Grierson, Peasant Life, describes Beh[=a]r.]\n\n     [Footnote 56: M[=o]ns and Koles, JRAS. x, 234. Lards,\n     Congress, 1874, by Drew; 1880, by Leitner.]\n\n     [Footnote 57: Snake-nation in America, Shoshone, Clark,\n     Sign-language, p. 337; snake-symbol of life, Schoolcraft, i.\n     375.]\n\n     [Footnote 58: Totemism repudiated, Kennedy, on N[=a]gas,\n     JRAS. xxiii. 480.]\n\n     [Footnote 59: The Indian Antiquary contains a vast fund of\n     folk-lore stones of more or less religious importance. See\n     Barth's note, Rev. xxix. 55, for the Orientalist.]\n\n     [Footnote 60: Early accounts of Burmah will be found in\n     Buchanan's Religion and Literature of the Burmas, AR. vi.\n     163; of the R[=a]jmahal tribes, T. Shaw, _ib._ iv. 45; of\n     the inhabitants of the Garrow Hills, Eliot, _ib._ iii. 17;\n     of the Kookies, MacRae (or McRae), _ib._ vii. 183; of Nepal\n     (temples, etc.), _ib._ ii. 307. An account of the\n     Tibeto-Burman tribes by Damant will be found in JRAS. xii.\n     228.]\n\n     [Footnote 61: Compare a suggestive paper by the same author,\n     IF. iv, p. 36 (1894), on Die Verwandtschaftsverh\u00e4ltnisse der\n     Indogermanen (linguistic, but historically important).]\n\n     [Footnote 62: Volga as 'P\u00e2, Ranha, Ras[=a], Kuhn, KZ. xxviii\n     214; the Sarasvat[=i] and the lost river, Oldham, JRAS. xxv.\n     49.]\n\n     [Footnote 63: Another curiosity will be found in JRAS.,\n     1854, p. 199, where Curzon claims that the Aryan Hindus are\n     autochthonous.]\n\n     [Footnote 64: Leitner, Greek Influence on India, Congress,\n     1880, p. 113. On the Drama see above, pp. 2 and 438.]\n\n     [Footnote 65: Further, Westergaard, Ueber den \u00e4ltesten\n     Zeitraum der Indischen Geschichte; Fergusson, JRAS. xii.\n     259; Fleet, _samvat_ for \u00c7aka-era, JRAS., 1884, p. lxxi;\n     Gupta, IA. xv. 189, and xvi. 141; (B[=e]r[=u]n[=i]), _ib._\n     xvii. 243, 359; also Kielhorn, Vikrama, IA. xix. 24 ff.;\n     xxii. III; B\u00fchler, WZKM. v. 215. Methods and Tables for\n     Computing Hindu Dates, Jacobi, IA. xvii. 145; and Epigraphia\n     ind. I. 430. Last literature on date of Rig Veda, above, p.\n     5, and add now Oldenberg, ZDMG. xlviii. 629. Further\n     references, above, pp. 436, 571, notes.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  A (alpha), 226, 397.\n\n  abbots, 557.\n\n  abhangs, 522.\n\n  abhidhamma, 326.\n\n  Abhinavagupta, 482.\n\n  Abh[=i]ras, 543.\n\n  ab[=i]r, 454, 455.\n\n  absorption, 496\n\n  abstractions,112, 135.\n\n  [=a]c[=a]ra, 554.\n\n  Achaemenides, 544.\n\n  [=A]di Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, 517, 519.\n\n  [=A]digranth, 511 ff.\n\n  Aditi, 55, 73, 139, 142, 154\n\n  [=A]dityas (see Aditi, Varu[n.]a, etc), 55\n    (A[.n]\u00e7a), 143, 167;\n    [=a]dityabhaktas, see sun and S[=a]uras.\n\n  adultery, 203\n\n  adv[=a]ita, 396, 496, 505.\n\n  Aesculapius, 538.\n\n  Afghanistan, 30, 548.\n\n  [=a]gamas, 295, 439.\n\n  ages, 227, 259, 418 ff., 444, 530.\n\n  Aghor[=i], 490, 533.\n\n  Agnes, saint, 451.\n\n  Agni, 43, 101, 105 ff., 123, 144, 168, 353,\n    356, 377, 401, 414. 445, 449, 476, 480, 554.\n\n  ahimas[=a], 199, 287, 310, 365.\n\n  Ahura Mazd[=a]o, 49, 67, 167. 170.\n\n  [=A]k[=a]\u00e7amukhas, 486.\n\n  Akbar, 437, 546.\n\n  Akkadians, Akkadists, 542, 571.\n\n  ak[s.]am[=a]la (see rosary) 374.\n\n  Al B[=e]r[=u]n[=i], 547, Addenda.\n\n  Alexander, 431, 546.\n\n  Alexandria, 431, 561.\n\n  All-god, 139, 141, 496.\n\n  All-gods, 137, 144, 450.\n\n  Allah [=u]d d[=i]n, 437.\n\n  alphabet, 543, 595.\n\n  altars, 475. 490\n\n  altruism, 478, 555, 556, 563, 567.\n\n  American Indians, see Indians.\n\n  [=A]nanda, 309, 311;\n    [=A]nanda Giri, 445, 447;\n    [=A]nandat[=i]rtha, 509.\n\n  Ananta, 397.\n\n  ancestors (see female, Manes), ten, 534.\n\n  Anaximander, 559.\n\n  ancestor-tree, 541.\n\n  Andaman gods, 538.\n\n  androgynous, 447, 492, 557.\n\n  a[.n]gas,440.\n\n  A[.n]g[=i]ras, 108, 167, 477.\n\n  A[n.][=i]m[=a][n.][d.]avya, 432.\n\n  Aniruddha, 441, 442, 457.\n\n  annihilation (see Nirv[=a][n.]a), 421, 531, 532.\n\n  ant-oath, 534.\n\n  Antiochus, 545.\n\n  Anug[=i]t[=a], 401.\n\n  Aphrodite, 471.\n\n  Apollonius, 508.\n\n  April-Fool, 455.\n\n  Apsaras, 137, 169, 355, 365.\n\n  Arabia, 547.\n\n  [=A]ra[n.]yakas, 178, 219.\n\n  ardhan[=a]r[=i]\u00e7vara, 447.\n\n  Arhat, 280, 285, 303, 320, 564.\n\n  Arjun, 511.\n\n  Arjuna, 361.\n\n  Arrian, 459.\n\n  arrow-oath, 534.\n\n  art, artists, 549.\n\n  Aryaman, 46, 121, 397.\n\n  Aryan, 11, 26, 548.\n\n  [=A]rya Sam[=a]j, 521.\n\n  a\u00e7ani, 464.\n\n  ascetics, 148, 254, 258, 304, 352 ff.;\n    asceticism, 287, 366, 470, 520.\n\n  a\u00e7oka, 540.\n\n  A\u00e7oka, 311, 340, 341, 435.\n\n  astrology, 256, 438, 543.\n\n  Asuras, 42, 49, 104, 170 ff., 186 ff., 358\n\n  Asura Maya, 368.\n\n  A\u00e7vins, 38, 54, 78, 80, 381.\n\n  Atharva Veda, 3, 29, 43, 151, 175, 419, 477, 571.\n\n  Atharvan, 110, 378, 477.\n\n  [=A]tm[=a], 42, 47 (soul), 56, 220 ff., 232,\n    249, 354, 396, 398, 442.\n\n  [=A]tm[=i]ya Sabh[=a], 516.\n\n  atonement, 376.\n\n  Avadh[=u]tas, 502.\n\n  avasthas, 412.\n\n  avatar, 162, 196, 215, 340, 389, 393, 404, 424,\n    430;\n    number of, 444, 468;\n    Vishnu's last avatar, 522.\n\n  Avesta (see Iranian), 12, 16, 422.\n\n  avy[=u]ha 442.\n\n  Ayenar, 464.\n\n  axe (see Para\u00e7u R[=a]ma), 527.\n\n  Aztecs, 557.\n\n\n  B[=a]b[=a]l[=a]ls, 514.\n\n  Baber, 437.\n\n  Babrius, 558.\n\n  Babylon, 543.\n\n  Bacchic rites, 414, 427, 528.\n\n  Bactria, 32, 33, 434.\n\n  B[=a]dar[=a]ya[n.]a, 495, 497.\n\n  B[=a]la Gop[=a]la, 503.\n\n  Balar[=a]ma, 442, 469.\n\n  bali, 540.\n\n  Bali, 478.\n\n  bamboo (see pole-rite), 536.\n\n  bandana, 533.\n\n  banian, 540.\n\n  Bardesanes, 561.\n\n  Barlaam, 557.\n\n  Basava, 482, 547.\n\n  basil, see tulas[=i].\n\n  Baskets, see Tripi[t.]aka.\n\n  Beh[=a]r, 435.\n\n  bel-tree, 453, 536, 541.\n\n  bell, 557.\n\n  Bella Pennu, 530.\n\n  Bellerophon, 530.\n\n  Benares, 459.\n\n  Bhaga, 41, 50 ff.;\n    bhaga, 490.\n\n  Bhagavad G[=i]t[=a], 389 ff., 399, 400, 401, 447.\n\n  Bhagavat, 303, 389.\n\n  Bh[=a]gavatas, 447, 497.\n\n  Bh[=a]irava, 464, 491.\n\n  Bh[=a]ktas, 447.\n\n  bhakti (see faith), 429, 503, 519.\n\n  Bh[=a]rata, 349 ff., 438, 457.\n\n  Bh[=a]rs, 534, 535 ff.\n\n  Bh[=a]ts, 479.\n\n  Bhava, 462, 464, 548.\n\n  Bhav[=a]n[=i], 494.\n\n  bhik[s.]u, 258, 281, 303, 310, 374;\n    bhik[s.]uk[=i], 426.\n\n  Bhils, 533.\n\n  Bh[r.]gu, 168, 397, 423.\n\n  bicycle, used to make converts, 570.\n\n  bigotry, 445.\n\n  bila, 12.\n\n  bilva, see bel.\n\n  bird (of the sky) 45, 49, 113, 124, 140, 164;\n    birds as spirits, 432.\n\n  birth-impurity, 541.\n\n  Birth-stories, see J[=a]takas.\n\n  birth-tree, 540.\n\n  Blavatskyism, 562.\n\n  Blessed One, 19, 388 ff.\n\n  blood-money, 162.\n\n  blood-revenge, 375.\n\n  bloodless sacrifice (see ahi[.m]s[=a], Thugs),\n    528.\n\n  boar, 404, 407, 445.\n\n  Bodhisat, bodhisattva, 303, 564.\n\n  Bhodhi-tree, bo-tree, Bodhi Gay[=a], 304, 308,\n    540.\n\n  boundary-god, 529.\n\n  brahma, 156, 178, 195, 217, 220 ff., 231 ff.,\n    381, 389, 393 ff., 398, 403, 419, 420, 474,\n    496, 518.\n\n  Brahm[=a], 195, 218, 332, 346, 372, 403 ff.,\n    407, 412, 421, 446, 451, 458 ff.,\n    464 ff., 487, 492, 499, 518, 534.\n\n  Br[=a]hma Dharma, 517.\n\n  Brahmaloka, 256.\n\n  Brahmamaha, 371, 411.\n\n  Br[=a]hma[n.]as, 4, 5, C^ 22, 23, 174, 219, 502.\n\n  Brahmanism, 24, 176 ff., 548.\n\n  Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, 516;\n    of India, 519.\n\n  Bahmasamprad[=a]yins, 509.\n\n  brahmodya, 383.\n\n  branding, 440, 447.\n\n  B[r.]haspati, 54 (Lord of Strength), 101, 136,\n  159, 379, 386.\n\n  B[=r.]hat Sa[.m]hit[=a], 438.\n\n  brothers, 370.\n\n  Buddha, 258, 280, 303 ff., 426;\n    precedent Buddhas, 309, 523, 557;\n    avatar of Vishnu, 469, 500;\n    brother of \u00c7iva, 478.\n\n  Buddhagho[s.]a, 327, 343.\n\n  Buddhism, 4, 5, 6, 7, 26, 225, 298 ff., 310,\n    401, 448;\n    Northern and Southern, 326, 327, 341;\n    esoteric, 320, 334;\n    epic, 423 ff.;\n    \u00c7ivaite, 485, 486;\n    morals of, 554, 556;\n    Occidental, 563;\n    lesson of, 564.\n\n  Budo Gosain, 533.\n\n  buffalo (see cow-bells), 445, 531, 537.\n\n  bull, 407, 445, 528, 534.\n\n  bull-roarer, 204, 553.\n\n  burial, 60, 271, 364, 528, 534, 571.\n\n  buttoat, 493.\n\n\n  Calvinism, 501.\n\n  Candragupta, 311, 434.\n\n  Candra\u00e7ekhara, 470.\n\n  cara[n.]a, 255.\n\n  C[=a]ra[n.]as, 367.\n\n  Caran D[=a]s[=i]s, 506.\n\n  Cardinals, 557.\n\n  Carnival, 455.\n\n  C[=a]rv[=a]ka, 298, 374, 448.\n\n  castes, 27, 28, 29, 40, 141, 226, 263, 426,\n    507, 571;\n    duties and occupations of, 549.\n\n  cat, holy, 547.\n\n  cat-doctrine, 500.\n\n  cataclysms, 259, 260.\n\n  cattle (see cow), 50, 462 ff., 450.\n\n  caturm[=u]rti, 413.\n\n  caturthi, 451.\n\n  caturvy[=u]ha, 442.\n\n  celibates (see monks), 537.\n\n  Ceylon, Buddhism of, 341.\n\n  C[=a]itanya, 503.\n\n  chandas, 142, 174, 477.\n\n  Ch[=a]rans, 479.\n\n  chief, divinity of, 534.\n\n  child-marriages, 519.\n\n  children, sacrifice of (see merias), 450.\n\n  Ch[=i]rus, 535.\n\n  choirs, 557.\n\n  chrematheism, 135, 166.\n\n  Christ, Christianity, 389, 395, 428 ff., 431,\n    479, 482, 503, 524, 545, 566, 569, 570;\n    and Buddhism, 546, 557.\n\n  Christmas, 430, 568.\n\n  churik[=a], 441.\n\n  circumambulations, 271, 454.\n\n  Citragupta, 424.\n\n  Clive, 566.\n\n  cock, 415, 535, 538.\n\n  commandments (see morals), 267, 317, 401, 479,\n    506.\n\n  confessional, 203, 373, 557.\n\n  cosmic tree, see tree.\n\n  courage, 527.\n\n  covenants, 192, 361 ff.\n\n  cow, 156, 189, 527, 547.\n\n  cow-bells, worship of buffalo cow-bells, 537.\n\n  cow-boys, 454.\n\n  creation, 60, 141, 173, 207 ff., 216, 540.\n\n  creator, 384, 444.\n\n  crocodile, 450, 547.\n\n  cross, 537.\n\n  Cupid, see Love.\n\n  custom, 531, 554.\n\n\n  Dabist[=a]n, 480, 510.\n\n  D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s, 480, 502, 510, 513, 547.\n\n  daevas, 10, 168.\n\n  Dak[s.]a, 406.\n\n  D[=a]navas, see devils.\n\n  dance, 443, 454, 456, 504, 535.\n\n  Darius, 544.\n\n  darkness (as hell and evil), 147, 206, 227, 422.\n\n  Da\u00e7an[=a]mis, 482.\n\n  Da\u00e7apeya, 477.\n\n  Dasyus, 524, 542.\n\n  dates, 3-8, 434 ff., 571, 595, note.\n\n  Datt[=a]mitra, 545.\n\n  Dawn (see Ushas), hymns, character of, 553, 571.\n\n  Day[=a]nanda, 521.\n\n  Death (see dogs, M[=a]ra), 43, 129, 136.\n\n  Debendran[=a]th, 516 ff.\n\n  Decoits, 494.\n\n  Dedr[=a]j, 514.\n\n  deism, 498, 515, 523.\n\n  deluge, 160, 162 214, 369, 421, 542, 543.\n\n  demons, see devils.\n\n  demonology, 46, 135, 168, 538.\n\n  Demetrius, 545.\n\n  depressed classes, 568.\n\n  devas, 10, 168.\n\n  Devadatta, 309.\n\n  Devak[=i], 465, 467.\n\n  devils, 368, 414, 423, 475, 526, 539.\n\n  Dhammapada,346.\n\n  dhan, 508.\n\n  Dha[=n.]gars, 531.\n\n  Dharma, dharma (see Path, Right), 249 ff.,\n    358, 373, 380 417, 420, 554.\n\n  dharma, 361.\n\n  Dhav[=a], 452.\n\n  Dh[r.]ti, 452.\n\n  dhvaja, 443.\n\n  Digambaras, 284 ff., 480.\n\n  Dionysos, 458 ff.\n\n  D[=i]p[=a]l[=a], 456.\n\n  discus, 440, 462.\n\n  disease (see small-pox god), 452 ff., 538.\n\n  divination, 535.\n\n  dogs of Death, 132, 138, 147, 163.\n\n  Dol[=a] Y[=a]tr[=a], dolotsava, 453 ff.\n\n  dolmen, 538.\n\n  dolphin, 450.\n\n  dragon (see N[=a]ga, snake), 42, 48, 165, 539.\n\n  drama, 2, 436, 438.\n\n  Dravidian religion, 416, 425, 426 ff., 542.\n\n  dreams, 42.\n\n  drugha[n.]a, 441.\n\n  Druids, 533.\n\n  drunkenness, 491.\n\n  dualism (see ptak[r.]ti, S[=a][.n]khya), 13,\n    396, 414.\n\n  Durg[=a], 416, 451, 456, 490, 492, 513.\n\n  d[=u]rv[=a], 502.\n\n  Dutch rule in India, 566.\n\n  dv[=a]para, 420.\n\n  Dy[=a]us, 9, 19 (heaven), 58, 172, 571.\n\n\n  eagle (see soma), 534.\n\n  Earth, 58 ff., 168, 445;\n    earth-worshippers, 480, 531.\n\n  Easter, 454.\n\n  education, salvation of, 571.\n\n  egg, mundane, 166, 208, 411.\n\n  Egypt, 543, 550.\n\n  ek[=a]ntinas, 413;\n    eka deva, 420.\n\n  Eleatics, 559.\n\n  elements, 1, 559.\n\n  elephant, 445, 533.\n\n  eleocarpus ganitrus, 502.\n\n  emperors, imperialism, 36, 435 ff.\n\n  English rule in India, 566.\n\n  ensigns, 539.\n\n  epic, 2, 25, 348 ff., 425, 444, 496;\n    Greek influence on, 545.\n\n  Epicureans, 505.\n\n  eras, 436.\n\n  Eros, see Love.\n\n  eschatology (see Heaven, Hell, Manes),\n    173, 204, 216, 253, 367, 394, 496, 530.\n\n  ethnologists, 11.\n\n  euphemism, 251.\n\n  Europe and India, 556 ff.\n\n  evil eye, 155, 526, 589, note 3.\n\n  exogamy (see marriage), 534, 535.\n\n\n  fables, 545, 558.\n\n  faith, bhakti, 396, 506, 507, 545.\n\n  fakirs, 486.\n\n  family, see matriarchy.\n\n  fasting, 452, 557.\n\n  fate (see karma), 369, 417, 477.\n\n  Father-god, see Praj[=a]pati;\n    Fathers, see Manes;\n    father (see parents), 529.\n\n  fauna, 35.\n\n  fees, 192.\n\n  female (see abstractions, infanticide,\n    mothers, \u00e7akti), divinities, 51, 138,\n    184, 416;\n    female ancestors, 441, 534.\n\n  Feridun, 11.\n\n  festivals, 202, 448.\n\n  fetishism, 169, 363;\n    distinction between fetish and god-stone, 538.\n\n  fire (see Agni), as germ of life, 141;\n    fire-cult, 158, 378;\n    destroys world, see Sa[.m]vartaka;\n    cult, 454, 460, 491.\n\n  flood, see deluge.\n\n  flowers, 440, 540, 557.\n\n  forest (see wood), 528.\n\n  fountain-god, 531.\n\n  free-will, 384.\n\n  frogs, 14, 100 ff.;\n    frog-maiden, frog-feast, 536.\n\n  funeral, see burial.\n\n\n  gambler, 14, 162, 376.\n\n  games, 328, 451.\n\n  Gandharva, 125, 130, 167, 367, 419, 442, 542.\n\n  Gan-eden, 542.\n\n  Ga[n.]e\u00e7a, 414, 416, 447, 450 ff., 456, 466, 487, 506, 532.\n\n  G[=a][n.]e\u00e7as, 413.\n\n  Ganges, 30, 372, ff., 450.\n\n  Garos, 534.\n\n  Garutman, Garuda, 45, 360, 378, 446.\n\n  G[=a]ur[=i], 452.\n\n  Gautama, 302 ff.;\n    Gotama, 308, note; 542.\n\n  g[=a]yatr[=i], 46, 124.\n\n  generosity, 374.\n\n  geography, 28, 29, 177, 193, 314, 342 ff.\n\n  Ghori, 437.\n\n  ghosts, 532.\n\n  giants, 470, 571.\n\n  Giri\u00e7a, 463.\n\n  g[=i]t[=a], see Bhagavad.\n\n  G[=i]ta Govinda, 457, 503.\n\n  Gnosticism, 560.\n\n  gods (see devas), 29, 90, 141, 182, 209, 395, 402.\n\n  golden age, see ages.\n\n  golden germ, 141, 208, 507.\n\n  golden rule, 479.\n\n  Gonds, 444, 526 ff.\n\n  goose-totem, 534.\n\n  gop[=i]s, 456.\n\n  Gorakhn[=a]th, 486.\n\n  gosain, 504.\n\n  Gos[=a]la, 283.\n\n  gospels, 546.\n\n  Gotama, see Gautama.\n\n  Govind, 511.\n\n  grace of God, 143, 384, 393, 396, 413, 429.\n\n  grahas (see planets), 415.\n\n  gr[=a]mas, 27.\n\n  Greece, Greeks, 1, 3, 6, 416, 431, 434 ff.,\n    458 ff., 470, 471, 544 ff., 550.\n\n  Grippa Valli, 530.\n\n  G[=u][d.]aras, 487.\n\n  guest, 369, 531.\n\n  gu[n.]as, 507.\n\n  Gupta era, 436, Addenda.\n\n  guru, 246, 510.\n\n\n  Hanuman (see monkey), 368, 502.\n\n  haoma, 16.\n\n  Hara, 462.\n\n  Harahvati, 31.\n\n  Harihara, 464, 547.\n\n  Hariva[.n]\u00e7a, 424, 428, 439, 464, 467.\n\n  H[=a]r[=i]ta, 440.\n\n  Hartmann, 562.\n\n  Harvard students, 565.\n\n  harvest (see festival), 531, 532.\n\n  Hastings, 567.\n\n  Heathen, 524.\n\n  Heaven (see Dy[=a]us, Varu[n.]a, eschatology),\n  48, 143, 145 ff., 253,\n  365, 417, 448.\n\n  Helen, 12, 168.\n\n  Hell, 147, 165, 206, 232 ff., 253, 267,\n  336, 363, 381, 402, 443, 478,\n  528, 557.\n\n  henotheism, 139, 177, 571.\n\n  Herakles, 458 ff., 470.\n\n  Heraklitus, 558.\n\n  Hestia, 530.\n\n  hills, see mountains and wild tribes.\n\n  Hinduism, 24, 348 ff., 434 ff., 548, 568 ff.\n\n  Hindukush, 31.\n\n  Hira[n.]yagarbha (see golden germ), 447.\n\n  history, 434.\n\n  holiness, 442.\n\n  Holl, 453.\n\n  holy-days, 204, 248 ff.\n\n  holy-places, 444.\n\n  holy-stone, see \u00c7[=a]lagr[=a]ma and stone.\n\n  holy-water, 557.\n\n  horse-sacrifice, 444.\n\n  honesty, 527, 555.\n\n  hospitality (see guest), 555, 556.\n\n  house-god, 374, 530.\n\n  H[r.][s.]ike\u00e7a, 432.\n\n  humanitarianism, 428.\n\n  humanity, 433.\n\n\n  idealism, see adv[=a]ita.\n\n  idolatry, modern, 522.\n\n  idols, 95, 370, 371, 374, 442, 446, 477, 537, 556 ff.\n\n  Ilium, 12.\n\n  illusion, 395, 396, 401, 421, 497.\n\n  immaculate conception, 431, 460.\n\n  immortality (see Heaven), 141, 396, 422;\n    immortality of pots, 534.\n  incarnation (see magic), 470.\n\n  Incarnation, see avatar.\n\n  incest (see commandments, left-hand), 531.\n\n  Indians, 161 ff., 452, 532, 533, 542.\n\n  Indra, 10, 20, 39, 56, 57, 89, 91 ff.,\n    101, 123, 332, 353, 355 ff., 69, 377,\n    404, 405, 412, 414, 445, 448, 449, 473 ff.\n\n  Indramaha, 378, 457, 460.\n\n  Indus, 30.\n\n  infanticide, 529, 531.\n\n  infidelily, 448, 475.\n\n  Innocents day, 455.\n\n  inspiration, 305.\n\n  Iranians, 6, 15, 26, 32 ff., 67, 132, 168, 170, 186, 422, 543.\n\n  [=I]\u00e7a, 546.\n\n  islands, 431.\n\n  Issa, 546.\n\n  Itih[=a]sa, 434, 477.\n\n\n  Jagann[=a]th, 440, 449, 456, 505.\n\n  J[=a]imini, 495.\n\n  Jainism, 280, 318, 348, 401, 448, 480.\n\n  Jam[=a]li, 283.\n\n  J[=a]mbavan, 368.\n\n  janas, 26, 27.\n\n  Jangamas, 447, 482.\n\n  Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i], 465, 469.\n\n  J[=a]takas, 339 ff., 393, 430, 558.\n\n  J[=a]tavedas, 416.\n\n  Jayadeva, 503.\n\n  Jay[=i], 494.\n\n  Jem[=i]dar, 493.\n\n  Jemshid, 11.\n\n  Jews, 524, 544.\n\n  j[=i]va, 442, 496.\n\n  J[.n][=a]ndev, 522.\n\n  J[.n][=a]triputra, 292.\n\n  John, saint, 558.\n\n  Jonas, story of, 547.\n\n  Josaphat, 557.\n\n  Judgment-god (see Dharma), 529, 531.\n\n  Juggernaut, see Jagann[=a]th.\n\n  jugglers, see Yogi.\n\n  Justice, see Dharma.\n\n\n  Ka, 182, 413.\n\n  Kab[=i]r (Panthis), 502, 510, 514, 547.\n\n  Kabul, Kabulistan, 30.\n\n  kal[=a], 501.\n\n  K[=a]la, see Time.\n\n  kali, 421.\n\n  K[=a]l[=i], 416, 438, 441, 490, 492, 533.\n\n  K[=a]lid[=a]sa, 438.\n\n  Kalki, 340, 469.\n\n  kalpa, see ages.\n\n  K[=a]ma, see Love.\n\n  Ka[n.][=a]da, 503.\n\n  K[=a]naph[=a]ts, 486, 487.\n\n  K[=a][.n]culiyas, 492.\n\n  Kani[s.]ka, 435, 436.\n\n  K[=a]p[=a]likas, 487.\n\n  kapi, 543.\n\n  Kapila. 397, 402, 495, 547.\n\n  Kapilavastu, 300.\n\n  karma, 199, 231, 253, 302, 319, 369, 374. 401.\n\n  Karmah[=i]nas, 447.\n\n  Karmam[=i]m[=a][.m]s[=a], 495.\n\n  Kart[=a]bh[=a]ja, 504.\n\n  K[=a]rttikeya, see Skanda.\n\n  K[=a]\u00e7yapa, 503.\n\n  Kashmeer, 31, 314, 482.\n\n  Kassos, 534.\n\n  Katties, 537.\n\n  Kh[=a]kis, 502.\n\n  Kh[=a]ls[=a], 512.\n\n  Khasas, Kh[=a]s[=i]as, 537.\n\n  Khonds, 445, 526, 528 ff.\n\n  Kil, 502.\n\n  kindness (see love), 448.\n\n  kings, 226 465.\n\n  Kinnaras, 367.\n\n  kirttan, k[=i]rtan, 508.\n\n  Koches, 525.\n\n  Koles, Kolarians, 525, 531, 532 ff.\n\n  koph, 543.\n\n  Kosmas, 544.\n\n  Krishna (k[r.][s.][n.]a), 349, 361, 388 ff,\n    399, 401, 405, 411, 412, 429, 448, 449,\n    456, 457, 465, 498, 548, 551.\n\n  Krishnaism, 427, 464, 484 ff., 548.\n\n  Krishnaite[s.], 503 ff.\n\n  k[r.]ta, 419.\n\n  K[s.]apanakas, 448.\n\n  K[s.]atriya, 419.\n\n  K[s.]emendra, 478.\n\n  Kubera, 251, 353, 358, 446.\n\n  kukkuja, see cock.\n\n  Kum[=a]ra K[=a]rttikej-a (see Skanda), 356, 463.\n\n  Kum[=a]rila, 436, 437, 572.\n\n  Kural, 567.\n\n  Kurus, 32, 179.\n\n  Kuruk[s.]etra, 33, 263, 372 ff.\n\n  kush, 542.\n\n\n  Lak[s.]m[=i], 451, 492, 501, 506.\n\n  Lalita Vistara, 343.\n\n  Lamaistn, 343, 557, 565.\n\n  Lamp-festival, 456;\n    service, 557.\n\n  Law-books, religion of, 247 ff.;\n    Aryanism of, 541.\n\n  Left-hand cult, 490, 506, 533.\n\n  lex talionis, 555.\n\n  liberality of thought, 556.\n\n  light, as right, 422.\n\n  li[.n]ga (see phallus), 447, 453, 456, 462, 475, 488, 502.\n\n  Li[.n]g[=a]yits, 482.\n\n  liquor, 491, 531.\n\n  literature, celebration of, 451.\n\n  Logos, V[=a]c, 142, 195, 251, 492, 558.\n\n  Lohit[=a]yan[=i], 415.\n\n  lotus, 411, 451, 462, 502.\n\n  Lotus of the Law, 343.\n\n  Love, 154;\n    love-charm, 155;\n    love as god, 156, 416, 444, 445, 446,\n    450, 452, 455, 471, 544.\n\n  lundi, 528.\n\n  Lupercalia, 455.\n\n  Lurka Koles, 531, 534.\n\n\n  M[=a]dhava [=A]c[=a]rya, 445.\n\n  M[=a]dhvas, 502, 506, 509, 514.\n\n  Madonna-worship, 469, 503, 505, 506, 557.\n\n  M[=a]gadha, 435.\n\n  Magas, Magi, 544.\n\n  magic, witchcraft, 135, 137, 149, 151 ff., 477, 526.\n\n  Mah[=a]deva, 464;\n    mah[=a]dev[=i], 490.\n\n  Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata, see Bh[=a]rata.\n\n  Mah[=a]r[=a]jas, 505.\n\n  m[=a]h[=a]ris, 534.\n\n  mah[=a]tmaism, 486, 550, 562.\n\n  Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, 280 ff.\n\n  Mahe\u00e7varas, 482.\n\n  Mahmud, 436.\n\n  Mahrattas, 437.\n\n  M[=a]itreya, M[=a]itrakanyaka, 340, 479.\n\n  makara, 450.\n\n  Man, 508,\n    worshippers of, 481.\n\n  Manes (see \u00c7r[=a]ddha), 10, 11, 132,\n    143 ff., 155, 173, 190, 250, 361,\n    364, 365, 446, 450, 452, 529, 530,\n    532, 533, 537.\n\n  Man-lion, 453, 470.\n\n  mantra, 174, 374, 440, 453, 491, 508.\n\n  Manu, 32, 128, 143, 169, 392;\n    code of, 263 ff., 391, 397, 399, 401;\n    verse attributed to, 487.\n\n  manvantara, 439.\n\n  M[=a]ra, 304, 346.\n\n  m[=a]rj[=a]ra ny[=a]ya, 501.\n\n  marka[t.]a ny[=a]ya, 501.\n\n  marriage-rites, 270, 421, 533.\n\n  marriage-tree, 541.\n\n  Maruts, 8, 56, 97 ff.\n\n  Mather, Cotton, 565.\n\n  matriarchy, 441, 541.\n\n  matter (see prak[r.]ti), 400.\n\n  M[=a]y[=a], see illusion.\n\n  May-day, 453.\n\n  meat-eating (see ahi[.m]s[=a]), 365, 368.\n\n  medh[=a], 452.\n\n  Megasthenes, 1, 458 ff.\n\n  Menandros, 545.\n\n  merias, 529.\n\n  metals, 35.\n\n  metempsychosis, 175, 199, 204, 286, 302, 347,\n    364, 401, 532, 533, 559;\n    in the Veda, 145, 432, 530.\n\n  methods of interpretation, 8, 12 ff., 22, 551.\n\n  Mihira, see Mithra.\n\n  Milinda, 545.\n\n  M[=i]m[=a][.m]s[=a], 495.\n\n  miracles, 430.\n\n  missionaries, 566 ff.\n\n  Mitra (see Varu[n.]a), 41, 44, 57, 60, 71, 138;\n    mitra, mihira, 423, 544.\n\n  Mohammedans, 436 ff., 482, 509, 524, 546 ff.\n\n  monks (see ascetic, bhik[s.]u, Sanny[=a]sin), 285, 324;\n    monasticism, 502, 557.\n\n  monkey (see Hanuman), 448, 452, 502, 547;\n    monkey-doctrine, 500.\n\n  monolith, worship of, 538.\n\n  monotheism, 11, 13, 67, 70, 139, 172, 413, 414,\n    427, 432, 442, 481, 483, 509, 547.\n\n  monsoon, 35.\n\n  moon (see eschalology, Gandharva, Soma), 185,\n    470, 480, 526, 533.\n\n  morals (see commandments, sin), 14, 143, 180,\n    203, 353, 375, 401, 443, 553, 570.\n\n  mother-divinities, 415, 492;\n    motherhoods, 534.\n\n  mountains, divine, 137, 359, 416, 461, 463, 528, 532, 537.\n\n  mouse, 532.\n\n  Mozoomdar, 519.\n\n  muni, 148, 520.\n\n  Munroe, Major, 566.\n\n  murder, 179, 475, 527.\n\n  music, 443.\n\n  M[=u][s.]ikas, 532.\n\n  mysticism (see Yoga), 504.\n\n\n  N[=a]gas (see dragon, snake), 536, 539.\n\n  N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, 340, 343.\n\n  Nakh[=i]s, 486.\n\n  name of the Lord, call upon, 507.\n\n  names, 201.\n\n  N[=a]nak, 502, 511 ff., 547.\n\n  N[=a][.n]gi Panthis, 514.\n\n  Nara, N[=a]r[=a]ya[n.]a, 412, 448;\n    Sv[=a]mi N[=a]raya[n.]a, 506, 514.\n\n  Nature, 397.\n\n  nautch, 454.\n\n  Neo-Platonism, 558, 560.\n\n  New Year's festival, 449, 456.\n\n  Niadis, 537.\n\n  nid[=a]nas, chain of causality, 323.\n\n  Night, 48, 76, 79.\n\n  Nik[=a]ya, 326.\n\n  Nimb[=a]ditya, 508.\n\n  Nirgrantha, 283.\n\n  Nirmalas, 513.\n\n  Nirv[=a][n.]a, 286, 310, 319, 321 ff., 336, 346, 347, 426 ff.\n\n  Ni[s.]ads, 440.\n\n  non-duality, see adv[=a]ita.\n\n  Notovitch, 546.\n\n  numbers, 478.\n\n  nuns, 290, 310, 330, 557.\n\n  nymphs, in heaven, 417.\n\n  Nysian, 458.\n\n\n  oath (see ordeals), of king, 213;\n    may be broken, 255;\n    water in oath, 362;\n    other forms of oath, 533, 534.\n\n  observances, 246.\n\n  oceans, 34.\n\n  offerings, 183.\n\n  Om, 395, 453.\n\n  Omens (see magic), 256, 328.\n\n  ophir, 543.\n\n  oracles, 533, 534.\n\n  Or[=a]ons, 526, 531, 535.\n\n  ordeals, 3, 270, 275, 363.\n\n  orders, politica), priestly stadia, 264, 353, 365.\n\n  orthodoxy, 507, 562.\n\n\n  pacceka, 305.\n\n  P[=a]h[=a]rias, 533.\n\n  pairs of gods, 83, 102, 138, 462.\n\n  palm, 540.\n\n  palmistry (sce omens), 256.\n\n  P[=a][.n]cajanya fire, 423.\n  Pa[.n]cak[=a]la, Pa[.n]cak[=a]j[.n]as, 413.\n\n  Pa[.n]camah[=a]kalpa, 413.\n\n  Pa[.n]catantra, 558.\n\n  P[=a][.n]car[=a]tra, 413, 427, 442, 447, 492, 497.\n\n  P[=a][n.][d.]avas, 466, 469.\n\n  P[=a][n.]dur[=a][.n]ga, 500.\n\n  pantheism (see K[r.][s.][n.]a, R[=a]ma,\n    Vi[s.][n.]u), 37, 47, 57, 138, 140, 248,\n    356, 407, 414, 484 ff., 498, 547.\n\n  Paradise, see Heaven.\n\n  Para\u00e7u R[=a]ma, 469.\n\n  parents, 370.\n\n  parimata, 227, 229, 232.\n\n  Parjanya, 100 ff., 369, 378.\n\n  Parmenides, 559.\n\n  parrot, 445, 450.\n\n  P[=a]rvat[=i], (goddess) 'of mountains,' 416.\n\n  Pa\u00e7upati, 413, 462, 463.\n\n  P[=a]\u00e7upata, 447, 482, 509.\n\n  P[=a]taliputta, 311.\n\n  Pata[.n]jali, 495.\n\n  Path, holy, 305 ff., 401,426.\n\n  peacock, 445, 450, 528, 536.\n\n  Persian, see Darius, Iranian.\n\n  pessimism, 306, 314, 316 ff.\n\n  phallus (see li[.n]ga), 150, 414, 443, 470. 471, 528, 544.\n\n  Ph[=a]nsigars, 494.\n\n  Philo, 555.\n\n  philosophy (see S[=a][.n]khya, Ved[=a]nta), 141, 495.\n\n  Phoenicia, 543.\n\n  picture-worship, 374, 557.\n\n  pipal-tree, see bo-tree.\n\n  Pi\u00e7[=a]cas (see devils), 415.\n\n  planets, 367, 415, 545.\n\n  plants, worship of (see trees), 540;\n    plant-souls, see metempsychosis.\n\n  Plato, 2, 559.\n\n  Plotinus, 561.\n\n  pocket-altars, 475.\n\n  pole-rite, 378, 443, 534.\n\n  political divisions, 26, 27.\n\n  polyandry, 467, 535.\n\n  polygamy, 533.\n\n  polytheism, 11, 13, 529, 547.\n\n  Pongol, 449, 528.\n\n  pools, 254. 370, 372, 404, 444, 478.\n\n  pope, 557.\n\n  Porphyry, 561.\n\n  Portuguese rule in India, 566.\n\n  Prabh[=a], 452.\n\n  Pradyumna, 441, 442.\n\n  Prabl[=a]da, 397.\n\n  Praj[=a]pati, 142, 182 ff., 196 ff., 404, 412,475, 492, 554.\n\n  prak[=r.]ti, 396, 397, 399, 507.\n\n  pras[=a]da (see grace) 429.\n\n  pray[=a]ga, 435.\n\n  Prem S[=a]gar, 567.\n\n  priest, 28, 29, 40, 176, 179, 370;\n    privileges of, 263,549;\n    epic priest, 352.\n\n  P[=r.]\u00e7n[=i], 97.\n\n  Prometheus, 107, 165.\n\n  Punj[=a]b, 30, 33, 34.\n\n  Pur[=a][n.]as, 2, 3, 424, 430, 434 ff., 476, 503.\n\n  Puranic S[=a]nkhya, 495.\n\n  purity, 148, 369.\n\n  purgatory, 557.\n\n  Purusa, 142, 397, 447.\n\n  P[=u]rvam[=i]m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a], 495.\n\n  P[=u][s.]an, 5, 41, 47, 50 ff., 80, 101, 463, 464, 475.\n\n  Pu[s.]kara, 372.\n\n  Pu[s.][t.]i, 452.\n\n  P[=u]lan[=a], 444.\n\n  p[=u]tika, 369.\n\n  Pythagoras, 209, 559 ff., 580, note 3.\n\n\n  quakerism, 567.\n\n  quietism (see Yoga), 567.\n\n\n  R[=a]dh[=a], R[=a]dh[=a] Vallabhis, 492, 506.\n\n  R[=a]hu, 367.\n\n  rain-gods, 99, 528.\n\n  rajas, 507.\n\n  R[=a]jas[=u]ya, 444, 448, 477.\n\n  R[=a]k[s.]as (see devils), 419.\n\n  ram, 445.\n\n  R[=a]ma, 349, 397, 498.\n\n  R[=a]macandra, 454, 506.\n\n  Ramaism, 315, 349, 427, 485, 500 ff.\n\n  R[=a]m[=a]nand, 502, 510, 513.\n\n  R[=a]m[=a]nuja, 447, 482, 496 ff., 505, 507.\n\n  R[=a]m[=a]ya[n.]a, 349 ff.\n\n  Ramcaritmanas, 503.\n\n  R[=a]mmohun Roy, 515.\n\n  Ras[=a] (Volga, 26), 30, 169.\n\n  R[=a]s D[=a]sas, 502.\n\n  R[a=]s Y[=a]tr[=a], 456, 505.\n\n  Rath Y[=a]tr[=a], 456.\n\n  Rail, 452.\n\n  R[=a]udras,447.\n\n  R[=a]vana, 470.\n\n  redemption, doctrine of, 569.\n\n  reformation of sects, 508, 522.\n\n  relics, 556.\n\n  remnant-worship, 151, 157.\n\n  Renaissance, 2, 435.\n\n  renunciation (see Yogi, Sanny[=a]si), 394.\n\n  responsability, moral, 380.\n\n  Ribhus ([R.]bhavas), 93, 123, 169, 382.\n\n  Right (see Dharma), 249, 422, 442, 554.\n\n  Right-hand cult, 490.\n\n  Rig Veda ([r.]g), 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 ff., 22, 29, 37 ff., 44;\n    in epic, 360, 419.\n\n  Rishis ([R.][s.]is), see Seers.\n\n  ritual, 12 ff., 16 ff., 106, 124, 175.\n\n  ritualism, 568.\n\n  rivers, divine, 30 ff., 32, 99, 138, 528. 537.\n\n  Romans, 6, 556.\n\n  rosary, 374, 413, 478. 502, 557.\n\n  rosy, 493.\n\n  Rudra (see \u00c7atarudriya, \u00c7iva), 50, 54, 97, 99, 379, 388, 406;\n    Rudra-\u00c7iva, 458 ff.;\n    Rudrajapas, 463.\n\n  rudr[=a]k[s.]a, 502.\n\n\n  sacraments, forty, 255.\n\n  sacrifice, 47, 60, 149, 177 ff., 188, 196,\n    198, 211, 225, 246, 363, 369, 375, 406,\n    413, 420, 423, 450, 462, 471, 490 ff.,\n    526, 528, 529, 534, 571.\n\n  S[=a]dhus, 514.\n\n  \u00c7[=a]ivas (see \u00c7ivaites), 413.\n\n  \u00c7aka era, 436.\n\n  Sakh[=i] bh[=a]vas, 492.\n\n  \u00c7[=a]ktas, 413, 489, 533.\n\n  \u00e7akti, 489, 490, 537, 553.\n\n  \u00c7akuntal[=a], 438.\n\n  \u00c7[=a]kya, 300, 302.\n\n  \u00e7[=a]lagr[=a]ma, holy stone, 447, 502, 540.\n\n  sallo kallo, 531.\n\n  Sam[=a]jas, 516 ff., 369, 570.\n\n  S[=a]ma Veda, 176, 389, 396, 419.\n\n  Samana, 302, 344.\n\n  \u00c7ambhu, 487.\n\n  \u00c7am[=i] \u00e7am[=i]-plant, 540.\n\n  sa[.m]vartaka fire, 421.\n\n  sa[.m]s[=a]ra. 175, 199, 231, 253, 380, 425.\n\n  sa[.m]sk[r.]ta, 396.\n\n  sa[.m]vat, 436.\n\n  Sanatkum[=a]ra, 466.\n\n  \u00c7[=a][n.][d.]ila, 221, 497, 509;\n    s[=u]tras, 503.\n\n  Sandrocottos, 435.\n\n  Sa[.n]gha, 324, 341.\n\n  \u00c7a[n.]kara, 289, 437, 445;\n    vijaya, 480; 482, 495, 505, 506.\n\n  S[=a][.n]khya, 323, 365, 391 ff., 396, 399,\n    400, 402, 460, 482, 484, 489, 495, 509,\n    547, 560.\n\n  Sanny[=a]s[=i]n, 258, 281, 508.\n\n  Sara[n.]y[=u], 81, 138.\n\n  Saram[=a], S[=a]rameya, 131, 132, 138.\n\n  Sarasvat[=i], 31 ff., 149, 451, 492.\n\n  \u00c7[=a]r[=i]rakam[=i]m[=a][.m]s[=a], 495.\n\n  \u00c7arva, 462, 463, 548.\n\n  Sarvadar\u00e7a[n.]asangraha, 480.\n\n  \u00c7atarudriya, 413, 470.\n\n  Sat n[=a]m, 512.\n\n  sattra, 371, 420.\n\n  sattva, 507.\n\n  Saturnalia, 455.\n\n  S[=a]ubhagasena, 545.\n\n  S[=a]ugatas, 448, 567.\n\n  S[=a]uras, 413,423, 508.\n\n  Sav[=a]ras, Sauras, 535.\n\n  Savitar (see Sun), 41 ff., 46 ff.\n\n  S[=a]vitr[=i], 46, 466, 492.\n\n  S[=a]ya[n.]a, 480.\n\n  Schopenhauer, 561.\n\n  sects, 445.\n\n  Seers, 368.\n\n  Semiramis, 543.\n\n  Semites, 571.\n\n  Sen, 518.\n\n  sesamum, 452, 502.\n\n  \u00c7esa, 446, 465.\n\n  seven, 18, 26, 32, 49, 64, 98, 162, 533.\n\n  Seypoys, 566.\n\n  sex, 43, 59, 183, 490.\n\n  Siddhas, 367, 397, 482.\n\n  Sikhs (Singhs, Si[.m]has), 8, 502, 510-513.\n\n  sin (see commandments, vows), 42, 47,\n    51, 60, 65, 329, 376, 392, 530, 554;\n    venial, 254;\n    sin and sacrifice, 526.\n\n  si[.n]g[=a]-tree, 533.\n\n  \u00c7i\u00e7up[=a]la, 457.\n\n  Sittars, 315, 367, 482, 488, 567, 570.\n\n  \u00c7iva, 25, 50, 99, 112, 150, 178, 251,\n    332, 354, 365, 374, 388 ff., 397,\n    404, 406, 412 ff. 487, 532-534.\n\n  \u00c7ivaism (see \u00c7[=a]ivas), 348, 389,\n    407, 413, 423, 427, 446, 451, 453,\n    466, 480, 484, 488, 496, 548;\n    sacrifice of, 371, 453, 459, 462, 492.\n\n  \u00c7ivaites, 481 ff., 483.\n\n  Skanda (K[=a]rttikeya), 354, 410, 414, 445, 466.\n\n  slaves, 29, 425, 477, 548, 549.\n\n  small-pox god, 452, 528.\n\n  Sm[=a]rtas, 482, 507.\n\n  Sm[r.]ti, 440.\n\n  snake (see dragon, N[=a]ga), 20, 94,\n    154, 164, 186, 344, 361, 376, 397,\n    419, 446, 469, 527, 533, 536, 539, 547.\n\n  sociological data, 27, 60, 524 ff.\n\n  solar mylhs, 11.\n\n  Soma, 14, 16, 42, 50, 112 ff., 185, 354,\n    369, 378, 477, 491, 531, 540, 571.\n\n  Som[=a]nanda, 482.\n\n  son, importance of, 148, 363.\n\n  sophistry, 383.\n\n  sorcery, see magic.\n\n  soul (see [=a]tm[=a], j[=i]va), 530.\n\n  sources, 3.\n\n  spirit (see [=a]tm[=a]), 400, 442.\n\n  spring, god of, 528.\n\n  spring-festival, 449, 452, 456.\n\n  \u00c7r[=a]ddha (see Manes), 451, 453, 455.\n\n  \u00c7rama[n.]a, 281, 292, 302.\n\n  \u00e7ravaka, 303.\n\n  \u00c7r[=i], 438, 441, 451, 492.\n\n  \u00c7r[=i]ra[n.]ga, 456.\n\n  \u00c7ruti, 245 ff., 373, 378.\n\n  star-souls, 204, 366, 446.\n\n  star-worshippers, 480, 526, 533.\n\n  Stoics, 558, 563.\n\n  stone, worship of (see \u00e7[=a]lagr[=a]ma), 526,\n    533, 538;\n    marriage-stone, 271, 535.\n\n  straw (victim), 526.\n\n  st[=u]pas, 556.\n\n  Subrahma[n.]ya, 466\n\n  \u00c7[=u]dra (see slave), 419;\n    S[=u]droi, 548.\n\n  suicide, 378.\n\n  S[=u]kharas, 487.\n\n  \u00c7ulvasutra, 560.\n\n  Sun, 17, 39, 40 ff., 47, 51, 56, 57, 82, 164,\n    205, 354, 377, 401, 402, 446, 449, 452,\n    460, 492, 508, 509, 526, 528, 530, 532,\n    534, 543 ff.\n\n  Sunday, 452.\n\n  Sunth[=a]ls, 532.\n\n  \u00c7[=u]nyav[=a]ds, 448.\n\n  sur[=a], 127.\n\n  S[=u]ry[=a] (see Sun), 51, 82, 449, 492.\n\n  Sutta, 326.\n\n  suttee, 165, 274, 369, 441.\n\n  S[=u]tras, 3, 4, 5, 7, 174. 245 ff.\n\n  Sv[=a]mi, see N[=a]r[=a]ya[n.]a.\n\n  svastiv[=a]canam, 371.\n\n  \u00c7vet[=a]mbaras, 284 ff., 480.\n\n  swing, see D[=o]l[=a].\n\n\n  tab[=u], 251, 535.\n\n  tamas (see darkness), 507.\n\n  Tamerlane, 436.\n\n  Tamil,\n    poetry, 315;\n    religion, 524.\n\n  tan, 508.\n\n  Tantras, 2, 439, 476, 491\n\n  tapas (see asceticism), 520.\n\n  Tari, 528, 530.\n\n  Tath[=a]gata, 303.\n\n  temples, 428, 444, 447, 452, 456, 471, 526, 557;\n    snake-temple, 539.\n\n  Ten-galais, 501.\n\n  [t.]haks, 535.\n\n  [T.]h[=a]kur[=a][n.][=i], 535.\n\n  Thales, 559.\n\n  theft (see commandments, morals), 527, 554.\n\n  theosophy, 40, 112, 384.\n\n  thieves, god of. 554.\n\n  Thomas, church of, 479.\n\n  three, 42, 49, 110, 164.\n\n  Time, see fate.\n\n  Thugs, 492 ff., 528, 535.\n\n  thunder-worship, 536.\n\n  tiger, 533.\n\n  tillais, 494.\n\n  t[=i]rtha, see pools.\n\n  Tiru-valluvar, 567.\n\n  Todas, 526, 537.\n\n  tonsure, 557.\n\n  tortoise (see avatar), 536.\n\n  totem, totemism, 163, 430, 445, 464, 468, 532, 534, 537, 557.\n\n  traga, 479.\n\n  tr[=a]ipuru[s.]a, 464.\n\n  transmigration, see metempsychosis.\n\n  transubstantiation, 557.\n\n  trees, worship of, 35, 154, 470, 528, 533, 540;\n    tree of creation, 540, 542.\n\n  tret[=a], 420.\n\n  triad, 42, 46, 183, 377, 404, 460.\n\n  tribes, 26 ff.\n\n  Trida[n.][d.]is, 482.\n\n  trim[=u]rti (see trinity), 447, 464.\n\n  trinity (see triad, trim[=u]rti, tr[=a]ipuru[s.]a),\n    57, 105, 237, 387, 404, 410, 411, 412, 432, 439,\n    507, 516, 545;\n    four members, 445;\n    prayer to, 447;\n    history of, 457 ff.;\n    female, 492, 499.\n\n  Tripi[t.]aka, 326, 347.\n\n  Trip[=u]jas, 480.\n\n  Trita, 11, 45, 104, 431.\n\n  Troy, story of, 547.\n\n  truth, 203, 369, 381, 527, 533, 553.\n\n  Tuk[=a]r[=a]m, 524.\n\n  tulas[=i], 456, 502, 540.\n\n  Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa, 503.\n\n  Turanian, 15, 435.\n\n  Tu[s.][t.]i, 452.\n\n  tutelary gods, 530.\n\n\n  Ud[=a]sis, 513.\n\n  Ugras, 447.\n\n  [=U]kharas, 487.\n\n  Um[=a], 416, 460, 490, 492.\n\n  Unitarians, 413, 485, 547.\n\n  Up[=a][.n]gas, 440.\n\n  Upani[s.]ads, 3, 4, 5, 7, 24, 181, 216 ff.,\n    389, 399, 405, 434, 447, 518.\n\n  Upapur[=a][n.]as, 440.\n\n  up[=a]saka, 310.\n\n  Upendra, 409.\n\n  [=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 486.\n\n  U\u00e7anas, see B[r.]haspati.\n\n  Ushas (U[s.]as), Dawn, 9, 10, 19, 73 ff.\n\n  Uttaram[=i]m[=a][.m]s[=a],495.\n\n\n  V[=a]c, see Logos.\n\n  Vada-galais, 501.\n\n  V[=a]ikh[=a]nasas, 447.\n\n  V[=a]ir[=a]gins, 508.\n\n  V[=a]i\u00e7e[s.][=i]ka, 503.\n\n  V[=a]i[s.][n.]ava, 371, 413.\n\n  V[=a]i\u00e7v[=a]nara (see Agni), 507.\n\n  V[=a]i\u00e7ya, 419, 487, 525.\n\n  Vala, 20.\n\n  Valabh[=i] era, 436, 572.\n\n  Valentine, saint, 451.\n\n  Vallabhas, 504-508.\n\n  V[=a]lm[=i]ki, 503.\n\n  Var[=a]hamihira, 438.\n\n  Varu[n.]a, 18, 41, 42, 44, 47, 58,\n    61 ff., 138, 170, 196, 353,\n    354, 397, 448, 539, 554;\n    as the moon, 571.\n\n  vasanta, see spring festival.\n\n  V[=a]sto[s.]pati, 530.\n\n  vassallus, vassus, 530.\n\n  vasso, 292.\n\n  V[=a]suki, 397.\n\n  V[=a]ta, V[=a]yu, see Wind-god.\n\n  Veda, 12, 15 ff., 142, 174, 188, 222, 256,\n    374, 401, 420, 425, 510.\n\n  Ved[=a]nta, 143, 228, 264, 365, 396, 398 ff.,\n    416, 460, 484, 495 ff.;\n    s[=u]tra, 437.\n\n  'Vehicles,' 340.\n\n  vermilion, 532.\n\n  Vesta, 530.\n\n  Vet[=a]la, 537.\n\n  Vidy[=a]dharas, 367.\n\n  Vighne\u00e7a, 488.\n\n  vih[=a]ra, 435.\n\n  Vikram[=a]ditya, 436.\n\n  village-tree, 540.\n\n  Vinaya, 326.\n\n  Virabhadra, 467.\n\n  Vir[=a]j, 507.\n\n  Virgin-worship, 557.\n\n  virtue (see commandments, dharma, morals), ideals of, 555.\n\n  vi\u00e7as, 27, 194.\n\n  Vi\u00e7[=a]kha, 466.\n\n  Vishnu (Vi[s.][n.]u), 41, 52, 56, 112, 144, 178, 251, 332, 354,\n    365, 388 ff., 412 ff., 451 ff.;\n    feast of, 456; 460, 487, 492, 498, 508, 534.\n\n  Vishnuism, 143, 348, 389, 413, 446, 464, 480, 494 ff.\n\n  Vishnu's law-book, 441.\n\n  Vi\u00e7v[=a]mitra, 27.\n\n  Vi[t.]h[t.]hala, 500, 508, 514, 522.\n\n  Vivasvant, 81, 128 ff., 146, 392.\n\n  void, see \u00c7[=u]nya.\n\n  Volga, see Ras[=a].\n\n  vows, 293, 317, 378.\n\n  V[r.][s.]abha, 482.\n\n  Vr[=a]tya-hymns, 179.\n\n  Vritra (V[r.]tra), 20, 120, 185, 357, 369.\n\n  Vy[=a]sa, 488, 495.\n\n\n  warriors, 28, 29, 419.\n\n  water (origin of all things), 48, 107, 141, 330, 362, 378.\n\n  waters, 99.\n\n  water-pot, 453.\n\n  water-worshippers, 480.\n\n  wealth (see Bhaga), 528.\n\n  White Island, 413, 426 ff:, 431, 545.\n\n  wife, see woman.\n\n  wild-tribes, 471, 490, 493, 534 ff.,\n  569.\n\n  wind-god, 87 ff., 123, 165, 354, 460;\n    worshippers, 480.\n\n  witchcraft, see magic.\n\n  witness (see oath), 250.\n\n  women (authors of Rig Veda), 27;\n    burned, see suttee; as nuns, 291,\n    310; religion of, 370; use mantra,\n    440, 450, 453; price of wife, 270,\n    535.\n\n  wood, see trees.\n\n  wood-goddess, 138, 530.\n\n  worlds, number of, 402.\n\n  writing, 4, 7, 331, 544. 595.\n\n  Yajur Veda, 24, 176 ff., 419.\n\n  Yak[s.]as, 415.\n\n  Yama (see Citragupta, Hell), 16, 45,\n  49, 128 ff., 144, 146, 353, 365, 378ff.,\n  397, 451, 480, 540.\n\n  Yima, 11, 16,128 ff.\n\n  Yoga, yogin or yogi, 262, 281, 304,\n  351, 391 ff., 399, 402, 470, 486,\n  495, 550.\n\n  yoni, vulva, 475,490.\n\n  yuga, see ages.\n\n  Zarathustra, Zoroaster (see Iranian),\n  10, 72, 524.\n\n  Zeus, 9, 66.\n\n  Ziegenbalg. 565.\n\n  Zo\u00f6latry, 547.","title":"The Religions of India: Handbooks on the History of Religions, Volume 1, Edited by Morris Jastrow","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":221103}