{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16546/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16546","id":"gutenberg_16546","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16546","summary":null,"tags":["Asia -- Religion","Buddhism","Category: History - Other","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Hinduism"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Sankar Viswanathan and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n     Volume 1 may be found at https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/2/5/15255/\n\n     Excerpts from the Preface to the book from Volume 1,\n     regarding the method of transcription used.\n\n     \"In the following pages I have occasion to transcribe words\n     belonging to many oriental languages in Latin characters.\n     Unfortunately a uniform system of transcription, applicable\n     to all tongues, seems not to be practical at present. It was\n     attempted in the Sacred Books of the East, but that system\n     has fallen into disuse and is liable to be misunderstood. It\n     therefore seems best to use for each language the method of\n     transcription adopted by standard works in English dealing\n     with each, for French and German transcriptions, whatever\n     their merits may be as representations of the original\n     sounds, are often misleading to English readers, especially\n     in Chinese. For Chinese I have adopted Wade's system as used\n     in Giles's Dictionary, for Tibetan the system of Sarat\n     Chandra Das, for Pali that of the Pali Text Society and for\n     Sanskrit that of Monier-Williams's Sanskrit Dictionary,\n     except that I write s instead of s. Indian languages however\n     offer many difficulties: it is often hard to decide whether\n     Sanskrit or vernacular forms are more suitable and in\n     dealing with Buddhist subjects whether Sanskrit or Pali\n     words should be used. I have found it convenient to vary the\n     form of proper names according as my remarks are based on\n     Sanskrit or on Pali literature, but this obliges me to write\n     the same word differently in different places, e.g.\n     sometimes Aj\u00e2tasatru and sometimes Aj\u00e2tasattu, just as in a\n     book dealing with Greek and Latin mythology one might employ\n     both Herakles and Hercules. Also many Indian names such as\n     Ramayana, Krishna, nirvana have become Europeanized or at\n     least are familiar to all Europeans interested in Indian\n     literature. It seems pedantic to write them with their full\n     and accurate complement of accents and dots and my general\n     practice is to give such words in their accurate spelling\n     (R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, etc.) when they are first mentioned and also in\n     the notes but usually to print them in their simpler and\n     unaccented forms. I fear however that my practice in this\n     matter is not entirely consistent since different parts of\n     the book were written at different times.\"\n\n\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  [From Volume 1]\n\nThe following are the principal abbreviations used:\n\nEp. Ind. Epigraphia India.\n\nE.R.E. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (edited by Hastings).\n\nI.A. Indian Antiquary.\n\nJ.A. Journal Asiatique.\n\nJ.A.O.S. Journal of the American Oriental Society.\n\nJ.R.A.S. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.\n\nP.T.S. Pali Text Society.\n\nS.B.E. Sacred Books of the East (Clarendon Press).\n\n\n\n                         HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM\n\n                         AN HISTORICAL SKETCH\n\n\n\n                                  BY\n\n                           SIR CHARLES ELIOT\n\n\n\n\n                           In three volumes\n\n                               VOLUME II\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                      ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LTD\n\n                  Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane,\n\n                            London, E.C.4.\n\n\n\n\n\n                        _First published_ 1921\n                              _Reprinted_ 1954\n                              _Reprinted_ 1957\n                              _Reprinted_ 1962\n\n\n\n                     PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n\n                            LUND HUMPHRIES\n                           LONDON - BRADFORD\n\n\n\n\n\n   CONTENTS\n\n\n   BOOK IV\n\n   THE MAHAYANA\n\n   CHAPTER\n\n\n       XVI.    MAIN FEATURES OF THE MAHAYANA\n\n      XVII.    BODHISATTVAS\n\n     XVIII.    THE BUDDHAS or MAHAYANISM\n\n       XIX.    MAHAYANIST METAPHYSICS\n\n        XX.    MAHAYANIST SCRIPTURES\n\n       XXI.    CHRONOLOGY OF THE MAHAYANA\n\n      XXII.    FROM KANISHKA TO VASUBANDHU\n\n     XXIII.    INDIAN BUDDHISM AS SEEN BY THE CHINESE PILGRIMS\n\n      XXIV.    DECADENCE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA\n\n\n                        BOOK V\n\n                       HINDUISM\n\n\n      XXV.     SIVA AND VISHNU\n\n     XXVI.     FEATURES OF HINDUISM: RITUAL, CASTE, SECT,\n               FAITH\n\n    XXVII.     THE EVOLUTION OF HINDUISM. BH\u00c2GAVATAS AND\n               P\u00c2SUPATAS\n\n   XXVIII.     SANKARA. SIVAISM IN SOUTHERN INDIA. KASHMIR.\n                 LlNG\u00c2YATS\n\n     XXIX.     VISHNUISM IN SOUTH INDIA\n\n      XXX.     LATER VISHNUISM IN NORTH INDIA\n\n     XXXI.     AMALGAMATION OF HINDUISM AND ISLAM. KABIR\n               AND THE SIKHS\n\n    XXXII.     S\u00c2KTISM\n\n   XXXIII.     HINDU PHILOSOPHY\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV\n\nTHE MAHAYANA\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nMAIN FEATURES OF THE MAHAYANA\n\n\nThe obscurest period in the history of Buddhism is that which follows\nthe reign of Asoka, but the enquirer cannot grope for long in these\ndark ages without stumbling upon the word Mahayana. This is the name\ngiven to a movement which in its various phases may be regarded as a\nphilosophical school, a sect and a church, and though it is not always\neasy to define its relationship to other schools and sects it\ncertainly became a prominent aspect of Buddhism in India about the\nbeginning of our era besides achieving enduring triumphs in the Far\nEast. The word[1] signifies Great Vehicle or Carriage, that is a means\nof conveyance to salvation, and is contrasted with Hinayana, the\nLittle Vehicle, a name bestowed on the more conservative party though\nnot willingly accepted by them. The simplest description of the two\nVehicles is that given by the Chinese traveller I-Ching (635-713 A.D.)\nwho saw them both as living realities in India. He says[2] \"Those who\nworship Bodhisattvas and read Mahayana Sutras are called Mahayanists,\nwhile those who do not do this are called Hinayanists.\" In other\nwords, the Mahayanists have scriptures of their own, not included in\nthe Hinayanist Canon and adore superhuman beings in the stage of\nexistence immediately below Buddhahood and practically differing\nlittle from Indian deities. Many characteristics could be added to\nI-Ching's description but they might not prove universally true of the\nMahayana nor entirely absent from the Hinayana, for however divergent\nthe two Vehicles may have become when separated geographically, for\ninstance in Ceylon and Japan, it is clear that when they were in\ncontact, as in India and China, the distinction was not always sharp.\nBut in general the Mahayana was more popular, not in the sense of\nbeing simpler, for parts of its teaching were exceedingly abstruse,\nbut in the sense of striving to invent or include doctrines agreeable\nto the masses. It was less monastic than the older Buddhism, and more\nemotional; warmer in charity, more personal in devotion, more ornate\nin art, literature and ritual, more disposed to evolution and\ndevelopment, whereas the Hinayana was conservative and rigid, secluded\nin its cloisters and open to the plausible if unjust accusation of\nselfishness. The two sections are sometimes described as northern and\nsouthern Buddhism, but except as a rough description of their\ndistribution at the present day, this distinction is not accurate, for\nthe Mahayana penetrated to Java, while the Hinayana reached Central\nAsia and China. But it is true that the development of the Mahayana\nwas due to influences prevalent in northern India and not equally\nprevalent in the South. The terms Pali and Sanskrit Buddhism are\nconvenient and as accurate as can be expected of any nomenclature\ncovering so large a field.\n\nThough European writers usually talk of _two_ Y\u00e2nas or Vehicles--the\ngreat and the little--and though this is clearly the important\ndistinction for historical purposes, yet Indian and Chinese Buddhists\nfrequently enumerate _three_. These are the _Sr\u00e2vakay\u00e2na_, the\nvehicle of the ordinary Bhikshu who hopes to become an Arhat, the\n_Pratyekabuddhay\u00e2na_ for the rare beings who are able to become\nBuddhas but do not preach the law to others, and in contrast to both\nof these the _Mahayana_ or vehicle of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. As a\nrule these three Vehicles are not regarded as hostile or even\nincompatible. Thus the _Lotus sutra_,[3] maintains that there is\nreally but one vehicle though by a wise concession to human weakness\nthe Buddha lets it appear that there are three to suit divers tastes.\nAnd the Mahayana is not a single vehicle but rather a train comprising\nmany carriages of different classes. It has an unfortunate but\ndistinct later phase known in Sanskrit as Mantray\u00e2na and Vajray\u00e2na but\ngenerally described by Europeans as Tantrism. This phase took some of\nthe worst features in Hinduism, such as spells, charms, and the\nworship of goddesses, and with misplaced ingenuity fitted them into\nBuddhism. I shall treat of it in a subsequent chapter, for it is\nchronologically late. The silence of Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching implies\nthat in the seventh century it was not a noticeable aspect of Indian\nBuddhism.\n\nAlthough the record of the Mahayana in literature and art is clear and\neven brilliant, it is not easy either to trace its rise or connect its\ndevelopment with other events in India. Its annals are an interminable\nlist of names and doctrines, but bring before us few living\npersonalities and hence are dull. They are like a record of the\nChristian Church's fight against Arians, Monophysites and Nestorians\nwith all the great figures of Byzantine history omitted or called in\nquestion. Hence I fear that my readers (if I have any) may find these\nchapters repellent, a mist of hypotheses and a catalogue of ancient\nparadoxes. I can only urge that if the history of the Mahayana is\nuncertain, its teaching fanciful and its scriptures tedious, yet it\nhas been a force of the first magnitude in the secular history and art\nof China, Japan and Tibet and even to-day the most metaphysical of its\nsacred books, the Diamond Cutter, has probably more readers than Kant\nand Hegel.\n\nSince the early history of the Mahayana is a matter for argument\nrather than precise statement, it will perhaps be best to begin with\nsome account of its doctrines and literature and proceed afterwards to\nchronology. I may, however, mention that general tradition connects it\nwith King Kanishka and asserts that the great doctors Asvaghosha and\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna lived in and immediately after his reign. The attitude of\nKanishka and of the Council which he summoned towards the Mahayana is\nfar from clear and I shall say something about this difficult subject\nbelow. Unfortunately his date is not beyond dispute for while a\nconsiderable consensus of opinion fixes his accession at about 78\nA.D., some scholars place it earlier and others in the second century\nA.D.[4] Apart from this, it appears established that the\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha which is definitely Mahayanist was translated into\nChinese between 147 and 186 A.D. We may assume that it was then\nalready well known and had been composed some time before, so that,\nwhatever Kanishka's date may have been, Mahayanist doctrines must have\nbeen in existence about the time of the Christian era, and perhaps\nconsiderably earlier. Naturally no one date like a reign or a council\ncan be selected to mark the beginning of a great school. Such a body\nof doctrine must have existed piecemeal and unauthorized before it was\ncollected and recognized and some tenets are older than others.\nEnlarging I-Ching's definition we may find in the Mahayana seven lines\nof thought or practice. All are not found in all sects and some are\nshared with the Hinayana but probably none are found fully developed\noutside the Mahayana. Many of them have parallels in the contemporary\nphases of Hinduism.\n\n1. A belief in Bodhisattvas and in the power of human beings to become\nBodhisattvas.\n\n2. A code of altruistic ethics which teaches that everyone must do\ngood in the interest of the whole world and make over to others any\nmerit he may acquire by his virtues. The aim of the religious life is\nto become a Bodhisattva, not to become an Arhat.\n\n3. A doctrine that Buddhas are supernatural beings, distributed\nthrough infinite space and time, and innumerable. In the language of\nlater theology a Buddha has three bodies and still later there is a\ngroup of five Buddhas.\n\n4. Various systems of idealist metaphysics, which tend to regard the\nBuddha essence or Nirvana much as Brahman is regarded in the Vedanta.\n\n5. A canon composed in Sanskrit and apparently later than the Pali\nCanon.\n\n6. Habitual worship of images and elaboration of ritual. There is a\ndangerous tendency to rely on formul\u00e6 and charms.\n\n7. A special doctrine of salvation by faith in a Buddha, usually\nAmit\u00e2bha, and invocation of his name. Mahayanism can exist without\nthis doctrine but it is tolerated by most sects and considered\nessential by some.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Sanskrit, _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na_; Chinese, _Ta Ch'\u00eang_ (pronounced\n_Tai Sh\u00eang_ in many southern provinces); Japanese, _Dai-jo_; Tibetan,\n_Theg-pa-chen-po_; Mongolian, _Y\u00e4k\u00e4-k\u00fclg\u00e4n_; Sanskrit, _H\u00eenay\u00e2na_;\nChinese, _Hsiao-Ch'\u00eang_; Japanese, _Sho-jo_; Tibetan, _Theg-dman_;\nMongolian _\u00dcts\u00fck\u00e4n-k\u00fclg\u00e4n_. In Sanskrit the synonyms agray\u00e2na and\nuttama-y\u00e2na are also found.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Record of Buddhist practices. Transl. Takakusu, 1896, p.\n14. Hs\u00fcan Chuang seems to have thought that acceptance of the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ryabh\u00fbmi (Nanjio, 1170) was essential for a Mahayanist. See his\nlife, transl. by Beal, p. 39, transl. by Julien, p. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Saddharma-Pundar\u00eeka, chap. III. For brevity, I usually\ncite this work by the title of The Lotus.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The date 58 B.C. has probably few supporters among\nscholars now, especially after Marshall's discoveries.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nBODHISATTVAS\n\n\nLet us now consider these doctrines and take first the worship of\nBodhisattvas. This word means one whose essence is knowledge but is\nused in the technical sense of a being who is in process of obtaining\nbut has not yet obtained Buddhahood. The Pali Canon shows little\ninterest in the personality of Bodhisattvas and regards them simply as\nthe preliminary or larval form of a Buddha, either S\u00e2kyamuni[5] or\nsome of his predecessors. It was incredible that a being so superior\nto ordinary humanity as a Buddha should be suddenly produced in a\nhuman family nor could he be regarded as an incarnation in the strict\nsense. But it was both logical and edifying to suppose that he was the\nproduct of a long evolution of virtue, of good deeds and noble\nresolutions extending through countless ages and culminating in a\nbeing superior to the Devas. Such a being awaited in the Tushita\nheaven the time fixed for his appearance on earth as a Buddha and his\nbirth was accompanied by marvels. But though the Pali Canon thus\nrecognizes the Bodhisattva as a type which, if rare, yet makes its\nappearance at certain intervals, it leaves the matter there. It is not\nsuggested that saints should try to become Bodhisattvas and Buddhas,\nor that Bodhisattvas can be helpers of mankind.[6] But both these\ntrains of thought are natural developments of the older ideas and soon\nmade themselves prominent. It is a characteristic doctrine of\nMahayanism that men can try and should try to become Bodhisattvas.\n\nIn the Pali Canon we hear of Arhats, Pacceka Buddhas, and perfect\nBuddhas. For all three the ultimate goal is the same, namely Nirvana,\nbut a Pacceka Buddha is greater than an Arhat, because he has greater\nintellectual powers though he is not omniscient, and a perfect Buddha\nis greater still, partly because he is omniscient and partly because\nhe saves others. But if we admit that the career of the Buddha is\nbetter and nobler, and also that it is, as the Introduction to the\nJ\u00e2taka recounts, simply the result of an earnest resolution to school\nhimself and help others, kept firmly through the long chain of\nexistences, there is nothing illogical or presumptuous in making our\ngoal not the quest of personal salvation, but the attainment of\nBodhisattvaship, that is the state of those who may aspire to become\nBuddhas. In fact the Arhat, engrossed in his own salvation, is excused\nonly by his humility and is open to the charge of selfish desire,\nsince the passion for Nirvana is an ambition like any other and the\nquest for salvation can be best followed by devoting oneself entirely\nto others. But though my object here is to render intelligible the\nMahayanist point of view including its objections to Hinayanism, I\nmust defend the latter from the accusation of selfishness. The\nvigorous and authoritative character of Gotama led him to regard all\nmankind as patients requiring treatment and to emphasize the truth\nthat they could cure themselves if they would try. But the Buddhism of\nthe Pali Canon does not ignore the duties of loving and instructing\nothers;[7] it merely insists on man's power to save himself if\nproperly instructed and bids him do it at once: \"sell all that thou\nhast and follow me.\" And the Mahayana, if less self-centred, has also\nless self-reliance, and self-discipline. It is more human and\ncharitable, but also more easygoing: it teaches the believer to lean\non external supports which if well chosen may be a help, but if\ntrusted without discrimination become paralyzing abuses. And if we\nlook at the abuses of both systems the fossilized monk of the Hinayana\nwill compare favourably with the tantric adept. It was to the\ncorruptions of the Mahayana rather than of the Hinayana that the decay\nof Buddhism in India was due.\n\nThe career of the Bodhisattva was early divided into stages (bh\u00fbmi)\neach marked by the acquisition of some virtue in his triumphant\ncourse. The stages are variously reckoned as five, seven and ten. The\nMah\u00e2vastu,[8] which is the earliest work where the progress is\ndescribed, enumerates ten without distinguishing them very clearly.\nLater writers commonly look at the Bodhisattva's task from the humbler\npoint of view of the beginner who wishes to learn the initiatory\nstages. For them the Bodhisattva is primarily not a supernatural being\nor even a saint but simply a religious person who wishes to perform\nthe duties and enjoy the privileges of the Church to the full, much\nlike a communicant in the language of contemporary Christianity. We\nhave a manual for those who would follow this path, in the\nBodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra of S\u00e2ntideva, which in its humility, sweetness and\nfervent piety has been rightly compared with the De Imitatione\nChristi. In many respects the virtues of the Bodhisattva are those of\nthe Arhat. His will must be strenuous and concentrated; he must\ncultivate the strictest morality, patience, energy, meditation and\nknowledge. But he is also a devotee, a _bhakta_: he adores all the\nBuddhas of the past, present and future as well as sundry superhuman\nBodhisattvas, and he confesses his sins, not after the fashion of the\nP\u00e2timokkha, but by accusing himself before these heavenly Protectors\nand vowing to sin no more.\n\nS\u00e2ntideva lived in the seventh century[9] but tells us that he follows\nthe scriptures and has nothing new to say. This seems to be true for,\nthough his book being a manual of devotion presents its subject-matter\nin a dogmatic form, its main ideas are stated and even elaborated in\nthe Lotus. Not only are eminent figures in the Church, such as\nS\u00e2riputra and \u00c2nanda, there designated as future Buddhas, but the same\ndignity is predicted wholesale for five hundred and again for two\nthousand monks while in Chapter X is sketched the course to be\nfollowed by \"young men or young ladies of good family\" who wish to\nbecome Bodhisattvas.[10] The chief difference is that the\nBodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra portrays a more spiritual life, it speaks more of\ndevotion, less of the million shapes that compose the heavenly host:\nmore of love and wisdom, less of the merits of reading particular\ns\u00fbtras. While rendering to it and the faith that produced it all\nhonour, we must remember that it is typical of the Mahayana only in\nthe sense that the De Imitatione Christi is typical of Roman\nCatholicism, for both faiths have other sides.\n\nS\u00e2ntideva's Bodhisattva, when conceiving the thought of Bodhi or\neventual supreme enlightenment to be obtained, it may be, only after\nnumberless births, feels first a sympathetic joy in the good actions\nof all living beings. He addresses to the Buddhas a prayer which is\nnot a mere act of commemoration, but a request to preach the law and\nto defer their entrance into Nirvana. He then makes over to others\nwhatever merit he may possess or acquire and offers himself and all\nhis possessions, moral and material, as a sacrifice for the salvation\nof all beings. This on the one hand does not much exceed the limits of\n_d\u00e2nam_ or the virtue of giving as practised by S\u00e2kyamuni in previous\nbirths according to the Pali scriptures, but on the other it contains\nin embryo the doctrine of vicarious merit and salvation through a\nsaviour. The older tradition admits that the future Buddha (_e.g._ in\nthe Vessantara birth-story) gives all that is asked from him including\nlife, wife and children. To consider the surrender and transfer of\nmerit (pattid\u00e2na in Pali) as parallel is a natural though perhaps\nfalse analogy. But the transfer of Karma is not altogether foreign to\nBrahmanic thought, for it is held that a wife may share in her\nhusband's Karma nor is it wholly unknown to Sinhalese Buddhism.[11]\nAfter thus deliberately rejecting all personal success and selfish\naims, the neophyte makes a vow (pranidh\u00e2na) to acquire enlightenment\nfor the good of all beings and not to swerve from the rules of life\nand faith requisite for this end. He is then a \"son of Buddha,\" a\nphrase which is merely a natural metaphor for saying that he is one of\nthe household of faith[12] but still paves the way to later ideas\nwhich make the celestial Bodhisattva an emanation or spiritual son of\na celestial Buddha.\n\nAsanga gives[13] a more technical and scholastic description of the\nten _bh\u00fbmis_ or stages which mark the Bodhisattva's progress towards\ncomplete enlightenment and culminate in a phase bearing the remarkable\nbut ancient name of Dharmamegha known also to the Yoga philosophy. The\nother stages are called: _mudit\u00e2_ (joyful): _vimal\u00e2_ (immaculate):\n_prabh\u00e2kar\u00ee_ (light giving): _arcismat\u00ee_ (radiant): _durjaya_ (hard to\ngain): _abhimukh\u00ee_ (facing, because it faces both transmigration and\nNirvana): _d\u00fbramgam\u00e2_ (far-going): _acal\u00e2_ (immovable): _s\u00e2dhumat\u00ee_\n(good minded).\n\nThe incarnate Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of Tibet are a travesty of the\nMahayana which on Indian soil adhered to the sound doctrine that\nsaints are known by their achievements as men and cannot be selected\namong infant prodigies.[14] It was the general though not universal\nopinion that one who had entered on the career of a Bodhisattva could\nnot fall so low as to be reborn in any state of punishment, but the\nspirit of humility and self-effacement which has always marked the\nBuddhist ideal tended to represent his triumph as incalculably\ndistant. Meanwhile, although in the whirl of births he was on the\nupward grade, he yet had his ups and downs and there is no evidence\nthat Indian or Far Eastern Buddhists arrogated to themselves special\nclaims and powers on the ground that they were well advanced in the\ncareer of Buddhahood. The vow to suppress self and follow the light\nnot only in this life but in all future births contains an element of\nfaith or fantasy, but has any religion formed a nobler or even\nequivalent picture of the soul's destiny or built a better staircase\nfrom the world of men to the immeasurable spheres of the superhuman?\n\nOne aspect of the story of S\u00e2kyamuni and his antecedent births thus\nled to the idea that all may become Buddhas. An equally natural\ndevelopment in another direction created celestial and superhuman\nBodhisattvas. The Hinayana held that Gotama, before his last birth,\ndwelt in the Tushita heaven enjoying the power and splendour of an\nIndian god and it looked forward to the advent of Maitreya. But it\nadmitted no other Bodhisattvas, a consequence apparently of the\ndoctrine that there can only be one Buddha at a time. But the\nluxuriant fancy of India, which loves to multiply divinities, soon\nbroke through this restriction and fashioned for itself beautiful\nimages of benevolent beings who refuse the bliss of Nirvana that they\nmay alleviate the sufferings of others.[15] So far as we can judge,\nthe figures of these Bodhisattvas took shape just about the same time\nthat the personalities of Vishnu and Siva were acquiring consistency.\nThe impulse in both cases is the same, namely the desire to express in\na form accessible to human prayer and sympathetic to human emotion the\nforces which rule the universe. But in this work of portraiture the\nBuddhists laid more emphasis on moral and spiritual law than did the\nBrahmans: they isolated in personification qualities not found\nisolated in nature. Siva is the law of change, of death and rebirth,\nwith all the riot of slaughter and priapism which it entails: Vishnu\nis the protector and preserver, the type of good energy warring\nagainst evil, but the unity of the figure is smothered by mythology\nand broken up into various incarnations. But Avalokita and Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee,\nthough they had not such strong roots in Indian humanity as Siva and\nVishnu, are genii of purer and brighter presence. They are the\npersonifications of kindness and knowledge. Though manifold in shape,\nthey have little to do with mythology, and are analogous to the\narchangels of Christian and Jewish tradition and to the Amesha Spentas\nof Zoroastrianism. With these latter they may have some historical\nconnection, for Persian ideas may well have influenced Buddhism about\nthe time of the Christian era. However difficult it may be to prove\nthe foreign origin of Bodhisattvas, few of them have a clear origin in\nIndia and all of them are much better known in Central Asia and China.\nBut they are represented with the appearance and attributes of Indian\nDevas, as is natural, since even in the Pali Canon Devas form the\nBuddha's retinue. The early Buddhists considered that these spirits,\nwhether called Bodhisattvas or Devas, had attained their high position\nin the same way as S\u00e2kyamuni himself, that is by the practice of moral\nand intellectual virtues through countless existences, but\nsubsequently they came to be regarded as emanations or sons of\nsuperhuman Buddhas. Thus the K\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha relates how the original\n\u00c2di-Buddha produced Avalokita by meditation and how he in his turn\nproduced the universe with its gods.\n\nMillions of unnamed Bodhisattvas are freely mentioned and even in the\nolder books copious lists of names are found,[16] but two, Avalokita\nand Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee, tower above the rest, among whom only few have a\ndefinite personality. The tantric school counts eight of the first\nrank. Maitreya (who does not stand on the same footing as the others),\nSamantabhadra, Mah\u00e2sth\u00e2na-pr\u00e2pta and above all Kshitigarbha, have some\nimportance, especially in China and Japan.\n\nAvalokita[17] in many forms and in many ages has been one of the\nprincipal deities of Asia but his origin is obscure. His main\nattributes are plain. He is the personification of divine mercy and\npity but even the meaning of his name is doubtful. In its full form it\nis Avalokitesvara, often rendered the Lord who looks down (from\nheaven). This is an appropriate title for the God of Mercy, but the\nobvious meaning of the participle _avalokita_ in Sanskrit is passive,\nthe Lord who is looked at. Kern[18] thinks it may mean the Lord who is\neverywhere visible as a very present help in trouble, or else the Lord\nof View, like the epithet Drishtiguru applied to Siva. Another form\nof the name is Lokesvara or Lord of the world and this suggests that\n_avalokita_ may be a synonym of _loka_, meaning the visible universe.\nIt has also been suggested that the name may refer to the small image\nof Amit\u00e2bha which is set in his diadem and thus looks down on him. But\nsuch small images set in the head of a larger figure are not\ndistinctive of Avalokita: they are found in other Buddhist statues and\npaintings and also outside India, for instance at Palmyra. The Tibetan\ntranslation of the name[19] means he who sees with bright eyes. Hs\u00fcan\nChuang's rendering Kwan-tzu-tsai[20] expresses the same idea, but the\nmore usual Chinese translation Kuan-yin or Kuan-shih-yin, the deity\nwho looks upon voices or the region of voices, seems to imply a verbal\nmisunderstanding. For the use of Yin or voice makes us suspect that\nthe translator identified the last part of _Avalokitesvara_ not with\n_\u00cesvara_ lord but with _svara_ sound.[21]\n\nAvalokitesvara is unknown to the Pali Canon and the Milinda Pa\u00f1ha. So\nfar as I can discover he is not mentioned in the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na,\nJ\u00e2takam\u00e2l\u00e2 or any work attributed to Asvaghosha. His name does not\noccur in the Lalita-vistara but a list of Bodhisattvas in its\nintroductory chapter includes Mah\u00e2karun\u00e2candin, suggesting\nMah\u00e2karuna, the Great Compassionate, which is one of his epithets. In\nthe Lotus[22] he is placed second in the introductory list of\nBodhisattvas after Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee. But Chapter XXIV, which is probably a\nlater addition, is dedicated to his praises as Samantamukha, he who\nlooks every way or the omnipresent. In this section his character as\nthe all-merciful saviour is fully developed. He saves those who call\non him from shipwreck, and execution, from robbers and all violence\nand distress. He saves too from moral evils, such as passion, hatred\nand folly. He grants children to women who worship him. This power,\nwhich is commonly exercised by female deities, is worth remarking as a\nhint of his subsequent transformation into a goddess. For the better\nachievement of his merciful deeds, he assumes all manner of forms, and\nappears in the guise of a Buddha, a Bodhisattva, a Hindu deity, a\ngoblin, or a Brahman and in fact in any shape. This chapter was\ntranslated into Chinese before 417 A.D. and therefore can hardly be\nlater than 350. He is also mentioned in the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha. The\nrecords of the Chinese pilgrims Fa-Hsien and Hs\u00fcan Chuang[23] indicate\nthat his worship prevailed in India from the fourth till the seventh\ncentury and we are perhaps justified in dating its beginnings at least\ntwo centuries earlier. But the absence of any mention of it in the\nwritings of Asvaghosha is remarkable.[24]\n\nAvalokita is connected with a mountain called Potala or Potalaka. The\nname is borne by the palace of the Grand Lama at Lhassa and by another\nLamaistic establishment at Jehol in north China. It reappears in the\nsacred island of P\u00b4u-t\u00b4o near Ningpo. In all these cases the name of\nAvalokita's Indian residence has been transferred to foreign shrines.\nIn India there were at least two places called Potala or Potalaka--one\nat the mouth of the Indus and one in the south. No certain connection\nhas been traced between the former and the Bodhisattva but in the\nseventh century the latter was regarded as his abode. Our information\nabout it comes mainly from Hs\u00fcan Chuang[25] who describes it when\nspeaking of the Malakuta country and as near the Mo-lo-ya (Malaya)\nmountain. But apparently he did not visit it and this makes it\nprobable that it was not a religious centre but a mountain in the\nsouth of which Buddhists in the north wrote with little precision.[26]\nThere is no evidence that Avalokita was first worshipped on this\nPotalaka, though he is often associated with mountains such as Kapota\nin Magadha and Valavat\u00ee in Kat\u00e2ha.[27] In fact the connection of\nPotala with Avalokita remains a mystery.\n\nAvalokita has, like most Bodhisattvas, many names. Among the principal\nare Mah\u00e2karuna, the Great Compassionate one, Lokan\u00e2tha or Lokesvara,\nthe Lord of the world, and Padmap\u00e2ni, or lotus-handed. This last\nrefers to his appearance as portrayed in statues and miniatures. In\nthe older works of art his figure is human, without redundant limbs,\nand represents a youth in the costume of an Indian prince with a high\njewelled chignon, or sometimes a crown. The head-dress is usually\nsurmounted by a small figure of Amit\u00e2bha. His right hand is extended\nin the position known as the gesture of charity.[28] In his left he\ncarries a red lotus and he often stands on a larger blossom. His\ncomplexion is white or red. Sometimes he has four arms and in later\nimages a great number. He then carries besides the lotus such objects\nas a book, a rosary and a jug of nectar.[29]\n\nThe images with many eyes and arms seem an attempt to represent him as\nlooking after the unhappy in all quarters and stretching out his hands\nin help.[30] It is doubtful if the Bodhisattvas of the Gandhara\nsculptures, though approaching the type of Avalokita, represent him\nrather than any other, but nearly all the Buddhist sites of India\ncontain representations of him which date from the early centuries of\nour era[31] and others are preserved in the miniatures of\nmanuscripts.[32]\n\nHe is not a mere adaptation of any one Hindu god. Some of his\nattributes are also those of Brahm\u00e2. Though in some late texts he is\nsaid to have evolved the world from himself, his characteristic\nfunction is not to create but, like Vishnu, to save and like Vishnu he\nholds a lotus. But also he has the title of \u00cesvara, which is specially\napplied to Siva. Thus he does not issue from any local cult and has no\nsingle mythological pedigree but is the idea of divine compassion\nrepresented with such materials as the art and mythology of the day\noffered.\n\nHe is often accompanied by a female figure T\u00e2r\u00e2.[33] In the tantric\nperiod she is recognized as his spouse and her images, common in\nnorthern India from the seventh century onwards, show that she was\nadored as a female Bodhisattva. In Tibet T\u00e2r\u00e2 is an important deity\nwho assumes many forms and even before the tantric influence had\nbecome prominent she seems to have been associated with Avalokita. In\nthe Dharmasangraha she is named as one of the four Dev\u00ees, and she is\nmentioned twice under the name of To-lo Pu-sa by Hs\u00fcan Chuang, who saw\na statue of her in Vaisali and another at Tiladhaka in Magadha. This\nlast stood on the right of a gigantic figure of Buddha, Avalokita\nbeing on his left.[34]\n\nHs\u00fcan Chuang distinguishes To-lo (T\u00e2r\u00e2) and Kuan-tzu-tsai. The latter\nunder the name of Kuan-yin or Kwannon has become the most popular\ngoddess of China and Japan, but is apparently a form of Avalokita. The\ngod in his desire to help mankind assumes many shapes and, among\nthese, divine womanhood has by the suffrage of millions been judged\nthe most appropriate. But T\u00e2r\u00e2 was not originally the same as\nKuan-yin, though the fact that she accompanies Avalokita and shares\nhis attributes may have made it easier to think of him in female\nform.[35]\n\nThe circumstances in which Avalokita became a goddess are obscure. The\nIndian images of him are not feminine, although his sex is hardly\nnoticed before the tantric period. He is not a male deity like\nKrishna, but a strong, bright spirit and like the Christian archangels\nabove sexual distinctions. No female form of him is reported from\nTibet and this confirms the idea that none was known in India,[36] and\nthat the change was made in China. It was probably facilitated by the\nworship of T\u00e2r\u00e2 and of H\u00e2rit\u00ee, an ogress who was converted by the\nBuddha and is frequently represented in her regenerate state caressing\na child. She is mentioned by Hs\u00fcan Chuang and by I-Ching who adds that\nher image was already known in China. The Chinese also worshipped a\nnative goddess called T'ien-hou or T'ou-mu. Kuan-yin was also\nidentified with an ancient Chinese heroine called Miao-sh\u00ean.[37] This\nis parallel to the legend of Ti-tsang (Kshitigarbha) who, though a\nmale Bodhisattva, was a virtuous maiden in two of his previous\nexistences. Evidently Chinese religious sentiment required a Madonna\nand it is not unnatural if the god of mercy, who was reputed to assume\nmany shapes and to give sons to the childless, came to be thought of\nchiefly in a feminine form. The artists of the T'ang dynasty usually\nrepresented Avalokita as a youth with a slight moustache and the\nevidence as to early female figures does not seem to me strong,[38]\nthough _a priori_ I see no reason for doubting their existence. In\n1102 a Chinese monk named P'u-ming published a romantic legend of\nKuan-yin's earthly life which helped to popularize her worship. In\nthis and many other cases the later developments of Buddhism are due\nto Chinese fancy and have no connection with Indian tradition.\n\nT\u00e2r\u00e2 is a goddess of north India, Nepal and the Lamaist Church and\nalmost unknown in China and Japan. Her name means she who causes to\ncross, that is who saves, life and its troubles being by a common\nmetaphor described as a sea. T\u00e2r\u00e2 also means a star and in Puranic\nmythology is the name given to the mother of Buddha, the planet\nMercury. Whether the name was first used by Buddhists or Brahmans is\nunknown, but after the seventh century there was a decided tendency to\ngive T\u00e2r\u00e2 the epithets bestowed on the Saktis of Siva and assimilate\nher to those goddesses. Thus in the list of her 108 names[39] she is\ndescribed among other more amiable attributes as terrible, furious,\nthe slayer of evil beings, the destroyer, and K\u00e2l\u00ee: also as carrying\nskulls and being the mother of the Vedas. Here we have if not the\nborrowing by Buddhists of a Saiva deity, at least the grafting of\nSaiva conceptions on a Bodhisattva.\n\nThe second great Bodhisattva Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee[40] has other similar names,\nsuch as Ma\u00f1jun\u00e2tha and Ma\u00f1jughosha, the word Ma\u00f1ju meaning sweet or\npleasant. He is also Vag\u00eesvara, the Lord of Speech, and Kum\u00e2rabh\u00fbta,\nthe Prince, which possibly implies that he is the Buddha's eldest son,\ncharged with the government under his direction. He has much the same\nliterary history as Avalokita, not being mentioned in the Pali Canon\nnor in the earlier Sanskrit works such as the Lalita-vistara and\nDivy\u00e2vad\u00e2na. But his name occurs in the Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha: he is the\nprincipal interlocutor in the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra s\u00fbtra and is extolled in the\nRatna-karandaka-vy\u00fbha-s\u00fbtra.[41] In the greater part of the Lotus he\nis the principal Bodhisattva and instructs Maitreya, because, though\nhis youth is eternal, he has known many Buddhas through innumerable\nages. The Lotus[42] also recounts how he visited the depths of the sea\nand converted the inhabitants thereof and how the Lord taught him what\nare the duties of a Bodhisattva after the Buddha has entered finally\ninto Nirvana. As a rule he has no consort and appears as a male\nAthene, all intellect and chastity, but sometimes Lakshm\u00ee or Sarasvat\u00ee\nor both are described as his consorts.[43]\n\nHis worship prevailed not only in India but in Nepal, Tibet, China,\nJapan and Java. Fa-Hsien states that he was honoured in Central India,\nand Hs\u00fcan Chuang that there were stupas dedicated to him at\nMuttra.[44] He is also said to have been incarnate in At\u00eesa, the\nTibetan reformer, and in Vairocana who introduced Buddhism to Khotan,\nbut, great as is his benevolence, he is not so much the helper of\nhuman beings, which is Avalokita's special function, as the\npersonification of thought, knowledge, and meditation. It is for this\nthat he has in his hands the sword of knowledge and a book. A\nbeautiful figure from Java bearing these emblems is in the Berlin\nMuseum.[45] Miniatures represent him as of a yellow colour with the\nhands (when they do not carry emblems) set in the position known as\nteaching the law.[46] Other signs which distinguish his images are the\nblue lotus and the lion on which he sits.\n\nAn interesting fact about Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee is his association with China,[47]\nnot only in Chinese but in late Indian legends. The mountain\nWu-t'ai-shan in the province of Shan-si is sacred to him and is\ncovered with temples erected in his honour.[48] The name (mountain of\nfive terraces) is rendered in Sanskrit as Pancas\u00eersha, or Pancasikha,\nand occurs both in the Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na and in the text appended to\nminiatures representing Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee. The principal temple is said to have\nbeen erected between 471 and 500 A.D. I have not seen any statement\nthat the locality was sacred in pre-Buddhist times, but it was\nprobably regarded as the haunt of deities, one of whom--perhaps some\nspirit of divination--was identified with the wise Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee. It is\npossible that during the various inroads of Gr\u00e6co-Bactrians,\nY\u00fceh-Chih, and other Central Asian tribes into India, Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee was\nsomehow imported into the pantheon of the Mahayana from China or\nCentral Asia, and he has, especially in the earlier descriptions, a\ncertain pure and abstract quality which recalls the Amesha-Spentas of\nPersia. But still his attributes are Indian, and there is little\npositive evidence of a foreign origin. I-Ching is the first to tell us\nthat the Hindus believed he came from China.[49] Hs\u00fcan Chuang does not\nmention this belief, and probably did not hear of it, for it is an\ninteresting detail which no one writing for a Chinese audience would\nhave omitted. We may therefore suppose that the idea arose in India\nabout 650 A.D. By that date the temples of Wu-t'ai-Shan would have had\ntime to become celebrated, and the visits paid to India by\ndistinguished Chinese Buddhists would be likely to create the\nimpression that China was a centre of the faith and frequented by\nBodhisattvas.[50] We hear that Vajrabodhi (about 700) and Praj\u00f1a (782)\nboth went to China to adore Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee. In 824 a Tibetan envoy arrived\nat the Chinese Court to ask for an image of Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee, and later the\nGrand Lamas officially recognized that he was incarnate in the\nEmperor.[51] Another legend relates that Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee came from\nWu-t'ai-Shan to adore a miraculous lotus[52] that appeared on the lake\nwhich then filled Nepal. With a blow of his sword he cleft the\nmountain barrier and thus drained the valley and introduced\ncivilization. There may be hidden in this some tradition of the\nintroduction of culture into Nepal but the Nepalese legends are late\nand in their collected form do not go back beyond the sixteenth\ncentury.\n\nAfter Avalokita and Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee the most important Bodhisattva is\nMaitreya,[53] also called Ajita or unconquered, who is the only one\nrecognized by the Pali Canon.[54] This is because he does not stand on\nthe same footing as the others. They are superhuman in their origin as\nwell as in their career, whereas Maitreya is simply a being who like\nGotama has lived innumerable lives and ultimately made himself worthy\nof Buddhahood which he awaits in heaven. There is no reason to doubt\nthat Gotama regarded himself as one in a series of Buddhas: the Pali\nscriptures relate that he mentioned his predecessors by name, and also\nspoke of unnumbered Buddhas to come.[55] Nevertheless Maitreya or\nMetteyya is rarely mentioned in the Pali Canon.[56]\n\nHe is, however, frequently alluded to in the exegetical Pali\nliterature, in the An\u00e2gata-vamsa and in the earlier Sanskrit works\nsuch as the Lalita-vistara, the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na and Mah\u00e2vastu. In the\nLotus he plays a prominent part, but still is subordinate to Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee.\nUltimately he was eclipsed by the two great Bodhisattvas but in the\nearly centuries of our era he received much respect. His images are\nfrequent in all parts of the Buddhist world: he was believed to watch\nover the propagation of the Faith,[57] and to have made special\nrevelations to Asanga.[58] In paintings he is usually of a golden\ncolour: his statues, which are often gigantic, show him standing or\nsitting in the European fashion and not cross-legged. He appears to be\nrepresented in the earliest Gandharan sculptures and there was a\nfamous image of him in Udy\u00e2na of which Fa-Hsien (399-414 A.D.) speaks\nas if it were already ancient.[59] Hs\u00fcan Chuang describes it as well\nas a stupa erected[60] to commemorate S\u00e2kyamuni's prediction that\nMaitreya would be his successor. On attaining Buddhahood he will\nbecome lord of a terrestrial paradise and hold three assemblies under\na dragon flower tree,[61] at which all who have been good Buddhists in\nprevious births will become Arhats. I-Ching speaks of meditating on\nthe advent of Maitreya in language like that which Christian piety\nuses of the second coming of Christ and concludes a poem which is\nincorporated in his work with the aspiration \"Deep as the depth of a\nlake be my pure and calm meditation. Let me look for the first\nmeeting under the Tree of the Dragon Flower when I hear the deep\nrippling voice of the Buddha Maitreya.\"[62] But messianic ideas were\nnot much developed in either Buddhism or Hinduism and perhaps the\nfigures of both Maitreya and Kalk\u00ee owe something to Persian legends\nabout Saoshyant the Saviour.\n\nThe other Bodhisattvas, though lauded in special treatises, have left\nlittle impression on Indian Buddhism and have obtained in the Far East\nmost of whatever importance they possess. The makers of images and\nminiatures assign to each his proper shape and colour, but when we\nread about them we feel that we are dealing not with the objects of\nreal worship or even the products of a lively imagination, but with\nnames and figures which have a value for picturesque but conventional\nart.\n\nAmong the best known is Samantabhadra, the all gracious,[63] who is\nstill a popular deity in Tibet and the patron saint of the sacred\nmountain Omei in China, with which he is associated as Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee with\nWu-tai-shan. He is represented as green and riding on an elephant. In\nIndian Buddhism he has a moderately prominent position. He is\nmentioned in the Dharmasangraha and in one chapter of the Lotus he is\ncharged with the special duty of protecting those who follow the law.\nBut the Chinese pilgrims do not mention his worship.\n\nMah\u00e2sth\u00e2mapr\u00e2pta[64] is a somewhat similar figure. A chapter of the\nLotus (XIX) is dedicated to him without however giving any clear idea\nof his personality and he is extolled in several descriptions of\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee or Paradise, especially in the Amit\u00e2yurdhy\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra.\nTogether with Amit\u00e2bha and Avalokita he forms a triad who rule this\nHappy Land and are often represented by three images in Chinese\ntemples.\n\nVajrap\u00e2ni is mentioned in many lists of Bodhisattvas (_e.g._ in the\nDharmasangraha) but is of somewhat doubtful position as Hs\u00fcan Chuang\ncalls him a deva.[65] Historically his recognition as a Bodhisattva is\ninteresting for he is merely Indra transformed into a Buddhist. The\nmysterious personages called Vajradhara and Vajrasattva, who in later\ntimes are even identified with the original Buddha spirit, are further\ndevelopments of Vajrap\u00e2ni. He owes his elevation to the fact that\n_Vajra_, originally meaning simply thunderbolt, came to be used as a\nmystical expression for the highest truth.\n\nMore important than these is Kshitigarbha, Ti-tsang or Jizo[66] who in\nChina and Japan ranks second only to Kuan-yin. Visser has consecrated\nto him an interesting monograph[67] which shows what strange changes\nand chances may attend spirits and how ideal figures may alter as\ncentury after century they travel from land to land. We know little\nabout the origin of Kshitigarbha. The name seems to mean Earth-womb\nand he has a shadowy counterpart in Ak\u00e2sagarbha, a similar deity of\nthe air, who it seems never had a hold on human hearts. The Earth is\ngenerally personified as a goddess[68] and Kshitigarbha has some\nslight feminine traits, though on the whole decidedly masculine. The\nstories of his previous births relate how he was twice a woman: in\nJapan he was identified with the mountain goddess of Kamado, and he\nhelps women in labour, a boon generally accorded by goddesses. In the\npantheon of India he played an inconspicuous part,[69] though reckoned\none of the eight great Bodhisattvas, but met with more general esteem\nin Turkestan, where he began to collect the attributes afterwards\ndefined in the Far East. It is there that his history and\ntransformations become clear.\n\nHe is primarily a deity of the nether world, but like Amit\u00e2bha and\nAvalokita he made a vow to help all living creatures and specially to\ndeliver them from hell. The Taoists pictured hell as divided into ten\ndepartments ruled over by as many kings, and Chinese fancy made\nTi-tsang the superintendent of these functionaries. He thus becomes\nnot so much a Saviour as the kindly superintendent of a prison who\npreaches to the inmates and willingly procures their release. Then we\nhear of six Ti-tsangs, corresponding to the six worlds of sentient\nbeings, the gracious spirit being supposed to multiply his personality\nin order to minister to the wants of all. He is often represented as a\nmonk, staff in hand and with shaven head. The origin of this guise is\nnot clear and it perhaps refers to his previous births. But in the\neighth century a monk of Chiu Hua[70] was regarded as an incarnation\nof Ti-tsang and after death his body was gilded and enshrined as an\nobject of worship. In later times the Bodhisattva was confused with\nthe incarnation, in the same way as the portly figure of Pu-tai,\ncommonly known as the laughing Buddha, has been substituted for\nMaitreya in Chinese iconography.\n\nIn Japan the cult of the six Jizos became very popular. They were\nregarded as the deities of roads[71] and their effigies ultimately\nsuperseded the ancient phallic gods of the crossways. In this martial\ncountry the Bodhisattva assumed yet another character as Shogun Jizo,\na militant priest riding on horseback[72] and wearing a helmet who\nbecame the patron saint of warriors and was even identified with the\nJapanese war god, Hachiman. Until the seventeenth century Jizo was\nworshipped principally by soldiers and priests, but subsequently his\ncult spread among all classes and in all districts. His benevolent\nactivities as a guide and saviour were more and more emphasized: he\nheals sickness, he lengthens life, he leads to heaven, he saves from\nhell: he even suffers as a substitute in hell and is the special\nprotector of the souls of children amid the perils of the underworld.\nThough this modern figure of Jizo is wrought with ancient materials,\nit is in the main a work of Japanese sentiment.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 5: In dealing with the Mahayanists, I use the expression\nS\u00e2kyamuni in preference to Gotama. It is their own title for the\nteacher and it seems incongruous to use the purely human name of\nGotama in describing doctrines which represent him as superhuman.]\n\n[Footnote 6: But Kings Hsin-byu-shin of Burma and Sr\u00ee S\u00fbryavamsa R\u00e2ma\nof Siam have left inscriptions recording their desire to become\nBuddhas. See my chapters on Burma and Siam below. Mahayanist ideas may\neasily have entered these countries from China, but even in Ceylon the\nidea of becoming a Buddha or Bodhisattva is not unknown. See _Manual\nof a Mystic_ (P.T.S. 1916), pp. xviii and 140.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _E.g._ in Itivuttakam 75, there is a description of the\nman who is like a drought and gives nothing, the man who is like rain\nin a certain district and the man who is Sabbabh\u00fbt\u00e2nukampako,\ncompassionate to all creatures, and like rain falling everywhere.\nSimilarly _Ib._ 84, and elsewhere, we have descriptions of persons\n(ordinary disciples as well as Buddhas) who are born for the welfare\nof gods and men bahujanahit\u00e2ya, bahujanasukh\u00e2ya, lok\u00e2nukamp\u00e2ya,\natth\u00e2ya, hit\u00e2ya, sukh\u00e2ya devamanuss\u00e2nam.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Ed. Senart, vol. I. p. 142.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The Bodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra was edited by Minayeff, 1889 and\nalso in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Society_ and the\n_Bibliotheca Indica_. De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin published parts of the text\nand commentary in his _Bouddhisme_ and also a translation in 1907.]\n\n[Footnote 10: The career of the Bodhisattva is also discussed in\ndetail in the Avatamsaka s\u00fbtra and in works attributed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\nand Sthiramati, the Lakshana-vimukta-hridaya-s\u00e2stra and the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-dharma-dh\u00e2tvaviseshata-s\u00e2stra. I only know of these works as\nquoted by Teitaro Suzuki.]\n\n[Footnote 11: See Childers, _Pali Dict._ s.v. Patti, Pattianuppad\u00e2nam\nand Pu\u00f1\u00f1o.]\n\n[Footnote 12: It occurs in the Pali Canon, _e.g._ Itivuttakam 100.\nTassa me tumhe putt\u00e2 oras\u00e2, mukhato j\u00e2t\u00e2, dhammaj\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 13: See Sylvain L\u00e9vi, _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra_: introduction\nand passim. For much additional information about the Bh\u00fbmis see De la\nVall\u00e9e Poussin's article \"Bodhisattva\" in _E.R.E._]\n\n[Footnote 14: Eminent doctors such as N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and Asanga are often\ndescribed as Bodhisattvas just as eminent Hindu teachers, _e.g._\nCaitanya, are described as Avat\u00e2ras.]\n\n[Footnote 15: The idea that Arhats may postpone their entry into\nNirvana for the good of the world is not unknown to the Pali Canon.\nAccording to the Maha Parin-Sutta the Buddha himself might have done\nso. Legends which cannot be called definitely Mahayanist relate how\nPindola and others are to tarry until Maitreya come and how K\u00e2syapa\nin a less active role awaits him in a cave or tomb, ready to revive at\nhis advent. See _J.A._ 1916, II. pp. 196, 270.]\n\n[Footnote 16: _E.g._ Lotus, chap. I.]\n\n[Footnote 17: De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin's article \"Avalokita\" in _E.R.E._\nmay be consulted.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Lotus, _S.B.E._ XXI. p. 407.]\n\n[Footnote 19: sPyan-ras-gzigs rendered in Mongol by Nid\u00fcb\u00e4r-\u00fcdz\u00e4kci.\nThe other common Mongol name Ariobalo appears to be a corruption of\n\u00c2ry\u00e2valokita.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Meaning apparently the seeing and self-existent one. Cf.\nTa-tzu-tsai as a name of Siva.]\n\n[Footnote 21: A maidservant in the drama M\u00e2lat\u00eem\u00e2dhava is called\nAvalokita. It is not clear whether it is a feminine form of the divine\nname or an adjective meaning looked-at, or admirable.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _S.B.E._ XXI. pp. 4 and 406 ff. It was translated in\nChinese between A.D. 265 and 316 and chap. XXIV was separately\ntranslated between A.D. 384 and 417. See Nanjio, Catalogue Nos. 136,\n137, 138.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Hs\u00fcan Chuang (Watters, II. 215, 224) relates how an\nIndian sage recited the Sui-hsin dh\u00e2rani before Kuan-tzu-tsai's image\nfor three years.]\n\n[Footnote 24: As will be noticed from time to time in these pages, the\nsudden appearance of new deities in Indian literature often seems\nstrange. The fact is that until deities are generally recognized,\nstandard works pay no attention to them.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Watters, vol. II. pp. 228 ff. It is said that Potalaka\nis also mentioned in the Hwa-yen-ching or Avatamsaka s\u00fbtra. Tibetan\ntradition connects it with the S\u00e2kya family. See Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6s,\nTibetan studies reprinted 1912, pp. 32-34.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Just as the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra s\u00fbtra purports to have been\ndelivered at _Lankapura-samudra-malaya-sikhara_ rendered in the\nChinese translation as \"in the city of Lanka on the summit of the\nMalaya mountain on the border of the sea.\"]\n\n[Footnote 27: See Foucher, _Iconographie bouddhique_, 1900, pp. 100,\n102.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Varamudra.]\n\n[Footnote 29: These as well as the red colour are attributes of the\nHindu deity Brahm\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 30: A temple on the north side of the lake in the Imperial\nCity at Peking contains a gigantic image of him which has literally a\nthousand heads and a thousand hands. This monstrous figure is a\nwarning against an attempt to represent metaphors literally.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Waddell on the Cult of Avalokita, _J.R.A.S._ 1894, pp.\n51 ff. thinks they are not earlier than the fifth century.]\n\n[Footnote 32: See especially Foucher, _Iconographie Bouddhique_,\nParis, 1900.]\n\n[Footnote 33: See especially de Blonay, _Etudes pour servir a\nl'histoire de la d\u00e9esse bouddhique T\u00e2r\u00e2_, Paris, 1895. T\u00e2r\u00e2 continued\nto be worshipped as a Hindu goddess after Buddhism had disappeared and\nseveral works were written in her honour. See Raj. Mitra, _Search for\nSk. MSS_. IV. 168, 171, X. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 34: About the time of Hs\u00fcan Chuang's travels Sarvaj\u00f1\u00e2mitra\nwrote a hymn to T\u00e2r\u00e2 which has been preserved and published by de\nBlonay, 1894.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Chinese Buddhists say T\u00e2r\u00e2 and Kuan-Yin are the same but\nthe difference between them is this. T\u00e2r\u00e2 is an Indian and Lamaist\ngoddess _associated_ with Avalokita and in origin analogous to the\nSaktis of Tantrism. Kuan-yin is a female form of Avalokita who can\nassume all shapes. The original Kuan-yin was a male deity: male\nKuan-yins are not unknown in China and are said to be the rule in\nKorea. But T\u00e2r\u00e2 and Kuan-yin may justly be described as the same in so\nfar as they are attempts to embody the idea of divine pity in a\nMadonna.]\n\n[Footnote 36: But many scholars think that the formula Om manipadme\nhum, which is supposed to be addressed to Avalokita, is really an\ninvocation to a form of Sakti called Manipadm\u00e2. A Nepalese\ninscription says that \"The S\u00e2ktas call him Sakti\" (_E.R.E._ vol. II.\np. 260 and _J.A._ IX. 192), but this may be merely a way of saying\nthat he is identical with the great gods of all sects.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Harlez, _Livre des esprits et des immortels_, p. 195,\nand Dor\u00e9, _Recherches sur les superstitions en Chine_, pp. 94-138.]\n\n[Footnote 38: See Fenollosa, _Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art_ I.\npp. 105 and 124; Johnston, _Buddhist China_, 275 ff. Several Chinese\ndeities appear to be of uncertain or varying sex. Thus Chun-ti is\nsometimes described as a deified Chinese General and sometimes\nidentified with the Indian goddess Mar\u00eec\u00ee. Y\u00fc-ti, generally masculine,\nis sometimes feminine. See Dor\u00e9, _l.c._ 212. Still more strangely the\nPatriarch Asvaghosha (Ma Ming) is represented by a female figure. On\nthe other hand the monk Ta Sh\u00eang (c. 705 A.D.) is said to have been an\nincarnation of the female Kuan Yin. Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee is said to be worshipped\nin Nepal sometimes as a male, sometimes as a female. See Bendall and\nHaraprasad, _Nepalese MSS_. p. lxvii.]\n\n[Footnote 39: de Blonay, _l.c._ pp. 48-57.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Chinese, Man-chu-shih-li, or W\u00ean-shu; Japanese, Monju;\nTibetan, hJam-pahi-dbyans (pronounced Jam-yang). Ma\u00f1ju is good\nSanskrit, but it must be confessed that the name has a Central-Asian\nring.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Translated into Chinese 270 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Chaps. XI. and XIII.]\n\n[Footnote 43: A special work Ma\u00f1jusr\u00eevikr\u00eedita (Nanjio, 184, 185)\ntranslated into Chinese 313 A.D. is quoted as describing Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee's\ntransformations and exploits.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Hs\u00fcan Chuang also relates how he assisted a philosopher\ncalled Ch'en-na (=Dinn\u00e2ga) and bade him study Mahayanist books.]\n\n[Footnote 45: It is reproduced in Gr\u00fcnwedel's _Buddhist Art in India_.\nTranslated by Gibson, 1901, p. 200.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Dharmacakramudra.]\n\n[Footnote 47: For the Nepalese legends see S. Levi, _Le Nepal_,\n1905-9.]\n\n[Footnote 48: For an account of this sacred mountain see Edkins,\n_Religion in China_, chaps. XVII to XIX.]\n\n[Footnote 49: See I-tsing, trans. Takakusu, 1896, p. 136. For some\nfurther remarks on the possible foreign origin of Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee see below,\nchapter on Central Asia. The verses attributed to King Harsha (Nanjio,\n1071) praise the reliquaries of China but without details.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Some of the Tantras, _e.g._ the Mah\u00e2c\u00eenakram\u00e2c\u00e2ra, though\nthey do not connect Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee with China, represent some of their most\nsurprising novelties as having been brought thence by ancient sages\nlike Vasishtha.]\n\n[Footnote 51: _J.R.A.S._ new series, XII. 522 and _J.A.S.B_. 1882, p.\n41. The name Manchu perhaps contributed to this belief.]\n\n[Footnote 52: It is described as a Svayambh\u00fb or spontaneous\nmanifestation of the \u00c2di-Buddha.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Sanskrit, Maitreya; Pali, Metteyya; Chinese, Mi-li;\nJapanese, Miroku; Mongol, Maidari; Tibetan, Byams-pa (pronounced\nJampa). For the history of the Maitreya idea see especially P\u00e9ri,\n_B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, pp. 439-457.]\n\n[Footnote 54: But a Siamese inscription of about 1361, possibly\ninfluenced by Chinese Mahayanism, speaks of the ten Bodhisattvas\nheaded by Metteyya. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1917, No. 2, pp. 30, 31.]\n\n[Footnote 55: _E.g._ in the Mah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2na S\u00fbtra.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Dig. Nik. XXVI. 25 and Buddhavamsa, XXVII. 19, and even\nthis last verse is said to be an addition.]\n\n[Footnote 57: See _e.g._ Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. 239.]\n\n[Footnote 58: See Watters and P\u00e9ri in _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 439. A temple\nof Maitreya has been found at Turfan in Central Asia with a Chinese\ninscription which speaks of him as an active and benevolent deity\nmanifesting himself in many forms.]\n\n[Footnote 59: He has not fared well in Chinese iconography which\nrepresents him as an enormously fat smiling monk. In the Liang dynasty\nthere was a monk called Pu-tai (Jap. Hotei) who was regarded as an\nincarnation of Maitreya and became a popular subject for caricature.\nIt would appear that the Bodhisattva himself has become superseded by\nthis cheerful but undignified incarnation.]\n\n[Footnote 60: The stupa was apparently at Benares but Hs\u00fcan Chuang's\nnarrative is not clear and other versions make R\u00e2jagriha or Sr\u00e2vasti\nthe scene of the prediction.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Campa. This is his bodhi tree under which he will obtain\nenlightenment as S\u00e2kyamuni under the _Ficus religiosa_. Each Buddha\nhas his own special kind of bodhi tree.]\n\n[Footnote 62: _Record of the Buddhist religion_, Trans. Takakusu, p.\n213. See too Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. 57, 144, 210, 215.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Chinese P'u-hsien. See Johnston, _From Peking to\nMandalay_, for an interesting account of Mt. Omei.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Or Mah\u00e2sth\u00e2na. Chinese, Tai-shih-chih. He appears to be\nthe Arhat Maudgaly\u00e2yana deified. In China and Japan there is a marked\ntendency to regard all Bodhisattvas as ancient worthies who by their\nvows and virtues have risen to their present high position. But these\neuhemeristic explanations are common in the Far East and the real\norigin of the Bodhisattvas may be quite different.]\n\n[Footnote 65: _E.g._ Watters, I. p. 229, II. 215.]\n\n[Footnote 66: Kshitigarbha is translated into Chinese as Ti-tsang and\nJizo is the Japanese pronunciation of the same two characters.]\n\n[Footnote 67: In _Ostasiat. Ztsft_. 1913-15. See too Johnston,\n_Buddhist China_, chap. VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 68: The Earth goddess is known to the earliest Buddhist\nlegends. The Buddha called her to witness when sitting under the Bo\ntree.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Three S\u00fbtras, analysed by Visser, treat of Kshitigarbha.\nThey are Nanjio, Nos. 64, 65, 67.]\n\n[Footnote 70: A celebrated monastery in the portion of An-hui which\nlies to the south of the Yang-tse. See Johnston, _Buddhist China_,\nchaps, VIII, IX and X.]\n\n[Footnote 71: There is some reason to think that even in Turkestan\nKshitigarbha was a god of roads.]\n\n[Footnote 72: In Annam too Jizo is represented on horseback.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTHE BUDDHAS OF MAHAYANISM\n\n\nThis mythology did not grow up around the Buddha without affecting the\ncentral figure. To understand the extraordinary changes of meaning\nboth mythological and metaphysical which the word Buddha undergoes in\nMahayanist theology we must keep in mind not the personality of Gotama\nbut the idea that he is one of several successive Buddhas who for\nconvenience may be counted as four, seven or twenty-four but who\nreally form an infinite series extending without limit backwards into\nthe past and forwards into the future.[73] This belief in a series of\nBuddhas produced a plentiful crop of imaginary personalities and also\nof speculations as to their connection with one another, with the\nphenomena of the world and with the human soul.\n\nIn the Pali Canon the Buddhas antecedent to Gotama are introduced much\nlike ancient kings as part of the legendary history of this world. But\nin the Lalita-vistara (Chap. XX) and the Lotus (Chap. VII) we hear of\nBuddhas, usually described as Tath\u00e2gatas, who apparently do not belong\nto this world at all, but rule various points of the compass, or\nregions described as Buddha-fields (Buddha-kshetra). Their names are\nnot the same in the different accounts and we remain dazzled by an\nendless panorama of an infinity of universes with an infinity of\nshining Buddhas, illuminating infinite space.\n\nSomewhat later five of these unearthly Buddhas were formed into a\npentad and described as Jinas[74] or Dhy\u00e2ni Buddhas (Buddhas of\ncontemplation), namely, Vairocana, Akshobhya, Ratnasambhava, Amit\u00e2bha\nand Amoghasiddhi. In the fully developed form of this doctrine these\nfive personages are produced by contemplation from the \u00c2di-Buddha or\noriginal Buddha spirit and themselves produce various reflexes,\nincluding Bodhisattvas, human Buddhas and goddesses like T\u00e2r\u00e2. The\ndate when these beliefs first became part of the accepted Mahayana\ncreed cannot be fixed but probably the symmetrical arrangement of five\nBuddhas is not anterior to the tantric period[75] of Buddhism.\n\nThe most important of the five are Vairocana and Amit\u00e2bha. Akshobhya\nis mentioned in both the Lotus and Smaller Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha as the\nchief Buddha of the eastern quarter, and a work purporting to be a\ndescription of his paradise still extant in Chinese[76] is said to\nhave been translated in the time of the Eastern Han dynasty. But even\nin the Far East he did not find many worshippers. More enduring has\nbeen the glory of Vairocana who is the chief deity of the Shingon sect\nin Japan and is represented by the gigantic image in the temple at\nNara. In Java he seems to have been regarded as the principal and\nsupreme Buddha. The name occurs in the Mah\u00e2vastu as the designation of\nan otherwise unknown Buddha of luminous attributes and in the Lotus we\nhear of a distant Buddha-world called Vairocana-rasmi-pratimandita,\nembellished by the rays of the sun.[77] Vairocana is clearly a\nderivative of Virocana, a recognized title of the sun in Sanskrit, and\nis rendered in Chinese by Ta-jih meaning great Sun. How this solar\ndeity first came to be regarded as a Buddha is not known but the\nconnection between a Buddha and light has always been recognized. Even\nthe Pali texts represent Gotama as being luminous on some occasions\nand in the Mahayanist scriptures Buddhas are radiant and light-giving\nbeings, surrounded by halos of prodigious extent and emitting flashes\nwhich illuminate the depths of space. The visions of innumerable\nparadises in all quarters containing jewelled stupas and lighted by\nrefulgent Buddhas which are frequent in these works seem founded on\nastronomy vaporized under the influence of the idea that there are\nmillions of universes all equally transitory and unsubstantial. There\nis no reason, so far as I see, to regard Gotama as a mythical solar\nhero, but the celestial Buddhas[78] clearly have many solar\nattributes. This is natural. Solar deities are so abundant in Vedic\nmythology that it is hardly possible to be a benevolent god without\nhaving something of the character of the sun. The stream of foreign\nreligions which flowed into India from Bactria and Persia about the\ntime of the Christian era brought new aspects of sun worship such as\nMithra, Helios and Apollo and strengthened the tendency to connect\ndivinity and light. And this connection was peculiarly appropriate and\nobvious in the case of a Buddha, for Buddhas are clearly revealers and\nlight-givers, conquerors of darkness and dispellers of ignorance.\n\nAmit\u00e2bha (or the Buddha of measureless light), rising suddenly from an\nobscure origin, has like Avalokita and Vishnu become one of the great\ngods of Asia. He is also known as Amit\u00e2yus or measureless life, and is\ntherefore a god of light and immortality. According to both the Lotus\nand the Smaller Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha he is the lord of the western quarter\nbut he is unknown to the Lalita-vistara. It gives the ruler of the\nwest a lengthy title,[79] which suggests a land of gardens. Now\nParadise, which has biblical authority as a name for the place of\ndeparted spirits, appears to mean in Persian a park or enclosed garden\nand the Avesta speaks of four heavens, the good thought Paradise, the\ngood word Paradise, the good deed Paradise and the Endless Lights.[80]\nThis last expression bears a remarkable resemblance to the name of\nAmit\u00e2bha and we can understand that he should rule the west, because\nit is the home to which the sun and departed spirits go. Amit\u00e2bha's\nParadise is called Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee or Happy Land. In the Puranas the city of\nVaruna (who is suspected of having a non-Indian origin) is said to be\nsituated in the west and is called Sukha (Linga P. and Vayu P.) or\nMukhya (so Vishnu P. and others). The name Amit\u00e2bha also occurs in the\nVishnu Purana as the name of a class of gods and it is curious that\nthey are in one place[81] associated with other deities called the\nMukhyas. The worship of Amit\u00e2bha, so far as its history can be traced,\ngoes back to Saraha, the teacher of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. He is said to have been\na Sudra and his name seems un-Indian. This supports the theory that\nthis worship was foreign and imported into India.[82]\n\nThis worship and the doctrine on which it is based are an almost\ncomplete contradiction of Gotama's teaching, for they amount to this,\nthat religion consists in faith in Amit\u00e2bha and prayer to him, in\nreturn for which he will receive his followers after death in his\nparadise. Yet this is not a late travesty of Buddhism but a relatively\nearly development which must have begun about the Christian era. The\nprincipal works in which it is preached are the Greater\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha or Description of the Happy Land, translated into\nChinese between 147 and 186 A.D., the lesser work of the same name\ntranslated in 402 A.D. and the S\u00fbtra of meditation on Amit\u00e2yus[83]\ntranslated in 424. The first of these works purports to be a discourse\nof S\u00e2kyamuni himself, delivered on the Vulture's Peak in answer to the\nquestions of \u00c2nanda. He relates how innumerable ages ago there was a\nmonk called Dharm\u00e2kara who, with the help of the Buddha of that\nperiod, made a vow or vows[84] to become a Buddha but on conditions.\nThat is to say he rejected the Buddhahood to which he might become\nentitled unless his merits obtained certain advantages for others, and\nhaving obtained Buddhahood on these conditions he can now cause them\nto be fulfilled. In other words he can apportion his vast store of\naccumulated merit to such persons and in such manner as he chooses.\nThe gist of the conditions is that he should when he obtained\nBuddhahood be lord of a paradise whose inhabitants live in unbroken\nhappiness until they obtain Nirvana. All who have thought of this\nparadise ten times are to be admitted therein, unless they have\ncommitted grievous sin, and Amit\u00e2bha will appear to them at the moment\nof death so that their thoughts may not be troubled. The Buddha shows\n\u00c2nanda a miraculous vision of this paradise and its joys are described\nin language recalling the account of the New Jerusalem in the book of\nRevelation and, though coarser pleasures are excluded, all the\ndelights of the eye and ear, such as jewels, gardens, flowers, rivers\nand the songs of birds await the faithful.\n\nThe smaller Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha, represented as preached by S\u00e2kyamuni at\nSr\u00e2vasti, is occupied almost entirely with a description of the\nparadise. It marks a new departure in definitely preaching salvation\nby faith only, not by works, whereas the previous treatise, though\ndwelling on the efficacy of faith, also makes merit a requisite for\nlife in heaven. But the shorter discourse says dogmatically \"Beings\nare not born in that Buddha country as a reward and result of good\nworks performed in this present life. No, all men or women who hear\nand bear in mind for one, two, three, four, five, six or seven nights\nthe name of Amit\u00e2yus, when they come to die, Amit\u00e2yus will stand\nbefore them in the hour of death, they will depart this life with\nquiet minds and after death they will be born in Paradise.\"\n\nThe Amit\u00e2yur-dhy\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra also purports to be the teaching of\nS\u00e2kyamuni and has an historical introduction connecting it with Queen\nVaideh\u00ee and King Bimbis\u00e2ra. In theology it is more advanced than the\nother treatises: it is familiar with the doctrine of Dharma-k\u00e2ya\n(which will be discussed below) and it represents the rulers of\nparadise as a triad, Amit\u00e2yus being assisted by Avalokita and\nMahasth\u00e2mapr\u00e2pta.[85] Admission to the paradise can be obtained in\nvarious ways, but the method recommended is the practice of a series\nof meditations which are described in detail. The system is\ncomprehensive, for salvation can be obtained by mere virtue with\nlittle or no prayer but also by a single invocation of Amit\u00e2yus, which\nsuffices to free from deadly sins.\n\nStrange as such doctrines appear when set beside the Pali texts, it is\nclear that in their origin and even in the form which they assume in\nthe larger Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha they are simply an exaggeration of ordinary\nMahayanist teaching.[86] Amit\u00e2bha is merely a monk who devotes himself\nto the religious life, namely seeking _bodhi_ for the good of others.\nHe differs from every day devotees only in the degree of sanctity and\nsuccess obtained by his exertions. The operations which he performs\nare nothing but examples on a stupendous scale of parin\u00e2man\u00e2 or the\nassignment of one's own merits to others. His paradise, though in\npopular esteem equivalent to the Persian or Christian heaven, is not\nreally so: strictly speaking it is not an ultimate ideal but a blessed\nregion in which Nirvana may be obtained without toil or care.\n\nThough this teaching had brilliant success in China and Japan, where\nit still flourishes, the worship of Amit\u00e2bha was never predominant in\nIndia. In Nepal and Tibet he is one among many deities: the Chinese\npilgrims hardly mention him: his figure is not particularly frequent\nin Indian iconography[87] and, except in the works composed specially\nin his honour, he appears as an incidental rather than as a necessary\nfigure. The whole doctrine is hardly strenuous enough for Indians. To\npray to the Buddha at the end of a sinful life, enter his paradise and\nobtain ultimate Nirvana in comfort is not only open to the same charge\nof egoism as the Hinayana scheme of salvation but is much easier and\nmay lead to the abandonment of religious effort. And the Hindu, who\nabove all things likes to busy himself with his own salvation, does\nnot take kindly to these expedients. Numerous deities promise a long\nspell of heaven as a reward for the mere utterance of their names,[88]\nyet the believer continues to labour earnestly in ceremonies or\nmeditation. It would be interesting to know whether this doctrine of\nsalvation by the utterance of a single name or prayer originated among\nBuddhists or Brahmans. In any case it is closely related to old ideas\nabout the magic power of Vedic verses.\n\nThe five Jinas and other supernatural personages are often regarded as\nmanifestations of a single Buddha-force and at last this force is\npersonified as \u00c2di-Buddha.[89] This admittedly theistic form of\nBuddhism is late and is recorded from Nepal, Tibet (in the K\u00e2lacakra\nsystem) and Java, a distribution which implies that it was exported\nfrom Bengal.[90] But another form in which the Buddha-force is\nimpersonal and analogous to the Parabrahma of the Ved\u00e2nta is much\nolder. Yet when this philosophic idea is expressed in popular language\nit comes very near to Theism. As Kern has pointed out, Buddha is not\ncalled Deva or \u00cesvara in the Lotus simply because he is above such\nbeings. He declares that he has existed and will exist for\nincalculable ages and has preached and will preach in innumerable\nmillions of worlds. His birth here and his nirvana are illusory,\nkindly devices which may help weak disciples but do not mark the real\nbeginning and end of his activity. This implies a view of Buddha's\npersonality which is more precisely defined in the doctrine known as\nTrik\u00e2ya or the three bodies[91] and expounded in the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, the Awakening of Faith, the Suvarna-prabh\u00e2sa\ns\u00fbtra[92] and many other works. It may be stated dogmatically as\nfollows, but it assumes somewhat divergent forms according as it is\ntreated theologically or metaphysically.\n\nA Buddha has three bodies or forms of existence. The first is the\nDharma-k\u00e2ya, which is the essence of all Buddhas. It is true knowledge\nor Bodhi. It may also be described as Nirvana and also as the one\npermanent reality underlying all phenomena and all individuals. The\nsecond is the Sambhoga-k\u00e2ya, or body of enjoyment, that is to say the\nradiant and superhuman form in which Buddhas appear in their paradises\nor when otherwise manifesting themselves in celestial splendour. The\nthird is the Nirm\u00e2na-k\u00e2ya, or the body of transformation, that is to\nsay the human form worn by S\u00e2kyamuni or any other Buddha and regarded\nas a transformation of his true nature and almost a distortion,\nbecause it is so partial and inadequate an expression of it. Later\ntheology regards Amit\u00e2bha, Amit\u00e2yus and S\u00e2kyamuni as a series\ncorresponding to the three bodies. Amit\u00e2bha does not really express\nthe whole Dharma-k\u00e2ya, which is incapable of personification, but when\nhe is accurately distinguished from Amit\u00e2yus (and frequently they are\nregarded as synonyms) he is made the more remote and ethereal of the\ntwo. Amit\u00e2yus with his rich ornaments and his flask containing the\nwater of eternal life is the ideal of a splendidly beneficent saviour\nand represents the Sambhoga-k\u00e2ya.[93] S\u00e2kyamuni is the same beneficent\nbeing shrunk into human form. But this is only one aspect, and not the\nmost important, of the doctrine of the three bodies. We can easily\nunderstand the Sambhoga-k\u00e2ya and Nirm\u00e2na-k\u00e2ya: they correspond to a\ndeity such as Vishnu and his incarnation Krishna, and they are\npuzzling in Buddhism simply because we think naturally of the older\nview (not entirely discarded by the Mahayana) which makes the human\nBuddha the crown and apex of a series of lives that find in him their\nfulfilment. But it is less easy to understand the Dharma-k\u00e2ya.\n\nThe word should perhaps be translated as body of the law and the\nthought originally underlying it may have been that the essential\nnature of a Buddha, that which makes him a Buddha, is the law which he\npreaches. As we might say, the teacher lives in his teaching: while it\nsurvives, he is active and not dead.\n\nThe change from metaphor to theology is illustrated by Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nwhen he states[94] (no doubt quoting from his edition of the Pitakas)\nthat Gotama when dying said to those around him \"Say not that the\nTath\u00e2gata is undergoing final extinction: his spiritual presence\nabides for ever unchangeable.\" This apparently corresponds to the\npassage in the Pali Canon,[95] which runs \"It may be that in some of\nyou the thought may arise, the word of the Master is ended: we have no\nmore a teacher. But it is not thus that you should regard it. The\ntruths and the rules which I have set forth, let them, after I am\ngone, be the Teacher to you.\" But in Buddhist writings, including the\noldest Pali texts, Dharma or Dhamma has another important meaning. It\nsignifies phenomenon or mental state (the two being identical for an\nidealistic philosophy) and comprises both the external and the\ninternal world. Now the Dharma-k\u00e2ya is emphatically not a phenomenon\nbut it may be regarded as the substratum or totality of phenomena or\nas that which gives phenomena whatever reality they possess and the\ndouble use of the word dharma rendered such divagations of meaning\neasier.[96] Hindus have a tendency to identify being and knowledge.\nAccording to the Ved\u00e2nta philosophy he who knows Brahman, knows that\nhe himself is Brahman and therefore he actually is Brahman. In the\nsame way the true body of the Buddha is praj\u00f1\u00e2 or knowledge.[97] By\nthis is meant a knowledge which transcends the distinction between\nsubject and object and which sees that neither animate beings nor\ninanimate things have individuality or separate existence. Thus the\nDharma-k\u00e2ya being an intelligence which sees the illusory quality of\nthe world and also how the illusion originates[98] may be regarded as\nthe origin and ground of all phenomena. As such it is also called\nTath\u00e2gatagarbha and Dharma-dh\u00e2tu, the matrix or store-house of all\nphenomena. On the other hand, inasmuch as it is beyond them and\nimplies their unreality, it may also be regarded as the annihilation\nof all phenomena, in other words as Nirvana. In fact the Dharma-k\u00e2ya\n(or Bh\u00fbta-tathat\u00e2) is sometimes[99] defined in words similar to those\nwhich the Pali Canon makes the Buddha use when asked if the Perfect\nSaint exists after death--\"it is neither that which is existence nor\nthat which is non-existence, nor that which is at once existence and\nnon-existence nor that which is neither existence nor non-existence.\"\nIn more theological language it may be said that according to the\ngeneral opinion of the Mahayanists a Buddha attains to Nirvana by the\nvery act of becoming a Buddha and is therefore beyond everything which\nwe call existence. Yet the compassion which he feels for mankind and\nthe good Karma which he has accumulated cause a human image of him\n(Nirm\u00e2na-k\u00e2ya) to appear among men for their instruction and a\nsuperhuman image, perceptible yet not material, to appear in Paradise.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 73: In Mah\u00e2parinib. Sut. I. 16 the Buddha is made to speak\nof all the other Buddhas who have been in the long ages of the past\nand will be in the long ages of the future.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Though Dhy\u00e2ni Buddha is the title most frequently used\nin European works it would appear that Jina is more usual in Sanskrit\nworks, and in fact Dhy\u00e2ni Buddha is hardly known outside Nepalese\nliterature. Ratnasambhava and Amoghasiddhi are rarely mentioned apart\nfrom the others. According to Getty (_Gods of Northern Buddhism_, pp.\n26, 27) a group of six, including the \u00c2di-Buddha himself under the\nname of Vajrasattva, is sometimes worshipped.]\n\n[Footnote 75: About the same period Siva and Vishnu were worshipped\nin five forms. See below, Book V. chap. III. sec. 3 _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 76: Nanjio, Cat. No. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 77: Virocana also occurs in the Ch\u00e2ndogya Up. VIII. 7 and 8\nas the name of an Asura who misunderstood the teaching of Praj\u00e2pati.\nVerocana is the name of an Asura in Sam. Nik. I. xi. 1. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 78: The names of many of these Buddhas, perhaps the\nmajority, contain some word expressive of light such as \u00c2ditya, prabh\u00e2\nor tejas.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Chap. XX. Pushpavalivan\u00e2rajikusumit\u00e2bhij\u00f1a.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _E.g._ Yashts. XXII. and XXIV. _S.B.E._ vol. XXIII. pp.\n317 and 344. The title Pure Land (Chinese Ch'ing-t'u, Japanese Jo-do)\nhas also a Persian ring about it. See further in the chapter on\nCentral Asia.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Vishnu P., Book III. chap. II.]\n\n[Footnote 82: See below: Section on Central Asia, and Gr\u00fcnwedel,\n_Mythologie_, 31, 36 and notes: Taranatha (Shiefner), p. 93 and\nnotes.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Amit\u00e2yur-dhy\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra. All three works are translated in\n_S.B.E._ vol. XLIX.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Pranidh\u00e2na. Not only Amit\u00e2bha but all Bodhisattvas\n(especially Avalokita and Kshitigarbha) are supposed to have made such\nvows. This idea is very common in China and Japan but goes back to\nIndian sources. See _e.g._ Lotus, XXIV. verse 3.]\n\n[Footnote 85: These Bodhisattvas are also mentioned but without much\nemphasis in the Greater Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha.]\n\n[Footnote 86: Even in Hinayanist works such as the Nid\u00e2nakath\u00e2\nSumedha's resolution to become a Buddha, formed as he lies on the\nground before Dipankara, has a resemblance to Am\u00eeda's vow. He resolves\nto attain the truth, to enable mankind to cross the sea of the world\nand only then to attain Nirvana.]\n\n[Footnote 87: See Foucher, _Iconographie Bouddhique dans l'Inde._]\n\n[Footnote 88: The Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 states quite clearly the doctrine of\nthe deathbed prayer (VIII. ad init.). \"He who leaves this body and\ndeparts remembering me in his last moments comes to my essence.\nWhatever form (of deity) he remembers when he finally leaves this\nbody, to that he goes having been used to ponder on it.\"]\n\n[Footnote 89: See art. \u00c2di-Buddha in _E.R.E._ Asanga in the\nS\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra (IX. 77) condemns the doctrine of \u00c2di-Buddha, showing\nthat the term was known then, even if it had not the precise dogmatic\nsense which it acquired later. His argument is that no one can become\na Buddha without an equipment (Sambh\u00e2ra) of merit and knowledge. Such\nan equipment can only be obtained from a previous Buddha and therefore\nthe series of Buddhas must extend infinitely backwards.]\n\n[Footnote 90: For the prevalence of the doctrine in medi\u00e6val Bengal\nsee B.K. Sarkar, _Folklore Element in Hindu Culture_, which is however\nsparing of precise references. The Dharma or Nira\u00f1jana of the S\u00fbnya\nPur\u00e2na seems to be equivalent to \u00c2di-Buddha.\n\nSometimes the \u00c2di-Buddha is identified with Vajrasattva or\nSamantabhadra, although these beings are otherwise classified as\nBodhisattvas. This appears analogous to the procedure common in\nHinduism by which a devotee declares that his special deity is all the\ngods and the supreme spirit.]\n\n[Footnote 91: It would appear that some of the Tantras treat of five\nbodies, adding to the three here given others such as the \u00c2nandak\u00e2ya,\nVajrak\u00e2ya and Svabh\u00e2vak\u00e2ya. For this doctrine see especially De la\nVall\u00e9e Poussin, _J.R.A.S._ 1906, pp. 943-997 and _Mus\u00e9on_, 1913, pp.\n257 ff. Jigs-med nam-mk\u00e1, the historian of Tibetan Buddhism, describes\nfour. See Huth, _Ges. d. Bud. in d. Mongolei_, vol. II. pp. 83-89.\nHinduism also assigns to living beings three bodies, the\nK\u00e2rana-sar\u00eera, lingas. and sth\u00fblas.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Translated into Chinese by Dharmaraksha between 397 and\n439 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 93: The prototype of the Sambhoga-k\u00e2ya is found in the Pali\nCanon, for the Buddha says (Mah\u00e2parinib. Sut. III. 22) that when he\nappears among the different classes of gods his form and voice are\nsimilar to theirs.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Watters, vol. II. p. 38. \"Spiritual essence\" is Fa-sh\u00ean\nin Chinese, _i.e._ Dharma-k\u00e2ya. Another passage is quoted to the\neffect that \"henceforth the observances of all my disciples constitute\nthe Tath\u00e2gata's Fa-sh\u00ean, eternal and imperishable.\"]\n\n[Footnote 95: Mah\u00e2parinib. Sut. VI. i.]\n\n[Footnote 96: Something similar might happen in English if think and\nthing were pronounced in the same way and a thing were believed to be\nthat which we can think.]\n\n[Footnote 97: See Ashtas\u00e2hasrik\u00e2 Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, chap. IV, near\nbeginning.]\n\n[Footnote 98: It is in this last point that no inferior intelligence\ncan follow the thought of a Buddha.]\n\n[Footnote 99: _The Awakening of Faith_, Teitaro Suzuki, p. 59.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nMAHAYANIST METAPHYSICS\n\n\nThus the theory of the three bodies, especially of the Dharma-k\u00e2ya, is\nbound up with a theory of ontology. Metaphysics became a passion among\nthe travellers of the Great Vehicle as psychology had been in earlier\ntimes. They may indeed be reproached with being bad Buddhists since\nthey insisted on speculating on those questions which Gotama had\ndeclared to be unprofitable and incapable of an answer in human\nlanguage. He refused to pronounce on the whence, the whither and the\nnature of things, but bade his disciples walk in the eightfold path\nand analyse the human mind, because such analysis conduces to\nspiritual progress. India was the last country in the world where such\nrestrictions were likely to be observed. Much Mahayanist literature is\nnot religious at all but simply metaphysics treated in an\nauthoritative and ecclesiastical manner. The nature and origin of the\nworld are discussed as freely as in the Ved\u00e2nta and with similar\nresults: the old ethics and psychology receive scant attention. Yet\nthe difference is less than might be supposed. Anyone who reads these\ntreatises and notices the number of apparently eternal beings and the\ntalk about the universal mind is likely to think the old doctrine that\nnothing has an \u00e2tman or soul, has been forgotten. But this impression\nis not correct; the doctrine of _Nair\u00e2tmyam_ is asserted so\nuncompromisingly that from one point of view it may be said that even\nBuddhas do not exist. The meaning of this doctrine is that no being or\nobject contains an unchangeable permanent self, which lives unaltered\nin the same or in different bodies. On the contrary individual\nexistences consist of nothing but a collection of skandhas or a\n_sant\u00e2na_, a succession or series of mental phenomena. In the Pali\nbooks this doctrine is applied chiefly to the soul and psychological\nenquiries. The Mahayana applied it to the external world and proved by\ningenious arguments that nothing at all exists. Similarly the doctrine\nof Karma is maintained, though it is seriously modified by the\nadmission that merit can be transferred from one personality to\nanother. The Mahayana continued to teach that an act once performed\naffects a particular series of mental states until its effect is\nexhausted, or in popular language that an individual enjoys or suffers\nthrough a series of births the consequences of previous acts. Even the\ninstance of Amit\u00e2bha's paradise, though it strains the doctrine of\nKarma to the utmost, does not repudiate it. For the believer performs\nan act--to wit, the invocation of Amit\u00e2bha--to which has been attached\nthe wonderful result that the performer is reborn in a blessed state.\nThis is not essentially different from the idea found in the Pali\nCanon that attentions paid to a Buddha may be rewarded by a happy\nrebirth in heaven.[100]\n\nMahayanist metaphysics, like all other departments of this theology,\nare beset by the difficulty that the authorities who treat of them are\nnot always in accord and do not pretend to be in accord. The idea that\nvariety is permissible in belief and conduct is deeply rooted in later\nBuddhism: there are many vehicles, some better than others no doubt\nand some very ramshackle, but all are capable of conveying their\npassengers to salvation. Nominally the Mahayana was divided into only\ntwo schools of philosophy: practically every important treatise\npropounds a system with features of its own. The two schools are the\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ras and M\u00e2dhyamikas.[101] Both are idealists and deny the\nreality of the external world, but whereas the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ras (also called\nVij\u00f1\u00e2nav\u00e2dins) admit that Vij\u00f1\u00e2na or consciousness and the series of\nstates of which it consists are real, the M\u00e2dhyamikas refuse the title\nof reality to both the subjective and the objective world and hence\ngained a reputation of being complete nihilists. Probably the\nM\u00e2dhyamikas are the older school.\n\nBoth schools attach importance to the distinction between relative and\nabsolute knowledge. Relative knowledge is true for human beings living\nin the world: that is to say it is not more false than the world of\nappearance in which they live. The Hinayanist doctrines are true in\nthis sense. Absolute knowledge rises above the world of appearance and\nis altogether true but difficult to express in words. The Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra\nmakes three divisions, dividing the inferior knowledge into two. It\ndistinguishes first illusory knowledge (_parikalpita_) such as\nmistaking a piece of rope for a snake or belief in the existence of\nindividual souls. Secondly knowledge which depends on the relations of\nthings (_paratantra_) and which though not absolutely wrong is\nnecessarily limited, such as belief in the real existence of ropes and\nsnakes. And thirdly absolute knowledge (_parinishpanna_), which\nunderstands all things as the manifestation of an underlying\nprinciple. The M\u00e2dhyamikas more simply divide knowledge into\n_samvriti-satya_ and _param\u00e2rtha-satya_, that is the truth of\nevery-day life and transcendental truth. The world and ordinary\nreligion with its doctrines and injunctions about good works are real\nand true as _samvriti_ but in absolute truth (_param\u00e2rtham_) we\nattain Nirvana and then the world with its human Buddhas and its gods\nexists no more. The word _s\u00fbnyam_ or _s\u00fbnyat\u00e2_, that is _void_, is\noften used as the equivalent of _param\u00e2rtham_. Void must be understood\nas meaning not an abyss of nothingness but that which is found to be\ndevoid of all the attributes which we try to ascribe to it. The world\nof ordinary experience is not void, for a great number of statements\ncan be made about it, but absolute truth is void, because nothing\nwhatever can be predicated of it. Yet even this colourless designation\nis not perfectly accurate,[102] because neither being nor not-being\ncan be predicated of absolute truth. It is for this reason, namely\nthat they admit neither being nor not-being but something between the\ntwo, that the followers of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna are known as the M\u00e2dhyamikas or\nschool of the middle doctrine, though the European reader is tempted\nto say that their theories are extreme to the point of being a\n_reductio ad absurdum_ of the whole system. Yet though much of their\nlogic seems late and useless sophistry, its affinity to early Buddhism\ncannot be denied. The fourfold proposition that the answer to certain\nquestions cannot be any of the statements \"is,\" \"is not,\" \"both is and\nis not,\" \"neither is nor is not,\" is part of the earliest known\nstratum of Buddhism. The Buddha himself is represented as saying[103]\nthat most people hold either to a belief in being or to a belief in\nnot being. But neither belief is possible for one who considers the\nquestion with full knowledge. \"That things have being is one extreme:\nthat things have no being is the other extreme. These extremes have\nbeen avoided by the Tath\u00e2gata and it is a middle doctrine that he\nteaches,\" namely, dependent origination as explained in the chain of\ntwelve links. The M\u00e2dhyamika theory that objects have no absolute and\nindependent existence but appear to exist in virtue of their relations\nis a restatement of this ancient dictum.\n\nThe Mahayanist doctors find an ethical meaning in their negations. If\nthings possessed _svabh\u00e2va_, real, absolute, self-determined\nexistence, then the four truths and especially the cessation of\nsuffering and attainment of sanctity would be impossible. For if\nthings were due not to causation but to their own self-determining\nnature (and the Hindus always seem to understand real existence in\nthis sense) cessation of evil and attainment of the good would be\nalike impossible: the four Noble Truths imply a world which is in a\nstate of constant becoming, that is a world which is not really\nexistent.\n\nBut for all that the doctrine of _s\u00fbnyat\u00e2_ as stated in the M\u00e2dhyamika\naphorisms ascribed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna leaves an impression of audacious and\ningenious sophistry. After laying down that every object in the world\nexists only in relation to every other object and has no\nself-existence, the treatise proceeds to prove that rest and motion\nare alike impossible. We speak about the path along which we are\npassing but there is really no such thing, for if we divide the path\naccurately, it always proves separable into the part which has been\npassed over and the part which will be passed over. There is no part\nwhich is being passed over. This of course amounts to a denial of the\nexistence of present time. Time consists of past and future separated\nby an indivisible and immeasurable instant. The minimum of time which\nhas any meaning for us implies a change, and two elements, a former\nand a subsequent. The present minute or the present hour are\nfallacious expressions.[104]\n\nTherefore no one ever _is passing_ along a path. Again you cannot\nlogically say that the passer is passing, for the sentence is\nredundant: the verb adds nothing to the noun and _vice versa_: but on\nthe other hand you clearly cannot say that the non-passer is passing.\nAgain if you say that the passer and the passing are identical, you\noverlook the distinction between the agent and the act and both become\nunreal. But you cannot maintain that the passer is different from the\npassing, for a passer as distinct from passing and passing as\ndistinct from a passer have no meaning. \"But how can two entities\nexist at all, if they exist neither as identical with one another nor\nas different from one another?\"\n\nThe above, though much abridged, gives an idea of the logic of these\ns\u00fbtras. They proceed to show that all manner of things, such as the\nfive skandhas, the elements, contact, attachment, fire and fuel,\norigination, continuation and extinction have no real existence.\nSimilar reasoning is then applied to religious topics: the world of\ntransmigration as well as bondage and liberation are declared\nnon-existent. In reality no soul is in bondage and none is\nreleased.[105] Similarly Karma, the Buddha himself, the four truths,\nNirvana and the twelve links in the chain of causation are all unreal.\nThis is not a declaration of scepticism. It means that the Buddha as a\nhuman or celestial being and Nirvana as a state attainable in this\nworld are conceivable only in connection with this world and\ntherefore, like the world, unreal. No religious idea can enter into\nthe unreal (that is the practical) life of the world unless it is\nitself unreal. This sounds a topsy turvy argument but it is really the\nsame as the Advaita doctrine. The Ved\u00e2nta is on the one hand a scheme\nof salvation for liberating souls which transmigrate unceasingly in a\nworld ruled by a personal God. But when true knowledge is attained,\nthe soul sees that it is identical with the Highest Brahman and that\nsouls which are in bondage and God who rules the world are illusions\nlike the world itself. But the Advaita has at least a verbal\nsuperiority over the M\u00e2dhyamika philosophy, for in its terminology\nBrahman is the real and the existent contrasted with the world of\nillusion. The result of giving to what the Advaita calls the real and\nexistent the name of s\u00fbnyat\u00e2 or void is disconcerting. To say that\neverything without distinction is non-existent is much the same as\nsaying that everything is existent. It only means that a wrong sense\nis habitually given to the word exist, as if it meant to be\nself-contained and without relation to other objects. Unless we can\nmake a verbal contrast and assert that there is something which does\nexist, it seems futile to insist on the unreality of the world. Yet\nthis mode of thought is not confined to text-books on logic. It\ninvades the scriptures, and appears (for instance) in the Diamond\nCutter[106] which is still one of the most venerated books of devotion\nin China and Japan. In this work the Buddha explains that a\nBodhisattva must resolve to deliver all living beings and yet must\nunderstand that after he has thus delivered innumerable beings, no one\nhas been delivered. And why? Because no one is to be called a\nBodhisattva for whom there exists the idea of a being, or person.\nSimilarly a saint does not think that he is a saint, for if he did so\nthink, he would believe in a self, and a person. There occur\ncontinually in this work phrases cast in the following form: \"what was\npreached as a store of merit, that was preached as no store of\nmerit[107] by the Tath\u00e2gata and therefore it is called a store of\nmerit. If there existed a store of merit, the Tath\u00e2gata would not have\npreached a store of merit.\" That is to say, if I understand this dark\nlanguage rightly, accumulated merit is part of the world of illusion\nwhich we live in and by speaking of it as he did the Buddha implied\nthat it, like everything else in the world, is really non-existent.\nDid it belong to the sphere of absolute truth, he would not have\nspoken of it as if it were one of the things commonly but erroneously\nsupposed to exist. Finally we are told of the highest knowledge \"Even\nthe smallest thing is not known or perceived there; therefore it is\ncalled the highest perfect knowledge.\" That is to say perfect\nknowledge transcends all distinctions; it recognises the illusory\nnature of all individuality and the truth of sameness, the\nnever-changing one behind the ever-changing many. In this sense it is\nsaid to perceive nothing and know nothing.\n\nOne might expect that a philosophy thus prone to use the language of\nextreme nihilism would slip into a destructive, or at least negative\nsystem. But Mahayanism was pulled equally strongly in the opposite\ndirection by the popular and mythological elements which it contained\nand was on the whole inclined to theism and even polytheism quite as\nmuch as to atheism and acosmism. A modern Japanese writer[108] says\nthat Dharma-k\u00e2ya \"may be considered to be equivalent to the Christian\nconception of the Godhead.\" This is excessive as a historical\nstatement of the view current in India during the early centuries of\nour era, but it does seem true that Dharma-k\u00e2ya was made the\nequivalent of the Hindu conception of Param Brahma and also that it is\nvery nearly equivalent to the Chinese Tao.[109]\n\nThe work called _Awakening of Faith_[110] and ascribed to Asvaghosha\nis not extant in Sanskrit but was translated into Chinese in 553 A.D.\nIts doctrine is practically that of the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school and this makes\nthe ascription doubtful, but it is a most important treatise. It is\nregarded as authoritative in China and Japan at the present day and it\nillustrates the triple tendency of the Mahayana towards metaphysics,\nmythology, and devotional piety. It declares that faith has four\naspects. Three of these are the three Jewels, or Buddha, the Law and\nthe Church, and cover between them the whole field of religion and\nmorality as generally understood. The exposition is tinged with a fine\nunselfish emotion and tells the believer that though he should strive\nnot for his own emancipation but for the salvation of others yet he\nhimself receives unselfish and supernatural assistance. He is\nremembered and guarded by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in all quarters of\nthe Universe who are eternally trying to liberate mankind by various\nexpedients (up\u00e2ya). By expedient is meant a modified presentment of\nthe truth, which is easier of comprehension and, if not the goal, at\nleast on the road to it, such as the Paradise of Amit\u00e2bha.[111]\n\nBut the remaining aspect of faith, which is the one that the author\nputs first in his enumeration, and treats at great length, is \"to\nbelieve in the fundamental truth, that is to think joyfully of\nsuchness.\" By suchness (in Sanskrit _bh\u00fbta-tathat\u00e2_, in Chinese _Ch\u00ean\nju_) is meant absolute truth as contrasted with the relative truth of\nordinary experience.[112] The word is not illuminating nor likely to\nexcite religious emotion and the most that can be said for it is that\nit is less dreary than the void of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. Another and more\npositive synonym is _dharma-dh\u00e2tu_, the all-embracing totality of\nthings. It is only through our ignorance and subjectivity that things\nappear distinct and individuate. Could we transcend this\nsubjectivity, isolated objects would cease to exist. Things in their\nfundamental nature cannot be named or explained: they are beyond the\nrange of language and perception: they have no signs of distinction\nbut possess absolute sameness (samat\u00e2). From this totality of things\nnothing can be excluded and to it nothing can be added. Yet it is also\ns\u00fbnyat\u00e2, negation or the void, because it cannot be said to possess\nany of the attributes of the world we live in: neither existence nor\nnon-existence, nor unity nor plurality can be predicted of it.\nAccording to the celebrated formula of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna known as the eight\nNos there is in it \"neither production (_utp\u00e2da_) nor destruction\n(_uccheda_) nor annihilation (_nirodha_) nor persistence (_sasvat\u00e2_)\nnor unity (_ek\u00e2rtha_) nor plurality (_n\u00e2n\u00e2rtha_) nor coming in\n(_\u00e2gamana_) nor going out (_nirgama_).\" But when we perceive that both\nsubject and object are unreal we also see that suchness is the one\nreality and from that point of view it may be regarded as the\nDharma-k\u00e2ya of all Buddhas. It is also called Tath\u00e2gatagarbha, the\nwomb or store-house of the Buddha, from which all individual\nexistences are evolved under the law of causation, but this aspect of\nit is already affected by ignorance, for in Bh\u00fbta-tathat\u00e2 as known in\nthe light of the highest truth there is neither causation nor\nproduction. The Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra employs the word _s\u00fbnyat\u00e2_ (void), though not\nso much as its sister school, but it makes special use of the term\n_\u00e2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na_, the receptacle or store of consciousness. This in so\nfar as it is superindividual is an aspect of suchness, but when it\naffirms and particularises itself it becomes _citta_, that is the\nhuman mind, or to be more accurate the substratum of the human mind\nfrom which is developed _manas_, or the principle of will,\nself-consciousness and self-affirmation. Similarly the Ved\u00e2nta\nphilosophy, though it has no term corresponding to _\u00e2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na_, is\nfamiliar with the idea that Brahman is in one aspect immeasurable and\nall-embracing but in another is infinitesimal and dwells in the human\nheart: or that Brahman after creating the world entered into it. Again\nanother aspect of suchness is enlightenment (_bodhi_), that is\nabsolute knowledge free from the limitations of subject and object.\nThis \"is the universal Dharma-k\u00e2ya of the Tath\u00e2gatas\" and on account\nof this all Tath\u00e2gatas are spoken of as abiding in enlightenment _a\npriori_. This enlightenment may be negative (as _s\u00fbnyata_) in the\nsense that it transcends all relations but it may also be affirmative\nand then \"it transforms and unfolds itself, whenever conditions are\nfavourable, in the form of a Tath\u00e2gata or some other form in order\nthat all beings may be induced to bring their store of merit to\nmaturity.\"[113]\n\nIt will be seen from the above that the absolute truth of the\nMahayanists varies from a severely metaphysical conception, the\nindescribable thing in itself, to something very like an all-pervading\nbenevolent essence which from time to time takes shape in a Buddha.\nAnd here we see how easy is the transition from the old Buddhism to a\nform of pantheism. For if we admit that the Buddha is a superhuman\nintelligence appearing from time to time according to a certain law,\nwe add little to this statement by saying that the essence or spirit\nof the cosmos manifests itself from time to time as a Buddha. Only,\nsuch words as essence or spirit are not really correct. The world of\nindividuals is the same as the highest truth, the same as the\nDharma-k\u00e2ya, the same as Nirvana. It is only through ignorance that it\nappears to be different and particularized. Ignorance, the essence of\nwhich consists in believing in the distinction between subject and\nobject, is also called defilement and the highest truth passes through\nvarious stages of defilement ending with that where under the\ninfluence of egoism and passion the external world of particulars is\nbelieved to be everything. But the various stages may influence one\nanother[114] so that under a higher influence the mind which is\ninvolved in subjectivity begins to long for Nirvana. Yet Nirvana is\nnot something different from or beyond the world of experience; it\ndoes not really involve annihilation of the skandhas. Just as in the\nAdvaita he who has the true knowledge sees that he himself and\neverything else is Brahman, so for the Mahayanist all things are seen\n_to be_ Nirvana, _to be_ the Dharma-k\u00e2ya. It is sometimes[115] said\nthat there are four kinds of Nirvana (_a_) absolute Nirvana, which is\na synonym of the Dharma-k\u00e2ya and in that sense universally present in\nall beings, (_b_) upadhisesha-nirv\u00e2na, the state of enlightenment\nwhich can be attained during life, while the body with its limitations\nstill remains, (_c_) anupadhisesha-nirv\u00e2na, a higher degree of the\nsame state attained after death when the hindrances of the body are\nremoved, (_d_) Nirvana without abode or apratishthita-nirv\u00e2na. Those\nwho attain to this understand that there is no real antithesis between\nSams\u00e2ra and Nirvana:[116] they do not seek for rest or emancipation\nbut devote themselves to beneficent activity and to leading their\nfellows to salvation. Although these statements that Nirvana and\nSams\u00e2ra are the same are not at all in the manner of the older\nBuddhism, yet this ideal of disinterested activity combined with\nNirvana is not inconsistent with the portrait of Gotama preserved in\nthe Pali Canon.\n\nThe Mahayanist Buddhism of the Far East makes free use of such phrases\nas the Buddha in the heart, the Buddha mind and the Buddha nature.\nThese seem to represent such Sanskrit terms as Buddhatva and\nBodhicitta which can receive either an ethical or a metaphysical\nemphasis. The former line of thought is well shown in S\u00e2ntideva[117]\nwho treats Bodhicitta as the initial impulse and motive power of the\nreligious life, combining intellectual illumination and unselfish\ndevotion to the good of others. Thus regarded it is a guiding and\nstimulating principle somewhat analogous to the Holy Spirit in\nChristianity. But the Bodhicitta is also the essential quality of a\nBuddha (and the Holy Spirit too is a member of the Trinity) and in so\nfar as a man has the Bodhicitta he is one with all Buddhas.\n\nThis conception is perhaps secondary in Buddhism but it is also as old\nas the Upanishads and only another form of the doctrine that the\nspirit in every man (antary\u00e2min) is identical with the Supreme Spirit.\nIt is developed in many works still popular in the Far East[118] and\nwas the fundamental thesis of Bodhidharma, the founder of the Zen\nschool. But the practical character of the Chinese and Japanese has\nled them to attach more importance to the moral and intellectual side\nof this doctrine than to the metaphysical and pantheistic side.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 100: _E.g._ in Mah\u00e2parinib. Sut. IV. 57, the Buddha says\n\"There has been laid up by Cunda the smith (who had given him his last\nmeal) a karma, redounding to length of life, to good fortune, to good\nfame, _to the inheritance of heaven_, and of sovereign power.\"]\n\n[Footnote 101: Strictly speaking Madhyamaka is the name of the school\nM\u00e2dhyamika of its adherents. Both forms are used, _e.g._\nMadhyamakak\u00e2rik\u00e2s and M\u00e2dhyamikas\u00fbtra.]\n\n[Footnote 102: N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna says S\u00fbnyam iti na vaktavyam as\u00fbnyam iti va\nbhavet Ubhayam nobhayam ceti pr\u00e2j\u00f1\u00e2ptyartham tu kathyate, \"It cannot\nbe called void or not void or both or neither but in order to somehow\nindicate it, it is called S\u00fbnyat\u00e2.\"]\n\n[Footnote 103: Sam. Nik. XXII. 90. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Gotama, the founder of the Ny\u00e2ya philosophy, also\nadmitted the force of the arguments against the existence of present\ntime but regarded them as a _reductio ad absurdum_. Shadworth Hodgson\nin his _Philosophy of Reflection_, vol. I. p. 253 also treats of the\nquestion.]\n\n[Footnote 105: The S\u00e2nkhya philosophy makes a similar statement,\nthough for different reasons.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Vajracchedik\u00e2. See _S.B.E._ vol. XLIX. It was\ntranslated into Chinese by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva (384-417 A.D.).]\n\n[Footnote 107: Or in other repetitions of the same formula, beings,\nideas, good things, signs, etc., etc.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Soyen Shaku, _Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot_, p. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 109: See for a simple and persuasive statement of these\nabstruse doctrines a charming little book called _Wu-Wei_ by H.\nBorel.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Translated from the Chinese by Teitaro Suzuki, 1900.\nThe translation must be used with care, as its frequent use of the\nword _soul_ may lead to misunderstanding.]\n\n[Footnote 111: Asanga's work _Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra_ (edited and\ntranslated by S. L\u00e9vi) which covers much of the same ground is extant\nin Sanskrit as well as in Chinese and Tibetan translations. It is a\nlucid and authoritative treatise but does not appear to have ever been\npopular, or to be read now in the Far East. For Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra see also\n_Mus\u00e9on_, 1904, p. 370.]\n\n[Footnote 112: The discussion of _tathat\u00e2_ in Kath\u00e2vatthu, XIX. 5\nseems to record an early phase of these speculations.]\n\n[Footnote 113: _Awakening of Faith_, Teitaro Suzuki, pp. 62 and 70.]\n\n[Footnote 114: The process is generally called V\u00e2sana or perfuming.]\n\n[Footnote 115: Vij\u00f1\u00e2nam\u00e2tra S\u00e2stra. Chinese version quoted by Teitaro\nSuzuki, _Outlines of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism_, p. 343. Apparently both\nup\u00e2dhi and upadhi are used in Buddhist Sanskrit. Up\u00e2di is the Pali\nform.]\n\n[Footnote 116: So the M\u00e2dhyamika S\u00e2stra (XXV. 19) states that there is\nno difference between Sams\u00e2ra and Nirv\u00e2na. Cf. Rabindranath Tagore,\n_Sadhana_, pp. 160-164.]\n\n[Footnote 117: _E.g._ Bodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, chap. I, called praise of the\nBodhicitta.]\n\n[Footnote 118: _E.g._ the Pu-ti-hsin-li-hsiang-lun (Nanjio, 1304),\ntranslated from N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, and the Ta-Ch'\u00eang-fa-chieh-wu-cha-pieh-lun,\ntranslated from Sthiramati (Nanjio, 1258).]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nMAHAYANIST SCRIPTURES\n\n\nIn a previous chapter I have discussed the Pali Canon and I shall\nsubsequently have something to say about the Chinese and Tibetan\nCanons, which are libraries of religious and edifying works rather\nthan sacred books similar to the Vedas or the Bible. My present object\nis to speak of the Sanskrit literature, chiefly sutras, which appeared\ncontemporaneously with the rise of Mahayanism in India.\n\nThe Mahayanist scriptures are the largest body of sacred writings\nextant in the world, but it is not easy either to define the limits of\nthe Canon or to say when it was put together. According to a common\ntradition Kanishka played for the Church of the Great Vehicle much the\nsame part as Asoka for the Therav\u00e2dins and summoned a Council which\nwrote commentaries on the Tripitaka. This may be reasonably held to\ninclude a recension of the text commented on but we do not know what\nthat text was, and the brief and perplexing accounts of the Council\nwhich we possess indicate not that it gave its imprimatur to\nMahayanist sutras but that it was specially concerned with the\nAbhidharma works of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school.\n\nIn any case no Canon formed in the time of Kanishka can have been\nequivalent to the collections of writings accepted to-day in China and\nTibet, for they contain works later than any date which can be\nassigned to his reign, as do also the nine sacred books revered in\nNepal. It was agreed among Indian Buddhists that the scriptures were\ndivided among the three Pitakas or baskets, but we may surmise that\nthere was no unanimity as to the precise contents of each basket. In\nIndia the need for unanimity in such matters is not felt. The Brahmans\nalways recognized that the most holy and most jealously preserved\nscriptures could exist in various recensions and the Mahabharata shows\nhow generations of respectful and uncritical hearers may allow\nadventitious matter of all sorts to be incorporated in a work.\nSomething of the same kind happened with the Pitakas. We know that the\nPali recension which we possess was not the only one, for fragments of\na Sanskrit version have been discovered.\n\nThere was probably a large floating literature of sutras, often\npresenting several recensions of the same document worked up in\ndifferent ways. Just as additions were made to the list of Upanishads\nup to the middle ages, although the character of the later works was\ndifferent from that of the earlier, so new sutras, modern in date and\nin tone, were received in the capacious basket. And just as the\nPuranas were accepted as sacred books without undermining the\nauthority of the Vedas, so new Buddhist scriptures superseded without\ncondemning the old ones. Various Mahayanist schools had their own\nversions of the Vinaya which apparently contain the same rules as the\nPali text but also much additional narrative, and Asanga quotes from\nworks corresponding to the Pali Nik\u00e2yas, though his doctrine belongs\nto another age.[119] The Abhidharma section of the Pali Canon seems\nhowever to have been peculiar to the Therav\u00e2da school. The\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din Pitaka of the same name was entirely different and,\njudging from the Chinese Canon, the Mahayanists gave the title to\nphilosophic works by such authors as Asanga and Vasubandhu, some of\nwhich were described as revelations from Maitreya.\n\nSpecially characteristic of Mahayanist Buddhism are the Vaipulya[120]\nsutras, that is sutras of great extension or development. These works,\nof which the Lotus is an example, follow the same scheme as the older\nsutras but are of wider scope and on a much larger scale, for they\noften consist of twenty or more chapters. They usually attempt to give\na general exposition of the whole Dharma, or at least of some aspect\nof it which is extolled as sufficient for the right conduct of life.\nThe chief speaker is usually the Buddha, who is introduced as teaching\non the Vulture Peak, or some other well-known locality, and surrounded\nby a great assemblage many of whom are superhuman beings. The occasion\nof the discourse is commonly signalized by his sending forth rays of\nlight which illuminate the universe until the scene includes other\nworlds. As early as the Anguttara Nik\u00e2ya[121] we find references to\nthe danger of a taste for ornate and poetic sutras and these\ncompositions seem to be the outcome of that taste. The literary ideas\nand methods which produced them are illustrated by the S\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra of\nAsvaghosha, a collection of edifying tales, many of which use the\nmaterials supplied by the Pali Nik\u00e2yas and Vinaya but present them in\na more effective and artistic form. It was thought a pious task to\namplify and embellish the simple narratives handed down by tradition.\n\nThe Mahayanist scriptures are composed in Sanskrit not in Pali, but it\nis only rarely--for instance in the works of Asvaghosha--that Buddhist\nSanskrit conforms to the rules of the classical language. Usually the\nwords deviate from this standard both in form and meaning and often\nsuggest that the text as we have it is a Sanskritized version of an\nolder work in some popular dialect, brought into partial conformity\nwith literary usage. In the poetical portions, this process of\nsanskritization encountered greater difficulties than in prose,\nbecause metre and prosody often refused to admit the changes required\nby grammar, so that this poetical dialect cannot be called either\nSanskrit, Pali or Magadhi but remains a mixture of learned and popular\nspeech. But Sanskrit did not become a sacred language for the\nMahayanists like Latin for Roman Catholics. It is rather Pali which\nhas assumed this position among the Hinayanists, for Burmese and\nSinhalese translations of the Pitakas acquired no authority. But in\nthe north the principle[122] that every man might read the Buddha's\nword in his own vernacular was usually respected: and the populations\nof Central Asia, the Chinese, the Tibetans, and the Mongols translated\nthe scriptures into their own languages without attaching any\nsuperstitious importance to the original words, unless they were\nDh\u00e2ran\u00ees or spells.\n\nAbout the time of the Christian era or perhaps rather earlier, greater\nuse began to be made of writing for religious purposes. The old\npractice of reciting the scriptures was not discontinued but no\nobjection was made to preserving and reading them in written copies.\nAccording to tradition, the Pali scriptures were committed to writing\nin Ceylon during the reign of Vattag\u00e2mani, that is according to the\nmost recent chronology about 20 B.C., and Kanishka caused to be\nengraved on copper plates the commentaries composed by the council\nwhich he summoned. In Asvaghosha[123] we find the story of a Brahman\nwho casually taking up a book to pass the time lights on a copy of the\nSutra of the Twelve Causes and is converted. But though the Buddhists\nremained on the whole true to the old view that the important thing\nwas to understand and disseminate the substance of the Master's\nteaching and not merely to preserve the text as if it were a sacred\nformula, still we see growing up in Mahayanist works ideas about the\nsanctity and efficacy of scripture which are foreign to the Pali\nCanon. Many sutras (for instance the Diamond Cutter) extol themselves\nas all-sufficient for salvation: the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 commences with a\nsalutation addressed not as usual to the Buddha but to the work\nitself, as if it were a deity, and Hodgson states that the Buddhists\nof Nepal worship their nine sacred books. Nor was the idea excluded\nthat certain words, especially formul\u00e6 or spells called Dh\u00e2ran\u00ee, have\nin themselves a mysterious efficacy and potency.[124] Some of these\nare cited and recommended in the Lotus.[125] In so far as the\nrepetition of sacred words or spells is regarded as an integral part\nof the religious life, the doctrine has no warrant in the earlier\nteaching. It obviously becomes more and more prominent in later works.\nBut the idea itself is old, for it is clearly the same that produced a\nbelief in the Brahmanic mantras, particularly the mantras of the\nAtharva Veda, and early Buddhism did not reject mantras in their\nproper place. Thus[126] the deities present themselves to the Buddha\nand offer to teach him a formula which will protect his disciples from\nthe attacks of evil spirits. Hs\u00fcan Chuang even states that the council\nwhich sat at R\u00e2jagriha after the Buddha's death compiled five\nPitakas, one of which consisted of Dh\u00e2ran\u00ees,[127] and it may be that\nthe collection of such texts was begun as early as the collection of\ndiscourses and rules. But for many centuries there is no evidence that\nthey were in any way confounded with the Dharma.\n\nThe Mahayanist scriptures are so voluminous that not even the clergy\nwere expected to master any considerable part of them.[128] Indeed\nthey make no claim to be a connected whole. The theory was rather that\nthere were many vehicles plying on the road to salvation and many\nguide books. No traveller thought of taking the whole library but only\na few volumes which suited him. Most of the Chinese and Japanese sects\navowedly base themselves upon three sutras, selected according to the\ntaste of each school from the hundreds quoted in catalogues. Thus the\nT'ien-t'ai sect has for its scriptures the Lotus, the Nirv\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra\nand the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, while the Shin-shu sect admits only the three\nAmidist sutras.\n\nThe following are the names of some of the principal Mahayanist\nscriptures. Comparatively few of them have been published in Europe\nand some exist only in Chinese or Japanese translations.\n\n1. Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 or transcendental knowledge[129] is a generic name\ngiven to a whole literature consisting of treatises on the doctrine of\ns\u00fbnyat\u00e2, which vary greatly in length. They are classed as sutras,\nbeing described as discourses delivered by the Buddha on the Vulture\nPeak. At least ten are known, besides excerpts which are sometimes\ndescribed as substantive works. The great collection translated into\nChinese by Hs\u00fcan Chuang is said to consist of 200,000 verses and to\ncomprise sixteen different sutras.[130] The earliest translation of\none of these treatises into Chinese (Nanjio, 5) was made about 170\nA.D. and everything indicates that portions of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 are\namong the earliest Mahayanist works and date from about the first\ncentury of our era. Praj\u00f1\u00e2 not only means knowledge of the absolute\ntruth, that is to say of s\u00fbnyat\u00e2 or the void, but is regarded as an\nontological principle synonymous with Bodhi and Dharma-k\u00e2ya. Thus\nBuddhas not only possess this knowledge in the ordinary sense but they\n_are_ the knowledge manifest in human form, and Praj\u00f1\u00e2 is often\npersonified as a goddess. All these works lay great stress on the\ndoctrine of s\u00fbnyat\u00e2, and the non-existence of the world of experience.\nThe longest recension is said to contain a polemic against the\nHinayana.\n\nThe Diamond Cutter is one of the best known of these transcendental\ntreatises and the two short works called Heart of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2,\nwhich are widely read in Japan, appear to be brief abstracts of the\nessence of this teaching.\n\n2. The Saddharma-Pundar\u00eeka, or Lotus of the Good Law,[131] is one of\nthe best known Mahayanist sutras and is highly esteemed in China and\nJapan. It purports to be a discourse delivered by S\u00e2kyamuni on the\nVulture Peak to an assemblage of Bodhisattvas. The Lotus clearly\naffirms the multiplicity of vehicles, or various ways of teaching the\nlaw, and also the eternity of the Buddha, but it does not emphasize,\nalthough it mentions, the doctrine of s\u00fbnyat\u00e2. The work consists of\ntwo parts of which the second (chaps. XXI-XXVI) is a later addition.\nThis second part contains spells and many mythological narratives,\nincluding one of an ancient Bodhisattva who burnt himself alive in\nhonour of a former Buddha. Portions of the Lotus were translated into\nChinese under the Western Tsin Dynasty 265-316 A.D. and it is quoted\nin the Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2-s\u00e2stra ascribed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna.[132] The\nfirst part is probably not later than the first century A.D. The Lotus\nis unfortunately accessible to English readers only in a most unpoetic\ntranslation by the late Professor Kern, but it is a great religious\npoem which starting from humanity regards religion as cosmic and\nuniversal, rather than something mainly concerned with our earth. The\ndiscourses of S\u00e2kyamuni are accompanied in it by stupendous miracles\nculminating in a grand cosmic phantasmagoria in which is evoked the\nstupa containing the body of a departed Buddha, that is a shrine\ncontaining the eternal truth.\n\n3. The Lalita-vistara[133] is a life of S\u00e2kyamuni up to the\ncommencement of his mission. Though the setting of the story is\nmiraculous and Buddhas and Bodhisattvas innumerable are freely spoken\nof, yet the work does not enunciate the characteristic Mahayanist\ndoctrines so definitely as the other treatises here enumerated. It is\nsaid to have originally belonged to the school of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins\nand to have been subsequently accepted by the Mahayanists, and though\nit is not an epic but a collection of ballads and legends, yet it\noften reads as if it were a preliminary study for Asvaghosha's\nBuddhacarita. It contains Sanskrit versions of old legends, which are\nalmost verbal renderings of the Pali text, but also new material and\nseems to be conscious of relating novelties which may arouse\nscepticism for it interrupts the narrative to anathematize those who\ndo not believe in the miracles of the Nativity and to extol the merits\nof faith (_sraddh\u00e2_ not _bhakti_). It is probably coeval with the\nearlier Gandharan art but there are no facts to fix its date.[134]\n\n4. The Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra[135] gives an account of the revelation of the good\nLaw by S\u00e2kyamuni when visiting Lanka. It is presumably subsequent to\nthe period when Ceylon had become a centre of Buddhism, but the story\nis pure fancy and unconnected with history or with older legends. It\nrelates how the Buddha alighted on Mt. Malaya in Lanka. Ravana came to\npay his respects and asked for definitions of virtue and vice which\nwere given. The Bodhisattva Mah\u00e2mati (apparently Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee) proceeded\nto propound a series of more abstruse questions which are answered at\nconsiderable length. The Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra represents a mature phase of\nspeculation and not only criticizes the S\u00e2nkhya, P\u00e2supata and other\nHindu schools, but is conscious of the growing resemblance of\nMahayanism to Brahmanic philosophy and tries to explain it. It\ncontains a prophecy about N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and another which mentions the\nGuptas, and it appears to allude to the domination of the Huns. This\nallusion would make its date as late as the sixth century but a\ntranslation into Chinese which is said to correspond with the Sanskrit\ntext was made in 513. If so the barbarians referred to cannot be the\nHuns. An earlier translation made in 443 does not agree with our\nSanskrit text and perhaps the work existed in several recensions.\n\n5. The Suvarna-prabh\u00e2sa or Glitter of Gold[136] is a Vaipulya s\u00fbtra\nin many ways resembling the Lotus. It insists on the supernatural\ncharacter of the Buddha. He was never really born nor entered into\nNirvana but is the Dharma-k\u00e2ya. The scene is laid at R\u00e2jagriha and\nmany Brahmanic deities are among the interlocutors. It was translated\ninto Chinese about 420 A.D. and fragments of a translation into Uigur\nhave been discovered in Turkestan.[137] The contents comprise\nphilosophy, legends and spells.\n\n6. Ganda-vy\u00fbha[138] or the Structure of the World, which is compared\nto a bubble. The name is not found in the catalogue of the Chinese\nTripitaka but the work is said to be the same as the Avatamsaka s\u00fbtra\nwhich is popular in the Far East under the name of Hua-y\u00ean in China or\nKe-gon in Japan. The identity of the two books could not have been\nguessed from the extracts and analyses which have been published but\nis guaranteed by high authorities.[139] It is possible however that\nthe Ganda-vy\u00fbha is only a portion of the larger work called\nAvatamsaka. So far as can be judged from the extracts, this text\npreaches in a fully developed form, the doctrines of S\u00fbnyat\u00e2,\nDharma-k\u00e2ya, the omnipresence of the Buddha and the redemption of the\nworld by the exertions of Bodhisattvas. Yet it seems to be early, for\na portion of it was translated into Chinese about 170 A.D. (Nanjio,\n102) and about 405 Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva translated a commentary on it ascribed\nto N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna (Nanjio, 1180).\n\n7. Tath\u00e2gata-guhyaka. This work is known by the analysis of\nRajendralala Mitra from which it appears to be a Tantra of the worst\nclass and probably late. Its proper title is said to be\nSr\u00eeguhyasamaja. Watanabe states that the work catalogued by Nanjio\nunder No. 1027 and translated into Chinese about 1000 A.D. is an\nexpurgated version of it. The Siksh\u00e2samuccaya cites the\nTath\u00e2gata-guhya-s\u00fbtra several times. The relations of these works to\none another are not quite clear.\n\n8. Sam\u00e2dhir\u00e2ja[140] is a Vy\u00e2karana or narrative describing different\nforms of meditation of which the Sam\u00e2dhir\u00e2ja is the greatest and best.\nThe scene is laid on the Vulture's Peak and the principal\ninterlocutors are S\u00e2kyamuni and Candraprabha, a rich man of\nR\u00e2jagriha. It appears to be the same as the Candraprad\u00eepa-s\u00fbtra and\nis a complete and copious treatise, which not only expounds the topic\nfrom which it takes its name but incidentally enumerates the chief\nprinciples of Mahayanism. Watanabe[141] states that it is the\nY\u00fceh-t\u00eang-san-mei-ching (Nanjio, 191) translated about 450 and again\nin 557 A.D.\n\n9. Dasabh\u00fbm\u00eesvara.[142] An account of the ten stages in the career of\na Bodhisattva before he can attain to Buddhahood. The scene is laid in\nthe paradise of Indra where S\u00e2kyamuni was temporarily sojourning and\nthe principal interlocutor is a Bodhisattva named Vajragarbha. It is\nsaid to be the same as the Dasabh\u00fbmika-s\u00fbtra first translated into\nChinese about 300 A.D. (Nanjio, 105 and 110) but this work appears to\nbe merely a portion of the Ganda-vy\u00fbha or Avatamsaka mentioned\nabove.\n\nThese nine works are all extant in Sanskrit and are known in Nepal as\nthe nine Dharmas, the word Dharma being an abbreviation for\n_Dharmapary\u00e2ya_, revolution or exposition of the law, a term\nfrequently used in the works themselves to describe a comprehensive\ndiscourse delivered by the Buddha. They are all quoted in the\nSiksh\u00e2samuccaya, supposed to have been written about 650 A.D. No\nsimilar collection of nine seems to be known in Tibet or the Far East\nand the origin of the selection is obscure. As however the list does\nnot include the Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na, the principal indigenous scripture\nof Nepal, it may go back to an Indian source and represent an old\ntradition.\n\nBesides the nine Dharmas, numerous other s\u00fbtras exist in Sanskrit,\nChinese, Tibetan and the languages of Central Asia. Few have been\nedited or translated and even when something is known of their\ncharacter detailed information as to their contents is usually\nwanting. Among the better known are the following.\n\n10. One of the s\u00fbtras most read in China and admired because its style\nhas a literary quality unusual in Buddhist works is commonly known as\nthe L\u00eang-yen-ching. The full title is Shou-l\u00eang-yen-san-mei-ching\nwhich is the Chinese transliteration of S\u00fbrangama Sam\u00e2dhi.[143] This\nsutra is quoted by name in the Siksh\u00e2samuccaya and fragments of the\nSanskrit text have been found in Turkestan.[144] The S\u00fbrangama-Sam\u00e2dhi\nS\u00fbtra has been conjectured to be the same as the Sam\u00e2dhir\u00e2ja, but the\naccounts of Rajendralala Mitra and Beal do not support this theory.\nBeal's translation leaves the impression that it resembles a Pali\nsutta. The scene is laid in the Jetavana with few miraculous\naccessories. The Buddha discusses with \u00c2nanda the location of the soul\nand after confuting his theories expounds the doctrine of the\nDharma-k\u00e2ya. The fragments found in Turkestan recommend a particular\nform of meditation.\n\n11. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha informs us that among the many Mahayanist works which\nappeared in the reign of Kanishka's son was the Ratnak\u00fbta-dharma-pary\u00e2ya\nin 1000 sections and the Ratnak\u00fbta is cited not only by the\nSiksh\u00e2samuccaya but by Asanga.[145] The Tibetan and Chinese\ncanons contain sections with this name comprising forty-eight\nor forty-nine items among which are the three important treatises\nabout Amit\u00e2bha's paradise and many dialogues called Paripricch\u00e2, that\nis, questions put by some personage, human or superhuman, and\nfurnished with appropriate replies.[146] The Chinese Ratnak\u00fbta is\nsaid to have been compiled by Bodhiruchi (693-713 A.D.) but of course\nhe is responsible only for the selection not for the composition of\nthe works included. Section 14 of this Ratnak\u00fbta is said to be\nidentical with chapters 11 and 12 of the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din\nVinaya.[147]\n\n12. The Guna-k\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha and K\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha are said to be two\nrecensions of the same work, the first in verse the second in prose.\nBoth are devoted to the praise of Avalokita who is represented as the\npresiding deity of the universe. He has refused to enter Buddhahood\nhimself until all living creatures attain to true knowledge and is\nspecially occupied in procuring the release of those who suffer in\nhell. The Guna-k\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha contains a remarkable account of the\norigin of the world which is said to be absent from the prose version.\nThe primeval Buddha spirit, \u00c2di-Buddha or Svayambh\u00fb, produces\nAvalokita by meditation, and Avalokita produces the material world and\nthe gods of Hinduism from his body, Siva from his forehead, N\u00e2r\u00e2yana\nfrom his heart and so on. As such doctrines are not known to have\nappeared in Indian Buddhism before the tenth century it seems probable\nthat the versified edition is late. But a work with the title\nRatna-k\u00e2randaka-vy\u00fbha-s\u00fbtra was translated into Chinese in 270 and\nthe K\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha is said to have been the first work translated\ninto Tibetan.[148]\n\n13. The Karun\u00e2a-pundar\u00eeka[149] or Lotus of Compassion is mainly\noccupied with the description of an imaginary continent called\nPadmadh\u00e2tu, its Buddha and its many splendours. It exists in Sanskrit\nand was translated into Chinese about 400 A.D. (Nanjio, No. 142).\n\n14. The Mah\u00e2vairocan\u00e2bhisambhodhi called in Chinese Ta-jih-ching or\nGreat Sun sutra should perhaps be mentioned as it is the principal\nscripture of the Ch\u00ean-yen (Japanese Shingon) school. It is a late work\nof unknown origin. It was translated into Chinese in 724 A.D. but the\nSanskrit text has not been found.\n\nThere are a great number of other sutras which are important for the\nhistory of literature, although little attention is paid to them by\nBuddhists at the present day. Such are the Mahayanist version of the\nMah\u00e2parinirv\u00e2na recounting the death and burial of the Buddha and the\nMah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta-s\u00fbtra, which apparently includes the S\u00fbryagarbha and\nCandragarbha sutras. All these works were translated into Chinese\nabout 420 A.D. and must therefore be of respectable antiquity.\n\nBesides the sutras, there are many compositions styled Avad\u00e2nas or\npious legends.[150] These, though recognized by Mahayanists, do not as\na rule contain expositions of the S\u00fbnyat\u00e2 and Dharma-k\u00e2ya and are not\nsharply distinguished from the more imaginative of the Hinayanist\nscriptures.[151] But they introduce a multiplicity of Buddhas and\nBodhisattvas and represent S\u00e2kyamuni as a superhuman worker of\nmiracles.\n\nThey correspond in many respects to the Pali Vinaya but teach right\nconduct not so much by precept as by edifying stories and, like most\nMahayanist works they lay less stress upon monastic discipline than on\nunselfish virtue exercised throughout successive existences. There are\na dozen or more collections of Avad\u00e2nas of which the most important\nare the Mah\u00e2vastu and the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na. The former[152] is an\nencyclop\u00e6dic work which contains _inter alia_ a life of S\u00e2kyamuni. It\ndescribes itself as belonging to the Lokottarav\u00e2dins, a section of the\n\u00c2ryamah\u00e2-sanghikas. The Lokottarav\u00e2dins were an ancient sect,\nprecursors of the Mahayana rather than a branch of it, and much of the\nMah\u00e2vastu is parallel to the Pali Canon and may have been composed a\ncentury or two before our era. But other parts seem to belong to the\nGandharan period and the mention of Chinese and Hunnish writing points\nto a much later date.[153] If it was originally a Vinaya treatise, it\nhas been distended out of all recognition by the addition of legends\nand anecdotes but it still retains a certain amount of matter found\nalso in the Pali and Tibetan Vinayas. There were probably several\nrecensions in which successive additions were made to the original\nnucleus. One interpolation is the lengthy and important section called\nDasabh\u00fbmika, describing the career of a Bodhisattva. It is the only\npart of the Mah\u00e2vastu which can be called definitely Mahayanist. The\nrest of the work marks a transitional stage in doctrine, just as its\nlanguage is neither Prakrit or Sanskrit but some ancient vernacular\nbrought into partial conformity with Sanskrit grammar. No Chinese\ntranslation is known.\n\nThe Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na[154] is a collection of legends, part of which is\nknown as the Asok\u00e2vad\u00e2na and gives an edifying life of that pious\nmonarch. This portion was translated into Chinese A.D. 317-420 and the\nwork probably dates from the third century of our era. It is loosely\nconstructed: considerable portions of it seem to be identical with the\nVinaya of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and others with passages in the works of\nAsvaghosha.\n\nThe Avad\u00e2nas lie on the borderland between scripture and pious\nliterature which uses human argument and refers to scripture for its\nauthority. Of this literature the Mahayanist church has a goodly\ncollection and the works ascribed to such doctors as Asvaghosha,\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu hold a high place in general esteem.\nThe Chinese Canon places many of them in the Pitakas (especially in\nthe Abhidharma Pitaka) and not among the works of miscellaneous\nwriters.\n\nThe Mahayanist scriptures are still a living force. In Nepal the nine\nDharmas receive superstitious homage rather than intelligent study,\nbut in Tibet and the Far East the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, the Lotus and the\nsutras about Amit\u00e2bha are in daily use for public worship and private\nreading. I have heard the first-named work as well as the\nL\u00eang-yen-ching expounded, that is, read aloud with an extempore\nparaphrase, to lay congregations in China, and the section of it\ncalled the Diamond Cutter is the book which is most commonly in the\nhands of religious Tibetans. The Lotus is the special scripture of the\nNichiren sect in Japan but is universally respected. The twenty-fourth\nchapter which contains the praises of Avalokita is often printed\nseparately. The Amit\u00e2bha s\u00fbtras take the place of the New Testament\nfor the Jodo and Shin sects and copies of them may also be found in\nalmost every monastery throughout China and Annam. The Suvarna-prabh\u00e2sa\nis said to be specially popular among the Mongols. I know Chinese\nBuddhists who read the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) every day. Modern Japanese\nwriters quote frequently from the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra and K\u00e2syapa-parivarta\nbut I have not met with any instance of these works being in popular\nuse.\n\nI have mentioned already the obscurity surrounding the history of the\nMahayanist Canon in India and it may seem to throw doubt on the\nauthenticity of these scriptures. Unauthentic they certainly are in\nthe sense that European criticism is not likely to accept as\nhistorical the discourses which they attribute to the Buddha and\nothers, but there is no reason to doubt that they are treatises\ncomposed in India early in our era and representing the doctrines then\nprevalent. The religious public of India has never felt any difficulty\nin accepting works of merit--and often only very moderate merit--as\nrevelations, whether called Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras or what not.\nOnly rarely have such works received any formal approbation, such as\nrecognition by a council. Indeed it is rather in Ceylon, Burma, Tibet\nand China than in India itself that authoritative lists of scriptures\nhave been compiled. The natural instinct of the Hindus was not to\nclose the Canon but to leave it open for any additions which might be\nvouchsafed.\n\nTwo sketches of an elastic Mahayanist Canon of this kind are\npreserved, one in the Siksh\u00e2samuccaya[155] attributed to S\u00e2ntideva,\nwho probably flourished in the seventh century, and the other in a\nlittle work called the Duration of the Law, reporting a discourse by\nan otherwise unknown Nandimitra, said to have lived in Ceylon 800\nyears after the Buddha's death.[156] The former is a compendium of\ndoctrine illustrated by quotations from what the author regarded as\nscripture. He cites about a hundred Mahayanist sutras, refers to the\nVinaya and Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na but not apparently to the Abhidharma. He\nmentions no Tantras[157] and not many Dh\u00e2ran\u00ees.\n\nThe second work was translated by Hs\u00fcan Chuang and was therefore\nprobably written before 600 A.D.[158] Otherwise there is no external\nevidence for fixing its date. It represents Nandimitra as explaining\non his deathbed the steps taken by the Buddha to protect the True Law\nand in what works that Law is to be found. Like the Chinese Tripitaka\nit recognizes both Mahayanist and Hinayanist works, but evidently\nprefers the former and styles them collectively Bodhisattva-Pitaka.\nIt enumerates about fifty sutras by name, beginning with the\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, the Lotus and other well-known texts. Then comes a\nlist of works with titles ending in Sam\u00e2dhi, followed by others called\nParipricch\u00e2[159] or questions. A new category seems to be formed by\nthe Buddh\u00e2vatamsaka-s\u00fbtra with which the sutras about Amit\u00e2bha's\nParadise are associated. Then comes the Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta-s\u00fbtra associated\nwith works which may correspond to the Ratnak\u00fbta division of the\nChinese Canon.[160] The writer adds that there are \"hundreds of\nmyriads of similar sutras classified in groups and categories.\" He\nmentions the Vinaya and Abhidharma without further particulars,\nwhereas in describing the Hinayanist versions of these two Pitakas he\ngives many details.\n\nThe importance of this list lies in the fact that it is Indian rather\nthan in its date, for the earliest catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka\ncompiled about[161] 510 is perhaps older and certainly ampler. But if\nthe catalogue stood alone, it might be hard to say how far the\nselection of works in it was due to Chinese taste. But taking the\nIndian and Chinese evidence together, it is clear that in the sixth\ncentury Indian Mahayanists (_a_) tolerated Hinayanist scriptures while\npreferring their own, (_b_) made little use of the Vinaya or\nAbhidharma for argument or edification, though the former was very\nimportant as a code, (_c_) recognized extremely numerous sutras,\ngrouped in various classes such as Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta and Buddh\u00e2vatamsaka,\n(_d_) and did not use works called Tantras. Probably much the same is\ntrue of the fourth century and even earlier, for Asanga in one\nwork[162] quotes both Maha-and Hinayanist scriptures and among the\nformer cites by name seventeen sutras, including one called\nParipricch\u00e2 or questions.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 119: In the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra he quotes frequently from\nthe Samyukta and Ekottara \u00c2gamas, corresponding to the Samyutta and\nAnguttara Nik\u00e2yas of the Pali.]\n\n[Footnote 120: A reading Vaitulya has also been found in some\nmanuscripts of the Lotus discovered at Kashgar and it is suggested\nthat the word may refer to the sect of Vetullas or Vetulyakas\nmentioned in the Commentary on the Kath\u00e2vatthu as holding that the\nBuddha really remained in the Tushita heaven and sent a phantom to\nrepresent him in the world and that it was \u00c2nanda, not the Buddha, who\npreached the law. See Kern, _Vers. en Med. der K. Ak. v.\nWetenschappen, Letterk._, R. 4 D. VIII. pp. 312-9, Amsterdam, 1907,\nand De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin's notice of this article in _J.R.A.S._ 1907,\npp. 434-6. But this interpretation does not seem very probable.]\n\n[Footnote 121: IV. 160. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 122: See Cullavagga, V. 33. The meaning evidently is that\nthe Buddha's words are not to be enshrined in an artificial literary\nform which will prevent them from being popular.]\n\n[Footnote 123: S\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, I. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 124: See Waddell, \"The Dh\u00e2ran\u00ee cult\" in _Ostasiat. Ztsft_.\n1912, pp. 155 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 125: Chap. XXI, which is however a later addition.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Dig. Nik. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 127: Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. p. 160.]\n\n[Footnote 128: The Mah\u00e2vyutpatti (65) gives a list of 105 s\u00fbtras.]\n\n[Footnote 129: The word p\u00e2ram-it\u00e2 means as an adjective _gone to the\nfurther shore_ or _transcendent_. As a feminine substantive it means a\ntranscendent virtue or perfection.]\n\n[Footnote 130: See Walleser, _Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2_ in _Quellen der\nReligionsgeschichte_, pp. 15 ff. _S.B.E._ XLIX. Nanjio, Catalogue Nos.\n1-20 and Rajendralala Mitra's _Nepalese Buddhist Literature_, pp. 177\nff. Versions are mentioned consisting of 125,000 verses, 100,000\nverses, 25,000 verses, 10,000 verses and 8,000 verses respectively.\n(Similarly at the beginning of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata we are told that the\nEpic consists of 8,800 verses, of 24,000 and of 100,000.) Of these the\nlast or Ashtas\u00e2hasrik\u00e2 has been published in the _Bibliotheca Indica_\nand the second or Satas\u00e2hasrik\u00e2 is in process of publication. It is in\nprose, so that the expression \"verses\" appears not to mean that the\nworks are G\u00e2th\u00e2s. A Khotanese version of the Vajracchedik\u00e2 is edited\nin Hoernle's _Manuscript Remains_ by Sten Konow. The Sanskrit text was\nedited by Max M\u00fcller in _Anecdota Oxoniensia._]\n\n[Footnote 131: The Sanskrit text has been edited by Kern and Nanjio in\n_Bibliotheca Buddhica_; translated by Burnouf (_Le Lotus de la bonne\nLoi_), 1852 and by Kern (Saddharma-Pundar\u00eeka) in _S.B.E._ vol. XXI.]\n\n[Footnote 132: There appears to have been an earlier Chinese version\nof 255 A.D. but it has been lost. See Nanjio, p. 390. One of the later\nChinese versions alludes to the existence of two recensions (Nanjio,\nNo. 139). See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. Fragments of a shorter and\napparently earlier recension of the Lotus have been discovered in E.\nTurkestan. See _J.R.A.S._ 1916, pp. 269-277.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Edited by Rajendralala Mitra in the _Bibliotheca\nIndica_ and partially translated in the same series. A later critical\nedition by Lefmann, 1902-8.]\n\n[Footnote 134: The early Chinese translations seem doubtful. One said\nto have been made under the later Han has been lost. See Nanjio, No.\n159.]\n\n[Footnote 135: See Burnouf, _Introduction_, pp. 458 ff. and _J.R.A.S._\n1905, pp. 831 ff. Rajendralala Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Literature_,\np. 113. A brief analysis is given in _J.A.S.B._ June, 1905 according\nto which the s\u00fbtra professes to be the work of a human author, Jina of\nthe clan of K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana born at Camp\u00e2. An edition of the Sanskrit text\npublished by the Buddhist Text Society is cited but I have not seen\nit. Chinese translations were made in 443 and 515 but the first is\nincomplete and does not correspond with our Sanskrit text.]\n\n[Footnote 136: Abstract by Rajendralala Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist\nLit_. p. 241.]\n\n[Footnote 137: See Nanjio, No. 127 and F.W.K. Muller in _Abhandl. der\nK. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften_, 1908. The Uigur text is\npublished in _Bibliotheca Buddhica_, 1914. Fragments of the Sanskrit\ntext have also been found in Turkestan.]\n\n[Footnote 138: Abstract by Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit._ pp. 90\nff. The Siksh\u00e2samuccaya cites the Ganda-vy\u00fbha several times and does\nnot mention the Avatamsaka.]\n\n[Footnote 139: The statement was first made on the authority of\nTakakusu quoted by Winternitz in _Ges. Ind. Lit_. II. i. p. 242.\nWatanabe in _J.R.A.S._ 1911, 663 makes an equally definite statement\nas to the identity of the two works. The identity is confirmed by\nPelliot in _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 118-121.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Abstract by Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit._ pp. 81\nff. Quoted in S\u00e2ntideva's Bodhicary\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, VIII. 106.]\n\n[Footnote 141: See _J.R.A.S._ 1911, 663.]\n\n[Footnote 142: Abstract by Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit._ pp. 81\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 143: Translated in part by Beal, _Catena of Buddhist\nScriptures_, pp. 286-369. See also Teitaro Suzuki, _Outlines of\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na_, p. 157. For notices of the text see Nanjio, Nos. 399, 446,\n1588. Fa-Hsien, Chap. XXIX. For the equivalence of Shou-l\u00eang-yen and\nS\u00fbrangama see Nanjio's note to No. 399 and Julien, _M\u00e9thode_, 1007 and\nVasilief, p. 175.]\n\n[Footnote 144: See Siksh\u00e2s, ed. Bendall, pp. 8,91 and _Hoernle,\nManuscript remains_, I. pp. 125 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 145: Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, XIX. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 146: _E.g._ the R\u00e2shtra-p\u00e2la-paripricch\u00e2 edited in Sanskrit\nby Finot, _Biblioth. Buddhica_, 1901. The Sanskrit text seems to agree\nwith the Chinese version. The real number of s\u00fbtras in the Ratnak\u00fbta\nseems to be 48, two being practically the same but represented as\nuttered on different occasions.]\n\n[Footnote 147: There is another somewhat similar collection of s\u00fbtras\nin the Chinese Canon called Ta Tsi or Mah\u00e2sannip\u00e2ta but unlike the\nRatnak\u00fbta it seems to contain few well-known or popular works.]\n\n[Footnote 148: I know of these works only by Raj. Mitra's abstracts,\n_Nepal. Bud. Lit._ pp. 95 and 101. The prose text is said to have been\npublished in Sanskrit at Calcutta, 1873.]\n\n[Footnote 149: Raj. Mitra, _Nepalese Buddhist Lit_. pp. 285 ff. The\nSanskrit text was published for the Buddhist Text Society, Calcutta,\n1898.]\n\n[Footnote 150: Avad\u00e2na is primarily a great and glorious act: hence an\naccount of such an act.]\n\n[Footnote 151: The Avad\u00e2na-sataka (Feer, _Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_,\nXVIII) seems to be entirely Hinayanist.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Edited by Senart, 3 vols. 1882-1897. Windisch, _Die\nKomposition des Mah\u00e2vastu_, 1909. Article \"Mahav\u00e2stu\" in _E.R.E._]\n\n[Footnote 153: So too do the words Hor\u00e2p\u00e2thaka (astrologer),\nUjjhebhaka (? Uzbek), Peliyaksha (? Felix). The word Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra (I. 120)\nmay refer simply to the practice of Yoga and not to the school which\nbore this name.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Edited by Cowell and Neil, 1886. See Nanjio, 1344.]\n\n[Footnote 155: Edited by Bendall in _Bibl. Buddhica._]\n\n[Footnote 156: Nanjio, No. 1466. For a learned discussion of this work\nsee L\u00e9vi and Chavannes in _J.A._ 1916, Nos. I and II.]\n\n[Footnote 157: It is not likely that the Tath\u00e2gata-guhya-s\u00fbtra which\nit quotes is the same as the Tantra with a similar name analysed by\nRajendralal Mitra.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Watters, _J.R.A.S._ 1898, p. 331 says there seems to\nhave been an earlier translation.]\n\n[Footnote 159: Many works with this title will be found in Nanjio.]\n\n[Footnote 160: But the Chinese title seems rather to represent\nRatnar\u00e2si.]\n\n[Footnote 161: See Nanjio, pp. xiii-xvii.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra. See L\u00e9vi's introduction, p. 14.\nThe \"Questions\" sutra is Brahma-paripricch\u00e2.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nCHRONOLOGY OF THE MAHAYANA\n\n\nIn the previous chapters I have enumerated some features of\nMahayanism, such as the worship of Bodhisattvas leading to mythology,\nthe deification of Buddhas, entailing a theology as complicated as the\nChristian creeds, the combination of metaphysics with religion, and\nthe rise of new scriptures consecrating all these innovations. I will\nnow essay the more difficult task of arranging these phenomena in some\nsort of chronological setting.\n\nThe voluminous Chinese literature concerning Buddhism offers valuable\nassistance, for the Chinese, unlike the Hindus, have a natural\ndisposition to write simple narratives recording facts and dates. But\nthey are diarists and chroniclers rather than historians. The Chinese\npilgrims to India give a good account of their itinerary and\nexperiences, but they have little idea of investigating and arranging\npast events and merely recount traditions connected with the places\nwhich they visited. In spite of this their statements have\nconsiderable historical value and on the whole harmonize with the\nliterary and arch\u00e6logical data furnished by India.\n\nThe Tibetan Lama T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha who completed his History of Indian\nBuddhism[163] in 1608 is a less satisfactory authority. He merits\nattention but also scepticism and caution. His work is a compilation\nbut is not to be despised on that ground, for the Tibetan translations\nof Sanskrit works offer a rich mine of information about the history\nof the Mahayana. Unfortunately few of these works take the historical\npoint of view and T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha's own method is as uncritical as his\nmaterials. Dire confusion prevails as to chronology and even as to\nnames,[164] so that the work is almost useless as a connected account,\nthough it contains many interesting details.\n\nTwo epochs are of special importance for the development of later\nIndian Buddhism, that of Kanishka and that of Vasubandhu and his\nbrother Asanga. The reader may expect me to discuss at length the date\nof Kanishka's accession, but I do not propose to do so for it may be\nhoped that in the next few years arch\u00e6logical research in India or\nCentral Asia will fix the chronology of the Kushans and meanwhile it\nis waste of time to argue about probabilities or at any rate it can be\ndone profitably only in special articles. At present the majority of\nscholars place his accession at about 78 A.D., others put it back to\n58 B.C. and arrange the Kushan kings in a different order,[165] while\nstill others[166] think that he did not come to the throne until the\nsecond century was well advanced. The evidence of art, particularly of\nnumismatics, indicates that Kanishka reigned towards the end of his\ndynasty rather than at the beginning, but the use of Greek on his\ncoins and his traditional connection with the beginnings of the\nMahayana are arguments against a very late date. If the date 78 A.D.\nis accepted, the conversion of the Y\u00fceh-chih to Buddhism and its\ndiffusion in Central Asia cannot have been the work of Kanishka, for\nBuddhism began to reach China by land about the time of the Christian\nera.[167] There is however no reason to assume that they were his\nwork. Kanishka, like Constantine, probably favoured a winning cause,\nand Buddhism may have been gradually making its way among the Kushans\nand their neighbours for a couple of centuries before his time. In any\ncase, however important his reign may have been for the Buddhist\nChurch, I do not think that the history of the Mahayana should be made\nto depend on his date. Chinese translations, supported by other\nevidence, indicate that the Mahayanist movement had begun about the\ntime of our era. If it is proved that Kanishka lived considerably\nlater, we should not argue that Mahayanism is later than was supposed\nbut rather that his relation towards it has been misunderstood.[168]\n\nThe date of Vasubandhu has also been much discussed and scholars have\ngenerally placed him in the fourth or fifth century but P\u00e9ri[169]\nappears to have proved that he lived from about 280 to 360 A.D. and I\nshall adopt this view. This chronology makes a reasonable setting for\nthe development of Buddhism. If Kanishka reigned from about 78 to 123\nA.D. or even later, there is no difficulty in supposing that\nAsvaghosha flourished in his reign and was followed by N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. The\ncollapse of the Kushan Empire was probably accompanied by raids from\nIranian tribes, for Persian influence appears to have been strong in\nIndia during the confused interval between the Kushans and Guptas\n(225-320). The latter inaugurated the revival of Hinduism but still\nshowed favour to individual Buddhists, and we know from Fa-Hsien that\nBuddhism was fairly flourishing during his visit to India (399-415).\nThere is nothing improbable in supposing that Vasubandhu, who is\nstated to have lived at Court, was patronized by the early Guptas. The\nblank in Buddhist history which follows his career can be explained\nfirst by the progress of Hinduism at the expense of Buddhism and\nsecondly by the invasions of the Huns. The Chinese pilgrim Sung-Y\u00fcn\nhas left us an account of India in this distressful period and for the\nseventh century the works of Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching give copious\ninformation.\n\nIn investigating the beginnings of the Mahayana we may start from the\nepoch of Asoka, who is regarded by tradition as the patron and\nconsolidator of the Hinayanist Church. And the tradition seems on the\nwhole correct: the united evidence of texts and inscriptions goes to\nshow that the Buddhists of Asoka's time held the chief doctrines\nsubsequently professed by the Sinhalese Church and did not hold the\nother set of doctrines known as Mahayanist. That these latter are\nposterior in time is practically admitted by the books that teach\nthem, for they are constantly described as the crown and completion of\na progressive revelation. Thus the Lotus[170] illustrates the\nevolution of doctrine by a story which curiously resembles the parable\nof the prodigal son except that the returned penitent does not\nrecognize his father, who proceeds to reveal gradually his name and\nposition, keeping back the full truth to the last. Similarly it is\nheld in the Far East that there were five periods in S\u00e2kyamuni's\nteaching which after passing through the stage of the Hinayana\nculminated in the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and Amit\u00e2bha sutras shortly before\nhis death. Such statements admit the historical priority of the\nHinayana: it is rudimentary (that is early) truth which needs\ncompletion and expansion. Many critics demur to the assumption that\nprimitive Buddhism was a system of ethics purged of superstition and\nmythology. And in a way they are right. Could we get hold of a\nprimitive Buddhist, we should probably find that miracles, magic, and\nsuperhuman beings played a large part in his mind and that the Buddha\ndid not appear to him as what we call a human teacher. In that sense\nthe germs of the Mahayana existed in the life-time of Gotama. But the\ndifference between early and later Buddhism lies in this, that the\ndeities who surround the Buddha in the Pali Pitakas are mere\naccessories: his teaching would not be affected if they were all\nremoved. But the Bodhisattvas in the Lotus or the Sutra of the Happy\nLand have a doctrinal significance.\n\nThough in India old ideas persist with unusual vitality, still even\nthere they can live only if they either develop or gather round them\nnew accretions. As one of the religions of India, Buddhism was\nsensitive to the general movement of Indian thought, or rather it was\na part of that movement. We see as clearly in Buddhist as in\nnon-Buddhist India that there was a tendency to construct philosophic\nsystems and another tendency to create deities satisfying to the\nemotions as well as to the intellect and yet another tendency to\ncompose new scriptures. But apart from this parallel development, it\nbecomes clear after the Christian era that Buddhism is becoming\nsurrounded by Hinduism. The influence is not indeed one-sided: there\nis interdependence and interpenetration but the net result is that the\ngeneral Indian features of each religious period overpower the\nspecially Buddhist features and in the end we find that while Hinduism\nhas only been profoundly modified Buddhism has vanished.\n\nIf we examine the Pali Pitakas, including the heresies mentioned in\nthe Kath\u00e2vatthu, we find that they contain the germs of many\nMahayanist ideas. Thus side by side with the human portrait of the\nBuddha there is the doctrine that he is one in a series of\nsupernatural teachers, each with the same life-history, and this life\nis connected with the whole course of nature, as is shown by the\nsympathetic earthquakes which mark its crises. His birth is\nsupernatural and had he willed it he could have lived until the end of\nthe present Kalpa.[171] So, too, the nature of a Buddha when he is\nreleased from form, that is after death, is deep and unfathomable as\nthe ocean.[172] The Kath\u00e2vatthu condemns the ideas (thus showing that\nthey existed) that Buddhas are born in all quarters of the universe,\nthat the Buddha was superhuman in the ordinary affairs of life, that\nhe was not really born in the world of men and that he did not preach\nthe Law himself. These last two heresies are attributed by the\ncommentary to the Vetulyakas who are said to have believed that he\nremained in the Tushita heaven and sent a phantom to preach on earth.\nHere we have the rudiments of the doctrine afterwards systematized\nunder the name of the three bodies of Buddha. Similarly though Nirvana\nis regarded as primarily an ethical state, the Pali Canon contains the\nexpression Nirv\u00e2nadh\u00e2tu and the idea[173] that Nirvana is a sphere or\nrealm (_\u00e2yatanam_) which transcends the transitory world and in which\nsuch antitheses are coming and going, birth and death, cease to exist.\nThis foreshadows the doctrine of Bh\u00fbta-tathat\u00e2 and we seem to hear a\nprelude to the dialectic of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna when the Kath\u00e2vatthu discusses\nwhether Su\u00f1\u00f1at\u00e2 or the void is predicable of the Skandhas and when it\ncondemns the views that anything now existing existed in the past: and\nthat knowledge of the present is possible (whereas the moment anything\nis known it is really past). The Kath\u00e2vatthu also condemns the\nproposition that a Bodhisattva can be reborn in realms of woe or fall\ninto error, and this proposition hints that the career of a\nBodhisattva was considered of general interest.\n\nThe Mahayana grows out of the Hinayana and in many respects the\nHinayana passes into it and is preserved unchanged. It is true that in\nreading the Lotus we wonder how this marvellous cosmic vision can\nrepresent itself as the teaching of Gotama, but the Buddhacarita of\nAsvaghosha, though embellished with literary mythology, hardly\nadvances in doctrine beyond the Pali sutras describing the marvels of\nthe Buddha's nativity[174] and the greater part of N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna's\nFriendly Epistle, which purports to contain an epitome of the faith,\nis in phraseology as well as thought perfectly in harmony with the\nPali Canon. Whence comes this difference of tone in works accepted by\nthe same school? One difficulty of the historian who essays to account\nfor the later phases of Buddhism is to apportion duly the influence of\nIndian and foreign elements. On the one hand, the Mahayana, whether we\ncall it a development or perversion, is a product of Indian thought.\nTo explain its trinities, its saviours, its doctrine of self sacrifice\nit is not necessary to seek abroad. New schools, anxious to claim\ncontinuity and antiquity, gladly retained as much of the old doctrine\nas they could. But on the other hand, Indian Buddhism came into\ncontact with foreign, especially Iranian, ideas and undoubtedly\nassimilated some of them. From time to time I have drawn attention to\nsuch cases in this work, but as a rule the foreign ideas are so\nthoroughly mastered and indianized that they cease to be obvious. They\nmerely open up to Indian thought a new path wherein it can move in its\nown way.\n\nIn the period following Asoka's death Buddhism suffered a temporary\neclipse. Pushyamitra who in 184 B.C. overthrew the Mauryas and\nestablished the Sunga dynasty was a patron of the Brahmans. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha\ndescribes him[175] as a ferocious persecutor, and the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na\nsupports the story. But the persecution, if it really occurred, was\nprobably local and did not seriously check the spread of Buddhism,\nwhich before the time of Kanishka had extended northwards to Bactria\nand Kashmir. The latter territory became the special home of the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins. It was in the reign of Pushyamitra that the\nGr\u00e6co-Bactrian king Menander or Milinda invaded India (155-3 B.C.) and\nthere were many other invasions and settlements of tribes coming from\nthe north-west and variously described as Sakas, Pahlavas, Parthians\nand Yavanas, culminating in the conquests of the Kushans. The whole\nperiod was disturbed and confused but some general statements can be\nmade with considerable confidence.\n\nFrom about 300 B.C. to 100 A.D. we find inscriptions, buildings and\nstatues testifying to the piety of Buddhist and Jain donors but hardly\nany indications of a similar liberality to Brahmans. In the second and\nthird centuries A.D. grants of land to Brahmans and their temples\nbegin to be recorded and in the fourth century (that is with the rise\nof the Gupta Dynasty) such grants become frequent. These facts can\nhardly be interpreted otherwise than as meaning that from 300 B.C. to\n100 A.D. the upper classes of India favoured Buddhism and Jainism and\ndid not favour the Brahmans in the same way or to the same extent. But\nit must be remembered that the religion of the Brahmans continued\nthroughout this period and produced a copious literature, and also\nthat the absence of works of art may be due to the fact that their\nworship was performed in sacrificial enclosures and that they had not\nyet begun to use temples and statues. After the first century A.D. we\nhave first a gradual and then a rapid rise in Brahmanic influence.\nInscriptions as well as books indicate that a linguistic change\noccurred in the same period. At first popular dialects were regarded\nas sufficiently dignified and current to be the medium for both\nscripture and official records. Sanskrit remained a thing apart--the\npeculiar possession of the Brahman literati. Then the popular language\nwas Sanskritized, the rules of Sanskrit grammar being accepted as the\nstandard to which it ought to conform, though perfect conformity was\nimpracticable. In much the same way the modern Greeks try to bring\nRomaic into line with classical Greek. Finally Sanskrit was recognized\nas the proper language for literature, government and religion. The\nearliest inscriptions[176] in correct Sanskrit seem to date from the\nsecond century A.D. Further, the invaders who entered India from the\nnorth-west favoured Buddhism on the whole. Coins indicate that some of\nthem worshipped Siva[177] but the number and beauty of Buddhist\nmonuments erected under their rule can hardly be interpreted except as\na sign of their patronage. And their conversion was natural for they\nhad no strong religious convictions of their own and the Brahmans\nwith their pride of caste shrank from foreigners. But Buddhism had no\nprejudice of race or class: it was animated by a missionary spirit and\nit was probably the stronger creed at this period. It not only met the\ninvaders on their entry into India but it sent missionaries to them in\nBactria and Afghanistan, so that to some extent they brought Buddhism\nwith them. But it was a Buddhism combined with the most varied\nelements. Hellenic art and religion had made the figures of Apollo,\nHerakles and Helios familiar in Bactria, and both Bactria and northern\nIndia were in touch with Zoroastrians. The mixed cults of these\nborderlands readily professed allegiance to the Buddha but, not\nunderstanding Indian ideas, simply made him into a deity and having\ndone this were not likely to repudiate other Indian deities. Thus in\nits outward form the Buddhism of the invaders tended to be a compound\nof Indian, Greek and Persian ideas in which Sun worship played a large\npart, for not only Indian myths, but Apollo and Helios and the Persian\nMithra all entered into it. Persian influence in art is discernible as\nearly as the architecture of Asoka: in doctrine it has something to do\nwith such figures as Vairocana and Amit\u00e2bha. Gr\u00e6co-Roman influence\nalso was powerful in art and through art affected religion. In Asoka's\ntime likenesses of the Buddha were unknown and the adoration of\nimages, if not entirely due to the art of Gandhara, was at least\nencouraged by it.\n\nBut though coins and sculpture bring clearly before us a medley of\ndeities corresponding to a medley of human races, they do not help us\nmuch in tracing the growth of thought, phases of which are preserved\nin a literature sufficiently copious though the record sometimes fails\nat the points of transition where it would be of most interest. It is\nnatural that sacred books should record accepted results rather than\ntentative innovations and even disguise the latter. But we can fix a\nfew dates which enable us to judge what shape Buddhism was taking\nabout the time of the Christian era. The Tibetan historian T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha\nis not of much help, for his chronology is most confused, but still he\ndefinitely connects the appearance of Mahayanist texts with the reign\nof Kanishka and the period immediately following it[178] and regards\nthem as a new phenomenon. Greater assistance is furnished by the\nChinese translators, whose dates are known with some exactitude. Thus\nthe earliest Buddhist work rendered into Chinese is said to be the\nsutra of forty-two sections, translated by K\u00e2syapa M\u00e2tanga in 67 A.D.\nIt consists of extracts or resum\u00e9s of the Buddha's teaching mostly\nprefaced by the words \"The Buddha said,\" doubtless in imitation of the\nConfucian Analects where the introductory formula \"The master said\"\nplays a similar part. Its ideas and precepts are Hinayanist:[179] the\nArhat is held up as the ideal and in a remarkable passage[180] where\nthe degrees of sanctity are graded and compared no mention is made of\nBodhisattvas. This first translation was followed by a long series of\nothers, principally from the S\u00fbtra-Pitaka, for very little of the\nVinaya was translated before the fifth century. A great number of\nHinayanist sutras were translated before 300 A.D. but very few after\n450. On the other hand portions of the sutra about Am\u00eeda's Paradise,\nof the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, and of the Avatamsaka were translated about\n150 A.D. and translations of the Lotus and Lalita-vistara appeared\nabout 300.\n\nGreat caution is necessary in using these data and the circumstances\nof China as well as of India must be taken into account. If\ntranslations of the Vinaya and complete collections of sutras are late\nin appearing, it does not follow that the corresponding Indian texts\nare late, for the need of the Vinaya was not felt until monasteries\nbegan to spring up. Most of the translations made before the fifth\ncentury are extracts and of indifferent workmanship. Some are retained\nin the Chinese Tripitaka but are superseded by later versions. But\nhowever inaccurate and incomplete these older translations may be, if\nany of them can be identified with a part of an extant Sanskrit work\nit follows that at least that part of the work and the doctrines\ncontained in it were current in India or Central Asia some time before\nthe translation was made. Applying this principle we may conclude that\nthe Hinayana and Mahayana were flourishing side by side in India and\nCentral Asia in the first century A.D. and that the Happy Land sutras\nand portions of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 already existed. From that time\nonwards Mahayanist literature as represented by Chinese translations\nsteadily increases, and after 400 A.D. Hinayanist literature declines,\nwith two exceptions, the Vinaya and the Abhidharma books of the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins. The Vinaya was evidently regarded as a rule of life\nindependent of theology, but it is remarkable that Hs\u00fcan Chuang after\nhis return from India in 645 should have thought it worth while to\ntranslate the philosophy of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins.\n\nOther considerations render this chronology probable. Two conspicuous\nfeatures of the Mahayana are the worship of Bodhisattvas and idealist\nphilosophy. These are obviously parallel to the worship of Siva and\nVishnu, and to the rise of the Vedanta. Now the worship of these\ndeities was probably not prevalent before 300 B.C., for they are\nalmost unknown to the Pali Pitakas, and it was fully developed about\nthe time of the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 which perhaps assumed its present form a\nlittle before the Christian era. Not only is the combination of\ndevotion and metaphysics found in this work similar to the tone of\nmany Mahayanist sutras but the manifestation of Krishna in his divine\nform is like the transformation scenes of the Lotus.[181] The chief\nmoral principle of the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 is substantially the same as that\nprescribed for Bodhisattvas. It teaches that action is superior to\ninaction, but that action should be wholly disinterested and not\ndirected to any selfish object. This is precisely the attitude of the\nBodhisattva who avoids the inaction of those who are engrossed in\nself-culture as much as the pursuit of wealth or pleasure. Both the\nG\u00eet\u00e2 and Mahayanist treatises lay stress on faith. He who thinks on\nKrishna when dying goes to Krishna[182] just as he who thinks on\nAmit\u00e2bha goes to the Happy Land and the idea is not unknown to the\nPali texts, for it finds complete expression in the story of\nMatthakundali.[183]\n\nThe idea of a benevolent deity to be worshipped with devotion and\nfaith and not with ceremonies is strange to old Buddhism and old\nBrahmanism alike. It was a popular idea which became so strong that\nneither priests nor Bhikshus could ignore it and in its ultimate\nresult it is hard to say whether Buddhist or Brahmanic elements are\nmore prominent. Both Avalokita and Krishna are Devas. The former has\nthe beauty of holiness and the strength which it gives, but also the\nweakness of a somewhat abstract figure: the latter is very personal\nand springs from the heart of India but to those who are not Hindus\nseems wanting in purity and simplicity. The divine character of both\nfigures is due to Brahmanism rather than Buddhism, but the new form of\nworship which laid stress on a frame of mind rather than on ceremonial\nand the idea of Avat\u00e2ras or the periodic appearance of superhuman\nsaviours and teachers indicate the influence of Buddhism on\nBrahmanism.\n\nThere is a similar parallel between the newer Buddhist philosophy and\nthe Vedantist school represented by Sankara, and Indian critics\ndetected it. Sankara was called a Pracchanna-bauddha or\ncrypto-buddhist by his theological opponents[184] and the resemblance\nbetween the two systems in thought, if not in word, is striking. Both\ndistinguish relative and absolute truth: for both the relative truth\nis practically theism, for both absolute truth is beyond description\nand whether it is called Brahman, Dharma-k\u00e2ya or S\u00fbnyat\u00e2 is not\nequivalent to God in the Christian or Mohammedan sense. Just as for\nthe Vedantist there exist in the light of the highest knowledge\nneither a personal God nor an individual soul, so the M\u00e2dhyamika S\u00fbtra\ncan declare that the Buddha does not really exist. The Mahayanist\nphilosophers do not use the word M\u00e2y\u00e2 but they state the same theory\nin a more subjective form by ascribing the appearance of the\nphenomenal world to ignorance, a nomenclature which is derived from\nthe Buddha's phrase, \"From ignorance come the Sankh\u00e2ras.\"\n\nHere, as elsewhere, Buddhist and Brahmanic ideas acted and reacted in\nsuch complex interrelations that it is hard to say which has borrowed\nfrom the other. As to dates, the older Upanishads which contain the\nfoundations but not the complete edifice of Vedantism, seem a little\nearlier than the Buddha. Now we know that within the Vedantist school\nthere were divergences of opinion which later received classic\nexpression in the hands of Sankara and R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. The latter rejected\nthe doctrines of M\u00e2y\u00e2 and of the difference between relative and\nabsolute truth. The germs of both schools are to be found in the\nUpanishads but it seems probable that the ideas of Sankara were\noriginally worked out among Buddhists rather than among Brahmans and\nwere rightly described by their opponents as disguised Buddhism. As\nearly as 520 A.D. Bodhidharma preached in China a doctrine which is\npractically the same as the Advaita.\n\nThe earliest known work in which the theory of M\u00e2y\u00e2 and the Advaita\nphilosophy are clearly formulated is the metrical treatise known as\nthe K\u00e2rik\u00e2 of Gaudap\u00e2da. This name was borne by the teacher of\nSankara's teacher, who must have lived about 700 A.D., but the high\nposition accorded to the work, which is usually printed with the\nM\u00e2nd\u00fbkya Upanishad and is practically regarded as[185] a part of it,\nmake an earlier date probable. Both in language and thought it bears a\nstriking resemblance to Buddhist writings of the M\u00e2dhyamika school and\nalso contains many ideas and similes which reappear in the works of\nSankara.[186] On the other hand the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra S\u00fbtra which was\ntranslated into Chinese in 513 and therefore can hardly have been\ncomposed later than 450, is conscious that its doctrines resemble\nBrahmanic philosophy, for an interlocutor objects that the language\nused in it by the Buddha about the Tath\u00e2gatagarbha is very like the\nBrahmanic doctrine of the \u00c2tman. To which the Buddha replies that his\nlanguage is a concession to those who cannot stomach the doctrine of\nthe negation of reality in all its austerity. Some of the best known\nverses of Gaudap\u00e2da compare the world of appearance to the apparent\ncircle of fire produced by whirling a lighted torch. This striking\nimage occurs first in the Maitr\u00e2yana Upanishad (VI. 24), which shows\nother indications of an acquaintance with Buddhism, and also in the\nLank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra S\u00fbtra.\n\nA real affinity unites the doctrine of Sankara to the teaching of\nGotama himself. That teaching as presented in the Pali Pitakas is\nmarked by its negative and deliberately circumscribed character. Its\nrule is silence when strict accuracy of expression is impossible,\nwhereas later philosophy does not shrink from phrases which are\nsuggestive, if not exact. Gotama refuses to admit that the human soul\nis a fixed entity or \u00c2tman, but he does not condemn (though he also\ndoes not discuss) the idea that the whole world of change and\nbecoming, including human souls, is the expression or disguise of some\none ineffable principle. He teaches too that the human mind can grow\nuntil it develops new faculties and powers and becomes the Buddha\nmind, which sees the whole chain of births, the order of the world,\nand the reality of emancipation. As the object of the whole system is\npractical, Nirvana is always regarded as a _terminus ad quem_ or an\nescape (nissaranam) from this transitory world, and this view is more\naccurate as well as more edifying than the view which treats Brahman\nor S\u00fbnyat\u00e2 as the origin of the universe. When the Vedanta teaches\nthat this changing troubled world is merely the disguise of that\nunchanging and untroubled state into which saints can pass, it is, I\nbelieve, following Gotama's thought, but giving it an expression which\nhe would have considered imperfect.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 163: Translated by Schiefner, 1869. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha informs us (p.\n281) that his chief authorities were the history of Kshemendrabhadra,\nthe Buddhapur\u00e2na of Indradatta and Bhataghat\u00ee's history of the\nsuccession of the \u00c2c\u00e2ryas.]\n\n[Footnote 164: The Tibetans generally translate instead of\ntransliterating Indian names. It is as if an English history of Greece\nwere to speak of Leader of the People instead of Agesilaus.]\n\n[Footnote 165: They place Kanishka, V\u00e2sishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva\nbefore Kadphises I and Kadphises II.]\n\n[Footnote 166: _E.g._ Sta\u00ebl Holstein who also thinks that Kanishka's\ntribe should be called Kusha not Kushan. Vincent Smith in his latest\nwork (_Oxford History of India_, p. 130) gives 120 A.D. as the most\nprobable date.]\n\n[Footnote 167: My chief difficulty in accepting 78-123 A.D. as the\nreign of Kanishka is that the Chinese Annals record the doings of Pan\nCh'ao between 73 and 102 in Central Asia, with which region Kanishka\nis believed to have had relations, and yet do not mention his name.\nThis silence makes it _prim\u00e2 facie_ probable that he lived either\nbefore or after Pan Ch'ao's career.\n\nThe catalogues of the Chinese Tripitaka state that An-Shih-Kao\n(148-170 A.D.) translated the M\u00e2rgabh\u00fbmi-s\u00fbtra of Sangharaksha, who\nwas the chaplain of Kanishka. But this unfortunately proves nothing\nexcept that Kanishka cannot have been very late. The work is not a\nscripture for whose recognition some lapse of time must be postulated.\nAn-Shih-Kao, who came from the west, may very well have translated a\nrecent and popular treatise.]\n\n[Footnote 168: In this connection we may remember T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha's\nstatement that Kanishka's Council put an end to dissentions which had\nlasted about a century. But he also states that it was after the\nCouncil that Mahayanist texts began to appear. If Kanishka flourished\nabout 50 A.D. this would fit in with T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha's statements and what\nwe know of the history of Buddhism.]\n\n[Footnote 169: _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 339-390. Satischandra Vidy\u00e2bh\u00fbshana\narrived at the same conclusion in _J.A.S.B._ 1905, p. 227.]\n\n[Footnote 170: Chap. IV.]\n\n[Footnote 171: Mah\u00e2parinib. Sut. III.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Majj. Nik. 72.]\n\n[Footnote 173: Ud\u00e2na. VIII. 1-4.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Accariyabbhutasuttam. Majj. Nik. 123.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Chap. XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 176: That of Rudradaman at Girnar, dated 72 in the Saka Era,\nhas hitherto been considered the oldest, but it is now said that one\ndiscovered at Isapur near Muttra is older. See _J.R.A.S_ 1912, p.\n114.]\n\n[Footnote 177: _E.g._ Kadphises II and Vasudeva.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Chaps. XII, XIII.]\n\n[Footnote 179: The last section (42) as translated by Teitaro Suzuki\nin the _Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot_ may seem an exception, for it\ncontains such statements as \"I consider the doctrine of sameness as\nthe absolute ground of reality.\" But the translation seems to me\ndoubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 180: Sec. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 181: Just as all gods and worlds are seen within Krishna's\nbody, so we are told in the K\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha (which is however a later\nwork) that in the pores of Avalokita's skin are woods and mountains\nwhere dwell saints and gods.]\n\n[Footnote 182: Bhag. G. VIII. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 183: _Commentary on Dhammapada_, P.T.S. edition, pp. 25 ff.\nespecially p. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 184: See R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, Sr\u00eebh\u00e2shya, II. 2, 27 and Padma-Pur\u00e2na\nuttarakanda 43 (quoted by Suhtankar in _Vienna Oriental Journ._ vol.\nXXII. 1908). M\u00e2y\u00e2v\u00e2dam asacch\u00e2str\u00e2m pracchannam bauddham ucyate. The\nM\u00e2dhvas were specially bitter in their denunciation of Sankara.]\n\n[Footnote 185: Or as itself forming four separate Upanishads. For\nother arguments in favour of an early date see Walleser, _\u00c4lterer\nVed\u00e2nta_, pp. 14 ff. He states that the K\u00e2rik\u00e2 is quoted in the\nTibetan translations of Bhavaviveka's _Tarkajvala_. Bhavaviveka was\ncertainly anterior to the travels of Hs\u00fcan Chuang and perhaps was much\nearlier. But if he died about 600 A.D. a work quoted by him can hardly\nhave been later than 550 and may be much earlier. But see also Jacobi\nin _J.A.O.S._ April, 1913, p. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 186: For the resemblances to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna see _J.R.A.S._ 1910,\npp. 136 ff. Especially remarkable are II. 32 na nirodho na cotpattir,\netc., and IV. 59 and the whole argument that causation is impossible.\nNoticeable too is the use of Buddhist terms like up\u00e2ya, nirv\u00e2na,\nbuddha and \u00e2dibuddha, though not always in the Buddhist sense.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nFROM KANISHKA TO VASUBANDHU\n\n\nTradition, as mentioned above, connects the rise of the Mahayana with\nthe reign of Kanishka. Materials for forming a picture of Indian life\nunder his rule are not plentiful but it was clearly an age of fusion.\nHis hereditary dominions were ample and he had no need to spend his\nreign in conquests, but he probably subdued Kashmir as well as Khotan,\nYarkand and Kashgar.[187] Hostages from one of these states were sent\nto reside in India and all accounts agree that they were treated with\ngenerosity and that their sojourn improved the relations of Kanishka\nwith the northern tribes. His capital was Purushapura or Peshawar, and\nthe locality, like many other features of his reign, indicates a\ntendency to amalgamate India with Persia and Central Asia. It was\nembellished with masterpieces of Gandharan sculpture and its chief\nornament was a great st\u00fbpa built by the king for the reception of the\nrelics of the Buddha which he collected. This building is described by\nseveral Chinese pilgrims[188] and its proportions, though variously\nstated, were sufficient to render it celebrated in all the Buddhist\nworld. It is said to have been several times burnt, and rebuilt, but\nso solid a structure can hardly have been totally destroyed by fire\nand the greater part of the monument discovered in 1908 probably dates\nfrom the time of Kanishka. The base is a square measuring 285 feet on\neach side, with massive towers at the corners, and on each of the four\nfaces projections bearing staircases. The sides were ornamented with\nstucco figures of the Buddha and according to the Chinese pilgrims the\nsuper-structure was crowned with an iron pillar on which were set\ntwenty-five gilded disks. Inside was found a metal casket, still\ncontaining the sacred bones, and bearing an inscription which presents\ntwo points of great interest. Firstly it mentions \"Agisala the\noverseer of works at Kanishka's vih\u00e2ra,\" that is, probably Agesilaus,\na foreigner in the king's service. Secondly it states that the casket\nwas made \"for the acceptance of the teachers of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din\nsect,\"[189] and the idea that Kanishka was the special patron of the\nMahayana must be reconsidered in the light of this statement.\n\nLegends ascribe Kanishka's fervour for the Buddhist faith not to\neducation but to conversion. His coinage, of which abundant specimens\nhave been preserved, confirms this for it presents images of Greek,\nPersian, Indian and perhaps Babylonian deities showing how varied was\nthe mythology which may have mingled with Gandharan Buddhism. The\ncoins bearing figures of the Buddha are not numerous and, as he\nundoubtedly left behind him the reputation of a pious Buddhist, it is\nprobable that they were struck late in his reign and represent his\nlast religious phase.[190] Hs\u00fcan Chuang[191] repeats some legends\nwhich relate that he was originally anti-Buddhist, and that after his\nconversion he summoned a council and built a stupa.\n\nThe substance of these legends is probable. Kanishka as a barbarian\nbut docile conqueror was likely to adopt Buddhism if he wished to keep\nabreast of the thought and civilisation of his subjects, for at that\ntime it undoubtedly inspired the intellect and art of north-western\nIndia. Both as a statesman and as an enquirer after truth he would\nwish to promote harmony and stop sectarian squabbles. His action\nresembles that of Constantine who after his conversion to Christianity\nproceeded to summon the Council of Nic\u00e6a in order to stop the\ndissensions of the Church and settle what were the tenets of the\nreligion which he had embraced, a point about which both he and\nKanishka seem to have felt some uncertainty. Our knowledge of\nKanishka's Council depends chiefly on the traditions reported by Hs\u00fcan\nChuang[192] which present many difficulties. He tells us that the\nking, acting in consultation with Parsva, issued summonses to all the\nlearned doctors of his realm. They came in such crowds that a severe\ntest was imposed and only 499 Arhats were selected. There was some\ndiscussion as to the place of meeting but finally Kashmir[193] was\nselected and the king built a monastery for the Brethren. When the\nCouncil met, there arose a question as to whether Vasumitra (who is\nnot further described) should be admitted seeing that he was not an\nArhat but aspired to the career of a Bodhisattva. But owing to the\ninterposition of spirits he was not only admitted but made president.\n\nThe texts of the Tripitaka were collected and the Council \"composed\n100,000 stanzas of Upadesa S\u00e2stras explanatory of the canonical\ns\u00fbtras, 100,000 stanzas of Vinaya-vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 S\u00e2stras explanatory of the\nVinaya and 100,000 of Abhidharma-vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 S\u00e2stras explanatory of the\nAbhidharma. For this exposition of the Tripitaka all learning from\nremote antiquity was thoroughly examined; the general sense and the\nterse language (of the Buddhist scriptures) was again and again made\nclear and distinct, and learning was widely diffused for the\nsafe-guiding of disciples. King Kanishka caused the treatises when\nfinished to be written out on copper plates and enclosed these in\nstone boxes which he deposited in a tope made for the purpose. He then\nordered spirits to keep and guard the texts and not to allow any to be\ntaken out of the country by heretics; those who wished to study them\ncould do so in the country. When leaving to return to his own country,\nKanishka renewed Asoka's gift of all Kashmir to the Buddhist\nChurch.\"[194]\n\nParam\u00e2rtha (499-569 A.D.) in his _Life of Vasubandhu_[195] gives an\naccount of a council generally considered to be the same as that\ndescribed by Hs\u00fcan Chuang, though the differences in the two versions\nare considerable. He says that about five hundred years[196] after the\nBuddha's death (_i.e._ between 87 B.C. and 13 A.D. if the Buddha died\n487 B.C.) an Indian Arhat called Katy\u00e2yan\u00ee-putra, who was a monk of\nthe Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school, went to Kipin or Kashmir. There with 500\nother Arhats and 500 Bodhisattvas he collected the Abhidharma of the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and arranged it in eight books called Ka-lan-ta\n(Sanskrit _Grantha_) or Kan-tu (Pali _Gantho_). This compilation was\nalso called J\u00f1\u00e2na-prasth\u00e2na. He then made a proclamation inviting all\nwho had heard the Buddha preach to communicate what they remembered.\nMany spirits responded and contributed their reminiscences which were\nexamined by the Council and, when they did not contradict the s\u00fbtras\nand the Vinaya, were accepted, but otherwise were rejected. The\nselected pieces were grouped according to their subject-matter. Those\nabout wisdom formed the Praj\u00f1\u00e2 Grantha, and those about meditation the\nDhy\u00e2na Grantha and so on. After finishing the eight books they\nproceeded to the composition of a commentary or Vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 and invited\nthe assistance of Asvaghosha. When he came to Kashmir, Katy\u00e2yan\u00ee-putra\nexpounded the eight books to him and Asvaghosha put them into literary\nform. At the end of twelve years the composition of the commentary was\nfinished. It consisted of 1,000,000 verses.... Katy\u00e2yan\u00ee-putra set up\na stone inscribed with this proclamation. \"Those who hereafter learn\nthis law must not go out of Kashmir. No sentence of the eight books,\nor of the Vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 must pass out of the land, lest other schools or\nthe Mahayana should corrupt the true law.\" This proclamation was\nreported to the king who approved it. The sages of Kashmir had power\nover demons and set them to guard the entrance to the country, but we\nare told that anyone desirous of learning the law could come to\nKashmir and was in no way interrupted.\n\nThere follows a story telling how, despite this prohibition, a native\nof Ayodhya succeeded in learning the law in Kashmir and subsequently\nteaching it in his native land. Param\u00e2rtha's account seems\nexaggerated, whereas the prohibition described by Hs\u00fcan Chuang is\nintelligible. It was forbidden to take the official copies of the law\nout of Kashmir, lest heretics should tamper with them.\n\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[197] gives a singularly confused account of the meeting,\nwhich he expressly calls the third council, but makes some important\nstatements about it. He says that it put an end to the dissensions\nwhich had been distracting the Buddhist Church _for nearly a century_\nand that it recognized all the eighteen sects as holding the true\ndoctrine: that it put the Vinaya in writing as well as such parts of\nthe S\u00fbtra-pitaka and Abhidharma as were still unwritten and corrected\nthose which already existed as written texts: that all kinds of\nMahayanist writings appeared at this time but that the Sr\u00e2vakas raised\nno opposition.\n\nIt is hard to say how much history can be extracted from these vague\nand discrepant stories. They seem to refer to one assembly regarded\n(at least in Tibet) as the third council of the Church and held under\nKanishka four or five hundred years[198] after the Buddha's death. As\nto what happened at the council tradition seems to justify the\nfollowing deductions, though as the tradition is certainly jumbled it\nmay also be incorrect in details.\n\n(_a_) The council is recognized only by the northern Church and is\nunknown to the Churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It seems to have\nregarded Kashmir as sacred land outside which the true doctrine was\nexposed to danger. (_b_) But it was not a specially Mahayanist meeting\nbut rather a conference of peace and compromise. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha says this\nclearly: in Hs\u00fcan Chuang's account an assembly of Arhats (which at\nthis time must have meant Hinayanists) elect a president who was not\nan Arhat and according to Param\u00e2rtha the assembly consisted of 500\nArhats and 500 Bodhisattvas who were convened by a leader of the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school and ended by requesting Asvaghosha to revise\ntheir work. (_c_) The literary result of the council was the\ncomposition of commentaries on the three Pitakas. One of these, the\nAbhidharma-mah\u00e2vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2-s\u00e2stra, translated into Chinese in 437-9 and\nstill extant, is said to be a work of encyclop\u00e6dic character, hardly a\ncommentary in the strict sense. Param\u00e2rtha perhaps made a confusion in\nsaying that the J\u00f1\u00e2na-prasth\u00e2na itself was composed at the council.\nThe traditions indicate that the council to some extent sifted and\nrevised the Tripitaka and perhaps it accepted the seven Abhidharma\nbooks of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins.[199] But it is not stated or implied that\nit composed or sanctioned Mahayanist books. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha merely says that\nsuch books appeared at this time and that the Hinayanists raised no\nactive objection.\n\nBut if the above is the gist of the traditions, the position described\nis not clear. The council is recognized by Mahayanists yet it appears\nto have resulted in the composition of a Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din treatise, and\nthe tradition connecting the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins with the council is not\nlikely to be wrong, for they are recognized in the inscription on\nKanishka's casket, and Gandhara and Kashmir were their headquarters.\nThe decisions of councils are often politic rather than logical and it\nmay be that the doctors summoned by Kanishka, while compiling\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din treatises, admitted the principle that there is more\nthan one vehicle which can take mankind to salvation. Perhaps some\ncompromise based on geography was arranged, such as that Kashmir\nshould be left to the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school which had long flourished\nthere, but that no opposition should be offered to the Mahayanists\nelsewhere.\n\nThe relations of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins to Mahayanism are exceedingly\ndifficult to define and there are hardly sufficient materials for a\nconnected account of this once important sect, but I will state some\nfacts about it which seem certain.\n\nIt is ancient, for the Kath\u00e2vatthu alludes to its doctrines.[200] It\nflourished in Gandhara, Kashmir and Central Asia, and Kanishka's\ncasket shows that he patronized it.[201] But it appears to have been\nhardly known in Ceylon or Southern India. It was the principal\nnorthern form of Hinayanism, just as the Therav\u00e2da was the southern\nform. I-Ching however says that it prevailed in the Malay Archipelago.\n\nIts doctrines, so far as known, were Hinayanist but it was\ndistinguished from cognate schools by holding that the external world\ncan be said to exist and is not merely a continual process of\nbecoming. It had its own version of the Abhidharma and of the Vinaya.\nIn the time of Fa-Hsien the latter was still preserved orally and was\nnot written. The adherents of this school were also called\nVaibh\u00e2shikas, and Vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 was a name given to their exegetical\nliterature.\n\nBut the association of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins with Mahayanists is clear\nfrom the council of Kanishka onwards. Many eminent Buddhists began by\nbeing Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and became Mahayanists, their earlier belief\nbeing regarded as preliminary rather than erroneous. Hs\u00fcan Chuang\ntranslated the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din scriptures in his old age and I-Ching\nbelonged to the M\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school;[202] yet both authors write\nas if they were devout Mahayanists. The Tibetan Church is generally\nregarded as an extreme form of Mahayanism but its Vinaya is that of\nthe Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins.\n\nThough the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins can hardly have accepted idealist\nmetaphysics, yet the evidence of art and their own version of the\nVinaya make it probable that they tolerated a moderate amount of\nmythology, and the Mahayanists, who like all philosophers were obliged\nto admit the provisional validity of the external world, may also have\nadmitted their analysis of the same as provisionally valid. The\nstrength of the Hinayanist schools lay in the Vinaya. The Mahayanists\nshowed a tendency to replace it by legends and vague if noble\naspirations. But a code of discipline was necessary for large\nmonasteries and the code of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins enjoyed general esteem\nin Central Asia and China.\n\nThree stages in the history of Indian Buddhism are marked by the names\nof Asvaghosha, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and the two brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu.\nIt would be easier to give a precise description of its development if\nwe were sure which of the works ascribed to these worthies are\nauthentic, but it seems that Asvaghosha represents an ornate and\ntransitional phase of the older schools leading to Mahayanism, whereas\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna is connected with the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and the nihilistic\nphilosophy described in the preceding chapter. Asanga was the founder\nof the later and more scholastic system called Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra and is also\nassociated with a series of revelations said to have been made by\nMaitreya.\n\nAs mentioned above, tradition makes Asvaghosha,[203] one of the most\nbrilliant among Sanskrit writers, live at the court of Kanishka[204]\nand according to some accounts he was given to the Kushans as part of\na war indemnity. The tradition[205] is confirmed by the style and\ncontents of his poems and it has been noted by Foucher that his\ntreatment of legends is in remarkable accord with their artistic\npresentment in the Gandharan sculptures. Also fragmentary manuscripts\nof his dramas discovered in Central Asia appear to date from the\nKushan epoch. Asvaghosha's rank as a poet depends chiefly on his\nBuddhacarita, or life of the Buddha up to the time of his\nenlightenment. It is the earliest example of a K\u00e2vya, usually\ntranslated as artificial epic, but here literary skill is subservient\nto the theme and does not, as too often in later works, overwhelm it.\nThe Buddha is its hero, as R\u00e2ma of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, and it sings the\nevents of his earlier life in a fine flow of elaborate but impassioned\nlanguage. Another of his poems,[206] discovered only a few years ago,\ntreats of the conversion of Nanda, the Buddha's half-brother.\n\nVarious other works are ascribed to Asvaghosha and for the history of\nBuddhism it is of great interest to decide whether he was really the\nauthor of _The Awakening of Faith_. This skilful exposition of a\ndifficult theme is worthy of the writer of the Buddhacarita but other\nreasons make his authorship doubtful, for the theology of the work may\nbe described as the full-blown flower of Mahayanism untainted by\nTantrism. It includes the doctrines of Bh\u00fbta-tathat\u00e2, \u00c2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na,\nTath\u00e2gatagarbha and the three bodies of Buddha. It would be dangerous\nto say that these ideas did not exist in the time of Kanishka, but\nwhat is known of the development of doctrine leads us to expect their\nfull expression not then but a century or two later and other\ncircumstances raise suspicions as to Asvaghosha's authorship. His\nundoubted works were translated into Chinese about 400 A.D. but _The\nAwakening of Faith_ a century and a half later.[207] Yet if this\nconcise and authoritative compendium had existed in 400, it is strange\nthat the earlier translators neglected it. It is also stated that an\nold Chinese catalogue of the Tripitaka does not name Asvaghosha as the\nauthor.[208]\n\nThe undoubted works of Asvaghosha treat the Buddha with ornate but\ngrave rhetoric as the hero of an epic. His progress is attended by\nmiracles such as Indian taste demands, but they hardly exceed the\nmarvels recounted in the Pali scriptures and there is no sign that the\nhero is identified, as in the Ramayana of Tulsi Das or the Gospel\naccording to St. John, with the divine spirit. The poet clearly feels\npersonal devotion to a Saviour. He dwells on the duty of teaching\nothers and not selfishly seeking one's own salvation, but he does not\nformulate dogmas.\n\nThe name most definitely connected with the early promulgation of\nMahayanism is N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna.[209] A preponderance of Chinese tradition\nmakes him the second patriarch after Asvaghosha[210] and this agrees\nwith the Kashmir chronicle which implies that he lived soon after\nKanishka.[211] He probably flourished in the latter half of the second\ncentury. But his biographies extant in Chinese and Tibetan are almost\nwholly mythical, even crediting him with a life of several centuries,\nand the most that can be hoped is to extract a few grains of history\nfrom them. He is said to have been by birth a Brahman of Vidarbha\n(Berar) and to have had as teacher a Sudra named Saraha or\nR\u00e2hulabhadra. When the legend states that he visited the N\u00e2gas in the\ndepths of the sea and obtained books from them, it seems to admit that\nhe preached new doctrines. It is noticeable that he is represented not\nonly as a philosopher but as a great magician, builder, physician, and\nmaker of images.\n\nMany works are attributed to him but they have not the same\nauthenticity as the poems of Asvaghosha. Some schools make him the\nauthor of the Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 but it is more usually regarded as a\nrevelation. The commentary on it known as Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2-s\u00e2stra\nis generally accepted as his work. A consensus of tradition makes him\nthe author of the M\u00e2dhyamika[212] aphorisms of which some account has\nbeen given above. It is the principal authority of its school and is\nprovided with a commentary attributed to the author himself and with a\nlater one by Candrak\u00eerti.[213] There is also ascribed to him a work\ncalled the Suhrillekha or friendly letter, a compendium of Buddhist\ndoctrines, addressed to an Indian king.[214] This work is old for it\nwas translated into Chinese in 434 A.D. and is a homily for laymen. It\nsays nothing of the M\u00e2dhyamika philosophy and most of it deals with\nthe need of good conduct and the terrors of future punishment, quite\nin the manner of the Hinayana. But it also commends the use of images\nand incense in worship, it mentions Avalokita and Amit\u00e2bha and it\nholds up the ideal of attaining Buddhahood. N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna's authorship is\nnot beyond dispute but these ideas may well represent a type of\npopular Buddhism slightly posterior to Asvaghosha.[215]\n\nIn most lists of patriarchs N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna is followed by Deva, also called\n\u00c2ryadeva, K\u00e2nadeva or N\u00eelanetra. I-Ching mentions him among the older\nteachers and a commentary on his principal work, the Satas\u00e2stra, is\nattributed to Vasubandhu.[216] Little is known of his special teaching\nbut he is regarded as an important doctor and his pupil Dharmatr\u00e2ta is\nalso important if not as an author at least as a compiler, for\nSanskrit collections of verses corresponding to the Pali Dhammapada\nare ascribed to him. \u00c2ryadeva was a native of southern India.[217]\n\nThe next epoch in the history of Buddhism is marked by the names of\nAsanga and Vasubandhu. The interval between them and Deva produced no\nteacher of importance, but Kum\u00e2ralabdha, the founder of the\nSautr\u00e2ntika school and perhaps identical with Kum\u00e2rata the eighteenth\nPatriarch of the Chinese lists, may be mentioned. Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nsays[218] that he was carried off in captivity by a king who reigned\nsomewhere in the east of the Pamirs and that he, Asvaghosha, N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna\nand Deva were styled the four shining suns.\n\nAsanga and Vasubandhu were brothers, sons of a Brahman who lived at\nPeshawar. They were both converted from the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din school to\nMahayanism, but the third brother Virincivatsa never changed his\nconvictions. Tradition connects their career with Ayodhya as well as\nwith Peshawar and Vasubandhu enjoyed the confidence of the reigning\nmonarch, who was probably Candragupta I. This identification depends\non the hypothesis that Vasubandhu lived from about 280 to 360 A.D.\nwhich, as already mentioned, seems to me to have been proved by M.\nP\u00e9ri.[219] The earlier Gupta kings though not Buddhists were tolerant,\nas is shown by the fact that the king of Ceylon[220] was allowed to\nerect a magnificent monastery at N\u00e2landa in the reign of Samudragupta\n(_c_. 330-375 A.D.).\n\nAsanga founded the school known as Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra and many authorities\nascribe to him the introduction of magical practices and Tantrism. But\nthough he is a considerable figure in the history of Buddhism, I doubt\nif his importance or culpability is so great as this. For if tradition\ncan be trusted, earlier teachers especially N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna dealt in spells\nand invocations and the works of Asanga[221] known to us are\ncharacterized by a somewhat scholastic piety and are chiefly occupied\nin defining and describing the various stages in the spiritual\ndevelopment of a Bodhisattva. It is true that he admits the use of\nmagical formul\u00e6[222] as an aid in this evolution but they form only a\nslight part of his system and it does not appear that the Ch\u00ean-yen or\nShingon sect of the Far East (the Sanskrit Mantray\u00e2na) traced its\nlineage back to him.\n\nOur estimate of his position in the history of Buddhism must depend on\nour opinion as to the authorship of _The Awakening of Faith_. If this\ntreatise was composed by Asvaghosha then doctrines respecting the\nthree bodies of Buddha, the Tath\u00e2gatagarbha and the \u00c2laya-vij\u00f1\u00e2na\nwere not only known but scientifically formulated considerably before\nAsanga. The conclusion cannot be rejected as absurd--for Asvaghosha\nmight speak differently in poems and in philosophical treatises--but\nit is surprising, and it is probable that the treatise is not his. If\nso, Asanga may have been the first to elaborate systematically (though\nnot to originate) the idea that thought is the one and only reality.\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna's nihilism was probably the older theory. It sounds late and\nelaborate but still it follows easily if the dialectic of Gotama is\napplied uncompromisingly not only to our mental processes but to the\nexternal world. Yet even in India the result was felt to be fantastic\nand sophistical and it is not surprising if after the lapse of a few\ngenerations a new system of idealism became fashionable which,\nalthough none too intelligible, was abstruse rather than paradoxical.\n\nAsanga was alleged to have received revelations from Maitreya and five\nof his works are attributed to this Bodhisattva who enjoyed\nconsiderable honour at this period. It may be that the veneration for\nthe Buddha of the future, the Messiah who would reign over his saints\nin a pure land, owed something to Persian influence which was strong\nin India during the decadence of the Kushans.[223] Both Mithraism and\nManich\u00e6ism classified their adepts in various ranks, and the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra\ndoctors who delight in grading the progress of the Bodhisattva may\nhave borrowed something from them.[224] Asanga's doctrine of\ndefilement (klesa) and purification may also owe something to Mani, as\nsuggested by S. L\u00e9vi.\n\nIn spite of his literary merits Asanga remains a doctor rather than a\nsaint or poet.[225] His speculations have little to do with either\nGotama or Amit\u00e2bha and he was thus not in living touch with either the\nold or new schools. His brother Vasubandhu had perhaps a greater\nposition. He is reckoned as the twentieth Patriarch and Tibetan\ntradition connects him with the worship of Amit\u00e2bha.[226]\n\nParam\u00e2rtha's life of Vasubandhu represents him as having frequented\nthe court of Vikram\u00e2ditya (to be identified with Candragupta I), who\nat first favoured the S\u00e2nkhya philosophy but accorded some patronage\nto Buddhism. During this period Vasubandhu was a Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din but of\nliberal views[227] and while in this phase wrote the Abhidharma-kosa,\na general exposition of the Abhidharma, mainly according to the views\nof the Vaibh\u00e2shikas but not without criticism. This celebrated work is\nnot well known in Europe[228] but is still a text-book amongst\nJapanese Buddhist students. It gained the esteem of all schools and we\nare given to understand that it presupposed the philosophy of the\nVibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 and of the J\u00f1\u00e2na-prasth\u00e2na. According to Param\u00e2rtha the\noriginal work consisted of 600 aphorisms in verse which were sent by\nthe author to the monks of Kashmir. They approved of the composition\nbut, as the aphorisms were concise, asked for fuller explanations.\nVasubandhu then expanded his verses into a prose commentary, but\nmeanwhile his views had undergone a change and when he disapproved of\nany Vaibh\u00e2shika doctrine, he criticized it. This enlarged edition by\nno means pleased the brethren of Kashmir and called forth polemics. He\nalso wrote a controversial work against the S\u00e2nkhya philosophy.\n\nLate in life Vasubandhu, moved by the entreaties of his brother\nAsanga, became a devout Mahayanist and wrote in his old age\nMahayanist treatises and commentaries.[229]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 187: The uncertainty as to the date of Kanishka naturally\nmakes it uncertain whether he was the hero of these conquests. Kashmir\nwas certainly included in the dominions of the Kushans and was a\nfavourite residence of Kanishka. About 90 A.D. a Kushan king attacked\nCentral Asia but was repulsed by the Chinese general Pan-Ch'ao. Later,\nafter the death of Pan-Ch'ao (perhaps about 103 A.D.), he renewed the\nattempt and conquered Kashgar, Yarkand and Khotan. See Vincent Smith,\n_Early History of India_, 3rd ed. pp. 253 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 188: See Fa-Hsien, ed. Legge, p. 33, _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903 (Sung\nY\u00fcn), pp. 420 ff. Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. pp. 204 ff. _J.R.A.S._\n1909, p. 1056, 1912, p. 114. For the general structure of these st\u00fbpas\nsee Foucher, _L'art Gr\u00e9co-Bouddhique du Gandhara_, pp. 45 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 189: _J.R.A.S._ 1909, p. 1058. \"Acaryanam Sarvastivadinam\npratigrahe.\"]\n\n[Footnote 190: Similarly Harsha became a Buddhist late in life.]\n\n[Footnote 191: Watters, vol. I. p. 203. He places Kanishka's accession\n400 years after the death of the Buddha, which is one of the arguments\nfor supposing Kanishka to have reigned about 50 B.C., but in another\npassage (Watters, I. 222, 224) he appears to place it 500 years after\nthe death.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Watters, vol. I. 270-1.]\n\n[Footnote 193: But T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha says some authorities held that it met at\nJalandhara. Some Chinese works say it was held at Kandahar.]\n\n[Footnote 194: Walters, _l.c._]\n\n[Footnote 195: Translated by Takakusu in _T'oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269\nff. Param\u00e2rtha was a native of Ujjain who arrived at Nanking in 548\nand made many translations, but it is quite possible that this life of\nVasubandhu is not a translation but original notes of his own.]\n\n[Footnote 196: Chinese expressions like \"in the five hundred years\nafter the Buddha's death\" probably mean the period 400-500 of the era\ncommencing with the Buddha's death and not the period 500-600. The\nperiod 1-100 is \"the one hundred years,\" 101-200 \"the two hundred\nyears\" and so on. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, 356. But it must be\nremembered that the date of the Buddha's death is not yet certain. The\nlatest theory (Vincent Smith, 1919) places it in 554 B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 197: Chap. XII.]\n\n[Footnote 198: See Watters, I. pp. 222, 224 and 270. It is worth\nnoting that Hs\u00fcan Chuang says Asoka lived one hundred years after the\nBuddha's death. See Watters, I. p. 267. See also the note of S. L\u00e9vi\nin _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 1016-1019, citing traditions to the effect\nthat there were 300 years between Upagupta, the teacher of Asoka, and\nKanishka, who is thus made to reign about 31 A.D. On the other hand\nKanishka's chaplain Sangharaksha is said to have lived 700 years after\nthe Buddha.]\n\n[Footnote 199: See Takakusu in _J.P.T.S._ 1905, pp. 67 ff. For the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din Canon, see my chapter on the Chinese Tripitaka.]\n\n[Footnote 200: See above, vol. I. p. 262. For an account of the\ndoctrines see also Vasilief, 245 ff. Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_,\npp. 190 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 201: Its connection with Gandhara and Kashmir is plainly\nindicated in its own scriptures. See Przyluski's article on \"Le\nNord-Ouest de l'Inde dans le Vinaya des M\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins,\" _J.A._\n1914, II. pp. 493 ft. This Vinaya must have received considerable\nadditions as time went on and in its present form is posterior to\nKanishka.]\n\n[Footnote 202: The distinction between Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din and\nM\u00fblasarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din is not clear to me. I can only suggest that when a\nsection of the school accepted the Mah\u00e2vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 and were known as\nVaibh\u00e2shikas others who approved of the school chiefly on account of\nits excellent Vinaya called themselves Primitive Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins.]\n\n[Footnote 203: See Sylvain L\u00e9vi, _J.A._ 1908, XII. 57 ff., and\nWinternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 201 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 204: The only reason for doubting it is that two stories\n(Nos. 14 and 31) in the S\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra (which appears to be a genuine\nwork) refer to Kanishka as if he had reigned in the past. This may be\na poetic artifice or it may be that the stories are interpolations.\nSee for the traditions Watters on _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. 102-4 and\nTakakusu in _J.R.A.S._ 1905, p. 53 who quotes the Chinese\nSamyukta-ratna-pitaka-s\u00fbtra and the Record of Indian Patriarchs. The\nChinese list of Patriarchs is compatible with the view that Asvaghosha\nwas alive about 125 A.D. for he was the twelfth Patriarch and\nBodhidharma the twenty-eighth visited China in 520. This gives about\n400 years for sixteen Patriarchs, which is possible, for these\nworthies were long-lived. But the list has little authority.]\n\n[Footnote 205: The traditions are conveniently collected in the\nintroduction to Teitaro Suzuki's translation of _The Awakening of\nFaith._]\n\n[Footnote 206: The Saundar\u00e2nandak\u00e2vya.]\n\n[Footnote 207: See Nanjio, Nos. 1182, 1351, 1250, 1299. It is\nnoticeable that the translator Param\u00e2rtha shows a special interest in\nthe life and works of Asanga and Vasubandhu.]\n\n[Footnote 208: See Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 211. It is\nalso noticeable that _The Awakening of Faith_ appears to quote the\nLank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra s\u00fbtra which is not generally regarded as an early\nMahayanist work.]\n\n[Footnote 209: N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna cannot have been the founder of the Mahayana\nfor in his Mah\u00e2-praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2-s\u00e2stra (Nanjio, 1169, translation by\nKum\u00e2rajiva) he cites _inter alia_ the Lotus, the Vimalakirti-s\u00fbtra,\nand a work called Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00e2stra. See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1911, p. 453. For\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna see especially Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Mythologie_, pp. 29 ff. and the\nbibliography given in the notes. _Jour. Budd. Text. Soc._ V. part iv.\npp. 7 ff. Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, pp. 200 ff. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, chap. XV and\nWinternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. pp. 250 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 210: He is omitted from the list of Buddhabhadra, giving the\nsuccession according to the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, to which school he did not\nbelong. I-Ching classes him with Asvaghosha and Aryadeva as belonging\nto the early period.]\n\n[Footnote 211: R\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee, i. 173, 177.]\n\n[Footnote 212: Edited in the _Bibliotheca Buddhica_ by De la Vall\u00e9e\nPoussin and (in part) in the _Journal of the Buddhist Text Soc._ See\ntoo Walleser, _Die Mittlere Lehre des N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna nach der Tibetischen\nVersion \u00fcbertragen_, 1911: _nach der Chinesischen Version \u00fcbertragen_,\n1912.]\n\n[Footnote 213: The ascription of these works to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna is probably\ncorrect for they were translated by Kum\u00e2raj\u00eeva who was sufficiently\nnear him in date to be in touch with good tradition.]\n\n[Footnote 214: The name of this king, variously given as Udayana,\nJetaka and S\u00e2tav\u00e2hana, has not been identified with certainty from the\nvarious transcriptions and translations in the Chinese and Tibetan\nversions. See _J. Pali Text Soc._ for 1886 and I-Ching _Records of the\nBuddhist Religion_ (trans. Takakusu), pp. 158 ff. The Andhra kings who\nreigned from about 240 B.C. to 225 A.D. all claimed to belong to the\nS\u00e2tav\u00e2hana dynasty. The stupa of Amar\u00e2vati in the Andhra territory is\nsurrounded by a stone railing ascribed to the period 160-200 A.D. and\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna may have addressed a pious king living about that time.]\n\n[Footnote 215: For other works attributed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna see Nanjio,\nNos. 1169, 1179, 1180, 1186 and Walleser's introduction to _Mittlere\nLehre nach der Chinesischen Version_ The Dharmasangraha, a Sanskrit\ntheological glossary, is also attributed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna as well as the\ntantric work Pancakrama. But it is not likely that the latter dates\nfrom his epoch.]\n\n[Footnote 216: Nanjio, No. 1188.]\n\n[Footnote 217: The very confused legends about him suggest a\ncomparison with the Dravidian legend of a devotee who tore out one of\nhis eyes and offered it to Siva. See Gr\u00fcnwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 34\nand notes. Polemics against various Hinayanist sects are ascribed to\nhim. See Nanjio, Nos. 1259, 1260.]\n\n[Footnote 218: Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. p. 286. Hs\u00fcan Chuang does\nnot say that the four were contemporary but that in the time of\nKum\u00e2ralabdha they were called the four Suns.]\n\n[Footnote 219: For Asanga and Vasubandhu see P\u00e9ri in _B.E.F.E.O._\n1911, pp. 339-390. Vincent Smith in _Early History of India_, third\nedition, pp. 328-334. Winternitz, _Ges. Ind. Lit._ II. i. p. 256.\nWatters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, I. pp. 210, 355-359. Taran\u00e2tha, chap. XXII.\nGr\u00fcnwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 220: Meghavarman. See V. Smith, _l.c._ 287.]\n\n[Footnote 221: Two have been preserved in Sanskrit: the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra (Ed. V. Transl., S. L\u00e9vi, 1907-1911) and the\nBodhisattva-bh\u00fbmi (English summary in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1905-6). A brief\nanalysis of the literature of the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school according to Tibetan\nauthorities is given by Stcherbatskoi in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1905, pp. 144-155.]\n\n[Footnote 222: Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2l. XVIII. 71-73. The ominous word\n_maithuna_ also occurs in this work, XVIII. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 223: Vincent Smith, _l.c._ p. 275.]\n\n[Footnote 224: But there are of course abundant Indian precedents,\nBrahmanical as well as Buddhist, for describing various degrees of\nsanctity or knowledge.]\n\n[Footnote 225: The wooden statues of Asanga and Vasubandhu preserved\nin the Kofukaji at Nara are masterpieces of art but can hardly claim\nto be other than works of imagination. They date from about 800 A.D.\nSee for an excellent reproduction Tajima's _Select Relics_, II. X.]\n\n[Footnote 226: See Eitel and Gr\u00fcnwedel, but I do not know in what\ntexts this tradition is found. It is remarkable that Param\u00e2rtha's life\n(_T'oung Pao_, 1904, pp. 269-296) does not say either that he was\ntwentieth patriarch or that he worshipped Amida.]\n\n[Footnote 227: On receiving a large donation he built three\nmonasteries, one for Hinayanists, one for Mahayanists and one for\nnuns.]\n\n[Footnote 228: The work consists of 600 verses (K\u00e2rik\u00e2) with a lengthy\nprose commentary (Bh\u00e2shya) by the author. The Sanskrit original is\nlost but translations have been preserved in Chinese (Nanjio, Nos.\n1267, 1269, 1270) and Tibetan (see Cordier, _Cat. du Fonds tib\u00e9tain de\nla Bib. Nat._ 1914, pp. 394, 499). But the commentary on the Bh\u00e2shya\ncalled Abhidharma-kosa-vy\u00e2khy\u00e2, or Sphut\u00e2rtha, by Y\u00e1somitra has been\npreserved in Sanskrit in Nepal and frequently cites the verses as well\nas the Bh\u00e2shya in the original Sanskrit. A number of European savants\nare at present occupied with this literature and Sir Denison Ross (to\nwhom I am indebted for much information) contemplates the publication\nof an Uigur text of Book I found in Central Asia. At present (1920),\nso far as I know, the only portion of the Abhidharma-kosa in print is\nDe la Vall\u00e9e Poussin's edition and translation of Book III, containing\nthe Tibetan and Sanskrit texts but not the Chinese (De la Vall\u00e9e\nPoussin--_Vasubandhu et Yasomitra_, London, 1914-18). This chapter\ndeals with such topics as the structure of the universe, the manner\nand place of rebirth, the chain of causation, the geography of the\nworld, the duration and characteristics of Kalpas, and the appearance\nof Buddhas and Cakravartins.]\n\n[Footnote 229: See Nanjio, pp. 371-2, for a list of his works\ntranslated into Chinese. Hs\u00fcan Chuang's account differs from the above\n(which is taken from Param\u00e2rtha) in details. He also tells a curious\nstory that Vasubandhu promised to appear to his friends after death\nand ultimately did so, though he forgot his promise until people began\nto say he had gone to hell.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII\n\nINDIAN BUDDHISM AS SEEN BY THE CHINESE PILGRIMS\n\n\nAbout the time of Vasubandhu there existed four schools of Indian\nBuddhism called Vaibh\u00e2shika, Sautr\u00e2ntika, M\u00e2dhyamika and Yoga or\nYog\u00e2c\u00e2ra.[230] They were specially concerned with philosophy and\napparently cut across the older division into eighteen sects, which at\nthis period seem to have differed mainly on points of discipline.\nThough not of great practical importance, they long continued to play\na certain part in controversial works both Buddhist and Brahmanic. The\nfirst two which were the older seem to have belonged to the Hinayana\nand the other two even more definitely to the Mahayana. I-Ching[231]\nis quite clear as to this. \"There are but two kinds of the so-called\nMahayana\" he says, \"first the M\u00e2dhyamika, second the Yoga.... These\ntwo systems are perfectly in accordance with the noble doctrine. Can\nwe say which of the two is right? Both equally conform to truth and\nlead us to Nirvana\" and so on. But he does not say that the other two\nsystems are also aspects of the truth. This is the more remarkable\nbecause he himself followed the M\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins. Apparently\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din and Vaibh\u00e2shika were different names for the same\nschool, the latter being applied to them because they identified\nthemselves with the commentary (Vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2) already mentioned whereas\nthe former and older designation came to be used chiefly with\nreference to their disciplinary rules. Also there were two groups of\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, those of Gandhara and those of Kashmir. The name of\nVaibh\u00e2shika was applied chiefly to the latter who, if we may find a\nkernel of truth in legends which are certainly exaggerated,\nendeavoured to make Kashmir a holy land with a monopoly of the pure\ndoctrine. Vasubandhu and Asanga appear to have broken up this\nisolation for they first preached the Vaibh\u00e2shika doctrines in a\nliberal and eclectic form outside Kashmir and then by a natural\ntransition and development went over to the Mahayana. But the\nVaibh\u00e2shikas did not disappear and were in existence even in the\nfourteenth century.[232] Their chief tenet was the real existence of\nexternal objects. In matters of doctrine they regarded their own\nAbhidharma as the highest authority.[233] They also held that Gotama\nhad an ordinary human body and passed first into a preliminary form of\nNirvana when he attained Buddhahood and secondly into complete Nirvana\nat his death. He was superhuman only in the sense that he had\nintuitive knowledge and no need to learn. Their contempt for sutras\nmay have been due to the fact that many of them discountenance the\nVaibh\u00e2shika views and also to a knowledge that new ones were\ncontinually being composed.\n\nI-Ching, who ends his work by asserting that all his statements are\naccording to the \u00c2rya-m\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-nik\u00e2ya and no other, gives an\ninteresting summary of doctrine.\n\n\"Again I say: the most important are only one or two out of eighty\nthousand doctrines of the Buddha: one should conform to the worldly\npath but inwardly strive to secure true wisdom. Now what is the\nworldly path? It is obeying prohibitive laws and avoiding any crime.\nWhat is the true wisdom? _It is to obliterate the distinction between\nsubject and object_, to follow the excellent truth and to free oneself\nfrom worldly attachments: to do away with the trammels of the chain of\ncausality: further to obtain merit by accumulating good works and\n_finally to realize the excellent meaning of perfect reality_.\"\n\nSuch a statement enables us to understand the remark which he makes\nelsewhere that the same school may belong to the Hinayana and Mahayana\nin different places, for, whatever may be meant by wisdom which aims\nat obliterating the difference between subject and object, it is\nclearly not out of sympathy with Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra doctrines. In another place\nwhere he describes the curriculum followed by monks he says that they\nlearn the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2rya-s\u00e2stra first and then eight compositions of Asanga\nand Vasubandhu. Among the works prescribed for logic is the\nNy\u00e2yadv\u00e2ra-s\u00e2stra attributed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna. The monk should learn not\nonly the Abhidharma of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins but also the \u00c2gamas,\nequivalent to the S\u00fbtra-pitaka. So the study of the s\u00fbtras and the\nworks of Asanga and Vasubandhu is approved by a Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din.\n\nThe Sautr\u00e2ntikas,[234] though accounted Hinayanists, mark a step in\nthe direction of the Mahayana. The founder of the school was\nKumar\u00e2labdha, mentioned above. In their estimation of scripture they\nreversed the views of the Vaibh\u00e2shikas, for they rejected the\nAbhidharma and accepted only the s\u00fbtras, arguing that the Abhidharma\nwas practically an extract from them. As literary criticism this is\ncorrect, if it means that the more ancient s\u00fbtras are older than the\noldest Abhidharma books. But the indiscriminate acceptance of s\u00fbtras\nled to a creed in which the supernatural played a larger part. The\nSautr\u00e2ntikas not only ascribed superhuman powers to the Buddha, but\nbelieved in the doctrine of three bodies. In philosophy, though they\nwere realists, they held that external objects are not perceived\ndirectly but that their existence is inferred.[235]\n\nSomething has already been said of the two other schools, both of\nwhich denied the reality of the external world. The differences\nbetween them were concerned with metaphysics rather than theology and\nled to no popular controversies.\n\nUp to this point the history of Indian Buddhism has proved singularly\nnebulous. The most important dates are a matter of argument, the chief\npersonages half mythical. But when the records of the Chinese pilgrims\ncommence we are in touch with something more solid. They record dates\nand facts, though we must regret that they only repeat what they heard\nand make no attempt to criticize Indian traditions or even to weave\nthem into a connected chronicle.\n\nFa-Hsien, the first of these interesting men, left China in 399 and\nresided in India from 405 to 411, spending three years at Pataliputra\nand two at Tamralipti. He visited the Panjab, Hindustan and Bengal and\nhis narrative leaves the impression that all these were in the main\nBuddhist countries: of the Deccan which he did not visit he heard that\nits inhabitants were barbarous and not Buddhists, though it contained\nsome Buddhist shrines. Of the Middle Kingdom (which according to his\nreckoning begins with Muttra) he says that the people are free and\nhappy and neither kill any living creature nor drink intoxicating\nliquor.[236] He does not hint at persecution though he once or twice\nmentions that the Brahmans were jealous of the Buddhists. Neither does\nhe indicate that any strong animosity prevailed between Maha and\nHinayanists. But the two parties were distinct and he notes which\nprevailed in each locality. He left China by land and found the\nHinayana prevalent at Shen-shen and Wu-i (apparently localities not\nfar from Lob-Nor) but the Mahayana at Khotan. Nearer India, in\ncountries apparently corresponding to parts of Kashmir and Gilgit, the\nmonks were numerous and all Hinayanist. The same was the case in\nUdyana, and in Gandhara the Hinayanists were still in the majority. In\nthe Panjab both schools were prevalent but the Hinayana evidently\nstrong. In the district of Muttra the Law was still more flourishing,\nmonasteries and topes were numerous and ample alms were given to the\nmonks. He states that the professors of the Abhidharma and Vinaya made\nofferings to those works, and the Mahayanists to the book\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2, as well as to Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee and Kwan-shih-yin. He found\nthe country in which are the sacred sites of Sr\u00e2vasti, Kapilavastu and\nKusin\u00e2r\u00e2 sparsely inhabited and desolate, but this seems to have been\ndue to general causes, not specially to the decay of religion. He\nmentions that ninety-six[237] varieties of erroneous views are found\namong the Buddhists, which points to the existence of numerous but not\nacutely hostile sects and says that there still existed, apparently in\nKosala, followers of Devadatta who recognized three previous Buddhas\nbut not S\u00e2kyamuni. He visited the birth-places of these three Buddhas\nwhich contained topes erected in their honour.\n\nHe found Magadha prosperous and pious. Of its capital, Patna, he says\n\"by the side of the topes of Asoka has been made a Mahayana monastery\nvery grand and beautiful, there is also a Hinayana one, the two\ntogether containing 600 or 700 monks.\" It is probable that this was\ntypical of the religious condition of Magadha and Bengal. Both schools\nexisted but the Mahayana was the more flourishing. Many of the old\nsites, such as R\u00e2jagriha and Gaya, were deserted but there were new\ntowns near them and Bodh Gaya was a place of pilgrimage with three\nmonasteries. In the district of Tamralipti (Tamluk) on the coast of\nBengal were 22 monasteries. As his principal object was to obtain\ncopies of the Vinaya, he stayed three years in Patna seeking and\ncopying manuscripts. In this he found some difficulty, for the various\nschools of the Vinaya, which he says were divided by trivial\ndifferences only, handed down their respective versions orally. He\nfound in the Mahayanist monastery one manuscript of the Mah\u00e2s\u00e2nghika\nrules and considered it the most complete, but also took down the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din rules.\n\nAfter the death of Vasubandhu few names of even moderate magnitude\nstand out in the history of Indian Buddhism. The changes which\noccurred were great but gradual and due not to the initiative of\ninnovators but to the assimilative power of Hinduism and to the\nattractions of magical and emotional rites. But this tendency, though\nit doubtless existed, did not become conspicuous until about 700 A.D.\nThe accounts of the Chinese pilgrims and the literature which has been\npreserved suggest that in the intervening centuries the monks were\nchiefly occupied with scholastic and exegetical work. The most\ndistinguished successors of Asanga were logicians, among whom Dinn\u00e2ga\nwas pre-eminent. Sthiramati[238] and Gunamati appear to have belonged\nto the same school and perhaps Bhavaviveka[239] too. The statements as\nto his date are inconsistent but the interesting fact is recorded that\nhe utilized the terminology of the S\u00e2nkhya for the purposes of the\nMahayana.\n\nThroughout the middle ages the study of logic was pursued but\nBuddhists and Jains rather than by Brahmans.[240] Vasubandhu composed\nsome treatises dealing exclusively with logic but it was his disciple\nDinn\u00e2ga who separated it definitely from philosophy and theology. As\nin idealist philosophy, so in pure logic there was a parallel movement\nin the Buddhist and Brahmanic schools, but if we may trust the\nstatements of V\u00e2caspatimisra (about 1100 A.D.) Dinn\u00e2ga interpreted\nthe aphorisms of the Ny\u00e2ya philosophy in a heterodox or Buddhist\nsense. This traces the beginnings of Indian logic to a Brahmanic\nsource but subsequently it flourished greatly in the hands of\nBuddhists, especially Dinn\u00e2ga and Dharmak\u00eerti. The former appears to\nhave been a native of Conjevaram and a contemporary of K\u00e2lid\u00e2sa. Both\nthe logician and the poet were probably alive in the reign of\nKum\u00e2ragupta (413-455). Dinn\u00e2ga spent much time in N\u00e2landa, and though\nthe Sanskrit originals of his works are lost the Tibetan\ntranslations[241] are preserved.\n\nThe Buddhist schools of logic continued for many centuries. One\nflourished in Kashmir and another, founded by Candragomin, in Bengal.\nBoth lasted almost until the Mohammedan conquest of the two countries.\n\nFrom about 470 to 530 A.D. northern India groaned under the tyranny of\nthe Huns. Their King Mihiragula is represented as a determined enemy\nof Buddhism and a systematic destroyer of monasteries. He is said to\nhave been a worshipper of Siva but his fury was probably inspired less\nby religious animosity than by love of pillage and slaughter.\n\nAbout 530 A.D. he was defeated by a coalition of Indian princes and\ndied ten years later amid storms and portents which were believed to\nsignify the descent of his wicked soul into hell. It must have been\nabout this time that Bodhidharma left India for he arrived in Canton\nabout 520. According to the Chinese he was the son of a king of a\ncountry called Hsiang-Chih in southern India[242] and the\ntwenty-eighth patriarch and he became an important figure in the\nreligion and art of the Far East. But no allusion to him or to any of\nthe Patriarchs after Vasubandhu has been found in Indian literature\nnor in the works of Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching. The inference is that he\nwas of no importance in India and that his reputation in China was not\ngreat before the eighth century: also that the Chinese lists of\npatriarchs do not represent the traditions of northern India.\n\nReligious feeling often ran high in southern India. Buddhists, Jains\nand Hindus engaged in violent disputes, and persecution was more\nfrequent than in the north. It is easy to suppose that Bodhidharma\nbeing the head of some heretical sect had to fly and followed the\nexample of many monks in going to China. But if so, no record of his\nschool is forthcoming from his native land, though the possibility\nthat he was more than an individual thinker and represented some\nmovement unknown to us cannot be denied. We might suppose too that\nsince N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and \u00c2ryadeva were southerners, their peculiar\ndoctrines were coloured by Dravidian ideas. But our available\ndocuments indicate that the Buddhism of southern India was almost\nentirely Hinayanist, analogous to that of Ceylon and not very\nsympathetic to the Tamils.\n\nThe pilgrims Sung-Y\u00fcn and Hui-Sh\u00eang[243] visited Udyana and Gandhara\nduring the time of the Hun domination (518-521). They found the king\nof the former a pious Buddhist but the latter was governed by an\nEphthalite chieftain, perhaps Mihiragula himself, who was a worshipper\nof demons. Of the Yetha or Ephthalites they make the general\nobservation that \"their rules of politeness are very defective.\" But\nthey also say that the population of Gandhara had a great respect for\nBuddhism and as they took back to China 170 volumes, \"all standard\nworks belonging to the Great Vehicle,\" the Ephthalite persecution\ncannot have destroyed the faith in north-western India. But the evil\ndays of decay were beginning. Henceforward we have no more pictures of\nuntroubled piety and prosperity. At best Buddhism receives royal\npatronage in company with other religions; sectarian conflicts\nincrease and sometimes we hear of persecution. About 600 A.D. a king\nof Central Bengal named Sas\u00e2nka who worshipped Siva attempted to\nextirpate Buddhism in his dominions and destroyed the Bo tree at Bodh\nGaya.[244] On the other hand we hear of the pious P\u00fbrnavarman, king\nof Magadha, who made amends for these sacrileges, and of S\u00eel\u00e2ditya,\nking of the country called Mo-lo-po by the Chinese, who was so careful\nof animal life, that he even strained the water drunk by his horses\nand elephants, lest they should consume minute insects.\n\nWe know more of Indian Buddhism in the seventh century than in the\nperiods which precede or follow it. The epoch was marked by the reign\nof the great king, or rather emperor, Harsha-Vardhana (606-648 A.D.),\nand the works written by B\u00e2na, Bhartrihari and others who frequented\nhis court have come down to us. Also we are fortunate in possessing\nthe copious narrative of Hs\u00fcan Chuang, the greatest of the Chinese\npilgrims, who spent sixteen years (629-645) in India as well as the\nwork known as the \"Record of the Buddhist religion as practised in\nIndia and the Malay Archipelago,\" composed by I-Ching who travelled in\nthose countries from 671 to 695. I-Ching also wrote the lives of sixty\nChinese pilgrims who visited India during the seventh century and\nprobably there were many others of whom we have no record.\n\nThe reign of Harsha is thus illustrated by a number of contemporary\ndateable works unusual in India. The king himself wrote some Buddhist\nhymns,[245] and three dramas are ascribed to him but were probably\ncomposed by some of the literary men whom he patronized. For all that,\nthe religious ideas which they contain must have had his approval. The\nRatn\u00e2val\u00ee and Priyadarsik\u00e2 are secular pieces and so far as they have\nany religious atmosphere it is Brahmanic, but the N\u00e0g\u00e2nanda is a\nBuddhist religious drama which opens with an invocation of the Buddha\nand has a J\u00e2taka story for its plot.[246] B\u00e2na was himself a devout\nBrahman but his historical romance Harshacarita and his novel called\nK\u00e2dambar\u00ee both describe a mixture of religions founded on observation\nof contemporary life. In an interesting passage[247] he recounts the\nking's visit to a Buddhist ascetic. The influence of the holy man\ncauses the more intelligent animals in his neighbourhood, such as\nparrots, to devote themselves to Buddhist lore, but he is surrounded\nby devotees of the most diverse sects, Jains, Bh\u00e2gavatas, P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tras,\nLok\u00e2yatikas with followers of Kapila, Kan\u00e2da and many other teachers.\nMay\u00fbra, another literary prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of Harsha's, was like B\u00e2na a Brahman,\nand Subandhu, who flourished a little before them, ignores Buddhism in\nhis romance called V\u00e2savadatt\u00e2. But Bhartrihari, the still popular\ngnomic poet, was a Buddhist. It is true that he oscillated between the\ncourt and the cloister no less than seven times, but this vacillation\nseems to have been due to the weakness of the flesh, not to any change\nof convictions. For our purpose the gist of this literature is that\nHinduism in many forms, some of them very unorthodox, was becoming the\nnormal religion of India but that there were still many eminent\nBuddhists and that Buddhism had sufficient prestige to attract Harsha\nand sufficient life to respond to his patronage.\n\nAbout 600 A.D. India was exhausted by her struggle with the Huns.\nAfter it there remained only a multitude of small states and obscure\ndynasties, but there was evidently a readiness to accept any form of\nunifying and tranquillizing rule and for nearly half a century this\nwas provided by Harsha. He conquered northern India from the Panjab to\nBengal but failed to subdue the Deccan. Though a great part of his\nreign was spent in war, learning and education flourished. Hs\u00fcan\nChuang, who was his honoured guest, gives a good account of his\nadministration but also makes it plain that brigandage prevailed and\nthat travelling was dangerous.\n\nAfter 643 Harsha, who was growing elderly, devoted much attention to\nreligion and may be said to have become a Buddhist, while allowing\nhimself a certain eclectic freedom. Several creeds were represented\namong his immediate relatives. Devotion to Siva was traditional in the\nfamily: his father had been a zealous worshipper of the Sun and his\nbrother and sister were Buddhists of the Sammit\u00eeya sect. Harsha by no\nmeans disowned Brahmanic worship, but in his latter years his\nproclivity to Buddhism became more marked and he endeavoured to\nemulate the piety of Asoka. He founded rest houses and hospitals, as\nwell as monasteries and thousands of stupas. He prohibited the taking\nof life and the use of animal food, and of the three periods into\nwhich his day was divided two were devoted to religion and one to\nbusiness. He also exercised a surveillance over the whole Buddhist\norder and advanced meritorious members.\n\nHs\u00fcan Chuang has left an interesting account of the religious f\u00eates\nand spectacles organized by Harsha. At Kanauj he attended a great\nassembly during which a solemn procession took place every day. A\ngolden image of Buddha was borne on an elephant and Harsha, dressed as\nIndra, held a canopy over it, while his ally Raja Kumara,[248] dressed\nas Brahm\u00e2, waved a fly-whisk. It was subsequently washed by the king's\nown hands and in the evening his Majesty, who like Akbar had a taste\nfor religious discussion, listened to the arguments of his Chinese\nguest. But the royal instructions that no one was to speak against the\nMaster of the Law were so peremptory that even his biographer admits\nthere was no real discussion. These edifying pageants were interrupted\nby disagreeable incidents which show that Harsha's tolerance had not\nproduced complete harmony. A temporary monastery erected for the f\u00eates\ncaught fire and a fanatic attempted to stab the king. He confessed\nunder examination that he had been instigated to the crime by Brahmans\nwho were jealous of the favours which the Buddhists received. It was\nalso established that the incendiaries were Brahmans and, after the\nringleaders had been punished, five hundred were exiled. Harsha then\nproceeded to Allahabad to superintend a quinquennial distribution of\nalms. It was his custom to let treasure accumulate for five years and\nthen to divide it among holy men and the poor. The proceedings lasted\nseventy-five days and the concourse which collected to gaze and\nreceive must have resembled the fair still held on the same spot.\nBuddhists, Brahmans and Jains all partook of the royal bounty and the\nimages of Buddha, S\u00fbrya and Siva were worshipped on successive days,\nthough greater honour was shown to the Buddha. The king gave away\neverything that he had, even his robes and jewels, and finally,\narrayed in clothes borrowed from his sister, rejoiced saying \"all I\nhave has entered into incorruptible and imperishable treasuries.\"\nAfter this, adds Hs\u00fcan Chuang, the king's vassals offered him jewels\nand robes so that the treasury was replenished. This was the sixth\nquinquennial distribution which Harsha had held and the last, for he\ndied in 648. He at first favoured the Hinayana but subsequently went\nover to the Mahayana, being moved in part by the exhortations of Hs\u00fcan\nChuang.\n\nYet the substance of Hs\u00fcan Chuang's account is that though Buddhism\nwas prospering in the Far East it was decaying in India. Against this\ncan be set instances of royal piety like those described, the fame\nenjoyed by the shrines and schools of Magadha and the conversion of\nthe king of Tibet in 638 A.D. This event was due to Chinese as well as\nIndian influence, but would hardly have occurred unless in\nnorth-eastern India Buddhism had been esteemed the religion of\ncivilization. Still Hs\u00fcan Chuang's long catalogue of deserted\nmonasteries[249] has an unmistakable significance. The decay was most\npronounced in the north-west and south. In Gandhara there were only a\nfew Buddhists: more than a thousand monasteries stood untenanted and\nthe Buddha's sacred bowl had vanished. In Takshas\u00eela the monasteries\nwere numerous but desolate: in Kashmir the people followed a mixed\nfaith. Only in Udy\u00e2na was Buddhism held in high esteem. In Sind the\nmonks were numerous but indolent.\n\nNo doubt this desolation was largely due to the depredations of\nMihiragula. In the Deccan and the extreme south there was also a\nspecial cause, namely the prevalence of Jainism, which somewhat later\nbecame the state religion in several kingdoms. In Kalinga, Andhra and\nthe kingdom of the Colas the pilgrim reports that Jains were very\nnumerous but counts Buddhist monasteries only by tens and twenties. In\nDravida there were also 10,000 monks of the Sthavira school but in\nMalakuta among many ruined monasteries only a few were still inhabited\nand here again Jains were numerous.\n\nFor all Central India and Bengal the pilgrim's statistics tell the\nsame tale, namely that though Buddhism was represented both by\nmonasteries and monks, the Deva-temples and unbelievers were also\nnumerous. The most favourable accounts are those given of Kanauj,\nAyodhya and Magadha where the sacred sites naturally caused the devout\nto congregate.\n\nThe statistics which he gives as to sects are interesting.[250] The\ntotal number of monks amounted to about 183,000. Of these only 32,000\nbelonged definitely to the Mahayana: more than 96,000 to the Hinayana,\nand 54,500 studied both systems or at any rate resided in monasteries\nwhich tolerated either course of study. Some writers speak as if\nafter our era Mahayanism was predominant in India and the Hinayana\nbanished to its extreme confines such as Ceylon and Kashmir. Yet about\nA.D. 640 this zealous Mahayanist[251] states that half the monks of\nIndia were definitely Hinayanist while less than a fifth had equally\ndefinite Mahayanist convictions. The Mahayana laid less stress on\nmonasticism than the Hinayana and therefore its strength may have lain\namong the laity, but even so the admitted strength of the Hinayana is\nremarkable. Three Hinayanist schools are frequently mentioned, the\nSthaviras, Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and Sammit\u00eeyas. The first are the well-known\nSinhalese sect and were found chiefly in the south (Conjeevaram) and\nin East Bengal, besides the monks of the Sinhalese monastery at Gaya.\nThe Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins were found, as their history would lead us to\nexpect, chiefly in the north and beyond the frontiers of India proper.\nBut both were outnumbered by the Sammit\u00eeyas, who amounted to nearly\n44,000 monks. The chief doctrine[252] of this sect is said to have\nbeen that individuals (puggalo) exist as such in the truest sense.\nThis doctrine was supported by reference to the sutra known as the\nBurden and the Burden bearer.[253] It does not assert that there is a\npermanent and unchangeable soul (att\u00e2) but it emphasizes the reality\nand importance of that personality which all accept as true for\npractical purposes. It is probable that in practice this belief\ndiffered little from the ordinary Brahmanic doctrine of metempsychosis\nand this may be one reason for the prevalence of the sect.\n\nI-Ching, though he does not furnish statistics, gives a clear\nconspectus of Buddhist sects as they existed in his time. He starts\nfrom the ancient eighteen sects but divides them into four groups or\nNikayas. (_a_) The \u00c2rya-Mah\u00e2sanghika-nik\u00e2ya. This comprised seven\nsubdivisions but was apparently the least influential school as it was\nnot predominant anywhere, though it coexisted with other schools in\nmost parts. The Lokottarav\u00e2dins mentioned by Hs\u00fcan Chuang as existing\nat Bamiyan belonged to it. They held that the Buddha was not subject\nto the laws of nature. (_b_) \u00c2rya-Sthavira-nik\u00e2ya. This is the school\nto which our Pali Canon belongs. It was predominant in southern India\nand Ceylon and was also found in eastern Bengal. (_c_) The\n\u00c2rya-M\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-nik\u00e2ya with four subdivisions. Almost all\nbelonged to this school in northern India and it was nourishing in\nMagadha. (_d_) The \u00c2rya-Sammit\u00eeya-nik\u00e2ya with four subdivisions\nflourished in L\u00e2ta and Sindhu. Thus the last three schools were\npreponderant in southern, northern and western India respectively. All\nwere followed in Magadha, no doubt because the holy places and the\nUniversity of N\u00e2land\u00e2 attracted all shades of opinion, and Bengal\nseems to have been similarly catholic. This is substantially the same\nas Hs\u00fcan Chuang's statement except that I-Ching takes a more\nfavourable view of the position of the Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da, either because it\nwas his own school or because its position had really improved.\n\nIt would seem that in the estimation of both pilgrims the Maha-and\nHinayana are not schools but modes in which any school can be studied.\nThe Nik\u00e2ya[254] or school appears to have been chiefly, though not\nexclusively, concerned with the rule of discipline which naturally had\nmore importance for Buddhist monks than it has for European scholars.\nThe observances of each Nik\u00e2ya were laid down in its own recension of\nthe scriptures which was sometimes oral and sometimes in writing.\nProbably all the eighteen schools had separate Vinayas, and to some\nextent they had different editions of the other Pitakas, for the\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins had an Abhidharma of their own. But there was no\nobjection to combining the study of Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2din literature with the\nreading of treatises by Asanga and Vasubandhu[255] or sutras such as\nthe Lotus, which I-Ching's master read once a day for sixty years.\nI-Ching himself seems to regard the two Vehicles as alternative forms\nof religion, both excellent in their way, much as a Catholic\ntheologian might impartially explain the respective advantages of the\nactive and contemplative lives. \"With resolutions rightly formed\" he\nsays \"we should look forward to meeting the coming Buddha Maitreya. If\nwe wish to gain the lesser fruition (of the Hinayana) we may pursue it\nthrough the eight grades of sanctification. But if we learn to follow\nthe course of the greater fruition (of the Mahayana) we must try to\naccomplish our work through long ages.\"[256]\n\nI-Ching observes that both Vehicles agree in prescribing the same\ndiscipline, in prohibiting the same offences and enjoining the\npractice of the noble truths. His views, which are substantially\nthose of Hs\u00fcan Chuang,[257] must be those current in the seventh\ncentury when the Hinayana was allowing the Mahayana to overgrow it\nwithout resistance, but the relations of the two creeds are sometimes\nstated differently. For instance the Angulim\u00e2liya sutra,[258] known\nonly in a Tibetan translation, states that whereas for the Hinayana\nsuch formul\u00e6 as the four truths and the eightfold path are of cardinal\nimportance, the Mahayana does not recognize them, and it is\nundoubtedly true that the Vaipulya sutras frequently ignore the\nfamiliar doctrines of early Buddhism and hint that they belong to a\nrudimentary stage of instruction.\n\nI-Ching makes no mention of persecution but he deplores the decay of\nthe faith. \"The teaching of the Buddha is becoming less prevalent in\nthe world from day to day\" he says. \"When I compare what I have\nwitnessed in my younger days and what I see to-day in my old age, the\nstate is altogether different and we are bearing witness to this and\nit is hoped we shall be more attentive in future.\" Though he speaks\nregretfully of lax or incorrect discipline, he does not complain of\nthe corruption of the faith by Tantrism and magical practices. He does\nhowever deprecate in an exceedingly curious passage the prevalence of\nreligious suicide.[259]\n\nExcept for progressive decay, the condition of Indian Buddhism as\ndescribed by the two pilgrims is much the same. Meals were supplied to\nmonks in the monasteries and it was no longer usual to beg for food in\nthe streets, since the practice is mentioned by I-Ching as\nexceptional. On Upavasatha days it was the custom for the pious laity\nto entertain the monks and the meal was sometimes preceded by a\nreligious service performed before an image and accompanied by music.\nI-Ching describes the musical services with devout enthusiasm. \"The\npriests perform the ordinary service late in the afternoon or in the\nevening twilight. They come out of the monastery and walk three times\nround a stupa, offering incense and flowers. Then they all kneel down\nand one of them who sings well begins to chant hymns describing the\nvirtues of the great Teacher and continues to sing ten or twenty\nslokas. They then return to the place in the monastery where they\nusually assemble and, when all have sat down, a reciter mounting the\nlion-seat (which is near the head priest) reads a short sutra. Among\nthe scriptures for such an occasion the 'Service in three parts' is\noften used. This is a selection of Asvaghosha. The first part contains\nten slokas of a hymn. The second part is a selection from some\nscripture consisting of the Buddha's words. Then there is an\nadditional hymn as the third part of the service, of more than ten\nslokas, being prayers that express the wish to bring one's merits to\nmaturity. After the singing the assembled Bhikshus exclaim Subh\u00e2shita\nor S\u00e2dhu, that is well-said or bravo. The reader descends and the\nBhikshus in order salute the lion-seat, the seats of Bodhisattvas and\nArhats, and the superior of the monastery.\"[260]\n\nI-Ching also tells us of the ceremonial bathing of images and prefaces\nhis description by the remark that \"the meaning of the Truths is so\nprofound that it is a matter beyond the comprehension of vulgar minds\nwhile the ablution of the holy images is practicable for all. Though\nthe Great Teacher has entered Nirvana yet his image exists and we\nshould worship it with zeal as though in his presence. Those who\nconstantly offer incense and flowers to it are enabled to purify their\nthoughts and those who perpetually bathe his image are enabled to\novercome the sins that involve them in darkness.\"[261] He appears to\ncontemplate chiefly the veneration of images of S\u00e2kyamuni but figures\nof Bodhisattvas were also conspicuous features in temples, as we know\nnot only from arch\u00e6ology but from the biography of Hs\u00fcan Chuang, where\nit is said that worshippers used to throw flowers and silk scarves at\nthe image of Avalokita and draw auguries from the way they fell.\n\nMonasteries were liberally decorated with statues, carvings and\npictures.[262] They often comprised several courts and temples. Hs\u00fcan\nChuang says that a monastery in Magadha which he calls Ti-lo-shi-ka\nhad \"four courts with three storeyed halls, lofty terraces and a\nsuccession of open passages.... At the head of the road through the\nmiddle gate were three temples with disks on the roof and hung with\nsmall bells; the bases were surrounded by balustrades, and doors,\nwindows, beams, walls, and stairs were ornamented with gilt work in\nrelief.\" In the three temples were large images representing the\nBuddha, T\u00e2r\u00e2 and Avalokita.\n\nThe great centres of Buddhist learning and monastic life, mentioned by\nboth pilgrims, were Valabh\u00ee or Balabhi in Gujarat and Nalanda. The\nformer was a district rather than a single locality and contained 100\nmonasteries with 6000 monks of the Sammit\u00eeya school. Nalanda was in\nMagadha not far from Gaya. The date of its foundation is unknown but a\ngreat temple (though apparently not the first) was built about 485\nA.D.[263] Fa-Hsien mentions a village called Nala but without\nindicating that it was a seat of learning. Hence it is probable that\nthe University was not then in existence or at least not celebrated.\nHs\u00fcan Chuang describes it as containing six monasteries built by\nvarious kings and surrounded by an enclosing wall in which there was\nonly one gate. I-Ching writing later says that the establishment owned\n200 villages and contained eight halls with more than 3000 monks. In\nthe neighbourhood of the monastery were a hundred sacred spots,\nseveral marked by temples and topes. It was a resort for Buddhists\nfrom all countries and an educational as well as a religious centre.\nI-Ching says that students spent two or three years there in learning\nand disputing after which they went to the king's court in search of a\ngovernment appointment. Successful merit was rewarded not only by rank\nbut by grants of land. Both pilgrims mention the names of several\ncelebrities connected with Nalanda. But the worthies of the seventh\ncentury did not attain to more than scholastic eminence. The most\nimportant literary figure of the age is S\u00e2ntideva of whose life\nnothing is known. His writings however prove that the Buddhism of this\nperiod was not a corrupt superstition, but could inspire and nourish\nsome of the most beautiful thoughts which the creed has produced.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 230: See Vasilief, _Le Bouddhisme_, Troisi\u00e8me suppl\u00e9ment,\npp. 262 ff. K\u00f6ppen, _Rel. des Buddha_, I. 151. Takakusu in _J. Pali\nText Society_, 1905, pp. 67-146.]\n\n[Footnote 231: _Records_, translated by Takakusu, p. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 232: They are mentioned in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha.]\n\n[Footnote 233: Kern (_Indian Buddhism_, p. 126) says they rejected the\nauthority of the S\u00fbtras altogether but gives no reference.]\n\n[Footnote 234: See Vasilief, pp. 301 ff. and various notices in Hs\u00fcan\nChuang and Watters. Also de la Vall\u00e9e Poussin's article in E.R.E.]\n\n[Footnote 235: Hs\u00fcan Chuang informs us that when he was in Srughna he\nstudied the Vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 of the Sautr\u00e2ntikas, but the precise significance\nof this term is not plain.]\n\n[Footnote 236: Fa-Hsien's _Travels_, chap. XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 237: This figure is probably deduced from some artificial\ncalculation of possible heresies like the 62 wrong views enumerated in\nthe Brahma-Jala s\u00fbtra.]\n\n[Footnote 238: He must have lived in the fourth century as one of his\nworks (Nanjio, 1243) was translated between 397 and 439.]\n\n[Footnote 239: Watters, _Y\u00fcan Chwang_, II. 221-224. Nanjio, 1237. The\nworks of Gunamati also are said to show a deep knowledge of the\nS\u00e2nkhya philosophy.]\n\n[Footnote 240: For the history of logic in India, see Vidy\u00e2bhusana's\ninteresting work _Medi\u00e6val School of Indian Logic_, 1909. But I cannot\naccept all his dates.]\n\n[Footnote 241: Dinn\u00e2ga's principal works are the Pram\u00e2na-samuccaya\nand the Ny\u00e2ya-pravesa. Hs\u00fcan Chuang calls him Ch'en-na. See Watters,\nII. 209. See Stcherbatskoi in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1904, pp. 129-171 for\nDinn\u00e2ga's influence on the development of the Naiy\u00e2yika and\nVaiseshika schools.]\n\n[Footnote 242: His personal name is said to have been P'u-ti-to-lo and\nhis surname Ch'a-ti-li. The latter is probably a corruption of\nKshatriya. Hsiang-Chih possibly represents a name beginning with\nGandha, but I can neither find nor suggest any identification.]\n\n[Footnote 243: See _B.E.F.E.O._ 1903, pp. 379 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 244: His evil deeds are several times mentioned by Hs\u00fcan\nChuang. It required a miracle to restore the Bo tree.]\n\n[Footnote 245: See Ettinghausen, _Harshavardhana_, Appendix III.]\n\n[Footnote 246: The appearance of Gaur\u00ee as a _dea ex machina_ at the\nend hardly shows that Harsha's Buddhism had a S\u00e2ktist tinge but it\ndoes show that Buddhists of that period turned naturally to Sivaite\nmythology.]\n\n[Footnote 247: Harshacarita, chap. VII. The parrots were expounding\nVasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. B\u00e2na frequently describes troops of\nholy men apparently living in harmony but including followers of most\ndiverse sects. See K\u00e2dambari, 193 and 394: Harshacar. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 248: It is curious that B\u00e2na (Harshacarita, VII.) says of\nthis prince that from childhood he resolved never to worship anyone\nbut Siva.]\n\n[Footnote 249: The R\u00e2shtra-p\u00e2la-paripricch\u00e2 (Ed. Finot, pp. ix-xi,\n28-33) inveighs against the moral degeneration of the Buddhist clergy.\nThis work was translated into Chinese between 589 and 618, so that\ndemoralisation must have begun in the sixth century.]\n\n[Footnote 250: See Rhys Davids in _J.R.A.S._ 1891, pp. 418 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 251: Hs\u00fcan Chuang was not disposed to underrate the numbers\nof the Mahayana for he says that the monks of Ceylon were\nMahayanists.]\n\n[Footnote 252: See the beginning of the Kath\u00e2vatthu. The doctrine is\nformulated in the words Puggalo upalabbhati saccikatthaparamatthen\u00e2ti,\nand there follows a discussion between a member of the orthodox school and\na Puggalav\u00e2din, that is one who believes in the existence of a person, soul\nor entity which transmigrates from this world to another.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Sam. Nik. XXII. 221.]\n\n[Footnote 254: This use of Nik\u00e2ya must not be confused with its other\nuse to denote a division of the S\u00fbtra-Pitaka. It means a group or\ncollection and hence can be used to denote either a body of men or a\ncollection of treatises. These Nik\u00e2yas are also not the same as the\nfour schools (Vaibh\u00e2shikas, etc.), mentioned above, which were\nspeculative. Similarly in Europe a Presbyterian may be a Calvinist,\nbut Presbyterianism has reference to Church government and Calvinism\nto doctrine.\n\nThere were in India at this time (1) two vehicles, Maha-and Hinayana,\n(2) four speculative schools, Vaibh\u00e2shikas, etc., (3) four\ndisciplinary schools, M\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins, etc. These three classes\nare obviously not mutually exclusive. Thus I-Ching approved of (_a_)\nthe Mahayana, (_b_) the M\u00e2dhyamika and Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra, which he did not\nconsider inconsistent and (_c_) the M\u00fbla-sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da.]\n\n[Footnote 255: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, p. 186.]\n\n[Footnote 256: Three Asankhya Kalpas. I-Ching, Takakusu's transl. pp.\n196-7. He seems to regard the Mahayana as the better way. He quotes\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna's allusions to Avalokita and Amit\u00e2yus with apparent\napproval; he tells us how one of his teachers worshipped Amit\u00e2yus and\nstrove to prepare himself for Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee and how the Lotus was the\nfavourite scripture of another. He further tells us that the\nM\u00e2dhyamika and the Yoga systems are both perfectly correct.]\n\n[Footnote 257: Hs\u00fcan Chuang speaks of Mahayanists belonging to the\nSthavira school.]\n\n[Footnote 258: Quoted by Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, pp. 196 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 259: Chaps. XXXVIII and XXXIX. He seems to say that it is\nright for the laity to make an offering of their bodies by burning but\nnot for Bhikshus. The practice is recognized and commended in the\nLotus, chap. XXII, which however is a later addition to the original\nwork.]\n\n[Footnote 260: I-Ching, transl. Takakusu, pp. 153-4 somewhat abridged.\nI-Ching (pp. 156-7) speaks of M\u00e2tricheta as the principal hymn writer\nand does not identify him with Asvaghosha.]\n\n[Footnote 261: I believe the golden image in the Arakan Pagoda at\nMandalay is still washed with a ceremonial resembling that described\nby I-Ching.]\n\n[Footnote 262: I-Ching says that monasteries commonly had a statue of\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2la as a guardian deity.]\n\n[Footnote 263: By the Gupta king, Narasinha Gupta B\u00e2l\u00e2ditya. Much\ninformation about N\u00e2land\u00e2 will be found in Satis Chandra\nVidyabhusana's _Medi\u00e6val School of Indian Logic_, pp. 145-147. Hs\u00fcan\nChuang (_Life_, transl. Beal, p. 111) says that it was built 700 years\nbefore his time, that is, in the first century B.C. He dwells on the\nbeauty of the buildings, ponds and flowers.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV\n\nDECADENCE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA\n\n\nThe theme of this chapter is sad for it is the decadence, degradation\nand ultimate disappearance of Buddhism in India. The other great\nreligions offer no precise parallel to this phenomenon but they also\ndo not offer a parallel to the circumstances of Buddhism at the time\nwhen it flourished in its native land. Mohammedanism has been able to\nmaintain itself in comparative isolation: up to the present day\nMoslims and Christians share the same cities rather than the same\nthoughts, especially when (as often) they belong to different races.\nEuropean Christianity after a few centuries of existence had to\ncontend with no rival of approximately equal strength, for the\nstruggle with Mohammedanism was chiefly military and hardly concerned\nthe merits of the faiths. But Buddhism never had a similarly paramount\nand unchallenged position. It never attempted to extirpate its rivals.\nIt coexisted with a mass of popular superstition which it only gently\nreprobated and with a powerful hereditary priesthood, both\nintellectual and pliant, tenacious of their own ideas and yet ready to\ncountenance almost any other ideas as the price of ruling. Neither\nIslam nor Christianity had such an adversary, and both of them and\neven Judaism resemble Buddhism in having won greater success outside\ntheir native lands than in them. Jerusalem is not an altogether\nsatisfactory spectacle to either Christians or Jews.[264]\n\nStill all this does not completely explain the disappearance of\nBuddhism from India. Before attempting to assign reasons, we shall do\nwell to review some facts and dates relating to the period of\ndecadence. If we take all India into consideration the period is long,\nbut in many, indeed in most, districts the process of decay was rapid.\n\nIn the preceding chapter I have mentioned the accounts of Indian\nBuddhism which we owe to the Chinese travellers, Hs\u00fcan Chuang and\nI-Ching. The latter frankly deplores the decay of the faith which he\nhad witnessed in his own life (_i.e._ about 650-700 A.D.) but his\ntravels in India were of relatively small extent and he gives less\nlocal information than previous pilgrims. Hs\u00fcan Chuang describing\nIndia in 629-645 A.D. is unwilling to admit the decay but his truthful\nnarrative lets it be seen. It is only of Bengal and the present United\nProvinces that he can be said to give a favourable account, and the\nprosperity of Buddhism there was largely due to the personal influence\nof Harsha.[265] In central and southern India, he tells us of little\nbut deserted monasteries. It is clear that Buddhism was dying out but\nit is not so clear that it had ever been the real religion of this\nregion. In many parts it did not conquer the population but so to\nspeak built fortresses and left garrisons. It is probable that the\nBuddhism of Andhra, Kalinga and the south was represented by little\nmore than such outposts. They included Amar\u00e2vati, where portions of\nthe ruins seem assignable to about 150 A.D., and Ajant\u00e2, where some of\nthe cave paintings are thought to be as late as the sixth century. But\nof neither site can we give any continuous history. In southern India\nthe introduction of Buddhism took place under the auspices of Asoka\nhimself, though his inscriptions have as yet been found only in\nnorthern Mysore and not in the Tamil country. The Tamil poems\nManim\u00eagalei and Silappadigaram, especially the former, represent it as\nprevalent and still preserving much of its ancient simplicity. Even in\nlater times when it had almost completely disappeared from southern\nIndia, occasional Buddhist temples were founded. Rajaraja endowed one\nat Negapatam about 1000 A.D. In 1055 a monastery was erected at\nBelgami in Mysore and a Buddhist town named Kalavati is mentioned as\nexisting in that state in 1533.[266] But in spite of such survivals,\neven in the sixth century Buddhism could not compete in southern India\nwith either Jainism or Hinduism and there are no traces of its\nexistence in the Deccan after 1150.\n\nFor the Konkan, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Hs\u00fcan Chuang's statistics are\nfairly satisfactory. But in all this region the Sammit\u00eeya sect which\napparently was nearer to Hinduism than the others was the most\nimportant. In Ujjain Buddhism was almost extinct but in many of the\nwestern states it lingered on, perhaps only in isolated monasteries,\nuntil the twelfth century. Inscriptions found at Kanheri (843 and 851\nA.D.), Dambal (1095 A.D.) and in Miraj (1110 A.D.) testify that grants\nwere made to monasteries at these late dates.[267] But further north\nthe faith had to endure the violence of strangers. Sind was conquered\nby the Arabs in 712; Gujarat and the surrounding country were invaded\nby northern tribes and such invasions were always inimical to the\nprosperity of monasteries.\n\nThis is even more true of the Panjab, the frontier provinces and\nKashmir. The older invaders such as the Y\u00fceh-chih had been favourably\ndisposed to Buddhism, but those who came later, such as the Huns, were\npredaceous barbarians with little religion of any sort. In Hs\u00fcan\nChuang's time it was only in Udyana that Buddhism could be said to be\nthe religion of the people and the torrent of Mohammedan invasion\nwhich swept continuously through these countries during the middle\nages overwhelmed all earlier religions, and even Hinduism had to\nyield. In Kashmir Buddhism soon became corrupt and according to the\nR\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee[268] the monks began to marry as early as the sixth\ncentury. King L\u00e2lit\u00e2ditya (733-769) is credited with having built\nmonasteries as well as temples to the Sun, but his successors were\nSivaites.\n\nBengal, especially western Bengal and Bihar, was the stronghold of\ndecadent Buddhism, though even here hostile influences were not\nabsent. But about 730 A.D. a pious Buddhist named Gop\u00e2la founded the\nP\u00e2la dynasty and extended his power over Magadha. The P\u00e2las ruled for\nabout 450 years and supplied a long and devout line of defenders of\nthe faith. But to the east of their dominions lay the principality of\nKanauj, a state of varying size and fortunes and from the eighth\ncentury onwards a stronghold of Brahmanic learning.\n\nThe revolution in Hinduism which definitely defeated, though it did\nnot annihilate Buddhism, is generally connected with the names of\nKum\u00e2rila Bhatta (_c._ 750) and Sankara (_c._ 800). We know the\ndoctrines of these teachers, for many of their works have come down to\nus, but when we enquire what was their political importance, or the\nscope and extent of the movement which they championed we are\nconscious (as so often) of the extraordinary vagueness of Indian\nrecords even when the subject might appeal to religious and\nphilosophic minds.[269] Kum\u00e2rila is said to have been a Brahman of\nBihar who abjured Buddhism for Hinduism and raged with the ardour of a\nproselyte against his ancient faith. Tradition[270] represents him as\ninstigating King Sudhanvan to exterminate the Buddhists. But nothing\nis known of this king and he cannot have had the extensive empire with\nwhich he is credited.\n\nSankara was a Brahman of the south who in a short life found time to\nwrite numerous works, to wander over India, to found a monastic order\nand build four monasteries. In doctrine and discipline he was more\npliant than Kum\u00e2rila and he assimilated many strong points of\nBuddhism. Both these teachers are depicted as the successful heroes of\npublic disputations in which the interest at stake was considerable.\nThe vanquished had to become a disciple of the vanquisher or to\nforfeit his life and, if he was the head of an institution, to\nsurrender its property. These accounts, though exaggerated, are\nprobably a florid version of what occurred and we may surmise that the\npopular faith of the day was generally victorious. What violence the\nrising tide of Hinduism may have wrought, it is hard to say. There is\nno evidence of any general persecution of Buddhism in the sense in\nwhich one Christian sect persecuted another in Europe. But at a rather\nlater date we hear that Jains were persecuted and tortured by Saiva\nprinces both in southern India and Gujarat, and if there were any\ndetailed account, epigraphic or literary, of such persecutions in the\neighth and ninth centuries, there would be no reason for doubting it.\nBut no details are forthcoming. Without resorting to massacre, an\nanti-Buddhist king had in his power many effective methods of\nhostility. He might confiscate or transfer monastic property, or\nforbid his subjects to support monks. Considering the state of\nBuddhism as represented by Hs\u00fcan Chuang and I-Ching it is probable\nthat such measures would suffice to ensure the triumph of the Brahmans\nin most parts of India.\n\nAfter the epoch of Sankara, the history of Indian Buddhism is\nconfined to the P\u00e2la kingdom. Elsewhere we hear only of isolated\ngrants to monasteries and similar acts of piety, often striking but\nhardly worthy of mention in comparison with the enormous number of\nBrahmanic inscriptions. But in the P\u00e2la kingdom[271] Buddhism, though\ncorrupt, was flourishing so far as the number of its adherents and\nroyal favour were concerned. Gop\u00e2la founded the monastery of\nOdontapuri or Udandapura, which according to some authorities was in\nthe town of Bihar. Dharmap\u00e2la the second king of the dynasty (_c._ 800\nA.D.) built on the north bank of the Ganges the even more celebrated\nUniversity of Vikramasila,[272] where many commentaries were composed.\nIt was a centre not only of tantric learning but of logic and grammar,\nand is interesting as showing the connection between Bengal and Tibet.\nTibetans studied there and Sanskrit books were translated into Tibetan\nwithin its cloisters. Dharmap\u00e2la is said to have reigned sixty-four\nyears and to have held his court at Patna, which had fallen into decay\nbut now began to revive. According to T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha his successor Devap\u00e2la\nbuilt Somapuri, conquered Orissa and waged war with the unbelievers\nwho had become numerous, no doubt as a result of the preaching of\nSankara. But as a rule the P\u00e2las, though they favoured Buddhism, did\nnot actively discourage Hinduism. They even gave grants to Hindu\ntemples and their prime ministers were generally Brahmans who[273]\nused to erect non-Buddhist images in Buddhist shrines. The dynasty\ncontinued through the eleventh century and in this period some\ninformation as to the condition of Indian Buddhism is afforded by the\nrelations between Bengal and Tibet. After the persecution of the tenth\ncentury Tibetan Buddhism was revived by the preaching of monks from\nBengal. Mah\u00eep\u00e2la then occupied the throne (_c._ 978-1030) and during\nhis reign various learned men accepted invitations to Tibet. More\ncelebrated is the mission of At\u00eesa, a monk of the Vikramasila\nmonastery, which took place about 1038. That these two missions should\nhave been invited and despatched shows that in the eleventh century\nBengal was a centre of Buddhist learning. Probably the numerous\nSanskrit works preserved in Tibetan translations then existed in its\nmonasteries. But about the same time the power of the P\u00e2la dynasty,\nand with it the influence of Buddhism, were curtailed by the\nestablishment of the rival Sena dynasty in the eastern provinces.\nStill, under R\u00e2map\u00e2la, who reigned about 1100, the great teacher\nAbhayakara was an ornament of the Mahayana. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha[274] says that\nhe corrected the text of the scriptures and that in his time there\nwere many Pandits and resident Bhikshus in the monasteries of\nVikramas\u00eela, Bodh-Gaya and Odontapuri.\n\nThere is thus every reason to suppose that in the twelfth century\nBuddhism still nourished in Bihar, that its clergy numbered several\nthousands and its learning was held in esteem. The blow which\ndestroyed its power was struck by a Mohammedan invasion in 1193. In\nthat year Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Muhammad,[275] a general of Kutb-ud-Din,\ninvaded Bihar with a band of only two hundred men and with amazing\naudacity seized the capital, which, consisting chiefly of palaces and\nmonasteries, collapsed without a blow. The monks were massacred to a\nman, and when the victors, who appear not to have understood what\nmanner of place they had captured, asked the meaning of the libraries\nwhich they saw, no one was found capable of reading the books.[276]\nIt was in 1193 also that Benares was conquered by the Mohammedans. I\nhave found no record of the sack of the monastery at Sarnath but the\nruins are said to show traces of fire and other indications that it\nwas overwhelmed by some sudden disaster.\n\nThe Mohammedans had no special animus against Buddhism. They were\niconoclasts who saw merit in the destruction of images and the\nslaughter of idolaters. But whereas Hinduism was spread over the\ncountry, Buddhism was concentrated in the great monasteries and when\nthese were destroyed there remained nothing outside them capable of\nwithstanding either the violence of the Moslims or the assimilative\ninfluence of the Brahmans. Hence Buddhism suffered far more from these\ninvasions than Hinduism but still vestiges of it lingered long[277]\nand exist even now in Orissa. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha says that the immediate result\nof the Moslim conquest was the dispersal of the surviving teachers and\nthis may explain the sporadic occurrence of late Buddhist inscriptions\nin other parts of India. He also tells us that a king named\nCangalar\u00e2ja restored the ruined Buddhist temples of Bengal about 1450.\nElsewhere[278] he gives a not discouraging picture of Buddhism in the\nDeccan, Gujarat and Rajputana after the Moslim conquest of Magadha but\nadds that the study of magic became more and more prevalent. In the\nlife of Caitanya it is stated that when travelling in southern India\n(about 1510 A.D.) he argued with Buddhists and confuted them,\napparently somewhere in Arcot.[279] Manuscripts preserved in Nepal\nindicate that as late as the fifteenth or sixteenth century Bengali\ncopyists wrote out Buddhist works, and there is evidence that\nBodh-Gaya continued to be a place of pilgrimage. In 1585 it was\nvisited by a Nepalese named Abhaya R\u00e2j\u00e2 who on his return erected in\nPatan a monastery imitated from what he had seen in Bengal, and in\n1777 the Tashi Lama sent an embassy. But such instances prove little\nas to the religion of the surrounding Hindu population, for at the\npresent day numerous Buddhist pilgrims, especially Burmese, frequent\nthe shrine. The control of the temple passed into the hands of the\nBrahmans and for the ordinary Bengali Buddha became a member of\nIndia's numerous pantheon. Pandit Haraprasad Sastri mentions a\nsingular poem called Buddhacaritra, completed in 1711 and celebrating\nan incarnation of Buddha which apparently commenced in 1699 and was to\nend in the reappearance of the golden age. But the being called Buddha\nis a form of Vishnu and the work is as strange a jumble of religion\nas it is of languages, being written in \"a curious medley of bad\nSanskrit, bad Hindi and bad Bihari.\"\n\nIt is chiefly in Orissa that traces of Buddhism can still be found\nwithin the limits of India proper. The Saraks of Baramba, Tigaria and\nthe adjoining parts of Cuttack describe themselves as Buddhists.[280]\nTheir name is the modern equivalent of Sr\u00e2vaka and they apparently\nrepresent an ancient Buddhist community which has become a sectarian\ncaste. They have little knowledge of their religion but meet once a\nyear in the cave temples of Khandagiri, to worship a deity called\nBuddhadeva or Caturbhuja. All their ceremonies commence with the\nformula _Ahims\u00e2 parama dharma_ and they respect the temple of Puri,\nwhich is suspected of having a Buddhist origin.\n\nNagendran\u00e2th Vasu has published some interesting details as to the\nsurvival of Buddhist ideas in Orissa.[281] He traces the origin of\nthis hardy though degraded form of Mahayanism to R\u00e2m\u00e2i Pandit,[282] a\ntantric \u00c2c\u00e2rya of Magadha who wrote a work called S\u00fbnya Pur\u00e2na which\nbecame popular. Orissa was one of the regions which offered the\nlongest resistance to Islam, for it did not succumb until 1568. A\nperiod of Sivaism in the tenth and eleventh centuries is indicated by\nthe temples of Bhuvaneshwar and other monuments. But in the twelfth\nand thirteenth centuries the reigning dynasty were worshippers of\nVishnu and built the great temples at Puri and Kon\u00e2rak, dedicated to\nJagann\u00e2tha and S\u00fbrya-n\u00e2r\u00e2yana respectively. We do not however hear\nthat they persecuted Buddhism and there are reasons for thinking that\nJagann\u00e2tha is a form of the Buddha[283] and that the temple at Puri\nwas originally a Buddhist site. It is said that it contains a gigantic\nstatue of the Buddha before which a wall has been built and also that\nthe image of Jagann\u00e2tha, which is little more than a log of wood, is\nreally a case enclosing a Buddhist relic. King Prat\u00e2parudra ({~DAGGER~} 1529)\npersecuted Buddhism, which implies that at this late date its\nadherents were sufficiently numerous to attract attention. Either at\nthe beginning of his reign or before it there flourished a group of\nsix poets of whom the principal were Acyut\u00e2nanda D\u00e2sa and Caitanya\nD\u00e2sa.[284] Their works are nominally devoted to the celebration of\nKrishna's praises and form the chief vernacular scripture of the\nVaishnavas in Orissa but in them Krishna, or the highest form of\nthe deity by whatever name he is called, is constantly identified with\nS\u00fbnya or the Void, that favourite term of Mahayanist philosophy.\nPassages from them are also quoted stating that in the Kali age the\nfollowers of the Buddha must disguise themselves; that there are 3000\ncrypto-Buddhists hidden in various parts of Orissa, that Hari has been\nincarnate in many Buddhas and that the Buddha will appear again on\nearth. The phrase \"I take refuge in the Buddha, in M\u00e2t\u00e2 \u00c2disakti (=\nDharma) and in the Sangha\" is also quoted from these works and\nCaitanya D\u00e2sa describes five Vishnus, who are apparently identical\nwith the five Dhy\u00e2ni Buddhas.[285]\n\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha states that the last king of Orissa, Mukunda Deva, who was\noverthrown by the Mohammedans in 1568, was a Buddhist and founded some\ntemples and monasteries. In the seventeenth century, there flourished\na Buddhist poet named Mah\u00e2devad\u00e2sa,[286] and the Tibetan pilgrim\nBuddhagupta visited among other sites the old capital of Mayurabhanja\nand saw a stupa there. It is claimed that the tribe known as B\u00e2thuris\nor B\u00e2uris have always been crypto-Buddhists and have preserved their\nancient customs. They are however no credit to their religion, for one\nof their principal ceremonies is hook-swinging.[287]\n\nThe doctrine of the B\u00e2thuris is called Mahim\u00e2 Dharma and experienced\nan interesting revival in 1875.[288] A blind man named Bh\u00eema Bhoi had\na vision of the Buddha who restored his sight and bade him preach the\nlaw. He attracted some thousands of adherents and led a band to Puri\nproclaiming that his mission was to bring to light the statue of\nBuddha concealed in the temple. The Raja resisted the attempt and the\nfollowers of Bh\u00eema Bhoi were worsted in a sanguinary encounter. Since\nthat time they have retired to the more remote districts of Orissa and\nare said to hold that the Buddha will appear again in a new\nincarnation. They are also called Kumbhipatias and according to the\nlast census of India (1911) are hostile to Brahmans and probably\nnumber about 25,000.\n\nTraces of Buddhism also survive in the worship of a deity called\nDharma-R\u00e2j\u00e2 or Dharma-Thakur which still prevails in western and\nsouthern Bengal.[289] Priests of this worship are usually not Brahmans\nbut of low caste, and Haraprasad thinks that the laity who follow it\nmay number \"several millions.\" Though Dharma has come to be associated\nwith the goddess of smallpox and is believed even by his adorers to be\na form of Vishnu or of Siva, yet Dhy\u00e2na, or meditation, forms a part\nof his worship and the prayers and literature of the sect retain some\ntraces of his origin. Thus he is said to be highly honoured in Ceylon\nand receives the epithet S\u00fbnyam\u00fbrti.\n\nA corrupt form of Buddhism still exists in Nepal.[290] This country\nwhen first heard of was in the hands of the Nevars who have preserved\nsome traditions of a migration from the north and are akin to the\nTibetans in race and language, though like many non-Aryan tribes they\nhave endeavoured to invent for themselves a Hindu pedigree. Buddhism\nwas introduced under Asoka. As Indian influence was strong and\ncommunication with Tirhut and Bengal easy, it is probable that\nBuddhism in Nepal reflected the phases which it underwent in Bengal. A\nNepalese inscription of the seventh century gives a list of shrines of\nwhich seven are Sivaite, six Buddhist and four Vishnuite.[291] After\nthat date it was more successful in maintaining itself, for it did not\nsuffer from Mohammedan attacks and was less exposed to the\nassimilative influence of Brahmanism. That influence however, though\noperating in a foreign country and on people not bred among Brahmanic\ntraditions, was nevertheless strong. In 1324 the king of Tirhut, being\nexpelled thence by Mohammedans, seized the throne of Nepal and brought\nwith him many learned Brahmans. His dynasty was not permanent but\nlater in the fourteenth century a subsequent ruler, Jayasthiti,\norganized society and religion in consultation with the Brahman\nimmigrants. The followers of the two religions were arranged in\nparallel divisions, a group of Buddhists classified according to\noccupation corresponding to each Hindu caste, and appropriate rules\nand ceremonies were prescribed for the different sections. The code\nthen established is still in force in essentials and Nepal, being\nintellectually the pupil of India, has continued to receive such new\nideas as appeared in the plains of Bengal. When these ascended to the\nmountain valleys they were adopted, with free modification of old and\nnew material alike, by both Buddhists and Hindus, but as both sects\nwere geographically isolated, each tended to resemble the other more\nthan either resembled normal Buddhism or Hinduism. Naturally the new\nideas were mainly Brahmanic and Buddhism had no chance of being\nfortified by an importation of even moderately orthodox doctrine. In\nthe fourteenth century arose the community of wandering ascetics\ncalled N\u00e2thas who were reverenced by Hindus and Buddhists alike. They\nrejected the observances of both creeds but often combined their\ndoctrines and, though disavowed by the Brahmans, exercised a\nconsiderable influence among the lower castes. Some of the peculiar\ndeities of Nepal, such as Matsyendran\u00e2th, have attributes traceable to\nthese wanderers. In 1769 Nepal was conquered by the Gurkhas. This\ntribe seems related to the Tibetan stock, as are the Nevars, but it\nhad long been Hinduized and claimed a Rajput ancestry. Thus Gurkha\nrule has favoured and accelerated the hinduizing of Nepalese Buddhism.\n\nSince the time of Hodgson the worship of the \u00c2di-Buddha, or an\noriginal divine Buddha practically equivalent to God, has been often\ndescribed as characteristic of Nepalese religion and such a worship\nundoubtedly exists. But recent accounts indicate that it is not\nprominent and also that it can hardly be considered a distinct type of\nmonotheistic Buddhism. The idea that the five Dhy\u00e2ni-Buddhas are\nemanations or manifestations of a single primordial Buddha-spirit is a\nnatural development of Mahayanist ideas, but no definite statement of\nit earlier than the K\u00e2lacakra literature is forthcoming, though many\nearlier works point towards it.[292] In modern Nepal the chief temple\nof the \u00c2di-Buddha is on the hill of Svayambh\u00fb (the self-existent) near\nKatmandu. According to a legend preserved in the Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na, a\nspecial divine manifestation occurred in ancient times on an adjoining\nlake; a miraculous lotus arose on its surface, bearing an image, over\nwhich a Caitya was subsequently erected. The shrine is greatly\nvenerated but this \u00c2di-Buddha, or Svayambh\u00fb, does not differ\nessentially from other miraculous images in India which are said not\nto consist of ordinary matter but to embody in some special way the\nnature of a deity. The religion of Nepal is less remarkable for new\ndevelopments of Buddhism than for the singular fusion of Buddhism with\nHinduism which it presents and which helps us to understand what must\nhave been the last phase in Bengal.\n\nThe Nepalese Brahmans tolerate Buddhism. The Nep\u00e2la-m\u00e2h\u00e2tmya says that\nto worship Buddha is to worship Siva, and the Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na returns\nthe compliment by recommending the worship of Pasupati.[293] The\nofficial itinerary of the Hindu pilgrim includes Svayambh\u00fb, where he\nadores Buddha under that name. More often the two religions adore the\nsame image under different names: what is Avalokita to the one is\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2la to the other. Durg\u00e2 is explained as being the incarnation of\nthe Praj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 and she is even identified with the \u00c2di-Buddha.\nThe Nepalese pantheon like the Tibetan contains three elements, often\nunited in modern legends: firstly aboriginal deities, such as Nagas\nand other nature spirits: secondly definitely Buddhist deities or\nBodhisattvas of whom Ma\u00f1jusr\u00ee receives the most honour: thirdly Hindu\ndeities such as Ganesa and Krishna. The popular deity\nMatsyendranath appears to combine all three elements in his own\nperson.\n\nModern accounts of Nepal leave the impression that even corrupt\nBuddhism is in a bad way, yet the number of religious establishments\nis considerable. Celibacy is not observed by their inmates, who are\ncalled banras (bandyas). On entering the order the novice takes the\nancient vows but after four days he returns to his tutor, confesses\nthat they are too hard for him and is absolved from his obligations.\nThe classes known as Bhikshus and Gubh\u00e2rjus officiate as priests, the\nlatter being the higher order. The principal ceremony is the offering\nof melted butter. The more learned Gubh\u00e2rjus receive the title of\nVajr\u00e2c\u00e2rya[294] and have the sole right of officiating at marriages\nand funerals.\n\nThere is little learning. The oldest scriptures in use are the\nso-called nine Dharmas.[295] Hodgson describes these works as much\nvenerated and Rajendralal Mitra has analysed them, but Sylvain L\u00e9vi\nheard little of them in 1898, though he mentions the recitation of the\nPraj\u00f1\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2. The Svayambh\u00fb Pur\u00e2na is an account of the\nmanifestation of the \u00c2di-Buddha written in the style of those portions\nof the Brahmanic Pur\u00e2nas which treat of the glories of some sacred\nplace. In its present form it can hardly be earlier than the sixteenth\ncentury A.D. The Nep\u00e2la-m\u00e2h\u00e2tmya is a similar work which, though of\nBrahmanic origin, puts Buddha, Vishnu and Siva on the same footing and\nidentifies the first with Krishna. The V\u00e2gvat\u00ee-m\u00e2h\u00e2tmya[296] on the\nother hand is strictly Sivaite and ignores Buddha's claims to worship.\nThe V\u00e2ms\u00e2vali, or Chronicle of Nepal, written in the Gurkha language\n(Parbatiya) is also largely occupied with an account of sacred sites\nand buildings and exists in two versions, one Buddhist, the other\nBrahmanical.\n\nBut let us return to the decadence of Buddhism in India. It is plain\nthat persecution was not its main cause nor even very important among\nthe accessory causes. The available records contain clearer statements\nabout the persecution of Jainism than of Buddhism but no doubt the\nlatter came in for some rough handling, though not enough to\nannihilate a vigorous sect. Great numbers of monasteries in the north\nwere demolished by the Huns and a similar catastrophe brought about\nthe collapse of the Church in Bihar. But this last incident cannot be\ncalled religious persecution, for Muhammad did not even know what he\nwas destroying. Buddhism did not arouse more animosity than other\nIndian religions: the significant feature is that when its temples and\nmonasteries were demolished it did not live on in the hearts of the\npeople, as did Hinduism with all its faults.\n\nThe relation between the laity and the Church in Buddhism is curious\nand has had serious consequences for both good and evil. The layman\n\"takes refuge\" in the Buddha, his law and his church but does not\nswear exclusive allegiance: to follow supplementary observances is not\ntreasonable, provided they are not in themselves objectionable. The\nBuddha prescribed no ceremonies for births, deaths and marriages and\napparently expected the laity to continue in the observance of such\nrites as were in use. To-day in China and Japan the good layman is\nlittle more than one who pays more attention to Buddhism than to other\nfaiths. This charitable pliancy had much to do with the victories of\nBuddhism in the Far East, where it had to struggle against strong\nprejudices and could hardly have made its way if it had been\nintolerant of local deities. But in India we see the disadvantages of\nthe omission to make the laity members of a special corporation and\nthe survival of the Jains, who do form such a corporation, is a clear\nobject lesson. Social life in India tends to combine men in castes or\nin communities which if not castes in the technical sense have much\nthe same character. Such communities have great vitality so long as\nthey maintain their peculiar usages, but when they cease to do so they\nsoon disintegrate and are reabsorbed. Buddhism from the first never\ntook the form of a corporation. The special community which it\ninstituted was the sangha or body of monks. Otherwise, it aimed not\nat founding a sect but at including all the world as lay believers on\neasy terms. This principle worked well so long as the faith was in the\nascendent but its effect was disastrous when decline began. The line\ndividing Buddhist laymen from ordinary Hindus became less and less\nmarked: distinctive teaching was found only in the monasteries: these\nbecame poorly recruited and as they were gradually deserted or\ndestroyed by Mohammedans the religion of the Buddha disappeared from\nhis native land.\n\nEven in the monasteries the doctrine taught bore a closer resemblance\nto Hinduism than to the preaching of Gotama and it is this absence of\nthe protestant spirit, this pliant adaptability to the ideas of each\nage, which caused Indian Buddhism to lose its individuality and\nseparate existence. In some localities its disappearance and\nabsorption were preceded by a monstrous phase, known as Tantrism or\nS\u00e2ktism, in which the worst elements of Hinduism, those which would\nhave been most repulsive to Gotama, made an unnatural alliance with\nhis church.\n\nI treat of Tantrism and S\u00e2ktism in another chapter. The original\nmeaning of Tantra as applied to literary compositions is a simplified\nmanual.[297] Thus we hear of Vishnuite Tantras and in this sense there\nis a real similarity between Buddhist and tantric teaching, for both\nset aside Brahmanic tradition as needlessly complicated and both\nprofess to preach a simple and practical road to salvation. But in\nHinduism and Buddhism alike such words as Tantra and tantric acquire a\nspecial sense and imply the worship of the divine energy in a female\nform called by many names such as K\u00e2l\u00ee in the former, T\u00e2r\u00e2 in the\nlatter. This worship which in my opinion should be called S\u00e2ktism\nrather than Tantrism combines many elements: ancient, savage\nsuperstitions as well as ingenious but fanciful speculation, but its\nessence is always magic. It attempts to attain by magical or\nsacramental formul\u00e6 and acts not only prosperity and power but\nsalvation, nirvana and union with the supreme spirit. Some of its\nsects practise secret immoral rites. It is sad to confess that\ndegenerate Buddhism did not remain uncorrupted by such abuses.\n\nIt is always a difficult and speculative task to trace the early\nstages of new movements in Indian religion, but it is clear that by\nthe eighth century and perhaps earlier the Buddhism of Bihar and\nBengal had fallen a prey to this influence. Apparently the public\nritual in the Vih\u00e2ras remained unchanged and the usual language about\n_nirv\u00e2na_ and _s\u00fbnyat\u00e2_ was not discarded, but it was taught that\nthose who followed a certain curriculum could obtain salvation by\nmagical methods. To enter this curriculum it was necessary to have a\nqualified teacher and to receive from him initiation or baptism\n(abhisheka). Of the subsequent rites the most important is to evoke\none of the many Buddhas or Bodhisattvas recognized by the Mahayana and\nidentify oneself with him.[298] He who wishes to do this is often\ncalled a s\u00e2dhaka or magician but his achievements, like many Indian\nmiracles, are due to self-hypnotization. He is directed to repair to a\nlonely place and offer worship there with flowers and prayers. To this\noffice succeed prolonged exercises in meditation which do not depart\nmuch from the ancient canon since they include the four\nBrahm\u00e2-vih\u00e2ras. Their object is to suppress thought and leave the mind\nempty. Then the s\u00e2dhaka fills this void with the image of some\nBodhisattva, for instance Avalokita. This he does by uttering mystic\nsyllables called b\u00eeja or seed, because they are supposed to germinate\nand grow into the figures which he wishes to produce. In this way he\nimagines that he sees the emblems of the Bodhisattva spring up round\nhim one by one and finally he himself assumes the shape of Avalokita\nand becomes one with him. Something similar still exists in Tibet\nwhere every Lama chooses a tutelary deity or Yi-dam whom he summons in\nvisible form after meditation and fasting.[299] Though this procedure\nwhen set forth methodically in a medi\u00e6val manual seems an absurd\ntravesty of Buddhism, yet it has links with the early faith. It is\nadmitted in the Pitakas that certain forms of meditation[300] lead to\nunion with Brahm\u00e2 and it is no great change to make them lead to union\nwith other supernatural beings. Still we are not here breathing the\natmosphere of the Pitakas. The object is not to share Brahm\u00e2's heaven\nbut to become temporarily identified with a deity, and this is not a\nbyway of religion but the high road.\n\nBut there is a further stage of degradation. I have already mentioned\nthat various Bodhisattvas are represented as accompanied by a female\ndeity, particularly Avalokita by T\u00e2r\u00e2. The mythological and\nmetaphysical ideas which have grown up round Siva and Durg\u00e2 also\nattached themselves to these couples. The Buddha or Bodhisattva is\nrepresented as enjoying nirvana because he is united to his spouse,\nand to the three bodies already enumerated is added a fourth, the body\nof perfect bliss.[301] Sometimes this idea merely leads to further\ndevelopments of the practices described above. Thus the devotee may\nimagine that he enters into T\u00e2r\u00e2 as an embryo and is born of her as a\nBuddha.[302] More often the argument is that since the bliss of the\nBuddha consists in union with T\u00e2r\u00e2, nirvana can be obtained by sexual\nunion here, and we find many of the tantric wizards represented as\naccompanied by female companions. The adept should avoid all action\nbut he is beyond good and evil and the dangerous doctrine that he can\ndo evil with impunity, which the more respectable sects repudiate, is\nexpressly taught. The sage is not defiled by passion but conquers\npassion by passion: he should commit every infamy: he should rob, lie\nand kill Buddhas.[303] These crazy precepts are probably little more\nthan a speculative application to the moral sphere of the doctrine\nthat all things are non-existent and hence equivalent. But though\ntantrists did not go about robbing and murdering so freely as their\nprinciples allowed, there is some evidence that in the period of\ndecadence the morality of the Bhikshus had fallen into great\ndiscredit. Thus in the allegorical Vishnuite drama called\nPrabodhacandrodaya and written at Kalanjar near the end of the\neleventh century Buddhists and Jains are represented as succumbing to\nthe temptations of inebriety and voluptuousness.\n\nIt is necessary to mention this phase of decadence but no good purpose\nwould be served by dwelling further on the absurd and often disgusting\nprescriptions of such works as the Tath\u00e2gata-guhyaka. If the European\nreader is inclined to condemn unreservedly a religion which even in\ndecrepitude could find place for such monstrosities, he should\nremember that the aberrations of Indian religion are due not to its\ninherent depravity, but to its universality. In Europe those who\nfollow disreputable occupations rarely suppose that they have anything\nto do with the Church. In India, robbers, murderers, gamblers,\nprostitutes, and maniacs all have their appropriate gods, and had the\nMarquis de Sade been a Hindu he would probably have founded a new\ntantric sect. But though the details of S\u00e2ktism are an unprofitable\nstudy, it is of some importance to ascertain when it first invaded\nBuddhism and to what extent it superseded older ideas.\n\nSome critics[304] seem to imply--for their statements are not very\nexplicit--that S\u00e2ktism formed part if not of the teaching of the\nBuddha, at least of the medley of beliefs held by his disciples. But I\nsee no proof that S\u00e2ktist beliefs--that is to say erotic mysticism\nfounded on the worship of goddesses--were prevalent in Magadha or\nKosala before the Christian era. Although Siri, the goddess of luck,\nis mentioned in the Pitakas, the popular deities whom they bring on\nthe scene are almost exclusively masculine.[305] And though in the\nolder Brahmanic books there are passages which might easily become\ntantric, yet the transition is not made and the important truths of\nreligion are kept distinct from unclean rites and thoughts. The\nBrihad-\u00e2ranyaka contains a chapter which hardly admits of\ntranslation but the object of the practices inculcated is simply to\nensure the birth of a son. The same work (not without analogies in the\necstatic utterances of Christian saints) boldly compares union with\nthe \u00c2tman to the bliss of one who is embraced by a beloved wife, but\nthis is a mere illustration and there is no hint of the doctrine that\nthe goal of the religious life is obtainable by _maithuna_. Still such\npassages, though innocent in themselves, make it easy to see how\ndegrading superstitions found an easy entrance into the noblest\nedifices of Indian thought and possibly some heresies condemned in the\nKath\u00e2vatthu[306] indicate that even at this early date the Buddhist\nChurch was contaminated by erotic fancies. But, if so, there is no\nevidence that such malpractices were widespread. The appendices to the\nLotus[307] show that the worship of a many-named goddess, invoked as a\ndefender of the faith, was beginning to be a recognized feature of\nBuddhism. But they contain no indications of left-handed Tantrism and\nthe best proof that it did not become prevalent until much later is\nafforded by the narratives of the three Chinese pilgrims who all\ndescribe the condition of religion in India and notice anything which\nthey thought singular or reprehensible. Fa-Hsien does not mention the\nworship of any female deity,[308] nor does the Life of Vasubandhu, but\nAsanga appears to allude to S\u00e2ktism in one passage.[309] Hs\u00fcan Chuang\nmentions images of T\u00e2r\u00e2 but without hinting at tantric ritual, nor\ndoes I-Ching allude to it, nor does the evidence of art and\ninscriptions attest its existence. It may have been known as a form of\npopular superstition and even have been practised by individual\nBhikshus, but the silence of I-Ching makes it improbable that it was\nthen countenanced in the schools of Magadha. He complains[310] of\nthose who neglect the Vinaya and \"devote their whole attention to the\ndoctrine of nothingness,\" but he says not a word about tantric\nabuses.[311]\n\nThe change probably occurred in the next half century[312] for\nPadma-Sambhava, the founder of Lamaism who is said to have resided in\nGaya and Nalanda and to have arrived in Tibet in 747 A.D., is\nrepresented by tradition as a tantric wizard, and about the same time\ntranslations of Tantras begin to appear in Chinese. The translations\nof the sixth and seventh centuries, including those of I-Ching,\ncomprise a considerable though not preponderant number of Dh\u00e2ran\u00ees.\nAfter the seventh century these became very numerous and several\nTantras were also translated.[313] The inference seems to be that\nearly in the eighth century Indian Buddhists officially recognized\nTantrism.\n\nTantric Buddhism was due to the mixture of Mahayanist teaching with\naboriginal superstitions absorbed through the medium of Hinduism,\nthough in some cases there may have been direct contact and mutual\ninfluence between Mahayanism and aboriginal beliefs. But as a rule\nwhat happened was that aboriginal deities were identified with Hindu\ndeities and Buddhism had not sufficient independence to keep its own\npantheon distinct, so that Vairocana and T\u00e2r\u00e2 received most of the\nattributes, brahmanic or barbarous, given to Siva or K\u00e2li. The worship\nof the goddesses, described in their Hinduized form as Durg\u00e2, K\u00e2l\u00ee,\netc., though found in most parts of India was specially prevalent in\nthe sub-himalayan districts both east and west. Now Padma-Sambhava was\na native of Udy\u00e2na or Swat and T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha represents the chief\nTantrists[314] as coming from there or visiting it. Hs\u00fcan Chuang[315]\ntells us that the inhabitants were devout Mahayanists but specially\nexpert in magic and exorcism. He also describes no less than four\nsacred places in it where the Buddha in previous births gave his\nflesh, blood or bones for the good of others. Have we here in a\nBuddhist form some ancient legend of dismemberment like that told of\nSat\u00ee in Assam? Of Kashmir he says that its religion was a mixture of\nBuddhism with other beliefs.[316] These are precisely the conditions\nmost favourable to the growth of Tantrism and though the bulk of the\npopulation are now Mohammedans, witchcraft and sorcery are still\nrampant. Among the Hindu Kashm\u00eeris[317] the most prevalent religion\nhas always been the worship of Siva, especially in the form\nrepresenting him as half male, half female. This cult is not far from\nS\u00e2ktism and many allusions[318] in the R\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee indicate that\nleft-hand worship was known, though the author satirizes it as a\ncorruption. He also several times mentions[319] M\u00e2tri-cakras, that is\ncircles sacred to the Mothers or tantric goddesses. In Nepal and Tibet\ntantric Buddhism is fully developed but these countries have received\nso much from India that they exhibit not a parallel growth, but late\nIndian Tantrism as imported ready-made from Bengal. It is here that we\ncome nearest to the origins of Tantrism, for though the same beliefs\nmay have flourished in Udy\u00e2na and Kashmir they did not spread much in\nthe Panjab or Hindustan, where their progress was hindered at first by\na healthy and vigorous Hinduism and subsequently by Mohammedan\ninvasions. But from 700 to 1197 A.D. Bengal was remote alike from the\nmain currents of Indian religion and from foreign raids: little Aryan\nthought or learning leavened the local superstitions which were\ninfecting and stifling decadent Buddhism. Hs\u00fcan Chuang informs us that\nBhaskaravarma king of K\u00e2mar\u00fbpa[320] attended the f\u00eates celebrated by\nHarsha in 644 A.D. and inscriptions found at Tezpur indicate that\nkings with Hindu names reigned in Assam about 800 A.D. This is\nagreeable to the supposition that an amalgamation of Sivaism and\naboriginal religion may have been in formation about 700 A.D. and have\ninfluenced Buddhism.\n\nIn Bihar from the eighth century onwards the influence of Tantrism was\npowerful and disastrous. The best information about this epoch is\nstill to be found in T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, in spite of his defects.\n\nHe makes the interesting statement that in the reign of Gop\u00e2la who was\na Buddhist, although his ministers were not (730-740 A.D.), the\nBuddhists wished their religious buildings to be kept separate from\nHindu temples but that, in spite of protests, life-sized images of\nHindu deities were erected in them.[321] The ritual too was affected,\nfor we hear several times of burnt offerings[322] and how Bodhibhadra,\none of the later professors of Vikramasila, was learned in the mystic\nlore of both Buddhists and Brahmans. Nalanda and the other viharas\ncontinued to be seats of learning and not merely monasteries, and for\nsome time there was a regular succession of teachers. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha gives\nus to understand that there were many students and authors but that\nsorcery occupied an increasingly important position. Of most teachers\nwe are told that they saw some deity, such as Avalokita or T\u00e2r\u00e2. The\ndeity was summoned by the rites already described[323] and the object\nof the performer was to obtain magical powers or siddhi. The\nsuccessful sorcerer was known as siddha, and we hear of 84\nmah\u00e2siddhas, still celebrated in Tibet, who extend from Rahulabhadra\nN\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna to the thirteenth century. Many of them bear names which\nappear not to be Indian.\n\nThe topics treated of in the Tantras are divided into Kriy\u00e2 (ritual),\nCary\u00e2 (apparently corresponding to Vinaya), Yoga, and Anuttara-yoga.\nSometimes the first three are contrasted with the fourth and sometimes\nthe first two are described as lower, the third and fourth as higher.\nBut the Anuttara-yoga is always considered the highest and most\nmysterious.[324] T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha says[325] that the Tantras began to appear\nsimultaneously with the Mahayana s\u00fbtras but adds that the\nAnuttara-yoga tantras appeared gradually.[326] He also observes that\nthe \u00c2c\u00e2rya \u00c2nanda-garbha[327] did much to spread them in Magadha. It\nis not until a late period of the P\u00e2la dynasty that he mentions the\nK\u00e2lacakra which is the most extravagant form of Buddhist Tantrism.\n\nThis accords with other statements to the effect that the K\u00e2lacakra\ntantra was introduced in 965 A.D. from Sambhala, a mysterious country\nin Central Asia. This system is said to be Vishnuite rather than\nSivaite. It specially patronizes the cult of the mystic Buddhas such\nas K\u00e2lacakra and Heruka, all of whom appear to be regarded as forms of\n\u00c2di-Buddha or the primordial Buddha essence. The Siddha named Pito is\nalso described as the author of this doctrine,[328] which had less\nimportance in India than in Tibet.\n\nOn the other hand T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha gives us the names of several doctors of\nthe Vinaya who flourished under the P\u00e2la dynasty. Even as late as the\nreign of R\u00e2map\u00e2la (? 1080-1120) we hear that the Hinayanists were\nnumerous. In the reign of Dharmap\u00e2la (_c_. 800 A.D.) some of them\nbroke up the great silver image of Heruka at Bodh-Gaya and burnt the\nbooks of Mantras.[329] These instances show that the older Buddhism\nwas not entirely overwhelmed by Tantrism[330] though perhaps it was\nkept alive more by pilgrims than by local sentiment. Thus the Chinese\ninscriptions of Bodh-Gaya though they speak at length of the three\nbodies of Buddha show no signs of Tantrism. It would appear that the\nworship celebrated in the holy places of Magadha preserved a\nrespectable side until the end. In the same way although Tantrism is\nstrong in the literature of the Lamas, none of the many descriptions\nof Tibet indicate that there is anything scandalous in the externals\nof religion. Probably in Tibet, Nepal and medi\u00e6val Magadha alike the\nexistence of disgraceful tantric literature does not indicate such\nwidespread depravity as might be supposed. But of its putrefying\ninfluence in corrupting the minds of those who ought to have preserved\nthe pure faith there can be no doubt. More than any other form of\nmixed belief it obliterated essential differences, for Buddhist\nTantrism and Sivaite Tantrism are merely two varieties of Tantrism.\n\nWhat is happening at Bodh-Gaya at present[331] illustrates how\nBuddhism disappeared from India. The abbot of a neighbouring Sivaite\nmonastery who claims the temple and grounds does not wish, as a\nMohammedan might, to destroy the building or even to efface Buddhist\nemblems. He wishes to supervise the whole establishment and the visits\nof pilgrims, as well as to place on the images of Buddha Hindu\nsectarian marks and other ornaments. Hindu pilgrims are still taken by\ntheir guides to venerate the Bodhi tree and, but for the presence of\nforeign pilgrims, no casual observer would suppose the spot to be\nanything but a Hindu temple of unusual construction. The same process\nwent a step further in many shrines which had not the same celebrity\nand effaced all traces and memory of Buddhism.\n\nAt the present day the Buddha is recognized by the Brahmans as an\nincarnation of Vishnu,[332] though the recognition is often qualified\nby the statement that Vishnu assumed this form in order to mislead the\nwicked who threatened to become too powerful if they knew the true\nmethod of attaining superhuman powers. But he is rarely worshipped _in\npropri\u00e2 person\u00e2_.[333] As a rule Buddhist images and emblems are\nascribed to Vishnu or Siva, according to sectarian preferences, but\nin spite of fusion some lingering sense of original animosity\nprevents Gotama from receiving even such respect as is accorded to\nincarnations like Parasu-r\u00e2ma. At Bodh-Gaya I have been told that\nHindu pilgrims are taken by their guides to venerate the Bodhi-tree\nbut not the images of Buddha.\n\nYet in reviewing the disappearance of Buddhism from India we must\nremember that it was absorbed not expelled. The result of the mixture\nis justly called Hinduism, yet both in usages and beliefs it has taken\nover much that is Buddhist and without Buddhism it would never have\nassumed its present shape. To Buddhist influence are due for instance\nthe rejection by most sects of animal sacrifices: the doctrine of the\nsanctity of animal life: monastic institutions and the ecclesiastical\ndiscipline found in the Dravidian regions. We may trace the same\ninfluence with more or less certainty in the philosophy of Sankara\nand outside the purely religious sphere in the development of Indian\nlogic. These and similar points are dealt with in more detail in other\nparts of this work and I need not dwell on them here.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 264: Written before the war.]\n\n[Footnote 265: Even at Kanauj, the scene of Harsha's pious\nfestivities, there were 100 Buddhist monasteries but 200 Deva\ntemples.]\n\n[Footnote 266: Rice, _Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions_, p.\n203.]\n\n[Footnote 267: See the note by B\u00fchler in _Journ. Pali Text Soc._ 1896,\np. 108.]\n\n[Footnote 268: R\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee, III. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 269: See for the supposed persecution of Buddhism in India,\n_J.P.T.S._ 1896, pp. 87-92 and 107-111 and _J.R.A.S._ 1898, pp.\n208-9.]\n\n[Footnote 270: As contained in the Sankara-dig-vijaya ascribed to\nM\u00e2dhava and the Sankara-vijaya ascribed to \u00c2nandagiri.]\n\n[Footnote 271: T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha in his twenty-eighth and following chapters\ngives an account, unfortunately very confused, of the condition of\nBuddhism under the P\u00e2la dynasty. See also B.K. Sarkar, _Folklore\nElement in Hindu Culture_, chap. XII, in which there are many\ninteresting statements but not sufficient references.]\n\n[Footnote 272: See Vidyabhusana's _Medi\u00e6val School of Indian Logic_,\np. 150, for an account of this monastery which was perhaps at the\nmodern P\u00e2rthagh\u00e2ta. I have found no account of what happened to\nNalanda in this period but it seems to have disappeared as a seat of\nlearning.]\n\n[Footnote 273: See T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, chap. XXVIII.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Chap. XXXVI. It is interesting to notice that even at\nthis late period he speaks of Hinayanists in Bengal.]\n\n[Footnote 275: Often called Muhammad Bakhtyar but Bakhtyar seems to\nhave been really his father's name.]\n\n[Footnote 276: Raverty, _Tabat-i-Nasiri_, p. 552. \"It was discovered\nthat the whole of that fortress and city was a college and in the\nHindi tongue they call a college Bihar.\"]\n\n[Footnote 277: Many of them have been collected by Pandit Haraprasad\nSastri in _Jour. As. Soc._ Bengal, 1895, pp. 55 ff. and in his\n_Discovery of living Buddhism in Bengal_, Calcutta, 1897.]\n\n[Footnote 278: Chap. XL _ad fin._ Is the R\u00e2macandra whom he mentions\nthe last Yadava King (about 1314)? T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha speaks of his son.]\n\n[Footnote 279: Caitanya-caritamrita, chap. VII, transl. by Jadunath\nSarkar, p. 85. This biography was written in 1582 by Krishnadas.\nCaitanya died in 1533.]\n\n[Footnote 280: _Census of India_, 1901: vol. VI. Bengal, pp. 427-430.]\n\n[Footnote 281: _The Arch\u00e6ological Survey of Mayurabhanj_ (no date?\n1911), vol. I. pp. cv-cclxiii. The part containing an account of\nBuddhism in Orissa is also printed separately with the title _Modern\nBuddhism_, 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 282: For R\u00e2m\u00e2i Pandit see Dinesh Chandra Sen, _Hist. Bengali\nLanguage and Lit._ pp. 30-37, and also B.K. Sarkar, _Folklore Element\nin Hindu Culture_, p. 192, and elsewhere. He appears to have been born\nat the end of the tenth century and though the S\u00fbnya Pur\u00e2na has been\nre-edited and interpolated parts of it are said to be in very old\nBengali.]\n\n[Footnote 283: Nagendran\u00e2th Vasu quotes a couplet from the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata\nof the poet Saraladasa: \"I pay my humble respects to the incarnation\nof Buddha who in the form of Buddha dwells in the N\u00eel\u00e2cala, _i.e._\nPuri.\" The Imperial Gazetteer of India (s.v. Puri Town) states that in\nmodern representations of Vishnu's ten avat\u00e2ras, the ninth, or\nBuddh\u00e2vat\u00e2ra, is sometimes represented by Jagann\u00e2tha.]\n\n[Footnote 284: I give the dates or the authority of Narandra N\u00e2th\nwhile thinking that they may be somewhat too early. The two authors\nnamed wrote the S\u00fbnya Samhit\u00e2 and Nirguna M\u00e2h\u00e2tmya respectively.]\n\n[Footnote 285: _l.c._ clxxvi ff., ccxix-ccxxiii, ccxxxi.]\n\n[Footnote 286: Author of a poem called Dharmag\u00eet\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 287: _l.c._ cxvi ff. and ccxxxii.]\n\n[Footnote 288: _l.c._ ccxxxiv ff.]\n\n[Footnote 289: See Haraprasad Sastri, _l.c._ He gives a curious\naccount of one of his temples in Calcutta. See also B.K. Sarkar,\n_Folklore Element in Hindu Culture_ for the decadence of Buddhism in\nBengal and its survival in degenerate forms.]\n\n[Footnote 290: See B.H. Hodgson, _Essays on the languages, literature\nand religion of Nepal and Tibet_, 1874. For the religion of Nepal see\nalso Wright, _History of Nepal_, 1877; C. Bendall, _Journal of\nLiterary and Arch\u00e6ological Research in Nepal_, 1886; Rajendralal\nMitra, _Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal_; and especially S.\nL\u00e9vi, _Le Nepal_, 3 vols. 1905-8.]\n\n[Footnote 291: S. L\u00e9vi in _J.A._ II. 1904, p. 225. He gives the date\nas 627.]\n\n[Footnote 292: The doctrine of the \u00c2di-Buddha is fully stated in the\nmetrical version of the K\u00e2randa-vy\u00fbha which appears to be a later\nparaphrase of the prose edition. See Winternitz, _Gesch. Ind. Lit_.\nII. i. 238.]\n\n[Footnote 293: Compare the fusion of Sivaism and Buddhism in Java.]\n\n[Footnote 294: Or Vajr\u00e2c\u00e2rya-arhat-bhikshu-buddha, which in itself\nshows what a medley Nepalese Buddhism has become.]\n\n[Footnote 295: See above chap. XX. for some account of these works.]\n\n[Footnote 296: Dedicated to the sacred river V\u00e2gvat\u00ee or Bagmati.]\n\n[Footnote 297: Hardly any Buddhist Tantras have been edited in Europe.\nSee Bendall, _Subh\u00e2shita-sangraha_ for a collection of extracts (also\npublished in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1905), and De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin, _Bouddhisme,\n\u00c9tudes el Mat\u00e9riaux. Id._ Pancakrama, 1896.\n\nWhile this book was going through the press I received the Tibetan\nTantra called Shrichakrasambhara (Avalon's Tantric Texts, vol. VII)\nwith introduction by A. Avalon, but have not been able to make use of\nit.]\n\n[Footnote 298: See Foucher, _Iconographie bouddhique_, pp. 8 ff. De la\nVall\u00e9e Poussin, _Bouddhisme, \u00c9tudes et Mat\u00e9riaux_, pp. 213 ff. For\nJapanese tantric ceremonies see the Si-Do-In-Dzon in the _Annales du\nMus\u00e9e Guimet_, vol. VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 299: In ancient Egypt also the Kher heb or magician-priest\nclaimed the power of becoming various gods. See Budge, _Osiris_, II.\n170 and Wiedemann, _Magic im alten Aegypten_, 13 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 300: The Brahm\u00e2-vih\u00e2ras. _E.g._ Dig. Nik. XIII.]\n\n[Footnote 301: Mah\u00e2sukhak\u00e2ya or vajrak\u00e2ya.]\n\n[Footnote 302: De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin, _Bouddhisme, \u00c9tudes et\nMat\u00e9riaux_, p. 153.]\n\n[Footnote 303: See _Subh\u00e2shita-sangraha_ edited by Bendall. Part II. pp.\n29 ff. especially p. 41. Parasvaharanam k\u00e2ryam parad\u00e2r\u00e2nishevanam\nVaktavyam c\u00e2nritam nityam sarvabuddh\u00e2msca gh\u00e2tayet. See also\nTath\u00e2gata-guhyaka in Rajendralal Mitra's _Sanskrit Literature in Nepal_,\npp. 261-264.]\n\n[Footnote 304: For instance De la Vall\u00e9e Poussin in his _Bouddhisme,\n\u00c9tudes et Mat\u00e9riaux_, 1896. In his later work, _Bouddhisme, Opinions\nsur l'histoire de la dogmatique_, he modifies his earlier views.]\n\n[Footnote 305: See Dig. Nik. XX. and XXXII.]\n\n[Footnote 306: Kath\u00e2v. XXIII. 1 and 2.]\n\n[Footnote 307: These appendices are later additions to the original\ntext but they were translated into Chinese in the third century. Among\nthe oldest Sanskrit MSS. from Japan is the Ushnisha-vijaya-dh\u00e2ran\u00ee\nand there is a goddess with a similar name. But the Dh\u00e2ran\u00ee is not\nS\u00e2ktist. See text in Anec. Oxon. Aryan series.]\n\n[Footnote 308: He speaks of Kwan-shih-yin but this is probably the\nmale Avalokita.]\n\n[Footnote 309: Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra, IX. 46. Of course there may be\nmany other allusions in yet unedited works of Asanga but it is\nnoticeable that this allusion to _maithuna_ is only made in passing\nand is not connected with the essence of his teaching.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Transl. Takakusu, p. 51.]\n\n[Footnote 311: T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, chap. XXII seems also to assign a late\norigin to the Tantras though his remarks are neither clear nor\nconsistent with what he says in other passages. He is doubtless right\nin suggesting that tantric rites were practised surreptitiously before\nthey were recognized openly.]\n\n[Footnote 312: It is about this time too that we hear of Tantrism in\nHinduism. In the drama M\u00e2lat\u00ee and M\u00e2dhava (_c_. 730 A.D.) the heroine\nis kidnapped and is about to be sacrificed to the goddess Cand\u00e2 when\nshe is rescued.]\n\n[Footnote 313: See the latter part of Appendix II in Nanjio's\nCatalogue.]\n\n[Footnote 314: _E.g._ Lalitavajra, L\u00eel\u00e2vajra, Buddhas\u00e2nti, Ratnavajra.\nT\u00e2ran\u00e2tha also (tr. Schiefner, p. 264) speaks of Tantras \"Welche aus\nUdyana gebracht und nie in Indien gewesen sind.\" It is also\nnoticeable, as Gr\u00fcnwedel has pointed out, that many of the siddhas or\nsorcerers bear names which have no meaning in Aryan languages:\nBir-va-pa, Na-ro-pa, Lui-pa, etc. A curious late tradition represents\nS\u00e2ktism as coming from China. See a quotation from the Mah\u00e2c\u00eenatantra\nin the _Arch\u00e6ological Survey of Mayurabhanj_, p. xiv. Either China is\nhere used loosely for some country north of the Himalayas or the story\nis pure fancy, for with rare exceptions (for instance the Lamaism of\nthe Y\u00fcan dynasty) the Chinese seem to have rejected S\u00e2ktist works or\neven to have expurgated them, _e.g._ the Tath\u00e2gata-guhyaka.]\n\n[Footnote 315: His account of Udy\u00e2na and Kashmir will be found in\nWatters, chapters VII and VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 316: Traces of Buddhism still exist, for according to B\u00fchler\nthe Nilamata Pur\u00e2na orders the image of Buddha to be worshipped on\nVaisakha 15 to the accompaniment of recitations by Buddhist ascetics.]\n\n[Footnote 317: For notices of Kashmirian religion see Stein's\ntranslation of the R\u00e2jatarangin\u00ee and B\u00fchler, _Tour in Search of\nSanskrit manuscripts. J. Bomb. A.S._ 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 318: VI. 11-13, VII. 278-280, 295, 523.]\n\n[Footnote 319: I. 122, 335, 348: III. 99, V. 55.]\n\n[Footnote 320: Also called Kum\u00e2ra.]\n\n[Footnote 321: Similarly statues of Mah\u00e2dev\u00ee are found in Jain temples\nnow, _i.e._ in Gujarat.]\n\n[Footnote 322: This very unbuddhist practice seems to have penetrated\neven to Japan. Burnt offerings form part of the ritual in the temple\nof Narita.]\n\n[Footnote 323: See for instance the account of how Kamalarakshita\nsummoned Yam\u00e2ri.]\n\n[Footnote 324: So too the Samhit\u00e2s of the Vaishnavas and the \u00c2gamas\nof the Saivas are said to consist of four quarters teaching J\u00f1\u00e2na,\nYoga, Kriy\u00e2 and Cary\u00e2 respectively. See Schrader, _Introd. to\nP\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_, p. 22. Sometimes five classes of Tantras are enumerated\nwhich are perhaps all subdivisions of the Anuttara-yoga, namely\nGuhyasam\u00e2ja, M\u00e2y\u00e2j\u00e2la, Buddhasamm\u00e2yoga, Candraguhyatilaka,\nManjusr\u00eekrodha. See T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha (Schiefner), p. 221.]\n\n[Footnote 325: Chap. XLIII. But this seems hardly consistent with his\nother statements.]\n\n[Footnote 326: The Lamas in Tibet have a similar theory of progressive\ntantric revelation. See Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, pp. 56, 57.]\n\n[Footnote 327: In the reign of Mah\u00eep\u00e2la, 978-1030 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 328: T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, p. 275. For the whole subject see Gr\u00fcnwedel,\n_Mythologie des Buddhismus_, pp. 41-2 and my chapters on Tibet below.]\n\n[Footnote 329: Schiefner (transl. T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, p. 221) describes these\nSr\u00e2vakas or Hinayanists as \"Saindhavas welche \u00c7r\u00e2vakas aus Simhala\nu.s.w. waren.\" They are apparently the same as the Saindhava-\u00e7r\u00e2vakas\noften mentioned by T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha. Are they Hinayanists from Sindh where\nthe Sammitiya school was prevalent? See also Pag Sam Jon Zang, pp.\ncxix, 114 and 134 where Sarat Chandra Das explains Sendha-pa as a\nbrahmanical sect.]\n\n[Footnote 330: The curious story (T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha, p. 206) in which a\nBuddhist at first refuses on religious grounds to take part in the\nevocation of a demon seems also to hint at a disapproval of magic.]\n\n[Footnote 331: This passage was written about 1910. In the curious\ntemple at Gaya called Bishnupad the chief object of veneration is a\nfoot-like mark. Such impressions are venerated in many parts of the\nworld as Buddha's feet and it seems probable, considering the\nlocality, that this footprint was attributed to Buddha before it was\ntransferred to Vishnu.]\n\n[Footnote 332: There are no very early references to this Avat\u00e2ra. It\nis mentioned in some of the Puranas (_e.g._ Bh\u00e2gavata and Agni) and by\nKshemendra.]\n\n[Footnote 333: But see the instances quoted above from Kashmir and\nNepal.]\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V\n\nHINDUISM\n\n\nThe present book deals with Hinduism and includes the period just\ntreated in Book IV. In many epochs the same mythological and\nmetaphysical ideas appear in a double form, Brahmanic and Buddhist,\nand it is hard to say which form is the earlier.\n\nAny work which like the present adopts a geographical and historical\ntreatment is bound to make Buddhism seem more important than Hinduism\nand rightly, for the conversion and transformation of China, Japan and\nmany other countries are a series of exploits of great moment for the\nhistory not merely of religion but of civilization. Yet when I think\nof the antiquity, variety and vitality of Hinduism in India--no small\nsphere--the nine chapters which follow seem very inadequate. I can\nonly urge that though it would be easy to fill an encyclop\u00e6dia with\naccounts of Indian beliefs and practices, yet there is often great\nsimilarity under superficial differences: the main lines of thought\nare less numerous than they seem to be at first sight and they tend to\nconverge.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV\n\nSIVA AND VISHNU\n\n1\n\n\nThe striking difference between the earlier and later phases of Indian\nreligious belief, between the Vedic hymns, Br\u00e2hmanas, Upanishads and\ntheir accessory treatises on the one hand, and the epics, Pur\u00e2nas,\nTantras and later literature on the other, is due chiefly to the\npredominance in the latter of the great gods Siva and Vishnu, with\nthe attendant features of sectarian worship and personal devotion to a\nparticular deity. The difference is not wholly chronological, for late\nwriters sometimes take the Vedic standpoint and ignore the worship of\nthese deities, but still their prominence in literature, and probably\nin popular mythology, is posterior to the Vedic period. The change\ncreated by their appearance is not merely the addition of two imposing\nfigures to an already ample pantheon; it is a revolution which might\nbe described as the introduction of a new religion, except that it\ndoes not come as the enemy or destroyer of the old. The worship of the\nnew deities grows up peacefully in the midst of the ancient rites;\nthey receive the homage of the same population and the ministrations\nof the same priests. The transition is obscured but also was\nfacilitated by the strength of Buddhism during the period when it\noccurred. The Brahmans, confronted by this formidable adversary, were\ndisposed to favour any popular religious movement which they could\nadapt to their interests.\n\nWhen the Hindu revival sets in under the Guptas, and Buddhism begins\nto decline, we find that a change has taken place which must have\nbegun several centuries before, though our imperfect chronology does\nnot permit us to date it. Whereas the Vedic sacrificers propitiated\nall the gods impartially and regarded ritual as a sacred science\ngiving power over nature, the worshipper of the later deities is\ngenerally sectarian and often emotional. He selects one for his\nadoration, and this selected deity becomes not merely a great god\namong others but a gigantic cosmical figure in whom centre the\nphilosophy, poetry and passion of his devotees. He is almost God in\nthe European sense, but still Indian deities, though they may have a\nmonopoly of adoration in their own sects, are never entirely similar\nto Jehovah or Allah. They are at once more mythical, more human and\nmore philosophical, since they are conceived of not as creators and\nrulers external to the world, but as forces manifesting themselves in\nnature. An exuberant mythology bestows on them monstrous forms,\ncelestial residences, wives and offspring: they make occasional\nappearances in this world as men and animals; they act under the\ninfluence of passions which if titanic, are but human feelings\nmagnified. The philosopher accommodates them to his system by saying\nthat Vishnu or Siva is the form which the Supreme Spirit assumes as\nLord of the visible universe, a form which is real only in the same\nsense that the visible world itself is real.\n\nVishnu and Rudra are known even to the Rig Veda but as deities of no\nspecial eminence. It is only after the Vedic age that they became,\neach for his own worshippers, undisputed Lords of the Universe. A\nlimiting date to the antiquity of Sivaism and Vishnuism, as their\ncults may be called, is furnished by Buddhist literature, at any rate\nfor north-eastern India. The Pali Pitakas frequently[334] introduce\npopular deities, but give no prominence to Vishnu and Siva. They are\napparently mentioned under the names of Venhu and Is\u00e2na, but are not\ndifferentiated from a host of spirits now forgotten. The Pitakas have\nno prejudices in the matter of deities and their object is to\nrepresent the most powerful of them as admitting their inferiority to\nthe Buddha. If Siva and Vishnu are not put forward in the same way as\nBrahm\u00e2 and Indra, the inference seems clear: it had not occurred to\nanyone that they were particularly important.\n\nThe suttas of the D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya in which these lists of deities occur\nwere perhaps composed before 300 B.C.[335] About that date\nMegasthenes, the Greek envoy at Pataliputra, describes two Indian\ndeities under the names of Dionysus and Herakles. They are generally\nidentified with Krishna and Siva. It might be difficult to deduce\nthis identity from an analysis of each description and different\nauthorities have identified both Siva and Krishna with Dionysus, but\nthe fact remains that a somewhat superficial foreign observer was\nimpressed with the idea that the Hindus worshipped two great gods. He\nwould hardly have derived this idea from the Vedic pantheon, and it is\nnot clear to what gods he can refer if not to Siva and Vishnu. It\nthus seems probable that these two cults took shape about the fourth\ncentury B.C. Their apparently sudden appearance is due to their\npopular character and to the absence of any record in art. The\nstatuary and carving of the Asokan period and immediately succeeding\ncenturies is exclusively Buddhist. No temples or images remain to\nillustrate the first growth of Hinduism (as the later form of Indian\nreligion is commonly styled) out of the earlier Brahmanism. Literature\n(on which we are dependent for our information) takes little account\nof the early career of popular gods before they win the recognition of\nthe priesthood and aristocracy, but when that recognition is once\nobtained they appear in all their majesty and without any hint that\ntheir honours are recent.\n\nAs already mentioned, we have evidence that in the fifth or sixth\ncentury before Christ the Vedic or Brahmanic religion was not the only\nform of worship and philosophy in India. There were popular deities\nand rites to which the Brahmans were not opposed and which they\ncountenanced when it suited them. What takes place in India to-day\ntook place then. When some aboriginal deity becomes important owing to\nthe prosperity of the tribe or locality with which he is connected, he\nis recognized by the Brahmans and admitted to their pantheon, perhaps\nas the son or incarnation of some personage more generally accepted as\ndivine. The prestige of the Brahmans is sufficient to make such\nrecognition an honour, but it is also their interest and millennial\nhabit to secure control of every important religious movement and to\nincorporate rather than suppress. And this incorporation is more than\nmere recognition: the parvenu god borrows something from the manners\nand attributes of the olympian society to which he is introduced. The\ngreater he grows, the more considerable is the process of fusion and\nborrowing. Hindu philosophy ever seeks for the one amongst the many\nand popular thought, in a more confused way, pursues the same goal. It\ncombines and identifies its deities, feeling dimly that taken singly\nthey are too partial to be truly divine, or it piles attributes upon\nthem striving to make each an adequate divine whole.\n\nAmong the processes which have contributed to form Vishnu and Siva we must\nreckon the invasions which entered India from the north-west.[336] In\nBactria and Sogdiana there met and were combined the art and religious\nideas of Greece and Persia, and whatever elements were imported by the\nY\u00fceh-chih and other tribes who came from the Chinese frontier. The\npersonalities of Vishnu and Siva need not be ascribed to foreign\ninfluence. The ruder invaders took kindly to the worship of Siva, but there\nis no proof that they introduced it. But Persian and Gr\u00e6co-Bactrian\ninfluence favoured the creation of more definite deities, more personal and\nmore pictorial. The gods of the Vedic hymns are vague and indistinct: the\nSupreme Being of the Upanishads altogether impersonal, but Mithra and\nApollo, though divine in their majesty, are human in their persons and in\nthe appeal they make to humanity. The influence of these foreign\nconceptions and especially of their representation in art is best seen in\nIndian Buddhism. Hinduism has not so ancient an artistic record and\ntherefore the Gr\u00e6co-Bactrian influence on it is less obvious, for the\nsculpture of the Gupta period does not seem due to this inspiration.\nNeither in outward form nor in character do Vishnu and Siva show much more\nresemblance to Apollo and Mithra than to the Vedic gods. Their exuberant,\nfantastic shapes, their many heads and arms, are a symbol of their complex\nand multiple attributes. They are not restricted by the limits of\npersonality but are great polymorphic forces, not to be indicated by the\nlimits of one human shape.[337]\n\n\n2\n\n\nThough alike in their grandeur and multiplicity, Vishnu and Siva are\nnot otherwise similar. In their completely developed forms they\nrepresent two ways of looking at the world. The main ideas of the\nVaishnavas are human and emotional. The deity saves and loves: he\nasks for a worship of love. He appears in human incarnations and is\nknown as well or better by these incarnations than in his original\nform. But in Sivaism the main current of thought is scientific and\nphilosophic rather than emotional.[338] This statement may seem\nstrange if one thinks of the wild rites and legends connected with\nSiva and his spouse. Nevertheless the fundamental conception of\nSivaism, the cosmic force which changes and in changing both destroys\nand reproduces, is strictly scientific and contrasts with the human,\npathetic, loving sentiments of Vishnuism. And scandalous as the\nworship of the generative principle may become, the potency of this\nimpulse in the world scheme cannot be denied. Agreeably to his\ncharacter of a force rather than an emotion Siva does not become\nincarnate[339] as a popular hero and saviour like R\u00e2ma or Krishna,\nbut he assumes various supernatural forms for special purposes. Both\nworships, despite their differences, show characteristics which are\ncommon to most phases of Indian religion. Both seek for deliverance\nfrom transmigration and are penetrated with a sense of the sorrow\ninherent in human and animal life: both develop or adopt philosophical\ndoctrines which rise high above the level usually attained by popular\nbeliefs, and both have erotic aspects in which they fall below the\nstandard of morality usually professed by important sects whether in\nAsia or Europe.\n\nThe name Siva is euphemistic. It means propitious and, like Eumenides,\nis used as a deprecating and complimentary title for the god of\nterrors. It is not his earliest designation and does not occur as a\nproper name in the Rig Veda where he is known as Rudra, a word of\ndisputed derivation, but probably meaning the roarer. Comparatively\nfew hymns are addressed to Rudra, but he is clearly distinguished from\nthe other Vedic gods. Whereas they are cheerful and benevolent\nfigures, he is maleficent and terrible: they are gods of the heaven\nbut he is a god of the earth. He is the \"man-slayer\" and the sender of\ndisease, but if he restrains these activities he can give safety and\nhealth. \"Slay us not, for thou art gracious,\" and so the Destroyer\ncomes to be the Gracious One.[340] It has been suggested that the name\nSiva is connected with the Tamil word _\u00e7ivappu_ red and also that\nRudra means not the roarer but the red or shining one. These\netymologies seem to me possible but not proved. But Rudra is different\nin character from the other gods of the Rig Veda. It would be rash to\nsay that the Aryan invaders of India brought with them no god of this\nsort but it is probable that this element in their pantheon increased\nas they gradually united in blood and ideas with the Dravidian\npopulation. But we know nothing of the beliefs of the Dravidians at\nthis remote period. We only know that in later ages emotional\nreligion, finding expression as so-called devil-dancing in its lower\nand as mystical poetry in its higher phases, was prevalent among them.\n\nThe White Yajur Veda[341] contains a celebrated prayer known as the\nSatarudr\u00eeya addressed to Rudra or the Rudras, for the power invoked\nseems to be now many and now one. This deity, who is described by a\nlong string of epithets, receives the name of Sankara (afterwards a\nwell-known epithet of Siva) and is blue-necked. He is begged to be\n_Siva_ or propitious, but the word is an epithet, not a proper name.\nHe haunts mountains and deserted, uncanny places: he is the patron of\nviolent and lawless men, of soldiers and robbers (the two are\nevidently considered much the same), of thieves, cheats and\npilferers,[342] but also of craftsmen and huntsmen and is himself \"an\nobservant merchant\": he is the lord of hosts of spirits, \"ill-formed\nand of all forms.\" But he is also a great cosmic force who \"dwells in\nflowing streams and in billows and in tranquil waters and in rivers\nand on islands ... and at the roots of trees ...\": who \"exists in\nincantations, in punishments, in prosperity, in the soil, in the\nthreshing-floor ... in the woods and in the bushes, in sound and in\necho ... in young grass and in foam ... in gravel and in streams ... in\ngreen things and in dry things.... Reverence to the leaf and to him\nwho is in the fall of the leaf, the threatener, the slayer, the vexer\nand the afflicter.\" Here we see how an evil and disreputable god, the\npatron of low castes and violent occupations, becomes associated with\nthe uncanny forces of nature and is on the way to become an\nAll-God.[343]\n\nRudra is frequently mentioned in the Atharva Veda. He is conceived\nmuch as in the Satarudr\u00eeya, and is the lord of spirits and of animals.\n\"For thee the beasts of the wood, the deer, swans and various winged\nbirds are placed in the forest: thy living creatures exist in the\nwaters: for thee the celestial waters flow. Thou shootest at the\nmonsters of the ocean, and there is to thee nothing far or near.\"[344]\n\nThese passages show that the main conceptions out of which the\ncharacter of the later Siva is built existed in Vedic times. The Rudra\nof the Yajur and Atharva Vedas is not Brahmanic: he is not the god of\npriests and orderly ritual, but of wild people and places. But he is\nnot a petty provincial demon who afflicts rustics and their cattle.\nThough there is some hesitation between one Rudra and many Rudras, the\ndestructive forces are unified in thought and the destroyer is not\nopposed to creation as a devil or as the principle of evil, but with\nprofounder insight is recognized as the Lord and Law of all living\nthings.\n\nBut though the outline of Siva is found in Vedic writings, later\ncenturies added new features to his cult. Chief among these is the\nworship of a column known as the Linga, the emblem under which he is\nnow most commonly adored. It is a phallic symbol though usually decent\nin appearance. The Vedas do not countenance this worship and it is not\nclear that it was even known to them.[345] It is first enjoined in the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and there only in two passages[346] which appear to be\nlate additions. The inference seems to be that it was accepted as part\nof Hinduism just about the time that our edition of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata\nwas compiled.[347] The old theory that it was borrowed from aboriginal\nand especially from Dravidian tribes[348] is now discredited. In the\nfirst place the instances cited of phallic worship among aboriginal\ntribes are not particularly numerous or striking. Secondly, linga\nworship, though prevalent in the south, is not confined to it, but\nflourishes in all parts of India, even in Assam and Nepal. Thirdly, it\nis not connected with low castes, with orgies, with obscene or\nbloodthirsty rites or with anything which can be called un-Aryan. It\nforms part of the private devotions of the strictest Brahmans, and\ndespite the significance of the emblem, the worship offered to it is\nperfectly decorous.[349] The evidence thus suggests that this cultus\ngrew up among Brahmanical Hindus in the early centuries of our era.\nThe idea that there was something divine in virility and generation\nalready existed. The choice of the symbol--the stone pillar--may have\nbeen influenced by two circumstances. Firstly, the Buddhist veneration\nof st\u00fbpas, especially miniature st\u00fbpas, must have made familiar the\nidea that a cone or column is a religious emblem,[350] and secondly\nthe linga may be compared to the carved pillars or stone standards\nerected in honour of Vishnu. Some lingas are carved and bear one or\nfour faces, thus entirely losing any phallic appearance. The wide\nextension of this cult, though its origin seems late, is remarkable.\nSomething similar may be seen in the worship of Ganesa: the first\nrecords of it are even later, but it is now universal in India.\n\nIt may seem strange that a religion whose outward ceremonies though\nunassuming and modest consist chiefly of the worship of the linga,\nshould draw its adherents largely from the educated classes and be\nunder no moral or social stigma. Yet as an idea, as a philosophy,\nSivaism possesses truth and force. It gives the best picture which\nhumanity has drawn of the Lord of this world, not indeed of the ideal\nto which the saint aspires, nor of the fancies with which hope and\nemotion people the spheres behind the veil, but of the force which\nrules the Universe as it is, which reproduces and destroys, and in\nperforming one of these acts necessarily performs the other, seeing\nthat both are but aspects of change. For all animal and human\nexistence[351] is the product of sexual desire: it is but the\ntemporary and transitory form of a force having neither beginning nor\nend but continually manifesting itself in individuals who must have a\nbeginning and an end. This force, to which European taste bids us\nrefer with such reticence, is the true creator of the world. Not only\nis it unceasingly performing the central miracle of producing new\nlives but it accompanies it by unnumbered accessory miracles, which\nprovide the new born child with nourishment and make lowly organisms\ncare for their young as if they were gifted with human intelligence.\nBut the Creator is also the Destroyer, not in anger but by the very\nnature of his activity. When the series of changes culminates in a\ncrisis and an individual breaks up, we see death and destruction, but\nin reality they occur throughout the process of growth. The egg is\ndestroyed when the chicken is hatched: the embryo ceases to exist when\nthe child is born; when the man comes into being, the child is no\nmore. And for change, improvement and progress death is as necessary\nas birth. A world of immortals would be a static world.\n\nWhen once the figure of Siva has taken definite shape, attributes and\nepithets are lavished on it in profusion. He is the great ascetic, for\nasceticism in India means power, and Siva is the personification of\nthe powers of nature. He may alternate strangely between austerities\nand wild debauch, but the sentimentality of some Krishnaite sects is\nalien to him. He is a magician, the lord of troops of spirits, and\nthus draws into his circle all the old animistic worship. But he is\nalso identified with Time (Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la) and Death (Mrityu) and as\npresiding over procreation he is Ardhanaresvara, half man, half woman.\nStories are invented or adapted to account for his various attributes,\nand he is provided with a divine family. He dwells on Mount Kail\u00e2sa:\nhe has three eyes: above the central one is the crescent of the moon\nand the stream of the Ganges descends from his braided hair: his\nthroat is blue and encircled by a serpent and a necklace of skulls. In\nhis hands he carries a three-pronged trident and a drum. But the\neffigy or description varies, for Siva is adored under many forms. He\nis Mah\u00e2deva, the Great God, Hara the Seizer, Bhairava the terrible\none, Pasupati, the Lord of cattle, that is of human souls who are\ncompared to beasts. Local gods and heroes are identified with him.\nThus Gor B\u00e2ba,[352] said to be a deified ghost of the aboriginal\nraces, reappears as Goresvara and is counted a form of Siva, as is\nalso Khandoba or Khande Rao, a deity connected with dogs. Ganesa, \"the\nLord of Hosts,\" the God who removes obstacles and is represented with\nan elephant's head and accompanied by a rat, is recognized as Siva's\nson. Another son is Skanda or K\u00e2rtikeya, the God of War, a great deity\nin Ceylon and southern India. But more important both for the\nabsorption of aboriginal cults and for its influence on speculation\nand morality is the part played by Siva's wife or female counterpart.\n\nThe worship of goddesses, though found in many sects, is specially\nconnected with Sivaism. A figure analogous to the Madonna, the kind\nand compassionate goddess who helps and pities all, appears in later\nBuddhism but for some reason this train of thought has not been usual\nin India. Lakshm\u00ee, Sarasvat\u00ee and S\u00eet\u00e2 are benevolent, but they hold no\ngreat position in popular esteem,[353] and the being who attracts\nmillions of worshippers under such names as K\u00e2l\u00ee, Durg\u00e2, or Mah\u00e2dev\u00ee,\nthough she has many forms and aspects, is most commonly represented as\na terrible goddess who demands offerings of blood. The worship of this\ngoddess or goddesses, for it is hard to say if she is one or many, is\ntreated of in a separate chapter. Though in shrines dedicated to Siva\nhis female counterpart or energy (Sakti) also receives recognition,\nyet she is revered as the spouse of her lord to whom honour is\nprimarily due. But in S\u00e2ktist worship adoration is offered to the\nSakti as being the form in which his power is made manifest or even as\nthe essential Godhead.\n\n\n3\n\n\nLet us now pass on to Vishnu. Though not one of the great gods of the\nVeda, he is mentioned fairly often and with respect. Indian\ncommentators and comparative mythologists agree that he is a solar\ndeity. His chief exploit is that he took (or perhaps in the earlier\nversion habitually takes) three strides. This was originally a\ndescription of the sun's progress across the firmament but grew into a\nmyth which relates that when the earth was conquered by demons,\nVishnu became incarnate as a dwarf and induced the demon king to\npromise him as much space as he could measure in three steps. Then,\nappearing in his true form, he strode across earth and heaven and\nrecovered the world for mankind. His special character as the\nPreserver is already outlined in the Veda. He is always benevolent: he\ntook his three steps for the good of men: he established and preserves\nthe heavens and earth. But he is not the principal solar deity of the\nRig Veda: S\u00fbrya, Savitri and Pushan receive more invocations. Though\none hymn says that no one knows the limits of his greatness, other\npassages show that he has no pre-eminence, and even in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata\nand the Vishnu-Pur\u00e2na itself he is numbered among the \u00c2dityas or\nsons of Aditi. In the Br\u00e2hmanas, he is somewhat more important than\nin the Rig Veda,[354] though he has not yet attained to any position\nlike that which he afterwards occupies.\n\nJust as for Siva, so for Vishnu we have no clear record of the steps\nby which he advanced from a modest rank to the position of having but\none rival in the popular esteem. But the lines on which the change\ntook place are clear. Even in his own Church, Vishnu himself claims\ncomparatively little attention. He is not a force like Siva that makes\nand mars, but a benevolent and retiring personality who keeps things\nas they are. His worship, as distinguished from that of his\nincarnations, is not conspicuous in modern India, especially in the\nnorth. In the south he is less overshadowed by Krishna, and many\ngreat temples have been erected in his honour. In Travancore, which is\nformally dedicated to him as his special domain, he is adored under\nthe name of Padmanabha. But his real claim to reverence, his appeal to\nthe Indian heart, is due to the fact that certain deified human\nheroes, particularly R\u00e2ma and Krishna, are identified with him.\n\nDeification is common in India.[355] It exists to the present day and\neven defunct Europeans do not escape its operation. In modern times,\nwhen the idea of reincarnation had become familiar, eminent men like\nCaitanya or Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya were declared after their death to be\nembodiments of Krishna without more ado, but in earlier ages the\nprocess was probably double. First of all the departed hero became a\npowerful ghost or deity in his own right, and then this deity was\nidentified with a Brahmanic god. Many examples prove that a remarkable\nman receives worship after death quite apart from any idea of\nincarnation.\n\nThe incarnations of Vishnu are most commonly given as ten[356] but\nare not all of the same character. The first five, namely, the Fish,\nTortoise, Boar, Man-Lion and Dwarf, are mythical, and due to his\nidentification with supernatural creatures playing a benevolent role\nin legends with which he had originally no connection. The sixth,\nhowever, Parasu-r\u00e2ma or R\u00e2ma with the axe, may contain historical\nelements. He is represented as a militant Brahman who in the second\nage of the world exterminated the Kshatriyas, and after reclaiming\nMalabar from the sea, settled it with Brahmans. This legend clearly\nrefers to a struggle for supremacy between the two upper castes,\nthough we may doubt if the triumphs attributed to the priestly\nchampion have any foundation in fact. The R\u00e2m\u00e2yana[357] contains a\nsingular account of a contest between this R\u00e2ma and the greater hero\nof the same name in which Parasu-r\u00e2ma admits the other's superiority.\nThat is to say an epic edited under priestly supervision relates how\nthe hero-god of the warriors vanquishes the hero-god of the priests,\nand this hero-god of the warriors is then worshipped by common\nconsent as the greater divinity, but under priestly patronage. The\ntenacity and vitality of the Brahmans enabled them ultimately to lead\nthe conqueror captive, and R\u00e2macandra became a champion of Brahmanism\nas much as Parasu-r\u00e2ma.\n\nVery interesting too is the ninth avat\u00e2ra (to leave for a moment the\nstrict numerical order) or Buddha.[358] The reason assigned in\nBrahmanic literature for Vishnu's appearance in this character is\nthat he wished to mislead the enemies of the gods by false teaching,\nor that out of compassion for animals he preached the abolition of\nVedic sacrifices. Neither explanation is very plausible and it is\npretty clear that in the period when degenerate Buddhism offered no\nobjection to deification and mythology, the Brahmans sanctioned the\nworship of the Buddha under their auspices. But they did so only in a\nhalf-hearted way. The Buddha was so important a personage that he had\nto be explained by the intervention, kindly or hostile, of a\ndeity.[359]\n\nIn his tenth incarnation or Kalk\u00ee,[360] which has yet to take place,\nVishnu will appear as a Messiah, a conception possibly influenced by\nPersian ideas. Here, where we are in the realm of pure imagination, we\nsee clearly what the signs of his avat\u00e2ras are supposed to be. His\nmission is to sweep away the wicked and to ensure the triumph of the\npious, but he comes as a warrior and a horseman, not as a teacher, and\nif he protects the good he does so by destroying evil. He has thus all\nthe attributes of a Kshatriya hero, and that is as a matter of fact\nthe real character of the two most important avat\u00e2ras to which we now\nturn, R\u00e2ma and Krishna.\n\nR\u00e2ma, often distinguished as R\u00e2macandra, is usually treated as the\nseventh incarnation and anterior to Krishna, for he was born in the\nsecond age of this rapidly deteriorating world, whereas Krishna did\nnot appear until the third. But his deification is later than that of\nKrishna and probably an imitation of it. He was the son of\nDasaratha, King of Ayodhya or Oudh, but was driven into banishment by\na palace intrigue. He married S\u00eet\u00e2, daughter of the King of Mithil\u00e2.\nShe was carried off by R\u00e2vana, the demon tyrant of Ceylon, and R\u00e2ma\nre-captured her with the aid of Hanuman, King of the Monkeys, and his\nhosts.[361] Is there any kernel of history in this story? An\nexamination of Hindu legends suggests that they usually preserve names\nand genealogies correctly but distort facts, and fantastically combine\nindependent narratives. R\u00e2ma was a semi-divine hero in the tales of\nancient Oudh, based on a real personality, and Ceylon was colonized by\nIndians of Aryan speech.[362] But can we assume that a king of Oudh\nreally led an expedition to the far south, with the aid of ape-like\naborigines? It is doubtful, and the narrative of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana reads\nlike poetic invention rather than distorted history. And yet, what can\nhave prompted the legend except the occurrence of some such\nexpedition? In R\u00e2ma's wife S\u00eet\u00e2, seem to be combined an agricultural\ngoddess and a heroine of ancient romance, embodying the Hindu ideal of\nthe true wife.\n\nWe have no record of the steps by which R\u00e2ma and Krishna were\ndeified, although in different parts of the epic they are presented in\nvery different aspects, sometimes as little more than human, sometimes\nas nothing less than the Supreme Deity. But it can hardly be doubted\nthat this deification owes something to the example of Buddhism. It\nmay be said that the development of both Buddhism and Hinduism in the\ncenturies immediately preceding and following our era gives parallel\nmanifestations of the same popular tendency to deify great men. This\nis true, but the non-Buddhist forms of Indian religion while not\nobjecting to deification did not particularly encourage it. But in\nthis period, Buddhism and Jainism were powerful: both of them\nsanctioned the veneration of great teachers and, as they did not\nrecognize sacrifice or adoration of gods, this veneration became the\nbasis of their ceremonies and easily passed into worship. The\nBuddhists are not responsible for the introduction of deification, but\nthe fact that it was to some extent the basis of their public\nceremonies must have gone far to make the worship of R\u00e2ma and\nKrishna seem natural.\n\nIt is commonly said that whereas the whole divine nature of Vishnu\nwas embodied in Krishna, R\u00e2ma was only a partial incarnation. Half\nthe god's essence took human form in him, the other half being\ndistributed among his brothers. Krishna is a greater figure in\npopular esteem and receives the exclusive devotion of more\nworshippers. The name of R\u00e2ma commands the reverence of most Hindus,\nand has a place in their prayers, but his figure has not been invested\nwith the attributes (often of dubious moral value) which most attract\nsectarian devotion. His worship combines easily with the adoration of\nother deities. The great temple of Ramesvaram on Adam's Bridge is\ndedicated not to R\u00e2ma himself but to the linga which he erected there,\nand Tulsi Das, the author of the Hindi R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, while invoking R\u00e2ma\nas the Supreme Lord and redeemer of the world, emphatically\nstates[363] that his worship is not antagonistic to that of Siva.\n\nNo inscriptions nor ancient references testify to the worship of R\u00e2ma\nbefore our era and in the subsequent centuries two phases can be\ndistinguished. First, R\u00e2ma is a great hero, an incarnation of Vishnu\nfor a particular purpose and analogous to the V\u00e2mana or any other\navat\u00e2ra: deserving as such of all respect but still not the object of\nany special cult. This is the view taken of R\u00e2ma in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata,\nthe Pur\u00e2nas, the Raghuvamsa, and those parts of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana which\ngo beyond it are probably late additions.[364] But secondly R\u00e2ma\nbecomes for his worshippers the supreme deity. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja (on the\nVed\u00e2nta s\u00fbtras, II. 42) mentions him and Krishna as two great\nincarnations in which the supreme being became manifest, and since\nKrishna was certainly worshipped at this period as identical with\nthe All-God, it would appear that R\u00e2ma held the same position. Yet it\nwas not until the fourteenth or fifteenth century that he became for\nmany sects the central and ultimate divine figure.\n\nIn the more liberal sects the worship of R\u00e2ma passes easily into\ntheism and it is the direct parent of the Kabirpanth and Sikhism, but\nunlike Krishnaism it does not lead to erotic excess. R\u00e2ma\npersonifies the ideal of chivalry, S\u00eet\u00e2 of chastity. Less edifying\nforms of worship may attract more attention, but it must not be\nsupposed that R\u00e2ma is relegated to the penumbra of philosophic\nthought. If anything so multiplex as Hinduism can be said to have a\nwatchword, it is the cry, R\u00e2m, R\u00e2m. The story of his adventures has\ntravelled even further than the hero himself, and is known not only\nfrom Kashmir to Cape Comorin but from Bombay to Java and Indo-China\nwhere it is a common subject of art. In India the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana is a\nfavourite recitation among all classes, and dramatized versions of\nvarious episodes are performed as religious plays. Though two late\nUpanishads, the R\u00e2map\u00fbrvat\u00e2pan\u00eeya and R\u00e2mauttarat\u00e2paniya extol R\u00e2ma as\nthe Supreme Being, there is no R\u00e2mapur\u00e2na. The fact is significant,\nas showing that his worship did not possess precisely those features\nof priestly sectarianism which mark the Pur\u00e2nas and perhaps that it\nis later than the Pur\u00e2nas. But it has inspired a large literature,\nmore truly popular than anything that the Pur\u00e2nas contain. Thus we\nhave the Sanskrit R\u00e2m\u00e2yana itself, the Hindi R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, the Tamil\nR\u00e2m\u00e2yana of Kamban, and works like the Adhy\u00e2tma-R\u00e2m\u00e2yana and\nYoga-Vasishtha-R\u00e2m\u00e2yana.[365] Of all these, the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana of Tulsi\nDas is specially remarkable and I shall speak of it later at some\nlength.\n\n\n4\n\n\n\nKrishna, the other great incarnation of Vishnu, is one of the most\nconspicuous figures in the Indian pantheon, but his historical origin\nremains obscure. The word which means black or dark blue occurs in the\nRig Veda as the name of an otherwise unknown person. In the Ch\u00e2ndogya\nUpanishad,[366] Krishna, the son of Devak\u00ee, is mentioned as having\nbeen instructed by the sage Ghora of the \u00c2ngirasa clan, and it is\nprobably implied that Krishna too belonged to that clan.[367] Later\nsectarian writers never quote this verse, but their silence may be due\nto the fact that the Upanishad does not refer to Krishna as if he\nwere a deity, and merely says that he received from Ghora instruction\nafter which he never thirsted again. The purport of it was that the\nsacrifice may be performed without rites, the various parts being\ntypified by ordinary human actions, such as hunger, eating, laughter,\nliberality, righteousness, etc. This doctrine has some resemblance to\nBuddhist language[368] and if this Krishna is really the ancient\nhero out of whom the later deity was evolved, there may be an allusion\nto some simple form of worship which rejected ceremonial and was\npractised by the tribes to whom Krishna belonged. I shall recur to\nthe question of these tribes and the Bh\u00e2gavata sect below, but in this\nsection I am concerned with the personality of Krishna.\n\nV\u00e2sudeva is a well-known name of Krishna and a s\u00fbtra of\nP\u00e2nini,[369] especially if taken in conjunction with the comment of\nPatanjali, appears to assert that it is not a clan name but the name\nof a god. If so V\u00e2sudeva must have been recognized as a god in the\nfourth century B.C. He is mentioned in inscriptions which appear to\ndate from about the second century B.C.[370] and in the last book of\nthe Taittir\u00eeya \u00c2ranyaka,[371] which however is a later addition of\nuncertain date.\n\nThe name Krishna occurs in Buddhist writings in the form Kanha,\nphonetically equivalent to Krishna. In the D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya[372] we hear\nof the clan of the Kanh\u00e2yanas (= K\u00e2rshn\u00e2yanas) and of one Kanha who\nbecame a great sage. This person may be the Krishna of the Rig\nVeda, but there is no proof that he is the same as our Krishna.\n\nThe Ghata-J\u00e2taka (No. 454) gives an account of Krishna's childhood\nand subsequent exploits which in many points corresponds with the\nBrahmanic legends of his life and contains several familiar incidents\nand names, such as V\u00e2sudeva, Baladeva, Kamsa. Yet it presents many\npeculiarities and is either an independent version or a\nmisrepresentation of a popular story that had wandered far from its\nhome. Jain tradition also shows that these tales were popular and were\nworked up into different forms, for the Jains have an elaborate system\nof ancient patriarchs which includes V\u00e2sudevas and Baladevas.\nKrishna is the ninth of the Black V\u00e2sudevas[373] and is connected\nwith Dv\u00e2ravat\u00ee or Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2. He will become the twelfth t\u00eerthankara of\nthe next world-period and a similar position will be attained by\nDevak\u00ee, Rohin\u00ee, Baladeva and Javakum\u00e2ra, all members of his family.\nThis is a striking proof of the popularity of the Krishna legend\noutside the Brahmanic religion.\n\nNo references to Krishna except the above have been found in the\nearlier Upanishads and S\u00fbtras. He is not mentioned in Manu but in one\naspect or another he is the principal figure in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, yet\nnot exactly the hero. The R\u00e2m\u00e2yana would have no plot without R\u00e2ma,\nbut the story of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata would not lose its unity if Krishna\nwere omitted. He takes the side of the P\u00e2ndavas, and is sometimes a\nchief sometimes a god but he is not essential to the action of the\nepic.\n\nThe legend represents him as the son of Vasudeva, who belonged to the\nS\u00e2ttvata sept[374] of the Y\u00e2dava tribe, and of his wife Devak\u00ee. It had\nbeen predicted to Kamsa, king of Mathura (Muttra), that one of her\nsons would kill him. He therefore slew her first six children: the\nseventh, Balar\u00e2ma, who is often counted as an incarnation of Vishnu,\nwas transferred by divine intervention to the womb of Rohin\u00ee.\nKrishna, the eighth, escaped by more natural methods. His father was\nable to give him into the charge of Nanda, a herdsman, and his wife\nY\u00e2sod\u00e2 who brought him up at Gokula and Vrind\u00e2vana. Here his youth was\npassed in sporting with the Gop\u00ees or milk-maids, of whom he is said to\nhave married a thousand. He had time, however, to perform acts of\nheroism, and after killing Kamsa, he transported the inhabitants of\nMathura to the city of Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2 which he had built on the coast of\nGujarat. He became king of the Y\u00e2davas and continued his mission of\nclearing the earth of tyrants and monsters. In the struggle between\nthe P\u00e2ndavas and the sons of Dhritar\u00e2shtra he championed the cause\nof the former, and after the conclusion of the war retired to Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2.\nInternecine conflict broke out among the Y\u00e2davas and annihilated the\nrace. Krishna himself withdrew to the forest and was killed by a\nhunter called Jaras (old age) who shot him supposing him to be a deer.\n\nIn the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and several Pur\u00e2nas this bare outline is distended\nwith a plethora of miraculous incident remarkable even in Indian\nliterature, and almost all possible forms of divine and human activity\nare attributed to this many-sided figure. We may indeed suspect that\nhis personality is dual even in the simplest form of the legend for\nthe scene changes from Mathur\u00e2 to Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2, and his character is not\nquite the same in the two regions. It is probable that an ancient\nmilitary hero of the west has been combined with a deity or perhaps\nmore than one deity. The pile of story, sentiment and theology which\nages have heaped up round Krishna's name, represents him in three\nprincipal aspects. Firstly, he is a warrior who destroys the powers of\nevil. Secondly, he is associated with love in all its forms, ranging\nfrom amorous sport to the love of God in the most spiritual and\nmystical sense. Thirdly, he is not only a deity, but he actually\nbecomes God in the European and also in the pantheistic acceptation of\nthe word, and is the centre of a philosophic theology.\n\nThe first of these aspects is clearly the oldest and it is here, if\nanywhere, that we may hope to find some fragments of history. But the\nembellishments of poets and story-tellers have been so many that we\ncan only point to features which may indicate a substratum of fact.\nIn the legend, Krishna assists the P\u00e2ndavas against the Kauravas.\nNow many think that the P\u00e2ndavas represent a second and later\nimmigration of Aryans into India, composed of tribes who had halted in\nthe Himalayas and perhaps acquired some of the customs of the\ninhabitants, including polyandry, for the five P\u00e2ndavas had one wife\nin common between them. Also, the meaning of the name Krishna,\nblack, suggests that he was a chief of some non-Aryan tribe. It is,\ntherefore, possible that one source of the Krishna myth is that a\nbody of invading Aryans, described in the legend as the P\u00e2ndavas,\nwho had not exactly the same laws and beliefs as those already\nestablished in Hindustan, were aided by a powerful aboriginal chief,\njust as the Sisodias in Rajputana were aided by the Bh\u00eels. It is\npossible too that Krishna's tribe may have come from Kabul or other\nmountainous districts of the north west, although one of the most\ndefinite points in the legend is his connection with the coast town of\nDv\u00e2rak\u00e2. The fortifications of this town and the fruitless efforts of\nthe demon king, Salva, to conquer it by seige are described in the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata,[375] but the narrative is surrounded by an atmosphere of\nmagic and miracle rather than of history.[376]\n\nThough it would not be reasonable to pick out the less fantastic parts\nof the Krishna legend and interpret them as history, yet we may\nfairly attach significance to the fact that many episodes represent\nhim as in conflict with Brahmanic institutions and hardly maintaining\nthe position of Vishnu incarnate.[377] Thus he plunders Indra's\ngarden and defeats the gods who attempt to resist him. He fights with\nSiva and Skanda. He burns Benares and all its inhabitants. Yet he is\ncalled Upendra, which, whatever other explanations sectarian ingenuity\nmay invent, can hardly mean anything but the Lesser Indra, and he\nfills the humble post of Arjuna's charioteer. His kinsmen seem to have\nbeen of little repute, for part of his mission was to destroy his own\nclan and after presiding over its annihilation in internecine strife,\nhe was slain himself. In all this we see dimly the figure of some\naboriginal hero who, though ultimately canonized, represented a force\nnot in complete harmony with Brahmanic civilization. The figure has\nalso many solar attributes but these need not mean that its origin is\nto be sought in a sun myth, but rather that, as many early deities\nwere forms of the sun, solar attributes came to be a natural part of\ndivinity and were ascribed to the deified Krishna just as they were\nto the deified Buddha.[378]\n\nSome authors hold that the historical Krishna was a teacher, similar\nto Zarathustra, and that though of the military class he was chiefly\noccupied in founding or supporting what was afterwards known as the\nreligion of the Bh\u00e2gavatas, a theistic system inculcating the worship\nof one God, called Bh\u00e2gavat, and perhaps identical with the Sun. It is\nprobable that Krishna the hero was connected with the worship of a\nspecial deity, but I see no evidence that he was primarily a\nteacher.[379] In the earlier legends he is a man of arms: in the later\nhe is not one who devotes his life to teaching but a forceful\npersonage who explains the nature of God and the universe at the most\nunexpected moments. Now the founders of religions such as Mah\u00e2v\u00eera and\nBuddha preserve their character as teachers even in legend and do not\naccumulate miscellaneous heroic exploits. Similarly modern founders of\nsects, like Caitanya, though revered as incarnations, still retain\ntheir historical attributes. But on the other hand many men of action\nhave been deified not because they taught anything but because they\nseemed to be more than human forces. R\u00e2ma is a classical example of\nsuch deification and many local deities can be shown to be warriors,\nbandits and hunters whose powers inspired respect. It is said that\nthere is a disposition in the Bombay Presidency to deify the Maratha\nleader Sivaji.[380]\n\nIn his second aspect, Krishna is a pastoral deity, sporting among\nnymphs and cattle. It is possible that this Krishna is in his origin\ndistinct from the violent and tragic hero of Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2. The two\ncharacters have little in common, except their lawlessness, and the\ndate and locality of the two cycles of legend are different. But the\ndeath of Kamsa which is one of the oldest incidents in the story (for\nit is mentioned in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya[381]) belongs to both and Kamsa is\nconsistently connected with Muttra. The Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata is mainly\nconcerned with Krishna the warrior: the few allusions in it to the\nfreaks of the pastoral Krishna occur in passages suspected of being\nlate interpolations and, even if they are genuine, show that little\nattention was paid to his youth. But in later works, the relative\nimportance is reversed and the figure of the amorous herdsman almost\nbanishes the warrior. We can trace the growth of this figure in the\nsculptures of the sixth century, in the Vishnu and Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2nas\nand the G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda (written about 1170). Even later is the worship\nof R\u00e2dh\u00e2, Krishna's mistress, as a portion of the deity, who is\nsupposed to have divided himself into male and female halves.[382] The\nbirth and adventures of the pastoral Krishna are located in the land\nof Braj, the district round Muttra and among the tribe of the \u00c2bh\u00eeras,\nbut the warlike Krishna is connected with the west, although his\nexploits extend to the Ganges valley.[383] The \u00c2bh\u00eeras, now called\nAhirs, were nomadic herdsmen who came from the west and their\nmovements between Kathiawar and Muttra may have something to do with\nthe double location of the Krishna legend.\n\nBoth arch\u00e6ology and historical notices tell us something of the\nhistory of Muttra. It was a great Buddhist and Jain centre, as the\nstatues and vih\u00e2ras found there attest. Ptolemy calls it the city of\nthe gods. Fa-Hsien (400 A.D.) describes it as Buddhist, but that faith\nwas declining at the time of Hs\u00fcan Chuang's visit (c. 630 A.D.). The\nsculptural remains also indicate the presence of Gr\u00e6co-Bactrian\ninfluence. We need not therefore feel surprise if we find in the\nreligious thought of Muttra elements traceable to Greece, Persia or\nCentral Asia. Some claim that Christianity should be reckoned among\nthese elements and I shall discuss the question elsewhere. Here I will\nonly say that such ideas as were common to Christianity and to the\nreligions of Greece and western Asia probably did penetrate to India\nby the northern route, but of specifically Christian ideas I see no\nproof. It is true that the pastoral Krishna is unlike all earlier\nIndian deities, but then no close parallel to him can be adduced from\nelsewhere, and, take him as a whole, he is a decidedly un-christian\nfigure. The resemblance to Christianity consists in the worship of a\ndivine child, together with his mother. But this feature is absent in\nthe New Testament and seems to have been borrowed from paganism by\nChristianity.\n\nThe legends of Muttra show even clearer traces than those already\nquoted of hostility between Krishna and Brahmanism. He forbids the\nworship of Indra,[384] and when Indra in anger sends down a deluge of\nrain, he protects the country by holding up over it the hill of\nGoburdhan, which is still one of the great centres of pilgrimage.[385]\nThe language which the Vishnu Pur\u00e2na attributes to him is extremely\nremarkable. He interrupts a sacrifice which his fosterfather is\noffering to Indra and says, \"We have neither fields nor houses: we\nwander about happily wherever we list, travelling in our waggons. What\nhave we to do with Indra? Cattle and mountains are (our) gods.\nBrahmans offer worship with prayer: cultivators of the earth adore\ntheir landmarks but we who tend our herds in the forests and mountains\nshould worship them and our kine.\"\n\nThis passage suggests that Krishna represents a tribe of highland\nnomads who worshipped mountains and cattle and came to terms with the\nBrahmanic ritual only after a struggle. The worship of mountain\nspirits is common in Central Asia, but I do not know of any evidence\nfor cattle-worship in those regions. Clemens of Alexandria,[386]\nwriting at the end of the second century A.D., tells us that the\nIndians worshipped Herakles and Pan. The pastoral Krishna has\nconsiderable resemblance to Pan or a Faun, but no representations of\nsuch beings are recorded from Gr\u00e6co-Indian sculptures. Several Bacchic\ngroups have however been discovered in Gandhara and also at\nMuttra[387] and Megasthenes recognized Dionysus in some Indian deity.\nThough the Bacchic revels and mysteries do not explain the pastoral\nelement in the Krishna legend, they offer a parallel to some of its\nother features, such as the dancing and the crowd of women, and I am\ninclined to think that such Greek ideas may have germinated and proved\nfruitful in Muttra. The Greek king Menander is said to have occupied\nthe city (c. 155 B.C.), and the sculptures found there indicate that\nGreek artistic forms were used to express Indian ideas. There may have\nbeen a similar fusion in religion.\n\nIn any case, Buddhism was predominant in Muttra for several centuries.\nIt no doubt forbade the animal sacrifices of the Brahmans and favoured\nmilder rites. It may even offer some explanation for the frivolous\ncharacter of much in the Krishna legend.[388] Most Brahmanic\ndeities, extraordinary as their conduct often is, are serious and\nimposing. But Buddhism claimed for itself the serious side of religion\nand while it tolerated local godlings treated them as fairies or\nelves. It was perhaps while Krishna was a humble rustic deity of\nthis sort, with no claim to represent the Almighty, that there first\ngathered round him the cycle of light love-stories which has clung to\nhim ever since. In the hands of the Brahmans his worship has undergone\nthe strangest variations which touch the highest and lowest planes of\nHinduism, but the Muttra legend still retains its special note of\npastoral romance, and exhibits Krishna in two principal characters,\nas the divine child and as the divine lover. The mysteries of birth\nand of sexual union are congenial topics to Hindu theology, but in\nthe cult of Muttra we are not concerned with reproduction as a world\nforce, but simply with childhood and love as emotional manifestations\nof the deity. The same ideas occur in Christianity, and even in the\nGospels Christ is compared to a bridegroom, but the Krishna legend\nis far more gross and na\u00efve.\n\nThe infant Krishna is commonly adored in the form known as Makhan\nChor or the Butter Thief.[389] This represents him as a crawling child\nholding out one hand full of curds or butter which he has stolen. We\nspeak of idolizing a child, and when Hindu women worship this image\nthey are unconsciously generalizing the process and worshipping\nchildhood, its wayward pranks as well as its loveable simplicity, and\nthough it is hard for a man to think of the freaks of the butter thief\nas a manifestation of divinity, yet clearly there is an analogy\nbetween these childish escapades and the caprices of mature deities,\nwhich are respectfully described as mysteries. If one admits the\nworship of the Bambino, it is not unreasonable to include in it\nadmiration of his rogueries, and the tender playfulness which is\npermitted to enter into this cult appeals profoundly to Indian women.\nImages of the Makhan Chor are sold by thousands in the streets of\nMuttra.\n\nEven more popular is the image known as Kanhaya, which represents the\ngod as a young man playing the flute as he stands in a careless\nattitude, which has something of Hellenic grace. Krishna in this\nform is the beloved of the Gop\u00ees, or milk-maids, of the land of Braj,\nand the spouse of R\u00e2dh\u00e2, though she had no monopoly of him. The\nstories of his frolics with these damsels and the rites instituted in\nmemory thereof have brought his worship into merited discredit.\nKrishnaism offers the most extensive manifestation to be found in the\nworld of what W. James calls the theopathic condition as illustrated\nby nuns like Margu\u00e9rite Marie Alacoque, Saint Gertrude and the more\ndistinguished Saint Theresa. \"To be loved by God and loved by him to\ndistraction (jusqu'\u00e0 la folie), Margaret melted away with love at the\nthought of such a thing.... She said to God, 'Hold back, my God, these\ntorrents which overwhelm me or else enlarge my capacity for their\nreception'.\"[390] These are not the words of the G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda or the\nPrem Sagar, as might be supposed, but of a Catholic Bishop describing\nthe transports of Sister Margu\u00e9rite Marie, and they illustrate the\ntemper of Krishna's worshippers. But the verses of the Marathi poet,\nTukaram, who lived about 1600 A.D. and sang the praises of Krishna,\nrise above this sentimentality though he uses the language of love. In\na letter to Sivaji, who desired to see him, he wrote, \"As a chaste\nwife longs only to see her lord, such am I to Vitthala.[391] All the\nworld is to me Vitthala and nothing else: thee also I behold in\nhim.\" He also wrote elsewhere, \"he that taketh the unprotected to his\nheart and doeth to a servant the same kindness as to his own children,\nis assuredly the image of God.\" More recently R\u00e2makrishna, whose\nsayings breathe a wide intelligence as well as a wide charity, has\ngiven this religion of love an expression which, if somewhat too\nsexual to be perfectly in accordance with western taste, is nearly\nrelated to emotional Christianity. \"A true lover sees his god as his\nnearest and dearest relative\" he writes, \"just as the shepherd women\nof Vrind\u00e2vana saw in Krishna not the Lord of the Universe but their\nown beloved.... The knowledge of God may be likened to a man, while\nthe love of God is like a woman. Knowledge has entry only up to the\nouter rooms of God, and no one can enter into the inner mysteries of\nGod save a lover.... Knowledge and love of God are ultimately one and\nthe same. There is no difference between pure knowledge and pure\nlove.\"[392]\n\nThese extracts show how Krishna as the object of the soul's desire\nassumes the place of the Supreme Being or God. But this surprising\ntransformation[393] is not specially connected with the pastoral and\nerotic Krishna: the best known and most thorough-going exposition of\nhis divinity is found in the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, which represents him as\nbeing in his human aspect, a warrior and the charioteer of Arjuna.\nProbably some seventy-five millions to-day worship Krishna,\nespecially under the name of Hari, as God in the pantheistic sense and\nnaturally the more his identity with the supreme spirit is emphasized,\nthe dimmer grow the legendary features which mark the hero of Muttra\nand Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2, and the human element in him is reduced to this very\nimportant point that the tie uniting him to his worshippers is one of\nsentiment and affection.\n\nIn the following chapters I shall treat of this worship when\ndescribing the various sects which practise it. A question of some\nimportance for the history of Krishna's deification is the meaning\nof the name V\u00e2sudeva. One explanation makes it a patronymic, son of\nVasudeva, and supposes that when this prince V\u00e2sudeva was deified his\nname, like R\u00e2ma, was transferred to the deity. The other regards\nV\u00e2sudeva as a name for the deity used by the S\u00e2ttvata clan and\nsupposes that when Krishna was deified this already well-known\ndivine name was bestowed on him. There is much to be said for this\nlatter theory. As we have seen the Jains give the title V\u00e2sudeva to a\nseries of supermen, and a remarkable legend states[394] that a king\ncalled Paundraka who pretended to be a deity used the title V\u00e2sudeva\nand ordered Krishna to cease using it, for which impertinence he was\nslain. This clearly implies that the title was something which could\nbe detached from Krishna and not a mere patronymic. Indian writings\ncountenance both etymologies of the word. As the name of the deity\nthey derive it from _vas_ to dwell, he in whom all things abide and\nwho abides in all.[395]\n\n\n5\n\n\nSiva and Vishnu are not in their nature different from other Indian\nideas, high or low. They are the offspring of philosophic and poetic\nminds playing with a luxuriant popular mythology. But even in the\nepics they have already become fixed points in a flux of changing\nfancies and serve as receptacles in which the most diverse notions are\ncollected and stored. Nearly all philosophy and superstition finds its\nplace in Hinduism by being connected with one or both of them. The two\nworships are not characteristic of different periods: they coexist\nwhen they first become known to us as they do at the present day and\nin essential doctrines they are much alike. We have no name for this\ncurious double theism in which each party describes its own deity as\nthe supreme god or All-god, yet without denying the god of the other.\nSomething similar might be produced in Christianity if different\nChurches were avowedly to worship different persons of the Trinity.\n\nSiva and Vishnu are sometimes contrasted and occasionally their\nworshippers quarrel.[396] But the general inclination is rather to\nmake the two figures approximate by bestowing the same attributes on\nboth. A deity must be able to satisfy emotional devotion: hence the\nTamil Sivaite says of Siva the destroyer, \"one should worship in\nsupreme love him who does kindness to the soul.\" But then the feature\nin the world which most impresses the Hindu is the constant change and\ndestruction, and this must find a place in the All-god. Hence the\nsportive kindly Krishna comes to be declared the destroyer of the\nworlds.[397] It is as if in some vast Dravidian temple one wandered\nthrough two corridors differently ornamented and assigned to the\npriests of different rites but both leading to the same image. Hence\nit is not surprising to find that there is actually a deity--if indeed\nthe term is suitable, but European vocabularies hardly provide one\nwhich meets the case--called Harihara (or Sankara-N\u00e2r\u00e2yana), that is\nSiva and Vishnu combined. The Harivamsa contains a hymn addressed to\nhim: fairly ancient sculptures attest the prevalence of his worship in\nthe Deccan, especially at Bad\u00e2mi, he was once the chief deity of\nCamboja and he is still popular in south India. Here besides being\nworshipped under his own name he has undergone a singular\ntransformation and has probably been amalgamated with some aboriginal\ndeity. Under the designation of Ayen\u00e2r (said to be a corruption of\nHarihara) he is extensively worshipped as a village god and reputed to\nbe the son of Siva and Vishnu, the latter having kindly assumed the\nform of a woman to effect his birth.\n\nAnother form of this inclination to combine and unite the various\nmanifestations of the Divine is the tendency to worship groups of\ngods, a practice as old as the Vedas. Thus many temples are dedicated\nto a group of five, namely, Siva, Vishnu, Durg\u00e2, Ganesa and the Sun\nand it is stated that every Hindu worships these five deities in his\ndaily prayers.[398] The Trim\u00fbrti, or figure of Brahm\u00e2, Siva and\nVishnu, illustrates the worship of groups. Its importance has\nsometimes been over-estimated by Europeans from an idea that it\ncorresponded to the Christian Trinity, but in reality this triad is\nlate and has little significance. No stress is laid on the idea of\nthree in one and the number of persons can be increased. The\nBrahma-vaivarta Pur\u00e2na for instance adds Krishna to Brahm\u00e2, Siva\nand Vishnu. The union of three personalities is merely a way of\nsumming up the chief attributes of the All-God. Thus the Vishnu\nPur\u00e2na[399] extols Vishnu as being \"Hiranyagarbha, Hari and\nSankara (_i.e._ Brahm\u00e2, Vishnu and Siva), the creator, preserver and\ndestroyer,\" but in another passage as him who is \"Brahma, \u00cesvara and\nspirit (Pums), who with the three Gunas (qualities of matter) is the\ncause of creation, preservation and destruction....\" The origin of the\ntriad, so far as it has any doctrinal or philosophical meaning, is\nprobably to be sought in the personification of the three Gunas.[400]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 334: See especially Dig. Nik. XX. and XXXII.]\n\n[Footnote 335: But the lists may be pieces of folk-lore older than the\nsuttas in which they are incorporated.]\n\n[Footnote 336: The Dionysus of Megasthenes is a deity who comes from\nthe west with an army that suffers from the heat of the plains. If we\ncould be certain that he meant Siva by Dionysus this would be valuable\nevidence. But he clearly misunderstood many things in Indian religion.\nGreek legends connected Dionysus with India and the East.]\n\n[Footnote 337: Macdonell seems to me correct in saying (_J.R.A.S._\n1915, p. 125) that one reason why Indian deities have many arms is\nthat they may be able to carry the various symbols by which they are\ncharacterized. Another reason is that worship is usually accompanied\nby dhy\u00e2na, that is forming a mental image of the deity as described in\na particular text. _E.g._ the worshipper repeats a mantra which\ndescribes a deity in language which was originally metaphorical as\nhaving many heads and arms and at the same time he ought to make a\nmental image of such a figure.]\n\n[Footnote 338: But some forms of Sivaism in southern India come even\nnearer to emotional Christianity than does Vishnuism.]\n\n[Footnote 339: I cannot discover that any alleged avat\u00e2ra of Siva has\nnow or has had formerly any importance, but the V\u00e2yu, Linga and K\u00fbrma\nPur\u00e2na give lists of such incarnations, as does also the Catechism of\nthe Shaiva religion translated by Foulkes. But Indian sects have a\nstrong tendency to ascribe all possible achievements and attributes to\ntheir gods. The mere fact that Vishnu becomes incarnate incites the\nardent Sivaite to say that his god can do the same. A curious instance\nof this rivalry is found in the story that Siva manifested himself as\nSarabha-m\u00fbrti in order to curb the ferocity of Vishnu when incarnate\nin the Man Lion (see Gopin\u00e2tha Rao, _Hindu Icon_. p. 45). Siva often\nappears in a special form, not necessarily human, for a special\npurpose (_e.g._ V\u00eerabhadra) and some tantric Buddhas seem to be\nimitations of these apparitions. There is a strong element of Sivaism\nborrowed from Bengal in the mythology of Tibet and Mongolia, where\nsuch personages as Hevajra, Samvara, and Mah\u00e2k\u00e2la have a considerable\nimportance under the strange title of Buddhas.]\n\n[Footnote 340: The passage from one epithet to the other is very plain\nin _R.V._ I. 114.]\n\n[Footnote 341: Book XVI.]\n\n[Footnote 342: In the play Mricchakatik\u00e2 or The Clay Cart (probably\nof the sixth century A.D.) a burglar invokes K\u00e2rtikeya, the son of\nSiva, who is said to have taught different styles of house-breaking.]\n\n[Footnote 343: A similarly strange collocation of attributes is found\nin Daksha's hymn to Siva. Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, XII. Sec. 285.]\n\n[Footnote 344: Atharva, V. xi. 2. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 345: It is not certain if the Sisnadev\u00e2h whom Indra is\nasked to destroy in Rig. V. VII. 21. 5 and X. 99. 3 are priapic\ndemons or worshippers of the phallus.]\n\n[Footnote 346: VII. secs. 202, 203, and XIII. sec. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 347: The inscriptions of Camboja and Champa seem to be the\nbest proof of the antiquity of Linga worship. A Cambojan inscription\nof about 550 A.D. records the dedication of a linga and the worship\nmust have taken some time to reach Camboja from India. Some lingas\ndiscovered in India are said to be anterior to the Christian era.]\n\n[Footnote 348: See F. Kittel, _Ueber den Ursprung der Linga Kultus_,\nand Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 261.]\n\n[Footnote 349: As is also its appearance, as a rule. But there are\nexceptions to this. Some Hindus deny that the Linga is a phallic\nemblem. It is hardly possible to maintain this thesis in view of such\npassages as Mah\u00e2bh. XIII. 14 and the innumerable figures in which\nthere are both a linga and a Yoni. But it is true that in its later\nforms the worship is purged of all grossness and that in its earlier\nforms the symbol adored was often a st\u00fbpa-like column or a pillar with\nfigures on it.]\n\n[Footnote 350: Such scenes as the relief from Amar\u00e2vati figured in\nGr\u00fcnwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, p. 29, fig. 8, might easily be\nsupposed to represent the worship of the linga, and some of Asoka's\npillars have been worshipped as lingas in later times.]\n\n[Footnote 351: But not of course the soul which, according to the\ngeneral Indian idea, exists before and continues after the life of the\nbody.]\n\n[Footnote 352: Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern\nIndia_, I. 84; II. 219.]\n\n[Footnote 353: They are however of some importance in Vishnuite\ntheology. For instance according to the school of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja it is the\nSakti (Sr\u00ee) who reveals the true doctrine to mankind. Vishnu is often\nsaid to have three consorts, Sr\u00ee, Bh\u00fb and L\u00eel\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 354: _E.g._ Sat. Br\u00e2h. I. 2. 5. See also the strange legend\n_Ib._ XI. 1. 1 where Vishnu is described as the best of the gods but\nis eaten by Indra. He is frequently (_e.g._ in the Sata Br\u00e2h) stated to\nbe identical with the sacrifice, and this was probably one of the\nreasons for his becoming prominent.]\n\n[Footnote 355: See many modern examples in Crooke, _Popular Religion\nand Folk Lore of Northern India_, chap. IV. and _Census of India_,\n1901, vol. VI. _Bengal_, pp. 196-8, where are described various\ndeified heroes who are adored in Bengal, such as Goveiy\u00e2 (a bandit),\nSailesh, Karikh, L\u00e1rik, Amar Singh, and Gobind Raut (a slayer of\ntigers). Compare too the worship of Gopi Nath and Zinda Kaliana in the\nPanj\u00e2b as described in _Census of India_, 1901, vol. XVII. pp. 118-9.]\n\n[Footnote 356: The Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na (I. iii.) and the Bhaktam\u00e2l\u00e2 (see\n_J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 621 ff.) give longer lists of 22 and 26, and the\nP\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra gives 39. See Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2, V. 50-55.]\n\n[Footnote 357: Book I, cantos 74-76.]\n\n[Footnote 358: A parallel phenomenon is the belief found in Bali, that\nBuddha is Siva's brother.]\n\n[Footnote 359: For Brahmanic ideas about Buddha see Vishnu Pur\u00e2na,\nIII. 18. The Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na, I. 3. 24 seems to make the Buddha\nincarnation future. It also counts Kapila and Rishabha, apparently\nidentical with the founder of the S\u00e2nkhya and the first Jain saint, as\nincarnations. The Padma Pur\u00e2na seems to ascribe not only Buddhism but\nthe M\u00e2y\u00e2 doctrine of Sankara to delusions deliberately inspired by\ngods. I have not been able to find the passage in the printed edition\nof the Pur\u00e2na but it is quoted in Sanskrit by Aufrecht, _Cat. Cod.\nBib. Bodl._ p. 14, and Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, p. 198.]\n\n[Footnote 360: See Norman in _Trans. Third Int. Congress of\nReligions_, II. p. 85. In the _Ind. Ant._ 1918, p. 145 Jayaswal tries\nto prove that Kalk\u00ee is a historical personage and identical with King\nYasodharman of Central India (about A.D. 500) and that the idea of his\nbeing a _future_ saviour is late. This theory offers difficulties, for\nfirstly there is no proof that the passages of the Mahabharata which\nmention Kalk\u00ee (III. 190, 13101; III. 191, 13111: XII. 340, 12968) are\nadditions later than Yasodharman and secondly if Kalk\u00ee was first a\nhistorical figure and then projected into the future we should expect\nto hear that he will _come again_, but such language is not quoted. On\nthe other hand it seems quite likely (1) that there was an old\ntradition about a future saviour called Kalk\u00ee, (2) that Yasodharman\nafter defeating the Huns assumed the r\u00f4le, (3) and that when it was\nfound that the golden age had not recommenced he was forgotten (as\nmany pseudo-Messiahs have been) and Kalk\u00ee again became a hope for the\nfuture. Vincent Smith (_Hist. of India_, ed. III. p. 320) intimates\nthat Yasodharman performed considerable exploits but was inordinately\nboastful.]\n\n[Footnote 361: Another version of the story which omits the expedition\nto Lanka and makes S\u00eet\u00e2 the sister of R\u00e2ma is found in the Dasaratha\nJ\u00e2taka (641).]\n\n[Footnote 362: But this colonization is attributed by tradition to\nVijaya, not R\u00e2ma.]\n\n[Footnote 363: See especially book VI. p. 67, in Growse's\n_Translation._]\n\n[Footnote 364: See Muir's _Sanskrit Texts_, vol. IV. especially pp.\n441-491.]\n\n[Footnote 365: Ekan\u00e2tha, who lived in the sixteenth century, calls the\nAdhy\u00e2tma R. a modern work. See Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, page\n48. The Yoga-Vasishtha R. purports to be instruction given by\nVasishtha to R\u00e2ma who wishes to abandon the world. Its date is\nuncertain but it is quoted by authors of the fourteenth century. It is\nvery popular, especially in south India, where an abridgment in Tamil\ncalled J\u00f1\u00e2na-Vasishtha is much read. Its doctrine appears to be\nVed\u00e2ntist with a good deal of Buddhist philosophy. Salvation is never\nto think that pleasures and pains are \"mine.\"]\n\n[Footnote 366: Ch\u00e2nd. Up. III. 17.6]\n\n[Footnote 367: The Kaush. Br\u00e2hm. says that Krishna was an \u00c2ngirasa\nXXX. g. The Anukraman\u00ee says that the Krishna of Rig Veda, VIII. 74\nwas an \u00c2ngirasa. For Ghora \u00c2ngirasa \"the dread descendent of the\nAngirases\" see Macdonell and Keith, _Vedic Index_, s.v.]\n\n[Footnote 368: _E.g._ Dig. Nik. V. The P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra expressly states\nthat Yoga is worship of the heart and self-sacrifice, being thus a\ncounterpart of the external sacrifice (b\u00e2hyay\u00e2ga).]\n\n[Footnote 369: P\u00e2n. IV. 3. 98, _V\u00e2sudev\u00e2rjun\u00e2bhy\u00e2m vun._ See\nBhandarkar, _Vaishnavism and Saivism_, p. 3 and _J.R.A.S._ 1910, p.\n168. S\u00fbtra 95, just above, appears to point to _bhakti_, faith or\ndevotion, felt for this V\u00e2sudeva.]\n\n[Footnote 370: Especially the Besnagar column. See Rapson, _Ancient\nIndia_, p. 156 and various articles in _J.R.A.S._ 1909-10.]\n\n[Footnote 371: X. i, vi.]\n\n[Footnote 372: III. i. 23, Ul\u00e2ro so Kanho isi ahosi. But this may\nrefer to the Rishi mentioned in _R.V._ VIII. 74 who has not\nnecessarily anything to do with the god Krishna.]\n\n[Footnote 373: See Hemacandra Abhidh\u00e2nacint\u00e2mani, Ed. Boehtlingk and\nRien, p. 128, and Barnett's translation of the _Antagada Dasao_, pp.\n13-15 and 67-82.]\n\n[Footnote 374: Apparently the same as the Vrishnis.]\n\n[Footnote 375: III. XV.]\n\n[Footnote 376: It would seem that the temple of Dv\u00e2rak\u00e2 was built\nbetween the composition of the narrative in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and of the\nVishnu Pur\u00e2na, for while the former says the whole town was\ndestroyed by the sea, the latter excepts the temple and says that\nwhoever visits it is freed from all his sins. See Wilson, _Vishnu\nPur\u00e2na_, V. p. 155.]\n\n[Footnote 377: A most curious chapter of the Vishnu Pur\u00e2na (IV. 13)\ncontains a vindication of Krishna's character and a picture of old\ntribal life.]\n\n[Footnote 378: Neither can I agree with some scholars that Krishna\nis mainly and primarily a deity of vegetation. All Indian ideas about\nthe Universe and God emphasize the interaction of life and death,\ngrowth and decay, spring and winter. Krishna is undoubtedly\nassociated with life, growth and generation, but so is Siva the\ndestroyer, or rather the transmuter. The account in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya\n(on P\u00e2n. III. 1. 26) of the masque representing the slaughter of\nKamsa by Krishna is surely a slight foundation for the theory that\nKrishna was a nature god. It might be easily argued that Christ is a\nvegetation spirit, for not only is Easter a spring festival but there\nare numerous allusions to sowing and harvest in the Gospels and Paul\nillustrates the resurrection by the germination of corn. It is a\nmistake to seek for uniformity in the history of religion. There were\nin ancient times different types of mind which invented different\nkinds of gods, just as now professors invent different theories about\ngods.]\n\n[Footnote 379: The Krishna of the Ch\u00e2ndogya Upanishad _receives_\ninstruction but it is not said that he was himself a teacher.]\n\n[Footnote 380: Hopkins, _India Old and New_, p. 105.]\n\n[Footnote 381: Bhandarkar. Allusions to Krishna in Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya,\n_Ind. Ant._ 1874, p. 14. For the pastoral Krishna see Bhandarkar,\n_Vaishnavism and Saivism_, chap. IX.]\n\n[Footnote 382: The divinity of R\u00e2dh\u00e2 is taught specially in the\nBrahma-vaivarta Pur\u00e2na and the N\u00e2rada p\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra, also called\nJ\u00f1\u00e2n\u00e2mritas\u00e2ra. She is also described in the Gop\u00e2la-t\u00e2pan\u00eeya\nUpanishad of unknown date.]\n\n[Footnote 383: But Kamsa appears in both series of legends, _i.e._, in\nthe Ghata-J\u00e2taka which contains no hint of the pastoral legends but is\na variant of the story of the warlike Krishna.]\n\n[Footnote 384: Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, V. 10, 11 from which the quotations in\nthe text are taken. Much of it is repeated in the Harivamsa. See for\ninstance H. 3808.]\n\n[Footnote 385: The Muttra cycle of legends cannot be very late for the\ninscription of Glai Lomor in Champa (811 A.D.) speaks of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana\nholding up Goburdhan and a Cambojan inscription of Prea Eynkosey (970\nA.D.) speaks of the banks of the Yamun\u00e2 where Krishna sported. These\nlegends must have been prevalent in India some time before they\ntravelled so far. Some of them are depicted on a pillar found at\nMandor and possibly referable to the fourth century A.D. See _Arch.\nSurvey Ind._ 1905-1906, p. 135.]\n\n[Footnote 386: Strom, III. 194. See M'Crindle, _Ancient India_, p.\n183.]\n\n[Footnote 387: Vincent Smith, _Fine Art in India_, pp. 134-138.]\n\n[Footnote 388: In the Sutta-nip\u00e2ta M\u00e2ra, the Evil One is called\nKanha, the phonetic equivalent of Krishna in Pr\u00e2krit. Can it be\nthat M\u00e2ra and his daughters have anything to do with Krishna and the\nGop\u00ees?]\n\n[Footnote 389: Compare the Greek stories of the infant Hermes who\nsteals Apollo's cattle and invents the lyre. Compare too, as having a\ngeneral resemblance to fantastic Indian legends, the story of young\nHeph\u00e6stus.]\n\n[Footnote 390: Mgr. Bongard, _Histoire de la Bienheureuse Margu\u00e9rite\nMarie_. Quoted by W. James, _Varieties of Religious Experience_, p.\n343.]\n\n[Footnote 391: Vitthal or Vittoba is a local deity of Pandharpur\nin the Deccan (perhaps a deified Brahman of the place) now identified\nwith Krishna.]\n\n[Footnote 392: _Life and Sayings of R\u00e2makrishna_. Trans. F. Max\nM\u00fcller, pp. 137-8. The English poet Crashaw makes free use of\nreligious metaphors drawn from love and even Francis Thompson\nrepresents God as the lover of the Soul, _e.g._ in his poem _Any\nSaint._]\n\n[Footnote 393: Though surprising, it can be paralleled in modern times\nfor Kabir (_c._ 1400) was identified by his later followers with the\nsupreme spirit.]\n\n[Footnote 394: Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. Sabh\u00e2p. XIV. Vishnu Pur. v. xxxiv. The name\nalso occurs in the Taittir\u00eeya \u00c2ranyaka (i. 31) a work of moderate if\nnot great antiquity N\u00e2z\u00e2yan\u00e2ya vidmahe Vasudev\u00e2ya dh\u00eemahi.]\n\n[Footnote 395: See. Vishnu Pur. VI. V. See also Wilson, _Vishnu\nPur\u00e2na_, I. pp. 2 and 17.]\n\n[Footnote 396: Thus the Saura Pur\u00e2na inveighs against the M\u00e2dhva sect\n(XXXVIII.-XL.) and calls Vishnu the servant of Siva: a Pur\u00e2nic legal\nwork called the Vriddha-Harita-Samhit\u00e2 is said to contain a polemic\nagainst Siva. Occasionally we hear of collisions between the followers\nof Vishnu and Siva or the desecration of temples by hostile fanatics.\nBut such conflicts take place most often not between widely different\nsects but between subdivisions of the same sect, _e.g._, Tengalais and\nVadagalais. It would seem too that at present most Hindus of the\nhigher castes avoid ostentatious membership of the modern sects, and\nthough they may practise special devotion to either Vishnu or Siva,\nyet they visit the temples of both deities when they go on\npilgrimages. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in his _Hindu Castes and\nSects_ says (p. 364) that aristocratic Brahmans usually keep in their\nprivate chapels both a sal\u00e2gram representing Vishnu and emblems\nrepresenting Siva and his spouse. Hence different observers vary in\ntheir estimates of the importance of sectarian divisions, some holding\nthat sect is the essence of modern Hinduism and others that most\neducated Hindus do not worship a sectarian deity. The K\u00fbrma Pur\u00e2na,\nPart I. chap. XXII. contains some curious rules as to what deities\nshould be worshipped by the various classes of men and spirits.]\n\n[Footnote 397: Bhag.-g\u00eet\u00e2, XL. 23-34.]\n\n[Footnote 398: See Srisa Chandra Vasu, _Daily practice of the Hindus_,\np. 118.]\n\n[Footnote 399: II. 1 and I. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 400: See Maitr\u00e2yana Up. V. 2. It is highly probable that\nthe celebrated image at Elephanta is not a Trim\u00fbrti at all but a\nMahesam\u00fbrti of Siva. See Gopin\u00e2tha Rao, _Hindu Iconog._ II. 382.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI\n\nFEATURES OF HINDUISM: RITUAL, CASTE, SECT, FAITH\n\n\n1\n\n\nIn the last chapter I traced the growth of the great gods Siva and\nVishnu. The prominence of these figures is one of the marks which\ndistinguish the later phase of Indian religion from the earlier. But\nit is also distinguished by various practices, institutions and\nbeliefs, which are more or less connected with the new deities. Such\nare a new ritual, the elaboration of the caste system, the growth of\nsects, and the tendency to make devotion to a particular deity the\nessence of religion. In the present chapter I shall say something of\nthese phenomena.\n\nHinduism has often and justly been compared to a jungle. As in the\njungle every particle of soil seems to put forth its spirit in\nvegetable life and plants grow on plants, creepers and parasites on\ntheir more stalwart brethren, so in India art, commerce, warfare and\ncrime, every human interest and aspiration seek for a manifestation in\nreligion, and since men and women of all classes and occupations, all\nstages of education and civilization, have contributed to Hinduism,\nmuch of it seems low, foolish and even immoral. The jungle is not a\npark or garden. Whatever can grow in it, does grow. The Brahmans are\nnot gardeners but forest officers. To attempt a history or description\nof Indian creeds seems an enterprise as vast, hopeless and pathless as\na general account of European politics. As for many centuries the life\nof Europe has expressed itself in politics, so for even longer ages\nthe life of India, which has more inhabitants than western\nEurope,[401] has found expression in religion, speculation and\nphilosophy, and has left of all this thought a voluminous record,\nmighty in bulk if wanting in dates and events. And why should it\nchronicle them? The truly religious mind does not care for the history\nof religion, just as among us the scientific mind does not dwell on\nthe history of science.\n\nYet in spite of their exuberance Hinduism and the jungle have\nconsiderable uniformity. Here and there in a tropical forest some\nwell-grown tree or brilliant flower attracts attention, but the\ngeneral impression left on the traveller by the vegetation as he\npasses through it mile after mile is infinite repetition as well as\ninfinite luxuriance. And so in Hinduism. A monograph on one god or one\nteacher is an interesting study. But if we continue the experiment,\ndifferent gods and different teachers are found to be much the same.\nWe can write about Vishnuism and Sivaism as if they were different\nreligions and this, though incomplete, is not incorrect. But in their\nhigher phases both show much the same excellences and when degraded\nboth lead to much the same abuses, except that the worship of Vishnu\ndoes not allow animal sacrifices. This is true even of externals. In\nthe temples of Madura, Poona and Benares, the deities, the rites, the\ndoctrines, the race of the worshippers and the architecture are all\ndifferent, yet the impression of uniformity is strong. In spite of\ndivergences the religion is the same in all three places: it smacks of\nthe soil and nothing like it can be found outside India.\n\nHinduism is an unusual combination of animism and pantheism, which are\ncommonly regarded as the extremes of savage and of philosophic belief.\nIn India both may be found separately but frequently they are combined\nin startling juxtaposition. The same person who worships Vishnu as\nidentical with the universe also worships him in the form of a pebble\nor plant.[402] The average Hindu, who cannot live permanently in the\naltitudes of pantheistic thought, regards his gods as great natural\nforces, akin to the mighty rivers which he also worships, irresistible\nand often beneficent but also capricious and destructive. Whereas\nJudaism, Christianity and Islam all identify the moral law with the\nwill and conduct of the deity, in Hinduism this is not completely\nadmitted in practice, though a library might be filled with the\nbeautiful things that have been said about man and God. The outward\nforms of Indian religion are pagan after the fashion of the ancient\nworld, a fashion which has in most lands passed away. But whereas in\nthe fourth century A.D. European paganism, despite the efforts of\nanti-Christian eclectics, proved inelastic and incapable of satisfying\nnew religious cravings, this did not happen in India. The bottles of\nHinduism have always proved capable of holding all the wine poured\ninto them. When a new sentiment takes possession of men's souls, such\nas love, repentance, or the sense of sin, some deity of many shapes\nand sympathies straightway adapts himself to the needs of his\nworshippers. And yet in so doing the deity, though he enlarges\nhimself, does not change, and the result is that we often meet with\nstrange anachronisms, as if Jephthah should listen appreciatively to\nthe Sermon on the Mount and then sacrifice his daughter to Christ.\nMany Hindu temples are served by dancing girls who are admittedly\nprostitutes,[403] an institution which takes us back to the cultus of\nCorinth and Babylon and is without parallel in any nation on\napproximately the same level of civilization. Only British law\nprevents widows from being burned with their dead husbands, though\neven in the Vedic age the custom had been discontinued as\nbarbarous.[404] But for the same legislation, human sacrifice would\nprobably be common. What the gods do and what their worshippers do in\ntheir service cannot according to Hindu opinion be judged by ordinary\nlaws of right and wrong. The god is supra-moral: the worshipper when\nhe enters the temple leaves conventionality outside.\n\nYet it is unfair to represent Hinduism as characterized by licence and\ncruelty. Such tendencies are counterbalanced by the strength and\nprevalence of ideas based on renunciation and self-effacement. All\ndesire, all attachment to the world is an evil; all self-assertion is\nwrong. Hinduism is constantly in extremes: sometimes it exults in the\ndances of Krishna or the destructive fury of K\u00e2l\u00ee: more often it\nstruggles for release from the transitory and for union with the\npermanent and real by self-denial or rather self-negation, which aims\nat the total suppression of both pleasure and pain. This is on the\nwhole its dominant note.\n\nIn the records accessible to us the transition from Brahmanism--that\nis, the religion of the Vedas and Br\u00e2hmanas--to Hinduism does not\nappear as direct but as masked by Buddhism. We see Buddhism grow at\nthe expense of Brahmanism. We are then conscious that it becomes\nprofoundly modified under the influence of new ideas. We see it decay\nand the religion of the Brahmans emerge victorious. But that religion\nis not what it was when Buddhism first arose, and is henceforth\ngenerally known as Hinduism. The materials for studying the period in\nwhich the change occurred--say 400 B.C. to 400 A.D.--are not scanty,\nbut they do not facilitate chronological investigation. Art and\narchitecture are mainly Buddhist until the Gupta period (c. 320 A.D.)\nand literature, though plentiful, is undated. The Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and\nR\u00e2m\u00e2yana must have been edited in the course of these 800 years, but\nthey consist of different strata and it is not easy to separate and\narrange them without assuming what we want to prove. From 400 B.C. (if\nnot from an earlier date) onwards there grew up a great volume of epic\npoetry, founded on popular ballads, telling the stories of R\u00e2ma and\nthe P\u00e2ndavas.[405] It was distinct from the canonical literatures of\nboth Brahmans and Buddhists, but though it was not in its essential\ncharacter religious, yet so general in India is the interest in\nreligion that whole theological treatises were incorporated in these\nstories without loss, in Indian opinion, to the interest of the\nnarrative. If at the present day a congregation is seen in a Hindu\ntemple listening to a recitation, the text which is being chanted will\noften prove to be part of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata. Such a ceremony is not due\nto forgetfulness of the Veda but is a repetition of what happened long\nbefore our era when rhapsodists strung together popular narratives and\npopular theology. Such theology cannot be rigidly separated from\nBrahmanism and Buddhism. It grew up under their influence and accepted\ntheir simpler ideas. But it brought with it popular beliefs which did\nnot strictly speaking belong to either system. By attacking the main\nBrahmanic doctrines the Buddhists gave the popular religion its\nopportunity. For instance, they condemned animal sacrifices and\nderided the idea that trained priests and complicated rites are\nnecessary. This did not destroy the influence of the Brahmans but it\ndisposed them to admit that the Vedic sacrifices are not the only\nmeans of salvation and to authorize other rites and beliefs. It was\nabout this time, too, that a series of invasions began to pour into\nIndia from the north-west. It may be hard to distinguish between the\nforeign beliefs which they introduced and the Indian beliefs which\nthey accepted and modified. But it is clear that their general effect\nwas to upset traditional ideas associated with a ritual and learning\nwhich required lifelong study.\n\n\n2\n\n\nIt has been well said[406] that Buddhism did not waste away in India\nuntil rival sects had appropriated from it everything they could make\nuse of. Perhaps Hinduism had an even stronger doctrinal influence on\nBuddhism. The deification of the Buddha, the invention of Bodhisattvas\nwho are equivalent to gods and the extraordinary alliance between late\nBuddhism and Sivaism, are all instances of the general Indian view\novercoming the special Buddhist view. But Buddhism is closely\nconnected with the theory of incarnations and the development of the\nAdvaita philosophy, and in the externals of religion, in rites,\nceremonies and institutions, its influence was great and lasting. We\nmay take first the doctrine of Ahims\u00e2, non-injury, or in other words\nthe sanctity of animal life. This beautiful doctrine, the glory of\nIndia, if not invented by the Buddha at least arose in schools which\nwere not Brahmanic and were related to the Jain and Buddhist\nmovements. It formed no part of the Vedic religion in which sacrifice\noften meant butchery. But in Hinduism, it meets with extensive though\nnot universal acceptance. With the Vaishnavas it is an article of\nfaith nor do the worshippers of Siva usually propitiate him with\nanimal sacrifices, though these are offered by the S\u00e2ktas and also by\nthe small class of Brahmans who still preserve the Vedic ritual.[407]\nHardly any Hindus habitually eat meat and most abhor it, especially\nbeef. Yet beef-eating seems to have been permitted in Vedic times and\neven when parts of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata were composed.\n\nApart from animal sacrifices Buddhism was the main agent in effecting\na mighty revolution in worship and ritual. One is tempted to regard\nthe change as total and complete, but such wide assertions are rarely\ntrue in India: customs and institutions are not swept away by\nreformers but are cut down like the grass and like the grass grow up\nagain. They sometimes die out but they are rarely destroyed. The Vedic\nsacrifices are still occasionally offered,[408] but for many centuries\nhave been almost entirely superseded by another form of worship\nassociated with temples and the veneration of images. This must have\nbecome the dominant form of Hindu cultus in the first few centuries of\nour era and probably earlier. It is one of the ironies of fate that\nthe Buddha and his followers should be responsible for the growth of\nimage worship, but it seems to be true. He laughed at sacrifices and\nleft to his disciples only two forms of religious exercise, sermons\nand meditation. For Indian monks, this was perhaps sufficient, but the\nlaity craved for some outward form of worship. This was soon found in\nthe respect shown to the memory of the Buddha and the relics of his\nbody, although Hinduism never took kindly to relic worship. We hear\ntoo of Cetiyas. In the Pitakas this word means a popular shrine\nunconnected with either Buddhist or Brahmanic ceremonial, sometimes\nperhaps merely a sacred tree or stone, probably honoured by such\nsimple rites as decorating it with paint or flowers. A little later,\nin Buddhist times, the Cetiya became a cenotaph or reliquary,\ngenerally located near a monastery and surrounded by a passage for\nreverential circumambulation.\n\nAllusions in the Pitakas also indicate that then as now there were\nfairs. The early Buddhists thought that though such gatherings were\nnot edifying they might be made so. They erected sacred buildings near\na monastery, and held festivals so that people might collect together,\nvisit a holy place, and hear sermons. In the earliest known\nsanctuaries, the funeral monument (for we can scarcely doubt that this\nis the origin of the st\u00fbpa)[409] has already assumed the conventional\nform known as Dagoba, consisting of a dome and chest of relics, with a\nspire at the top, the whole surrounded by railings or a colonnade, but\nthough the carving is lavish, no figure of the Buddha himself is to be\nseen. He is represented by a symbol such as a footprint, wheel, or\ntree. But in the later school of sculpture known as Gandhara or\nGr\u00e6co-Buddhist he is frequently shown in a full length portrait. This\ndifference is remarkable. It is easy to say that in the older school\nthe Buddha was not depicted out of reverence, but less easy to see why\nsuch delineation should have shocked an Indian. But at any rate there\nis no difficulty in understanding that Greeks or artists influenced by\nGreeks would think it obvious and proper to make an effigy of their\nprincipal hero.\n\nIn these shrines we have if not the origin of the Hindu temple, at any\nrate a parallel development more nearly allied to it than anything in\nthe Vedic religion.[410] For the Buddhist shrine was a monument built\nover a receptacle containing relics and the essential feature of Hindu\ntemples is a cell containing an image or emblem and generally\nsurmounted by a tower. The surrounding courts and corridors may assume\ngigantic proportions, but the central shrine is never large. Images\nhad no place in the Vedic sacrifices and those now worshipped in\ntemples are generally small and rude, and sometimes (as at\nBhuvaneshwar and Srirangam) the deity is represented by a block or\ncarved stone which cannot be moved, and may have been honoured as a\nsacred rock long before the name of Vishnu or Siva was known in those\nregions.[411] The conspicuous statues often found outside the shrine\nare not generally worshipped and are merely ornaments. Buddhism did\nnot create the type of ritual now used in Hindu temples, yet it\ncontributed towards it, for it attacked the old Brahmanic sacrifices,\nit countenanced the idea that particular places and objects are holy,\nand it encouraged the use of images. It is strange that these\nwidespread ideas should find no place in the Vedic religion, but even\nnow-a-days whenever the old Vedic sacrifices are celebrated they are\nuncontaminated by the temple ceremonial. More than this, the priests\nor Puj\u00e2ris who officiate in temples are not always Brahmans and they\nrarely enjoy much consideration.[412] This curious and marked feature\nmay be connected with the inveterate Indian feeling that, though it is\nwell to multiply rites and rules for neophytes, no great respect is\ndue to men occupied with mere ceremonial. But it also testifies to a\ndim consciousness that modern temples and their ceremonies have little\nto do with the thoughts and mode of life which made the Brahmans a\nforce in India. In many ways the Brahmans dissociate themselves from\npopular religion. Those of good family will not perform religious\nrites for S\u00fbdras and treat the Brahmans who do so as inferiors.[413]\n\nThe simplest ceremonial in use at the present day is that employed in\nsome Sivaite temples. It consists in placing leaves on the linga and\npouring holy water over it. These rites, which may be descended from\nprehistoric stone worship, are generally accompanied by the reading of\na Pur\u00e2na. But the commonest form of temple ritual consists in treating\nthe image or symbol as an honoured human being.[414] It is awakened,\nbathed, dressed and put to bed at the close of day. Meals are served\nto it at the usual hours. The food thus offered is called _pras\u00e2d_ (or\nfavour) and is eaten by the devout. Once or twice a day the god holds\na levee and on festivals he is carried in procession. These ceremonies\nare specially characteristic of the worship of Krishna whose images\nreceive all the endearments lavished on a pet child. But they are also\nused in the temples of Siva and Parvat\u00ee, and no less than twenty-two\nof them are performed in the course of the day at the temple of\nBhuvaneshwar in Orissa. It is clear that the spirit of these rites is\nvery different from that which inspires public worship in other\ncivilized countries at the present day. They are not congregational or\ndidactic, though if any of the faithful are in the temple at the time\nof the god's levee it is proper for them to enter and salute him.\nNeither do they recall the magical ceremonies of the Vedic\nsacrifices.[415] The waving of lights (arati) before the god and the\nburning of incense are almost the only acts suggestive of\necclesiastical ritual. The rest consists in treating a symbol or image\nas if it were a living thing capable of enjoying simple physical\npleasures. Here there are two strata. We have really ancient rites,\nsuch as the anointing or ornamenting of stones and offerings of food\nin sacred places. In this class too we may reckon the sacrifice of\ngoats (and formerly of human beings) to K\u00e2l\u00ee.[416] But on the other\nhand the growing idea of Bhakti, that is faith or devotion, imported a\nsentimental element and the worshipper endeavoured to pet, caress and\namuse the deity.\n\nIt is hard to see anything either healthy or artistic in this\nemotional ritual. The low and foolish character of many temple\nceremonies disgusts even appreciative foreigners, but these services\nare not the whole of Hindu worship. All Hindus perform in the course\nof the day numerous acts of private devotion varying according to\nsect, and a pious man is not dependent on the temple like a Catholic\non his church. Indian life is largely occupied with these private,\nintimate, individual observances, hardly noticeable as ceremonies and\nconcerned with such things as dressing, ablution and the preparation\nof food.\n\nThe monastic institutions of India seem due to Buddhism. There were\nwandering monks before the Buddha's time, but the practice of founding\nestablishments where they could reside permanently, originated in his\norder. There appears to be no record of Hindu (as opposed to Buddhist)\nmonasteries before the time of Sankara in the ninth century, though\nthere must have been places where the learned congregated or where\nwandering ascetics could lodge. Sankara perceived the advantage of\nthe cenobitic life for organizing religion and founded a number of\nmaths or colleges. Subsequent religious leaders imitated him. At the\npresent day these institutions are common, yet it is clear that the\nwandering spirit is strong in Hindus and that they do not take to\nmonastic discipline and fixed residence as readily as Tibetans and\nBurmese. A math is not so much a convent as the abode of a teacher.\nHis pupils frequent it and may become semi-resident: aged pilgrims may\nmake it their last home, but the inmates are not a permanent body\nfollowing a fixed rule like the monks of a Vih\u00e2ra. The Sattras of\nAssam, however, are true monasteries (though even there vows and\nmonastic costume are unknown) and so are the establishments of the\nSw\u00e2min\u00e2r\u00e2yana sect at Ahmedabad and Wart\u00e2l.\n\n\n3\n\n\nThe vast and complicated organization of caste is mainly a post-Vedic\ngrowth and in the Buddha's time was only in the making.[417] His order\nwas open to all classes alike, but this does not imply that he was\nadverse to caste, so far as it then prevailed, or denied that men are\ndivided into categories determined by their deeds in other births. But\non the whole the influence of Buddhism was unfavourable to caste,\nespecially to the pretensions of the Brahmans, and an extant polemic\nagainst caste is ascribed (though doubtfully) to Asvaghosha.[418] On\nthe other hand, though caste is in its origin the expression of a\nsocial rather than of a religious tendency, the whole institution and\nmechanism have long been supported and exploited by the Brahmans. Few\nof them would dispute the proposition that a man cannot be a Hindu\nunless he belongs to a caste. The reason of this support is\nundisguised, namely, that they are the first and chief caste. They\nmake their own position a matter of religion and claim the power of\npurifying and rehabilitating those who have lost caste but they do not\nusually interfere with the rules of other castes or excommunicate\nthose who break them.[419] That is the business of the Pancayat or\ncaste council.\n\nSometimes religion and caste are in opposition, for many modern\nreligious leaders have begun by declaring that among believers there\nare no social distinctions. This is true not only of teachers whose\northodoxy is dubious, such as N\u00e2nak, the founder of the Sikhs, and\nBasava, the founder of the Ling\u00e2yats,[420] but also of Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya\nand Caitanya. But in nearly all cases caste reasserts itself. The\nreligious teachers of the sect receive extravagant respect and form a\nbody apart. This phenomenon, which recurs in nearly all communities,\nshows how the Brahmans established their position. At the same time\nsocial distinctions make themselves felt among the laity, and those\nwho claim to be of good position dissociate themselves from those of\nlower birth. The sect ends by observing caste on ordinary occasions,\nand it is only in some temples (such as that of Jagannath at\nPuri)[421] that the worshippers mix and eat a sacred meal together.\nSometimes, however, the sect which renounces caste becomes itself a\ncaste. Thus, the Sikhs have become almost a nation and other modern\ncastes arising out of sects are the Atiths, who are Sivaites, the\nSaraks, who appear to have been originally Buddhists, and the\nBaishnabs (Vaishnavas), a name commonly given in Bengal to those\nfollowers of Caitanya who persist in the original rule of disregarding\ncaste regulations within the sect, and hence now form a separate\ncommunity. But as a rule sect and caste are not co-extensive and the\ncaste is not a religious corporation. Thus the different subdivisions\nof the Baniyas belong to different sects and even in the same\nsubdivision there is no religious uniformity.[422]\n\nCaste in its later developments is so complex and irregular, that it\nis impossible to summarize it in a formula or explain it as the\ndevelopment of one principle. In the earliest form known two\nprinciples are already in operation. We have first racial distinction.\nThe three upper castes represent the invading Aryans, the fourth the\nraces whom they found in India. In the modern system of caste, race is\nnot a strong factor. Many who claim to be Brahmans and Kshatriyas have\nno Aryan blood, but still the Aryan element is strongest in the\nhighest castes and decreases as we descend the social scale and also\ndecreases in the higher castes in proportion as we move from the\nnorth-west to the east and south. But secondly in the three upper\ncastes the dividing principle, as reported in the earliest accounts,\nis not race but occupation. We find in most Aryan countries a division\ninto nobles and people, but in India these two classes become three,\nthe priests having been able to assume a prominence unknown elsewhere\nand to stamp on literature their claim to the highest rank. This claim\nwas probably never admitted in practice so completely as the priests\ndesired. It was certainly disputed in Buddhist times and I have myself\nheard a young Rajput say that the Brahmans falsified the Epics so as\nto give themselves the first place.\n\nIt is not necessary for our purpose to describe the details of the\nmodern caste system. Its effect on Indian religion has been\nconsiderable, for it created the social atmosphere in which the\nvarious beliefs grew up and it has furnished the Brahmans with the\nmeans of establishing their authority. But many religious reformers\npreached that in religion caste does not exist--that there is neither\nJew nor Gentile in the language of another creed--and though the\napplication of this theory is never complete, the imperfection is the\nresult not of religious opposition but of social pressure. Hindu life\nis permeated by the instinct that society must be divided into\ncommunities having some common interest and refusing to intermarry or\neat with other communities. The long list of modern castes hardly\nbears even a theoretical relation to the four classes of Vedic\ntimes.[423] Numerous subdivisions with exclusive rules as to\nintermarriage and eating have arisen among the Brahmans and the\nstrength of this fissiparous instinct is seen among the Mohammedans\nwho nominally have no caste but yet are divided into groups with much\nthe same restrictions.\n\nThis remarkable tendency to form exclusive corporations is perhaps\ncorrelated with the absence of political life in India. Such ideas as\nnationality, citizenship, allegiance to a certain prince, patriotic\nfeelings for a certain territory are rarer and vaguer than elsewhere,\nand yet the Hindu is dependent on his fellows and does not like to\nstand alone. So finding little satisfaction in the city or state he\nclings the more tenaciously to smaller corporations. These have no one\ncharacter: they are not founded on any one logical principle but\nmerely on the need felt by people who have something in common to\nassociate together. Many are based on tribal divisions; some, such as\nthe Marathas and Newars, may be said to be nationalities. In many the\nbond of union is occupation, in a few it is sectarian religion. We can\nstill observe how members of a caste who migrate from their original\nresidence tend to form an entirely new caste, and how intertribal\nmarriages among the aborigines create new tribes.\n\n\n4\n\n\nSect[424] must not be confounded with caste. Hindu sects are of many\nkinds; some, if not militant, are at least exceedingly self-confident.\nOthers are so gentle in stating their views that they might be called\nschools rather than sects, were the word not too intellectual. The\nnotion that any creed or code can be _quod semper, quod ubique, quod\nab omnibus_, is less prevalent than in Europe and even the Veda,\nthough it is the eternal word, is admitted to exist in several\nrecensions. Hinduism is possible as a creed only to those who select.\nIn its literal sense it means simply all the beliefs and rites\nrecognized in India, too multifarious and inconsistent for the most\nhospitable and addled brain to hold. But the Hindus, who are as loth\nto abolish queer beliefs and practices as they are to take animal\nlife, are also the most determined seekers after a satisfying form of\nreligion. Brahmanic ritual and Buddhist monasticism demand the\ndedication of a life. Not everyone can afford that, but the sect is\nopen to all. It attempts to sort out of the chaos of mythology and\nsuperstition something which all can understand and all may find\nuseful. It selects some aspect of Hinduism and makes the best of it.\nSects usually start by preaching theism and equality in the sight of\nGod, but in a few generations mythology and social distinctions creep\nin. Hence though the prevalence of sect is undoubtedly a feature of\nmodern Hinduism it is also intelligible that some observers should\nassert that most Hindus belong to the same general religion and that\nonly the minority are definitely sectarian. The sectarian tendency is\nstronger in Vishnuism than in Sivaism. The latter has produced some\ndefinite sects, as, for instance, Ling\u00e2yats, but is not like Vishnuism\nsplit up into a number of Churches each founded by a human teacher and\nprovided by him with a special creed.\n\nMost Indian sects are in their origin theistic, that is to say, they\ntake a particular deity and identify him with the Supreme Being. But\nthe pantheistic tendency does not disappear. Popular religion\nnaturally desires a personal deity. But it is significant that the\npersonal deity frequently assumes pantheistic attributes and is\ndeclared to be both the world and the human soul. The best known sects\narose after Islam had entered India and some of them, such as the\nSikhs, show a blending of Hindu and Moslem ideas. But if Mohammedan\ninfluence favoured the formation of corporations pledged to worship\none particular deity, it acted less by introducing something new than\nby quickening a line of thought already existing. The Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 is\nas complete an exposition of sectarian pantheism as any utterances\nposterior to Mohammedanism.\n\nThe characteristic doctrine of sectarian Hinduism is _bhakti_, faith\nor devotion. The older word _sraddh\u00e2_, which is found in the Vedas, is\nless emotional for it means simply belief in the existence of a deity,\nwhereas _bhakti_ can often be rendered by love. It is passionate,\nself-oblivious devotion to a deity who in return (though many would\nsay there is no bartering) bestows his grace (_pras\u00e2da_ or\n_anugraha_). St. Augustine in defining faith says: \"Quid est credere\nin Deum? credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, et\nejus membris incorporari.\"[425] This is an excellent paraphrase of\n_bhakti_ and the words have an oriental ring which is not quite that\nof the New Testament. Though the doctrine of _bhakti_ marks the\nbeginning of a new epoch in Hinduism it is not necessary to regard it\nas an importation or due to Christianity. About the time of the\nChristian era there was felt in many countries a craving for a gentler\nand more emotional worship and though the history of Bhaktism is\nobscure, Indian literature shows plainly how it may be a development\nof native ideas. Its first great text-book is the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, but\nit is also mentioned in the last verse of the Svet\u00e2svatara Upanishad\nand P\u00e2nini appears to allude to _bhakti_ felt for[426] V\u00e2sudeva. The\nKath\u00e2 Upanishad[427] contains the following passage:\n\n\"That \u00c2tman cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding nor by\nmuch learning. He whom the \u00c2tman chooses, by him the \u00c2tman can be\ngained. The \u00c2tman chooses him as his own.\" Here we have not the idea\nof faith or love, but we have the negative statement that the \u00c2tman is\nnot won by knowledge and the positive statement that this \u00c2tman\nchooses his own. In the Rig Veda[428] there is a poem put into the\nmouth of Vac or speech, containing such sentiments as \"I give wealth\nto him who gives sacrifice.... I am that through which one eats,\nbreathes, sees, and hears.... Him that I love I make strong, to be a\npriest, a seer, a sage.\" This reads like an ancient preliminary study\nfor the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2. Like Krishna the deity claims to be in all\nand, like him, to reward her votaries. It is true that the \"Come unto\nme\" is not distinctly expressed, but it is surely struggling for\nexpression.[429] Again, in the Kaush\u00eetaki Upanishad (III. 1 and 2)\nIndra says to Pratardana, who had asked him for a boon, \"Know me only:\nthat is, what I deem most beneficial to man, that he should know\nme.... He who meditates on me as life and immortality gains his full\nlife in this world and in heaven immortality.\" Here the relation of\nthe devotee to the deity is purely intellectual not emotional, but the\nidea that intellectual devotion directed to a particular deity will be\nrewarded is clearly present. In the Rig Veda this same Indra is\ncalled a deliverer and advocate; a friend, a brother and a father;\neven a father and mother in one. Here the worshipper does not talk of\n_bhakti_ because he does not analyze his feelings, but clearly these\nphrases are inspired by affectionate devotion.\n\nNor is the spirit of _bhakti_ absent from Buddhism. The severe\ndoctrine of the older schools declares that the Buddha is simply a\nteacher and that every man must save himself. But since the teacher is\nthe source of the knowledge which saves, it is natural to feel for him\ngrateful and affectionate devotion. This sentiment permeates the two\nbooks of poems called Thera and Ther\u00eeg\u00e2th\u00e2 and sometimes finds clear\nexpression.[430] In the commentary on the Dhammapada[431] the doctrine\nof salvation by devotion is affirmed in its extreme form, namely that\na dying man who has faith in the Buddha will be reborn in heaven. But\nthis commentary is not of early date and the doctrine quoted is\nprobably an instance of the Hinayana borrowing the attractive features\nof the Mahayana. The sutras about Amit\u00e2bha's paradise, which were\ncomposed about the time of the Christian era and owe something to\nPersian though not to Christian influence, preach faith in Amit\u00e2bha as\nthe whole of religion. They who believe in him and call on his name\nwill go to heaven.\n\nWhen bhakti was once accepted as a part of Indian religion, it was\nerected into a principle, analogous or superior to knowledge and was\ndefined in S\u00fbtras[432] similar to those of the S\u00e2nkhya and Ved\u00e2nta.\nBut its importance in philosophy is small, whereas its power as an\nimpulse in popular religion has been enormous. To estimate its moral\nand intellectual value is difficult, for like so much in Hinduism it\noffers the sharpest contrasts. Its obvious manifestations may seem to\nbe acts of devotion which cannot be commended ethically and belief in\npuerile stories: yet we find that this offensive trash continually\nturns into gems of religious thought unsurpassed in the annals of\nBuddhism and Christianity.\n\nThe doctrine of bhakti is common to both Vishnuites and Sivaites. It\nis perhaps in general estimation associated with the former more than\nwith the latter, but this is because the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and various\nforms of devotion to Krishna are well known, whereas the Tamil\nliterature of Dravidian Sivaism is ignored by many European scholars.\nOne might be inclined to suppose that the emotional faith sprang up\nfirst in the worship of Vishnu, for the milder god seems a natural\nobject for love, whereas Siva has to undergo a certain transformation\nbefore he can evoke such feelings. But there is no evidence that this\nis the historical development of the bhakti sentiment, and if the\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 is emphatic in enjoining the worship of Krishna only,\nthe Svet\u00e2svatara and Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeya Upanishads favour Siva, and he is\nabundantly extolled in many parts of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata. Here, as so\noften, exact chronology fails us in the early history of these sects,\nbut it is clear that the practice of worshipping Siva and Vishnu, as\nbeing each by himself all-sufficient, cannot have begun much later\nthan the Christian era and may have begun considerably earlier, even\nthough people did not call themselves Saivas or Vaishnavas.\n\nBhakti is often associated with the doctrine of the playfulness of\nGod. This idea--so strange to Europe[433]--may have its roots partly\nin the odd non-moral attributes of some early deities. Thus the Rudra\nof the Satarudr\u00eeya hymn is a queer character and a trickster. But it\nsoon takes a philosophical tinge and is used to explain the creation\nand working of the universe which is regarded not as an example of\ncapricious, ironical, inscrutable action, but rather as manifesting\neasy, joyous movement and the exuberant rhythm of a dance executed for\nits own sake. The European can hardly imagine a sensible person doing\nanything without an object: he thinks it almost profane to ascribe\nmotiveless action to the Creator: he racks his brain to discover any\npurpose in creation which is morally worthy and moderately in accord\nwith the facts of experience. But he can find none. The Hindu, on the\ncontrary, argues that God being complete and perfect cannot be\nactuated by aims or motives, for all such impulses imply a desire to\nobtain something, whereas a perfect and complete being is one which by\nits very definition needs neither change nor addition. Therefore,\nwhatever activity is ascribed to the creator must not be thought of as\ncalculating, purposeful endeavour, but as spontaneous, exultant\nmovement, needing and admitting no explanation, and analogous to sport\nand play rather than to the proceedings of prudent people. This view\nof the divine activity is expounded by so serious a writer as Sankara\nin his commentary on the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras, and it also finds\nmythological expression in numerous popular legends. The Tamil\nPur\u00e2nas describe the sixty-four miracles of Siva as his amusements:\nhis laughter and joyous movements brighten all things, and the street\nminstrels sing \"He sports in the world. He sports in the soul.\"[434]\nHe is supposed to dance in the Golden Hall of the temple at\nChidambaram and something of the old legends of the Satarudr\u00eeya hangs\nabout such popular titles as the Deceiver and the Maniac (_Kalvar_)\nand the stories of his going about disguised and visiting his\nworshippers in the form of a mendicant. The idea of sport and\nplayfulness is also prominent in Vishnuism. It is a striking feature\nin the cultus of both the infant and the youthful Krishna, but I\nhave not found it recorded in the severer worship of R\u00e2ma.\n\nAnother feature of Hindu sects is the extravagant respect paid to\nGurus or teachers. The sanctity of the Guru is an old conviction in\nIndia. By common consent he is entitled to absolute obedience and\noffences against him are heinous crimes. But in sectarian literature\nthere appears a new claim, namely, that the Guru in some way is or\nrepresents the god whose worship he teaches. If the deity is thought\nof primarily as a saviour, the Guru is said to deliver from suffering\nand hell: if he requires surrender and sacrifice, then person and\npossessions must be dedicated to the Guru. Membership of a sect can\nbe attained only by initiation at the hands of a Guru who can teach a\nspecial mantra or formula of which each sect has its own. In some of\nthe more modern sects the Guru need not be a Brahman, but if he cannot\nbe venerated for his caste, the deficiency is compensated by the\nrespect which he receives as a repository of oral teaching. The\nscriptural basis of many sects is dubious and even when it exists,\nmany of the devout (especially women) have not the inclination or\nability to read and therefore take their religion from the lips of the\nGuru, who thus becomes an oracle and source of truth. In Bengal, the\nfamily Guru is a regular institution in respectable castes. In many\nsects the founder or other prominent saint is described as an\nincarnation and receives veneration after death.[435]\n\nThis veneration or deification of the Guru is found in most sects and\nassumes as extreme a form among the Saivas as among the Vaishnavas.\nThe Saiva Siddh\u00e2nta teaches that divine instruction can be received\nonly from one who is both god and man, and that the true Guru is an\nincarnation of Siva. Thus the works of M\u00e2nikka-V\u00e2\u00e7agar and Um\u00e2pati\nspeak of Siva coming to his devotees in the form of the Guru. In the\nsects that worship Krishna the Gurus are frequently called Gosain\n(Goswami).[436] Sometimes they are members of a particular family, as\namong the Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2ryas. In other sects there is no hereditary\nprinciple and even a Sudra is eligible as Guru.\n\nOne other feature of Sectarian Hinduism must be mentioned. It may be\ndescribed as Tantrism or, in one of its aspects, as the later Yoga and\nis a combination of practices and theories which have their roots in\nthe old literature and began to form a connected doctrine at least as\nearly as the eighth century A.D. Some of its principal ideas are as\nfollows: (i) Letters and syllables (and also their written forms and\ndiagrams) have a potent influence both for the human organism and for\nthe universe. This idea is found in the early Upanishads[437] and is\nfully developed in the later Sectarian Upanishads. (ii) The human\norganism is a miniature copy of the universe.[438] It contains many\nlines or channels (n\u00e2d\u00ee) along which the nerve force moves and also\nnervous centres distributed from the hips to the head, (iii) In the\nlowest centre resides a force identical with the force which creates\nthe universe.[439] When by processes which are partly physical it is\nroused and made to ascend to the highest centre, emancipation and\nbliss are obtained. (iv) There is a mysterious connection between the\nprocess of cosmic evolution and sound, especially the sacred sound\n_Om._\n\nThese ideas are developed most thoroughly in S\u00e2ktist works, but are by\nno means peculiar to them. They are found in the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and the\nlater Puranas and have influenced almost all modern sects, although\nthose which are based on emotional devotion are naturally less\ninclined to favour physical and magical means of obtaining salvation.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 401: The population of India (about 315 millions) is larger\nthan that of Europe without Russia.]\n\n[Footnote 402: But compare the English poet\n\n    \"Flower in the crannied wall,\n    I pluck you out of the crannies,\n    ... but if I could understand\n    What you are, root and all, and all in all\n    I should know what God and man is.\"]\n\n[Footnote 403: Efforts are now being made by Hindus to suppress this\ninstitution.]\n\n[Footnote 404: In the Vedic funeral ceremonies the wife lies down by\nher dead husband and is called back to the world of the living which\npoints to an earlier form of the rite where she died with him. But\neven at this period, those who did not follow the Vedic customs may\nhave killed widows with their husbands (see too Ath. Veda, XII. 3),\nand later, the invaders from Central Asia probably reinforced the\nusage. The much-abused Tantras forbid it.]\n\n[Footnote 405: For the history of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana and Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and\nthe dates assignable to the different periods of growth, see\nWinternitz, _Gesch. Ind. Lit._ vol. I. p. 403 and p. 439. Also\nHopkins' _Great Epic of India_, p. 397. The two poems had assumed\nsomething like their present form in the second and fourth centuries\nA.D. respectively. These are probably the latest dates for any\nsubstantial additions or alterations and there is considerable\nevidence that poems called Bh\u00e2rata and R\u00e2m\u00e2yana were well known early\nin the Christian era. Thus in Asvaghosha's S\u00fbtr\u00e2lank\u00e2ra (story XXIV)\nthey are mentioned as warlike poems inculcating unbuddhist views. The\nR\u00e2m\u00e2yana is mentioned in the Mah\u00e2vibh\u00e2sh\u00e2 and was known to Vasubandhu\n(_J.R.A.S._ 1907, p. 99). A Cambojan inscription dating from the first\nyears of the seventh century records arrangements made for the\nrecitation of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana, Pur\u00e2na and complete (asesha) Bh\u00e2rata,\nwhich implies that they were known in India considerably earlier. See\nBarth, _Inscrip. Sanscrites de Cambodge_, pp. 29-31. The Mahabharata\nitself admits that it is the result of gradual growth for in the\nopening section it says that the Bh\u00e2rata consists of 8,800 verses,\n24,000 verses and 100,000 verses.]\n\n[Footnote 406: Hardy, _Indische Religionsgeschichte_, p. 101.]\n\n[Footnote 407: But some of these latter sacrifice images made of dough\ninstead of living animals.]\n\n[Footnote 408: It is said that the Agnishtoma was performed in Benares\nin 1898, and in the last few years I am told that one or two Vedic\nsacrifices have been offered annually in various parts of southern\nIndia. I have myself seen the sites where such sacrifices were offered\nin 1908-9 in Mysore city and in Chidambaram, and in 1912 at Wei near\nPoona. The most usual form of sacrifice now-a-days is said to be the\nV\u00e2japeya. Much Vedic ritual is still preserved in the domestic life of\nthe Nambathiri and other Brahmans of southern India. See Cochin,\n_Tribes and Castes_, and Thurston, _Castes and Tribes of southern\nIndia._]\n\n[Footnote 409: The outline of a st\u00fbpa may be due to imitation of\nhouses constructed with curved bamboos as Vincent Smith contends\n(_History of Fine Art_, p. 17). But this is compatible with the view\nthat stone buildings with this curved outline had come to be used\nspecially as funeral monuments before Buddhism popularized in India\nand all Eastern Asia the architectural form called st\u00fbpa.]\n\n[Footnote 410: The temple of Aihole near Badami seems to be a\nconnecting link between a Buddhist st\u00fbpa with a pradakshina path and\na Hindu shrine.]\n\n[Footnote 411: In most temples (at least in southern India) there are\ntwo images: the _m\u00fbla-vigraha_ which is of stone and fixed in the\nsanctuary, and the _utsava-vigraha_ which is smaller, made of metal\nand carried in processions.]\n\n[Footnote 412: Thus Bhatt\u00e2ch\u00e2rya (_Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 127)\nenumerates eleven classes of Brahmans, who \"have a very low status on\naccount of their being connected with the great public shrines,\" and\nadds that mere residence in a place of pilgrimage for a few\ngenerations tends to lower the status of a Brahmanic family.]\n\n[Footnote 413: Thus in Bengal there is a special class, the Barna\nBrahmans, who perform religious rites for the lower castes, and are\ndivided into six classes according to the castes to whom they\nminister. Other Brahmans will not eat or intermarry with them or even\ntake water from them.]\n\n[Footnote 414: This is extraordinarily like the temple ritual of the\nancient Egyptians. For some account of the construction and ritual of\nsouth Indian temples see Richards in _J. of Mythic Soc_. 1919, pp.\n158-107.]\n\n[Footnote 415: But Vedic mantras are used in these ceremonies. The\nlibations of water or other liquids are said to be accompanied by the\nmantras recited at the Soma sacrifice.]\n\n[Footnote 416: At these sacrifices there is no elaborate ritual or\nsuggestion of symbolism. The animal is beheaded and the inference is\nthat K\u00e2l\u00ee likes it. Similarly simple is the offering of coco-nuts to\nK\u00e2l\u00ee. The worshipper gives a nut to the puj\u00e2ri who splits it in two\nwith an axe, spills the milk and hands back half the nut to the\nworshipper. This is the sort of primitive offering that might be made\nto an African fetish.]\n\n[Footnote 417: See especially the Ambattha S\u00fbtta (Dig. Nik. 3) and\nRhys Davids's introduction.]\n\n[Footnote 418: See Weber, _Die Vajrasuchi_ and Nanjio, Catal. No.\n1303. In Ceylon at the present day only members of the higher castes\ncan become Bhikkhus.]\n\n[Footnote 419: But it is said that in Southern India serious questions\nof caste are reported to the abbot of the Sringeri monastery for his\ndecision.]\n\n[Footnote 420: The modern Ling\u00e2yats demur to the statement that their\nfounder rejected caste.]\n\n[Footnote 421: So too in the cakras of the S\u00e2ktists all castes are\nequal during the performance of the ceremony.]\n\n[Footnote 422: Some (Khandelwals, Dasa Srimalis and Palliwals) include\nboth Jains and Vaishnavas: the Agarwals are mostly Vaishnavas but some\nof them are Jains and some worship Siva and K\u00e2l\u00ee. Jogendra Nath\nBhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, pp. 205 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 423: The names used are not the same. The four Vedic castes\nare called _Varna_: the hundreds of modern castes are called _J\u00e2ti._]\n\n[Footnote 424: Samprad\u00e2ya seems to be the ordinary Sanskrit word for\nsectarian doctrine. It means traditional teaching transmitted from one\nteacher to another.]\n\n[Footnote 425: I am discussing elsewhere the possible debt which\nChristianity and Hinduism may owe to one another.]\n\n[Footnote 426: P\u00e2nini, IV. 3. 95-98.]\n\n[Footnote 427: Kath\u00e2 Up. I. 1. 2, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 428: R.V. X. 125.]\n\n[Footnote 429: Compare too the hymns of the R.V. to Varuna as a\nrudimentary expression of Bhakti from the worshipper's point of view.]\n\n[Footnote 430: _E.g._ Therag\u00e2th\u00e2, 818-841 and 1231-1245.]\n\n[Footnote 431: I. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 432: They are called the S\u00e2ndilya S\u00fbtras and appear to be\nnot older than about the twelfth century A.D., but the tradition which\nconnects them with the School of S\u00e2ndilya may be just, for the\nteaching of this sage (Ch\u00e2ndog. Up. III. 14) lays stress on will and\nbelief. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja (Sr\u00eebh\u00e2shya, II. 2. 43) refers to S\u00e2ndilya as the\nalleged author of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra. There are other Bhakti s\u00fbtras called\nN\u00e2radiya and ascribed to N\u00e2rada, published and translated in _The\nSacred Books of the Hindus_, No. 23. They consist of 84 short\naphorisms. Raj. Mitra in his notices of Sanskrit MSS. describes a\ngreat number of modern works dealing with Bhakti.]\n\n[Footnote 433: Yet it is found in Francis Thompson's poem called _Any\nSaint_\n\n        So best\n        God loves to jest\n    With children small, a freak\n    Of heavenly hide and seek\n        Fit\n    For thy wayward wit.]\n\n[Footnote 434: Pope, _The History of Manikka-Va\u00e7agar_, p. 23. For the\n64 sports of Siva see Siddhanta Dipika, vol. IX.]\n\n[Footnote 435: _E.g._ R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, Namm\u00e2rv\u00e2r, Basava.]\n\n[Footnote 436: Apparently meaning \"possessor of cows,\" and originally\na title of the youthful Krishna. It is also interpreted as meaning\nLord of the Vedas or Lord of his own senses.]\n\n[Footnote 437: _E.g._ the beginning of the Ch\u00e2nd. Up. about the syllable\n_Om._ See too the last section of the Aitareya \u00c2ran. The Yoga\nUpanishads analyse and explain _Om_ and some Vishnuite Upanishads\n(Nrisimha and R\u00e2mat\u00e2-pan\u00eeya) enlarge on the subject of letters and\ndiagrams.]\n\n[Footnote 438: The same idea pervades the old literature in a slightly\ndifferent form. The parts of the sacrifice are constantly identified\nwith parts of the universe or of the human body.]\n\n[Footnote 439: The cakras are mentioned in Act V of M\u00e2lat\u00ee and M\u00e2dhava\nwritten early in the eighth century. The doctrine of the n\u00e2d\u00ees occurs\nin the older Upanishads (_e.g._ Ch\u00e2nd. and Maitr\u00e2yana) in a rudimentary\nform.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF HINDUISM. BH\u00c2GAVATAS AND P\u00c2SUPATAS\n\n\n1\n\n\nIndia is a literary country and naturally so great a change as the\ntransformation of the old religion into theistic sects preaching\nsalvation by devotion to a particular deity found expression in a long\nand copious literature. This literature supplements and supersedes the\nVedic treatises but without impairing their theoretical authority,\nand, since it cannot compare with them in antiquity and has not the\nsame historic interest, it has received little attention from\nIndianists until the present century. But in spite of its defects it\nis of the highest importance for an understanding of medieval and\ncontemporary Hinduism. Much of it is avowedly based on the principle\nthat in this degenerate age the Veda is difficult to understand,[440]\nand that therefore God in His mercy has revealed other texts\ncontaining a clear compendium of doctrine. Thus the great Vishnuite\ndoctor R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja states authoritatively \"The incontrovertible fact then\nis as follows: The Lord who is known from the Ved\u00e2nta texts ...\nrecognising that the Vedas are difficult to fathom by all beings other\nthan himself ... with a view to enable his devotees to grasp the true\nmeaning of the Vedas, himself composed the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra-S\u00e2stra.\"[441]\n\nThis later sectarian literature falls into several divisions.\n\nA. Certain episodes of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata. The most celebrated of these\nis the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, which is probably anterior to the Christian era.\nThough it is incorporated in the Epic it is frequently spoken of as an\nindependent work. Later and less celebrated but greatly esteemed by\nVishnuites is the latter part of book XII, commonly known as\nN\u00e2r\u00e2yan\u00eeya.[442] Both these episodes and others[443] are closely\nanalogous to metrical Upanishads. The Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata even styles itself\n(I. 261) the Veda of Krishna (K\u00e2rshna).\n\nThe R\u00e2m\u00e2yana does not contain religious episodes comparable to those\nmentioned but the story has more than once been re-written in a religious\nand philosophic form. Of such versions the Adhy\u00e2tma-R\u00e2m\u00e2yana[444] and\nYoga-vasishtha-R\u00e2m\u00e2yana are very popular.\n\nB. Though the Pur\u00e2nas[445] are not at all alike, most of them show\nclear affinity both as literature and as religious thought to the\nvarious strata of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, and to the Law Books, especially\nthe metrical code of Manu. These all represent a form of orthodoxy\nwhich while admitting much that is not found in the Veda is still\nBrahmanic and traditionalist. The older Pur\u00e2nas (_e.g._ Matsya, V\u00e2yu,\nM\u00e2rkandeya, Vishnu), or at least the older parts of them, are the\nliterary expression of that Hindu reaction which gained political\npower with the accession of the Gupta dynasty. They are less\ndefinitely sectarian than later works such as the N\u00e2rada and Linga\nPur\u00e2nas, yet all are more or less sectarian.\n\nThe most influential Pur\u00e2na is the Bh\u00e2gavata, one of the great\nscriptures for all sects which worship Krishna. It is said to have\nbeen translated into every language of India and forty versions in\nBengali alone are mentioned.[446] It was probably composed in the\neighth or ninth century.[447] A free translation of the tenth book\ninto Hindi, called the Prem Sagar or Ocean of Love, is greatly revered\nin northern India.[448] Other sectarian Pur\u00e2nas are frequently read\nat temple services. Besides the eighteen great Pur\u00e2nas there are many\nothers, and in south India at any rate they were sometimes composed in\nthe vernacular, as for instance the Periya Pur\u00e2na (_c._ 1100 A.D.).\nThese vernacular Pur\u00e2nas seem to be collections of strangely\nfantastic fairy tales.\n\nC. The word Tantra originally meant a manual giving the essentials of\na subject but later usage tends to restrict it to works, whether Hindu\nor Buddhist, inculcating the worship of Siva's spouse. But there are\nexceptions to this restriction: the Panca-tantra is a collection of\nstories and the Lakshm\u00ee-tantra is a Vishnuite work.[449]\n\nThe fact is that a whole class of Sanskrit religious literature is\ndescribed by the titles Tantra, \u00c2gama and Samhit\u00e2,[450] which taken\nin a wide sense are practically synonymous, though usage is inclined\nto apply the first specially to S\u00e2ktist works, the second to Sivaite\nand the third to Vishnuite. The common character of all these\nproductions is that they do not attempt to combine Vedic rites and\nideas with sectarian worship, but boldly state that, since the\nprescriptions of the Veda are too hard for this age, some generous\ndeity has revealed an easier teaching. This teaching naturally varies\nin detail, but it usually comprises devotion to some special form of\nthe godhead and also a special ceremonial, which commences with\ninitiation and includes the use of mystic formul\u00e6, letters and\ndiagrams. Tantras, \u00c2gamas and Samhit\u00e2s all treat of their\nsubject-matter in four divisions[451] the first of which relates to\nthe great problems of philosophy, the second to the discipline\nnecessary for uniting the self and God; the third and fourth to\nceremonial.\n\nThese works have another feature in common, namely that they are\nlittle known except to those Hindus who use them for religious\npurposes and are probably not very anxious to see them published.\nThough they are numerous, few of them have been printed and those few\nhave not been much studied by European scholars. I shall say something\nmore about them below in treating of the various sects. Some are of\nrespectable antiquity but it is also clear that modern texts pass\nunder ancient names. The P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tram and P\u00e2supatam which are Vishnuite\nand Sivaite Samhit\u00e2s are mentioned in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, and some\nextant Vishnuite Samhit\u00e2s were perhaps composed in the fourth century\nA.D.[452] R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja as quoted above states that the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra-s\u00e2stra\n(apparently the same as the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra-tantra which he also mentions)\nwas composed by V\u00e2sudeva himself and also cites as scripture the\nS\u00e2ttvata, Paushkara and Parama Samhit\u00e2s. In the same context he\nspeaks of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata as Bh\u00e2rata-Samhit\u00e2 and the whole passage is\ninteresting as being a statement by a high authority of the reasons\nfor accepting a non-Vedic work like the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra as revealed\nscripture.\n\nAs already indicated European usage makes the words Tantra, Tantrism\nand tantric refer to the worship of goddesses. It would be better to\ndescribe this literature and worship as S\u00e2ktism and to use Tantrism\nfor a tendency in doctrine and ceremonial which otherwise has no\nspecial name. I have been informed by Tamil Pandits that at the\npresent day the ritual in some temples is sm\u00e2rta or according to\nSmriti, but in the majority according to the \u00c2gamas or tantric. The\nformer which is followed by many well-known shrines (for instance in\nBenares and in the great temples of south India) conforms to the\nprecepts of the Pur\u00e2nas, especially on festival days. The officiants\nrequire no special initiation and burnt offerings are presented. But\nthe \u00c2gamic ritual can be performed only by priests who have received\ninitiation, burnt offerings rarely form part of the ceremony and\nvernacular hymns are freely used.[453]\n\nSuch hymns however as well as processions and other forms of worship\nwhich appeal directly to the religious emotions are certainly not\ntantric. Tantrism is a species of religious magic, differing from the\nVedic sacrifices in method rather than principle.[454] For all that,\nit sets aside the old rites and announces itself as the new\ndispensation for this age. Among its principal features are the\nfollowing. The Tantras are a scripture for all, and lay little stress\non caste: the texts and the ritual which they teach can be understood\nonly after initiation and with the aid of a teacher: the ritual\nconsists largely in the correct use of spells, magical or sacramental\nsyllables and letters, diagrams and gestures: its object is less to\nbeseech than to compel the god to come to the worshipper: another\nobject is to unite the worshipper to the god and in fact transform him\ninto the god: man is a microcosm corresponding to the macrocosm or\nuniverse: the spheres and currents of the universe are copied in\nminiature in the human body and the same powers rule the same parts in\nthe greater and the lesser scheme. Such ideas are widely disseminated\nin almost all modern sects,[455] though without forming their\nessential doctrine, but I must repeat that to say all sects are\ntantric does not mean that they are all S\u00e2ktist. But S\u00e2ktist sects\nare fundamentally and thoroughly tantric in their theory and\npractice.\n\nD. Besides the Sanskrit books mentioned above numerous vernacular\nworks, especially collections of hymns, are accepted as authoritative\nby various sects, and almost every language has scriptures of its own.\nIn the south two Tamil hymnals, the Devaram of the Sivaites and\nN\u00e2l\u00e2yira Prabandham of the Vishnuites, are recited in temples and are\nboldly stated to be revelations equivalent to the Veda. In northern\nIndia may be mentioned the Hindi Ramayana of Tulsi Das, which is\nalmost universally venerated, the Bhaktam\u00e2l\u00e2 of N\u00e2bh\u00e2 Das,[456] the\nSur-sagar of Surdas and the Prem Sagar. In Assam the Nam Gosha of\nMadhab Deb is honoured with the same homage as a sacred image. The\nawkwardness of admitting direct inspiration in late times is avoided\nby the theory of spiritual descent, that is to say of doctrinal\ntransmission from teacher to teacher, the divine revelation having\nbeen made to the original teacher at a discreetly remote epoch.\n\n\n2\n\n\nIn considering the evolution of modern Hinduism out of the old Vedic\nreligion, three of the many factors responsible for this huge and\ncomplicated result deserve special attention. The first is the unusual\nintensity and prevalence of the religious temperament. This has a\ndouble effect, both conservative and alterative: ancient customs\nreceive an unreasonable respect: they are not abolished for their\nimmorality or absurdity; but since real interest implies some measure\nof constructive power, there is a constant growth of new ideas and\nreinterpretations resulting in inconsistent combinations. The second\nis the absence of hierarchy and discipline. The guiding principle of\nthe Brahmans has always been not so much that they have a particular\ncreed to enforce, as that whatever is the creed of India they must be\nits ministers. Naturally every priest is the champion of his own god\nor rite, and such zeal may lead to occasional conflicts. But though\nthe antithesis between the ritualism of the older Brahmanism and the\nfaith or philosophy of Sivaism and Vishnuism may remind us of the\ndifferences between the Catholic Church and Protestant reformers, yet\nhistorically there is no resemblance in the development of the\nantithesis. To some extent Hinduism showed a united front against\nBuddhism, but the older Brahmanism had no organization which enabled\nit to stand as a separate Church in opposition to movements which it\ndisliked. The third factor is the deeply rooted idea, which reappears\nat frequent intervals from the time of the Upanishads until to-day,\nthat rules and rites and even creeds are somehow part of the lower and\ntemporal order of things which the soul should transcend and leave\nbehind. This idea tinges the whole of Indian philosophy and\ncontinually crops up in practice. The founder of a strange sect who\ndeclares that nothing is necessary but faith in a particular deity and\nthat all ceremonies and caste observances are superfluous is not in\nthe popular esteem a subverter of Hinduism.\n\nThe history of both Sivaism and Vishnuism illustrates these features.\nSiva begins as a wild deity of non-moral attributes. As the religious\nsense develops he is not rejected like the less reputable deities of\nthe Jews and Arabs but remains and collects round himself other\nstrange wild ideas which in time are made philosophical but not\nethical. The rites of the new religion are, if not antagonistic, at\nleast alternative to the ancient sacrifices, yet far from being\nforbidden they are performed by Brahmans and modern Indian writers\ndescribe Siva as peculiarly the Brahman's god. Finally the Sivaite\nschools of the Tamil country reject in successive stages the grosser\nand more formal elements until there remains nothing but an ecstatic\nand mystical monotheism. Similarly among the Vishnuites Krishna is\nthe centre of legends which have even less of conventional morality.\nYet out of them arises a doctrine that the love of God is the one\nthing needful so similar to Christian teaching that many have supposed\nit must be borrowed.\n\nThe first clear accounts of the worship of Siva and Vishnu are\ncontained in the epics and indicate the existence of sectarian\nreligion, that is to say of exclusive devotion to one or other deity.\nBut there is also a tendency to find a place for both, a tendency\nwhich culminates in the composite deity Sankara N\u00e2r\u00e2yana already\nmentioned. Many of the Pur\u00e2nas[457] reflect this view and praise the\ntwo deities impartially. The Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata not unfrequently does the\nsame but the general impression left by this poem is that the various\nparts of which it consists have been composed or revised in a\nsectarian spirit. The body of the work is a narrative of exploits in\nwhich the hero Krishna plays a great part but revised so as to make\nhim appear often as a deity and sometimes as the Supreme Spirit. But\nmuch of the didactic matter which has been added, particularly books\nXII and XIII, breathes an equally distinct Sivaite spirit and in the\nparts where Krishna is treated as a mere hero, the principal god\nappears to be not Vishnu but Siva.\n\nThe Mahabharata and Puranas contain legends which, though obscure,\nrefer to conflicts of the worshippers of Siva with those who offered\nVedic sacrifices as well as with the votaries of Vishnu, and to a\nsubsequent reconciliation and blending of the various cults. Among\nthese is the well-known story of Daksha's sacrifice to which Siva was\nnot invited. Enraged at the omission he violently breaks up the\nsacrifice either in person or through a being whom he creates for the\npurpose, assaults the officiants and the gods who are present, and is\npacified by receiving a share. Similarly we hear[458] that he once\nseized a victim at a sacrifice and that the gods in fear allotted to\nhim the choicest portion of the offerings. These stories indicate that\nat one time Brahmans did not countenance his worship and he is even\nrepresented as saying to his wife that according to rule (dharmatah)\nhe has no share in the sacrifice.[459] Possibly human victims were\nimmolated in his honour, as they were in K\u00e2l\u00ee's until recently, for in\nthe Mahabharata[460] it is related how Krishna expostulated with\nJar\u00e2sandha who proposed to offer to Siva a sacrifice of captive kings.\nIn the Vishnu-Pur\u00e2na, Krishna fights with Siva and burns Benares.\nBut by the time that the Mahabharata was put together these quarrels\nwere not in an acute stage. In several passages[461] Krishna is made\nto worship Siva as the Supreme Spirit and in others[462] vice versa\nSiva celebrates the glory of Krishna. Vishnuites do not disbelieve\nin Siva but they regard him as a god of this world, whereas their own\ndeity is cosmic and universal. Many Vishnuite works[463] are said to\nbe revealed by Siva who acts as an intermediary between us and higher\nspheres.\n\n\n3\n\n\nIn the following sections I shall endeavour to relate the beginnings\nof sectarianism. The sects which are now most important are relatively\nmodern and arose in the twelfth century or later, but the sectarian\nspirit can be traced back several centuries before our era. By\nsectarians I mean worshippers of Siva or Vishnu who were neither in\ncomplete sympathy with the ancient Brahmanism nor yet excommunicated\nby it and who had new texts and rites to replace or at least\nsupplement the Vedas and the Vedic sacrifices. It is probable that the\ndifferent types of early Indian religion had originally different\ngeographical spheres. Brahmanism flourished in what we call the United\nProvinces: Buddhism arose in the regions to the east of this district\nand both Vishnuism and Sivaism are first heard of in the west.\n\nThe earliest sect of which we have any record is that of the\nBh\u00e2gavatas, who were or became Vishnuite. At a date which it is\nimpossible to fix but considerably before the epoch of P\u00e2nini, a\ntribe named the Y\u00e2davas occupied the country between Muttra and the\nshores of Gujarat. Sects of this tribe were called Vrishni and\nS\u00e2ttvata. The latter name has passed into theology. Krishna belonged\nto this sect and it is probable that this name V\u00e2sudeva was not\noriginally a patronymic but the name of a deity worshipped by it. The\nhero Krishna was identified with this god and subsequently when the\nBrahmans wished to bring this powerful sect within the pale of\northodoxy both were identified with Vishnu. In the Mahabharata[464]\nthe rule or ritual (vidhi) of the S\u00e2ttvatas is treated as equivalent\nto that of the Bh\u00e2gavatas and a work called the S\u00e2ttvata Samhit\u00e2 is\nstill extant. Bh\u00e2gavata appears to be the most general name of the\nsect or sects and means simply _of the Lord_ (Bh\u00e2gavat), that is\nworshippers of the one Lord.[465] Their religion is also called\nEk\u00e2ntika dharma, or the religion with one object, that is\nmonotheism.[466]\n\nA considerable literature grew up in this school and the principal\ntreatise is often spoken of as P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra because it was revealed by\nN\u00e2r\u00e2yana during five nights.[467] The name however appears to be\nstrictly speaking applicable to a system or body of doctrine and the\nusual term for the books in which this system is expounded is\nSamhit\u00e2. All previous discussions and speculations about these works,\nof which little was known until recently, are superseded by Schrader's\npublication of the Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2, which appears to be\nrepresentative of its class.[468] The names of over two hundred are\ncited and of these more than thirty are known to be extant in MS.[469]\nThe majority were composed in north-western India but the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra\ndoctrine spread to the Dravidian countries and new Samhit\u00e2s were\nproduced there, the chief of which, the \u00cesvara Samhit\u00e2, can hardly be\nlater than 800 A.D.[470] Of the older works Schrader thinks that the\nAhirbudhnya was written in Kashmir[471] between 300 and 800 A.D. and\nperhaps as early as the fourth century. It mentions the S\u00e2ttvata and\nJay\u00e2khya, which must therefore be older.\n\nThe most remarkable feature of this literature is its elaborate\ndoctrine of evolution and emanation from the Deity, the world process\nbeing conceived in the usual Hindu fashion as an alternation of\nproduction and destruction. A distinction is drawn between pure and\ngross creation. What we commonly call the Universe is bounded by the\nshell of the cosmic egg and there are innumerable such eggs, each with\nits own heavens and its own tutelary deities such as Brahm\u00e2 and Siva\nwho are sharply distinguished from Vishnu. But beyond this multitude\nof worlds are more mysterious and spiritual spheres, the highest\nheaven or Vaikuntha wherein dwells God in his highest form (Para)\nwith his Saktis,[472] certain archangels and liberated souls.\nEvolution commences when at the end of the cosmic night the Sakti of\nVishnu[473] is differentiated from her Lord and assumes the two forms\nof Force and Matter.[474] He as differentiated from her is V\u00e2sudeva a\npersonal deity with six attributes[475] and is the first emanation, or\nVy\u00fbha, of the ineffable godhead. From him proceeds Sankarshana, from\nSankarshana Pradyumna, and from Pradyumna Aniruddha. These three\nVy\u00fbhas take part in creation but also correspond to or preside over\ncertain aspects of human personality, namely Sankarshana to the soul\nthat animates all beings, Pradyumna to intelligence and Aniruddha to\nindividuality. Strange to say these seem to be the names of\ndistinguished personages in the S\u00e2ttvata or Vrishni clan.[476] Mere\ndeification occurs in many countries but the transformation of heroes\ninto metaphysical or psychological terms could hardly have happened\noutside India. Next to the Vy\u00fbhas come twelve sub-Vy\u00fbhas, among whom\nis N\u00e2r\u00e2yana,[477] and thirty-nine Avat\u00e2ras. All these beings are\noutside the cosmic eggs and our gross creation. As a prelude to this\nlast there takes place the evolution of the aggregates or sources from\nwhich individual souls and matter are drawn, of space and of time, and\nfinally of the elements, the process as described seeming to follow an\nolder form of the S\u00e2nkhya philosophy than that known to us. The task\nof human souls is to attain liberation, but though the language of the\nSamhit\u00e2s is not entirely consistent, the older view is that they\nbecome like to God, not that they are absorbed in him.[478]\n\nThus it is not incorrect to say that the Bh\u00e2gavata religion is\nmonotheistic and recognizes a creator of souls. Indeed Sankara[479]\ncondemns it on the very ground that it makes individual souls\noriginate from V\u00e2sudeva, in which case since they have an origin they\nmust also have an end. But R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja in replying to this criticism\nseems to depart from the older view, for he says that the Supreme\nBeing voluntarily abides in four forms which include the soul, mind\nand the principle of individuality. This, if not Pantheism, is very\ndifferent from European monotheism.[480]\n\nThe history of these Bh\u00e2gavatas, P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tras or worshippers of Vishnu\nmust have begun several centuries before our era, for there are\nallusions to them in P\u00e2nini and the Niddesa.[481] The names of\nV\u00e2sudeva and Sankarshana occur in old inscriptions[482] and the Greek\nHeliodoros calls himself a Bh\u00e2gavata on the column found at Besnagar\nand supposed to date from the first part of the second century B.C.\n\nThe P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra was not Brahmanic in origin[483] and the form of the\nS\u00e2nkhya philosophy from which it borrowed was also un-Brahmanic. It\nseems to have grown up in north-western India in the centuries when\nIranian influence was strong and may owe to Zoroastrianism the\ndoctrine of the Vy\u00fbhas which finds a parallel in the relation of Ahura\nMazda to Spenta Mainyu, his Holy Spirit, and in the Fravashis. It is\nalso remarkable that God is credited with six attributes comparable\nwith the six Amesha Spentas. In other ways the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra seems to\nhave some connection with late Buddhism. Though it lays little stress\non the worship of goddesses, yet all the Vy\u00fbhas and Avat\u00e2ras are\nprovided with Saktis, like the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of tantric\nBuddhism, and in the period of quiescence which follows on the\ndissolution of the Universe Vishnu is described under the name of\nS\u00fbnya or the void. It attaches great importance to the _Cakra_, the\nwheel or discus which denotes Vishnu's will to be,[484] to evolve and\nmaintain the universe, and it may have contributed some ideas to the\nvery late form of Buddhism called K\u00e2lacakra. This very word is used in\nthe Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2 as the name of one of the many wheels engaged\nin the work of evolution.\n\nThough the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra is connected with Krishna in its origin, it\ngives no prominence to devotion to him under that name as do modern\nsects and it knows nothing of the pastoral Krishna.[485] It\nrecommends the worship of the four Vy\u00fbhas[486] presiding over the four\nquarters in much the same way that late Buddhism adores the four Jinas\ndepicted in somewhat similar forms. Similarly the Sivaites say that\nSiva has five faces, namely \u00ces\u00e2na or Sad\u00e2siva (the highest,\nundifferentiated form of the deity) at the top and below V\u00e2madeva,\nAghora, Tatpurusha, and Sadyoj\u00e2ta, presiding respectively over the\nnorth, south, east and west. It is thus clear that in the early\ncenturies of our era (or perhaps even before it) there was a tendency\nin Vishnuism, Sivaism and Mahayanist Buddhism alike to represent the\nineffable godhead as manifested in four aspects somewhat more\nintelligible to human minds and producing in their turn many inferior\nmanifestations. Possibly the theory originated among the\nVishnuites,[487] but as often happened in India it was adopted by\ntheir opponents. None of these theories are of much importance as\nliving beliefs at the present day but their influence can be seen in\niconography.\n\nAs a sect the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tras seem to have been a subdivision of the\nBh\u00e2gavatas and probably at the present day many Vishnuites would\naccept the second name but not the first. The P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra is studied at\nonly a few places in southern India but its doctrines permeate the\npopular work called Bhaktam\u00e2l\u00e2 and in view of the express approbation\nof R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and other authorities it can hardly be repudiated by the\nSr\u00ee-Vaishnavas. Bh\u00e2gavata is sometimes used in the south as a name\nfor Sm\u00e2rtas who practise Vedic rites and worship both Siva and\nVishnu.[488]\n\n\n4\n\n\nIn these early times there were strenuous theological struggles now\nforgotten, though they have left their traces in the legends which\ntell how the title of Krishna and others to divine honours was\nchallenged. Amalgamation was the usual method of conciliation.\nSeveral gods grew sufficiently important to become in the eyes of\ntheir worshippers the supreme spirit and at least four were united in\nthe deity of the Bh\u00e2gavatas, namely, V\u00e2sudeva, Krishna, Vishnu and\nN\u00e2r\u00e2yana. Of the first three I have spoken already. N\u00e2r\u00e2yana never\nbecame like Vishnu and Krishna a great mythological figure, but in\nthe late Vedic period he is a personification of the prim\u00e6val waters\nfrom which all things sprang or of the spirit which moved in\nthem.[489] From this he easily became the supreme spirit who animates\nall the universe and the name was probably acceptable to those who\ndesired a purer and simpler worship because it was connected with\ncomparatively few legends. But there is some confusion in its use, for\nit is applied not only to the supreme being but to a double\nincarnation of him called Nara-N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, and images of the pair may\nstill be seen in Vishnuite temples. They are said to have revealed the\ntrue doctrine to N\u00e2rada and are invoked at the beginning of each book\nof the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata.[490] One of the main theses of the N\u00e2r\u00e2yan\u00eeya[491]\nis the identity of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and V\u00e2sudeva, the former being a Brahmanic,\nthe latter a non-Brahmanic name for the Deity.\n\nThe celebrated Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2[492] which is still held in such respect\nthat, like the New Testament or Koran, it is used in law courts for\nthe administration of oaths, is an early scripture of the Bh\u00e2gavata\nsect. In it the doctrines of Krishna's divinity, the power of faith\nand the efficacy of grace are fully established. It is declared to be\ntoo hard for flesh and blood to find by meditation their way to the\neternal imperceptible spirit, whereas Krishna comes straightway to\nthose who make him their sole desire. \"Set thy heart on me, become my\ndevotee, sacrifice to me and worship thou me. Then shalt thou come to\nme. Truly I declare to thee thou art dear to me. Leave all (other)\nreligious duties and come to me as thy sole refuge. I will deliver\nthee from thy sins. Sorrow not.\" But the evolution of Sankarshana,\netc., is not mentioned. The poem has perhaps been re-edited and\ninterpolated several times but the strata can hardly be distinguished,\nfor the whole work, if not exactly paradoxical, is eclectic and\ncontinually argues that what is apparently highest is not best for a\nparticular person. The Hindus generally regard the contemplative life\nas the highest, but the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 is insistent in enjoining\nunselfish action: it admits that the supreme reality cannot be grasped\nby the mind or expressed in speech, but it recommends the worship of a\npersonal deity. Even the older parts of the poem appear to be\nconsiderably later than Buddhism. But its mythology, if not Vedic, is\nalso hardly Puranic and it knows nothing of the legends about the\npastoral Krishna. It presupposes the S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga, though in\nwhat stage of development it is hard to say, and in many respects its\nstyle resembles the later Upanishads. I should suppose that it assumed\nits present form about the time of the Christian era, rather before\nthan after, and I do not think it owes anything to direct Christian\ninfluence. In its original form it may have been considerably older.\n\nThe Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 identifies Krishna with V\u00e2sudeva and with Vishnu\nbut does not mention N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and from its general style I should\nimagine the N\u00e2r\u00e2yaniya to be a later poem. If so, the evolution of\nBh\u00e2gavata theology will be that Krishna, a great hero in a tribe\nlying outside the sphere of Brahmanism, is first identified with\nV\u00e2sudeva, the god of that tribe, and then both of them with Vishnu.\nAt this stage the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 was composed. A later current of\nspeculation added N\u00e2r\u00e2yana to the already complex figure, and a\nstill later one, not accepted by all sects, brought the pastoral and\namorous legends of Krishna. Thus the history of the Bh\u00e2gavatas\nillustrates the Indian disposition to combine gods and to see in each\nof them only an aspect of the one. But until a later period the types\nof divinity known as Vishnu and Siva resisted combination. The\nworshippers of Siva have in all periods shown less inclination than\nthe Vishnuites to form distinct and separate bodies and the earliest\nSivaite sect of which we know anything, the P\u00e2supatas,[493] arose\nslightly later than the Bh\u00e2gavatas.\n\n\n5\n\n\nPata\u00f1jali the grammarian (_c._ 150 B.C.) mentions devotees of\nSiva[494] and also images of Siva and Skanda. There is thus no reason\nto doubt that worshippers of Siva were recognized as a sect from at\nleast 200 B.C. onwards. Further it seems probable that the founder or\nan early teacher of the sect was an ascetic called Lakulin or\nLakul\u00eesa, the club-bearer. The V\u00e2yu Pur\u00e2na[495] makes Siva say that\nhe will enter an unowned corpse and become incarnate in this form at\nK\u00e2y\u00e2rohana, which has been identified with K\u00e2rv\u00e2n in Baroda. Now the\nV\u00e2yu is believed to be the oldest of the Pur\u00e2nas, and it is probable\nthat this Lakulin whom it mentions lived before rather than after our\nera and was especially connected with the P\u00e2supata sect. This word is\nderived from Pasupati, the Lord of cattle, an old title of Rudra\nafterwards explained to mean the Lord of human souls. In the\nS\u00e2ntiparvan[496] five systems of knowledge are mentioned. S\u00e2nkhya,\nYoga, the Vedas, P\u00e2supatam and P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tram, promulgated respectively\nby Kapila, Hiranyagarbha, Ap\u00e2ntaratamas, Siva the Lord of spirits and\nson of Brahm\u00e2, and \"The Lord (Bhagav\u00e2n) himself.\" The author of these\nverses, who evidently supported the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra, considered that these\nfive names represented the chief existing or permissible varieties of\nreligious thought. The omission of the Ved\u00e2nta is remarkable but\nperhaps it is included under Veda. Hence we may conclude that when\nthis passage was written (that is probably before 400 A.D. and perhaps\nabout the beginning of our era) there were two popular religions\nranking in public esteem with the philosophic and ritual doctrines of\nthe Brahmans. The Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata contains a hymn[497] which praises Siva\nunder 1008 names and is not without resemblance to the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2.\nIt contains a larger number of strange epithets, but Siva is also\nextolled as the All-God, who asks for devotion and grants grace. At\nthe close of the hymn Siva says that he has introduced the P\u00e2supata\nreligion which partly contradicts and partly agrees with the\ninstitutions of caste and the \u00c2sramas, but is blamed by fools.[498]\n\nThese last words hint that the P\u00e2supatas laid themselves open to\ncriticism by their extravagant practices, such as strange sounds and\ngestures.[499] But in such matters they were outdone by other sects\ncalled K\u00e2p\u00e2likas or K\u00e2l\u00e2mukhas. These carried skulls and ate the flesh\nof corpses, and were the fore-runners of the filthy Aghoris, who were\nfrequent in northern India especially near Mount Abu and Girnar a\ncentury ago and perhaps are not yet quite extinct. The biographers of\nSankara[500] represent him as contending with these demoniac fanatics\nnot merely with the weapons of controversy but as urging the princes\nwho favoured him to exterminate them.\n\nHindu authorities treat the P\u00e2supatas as distinct from the Saivas, or\nSivaites, and the distinction was kept up in Camboja in the fourteenth\ncentury. The Saivas appear to be simply worshippers of Siva, who\npractice a sane ritual. In different parts of India they have\npeculiarities of their own but whereas the Vaishnavas have split up\ninto many sects each revering its own founder and his teaching, the\nSaivas, if not a united body, present few well-marked divisions. Such\nas exist I shall notice below in their geographical or historical\nconnection.[501] Most of them accept a system of theology or\nphilosophy[502] which starts with three principles, all without\nbeginning or end. These are Pati or the Lord, that is Siva: Pasu, or\nthe individual soul: P\u00e2sa or the fetter, that is matter or Karma.[503]\nThe task of the soul is to get free of its fetters and attain to the\nstate of Siva. But this final deliverance is not quite the same as\nthe identity with Brahman taught by the Ved\u00e2nta: the soul becomes a\nSiva, equal to the deity in power and knowledge but still dependent on\nhim rather than identical with him.[504]\n\nPeculiar to Saiva theology is the doctrine of the five ka\u00f1cukas[505]\nor envelopes which limit the soul. Spirit in itself is free: it is\ntimeless and knows no restrictions of space, enjoyment, knowledge and\npower. But when spirit is contracted to individual experience, it can\napprehend the universe only as a series of changes in time and place:\nits enjoyment, knowledge and power are cramped and curtailed by the\nlimits of personality. The terminology of the Saivas is original but\nthe theory appears to be an elaboration of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra thesis that\nthe soul is surrounded by the sheath of M\u00e2y\u00e2.\n\nThe early literature of the worshippers of Siva (corresponding to the\nSamhit\u00e2s of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tras) appears to have consisted of\ntwenty-eight works composed in Sanskrit and called \u00c2gamas.[506] There\nis fairly good evidence for their antiquity. Tirumular, one of the\nearliest Tamil poets who is believed to have lived in the first\ncenturies of our era, speaks of them with enthusiasm and the Buddhist\nSanskrit works called \u00c2gamas (corresponding to the Pali Nik\u00e2yas)\ncannot be later than that period. It is highly probable that the same\nword was in use among both Hindus and Buddhists at the same time. And\nsince the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata mentions the P\u00e2supatam, there is no difficulty\nin supposing that expositions of Sivaite doctrine were current in the\nfirst century A.D. or even B.C. But unless more texts of the \u00c2gamas\ncome to light the question of their age has little practical\nimportance, for it is said by native scholars that of the twenty-eight\nprimary books there survive only fragments of twenty, which treat of\nritual, besides the verses which form the text expounded at length in\nthe Siva\u00f1\u00e2nabotham.[507] There are also said to be 120 Up\u00e2gamas of\nwhich only two or three have been preserved entire. Of these two have\nbeen printed in part, the Mrigendra and Paushkara.[508] The former is\ncited in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha (about 1330) but does not show\nany signs of great antiquity. It is thus clear that the \u00c2gamas are not\nmuch studied by modern Sivaites but it is unhesitatingly stated that\nthey are a revelation direct from Siva and equal to the Veda[509] and\nthis affirmation is important, even though the texts so praised are\nlittle known, for it testifies to the general feeling that there are\nother revelations than the Veda. But the Vedas, and the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras\nare not ignored. The latter are read in the light of N\u00eelakantha's[510]\ncommentary which is considered by south Indian Pandits to be prior to\nSankara.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 440: An attempt was made to adapt the Veda to modern ideas\nby composing new Upanishads. The inspiration of such works is not\ndenied but they have not the same influence as the literature\nmentioned below.]\n\n[Footnote 441: Sri Bh\u00e2shya, II. 2. 43. So too the Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, I.\n1 describes itself as equal in sanctity to the Vedas. Sankara on Brah.\nS\u00fbtras, I. 3. 33 says that the Pur\u00e2nas are authoritative.]\n\n[Footnote 442: See Grierson in _Ind. Ant._ 1908, p. 251 and p. 373.]\n\n[Footnote 443: _E.g._ the Sanatsujat\u00eeya and Anug\u00eet\u00e2 (both in _S.B.E._\nVIII.). See Deussen, _Vier philosophische Texte des Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2ratam._]\n\n[Footnote 444: Forming part of the Brahm\u00e2nda Pur\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 445: See for a summary of them Winternitz, _Gesch. Ind.\nLit._ I. pp. 450-483. For the dates see Pargiter Dynasties of the Kali\nage. He holds that the historical portions of the older Pur\u00e2nas were\ncompiled in Prakrit about 250 A.D. and re-edited in Sanskrit about\n350. See also Vincent Smith, _Early History_, p. 21 and, against\nPargiter, Keith in _J.R.A.S._ 1914, p. 1021. Alberuni (who wrote in\n1030) mentions eighteen Pur\u00e2nas and gives two lists of them. B\u00e2na (c.\n620 A.D.) mentions the recitation of the V\u00e2yu Pur\u00e2na. The commentary\non the Svet\u00e2svatara Upan. ascribed to Sankara quotes the Brahma P.,\nLinga P. and Vishnu P. as authorities as well as Puranic texts\ndescribed as Vishnudharma and Sivadharmottara. But the authorship of\nthis commentary is doubtful. The Puranic literature as we know it\nprobably began with the Gupta dynasty or a century before it, but the\nword Pur\u00e2na in the sense of an ancient legend which ought to be\nlearnt occurs as early as the Satapatha Br\u00e2hmana (XI. 5. 6. 8) and\neven in A.V. XI. 7. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 446: See Dinesh Chandra Sen, _Hist. Bengali Language and\nLit._ pp. 220-225.]\n\n[Footnote 447: Pargiter, _l.c._ pp. xvii, xxviii. It does not belong\nto the latest class of Pur\u00e2nas for it seems to contemplate the\nperformance of Sm\u00e2rta rites not temple ceremonial, but it is not\nquoted by R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja (twelfth century) though he cites the Vishnu\nPur\u00e2na. Probably he disapproved of it.]\n\n[Footnote 448: It was made as late as 1803 by Lall\u00fb J\u00ee L\u00e2l, but is a\nrendering into Hindi of a version in the Braj dialect, probably made\nin the sixteenth century.]\n\n[Footnote 449: Another Vishnuite work is cited indifferently as\nPadma-tantra or Padma-samh\u00eet\u00e2, and the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na (I. 3. 8)\nspeaks of the S\u00e2ttvatam Tantram, which is apparently the\nS\u00e2ttvata-samhit\u00e2. The work edited by Schrader is described as the\n_Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2 of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra \u00c2gama._]\n\n[Footnote 450: See for some notices of these works A. Avalon's various\npublications about Tantra. Srinivasa Iyengar, _Outlines of Indian\nPhilosophy_, 118-191. Gov\u00efndacarya Sv\u00e2mi on the Vaishnava Samhit\u00e2s,\n_J.R.A.S._ 1911, pp. 935 ff. Schomerus, _\u00c7aiva-Siddh\u00e2nta_, pp. 7 ff.\nand Schrader's _Introduction to the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_. Whereas these works\nclaim to be independent of the Veda, the Sectarian Upanishads (see\nvol. I. p. 76) are an attempt to connect post-Vedic sects with the\nVeda.]\n\n[Footnote 451: J\u00f1\u00e2na, Yoga, Cary\u00e2, Kriy\u00e2. The same names are used of\nBuddhist Tantras, except that Anuttara replaces J\u00f1\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 452: See Schrader, _Introd. to the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_, p. 98. In\nthe Raghuvamsa, X. 27. \u00c2gamas are not only mentioned but said to be\nextremely numerous. But in such passages it is hard to say whether\n\u00c2gama means the books now so-called or merely tradition. Alberuni\nseems not to have known of this literature and a Tantra for him is\nmerely a minor treatise on astronomy. He evidently regards the Vedas,\nPur\u00e2nas, philosophical Darsanas and Epics as constituting the\nreligious literature of India.]\n\n[Footnote 453: R\u00e2jagopala Chariar (_Vaishnavite Reformers_, p. 4) says\nthat in Vishnu temples two rituals are used called P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and\nVaikh\u00e2nasa. The latter is apparently consistent with Sm\u00e2rta usage\nwhereas the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra is not. From Gopin\u00e2tha Rao's _Elements of Hindu\nIconography_, pp. 56, 77, 78 it appears that there is a Vaikh\u00e2nas\u00e2gama\nparallel to the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tr\u00e2gama. It is frequently quoted by this\nauthor, though as yet unpublished. It seems to be the ritual of those\nBh\u00e2gavatas who worship both Siva and Vishnu. It is said to exist in\ntwo recensions, prose and metrical, of which the former is perhaps the\noldest of the Vaishnava \u00c2gamas. The Vaikh\u00e2nasa ritual was once\nfollowed at Sr\u00eerangam but R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja substituted the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra for it.]\n\n[Footnote 454: Avalon, _Principles of Tantra_, p. xxvii describes it\nas \"that development of the Vaidika Karmak\u00e2nda which under the name\nof the Tantra Sh\u00e2stra is the scripture of the Kali age.\" This seems\nto me a correct statement of the tantric theory.]\n\n[Footnote 455: Thus the Gautam\u00eeya Tantra which is held in high\nestimation by Vishnuite householders in Bengal, though not by\nascetics, is a complete application of S\u00e2kta worship to the cult of\nKrishna. The V\u00e2r\u00e2hi Tantra is also Vishnuite. See Raj. Mitra,\n_Sanskrit MSS. of Bikaner_, p. 583 and _Notices of Sk. MSS_. III.\n(1876), p. 99, and I. cclxxxvii. See too the usages of the Nambuthiri\nBrahmans as described in _Cochin Tribes and Castes_, II. pp. 229-233.\nIn many ways the Nambuthiris preserve the ancient Vedic practices.]\n\n[Footnote 456: See Grierson's articles Gleanings from the Bhaktam\u00e2l\u00e2\nin _J.R.A.S._ 1909-1910.]\n\n[Footnote 457: _E.g._ M\u00e2rkandeya, V\u00e2mana and Var\u00e2ha. Also the Skanda\nUpanishad.]\n\n[Footnote 458: Mah\u00e2bh. Vanaparvan, 11001 ff. The Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na,\nBook IV. sec. 2-7 emphasizes more clearly the objections of the Rishis\nto Siva as an enemy of Vedic sacrifices and a patron of unhallowed\nrites.]\n\n[Footnote 459: Mah\u00e2bh. XII. sec. 283. In the same way the worship of\nDionysus was once a novelty in Greece and not countenanced by the\nmore conservative and respectable party. See Eur. Bacchae, 45. The\nVar\u00e2ha-Pur\u00e2na relates that the Sivaite scriptures were revealed for\nthe benefit of certain Brahmans whose sins had rendered them incapable\nof performing Vedic rites. There is probably some truth in this legend\nin so far as it means that Brahmans who were excommunicated for some\nfault were disposed to become the ministers of non-Vedic cults.]\n\n[Footnote 460: Mah\u00e2bh. II. secs. 16, 22 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 461: Drona-p., 2862 ff. Anus\u00e2sana-p., 590 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 462: _E.g._ Anus\u00e2sana P., 6806 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 463: _E.g._ the Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2 and Adhy\u00e2tma R\u00e2m\u00e2yana.]\n\n[Footnote 464: S\u00e2ntipar. cccxxxvii, 12711 ff. In the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2\nKrishna says that he is V\u00e2sudeva of the Vrishnis, XI. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 465: Cf. the title Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 466: Ek\u00e2yana is mentioned several times in the Ch\u00e2ndogya Up.\n(VII. 1, 2 and afterwards) as a branch of religious or literary\nknowledge and in connection with N\u00e2rada. But it is not represented as\nthe highest or satisfying knowledge.]\n\n[Footnote 467: Even in the Satapatha Br. N\u00e2r\u00e2yana is mentioned in\nconnection with a sacrifice lasting five days, XIII. 6. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 468: The Samhit\u00e2s hitherto best known to orientalists\nappear to be late and spurious. The Brihadbrahma Samhit\u00e2 published\nby the Anandasrama Press mentions R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. The work printed in the\n_Bibliotheca Indica_ as N\u00e2rada P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra (although its proper title\napparently is J\u00f1\u00e2namritas\u00e2ra) has been analyzed by Roussel in\n_M\u00e9langes Harlez_ and is apparently a late liturgical compilation of\nlittle originality. Schrader's work was published by the Adyar Library\nin Madras, 1916. Apparently the two forms P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra\nare both found, but that with the long vowel is the more usual.\nGovind\u00e2c\u00e2rya's article in _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 951 may also be\nconsulted.]\n\n[Footnote 469: The oldest are apparently the Paushkara, V\u00e2r\u00e2ha,\nBrahma, S\u00e2ttvata, Jaya and Ahirbudhnya Samhit\u00e2s, all quoted as\nauthoritative by either R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja or Ved\u00e2nta Desika.]\n\n[Footnote 470: It is quoted as equal to the Vedas by Y\u00e2mun\u00e2c\u00e2rya, so\nit must then have been in existence some centuries.]\n\n[Footnote 471: The story of Svetadv\u00eepa or White Island in the\nS\u00e2nti-parvan of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata states definitely that N\u00e2rada received\nthe P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra there.]\n\n[Footnote 472: There is much diversity of statement as to whether\nthere are one or many Saktis.]\n\n[Footnote 473: Vishnu is the name of God in all his aspects, but\nespecially God as the absolute. V\u00e2sudeva is used both of God as the\nabsolute and also as the first emanation (Vy\u00fbha).]\n\n[Footnote 474: Kriy\u00e2sakti and Bh\u00fbtisakti.]\n\n[Footnote 475: J\u00f1\u00e2na, aisvarya, sakti, bala, v\u00eerya, tejas. These are\ncalled gunas but are not to be confounded with the three ordinary\ngunas.]\n\n[Footnote 476: The words seem to have been originally proper names.\nSee the articles in the _Petersburg Lexicon._]\n\n[Footnote 477: N\u00e2r\u00e2yana like Vishnu is used to designate more than\none aspect of God. Sometimes it denotes the Absolute.]\n\n[Footnote 478: The above brief sketch is based on Schrader's _Int. to\nthe P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_ where the reader can find full details.]\n\n[Footnote 479: Comment on Ved\u00e2nta s\u00fbtras, II. 2. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 480: And, as Schrader observes, the evolutionary system of\nthe P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra is practically concerned with only one force, the\nSakti, which under the name Bh\u00fbti is manifested as the Universe and as\nKriy\u00e2 vitalizes and governs it (p. 31).]\n\n[Footnote 481: On Sutta-nip\u00e2ta, 790, 792. The doctrine of the Vy\u00fbhas\nis expounded in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata S\u00e2ntip. CCCXL. 36 ff., 70 ff.; CCCXLI.\n26 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 482: L\u00fcder's List of Brahmi inscriptions, No. 6, supposed\nnot to be later than 200 B.C. and No. 1112 supposed to be of the first\ncentury B.C. Sankarshana is also mentioned in the Kautil\u00eeya\nArthas\u00e2stra, XIII. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 483: Some Samhit\u00e2s emphasize the distinction between the\nfollowers of the Veda and the enlightened ones who worship the Lord.\nSee Schrader, _P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_, p. 97.]\n\n[Footnote 484: Sy\u00e2m iti Sankalpa, Ahirbudh. Sam. II. 7. In some late\nUpanishads (_e.g._ N\u00e2radaparivr\u00e2jaka and Brihatsanny\u00e2sa) Cakr\u00ee is used\nas a synonym for a P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra.]\n\n[Footnote 485: The same is true of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, who never quotes the\nBh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 486: See the quotations from the S\u00e2ttvata Samhit\u00e2 in\nSchrader, pp. 150-154. As in the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra there is the Para above\nthe four Vy\u00fbhas, so some late forms of Buddhism regard Vairocana as\nthe source of four Jinas.]\n\n[Footnote 487: The Manicheans also had groups of five deities (see\nChavannes and Pelliot in _J.A._ 1913, I. pp. 333-338) but they are\njust as likely to have borrowed from Buddhism as _vice vers\u00e2._]\n\n[Footnote 488: See Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 565.]\n\n[Footnote 489: Manu, I. 10-11, identifies him with Brahm\u00e2 and says,\n\"The waters are called N\u00e2rah because they are produced from Nara, and\nhe is called N\u00e2r\u00e2yana because they were his place of movement\n(ayana).\" The same statement occurs in the N\u00e2r\u00e2yan\u00eeya.]\n\n[Footnote 490: They are said to have been the sons of Dharma (religion\nor righteousness) and Ahims\u00e2 (not-injuring). This is obvious allegory\nindicating that the Bh\u00e2gavata religion rejected animal sacrifices. At\nthe beginning of the N\u00e2r\u00e2yan\u00eeya (S\u00e2ntip. cccxxxv.) it is said that\nN\u00e2r\u00e2yana the soul of the universe took birth in a quadruple form as\nthe offspring of Dharma, _viz._ Nara, N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, Hari and Krishna.\nNara and N\u00e2r\u00e2yana are often identified with Arjuna and V\u00e2sudeva.\n_e.g._ Udyogap. xxlx. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 491: Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. XII.]\n\n[Footnote 492: It is an episode in Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. VI. and in its present\nform was doubtless elaborated apart from the rest. But we may surmise\nthat the incident of Krishna's removing Arjuna's scruples by a\ndiscourse appeared in the early versions of the story and also that\nthe discourse was longer and profounder than would seem appropriate to\nthe European reader of a tale of battles. But as the Ved\u00e2nta\nphilosophy and the doctrine of Krishna's godhead developed, the\ndiscourse may have been amplified and made to include later\ntheological views. Garbe in his German translation attempts to\ndistinguish the different strata and his explanation of the\ninconsistencies as due to successive redactions and additions may\ncontain some truth. But these inconsistencies in theology are common\nto all sectarian writings and I think the main cause for them must be\nsought not so much in the alteration and combination of documents, as\nin a mixed and eclectic mode of thought. Even in European books of the\nfirst rank inconsistencies are not unknown and they need not cause\nsurprise in works which were not written down but committed to memory.\nA poet composing a long religious poem in this way and feeling, as\nmany Hindus feel, both that God is everything and also that he is a\nvery present personal help, may very well express himself differently\nin different parts. On the other hand the editors of such poems are\nundoubtedly tempted to insert in them later popular doctrines.]\n\n[Footnote 493: The name appears not to be in common use now, but the\nP\u00e2supata school is reviewed in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha (_c._\n1330).]\n\n[Footnote 494: Sivabh\u00e2gavata, see his comment on P\u00e2nini, V. 3. 99 and\nV. 2. 76. The name is remarkable and suggests that the Sivaites may\nhave imitated the Bh\u00e2gavatas.]\n\n[Footnote 495: I. xxiii. 209. The _Bibliotheca Ind._ edition reads\nNakul\u00ec. Aufrecht (_Bodl. MSS._) has Lakul\u00ee. The same story is found in\nLinga P. chap. XXIV. Lakul\u00ee is said to have had four pupils who\nfounded four branches. Lakulin does not play an important part in\nmodern Sivaism but is mentioned in inscriptions from the tenth till\nthe thirteenth centuries. The Sarva-darsana-sangraha describes the\nNakul\u00eesa-P\u00e2supata system and quotes Nakul\u00eesa who is clearly the same\nas Lakulin. The figures on Kushan coins representing Siva as holding a\nclub may be meant for Lakulin but also may be influenced by Greek\nfigures of Herakles. See for Lakulin Fleet in _J.R.A.S._ 1907, pp. 419\nff. and Bhandarkar _Vaishnavism and Saivism_, pp. 115 ff. The coins\nof Wema Kadphises bear the title Mahisvara, apparently meaning\nworshipper of the Great Lord. Temples in south India seem to have been\nnamed after K\u00e2y\u00e2rohana in the seventh century A.D. See Gopin\u00e2tha Rao,\n_Hindu Iconography_, II. p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 496: Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. XII.]\n\n[Footnote 497: Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2r. XII. 13702 ff. It is recited by Daksha when\nhe recognizes the might of Siva after the unfortunate incident of his\nsacrifice.]\n\n[Footnote 498: S\u00e2nti-parvan, section cclxxxv especially line 10, 470\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 499: See Sarva-darsana-sangraha, chap. VI. and the comments\nof R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and Sankara on Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras, II. 2. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 500: _E.g._ Sankara-dig-vijaya. The first notice of these\nsects appears to be an inscription at Igatpuri in the N\u00e2sik district\nof about 620 A.D. recording a grant for the worship of Kapalesvara and\nthe maintenance of Mah\u00e2vr\u00e2tins (= K\u00e0p\u00e0likas) in his temple. But\ndoubtless the sects are much older.]\n\n[Footnote 501: The principal are, the P\u00e2supatas, the Saivasiddh\u00e2ntam\nof southern India and the Sivaism of Kashmir.]\n\n[Footnote 502: The Sarva-darsana-sangraha, chap. VII. gives a summary\nof it.]\n\n[Footnote 503: The P\u00e2supatas seem to attach less importance to this\ntriad, though as they speak of Pati, Pasu and the impurities of the\nsoul there is not much difference. In their views of causation and\nfree will they differed slightly from the Saivas, since they held that\nSiva is the universal and absolute cause, the actions of individuals\nbeing effective only in so far as they are in conformity with the will\nof Siva. The Saiva siddh\u00e2nta however holds that Siva's will is not\nirrespective of individual Karma, although his independence is not\nthereby diminished. He is like a man holding a magnet and directing\nthe movements of needles.]\n\n[Footnote 504: There is some difference of language and perhaps of\ndoctrine on this point in various Sivaite works. Both Sivaites and\nP\u00e2ncar\u00e2trins sometimes employ the language of the Advaita. But see\nSchrader, _Int. to P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_, pp. 91 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 505: The five Ka\u00f1cukas (or six including M\u00e2y\u00e2) are strictly\nspeaking tattvas of which the Saivas enumerate 36 and are k\u00e2la,\nniyati, r\u00e2ga, vidy\u00e2 and kal\u00e2 contrasted with nityatva, vy\u00e2pakatva,\np\u00fbrnatva, sarvajnatva, sarvakartritva which are qualities of spirit.\nSee Chatterji, _Kashmir Saivism_, 75 ff., 160, where he points out\nthat the Ka\u00f1cukas are essentially equivalent to Kant's \"forms of\nperception and conception.\" See too Schrader, _Int. to P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra_,\n64, 90, 115.]\n\n[Footnote 506: See for names and other details Schomerus, _Der\nSaiva-Siddh\u00e2nta_, pp. 7, 23: also many articles in the\n_Siddh\u00e2nta-Dipika._]\n\n[Footnote 507: They are taken from the \u00c2gama called Raurava. The\nSivaites of Kashmir appear to have regarded the extant Siva-s\u00fbtras as\nan \u00c2gama.]\n\n[Footnote 508: The Sanskrit text and translation of the Mrigendra are\npublished in the _Siddh\u00e2nta-Dipika_, vol. IV. 1901 ff. It is sometimes\ndescribed as an Up\u00e2gama and sometimes as the J\u00f1\u00e2nap\u00e2da of the K\u00e2mika\n\u00c2gama.]\n\n[Footnote 509: So Tirum\u00fblar. N\u00eelakantha in his commentary on the\nVed\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras says: \"I see no difference between the Veda and the\nSaiv\u00e2gama.\"]\n\n[Footnote 510: Or Sr\u00eekantha. The commentary is translated in\n_Siddh\u00e2nta-Dipika_, vol. I. ff. In spite of sectarian views as to its\nearly date, it seems to be influenced by the views and language of\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII\n\nSANKARA. SIVAISM IN SOUTHERN INDIA. KASHMIR. LING\u00c2YATS\n\n\n1\n\n\nAbout the sixth century A.D. the decadence of Buddhism and the\ninvigoration of Brahmanism were both well advanced. The Mahabharata\nexisted as a great collection of epic and religious poetry and the\nolder Puranas were already composed. Even at the present day\nauthorities differ as to whether Siva or Vishnu commands the\nallegiance of the majority and naturally it is hard to describe the\ndistribution of sects in earlier times. The monuments of the Guptas\n(for instance the ruins at Eran) suggest that they were Vishnuites but\na little later the cult of Siva becomes more prominent. The Emperor\nHarsha (612-648) and his family were eclectic, honouring Siva, the Sun\nand the Buddha, but it is not recorded that they worshipped Vishnu.\nB\u00e2na who lived at his court indicates[511] that Sivaism was the\npredominant form of worship, but also mentions Buddhists and\nBh\u00e2gavatas. Hs\u00fcan Chuang on the other hand holds him up as a devout\nBuddhist. Great Sivaite shrines in different parts of India such as\nthe temple of Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa and the Kailas at Ellora were\nprobably constructed in the seventh century and it is likely that in\nthe defeat of Buddhism the worshippers of Siva played an active part.\n\nThis conflict is connected with the names of Kum\u00e2rila Bhatta (c.\n725 A.D.) and Sankara \u00c2c\u00e2rya (c. 800 A.D.). It clearly represents\nforces which cannot be restricted to the character of individuals or\nthe span of human lives. The elements which compose Hinduism had been\nvigorous long before the eighth century and Buddhism, though decadent,\ncontinued to exist in India later. But probably the careers of these\ntwo men are the best record of the decisive turn of the tide. It is\noften said that they revived Hinduism, but however much they insisted\non the authority of ancient tradition, the real result of their\nlabours was not to re-establish the order of things which prevailed\nbefore the rise of Buddhism, but to give authority and solidity to the\nmixture of Brahmanism, Buddhism and popular beliefs which had grown\nup. Kum\u00e2rila is said to have been a Brahman of Bihar who was a\nBuddhist monk but became a worshipper of Siva and so zealous a\npersecutor of his former faith that he persuaded a king of his time\nnamed Sudhanvan to exterminate it from the Himalaya to Cape Comorin.\nThis is a monstrous exaggeration but he was doubtless a determined\nenemy of the Buddhists, as can be seen from his philosophical\nworks.[512] He taught little about metaphysics or the nature of God,\nbut he insisted on the necessity and efficacy of Vedic rites.\n\nMore important both as a thinker and an organizer was Sankara. There\nis some discrepancy in the traditions of his birth, but he was\nprobably born about 788 A.D.[513] in a family of Nambuthiri Brahmans\nat Kaladi[514] in the Cochin state. Kaladi occupies a healthy position\nat some height above the sea level and the neighbourhood is now used\nas a sanatorium. The cocoanut trees and towered temples which mark\nmany south Indian landscapes are absent, and paddy fields alternate\nwith a jungle of flowering plants studded with clumps of bamboos. A\nbroad river broken by sandbanks winds through the district and near\nthe villages there are often beautiful avenues of great trees. Not far\ndistant is Trichur which possesses a Vedic college and a large temple,\nforbidden to Europeans but like most edifices in Malabar modest in\narchitecture. This is not the land of giant gopurams and multitudinous\nsculpture, but of lives dedicated to the acquisition of traditional\nlearning and the daily performance of complicated but inconspicuous\nrites.\n\nThe accounts of Sankara's life are little but a collection of legends,\nin which, however, the following facts stand out. He was the pupil of\nGovinda, who was himself the pupil of Gaudap\u00e2da and this connection\nwould be important could we be certain that this Gaudap\u00e2da was the\nauthor of the metrical treatise on philosophy bearing his name. He\nwrote popular hymns as well as commentaries on the Upanishads, Ved\u00e2nta\nSutras and Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, thus recognizing both Vedic and post-Vedic\nliterature: he resided for some time on the Narbudda and at Benares,\nand in the course of the journeys in which like Paul he gave vent to\nhis activity, he founded four maths or monasteries, at Sringeri,\nPuri, Dw\u00e2rak\u00e2 and Badrinath in the Himalaya. Near the latter he died\nbefore he was an old man. On his deathbed he is said to have asked\nforgiveness for going on pilgrimages and frequenting temples, because\nby so doing he had seemed to forget that God is everywhere.\n\nIt is clear that his work both as an author and organizer was\nconsiderable and permanent, and that much of his career was spent\noutside Dravidian lands. His greatest achievement was his exposition\nof the Ved\u00e2nta, of which I treat elsewhere. He based his arguments\nunreservedly on the Vedic texts and aimed at being merely\nconservative, but those texts and even the ancient commentaries are\nobscure and inconsistent, and it was reserved for his genius to\nproduce from them a system which in consistency, thoroughness and\nprofundity holds the first place in Indian philosophy. His work did\nnot consist, as he himself supposed, in harmonizing the Upanishads. In\nthis department of interpretation he is as uncritical as other\northodox commentators, but he took the most profound thoughts of the\nold literature and boldly constructed with them a great edifice of\nspeculation. Since his time the Ved\u00e2nta has been regarded as the\nprincipal philosophy of India--a position which it does not seem to\nhave held before--and his interpretation of it, though often contested\nand not suited to popular religion, still commands the respect and to\nsome extent the adherence of most educated Hindus.\n\nIn practical religion he clearly felt, as every Indian reformer still\nmust feel, the want of discipline and a common standard, Though the\nBuddhism of his day had ceased to satisfy the needs of India, he saw\nthat its strength lay in its morality, its relative freedom from\nsuperstition and its ecclesiastical organization. Accordingly he\ndenounced extravagant sects[515] and forbade such practices as\nbranding. He also instituted an order of ascetics.[516] In doing this\nhe was not only trying to obtain for Hinduism the disciplinary\nadvantages of the Buddhist church but also to break through the rule\nprescribing that a Brahman must first be a householder and only late\nin life devote himself entirely to religion. This rule did the\nBrahmans good service in insuring the continuity and respectability of\ntheir class but it tended to drive enthusiasts to other creeds.\n\nIt does not seem that any sect can plausibly claim Sankara as founder\nor adherent. His real religion was Ved\u00e2ntism and this, though not\nincompatible with sectarian worship, is predisposed to be impartial.\nThe legend says that when summoned to his mother's deathbed, he spoke\nto her first of the Ved\u00e2nta philosophy. But she bade him give her some\nconsolation which she could understand. So he recited a hymn to Siva,\nbut when the attendants of that god appeared she was frightened.\nSankara then recited a hymn to Vishnu and when his gentler\nmessengers came to her bedside, she gave her son her blessing and\nallowed them to take her willing soul.\n\nThis story implies that he was ready to sanction any form of reputable\nworship with a slight bias towards Vishnuism.[517] At the present day\nthe Sm\u00e2rtas, who consider themselves his followers, have a preference\nfor the worship of Siva. But the basis of their faith is not Sivaism\nbut the recognition of the great body of Indian traditions known as\nSmriti. And that, next to Ved\u00e2ntism, was the essence of Sankara's\nteaching: he wished to regard tradition as a coherent whole, based on\nthe eternal Veda but including authoritative Smriti to be interpreted\nin the light of the Veda, and thus he hoped to correct extravagant and\npartial views and to lead to those heights whence it is seen that all\nis one, \"without difference.\"\n\nThe results of Sankara's labours may still be seen in the\norganization of southern Hinduism which is more complete than in the\nnorth. It is even said that the head of the Sringeri monastery in\nMysore exercises an authority over Sm\u00e2rta Brahmans similar to that of\nthe Pope.[518] This is probably an exaggeration but his decision is\naccepted as settling caste disputes, and even to-day the Sringeri\nmath[519] is one of the most important religious institutions in\nIndia. The abbot, who is known as Jagadguru, is head of the Sm\u00e2rta\nBrahmans. The present occupant is said to be thirty-third in\nsuccession from Sankara and numbers among his predecessors\nS\u00e2yan\u00e2c\u00e2rya, the celebrated Vedic commentator who lived in the\nfourteenth century. The continued prosperity of this establishment and\nof other religious corporations in the Dravidian country, whereas the\nMohammedans destroyed all monasteries whether Hindu or Buddhist in the\nnorth, is one of the reasons for certain differences in northern and\nsouthern Hinduism. For instance in northern India any Brahman,\nwhatever his avocation may be, is allowed to perform religious\nceremonies, whereas in the Deccan and south India Brahmans are divided\ninto Laukikas or secular and Bhikshus or religious. The latter are\nhouseholders, the name having lost its monastic sense, but they have\nthe exclusive right of officiating and acting as Gurus and thus form a\nmarried clergy.\n\nIt is possible that the influence of Sankara may have had a\npuritanical side which partly accounts for the degeneration of later\nIndian art. His higher teaching inculcated a spiritual creed which\nneeded no shrines, while for those who required rites he recommended\nthe old Brahmanic ritual rather than the modern temple cultus. The\nresult of this may have been that piety and learning were diverted\nfrom art, so that architecture and sculpture ceased to be in touch\nwith the best religious intelligence.\n\nThe debt of Sankara to Buddhism is an interesting question. He\nindited polemics against it and contributed materially to its\ndownfall, but yet if the success of creeds is to be measured by the\npermanence of ideas, there is some reason for thinking that the\nvanquished led the conqueror captive. Sankara's approval both in\ntheory and in practice of the monastic life is Buddhistic rather than\nBrahmanical.[520] The doctrines of M\u00e2y\u00e2 and the distinction between\nhigher and lower truth, which are of cardinal importance in his\nphilosophy, receive only dubious support from the Upanishads and from\nB\u00e2dar\u00e2yana, but are practically identical with the teachings of the\nM\u00e2dhyamika School of Buddhism and it was towards this line of thought\nrather than towards the theism of the P\u00e2supatas or Bh\u00e2gavatas that he\nwas drawn. The affinity was recognized in India, for Sankara and his\nschool were stigmatized by their opponents as Buddhists in\ndisguise.[521]\n\n\n2\n\n\nThe reader will perhaps have noticed that up to the career of Sankara\nwe have been concerned exclusively with northern India, and even\nSankara, though a native of the south, lived much in the north and it\nwas the traditional sacred lore of the north which he desired to\nestablish as orthodoxy. Not only the older literature, Brahmanic as\nwell as Buddhist, but most of the Pur\u00e2nas ignore the great stretch of\nDravidian country which forms the southern portion of the peninsula\nand if the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana sings of R\u00e2ma's bridge and the conquest of Lanka\nthis is clearly an excursion into the realms of fancy. Yet the\nDravidian districts are ample in extent, their monuments are\nremarkable, their languages are cultivated, and Tamil literature\npossesses considerable interest, antiquity and originality.\nUnfortunately in dealing with these countries we experience in an\nunusually acute form the difficulties which beset every attempt to\ntrace the history of ideas in India, namely, the absence of\nchronology. Before 1000 A.D. materials for a connected history are\nhardly accessible. There are, however, many inscriptions and a mass of\nliterature (itself of disputable date) containing historical\nallusions, and from these may be put together not so much a skeleton\nor framework as pictures of ancient life and thought which may be\narranged in a plausible order.\n\nIt may be said that where everything is so vague, it would be better\nto dismiss the whole subject of southern India and its religion,\npending the acquisition of more certain information, and this is what\nmany writers have done. But such wide regions, so many centuries, such\nimportant phases of literature and thought are involved, that it is\nbetter to run the risk of presenting them in false sequence than to\nignore them. Briefly it may be regarded as certain that in the early\ncenturies of our era Buddhism, Jainism and Brahmanism all flourished\nin Dravidian lands. The first two gradually decayed and made way for\nthe last, although Jainism remained powerful until the tenth century.\nAt a fairly early date there were influential Sivaite and Vishnuite\nsects, each with a devotional literature in the vernacular. Somewhat\nlater this literature takes a more philosophic and ecclesiastical\ntinge and both sects produce a succession of teachers. Tamil Sivaism,\nthough important for the south, has not spread much beyond its own\nprovince, but the Vishnuism associated with such eminent names as\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and R\u00e2m\u00e2nand has influenced all India, and the latter teacher\nis the spiritual ancestor of the Kabirpanthis, Sikhs and various\nunorthodox sects. Political circumstances too tended to increase the\nimportance of the south in religion, for when nearly all the north was\nin Moslim hands the kingdom of Vijayanagar was for more than two\ncenturies (_c._ 1330-1565) the bulwark of Hinduism. But in filling up\nthis outline the possibilities of error must be remembered. The poems\nof Manikka-Va\u00e7agar have such individuality of thought and style that\none would suppose them to mark a conspicuous religious movement. Yet\nsome authorities refer them to the third century and others to the\neleventh, nor has any standard been formulated for distinguishing\nearlier and later varieties of Tamil.\n\nI have already mentioned the view that the worship of Siva and the\nLinga is Dravidian in origin and borrowed by the Aryans. There is no\nproof that this worship had its first home in the south and spread\nnorthwards, for the Vedic and epic literature provides a sufficient\npedigree for Siva. But this deity always collected round himself\nattributes and epithets which are not those of the Vedic gods but\ncorrespond with what we know of non-Aryan Indian mythology. It is\npossible that these un-Aryan cults attained in Dravidian lands fuller\nand more independent development than in the countries colonized by\nthe Aryans, so that the portrait of Siva, especially as drawn by Tamil\nwriters, does retain the features of some old Dravidian deity, a deity\nwho dances, who sports among men and bewilders them by his puzzling\ndisguises and transformations.[522] But it is not proved that Siva was\nthe chief god of the early Tamils. An ancient poem, the Purra-Porul\nVenb\u00e2-M\u00e2lai,[523] which contains hardly any allusions to him mentions\nas the principal objects of worship the goddess Kottavai\n(Victorious) and her son Muruvan. Popular legends[524] clearly\nindicate a former struggle between the old religion and Hinduism\nending as usual in the recognition by the Brahmans of the ancient gods\nin a slightly modified form.\n\nWe have no records whatever of the introduction of Brahmanism into\nsouthern India but it may reasonably be supposed to have made its\nappearance there several centuries before our era, though in what form\nor with what strength we cannot say. Tradition credits Agastya and\nParasu-r\u00e2ma with having established colonies of Brahmans in the south\nat undated but remote epochs. But whatever colonization occurred was\nnot on a large scale. An inscription found in Mysore[525] states that\nMukkanna Kadamba (who probably lived in the third century A.D.)\nimported a number of Brahman families from the north, because he could\nfind none in the south. Though this language may be exaggerated, it is\nevidence that Brahmans cannot have been numerous at that time and it\nis probable that Buddhism and Jainism were better represented. Three\nof Asoka's inscriptions have been found in Mysore and in his last\nedict describing his missionary efforts he includes \"the kings of the\nP\u00e2ndyas and Colas in the south\" among the conquests of Buddhism.\nMahinda founded a monastery in the Tanjore district and probably\nestablished Buddhism at various points of the Tamil country on his way\nto Ceylon.[526] There is therefore no reason to be doubtful of\nBuddhist activity, literary or other, if evidence for it is\nforthcoming. Hs\u00fcan Chuang in 640 A.D. deplores the decay of Buddhism\nand speaks of the ruins of many old monasteries.\n\nAccording to Jain tradition, which some think is supported by\ninscriptions at Sravana-Belgola,[527] Bhadrab\u00e2hu accompanied by\nCandra Gupta (identified with the Maurya king of that name) led a\nmigration of Jains from the north to Mysore about 300 B.C. The\nauthenticity of this tradition has been much criticized but it can\nhardly be disputed that Jainism came to southern India about the same\ntime as Buddhism and had there an equally vigorous and even longer\nexistence.\n\nMost Tamil scholars are agreed in referring the oldest Tamil\nliterature to the first three centuries of our era and I see nothing\nimprobable in this. We know that Asoka introduced Buddhism into south\nIndia. About the time of the Christian era there are many indications\nthat it was a civilized country[528] which maintained commercial\nrelations with Rome and it is reasonable to suppose that it had a\nliterature. According to native tradition there were three successive\nSanghams, or Academies, at Madura. The two earlier appear to be\nmythical, but the third has some historical basis, although it is\nprobable that poems belonging to several centuries have been\nassociated with it. Among those which have been plausibly referred to\nthe second century A.D. are the two narrative poems Silappadhikaram\nand Manim\u00eakhalai as well as the celebrated collection of didactic\nverses known as the Kural. The first two poems, especially the\nManim\u00eakhalai, are Buddhist in tone. The Kural is ethical rather than\nreligious, it hardly mentions the deity,[529] shows no interest in\nBrahmanic philosophy or ritual and extols a householder's life above\nan ascetic's. The N\u00e2ladiy\u00e2r is an anthology of somewhat similar Jain\npoems which as a collection is said to date from the eighth century,\nthough verses in it may be older. This Jain and Buddhist literature\ndoes not appear to have attained any religious importance or to have\nbeen regarded as even quasi-canonical, but the Dravidian Hindus\nproduced two large collections of sacred works, one Sivaite the other\nVishnuite, which in popular esteem rival the sanctity of the Vedas.\nBoth consist of hymns, attributed to a succession of saints and still\nsung in the temple worship, and in both sects the saints are followed\nby a series of teachers and philosophers. We will take the Sivaites\nfirst.\n\n\n3\n\n\nTheir collection of hymns is known as Tirumurai, and was compiled by\nNambi-Andar-Nambi said to have lived under King R\u00e2jar\u00e2ja (_c._ 1000\nA.D.). The first portion of it, known as Dev\u00e2ram, contains the hymns\nof Sambandha, Appar and Sundara. These persons are the most eminent of\nthe sixty-three saints[530] of the southern Sivaites and are credited\nwith many miracles. Tamil scholars[531] consider that Sambandha cannot\nhave lived later than the beginning of the seventh century. He was an\nadversary of the Jains and Appar is said to have been persecuted by\nthe Buddhists. Of the other works comprised in the Tirumurai the most\nimportant is the Tiruv\u00e2\u00e7agam of M\u00e2nikka-V\u00e2\u00e7agar,[532] one of the\nfinest devotional poems which India can show. It is not, like the\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, an exposition _by_ the deity, but an outpouring of the\nsoul _to_ the deity. It only incidentally explains the poet's views:\nits main purpose is to tell of his emotions, experiences and\naspirations. This characteristic seems not to be personal but to mark\nthe whole school of Tamil Saiva writers.\n\nThis school, which is often called the Siddh\u00e2nta,[533] though perhaps\nthat term is better restricted to later philosophical writers, is\nclearly akin to the P\u00e2supata but alike in thought, sentiment and\nritual far more refined. It is in fact one of the most powerful and\ninteresting forms which Hinduism has assumed and it has even attracted\nthe sympathetic interest of Christians. The fervour of its utterances,\nthe appeals to God as a loving father, seem due to the temperament of\nthe Tamils, since such sentiments do not find so clear an expression\nin other parts of India. But still the whole system, though heated in\nthe furnace of Dravidian emotion, has not been recast in a new mould.\nIts dogmas are those common to Sivaism in other parts and it accepts\nas its ultimate authority the twenty-eight Saiva \u00c2gamas. This however\ndoes not detract from the beauty of the special note and tone which\nsound in its Tamil hymns and prayers.\n\nWhatever the teaching of the little known \u00c2gamas may be, the\nSaiva-Siddh\u00e2nta is closely allied to the Yoga and theistic forms of\nthe S\u00e2nkhya. It accepts the three ultimates, Pati the Lord, Pasu his\nflock or souls, and P\u00e2sa the fetter or matter. So high is the first of\nthese three entities exalted, so earnestly supplicated, that he seems\nto attain a position like that of Allah in Mohammedanism, as Creator\nand Disposer. But in spite of occasional phrases, the view of the Yoga\nthat all three--God, souls and matter--are eternal is maintained.[534]\nBetween the world periods there are pauses of quiescence and at the\nend of these Siva evolves the universe and souls. That he may act in\nthem he also evolves from himself his energy or Para\u00e7atti (Sk. Sakti).\nBut this does not prevent the god himself in a personal and often\nvisible form from being for his devotees the one central and living\nreality. The Sakti, often called Um\u00e2, is merely Siva's reflex and\nhardly an independent existence.\n\nThe remarkable feature of this religion, best seen in the Tiruva\u00e7agam,\nis the personal tie which connects the soul with God. In no literature\nwith which I am acquainted has the individual religious life--its\nstruggles and dejection, its hopes and fears, its confidence and its\ntriumph--received a delineation more frank and more profound. Despite\nthe strangely exotic colouring of much in the picture, not only its\noutline but its details strikingly resemble the records of devout\nChristian lives in Europe. Siva is addressed not only as Lord but as\nFather. He loves and desires human souls. \"Hard though it is for\nBrahm\u00e2 and Vishnu to reach thee, yet thou did'st desire me.\" What the\nsoul desires is deliverance from matter and life with Siva, and this\nhe grants by bestowing grace (Arul). \"With mother love he came in\ngrace and made me his\"; \"O thou who art to thy true servants true\";\n\"To thee, O Father, may I attain, may I yet dwell with thee.\"\nSometimes[535] the poet feels that his sins have shut him off from\ncommunion with God. He lies \"like a worm in the midst of ants, gnawed\nby the senses and troubled sore\" ejaculating in utter misery \"Thou\nhast forsaken me.\" But more often he seems on the point of expressing\na thought commoner in Christianity than in Indian religion, namely\nthat the troubles of this life are only a preparation for future\nbeatitude. The idea that matter and suffering are not altogether evil\nis found in the later S\u00e2nkhya where Prakriti (which in some respects\ncorresponds to Sakti) is represented as a generous female power\nworking in the interests of the soul.\n\nAmong the many beauties of the Tiruv\u00e2\u00e7agam is one which reminds us of\nthe works of St. Francis and other Christian poetry, namely the love\nof nature and animals, especially birds and insects. There are\nconstant allusions to plants and flowers; the refrain of one poem\ncalls on a dragon fly to sing the praises of God and another bids the\nbird known as Kuyil call him to come. In another ode the poet says he\nlooks for the grace of God like a patient heron watching night and\nday.\n\nThe first perusal of these poems impresses on the reader their\nresemblance to Christian literature. They seem to be a tropical\nversion of Hymns Ancient and Modern and to ascribe to the deity and\nhis worshippers precisely those sentiments which missionaries tell us\nare wanting among pagans--fatherly love, yearning devotion and the\nbliss of assured salvation. It is not surprising if many have seen in\nthis tone the result of Christian influence. Yet I do not think that\nthe hypothesis is probable. For striking as is the likeness the\ncontrast is often equally striking. The deity described in words which\nalmost literally render \"Sun of my soul, Thou Saviour dear\" is also\nthe spouse of Um\u00e2 with the white breasts and curled locks; he dances\nin the halls of Tillai; and the line \"Bid thou in grace my fears\nbegone\" is followed by two others indicated by dots as being \"not\ntranslateable.\"[536] Nor can we say that emotional religion here uses\nthe language of a mythology which it has outgrown. The emotion itself\nwhile charged with the love of god, the sense of sin and contrition,\nhas in it another strain which jars on Europeans. Siva sports with the\nworld and his worshippers treat him with an affectionate intimacy\nwhich may be paralleled in the religion of Krishna but hardly in\nChristianity.[537] Thus several hymns have reference to a game, such\nas tossing about a ball (hymn vii), battledore and shuttlecock (xiv)\nor some form of wrestling in which the opponents place their hands on\neach other's shoulders (xv). The worshipper can even scold the deity.\n\"If thou forsake me, I will make people smile at thee. I shall abuse\nthee sore: madman clad in elephant skin: madman that ate the poison:\nmadman, who chose even me as thy own.\"[538]\n\nAgain, though in part the tone of these poems is Christian, yet they\ncontain little that suggests Christian doctrine. There is nothing\nabout redemption or a suffering god,[539] and many ideas common to\nChristianity and Hinduism--such as the incarnation,[540] the Trinity,\nand the divine child and his mother--are absent. It is possible that\nin some of the later works of the Sittars Christian influence[541] may\nhave supervened but most of this Tamil poetry is explicable as the\ndevelopment of the ideas expressed in the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and the\nSvet\u00e2svatara Upanishad. Chronologically Christian influence is not\nimpossible and there is a tradition that M\u00e2nikka-V\u00e2\u00e7agar reconverted\nto Hinduism some natives of Malabar who had become Christians[542] but\nthe uncertainty of his date makes it hard to fix his place in the\nhistory of doctrine. Recent Hindu scholars are disposed to assign him\nto the second or third century.[543] In support of this, it is\nplausibly urged that he was an active adversary of the Buddhists, that\ntradition is unanimous in regarding him as earlier than the writers of\nthe Dev\u00e2ram[544] who make references (not however indisputable) to his\npoem, and that Perisiriyar, who commented on it, lived about 700 A.D.\nI confess that the tone and sentiments of the poem seem to me what one\nwould expect in the eleventh rather than in the third century: it has\nsomething of the same emotional quality as the G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda and the\nBh\u00e2gavata-pur\u00e2na, though it differs from them in doctrine and in its\nmore masculine devotion. But the Dravidians are not of the same race\nas the northern Hindus and since this ecstatic monotheism is clearly\ncharacteristic of their literature, it may have made its appearance in\nthe south earlier than elsewhere.\n\nThe Tiruva\u00e7agam is not unorthodox but it deals direct with God and is\nsomewhat heedless of priests. This feature becomes more noticeable in\nother authors such as Pattanattu Pillai, Kapilar and the Telugu\npoet V\u00eamana. The first named appears to have lived in the tenth\ncentury. The other two are legendary figures to whom anthologies of\npopular gnomic verses are ascribed and some of those attributed to\nKapilar are probably ancient. In all this poetry there rings out a\nnote of almost defiant monotheism, iconoclasm and antisacerdotalism.\nIt may be partly explained by the fact that in the south Brahmanism\nwas preceded, or at least from early times accompanied, by Buddhism\nand Jainism. These creeds did not make a conquest, for the Dravidian\ntemperament obviously needed a god who could receive and reward\npassionate devotion, but they cleared the air and spread such ideas as\nthe superiority of good deeds to rites and the uselessness of priests.\nEven now verses expressing these thoughts are popular in the Madras\nPresidency, but the sect which produced them, known as the\nSittars,[545] is entirely extinct. Caldwell attributes its literature\nto the seventeenth century, but the evidence available is small and it\nis clear that this theistic anti-brahmanic school had a long life. As\nin other cases, the Brahmans did not suppress so much as adapt it. The\ncollection which goes by the name of Siva-v\u00e2kyam contains poems of\ndifferent ages and styles. Some are orthodox, others have no trace of\nBrahmanism except the use of Siva as the name of the deity. Yet it\nwould seem that the anthology as a whole has not fallen under\nsacerdotal censure.[546]\n\nThe important sect of the Ling\u00e2yats should perhaps be regarded as an\noffshoot of this anti-brahmanic school, but before describing it, it\nmay be well briefly to review the history of orthodox Sivaism in the\nsouth.\n\nBy this phrase is not meant the sect or school which had the support\nof Sankara but that which developed out of the poems mentioned above\nwithout parting company with Brahmanism. Sankara disapproved of their\ndoctrine that the Lord is the efficient cause of the world, nor would\nthe substitution of vernacular for Sanskrit literature and temple\nceremonies for Vedic sacrifices have found favour with him. But these\nwere evidently strong tendencies in popular religion. An important\nportion of the Dev\u00e2ram and the Kanda Pur\u00e2na of Kachiyappar, a Tamil\nadaptation of the Skanda Pur\u00e2na, were probably written between 600\nand 750 A.D.[547] About 1000 A.D. the Tirumurai (including the\nDev\u00e2ram) was arranged as a collection in eleven parts, and about a\ncentury later Sekkilar composed the Periya Pur\u00e2na, a poetical\nhagiology, giving the legends of Sivaite saints and shrines. Many\nimportant temples were dedicated to Siva during the eleventh and\ntwelfth centuries.\n\nThere followed a period of scholasticism in which the body of doctrine\ncalled the Saiva Siddh\u00e2nta was elaborated by four \u00c2c\u00e2ryas, namely\nMey-Kanda-Devar[548] (1223), Arunandi, Marai\u00f1\u00e2na-Sambandhar and\nUm\u00e2pati (1313). It will thus be seen that the foundation of Sivaite\nphilosophy in Tamil is later than R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and the first Vishnuite\nmovements, and perhaps it was influenced by them but the methodical\nexposition of the Saiva-Siddh\u00e2ntam[549] does not differ materially\nfrom the more poetic utterances of the Tiruva\u00e7agam. It recognizes the\nthree entities, the Lord, the soul and matter as separate, but it\nshows a tendency (doubtless due to the influence of the Ved\u00e2nta) both\nto explain away the existence of matter and to identify the soul with\nthe Lord more closely than its original formul\u00e6 allow. Matter is\ndescribed as M\u00e2y\u00e2 and is potentially contained in the Lord who\nmanifests it in the creative process which begins each kalpa. The Lord\nis also said to be one with our souls and yet other. The soul is by\nnature ignorant, in bondage to the illusion of M\u00e2y\u00e2 and of Karma, but\nby the grace of the Lord it attains to union (not identity) with him,\nin which it sees that its actions are his actions.\n\nIn modern times Saiva theology is represented among Dravidians by the\nworks of Siva\u00f1\u00e2nar (1785) and his disciple Kachiyappar: also by the\npoems of R\u00e2ma-linga. Sivaism in Madras and other parts of southern\nIndia is still a vigorous and progressive Church which does not\nneglect European methods. Its principal organ is an interesting\nmagazine called Siddhanta-Dipika or the Light of Truth. In northern\nIndia the Sivaites are less distinct as a body and have less\norganization, but temples to Siva are numerous and perhaps the\nmajority of Brahmans and ascetics regard him as their special deity\nand read Sivaite rather than Vishnuite texts. But it is probably also\ntrue that they are not sectarian in the same sense as the worshippers\nof Krishna.\n\nIt is not easy to estimate the relative numbers of Sivaites and\nVishnuites in south India, and good authorities hold opposite views.\nThe Sivaites are more united than the Vishnuites (whose many divisions\nand conspicuous sectarian marks attract attention) and are found\nchiefly among the upper classes and among ascetics, but perhaps there\nis much truth in an opinion which I once heard expressed by a Tamil\nBrahman, that the real division is not between the worshippers of Siva\nand of Vishnu, but between Sm\u00e2rtas, those who follow more or less\nstrictly the ancient ritual observances and those who seek for\nsalvation by devotion and in practice neglect the Sanskrit scriptures.\nThere is little hostility. The worship of both gods is sometimes\nperformed in the same building as at Chidambaram or in neighbouring\nshrines, as at Sr\u00eerangam. In south Kanara and Travancore it is\ngenerally held that the two deities are of equal greatness and in many\nplaces are found images representing them united in one figure. But\nthe great temples at Madura, Tinnevelly and Tanjore are all dedicated\nto Siva or members of his family. If in the philosophical literature\nof the Siddh\u00e2nta the purity of the theism taught is noticeable, in\nthese buildings it is rather the rich symbolism surrounding the god\nwhich attracts attention. In his company are worshipped Parvat\u00ee,\nGanesa, Subrahmanya, the bull Nandi and minor attendants: he is\nshown leaping in the ecstacy of the dance and on temple walls are\noften depicted his sixty-four sports or miracles (l\u00eel\u00e2). For the\nimagination of the Dravidians he is a great rhythmic force, throbbing\nand exulting in all the works of nature and exhibiting in kindly\nplayfulness a thousand antics and a thousand shapes.\n\n\n4\n\n\nAnother school of Sivaite philosophy flourished in Kashmir[550] from\nthe ninth century onwards and is not yet extinct among Pandits. It\nbases itself on the \u00c2gamas and includes among them the still extant\nSiva-s\u00fbtras said to have been discovered as revelation by Vasugupta.\nHe lived about 800 A.D. and abandoned Buddhism for Sivaism. The school\nproduced a distinguished line of literary men who flourished from the\nninth to the eleventh centuries.[551]\n\nThe most recent authorities state that the Kashmir school is one and\nthat there is no real opposition between the Spanda and Pratyabhij\u00f1\u00e2\nsections.[552] The word Spanda, equivalent to the godhead and ultimate\nreality, is interesting for it means vibration accompanied by\nconsciousness or, so to speak, self-conscious ether. The term\nPratyabhij\u00f1\u00e2 or recognition is more frequent in the later writings.\nIts meaning is as follows. Siva is the only reality and the soul is\nSiva, but M\u00e2y\u00e2[553] forces on the soul a continuous stream of\nsensations. By the practice of meditation it is possible to interrupt\nthe stream and in those moments light illuminates the darkness of the\nsoul and it recognizes that it is Siva, which it had forgotten. Also\nthe world is wholly unreal apart from Siva. It exists by his will and\nin his mind. What seems to the soul to be cognition is really\nrecognition, for the soul (which is identical with the divine mind but\nblinded and obstructed) recognizes that which exists only in the\ndivine mind.\n\nIt has been held that Kashmirian Sivaism is the parent of the\nDravidian Saiva Siddh\u00e2nta and spread from Kashmir southwards by way of\nKalyan in the eleventh century, and this hypothesis certainly receives\nsupport from the mention of Kashmiri Brahmans in south Indian\ninscriptions of the fourteenth century.[554] Yet I doubt if it is\nnecessary to assume that south Indian Sivaism was _derived_ from\nKashmir, for the worship of Siva must have been general long before\nthe eleventh century[555] and Kashmiri Brahmans, far from introducing\nSivaism to the south, are more likely to have gone thither because\nthey were sure of a good reception, whereas they were exposed to\nMoslim persecution in their own country. Also the forms which Sivaism\nassumed in these two outlying provinces present differences: in\nKashmir it was chiefly philosophic, in the Dravidian countries chiefly\nreligious. In the south it calls on God to help the sinner out of the\nmire, whereas the school of Kashmir, especially in its later\ndevelopments, resembles the doctrine of Sankara, though its\nterminology is its own.\n\nBefore the advent of Islam, Kashmir was a secluded but cultured land.\nIts pleasant climate and beautiful scenery, said to have been praised\nby Gotama himself,[556] attracted and stimulated thinkers and it had\nsome importance in the history of Buddhism and of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra as\nwell as for Sivaism. It is connected with the Buddhist sect called\nSarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2dins and in this case the circumstances seem clear. The sect\ndid not originate in Kashmir but its adherents settled there after\nattending the Council of Kanishka and made it into a holy land.\nSubsequently, first Vishnuism and then Sivaism[557] entered the\nmountain valleys and flourished there. Kashmirian thinkers may have\nleft an individual impress on either system but they dealt with\nquestions which had already been treated of by others and their\ncontributions, though interesting, do not seem to have touched the\nfoundations of belief or to have inspired popular movements. The\nessential similarity of all Sivaite schools is so great that\ncoincidences even in details do not prove descent or borrowing and the\nspecial terms of Kashmirian philosophy, such as _spanda_ and\n_pratyabhij\u00f1a_, seem not to be used in the south.\n\nThe Siva-s\u00fbtras consist of three sections, describing three methods of\nattaining _svacchanda_ or independence. One (the gist of which has\nbeen given above) displays some though not great originality: the\nsecond is S\u00e2ktist, the third follows the ordinary prescriptions of the\nYoga. All Sivaite philosophy is really based on this last and teaches\nthe existence of matter, souls and a deity, manifested in a series of\nphases. The relations of these three ultimates are variously defined,\nand they may be identified with one another, for the S\u00e2nkhya-Yoga\ndoctrine may be combined (though not very consistently) with the\nteaching of the Ved\u00e2nta. In Kashmirian Sivaism Ved\u00e2ntist influences\nseem strong and it even calls itself Advaita. It is noteworthy that\nVasugupta, who _discovered_ the Siva-s\u00fbtras, also wrote a commentary\non the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2.\n\nThe gist of the matter is that, since a taste for speculation is far\nmore prevalent in India than in Europe, there exist many systems of\npopular philosophy which, being a mixture of religion and metaphysics,\ninvolve two mental attitudes. The ordinary worshipper implores the\nLord to deliver him from the bondage of sin and matter: the\nphilosopher and saint wish to show that thought is one and such ideas\nas sin and matter partial and illusory. The originality of the Saiva\nSiddh\u00e2nta lies less in its dogmas than in its devotional character: in\nthe feeling that the soul is immersed in darkness and struggles\nupwards by the grace of the Lord, so that the whole process of Karma\nand M\u00e2y\u00e2 is really beneficent.\n\n\n5\n\n\nAs already mentioned Sivaism has an important though unorthodox\noffshoot in the Ling\u00e2yats[558] or Lingavants. It appears that they\noriginated at Kalyan (now in the Nizam's dominions) at the time when a\nusurper named Bijjala (1156-1167) had seized the throne of the\nChalukyas. Their founder was Basava (the vernacular form of Vrishabha)\nassisted by his nephew Channabasava,[559] whose exploits and miracles\nare recorded in two Pur\u00e2nas composed in Kanarese and bearing their\nrespective names. According to one story Bijjala, who was a Jain,\npersecuted the Ling\u00e2yats and was assassinated by them. But there are\nother versions and the early legends of the sect merit little\ncredence. The Ling\u00e2yats are Puritans. They reject caste, the supremacy\nof the Brahmans, sacrifices and other rites, and all the later\nBrahmanic literature. In theory they reverence the Vedas but\npractically the two Pur\u00e2nas mentioned are their sacred books.[560]\nThey are strict vegetarians and teetotallers: they do not insist on\nchild marriages nor object to the remarriage of widows. Their only\nobject of worship is Siva in the form of a lingam and they always\ncarry one suspended round the neck or arm. It is remarkable that an\nexceptionally severe and puritanical sect should choose this emblem as\nits object of worship, but, as already observed, the lingam is merely\na symbol of the creative force and its worship is not accomplished by\nindecent rites.[561] They hold that true Ling\u00e2yats are not liable to\nbe defiled by births or deaths, that they cannot be injured by sorcery\nand that when they die their souls do not transmigrate but go straight\nto Siva. No prayers for the dead are needed.\n\nThough trustworthy details about the rise of the Ling\u00e2yats are scarce,\nwe can trace their spiritual ancestry. They present in an organized\nform the creed which inspired Pattanattu Pillai in the tenth\ncentury. About a hundred years later came R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja who founded a great\nVishnuite Church and it is not surprising if the Sivaites followed\nthis example, nor if the least orthodox party became the most\ndefinitely sectarian.\n\nThe sectarian impulse which is conspicuous after the eleventh century\nwas perhaps stimulated by the example of Mohammedanism. There was\nlittle direct doctrinal influence, but a religious people like the\nHindus can hardly have failed to notice the strength possessed by an\nassociation worshipping one god of its own and united by one\ndiscipline. Syrian Christianity also might have helped to familiarize\nthe Ling\u00e2yats with the idea of a god not to be represented by images\nor propitiated by sacrifices, but there is no proof that it was\nprevalent in the part of the Deccan where they first appeared.\n\nThe Ling\u00e2yats spread rapidly after Basava's death.[562] They still number\nabout two millions and are to be found in most Kanarese-speaking districts.\nThey are easily recognizable for all carry the lingam, which is commonly\nenclosed in a red scarf worn round the neck or among the richer classes in\na silver-box. It is made of grey soapstone and a Ling\u00e2yat must on no\naccount part with it for a moment. They are divided into the laity and the\nJangams or priests. Some of these marry but others are itinerant ascetics\nwho wander over India frequenting especially the five Simh\u00e2sanas or\nLing\u00e2yat sees.[563] They are treated with extreme respect by the laity and\nsometimes wear fantastic costumes such as plates resembling armour or\nlittle bells which announce their approach as they walk.\n\nIn doctrine the Ling\u00e2yats remain faithful to their original tenets\nand do not worship any god or goddess except Siva in the form of the\nLingam, though they show respect to Ganesa, and other deities as also\nto the founder of their sect. But in social matters it is agreed by\nall observers that they show a tendency to reintroduce caste and to\nminimize the differences separating them from more orthodox sects.\nAccording to Basava's teaching all members of the community both men\nand women are equal. But though converts from all castes are still\naccepted, it was found at the last census that well-to-do Ling\u00e2yats\nwere anxious to be entered under the name of V\u00eerasaiva Brahmans,\nKshatriyas, etc., and did not admit that caste distinctions are\nobliterated among them. Similarly though the remarriage of widows is\nnot forbidden there is a growing tendency to look at it askance.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 511: In various allusions to be found in the K\u00e2dambar\u00ee and\nHarshacarita.]\n\n[Footnote 512: The best known of these is the Tantrav\u00e2rttika, a\ncommentary on the P\u00fbrva-m\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 513: This is the generally accepted date and does not appear\nto conflict with anything else that is at present known of Sankara. An\nalternative suggestion is some date between 590 and 650 (see Telang,\n_I.A._ XIII. 1884, p. 95 and Fleet, _I.A._ XVI. 1887, p. 41). But in\nthis case, it is very strange that I-Ching does not mention so\nconspicuous an enemy of the Buddhists. It does not seem to me that the\nuse of P\u00fbrnavarman's name by Sankara in an illustration (_Comm. on\nVedanta Sut._ II. i. 17) necessarily implies they were contemporaries,\nbut it does prove that he cannot have lived before P\u00fbrnavarman.]\n\n[Footnote 514: Another tradition says he was born at Chidambaram, but\nthe temple at Badrinath in the Himalayas said to have been founded by\nhim has always been served by Nambuthiri Brahmans from Malabar. In\n1910 a great temple erected in his honour was consecrated at Kaladi.]\n\n[Footnote 515: His conflicts with them are described in works called\nSankara-vijaya of which at least four are extant.]\n\n[Footnote 516: They are called Dasan\u00e2mis which merely means that each\nascetic bears one or other of ten surnames (Sarswati, Bharati, Tirtha,\netc.). See for a further account of them Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya,\n_Hindu Castes and Sects_, pp. 374-379.\n\nThe order in all its branches seems to have strong pantheistic\ninclinations. They mutter the formula Sivo'ham, I am Siva.]\n\n[Footnote 517: I have been told by south Indian Pandits that they\nthink Sankara was bom in a Bh\u00e2gavata family and that there is some\nevidence his kinsmen were trustees of a temple of Krishna. The\nS\u00e2ktas also claim him, but the tradition that he opposed the S\u00e2ktas is\nstrong and probable. Many hymns addressed to Vishnu, Siva and various\nforms of Durg\u00e2 are attributed to him. I have not been able to discover\nwhat is the external evidence for their authenticity but hymns must\nhave been popular in south India before the time of Sankara and it is\neminently probable that he did not neglect this important branch of\ncomposition.]\n\n[Footnote 518: See Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 519: This math has an endowment of about \u00a35000 a year,\ninstituted by the kings of Vijayanagar. The Guru is treated with great\nrespect. His palankin is carried crossways to prevent anyone from\npassing him and he wears a jewelled head-dress, not unlike a papal\ntiara, and wooden shoes covered with silver. See an interesting\naccount of Sringeri in _J. Mythic Society_ (Bangalore), vol. VIII. pp.\n18-33.\n\nSchrader in his catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. in the Adyar Library,\n1908, notices an Upanishad called Mah\u00e2m\u00e2yopanishad, ascribed to\nSankara himself, which deals with the special qualities of the four\nmaths. Each is described as possessing one Veda, one Mah\u00e2v\u00e2kyam, etc.\nThe second part deals with the three ideal maths, Sumeru, Param\u00e2tman\nand S\u00e2str\u00e2thajn\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 520: There is some reason to suppose that the Math of\nSringeri was founded on the site of a Buddhist monastery. See _Journal\nof Mythic Society_, Bangalore, 1916, p. 151.]\n\n[Footnote 521: Pracchanna-bauddha. See for further details Book IV.\nchap. XXI. _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 522: The old folk-lore of Bengal gives a picture of Siva,\nthe peasant's god, which is neither Vedic nor Dravidian. See Dinesh\nChandra Sen, _Bengali Lang. and Lit._ pp. 68 ff. and 239 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 523: _J.R.A.S._ 1899, p. 242.]\n\n[Footnote 524: See some curious examples in Whitehead's _Village Gods\nof South India._]\n\n[Footnote 525: Rice, _Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions_, pp. 27\nand 204.]\n\n[Footnote 526: The early Brahmi inscriptions of southern India are\nsaid to be written in a Dravidian language with an admixture not of\nSanskrit but of Pali words. See _Arch. Survey India_, 1911-12, Part I.\np. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 527: See Rice, _Mysore and Coorg_, pp. 3-5 and Fleet's\ncriticisms, _I.A._. XXI. 1892, p. 287.]\n\n[Footnote 528: The various notices in European classical authors as\nwell as in the Sinhalese chronicles prove this.]\n\n[Footnote 529: Except in the first chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 530: A complete list of them is given in Foulkes, _Catechism\nof the Shaiva religion_, 1863, p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 531: _Tamilian Antiquary_, 3, 1909, pp. 1-65.]\n\n[Footnote 532: Edited and translated by Pope, 1900.]\n\n[Footnote 533: Established opinion or doctrine. Used by the Jains as a\nname for their canon.]\n\n[Footnote 534: Thus the catechism of the Saiva religion by Sabhapati\nMudaliyar (transl. Foulkes, 1863) after stating emphatically that the\nworld is created also says that the soul and the world are both\neternal. Also just as in the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 the ideas of the Vedanta\nand S\u00e2nkhya are incongruously combined, so in the Tiruva\u00e7agam (_e.g._\nPope's edition, pp. 49 and 138) Siva is occasionally pantheized. He is\nthe body and the soul, existence and non-existence, the false and the\ntrue, the bond and the release.]\n\n[Footnote 535: _E.g._ Hymn vi.]\n\n[Footnote 536: Pope's _Tiruva\u00e7agam_, p. 257.]\n\n[Footnote 537: Yet I have read that American revivalists describe how\nyou play base ball (an American game) with Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 538: Pope's _Tiruva\u00e7agam_, p. 101.]\n\n[Footnote 539: It does not seem to me that the legend of Siva's\ndrinking the hala-hala poison is really parallel to the sufferings of\nthe Christian redeemer. At the most it is a benevolent exploit like\nmany performed by Vishnu.]\n\n[Footnote 540: Although Siva is said to have been many times incarnate\n(see for instance _Catechism of the Shaiva religion_, p. 20) he seems\nto have merely appeared in human form on special occasions and not to\nhave been like Christ or Krishna a god living as a man from birth to\ndeath.]\n\n[Footnote 541: The lines which seem most clearly to reflect Christian\ninfluence are those quoted by Caldwell from the Nana nuru in the\nintroduction to his _Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian languages_,\np. 127, but neither the date of the work nor the original of the\nquotation is given. This part of the introduction is omitted in the\nthird edition.]\n\n[Footnote 542: _Tamilian Antiquary_, 4, 1909, pp. 57-82.]\n\n[Footnote 543: _Ib._ pp. 1-57; Sesha Aiyer gives 275 A.D. as the\nprobable date, and 375 as the latest date.]\n\n[Footnote 544: The Saiva catechism translated by Foulkes says (p. 27)\nthat Siva revealed the Tiruva\u00e7agam twice, first to Manikka-Va\u00e7agar and\nlater to Tiru-Kovaiyar.]\n\n[Footnote 545: Sanskrit, _Siddha._]\n\n[Footnote 546: Space forbids me to quote the Siva-v\u00e2kyam and\nPattanattu Pillai, interesting as they are. The reader is\nreferred to Gover, _Folk-Songs of southern India_, 1871, a work which\nis well worth reading.]\n\n[Footnote 547: The date of the Skanda Pur\u00e2na creates no difficulty\nfor Bendall considered a MS. of it found in Nepal to be anterior to\n659 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 548: One of his maxims was _adu, adu \u00e2dal_, that is the mind\nbecomes that (spiritual or material) with which it identifies itself\nmost completely.]\n\n[Footnote 549: It is contained in fourteen s\u00e2stras, most of which are\nattributed to the four teachers mentioned above.]\n\n[Footnote 550: For the Kashmir school see Barnett in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1909,\npp. 271-277. _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 707-747. Kashmir Sanskrit series,\nparticularly vol. II. entitled _Kashmir Saivism_. The Siva s\u00fbtras and\nthe commentary Vimar'sin\u00ee translated in _Indian Thought_, 1911-12.\nAlso Srinivasa Iyengar, _Outlines of Indian Philosophy_, pp. 168-175\nand _Sarva-darsana-sangraha_, chap. VIII.]\n\n[Footnote 551: Among them may be mentioned Kallata, author of\nthe _Spanda K\u00e2rik\u00e2s_ and Som\u00e2nanda of the Sivadrishti, who\nboth flourished about 850-900. Utpala, who composed the\nPratyabhij\u00f1\u00e2-k\u00e2rik\u00e2s, lived some fifty years later, and in the\neleventh century Abhinava Gupta and Kshemar\u00e2ja composed numerous\ncommentaries.]\n\n[Footnote 552: Kashmirian Saivism is often called Trika, that is\ntripartite, because, like other varieties, it treats of three\nultimates _Siva_, _Sakti_, _Anu_ or _Pati_, _Pasu_, _P\u00e2sa_. But it has\na decided tendency towards monism.]\n\n[Footnote 553: Also called the Sakti or M\u00e2trik\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 554: See _Epig. Carn._ VII. Sk. 114. 19, 20 and _Jour.\nMythic Society_, 1917, pp. 176, 180.]\n\n[Footnote 555: To say nothing of Sivaite temples like the Kailas at\nEllora, the chief doctrines and even the terminology of Sivaite\nphilosophy are mentioned by Sankara on Ved. Sutras, II. 2. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 556: In the Samyuktavastu, chap. XL. (transl. in _J.A._\n1914, II. pp. 534, etc.) the Buddha is represented as saying that\nKashmir is the best land for meditation and leading a religious life.]\n\n[Footnote 557: Chatterji, _Kashmir Saivism_, p. 11, thinks that\nAbhinava Gupta's _Param\u00e2rthas\u00e2ra_, published by Barnett, was an\nadaptation of older verses current in India and called the \u00c2dh\u00e2ra\nK\u00e2rik\u00e2s.]\n\n[Footnote 558: See Thurston, _Castes and Tribes of southern India_,\ns.v. vol. IV. pp. 236-291 and _Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency_,\nvol. XXIII. article Bijapur, pp. 219-1884.]\n\n[Footnote 559: An inscription found at Ablur in Dharwar also mentions\nRamayya as a champion of Sivaite monotheism. He is perhaps the same as\nChannabasava. The Ling\u00e2yats maintain that Basava merely revived the\nold true religion of Siva and founded nothing new.]\n\n[Footnote 560: They have also a book called _Prabhuling-lila_, which\nis said to teach that the deity ought to live in the believer's soul\nas he lives in the lingam, and collections of early Kanarese sermons\nwhich are said to date from the thirteenth century.]\n\n[Footnote 561: The use of the Linga by this sect supports the view\nthat even in its origin the symbol is not exclusively phallic.]\n\n[Footnote 562: Their creed is said to have been the state religion of\nthe Wodeyars of Mysore (1399-1600) and of the Nayaks of Keladi, Ikken\nor Bednur (1550-1763).]\n\n[Footnote 563: At Kadur, Ujjeni, Benares, Sr\u00eesailam and Kedarn\u00e2th in\nthe Himalayas. In every Ling\u00e2yat village there is a monastery\naffiliated to one of these five establishments. The great importance\nattached to monastic institutions is perhaps due to Jain influence.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX\n\nVISHNUISM IN SOUTH INDIA\n\n\n1\n\n\nThough Sivaism can boast of an imposing array of temples, teachers and\nscriptures in the north as well as in the south, yet Vishnuism was\nequally strong and after 1000 A.D. perhaps stronger. Thus Alberuni\nwriting about north-western India in 1030 A.D. mentions Siva and Durg\u00e2\nseveral times incidentally but devotes separate chapters to N\u00e2r\u00e2yana\nand V\u00e2sudeva; he quotes copiously from Vishnuite works[564] but not\nfrom sectarian Sivaite books. He mentions that the worshippers of\nVishnu are called Bh\u00e2gavatas and he frequently refers to R\u00e2ma. It is\nclear that in giving an account of Vishnuism he considered that he had\nfor all practical purposes described the religion of the parts of\nIndia which he knew.\n\nIn their main outlines the histories of Vishnuism and Sivaism are the\nsame. Both faiths first assumed a definite form in northern India, but\nboth flourished exceedingly when transplanted to the south and\nproduced first a school of emotional hymn writers and then in a\nmaturer stage a goodly array of theologians and philosophers as well\nas offshoots in the form of eccentric sects which broke loose from\nBrahmanism altogether. But Vishnuism having first spread from the\nnorth to the south returned from the south to the north in great\nforce, whereas the history of Sivaism shows no such reflux.[565]\nSivaism remained comparatively homogeneous, but Vishnuism gave birth\nfrom the eleventh century onwards to a series of sects or Churches\nstill extant and forming exclusive though not mutually hostile\nassociations. The chief Churches or Samprad\u00e2yas bear the names of\nSanak\u00e2di, Sr\u00ee, Brahm\u00e2 and Rudra. The first three were founded by\nNimb\u00e2ditya, R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and Madhva respectively. The Rudra-samprad\u00e2ya was\nrendered celebrated by Vallabha, though he was not its founder.\n\nThe belief and practice of all Vishnuite sects alike is a modified\nmonotheism, the worship of the Supreme Being under some such name as\nR\u00e2ma or V\u00e2sudeva. But the monotheism is not perfect. On the one hand\nit passes into pantheism: on the other it is not completely disengaged\nfrom mythology and in all sects the consort and attendants of the\ndeity receive great respect, even if this respect is theoretically\ndistinguished from adoration. Nearly all sects reject sacrifice _in\ntoto_ and make the basis of salvation emotional--namely devotion to\nthe deity, and as a counterpart to this the chief characteristic of\nthe deity is loving condescension or grace. The theological philosophy\nof each sect is nearly always, whatever name it may bear, a variety of\nthe system known as Visisht\u00e2dvaita, or qualified monism, which is not\nunlike the S\u00e2nkhya-Yoga.[566] For Vishnuites as for Sivaites there\nexist God, the soul and matter, but most sects shrink from regarding\nthem as entirely separate and bridge over the differences with various\ntheories of emanations and successive manifestations of the deity. But\nfor practical religion the soul is entangled in matter and, with the\nhelp of God, struggles towards union with him. The precise nature and\nintimacy of this union has given rise to as many subtle theories and\nphrases as the sacraments in Europe. Vishnuite sects in all parts of\nIndia show a tendency to recognize vernacular works as their\nscriptures, but they also attach great importance to the Upanishads,\nthe Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, the N\u00e2r\u00e2yan\u00eeya and the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras. Each has a\nspecial interpretation of these last which becomes to some extent its\nmotto.\n\nBut these books belong to the relatively older literature. Many\nVishnuite, or rather Krishnaite, works composed from the eighth\ncentury onwards differ from them in tone and give prominence to the\ngod's amorous adventures with the Gopis and (still later) to the\npersonality of R\u00e2dh\u00e2. This ecstatic and sentimental theology, though\nfound in all parts of India, is more prevalent in the north than in\nthe south. Its great text-book is the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na. The same\nspirit is found in Jayadeva's G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda, apparently composed in\nBengal about 1170 A.D. and reproducing in a polished form the\nreligious dramas or Y\u00e2tras in which the life of Krishna is still\nrepresented.\n\n\n2\n\n\nThe sect[567] founded by Nimb\u00e2rka or Nimb\u00e2ditya has some connection\nwith this poem. Its chief doctrine is known as dvait\u00e2dvaitamata, or\ndualistic non-duality, which is explained as meaning that, though the\nsoul and matter are distinct from God, they are yet as intimately\nconnected with him as waves with water or the coils of a rope with the\nrope itself. This doctrine is referred to in the religious drama\ncalled Prabodhacandrodaya, probably composed at the end of the\neleventh century. The Nim\u00e2vats, as the adherents of the sect are\ncalled, are found near Muttra and in Bengal. It is noticeable that\nthis sect, which had its origin in northern India, is said to have\nbeen persecuted by the Jains[568] and to have been subsequently\nrevived by a teacher called Niv\u00e2sa. This may explain why in the\ntwelfth century Vishnuism flourished in the south rather than in the\nnorth.[569] Less is known of the Nimb\u00e2rkas than of the other sects.\nThey worship Krishna and R\u00e2dh\u00e2 and faith in Krishna is said to be\nthe only way to salvation. Krishna was the deity of the earliest\nbhakti-sects. Then in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was\na reaction in favour of R\u00e2ma as a more spiritual deity, but\nsubsequently Vallabha and Caitanya again made the worship of Krishna\npopular. Nimb\u00e2rka expressed his views in a short commentary on the\nVed\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras and also in ten verses containing a compendium of\ndoctrine.[570]\n\n\n3\n\n\nAs among the Sivaites, so among the Vishnuites of the south, history\nbegins with poet-saints. They are called the twelve \u00c2rv\u00e2rs.[571] For\nthe three earliest no historical basis has been found, but the later\nones seem to be real personalities. The most revered of them is\nNamm'\u00e2rv\u00e2r also called Sathagopa, whose images and pictures may be\nseen everywhere in south India and receive the same reverence as\nfigures of the gods.[572] He may have lived in the seventh or eighth\ncentury A.D.[573]\n\nThe chronology of the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs is exceedingly vague but if the praises\nof Siva were sung by poet-saints in the seventh century, it is\nprobable that the Vishnu worshippers were not behindhand. Two\ncircumstances argue a fairly early date. First N\u00e2thamuni is said to\nhave arranged the hymns of the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs and he probably lived about\n1000 A.D. Therefore the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs must have become classics by this\ndate. Secondly the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na[574] says that in the Kali age\nthe worshippers of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana will be numerous in the Dravidian\ncountry, though in other parts found only here and there, and that\nthose who drink the water of the Kaveri and other southern rivers will\nmostly be devotees of V\u00e2sudeva. This passage must have been written\nafter a Vishnuite movement had begun in the Dravidian country.[575]\n\nThe hymns attributed to the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs are commonly known by the name of\nPrabandham or N\u00e2l\u00e2yiram and are accepted by the Tengalai Vishnuites as\ntheir canonical scriptures. The whole collection contains 4000 verses\narranged in four parts[576] and an extract consisting of 602 verses\nselected for use in daily worship is in part accessible.[577] This\npoetry shows the same ecstatic devotion and love of nature as the\nTiruva\u00e7agam. It contemplates the worship of images and a temple ritual\nconsisting in awakening the god at morning and attending on him during\nthe day. It quotes the Upanishads and Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, assumes as a\nmetaphysical basis a vedantized form of the S\u00e2nkhya philosophy, and\nalso accepts the legends of the pastoral Krishna but without giving\nmuch detail. Jains, Buddhists and Saivas are blamed and the repetition\nof the name Govinda is enjoined. Though the hymns are not\nanti-brahmanic they decidedly do not contemplate a life spent in\northodox observances and their reputed authors include several S\u00fbdras,\na king and a woman.\n\nAfter the poet-saints came the doctors and theologians. Accounts of\nthem, which seem historical in the main though full of miraculous\ndetails, are found in the Tamil biographies[578] illustrating the\napostolic succession of teachers. It appears fairly certain that\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, the fourth in succession, was alive in 1118: the first,\nknown as N\u00e2thamuni, may therefore have lived 100-150 years earlier.\nNone of his works are extant but he is said to have arranged the poems\nof the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs for recitation in temple services. He went on a\npilgrimage to northern India and according to tradition was an adept\nin Yoga, being one of the last to practise it in the south. Third in\nsuccession was his grandson Yamun\u00e2rc\u00e2rya (known as \u00c2lavand\u00e2r or\nvictor), who spent the first part of his life as a wealthy layman but\nwas converted and resided at Sr\u00eerangam. Here he composed several\nimportant works in Sanskrit including one written to establish the\northodoxy of the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and its ritual.[579]\n\n\n4\n\n\nHe was succeeded by R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, a great name in Indian theology both as\nthe organizer of a most important sect and, if not the founder,[580]\nat least the accepted exponent of the Visisht\u00e2dvaita philosophy.\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja was born at Sr\u00eeperum-budur[581] near Madras, where he is\nstill commemorated by a celebrated shrine. As a youth he studied\nSivaite philosophy at Conjeevaram but abandoned it for Vishnuism. He\nappears to have been a good administrator. He made the definitive\ncollection of the hymns of the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs and is said to have founded 700\nmaths and 89 hereditary abbotships, for he allowed the members of his\norder to marry. He visited northern India, including Kashmir if\ntradition may be believed, but his chief residence was Sr\u00eerangam.\nTowards the end of the eleventh century however, the hostility of the\nChola King Kulottunga, who was an intolerant Sivaite, forced him to\nretire to Mysore. Here he was protected by King Vittala Deva whom he\nconverted from Jainism and on the death of Kulottunga in 1118 he\nreturned to Sr\u00eerangam where he ended his days. In the temple there his\ntomb and a shrine where his image receives divine honours may still be\nseen. His best known work[582] is the Sr\u00ee Bh\u00e2shya or commentary on the\nVed\u00e2nta s\u00fbtras.\n\nThe sect which he founded is known as the Sr\u00ee Samprad\u00e2ya and its\nmembers as the Sr\u00ee Vaishnavas. As among the Sivaites revelation is\noften supposed to be made by Siva through Sakti, so here the Lord is\nsaid to have revealed the truth to his consort Sr\u00ee or Lakshm\u00ee, she to\na demigod called Visvaksena, and he to Namm'\u00e2rv\u00e2r, from whom R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja\nwas eighth in spiritual descent. Though the members of the sect are\nsometimes called Ramaites the personality of R\u00e2ma plays a small part\nin their faith, especially as expounded by R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. As names for the\ndeity he uses N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and V\u00e2sudeva and he quotes freely from the\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and the Vishnu Pur\u00e2na. Compared with the emotional\ndeism of Caitanya this faith seems somewhat philosophic and reticent.\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja clearly indicates its principal points in the first words of\nhis Sr\u00ee Bh\u00e2shya. \"May my mind be filled with devotion towards the\nhighest Brahman, the abode of Lakshm\u00ee; who is luminously revealed in\nthe Upanishads: who in sport produces, sustains and reabsorbs the\nentire universe: whose only aim is to foster the manifold classes of\nbeings that humbly worship him.\"[583] He goes on to say that his\nteaching is that of the Upanishads, \"which was obscured by the mutual\nconflict of manifold opinions,\" and that he follows the commentary of\nBodh\u00e2yana and other teachers who have abridged it.\n\nThat is to say, the form of Vishnuism which R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja made one of the\nprincipal religions of India claims to be the teaching of the\nUpanishads, although he also affiliates himself to the Bh\u00e2gavatas. He\ninterprets the part of the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras which treats of this\nsect[584] as meaning that the author states and ultimately disallows\nthe objections raised to their teaching and he definitely approves it.\n\"As it is thus settled that the highest Brahman or N\u00e2r\u00e2yana himself\nis the promulgator of the entire P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and that this system\nteaches the nature of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and the proper way of worshipping him,\nnone can disestablish the view that in the P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra all the other\ndoctrines are comprised.\"[585]\n\nThe true tradition of the Upanishads he contends has been distorted by\n\"manifold opinions,\" among which the doctrine of Sankara was no doubt\nthe chief. That doctrine was naturally distasteful to devotional\npoets, and from the time of N\u00e2thamuni onwards a philosophic reaction\nagainst it grew up in Sr\u00eerangam. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja preaches the worship of a\nloving God, though when we read that God produces and reabsorbs the\nuniverse in sport, we find that we are farther from Christianity than\nwe at first supposed. There is a touch of mythology in the mention of\nLakshm\u00ee[586] but it is clear that R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja himself had little liking\nfor mythology. He barely mentions R\u00e2ma and Krishna in the Sri\nBh\u00e2shya nor does he pay much attention to the consort of the deity. On\nthe other hand he shows no sign of rejecting the ritual and\nregulations of the Brahmans. He apparently wished to prove that the\ndoctrine of salvation by devotion to a personal god is compatible with\na system as strictly orthodox as Sankara's own.\n\nI shall treat elsewhere of his philosophy, known as the\nVisisht\u00e2dvaita or non-duality, which yet recognizes a distinction\nbetween God and individual souls. The line of thought is old and at\nall periods is clearly a compromise, unwilling to deny that God is\neverything and yet dissatisfied with the idea that a personal deity\nand our individual transmigrating souls are all merely illusion.\nDevotional theism was growing in R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's time. He could not break\nwith the Upanishads and Vedantic tradition but he adapted them to the\nneeds of his day. He taught firstly that the material world and human\nsouls are not illusion but so to speak the body of God who comprises\nand pervades them: secondly this God is omniscient, omnipresent,\nalmighty and all-merciful, and salvation (that is mukti or deliverance\nfrom transmigration) is obtained by those souls who, assisted by his\ngrace, meditate on him and know him; thirdly this salvation consists\nnot in absorption into God but in blissful existence near him and in\nparticipation of his glorious qualities. He further held[587] that God\nexists in five modes, namely: (_a_) Para, the entire supreme spirit,\n(_b_) the fourfold manifestation as V\u00e2sudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna\nand Aniruddha, (_c_) incarnations such as R\u00e2ma and Krishna, (_d_)\nthe internal controller or Antary\u00e2min according to the text[588] \"who\nabiding in the soul rules the soul within,\" (_e_) duly consecrated\nimages.\n\nThe followers of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja are at present divided into two schools\nknown as Tengalais and Vadagalais, or southern and northern.[589] The\ndouble residence of the founder is one reason for the division, since\nboth Mysore and Trichinopoly could claim to have personal knowledge of\nhis teaching. The really important difference seems to be that the\nTengalai or southern school is inclined to break away from Sanskrit\ntradition, to ignore the Vedas in practice and to regard the Tamil\nN\u00e2l\u00e2yiram as an all-sufficient scripture, whereas the Vadagalais,\nthough not rejecting the N\u00e2l\u00e2yiram, insist on the authority of the\nVedas. But both divisions are scrupulous about caste observances and\nthe ceremonial purity of their food. They are separated by nice\nquestions of doctrine, especially as to the nature of prapatti,\nresignation or self-surrender to the deity, a sentiment slightly\ndifferent from bhakti which is active faith or devotion. The\nnortherners hold that the soul lays hold of the Lord, as the young\nmonkey hangs on to its mother, whereas the southerners say that the\nLord picks up the helpless and passive soul as a cat picks up a\nkitten.[590] According to the northerners, the consort of Vishnu is,\nlike him, uncreated and equally to be worshipped as a bestower of\ngrace: according to the southerners she is created and, though divine,\nmerely a mediator or channel of the Lord's grace. Even more important\nin popular esteem is the fact that the Vadagalai sectarian mark ends\nbetween the eyebrows whereas the Tengalais prolong it to the tip of\nthe nose. _Odium theologicum_ is often bitterest between the sects\nwhich are most nearly related and accordingly we find that the\nTengalais and Vadagalais frequently quarrel. They use the same temples\nbut in many places both claim the exclusive right to recite the hymns\nof the \u00c2rv\u00e2rs. The chief difference in their recitation lies in the\nopening verse in which each party celebrates the names of its special\nteachers, and disputes as to the legality of a particular verse in a\nparticular shrine sometimes give rise to free fights and subsequent\nlawsuits.\n\nThe two schools reckon the apostolic succession differently and appear\nto have separated in the thirteenth century, in which they were\nrepresented by Pillai Lok\u00e2c\u00e2rya and Ved\u00e2nta Desika[591]\nrespectively. The Tengalai, of which the first-named teacher was the\npractical founder, must be regarded as innovators, for in their use of\nTamil as the language of religion they do not follow the example of\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. Lok\u00e2c\u00e2rya teaches that the grace of God is irresistible and\nshould be met not merely by active faith, but by self-surrender,[592]\nand entire submission to the guidance of the spiritual teacher. He was\nthe author of eighteen works called Rahasyas or secrets[593] but\nthough he appears to have been the first to formulate the Tengalai\ndoctrines, Manavala Mah\u00e2muni (1370-1443 A.D.) is regarded by the sect\nas its chief saint. His images and pictures are frequent in south\nIndia and he wrote numerous commentaries and poems. Ved\u00e2nta Desika,\nthe founder of the Vadagalai, was a native of Conjeevaram but spent\nmuch of his life at Sr\u00eerangam. He was a voluminous author and\ncomposed _inter alia_ an allegorical play in ten acts, portraying the\nliberation of the soul under the auspices of King Viveka\n(discrimination) and Queen Sumati (Wisdom).\n\nAt the present day the two sects recognize as their respective heads\ntwo \u00c2c\u00e2ryas who are married, whereas all Sm\u00e2rta \u00c2c\u00e2ryas are\ncelibates.[594] The Tengalai \u00c2c\u00e2rya resides near Tinnevelly, the\nVadagalai in the district of Kurnool. They both make periodical\nvisitations in their districts and have considerable ecclesiastical\npower. In the south Sr\u00eerangam near Trichinopoly is their principal\nshrine: in the north Melucote in the Seringapatam district is esteemed\nvery sacred.\n\n\n5\n\n\nIt was only natural that R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's advocacy of qualified non-duality\nshould lead some more uncompromising spirit to affirm the doctrine of\nDvaita or duality. This step was taken by Madhva \u00c2c\u00e2rya, a Kanarese\nBrahman who was probably born in 1199 A.D.[595] In the previous year\nthe great temple of Jagannatha at Puri had been completed and the\nVishnuite movement was at its height. Madhva though educated as a\nSaiva became a Vaishnava. He denied absolutely the identity of the\nSupreme Being with the individual soul and held that the world is not\na modification of the Lord but that he is like a father who begets a\nson. Yet in practice, rigid monotheism is not more prevalent among\nMadhva's followers than in other sects. They are said to tolerate the\nworship of Sivaite deities and of the lingam in their temples[596] and\ntheir ascetics dress like Saivas.\n\nMadhva travelled in both northern and southern India and had a\nsomewhat troubled life, for his doctrine, being the flat contradiction\nof the Advaita, involved him in continual conflicts with the followers\nof Sankara who are said to have even stolen his library. At any rate\nthey anathematized his teaching with a violence unusual in Indian\ntheology.[597] In spite of such lively controversy he found time to\nwrite thirty-seven works, including commentaries on the Upanishads,\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras. The obvious meaning of these texts\nis not that required by his system, but they are recognized by all\nVaishnavas as the three Prasth\u00e2nas or starting-points of philosophy\nand he had to show that they supported his views. Hence his\ninterpretation often seems forced and perverse. The most extraordinary\ninstance of this is his explanation of the celebrated phrase in the\nCh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad Sa \u00e2tm\u00e2 tat tvam asi. He reads Sa \u00e2tm\u00e2 atat tvam\nasi and considers that it means \"You are not that God. Why be so\nconceited as to suppose that you are?\"[598] Monotheistic texts have\noften received a mystical and pantheistic interpretation. The Old\nTestament and the Koran have been so treated by Kabbalists and Sufis.\nBut in Madhva's commentaries we see the opposite and probably rarer\nmethod. Pantheistic texts are twisted until they are made to express\nuncompromising monotheism.\n\nThe sect is often called Brahma-samprad\u00e2ya, because it claims that its\ndoctrine was revealed by Brahm\u00e2 from whom Madhva was the sixth teacher\nin spiritual descent. Its members are known as M\u00e2dhvas but prefer to\ncall themselves Sad-Vaishnavas. Its teaching seems more rigid and\nless emotional than that of other Vishnuites and is based on the\nPancabheda or five eternal distinctions between (_a_) God and the\nsoul, (_b_) God and matter, (_c_) the soul and matter, (_d_)\nindividual souls, (_e_) individual atoms of matter. God is generally\ncalled Vishnu or N\u00e2r\u00e2yana rather than V\u00e2sudeva. Krishna is adored\nbut not in his pastoral aspect. Vishnu and his spouse Lakshm\u00ee are\nreal though superhuman personalities and their sons are Brahm\u00e2 the\ncreator and V\u00e2yu.[599] Peculiar to this sect is the doctrine that\nexcept through V\u00e2yu, the son of Vishnu, salvation is impossible. V\u00e2yu\nhas been three times incarnate as Hanumat, the helper of R\u00e2ma, as\nBh\u00eema and as Madhva himself.[600] Souls are separate, innumerable and\nrelated to God as subjects to a king. They are of three classes: those\nwho are destined to eternal bliss in the presence of God: those who\nrevolve eternally in the maze of transmigration: and those who tending\never downwards are doomed to eternal suffering.\n\nThis last doctrine, as well as the doctrine of salvation through V\u00e2yu,\nthe wind or spirit, has led many to suspect that Madhva was influenced\nby Christian ideas, but it is more probable that he owed something to\nIslam. Such influence would no doubt be distant and indirect, for a\nBrahman would not come into contact with Moslim doctors, though it is\nsaid that Madhva could speak Persian.[601] But some Moslim ideas such\nas the absolute separation of God from the world and the\npredestination of souls to eternal happiness and misery may have\nentered Brahman minds. Still, nearly all Madhva's views (with the\npossible exception of eternal punishment) have Indian analogies. The\nYoga teaches that there are innumerable souls distinct from one\nanother and from God and though salvation through the spirit sounds\nChristian, yet the Upanishads constantly celebrate V\u00e2yu (wind) and\nPr\u00e2na (breath) as the pervading principle of the world and the home\nof the self. \"By the wind (V\u00e2yu) as thread, O Gautama, this world and\nthe other world and all creatures are bound together.\"[602] Thus the\nidea that the wind is the universal mediator is old and it does not\nseem that Madhva regarded V\u00e2yu as a redeemer or expiation for sin like\nChrist.\n\nThe M\u00e2dhvas are still an energetic and important sect. Their\nheadquarters are at Udipi in South Kanara and they also hold an annual\nconference at Tirupati at which examinations in theology are held and\nprizes given. At Udipi are eight maths and a very sacred temple,\ndedicated by Madhva himself to Krishna. The head of each math is\ncharged in turn with the supervision of this temple during two years\nand the change of office is celebrated by a great biennial festival in\nJanuary. The worship is more puritanical than in the temples of other\nsects, dancing girls for instance not being allowed, but great\nimportance is attached to the practice of branding the body with the\nemblems of Vishnu. The sect, like the Sr\u00ee Vaishnavas, is divided\ninto two parties, the Vyasakutas who are conservative and use Sanskrit\nscriptures,[603] and the Dasakutas who have more popular tendencies\nand use sacred books written in Kanarese. Neither the Sr\u00ee Vaishnavas\nnor the M\u00e2dhvas are numerous in northern India.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 564: Such as the Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, Vishnu Dharma, said to be\na section of the Garuda Pur\u00e2na and the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 565: The Hindus are well aware that the doctrine of Bhakti\nspread from the south to the north. See the allegory quoted in\n_J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 800.]\n\n[Footnote 566: Thus R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja says (Sri Bh\u00e2shya, II. 2. 43) that the\nVed\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras do not refute the S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga but merely certain\nerroneous views as to Brahman not being the self.]\n\n[Footnote 567: It has been described as the earliest of the Vishnuite\nChurches and it would be so if we could be sure that the existence of\nthe doctrine called Dvait\u00e2dvaita was equivalent to the existence of\nthe sect. But Bhandarkar has shown some reason for thinking that\nNimb\u00e2ditya lived after R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja. It must be admitted that the worship\nof R\u00e2dh\u00e2 and the doctrine of self-surrender or prapatti, both found in\nthe Dasasloki, are probably late.]\n\n[Footnote 568: See Grierson in _E.R.E._ vol. II. p. 457.]\n\n[Footnote 569: The Church of the Nimavats is also called\nSanak\u00e2di-samprad\u00e2ya because it professes to derive its doctrine from\nSanaka and his brethren who taught N\u00e2rada, who taught Nimb\u00e2rka. At\nleast one sub-sect founded by Harivamsa (born 1559) adopts a doctrine\nanalogous to Saktism and worships R\u00e2dh\u00e2 as the manifestation of\nKrishna's energy.]\n\n[Footnote 570: Called the Dasasloki. It is translated in Bhandarkar's\n_Vaishn and Saivism_, pp. 63-5.]\n\n[Footnote 571: Also spelt Alvar and Azhvar. The Tamil pronunciation of\nthis difficult letter varies in different districts. The word\napparently means one who is drowned or immersed in the divine love.\nCf. _Azhi_, the deep sea; _Azhal_, being deep or being immersed.]\n\n[Footnote 572: An educated Vaishnava told me at Sr\u00eerangam that devas\nand saints receive the same homage.]\n\n[Footnote 573: It is possible that the poems attributed to Namm'\u00e2rv\u00e2r\nand other saints are really later compositions. See _Epig. Ind_. vol.\nVIII. p. 294.]\n\n[Footnote 574: XI. 5. 38-40.]\n\n[Footnote 575: Bhandarkar (_Vaishn. and Saivism_, p. 50) thinks it\nprobable that Kulasekhara, one of the middle \u00c2rv\u00e2rs, lived about\n1130. But the argument is not conclusive and it seems to me improbable\nthat he lived after N\u00e2thamuni.]\n\n[Footnote 576: The first called Mudal-\u00c2yiram consists of nine hymns\nascribed to various saints such as Periy\u00e2rvar and Andal. The second\nand third each consist of a single work the Periya-tiru-mori and the\nTiru-vay-mori ascribed to Tiru-mangai and Namm'\u00e2rv\u00e2r respectively.\nThe fourth part or Iyar-pa is like the first a miscellany containing\nfurther compositions by these two as well as by others.]\n\n[Footnote 577: Nity\u00e2nusandh\u00e2nam series: edited with Telugu paraphrase\nand English translation by M.B. Srinivasa Aiyangar, Madras, 1898.]\n\n[Footnote 578: The best known is the Guru-parampar\u00e2-prabh\u00e2vam of\nBrahmatantra-svatantra-sw\u00e2mi. For an English account of these doctors\nsee T. R\u00e2jagopala Chariar, _The Vaishnavite Reformers of India_,\nMadras, 1909.]\n\n[Footnote 579: \u00c2gamapr\u00e2m\u00e2nya. He also wrote a well-known hymn called\n\u00c2lavand\u00e2r-Stotram and a philosophical treatise called Siddhi-traya.]\n\n[Footnote 580: He states himself that he followed Boddh\u00e2yana, a\ncommentator on the S\u00fbtras of unknown date but anterior to Sankara. He\nquotes several other commentators particularly Dramida, so that his\nschool must have had a long line of teachers.]\n\n[Footnote 581: See _Gazetteer of India_, vol. XXIII. s.v. There is a\nKanarese account of his life called Dibya-caritra. For his life and\nteaching see also Bhandarkar in _Berichte VIIth Int. Orient.\nCongress_, 1886, pp. 101 ff. Lives in English have been published at\nMadras by Alkondaville Govind\u00e2c\u00e2rya (1906) and Krishnaswami Aiyangar\n(? 1909).]\n\n[Footnote 582: He also wrote the Ved\u00e2rtha Sangraha, Ved\u00e2rtha Prad\u00eepa,\nVed\u00e2nta S\u00e2ra and a commentary on the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 583: _S.B.E._ XLVIII. p. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 584: II. 2. 36-39.]\n\n[Footnote 585: II. 2. 43 _ad fin._]\n\n[Footnote 586: R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's introduction to the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 is more\nornate but does not go much further in doctrine than the passage here\nquoted.]\n\n[Footnote 587: This fivefold manifestation of the deity is a\ncharacteristic P\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra doctrine. See Schrader, _Int._ pp. 25, 51\nand _Sr\u00ee Bh\u00e2shya_, II. 242.]\n\n[Footnote 588: See Br. Ar. Up III. 7. The Sr\u00ee Vaishnavas attach great\nimportance to this chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 589: Only relatively northern and southern. Neither flourish\nin what we call northern India.]\n\n[Footnote 590: Hence the two doctrines are called markata-ny\u00e2ya and\nmarj\u00e2ra-ny\u00e2ya, monkey theory and cat theory. The latter gave rise to\nthe dangerous doctrine of Doshabhogya, that God enjoys sin, since it\ngives a larger scope for the display of His grace. Cf. Oscar Wilde in\n_De Profundis_, \"Christ, through some divine instinct in him, seems to\nhave always loved the sinner as being the nearest possible approach to\nperfection in man.... In a manner not yet understood of the world, he\nregarded sin and suffering as being in themselves beautiful holy\nthings and modes of perfection.... Christ, had he been asked, would\nhave said--I feel quite certain about it--that the moment the prodigal\nson fell on his knees and wept, he made his having wasted his\nsubstance with harlots, his swine herding and hungering for the husks\nthey ate beautiful and holy moments in his life.\"]\n\n[Footnote 591: Also called Venkatan\u00e2tha. For some rather elaborate\nstudies in the history of the Sr\u00ee-Vaishnavas see V. Rangacharis'\narticles in _J. Bombay R.A.S._ 1915 and 1916 and _J. Mythic Society_,\n1917, Nos. 2 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 592: Prapatti and \u00e2c\u00e2ryabhim\u00e2na.--The word _prapatti_ seems\nnot to occur in the Sr\u00ee Bh\u00e2shya and it is clear that R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's\ntemperament was inclined to active and intelligent devotion. But\n_prapatti_ is said to have been taught by Nathamuni and Sathagopa\n(R\u00e2jagopala Chariar, _Vaishnavite Reformers_, p. 6). The word means\nliterally _approaching._]\n\n[Footnote 593: The Artha-pa\u00f1caka and Tattva-traya are the best known.\nSee text and translation of the first in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp.\n565-607.]\n\n[Footnote 594: R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja set less store than Sankara on asceticism and\nrenunciation of the world. He held the doctrine called _samucchaya_\n(or combination) namely that good works as well as knowledge are\nefficacious for salvation.]\n\n[Footnote 595: Also called \u00c2nandat\u00eertha and P\u00fbrnapraj\u00f1a. According to\nothers he was born in 1238 A.D. See for his doctrines Grierson's\narticle Madhvas in _E.R.E._ and his own commentaries on the Ch\u00e2ndogya\nand Brihad Ar. Upanishads published in _Sacred Books of the Hindus_,\nvols. III. and XIV. For his date Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_,\npp. 58-59 and _I.A._. 1914, pp. 233 ff. and 262 ff. Accounts of his\nlife and teaching have been written by Padmanabha Char. and Krishna\nSvami Aiyer (Madras, 1909). His followers maintain that he is not dead\nbut still alive at Badar\u00ee in the Himalayas.]\n\n[Footnote 596: See Padmanabha Char. _l.c._ page 12. Madhva condemned\nthe worship of inanimate objects (_e.g._ com. Ch\u00e2nd. Up. VII. 14. 2)\nbut not the worship of Brahman _in_ inanimate objects.]\n\n[Footnote 597: In a work called the _P\u00e2shanda capetik\u00e2_ or _A Slap for\nHeretics_, all the adherents of Madhva are consigned to hell and the\nSaurapur\u00e2na, chaps. XXXVIII.-XL. contains a violent polemic against\nthem. See Jahn's _Analysis_, pp. 90-106 and Barth in _M\u00e9langes\nHarlez_, pp. 12-25. It is curious that the Madhvas should have been\nselected for attack, for in many ways they are less opposed to\nSivaites than are other Vishnuite sects but the author was clearly\nbadly informed about the doctrines which he attacks and he was\nprobably an old-fashioned Sivaite of the north who regarded Madhvism\nas a new-fangled version of objectionable doctrines.\n\nThe Madhvas are equally violent in denouncing Sankara and his\nfollowers. They miswrite the name Samkara, giving it the sense of\nmongrel or dirt and hold that he was an incarnation of a demon called\nManimat sent by evil spirits to corrupt the world.]\n\n[Footnote 598: See his comment on Ch\u00e2nd. Up. VI. 8. 7. Compare\nBhag.-g. XV. 7. The text appears to say that the soul (J\u00eeva) is a part\n(amsa) of the Lord. Madhva says it is so-called because it bears some\nreduced similitude to the Lord, though quite distinct from him.\nMadhva's exegesis is supported by a system of tantric or cabalistic\ninterpretation in which every letter has a special meaning. Thus in\nthe passage of the Ch\u00e2nd. Up. mentioned above the simple words _sa ya\neshah_ are explained as equivalent to S\u00e2ra essence, yama the\ncontroller, and ishta the desired one. The reading atat tvam asi is\nsaid not to have originated with Madhva but to be found in a Bh\u00e2gavata\nwork called the S\u00e2masamhit\u00e2.]\n\n[Footnote 599: In his commentary on the opening of the Ch\u00e2nd. Up.\nMadhva seems to imply a Trinity consisting of Vishnu, Ram\u00e2 (=Lakshm\u00ee)\nand V\u00e2yu.]\n\n[Footnote 600: This is expressly stated at the end of the commentary\non the Brih. Ar. Upan.]\n\n[Footnote 601: _Life and teachings of Sr\u00ee-Madhvacharyar_ by Padmanabha\nChar. 1909, p. 159. Some have suspected a connection between Madhva's\nteaching and Manicheism, because he attached much importance to an\nobscure demon called Manimat (see Mah\u00e2bh. III. 11, 661) whom he\nconsidered incarnate in Sankara. It is conceivable that in his Persian\nstudies he may have heard of Mani as an arch-heretic and have\nidentified him with this demon but this does not imply any connection\nbetween his own system (or Sankara's either) and Manicheism.]\n\n[Footnote 602: Brih. Ar. Upan. III. 7. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 603: Among them are the Manimanjar\u00ee, the Madhvavijaya and\nthe V\u00e2yustuti, all attributed to a disciple of Madhva and his son.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX\n\nLATER VISHNUISM IN NORTH INDIA\n\n\n1\n\n\nWith the fifteenth century Hinduism enters on a new phase. Sects arise\nwhich show the influence of Mohammedanism, sometimes to such an extent\nthat it is hard to say whether they should be classed as Hindu or\nMoslim, and many teachers repudiate caste. Also, whereas in the\nprevious centuries the centre of religious feeling lay in the south,\nit now shifts to the north. Hinduism had been buffeted but not\nseriously menaced there: the teachers of the south had not failed to\nrecognize by their pilgrimages the sanctity and authority of the\nnorthern seats of learning: such works as the G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda testify to\nthe existence there of fervent Vishnuism. But the country had been\nharassed by Moslim invasions and unsettled by the vicissitudes of\ntransitory dynasties. The Jains were powerful in Gujarat and\nRajput\u00e2na. In Bengal S\u00e2ktism and moribund Buddhism were not likely to\nengender new enthusiasms. But in a few centuries the movements\ninaugurated in the south increased in extension and strength. Hindus\nand Mohammedans began to know more of each other, and in the sixteenth\ncentury under the tolerant rule of Akbar and his successors the new\nsects which had been growing were able to consolidate themselves.\n\nAfter R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and Madhva, the next great name in the history of\nVishnuism, and indeed of Hinduism, is R\u00e2m\u00e2nand. His date is\nuncertain.[604] He was posterior to R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, from whose sect he\ndetached himself, and Kabir was his disciple, apparently his immediate\ndisciple. Some traditions give Prayaga as his birthplace, others\nMelucote, but the north was the scene of his activity. He went on a\nlengthy pilgrimage, and on his return was accused of having infringed\nthe rules of his sect as to eating, etc., and was excommunicated, but\nreceived permission from his Guru to found a new sect. He then settled\nin Benares and taught there. He wrote no treatise but various hymns\nascribed to him are still popular.[605] Though he is not associated\nwith any special dogma, yet his teaching is of great importance as\nmarking the origin of a popular religious movement characterized by\nthe use of the vernacular languages instead of Sanskrit, and by a\nlaxity in caste rules culminating in a readiness to admit as equals\nall worshippers of the true God.[606] This God is R\u00e2ma rather than\nKrishna. I have already pointed out that the worship of R\u00e2ma as the\nSupreme Being (to be distinguished from respect for him as a hero) is\nnot early: in fact it appears to begin in the period which we are\nconsidering. Of the human forms of the deity Krishna was clearly the\nmost popular but the school of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, while admitting both R\u00e2ma and\nKrishna as incarnations, preferred to adore God under less\nmythological and more philosophic names such as N\u00e2r\u00e2yana. R\u00e2m\u00e2nand,\nwho addressed himself to all classes and not merely to the Brahman\naristocracy, selected as the divine name R\u00e2ma. It was more human than\nN\u00e2r\u00e2yana, less sensuous than Krishna. Every Hindu was familiar with\nthe poetry which sings of R\u00e2ma as a chivalrous and godlike hero. But\nhe was not, like Krishna, the lover of the soul, and when R\u00e2maism\nwas divested of mythology by successive reformers it became a\nmonotheism in which Hindu and Moslim elements could blend. R\u00e2m\u00e2nand\nhad twelve disciples, among whom were Kabir, a Raja called P\u00eep\u00e2, Rai\nDas, a leather-seller (and therefore an outcast according to Hindu\nideas) as well as Brahmans. The R\u00e2mats, as his followers were called,\nare a numerous and respectable body in north India, using the same\nsectarian mark as the Vadagalais from whom they do not differ\nmaterially, although a Hindu might consider that their small regard\nfor caste is a vital distinction. They often call themselves\nAvadh\u00fbtas, that is, those who have shaken off worldly restrictions,\nand the more devout among them belong to an order divided into four\nclasses of which only the highest is reserved to Brahmans and the\nothers are open to all castes. They own numerous and wealthy maths,\nbut it is said that in some of these celibacy is not required and that\nmonks and nuns live openly as man and wife.[607]\n\nAn important aspect of the R\u00e2mat movement is its effect on the popular\nliterature of Hindustan which in the fifteenth and even more in the\nsixteenth century blossoms into flowers of religious poetry. Many of\nthese writings possess real merit and are still a moral and spiritual\nforce. European scholars are only beginning to pay sufficient\nattention to this mighty flood of hymns which gushed forth in nearly\nall the vernaculars of India[608] and appealed directly to the people.\nThe phenomenon was not really new. The psalms of the Buddhists and\neven the hymns of the Rig Veda were vernacular literature in their\nday, and in the south the songs of the Devaram and N\u00e2l\u00e2yiram are of\nsome antiquity. But in the north, though some Pr\u00e2krit literature has\nbeen preserved, Sanskrit was long considered the only proper language\nfor religion. We can hardly doubt that vernacular hymns existed, but\nthey did not receive the imprimatur of any teacher, and have not\nsurvived. But about 1400 all this changes. Though R\u00e2m\u00e2nand was not\nmuch of a writer he gave his authority to the use of the vernacular:\nhe did not, like R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, either employ or enjoin Sanskrit and the\nmeagre details which we have of his circle lead us to imagine him\nsurrounded by men of homely speech.\n\nOne current in this sea of poetry was Krishnaite and as such not\ndirectly connected with R\u00e2m\u00e2nand. Vidy\u00e2pati[609] sang of the loves of\nKrishna and R\u00e2dh\u00e2 in the Maithili dialect and also in a form of\nBengali. In the early fifteenth century (c. 1420) we have the poetess\nMir\u00e2 Bai, wife of the Raja of Chitore who gained celebrity and\ndomestic unhappiness by her passionate devotion to the form of\nKrishna known as Ranchor. According to one legend the image came to\nlife in answer to her fervent prayers, and throwing his arms round her\nallowed her to meet a rapturous death in his embrace. This is\nprecisely the sentiment which we find later in the teaching of\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya and Caitanya. The hymns of the Bengali poets have been\ncollected in the _Padakalpataru_, one of the chief sacred books of the\nBengali Vaishnavas. From Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya spring the group of poets who\nadorned Braj or the Muttra district. Pre-eminent among them is the\nblind Sur Das who flourished about 1550 and wrote such sweet lyrics\nthat Krishna himself came down and acted as his amanuensis. A\nsomewhat later member of the same group is N\u00e2bh\u00e2 Das, the author of\nthe Bhakta M\u00e2l\u00e2 or Legends of the Saints, which is still one of the\nmost popular religious works of northern India.[610] Almost\ncontemporary with Sur Das was the great Tulsi Das and Grierson[611]\nenumerated thirteen subsequent writers who composed R\u00e2m\u00e2yanas in some\ndialect of Hindi. A little later came the Mahratta poet Tukar\u00e2m (born\nabout 1600) who gave utterance to Krishnaism in another language.\n\nTulsi Das is too important to be merely mentioned as one in a list of\npoets. He is a great figure in Indian religion, and the saying that\nhis R\u00e2m\u00e2yana is more popular and more honoured in the North-western\nProvinces than the Bible in England is no exaggeration.[612] He came\ninto the world in 1532 but was exposed by his parents as born under an\nunlucky star and was adopted by a wandering S\u00e2dhu. He married but his\nson died and after this loss he himself became a S\u00e2dhu. He began to\nwrite his R\u00e2m\u00e2yana in Oudh at the age of forty-three, but moved to\nBenares where he completed it and died in 1623. On the Tulsi Ghat,\nnear the river Asi, may still be seen the rooms which he occupied.\nThey are at the top of a lofty building and command a beautiful view\nover the river[4].\n\nHis R\u00e2m\u00e2yana which is an original composition and not a translation of\nV\u00e2lm\u00eeki's work is one of the great religious poems of the world and\nnot unworthy to be set beside _Paradise Lost_. The sustained majesty\nof diction and exuberance of ornament are accompanied by a spontaneity\nand vigour rare in any literature, especially in Asia. The poet is not\nembellishing a laboured theme: he goes on and on because his emotion\nbursts forth again and again, diversifying the same topic with an\ninexhaustible variety of style and metaphor. As in some forest a\nstream flows among flowers and trees, but pours forth a flood of pure\nwater uncoloured by the plants on its bank, so in the heart of Tulsi\nDas the love of God welled up in a mighty fountain ornamented by the\nmythology and legends with which he bedecked it, yet unaffected by\nthem. He founded no sect, which is one reason of his popularity, for\nnearly all sects can read him with edification, and he is primarily a\npoet not a theologian. But though he allows himself a poet's licence\nto state great truths in various ways, he still enunciates a definite\nbelief. This is theism, connected with the name R\u00e2ma. Since in the\nnorth he is the author most esteemed by the Vishnuites, it would be a\nparadox to refuse him that designation, but his teaching is not so\nmuch that Vishnu is the Supreme Being who becomes incarnate in R\u00e2ma,\nas that R\u00e2ma, and more rarely Hari and V\u00e2sudeva, are names of the\nAll-God who manifests himself in human form. Vishnu is mentioned as a\ncelestial being in the company of Brahm\u00e2,[613] and so far as any god\nother than R\u00e2ma receives attention it is Siva, not indeed as R\u00e2ma's\nequal, but as a being at once very powerful and very devout, who acts\nas a mediator or guide. \"Without prayer to Siva no one can attain to\nthe faith which I require.\"[614] \"R\u00e2ma is God, the totality of good,\nimperishable, invisible, uncreated, incomparable, void of all change,\nindivisible, whom the Veda declares that it cannot define.\"[615] And\nyet, \"He whom scripture and philosophy have sung and whom the saints\nlove to contemplate, even the Lord God, he is the son of Dasarath,\nKing of Kosala.\"[616] By the power of R\u00e2ma exist Brahm\u00e2, Vishnu and\nSiva, as also M\u00e2y\u00e2, the illusion which brings about the world. His\n\"delusive power is a vast fig-tree, its clustering fruit the countless\nmultitude of worlds, while all things animate and inanimate are like\nthe insects that dwell inside and think their own particular fig the\nonly one in existence.\"[617] God has made all things: pain and\npleasure, sin and merit, saints and sinners, Brahmans and butchers,\npassion and asceticism. It is the Veda that distinguishes good and\nevil among them.[618] The love of God and faith are the only road to\nhappiness. \"The worship of Hari is real and all the world is a\ndream.\"[619] Tulsi Das often uses the language of the Advaita\nphilosophy and even calls God the annihilator of duality, but though\nhe admits the possibility of absorption and identification with the\ndeity, he holds that the double relation of a loving God and a loving\nsoul constitutes greater bliss. \"The saint was not absorbed into the\ndivinity for this reason that he had already received the gift of\nfaith.\"[620] And in a similar spirit he says, \"Let those preach in\ntheir wisdom who contemplate Thee as the supreme spirit, the uncreate,\ninseparable from the universe, recognizable only by inference and\nbeyond the understanding; but we, O Lord, will ever hymn the glories\nof thy incarnation.\" Like most Hindus he is little disposed to enquire\nwhat is the purpose of creation, but he comes very near to saying that\nGod has evolved the world by the power of M\u00e2y\u00e2 because the bliss which\nGod and his beloved feel is greater than the bliss of impersonal\nundifferentiated divinity. It will be seen that Tulsi Das is\nthoroughly Hindu: neither his fundamental ideas nor his mythological\nembellishments owe anything to Islam or Christianity. He accepts\nunreservedly such principles as M\u00e2y\u00e2, transmigration, Karma and\nrelease. But his sentiments, more than those of any other Indian\nwriter, bear a striking resemblance to the New Testament. Though he\nholds that the whole world is of God, he none the less bids men shun\nevil and choose the good, and the singular purity of his thoughts and\nstyle contrasts strongly with other Vishnuite works. He does not\nconceive of the love which may exist between the soul and God as a\nform of sexual passion.\n\n\n2\n\n\nThe beginning of the sixteenth century was a time of religious\nupheaval in India for it witnessed the careers not only of\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya and Caitanya, but also of N\u00e2nak, the founder of the\nSikhs. In the west it was the epoch of Luther and as in Europe so in\nIndia no great religious movement has taken place since that time. The\nsects then founded have swollen into extravagance and been reformed:\nother sects have arisen from a mixture of Hinduism with Moslem and\nChristian elements, but no new and original current of thought or\ndevotion has been started.\n\nThough the two great sects associated with the names of Caitanya and\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya have different geographical spheres and also present\nsome differences in doctrinal details, both are emotional and even\nerotic and both adore Krishna as a child or young man. Their almost\nsimultaneous appearance in eastern and western India and their rapid\ngrowth show that they represent an unusually potent current of ideas\nand sentiments. But the worship of Krishna was, as we have seen,\nnothing new in northern India. Even that relatively late phase in\nwhich the sports of the divine herdsman are made to typify the love of\nGod for human souls is at least as early as the G\u00eet\u00e2-govinda written\nabout 1170. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the history of\nKrishna worship is not clear,[621] but it persisted and about 1400\nfound speech in Bengal and in Rajput\u00e2na.\n\nAccording to Vaishnava theologians the followers of\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya[622] are a section of the Rudra-samprad\u00e2ya founded in\nthe early part of the fifteenth century by Vishnusv\u00e2mi, an emigrant\nfrom southern India, who preached chiefly in Gujarat. The doctrines of\nthe sect are supposed to have been delivered by the Almighty to Siva\nfrom whom Vishnusv\u00e2mi was fifteenth in spiritual descent, and are\nknown by the name of _Suddh\u00e2dvaita_ or pure non-duality. They teach\nthat God has three attributes--_sac-cid-\u00e2nanda_--existence,\nconsciousness and bliss. In the human or animal soul bliss is\nsuppressed and in matter consciousness is suppressed too. But when the\nsoul attains release it recovers bliss and becomes identical in nature\nwith God. For practical purposes the Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2ris may be regarded as\na sect founded by Vallabha, said to have been born in 1470. He was the\nson of a Telinga Brahman, who had migrated with Vishnusv\u00e2mi to the\nnorth.\n\nSuch was the pious precocity of Vallabha that at the age of twelve he\nhad already discovered a new religion and started on a pilgrimage to\npreach it. He was well received at the Court of Vijayanagar, and was\nso successful in disputation that he was recognized as chief doctor of\nthe Vaishnava school. He subsequently spent nine years in travelling\ntwice round India and at Brindaban received a visit from Krishna in\nperson, who bade him promulgate his worship in the form of the divine\nchild known as B\u00e2la Gop\u00e2la. Vallabha settled in Benares and is said to\nhave composed a number of works which are still extant.[623] He gained\nfurther victories as a successful disputant and also married and\nbecame the father of two sons. At the age of fifty-two he took to the\nlife of a Sanny\u00e2si, but died forty-two days afterwards.\n\nThough Vallabha died as an ascetic, his doctrines are currently known\nas the Pushti M\u00e2rga, the road of well-being or comfort. His\nphilosophy was more decidedly monistic than is usual among Vishnuites,\nand Indian monism has generally taught that, as the soul and God are\none in essence, the soul should realize this identity and renounce the\npleasures of the senses. But with Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya it may be said that\nthe vision which is generally directed godwards and forgets the flesh,\nturned earthwards and forgot God, for his teaching is that since the\nindividual and the deity are one, the body should be reverenced and\nindulged. Pushti[624] or well-being is the special grace of God and\nthe elect are called Pushti-j\u00eeva. They depend entirely on God's grace\nand are contrasted with Mary\u00e2d\u00e2-j\u00eevas, or those who submit to moral\ndiscipline. The highest felicity is not _mukti_ or liberation but the\neternal service of Krishna and eternal participation in his sports.\n\nThese doctrines have led to deplorable results, but so strong is the\nIndian instinct towards self-denial and asceticism that it is the\npriests rather than the worshippers who profit by this permission to\nindulge the body, and the chief feature of the sect is the extravagant\nrespect paid to the descendants of Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya. They are known as\nMaharajas or Great Kings and their followers, especially women,\ndedicate to them _tan_, _dhan_, _man_: body, purse and spirit, for it\nis a condition of the road of well-being that before the devotee\nenjoys anything himself he must dedicate it to the deity and the\nMaharaj represents the deity. The daily prayer of the sect is \"Om.\nKrishna is my refuge. I who suffer the infinite pain and torment of\nenduring for a thousand years separation from Krishna, consecrate to\nKrishna my body, senses, life, heart and faculties, my wife, house,\nfamily, property and my own self. I am thy slave, O Krishna.\"[625]\nThis formula is recited to the Maharaj with peculiar solemnity by each\nmale as he comes of age and is admitted as a full member of the sect.\nThe words in which this dedication of self and family is made are not\nin themselves open to criticism and a parallel may be found in\nChristian hymns. But the literature of the Vallabhis unequivocally\nstates that the Guru is the same as the deity[626] and there can be\nlittle doubt that even now the Maharajas are adored by their\nfollowers, especially by the women, as representatives of Krishna in\nhis character of the lover of the Gopis and that the worship is often\nlicentious.[627] Many Hindus denounce the sect and in 1862 one of the\nMaharajas brought an action for libel in the supreme court of Bombay\non account of the serious charges of immorality brought against him in\nthe native press. The trial became a _cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre_. Judgment was\ndelivered against the Maharaj, the Judge declaring the charges to be\nfully substantiated. Yet in spite of these proceedings the sect still\nflourishes, apparently unchanged in doctrine and practice, and has a\nlarge following among the mercantile castes of western India. The\nR\u00e2dh\u00e2-Vallabhis, an analogous sect founded by Harivamsa in the\nsixteenth century, give the pre-eminence to R\u00e2dh\u00e2, the wife of\nKrishna, and in their secret ceremonies are said to dress as women.\nThe worship of R\u00e2dh\u00e2 is a late phase of Vishnuism and is not known\neven to the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na.[628]\n\nVallabhism owes much of its success to the family of the founder. They\nhad evidently a strong dynastic sentiment as well as a love of\nmissionary conquest--a powerful combination. Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya left behind\nhim eighty-four principal disciples whose lives are recorded in the\nwork called the _Stories of the Eighty-four Vaishnavas_, and his\nauthority descended to his son Vithalnath. Like his father, Vithalnath\nwas active as a proselytizer and pilgrim and propagated his doctrines\nextensively in many parts of western India such as Cutch, Malwa, and\nBijapur. His converts came chiefly from the mercantile classes but\nalso included some Brahmans and Mussulmans. He is said to have\nabolished caste distinctions but the sect has not preserved this\nfeature. In his later years he resided at Muttra or the neighbouring\ntown of Gokul, whence he is known as Gokul Gosainji. This title of\nGosain, which is still borne by his male descendants, is derived from\nKrishna's name Gosv\u00e2min, the lord of cattle.[629] He had seven sons,\nin each of whom Krishna is said to have been incarnate for five\nyears. They exercised spiritual authority in separate districts--as we\nmight say in different dioceses--but the fourth son, Gokulnathji and\nhis descendants claimed and still claim a special pre-eminence. The\nfamily is at present represented by about a hundred males who are\naccepted as incarnations and receive the title of Maharaja. About\ntwenty reside at Gokul[630] or near Muttra: there are a few in Bombay\nand in all the great cities of western India, but the Maharaj of Nath\nDwara in Rajput\u00e2na is esteemed the chief. This place is not an ancient\nseat of Krishna worship, but during the persecution of Aurungzeb a\npeculiarly holy image was brought thither from Muttra and placed in\nthe shrine where it still remains.\n\nA protest against the immorality of the Vallabhi sect was made by\nSw\u00e2min\u00e2r\u00e2yana, a Brahman who was born in the district of Lucknow\nabout 1780.[631] He settled in Ahmedabad and gained so large a\nfollowing that the authorities became alarmed and imprisoned him. But\nhis popularity only increased: he became the centre of a great\nreligious movement: hymns descriptive of his virtues and sufferings\nwere sung by his followers and when he was released he found himself\nat the head of a band which was almost an army. He erected a temple in\nthe village of Wartal in Baroda, which he made the centre of his sect,\nand recruited followers by means of periodical tours throughout\nGujarat. His doctrines are embodied in an anthology called the\nSiksh\u00e2patr\u00ee consisting of 212 precepts, some borrowed from accepted\nHindu scriptures and some original and in a catechism called\nVacan\u00e2mritam. His teaching was summed up in the phrase \"Devotion to\nKrishna with observance of duty and purity of life\" and in practice\ntook the form of a laudable polemic against the licentiousness of the\nVallabhis. As in most of the purer sects of Vishnuism, Krishna is\nregarded merely as a name of the Supreme Deity. Thus the Siksh\u00e2patr\u00ee\nsays \"N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and Siva should be equally recognized as parts of one\nand the same supreme spirit, since both have been declared in the\nVedas to be forms of Brahma. On no account let it be thought that\ndifference in form or name makes any difference in the identity of the\ndeity.\" The followers of Sw\u00e2min\u00e2r\u00e2yana still number about 200,000 in\nwestern India and are divided into the laity and a body of celibate\nclergy. I have visited their religious establishments in Ahmedabad. It\nconsists of a temple with a large and well-kept monastery in which are\nhoused about 300 monks who wear costumes of reddish grey. Except in\nAssam I have not seen in India any parallel to this monastery either\nin size or discipline. It is provided with a library and hospital. In\nthe temple are images of Nara and N\u00e2r\u00e2yana (explained as Krishna\nand Arjuna), Krishna and R\u00e2dh\u00e2, Ganesa and Hanuman.[632]\n\n\n3\n\n\nThe sect founded by Caitanya is connected with eastern India as the\nVallabhis are with the west. Bengal is perhaps the native land of the\nworship of Krishna as the god of love. It was there that Jayadeva\nflourished in the last days of the Sena dynasty and the lyrical poet\nChand\u00eed\u00e2s at the end of the fourteenth century. About the same time\nthe still greater poet Vidy\u00e2pati was singing in Durbhanga. For these\nwriters, as for Caitanya, religion is the bond of love which unites\nthe soul and God, as typified by the passion[633] that drew together\nR\u00e2dh\u00e2 and Krishna. The idea that God loves and seeks out human souls\nis familiar to Christianity and receives very emotional expression in\nwell-known hymns, but the bold humanity of these Indian lyrics seems\nto Europeans unsuitable. I will let a distinguished Indian apologize\nfor it in his own words:\n\n\"The paradox that has to be understood is that Krishna means God.\nYet he is represented as a youth, standing at a gate, trying to waylay\nthe beloved maiden, attempting to entrap the soul, as it were, into a\nclandestine meeting. This, which is so inconceivable to a purely\nmodern mind, presents no difficulty at all to the Vaishnava devotee.\nTo him God is the lover himself: the sweet flowers, the fresh grass,\nthe gay sound heard in the woods are direct messages and tokens of\nlove to his soul, bringing to his mind at every instant that loving\nGod whom he pictures as ever anxious to win the human heart.\"[634]\n\nCaitanya[635] was born at Nadia in 1485 and came under the influence\nof the M\u00e2dhva sect. In youth he was a prodigy of learning,[636] but at\nthe age of about seventeen while on a pilgrimage to Gaya began to\ndisplay that emotional and even hysterical religious feeling which\nmarked all his teaching. He swooned at the mention of Krishna's name\nand passed his time in dancing and singing hymns. At twenty-five he\nbecame a Sanny\u00e2s\u00ee, and at the request of his mother, who did not wish\nhim to wander too far, settled in Puri near the temple of Jagannath.\nHere he spent the rest of his life in preaching, worship and ecstatic\nmeditation, but found time to make a tour in southern India and\nanother to Brindaban and Benares. He appears to have left the\nmanagement of his sect largely to his disciples, Advaita, Nity\u00e2nanda\nand Haridas, and to have written nothing himself. But he evidently\npossessed a gift of religious magnetism and exercised an extraordinary\ninfluence on those who heard him preach or sing. He died or\ndisappeared before the age of fifty but apparently none of the stories\nabout his end merit credence.\n\nAlthough the teaching of Caitanya is not so objectionable morally as\nthe doctrines of the Vallabhis, it follows the same line of making\nreligion easy and emotional and it is not difficult to understand how\nhis preaching, set forth with the eloquence which he possessed, won\nconverts from the lower classes by thousands. He laid no stress on\nasceticism, approved of marriage and rejected all difficult rites and\nceremonies. The form of worship which he specially enjoined was the\nsinging of K\u00eertans or hymns consisting chiefly in a repetition of the\ndivine names accompanied by music and dancing. Swaying the body and\nrepetition of the same formula or hymn are features of emotional\nreligion found in the most diverse regions, for instance among the\nRufais or Howling Dervishes, at Welsh revival meetings and in negro\nchurches in the Southern States. It is therefore unnecessary to seek\nany special explanation in India but perhaps there is some connection\nbetween the religious ecstasies of Vaishnavas and Dervishes. Within\nCaitanya's sect, caste was not observed. He is said to have admitted\nmany Moslims to membership and to have regarded all worshippers of\nKrishna as equal. Though caste has grown up again, yet the old\nregulation is still in force inside the temple of Jagannath at Puri.\nWithin the sacred enclosure all are treated as of one caste and eat\nthe same sacred food. In Caitanya's words \"the mercy of God regards\nneither tribe nor family.\"\n\nHis theology[637] shows little originality. The deity is called\nBhagav\u00e2n or more frequently Hari. His majesty and omnipotence are\npersonified as N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, his beauty and ecstasy as Krishna. The\nmaterial world is defined as _bhed\u00e2bhedaprak\u00e2sa_, a manifestation of\nthe deity as separate and yet not separate from him, and the soul is\n_vibhinn\u00e2msa_ or a detached portion of him. Some souls are in\nbondage to Prakriti or M\u00e2y\u00e2, others through faith and love attain\ndeliverance. Reason is useless in religious matters, but _ruci_ or\nspiritual feeling has a quick intuition of the divine.\n\nSalvation is obtained by Bhakti, faith or devotion, which embraces and\nsupersedes all other duties. This devotion means absolute\nself-surrender to the deity and love for him which asks for no return\nbut is its own reward. \"He who expects remuneration for his love acts\nas a trader.\" In this devotion there are five degrees: (_a_) s\u00e2nti,\ncalm meditation, (_b_) d\u00e2sya, servitude, (_c_) s\u00e2khya, friendship,\n(_d_) v\u00e2tsalya, love like that of a child for its parent, (_e_)\nm\u00e2dhurya, love like that of a woman for a lover. All these sentiments\nare found in God and this combined ecstasy is an eternal principle\nidentified with Hari himself, just as in the language of the Gospels,\nGod is love. Though Caitanya makes love the crown and culmination of\nreligion, the worship of his followers is not licentious, and it is\nheld that the right frame of mind is best attained by the recitation\nof Krishna's names especially Hari.\n\nThe earlier centre of Caitanya's sect was his birthplace, Nadia, but\nboth during his life and afterwards his disciples frequented Brindaban\nand sought out the old sacred sites which were at that time neglected.\nAt the beginning of the nineteenth century Lala Baba, a wealthy\nBengali merchant, became a mendicant and visited Muttra. Though he had\nrenounced the world, he still retained his business instincts and\nbought up the villages which contained the most celebrated shrines and\nwere most frequented by pilgrims. The result was a most profitable\nspeculation and the establishment of Caitanya's Church in the district\nof Braj, which thus became the holy land of both the great Krishnaite\nsects. The followers of Caitanya at the present day are said to be\ndivided into Gosains, or ecclesiastics, who are the descendants of the\nfounder's original disciples, the Vrikats or celibates, and the laity.\nBesides the celibates there are several semi-monastic orders who adopt\nthe dress of monks but marry. They have numerous maths at Nadia and\nelsewhere. Like the Vallabhis, this sect deifies its leaders.\nCaitanya, Nity\u00e2nanda and Advaita are called the three masters (Prabh\u00fb)\nand believed to be a joint incarnation of Krishna, though according\nto some only the first two shared the divine essence. Six of\nCaitanya's disciples known as the six Gosains are also greatly\nvenerated and even ordinary religious teachers still receive an almost\nidolatrous respect.\n\nThough Caitanya was not a writer himself he exercised a great\ninfluence on the literature of Bengal. In the opinion of so competent\na judge as Dinesh Chandra Sen, Bengali was raised to the status of a\nliterary language by the Vishnuite hymn-writers just as Pali was by\nthe Buddhists. Such hymns were written before the time of Caitanya but\nafter him they became extremely numerous[638] and their tone and style\nare said to change. The ecstasies and visions of which they tell are\nthose described in his biographies and this emotional poetry has\nprofoundly influenced all classes in Bengal. But there was and still\nis a considerable hostility between the S\u00e2ktas and Vishnuites.\n\n\n4\n\n\nA form of Vishnuism, possessing a special local flavour, is connected\nwith the Maratha country and with the names of N\u00e2mdev, Tuk\u00e2r\u00e2m[639]\nand R\u00e2md\u00e2s, the spiritual preceptor of Sivaji. The centre of this\nworship is the town of Pandharpur and I have not found it described as\na branch of any of the four Vishnuite Churches: but the facts that\nN\u00e2mdev wrote in Hindi as well as in Marathi, that many of his hymns\nare included in the Granth, and that his sentiments show affinities to\nthe teaching of N\u00e2nak, suggest that he belonged to the school of\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nand. There is however a difficulty about his date. Native\ntradition gives 1270 as the year of his birth but the language of his\npoems both in Marathi and Hindi is said to be too modern for this\nperiod and to indicate that he lived about 1400,[640] when he might\neasily have felt the influence of R\u00e2m\u00e2nand, for he travelled in the\nnorth.\n\nMost of his poetry however has for its centre the temple of Pandharpur\nwhere was worshipped a deity called Vitthala, Vittoba or\nP\u00e2ndurang. It is said that the first two names are dialectic\nvariations of Vishnu, but that P\u00e2ndurang is an epithet of\nSiva.[641] There is no doubt that the deity of Pandharpur has for many\ncenturies been identified with Krishna, who, as in Bengal, is god\nthe lover of the soul. But the hymns of the Marathas are less sensuous\nand Krishna is coupled not with his mistress R\u00e2dh\u00e2, but with his\nwife Rukmin\u00ee. In fact Rukmin\u00eepati or husband of Rukmin\u00ee is one of\nhis commonest titles. N\u00e2mdev's opinions varied at different times and\nperhaps in different moods: like most religious poets he cannot be\njudged by logic or theology. Sometimes he inveighs against\nidolatry--understood as an attempt to limit God to an image--but in\nother verses he sings the praises of P\u00e2ndurang, the local deity, as\nthe lord and creator of all. His great message is that God--by\nwhatever name he is called--is everywhere and accessible to all,\naccessible without ceremonial or philosophy. \"Vows, fasts and\nausterities are not needful, nor need you go on pilgrimage. Be\nwatchful in your heart and always sing the name of Hari. Yoga,\nsacrifices and renunciation are not needful. Love the feet of Hari.\nNeither need you contemplate the absolute. Hold fast to the love of\nHari's name. Says N\u00e2m\u00e2, be steadfast in singing the name and then Hari\nwill appear to you.\"[642]\n\nTuk\u00e2r\u00e2m is better known than N\u00e2mdev and his poetry which was part of\nthe intellectual awakening that accompanied the rise of the Maratha\npower is still a living force wherever Marathi is spoken. He lived\nfrom 1607 to 1649 and was born in a family of merchants near Poona.\nBut he was too generous to succeed in trade and a famine, in which one\nof his two wives died, brought him to poverty. Thenceforth he devoted\nhimself to praying and preaching. He developed a great aptitude for\ncomposing rhyming songs in irregular metre,[643] and like Caitanya he\nheld services consisting of discourses interspersed with such songs,\nprepared or extempore. In spite of persecution by the Brahmans, these\nmeetings became very popular and were even attended by the great\nSivaji.\n\nHis creed is the same as that of N\u00e2mdev and finds expression in verses\nsuch as these. \"This thy nature is beyond the grasp of mind or words,\nand therefore I have made love a measure. I measure the Endless by the\nmeasure of love: he is not to be truly measured otherwise. Thou art\nnot to be found by Yoga, sacrifice, fasting, bodily exertions or\nknowledge. O Kesava, accept the service which we render.\"\n\nBut if he had no use for asceticism he also feared the passions. \"The\nEndless is beyond; between him and me are the lofty mountains of\ndesire and anger. I cannot ascend them and find no pass.\" In poems\nwhich are apparently later, his tone is more peaceful. He speaks much\nof the death of self, of purity of heart, and of self-dedication to\nGod. \"Dedicate all you do to God and have done with it: Tuk\u00e2 says, do\nnot ask me again and again: nothing else is to be taught but this.\"\n\nMaratha critics have discussed whether Tuk\u00e2r\u00e2m followed the monistic\nphilosophy of Sankara or not and it must be confessed that his\nutterances are contradictory. But the gist of the matter is that he\ndisliked not so much monism as philosophy. Hence he says \"For me there\nis no use in the Advaita. Sweet to me is the service of thy feet. The\nrelation between God and his devotee is a source of high joy. Make me\nfeel this, keeping me distinct from thee.\" But he can also say almost\nin the language of the Upanishads. \"When salt is dissolved in water,\nwhat remains distinct? I have thus become one in joy with thee and\nhave lost myself in thee. When fire and camphor are brought together,\nis there any black remnant? Tuk\u00e2 says, thou and I were one light.\"\n\n\n5\n\n\nThere are interesting Vishnuite sects in Assam.[644] Until the\nsixteenth century Hinduism was represented in those regions by\nS\u00e2ktism, which was strong among the upper classes, though the mass of\nthe people still adhered to their old tribal worships. The first\napostle of Vishnuism was Sankar Deb in the sixteenth century. He\npreached first in the Ahom kingdom but was driven out by the\nopposition of S\u00e2ktist Brahmans, and found a refuge at Barpeta. He\nappears to have inculcated the worship of Krishna as the sole divine\nbeing and to have denounced idolatry, sacrifices and caste. These\nviews were held even more strictly by his successor, Madhab Deb, a\nwriter of repute whose works, such as the N\u00e2mghosha and Ratn\u00e2val\u00ee, are\nregarded as scripture by his followers. Though the Brahmans of Assam\nwere opposed to the introduction of Vishnuism and a section of them\ncontinued to instigate persecutions for two centuries or more, yet\nwhen it became clear that the new teaching had a great popular\nfollowing another section were anxious that it should not pass out of\nsacerdotal control and organized it as a legitimate branch of\nHinduism. While fully recognizing the doctrine of justification by\nfaith, they also made provision for due respect to caste and Brahmanic\nauthority.\n\nAccording to the last census of India[645] the common view that\nSankar Deb drew his inspiration from Caitanya meets with criticism in\nAssam. His biographies say that he lived 120 years and died in 1569.\nIt has been generally assumed that his age has been exaggerated but\nthat the date of his death is correct. If it can be proved, as\ncontended, that he was preaching in 1505, there would be no difficulty\nin admitting that he was independent of Caitanya and belonged to an\nearlier phase of the Vishnuite movement which produced the activity of\nVallabha and the poetry of Vidy\u00e2pati. It is a further argument for\nthis independence that he taught the worship of Vishnu only and not\nof R\u00e2dh\u00e2 and discountenanced the use of images. On the other hand it\nis stated that he sojourned in Bengal and it appears that soon after\nhis death his connection with the teaching of Caitanya was recognized\nin Assam.\n\nAt present there are three sects in Assam. Firstly, the Mah\u00e2purushias,\nwho follow more or less faithfully the doctrines of Sankar and\nMadhab. They admit S\u00fbdras as religious teachers and abbots, and lay\nlittle stress on caste while not entirely rejecting it. They abstain\nalmost entirely from the use of images in worship, the only exception\nbeing that a small figure of Krishna in the form of Vaikuntha\nN\u00e2tha is found in their temples. It is not the principal object of\nveneration but stands to the left of a throne on which lies a copy of\nthe N\u00e2mghosha.[646] This, together with the foot-prints of Sankar and\nMadhab, receives the homage of the faithful. The chief centre of the\nMah\u00e2purushias is Barpeta, but they have also monasteries on the Majuli\nIsland and elsewhere. Secondly, the Bamunia monasteries, with a large\nlay following, represent a brahmanized form of the Mah\u00e2purushia faith.\nThis movement began in the life-time of Madhab. Many of his Brahman\ndisciples seceded from him and founded separate communities which\ninsisted on the observance of caste (especially on the necessity of\nreligious teachers being Brahmans) but tolerated image-worship and the\nuse of some kinds of flesh as food. Though this sect was persecuted by\nthe Ahom kings,[647] they were strong enough to maintain themselves. A\ncompromise was effected in the reign of Rudra Singh (1696-1714), by\nwhich their abbots were shown all honour but were assigned the Majuli\nIsland in the upper Brahmaputra as their chief, if not only,\nresidence. This island is still studded with numerous _Sattras_ or\nmonasteries, the largest of which contain three or four hundred monks,\nknown as Bhakats (Bhaktas). They take no vows and wear no special\ncostume but are obliged to be celibate while they remain in the\nsattra. The Mah\u00e2purushia and Bamunia monasteries are of similar\nappearance, and in externals (though not in doctrine) seem to have\nbeen influenced by the Lamaism of the neighbouring regions of Sikhim\nand Tibet. The temples are long, low, wooden buildings, covered by\nroofs of corrugated iron or thatched, and containing inside a nave\nwith two rows of wooden pillars which leads to a sanctuary divided\nfrom it by a screen. The third sect are the Moamarias, of political\nrather than religious importance. They represent a democratic element,\nrecruited from non-Hindu tribes, which seceded even in the life-time\nof Sankar Deb. They appear to reject nearly all Hindu observances and\nto worship aboriginal deities as well as Krishna. Little is known of\ntheir religious teaching, if indeed they have anything worthy of the\nname, but in the latter half of the eighteenth century they distracted\nthe kingdom of Assam with a series of rebellions which were suppressed\nwith atrocious cruelty.\n\nCaitanya is said to have admitted some Mohammedans as members of his\nsect. The precedent has not been followed among most branches of his\nlater adherents but a curious half-secret sect, found throughout\nBengal in considerable numbers and called Kart\u00e2bhajas,[648] appears to\nrepresent an eccentric development of his teaching in combination with\nMohammedan elements. Both Moslims and Hindus belong to this sect. They\nobserve the ordinary social customs of the class to which they belong,\nbut it is said that those who are nominal Moslims neither circumcize\nthemselves nor frequent mosques. The founder, called Ram Smaran Pal,\nwas born in the Nadia district about 1700, and his chief doctrine is\nsaid to have been that there is only one God who is incarnate in the\nHead of the sect or Kart\u00e2.[649] For the first few generations the\nheadship was invested in the founder and his descendants but\ndissensions occurred and there is now no one head: the faithful can\nselect any male member of the founder's family as the object of their\ndevotion. The Kart\u00e2 claims to be the owner of every human body and is\nsaid to exact rent for the soul's tenancy thereof. No distinction of\ncaste or creed is recognized and hardly any ceremonies are prescribed\nbut meat and wine are forbidden, the mantra of the sect is to be\nrepeated five times a day and Friday is held sacred. These observances\nseem an imitation of Mohammedanism.[650]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 604: See Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, pp. 66 ff.,\nGrierson in _Ind. Ant._ 1893, p. 226, and also in article Ramanandi in\n_E.R.E._; Farquhar, _J.R.A.S._1920, pp. 185 ff. Though Indian\ntradition seems to be unanimous in giving 1299 A.D. (4400 Kali) as the\ndate of R\u00e2m\u00e2nand's birth, all that we know about himself and his\ndisciples makes it more probable that he was born nearly a century\nlater. The history of ideas, too, becomes clear and intelligible if we\nsuppose that R\u00e2m\u00e2nand, Kabir and Nanak flourished about 1400, 1450 and\n1500 respectively. One should be cautious in allowing such arguments\nto outweigh unanimous tradition, but tradition also assigns to\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nand an improbably long life, thus indicating a feeling that he\ninfluenced the fifteenth century. Also the traditions as to the number\nof teachers between R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and R\u00e2m\u00e2nand differ greatly.]\n\n[Footnote 605: One of them is found in the Granth of the Sikhs.]\n\n[Footnote 606: R\u00e2m\u00e2nand's maxim was \"J\u00e2ti p\u00e2ti puchai nahikoi: Hari-ku\nbhajai so Hari-kau ho\u00ee.\" Let no one ask a man's caste or sect. Whoever\nadores God, he is God's own.]\n\n[Footnote 607: Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 445.]\n\n[Footnote 608: Thus we have the poems of Kabir, N\u00e2nak and others\ncontained in the Granth of the Sikhs and tending to Mohammedanism: the\nhymns wherein Mir\u00e2 Bai, Vallabha and his disciples praised Krishna\nin R\u00e2jput\u00e2na and Braj: the poets inspired by Caitanya in Bengal:\nSankar Deb and Madhab Deb in Assam: Namdev and Tuk\u00e2r\u00e2m in the Maratha\ncountry.]\n\n[Footnote 609: See Beames, _J.A._ 1873, pp. 37 ff., and Grierson,\n_Maithili Christomathy_, pp. 34 ff., in extra No. to _Journ. As. Soc.\nBengal_, Part I. for 1882 and Coomaraswamy's illustrated translation\nof Vidy\u00e2pati, 1915. It is said that a land grant proves he was a\ncelebrated Pandit in 1400. The Bengali Vaishnava poet Chand\u00ee D\u00e2s\nwas his contemporary.]\n\n[Footnote 610: See Grierson, Gleanings from the Bhaktam\u00e2l\u00e2, _J.R.A.S._\n1909 and 1910.]\n\n[Footnote 611: _Modern Vernacular Literature of Hindustan_, 1889, p.\n57.]\n\n[Footnote 612: Similarly Dinesh Chandra Sen (_Lang, and Lit. of\nBengal_, p. 170) says that Krittiv\u00e2sa's translation of the R\u00e2m\u00e2yana\n\"is the Bible of the people of the Gangetic Valley and it is for the\nmost part the peasants who read it.\" Krittiv\u00e2sa was born in 1346 and\nroughly contemporary with R\u00e2m\u00e2nand. Thus the popular interest in R\u00e2ma\nwas roused in different provinces at the same time.\n\nHe also wrote several other poems, among which may be mentioned the\nG\u00eet\u00e2val\u00ee and Kavitt\u00e2val\u00ee, dedicated respectively to the infancy and\nthe heroic deeds of R\u00e2ma, and the Vinaya Pattrik\u00e2 or petition, a\nvolume of hymns and prayers.]\n\n[Footnote 613: See Growse's _Translation_, vol. I. pp. 60, 62.]\n\n[Footnote 614: Ib. vol. III. p. 190, cf. vol. I. p. 88 and vol. III.\npp. 66-67.]\n\n[Footnote 615: Ib. vol. II. p. 54.]\n\n[Footnote 616: Ib. vol. I. p. 77.]\n\n[Footnote 617: Growse, _l.c._ vol. II. p. 200, cf. p. 204. M\u00e2y\u00e2 who sets\nthe whole world dancing and whose actions no one can understand is\nherself set dancing with all her troupe, like an actress on the stage,\nby the play of the Lord's eyebrows. Cf. too, for the infinity of\nworlds, pp. 210, 211.]\n\n[Footnote 618: Growse aptly compares St. Paul, \"I had not known evil\nbut by the law.\"]\n\n[Footnote 619: Ib. vol. II. p. 223.]\n\n[Footnote 620: Ib. vol. II. p. 196.]\n\n[Footnote 621: The Vishnuite sect called Nim\u00e2vat is said to have been\nexterminated by Jains (Grierson in _E.R.E._ sub. V. Bhakti-m\u00e2rga, p.\n545). This may point to persecution during this period.]\n\n[Footnote 622: For Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya and his sect, see especially Growse,\n_Mathur\u00e2, a district memoir_, 1874; _History of the sect of the\nMah\u00e2r\u00e2jas in western India_ (anonymous), 1865. Also Bhandarkar,\n_Vaishn. and Saivism_, pp. 76-82 and Farquhar, _Outlines of Relig.\nLit. of India_, pp. 312-317.]\n\n[Footnote 623: The principal of them are the Siddh\u00e2nta-Rahasya and the\nBh\u00e2gavata-T\u00eeka-Subodhini, a commentary on the Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na. This\nis a short poem of only seventeen lines printed in Growse's _Mathur\u00e2_,\np. 156. It professes to be a revelation from the deity to the\neffect that sin can be done away with by union with Brahma\n(Brahma-sambandha-karan\u00e2t). Other authoritative works of the sect are\nthe Suddh\u00e2dvaita m\u00e2rtanda, Sakal\u00e2c\u00e2ryamatasangraha and\nPrameyaratn\u00e2rnava, all edited in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit series.]\n\n[Footnote 624: Cf. the use of the word poshanam in the Bh\u00e2gavata\nPur\u00e2na, II. X.]\n\n[Footnote 625: Growse, _Mathur\u00e2_, p. 157, says this formula is based\non the N\u00e2radapancar\u00e2tra. It is called Samarpana, dedication, or\nBrahma-sambandha, connecting oneself with the Supreme Being.]\n\n[Footnote 626: For instance \"Whoever holds his Guru and Krishna to\nbe distinct and different shall be born again as a bird.\" Harirayaji\n32. Quoted in _History of the Sect of the Mah\u00e2r\u00e2jas_, p. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 627: In the ordinary ceremonial the Maharaj stands beside\nthe image of Krishna and acknowledges the worship offered. Sometimes\nhe is swung in a swing with or without the image. The hymns sung on\nthese occasions are frequently immoral. Even more licentious are the\nmeetings or dances known as Ras Mandali and Ras L\u00eel\u00e2. A meal of hot\nfood seasoned with aphrodisiacs is also said to be provided in the\ntemples. The water in which the Maharaj's linen or feet have been\nwashed is sold for a high price and actually drunk by devotees.]\n\n[Footnote 628: Strictly speaking the R\u00e2dh\u00e2-Vallabhis are not an\noffshoot of Vallabha's school, but of the Nim\u00e2vats or of the\nM\u00e2dhva-samprad\u00e2ya. The theory underlying their strange practices seems\nto be that Krishna is the only male and that all mankind should\ncultivate sentiments of female love for him. See Macnicol, _Indian\nTheism_, p. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 629: But other explanations are current such as Lord of the\nsenses or Lord of the Vedas.]\n\n[Footnote 630: See Growse, _Mathur\u00e2_, p. 153. I can entirely confirm\nwhat he says. This mean, inartistic, dirty place certainly suggests\nmoral depravity.]\n\n[Footnote 631: His real name was Sahaj\u00e2nanda.]\n\n[Footnote 632: Caran Das (1703-1782) founded a somewhat similar sect\nwhich professed to abolish idolatry and laid great stress on ethics.\nSee Grierson's article Caran Das in _E.R.E._]\n\n[Footnote 633: But Vishnuite writers distinguish _k\u00e2ma_ desire and\n_prema_ love, just as [Greek: _er\u00f4s_] and [Greek: _haghap\u00ea_] are\ndistinguished in Greek. See Dinesh Chandra Sen, _l.c._ p. 485.]\n\n[Footnote 634: Dinesh Chandra Sen, _History of Bengali Language and\nLiterature_, pp. 134-5.]\n\n[Footnote 635: For Caitanya see Dinesh Chandra Sen, _History of\nBengali Language and Lit._ chap. V. and Jadunath Sarkar, _Chaitanya's\nPilgrimages and teachings from the Caitanya-Carit\u00e2mrita_ of Krishna\nDas (1590) founded on the earlier Caitanya-Caritra of Brindavan.\nSeveral of Caitanya's followers were also voluminous writers.]\n\n[Footnote 636: He married the daughter of a certain Vallabha who\napparently was not the founder of the Sect, as is often stated.]\n\n[Footnote 637: The theology of the sect may be studied in Baladeva's\ncommentary on the Ved\u00e2nta s\u00fbtras and his Prameya Ratn\u00e2val\u00ee, both\ncontained in vol. V. of the _Sacred Books of the Hindus_. It would\nappear that the sect regards itself as a continuation of the\nBrahma-samprad\u00e2ya but its tenets have more resemblance to those of\nVallabha.]\n\n[Footnote 638: No less than 159 padakart\u00e2s or religious poets are\nenumerated by Dinesh Chandra Sen. Several collections of these poems\nhave been published of which the principal is called Padakalpataru.]\n\n[Footnote 639: See Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, pp. 87-90, and\nNicol, _Psalms of Maratha Saints_ which gives a bibliography. For\nN\u00e2mdev see also Macauliffe, _The Sikh Religion_, vol. VI. pp. 17-76.\nFor Ramdas see Rawlinson, _Sivaji the Maratha_, pp. 116 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 640: Bhandarkar, _l.c._ p. 92. An earlier poet of this country\nwas J\u00f1\u00e2nesvara who wrote a paraphrase of the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 in 1290.\nHis writings are said to be the first great landmark in Marathi\nliterature.]\n\n[Footnote 641: There is no necessary hostility between the worship of\nSiva and of Vishnu. At Pandharpur pilgrims visit first a temple of\nSiva and then the principal shrine. This latter, like the temple of\nJagannath at Puri, is suspected of having been a Buddhist shrine. It\nis called Vih\u00e2ra, the principal festival is in the Buddhist Lent and\ncaste is not observed within its precincts.]\n\n[Footnote 642: Quoted by Bhandarkar, p. 90. The subsequent quotations\nare from the same source but I have sometimes slightly modified them\nand compared them with the original, though I have no pretension to be\na Marathi scholar.]\n\n[Footnote 643: Called Abhangs.]\n\n[Footnote 644: See Eliot, Hinduism in Assam, _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp.\n1168-1186.]\n\n[Footnote 645: _Census of India_, 1911, Assam, p. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 646: Some authorities state that the sacred book thus\nvenerated is the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, but at Kamalabari I made careful\nenquiries and was assured it was the N\u00e2mghosha.]\n\n[Footnote 647: Especially Gadadhar Singh, 1681-96.]\n\n[Footnote 648: See _Census of India_, 1901, Bengal, pp. 183-4 and\nBhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, pp. 485-488.]\n\n[Footnote 649: Karta, literally doer, is the name given to the\nexecutive head of a joint family in Bengal. The sect prefer to call\nthemselves Bhabajanas or Bhagawanis.]\n\n[Footnote 650: Another mixed sect is that of the Dh\u00e2mis in the Panna\nstate of Bundelkhand, founded by one Prann\u00e2th in the reign of\nAurungzeb. Their doctrine is a combination of Hinduism and Islam,\ntending towards Krishnaism. See Russell, _Tribes and Castes of Central\nProvinces_, p. 217.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI\n\nAMALGAMATION OF HINDUISM AND ISLAM. KABIR AND THE SIKHS\n\n\n1\n\n\nThe Kart\u00e2bhajas mentioned at the end of the last chapter show a\nmixture of Hinduism and Mohammedanism, and the mixture[651] is found\nin other sects some of which are of considerable importance. A group\nof these sects, including the Sikhs and followers of Kabir, arose in\nthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Their origin can be traced to\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nand but they cannot be called Vaishnavas and they are clearly\ndistinguished from all the religious bodies that we have hitherto\npassed in review. The tone of their writings is more restrained and\nsevere: the worshipper approaches the deity as a servant rather than a\nlover: caste is rejected as useless: Hindu mythology is eschewed or\nused sparingly. Yet in spite of these differences the essential\ndoctrines of Tulsi Das, Kabir and N\u00e2nak show a great resemblance. They\nall believe in one deity whom they call by various names, but this\ndeity, though personal, remains of the Indian not of the Semitic type.\nHe somehow brings the world of transmigration into being by his power\nof illusion, and the business of the soul is to free itself from the\nillusion and return to him. Almost all these teachers, whether\northodox or heterodox, had a singular facility for composing hymns,\noften of high literary merit, and it is in these emotional utterances,\nrather than in dogmatic treatises, that they addressed themselves to\nthe peoples of northern India.\n\nThe earliest of these mixed sects is that founded by Kabir.[652] He\nappears to have been a Mohammedan weaver by birth, though tradition is\nnot unanimous on this point.[653] It is admitted, however, that he was\nbrought up among Moslims at Benares but became a disciple of R\u00e2m\u00e2nand.\nThis suggests that he lived early in the fifteenth century.[654]\nAnother tradition says that he was summoned before Sikander Lodi\n(1489-1517), but the details of his life are evidently legendary. We\nonly know that he was married and had a son, that he taught in\nnorthern and perhaps central India and died at Maghar in the district\nof Gorakhpur. There is significance, however, in the legend which\nrelates that after his decease Hindus and Mohammedans disputed as to\nwhether his body should be burned or buried. But when they raised the\ncloth which covered the corpse, they found underneath it only a heap\nof flowers. So the Hindus took part and burnt them at Benares and the\nMoslims buried the rest at Maghar. His grave there is still in Moslim\nkeeping.\n\nIn teaching Kabir stands midway between the two religions, but leaning\nto the side of Hinduism. It is clear that this Hindu bias became\nstronger in his followers, but it is not easy to separate his own\nteaching from subsequent embellishments, for the numerous hymns and\nsayings attributed to him are collected in compilations made after his\ndeath, such as the Bijak and the \u00c2di-granth of the Sikhs. In hymns\nwhich sound authentic he puts Hindus and Moslims on the same footing.\n\n\"Kabir is a child of Ram and Allah,\" he says, \"and accepteth all Gurus\nand Pirs.\" \"O God, whether Allah or Ram, I live by thy name.\"\n\n    \"Make thy mind thy Kaaba, thy body its enclosing temple,\n    Conscience its prime teacher.\n    Then, O priest, call men to pray to that mosque\n    Which hath five gates.\n    The Hindus and Mussulmans have the same Lord.\"\n\nBut the formalities of both creeds are impartially condemned. \"They\nare good riders who keep aloof from the Veda and Koran.\"[655] Caste,\ncircumcision and idolatry are reprobated. The Hindu deities and their\nincarnations are all dead: God was not in any of them.[656] Ram, it\nwould seem, should be understood not as R\u00e2macandra but as a name of\nGod.\n\nYet the general outlook is Hindu rather than Mohammedan. God is the\nmagician who brings about this illusory world in which the soul\nwanders.[657] \"I was in immobile and mobile creatures, in worms and in\nmoths; I passed through many various births. But when I assumed a\nhuman body, I was a Yogi, a Yati, a penitent, a Brahmac\u00e2ri: sometimes\nan Emperor and sometimes a beggar.\" Unlike the Sikhs, Kabir teaches\nthe sanctity of life, even of plants. \"Thou cuttest leaves, O flower\ngirl: in every leaf there is life.\" Release, as for all Hindus,\nconsists in escaping from the round of births and deaths. Of this he\nspeaks almost in the language of the Buddha.[658]\n\n    \"Though I have assumed many shapes, this is my last.\n    The strings and wires of the musical instrument are all worn out:\n    I am now in the power of God's name.\n    I shall not again have to dance to the tune of birth and death.\n    Nor shall my heart accompany on the drum.\"\n\nThis deliverance is accomplished by the union or identification of the\nsoul with God.\n\n    \"Remove the difference between thyself and God and thou shalt be\n                                                 united with him....\n    Him whom I sought without me, now I find within me....\n    Know God: by knowing him thou shalt become as he.\n    When the soul and God are blended no one can distinguish them.\"[659]\n\nBut if he sometimes writes like Sankara, he also has the note of the\nPsalms and Gospels. He has the sense of sin: he thinks of God in vivid\npersonal metaphors, as a lord, a bridegroom, a parent, both father and\nmother.\n\n    \"Save me, O God, though I have offended thee....\n    I forgot him who made me and did cleave unto strangers.\"\n    \"Sing, sing, the marriage song.\n    The sovereign God hath come to my house as my husband....\n    I obtained God as my bridegroom; so great has been my good\n    fortune.\"\n\n    \"A mother beareth not in mind\n    All the faults her son committeth.\n    O, God, I am thy child:\n    Why blottest thou not out my sins?\" ...\n\n    \"My Father is the great Lord of the Earth;\n    To that Father how shall I go?\"[660]\n\nThe writings of Kabir's disciples such as the Sukh Nidhan attributed\nto Srut Gopal (and written according to Westcott about 1729) and the\nstill later Amar Mul, which is said to be representative of the modern\nKabirpanth, show a greater inclination to Pantheism, though caste and\nidolatry are still condemned. In these works, which relate the\nconversion of Dharm Das afterwards one of Kabir's principal followers,\nKabir is identified with the Creator and then made a pantheistic deity\nmuch as Krishna in the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2.[661] He is also the true Guru\nwhose help is necessary for salvation. Stress is further laid on the\ndoctrine of Sabda, or the divine word. Hindu theology was familiar\nwith this expression as signifying the eternal self-existent\nrevelation contained in the Vedas. Kabir appears to have held that\narticulate sound is an expression of the Deity and that every letter,\nas a constituent of such sound, has a meaning. But these letters are\ndue to M\u00e2y\u00e2: in reality there is no plurality of sound. Ram seems to\nhave been selected as the divine name, because its brevity is an\napproach to this unity, but true knowledge is to understand the\nLetterless One, that is the real name or essence of God from which all\ndifferentiation of letters has vanished. Apart from some special\nmetaphors the whole doctrine set forth in the Sukh Nidhan and Amar\nMul is little more than a loose Vedantism, somewhat reminiscent of\nSufiism.[662]\n\nThe teaching of Kabir is known as the Kabirpanth. At present there are\nboth Hindus and Mohammedans among his followers and both have\nmonasteries at Maghar where he is buried. The sect numbers in all\nabout a million.[663] It is said that the two divisions have little in\ncommon except veneration of Kabir and do not intermix, but they both\nobserve the practice of partaking of sacred meals, holy water,[664]\nand consecrated betel nut. The Hindu section is again divided into two\nbranches known as Father (Bap) and Mother (Mai).\n\nThough there is not much that is original in the doctrines of Kabir,\nhe is a considerable figure in Hindi literature and may justly be\ncalled epoch-making as marking the first fusion of Hinduism and Islam\nwhich culminates and attains political importance in the Sikhs. Other\noffshoots of his teaching are the Satn\u00e2m\u00ees, R\u00e2dh\u00e2-sw\u00e2mis and\nD\u00e2dupanthis. The first were founded or reorganized in 1750 by a\ncertain Jag-jivan-das. They do not observe caste and in theory adore\nonly the True Name of God but in practice admit ordinary Hindu\nworship. The R\u00e2dh\u00e2-sw\u00e2mis, founded in 1861, profess a combination of\nthe Kabirpanth with Christian ideas. The D\u00e2dupanthis show the\ninfluence of the military spirit of Islam. They were founded by D\u00e2du,\na cotton weaver of Ahmedabad who flourished in Akbar's reign and died\nabout 1603. He insisted on the equality of mankind, vegetarianism,\nabstinence from alcohol and strict celibacy. Hence the sect is\nrecruited by adopting boys, most of whom are trained as soldiers. In\nsuch conditions the D\u00e2dupanthis cannot increase greatly but they\nnumber about nine thousand and are found chiefly in the state of\nJaipur, especially in the town of Naraina.[665]\n\n\n2\n\n\nThe Sikh religion[666] is of special interest since it has created not\nonly a political society but also customs so distinctive that those\nwho profess it rank in common esteem as a separate race. The founder\nN\u00e2nak lived from 1469 to 1538 and was born near Lahore. He was a Hindu\nby birth but came under Mohammedan influence and conceived the idea of\nreconciling the two faiths. He was attracted by the doctrines of Kabir\nand did not at first claim to teach a new religion. He wished to unite\nHindus and Moslims and described himself simply as Guru or teacher and\nhis adherents as Sikhs or disciples.\n\nHe spent the greater part of his life wandering about India and is\nsaid to have reached Mecca. A beautiful story relates that he fell\nasleep with his feet turned towards the Kaaba. A mollah kicked him and\nasked how he dared to turn his feet and not his head towards God. But\nhe answered, \"Turn my feet in a direction where God is not.\" He was\nattended on his wanderings by Mard\u00e2na, a lute-player, who accompanied\nthe hymns which he never failed to compose when a thought or adventure\noccurred to him. These compositions are similar to those of Kabir, but\nseem to me of inferior merit. They are diffuse and inordinately long;\nthe Japji for instance, which every Sikh ought to recite as his daily\nprayer, fills not less than twenty octavo pages. Yet beautiful and\nincisive passages are not wanting. When at the temple of Jagannath, he\nwas asked to take part in the evening worship at which lights were\nwaved before the god while flowers and incense were presented on\ngolden salvers studded with pearls. But he burst out into song.[667]\n\n    \"The sun and moon, O Lord, are thy lamps, the firmament\n    thy salver and the orbs of the stars the pearls set therein.\n\n    \"The perfume of the sandal tree is thy incense; the wind is\n    thy fan; all the forests are thy flowers, O Lord of light.\"\n\nThough N\u00e2nak is full of Hindu allusions he is more Mohammedan in tone\nthan Kabir, and the ritual of Sikh temples is modelled on the\nMohammedan rather than on the Hindu pattern. The opening words of the\nJapji are: \"There is but one God, whose name is true, the\nCreator\"[668] and he is regarded rather as the ruler of the world than\nas a spirit finding expression in it. \"By his order\" all things\nhappen. \"By obeying him\" man obtains happiness and salvation. \"There\nis no limit to his mercy and his praises.\" In the presence of God \"man\nhas no power and no strength.\" Such sentiments have a smack of\nMohammed and N\u00e2nak sometimes uses the very words of the Koran as when\nhe says that God has no companion. And though the penetrating spirit\nof the Ved\u00e2nta infects this regal monotheism, yet the doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2\nis set forth in unusual phraseology: \"God himself created the world\nand himself gave names to things. He made M\u00e2y\u00e2 by his power: seated,\nhe beheld his work with delight.\"\n\nIn other compositions attributed to N\u00e2nak greater prominence is given\nto M\u00e2y\u00e2 and to the common Hindu idea that creation is a self-expansion\nof the deity. Metempsychosis is taught and the divine name is Hari.\nThis is characteristic of the age, for N\u00e2nak was nearly a contemporary\nof Caitanya and Vallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya. For Kabir, the disciple of R\u00e2m\u00e2nanda,\nthe name was Ram.\n\nN\u00e2nak was sufficiently conscious of his position as head of a sect to\nleave a successor as Guru,[669] but there is no indication that at\nthis time the Sikhs differed materially from many other religious\nbodies who reprobated caste and idolatry. Under the fourth Guru, Ram\nDas, the beginnings of a change appear. His strong personality\ncollected many wealthy adherents and with their offerings he purchased\nthe tank of Amritsar[670] and built in its midst the celebrated Golden\nTemple. He appointed his son Arjun as Guru in 1581, just before his\ndeath: the succession was made hereditary and henceforth the Gurus\nbecame chiefs rather than spiritual teachers. Arjun assumed some of\nthe insignia of royalty: a town grew up round the sacred tank and\nbecame the centre of a community; a tax was collected from all Sikhs\nand they were subjected to special and often salutary legislation.\nInfanticide, for instance, was strictly forbidden. With a view of\nproviding a code and standard Arjun compiled the Granth or Sikh\nscriptures, for though hymns and prayers composed by N\u00e2nak and others\nwere in use there was as yet no authorized collection of them. The\nexample of Mohammedanism no doubt stimulated the desire to possess a\nsacred book and the veneration of the scriptures increased with time.\nThe Granth now receives the same kind of respect as the Koran and the\nfirst sight of a Sikh temple with a large open volume on a\nreading-desk cannot fail to recall a mosque.\n\nArjun's compilation is called the \u00c2di-granth, or original book, to\ndistinguish it from the later additions made by Guru Govind. It\ncomprises hymns and prayers by N\u00e2nak and the four Gurus who followed\nhim (including Arjun himself), R\u00e2m\u00e2nand, Kabir and others, amounting\nto thirty-five writers in all. The list is interesting as testifying\nto the existence of a great body of oral poetry by various authors\nranging from R\u00e2m\u00e2nand, who had not separated himself from orthodox\nVishnuism, to Arjun, the chief of the Sikh national community. It was\nevidently felt that all these men had one inspiration coming from one\ntruth and even now unwritten poems of N\u00e2nak are current in Bihar. The\nGranth is written in a special alphabet known as Gurmukhi[671] and\ncontains both prose and poetical pieces in several languages: most are\nin old western Hindi[672] but some are in Panjabi and Marathi.\n\nBut though in compiling a sacred book and in uniting the temporal and\nspiritual power Arjun was influenced by the spirit of Mohammedanism,\nthis is not the sort of imitation which makes for peace. The\ncombination of Hinduism and Islam resulted in the production of a\nspecial type of Hindu peculiarly distasteful to Moslims and not much\nloved by other Hindus. Much of Arjun's activity took place in the\nlater years of the Emperor Akbar. This most philosophic and tolerant\nof princes abandoned Mohammedanism after 1579, remitted the special\ntaxes payable by non-Moslims and adopted many Hindu observances.\nTowards the end of his life he promulgated a new creed known as the\nDin-i-ilahi or divine faith. This eclectic and composite religion\nbears testimony to his vanity as well as to his large sympathies, for\nit recognized him as the viceregent or even an incarnation of God. It\nwould appear that the singular little work called the Allopanishad or\nAllah Upanishad[673] was written in connection with this movement. It\npurports to be an Upanishad of the Atharva Veda and can hardly be\ndescribed as other than a forgery. It declares that \"the Allah of the\nprophet Muhammad Akbar[674] is the God of Gods\" and identifies him\nwith Mitra, Varuna, the sun, moon, water, Indra, etc. Akbar's\nreligion did not long survive his death and never flourished far from\nthe imperial court, but somewhat later (1656) Muhammad Dara Shukoh,\nthe son of Shah Jehan, caused a Persian translation of about fifty\nUpanishads, known as the Oupnekhat,[675] to be prepared. The general\ntemper of the period was propitious to the growth and immunity of\nmixed forms of belief, but the warlike and semi-political character of\nthe Sikh community brought trouble on it.\n\nArjun attracted the unfavourable attention of Akbar's successor,\nJehangir,[676] and was cast into prison where he died. The Sikhs took\nup arms and henceforth regarded themselves as the enemies of the\ngovernment, but their strength was wasted by internal dissensions. The\nninth Guru, Teg-Bahadur, was executed by Aurungzeb. Desire to avenge\nthis martyrdom and the strenuous character of the tenth Guru, Govind\nSingh (1675-1708), completed the transformation of the Sikhs into a\nchurch militant devoted to a holy war.\n\nThough the most aggressive and uncompromising features of Sikhism are\ndue to the innovations of Govind, he was so far from being a\ntheological bigot that he worshipped Durg\u00e2 and was even said to have\noffered human sacrifices. But the aim of all his ordinances was to\nmake his followers an independent body of fighting men. They were to\nreturn the salutation of no Hindu and to put to death every\nMohammedan. The community was called Khalsa:[677] within it there was\nperfect equality: every man was to carry a sword and wear long hair\nbut short trousers. Converts, or recruits, came chiefly from the\nfighting tribes of the Jats, but in theory admission was free. The\ninitiatory ceremony, which resembled baptism, was performed with sugar\nand water stirred with a sword, and the neophyte vowed not to worship\nidols, to bow to none except a Sikh Guru, and never to turn his back\non the enemy. To give these institutions better religious sanction,\nGovind composed a supplement to the Granth, called Dasama P\u00e2dsh\u00e2h ka\nGranth or book of the tenth prince. It consists of four parts, all in\nverse, and is said to inculcate war as persistently as N\u00e2nak had\ninculcated meekness and peace. To give his institutions greater\npermanence and prevent future alterations Govind refused to appoint\nany human successor and bade the Sikhs consider the Granth as their\nGuru. \"Whatsoever ye shall ask of it, it will show you\" he said, and\nin obedience to his command the book is still invested with a kind of\npersonality and known as Granth Sahib.\n\nGovind spent most of his time in wars with Aurungzeb marked by\nindomitable perseverance rather than success. Towards the end of his\nlife he retired into Malwa and resided at a place called Damdama. The\naccounts of his latter days are somewhat divergent. According to one\nstory he made his peace with the Mughals and accepted a military\ncommand under the successor of Aurungzeb but it is more commonly\nasserted that he was assassinated by a private enemy. Even more\ntroublous were the days of his successor Banda. Since Govind had\nabolished the Guruship, he could not claim to be more than a temporal\nchief, but what he lacked in spiritual authority he made amends for in\nfanaticism. The eight years of his leadership were spent in a war of\nmutual extermination waged with the Moslims of the Panjab and\ndiversified only by internal dissensions. At last he was captured and\nthe sect was nearly annihilated by the Emperor Farukhs\u00eeyar. According\nto the ordinary account this victory was followed by an orgy of\ntorture and Banda was barbarously executed after witnessing during\nseven days the torments of his followers and kinsmen. We read with\npleasure but incredulity that one division of the Sikhs believe that\nhe escaped and promulgated his peculiar doctrines in Sind. Asiatics do\nnot relish the idea that the chosen of God can suffer violent death.\n\nThe further history of the Sikhs is political rather than religious,\nand need not detain us here. Despite the efforts of the Mughals to\nexterminate them, they were favoured by the disturbed state of the\ncountry in the early decades of the eighteenth century, for the raids\nof Afghans and Persians convulsed and paralyzed the empire of Delhi.\nThe government of the Khalsa passed into the hands of a body of\nfanatics, called Ak\u00e2lis, but the decision of grave matters rested with\na council of the whole community which occasionally met at Amritsar.\nEvery Sikh claimed to have joined the confederacy as an independent\nsoldier, bound to fight under his military leaders but otherwise\nexempt from control, and entitled to a share of land. This absolute\nindependence, being unworkable in practice, was modified by the\nformation of Misals or voluntary associations, of which there were at\none time twelve. From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards the\nSikhs were masters of the Panjab and their great chief Ranjit Singh\n(1797-1839) succeeded in converting the confederacy into a despotic\nmonarchy. Their power did not last long after his death and the Panjab\nwas conquered by the British in the two wars of 1846 and 1849.\n\nWith the loss of political independence, the differences between the\nSikhs and other Hindus tended to decrease. This was natural, for\nnearly all their strictly religious tenets can be paralleled in\nHinduism. Guru Govind waged no war against polytheism but wished to\nfound a religious commonwealth equally independent of Hindu castes and\nMohammedan sultans. For some time his ordinances were successful in\ncreating a tribe, almost a nation. With the collapse of the Sikh\nstate, the old hatred of Mohammedanism remained, but the Sikhs\ndiffered from normal Hindus hardly more than such sects as the\nLing\u00e2yats, and, as happened with decadent Buddhism, the unobtrusive\npressure of Hindu beliefs and observances tended to obliterate those\ndifferences. The Census of India,[678] 1901, enumerated three degrees\nof Sikhism. The first comprises a few zealots called Ak\u00e2lis who\nobserve all the precepts of Govind. The second class are the Guru\nGovind Sikhs, who observe the Guru's main commands, especially the\nprohibition to smoke and cut the hair. Lastly, there are a\nconsiderable number who profess a respect for the Guru but follow\nHindu beliefs and usages wholly or in part. Sikhism indeed reproduces\non a small scale the changeableness and complexity of Hinduism, and\nincludes associations called Sabh\u00e2, whose members aim at restoring or\nmaintaining what they consider to be the true faith. In 1901 there was\na tendency for Sikhs to give up their peculiarities and describe\nthemselves as ordinary Hindus, but in the next decade a change of\nsentiment among these waverers caused the Sikh community as registered\nto increase by thirty-seven per cent. and a period of religious zeal\nis reported.[679]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 651: It is exemplified by the curious word an-had\n_limitless_, being the Indian negative prefix added to the arabic word\n_had_ used in the Sikh Granth and by Caran Das as a name of God.]\n\n[Footnote 652: See especially G.H. Westcott, _Kabir and the Kabir\nPanth_, and Macauliffe, _Sikh Religion_, vol. vi. pp. 122-316. Also\nWilson, _Essays on the religion of the Hindus_, vol. I. pp. 68-98.\nGarcin de Tassy, _Histoire de la Litt\u00e9rature Hindoue_, II. pp.\n120-134. Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, pp. 67-73.]\n\n[Footnote 653: The name Kabir seems to me decisive.]\n\n[Footnote 654: Dadu who died about 1603 is said to have been fifth in\nspiritual descent from Kabir.]\n\n[Footnote 655: From a hymn in which the spiritual life is represented\nas a ride. Macauliffe, VI. p. 156.]\n\n[Footnote 656: But Hari is sometimes used by Kabir, especially in the\nhymns incorporated in the Granth, as a name of God.]\n\n[Footnote 657: Though Kabir writes as a poet rather than as a\nphilosopher he evidently leaned to the doctrine of illusion\n(_vivartav\u00e2da_) rather than to the doctrine of manifestation or\ndevelopment (_Parin\u00e2mav\u00e2da_). He regards M\u00e2y\u00e2 as something evil, a\ntrick, a thief, a force which leads men captive, but which disappears\nwith the knowledge of God. \"The illusion vanished when I recognized\nhim\" (XXXIX.).]\n\n[Footnote 658: He even uses the word nirv\u00e2na.]\n\n[Footnote 659: From Kabir's acrostic. Macauliffe, VI. pp. 186 and 188.\nIt is possible that this is a later composition.]\n\n[Footnote 660: Macauliffe, vi. pp. 230. 209, 202, 197.]\n\n[Footnote 661: Westcott, _l.c._ p. 144, \"I am the creator of this\nworld.... I am the seed and the tree ... all are contained in me--I live\nwithin all and all live within me\" and much to the same effect. Even\nin the hymns of the \u00c2di Granth we find such phrases as \"Now thou and I\nhave become one.\" (Macauliffe, vi. p. 180.)\n\nThis identification of Kabir with the deity is interesting as being a\nmodern example of what probably happened in the case of Krishna.\nSimilarly those who collected the hymns which form the sacred books of\nthe Sikhs and Kabirpanthis repeated the process which in earlier ages\nproduced the Rig Veda.]\n\n[Footnote 662: \"The \u00c2tm\u00e2 mingles with Param\u00e2tm\u00e2, as the rivers flow\ninto the ocean. Only in this way can Param\u00e2tm\u00e2 be found. The \u00c2tm\u00e2\nwithout Sabda is blind and cannot find the path. He who sees \u00c2tm\u00e2-R\u00e2m\nis present everywhere. All he sees is like himself. There is nought\nexcept Brahm\u00e2. I am he, I am the true Kabir.\" Westcott, p. 168.]\n\n[Footnote 663: The Census of 1901 gives 843,171 but there is reason to\nthink the real numbers are larger.]\n\n[Footnote 664: Consecrated by washing in it wooden sandals supposed to\nrepresent the feet of Kabir. It is stated that they believe they eat\nthe body of Kabir at their sacred meal which perhaps points to\nChristian influence. See Russell, _l.c._ pp. 239-240.]\n\n[Footnote 665: See Russell, _Tribes and Castes of Central Provinces_,\np. 217, where it is said that some of them are householders.]\n\n[Footnote 666: See especially Macauliffe, _The Sikh Religion_, six\nvolumes.]\n\n[Footnote 667: Macauliffe, I. p. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 668: The original is Kart\u00e2 purukh (=purusha), the creative\nmale. This phrase shows how Hindu habits of thought clung to N\u00e2nak.]\n\n[Footnote 669: The Guru of the Sikhs are: (_a_) N\u00e2nak, 1469-1538,\n(_b_) Angada, 1538-1552, (_c_) Amardas, 1552-1575, (_d_) Ramdas,\n1575-1581, (_e_) Arjun, 1581-1606, (_f_) Har-Govind, 1606-1639, (_g_)\nHar-Rai, 1639-1663, (_h_) Har-Kisan, 1663-1666, (_i_) Teg-Bahadur,\n1666-1675, (_j_) Govind Singh, 1675-1708.]\n\n[Footnote 670: Amritasaras the lake of nectar.]\n\n[Footnote 671: It appears to be an arbitrary adaptation of the\nDeva-n\u00e2gari characters. The shape of the letters is mostly the same\nbut new values are assigned to them.]\n\n[Footnote 672: This is the description of the dialect given by\nGrierson, the highest authority in such matters.]\n\n[Footnote 673: See Rajendrala Mitra's article in _J.A.S.B._ XL. 1871,\npp. 170-176, which gives the Sanskrit text of the Upanishad. Also\nSchrader, _Catalogue of Adyar Library_, 1908, pp. 136-7. Schrader\nstates that in the north of India the Allopanishad is recited by\nBrahmans at the Vasantotsava and on other occasions: also that in\nsouthern India it is generally believed that Moslims are skilled in\nthe Atharva Veda.]\n\n[Footnote 674: _I.e._, not the Allah of the Koran.]\n\n[Footnote 675: This Persian translation was rendered word for word\ninto very strange Latin by Anquetil Duperron (1801-2) and this Latin\nversion was used by Schopenhauer.]\n\n[Footnote 676: He is said to have prayed for the success of the\nEmperor's rebellious son.]\n\n[Footnote 677: This Arabic word is interpreted in this context as\nmeaning the special portion (of God).]\n\n[Footnote 678: _Census of India_, 1901, Panjab report, p. 122.]\n\n[Footnote 679: _Provincial Geographies of India_, Panjab, Douie, 1916,\np. 117.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII\n\nS\u00c2KTISM[680]\n\n\nAmong the principal subdivisions of Hinduism must be reckoned the\nremarkable religion known as S\u00e2ktism, that is the worship of Sakti or\nSiva's spouse under various names, of which Dev\u00ee, Durg\u00e2 and K\u00e2l\u00ee are\nthe best known. It differs from most sects in not being due to the\ncreative or reforming energy of any one human founder. It claims to be\na revelation from Siva himself, but considered historically it appears\nto be a compound of Hinduism with un-Aryan beliefs. It acquired great\ninfluence both in the courts and among the people of north-eastern\nIndia but without producing personalities of much eminence as teachers\nor writers.\n\nIt would be convenient to distinguish S\u00e2ktism and Tantrism, as I have\nalready suggested. The former means the worship of a goddess or\ngoddesses, especially those who are regarded as forms of Siva's\nconsort. Vishnuites sometimes worship female deities, but though the\nworship of Lakshm\u00ee, R\u00e2dh\u00e2 and others may be coloured by imitation of\nS\u00e2ktist practices, it is less conspicuous and seems to have a\ndifferent origin. Tantrism is a system of magical or sacramental\nritual, which professes to attain the highest aims of religion by such\nmethods as spells, diagrams, gestures and other physical exercises.\nOne of its bases is the assumption that man and the universe\ncorrespond as microcosm and macrocosm and that both are subject to the\nmysterious power of words and letters.\n\nThese ideas are not modern nor peculiar to any Indian sect. They are\npresent in the Vedic ceremonial, in the practices of the Yoga and even\nin the teaching of the quasi-mussulman sect of Kabir, which attaches\ngreat importance to the letters of the divine name. They harmonize\nwith the common Indian view that some form of discipline or physical\ntraining is essential to the religious life. They are found in a\nhighly developed form among the Nambuthiris and other Brahmans of\nsouthern India who try to observe the Vedic rules and in the Far East\namong Buddhists of the Shingon or Ch\u00ean-yen sect.[681] As a rule they\nreceive the name of Tantrism only when they are elaborated into a\nsystem which claims to be a special dispensation for this age and to\nsupersede more arduous methods which are politely set aside as\npracticable only for the hero-saints of happier times. Tantrism, like\nsalvation by faith, is a simplification of religion but on mechanical\nrather than emotional lines, though its deficiency in emotion often\nfinds strange compensations.\n\nBut Tantrism is analogous not so much to justification by faith as to\nsacramental ritual. The parallel may seem shocking, but most tantric\nceremonies are similar in idea to Christian sacraments and may be\ncalled sacramental as correctly as magical. Even in the Anglican\nChurch baptism includes sprinkling with water (abhisheka), the sign of\nthe cross (ny\u00e2sa) and a formula (mantra), and if any one supposes that\na child so treated is sure of heaven whereas the future of the\nunbaptized is dubious, he holds like the Tantrists that spiritual ends\ncan be attained by physical means. And in the Roman Church where the\nrite includes exorcism and the use of salt, oil and lights, the\nparallel is still closer. Christian mysticism has had much to do with\nsymbolism and even with alchemy,[682] and Zoroastrianism, which is\ngenerally regarded as a reasonable religion, attaches extraordinary\nimportance to holy spells.[683] So Indian religions are not singular\nin this respect, though the uncompromising thoroughness with which\nthey work out this like other ideas leads to startling results.\n\nThe worship of female deities becomes prominent somewhat late in\nIndian literature and it does not represent--not to the same extent as\nthe Chinese cult of Kwan-yin for example--the better ideals of the\nperiod when it appears. The goddesses of the Rig Veda are\ninsignificant: they are little more than names, and grammatically\noften the feminine forms of their consorts. But this Veda is evidently\na special manual of prayer from which many departments of popular\nreligion were excluded. In the Atharva Veda many spirits with feminine\nnames are invoked and there is an inclination to personify bad\nqualities and disasters as goddesses. But we do not find any goddess\nwho has attained a position comparable with that held by Durg\u00e2, Cybele\nor Astarte, though there are some remarkable hymns[684] addressed to\nthe Earth. But there is no doubt that the worship of goddesses\n(especially goddesses of fertility) as great powers is both ancient\nand widespread. We find it among the Egyptians and Semites, in Asia\nMinor, in Greece, Italy, and among the Kelts. The goddess Anahit, who\nwas worshipped with immoral rites in Bactria, is figured on the coins\nof the Kushans and must at one time have been known on the\nnorth-western borders of India. At the present day S\u00eetal\u00e2 and in south\nIndia Mariamman are goddesses of smallpox who require propitiation,\nand one of the earliest deities known to have been worshipped by the\nTamils is the goddess Kottavai.[685] Somewhat obscure but widely\nworshipped are the powers known as the Mothers, a title which also\noccurs in Keltic mythology. They are groups of goddesses varying in\nnumber and often malevolent. As many as a hundred and forty are said\nto be worshipped in Gujarat. The census of Bengal (1901) records the\nworship of the earth, sun and rivers as females, of the snake\ngoddesses Manas\u00e2 and Jagat Gaur\u00ee and of numerous female demons who\nsend disease, such as the seven sisters, Ola Bibi, Jogini and the\nChurels, or spirits of women who have died in childbirth.\n\nThe rites celebrated in honour of these deities are often of a\nquestionable character and include dances by naked women and offerings\nof spirituous liquors and blood. Similar features are found in other\ncountries. Prostitution formed part of the worship of Astarte and\nAnahit: the Tauric Artemis was adored with human sacrifices and Cybele\nwith self-inflicted mutilations. Similarly offerings of blood drawn\nfrom the sacrificer's own body are enjoined in the K\u00e2lik\u00e2 Pur\u00e2na. Two\nstages can be distinguished in the relations between these cults and\nHinduism. In the later stage which can be witnessed even at the\npresent day an aboriginal goddess or demon is identified with one of\nthe aspects (generally a \"black\" or fierce aspect) of Siva's\nspouse.[686] But such identification is facilitated by the fact that\ngoddesses like K\u00e2l\u00ee, Bhairav\u00ee, Chinnamastak\u00e2 are not products of\npurely Hindu imagination but represent earlier stages of amalgamation\nin which Hindu and aboriginal ideas are already compounded. When the\nsmallpox goddess is identified with K\u00e2l\u00ee, the procedure is correct,\nfor some popular forms of K\u00e2l\u00ee are little more than an aboriginal\ndeity of pestilence draped with Hindu imagery and philosophy.\n\nSome Hindu scholars demur to this derivation of S\u00e2ktism from lower\ncults. They point to its refined and philosophic aspects; they see in\nit the worship of a goddess, who can be as merciful as the Madonna,\nbut yet, since she is the goddess of nature, combines in one shape\nlife and death. May not the grosser forms of S\u00e2ktism be perversions\nand corruptions of an ancient and higher faith? In support of this it\nmay be urged that the Buddhist goddess T\u00e2r\u00e2 is as a rule a beautiful\nand benevolent figure, though she can be terrible as the enemy of evil\nand has clear affinities to Durg\u00e2. Yet the history of Indian thought\ndoes not support this view, but rather the view that Hinduism\nincorporated certain ancient ideas, true and striking as ancient ideas\noften are, but without purging them sufficiently to make them\nacceptable to the majority of educated Indians.\n\nThe Yajur Veda[687] associates Rudra with a female deity called Ambik\u00e2\nor mother, who is however his sister, not his spouse. The earliest\nforms of the latter seem to connect her with mountains. She is Um\u00e2\nHaimavat\u00ee, the daughter of the Himalayas, and P\u00e2rvat\u00ee, she of the\nmountains, and was perhaps originally a sacred peak. In an interesting\nbut brief passage of the Kena Upanishad (III. 12 and IV. 1) Um\u00e2\nHaimavat\u00ee explains to the gods that a being whom they do not know is\nBrahman. In later times we hear of a similar goddess in the Vindhyas,\nMah\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00ee Vindhyesvar\u00ee, who was connected with human sacrifices and\nThugs.[688] Siva's consort, like her Lord, has many forms classified\nas white or benignant and black or terrible. Um\u00e2 belongs to the former\nclass but the latter (such as K\u00e2l\u00ee, Durg\u00e2, C\u00e2mund\u00e2, Cand\u00e2 and Karal\u00e2)\nare more important.[689] Female deities bearing names like these are\nworshipped in most parts of India, literally from the Himalaya to Cape\nComorin, for the latter name is derived from Kum\u00e2r\u00ee, the Virgin\ngoddess.[690] But the names S\u00e2kta and S\u00e2ktism are usually restricted to\nthose sects in Bengal and Assam who worship the Consort of Siva with\nthe rites prescribed in the Tantras.\n\nS\u00e2ktism regards the goddess as the active manifestation of the\ngodhead. As such she is styled Sakti, or energy (whence the name\nS\u00e2kta), and is also identified with M\u00e2y\u00e2, the power which is\nassociated with Brahman and brings the phenomenal world into being.\nSimilar ideas appear in a philosophic form in the S\u00e2nkhya teaching.\nHere the soul is masculine and passive: its task is to extricate and\nisolate itself. But Prakriti or Nature is feminine and active: to her\nis due the evolution of the universe: she involves the soul in actions\nwhich cause pain but she also helps the work of liberation.[691] In\nits fully developed form the doctrine of the Tantras teaches that\nSakti is not an emanation or aspect of the deity. There is no\ndistinction between Brahman and Sakti. She is Parabrahman and\n_par\u00e2tpar\u00e2_, Supreme of the Supreme.\n\nThe birthplace of S\u00e2ktism as a definite sect seems to have been\nnorth-eastern India[692] and though it is said to be extending in the\nUnited Provinces, its present sphere of influence is still chiefly\nBengal and Assam.[693] The population of these countries is not Aryan\n(though the Bengali language bears witness to the strong Aryan\ninfluence which has prevailed there) and is largely composed of\nimmigrants from the north belonging to the Tibeto-Burman, Mon-Khmer\nand Shan families. These tribes remain distinct in Assam but the\nBengali represents the fusion of such invaders with a Munda or\nDravidian race, leavened by a little Aryan blood in the higher castes.\nIn all this region we hear of no ancient Brahmanic settlements, no\nancient centres of Vedic or even Puranic learning[694] and when\nBuddhism decayed no body of Brahmanic tradition such as existed in\nother parts of India imposed its authority on the writers of the\nTantras. Even at the present day the worship of female spirits, only\nhalf acknowledged by the Brahmans, prevails among these people, and in\nthe past the national deities of many tribes were goddesses who were\npropitiated with human sacrifices. Thus the Chutiyas of Sadiya used to\nadore a goddess, called Kesai Khati--the eater of raw flesh. The rites\nof these deities were originally performed by tribal priests, but as\nHindu influence spread, the Brahmans gradually took charge of them\nwithout modifying their character in essentials. Popular Bengali\npoetry represents these goddesses as desiring worship and feeling\nthat they are slighted: they persecute those who ignore them, but\nshower blessings on their worshippers, even on the obdurate who are at\nlast compelled to do them homage. The language of mythology could not\ndescribe more clearly the endeavours of a plebeian cult to obtain\nrecognition.[695]\n\nThe Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata contains hymns to Durg\u00e2 in which she is said to love\nofferings of flesh and wine,[696] but it is not likely that S\u00e2ktism or\nTantrism--that is a system with special scriptures and doctrines--was\nprevalent before the seventh century A.D. for the Tantras are not\nmentioned by the Chinese pilgrims and the lexicon _Amara Kosha_\n(perhaps _c_. 500 A.D.) does not recognize the word as a designation\nof religious books. B\u00e2na (_c_. 630) gives more than once in his\nromances lists of sectaries but though he mentions Bh\u00e2gavatas and\nP\u00e2supatas, he does not speak of Saktas.[697] On the other hand\nTantrism infected Buddhism soon after this period. The earlier Tibetan\ntranslations of the Tantras are attributed to the ninth century. MSS.\nof the Kubjik\u00e2mata and other Tantras are said to date from the ninth\nand even from the seventh century and tradition represents\nSankar\u00e2c\u00e2rya as having contests with S\u00e2ktas.[698] But many Tantras\nwere written in the fifteenth century and even later, for the Yogini\nTantra alludes to the Koch king Bishwa Singh (1515-1540) and the Meru\nTantra mentions London and the English.\n\nFrom the twelfth to the sixteenth century, when Buddhism, itself\ndeeply infected with Tantrism, was disappearing, S\u00e2ktism was probably\nthe most powerful religion in Bengal, but Vishnuism was gaining\nstrength and after the time of Caitanya proved a formidable rival to\nit. At the beginning of the fifteenth century we hear that the king of\nthe Ahoms summoned Brahmans to his Court and adopted many Hindu rites\nand beliefs, and from this time onward S\u00e2ktism was patronized by most\nof the Assamese Rajas although after 1550 Vishnuism became the\nreligion of the mass of the people. S\u00e2ktism never inspired any popular\nor missionary movement, but it was powerful among the aristocracy and\ninstigated persecutions against the Vishnuites.\n\nThe more respectable Tantras[699] show considerable resemblance to the\nlater Upanishads such as the Nrisinhat\u00e2pan\u00eeya and R\u00e2mat\u00e2-pan\u00eeya,\nwhich mention Sakti in the sense of creative energy.[700] Both classes\nof works treat of magical formul\u00e6 (mantras) and the construction of\nmystic diagrams or yantras. This resemblance does not give us much\nassistance in chronology, for the dates of the later Upanishads are\nvery uncertain, but it shows how the Tantras are connected with other\nbranches of Hindu thought.\n\nThe distinction between Tantras and Pur\u00e2nas is not always\nwell-marked. The Bh\u00e2gavata Pur\u00e2na countenances tantric rites[701] and\nthe Agni Pur\u00e2na (from chapter XXI onwards) bears a strong resemblance\nto a Tantra. As a rule the Tantras contain less historical and\nlegendary matter than the Pur\u00e2nas and more directions as to ritual.\nBut whereas the Pur\u00e2nas approve of both Vedic rites and others, the\nTantras insist that ceremonies other than those which they prescribe\nare now useless. They maintain that each age of the world has its own\nspecial revelation and that in this age the Tantra-s\u00e2stra is the only\nscripture. Thus in the Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra Siva says:[702] \"The fool\nwho would follow other doctrines heedless of mine is as great a sinner\nas a parricide or the murderer of a Brahman or of a woman.... The\nVedic rites and mantras which were efficacious in the first age have\nceased to have power in this. They are now as powerless as snakes\nwhose fangs have been drawn and are like dead things.\" The Kul\u00e2rnava\nTantra (I. 79 ff.) inveighs against those who think they will obtain\nsalvation by Vedic sacrifices or asceticism or reading sacred books,\nwhereas it can be won only by tantric rites.\n\nVarious lists of Tantras are given and it is generally admitted that\nmany have been lost. The most complete, but somewhat theoretical\nenumeration[703] divides India and the adjoining lands into three\nregions to each of which sixty-four Tantras are assigned. The best\nknown names are perhaps Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na,[704] S\u00e2rad\u00e2tilaka,[705] Yogin\u00ee,\nKul\u00e2rnava[706] and Rudra-Y\u00e2mala. A Tantra is generally cast in the\nform of a dialogue in which Siva instructs his consort but sometimes\n_vice vers\u00e2_. It is said that the former class are correctly described\nas \u00c2gamas and the works where the Sakti addresses Siva as\nNigamas.[707] Some are also called Y\u00e2malas and D\u00e2maras but I have\nfound no definition of the meaning of these words. The Prapa\u00f1cas\u00e2ra\nTantra[708] professes to be a revelation from N\u00e2r\u00e2yana.\n\nS\u00e2ktism and the Tantras which teach it are generally condemned by\nHindus of other sects.[709] It is arguable that this condemnation is\nunjust, for like other forms of Hinduism the Tantras make the\nliberation of the soul their object and prescribe a life of religious\nobservances including asceticism and meditation, after which the adept\nbecomes released even in this life. But however much new tantric\nliterature may be made accessible in future, I doubt if impartial\ncriticism will come to any opinion except that S\u00e2ktism and Tantrism\ncollect and emphasize what is superficial, trivial and even bad in\nIndian religion, omitting or neglecting its higher sides. If for\ninstance the Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra which is a good specimen of these\nworks be compared with Sankara's commentary on the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras, or\nthe poems of Tulsi Das, it will be seen that it is woefully deficient\nin the excellences of either. But many tantric treatises are chiefly\nconcerned with charms, spells, amulets and other magical methods of\nobtaining wealth, causing or averting disease and destroying enemies,\nprocesses which even if efficacious have nothing to do with the better\nside of religion.[710]\n\nThe religious life prescribed in the Tantras[711] commences with\ninitiation and requires the supervision of the Guru. The object of it\nis _Siddhi_ or success, the highest form of which is spiritual\nperfection. _Siddhi_ is produced by _S\u00e2dhana_, or that method of\ntraining the physical and psychic faculties which realizes their\npotentialities. Tantric training assumes a certain constitution of the\nuniverse and the repetition in miniature of this constitution in the\nhuman body which contains various nervous centres and subtle channels\nfor the passage of energy unknown to vulgar anatomy. Thus the Sakti\nwho pervades the universe is also present in the body as Kundalin\u00ee,\na serpentine coil of energy, and it is part of S\u00e2dhana to arouse this\nenergy and make it mount from the lower to the higher centres.\nKundalin\u00ee is also present in sounds and in letters. Hence if\ndifferent parts of the body are touched to the accompaniment of\nappropriate mantras (which rite is called ny\u00e2sa) the various Saktis\nare made to dwell in the human frame in suitable positions.\n\nThe Tantras recognize that human beings are not equal and that codes\nand rituals must vary according to temperament and capacity. Three\nconditions of men, called the animal, heroic and divine,[712] are\noften mentioned and are said to characterize three periods of\nlife--youth, manhood and age, or three classes of mankind,\nnon-tantrists, ordinary tantrists, and adepts. These three conditions\nclearly correspond to the three Gunas. Also men, or rather Hindus,\nbelong to one of seven groups, or stages, according to the religious\npractices which it is best for them to follow. S\u00e2ktists apparently\ndemur[713] to the statement commonly made by Indians as well as by\nEuropeans that they are divided into two sects the Dakshin\u00e2c\u00e2rins, or\nright-hand worshippers, whose ritual is public and decent, and the\nV\u00e2m\u00e2c\u00e2rins who meet to engage in secret but admittedly immoral orgies.\nBut for practical purposes the division is just, although it must not\nbe supposed that Dakshin\u00e2c\u00e2rins necessarily condemn the secret\nworship. They may consider it as good for others but not for\nthemselves. S\u00e2ktists apparently would prefer to state the matter thus.\nThere are seven stages of religion. First come Vedic, Vishnuite and\nSivaite worship, all three inferior, and then Dakshin\u00e2c\u00e2ra,\ninterpreted as meaning favourable worship, that is favourable to the\naccomplishment of higher purposes, because the worshipper now begins\nto understand the nature of Dev\u00ee, the great goddess. These four kinds\nof worship are all said to belong to _pravritti_ or active life. The\nother three, considered to be higher, require a special initiation and\nbelong to _nivritti_, the path of return in which passion and activity\nare suppressed.[714] And here is propounded the doctrine that passion\ncan be destroyed and exhausted by passion,[715] that is to say that\nthe impulses of eating, drinking and sexual intercourse are best\nsubjugated by indulging them. The fifth stage, in which this method is\nfirst adopted, is called V\u00e2m\u00e2c\u00e2ra.[716] In the sixth, or\nSiddh\u00e2nt\u00e2c\u00e2ra,[717] the adept becomes more and more free from passion\nand prejudice and is finally able to enter Kaul\u00e2c\u00e2ra, the highest\nstage of all. A Kaula is one who has passed beyond all sects and\nbelongs to none, since he has the knowledge of Brahman. \"Possessing\nmerely the form of man, he moves about this earth for the salvation of\nthe world and the instruction of men.\"[718]\n\nThese are aspirations common to all Indian religion. The peculiarity\nof the Tantras is to suppose that a ritual which is shocking to most\nHindus is an indispensable preliminary to their attainment.[719] Its\nessential feature is known as _pancatattva_, the five elements, or\n_pancamak\u00e2ra_ the five m's, because they all begin with that letter,\nnamely, _madya_, _m\u00e2msa_, _matsya_, _mudr\u00e2_, and _maithuna_, wine, meat,\nfish, parched grain and copulation. The celebration of this ritual\ntakes place at midnight, and is called _cakra_ or circle. The\nproceedings begin by the devotees seating themselves in a circle and\nare said to terminate in an indiscriminate orgy. It is only fair to\nsay that some Tantras inveigh against drunkenness and authorize only\nmoderate drinking.[720] In all cases it is essential that the wine,\nflesh, etc., should be formally dedicated to the goddess: without this\npreliminary indulgence in these pleasures is sinful. Indeed it may be\nsaid that apart from the ceremonial which they inculcate, the general\nprinciples of the Tantras breathe a liberal and intelligent spirit.\nCaste restrictions are minimized: travelling is permitted. Women are\nhonoured: they can act as teachers: the burning of widows is\nforbidden:[721] girl widows may remarry[722] and the murder of a woman\nis peculiarly heinous. Prostitution is denounced. Whereas Christianity\nis sometimes accused of restricting its higher code to Church and\nSundays, the opposite may be said of Tantrism. Outside the temple its\nmorality is excellent.\n\nA work like the Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra presents a refined form of S\u00e2ktism\nmodified, so far as may be, in conformity with ordinary Hindu\nusage.[723] But other features indubitably connect it with aboriginal\ncults. For instance there is a legend which relates how the body of\nthe Sakti was cut into pieces and scattered over Assam and Bengal.\nThis story has an uncouth and barbarous air and seems out of place\neven in Puranic mythology. It recalls the tales told of Osiris,\nOrpheus and Halfdan the Black[724] and may be ultimately traceable to\nthe idea that the dismemberment of a deity or a human representative\nensures fertility. Until recently the Khonds of Bengal used to hack\nhuman victims in pieces as a sacrifice to the Earth Goddess and throw\nthe shreds of flesh on the fields to secure a good harvest.[725] In\nSanskrit literature I have not found any authority for the\ndismemberment of Sat\u00ee earlier than the Tantras or Upapur\u00e2nas (_e.g._\nK\u00e2lik\u00e2), but this late appearance does not mean that the legend is\nlate in itself but merely that it was not countenanced by Sanskrit\nwriters until medieval times. Various reasons for the dismemberment\nare given and the incident is rather awkwardly tacked on to other\nstories. One common version relates that when Sat\u00ee (one of the many\nforms of Sakti) died of vexation because her husband Siva was insulted\nby her father Daksha, Siva took up her corpse and wandered\ndistractedly carrying it on his shoulder.[726] In order to stop this\npenance Vishnu followed him and cut off pieces from the corpse with\nhis quoit until the whole had fallen to earth in fifty-one pieces. The\nspots where these pieces touched the ground are held sacred and called\np\u00eeths. At most of them are shown a rock supposed to represent some\nportion of the goddess's body and some object called a bhairabi, left\nby Siva as a guardian to protect her and often taking the form of a\nlingam. The most important of these p\u00eeths are K\u00e2m\u00e2khy\u00e2 near Gauhati,\nFaljur in the Jaintia Parganas, and Kalighat in Calcutta.[727]\n\nThough the Sakti of Siva is theoretically one, yet since she assumes\nmany forms she becomes in practice many deities or rather she is many\ndeities combined in one or sometimes a sovereign attended by a retinue\nof similar female spirits. Among such forms we find the ten\nMah\u00e2vidy\u00e2s, or personifications of her supernatural knowledge; the\nMah\u00e2m\u00e2tris, M\u00e2trik\u00e2s or the Great Mothers, allied to the aboriginal\ngoddesses already mentioned; the N\u00e2yakas or mistresses; the Yogin\u00ees or\nsorceresses, and fiends called D\u00e2kin\u00ees. But the most popular of her\nmanifestations are Durg\u00e2 and K\u00e2l\u00ee. The sects which revere these\ngoddesses are the most important religious bodies in Bengal, where\nthey number thirty-five million adherents. The Durg\u00e2p\u00fbja is the\ngreatest festival of the year in north-eastern India[728] and in the\ntemple of Kalighat at Calcutta may be seen the singular spectacle of\neducated Hindus decapitating goats before the image of K\u00e2l\u00ee. It is a\nblack female figure with gaping mouth and protruded tongue dancing on\na prostrate body,[729] and adorned with skulls and horrid emblems of\ndestruction. Of her four hands two carry a sword and a severed head\nbut the other two are extended to give blessing and protection to her\nworshippers. So great is the crowd of enthusiastic suppliants that it\nis often hard to approach the shrine and the nationalist party in\nBengal who clamour for parliamentary institutions are among the\ngoddess's devotees.\n\nIt is easy to criticize and condemn this worship. Its outward signs\nare repulsive to Europeans and its inner meaning strange, for even\nthose who pray to the Madonna are startled by the idea that the divine\nnature is essentially feminine.[730] Yet this idea has deep roots in\nthe heart of Bengal and with it another idea: the terrors of death,\nplague and storm are half but only half revelations of the\ngoddess-mother who can be smiling and tender as well. Whatever may be\nthe origin of K\u00e2l\u00ee and of the strange images which represent her, she\nis now no she-devil who needs to be propitiated, but a reminder that\nbirth and death are twins, that the horrors of the world come from the\nsame source as its grace and beauty and that cheerful acceptance of\nthe deity's terrible manifestations is an essential part of the higher\nspiritual life.[731] These ideas are best expressed in the songs of\nR\u00e2ma Pras\u00e2da Sen (1718-1775) which \"still reign supreme in the\nvillages\" of Bengal and show that this strange worship has really a\nhold on millions of Indian rustics.[732] The directness and childlike\nsimplicity of his poems have caused an Indian critic to compare him to\nBlake. \"Though the mother beat the child,\" he sings, \"the child cries\nmother, mother, and clings still tighter to her garment. True, I\ncannot see thee, yet I am not a lost child. I still cry mother,\nmother.\"\n\n\"All the miseries that I have suffered and am suffering, I know, O\nmother, to be your mercy alone.\"\n\nI must confess that I cannot fully sympathize with this worship, even\nwhen it is sung in the hymns of R\u00e2ma Pras\u00e2da, but it is clear that he\nmakes it tolerable just because he throws aside all the magic and\nritual of the Tantras and deals straight with what are for him\nelemental and emotional facts. He makes even sceptics feel that he has\nreally seen God in this strange guise.\n\nThe chief sanctuary of S\u00e2ktism is at K\u00e2m\u00e2khy\u00e2 (or K\u00e2m\u00e2ksh\u00e2) on a hill\nwhich stands on the banks of the Brahmaputra, about two miles below\nGauhati. It is mentioned in the Padma Pur\u00e2na. The temples have been\nrebuilt several times, and in the eighteenth century were munificently\nendowed by an Ahom king, and placed under the management of a Brahman\nfrom Nadia in Bengal, with reversion to his descendants who bear the\ntitle of Parbatiya Gosains. Considerable estates are still assigned to\ntheir upkeep. There are ten[733] shrines on the hill dedicated to\nvarious forms of the Sakti. The situation is magnificent, commanding\nan extensive prospect over the Brahmaputra and the plains on either\nbank, but none of the buildings are of much architectural merit. The\nlargest and best is the temple dedicated to K\u00e2m\u00e2khy\u00e2 herself, the\ngoddess of sexual desire. It is of the style usual in northern India,\nan unlighted shrine surmounted by a dome, and approached by a rather\nample vestibule, which is also imperfectly lighted. An inscription has\nbeen preserved recording the restoration of the temple about 1550 but\nonly the present basement dates from that time, most of the\nsuper-structure being recent. Europeans may not enter but an image of\nthe goddess can be seen from a side door. In the depths of the shrine\nis said to be a cleft in the rock, adored as the Yoni of Sakti. In\nfront of the temple are two posts to which a goat is tied, and\ndecapitated daily at noon. Below the principal shrine is the temple of\nBhairav\u00ee. Human sacrifices were offered here in comparatively recent\ntimes, and it is not denied that they would be offered now if the law\nallowed. Also it is not denied that the rites of the \"five m's\"\nalready mentioned are frequently performed in these temples, and that\nAghoris may be found in them. The spot attracts a considerable number\nof pilgrims from Bengal, and a wealthy devotee has built a villa on\nthe hill and pays visits to it for the purpose of taking part in the\nrites. I was informed that the most esteemed scriptures of the sect\nare the Yogin\u00ee Tantra, the Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra, and the K\u00e2lik\u00e2\nPur\u00e2na. This last work contains a section or chapter on blood,[734]\nwhich gives rules for the performance of human sacrifices. It states\nhowever that they should not be performed by the first three castes,\nwhich is perhaps a way of saying that though they may be performed by\nnon-Aryans under Brahmanic auspices they form no part of the Aryan\nreligion. But they are recommended to princes and ministers and should\nnot be performed without the consent of princes. The ritual bears\nlittle resemblance to the Vedic sacrifices and the essence of the\nceremony is the presentation to the goddess of the victim's severed\nhead in a vessel of gold, silver, copper, brass or wood but not of\niron. The axe with which the decapitation is to be performed is\nsolemnly consecrated to K\u00e2l\u00ee and the victim is worshipped before\nimmolation. The sacrificer first thinks of Brahm\u00e2 and the other gods\nas being present in the victim's body, and then prays to him directly\nas being all the gods in one. \"When this has been done\" says Siva, who\nis represented as himself revealing these rules, \"the victim is even\nas myself.\" This identification of the human victim with the god has\nmany analogies elsewhere, particularly among the Khonds.[735]\n\nIt is remarkable that this barbarous and immoral worship, though\nlooked at askance except in its own holy places, is by no means\nconfined to the lower castes. A series of apologies composed in\nexcellent English (but sometimes anonymous) attest the sympathy of the\neducated. So far as theology and metaphysics are concerned, these\ndefences are plausible. The Sakti is identified with Prakriti or with\nthe M\u00e2y\u00e2 of the Advaita philosophy and defined as the energy,\ncoexistent with Brahman, which creates the world. But attempts to\npalliate the ceremonial, such as the argument that it is a\nconsecration and limitation of the appetites because they may be\ngratified only in the service of the goddess, are not convincing. Nor\ndo the S\u00e2ktas, when able to profess their faith openly, deny the\nnature of their rites or the importance attached to them. An\noft-quoted tantric verse represents Siva as saying _Maithunena\nmah\u00e2yog\u00ee mama tulyo na samsayah_. And for practical purposes that is\nthe gist of S\u00e2ktist teaching.\n\nThe temples of K\u00e2m\u00e2khy\u00e2 leave a disagreeable impression--an impression\nof dark evil haunts of lust and bloodshed, akin to madness and\nunrelieved by any grace or vigour of art. For there is no attempt in\nthem to represent the terrible or voluptuous aspects of Hinduism, such\nas find expression in sculpture elsewhere. All the buildings, and\nespecially the modern temple of K\u00e2l\u00ee, which was in process of\nconstruction when I saw the place, testify to the atrophy and\nparalysis produced by erotic forms of religion in the artistic and\nintellectual spheres, a phenomenon which finds another sad\nillustration in quite different theological surroundings among the\nVallabh\u00e2c\u00e2rya sect at Gokul near Muttra.\n\nIt would be a poor service to India to palliate the evils and\nextravagances of S\u00e2ktism, but still it must be made clear that it is\nnot a mere survival of barbaric practices. The writers of the Tantras\nare good Hindus and declare that their object is to teach liberation\nand union with the Supreme Spirit. The ecstasies induced by tantric\nrites produce this here in a preliminary form to be made perfect in\nthe liberated soul. This is not the craze of a few hysterical\ndevotees, but the faith of millions among whom many are well educated.\nIn some aspects S\u00e2ktism is similar to the erotic Vishnuite sects, but\nthere is little real analogy in their ways of thinking. For the\nessence of Vishnuism is passionate devotion and self-surrender to a\ndeity and this idea is not prominent in the Tantras. The strange\ninconsistencies of S\u00e2ktism are of the kind which are characteristic of\nHinduism as a whole, but the contrasts are more violent and the\nmonstrosities more conspicuous than elsewhere; wild legends and\nmetaphysics are mixed together, and the peace that passes all\nunderstanding is to be obtained by orgies and offerings of blood.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 680: See also chap. XXIV. as to S\u00e2ktism and Tantrism in\nBuddhism. Copious materials for the study of S\u00e2ktism and Tantrism are\nbeing made available in the series of tantric texts edited in Sanskrit\nand Tibetan, and in some cases translated by the author who uses the\npseudonym A. Avalon.]\n\n[Footnote 681: See _Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, Tome VIII.\nSi-Do-In-Dzon. Gestes de l'officiant dans les c\u00e9r\u00e9monies mystiques des\nsectes Tendai et Singon, 1899.]\n\n[Footnote 682: See Underhill, _Mysticism_, chaps. VI. and VII.]\n\n[Footnote 683: See Dhalla, _Zoroastrian Theology_, p. 116.]\n\n[Footnote 684: Specially Ath. Veda, XII. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 685: Village deities in south India at the present day are\nusually female. See Whitehead, _Village Gods_, p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 686: Thus C\u00e2nd\u00ee is considered as identical with the wood\ngoddess B\u00e2sul\u00ee, worshipped in the jungles of Bengal and Orissa. See\n_J.A._ 1873, p. 187.]\n\n[Footnote 687: Vaj. Sanh. 3. 57 and Taittir. Br. I. 6. 10. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 688: Crooke, _Popular Religion of Northern India_, I. 63.\nMonier Williams, _Brahm. and Hinduism_, p. 57 gives an interesting\naccount of the shrine of K\u00e2l\u00ee at Vindhy\u00e2cal said to have been formerly\nfrequented by Thugs.]\n\n[Footnote 689: This idea that deities have different aspects in which\nthey practically become different persons is very prevalent in Tibetan\nmythology which is borrowed from medieval Bengal.]\n\n[Footnote 690: Though there are great temples erected to goddesses in\nS. India, there are also some signs of hostility to S\u00e2ktism. See the\ncurious legends about an attendant of Siva called Bhringi who would\nnot worship P\u00e2rvat\u00ee. Hultzsch, _South Indian Inscriptions_, II. ii. p.\n190.]\n\n[Footnote 691: There is a curious tendency in India to regard the male\nprinciple as quiescent, the female as active and stimulating. The\nChinese, who are equally fond of using these two principles in their\ncosmological speculations, adopt the opposite view. The _Yang_ (male)\nis positive and active. The _Yin_ (female) is negative and passive.]\n\n[Footnote 692: The Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra seems to have been composed in\nBengal since it recommends for sacrificial purposes (VI. 7) three\nkinds of fish said to be characteristic of that region. On the other\nhand Buddhist works called Tantras are said to have been composed in\nnorth-western India. Udy\u00e2na had an old reputation for magic and even\nin modern times S\u00e2ktism exists in western Tibet and Leh. It is highly\nprobable that in all these districts the practice of magic and the\nworship of mountain goddesses were prevalent, but I find little\nevidence that a definite S\u00e2kta sect arose elsewhere than in Bengal and\nAssam or that the S\u00e2ktist corruption of Buddhism prevailed elsewhere\nthan in Magadha and Bengal.]\n\n[Footnote 693: But the Brahmans of isolated localities, like Satara in\nthe Bombay Presidency, are said to be S\u00e2ktas and the K\u00e2nculiyas of S.\nIndia are described as a S\u00e2ktist sect.]\n\n[Footnote 694: The law-giver Baudh\u00e2yana seems to have regarded Anga\nand Vanga with suspicion, I. 1.13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 695: See especially the story of Manas\u00e2 Devi in Dinesh\nChandra Sen (_Beng. Lang. and Lit_. 257), who says the earliest\nliterary version dates from the twelfth century. But doubtless the\nstory is much older.]\n\n[Footnote 696: Vir\u00e2tap. chap. VI. (not in all MSS.). Bhishmap. chap.\nXXIII. Also in the Harivamsa, _vv._ 3236 ff. Pargiter considers that\nthe Dev\u00ee-M\u00e2h\u00e2tmya was probably composed in the fifth or sixth century.\nChap. XXI. of the Lotus S\u00fbtra contains a spell invoking a goddess\nunder many names. Though this chapter is an addition to the original\nwork, it was translated into Chinese between 265 and 316.]\n\n[Footnote 697: But he does mention the worship of the Divine Mothers.\nHarshacar. VII. 250 and K\u00e2damb. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 698: Hymns to the Dev\u00ee are also attributed to him but I do\nnot know what evidence there is for his authorship.]\n\n[Footnote 699: As pointed out elsewhere, though this word is most\ncommonly used of the S\u00e2kta scriptures it is not restricted to them and\nwe hear of both Buddhist and Vaishnava Tantras.]\n\n[Footnote 700: The Adhy\u00e2tma R\u00e2m\u00e2yana is an instance of S\u00e2ktist ideas\nin another theological setting. It is a Vishnuite work but Sit\u00e0 is\nmade to say that she is _Prakriti_ who does all the deeds related in\nthe poem, whereas R\u00e2ma is _Purusha_, inactive and a witness of her\ndeeds.]\n\n[Footnote 701: XI. iii. 47-8; XI. V. 28 and 31. Probably Vishnuite not\nS\u00e2ktist Tantras are meant but the Purana distinguishes between Vedic\nrevelation meant for previous ages and tantric revelation meant for\nthe present day. So too Kull\u00fbka Bhatta the commentator on Manu who\nwas a Bengali and probably lived in the fifteenth century says (on\nManu II. i.) that Sruti is twofold, Vedic and tantric. _Srutisca\ndvividh\u00e2 vaidik\u00ee t\u00e2ntrik\u00eeca._]\n\n[Footnote 702: II. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 703: See for full list Avalon, _Principles of Tantra_, pp.\nlxv-lxvii. A collection of thirty-seven Tantras has been published at\nCalcutta by Babu Rasik Mohun Chatterjee and a few have been published\nseparately.]\n\n[Footnote 704: Translated by Avalon, 1913, also by Manmatha Nath Dutt,\n1900.]\n\n[Footnote 705: Analysed in _J.A.O.S._ XXIII. i. 1902.]\n\n[Footnote 706: Edited by T\u00e2ran\u00e2tha Vidy\u00e2ratna, with introduction by A.\nAvalon, 1917.]\n\n[Footnote 707: See Avalon, _Principles of Tantra_, p. lxi. But these\nare probably special meanings attached to the words by tantric\nschools. _Nigama_ is found pretty frequently, _e.g._ Manu, IV. 19 and\nLalita-vistara, XII. But it is not likely that it is used there in\nthis special sense.]\n\n[Footnote 708: Edited by Avalon, 1914.]\n\n[Footnote 709: Satirical descriptions of S\u00e2ktism are fairly ancient,\n_e.g._ Karpura Ma\u00f1jar\u00ee, Harvard edition, pp. 25 and 233.]\n\n[Footnote 710: Tantrism has some analogy to the F\u00eang-shui or geomancy\nof the Chinese. Both take ancient superstitions which seem\nincompatible with science and systematize them into pseudo-sciences,\nremaining blind to the fact that the subject-matter is wholly\nimaginary.]\n\n[Footnote 711: For what follows as for much else in this chapter, I am\nindebted to Avalon's translation of the Mah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra and\nintroduction.]\n\n[Footnote 712: Pasu-, v\u00eera-, divya-bh\u00e2va.]\n\n[Footnote 713: Avalon, Mah\u00e2n. Tan. pp. lxxix, lxxx.]\n\n[Footnote 714: \"The eternal rhythm of Divine Breath is outwards from\nspirit to matter and inwards from matter to spirit. Dev\u00ee as M\u00e2y\u00e2\nevolves the world. As Mah\u00e2m\u00e2y\u00e2 she recalls it to herself.... Each of\nthese movements is divine. Enjoyment and liberation are each her\ngifts.\" Avalon, Mah\u00e2n. Tan. p. cxl.]\n\n[Footnote 715: Yair eva patanam dravyaih siddhis tair eva\ncodit\u00e2--Kul\u00e2rnava Tantra, V. 48. There is probably something similar\nin Taoism. See Wieger, _Histoire des Croyances religieuses en Chine_,\np. 409. The Indian Tantrists were aware of the dangers of their system\nand said it was as difficult as walking on the edge of a sword or\nholding a tiger.]\n\n[Footnote 716: V\u00e2m\u00e2c\u00e2ra is said not to mean left-hand worship but\nwoman (v\u00e2m\u00e2) worship. This interpretation of Dakshina and V\u00e2m\u00e2c\u00e2ra is\nprobably fanciful.]\n\n[Footnote 717: Sometimes two extra stages Aghora and Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra are\ninserted here.]\n\n[Footnote 718: Mah\u00e2n. Tan. X. 108. A Kaula may pretend to be a\nVaishnava or a Saiva.]\n\n[Footnote 719: Although the Tantras occasionally say that mere ritual\nis not sufficient for the highest religions, yet _indispensable\npreliminary_ is often understood as meaning _sure means_. Thus the\nMah\u00e2nirv\u00e2na Tantra (X. 202, Avalon's transl.) says \"Those who worship\nthe Kaulas with _panca tattva_ and with heart uplifted, cause the\nsalvation of their ancestors and themselves attain the highest end.\"]\n\n[Footnote 720: But on the other hand some Tantras or tantric treatises\nrecommend crazy abominations.]\n\n[Footnote 721: Mah\u00e2nir. Tant. X. 79. Bhartr\u00e2 saha kules\u00e2ni na dahet\nkulak\u00e2minim.]\n\n[Footnote 722: _Ib._ XI. 67.]\n\n[Footnote 723: _E.g._ It does not prescribe human sacrifices and\ncounsels moderation in the use of wine and _maithuna._]\n\n[Footnote 724: See Frazer's _Adonis, Attis and Osiris_, pp. 269-273\nfor these and other stories of dismemberment.]\n\n[Footnote 725: See Frazer, _Golden Bough: Spirits of the Corn_, vol.\nI. 245 and authorities quoted.]\n\n[Footnote 726: Images representing this are common in Assam.]\n\n[Footnote 727: Hs\u00fcan Chuang (Walters, vol. I. chap. VII) mentions\nseveral sacred places in N.W. India where the Buddha in a previous\nbirth was dismembered or gave his flesh to feed mankind. Can these\nplaces have been similar to the p\u00eeths of Assam and were the original\nheroes of the legend deities who were dismembered like Sat\u00ee and\nsubsequently accommodated to Buddhist theology as Bodhisattvas?]\n\n[Footnote 728: It is an autumnal festival. A special image of the\ngoddess is made which is worshipped for nine days and then thrown into\nthe river. For an account of the festival which makes its tantric\ncharacter very clear see Durg\u00e2 Puja by Pratapachandra Ghosha,\nCalcutta, 1871.]\n\n[Footnote 729: One explanation given is that she was so elated with\nher victories over giants that she began to dance which shook the\nUniverse. Siva in order to save the world placed himself beneath her\nfeet and when she saw she was trampling on her husband, she stopped.\nBut there are other explanations.\n\nAnother of the strangely barbaric legends which cluster round the\nSakti is illustrated by the figure called Chinnamastak\u00e2. It\nrepresents the goddess as carrying her own head which she has just cut\noff, while from the neck spout fountains of blood which are drunk by\nher attendants and by the severed head itself.]\n\n[Footnote 730: Yet the English mystic Julian, the anchoress of Norwich\n(c. 1400), insists on the motherhood as well as the fatherhood of God.\n\"God is our mother, brother and Saviour.\" \"As verily God is our\nfather, so verily God is our mother.\"\n\nSo too in an inscription found at Capua (C.I.N. 3580) Isis is\naddressed as _una quae es omnia_.\n\nThe Power addressed in Swinburne's poems _Mater Triumphalis, Hertha,\nThe Pilgrims_ and _Dolores_ is really a conception very similar to\nSakti.]\n\n[Footnote 731: These ideas find frequent expression in the works of\nBunkim Chandra Chatterjee, Dinesh Chandra Sen and Sister Nivedita.]\n\n[Footnote 732: See Dinesh Chandra Sen, _Hist. Beng. Lang, and Lit_.\npp. 712-721. Even the iconoclast Devendranath Tagore speaks of the\nUniversal Mother. See _Autobiog._ p. 240.]\n\n[Footnote 733: So I was told, but I saw only six, when I visited the\nplace in 1910.]\n\n[Footnote 734: Rudhir\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya. Translated in _As. Researches_, V. 1798,\npp. 371-391.]\n\n[Footnote 735: See Frazer, _op. cit._ p. 246.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII\n\nHINDU PHILOSOPHY\n\n\nPhilosophy is more closely connected with religion in India than in\nEurope. It is not a dispassionate scientific investigation but a\npractical religious quest. Even the Ny\u00e2ya school, which is concerned\nchiefly with formal logic, promises that by the removal of false\nknowledge it can emancipate the soul and give the bliss of salvation.\nNor are the expressions system or school of philosophy, commonly used\nto render _darsana_, altogether happy. The word is derived from the\nroot _dris_, to see, and means a way of looking at things. As such a\nway of looking is supposed to be both comprehensive and orderly, it is\nmore or less what we call philosophical, but the points of view are so\nspecial and so various that the result is not always what we call a\nphilosophical system. M\u00e1dhava's[736] list of Darsanas includes\nBuddhism and Jainism, which are commonly regarded as separate\nreligions, as well as the P\u00e2supata and Saiva, which are sects of\nHinduism. The Darsana of Jaimini is merely a discussion of general\nquestions relating to sacrifices: the Ny\u00e2ya Darsana examines logic and\nrhetoric: the P\u00e2niniya Darsana treats of grammar and the nature of\nlanguage, but claims that it ought to be studied \"as the means for\nattaining the chief end of man.\"[737]\n\nSix of the Darsanas have received special prominence and are often\ncalled the six Orthodox Schools. They are the Ny\u00e2ya and Vaiseshika,\nS\u00e2nkhya and Yoga, P\u00fbrva and Uttara M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2, or Ved\u00e2nta. The rest are\neither comparatively unimportant or are more conveniently treated of\nas religious sects. The six placed on the select list are sufficiently\nmiscellaneous and one wonders what principle of classification can\nhave brought them together. The first two have little connection with\nreligion, though they put forward the emancipation of the soul as\ntheir object, and I have no space to discuss them. They are however\nimportant as showing that realism has a place in Indian thought in\nspite of its marked tendency to idealism.[738] They are concerned\nchiefly with an examination of human faculties and the objects of\nknowledge, and are related to one another. The special doctrine of the\nVaiseshika is the theory of atoms ascribed to Kan\u00e2da. It teaches that\nmatter consists of atoms (anu) which are eternal in themselves though\nall combinations of them are liable to decompose. The S\u00e2nkhya and\nYoga are also related and represent two aspects of the same system\nwhich is of great antiquity and allied to Buddhism and Jainism. The\ntwo M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2s are consecutive expositions of the teaching scattered\nthroughout the Vedic texts respecting ceremonial and the knowledge of\nGod respectively. The second M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2, commonly called the Ved\u00e2nta, is\nby far the more interesting and important.\n\nThe common feature in these six systems which constitutes their\northodoxy is that they all admit the authority of the Veda. This\nimplies more than our phrases revelation or inspiration of the Bible.\nMost of the Darsanas attach importance to the _pram\u00e2nas_, sources or\nstandards of knowledge. They are variously enumerated, but one of the\noldest definitions makes them three: perception (pratyaksha),\ninference (anum\u00e2na) and scripture (sabda). The Veda is thus formally\nacknowledged to have the same authority as the evidence of the senses.\nWith this is generally coupled the doctrine that it is eternal. It was\nnot composed by human authors, but is a body of sound existing from\neternity as part of Brahman and breathed out by him when he causes the\nwhole creation to evolve at the beginning of a world period. The\nreputed authors are simply those who have, in Indian language, seen\nportions of this self-existent teaching. This doctrine sounds more\nreasonable if restated in the form that words are the expression of\nthought, and that if thought is the eternal essence of both Brahman\nand the soul, a similar eternity may attach to words. Some such idea\nis the origin of the Christian doctrine of the Logos, and in many\nreligions we find such notions as that words have a creative\nefficacy,[739] or that he who knows the name of a thing has power over\nit. Among Mohammedans the Koran is supposed to be not merely an\ninspired composition but a pre-existing book, revealed to Mohammed\npiecemeal.\n\nIt is curious that both the sacred texts--the Veda and the Koran--to\nwhich this supernatural position is ascribed should be collections of\nobviously human, incongruous, and often insignificant documents\nconnected with particular occasions, and in no way suggesting or\nclaiming that they are anterior to the ordinary life of man on earth.\nIt is still more extraordinary that systems of philosophy should\nprofess to base themselves on such works. But in reality Hindu\nmetaphysicians are not more bound by the past than their colleagues in\nother lands. They do not take scripture and ask what it means, but\nevolve their own systems and state that they are in accordance with\nit. Sometimes scripture is ignored in the details of argument. More\noften the metaphysician writes a commentary on it and boldly proves\nthat it supports his views, though its apparent meaning may be\nhostile. It is clear that many philosophic commentaries have been\nwritten not because the authors really drew their inspiration from the\nUpanishads or Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 but because they dared not neglect such\nimportant texts. All the Ved\u00e2ntist schools labour to prove that they\nare in harmony not only with the Upanishads but with the\nBrahma-s\u00fbtras. The philosophers of the S\u00e2nkhya are more detached from\nliterature but though they ignore the existence of the deity, they\nacknowledge the Veda as a source of knowledge. Their recognition,\nhowever, has the air of a concession to Brahmanic sentiment. Isolated\ntheories of the S\u00e2nkhya can be supported by isolated passages of the\nUpanishads, but no impartial critic can maintain that the general\ndoctrines of the two are compatible. That the Brahmans should have\nbeen willing to admit the S\u00e2nkhya as a possible form of orthodoxy is\na testimony both to its importance and to their liberality.\n\nIt is remarkable that the test of orthodoxy should have been the\nacceptance of the authority of the Veda and not a confession of some\nsort of theism. But on this the Brahmans did not insist. The Ved\u00e2nta\nis truly and intensely pantheistic or theistic, but in the other\nphilosophies the Supreme Being is either eliminated or plays a small\npart. Thus while works which seem to be merely scientific treatises\n(like the Ny\u00e2ya) set before themselves a religious object, other\ntreatises, seemingly religious in scope, ignore the deity. There is a\nstrong and ancient line of thought in India which, basing itself on\nthe doctrine of Karma, or the inevitable consequences of the deed once\ndone, lays stress on the efficacy of ceremonies or of asceticism or of\nknowledge without reference to a Supreme Being because, if he exists,\nhe does not interfere with the workings of Karma, or with the power of\nknowledge to release from them.\n\nEven the Ved\u00e2nta, although in a way the quintessence of Indian\northodoxy, is not a scholastic philosophy designed to support\nrecognized dogma and ritual. It is rather the orthodox method of\nsoaring above these things. It contemplates from a higher level the\nlife of religious observances (which is the subject of the P\u00fbrva\nM\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2) and recognizes its value as a preliminary, but yet rejects\nit as inadequate. The Sanny\u00e2si or adept follows no caste observances,\nperforms no sacrifices, reads no scriptures. His religion is to\nrealize in meditation the true nature, and it may be the identity, of\nthe soul and God. Good works are of no more importance for him than\nrites, though he does well to employ his time in teaching. But Karma\nhas ceased to exist for him: \"the acts of a Yogi are neither black nor\nwhite,\" they have no moral quality nor consequences. This is dangerous\nlanguage and the doctrine has sometimes been abused. But the point of\nthe teaching is not that a Sanny\u00e2si may do what he likes but that he\nis perfectly emancipated from material bondage. Most men are bound by\ntheir deeds; every new act brings consequences which attach the doer\nto the world of transmigration and create for him new existences. But\nthe deeds of the man who is really free have no such trammelling\neffects, for they are not prompted by desire nor directed to an\nobject. But since to become free he must have suppressed all desire,\nit is hardly conceivable that he should do anything which could be\ncalled a sin. But this conviction that the task of the sage is not to\nperfect any form of good conduct but to rise above both good and evil,\nimparts to the Darsanas and even to the Upanishads a singularly\nnon-ethical and detached tone. The Yogi does no harm but he has less\nbenevolence and active sympathy than the Buddhist monk. It was a\nfeeling that such an attitude has its dangers and is only for the few\nwho have fought their way to the heights where it can safely be\nadopted, that led the Brahmans in all ages to lay stress on the\nhouseholder's life as the proper preparation for a philosophic old\nage. Despite utterances to the contrary, they never as a body approved\nthe ideal of a life entirely devoted to asceticism and not occupied\nwith social duties during one period. The extraordinary ease with\nwhich the higher phases of Indian thought shake off all formalities,\nsocial, religious and ethical, was counterbalanced by the\nmultitudinous regulations devised to keep the majority in a\nlaw-abiding life.\n\nNone of the six Darsanas concern themselves with ethics. The more\nimportant deal with the transcendental progress of sages who have\navowedly abandoned the life of works, and even those which treat of\nthat lower life are occupied with ritual and logic rather than with\nanything which can be termed moral science. We must not infer that\nIndian literature is altogether unmoral. The doctrine of Karma is\nintensely ethical and ethical discussions are more prominent in the\nEpics than in Homer, besides being the subject of much gnomic and\ndidactic poetry. But there is no mistaking the fact that the Hindu\nseeks for salvation by knowledge. He feels the power of deeds, but it\nis only the lower happiness which lies in doing good works and\nenjoying their fruits. The higher bliss consists in being entirely\nfree from the bondage of deeds and Karma.\n\nAll the Darsanas have as a common principle this idea of Karma with\nthe attendant doctrines that rebirth is a consequence of action and\nthat salvation is an escape from rebirth. They all treat more or less\nof the sources and standards of knowledge, and all recognize the Veda\nas one of them. There is not much more that can be said of them all in\ncommon, for the Ved\u00e2nta ignores matter and the S\u00e2nkhya ignores God,\nbut they all share a conviction which presents difficulties to\nEuropeans. It is that the state in which the mind ceases to think\ndiscursively and is concentrated on itself is not only desirable but\nthe _summum bonum_. The European is inclined to say that such a\nstate is distinguished from non-existence only by not being permanent.\nBut the Hindu will have none of this. He holds that mind and thought\nare material though composed of the subtlest matter, and that when\nthought ceases, the immaterial soul (purusha or \u00e2tman) far from being\npractically non-existent is more truly existent than before and enjoys\nuntroubled its own existence and its own nature.\n\nOf the three most important systems, the S\u00e2nkhya, Yoga and Ved\u00e2nta,\nthe first and last are on most points opposed: both are ancient, but\nperhaps the products of different intellectual centres. In one sense\nthe Yoga may be described as a theistic modification of the S\u00e2nkhya:\nfrom another and perhaps juster point of view it appears rather as a\nvery ancient science of asceticism and contemplation, susceptible of\ncombination with various metaphysical theories.\n\n\n2\n\n\nWe may consider first of all the S\u00e2nkhya.[740] Tradition ascribes its\ninvention to Kapila, but he is a mere name unconnected with any date\nor other circumstance. It is probable that the principal ideas of the\nS\u00e2nkhya germinated several centuries before our era but we have no\nevidence whatever as to when they were first formulated in S\u00fbtras. The\nname was current as the designation of a philosophical system fairly\nearly[741] but the accepted text-books are all late. The most\nrespected is the S\u00e2nkhya-pravacana,[742] attributed to Kapila but\ngenerally assigned by European critics to the fourteenth century A.D.\nConsiderably more ancient, but still clearly a metrical epitome of a\nsystem already existing, is the S\u00e2nkhya-K\u00e2rik\u00e2, a poem of seventy\nverses which was translated into Chinese about 560 A.D. and may be a\nfew centuries older. Max M\u00fcller regarded the Tattva-sam\u00e2sa, a short\ntract consisting chiefly of an enumeration of topics, as the most\nancient S\u00e2nkhya formulary, but the opinion of scholars as to its age\nis not unanimous. The name S\u00e2nkhya is best interpreted as signifying\nenumeration in allusion to the predilection of the school for numbered\nlists, a predilection equally noticeable in early Buddhism.\n\nThe object of the system set forth in these works is strictly\npractical. In the first words of the S\u00e2nkhya-pravacana, the complete\ncessation of suffering is the end of man, and the S\u00e2nkhya is devised\nto enable him to attain it. Another formula divides the contents of\nthe S\u00e2nkhya into four topics--(_a_) that from which man must liberate\nhimself, or suffering, (_b_) liberation, or the cessation of\nsuffering, (_c_) the cause of suffering, or the failure to\ndiscriminate between the soul and matter, (_d_) the means of\nliberation, or discriminating knowledge. This division obviously\nresembles the four Truths of Buddhism. The object proposed is the same\nand the method analogous, though not identical, for Buddhism speaks as\na religion and lays greater stress on conduct.\n\nThe theory of the S\u00e2nkhya, briefly stated, is this. There exist,\nuncreated and from all eternity, on the one side matter and on the\nother individual souls. The world, as we know it, is due entirely to\nthe evolution of matter. Suffering is the result of souls being in\nbondage to matter, but this bondage does not affect the nature of the\nsoul and in one sense is not real, for when souls acquire\ndiscriminating knowledge and see that they are not matter, then the\nbondage ceases and they attain to eternal peace.\n\nThe system is thus founded on dualism, the eternal antithesis between\nmatter and soul. Many of its details are comprised in the simple\nenumeration of the twenty-five Tattvas or principles[743] as given in\nthe Tattva-sam\u00e2sa and other works. Of these, one is Purusha, the soul\nor self, which is neither produced nor productive, and the other\ntwenty-four are all modifications of Prakriti or matter, which is\nunproduced but productive. Prakriti means the original ground form of\nexternal existence (as distinguished from Vikriti, modified form). It\nis uncreated and indestructible, but it has a tendency to variation or\nevolution. The S\u00e2nkhya holds in the strictest sense that _ex nihilo\nnihil fit_. Substance can only be produced from substance and properly\nspeaking there is no such thing as origination but only manifestation.\nCausality is regarded solely from the point of view of material\ncauses, that is to say the cause of a pot is clay and not the action\nof the potter. Thus the effect or product is nothing else than the\ncause in another shape: production is only manifestation and\ndestruction is the resolution of a product into its cause. Instead of\nholding like the Buddhists that there is no such thing as existence\nbut only becoming, the S\u00e2nkhya rather affirms that there is nothing\nbut successive manifestations of real existence. If clay is made into\na pot and the pot is then broken and ground into clay again, the\nessential fact is not that a pot has come into existence and\ndisappeared but that the clay continuously existing has undergone\ncertain changes.\n\nThe tendency to evolution inherent in matter is due to the three\n_gunas_. They are _sattva_, explained as goodness and happiness;\n_rajas_, as passion and movement; and _tamas_, as darkness, heaviness\nand ignorance. The word Guna is not easy to translate, for it seems\nto mean more than quality or mode and to signify the constituents of\nmatter. Hence one cannot help feeling that the whole theory is an\nattempt to explain the unity and diversity of matter by a phrase, but\nall Hinduism is permeated by this phrase and theory. When the three\ngunas are in equilibrium then matter--Prakriti--is quiescent,\nundifferentiated and unmanifested. But as soon as the equilibrium is\ndisturbed and one of the gunas becomes preponderant, then the process\nof differentiation and manifestation begins. The disturbance of\nequilibrium is due to the action of the individual Purushas or souls\non Prakriti, but this action is mechanical and due to proximity not\nto the volition of the souls and may be compared to the attraction of\na magnet for iron.[744] Thus at the beginning of the evolutionary\nprocess we have quiescent matter in equilibrium: over against this are\nsouls innumerable, equally quiescent but exerting on matter a\nmechanical force. This upsets the equilibrium and creates a movement\nwhich takes at first the form of development and later of decay and\ncollapse. Then matter returns to its quiescent state to be again\nexcited by the Purushas and commence its world-making evolution anew.\nThe doctrine that evolution, dissolution and quiescence succeed one\nanother periodically is an integral part of the S\u00e2nkhya.[745]\n\nThe unmodified Prakriti stands first on the list of twenty-five\nprinciples. When evolution begins it produces first Buddhi or\nintellect, secondly Ahamk\u00e2ra, which is perhaps best rendered by\nindividuality, and next the five Tanm\u00e2tras or subtle elements.\nBuddhi, though meaning intellect, is used rather in the sense of\nascertaining or perception. It is the faculty by which we distinguish\nobjects and perceive what they are. It differs also from our\nconception of intellect in being, like Ahamk\u00e2ra and all the\nsubsequent developments of Prakriti, material, and must not be\nconfused with the immaterial Purusha or soul. It is in fact the organ\nof thought, not in the sense of the brain or anything tangible, but a\nsubtle substratum of all mental processes. But in what sense is it\npossible to say that this Buddhi exists apart from individuals, who\nhave not come into being at this stage of cosmic evolution? This\ndifficulty is not met by talking, as some commentators do, of cosmic\nas well as individual Buddhi, for even if all Prakriti is illuminated\nby Buddhi at this stage it is difficult to see what result can occur.\nTo make the process of development coherent we must think of it not as\na series of chronologically successive stages but rather as a\nlogically connected series and an analysis of completely evolved\nbeings, just as we might say that bones are covered with flesh and\nflesh with skin, without affirming that the bones have a separate and\nprior existence. Ahamk\u00e2ra, which is, like Buddhi, strictly speaking a\nphysical organ, means Ego-maker and denotes the sense of personality\nand individuality, almost the will. In the language of Indian\nphilosophy it is the delusion or misconception which makes the soul\nimagine itself a personal agent and think, _I_ see, _I_ hear, _I_\nslay, _I_ am slain, whereas the soul is really incapable of action and\nthe acts are those of Prakriti.\n\nThe five subtle elements are the essences of sound, touch, colour,\nsavour and odour conceived as physical principles, imperceptible to\nordinary beings, though gods and Yogis can perceive them. The name\nTanm\u00e2tra which signifies _that only_ indicates that they are concerned\nexclusively with one sense. Thus whereas the gross elements, such as\nearth, appeal to more than one sense and can be seen, felt and smelt,\nthe subtle element of sound is restricted to the sense of hearing. It\nexists in all things audible but has nothing to do with their\ntangibility or visibility. There remain sixteen further modifications\nto make up the full list of twenty-four. They are the five organs of\nsense,[746] the five organs of action,[747] Manas or mind, regarded as\na sixth and central sense, and also as the seat of will, and the five\ngross elements--earth, water, light, air and ether. The S\u00e2nkhya\ndistinguishes between the gross and the subtle body. The latter,\ncalled lingasar\u00eera, is defined in more than one way, but it is\nexpressly stated in the K\u00e2rik\u00e2s[748] that it is composed of \"Buddhi\nand the rest, down to the subtle elements.\" It practically corresponds\nto what we call the soul, though totally distinct from Purusha or soul\nin the S\u00e2nkhya sense. It constitutes the character and essential\nbeing of a person. It is the part which transmigrates from one gross\nbody to another, and is responsible for the acts committed in each\nexistence. Its union with a gross body constitutes birth, its\ndeparture death. Except in the case of those who attain emancipation,\nits existence and transmigration last for a whole world-period at the\nend of which come quiescence and equilibrium. In it are imprinted the\nSamsk\u00e2ras,[749] the predispositions which pass on from one existence\nto another and are latent in the new-born mind like seeds in a field.\n\nBy following the evolution of matter we have now accounted for\nintellect, individuality, the senses, the moral character, will, and a\nprinciple which survives death and transmigrates. It might therefore\nbe supposed that we have exhaustively analysed the constitution of a\nhuman being. But that is not the view of the S\u00e2nkhya. The evolution\nof Buddhi, Ahamk\u00e2ra, the subtle body and the gross body is a physical\nprocess and the result is also physical, though parts of it are of so\nfine a substance that ordinary senses cannot perceive them. This\nphysical organism becomes a living being (which term includes gods and\nanimals) when it is connected with a soul (purusha) and consciousness\ndepends on this connection, for neither is matter when isolated\nconscious, nor is the soul, at least not in our sense of the word.\nThough the soul is neither the life which ends at death (for that is\nthe gross body) nor yet the life which passes from existence to\nexistence (for that is the subtle body) yet it is the vitalizing\nelement which renders life possible.\n\nThe S\u00e2nkhya like Jainism regards souls as innumerable and distinct\nfrom one another. The word Purusha must have originally referred to\nthe manikin supposed to inhabit the body, and there is some reason to\nthink that the earliest teachers of the S\u00e2nkhya held that it was\ninfinitely small. But in the existing text-books it is described as\ninfinitely large. It is immaterial and without beginning, end, parts,\ndimensions, or qualities, incapable of change, motion, or action.\nThese definitions may be partly due to the influence of the Ved\u00e2nta\nand, though we know little about the historical development of the\nS\u00e2nkhya, there are traces of a compromise between the old teaching of\na soul held in bondage and struggling for release and later\nconceptions of a soul which, being infinite and passionless, hardly\nseems capable of submitting to bondage. Though the soul cannot be said\nto transmigrate, to act, or to suffer, still through consciousness it\nmakes the suffering of the world felt and though in its essence it\nremains eternally unchanged and unaffected, yet it experiences the\nreflection of the suffering which goes on. Just as a crystal (to use\nthe Indian simile) allows a red flower to be seen through it and\nremains unchanged, although it seems to become red, so does the soul\nremain unchanged by sorrow or joy, although the illusion that it\nsuffers or rejoices may be present in the consciousness.\n\nThe task of the soul is to free itself from illusion, and thus from\nbondage. For strictly speaking the bondage does not exist: it is\ncaused by want of discrimination. Like the Ved\u00e2nta, the S\u00e2nkhya\nregards all this troubled life as being, so far as the soul is\nconcerned, mere illusion. But while the Ved\u00e2nta bids the soul know its\nidentity with Brahman, the S\u00e2nkhya bids it isolate itself and know\nthat the acts and feelings which seem to be its own have really\nnothing to do with it. They are for the soul nothing but a spectacle\nor play originating in its connection with Prakriti, and it is\nactually said,[750] \"Wherefore no soul is bound, or is liberated or\ntransmigrates. It is Prakriti, which has many bodily forms, which is\nbound, liberated and transmigrates.\" It is in Buddhi or intellect,\nwhich is a manifestation of Prakriti, that the knowledge of the\ndifference between the soul and Prakriti must arise. Thus though the\nS\u00e2nkhya reposes on a fundamental dualism, it is not the dualism of\ngood and evil. Soul and matter differ not because the first is good\nand the second bad, but because the first is unchangeable and the\nsecond constantly changing. Matter is often personified as a woman.\nHer motives are unselfish and she works for the liberation of the\nsoul. \"As a dancer after showing herself on the stage ceases to dance,\nso does Prakriti cease when she has made herself manifest to the\nsoul.\" That is to say, when a soul once understands that it is\ndistinct from the material world, that world ceases to exist for that\nparticular soul, though of course the play continues for others.\n\"Generous Prakriti, endowed with Gunas, causes by manifold means\nwithout benefit to herself, the benefit of the soul, which is devoid\nof Gunas and makes no return.\"[751] The condition of the liberated\nsoul, corresponding to the _mokska_ and _nirv\u00e2na_ of other systems,\nis described as Kaivalya, that is, complete separation from the\nmaterial world, but, as among Buddhists and Ved\u00e2ntists, he who has\nlearnt the truth is liberated even before death, and can teach others.\nHe goes on living, just as the wheel continues to revolve for some\ntime after the potter has ceased to turn it. After death, complete\nliberation without the possibility of rebirth is attained. The\nS\u00e2nkhya manuals do not dwell further on the character of this\nliberation: we only know that the eternal soul is then completely\nisolated and aloof from all suffering and material things. Liberation\nis compared to profound sleep, the difference being that in dreamless\nsleep there is a seed, that is, the possibility of return to ordinary\nlife, whereas when liberation is once attained there is no such\nreturn.\n\nBoth in its account of the world process and in its scheme of\nsalvation the S\u00e2nkhya ignores theism in the same way as did the\nBuddha. Indeed the text-books go beyond this and practically deny the\nexistence of a personal supreme deity. We are told[752] that the\nexistence of God cannot be proved, for whatever exists must be either\nbound or free and God can be neither. We cannot think of him as bound\nand yet he cannot be free like an emancipated soul, for freedom\nimplies the absence of desire and hence of the impulse to create.\nSimilarly[753] the consequences of good and evil deeds are due to\nKarma and not to the government of God. Such a ruler is inconceivable,\nfor if he governs the world according to the action of Karma his\nexistence is superfluous, and if he is affected by selfish motives or\ndesire, then he cannot be free. It is true that these passages speak\nof there being no proof of God's existence and hence commentators both\nIndian and European who shrink from atheism represent the S\u00e2nkhya as\nsuspending judgment. But if a republican constitution duly describes\nthe President and other authorities in whom the powers of government\nare vested, can we argue that it is not unmonarchical because it does\nnot expressly say there is no king? In the S\u00e2nkhya there is no more\nplace for a deity than for a king in a republican constitution.\nMoreover, the S\u00fbtras endeavour to prove that the idea of God is\ninconceivable and self-contradictory and some commentaries speak\nplainly on this subject.[754] Thus the S\u00e2nkhya-tattva-kaumudi\ncommenting on K\u00e2rik\u00e2 57 argues that the world cannot have been created\nby God, whether we suppose him to have been impelled by selfishness or\nkindness. For if God is perfect he can have no need to create a world.\nAnd if his motive is kindness, is it reasonable to call into existence\nbeings who while non-existent had no suffering, simply in order to\nshow kindness in relieving them from suffering? A benevolent deity\nought to create only happy creatures, not a mixed world like the one\nwe see.[755]\n\nArguments like this were not condemned by the Brahmans so strongly as\nwe should expect, but they did not like them and though they did not\nexcommunicate the S\u00e2nkhya in the same way as Buddhism, they greatly\npreferred a theistic variety of it called Yoga.\n\nThe Yoga and S\u00e2nkhya are mentioned together in the Svet\u00e2svatara\nUpanishad,[756] and the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2[757] says that he sees truly who\nsees them as one. The difference lies in treatment rather than in\nsubstance. Whereas the S\u00e2nkhya is mainly theoretical, the principal\ntopic of the Yoga is the cultivation of that frame of mind which leads\nto emancipation and the methods and exercises proper to this end.\nFurther, the Yoga recognizes a deity. This distinction may seem of\ncapital importance but the god of the Yoga (called \u00cesvara or the\nLord) is not its foundation and essence as Brahman is of the\nVed\u00e2nta.[758] Devotion to God is recognized as one among other methods\nfor attaining emancipation and if this particular procedure, which is\nmentioned in relatively few passages, were omitted, the rest of the\nsystem would be unaffected. It is therefore probable that the theistic\nportions of the Yoga are an addition made under Brahmanic influence.\nBut taking the existing S\u00fbtras of the two philosophies, together with\ntheir commentaries, it may be said that the Yoga implies most of the\nS\u00e2nkhya theory and the S\u00e2nkhya most of the Yoga practice, for though\nit does not go into details it prescribes meditation which is to be\nperfected by regulating the breathing and by adopting certain\npostures. I have already spoken of the methods and discipline\nprescribed by the Yoga and need not dwell further on the topic now.\n\nThat Buddhism has some connection with the S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga has often\nbeen noticed.[759] Some of the ideas found in the S\u00e2nkhya and some of\nthe practices prescribed by the Yoga are clearly anterior to Gotama\nand may have contributed to his mental development, but circumspection\nis necessary in the use of words like Yoga, S\u00e2nkhya and Ved\u00e2nta. If\nwe take them to mean the doctrinal systems contained in certain\ns\u00fbtras, they are clearly all later than Buddhism. But if we assume, as\nwe may safely do, that the doctrine is much older than the manuals in\nwhich we now study it, we must also remember that when we leave the\ntexts we are not justified in thinking of a system but merely of a\nline of thought. In this sense it is clear that many ideas of the\nS\u00e2nkhya appear among the Jains, but the Jains know nothing of the\nevolution of matter described by the S\u00e2nkhya manuals and think of the\nrelation of the soul to matter in a more materialistic way. The notion\nof the separate eternal soul was the object of the Buddha's persistent\npolemics and was apparently a popular doctrine when he began\npreaching. The ascetic and meditative exercises prescribed by the Yoga\nwere also known before his time and the Pitakas do not hide the fact\nthat he received instruction from two Yog\u00ees. But though he was\nacquainted with the theories and practices which grew into the Yoga\nand S\u00e2nkhya, he did not found his religion on them for he rejected\nthe idea of a soul which has to be delivered and did not make\nsalvation dependent on the attainment of trances. If there was in his\ntime a systematic S\u00e2nkhya philosophy explaining the nature of\nsuffering and the way of release, it is strange that the Pitakas\ncontain no criticism of it, for though to us who see these ancient\nsects in perspective the resemblance of Buddhism to the S\u00e2nkhya is\nclear, there can be little doubt that the Buddha would have regarded\nit as a most erroneous heresy, because it proposes to attain the same\nobjects as his own teaching but by different methods.\n\nS\u00e2nkhya ideas are not found in the oldest Upanishads, but they appear\n(though not in a connected form) in those of the second stratum, such\nas the Svet\u00e2svatara and Kath\u00e2. It therefore seems probable, though\nnot proven, that the origin of these ideas is to be sought not in the\nearly Brahmanic schools but in the intellectual atmosphere\nnon-theistic, non-sacerdotal, but audaciously speculative which\nprevailed in the central and eastern part of northern India in the\nsixth century B.C. The S\u00e2nkhya recognizes no merit in sacrifices or\nindeed in good works of any kind, even as a preliminary discipline,\nand in many details is un-Brahmanic. Unlike the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras, it\ndoes not exclude S\u00fbdras from higher studies, but states that there are\neight classes of gods and five of animals but only one of men. A\nteacher must have himself attained emancipation, but there is no\nprovision that he must be a Brahman. Perhaps the fables and parables\nwhich form the basis of the fourth book of the S\u00e2nkhya S\u00fbtras point\nto some more popular form of instruction similar to the discourses of\nthe Buddha. We may suppose that this ancient un-Brahmanic school took\nshape in several sects, especially Jainism and Buddhism, and used the\nYoga discipline. But the value and efficacy of that discipline were\nadmitted almost universally and several centuries later it was\nformulated in the S\u00fbtras which bear the name of Pata\u00f1jali in a shape\nacceptable to Brahmans, not to Buddhists. If, as some scholars think,\nthe Yoga s\u00fbtras are not earlier than 450 A.D.[760] it seems probable\nthat it was Buddhism which stimulated the Brahmans to codify the\nprinciples and practice of Yoga, for the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school of Buddhism\narose before the fifth century. The S\u00e2nkhya is perhaps a somewhat\nsimilar brahmanization of the purely speculative ideas which may have\nprevailed in Magadha and Kosala.[761] Though these districts were not\nstrongholds of Brahmanism, yet it is clear from the Pitakas that they\ncontained a considerable Brahman population who must have been\ninfluenced by the ideas current around them but also must have wished\nto keep in touch with other Brahmans. The S\u00e2nkhya of our manuals\nrepresents such an attempt at conciliation. It is an elaboration in a\ndifferent shape of some of the ideas out of which Buddhism sprung but\nin its later history it is connected with Brahmanism rather than\nBuddhism. When it is set forth in S\u00fbtras in a succinct and isolated\nform, its divergence from ordinary Brahmanic thought is striking and\nin this form it does not seem to have ever been influential and now is\nprofessed by only a few Pandits, but, when combined in a literary and\neclectic spirit with other ideas which may be incompatible with it in\nstrict logic, it has been a mighty influence in Indian religion,\northodox as well as unorthodox. Such conceptions as Prakriti and the\nGunas colour most of the post-Vedic religious literature. Their\nworking may be plainly traced in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, Manu and the\nPur\u00e2nas,[762] and the Tantras identify with Prakriti the goddesses\nwhose worship they teach. The unethical character of the S\u00e2nkhya\nenabled it to form the strangest alliances with aboriginal beliefs.\n\nUnlike the S\u00e2nkhya, the Ved\u00e2nta is seen in its most influential and\nperhaps most advantageous aspect when stated in its most abstract\nform. We need not enquire into its place of origin for it is clearly\nthe final intellectual product of the schools which produced the\nUpanishads and the literature which preceded them, and though it may\nbe difficult to say at what point we are justified in applying the\nname Ved\u00e2nta to growing Brahmanic thought, the growth is continuous.\nThe name means simply End of the Veda. In its ideas the Ved\u00e2nta shows\ngreat breadth and freedom, yet it respects the prejudices and\nproprieties of Brahmanism. It teaches that God is all things, but\ninterdicts this knowledge to the lower castes: it treats rites as a\nmerely preliminary discipline, but it does not deny their value for\ncertain states of life.\n\nThe Ved\u00e2nta is the boldest and the most characteristic form of Indian\nthought. For Asia, and perhaps for the world at large, Buddhism is\nmore important but on Indian soil it has been vanquished by the\nVed\u00e2nta, especially that form of it known as the Advaita. In all ages\nthe main idea of this philosophy has been the same and may be summed\nup in the formula that the soul is God and that God is everything. If\nthis formula is not completely accurate[763]--and a sentence which\nboth translates and epitomizes alien metaphysics can hardly aspire to\ncomplete accuracy--the error lies in the fact to which I have called\nattention elsewhere that our words, God and soul, do not cover quite\nthe same ground as the Indian words which they are used to translate.\n\nMany scholars, both Indian and European, will demur to the high place\nhere assigned to the Advaita philosophy. I am far from claiming that\nthe doctrine of Sankara is either primitive or unchallenged. Other\nforms of the Ved\u00e2nta existed before him and became very strong after\nhim. But so far as a synthesis of opinions which are divergent in\ndetails can be just, he gives a just synthesis and elaboration of the\nUpanishads. It is true that his teaching as to the higher and lower\nBrahman and as to M\u00e2y\u00e2 has affinities to Mahayanist Buddhism, and that\nlater sects were repelled by the severe and impersonal character of\nhis philosophy, but the doctrine of which he is the most thorough and\neminent exponent, namely that God or spirit is the only reality and\none with the human soul, asserts itself in almost all Hindu sects,\neven though their other doctrines may seem to contradict it.\n\nThis line of thought is so persistent and has so many ramifications,\nthat it is hard to say what is and what is not Ved\u00e2nta. If we take\nliterature as our best guide we may distinguish four points of\nimportance marked by the Upanishads, the Brahma-S\u00fbtras, Sankara and\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja.\n\nI have said something elsewhere of the Upanishads. These works do not\nprofess to form a systematic whole (though later Hinduism regards\nthem as such) and when European scholars speak of them collectively,\nthey generally mean the older members of the collection. These may\njustly be regarded as the ancestors of the Ved\u00e2nta, inasmuch as the\ntone of thought prevalent in them is incipient Ved\u00e2ntism. It rejects\ndualism and regards the universe as a unity not as plurality, as\nsomething which has issued from Brahman or is pervaded by Brahman and\nin any case depends on Brahman for its significance and existence.\nBrahman is God in the pantheistic sense, totally disconnected with\nmythology and in most passages impersonal. The knowledge of Brahman is\nsalvation: he who has it, goes to Brahman or becomes Brahman. More\nrarely we find statements of absolute identity such as \"Being Brahman,\nhe goes to Brahman.\"[764] But though the Upanishads say that the soul\ngoes to or is Brahman, that the world comes from or is Brahman, that\nthe soul is the whole universe and that a knowledge of these truths is\nthe one thing of importance, these ideas are not combined into a\nsystem. They are simply the thoughts of the wise, not always agreeing\nin detail, and presented as independent utterances, each with its own\nvalue.\n\nOne of the most important of these wise men is Y\u00e2jnavalkya,[765] the\nhero of the Brihad \u00c2ranyaka Upanishad and a great name, to whom are\nascribed doctrines of which he probably never heard. The Upanishad\nrepresents him as developing and completing the views of S\u00e2ndilya\nand Udd\u00e2laka \u00c2runi. The former taught[766] that the \u00c2tman or Self\nwithin the heart, smaller than a grain of mustard seed, is also\ngreater than all worlds. The brief exposition of his doctrine which we\npossess starts from and emphasizes the human self. This self is\nBrahman. The doctrine of Udd\u00e2laka[767] takes the other side of the\nequation: he starts with Brahman and then asserts that Brahman is the\nsoul. But though he teaches that in the beginning there was one only\nwithout a second, yet he seems to regard the subsequent products of\nthis Being as external to it and permeated by it. But to Y\u00e2j\u00f1avalkya\nis ascribed an important modification of these doctrines, namely, that\nthe \u00c2tman is unknowable and transcendental.[768] It is unknowable\nbecause since it is essentially the knowing subject it can be known\nonly by itself: it can never become the object of knowledge and\nlanguage is inadequate to describe it. All that can be said of it is\n_neti_, _neti_, that is no, no: it is not anything which we try to\npredicate of it. But he who knows that the individual soul is the\n\u00c2tman, becomes \u00c2tman; being it, he knows it and knows all the world:\nhe perceives that in all the world there is no plurality. Here the\nlater doctrine of M\u00e2y\u00e2 is adumbrated, though not formulated. Any\nsystem which holds that in reality there is no plurality or, like some\nforms of Mahayanist Buddhism, that nothing really exists implies the\noperation of this M\u00e2y\u00e2 or illusion which makes us see the world as it\nappears to us. It may be thought of as mere ignorance, as a failure to\nsee the universe as it really is: but no doubt the later view of M\u00e2y\u00e2\nas a creative energy which fashions the world of phenomena is closely\nconnected with the half-mythological conceptions found in the\nP\u00e2ncar\u00e2tra and Saiva philosophy which regard this creative illusion as\na female force--a goddess in fact--inseparably associated with the\ndeity.\n\nThe philosophy of the Upanishads, like all religious thought in India,\nis avowedly a quest of happiness and this happiness is found in some\nform of union with Brahman. He is perfect bliss, and whatever is\ndistinct from him is full of suffering.[769] But this sense of the\nsuffering inherent in existence is less marked in the older Upanishads\nand in the Ved\u00e2nta than in Buddhism and the S\u00e2nkhya. Those systems\nmake it their basis and first principle: in the Ved\u00e2nta the\ntemperament is the same but the emphasis and direction of the thought\nare different. The S\u00e2nkhya looks at the world and says that salvation\nlies in escape into something which has nothing in common with it. But\nthe Ved\u00e2ntist looks towards Brahman, and his pessimism is merely the\nfeeling that everything which is not wholly and really Brahman is\nunsatisfactory. In the later developments of the system, pessimism\nalmost disappears, for the existence of suffering is not the first\nTruth but an illusion: the soul, did it but know it, is Brahman and\nBrahman is bliss. So far as the Ved\u00e2nta has any definite practical\nteaching, it does not wholly despise action. Action is indeed inferior\nto knowledge and when knowledge is once obtained works are useless\naccessories, but the four stages of a Brahman's career, including\nhousehold life, are approved in the Ved\u00e2nta S\u00fbtras, though there is a\ndisposition to say that he who has the necessary religious aptitudes\ncan adopt the ascetic life at any time. The occupations of this\nascetic life are meditation and absorption or sam\u00e2dhi, the state in\nwhich the meditating soul becomes so completely blended with God on\nwhom it meditates, that it has no consciousness of its separate\nexistence.[770]\n\nAs indicated above the so-called books of Sruti or Vedic literature\nare not consecutive treatises, but rather _responsa prudentium_,\nutterances respecting ritual and theology ascribed to poets,\nsacrificers and philosophers who were accepted as authorities. When\nthese works came to be regarded as an orderly revelation, even\northodoxy could not shut its eyes to their divergences, and a\ncomprehensive exegesis became necessary to give a conspectus of the\nwhole body of truth. This investigation of the meaning of the Veda as\na connected whole is called M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2, and is divided into two\nbranches, the earlier (p\u00fbrva) and the later (uttara). The first is\nrepresented by the P\u00fbrva-m\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2-s\u00fbtras of Jaimini[771] which are\ncalled earlier (p\u00fbrva) not in the chronological sense but because they\ndeal with rites which come before knowledge, as a preparatory stage.\nIt is interesting to find that Jaimini was accused of atheism and\ndefended by Kum\u00e2rila Bhatta. The defence is probably just, for\nJaimini does not so much deny God as ignore him. But what is truly\nextraordinary, though characteristic of much Indian literature about\nritual, is that a work dealing with the general theory of religious\nworship should treat the deity as an irrelevant topic. The\nP\u00fbrva-m\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2 discusses ceremonies prescribed by an eternal\nself-existing Veda. The reward of sacrifice is not given by God. When\nthe result of an act does not appear at once, Jaimini teaches that\nthere is all the same produced a supersensuous principle called\n_ap\u00fbrva_, which bears fruit at a later time, and thus a sacrifice\nleads the offerer to heaven. This theory is really tantamount to\nplacing magic on a philosophic basis.\n\nB\u00e2dar\u00e2yana's s\u00fbtras, which represent the other branch of the\nM\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2, show a type of thought more advanced and profound than\nJaimini's. They consist of 555 aphorisms--less than a fifth of\nJaimini's voluminous work--and represent the outcome of considerable\ndiscussion posterior to the Upanishads, for they cite the opinions of\nseven other teachers and also refer to B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana himself by name.\nHence they may be a compendium of his teaching made by his pupils.\nTheir date is unknown but Sankara evidently regards them as ancient\nand there were several commentators before him.[772] Like most s\u00fbtras\nthese aphorisms are often obscure and are hardly intended to be more\nthan a mnemotechnic summary of the doctrine, to be supplemented by\noral instruction or a commentary. Hence it is difficult to define the\nteaching of B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana as distinguished from that of the Upanishads\non the one hand, and that of his commentators on the other, or to say\nexactly what stage he marks in the development of thought, except that\nit is the stage of attempted synthesis.[773] He teaches that Brahman\nis the origin of the world and that with him should all knowledge,\nreligion and effort be concerned. By meditation on him, the soul is\nreleased and somehow associated with him. But it is not clear that we\nhave any warrant for finding in the s\u00fbtras (as does Sankara) the\ndistinction between the higher and lower Brahman, or the doctrine of\nthe unreality of the world (M\u00e2y\u00e2) or the absolute identity of the\nindividual soul with Brahman. We are told that the state of the\nreleased soul is non-separation (avibh\u00e2ga) from Brahman, but this is\nvariously explained by the commentators according to their views.\nThough the s\u00fbtras are the acknowledged text-book of Ved\u00e2ntism, their\nutterances are in practice less important than subsequent explanations\nof them. As often happens in India, the comment has overgrown and\nsuperseded the text.\n\nThe most important of these commentators is Sankar\u00e2carya.[774] Had he\nbeen a European philosopher anxious that his ideas should bear his\nname, or a reformer like the Buddha with little respect for antiquity,\nhe would doubtless have taken his place in history as one of the most\noriginal teachers of Asia. But since his whole object was to revive\nthe traditions of the past and suppress his originality by attempting\nto prove that his ideas are those of B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana and the Upanishads,\nthe magnitude of his contribution to Indian thought is often\nunder-rated. We need not suppose that he was the inventor of all the\nideas in his works of which we find no previous expression. He\ndoubtless (like the Buddha) summarized and stereotyped an existing\nmode of thought but his summary bears the unmistakeable mark of his\nown personality.\n\nSankara's teaching is known as Advaita or absolute monism. Nothing\nexists except the one existence called Brahman or Param\u00e2tman, the\nHighest Self. Brahman is pure being and thought (the two being\nregarded as identical), without qualities. Brahman is not intelligent\nbut is intelligence itself. The human soul (j\u00eeva) is identical with\nthe Highest Self, not merely as a part of it, but as being itself the\nwhole universal indivisible Brahman. This must not be misunderstood as\na blasphemous assertion that man is equal to God. The soul is\nidentical with Brahman only in so far as it forgets its separate human\nexistence, and all that we call self and individuality. A man who has\nany pride in himself is _ipso facto_ differentiated from Brahman as\nmuch as is possible. Yet in the world in which we move we see not only\ndifferentiation and multiplicity but also a plurality of individual\nsouls apparently distinct from one another and from Brahman. This\nappearance is due to the principle of M\u00e2y\u00e2 which is associated with\nBrahman and is the cause of the phenomenal world. If M\u00e2y\u00e2 is\ntranslated by illusion it must be remembered that its meaning is not\nso much that the world and individual existences are illusory in the\nstrict sense of the word, as phenomenal. The only true reality is\nself-conscious thought without an object. When the mind attains to\nthat, it ceases to be human and individual: it _is_ Brahman. But\nwhenever it thinks of particular objects neither the thoughts nor the\nobjects of the thoughts are real in the same sense. They are\nappearances, phenomena. This universe of phenomena includes not only\nall our emotions and all our perceptions of the external world, but\nalso what might be supposed to be the deepest truths of religion, such\nas the personality of the Creator and the wanderings of the soul in\nthe maze of transmigration. In the same sense that we suffer pain and\npleasure, it is true that there is a personal God (\u00cesvara) who emits\nand reabsorbs the world at regular intervals, and that the soul is a\nlimited existence passing from body to body. In this sense the soul,\nas in the S\u00e2nkhya philosophy, is surrounded by the _up\u00e2dhis_, certain\nlimiting conditions or disguises, which form a permanent psychical\nequipment with which it remains invested in all its innumerable\nbodies. But though these doctrines may be true for those who are in\nthe world, for those souls who are agents, enjoyers and sufferers,\nthey cease to be true for the soul which takes the path of knowledge\nand sees its own identity with Brahman. It is by this means only that\nemancipation is attained, for good works bring a reward in kind, and\nhence inevitably lead to new embodiments, new creations of M\u00e2y\u00e2. And\neven in knowledge we must distinguish between the knowledge of the\nlower Brahman or personal Deity (\u00cesvara) and of the higher\nindescribable Brahman.[775] For the orthodox Hindu this distinction is\nof great importance, for it enables him to reconcile passages in the\nscriptures which otherwise are contradictory. Worship and meditation\nwhich make \u00cesvara their object do not lead directly to emancipation.\nThey lead to the heavenly world of \u00cesvara, in which the soul, though\nglorified, is still a separate individual existence. But for him who\nmeditates on the Highest Brahman and knows that his true self is that\nBrahman, M\u00e2y\u00e2 and its works cease to exist. When he dies nothing\ndifferentiates him from that Brahman who alone is bliss and no new\nindividual existence arises.\n\nThe crux of this doctrine is in the theory of M\u00e2y\u00e2. If M\u00e2y\u00e2 appertains\nto Brahman, if it exists by his will, then why is it an evil, why is\nrelease to be desired? Ought not the individual souls to serve\nBrahman's purpose, and would not it be better served by living gladly\nin the phenomenal world than by passing beyond it? But such an idea\nhas rarely satisfied Indian thinkers. If, on the other hand, M\u00e2y\u00e2 is\nan evil or at least an imperfection, if it is like rust on a blade or\ndimness in a mirror, if, so to speak, the edges of Brahman are weak\nand break into fragments which are prevented by their own feebleness\nfrom realizing the unity of the whole, then the mind wonders uneasily\nif, in spite of all assurances to the contrary, this does not imply\nthat Brahman is subject to some external law, to some even more\nmysterious Beyond. But Sankara and the Brahma-s\u00fbtras will not\ntolerate such doubts. According to them, Brahman in making the world\nis not actuated by a motive in the ordinary sense, for that would\nimply human action and passion, but by a sportive impulse:[776] \"We\nsee in every-day life,\" says Sankara, \"that certain doings of\nprinces, who have no desires left unfulfilled, have no reference to\nany extraneous purpose but proceed from mere sportfulness. We further\nsee that the process of inhalation and exhalation is going on without\nreference to any extraneous purpose, merely following the law of its\nown nature. Analogously, the activity of the Lord also may be supposed\nto be mere sport, proceeding from his own nature without reference to\nany purpose.\"[777] This is no worse than many other explanations of\nthe scheme of things and the origin of evil but it is not really an\nexplanation. It means that the Advaita is so engrossed in ecstatic\ncontemplation of the omnipresent Brahman that it pays no attention to\na mere by-product like the physical universe. How or why that universe\nwith all its imperfections comes to exist, it does not explain.\n\nYet the boldness and ample sweep of Sankara's thought have in them\nsomething greater than logic,[778] something recalling the grandeur of\nplains and seas limited only by the horizon, nay rather those abysses\nof space wherein on clear nights worlds and suns innumerable are\nscattered like sparks by what he would call God's playfulness.\nEuropean thought attains to these altitudes but cannot live in them\nfor long: it demands and fancies for itself just what Sankara will\nnot grant, the motive of Brahman, the idea that he is working for some\nconsummation, not that he was, is and will be eternally complete,\nunaffected by the drama of the universe and yet identical with souls\nthat know him.\n\nEven in India the austere and impersonal character of Sankara's\nsystem provoked dissent: He was accused of being a Buddhist in\ndisguise and the accusation raises an interesting question[779] in the\nhistory of Indian philosophy to which I have referred in a previous\nchapter. The affinity existing between the M\u00e2dhyamika form of Buddhist\nmetaphysics and the earlier Ved\u00e2nta can hardly be disputed and the\nonly question is which borrowed from the other. Such questions are\nexceedingly difficult to decide, for from time to time new ideas arose\nin India, permeated the common intellectual atmosphere, and were\nworked up by all sects into the forms that suited each best. In the\npresent instance all that can be said is that certain ideas about the\nunreality of the world and about absolute and relative truth appear in\nseveral treatises both Brahmanic and Buddhist, such as the works of\nSankara and N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna and the Gauda-p\u00e2dak\u00e2rik\u00e2s, and of these the\nworks attributed to N\u00e2g\u00e2rjuna seem to be the oldest. It must also be\nremembered that according to Chinese accounts Bodhidharma preached at\nNanking in 520 a doctrine very similar to the _advaita_ of Sankara\nthough expressed in Buddhist phraseology.\n\nOf other forms of Ved\u00e2ntism, the best known is the system of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja\ngenerally called Visisht\u00e2dvaita.[780] It is an evidence of the\nposition held by the Ved\u00e2nta philosophy that religious leaders made a\ncommentary on the S\u00fbtras of B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana the vehicle of their most\nimportant views. Unlike Sankara, R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja is sectarian and identifies\nhis supreme deity with Vishnu or N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, but this is little more\nthan a matter of nomenclature. His interpretation is modern in the\nsense that it pursues the line of thought which leads up to the modern\nsects. But that line of thought has ancient roots. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja followed a\ncommentator named Bodh\u00e2yana who was anterior to Sankara, and in the\nopinion of so competent a judge as Thibaut he gives the meaning of\nB\u00e2dar\u00e2yana in many points more exactly than his great rival. On the\nother hand his interpretation often strains the most important\nutterances of the Upanishads.\n\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja admits no distinction between Brahman and \u00cesvara, but the\ndistinction is abolished at the expense of abolishing the idea of the\nHigher Brahman, for his Brahman is practically the \u00cesvara of Sankara.\nBrahman is not without attributes but possessed of all imaginable good\nattributes, and though nothing exists apart from him, like the\nantithesis of _Purusha_ and _Prakriti_ in the S\u00e2nkhya, yet the world\nis not as in Sankara's system merely M\u00e2y\u00e2. Matter and souls (_cit_\nand _acit_) form the body of Brahman who both comprises and pervades\nall things, which are merely modes of his existence.[781] He is the\ninner ruler (antary\u00e2min) who is in all elements and all human\nsouls.[782] The texts which speak of Brahman as being one only without\na second are explained as referring to the state of pralaya or\nabsorption which occurs at the end of each Kalpa. At the conclusion of\nthe period of pralaya he re-emits the world and individual souls by an\nact of volition and the souls begin the round of transmigration.\nSalvation or release from this round is obtained not by good works but\nby knowledge and meditation on the Lord assisted by his grace. The\nreleased soul is not identified with the Lord but enjoys near him a\npersonal existence of eternal bliss and peace. This is more like\nEuropean theism than the other doctrines which we have been\nconsidering. The difference is that God is not regarded as the creator\nof matter and souls. Matter and souls consist of his substance. But\nfor all that he is a personal deity who can be loved and worshipped\nand whereas Sankara was a religious philosopher, R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja was rather\na philosophic theologian and founder of a church. I have already\nspoken of his activity in this sphere.\n\n\n\n4\n\n\nThe epics and Pur\u00e2nas contain philosophical discussions of\nconsiderable length which make little attempt at consistency. Yet the\nline of thought in them all is the same. The chief tenets of the\ntheistic S\u00e2nkhya-Yoga are assumed: matter, soul and God are separate\nexistences: the soul wishes to move towards God and away from matter.\nYet when Indian writers glorify the deity they rarely abstain from\nidentifying him with the universe. In the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and other\nphilosophical cantos of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata the contradiction is\nusually left without an attempt at solution. Thus it is stated\ncategorically[783] that the world consists of the perishable and\nimperishable, _i.e._, matter and soul, but that the supreme spirit is\ndistinct from both. Yet in the same poem we pass from this antithesis\nto the monism which declares that the deity is all things and \"the\nself seated in the heart of man.\" We have then attained the Vedantist\npoint of view. Nearly all the modern sects, whether Sivaite or\nVishnuite, admit the same contradiction into their teaching, for they\nreject both the atheism of the S\u00e2nkhya and the immaterialism of the\nAdvaita (since it is impossible for a practical religion to deny the\nexistence of either God or the world), while the irresistible tendency\nof Indian thought makes them describe their deity in pantheistic\nlanguage. All strive to find some metaphysical or theological formula\nwhich will reconcile these discrepant ideas, and nearly all Vishnuites\nprofess some special variety of the Ved\u00e2nta called by such names as\nVisisht\u00e2dvaita, Dvait\u00e2dvaita, Suddh\u00e2dvaita and so on. They differ\nchiefly in their definition of the relation existing between the soul\nand God. Only the M\u00e2dhvas entirely discard monism and profess duality\n(Dvaita) and even Madhva thought it necessary to write a commentary on\nthe Brahma-s\u00fbtras to prove that they support his doctrine and the\nSivaites too have a commentator, N\u00eelakantha, who interprets them in\nharmony with the Saiva Siddh\u00e2nta. There is also a modern commentary\nby Somanaradittyar which expounds this much twisted text agreeably to\nthe doctrines of the Ling\u00e2yat sect.\n\nIn most fundamental principles the Sivaite and S\u00e2ktist schools agree\nwith the Visisht\u00e2dvaita but their nomenclature is different and their\nscope is theological rather than philosophical. In all of them are\nfelt the two tendencies, one wishing to distinguish God, soul and\nmatter and to adjust their relations for the purposes of practical\nreligion, the other holding more or less that God is all or at least\nthat all things come from God and return to him. But there is one\ndifference between the schools of sectarian philosophy and the Advaita\nof Sankara which goes to the root of the matter. Sankara holds that\nthe world and individual existences are due to illusion, ignorance and\nmisconception: they vanish in the light of true knowledge. Other\nschools, while agreeing that in some sense God is all, yet hold that\nthe universe is not an illusion or false presentment of him but a\nprocess of manifestation or of evolution starting from him.[784] It is\nnot precisely evolution in the European sense, but rather a rhythmic\nmovement, of duration and extent inexpressible in figures, in which\nthe Supreme Spirit alternately emits and reabsorbs the universe. As a\nrule the higher religious life aims at some form of union or close\nassociation with the deity, beyond the sphere of this process. In the\nevolutionary process the Vaishnavas interpolate between the Supreme\nSpirit and the phenomenal world the phases of conditioned spirit known\nas Sankarshana, etc.; in the same way the Sivaite schools increase\nthe twenty-four _tattvas_ of the S\u00e2nkhya to thirty-six.[785] The first\nof these _tattvas_ or principles is Siva, corresponding to the highest\nBrahman. The next phase is Sad\u00e2siva in which differentiation commences\nowing to the movement of Sakti, the active or female principle. Siva\nin this phase is thought of as having a body composed of _mantras_.\nSakti, also known as Bindu or Suddham\u00e2y\u00e2, is sometimes regarded as a\nseparate _tattva_ but more generally as inseparably united with Siva.\nThe third _tattva_ is \u00cesvara, or Siva in the form of a lord or\npersonal deity, and the fourth is Suddhavidy\u00e2 or true knowledge,\nexplained as the principle of correlation between the experiencer and\nthat which is experienced. It is only after these that we come to\nM\u00e2y\u00e2, meaning not so much illusion as the substratum in which Karma\ninheres or the protoplasm from which all things grow. Between M\u00e2y\u00e2 and\nPurusha come five more _tattvas_, called envelopes. Their effect is to\nenclose and limit, thus turning the divine spirit into a human soul.\n\nS\u00e2ktist accounts of the evolutionary process give greater prominence\nto the part played by Sakti and are usually metaphysiological, if the\nword may be pardoned, inasmuch as they regard the cosmic process as\nthe growth of an embryo, an idea which is as old as the Vedas.[786] It\nis impossible to describe even in outline these manifold cosmologies\nbut they generally speak of Sakti, who in one sense is identical with\nSiva and merely his active form but in another sense is identified\nwith Prakriti, coming into contact with the form of Siva called\nPrak\u00e2sa or light and then solidifying into a drop (Bindu) or germ\nwhich divides. At some point in this process arise N\u00e2da or sound, and\nSabda-brahman, the sound-Brahman, which manifests itself in various\nenergies and assumes in the human body the form of the mysterious\ncoiled force called Kundalin\u00ee.[787] Some of the older Vishnuite\nwritings use similar language of Sakti, under the name of Lakshm\u00ee, but\nin the Visisht\u00e2dvaita of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and subsequent teachers there is\nlittle disposition to dwell on any feminine energy in discussing the\nprocess of evolution.\n\nOf all the Darsanas the most extraordinary is that called Rasesvara\nor the mercurial system.[788] According to it quicksilver, if eaten or\notherwise applied, not only preserves the body from decay but delivers\nfrom transmigration the soul which inhabits this glorified body.\nQuicksilver is even asserted to be identical with the supreme self.\nThis curious Darsana is represented as revealed by Siva to Sakti and\nit is only an extreme example of the tantric doctrine that spiritual\nresults can be obtained by physical means. The practice of taking\nmercury to secure health and long life must have been prevalent in\nmedieval India for it is mentioned by both Marco Polo and\nBernier.[789]\n\n\n5\n\n\nA people among whom the Ved\u00e2nta could obtain a large following must\nhave been prone to think little of the things which we see compared\nwith the unseen of which they are the manifestation. It is, therefore,\nnot surprising if materialism met with small sympathy or success among\nthem. In India the extravagances of asceticism and of mystic\nsensualism alike find devotees, but the simple philosophy of Let us\neat and drink for to-morrow we die, does not commend itself.\nNevertheless it is not wholly absent and was known as the doctrine of\nBrihaspati. Those who professed it were also called C\u00e2rv\u00e2kas and\nLok\u00e2yatikas.[790] Brihaspati was the preceptor of the gods and his\nconnection with this sensualistic philosophy goes back to a legend\nfound in the Upanishads[791] that he taught the demons false knowledge\nwhose \"reward lasts only as long as the pleasure lasts\" in order to\ncompass their destruction. This is similar to the legend found in the\nPur\u00e2nas that Vishnu became incarnate as Buddha in order to lead\nastray the Daityas. But though such words as C\u00e2rv\u00e2ka and N\u00e2stika are\nused in later literature as terms of learned abuse, the former seems\nto denote a definite school, although we cannot connect its history\nwith dates, places or personalities. The C\u00e2rv\u00e2kas are the first system\nexamined in the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, which is written from the\nVed\u00e2ntist standpoint, and beginning from the worst systems of\nphilosophy ascends to those which are relatively correct. This account\ncontains most of what we know about their doctrines,[792] but is\nobviously biassed: it represents them as cynical voluptuaries holding\nthat the only end of man is sensual enjoyment. We are told that they\nadmitted only one source of knowledge, namely perception, and four\nelements, earth, water, fire and air, and that they held the soul to\nbe identical with the body. Such a phrase as _my body_ they considered\nto be metaphorical, as apart from the body there was no ego who owned\nit. The soul was supposed to be a physical product of the four\nelements, just as sugar combined with a ferment and other ingredients\nproduces an intoxicating liquor. Among verses described as \"said by\nBrihaspati\" occur the following remarkable lines:\n\n    \"There is no heaven, no liberation, nor any soul in another world,\n    Nor do the acts of the \u00e2sramas or castes produce any reward.\n    If the animal slain in the Jyotishtoma sacrifice will go to heaven,\n    Why does not the sacrificer immolate his own father?\n    While life remains let a man live happily: let him feed on butter even\n                                                     if he runs into debt.\n    When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return?\"\n\nThe author of the Dabist\u00e2n, who lived in the seventeenth century, also\nmentions the C\u00e2rv\u00e2kas in somewhat similar terms.[793]\n\nBrahmanical authors often couple the C\u00e2rv\u00e2kas and Buddhists. This\nlumping together of offensively heretical sects may be merely\ntheological animus, but still it is possible that there may be a\nconnection between the C\u00e2rv\u00e2kas and the extreme forms of Mahayanist\nnihilism. Schrader[794] in analysing a singular work, called the\nSvasamvedyopanishad, says it is \"inspired by the Mahayanist doctrine\nof vacuity (_s\u00fbnya-v\u00e2da_) and proclaims a most radical agnosticism by\nasserting in four chapters (_a_) that there is no reincarnation\n(existence being bubble-like), no God, no world: that all traditional\nliterature (_Sruti_ and _Smriti_) is the work of conceited fools;\n(_b_) that Time the destroyer and Nature the originator are the\nrulers of all existence and not good and bad deeds, and that there is\nneither hell nor heaven; (_c_) that people deluded by flowery speech\ncling to gods, sacred places, teachers, though there is in reality no\ndifference at all between Vishnu and a dog; (_d_) that though all\nwords are untrue and all ideas mere illusions, yet liberation is\npossible by a thorough realization of _Bh\u00e2v\u00e2dvaita_.\" But for this\nrather sudden concession to Hindu sentiment, namely that deliverance\nis possible, this doctrine resembles the tenets attributed to the\nC\u00e2rv\u00e2kas.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 736: In the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the best known\ncompendium of Indian philosophy.]\n\n[Footnote 737: J.C. Chatterji's definition of Indian philosophy (in\nhis _Indian Realism_, p. 1) is interesting. \"By Hindu philosophy I\nmean that branch of the ancient learning of the Hindus which\ndemonstrates by reasoning propositions with regard to (_a_) what a man\nought to do in order to gain true happiness ... or (_b_) what he ought\nto realize by direct experience in order to be radically and\nabsolutely freed from suffering and to be absolutely independent, such\npropositions being already given and lines of reasoning in their\nsupport being established by duly qualified authorities.\"]\n\n[Footnote 738: See Chatterji's work above cited.]\n\n[Footnote 739: It is this idea which disposes educated Hindus to\nbelieve in the magical or sacramental power of mystic syllables and\nletters, though the use of such spells seems to Europeans incredible\nfolly.]\n\n[Footnote 740: See especially Garbe, _Die S\u00e2nkhya Philosophie_, 1894;\nand Keith, _The S\u00e2nkhya System_, 1919, which however reached me too\nlate for me to make any use of it.]\n\n[Footnote 741: _E.g._ in the Bhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2 and Svet\u00e2svatara Upanishads.\nAccording to tradition Kapila taught Asuri and he, Pa\u00f1casikha, who\nmade the system celebrated. Garbe thinks Pa\u00f1casikha may be assigned to\nthe first century A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 742: This appears to be the real title of the S\u00fbtras edited\nand translated by Ballantyne as \"The S\u00e2nkhya Aphorisms of Kapila.\"]\n\n[Footnote 743: Or topics. It is difficult to find any one English word\nwhich covers the twenty-five tattvas, for they include both general\nand special ideas, mind and matter on the one hand; special organs on\nthe other.]\n\n[Footnote 744: S\u00e2nkh. Pravac. I. 96.]\n\n[Footnote 745: Garbe, _Die S\u00e2nkhya Philosophie_, p. 222. He considers\nthat it spread thence to other schools. This involves the assumption\nthat the S\u00e2nkhya is prior to Buddhism and Jainism.]\n\n[Footnote 746: Ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose.]\n\n[Footnote 747: Voice, hands, feet, organs of excretion and\ngeneration.]\n\n[Footnote 748: Verse 40.]\n\n[Footnote 749: Cf. the Buddhist Sankh\u00e2ras.]\n\n[Footnote 750: S\u00e2nkh. K\u00e2r. 62.]\n\n[Footnote 751: S\u00e2nkh. K\u00e2r. 59-61.]\n\n[Footnote 752: S\u00e2nkh. Pravac. I. 92-95.]\n\n[Footnote 753: S\u00e2nkh. Pravac. V. 2-12.]\n\n[Footnote 754: Thus S\u00e2nkh. Pravac. V. 46, says Tatkartuh\npurushasy\u00e2bh\u00e2v\u00e2t and the commentary explains \u00cesvara-pratishedh\u00e2d iti\nseshah \"supply the words, because we deny that there is a supreme\nGod.\"]\n\n[Footnote 755: Nevertheless the commentator Vij\u00f1\u00e2na-Bhikshu\n(c. 1500) tries to explain away this atheism and to reconcile\nthe S\u00e2nkhya with the Ved\u00e2nta. See Garbe's preface to his edition\nof the S\u00e2nkhya-pravacana-bh\u00e2shya.]\n\n[Footnote 756: VI. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 757: V. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 758: \u00cesvara is apparently a purusha like others but greater\nin glory and untouched by human infirmities. Yoga s\u00fbtras, I. 24-26.]\n\n[Footnote 759: It is a singular fact that both the\nS\u00e2nkhya-k\u00e2rik\u00e2-bh\u00e2shya and a treatise on the Vaiseshika philosophy\nare included in the Chinese Tripitaka (Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1300 and\n1295). A warning is however added that they are not \"the law of the\nBuddha.\"]\n\n[Footnote 760: See Jacobi, _J.A.O.S._ Dec. 1910, p. 24. But if\nVasubandhu lived about 280-360, as is now generally believed,\nallusions to the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra school in the Yoga s\u00fbtras do not oblige us\nto place the s\u00fbtras much later than 300 A.D. since the Yog\u00e2c\u00e2ra was\nfounded by Asanga, the brother of Vasubandhu.]\n\n[Footnote 761: I find it hard to accept Deussen's view (_Philosophy of\nthe Upanishads_, chap. X) that the S\u00e2nkhya has grown out of the\nVed\u00e2nta.]\n\n[Footnote 762: See _e.g._ Vishnu Pur\u00e2na, I. chaps. 2, 4, 5. The\nBhagavad-g\u00eet\u00e2, though almost the New Testament of Vedantists, uses the\nwords S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga in several passages as meaning speculative\ntruth and the religious life and is concerned to show that they are\nthe same. See II. 39; III. 3; V. 4, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 763: It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that there has\nbeen endless discussion as to the sense and manner in which the soul\nis God.]\n\n[Footnote 764: Brihad \u00c2ran. IV. 4. 6; _Ib._ I. iv. 10. \"I am\nBrahman.\"]\n\n[Footnote 765: See above Book II. chaps. V and VI.]\n\n[Footnote 766: Ch\u00e2nd. Up. III. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 767: Ch\u00e2nd. Up. VI.]\n\n[Footnote 768: See Deussen, _Philosophy of the Upanishads._]\n\n[Footnote 769: Ato'nyad \u00e2rtam. Brihad \u00c2r. III. several times.]\n\n[Footnote 770: Maitr\u00e2yana. Br\u00e2h. Upanishad, VI. 20. \"Having seen his\nown self as The Self he becomes selfless, and because he is selfless\nhe is without limit, without cause, absorbed in thought.\"]\n\n[Footnote 771: There is nothing to fix the date of this work except\nthat Kum\u00e2rila in commenting on it in the eighth century treats it as\nold and authoritative. It was perhaps composed in the early Gupta\nperiod.]\n\n[Footnote 772: Keith in _J.R.A.S._ 1907, p. 492 says it is becoming\nmore and more probable that B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana cannot be dated after the\nChristian era. Jacobi in _J.A.O.S._ 1911, p. 29 concludes that the\nBrahma-s\u00fbtras were composed between 200 and 450 A.D.]\n\n[Footnote 773: Such attempts must have begun early. The Maitr\u00e2yana\nUpanishad (II. 3) talks of Sarvopanishadvidy\u00e2, the science of all the\nUpanishads.]\n\n[Footnote 774: See above, p. 207 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 775: The same distinction occurs in the works of Meister\nEckhart ({~DAGGER~} 1327 A.D.) who in many ways approximates to Indian thought,\nboth Buddhist and Ved\u00e2ntist. He makes a distinction between the\nGodhead and God. The Godhead is the revealer but unrevealed: it is\ndescribed as \"wordless\" (Y\u00e2jnavalkya's _neti_, _neti_), \"the nameless\nnothing,\" \"the immoveable rest.\" But God is the manifestation of the\nGodhead, the uttered word. \"All that is in the Godhead is one.\nTherefore we can say nothing. He is above all names, above all nature.\nGod works, so doeth not the Godhead. Therein are they distinguished,\nin working and in not working. The end of all things is the hidden\ndarkness of the eternal Godhead, unknown and never to be known.\"\n(Quoted by Rufus Jones, _Studies in Mystical Religion_, p. 225.) It\nmay be doubted if Sankara's distinction between the Higher and Lower\nBrahman is to be found in the Upanishads but it is probably the best\nmeans of harmonizing the discrepancies in those works which Indian\ntheologians feel bound to explain away.]\n\n[Footnote 776: Ved\u00e2nta s\u00fbtras, II. 1. 32-3, and Sankara's commentary,\n_S.B.E._ vol. XXXIV. pp. 356-7. R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja holds a similar view and it\nis very common in India, _e.g._ Vishnu Pur. I. chap. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 777: See too a remarkable passage in his comment on\nBrahma-s\u00fbtras, II. 1. 23. \"As soon as the consciousness of\nnon-difference arises in us, the transmigratory state of the\nindividual soul and the creative quality of Brahman vanish at once,\nthe whole phenomenon of plurality which springs from wrong knowledge\nbeing sublated by perfect knowledge and what becomes then of the\ncreation and the faults of not doing what is beneficial and the\nlike?\"]\n\n[Footnote 778: Although Sankara's commentary is a piece of severe\nratiocination, especially in its controversial parts, yet he holds\nthat the knowledge of Brahman depends not on reasoning but on\nscripture and intuition. \"The presentation before the mind of the\nHighest Self is effected by meditation and devotion.\" Brah. Sut. III.\n2. 24. See too his comments on I. 1. 2 and II. 1. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 779: See Sukhtankar, _Teachings of Ved\u00e2nta according to\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nuja_, pp. 17-19. Walleser, _Der aeltere Ved\u00e2nta_, and De la\nVall\u00e9e Poussin in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 780: This term is generally rendered by qualified, that is\nnot absolute, Monism. But South Indian scholars give a slightly\ndifferent explanation and maintain that it is equivalent to\n_Visishtayor advaitam_ or the identity of the two qualified\n(_visishta_) conditions of Brahman. Brahman is qualified by _cit_ and\n_acit_, souls and matter, which stand to him in the relation of\nattributes. The two conditions are _K\u00e2ry\u00e2vasth\u00e2_ or period of cosmic\nmanifestation in which _cit_ and _acit_ are manifest and\n_Karan\u00e2vasth\u00e2_ or period of cosmic dissolution, when they exist only\nin a subtle state within Brahman. These two conditions are not\ndifferent (_advaitam_). See Srinivas Iyengar, _J.R.A.S._ 1912, p. 1073\nand also _Sri R\u00e2m\u00e2nuj\u00e2c\u00e1rya: His Philosophy_ by Rajagopalacharyar.]\n\n[Footnote 781: Compare the phrase of Keats in a letter quoted by\nBosanquet, _Gifford Lectures for 1912_, p. 66. \"As various as the\nlives of men are, so various become their souls and thus does God make\nindividual beings, souls, identical souls of the sparks of his own\nessence.\"]\n\n[Footnote 782: This tenet is justified by Brihad Aran. Up. III. 3 ff.\nwhich is a great text for R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja's school. \"He who dwells in the\nearth (water, etc.) and within the earth (or, is different from the\nearth) whom the earth knows not, whose body the earth is, who rules\nthe earth within, he is thyself, the ruler within, the immortal.\"]\n\n[Footnote 783: Bhag.-g\u00eet\u00e2, XV. 16, 17.]\n\n[Footnote 784: The two doctrines are called _Vivartav\u00e2da_ and\n_Parin\u00e2mav\u00e2da._]\n\n[Footnote 785: These are only the more subtle _tattvas_. There are\nalso 60 gross ones. See for the whole subject Schomerus Der\n\u00c7aiva-Siddh\u00e2nta, p. 129.]\n\n[Footnote 786: It also finds expression in myths about the division of\nthe deity into male and female halves, the cosmic egg, etc., which are\nfound in all strata of Indian literature.]\n\n[Footnote 787: An account of tantric cosmology can be found in Avalon,\n_Mah\u00e2n. Tantra_, pp xix-xxxi. See also Avalon, _Prapancas\u00e2ra Tantra_,\npp. 5 ff.; Sriniv\u00e2sa Iyengar, _Indian Philosophy_, pp. 143 and 295\nff.; Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, pp. 145 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 788: Sarva-darsana-sangraha, chap. IX. For this doctrine in\nChina see Wieger _Histoire des Croyances religieuses en Chine_, p.\n411.]\n\n[Footnote 789: See Yule's _Marco Polo_, II. pp. 365, 369.]\n\n[Footnote 790: See Rhys Davids' note in his _Dialogues of the Buddha\non D\u00eegha Nik\u00e2ya_, Sutta V. pp. 166 ff. He seems to show that Lok\u00e2yata\nmeant originally natural philosophy as a part of a Brahman's education\nand only gradually acquired a bad meaning. The Arthas\u00e2stra also\nrecommends the S\u00e2nkhya, Yoga and Lok\u00e2yata systems.]\n\n[Footnote 791: Maitr. Up. VII. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 792: See also Suali in _Mus\u00e9on_, 1908, pp. 277 ff. and the\narticle Materialism (Indian) in _E.R.E._ For another instance of\nancient materialism see the views of P\u00e2y\u00e2si set forth in Dig. Nik.\nXXIII. The Brihad Ar. Up. III. 2. 13 implies that the idea of body\nand spirit being disintegrated at death was known though perhaps not\nrelished.]\n\n[Footnote 793: Translation by Shea and Troyer, vol. II. pp. 201-2.]\n\n[Footnote 794: _Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Library_, 1908, pp.\n300-1.]","title":"Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":130805}