{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20847/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20847","id":"gutenberg_20847","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20847","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","India","Sanskrit literature -- History and criticism","Vedas"],"text":"Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Sankar Viswanathan,\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                INDIA:\n\n                        WHAT CAN IT TEACH US?\n\n\n\n                         A Course of Lectures\n\n             DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE\n\n\n\n                                  BY\n\n                         F. MAX MUeLLER, K.M.\n\n\n                   _TEXT AND FOOT-NOTES COMPLETE._\n\n\n\n                WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY\n\n                     PROF. ALEXANDER WILDER, M.D.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              NEW YORK:\n\n                     FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS,\n\n                        10 AND 12 DEY STREET.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n_NOTE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLISHERS._\n\n\nThis volume contains the entire text of the English edition, also all\nthe footnotes. Those portions of the Appendix which serve to\nillustrate the text are inserted in their appropriate places as\nfootnotes. That part of the Appendix which is of special interest only\nto the Sanscrit scholar is omitted.\n\nProfessor Max Mueller writes in this book not as a theologian but as a\nscholar, not intending either to attack or defend Christian theology.\nHis style is charming, because he always writes with freedom and\nanimation. In some passages possibly his language might be\nmisunderstood. We have thought it best to add a few notes. The notes\nof the American editor are signed \"A.W.;\" ours, \"Am. Pubs.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATED\n\nTO\n\nE. B. COWELL M.A., LL.D.,\n\nPROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT AND FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE IN THE\n\nUNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nMY DEAR COWELL: As these Lectures would never have been written or\ndelivered but for your hearty encouragement, I hope you will now allow\nme to dedicate them to you, not only as a token of my sincere\nadmiration of your great achievements as an Oriental scholar, but also\nas a memorial of our friendship, now more than thirty years old, a\nfriendship which has grown from year to year, has weathered many a\nstorm, and will last, I trust, for what to both of us may remain of\nour short passage from shore to shore.\n\nI must add, however, that in dedicating these Lectures to you, I do\nnot wish to throw upon you any responsibility for the views which I\nhave put forward in them. I know that you do not agree with some of my\nviews on the ancient religion and literature of India, and I am well\naware that with regard to the recent date which I have assigned to the\nwhole of what is commonly called the Classical Sanskrit Literature, I\nstand almost alone. No, if friendship can claim any voice in the\ncourts of science and literature, let me assure you that I shall\nconsider your outspoken criticism of my Lectures as the very best\nproof of your true and honest friendship. I have through life\nconsidered it the greatest honor if real scholars, I mean men not only\nof learning, but of judgment and character, have considered my\nwritings worthy of a severe and searching criticism; and I have cared\nfar more for the production of one single new fact, though it spoke\nagainst me, than for any amount of empty praise or empty abuse.\nSincere devotion to his studies and an unswerving love of truth ought\nto furnish the true scholar with an armor impermeable to flattery or\nabuse, and with a visor that shuts out no ray of light, from whatever\nquarter it may come. More light, more truth, more facts, more\ncombination of facts, these are his quest. And if in that quest he\nfails, as many have failed before him, he knows that in the search for\ntruth failures are sometimes the condition of victory, and the true\nconquerors often those whom the world calls the vanquished.\n\nYou know better than anybody else the present state of Sanskrit\nscholarship. You know that at present and for some time to come\nSanskrit scholarship means discovery and conquest. Every one of your\nown works marks a real advance, and a permanent occupation of new\nground. But you know also how small a strip has as yet been explored\nof the vast continent of Sanskrit literature, and how much still\nremains _terra incognita_. No doubt this exploring work is\ntroublesome, and often disappointing, but young students must learn\nthe truth of a remark lately made by a distinguished member of the\nIndian Civil Service, whose death we all deplore, Dr. Burnell, \"that\nno trouble is thrown away which saves trouble to others.\" We want men\nwho will work hard, even at the risk of seeing their labors\nunrequited; we want strong and bold men who are not afraid of storms\nand shipwrecks. The worst sailors are not those who suffer shipwreck,\nbut those who only dabble in puddles and are afraid of wetting their\nfeet.\n\nIt is easy now to criticise the labors of Sir William Jones, Thomas\nColebrooke, and Horace Hayman Wilson, but what would have become of\nSanskrit scholarship if they had not rushed in where even now so many\nfear to tread? and what will become of Sanskrit scholarship if their\nconquests are forever to mark the limits of our knowledge? You know\nbest that there is more to be discovered in Sanskrit literature than\nNalas and _S_akuntalas, and surely the young men who every year go out\nto India are not deficient in the spirit of enterprise, or even of\nadventure? Why, then, should it be said that the race of bold\nexplorers, who once rendered the name of the Indian Civil Service\nillustrious over the whole world, has well-nigh become extinct, and\nthat England, which offers the strongest incentives and the most\nbrilliant opportunities for the study of the ancient language,\nliterature, and history of India, is no longer in the van of Sanskrit\nscholarship?\n\nIf some of the young candidates for the Indian Civil Service who\nlistened to my Lectures, quietly made up their minds that such a\nreproach shall be wiped out, if a few of them at least determined to\nfollow in the footsteps of Sir William Jones, and to show to the world\nthat Englishmen who have been able to achieve by pluck, by\nperseverance, and by real political genius the material conquest of\nIndia, do not mean to leave the laurels of its intellectual conquest\nentirely to other countries, then I shall indeed rejoice, and feel\nthat I have paid back, in however small a degree, the large debt of\ngratitude which I owe to my adopted country and to some of its\ngreatest statesmen, who have given me the opportunity which I could\nfind nowhere else of realizing the dreams of my life--the publication\nof the text and commentary of the Rig-Veda, the most ancient book of\nSanskrit, aye of Aryan literature, and now the edition of the\ntranslations of the \"Sacred Books of the East.\"\n\nI have left my Lectures very much as I delivered them at Cambridge. I\nam fond of the form of Lectures, because it seems to me the most natural\nform which in our age didactic composition ought to take. As in ancient\nGreece the dialogue reflected most truly the intellectual life of the\npeople, and as in the Middle Ages learned literature naturally assumed\nwith the recluse in his monastic cell the form of a long monologue, so\nwith us the lecture places the writer most readily in that position in\nwhich he is accustomed to deal with his fellow-men, and to communicate\nhis knowledge to others. It has no doubt certain disadvantages. In a\nlecture which is meant to be didactic, we have, for the sake of\ncompleteness, to say and to repeat certain things which must be familiar\nto some of our readers, while we are also forced to leave out\ninformation which, even in its imperfect form, we should probably not\nhesitate to submit to our fellow-students, but which we feel we have not\nyet sufficiently mastered and matured to enable us to place it clearly\nand simply before a larger public.\n\nBut the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. A lecture, by keeping a\ncritical audience constantly before our eyes, forces us to condense\nour subject, to discriminate between what is important and what is\nnot, and often to deny ourselves the pleasure of displaying what may\nhave cost us the greatest labor, but is of little consequence to other\nscholars. In lecturing we are constantly reminded of what students are\nso apt to forget, that their knowledge is meant not for themselves\nonly, but for others, and that to know well means to be able to teach\nwell. I confess I can never write unless I think of somebody for whom\nI write, and I should never wish for a better audience to have before\nmy mind than the learned, brilliant, and kind-hearted assembly by\nwhich I was greeted in your University.\n\nStill I must confess that I did not succeed in bringing all I wished\nto say, and more particularly the evidence on which some of my\nstatements rested, up to the higher level of a lecture; and I have\ntherefore added a number of notes containing the less-organized matter\nwhich resisted as yet that treatment which is necessary before our\nstudies can realize their highest purpose, that of feeding,\ninvigorating, and inspiriting the minds of others.\n\nYours affectionately,\n\nF. MAX MUeLLER.\n\nOXFORD, December, 1882.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nDEDICATION,\n\nINTRODUCTION,\n\nLECTURE  I. WHAT CAN INDIA TEACH US?\n\n    \"   II. ON THE TRUTHFUL CHARACTER OF THE HINDUS,\n\n    \"  III. THE HUMAN INTEREST OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE,\n\n    \"   IV. OBJECTIONS,\n\n    \"    V. THE LESSONS OF THE VEDA,\n\n    \"   VI. VEDIC DEITIES,\n\n    \"   VII. VEDA AND VEDANTA,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nProfessor Max Mueller has been so long and widely known in the world of\nletters as to render any formal introduction unnecessary. He has been\nfrom his early youth an assiduous student of philology, justly\nregarding it as an important key to history and an invaluable\nauxiliary to intellectual progress. A glance at his personal career\nwill show the ground upon which his reputation is established.\n\nFriedrich Maximilian Mueller, the son of Wilhelm Mueller, the Saxon\npoet, was born at Dessau, December 6th, 1823. He matriculated at\nLeipzig in his eighteenth year, giving his principal attention to\nclassical philology, and receiving his degree in 1843. He immediately\nbegan a course of Oriental studies, chiefly Sanskrit, under the\nsupervision of Professor Brockhaus, and in 1844 engaged in his\ntranslation of the \"Hitopadesa.\" He removed from Leipzig to Berlin,\nand attended the lectures of Bopp, Ruecker, and Schelling. The next\nyear he went to Paris to listen to Eugene Burnouf at the College de\nFrance. He now began the collecting of material for his great quarto\nedition of the \"Rig-Veda Sanhita\" and the \"Commentary of\nSaganadranja.\" He visited England for this purpose to examine the\nmanuscripts in the Bodleian Library and at the Indian House. At the\nrecommendation of H. H. Wilson, the Orientalist, he was commissioned\nby the East India Company to publish his edition in England at their\nexpense. The first volume appeared in 1849, and five others followed\nduring the next few years.\n\nIn 1850 he delivered a course of \"Lectures on Comparative Philology\"\nat Oxford, and the next year was made member of Christ Church,\ncurator, etc., and appointed Taylorian Professor of Modern European\nLanguages and Literature. He received also numerous other marks of\ndistinction from universities, and was made one of the eight foreign\nmembers of the Institute of France. The Volney prize was awarded him\nby the French Academy for his \"Essay on the Comparative Philology of\nIndo-European Languages and its Bearing on the Early Civilization of\nMankind.\"\n\nHis writings have been numerous. Besides editing the translations of\nthe \"Sacred Books of the Principal Religions,\" he has published a\n\"Handbook for the Study of Sanskrit,\" a \"Sanskrit-English Dictionary\nand Grammar,\" \"Lectures upon the Science of Language,\" \"An\nIntroduction to the Science of Religion,\" \"Essays on Mythology,\"\n\"Chips from a German Workshop,\" etc. He seems to have no intermission,\nbut penetrates where others would not have ventured, or have faltered\nfrom utter weariness. In the field of philology he has few peers,\nwhile in early Sanskrit learning he has virtually taken the part of an\ninnovator. While reverently following after Sir William Jones,\nColebrooke, Windischmann, Bopp, and others of equal distinction, he\nsets aside the received views in regard to chronology and historical\noccurrences. The era of Vikramaditya and the Golden Age of Sanskrit\nliterature, bearing a date almost simultaneous with the Augustan\nperiod at the West, are postponed by him to a later century. It may be\nthat he has overlooked some canon of interpretation that would have\nmodified his results. Those, however, who hesitate to accept his\nconclusions freely acknowledge his scholarly enthusiasm, persistent\nenergy, and great erudition.\n\nSanskrit in his judgment constitutes an essential element of a liberal\neducation. While heartily admiring the employment of some of the best\ntalent and noblest genius of our age in the study of development in\nthe outward world, from the first growth of the earth and the\nbeginning of organic life to the highest stages, he pleads earnestly\nthat there is an inward and intellectual world also to be studied in\nits historical development in strict analogy with the other, leading\nup to the beginning of rational thought in its steady progress from\nthe lowest to the highest stages. In that study of the history of the\nhuman mind, in that study of ourselves, our true selves, India\noccupies a place which is second to no other country. Whatever sphere\nof the human mind may be selected for special study, whether language,\nreligion, mythology, or philosophy, whether laws, customs, primitive\nart or primitive science, we must go to India, because some of the\nmost valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are\ntreasured up there, and there only. He inveighs most eloquently\nagainst the narrowing of our horizon to the history of Greeks and\nRomans, Saxons and Celts, with a dim background of Palestine, Egypt,\nand Babylon, leaving out of sight our nearest intellectual relatives,\nthe Aryans of India, the framers of that most wonderful language the\nSanskrit, the fellow-workers in the construction of our fundamental\nconcepts, the fathers of the most natural of natural religions, the\nmakers of the most transparent of mythologies, the inventors of the\nmost subtle philosophy, and the givers of the most elaborate laws. It\nis the purpose of historical study to enable each generation to\nprofit from the experience of those who came before, and advance\ntoward higher aims, without being obliged to start anew from the same\npoint as its ancestors after the manner of every race of brutes. He\nwho knows little of those who preceded is very likely to care little\nfor those coming after. \"Life would be to him a chain of sand, while\nit ought to be a kind of electric chain that makes our hearts tremble\nand vibrate with the most ancient thoughts of the Past, as well as\nwith the most distant hopes of the Future.\"\n\nIn no just sense is this an exaggeration. Deep as science and research\nhave explored, extensive as is the field which genius and art have\noccupied, they have an Herculean labor yet to perform before India\nwill have yielded up all her opulence of learning. The literature of\nthe world in all ages has been richly furnished, if not actually\ninspired, from that fountain. The Wisdom of the Ancients, so much\nlauded in the earlier writings of Hebrews, Greeks, and Phoenicians,\nwas abundantly represented in the lore of these Wise Men of the East.\n\nThe first Ionian sages lighted the torch of philosophy at the altar of\nZoroaster. The conquest of Asia Minor by the Persians brought Thales,\nAnaximenes, and Herakleitos into contact with the Eranian dogmas. The\nleaven thus imparted had a potent influence upon the entire mass of\nGrecian thought. We find it easy to trace its action upon opinions in\nlater periods and among the newer nations. Kant, Hegel, Stewart, and\nHamilton, as well as Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle, had their prototypes\nin the world and antiquity beyond. Even the first Zarathustra was an\nexponent and not the originator of the Religion and Science of Light.\nWe are thus carried by this route back to the ancient Aryan Home for\nthe sources from which so many golden streams have issued. In the\nSanskrit books and mantras we must look for the treasures that make\nhuman souls rich. Perhaps we have been too much disposed to regard\nthat former world as a wonderland, a repertory of folk-lore, or a\ntheatre of gross and revolting superstition. We are now required by\ncandor and justice to revise such notions. These primeval peoples, in\ntheir way and in a language akin to ours, adored the Father in heaven,\nand contemplated the future of the soul with a sure and certain hope.\n\nNor did they, while observing the myriads of races intervening between\nman and the monad, regard the world beyond as waste and void.\nIntelligences of every grade were believed to people the region\nbetween mortals and the Infinite. The angels and archangels, and the\nspirits of the just made perfect--_devas_ and _pitris_ they called\nthem--ministered about the throne of the Supreme Being, and abode in\nthe various spheres of universal space. Much of the difference between\nour thought and theirs consists in the names and not in the substance\nof our beliefs.\n\nWe may thus be prepared to receive what India can teach us. In her\nclassic dialect, the Sanskrit, we may read with what success the\nchildren of the men who journeyed from the ancient Aryan Home into the\nPunjab and Aryavartta have ventured \"to look inward upon themselves,\nupward to something not themselves, and to see whether they could not\nunderstand a little of the true purport of that mystery which we call\nlife upon earth.\" It was perfectly natural, as well as perfectly\nright, that as the beholder caught a glance of the Infinite Beyond,\nthe image impressed itself upon his sensorium, as would be the case\nfrom looking at the sun, and he would as a result perceive that\nInfinite in all that he looked upon. Thus to the Sanskrit-speaking\nAryan, as to the enlightened mind of to-day, not to see it was utter\nblindness. What we call science, law, morality, religion, was in his\nview pervaded alike throughout by this concept of Divine presence, or\nelse it would have been less than a dream that had not come to the\nawaking. He was a follower of the light, not from the senses or the\nlogical understanding, but from the eternal world. Let us not dwell on\nany darker shade of the picture. Clouds are dark to those who are\nbeneath them; but on the upper side, where the sun shines, they glow\nwith golden splendor. Let us be willing to contemplate India\nfraternally, and upon that side where the radiance of the Divine sheds\na refulgent illumination.\n\nALEXANDER WILDER.\n\nNEWARK, N. J., May 14th, 1883.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nINDIA.\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nWHAT CAN INDIA TEACH US?\n\n\nWhen I received from the Board of Historical Studies at Cambridge the\ninvitation to deliver a course of lectures, specially intended for the\ncandidates for the Indian Civil Service, I hesitated for some time,\nfeeling extremely doubtful whether in a few public discourses I could\nsay anything that would be of real use to them in passing their\nexaminations. To enable young men to pass their examinations seems now\nto have become the chief, if not the only object of the universities;\nand to no class of students is it of greater importance to pass their\nexaminations, and to pass them well, than to the candidates for the\nIndian Civil Service.\n\nBut although I was afraid that attendance on a few public lectures,\nsuch as I could give, would hardly benefit a candidate who was not\nalready fully prepared to pass through the fiery ordeal of the three\nLondon examinations, I could not on the other hand shut my eyes\ncompletely to the fact that, after all, universities were not meant\nentirely, or even chiefly, as stepping-stones to an examination, but\nthat there is something else which universities can teach and ought to\nteach--nay, which I feel quite sure they were originally meant to\nteach--something that may not have a marketable value before a Board\nof Examiners, but which has a permanent value for the whole of our\nlife, and that is a real interest in our work, and, more than that, a\nlove of our work, and, more than that, a true joy and happiness in our\nwork. If a university can teach that, if it can engraft that one small\nliving germ in the minds of the young men who come here to study and\nto prepare themselves for the battle of life, and, for what is still\nmore difficult to encounter, the daily dull drudgery of life, then, I\nfeel convinced, a university has done more, and conferred a more\nlasting benefit on its pupils than by helping them to pass the most\ndifficult examinations, and to take the highest place among Senior\nWranglers or First-Class men.\n\nUnfortunately, that kind of work which is now required for passing one\nexamination after another, that process of cramming and crowding which\nhas of late been brought to the highest pitch of perfection, has often\nthe very opposite effect, and instead of exciting an appetite for\nwork, it is apt to produce an indifference, if not a kind of\nintellectual nausea, that may last for life.\n\nAnd nowhere is this so much to be feared as in the case of candidates\nfor the Indian Civil Service. After they have passed their first\nexamination for admission to the Indian Civil Service, and given proof\nthat they have received the benefits of a liberal education, and\nacquired that general information in classics, history, and\nmathematics, which is provided at our public schools, and forms no\ndoubt the best and surest foundation for all more special and\nprofessional studies in later life, they suddenly find themselves torn\naway from their old studies and their old friends, and compelled to\ntake up new subjects which to many of them seem strange, outlandish,\nif not repulsive. Strange alphabets, strange languages, strange names,\nstrange literatures and laws have to be faced, \"to be got up\" as it is\ncalled, not from choice, but from dire necessity. The whole course of\nstudy during two years is determined for them, the subjects fixed, the\nbooks prescribed, the examinations regulated, and there is no time to\nlook either right or left, if a candidate wishes to make sure of\ntaking each successive fence in good style, and without an accident.\n\nI know quite well that this cannot be helped. I am not speaking\nagainst the system of examinations in general, if only they are\nintelligently conducted; nay, as an old examiner myself, I feel bound\nto say that the amount of knowledge produced ready-made at these\nexaminations is to my mind perfectly astounding. But while the answers\nare there on paper, strings of dates, lists of royal names and\nbattles, irregular verbs, statistical figures and whatever else you\nlike, how seldom do we find that the heart of the candidates is in the\nwork which they have to do. The results produced are certainly most\nample and voluminous, but they rarely contain a spark of original\nthought, or even a clever mistake. It is work done from necessity, or,\nlet us be just, from a sense of duty, but it is seldom, or hardly\never, a labor of love.\n\nNow why should that be? Why should a study of Greek or Latin--of the\npoetry, the philosophy, the laws and the art of Greece and Italy--seem\ncongenial to us, why should it excite even a certain enthusiasm, and\ncommand general respect, while a study of Sanskrit, and of the ancient\npoetry, the philosophy, the laws, and the art of India is looked upon,\nin the best case, as curious, but is considered by most people as\nuseless, tedious, if not absurd?\n\nAnd, strange to say, this feeling exists in England more than in any\nother country. In France, Germany, and Italy, even in Denmark, Sweden,\nand Russia, there is a vague charm connected with the name of India.\nOne of the most beautiful poems in the German language is the\n_Weisheit der Brahmanen_, the \"Wisdom of the Brahmans,\" by Rueckert, to\nmy mind more rich in thought and more perfect in form than even\nGoethe's _West-oestlicher Divan_. A scholar who studies Sanskrit in\nGermany is supposed to be initiated in the deep and dark mysteries of\nancient wisdom, and a man who has travelled in India, even if he has\nonly discovered Calcutta, or Bombay, or Madras, is listened to like\nanother Marco Polo. In England a student of Sanskrit is generally\nconsidered a bore, and an old Indian civil servant, if he begins to\ndescribe the marvels of Elephanta or the Towers of Silence, runs the\nrisk of producing a count-out.\n\nThere are indeed a few Oriental scholars whose works are read, and who\nhave acquired a certain celebrity in England, because they were really\nmen of uncommon genius, and would have ranked among the great glories\nof the country, but for the misfortune that their energies were\ndevoted to Indian literature--I mean Sir William Jones, \"one of the\nmost enlightened of the sons of men,\" as Dr. Johnson called him, and\nThomas Colebrooke. But the names of others who have done good work in\ntheir day also, men such as Ballantyne, Buchanan, Carey, Crawfurd,\nDavis, Elliot, Ellis, Houghton, Leyden, Mackenzie, Marsden, Muir,\nPrinsep, Rennell, Turnour, Upham, Wallich, Warren, Wilkins, Wilson,\nand many others, are hardly known beyond the small circle of Oriental\nscholars; and their works are looked for in vain in libraries which\nprofess to represent with a certain completeness the principal\nbranches of scholarship and science in England.\n\nHow many times, when I advised young men, candidates for the Indian\nCivil Service, to devote themselves before all things to a study of\nSanskrit, have I been told, \"What is the use of our studying Sanskrit?\nThere are translations of _S_akuntala, Manu, and the Hitopade_s_a, and\nwhat else is there in that literature that is worth reading? Kalidasa\nmay be very pretty, and the Laws of Manu are very curious, and the\nfables of the Hitopade_s_a are very quaint; but you would not compare\nSanskrit literature with Greek, or recommend us to waste our time in\ncopying and editing Sanskrit texts which either teach us nothing that\nwe do not know already, or teach us something which we do not care to\nknow?\"\n\nThis seems to me a most unhappy misconception, and it will be the\nchief object of my lectures to try to remove it, or at all events to\nmodify it, as much as possible. I shall not attempt to prove that\nSanskrit literature is as good as Greek literature. Why should we\nalways compare? A study of Greek literature has its own purpose, and a\nstudy of Sanskrit literature has its own purpose; but what I feel\nconvinced of, and hope to convince you of, is that Sanskrit\nliterature, if studied only in a right spirit, is full of human\ninterests, full of lessons which even Greek could never teach us, a\nsubject worthy to occupy the leisure, and more than the leisure, of\nevery Indian civil servant; and certainly the best means of making any\nyoung man who has to spend five-and-twenty years of his life in India,\nfeel at home among the Indians, as a fellow-worker among\nfellow-workers, and not as an alien among aliens. There will be\nabundance of useful and most interesting work for him to do, if only\nhe cares to do it, work such as he would look for in vain, whether in\nItaly or in Greece, or even among the pyramids of Egypt or the palaces\nof Babylon.\n\nYou will now understand why I have chosen as the title of my lectures,\n\"What can India teach us?\" True, there are many things which India has\nto learn from us; but there are other things, and, in one sense, very\nimportant things, which we too may learn from India.\n\nIf I were to look over the whole world to find out the country most\nrichly endowed with all the wealth, power, and beauty that nature can\nbestow--in some parts a very paradise on earth--I should point to\nIndia. If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most full\ndeveloped some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the\ngreatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them\nwhich well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato\nand Kant--I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from\nwhat literature we, here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost\nexclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of one Semitic\nrace, the Jewish, may draw that corrective which is most wanted in\norder to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more\nuniversal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for this life only,\nbut a transfigured and eternal life--again I should point to India.\n\nI know you will be surprised to hear me say this. I know that more\nparticularly those who have spent many years of active life in\nCalcutta, or Bombay, or Madras, will be horror-struck at the idea that\nthe humanity they meet with there, whether in the bazaars or in the\ncourts of justice, or in so-called native society, should be able to\nteach _us_ any lessons.\n\nLet me therefore explain at once to my friends who may have lived in\nIndia for years, as civil servants, or officers, or missionaries, or\nmerchants, and who ought to know a great deal more of that country\nthan one who has never set foot on the soil of Aryavarta, that we are\nspeaking of two very different Indias. I am thinking chiefly of India\nsuch as it was a thousand, two thousand, it may be three thousand\nyears ago; they think of the India of to-day. And again, when thinking\nof the India of to-day, they remember chiefly the India of Calcutta,\nBombay, or Madras, the India of the towns. I look to the India of the\nvillage communities, the true India of the Indians.\n\nWhat I wish to show to you, I mean more especially the candidates for\nthe Indian Civil Service, is that this India of a thousand, or two\nthousand, or three thousand years ago, ay the India of to-day also, if\nonly you know where to look for it, is full of problems, the solution\nof which concerns all of us, even us in this Europe of the nineteenth\ncentury.\n\nIf you have acquired any special tastes here in England, you will find\nplenty to satisfy them in India; and whoever has learned to take an\ninterest in any of the great problems that occupy the best thinkers\nand workers at home, need certainly not be afraid of India proving to\nhim an intellectual exile.\n\nIf you care for geology, there is work for you from the Himalayas to\nCeylon.\n\nIf you are fond of botany, there is a flora rich enough for many\nHookers.\n\nIf you are a zoologist, think of Haeckel, who is just now rushing\nthrough Indian forests and dredging in Indian seas, and to whom his\nstay in India is like the realization of the brightest dream of his\nlife.\n\nIf you are interested in ethnology, why India is like a living\nethnological museum.\n\nIf you are fond of archaeology, if you have ever assisted at the\nopening of a barrow in England, and know the delight of finding a\nfibula, or a knife, or a flint in a heap of rubbish, read only General\nCunningham's \"Annual Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India,\"\nand you will be impatient for the time when you can take your spade\nand bring to light the ancient Viharas or colleges built by the\nBuddhist monarchs of India.\n\nIf ever you amused yourselves with collecting coins, why the soil of\nIndia teems with coins, Persian, Carian, Thracian, Parthian, Greek,\nMacedonian, Scythian, Roman,[1] and Mohammedan. When Warren Hastings\nwas Governor-General, an earthen pot was found on the bank of a river\nin the province of Benares, containing one hundred and seventy-two\ngold darics.[2] Warren Hastings considered himself as making the most\nmunificent present to his masters that he might ever have it in his\npower to send them, by presenting those ancient coins to the Court of\nDirectors. The story is that they were sent to the melting-pot. At all\nevents they had disappeared when Warren Hastings returned to England.\nIt rests with you to prevent the revival of such vandalism.\n\nIn one of the last numbers of the _Asiatic Journal of Bengal_ you may\nread of the discovery of a treasure as rich in gold almost as some of\nthe tombs opened by Dr. Schliemann at Mykenae, nay, I should add,\nperhaps, not quite unconnected with some of the treasures found at\nMykenae; yet hardly any one has taken notice of it in England![3]\n\nThe study of Mythology has assumed an entirely new character, chiefly\nowing to the light that has been thrown on it by the ancient Vedic\nMythology of India. But though the foundation of a true Science of\nMythology has been laid, all the detail has still to be worked out,\nand could be worked out nowhere better than in India.\n\nEven the study of fables owes its new life to India, from whence the\nvarious migrations of fables have been traced at various times and\nthrough various channels from East to West.[4] Buddhism is now known\nto have been the principal source of our legends and parables. But\nhere, too, many problems still wait for their solution. Think, for\ninstance, of the allusion to the fable of the donkey in the lion's\nskin, which occurs in Plato's Cratylus.[5] Was that borrowed from the\nEast? Or take the fable of the weasel changed by Aphrodite into a\nwoman who, when she saw a mouse, could not refrain from making a\nspring at it. This, too, is very like a Sanskrit fable; but how then\ncould it have been brought into Greece early enough to appear in one\nof the comedies of Strattis, about 400 B.C.?[6] Here, too, there is\nstill plenty of work to do.\n\nWe may go back even farther into antiquity, and still find strange\ncoincidences between the legends of India and the legends of the West,\nwithout as yet being able to say how they travelled, whether from East\nto West, or from West to East. That at the time of Solomon there was a\nchannel of communication open between India and Syria and Palestine is\nestablished beyond doubt, I believe, by certain Sanskrit words which\noccur in the Bible as names of articles of export from Ophir, articles\nsuch as ivory, apes, peacocks, and sandalwood, which, taken together,\ncould not have been exported from any country but India.[7] Nor is\nthere any reason to suppose that the commercial intercourse between\nIndia, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean was ever\ncompletely interrupted, even at the time when the Book of Kings is\nsupposed to have been written.\n\nNow you remember the judgment of Solomon, which has always been\nadmired as a proof of great legal wisdom among the Jews.[8] I must\nconfess that, not having a legal mind, I never could suppress a\ncertain shudder[9] when reading the decision of Solomon: \"Divide the\nliving child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.\"\n\nLet me now tell you the same story as it is told by the Buddhists,\nwhose sacred Canon is full of such legends and parables. In the\nKanjur, which is the Tibetan translation of the Buddhist Tripi_t_aka,\nwe likewise read of two women who claimed each to be the mother of the\nsame child. The king, after listening to their quarrels for a long\ntime, gave it up as hopeless to settle who was the real mother. Upon\nthis Vi_s_akha stepped forward and said: \"What is the use of examining\nand cross-examining these women? Let them take the boy and settle it\namong themselves.\" Thereupon both women fell on the child, and when\nthe fight became violent the child was hurt and began to cry. Then one\nof them let him go, because she could not bear to hear the child cry.\n\nThat settled the question. The king gave the child to the true mother,\nand had the other beaten with a rod.\n\nThis seems to me, if not the more primitive, yet the more natural form\nof the story--showing a deeper knowledge of human nature and more\nwisdom than even the wisdom of Solomon.[10]\n\nMany of you may have studied not only languages, but also the Science\nof Language, and is there any country in which some of the most\nimportant problems of that science, say only the growth and decay of\ndialects, or the possible mixture of languages, with regard not only\nto words, but to grammatical elements also, can be studied to greater\nadvantage than among the Aryan, the Dravidian, and the Mu_n_da\ninhabitants of India, when brought in contact with their various\ninvaders and conquerors, the Greeks, the Yue-tchi, the Arabs, the\nPersians, the Moguls, and lastly the English?\n\nAgain, if you are a student of Jurisprudence, there is a history of\nlaw to be explored in India, very different from what is known of the\nhistory of law in Greece, in Rome, and in Germany, yet both by its\ncontrasts and by its similarities full of suggestions to the student\nof Comparative Jurisprudence. New materials are being discovered every\nyear, as, for instance, the so-called Dharma or Samaya_k_arika Sutras,\nwhich have supplied the materials for the later metrical law-books,\nsuch as the famous Laws of Manu. What was once called \"The Code of\nLaws of Manu,\" and confidently referred to 1200, or at least 500 B.C.,\nis now hesitatingly referred to perhaps the fourth century A.D., and\ncalled neither a Code, nor a Code of Laws, least of all, the Code of\nLaws of Manu.\n\nIf you have learned to appreciate the value of recent researches into\nthe antecedents of all law, namely the foundation and growth of the\nsimplest political communities--and nowhere could you have had better\nopportunities for it than here at Cambridge--you will find a field of\nobservation opened before you in the still-existing village estates in\nIndia that will amply repay careful research.\n\nAnd take that which, after all, whether we confess or deny it, we care\nfor more in this life than for anything else--nay, which is often far\nmore cared for by those who deny than by those who confess--take that\nwhich supports, pervades, and directs all our acts and thoughts and\nhopes--without which there can be neither village-community nor empire,\nneither custom nor law, neither right nor wrong--take that which, next\nto language, has most firmly fixed the specific and permanent barrier\nbetween man and beast--which alone has made life possible and bearable,\nand which, as it is the deepest, though often-hidden spring of\nindividual life, is also the foundation of all national life--the\nhistory of all histories, and yet the mystery of all mysteries--take\nreligion, and where can you study its true origin,[11] its natural\ngrowth, and its inevitable decay better than in India, the home of\nBrahmanism, the birthplace of Buddhism, and the refuge of\nZoroastrianism, even now the mother of new superstitions--and why not,\nin the future, the regenerate child of the purest faith, if only\npurified from the dust of nineteen centuries?\n\nYou will find yourselves everywhere in India between an immense past\nand an immense future, with opportunities such as the old world could\nbut seldom, if ever, offer you. Take any of the burning questions of\nthe day--popular education, higher education, parliamentary\nrepresentation, codification of laws, finance, emigration, poor-law;\nand whether you have anything to teach and to try, or anything to\nobserve and to learn, India will supply you with a laboratory such as\nexists nowhere else. That very Sanskrit, the study of which may at\nfirst seem so tedious to you and so useless, if only you will carry it\non, as you may carry it on here at Cambridge better than anywhere\nelse, will open before you large layers of literature, as yet almost\nunknown and unexplored, and allow you an insight into strata of\nthought deeper than any you have known before, and rich in lessons\nthat appeal to the deepest sympathies of the human heart.\n\nDepend upon it, if only you can make leisure, you will find plenty of\nwork in India for your leisure hours.\n\nIndia is not, as you may imagine, a distant, strange, or, at the very\nutmost, a curious country. India for the future belongs to Europe, it\nhas its place in the Indo-European world, it has its place in our own\nhistory, and in what is the very life of history, the history of the\nhuman mind.\n\nYou know how some of the best talent and the noblest genius of our age\nhas been devoted to the study of the development of the outward or\nmaterial world, the growth of the earth, the first appearance of\nliving cells, their combination and differentiation, leading up to the\nbeginning of organic life, and its steady progress from the lowest to\nthe highest stages. Is there not an inward and intellectual world also\nwhich has to be studied in its historical development, from the first\nappearance of predicative and demonstrative roots, their combination\nand differentiation, leading up to the beginning of rational thought\nin its steady progress from the lowest to the highest stages? And in\nthat study of the history of the human mind, in that study of\nourselves, of our true selves, India occupies a place second to no\nother country. Whatever sphere of the human mind you may select for\nyour special study, whether it be language, or religion, or mythology,\nor philosophy, whether it be laws or customs, primitive art or\nprimitive science, everywhere, you have to go to India, whether you\nlike it or not, because some of the most valuable and most instructive\nmaterials in the history of man are treasured up in India, and in\nIndia only.\n\nAnd while thus trying to explain to those whose lot will soon be cast\nin India the true position which that wonderful country holds or ought\nto hold in universal history, I may perhaps be able at the same time\nto appeal to the sympathies of other members of this University, by\nshowing them how imperfect our knowledge of universal history, our\ninsight into the development of the human intellect, must always\nremain, if we narrow our horizon to the history of Greeks and Romans,\nSaxons and Celts, with a dim background of Palestine, Egypt, and\nBabylon,[12] and leave out of sight our nearest intellectual\nrelatives, the Aryans of India, the framers of the most wonderful\nlanguage, the Sanskrit, the fellow-workers in the construction of our\nfundamental concepts, the fathers of the most natural of natural\nreligions, the makers of the most transparent of mythologies, the\ninventors of the most subtle philosophy, and the givers of the most\nelaborate laws.\n\nThere are many things which we think essential in a liberal education,\nwhole chapters of history which we teach in our schools and\nuniversities, that cannot for one moment compare with the chapter\nrelating to India, if only properly understood and freely interpreted.\n\nIn our time, when the study of history threatens to become almost an\nimpossibility--such is the mass of details which historians collect in\narchives and pour out before us in monographs--it seems to me more\nthan ever the duty of the true historian to find out the real\nproportion of things, to arrange his materials according to the\nstrictest rules of artistic perspective, and to keep completely out of\nsight all that may be rightly ignored by us in our own passage across\nthe historical stage of the world. It is this power of discovering\nwhat is really important that distinguishes the true historian from\nthe mere chronicler, in whose eyes everything is important,\nparticularly if he has discovered it himself. I think it was Frederick\nthe Great who, when sighing for a true historian of his reign,\ncomplained bitterly that those who wrote the history of Prussia never\nforgot to describe the buttons on his uniform. And it is probably of\nsuch historical works that Carlyle was thinking when he said that he\nhad waded through them all, but that nothing should ever induce him to\nhand even their names and titles down to posterity. And yet how much\nis there even in Carlyle's histories that might safely be consigned to\noblivion!\n\nWhy do we want to know history? Why does history form a recognized\npart of our liberal education? Simply because all of us, and every one\nof us, ought to know how we have come to be what we are, so that each\ngeneration need not start again from the same point and toil over the\nsame ground, but, profiting by the experience of those who came\nbefore, may advance toward higher points and nobler aims. As a child\nwhen growing up might ask his father or grandfather _who_ had built\nthe house they lived in, or who had cleared the field that yielded\nthem their food, we ask the historian whence we came, and how we came\ninto possession of what we call our own. History may tell us afterward\nmany useful and amusing things, gossip, such as a child might like to\nhear from his mother or grandmother; but what history has to teach us\nbefore all and everything, is our own antecedents, our own ancestors,\nour own descent.\n\nNow our principal intellectual ancestors are, no doubt, the _Jews_,\nthe _Greeks_, the _Romans_, and the _Saxons_, and we, here in Europe,\nshould not call a man educated or enlightened who was ignorant of the\ndebt which he owes to his intellectual ancestors in Palestine, Greece,\nRome, and Germany. The whole past history of the world would be\ndarkness to him, and not knowing what those who came before him had\ndone for him, he would probably care little to do anything for those\nwho are to come after him. Life would be to him a chain of sand, while\nit ought to be a kind of electric chain that makes our hearts tremble\nand vibrate with the most ancient thoughts of the past, as well as\nwith the most distant hopes of the future.\n\nLet us begin with our religion. No one can understand even the\nhistorical possibility of the Christian religion without knowing\nsomething of the Jewish race, which must be studied chiefly in the\npages of the Old Testament. And in order to appreciate the true\nrelation of the Jews to the rest of the ancient world, and to\nunderstand what ideas were peculiarly their own, and what ideas they\nshared in common with the other members of the Semitic stock, or what\nmoral and religious impulses they received from their historical\ncontact with other nations of antiquity, it is absolutely necessary\nthat we should pay some attention to the history of Babylon, Nineveh,\nPhoenicia, and Persia. These may seem distant countries and\nforgotten people, and many might feel inclined to say, \"Let the dead\nbury their dead; what are those mummies to us?\" Still, such is the\nmarvellous continuity of history, that I could easily show you many\nthings which we, even we who are here assembled, owe to Babylon, to\nNineveh, to Egypt, Phoenicia, and Persia.\n\nEvery one who carries a watch owes to the Babylonians the division of\nthe hour into sixty minutes. It may be a very bad division, yet such\nas it is, it has come to us from the Greeks and Romans, and it came to\nthem from Babylon. The sexagesimal division is peculiarly Babylonian.\nHipparchos, 150 B.C., adopted it from Babylon, Ptolemy, 150 A.D., gave\nit wider currency, and the French, when they decimated everything\nelse, respected the dial-plates of our watches, and left them with\ntheir sixty Babylonian minutes.\n\nEvery one who writes a letter owes his alphabet to the Romans and\nGreeks; the Greeks owed their alphabet to the Phoenicians, and the\nPhoenicians learned it in Egypt. It may be a very imperfect\nalphabet--as all the students of phonetics will tell you--yet, such as\nit is and has been, we owe it to the old Phoenicians and Egyptians,\nand in every letter we trace, there lies imbedded the mummy of an\nancient Egyptian hieroglyphic.\n\nWhat do we owe to the Persians? It does not seem to be much, for they\nwere not a very inventive race, and what they knew they had chiefly\nlearned from their neighbors, the Babylonians and Assyrians. Still,\nwe owe them something. First of all, we owe them a large debt of\ngratitude for having allowed themselves to be beaten by the Greeks;\nfor think what the world would have been if the Persians had beaten\nthe Greeks at Marathon, and had enslaved--that means, annihilated--the\ngenius of ancient Greece. However, this may be called rather an\ninvoluntary contribution to the progress of humanity, and I mention it\nonly in order to show how narrowly, not only Greeks and Romans, but\nSaxons and Anglo-Saxons too, escaped becoming Parsis or\nFire-worshippers.\n\nBut I can mention at least one voluntary gift which came to us from\nPersia, and that is the relation of silver to gold in our bi-metallic\ncurrency. That relation was, no doubt, first determined in Babylonia,\nbut it assumed its practical and historical importance in the Persian\nempire, and spread from there to the Greek colonies in Asia, and\nthence to Europe, where it has maintained itself with slight variation\nto the present day.\n\nA _talent_[13] was divided into sixty _minae_, a mina into sixty\n_shekels_. Here we have again the Babylonian sexagesimal system, a\nsystem which owes its origin and popularity, I believe, to the fact\nthat _sixty_ has the greatest number of divisors. Shekel was\ntranslated into Greek by _Stater_, and an Athenian gold stater, like\nthe Persian gold stater, down to the times of Croesus, Darius, and\nAlexander, was the sixtieth part of a mina of gold, not very far\ntherefore from our sovereign. The proportion of silver to gold was\nfixed as thirteen or thirteen and a third to one; and if the weight of\na silver shekel was made as thirteen to ten, such a coin would\ncorrespond very nearly to our florin.[14] Half a silver shekel was a\n_drachma_, and this was therefore the true ancestor of our shilling.\n\nAgain you may say that any attempt at fixing the relative value of\nsilver and gold is, and always has been, a great mistake. Still it\nshows how closely the world is held together, and how, for good or for\nevil, we are what we are, not so much by ourselves as by the toil and\nmoil of those who came before us, our true intellectual ancestors,\nwhatever the blood may have been composed of that ran through their\nveins, or the bones which formed the rafters of their skulls.\n\nAnd if it is true, with regard to religion, that no one could\nunderstand it and appreciate its full purport without knowing its\norigin and growth, that is, without knowing something of what the\ncuneiform inscriptions of Mesopotamia, the hieroglyphic and hieratic\ntexts of Egypt, and the historical monuments of Phoenicia and Persia\ncan alone reveal to us, it is equally true with regard to all the\nother elements that constitute the whole of our intellectual life. If\nwe are Jewish or Semitic in our religion, we are _Greek_ in our\nphilosophy, _Roman_ in our politics, and _Saxon_ in our morality; and\nit follows that a knowledge of the history of the Greeks, Romans, and\nSaxons, or of the flow of civilization from Greece to Italy, and\nthrough Germany to these isles, forms an essential element in what is\ncalled a liberal, that is, an historical and rational education.\n\nBut then it might be said, Let this be enough. Let us know by all\nmeans all that deserves to be known about our real spiritual ancestors\nin the great historical kingdoms of the world; let us be grateful for\nall we have inherited from Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians,\nJews, Greeks, Romans, and Saxons. But why bring in India? Why add a\nnew burden to what every man has to bear already, before he can call\nhimself fairly educated? What have we inherited from the dark dwellers\non the Indus and the Ganges, that we should have to add their royal\nnames and dates and deeds to the archives of our already overburdened\nmemory?\n\nThere is some justice in this complaint. The ancient inhabitants of\nIndia are not our intellectual ancestors in the same direct way as\nJews, Greeks, Romans, and Saxons are; but they represent,\nnevertheless, a collateral branch of that family to which we belong by\nlanguage, that is, by thought, and their historical records extend in\nsome respects so far beyond all other records and have been preserved\nto us in such perfect and such legible documents, that we can learn\nfrom them lessons which we can learn nowhere else, and supply missing\nlinks in our intellectual ancestry far more important than that\nmissing link (which we can well afford to miss), the link between Ape\nand Man.\n\nI am not speaking as yet of the literature of India as it is, but of\nsomething far more ancient, the language of India, or Sanskrit. No one\nsupposes any longer that Sanskrit was the common source of Greek,\nLatin, and Anglo-Saxon. This used to be said, but it has long been\nshown that Sanskrit is only a collateral branch of the same stem from\nwhich spring Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon; and not only these, but\nall the Teutonic, all the Celtic, all the Slavonic languages, nay, the\nlanguages of Persia and Armenia also.\n\nWhat, then, is it that gives to Sanskrit its claim on our attention,\nand its supreme importance in the eyes of the historian?\n\nFirst of all, its antiquity--for we know Sanskrit at an earlier period\nthan Greek. But what is far more important than its merely\nchronological antiquity is the antique state of preservation in which\nthat Aryan language has been handed down to us. The world had known\nLatin and Greek for centuries, and it was felt, no doubt, that there\nwas some kind of similarity between the two. But how was that\nsimilarity to be explained? Sometimes Latin was supposed to give the\nkey to the formation of a Greek word, sometimes Greek seemed to betray\nthe secret of the origin of a Latin word. Afterward, when the ancient\nTeutonic languages, such as Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, and the ancient\nCeltic and Slavonic languages too, came to be studied, no one could\nhelp seeing a certain family likeness among them all. But how such a\nlikeness between these languages came to be, and how, what is far more\ndifficult to explain, such striking differences too between these\nlanguages came to be, remained a mystery, and gave rise to the most\ngratuitous theories, most of them, as you know, devoid of all\nscientific foundation. As soon, however, as Sanskrit stepped into the\nmidst of these languages, there came light and warmth and mutual\nrecognition. They all ceased to be strangers, and each fell of its own\naccord into its right place. Sanskrit was the eldest sister of them\nall, and could tell of many things which the other members of the\nfamily had quite forgotten. Still, the other languages too had each\ntheir own tale to tell; and it is out of all their tales together that\na chapter in the human mind has been put together which, in some\nrespects, is more important to us than any of the other chapters, the\nJewish, the Greek, the Latin, or the Saxon.\n\nThe process by which that ancient chapter of history was recovered is\nvery simple. Take the words which occur in the same form and with the\nsame meaning in all the seven branches of the Aryan family, and you\nhave in them the most genuine and trustworthy records in which to read\nthe thoughts of our true ancestors, before they had become Hindus, or\nPersians, or Greeks, or Romans, or Celts, or Teutons, or Slaves. Of\ncourse, some of these ancient charters may have been lost in one or\nother of these seven branches of the Aryan family, but even then, if\nthey are found in six, or five, or four, or three, or even two only of\nits original branches, the probability remains, unless we can prove a\nlater historical contact between these languages, that these words\nexisted before the great _Aryan Separation_. If we find _agni_,\nmeaning fire, in Sanskrit, and _ignis_, meaning fire, in Latin, we may\nsafely conclude that _fire_ was known to the undivided Aryans, even if\nno trace of the same name of fire occurred anywhere else. And why?\nBecause there is no indication that Latin remained longer united with\nSanskrit than any of the other Aryan languages, or that Latin could\nhave borrowed such a word from Sanskrit, after these two languages had\nonce become distinct. We have, however, the Lithuanian _ugnis_, and\nthe Scottish _ingle_, to show that the Slavonic and possibly the\nTeutonic languages also, knew the same word for fire, though they\nreplaced it in time by other words. Words, like all other things, will\ndie, and why they should live on in one soil and wither away and\nperish in another, is not always easy to say. What has become of\n_ignis_, for instance, in all the Romance languages? It has withered\naway and perished, probably because, after losing its final\nunaccentuated syllable, it became awkward to pronounce; and another\nword, _focus_, which in Latin meant fireplace, hearth, altar, has\ntaken its place.\n\nSuppose we wanted to know whether the ancient Aryans before their\nseparation knew the mouse: we should only have to consult the principal\nAryan dictionaries, and we should find in Sanskrit _mush_, in Greek\n[Greek: mus], in Latin _mus_, in Old Slavonic myse, in Old High German\n_mus_, enabling us to say that, at a time so distant from us that we\nfeel inclined to measure it by Indian rather than by our own chronology,\nthe mouse was known, that is, was named, was conceived and recognized as\na species of its own, not to be confounded with any other vermin.\n\nAnd if we were to ask whether the enemy of the mouse, the _cat_, was\nknown at the same distant time, we should feel justified in saying\ndecidedly, No. The cat is called in Sanskrit mar_g_ara and vi_d_ala.\nIn Greek and Latin the words usually given as names of the cat,\n[Greek: _galee_] and [Greek: _ailouros_], _mustella_ and _feles_,\ndid not originally signify the tame cat, but the weasel or marten. The\nname for the real cat in Greek was [Greek: _katta_], in Latin\n_catus_, and these words have supplied the names for cat in all the\nTeutonic, Slavonic, and Celtic languages. The animal itself, so far as\nwe know at present, came to Europe from Egypt, where it had been\nworshipped for centuries and tamed; and as this arrival probably dates\nfrom the fourth century A.D., we can well understand that no common\nname for it could have existed when the Aryan nations separated.[15]\n\nIn this way a more or less complete picture of the state of\ncivilization, previous to the Aryan Separation, can be and has been\nreconstructed, like a mosaic put together with the fragments of\nancient stones; and I doubt whether, in tracing the history of the\nhuman mind, we shall ever reach to a lower stratum than that which is\nrevealed to us by the converging rays of the different Aryan\nlanguages.\n\nNor is that all; for even that Proto-Aryan language, as it has been\nreconstructed from the ruins scattered about in India, Greece, Italy,\nand Germany, is clearly the result of a long, long process of thought.\nOne shrinks from chronological limitations when looking into such\ndistant periods of life. But if we find Sanskrit as a perfect literary\nlanguage, totally different from Greek and Latin, 1500 B.C., where can\nthose streams of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin meet, as we trace them\nback to their common source? And then, when we have followed these\nmighty national streams back to their common meeting-point, even then\nthat common language looks like a rock washed down and smoothed for\nages by the ebb and flow of thought. We find in that language such a\ncompound, for instance, as _asmi_, I am, Greek [Greek: esmi].\nWhat would other languages give for such a pure concept as _I am_?\nThey may say, _I stand_, or _I live_, or _I grow_, or _I turn_, but it\nis given to few languages only to be able to say _I am_. To us nothing\nseems more natural than the auxiliary verb _I am_; but, in reality, no\nwork of art has required greater efforts than this little word _I am_.\nAnd all those efforts lie beneath the level of the common Proto-Aryan\nspeech. Many different ways were open, were tried, too, in order to\narrive at such a compound as _asmi_, and such a concept as _I am_. But\nall were given up, and this one alone remained, and was preserved\nforever in all the languages and all the dialects of the Aryan family.\nIn _as-mi_, _as_ is the root, and in the compound _as-mi_, the\npredicative root _as_, to be, is predicated of _mi_, I. But no\nlanguage could ever produce at once so empty, or, if you like, so\ngeneral a root as _as_, to be. _As_ meant originally _to breathe_, and\nfrom it we have _asu_, breath, spirit, life, also _as_ the mouth,\nLatin _os_, _oris_. By constant wear and tear this root _as_, to\nbreathe, had first to lose all signs of its original material\ncharacter, before it could convey that purely abstract meaning of\nexistence, without any qualification, which has rendered to the higher\noperations of thought the same service which the nought, likewise the\ninvention of Indian genius, has to render in arithmetic. Who will say\nhow long the friction lasted which changed _as_, to breathe, into\n_as_, to be? And even a root _as_, to breathe, was an Aryan root, not\nSemitic, not Turanian. It possessed an historical individuality--it\nwas the work of our forefathers, and represents a thread which unites\nus in our thoughts and words with those who first thought for us, with\nthose who first spoke for us, and whose thoughts and words men are\nstill thinking and speaking, though divided from them by thousands, it\nmay be by hundreds of thousands of years.\n\nThis is what I call _history_ in the true sense of the word, something\nreally worth knowing, far more so than the scandals of courts, or the\nbutcheries of nations, which fill so many pages of our Manuals of\nHistory. And all this work is only beginning, and whoever likes to\nlabor in these the most ancient of historical archives will find\nplenty of discoveries to make--and yet people ask, What is the use of\nlearning Sanskrit?\n\nWe get accustomed to everything, and cease to wonder at what would\nhave startled our fathers and upset all their stratified notions,\nlike a sudden earthquake. Every child now learns at school that\nEnglish is an Aryan or Indo-European language, that it belongs to the\nTeutonic branch, and that this branch, together with the Italic,\nGreek, Celtic, Slavonic, Iranic, and Indic branches, all spring from\nthe same stock, and form together the great Aryan or Indo-European\nfamily of speech.\n\nBut this, though it is taught now in our elementary schools, was\nreally, but fifty years ago, like the opening of a new horizon of the\nworld of the intellect, and the extension of a feeling of closest\nfraternity that made us feel at home where before we had been\nstrangers, and changed millions of so-called barbarians into our own\nkith and kin. To speak the same language constitutes a closer union\nthan to have drunk the same milk; and Sanskrit, the ancient language\nof India, is substantially the same language as Greek, Latin, and\nAnglo-Saxon. This is a lesson which we should never have learned but\nfrom a study of Indian language and literature, and if India had\ntaught us nothing else, it would have taught us more than almost any\nother language ever did.\n\nIt is quite amusing, though instructive also, to read what was written\nby scholars and philosophers when this new light first dawned on the\nworld. They would not have it, they would not believe that there could\nbe any community of origin between the people of Athens and Rome, and\nthe so-called Niggers of India. The classical scholar scouted the\nidea, and I myself still remember the time, when I was a student at\nLeipzig, and began to study Sanskrit, with what contempt any remarks\non Sanskrit or comparative grammar were treated by my teachers, men\nsuch as Gottfried Hermann, Haupt, Westermann, Stallbaum, and others.\nNo one ever was for a time so completely laughed down as Professor\nBopp, when he first published his Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit,\nZend, Greek, Latin, and Gothic. All hands were against him; and if in\ncomparing Greek and Latin with Sanskrit, Gothic, Celtic, Slavonic, or\nPersian, he happened to have placed one single accent wrong, the\nshouts of those who knew nothing but Greek and Latin, and probably\nlooked in their Greek dictionaries to be quite sure of their accents,\nwould never end. Dugald Stewart, rather than admit a relationship\nbetween Hindus and Scots, would rather believe that the whole Sanskrit\nlanguage and the whole of Sanskrit literature--mind, a literature\nextending over three thousand years and larger than the ancient\nliterature of either Greece or Rome--was a forgery of those wily\npriests, the Brahmans. I remember too how, when I was at school at\nLeipzig (and a very good school it was, with such masters as Nobbe,\nForbiger, Funkhaenel, and Palm--an old school too, which could boast\nof Leibnitz among its former pupils) I remember, I say, one of our\nmasters (Dr. Klee) telling us one afternoon, when it was too hot to do\nany serious work, that there was a language spoken in India, which was\nmuch the same as Greek and Latin, nay, as German and Russian. At first\nwe thought it was a joke, but when one saw the parallel columns of\nnumerals, pronouns, and verbs in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin written on\nthe blackboard, one felt in the presence of facts, before which one\nhad to bow. All one's ideas of Adam and Eve, and the Paradise, and the\ntower of Babel, and Shem, Ham, and Japhet, with Homer and AEneas and\nVirgil too, seemed to be whirling round and round, till at last one\npicked up the fragments and tried to build up a new world, and to live\nwith a new historical consciousness.\n\nHere you will see why I consider a certain knowledge of India an\nessential portion of a liberal or an historical education. The concept\nof the European man has been changed and widely extended by our\nacquaintance with India, and we know now that we are something\ndifferent from what we thought we were. Suppose the Americans, owing\nto some cataclysmal events, had forgotten their English origin, and\nafter two or three thousand years found themselves in possession of a\nlanguage and of ideas which they could trace back historically to a\ncertain date, but which, at that date, seemed, as it were, fallen from\nthe sky, without any explanation of their origin and previous growth,\nwhat would they say if suddenly the existence of an English language\nand literature were revealed to them, such as they existed in the\neighteenth century--explaining all that seemed before almost\nmiraculous, and solving almost every question that could be asked?\nWell, this is much the same as what the discovery of Sanskrit has done\nfor us. It has added a new period to our historical consciousness, and\nrevived the recollections of our childhood, which seemed to have\nvanished forever.\n\nWhatever else we may have been, it is quite clear now that, many\nthousands of years ago, we were something that had not yet developed\ninto an Englishman, or a Saxon, or a Greek, or a Hindu either, yet\ncontained in itself the germs of all these characters. A strange\nbeing, you may say. Yes, but for all that a very real being, and an\nancestor too of whom we must learn to be proud, far more than of any\nsuch modern ancestors, as Normans, Saxons, Celts, and all the rest.\n\nAnd this is not all yet that a study of Sanskrit and the other Aryan\nlanguages has done for us. It has not only widened our views of man,\nand taught us to embrace millions of strangers and barbarians as\nmembers of one family, but it has imparted to the whole ancient\nhistory of man a reality which it never possessed before.\n\nWe speak and write a great deal about antiquities, and if we can lay\nhold of a Greek statue or an Egyptian Sphinx or a Babylonian Bull, our\nheart rejoices, and we build museums grander than any royal palaces to\nreceive the treasures of the past. This is quite right. But are you\naware that every one of us possesses what may be called the richest\nand most wonderful Museum of Antiquities, older than any statues,\nsphinxes, or bulls? And where? Why, in our own language. When I use\nsuch words as _father_ or _mother_, _heart_ or _tear_, _one_, _two_,\n_three_, _here_ and _there_, I am handling coins or counters that were\ncurrent before there was one single Greek statue, one single\nBabylonian Bull, one single Egyptian Sphinx. Yes, each of us carries\nabout with him the richest and most wonderful Museum of Antiquities;\nand if he only knows how to treat those treasures, how to rub and\npolish them till they become translucent again, how to arrange them\nand read them, they will tell him marvels more marvellous than all\nhieroglyphics and cuneiform inscriptions put together. The stories\nthey have told us are beginning to be old stories now. Many of you\nhave heard them before. But do not let them cease to be marvels, like\nso many things which cease to be marvels because they happen every\nday. And do not think that there is nothing left for you to do. There\nare more marvels still to be discovered in language than have ever\nbeen revealed to us; nay, there is no word, however common, if only\nyou know how to take it to pieces, like a cunningly contrived work of\nart, fitted together thousands of years ago by the most cunning of\nartists, the human mind, that will not make you listen and marvel more\nthan any chapter of the Arabian Nights.\n\nBut I must not allow myself to be carried away from my proper subject.\nAll I wish to impress on you by way of introduction is that the\nresults of the Science of Language, which, without the aid of\nSanskrit, would never have been obtained, form an essential element of\nwhat we call a liberal, that is an historical education--an education\nwhich will enable a man to do what the French call _s'orienter_, that\nis, \"to find his East,\" \"his true East,\" and thus to determine his\nreal place in the world; to know, in fact, the port whence man\nstarted, the course he has followed, and the port toward which he has\nto steer.\n\nWe all come from the East--all that we value most has come to us from\nthe East, and in going to the East, not only those who have received a\nspecial Oriental training, but everybody who has enjoyed the\nadvantages of a liberal, that is, of a truly historical education,\nought to feel that he is going to his \"old home,\" full of memories, if\nonly he can read them. Instead of feeling your hearts sink within you,\nwhen next year you approach the shores of India, I wish that every one\nof you could feel what Sir William Jones felt, when, just one hundred\nyears ago, he came to the end of his long voyage from England, and saw\nthe shores of India rising on the horizon. At that time, young men\ngoing to the wonderland of India were not ashamed of dreaming dreams\nand seeing visions; and this was the dream dreamed and the vision seen\nby Sir William Jones, then simple Mr. Jones:\n\n    \"When I was at sea last August (that is in August, 1783), on\n    my last voyage to this country (India) I had long and\n    ardently desired to visit, I found one evening, on inspecting\n    the observations of the day, that _India_ lay before us,\n    _Persia_ on our left, while a breeze from _Arabia_ blew\n    nearly on our stern. A situation so pleasing in itself and to\n    me so new, could not fail to awaken a train of reflections in\n    a mind which had early been accustomed to contemplate with\n    delight the eventful histories and agreeable fictions of this\n    Eastern world. It gave me inexpressible pleasure to find\n    myself in the midst of so noble an amphitheatre, almost\n    encircled by the vast regions of Asia, which has ever been\n    esteemed the nurse of sciences, the inventress of delightful\n    and useful arts, the scene of glorious actions, fertile in\n    the productions of human genius, and infinitely diversified\n    in the forms of religion and government, in the laws,\n    manners, customs, and languages, as well as in the features\n    and complexions of men. I could not help remarking how\n    important and extensive a field was yet unexplored, and how\n    many solid advantages unimproved.\"\n\nIndia wants more such dreamers as that young Mr. Jones, standing alone\non the deck of his vessel and watching the sun diving into the\nsea--with the memories of England behind and the hopes of India before\nhim, feeling the presence of Persia and its ancient monarchs, and\nbreathing the breezes of Arabia and its glowing poetry. Such dreamers\nknow how to make their dreams come true, and how to change their\nvisions into realities.\n\nAnd as it was a hundred years ago, so it is now; or at least, so it\nmay be now. There are many bright dreams to be dreamed about India,\nand many bright deeds to be done in India, if only you will do them.\nThough many great and glorious conquests have been made in the history\nand literature of the East, since the days when Sir William Jones[16]\nlanded at Calcutta, depend upon it, no young Alexander here need\ndespair because there are no kingdoms left for him to conquer on the\nancient shores of the Indus and the Ganges.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Pliny (VI. 26) tells us that in his day the annual drain\nof bullion into India, in return for her valuable produce, reached the\nimmense amount of \"five hundred and fifty millions of sesterces.\" See\nE. Thomas, \"The Indian Balhara,\" p. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Cunningham, in the \"Journal of the Asiatic Society of\nBengal,\" 1881, p. 184.]\n\n[Footnote 3: General Cunningham describes this treasure in the\n\"Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal\" as having been found on the\nnorthern bank of the Oxus in 1877, and containing coins from Darius\ndown to Antiochus the Great, and Euthydemus, King of Baktria. This\nwould seem to indicate that it had been buried there in 208 B.C., when\nBaktria was invaded by Antiochus and Euthydemus defeated. The coins,\nfigures, and ornaments, many of them, were manifestly Persian, and\ndoubtless had been brought into that country and kept by the\nvictorious generals of Alexander. Some of the works of art unearthed\nby Dr. Schliemann at Mykenae are either Persian or Assyrian in\ncharacter, and are like those found on the Oxus. Professor Forchhammer\nvery plausibly supposes that they were spoils from the Persian camp\nwhich had been awarded to Mykenae as her share after the overthrow of\nMardonius.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See \"Selected Essays,\" vol. i., p. 500, \"The Migration of\nFables.\"]\n\n[Footnote 5: Cratylus, 411 A. \"Still, as I have put on the lion's\nskin, I must not be faint-hearted.\" Possibly, however, this may refer\nto Hercules, and not to the fable of the donkey in the lion's or the\ntiger's skin. In the Hitopade_s_a, a donkey, being nearly starved, is\nsent by his master into a corn-field to feed. In order to shield him\nhe puts a tiger's skin on him. All goes well till a watchman\napproaches, hiding himself under his gray coat, and trying to shoot\nthe tiger. The donkey thinks it is a gray female donkey, begins to\nbray, and is killed. On a similar fable in AEsop, see Benfey,\n\"Pantschatantra,\" vol. i., p. 463; M. M., \"Selected Essays,\" vol. i.,\np. 513.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See \"Fragmenta Comic\" (Didot), p. 302; Benfey, l. c. vol.\ni., p. 374.]\n\n[Footnote 7: \"Lectures on the Science of Language,\" vol. i., p. 231.\n\nThe names employed in the Hebrew text of the Bible are said to be\nTamil.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 8: 1 Kings 3:25.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The Bible story is dramatic; the other is not. The\n\"shudder\" is a tribute to the dramatic power of the Bible narrative.\nThe child was in no danger of being cut in twain. In the Buddhist\nversion the child _is_ injured. Why does not Prof. Mueller shudder when\nthe child is hurt and cries? The Solomonic child is not hurt and does\nnot cry. Is not the Bible story the more humane, the more dignified,\nthe more dramatic? And no canon of criticism requires us to believe\nthat a poor version of a story is the more primitive.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 10: See some excellent remarks on this subject in Rhys\nDavids, \"Buddhist Birth-Stories,\" vol. i., pp. xiii. and xliv. The\nlearned scholar gives another version of the story from a Singhalese\ntranslation of the _G_ataka, dating from the fourteenth century, and\nhe expresses a hope that Dr. Fausboell will soon publish the Pali\noriginal.]\n\n[Footnote 11: This is true of what theologians call natural religion,\nwhich is assumed to be a growth out of human consciousness; but the\nChristian religion is not a natural religion.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 12: There are traces of Aryan occupation at Babylon,\nRawlinson assures us, about twenty centuries B.C. This would suggest a\npossible interchange of religious ideas between the earlier Aryan and\nAkkado-Chaldean peoples.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 13: See Cunningham, \"Journal of the Asiatic Society of\nBengal,\" 1881, pp. 162-168.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Sim_, the Persian word for silver, has also the meaning\nof one thirteenth; see Cunningham, l. c. p. 165.]\n\n[Footnote 15: The common domestic cat is first mentioned by Caesarius,\nthe physician, brother of Gregory of Nazianus, about the middle of the\nfourth century. It came from Egypt, where it was regarded as sacred.\nHerodotus denominates it [Greek: ailouros], which was also\nthe designation of the weasel and marten. Kallimachus employs the same\ntitle, which his commentator explains as [Greek: kattos]. In\nlater times this name of uncertain etymology has superseded every\nother. The earlier Sanskrit writers appear to have had no knowledge of\nthe animal; but the mar_g_ara is named by Manu, and the vi_d_ala by\nPa_n_ini.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Sir William Jones was thirty-seven years of age when he\nsailed for India. He received the honor of knighthood in March, 1783,\non his appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort\nWilliam, at Bengal.--A. W.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTRUTHFUL CHARACTER OF THE HINDUS.\n\n\nIn my first Lecture I endeavored to remove the prejudice that\neverything in India is strange, and so different from the intellectual\nlife which we are accustomed to in England, that the twenty or\ntwenty-five years which a civil servant has to spend in the East seem\noften to him a kind of exile that he must bear as well as he can, but\nthat severs him completely from all those higher pursuits by which\nlife is made enjoyable at home. This need not be so and ought not to\nbe so, if only it is clearly seen how almost every one of the higher\ninterests that make life worth living here in England, may find as\nample scope in India as in England.\n\nTo-day I shall have to grapple with another prejudice which is even\nmore mischievous, because it forms a kind of icy barrier between the\nHindus and their rulers, and makes anything like a feeling of true\nfellowship between the two utterly impossible.\n\nThat prejudice consists in looking upon our stay in India as a kind of\n_moral_ exile, and in regarding the Hindus as an inferior race,\ntotally different from ourselves in their moral character, and, more\nparticularly in what forms the very foundation of the English\ncharacter, respect for truth.\n\nI believe there is nothing more disheartening to any high-minded young\nman than the idea that he will have to spend his life among human\nbeings whom he can never respect or love--natives, as they are called,\nnot to use even more offensive names--men whom he is taught to\nconsider as not amenable to the recognized principles of self-respect,\nuprightness, and veracity, and with whom therefore any community of\ninterests and action, much more any real friendship, is supposed to be\nout of the question.\n\nSo often has that charge of untruthfulness been repeated, and so\ngenerally is it now accepted, that it seems almost Quixotic to try to\nfight against it.\n\nNor should I venture to fight this almost hopeless battle, if I were\nnot convinced that such a charge, like all charges brought against a\nwhole nation, rests on the most flimsy induction, and that it has\ndone, is doing, and will continue to do more mischief than anything\nthat even the bitterest enemy of English dominion in India could have\ninvented. If a young man who goes to India as a civil servant or as a\nmilitary officer, goes there fully convinced that the people whom he\nis to meet with are all liars, liars by nature or by national\ninstinct, never restrained in their dealings by any regard for truth,\nnever to be trusted on their word, need we wonder at the feelings of\ndisgust with which he thinks of the Hindus, even before he has seen\nthem; the feelings of distrust with which he approaches them, and the\ncontemptuous way in which he treats them when brought into contact\nwith them for the transaction of public or private business? When such\ntares have once been sown by the enemy, it will be difficult to gather\nthem up. It has become almost an article of faith with every Indian\ncivil servant that all Indians are liars; nay, I know I shall never be\nforgiven for my heresy in venturing to doubt it.\n\nNow, quite apart from India, I feel most strongly that every one of\nthese international condemnations is to be deprecated, not only for\nthe sake of the self-conceited and uncharitable state of mind from\nwhich they spring, and which they serve to strengthen and confirm, but\nfor purely logical reasons also, namely for the reckless and slovenly\ncharacter of the induction on which such conclusions rest. Because a\nman has travelled in Greece and has been cheated by his dragoman, or\nbeen carried off by brigands, does it follow that all Greeks, ancient\nas well as modern, are cheats and robbers, or that they approve of\ncheating and robbery? And because in Calcutta, or Bombay, or Madras,\nIndians who are brought before judges, or who hang about the\nlaw-courts and the bazaars, are not distinguished by an unreasoning\nand uncompromising love of truth, is it not a very vicious induction\nto say, in these days of careful reasoning, that all Hindus are\nliars--particularly if you bear in mind that, according to the latest\ncensus, the number of inhabitants of that vast country amounts to two\nhundred and fifty-three millions. Are all these two hundred and\nfifty-three millions of human beings to be set down as liars, because\nsome hundreds, say even some thousands of Indians, when they are\nbrought to an English court of law, on suspicion of having committed a\ntheft or a murder, do not speak the truth, the whole truth, and\nnothing but the truth? Would an English sailor, if brought before a\ndark-skinned judge, who spoke English with a strange accent, bow down\nbefore him and confess at once any misdeed that he may have committed;\nand would all his mates rush forward and eagerly bear witness against\nhim, when he had got himself into trouble?\n\nThe rules of induction are general, but they depend on the subjects to\nwhich they are applied. We may, to follow an Indian proverb, judge of\na whole field of rice by tasting one or two grains only, but if we\napply this rule to human beings, we are sure to fall into the same\nmistake as the English chaplain who had once, on board an English\nvessel, christened a French child, and who remained fully convinced\nfor the rest of his life that all French babies had very long noses.\n\nI can hardly think of anything that you could safely predicate of\n_all_ the inhabitants of India, and I confess to a little nervous\ntremor whenever I see a sentence beginning with \"The people of India,\"\nor even with \"All the Brahmans,\" or \"All the Buddhists.\" What follows\nis almost invariably wrong. There is a greater difference between an\nAfghan, a Sikh, a Hindustani, a Bengalese, and a Dravidian than\nbetween an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and a Russian--yet all\nare classed as Hindus, and all are supposed to fall under the same\nsweeping condemnation.\n\nLet me read you what Sir John Malcolm says about the diversity of\ncharacter to be observed by any one who has eyes to observe, among the\ndifferent races whom we promiscuously call Hindus, and whom we\npromiscuously condemn as Hindus. After describing the people of Bengal\nas weak in body and timid in mind, and those below Calcutta as the\nlowest of our Hindu subjects, both in character and appearance, he\ncontinues: \"But from the moment you enter the district of Behar, the\nHindu inhabitants are a race of men, generally speaking, not more\ndistinguished by their lofty stature and robust frame than they are\nfor some of the finest qualities of the mind. They are brave,\ngenerous, humane, and their truth is as remarkable as their courage.\"\n\nBut because I feel bound to protest against the indiscriminating abuse\nthat has been heaped on the people of India from the Himalaya to\nCeylon, do not suppose that it is my wish or intention to draw an\nideal picture of India, leaving out all the dark shades, and giving\nyou nothing but \"sweetness and light.\" Having never been in India\nmyself, I can only claim for myself the right and duty of every\nhistorian, namely, the right of collecting as much information as\npossible, and the duty to sift it according to the recognized rules of\nhistorical criticism. My chief sources of information with regard to\nthe national character of the Indians in ancient times will be the\nworks of Greek writers and the literature of the ancient Indians\nthemselves. For later times we must depend on the statements of the\nvarious conquerors of India, who are not always the most lenient\njudges of those whom they may find it more difficult to rule than to\nconquer. For the last century to the present day, I shall have to\nappeal, partly to the authority of those who, after spending an active\nlife in India and among the Indians, have given us the benefit of\ntheir experience in published works, partly to the testimony of a\nnumber of distinguished civil servants and of Indian gentlemen also,\nwhose personal acquaintance I have enjoyed in England, in France, and\nin Germany.\n\nAs I have chiefly to address myself to those who will themselves be\nthe rulers and administrators of India in the future, allow me to\nbegin with the opinions which some of the most eminent, and, I\nbelieve, the most judicious among the Indian civil servants of the\npast have formed and deliberately expressed on the point which we are\nto-day discussing, namely, the veracity or want of veracity among the\nHindus.\n\nAnd here I must begin with a remark which has been made by others\nalso, namely, that the civil servants who went to India in the\nbeginning of this century, and under the auspices of the old East\nIndia Company, many of whom I had the honor and pleasure of knowing\nwhen I first came to England, seemed to have seen a great deal more of\nnative life, native manners, and native character than those whom I\nhad to examine five-and-twenty years ago, and who are now, after a\ndistinguished career, coming back to England. India is no longer the\ndistant island which it was, where each Crusoe had to make a home for\nhimself as best he could. With the short and easy voyages from England\nto India and from India to England, with the frequent mails, and the\ntelegrams, and the Anglo-Indian newspapers, official life in India has\nassumed the character of a temporary exile rather, which even English\nladies are now more ready to share than fifty years ago. This is a\ndifficulty which cannot be removed, but must be met, and which, I\nbelieve, can best be met by inspiring the new civil servants with new\nand higher interests during their stay in India.\n\nI knew the late Professor Wilson, our Boden Professor of Sanskrit at\nOxford, for many years, and often listened with deep interest to his\nIndian reminiscences.\n\nLet me read you what he, Professor Wilson, says of his native friends,\nassociates, and servants:[17]\n\n    \"I lived, both from necessity and choice, very much among the\n    Hindus, and had opportunities of becoming acquainted with\n    them in a greater variety of situations than those in which\n    they usually come under the observation of Europeans. In the\n    Calcutta mint, for instance, I was in daily personal\n    communication with a numerous body of artificers, mechanics,\n    and laborers, and always found among them cheerful and\n    unwearied industry, good-humored compliance with the will of\n    their superiors, and a readiness to make whatever exertions\n    were demanded from them; there was among them no drunkenness,\n    no disorderly conduct, no insubordination. It would not be\n    true to say that there was _no_ dishonesty, but it was\n    comparatively rare, invariably petty, and much less\n    formidable than, I believe, it is necessary to guard against\n    in other mints in other countries. There was considerable\n    skill and ready docility. So far from there being any\n    servility, there was extreme frankness, and I should say that\n    where there is confidence without fear, frankness is one of\n    the most universal features in the Indian character. Let the\n    people feel sure of the temper and good-will of their\n    superiors, and there is an end of reserve and timidity,\n    without the slightest departure from respect....\"\n\nThen, speaking of the much-abused Indian Pandits, he says: \"The\nstudies which engaged my leisure brought me into connection with the\nmen of learning, and in them I found the similar merits of industry,\nintelligence, cheerfulness, frankness, with others peculiar to their\navocation. A very common characteristic of these men, and of the\nHindus especially, was a simplicity truly childish, and a total\nunacquaintance with the business and manners of life. Where that\nfeature was lost, it was chiefly by those who had been long familiar\nwith Europeans. Among the Pandits or the learned Hindus there\nprevailed great ignorance and great dread of the European character.\nThere is, indeed, very little intercourse between any class of\nEuropeans and Hindu scholars, and it is not wonderful, therefore, that\nmutual misapprehension should prevail.\"\n\nSpeaking, lastly, of the higher classes in Calcutta and elsewhere,\nProfessor Wilson says that he witnessed among them \"polished manners,\nclearness and comprehensiveness of understanding, liberality of\nfeeling, and independence of principle that would have stamped them\ngentlemen in any country in the world.\" \"With some of this class,\" he\nadds, \"I formed friendships which I trust to enjoy through life.\"\n\nI have often heard Professor Wilson speak in the same, and in even\nstronger terms of his old friends in India, and his correspondence\nwith Ram Comul Sen, the grandfather of Keshub Chunder Sen,[18] a most\northodox, not to say bigoted, Hindu, which has lately been published,\nshows on what intimate terms Englishmen and Hindus may be, if only the\nadvances are made on the English side.\n\nThere is another Professor of Sanskrit, of whom your University may\nwell be proud, and who could speak on this subject with far greater\nauthority than I can. He too will tell you, and I have no doubt has\noften told you, that if only you look out for friends among the\nHindus, you will find them, and you may trust them.\n\nThere is one book which for many years I have been in the habit of\nrecommending, and another against which I have always been warning\nthose of the candidates for the Indian Civil Service whom I happened\nto see at Oxford; and I believe both the advice and the warning have\nin several cases borne the very best fruit. The book which I consider\nmost mischievous, nay, which I hold responsible for some of the\ngreatest misfortunes that have happened to India, is Mill's \"History\nof British India,\" even with the antidote against its poison, which is\nsupplied by Professor Wilson's notes. The book which I recommend, and\nwhich I wish might be published again in a cheaper form, so as to\nmake it more generally accessible, is Colonel Sleeman's \"Rambles and\nRecollections of an Indian Official,\" published in 1844, but written\noriginally in 1835-1836.\n\nMill's \"History,\" no doubt, you all know, particularly the candidates\nfor the Indian Civil Service, who, I am sorry to say, are recommended\nto read it, and are examined in it. Still, in order to substantiate my\nstrong condemnation of the book, I shall have to give a few proofs:\n\nMill in his estimate of the Hindu character is chiefly guided by\nDubois, a French missionary, and by Orme and Buchanan, Tennant, and\nWard, all of them neither very competent nor very unprejudiced judges.\nMill,[19] however, picks out all that is most unfavorable from their\nworks, and omits the qualifications which even these writers felt\nbound to give to their wholesale condemnation of the Hindus. He quotes\nas serious, for instance, what was said in joke,[20] namely, that \"a\nBrahman is an ant's nest of lies and impostures.\" Next to the charge\nof untruthfulness, Mill upbraids the Hindus for what he calls their\nlitigiousness. He writes:[21] \"As often as courage fails them in\nseeking more daring gratification to their hatred and revenge, their\nmalignity finds a vent in the channel of litigation.\" Without imputing\ndishonorable motives, as Mill does, the same fact might be stated in a\ndifferent way, by saying, \"As often as their conscience and respect of\nlaw keep them from seeking more daring gratification to their hatred\nand revenge, say by murder or poisoning, their trust in English\njustice leads them to appeal to our courts of law.\" Dr. Robertson, in\nhis \"Historical Disquisitions concerning India,\"[22] seems to have\nconsidered the litigious subtlety of the Hindus as a sign of high\ncivilization rather than of barbarism, but he is sharply corrected by\nMr. Mill, who tells him that \"nowhere is this subtlety carried higher\nthan among the wildest of the Irish.\" That courts of justice, like the\nEnglish, in which a verdict was not to be obtained, as formerly in\nMohammedan courts, by bribes and corruption, should at first have\nproved very attractive to the Hindus, need not surprise us. But is it\nreally true that the Hindus are more fond of litigation than other\nnations? If we consult Sir Thomas Munro, the eminent Governor of\nMadras, and the powerful advocate of the Ryotwar settlements, he tells\nus in so many words:[23] \"I have had ample opportunity of observing\nthe Hindus in every situation, and I can affirm, that they are not\nlitigious.\"[24]\n\nBut Mill goes further still, and in one place he actually assures his\nreaders[25] that a \"Brahman may put a man to death when he lists.\" In\nfact, he represents the Hindus as such a monstrous mass of all vices,\nthat, as Colonel Vans Kennedy[26] remarked, society could not have\nheld together if it had really consisted of such reprobates only. Nor\ndoes he seem to see the full bearing of his remarks. Surely, if a\nBrahman might, as he says, put a man to death whenever he lists, it\nwould be the strongest testimony in their favor that you hardly ever\nhear of their availing themselves of such a privilege, to say nothing\nof the fact--and a fact it is--that, according to statistics, the\nnumber of capital sentences was one in every 10,000 in England, but\nonly one in every million in Bengal.[27]\n\nColonel Sleeman's \"Rambles\" are less known than they deserve to be. To\ngive you an idea of the man, I must read you some extracts from the\nbook.\n\nHis sketches being originally addressed to his sister, this is how he\nwrites to her:\n\n     \"MY DEAR SISTER: Were any one to ask your countrymen in\n     India, what had been their greatest source of pleasure while\n     there, perhaps nine in ten would say the letters which they\n     receive from their sisters at home.... And while thus\n     contributing so much to our happiness, they no doubt tend to\n     make us better citizens of the world and servants of\n     government than we should otherwise be; for in our\n     'struggles through life' in India, we have all, more or\n     less, an eye to the approbation of those circles which our\n     kind sisters represent, who may therefore be considered in\n     the exalted light of a valuable species of _unpaid\n     magistracy_ to the government of India.\"\n\nThere is a touch of the old English chivalry even in these few words\naddressed to a sister whose approbation he values, and with whom he\nhoped to spend the winter of his days. Having been, as he confesses,\nidle in answering letters, or rather, too busy to find time for long\nletters, he made use of his enforced leisure, while on his way from\nthe Nerbuddah River to the Himmaleh Mountains, in search of health, to\ngive to his sister a full account of his impressions and experiences\nin India.\n\nThough what he wrote was intended at first \"to interest and amuse his\nsister only and the other members of his family at home,\" he adds, in\na more serious tone: \"Of one thing I must beg you to be assured, that\nI have nowhere indulged in fiction, either in the narrative, the\nrecollections, or the conversations. What I relate on the testimony of\nothers, I believe to be true; and what I relate on my own, you may\nrely upon as being so.\"\n\nWhen placing his volumes before the public at large in 1844, he\nexpresses a hope that they may \"tend to make the people of India\nbetter understood by those of our countrymen whose destinies are cast\namong them, and inspire more kindly feelings toward them.\"\n\nYou may ask why I consider Colonel Sleeman so trustworthy an authority\non the Indian character, more trustworthy, for instance, than even so\naccurate and unprejudiced an observer as Professor Wilson. My answer\nis--because Wilson lived chiefly in Calcutta, while Colonel Sleeman\nsaw India, where alone the true India can be seen, namely, in the\nvillage-communities. For many years he was employed as Commissioner\nfor the suppression of Thuggee. The Thugs were professional assassins,\nwho committed their murders under a kind of religious sanction. They\nwere originally \"all Mohammedans, but for a long time past Mohammedans\nand Hindus had been indiscriminately associated in the gangs, the\nformer class, however, still predominating.\"[28]\n\nIn order to hunt up these gangs, Colonel Sleeman had constantly to\nlive among the people in the country, to gain their confidence, and to\nwatch the good as well as the bad features in their character.\n\nNow what Colonel Sleeman continually insists on is that no one knows\nthe Indians who does not know them in their village-communities--what\nwe should now call their _communes_. It is that village-life which in\nIndia has given its peculiar impress to the Indian character, more so\nthan in any other country we know. When in Indian history we hear so\nmuch of kings and emperors, of rajahs and maharajahs, we are apt to\nthink of India as an Eastern monarchy, ruled by a central power, and\nwithout any trace of that self-government which forms the pride of\nEngland. But those who have most carefully studied the political life\nof India tell you the very opposite.\n\nThe political unit, or the social cell in India has always been, and, in\nspite of repeated foreign conquests, is still the village-community.\nSome of these political units will occasionally combine or be combined\nfor common purposes (such a confederacy being called a grama_g_ala), but\neach is perfect in itself. When we read in the Laws of Manu[29] of\nofficers appointed to rule over ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand of\nthese villages, that means no more than that they were responsible for\nthe collection of taxes, and generally for the good behavior of these\nvillages. And when, in later times, we hear of circles of eighty-four\nvillages, the so-called Chourasees (_K_atura_s_iti[30]), and of three\nhundred and sixty villages, this too seems to refer to fiscal\narrangements only. To the ordinary Hindu, I mean to ninety-nine in every\nhundred, the village was his world, and the sphere of public opinion,\nwith its beneficial influences on individuals, seldom extended beyond\nthe horizon of his village.[31]\n\nColonel Sleeman was one of the first who called attention to the\nexistence of these village-communities in India, and their importance\nin the social fabric of the whole country both in ancient and in\nmodern times; and though they have since become far better known and\ncelebrated through the writings of Sir Henry Maine, it is still both\ninteresting and instructive to read Colonel Sleeman's account. He\nwrites as a mere observer, and uninfluenced as yet by any theories on\nthe development of early social and political life among the Aryan\nnations in general.\n\nI do not mean to say that Colonel Sleeman was the first who pointed\nout the palpable fact that the whole of India is parcelled out into\nestates of villages. Even so early an observer as Megasthenes[32]\nseems to have been struck by the same fact when he says that \"in India\nthe husbandmen with their wives and children live in the country, and\nentirely avoid going into town.\" What Colonel Sleeman was the first to\npoint out was that all the native virtues of the Hindus are\nintimately connected with their village-life.\n\nThat village-life, however, is naturally the least known to English\nofficials, nay, the very presence of an English official is often said to\nbe sufficient to drive away those native virtues which distinguish both\nthe private life and the public administration of justice and equity in an\nIndian village.[33] Take a man out of his village-community, and you\nremove him from all the restraints of society. He is out of his element,\nand, under temptation, is more likely to go wrong than to remain true to\nthe traditions of his home-life. Even between village and village the\nusual restraints of public morality are not always recognized. What would\nbe called theft or robbery at home is called a successful raid or conquest\nif directed against distant villages; and what would be falsehood or\ntrickery in private life is honored by the name of policy and diplomacy if\nsuccessful against strangers. On the other hand, the rules of hospitality\napplied only to people of other villages, and a man of the same village\ncould never claim the right of an _Atithi_, or guest.[34]\n\nLet us hear now what Colonel Sleeman tells us about the moral\ncharacter of the members of these village-communities,[35] and let us\nnot forget that the Commissioner for the suppression of Thuggee had\nample opportunities of seeing the dark as well as the bright side of\nthe Indian character.\n\nHe assures us that falsehood or lying between members of the same\nvillage is almost unknown. Speaking of some of the most savage tribes,\nthe Gonds, for instance, he maintains that nothing would induce them\nto tell a lie, though they would think nothing of lifting a herd of\ncattle from a neighboring plain.\n\nOf these men it might perhaps be said that they have not yet learned\nthe value of a lie; yet even such blissful ignorance ought to count in\na nation's character. But I am not pleading here for Gonds, or Bhils,\nor Santhals, and other non-Aryan tribes. I am speaking of the Aryan\nand more or less civilized inhabitants of India. Now among them, where\nrights, duties, and interests begin to clash in one and the same\nvillage, public opinion, in its limited sphere, seems strong enough\nto deter even an evil-disposed person from telling a falsehood. The\nfear of the gods also has not yet lost its power.[36] In most villages\nthere is a sacred tree, a pipal-tree (Ficus Indica), and the gods are\nsupposed to delight to sit among its leaves, and listen to the music\nof their rustling. The deponent takes one of these leaves in his hand,\nand invokes the god, who sits above him, to crush him, or those dear\nto him, as he crushes the leaf in his hand, if he speaks anything but\nthe truth. He then plucks and crushes the leaf, and states what he has\nto say.\n\nThe pipal-tree is generally supposed to be occupied by one of the\nHindu deities, while the large cotton-tree, particularly among the\nwilder tribes, is supposed to be the abode of local gods, all the more\nterrible because entrusted with the police of a small settlement only.\nIn their punchayets, Sleeman tells us, men adhere habitually and\nreligiously to the truth, and \"I have had before me hundreds of\ncases,\" he says, \"in which a man's property, liberty, and life has\ndepended upon his telling a lie, and he has refused to tell it.\"\n\nCould many an English judge say the same?\n\nIn their own tribunals under the pipal-tree or cotton-tree,\nimagination commonly did what the deities, who were supposed to\npreside, had the credit of doing. If the deponent told a lie, he\nbelieved that the god who sat on his sylvan throne above him, and\nsearched the heart of man, must know it; and from that moment he knew\nno rest, he was always in dread of his vengeance. If any accident\nhappened to him, or to those dear to him, it was attributed to this\noffended deity; and if no accident happened, some evil was brought\nabout by his own disordered imagination.[37] It was an excellent\nsuperstition, inculcated in the ancient law-books, that the ancestors\nwatched the answer of a witness, because, according as it was true or\nfalse, they themselves would go to heaven or to hell.[38]\n\nAllow me to read you the abstract of a conversation between an English\nofficial and a native law-officer as reported by Colonel Sleeman. The\nnative lawyer was asked what he thought would be the effect of an act\nto dispense with oaths on the Koran and Ganges-water, and to\nsubstitute a solemn declaration made in the name of God, and under the\nsame penal liabilities as if the Koran or Ganges-water had been in the\ndeponent's hand.\n\n\"I have practiced in the courts,\" the native said, \"for thirty years,\nand during that time I have found only three kinds of witnesses--two\nof whom would, by such an act, be left precisely where they were,\nwhile the third would be released by it from a very salutary check.\"\n\n\"And, pray, what are the three classes into which you divide the\nwitnesses in our courts?\"\n\n\"First, Sir, are those who will always tell the truth, whether they\nare required to state what they know in the form of an oath or not.\"\n\n\"Do you think this a large class?\"\n\n\"Yes, I think it is; and I have found among them many whom nothing on\nearth could make to swerve from the truth. Do what you please, you\ncould never frighten or bribe them into a deliberate falsehood.\n\n\"The second are those who will not hesitate to tell a lie when they\nhave a motive for it, and are not restrained by an oath. In taking an\noath, they are afraid of two things, the anger of God and the odium of\nmen.\n\n\"Only three days ago,\" he continued, \"I required a power of attorney\nfrom a lady of rank, to enable me to act for her in a case pending\nbefore the court in this town. It was given to me by her brother, and\ntwo witnesses came to declare that she had given it. 'Now,' said I,\n'this lady is known to live under the curtain, and you will be asked\nby the judge whether you saw her give this paper: what will you say?'\nThey both replied: 'If the judge asks us the question without an oath,\nwe will say \"_Yes_;\" it will save much trouble, and we know that she\n_did_ give the paper, though we did not really _see_ her give it; but\nif he puts the Koran into our hands, we must say \"_No_,\" for we should\notherwise be pointed at by all the town as perjured wretches--our\nenemies would soon tell everybody that we had taken a false oath.'\n\n\"Now,\" the native lawyer went on, \"the form of an oath is a great\ncheck on this sort of persons.\n\n\"The third class consists of men who will tell lies whenever they have\na sufficient motive, whether they have the Koran or Ganges-water in\ntheir hand or not. Nothing will ever prevent their doing so; and the\ndeclaration which you propose would be just as well as any other for\nthem.\"\n\n\"Which class do you consider the most numerous of the three?\"\n\n\"I consider the second the most numerous, and wish the oath to be\nretained for them.\"\n\n\"That is, of all the men you see examined in our courts, you think the\nmost come under the class of those who will, under the influence of\nstrong motives, tell lies, if they have not the Koran or Ganges-water\nin their hands?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"But do not a great many of those whom you consider to be included\namong the second class come from the village-communities--the\npeasantry of the country?\"\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And do you not think that the greatest part of those men who will\ntell lies in the court, under the influence of strong motives, unless\nthey have the Koran or Ganges-water in their hands, would refuse to\ntell lies, if questioned before the people of their villages, among\nthe circle in which they live?\"\n\n\"Of course I do; three-fourths of those who do not scruple to lie in\nthe courts, would be ashamed to lie before their neighbors, or the\nelders of their village.\"\n\n\"You think that the people of the village-communities are more ashamed\nto tell lies before their neighbors than the people of towns?\"\n\n\"Much more--there is no comparison.\"\n\n\"And the people of towns and cities bear in India but a small\nproportion to the people of the village-communities?\"\n\n\"I should think a very small proportion indeed.\"\n\n\"Then you think that in the mass of the population of India, _out of\nour courts_, the first class, or those who speak truth, whether they\nhave the Koran or Ganges-water in their hands or not, would be found\nmore numerous than the other two?\"\n\n\"Certainly I do; if they were always to be questioned before their\nneighbors or elders, so that they could feel that their neighbors and\nelders could know what they say.\"\n\nIt was from a simple sense of justice that I felt bound to quote this\ntestimony of Colonel Sleeman as to the truthful character of the\nnatives of India, when _left to themselves_. My interest lies\naltogether with the people of India, _when left to themselves_, and\nhistorically I should like to draw a line after the year one thousand\nafter Christ. When you read the atrocities committed by the Mohammedan\nconquerors of India from that time to the time when England stepped in\nand, whatever may be said by her envious critics, made, at all events,\nthe broad principles of our common humanity respected once more in\nIndia, the wonder, to my mind, is how any nation could have survived\nsuch an _Inferno_ without being turned into devils themselves.\n\nNow, it is quite true that during the two thousand years which precede\nthe time of Mahmud of Gazni, India has had but few foreign visitors,\nand few foreign critics; still it is surely extremely strange that\nwhenever, either in Greek, or in Chinese, or in Persian, or in Arab\nwritings, we meet with any attempts at describing the distinguishing\nfeatures in the national character of the Indians, regard for truth\nand justice should always be mentioned first.\n\n_Ktesias_, the famous Greek physician of Artaxerxes Mnemon (present at\nthe battle of Cunaxa, 404 B.C.), the first Greek writer who tells us\nanything about the character of the Indians, such as he heard it\ndescribed at the Persian court, has a special chapter \"On the Justice\nof the Indians.\"[39]\n\n_Megasthenes_,[40] the ambassador of Seleucus Nicator at the court of\nSandrocottus in Palibothra (Pa_t_aliputra, the modern Patna), states\nthat thefts were extremely rare, and that they honored truth and\nvirtue.[41]\n\n_Arrian_ (in the second century, the pupil of Epictetus), when\nspeaking of the public overseers or superintendents in India,\nsays:[42] \"They oversee what goes on in the country or towns, and\nreport everything to the king, where the people have a king, and to\nthe magistrates, where the people are self-governed, and it is against\nuse and wont for these to give in a false report; _but indeed no\nIndian is accused of lying_.\"[43]\n\nThe Chinese, who come next in order of time, bear the same, I believe,\nunanimous testimony in favor of the honesty and veracity of the\nHindus. [The earliest witness is Su-we, a relative of Fan-chen, King\nof Siam, who between 222 and 227 A.D. sailed round the whole of India,\ntill he reached the mouth of the Indus, and then explored the country.\nAfter his return to Sinto, he received four Yueh-chi horses, sent by a\nking of India as a present to the King of Siam and his ambassador. At\nthe time when these horses arrived in Siam (it took them four years to\ntravel there), there was staying at the court of Siam an ambassador of\nthe Emperor of China, Khang-thai, and this is the account which he\nreceived of the kingdom of India: \"It is a kingdom in which the\nreligion of Buddha flourishes. The inhabitants are straightforward and\nhonest, and the soil is very fertile. The king is called Meu-lun, and\nhis capital is surrounded by walls,\" etc. This was in about 231 A.D.\nIn 605 we hear again of the Emperor Yang-ti sending an ambassador,\nFei-tu, to India, and this is what among other things he points out as\npeculiar to the Hindus: \"They believe in solemn oaths.\"][44] Let me\nquote Hiouen-thsang, the most famous of the Chinese Buddhist\npilgrims, who visited India in the seventh century.[45] \"Though the\nIndians,\" he writes, \"are of a light temperament, they are\ndistinguished by the straightforwardness and honesty of their\ncharacter. With regard to riches, they never take anything unjustly;\nwith regard to justice, they make even excessive concessions....\nStraightforwardness is the distinguishing feature of their\nadministration.\"\n\nIf we turn to the accounts given by the Mohammedan conquerors of\nIndia, we find Idrisi, in his Geography (written in the eleventh\ncentury), summing up their opinion of the Indians in the following\nwords:[46]\n\n    \"The Indians are naturally inclined to justice, and never\n    depart from it in their actions. Their good faith, honesty,\n    and fidelity to their engagements are well known, and they\n    are so famous for these qualities that people flock to their\n    country from every side.\"\n\nAgain, in the thirteenth century, Shems-ed-din Abu Abdallah quotes the\nfollowing judgment of Bedi ezr Zenan: \"The Indians are innumerable,\nlike grains of sand, free from all deceit and violence. They fear\nneither death nor life.\"[47]\n\nIn the thirteenth century we have the testimony of Marco Polo,[48]who\nthus speaks of the _Abraiaman_, a name by which he seems to mean the\nBrahmans who, though, not traders by profession, might well have been\nemployed for great commercial transactions by the king. This was\nparticularly the case during times which the Brahmans would call\ntimes of distress, when many things were allowed which at other times\nwere forbidden by the laws. \"You must know,\" Marco Polo says, \"that\nthese Abraiaman are the best merchants in the world, and the most\ntruthful, for they would not tell a lie for anything on earth.\"\n\nIn the fourteenth century we have Friar Jordanus, who goes out of his\nway to tell us that the people of Lesser India (South and Western\nIndia) are true in speech and eminent in justice.[49]\n\nIn the fifteenth century, Kamal-eddin Abd-errazak Samarkandi\n(1413-1482), who went as ambassador of the Khakan to the prince of\nKalikut and to the King of Vidyanagara (about 1440-1445), bears\ntestimony to the perfect security which merchants enjoy in that\ncountry.[50]\n\nIn the sixteenth century, Abu Fazl, the minister of the Emperor Akbar,\nsays in his Ayin Akbari: \"The Hindus are religious, affable, cheerful,\nlovers of justice, given to retirement, able in business, admirers of\ntruth, grateful and of unbounded fidelity; and their soldiers know not\nwhat it is to fly from the field of battle.\"[51]\n\nAnd even in quite modern times the Mohammedans seem willing to admit\nthat the Hindus, at all events in their dealings with Hindus, are more\nstraightforward than Mohammedans in their dealings with Mohammedans.\n\nThus Meer Sulamut Ali, a venerable old Mussulman, and, as Colonel\nSleeman says, a most valuable public servant, was obliged to admit\nthat \"a Hindu may feel himself authorized to take in a Mussulman, and\nmight even think it meritorious to do so; but he would never think it\nmeritorious to take in one of his own religion. There are no less than\nseventy-two sects of Mohammedans; and every one of these sects would\nnot only take in the followers of every other religion on earth, but\nevery member of every one of the other seventy-one sects; and the\nnearer that sect is to his own, the greater the merit of taking in its\nmembers.\"[52]\n\nSo I could go on quoting from book after book, and again and again we\nshould see how it was love of truth that struck all the people who\ncame in contact with India, as the prominent feature in the national\ncharacter of its inhabitants. No one ever accused them of falsehood.\nThere must surely be some ground for this, for it is not a remark that\nis frequently made by travellers in foreign countries, even in our\ntime, that their inhabitants invariably speak the truth. Read the\naccounts of English travellers in France, and you will find very\nlittle said about French honesty and veracity, while French accounts\nof England are seldom without a fling at _Perfide Albion_!\n\nBut if all this is true, how is it, you may well ask, that public\nopinion in England is so decidedly unfriendly to the people of India;\nat the utmost tolerates and patronizes them, but will never trust\nthem, never treat them on terms of equality?\n\nI have already hinted at some of the reasons. Public opinion with\nregard to India is made up in England chiefly by those who have spent\ntheir lives in Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, or some other of the\nprincipal towns in India. The native element in such towns contains\nmostly the most unfavorable specimens of the Indian population. An\ninsight into the domestic life of the more respectable classes, even\nin towns, is difficult to obtain; and, when it is obtained, it is\nextremely difficult to judge of their manners according to our\nstandard of what is proper, respectable, or gentlemanlike. The\nmisunderstandings are frequent and often most grotesque; and such, we\nmust confess, is human nature, that when we hear the different and\noften most conflicting accounts of the character of the Hindus, we are\nnaturally skeptical with regard to unsuspected virtues among them,\nwhile we are quite disposed to accept unfavorable accounts of their\ncharacter.\n\nLest I should seem to be pleading too much on the native side of the\nquestion, and to exaggerate the difficulty of forming a correct estimate\nof the character of the Hindus, let me appeal to one of the most\ndistinguished, learned, and judicious members of the Indian Civil\nService, the author of the \"History of India,\" Mountstuart Elphinstone.\n\"Englishmen in India,\"[53] he says, \"have less opportunity than might be\nexpected of forming opinions of the native character. Even in England,\nfew know much of the people beyond their own class, and what they do\nknow, they learn from newspapers and publications of a description which\ndoes not exist in India. In that country also, religion and manners put\nbars to our intimacy with the natives, and limit the number of\ntransactions as well as the free communication of opinions. We know\nnothing of the interior of families but by report, and have no share in\nthose numerous occurrences of life in which the amiable parts of\ncharacter are most exhibited.\" \"Missionaries of a different\nreligion,[54] judges, police-magistrates, officers of revenue or\ncustoms, and even diplomatists, do not see the most virtuous portion of\na nation, nor any portion, unless when influenced by passion, or\noccupied by some personal interest. What we _do_ see we judge by our own\nstandard. We conclude that a man who cries like a child on slight\noccasions must always be incapable of acting or suffering with dignity;\nand that one who allows himself to be called a liar would not be ashamed\nof any baseness. Our writers also confound the distinctions of time and\nplace; they combine in one character the Maratta and the Bengalese, and\ntax the present generation with the crimes of the heroes of the\nMahabharata. It might be argued, in opposition to many unfavorable\ntestimonies, that those who have known the Indians longest have always\nthe best opinion of them; but this is rather a compliment to human\nnature than to them, since it is true of every other people. It is more\nin point, that all persons who have retired from India think better of\nthe people they have left, after comparing them with others, even of the\nmost justly-admired nations.\"\n\nBut what is still more extraordinary than the ready acceptance of\njudgments unfavorable to the character of the Hindus, is the\ndetermined way in which public opinion, swayed by the statements of\ncertain unfavorable critics, has persistently ignored the evidence\nwhich members of the Civil Service, officers and statesmen--men of the\nhighest authority--have given again and again, in direct opposition to\nthese unfavorable opinions.\n\nHere, too, I must ask to be allowed to quote at least a few of these\nwitnesses on the other side.\n\nWarren Hastings thus speaks of the Hindus in general: \"They are gentle\nand benevolent, more susceptible of gratitude for kindness shown them,\nand less prompted to vengeance for wrongs inflicted than any people on\nthe face of the earth; faithful, affectionate, submissive to legal\nauthority.\"\n\nBishop Heber said: \"The Hindus are brave, courteous, intelligent, most\neager for knowledge and improvement; sober, industrious, dutiful to\nparents, affectionate to their children, uniformly gentle and patient,\nand more easily affected by kindness and attention to their wants and\nfeelings than any people I ever met with.\"[55]\n\nElphinstone states: \"No set of people among the Hindus are so depraved\nas the dregs of our own great towns. The villagers are everywhere\namiable, affectionate to their families, kind to their neighbors, and\ntoward all but the government honest and sincere. Including the Thugs\nand Dacoits, the mass of crime is less in India than in England. The\nThugs are almost a separate nation, and the Dacoits are desperate\nruffians in gangs. The Hindus are mild and gentle people, more\nmerciful to prisoners than any other Asiatics. Their freedom from\ngross debauchery is the point in which they appear to most advantage;\nand their superiority in purity of manners is not flattering to our\nself-esteem.\"[56]\n\nYet Elphinstone can be most severe on the real faults of the people of\nIndia. He states that, at present, want of veracity is one of their\nprominent vices, but he adds[57] \"that such deceit is most common in\npeople connected with government, a class which spreads far in India,\nas, from the nature of the land-revenue, the lowest villager is often\nobliged to resist force by fraud.\"[58]\n\nSir John Malcolm writes:[59] \"I have hardly ever known where a person\ndid understand the language, or where a calm communication was made to\na native of India, through a well-informed and trustworthy medium,\nthat the result did not prove, that what had at first been stated as\nfalsehood had either proceeded from fear or from misapprehension. I by\nno means wish to state that our Indian subjects are more free from\nthis vice than other nations that occupy a nearly equal position in\nsociety, but I am positive that they are not more addicted to\nuntruth.\"\n\nSir Thomas Munro bears even stronger testimony. He writes:[60] \"If a\ngood system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a capacity\nto produce whatever can contribute to either convenience or luxury,\nschools established in every village for teaching reading, writing,\nand arithmetic,[61] the general practice of hospitality and charity\namong each other, and, above all, a treatment of the female sex full\nof confidence, respect, and delicacy, are among the signs which\ndenote a civilized people--then the Hindus are not inferior to the\nnations of Europe--and if civilization is to become an article of\ntrade between England and India, I am convinced that England will gain\nby the import cargo.\"\n\nMy own experience with regard to the native character has been, of\ncourse, very limited. Those Hindus whom I have had the pleasure to\nknow personally in Europe may be looked upon as exceptional, as the\nbest specimens, it may be, that India could produce. Also, my\nintercourse with them has naturally been such that it could hardly\nhave brought out the darker sides of human nature. During the last\ntwenty years, however, I have had some excellent opportunities of\nwatching a number of native scholars under circumstances where it is\nnot difficult to detect a man's true character--I mean in literary\nwork and, more particularly, in literary controversy. I have watched\nthem carrying on such controversies both among themselves and with\ncertain European scholars, and I feel bound to say that, with hardly\none exception, they have displayed a far greater respect for truth and\na far more manly and generous spirit than we are accustomed to even in\nEurope and America. They have shown strength, but no rudeness; nay, I\nknow that nothing has surprised them so much as the coarse invective\nto which certain Sanskrit scholars have condescended, rudeness of\nspeech being, according to their view of human nature, a safe sign not\nonly of bad breeding, but of want of knowledge. When they were wrong,\nthey have readily admitted their mistakes; when they were right, they\nhave never sneered at their European adversaries. There has been,\nwith few exceptions, no quibbling, no special pleading, no\nuntruthfulness on their part, and certainly none of that low cunning\nof the scholar who writes down and publishes what he knows perfectly\nwell to be false, and snaps his fingers at those who still value truth\nand self-respect more highly than victory or applause at any price.\nHere, too, we might possibly gain by the import cargo.\n\nLet me add that I have been repeatedly told by English merchants that\ncommercial honor stands higher in India than in any other country, and\nthat a dishonored bill is hardly known there.\n\nI have left to the last the witnesses who might otherwise have been\nsuspected--I mean the Hindus themselves. The whole of their literature\nfrom one end to the other is pervaded by expressions of love and\nreverence for truth. Their very word for truth is full of meaning. It\nis s a t or s a t y a, s a t being the participle of the verb _as_, to be.\nTrue, therefore, was with them simply _that which is_. The English\n_sooth_ is connected with sat, also the Greek [Greek: on] for\n[Greek: _eson_], and the Latin _sens_, in _praesens_.\n\nWe are all very apt to consider truth to be what is trowed by others,\nor believed in by large majorities. That kind of truth is easy to\naccept. But whoever has once stood alone, surrounded by noisy\nassertions, and overwhelmed by the clamor of those who ought to know\nbetter, or perhaps who did know better--call him Galileo or Darwin,\nColenso or Stanley, or any other name--he knows what a real delight it\nis to feel in his heart of hearts, this is true--this is--this is\ns a t--whatever daily, weekly, or quarterly papers, whatever bishops,\narchbishops, or popes, may say to the contrary.\n\nAnother name for truth is the Sanskrit _r i_t a, which originally seems\nto have meant _straight_, _direct_, while a n_r i_t a is untrue, false.\n\nNow one of the highest praises bestowed upon the gods in the Veda is\nthat they are s a t y a, true, truthful, trustworthy;[62] and it is well\nknown that both in modern and ancient times, men always ascribe to God\nor to their gods those qualities which they value most in themselves.\n\nOther words applied to the gods as truthful beings are, a d r o g h a,\nlit. not deceiving.[63] A d r o g h a-v a _k_ means, he whose word is\nnever broken. Thus Indra, the Vedic Jupiter, is said to have been\npraised by the fathers[64] \"as reaching the enemy, overcoming him,\nstanding on the summit, _true of speech_, most powerful in thought.\"\n\nD r o g h a v a _k_,[65] on the contrary, is used for deceitful men. Thus\nVasish_th_a, one of the great Vedic poets, says: \"If I had worshipped\nfalse gods, or if I believed in the gods vainly--but why art thou\nangry with us, O _G_atavedas? May liars go to destruction!\"\n\nS a t y a m, as a neuter, is often used as an abstract, and is then\nrightly translated by truth. But it also means that which is, the true,\nthe real; and there are several passages in the Rig-Veda where, instead\nof _truth_, I think we ought simply to translate s a t y a m by the\ntrue, that is, the real, [Greek: to ontos on].[66] It sounds, no doubt,\nvery well to translate Satyena uttabhita bhumi_h_ by \"the earth is\nfounded on truth;\" and I believe every translator has taken s a t y a in\nthat sense here. Ludwig translates, \"Von der Wahrheit ist die Erde\ngestuetzt.\" But such an idea, if it conveys any tangible meaning at all,\nis far too abstract for those early poets and philosophers. They meant\nto say \"the earth, such as we see it, is held up, that is, rests on\nsomething real, though we may not see it, on something which they called\nthe Real,[67] and to which, in course of time, they gave many more\nnames, such as _R i_ t a, the right, B r a h m a n,\" etc.\n\nOf course where there is that strong reverence for truth, there must\nalso be the sense of guilt arising from untruth. And thus we hear one\npoet pray that the waters may wash him clean, and carry off all his\nsins and all untruth:\n\n    \"Carry away, ye waters,[68] whatever evil there is in me,\n    wherever I may have deceived, or may have cursed, and also\n    all untruth (an_ri_tam).\"[69]\n\nOr again, in the Atharva-Veda IV. 16:\n\n    \"May all thy fatal snares, which stand spread out seven by\n    seven and threefold, catch the man who tells a lie, may they\n    pass by him who tells the truth!\"\n\nFrom the Brahma_n_as, or theological treatises of the Brahmans, I\nshall quote a few passages only:\n\n    \"Whosoever[70] speaks the truth, makes the fire on his own\n    altar blaze up, as if he poured butter into the lighted fire.\n    His own light grows larger, and from to-morrow to to-morrow\n    he becomes better. But whosoever speaks untruth, he quenches\n    the fire on his altar, as if he poured water into the lighted\n    fire; his own light grows smaller and smaller, and from\n    to-morrow to to-morrow he becomes more wicked. Let man\n    therefore speak truth only.\"[71]\n\nAnd again:[72] \"A man becomes impure by uttering falsehood.\"\n\nAnd again:[73] \"As a man who steps on the edge of a sword placed over\na pit cries out, I shall slip, I shall slip into the pit, so let a man\nguard himself from falsehood (or sin).\"\n\nIn later times we see the respect for truth carried to such an\nextreme, that even a promise, unwittingly made, is considered to be\nbinding.\n\nIn the Ka_th_a-Upanishad, for instance, a father is introduced\noffering what is called an _All_-sacrifice, where everything is\nsupposed to be given up. His son, who is standing by, taunts his\nfather with not having altogether fulfilled his vow, because he has\nnot sacrificed his son. Upon this, the father, though angry and\nagainst his will, is obliged to sacrifice his son. Again, when the son\narrives in the lower world, he is allowed by the Judge of the Dead to\nask for three favors. He then asks to be restored to life, to be\ntaught some sacrificial mysteries, and, as the third boon, he asks to\nknow what becomes of man after he is dead. Yama, the lord of the\nDeparted, tries in vain to be let off from answering this last\nquestion. But he, too, is bound by his promise, and then follows a\ndiscourse on life after death, or immortal life, which forms one of\nthe most beautiful chapters in the ancient literature of India.\n\nThe whole plot of one of the great epic poems, the Ramaya_n_a, rests\non a rash promise given by Da_s_aratha, king of Ayodhya, to his second\nwife, Kaikeyi, that he would grant her two boons. In order to secure\nthe succession to her own son, she asks that Rama, the eldest son by\nthe king's other wife, should be banished for fourteen years. Much as\nthe king repents his promise, Rama, his eldest son, would on no\naccount let his father break his word, and he leaves his kingdom to\nwander in the forest with his wife Sita and his brother Lakshma_n_a.\nAfter the father's death, the son of the second wife declines the\nthrone, and comes to Rama to persuade him to accept the kingdom of his\nfather. But all in vain. Rama will keep his exile for fourteen years,\nand never disown his father's promise. Here follows a curious dialogue\nbetween a Brahman _G_abali and Prince Rama, of which I shall give some\nextracts:[74]\n\n    \"The Brahman, who is a priest and courtier, says, 'Well,\n    descendant of Raghu, do not thou, so noble in sentiments, and\n    austere in character, entertain, like a common man, this\n    useless thought. What man is a kinsman of any other? What\n    relationship has any one with another? A man is born alone\n    and dies alone. Hence he who is attached to any one as his\n    father or his mother, is to be regarded as if he were insane,\n    for no one belongs to another. Thou oughtest not to abandon\n    thy father's kingdom and stay here in a sad and miserable\n    abode, attended with many trials. Let thyself be inaugurated\n    king in the wealthy Ayodhya. Da_s_aratha, thy father is\n    nothing to thee, or thou to him; the king is one, and thou\n    another, do therefore what is said.... Then offer oblations\n    to the departed spirits (of thy forefathers) on prescribed\n    days; but see what a waste of food! For what can a dead man\n    eat? If what is eaten by one here enters into the body of\n    another (viz., of the departed), let _S_raddhas be offered to\n    those who are travelling; they need not then get food to eat\n    on their journey. These books (the Vedas), (which enjoin men\n    to) sacrifice, give, consecrate themselves, practise\n    austerities, and forsake the world, are composed by clever\n    men to induce others to bestow gifts. Authoritative words do\n    not fall from heaven. Let me, and others like yourselves,\n    embrace whatever assertion is supported by reason. Adhere to\n    what is apparent to the senses, and reject what is\n    invisible.... _This world is the next world_; do thou\n    therefore enjoy pleasure, for every virtuous man does not\n    gain it. Virtuous men are greatly distressed, while the\n    unrighteous are seen to be happy.'\"\n\nThese positivist sentiments sound strange, particularly from the mouth\nof a Brahman. But the poet evidently wishes to represent a Brahman\nliving at court, who has an argument ready for anything and everything\nthat is likely to please his king.\n\nBut what does Rama answer? \"The words,\" he says, \"which you have\naddressed to me, though they recommend what _seems_ to be right and\nsalutary, advise, in fact, the contrary. The sinful transgressor, who\nlives according to the rules of heretical systems, obtains no esteem\nfrom good men. It is good conduct that marks a man to be noble or\nignoble, heroic or a pretender to manliness, pure or impure. Truth and\nmercy are immemorial characteristics of a king's conduct. Hence royal\nrule is in its essence _truth_. On truth the word is based. Both sages\nand gods have esteemed truth. The man who speaks truth in this world\nattains the highest imperishable state. Men shrink with fear and\nhorror from a liar as from a serpent. In this world the chief element\nin virtue is truth; it is called the basis of everything. Truth is\nlord in the world; virtue always rests on truth. All things are\nfounded on truth; nothing is higher than it. Why, then, should I not\nbe true to my promise, and faithfully observe the truthful injunction\ngiven by my father? Neither through covetousness, nor delusion, nor\nignorance, will I, overpowered by darkness, break through the barrier\nof truth, but remain true to my promise to my father. How shall I,\nhaving promised to him that I would thus reside in the forests,\ntransgress his injunction, and do what Bharata recommends?\"\n\nThe other epic poem too, the Mahabharata, is full of episodes showing\na profound regard for truth and an almost slavish submission to a\npledge once given. The death of Bhishma, one of the most important\nevents in the story of the Mahabharata, is due to his vow never to\nhurt a woman. He is thus killed by _S_ikhandin, whom he takes to be a\nwoman.[75]\n\nWere I to quote from all the law-books, and from still later works,\neverywhere you would hear the same key-note of truthfulness vibrating\nthrough them all.\n\nWe must not, however, suppress the fact that, under certain\ncircumstances, a lie was allowed, or, at all events, excused by Indian\nlawgivers. Thus Gautama says:[76] \"An untruth spoken by people under\nthe influence of anger, excessive joy, fear, pain, or grief, by\ninfants, by very old men, by persons laboring under a delusion, being\nunder the influence of drink, or by madmen, does not cause the speaker\nto fall, or, as we should say, is a venial, not a mortal sin.\"[77]\n\nThis is a large admission, yet even in that open admission there is a\ncertain amount of honesty. Again and again in the Mahabharata is this\nexcuse pleaded.[78] Nay, there is in the Mahabharata[79] the\nwell-known story of Kau_s_ika, called Satyavadin, the Truth-speaker,\nwho goes to hell for having spoken the truth. He once saw men flying\ninto the forest before robbers (dasyu). The robbers came up soon after\nthem, and asked Kau_s_ika, which way the fugitives had taken. He told\nthem the truth, and the men were caught by the robbers and killed.\nBut Kau_s_ika, we are told, went to hell for having spoken the truth.\n\nThe Hindus may seem to have been a priest-ridden race, and their\ndevotion to sacrifice and ceremonial is well known. Yet this is what\nthe poet of the Mahabharata dares to say:\n\n    \"Let a thousand sacrifices (of a horse) and truth be weighed\n    in the balance--truth will exceed the thousand\n    sacrifices.\"[80]\n\nThese are words addressed by _S_akuntala, the deserted wife, to King\nDushyanta, when he declined to recognize her and his son. And when he\nrefuses to listen to her appeal, what does she appeal to as the\nhighest authority?--_The voice of conscience._\n\n\"If you think I am alone,\" she says to the king, \"you do not know that\nwise man within your heart. He knows of your evil deed--in _his_ sight\nyou commit sin. A man who has committed sin may think that no one\nknows it. The gods know it and the old man within.\"[81]\n\nThis must suffice. I say once more that I do not wish to represent the\npeople of India as two hundred and fifty-three millions of angels, but\nI do wish it to be understood and to be accepted as a fact, that the\ndamaging charge of untruthfulness brought against that people is\nutterly unfounded with regard to ancient times. It is not only not\ntrue, but the very opposite of the truth. As to modern times, and I\ndate them from about 1000 after Christ, I can only say that, after\nreading the accounts of the terrors and horrors of Mohammedan rule, my\nwonder is that so much of native virtue and truthfulness should have\nsurvived. You might as well expect a mouse to speak the truth before a\ncat, as a Hindu before a Mohammedan judge.[82] If you frighten a\nchild, that child will tell a lie; if you terrorize millions, you must\nnot be surprised if they try to escape from your fangs. Truthfulness\nis a luxury, perhaps the greatest, and let me assure you, the most\nexpensive luxury in our life--and happy the man who has been able to\nenjoy it from his very childhood. It may be easy enough in our days\nand in a free country, like England, never to tell a lie--but the\nolder we grow, the harder we find it to be always true, to speak the\ntruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The Hindus too had\nmade that discovery. They too knew how hard, nay how impossible it is,\nalways to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\nThere is a short story in the _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a, to my mind full\nof deep meaning, and pervaded by the real sense of truth, the real\nsense of the difficulty of truth. His kinsman said to Aru_n_a\nAupave_s_i, \"Thou art advanced in years, establish thou the\nsacrificial fires.\" He replied: \"Thereby you tell me henceforth to\nkeep silence. For he who has established the fires must not speak an\nuntruth, and only by not speaking at all, one speaks no untruth. To\nthat extent the service of the sacrificial fires consists in\ntruth.\"[83]\n\nI doubt whether in any other of the ancient literatures of the world\nyou will find traces of that extreme sensitiveness of conscience which\ndespairs of our ever speaking the truth, and which declares silence\ngold, and speech silver, though, in a much higher sense than our\nproverb.\n\nWhat I should wish to impress on those who will soon find themselves\nthe rulers of millions of human beings in India, is the duty to shake\noff national prejudices, which are apt to degenerate into a kind of\nmadness. I have known people with a brown skin whom I could look up to\nas my betters. Look for them in India, and you will find them, and if\nyou meet with disappointments, as no doubt you will, think of the\npeople with white skins whom you have trusted, and whom you can trust\nno more. We are all apt to be Pharisees in international judgments. I\nread only a few days ago in a pamphlet written by an enlightened\npolitician, the following words:\n\n    \"Experience only can teach that nothing is so truly\n    astonishing to a morally depraved people as the phenomenon of\n    a race of men in whose word perfect confidence may be\n    placed[84].... The natives are conscious of their inferiority\n    in nothing so much as in this. They require to be taught\n    rectitude of conduct much more than literature and science.\"\n\nIf you approach the Hindus with such feelings, you will teach them\nneither rectitude, nor science, nor literature. Nay, they might appeal\nto their own literature, even to their law-books, to teach us at least\none lesson of truthfulness, truthfulness to ourselves, or, in other\nwords, humility.\n\nWhat does Ya_gn_avalkya say?[85]\n\n    \"It is not our hermitage,\" he says--our religion we might\n    say--\"still less the color of our skin, that produces virtue;\n    virtue must be practiced. Therefore let no one do to others\n    what he would not have done to himself.\"\n\nAnd the laws of the Manavas, which were so much abused by Mill, what\ndo they teach?[86]\n\n    \"Evil-doers think indeed that no one sees them; but the gods\n    see them, and the old man within.\"\n\n    \"Self is the witness of Self, Self is the refuge of Self. Do\n    not despise thy own Self, the highest witness of men.\"[87]\n\n    \"If, friend, thou thinkest thou art self-alone, remember\n    there is the silent thinker (the Highest Self) always within\n    thy heart, and _he_ sees what is good and what is evil.\"[88]\n\n    \"O friend, whatever good thou mayest have done from thy very\n    birth, all will go to the dogs, if thou speak an untruth.\"\n\nOr in Vasish_th_a, XXX. 1:\n\n    \"Practice righteousness, not unrighteousness; speak truth,\n    not untruth; look far, not near; look up toward the highest,\n    not toward anything low.\"\n\nNo doubt there is moral depravity in India, and where is there no\nmoral depravity in this world? But to appeal to international\nstatistics would be, I believe, a dangerous game. Nor must we forget\nthat our standards of morality differ, and, on some points, differ\nconsiderably from those recognized in India; and we must not wonder if\nsons do not at once condemn as criminal what their fathers and\ngrandfathers considered right. Let us hold by all means to _our_ sense\nof what is right and what is wrong; but in judging others, whether in\npublic or in private life, whether as historians or politicians, let\nus not forget that a kindly spirit will never do any harm. Certainly\nI can imagine nothing more mischievous, more dangerous, more fatal to\nthe permanence of English rule in India, than for the young civil\nservants to go to that country with the idea that it is a sink of\nmoral depravity, an ants' nest of lies; for no one is so sure to go\nwrong, whether in public or in private life, as he who says in his\nhaste: \"All men are liars.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 17: Mill's \"History of British India,\" ed. Wilson, vol. i.,\np. 375.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Keshub Chunder Sen is the present spiritual director of\nthe Brahmo Sama_g_, the theistic organization founded by the late\nRammohun Roy.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Mill's \"History,\" ed. Wilson, vol. i., p. 368.]\n\n[Footnote 20: L. c. p. 325.]\n\n[Footnote 21: L. c. p. 329.]\n\n[Footnote 22: P. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Mill's \"History,\" vol. i., p. 329.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Manu, VIII. 43, says: \"Neither a King himself nor his\nofficers must ever promote litigation; nor ever neglect a lawsuit\ninstituted by others.\"]\n\n[Footnote 25: Mill's \"History,\" vol. i., p. 327.]\n\n[Footnote 26: L. c. p. 368.]\n\n[Footnote 27: See Elphinstone, \"History of India,\" ed. Cowell, p. 219,\nnote. \"Of the 232 sentences of death 64 only were carried out in\nEngland, while the 59 sentences of death in Bengal were all carried\nout.\"]\n\n[Footnote 28: Sir Ch. Trevelyan, Christianity and Hinduism, 1882, p.\n42.\n\nThis will be news to many. It has been quite common to include the\nThugs with the worshippers of Bhavani, the consort of Siva. The word\nsignifies a deceiver, which eliminates it from every religious\nassociation.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Manu VII. 115.]\n\n[Footnote 30: H. M. Elliot, \"Supplement to the Glossary of Indian\nTerms,\" p. 151.]\n\n[Footnote 31: I see from Dr. Hunter's latest statistical tables that\nthe whole number of towns and villages in British India amounts to\n493,429. Out of this number 448,320 have less than 1000 inhabitants,\nand may be called villages. In Bengal, where the growth of towns has\nbeen most encouraged through Government establishments, the total\nnumber of homesteads is 117,042, and more than half of these contain\nless than 200 inhabitants. Only 10,077 towns in Bengal have more than\n1000 inhabitants, that is, no more than about a seventeenth part of\nall the settlements are anything but what we should call substantial\nvillages. In the North-Western Provinces the last census gives us\n105,124 villages, against 297 towns. See London _Times_, 14th Aug.\n1882.]\n\n[Footnote 32: \"Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian,\"\nby McCrindle, p. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 33: \"Perjury seems to be committed by the meanest and\nencouraged by some of the better sort among the Hindus and Mussulmans,\nwith as little remorse as if it were a proof of ingenuity, or even a\nmerit.\"--Sir W. Jones, Address to Grand Jury at Calcutta, in Mill's\n\"History of India,\" vol. i., p. 324. \"The longer we possess a\nprovince, the more common and grave does perjury become.\"--Sir G.\nCampbell, quoted by Rev. Samuel Johnson, \"Oriental Religions, India,\"\np. 288.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Vasish_th_a, translated by Buehler, VIII. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Mr. J. D. Baldwin, author of \"Prehistoric Nations,\"\ndeclares that this system of village-communities existed in India long\nbefore the Aryan conquest. He attributes it to Cushite or AEthiopic\ninfluence, and with great plausibility. Nevertheless, the same system\nflourished in prehistoric Greece, even till the Roman conquests. Mr.\nPalgrave observed it existing in Arabia. \"Oman is less a kingdom than\nan aggregation of municipalities,\" he remarks; \"each town, each\nvillage has its separate existence and corporation, while towns and\nvillages, in their turn, are subjected to one or other of the\nancestral chiefs.\" The Ionian and Phoenician cities existed by a\nsimilar tenure, as did also the Free Cities of Europe. It appears,\nindeed, to have been the earlier form of rule. Megasthenes noticed it\nin India. \"The village-communities,\" says Sir Charles Metcalf, \"are\nlittle republics, having everything they want within themselves, and\nalmost independent of any foreign relations. They seem to last where\nnothing else lasts.\" These villages usually consist of the holders of\nthe land, those who farm and cultivate it, the established\nvillage-servants, priest, blacksmith, carpenter, accountant,\nwasherman, potter, barber, watchman, shoemaker, etc. The tenure and\nlaw of inheritance varies with the different native races, but\ntenantship for a specific period seems to be the most common.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 36: \"Sleeman,\" vol. ii., p. 111.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Sleeman, \"Rambles,\" vol. ii., p. 116.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Vasish_th_a XVI. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Ktesiae Fragmenta (ed. Didot), p. 81.]\n\n[Footnote 40: See \"Indian Antiquary,\" 1876, p. 333.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Megasthenis Fragmenta (ed. Didot) in \"Fragm. Histor.\nGraec.\" vol. ii., p. 426 b: [Greek: _Aletheian te humoios kai areten\napodechontai_]]\n\n[Footnote 42: Indica, cap. xii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 43: See McCrindle in. \"Indian Antiquary,\" 1876, p. 92.]\n\n[Footnote 44: See Stanislas Julien, _Journal Asiatique_, 1847, Aout,\npp. 98, 105.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Vol. ii., p. 83.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Elliot, \"History of India,\" vol. i., p. 88.]\n\n[Footnote 47: See Mehren: \"Manuel de la Cosmographie du moyen age,\ntraduction de l'ouvrage de Shems-ed-din Abou Abdallah de Damas.\"\nParis: Leroux, 1874, p. 371.]\n\n[Footnote 48: \"Marco Polo,\" ed. H. Yule, vol. ii., p. 350.]\n\n[Footnote 49: \"Marco Polo,\" vol. ii., p. 354.]\n\n[Footnote 50: \"Notices des Manuscrits,\" tom. xiv., p. 436. He seems to\nhave been one of the first to state that the Persian text of the\nKalilah and Dimna was derived from the wise people of India.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Samuel Johnson, \"India,\" p. 294.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Sleeman, \"Rambles,\" vol. i., p. 63.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Elphinstone's \"History of India,\" ed. Cowell, p. 213.]\n\n[Footnote 54: This statement may well be doubted. The missionary staff\nin India is very large and has been for years past. There is no reason\nto doubt that many of its members are well informed respecting Hindoo\ncharacter in all grades of society.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Samuel Johnson, \"India,\" p. 293.]\n\n[Footnote 56: See \"History of India,\" pp. 375-381.]\n\n[Footnote 57: L. c., p. 215.]\n\n[Footnote 58: \"History of India,\" p. 218.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Mill's \"History of India,\" ed. Wilson, vol. i., p. 370.]\n\n[Footnote 60: L. c., p. 371.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Sir Thomas Munro estimated the children educated at\npublic schools in the Madras presidency as less than one in three. But\nlow as it was, it was, as he justly remarked, a higher rate than\nexisted till very lately in most countries of Europe.--Elphinstone,\n\"Hist. of India,\" p. 205.\n\nIn Bengal there existed no less than 80,000 native schools, though,\ndoubtless, for the most part, of a poor quality. According to a\nGovernment Report of 1835, there was a village-school for every 400\npersons.--\"Missionary Intelligencer,\" IX. 183-193.\n\nLudlow (\"British India,\" I. 62) writes: \"In every Hindu village which\nhas retained its old form I am assured that the children generally are\nable to read, write, and cipher; but where we have swept away the\nvillage-system, as in Bengal, there the village-school has also\ndisappeared.\"]\n\n[Footnote 62: Rig-Veda I. 87, 4; 145, 5; 174, 1; V. 23, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Rig-Veda III. 32, 9; VI. 5, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 64: Rig-Veda VI. 22, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Rig-Veda III. 14, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 66: This is the favorite expression of Plato for the Divine,\nwhich Cary, Davis, and others render \"Real Being.\"--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Sometimes they trace even this S a t y a or _R i_ t a, the\nReal or Right, to a still higher cause, and say (Rig-Veda X. 190, 1):\n\n\"The Right and Real was born from the Lighted Heat; from thence was\nborn Night, and thence the billowy sea. From the sea was born\nSa_m_vatsara, the year, he who ordereth day and night, the Lord of all\nthat moves (winks). The Maker (dhat_ri_) shaped Sun and Moon in order;\nhe shaped the sky, the earth, the welkin, and the highest heaven.\"]\n\n[Footnote 68: Rig-Veda I. 23, 22.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Or it may mean, \"Wherever I may have deceived, or sworn\nfalse.\"]\n\n[Footnote 70: _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a II. 2, 3, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 71: Cf. Muir, \"Metrical Translations,\" p. 268.]\n\n[Footnote 72: _S_at. Br. III. 1, 2, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Taitt. Ara_n_yaka X. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 74: Muir, \"Metrical Translations,\" p. 218.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Holtzmann, \"Das alte indische Epos,\" p. 21, note 83.]\n\n[Footnote 76: V. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 77: This permission to prevaricate was still further\nextended. The following five untruths are enumerated by various\nwriters as not constituting mortal sins--namely, at the time of\nmarriage, during dalliance, when life is in danger, when the loss of\nproperty is threatened, and for the sake of a Brahma_n_a. Again,\nanother writer cites the declaration that an untruth is venial if it\nis spoken at the time of marriage, during dalliance, in jest, or while\nsuffering great pain. It is evident that Venus laughed at lovers'\noaths in India as well as elsewhere; and that false testimony\nextracted by torture was excused. Manu declared that in some cases the\ngiver of false evidence from a pious motive would not lose his seat in\nheaven; indeed, that whenever the death of a man of any of the four\ncastes would be occasioned by true evidence, falsehood was even better\nthan truth. He gives as the primeval rule, to say what is true and\nwhat is pleasant, but not what is true and unpleasant, or what is\npleasant and not true. The Vish_n_u-pura_n_a gives like counsel,\nadding the following aphorism: \"A considerate man will always\ncultivate, in act, thought, and speech, that which is good for living\nbeings, both in this world and in the next.\" About the same license\nappears to be used in this country and winked at.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 78: I. 3412; III. 13844; VII. 8742; VIII. 3436, 3464.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Mahabharata VIII. 3448.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Muir, l. c. p. 268; Mahabharata I. 3095.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Mahabharata I. 3015-16.]\n\n[Footnote 82: This explains satisfactorily how the Hindoos became\nliars, and of course admits that they did become so.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 83: _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a, translated by Eggeling, \"Sacred\nBooks of the East,\" vol. xii., p. 313, Sec. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Sir Charles Trevelyan, \"Christianity and Hinduism,\" p.\n81.]\n\n[Footnote 85: IV. 65.]\n\n[Footnote 86: VIII. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 87: VIII. 90.]\n\n[Footnote 88: VIII. 92.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nHUMAN INTEREST OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE.\n\n\nMy first lecture was intended to remove the prejudice that India is\nand always must be a strange country to us, and that those who have to\nlive there will find themselves stranded, and far away from that\nliving stream of thoughts and interests which carries us along in\nEngland and in other countries of Europe.\n\nMy second lecture was directed against another prejudice, namely, that\nthe people of India with whom the young civil servants will have to\npass the best years of their life are a race so depraved morally, and\nmore particularly so devoid of any regard for truth, that they _must_\nalways remain strangers to us, and that any real fellowship or\nfriendship with them is quite out of the question.\n\nTo-day I shall have to grapple with a third prejudice, namely, that\nthe literature of India, and more especially the classical Sanskrit\nliterature, whatever may be its interest to the scholar and the\nantiquarian, has little to teach us which we cannot learn better from\nother sources, and that at all events it is of little practical use to\nyoung civilians. If only they learn to express themselves in\nHindustani or Tamil, that is considered quite enough; nay, as they\nhave to deal with men and with the ordinary affairs of life, and as,\nbefore everything else, they are to be men of the world and men of\nbusiness, it is even supposed to be dangerous, if they allowed\nthemselves to become absorbed in questions of abstruse scholarship or\nin researches on ancient religion, mythology, and philosophy.\n\nI take the very opposite opinion, and I should advise every young man\nwho wishes to enjoy his life in India, and to spend his years there\nwith profit to himself and to others, to learn Sanskrit, and to learn\nit well.\n\nI know it will be said, What can be the use of Sanskrit at the present\nday? Is not Sanskrit a dead language? And are not the Hindus\nthemselves ashamed of their ancient literature? Do they not learn\nEnglish, and do they not prefer Locke, and Hume, and Mill to their\nancient poets and philosophers?\n\nNo doubt Sanskrit, in one sense, is a dead language. It was, I\nbelieve, a dead language more than two thousand years ago. Buddha,\nabout 500 B.C., commanded his disciples to preach in the dialects of\nthe people; and King A_s_oka, in the third century B.C., when he put\nup his Edicts, which were intended to be read, or at least to be\nunderstood by the people, had them engraved on rocks and pillars in\nthe various local dialects from Cabul[89] in the north to Ballabhi in\nthe south, from the sources of the Ganges and the Jumnah to Allahabad\nand Patna, nay even down to Orissa. These various dialects are as\ndifferent from Sanskrit as Italian is from Latin, and we have\ntherefore good reason to suppose that, in the third century B.C., if\nnot earlier, Sanskrit had ceased to be the spoken language of the\npeople at large.\n\nThere is an interesting passage in the _K_ullavagga, where we are told\nthat, even during Buddha's lifetime, some of his pupils, who were\nBrahmans by birth, complained that people spoiled the words of Buddha\nby every one repeating them in his own dialect (nirutti). They\nproposed to translate his words into Sanskrit; but he declined, and\ncommanded that each man should learn his doctrine in his own\nlanguage.[90]\n\nAnd there is another passage, quoted by Hardy in his Manual of\nBuddhism, p. 186, where we read that at the time of Buddha's first\npreaching each of the countless listeners thought that the sage was\nlooking toward him, and was speaking to him in his own tongue, though\nthe language used was Magadhi.[91]\n\nSanskrit, therefore, as a language spoken by the people at large, had\nceased to exist in the third century B.C.\n\nYet such is the marvellous continuity between the past and the present\nin India, that in spite of repeated social convulsions, religious\nreforms, and foreign invasions, Sanskrit may be said to be still the\nonly language that is spoken over the whole extent of that vast\ncountry.\n\nThough the Buddhist sovereigns published their edicts in the\nvernaculars, public inscriptions and private official documents\ncontinued to be composed in Sanskrit during the last two thousand\nyears. And though the language of the sacred writings of Buddhists and\n_G_ainas was borrowed from the vulgar dialects, the literature of\nIndia never ceased to be written in Pa_n_inean Sanskrit, while the few\nexceptions, as, for instance, the use of Prakrit by women and inferior\ncharacters in the plays of Kalidasa and others, are themselves not\nwithout an important historical significance.\n\nEven at the present moment, after a century of English rule and\nEnglish teaching, I believe that Sanskrit is more widely understood in\nIndia than Latin was in Europe at the time of Dante.\n\nWhenever I receive a letter from a learned man in India, it is written\nin Sanskrit. Whenever there is a controversy on questions of law and\nreligion, the pamphlets published in India are written in Sanskrit.\nThere are journals written in Sanskrit which must entirely depend for\ntheir support on readers who prefer that classical language to the\nvulgar dialects. There is _The Pandit_, published at Benares,\ncontaining not only editions of ancient texts, but treatises on modern\nsubjects, reviews of books published in England, and controversial\narticles, all in Sanskrit.\n\nAnother paper of the same kind is the _Pratna-Kamra-nandini_, \"the\nDelight of lovers of old things,\" published likewise at Benares, and\nfull of valuable materials.\n\nThere is also the _Vidyodaya_, \"the Rise of Knowledge,\" a Sanskrit\njournal published at Calcutta, which sometimes contains important\narticles. There are probably others, which I do not know.\n\nThere is a monthly serial published at Bombay, by M. Moreshwar Kunte,\ncalled the _Shad-darshana-Chintanika_, or \"Studies in Indian\nPhilosophy,\" giving the text of the ancient systems of philosophy,\nwith commentaries and treatises, written in Sanskrit, though in this\ncase accompanied by a Marathi and an English translation.\n\nOf the Rig-Veda, the most ancient of Sanskrit books, two editions are\nnow coming out in monthly numbers, the one published at Bombay, by\nwhat may be called the liberal party, the other at Prayaga (Allahabad)\nby Dayananda Sarasvati, the representative of Indian orthodoxy. The\nformer gives a paraphrase in Sanskrit, and a Marathi and an English\ntranslation; the latter a full explanation in Sanskrit, followed by a\nvernacular commentary. These books are published by subscription, and\nthe list of subscribers among the natives of India is very\nconsiderable.\n\nThere are other journals, which are chiefly written in the spoken\ndialects, such as Bengali, Marathi, or Hindi; but they contain occasional\narticles in Sanskrit, as, for instance, the Hari_sk_andra_k_andrika,\npublished at Benares, the _Tattvabodhini_, published at Calcutta, and\nseveral more.\n\nIt was only the other day that I saw in the _Liberal_, the journal of\nKeshub Chunder Sen's party,[92] an account of a meeting between\nBrahmavrata Samadhyayi, a Vedic scholar of Nuddea, and Kashinath\nTrimbak Telang, a M.A. of the University of Bombay. The one came from\nthe east, the other from the west, yet both could converse fluently in\nSanskrit.[93]\n\nStill more extraordinary is the number of Sanskrit texts, issuing from\nnative presses, for which there seems to be a large demand, for if we\nwrite for copies to be sent to England, we often find that, after a\nyear or two, all the copies have been bought up in India itself. That\nwould not be the case with Anglo-Saxon texts in England, or with Latin\ntexts in Italy!\n\nBut more than this, we are told that the ancient epic poems of the\nMahabharata and Ramaya_n_a are still recited in the temples for the\nbenefit of visitors, and that in the villages large crowds assemble\naround the Kathaka, the reader of these ancient Sanskrit poems, often\ninterrupting his recitations with tears and sighs, when the hero of\nthe poem is sent into banishment, while when he returns to his\nkingdom, the houses of the village are adorned with lamps and\ngarlands. Such a recitation of the whole of the Mahabharata is said to\noccupy ninety days, or sometimes half a year.[94] The people at large\nrequire, no doubt, that the Brahman narrator (Kathaka) should\ninterpret the old poem, but there must be some few people present who\nunderstand, or imagine they understand, the old poetry of Vyasa and\nValmiki.\n\nThere are thousands of Brahmans[95] even now, when so little\ninducement exists for Vedic studies, who know the whole of the\nRig-Veda by heart and can repeat it; and what applies to the Rig-Veda\napplies to many other books.\n\nBut even if Sanskrit were more of a dead language than it really is,\nall the living languages of India, both Aryan and Dravidian, draw\ntheir very life and soul from Sanskrit.[96] On this point, and on the\ngreat help that even a limited knowledge of Sanskrit would render in\nthe acquisition of the vernaculars, I, and others better qualified\nthan I am, have spoken so often, though without any practical effect,\nthat I need not speak again. Any candidate who knows but the elements\nof Sanskrit grammar will well understand what I mean, whether his\nspecial vernacular may be Bengali, Hindustani, or even Tamil. To a\nclassical scholar I can only say that between a civil servant who\nknows Sanskrit and Hindustani, and another who knows Hindustani only,\nthere is about the same difference in their power of forming an\nintelligent appreciation of India and its inhabitants, as there is\nbetween a traveller who visits Italy with a knowledge of Latin, and a\nparty personally conducted to Rome by Messrs. Cook & Co.\n\nLet us examine, however, the objection that Sanskrit literature is a\ndead or an artificial literature, a little more carefully, in order to\nsee whether there is not some kind of truth in it. Some people hold\nthat the literary works which we possess in Sanskrit never had any\nreal life at all, that they were altogether scholastic productions,\nand that therefore they can teach us nothing of what we really care\nfor, namely, the historical growth of the Hindu mind. Others maintain\nthat at the present moment, at all events, and after a century of\nEnglish rule, Sanskrit literature has ceased to be a motive power in\nIndia, and that it can teach us nothing of what is passing now through\nthe Hindu mind and influencing it for good or for evil.\n\nLet us look at the facts. Sanskrit literature is a wide and a vague\nterm. If the Vedas, such as we now have them, were composed about 1500\nB.C., and if it is a fact that considerable works continue to be\nwritten in Sanskrit even now, we have before us a stream of literary\nactivity extending over three thousand four hundred years. With the\nexception of China there is nothing like this in the whole world.\n\nIt is difficult to give an idea of the enormous extent and variety of\nthat literature. We are only gradually becoming acquainted with the\nuntold treasures which still exist in manuscripts, and with the titles\nof that still larger number of works which must have existed formerly,\nsome of them being still quoted by writers of the last three or four\ncenturies.[97]\n\nThe Indian Government has of late years ordered a kind of\nbibliographical survey of India to be made, and has sent some learned\nSanskrit scholars, both European and native, to places where\ncollections of Sanskrit MSS. are known to exist, in order to examine\nand catalogue them. Some of these catalogues have been published, and\nwe learn from them that the number of separate works in Sanskrit, of\nwhich mss. are still in existence, amounts to about 10,000.[98] This\nis more, I believe, than the whole classical literature of Greece and\nItaly put together. Much of it, no doubt, will be called mere rubbish;\nbut then you know that even in our days the writings of a very eminent\nphilosopher have been called \"mere rubbish.\" What I wish you to see is\nthis, that there runs through the whole history of India, through its\nthree or four thousand years, a high road, or, it is perhaps more\naccurate to say, a high mountain-path of literature. It may be remote\nfrom the turmoil of the plain, hardly visible perhaps to the millions\nof human beings in their daily struggle of life. It may have been\ntrodden by a few solitary wanderers only. But to the historian of the\nhuman race, to the student of the development of the human mind, those\nfew solitary wanderers are after all the true representatives of India\nfrom age to age. Do not let us be deceived. The true history of the\nworld must always be the history of the few; and as we measure the\nHimalaya by the height of Mount Everest, we must take the true measure\nof India from the poets of the Veda, the sages of the Upanishads, the\nfounders of the Vedanta and Sankhya philosophies, and the authors of\nthe oldest law-books, and not from the millions who are born and die\nin their villages, and who have never for one moment been roused out\nof their drowsy dream of life.\n\nTo large multitudes in India, no doubt, Sanskrit literature was not\nmerely a dead literature, it was simply non-existent; but the same\nmight be said of almost every literature, and more particularly of the\nliteratures of the ancient world.\n\nStill, even beyond this, I am quite prepared to acknowledge to a\ncertain extent the truth of the statement, that a great portion of\nSanskrit literature has never been living and national, in the same\nsense in which the Greek and Roman literatures reflected at times the\nlife of a whole nation; and it is quite true besides, that the\nSanskrit books which are best known to the public at large, belong to\nwhat might correctly be called the Renaissance period of Indian\nliterature, when those who wrote Sanskrit had themselves to learn the\nlanguage, as we learn Latin, and were conscious that they were writing\nfor a learned and cultivated public only, and not for the people at\nlarge.\n\nThis will require a fuller explanation.\n\nWe may divide the whole of Sanskrit literature, beginning with the\nRig-Veda and ending with Dayananda's Introduction to his edition of\nthe Rig-Veda, his by no means uninteresting Rig-Veda-bhumika, into two\ngreat periods: that preceding the great Turanian invasion, and that\nfollowing it.\n\nThe former comprises the Vedic literature and the ancient literature\nof Buddhism, the latter all the rest.\n\nIf I call the invasion which is generally called the invasion of the\n_S_akas, or the Scythians, or Indo-Scythians, or Turushkas, the\n_Turanian[99] invasion_, it is simply because I do not as yet wish to\ncommit myself more than I can help as to the nationality of the tribes\nwho took possession of India, or, at least, of the government of\nIndia, from about the first century B.C. to the third century A.D.\n\nThey are best known by the name of _Yueh-chi_, this being the name by\nwhich they are called in Chinese chronicles. These Chinese chronicles\nform the principal source from which we derive our knowledge of these\ntribes, both before and after their invasion of India. Many theories\nhave been started as to their relationship with other races. They are\ndescribed as of pink and white complexion and as shooting from\nhorseback; and as there was some similarity between their Chinese name\n_Yueh-chi_ and the _Gothi_ or _Goths_, they were identified by\nRemusat[100] with those German tribes, and by others with the _Getae_,\nthe neighbors of the Goths. Tod went even a step farther, and traced\nthe _G_ats in India and the Rajputs back to the _Yueh-chi_ and\n_Getae_.[101] Some light may come in time out of all this darkness, but\nfor the present we must be satisfied with the fact that, between the\nfirst century before and the third century after our era, the greatest\npolitical revolution took place in India owing to the repeated inroads\nof Turanian, or, to use a still less objectionable term, of Northern\ntribes. Their presence in India, recorded by Chinese historians, is\nfully confirmed by coins, by inscriptions, and by the traditional\nhistory of the country, such as it is; but to my mind nothing attests\nthe presence of these foreign invaders more clearly than the break,\nor, I could almost say, the blank in the Brahmanical literature of\nIndia from the first century before to the third century after our\nera.[102]\n\nIf we consider the political and social state of that country, we can\neasily understand what would happen in a case of invasion and conquest\nby a warlike race. The invaders would take possession of the\nstrongholds or castles, and either remove the old Rajahs, or make them\ntheir vassals and agents. Everything else would then go on exactly as\nbefore. The rents would be paid, the taxes collected, and the life of\nthe villagers, that is, of the great majority of the people of India,\nwould go on almost undisturbed by the change of government. The only\npeople who might suffer would be, or, at all events, might be the\npriestly caste, unless they should come to terms with the new\nconquerors. The priestly caste, however, was also to a great extent\nthe literary caste, and the absence of their old patrons, the native\nRajahs, might well produce for a time a complete cessation of literary\nactivity. The rise of Buddhism and its formal adoption by King Asoka\nhad already considerably shaken the power and influence of the old\nBrahmanic hierarchy. The Northern conquerors, whatever their religion\nmay have been, were certainly not believers in the Veda. They seem to\nhave made a kind of compromise with Buddhism, and it is probably due\nto that compromise, or to an amalgamation of _S_aka legends with\nBuddhist doctrines, that we owe the so-called Mahayana form of\nBuddhism--and more particularly the Amitabha worship--which was\nfinally settled at the Council under Kanishka, one of the Turanian\nrulers of India in the first century A.D.\n\nIf then we divide the whole of Sanskrit literature into these two\nperiods, the one anterior to the great Turanian invasion, the other\nposterior to it, we may call the literature of the former period\n_ancient_ and _natural_, that of the latter _modern_ and _artificial_.\n\nOf the former period we possess, _first_, what has been called the\n_Veda_, _i.e._, Knowledge, in the widest sense of the word--a\nconsiderable mass of literature, yet evidently a wreck only, saved out\nof a general deluge; _secondly_, the works collected in the Buddhist\nTripi_t_aka, now known to us chiefly in what is called the Pali\ndialect, the Gatha dialects, and Sanskrit, and probably much added to\nin later times.\n\nThe second period of Sanskrit literature comprehends everything else.\nBoth periods may be subdivided again, but this does not concern us at\npresent.\n\nNow I am quite willing to admit that the literature of the second\nperiod, the modern Sanskrit literature, never was a living or national\nliterature. It here and there contains remnants of earlier times,\nadapted to the literary, religious, and moral tastes of a later\nperiod; and whenever we are able to disentangle those ancient\nelements, they may serve to throw light on the past, and, to a certain\nextent, supplement what has been lost in the literature of the Vedic\ntimes. The metrical Law-books, for instance, contain old materials\nwhich existed during the Vedic period, partly in prose, as Sutras,\npartly in more ancient metres, as Gathas. The Epic poems, the\nMahabharata and Ramaya_n_a, have taken the place of the old Itihasas\nand Akhyanas. The Pura_n_as, even, may contain materials, though much\naltered, of what was called in Vedic literature the Pura_n_a.[103]\n\nBut the great mass of that later literature is artificial or\nscholastic, full of interesting compositions, and by no means devoid\nof originality and occasional beauty; yet with all that, curious only,\nand appealing to the interests of the Oriental scholar far more than\nthe broad human sympathies of the historian and the philosopher.\n\nIt is different with the ancient literature of India, the literature\ndominated by the Vedic and the Buddhistic religions. That literature\nopens to us a chapter in what has been called the Education of the\nHuman Race, to which we can find no parallel anywhere else. Whoever\ncares for the historical growth of our language, that is, of our\nthoughts; whoever cares for the first intelligible development of\nreligion and mythology; whoever cares for the first foundation of what\nin later times we call the sciences of astronomy, metronomy, grammar,\nand etymology; whoever cares for the first intimations of\nphilosophical thought, for the first attempts at regulating family\nlife, village life, and state life, as founded on religion,\nceremonial, tradition and contract (samaya)--must in future pay the\nsame attention to the literature of the Vedic period as to the\nliteratures of Greece and Rome and Germany.\n\nAs to the lessons which the early literature of Buddhism may teach us,\nI need not dwell on them at present. If I may judge from the numerous\nquestions that are addressed to me with regard to that religion and\nits striking coincidences with Christianity, Buddhism has already\nbecome a subject of general interest, and will and ought to become so\nmore and more.[104] On that whole class of literature, however, it is\nnot my intention to dwell in this short course of Lectures, which can\nhardly suffice even for a general survey of Vedic literature, and for\nan elucidation of the principal lessons which, I think, we may learn\nfrom the Hymns, the Brahma_n_as, the Upanishads, and the Sutras.\n\nIt was a real misfortune that Sanskrit literature became first known\nto the learned public in Europe through specimens belonging to the\nsecond, or, what I called, the Renaissance period. The Bhagavadgita,\nthe plays of Kalidasa, such as _S_akuntala or Urva_s_i, a few episodes\nfrom the Mahabharata and Ramaya_n_a, such as those of Nala and the\nYa_gn_adattabadha, the fables of the Hitopadesa, and the sentences of\nBhart_ri_hari are, no doubt, extremely curious; and as, at the time\nwhen they first became known in Europe, they were represented to be of\nextreme antiquity, and the work of a people formerly supposed to be\nquite incapable of high literary efforts, they naturally attracted the\nattention of men such as Sir William Jones in England, Herder and\nGoethe in Germany, who were pleased to speak of them in terms of\nhighest admiration. It was the fashion at that time to speak of\nKalidasa, as, for instance, Alexander von Humboldt did even in so\nrecent a work as his Kosmos, as \"the great contemporary of Virgil and\nHorace, who lived at the splendid court of Vikramaditya,\" this\nVikramaditya being supposed to be the founder of the Samvat era, 56\nB.C. But all this is now changed. Whoever the Vikramaditya was who is\nsupposed to have defeated the _S_akas, and to have founded another\nera, the Samvat era, 56 B.C., he certainly did not live in the first\ncentury B.C. Nor are the Indians looked upon any longer as an\nilliterate race, and their poetry as popular and artless. On the\ncontrary, they are judged now by the same standards as Persians and\nArabs, Italians or French; and, measured by that standard, such works\nas Kalidasa's plays are not superior to many plays that have long been\nallowed to rest in dust and peace on the shelves of our libraries.\nTheir antiquity is no longer believed in by any critical Sanskrit\nscholar. Kalidasa is mentioned with Bharavi as a famous poet in an\ninscription[105] dated A.D. 585-6 (507 _S_aka era), and for the\npresent I see no reason to place him much earlier. As to the Laws of\nManu, which used to be assigned to a fabulous antiquity,[106] and are\nso still sometimes by those who write at random or at second-hand, I\ndoubt whether, in their present form, they can be older than the\nfourth century of our era, nay I am quite prepared to see an even\nlater date assigned to them. I know this will seem heresy to many\nSanskrit scholars, but we must try to be honest to ourselves. Is there\nany evidence to constrain us to assign the Manava-dharma-_s_astra,\nsuch as we now possess it, written in continuous _S_lokas, to any date\nanterior to 300 A.D.? And if there is not, why should we not openly\nstate it, challenge opposition, and feel grateful if our doubts can be\nremoved?\n\nThat Manu was a name of high legal authority before that time, and\nthat Manu and the Manavam are frequently quoted in the ancient legal\nSutras, is quite true; but this serves only to confirm the conviction\nthat the literature which succeeded the Turanian invasion is full of\nwrecks saved from the intervening deluge. If what we call the _Laws of\nManu_ had really existed as a code of laws, like the Code of\nJustinian, during previous centuries, is it likely that it should\nnowhere have been quoted and appealed to?\n\nVarahamihira (who died 587 A.D.) refers to Manu several times, but not\nto a Manava-dharma-_s_astra; and the only time where he seems actually\nto quote a number of verses from Manu, these verses are not to be met\nwith in our text.[107]\n\nI believe it will be found that the century in which Varahamihara\nlived and wrote was the age of the literary Renaissance in India.[108]\nThat Kalidasa and Bharavi were famous at that time, we know from the\nevidence of inscriptions. We also know that during that century the\nfame of Indian literature had reached Persia, and that the King of\nPersia, Khosru Nushirvan, sent his physician, Barzoi, to India, in\norder to translate the fables of the Pa_nk_atantra, or rather their\noriginal, from Sanskrit into Pahlavi. The famous \"Nine Gems,\" or\n\"the nine classics,\" as we should say, have been referred, at least in\npart, to the same age,[109] and I doubt whether we shall be able to\nassign a much earlier date to anything we possess of Sanskrit\nliterature, excepting always the Vedic and Buddhistic writings.\n\nAlthough the specimens of this modern Sanskrit literature, when they\nfirst became known, served to arouse a general interest, and serve\neven now to keep alive a certain superficial sympathy for Indian\nliterature, more serious students had soon disposed of these\ncompositions, and while gladly admitting their claim to be called\npretty and attractive, could not think of allowing to Sanskrit\nliterature a place among the world-literatures, a place by the side of\nGreek and Latin, Italian, French, English, or German.\n\nThere was indeed a time when people began to imagine that all that was\nworth knowing about Indian literature was known, and that the only\nground on which Sanskrit could claim a place among the recognized\nbranches of learning in a university was its usefulness for the study\nof the Science of Language.\n\nAt that very time, however, now about forty years ago, a new start was\nmade, which has given to Sanskrit scholarship an entirely new\ncharacter. The chief author of that movement was Burnouf, then\nprofessor at the _College de France_ in Paris, an excellent scholar,\nbut at the same time a man of wide views and true historical\ninstincts, and the last man to waste his life on mere Nalas and\n_S_akuntalas. Being brought up in the old traditions of the classical\nschool in France (his father was the author of the well-known Greek\nGrammar), then for a time a promising young barrister, with\ninfluential friends such as Guizot, Thiers, Mignet, Villemain, at his\nside, and with a brilliant future before him, he was not likely to\nspend his life on pretty Sanskrit ditties. What he wanted when he\nthrew himself on Sanskrit was history, human history, world-history,\nand with an unerring grasp he laid hold of Vedic literature and\nBuddhist literature, as the two stepping-stones in the slough of\nIndian literature. He died young, and has left a few arches only of\nthe building he wished to rear. But his spirit lived on in his pupils\nand his friends, and few would deny that the first impulse, directly\nor indirectly, to all that has been accomplished since by the students\nof Vedic and Buddhist literature, was given by Burnouf and his\nlectures at the _College de France_.\n\nWhat then, you may ask, do we find in that ancient Sanskrit literature\nand cannot find anywhere else? My answer is: We find there the Aryan\nman, whom we know in his various characters, as Greek, Roman, German,\nCelt, and Slave, in an entirely new character. Whereas in his\nmigrations northward his active and political energies are called out\nand brought to their highest perfection, we find the other side of the\nhuman character, the passive and meditative, carried to its fullest\ngrowth in India. In some of the hymns of the Rig-Veda we can still\nwatch an earlier phase. We see the Aryan tribes taking possession of\nthe land, and under the guidance of such warlike gods as Indra and the\nMaruts, defending their new homes against the assaults of the\nblack-skinned aborigines as well as against the inroads of later Aryan\ncolonists. But that period of war soon came to an end, and when the\ngreat mass of the people had once settled down in their homesteads,\nthe military and political duties seem to have been monopolized by\nwhat we call a _caste_,[110] that is by a small aristocracy, while the\ngreat majority of the people were satisfied with spending their days\nwithin the narrow spheres of their villages, little concerned about\nthe outside world, and content with the gifts that nature bestowed on\nthem, without much labor. We read in the Mahabharata (XIII. 22):\n\n    \"There is fruit on the trees in every forest, which every one\n    who likes may pluck without trouble. There is cool and sweet\n    water in the pure rivers here and there. There is a soft bed\n    made of the twigs of beautiful creepers. And yet wretched\n    people suffer pain at the door of the rich!\"\n\nAt first sight we may feel inclined to call this quiet enjoyment of\nlife, this mere looking on, a degeneracy rather than a growth. It\nseems so different from what _we_ think life ought to be. Yet, from a\nhigher point of view it may appear that those Southern Aryans have\nchosen the good part, or at least the part good for them, while we,\nNorthern Aryans, have been careful and troubled about many things.\n\nIt is at all events a problem worth considering whether, as there is\nin nature a South and a North, there are not two hemispheres also in\nhuman nature, both worth developing--the active, combative, and\npolitical on one side, the passive, meditative, and philosophical on\nthe other; and for the solution of that problem no literature\nfurnishes such ample materials as that of the Veda, beginning with the\nHymns and ending with the Upanishads. We enter into a new world--not\nalways an attractive one, least of all to us; but it possesses one\ncharm, it is real, it is of natural growth, and like everything of\nnatural growth, I believe it had a hidden purpose, and was intended to\nteach us some kind of lesson that is worth learning, and that\ncertainly we could learn nowhere else. We are not called upon either\nto admire or to despise that ancient Vedic literature; we have simply\nto study and to try to understand it.\n\nThere have been silly persons who have represented the development of\nthe Indian mind as superior to any other, nay, who would make us go\nback to the Veda or to the sacred writings of the Buddhists in order\nto find there a truer religion, a purer morality, and a more sublime\nphilosophy than our own. I shall not even mention the names of these\nwriters or the titles of their works. But I feel equally impatient\nwhen I see other scholars criticising the ancient literature of India\nas if it were the work of the nineteenth century, as if it represented\nan enemy that must be defeated, and that can claim no mercy at our\nhands. That the Veda is full of childish, silly, even to our minds\nmonstrous conceptions, who would deny? But even these monstrosities\nare interesting and instructive; nay, many of them, if we can but make\nallowance for different ways of thought and language, contain germs of\ntruth and rays of light, all the more striking because breaking upon\nus through the veil of the darkest night.\n\nHere lies the general, the truly human interest which the _ancient_\nliterature of India possesses, and which gives it a claim on the\nattention, not only of Oriental scholars or of students of ancient\nhistory, but of every educated man and woman.\n\nThere are problems which we may put aside for a time, ay, which we\nmust put aside while engaged each in our own hard struggle for life,\nbut which will recur for all that, and which, whenever they do recur,\nwill stir us more deeply than we like to confess to others, or even to\nourselves. It is true that with us one day only out of seven is set\napart for rest and meditation, and for the consideration of what the\nGreeks called [Greek: ta megista]--\"the greatest things.\"\nIt is true that that seventh day also is passed by many of us either\nin mere church-going routine or in thoughtless rest. But whether on\nweek-days or on Sundays, whether in youth or in old age, there are\nmoments, rare though they be, yet for all that the most critical\nmoments of our life, when the old simple questions of humanity return\nto us in all their intensity, and we ask ourselves, What are we? What\nis this life on earth meant for? Are we to have no rest here, but to\nbe always toiling and building up our own happiness out of the ruins\nof the happiness of our neighbors? And when we have made our home on\nearth as comfortable as it can be made with steam and gas and\nelectricity, are we really so much happier than the Hindu in his\nprimitive homestead?\n\nWith us, as I said just now, in these Northern climates, where life is\nand always must be a struggle, and a hard struggle too, and where\naccumulation of wealth has become almost a necessity to guard against\nthe uncertainties of old age or the accidents inevitable in our\ncomplicated social life--with us, I say, and in our society, hours of\nrest and meditation are but few and far between. It was the same as\nlong as we know the history of the Teutonic races; it was the same\neven with Romans and Greeks. The European climate, with its long cold\nwinters, in many places also the difficulty of cultivating the soil,\nthe conflict of interests between small communities, has developed the\ninstinct of self-preservation (not to say self-indulgence) to such an\nextent that most of the virtues and most of the vices of European\nsociety can be traced back to that source. Our own character was\nformed under these influences, by inheritance, by education, by\nnecessity. We all lead a fighting-life; our highest ideal of life is a\nfighting-life. We work till we can work no longer, and are proud, like\nold horses, to die in harness. We point with inward satisfaction to\nwhat we and our ancestors have achieved by hard work, in founding a\nfamily or a business, a town or a state. We point to the marvels of\nwhat we call civilization--our splendid cities, our high-roads and\nbridges, our ships, our railways, our telegraphs, our electric light,\nour pictures, our statues, our music, our theatres. We imagine we have\nmade life on earth quite perfect--in some cases so perfect that we are\nalmost sorry to leave it again. But the lesson which both Brahmans and\nBuddhists are never tired of teaching is that this life is but a\njourney from one village to another, and not a resting-place. Thus we\nread:[111]\n\n    \"As a man journeying to another village may enjoy a night's\n    rest in the open air, but, after leaving his resting-place,\n    proceeds again on his journey the next day, thus father,\n    mother, wife, and wealth are all but like a night's rest to\n    us--wise people do not cling to them forever.\"\n\nInstead of simply despising this Indian view of life, might we not\npause for a moment and consider whether their philosophy of life is\nentirely wrong, and ours entirely right; whether this earth was really\nmeant for work only (for with us pleasure also has been changed into\nwork), for constant hurry and flurry; or whether we, sturdy Northern\nAryans, might not have been satisfied with a little less of work, and\na little less of so-called pleasure, but with a little more of thought\nand a little more of rest. For, short as our life is, we are not mere\nmay-flies, that are born in the morning to die at night. We have a\npast to look back to and a future to look forward to, and it may be\nthat some of the riddles of the future find their solution in the\nwisdom of the past.\n\nThen why should we always fix our eyes on the present only? Why should\nwe always be racing, whether for wealth or for power or for fame? Why\nshould we never rest and be thankful?\n\nI do not deny that the manly vigor, the silent endurance, the public\nspirit, and the private virtues too, of the citizens of European\nstates represent one side, it may be a very important side, of the\ndestiny which man has to fulfil on earth.\n\nBut there is surely another side of our nature, and possibly another\ndestiny open to man in his journey across this life, which should not\nbe entirely ignored. If we turn our eyes to the East, and particularly\nto India, where life is, or at all events was, no very severe\nstruggle, where the climate was mild, the soil fertile, where\nvegetable food in small quantities sufficed to keep the body in health\nand strength, where the simplest hut or cave in a forest was all the\nshelter required, and where social life never assumed the gigantic, ay\nmonstrous proportions of a London or Paris, but fulfilled itself\nwithin the narrow boundaries of village-communities--was it not, I\nsay, natural there, or, if you like, was it not _intended_ there, that\nanother side of human nature should be developed--not the active, the\ncombative, and acquisitive, but the passive, the meditative, and\nreflective? Can we wonder that the Aryans, who stepped as strangers\ninto some of the happy fields and valleys along the Indus or the\nGanges, should have looked upon life as a perpetual Sunday or holiday,\nor a kind of long vacation, delightful so long as it lasts, but which\nmust come to an end sooner or later? Why should they have accumulated\nwealth? why should they have built palaces? why should they have\ntoiled day and night? After having provided from day to day for the\nsmall necessities of the body, they thought they had the right, it may\nbe the duty, to look round upon this strange exile, to look inward\nupon themselves, upward to something not themselves, and to see\nwhether they could not understand a little of the true purport of that\nmystery which we call life on earth.\n\nOf course _we_ should call such notions of life dreamy, unreal,\nunpractical, but may not _they_ look upon our notions of life as\nshort-sighted, fussy, and, in the end, most unpractical, because\ninvolving a sacrifice of life for the sake of life?\n\nNo doubt these are both extreme views, and they have hardly ever been\nheld or realized in that extreme form by any nation, whether in the\nEast or in the West. We are not always plodding--we sometimes allow\nourselves an hour of rest and peace and thought--nor were the ancient\npeople of India always dreaming and meditating on [Greek: ta megista],\non the great problems of life, but, when called upon, we know that they\ntoo could fight like heroes, and that, without machinery, they could by\npatient toil raise even the meanest handiwork into a work of art, a real\njoy to the maker and to the buyer.\n\nAll then that I wish to put clearly before you is this, that the Aryan\nman, who had to fulfil his mission in India, might naturally be\ndeficient in many of the practical and fighting virtues, which were\ndeveloped in the Northern Aryans by the very struggle without which\nthey could not have survived, but that his life on earth had not\ntherefore been entirely wasted. His very view of life, though we\ncannot adopt it in this Northern climate, may yet act as a lesson and\na warning to us, not, for the sake of life, to sacrifice the highest\nobjects of life.\n\nThe greatest conqueror of antiquity stood in silent wonderment before\nthe Indian Gymnosophists, regretting that he could not communicate\nwith them in their own language, and that their wisdom could not reach\nhim except through the contaminating channels of sundry interpreters.\n\nThat need not be so at present. Sanskrit is no longer a difficult\nlanguage, and I can assure every young Indian civil servant that if he\nwill but go to the fountain-head of Indian wisdom, he will find there,\namong much that is strange and useless, some lessons of life which are\nworth learning, and which we in our haste are too apt to forget or to\ndespise.\n\nLet me read you a few sayings only, which you may still hear repeated\nin India when, after the heat of the day, the old and the young\nassemble together under the shadow of their village tree--sayings\nwhich to them seem truth; to us, I fear, mere truism!\n\n    \"As all have to sleep together laid low in the earth, why do\n    foolish people wish to injure one another?[112]\n\n    \"A man seeking for eternal happiness (moksha) might obtain it\n    by a hundredth part of the sufferings which a foolish man\n    endures in the pursuit of riches.[113]\n\n    \"Poor men eat more excellent bread than the rich: for hunger\n    gives it sweetness.[114]\n\n    \"Our body is like the foam of the sea, our life like a bird,\n    our company with those whom we love does not last forever;\n    why then sleepest thou, my son?[115]\n\n    \"As two logs of wood meet upon the ocean and then separate\n    again, thus do living creatures meet.[116]\n\n    \"Our meeting with wives, relations, and friends occurs on our\n    journey. Let a man therefore see clearly where he is, whither\n    he will go, what he is, why tarrying here, and why grieving\n    for anything.[117]\n\n    \"Family, wife, children, our very body and our wealth, they\n    all pass away. They do not belong to us. What then is ours?\n    Our good and our evil deeds.[118]\n\n    \"When thou goest away from here, no one will follow thee.\n    Only thy good and thy evil deeds, they will follow thee\n    wherever thou goest.[119]\n\n    \"Whatever act, good or bad, a man performs, of that by\n    necessity he receives the recompense.[120]\n\n    \"According to the Veda[121] the soul (life) is eternal, but\n    the body of all creatures is perishable. When the body is\n    destroyed, the soul departs elsewhere, fettered by the bonds\n    of our works.\n\n    \"If I know that my own body is not mine, and yet that the\n    whole earth is mine, and again that it is both mine and\n    thine, no harm can happen then.[122]\n\n    \"As a man puts on new garments in this world, throwing aside\n    those which he formerly wore, even so the Self[123] of man\n    puts on new bodies which are in accordance with his\n    acts.[124]\n\n    \"No weapons will hurt the Self of man, no fire will burn it,\n    no water moisten it, no wind will dry it up.\n\n    \"It is not to be hurt, not to be burnt, not to be moistened,\n    not to be dried up. It is imperishable, unchanging,\n    immovable, without beginning.\n\n    \"It is said to be immaterial, passing all understanding, and\n    unchangeable. If you know the Self of man to be all this,\n    grieve not.\n\n    \"There is nothing higher than the attainment of the knowledge\n    of the Self.[125]\n\n    \"All living creatures are the dwelling of the Self who lies\n    enveloped in matter, who is immortal, and spotless. Those who\n    worship the Self, the immovable, living in a movable\n    dwelling, become immortal.\n\n    \"Despising everything else, a wise man should strive after\n    the knowledge of the Self.\"\n\nWe shall have to return to this subject again, for this knowledge of\nthe Self is really the _Vedanta_, that is, the end, the highest goal\nof the Veda. The highest wisdom of Greece was \"to know ourselves;\" the\nhighest wisdom of India is \"to know our Self.\"\n\nIf I were asked to indicate by one word the distinguishing feature of\nthe Indian character, as I have here tried to sketch it, I should say\nit was _transcendent_, using that word, not in its strict technical\nsense, as fixed by Kant, but in its more general acceptation, as\ndenoting a mind bent on transcending the limits of empirical\nknowledge. There are minds perfectly satisfied with empirical\nknowledge, a knowledge of facts, well ascertained, well classified,\nand well labelled. Such knowledge may assume very vast proportions,\nand, if knowledge is power, it may impart great power, real\nintellectual power to the man who can wield and utilize it. Our own\nage is proud of that kind of knowledge, and to be content with it, and\nnever to attempt to look beyond it, is, I believe, one of the happiest\nstates of mind to be in.[126]\n\nBut, for all that, there is a Beyond, and he who has once caught a\nglance of it, is like a man who has gazed at the sun--wherever he\nlooks, everywhere he sees the image of the sun. Speak to him of finite\nthings, and he will tell you that the Finite is impossible and\nmeaningless without the Infinite. Speak to him of death, and he will\ncall it birth; speak to him of time, and he will call it the mere\nshadow of eternity. To us the senses seem to be the organs, the tools,\nthe most powerful engines of knowledge; to him they are, if not\nactually deceivers, at all events heavy fetters, checking the flight\nof the spirit. To us this earth, this life, all that we see, and hear,\nand touch is certain. Here, we feel, is our home, here lie our duties,\nhere our pleasures. To him this earth is a thing that once was not,\nand that again will cease to be; this life is a short dream from which\nwe shall soon awake. Of nothing he professes greater ignorance than of\nwhat to others seems to be most certain, namely what we see, and hear,\nand touch; and as to our home, wherever that may be, he knows that\ncertainly it is not here.\n\nDo not suppose that such men are mere dreamers. Far from it! And if we\ncan only bring ourselves to be quite honest to ourselves, we shall\nhave to confess that at times we all have been visited by these\ntranscendental aspirations, and have been able to understand what\nWordsworth meant when he spoke of those\n\n              \"Obstinate questionings\n    Of sense and outward things,\n    Fallings from us, vanishings;\n    Blank misgivings of a creature\n    Moving about in worlds not realized.\"\n\nThe transcendent temperament acquired no doubt a more complete\nsupremacy in the Indian character than anywhere else; but no nation,\nand no individual, is entirely without that \"yearning beyond;\" indeed\nwe all know it under a more familiar name--namely, _Religion_.\n\nIt is necessary, however, to distinguish between religion and _a_\nreligion, quite as much as in another branch of philosophy we have to\ndistinguish between language and _a_ language or many languages. A man\nmay accept _a_ religion, he may be converted to the Christian\nreligion, and he may change his own particular religion from time to\ntime, just as he may speak different languages. But in order to have\n_a_ religion, a man must have religion. He must once _at least_ in his\nlife have looked beyond the horizon of this world, and carried away in\nhis mind an impression of the Infinite, which will never leave him\nagain. A being satisfied with the world of sense, unconscious of its\nfinite nature, undisturbed by the limited or negative character of all\nperceptions of the senses, would be incapable of any religious\nconcepts. Only when the finite character of all human knowledge has\nbeen received is it possible for the human mind to conceive that which\nis beyond the Finite, call it what you like, the Beyond, the Unseen,\nthe Infinite, the Supernatural, or the Divine. That step must have\nbeen taken before religion of any kind becomes possible. What kind of\nreligion it will be, depends on the character of the race which\nelaborates it, its surroundings in nature, and its experience in\nhistory.\n\nNow we may seem to know a great many religions--I speak here, of\ncourse, of ancient religions only, of what are sometimes called\nnational or autochthonous religions--not of those founded in later\ntimes by individual prophets or reformers.\n\nYet, among those ancient religions we seldom know, what after all is\nthe most important point, their origin and their gradual growth. The\nJewish religion is represented to us as perfect and complete from the\nvery first, and it is with great difficulty that we can discover its\nreal beginnings and its historical growth. And take the Greek and the\nRoman religions, take the religions of the Teutonic, Slavonic, or\nCeltic tribes, and you will find that their period of growth has\nalways passed, long before we know them, and that from the time we\nknow them, all their changes are purely _metamorphic_--changes in form\nof substances ready at hand. Now let us look to the ancient\ninhabitants of India. With them, first of all, religion was not only\n_one_ interest by the side of many. It was the all-absorbing interest;\nit embraced not only worship and prayer, but what we call philosophy,\nmorality, law, and government--all was pervaded by religion. Their\nwhole life was to them a religion--everything else was, as it were, a\nmere concession made to the ephemeral requirements of this life.\n\nWhat then can we learn from the ancient religious literature of India,\nor from the Veda?\n\nIt requires no very profound knowledge of Greek religion and Greek\nlanguage to discover in the Greek deities the original outlines of\ncertain physical phenomena. Every schoolboy knows that in _Zeus_ there\nis something of the sky, in _Poseidon_ of the sea, in _Hades_ of the\nlower world, in _Apollo_ of the sun, in _Artemis_ of the moon, in\n_Hephaestos_ of the fire. But for all that, there is, from a Greek\npoint of view, a very considerable difference between _Zeus_ and the\nsky, between _Poseidon_ and the sea, between _Apollo_ and the sun,\nbetween _Artemis_ and the moon.\n\nNow what do we find in the Veda? No doubt here and there a few\nphilosophical hymns which have been quoted so often that people have\nbegun to imagine that the Veda is a kind of collection of Orphic\nhymns. We also find some purely mythological hymns, in which the Devas\nor gods have assumed nearly as much dramatic personality as in the\nHomeric hymns.\n\nBut the great majority of Vedic hymns consists in simple invocations\nof the fire, the water, the sky, the sun, and the storms, often under\nthe same names which afterward became the proper names of Hindu\ndeities, but as yet nearly free from all that can be called irrational\nor mythological. There is nothing irrational, nothing I mean we cannot\nenter into or sympathize with, in people imploring the storms to\ncease, or the sky to rain, or the sun to shine. I say there is nothing\nirrational in it, though perhaps it might be more accurate to say\nthat there is nothing in it that would surprise anybody who is\nacquainted with the growth of human reason, or at all events, of\nchildish reason. It does not matter how we call the tendency of the\nchildish mind to confound the manifestation with that which manifests\nitself, effect with cause, act with agent. Call it Animism,\nPersonification, Metaphor, or Poetry, we all know what is meant by it,\nin the most general sense of all these names; we all know that it\nexists, and the youngest child who beats the chair against which he\nhas fallen, or who scolds his dog, or who sings: \"Rain, rain, go to\nSpain,\" can teach us that, however irrational all this may seem to us,\nit is perfectly rational, natural, ay inevitable in the first periods,\nor the childish age of the human mind.\n\nNow it is exactly this period in the growth of ancient religion, which\nwas always presupposed or postulated, but was absent everywhere else,\nthat is clearly put before us in the hymns of the Rig-Veda. It is this\nancient chapter in the history of the human mind which has been\npreserved to us in Indian literature, while we look for it in vain in\nGreece or Rome or elsewhere.\n\nIt has been a favorite idea of those who call themselves \"students of\nman,\" or anthropologists, that in order to know the earliest or\nso-called prehistoric phases in the growth of man, we should study the\nlife of savage nations, as we may watch it still in some parts of\nAsia, Africa, Polynesia, and America.\n\nThere is much truth in this, and nothing can be more useful than the\nobservations which we find collected in the works of such students as\nWaitz, Tylor, Lubbock, and many others. But let us be honest, and\nconfess, first of all, that the materials on which we have here to\ndepend are often extremely untrustworthy.\n\nNor is this all. What do we know of savage tribes beyond the last\nchapter of their history? Do we ever get an insight into their\nantecedents? Can we understand, what after all is everywhere the most\nimportant and the most instructive lesson to learn, how they have come\nto be what they are? There is indeed their language, and in it we see\ntraces of growth that point to distant ages, quite as much as the\nGreek of Homer or the Sanskrit of the Vedas. Their language proves\nindeed that these so-called heathens, with their complicated systems\nof mythology, their artificial customs, their unintelligible whims and\nsavageries, are not the creatures of to-day or yesterday. Unless we\nadmit a special creation for these savages, they must be as old as the\nHindus, the Greeks and Romans, as old as we ourselves. We may assume,\nof course, if we like, that their life has been stationary, and that\nthey are to-day what the Hindus were no longer 3000 years ago. But\nthat is a mere guess, and is contradicted by the facts of their\nlanguage. They may have passed through ever so many vicissitudes, and\nwhat we consider as primitive may be, for all we know, a relapse into\nsavagery, or a corruption of something that was more rational and\nintelligible in former stages. Think only of the rules that determine\nmarriage among the lowest of savage tribes. Their complication passes\nall understanding, all seems a chaos of prejudice, superstition,\npride, vanity, and stupidity. And yet we catch a glimpse here and\nthere that there was some reason in most of that unreason; we see how\nsense dwindled away into nonsense, custom into ceremony, ceremony into\nfarce. Why then should this surface of savage life represent to us the\nlowest stratum of human life, the very beginnings of civilization,\nsimply because we cannot dig beyond that surface?\n\nNow, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not claim for the\nancient Indian literature any more than I should willingly concede to\nthe fables and traditions and songs of savage nations, such as we can\nstudy at present in what we call a state of nature. Both are important\ndocuments to the student of the Science of Man. I simply say that in\nthe Veda we have a nearer approach to a beginning, and an intelligible\nbeginning, than in the wild invocations of Hottentots or Bushmen. But\nwhen I speak of a beginning, I do not mean an absolute beginning, a\nbeginning of all things. Again and again the question has been asked\nwhether we could bring ourselves to believe that man, as soon as he\ncould stand on his legs, instead of crawling on all fours, as he is\nsupposed to have done, burst forth into singing Vedic hymns? But who\nhas ever maintained this? Surely whoever has eyes to see can see in\nevery Vedic hymn, ay, in every Vedic word, as many rings within rings\nas are in the oldest tree that was ever hewn down in the forest.\n\nI shall say even more, and I have said it before, namely, that\nsupposing that the Vedic hymns were composed between 1500 and 1000\nB.C., we can hardly understand how, at so early a date, the Indians\nhad developed ideas which to us sound decidedly modern. I should give\nanything if I could escape from the conclusion that the collection of\nthe Vedic Hymns, a collection in ten books, existed at least 1000\nB.C., that is, about 500 years before the rise of Buddhism. I do not\nmean to say that something may not be discovered hereafter to enable\nus to refer that collection to a later date. All I say is that, so far\nas we know _at present_, so far as all honest Sanskrit scholars know\n_at present_, we cannot well bring our pre-Buddhistic literature into\nnarrower limits than five hundred years.\n\nWhat then is to be done? We must simply keep our preconceived notions\nof what people call primitive humanity in abeyance for a time, and if\nwe find that people three thousand years ago were familiar with ideas\nthat seem novel and nineteenth-century-like to us, well, we must\nsomewhat modify our conceptions of the primitive savage, and remember\nthat things hid from the wise and prudent have sometimes been revealed\nto babes.\n\nI maintain then that for a study of man, or, if you like, for a study\nof Aryan humanity, there is nothing in the world equal in importance\nwith the Veda. I maintain that to everybody who cares for himself, for\nhis ancestors, for his history, or for his intellectual development, a\nstudy of Vedic literature is indispensable; and that, as an element of\nliberal education, it is far more important and far more improving\nthan the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings.\n\nIt is curious to observe the reluctance with which these facts are\naccepted, particularly by those to whom they ought to be most welcome,\nI mean the students of anthropology. Instead of devoting all their\nenergy to the study of these documents, which have come upon us like a\nmiracle, they seem only bent on inventing excuses why they need not be\nstudied. Let it not be supposed that, because there are several\ntranslations of the Rig-Veda in English, French and German, therefore\nall that the Veda can teach us has been learned. Far from it. Every\none of these translations has been put forward as tentative only. I\nmyself, though during the last thirty years I have given translations\nof a number of the more important hymns, have only ventured to publish\na specimen of what I think a translation of the Veda ought to be; and\nthat translation, that _traduction raisonnee_ as I ventured to call\nit, of twelve hymns only, fills a whole volume. We are still on the\nmere surface of Vedic literature, and yet our critics are ready with\never so many arguments why the Veda can teach us nothing as to a\nprimitive state of man. If they mean by primitive that which came\nabsolutely first, then they ask for something which they will never\nget, not even if they discovered the private correspondence of Adam\nand Eve, or of the first _Homo_ and _Femina sapiens_. We mean by\nprimitive the earliest state of man of which, from the nature of the\ncase, we can hope to gain any knowledge; and here, next to the\narchives hidden away in the secret drawers of language, in the\ntreasury of words common to all the Aryan tribes, and in the radical\nelements of which each word is compounded, there is no literary relic\nmore full of lessons to the true anthropologist, to the true student\nof mankind, than the Rig-Veda.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 89: See Cunningham, \"Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum,\" vol.\ni., 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 90: _K_ulavagga V. 33, 1. The expression used is _Kh_andaso\naropema'ti.]\n\n[Footnote 91: See Rhys Davids, Buddhist Suttas, \"Sacred Books of the\nEast,\" vol. xi., p. 142.]\n\n[Footnote 92: The Brahmo-Samaj, a theistic school.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 93: The _Liberal_, March 12, 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 94: See R. G. Bhandarkar, Consideration of the date of the\nMahabharata, _Journal of the R. A. S. of Bombay_, 1872; Talboys\nWheeler, \"History of India,\" ii. 365, 572; Holtzmann, \"Ueber das alte\nindische Epos,\" 1881, p. 1; Phear, \"The Aryan Village in India and\nCeylon,\" p. 19. That the Mahabharata was publicly read in the seventh\ncentury A.D., we learn from Ba_n_a; see _Journal of the Royal Asiatic\nSociety_, Bombay, vol. x., p. 87, note.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 95: \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 157.]\n\n[Footnote 96: \"Every person acquainted with the spoken speech of India\nknows perfectly well that its elevation to the dignity and usefulness\nof written speech has depended, and must still depend, upon its\nborrowing largely from its parent or kindred source; that no man who\nis ignorant of Arabic or Sanskrit can write Hindustani or Bengali with\nelegance, or purity, or precision, and that the condemnation of the\nclassical languages to oblivion would consign the dialects to utter\nhelplessness and irretrievable barbarism.\"--H. H. Wilson, _Asiatic\nJournal_, Jan., 1836; vol xix., p. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 97: It would be a most useful work for any young scholar to\ndraw up a list of Sanskrit books which are quoted by later writers,\nbut have not yet been met with in Indian libraries.]\n\n[Footnote 98: \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 133.]\n\n[Footnote 99: This vague term, _Turanian_, so much used in the Parsi\nScriptures, is used here in the sense of unclassified ethnically.--A.\nW.]\n\n[Footnote 100: \"Recherches sur les langues Tartares,\" 1820, vol. i.,\np. 327; \"Lassen,\" I. A., vol. ii., p. 359.]\n\n[Footnote 101: Lassen, who at first rejected the identification of\n_G_ats and Yueh-chi, was afterward inclined to accept it.]\n\n[Footnote 102: The Yueh-chi appear to have begun their invasion about\n130 B.C. At this period the Grecian kingdom of Bactria, after a\nbrilliant existence of a century, had fallen before the Tochari, a\nScythian people. The new invaders, called [Greek: Ephthalitai] by the\nGreeks, had been driven out of their old abodes and now occupied the\ncountry lying between Parthia at the west, the Oxus and Surkhab, and\nextending into Little Thibet. They were herdsmen and nomads. At this\ntime India was governed by the descendants of Asoka, the great\npropagandist of Buddhism. About twenty years before the Christian era,\nor probably earlier, the Yueh-chi, under Karranos, crossed the Indus and\nconquered the country, which remained subject to them for three\ncenturies. The Chinese historians Sze-ma Tsien and Han-yo, give these\naccounts, which are however confirmed by numismatic and other\nevidence.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 103: \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 154, note.]\n\n[Footnote 104: In June, 1882, a Conference on Buddhism was held at\nSion College, to discuss the real or apparent coincidences between the\nreligions of Buddha and Christ. Professor Mueller addressed two letters\nto the secretary, which were afterward published, declaring such a\ndiscussion in general terms almost an impossibility. \"The name of\nBuddhism,\" he says, \"is applied to religious opinions, not only of the\nmost varying, but of a decidedly opposite character, held by people on\nthe highest and lowest stages of civilization, divided into endless\nsects, nay, founded on two distinct codes of canonical writings.\" Two\nBuddhist priests who were reading Sanskrit with him would hardly\nrecognize the Buddhism now practiced in Ceylon as their own religion.\n\nHe also acknowledged the startling coincidences between Buddhism and\nChristianity, and that Buddhism existed at least 400 years before\nChristianity. He would go farther, and feel extremely grateful if\nanybody would point out to him the historical channels through which\nBuddhism had influenced early Christianity. \"I have been looking for\nsuch channels all my life,\" says he, \"but hitherto I have found none.\nWhat I have found is that for some of the most startling coincidences\nthere are historical antecedents on both sides; and if we knew these\nantecedents, the coincidences become far less startling. If I do find\nin certain Buddhist works doctrines identically the same as in\nChristianity, so far from being frightened, I feel delighted, for\nsurely truth is not the less true because it is believed by the\nmajority of the human race.\n\n\"I believe we have made some progress during the last thirty years. I\nstill remember the time when all heathen religions were looked upon as\nthe work of the devil.(A1) We know now that they are stages in a\ngrowth, and in a growth not determined by an accidental environment\nonly, but by an original purpose, a purpose to be realized in the\nhistory of the human race as a whole. Even missionaries have begun to\napproach the heathen in a new and better spirit. They look for what\nmay safely be preserved in the religion of their pupils, and on that\ncommon ground they try to erect a purer faith and a better worship,\ninstead of attempting to destroy the sacred foundations of religion,\nwhich, I believe, exist, or at least, existed, in every human heart.\"\n\nHe also states that the publishing of the \"Rig-Veda and Commentary,\"\nhis life-work, had produced a complete revolution both in our views of\nancient religions and in the religious life of the Hindus themselves;\nand this not so much on the surface as in its deepest foundations.--A.\nW.\n\nA1: We have no knowledge of such a belief. The common Christian theory\nis that Christianity is as old as the garden of Eden, and that truth\nin other religions is the result of contact, somewhere, at some time,\nwith Christianity.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Published by Fleet in the \"Indian Antiquary,\" 1876, pp.\n68-73, and first mentioned by Dr. Bhao Daji, Journal Asiatic Society,\nBombay Branch, vol. ix.]\n\n[Footnote 106: Sir William Jones fixed their date at 1280 B.C.;\nElphinstone as 900 B.C. It has recently been stated that they could\nnot reasonably be placed later than the fifth century B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 107: A very useful indication of the age of the\nDharma-sutras, as compared with the metrical Dharma-_s_astras or\nSa_m_hitas, is to be found in the presence or absence in them of any\nreference to written documents. Such written documents, if they\nexisted, could hardly be passed over in silence in law-books,\nparticularly when the nature of witnesses is discussed in support of\nloans, pledges, etc. Now, we see that in treating of the law of debt\nand debtors,(A1) the Dharma-sutras of Gautama, Baudhayana, and\nApastamba never mention evidence in writing. Vasish_th_a only refers\nto written evidence, but in a passage which may be interpolated,(A2)\nconsidering that in other respects his treatment of the law of debt is\nvery crude. Manu's metrical code shows here again its usual character.\nIt is evidently based on ancient originals, and when it simply\nreproduces them, gives us the impression of great antiquity. But it\nfreely admits more modern ingredients, and does so in our case. It\nspeaks of witnesses, fixes their minimum number at three, and\ndiscusses very minutely their qualifications and disqualifications,\nwithout saying a word about written documents. But in one place (VIII.\n168) it speaks of the valuelessness of written agreements obtained by\nforce, thus recognizing the practical employment of writing for\ncommercial transactions. Professor Jolly,(A3) it is true, suggests\nthat this verse may be a later addition, particularly as it occurs\n_totidem verbis_ in Narada (IV. 55); but the final composition of\nManu's Sa_m_hita, such as we possess it, can hardly be referred to a\nperiod when writing was not yet used, at all events for commercial\npurposes. Manu's \"Law-book\" is older than Ya_gn_avalkya's, in which\nwriting has become a familiar subject. Vishnu often agrees literally\nwith Ya_gn_avalkya, while Narada, as showing the fullest development\nof the law of debt, is most likely the latest.(A4)\n\nSee Brihatsa_m_hita, ed. Kern, pref., p. 43; _Journal of the R. A.\nS._, 1875, p. 106.\n\nA1: \"Ueber das Indische Schuldrecht von J. Jolly,\" p. 291.\n\nA2: Jolly, l. c., p. 322.\n\nA3: L. c., p. 290.\n\nA4: Jolly, l. c., p. 322. He places Katyayana and B_ri_haspati after\nNarada, possibly Vyasa and Harita also. See also Stenzler, Z. d D. M.\nG. ix. 664.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Professor Mueller rejects the theory of the Samvat era\nand the Renaissance of Sanskrit literature in the first century.\nInstead, he acknowledges the existence of a _S_aka era, bearing date\nwith the coronation of Kanishka, 78 A.D. Although this monarch was a\npatron of the Buddhists, and the third collection of their sacred\nbooks was made under his auspices, our author considers the period of\n_S_aka or Yuen-chi domination from 24 B.C. till 178 A.D. as a literary\ninterregnum. He is not willing to suggest any date for the Mahabharata\nor Ramaya_n_a, which appear to have been then extant. He exonerates\nIndian epic poetry, however, from any imputation of Greek influence.\nNot so with astronomy. Aryabha_t_a, the elder, who described the\nmotion of the earth very accurately, he considers to have had no\npredecessors; and also cites other Indian authors who described the\ntwelve signs of the zodiac with Greek names or their equivalents, and\nassigned each to a region in the body of the Creator, as we now see it\nmarked out in our almanacs. In this matter he is certainly plausible.\n\nThe period of the Renaissance and the reign and proper era of\nVikramaditya are set down at about 550 A.D. He follows Dr. Bhao Daji,\nand is sustained by Mr. Fergusson, author of \"Tree and Serpent\nWorship,\" and other works on religious architecture. It was the period\nof learned and literary men, as well as of active religious\ncontroversy. \"Believers in Buddha and believers in the Veda lived\ntogether at this time,\" he remarks, \"very much as Protestants and\nRoman Catholics do at the present day--fighting when there is an\nopportunity or necessity for it, but otherwise sharing the same air as\nfellow-creatures.\" Among a crowd of others we may instance Dignaga, a\nBuddhist, Kalidasa, a Siva worshipper, and Manatunga, a _G_aina, as\nfrequenting the royal court. Vasubandhu, to whom the revival of\nBuddhist literature was largely due, was the son of a Brahman and a\nstudent of the Nyaya philosophy; as, indeed, Hiouen-thsang, the\nChinese traveller, also studied logic under a Brahma_n_a teacher.\n\nVikramaditya oscillated between all parties. Having quarrelled with\nthe King of Ka_s_mira and Manorhita, the great Buddhist teacher at the\nconvent near Peshawer, he called an assembly of Sastrikas and\n_S_ramanas, at which the latter were denounced. He also placed\nMatrigupta (Kalidasa?) over that country. At his death, however, the\nregal authority was surrendered to the legitimate king, who in his\nturn reinstated _S_iladitya, the successor of Vikrama, on the throne.\nThis king also called an assembly of divines, and the Buddhists were\nrestored to their former position. As they seem to have constituted\nthe principal men of learning, I am disposed to believe that they were\nthe actual restorers of the golden period to India. The \"Nine Gems,\"\nProfessor Mueller is very confident, belong to this period. He declares\nthat the philosophical Sutras have no ascertained date prior to 300\nA.D.\n\nAccording to him, we need not refer many famous authors to a period\nanterior to the fifth century. Kalidasa, from being the contemporary\nof Augustus, becomes the contemporary of Justinian, and the very books\nwhich were most admired by Sanskrit students as specimens of ancient\nIndian poetry and wisdom find their rightful place in the period of\nliterary renaissance, coinciding with an age of renewed literary\nactivity in Persia, soon to be followed there, as later in India, by\nthe great Mohammedan conquests. It appears to me that he is altogether\ntoo iconoclastic. It is more than probable that the apparent lateness\nof date is due to the destruction of books when the Buddhists were\ndriven out of India. It would be as logical, it seems to me, to assign\na post-Christian date to the _Vendidad_ and _Yasna_ because they had\nbeen lost and were collected anew under the auspices of a Sassanid\nking. We are told in the second book of the Maccabees that Antiochus\nEpiphanes burned the Hebrew Scriptures, and that Judas Makkabaeus made\na new collection; yet nobody pretends that they ought to be assigned\nto the second century B.C. In fact, we must in due sincerity give some\nroom to faith.\n\nAstronomy was also studied. Aryabhatta the elder had described the\nearth as making a revolution which produced the daily rising and\nsetting of the sun. Professor Mueller thinks he had no predecessors.\nVarahamihira wrote during the reign of Vikramaditya, and employs the\nYuga in opposition to the Saka era. It is apparent, however, that the\nGreek zodiac was employed. Badaraya_n_a describes the pictorial\nrepresentations of the Twelve Signs and their relation to the body of\nBrahman or the Creator:\n\n\"The Ram is the head; the face of the Creator is the Bull; the breast\nwould be the Man-pair; the heart, the Crab; the Lion, the stomach; the\nMaid, the hip; the Balance-bearer, the belly; the eighth (Scorpion),\nthe membrum; the Archer, his pair of thighs; the Makara, his pair of\nknees; the Pot, his pair of legs; the Fish-pair, his two feet.\"\nAnother writer gives them in like series as the members of Kala or\nTime. Other evidence seems even more conclusive; Varahamihira giving\nthe actual Greek names in a Sanskrit dress.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 109: Kern, Preface to \"B_ri_hatsa_m_ahita,\" p. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 110: During times of conquest and migration, such as are\nrepresented to us in the hymns of the Rig-Veda, the system of castes,\nas it is described, for instance, in the Laws of Manu, would have been\na simple impossibility. It is doubtful whether such a system was ever\nmore than a social ideal, but even for such an ideal the materials\nwould have been wanting during the period when the Aryas were first\ntaking possession of the land of the Seven Rivers. On the other hand,\neven during that early period, there must have been a division of\nlabor, and hence we expect to find and do find in the gramas of the\nFive Nations, _warriors_, sometimes called nobles, leaders, kings;\n_counsellors_, sometimes called priests, prophets, judges; and\n_working men_, whether ploughers, or builders, or road-makers. These\nthree divisions we can clearly perceive even in the early hymns of the\nRig-Veda.]\n\n[Footnote 111: Boehtlingk, Sprueche, 5101.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Mahabh. XI. 121.]\n\n[Footnote 113: Pa_nk_at. II. 127 (117).]\n\n[Footnote 114: Mahabh. V. 1144.]\n\n[Footnote 115: L. c. XII. 12050.]\n\n[Footnote 116: L. c. XII. 869.]\n\n[Footnote 117: L. c. XII. 872.]\n\n[Footnote 118: L. c. XII. 12453.]\n\n[Footnote 119: L. c. XII. 12456.]\n\n[Footnote 120: L. c. III. 13846 (239).]\n\n[Footnote 121: L. c. III. 13864.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Kam. Nitis, 1, 23 (Boehtlingk, 918).]\n\n[Footnote 123: _Atman_, see Lecture VII.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 124: Vish_n_u-sutras XX. 50-53.]\n\n[Footnote 125: Apastamba Dharma-sutras I. 8, 22.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Can a state be justly regarded as one of happiness, in\nwhich the essential being is overlooked and not regarded; whereas that\nsubtler essence is the reality which gives life, energy, and purity to\nall our motives? Is to be \"of the earth, earthy,\" a greater felicity\nthan to acknowledge that which is from heaven? I trow not.--A. W.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nOBJECTIONS.\n\n\nIt may be quite true that controversy often does more harm than good,\nthat it encourages the worst of all talents, that of plausibility, not\nto say dishonesty, and generally leaves the world at large worse\nconfounded than it was before. It has been said that no clever lawyer\nwould shrink from taking a brief to prove that the earth forms the\ncentre of the world, and, with all respect for English juries, it is\nnot impossible that even in our days he might gain a verdict against\nGalileo. Nor do I deny that there is a power and vitality in truth\nwhich in the end overcomes and survives all opposition, as shown by\nthe very doctrine of Galileo which at present is held by hundreds and\nthousands who would find it extremely difficult to advance one single\nargument in its support. I am ready to admit also that those who have\ndone the best work, and have contributed most largely toward the\nadvancement of knowledge and the progress of truth, have seldom wasted\ntheir time in controversy, but have marched on straight, little\nconcerned either about applause on the right or abuse on the left. All\nthis is true, perfectly true, and yet I feel that I cannot escape from\ndevoting the whole of a lecture to the answering of certain objections\nwhich have been raised against the views which I have put forward with\nregard to the character and the historical importance of Vedic\nliterature. We must not forget that the whole subject is new, the\nnumber of competent judges small, and mistakes not only possible, but\nalmost inevitable. Besides, there are mistakes and mistakes, and the\nerrors of able men are often instructive, nay one might say sometimes\nalmost indispensable for the discovery of truth. There are criticisms\nwhich may be safely ignored, criticisms for the sake of criticism, if\nnot inspired by meaner motives. But there are doubts and difficulties\nwhich suggest themselves naturally, objections which have a right to\nbe heard, and the very removal of which forms the best approach to the\nstronghold of truth. Nowhere has this principle been so fully\nrecognized and been acted on as in Indian literature. Whatever subject\nis started, the rule is that the argument should begin with the\npurvapaksha, with all that can be said against a certain opinion.\nEvery possible objection is welcome, if only it is not altogether\nfrivolous and absurd, and then only follows the uttarapaksha, with all\nthat can be said against these objections and in support of the\noriginal opinion. Only when this process has been fully gone through\nis it allowed to represent an opinion as siddhanta, or established.\n\nTherefore, before opening the pages of the Veda, and giving you a\ndescription of the poetry, the religion, and philosophy of the ancient\ninhabitants of India, I thought it right and necessary to establish,\nfirst of all, certain points without which it would be impossible to\nform a right appreciation of the historical value of the Vedic hymns,\nand of their importance even to us who live at so great a distance\nfrom those early poets.\n\nThe _first_ point was purely preliminary, namely that the Hindus in\nancient, and in modern times also, are a nation deserving of our\ninterest and sympathy, worthy also of our confidence, and by no means\nguilty of the charge so recklessly brought against them--the charge\nof an habitual disregard of truth.\n\n_Secondly_, that the ancient literature of India is not to be\nconsidered simply as a curiosity and to be handed over to the good\npleasure of Oriental scholars, but that, both by its language, the\nSanskrit, and by its most ancient literary documents, the Vedas, it\ncan teach us lessons which nothing else can teach, as to the origin of\nour own language, the first formation of our own concepts, and the\ntrue natural germs of all that is comprehended under the name of\ncivilization, at least the civilization of the Aryan race, that race\nto which we and all the greatest nations of the world--the Hindus, the\nPersians, the Greeks and Romans, the Slaves, the Celts, and last, not\nleast, the Teutons, belong. A man may be a good and useful ploughman\nwithout being a geologist, without knowing the stratum on which he\ntakes his stand, or the strata beneath that give support to the soil\non which he lives and works, and from which he draws his nourishment.\nAnd a man may be a good and useful citizen, without being an\nhistorian, without knowing how the world in which he lives came about,\nand how many phases mankind had to pass through in language, religion,\nand philosophy, before it could supply him with that intellectual soil\non which he lives and works, and from which he draws his best\nnourishment.\n\nBut there must always be an aristocracy of those who know, and who can\ntrace back the best which we possess, not merely to a Norman count, or\na Scandinavian viking, or a Saxon earl, but to far older ancestors and\nbenefactors, who thousands of years ago were toiling for us in the\nsweat of their face, and without whom we should never be what we\nare--the ancestors of the whole Aryan race, the first framers of our\nwords, the first poets of our thoughts, the first givers of our laws,\nthe first prophets of our gods, and of Him who is God above all gods.\n\nThat aristocracy of those who know--_di color che sanno_--or try to\nknow, is open to all who are willing to enter, to all who have a\nfeeling for the past, an interest in the genealogy of our thoughts,\nand a reverence for the ancestry of our intellect, who are in fact\nhistorians in the true sense of the word, _i.e._ inquirers into that\nwhich is past, but not lost.\n\n_Thirdly_, having explained to you why the ancient literature of\nIndia, the really ancient literature of that country, I mean that of\nthe Vedic period, deserves the careful attention, not of Oriental\nscholars only, but of every educated man and woman who wishes to know\nhow we, even we here in England and in this nineteenth century of\nours, came to be what we are, I tried to explain to you the\ndifference, and the natural and inevitable difference, between the\ndevelopment of the human character in such different climates as those\nof India and Europe. And while admitting that the Hindus were\ndeficient in many of those manly virtues and practical achievements\nwhich we value most, I wished to point out that there was another\nsphere of intellectual activity in which the Hindus excelled--the\nmeditative and transcendent--and that here we might learn from them\nsome lessons of life which we ourselves are but too apt to ignore or\nto despise.\n\n_Fourthly_, fearing that I might have raised too high expectations of\nthe ancient wisdom, the religion and philosophy of the Vedic Indians,\nI felt it my duty to state that, though primitive in one sense, we\nmust not expect the Vedic religion to be primitive in the\nanthropological sense of the word, as containing the utterances of\nbeings who had just broken their shells, and were wonderingly looking\nout for the first time upon this strange world. The Veda may be called\nprimitive, because there is no other literary document more primitive\nthan it; but the language, the mythology, the religion and philosophy\nthat meet us in the Veda open vistas of the past which no one would\nventure to measure in years. Nay, they contain, by the side of simple,\nnatural, childish thoughts, many ideas which to us sound modern, or\nsecondary and tertiary, as I called them, but which nevertheless are\nolder than any other literary document, and give us trustworthy\ninformation of a period in the history of human thought of which we\nknew absolutely nothing before the discovery of the Vedas.[127]\n\nBut even thus our path is not yet clear. Other objections have been\nraised against the Veda as an historical document. Some of them are\nimportant; and I have at times shared them myself. Others are at least\ninstructive, and will give us an opportunity of testing the foundation\non which we stand.\n\nThe first objection then against our treating the Veda as an\nhistorical document is that it is not truly national in its character,\nand does not represent the thoughts of the whole of the population of\nIndia, but only of a small minority, namely of the Brahmans, and not\neven of the whole class of Brahmans, but only of a small minority of\nthem, namely of the professional priests.\n\nObjections should not be based on demands which, from the nature of\nthe case, are unreasonable. Have those who maintain that the Vedic\nhymns do not represent the whole of India, that is the whole of its\nancient population, in the same manner as they say that the Bible\nrepresents the Jews or Homer the Greeks, considered what they are\nasking for? So far from denying that the Vedic hymns represent only a\nsmall and, it may be, a priestly minority of the ancient population of\nIndia, the true historian would probably feel inclined to urge the\nsame cautions against the Old Testament and the Homeric poems also.\n\nNo doubt, after the books which compose the Old Testament had been\ncollected as a Sacred Canon, they were known to the majority of the\nJews. But when we speak of the primitive state of the Jews, of their\nmoral, intellectual, and religious status while in Mesopotamia or\nCanaan or Egypt, we should find that the different books of the Old\nTestament teach us as little of the whole Jewish race, with all its\nlocal characteristics and social distinctions, as the Homeric poems do\nof all the Greek tribes, or the Vedic hymns of all the inhabitants of\nIndia. Surely, even when we speak of the history of the Greeks or the\nRomans, we know that we shall not find there a complete picture of the\nsocial, intellectual, and religious life of a whole nation. We know\nvery little of the intellectual life of a whole nation, even during\nthe Middle Ages, ay, even at the present day. We may know something of\nthe generals, of the commanders-in-chief, but of the privates, of the\nmillions, we know next to nothing. And what we do know of kings or\ngenerals or ministers is mostly no more than what was thought of them\nby a few Greek poets or Jewish prophets, men who were one in a million\namong their contemporaries.\n\nBut it might be said that though the writers were few, the readers\nwere many. Is that so? I believe you would be surprised to hear how\nsmall the number of readers is even in modern times, while in ancient\ntimes reading was restricted to the very smallest class of privileged\npersons. There may have been listeners at public and private\nfestivals, at sacrifices, and later on in theatres, but readers, in\nour sense of the word, are a very modern invention.\n\nThere never has been so much reading, reading spread over so large an\narea, as in our times. But if you asked publishers as to the number of\ncopies sold of books which are supposed to have been read by\neverybody, say Macaulay's History of England, the Life of the Prince\nConsort, or Darwin's Origin of Species, you would find that out of a\npopulation of thirty-two millions not one million has possessed itself\nof a copy of these works. The book which of late has probably had the\nlargest sale is the Revised Version of the New Testament; and yet the\nwhole number of copies sold among the eighty millions of\nEnglish-speaking people is probably not more than four millions. Of\nordinary books which are called books of the season, and which are\nsupposed to have had a great success, an edition of three or four\nthousand copies is not considered unsatisfactory by publishers or\nauthors in England. But if you look to other countries, such, for\ninstance, as Russia, it would be very difficult indeed to name books\nthat could be considered as representative of the whole nation, or as\neven known by more than a very small minority.\n\nAnd if we turn our thoughts back to the ancient nations of Greece and\nItaly, or of Persia and Babylonia, what book is there, with the\nexception perhaps of the Homeric poems, of which we could say that it\nhad been read or even heard of by more than a few thousand people? We\nthink of Greeks and Romans as literary people, and so no doubt they\nwere, but in a very different sense from what we mean by this. What we\ncall Greeks and Romans are chiefly the citizens of Athens and Rome,\nand here again those who could produce or who could read such works as\nthe Dialogues of Plato or the Epistles of Horace constituted a very\nsmall intellectual aristocracy indeed. What we call history--the\nmemory of the past--has always been the work of minorities. Millions\nand millions pass away unheeded, and the few only to whom has been\ngiven the gift of fusing speech and thought into forms of beauty\nremain as witnesses of the past.\n\nIf then we speak of times so distant as those represented by the\nRig-Veda, and of a country so disintegrated, or rather as yet so\nlittle integrated as India was three thousand years ago, surely it\nrequires but little reflection to know that what we see in the Vedic\npoems are but a few snow-clad peaks, representing to us, from a far\ndistance, the whole mountain-range of a nation, completely lost beyond\nthe horizon of history. When we speak of the Vedic hymns as\nrepresenting the religion, the thoughts and customs of India three\nthousand years ago, we cannot mean by India more than some unknown\nquantity of which the poets of the Veda are the only spokesmen left.\nWhen we now speak of India, we think of 250 millions, a sixth part of\nthe whole human race, peopling the vast peninsula from the Himalayan\nmountains between the arms of the Indus and the Ganges, down to Cape\nComorin and Ceylon, an extent of country nearly as large as Europe. In\nthe Veda the stage on which the life of the ancient kings and poets is\nacted, is the valley of the Indus and the Punjab, as it is now called,\nthe Sapta Sindhasa_h_, the Seven Rivers of the Vedic poets. The land\nwatered by the Ganges is hardly known, and the whole of the Dekkan\nseems not yet to have been discovered.\n\nThen again, when these Vedic hymns are called the lucubrations of a\nfew priests, not the outpourings of the genius of a whole nation, what\ndoes that mean? We may no doubt call these ancient Vedic poets\npriests, if we like, and no one would deny that their poetry is\npervaded not only by religious, mythological, and philosophical, but\nlikewise by sacrificial and ceremonial conceits. Still a priest, if we\ntrace him back far enough, is only a _presbyteros_ or an elder, and,\nas such, those Vedic poets had a perfect right to speak in the name of\na whole class, or of the village community to which they belonged.\nCall Vasish_th_a a priest by all means, only do not let us imagine\nthat he was therefore very like Cardinal Manning.\n\nAfter we have made every possible concession to arguments, most of\nwhich are purely hypothetical, there remains this great fact that\nhere, in the Rig-Veda, we have poems, composed in perfect language, in\nelaborate metre, telling us about gods and men, about sacrifices and\nbattles, about the varying aspects of nature and the changing\nconditions of society, about duty and pleasure, philosophy and\nmorality--articulate voices reaching us from a distance from which we\nnever heard before the faintest whisper; and instead of thrilling with\ndelight at this almost miraculous discovery, some critics stand aloof\nand can do nothing but find fault, because these songs do not\nrepresent to us primitive men exactly as they think they ought to have\nbeen; not like Papuas or Bushmen, with arboraceous habits and\nhalf-animal clicks, not as worshipping stocks or stones, or believing\nin fetiches, as according to Comte's inner consciousness they ought to\nhave done, but rather, I must confess, as beings whom we can\nunderstand, with whom to a certain extent we can sympathize, and to\nwhom, in the historical progress of the human intellect, we may assign\na place not very far behind the ancient Jews and Greeks.\n\nOnce more then, if we mean by primitive, people who inhabited this\nearth as soon as the vanishing of the glacial period made this earth\ninhabitable, the Vedic poets were certainly not primitive. If we mean\nby primitive, people who were without a knowledge of fire, who used\nunpolished flints, and ate raw flesh, the Vedic poets were not\nprimitive. If we mean by primitive, people who did not cultivate the\nsoil, had no fixed abodes, no kings, no sacrifices, no laws, again, I\nsay, the Vedic poets were not primitive. But if we mean by primitive\nthe people who have been the first of the Aryan race to leave behind\nliterary relics of their existence on earth, then I say the Vedic\npoets are primitive, the Vedic language is primitive, the Vedic\nreligion is primitive, and, taken as a whole, more primitive than\nanything else that we are ever likely to recover in the whole history\nof our race.\n\nWhen all these objections had failed, a last trump was played. The\nancient Vedic poetry was said to be, if not of foreign origin, at\nleast very much infected by foreign, and more particularly by Semitic\ninfluences. It had always been urged by Sanskrit scholars as one of\nthe chief attractions of Vedic literature that it not only allowed us\nan insight into a very early phase of religious thought, but that the\nVedic religion was the only one the development of which took place\nwithout any extraneous influences, and could be watched through a\nlonger series of centuries than any other religion. Now with regard to\nthe first point, we know how perplexing it is in the religion of\nancient Rome to distinguish between Italian and Greek ingredients, to\nsay nothing of Etruscan and Phoenician influences. We know the\ndifficulty of finding out in the religion of the Greeks what is purely\nhome-grown, and what is taken over from Egypt, Phoenicia, it may be\nfrom Scythia; or at all events, slightly colored by those foreign rays\nof thought. Even in the religion of the Hebrews, Babylonian,\nPhoenician, and at a later time Persian influences have been\ndiscovered, and the more we advance toward modern times, the more\nextensive becomes the mixture of thought, and the more difficult the\ntask of assigning to each nation the share which it contributed to the\ncommon intellectual currency of the world. In India alone, and more\nparticularly in Vedic India, we see a plant entirely grown on native\nsoil, and entirely nurtured by native air. For this reason, because\nthe religion of the Veda was so completely guarded from all strange\ninfections, it is full of lessons which the student of religion could\nlearn nowhere else.\n\nNow what have the critics of the Veda to say against this? They say\nthat the Vedic poems show clear traces of _Babylonian_ influences.\n\nI must enter into some details, because, small as they seem, you can\nsee that they involve very wide consequences.\n\nThere is one verse in the Rig-Veda, VIII. 78, 2,[128] which has been\ntranslated as follows: \"Oh Indra, bring to us a brilliant jewel, a\ncow, a horse, an ornament, together with a golden Mana.\"[129]\n\nNow what is a golden Mana? The word does not occur again by itself,\neither in the Veda or anywhere else, and it has been identified by\nVedic scholars with the Latin _mina_, the Greek [Greek: mna], the\nPhoenician _manah_ ([Hebrew: Ma-ne]),[130] the well-known weight\nwhich we actually possess now among the treasures brought from Babylon\nand Nineveh to the British Museum.[131]\n\nIf this were so, it would be irrefragable evidence of at all events a\ncommercial intercourse between Babylon and India at a very early time,\nthough it would in no way prove a real influence of Semitic on Indian\nthought. But is it so? If we translate sa_k_a mana hira_n_yaya by\n\"with a mina of gold,\" we must take mana hira_n_yaya as instrumental\ncases. But sa_k_a never governs an instrumental case. This translation\ntherefore is impossible, and although the passage is difficult,\nbecause mana does not occur again in the Rig-Veda, I should think we\nmight take mana hira_n_yaya for a dual, and translate, \"Give us also\ntwo golden armlets.\" To suppose that the Vedic poets should have\nborrowed this one word and this one measure from the Babylonians,\nwould be against all the rules of historical criticism. The word mana\nnever occurs again in the whole of Sanskrit literature, no other\nBabylonian weight occurs again in the whole of Sanskrit literature,\nand it is not likely that a poet who asks for a cow and a horse, would\nask in the same breath for a foreign weight of gold, that is, for\nabout sixty sovereigns.\n\nBut this is not the only loan that India has been supposed to have\nnegotiated in Babylon. The twenty-seven Nakshatras, or the\ntwenty-seven constellations, which were chosen in India as a kind of\nlunar Zodiac, were supposed to have come from Babylon. Now the\nBabylonian Zodiac was solar, and, in spite of repeated researches, no\ntrace of a lunar Zodiac has been found, where so many things have been\nfound, in the cuneiform inscriptions. But supposing even that a lunar\nZodiac had been discovered in Babylon, no one acquainted with Vedic\nliterature and with the ancient Vedic ceremonial would easily allow\nhimself to be persuaded that the Hindus had borrowed that simple\ndivision of the sky from the Babylonians. It is well known that most\nof the Vedic sacrifices depend on the moon, far more than on the\nsun.[132] As the Psalmist says, \"He appointed the moon for seasons;\nthe sun knoweth his going down,\" we read in the Rig-Veda X. 85, 18, in\na verse addressed to sun and moon, \"They walk by their own power, one\nafter the other (or from east to west), as playing children they go\nround the sacrifice. The one looks upon all the worlds, the other is\nborn again and again, determining the seasons.\"\n\n    \"He becomes new and new, when he is born; as the herald of\n    the days, he goes before the dawns. By his approach he\n    determines their share for the gods, the moon increases a\n    long life.\"\n\nThe moon, then, determines the seasons, the _ri_tus, the moon fixes\nthe share, that is, the sacrificial oblation for all the gods. The\nseasons and the sacrifices were in fact so intimately connected\ntogether in the thoughts of the ancient Hindus, that one of the\ncommonest names for priest was _ri_tv-i_g_, literally, the\nseason-sacrificer.\n\nBesides the rites which have to be performed every day, such as the\nfive Mahaya_gn_as, and the Agnihotra in the morning and the evening,\nthe important sacrifices in Vedic times were the Full and New-moon\nsacrifices (darsapur_n_amasa); the Season-sacrifices (_k_aturmasya),\neach season consisting of four months;[133] and the Half-yearly\nsacrifices, at the two solstices. There are other sacrifices\n(agraya_n_a, etc.) to be performed in autumn and summer, others in\nwinter and spring, whenever rice and barley are ripening.[134]\n\nThe regulation of the seasons, as one of the fundamental conditions of\nan incipient society, seems in fact to have been so intimately\nconnected with the worship of the gods, as the guardians of the\nseasons and the protectors of law and order, that it is sometimes\ndifficult to say whether in their stated sacrifices the maintenance of\nthe calendar or the maintenance of the worship of the gods was more\nprominent in the minds of the old Vedic priests.\n\nThe twenty-seven Nakshatras then were clearly suggested by the moon's\npassage.[135] Nothing was more natural for the sake of counting days,\nmonths, or seasons than to observe the twenty-seven places which the\nmoon occupied in her passage from any point of the sky back to the\nsame point. It was far easier than to determine the sun's position\neither from day to day, or from month to month; for the stars, being\nhardly visible at the actual rising and setting of the sun, the idea\nof the sun's conjunction with certain stars could not suggest itself\nto a listless observer. The moon, on the contrary, progressing from\nnight to night, and coming successively in contact with certain stars,\nwas like the finger of a clock, moving round a circle, and coming in\ncontact with one figure after another on the dial-plate of the sky.\nNor would the portion of about one third of a lunation in addition to\nthe twenty-seven stars from new moon to new moon, create much\nconfusion in the minds of the rough-and-ready reckoners of those early\ntimes. All they were concerned with were the twenty-seven celestial\nstations which, after being once traced out by the moon, were fixed,\nlike so many mile-stones, for determining the course of all the\ncelestial travellers that could be of any interest for signs and for\nseasons, and for days and for years. A circle divided into\ntwenty-seven sections, or any twenty-seven poles planted in a circle\nat equal distances round a house, would answer the purpose of a\nprimitive Vedic observatory. All that was wanted to be known was\nbetween which pair of poles the moon, or afterward the sun also, was\nvisible at their rising or setting, the observer occupying the same\ncentral position on every day.\n\nOur notions of astronomy cannot in fact be too crude and too imperfect\nif we wish to understand the first beginnings in the reckoning of days\nand seasons and years. We cannot expect in those days more than what\nany shepherd would know at present of the sun and moon, the stars and\nseasons. Nor can we expect any observations of heavenly phenomena\nunless they had some bearing on the practical wants of primitive\nsociety.\n\nIf then we can watch in India the natural, nay inevitable, growth of\nthe division of the heaven into twenty-seven equal divisions, each\ndivision marked by stars, which may have been observed and named long\nbefore they were used for this new purpose--if, on the other hand, we\ncould hardly understand the growth and development of the Indian\nceremonial except as determined by a knowledge of the lunar asterisms,\nthe lunar months, and the lunar seasons, surely it would be a\nsenseless hypothesis to imagine that the Vedic shepherds or priests\nwent to Babylonia in search of a knowledge which every shepherd might\nhave acquired on the banks of the Indus, and that, after their return\nfrom that country only, where a language was spoken which no Hindu\ncould understand, they set to work to compose their sacred hymns and\narrange their simple ceremonial. We must never forget that what is\nnatural in one place is natural in other places also, and we may sum\nup without fear of serious contradiction, that no case has been made\nout in favor of a foreign origin of the elementary astronomical\nnotions of the Hindus as found or presupposed in the Vedic hymns.[136]\n\nThe Arabs, as is well known, have twenty-eight lunar stations, the\n_Manzil_, and I can see no reason why Mohammed and his Bedouins in the\ndesert should not have made the same observation as the Vedic poets in\nIndia, though I must admit at the same time that Colebrooke has\nbrought forward very cogent arguments to prove that, in their\nscientific employment at least, the Arabic Manzil were really borrowed\nfrom an Indian source.[137]\n\nThe Chinese, too, have their famous lunar stations, _the Sieu_,\noriginally twenty-four in number, and afterward raised to\ntwenty-eight.[138] But here again there is no necessity whatever for\nadmitting, with Biot, Lassen, and others, that the Hindus went to\nChina to gain their simplest elementary notions of lunar chrononomy.\nFirst of all, the Chinese began with twenty-four, and raised them to\ntwenty-eight; the Hindus began with twenty-seven, and raised them to\ntwenty-eight. Secondly, out of these twenty-eight asterisms, there are\nseventeen only which can really be identified with the Hindu stars\n(taras). Now if a scientific system is borrowed, it is borrowed\ncomplete. But, in our case, I see really no possible channel through\nwhich Chinese astronomical knowledge could have been conducted to\nIndia so early as 1000 before our era. In Chinese literature India is\nnever mentioned before the middle of the second century before Christ;\nand if the _K_inas in the later Sanskrit literature are meant for\nChinese, which is doubtful, it is important to observe that that name\nnever occurs in Vedic literature.[139]\n\nWhen therefore the impossibility of so early a communication between\nChina and India had at last been recognized, a new theory was formed,\nnamely, \"that the knowledge of Chinese astronomy was not imported\nstraight from China to India, but was carried, together with the\nChinese system of division of the heavens into twenty-eight mansions,\ninto Western Asia, at a period not much later than 1100 B.C., and was\nthen adopted by some Western people, either Semitic or Iranian. In\ntheir hands it was supposed to have received a new form, such as\nadapted it to a ruder and less scientific method of observation, the\nlimiting stars of the mansions being converted into zodiacal groups or\nconstellations, and in some instances altered in position, so as to be\nbrought nearer to the general planetary path of the ecliptic. In this\nchanged form, having become a means of roughly determining and\ndescribing the places and movements of the planets, it was believed to\nhave passed into the keeping of the Hindus, very probably along with\nthe first knowledge of the planets themselves, and entered upon an\nindependent career of history in India. It still maintained itself in\nits old seat, leaving its traces later in the Bundahash; and made its\nway so far westward as finally to become known and adopted by the\nArabs.\" With due respect for the astronomical knowledge of those who\nhold this view, all I can say is that this is a novel, and nothing\nbut a novel, without any facts to support it, and that the few facts\nwhich are known to us do not enable a careful reasoner to go beyond\nthe conclusions stated many years ago by Colebrooke, that the \"Hindus\nhad undoubtedly made some progress at an early period in the astronomy\ncultivated by them for the regulation of time. Their calendar, both\ncivil and religious, was governed chiefly, not exclusively, by the\nmoon and the sun; and the motions of these luminaries were carefully\nobserved by them, and with such success that their determination of\nthe moon's synodical revolution, which was what they were principally\nconcerned with, is a much more correct one than the Greeks ever\nachieved. They had a division of the ecliptic into twenty-seven and\ntwenty-eight parts, suggested evidently by the moon's period in days,\nand seemingly their own; it was certainly borrowed by the Arabians.\"\n\nThere is one more argument which has been adduced in support of a\nBabylonian, or, at all events, a Semitic influence to be discovered in\nVedic literature which we must shortly examine. It refers to the story\nof the _Deluge_.\n\nThat story, as you know, has been traced in the traditions of many\nraces, which could not well have borrowed it from one another; and it\nwas rather a surprise that no allusion even to a local deluge should\noccur in any of the Vedic hymns, particularly as very elaborate\naccounts of different kinds of deluges are found in the later Epic\npoems, and in the still later Pura_n_as, and form in fact a very\nfamiliar subject in the religious traditions of the people of India.\n\nThree of the _Avataras_ or incarnations of Vish_n_u are connected with\na deluge, that of the _Fish_, that of the _Tortoise_, and that of the\n_Boar_, Vish_n_u in each case rescuing mankind from destruction by\nwater, by assuming the form of a fish, or a tortoise, or a boar.\n\nThis being so, it seemed a very natural conclusion to make that, as\nthere was no mention of a deluge in the most ancient literature of\nIndia, that legend had penetrated into India from without at a later\ntime.\n\nWhen, however, the Vedic literature became more generally known,\nstories of a deluge were discovered, if not in the hymns, at least in\nthe prose writings, belonging to the second period, commonly called\nthe Brahma_n_a period. Not only the story of Manu and the _Fish_, but\nthe stories of the _Tortoise_ and of the _Boar_ also, were met with\nthere in a more or less complete form, and with this discovery the\nidea of a foreign importation lost much of its plausibility. I shall\nread you at least one of these accounts of a Deluge which is found in\nthe _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a, and you can then judge for yourselves\nwhether the similarities between it and the account in Genesis are\nreally such as to require, nay as to admit, the hypothesis that the\nHindus borrowed their account of the Deluge from their nearest Semitic\nneighbors.\n\nWe read in the _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a I. 8, 1:\n\n    \"In the morning they brought water to Manu for washing, as\n    they bring it even now for washing our hands.\n\n    \"While he was thus washing, a fish came into his hands.\n\n    \"2. The fish spoke this word to Manu: 'Keep me, and I shall\n    save thee.'\n\n    \"Manu said: 'From what wilt thou save me?'\n\n    \"The fish said: 'A flood will carry away all these creatures,\n    and I shall save thee from it.'\n\n    \"Manu said: 'How canst thou be kept?'\n\n    \"3. The fish said: 'So long as we are small, there is much\n    destruction for us, for fish swallows fish. Keep me therefore\n    first in a jar. When I outgrow that, dig a hole and keep me\n    in it. When I outgrow that, take me to the sea, and I shall\n    then be beyond the reach of destruction.'\n\n    \"4. He became soon a large fish (_gh_asha), for such a fish\n    grows largest. The fish said: 'In such and such a year the\n    flood will come. Therefore when thou hast built a ship, thou\n    shalt meditate on me. And when the flood has risen, thou\n    shalt enter into the ship, and I will save thee from the\n    flood.'\n\n    \"5. Having thus kept the fish, Manu took him to the sea. Then\n    in the same year which the fish had pointed out, Manu, having\n    built the ship, meditated on the fish. And when the flood had\n    risen, Manu entered into the ship. Then the fish swam toward\n    him, and Manu fastened the rope of the ship to the fish's\n    horn, and he thus hastened toward[140] the Northern Mountain.\n\n    \"6. The fish said: 'I have saved thee; bind the ship to a\n    tree. May the water not cut thee off, while thou art on the\n    mountain. As the water subsides, do thou gradually slide down\n    with it.' Manu then slid down gradually with the water, and\n    therefore this is called 'the Slope of Manu' on the Northern\n    Mountain. Now the flood had carried away all these creatures,\n    and thus Manu was left there alone.\n\n    \"7. Then Manu went about singing praises and toiling, wishing\n    for offspring. And he sacrificed there also with a\n    Paka-sacrifice. He poured clarified butter, thickened milk,\n    whey, and curds in the water as a libation. In one year a\n    woman arose from it. She came forth as if dripping, and\n    clarified butter gathered on her step. Mitra and Varu_n_a\n    came to meet her.\n\n    \"8. They said to her: 'Who art thou?' She said: 'The daughter\n    of Manu.' They rejoined: 'Say that thou art ours.' 'No,' she\n    said, 'he who has begotten me, his I am.'\n\n    \"Then they wished her to be their sister, and she half agreed\n    and half did not agree, but went away, and came to Manu.\n\n    \"9. Manu said to her: 'Who art thou?' She said: 'I am thy\n    daughter.' 'How, lady, art thou my daughter?' he asked.\n\n    \"She replied: 'The libations which thou hast poured into the\n    water, clarified butter, thickened milk, whey and curds, by\n    them thou hast begotten me. I am a benediction--perform (me)\n    this benediction at the sacrifices. If thou perform (me) it\n    at the sacrifice, thou wilt be rich in offspring and cattle.\n    And whatever blessing thou wilt ask by me, will always accrue\n    to thee.' He therefore performed that benediction in the\n    middle of the sacrifice, for the middle of the sacrifice is\n    that which comes between the introductory and the final\n    offerings.\n\n    \"10. Then Manu went about with her, singing praises and\n    toiling, wishing for offspring. And with her he begat that\n    offspring which is called the offspring of Manu; and whatever\n    blessing he asked with her, always accrued to him. She is\n    indeed I_d_a, and whosoever, knowing this, goes about\n    (sacrifices) with I_d_a, begets the same offspring which Manu\n    begat, and whatever blessing he asks with her, always accrues\n    to him.\"\n\nThis, no doubt, is the account of a deluge, and Manu acts in some\nrespects the same part which is assigned to Noah in the Old Testament.\nBut if there are similarities, think of the dissimilarities, and how\nthey are to be explained. It is quite clear that, if this story was\nborrowed from a Semitic source, it was not borrowed from the Old\nTestament, for in that case it would really seem impossible to account\nfor the differences between the two stories. That it may have been\nborrowed[141] from some unknown Semitic source cannot, of course, be\ndisproved, because no tangible proof has ever been produced that would\nadmit of being disproved. But if it were, it would be the only Semitic\nloan in ancient Sanskrit literature--and that alone ought to make us\npause!\n\nThe story of the boar and the tortoise too, can be traced back to the\nVedic literature. For we read in the Taittiriya Sa_m_hita:[142]\n\n    \"At first this was water, fluid. Pra_g_apati, the lord of\n    creatures, having become wind, moved on it. He saw this\n    earth, and becoming a boar, he took it up. Becoming\n    Vi_s_vakarman, the maker of all things, he cleaned it. It\n    spread and became the widespread Earth, and this is why the\n    Earth is called P_ri_thivi, the widespread.\"\n\nAnd we find in the _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a[143] the following slight\nallusion at least to the tortoise myth:\n\n    \"Pra_g_apati, assuming the form of a tortoise (Kurma),\n    brought forth all creatures. In so far as he brought them\n    forth, he made them (akarot), and because he made them he was\n    (called) tortoise (Kurma). A tortoise is (called) Ka_s_yapa,\n    and therefore all creatures are called Ka_s_yapa,\n    tortoise-like. He who was this tortoise (Kurma) was really\n    Aditya (the sun).\"\n\nOne other allusion to something like a deluge,[144] important chiefly\non account of the name of Manu occurring in it, has been pointed out\nin the Ka_th_aka (XI. 2), where this short sentence occurs: \"The\nwaters cleaned this, Manu alone remained.\"\n\nAll this shows that ideas of a deluge, that is, of a submersion of the\nearth by water and of its rescue through divine aid, were not\naltogether unknown in the early traditions of India, while in later\ntimes they were embodied in several of the Avataras of Vish_n_u.\n\nWhen we examine the numerous accounts of a deluge among different\nnations in almost every part of the world, we can easily perceive that\nthey do not refer to one single historical event, but to a natural\nphenomenon repeated every year, namely, the deluge or flood of the\nrainy season or the winter.[145]\n\nThis is nowhere clearer than in Babylon. Sir Henry Rawlinson was the\nfirst to point out that the twelve cantos of the poem of Izdubar or\nNimrod refer to the twelve months of the year and the twelve\nrepresentative signs of the Zodiac. Dr. Haupt afterward pointed out\nthat Eabani, the wise bull-man in the second canto, corresponds to the\nsecond month, Ijjar, April-May, represented in the Zodiac by the bull;\nthat the union between Eabani and Nimrod in the third canto\ncorresponds to the third month, Sivan, May-June, represented in the\nZodiac by the twins; that the sickness of Nimrod in the seventh canto\ncorresponds to the seventh month, Tishri, September-October, when the\nsun begins to wane; and that the flood in the eleventh canto\ncorresponds to the eleventh month, Shaba_t_u, dedicated to the\nstorm-god Rimmon,[146] represented in the Zodiac by the waterman.[147]\n\nIf that is so, we have surely a right to claim the same natural origin\nfor the story of the Deluge in India which we are bound to admit in\nother countries. And even if it could be proved that in the form in\nwhich these legends have reached us in India they show traces of\nforeign influences,[148] the fact would still remain that such\ninfluences have been perceived in comparatively modern treatises only,\nand not in the ancient hymns of the Rig-Veda.\n\nOther conjectures have been made with even less foundation than that\nwhich would place the ancient poets of India under the influence of\nBabylon. China has been appealed to, nay even Persia, Parthia, and\nBactria, countries beyond the reach of India at that early time of\nwhich we are here speaking, and probably not even then consolidated\ninto independent nations or kingdoms. I only wonder that traces of the\nlost Jewish tribes have not been discovered in the Vedas, considering\nthat Afghanistan has so often been pointed out as one of their\nfavorite retreats.\n\nAfter having thus carefully examined all the traces of supposed\nforeign influences that have been brought forward by various scholars,\nI think I may say that there really is no trace whatever of any\nforeign influence in the language, the religion, or the ceremonial of\nthe ancient Vedic literature of India. As it stands before us now, so\nit has grown up, protected by the mountain ramparts in the north, the\nIndus and the Desert in the west, the Indus or what was called the sea\nin the south, and the Ganges in the east. It presents us with a\nhome-grown poetry and a home-grown religion; and history has preserved\nto us at least this one relic, in order to teach us what the human\nmind can achieve if left to itself, surrounded by a scenery and by\nconditions of life that might have made man's life on earth a\nparadise, if man did not possess the strange art of turning even a\nparadise into a place of misery.[149]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 127: If we applied the name of literature to the cylinders\nof Babylon and the papyri of Egypt, we should have to admit that some\nof these documents are more ancient than any date we dare as yet\nassign to the hymns collected in the ten books of the Rig-Veda.]\n\n[Footnote 128: A na_h_ bhara vya_ng_anam gam a_s_vam abhya_ng_anam\nSa_k_a mana hira_n_yaya.]\n\n[Footnote 129: Grassman translates, \"Zugleich mit goldenem Geraeth;\"\nLudwig, \"Zusammt mit goldenem Zierrath;\" Zimmer, \"Und eine Mana gold.\"\nThe Petersburg Dictionary explains mana by \"ein bestimmtes Geraeth oder\nGewicht\" (Gold).]\n\n[Footnote 130: According to Dr. Haupt, Die Sumerisch-akkadische\nSprache, p. 272, mana is an Akkadian word.]\n\n[Footnote 131: According to the weights of the lions and ducks\npreserved in the British Museum, an Assyrian mina was = 7747 grains.\nThe same difference is still preserved to the present day, as the\n_man_ of Shiraz and Bagdad is just double that of Tabraz and Bushir,\nthe average of the former being 14.0 and that of the latter only\n6.985. See Cunningham, \"Journal of the Asiatic Society,\" Calcutta,\n1881, p. 163.]\n\n[Footnote 132: Preface to the fourth volume of my edition of the\nRig-Veda, p. li.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Vai_s_vadevam on the full-moon of Phalguna,\nVaru_n_apraghasa_h_ on the full-moon of Asha_dh_a, Sakamedha_h_ on the\nfull-moon of K_ri_ttika, see Boehtlingk, Dictionary, s. v.]\n\n[Footnote 134: See Vish_n_u-sm_ri_ti, ed. Jolly LIX. 4; Aryabha_t_a,\nIntroduction.]\n\n[Footnote 135: See Preface to vol. iv. of Rig-Veda, p. li. (1862).]\n\n[Footnote 136: See Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, pp. 352-357.]\n\n[Footnote 137: L. c. p. lxx.]\n\n[Footnote 138: See Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. xlvii.]\n\n[Footnote 139: In the Mahabharata and elsewhere the _K_inas are\nmentioned among the Dasyus or non-Aryan races in the north and in the\neast of India. King Bhagadatta is said to have had an army of _K_inas\nand Kiratas,(B1) and the Pa_nd_avas are said to reach the town of the\nKing of the Kulindas, after having passed through the countries of\n_K_inas, Tukharas, and Daradas. All this is as vague as ethnological\nindications generally are in the late epic poetry of India. The only\npossibly real element is that Kirata and _K_ina soldiers are called\nka_nk_ana, gold or yellow colored,(B2) and compared to a forest of\nKar_n_ikaras, which were trees with yellow flowers.(B3) In Mahabh. VI.\n9, v. 373, vol. ii., p. 344, the _K_inas occur in company with\nKambo_g_as and Yavanas, which again conveys nothing definite.\n\nB1: Lassen, i. p. 1029; Mahabh. III. 117, v. 12,350; vol. i. p. 619.\n\nB2: Mahabh. V. 18, v. 584; vol. ii. p. 106.\n\nB3: See Va_k_aspatya s. v.; Ka_sk_it Kar_n_ikaragaura_h_.\n\nChinese scholars tell us that the name of China is of modern origin,\nand only dates from the Thsin dynasty or from the famous Emperor Shi\nhoang-ti, 247 B.C. But the name itself, though in a more restricted\nsense, occurs in earlier documents, and may, as Lassen thinks,(B4)\nhave become known to the Western neighbors of China. It is certainly\nstrange that the _Sinim_ too, mentioned in Isaiah xlix. 12, have been\ntaken by the old commentators for people of China, visiting Babylon as\nmerchants and travellers.\n\nB4: Lassen, vol. i. p. 1029, n. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 140: I prefer now the reading of the Ka_n_va-_s_akha,\nabhidudrava, instead of atidudrava or adhidudrava of the other MSS.\nSee Weber, Ind. Streifen, i. p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 141: It is not necessary to establish literary borrowing;\nfor on the theory of Bible inspiration and trustworthiness we must\nassume that the Aryans as well as the Semites were saved in the ark.\nThe story of _a_ flood supports the story of _the_ flood to a certain\nextent.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 142: VII. 1, 5, 1 seq.; Muir, i. p. 52; Colebrooke, Essays,\ni. 75.]\n\n[Footnote 143: VII. 5, 1, 5; Muir, \"Original Sanskrit Texts,\" i. p.\n54.]\n\n[Footnote 144: Weber, \"Indische Streifen,\" i. p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 145: See Lecture V. p. 172.]\n\n[Footnote 146: More accurately Ramanu, the Vul or storm-god of George\nSmith; and the god of the Mind and higher intellect at Babylon. His\narcane name is said to have been Yav, [Hebrew: YHWH] or [Greek:\nIao].--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 147: See Haupt, \"Der Keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht,\n1881,\" p. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 148: See M. M., \"Genesis and Avesta\" (German translation),\ni. p. 148.]\n\n[Footnote 149: No one is more competent than the learned author to\ngive a verdict on all the evidence which has been gathered; but we are\nonly at the beginning of research into the intercourse of mankind in\nremote times, and much that was once thought home-grown has already\nbeen traced to distant points. It is in the general line of progress\nin research that more evidence may be expected to connect Vedic\nthought with other cultures.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nTHE LESSONS OF THE VEDA.\n\n\nAlthough there is hardly any department of learning which has not\nreceived new light and new life from the ancient literature of India,\nyet nowhere is the light that comes to us from India so important, so\nnovel, and so rich as in the study of religion and mythology. It is to\nthis subject therefore that I mean to devote the remaining lectures of\nthis course. I do so, partly because I feel myself most at home in\nthat ancient world of Vedic literature in which the germs of Aryan\nreligion have to be studied, partly because I believe that for a\nproper understanding of the deepest convictions, or, if you like, the\nstrongest prejudices of the modern Hindus, nothing is so useful as a\nknowledge of the Veda. It is perfectly true that nothing would give a\nfalser impression of the actual Brahmanical religion than the ancient\nVedic literature, supposing we were to imagine that three thousand\nyears could have passed over India without producing any change. Such\na mistake would be nearly as absurd as to deny any difference between\nthe Vedic Sanskrit and the spoken Bengali. But no one will gain a\nscholarlike knowledge or a true insight into the secret springs of\nBengali who is ignorant of the grammar of Sanskrit; and no one will\never understand the present religious, philosophical, legal, and\nsocial opinions of the Hindus who is unable to trace them back to\ntheir true sources in the Veda.\n\nI still remember how, many years ago, when I began to publish for the\nfirst time the text and the commentary of the Rig-Veda, it was argued\nby a certain, perhaps not quite disinterested party, that the Veda was\nperfectly useless; that no man in India, however learned, could read\nit, and that it was of no use either for missionaries or for any one\nelse who wished to study and to influence the native mind. It was said\nthat we ought to study the later Sanskrit, the Laws of Manu, the epic\npoems, and, more particularly, the Pura_n_as. The Veda might do very\nwell for German students, but not for Englishmen.\n\nThere was no excuse for such ignorant assertions even thirty years\nago, for in these very books, in the Laws of Manu, in the Mahabharata,\nand in the Pura_n_as, the Veda is everywhere proclaimed as the highest\nauthority in all matters of religion.[150] \"A Brahman,\" says Manu,\n\"unlearned in holy writ, is extinguished in an instant like dry grass\non fire.\" \"A twice-born man (that is, a Brahma_n_a, a Kshatriya, and a\nVai_s_ya) not having studied the Veda, soon falls, even when living,\nto the condition of a _S_udra, and his descendants after him.\"\n\nHow far this license of ignorant assertion may be carried is shown by\nthe same authorities who denied the importance of the Veda for a\nhistorical study of Indian thought, boldly charging those wily\npriests, the Brahmans, with having withheld their sacred literature\nfrom any but their own caste. Now, so far from withholding it, the\nBrahmans have always been striving, and often striving in vain, to\nmake the study of their sacred literature obligatory on all castes\nexcept the _S_udras, and the passages just quoted from Manu show what\npenalties were threatened if children of the second and third castes,\nthe Kshatriyas and Vai_s_yas, were not instructed in the sacred\nliterature of the Brahmans.\n\nAt present the Brahmans themselves have spoken, and the reception they\nhave accorded to my edition of the Rig-Veda[151] and its native\ncommentary, the zeal with which they have themselves taken up the\nstudy of Vedic literature, and the earnestness with which different\nsects are still discussing the proper use that should be made of their\nancient religious writings, show abundantly that a Sanskrit scholar\nignorant of, or, I should rather say, determined to ignore the Veda,\nwould be not much better than a Hebrew scholar ignorant of the Old\nTestament.\n\nI shall now proceed to give you some characteristic specimens of the\nreligion and poetry of the Rig-Veda. They can only be few, and as\nthere is nothing like system or unity of plan in that collection of\n1017 hymns, which we call the Sa_m_hita of the Rig-Veda, I cannot\npromise that they will give you a complete panoramic view of that\nintellectual world in which our Vedic ancestors passed their life on\nearth.\n\nI could not even answer the question, if you were to ask it whether\nthe religion of the Veda was _polytheistic_ or _monotheistic_.\nMonotheistic, in the usual sense of that word, it is decidedly not,\nthough there are hymns that assert the unity of the Divine as\nfearlessly as any passage of the Old Testament, or the New Testament,\nor the Koran. Thus one poet says (Rig-Veda I. 164, 46): \"That which is\n_one_, sages name it in various ways--they call it Agni, Yama,\nMatari_s_van.\"\n\nAnother poet says: \"The wise poets represent by their words Him who is\none with beautiful wings, in many ways.\"[152]\n\nAnd again we hear of a being called Hira_n_yagarbha, the golden germ\n(whatever the original of that name may have been), of whom the poet\nsays:[153] \"In the beginning there arose Hira_n_yagarbha; he was the one\nborn lord of all this. He established the earth and this sky. Who is the\ngod to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?\" That Hira_n_yagarbha, the poet\nsays, \"is alone God above all gods\" (ya_h_ deveshu adhi deva_h_ eka_h_\nasit)--an assertion of the unity of the Divine which could hardly be\nexceeded in strength by any passage from the Old Testament.\n\nBut by the side of such passages, which are few in number, there are\nthousands in which ever so many divine beings are praised and prayed\nto. Even their number is sometimes given as \"thrice eleven\"[154] or\nthirty-three, and one poet assigns eleven gods to the sky, eleven to\nthe earth, and eleven to the waters,[155] the waters here intended\nbeing those of the atmosphere and the clouds. These thirty-three gods\nhave even wives apportioned to them,[156] though few of these only\nhave as yet attained to the honor of a name.[157]\n\nThese thirty-three gods, however, by no means include all the Vedic\ngods, for such important deities as Agni, the fire, Soma, the rain,\nthe Maruts or Storm-gods, the A_s_vins, the gods of Morning and\nEvening, the Waters, the Dawn, the Sun are mentioned separately; and\nthere are not wanting passages in which the poet is carried away into\nexaggerations, till he proclaims the number of his gods to be, not\nonly thirty-three, but three thousand three hundred and\nthirty-nine.[158]\n\nIf therefore there must be a name for the religion of the Rig-Veda,\npolytheism would seem at first sight the most appropriate. Polytheism,\nhowever, has assumed with us a meaning which renders it totally\ninapplicable to the Vedic religion.\n\nOur ideas of polytheism being chiefly derived from Greece and Rome, we\nunderstand by it a certain more or less organized system of gods,\ndifferent in power and rank, and all subordinate to a supreme God, a\nZeus or Jupiter. The Vedic polytheism differs from the Greek and Roman\npolytheism, and, I may add, likewise from the polytheism of the\nUral-Altaic, the Polynesian, the American, and most of the African\nraces, in the same manner as a confederacy of village communities\ndiffers from a monarchy. There are traces of an earlier stage of\nvillage-community life to be discovered in the later republican and\nmonarchical constitutions, and in the same manner nothing can be\nclearer, particularly in Greece, than that the monarchy of Zeus was\npreceded by what may be called the septarchy of several of the great\ngods of Greece. The same remark applies to the mythology of the\nTeutonic nations also.[159] In the Veda, however, the gods worshipped\nas supreme by each sept stand still side by side. No one is first\nalways, no one is last always. Even gods of a decidedly inferior and\nlimited character assume occasionally in the eyes of a devoted poet a\nsupreme place above all other gods.[160] It was necessary, therefore,\nfor the purpose of accurate reasoning, to have a name, different from\n_polytheism_, to signify this worship of single gods, each occupying\nfor a time a supreme position, and I proposed for it the name of\n_Kathenotheism_, that is, a worship of one god after another, or of\n_Henotheism_, the worship of single gods. This shorter name of\n_Henotheism_ has found more general acceptance, as conveying more\ndefinitely the opposition between _Monotheism_, the worship of one\nonly God, and _Henotheism_, the worship of single gods; and, if but\nproperly defined, it will answer its purpose very well. However, in\nresearches of this kind we cannot be too much on our guard against\ntechnical terms. They are inevitable, I know; but they are almost\nalways misleading. There is, for instance, a hymn addressed to the\n_Indus_ and the rivers that fall into it, of which I hope to read you\na translation, because it determines very accurately the geographical\nscene on which the poets of the Veda passed their life. Now native\nscholars call these rivers d e v a t a s or deities, and European\ntranslators too speak of them as gods and goddesses. But in the\nlanguage used by the poet with regard to the Indus and the other\nrivers, there is nothing to justify us in saying that he considered\nthese rivers as _gods_ and _goddesses_, unless we mean by _gods_ and\n_goddesses_ something very different from what the Greeks called\nRiver-gods and River-goddesses, Nymphs, Najades, or even Muses.\n\nAnd what applies to these rivers applies more or less to all the\nobjects of Vedic worship. They all are still oscillating between what\nis seen by the senses, what is created by fancy, and what is\npostulated by the understanding; they are things, persons, causes,\naccording to the varying disposition of the poets; and if we call them\ngods or goddesses, we must remember the remark of an ancient native\ntheologian, who reminds us that by d e v a t a or deity he means no more\nthan the object celebrated in a hymn, while _R i_ s h i or seer means no\nmore than the subject or the author of a hymn.\n\nIt is difficult to treat of the so-called gods celebrated in the Veda\naccording to any system, for the simple reason that the concepts of\nthese gods and the hymns addressed to them sprang up spontaneously and\nwithout any pre-established plan. It is best perhaps for our purpose\nto follow an ancient Brahmanical writer, who is supposed to have lived\nabout 400 B.C. He tells us of students of the Veda, before his time,\nwho admitted three deities only, viz., A g n i or fire, whose place is on\nthe earth; V a y u or I n d r a, the wind and the god of the thunderstorm,\nwhose place is in the air; and S u r y a, the sun, whose place is in the\nsky. These deities, they maintained, received severally many\nappellations, in consequence of their greatness, or of the diversity\nof their functions, just as a priest, according to the functions which\nhe performs at various sacrifices, receives various names.\n\nThis is _one_ view of the Vedic gods, and, though too narrow, it\ncannot be denied that there is some truth in it. A very useful\ndivision of the Vedic gods might be made, and has been made by Yaska,\ninto _terrestrial_, _aerial_, and _celestial_, and if the old Hindu\ntheologians meant no more than that all the manifestations of divine\npower in nature might be traced back to three centres of force, one in\nthe sky, one in the air, and one on the earth, he deserves great\ncredit for his sagacity.\n\nBut he himself perceived evidently that this generalization was not\nquite applicable to all the gods, and he goes on to say: \"Or, it may\nbe, these gods are all distinct beings, for the praises addressed to\nthem are distinct, and their appellations also.\" This is quite right.\nIt is the very object of most of these divine names to impart distinct\nindividuality to the manifestations of the powers of nature; and\nthough the philosopher or the inspired poet might perceive that these\nnumerous names were but names, while that which was named was _one_\nand _one_ only, this was certainly not the idea of most of the Vedic\n_Ri_shis themselves, still less of the people who listened to their\nsongs at fairs and festivals. It is the peculiar character of that\nphase of religious thought which we have to study in the Veda, that in\nit the Divine is conceived and represented as manifold, and that many\nfunctions are shared in common by various gods, no attempt having yet\nbeen made at organizing the whole body of the gods, sharply\nseparating one from the other, and subordinating all of them to\nseveral or, in the end, to one supreme head.\n\nAvailing ourselves of the division of the Vedic gods into terrestrial,\naerial, and celestial, as proposed by some of the earliest Indian\ntheologians, we should have to begin with the gods connected with the\nearth.\n\nBefore we examine them, however, we have first to consider one of the\nearliest objects of worship and adoration, namely _Earth and Heaven_,\nor _Heaven and Earth_, conceived as a divine couple. Not only in\nIndia, but among many other nations, both savage, half-savage, or\ncivilized, we meet with Heaven and Earth as one of the earliest\nobjects, pondered on, transfigured, and animated by the early poets,\nand more or less clearly conceived by early philosophers. It is\nsurprising that it should be so, for the conception of the Earth as an\nindependent being, and of Heaven as an independent being, and then of\nboth together as a divine couple embracing the whole universe,\nrequires a considerable effort of abstraction, far more than the\nconcepts of other divine powers, such as the Fire, the Rain, the\nLightning, or the Sun.\n\nStill so it is, and as it may help us to understand the ideas about\nHeaven and Earth, as we find them in the Veda, and show us at the same\ntime the strong contrast between the mythology of the Aryans and that\nof real savages (a contrast of great importance, though I admit very\ndifficult to explain), I shall read you first some extracts from a\nbook, published by a friend of mine, the Rev. William Wyatt Gill, for\nmany years an active and most successful missionary in Mangaia, one of\nthose Polynesian islands that form a girdle round one quarter of our\nglobe,[161] and all share in the same language, the same religion,\nthe same mythology, and the same customs. The book is called \"Myths\nand Songs from the South Pacific,\"[162] and it is full of interest to\nthe student of mythology and religion.\n\nThe story, as told him by the natives of Mangaia, runs as\nfollows:[163]\n\n    \"The sky is built of solid blue stone. At one time it almost\n    touched the earth; resting upon the stout broad leaves of the\n    t e v e (which attains the height of about six feet) and the\n    delicate indigenous arrow-root (whose slender stem rarely\n    exceeds three feet).... In this narrow space between earth\n    and sky the inhabitants of this world were pent up. Ru, whose\n    usual residence was in Avaiki, or the shades, had come up for\n    a time to this world of ours. Pitying the wretched confined\n    residence of the inhabitants, he employed himself in\n    endeavoring to raise the sky a little. For this purpose he\n    cut a number of strong stakes of different kinds of trees,\n    and firmly planted them in the ground at Rangimotia, the\n    centre of the island, and with him the centre of the world.\n    This was a considerable improvement, as mortals were thereby\n    enabled to stand erect and to walk about without\n    inconvenience. Hence Ru was named 'The sky-supporter.'\n    Wherefore Teka sings (1794):\n\n        'Force up the sky, O Ru,\n        And let the space be clear!'\n\n    \"One day when the old man was surveying his work, his\n    graceless son Maui contemptuously asked him what he was doing\n    there. Ru replied: 'Who told youngsters to talk? Take care of\n    yourself, or I will hurl you out of existence.'\n\n    \"'Do it, then,' shouted Maui.\n\n    \"Ru was as good as his word, and forthwith seized Maui, who\n    was small of stature, and threw him to a great height. In\n    falling Maui assumed the form of a bird, and lightly touched\n    the ground, perfectly unharmed. Maui, now thirsting for\n    revenge, in a moment resumed his natural form, but\n    exaggerated to gigantic proportions, and ran to his father,\n    saying:\n\n        'Ru, who supportest the many heavens,\n        The third, even to the highest, ascend!'\n\n    \"Inserting his head between the old man's legs, he exerted all\n    his prodigious strength, and hurled poor Ru, sky and all, to\n    a tremendous height--so high, indeed, that the blue sky could\n    never get back again. Unluckily, however, for the\n    sky-supporting Ru, his head and shoulders got entangled among\n    the stars. He struggled hard, but fruitlessly, to extricate\n    himself. Maui walked off well pleased with having raised the\n    sky to its present height, but left half his father's body\n    and both his legs ingloriously suspended between heaven and\n    earth. Thus perished Ru. His body rotted away, and his bones\n    came tumbling down from time to time, and were shivered on\n    the earth into countless fragments. These shivered bones of\n    Ru are scattered over every hill and valley of Mangaia, to\n    the very edge of the sea.\"\n\nWhat the natives call \"the bones of Ru\" (t e  i v i o  R u) are pieces of\npumice-stone.\n\nNow let us consider, first of all, whether this story, which with\nslight variations is told all over the Polynesian islands,[164] is\npure nonsense, or whether there was originally some sense in it. My\nconviction is that nonsense is everywhere the child of sense, only\nthat unfortunately many children, like that youngster Maui, consider\nthemselves much wiser than their fathers, and occasionally succeed in\nhurling them out of existence.\n\nIt is a peculiarity of many of the ancient myths that they represent\nevents which happen every day, or every year, as having happened once\nupon a time.[165] The daily battle between day and night, the yearly\nbattle between winter and spring, are represented almost like\nhistorical events, and some of the episodes and touches belonging\noriginally to these constant battles of nature, have certainly been\ntransferred into and mixed up with battles that took place at a\ncertain time, such as, for instance, the siege of Troy. When\nhistorical recollections failed, legendary accounts of the ancient\nbattles between Night and Morning, Winter and Spring, were always at\nhand; and, as in modern times we constantly hear \"good stories,\" which\nwe have known from our childhood, told again and again of any man whom\nthey seem to fit, in the same manner, in ancient times, any act of\nprowess, or daring, or mischief, originally told of the sun, \"the\norient Conqueror of gloomy Night,\" was readily transferred to and\nbelieved of any local hero who might seem to be a second Jupiter, or\nMars, or Hercules.\n\nI have little doubt therefore that as the accounts of a deluge, for\ninstance, which we find almost everywhere, are originally\nrecollections of the annual torrents of rain or snow that covered the\nlittle worlds within the ken of the ancient village-bards,[166] this\ntearing asunder of heaven and earth too was originally no more than a\ndescription of what might be seen every morning. During a dark night\nthe sky seemed to cover the earth; the two seemed to be one, and could\nnot be distinguished one from the other.[167] Then came the Dawn,\nwhich with its bright rays lifted the covering of the dark night to a\ncertain point, till at last Maui appeared, small in stature, a mere\nchild, that is, the sun of the morning--thrown up suddenly, as it\nwere, when his first rays shot through the sky from beneath the\nhorizon, then falling back to the earth, like a bird, and rising in\ngigantic form on the morning sky. The dawn now was hurled away, and\nthe sky was seen lifted high above the earth; and Maui, the sun,\nmarched on well pleased with having raised the sky to its present\nheight.\n\nWhy pumice-stone should be called the bones of Ru, we cannot tell,\nwithout knowing a great deal more of the language of Mangaia than we\ndo at present. It is most likely an independent saying, and was\nafterward united with the story of Ru and Maui.\n\nNow I must quote at least a few extracts from a Maori legend as\nwritten down by Judge Manning:[168]\n\n     \"This is the Genesis of the New Zealanders:\n\n     \"The Heavens which are above us, and the Earth which lies\n     beneath us, are the progenitors of men, and the origin of\n     all things.\n\n     \"Formerly the Heaven lay upon the Earth, and all was\n     darkness....\n\n     \"And the children of Heaven and Earth sought to discover the\n     difference between light and darkness, between day and\n     night....\n\n     \"So the sons of Rangi (Heaven) and of Papa (Earth) consulted\n     together, and said, 'Let us seek means whereby to destroy\n     Heaven and Earth, or to separate them from each other.'\n\n     \"Then said Tumatauenga (the God of War), 'Let us destroy\n     them both.'\n\n     \"Then said Tane-Mahuta (the Forest God), 'Not so; let them\n     be separated. Let one of them go upward and become a\n     stranger to us; let the other remain below and be a parent\n     for us.'\n\n     \"Then four of the gods tried to separate Heaven and Earth,\n     but did not succeed, while the fifth, Tane, succeeded.\n\n     \"After Heaven and Earth had been separated, great storms\n     arose, or, as the poet expresses it, one of their sons,\n     Tawhiri-Matea, the god of the winds, tried to revenge the\n     outrage committed on his parents by his brothers. Then\n     follow dismal dusky days, and dripping chilly skies, and\n     arid scorching blasts. All the gods fight, till at last Tu\n     only remains, the god of war, who had devoured all his\n     brothers, except the Storm. More fights follow, in which the\n     greater part of the earth was overwhelmed by the waters, and\n     but a small portion remained dry. After that, light\n     continued to increase, and as the light increased, so also\n     the people who had been hidden between Heaven and Earth\n     increased.... And so generation was added to generation\n     down to the time of Maui-Potiki, he who brought death into\n     the world.\n\n     \"Now in these latter days Heaven remains far removed from\n     his wife, the Earth; but the love of the wife rises upward\n     in sighs toward her husband. These are the mists which fly\n     upward from the mountain-tops; and the tears of Heaven fall\n     downward on his wife; behold the dew-drops!\"\n\nSo far the Maori Genesis.\n\nLet us now return to the Veda, and compare these crude and somewhat\ngrotesque legends with the language of the ancient Aryan poets. In the\nhymns of the Rig-Veda the separating and keeping apart of Heaven and\nEarth is several times alluded to, and here too it is represented as\nthe work of the most valiant gods. In I. 67, 3 it is Agni, fire, who\nholds the earth and supports the heaven; in X. 89, 4 it is Indra who\nkeeps them apart; in IX. 101, 15 Soma is celebrated for the same deed,\nand in III. 31, 12 other gods too share the same honor.[169]\n\nIn the Aitareya Brahma_n_a we read:[170] \"These two worlds (Heaven and\nEarth) were once joined together. They went asunder. Then it did not\nrain, nor did the sun shine. And the five tribes did not agree with\none another. The gods then brought the two (Heaven and Earth)\ntogether, and when they came together they formed a wedding of the\ngods.\"\n\nHere we have in a shorter form the same fundamental ideas: first, that\nformerly Heaven and Earth were together; that afterward they were\nseparated; that when they were thus separated there was war throughout\nnature, and neither rain nor sunshine; that, lastly, Heaven and Earth\nwere conciliated, and that then a great wedding took place.\n\nNow I need hardly remind those who are acquainted with Greek and Roman\nliterature, how familiar these and similar conceptions about a\nmarriage between Heaven and earth were in Greece and Italy. They seem\nto possess there a more special reference to the annual reconciliation\nbetween Heaven and Earth, which takes place in spring, and to their\nformer estrangement during winter. But the first cosmological\nseparation of the two always points to the want of light and the\nimpossibility of distinction during the night, and the gradual lifting\nup of the blue sky through the rising of the sun.[171]\n\nIn the Homeric hymns[172] the Earth is addressed as\n\n    \"Mother of gods, the wife of the starry Heaven;\"[173]\n\nand the Heaven or AEther is often called the father. Their marriage too\nis described, as, for instance, by Euripides, when he says:\n\n    \"There is the mighty Earth, Jove's AEther:\n      He (the AEther) is the creator of men and gods;\n    The earth receiving the moist drops of rain,\n            Bears mortals,\n    Bears food, and the tribes of animals.\n      Hence she is not unjustly regarded\n        As the mother of all.\"[174]\n\nAnd what is more curious still is that we have evidence that\nEuripides received this doctrine from his teacher, the philosopher\nAnaxagoras. For Dionysius of Halicarnassus[175] tells us that\nEuripides frequented the lectures of Anaxagoras. Now, it was the\ntheory of that philosopher that originally all things were in all\nthings, but that afterward they became separated. Euripides later in\nlife associated with Sokrates, and became doubtful regarding that\ntheory. He accordingly propounds the ancient doctrine by the mouth of\nanother, namely Melanippe, who says:\n\n    \"This saying (myth) is not mine, but came from my mother,\n    that formerly Heaven and Earth were one shape; but when they\n    were separated from each other, they gave birth and brought\n    all things into the light, trees, birds, beasts, and the\n    fishes whom the sea feeds, and the race of mortals.\"\n\nThus we have met with the same idea of the original union, of a\nseparation, and of a subsequent reunion of Heaven and Earth in Greece,\nin India, and in the Polynesian islands.\n\nLet us now see how the poets of the Veda address these two beings,\nHeaven and Earth.\n\nThey are mostly addressed in the dual, as two beings forming but one\nconcept. We meet, however, with verses which are addressed to the Earth\nby herself, and which speak of her as \"kind, without thorns, and\npleasant to dwell on,\"[176] while there are clear traces in some of the\nhymns that at one time Dyaus, the sky, was the supreme deity.[177] When\ninvoked together they are called D y a v a - p_ r i_ t h i v y a u,\nfrom d y u, the sky, and p _r i_ t h i v i, the broad earth.\n\nIf we examine their epithets, we find that many of them reflect simply\nthe physical aspects of Heaven and Earth. Thus they are called u r u,\nwide; u r u v y a _k_ a s, widely expanded, d u r e - a n t e, with\nlimits far apart, g a b h i r a, deep; g h _r i_ t a v a t, giving fat;\nm a d h u d u g h a, yielding honey or dew; p a y a s v a t, full of\nmilk; b h u r i - r e t a s, rich in seed.\n\nAnother class of epithets represents them already as endowed with\ncertain human and superhuman qualities, such as a s a _s k_ a t, never\ntiring, a _g_ a r a, not decaying, which brings us very near to immortal;\na d r u h, not injuring, or not deceiving, p r a _k_ e t a s, provident, and then\npita-mata, father and mother, devaputra, having the gods for their\nsons, _r i_ t a - v_ r i_ d h and _r i_ t a v a t, protectors of the _Ri_ta, of what\nis right, guardians of eternal laws.\n\nHere you see what is so interesting in the Veda, the gradual advance\nfrom the material to the spiritual, from the sensuous to the\nsupersensuous, from the human to the superhuman and the divine. Heaven\nand Earth were seen, and, according to our notions, they might simply\nbe classed as visible and finite beings. But the ancient poets were\nmore honest to themselves. They could see Heaven and Earth, but they\nnever saw them in their entirety. They felt that there was something\nbeyond the purely finite aspect of these beings, and therefore they\nthought of them, not as they would think of a stone, or a tree, or a\ndog, but as something not-finite, not altogether visible or knowable,\nyet as something important to themselves, powerful, strong to bless,\nbut also strong to hurt. Whatever was between Heaven and Earth seemed\nto be theirs, their property, their realm, their dominion. They held\nand embraced all; they seemed to have produced all. The Devas or\nbright beings, the sun, the dawn, the fire, the wind, the rain, were\nall theirs, and were called therefore the offspring of Heaven and\nEarth. Thus Heaven and Earth became the Universal Father and Mother.\n\nThen we ask at once: \"Were then these Heaven and Earth gods?\" But gods\nin what sense? In our sense of God? Why, in our sense, God is\naltogether incapable of a plural. Then in the Greek sense of the word?\nNo, certainly not; for what the Greeks called gods was the result of\nan intellectual growth totally independent of the Veda or of India. We\nmust never forget that what we call gods in ancient mythologies are\nnot substantial, living, individual beings, of whom we can predicate\nthis or that. D e v a, which we translate by god, is nothing but an\nadjective, expressive of a quality shared by heaven and earth, by the\nsun and the stars and the dawn and the sea, namely _brightness_; and\nthe idea of god, at that early time, contains neither more nor less\nthan what is shared in common by all these bright beings. That is to\nsay, the idea of god is not an idea ready-made, which could be applied\nin its abstract purity to heaven and earth and other such like beings;\nbut it is an idea, growing out of the concepts of heaven and earth and\nof the other bright beings, slowly separating itself from them, but\nnever containing more than what was contained, though confusedly, in\nthe objects to which it was successively applied.\n\nNor must it be supposed that heaven and earth, having once been raised\nto the rank of undecaying or immortal beings, of divine parents, of\nguardians of the laws, were thus permanently settled in the religious\nconsciousness of the people. Far from it. When the ideas of other\ngods, and of more active and more distinctly personal gods had been\nelaborated, the Vedic _Ri_shis asked without hesitation: Who then has\nmade heaven and earth? not exactly Heaven and Earth, as conceived\nbefore, but heaven and earth as seen every day, as a part of what\nbegan to be called Nature or the Universe.\n\nThus one poet says:[178]\n\n    \"He was indeed among the gods the cleverest workman who\n    produced the two brilliant ones (heaven and earth), that\n    gladden all things; he who measured out the two bright ones\n    (heaven and earth) by his wisdom, and established them on\n    everlasting supports.\"\n\nAnd again:[179] \"He was a good workman who produced heaven and earth;\nthe wise, who by his might brought together these two (heaven and\nearth), the wide, the deep, the well-fashioned in the bottomless\nspace.\"\n\nVery soon this great work of making heaven and earth was ascribed,\nlike other mighty works, to the mightiest of their gods, to Indra. At\nfirst we read that Indra, originally only a kind of _Jupiter pluvius_,\nor god of rain, stretched out heaven and earth, like a hide;[180] that\nhe held them in his hand,[181] that he upholds heaven and earth,[182]\nand that he grants heaven and earth to his worshippers.[183] But very\nsoon Indra is praised for having made Heaven and Earth;[184] and then,\nwhen the poet remembers that Heaven and Earth had been praised\nelsewhere as the parents of the gods, and more especially as the\nparents of Indra, he does not hesitate for a moment, but says:[185]\n\"What poets living before us have reached the end of all thy\ngreatness? for thou hast indeed begotten thy father and thy mother\ntogether[186] from thy own body!\"\n\nThat is a strong measure, and a god who once could do that, was no\ndoubt capable of anything afterward. The same idea, namely that Indra\nis greater than heaven and earth, is expressed in a less outrageous\nway by another poet, who says[187] that Indra is greater than heaven\nand earth, and that both together are only a half of Indra. Or\nagain:[188] \"The divine Dyaus bowed before Indra, before Indra the\ngreat Earth bowed with her wide spaces.\" \"At the birth of thy splendor\nDyaus trembled, the Earth trembled for fear of thy anger.\"[189]\n\nThus, from one point of view, Heaven and Earth were the greatest gods,\nthey were the parents of everything, and therefore of the gods also,\nsuch as Indra and others.\n\nBut, from another point of view, every god that was considered as\nsupreme at one time or other, must necessarily have made heaven and\nearth, must at all events be greater than heaven and earth, and thus\nthe child became greater than the father, ay, became the father of his\nfather. Indra was not the only god that created heaven and earth. In\none hymn[190] that creation is ascribed to Soma and Pushan, by no\nmeans very prominent characters; in another[191] to Hira_n_yagarbha\n(the golden germ); in another again to a god who is simply called\nDhat_ri_, the Creator,[192] or Vi_s_vakarman,[193] the maker of all\nthings. Other gods, such as Mitra and Savit_ri_, names of the sun, are\npraised for upholding Heaven and Earth, and the same task is sometimes\nperformed by the old god Varu_n_a[194] also.\n\nWhat I wish you to observe in all this is the perfect freedom with\nwhich these so-called gods or Devas are handled, and particularly the\nease and naturalness with which now the one, now the other emerges as\nsupreme out of this chaotic theogony. This is the peculiar character\nof the ancient Vedic religion, totally different both from the\nPolytheism and from the Monotheism as we see it in the Greek and the\nJewish religions; and if the Veda had taught us nothing else but this\n_henotheistic_ phase, which must everywhere have preceded the more\nhighly-organized phase of Polytheism which we see in Greece, in Rome,\nand elsewhere, the study of the Veda would not have been in vain.\n\nIt may be quite true that the poetry of the Veda is neither beautiful,\nin our sense of the word, nor very profound; but it is instructive.\nWhen we see those two giant spectres of Heaven and Earth on the\nbackground of the Vedic religion, exerting their influence for a time,\nand then vanishing before the light of younger and more active gods,\nwe learn a lesson which it is well to learn, and which we can hardly\nlearn anywhere else--the lesson _how gods were made and unmade_--how\nthe Beyond or the Infinite was named by different names in order to\nbring it near to the mind of man, to make it for a time\ncomprehensible, until, when name after name had proved of no avail, a\nnameless God was felt to answer best the restless cravings of the\nhuman heart.\n\nI shall next translate to you the hymn to which I referred before as\naddressed to the Rivers. If the Rivers are to be called deities at\nall, they belong to the class of terrestrial deities. But the reason\nwhy I single out this hymn is not so much because it throws new light\non the theogonic process, but because it may help to impart some\nreality to the vague conceptions which we form to ourselves of the\nancient Vedic poets and their surroundings. The rivers invoked are, as\nwe shall see, the real rivers of the Punjab, and the poem shows a much\nwider geographical horizon than we should expect from a mere\nvillage-bard.[195]\n\n    1. \"Let the poet declare, O Waters, your exceeding greatness,\n    here in the seat of Vivasvat.[196] By seven and seven they\n    have come forth in three courses, but the Sindhu (the Indus)\n    exceeds all the other wandering rivers by her strength.\n\n    2. \"Varu_n_a dug out paths for thee to walk on, when thou\n    rannest to the race.[197] Thou proceedest on a precipitous\n    ridge of the earth, when thou art lord in the van of all the\n    moving streams.\n\n    3. \"The sound rises up to heaven above the earth; she stirs\n    up with splendor her endless power.[198] As from a cloud, the\n    showers thunder forth, when the Sindhu comes, roaring like a\n    bull.\n\n    4. \"To thee, O Sindhu, they (the other rivers) come as lowing\n    mother-cows (run) to their young with their milk.[199] Like a\n    king in battle thou leadest the two wings, when thou reachest\n    the front of these down-rushing rivers.\n\n    5. \"Accept, O Ganga (Ganges), Yamuna (Jumna), Sarasvati\n    (Sursuti), _S_utudri (Sutlej), Parush_n_i (Iravati, Ravi),\n    my praise![200] With the Asikni (Akesines) listen, O\n    Marudv_ri_dha,[201] and with the Vitasta (Hydaspes, Behat); O\n    Ar_g_ikiya,[202] listen with the Sushoma.[203]\n\n    6. \"First thou goest united with the T_ri_sh_t_ama on thy\n    journey, with the Susartu, the Rasa (Ra_m_ha, Araxes?[204]),\n    and the _S_veti--O Sindhu, with the Kubha (Kophen, Cabul\n    river) to the Gomati (Gomal), with the Mehatnu to the Krumu\n    (Kurum)--with whom thou proceedest together.\n\n    7. \"Sparkling, bright, with mighty splendor she carries the\n    waters across the plains--the unconquered Sindhu, the\n    quickest of the quick, like a beautiful mare--a sight to see.\n\n    8. \"Rich in horses, in chariots, in garments, in gold, in\n    booty,[205] in wool,[206] and in straw,[207] the Sindhu,\n    handsome and young, clothes herself in sweet flowers.[208]\n\n    9. \"The Sindhu has yoked her easy chariot with horses; may\n    she conquer prizes for us in the race. The greatness of her\n    chariot is praised as truly great--that chariot which is\n    irresistible, which has its own glory, and abundant\n    strength.\"[209]\n\nThis hymn does not sound perhaps very poetical, in our sense of the\nword; yet if you will try to realize the thoughts of the poet who\ncomposed it, you will perceive that it is not without some bold and\npowerful conceptions.\n\nTake the modern peasants, living in their villages by the side of the\nThames, and you must admit that he would be a remarkable man who could\nbring himself to look on the Thames as a kind of a general, riding at\nthe head of many English rivers, and leading them on to a race or a\nbattle. Yet it is easier to travel in England, and to gain a\ncommanding view of the river-system of the country, than it was three\nthousand years ago to travel over India, even over that part of India\nwhich the poet of our hymn commands. He takes in at one swoop three\ngreat river-systems, or, as he calls them, three great armies of\nrivers--those flowing from the north-west into the Indus, those\njoining it from the north-east, and, in the distance, the Ganges and\nthe Jumnah with their tributaries. Look on the map and you will see\nhow well these three armies are determined; but our poet had no\nmap--he had nothing but high mountains and sharp eyes to carry out his\ntrigonometrical survey. Now I call a man, who for the first time\ncould _see_ those three marching armies of rivers, a poet.\n\nThe next thing that strikes one in that hymn--if hymn we must call\nit--is the fact that all these rivers, large and small, have their own\nproper names. That shows a considerable advance in civilized life, and\nit proves no small degree of coherence, or what the French call\n_solidarity_, between the tribes who had taken possession of Northern\nIndia. Most settlers call the river on whose banks they settle \"_the\nriver_.\" Of course there are many names for river. It may be called\nthe runner,[210] the fertilizer, the roarer--or, with a little\npoetical metaphor, the arrow, the horse, the cow, the father, the\nmother, the watchman, the child of the mountains. Many rivers had many\nnames in different parts of their course, and it was only when\ncommunication between different settlements became more frequent, and\na fixed terminology was felt to be a matter of necessity, that the\nrivers of a country were properly baptized and registered. All this\nhad been gone through in India before our hymn became possible.\n\nAnd now we have to consider another, to my mind most startling fact.\nWe here have a number of names of the rivers of India, as they were\nknown to one single poet, say about 1000 B.C. We then hear nothing of\nIndia till we come to the days of Alexander, and when we look at the\nnames of the Indian rivers, represented as well as they could be by\nAlexander's companions, mere strangers in India, and by means of a\nstrange language and a strange alphabet, we recognize, without much\ndifficulty, nearly all of the old Vedic names.\n\nIn this respect the names of rivers have a great advantage over the\nnames of towns in India. What we now call _Dilli_ or _Delhi_[211] was\nin ancient times called Indraprastha, in later times _Shahjahanabad_.\n_Oude_ is Ayodhya, but the old name of Saketa is forgotten. The town\nof Pa_t_aliputra, known to the Greeks as _Palimbothra_, is now called\n_Patna_.[212]\n\nNow I can assure you this persistency of the Vedic river-names was to\nmy mind something so startling that I often said to myself, This\ncannot be--there must be something wrong here. I do not wonder so much\nat the names of the _Indus_ and the _Ganges_ being the same. The Indus\nwas known to early traders, whether by sea or by land. Skylax sailed\nfrom the country of the Paktys, _i.e._ the Pushtus, as the Afghans\nstill call themselves, down to the mouth of the Indus. That was under\nDarius Hystaspes (521-486). Even before that time India and the\nIndians were known by their name, which was derived from _Sindhu_, the\nname of their frontier river. The neighboring tribes who spoke Iranic\nlanguages all pronounced, like the Persian, the _s_ as an _h_.[213]\nThus Sindhu became Hindhu (Hidhu), and, as h's were dropped even at\nthat early time, Hindhu became Indu. Thus the river was called\n_Indos_, the people _Indoi_ by the Greeks, who first heard of India\nfrom the Persians.\n\n_Sindhu_ probably meant originally the divider, keeper, and defender,\nfrom sidh, to keep off. It was a masculine, before it became a\nfeminine. No more telling name could have been given to a broad river,\nwhich guarded peaceful settlers both against the inroads of hostile\ntribes and the attacks of wild animals. A common name for the ancient\nsettlements of the Aryans in India was \"the Seven Rivers,\" \"Sapta\nSindhava_h_.\" But though sindhu was used as an appellative noun for\nriver in general (cf. Rig-Veda VI. 19, 5, samudre na sindhava_h_\nyadamana_h_, \"like rivers longing for the sea\"), it remained\nthroughout the whole history of India the name of its powerful\nguardian river, the Indus.\n\nIn some passages of the Rig-Veda it has been pointed out that sindhu\nmight better be translated by \"sea,\" a change of meaning, if so it can\nbe called, fully explained by the geographical conditions of the\ncountry. There are places where people could swim across the Indus,\nthere are others where no eye could tell whether the boundless expanse\nof water should be called river or sea. The two run into each other,\nas every sailor knows, and naturally the meaning of sindhu, river,\nruns into the meaning of sindhu, sea.\n\nBut besides the two great rivers, the Indus and the Ganges--in\nSanskrit the Ganga, literally the Go-go--we have the smaller rivers,\nand many of their names also agree with the names preserved to us by\nthe companions of Alexander.[214]\n\nThe Yamuna, the Jumna, was known to Ptolemy as [Greek: Diamouna],[215]\nto Pliny as Jomanes, to Arrian, somewhat corrupted, as Jobares.[216]\n\nThe _S_utudri, or, as it was afterward called, _S_atadru, meaning\n\"running in a hundred streams,\" was known to Ptolemy as [Greek:\nZadardes] or [Greek: Zarados]; Pliny called it Sydrus; and Megasthenes,\ntoo, was probably acquainted with it as [Greek: Zadardes]. In the\nVeda[217] it formed with the Vipa_s_ the frontier of the Punjab, and we\nhear of fierce battles fought at that time, it may be on the same spot\nwhere in 1846 the battle of the Sutledge was fought by Sir Hugh Gough\nand Sir Henry Hardinge. It was probably on the Vipa_s_ (later Vipa_s_a),\na north-western tributary of the Sutledge, that Alexander's army turned\nback. The river was then called Hyphasis; Pliny calls it Hypasis,[218] a\nvery fair approximation to the Vedic Vipa_s_, which means \"unfettered.\"\nIts modern name is Bias or Bejah.\n\nThe next river on the west is the Vedic Parush_n_i, better known as\nIravati,[219] which Strabo calls Hyarotis, while Arrian gives it a\nmore Greek appearance by calling it Hydraotes. It is the modern Rawi.\nIt was this river which the Ten Kings when attacking the T_ri_tsus\nunder Sudas tried to cross from the west by cutting off its water. But\ntheir stratagem failed, and they perished in the river (Rig-Veda VII.\n18, 8-9).\n\nWe then come to the Asikni, which means \"black.\" That river had another\nname also, _K_andrabhaga, which means \"streak of the moon.\" The Greeks,\nhowever, pronounced that [Greek: Sandarophagos], and this had the\nunlucky meaning of \"the devourer of Alexander.\" Hesychius tells us that\nin order to avert the bad omen Alexander changed the name of that river\ninto [Greek: Akesines], which would mean \"the Healer;\" but he does not\ntell, what the Veda tells us, that this name [Greek: Akesines] was a\nGreek adaptation of another name of the same river, namely Asikni, which\nhad evidently supplied to Alexander the idea of calling the Asikni\n[Greek: Akesines]. It is the modern Chinab.\n\nNext to the Akesines we have the Vedic Vitasta, the last of the rivers\nof the Punjab, changed in Greek into Hydaspes. It was to this river\nthat Alexander retired, before sending his fleet down the Indus and\nleading his army back to Babylon. It is the modern Behat or Jilam.\n\nI could identify still more of these Vedic rivers, such as, for\ninstance, the Kubha, the Greek Cophen, the modern Kabul river;[220]\nbut the names which I have traced from the Veda to Alexander, and in\nmany cases from Alexander again to our own time, seem to me sufficient\nto impress upon us the real and historical character of the Veda.\nSuppose the Veda were a forgery--suppose at least that it had been put\ntogether after the time of Alexander--how could we explain these\nnames? They are names that have mostly a meaning in Sanskrit, they are\nnames corresponding very closely to their Greek corruptions, as\npronounced and written down by people who did not know Sanskrit. How\nis a forgery possible here?\n\nI selected this hymn for two reasons. First, because it shows us the\nwidest geographical horizon of the Vedic poets, confined by the snowy\nmountains in the north, the Indus and the range of the Suleiman\nmountains in the west, the Indus or the seas in the south, and the\nvalley of the Jumna and Ganges in the east. Beyond that, the world,\nthough open, was unknown to the Vedic poets. Secondly, because the\nsame hymn gives us also a kind of historical background to the Vedic\nage. These rivers, as we may see them to-day, as they were seen by\nAlexander and his Macedonians, were seen also by the Vedic poets. Here\nwe have an historical continuity--almost living witnesses, to tell us\nthat the people whose songs have been so strangely, ay, you may almost\nsay, so miraculously preserved to us, were real people, lairds with\ntheir clans, priests, or rather, servants of their gods, shepherds\nwith their flocks, dotted about on the hills and valleys, with\ninclosures or palisades here and there, with a few strongholds, too,\nin case of need--living their short life on earth, as at that time\nlife might be lived by men, without much pushing and crowding and\ntrampling on each other--spring, summer, and winter leading them on\nfrom year to year, and the sun in his rising and setting lifting up\ntheir thoughts from their meadows and groves which they loved, to a\nworld in the East, from which they had come, or to a world in the\nWest, to which they were gladly hastening on. They had what I call\nreligion, though it was very simple, and hardly reduced as yet to the\nform of a creed. \"There is a Beyond,\" that was all they felt and knew,\nthough they tried, as well as they could, to give names to that\nBeyond, and thus to change religion into _a_ religion. They had not as\nyet a name for God--certainly not in our sense of the word--or even a\ngeneral name for the gods; but they invented name after name to enable\nthem to grasp and comprehend by some outward and visible tokens powers\nwhose presence they felt in nature, though their true and full essence\nwas to them, as it is to us, invisible and incomprehensible.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 150: Wilson, Lectures, p. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 151: As it has been doubted, and even denied, that the\npublication of the Rig-Veda and its native commentary has had some\nimportant bearing on the resuscitation of the religious life of India,\nI feel bound to give at least one from the many testimonials which I\nhave received from India. It comes from the Adi Brahma Samaj, founded\nby Ram Mohun Roy, and now represented by its three branches, the Adi\nBrahma Samaj, the Brahma Samaj of India, and the Sadharano Brahma\nSamaj. \"The Committee of the Adi Brahma Samaj beg to offer you their\nhearty congratulations on the completion of the gigantic task which\nhas occupied you for the last quarter of a century. By publishing the\nRig-Veda at a time when Vedic learning has by some sad fatality become\nalmost extinct in the land of its birth, you have conferred a boon\nupon us Hindus, for which we cannot but be eternally grateful.\"]\n\n[Footnote 152: Rig-Veda X. 114, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 153: Rig-Veda X. 121.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Muir, iv. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 155: Rig-Veda I. 139, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Rig-Veda III. 6, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 157: The following names of Devapatnis or wives of the gods\nare given in the Vaitana Sutra XV. 3 (ed. Garbe): P_ri_thivi, the wife\nof Agni, Va_k_ of Vata, Sena of Indra, Dhena of B_ri_haspati, Pathya\nof Pushan, Gayatri of Vasu, Trish_t_ubh of Rudra, _G_agati of Aditya,\nAnush_t_ubh of Mitra, Vira_g_ of Varu_n_a, Pankti of Vish_n_u, Diksha\nof Soma.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Rig-Veda III. 9, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 159: Grimm showed that Thorr is sometimes the supreme god,\nwhile at other times he is the son of Odinn. This, as Professor Zimmer\ntruly remarks, need not be regarded as the result of a revolution, or\neven of gradual decay, as in the case of Dyaus and Tyr, but simply\nas inherent in the character of a nascent polytheism. See Zeitschrift\nfuer D. A., vol. xii. p. 174.]\n\n[Footnote 160: \"Among not yet civilized races prayers are addressed to\na god with a special object, and to that god who is supposed to be\nmost powerful in a special domain. He becomes for the moment the\nhighest god to whom all others must give place. He may be invoked as\nthe highest and the only god, without any slight being intended for\nthe other gods.\"--Zimmer, l. c. p. 175.]\n\n[Footnote 161: \"Es handelt sich hier nicht um amerikanische oder\nafrikanische Zersplitterung, sondern eine ueberraschende\nGleichartigkeit dehnt sich durch die Weite und Breite des Stillen\nOceans, und wenn wir Oceanien in der vollen Auffassung nehmen mit\nEinschluss Mikro-und Mela-nesiens (bis Malaya), selbst weiter. Es\nlaesst sich sagen, dass ein einheitlicher Gedankenbau, in etwa 120\nLaengen und 70 Breitegraden, ein Viertel unsers Erdglobus\nueberwoelbt.\"--Bastian, Die Heilige Sage der Polynesier, p. 57.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Henry S. King & Co., London, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 163: P. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 164: There is a second version of the story even in the\nsmall island of Mangaia; see \"Myths and Songs,\" p. 71.]\n\n[Footnote 165: See before, p. 158.]\n\n[Footnote 166: This explanation is considered altogether inadequate by\nmany scholars. It is, of course, not altogether a question of\nlearning, but also one of judgment.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 167: \"The Sacred Books of the East,\" vol. i. p. 249: \"The first\nhalf is the earth, the second half the heaven, their uniting the rain, the\nuniter Par_g_anya.\" And so it is when it (Par_g_anya) rains thus\nstrongly--without ceasing, day and night together--then they say also,\n\"Heaven and earth have come together.\"--From the Aitareya-Ara_n_yaka, III.\n2, 2.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 168: Bastian, Heilige Sage der Polynesier, p. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 169: Bergaigne, \"La Religion Vedique,\" p. 240.]\n\n[Footnote 170: Ait. Br. IV. 27; Muir, iv. p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 171: See Muir, iv. p. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Homer, Hymn xxx. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 173: [Greek: Chaire theon meter, haloch Onranon asteroentos.]]\n\n[Footnote 174: Euripides, Chrysippus, fragm. 6 (edit. Didot, p. 824):\n\n    [Greek: Gaia megiste kai Dios aither,\n    o men anthropon kai theon genetor,\n    he d' ugrobolous stagonas notious\n    paradexamene tiktei thnatous,\n    tiktei de Boran, phula te theron,\n    hothen onk hadikos\n    meter panton nenomistai.]]\n\n[Footnote 175: Dionysius Halic., vol. v. p. 355; Muir, v. p. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 176: Rig-Veda I. 22, 15.]\n\n[Footnote 177: See \"Lectures on the Science of Language,\" vol. ii. p.\n468.]\n\n[Footnote 178: Rig-Veda I. 160, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 179: L. c. IV. 56, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 180: L. c. VIII. 6, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 181: L. c. III. 30, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 182: L. c. III. 34, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 183: L. c. III. 34, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 184: L. c. VIII. 36, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 185: L. c. X. 54, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 186: Cf. IV. 17, 4, where Dyaus is the father of Indra; see\nhowever Muir, iv. 31, note.]\n\n[Footnote 187: Rig-Veda VI. 30, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 188: L. c. I. 131, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 189: L. c. IV. 17, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 190: L. c. II. 40, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 191: L. c. X. 121, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 192: L. c. X. 190, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 193: L. c. X. 81, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 194: Rig-Veda VI. 70, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 195: Rig-Veda X. 75. See Hibbert Lectures, Lect. iv.]\n\n[Footnote 196: Vivasvat is a name of the sun, and the seat or home of\nVivasvat can hardly be anything but the earth, as the home of the sun,\nor, in a more special sense, the place where a sacrifice is offered.]\n\n[Footnote 197: I formerly translated yat va_g_an abhi adrava_h_ tvam by\n\"when thou rannest for the prizes.\" Grassman had translated similarly,\n\"When thou, O Sindhu, rannest to the prize of the battle,\" while Ludwig\nwrote, \"When thou, O Sindhu, wast flowing on to greater powers.\" Va_g_a,\nconnected with vegeo, vigeo, vigil, wacker (see Curtius, Grundzuege, No.\n159), is one of the many difficult words in the Veda the general meaning\nof which may be guessed, but in many places cannot yet be determined\nwith certainty. Va_g_a occurs very frequently, both in the singular and\nthe plural, and some of its meanings are clear enough. The Petersburg\nDictionary gives the following list of them--swiftness, race, prize of\nrace, gain, treasure, race-horse, etc. Here we perceive at once the\ndifficulty of tracing all these meanings back to a common source, though\nit might be possible to begin with the meanings of strength, strife,\ncontest, race, whether friendly or warlike, then to proceed to what is\nwon in a race or in war, viz. booty, treasure, and lastly to take\nvaga_h_ in the more general sense of acquisitions, goods, even goods\nbestowed as gifts. We have a similar transition of meaning in the Greek\n[Greek: athlos], contest, contest for a prize, and [Greek: athlon], the\nprize of contest, reward, gift, while in the plural [Greek: ta athla]\nstands again for contest, or even the place of combat. The Vedic\nva_g_ambhara may in fact be rendered by [Greek: athlophoros], va_g_asati\nby [Greek: athlosyne].\n\nThe transition from fight to prize is seen in passages such as:\n\nRig-Veda VI. 45, 12, va_g_an indra _s_ravayyan tvaya _g_eshna hitam\ndhanam, \"May we with thy help, O Indra, win the glorious fights, the\noffered prize\" (cf. [Greek: athlothetes]).\n\nRig-Veda VIII. 19, 18, te it va_g_ebhi_h_ _g_igyu_h_ mahat dhanam,\n\"They won great-wealth by battles.\"\n\nWhat we want for a proper understanding of our verse, are passages\nwhere we have, as here, a movement toward va_g_as in the plural. Such\npassages are few; for instance: X. 53, 8, atra _g_ahama ye asan\na_s_evah _s_ivan vayam ut tarema abhi va_g_an, \"Let us leave here\nthose who were unlucky (the dead), and let us get up to lucky toils.\"\nNo more is probably meant here when the Sindhu is said to run toward\nher va_g_as, that is, her struggles, her fights, her race across the\nmountains with the other rivers.]\n\n[Footnote 198: On _s_ushma, strength, see Rig-Veda, translation, vol.\ni. p. 105. We find _s_ubhram _s_ushmam II. 11, 4; and iyarti with\n_s_ushmam IV. 17, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 199: See Muir, Santkrit Texts, v. p. 344.]\n\n[Footnote 200: \"O Marudv_ri_dha with Asikni, Vitasta; O Ar_g_ikiya,\nlisten with the Sushoma,\" _Ludwig_. \"Asikni and Vitasta and\nMarudv_ri_dha, with the Sushoma, hear us, O Ar_g_ikiya,\" _Grassman._]\n\n[Footnote 201: Marudv_ri_dha, a general name for river. According to\nRoth the combined course of the Akesines and Hydaspes, _before_ the\njunction with the Hydraotes; according to Ludwig, the river _after_\nthe junction with Hydraotes. Zimmer (Altindisches Leben, p. 12) adopts\nRoth's, Kiepert in his maps follows Ludwig's opinion.]\n\n[Footnote 202: According to Yaska, the Ar_g_ikiya is the Vipa_s_.\nVivien de Saint-Martin takes it for the country watered by the Suwan,\nthe Soanos of Megasthenes.]\n\n[Footnote 203: According to Yaska the Sushoma is the Indus. Vivien de\nSaint-Martin identifies it with the Suwan. Zimmer (l. c. p. 14) points\nout that in Arrian, Indica, iv. 12, there is a various reading Soamos\nfor Soanos.]\n\n[Footnote 204: \"Chips from a German Workshop,\" vol. i. p. 157.]\n\n[Footnote 205: Va_g_inivati is by no means an easy word. Hence all\ntranslators vary, and none settles the meaning. Muir translates,\n\"yielding nutriment;\" Zimmer, \"having plenty of quick horses;\" Ludwig,\n\"like a strong mare.\" Va_g_in, no doubt, means a strong horse, a\nracer, but va_g_ini never occurs in the Rig-Veda in the sense of a\nmare, and the text is not va_g_inivat, but va_g_inivati. If va_g_ini\nmeant mare, we might translate rich in mares, but that would be a mere\nrepetition after sva_s_va, possessed of good horses. Va_g_inivati is\nchiefly applied to Ushas, Sarasvati, and here to the river Sindhu. It\nis joined with va_g_ebhi_h_, Rig-Veda I. 3, 10, which, if va_g_ini\nmeant mare, would mean \"rich in mares through horses.\" We also read,\nRig-Veda I. 48, 16, sam (na_h_ mimikshva) va_g_ai_h_ va_g_inivati,\nwhich we can hardly translate by \"give us horses, thou who art\npossessed of mares;\" nor, Rig-Veda I. 92, 15, yukshva hi va_g_inivati\na_s_van, \"harness the horses, thou who art rich in mares.\" In most of\nthe passages where va_g_inivati occurs, the goddess thus addressed is\nrepresented as rich, and asked to bestow wealth, and I should\ntherefore prefer to take va_g_ini, as a collective abstract noun, like\ntretini, in the sense of wealth, originally booty, and to translate\nva_g_inivati simply by rich, a meaning well adapted to every passage\nwhere the word occurs.]\n\n[Footnote 206: Ur_n_avati, rich in wool, probably refers to the flocks\nof sheep for which the North-West of India was famous. See Rig-Veda I.\n126, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 207: Silamavati does not occur again in the Rig-Veda. Muir\ntranslates, \"rich in plants;\" Zimmer, \"rich in water;\" Ludwig takes it\nas a proper name. Saya_n_a states that silama is a plant which is made\ninto ropes. That the meaning of silamavati was forgotten at an early\ntime we see by the Atharva-Veda III. 12, 2, substituting\nsun_ri_tavati, for silamavati, as preserved in the _S_ankhayana\nG_ri_hya-sutras, 3, 3. I think silama means straw, from whatever plant\nit may be taken, and this would be equally applicable to a _s_ala, a\nhouse, a sthu_n_a, a post, and to the river Indus. It may have been,\nas Ludwig conjectures, an old local name, and in that case it may\npossibly account for the name given in later times to the Suleiman\nrange.]\n\n[Footnote 208: Madhuv_ri_dh is likewise a word which does not occur\nagain in the Rig-Veda. Saya_n_a explains it by nirgu_n_di and similar\nplants, but it is doubtful what plant is meant. Gu_n_da is the name of a\ngrass, madhuv_ri_dh therefore may have been a plant such as sugar-cane,\nthat yielded a sweet juice, the Upper Indus being famous for sugar-cane;\nsee Hiouen-thsang, II. p. 105. I take adhivaste with Roth in the sense\n\"she dresses herself,\" as we might say \"the river is dressed in\nheather.\" Muir translates, \"she traverses a land yielding sweetness;\"\nZimmer, \"she clothes herself in Madhuv_ri_dh;\" Ludwig, \"the Silamavati\nthrows herself into the increaser of the honey-sweet dew.\" All this\nshows how little progress can be made in Vedic scholarship by merely\ntranslating either words or verses, without giving at the same time a\nfull justification of the meaning assigned to every single word.]\n\n[Footnote 209: See Petersburg Dictionary, s. v. virap_s_in.]\n\n[Footnote 210: \"Among the Hottentots, the Kunene, Okavango, and Orange\nrivers, all have the name of Garib, _i.e._ the Runner.\"--Dr. Theoph.\nHahn, _Cape Times_, July 11, 1882.]\n\n[Footnote 211: _Deh_li, not _Del_-high.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 212: Cunningham, \"Archaeological Survey of India,\" vol. xii.\np. 113.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 20, 71: \"Indus incolis Sindus\nappellatus.\"]\n\n[Footnote 214: The history of these names has been treated by\nProfessor Lassen, in his \"Indische Alterthumskunde,\" and more lately\nby Professor Kaegi, in his very careful essay, \"Der Rig-Veda,\" pp.\n146, 147.]\n\n[Footnote 215: Ptol. vii. 1, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 216: Arrian, Indica, viii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 217: Rig-Veda III. 33, 1: \"From the lap of the mountains\nVipa_s_ and _S_utudri rush forth with their water like two lusty mares\nneighing, freed from their tethers, like two bright mother-cows\nlicking (their calf).\n\n\"Ordered by Indra and waiting his bidding you run toward the sea like\ntwo charioteers; running together, as your waters rise, the one goes\ninto the other, you bright ones.\"]\n\n[Footnote 218: Other classical names are Hypanis, Bipasis, and\nBibasis. Yaska identifies it with the Ar_g_ikiya.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Cf. Nirukta IX. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 220: \"The first tributaries which join the Indus before its\nmeeting with the Kubha or the Kabul river cannot be determined. All\ntravellers in these northern countries complain of the continual\nchanges in the names of the rivers, and we can hardly hope to find\ntraces of the Vedic names in existence there after the lapse of three\nor four thousand years. The rivers intended may be the Shauyook,\nLadak, Abba Seen, and Burrindu, and one of the four rivers, the Rasa,\nhas assumed an almost fabulous character in the Veda. After the Indus\nhas joined the Kubha or the Kabul river, two names occur, the Gomati\nand Krumu, which I believe I was the first to identify with the modern\nrivers the Gomal and Kurrum. (Roth, Nirukta, Erlaeuterungen, p. 43,\nAnm.) The Gomal falls into the Indus, between Dera Ismael Khan and\nPaharpore, and although Elphinstone calls it a river only during the\nrainy season, Klaproth (Foe-koue-ki, p. 23) describes its upper course\nas far more considerable, and adds: 'Un peu a l'est de Sirmagha, le\nGomal traverse la chaine de montagnes de Soliman, passe devant Raghzi,\net fertilise le pays habite par les tribus de Dauletkhail et de\nGandehpour. Il se desseche au defile de Pezou, et son lit ne se\nremplit plus d'eau que dans la saison des pluies; alors seulement il\nrejoint la droite de l'Indus, au sud-est de bourg de Paharpour.' The\nKurrum falls into the Indus north of the Gomal, while, according to\nthe poet, we should expect it south. It might be urged that poets are\nnot bound by the same rules as geographers, as we see, for instance,\nin the verse immediately preceding. But if it should be taken as a\nserious objection, it will be better to give up the Gomati than the\nKrumu, the latter being the larger of the two, and we might then take\nGomati, 'rich in cattle,' as an adjective belonging to Krumu.\"--From a\nreview of General Cunningham's \"Ancient Geography of India,\" in\n_Nature_, 1871, Sept. 14.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nVEDIC DEITIES.\n\n\nThe next important phenomenon of nature which was represented in the\nVeda as a terrestrial deity is Fire, in Sanskrit Agni, in Latin\n_ignis_. In the worship which is paid to the Fire and in the high\npraises bestowed on Agni we can clearly perceive the traces of a\nperiod in the history of man in which not only the most essential\ncomforts of life, but life itself, depended on the knowledge of\nproducing fire. To us fire has become so familiar that we can hardly\nform an idea of what life would be without it. But how did the ancient\ndwellers on earth get command and possession of fire? The Vedic poets\ntell us that fire first came to them from the sky, in the form of\nlightning, but that it disappeared again, and that then Matari_s_van,\na being to a certain extent like Prometheus, brought it back and\nconfided it to the safe keeping of the clan of the Bh_r_igus\n(Phlegyas).[221]\n\nIn other poems we hear of the mystery of fire being produced by\nrubbing pieces of wood; and here it is a curious fact that the name of\nthe wood thus used for rubbing is in Sanskrit Pramantha, a word which,\nas Kuhn has shown, would in Greek come very near to the name of\nPrometheus. The possession of fire, whether by preserving it as sacred\non the hearth, or by producing it at pleasure with the fire-drill,\nrepresents an enormous step in early civilization. It enabled people\nto cook their meat instead of eating it raw; it gave them the power of\ncarrying on their work by night; and in colder climates it really\npreserved them from being frozen to death. No wonder, therefore, that\nthe fire should have been praised and worshipped as the best and\nkindest of gods, the only god who had come down from heaven to live on\nearth, the friend of man, the messenger of the gods, the mediator\nbetween gods and men, the immortal among mortals. He, it is said,\nprotects the settlements of the Aryans, and frightens away the\nblack-skinned enemies.\n\nSoon, however, fire was conceived by the Vedic poets under the more\ngeneral character of light and warmth, and then the presence of Agni was\nperceived, not only on the hearth and the altar, but in the Dawn, in the\nSun, and in the world beyond the Sun, while at the same time his power was\nrecognized as ripening, or as they called it, as cooking, the fruits of\nthe earth, and as supporting also the warmth and the life of the human\nbody. From that point of view Agni, like other powers, rose to the rank of\na Supreme God.[222] He is said to have stretched out heaven and\nearth--naturally, because without his light heaven and earth would have\nbeen invisible and undistinguishable. The next poet says that Agni held\nheaven aloft by his light, that he kept the two worlds asunder; and in the\nend Agni is said to be the progenitor and father of heaven and earth, and\nthe maker of all that flies, or walks, or stands, or moves on earth.\n\nHere we have once more the same process before our eyes. The human\nmind begins with being startled by a single or repeated event, such as\nthe lightning striking a tree and devouring a whole forest, or a\nspark of fire breaking forth from wood being rubbed against wood,\nwhether in a forest, or in the wheel of a carriage, or at last in a\nfire-drill, devised on purpose. Man then begins to wonder at what to\nhim is a miracle, none the less so because it is a fact, a simple,\nnatural fact. He sees the effects of a power, but he can only guess at\nits cause, and if he is to speak of it, he can only do so by speaking\nof it as an agent, or as something like a human agent, and, if in some\nrespects not quite human, in others more than human or superhuman.\nThus the concept of Fire grew; and while it became more and more\ngeneralized, it also became more sublime, more incomprehensible, more\ndivine. Without Agni, without fire, light, and warmth, life would have\nbeen impossible. Hence he became the author and giver of life, of the\nlife of plants and animals and of men; and his favor having once been\nimplored for \"light and life and all things,\" what wonder that in the\nminds of some poets, and in the traditions of this or that\nvillage-community he should have been raised to the rank of a supreme\nruler, a god above all gods, their own true god!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe now proceed to consider the powers which the ancient poets might\nhave discovered in the air, in the clouds, and, more particularly, in\nthose meteoric conflicts which by thunder, lightning, darkness,\nstorms, and showers of rain must have taught man that very important\nlesson that he was not alone in this world. Many philosophers, as you\nknow, believe that all religion arose from fear or terror, and that\nwithout thunder and lightning to teach us, we should never have\nbelieved in any gods or god. This is a one-sided and exaggerated view.\nThunderstorms, no doubt, had a large share in arousing feelings of\nawe and terror, and in making man conscious of his weakness and\ndependence. Even in the Veda, Indra is introduced as saying: \"Yes,\nwhen I send thunder and lightning, then you believe in me.\" But what\nwe call religion would never have sprung from fear and terror alone.\n_Religion is trust_, and that trust arose in the beginning from the\nimpressions made on the mind and heart of man by the order and wisdom\nof nature, and more particularly by those regularly recurring events,\nthe return of the sun, the revival of the moon, the order of the\nseasons, the law of cause and effect, gradually discovered in all\nthings, and traced back in the end to a cause of all causes, by\nwhatever name we choose to call it.\n\nStill the meteoric phenomena had, no doubt, their important share in\nthe production of ancient deities; and in the poems of the Vedic\nRishis they naturally occupy a very prominent place. If we were asked\nwho was the principal god of the Vedic period, we should probably,\njudging from the remains of that poetry which we possess, say it was\nIndra, the god of the blue sky, the Indian Zeus, the gatherer of the\nclouds, the giver of rain, the wielder of the thunder-bolt, the\nconqueror of darkness, and of all the powers of darkness, the bringer\nof light, the source of freshness, vigor, and life, the ruler and lord\nof the whole world. Indra is this, and much more in the Veda. He is\nsupreme in the hymns of many poets, and may have been so in the\nprayers addressed to him by many of the ancient septs or village\ncommunities in India. Compared with him the other gods are said to be\ndecrepit old men. Heaven, the old Heaven or Dyaus, formerly the father\nof all the gods, nay the father of Indra himself, bows before him, and\nthe Earth trembles at his approach. Yet Indra never commanded the\npermanent allegiance of all the other gods, like Zeus and Jupiter;\nnay, we know from the Veda itself that there were skeptics, even at\nthat early time, who denied that there was any such thing as\nIndra.[223]\n\nBy the side of Indra, and associated with him in his battles, and\nsometimes hardly distinguishable from him, we find the representatives\nof the wind, called Vata or Vayu, and the more terrible storm-gods,\nthe Maruts, literally the Smashers.\n\nWhen speaking of the Wind, a poet says:[224] \"Where was he born?\nWhence did he spring? the life of the gods, the germ of the world!\nThat god moves about where he listeth, his voices are heard, but he is\nnot to be seen.\"\n\nThe Maruts are more terrible than Vata, the wind. They are clearly the\nrepresentatives of such storms as are known in India, when the air is\ndarkened by dust and clouds, when in a moment the trees are stripped\nof their foliage, their branches shivered, their stems snapped, when\nthe earth seems to reel and the mountains to shake, and the rivers are\nlashed into foam and fury. Then the poet sees the Maruts approaching\nwith golden helmets, with spotted skins on their shoulders,\nbrandishing golden spears, whirling their axes, shooting fiery arrows,\nand cracking their whips amid thunder and lightning. They are the\ncomrades of Indra, sometimes, like Indra, the sons of Dyaus or the\nsky, but also the sons of another terrible god, called Rudra, or the\nHowler, a fighting god, to whom many hymns are addressed. In him a new\ncharacter is evolved, that of a healer and saviour--a very natural\ntransition in India, where nothing is so powerful for dispelling\nmiasmas, restoring health, and imparting fresh vigor to man and\nbeast, as a thunderstorm, following after weeks of heat and drought.\n\nAll these and several others, such as Par_g_anya and the _Ri_bhus, are\nthe gods of mid-air, the most active and dramatic gods, ever present\nto the fancy of the ancient poets, and in several cases the prototypes\nof later heroes, celebrated in the epic poems of India. In battles,\nmore particularly, these fighting gods of the sky were constantly\ninvoked.[225] Indra is the leader in battles, the protector of the\nbright Aryans, the destroyer of the black aboriginal inhabitants of\nIndia. \"He has thrown down fifty thousand black fellows,\" the poet\nsays, \"and their strongholds crumbled away like an old rag.\" Strange\nto say, Indra is praised for having saved his people from their\nenemies, much as Jehovah was praised by the Jewish prophets. Thus we\nread in one hymn that when Sudas, the pious king of the T_ri_tsus, was\npressed hard in his battle with the ten kings, Indra changed the flood\ninto an easy ford, and thus saved Sudas.\n\nIn another hymn we read:[226] \"Thou hast restrained the great river\nfor the sake of Turviti Vayya: the flood moved in obedience to thee,\nand thou madest the rivers easy to cross.\" This is not very different\nfrom the Psalmist (78:13): \"He divided the sea, and caused them to\npass through; and he made the waters to stand as an heap.\"\n\nAnd there are other passages which have reminded some students of the\nVeda of Joshua's battle,[227] when the sun stood still and the moon\nstayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\nFor we read in the Veda also, as Professor Kaegi has pointed out (l.\nc. p. 63), that \"Indra lengthened the days into the night,\" and that\n\"the Sun unharnessed its chariot in the middle of the day.\"[228]\n\nIn some of the hymns addressed to Indra his original connection with\nthe sky and the thunderstorm seems quite forgotten. He has become a\nspiritual god, the only king of all worlds and all people,[229] who\nsees and hears everything,[230] nay, who inspires men with their best\nthoughts. No one is equal to him, no one excels him.\n\nThe name of Indra is peculiar to India, and must have been formed after\nthe separation of the great Aryan family had taken place, for we find it\nneither in Greek, nor in Latin, nor in German. There are Vedic gods, as\nI mentioned before, whose names must have been framed before that\nseparation, and which occur therefore, though greatly modified in\ncharacter, sometimes in Greek, sometimes in Latin, sometimes in the\nCeltic, Teutonic, and Slavonic dialects. D y a u s, for instance, is the\nsame word as Zeus or Jupiter, U s h a s is Eos, N a k t a is Nyx, S u r\ny a is Helios, A g n i is ignis, B h a g a is Baga in Old Persian, B o g\nu in Old Slavonic, V a r u _n_ a is Uranos, V a t a is Wotan, V a _k_ is\nvox, and in the name of the _Maruts_, or the storm-gods, the germs of\nthe Italic god of war, Mars, have been discovered. Besides these direct\ncoincidences, some indirect relations have been established between\nHermes and S a r a m e y a, Dionysos and D y u n i _s_ y a, Prometheus\nand p r a m a n t h a, Orpheus and _R i_ b h u, Erinnys and S a r a _n_\ny u, Pan and P a v a n a.[231]\n\nBut while the name of Indra as the god of the sky, also as the god of\nthe thunderstorm, and the giver of rain, is unknown among the\nnorth-western members of the Aryan family, the name of another god who\nsometimes acts the part of Indra (Indra_h_ Par_g_anyatma), but is much\nless prominent in the Veda, I mean Par_g_anya, must have existed\nbefore that of Indra, because two at least of the Aryan languages have\ncarried it, as we shall see, to Germany, and to the very shores of the\nBaltic.\n\nSometimes this Par_g_anya stands in the place of Dyaus, the sky. Thus\nwe read in the Atharva-Veda, XII. 1, 12:[232] \"The Earth is the\nmother, and I am the son of the Earth. Par_g_anya is the father; may\nhe help us!\"\n\nIn another place (XII. 1, 42) the Earth, instead of being the wife of\nHeaven or Dyaus, is called the wife of Par_g_anya.\n\nNow who or what is this Par_g_anya? There have been long controversies\nabout him,[233] as to whether he is the same as Dyaus, Heaven, or the\nsame as Indra, the successor of Dyaus, whether he is the god of the\nsky, of the cloud, or of the rain.\n\nTo me it seems that this very expression, god of the sky, god of the\ncloud, is so entire an anachronism that we could not even translate it\ninto Vedic Sanskrit without committing a solecism. It is true, no doubt,\nwe must use our modern ways of speaking when we wish to represent the\nthoughts of the ancient world; but we cannot be too much on our guard\nagainst accepting the dictionary representative of an ancient word for\nits real counterpart. Deva, no doubt, means \"gods\" and \"god,\" and P a r\n_g_ a n y a means \"cloud,\" but no one could say in Sanskrit p a r _g_ a\nn y a s y a d e v a _h_, \"the god of the cloud.\" The god, or the divine,\nor transcendental element, does not come from without, to be added to\nthe cloud or to the sky or to the earth, but it springs from the cloud\nand the sky and the earth, and is slowly elaborated into an independent\nconcept. As many words in ancient languages have an undefined meaning,\nand lend themselves to various purposes according to the various\nintentions of the speakers, the names of the gods also share in this\nelastic and plastic character of ancient speech. There are passages\nwhere Par_g_anya means cloud, there are passages where it means rain.\nThere are passages where Par_g_anya takes the place which elsewhere is\nfilled by Dyaus, the sky, or by Indra, the active god of the atmosphere.\nThis may seem very wrong and very unscientific to the scientific\nmythologist. But it cannot be helped. It is the nature of ancient\nthought and ancient language to be unscientific, and we must learn to\nmaster it as well as we can, instead of finding fault with it, and\ncomplaining that our forefathers did not reason exactly as we do.\n\nThere are passages in the Vedic hymns where Par_g_anya appears as a\nsupreme god. He is called father, like Dyaus, the sky. He is called\na s u r a, the living or life-giving god, a name peculiar to the oldest\nand the greatest gods. One poet says,[234] \"He rules as god over the\nwhole world; all creatures rest in him; he is the life (atma) of all\nthat moves and rests.\"\n\nSurely it is difficult to say more of a supreme god than what is here\nsaid of Par_g_anya. Yet in other hymns he is represented as performing\nhis office, namely that of sending rain upon the earth, under the\ncontrol of Mitra and Varu_n_, who are then considered as the highest\nlords, the mightiest rulers of heaven and earth.[235]\n\nThere are other verses, again, where par_g_anya occurs with hardly any\ntraces of personality, but simply as a name of cloud or rain.\n\nThus we read:[236] \"Even by day the Maruts (the storm-gods) produce\ndarkness with the cloud that carries water, when they moisten the\nearth.\" Here cloud is par_g_anya, and it is evidently used as an\nappellative, and not as a proper name. The same word occurs in the\nplural also, and we read of many par_g_anyas or clouds vivifying the\nearth.[237]\n\nWhen Devapi prays for rain in favor of his brother, he says:[238] \"O\nlord of my prayer (B_ri_haapati), whether thou be Mitra or Varu_n_a or\nPushan, come to my sacrifice! Whether thou be together with the\nAdityas, the Vasus or the Maruts, let the cloud (par_g_anya) rain for\n_S_antanu.\"\n\nAnd again: \"Stir up the rainy cloud\" (par_g_anya).\n\nIn several places it makes no difference whether we translate\npar_g_anya by cloud or by rain, for those who pray for rain, pray for\nthe cloud, and whatever may be the benefits of the rain, they may\nnearly all be called the benefits of the cloud. There is a curious\nhymn, for instance, addressed to the frogs who, at the beginning of\nthe rains, come forth from the dry ponds, and embrace each other and\nchatter together, and whom the poet compares to priests singing at a\nsacrifice, a not very complimentary remark from a poet who is himself\nsupposed to have been a priest. Their voice is said to have been\nrevived by par_g_anya, which we shall naturally translate \"by rain,\"\nthough, no doubt, the poet may have meant, for all we know, either a\ncloud, or even the god Par_g_anya himself.\n\nI shall try to translate one of the hymns addressed to Par_g_anya,\nwhen conceived as a god, or at least as so much of a god as it was\npossible to be at that stage in the intellectual growth of the human\nrace.[239]\n\n     1. \"Invoke the strong god with these songs! praise\n     Par_g_anya, worship him with veneration! for he, the roaring\n     bull, scattering drops, gives seed-fruit to plants.\n\n     2. \"He cuts the trees asunder, he kills evil spirits; the\n     whole world trembles before his mighty weapon. Even the\n     guiltless flees before the powerful, when Par_g_anya\n     thundering strikes down the evil-doers.\n\n     3. \"Like a charioteer, striking his horses with a whip, he\n     puts forths his messenger of rain. From afar arise the\n     roarings of the lion, when Par_g_anya makes the sky full of\n     rain.\n\n     4. \"The winds blow, the lightnings[240] fly, plants spring\n     up, the sky pours. Food is produced for the whole world,\n     when Par_g_anya blesses the earth with his seed.\n\n     5. \"O Par_g_anya, thou at whose work the earth bows down,\n     thou at whose work hoofed animals are scattered, thou at\n     whose work the plants assume all forms, grant thou to us thy\n     great protection!\n\n     6. \"O, Maruts, give us the rain of heaven, make the streams\n     of the strong horse run down! And come thou hither with thy\n     thunder, pouring out water, for thou (O Par_g_anya) art the\n     living god, thou art our father.\n\n     7. \"Do thou roar, and thunder, and give fruitfulness! Fly\n     around us with thy chariot full of water! Draw forth thy\n     water-skin, when it has been opened and turned downward, and\n     let the high and the low places become level!\n\n     8. \"Draw up the large bucket, and pour it out; let the\n     streams pour forth freely! Soak heaven and earth with\n     fatness! and let there be a good draught for the cows!\n\n     9. \"O Par_g_anya, when roaring and thundering thou killest\n     the evil-doers, then everything rejoices, whatever lives on\n     earth.\n\n     10. \"Thou hast sent rain, stop now! Thou hast made the\n     deserts passable, thou hast made plants grow for food, and\n     thou hast obtained praise from men.\"\n\nThis is a Vedic hymn, and a very fair specimen of what these ancient\nhymns are. There is nothing very grand and poetical about them, and\nyet, I say, take thousands and thousands of people living in our\nvillages, and depending on rain for their very life, and not many of\nthem will be able to compose such a prayer for rain, even though three\nthousand years have passed over our heads since Par_g_anya was first\ninvoked in India. Nor are these verses entirely without poetical\nconceptions and descriptions. Whoever has watched a real thunderstorm\nin a hot climate will recognize the truth of those quick sentences:\n\"the winds blow, the lightnings fly, plants spring up, the hoofed\ncattle are scattered.\" Nor is the idea without a certain drastic\nreality, that Par_g_anya draws a bucket of water from his well in\nheaven, and pours out skin after skin (in which water was then\ncarried) down upon the earth.\n\nThere is even a moral sentiment perceptible in this hymn. \"When the\nstorms roar, and the lightnings flash and the rain pours down, even\nthe guiltless trembles, and evil-doers are struck down.\" Here we\nclearly see that the poet did not look upon the storm simply as an\noutbreak of the violence of nature, but that he had a presentiment of\na higher will and power which even the guiltless fears; for who, he\nseems to say, is entirely free from guilt?\n\nIf now we ask again, Who is Par_g_anya? or What is Par_g_anya? we can\nanswer that par_g_anya was meant originally for the cloud, so far as\nit gives rain; but as soon as the idea of a giver arose, the visible\ncloud became the outward appearance only, or the body of that giver,\nand the giver himself was somewhere else, we know not where. In some\nverses Par_g_anya seems to step into the place of Dyaus, the sky, and\nP_ri_thivi, the earth, is his wife. In other places,[241] however, he\nis the son of Dyaus or the sky, though no thought is given in that\nearly stage to the fact that thus Par_g_anya might seem to be the\nhusband of his mother. We saw that even the idea of Indra being the\nfather of his own father did not startle the ancient poets beyond an\nexclamation that it was a very wonderful thing indeed.\n\nSometimes Par_g_anya does the work of Indra,[242] the Jupiter Pluvius\nof the Veda; sometimes of Vayu, the wind, sometimes of Soma, the giver\nof rain. Yet with all this he is not Dyaus, nor Indra, nor the Maruts,\nnor Vayu, nor Soma. He stands by himself, a separate person, a\nseparate god, as we should say--nay, one of the oldest of all the\nAryan gods.\n\nHis name, par_g_anya, is derived from a root par_g_, which, like its\nparallel forms pars and parsh, must (I think) have had the meaning of\nsprinkling, irrigating, moistening. An interchange between final _g_,\n_s_, and sh, may, no doubt, seem unusual, but it is not without parallel\nin Sanskrit. We have, for instance, the roots pi_ng_, pingere; pish, to\nrub; pi_s_, to adorn (as in pe_s_as, [Greek: poikilos], etc.); m_rig_,\nto rub, m_ri_sh, to rub out, to forget; m_ris_, mulcere.\n\nThis very root m_rig_ forms its participle as m_ri_sh-_t_a, like\nya_g_, ish_t_a, and vi_s_, vish_t_a; nay there are roots, such as\ndruh, which optionally take a final lingual or guttural, such as\ndhru_t_ and dhruk.[243]\n\nWe may therefore compare par_g_ in par_g_anya with such words as\np_ri_shata, p_ri_shati, speckled, drop of water;[244] also par_s_u,\ncloud, p_ris_ni, speckled, cloud, earth; and in Greek [Greek: prox(o)],\n[Greek: perknos], etc.[245]\n\nIf derived from par_g_, to sprinkle, Par_g_anya would have meant\noriginally \"he who irrigates or gives rain.\"[246]\n\nWhen the different members of the Aryan family dispersed, they might\nall of them, Hindus as well as Greeks and Celts, and Teutons and\nSlaves, have carried that name for cloud with them. But you know that\nit happened very often that out of the commonwealth of their ancient\nlanguage, one and the same word was preserved, as the case might be,\nnot by all, but by only six, or five, or four, or three, or two, or\neven by one only of the seven principal heirs; and yet, as we know\nthat there was no historical contact between them, after they had once\nparted from each other, long before the beginning of what we call\nhistory, the fact that two of the Aryan languages have preserved the\nsame finished word with the same finished meaning, is proof sufficient\nthat it belonged to the most ancient treasure of Aryan thought.\n\nNow there is no trace, at least no very clear trace, of Par_g_anya, in\nGreek, or Latin, or Celtic, or even in Teutonic. In Slavonic, too, we\nlook in vain, till we come to that almost forgotten side-branch called\nthe _Lettic_, comprising the spoken _Lituanian_ and _Lettish_, and the\nnow extinct _Old Prussian_. Lituania is no longer an independent\nstate, but it was once, not more than six centuries ago, a Grand\nDuchy, independent both of Russia and Poland. Its first Grand Duke was\nRingold, who ruled from 1235, and his successors made successful\nconquests against the Russians. In 1368 these grand dukes became kings\nof Poland, and in 1569 the two countries were united. When Poland was\ndivided between Russia and Prussia, part of Lituania fell to the\nformer, part to the latter. There are still about one million and a\nhalf of people who speak Lituanian in Russia and Prussia, while\nLettish is spoken by about one million in Curland and Livonia.\n\nThe Lituanian language even as it is now spoken by the common people,\ncontains some extremely primitive grammatical forms--in some cases\nalmost identical with Sanskrit. These forms are all the more curious,\nbecause they are but few in number, and the rest of the language has\nsuffered much from the wear and tear of centuries.\n\nNow in that remote Lituanian language we find that our old friend\nPar_g_anya has taken refuge. There he lives to the present day, while\neven in India he is almost forgotten, at least in the spoken\nlanguages; and there, in Lituania, not many centuries back might be\nheard among a Christianized or nearly Christianized people, prayers\nfor rain, not very different from that which I translated to you from\nthe Rig-Veda. In Lituanian the god of thunder was called\n_Perkunas_,[247] and the same word is still used in the sense of\nthunder. In Old Prussian, thunder was _percunos_, and in Lettish to\nthe present day _perkons_ is thunder, god of thunder.[248]\n\nIt was, I believe, Grimm who for the first time identified the Vedic\nPar_g_anya with the Old Slavonic Perun, the Polish Piorun, the\nBohemian Peraun. These words had formerly been derived by Dobrovsky\nand others from the root peru, I strike. Grimm (\"Teutonic Mythology,\"\nEngl. transl., p. 171) showed that the fuller forms Perkunas,\nPehrkons, and Perkunos existed in Lituanian, Lettish, Old Prussian,\nand that even the Mordvinians had adopted the name Porguini as that of\ntheir thunder-god.\n\nSimon Grunau, who finished his chronicle in 1521, speaks of three\ngods, as worshipped by the Old Prussians, Patollo, Patrimpo, and\nPerkuno, and he states that Perkuno was invoked \"for storm's sake,\nthat they might have rain and fair weather at the proper time, and\nthunder and lightning should not injure them.\"[249]\n\nThe following Lituanian prayer has been preserved to us by\nLasitzki:[250]\n\n     \"Check thyself, O Percuna, and do not send misfortune on my\n     field! and I shall give thee this flitch.\"\n\nAmong the neighbors of the Lets, the Esthonians, who, though un-Aryan\nin language, have evidently learned much from their Aryan neighbors,\nthe following prayer was heard,[251] addressed by an old peasant to\ntheir god _Picker_ or _Picken_, the god of thunder and rain, as late\nas the seventeenth century.[252]\n\n     \"Dear Thunder (woda Picker), we offer to thee an ox that has\n     two horns and four cloven hoofs; we would pray thee for our\n     ploughing and sowing, that our straw be copper-red, our\n     grain golden-yellow. Push elsewhere all the thick black\n     clouds, over great fens, high forests, and wildernesses. But\n     unto us, ploughers and sowers, give a fruitful season and\n     sweet rain. Holy Thunder (poeha Picken), guard our\n     seed-field, that it bear good straw below, good ears above,\n     and good grain within.\"[253]\n\nNow, I say again, I do not wish you to admire this primitive poetry,\nprimitive, whether it is repeated in the Esthonian fens in the\nseventeenth century of our era, or sung in the valley of the Indus in\nthe seventeenth century before our era. Let aesthetic critics say what\nthey like about these uncouth poems. I only ask you, Is it not worth a\ngreat many poems, to have established this fact, that the same god\nPar_g_anya, the god of clouds and thunder and lightning and rain, who\nwas invoked in India a thousand years before India was discovered by\nAlexander, should have been remembered and believed in by Lituanian\npeasants on the frontier between East Prussia and Russia, not more\nthan two hundred years ago, and should have retained its old name\nPar_g_anya, which in Sanskrit meant \"showering,\" under the form of\n_Perkuna_, which in Lituanian is a name and a name only, without any\netymological meaning at all; nay, should live on, as some scholars\nassure us, in an abbreviated form in most Slavonic dialects, namely,\nin Old Slavonic as _Perun_, in Polish as _Piorun_, in Bohemian as\n_Peraun_, all meaning thunder or thunderstorm?[254]\n\nSuch facts strike me as if we saw the blood suddenly beginning to flow\nagain through the veins of old mummies; or as if the Egyptian statues\nof black granite were suddenly to begin to speak again. Touched by the\nrays of modern science the old words--call them mummies or\nstatues--begin indeed to live again, the old names of gods and heroes\nbegin indeed to speak again.\n\nAll that is old becomes new, all that is new becomes old, and that one\nword, Par_g_anya, seems, like a charm, to open before our eyes the\ncave or cottage in which the fathers of the Aryan race, our own\nfathers--whether we live on the Baltic or on the Indian Ocean--are\nseen gathered together, taking refuge from the buckets of Par_g_anya,\nand saying, \"Stop now, Par_g_anya; thou hast sent rain; thou hast made\nthe deserts passable, and hast made the plants to grow; and thou hast\nobtained praise from man.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have still to consider the third class of gods, in addition to the\ngods of the earth and the sky, namely the gods of the highest heaven,\nmore serene in their character than the active and fighting gods of\nthe air and the clouds, and more remote from the eyes of man, and\ntherefore more mysterious in the exercise of their power than the gods\nof the earth or the air.\n\nThe principal deity is here no doubt the bright sky itself, the old\n_Dyaus_, worshipped as we know by the Aryans before they broke up into\nseparate people and languages, and surviving in Greece as Zeus, in\nItaly as Jupiter, Heaven-father, and among the Teutonic tribes as\n_Tyr_ and _Tiu_. In the Veda we saw him chiefly invoked in\nconnection with the earth, as Dyava-p_ri_thivi, Heaven and Earth. He\nis invoked by himself also, but he is a vanishing god, and his place\nis taken in most of the Vedic poems by the younger and more active\ngod, _Indra_.\n\nAnother representative of the highest heaven, as covering, embracing,\nand shielding all things, is Varu_n_a, a name derived from the root\nvar, to cover, and identical with the Greek _Ouranos_. This god is one\nof the most interesting creations of the Hindu mind, because though\nwe can still perceive the physical background from which he rises, the\nvast, starry, brilliant expanse above, his features, more than those\nof any of the Vedic gods, have become completely transfigured, and he\nstands before us as a god who watches over the world, punishes the\nevil-doer, and even forgives the sins of those who implore his pardon.\n\nI shall read you one of the hymns addressed to him:[255]\n\n     \"Let us be blessed in thy service, O Varu_n_a, for we always\n     think of thee and praise thee, greeting thee day by day,\n     like the fires lighted on the altar, at the approach of the\n     rich dawns.\"    2.\n\n     \"O Varu_n_a, our guide, let us stand in thy keeping, thou\n     who art rich in heroes and praised far and wide! And you,\n     unconquered sons of Aditi, deign to accept us as your\n     friends, O gods!\"    3.\n\n     \"Aditya, the ruler, sent forth these rivers; they follow the\n     law of Varu_n_a. They tire not, they cease not; like birds\n     they fly quickly everywhere.\"    4.\n\n     \"Take from me my sin, like a fetter, and we shall increase,\n     O Varu_n_a, the spring of thy law. Let not the thread be cut\n     while I weave my song! Let not the form of the workman break\n     before the time!    5.\n\n     \"Take far away from me this terror, O Varu_n_a; Thou, O\n     righteous king, have mercy on me! Like as a rope from a\n     calf, remove from me my sin; for away from thee I am not\n     master even of the twinkling of an eye.\"    6.\n\n     \"Do not strike us, Varu_n_a, with weapons which at thy will\n     hurt the evil-doer. Let us not go where the light has\n     vanished! Scatter our enemies, that we may live.\"    7.\n\n     \"We did formerly, O Varu_n_a, and do now, and shall in\n     future also, sing praises to thee, O mighty one! For on\n     thee, unconquerable hero, rest all statutes, immovable, as\n     if established on a rock.\"    8.\n\n     \"Move far away from me all self-committed guilt, and may I\n     not, O king, suffer for what others have committed! Many\n     dawns have not yet dawned; grant us to live in them, O\n     Varu_n_a.\"    9.\n\nYou may have observed that in several verses of this hymn Varu_n_a was\ncalled Aditya, or son of Aditi. Now Aditi means _infinitude_, from\n_dita_, bound, and _a_, not, that is, not bound, not limited,\nabsolute, infinite. Aditi itself is now and then invoked in the Veda,\nas the Beyond, as what is beyond the earth and the sky, and the sun\nand the dawn--a most surprising conception in that early period of\nreligious thought. More frequently, however, than Aditi, we meet with\nthe Adityas, literally the sons of Aditi, or the gods beyond the\nvisible earth and sky--in one sense, the infinite gods. One of them is\nVaru_n_a, others Mitra and Aryaman (Bhaga, Daksha, A_ms_a), most of\nthem abstract names, though pointing to heaven and the solar light of\nheaven as their first, though almost forgotten source.\n\nWhen Mitra and Varu_n_a are invoked together, we can still perceive\ndimly that they were meant originally for day and night, light and\ndarkness. But in their more personal and so to say dramatic aspect,\nday and night appear in the Vedic mythology as the two A_s_vins, the\ntwo horsemen.\n\nAditi, too, the infinite, still shows a few traces of her being\noriginally connected with the boundless Dawn; but again, in her more\npersonal and dramatic character, the Dawn is praised by the Vedic\npoets as Ushas, the Greek Eos, the beautiful maid of the morning,\nloved by the A_s_vins, loved by the sun, but vanishing before him at\nthe very moment when he tries to embrace her with his golden rays. The\nsun himself, whom we saw reflected several times before in some of the\ndivine personifications of the air and the sky and even of the earth,\nappears once more in his full personality, as the sun of the sky,\nunder the names of Surya (Helios), Savit_ri_, Pushan, and Vish_n_u,\nand many more.\n\nYou see from all this how great a mistake it would be to attempt to\nreduce the whole of Aryan mythology to solar concepts, and to solar\nconcepts only. We have seen how largely the earth, the air, and the\nsky have each contributed their share to the earliest religious and\nmythological treasury of the Vedic Aryans. Nevertheless, the Sun\noccupied in that ancient collection of Aryan thought, which we call\nMythology, the same central and commanding position which, under\ndifferent names, it still holds in our own thoughts.\n\nWhat we call the Morning, the ancient Aryans called the Sun or the\nDawn; \"and there is no solemnity so deep to a rightly-thinking\ncreature as that of the Dawn.\" (These are not my words, but the words\nof one of our greatest poets, one of the truest worshippers of\nNature--John Ruskin.) What we call Noon, and Evening, and Night, what\nwe call Spring and Winter, what we call Year, and Time, and Life, and\nEternity--all this the ancient Aryans called _Sun_. And yet wise\npeople wonder and say, How curious that the ancient Aryans should have\nhad so many solar myths. Why, every time we say \"Good-morning,\" we\ncommit a solar myth. Every poet who sings about \"the May driving the\nWinter from the field again\" commits a solar myth. Every \"Christmas\nnumber\" of our newspapers--ringing out the old year and ringing in the\nnew--is brimful of solar myths. Be not afraid of solar myths, but\nwhenever in ancient mythology you meet with a name that, according to\nthe strictest phonetic rules (for this is a _sine qua non_), can be\ntraced back to a word meaning sun, or dawn, or morning, or night, or\nspring or winter, accept it for what it was meant to be, and do not be\ngreatly surprised, if a story told of a solar eponymos was originally\na solar myth.\n\nNo one has more strongly protested against the extravagances of\ncomparative mythologists in changing everything into solar legends,\nthan I have; but if I read some of the arguments brought forward\nagainst this new science, I confess they remind me of nothing so much\nas of the arguments brought forward, centuries ago, against the\nexistence of Antipodes! People then appealed to what is called Common\nSense, which ought to teach everybody that Antipodes could not\npossibly exist, because they would tumble off. The best answer that\nastronomers could give, was, \"Go and see.\" And I can give no better\nanswer to those learned skeptics who try to ridicule the Science of\nComparative Mythology--\"Go and see!\" that is, go and read the Veda,\nand before you have finished the first Ma_nd_ala, I can promise you,\nyou will no longer shake your wise heads at solar myths, whether in\nIndia, or in Greece, or in Italy, or even in England, where we see so\nlittle of the sun, and talk all the more about the weather--that is,\nabout a solar myth.\n\nWe have thus seen from the hymns and prayers preserved to us in the\nRig-Veda, how a large number of so-called Devas, bright and sunny\nbeings, or gods, were called into existence, how the whole world was\npeopled with them, and every act of nature, whether on the earth or in\nthe air or in the highest heaven, ascribed to their agency. When we\nsay _it_ thunders, they said Indra thunders; when we say, _it_ rains,\nthey said Par_g_anya pours out his buckets; when we say, _it_ dawns,\nthey said the beautiful Ushas appears like a dancer, displaying her\nsplendor; when we say; _it_ grows dark, they said Surya unharnesses\nhis steeds. The whole of nature was alive to the poets of the Veda,\nthe presence of the gods was felt everywhere, and in that sentiment of\nthe presence of the gods there was a germ of religious morality,\nsufficiently strong, it would seem, to restrain people from committing\nas it were before the eyes of their gods what they were ashamed to\ncommit before the eyes of men. When speaking of Varu_n_a, the old god\nof the sky, one poet says:[256]\n\n    \"Varu_n_a, the great lord of these worlds, sees as if he were\n    near. If a man stands or walks or hides, if he goes to lie\n    down or to get up, what two people sitting together whisper\n    to each other, King Varu_n_a knows it, he is there as the\n    third.[257] This earth too belongs to Varu_n_a, the King, and\n    this wide sky with its ends far apart. The two seas (the sky\n    and the ocean) are Varu_n_a's loins; he is also contained in\n    this small drop of water. He who should flee far beyond the\n    sky, even he would not be rid of Varu_n_a, the King.[258] His\n    spies proceed from heaven toward this world; with thousand\n    eyes they overlook this earth. King Varu_n_a sees all this,\n    what is between heaven and earth, and what is beyond. He has\n    counted the twinklings of the eyes of men. As a player throws\n    down the dice, he settles all things (irrevocably). May all\n    thy fatal snares which stand spread out seven by seven and\n    threefold, catch the man who tells a lie, may they pass by\n    him who speaks the truth.\"\n\nYou see this is as beautiful, and in some respects as true, as\nanything in the Psalms. And yet we know that there never was such a\nDeva, or god, or such a thing as Varu_n_a. We know it is a mere name,\nmeaning originally \"covering or all-embracing,\" which was applied to\nthe visible starry sky, and afterward, by a process perfectly\nintelligible, developed into the name of a Being, endowed with human\nand superhuman qualities.\n\nAnd what applies to Varu_n_a applies to all the other gods of the Veda\nand the Vedic religion, whether three in number, or thirty-three, or,\nas one poet said, \"three thousand three hundred and thirty-nine\ngods.\"[259] They are all but names, quite as much as Jupiter and\nApollo and Minerva; in fact, quite as much as all the gods of every\nreligion who are called by such appellative titles.\n\nPossibly, if any one had said this during the Vedic age in India, or\neven during the Periklean age in Greece, he would have been called,\nlike Sokrates, a blasphemer or an atheist. And yet nothing can be\nclearer or truer, and we shall see that some of the poets of the Veda\ntoo, and, still more, the later Vedantic philosopher, had a clear\ninsight that it was so.\n\nOnly let us be careful in the use of that phrase \"it is a mere name.\"\nNo name is a mere name. Every name was originally meant for something;\nonly it often failed to express what it was meant to express, and then\nbecame a weak or an empty name, or what we then call \"a mere name.\" So\nit was with these names of the Vedic gods. They were all meant to\nexpress the _Beyond_, the Invisible behind the Visible, the Infinite\nwithin the Finite, the Supernatural above the Natural, the Divine,\nomnipresent, and omnipotent. They failed in expressing what, by its\nvery nature, must always remain inexpressible. But that Inexpressible\nitself remained, and in spite of all these failures, it never\nsuccumbed, or vanished from the mind of the ancient thinkers and\npoets, but always called for new and better names, nay calls for them\neven now, and will call for them to the very end of man's existence\nupon earth.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 221: Muir, iv. p. 209]\n\n[Footnote 222: Muir, iv. p. 214.]\n\n[Footnote 223: Hibbert Lectures, p. 307.]\n\n[Footnote 224: X. 168, 3, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 225: See Kaegi, Rig-Veda, p. 61.]\n\n[Footnote 226: Rig-Veda II. 13, 12; IV. 19, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 227: Joshua x. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 228: Rig-Veda IV. 30, 3; X. 138, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 229: L. c. VIII. 37, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 230: L. c. VIII. 78, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 231: I am very strongly inclined to regard these names as\nKushite or Semitic; Hermes, from [Hebrew: Cherem], the sun; Dionysos,\nfrom _dyan_, the judge, and _nisi_, mankind; Orpheus, from _Orfa_, the\nArabic name of Edessa; Prometheus, from _pro_ and _manthano_, to\nlearn.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 232: Muir, iv. p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 233: Ibid. p. 142. An excellent paper on Par_g_anya was\npublished by Buehler in 1862, \"Orient und Occident,\" vol. i. p. 214.]\n\n[Footnote 234: Rig-Veda VII. 101, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 235: Rig-Veda V. 63, 3-6.]\n\n[Footnote 236: L. c. I. 38, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 237: L. c. I. 164, 51.]\n\n[Footnote 238: L. c. X. 98, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 239: Rig-Veda V. 83. See Buehler, \"Orient und Occident,\" vol.\ni. p. 214; Zimmer, \"Altindisches Leben,\" p. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 240: Both Buehler (\"Orient und Occident,\" vol. i, p. 224) and\nZimmer (Z. f. D. A. vii. p. 169) say that the lightning is represented\nas the son of Par_g_anya in Rig-Veda VII. 101, 1. This seems\ndoubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 241: Rig-Veda VII. 102, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 242: L. c. VIII. 6, 1.]\n\n[Footnote 243: See Max Mueller, Sanskrit Grammar, Sec. 174, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 244: Cf. Gobh. G_ri_hya S. III. 3, 15,\nvidyut--stanayitnu--p_ri_shiteshu.]\n\n[Footnote 245: U_gg_valadatta, in his commentary on the\nU_n_adi-sutras, iii. 103. admits the same transition of sh into _g_ in\nthe verb p_ri_sh, as the etymon of par_g_anya.]\n\n[Footnote 246: For different etymologies, see Buehler, \"Orient und\nOccident,\" i. p. 214; Muir, \"Original Sanskrit Texts,\" v. p. 140;\nGrassmann, in his Dictionary to the Rig-Veda, s. v.; Zimmer,\n\"Zeitscrift fuer Deutsches Alterthum, Neue Folge,\" vii. p. 164.]\n\n[Footnote 247: In order to identify Perkunas with Par_g_anya, we must\ngo another step backward, and look upon _g_ or g, in the root parg, as\na weakening of an original k in park. This, however, is a frequent\nphonetic process. See Buehler, in Benfey's \"Orient und Occident,\" ii.\np. 717.]\n\n[Footnote 248: Lituanian perkun-kulke, thunder-bolt, perkuno gaisis,\nstorm. See Voelkel, \"Die lettischen Sprachreste,\" 1879, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 249: \"Perkuno, war der dritte Abgott und man ihn anruffte\num's Gewitters willen, damit sie Regen haetten und schoen wetter zu\nseiner Zeit, und ihn der Donner und blix kein schaden thett.\" Cf.\n\"Gottesides bei den alten Preussen,\" Berlin, 1870, p. 23. The triad of\nthe gods is called Triburti, Tryboze; l. c. p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 250: Grimm, \"Teutonic Mythology,\" p. 175; and Lasitzki\n(Lasicius) \"Joannes De Russorum, Moscovitarum et Tartarorum religione,\nsacrificiis, nuptiarum et funerum ritu, Spirae Nemetum,\" 1582; idem De\nDiis Samagitarum.]\n\n[Footnote 251: Grimm, l. c. p. 176, quoting from Joh. Gutslaff,\n\"Kurzer Bericht und Unterricht von der falsch heilig genannten Baeche\nin Liefland Woehhanda,\" Dorpat, 1644, pp. 362-364.]\n\n[Footnote 252: In modern Esthonian Pitkne, the Finnish Pitcainen(?).]\n\n[Footnote 253: On foreign influences in Esthonian stories, see\n\"Ehstniche Maerchen,\" von T. Kreutzwald, 1869, Vorwort (by Schiefner),\np. iv.]\n\n[Footnote 254: Grimm suggests in his \"Teutonic Mythology\" that\nPar_g_anya should be identified with the Gothic fairguni, or mountain.\nHe imagines that from being regarded as the abode of the god it had\nfinally been called by his name. Ferg_unn_a and V_ir_gu_n_ia, two\nnames of mountains in Germany, are relics of the name. The name of the\ngod, if preserved in the Gothic, would have been Fairguneis; and\nindeed in the Old Norse language Fioergynn is the father of Frigg, the\nwife of Odin, and Fioergynnior, the Earth-goddess, is mother of Thor.\nProfessor Zimmer takes the same view. Grimm thinks that the Greeks and\nRomans, by changing _f_ into _h_, represented Fergunni by Hercynia,\nand, in fine, he traces the words _ber_g and _bur_g back to\nParganya.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 255: Rig-Veda II. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 256: Atharva-Veda IV. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 257: Psalm cxxxix. 1, 2, \"O Lord, thou hast searched me and\nknown me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou\nunderstandest my thought afar off.\"]\n\n[Footnote 258: Psalm cxxxix. 9, \"If I take the wings of the morning,\nand dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand\nlead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.\"]\n\n[Footnote 259: Rig-veda III. 9, 9; X. 52, 6.]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\nVEDA AND VEDANTA.\n\n\nI do not wonder that I should have been asked by some of my hearers to\ndevote part of my last lecture to answering the question, how the\nVedic literature could have been composed and preserved, if writing\nwas unknown in India before 500 B.C., while the hymns of the Rig-Veda\nare said to date from 1500 B.C. Classical scholars naturally ask what\nis the date of our oldest MSS. of the Rig-Veda, and what is the\nevidence on which so high an antiquity is assigned to its contents. I\nshall try to answer this question as well as I can, and I shall begin\nwith a humble confession that the oldest MSS. of the Rig-Veda, known\nto us at present, date not from 1500 B.C., but from about 1500 A.D.\n\nWe have therefore a gap of three thousand years, which it will require\na strong arch of argument to bridge over.\n\nBut that is not all.\n\nYou may know how, in the beginning of this century, when the age of\nthe Homeric poems was discussed, a German scholar, Frederick August\nWolf, asked two momentous questions:\n\n     1. At what time did the Greeks first become acquainted with\n     the alphabet and use it for inscriptions on public\n     monuments, coins, shields, and for contracts, both public\n     and private?[260]\n\n     2. At what time did the Greeks first think of using writing\n     for literary purposes, and what materials did they employ\n     for that purpose?\n\nThese two questions and the answers they elicited threw quite a new\nlight on the nebulous periods of Greek literature. A fact more firmly\nestablished than any other in the ancient history of Greece is that\nthe Ionians learned the alphabet from the Phenicians. The Ionians\nalways called their letters Phenician letters,[261] and the very name\nof Alphabet was a Phenician word. We can well understand that the\nPhenicians should have taught the Ionians in Asia Minor a knowledge of\nthe alphabet, partly for commercial purposes, _i.e._ for making\ncontracts, partly for enabling them to use those useful little sheets,\ncalled _Periplus_, or _Circumnavigations_, which at that time were as\nprecious to sailors as maps were to the adventurous seamen of the\nmiddle ages. But from that to a written literature, in our sense of\nthe word, there is still a wide step. It is well known that the\nGermans, particularly in the North, had their Runes for inscriptions\non tombs, goblets, public monuments, but not for literary\npurposes.[262] Even if a few Ionians at Miletus and other centres of\npolitical and commercial life acquired the art of writing, where could\nthey find writing materials? and still more important, where could\nthey find readers? The Ionians, when they began to write, had to be\nsatisfied with a hide or pieces of leather, which they called\n_diphthera_, and until that was brought to the perfection of vellum\nor parchment, the occupation of an author cannot have been very\nagreeable.[263]\n\nSo far as we know at present the Ionians began to write about the\nmiddle of the sixth century B.C.; and, whatever may have been said to\nthe contrary, Wolf's _dictum_ still holds good that with them the\nbeginning of a written literature was the same as the beginning of\nprose writing.\n\nWriting at that time was an effort, and such an effort was made for some\ngreat purpose only. Hence the first written skins were what we should\ncall Murray's Handbooks, called _Periegesis_ or _Periodos_, or, if\ntreating of sea-voyages, _Periplus_, that is, guide-books, books to lead\ntravellers round a country or round a town. Connected with these\nitineraries were the accounts of the foundations of cities, the\n_Ktisis_. Such books existed in Asia Minor during the sixth and fifth\ncenturies, and their writers were called by a general term,\n_Logographi_, or [Greek: logioi] or [Greek: logopoioi],[264] as opposed\nto [Greek: aoidoi], the poets. They were the forerunners of the Greek\nhistorians, and Herodotus (443 B.C.), the so-called father of history,\nmade frequent use of their works.\n\nThe whole of this incipient literary activity belonged to Asia Minor.\nFrom \"Guides through towns and countries,\" literature seems to have\nspread at an early time to Guides through life, or philosophical\ndicta, such as are ascribed to Anaximander the Ionian (610-547\nB.C.[265]), and Pherekydes the Syrian (540 B.C.). These names carry us\ninto the broad daylight of history, for Anaximander was the teacher of\nAnaximenes, Anaximenes of Anaxagoras, and Anaxagoras of Perikles. At\nthat time writing was a recognized art, and its cultivation had been\nrendered possible chiefly through trade with Egypt and the importation\nof _papyros_. In the time of AEschylos (500 B.C.) the idea of writing\nhad become so familiar that he could use it again and again in\npoetical metaphors,[266] and there seems little reason why we should\ndoubt that both Peisistratos (528 B.C.) and Polykrates of Samos (523\nB.C.) were among the first collectors of Greek manuscripts.\n\nIn this manner the simple questions asked by Wolf helped to reduce the\nhistory of ancient Greek literature to some kind of order,\nparticularly with reference to its first beginnings.\n\nIt would therefore seem but reasonable that the two first questions to\nbe asked by the students of Sanskrit literature should have been:\n\n     1. At what time did the people of India become acquainted\n     with an alphabet?\n\n     2. At what time did they first use such alphabet for\n     literary purposes?\n\nCuriously enough, however, these questions remained in abeyance for a\nlong time, and, as a consequence, it was impossible to introduce even\nthe first elements of order into the chaos of ancient Sanskrit\nliterature.[267]\n\nI can here state a few facts only. There are no inscriptions to be\nfound anywhere in India before the middle of the third century B.C.\nThese inscriptions are Buddhist, put up during the reign of A_s_oka,\nthe grandson of _K_andragupta, who was the contemporary of Seleucus,\nand at whose court in Patalibothra Megasthenes lived as ambassador of\nSeleucus. Here, as you see, we are on historical ground. In fact,\nthere is little doubt that A_s_oka, the king who put up these\ninscriptions in several parts of his vast kingdom, reigned from\n259-222 B.C.\n\nThese inscriptions are written in two alphabets--one written from\nright to left, and clearly derived from an Aramaaean, that is, a\nSemitic alphabet; the other written from left to right, and clearly an\nadaptation, and an artificial or systematic adaptation, of a Semitic\nalphabet to the requirements of an Indian language. That second\nalphabet became the source of all Indian alphabets, and of many\nalphabets carried chiefly by Buddhist teachers far beyond the limits\nof India, though it is possible that the earliest Tamil alphabet may\nhave been directly derived from the same Semitic source which supplied\nboth the _dextrorsum_ and the _sinistrorsum_ alphabets of India.\n\nHere then we have the first fact--viz. that writing, even for\nmonumental purposes, was unknown in India before the third century\nB.C.\n\nBut writing for commercial purposes was known in India before that\ntime. Megasthenes was no doubt quite right when he said that the\nIndians did not know letters,[268] that their laws were not written,\nand that they administered justice from memory. But Nearchus, the\nadmiral of Alexander the Great, who sailed down the Indus (325 B.C.),\nand was therefore brought in contact with the merchants frequenting\nthe maritime stations of India, was probably equally right in\ndeclaring that \"the Indians wrote letters on cotton that had been well\nbeaten together.\" These were no doubt commercial documents, contracts,\nit may be, with Phenician or Egyptian captains, and they would prove\nnothing as to the existence in India at that time of what we mean by a\nwritten literature. In fact, Nearchus himself affirms what Megasthenes\nsaid after him, namely that \"the laws of the sophists in India were\nnot written.\" If, at the same time, the Greek travellers in India\nspeak of mile-stones, and of cattle marked by the Indians with various\nsigns and also with numbers, all this would perfectly agree with what\nwe know from other sources, that though the art of writing may have\nreached India before the time of Alexander's conquest, its employment\nfor literary purposes cannot date from a much earlier time.\n\nHere then we are brought face to face with a most startling fact.\nWriting was unknown in India before the fourth century before Christ,\nand yet we are asked to believe that the Vedic literature in its three\nwell-defined periods, the Mantra, Brahma_n_a, and Sutra periods, goes\nback to at least a thousand years before our era.\n\nNow the Rig-Veda alone, which contains a collection of ten books of\nhymns addressed to various deities, consists of 1017 (1028) poems,\n10,580 verses, and about 153,826 words.[269] How were these poems\ncomposed--for they are composed in very perfect metre--and how, after\nhaving been composed, were they handed down from 1500 before Christ to\n1500 after Christ, the time to which most of our best Sanskrit MSS.\nbelong?\n\n_Entirely by memory._[270] This may sound startling, but--what will\nsound still more startling, and yet is a fact that can easily be\nascertained by anybody who doubts it--at the present moment, if every\nMS. of the Rig-Veda were lost, we should be able to recover the whole\nof it--from the memory of the _S_rotriyas in India. These native\nstudents learn the Veda by heart, and they learn it from the mouth of\ntheir Guru, never from a MS., still less from my printed edition--and\nafter a time they teach it again to their pupils.\n\nI have had such students in my room at Oxford, who not only could\nrepeat these hymns, but who repeated them with the proper accents (for\nthe Vedic Sanskrit has accents like Greek), nay, who, when looking\nthrough my printed edition of the Rig-Veda, could point out a misprint\nwithout the slightest hesitation.\n\nI can tell you more. There are hardly any various readings in our MSS.\nof the Rig-Veda, but various schools in India have their own readings\nof certain passages, and they hand down those readings with great\ncare. So, instead of collating MSS., as we do in Greek and Latin, I\nhave asked some friends of mine to collate those Vedic students, who\ncarry their own Rig-Veda in their memory, and to let me have the\nvarious readings from these living authorities.\n\nHere then we are not dealing with theories, but with facts, which\nanybody may verify. The whole of the Rig-Veda, and a great deal more,\nstill exists at the present moment in the oral tradition of a number\nof scholars who, if they liked, could write down every letter, and\nevery accent, exactly as we find them in our old MSS. Of course, this\nlearning by heart is carried on under a strict discipline; it is, in\nfact, considered as a sacred duty. A native friend of mine, himself a\nvery distinguished Vedic scholar, tells me that a boy, who is to be\nbrought up as a student of the Rig-Veda, has to spend about eight\nyears in the house of his teacher. He has to learn ten books: first,\nthe hymns of the Rig-Veda; then a prose treatise on sacrifices, called\nthe Brahma_n_a; then the so-called Forest-book or Ara_n_yaka; then the\nrules on domestic ceremonies; and lastly, six treatises on\npronunciation, grammar, etymology, metre, astronomy, and ceremonial.\n\nThese ten books, it has been calculated, contain nearly 30,000 lines,\neach line reckoned as thirty-two syllables.\n\nA pupil studies every day during the eight years of his theological\napprenticeship, except on the holidays, which are called \"non-reading\ndays.\" There being 360 days in a lunar year, the eight years would\ngive him 2880 days. Deduct from this 384 holidays, and you get 2496\nworking days during the eight years. If you divide the number of\nlines, 30,000, by the number of working days, you get about twelve\nlines to be learned each day, though much time is taken up, in\naddition, for practising and rehearsing what has been learned before.\n\nNow this is the state of things at present, though I doubt whether it\nwill last much longer, and I always impress on my friends in India,\nand therefore impress on those also who will soon be settled as civil\nservants in India, the duty of trying to learn all that can still be\nlearned from those living libraries. Much ancient Sanskrit lore will\nbe lost forever when that race of _S_rotriyas becomes extinct.\n\nBut now let us look back. About a thousand years ago a Chinese of the\nname of I-tsing, a Buddhist, went to India to learn Sanskrit, in order\nto be able to translate some of the sacred books of his own religion,\nwhich were originally written in Sanskrit, into Chinese. He left China\nin 671, arrived at Tamralipti in India in 673, and went to the great\nCollege and Monastery of Nalanda, where he studied Sanskrit. He\nreturned to China in 695, and died in 703.[271]\n\nIn one of his works which we still possess in Chinese, he gives an\naccount of what he saw in India, not only among his own\nco-religionists, the Buddhists, but likewise among the Brahmans.[272]\n\nOf the Buddhist priests he says that after they have learned to recite\nthe five and the ten precepts, they are taught the 400 hymns of\nMat_rik_eta, and afterward the 150 hymns of the same poet. When they\nare able to recite these, they begin the study of the Sutras of their\nSacred Canon. They also learn by heart the _G_atakamala,[273] which\ngives an account of Buddha in former states of existence. Speaking of\nwhat he calls the islands of the Southern Sea, which he visited after\nleaving India, I-tsing says: \"There are more than ten islands in the\nSouth Sea. There both priests and laymen recite the _G_atakamala, as\nthey recite the hymns mentioned before; but it has not yet been\ntranslated into Chinese.\"\n\nOne of these stories, he proceeds to say, was versified by a king\n(_K_ie-zhih) and set to music, and was performed before the public\nwith a band and dancing--evidently a Buddhist mystery play.\n\nI-tsing then gives a short account of the system of education.\nChildren, he says, learn the forty-nine letters and the 10,000\ncompound letters when they are six years old, and generally finish\nthem in half a year. This corresponds to about 300 verses, each\n_s_loka of thirty-two syllables. It was originally taught by\nMahe_s_vara. At eight years, children begin to learn the grammar of\nPa_n_ini, and know it after about eight months. It consists of 1000\n_s_lokas, called Sutras.\n\nThen follows the list of roots (dhatu) and the three appendices\n(khila), consisting again of 1000 _s_lokas. Boys begin the three\nappendices when they are ten years old, and finish them in three\nyears.\n\nWhen they have reached the age of fifteen, they begin to study a\ncommentary on the grammar (Sutra), and spend five years on learning\nit. And here I-tsing gives the following advice to his countrymen,\nmany of whom came to India to learn Sanskrit, but seem to have learned\nit very imperfectly. \"If men of China,\" he writes, \"go to India,\nwishing to study there, they should first of all learn these\ngrammatical works, and then only other subjects; if not, they will\nmerely waste their labor. These works should be learned by heart. But\nthis is suited for men of high quality only.... They should study hard\nday and night, without letting a moment pass for idle repose. They\nshould be like Confucius, through whose hard study the binding of his\nYih-king was three times cut asunder, being worn away; and like\nSui-shih, who used to read a book repeatedly one hundred times.\" Then\nfollows a remark, more intelligible in Chinese than in English: \"The\nhairs of a bull are counted by thousands, the horn of a unicorn is\nonly one.\"\n\nI-tsing then speaks of the high degree of perfection to which the\nmemory of these students attained, both among Buddhists and heretics.\n\"Such men,\" he says, \"could commit to memory the contents of two\nvolumes, learning them only once.\"\n\nAnd then turning to the _heretics_, or what we should call the\northodox Brahmans, he says: \"The Brahma_n_as are regarded throughout\nthe five divisions of India as the most respectable. They do not walk\nwith the other three castes, and other mixed classes of people are\nstill further dissociated from them. They revere their Scriptures, the\nfour Vedas, containing about 100,000 verses.... The Vedas are handed\ndown from mouth to mouth, not written on paper. There are in every\ngeneration some intelligent Brahmans who can recite those 100,000\nverses.... I myself saw such men.\"\n\nHere then we have an eye-witness who, in the seventh century after\nChrist, visited India, learned Sanskrit, and spent about twenty years\nin different monasteries--a man who had no theories of his own about\noral tradition, but who, on the contrary, as coming from China, was\nquite familiar with the idea of a written, nay, of a printed\nliterature: and yet what does he say? \"The Vedas are not written on\npaper, but handed down from mouth to mouth.\"\n\nNow, I do not quite agree here with I-tsing. At all events, we must\nnot conclude from what he says that there existed no Sanskrit MSS. at\nall at his time. We know they existed. We know that in the first\ncentury of our era Sanskrit MSS. were carried from India to China,\nand translated there. Most likely therefore there were MSS. of the\nVeda also in existence. But I-tsing, for all that, was right in\nsupposing that these MSS. were not allowed to be used by students, and\nthat they had always to learn the Veda by heart and from the mouth of\na properly qualified teacher. The very fact that in the later\nlaw-books severe punishments are threatened against persons who copy\nthe Veda or learn it from a MSS., shows that MSS. existed, and that\ntheir existence interfered seriously with the ancient privileges of\nthe Brahmans, as the only legitimate teachers of their sacred\nscriptures.\n\nIf now, after having heard this account of I-tsing, we go back for\nabout another thousand years, we shall feel less skeptical in\naccepting the evidence which we find in the so-called Prati_s_akhyas,\nthat is, collections of rules which, so far as we know at present, go\nback to the fifth century before our era, and which tell us almost\nexactly the same as what we can see in India at the present moment,\nnamely that the education of children of the three twice-born castes,\nthe Brahma_n_as, Kshatriyas, and Vai_s_yas, consisted in their passing\nat least eight years in the house of a Guru, and learning by heart the\nancient Vedic hymns.\n\nThe art of teaching had even at that early time been reduced to a\nperfect system, and at that time certainly there is not the slightest\ntrace of anything, such as a book, or skin, or parchment, a sheet of\npaper, pen or ink, being known even by name to the people of India;\nwhile every expression connected with what we should call literature,\npoints to a literature (we cannot help using that word) existing in\nmemory only, and being handed down with the most scrupulous care by\nmeans of oral tradition.\n\nI had to enter into these details because I know that, with our ideas\nof literature, it requires an effort to imagine the bare possibility\nof a large amount of poetry, and still more of prose, existing in any\nbut a written form. And yet here too we only see what we see\nelsewhere, namely that man, before the great discoveries of\ncivilization were made, was able by greater individual efforts to\nachieve what to us, accustomed to easier contrivances, seems almost\nimpossible. So-called savages were able to chip flints, to get fire by\nrubbing sticks of wood, which baffles our handiest workmen. Are we to\nsuppose that, if they wished to preserve some songs which, as they\nbelieved, had once secured them the favor of their gods, had brought\nrain from heaven, or led them on to victory, they would have found no\nmeans of doing so? We have only to read such accounts as, for\ninstance, Mr. William Wyatt Gill has given us in his \"Historical\nSketches of Savage Life in Polynesia,\"[274] to see how anxious even\nsavages are to preserve the records of their ancient heroes, kings,\nand gods, particularly when the dignity or nobility of certain\nfamilies depends on these songs, or when they contain what might be\ncalled the title-deeds to large estates. And that the Vedic Indians\nwere not the only savages of antiquity who discovered the means of\npreserving a large literature by means of oral tradition, we may learn\nfrom Caesar,[275] not a very credulous witness, who tells us that the\n\"Druids were said to know a large number of verses by heart; that some\nof them spent twenty years in learning them, and that they considered\nit wrong to commit them to writing\"--exactly the same story which we\nhear in India.\n\nWe must return once more to the question of dates. We have traced the\nexistence of the Veda, as handed down by oral tradition, from our days\nto the days of I-tsing in the seventh century after Christ, and again\nto the period of the Prati_s_akhyas, in the fifth century before\nChrist.\n\nIn that fifth century B.C. took place the rise of Buddhism, a religion\nbuilt up on the ruins of the Vedic religion, and founded, so to say,\non the denial of the divine authority ascribed to the Veda by all\northodox Brahmans.\n\nWhatever exists, therefore, of Vedic literature must be accommodated\nwithin the centuries preceding the rise of Buddhism, and if I tell you\nthat there are three periods of Vedic literature to be accommodated,\nthe third presupposing the second, and the second the first, and that\neven that first period presents us with a collection, and a systematic\ncollection of Vedic hymns, I think you will agree with me that it is\nfrom no desire for an extreme antiquity, but simply from a respect for\nfacts, that students of the Veda have come to the conclusion that\nthese hymns, of which the MSS. do not carry us back beyond the\nfifteenth century after Christ, took their origin in the fifteenth\ncentury before Christ.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne fact I must mention once more, because I think it may carry\nconviction even against the stoutest skepticism.\n\nI mentioned that the earliest inscriptions discovered in India belong\nto the reign of King A_s_oka, the grandson of _K_andragupta, who\nreigned from 259-222 before Christ. What is the language of those\ninscriptions? Is it the Sanskrit of the Vedic hymns? Certainly not. Is\nit the later Sanskrit of the Brahma_n_as and Sutras? Certainly not.\nThese inscriptions are written in the local dialects as then spoken in\nIndia, and these local dialects differ from the grammatical Sanskrit\nabout as much as Italian does from Latin.\n\nWhat follows from this? First, that the archaic Sanskrit of the Veda\nhad ceased to be spoken before the third century B.C. Secondly, that\neven the later grammatical Sanskrit was no longer spoken and\nunderstood by the people at large; that Sanskrit therefore had ceased,\nnay, we may say, had long ceased to be the spoken language of the\ncountry when Buddhism arose, and that therefore the youth and manhood\nof the ancient Vedic language lie far beyond the period that gave\nbirth to the teaching of Buddha, who, though he may have known\nSanskrit, and even Vedic Sanskrit, insisted again and again on the\nduty that his disciples should preach his doctrines in the language of\nthe people whom they wished to benefit.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now, when the time allotted to me is nearly at an end, I find, as\nit always happens, that I have not been able to say one half of what I\nhoped to say as to the lessons to be learned by us in India, even with\nregard to this one branch of human knowledge only, the study of the\norigin of religion. I hope, however, I may have succeeded in showing\nyou the entirely new aspect which the old problem of the _theogony_,\nor the origin and growth of the Devas or gods, assumes from the light\nthrown upon it by the Veda. Instead of positive theories, we now have\npositive facts, such as you look for in vain anywhere else; and though\nthere is still a considerable interval between the Devas of the Veda,\neven in their highest form, and such concepts as Zeus, Apollon, and\nAthene, yet the chief riddle is solved, and we know now at last what\nstuff the gods of the ancient world were made of.\n\nBut this theogonic process is but one side of the ancient Vedic\nreligion, and there are two other sides of at least the same\nimportance and of even a deeper interest to us.\n\nThere are in fact three religions in the Veda, or, if I may say so,\nthree naves in one great temple, reared, as it were, before our eyes\nby poets, prophets, and philosophers. Here too we can watch the work\nand the workmen. We have not to deal with hard formulas only, with\nunintelligible ceremonies, or petrified fetiches. We can see how the\nhuman mind arrives by a perfectly rational process at all its later\nirrationalities. This is what distinguishes the Veda from all other\nSacred Books. Much, no doubt, in the Veda also, and in the Vedic\nceremonial, is already old and unintelligible, hard, and petrified.\nBut in many cases the development of names and concepts, their\ntransition from the natural to the supernatural, from the individual\nto the general, is still going on, and it is for that very reason that\nwe find it so difficult, nay almost impossible, to translate the\ngrowing thoughts of the Veda into the full-grown and more than\nfull-grown language of our time.\n\nLet us take one of the oldest words for god in the Veda, such as d e v a,\nthe Latin _deus_. The dictionaries tell you that d e v a means god and\ngods, and so, no doubt, it does. But if we always translated d e v a in\nthe Vedic hymns by god, we should not be translating, but completely\ntransforming the thoughts of the Vedic poets. I do not mean only that\n_our_ idea of God is totally different from the idea that was intended\nto be expressed by d e v a; but even the Greek and Roman concept of gods\nwould be totally inadequate to convey the thoughts imbedded in the\nVedic d e v a. D e v a meant originally bright, and nothing else. Meaning\nbright, it was constantly used of the sky, the stars, the sun, the\ndawn, the day, the spring, the rivers, the earth; and when a poet\nwished to speak of all of these by one and the same word--by what we\nshould call a general term--he called them D e v a s. When that had been\ndone, D e v a did no longer mean \"the Bright ones,\" but the name\ncomprehended all the qualities which the sky and the sun and the dawn\nshared in common, excluding only those that were peculiar to each.\n\nHere you see how, by the simplest process, the D e v a s, the bright ones,\nmight become and did become the D e v a s, the heavenly, the kind, the\npowerful, the invisible, the immortal--and, in the end, something very\nlike the [Greek: theoi] (or _dii_) of Greeks and Romans.\n\nIn this way one Beyond, the Beyond of Nature, was built up in the\nancient religion of the Veda, and peopled with Devas, and Asuras, and\nVasus, and Adityas, all names for the bright solar, celestial,\ndiurnal, and vernal powers of nature, without altogether excluding,\nhowever, even the dark and unfriendly powers, those of the night, of\nthe dark clouds, or of winter, capable of mischief, but always\ndestined in the end to succumb to the valor and strength of their\nbright antagonists.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe now come to the second nave of the Vedic temple, the second\n_Beyond_ that was dimly perceived, and grasped and named by the\nancient Rishis, namely the world of the Departed Spirits.[276]\n\nThere was in India, as elsewhere, another very early faith, springing\nup naturally in the hearts of the people, that their fathers and\nmothers, when they departed this life, departed to a Beyond, wherever\nit might be, either in the East from whence all the bright Devas\nseemed to come, or more commonly in the West, the land to which they\nseemed to go, called in the Veda the realm of Yama or the setting sun.\nThe idea that beings which once had been, could ever cease to be, had\nnot yet entered their minds; and from the belief that their fathers\nexisted somewhere, though they could see them no more, there arose the\nbelief in another Beyond, and the germs of another religion.\n\nNor was the actual power of the fathers quite imperceptible or extinct\neven after their death. Their presence continued to be felt in the\nancient laws and customs of the family, most of which rested on their\nwill and their authority. While their fathers were alive and strong,\ntheir will was law; and when, after their death, doubts or disputes\narose on points of law or custom, it was but natural that the memory\nand the authority of the fathers should be appealed to to settle such\npoints--that the law should still be their will.\n\nThus Manu says (IV. 178): \"On the path on which his fathers and\ngrandfathers have walked, on that path of good men let him walk, and\nhe will not go wrong.\"\n\nIn the same manner then in which, out of the bright powers of nature,\nthe Devas or gods had arisen, there arose out of predicates shared in\ncommon by the departed, such as p i t _r i_ s, fathers, p r e t a, gone\naway, another general concept, what we should call _Manes_, the kind\nones, _Ancestors_, _Shades_, _Spirits_, or _Ghosts_, whose worship was\nnowhere more fully developed than in India. That common name, P i t _r\ni_ s or _Fathers_, gradually attracted toward itself all that the\nfathers shared in common. It came to mean not only fathers, but\ninvisible, kind, powerful, immortal, heavenly beings, and we can watch\nin the Veda, better perhaps than anywhere else, the inevitable, yet most\ntouching metamorphosis of ancient thought--the love of the child for\nfather and mother becoming transfigured into an instinctive belief in\nthe immortality of the soul.\n\nIt is strange, and really more than strange, that not only should this\nimportant and prominent side of the ancient religion of the Hindus\nhave been ignored, but that of late its very existence should have\nbeen doubted. I feel obliged, therefore, to add a few words in support\nof what I have said just now of the supreme importance of this belief\nin and this worship of ancestral spirits in India from the most\nancient to the most modern times. Mr. Herbert Spencer, who has done so\nmuch in calling attention to ancestorship as a natural ingredient of\nreligion among all savage nations, declares in the most emphatic\nmanner,[277] \"that he has seen it implied, that he has heard it in\nconversation, and that he now has it before him in print, that no\nIndo-European or Semitic nation, so far as we know, seems to have\nmade a religion of the worship of the dead.\" I do not doubt his words,\nbut I think that on so important a point, Mr. Herbert Spencer ought to\nhave named his authorities. It seems to me almost impossible that\nanybody who has ever opened a book on India should have made such a\nstatement. There are hymns in the Rig-Veda addressed to the Fathers.\nThere are full descriptions of the worship due to the Fathers in the\nBrahma_n_as and Sutras. The epic poems, the law books, the Pura_n_as,\nall are brimful of allusions to ancestral offerings. The whole social\nfabric of India, with its laws of inheritance and marriage,[278] rests\non a belief in the Manes--and yet we are told that no Indo-European\nnation seems to have made a religion of the worship of the dead.\n\nThe Persians had their Fravashis, the Greeks their [Greek: eidola], or\nrather their [Greek: theoi patrooi] and their [Greek: daimones],\n\n    [Greek: esthloi, epichthonioi, phylakes thneton anthropon;\n    hoi rha phylassousin te dikas kai schetlia erga,\n    eera hessamenoi pante phoitontes ep' aian,\n    ploutodotai] (Hesiodi Opera et Dies, vv. 122-126);[279]\n\nwhile among the Romans the _Lares familiares_ and the _Divi Manes_\nwere worshipped more zealously than any other gods.[280] Manu goes so\nfar as to tell us in one place (III. 203): \"An oblation by Brahmans\nto their ancestor transcends an oblation to the deities;\" and yet we\nare told that no Indo-European nation seems to have made a religion of\nthe worship of the dead.\n\nSuch things ought really not to be, if there is to be any progress in\nhistorical research, and I cannot help thinking that what Mr. Herbert\nSpencer meant was probably no more than that some scholars did not\nadmit that the worship of the dead formed the whole of the religion of\nany of the Indo-European nations. That, no doubt, is perfectly true,\nbut it would be equally true, I believe, of almost any other religion.\nAnd on this point again the students of anthropology will learn more,\nI believe, from the Veda than from any other book.\n\nIn the Veda the Pit_ri_s, or fathers, are invoked together with the\nDevas, or gods, but they are not confounded with them. The Devas never\nbecome Pit_ri_s, and though such adjectives as d e v a are sometimes\napplied to the Pit_ri_s, and they are raised to the rank of the older\nclasses of Devas (Manu III. 192, 284, Ya_gn_avalkya I. 268), it is\neasy to see that the Pit_ri_s and Devas had each their independent\norigin, and that they represent two totally distinct phases of the\nhuman mind in the creation of its objects of worship. This is a lesson\nwhich ought never to be forgotten.\n\nWe read in the Rig-Veda, VI. 52, 4: \"May the rising Dawns protect me,\nmay the flowing Rivers protect me, may the firm Mountains protect me,\nmay the Fathers protect me at this invocation of the gods.\" Here\nnothing can be clearer than the separate existence of the Fathers,\napart from the Dawns, the Rivers, and the Mountains, though they are\nincluded in one common Devahuti, however, or invocation of the gods.\n\nWe must distinguish, however, from the very first, between two\nclasses, or rather between two concepts of Fathers, the one comprising\nthe distant, half-forgotten, and almost mythical ancestors of certain\nfamilies or of what would have been to the poets of the Veda, the\nwhole human race, the other consisting of the fathers who had but\nlately departed, and who were still, as it were, personally remembered\nand revered.\n\nThe old ancestors in general approach more nearly to the gods. They\nare often represented as having gone to the abode of Yama, the ruler\nof the departed, and to live there in company with some of the Devas\n(Rig-Veda VII. 76, 4, devana_m_ sadhamada_h_; Rig-Veda X. 16, 1,\ndevana_m_ va_s_ani_h_).\n\nWe sometimes read of the great-grandfathers being in heaven, the\ngrandfathers in the sky, the fathers on the earth, the first in\ncompany with the Adityas, the second with the Rudras, the last with\nthe Vasus. All these are individual poetical conceptions.[281]\n\nYama himself is sometimes invoked as if he were one of the Fathers,\nthe first of mortals that died or that trod the path of the Fathers\n(the pit_ri_ya_n_a, X. 2, 7) leading to the common sunset in the\nWest.[282] Still his real Deva-like nature is never completely lost,\nand, as the god of the setting sun, he is indeed the leader of the\nFathers, but not one of the Fathers himself.[283]\n\nMany of the benefits which men enjoyed on earth were referred to the\nFathers, as having first been procured and first enjoyed by them.\nThey performed the first sacrifices, and secured the benefits arising\nfrom them. Even the great events in nature, such as the rising of the\nsun, the light of the day and the darkness of the night, were\nsometimes referred to them, and they were praised for having broken\nopen the dark stable of the morning and having brought out the cows,\nthat is, the days (X. 68, 11).[284] They were even praised for having\nadorned the night with stars, while in later writing the stars are\nsaid to be the lights of the good people who have entered into\nheaven.[285] Similar ideas, we know, prevailed among the ancient\nPersians, Greeks, and Romans. The Fathers are called in the Veda\ntruthful (satya), wise (suvidatra), righteous (_ri_tavat), poets\n(kavi), leaders (pathik_ri_t), and one of their most frequent epithets\nis somya, delighting in Soma, Soma being the ancient intoxicating\nbeverage of the Vedic _Ri_shis, which was believed to bestow\nimmortality,[286] but which had been lost, or at all events had become\ndifficult to obtain by the Aryans, after their migration into the\nPunjab.[287]\n\nThe families of the Bh_ri_gus, the Angiras, the Atharvans[288] all\nhave their Pit_ri_s or Fathers, who are invoked to sit down on the\ngrass and to accept the offerings placed there for them. Even the name\nof Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, sacrifice of the Fathers, occurs already in the\nhymns of the Rig-Veda.[289]\n\nThe following is one of the hymns of the Rig-Veda by which those\nancient Fathers were invited to come to their sacrifice (Rig-veda X.\n15):[290]\n\n     1. \"May the Soma-loving Fathers, the lowest, the highest,\n     and the middle, arise. May the gentle and righteous Fathers\n     who have come to life (again), protect us in these\n     invocations!\n\n     2. \"May this salutation be for the Fathers to-day, for those\n     who have departed before or after; whether they now dwell in\n     the sky above the earth, or among the blessed people.\n\n     3. \"I invited the wise Fathers ... may they come hither\n     quickly, and sitting on the grass readily partake of the\n     poured-out draught!\n\n     4. \"Come hither to us with your help, you Fathers who sit on\n     the grass! We have prepared these libations for you, accept\n     them! Come hither with your most blessed protection, and\n     give us health and wealth without fail!\n\n     5. \"The Soma-loving Fathers have been called hither to their\n     dear viands which are placed on the grass. Let them\n     approach, let them listen, let them bless, let them protect\n     us!\n\n     6. \"Bending your knee and sitting on my right, accept all\n     this sacrifice. Do not hurt us, O Fathers, for any wrong\n     that we may have committed against you, men as we are.\n\n     7. \"When you sit down on the lap of the red dawns, grant\n     wealth to the generous mortal! O Fathers, give of your\n     treasure to the sons of this man here, and bestow vigor here\n     on us!\n\n     8. \"May Yama, as a friend with friends, consume the\n     offerings according to his wish, united with those old\n     Soma-loving Fathers of ours, the Vasish_th_as, who arranged\n     the Soma draught.\n\n     9. \"Come hither, O Agni, with those wise and truthful\n     Fathers who like to sit down near the hearth, who thirsted\n     when yearning for the gods, who knew the sacrifice, and who\n     were strong in praise with their songs.\n\n     10. \"Come, O Agni, with those ancient fathers who like to\n     sit down near the hearth, who forever praise the gods, the\n     truthful, who eat and drink our oblations, making company\n     with Indra and the gods.\n\n     11. \"O Fathers, you who have been consumed by Agni, come\n     here, sit down on your seats, you kind guides! Eat of the\n     offerings which we have placed on the turf, and then grant\n     us wealth and strong offspring!\n\n     12. \"O Agni, O _G_atavedas,[291] at our request thou hast\n     carried the offerings, having first rendered them sweet.\n     Thou gavest them to the Fathers, and they fed on their\n     share. Eat also, O god, the proffered oblations!\n\n     13. \"The Fathers who are here, and the Fathers who are not\n     here, those whom we know, and those whom we know not, thou\n     _G_atavedas, knowest how many they are, accept the well-made\n     sacrifice with the sacrificial portions!\n\n     14. \"To those who, whether burned by fire or not burned by\n     fire, rejoice in their share in the midst of heaven, grant\n     thou, O King, that their body may take that life which they\n     wish for!\"[292]\n\nDistinct from the worship offered to these primitive ancestors, is\nthe reverence which from an early time was felt to be due by children\nto their departed father, soon also to their grandfather, and\ngreat-grandfather. The ceremonies in which these more personal\nfeelings found expression were of a more domestic character, and\nallowed therefore of greater local variety.\n\nIt would be quite impossible to give here even an abstract only of the\nminute regulations which have been preserved to us in the Brahma_n_as,\nthe _S_rauta, G_ri_hya, and Samaya_k_arika Sutras, the Law-books, and\na mass of later manuals on the performance of endless rites, all\nintended to honor the Departed. Such are the minute prescriptions as\nto times and seasons, as to altars and offerings, as to the number and\nshape of the sacrificial vessels, as to the proper postures of the\nsacrificers, and the different arrangements of the vessels, that it is\nextremely difficult to catch hold of what we really care for, namely,\nthe thoughts and intentions of those who first devised all these\nintricacies. Much has been written on this class of sacrifices by\nEuropean scholars also, beginning with Colebrooke's excellent essays\non \"The Religious Ceremonies of the Hindus,\" first published in the\n\"Asiatic Researches,\" vol. v. Calcutta, 1798. But when we ask the\nsimple question, What was the thought from whence all this outward\nceremonial sprang, and what was the natural craving of the human heart\nwhich it seemed to satisfy, we hardly get an intelligible answer\nanywhere. It is true that _S_raddhas continue to be performed all over\nIndia to the present day, but we know how widely the modern ceremonial\nhas diverged from the rules laid down in the old _S_astras, and it is\nquite clear from the descriptions given to us by recent travellers\nthat no one can understand the purport even of these survivals of the\nold ceremonial, unless he understands Sanskrit and can read the old\nSutras. We are indeed told in full detail how the cakes were made\nwhich the Spirits wore supposed to eat, how many stalks of grass were\nto be used on which they had to be offered, how long each stalk ought\nto be, and in what direction it should be held. All the things which\nteach us nothing are explained to us in abundance, but the few things\nwhich the true scholar really cares for are passed over, as if they\nhad no interest to us at all, and have to be discovered under heaps of\nrubbish.\n\nIn order to gain a little light, I think we ought to distinguish\nbetween--\n\n     1. The daily ancestral sacrifice, the Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, as one\n     of the five Great Sacrifices (Mahaya_gn_as);\n\n     2. The monthly ancestral sacrifice, the\n     Pi_nd_a-pit_ri_-ya_gn_a, as part of the New and Full-moon\n     sacrifice;\n\n     3. The funeral ceremonies on the death of a householder;\n\n     4. The Agapes, or feasts of love and charity, commonly\n     called _S_raddhas, at which food and other charitable gifts\n     were bestowed on deserving persons in memory of the deceased\n     ancestors. The name of _S_raddha belongs properly to this\n     last class only, but it has been transferred to the second\n     and third class of sacrifices also, because _S_raddha formed\n     an important part in them.\n\nThe daily Pit_ri_ya_gn_a or Ancestor-worship is one of the five\nsacrifices, sometimes called the Great Sacrifices,[293] which every\nmarried man ought to perform day by day. They are mentioned in the\nG_ri_hya-sutras (A_s_v. III. 1), as Devaya_gn_a, for the Devas,\nBhutaya_gn_a, for animals, etc., Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, for the Fathers,\nBrahmaya_gn_a, for Brahman, _i.e._ study of the Veda, and\nManushyaya_gn_a, for men, _i.e._ hospitality, etc.\n\nManu (III. 70) tells us the same, namely, that a married man has five\ngreat religious duties to perform:\n\n     1. The Brahma-sacrifice, _i.e._ the studying and teaching of\n     the Veda (sometimes called Ahuta).\n\n     2. The Pit_ri_-sacrifice, _i.e._ the offering of cakes and\n     water to the Manes (sometimes called Pra_s_ita).\n\n     3. The Deva-sacrifice, _i.e._ the offering of oblations to\n     the gods (sometimes called Huta).\n\n     4. The Bhuta-sacrifice, _i.e._ the giving of food to living\n     creatures (sometimes called Prahuta).\n\n     5. The Manushya-sacrifice, _i.e._ the receiving of guests\n     with hospitality (sometimes called Brahmya huta).[294]\n\nThe performance of this daily Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, seems to have been\nextremely simple. The householder had to put his sacred cord on the\nright shoulder, to say \"Svadha to the Fathers,\" and to throw the\nremains of certain offerings toward the south.[295]\n\nThe human impulse to this sacrifice, if sacrifice it can be called, is\nclear enough. The five \"great sacrifices\" comprehended in early times\nthe whole duty of man from day to day. They were connected with his\ndaily meal.[296] When this meal was preparing, and before he could\ntouch it himself, he was to offer something to the gods, a\nVai_s_vadeva offering,[297] in which the chief deities were Agni,\nfire, Soma the Vi_s_ve Devas, Dhanvantari, the kind of AEsculapius,\nKuhu and Anumati (phases of the moon), Pra_g_apati, lord of creatures,\nDyava-p_ri_thivi, Heaven and Earth, and Svish_t_ak_ri_t, the fire on\nthe hearth.[298]\n\nAfter having thus satisfied the gods in the four quarters, the\nhouseholder had to throw some oblations into the open air, which were\nintended for animals, and in some cases for invisible beings, ghosts\nand such like. Then he was to remember the Departed, the Pit_ri_s,\nwith some offerings; but even after having done this he was not yet to\nbegin his own repast, unless he had also given something to strangers\n(atithis).\n\nWhen all this had been fulfilled, and when, besides, the householder,\nas we should say, had said his daily prayers, or repeated what he had\nlearned of the Veda, then and then only was he in harmony with the\nworld that surrounded him, the five Great Sacrifices had been\nperformed by him, and he was free from all the sins arising from a\nthoughtless and selfish life.\n\nThis Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, as one of the five daily sacrifices, is described\nin the Brahma_n_as, the G_ri_hya and Samaya_k_arika Sutras, and, of\ncourse, in the legal Sa_m_hitas. Rajendralal Mitra[299] informs us\nthat \"orthodox Brahmans to this day profess to observe all these five\nceremonies, but that in reality only the offerings to the gods and\nmanes are strictly observed, while the reading is completed by the\nrepetition of the Gayatri only, and charity and feeding of animals are\ncasual and uncertain.\"\n\nQuite different from this simple daily ancestral offering is the\nPit_ri_ya_gn_a or Pi_nd_a-pit_ri_ya_gn_a, which forms part of many of\nthe statutable sacrifices, and, first of all, of the New and Full-moon\nsacrifice. Here again the human motive is intelligible enough. It was\nthe contemplation of the regular course of nature, the discovery of\norder in the coming and going of the heavenly bodies, the growing\nconfidence in some ruling power of the world which lifted man's\nthoughts from his daily work to higher regions, and filled his heart\nwith a desire to approach these higher powers with praise,\nthanksgiving, and offerings. And it was at such moments as the waning\nof the moon that his thoughts would most naturally turn to those whose\nlife had waned, whose bright faces were no longer visible on earth,\nhis fathers or ancestors. Therefore at the very beginning of the\nNew-moon sacrifice, we are told in the Brahma_n_as[300] and in the\n_S_rauta-sutras, that a Pit_ri_ya_gn_a, a sacrifice to the Fathers, has\nto be performed. A _K_aru or pie had to be prepared in the\nDakshi_n_agni, the southern fire, and the offerings, consisting of\nwater and round cakes (pi_nd_as), were specially dedicated to father,\ngrandfather, and great-grandfather, while the wife of the sacrificer,\nif she wished for a son, was allowed to eat one of the cakes.[301]\n\nSimilar ancestral offerings took place during other sacrifices too, of\nwhich the New and Full-moon sacrifices form the general type.\n\nIt may be quite true that these two kinds of ancestral sacrifices have\nthe same object and share the same name, but their character is\ndifferent; and if, as has often been the case, they are mixed up\ntogether, we lose the most important lessons which a study of the\nancient ceremonial should teach us. I cannot describe the difference\nbetween these two Pit_ri_ya_gn_as more decisively than by pointing out\nthat the former was performed by the father of a family, or, if we may\nsay so, by a layman, the latter by a regular priest, or a class of\npriests, selected by the sacrificer to act in his behalf. As the\nHindus themselves would put it, the former is a g_ri_hya, a domestic,\nthe latter a _s_rauta, a priestly ceremony.[302]\n\nWe now come to a third class of ceremonies which are likewise domestic\nand personal, but which differ from the two preceding ceremonies by\ntheir occasional character, I mean the funeral, as distinct from the\nancestral ceremonies. In one respect these funeral ceremonies may\nrepresent an earlier phase of worship than the daily and monthly\nancestral sacrifices. They lead up to them, and, as it were, prepare\nthe departed for their future dignity as Pit_ri_s or Ancestors. On the\nother hand, the conception of Ancestors in general must have existed\nbefore any departed person could have been raised to that rank, and I\ntherefore preferred to describe the ancestral sacrifices first.\n\nNor need I enter here very fully into the character of the special\nfuneral ceremonies of India. I described them in a special paper, \"On\nSepulture and Sacrificial Customs in the Veda,\" nearly thirty years\nago.[303] Their spirit is the same as that of the funeral ceremonies\nof Greeks, Romans, Slavonic, and Teutonic nations, and the\ncoincidences between them all are often most surprising.\n\nIn Vedic times the people in India both burned and buried their dead,\nand they did this with a certain solemnity, and, after a time,\naccording to fixed rules. Their ideas about the status of the\ndeparted, after their body had been burned and their ashes buried,\nvaried considerably, but in the main they seem to have believed in a\nlife to come, not very different from our life on earth, and in the\npower of the departed to confer blessings on their descendants. It\nsoon therefore became the interest of the survivors to secure the\nfavor of their departed friends by observances and offerings which, at\nfirst, were the spontaneous manifestation of human feelings, but which\nsoon became traditional, technical, in fact, ritual.\n\nOn the day on which the corpse had been burned, the relatives\n(samanodakas) bathed and poured out a handful of water to the\ndeceased, pronouncing his name and that of his family.[304] At sunset\nthey returned home, and, as was but natural, they were told to cook\nnothing during the first night, and to observe certain rules during\nthe next day up to ten days, according to the character of the\ndeceased. These were days of mourning, or, as they were afterward\ncalled, days of impurity, when the mourners withdrew from contact with\nthe world, and shrank by a natural impulse from the ordinary\noccupations and pleasures of life.[305]\n\nThen followed the collecting of the ashes on the 11th, 13th, or 15th\nday of the dark half of the moon. On returning from thence they\nbathed, and then offered what was called a _S_raddha to the departed.\n\nThis word _S_raddha, which meets us here for the first time, is full\nof interesting lessons, if only properly understood. First of all it\nshould be noted that it is absent, not only from the hymns, but, so\nfar as we know at present, even from the ancient Brahma_n_as. It seems\ntherefore a word of a more modern origin. There is a passage in\nApastamba's Dharma-sutras which betrays, on the part of the author, a\nconsciousness of the more modern origin of the _S_raddhas:[306]\n\n    \"Formerly men and gods lived together in this world. Then the\n    gods in reward of their sacrifices went to heaven, but men\n    were left behind. Those men who perform sacrifices in the\n    same manner as the gods did, dwelt (after death) with the\n    gods and Brahman in heaven. Now (seeing men left behind) Manu\n    revealed this ceremony which is designated by the word\n    _S_raddha.\"\n\n_S_raddha has assumed many[307] meanings, and Manu,[308] for instance,\nuses it almost synonymously with pit_ri_ya_gn_a. But its original\nmeaning seems to have been \"that which is given with _s_raddha or\nfaith,\" _i.e._ charity bestowed on deserving persons, and, more\nparticularly, on Brahma_n_as. The gift was called _s_raddha, but the\nact itself also was called by the same name. The word is best\nexplained by Naraya_n_a in his commentary on the G_ri_hya-sutras of\nA_s_valayana (IV. 7), \"_S_raddha is that which is given in faith to\nBrahmans for the sake of the Fathers.\"[309]\n\nSuch charitable gifts flowed most naturally and abundantly at the time\nof a man's death, or whenever his memory was revived by happy or\nunhappy events in a family, and hence _S_raddha has become the general\nname for ever so many sacred acts commemorative of the departed. We\nhear of _S_raddhas not only at funerals, but at joyous events also,\nwhen presents were bestowed in the name of the family, and therefore\nin the name of the ancestors also, on all who had a right to that\ndistinction.\n\nIt is a mistake therefore to look upon _S_raddhas simply as offerings\nof water or cakes to the Fathers. An offering to the Fathers was, no\ndoubt, a symbolic part of each _S_raddha, but its more important\ncharacter was charity bestowed in memory of the Fathers.\n\nThis, in time, gave rise to much abuse, like the alms bestowed on the\nChurch during the Middle Ages. But in the beginning the motive was\nexcellent. It was simply a wish to benefit others, arising from the\nconviction, felt more strongly in the presence of death than at any\nother time, that as we can carry nothing out of this world, we ought\nto do as much good as possible in the world with our worldly goods. At\n_S_raddhas the Brahma_n_as were said to represent the sacrificial fire\ninto which the gifts should be thrown.[310] If we translate here\nBrahma_n_as by priests, we can easily understand why there should have\nbeen in later times so strong a feeling against _S_raddhas. But priest\nis a very bad rendering of Brahma_n_a. The Brahma_n_as were, socially\nand intellectually, a class of men of high breeding. They were a\nrecognized and, no doubt, a most essential element in the ancient\nsociety of India. As they lived for others, and were excluded from\nmost of the lucrative pursuits of life, it was a social, and it soon\nbecame a religious duty, that they should be supported by the\ncommunity at large. Great care was taken that the recipients of such\nbounty as was bestowed at _S_raddhas should be strangers, neither\nfriends nor enemies, and in no way related to the family. Thus\nApastamba says:[311] \"The food eaten (at a _S_raddha) by persons\nrelated to the giver is a gift offered to goblins. It reaches neither\nthe Manes nor the Gods.\" A man who tried to curry favor by bestowing\n_S_raddhika gifts, was called by an opprobrious name, a\n_S_raddha-mitra.[312]\n\nWithout denying therefore that in later times the system of\n_S_raddhas may have degenerated, I think we can perceive that it\nsprang from a pure source, and, what for our present purpose is even\nmore important, from an intelligible source.\n\nLet us now return to the passage in the G_ri_hya-sutras of A_s_valayana,\nwhere we met for the first time with the name of _S_raddha.[313] It was\nthe _S_raddha to be given for the sake of the Departed, after his ashes\nhad been collected in an urn and buried. This _S_raddha is called\nekoddish_t_a,[314] or, as we should say, personal. It was meant for one\nperson only, not for the three ancestors, nor for all the ancestors. Its\nobject was in fact to raise the departed to the rank of a Pit_ri_, and\nthis had to be achieved by _S_raddha offerings continued during a whole\nyear. This at least is the general, and, most likely, the original rule.\nApastamba says that the _S_raddha for a deceased relative should be\nperformed every day during the year, and that after that a monthly\n_S_raddha only should be performed or none at all, that is, no more\npersonal _S_raddha,[315] because the departed shares henceforth in the\nregular Parva_n_a-_s_raddhas.[316] _S_ankhayana says the same,[317] namely\nthat the personal _S_raddha lasts for a year, and that then \"the Fourth\"\nis dropped, _i.e._ the great-grandfather was dropped, the grandfather\nbecame the great-grandfather, the father the grandfather, while the\nlately Departed occupied the father's place among the three principal\nPit_ris_.[318] This was called the Sapi_nd_ikara_n_a, _i.e._ the elevating\nof the departed to the rank of an ancestor.\n\nThere are here, as elsewhere, many exceptions. Gobhila allows six\nmonths instead of a year, or even a Tripaksha,[319] _i.e._ three\nhalf-months; and lastly, any auspicious event (v_ri_ddhi) may become\nthe occasion of the Sapi_nd_ikara_n_a.[320]\n\nThe full number of _S_raddhas necessary for the Sapi_nd_ana is\nsometimes given as sixteen, viz., the first, then one in each of the\ntwelve months, then two semestral ones, and lastly the Sapi_nd_ana.\nBut here too much variety is allowed, though, if the Sapi_nd_ana takes\nplace before the end of the year, the number of sixteen _S_raddhas has\nstill to be made up.[321]\n\nWhen the _S_raddha is offered on account of an auspicious event, such\nas a birth or a marriage, the fathers invoked are not the father,\ngrandfather, and great-grandfather, who are sometimes called\na_s_rumukha, with tearful faces, but the ancestors before them, and\nthey are called nandimukha, or joyful.[322]\n\nColebrooke,[323] to whom we owe an excellent description of what a\n_S_raddha is in modern times, took evidently the same view. \"The first\nset of funeral ceremonies,\" he writes, \"is adapted to effect, by means\nof oblations, the re-embodying of the soul of the deceased, after\nburning his corpse. The apparent scope of the second set is to raise\nhis shade from this world, where it would else, according to the\nnotions of the Hindus, continue to roam among demons and evil spirits,\nup to heaven, and then deify him, as it were, among the manes of\ndeparted ancestors. For this end, a _S_raddha should regularly be\noffered to the deceased on the day after the mourning expires; twelve\nother _S_raddhas _singly_ to the deceased in twelve successive months;\nsimilar obsequies at the end of the third fortnight, and also in the\nsixth month, and in the twelfth; and the oblation called Sapi_nd_ana\non the first anniversary of his decease.[324] At this Sapi_nd_ana\n_S_raddha, which is the last of the ekoddish_t_a _s_raddhas, four\nfuneral cakes are offered to the deceased and his three ancestors,\nthat consecrated to the deceased being divided into three portions and\nmixed with the other three cakes. The portion retained is often\noffered to the deceased, and the act of union and fellowship becomes\ncomplete.\"[325]\n\nWhen this system of _S_raddhas had once been started, it seems to have\nspread very rapidly. We soon hear of the monthly _S_raddha, not only\nin memory of one person lately deceased, but as part of the\nPit_ri_ya_gn_a, and as obligatory, not only on householders (agnimat),\nbut on other persons also, and, not only on the three upper castes,\nbut even, without hymns, on _S_udras,[326] and as to be performed, not\nonly on the day of New-Moon, but on other days also,[327] whenever\nthere was an opportunity. Gobhila seems to look upon the\nPi_nd_apit_ri_ya_gn_a, as itself a _S_raddha,[328] and the commentator\nholds that, even if there are no pi_nd_as or cakes, the Brahmans ought\nstill to be fed. This _S_raddha, however, is distinguished from the\nother, the true _S_raddha, called Anvaharya, which follows it,[329]\nand which is properly known by the name of Parva_n_a _S_raddha.\n\nThe same difficulties which confront us when we try to form a clear\nconception of the character of the various ancestral ceremonies, were\nfelt by the Brahmans themselves, as may be seen from the long\ndiscussions in the commentary on the _S_raddha-kalpa[330] and from the\nabusive language used by _K_andrakanta Tarkalankara against\nRaghunandana. The question with them assumes the form of what is\npradhana (primary) and what is anga (secondary) in these sacrifices,\nand the final result arrived at is that sometimes the offering of\ncakes is pradhana, as in the Pi_nd_apit_ri_ya_gn_a, sometimes the\nfeeding of Brahmans only, as in the Nitya-_s_raddha, sometimes both,\nas in the Sapi_nd_ikara_n_a.\n\nWe may safely say, therefore, that not a day passed in the life of the\nancient people of India on which they were not reminded of their\nancestors, both near and distant, and showed their respect for them,\npartly by symbolic offerings to the Manes, partly by charitable gifts\nto deserving persons, chiefly Brahmans. These offertories varied from\nthe simplest, such as milk and fruits, to the costliest, such as gold\nand jewels. The feasts given to those who were invited to officiate or\nassist at a _S_raddha seem in some cases to have been very\nsumptuous,[331] and what is very important, the eating of meat, which\nin later times was strictly forbidden in many sects, must, when the\nSutras were written, have been fully recognized at these feasts, even\nto the killing and eating of a cow.[332]\n\nThis shows that these _S_raddhas, though, possibly of later date than\nthe Pit_ri_ya_gn_as, belong nevertheless to a very early phase of\nIndian life. And though much may have been changed in the outward form\nof these ancient ancestral sacrifices, their original solemn character\nhas remained unchanged. Even at present, when the worship of the\nancient Devas is ridiculed by many who still take part in it, the\nworship of the ancestors and the offering of _S_raddhas have\nmaintained much of their old sacred character. They have sometimes\nbeen compared to the \"communion\" in the Christian Church, and it is\ncertainly true that many natives speak of their funeral and ancestral\nceremonies with a hushed voice and with real reverence. They alone\nseem still to impart to their life on earth a deeper significance and\na higher prospect. I could go even a step further and express my\nbelief, that the absence of such services for the dead and of\nancestral commemorations is a real loss in our own religion. Almost\nevery religion recognizes them as tokens of a loving memory offered to\na father, to a mother, or even to a child, and though in many\ncountries they may have proved a source of superstition, there runs\nthrough them all a deep well of living human faith that ought never to\nbe allowed to perish. The early Christian Church had to sanction the\nancient prayers for the Souls of the Departed, and in more southern\ncountries the services on All Saints' and on All Souls' Day continue\nto satisfy a craving of the human heart which must be satisfied in\nevery religion.[333] We, in the North, shrink from these open\nmanifestations of grief, but our hearts know often a deeper\nbitterness; nay, there would seem to be a higher truth than we at\nfirst imagine in the belief of the ancients that the souls of our\nbeloved ones leave us no rest, unless they are appeased by daily\nprayers, or, better still, by daily acts of goodness in remembrance of\nthem.[334]\n\nBut there is still another Beyond that found expression in the\nancient religion of India. Besides the Devas or Gods, and besides the\nPit_ri_s or Fathers, there was a third world, without which the\nancient religion of India could not have become what we see it in the\nVeda. That third Beyond was what the poets of the Veda call the\n_R i_ t a, and which I believe meant originally no more than \"the\nstraight line.\" It is applied to the straight line of the sun in its\ndaily course, to the straight line followed by day and night, to the\nstraight line that regulates the seasons, to the straight line which,\nin spite of many momentary deviations, was discovered to run through\nthe whole realm of nature. We call that _Ri_ta, that straight, direct,\nor right line, when we apply it in a more general sense, _the Law of\nNature_; and when we apply it to the moral world, we try to express\nthe same idea again by speaking of the _Moral Law_, the law on which\nour life is founded, the eternal Law of Right and Reason, or, it may\nbe, \"that which makes for righteousness\" both within us and\nwithout.[335]\n\nAnd thus, as a thoughtful look on nature led to the first perception\nof bright gods, and in the end of a God of light, as love of our\nparents was transfigured into piety and a belief in immortality, a\nrecognition of the straight lines in the world without, and in the\nworld within, was raised into the highest faith, a faith in a law that\nunderlies everything, a law in which we may trust, whatever befall, a\nlaw which speaks within us with the divine voice of conscience, and\ntells us \"this is _ri_ta,\" \"this is right,\" \"this is true,\" whatever\nthe statutes of our ancestors, or even the voices of our bright gods,\nmay say to the contrary.[336]\n\nThese three Beyonds are the three revelations of antiquity; and it is\ndue almost entirely to the discovery of the Veda that we, in this\nnineteenth century of ours, have been allowed to watch again these\nearly phases of thought and religion, which had passed away long\nbefore the beginnings of other literatures.[337] In the Veda an\nancient city has been laid bare before our eyes which, in the history\nof all other religions, is filled up with rubbish, and built over by\nnew architects. Some of the earliest and most instructive scenes of\nour distant childhood have risen once more above the horizon of our\nmemory which, until thirty or forty years ago, seemed to have\nvanished forever.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOnly a few words more to indicate at least how this religious growth\nin India contained at the same time the germs of Indian philosophy.\nPhilosophy in India is, what it ought to be, not the denial, but the\nfulfilment of religion; it is the highest religion, and the oldest\nname of the oldest system of philosophy in India is V e d a n t a, that is,\nthe end, the goal, the highest object of the Veda.\n\nLet us return once more to that ancient theologian who lived in the\nfifth century B.C., and who told us that, even before his time, all\nthe gods had been discovered to be but three gods, the gods of the\n_Earth_, the gods of the _Air_, and the gods of the _Sky_, invoked\nunder various names. The same writer tells us that in reality there is\nbut _one_ God, but he does not call him the Lord, or the Highest God,\nthe Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, but he calls him\nA t m a n, THE SELF. The one Atman or Self, he says, is praised in many\nways owing to the greatness of the godhead. And then he goes on to\nsay: \"The other gods are but so many members of the one Atman, Self,\nand thus it has been said that the poets compose their praises\naccording to the multiplicity of the natures of the beings whom they\npraise.\"\n\nIt is true, no doubt, that this is the language of a philosophical\ntheologian, not of an ancient poet. Yet these philosophical\nreflections belong to the fifth century before our era, if not to an\nearlier date; and the first germs of such thoughts may be discovered\nin some of the Vedic hymns also. I have quoted already from the hymns\nsuch passages as[338]--\"They speak of Mitra, Varu_n_a, Agni; then he\nis the heavenly bird Garutmat; _that which is and is one_ the poets\ncall in various ways; they speak of Yama, Agni, Matari_s_van.\"\n\nIn another hymn, in which the sun is likened to a bird, we read: \"Wise\npoets represent by their words the bird who is one, in many\nways.\"[339]\n\nAll this is still tinged with mythology; but there are other passages\nfrom which a purer light beams upon us, as when one poet asks:[340]\n\n    \"Who saw him when he was first born, when he who has no bones\n    bore him who has bones? Where was the breath, the blood, the\n    Self of the world? Who went to ask this from any that knew\n    it?\"\n\nHere, too, the expression is still helpless, but though the flesh is\nweak, the spirit is very willing. The expression, \"He who has bones\"\nis meant for that which has assumed consistency and form, the Visible,\nas opposed to that which has no bones, no body, no form, the\nInvisible, while \"breath, blood, and self of the world\" are but so\nmany attempts at finding names and concepts for what is by necessity\ninconceivable, and therefore unnamable.\n\nIn the second period of Vedic literature, in the so-called\nBrahma_n_as, and more particularly in what is called the Upanishads,\nor the Vedanta portion, these thoughts advance to perfect clearness\nand definiteness. Here the development of religious thought, which\ntook its beginning in the hymns, attains to its fulfilment. The circle\nbecomes complete. Instead of comprehending the One by many names, the\nmany names are now comprehended to be the One. The old names are\nopenly discarded; even such titles as Pra_g_apati, lord of creatures,\nVi_s_vakarman, maker of all things, Dhat_ri_, creator, are put aside\nas inadequate. The name now used is an expression of nothing but the\npurest and highest subjectiveness--it is A t m a n, the Self, far more\nabstract than our E g o--the Self of all things, the Self of all the old\nmythological gods--for they were not _mere_ names, but names intended\nfor something--lastly, the Self in which each individual self must\nfind rest, must come to himself, must find his own true Self.\n\nYou may remember that I spoke to you in my first lecture of a boy who\ninsisted on being sacrificed by his father, and who, when he came to\nYama, the ruler of the departed, was granted three boons, and who then\nrequested, as his third boon, that Yama should tell him what became of\nman after death. That dialogue forms part of one of the Upanishads, it\nbelongs to the Vedanta, the end of the Veda, the highest aim of the\nVeda. I shall read you a few extracts from it.\n\nYama, the King of the Departed, says:\n\n    \"Men who are fools, dwelling in ignorance, though wise in\n    their own sight, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round\n    and round, staggering to and fro, like blind led by the\n    blind.\n\n    \"The future never rises before the eyes of the careless\n    child, deluded by the delusions of wealth. _This_ is the\n    world, he thinks; there is no other; thus he falls again and\n    again under my sway (the sway of death).\n\n    \"The wise, who by means of meditating on his _Self_,\n    recognizes the Old (the old man within) who is difficult to\n    see, who has entered into darkness, who is hidden in the\n    cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy\n    and sorrow far behind.\n\n    \"That Self, the Knower, is not born, it dies not; it came\n    from nothing, it never became anything. The Old man is\n    unborn, from everlasting to everlasting; he is not killed,\n    though the body be killed.\n\n    \"That Self is smaller than small, greater than great; hidden\n    in the heart of the creature. A man who has no more desires\n    and no more griefs, sees the majesty of the Self by the grace\n    of the creator.\n\n    \"Though sitting still, he walks far; though lying down, he\n    goes everywhere. Who save myself is able to know that God,\n    who rejoices, and rejoices not?\n\n    \"That Self cannot be gained by the Veda; nor by the\n    understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self\n    chooses, by him alone the Self can be gained.\n\n    \"The Self chooses him as his own. But he who has not first\n    turned away from his wickedness, who is not calm and subdued,\n    or whose mind is not at rest, he can never obtain the Self,\n    even by knowledge.\n\n    \"No mortal lives by the breath that goes up and by the breath\n    that goes down. We live by another, in whom both repose.\n\n    \"Well then, I shall tell thee this mystery, the eternal word\n    (Brahman), and what happens to the _Self_, after reaching\n    death.\n\n    \"Some are born again, as living beings, others enter into\n    stocks and stones, according to their work, and according to\n    their knowledge.\n\n    \"But he, the Highest Person, who wakes in us while we are\n    asleep, shaping one lovely sight after another, he indeed is\n    called the Light, he is called Brahman, he alone is called\n    the Immortal. All worlds are founded on it, and no one goes\n    beyond. _This is that._\n\n    \"As the one fire, after it has entered the world, though one,\n    becomes different according to what it burns, thus the One\n    Self within all things, becomes different, according to\n    whatever it enters, but it exists also apart.\n\n    \"As the sun, the eye of the world, is not contaminated by the\n    external impurities seen by the eye, thus the One Self within\n    all things is never contaminated by the sufferings of the\n    world, being himself apart.\n\n    \"There is one eternal thinker, thinking non-eternal thoughts;\n    he, though one, fulfils the desires of many. The wise who\n    perceive Him within their Self, to them belongs eternal life,\n    eternal peace.[341]\n\n    \"Whatever there is, the whole world, when gone forth (from\n    Brahman), trembles in his breath. That Brahman is a great\n    terror, like a drawn sword. Those who know it, become\n    immortal.\n\n    \"He (Brahman) cannot be reached by speech, by mind, or by the\n    eye. He cannot be apprehended, except by him who says, _He\n    is._\n\n    \"When all desires that dwell in the heart cease, then the\n    mortal becomes immortal, and obtains Brahman.\n\n    \"When all the fetters of the heart here on earth are broken,\n    when all that binds us to this life is undone, then the\n    mortal becomes immortal--here my teaching ends.\"\n\nThis is what is called Vedanta, the Veda-end, the end of the Veda, and\nthis is the religion or the philosophy, whichever you like to call it,\nthat has lived on from about 500 B.C. to the present day. If the\npeople of India can be said to have now any system of religion at\nall--apart from their ancestral sacrifices and their _S_raddhas, and\napart from mere caste-observances--it is to be found in the Vedanta\nphilosophy, the leading tenets of which are known, to some extent in\nevery village.[342] That great revival of religion, which was\ninaugurated some fifty years ago by Ram-Mohun Roy, and is now known as\nthe Brahma-Sama_g_, under the leadership of my noble friend Keshub\nChunder Sen, was chiefly founded on the Upanishads, and was Vedantic\nin spirit. There is, in fact, an unbroken continuity between the most\nmodern and the most ancient phases of Hindu thought, extending over\nmore than three thousand years.\n\nTo the present day India acknowledges no higher authority in matters\nof religion, ceremonial, customs, and law than the _Veda_, and so long\nas India is India, nothing will extinguish that ancient spirit of\nVedantism which is breathed by every Hindu from his earliest youth,\nand pervades in various forms the prayers even of the idolater, the\nspeculations of the philosopher, and the proverbs of the beggar.\n\nFor purely practical reasons therefore--I mean for the very practical\nobject of knowing something of the secret springs which determine the\ncharacter, the thoughts and deeds of the lowest as well as of the\nhighest among the people in India--an acquaintance with their\nreligion, which is founded on the Veda, and with their philosophy,\nwhich is founded on the Vedanta, is highly desirable.\n\nIt is easy to make light of this, and to ask, as some statesmen have\nasked, even in Europe, What has religion, or what has philosophy, to\ndo with politics? In India, in spite of all appearances to the\ncontrary, and notwithstanding the indifference on religious matters so\noften paraded before the world by the Indians themselves, religion,\nand philosophy too, are great powers still. Read the account that has\nlately been published of two native statesmen, the administrators of\ntwo first-class states in Saurash_t_ra, Junagadh, and Bhavnagar,\nGokulaji and Gauri_s_ankara,[343] and you will see whether the Vedanta\nis still a moral and a political power in India or not.\n\nBut I claim even more for the Vedanta, and I recommend its study, not\nonly to the candidates for the Indian Civil Service, but to all true\nstudents of philosophy. It will bring before them a view of life,\ndifferent from all other views of life which are placed before us in\nthe History of Philosophy. You saw how behind all the Devas or gods,\nthe authors of the Upanishads discovered the Atman or Self. Of that\nSelf they predicated three things only, that it is, that it perceives,\nand that it enjoys eternal bliss. All other predicates were negative:\nit is not this, it is not that--it is beyond anything that we can\nconceive or name.\n\nBut that Self, that Highest Self, the Paramatman, could be discovered\nafter a severe moral and intellectual discipline only, and those who\nhad not yet discovered it were allowed to worship lower gods, and to\nemploy more poetical names to satisfy their human wants. Those who\nknew the other gods to be but names or persons--_personae_ or masks,\nin the true sense of the word--pratikas, as they call them in\nSanskrit--knew also that those who worshipped these names or persons,\nworshipped in truth the Highest Self, though ignorantly. This is a\nmost characteristic feature in the religious history of India. Even in\nthe Bhagavadgita, a rather popular and exoteric exposition of Vedantic\ndoctrines, the Supreme Lord or Bhagavat himself is introduced as\nsaying: \"Even those who worship idols, worship me.\"[344]\n\nBut that was not all. As behind the names of Agni, Indra, and\nPra_g_apati, and behind all the mythology of nature, the ancient sages\nof India had discovered the Atman--let us call it the objective\nSelf--they perceived also behind the veil of the body, behind the\nsenses, behind the mind, and behind our reason (in fact behind the\nmythology of the soul, which we often call psychology), another\nAtman, or the subjective Self. That Self too was to be discovered by a\nsevere moral and intellectual discipline only, and those who wished to\nfind it, who wished to know, not themselves, but their Self, had to\ncut far deeper than the senses, or the mind, or the reason, or the\nordinary Ego. All these too were Devas, bright apparitions--mere\nnames--yet names meant for something. Much that was most dear, that\nhad seemed for a time their very self, had to be surrendered, before\nthey could find the Self of Selves, the Old Man, the Looker-on, a\nsubject independent of all personality, an existence independent of\nall life.\n\nWhen that point had been reached, then the highest knowledge began to\ndawn, the Self within (the Pratyagatman) was drawn toward the Highest\nSelf (the Paramatman), it found its true self in the Highest Self, and\nthe oneness of the subjective with the objective Self was recognized\nas underlying all reality, as the dim dream of religion--as the pure\nlight of philosophy.\n\nThis fundamental idea is worked out with systematic completeness in\nthe Vedanta philosophy, and no one who can appreciate the lessons\ncontained in Berkeley's philosophy, will read the Upanishads and the\nBrahmasutras, and their commentaries without feeling a richer and a\nwiser man.\n\nI admit that it requires patience, discrimination, and a certain\namount of self-denial before we can discover the grains of solid gold\nin the dark mines of Eastern philosophy. It is far easier and far more\namusing for shallow critics to point out what is absurd and ridiculous\nin the religion and philosophy of the ancient world than for the\nearnest student to discover truth and wisdom under strange disguises.\nSome progress, however, has been made, even during the short span of\nlife that we can remember. The Sacred Books of the East are no longer\na mere butt for the invectives of missionaries or the sarcasms of\nphilosophers. They have at last been recognized as historical\ndocuments, ay, as the most ancient documents in the history of the\nhuman mind, and as palaeontological records of an evolution that begins\nto elicit wider and deeper sympathies than the nebular formation of\nthe planet on which we dwell for a season, or the organic development\nof that chrysalis which we call man.\n\nIf you think that I exaggerate, let me read you in conclusion what one\nof the greatest philosophical critics[345]--and certainly not a man\ngiven to admiring the thoughts of others--says of the Vedanta, and\nmore particularly of the Upanishads. Schopenhauer writes:\n\n    \"In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so\n    elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace\n    of my life--it will be the solace of my death.\"[346]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have thus tried, so far as it was possible in one course of\nlectures, to give you some idea of ancient India, of its ancient\nliterature, and, more particularly, of its ancient religion. My object\nwas, not merely to place names and facts before you, these you can\nfind in many published books, but, if possible, to make you see and\nfeel the general human interests that are involved in that ancient\nchapter of the history of the human race. I wished that the Veda and\nits religion and philosophy should not only seem to you curious or\nstrange, but that you should feel that there was in them something\nthat concerns ourselves, something of our own intellectual growth,\nsome recollections, as it were, of our own childhood, or at least of\nthe childhood of our own race. I feel convinced that, placed as we are\nhere in this life, we have lessons to learn from the Veda, quite as\nimportant as the lessons we learn at school from Homer and Virgil, and\nlessons from the Vedanta quite as instructive as the systems of Plato\nor Spinoza.\n\nI do not mean to say that everybody who wishes to know how the human\nrace came to be what it is, how language came to be what it is, how\nreligion came to be what it is, how manners, customs, laws, and forms\nof government came to be what they are, how we ourselves came to be\nwhat we are, must learn Sanskrit, and must study Vedic Sanskrit. But I\n_do_ believe that not to know what a study of Sanskrit, and\nparticularly a study of the Veda, has already done for illuminating\nthe darkest passages in the history of the human mind, of that mind on\nwhich we ourselves are feeding and living, is a misfortune, or, at all\nevents, a loss, just as I should count it a loss to have passed\nthrough life without knowing something, however little, of the\ngeological formation of the earth, or of the sun, and the moon, and\nthe stars--and of the thought, or the will, or the law, that govern\ntheir movements.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 260: On the early use of letters for public inscriptions,\nsee Hayman, _Journal of Philology_, 1879, pp. 141, 142, 150; Hicks,\n\"Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions,\" pp. 1 seqq.]\n\n[Footnote 261: Herod, (v. 59) says: \"I saw Phenician letters on\ncertain tripods in a temple of the Ismenian Apollo at Thebes in\nBoeotia, the most of them like the Ionian letters.\"]\n\n[Footnote 262: Munch, \"Die Nordisch Germanischen Voelker,\" p. 240.]\n\n[Footnote 263: Herod. (v. 58) says: \"The Ionians from of old call\n[Greek: byblos diphtherai], because once, in default of the former, they\nused to employ the latter. And even down to my own time, many of the\nbarbarians write on such diphtherae.\"]\n\n[Footnote 264: Hekataeos and Kadmos of Miletos (520 B.C.), Charon of\nLampsakos (504 B.C.), Xanthos the Lydian (463 B.C.), Pherekydes of\nLeros (480 B.C.), Hellanikos of Mitylene (450 B.C.), etc.]\n\n[Footnote 265: Lewis, \"Astronomy,\" p. 92.]\n\n[Footnote 266: See Hayman, _Journal of Philology_, 1879, p. 139.]\n\n[Footnote 267: See M. M., \"History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature,\"\npp. 497 seqq., \"On the Introduction of Writing in India.\"]\n\n[Footnote 268: M. M., \"History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature,\" p.\n515.]\n\n[Footnote 269: M. M., \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 153.]\n\n[Footnote 270: Learning was anciently preserved by memory. The Jewish,\nor rather Chaldaic _Kabala_, or Tradition was not written for many\ncenturies. The Druids of ancient Britain preserved their litanies in\nthe same way, and to a Bard a good memory was indispensable, or he\nwould have been refused initiation.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 271: See my article on the date of the Ka_s_ika in the\n_Indian Antiquary_, 1880, p. 305.]\n\n[Footnote 272: The translation of the most important passages in\nI-tsing's work was made for me by one of my Japanese pupils, K.\nKasawara.]\n\n[Footnote 273: See Bunyiu Nanjio's \"Catalogue of the Chinese\nTripi_t_aka,\" p. 372, where Arya_s_ura, who must have lived before 434\nA.D., is mentioned as the author of the \"_G_atakamala.\"]\n\n[Footnote 274: Wellington, 1880.]\n\n[Footnote 275: De Bello Gall. vi. 14; \"History of Ancient Sanskrit\nLiterature,\" p. 506.]\n\n[Footnote 276: See De Coulanges, \"The Ancient City,\" Book I. II. \"We\nfind this worship of the dead among the Hellenes, among the Latins,\namong the Sabines, among the Etruscans; we also find it among the\nAryas of India. Mention is made of it in the hymns of the Rig-Veda. It\nis spoken of in the Laws of Manu as the most ancient worship among\nmen.... Before men had any notion of Indra or of Zeus, they adored the\ndead; they feared them, and addressed them prayers. It seems that the\nreligious sentiment began in this way. It was perhaps while looking\nupon the dead that man first conceived the idea of the supernatural,\nand to have a hope beyond what he saw. Death was the first mystery,\nand it placed man on the track of other mysteries. It raised his\nthoughts from the visible to the invisible, from the transitory to the\neternal, from the human to the divine.\"\n\nThe sacred fire represented the ancestors, and therefore was revered\nand kept carefully from profanation by the presence of a stranger.--A.\nW.]\n\n[Footnote 277: \"Principles of Sociology,\" p. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 278: \"The Hindu Law of Inheritance is based upon the Hindu\nreligion, and we must be cautious that in administering Hindu law we\ndo not, by acting upon our notions derived from English law,\ninadvertently wound or offend the religious feelings of those who may\nbe affected by our decisions.\"--Bengal Law Reports, 103.]\n\n[Footnote 279:\n\n    \"Earth-wandering demons, they their charge began,\n    The ministers of good and guards of man;\n    Veiled with a mantle of aerial light,\n    O'er Earth's wide space they wing their hovering flight.\"]\n\n[Footnote 280: Cicero, \"De Leg.\" II. 9, 22, \"Deorum manium jura sancta\nsunto; nos leto datos divos habento.\"]\n\n[Footnote 281: See Atharva-Veda XVIII. 2, 49.]\n\n[Footnote 282: Rig-Veda X. 14, 1-2. He is called Vaivasvata, the solar\n(X. 58, 1), and even the son of Vivasvat (X. 14, 5). In a later phase\nof religious thought Yama is conceived as the first man (Atharva-Veda\nXVIII. 3, 13, as compared with Rig-Veda X. 14, 1).]\n\n[Footnote 283: Rig-Veda X. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 284: In the Avesta many of these things are done by\nAhura-Mazda with the help of the Fravashis.]\n\n[Footnote 285: See _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a I. 9, 3, 10; VI. 5, 4, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 286: Rig-Veda VIII. 48, 3: \"We drank Soma, we became\nimmortal, we went to the light, we found the gods;\" VIII. 48, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Rig-Veda IX. 97, 39.]\n\n[Footnote 288: L. c. X. 14, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 289: L. c. X. 16, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 290: A translation considerably differing from my own is\ngiven by Sarvadhikari in his \"Tagore Lectures for 1880,\" p. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 291: Cf. Max Mueller, Rig-Veda, transl. vol. i. p. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 292: In a previous note will be found the statement by\nProfessor De Coulanges, of Strasburg, that in India, as in other\ncountries, a belief in the ancestral spirits came first, and a belief\nin divinities afterward. Professor Mueller cites other arguments which\nmight be employed in support of such a theory. The name of the oldest\nand greatest among the Devas, for instance, is not simply Dyaus, but\nDyaush-pita, Heaven-Father; and there are several names of the same\ncharacter, not only in Sanskrit, but in Greek and Latin also. Jupiter\nand Zeus Pater are forms of the appellation mentioned, and mean the\nFather in Heaven. It does certainly look as though Dyaus, the sky, had\nbecome personal and worshipped only after he had been raised to the\ncategory of a Pitri, a father; and that this predicate of Father must\nhave been elaborated first before it could have been used, to\ncomprehend Dyaus, the sky, Varu_n_a, and other Devas. Professor\nMueller, however, denies that this is the whole truth in the case. The\nVedic poets, he remarks, believed in Devas--gods, if we must so call\nthem--literally, the bright ones; Pit_ri_s, fathers; and Manushyas,\nmen, mortals. (Atharva-Veda, X. 6, 32.) Who came first and who came\nafter it is difficult to say; but as soon as the three were placed\nside by side, the Devas certainly stood the highest, then followed the\nPit_ri_s, and last came the mortals. Ancient thought did not\ncomprehend the three under one concept, but it paved the way to it.\nThe mortals after passing through death became Fathers, and the\nFathers became the companions of the Devas.\n\nIn Manu there is an advance beyond this point. The world, all that\nmoves and rests, we are told (Manu III., 201), has been made by the\nDevas; but the Devas and Danavas were born of the Pit_ri_s, and the\nPit_ri_s of the _R_ishis. Originally the _R_ishis were the poets of\nthe Vedas, seven in number; and we are not told how they came to be\nplaced above the Devas and Pit_ri_s. It does not, however, appear\nutterly beyond the power to solve. The Vedas were the production of\nthe _R_ishis, and the Pit_ri_s, being perpetuated thus to human\nmemory, became by a figure of speech their offspring. The Devas sprung\nfrom the Pit_ri_s, because it was usual to apotheosize the dead. \"Our\nancestors desired,\" says Cicero, \"that the men who had quitted this\nlife should be counted in the number of gods.\" Again, the conception\nof patrons or Pit_ri_s to each family and tribe naturally led to the\nidea of a Providence over all; and so the Pit_ri_ begat the Deva. This\nreligion preceded and has outlasted the other.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 293: _S_atapatha Brahma_n_a XI. 5, 6, 1; Taitt. Ar. II. 11,\n10; A_s_valayana G_ri_hya-sutras III. 1, 1; Paraskara G_ri_hya-sutras\nII. 9, 1; Apastamba, Dharma-sutras, translated by Buehler, pp. 47 seq.]\n\n[Footnote 294: In the _S_ankhayana G_ri_hya (I. 5) four Paka-ya_gn_as\nare mentioned, called Huta, ahuta, prahuta, pra_s_ita.]\n\n[Footnote 295: A_s_v. G_ri_hya-sutras I. 3, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 296: Manu III. 117-118.]\n\n[Footnote 297: L. c. III. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 298: See Des Coulanges, \"Ancient City,\" I. 3. \"Especially\nwere the meals of the family religions acts. The god [the sacred fire]\npresided there. He had cooked the bread and prepared the food; a\nprayer, therefore, was due at the beginning and end of the repast.\nBefore eating, they placed upon the altar the first fruits of the\nfood; before drinking, they poured out a libation of wine. This was\nthe god's portion. No one doubted that he was present, that he ate and\ndrank; for did they not see the flame increase as if it had been\nnourished by the provisions offered? Thus the meal was divided between\nthe man and the god. It was a sacred ceremony, by which they held\ncommunion with each other.... The religion of the sacred fire dates\nfrom the distant and dim epoch when there were yet no Greeks, no\nItalians, no Hindus, when there were only Aryas. When the tribes\nseparated they carried this worship with them, some to the banks of\nthe Ganges, others to the shores of the Mediterranean.... Each group\nchose its own gods, but all preserved as an ancient legacy the first\nreligion which they had known and practiced in the common cradle of\ntheir race.\"\n\nThe fire in the house denoted the ancestor, or pit_ri_, and in turn\nthe serpent was revered as a living fire, and so an appropriate symbol\nof the First Father.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 299: \"Taittiriyara_n_yaka,\" Preface, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 300: Masi masi vo 'sanam iti _s_rute_h_; Gobhiliya G_ri_hya\nsutras, p. 1055.]\n\n[Footnote 301: See \"Pi_nd_apit_ri_ya_gn_a,\" von Dr. O. Donner, 1870.\nThe restriction to three ancestors, father, grandfather, and\ngreat-grandfather, occurs in the Va_g_asaneyi-sa_m_hita, XIX. 36-37.]\n\n[Footnote 302: There is, however, great variety in these matters,\naccording to different _s_akhas. Thus, according to the Gobhila-_s_akha,\nthe Pi_nd_a Pit_ri_ya_gn_a is to be considered as smarta, not as _s_rauta\n(pi_nd_a-pit_ri_ya_gn_ah khalv asma_kkh_akhaya_m_ nasti); while others\nmaintain that an agnimat should perform the smarta, a _s_rautagnimat the\n_s_rauta Pit_ri_ya_gn_a; see Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras, p. 671. On page\n667 we read: anagner amavasya_s_raddha, nanvaharyam ity adara_n_iyam.]\n\n[Footnote 303: \"Ueber Todtenbestattung und Opfergebraeuche im Veda,\" in\n\"Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft,\" vol. ix.\n1856.]\n\n[Footnote 304: A_s_valayana G_ri_hya-sutras IV. 4, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 305: Manu V. 64-65.]\n\n[Footnote 306: Buehler, Apastamba, \"Sacred Books of the East,\" vol.\nii., p. 138; also \"_S_raddhakalpa,\" p. 890. Though the _S_raddha is\nprescribed in the \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" IV. 4, 2-3, it is not\ndescribed there, but in a separate treatise, the _S_raddha-kalpa.]\n\n[Footnote 307: As meaning the food, _s_raddha occurs in\n_s_raddhabhu_g_ and similar words. As meaning the sacrificial act, it\nis explained, yatraita_k_ _kh_raddhaya diyate tad eva karma\n_s_raddha_s_abdabhidheyam. Pretam pit_rims_ _k_a nirdi_s_ya\nbho_g_ya_m_ yat priyam atmana_h_ _s_raddhaya diyate yatra ta_k_\n_kh_raddham parikirtitam. \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 892. We also\nread _s_raddhanvita_h_ _s_raddha_m_ kurvita, \"let a man perform the\n_s_raddha with faith;\" \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1053.]\n\n[Footnote 308: Manu III. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 309: Pit_ri_n uddi_s_ya yad diyate brahma_n_ebhya_h_\n_s_raddhaya ta_k_ _kh_radd ham.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Apastamba II. 16, 3, Brahma_n_as tv ahavaniyarthe.]\n\n[Footnote 311: L. c. p. 142.]\n\n[Footnote 312: Manu III. 138, 140.]\n\n[Footnote 313: \"A_s_v. G_ri_hya-sutras\" IV. 5, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 314: It is described as a vik_ri_ti of the\nParva_n_a-_s_raddha in \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1011.]\n\n[Footnote 315: One of the differences between the acts before and after\nthe Sapi_nd_ikara_n_a is noted by Salankayana:--Sapi_nd_ikara_n_am yavad\n_rig_udarbhai_h_ pit_ri_kriya Sapi_nd_ikara_n_ad urdhva_m_ dvigu_n_air\nvidhivad bhavet. \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 930.]\n\n[Footnote 316: \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1023.]\n\n[Footnote 317: \"G_ri_hya-sutras,\" ed. Oldenberg, p. 83.]\n\n[Footnote 318: A pratyabdikam ekoddish_t_am on the anniversary of the\ndeceased is mentioned by Gobhiliya, l. c. p. 1011.]\n\n[Footnote 319: \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1039.]\n\n[Footnote 320: \"_S_ankh. G_ri_hya,\" p. 83; \"Gobh. G_ri_hya,\" p. 1024.\nAccording to some authorities the ekoddish_t_a is called nava, new,\nduring ten days; navami_s_ra, mixed, for six months; and pura_n_a,\nold, afterward. \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1020.]\n\n[Footnote 321: \"Gobhiliya,\" l. c. p. 1032.]\n\n[Footnote 322: \"Gobhiliya,\" l. c. p. 1047.]\n\n[Footnote 323: \"Life and Essays,\" ii. p. 195.]\n\n[Footnote 324: Colebrooke adds that in most provinces the periods for\nthese sixteen ceremonies, and for the concluding obsequies entitled\nSapi_nd_ana, are anticipated, and the whole is completed on the second\nor third day; after which they are again performed at the proper\ntimes, but in honor of the whole set of progenitors instead of the\ndeceased singly. It is this which Dr. Donner, in his learned paper on\nthe \"Pi_nd_apit_ri_ya_gn_a\" (p. 11), takes as the general rule.]\n\n[Footnote 325: See this subject most exhaustively treated,\nparticularly in its bearings on the law of inheritance, in Rajkumar\nSarvadhikari's \"Tagore Law Lectures for 1880,\" p. 93.]\n\n[Footnote 326: \"Gobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 892.]\n\n[Footnote 327: L. c. p. 897.]\n\n[Footnote 328: See p. 666, and p. 1008. G_ri_hyakara_h_\npi_nd_apit_ri_ya_gn_asya _s_raddhatvam aha.]\n\n[Footnote 329: Gobhila IV. 4, 3, itarad anvaharyam. But the\ncommentators add anagner amavasya_s_raddham, nanvaharyam. According to\nGobhila there ought to be the Vai_s_vadeva offering and the Bali\noffering at the end of each Parva_n_a-_s_raddha; see \"Gobhiliya\nG_ri_hya-sutras,\" p. 1005, but no Vai_s_vadeva at an ekoddish_t_a\n_s_raddha, l. c. p. 1020.]\n\n[Footnote 330: L. c. pp. 1005-1010; \"Nirnayasindhu,\" p. 270.]\n\n[Footnote 331: See Burnell, \"The Law of Partition,\" p. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 332: Kalau tavad gavalambho ma_m_sadana_m_ _k_a _s_raddhe\nnishiddham, Gobhilena tu madhyamash_t_akaya_m_ vastukarma_n_i _k_a\ngavalambho vihita_h_, ma_m_sa_k_aru_s_ _k_anvash_t_akya_s_raddhe;\nGobhiliya G_ri_hya-sutra, ed. \"_K_andrakanta Tarkalankara,\nVi_gn_apti,\" p. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 333: It may be seriously doubted whether prayers _to_ the\ndead or _for_ the dead satisfy any craving of the human heart. With us\nin \"the North,\" a shrinking from \"open manifestations of grief\" has\nnothing whatever to do with the matter. Those who refuse to engage in\nsuch worship believe and teach that the dead are not gods and cannot\nbe helped by our prayers. Reason, not feeling, prevents such\nworship.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 334: A deeper idea than affection inspired this custom.\nEvery kinsman was always such, living or dead; and hence the service\nof the dead was sacred and essential. The _S_raddhas were adopted as\nthe performance of such offices. There were twelve forms of this\nservice: 1. The daily offering to ancestors. 2. The _s_raddha for a\nperson lately deceased, and not yet included with the pit_ri_s. 3. The\n_s_raddha offered for a specific object. 4. The offering made on\noccasions of rejoicing. 5. The _s_raddha performed when the\nrecently-departed has been incorporated among the Pit_ri_s. 6. The\n_s_raddha performed on a parvan-day, _i.e._, new moon, the eighth day,\nfourteenth day, and full moon. 7. The _s_raddha performed in a house\nof assembly for the benefit of learned men. 8. Expiatory. 9. Part of\nsome other ceremony. 10. Offered for the sake of the Devas. 11.\nPerformed before going on a journey. 12. _S_raddha for the sake of\nwealth. The _s_raddhas may be performed in one's own house, or in some\nsecluded and pure place. The number performed each year by those who\ncan afford it varies considerably; but ninety-six appears to be the\nmore common. The most fervent are the twelve new-moon rites; four Yuga\nand fourteen Manu rites; twelve corresponding to the passages of the\nsun into the zodiacal mansions, etc.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 335: See \"Hibbert Lectures,\" new ed. pp. 243-255.]\n\n[Footnote 336: The same concept is found in the Platonic Dialogue\nbetween Sokrates and Euthyphron. The philosopher asks the diviner to\ntell what is holy and what impiety. \"That which is pleasing to the\ngods is holy, and that which is not pleasing to them is impious\"\npromptly replies the mantis, \"To be holy is to be just,\" said\nSokrates; \"Is the thing holy because they love it, or do they love it\nbecause it is holy?\" Euthyphron hurried away in alarm. He had\nacknowledged unwittingly that holiness or justice was supreme above\nall gods; and this highest concept, this highest faith, he dared not\nentertain.--A. W.]\n\n[Footnote 337: In Chinese we find that the same three aspects of\nreligion and their intimate relationship were recognized, as, for\ninstance, when Confucius says to the Prince of Sung: \"Honor the sky\n(worship of Devas), reverence the Manes (worship of Pit_ri_s); if you\ndo this, sun and moon will keep their appointed time (_Ri_ta).\"\nHappel, \"Altchinesische Reichsreligion,\" p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 338: Rig-Veda I. 164, 46; \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 311.]\n\n[Footnote 339: Rig-Veda X. 114, 5; \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 313.]\n\n[Footnote 340: Rig-Veda I. 164, 4.]\n\n[Footnote 341: [Greek: Tu de phronema tou pneumatos zoe kai eirene]. See\nalso Ruskin, \"Sesame,\" p. 63.]\n\n[Footnote 342: Major Jacob, \"Manual of Hindu Pantheism,\" Preface.]\n\n[Footnote 343: \"Life and Letters of Gokulaji Sampattirama Zala and his\nviews of the Vedanta, by Manassukharama Suryarama Tripa_th_i.\" Bombay,\n1881.\n\nAs a young man Gokulaji, the son of a good family, learned Persian and\nSanskrit. His chief interest in life, in the midst of a most\nsuccessful political career, was the \"Vedanta.\" A little insight, we\nare told, into this knowledge turned his heart to higher objects,\npromising him freedom from grief, and blessedness, the highest aim of\nall. This was the turning-point of his inner life. When the celebrated\nVedanti anchorite, Rama Bava, visited Junagadh, Gokulaji became his\npupil. When another anchorite, Paramahansa Sa_kk_idananda, passed\nthrough Junagadh on a pilgrimage to Girnar, Gokulaji was regularly\ninitiated in the secrets of the Vedanta. He soon became highly\nproficient in it, and through the whole course of his life, whether in\npower or in disgrace, his belief in the doctrines of the Vedanta\nsupported him, and made him, in the opinion of English statesmen, the\nmodel of what a native statesman ought to be.]\n\n[Footnote 344: Professor Kuenen discovers a similar idea in the words\nplaced in the mouth of Jehovah by the prophet Malachi, i. 14: \"For I\nam a great King, and my name is feared among the heathen.\" \"The\nreference,\" he says, \"is distinctly to the adoration already offered\nto Yahweh by the people, whenever they serve their own gods with true\nreverence and honest zeal.(A1) Even in Deuteronomy the adoration of\nthese other gods by the nations is represented as a dispensation of\nYahweh. Malachi goes a step further, and accepts their worship as a\ntribute which in reality falls to Yahweh--to Him, the Only True. Thus\nthe opposition between Yahweh and the other gods, and afterward\nbetween the one true God and the imaginary gods, makes room here for\nthe still higher conception that the adoration of Yahweh is the\nessence and the truth of all religion.\" \"Hibbert Lectures,\" p. 181.\n\nA1: There is, we believe, not the slightest authority for reading\nMalachi in this way; any reader of the Old Testament is competent to\njudge for himself.--AM. PUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 345: The author's enthusiasm has carried him beyond bounds.\nThe weight to be given to Schopenhauer's opinion touching any\nreligious subject may be measured by the following quotation: \"The\nhappiest moment of life is the completest forgetfulness of self in\nsleep, and the wretchedest is the most wakeful and conscious.\"--AM.\nPUBS.]\n\n[Footnote 346: \"Sacred Books of the East,\" vol. i, \"The Upanishads,\"\ntranslated by M. M.; Introduction, p. lxi.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\nABBA Seen river, 192.\n\nABRAIAMAN, 74.\n\nABU FAZL, on the Hindus, 75.\n\nACTIVE side of human nature in Europe, 120.\n\nADITI, meaning of, 215.\n\nADITYA, 158.\n\nADITYAS, 215.\n\nADROGHA, 83.\n\nAERIAL GODS, 168.\n\nAFGHANISTAN, 159;\n  inhabitants of, 189.\n\nAGNI, god of fire, 167.\n\nAGNI-IGNIS, fire, 41;\n  as a terrestrial deity, 195.\n\nAITAREYA BRAHMANA, on heaven and earth, 175.\n\nALEXANDER THE GREAT, 37;\n  changes the name of a river, 191.\n\nALL-SACRIFICE, the, 85.\n\nALPHABET, the, whence derived, 86;\n  Ionian and Phoenician, 222;\n  two used  in Asoka's inscription, 225.\n\nAMITABHA worship, 106.\n\nANAXAGORAS, his doctrine, 177.\n\nANCESTORS, spirits of, 238;\n  worship of, 239.\n\nANIMISM, 130.\n\nAURITA, 83.\n\nARCHAEOLOGICAL survey of India, 26.\n\nARRIAN, on the Hindus, 73;\n  rivers known to, 191.\n\nARYANS, the, our intellectual relatives, 33;\n  seven branches of, 41;\n  found in Sanskrit literature, 116;\n  religion of, 161.\n\nASMI, I am, 43.\n\nASOKA, king, 96;\n  adopts Buddhism, 106;\n  author of the first inscriptions, 225;\n  language of the same, 234.\n\nASTRONOMY, ancient, in India, 114;\n  in the Veda, 150;\n  in China, 151.\n\nATMAN, the Self, 265.\n\nAVATARAS of Vishnu, three, 153.\n\n\nB.\n\nBABYLONIAN division of time, 36;\n  influences on Vedic poems, 145;\n  on Vedic astronomy, 147;\n  zodiac, 158.\n\nBARZOI, 114.\n\nBASTIAN, on the Polynesian myths, 169.\n\nBENGAL, the people of, 55;\n  villages of, 65;\n  schools in, 80.\n\nBENGALI, 161.\n\nBHAGAVADGITA, 272.\n\nBHAGAVAT, supreme lord, 272.\n\nBIMETALLIC currency, 37.\n\nBHISHMA, death of, 83.\n\nBIBLE, the, Sanskrit words in, 28;\n  and the Jewish race, 140.\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHICAL survey of India, 102.\n\nBOOKS read by ancient nations compared with modern, 137.\n\nBOPP, his comparative grammar, 46.\n\nBRAHMA sacrifice, 249.\n\nBRAHMA Samaj, of india, 163.\n\nBRAHMANA, 162.\n\nBRAHMANAS, on truth, 84;\n  as a class, 256.\n\nBUDDHA and the popular dialects, 96.\n\nBUDDHISM, chief source of our fables, 27;\n  striking coincidences with Christianity, 108;\n  its rise, 234.\n\nBURNOUF, 115.\n\n\nC.\n\nCABUL river, 192.\n\nCAESAR, on the Druids and their memorizing, 233.\n\nCANAAN, 140.\n\nCARLYLE, his opinion of historical works, 16.\n\nCASTE, origin of, 117;\n  in the laws of Manu, 117;\n  in the Rig-Veda, 117.\n\nCAT, the domestic, its original home, 42.\n\nCHINA, origin of the name, 151;\n  chronicles of, 104;\n  lunar stations of, 150;\n  aspects of religion, 264.\n\nCHRISTIAN religion, the, and the Jewish race, 35.\n\nCIVIL service examinations, Indian, 20.\n\nCLIMATIC influences on morals and social life, 120.\n\nCOINS of India, 26.\n\nCOLEBROOKE'S religious ceremonies, 247.\n\nCOMMERCIAL honor in India, 82.\n\nCOMMERCE between India and Syria in Solomon's time, 28.\n\nCOMMERCIAL writing, 225.\n\nCONFUCIUS, a hard student, 230.\n\nCONQUERORS of India, 30.\n\nCOULANGES, Professor, his opinion on religious beliefs, 245.\n\nCUNNINGHAM'S Ancient Geography of India, 192.\n\nCYLINDERS of Babylon, 139.\n\n\nD.\n\nDACOITS, 79.\n\nDARWIN, 141.\n\nDAWN, the, 173.\n\nDAYANANDA'S introduction to the Rig-Veda, 104.\n\nDELUGE, the, 153;\n  in Hindu literature, 154;\n  not borrowed from the Old Testament, 157;\n  its natural origin, 159.\n\nDEPARTED spirits, 237;\n  honors paid to, 240;\n  ceremonies to, 246.\n\nDEVA, 159;\n  the meaning of, 236.\n\nDEVAPATNIS, wives of the gods, 164.\n\nDEVAPI'S prayer for rain, 204.\n\nDEVELOPMENT of human character in India and Europe, 118.\n\nDIALECTS in Asoka's time, 106.\n\nDIPHTHERA, 222.\n\nDIVI Manes, 240.\n\nDONKEY, in the lion's skin, 27;\n  in the tiger's skin, 28.\n\nDRUIDS, their memory, 233.\n\nDYAUS and Zeus, 213.\n\n\nE.\n\nEABANI, 158.\n\nEAST, the, our original home, 49.\n\nECLIPTIC, Indian, 153.\n\nEDUCATION of the human race, 107.\n\nEDUCATION in India, by training the memory, 232.\n\nEGYPTIAN hieroglyphics preserved in the alphabet, 36.\n\nELPHINSTONE, Mountstuart, his opinion of the Hindus, 77.\n\nENGLISH officers in India, 69.\n\nENGLISH oriental scholars, a list of, 22.\n\nEOS and Ushas, 201.\n\nESTHONIAN prayer to Picker, the god of thunder, 211.\n\nEURIPIDES, on the marriage of heaven and earth, 177.\n\nEXAMINATIONS, work produced at, 20.\n\n\nF.\n\nFABLES, migration of, 27.\n\nFALSEHOOD, no mortal sin, five cases of, 89.\n\nFATHERS, Hymn to the, 241.\n\nFINITE, the, impossible without the infinite, 126.\n\nFIRE, names for, 41;\n  as a civilizer, 195;\n  a terrestrial deity, 195;\n  why worshipped, 196.\n\nFIVE nations, the, 117.\n\nFIVE sacrifices, religious duties, 249.\n\nFRAVASHIS, in Persia, 240.\n\nFREDERICK the Great, 34.\n\nFRIAR Jordanus, opinion of Hindu character, 75.\n\nFUNERAL ceremonies, 248;\n  an earlier worship, 252;\n  striking coincidences, 253;\n  burial and cremation, 253.\n\n\nG.\n\nGAINAS, language of, 97.\n\nGALILEO, his theory, 135.\n\nGANGES, sources of, 96;\n  its tributaries, 187.\n\nGATAKA, 30.\n\nGATHAS, 107.\n\nGAUTAMA allows a lie, 88.\n\nGERMANY, study of Sanskrit in, 22.\n\nGEMS, the nine, 114.\n\nGILL, Rev. W., myths and songs of the South Pacific, 169;\n  savage life in Polynesia, 233.\n\nGODS in the Veda, their testimony for truth, 83;\n  the number of, 164;\n  river gods and goddesses, 167;\n  made and unmade by men, 182;\n  growth of a divine conception in the human mind, 198.\n\nGOLDEN RULE, the, 92.\n\nGOETHE'S West-oestlicher Divan, 22.\n\nGOKULAJI, the model native statesman, 271.\n\nGRASSMAN, translation of Sanskrit words, 183.\n\nGREEK alphabet, age of, 221.\n\nGREEK literature, its study and use, 23;\n  when first written, 222.\n\nGREEK deities, their physical origin, 129.\n\nGREEK philosophy our model, 38.\n\nGREEK and Latin, similarity between, 40.\n\nGRIMM, identification of Parganya and Perun, 210.\n\nGROWTH of ancient religions, 128.\n\nGRUNAU on old Prussian gods, 210.\n\nGUIDE-BOOKS, Greek, 223.\n\nGYMNOSOPHISTS, Indian, 123.\n\n\nH.\n\nHARDY, his Manual of Buddhism, 97.\n\nHASTINGS, Warren, and the Darics, 216;\n  opinion of Hindu character, 79.\n\nHEBREW religion, foreign influences in, 145.\n\nHEBER, Bishop, opinion of the Hindus, 79.\n\nHEAVEN and Earth, 169;\n  Maori legend of, 173;\n  Vedic legends of, 175;\n  Greek legends of, 176;\n  epithets for, in Veda, 178;\n  as seen by Vedic poets, 178.\n\nHENOTHEISM, 166.\n\nHERODOTUS, 223.\n\nHINDUS, truthful character of, 52;\n  the charge of their untruthfulness refuted, 53;\n  origin of the charge, 54;\n  different races and characteristics of, 55;\n  testimony of trustworthy witnesses, 55;\n  their litigiousness, 60;\n  their treatment by Mohammedan conquerors, 72;\n  reason for unfavorable opinion of, 76;\n  their commercial honor, 82;\n  their real character transcendent, 126;\n  their religion, 127;\n  sacrifices and priestly rites, 148;\n  knowledge of astronomy, 153;\n  first acquainted with an alphabet, 224.\n\nHINDUSTANI, 95.\n\nHIRANYAGHARBA, 164.\n\nHISTORY, its object and study, 34;\n  its true sense, 44.\n\nHITOPADESA, fables of, 110.\n\nHOTTENTOT river names, 188.\n\nHOMERIC HYMNS, 140;\n  heaven and earth in the, 176.\n\nHUMAN Mind, study of, India important for, 33.\n\nHUMBOLDT Alexander von, on Kalidasa, 110.\n\nHYDASPES, 192.\n\nHYDRAOTIS, or Hyarotis, 191.\n\nHYPASIS, or Hyphasis, 191.\n\n\nI.\n\nIDA, 156.\n\nIDRISI, on the Hindus, 74.\n\nIJJAR, April-May, 158.\n\nINDIA, what it can teach us, 19;\n  a paradise, 24;\n  its literature a corrective, 24;\n  past and present aspects of, 25;\n  its scientific treasures, 25;\n  a laboratory for all students, 32;\n  its population and vast extent, 142.\n\nINDRA, god of the wind, the Vedic Jupiter, 83;\n  the Aryan guide, 116;\n  the god of the thunderstorm, 168;\n  as creator, 180;\n  the principal god of the Veda, 198;\n  peculiar to India, 201.\n\nINDUS, The river, 167.\n\nINFINITE, The, 126.\n\nINNER Life, Influence of Indian literature upon our, 24.\n\nINSCRIPTIONS in India, 225.\n\nIONIANS, The, their alphabet, 222;\n  first writing, 223.\n\nI-TSING, his visit to India, 229;\n  his account of Buddhist priests, 229;\n  of education, 230;\n  of perfection of memory, 231;\n  of Brahmans, 231.\n\nIZDUBAR, or Nimrod, the poem of, 158.\n\n\nJ.\n\nJEHOVAH, 200.\n\nJEWS, The, as a race, 36;\n  their religion as related to Oriental religions, 36;\n  necessary to a study of the Christian religion, 35;\n  the beginning and growth of their religion, 128.\n\nJONES, Sir William, his voyage to India, 49;\n  his dreams become realities, 50.\n\nJOSHUA'S battle, 200.\n\nJOURNALS, Sanskrit, now published in India, 98.\n\nJUDGMENT of Solomon, 30.\n\nJUNAGADH, 271.\n\nJUPITER, 201.\n\nJUMNA, the river, 190.\n\nJURISPRUDENCE in India, 30.\n\nJUSTICE of the Indians, 74.\n\n\nK.\n\nKALIDASA, the poet, his age, 110;\n  plays of, 111.\n\nKAMAL-EDDIN Abd-errazak, on the Hindus, 75.\n\nKAUSIKA, punished for truthfulness, 89.\n\nKANISHKA, the Saka king, 106.\n\nKANJUR, the women and the child in the, 29.\n\nKATHAKA, or reader, 158.\n\nKATHENOTHEISM, 166.\n\nKESHUB Chunder Sen, his grandfather, 59.\n\nKINAS, or Chinese, 151.\n\nKORAN, oaths on, 70.\n\nKRUMU, 185.\n\nKSHATRIYAS, 232.\n\nKTESIAS, on the justice of the Indians, 72.\n\nKTISIS, 223.\n\nKUBHA, 185.\n\nKULLAVAGGA, quotation from the, 96.\n\nKUENEN, Professor, on worship of Yahweh, 272.\n\n\nL.\n\nLADAK, 192.\n\nLAKSHMANA, 86.\n\nLARES familiares in Rome, 240.\n\nLASSEN, 151.\n\nLAW books of India, 30.\n\nLIFE, Indian and European views of, 121;\n  beautiful sentiments of, from Hindu writings, 124;\n  a journey, 120.\n\nLAW of Nature, 263.\n\nLAWS of Manu, 111.\n\nLIBERAL, The, Keshub Chunder Sen's organ, 99.\n\nLIBERAL education, the elements of, 38.\n\nLIGHTNING, son of Parganya, 205.\n\nLITERATURE, written, 224.\n\nLITUANIA, 209;\n  its language, 209;\n  its god of rain, 210;\n  prayer to the same, 211.\n\nLOGOGRAPHI, 223.\n\nLOST Tribes, The, of Israel, 159.\n\nLUDLOW on village schools in India, 80.\n\nLUDWIG, translation of Sanskrit words, 187.\n\nLUNAR stations, 150.\n\nLUNAR zodiac, 147.\n\n\nM.\n\nMAHABHARATA, an epic poem, speaks for the truth, 88;\n  yet recited, 99.\n\nMAHMUD of Gazni, 72.\n\nMAINE, Sir Henry, 65.\n\nMALCOLM, Sir John, on the Hindus, 55.\n\nMANA, A golden, 146.\n\nMANAVAS, The laws of, on evil-doers, 93.\n\nMANGAIA, 170.\n\nMANNING, Judge, 173.\n\nMANU, his code of laws, 30;\n  their true age, 111;\n  his connection with the deluge, 155.\n\nMANUSCRIPTS, the first collectors of, 224.\n\nMAORI Genesis, 173.\n\nMARUTS, the storm-gods, 199.\n\nMAUI, son of Ru, 171;\n  legend of, 171;\n  its origin, 173.\n\nMEGASTHENES on village life, 65;\n  on Hindu honesty, 72.\n\nMELANIPPE, 177.\n\nMEMORY, power of, 232.\n\nMETAMORPHIC changes in religions, 128.\n\nMILL, History of India, 59;\n  estimate of Hindu character, 60.\n\nMINA, its weight, 125.\n\nMITRA, 156;\n  invoked, 215.\n\nMODERN Sanskrit literature, 107.\n\nMOHAMMEDANS, their opinion of the Hindus, 75;\n  the number of sects, 76;\n  treatment of Hindus, 90.\n\nMONOTHEISM in the Veda, 164.\n\nMORALITY, our, Saxon, 38.\n\nMORAL depravity in India, 93.\n\nMUNRO, Thomas, Sir, opinion of Hindus, 61.\n\nMUeLLER, Max, his teachers, 45;\n  intercourse with Hindus, 81;\n  opinion of their character, 82.\n\n\nN.\n\nNAKSHATRAS, The twenty-seven, 148.\n\nNAKTA and Nyx, 201.\n\nNALA, 110.\n\nNATIVE scholars, 81.\n\nNEARCHUS, 225.\n\nNEW and Full-Moon Sacrifices, 252.\n\nNEW Testament, Revised Edition, 141.\n\nNEWSPAPERS, Sanskrit, 98.\n\nNINE gems or classics, 115.\n\nNORTHERN conquerors, 106.\n\nNUMERALS in Sanskrit, 46.\n\n\nO.\n\nOATH, Taking an, in village communities, 68;\n  its understanding by the Hindus, 69;\n  fear of punishment connected with, 70.\n\nOLD Testament, 140.\n\nOPHIR, 28.\n\nORANGE River, 188.\n\nORIENTAL SCHOLARS, names and work hardly known, 22.\n\nORISSA, 96.\n\nORME, 60.\n\nORPHEUS and Ribhu, 201.\n\nOS, oris, 44.\n\nOUDE, 189.\n\nOURANOS, 213.\n\n\nP.\n\nPAHLAVI, translation of the Pankatantra into, 115.\n\nPALESTINE, 33.\n\nPALI dialect, 107.\n\nPANDITS, 57;\n  Professor Wilson on the, 58.\n\nPANINI, 230.\n\nPANKATANTRA, 114.\n\nPAPYROS, 224.\n\nPARGANYA, 202;\n  hymn to, 205;\n  derivation of name, 207.\n\nPARVANA Sraddha, 260.\n\nPERIEGESIS, 223.\n\nPERIODOS, 223.\n\nPERIPLUS, or circumnavigations, 222.\n\nPERJURY, common in India, 71.\n\nPERKONS, thunder, 210.\n\nPERKUNA, 212.\n\nPERKUNAS, Lituanian god of thunder, 210.\n\nPERKUNO, 212.\n\nPERSIANS, what we owe to, 36.\n\nPETERSBURGH Dictionary, 183.\n\nPHOENICIANS, what we owe to, 36;\n  their letters, 222.\n\nPINDA-PITRIYAGNA, 251.\n\nPIPAL tree, 50.\n\nPITRIS, the fathers, 239;\n  invoked, 241.\n\nPITRIYAGNA-SACRIFICES, 248.\n\nPLATO, 142.\n\nPLINY, Indian rivers known to, 191.\n\nPOLITICAL communities, 31.\n\nPOLYTHEISM, the kind of, in the Veda, 165.\n\nPOSITIVIST sentiments of a Brahman, 87.\n\nPRIMITIVE man, 133.\n\nPRAYERS for rain, 205;\n  for the dead, 262.\n\nPROMETHEUS and Pramantha, 195.\n\nPROTO-ARYAN language, 43.\n\nPTOLEMY, 36.\n\nPUMICE-STONE, 171.\n\nPUNJAB, the, rivers of the, 183.\n\nPURANAS, 162.\n\n\nR.\n\nRAGHU, 86.\n\nRAJENDRALAL Mitra, on sacrifices, 251.\n\nRAMA, on truth, 87.\n\nRAMA BAVA, the anchorite, 271.\n\nRAMAYANA, the plot of, 86;\n  yet recited, 99.\n\nRAWLINSON, Sir Henry, 158.\n\nREADERS not numerous in ancient or modern times, 141.\n\nRECITATION of the old epics in India, 99.\n\nRELIGION, its home in India, 31;\n  our debt to Oriental religions, 36;\n  its transcendent character, 126;\n  metamorphic changes in, 128;\n  began in trust, not in fear, 197.\n\nREMUSAT on the Goths, 104.\n\nRENAISSANCE period in India, 110.\n\nREVIVAL of religion in India, 270.\n\nRIBHU and Orpheus, 201.\n\nRIG-VEDA, editions of, now publishing, 98;\n  known by heart, 99;\n  a treasure to the anthropologist, 134;\n  character of its poems, 143;\n  its religion primitive, 144;\n  compliment to the author for his edition of, 163;\n  the number of hymns in, 163;\n  age of the oldest manuscripts, 221;\n  total number of words in, 228;\n  how transmitted, 231.\n\nRINGOLD, Duke of Lituania, 209.\n\nRISHIS, The Vedic, 168;\n  question of earth's origin, 180;\n  their intoxicating beverage, 243.\n\nRITA, the third Beyond, 263.\n\nRIVERS, as deities, 182;\n  hymn to, 183;\n  names of, in India, 185.\n\nRIVER systems of Upper India, 188.\n\nROBERTSON'S Historical Disquisitions, 60.\n\nRU, the sky-supporter, 170;\n  his bones, 171;\n  why pumice-stone, 173.\n\nRUeCKERT'S Weisheit der Brahmanen, 22.\n\nRUDRA, the howler, 199.\n\n\nS.\n\nS, pronounced as h, in Iranic languages, 189.\n\nSACRIFICES, priestly, 148;\n  daily and monthly, 248.\n\nSAKAS, invasion of the, 104.\n\nSAKUNTALA, her appeal to conscience, 90.\n\nSANSKRIT language, its study differently appreciated, 21;\n  use of studying, 23;\n  its supreme importance, 39;\n  its antiquity, 40;\n  its family relations, 40;\n  its study ridiculed, 45;\n  its linguistic influence, 46;\n  its moral influence, 47;\n  a dead language, 96;\n  early dialects of, 96;\n  still influential, 97;\n  scholars' use of, 98;\n  journals in, 96;\n  all living languages in India draw their life from, 100.\n\nSANSKRIT literature, human interest of, 95;\n  the literature of India, 99;\n  manuscripts existing, 102;\n  divisions of, 104;\n  character of the ancient and the modern, 107;\n  known in Persia, 113;\n  a new start in, 115;\n  its study very profitable, 275.\n\nSATAPATHA Brahmana, 91.\n\nSCHOPENHAUER, on the Upanishads, 273.\n\nSEASONS, how regulated, 148.\n\nSELF-KNOWLEDGE, the highest goal of the Veda, 125.\n\nSINDHU, the Indus river, 183;\n  address to, 184;\n  meaning of, 189.\n\nSLEEMAN, Colonel, his rambles and recollections, 60;\n  his life in village communities, 63;\n  his opinion of Hindus, 67.\n\nSOLAR myths, 216.\n\nSOLOMON'S judgment compared, 29.\n\nSPENCER, Herbert, on ancestor worship, 239;\n  his misstatement corrected, 240.\n\nSRADDHAS, or Love Feasts, 248;\n  to the departed, 254;\n  their source, 257;\n  their number, 258;\n  striking resemblance, 261.\n\nSUDAS, 200.\n\nSUN, the central thought in Aryan mythology, 216.\n\nSURYA, god of the sun, 168.\n\n\nT.\n\nTAMIL, 95.\n\nTANE-MAHUTA, forest-god, 174.\n\nTARAS, the stars, 151.\n\nTERRESTRIAL gods, 169.\n\nTEUTONIC mythology, 166.\n\nTHEOGONY, 235.\n\nTHORR, 166.\n\nTHREE beyonds, 220.\n\nTHSIN dynasty, 152.\n\nTHUGS, 63.\n\nTORTOISE, the story of the, 154.\n\nTOWERS of Silence, 22.\n\nTOWNS, names of, in India, 189.\n\nTROY, siege of, 172.\n\nTRUTH, root meaning in Sanskrit, 82.\n\nTRUTHFULNESS, a luxury, 91.\n\nTURANIAN invasion, 104.\n\nTWO women and child, story of, 29.\n\nTYR and Tin, 213.\n\n\nU.\n\nUGVIS, Lithuanian, 41.\n\nUNIVERSITIES, the object of their teaching, 19.\n\nUNTRUTHFULNESS of the Hindus, 53.\n\nUPANISHADS, 267;\n  their beauty, 273.\n\nURANOS and Varuna, 201.\n\nURVASI, 110.\n\nUSHAS and Eos, 202.\n\nUTTARAPAKSHA, 136.\n\n\nV.\n\nVAGA, 183;\n  as plural, 184.\n\nVAISVADEVA, offering, 249.\n\nVAISYA, a, 162.\n\nVAK, wife of Vata, 165.\n\nVALMIKI, the poet, 100.\n\nVARAHAMIHARA, 112.\n\nVARUNA, 156;\n  hymns to, 204.\n\nVASISHTHA, on righteousness, 93.\n\nVATA, the wind, 200;\n  and Wotan, 201.\n\nVEDA, their antiquity, 101;\n  silly conceptions, 118;\n  religion of, 129;\n  necessary to the study of man, 133;\n  objections to, 135;\n  native character of, 159;\n  lessons of, 161;\n  use of their study, 162;\n  character of their poetry, 182;\n  knowledge of God progressive in, 194;\n  their hymns, a specimen, 205;\n  their gods, number of, 219;\n  meaning of their names, 220;\n  three periods in their literature, 234;\n  three religions in, 236.\n\nVEDIC Mythology, its influence, 27;\n  contrasts, 169.\n\nVEDA-END, 267.\n\nVEDANTA philosophy, 265;\n  the present religion in India, 269;\n  its prevalence, 270;\n  commended to students, 271;\n  its highest knowledge, 273.\n\nVIDALA, cat, 42.\n\nVIHARAS, or colleges, the ancient, 26.\n\nVIKRAMADITYA, 110;\n  his varied experience, 113.\n\nVILLAGE communities in India, 64;\n  large number of, 65;\n  morality in, 67.\n\nVISVAKARMAN, 157.\n\nVYASA, the poet, 100.\n\n\nW.\n\nWARRIORS, native and foreign, 116.\n\nWATERS, divers gods of the, 167.\n\nWEASEL and the woman, 28.\n\nWILSON, Prof., on the Hindus, 57.\n\nWITNESSES, three classes of, 69.\n\nWOLF, F. A., his questions, 221;\n  his dictum, 223.\n\nWORKINGMEN, 116.\n\nWORSHIP of the dead, 240.\n\nWOTAN and Vata, 201.\n\nWRITING unknown in ancient India, 226.\n\n\nX.\n\nXANTHOS, the Lydian, 223.\n\n\nY.\n\nYAG, ishta, 208.\n\nYAGNADATTABADHA, 110.\n\nYAGNAVALKYA, on virtue, 92.\n\nYAHWEH, worship of, 272.\n\nYAMA, lord of the departed, 85;\n  on immortality, 86;\n  invoked, 242;\n  as the first man, 242;\n  dialogue on death, 267.\n\nYASKA, division of the Vedic gods, 168.\n\nYUEH-CHI, The, and the Goths, 104.\n\n\nZ.\n\nZEUS, 129;\n  the survivor of Dyaus, 213;\n  the interval between, 235.\n\nZEUS, Dyaus, and Jupiter, 198.\n\nZIMMER, Prof., on polytheism, 166;\n  translation of Sanskrit words, 185.\n\nZODIACAL signs, known to Sanskrit astronomers, 114.\n\nZODIAC, The Babylonian, 147.\n\nZOROASTRIANISM, 31.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS IN\n\nTHE STANDARD LIBRARY.\n\n_THEIR STERLING WORTH._\n\nOPINIONS OF CRITICS.\n\n\nI.\n\nLife of Cromwell.\n\n\n_NEW YORK SUN_:\n\n\"Mr. Hood's biography is a positive boon to the mass of readers,\nbecause it presents a more correct view of the great soldier than any\nof the shorter lives published, whether we compare it with Southey's,\nGuizot's, or even Forster's.\"\n\n_PACIFIC CHURCHMAN_, San Francisco:\n\n\"The fairest and most readable of the numerous biographies of\nCromwell.\"\n\n_GOOD LITERATURE_, New York:\n\n\"If all these books will prove as fresh and readable as Hood's\n'Cromwell,' the literary merit of the series will be as high as the\nprice is low.\"\n\n_NEW YORK DAILY GRAPHIC_:\n\n\"Hood's 'Cromwell' is an excellent account of the great Protector.\nCromwell was the heroic servant of a sublime cause. A complete sketch\nof the man and the period.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN UNION_, New York:\n\n\"A valuable biography of Cromwell, told with interest in every part\nand with such condensation and skill in arrangement that prominent\nevents are made clear to all.\"\n\n_SCHOOL JOURNAL_, New York:\n\n\"Mr. Hood's style is pleasant, clear, and flowing, and he sets forth\nand holds his own opinion well.\"\n\n_EPISCOPAL RECORDER_, Philadelphia:\n\n\"An admirable and able Life of Oliver Cromwell, of which we can\nunhesitatingly speak words of praise.\"\n\n_NEW YORK TELEGRAM_:\n\n\"Full of the kind of information with which even the well-read like to\nrefresh themselves.\"\n\n_INDIANAPOLIS SENTINEL_, Ind.:\n\n\"The book is one of deep interest. The style is good, the analysis\nsearching, and will add much to the author's fame as an able\nbiographer.\"\n\n_THE WORKMAN_, Pittsburgh, Pa.:\n\n\"This book tells the story of Cromwell's life in a captivating way. It\nreads like a romance. The paper and printing are very attractive.\"\n\n_NEW YORK HERALD_:\n\n\"The book is one of deep interest. The style is good, the analysis\nsearching.\"\n\n\nII.\n\nScience in Short Chapters.\n\n\n_JOURNAL OF EDUCATION_, Boston:\n\n\"'Science in Short Chapters' supplies a growing want among a large\nclass of busy people, who have not time to consult scientific\ntreatises. Written in clear and simple style. Very interesting and\ninstructive.\"\n\n_ACADEMY_, London, England:\n\n\"Mr. Williams has presented these scientific subjects to the popular\nmind with much clearness and force. It may be read with advantage by\nthose without special scientific training.\"\n\n_RELIGIOUS TELESCOPE_, Dayton, Ohio:\n\n\"It is historic, scientific, and racy. A book of intense practical\nthought, which one wishes to read carefully and then read again.\"\n\n_NEW YORK SCHOOL JOURNAL_:\n\n\"A volume of handy science, not only interesting as an abstract\nsubject, but valuable for its clear expositions of every-day science.\nOf Professor Williams as an authority upon such subjects, it is\nunnecessary to comment. He already has a fame as a scientific writer\nwhich needs no recommendation.\"\n\n_PALL MALL GAZETTE_, London, England:\n\n\"Original and of scientific value.\"\n\n_GRAPHIC_, London:\n\n\"Clear, simple, and profitable.\"\n\n_CANADA BAPTIST_, Toronto:\n\n\"A rich book at a marvellously low price. The style is sprightly and\nsimple. Every chapter contains something we all want to know.\"\n\n_NEWARK DAILY ADVERTISER_, N.J.:\n\n\"As an educator this book is worth a year's schooling, and it will go\nwhere schools of a high grade cannot penetrate. For such a book\ntwenty-five cents seems a ridiculous sum.\"\n\n_J.W. BASHFORD_, Auburndale, Mass.:\n\n\"A marvellous book, as fascinating as Dickens, to be consulted as an\nauthority along with Britannica, and even fuller of practical hints\nthan the latter's articles. I do not know how you can print its 300\npages for 25 cents.\"\n\n_AMERICAN_, Philadelphia:\n\n\"Mr. Williams' work is a practical compendium.\"\n\n\nIII.\n\nThe American Humorist.\n\n\n_COMMERCIAL GAZETTE_, Cincinnati, Ohio:\n\n\"It is finely critical and appreciative; exceedingly crisp and\nunusually entertaining from first to last.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER_, New York:\n\n\"A book of pleasant reading, with enough sparkle in it to cure any one\nof the blues.\"\n\n_CONGREGATIONALIST_, Boston:\n\n\"They are based upon considerable study of these authors, are highly\nappreciative in tone, and show a perceptivity of American humor which\nis yet a rarity among Englishmen.\"\n\n_SALEM TIMES_, Mass.:\n\n\"No writer in England was, in all respects, better qualified to write\na book on American Humorists than Haweis.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN JOURNAL_, Toronto:\n\n\"We have been specially amused with the chapter on poor Artemus Ward,\nwhich we read on a railway journey. We fear our fellow-passengers\nwould think something ailed us, for laugh we did, in spite of all\nattempts to preserve a sedate appearance.\"\n\n_OCCIDENT_, San Francisco:\n\n\"This book is pleasant reading, with sparkle enough in it--as the\nwriter is himself a wit--to cure one of the 'blues.'\"\n\n_DANBURY NEWS_, Conn.:\n\n\"Mr. Haweis gives a brief bibliographical sketch of each writer\nmentioned in the book, an analysis of his style, and classifies each\ninto a distinct type from the others. He presents copious extracts\nfrom their works, making an entertaining book.\"\n\n_CENTRAL BAPTIST_, St. Louis:\n\n\"A perusal of this volume will give the reader a more correct idea of\nthe character discussed than he would probably get from reading their\nbiographies. The lecture is analytical, penetrative, terse, incisive,\nand candid. The book is worth its price, and will amply repay\nreading.\"\n\n_SCHOOL JOURNAL_, New York:\n\n\"Terse and brief as the soul of wit itself.\"\n\n_INDIANAPOLIS SENTINEL_, Indiana:\n\n\"It presents, in fine setting, the wit and wisdom of Washington\nIrving, Oliver W. Holmes, James R. Lowell, Artemus Ward, Mark Twain,\nand Bret Harte, and does it _con amore_.\"\n\n_THE MAIL_, Toronto, Ont.:\n\n\"Rev. H. R. Haweis is a writer too well-known to need commendation at\nour hands for, at least, his literary style. The general result is\nthat not a page repels us and not a sentence tires. We find ourselves\ndrawn pleasantly along in just the way we want to go; all our favorite\npoints remembered, all our own pet phrases praised, and the good\nthings of each writer brought forward to refresh one's memory. In\nfine, the book is a most agreeable companion.\"\n\n_LUTHERAN OBSERVER_, Philadelphia:\n\n\"The peculiar style, the mental character, and the secret of success,\nof each of these prominent writers, are presented with great clearness\nand discrimination.\"\n\n\nIV.\n\nLives of Illustrious Shoemakers.\n\n\n_WESTERN CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE_, Cincinnati:\n\n\"When we first took up this volume we were surprised that anybody\nshould attempt to make a book with precisely this form and title. But\nas we read its pages we were far more surprised to find them replete\nwith interest and instruction. It should be sold by the scores of\nthousands.\"\n\n_PRESBYTERIAN OBSERVER_, Baltimore:\n\n\"The writer of this book well understands how to write biography--a\ngift vouchsafed only to a few.\"\n\n_NEW YORK HERALD_:\n\n\"The sons of St. Crispin have always been noted for independence of\nthought in politics and in religion; and Mr. Winks has written a very\nreadable account of the lives of the more famous of the craft. The\nbook is quite interesting.\"\n\n_DANBURY NEWS_, Conn.:\n\n\"The Standard Library has been enriched by this addition.\"\n\n_LITERARY WORLD_, London:\n\n\"The pages contain a great deal of interesting material--remarkable\nepisodes of experience and history.\"\n\n_BOSTON GLOBE_:\n\n\"A valuable book, containing much interesting matter and an\nencouragement to self-help.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN STANDARD_, Cincinnati:\n\n\"It will inspire a noble ambition, and may redeem many a life from\nfailure.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN SECRETARY_, Hartford, Conn.:\n\n\"Written in a sprightly and popular manner. Full of interest.\"\n\n_EVANGELICAL MESSENGER_, Cleveland:\n\n\"Everybody can read the book with interest, but the young will be\nspecially profited by its perusal.\"\n\n_LEICESTER CHRONICLE_, England:\n\n\"A work of the deepest interest and of singular ability.\"\n\n_COMMERCIAL GAZETTE_, Cincinnati:\n\n\"One of the most popular books published lately.\"\n\n_CENTRAL METHODIST_, Kentucky:\n\n\"This is a choice work--full of fact and biography. It will be read\nwith interest, more especially by that large class whose awl and\nhammer provide the human family with soles for their feet.\"\n\n_THE WESTERN MAIL_, England:\n\n\"Written with taste and tact, in a graceful, easy style. A book most\ninteresting to youth.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN_, Toronto:\n\n\"It is a capital book.\"\n\n_EVANGELICAL CHURCHMAN_, Toronto:\n\n\"This is a most interesting book, written in a very popular style.\"\n\n\nV.\n\nFlotsam and Jetsam.\n\n\n_SATURDAY REVIEW_, Eng.:\n\n\"Amusing and readable ... Among the successful books of this order\nmust be classed that which Mr. Bowles has recently offered to the\npublic.\"\n\n_NEW YORK WORLD_:\n\n\"This series of reflections, some philosophic, others practical, and\nmany humorous, make a cheerful and healthful little volume, made the\nmore valuable by its index.\"\n\n_CENTRAL METHODIST_, Cattlesburgh, Ky.\n\n\"This is a romance of the sea, and is one of the most readable and\nenjoyable books of the season.\"\n\n_LUTHERAN OBSERVER_, Phil.:\n\n\"The cargo on this wreck must have been above all estimate in value.\nHow much 'Jetsam' there may be we cannot tell, but what we have seen\nis all 'Flotsam,' and will float and find its way in enriching\ninfluence to a thousand hearts and homes.\"\n\n_NEW YORK HERALD_:\n\n\"It is a clever book, full of quaint conceits and deep meditation.\nThere is plenty of entertaining and original thought, and 'Flotsam and\nJetsam' is indeed worth reading.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE_, Nashville, Tenn.:\n\n\"Many of the author's comments are quite acute, and their personal\ntone will give them an additional flavor.\"\n\n_METHODIST RECORDER_, Pittsburgh, Pa.:\n\n\"In addition to the charming incidents related, it fairly sparkles\nwith fresh and original thoughts which cannot fail to interest and\nprofit.\"\n\n_GOOD LITERATURE_, New York:\n\n\"... Never fails to amuse and interest, and it is one of the\npleasantest features of the book that one may open it at a venture and\nbe sure of finding something original and readable.\"\n\n_HERALD AND PRESBYTER_, Cincinnati, Ohio:\n\n\"His manner of telling the story of his varied observations and\nexperiences, with his reflections accompanying, is so easy and\nfamiliar, as to lend his pages a fascination which renders it almost\nimpossible to lay down the book until it is read to the end.\"\n\n_NEW YORK LEDGER_:\n\n\"It is quite out of the usual method of books of travel, and will be\nrelished all the more by those who enjoy bits of quiet humor and\npiquant sketches of men and things on a yachting journey.\"\n\n_NEW YORK STAR_:\n\n\"Not too profound for entertainment, and yet pleasantly suggestive. A\nvolume of clever sayings.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN SECRETARY_, Hartford, Conn.:\n\n\"It is a book well worth reading,... full of thought.\"\n\n_PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL_, Philadelphia:\n\n\"A racy, original, thoughtful book. On the slight thread of\nsea-voyaging it hangs the terse thoughts of an original mind on many\nsubjects. The style is so spicy that one reads with interest even when\nnot approving.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER_, New York:\n\n\"No one can spend an hour or two in Mr. Bowles' gallery of graphic\npen-pictures without being so deeply impressed with their originality\nof conception and lively, spicy expression, as to talk about them to\nothers.\"\n\n\nVI.\n\nThe Highways of Literature.\n\n\n_NATIONAL BAPTIST_, Phila.:\n\n\"A book full of wisdom; exceedingly bright and practical.\"\n\n_PACIFIC CHURCHMAN_, San Francisco:\n\n\"The best answer we have seen to the common and most puzzling\nquestion, 'What shall I read?' Scholarly and beautiful.\"\n\n_DANBURY NEWS_:\n\n\"Its hints, rules, and directions for reading are, just now, what\nthousands of people are needing.\"\n\n_CHRISTIAN WITNESS_, Newmarket, N.H.:\n\n\"Clear, terse, elegant in style. A boon to young students, a pleasure\nfor scholars.\"\n\n_NEW YORK HERALD_:\n\n\"Mr. David Pryde, the author of 'Highways of Literature; or, What to\nRead, and How to Read,' is an erudite Scotchman who has taught with\nmuch success in Edinburgh. His hints on the best books and the best\nmethod of mastering them are valuable, and likely to prove of great\npractical use.\"\n\n_NEW YORK TABLET_:\n\n\"This is a most useful and interesting work. It consists of papers in\nwhich the author offers rules by which the reader may discover the\nbest books, and be enabled to study them properly.\"\n\n\nVII.\n\nColin Clout's Calendar.\n\n\n_LEEDS MERCURY_, England:\n\n\"The best specimens of popular scientific expositions that we have\never had the good fortune to fall in with.\"\n\n_NEW YORK NATION_:\n\n\"The charm of such books is not a little heightened when, as in this\ncase, a few touches of local history, of customs, words, and places\nare added.\"\n\n_AMERICAN REFORMER_, New York:\n\n\"There certainly is no deterioration in the quality of the books of\nthe Standard Library. This book consists of short chapters upon\nnatural history, written in an easy, fascinating style, giving rare\nand valuable information concerning trees, plants, flowers, and\nanimals. Such books should have a wide circulation beyond the list of\nregular subscribers. Some will criticise the author's inclination to\nattribute the marvellous things which are found in these plants,\nanimals, etc., to a long process of development rather than to Divine\nagency. But the information is none the less valuable, whatever may be\nthe process of these developments.\"\n\n\n\n\nA GREAT SACRIFICE.\n\nYoung's Analytical Concordance\n\nREDUCED TO $2.50,\n\nFOR A LIMITED TIME.\n\n\nDr. Young cannot endure to have this, the great work of his life,\njudged by the unauthorized editions with which the American market is\nflooded. These editions, he feels, do his work and the American public\ngreat injustice.\n\nThat Americans may be able to see the work as printed under his eye\nand from his own plates, he will sell some thousands of copies at\n\nA Great Pecuniary Sacrifice.\n\nThe sale at the reduced prices will begin March 1, 1883, and will\ncontinue until the thousands of copies set apart for this sale are\nexhausted. This is the authorized, latest revised and unabridged\nedition--in every respect the same type, paper, binding, etc., as we\nhave sold at the higher prices.\n\nIt is a burning shame that the great life-work of one of the most\neminent scholars, a work pronounced in both Europe and America as one\nof the most laborious and important that this century has produced,\nembracing nearly 1100 large quarto pages, each larger and containing\nmore matter than Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, should prove a great\nfinancial loss to its author!\n\nThis great work is selling in England at $9, and is now imported and\nsold in America at $2.50!!\n\nOrders will be filled in the order received up to the time of the\nexhaustion of the stock.\n\nYoung's Great Concordance.\n\nDO NOT BE DECEIVED.\n\nThere is but one _authorized and correct_ edition of Young's\nConcordance sold in America. _Every copy of this edition has on the\ntitle-page_ the words \"Authorized Edition,\" and at the bottom of the\npage the imprint\n\nNEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS. EDINBURGH: GEORGE ADAM YOUNG & COMPANY.\n\nAll copies, no matter by whom sold, that have not these words printed\non the title-page are printed on the bungling plates made by the late\n_American Book Exchange_.\n\nDr. YOUNG says: \"This unauthorized American edition is an outrage on\nthe American public, and on me, containing gross errors.\"\n\nREV. DR. JOHN HALL says:\n\n\"Dr. Robert Young's Analytical Concordance is worthy of the lifetime\nof labor he has spent upon it. I deeply regret that his natural and\njust expectation of some return from its sale on this side of the\nocean is not realized; and I hope the sense of justice to a most\npainstaking author will lead to the choice by many purchasers of the\nedition which Dr. Young approves--that of Messrs. FUNK & WAGNALLS,\nwith whom Dr. Young cooperates in bringing out here the best edition.\n\n\"NEW YORK.\n\nJOHN HALL.\"\n\nDo not be deceived by misrepresentations. Insist that your bookseller\nfurnish you the Authorized edition.\n\n\nREDUCED PRICES:\n\n1100 quarto pages (each larger than a page in Webster's Unabridged\nDictionary), Cloth,                                             $2 50\n\nSheep                                                            4 00\n\nFrench im. morocco                                               4 50\n\n_Sent post-free._\n\nFUNK & WAGNALLS, 10 & 12 Dey Street, New York.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"India: What can it teach us?: A Course of Lectures Delivered before the University Of Cambridge","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":88831}