[On those who do not reach Moksha according to Sâṁkhya.] We next speak

of those who, notwithstanding their greatest exertions, do not reach

the stage of liberation. There are several classes of them. The book

Sâṁkhya says: “He who enters upon the world with a virtuous character,

who is liberal with what he possesses of the goods of the world, is

recompensed in it in this way, that he obtains the fulfilment of his

wishes and desires, that he moves about in the world in happiness,

happy in body and soul and in all other conditions of life. For in

reality good fortune is a recompense for former deeds, done either in

the same shape or in some preceding shape. Whoso lives in this world

piously but without knowledge will be raised and be rewarded, but not

be liberated, because the means of attaining it are wanting in his

case. Whoso is content and acquiesces in possessing the faculty of

practising the above-mentioned eight commandments (sic, vide p. 74),

whoso glories in them, is successful by means of them, and believes

that they are liberation, will remain in the same stage.”

[A parable showing people in the various degrees of knowledge.] The

following is a parable characterising those who vie with each other in

the progress through the various stages of knowledge:—A man is

travelling together with his pupils for some business or other towards

the end of the night. Then there appears something standing erect

before them on the road, the nature of which it is impossible to

recognise on account of the darkness of night. The man turns towards

his pupils, and asks them, one after the other, what is it? The first

says: “I do not know what it is.” The second says: “I do not know, and

I have no means of learning what it is.” The third says: “It is useless

to examine what it is, for the rising of the day will reveal it. If it

is something terrible, it will disappear at daybreak; if it is

something else, the nature of the thing will anyhow be clear to us.”

Now, none of them had attained to knowledge, the first, because he was

ignorant; the second, because he was incapable, and had no means of

knowing; the third, because he was indolent and acquiesced in his

ignorance.

The fourth pupil, however, did not give an answer. He stood still, and

then he went on in the direction of the object. On coming near, he

found that it was pumpkins on which there lay a tangled mass of

something. Now he knew that a living man, endowed with free will, does

not stand still in his place until such a tangled mass is formed on his

head, and he recognised at once that it was a lifeless object standing

erect. Further, he could not be sure if it was not a hidden place for

some dunghill. So he went quite close to it, struck against it with his

foot till it fell to the ground. Thus all doubt having been removed, he

returned to his master and gave him the exact account. In such a way

the master obtained the knowledge through the intermediation of his

pupils.

[Parallels from Greek authors, Ammonius, Plato, and Proclus.] With

regard to similar views of the ancient Greeks we can quote Ammonius,

who relates the following as a sentence of Pythagoras: “Let your desire

and exertion in this world be directed towards the union with the First

Cause, which is the cause of the cause of your existence, that you may

endure for ever. You will be saved from destruction and from being

wiped out; you will go to the world of the true sense, of the true joy,

of the true glory, in everlasting joy and pleasures.”

Further, Pythagoras says: “How can you hope for the state of detachment

as long as you are clad in bodies? And how will you obtain liberation

as long as you are incarcerated in them?”

Ammonius relates: “Empedocles and his successors as far as Heracles

(sic) think that the soiled souls always remain commingled with the

world until they ask the [Page 42.] universal soul for help. The

universal soul intercedes for it with the Intelligence, the latter with

the Creator. The Creator affords something of his light to

Intelligence; Intelligence affords something of it to the universal

soul, which is immanent in this world. Now the soul wishes to be

enlightened by Intelligence, until at last the individual soul

recognises the universal soul, unites with it, and is attached to its

world. But this is a process over which many ages must pass. Then the

soul comes to a region where there is neither place nor time, nor

anything of that which is in the world, like transient fatigue or joy.”

Socrates says: “The soul on leaving space wanders to the holiness (τὸ

καθαρόν) which lives for ever and exists eternally, being related to

it. It becomes like holiness in duration, because it is by means of

something like contact able to receive impressions from holiness. This,

its susceptibility to impressions, is called Intelligence.”

Further, Socrates says: “The soul is very similar to the divine

substance which does not die nor dissolve, and is the only

intelligibile which lasts for ever; the body is the contrary of it.

When soul and body unite, nature orders body to serve, the soul to

rule; but when they separate, the soul goes to another place than that

to which the body goes. There it is happy with things that are suitable

to it; it reposes from being circumscribed in space, rests from folly,

impatience, love, fear, and other human evils, on this condition, that

it had always been pure and hated the body. If, however, it has sullied

itself by connivance with the body, by serving and loving it so that

the body was subservient to its lusts and desires, in this case it does

not experience anything more real than the species of bodily things (τὸ

σωματοειδές) and the contact with them.”

Proclus says: “The body in which the rational soul dwells has received

the figure of a globe, like the ether and its individual beings. The

body in which both the rational and the irrational souls dwell has

received an erect figure like man. The body in which only the

irrational soul dwells has received a figure erect and curved at the

same time, like that of the irrational animals. The body in which there

is neither the one nor the other, in which there is nothing but the

nourishing power, has received an erect figure, but it is at the same

time curved and turned upside down, so that the head is planted in the

earth, as is the case with the plants. The latter direction being the

contrary to that of man, man is a heavenly tree, the root of which is

directed towards its home, i.e. heaven, whilst the root of vegetables

is directed towards their home, i.e. the earth.”

[Brahman compared to an Aśvattha tree according to Patañjali.] The

Hindus hold similar views about nature. Arjuna asks, “What is Brahman

like in the world?” Whereupon Vâsudeva answers, “Imagine him like an

Aśvattha tree.” This is a huge precious tree, well known among them,

standing upside down, the roots being above, the branches below. If it

has ample nourishment, it becomes quite enormous; the branches spread

far, cling to the soil, and creep into it. Roots and branches above and

below resemble each other to such a degree that it is difficult to say

which is which.

“Brahman is the upper roots of this tree, its trunk is the Veda, its

branches are the different doctrines and schools, its leaves are the

different modes of interpretation; its nourishment comes from the three

forces; the tree becomes strong and compact through the senses. [Page

43.] The intelligent being has no other keen desire but that of felling

this tree, i.e. abstaining from the world and its vanities. When he has

succeeded in felling it, he wishes to settle in the place where it has

grown, a place in which there is no returning in a further stage of

metempsychosis. When he obtains this, he leaves behind himself all the

pains of heat and cold, and coming from the light of sun and moon and

common fires, he attains to the divine lights.”

[Ṣûfî parallels.] The doctrine of Patañjali is akin to that of the Ṣûfî

regarding being occupied in meditation on the Truth (i.e. God), for

they say, “As long as you point to something, you are not a monist; but

when the Truth seizes upon the object of your pointing and annihilates

it, then there is no longer an indicating person nor an object

indicated.”

There are some passages in their system which show that they believe in

the pantheistic union; e.g. one of them, being asked what is the Truth

(God), gave the following answer: “How should I not know the being

which is I in essence and Not-I in space? If I return once more into

existence, thereby I am separated from him; and if I am neglected (i.e.

not born anew and sent into the world), thereby I become light and

become accustomed to the union” (sic).

Abû-Bekr Ash-shiblî says: “Cast off all, and you will attain to us

completely. Then you will exist; but you will not report about us to

others as long as your doing is like ours.”

Abû-Yazîd Albistâmî once being asked how he had attained his stage in

Ṣufism, answered: “I cast off my own self as a serpent casts off its

skin. Then I considered my own self, and found that I was He,” i.e.

God.

The Ṣûfî explain the Koranic passage (Sûra 2, 68), “Then we spoke: Beat

him with a part of her,” in the following manner: “The order to kill

that which is dead in order to give life to it indicates that the heart

does not become alive by the lights of knowledge unless the body be

killed by ascetic practice to such a degree that it does not any more

exist as a reality, but only in a formal way, whilst your heart is a

reality on which no object of the formal world has any influence.”

Further they say: “Between man and God there are a thousand stages of

light and darkness. Men exert themselves to pass through darkness to

light, and when they have attained to the stations of light, there is

no return for them.”

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CREATED BEINGS, AND ON THEIR NAMES.

[The various classes of creatures according to Sâṁkhya.] The subject of

this chapter is very difficult to study and understand accurately,

since we Muslims look at it from without, and the Hindus themselves do

not work it out to scientific perfection. As we, however, want it for

the further progress of this treatise, we shall communicate all we have

heard of it until the date of the present book. And first we give an

extract from the book Sâṁkhya.

“The anchorite spoke: ‘How many classes and species are there of living

bodies?’

“The sage replied: ‘There are three classes of them—the spiritual ones

in the height, men in the middle, and animals in the depth. Their

species are fourteen in number, eight of which belong to the spiritual

beings: Brahman, Indra, Prajâpati, Saumya, Gandharva, Yaksha, Râkshasa,

and Piśâca. Five species are those of the animals—cattle, wild beasts,

birds, creeping things, and growing things, i.e. the trees. And,

lastly, one species is represented by man.’”

The author of the same book has in another part of it given the

following enumeration with different names: “Brahman, Indra, Prajâpati,

Gandharva, Yaksha, Râkshasa, Pitaras, Piśâca.”

The Hindus are people who rarely preserve one and the same order of

things, and in their enumeration of things there is much that is

arbitrary. They use or invent numbers of names, and who is to hinder or

to control them?

In the book Gîtâ, Vâsudeva says: “When the first of [Page 44.] the

three primary forces prevails, it particularly applies itself to

developing the intellect, purifying the senses, and producing action

for the angels. Blissful rest is one of the consequences of this force,

and liberation one of its results.

“When the second force prevails, it particularly applies itself to

developing cupidity. It will lead to fatigue, and induce to actions for

the Yaksha and Râkshasa. In this case the recompense will be according

to the action.

“If the third force prevails, it particularly applies itself to

developing ignorance, and making people easily beguiled by their own

wishes. Finally, it produces wakefulness, carelessness, laziness,

procrastination in fulfilling duties, and sleeping too long. If man

acts, he acts for the classes of the Bhûta and Piśâca, the devils, for

the Preta who carry the spirits in the air, not in paradise and not in

hell. Lastly, this force will lead to punishment; man will be lowered

from the stage of humanity, and will be changed into animals and

plants.”

In another place the same author says: “Belief and virtue are in the

Deva among the spiritual beings. Therefore that man who resembles them

believes in God, clings to him, and longs for him. Unbelief and vice

are in the demons called Asura and Râkshasa. That man who resembles

them does not believe in God nor attend to his commandments. He tries

to make the world godless, and is occupied with things which are

harmful in this world and in the world beyond, and are of no use.”

[The author enumerates eight classes of spiritual beings.] If we now

combine these statements with each other, it will be evident that there

is some confusion both in the names and in their order. According to

the most popular view of the majority of the Hindus, there are the

following eight classes of spiritual beings:—

1. The Deva, or angels, to whom the north belongs. They specially

belong to the Hindus. People say that Zoroaster made enemies of the

Shamaniyya or Buddhists by calling the devils by the name of the class

of angels which they consider the highest, i.e. Deva. And this usage

has been transmitted from Magian times down to the Persian language of

our days.

2. Daitya, dânava, the demons who live in the south. To them everybody

belongs who opposes the religion of the Hindus and persecutes the cows.

Notwithstanding the near relationship which exists between them and the

Deva, there is, as Hindus maintain, no end of quarrelling and fighting

among them.

3. Gandharva, the musicians and singers who make music before the Deva.

Their harlots are called Apsaras.

4. Yaksha, the treasurers or guardians of the Deva.

5. Râkshasa, demons of ugly and deformed shapes.

6. Kinnara, having human shapes but horses’ heads, being the contrary

of the centaurs of the Greek, of whom the lower half has the shape of a

horse, the upper half that of a man. The latter figure is that of the

Zodiacal sign of Arcitenens.

7. Nâga, beings in the shape of serpents.

8. Vidyâdhara, demon-sorcerers, who exercise a certain witchcraft, but

not such a one as to produce permanent results.

[Criticisms on this list.] If we consider this series of beings, we

find the angelic power at the upper end and the demoniac at the lower,

and between them there is much interblending. The qualities of these

beings are different, inasmuch as they have attained this stage of life

in the course of metempsychosis by action, and actions are different on

account of the three primary forces. They live very long, since they

have entirely stripped off the bodies, since they are free from all

exertion, and are able to do things which are impossible to man. They

serve man [Page 45.] in whatever he desires, and are near him in cases

of need.

However, we can learn from the extract from Sâṁkhya that this view is

not correct. For Brahman, Indra, and Prajâpati are not names of

species, but of individuals. Brahman and Prajâpati very nearly mean the

same, but they bear different names on account of some quality or

other. Indra is the ruler of the worlds. Besides, Vâsudeva enumerates

the Yaksha and Râkshasa together in one and the same class of demons,

whilst the Purâṇas represent the Yaksha as guardian-angels and the

servants of guardian-angels.

[On the Devas.] After all this, we declare that the spiritual beings

which we have mentioned are one category, who have attained their

present stage of existence by action during the time when they were

human beings. They have left their bodies behind them, for bodies are

weights which impair the power and shorten the duration of life. Their

qualities and conditions are different, in the same measure as one or

other of the three primary forces prevails over them. The first force

is peculiar to the Deva, or angels who live in quietness and bliss. The

predominant faculty of their mind is the comprehending of an idea

without matter, as it is the predominant faculty of the mind of man to

comprehend the idea in matter.

The third force is peculiar to the Piśâca and Bhûta, whilst the second

is peculiar to the classes between them.

The Hindus say that the number of Deva is thirty-three koṭi or crore,

of which eleven belong to Mahâdeva. Therefore this number is one of his

surnames, and his name itself (Mahâdeva) points in this direction. The

sum of the number of angels just mentioned would be 330,000,000.

Further, they represent the Deva as eating and drinking, cohabiting,

living and dying, since they exist within matter, though in the most

subtle and most simple kind of it, and since they have attained this by

action, not by knowledge. The book Patañjali relates that Nandikeśvara

offered many sacrifices to Mahâdeva, and was in consequence transferred

into paradise in his human shape; that Indra, the ruler, had

intercourse with the wife of Nahusha the Brahmin, and therefore was

changed into a serpent by way of punishment.

[On the Pitaras and Ṛishis.] After the Deva comes the class of the

Pitaras, the deceased ancestors, and after them the Bhûta, human beings

who have attached themselves to the spiritual beings (Deva), and stand

in the middle between them and mankind. He who holds this degree, but

without being free from the body, is called either Ṛishi or Siddha or

Muni, and these differ among themselves according to their qualities.

Siddha is he who has attained by his action the faculty to do in the

world whatever he likes, but who does not aspire further, and does not

exert himself on the path leading to liberation. He may ascend to the

degree of a Ṛishi. If a Brahmin attains this degree, he is called

Brahmarshi; if the Kshatriya attains it, he is called Râjarshi. It is

not possible for the lower classes to attain this degree. Ṛishis are

the sages who, though they are only human beings, excel the angels on

account of their knowledge. Therefore the angels learn from them, and

above them there is none but Brahman.

After the Brahmarshi and Râjarshi come those classes of the populace

which exist also among us, the castes, to whom we shall devote a

separate chapter.

[Vishṇu the unity of Brahman, Nârâyaṇa, and Rudra.] All these latter

beings are ranged under matter. Now, as regards the notion of that

which is above matter, we say that the ὕλη is the middle between matter

and the spiritual divine ideas that are above matter, and that the

three primary forces exist in the ὕλη dynamically (ἐν δυνάμει). So the

ὕλη, with all that is comprehended in it, is a bridge from above to

below.

Any life which circulates in the ὕλη under the exclusive influence of

the First Cause is called Brahman, [Page 46.] Prajâpati, and by many

other names which occur in their religious law and tradition. It is

identical with nature in so far as it is active, for all bringing into

existence, the creation of the world also, is attributed by them to

Brahman.

Any life which circulates in the ὕλη under the influence of the second

force is called Nârâyaṇa in the tradition of the Hindus, which means

nature in so far as it has reached the end of its action, and is now

striving to preserve that which has been produced. Thus Nârâyaṇa

strives so to arrange the world that it should endure.

Any life which circulates in the ὕλη under the influence of the third

force is called Mahâdeva and Śaṁkara, but his best-known name is Rudra.

His work is destruction and annihilation, like nature in the last

stages of activity, when its power slackens.

These three beings bear different names, as they circulate through the

various degrees to above and below, and accordingly their actions are

different.

But prior to all these beings there is one source whence everything is

derived, and in this unity they comprehend all three things, no more

separating one from the other. This unity they call Vishṇu, a name

which more properly designates the middle force; but sometimes they do

not even make a distinction between this middle force and the first

cause (i.e. they make Nârâyaṇa the causa causarum).

Here there is an analogy between Hindus and Christians, as the latter

distinguish between the Three Persons and give them separate names,

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but unite them into one substance.

This is what clearly results from a careful examination of the Hindu

doctrines. Of their traditional accounts, which are full of silly

notions, we shall speak hereafter in the course of our explanation. You

must not wonder if the Hindus, in their stories about the class of the

Deva, whom we have explained as angels, allow them all sorts of things,

unreasonable in themselves, some perhaps not objectionable, others

decidedly objectionable, both of which the theologians of Islam would

declare to be incompatible with the dignity and nature of angels.

[Greek parallels. Stories about Zeus.] If you compare these traditions

with those of the Greeks regarding their own religion, you will cease

to find the Hindu system strange. We have already mentioned that they

called the angels gods (p. 36). Now consider their stories about Zeus,

and you will understand the truth of our remark. As for

anthropomorphisms and traits of animal life which they attribute to

him, we give the following tradition: “When he was born, his father

wanted to devour him; but his mother took a stone, wrapped rags round

it, and gave him the stone to swallow, whereupon he went away.” This is

also mentioned by Galenus in his Book of Speeches, where he relates

that Philo had in an enigmatical way described the preparation of the

φιλώνειον φάρμακον in a poem of his by the following words:—

“Take red hair, diffusing sweet odour, the offering to the gods,

And of man’s blood weigh weights of the number of the mental

faculties.”

The poet means five pounds of saffron, because the senses are five. The

weights of the other ingredients of the mixture he describes in similar

enigmatic terms, of which Galenus gives a commentary. In the same poem

occurs the following verse:—

“And of the pseudonymous root which has grown in the district in

which Zeus was born.”

To which Galenus adds: “This is Andropogon Nardus, which bears a false

name, because it is called an ear of corn, although it is not an ear,

but a root. The poet prescribes that it should be Cretan, because the

mythologists relate that Zeus was born on the mountain [Page 47.]

Δικταῖον in Creta, where his mother concealed him from his father

Kronos, that he should not devour him as he had devoured others.”

Besides, well-known story-books tell that he married certain women one

after the other, cohabited with others, doing violence to them and not

marrying them; among them Europa, the daughter of Phœnix, who was taken

from him by Asterios, king of Crete. Afterwards she gave birth to two

children from him, Minos and Rhadamanthus. This happened long before

the Israelites left the desert and entered Palestine.

Another tradition is that he died in Crete, and was buried there at the

time of Samson the Israelite, being 780 years of age; that he was

called Zeus when he had become old, after he had formerly been called

Dios; and that the first who gave him this name was Cecrops, the first

king of Athens. It was common to all of them to indulge in their lusts

without any restraint, and to favour the business of the pander; and so

far they were not unlike Zoroaster and King Gushtâsp when they desired

to consolidate the realm and the rule (sic).

Chroniclers maintain that Cecrops and his successors are the source of

all the vices among the Athenians, meaning thereby such things as occur

in the story of Alexander, viz. that Nectanebus, king of Egypt, after

having fled before Artaxerxes the Black and hiding in the capital of

Macedonia, occupied himself with astrology and soothsaying; that he

beguiled Olympias, the wife of King Philip, who was absent. He

cunningly contrived to cohabit with her, showing himself to her in the

figure of the god Ammon, as a serpent with two heads like rams’ heads.

So she became pregnant with Alexander. Philip, on returning, was about

to disclaim the paternity, but then he dreamt that it was the child of

the god Ammon. Thereupon he recognised the child as his, and spoke,

“Man cannot oppose the gods.” The combination of the stars had shown to

Nectanebus that he would die at the hands of his son. When then he died

at the hands of Alexander from a wound in the neck, he recognised that

he was his (Alexander’s) father.

The tradition of the Greeks is full of similar things. We shall relate

similar subjects when speaking of the marriages of the Hindus.

[Quotations from Aratos.] Now we return to our subject. Regarding that

part of the nature of Zeus which has no connection with humanity, the

Greeks say that he is Jupiter, the son of Saturn; for Saturn alone is

eternal, not having been born, according to the philosophers of the

Academy, as Galenus says in the Book of Deduction. This is sufficiently

proved by the book of Aratos on the Φαινόμενα, for he begins with the

praise of Zeus:

“We, mankind, do not leave him, nor can we do without him;

Of him the roads are full,

And the meeting-places of men.

He is mild towards them;

He produces for them what they wish, and incites them to work.

Reminding them of the necessities of life,

He indicates to them the times favourable

For digging and ploughing for a good growth,

Who has raised the signs and stars in heaven.

Therefore we humiliate ourselves before him first and last.”

And then he praises the spiritual beings (the Muses). If you compare

Greek theology with that of the Hindus, you will find that Brahman is

described in the same way as Zeus by Aratos.

The author of the commentary on the Φαινόμενα of Aratos maintains that

he deviated from the custom of the poets of his time in beginning with

the gods; that it was his intention to speak of the celestial sphere.

[Page 48.] Further, he makes reflections on the origin of Asclepius,

like Galenus, and says: “We should like to know which Zeus Aratos

meant, the mystical or the physical one. For the poet Krates called the

celestial sphere Zeus, and likewise Homer says:

‘As pieces of snow are cut off from Zeus.’”

Aratos calls the ether and the air Zeus in the passage: “The roads and

the meeting-places are full of him, and we all must inhale him.”

Therefore the philosophers of the Stoa maintain that Zeus is the spirit

which is dispersed in the ὕλη, and similar to our souls, i.e. the

nature which rules every natural body. The author supposes that he is

mild, since he is the cause of the good; therefore he is right in

maintaining that he has not only created men, but also the gods.

CHAPTER IX.

ON THE CASTES, CALLED “COLOURS” (VARṆA), AND ON THE CLASSES BELOW THEM.

[Throne and altar.] If a new order of things in political or social

life is created by a man naturally ambitious of ruling, who by his

character and capacity really deserves to be a ruler, a man of firm

convictions and unshaken determination, who even in times of reverses

is supported by good luck, in so far as people then side with him in

recognition of former merits of his, such an order is likely to become

consolidated among those for whom it was created, and to continue as

firm as the deeply rooted mountains. It will remain among them as a

generally recognised rule in all generations through the course of time

and the flight of ages. If, then, this new form of state or society

rests in some degree on religion, these twins, state and religion, are

in perfect harmony, and their union represents the highest development

of human society, all that men can possibly desire.

The kings of antiquity, who were industriously devoted to the duties of

their office, spent most of their care on the division of their

subjects into different classes and orders, which they tried to

preserve from intermixture and disorder. Therefore they forbade people

of different classes to have intercourse with each other, and laid upon

each class a particular kind of work or art and handicraft. They did

not allow anybody to transgress the limits of his class, and even

punished those who would not be content with their class.

[Castes of the ancient Persians.] All this is well illustrated by the

history of the ancient Chosroes (Khusrau), for they had created great

institutions of this kind, which could not be broken through by the

special merits of any individual nor by bribery. When Ardashîr ben

Bâbak restored the Persian empire, he also restored the classes or

castes of the population in the following way:—

The first class were the knights and princes.

The second class the monks, the fire-priests, and the lawyers.

The third class the physicians, astronomers, and other men of science.

The fourth class the husbandmen and artisans.

And within these classes there were subdivisions, distinct from each

other, like the species within a genus. All institutions of this kind

are like a pedigree, as long as their origin is remembered; but when

once their origin has been forgotten, they become, as it were, the

stable property of the whole nation, nobody any more questioning its

origin. And forgetting is the necessary result of any long period of

time, of a long succession of centuries and generations.

Among the Hindus institutions of this kind abound. We Muslims, of

course, stand entirely on the other side of the question, considering

all men as equal, except in piety; and this is the greatest obstacle

which prevents any approach or understanding between Hindus and

Muslims.

[The four castes.] The Hindus call their castes varṇa, i.e. colours,

and from a genealogical point of view they call them jâtaka, [Page 49.]

i.e. births. These castes are from the very beginning only four.

I. The highest caste are the Brâhmaṇa, of whom the books of the Hindus

tell that they were created from the head of Brahman. And as Brahman is

only another name for the force called nature, and the head is the

highest part of the animal body, the Brâhmaṇa are the choice part of

the whole genus. Therefore the Hindus consider them as the very best of

mankind.

II. The next caste are the Kshatriya, who were created, as they say,

from the shoulders and hands of Brahman. Their degree is not much below

that of the Brâhmaṇa.

III. After them follow the Vaiśya, who were created from the thigh of

Brahman.

IV. The Śûdra, who were created from his feet.

Between the latter two classes there is no very great distance. Much,

however, as these classes differ from each other, they live together in

the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and

lodgings.

[Low-caste people.] After the Śûdra follow the people called Antyaja,

who render various kinds of services, who are not reckoned amongst any

caste, but only as members of a certain craft or profession. There are

eight classes of them, who freely intermarry with each other, except

the fuller, shoemaker, and weaver, for no others would condescend to

have anything to do with them. These eight guilds are the fuller,

shoemaker, juggler, the basket and shield maker, the sailor, fisherman,

the hunter of wild animals and of birds, and the weaver. The four

castes do not live together with them in one and the same place. These

guilds live near the villages and towns of the four castes, but outside

them.

The people called Hâḍî, Ḍoma (Ḍomba), Caṇḍâla, and Badhatau (sic) are

not reckoned amongst any caste or guild. They are occupied with dirty

work, like the cleansing of the villages and other services. They are

considered as one sole class, and distinguished only by their

occupations. In fact, they are considered like illegitimate children;

for according to general opinion they descend from a Śûdra father and a

Brâhmaṇî mother as the children of fornication; therefore they are

degraded outcasts.

[Different occupations of the castes and guilds.] The Hindus give to

every single man of the four castes characteristic names, according to

their occupations and modes of life. E.g. the Brâhmaṇa is in general

called by this name as long as he does his work staying at home. When

he is busy with the service of one fire, he is called ishṭin; if he

serves three fires, he is called agnihôtrin; if he besides offers an

offering to the fire, he is called dîkshita. And as it is with the

Brâhmaṇa, so is it also with the other castes. Of the classes beneath

the castes, the Hâḍî are the best spoken of, because they keep

themselves free from everything unclean. Next follow the Ḍôma, who play

on the lute and sing. The still lower classes practise as a trade

killing and the inflicting of judicial punishments. The worst of all

are the Badhatau, who not only devour the flesh of dead animals, but

even of dogs and other beasts.

[Customs of the Brahmins.] Each of the four castes, when eating

together, must form a group for themselves, one group not being allowed

to comprise two men of different castes. If, further, in the group of

the Brâhmaṇa there are two men who live at enmity with each other, and

the seat of the one is by the side of the other, they make a barrier

between the two seats by placing a board between them, or by spreading

a piece of dress, or in some other way; and if there is only a line

drawn between them, they are considered as separated. Since it is

forbidden to eat the remains of a meal, every single man must have his

own food for himself; for if any one of the party who are eating should

take of the food from one and the same plate, that which remains in the

plate becomes, after the first eater has taken part, to him who [Page

50.] wants to take as the second, the remains of the meal, and such is

forbidden.

Such is the condition of the four castes. Arjuna asked about the nature

of the four castes and what must be their moral qualities, whereupon

Vâsudeva answered:

“The Brâhmaṇa must have an ample intellect, a quiet heart, truthful

speech, much patience; he must be master of his senses, a lover of

justice, of evident purity, always directed upon worship, entirely bent

upon religion.

“The Kshatriya must fill the hearts with terror, must be brave and

high-minded, must have ready speech and a liberal hand, not minding

dangers, only intent upon carrying the great tasks of his calling to a

happy end.

“The Vaiśya is to occupy himself with agriculture, with the acquisition

of cattle, and with trade.

“The Śûdra is to endeavour to render services and attention to each of

the preceding classes, in order to make himself liked by them.

“If each member of these castes adheres to his customs and usages, he

will obtain the happiness he wishes for, supposing that he is not

negligent in the worship of God, not forgetting to remember him in his

most important avocations. But if anybody wants to quit the works and

duties of his caste and adopt those of another caste, even if it would

bring a certain honour to the latter, it is a sin, because it is a

transgression of the rule.”

Further, Vâsudeva speaks, inspiring him with courage to fight the

enemy: “Dost thou not know, O man with the long arm, that thou art a

Kshatriya; that thy race has been created brave, to rush boldly to the

charge, to care little for the vicissitudes of time, never to give way

whenever their soul has a foreboding of coming misfortune? for only

thereby is the reward to be obtained. If he conquers, he obtains power

and good fortune. If he perishes, he obtains paradise and bliss.

Besides, thou showest weakness in the presence of the enemy, and

seemest melancholy at the prospect of killing this host; but it will be

infinitely worse if thy name will spread as that of a timid, cowardly

man, that thy reputation among the heroes and the experienced warriors

will be gone, that thou wilt be out of their sight, and thy name no

longer be remembered among them. I do not know a worse punishment than

such a state. Death is better than to expose thyself to the

consequences of ignominy. If, therefore, God has ordered thee to fight,

if he has deigned to confer upon thy caste the task of fighting and has

created thee for it, carry out his order and perform his will with a

determination which is free from any desire, so that thy action be

exclusively devoted to him.”

[Moksha and the various castes.] Hindus differ among themselves as to

which of these castes is capable of attaining to liberation; for,

according to some, only the Brâhmaṇa and Kshatriya are capable of it,

since the others cannot learn the Veda, whilst according to the Hindu

philosophers, liberation is common to all castes and to the whole human

race, if their intention of obtaining it is perfect. This view is based

on the saying of Vyâsa: “Learn to know the twenty-five things

thoroughly. Then you may follow whatever religion you like; you will no

doubt be liberated.” This view is also based on the fact that Vâsudeva

was a descendant of a Śûdra family, and also on the following saying of

his, which he addressed to Arjuna: “God distributes recompense without

injustice and without partiality. He reckons the good as bad if people

in doing good forget him; he reckons the bad as good if people in doing

bad remember him and do not forget him, whether those people be Vaiśya

or Śûdra or women. How much more will this [Page 51.] be the case when

they are Brâhmaṇa or Kshatriya.”

CHAPTER X.

ON THE SOURCE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL LAW, ON PROPHETS, AND ON THE

QUESTION WHETHER SINGLE LAWS CAN BE ABROGATED OR NOT.

[Law and religion among the Greeks founded by their sages.] The ancient

Greeks received their religious and civil laws from sages among them

who were called to the work, and of whom their countrymen believed that

they received divine help, like Solon, Draco, Pythagoras, Minos, and

others. Also their kings did the same; for Mianos (sic), when ruling

over the islands of the sea and over the Cretans about two hundred

years after Moses, gave them laws, pretending to have received them

from Zeus. About the same time also Minos (sic) gave his laws.

At the time of Darius I., the successor of Cyrus, the Romans sent

messengers to the Athenians, and received from them the laws in twelve

books, under which they lived till the rule of Pompilius (Numa). This

king gave them new laws; he assigned to the year twelve months, whilst

up to that time it had only had ten months. It appears that he

introduced his innovations against the will of the Romans, for he

ordered them to use as instruments of barter in commerce pieces of

pottery and hides instead of silver, which seems on his part to betray

a certain anger against rebellious subjects.

[Quotation from Plato’s Laws.] In the first chapter of the Book of Laws

of Plato, the Athenian stranger says: “Who do you think was the first

who gave laws to you? Was he an angel or a man?” The man of Cnossus

said: “He was an angel. In truth, with us it was Zeus, but with the

Lacedæmonians, as they maintain, the legislator was Apollo.”

Further, he says in the same chapter: “It is the duty of the

legislator, if he comes from God, to make the acquisition of the

greatest virtues and of the highest justice the object of his

legislation.”

He describes the laws of the Cretans as rendering perfect the happiness

of those who make the proper use of them, because by them they acquire

all the human good which is dependent upon the divine good.

The Athenian says in the second chapter of the same book: “The gods,

pitying mankind as born for trouble, instituted for them feasts to the

gods, the Muses, Apollo the ruler of the Muses, and to Dionysos, who

gave men wine as a remedy against the bitterness of old age, that old

men should again be young by forgetting sadness, and by bringing back

the character of the soul from the state of affliction to the state of

soundness.”

Further he says: “They have given to men by inspiration the

arrangements for dancing, and the equally weighed rhythm as a reward

for fatigues, and that they may become accustomed to live together with

them in feasts and joy. Therefore they call one kind of their music

praises, with an implied allusion to the prayers to the gods.”

Such was the case with the Greeks, and it is precisely the same with

the Hindus. For they believe that their [The Ṛishis, the authors of

Hindu law.] religious law and its single precepts derive their origin

from Ṛishis, their sages, the pillars of their religion, [Page 52.] and

not from the prophet, i.e. Nârâyaṇa, who, when coming into this world,

appears in some human figure. But he only comes in order to cut away

some evil matter which threatens the world, or to set the world right

again when anything has gone wrong. Further, no law can be exchanged or

replaced by another, for they use the laws simply as they find them.

Therefore they can dispense with prophets, as far as law and worship

are concerned, though in other affairs of the creation they sometimes

want them.

[Whether laws may be abrogated or not.] As for the question of the

abrogation of laws, it seems that this is not impossible with the

Hindus, for they say that many things which are now forbidden were

allowed before the coming of Vâsudeva, e.g. the flesh of cows. Such

changes are necessitated by the change of the nature of man, and by

their being too feeble to bear the whole burden of their duties. To

these changes also belong the changes of the matrimonial system and of

the theory of descent. For in former times there were three modes of

determining descent or relationship:

[Different matrimonial systems.] 1. The child born to a man by his

legitimate wife is the child of the father, as is the custom with us

and with the Hindus.

2. If a man marries a woman and has a child by her; if, further, the

marriage-contract stipulates that the children of the woman will belong

to her father, the child is considered as the child of its grandfather

who made that stipulation, and not as the child of its father who

engendered it.

3. If a stranger has a child by a married woman, the child belongs to

her husband, since the wife being, as it were, the soil in which the

child has grown, is the property of the husband, always presupposing

that the sowing, i.e. the cohabitation, takes place with his consent.

[The story of Pâṇḍu Vyâsa.] According to this principle, Pâṇḍu was

considered as the son of Śântanu; for this king had been cursed by an

anchorite, and in consequence was unable to cohabit with his wives,

which was the more provoking to him as he had not yet any children. Now

he asked Vyâsa, the son of Parâśara, to procreate for him children from

his wives in his place. Pâṇḍu sent him one, but she was afraid of him

when he cohabited with her, and trembled, in consequence of which she

conceived a sickly child of yellow hue. Then the king sent him a second

woman; she, too, felt much reverence for him, and wrapped herself up in

her veil, and in consequence she gave birth to Dhṛitarâshṭra, who was

blind and unhealthy. Lastly, he sent him a third woman, whom he

enjoined to put aside all fear and reverence with regard to the saint.

Laughing and in high spirits, she went in to him, and conceived from

him a child of moon-like beauty, who excelled all men in boldness and

cunning.

[Birth of Vyâsa.] The four sons of Pâṇḍu had one wife in common, who

stayed one month with each of them alternately. In the books of the

Hindus it is told that Parâśara, the hermit, one day travelled in a

boat in which there was also a daughter of the boatman. He fell in love

with her, tried to seduce her, and finally she yielded; but there was

nothing on the bank of the river to hide them from the looks of the

people. However, instantaneously there grew a tamarisk-tree to

facilitate their purpose. Now he cohabited with her behind the

tamarisk, and made her conceive, whereupon she became pregnant with

this his excellent son Vyâsa.

All these customs have now been abolished and abrogated, and therefore

we may infer from their tradition that in principle the abrogation of a

law is allowable.

[Various kinds of marriage with Tibetans and Arabs.] As regards

unnatural kinds of marriage, we must state that such exist still in our

time, as they also existed in the times of Arab heathendom; for the

people inhabiting the mountains stretching from the region of Panchîr

into the neighbourhood of Kashmîr live under the rule that several

brothers have one wife in common. Among the heathen Arabs, too,

marriage was of different kinds:—

[Page 53.] 1. An Arab ordered his wife to be sent to a certain man to

demand sexual intercourse with him; then he abstained from her during

the whole time of her pregnancy, since he wished to have from her a

generous offspring. This is identical with the third kind of marriage

among the Hindus.

2. A second kind was this, that the one Arab said to the other, “Cede

me your wife, and I will cede you mine,” and thus they exchanged their

wives.

3. A third kind is this, that several men cohabited with one wife.

When, then, she gave birth to a child, she declared who was the father;

and if she did not know it, the fortune-tellers had to know it.

4. The Niḳâḥ-elmakt (= matrimonium exosum), i.e. when a man married the

widow of his father or of his son, the child of such a marriage was

called ḍaizan. This is nearly the same as a certain Jewish marriage,

for the Jews have the law that a man must marry the widow of his

brother, if the latter has not left children, and create a line of

descent for his deceased brother; and the offspring is considered as

that of the deceased man, not as that of the real father. Thereby they

want to prevent his memory dying out in the world. In Hebrew they call

a man who is married in this way Yâbhâm.

[Marriage among the ancient Iranians.] There was a similar institution

among the Magians. In the book of Tausar, the great herbadh, addressed

to Padashvâr-girshâh, as an answer to his attacks on Ardashîr the son

of Bâbak, we find a description of the institution of a man’s being

married as the substitute for another man, which existed among the

Persians. If a man dies without leaving male offspring, people are to

examine the case. If he leaves a wife, they marry her to his nearest

relative. If he does not leave a wife, they marry his daughter or the

nearest related woman to the nearest related male of the family. If

there is no woman of his family left, they woo by means of the money of

the deceased a woman for his family, and marry her to some male

relative. The child of such a marriage is considered as the offspring

of the deceased.

Whoever neglects this duty and does not fulfil it, kills innumerable

souls, since he cuts off the progeny and the name of the deceased to

all eternity.

We have here given an account of these things in order that the reader

may learn by the comparative treatment of the subject how much superior

the institutions of Islam are, and how much more plainly this contrast

brings out all customs and usages, differing from those of Islam, in

their essential foulness.

CHAPTER XI.

ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF IDOL-WORSHIP, AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE

INDIVIDUAL IDOLS.

[Origin of idol-worship in the nature of man.] It is well known that

the popular mind leans towards the sensible world, and has an aversion

to the world of abstract thought which is only understood by highly

educated people, of whom in every time and every place there are only

few. And as common people will only acquiesce in pictorial

representations, many of the leaders of religious communities have so

far deviated from the right path as to give such imagery in their books

and houses of worship, like the Jews and Christians, and, more than

all, the Manichæans. These words of mine would at once receive a

sufficient illustration if, for example, a picture of the Prophet were

made, or of Mekka and the Kaʿba, and were shown to an uneducated man or

woman. Their joy in looking at the thing would bring them to kiss the

picture, to rub their cheeks against it, and to roll themselves in the

dust before it, as if they were seeing not the picture, but the

original, and were in this way, as if they were present in the holy

places, performing the rites of pilgrimage, the great and the small

ones.

This is the cause which leads to the manufacture of idols, monuments in

honour of certain much venerated persons, prophets, sages, angels,

destined to keep alive their memory when they are absent or dead, to

create for them a lasting place of grateful veneration in the hearts of

men when they die. But when much time passes by after the setting up of

the monument, generations and centuries, its origin is forgotten, it

becomes a matter of custom, and its veneration a rule for general

practice. This being deeply rooted in the nature of man, the

legislators of antiquity tried to influence them from this weak point

of theirs. Therefore they made the veneration of pictures and similar

monuments obligatory on them, as is recounted in historic records, both

for the times before and after the Deluge. Some people even pretend to

know that all mankind, before [Page 54.] God sent them his prophets,

were one large idolatrous body.

The followers of the Thora fix the beginning of idolatry in the days of

Serûgh, the great-grandfather of Abraham. The Romans have, regarding

this question, [Story of Romulus and Remus.] the following

tradition:—Romulus and Romanus (!), the two brothers from the country

of the Franks, on having ascended the throne, built the city of Rome.

Then Romulus killed his brother, and the consequence was a long

succession of intestine troubles and wars. Finally, Romulus humiliated

himself, and then he dreamt that there would only be peace on condition

that he placed his brother on the throne. Now he got a golden image

made of him, placed it at his side, and henceforward he used to say,

“We (not I) have ordered thus and thus,” which since has become the

general use of kings. Thereupon the troubles subsided. He founded a

feast and a play to amuse and to gain over those who bore him ill-will

on account of the murder of his brother. Besides, he erected a monument

to the sun, consisting of four images on four horses, the green one for

the earth, the blue for the water, the red for the fire, and the white

for the air. This monument is still in Rome in our days.

[Idol-worship as restricted to the low classes of people.] Since,

however, here we have to explain the system and the theories of the

Hindus on the subject, we shall now mention their ludicrous views; but

we declare at once that they are held only by the common uneducated

people. For those who march on the path to liberation, or those who

study philosophy and theology, and who desire abstract truth which they

call sâra, are entirely free from worshipping anything but God alone,

and would never dream of worshipping an image manufactured to represent

him. A tradition illustrative of this is that which Śaunaka told the

king Parîksha in these words:—

[Story of King Ambarîsha and Indra.] There was once a king called

Ambarîsha, who had obtained an empire as large as he had wished for.

But afterwards he came to like it no longer; he retired from the world,

and exclusively occupied himself with worshipping and praising God for

a long time. Finally, God appeared to him in the shape of Indra, the

prince of the angels, riding on an elephant. He spoke to the king:

“Demand whatever you like, and I will give it you.”

The king answered: “I rejoice in seeing thee, and I am thankful for the

good fortune and help thou hast given; but I do not demand anything

from thee, but only from him who created thee.”

Indra said: “The object of worship is to receive a noble reward.

Realise, therefore, your object, and accept the reward from him from

whom hitherto you have obtained your wishes, and do not pick and

choose, saying, ‘Not from thee, but from another.’”

The king answered: “The earth has fallen to my lot, but I do not care

for all that is in it. The object of my worship is to see the Lord, and

that thou canst not give me. Why, therefore, should I demand the

fulfilment of my desire from thee?”

Indra said: “The whole world and whoever is upon it are obedient to me.

Who are you that you dare to oppose me?”

The king answered: “I, too, hear and obey, but I worship him from whom

thou hast received this power, who is the lord of the universe, who has

protected thee against the attacks of the two kings, Bali and

Hiraṇyâksha. Therefore let me do as I like, and turn away from me with

my farewell greeting.”

Indra said: “If you will absolutely oppose me, I will kill you and

annihilate you.”

The king answered: “People say that happiness is envied, but not so

misfortune. He who retires from the world is envied by the angels, and

therefore they will try to lead him astray. I am one of those who have

retired from the world and entirely devoted themselves to worship, and

I shall not give it up as long as [Page 55.] I live. I do not know

myself to be guilty of a crime for which I should deserve to be killed

by thee. If thou killest me without any offence on my part, it is thy

concern. What dost thou want from me? If my thoughts are entirely

devoted to God, and nothing else is blended with them, thou art not

able to do me any harm. Sufficient for me is the worship with which I

am occupied, and now I return to it.”

As the king now went on worshipping, the Lord appeared to him in the

shape of a man of the grey lotus colour, riding on a bird called

Garuḍa, holding in one of the four hands the śaṅkha, a sea-shell which

people blow when riding on elephants; in the second hand the cakra, a

round, cutting, orbicular weapon, which cuts everything it hits right

through; in the third an amulet, and in the fourth padma, i.e. the red

lotus. When the king saw him, he shuddered from reverence, prostrated

himself and uttered many praises. The Lord quieted his terrified mind

and promised him that he should obtain everything he wished for. The

king spoke: “I had obtained an empire which nobody disputed with me; I

was in conditions of life not troubled by sorrow or sickness. It was as

if the whole world belonged to me. But then I turned away from it,

after I had understood that the good of the world is really bad in the

end. I do not wish for anything except what I now have. The only thing

I now wish for is to be liberated from this fetter.”

The Lord spoke: “That you will obtain by keeping aloof from the world,

by being alone, by uninterrupted meditation, and by restraining your

senses to yourself.”

The king spoke: “Supposing that I am able to do so through that

sanctity which the Lord has deigned to bestow upon me, how should any

other man be able to do so? for man wants eating and clothing, which

connects him with the world. How is he to think of anything else?”

The Lord spoke: “Occupy yourself with your empire in as straightforward

and prudent a way as possible: turn your thoughts upon me when you are

engaged in civilising the world and protecting its inhabitants, in

giving alms, and in everything you do. And if you are overpowered by

human forgetfulness, make to yourself an image like that in which you

see me; offer to it perfumes and flowers, and make it a memorial of me,

so that you may not forget me. If you are in sorrow, think of me; if

you speak, speak in my name; if you act, act for me.”

The king spoke: “Now I know what I have to do in general, but honour me

further by instructing me in the details.”

The Lord spoke: “That I have done already. I have inspired your judge

Vasishṭha with all that is required. Therefore rely upon him in all

questions.”

Then the figure disappeared from his sight. The king returned into his

residence and did as he had been ordered.

From that time, the Hindus say, people make idols, some with four hands

like the appearance we have described, others with two hands, as the

story and description require, and conformably to the being which is to

be represented.

[Nârada and the voice from the fire.] Another story of theirs is the

following:—Brahman had a son called Nârada, who had no other desire but

that of seeing the Lord. It was his custom, when he walked about, to

hold a stick. If he threw it down, it became a serpent, and he was able

to do miracles with it. He never went without it. One day being

engrossed in meditation on the object of his hopes, he saw a fire from

afar. He went towards it, and then a voice spoke to him out of the

fire: “What you demand and wish is impossible. You cannot see me save

thus.” When he looked in that direction, he saw a fiery appearance in

something like human shape. [Page 56.] Henceforward it has been the

custom to erect idols of certain shapes.

[The idol of Multân called Âditya.] A famous idol of theirs was that of

Multân, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Âditya. It was of

wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two

red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kṛitayuga. Suppose

that it was made in the very end of Kṛitayuga, the time which has since

elapsed amounts to 216,432 years. When Muḥammad Ibn Alḳâsim Ibn

Almunabbih conquered Multân, he inquired how the town had become so

very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and

then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims

from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the

idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow’s-flesh on its neck by

way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When then the

Ḳarmatians occupied Multân, Jalam Ibn Shaibân, the usurper, broke the

idol into pieces and killed its priests. He made his mansion, which was

a castle built of brick on an elevated place, the mosque instead of the

old mosque, which he ordered to be shut from hatred against anything

that had been done under the dynasty of the Caliphs of the house of

ʾUmayya. When afterwards the blessed Prince Maḥmûd swept away their

rule from those countries, he made again the old mosque the place of

the Friday-worship, and the second one was left to decay. At present it

is only a barn-floor, where bunches of Ḥinnâ (Lawsonia inermis) are

bound together.

If we now subtract from the above-mentioned number of years the

hundreds, tens, and units, i.e. the 432 years, as a kind of arbitrary

equivalent for the sum of about 100 years, by which the rise of the

Ḳarmatians preceded our time, we get as the remainder 216,000 years for

the time of the end of the Kṛitayuga, and about the epoch of the era of

the Hijra. How, then, could wood have lasted such a length of time, and

particularly in a place where the air and the soil are rather wet? God

knows best!

[The idol of Tâneshar called Cakrasvâmin.] The city of Tâneshar is

highly venerated by the Hindus. The idol of that place is called

Cakrasvâmin, i.e. the owner of the cakra, a weapon which we have

already described (page 114). It is of bronze, and is nearly the size

of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with

the Lord of Somanâth, which is a representation of the penis of

Mahâdeva, called Liṅga. Of Somanâth we shall hereafter speak in the

proper place. This Cakrasvâmin is said to have been made in the time of

Bhârata as a memorial of wars connected with this name.

[The idol Śârada in Kashmîr.] In Inner Kashmîr, about two or three

days’ journey from the capital in the direction towards the mountains

of Bolor, there is a wooden idol called Śârada, which is much venerated

and frequented by pilgrims.

[Quotation from the Saṁhitâ of Varâhamihira.] We shall now communicate

a whole chapter from the book Saṁhitâ relating to the construction of

idols, which will help the student thoroughly to comprehend the present

subject.

Varâhamihira says: “If the figure is made to represent Râma the son of

Daśaratha, or Bali the son of Virocana, give it the height of 120

digits,” i.e. of idol digits, which must be reduced by one-tenth to

become common digits, in this case 108.

“To the idol of Vishṇu give eight hands, or four, or two, and on the

left side under the breast give him the figure of the woman Śrî. If you

give him eight hands, place in the right hands a sword, a club of gold

or iron, an arrow, and make the fourth hand as if it were drawing [Page

57.] water; in the left hands give him a shield, a bow, a cakra, and a

conch.

“If you give him four hands, omit the bow and the arrow, the sword and

shield.

“If you give him two hands, let the right hand be drawing water, the

left holding a conch.

“If the figure is to represent Baladeva, the brother of Nârâyaṇa, put

earrings into his ears, and give him eyes of a drunken man.

“If you make both figures, Nârâyaṇa and Baladeva, join with them their

sister Bhagavatî (Durgâ = Ekânaṁśâ), her left hand resting on her hip a

little away from the side, and her right hand holding a lotus.

“If you make her four-handed, place in the right hands a rosary and a

hand drawing water; in the left hands, a book and a lotus.

“If you make her eight-handed, place in the left hands the kamaṇḍalu,

i.e. a pot, a lotus, bow and book; in the right hands, a rosary, a

mirror, an arrow, and a water-drawing hand.

“If the figure is to represent Sâmba, the son of Vishṇu, put only a

club in his right hand. If it is to represent Pradyumna, the son of

Vishṇu, place in his right hand an arrow, in his left hand a bow. And

if you make their two wives, place in their right hand a sword, in the

left a buckler.

“The idol of Brahman has four faces towards the four sides, and is

seated on a lotus.

“The idol of Skanda, the son of Mahâdeva, is a boy riding on a peacock,

his hand holding a śakti, a weapon like a double-edged sword, which has

in the middle a pestle like that of a mortar.

“The idol Indra holds in its hand a weapon called vajra of diamond. It

has a similar handle to the śakti, but on each side it has two swords

which join at the handle. On his front place a third eye, and make him

ride on a white elephant with four tusks.

“Likewise make on the front of the idol of Mahâdeva a third eye right

above, on his head a crescent, in his hand a weapon called śûla,

similar to the club but with three branches, and a sword; and let his

left hand hold his wife Gaurî, the daughter of Himavant, whom he

presses to his bosom from the side.

“To the idol Jina, i.e. Buddha, give a face and limbs as beautiful as

possible, make the lines in the palms of his hands and feet like a

lotus, and represent him seated on a lotus; give him grey hair, and

represent him with a placid expression, as if he were the father of

creation.

“If you make Arhant, the figure of another body of Buddha, represent

him as a naked youth with a fine face, beautiful, whose hands reach

down to the knees, with the figure of Śrî, his wife, under the left

breast.

“The idol of Revanta, the son of the sun, rides on a horse like a

huntsman.

“The idol of Yama, the angel of death, rides on a buffalo, and holds a

club in his hand.

“The idol of Kubera, the treasurer, wears a crown, has a big stomach

and wide hips, and is riding on a man.

“The idol of the sun has a red face like the pith of the red lotus,

beams like a diamond, has protruding limbs, rings in the ears, the neck

adorned with pearls which hang down over the breast, wears a crown of

several compartments, holds in his hands two lotuses, and is clad in

the dress of the Northerners which reaches down to the ankle.

[Page 58.] “If you represent the Seven Mothers, represent several of

them together in one figure, Brahmâṇî with four faces towards the four

directions, Kaumârî with six faces, Vaishṇavî with four hands, Vârâhî

with a hog’s head on a human body, Indrâṇî with many eyes and a club in

her hand, Bhagavatî (Durgâ) sitting as people generally sit, Câmuṇḍâ

ugly, with protruding teeth and a slim waist. Further join with them

the sons of Mahâdeva, Kshetrapâla with bristling hair, a sour face, and

an ugly figure, but Vinâyaka with an elephant’s head on a human body,

with four hands, as we have heretofore described.”

The worshippers of these idols kill sheep and buffaloes with axes

(kuṭâra), that they may nourish themselves with their blood. All idols

are constructed according to certain measures determined by

idol-fingers for every single limb, but sometimes they differ regarding

the measure of a limb. If the artist keeps the right measure and does

not make anything too large nor too small, he is free from sin, and is

sure that the being which he represented will not visit him with any

mishap. “If he makes the idol one cubit high and together with the

throne two cubits, he will obtain health and wealth. If he makes it

higher still, he will be praised.

“But he must know that making the idol too large, especially that of

the Sun, will hurt the ruler, and making it too small will hurt the

artist. If he gives it a thin belly, this helps and furthers the famine

in the country; if he gives it a lean belly, this ruins property.

“If the hand of the artist slips so as to produce something like a

wound, he will have a wound in his own body which will kill him.

“If it is not completely even on both sides, so that the one shoulder

is higher than the other, his wife will perish.

“If he turns the eye upward, he will be blind for lifetime; if he turns

it downward, he will have many troubles and sorrows.”

If the statue is made of some precious stone, it is better than if it

were made of wood, and wood is better than clay. “The benefits of a

statue of precious stone will be common to all the men and women of the

empire. A golden statue will bring power to him who erected it, a

statue of silver will bring him renown, one of bronze will bring him an

increase of his rule, one of stone the acquisition of landed property.”

The Hindus honour their idols on account of those who erected them, not

on account of the material of which they are made. We have already

mentioned that the idol of Multân was of wood. E.g. the liṅga which

Râma erected when he had finished the war with the demons was of sand,

which he had heaped up with his own hand. But then it became petrified

all at once, since the astrologically correct moment for the erecting

of the monument fell before the moment when the workmen had finished

the cutting of the stone monument which Râma originally had ordered.

Regarding the building of the temple and its peristyle, the cutting of

the trees of four different kinds, the astrological determination of

the favourable moment for the erection, the celebration of the rites

due on such an occasion, regarding all this Râma gave very long and

tedious instructions. Further, he ordered that servants and priests to

minister to the idols should be nominated from different classes of the

people. “To the idol of Vishṇu are devoted the class called Bhâgavata;

to the idol of the Sun, the Maga, i.e. the Magians; to the idol of

Mahâdeva, a class of saints, anchorites with long hair, who cover their

skin with ashes, hang on their persons the bones of dead people, and

swim in the [Page 59.] pools. The Brâhmaṇa are devoted to the Eight

Mothers, the Shamanians to Buddha, to Arhant the class called Nagna. On

the whole, to each idol certain people are devoted who constructed it,

for those know best how to serve it.”

[Quotations from Gîtâ showing that God is not to be confounded with the

idols.] Our object in mentioning all this mad raving was to teach the

reader the accurate description of an idol, if he happens to see one,

and to illustrate what we have said before, that such idols are erected

only for uneducated low-class people of little understanding; that the

Hindus never made an idol of any supernatural being, much less of God;

and, lastly, to show how the crowd is kept in thraldom by all kinds of

priestly tricks and deceits. Therefore the book Gîtâ says: “Many people

try to approach me in their aspirations through something which is

different from me; they try to insinuate themselves into my favour by

giving alms, praise, and prayer to something besides me. I, however,

confirm and help them in all these doings of theirs, and make them

attain the object of their wishes, because I am able to dispense with

them.”

In the same book Vâsudeva speaks to Arjuna: “Do you not see that most

of those who wish for something address themselves in offering and

worshipping to the several classes of spiritual beings, and to the sun,

moon, and other celestial bodies? If now God does not disappoint their

hopes, though he in no way stands in need of their worship, if he even

gives them more than they asked for, and if he gives them their wishes

in such a way as though they were receiving them from that to which

they had addressed their prayers—viz. the idol—they will proceed to

worship those whom they address, because they have not learned to know

him, whilst he, by admitting this kind of intermediation, carries their

affairs to the desired end. But that which is obtained by desires and

intermediation is not lasting, since it is only as much as is deserved

for any particular merit. Only that is lasting which is obtained from

God alone, when people are disgusted with old age, death, and birth

(and desire to be delivered therefrom by Moksha).”

This is what Vâsudeva says. When the ignorant crowd get a piece of good

luck by accident or something at which they had aimed, and when with

this some of the preconcerted tricks of the priests are brought into

connection, the darkness in which they live increases vastly, not their

intelligence. They will rush to those figures of idols, maltreating

their own figures before them by shedding their own blood and

mutilating their own bodies.

The ancient Greeks, also, considered the idols as mediators between

themselves and the First Cause, and worshipped them under the names of

the stars and the highest substances. For they described the First

Cause, not with positive, but only with negative predicates, since they

considered it too high to be described by human qualities, and since

they wanted to describe it as free from any imperfection. Therefore

they could not address it in worship.

When the heathen Arabs had imported into their country idols from

Syria, they also worshipped them, hoping that they would intercede for

them with God.

Plato says in the fourth chapter of the Book of Laws: “It is necessary

to any one who gives perfect honours (to the gods) that he should take

trouble with the mystery of the gods and Sakînât, and that he should

not make special idols masters over the ancestral gods. Further, it is

the greatest duty to give honours as much as possible to the parents

while they live.”

By mystery Plato means a special kind of devotion. The word is much

used among the Ṣâbians of Ḥarrân, the dualistic Manichæans, and the

theologians of the Hindus.

Galenus says in the book De Indole Animæ: “At the time of the Emperor

Commodus, between 500–510 [Page 60.] years after Alexander, two men

went to an idol-merchant and bargained with him for an idol of Hermes.

The one wanted to erect it in a temple as a memorial of Hermes, the

other wanted to erect it on a tomb as a memorial of the deceased.

However, they could not settle the business with the merchant, and so

they postponed it until the following day. The idol-merchant dreamt the

following night that the idol addressed him and spoke to him: ‘O

excellent man! I am thy work. I have received through the work of thy

hands a figure which is thought to be the figure of a star. Now I am no

longer a stone, as people called me heretofore; I am now known as

Mercury. At present it stands in thy hands to make me either a memorial

of something imperishable or of something that has perished already.’”

There is a treatise of Aristotle in which he answers certain questions

of the Brahmins which Alexander had sent him. There he says: “If you

maintain that some Greeks have fabled that the idols speak, that the

people offer to them and think them to be spiritual beings, of all this

we have no knowledge, and we cannot give a sentence on a subject we do

not know.” In these words he rises high above the class of fools and

uneducated people, and he indicates by them that he does not occupy

himself with such things. It is evident that the first cause of

idolatry was the desire of commemorating the dead and of consoling the

living; but on this basis it has developed, and has finally become a

foul and pernicious abuse.

The former view, that idols are only memorials, was also held by the

Caliph Muʿâwiya regarding the idols of Sicily. When, in the summer of

A.H. 53, Sicily was conquered, and the conquerors sent him golden idols

adorned with crowns and diamonds which had been captured there, he

ordered them to be sent to Sind, that they should be sold there to the

princes of the country; for he thought it best to sell them as objects

costing sums of so-and-so many denars, not having the slightest scruple

on account of their being objects of abominable idolatry, but simply

considering the matter from a political, not from a religious point of

view.

CHAPTER XII.

ON THE VEDA, THE PURÂṆAS, AND OTHER KINDS OF THEIR NATIONAL LITERATURE.

[Sundry notes relating to the Veda.] Veda means knowledge of that which

was before unknown. It is a religious system which, according to the

Hindus, comes from God, and was promulgated by the mouth of Brahman.

The Brahmins recite the Veda without understanding its meaning, and in

the same way they learn it by heart, the one receiving it from the

other. Only few of them learn its explanation, and still less is the

number of those who master the contents of the Veda and their

interpretation to such a degree as to be able to hold a theological

disputation.

The Brahmins teach the Veda to the Kshatriyas. The latter learn it, but

are not allowed to teach it, not even to a Brahmin. The Vaiśya and

Śûdra are not allowed to hear it, much less to pronounce and recite it.

If such a thing can be proved against one of them, the Brahmins drag

him before the magistrate, and he is punished by having his tongue cut

off.

The Veda contains commandments and prohibitions, detailed statements

about reward and punishment intended to encourage and to deter; but

most of it contains hymns of praise, and treats of the various kinds of

sacrifices to the fire, which are so numerous and difficult that you

could hardly count them.

[The Veda transmitted by memory.] They do not allow the Veda to be

committed to writing, because it is recited according to certain

modulations, and they therefore avoid the use of the pen, since it is

liable to cause some error, and may occasion an addition or a defect in

the written text. In consequence it has happened that they have several

times [Page 61.] forgotten the Veda and lost it. For they maintain that

the following passage occurs in the conversations between God and

Brahman relating to the beginning of all things, according to the

report of Śaunaka who had received it from the planet Venus: “You will

forget the Veda at the time when the earth will be submerged; it will

then go down to the depths of the earth, and none but the fish will be

able to bring it out again. Therefore I shall send the fish, and it

will deliver the Veda into your hands. And I shall send the boar to

raise the earth with its tusks and to bring it out of the water.”

Further, the Hindus maintain that the Veda, together with all the rites

of their religion and country, had been obliterated in the last

Dvâpara-yuga, a period of time of which we shall speak in the proper

place, until it was renewed by Vyâsa, the son of Parâśara.

The Vishṇu Purâṇa says: “At the beginning of each Manvantara period

there will be created anew a lord of a period whose children will rule

over the whole earth, and a prince who will be the head of the world,

and angels to whom men will bring fire-offerings, and the Great Bear,

who will renew the Veda which is lost at the end of each period.”

[Vasukra commits the Veda to writing.] This is the reason why, not long

before our time, Vasukra, a native of Kashmîr, a famous Brahmin, has of

his own account undertaken the task of explaining the Veda and

committing it to writing. He has taken on himself a task from which

everybody else would have recoiled, but he carried it out because he

was afraid that the Veda might be forgotten and entirely vanish out of

the memories of men, since he observed that the characters of men grew

worse and worse, and that they did not care much for virtue, nor even

for duty.

There are certain passages in the Veda which, as they maintain, must

not be recited within dwellings, since they fear that they would cause

an abortion both to women and the cattle. Therefore they step out into

the open field to recite them there. There is hardly a single verse

free from such and similar minatory injunctions.

As we have already mentioned, the books of the Hindus are metrical

compositions like the Rajaz poems of the Arabs. Most of them are

composed in a metre called śloka. The reason of this has already been

explained. Galenus also prefers metrical composition, and says in his

book Κατὰ γένη: “The single signs which denote the weights of medicines

become corrupt by being copied; they are also corrupted by the wanton

mischief of some envious person. Therefore it is quite right that the

books of Damocrates on medicines should be preferred to others, and

that they should gain fame and praise, since they are written in a

Greek metre. If all books were written in this way it would be the

best;” the fact being that a prose text is much more exposed to

corruption than a metrical one.

The Veda, however, is not composed in this common metre, śloka, but in

another. Some Hindus say that no one could compose anything in the same

metre. However, their scholars maintain that this is possible indeed,

but that they refrain from trying it merely from veneration for the

Veda.

[The four pupils of Vyâsa and the four Vedas.] According to their

tradition, Vyâsa divided it into four parts: Ṛigveda, Yajurveda,

Sâmaveda, and Âtharvaṇaveda.

Vyâsa had four śishya, i.e. pupils. He taught a separate Veda to each

of them, and made him carry it in his memory. They are enumerated in

the same order as the four parts of the Veda: Paila, Vaiśaṁpâyana,

Jaimini, Sumantu.

[On the Ṛigveda.] Each of the four parts has a peculiar kind of

recitation. The first is Ṛigveda, consisting of metrical compositions

called ṛic, which are of different lengths. It is called Ṛigveda as

being the totality of the ṛic. [Page 62.] It treats of the sacrifices

to the fire, and is recited in three different ways. First, in a

uniform manner of reading, just as every other book is read. Secondly,

in such a way that a pause is made after every single word. Thirdly, in

a method which is the most meritorious, and for which plenty of reward

in heaven is promised. First you read a short passage, each word of

which is distinctly pronounced; then you repeat it together with a part

of that which has not yet been recited. Next you recite the added

portion alone, and then you repeat it together with the next part of

that which has not yet been recited, &c., &c. Continuing to do so till

the end, you will have read the whole text twice.

[On the Yajurveda.] The Yajurveda is composed of kâṇḍin. The word is a

derivative noun, and means the totality of the kâṇḍin. The difference

between this and the Ṛigveda is that it may be read as a text connected

by the rules of Saṁdhi, which is not allowed in the case of Ṛigveda.

The one as well as the other treats of works connected with the fire

and the sacrifices.

I have heard the following story about the reason why the Ṛigveda

cannot be recited as a text connected by the rules of Saṁdhi:—

[The story of Yâjñavalkya.] Yâjñavalkya stayed with his master, and his

master had a Brahmin friend who wanted to make a journey. Therefore he

asked the master to send somebody to his house to perform there during

his absence the rites to Homa, i.e. to his fire, and to prevent it from

being extinguished. Now the master sent his pupils to the house of his

friend one after the other. So it came to be the turn of Yâjñavalkya,

who was beautiful to look at and handsomely dressed. When he began the

work which he was sent for, in a place where the wife of the absent man

was present, she conceived an aversion to his fine attire, and

Yâjñavalkya became aware of it, though she concealed it. On having

finished, he took the water to sprinkle it over the head of the woman,

for this holds with them the place of the blowing after an incantation,

since blowing is disliked by them and considered as something impure.

Then the woman said, “Sprinkle it over this column.” So he did, and at

once the column became green. Now the woman repented having missed the

blessing of his pious action; therefore on the following day she went

to the master, asking him to send her the same pupil whom he had sent

the day before. Yâjñavalkya, however, declined to go except in his

turn. No urging had any effect upon him; he did not mind the wrath of

his master, but simply said, “Take away from me all that you have

taught me.” And scarcely had he spoken the word, when on a sudden he

had forgotten all he knew before. Now he turned to the Sun and asked

him to teach him the Veda. The Sun said, “How is that possible, as I

must perpetually wander, and you are incapable of doing the same?” But

then Yâjñavalkya clung to the chariot of the Sun and began to learn the

Veda from him; but he was compelled to interrupt the recitation here

and there on account of the irregularity of the motion of the chariot.

[Sâmaveda and Âtharvaṇaveda.] The Sâmaveda treats of the sacrifices,

commandments, and prohibitions. It is recited in a tone like a chant,

and hence its name is derived, because sâman means the sweetness of

recitation. The cause of this kind of recital is, that Nârâyaṇa, when

he appeared on earth in the shape of Vâmana, and came to the king Bali,

changed himself into a Brahman and began to recite the Sâmaveda with a

touching melody, by which he exhilarated the king, in consequence of

which there happened to him the well-known story.

The Âtharvaṇaveda is as a text connected by the rules of Saṁdhi. It

does not consist of the same compositions as the Ṛig and Yajur Vedas,

but of a third kind called bhara. It is recited according to a melody

with a nasal tone. This Veda is less in favour with the Hindus than the

others. It likewise treats of the sacrifices to the fire, and contains

injunctions regarding the dead and what is to be done with them.

[List of the Purâṇas.] As to the Purâṇas, we first mention that the

word means first, eternal. There are eighteen Purâṇas, most of them

called by the names of animals, human or [Page 63.] angelic beings,

because they contain stories about them, or because the contents of the

book refer in some way to them, or because the book consists of answers

which the creature whose name forms the title of the book has given to

certain questions.

The Purâṇas are of human origin, composed by the so-called Ṛishis. In

the following I give a list of their names, as I have heard them, and

committed them to writing from dictation:—

1. Âdi-purâṇa, i.e. the first.

2. Matsya-purâṇa, i.e. the fish.

3. Kûrma-purâṇa, i.e. the tortoise.

4. Varâha-purâṇa, i.e. the boar.

5. Narasiṁha-purâṇa, i.e. a human being with a lion’s head.

6. Vâmana-purâṇa, i.e. the dwarf.

7. Vâyu-purâṇa, i.e. the wind.

8. Nanda-purâṇa, i.e. a servant of Mahâdeva.

9. Skanda-purâṇa, i.e. a son of Mahâdeva.

10. Âditya-purâṇa, i.e. the sun.

11. Soma-purâṇa, i.e. the moon.

12. Sâmba-purâṇa, i.e. the son of Vishṇu.

13. Brahmâṇḍa-purâṇa, i.e. heaven.

14. Mârkaṇḍeya-purâṇa, i.e. a great Ṛishi.

15. Târkshya-purâṇa, i.e. the bird Garuḍa.

16. Vishṇu-purâṇa, i.e. Nârâyaṇa.

17. Brahma-purâṇa, i.e. the nature charged with the preservation

of the world.

18. Bhavishya-purâṇa, i.e. future things.

Of all this literature I have only seen portions of the Matsya, Âditya,

and Vâyu Purâṇas.

Another somewhat different list of the Purâṇas has been read to me from

the Vishṇu-Purâṇa. I give it here in extenso, as in all questions

resting on tradition it is the duty of an author to give those

traditions as completely as possible:—

1. Brahma.

2. Padma, i.e. the red lotus.

3. Vishṇu.

4. Śiva, i.e. Mahâdeva.

5. Bhâgavata, i.e. Vâsudeva.

6. Nârada, i.e. the son of Brahma.

7. Mârkaṇḍeya.

8. Agni, i.e. the fire.

9. Bhavishya, i.e. the future.

10. Brahmavaivarta, i.e. the wind.

11. Liṅga, i.e. an image of the αἰδοῖα of Mahâdeva.

12. Varâha.

13. Skanda.

14. Vâmana.

15. Kûrma.

16. Matsya, i.e. the fish.

17. Garuḍa, i.e. the bird on which Vishṇu rides.

18. Brahmâṇḍa.

These are the names of the Purâṇas according to the Vishṇu-Purâṇa.

[A list of Smṛiti books.] The book Smṛiti is derived from the Veda. It

contains commandments and prohibitions, and is composed by the

following twenty sons of Brahman:—

1. Âpastamba.

2. Parâśara.

3. Śâtâtapa.

4. Saṁvarta.

5. Daksha.

6. Vasishṭha.

7. Aṅgiras.

8. Yama.

9. Vishṇu.

10. Manu.

11. Yâjñavalkya.

12. Atri.

13. Hârîta.

14. Likhita.

15. Śaṅkha.

16. Gautama.

17. Vṛihaspati.

18. Kâtyâyana.

19. Vyâsa.

20. Uśanas.

Besides, the Hindus have books about the jurisprudence of their

religion, on theosophy, on ascetics, on the process of becoming god and

seeking liberation from the world, as, e.g. the book composed by Gauḍa

the anchorite, which goes by his name; the book Sâṁkhya, composed by

Kapila, on divine subjects; the book of Patañjali, on the search for

liberation and for the union of the soul with the object of its

meditation; the book Nyâyabhâshâ, composed by Kapila, on the Veda and

its interpretation, also showing that it has been created, and

distinguishing within the Veda between such injunctions as are

obligatory only in certain cases, and those which are obligatory in

general; further, the book Mîmâṁsâ, composed by Jaimini, on the same

subject; the book Laukâyata, composed by Bṛihaspati, treating of the

subject that in all investigations we must exclusively rely upon the

apperception of [Page 64.] the senses; the book Agastyamata, composed

by Agastya, treating of the subject that in all investigations we must

use the apperception of the senses as well as tradition; and the book

Vishṇu-dharma. The word dharma means reward, but in general it is used

for religion; so that this title means The religion of God, who in this

case is understood to be Nârâyaṇa. Further, there are the books of the

six pupils of Vyâsa, viz. Devala, Śukra, Bhârgava, Vṛihaspati,

Yâjñavalkya, and Manu. The Hindus have numerous books about all the

branches of science. How could anybody know the titles of all of them,

more especially if he is not a Hindu, but a foreigner?

[Mahâbhârata.] Besides, they have a book which they hold in such

veneration that they firmly assert that everything which occurs in

other books is found also in this book, but not all which occurs in

this book is found in other books. It is called Bhârata, and composed

by Vyâsa the son of Parâśara at the time of the great war between the

children of Pâṇḍu and those of Kuru. The title itself gives an

indication of those times. The book has 100,000 Ślokas in eighteen

parts, each of which is called Parvan. Here we give the list of them:—

1. Sabhâ-parva, i.e. the king’s dwelling.

2. Araṇya, i.e. going out into the open field, meaning the exodus

of the children of Pâṇḍu.

3. Virâṭa, i.e. the name of a king in whose realm they dwelt

during the time of their concealment.

4. Udyoga, i.e. the preparing for battle.

5. Bhîshma.

6. Droṇa the Brahmin.

7. Karṇa the son of the Sun.

8. Śalya the brother of Duryodhana, some of the greatest heroes

who did the fighting, one always coming forward after his

predecessor had been killed.

9. Gadâ, i.e. the club.

10. Sauptika, i.e. the killing of the sleepers, when Aśvatthâman

the son of Droṇa attacked the city of Pâñcâla during the night

and killed the inhabitants.

11. Jalapradânika, i.e. the successive drawing of water for the

dead, after people have washed off the impurity caused by the

touching of the dead.

12. Strî, i.e. the lamentations of the women.

13. Śânti, containing 24,000 Ślokas on eradicating hatred from the

heart, in four parts:

(1.) Râjadharma, on the reward of the kings.

(2.) Dânadharma, on the reward for almsgiving.

(3.) Âpaddharma, on the reward of those who are in need and

trouble.

(4.) Mokshadharma, on the reward of him who is liberated

from the world.

14. Aśvamedha, i.e. the sacrifice of the horse which is sent out

together with an army to wander through the world. Then they

proclaim in public that it belongs to the king of the world,

and that he who does not agree thereto is to come forward to

fight. The Brahmans follow the horse, and celebrate sacrifices

to the fire in those places where the horse drops its dung.

15. Mausala, i.e. the fighting of the Yâdavas, the tribe of

Vâsudeva, among themselves.

16. Âśramavâsa, i.e. leaving one’s own country.

17. Prasthâna, i.e. quitting the realm to seek liberation.

18. Svargârohaṇa, i.e. journeying towards Paradise.

These eighteen parts are followed by another one which is called

Harivaṁśa-Parvan, which contains the traditions relating to Vâsudeva.

In this book there occur passages which, like riddles, [Page 65.] admit

of manifold interpretations. As to the reason of this the Hindus relate

the following story:—Vyâsa asked Brahman to procure him somebody who

might write for him the Bhârata from his dictation. Now he intrusted

with this task his son Vinâyaka, who is represented as an idol with an

elephant’s head, and made it obligatory on him never to cease from

writing. At the same time Vyâsa made it obligatory on him to write only

that which he understood. Therefore Vyâsa, in the course of his

dictation, dictated such sentences as compelled the writer to ponder

over them, and thereby Vyâsa gained time for resting awhile.

CHAPTER XIII.

THEIR GRAMMATICAL AND METRICAL LITERATURE.

[List of books on grammar.] The two sciences of grammar and metrics are

auxiliary to the other sciences. Of the two, the former, grammar, holds

the first place in their estimate, called vyâkaraṇa, i.e. the law of

the correctness of their speech and etymological rules, by means of

which they acquire an eloquent and classical style both in writing and

reading. We Muslims cannot learn anything of it, since it is a branch

coming from a root which is not within our grasp—I mean the language

itself. That which I have been told as to titles of books on this

science is the following:—

1. Aindra, attributed to Indra, the head of the angels.

2. Cândra, composed by Candra, one of the red-robe-wearing sect,

the followers of Buddha.

3. Śâkaṭa, so called by the name of its author. His tribe, too, is

called by a name derived from the same word, viz. Śâkaṭâyana.

4. Pâṇini, so called from its author.

5. Kâtantra, composed by Śarvavarman.

6. Śaśidevavṛitti, composed by Śaśideva.

7. Durgavivṛitti.

8. Śishyahitâvṛitti, composed by Ugrabhûti.

[Shâh Ânandapâla and his master Ugrabhûti.] I have been told that the

last-mentioned author was the teacher and instructor of Shâh

Ânandapâla, the son of Jayapâla, who ruled in our time. After having

composed the book he sent it to Kashmîr, but the people there did not

adopt it, being in such things haughtily conservative. Now he

complained of this to the Shâh, and the Shâh, in accordance with the

duty of a pupil towards his master, promised him to make him attain his

wish. So he gave orders to send 200,000 dirham and presents of a

similar value to Kashmîr, to be distributed among those who studied the

book of his master. The consequence was that they all rushed upon the

book, and would not copy any other grammar but this one, showing

themselves in the baseness of their avarice. The book became the

fashion and highly prized.

[Tale relating to the origin of grammar.] Of the origin of grammar they

give the following account:—One of their kings, called Samalvâhana,

i.e. in the classical language, Sâtavâhana, was one day in a pond

playing with his wives, when he said to one of them “Mâudakaṁ dehi,”

i.e. do not sprinkle the water on me. The woman, however, understood it

as if he had said modakaṁ dehi, i.e. bring sweetmeats. So she went away

and brought him sweetmeats. And when the king disapproved of her doing

so, she gave him an angry reply, and used coarse language towards him.

Now he was deeply offended, and, in consequence, as is their custom, he

abstained from all food, and concealed himself in some corner until he

was called upon by a sage, who consoled him, promising him that he

would teach people grammar and the inflexions of the language.

Thereupon the sage went off to Mahâdeva, praying, praising, and fasting

devoutly. Mahâdeva appeared to him, and communicated to him some few

rules, the like of which Abulʾaswad Adduʾalî has given for the Arabic

language. The god also promised to assist him in the further

development of this science. Then the sage returned to the king and

taught it to him. This was the beginning of the science of grammar.

[The predilection of the Hindus for metrical compositions.] Grammar is

followed by another science, called chandas, i.e. the metrical form of

poetry, corresponding to our metrics—a science indispensable to them,

since all their books are in verse. By composing their books [Page 66.]

in metres they intend to facilitate their being learned by heart, and

to prevent people in all questions of science ever recurring to a

written text, save in a case of bare necessity. For they think that the

mind of man sympathises with everything in which there is symmetry and

order, and has an aversion to everything in which there is no order.

Therefore most Hindus are passionately fond of their verses, and always

desirous of reciting them, even if they do not understand the meaning

of the words, and the audience will snap their fingers in token of joy

and applause. They do not want prose compositions, although it is much

easier to understand them.

Most of their books are composed in Śloka, in which I am now exercising

myself, being occupied in composing for the Hindus a translation of the

books of Euclid and of the Almagest, and dictating to them a treatise

on the construction of the astrolabe, being simply guided herein by the

desire of spreading science. If the Hindus happen to get some book

which does not yet exist among them, they set at work to change it into

Ślokas, which are rather unintelligible, since the metrical form

entails a constrained, affected style, which will become apparent when

we shall speak of their method of expressing numbers. And if the verses

are not sufficiently affected, their authors meet with frowning faces,

as having committed something like mere prose, and then they will feel

extremely unhappy. God will do me justice in what I say of them.

[Books on metrics.] The first who invented this art were Piṅgala and

چَلِتُ‎ (? C L T). The books on the subject are numerous. The most famous

of them is the book Gaisita (? G—AI—S—T), so called from its author,

famous to such a degree that even the whole science of metrics has been

called by this name. Other books are that of Mṛigalâñchana, that of

Piṅgala, and that of اولياند‎ (? Û (Au)—L—Y——N—D). I, however, have

not seen any of these books, nor do I know much of the chapter of the

Brahma-siddhânta which treats of metrical calculations, and therefore I

have no claim to a thorough knowledge of the laws of their metrics.

Nevertheless, I do not think it right to pass by a subject of which I

have only a smattering, and I shall not postpone speaking of it until I

shall have thoroughly mastered it.

[On the meaning of the technical terms laghu and guru.] In counting the

syllables (gaṇachandas) they use similar figures to those used by

Alkhalîl Ibn Aḥmad and our metricians to denote the consonant without

vowel and the consonant with vowel, viz. these two signs, | and >, the

former of which is called laghu, i.e. light; the latter, guru, i.e.

heavy. In measuring (mâtrâchandas), the guru is reckoned double of a

laghu, and its place may be filled by two laghu.

Further, they have a syllable which they call long (dîrgha), the

measure or prosody of which is equal to that of a guru. This, I think,

is a syllable with a long vowel (like kâ, kî, kû). Here, however, I

must confess that up to the present moment I have not been able to gain

a clear idea of the nature of both laghu and guru, so as to be able to

illustrate them by similar elements in Arabic. However, I am inclined

to think that laghu does not mean a consonant without vowel, nor guru a

consonant with vowel, but that, on the contrary, laghu means a

consonant with a short vowel (e.g. ka, ki, ku), and guru means the same

with a vowelless consonant (e.g. kat, kit, kut), like an element in

Arabic metrics called Sabab (i.e. – or ⏑⏑, a long syllable the place of

which may be taken by two short ones). That which makes me doubt as to

the first-mentioned definition of laghu is this circumstance, that the

Hindus use many laghu one after the other in an uninterrupted

succession. The Arabs are not capable of pronouncing two vowelless

consonants one after the other, but in other languages this is

possible. The Persian metricians, for instance, call such a consonant

moved by a light vowel (i.e. pronounced with a sound like the Hebrew

Schwa). But, in any case, if such consonants are more than three in

number, they are most difficult, nay, even impossible to pronounce;

whilst, on the other hand, there is not the slightest difficulty in

pronouncing an uninterrupted series of short syllables consisting of a

consonant with a short vowel, as when you say in Arabic, “Badanuka

kamathali ṣifatika wafamuka bisaʿati shafatika” (i.e. Thy body is like

thy description, and thy mouth depends upon the width of [Page 67.] thy

lip). Further, although it is difficult to pronounce a vowelless

consonant at the beginning of a word, most nouns of the Hindus begin,

if not exactly with vowelless consonants, still with such consonants as

have only a Schwa-like vowel-sound to follow them. If such a consonant

stands at the beginning of a verse, they drop it in counting, since the

law of the guru demands that in it the vowelless consonant shall not

precede but follow the vowel (ka-t, ki-t, ku-t).

[Definition of mâtrâ.] Further, as our people have composed out of the

feet (افاعيل‎) certain schemes or types, according to which verses are

constructed, and have invented signs to denote the component parts of a

foot, i.e. the consonant with and without a vowel, in like manner also

the Hindus use certain names to denote the feet which are composed of

laghu and guru, either the former preceding and the latter following or

vice versâ, in such a way, however, that the measure must always be the

same, whilst the number of syllables may vary. By these names they

denote a certain conventional prosodic unity (i.e. certain feet). By

measure, I mean that laghu is reckoned = one mâtrâ, i.e. measure, and

guru = two mâtrâ. If they represent a foot in writing, they only

express the measure of the syllables, not their number, as, e.g. (in

Arabic) a double consonant (kka) is counted as a consonant without

vowel plus a consonant with vowel, and a consonant followed by Tanwîn

(kun) is counted as a consonant with a vowel plus a consonant without

vowel, whilst in writing both are represented as one and the same thing

(i.e. by the sign of the consonant in question).

[Names of laghu and guru.] Taken alone by themselves, laghu and guru

are called by various names: the former, la, kali, rûpa, câmara, and

graha; the latter, ga, nîvra, and a half aṁśaka. The latter name shows

that a complete aṁśaka is equal to two guru or their equivalent. These

names they have invented simply to facilitate the versification of

their metrical books. For this purpose they have invented so many

names, that one may fit into the metre if others will not.

[The single feet.] The feet arising out of combinations of laghu and

guru are the following:—

Twofold both in number and measure is the foot | |, i.e. two syllables

and two mâtrâ.

Twofold in number, not in measure, are the feet, | < and < |; in

measure they are = three mâtrâ | | | (but, in number, only two

syllables).

The second foot < | (a trochee) is called kṛittikâ.

The quaternary feet are in each book called by different names:

< < paksha, i.e. the half month.

| | < jvalana, i.e. the fire.

| < | madhya (? madhu).

< | | parvata, i.e. the mountain, also called hâra and rasa.

| | | | ghana, i.e. the cube.

The feet consisting of five mâtrâ have manifold forms; those of them

which have special names are the following:—

| < < hastin, i.e. the elephant.

< | < kâma, i.e. the wish.

< < | (? lacuna).

| | | < kusuma.

A foot consisting of six mâtrâ is < < <.

Some people call these feet by the names of the chess figures, viz.:

jvalana = the elephant.

madhya = the tower.

parvata = the pawn.

ghana = the horse.

[On the arrangement of the feet. Quotation from Haribhaṭṭa.] In a

lexicographical work to which the author هَرِؤُدَّ‎ (? Haribhaṭṭa) has given

his own name, the feet composed of three laghu or guru are called by

single consonants, which in the following diagram are written on their

left:—

Diagram.

m < < < sixfold (i.e. containing six mâtrâ).

y | < < hastin.

r < | < kâma.

t < < | (? lacuna).

s | | < jvalana.

j | < | madhya.

bh < | | parvata.

n | | | threefold (i.e. containing three mâtrâ).

By means of these signs the author teaches how to construct these eight

feet by an inductive method (a kind of algebraic permutation), saying:

“Place one of the two kinds (guru and laghu) in [Page 68.] the first

line unmixed (that would be < < <, if we begin with a guru). Then mix

it with the second kind, and place one of this at the beginning of the

second line, whilst the two other elements are of the first kind (| <

<). Then place this element of admixture in the middle of the third

line (< | <), and lastly at the end of the fourth line (< < |). Then

you have finished the first half.

“Further, place the second kind in the lowest line, unmixed (| | |),

and mix up with the line above it one of the first kind, placing it at

the beginning of the line (< | |), then in the middle of the next

following line (| < |), and lastly at the end of the next following

line (| | <). Then the second half is finished, and all the possible

combinations of three mâtrâ have been exhausted.”

1. < < < }

2. | < < } First half.

3. < | < }

4. < < | }

5. | | < }

6. | < | } Second half.

7. < | | }

8. | | | }

This system of composition or permutation is correct, but his

calculation showing how to find that place which every single foot

occupies in this series of permutations is not in accordance with it.

For he says:

“Place the numeral 2 to denote each element of a foot (i.e. both guru

and laghu), once for all, so that every foot is represented by 2, 2, 2.

Multiply the left (number) by the middle, and the product by the right

one. If this multiplier (i.e. this number of the right side) is a

laghu, then leave the product as it is; but if it is a guru, subtract

one from the product.”

The author exemplifies this with the sixth foot, i.e. | < |. He

multiplies 2 by 2, and from the product (4) he subtracts 1. The

remaining 3 he multiplies by the third 2, and he gets the product of 6.

This, however, is not correct for most of the feet, and I am rather

inclined to believe that the text of the manuscript is corrupt.

The proper order of the feet would accordingly be the following:

I. II. III.

1. < < <

2. | < <

3. < | <

4. | | <

5. < < |

6. | < |

7. < | |

8. | | |

The mixture of the first line (No. I.) is such that one kind always

follows the other. In the second line (No. II.) two of one kind are

followed by two of the other; and in the third line (No. III.) four of

one kind are followed by four of the other.

Then the author of the above-mentioned calculation goes on to say: “If

the first element of the foot is a guru, subtract one before you

multiply. If the multiplier is a guru, subtract one from the product.

Thus you find the place which a foot occupies in this order.”

[On the pâdas.] As the Arabic verse is divided into two halves or

hemistichs by the ʿarûḍ, i.e. the last foot of the first hemistich, and

the ḍarb, i.e. the last foot of the second hemistich, in like manner

the verses of the Hindus are divided into two halves, each of which is

called foot (pâda). The Greeks, too, call them feet (lacuna),—those

words which are composed of it, συλλαβή, and the consonants with or

without vowels, with long, short, or doubtful vowels.

[On the metre Âryâ.] The verse is divided into three, or more commonly

into four pâda. Sometimes they add a fifth pâda in the middle of the

verse. The pâdas have no rhyme, but there is a kind of metre, in which

the 1 and 2 pâdas end with the same consonant or syllable as if rhyming

on it, and also the pâdas 3 and 4 end with the same consonant or

syllable. This kind is called [Page 69.] Âryâ. At the end of the pâda a

laghu may become a guru, though in general this metre ends with a

laghu.

The different poetical works of the Hindus contain a great number of

metres. In the metre of 5 pâda, the fifth pâda is placed between pâdas

3 and 4. The names of the metres differ according to the number of

syllables, and also according to the verses which follow. For they do

not like all the verses of a long poem to belong to one and the same

metre. They use many metres in the same poem, in order that it should

appear like an embroidered piece of silk.

The construction of the four pâdas in the four-pâda metre is the

following:—

Pâda I.

< < paksha = 1 aṁśaka.

< | | parvata.

| | < jvalana.

Pâda II.

< < paksha.

| | < jvalana.

| < | madhya.

< | | parvata.

< < paksha.

Pâda III.

< < paksha.

< | | parvata.

< < paksha.

Pâda IV.

< < paksha.

| | < jvalana.

| < | madhya.

< | | parvata.

| | < jvalana.

This is a representation of a species of their metres, called Skandha,

containing four pâda. It consists of two halves, and each half has

eight aṁśaka.

Of the single aṁśaka, the 1st, 3d, and 5th can never be a madhya, i.e.

< |, and the 6th must always be either a madhya or a ghana. If this

condition is adhered to, the other aṁśakas may be anything at all, just

as accident or the fancy of the poet wills it. However, the metre must

always be complete, neither more nor less. Therefore, observing the

rules as to the formation of certain aṁśakas in the single pâdas, we

may represent the four pâdas in the following manner:—

Pâda I. < < < | | | | <.

Pâda II. < < | | < | < | < | | < <.

Pâda III. < < < | < <. [Page 70.]

Pâda IV. < < | < < | < | < | | | | <.

According to this pattern the verse is composed.

[Arab and Hindu notation of a metre.] If you represent an Arabic metre

by these signs of the Hindus, you will find that they mean something

entirely different from what the Arabic signs mean which denote a

consonant with a short vowel and a consonant without a vowel. (The

Arabic sign | means a consonant without a vowel; the Hindu sign | means

a short syllable; the Arabic sign o means a consonant followed by a

short vowel; the Hindu sign < means a long syllable.) As an example,

we give a representation of the regular complete Khafîf metre,

representing each foot by derivations of the root فعل‎.

Metrum Khafîf.

(1.) فَاعِلَاتُنْ‎ مُسْتَفْعِلُنْ‎ فَاعِلَاتُنْ‎,

represented by derivations of the root فعل‎.

(2.) | 0 | 00 | 0 | 0 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 00 | 0,

represented by Arabic signs.

(3.) < < | < < | < < < < | <,

represented by the signs of the Hindus.

We give the latter signs in an inverted order, since the Hindus read

from the left to the right.

I have already once pleaded as my excuse, and do so here a second time,

that my slender knowledge of this science does not enable me to give

the reader a complete insight into the subject. Still I take the

greatest pains with it, though I am well aware that it is only very

little I can give.

[On the metre Vṛitta.] The name Vṛitta applies to each four-pâda metre

in which the signs of both the prosody and the number of the syllables

are like each other, according to a certain correspondence of the pâdas

among themselves, so that if you know one pâda, you know also the other

ones, for they are like it. Further, there is a law that a pâda cannot

have less than four syllables, since a pâda with less does not occur in

the Veda. For the same reason the smallest number of the syllables of a

pâda is four, the largest twenty-six. In consequence, there are

twenty-three varieties of the Vṛitta metre, which we shall here

enumerate:—

1. The pâda has four heavy syllables (guru), and here you cannot put

two laghu in the place of one guru.

2. The nature of the second kind of the pâda is not clear to me, so I

omit it.

3. This pâda is built of

ghana + paksha.

| | | | < <

4. = 2 guru + 2 laghu + 3 guru.

< < | | < < <

It would be better to describe this pâda as = paksha + jvalana +

paksha.

5. = 2 kṛittikâ + jvalana + paksha.

< | < | | | < < <

[Page 71.]

6. = ghana + madhya + paksha.

| | | | | < | < <

7. = ghana + parvata + jvalana.

| | | | < | | | | <

8. = kâma, kusuma, jvalana, guru.

< | < | | | < | | < <

9. = paksha, hastin, jvalana, madhya, 2 guru.

< < | < < | | < | < | < <

10. = paksha, parvata, jvalana, madhya, paksha.

< < < | | | | < | < | < <

11. = paksha, madhya, 2 jvalana, hastin.

< < | < | | | < | | < | < <

12. = ghana, jvalana, paksha, 2 hastin.

| | | | | | < < < | < < | < <

13. = parvata, kâma, kusuma, madhya, jvalana.

< | | < | < | | | < | < | | | <

14. = hastin, paksha, parvata, kusuma, parvata, laghu, guru.

| < < < < < | | | | | < < | | | <

15. = 2 paksha, parvata, kusuma, 2 kâma, guru.

< < < < < | | | | | < < | < < | < <

16. = paksha, parvata, kâma, kusuma, paksha, laghu, guru.

< < < | | < | < | | | < < < | <

17. = 2 paksha, parvata, ghana, jvalana, paksha, kusuma.

< < < < < | | | | | | | | < < < | | | <

18. = 2 paksha, parvata, ghana, jvalana, 2 kâma, guru.

< < < < < | | | | | | | | < < | < < | < <

19. = guru, 2 paksha, parvata, ghana, jvalana, 2 kâma, guru.

< < < < < < | | | | | | | | < < | < < | < <

20. = 4 paksha, jvalana, madhya, paksha, 2 madhya, guru.

< < < < < < < < | | < | < | < < | < | | < | <

21. = 4 paksha, 3 jvalana, 2 madhya, guru.

< < < < < < < < | | | | < | < | | < | <

22. = 4 paksha, kusuma, madhya, jvalana, 2 madhya, guru.

< < < < < < < < | | | < | < | | | < | < | | < | <