BRAHMANISM.
Besides the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda there are two others, called
respectively the S[=a]ma Veda and the Yajur Veda.[1] The former
consists of a small collection of verses, which are taken chiefly from
the eighth and ninth books of the Rig Veda, and are arranged for
singing. It has a few more verses than are contained in the
corresponding parts of the Rik, but the whole is of no added
importance from the present point of view. It is of course made
entirely for the ritual. Also made for the ritual is the Yajur Veda,
the Veda of sacrificial formulae. But this Veda is far more important.
With it one is brought into a new land, and into a world of ideas that
are strange to the Rik. The period represented by it is a sort of
bridge between the Rik and the Br[=a]hmanas. The Yajus is later than
Rik or Atharvan, belonging in its entirety more to the age of the
liturgy than to the older Vedic era. With the Br[=a]hmanas not only is
the tone changed from that of the Rig Veda; the whole moral atmosphere
is now surcharged with hocus-pocus, mysticism, religiosity, instead of
the cheerful, real religion which, however formal, is the soul of the
Rik. In the Br[=a]hmanas there is no freshness, no poetry. There is in
some regards a more scrupulous outward morality, but for the rest
there is only cynicism, bigotry, and dullness. It is true that each of
these traits may be found in certain parts of the Rig Veda, but it is
not true that they represent there the spirit of the age, as they do
in the Brahmanic period. Of this Brahmanic stoa, to which we now turn,
the Yajur Veda forms the fitting entrance. Here the priest is as much
lord as he is in the Br[=a]hmanas. Here the sacrifice is only the act,
the sacrificial forms (_yajus_), without the spirit.
In distinction from the verse-Veda (the Rik), the Yajur Veda contains
the special formulae which the priest that attends to the erection of
the altar has to speak, with explanatory remarks added thereto. This
of course stamps the collection as mechanical; but the wonder is that
this collection, with the similar Br[=a]hmana scriptures that follow
it, should be the only new literature which centuries have to show.[2]
As explanatory of the sacrifice there is found, indeed, a good deal of
legendary stuff, which sometimes has a literary character. But nothing
is for itself; everything is for the correct performance of the
sacrifice.[3]
The geographical centre is now changed, and instead of the Punj[=a]b,
the 'middle district' becomes the seat of culture. Nor is there much
difference between the district to which can be referred the rise of
the Yajur Veda and that of the Br[=a]hmanas. No less altered is the
religion. All is now symbolical, and the gods, though in general they
are the gods of the Rig Veda, are not the same as of old. The priests
have become gods. The old appellation of 'spirit,' _asura_, is
confined to evil spirits. There is no longer any such 'henotheism' as
that of the Rig Veda. The Father-god, 'lord of beings,' or simply 'the
father,' is the chief god. The last thought of the Rig Veda is the
first thought of the Yajur Veda. Other changes have taken place. The
demigods of the older period, the water-nymphs of the Rik, here become
seductive goddesses, whose increase of power in this art agrees with
the decline of the warrior spirit that is shown too in the whole mode
of thinking. Most important is the gradual rise of Vishnu and the
first appearance of Çiva. Here _brahma_, which in the Rik has the
meaning 'prayer' alone, is no longer mere prayer, but, as in later
literature, holiness. In short, before the Br[=a]hmanas are reached
they are perceptible in the near distance, in the Veda of Formulae,
the Yajus;[4] for between the Yajur Veda and the Br[=a]hmanas there is
no essential difference. The latter consist of explanations of the
sacrificial liturgy, interspersed with legends, bits of history,
philosophical explanations, and other matter more or less related to
the subject. They are completed by the Forest Books, [=A]ranyakas,
which contain the speculations of the later theosophy, the Upanishads
(below). It is with the Yajur Veda and its nearly related literature,
the Br[=a]hmanas, that Brahmanism really begins. Of these latter the
most important in age and content are the Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig
Veda and Yajur Veda), called [=A]itareya and Çata-patha, the former
representing the western district, the latter, in great part, a more
eastern region.
Although the 'Northerners' are still respectfully referred to, yet, as
we have just said, the people among whom arose the Br[=a]hmanas are
not settled in the Punj[=a]b, but in the country called the 'middle
district,' round about the modern Delhi. For the most part the
Punj[=a]b is abandoned; or rather, the literature of this period does
not emanate from the Aryans that remained in the Punj[=a]b, but from
the still emigrating descendants of the old Vedic people that used to
live there. Some stay behind and keep the older practices, not in all
regards looked upon as orthodox by their more advanced brethren, who
have pushed east and now live in the country called the land of the
Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las.[5] They are spread farther east, along the
banks of the Jumna and Ganges, south of Nep[=a]l; while some are still
about and south of the holy Kurukshetra or 'plain of Kurus.' East of
the middle district the Kosalas and Videhas form, in opposition to the
Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las, the second great tribe (Tirh[=u]t). There
are now two sets of 'Seven Rivers,' and the holiness of the western
group is perceptibly lessened. Here for the first time are found the
_Vr[=a]tya_-hymns, intended to initiate into the Brahmanic order
Aryans who have not conformed to it, and speak a dialectic
language.[6] From the point of view of language and geography, no less
than from that of the social and spiritual conditions, it is evident
that quite a period has elapsed since the body of the Rig Veda was
composed. The revealed texts are now ancient storehouses of wisdom.
Religion has apparently become a form; in some regards it is a farce.
"There are two kinds of gods; for the gods are gods, and priests that
are learned in the Veda and teach it are human gods." This sentence,
from one of the most important Hindu prose works,[7] is the key to the
religion of the period which it represents; and it is fitly followed
by the further statement, that like sacrifice to the gods are the fees
paid to the human gods the priests.[8] Yet with this dictum, so
important for the understanding of the religion of the age, must be
joined another, if one would do that age full justice: 'The sacrifice
is like a ship sailing heavenward; if there be a sinful priest in it,
that one priest would make it sink' (_Çat. Br_. IV. 2. 5. 10). For
although the time is one in which ritualism had, indeed, become more
important than religion, and the priest more important than the gods,
yet is there no lack of reverential feeling, nor is morality regarded
as unimportant. The first impression, however, which is gained from
the literature of this period is that the sacrifice is all in all;
that the endless details of its course, and the petty questions in
regard to its arrangement, are not only the principal objects of care
and of chief moment, but even of so cardinal importance that the whole
religious spirit swings upon them. But such is not altogether the
case. It is the truth, yet is it not the whole truth, that in these
Br[=a]hmanas religion is an appearance, not a reality. The sacrifice
is indeed represented to be the only door to prosperity on earth and
to future bliss; but there is a quiet yet persistent belief that at
bottom a moral and religious life is quite as essential as are the
ritualistic observances with which worship is accompanied.
To describe Brahmanism as implying a religion that is purely one of
ceremonies, one composed entirely of observances, is therefore not
altogether correct. In reading a liturgical work it must not be
forgotten for what the work was intended. If its object be simply to
inculcate a special rite, one cannot demand that it should show
breadth of view or elevation of sentiment. Composed of observances
every work must be of which the aim is to explain observances. In
point of fact, religion (faith and moral behavior) is here assumed,
and so entirely is it taken for granted that a statement emphasizing
the necessity of godliness is seldom found.
Nevertheless, having called attention to the religious spirit that
lies latent in the pedantic Br[=a]hmanas, we are willing to
admit that the age is overcast, not only with a thick cloud of
ritualism, but also with an unpleasant mask of phariseeism. There
cannot have been quite so much attention paid to the outside of the
platter without neglect of the inside. And it is true that the priests
of this period strive more for the completion of their rites than for
the perfection of themselves. It is true, also, that occasionally
there is a revolting contempt for those people who are not of especial
service to the priest. There are now two godlike aristocrats, the
priest and the noble. The 'people' are regarded as only fit to be the
"food of the nobility." In the symbolical language of the time the
bricks of the altar, which are consecrated, are the warrior caste; the
fillings, in the space between the bricks, are not consecrated; and
these "fillers of space" are "the people" (_Çat. Br_. VI. 1. 2. 25).
Yet is religion in these books not dead, but sleeping; to wake again
in the Upanishads with a fuller spiritual life than is found in any
other pre-Christian system. Although the subject matter of the
Br[=a]hmanas is the cult, yet are there found in them numerous
legends, moral teachings, philosophical fancies, historical items,
etymologies and other adventitious matter, all of which are helpful in
giving a better understanding of the intelligence of the people to
whom is due all the extant literature of the period. Long citations
from these ritualistic productions would have a certain value, in
showing in native form the character of the works, but they would make
unendurable reading; and we have thought it better to arrange the
multifarious contents of the chief Br[=a]hmanas in a sort of order,
although it is difficult always to decide where theology ends and
moral teachings begin, the two are here so interwoven.
BRAHMANIC THEOLOGY AND THE SACRIFICE.
While in general the pantheon of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda is that
of the Br[=a]hmanas, some of the older gods are now reduced in
importance, and, on the other hand, as in the Yajur Veda, some gods
are seen to be growing in importance. 'Time,' deified in the Atharvan,
is a great god, but beside him still stand the old rustic divinities;
and chrematheism, which antedates even the Rig Veda, is still
recognized. To the 'ploughshare' and the 'plough' the Rig Veda has an
hymn (IV. 57. 5-8), and so the ritual gives them a cake at the
sacrifice (_Çun[=a]ç[=i]rya, Çat. Br._ II. 6. 3. 5). The number of the
gods, in the Rig Veda estimated as thirty-three, or, at the end of
this period, as thousands, remains as doubtful as ever; but, in
general, all groups of deities become greater in number. Thus, in TS.
I. 4. 11. 1, the Rudras alone are counted as thirty-three instead of
eleven; and, _ib._ V. 5. 2. 5, the eight Vasus become three hundred
and thirty-three; but it is elsewhere hinted that the number of the
gods stands in the same relation to that of men as that in which men
stand to the beasts; that is, there are not quite so many gods as men
(_Çat. Br._ II. 3. 2. 18).
Of more importance than the addition of new deities is the subdivision
of the old. As one finds in Greece a [Greek: Zeus katachthonios]
beside a [Greek: Zeus xenios], so in the Yajur Veda and Br[=a]hmanas
are found (an extreme instance) hail 'to K[=a]ya,' and hail 'to
Kasm[=a]i,' that is, the god Ka is differentiated into two divinities,
according as he is declined as a noun or as a pronoun; for this is the
god "Who?" as the dull Br[=a]hmanas interpreted that verse of the Rig
Veda which asks 'to whom (which, as) god shall we offer sacrifice?'
(M[=a]it. S. III. 12. 5.) But ordinarily one divinity like Agni is
subdivided, according to his functions, as 'lord of food,' 'lord of
prayer,' etc.[9]
In the Br[=a]hmanas different names are given to the chief god, but he
is most often called the Father-god (Praj[=a]pati, 'lord of
creatures,' or the Father, _pit[=a]_). His earlier Vedic type is
Brihaspati, the lord of strength, and, from another point of
view, the All-god.[10] The other gods fall into various groups, the
most significant being the triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun.[11] Not much
weight is to be laid on the theological speculations of the time as
indicative of primitive conceptions, although they may occasionally
hit true. For out of the number of inane fancies it is reasonable to
suppose that some might coincide with historic facts. Thus the
All-gods of the Rig Veda, by implication, are of later origin than the
other gods, and this, very likely, was the case; but it is a mere
guess on the part of the priest. The _Çatapatha_, III. 6. 1. 28,
speaks of the All-gods as gods that gained immortality on a certain
occasion, _i.e._, became immortal like other gods. So the [=A]dityas
go to heaven before the Angirasas (_[=A][=i]t. Br_. IV. 17), but this
has no such historical importance as some scholars are inclined to
think. The lesser gods are in part carefully grouped and numbered, in
a manner somewhat contradictory to what must have been the earlier
belief. Thus the 'three kinds of gods' are now Vasus, of earth,
Rudras, of air, and [=A]dityas, of sky, and the daily offerings are
divided between them; the morning offering belonging only to the
Vasus, the mid-day one only to (Indra and) the Rudras, the third to
the [=A]dityas with the Vasus and Rudras together.[12] Again, the
morning and mid-day pressing belong to the gods alone, and strict rule
is observed in distinguishing their portion from that of the Manes
(_Çat. Br_. IV. 4. 22). The difference of sex is quite ignored, so
that the 'universal Agni' is identified with (mother) earth; as is
also, once or twice, P[=u]shan (_ib._ III. 8. 5. 4; 2. 4. 19; II. 5.
4. 7). As the 'progenitor,' Agni facilitates connubial union, and is
called "the head god, the progenitor among gods, the lord of beings"
(_ib._ III. 4. 3. 4; III. 9. 1. 6). P[=u]shan is interpreted to mean
cattle, and Brihaspati is the priestly caste (_ib_. III. 9. 1. 10
ff.). The base of comparison is usually easy to find. 'The earth
nourishes,' and 'P[=u]shan nourishes,' hence Pushan is the earth; or
'the earth belongs to all' and Agni is called 'belonging to all'
(universal), hence the two are identified. The All-gods, merely on
account of their name, are now the All; Aditi is the 'unbounded' earth
(_ib_. III. 9. 1. 13; IV. 1. 1. 23; i. 1. 4. 5; III. 2. 3. 6). Agni
represents all the gods, and he is the dearest, the closest, and the
surest of all the gods (_ib_. I. 6. 2. 8 ff.). It is said that man on
earth fathers the fire (that is, protects it), and when he dies the
fire that he has made his son on earth becomes his father, causing him
to be reborn in heaven (_ib_. II. 3. 3. 3-5; VI. 1. 2. 26).
The wives of the gods _(dev[=a]n[=a]m patn[=i]r yajati)_, occasionally
mentioned in the Rig Veda, have now an established place and cult
apart from that of the gods (_ib_. I. 9. 2. 11). The fire on the
hearth is god Agni in person, and is not a divine or mystic type; but
he is prayed to as a heavenly friend. Some of these traits are old,
but they are exaggerated as compared with the more ancient theology.
When one goes on a journey or returns from one, 'even if a king were
in his house' he should not greet him till he makes homage to his
hearth-fires, either with spoken words or with silent obeisance. For
Agni and Praj[=a]pati are one, they are son and father (_ib_. II. 4.
1. 3, 10; VI. 1. 2. 26). The gods have mystic names, and these 'who
will dare to speak?' Thus, Indra's mystic name is Arjuna (_ib_. II. 1.
2. 11). In the early period of the Rig Veda the priest dares to speak.
The pantheism of the end of the Rig Veda is here decided and
plain-spoken, as it is in the Atharvan. As it burns brightly or not
the fire is in turn identified with different gods, Rudra, Varuna,
Indra, and Mitra (_ib_. II. 3. 2. 9 ff.). Agni is all the gods and the
gods are in men (_ib_. III. 1. 3. 1; 4. 1. 19; II. 3. 2. 1: Indra and
King Yama dwell in men). And, again, the Father (Praj[=a]pati) is the
All; he is the year of twelve months and five seasons(_ib_. I. 3. 5.
10). Then follows a characteristic bit. Seventeen verses are to be
recited to correspond to the 'seventeenfold' Praj[=a]pati. But 'some
say' twenty-one verses; and he may recite twenty-one, for if 'the
three worlds' are added to the above seventeen one gets twenty, and
the sun (_ya esa tapati_) makes the twenty-first! As to the number of
worlds, it is said (_ib_. I. 2. 4. 11, 20-21) that there are three
worlds, and possibly a fourth.
Soma is now the moon, but as being one half of Vritra, the evil demon.
The other half became the belly of creatures (_ib_. I. 6. 3. 17).
Slightly different is the statement that Soma was Vritra, IV. 2. 5.
15. In _[=A]it. Br._ I. 27, King Soma is bought of the Gandharvas by
V[=a]c, 'speech,' as a cow.[13] With phases of the moon Indra and Agni
are identified. One is the deity of the new; the other, of the full
moon; while Mitra is the waning, and Varuna the waxing moon (_Çat.
Br._ II. 4. 4. 17-18). This opposition of deities is more fully
expressed in the attempt to make antithetic the relations of the gods
and the Manes, thus: 'The gods are represented by spring, summer, and
rains; the Fathers, by autumn, winter, and the dewy season; the gods,
by the waxing; the Fathers, by the waning moon; the gods, by day; the
Fathers, by night; the gods, by morning; the Fathers, by afternoon'
(_Çat. Br._ II. 1.-31; _ib_. II. 4. 2. 1. ff.: 'The sun is the light
of the gods; the moon, of the Fathers; fire, of men'). Between morning
and afternoon, as representative of gods and Manes respectively,
stands midday, which, according to the same authority (II. 4. 2. 8),
represents men. The passage first cited continues thus: 'The seasons
are gods and Fathers; gods are immortal; the Fathers are mortal.' In
regard to the relation between spring and the other seasons, the fifth
section of this passage may be compared: 'Spring is the priesthood;
summer, the warrior-caste; the rains are the (_viç_) people.'[14]
Among the conspicuous divine forms of this period is the Queen of
Serpents, whose verses are chanted over fire; but she is the earth,
according to some passages (_[=A]it. Br._. V. 23; _Çat. Br._ II. 1. 4.
30; IV. 6. 9. 17). In their divine origin there is, indeed, according
to the theology now current, no difference between the powers of light
and of darkness, between the gods and the 'spirits,' _asuras, i.e._,
evil spirits. Many tales begin with the formula: 'The gods and evil
spirits, both born of the Father-god' (_Çat. Br._ I. 2. 4. 8). Weber
thinks that this implies close acquaintance with Persian worship, a
sort of tit-for-tat; for the Hindu would in that case call the holy
spirit, _ahura_, of the Persian a devil, just as the Persian makes an
evil spirit, _daeva_, out of the Hindu god, _deva_. But the relations
between Hindu and Persian in this period are still very uncertain. It
is interesting to follow out some of the Brahmanic legends, if only to
see what was the conception of the evil spirits. In one such
theological legend the gods and the (evil) spirits, both being sons of
the Father-god, inherited from him, respectively, mind and speech;
hence the gods got the sacrifice and heaven, while the evil spirits
got this earth. Again, the two entered on the inheritance of their
father in time, and so the gods have the waxing moon, and the evil
spirits, the waning moon (_ib._ III 2. 1. 18; I. 7. 2. 22).
But what these Asuras or (evil) spirits really are may be read easily
from the texts. The gods are the spirits of light; the Asuras are the
spirits of darkness. Therewith is indissolubly connected the idea that
sin and darkness are of the same nature. So one reads that when the
sun rises it frees itself 'from darkness, from sin,' as a snake from
its slough (_ib._ II. 3. I. 6). And in another passage it is said that
darkness and illusion were given to the Asuras as their portion by the
Father-god _(ib._ II. 4. 2. 5). With this may be compared also the
frequent grouping of The Asuras or Rakshas with darkness (_e.g., ib._
III. 8. 2. 15; IV. 3. 4. 21). As to the nature of the gods the
evidence is contradictóry. Both gods and evil spirits were originally
soulless and mortal. Agni (Fire) alone was immortal, and it was only
through him that the others continued to live. They became immortal by
putting in their inmost being the holy (immortal) fire (_ib._ II. 2.
2. 8). On the other hand, it is said that Agni was originally without
brightness; and Indra, identified with the sun, was originally dark
(_ib._ IV. 5.4.3; III. 4. 2. 15). The belief in an originally human
condition of the gods (even the Father-god was originally mortal) is
exemplified in a further passage, where it is said that the gods used
to live on earth, but they grew tired of man's endless petitions and
fled; also in another place, where it is stated that the gods used to
drink together with men visibly, but now they do so invisibly (_ib_.
II. 3. 4. 4; III. 6. 2. 26). How did such gods obtain their supremacy?
The answer is simple, 'by sacrifice' (_Çat. Br_. III. 1. 4. 3;
_[=A]it. Br_. II. I. I). So now they live by sacrifice: 'The sun would
not rise if the priest did not make sacrifice' (_Çat. Br_. II. 3. 1.
5). Even the order of things would change if the order of ceremonial
were varied: Night would be eternal if the priests did so and so; the
months would not pass, one following the other, if the priests walked
out or entered together, etc. (_ib._ IV. 3. 1. 9-10). It is by a
knowledge of the Vedas that one conquers all things, and the sacrifice
is part and application of this knowledge, which in one passage is
thus reconditely subdivided: 'Threefold is knowledge, the Rig Veda,
the Yajur Veda, and the S[=a]ma Veda.[15] The Rig Veda, _i.e_., the
verses sung, are the earth; the Yajus is air; the S[=a]man is the sky.
He conquers earth, air, and sky respectively by these three Vedas. The
Rik and S[=a]man are Indra and are speech; the Yajus is Vishnu and
mind' (_ib._ IV. 6. 7. 1 ff.). An item follows that touches on a
modern philosophical question. Apropos of speech and mind: 'Where
speech (alone) existed everything was accomplished and known; but
where mind (alone) existed nothing was accomplished or known' (_ib._
I. 4. 4. 3-4, 7). Mind and speech are male and female, and as
yoke-fellows bear sacrificed to the gods; to be compared is the
interesting dispute between mind and speech (_ib._ 5. 8). As dependent
as is man on what is given by the gods, so dependent are the gods on
what is offered to them by men (_T[=a]itt. Br._ II. 2. 7. 3; _Çat.
Br._ I. 2. 5. 24). Even the gods are now not native to heaven. They
win heaven by sacrifice, by metres, etc. (_Çat. Br._ IV. 3. 2. 5).
What, then, is the sacrifice? A means to enter into the godhead of the
gods, and even to control the gods; a ceremony where every word was
pregnant with consequences;[16] every movement momentous. There are
indications, however, that the priests themselves understood that much
in the ceremonial was pure hocus-pocus, and not of such importance as
it was reputed to be. But such faint traces as survive of a freer
spirit objecting to ceremonial absurdities only mark more clearly the
level plain of unintelligent superstition which was the feeding-ground
of the ordinary priests.
Some of the cases of revolted common-sense are worth citing.
Conspicuous as an authority on the sacrifice, and at the same time as
a somewhat recalcitrant priest, is Y[=a]j[.n]avalkya, author and
critic, one of the greatest names in Hindu ecclesiastical history. It
was he who, apropos of the new rule in ethics, so strongly insisted
upon after the Vedic age and already beginning to obtain, the rule
that no one should eat the flesh of the (sacred) cow ('Let no one eat
beef.... Whoever eats it would be reborn (on earth) as a man of ill
fame') said bluntly: 'As for me I eat (beef) if it is good (firm).[17]
It certainly required courage to say this, with the especial warning
against beef, the meat of an animal peculiarly holy (_Çat. Br._ III.
I. 2. 21). It was, again, Y[=a]jñavalkya (_Çat. Br_., I. 3. I. 26),
who protested against the priests' new demand that the benefit of the
sacrifice should accrue in part to the priest; whereas it had
previously been understood that not the sacrificial priest but the
sacrificer (the worshipper, the man who hired the priest and paid the
expenses) got all the benefit of the ceremony. Against the priests'
novel and unjustifiable claim Y[=a]jñavalkya exclaims: 'How can people
have faith in this? Whatever be the blessing for which the priests
pray, this blessing is for the worshipper (sacrificer) alone.[18] It
was Y[=a]jñavalkya, too, who rebutted some new superstition involving
the sacrificer's wife, with the sneer, 'who cares whether the wife,'
etc. (_kas tad [=a]driyeta, ib._ 21). These protestations are naïvely
recorded, though it is once suggested that in some of his utterances
Y[=a]jñavalkya was not in earnest (_ib._ IV. 2. 1. 7). The high mind
of this great priest is contrasted with the mundane views of his
contemporaries in the prayers of himself and of another priest; for it
is recorded that whereas Y[=a]jñavalkya's prayer to the Sun was 'give
me light' (or 'glory,' _varco me dehi_), that of [=A]upoditeya was
'give me cows' (_ib_. I. 9. 3. 16). The chronicler adds, after citing
these prayers, that one obtains whatever he prays for, either
illumination or wealth.[19] Y[=a]jñavalkya, however, is not the only
protestant. In another passage, _ib_. ii. 6. 3. 14-17, the sacrificer
is told to shave his head all around, so as to be like the sun; this
will ensure his being able to 'consume (his foes) on all sides like
the sun,' and it is added: But [=A]suri said, 'What on earth has it to
do with his head? Let him not shave.'[20]
'Eternal holiness' is won by him that offers the sacrifice of the
seasons. Characteristic is the explanation, 'for such an one wins the
year, and a year is a complete whole, and a complete whole is
indestructible (eternal); hence his holiness is indestructible, and he
thereby becomes a part of a year and goes to the gods; but as there is
no destruction in the gods, his holiness is therefore indestructible'
(_ib._ ii. 6. 3. 1).
Not only a man's self but also his Manes are benefited by means of
sacrifice.[21] He gives the Manes pleasure with his offering, but he
also raises their estate, and sends them up to live in a higher
world.[22] The cosmological position of the Manes are the
_av[=a]ntaradiças_, that is, between the four quarters; though,
according to some, there are three kinds of them, _soma_-Manes,
sacrifice-Manes (Manes of the sacrificial straw), and the burnt,
_i.e_., the spirits of those that have been consumed in fire. They
are, again, identified with the seasons, and are expressly mentioned
as the guardians of houses, so that the Brahmanic Manes are at once
Penates, Lares, and Manes.[23]
The sacrifice is by no means meant as an aid to the acquirement of
heavenly bliss alone. Many of the great sacrifices are for the gaining
of good things on earth. In one passage there is described a ceremony,
the result of which is to be that the warrior, who is the sacrificer,
may say to a man of the people "fetch out and give me your store"
(_ib._ i. 3. 2. 15; iv. 3. 3. 10). Everybody sacrifices, even the
beasts erect altars and fires![24] That one should sacrifice without
the ulterior motive of gain is unknown. Brahmanic India knows no
thank-offering. Ordinarily the gain is represented as a compensating
gift from the divinity, whom the sacrificer pleases with his
sacrifice. Very plainly is this expressed. "He offers the sacrifice to
the god with this text: 'Do thou give to me (and) I (will) give to
thee; do thou bestow on me (and) I (will) bestow on thee'" (_V[=a]j.
S._ iii. 50; _Çat. Br_. ii. 5. 3. 19). But other ends are
accomplished. By the sacrifice he may injure his enemy, but in
offering it, if he leaves too much over, that part accrues to the good
of his foe (_Çat. Br_. i. 2. 1.7; 9. 1. 18).
The sacrifice is throughout symbolical. The sacrificial straw
represents the world; the metre used represents all living creatures,
etc.,--a symbolism frequently suggested by a mere pun, but often as
ridiculously expounded without such aid. The altar's measure is the
measure of metres. The cord of regeneration (badge of the twice-born,
the holy cord of the high castes) is triple, because food is
threefold, or because the father and mother with the child make three
(_Çat. Br._ iii. 5. 1. 7 ff.; 2. 1. 12); the _jagati_ metre contains
the living world, because this is called _jagat_ (_ib._ i. 8. 2. 11).
Out of the varied mass of rules, speculations, and fancies, a few of
general character may find place here, that the reader may gain a
collective impression of the religious literature of the time.
The fee for the sacrifice is mentioned in one place as one thousand
cows. These must be presented in groups of three hundred and
thirty-three each, three times, with an odd one of three colors. This
is on account of the holy character of the numeral three. 'But
[=A]suri (apparently fearful that this rule would limit the fee) said
"he may give more"' (_Çat. Br._ iv. 5. 8. 14). As to the fee, the
rules are precise and their propounders are unblushing. The priest
performs the sacrifice for the fee alone, and it must consist of
valuable garments, kine, horses,[25] or gold--when each is to be given
is carefully stated. Gold is coveted most, for this is 'immortality,'
'the seed of Agni,' and therefore peculiarly agreeable to the pious
priest.[26] For his greed, which goes so far that he proclaims that he
who gives a thousand kine obtains all things of heaven (_ib._ iv. 5.
1. 11), the priest has good precept to cite, for the gods of heaven,
in all the tales told of them, ever demand a reward from each other
when they help their neighbor-gods. Nay, even the gods require a
witness and a vow, lest they injure each other. Discord arose among
them when once they performed the guest-offering; they divided into
different parties, Agni with the Vasus, Soma with the Rudras, Varuna
with the [=A]dityas, and Indra with the Maruts. But with discord came
weakness, and the evil spirits got the better of them. So they made a
covenant with each other, and took Wind as witness that they would not
deceive each other. This famous covenant of the gods is the prototype
of that significant covenant made by the priest, that he would not,
while pretending to beseech } good for the sacrificer,[27] secretly do
him harm (as he could by altering the ceremonial).[28] The theory of
the fee, in so far as it affects the sacrifices, is that the gods, the
Manes, and men all exist by what is sacrificed. Even the gods seek
rewards; hence the priests do the same.[29] The sacrificer sacrifices
to get a place in _devaloka_ (the world of the gods). The sacrifice
goes up to the world of gods, and after it goes the fee which the
sacrificer (the patron) gives; the sacrificer follows by catching hold
of the fee given to the priests (_ib._. i. 9. 3. 1). It is to be
noted, moreover, that sacrificing for a fee is recognized as a
profession. The work (sacrifice is work, 'work is sacrifice,' it is
somewhere said) is regarded as a matter of business. There are three
means of livelihood occasionally referred to, telling stories, singing
songs, and reciting the Veda at a sacrifice (_Çat. Br_. iii. 2. 4.
16).
As an example of the absurdities given as 'the ways of knowledge'
(absurdities which are necessary to know in order to a full
understanding of the mental state under consideration) may be cited
_Çat. Br_. iv. 5. 8. 11, where it is said that if the sacrificial cow
goes east the sacrificer wins a good world hereafter; if north, he
becomes more glorious on earth; if west, rich in people and crops; if
south, he dies; 'such are the ways of knowledge.' In the same spirit
it is said that the sun rises east because the priest repeats certain
verses _([=A]it. Br_. i. 7. 4). No little stress is laid on
geographical position. The east is the quarter of the gods; the north,
of men; the south, of the dead (Manes; _Çat. Br_. i. 2. 5. 17); while
the west is the region of snakes, according to _ib_. iii. 1. 1. 7. On
account of the godly nature of the east ("from the east came the gods
westward to men," _ib_. ii. 6. 1. 11) the sacrificial building, like
occidental churches, is built east and west, not north and south. The
cardinal points are elsewhere given to certain gods; thus the north is
Rudra's.[30]
It has been said that the theological ideas are not clear. This was
inevitable, owing to the tendency to identify various divinities.
Especially noticeable is the identification of new or local gods with
others better accredited, Rudra and Agni, etc. Rudra is the god of
cattle, and when the other gods went to heaven by means of sacrifice
he remained on earth; his local names are Çarva, Bhava, 'Beast-lord,'
Rudra, Agni (_Çat. Br_. i. 7. 3. 8; M[=a]it. S. i. 6. 6). Indra is the
Vasu of the gods. The gods are occasionally thirty-four in number,
eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve [=A]dityas, heaven and earth, and
Praj[=a]pati as the thirty-fourth; but this Praj[=a]pati is the All
and Everything (_Çat. Br_. i. 6. 4. 2; iv. 5. 7. 2 ff.). Of these
gods, who at first were all alike and good, three became superior,
Agni, Indra, and S[=u]rya. But, again, the Sun is death, and Agni is
head of all the gods. Moreover, the Sun is now Indra; the Manes are
the seasons, and Varuna, too, is the seasons, as being the year (_Çat.
Br._ iv. 5. 4. 1; i. 6. 4. 18; iv. 4. 5. 18). Aditi, as we have said,
is the Earth; the fee for an offering to her is a cow. Why? Because
Earth is a cow and Aditi is Earth; Earth is a mother and a cow is a
mother. Hence the fee is a cow.[31]
The tales of the gods, for the most part, are foolish. But they show
well what conception the priests had of their divinities.
Man's original skin was put by the gods upon the cow; hence a cow runs
away from a man because she thinks he is trying to get back his skin.
The gods cluster about at an oblation, each crying out 'My name,'
_i.e._, each is anxious to get it. The gods, with the evil
spirits--'both sons of the Father'--attract to themselves the plants;
Varuna gets the barley by a pun. They build castles to defend
themselves from the evil spirits. Five gods are picked out as worthy
of offerings: Aditi, Speech, Agni, Soma, the Sun (five, because the
seasons are five and the regions are five). Indra and Wind have a
dispute of possession; Praj[=a]pati, the Father, decides it. The
heavenly singers, called the Gandharvas, recited the Veda to entice
(the divine female) Speech to come to them; while the gods, for the
same purpose, created the lute, and sang and played to her. She came
to the gods; hence the weakness of women in regard to such things.
Indra is the god of sacrifice; the stake of the sacrifice is Vishnu's;
V[=a]yu (Wind) is the leader of beasts; Bhaga is blind;[32] P[=u]shan
(because he eats mush) is toothless. The gods run a race to see who
shall get first to the sacrifice, and Indra and Agni win; they are the
warrior-caste among the gods, and the All-gods are the people (_viçve,
viç._). Yet, again, the Maruts are the people, and Varuna is the
warrior-caste; and, again, Soma is the warrior-caste. The Father-god
first created birds, then reptiles and snakes. As these all died he
created mammalia; these survived because they had food in themselves;
hence the Vedic poet says 'three generations have passed away.'[33]
Varuna is now quite the god of night and god of purification, as a
water-god. Water is the 'essence (sap) of immortality,' and the bath
of purification at the end of the sacrifice (_avabh[r.]tha_) stands in
direct relation to Varuna. The formula to be repeated is: "With the
gods' help may I wash out sin against the gods; with the help of men
the sin against men" (_Çat. Br_. iv. 4. 3. 15; ii. 5. 2. 47). Mitra
and Varuna are, respectively, intelligence and will, priest and
warrior; and while the former may exist without the latter, the latter
cannot live without the former, 'but they are perfect only when they
coöperate' (_ib_. iv. 1. 4. 1).
Of the divine legends some are old, some new. One speaks of the
sacrifice as having been at first human, subsequently changing to
beast sacrifice, eventually to a rice offering, which last now
represents the original sacrificial animal, man.[34] Famous, too, is
the legend of the flood and Father Manu's escape from it (_Çat. Br_.
i. 8. 1. 1 ff.). Again, the Vedic myth is retold, recounting the rape
of _soma_ by the metrical equivalent of fire (_T[=a]itt. Br_. i. 1. 3.
10; _Çat. Br_. i. 8. 2. 10). Another tale takes up anew the old story
of Cupid and Psyche (Pur[=u]ravas and Urvaç[=i]); and another that of
the Hindu Prometheus story, wherein M[=a]tariçvan fetches fire from
heaven, and gives it to mortals (_T[=a]itt. Br_. iii. 2. 3. 2; _Çat.
Br_. xi. 5. 1. 1; i. 7. 1. 11).[35]
Interesting, also, is the tale of Vishnu having been a dwarf, and the
tortoise _avatar_, not of Vishnu, but of Praj[=a]pati; also the
attempt of the evil spirits to climb to heaven, and the trick with
which Indra outwitted them.[36] For it is noticeable that the evil
spirits are as strong by nature as are the gods, and it is only by
craft that the latter prevail.[37]
Seldom are the tales of the gods indecent. The story of Praj[=a]pati's
incest with his daughter is a remnant of nature worship which
survives, in more or less anthropomorphic form, from the time of the
Rig Veda (x. 61.) to that of mediaeval literature,[38] and is found in
full in the epic, as in the Brahmanic period; but the story always
ends with the horror of the gods at the act.[39]
Old legends are varied. The victory over Vritra is now expounded thus:
Indra, who slays Vritra, is the sun. Vritra is the moon, who swims
into the sun's mouth on the night of the new moon. The sun rises after
swallowing him, and the moon is invisible because he is swallowed ("he
who knows this swallows his foes"). The sun vomits out the moon, and
the latter is then seen in the west, and increases again, to serve the
sun as food. In another passage it is said that when the moon is
invisible he is hiding in plants and waters (_Çat. Br._ i. 6. 3. 17;
4. 18-20).
BRAHMANIC RELIGION.
When the sacrifice is completed the priest returns, as it were, to
earth, and becomes human. He formally puts off his sacrificial vow,
and rehabilitates himself with humanity, saying, "I am even he that I
am."[40] As such a man, through service to the gods become a divine
offering, and no longer human, was doubtless considered the creature
that first served as the sacrificial animal. Despite protestant
legends such as that just recorded, despite formal disclaimers, human
sacrifice existed long after the period of the Rig Veda, where it is
alluded to; a period when even old men are exposed to die.[41] The
_anaddh[=a]purusha_ is not a fiction; for that, on certain occasions,
instead of this 'man of straw' a real victim was offered, is shown by
the ritual manuals and by Brahmanic texts.[42] Thus, in _Çat. Br_. vi.
2. 1. 18: "He kills a man first.... The cord that holds the man is the
longest." It is noteworthy that also among the American Indians the
death of a human victim by fire was regarded as a religious ceremony,
and that, just as in India the man to be sacrificed was allowed almost
all his desires for a year, so the victim of the Indian was first
greeted as brother and presented with gifts, even with a wife.[43]
But this, the terrible barbaric side of religious worship, is now
distinctly yielding to a more humane religion. The 'barley ewe'[44] is
taking the place of a bloodier offering. It has been urged that the
humanity[45] and the accompanying silliness of the Brahmanic period as
compared with the more robust character of the earlier age are due to
the weakening and softening effects of the climate. But we doubt
whether the climate of the Punj[=a]b differs as much from that of
Delhi and Patna as does the character of the Rig Veda from that of the
Br[=a]hmanas. We shall protest again when we come to the subject of
Buddhism against the too great influence which has been claimed for
climate. Politics and society, in our opinion, had more to do with
altering the religions of India than had a higher temperature and
miasma. As a result of ease and sloth--for the Brahmans are now the
divine pampered servants of established kings, not the energetic peers
of a changing population of warriors--the priests had lost the
inspiration that came from action; they now made no new hymns; they
only formulated new rules of sacrifice. They became intellectually
debauched and altogether weakened in character. Synchronous with this
universal degradation and lack of fibre, is found the occasional
substitution of barley and rice sacrifices for those of blood; and it
may be that a sort of selfish charity was at work here, and the priest
saved the beast to spare himself. But there is no very early evidence
of a humane view of sacrifice influencing the priests.
The Brahman is no Jain. One must read far to hear a note of the
approaching _ahims[=a]_ doctrine of 'non-injury.' At most one finds a
contemptuous allusion, as in a pitying strain, to the poor plants and
animals that follow after man in reaping some sacrificial benefit from
a ceremony.[46] It does not seem to us that a recognized respect for
animal life or kindness to dumb creatures lies at the root of proxy
sacrifice, though it doubtless came in play. But still less does it
appear probable that, as is often said, aversion to beast-sacrifice is
due to the doctrine of _karma_, and re-birth in animal form. The
_karma_ notion begins to appear in the Brahmanas, but not in the
_sams[=a]ra_ shape of transmigration. It was surely not because the
Hindu was afraid of eating his deceased grandmother that he first
abstained from meat. For, long after the doctrine of _karma_ and
_sams[=a]ra_[47] is established, animal sacrifices are not only
permitted but enjoined; and the epic characters shoot deer and even
eat cows. We think, in short, that the change began as a sumptuary
measure only. In the case of human sacrifice there is doubtless a
civilized repugnance to the act, which is clearly seen in many
passages where the slaughter of man is made purely symbolical. The
only wonder is that it should have obtained so long after the age of
the Rig Veda. But like the stone knife of sacrifice among the Romans
it is received custom, and hard to do away with, for priests are
conservative. Human sacrifice must have been peculiarly horrible from
the fact that the sacrificer not only had to kill the man but to eat
him, as is attested by the formal statement of the liturgical
works.[48] But in the case of other animals (there are five
sacrificial animals, of which man is first) we think it was a question
of expense on the part of the laity. When the _soma_ became rare and
expensive, substitutes were permitted and enjoined. So with the great
sacrifices. The priests had built up a great complex of forms, where
at every turn fees were demanded. The whole expense, falling on the
one individual to whose benefit accrued the sacrifice, must have been
enormous; in the case of ordinary people impossible. But the priests
then permitted the sacrifice of substitutes, for their fees still
remained; and even in the case of human sacrifice some such caution
may have worked, for ordinarily it cost 'one thousand cattle' to buy a
man to be sacrificed. A proof of this lies in the fact that animal
sacrifices were not forbidden at any time, only smaller (cheaper)
animals took the place of cattle. In the completed Brahmanic code the
rule is that animals ought not to be killed except at sacrifice, and
practically the smaller creatures were substituted for cattle, just as
the latter had gradually taken the place of the old horse (and man)
sacrifice.
If advancing civilization results in an agreeable change of morality
in many regards, it is yet accompanied with wretched traits in others.
The whole silliness of superstition exceeds belief. Because
Bh[=a]llabheya once broke his arm on changing the metre of certain
formulae, it is evident to the priest that it is wrong to trifle with
received metres, and hence "let no one do this hereafter." There is a
compensation on reading such trash in the thought that all this
superstition has kept for us a carefully preserved text, but that is
an accident of priestly foolishness, and the priest can be credited
only with the folly. Why is 'horse-grass' used in the sacrifice?
Because the sacrifice once ran away and "became a horse." Again one is
thankful for the historical side-light on the horse-sacrifice; but the
witlessness of the unconscious historian can but bring him into
contempt.[49] Charms that are said against one are of course cast out
by other charms. If one is not prosperous with one name he takes
another. If the cart creaks at the sacrifice it is the voice of evil
spirits; and a formula must avert the omen. _Soma_-husks are liable to
turn into snakes; a formula must avert this catastrophe. Everything
done at the sacrifice is godly; _ergo_, everything human is to be done
in an inhuman manner, and, since in human practice one cuts his left
finger-nails first and combs the left side of the beard first, at the
sacrifice he must cut nails and beard first on the other side, for
"whatever is human at a sacrifice is useless" (_vy[r.]ddhain v[=a]i
tad yajñasya yad m[=a]nu[s.]am_). Of religious puns we have given
instances already. Agni says: "prop me on the propper for that is
proper" (_hita_), etc, etc.[50] One of these examples of depraved
superstition is of a more dangerous nature. The effect of the
sacrifice is covert as well as overt.
The word is as potent as the act. Consequently if the sacrificer
during the sacrifice merely mutter the words "let such an one die," he
must die; for the sacrifice is holy, godly; the words are divine, and
cannot be frustrated (_Çat. Br_. iii. 1. 4. 1; iv. 1. 1. 26).
All this superstition would be pardonable if it were primitive. But
that it comes long after the Vedic poets have sung reveals a
continuance of stupidity which is marvellous. Doubtless those same
poets were just as superstitious, but one would think that with all
the great literature behind them, and the thoughts of the philosophers
just rising among them, these later priests might show a higher level
of intelligence. But in this regard they are to India what were the
monks of mediaeval times to Europe.
We turn now to the ethical side of religion. But, before leaving the
sacrifice, one point should be explained clearly. The Hindu sacrifice
can be performed only by the priest, and he must be of the highest
caste. No other might or could perform it. For he alone understood the
ancient texts, which to the laity were already only half intelligible.
Again, as Barth has pointed out, the Hindu sacrifice is performed only
for one individual or his family. It was an expensive rite (for the
gaining of one object), addressed to many gods for the benefit of one
man. To offset this, however, one must remember that there were
popular fêtes and sacrifices of a more general nature, to which many
were invited and in which even the lower castes took part; and these
were also of remote antiquity.
Already current in the Br[=a]hmanas is the phrase 'man's debts.'
Either three or four of such moral obligations were recognized, debts
to the gods, to the seers, to the Manes, and to men. Whoever pays
these debts, it is said, has discharged all his duties, and by him all
is obtained, all is won. And what are these duties? To the gods he
owes sacrifices; to the seers, study of the Vedas; to the Manes,
offspring; to man, hospitality (_Çat. Br_. i. 7. 2. 1 ff.; in
_T[=a]itt. Br_. vi. 3. 10. 5, the last fails). Translated into modern
equivalents this means that man must have faith and good works. But
more really is demanded than is stated here. First and foremost is the
duty of truthfulness. Agni is the lord of vows among the gods (RV.
viii. 11. 1; _Çat. Br_. iii. 2. 2. 24), and speech is a divinity
(Sarasvat[=i] is personified speech, _Çat. Br_. iii. 1. 4. 9, etc).
Truth is a religious as well as moral duty. "This (All) is two-fold,
there is no third; all is either truth or untruth; now truth alone is
the gods (_satyam eva dev[=a]s_) and untruth is man."[51] Moreover,
"one law the gods observe, truth" (_Çat. Br_. i. 1.1. 4; iii. 3. 2. 2;
4. 2. 8). There is another passage upon this subject: "To serve the
sacred fire means truth; he who speaks truth feeds the fire; he who
speaks lies pours water on it; in the one case he strengthens his
vital (spiritual) energy, and becomes better; in the other he weakens
it and becomes worse" (_ib_. ii. 2. 2. 19). The second sin, expressly
named and reprobated as such, is adultery. This is a sin against
Varuna.[52] In connection with this there is an interesting passage
implying a priestly confessional. At the sacrifice the sacrificer's
wife is formally asked by the priest whether she is faithful to her
husband. She is asked this that she may not sacrifice with guilt on
her soul, for "when confessed the guilt becomes less."[53] If it is
asked what other moral virtues are especially inculcated besides truth
and purity the answer is that the acts commonly cited as
self-evidently sins are murder, theft, and abortion; incidentally,
gluttony, anger, and procrastination.[54]
As to the moral virtue of observing days, certain times are allowed
and certain times are not allowed for worldly acts. But every day is
in part a holy-day to the Hindu. The list of virtues is about the
same, therefore, as that of the decalogue--the worship of the right
divinity; the observance of certain seasons for prayer and sacrifice;
honor to the parents; abstinence from theft, murder, adultery. Envy
alone is omitted.[55]
What eschatological conceptions are strewn through the literature of
this era are vague and often contradictory. The souls of the departed
are at one time spoken of as the stars (_T[=a]itt. S_. v. 4. 1. 3.); at
another, as uniting with gods and living in the world of the gods
_(Çal. Br._. ii. 6. 4. 8).
The principle of _karma_ if not the theory, is already known, but the
very thing that the completed philosopher abhors is looked upon as a
blessing, viz., rebirth, body and all, even on earth.[56] Thus in one
passage, as a reward for knowing some divine mystery (as often
happens, this mystery is of little importance, only that 'spring is
born again out of winter'), the savant is to be 'born again in this
world' _(punar ha v[=a] 'asmin loke bhavati, Çat. Br._ i. 5. 3. 14).
The esoteric wisdom is here the transfer of the doctrine of
metempsychosis to spring. Man has no hope of immortal life (on
earth);[57] but, by establishing the holy fires, and especially by
establishing in his inmost soul the immortal element of fire, he lives
the full desirable length of life (_ib_. ii. 2. 2. 14. To the later
sage, length of life is undesirable). But in yonder world, where the
sun itself is death, the soul dies again and again. All those on the
other side of the sun, the gods, are immortal; but all those on this
side are exposed to this death. When the sun wishes, he draws out the
vitality of any one, and then that one dies; not once, but, being
drawn up by the sun, which is death, into the very realm of death (how
different to the conception of the sun in the Rig Veda!) he dies over
and over again.[58] But in another passage it is said that when the
sacrificer is consecrated he 'becomes one of the deities'; and one
even finds the doctrine that one obtains 'union with Brahm[=a],' which
is quite in the strain of the Upanishads; but here such a saying can
refer only to the upper castes, for "the gods talk only to the upper
castes" (_Çal. Br._. xi. 4. 4. 1; iii. 1. 1. 8-10). The dead man is
elsewhere represented as going to heaven 'with his whole body,' and,
according to one passage, when he gets to the next world his good and
evil are weighed in a balance. There are, then, quite diverse views in
regard to the fate of a man after death, and not less various are the
opinions in regard to his reward and punishment. According to the
common belief the dead, on leaving this world, pass between two fires,
_agniçikhe_ raging on either side of his path. These fires burn the
one that ought to be burned (the wicked), and let the good pass by.
Then the spirit (or the man himself in body) is represented as going
up on one of two paths. Either he goes to the Manes on a path which,
according to later teaching, passes southeast through the moon, or he
goes northeast (the gods' direction) to the sun, which is his 'course
and stay.' In the same chapter one is informed that the rays of the
sun are the good (dead), and that every brightest light is the
Father-god. The general conception here is that the sun or the stars
are the destination of the pious. On the other hand it is said that
one will enjoy the fruit of his acts here on earth, in a new birth; or
that he will 'go to the next world'; or that he will suffer for his
sins in hell. The last is told in legendary form, and appears to us to
be not an early view retained in folk-lore, but a late modification of
an old legend. Varuna sends his son Bhrigu to hell to find out what
happens after death, and he finds people suffering torture, and,
again, avenging themselves on those that have wronged them. But,
despite the resemblance between this and Grecian myth, the fact that
in the whole compass of the Rik (in the Atharvan perhaps in v. 19)
there is not the slightest allusion to torture in hell, precludes, to
our mind, the possibility of this phase having been an ancient
inherited belief.[59]
Annihilation or a life in under darkness is the first (Rik) hell. The
general antithesis of light (as good) and darkness (as bad) is here
plainly revealed again. Sometimes a little variation occurs. Thus,
according to _Çat. Br._ vi. 5. 4. 8, the stars are women-souls,
perhaps, as elsewhere, men also. The converse notion that darkness is
the abode of evil appears at a very early date: "Indra brought down
the heathen, _dasyus_, into the lowest darkness," it is said in the
Atharva Veda (ix. 2. 17).[60]
In the later part of the great 'Br[=a]hmana of the hundred paths'
there seems to be a more modern view inculcated in regard to the fate
of the dead. Thus, in vi. 1. 2. 36, the opinion of 'some,' that the
fire on the altar is to bear the worshipper to the sky, is objected
to, and it is explained that he becomes immortal; which antithesis is
in purely Upanishadic style, as will be seen below.
BRAHMANIC THEORIES OF CREATION.
In Vedic polytheism, with its strain of pantheism, the act of creating
the world[61] is variously attributed to different gods. At the end of
this period theosophy invented the god of the golden germ, the great
Person (known also by other titles), who is the one (pantheistic) god,
in whom all things are contained, and who himself is contain in even
the smallest thing. The Atharvan transfers the same idea in its
delineation of the pantheistic image to Varuna, that Varuna who is the
seas and yet is contained "in the drop of water" (iv. 16), a Varuna as
different to the Varuna of the Rik as is the Atharvan Indra to his
older prototype. Philosophically the Rik, at its close, declares that
"desire is the seed of mind," and that "being arises from not-being."
In the Br[=a]hmanas the creator is the All-god in more anthropomorphic
form. The Father-god, Praj[=a]pati, or Brahm[=a] (personal equivalent
of _brahma_) is not only the father of gods, men, and devils, but he
is the All. This Father-god of universal sovereignty, Brahm[=a],
remains to the end the personal creator. It is he who will serve as
creator for the Puranic S[=a]nkhya philosophy, and even after the rise
of the Hindu sects he will still be regarded in this light, although
his activity will be conditioned by the will of Vishnu or Çiva. In
pure philosophy there will be an abstract First Cause; but as there is
no religion in the acknowledgment of a First Cause, this too will soon
be anthropomorphized.
The Br[=a]hmanas themselves present no clear picture of creation. All
the accounts of a personal creator are based merely on
anthropomorphized versions of the text 'desire is the seed.'
Praj[=a]pati wishes offspring, and creates. There is, on the other
hand, a philosophy of creation which reverts to the tale of the
'golden germ.'[62] The world was at first water; thereon floated a
cosmic golden egg (the principle of fire). Out of this came Spirit
that desired; and by desire he begat the worlds and all things. It is
improbable that in this somewhat Orphic mystery there lies any
pre-Vedic myth. The notion comes up first in the golden germ and
egg-born bird (sun) of the Rik. It is not specially Aryan, and is
found even among the American Indians.[63] It is this Spirit with
which the Father-god is identified. But guess-work philosophy then
asks what upheld this god, and answers that a support upheld all
things. So Support becomes a god in his turn, and, since he must reach
through time and space, this Support, Skambha, becomes the All-god
also; and to him as to a great divinity the Atharvan sings some of its
wildest strains. When once speculation is set going in the
Br[=a]hmanas, the result of its travel is to land its followers in
intellectual chaos.[64] The gods create the Father-god in one passage,
and in another the Father-god creates the gods. The Father creates the
waters, whence rises the golden egg. But, again, the waters create the
egg, and out of the egg is born the Father. A farrago of
contradictions is all that these tales amount to, nor are they
redeemed even by a poetical garb.[65]
In the period immediately following the Br[=a]hmanas, or toward the
end of the Brahmanic period, as one will, there is a famous
distinction made between the gods. Some gods, it is said, are
spirit-gods; some are work-gods. They are born of spirit and of works,
respectively. The difference, however, is not essential, but
functional; so that one may conclude from this authority, the Nirukta
(a grammatical and epexigetical work), that all the gods have a like
nature; and that the spirit-gods, who are the older, differ only in
lack of specific functions from the work-gods. A not uninteresting
debate follows this passage in regard to the true nature of the gods.
Some people say they are anthropomorphic; others deny this. "And
certainly what is seen of the gods is not anthropomorphic; for
example, the sun, the earth, etc."[66] In such a period of theological
advance it is matter of indifference to which of a group of gods, all
essentially one, is laid the task of creation. And, indeed, from the
Vedic period until the completed systems of philosophy, all creation
to the philosopher is but emanation; and stories of specific acts of
creation are not regarded by him as detracting from the creative
faculty of the First Cause. The actual creator is for him the factor
and agent of the real god. On the other hand, the vulgar worshipper of
every era believed only in reproduction on the part of an
anthropomorphic god; and that god's own origin he satisfactorily
explained by the myth of the golden egg. The view depended in each
case not on the age but on the man.
If in these many pages devoted to the Br[=a]hmanas we have produced
the impression that the religious literature of this period is a
confused jumble, where unite descriptions of ceremonies, formulae,
mysticism, superstitions, and all the output of active bigotry; an
_olla podrida_ which contains, indeed, odds and ends of sound
morality, while it presents, on the whole, a sad view of the
latter-day saints, who devoted their lives to making it what it is; we
have offered a fairly correct view of the age and its priests, and the
rather dreary series of illustrations will not have been collected in
vain. We have given, however, no notion at all of the chief object of
this class of writings, the liturgical details of the sacrifices
themselves. Even a résumé of one comparatively short ceremony would be
so long and tedious that the explication of the intricate formalities
would scarcely be a sufficient reward. With Hillebrandt's patient
analysis of the New-and Full-Moon sacrifice,[67] of which a sketch is
given by von Schroeder in his _Literatur und Cultur_, the curious
reader will be able to satisfy himself that a minute description of
these ceremonies would do little to further his knowledge of the
religion, when once he grasps the fact that the sacrifice is but show.
Symbolism without folk-lore, only with the imbecile imaginings of a
daft mysticism, is the soul of it; and its outer form is a certain
number of formulae, mechanical movements, oblations, and
slaughterings.
But we ought not to close the account of the era without giving
counter-illustrations of the legendary aspect of this religion; for
which purpose we select two of the best-known tales, one from the end
of the Br[=a]hmana that is called the [=A]itareya; the other from the
beginning of the Çatapatha; the former in abstract, the latter in
full.
THE SACRIFICE OF DOGSTAIL (_[=A]it. Br._ vii. 13).
Hariçcandra, a king born in the great race of Ikshv[=a]ku, had no son.
A sage told him what blessings are his who has a son: 'He that has no
son has no place in the world; in the person of a son a man is reborn,
a second self is begotten.' Then the king desired a son, and the sage
instructed him to pray to Varuna for one, and to offer to sacrifice
him to the god. This he did, and a son, Rohita, at last was born to
him. God Varuna demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'He is not
fit to be sacrificed, so young as he is; wait till he is ten days
old.' The god waited ten days, and demanded the sacrifice. But the
king said: 'Wait till his teeth come.' The god waited, and then
demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth fall
out'; and when the god had waited, and again demanded the sacrifice,
the father said: 'Wait till his new teeth come.' But, when his teeth
were come and he was demanded, the father said: 'A warrior is not fit
to be sacrificed till he has received his armor' (_i.e._, until he is
knighted). So the god waited till the boy had received his armor, and
then he demanded the sacrifice. Thereupon, the king called his son,
and said unto him: 'I will sacrifice thee to the god who gave thee to
me.' But the son said, 'No, no,' and took his bow and fled into the
desert. Then Varuna caused the king to be afflicted with dropsy.[68]
When Rohita heard of this he was about to return, but Indra, disguised
as a priest, met him, and said: 'Wander on, for the foot of a wanderer
is like a flower; his spirit grows, and reaps fruit, and all his sins
are forgiven in the fatigue of wandering.'[69] So Rohita, thinking
that a priest had commanded him, wandered; and every year, as he would
return, Indra met him, and told him still to wander. On one of these
occasions Indra inspires him to continue on his journey by telling him
that the _krita_ was now auspicious; using the names of dice
afterwards applied to the four ages.[70] Finally, after six years,
Rohita resolved to purchase a substitute for sacrifice. He meets a
starving seer, and offers to buy one of his sons (to serve as
sacrifice), the price to be one hundred cows. The seer has three sons,
and agrees to the bargain; but "the father said, 'Do not take the
oldest,' and the mother said, 'Do not take the youngest,' so Rohita
took the middle son, Dogstail." Varuna immediately agrees to this
substitution of Dogstail for Rohita, "since a priest is of more value
than a warrior."
The sacrifice is made ready, and Viçv[=a]mitra (the Vedic seer) is the
officiating priest. But no one would bind the boy to the post. 'If
thou wilt give me another hundred cows I will bind him,' says the
father of Dogstail. But then no one would kill the boy. 'If thou wilt
give me another hundred cows I will kill him,' says the father. The
[=A]pri verses[71] are said, and the fire is carried around the boy.
He is about to be slain. Then Dogstail prays to 'the first of gods,'
the Father-god, for protection. But the Father-god tells him to pray
to Agni, 'the nearest of the gods.' Agni sends him to another, and he
to another, till at last, when the boy has prayed to all the gods,
including the All-gods, his fetters drop off; Hariçcandra's dropsy
ceases, and all ends well.[72] Only, when the avaricious father
demands his son back, he is refused, and Viçv[=a]mitra adopts the boy,
even dispossessing his own protesting sons. For fifty of the latter
agree to the exaltation of Dogstail; but fifty revolt, and are cursed
by Viçv[=a]mitra, that their sons' sons should become barbarians, the
Andhras, Pundras, Çabaras, Pulindas, and M[=u]tibas, savage races (of
this time), one of which can be located on the southeast coast. The
conclusion, and the matter that follows close on this tale, is
significant of the time, and of the priest's authority. For it is said
that 'if a king hears this story he is made free of sin,' but he can
hear it only from a priest, who is to be rewarded for telling it by a
gift of one thousand cows, and other rich goods.
The matter following, to which we have alluded, is the use of
sacrificial formulae to defeat the king's foes, the description of a
royal inauguration, and, at this ceremony, the oath which the king has
to swear ere the priest will anoint him (he is anointed with milk,
honey, butter, and water, 'for water is immortality'): "I swear that
thou mayst take from me whatever good works I do to the day of my
death, together with my life and children, if ever I should do thee
harm."[73]
When the priest is secretly told how he may ruin the king by a false
invocation at the sacrifice, and the king is made to swear that if
ever he hurts the priest the latter may rob him of earthly and
heavenly felicity, the respective positions of the two, and the
contrast between this era and that of the early hymns, become
strikingly evident. It is not from such an age as this that one can
explain the spirit of the Rig Veda.
The next selection is the famous story of the flood, which we
translate literally in its older form.[74] The object of the legend in
the Br[=a]hmana is to explain the importance of the Id[=a] (or Il[=a])
ceremony, which is identified with Id[=a], Manu's daughter.
"In the morning they brought water to Manu to wash with, even as they
bring it to-day to wash hands with. While he was washing a fish came
into his hands. The fish said, 'Keep me, and I will save thee.' 'What
wilt thou save me from?' 'A flood will sweep away all creatures on
earth. I will save thee from that.' 'How am I to keep thee?' 'As long
as we are small,' said he (the fish), 'we are subject to much
destruction; fish eats fish. Thou shalt keep me first in a jar. When I
outgrow that, thou shalt dig a hole, and keep me in it. When I outgrow
that, thou shalt take me down to the sea, for there I shall be beyond
destruction.'
"It soon became a (great horned fish called a) _jhasha_, for this
grows the largest, and then it said: 'The flood will come this summer
(or in such a year). Look out for (or worship) me, and build a ship.
When the flood rises, enter into the ship, and I will save thee.'
After he had kept it he took it down to the sea. And the same summer
(year) as the fish had told him he looked out for (or worshipped) the
fish; and built a ship. And when the flood rose he entered into the
ship. Then up swam the fish, and Manu tied the ship's rope to the horn
of the fish; and thus he sailed swiftly up toward the mountain of the
north. 'I have saved thee' said he (the fish). 'Fasten the ship to a
tree. But let not the water leave thee stranded while thou art on the
mountain (top). Descend slowly as the water goes down.' So he
descended slowly, and that descent of the mountain of the north is
called the 'Descent of Manu.' The flood then swept off all the
creatures of the earth, and Manu here remained alone. Desirous of
posterity, he worshipped and performed austerities. While he was
performing a sacrifice, he offered up in the waters clarified butter,
sour milk, whey and curds. Out of these in a year was produced a
woman. She arose when she was solid, and clarified butter collected
where she trod. Mitra and Varuna met her, and said: 'Who art thou?'
'Manu's daughter,' said she. 'Say ours,' said they. 'No,' said she; 'I
am my father's.' They wanted part in her. She agreed to this, and she
did not agree; but she went by them and came to Manu. Said Manu: 'Who
art thou?' 'Thy daughter,' said she. 'How my daughter, glorious
woman?' She said: 'Thou hast begotten me of the offering, which thou
madest in the water, clarified butter, sour milk, whey, and curds. I
am a blessing; use me at the sacrifice. If thou usest me at the
sacrifice, thou shalt become rich in children and cattle. Whatever
blessing thou invokest through me, all shall be granted to thee.' So
he used her as the blessing in the middle of the sacrifice. For what
is between the introductory and final offerings is the middle of the
sacrifice. With her he went on worshipping and performing austerities,
wishing for offspring. Through her he begot the race of men on earth,
the race of Manu; and whatever the blessing he invoked through her,
all was granted unto him.
"Now she is the same with the Id[=a] ceremony; and whoever, knowing
this, performs sacrifice with the Id[=a], he begets the race that Manu
generated; and whatever blessing he invokes through her, all is
granted unto him."
There is one of the earliest _avatar_ stories in this tale. Later
writers, of course, identify the fish with Brahm[=a] and with Vishnu.
In other early Br[=a]hmanas the _avatars_ of a god as a tortoise and a
boar were known long before they were appropriated by the Vishnuites.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: In _[=A]it. Br_. I. 22, there is an unexplained
antithesis of Rik, Yajus, S[=a]man, Veda, and Brahma; where
the commentator takes Veda to be Atharva Veda. The priests,
belonging respectively to the first three Vedas, are for the
Rig Veda, the Hotar priest, who recites; for the S[=a]man,
the Udg[=a]tar, 'the singer'; for the Y[=a]jus, the
Adhvaryu, who attends to the erection of the altar, etc.
Compare Müller, ASL. p. 468.]
[Footnote 2: It is the only literature of its time except
(an important exception) those fore-runners of later
S[=u]tra and epic which one may suppose to be in process of
formation long before they come to the front.]
[Footnote 3: There are several schools of this Veda, of
which the chief are the V[=a]jasaneyi, or 'White Yajus,'
collection; the T[=a]ittir[=i]ya collection; and the
M[=a]itr[=a]yan[=i] collection; the first named being the
latest though the most popular, the last two being the
foremost representatives of the 'Black Yajus.']
[Footnote 4: The different traits here recorded are given
with many illustrative examples by Schroeder, in his
_Literatur und Cultur_, p. 90 ff.]
[Footnote 5: Compare Weber, _Ind. Streifen_, II. 197.]
[Footnote 6: Weber, _Lit_. p. 73.]
[Footnote 7: The _Çata-patha Br[=a]hmana_ (or "Br[=a]mana of
the hundred paths") II. 2. 2. 6; 4.3.14.]
[Footnote 8: The chief family priest, it is said in the
_Çat. Br_. II. 4. 4. 5, is a man of great influence.
Sometimes one priest becomes religious head of two clans (an
extraordinary event, however; only one name is reported) and
then how exalted is his position. Probably, as in the later
age of the drama, the chief priest often at the same time
practically prime minister. It is said in another part of
the same book that although the whole earth is divine, yet
it is the priest that makes holy the place of sacrifice
(III. 1. 1. 4). In this period murder is defined as killing
a priest; other cases are not called murder. Weber, _IS_. X.
66.]
[Footnote 9: Barth, _loc. cit._ p. 42.]
[Footnote 10: He has analogy with Agni in being made of
'seven persons (males),' _Çat. Br._ X. 2. 2. 1.]
[Footnote 11: Compare M[=a]it. S. IV. 2. 12, 'sons of
Praj[=a]pati, Agni, V[=a]yu, S[=u]rya.']
[Footnote 12: _Çat. Br._ I. 3. 4. 12; IV. 3. 5. 1.]
[Footnote 13: Interesting is the fact that only priests may
eat sacrificial food and drink _soma_ at this period. When
even the king should drink _soma_, he is made to drink some
transubstantiated liquor which, the priests inform him, has
been 'made into _soma_' for him by magic, for the latter is
too holy for any warrior really to drink (VII. 19; VIII.
20). But in the more popular feasts there are indications
that this rule is often broken. Compare Weber,
_R[=a]jas[=u]ya_ p. 98.]
[Footnote 14: For the relations of the different castes at
this period, see Weber, in the tenth volume of the _Indische
Studien_.]
[Footnote 15: The Atharvan is not yet recognized as a Veda.]
[Footnote 16: And even the pronunciation of a word or the
accent is fateful. The famous godly example of this is where
Tvashtar, the artificer, in anger mispronounced
_indra-çátru_ as _indraçatru,_ whereby the meaning was
changed from 'conqueror of Indra' to 'Indra-conquered,' with
unexpected result (_Çat. Br._ I. 6. 3. 8; _T[=a]itt. S._ II.
4. 12. 1).]
[Footnote 17: The word is _a[.m]sala_, strong, or 'from the
shoulder' (?). In III. 4. 1. 2 one cooks an ox or a goat for
a very distinguished guest, as a sort of guest-sacrifice. So
the guest is called 'cow-killer' (Weber, _Ved. Beiträge_, p.
36).]
[Footnote 18: Compare _ib_. I. 9. 1. 21, "let the priest not
say 'guard me (or us),' but 'guard this worshipper
(sacrificer),' for if he says 'me' he induces no blessing at
all; the blessing is not for the priest, but for the
sacrificer." In both passages, most emphatically,
_yajam[=a]nasy[=a]iva_, 'for the sacrificer alone.']
[Footnote 19: _Ya[.m] k[=a]ma[.m] k[=a]mayate so 'sm[=a]i
k[=a]ma[h.] sam[r.]dhyate_.]
[Footnote 20: [=A]suri's name as a theologian is important,
since the S[=a]nkhya philosophy is intimately connected with
him; if this [=A]suri be not another man with the same name
(compare Weber, _Lit_. p. 152).]
[Footnote 21: The regular sacrifices to the Manes are daily
and monthly; funerals and 'faith-feasts,' _çr[=a]ddha_, are
occasional additions.]
[Footnote 22: Each generation of Manes rises to a better
(higher) state if the offerings continue. As a matter of
ceremonial this means that the remoter generations of
fathers are put indefinitely far off, while the immediate
predecessors of a man are the real beneficiaries; they climb
up to the sky on the offering.]
[Footnote 23: Compare _Çat. Br_. i. 8. 1. 40; ii. 6. 1. 3,
7, 10, 42; ii. 4. 2. 24; v. 5. 4. 28.]
[Footnote 24: This passage (_ib_. ii. 1. 2. 7) is preceded
by a typical argument for setting up the fires under the
Pleiades, the wives of the Great Bear stars. He may do or he
may not do so--the reasons contradict each other, and all of
them are incredibly silly.]
[Footnote 25: This last fee is not so common. For an
oblation to S[=u]rya the fee is a white horse or a white
bull; either of them representing the proper form of the sun
(_Çat. Br_. ii. 6. 3. 9); but another authority specifies
twelve oxen and a plough (T[=a]itt. S. i. 8. 7).]
[Footnote 26: _Çat. Br_. ii. 1. 1. 3; 2. 3. 28; iv. 3. 4.
14; 5. 1. 15; four kinds of fees, _ib_. iv. 3. 4. 6, 7, 24
ff. (Milk is also 'Agni's seed,' _ib_. ii. 2. 4. 15).]
[Footnote 27: Yet in _[=A]it. Br_. iii. 19, the priest is
coolly informed how he may be able to slay his patron by
making a little change in the invocations. Elsewhere such
conduct is reprobated.]
[Footnote 28: For other covenants, see the epic (chapter on
Hinduism).]
[Footnote 29: _Çat. Br_. iii. 4. 2. 1 ff.; iii. 6. 2. 25;
iv. 3. 3. 3; iv. 4.1.17; 6. 6. 3; 7. 6, etc.; iii. 8. 2. 27;
3. 26; _[=A]it. Br._. i. 24.]
[Footnote 30: _ib_. ii. 6. 2. 5. Here Rudra (compare Çiva
and Hekate of the cross-roads) is said to go upon
'cross-roads'; so that his sacrifice is on cross-roads--one
of the new teachings since the time of the Rig Veda. Rudra's
sister, Ambik[=a], _ib_. 9, is another new creation, the
genius of autumnal sickness.]
[Footnote 31: _Çat. Br_. ii. 2. 1. 21. How much non-serious
fancy there may be here it is difficult to determine. It
seems impossible that such as follows can have been meant in
earnest: "The sacrifice, _pray[=a]ja,_ is victory, _jaya_,
because _yaja_ = _jaya_. With this knowledge one gets the
victory over his rivals" (_ib_. i. 5. 3. 3, 10).]
[Footnote 32: Although Bhaga is here (_Çat. Br_. i. 7. 4. 6-7,
_endho bhagas_) interpreted as the Sun, he is evidently the same
with Good Luck [Greek: typhlhos ghar ho Êlohhytos] or wealth.]
[Footnote 33: _Çat. Br_. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18;
iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3
ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2.
4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4.
6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV.
viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of
Brahm[=a], the god from the priest, and this from
_brahm[=a]_, prayer. The first step is _brahma_--force,
power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahm[=a], the
one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in
the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahm[=a] of
gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified _brahma_, the
personal Brahm[=a] as god, called also Father-god
(Praj[=a]pati) or simply The Father (_pit[=a]_).]
[Footnote 33: _Çat. Br_. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18;
iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3
ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2.
4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4.
6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV.
viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of
Brahm[=a], the god from the priest, and this from
_brahm[=a]_, prayer. The first step is _brahma_--force,
power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahm[=a], the
one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in
the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahm[=a] of
gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified _brahma_, the
personal Brahm[=a] as god, called also Father-god
(Praj[=a]pati) or simply The Father (_pit[=a]_).]
[Footnote 34: Compare _M[=a]it. S_ iii. 10. 2; _[=A]it.
Br_. ii. 8; _Çat. Br_. i. 2. 3. 5; vi. 2. 1. 39; 3. 1. 24;
ii. 5. 2. 16, a ram and ewe 'made of barley.' On human
sacrifices, compare Müller, ASL. p. 419; Weber. ZDMG. xviii.
262 (see the Bibliography); _Streifen_, i.54.]
[Footnote 35: Weber has translated some of these legends.
_Ind. Streifen_, i. 9 ff.]
[Footnote 36: _T[=a]itt. Br_. iii. 2. 9. 7; _Çat. Br_. i. 2.
5. 5; ii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; vii. 5. 1. 6.]
[Footnote 37: Compare _M[=a]it. S_. i. 9. 8; _Çat. Br_. i.
6. 1. 1 ff. The seasons desert the gods, and the demons
thrive. In _Çat. Br._ i. 5. 4. 6-11, the Asuras and Indra
contend with numbers.]
[Footnote 38: Müller, ASL. p. 529.]
[Footnote 39: _M[=a]it. S_. iv. 2. 12; _Çat. Br_. i. 7. 4.
1; ii. 1. 2. 9; vi. 1. 3. 8; _[=A]it. Br_. iii. 33. Compare
Muir, OST. iv. p. 45. At a later period there are frequently
found indecent tales of the gods, and the Br[=a]hmanas
themselves are vulgar enough, but they exhibit no special
lubricity on the part of the priests.]
[Footnote 40: _Idam aham ya èv[=a] smi so asmi, Çat. Br_. i.
1. 1. 6; 9. 3. 23.]
[Footnote 41: RV. viii. 51. 2; Zimmer, _loc. cit_. p. 328.]
[Footnote 42: Compare Weber, _Episch. in Vedisch. Ritual_,
p. 777 (and above). The man who is slaughtered must be
neither a priest nor a slave, but a warrior or a man of the
third caste (Weber, _loc. cit_. above).]
[Footnote 43: _Le Mercier_, 1637, ap. Parkman, _loc. cit_.
p. 80. The current notion that the American Indian burns his
victims at the stake merely for pleasure is not incorrect.
He frequently did so, as he does so to-day, but in the
seventeenth century this act often is part of a religious
ceremony. He probably would have burned his captive, anyway,
but he gladly utilized his pleasure as a means of
propitiating his gods. In India it was just the other way.]
[Footnote 44: Substitutes of metal or of earthen victims are
also mentioned.]
[Footnote 45: That the Vedic rite of killing the sacrificial
beast (by beating and smothering) was very cruel may be seen
in the description, _[=A]it. Br_. ii. 6.]
[Footnote 46: _Çat. Br._ i. 5. 2. 4.]
[Footnote 47: _Sams[=a]ra_ is transmigration; _karma_,
'act,' implies that the change of abode is conditioned by
the acts of a former life. Each may exclude the other; but
in common parlance each implies the other.]
[Footnote 48: Weber, _Indischt Streifen_, i. p. 72.]
[Footnote 49: _Çat. Br_. i. 7. 3. 19: iii. 4. 1. 17.]
[Footnote 50: _Çaf. Br_. iii. 5. 4. 10; 6. 2. 24; 5. 3. 17
(compare 6. 4. 23-24; 3. 4. 11; 2. 1. 12); iii. 1. 2. 4; 3.
14; i. 7. 2. 9; vi. 1. 2. 14. The change of name is
interesting. There is a remark in another part of the same
work to the effect that when a man prospers in life they
give his name also to his son, grandson, _and to his father
and grandfather_ (vi. 1. 2. 13). On the other hand, it was
the custom of the Indian kings in later ages to assume the
names of their prosperous grandfathers (JRAS. iv. 85).]
[Footnote 51: Were it not for the first clause it would be
more natural to render the original 'The gods are truth
alone, and men are untruth.']
[Footnote 52: In _Çat. Br_. ii. 4. 2. 5-6 it is said that
the Father-god gives certain rules of eating to gods, Manes,
men, and beasts: "Neither gods, Manes, nor beasts transgress
the Father's law, only some men do."]
[Footnote 53: _Çat. Br_. ii. 5. 2. 20. Varuna seizes on her
paramour, when she confesses. _T[.a]itt. Br_. i. 6. 5. 2.
The guilt confessed becomes less "because it thereby becomes
truth" (right).]
[Footnote 54: See _Çat. Br._. ii. 4. 2. 6; 4. 1. 14; 1. 3.
9; 3. 1. 28: "Who knows man's morrow? Then let one not
procrastinate." "Today is self, this alone is certain,
uncertain is the morrow."]
[Footnote 55: Some little rules are interesting. The
Pythagorean abstinence from _m[=a][s.][=a]s_, beans, for
instance, is enjoined; though this rule is opposed by Barku
V[=a]rshna, _Çat. Br_. i. 1. 1. 10, on the ground that no
offering to the gods is made of beans; "hence he said 'cook
beans for me.'"]
[Footnote 56: Animals may represent gods. "The bull is a
form of Indra," and so if the bull can be made to roar
(_Çat. Br._ ii. 5. 3. 18), then one may know that Indra is
come to the sacrifice. "Man is born into (whatever) world is
made (by his acts in a previous existence)," is a short
formula (_Çat. Br._. vi. 2. 2. 27), which represents the
_karma_ doctrine in its essential principle, though the
'world' is here not this world, but the next. Compare Weber,
ZDMG. ix. 237 ff.; Muir, OST. v. 314 ff.]
[Footnote 57: Though youth may be restored to him by the
Açvins, _Çat. Br._. iv. i. 5. 1 ff. Here the Horsemen are
identified with Heaven and Earth (16).]
[Footnote 58: _Cal. Br_. ii. 3. 3. 7. Apropos of the
Brahmanic sun it may be mentioned that, according to _Ait.
Br._ iii. 44, the sun never really sets. "People think that
he sets, but in truth he only turns round after reaching the
end of the day, and makes night below, day above; and when
they think he rises in the morning, he having come to the
end of the night, turns round, and makes day below, night
above. He never really sets. Whoever knows this of him, that
he never sets, obtains union and likeness of form with the
sun, and the same abode as the sun's." Compare Muir, OST. v.
521. This may be the real reason why the Rig Veda speaks of
a dark and light sun.]
[Footnote 59: _Çat. Br._. i. 4. 3. 11-22 ('The sinner shall
suffer and go quickly to yonder world'); xi. 6. 1 (compare
Weber, _loc. cit._ p. 20 ff.; ZDMG. ix. 237), the Bhrigu
story, of which a more modern form is found in the Upanishad
period. For the course of the sun, the fires on either side
of the way, the departure to heaven 'with the whole body,'
compare _Çat. Br._ i. 9. 3. 2-15; iv. 5. 1. 1; vi. 6. 2. 4;
xi. 2. 7. 33; Weber, _loc. cit._: Muir, _loc. cit._ v. p.
314. Not to have all one's bones in the next world is a
disgrace, as Muir says, and for that reason they are
collected at burial. Compare the custom as described by the
French missionaries here. The American Indian has to have
all his bones for future use, and the burying of the
skeleton is an annual religious ceremony.]
[Footnote 60: Compare RV. iv. 28. 4: 'Thou Indra madest
lowest the heathen.' Weber has shown, _loc. cit._, that the
general notion of the Br[=a]hmanas is that all are born
again in the next world, where they are rewarded or punished
according as they are good or bad; whereas in the Rig Veda
the good rejoice in heaven, and the bad are annihilated.
This general view is to be modified, however, by such
side-theories as those just mentioned, that the good (or
wise) may be reborn on earth, or be united with gods, or
become sunlight or stars (the latter are 'watery' to the
Hindu, and this may explain the statement that the soul is
'in the midst of waters').]
[Footnote 61: There is in this age no notion of the repeated
creations found in later literature. On the contrary, it is
expressly said in the Rig Veda, vi. 48. 22, that heaven and
earth are created but once: "Only once was heaven created,
only once was earth created," Zimmer, AIL. 408.]
[Footnote 62: When the principle of life is explained it is
in terms of sun or fire. Thus Praj[=a]pati, Lord of beings,
or Father-god, is first an epithet of Savitar, RV. iv. 53.
2; and the golden germ must be fire.]
[Footnote 63: Schoolcraft, _Historical and Statistical
Information_, i. 32. As examples of the many passages where
'water is the beginning' may be cited _Çat. Br._ vi. 7. 1.
17; xi. 1. 6. 1. The sun, born as Aditi's eighth son, is the
bird, 'egg-born,' RV. x. 72. 8.]
[Footnote 64: Among the new curators of Atharvan origin are,
for instance, the sun under the name of Rohita, Desire
(Love), etc., etc.]
[Footnote 65: Illustrations of these contradictions may be
found in plenty _apud_ Muir iv. p. 20 ff.]
[Footnote 66: Nirukta, vii. 4; Muir, _loc. cit._ p. 131 and
v. 17.]
[Footnote 67: _Neu-und Vollmonds Opfer_, 1880. The
_D[=i]ksh[=a]_, or initiation, has been described by
Lindner; the _R[=a]jas[=u]ya_ and _Vajapeya_, by Weber.]
[Footnote 68: The water-sickness already imputed to this god
in the Rig Veda. This tale and that of Bhrigu (referred to
above) show an ancient trait in the position of Varuna, as
chief god.]
[Footnote 69: This is the germ of the pilgrimage doctrine
(see below).]
[Footnote 70: Perhaps (M. ix. 301) interpolated; or the
first allusion to the Four Ages.]
[Footnote 71: These (compare _afri_, 'blessing,' in the
Avesta) are verses in the Rig Veda introducing the
sacrifice. They are meant as propitiations, and appear to be
an ancient part of the ritual.]
[Footnote 72: A group of hymns in the first book of the Rig
Veda are attributed to Dogstail. At any rate, they do allude
to him, and so prove a moderate antiquity (probably the
middle period of the Rik) for the tale. The name, in
Sanskrit Çunasçepa, has been ingeniously starred by Weber as
Cynosoura; the last part of each compound having the same
meaning, and the first part being even phonetically the same
_çunas, [Greek: kunhos]_.]
[Footnote 73: _Ait. Br._ viii. 10, 15, 20.]
[Footnote 74: The epic has a later version. This earlier
form is found in _Çat. Br._ i. 8. 1. For the story of the
flood among the American Indians compare Schoolcraft
(_Historical and Statistical Information_), i. 17.]
* * * * *