THE POPULAR BRAHMANIC FAITH
For a long time after the Vedic age there is little that gives one an
insight into the views of the people. It may be presumed, since the
orthodox systems never dispensed with the established cult, that the
form of the old Vedic creed was kept intact. Yet, since the real
belief changed, and the cult became more and more the practice of a
formality, it becomes necessary to seek, apart from the inherited
ritual, the faith which formed the actual religion of the people.
Inasmuch as this phase of Hindu belief has scarcely been touched upon
elsewhere, it may be well to state more fully the object of the
present chapter.
We have shown above that the theology of the Vedic period had
resulted, before its close, in a form of pantheism, which was
accompanied, as is attested by the Atharva Veda, with a demonology and
witch-craft religion, the latter presumably of high antiquity.
Immediately after this come the esoteric Br[=a]hmanas, in which the
gods are, more or less, figures in the eyes of the priests, and the
form of a Father-god rises into chief prominence, being sometimes
regarded as the creative force, but at all times as the moral
authority in the world. At the end of this period, however, and
probably even before this period ended, there is for the first time,
in the Upanishads, a new religion, that, in some regards, is esoteric.
Hitherto the secrets of religious mysteries had been treated as hidden
priestly wisdom, not to be revealed. But, for the most part, this
wisdom is really nonsense; and when it is said in the Br[=a]hmanas, at
the end of a bit of theological mystery, that it is a secret, or
that 'the gods love that which is secret,' one is not persuaded by the
examples given that this esoteric knowledge is intellectually
valuable. But with the Upanishads there comes the antithesis of
inherited belief and right belief. The latter is public property,
though it is not taught carelessly. The student is not initiated into
the higher wisdom till he is drilled in the lower. The most unexpected
characters appear in the rôle of instructors of priests, namely,
women, kings, and members of the third caste, whose deeper wisdom is
promulgated oftentimes as something quite new, and sometimes is
whispered in secret. Pantheism, _sams[=a]ra_,[1] and the eternal bliss
of the individual spirit when eventually it is freed from further
transmigration,--these three fundamental traits of the new religion
are discussed in such a way as to show that they had no hold upon the
general public, but they were the intellectual wealth of a few. Some
of the Upanishads hide behind a veil of mystery; yet many of them, as
Windisch has said, are, in a way, popular; that is, they are intended
for a general public, not for priests alone. This is especially the
case with the pantheistic Upanishads in their more pronounced form.
But still it is only the very wise that can accept the teaching. It is
not the faith of the people.
Epic literature, which is the next living literature of the Brahmans,
after the Upanishads, takes one, in a trice, from the beginnings of a
formal pantheism, to a pantheism already disintegrated by the newer
worship of sectaries. Here the impersonal _[=a]tm[=a]_, or nameless
Lord, is not only an anthropomorphic Çiva, as in the late Upanishads,
where the philosophic _brahma_ is equated with a long recognized type
of divinity, but _[=a]tm[=a]_ is identified with the figure of a
theomorphic man.
Is there, then, nothing with which to bridge this gulf?
In our opinion the religion of the law-books, as a legitimate phase of
Hindu religion, has been too much ignored. The religion of Upanishad
and Ved[=a]nta, with its attractive analogies with modern speculation,
has been taken as illustrative of the religion of a vast period, to
the discrediting of the belief represented in the manuals of law. To
these certainly the name of literature can scarcely be applied, but in
their rapport with ordinary life they will be found more apt than are
the profounder speculations of the philosophers to reflect the
religious belief taught to the masses and accepted by them.
The study of these books casts a broad light upon that interval
between the Vedic and epic periods wherein it is customary to imagine
religion as being, in the main, cult or philosophy. Nor does the
interest cease with the yield of necessarily scanty yet very
significant facts in regard to eschatological and cosmogonic views.
The gods themselves are not what they are in the rites of the cunning
priests or in the dogmas of the sages. In the Hindu law there is a
reversion to Vedic belief; or rather not a reversion, but here one
sees again, through the froth of rites and the murk of philosophy, the
under-stream of faith that still flows from the old fount, if somewhat
discolored, and waters the heart of the people.
At just what time was elaborated the stupendous system of rites, which
are already traditional in the Br[=a]hmanas, can never be known. Some
of these rites have to do with special ceremonies, such as the royal
inauguration, some are stated _soma_-sacrifices.[2] Opposed to these
_soma_-feasts is the simpler and older fire-cult, which persists in
the house-rituals. All of these together make up a sightly array of
sacrifices.[3] The _soma_-ritual is developed in the Br[=a]hmanas. But
with this class of works there must have been from ancient times
another which treated of the fire-ritual, and of which the more modern
representatives are the extant S[=u]tras. It is with S[=u]tras that
legal literature begins, but these differ from the ritualistic
S[=u]tras. Yet both are full of religious meat. In these collections,
even in the more special, there is no arrangement that corresponds to
western ideas of order. In a completed code, for example, there is a
rough distribution of subjects under different heads, but the attempt
is only tentative, and each work presents the appearance of a
heterogeneous mass of regulations and laws, from which one must pick
out the law for which he is seeking. The earlier legal works were in
prose; the later evolved codes, of which there is a large number, in
metre. It is in these two classes of house-ritual and law-ritual,
which together constitute what is called Smriti, tradition-ritual (in
distinction from the so-called Çruti, revelation-ritual), that one may
expect to find the religion of the time; not as inculcated by the
promoters of mystery, nor yet as disclosed by the philosopher, but as
taught (through the priest) to the people, and as accepted by them for
their daily guidance in matters of every-day observance. We glance
first at the religious observances, for here, as in the case of the
great sacrifices, a detailed examination would be of no more value
than a collective impression; unless, indeed, one were hunting for
folk-lore superstitions, of which we can treat now only in the mass.
It is sufficient to understand that, according to the house-ritual
(_g[r.]hya-s[=u]tra_) and the law-ritual (_dharma-s[=u]tra_, and
_dharma-ç[=a]stra_),[4] for every change in life there was an
appropriate ceremony and a religious observance; for every day,
oblations (three at least); for every fortnight and season, a
sacrifice. Religious formulae were said over the child yet unborn.
From the moment of birth he was surrounded with observances.[5] At
such and such a time the child's head was shaved; he was taken out to
look at the sun; made to eat from a golden spoon; invested with the
sacred cord, etc, etc. When grown up, a certain number of years were
passed with a Guru, or tutor, who taught the boy his Veda; and to whom
he acted as body-servant (a study and office often cut short in the
case of Aryans who were not priests). Of the sacraments alone, such as
the observances to which we have just alluded, there are no less than
forty according to Gautama's laws (the name-rite, eating-rite, etc.).
The pious householder who had once set up his own fire, that is, got
married, must have spent most of his time, if he followed directions,
in attending to some religious ceremony. He had several little rites
to attend to even before he might say his prayers in the morning; and
since even to-day most of these personal regulations are dutifully
observed, one may assume that in the full power of Brahmanhood they
were very straitly enforced.[6]
It is, therefore, important to know what these works, so closely in
touch with the general public, have to say in regard to religion. What
they inculcate will be the popular theology of completed Brahmanism.
For these books are intended to give instruction to all the Aryan
castes, and, though this instruction filtrates through the hands of
the priest, one may be sure that the understanding between king and
priest was such as to make the code the real norm of justice and
arbiter of religious opinions. For instance, when one reads that the
king is a prime divinity, and that, _quid pro quo_, the priest may be
banished, but never may be punished corporally by the king, because
the former is a still greater divinity, it may be taken for granted
that such was received opinion. When we come to take up the Hinduism
of the epic we shall point out that that work contains a religion more
popular even than that of the legal literature, for one knows that
this latter phase of religion was at first not taught at all, but grew
up in the face of opposition. But for the present, before the rise of
epic 'Hinduism,' and before taking up the heretical writings, it is a
great gain to be able to scan a side of religion that may be called
popular in so far as it evidently is the faith which not only was
taught to the masses, but which, as is universally assumed in the law,
the masses accept; whereas philosophers alone accept the _[=a]tm[=a]_
religion of the Upanishads, and the Br[=a]hmanas are not intended for
the public at all, but only for initiated priests.
What, then, is the religious belief and the moral position of the
Hindu law-books? In how far has philosophy affected public religion,
and in what way has a reconciliation been affected between the
contradictory beliefs in regard to the gods; in regard to the value of
works on the one hand, and of knowledge on the other; in regard to
hell as a means of punishment for sin on the one hand, and
reincarnation (_sams[=a]ra_) on the other; in regard to heaven as a
reward of good deeds on the one hand, and absorption into God on the
other; in regard to a personal creator on the one hand, and a First
Cause without personal attributes on the other?
For the philosophical treatises are known and referred to in the early
codes; so that, although the completed systems post-dated the
S[=u]tras, the cosmical and theological speculations of the earlier
Upanishads were familiar to the authors of the legal systems.
The first general impression produced by a perusal of the law-books is
that the popular religion has remained unaffected by philosophy. And
this is correct in so far as that it must be put first in describing
the codes, which, in the main, in keeping the ancient observances,
reflect the inherited faith. When, therefore, one says that
pantheism[7] succeeded polytheism in India, he must qualify the
assertion. The philosophers are pantheists, but what of the vulgar? Do
they give up polytheism; are they inclined to do so, or are they
taught to do so? No. For there is no formal abatement in the rigor of
the older creed. Whatever the wise man thought, and whatever in his
philosophy was the instruction which he imparted to his peers, when he
dealt with the world about him he taught his intellectual inferiors a
scarcely modified form of the creed of their fathers. How in his own
mind this wise man reconciled the two sets of opinion has been shown
above. The works of sacrifice, with all the inherited belief implied
by them, were for him preparatory studies. The elasticity of his
philosophy admitted the whole world of gods, as a temporary reality,
into his pantheistic scheme. It was, therefore, neither the hypocrisy
of the Roman augur, nor the fear of results that in his teaching held
him to the inheritance he had received. Gods, ghosts, demons, and
consequently sacrifices, rites, ordeals, and formulae were not
incongruous with his philosophical opinions. He himself believed in
these spiritual powers and in the usefulness of serving them. It is
true that he believed in their eventual doom, but so far as man was
concerned they were practically real. There was, therefore, not only
no reason why the sage should not inculcate the old rites, but there
was every reason why he should. Especially in the case of pious but
ignorant people, whose wisdom was not yet developed to a full
appreciation of divine relativity, was it incumbent on him to keep
them, the lower castes, to the one religion that they could
comprehend.
It is thus that the apparent inconsistency in exoteric and esoteric
beliefs explains itself. For the two are not contradictory. They do
not exclude each other. Hindu pantheism includes polytheism with its
attendant patrolatry, demonology, and consequent ritualism.[8]
With rare exceptions it was only the grosser religion that the vulgar
could understand; it was only this that they were taught and believed.
Thus the old Vedic gods are revered and worshipped by name. The Sun,
Indra, and all the divinities embalmed in ritual, are placated and
'satiated' with offerings, just as they had been satiated from time
immemorial. But no hint is given that this is a form; or that the
Vedic gods are of less account than they had been. Moreover, it is not
in the inherited formulae of the ritual alone that this view is
upheld. To be sure, when philosophical speculation is introduced, the
Father-god comes to the fore; Brahm[=a][9] sits aloft, indulgently
advising his children, as he does in the intermediate stage of the
Br[=a]hmanas; and _[=a]tm[=a] (brahma)_ too is recognized to be the
real being of Brahm[=a], as in the Upanishads.[10] But none of this
touches the practice of the common law, where the ordinary man is
admonished to fear Yama's hell and Varuna's bonds, as he would have
been admonished before the philosopher grew wiser than the Vedic
seers. Only personified Right, Dharma, takes his seat with shadowy
Brahm[=a] among the other gods.[11]
What is the speech which the judge on the bench is ordered to repeat
to the witnesses? Thus says the law-giver Manu: "When the witnesses
are collected together in the court, in the presence of the plaintiff
and defendant, the (Brahman) judge should call upon them to speak,
kindly addressing them in the following manner: 'Whatever you know has
been done in this affair ... declare it all. A witness who in
testifying speaks the truth reaches the worlds where all is plenty ...
such testimony is honored by Brahm[=a]. One who in testifying speaks
an untruth is, all unwilling, bound fast by the cords of Varuna,[12]
till an hundred births are passed.' ... (Then, speaking to one
witness): 'Spirit (soul) is the witness for the Spirit, and the Spirit
is likewise the refuge of the Spirit. Despise not, therefore, thine
own spirit (or soul), the highest witness of man. Verily, the wicked
think 'no one sees us,' but the gods are looking at them, and also the
person within (conscience). _Dyaus, Earth, the Waters_, (the person in
the) heart, _Moon, Sun, Fire, Yama, Wind, Night, the twin Twilights_,
and Dharma know the conduct of all corporeal beings.... Although, O
good man, thou regardest thyself, thinking, 'I am alone,' yet the holy
one (saint) who sees the evil and the good, stands ever in thy heart.
It is in truth god Yama, the son of Vivasvant, who resideth in thy
heart; if thou beest not at variance with him (thou needest) not (to)
go to the Ganges and to the (holy land of) the Kurus (to be
purified).'"
Here there is no abatement in Vedic polytheism, although it is circled
round with a thin mist from later teachings. In the same way the
ordinary man is taught that at death his spirit (soul) will pass as a
manikin out of his body and go to Yama to be judged; while the feasts
to the Manes, of course, imply always the belief in the individual
activity of dead ancestors. Such expressions as 'The seven daughters
of
Varuna' (_sapta v[=a]ru[n.][=i]r im[=a]s,_ [=A]çv. _Grih. S_. 2. 3. 3)
show that even in detail the old views are still retained. There is no
advance, except in superstitions,[13] on the main features of the old
religion. So the same old fear of words is found, resulting in new
euphemisms. One must not say 'scull,' _kap[=a]la_, but call it
_bhag[=a]la_, 'lucky' (Gaut. 9. 21); a factor in the making of African
languages also, according to modern travellers. Images of the gods are
now over-recognized by the priest, for they must be revered like the
gods themselves (_ib_. 12; P[=a]r. _Grih. S_. 3. 14. 8. etc.). Among
the developed objects of the cult serpents now occupy a prominent
place. They are mentioned as worshipful in the Br[=a]hmanas. In the
S[=u]tra period offerings are made to snakes of earth, air, and
heaven; the serpents are 'satiated' along with gods, plants, demons,
etc. (Ç[=a][.n]kh. 4. 9. 3; 15. 4; [=A]çv. 2. 1. 9; 3. 4. 1;
P[=a]rask. 2. 14. 9) and blood is poured out to them ([=A]çv. 4. 8.
27.).[14] But other later divinities than those of the earliest Veda,
such as Wealth (Kubera), and Dharma, have crept into the ritual. With
the Vedic gods appears as a divinity in Kh[=a]d. 1. 5. 31 the love-god
K[=a]ma, of the Atharvan; while on the other hand Rudra the beast-lord
(Paçupati, Lord of Cattle), the 'kindly' Çiva, appears as 'great god,'
whose names are Çankara, Prish[=a]taka, Bhava, Çarva, Ugra, Iç[=a]na
(Lord); who has all names and greatness, while he yet is described in
the words of the older text as 'the god that desires to kill' ([=A]çv.
2. 2. 2; 4. 8. 9, 19,[15] 29, 32; _[=A]it. Br_. 3. 34). On the other
hand Vishnu is also adored, and that in connection with the [Greek:
logos], or V[=a]c (_ib_. 3. 3. 4). Quite in Upanishad manner--for it
is necessary to show that these were then really known--is the formula
'thou art a student of _pr[=a][n.]a_ (Breath,) and art given over to
Ka' (_ib_. 1. 20. 8.), or _'whom?'_ In [=A]çval[=a]yana no Upanishads
are given in the list of literature, which includes the 'Eulogies of
men,' Itih[=a]sas, Pur[=a]nas, and even the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata (3. 3.
1; 4. 4). But in 1. 13. 1, _Upanishad-rites_ (and that of a very
domestic nature) are recognized, which would corroborate the
explanation of Upanishad given above, as being at first a subsidiary
work, dealing with minor points.[16] Something of the sciolism of the
Upanishads seems to lie in the prayer that of the four paths on which
walk the gods the mortal may be led in that which bestows 'freedom
from death' (P[=a]r. 3. 1. 2); and many of the teachers famous in the
Upanishads are now revered by name like gods ([=A]çv. 3. 4. 4, etc.).
On turning from these domestic S[=u]tras to the legal S[=u]tras it
becomes evident that the pantheistic doctrine of the Upanishads, and
in part the Upanishads themselves, were already familiar to the
law-makers, and that they influenced, in some degree, the doctrines of
the law, despite the retention of the older forms. Not only is
_sams[=a]ra_ the accepted doctrine, but the _[=a]tm[=a]_, as if in a
veritable Upanishad, is the object of religious devotion. Here,
however, this quest is permitted only to the ascetic, who presumably
has performed all ritualistic duties and passed through the stadia
that legally precede his own.
Of all the legal S[=u]tra-writers Gautama is oldest, and perhaps is
pre-buddhistic. Turning to his work one notices first that the
M[=i]m[=a]msist is omitted in the list of learned men (28. 49);[17]
but since the Upanishads and Ved[=a]nta are expressly mentioned, it is
evident that the author of even the oldest S[=u]tra was acquainted
with whatever then corresponded to these works.[18] The opposed
teaching of hell versus _sams[=a]ra_ is found in Gautama. But there is
rather an interesting attempt to unite them. Ordinarily it is to hell
and heaven that reference is made, _e.g_., 'the one that knows the law
obtains the heavenly world' (28. 52); 'if one speak untruth to a
teacher, even in thought, even in respect to little things, he slays
seven men after and before him' (seven descendants and seven
ancestors, 23. 31). So in the case of witnesses: 'heaven (is the
fruit) for speaking the truth; otherwise hell' (13. 7); 'for stealing
(land) hell' (is the punishment, _ib_. 17). Now and then comes the
philosophical doctrine: 'one does not fall from the world of
Brahm[=a]' (9. 74); 'one enters into union and into the same world
with Brahm[=a]' (8. 25).
But in 21. 4-6 there occurs the following statement: 'To be an outcast
is to be deprived of the works of the twice-born, and hereafter to be
deprived of happiness; this some (call) hell.' It is evident here that
the expression _asiddhis_ (deprivation of success or happiness) is
placed optionally beside _naraka_ (hell) as the view of one set of
theologians compared with that of another; 'lack of obtaining success,
_i.e_., reward' stands parallel to 'hell.' In the same chapter, where
Manu says that he who assaults a Brahman "obtains hell for one hundred
years" (M. xi. 207), Gautama (21. 20) says "for one hundred years,
lack of heaven" (_asvargyam_), which may mean hell or the deprivation
of the result of merit, _i.e_., one hundred years will be deducted
from his heavenly life. In this case not a new and better birth but
heaven is assumed to be the reward of good acts. Now if one turns to
11. 29-30 he finds both views combined. In the parallel passage in
[=A]pastamba only better or worse re-births are promised as a reward
for good or evil (2. 5. 11. 10-11); but here it is said: "The castes
and orders that remain by their duty, having died, having enjoyed the
fruits of their acts, with the remnant of their (merit) obtain
re-birth, having an excellent country, caste, and family; having long
life, learning, good conduct, wealth, happiness, and wisdom. They of
different sort are destroyed in various ways." Here, heavenly joys
(such as are implied by _ni[h.]çreyasam_ in 26) are to be enjoyed
first, and a good birth afterwards, and by implication one probably
has to interpret the next sentence to mean 'they are sent to hell and
then re-born in various low births.' This, too, is Manu's rule
(below). At this time the sacred places which purify are in great
vogue, and in Gautama a list of them is given (19. 14), viz.: "all
mountains, all rivers, holy pools, places of pilgrimage (_i.e_.,
river-fords, _tirth[=a]ni_), homes of saints, cow-pens, and altars."
Of these the _tirthas_ are particularly interesting, as they later
become of great importance, thousands of verses in the epic being
devoted to their enumeration and praise.
Gautama says also that ascetics, according to some teachers, need not
be householders first (3. 1), and that the Brahman ascetic stays at
home during the rainy season, like the heretic monks (_ib_. 13). If
one examine the relative importance of the forms and spirit of
religion as taught in this, the oldest _dharma-s[=u]tra_,[19] he will
be impressed at first with the tremendous weight laid on the former as
compared with the latter. But, as was said apropos of the Brahmanic
literature, one errs who fails to appreciate the fact that these works
are intended not to give a summary of religious conduct, but to
inculcate ceremonial rules. Of the more importance, therefore, is the
occasional pause which is made to insist, beyond peradventure, on the
superiority of moral rules. A very good instance of this is found in
Gautama. He has a list of venial sins. Since lying is one of the most
heinous offences to a Hindu lawgiver, and the penances are severe, all
the treatises state formally that an untruth uttered in fun, or when
one is in danger, or an oath of the sort implied by Plato: [Greek:
_aphrodision orkon ou phasin einai_],--all these are venial, and so
are lies told to benefit a (holy) cow, or to aid a priest; or told
from religious motives of any sort without self-interest. This is
almost the only example of looseness in morals as taught in the law.
But the following case shows most plainly the importance of morality
as opposed to formal righteousness. After all the forty sacraments (to
which allusion was made above), have been recounted, there are given
'eight good qualities of the soul,' viz., mercy, forbearance, freedom
from envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from greed and
from covetousness. Then follows: "He that has (performed) the forty
sacraments but has not the eight good qualities enters not into union
with Brahm[=a], nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a].[20] But he that has
(performed) only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good
qualities enters into union with Brahm[=a], and into the heaven of
Brahm[=a]." This is as near to heresy as pre-buddhistic Brahmanism
permitted itself to come.
In the later legal S[=u]tra of the northern Vasistha[21] occurs a rule
which, while it distinctly explains what is meant by liberality, viz.,
gifts to a priest, also recognizes the 'heavenly reward': "If gifts
are given to a man that does not know the Veda the divinities are not
satisfied" (3. 8). In the same work (6. 1) 'destruction' is the fate
of the sinner that lives without observance of good custom; yet is it
said in the same chapter (27): "If a twice-born man dies with the food
of a Ç[=u]dra (lowest caste) in his belly, he would become a village
pig, or he is born again in that (Ç[=u]dra's) family"; and, in respect
to sons begotten when he has in him such food: "Of whom the food, of
him are these sons; and he himself would not mount to heaven ... he
does not find the upward path" (29, 28). In _ib_. 8. 17 the Brahman
that observes all the rules 'does not fall from _brahmaloka,' i.e_.,
the locality of Brahm[=a]. Further, in 10. 4: "Let (an ascetic) do
away with all (sacrificial) works; but let him not do away with one
thing, the Veda; for from doing away with the Veda (one becomes) a
Ç[=u]dra." But, in the same chapter: "Let (the ascetic) live at the
end of a village, in a temple ('god's house'), in a deserted house, or
at the root of a tree; there in his mind studying the knowledge (of
the _[=a]tm[=a]_) ... so they cite (verses): 'Sure is the freedom from
re-birth in the case of one that lives in the wood with passions
subdued ... and meditates on the supreme spirit' ... Let him not be
confined to any custom ... and in regard to this (freedom from worldly
pursuits) they cite these verses: 'There is no salvation (literally
'release') for a philologist (_na çabdaç[=a]str[=a]bhiratasya
mokshas_), nor for one that delights in catching (men) in the world,
nor for one addicted to food and dress, nor for one pleased with a
fine house. By means of prodigies, omens, astrology, palmistry,
teaching, and talking let him not seek alms ... he best knows
salvation who (cares for naught)' ... (such are the verses). Let him
neither harm nor do good to anything.... Avoidance of disagreeable
conduct, jealousy, presumption, selfishness, lack of belief, lack of
uprightness, self-praise, blame of others, harm, greed, distraction,
wrath, and envy, is a rule that applies to all the stadia of life. The
Brahman that is pure, and wears the girdle, and carries the gourd in
his hand, and avoids the food of low castes fails not of obtaining the
world of Brahm[=a]" (_ib_. 10. 18 ff.). Yama, the Manes, and evil
spirits (_asuras_) are referred to in the following chapter (20, 25);
and hell in the same chapter is declared to be the portion of such
ascetics as will not eat meat when requested to do so at a feast to
the Manes or gods (11. 34),--rather an interesting verse, for in
Manu's code the corresponding threat is that, instead of going to hell
'for as long, _i.e_., as many years, as the beast has hairs,' as here,
one shall experience 'twenty-one rebirths,' _i.e_., the hell-doctrine
in terms of _sams[=a]ra_; while the same image occurs in Manu in the
form 'he that slaughters beasts unlawfully obtains as many rebirths as
there are hairs on the beast' (v. 35. 38). The passive attitude
sometimes ascribed to the Manes is denied; they rejoice over a
virtuous descendant (11. 41); a bad one deprives them of the heaven
they stand in (16. 36). The authorities on morals are here, as
elsewhere, Manu and other seers, the Vedas, and the Father-god, who
with Yama gives directions to man in regard to lawful food, etc. (14.
30). The moral side of the code, apart from ritual impurities,
is given, as usual, by a list of good and bad qualities (above),
while formal laws in regard to theft, murder (especially of a
priest), adultery and drunkenness (20. 44; i. 20), with violation
of caste-regulations by intercourse with outcasts, are 'great
crimes.' Though older than [=A]pastamba, who mentions the
P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a], Vasistha, too, knows the Ved[=a]nta (3.
17), and the M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_vikalpin--tarkin_, 3. 20, M. XII.
111).
From the S[=u]tras of B[=a]udh[=a]yana's probably southern school
something of additional interest is to be gained. Here 'darkness'
takes the place of hell (2. 3. 5. 9), which, however, by a citation is
explained (in 2. 2. 3. 34) as 'Yama's hall.' A verse is cited to show
that the greatest sin is lack of faith (1. 5. 10. 6) and not going to
heaven is the reward of folly (_ib_. 7); while the reward of virtue is
to live in heaven for long (4. 8. 7). The same freedom in regard to
ascetics as occurs in other S[=u]tra works is to be found in this
author, not in the more suspicious final chapters, but in that part of
the work which is accepted as oldest,[22] and agrees with the data
found in the Br[=a]hmanas, where the pre-buddhistic monk is called
Bhikshu, 'beggar/or Sanny[=a]sin 'he that renounces,' just as these
terms are employed in the heretical writings. As among the Jains (and
Buddhists), the Brahmanic ascetic carries a few simple utensils, and
wanders about from house to house and village to village, begging
food. Some authorities (among the Brahmans) say that one may become an
ascetic as soon as he has completed his study, though ordinarily this
may be done only after passing through the householder stadium. On
becoming an ascetic the beggar takes the vow not to injure any living
thing (B[=a]udh. II.10.17.2. 11, 29), exactly as the Jain ascetic
takes the vow of non-injury. More than this, as will be seen below,
the details of the Brahman ascetic's vows are almost identical with
those of the Jain ascetic. He vows not to injure living beings, not to
lie, not to steal, to be continent, to be liberal; with the five minor
vows, not to get angry, to obey the Teacher, not to be rash, to be
cleanly and pure in eating.[23] To this ascetic order in the Brahman
priesthood may be traced the origin of the heretical monks. Even in
the Br[=a]hmanas occur the termini technici of the Buddhist
priesthood, notably the Çramana or ascetic monk, and the word
_buddha_, 'awakened' (_pratibudh_). The 'four orders' are those
enumerated as the householder, student, ascetic, and forest-hermit. If
one live in all four orders according to rule, and be serene, he will
come to peace, that is, salvation ([=A]pastamba, 2. 9. 21. I, 2).
According to this later legal writer, who belongs to Southern
India,[24] it is only after one has passed through all the preceding
stadia that he may give up works (sacrifice, etc.) and devote himself
to seeking the [=a]tm[=a],'wandering about, without caring for earth
or heaven, renouncing truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain' (_ib_.
10, 13). There follows this passage one significant of the opposition
between purely Upanishad-ideas and those of the law-givers:
'Acquirement of peace (salvation) depends, it is said, on knowledge;
this is opposed by the codes. If on knowledge (depended) acquirement
of peace, even here (in this world) one would escape grief' (_ib._
14-16). Further, in describing the forest-hermit's austerities (_ib._
23. 4 ff.), verses from a Pur[=a]na are cited which are virtually
Upanishadic: 'The eight and eighty thousand seers who desired
offspring (went) south on Aryaman's path, and obtained (as their
reward) graves; (but) the eight and eighty thousand who did not desire
offspring (went) north on Aryaman's path and make for themselves
immortality,' that is to say 'abandon desire for offspring; and of the
two paths (which, as the commentator observes, are mentioned in the
Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad), that which gives immortality instead of death
(graves) will be yours.' It is admitted that such ascetics have
miraculous powers; but the law-maker emphatically protests in the
following S[=u]tra against the supposition that a rule which stands
opposed to the received rites (marriage, sacrifice, etc.) is of any
power, and asserts that for the future life an endless reward
('fruit'), called in revelation 'heavenly,' is appointed (_ib._ 8-11).
The next chapter, however, limits, as it were, this dogma, for it is
stated that immortality is the re-birth of one's self in the body of
one's son, and a verse is cited: 'Thou procreatest progeny, and that's
thy immortality, O mortal,' with other verses, which teach that sons
that attend to the Vedic rites magnify the fame and heaven of their
ancestors, who 'live in heaven until the destruction of creation'
_([=a] bh[=u]tasamptav[=a]t_, 2. 9. 24. 5), But 'according to the
Bhavishyat-Pur[=a]na' after this destruction of creation 'they exist
again in heaven as the cause of seed' (_ib._) 6. And then follows a
quotation from the Father-god: 'We live with those people who do these
(following) things: (attend to) the three Vedas, live as students,
create children, sacrifice to the Manes, do penance, make sacrifice to
the gods, practice liberality; he that extols anything else becomes
air (or dust) and perishes' (_ib._) 8; and further: 'only they that
commit sin perish' (not their ancestors).
The animus of this whole passage is apparent. The law-maker has to
contend with them that would reject the necessity of following in
order the traditional stadia of a priest's life; that imagine that by
becoming ascetics without first having passed through the preliminary
stadia they can by knowledge alone attain the bliss that is obtained
by union with _brahma_ (or Brahm[=a]). In other words the jurist has
to contend with a trait eminently anti-Brahmanistic, even Buddhistic.
He denies this value of knowledge, and therewith shows that what he
wishes to have inculcated is a belief in the temporary personal
existence of the Manes; in heaven till the end of the world-order; and
the annihilation of the wicked; while he has a confused or mixed
opinion in regard to one's own personal immortality, believing on the
one hand that there is a future existence in heaven with the gods, and
on the other (rather a materialistic view) that immortality is nothing
but continued existence in the person of one's descendants, who are
virtually one's self in another body: _dehatvam ev[=a]'nyat,_ "only
the body is different" (_ib_) 2. As to cosmogony it is stated to be
(not the emanation of an _[=a]tm[=a]_) but the "emission (creation) of
the Father-god and of the seers" (the latter being visible as stars,
_ib_. 13, 14). In this there is plainly a received popular opinion,
which reflects the Vedic and Brahmanic stage, and is opposed to the
philosophical views of the Upanishads, in other words of the first
Vedantic philosophy; while it is mixed up with the late doctrine of
the cataclysms, which ruin each succeeding^ creation. The equal
annihilation of the wicked (_dhvamsanti_) and unorthodox (_dhvamsate_)
is to be noticed. They are here subject neither to hell nor to
rebirth, but they "become dust and perish" (_ib_. 8. 9).
Throughout the whole legal literature one will find this same
antithesis of views in regard to the fate of good and bad, although it
is seldom that annihilation is predicated of the latter. Usually hell
or rebirth are their fate--two views, which no one can really
reconcile. They are put side by side; exactly as in priestly
discussion in India and Europe it still remains an unsettled question
as to when the soul becomes immortal.[25] Occidental experience
teaches how easy it is for such views to stand together unattacked,
although they are the object of speculation. This passage is perhaps,
historically, the most satisfactory (as it is philosophically
unsatisfactory) that can be cited in answer to the questions that were
posed above. But from other parts of legal literature a few more
statements may be culled, to illustrate still further the lack of
uniformity not only in popular belief, but in the teaching provided
for the public. First from the same work of [=A]pastamba, in 2. 11.
29. 9-10 it is said that if a witness in court perjure himself he
shall be punished by the king, "and further, in passing to the next
world, hell" (is his portion); whereas "(the reward) for truth is
heaven, and praise on the part of all creatures." Now, let one compare
first _ib_. 2. 5. 11. 10-11: "Men of low castes are reborn in higher
castes in successive births, and men of high castes in low castes, if
they respectively perform and neglect their duties." And then this
Vedantic passage of the same author (1. 8. 22 ff.): "Let one (as
penance for sin) devote himself to the Yoga (mental discipline) which
has to do with the highest _[=a]tm[=a]_ ... Nothing is known higher
than the acquisition of _[=a]tm[=a]_. We shall (now) cite some
_[=a]tm[=a]_-acquisition-verses, viz.: All living creatures (are) the
citadel of him that rests in secret, the indestructible one, the
immaculate one. Immortal they that devote themselves to the moveless
one who has a movable dwelling ... the great one whose body is light,
universal, free ... the eternal (part) in all creatures, the wise,
immortal, unchanging one, limbless, voiceless, formless, touchless,
purest, the highest goal. He that everywhere devotes himself to Him
(_[=a]tm[=a]_ as Lord), and always lives accordingly; that by virtue
of Yoga recognizes Him, the subtile one, shall rejoice in the top of
heaven ... He, _[=a]tm[=a],_ comprehends all, embraces all, more
subtile than a lotus-thread and huger than the earth ... From him are
created all bodies; he is the root, he the Everlasting, the Eternal
One."
This discipline it will be observed is enjoined as penance and to get
rid of faults, that is, to subdue the passions. As the same chapter
contains a list of the faults which are to be overcome before one
"arrives at peace" (salvation) they may be cited here: "Anger, joy,
wrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lying, over-eating,
calumny, envy, sexual desire, and hate, lack of studying _[=a]tm[=a],_
lack of Yoga--the destruction of these (faults) is based on Yoga"
(mental concentration). On the other hand: "He that devotes himself,
in accordance with the law, to avoiding anger, joy, wrath, greed,
distraction, injury, threats, lies, over-eating, calumny and envy; and
practices liberality, renunciation, uprightness, kindness, subduing
(of the passions), self-control; and is at peace with all creatures;
and practices Yoga; and acts in an [=A]ryan (noble) way; and does not
hurt anything; and has contentment--qualities which, it is agreed,
appertain to all the (four) stadia--he becomes _s[=a]rvag[=a]min"
(ib._ 23.6), that is 'one belonging to the all-pervading' (All-soul).
There appears to be a contradiction between the former passage, where
Yoga is enjoined on ascetics alone; and this, where Yoga is part of
the discipline of all four stadia. But what was in the author's mind
was probably that all these vices and moral virtues are enumerated as
such for all; and he slips in mental concentration as a virtue for the
ascetic, meaning to include all the virtues he knows.
A few further illustrations from that special code which has won for
itself a preeminent name, 'the law-book of Manu,'[26] will give in
epitome the popular religion as taught to the masses; withal even
better than this is taught in the S[=u]tras. For Father Manu's
law-book, as the Hindus call it, is a popular Ç[=a]stra or metrical[27]
composite of law and religion, which reflects the opinion of
Brahmanism in its geographical stronghold, whereas the S[=u]tras
emanate from various localities, north and south. To Manu there is but
one Holy Land, the Kurus' plain and the region round-about it (near
Delhi).
The work takes us forward in time beyond even the latest S[=u]tras,
but the content is such as to show that formal Brahmanism in this
latest stage still keeps to its old norm and to Brahmanic models.
It deserves therefore to be examined with care from several points of
view if one would escape from the belief of the philosopher to the
more general teaching. In this popular religion all morality is
conditioned by the castes,[28] which is true also to a certain degree
of the earlier Sutras, but the evil fruit of this plant is not there
quite so ripe as it is in the later code. The enormity of all crimes
depends on who commits them, and against whom they are committed. The
three upper castes alone have religious privileges. The lowest caste,
outcasts, women, and diseased persons are not allowed to hear the holy
texts or take part in ceremonies.[29] As to the rites, they are the
inherited ones, sacrifices to gods, offerings to Manes and spirits,
and all the ceremonies of house and individual, as explained above;
with especial and very minute rules of observance for each of the four
stadia of a priest's life.[30] There is no hint in any of this of the
importance of the knowledge of the _[=a]tm[=a]._ But in their proper
place the rules of morality and the higher philosophical views are
taught. The doctrine of re-birth is formally stated, and the
attainment of the world of Brahm[=a] _(brahma)_ by union of ceremonies
and knowledge is inculcated. The ascetic should seek, by meditation,
to go to Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_) for when he is utterly indifferent,
then, both here and after death, he gains everlasting happiness.
Therefore he should study the Vedas, but especially the teachings in
regard to the Supreme Spirit, and the Upanishads; studying the
Ved[=a]nta is a regular part of his final discipline (VI, 74-94). In
another part of the work the distinction made in the Upanishads is
upheld, that religious acts are of two sorts, one designed to procure
bliss, and cause a good man to reach equality with the gods; the other
performed without selfish motive; by which latter "even the five
elements are overcome," that is, the absorption into _brahma_ is
effected. For "among all virtuous acts the knowledge of the spirit,
_[=a]tm[=a],_ is highest; through this is obtained even immortality.
One that sees spirit in all things and all things in spirit sacrifices
to spirit and enters Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_)" "The spirit (or self) is
all divinities; the All is based on spirit." And in Upanishadic vein
the Person is then proclaimed as lord of gods, whom "some call fire,
some call Manu, some call Indra, some call air, and some call eternal
_brahma._" But though this be the view of the closing verses, yet in
the beginning of the work is this Person represented as being produced
from a First Cause. It would be out of place here to analyse the
conflicting philosophical views of the Manu code. Even his
commentators are uncertain whether he belonged to the pantheistic
Ved[=a]nta or dualistic S[=a]nkhya school. For them that believe in no
Manu the solution is simpler. Although Manu is usually called a
Puranic Sankhyan, yet are both schools represented, and that without
regard to incongruous teaching. Manu is no more Sankhyan than
Vedantic. Indeed in the main part of the work the teaching is clearly
more Vedantic. But it suffices here to point out that the
_[=a]tm[=a]_-philosophy and religion is not ignored; it is taught as
essential. Nevertheless, it is not taught in such a way as to indicate
that it is requisite for the vulgar. On the contrary, it is only when
one becomes an ascetic that he is told to devote himself to the
pursuit of the knowledge of _[=a]tm[=a]_. In one passage there is
evidence that two replies were given to this fundamental question in
regard to works and knowledge. For after enumerating a list of good
acts, among which are knowledge and Vedic ceremonies, it is asked
which among them most tends to deliverance. The answer is vital. Or it
should be, but it is given in an ambiguous form (xii. 85-6): "Amid all
these acts the knowledge of self, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is the highest, for it
produces immortality. Amid all these acts the one most productive of
happiness, both after death and in this life, is the Vedic ceremony."
Knowledge gives real immortality; rites give temporary bliss. The
Upanishads teach that the latter is lower than the former, but each
answers the question. There were two answers, and Manu gives both.
That is the secret of many discrepancies in Hindu rules. The law-giver
cannot admit absolutely and once for all that the Vedic ceremony is of
no abiding use, as it can be of no use to one that accepts the higher
teaching. He keeps it as a training and allows only the ascetic to be
a philosopher indeed. But at the same time he gives as a sort of
peroration to his treatise some 'elegant extracts' from philosophical
works, which he believes theoretically, although practically he will
not allow them to influence his ritualism. He is a true Brahman
priest.
It is this that is always so annoying in Brahmanic philosophy. For the
slavery of tradition is everywhere. Not only does the ritualist, while
admitting the force of the philosopher's reasons, remain by Vedic
tradition, and in consequence refuse to supplant 'revelation' with the
higher wisdom and better religion, which he sees while he will not
follow it; but even the philosopher must needs be 'orthodox,' and,
since the scriptures themselves are self-contradictory, he is obliged
to use his energies not in discovering truth, but in reconciling his
ancestors' dogmas, in order to the creation of a philosophical system
which shall agree with everything that has been said in the Vedas and
Upanishads. When one sees what subtlety and logical acumen these
philosophers possessed, he is moved to wonder what might have been the
outcome had their minds been as free as those of more liberal Hellas.
But unfortunately they were bound to argue within limits, and were as
much handicapped in the race of thought as were they that had to
conform to the teachings of Rome. For though India had no church, it
had an inquisitorial priestly caste, and the unbeliever was an
outcast. What is said of custom is true of faith: "Let one walk in the
path of good men, the path in which his father walked, in which his
grandfathers walked; walking in that path one does no wrong" (Manu iv.
178). Real philosophy, unhampered by tradition, is found only among
the heretics and in the sects of a later time.
The gods of old are accepted by the orthodox as a matter of course,
although theoretically they are born of the All-god, who is without
the need of ceremonial rites. To the other castes the active and most
terrible deity is represented as being the priest himself. He not only
symbolizes the fire-god, to whom is offered the sacrifice, but he
actually is the divinity in person. Hence there is no greater merit
than in giving gifts to priests. As to eschatology, opinions are not
contrasted any more. They are put side by side. In morality truth,
purity, and harmlessness are chiefly inculcated. But the last
(ascribed by some scholars to Buddhistic influence) is not permitted
to interfere with animal sacrifices.
Some of the rules for the life of a householder will show in brief the
moral excellence and theoretical uncertainty of Manu's law-code. The
following extracts are from the fourth, the Ten Commandments from the
sixth, and the description of the hells (twenty-two in all)[31] from
the fourth and twelfth books of Manu's code. These rules may be
accepted as a true reflexion of what was taught to the people by
stringent Brahmanism as yet holding aloof from Hinduism.
A householder must live without giving any pain (to living creatures).
He must perform daily the ceremonies ordained in the Veda. In this way
he obtains heaven. Let him never neglect the offerings to seers, gods,
spirits (sprites), men, and Manes. Some offer sacrifice only in their
organs of sense (not in external offerings); some by knowledge alone.
Let him not explain law and rites to the Ç[=u]dra (slave) caste; if he
does so, he sinks into the hell Boundless. Let him not take presents
from an avaricious king who disobeys the law-codes; if he does so, he
goes to twenty-one hells (called Darkness, Dense-darkness, Frightful,
Hell, Thread of Death, Great Hell, Burning, Place of Spikes,
Frying-pan, River of Hell, etc., etc., etc.). Let him never despise a
warrior, a snake, or a priest. Let him never despise himself. Let him
say what is true and what is agreeable, but not disagreeable truth or
agreeable false-hood. Let him not dispute with anybody, but let him
say 'very well.' Let him not insult anybody. Remembering his former
births, and studying the Veda again and again, he gets endless
happiness. Let him avoid unbelief and censure of the Vedas, reviling
of gods, hatred, pride, anger, and cruelty. He that even threatens a
priest will go to the hell Darkness for one hundred years; if he
strikes him he will be born in twenty-one sinful rebirths (according
to another passage in the eleventh book he goes to hell for a thousand
years for the latter offence). Priests rule the world of gods. But
deceitful, hypocritical priests go to hell. Let the householder give
gifts, and he will be rewarded. One that gives a garment gets a place
in the moon; a giver of grain gets eternal happiness; a giver of the
Veda gets union with Brahm[=a] (_brahma_; these gifts, of course, are
all to priests). He that gives respectfully and he that receives
respectfully go to heaven; otherwise both go to hell. Let him, without
giving pain to any creature, slowly pile up virtue, as does an ant its
house, that he may have a companion in the next world. For after death
neither father, nor mother, nor son, nor wife, nor relations are his
companions; his virtue alone remains with him. The relations leave the
dead body, but its virtue follows the spirit: with his virtue as his
companion he will traverse the darkness that is hard to cross; and
virtue will lead him to the other world with a luminous form and
ethereal body. A priest that makes low connections is reborn as a
slave. The Father-god permits a priest to accept alms even from a bad
man. For fifteen years the Manes refuse to accept food from one that
despises a free gift. A priest that sins should be punished (that is,
mulcted, a priest may not be punished corporally), more than an
ordinary man, for the greater the wisdom the greater the offence. They
that commit the Five Great Sins live many years in hells, and
afterwards obtain vile births; the slayer of a priest becomes in turn
a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, etc, etc. A
priest that drinks intoxicating liquor becomes various insects, one
after another. A priest that steals becomes a spider, snake, etc, etc.
By repeating sinful acts men are reborn in painful and base births,
and are hurled about in hells; where are sword-leaved trees, etc, and
where they are eaten, burned, spitted, and boiled; and they receive
births in despicable wombs; rebirth to age, sorrow, and unquenchable
death. But to secure supreme bliss a priest must study the Veda,
practice austerity, seek knowledge, subdue the senses, abstain from
injury, and serve his Teacher. Which of these gives highest bliss? The
knowledge of the spirit is the highest and foremost, for it gives
immortality. The performance of Vedic ceremonies is the most
productive of happiness here and hereafter. The Ten Commandments for
the twice-born are: Contentment, patience, self-control, not to steal,
purity, control of passions, devotion (or wisdom), knowledge,
truthfulness, and freedom from anger. These are concisely summarized
again in the following: 'Manu declared the condensed rule of duty for
(all) the four castes to be: not to injure a living thing; to speak
the truth; not to steal; to be pure; to control the passions' (VI. 92;
X. 63). The 'non-injury' rule does not apply, of course, to sacrifice
(_ib_. III. 268). In the epic the commandments are given sometimes as
ten, sometimes as eight.
In order to give a completed exposition of Brahmanism we have passed
beyond the period of the great heresies, to which we must soon revert.
But, before leaving the present division of the subject, we select
from the mass of Brahmanic domestic rites, the details of which offer
in general little that is worth noting, two or three ceremonies which
possess a more human interest, the marriage rite, the funeral rite,
and those strange trials, known among so many other peoples, the
ordeals. We sketch these briefly, wishing merely to illustrate the
religious side of each ceremony, as it appears in one or more of its
features.
THE MARRIAGE RITE.
Traces of exogamy may be suspected in the bridegroom's driving off
with his bride, but no such custom, of course, is recognized in the
law. On the contrary, the groom is supposed to belong to the same
village, and special rites are enjoined 'if he be from another
village.' But again, in the early rule there is no trace of that taint
of family which the totem-scholars of to-day cite so loosely from
Hindu law. The girl is not precluded because she belongs to the same
family within certain degrees. The only restriction in the
House-rituals is that she shall have had "on the mother's and father's
side" wise, pious, and honorable ancestors for ten generations
([=A]çvl. I. 5). Then comes the legal restriction, which some scholars
call 'primitive,' that the wife must not be too nearly related. The
girl has her own ordeal (not generally mentioned among ordeals!): The
wooer that thus selects his bride (this he does if one has not been
found already either by his parents or by his own inclination) makes
eight balls of earth and calls on the girl to choose one ('may she get
that to which she is born'). If she select a ball made from the earth
of a field that bears two crops, she (or her child) will be rich in
grain; if from the cow-stall, rich in cattle; if from the place of
sacrifice, godly; if from a pool that does not dry, gifted; if from
the gambler's court, devoted to gambling; if from cross-roads,
unfaithful; if from a barren field, poor in grain; if from the
burying-ground, destructful of her husband. There are several forms of
making a choice, but we confine ourselves to the marriage.[32] In
village-life the bridegroom is escorted to the girl's house by young
women who tease him. The bridegroom presents presents to the bride,
and receives a cow. The bridegroom takes the bride's hand, saying 'I
take thy hand for weal' (Rig Veda, X. 85. 36), and leads her to a
certain stone, on which she steps first with the right foot (toe).
Then three times they circumambulate the fire, keeping it to the
right, an old Aryan custom for many rites, as in the _deisel_ of the
Kelts; the bride herself offering grain in the fire, and the groom
repeating more Vedic verses. They then take together the seven solemn
steps (with verses),[33] and so they are married. The groom, if of
another village, now drives away with the bride, and has ready Vedic
verses for every stage of the journey. After sun-down the groom points
out the north star, and admonishes the bride to be no less constant
and faithful. Three or twelve days they remain chaste, some say one
night; others say, only if he be from another village. The new husband
must now see to the house-fire, which he keeps ever burning, the sign
of his being a householder.
THE FUNERAL CEREMONY.
Roth has an article in the Journal of the German Oriental Society
(VIII. 467) which is at once a description of one of the funeral hymns
o£ the Rig Veda (X. 18) with the later ritual, and a criticism of the
bearing of the latter on the former.[34] He shows here that the
ritual, so far from having induced the hymn, totally changes it. The
hymn was written for a burial ceremony. The later ritual knows only
cremation. The ritual, therefore, forces the hymn into its service,
and makes it a cremation-hymn. This is a very good (though very
extreme) example of the difference in age between the early hymns of
the Rig Veda and the more modern ritual. Müller, _ib_. IX. p. I
(_sic_), has given a thorough account of the later ritual and
ritualistic paraphernalia. We confine ourselves here to the older
ceremony.
The scene of the Vedic hymn is as follows: The friends and relatives
stand about the corpse of a married man. By the side of the corpse
sits the widow. The hymn begins: "Depart, O Death, upon some other
pathway, upon thy path, which differs from the path of gods ... harm
not our children, nor our heroes.... These living ones are separated
from the dead; successful today was our call to the gods. (This man is
dead, but) _we_ go back to dancing and to laughter, extending further
our still lengthened lives." Then the priest puts a stone between the
dead and living: "I set up a wall for the living, may no one of these
come to this goal; may they live an hundred full harvests, and hide
death with this stone...."
The matrons assembled are now bid to advance without tears, and make
their offerings to the fire, while the widow is separated from the
corpse of her husband and told to enter again into the world of the
living. The priest removes the dead warrior's bow from his hand: "Let
the women, not widows, advance with the ointment and holy butter; and
without tears, happy, adorned, let them, to begin with, mount to the
altar (verse 7, p. 274, below). Raise thyself, woman, to the world of
the living; his breath is gone by whom thou liest; come hither; of the
taker of thy hand (in marriage), of thy wooer thou art become the
wife[35] (verse 8). I take the bow from the hand of the dead for our
(own) lordship, glory, and strength." Then he addresses the dead:
"Thou art there, and we are here; we will slay every foe and every
attacker (with the power got from thee). Go thou now to Mother Earth,
who is wide opened, favorable, a wool-soft maiden to the good man; may
she guard thee from the lap of destruction. Open, O earth, be not
oppressive to him; let him enter easily; may he fasten close to thee.
Cover him like a mother, who wraps her child in her garment. Roomy and
firm be the earth, supported by a thousand pillars; from this time on
thou (man) hast thy home and happiness yonder; may a sure place remain
to him forever. I make firm the earth about thee; may I not be harmed
in laying the clod here; may the fathers hold this pillar for thee,
and Yama make thee a home yonder."
In the Atharva Veda mention is made of a coffin, but none is noticed
here.
Hillebrandt (_loc. cit_. xl. 711) has made it probable that the eighth
verse belongs to a still older ritual, according to which this verse
is one for human sacrifice, which is here ignored, though the text is
kept.[36] 'Just so the later ritual keeps all this text, but twists it
into a crematory rite. For in the later period only young children are
buried. Of burial there was nothing for adults but the collection of
bones and ashes. At this time too the ritual consists of three parts,
cremation, collection of ashes, expiation. How are these to be
reconciled with this hymn? Very simply. The rite is described and
verses from the hymn are injected into it without the slightest
logical connection. That is the essence of all the Brahmanic
ritualism. The later rite is as follows: Three altars are erected,
northwest, southwest, and southeast of a mound of earth. In the fourth
corner is the corpse; at whose feet, the widow. The brother of the
dead man, or an old servant, takes the widow's hand and causes her to
rise while the priest says "Raise thyself, woman, to the world of the
living." Then follows the removal of the bow; or the breaking of it,
in the case of a slave. The body is now burned, while the priest says
"These living ones are separated from the dead"; and the mourners
depart without looking around, and must at once perform their
ablutions of lustration. After a time the collection of bones is made
with the verse "Go thou now to Mother Earth" and "Open, O earth." Dust
is flung on the bones with the words "Roomy and firm be the earth";
and the skull is laid on top with the verse "I make firm the earth
about thee." In other words the original hymn is fitted to the ritual
only by displacement of verses from their proper order and by a forced
application of the words. After all this comes the ceremony of
expiation with the use of the verse "I set up a wall" without
application of any sort. Further ceremonies, with further senseless
use of other verses, follow in course of time. These are all explained
minutely in the essay of Roth, whose clear demonstration of the
modernness of the ritual, as compared with the antiquity of the hymn
should be read complete.
The seventh verse (above) has a special literature of its own, since
the words "let them, to begin with, mount the altar," have been
changed by the advocates of _suttee_, widow-burning, to mean 'to the
place of fire'; which change, however, is quite recent. The burning of
widows begins rather late in India, and probably was confined at first
to the pet wife of royal persons. It was then claimed as an honor by
the first wife, and eventually without real authority, and in fact
against early law, became the rule and sign of a devoted wife. The
practice was abolished by the English in 1829; but, considering the
widow's present horrible existence, it is questionable whether it
would not be a mercy to her and to her family to restore the right of
dying and the hope of heaven, in the place of the living death and
actual hell on earth in which she is entombed to-day.
ORDEALS.[37]
Fire and water are the means employed in India to test guilt in the
earlier period. Then comes the oath with judgment indicated by
subsequent misfortune. All other forms of ordeals are first recognized
in late law-books. We speak first of the ordeals that have been
thought to be primitive Aryan. The Fire-ordeal: (1) Seven fig-leaves
are tied seven times upon the hands after rice has been rubbed upon
the palms; and the judge then lays a red-hot ball upon them; the
accused, or the judge himself, invoking the god (Fire) to indicate the
innocence or the guilt of the accused. The latter then walks a certain
distance, 'slowly through seven circles, each circle sixteen fingers
broad, and the space between the circles being of the same extent,'
according to some jurists; but other dimensions, and eight or nine
circles are given by other authorities. If the accused drop the ball
he must repeat the test. The burning of the hands indicates guilt. The
Teutonic laws give a different measurement, and state that the hand is
to be sealed for three days (manus sub sigillo triduum tegatur) before
inspection. This sealing for three days is paralleled by modern Indic
practice, but not by ancient law. In Greece there is the simple
[Greek: _mudrous airein cheroin_] (Ant. 264) to be compared. The
German sealing of the hand is not reported till the ninth century.[38]
(2) Walking on Fire: There is no ordeal in India to correspond to the
Teutonic walking over six, nine, or twelve hot ploughshares. To lick a
hot ploughshare, to sit on or handle hot iron, and to take a short
walk over coals is _late_ Indic. The German practice also according to
Schlagintweit "war erst in späterer Zeit aufgekommen."[39]
(3) Walking through Fire: This is a Teutonic ordeal, and (like the
conflict-ordeal) an Indic custom not formally legalized. The accused
walks directly into the fire. So [Greek: _pur dierpein] (loc. cit_.).
Water-ordeals: (1) May better be reckoned to fire-ordeals. The
innocent plunges his hand into boiling water and fetches out a stone
(Anglo-Saxon law) or a coin (Indic law) without injury to his hand.
Sometimes (in both practices) the plunge alone is demanded. The depth
to which the hand must be inserted is defined by Hindu jurists.
(2) The Floating-ordeal. The victim is cast into water. If he floats
he is guilty; if he drowns he is innocent. According to some Indic
authorities an arrow is shot off at the moment the accused is dropped
into the water, and a 'swift runner' goes after and fetches it back.
"If at his return he find the body of the accused still under water,
the latter shall be declared to be innocent."[40] According to Kaegi
this ordeal would appear to be unknown in Europe before the ninth
century. In both countries Water (in India, Varuna) is invoked not to
keep the body of a guilty man but to reject it (make it float).
Food-ordeal: Some Hindu law-books prescribe that in the case of
suspected theft the accused shall eat consecrated rice. If the gums be
not hurt, no blood appear on spitting, and the man do not tremble, he
will be innocent. This is also a Teutonic test, but it is to be
observed that the older laws in India do not mention it.
On the basis of these examples (not chosen in historical sequence)
Kaegi has concluded, while admitting that ordeals with a general
similarity to these have arisen quite apart from Aryan influence, that
there is here a bit of primitive Aryan law; and that even the minutiae
of the various trials described above are _un_-Aryan. This we do
not believe. But before stating our objections we must mention another
ordeal.
The Oath: While fire and water are the usual means of testing crime in
India, a simple oath is also permitted, which may involve either the
accused alone or his whole family. If misfortune, within a certain
time (at once, in seven days, in a fortnight, or even half a year)
happen to the one that has sworn, he will be guilty. This oath-test is
also employed in the case of witnesses at court, perjury being
indicated by the subsequent misfortune (Manu, viii. 108).[41]
Our objections to seeing primitive Aryan law in the minutiae of
ordeals is based on the gradual evolution of these ordeals and of
their minutiae in India itself. The earlier law of the S[=u]tras
barely mentions ordeals; the first 'tradition law' of Manu has only
fire, water, and the oath. All others, and all special descriptions
and restrictions, are mentioned in later books alone. Moreover, the
earliest (pre-legal) notice of ordeals in India describes the carrying
of hot iron (in the test of theft) as simply "bearing a hot axe,"
while still earlier there is only walking through fire.[42]
To the tests by oath, fire, and water of the code of Manu are soon
added in later law those of consecrated water, poison, and the
balance. Restrictions increase and new trials are described as one
descends the series of law-books (the consecrated food, the hot-water
test, the licking of the ploughshare, and the lot), Some of these
later forms have already been described. The further later tests we
will now sketch briefly.
Poison: The earliest poison-test, in the code of Y[=a]jñavalkya (the
next after Manu), is an application of aconite-root, and as the poison
is very deadly, the accused is pretty sure to die. Other laws give
other poisons and very minute restrictions, tending to ease the
severity of the trial.
The Balance-test: This is the opposite of the floating-test. The
man[43] stands in one scale and is placed in equilibrium with a weight
of stone in the other scale. He then gets out and prays, and gets in
again. If the balance sinks, he is guilty; if it rises, he is
innocent.
The Lot-ordeal: This consists in drawing out of a vessel one of two
lots, equivalent respectively to _dharma_ and _adharma_, right and
wrong. Although Tacitus mentions the same ordeal among the Germans, it
is not early Indic law, not being known to any of the ancient legal
codes.
One may claim without proof or disproof that these are all 'primitive
Aryan'; but to us it appears most probable that only the idea of the
ordeal, or at most its application in the simplest forms of water and
fire (and perhaps oath) is primitive Aryan, and that all else
(including ordeal by conflict) is of secondary growth among the
different nations.
As an offset to the later Indic tendency to lighten the severity of
the ordeal may be mentioned the description of the floating-test as
seen by a Chinese traveller in India in the seventh century A.D.:[44]
"The accused is put into a sack and a stone is put into another sack.
The two sacks are connected by a cord and flung into deep water. If
the sack with the man sinks and the sack with the stone floats the
accused is declared to be innocent."
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Literally, transmigration, the doctrine of
metempsychosis, successive births; first, as in Plato:
[Greek: _metabolê tis tugchanei ousa kai metoikêois tê
psuchê ton topon tou enthende eis allon tochon_], then
_metabole_, from 'the other place,' back to earth; then,
with advancing speculation, fresh _metabole_ again, and so
on; a theory more or less clumsily united with the
bell-doctrine.]
[Footnote 2: Weber has lately published two monographs on
the sacrifices, the R[=a]jas[=u]ya and the V[=a]japeya
rites, both full of interesting details and popular
features.]
[Footnote 3: The traditional sacrifices are twenty-one in
number, divided into three classes of seven each. The formal
divisions are (1) oblations of butter, milk, corn, etc.; (2)
_soma_ sacrifices; (3) animal sacrifices, regarded as part
of the first two. The sacrifice of the new and full moon is
to be repeated on each occasion for thirty years. A
_sattra_, session, is a long sacrifice which may last a year
or more.]
[Footnote 4: The latter are the metrical codes, a part of
Smriti (sm[r.]ti).]
[Footnote 5: The Five Paramount Sacrifices (Observances)
are, according to Manu III. 70, study of the Veda (or
teaching it); sacrifice to the Manes and to the gods;
offerings of foods to ghosts (or spirits); and hospitality.]
[Footnote 6: In the report of the Or. Congress for 1880, p.
158 ff., Williams has a very interesting account of the
daily rites of the modern orthodox Hindu ('_Rig Veda in
Religious Service_').]
[Footnote 7: We ignore here the later distinction between
the Ved[=a]nta and S[=a]nkhya systems. Properly speaking,
the latter is dualistic.]
[Footnote 8: At a later date Buddha himself is admitted into
the Brahmanic pantheon as an _avatar_ of the All-god!]
[Footnote 9: Sometimes regarded as one with Praj[=a]pati,
and sometimes treated as distinct from him.]
[Footnote 10: Thus (for the priestly ascetic alone) in M.
vi. 79: 'Leaving his good deeds to his loved ones and his
evil deeds to his enemies, by force of meditation he goes to
the eternal _brahma_.' Here _brahma_; but in Gautama perhaps
Brahm[=a].]
[Footnote 11: That is, when the latter are grouped as in the
following list. Our point is that, despite new faith and new
gods, Vedic polytheism is taught not as a form but as a
reality, and that in this period the people still believe as
of old in the old gods, though they also acknowledge new
ones (below).]
[Footnote 12: Compare Manu, ix. 245: "Varuna is the lord of
punishment and holdeth a sceptre (punishment) even over
kings."]
[Footnote 13: In new rites, for instance. Thus in P[=a]rask.
_Grih. S_. 3. 7 a silly and dirty rite 'prevents a slave
from running away'; and there is an ordeal for girls before
becoming engaged (below).]
[Footnote 14: Blood is poured out to the demons in order
that they may take this and no other part of the sacrifice,
_[=A]it. Br_. ii. 7. 1.]
[Footnote 15: Here. 4. 8. 19, Çiva's names are Hara, Mrida,
Çarva, Çiva, Bhava, Mah[=a]deva, Ugra, Bhima, Paçupati,
Rudra, Çankara, Içana.]
[Footnote 16: These rites are described in 6. 4. 24 of the
_Brihad [=A]ranyaka Upanishad_ which consists both of
metaphysics and of ceremonial rules.]
[Footnote 17: Especially mentioned in the later Vasistha
(see below); on _m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]_ a branch of the
Ved[=a]nta system see below.]
[Footnote 18: The commentator here (19. 12, cited by Bühler)
defines Ved[=a]nta as the part of the [=A]ranyakas which are
not Upanishads, that is, apparently as a local 'Veda-end'
(_veda-anta_), though this meaning is not admitted by some
scholars, who will see in _anta_ only the meaning 'goal,
aim.']
[Footnote 19: The Rudra (Çiva) invocation at 26. 12 ff. is
interpolated, according to Bühler.]
[Footnote 20: Here there is plainly an allusion to the two
states of felicity of the Upanishads. Whether the law-giver
believes that the spirit will be united with Brahm[=a] or
simply live in his heaven he does not say.]
[Footnote 21: Gautama, too, is probably a Northerner. The
S[=u]tra, it should be observed, are not so individual as
would be implied by the name of the teachers to whom they
are credited. They were each texts of a school, _carana_,
but they are attributed uniformly to a special teacher, who
represents the _cara[n.]a_, as has been shown by Müller. For
what is known in regard to the early 'S[=u]tra-makers' see
Bühler's introductions to volumes ii. and xiv. of the Sacred
Books.]
[Footnote 22: Compare Bühler's Introduction, p. XXXV, SBE.
vol. XIV.]
[Footnote 23: B[=a]udh. II. 18. 2-3. Compare Jacobi's
Introduction, p. XXIII ff. of SBE. vol. XXII.]
[Footnote 24: Bühler (Introduction, p. XXXI) gives as the
district of the [=A]pastamb[=i]ya school parts of the Bombay
Presidency, the greater parts of the Niz[=a]m's possessions,
and parts of the Madras Presidency. Apastamba himself refers
to Northerners as if they were foreigners (_loc. cit.)_.]
[Footnote 25: In India the latter question is: does the soul
immediately at death unite with the _[=a]tm[=a]_ or does it
travel to it. In Europe: does the soul wait for the Last
Day, or get to heaven immediately? Compare Maine, _Early Law
and Custom_, p. 71.]
[Footnote 26: Thought by some scholars to have been
developed out of the code of The M[=a]navas; but ascribed by
the Hindus to Father Manu, as are many other verses of legal
character contained in the epic and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 27: Although S[=u]tras may be metrical too in
part, yet is the complete metrical form, as in the case of
still later Ç[=a]stra, evidence that the work is intended
for the general public.]
[Footnote 28: The priest alone, in the post-Vedic age, has
the right to teach the sacred texts; he has immunity from
bodily punishment; the right to receive gifts, and other
special privileges. The three upper castes have each the
right and duty of studying the sacred texts for a number of
years.]
[Footnote 29: Weber has shown, _loc. cit_., that the
Ç[=u]dras did attend some of the more popular ceremonies,
and at first apparently even took a part in them.]
[Footnote 30: The 'four orders' or stadia of a priest's
life, student, householder, hermit, ascetic, must not be
confused with the 'four (political) orders' (castes),
priest, warrior, farmer, slave--to which, from time to time,
were added many 'mixed castes,' as well as 'outcasts,' and
natural pariahs. At the time of Manu's code there were
already many of these half-assimilated groups.]
[Footnote 31: Theoretically, twenty-one; but an extra one
has slipped in by mistake.]
[Footnote 32: The girl is given or bought, or may make her
own choice among different suitors. Buying a wife is
reprehended by the early law-givers (therefore, customary).
The rite of marriage presupposes a grown girl, but
child-marriages also were known to the early law.]
[Footnote 33: The groom 'releases her from Varuna's fetter,'
by symbolically loosening the hair. They step northeast, and
he says: 'One step for sap; two for strength; three for
riches; four for luck; five for children; six for the
seasons; seven for friendship. Be true to me--may we have
many long-lived sons.']
[Footnote 34: There is another funeral hymn, X. 16, in which
the Fire is invoked to burn the dead, and bear him to the
fathers; his corporeal parts being distributed 'eye to the
sun, breath to the wind,' etc.]
[Footnote 35: See below.]
[Footnote 36: Compare Weber, _Streifen_, I. 66; The king's
first wife lies with a dead victim, and is bid to come back
again to life. Levirate marriage is known to all the codes,
but it is reprehended by the same code that enjoins it. (M.
ix. 65.)]
[Footnote 37: The ordeal is called _divyam_
(_pram[=a][n.]am_) 'Gottesurtheil.' This means of
information is employed especially in a disputed debt and
deposit, and according to the formal code is to be applied
only in the absence of witnesses. The code also restricts
the use of fire, water, and poison to the slaves (Y[=a]j.
ii. 98).]
[Footnote 38: Kaegi. _Alter und Herkunft des Germanischen
Gottesurtheils_, p. 50. We call especial attention to the
fact that the most striking coincidences in details of
practice are not early either in India or Germany.]
[Footnote 39: Schlagintweit, _Die Gattesurtheile der
Indier_, p. 24.]
[Footnote 40: This is the earliest formula. Later law-books
describe the length and strength of the bow, and some even
give the measure of distance to which the arrow must be
shot. Two runners, one to go and one to return, are
sometimes allowed. There is another water-ordeal "for
religious men." The accused is to drink consecrated water.
If in fourteen (or more or less) days no calamity happen to
him he will be innocent. The same test is made in the case
of the oath and of poison (below).]
[Footnote 41: In the case of witnesses Manu gives seven days
as the limit. When one adopts the oath as an ordeal the
misfortune of the guilty is supposed to come 'quickly.' As
an ordeal this is not found in the later law. It is one of
the Greek tests (_loc. cit_.). When swearing the Hindu holds
water or holy-grass.]
[Footnote 42: AV. ii. 12 is not a certain case of this, but
it is at least Brahmanic. The carrying of the axe is alluded
to in the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad (Schlagintweit, _Die
Gattesurtheile der Indier_, p. 6).]
[Footnote 43: Y[=a]jñavalkya (_loc. cit_.) restricts this
test to women, children, priests, the old, blind, lame, and
sick. On _ph[=a]la_ for _agni, ib._ ii. 99, see ZDMG. ix.
677.]
[Footnote 44: Schlagintweit, _loc. cit_. p. 26 (Hiouen
Thsang).]
* * * * *