CHAPTER XVII.

MODERN HINDU SECTS.[1]

Although the faith of India seems to have completed a circle, landing

at last in a polytheism as gross as was that of the Vedic age, yet is

this a delusive aspect, as will appear if one survey the course of the

higher intellectual life of the people, ignoring, as is right, the

invariable factor introduced by the base imaginings of the vulgar. The

greater spirituality has always expressed itself in independent

movement, and voiced itself in terms of revolution. But in reality

each change has been one of evolution. To trace back to the Vedic

period the origin of Hindu sectarianism would, indeed, be a nice task

for a fine scholar, but it would not be temerarious to attempt it. We

have failed of our purpose if we have not already impressed upon the

reader's mind the truth that the progress of Brahmanic theology (in

distinction from demonology) has been one journey, made with rests and

halts, it is true, and even with digressions from the straight path;

but without abatement of intent, and without permanent change of

direction. Nor can one judge otherwise even when he stands before so

humiliating an exhibition of groundling bigotry as is presented by

some of the religious sects of the present day. The world of lower

organisms survives the ascent of the higher. There is always

undergrowth; but before the fall of a great tree its seeds sprout,

withal in the very soil of the weedy thicket below. So out of

the rank garden of Hindu superstitions arise, one after another, lofty

trees of an old seed, which is ever renewed, and which cultivation has

gradually improved.

We have shown, especially in the chapters on the Atharva Veda and on

Hinduism, as revealed in epic poetry, how constant in India is the

relation between these two growths. If surprised at the height of

early Hindu thought, one is yet more astonished at the permanence of

the inferior life which flourishes beneath the shady protection of the

superior. Even here one may follow the metaphor, for the humbler life

below is often a condition of the grander growth above.

In the Rig Veda there is an hymn of faith and doubt

To INDRA.[2]

He who, just born, with thought endowed, the foremost,

Himself a god hemmed in the gods with power;

Before whose breath, and at whose manhood's greatness,

The two worlds trembled; he, ye folk, is Indra.

He who the earth made firm as it was shaking,

And made repose the forward tottering mountains;

Who measured wide the inter-space aerial,

And heaven established; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who slew the dragon, loosed the rivers seven,

And drove from Vala's hiding place the cattle;[3]

Who fire between the two stones[4] hath engendered,

Conqueror in conflicts; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who all things here, things changeable, created;

Who lowered and put to naught the barbarous color,[5]

And, like victorious gambler, took as winnings

His foe's prosperity; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Whom, awful, they (yet) ask about: 'where is he?'

And speak thus of him, saying, 'he exists not'--

He makes like dice[6] his foe's prosperity vanish;

Believe on him; and he, ye folk, is Indra.

In whose direction horses are and cattle;

In whose, the hosts (of war) and all the chariots;

Who hath both S[=u]rya and the Dawn engendered,

The Waters' leader; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Both heaven and earth do bow themselves before him,

And at his breath the mountains are affrighted;

Who bolt in arms is seen, the _soma_-drinker,

And bolt in hand; ('tis) he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who helps the _soma_-presser, (_soma_)-cooker,

The praiser (helps), and him that active serveth;

Of whom the increase _brahma_ is and _soma_,

And his this offering; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Here _brahma_, which word already in the Yajur Veda has taken to

itself the later philosophical signification, is merely prayer, the

meaning which in the Rig Veda is universal.

The note struck in this hymn is not unique:

(THE POET.)

Eager for booty proffer your laudation

To Indra; truth (is he),[7] if truth existeth;

'Indra is not,' so speaketh this and that one;

'Who him hath seen? To whom shall we give praises?'

(THE GOD.)

I am, O singer, he; look here upon me;

All creatures born do I surpass in greatness.

Me well-directed sacrifices nourish,

Destructive I destroy existent beings.[8]

These are not pleas in behalf of a new god. It is not the mere god of

physical phenomena who is here doubted and defended. It is the god

that in the last stage of the Rig Veda is become the Creator and

Destroyer, and, in the light of a completed pantheism, is grown too

great to retain his personality. With such a protest begins the great

revolt that is the sign of an inner evolution extending through the

Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads. Indra, like other gods,[9] is held by the

rite; to the vulgar he is still the great god;[10] to the philosopher,

a name. The populace respect him, and sacerdotalism conserves him,

that same crafty, priestly power, which already at the close of the

Rig Vedic period dares to say that only the king who is subject to the

priest is sure of himself, and a little later that killing a priest is

the only real murder. We have shown above how the real divinity of the

gods was diminished even at the hands of the priests that needed them

for the rites and baksheesh, which was the goal of their piety. Even

Praj[=a]pati, the Father-god, their own creation, is mortal as well as

immortal.[11] We have shown, also, how difficult it must have been to

release the reason from the formal band of the rite. Socially it was

impossible to do so. He that was not initiated was excommunicated, an

outcast. But, on the other hand, the great sacrifices gradually fell

over from their own weight. Cumbersome and costly, they were replaced

by proxy works of piety; _vidh[=a]nas_ were established that obviated

the real rite; just as to-day, 'pocket altars' take the place of real

altars.[12] There was a gradual intrusion of the Hindu cult; popular

features began to obtain; the sacrifice was made to embrace in its

workings the whole family of the sacrificer (instead of its effect

being confined to him alone, as was the earlier form); and finally

village celebrations became more general than those of the individual.

Slowly Hinduism built itself a ritual,[13] which overpowered the

Brahmanic rite. Then, again, behind the geographical advance of

Brahmanism[14] lay a people more and more prone to diverge from the

true cult (from the Brahmanic point of view). In the latter part of

the great Br[=a]hmana[15] there is already a distrust of the Indus

tribes, which marks the breaking up of Aryan unity; not that breaking

up into political division which is seen even in the Rig Veda, where

Aryan fights against Aryan as well as against the barbarian, but the

more serious dismemberment caused by the hates of priests, for here

there was no reconciliation.

The cynical scepticism of the Brahmanic ritualists, as well as the

divergence of opinions in regard to this or that sacrificial

pettiness, shows that even where there was overt union there was

covert discord, the disagreement of schools, and the difference of

faith. But all this does but reflect the greater difference in

speculation and theology which was forming above the heads of the

ritualistic bigots. For it is not without reason that the Upanishads

are more or less awkwardly laid in as the top-stone on the liturgical

edifice. They belong to the time but they are of it only in part. Yet

to dissociate the mass of Brahmanic priestlings from the Upanishad

thinkers, as if the latter were altogether members of a new era, would

be to lose the true historical perspective. The vigor of protest

against the received belief continues from the Rig Veda to Buddha,

from Buddha till to-day.

The Vedic cult absorbed a good deal of Hinduism, for instance the

worship of Fate,[16] just as Hinduism absorbed a good deal of Vedic

cult. Nor were the popular works obnoxious to the priest. In the

Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad[17] the Itih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas

(fore-runners of the epic) are already reckoned as a fifth Veda, being

recognized as a Veda almost as soon as was the Atharvan,[18] which

even in Manu is still called merely 'texts of Atharvan and Angiras'

(where texts of Bhrigu might as well have been added). Just as the

latter work is formally recognized, and the use of its magical

formulas, if employed for a good purpose, is enjoined in epic[19] and

law (_e.g._ Manu, xi. 33), so the Hinduistic rites crept gradually

into the foreground, pushing back the _soma_-cult. Idols are formally

recognized as venerable by the law-makers;[20] even before their day

the 'holy pool,' which we have shown to be so important to Hinduism,

is accepted by Brahmanism.[21] Something, too, of the former's

catholicity is apparent in the cult at an early date, only to be

suppressed afterwards. Thus in [=A]it. Br. II. 19, the slave's son

shares the sacrifice; and the slave drinks _soma_ in one of the

half-Brahmanical, half-popular festivals.[22] Whether human sacrifice,

sanctioned by some modern sects, is aught but pure Hinduism, Çivaism,

as affected by the cult of the wild-tribes, it is hard to say. At any

rate, such sacrifices in the Brahmanic world were obsolete long before

one finds them in Hinduism. Of Buddhistic, Brahmanic, and Hinduistic

reciprocity we have spoken already, but we may add one curious fact,

namely, that the Buddhism of Çivaism is marked by its holy numbers.

The Brahmanic Rudra with eight names[23] and eight forms[24] is

clearly Çivaite, and the numbers are as clearly Buddhistic[25] Thus,

as Feer has shown, Buddhist hells are eight, sixteen, etc, while the

Brahmanic hells are seven, twenty-one, etc. Again, the use of the

rosary was originally Çivaite, not Buddhisttc;[26] and Buddha in Bali,

where they live amicably side by side, is regarded as Çiva's

brother.[27]

Two things result from this interlocking of sectarian Brahmanism with

other sects. First, it is impossible to say in how far each influenced

the other; and, again, the antiquity of special ideas is rendered

doubtful. A Brahmanic idea can pretty safely be allotted to its first

period, because the literature is large enough to permit the

assumption that it will appear in literature not much later than it

obtains. But a sectarian idea may go back centuries before it is

permanently formulated, as, for example, the doctrine of special grace

in a modern sect.

One more point must be noticed before we proceed to review the sects

of to-day. Hindu morality, the ethical tone of the modern sects, is

older than the special forms of Hindu viciousness which have been

received into the cult. A negative altruism (beyond which Brahmanism

never got) is characteristic of the Hindu sects. But this is already

embodied in the golden rule, as it is thus formulated in the epic

'Compendium of Duty':

Not that to others should one do

Which he himself objecteth to.

This is man's duty in one word;

All other rules may be ignored.[28]

The same is true of the 'Ten Commandments' of one of the modern sects.

It is one of the strong proofs that Christian morals did not have much

effect upon early Hinduism, that, although the Christian Church of St.

Thomas, as is well established, was in Malabar as early as 522,[29]

and Christians were in the North in the seventh century, yet no trace

of the active Christian benevolence, in place of this abstention from

injury, finds its way into the epic or Pur[=a]nas. But an active

altruism permeates Buddhism, and one reads in the birth-stories even

of a saviour Buddha, not the Buddha of love, M[=a]itreya, who was to

be the next Buddha on earth, but of that M[=a]itrakanyaka, who left

heaven and came to earth that he might redeem the sins of others.[30]

Whether there is any special touch between the older sects and those

of modern days[31] that have their headquarters in the same districts

is a question which we have endeavored to investigate, but we have

found nothing to substantiate such an opinion. Buddhism retired, too

early to have influence on the sects of to-day, and between Jainism

and the same sects there does not seem to be any peculiar rapport even

where the sect is seated in a Jain stronghold.[35]] The Jains occupy,

generally speaking, the Northwest (and South), while the Buddhists

were located in the Northeast and South. So Çivaism may be loosely

located as popular in the Northeast and South, while Vishnuism has its

habitat rather in the jain centres of the Northwest (and South).

We have mentioned in the preceding chapter the sects of a few

centuries ago, as these have been described in Brahmanic

literature.[33] The importance, and even the existence of some of the

sects, described in the _Conquest of Çankara_, has been questioned,

and the opinion has been expressed that, since they are described only

to be exposed as heretical, they may have been creations of fancy,

imaginary sects; the refutation of their principles being a _tour de

force_ on the part of the Brahmanic savant, who shows his acumen by

imagining a sect and then discountenancing it. It does not, indeed,

seem to us very probable that communities were ever formed as 'Agnis'

or 'Yamas,' etc, but on the other hand, we think it is more likely

that sects have gone to pieces without leaving any trace than that

those enumerated, explained, and criticised should have been mere

fancies.[46]] Moreover, in the case of some of these sects

there are still survivors, so that _a fortiori_ one may presume the

others to have existed also, if not as sects or communities, yet as

bodies professing faith in Indra or Yama, etc. The sects with which we

have to deal now are chiefly those of this century, but many of these

can claim a definite antiquity of several centuries at least. They

have been described by Wilson in his famous _Sketch_, and, in special

cases, more recently and more fully by Williams' and other writers.

THE ÇIVAITES.

While the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic

background, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day

simply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the

former comprising the R[=a]ma sects, and the latter most of the

Krishnaites. On the other hand, in Çivaism one must distinguish quite

sharply in time between the different sects that go by Çiva's name. If

one look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most

degraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any

philosophy, and that idealistic Çivaism is a remnant of the past. But

he will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old

Vedantic aspects of Çivaism. On the contrary, wherever Çivaism is

pantheistic it is a Çivaism which obtains only in certain ancient

schools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders

who have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard

Çiva merely as a name for the One God. It is necessary, therefore, as

it is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between

the beliefs of the vulgar and the learned. For from the earliest

period the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter,

but at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.

The older S[=a]nkhya form of Çivaism was still found among the

P[=a]çupatas,'adherents of the Lord' (Paçupati) and Maheçvaras

('adherents of the great Lord'), who are mentioned in the epic and in

inscriptions of the fifth century. In the ninth century there was a

purely philosophical Çivaism which is Vedantic. But neither in the

fact (which is by no means a certainty) that Çankara accepted Çiva as

the name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic Çivaite philosophy of

Kashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely

idealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Som[=a]nanda, is

there any trace of a popular religion. Çiva is here the pantheistic

god, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired

schoolmen. On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in

the twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if

Çivaite, only nominally Vedantic. Thus what philosophy the Jangamas

professedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not

pantheistic) disciples of Çiva's priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha),

who taught Çiva-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the

Linga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India

under the name of Jangamas, 'vagrants,' or Ling[=a]yits,

'phallus-wearers,' are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic

mysticism. So in the case of the Tridandins, the Daçan[=a]mis, and

other sects attributed to Çivaism, as well as the Sm[=a]rtas (orthodox

Brahmans) who professed Çivaism. According to Wilson the Tridandins

(whose triple, _tri_, staff, _da[n.][d.]i_, indicates control of word,

thought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the R[=a]m[=a]nuja sect,

though some of them claim to be Vedantic Çivaites. Nominally Çivaite

are also the Southern 'Saints,' Sittars (Sanskrit Siddhas), but these

are a modern sect whose religion has been taught them by Islam, or

possibly by Christianity.[36] The extreme North and South are the

districts where Çivaism as a popular religion has, or had, its firmest

hold, and it is for this reason that the higher religions which obtain

in these districts are given to Çiva. But in reality they simply take

Çiva, the great god of the neighborhood, in order to have a name for

their monotheistic god, exactly as missionaries among the American

Indians pray to the Great Spirit, to adapt themselves to their

audience's comprehension. In India, as in this country, they that

proselyte would prefer to use their own terminology, but they wisely

use that of their hearers.

We find no evidence to prove that there were ever really sectarian

Çivaites who did not from the beginning practice brutal rites, or else

soon become ascetics of the lowest and most despicable sort. For

philosophical Çivaites were never sectaries. They cared little whether

the All-god or One they argued about was called Vishnu or Çiva. But

whenever one finds a true Çivaite devotee, that is, a man that will

not worship Vishnu but holds fast to Çiva as the only manifestation of

the supreme divinity, he will notice that such an one quickly becomes

obscene, brutal, prone to bloodshed, apt for any disgusting practice,

intellectually void, and morally beneath contempt. If the Çivaite be

an ascetic his asceticism will be the result either of his lack of

intelligence (as in the case of the sects to be described immediately)

or of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who

will save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the

case with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no

better than Çivaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites,

exclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal,

haters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually

admirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are

to-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really

Vishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never

been the case with real Çivaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed

out, Çivaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The Çivaite

needs for his cult only a phallus pebble, _bilva_ leaves and water.

The Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for _leitourgiai_. But

Çivaism is cheap because Çivaites are poor, the dregs of society; it

is not adopted because it is cheap.

We think, therefore, that to describe Çivaism as indifferently

pantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been

pantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because Çiva at

that time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual

sects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical

relation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we

shall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of

the mutual relations between Çivaites and Vishnuites in the past.

Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression

of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. Çivaism,

Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure Çivaism

has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian

expressions, but also in the Brahmanic Çivaism of the early epic, and

in the Çivaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the

literature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-Çivaism which

starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work

Çiva's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such

attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing

importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If

the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for

the masses, it at once gives up Çiva and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping

Çiva, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism.

Çivaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]

On the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic

(tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism. Now

Vishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox

(Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic

pantheism. The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox.

It was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest

distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya.

The marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the

epic. It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this

heterodox Vishnuism became possible. Vishnuism was soon rescued from

the dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression

of pantheism. But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his _alter ego_,

and in the epic the two are finally one All-god. Vedantic philosopliy

continued to present Vishnu rather than Çiva as its All-god, until

to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system. But

with Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of

the All-god. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as

Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while R[=a]ma is the

god of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a

pantheistic god; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually

reverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more

affected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more prone, by whatever

sectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens

that Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic god

than is R[=a]ma. Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the

line not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and

unintelligent people. For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done

for Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard

resembles Çivaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent

(though wealthy) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god,

without much more thought of his being an All-god _avatar_ than is

spent by the ordinary Çivaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism

which has been foisted upon Çiva.

But we must now give an account of the low sectaries, the

miracle-mongers, jugglers,[40] and ascetic whimsicalities, which

together stand under the phallic standard of Çivaism. Ancient and

recent observers enumerate a sad list of them. The devotees of the

'highest bird' are a low set of ascetics, who live on voluntary alms,

the result of their affectation of extreme penance. The

[=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to

lower them again. The [=A]k[=a]çamukhas, 'Sky-facers,' hold their

faces toward the sky till the muscles stiffen, and they live thus

always. The Nakhls, 'Nail' ascetics, allow their nails to grow through

their clenched hands, which unfits them for work (but they are all too

religiously lazy to work), and makes it necessary for the credulous

faithful to support them. Some of these, like the K[=a]naph[=a]ts,

'Ear-splitters,' who pierce the ear with heavy rings, have been

respectable Yogis in the past, but most of them have lost what sense

their philosophic founders attached to the sign, and keep only the

latter as their religion. Some, such as the [=U]kharas and

S[=u]kharas, appear to have no distinctive features, all of them being

the 'refuse of beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength

of nudity, and subdue their passions literally with lock and key. The

'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[=u]daras and K[=a]p[=a]likas, are

distinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The

former, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by

name since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas

both show that very likely others among these wretches are but the

residue of ancient Çivaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps

Buddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, Çiva

apparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself,

and he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the

resemblance of a decent god.

There is a well-known verse, not in Manu, but attributed to him (and

for that reason quite a modern forgery),[41] which declares that

Çambhu (Çiva) is the god of priests; Vishnu, the god of warriors;

Brahm[=a], the god of the V[=a]içyas (farmers and traders); and

Ganeça, the god of slaves. It is, on the contrary, Çiva himself, not

his son Ganeça, who is the 'god of low people' in the early

literature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a

god of priests till he is carefully made over by the latter. Nowadays

some Brahmans profess the Çivaite faith, but they are Vishnuite if

really sectarian.

No Brahman, for instance, will serve at a Çiva shrine, except possibly

at Benares, where among more than an hundred shrines to Çiva and his

family, Vishnu has but one; and though he will occasionally perform

service even in a heretic Jain temple he will not lower himself to

worship the Linga. Nor is it true that Çiva is a patron of literature.

Like Ganeça, his son, Çiva may upset everything if he be not properly

placated, and consequently there is, at the beginning of every

enterprise (among others, literary enterprises) in the Renaissance

literature, but never in the works of religion or law or in any but

modern profane literature, an invocation to Çiva. But he is no more a

patron of literature than is Ganeça, or in other words, Çivaism is not

more literary than is Ganeçaism. In a literary country no religion is

so illiterate as Çivaism, no writings are so inane as are those in his

honor. There is no poem, no religious literary monument, no Pur[=a]na

even, dedicated to Çiva, that has any literary merit. All that is

readable in sectarian literature, the best Pur[=a]nas, the Divine

Song, the sectarian R[=a]m[=a]yana, come from Vishnuism. Çivaism has

nothing to compare with this, except in the works of them that pretend

to be Çivaites but are really not sectaries, like the Sittars and the

author of the Çvet[=a]çvatara. Çiva as a 'patron of literature' takes

just the place taken by Ganeça in the present beginning of the

Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata. Vy[=a]sa has here composed the poem[42] but Ganeça

is invoked as Vighneça, 'Lord of difficulties,' to help the poet write

it out. Vy[=a]sa does the intellectual work and Ganeça performs the

manual labor. Vishnuism, in a word, is the only cultivated (native)

sectarian religion of India; and the orthodox cult, in that it is

Vedantic, lies nearer to Vishnuism than to Çivaism. Why then does one

find Çiva invoked by philosophy? Because monotheism in distinction

from pantheism was the belief of the wise in the first centuries after

the Christian era, till the genius of Çankara definitively raised

pantheism in alliance with orthodoxy to be the more esteemed; and

because Çiva alone, when the choice lay between him and Vishnu, could

be selected as the One God. For Vishnuism was now merged with

Krishnaism, a new vulgar cult, and Çiva was an old and venerated god,

long since a member of the Brahmanic pantheon. The connection between

Çivaism and the S[=a]nkhya system gave it a more respectable and

archaic appearance in the eyes of the conservative Brahman, while the

original asceticism of Çiva undoubtedly appealed much more to

Brahmanic feeling than did the sentimentalism of the Vishnuite. In the

extreme North, in the ninth century, philosophy and Çivaism are

nominally allied, but really sectarian Çivaism was the cult of the

lowest, not of the highest classes. Many of the professed Çivaites are

to-day tending to Vedantism, which is the proper philosophy of the

Vishnuite; and the Çivaite sects are waning before the Vishnuite

power, not only in the middle North, where the mass of the population

is devoted to Vishnu, but even in Çiva's later provinces in the

extreme South. The social distribution of the sectaries in the Middle

Ages was such that one may assign older Vishnuism to the middle

classes, and Çivaism to the highest on its philosophical and decently

ascetic side, but to the lowest on its phallic and magical side.

But none of the Çivaite sects we have mentioned, imbecile as appear to

be the impostors that represent them, are equal in despicable traits

to the Ç[=a]ktas. These worshippers of the androgynous Çiva (or of

Çakti, the female principle alone), do, indeed, include some

Vishnuites among themselves, but they are originally and prevailingly

Çivaite.[43] Blood-offerings and human sacrifices are a modern and an

ancient Trait of Çiva-worship;[44] and the hill-tribes of the Vindhya

and the classical drama show that the cult of Aghor[=i] is a Çivaite

manifestation which is at once old and derived from un-Aryan sources.

Aghor[=i] and all female monsters naturally associate with Çiva, who

is their intellectual and moral counterpart. The older Aghoris exacted

human sacrifice in honor of Devi, P[=a]rvat[=i], the wife of Çiva.[2]

The adoration of the female side of a god is as old as the Rig Veda,

but Çivaism has combined this cult with features probably derived from

other independent local cults, such as that of P[=a]rvat[=i], the

'mountain goddess.' They are all united in the person of Çiva's wife

of many names, the 'great goddess,' Mah[=a]dev[=i], the 'hard'

Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], Um[=a], etc.[45] And it is to this ferocious

she-monster that the most abject homage of the Çivaites is paid. So

great is the terror inspired by Durg[=a] that they that are not

Çivaites at all yet join in her festival; for which purpose,

apparently, she is dubbed Vishnu's 'sister.' But it is not

blood-guiltiness alone which is laid at the door of this cult. The

sectarian religions have an exoteric and an esoteric side, the

religion of the 'right hand' and of the 'left hand.' It is the latter

(to which belong many that deny the fact) wherein centre the

abominations of Çivaism; in less degree, those of Vishnuism also.

Obscenity is the soul of this cult. Bestiality equalled only by the

orgies of the Indic savages among the hill-tribes is the form of this

'religion.'[47] It is screened by an Orphic philosophy, for is not

Nature or Illusion the female side of the Divine Male? It is screened

again by religious fervor, for it is pious profligacy that prompts the

rites. It is induced practically by an initial carousal and

drunkenness; and this is antique, for even the old _soma_-feasts were

to a great extent drunken revels, and the gods have got drunk from the

time of the Vedas[48] to do their greatest deeds. But in practice,

Çakti-worship, when unveiled, amounts to this, that men and women of

the same class and family indulge in a Bacchanalian orgy, and that, as

they proceed, they give themselves over to every excess which liquor

and lust can prompt. A description of the different rites would be to

reduplicate an account of indecencies, of which the least vile is too

esoteric to sketch faithfully. Vaguely to outline one such religious

festival will suffice. A naked woman, the wife of the chief priest,

sits in the middle of the 'holy circle.' She represents Durg[=a], the

divine female principle. The Bacchic orgy begins with hard drinking.

Çiva as Bh[=a]irava, 'the dreadful,' has his human counterpart also,

who must then and there pair with the impersonated Durg[=a]. The

worship proper consists in the repetition of meaningless _mantra_

syllables and yells; the worship improper, in indulgence in 'wine and

women' (particularly enjoined in the rite-books called Tantras). Human

sacrifice at these rites is said to be extinct at the present day.[49]

But blood-lust is appeased by the hacking of their own bodies.

Garments are cast in a heap. Lots are drawn for the women's

garments[50] by the men. With her whose clothes he gets each man

continues the debauch, inviting incest in addition to all other

excess.[51]

The older Vishnuite sects (P[=a][=n]car[=a]tras, etc.) may have had

some of this filth in their make-up; but mass for mass the practices

are characteristic of Çivaism and not of Vishnuism.[52] Especially

Çivaite, however, is the 'mother worship,' to which reference was made

in the chapter on epic Hinduism. These 'mothers' are guardian

goddesses, or fiends of disease, etc. One may not claim that all

Ç[=a]ktas are Çivaites, but how small a part of Vishnuism is occupied

with Çakti-worship can be estimated only by surveying the whole body

of worshippers of that name.

We cannot leave the lust and murder of modern Çivaism without speaking

of still another sect which hangs upon the heels of K[=a]l[=i], that

of the Thugs. It may, indeed, be questioned whether Çiva should be

responsible for the doings of his spouse, K[=a]l[=i]. But like seeks

like, and there is every historical justification in making out Çiva

to be as bad as the company he keeps. Durg[=a] and K[=a]l[=i] are not

vainly looked upon as Çiva's female side. So that a sect like the

Thugs,[53] which worshipped K[=a]li, may, it is true, be taken out of

the Çivaite sects, but only if one will split Çivaism in two and

reproduce the original condition, wherein Çiva was one monster and

K[=a]li was another; which is scarcely possible after the two have for

centuries been looked upon as identical. With this in mind it may be

granted that the Thugs payed reverence to K[=a]li, rather than to her

lord. Moreover, many of them were Mohammedans; but, for our purpose,

the significant fact is that when the Thugs were Hindus they were

K[=a]li-Çivaites. And we believe that these secret murderers, strange

as it seems, originated in a reformatory movement. As is well known,

it was a religious principle with them not to spill blood.[54] They

always throttled. They were, of course, when they first became known m

1799 (Sherwood's account), nothing but robbers and murderers. But,

like the other Çivaite monstrosities, they regarded their work as a

religious act, and always invoked K[=a]li if they were Hindus. We

think it probable, therefore, that the sect originated among the

K[=a]li-worshippers as a protest against blood-letting. Admitting that

robbery is under Çiva's protection (Çiva is 'god of robbers'), and

that K[=a]li wanted victims, a sect probably claimed that the victims

should be throttled, and not bled. Not that this was necessarily a new

reform. There is every reason to suppose that most of Çiva's females

are aboriginal wild-tribe divinities. Now among these savages one sees

at times a distinct refusal to bleed human victims. Thuggery may then

have been the claim of an old conservative party, who wished to keep

up the traditional throttling; though this is pure speculation, for,

at the time when the sect became exposed, this means of death was

merely the safest way to kill. They insisted always on being called

Thugs, and scorned the name of thief. They were suppressed by 1840.

Reynolds describes them as "mostly men of mild and unobtrusive

manners, possessing a cheerful disposition."[55]

THE VISHNUITE SECTS.

There is a formal idealistic Çivaism, as we have shown, and there was

once a dualistic Vishnuism; but in general the Vishnuite is an

idealist. To comprehend the quarrels among the sects of this religion,

however, it will be necessary to examine the radical philosophical

differences of their founders, for one passes, in going from modern

Çivaism to Vishnuism, out of ignorant superstition into philosophical

religion, of which many even of the weaker traits are but recent

Hinduistic effeminacy substituted for an older manly thinking.

The complex of Vishnuite sects presents at first rather a confused

appearance, but we think that we can make the whole body separate

itself clearly enough into its component parts, if the reader will

pause at the threshold and before entering the edifice look at the

foundation and the outer plan of Vedantic philosophy.

At the beginning of Colebrooke's essays on Hindu philosophy he

thus describes four of the recognized systems: "The two

M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]s... are emphatically orthodox. The prior one,

_p[=u]rva_[56] which has J[=a]imini for its founder, teaches the art

of reasoning, with the express view of aiding the interpretation of

the Vedas. The latter, _uttara_[57] commonly called Ved[=a]nta, and

attributed to Vy[=a]sa (or B[=a]dar[=a]yana), deduces from the text of

the Indian scriptures a refined psychology, which goes to a denial of

a material world. A different philosophical system, partly heterodox,

and partly conformable to the established Hindu creed, is the

S[=a]nkhya; of which also, as of the preceding, there are two schools;

one usually known by that name,[58] the other commonly termed

Yoga."[59]

The eldest of these systems, as we have already had occasion to state,

is the dualistic S[=a]nkhya. It was still highly esteemed in the ninth

century, the time of the great Vedantist, Çankara.[60] A theistic form

of this atheistic philosophy is called the Puranic S[=a]nkhya, and

Pata[.n]jali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the

dualistic S[=a]nkhya stands the Ved[=a]nta,[61] based on the

Upanishads that teach the identity of spirit and matter.

As representative of the metaphysics of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta

systems respectively stand in general the two great religions of

India. The former, as we have shown, is still potent in the great Song

of the epic, and its principles are essentially those of early

Çivaism. The latter, especially in its sectarian interpretation, with

which we have now to deal, has become the great religion o£ India. But

there are two sectarian interpretations of Vishnu, and two

philosophical interpretations of the All-spirit in its relation to the

individual soul or spirit.[62] Again the individual spirit of man

either enjoys after death immortal happiness, as a being distinct from

the All-spirit; or the _jiva_, individual spirit, is absorbed into the

All-spirit (losing all individuality, but still conscious of

happiness); or the individual spirit is absorbed into an All-spirit

that has no happiness or affection of any kind.

Now the strict philosophy of the Ved[=a]nta adopts the last view _in

toto_. The individual spirit (soul, self) becomes one with the

universal Spirit, losing individuality and consciousness, for the

universal Spirit itself is not affected by any quality or condition. A

creative force without attributes, this is the All-spirit of Çankara

and of the strict Vedantist. To Çankara the Creator was but a phase of

the All-spirit, and the former's immortality ended with his creation;

in other words, there is no immortal Creator, only an immortal

creative power.

In the twelfth century arose another great leader of thought,

R[=a]m[=a]nuja. He disputed the correctness of Çankara's

interpretation of Vedantic principles. It is maintained by some that

Çankara's interpretation is really correct, but for our purpose that

is neither here nor there.[63] Çankara's _brahma_ is the

one and only being, pure being, or pure thought. Thought is not an

attribute of _brahma_, it is _brahma_. Opposed to this pure being

(thought) stands _m[=a]y[=a]_, illusion, the material cause of the

seen world. It is neither being nor not-being; it is the cause of the

appearance of things, in that it is associated with _brahma_, and in

so far only is _brahma_ rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each

individual is _brahma_; the finite part is _m[=a]y[=a]._ Thus

B[=a]dar[=a]yana (author of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras) says that the

individual is only illusion.

R[=a]m[=a]nuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a _brahma_ that is not

only universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme

conscious and willing God. Far from being devoid of attributes, like

Çankara's _brahma_, the _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja has all attributes,

chief of which is thought or intelligence. The Lord contains in

himself the elements of that plurality which Çankara regards as

illusion. As contrasted with the dualistic S[=a]nkhya phiiosophy both

of these systems inculcate monism. But according to Çankara all

difference is illusion; while according to R[=a]m[=a]nuja _brahma_ is

not homogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is

truly manifested. Çankara's _m[=a]y[=a]_ is R[=a]m[=a]nuja's body of

_(brahma)_ the Lord. Çankara's personal god exists only by collusion

with illusion, and hence is illusory. The _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja

is a personal god, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world.

Moreover, from an eschatological point of view, Çankara explains

salvation, the release from re-birth, _sams[=a]ra_, as complete union

with this unqualified _brahma_, consequently as loss of individuality

as well as loss of happiness. But R[=a]m[=a]nuja defines salvation as

the departure from earth forever of the individual

spirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].

R[=a]m[=a]nuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the

present time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a

personal god to be loved or feared, the hope of bliss hereafter. In

its essential features it is a very old belief, far older than the

philosophy which formulates it[66]. Thus, after the hard saying "fools

desire heaven," this desire reasserted itself, and under

R[=a]m[=a]nuja's genial interpretation of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras the

pious man was enabled to build up his cheerful hope again, withal on

the basis of a logic as difficult to controvert as was that of Çankara

himself[67].

Thus far the product of Vedantism is deism. But now with two steps one

arrives at the inner portal of sectarianism. First, if _brahma_ is a

personal god, which of the gods is he, this personal All-spirit? As a

general thing the Vedantist answers, 'he is Vishnu'; and adds,

'Vishnu, who embraces as their superior those other gods, Çiva, and

Brahm[=a].' But the sectary is not content with making the All-god one

with Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna,

some say as R[=a]ma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to

the All-spirit deist, may be illustrated most clearly by comparison

with Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal god as

the absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power

is a

personal god, Jehovah; again, Jehovah may or may not be regarded as

one with Christ. The minuter ramifications of the Christian church

then correspond to the sub-sects of Krishnaism or Ramaism.[69]

The Occidental and Oriental conceptions of the trinity are, however,

not identical. For in India the trinity, from the Vishnuite point of

view, is an amalgamation of Çiva and Brahm[=a] with Vishnu,

irrespective of the question whether Vishnu be manifest in Krishna or

not; while the Christian trinity amalgamates the form that corresponds

to Vishnu with the one that corresponds to Krishna.[70] To the

orthodox Brahman, on the other hand, as Williams has very well put it,

Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is himself only an

incarnation, that is, a form, of God.

Having now explained the two principal divisions of the modern sects,

we can lead the reader into the church of Vishnu. It is a church of

two great parties, each being variously subdivided. Of these two

parties the Krishnaites are intellectually the weaker, and hence

numerically the stronger. All Krishnaites, of course, identify the

man-god Krishna with Vishnu, and their sub-sects revert to various

teachers, of whom the larger number are of comparatively recent date,

although as a body the Krishnaites may claim an antiquity as great, if

not greater, than that of the Ramaites.

But the latter party, in their various sub-sects, all claim as

their founder either R[=a]m[=a]nuja himself or one of his followers;

and since, if the claim be granted, the R[=a]ma sects do but continue

his work, we shall begin by following out the result of his teaching

as it was interpreted by his disciples; especially since the

Krishnaites have left to the Ramaites most of the philosophizing of

the church, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the moralities

and immoralities of their more practical religion. As a matter of

fact, the Ramaites to-day are less religious than philosophical, while

in the case of the Krishnaites, with some reservations, the contrary

may be said to be the case.

THE RAMAITES.

Since the chief characteristic of growth among Hindu sectaries is a

sort of segmentation, like that which conditions the development of

amoebas and other lower organisms, it is a forgone conclusion that the

Ramaites, having formed one body apart from the Krishnaites, will

immediately split up again into smaller segments. It is also a

foregone conclusion, since one is really dealing here with human

types, that these smaller segments will mutually hate and despise each

other much more than they hate their common adversaries. Just as, in

old times, a Calvinist hated a Lutheran more than he did a Russian

Christian (for he understood his quarrel better), so a 'cat-doctrine'

Ramaite hates a 'monkey-doctrine' Ramaite far more than he hates a

Krishnaite, while with a Çivaite he often has an amicable union;

although the Krishnaite belittles the Ramaite's manifestation of

Vishnu, and the Çivaite belittles Vishnu himself.[71]

The chief point of difference theologically between the Ramaites is

the one just mentioned. The adherents of the 'cat-doctrine' teach that

God saves man as a cat takes up its kitten, without free-will on the

part of the latter. The monkey-doctrinaires teach that man, in order

to be saved, must reach out to their God (R[=a]ma, who is Vishnu, who,

again, is All-god, that is, _brahma_), and embrace their God as a

monkey does its mother.[72] The resemblance to the Occidental sects

here becomes still more interesting. But we have given an earlier

example of the doctrine of free grace from the epic, and can now only

locate the modern sects that still argue the question. The 'monkey'

Ramaites are a sect of the North (_vada_), and hence are called

Vada-galais;[73] the 'cat' or Calvinistic Ramaites of the South

(_ten_), are called Ten-galais. Outwardly these sects differ in having

diverse _mantras_, greetings, dress, and especially in the

forehead-signs, which show whether the 'mark of Vishnu' shall

represent (Vadagal belief) one or (Tengal) two feet of the god

(expressed by vertical lines[74] painted fresh daily on the forehead).

The Ten-galais, according to a recent account, are the more numerous

and the more materialistic.[75]

All the Ramaites, on the other hand, hold that (1) the deity is not

devoid of qualities; (2) Vishnu is the deity and should be worshipped

with Lakshm[=i], his wife; (3) R[=a]ma is the human _avatar_ of

Vishnu; (4) R[=a]m[=a]nuja and all the great teachers since his day

are also _avatars_ of Vishnu.

In upper India, about the Ganges, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's disciple,

R[=a]m[=a]nand (fifth in descent), who lived in the fourteenth

century, has more followers than has the founder. His disciples

worship the divine ape, Hanuman[76] (conspicuous in both epics), as

well as R[=a]ma. They are called 'the liberated,' Avadh[=u]tas, but

whether because they are freed from caste-restrictions,[77] or from

the strict rules of eating enjoined by R[=a]m[=a]nuja, is doubtful.

R[=a]m[=a]nand himself had in turn twelve disciples. Of these the most

famaous is Kab[=i]r, whose followers, the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s (sect),

are widely spread, and of whom no less a person than N[=a]nak, the

Sikh, claimed to be a successor. But it will be more convenient to

describe the Sikhs hereafter. Of R[=a]m[=a]nand's other disciples that

founded sects may be mentioned Kil, whose sectaries, the Kh[=a]kis, of

Oude, unite successfully R[=a]ma-worship, Hanuman-worship, and Çivaite

fashions (thus presenting a mixture like that of the southern

M[=a]dhvas, who unite the images of Çiva and Vishnu). The R[=a]s

D[=a]sa sect, again, owes to its founder the black Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma

pebble, an object of reverent awe, which gives rise to a sort of

sub-cult subsequently imitated by others.[78] Another widely-spread

sect which claim R[=a]m[=a]nand as their founder's teacher is that of

the D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s. This branch also of the Ramaites we shall

more appropriately discuss under the head of deism (below). Finally,

we have to mention, as an outcome of the R[=a]m[=a]nand faith, the

modern R[=a]m[=a]yana, Ramcaritmanas, the new bible of the sect,

composed in the sixteenth century by Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa ('slave of

Vishnu'),the greatest of modern Hindu poets. What the Divine Song and

the Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na are to the Krishnaite, the older (epic)

R[=a]m[=a]yana of V[=a]lm[=i]ki and Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa's new poem (of

the same name) are to the Ramaite.[79]

THE KRISHNAITES.

There are two great sects that worship Vishnu as especially manifested

in the human form of Krishna. But, as distinguished from the

philosophical Ramaite, the Krishnaite is not satisfied with a

declaration of faith in the man-god, and in fact his chief cult is of

the child-god Krishna, the B[=a]la Gop[=a]la or Infant Shepherd. This

recalls the older Krishna (of the Harivança), whose sporting with the

milk-maids is a favorite topic in later Krishnaite literature. As a

formulated cult, consisting for the most part of observances based on

the mystic side of affection for the personal saver of man (the

_bhakti_ principle of 'devotion,' erotically expanded[80]), this

worship obtains both among C[=a]itanyas and Vallabhas, sects that

arose in the sixteenth century.[81]

C[=a]itanya, born in Bengal in 1485, of whom it is fabled that wise

men came and gave homage to him while he was yet a child, was active

in Bengal and Orissa, where his sect (named after him) is one of the

most important at the present day. C[=a]itanya preached a practical as

well as a theoretical reform. He taught the equality of all

worshippers of whatever caste, and the religious virtue of marriage.

At the present day caste-feeling and religious profession are somewhat

at variance. But a compromise is affected. While in the temple the

high-caste C[=a]itanyas regard their lowly co-religionists as equals;

when out of it they become again arrogantly high-caste, Making a

virtue of marriage instead of celibacy caused the sect to become

popular with the middle and lower classes, but its adherents are

usually drawn from the dregs of the populace.[82] The principle of

love for God (that is, for Krishna) is especially dwelt upon by

C[=a]itanya. The devotee should feel such affection as is felt by a

young man for a girl. To exercise or inspire this rapt and mystic

devotion, recourse is had to singing, dancing. and other familiar

means of arousing religious fervor. If the dancing devotee swoons it

is a sign that God accepts his love. At the present day C[=a]itanya

himself is regarded as the incarnate deity. He and his two chief

disciples, who (like all Gosains, religious Teachers) are divine, form

a little sub-trinity for the sect.[83] This sect, like so many others,

began as a reform, only to become worse than its rivals.

Vallabha or Vallabh[=a]e[=a]rya, 'Teacher Vallabha,' was also of the

sixteenth century, but his sect belongs especially to the Northwest,

while the sphere of C[=a]itanya's influence was in the Northeast. He

lived near the Ganges, is said to have been a scholar, and wrote a

commentary on the early life of Krishna in the tenth book of the

Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na, and on the Divine

Song. In Bombay and Kutch his disciples are most numerous, the

Epicureans of Vishnuism. For their precept is 'eat and enjoy.' No

mortification of the senses is allowed. Human love typifies divine

love.[84] The teachers acquired great renown and power, assuming and

maintaining the haughty title of _mah[=a] r[=a]jas_ ('great kings').

They are as gods, and command absolutely their devotees.[85] Here the

worship of the Infant Krishna reaches its greatest height (or depth).

The image of the infant god is daily clothed, bathed, anointed, and

worshipped. Religious exercises have more or less of an erotic

tendency, and here, if anywhere, as one may learn from Wilson,

Williams, and other modern writers on this sect, there are almost as

great excesses as are committed among the Çivaite sects. As a sect it

is an odd combination of sensual worship and theological speculation,

for they have considerable sectarian literature. The most renowned

festival of the Infant Krishna is the celebration of the stable-birth

of Krishna and of the Madonna (bearing him on her breast), but this we

have discussed already. Besides this the Jagann[=a]th procession in

Bengal and Orissa, and the great autumnal picnic called the R[=a]s

Y[=a]tra, are famous occasions for displaying Krishnaite, or, indeed,

general Vishnuite zeal. At the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra assemble musicians,

dancers, jugglers, and other joy-creating additions to the religious

feast, the ostensible reason for which is the commemoration of

Krishna's dances with the milk-maids. The devotees belong chiefly to

the wealthy middle classes. These low sects worship Krishna

with R[=a]dh[=a] (his mistress, instead of Lakshm[=i], Vishnu's wife).

Here, too, as Krishnaites rather than as Vishnuites, are found the

'left-hand' worshippers of the female power.[86]

This sensual corruption of Vishnuism, which is really not Vishnuism

but simple Krishnaism, led to two prominent reforms within the fold.

Among the Vallabhas arose in protest the Caran D[=a]s[=i]s, who have

taken from the M[=a]dhvas of the South their Ten Commandments (against

lying, reviling, harsh speech, idle talk, theft, adultery, injury to

life, imagining evil, hate, and pride); and evolved for themselves the

tenet that faith without works is dead. The same protest was made

against the Vallabhas by Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. He was born about

1780 near Lucknow, and advocated a return to Vallabha's purer faith,

which had been corrupted. Probably most of the older reformers have

had much the same career as had Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. Exalted by

the people, who were persuaded by his mesmeric eloquence, he soon

became a political figure, a martyr of persecution, a triumphant

victor, and then an ascetic, living in seclusion; whence he emerged

occasionally to go on tours "like a bishop visiting his diocese"

(Williams). He is worshipped as a god.[87] The sect numbers to-day a

quarter of a million, some being celibate clergy, some householders.

In contrast to Vishnuism the following points are characteristic of

orthodox Brahmanism (Çankara's Vedantism): The orthodox believe that

there is one spirit in three forms, co-eternal impersonal

essences--being, knowledge, and joy. When it wills it becomes

personal, exists in the object, knows, rejoices, associating itself

with illusion. In this state it has three corporeal forms, causal,

subtile, gross. With the causal body (identified with illusion,

ignorance) it becomes the Supreme Lord, that is, the totality of

dreamless human spirits. With the subtile form it becomes the golden

seed, or thread-spirit (dreaming spirits); with the gross form it

becomes V[=i]r[=a]j, V[=a]içv[=a]nara, the waking spirit. The lowest

state is that of being wide awake. The personal god (Brahm[=a],

Vishnu, Çiva, of the sectaries) is this it as influenced by the three

qualities, _rajas, sattva, tamas_ (passion, truth, and ignorance),

respectively. Three essences, three corporeal forms, and three

qualities constitute, therefore, the threefold trinity of the

orthodox, who are called Sm[=a]rtas, they that 'hold to

tradition.'[88] What the sectary rejects, namely, the scriptures (Veda

and Upanishads, etc.) and the caste system, that the orthodox retains;

what the sectary holds, namely, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's qualified

non-duality, and absolute godhead in Çiva or Krishna, that the

orthodox rejects (although he may receive the sectary's god into his

pantheon). Some of the sects still keep respect for caste, excusing

their respect on the ground that "it is well enough for God to ignore

social distinctions, but not for man." But caste-distinctions are

generally ignored, or there is positive hate of the Brahman. In

antithesis to the orthodox, the sectaries all hold one other important

tenet. From the idea of _bhakti_, faith or devotion, was developed

that of love for Krishna, and then (as an indication of devotion) the

confession of the name of the Lord as a means of grace. Hence, on the

one hand, the meaningless repetition of the sect's special _kirttan_

or liturgies, and _mantra,_ or religious formula; the devotion,

demanded by the priest, of _man, tan, dhan_ (mind, body,[89] and

property); and finally, the whole theory of death-bed confessions.

Sinner or heretic, if one die at last with Krishna's name upon the

lips he will be saved.[90]

Of the sub-divisions of the sub-sects that we have described, the

numbers often run into scores. But either their differences are based

on indifferent matters of detail in the cult and religious practice;

or the new sect is distinguished from the old simply by its endeavor

to make for greater holiness or purity as sub-reformers of older

sects. For all the sects appear to begin as reformers, and later to

split up in the process of re-reformation.

Two general classes of devotees, besides these, remain to be spoken

of. The Sanny[=a]sin, 'renouncer,' was of old a Brahman ascetic.

Nowadays, according to Wilson, he is generally a Çivaite mendicant.

But any sect may have its Sanny[=a]sins, as it may have its

V[=a]ir[=a]gins, 'passionless ones'; although the latter name

generally applies to the Vishnuite ascetics of the South.

Apart from all these sects, and in many ways most remarkable, are the

sun-worshippers. All over India the sun was (and is) worshipped,

either directly (as to-day by the Sauras),[91] or as an incarnate

deity in the form of the priest Nimba-[=a]ditya, who is said to have

arrested the sun's course at one time and to be the sun's

representative on earth. Both Puranic authority and inscriptional

evidence attest this more direct[92] continuance of the old Vedic

cult. Some of the finest old temples of India, both North and South,

were dedicated to the sun.

DEISTIC REFORMING SECTS.

We have just referred to one or two reforming sects that still hold to

the sectarian deity. Among these the M[=a]dhvas, founded by (Madhva)

[=A]nandat[=i]rtha, are less Krishnaite or R[=a]maite than

Vishnuite,[93] and less Vishnuite than deist in general; so much so

that Williams declares they must have got their precepts from

Christianity, though this is open to Barth's objection that the

reforming deistic sects are so located as to make it more probable

that they derive from Mohammedanism. Madhva was born about 1200 on the

western coast, and opposed Çankara's pantheistic doctrine of

non-duality. He taught that the supreme spirit is essentially

different to matter and to the individual spirit.[94] He of course

denied absorption, and, though a Vishnuite, clearly belonged in spirit

to the older school before Vishnuism became so closely connected with

Ved[=a]nta doctrines. It is the same Sankhyan Vishnuism that one sees

in the Divine Song, that is, duality, and a continuation of

Ç[=a]ndilya's ancient heresy.[95]

Here ends the course of India's native religions. From a thousand

years B.C. to as many years after she is practically uninfluenced by

foreign doctrine, save in externals.

It is of course permissible to separate the reforming sects of

the last few decades from the older reformers; but since we see both

in their aim and in their foreign sources (amalgamation with cis-Indic

belief) only a logical if not an historical continuance of the older

deists, we prefer to treat of them all as factors of one whole; and,

from a broader point of view, as successors to the still older

pantheistic and unitarian reformers who first predicated a supreme

spirit as _ens realissimum_, when still surrounded by the clouds of

primitive polytheism. Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u], the two most important

of the more modern reformers, we have named above as nominal adherents

of the R[=a]m[=a]nand sect. But neither was really a sectarian

Vishnuite.[96] Kab[=i]r, probably of the beginning of the fifteenth

century, the most famous of R[=a]m[=a]nand's disciples, has as

religious descendants the sect of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s. But no less

an organization than that of the Sikhs look back to him, pretending to

be his followers. The religious tenets of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s may

be described as those of unsectarian Unitarians. They conform to no

rites or _mantras_. Kab[=i]r assailed all idolatry, ridiculed the

authority of all scriptures, broke with Pundit and with Mohammedan,

taught that outer form is of no consequence, and that only the 'inner

man' is of importance. These Panth[=i]s are found in the South, but

are located chiefly in and about Benares, in Bengal in the East, and

in Bombay in the West. There are said to be twelve divisions of them.

Kab[=i]r assailed idolatry, but alas! Discipline requires

subordination. The Guru, Teacher, must be obeyed. It was not long

before he who rejected idolatry became himself a deity. And in fact,

every Teacher, Guru, of the sect was an absolute master of thought,

and was revered as a god.[97]

In the fifteenth century, near Laho[.r]e, was born N[=a]nak (1469),

who is the nominal founder of the Sikhs, a body which, as N[=a]nak

claimed, was a sect embodying the religion of Kab[=i]r himself, of

whom he claimed to be a follower. The Granth, or bible of the Sikhs,

was first compiled by the pontiff Arjun, in the sixteenth century.

Besides the portions written by N[=a]nak and Arjun himself, there were

collected into it extracts from the works of 'twelve and a half' other

contributors to the volume, Kab[=i]r, R[=a]m[=a]nand, etc.[98] This

Granth was subsequently called the [=A]digranth, or First Book, to

distinguish it from the later, enlarged, collection of several books,

one of which was written by Guru Govind, the tenth Sikh pontiff. The

change from a religious body to a church militant and political body

was made by this Govind in the eighteenth century.[99] The religious

sect settled in the Punj[=a]b, became wealthy, excited the greed of

the government, was persecuted, rose in revolt, triumphed, and

eventually ruled the province. One of the first to precipitate the

uprising was the above-mentioned Arjun (fourth pontiff after

N[=a]nak). He played the king, was accused of rebellion, imprisoned,

and probably killed by the Mohammedans. The Sikhs flew to arms, and

from this time on they were perforce little more than robbers and

plunderers. Govind made the final change in organization, and,

so to speak, at one blow created a nation, for the church at his hands

was converted into the united militant body called Kh[=a]ls[=a] under

the Guru as pontiff-king, with a 'council of chiefs.' They were vowed

to hate the Mohammedan and Hindu. All caste-distinctions were

abrogated. Govind instituted the worship of Steel and Book (sword and

bible). His orders were: "If you meet a Mohammedan, kill him; if you

meet a Hindu, beat and plunder him." The Sikhs invoked the 'Creator'

as 'highest lord,' either in the form of Vishnu or R[=a]ma. Their

founder, N[=a]nak, kept, however, the Hindu traditions in regard to

rites. He was a travelled merchant, and is said to have been in

Arabia. As an example of the Sikh bible may serve the following

extracts, translated from the original dialect by Trumpp and Prinsep

respectively:

_From Trumpp_:

True is the Lord, of a true name,

But the import of (this) language is Infinite.

They say and beg, give, give!

The Liberal gives presents.

What may again be put before (him)

By which his court may be seen?

What word may be spoken by the mouth,

Which having heard he may bestow love?

Early reflect on the greatness of the True Name.[100]

From his beneficence comes clothing,

From his look the gate of salvation.

N[=a]nak (says): Thus it is known,

That he himself is altogether truthful.

_From Prinsep_:

Thou art the Lord, to thee be praise;

All life is with thee.

Thou art my parents; I, thy child.

All happiness is from thy mercy.

No one knows God.

Highest Lord among the highest,

Of all that is thou art the regulator,

And all that is from thee obeys thy will,

Thy movements, thy pleasure; thou alone knowest.

N[=a]nak, thy slave is a free-will offering unto thee.[101]

The religious side of this organization remained under the name of

Ud[=a]sis,[102] or Nirmalas ('spotless ones'). The [=A]digranth was

extended by other additions, such as that of Govind (above), and now

constitutes a large heterogeneous collection of hymns and moral rules.

Seven sub-sects of the religious body were developed in course of

time. The military body has a well-known history. They were complete

masters of the Punj[=a]b in 1764, and remained there as an independent

race till that province was occupied by the British in 1848. Both

Kab[=i]r and his follower N[=a]nak were essentially reformers. They

sought for a religion which should rest on the common truths of

Hinduism and Mohammedanism.[103] As a matter of form the political

party of Govind, the Govind Singhs, or Simhis, worshipped the Hindu

gods, and they showed respect for the Brahman priests for a long

while; but they rejected the Vedas and caste--the two most essential

features of orthodoxy.[104]

D[=a]d[=u], the second great reformer, who shows Mohammedan influence

quite as plainly as does Kab[=i]r, also claimed R[=a]m[=a]nand as his

teacher. The sects that revert to D[=a]d[=u], D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s,

now number more than half an hundred. Some of the votaries are

soldiers; some are mendicants. The founder lived about the end of the

sixteenth century. The outward

practices of the sects differ somewhat from those of other sects. Like

Persians, they expose their dead. They are found about [=A]jm[=i]r and

other districts of the North, in the seats of the Jains. Their faith

and reformatory tendency may be illustrated by the following extract,

as translated by Wilson:[105]

"He is my God who maketh all things perfect. O foolish one, God is not

far from you. He is near you. God's power is always with you. Whatever

is to be is God's will. What will be will be. Therefore, long not for

grief or joy, because by seeking the one you may find the other. All

things are sweet to them that love God. I am satisfied with this, that

happiness is in proportion to devotion. O God, Thou who art truth,

grant me contentment, love, devotion, and faith.... Sit ye with

humility at the feet of God, and rid yourselves of the sickness of

your bodies. From the wickedness of the body there is much to fear,

because all sins enter into it. Therefore, let your dwelling be with

the fearless, and direct yourselves toward the light of God. For there

neither sword nor poison have power to destroy, and sin cannot enter.

The greatest wisdom is in preventing your minds from being influenced

by bad passions, and in meditating upon the One God. Afford help also

to the poor stranger. Meditate on Him by whom all things were

made."[106]

This tradition of reform is maintained by others without intermission

down to the present century, and the M[=a]dhvas and Sv[=a]mi

N[=a]r[=a]yana, of whom we have spoken above as being more directly

connected with sectarian bodies, are, in fact, scarcely more concerned

with the tenets of the latter than were Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u]. Thus

the seventeenth century sees the rising of the B[=a]b[=a]l[=a]ls and

S[=a]dhus; and the eighteenth, of the Satn[=a]mis, 'worshippers of the

true name,' who, with other minor bodies, such as the N[=a]ngi

Panthis, founded by Dedr[=a]j in this century, are really pure

deists, although some of them, like the Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, claim to be

followers of Kab[=i]r. And so they are, in spirit at least.

THE DEISM OF TO-DAY.[107]

And thus one arrives at modern deism, not as the result of new

influences emanating from Christian teaching, but rather as the

legitimate successor of that deism which became almost monotheistic in

the first centuries after our era, and has ever since varied with

various reformers between two beliefs, inclining now to the

pantheistic, now to the unitarian conception, as the respective

reformers were influenced by Ved[=a]nta or S[=a]nkhya (later

Mohammedan) doctrine.

The first of the great modern reformers is R[=a]mmohun Roy, who was

born in 1772, the son of a high-caste Krishnaite Brahman. He studied

Persian and Arabic literature at Patna, the centre of Indic Mohammedan

learning. When a mere boy, he composed a tract against idolatry which

caused him to be banished from home. He lived at Benares, the

stronghold of Brahmanism, and afterwards in Tibet, the centre of

Buddhism. "From his earliest years," says Williams, "he displayed an

eagerness to become an unbiassed student of all the religions of the

globe." He read the Vedas, the P[=a]li Buddhist works, the Kur[=a]n,

and the Old Testament in the original; and in later years even studied

Greek that he might properly understand the New Testament. The

scholastic philosophy of the Hindus appeared to him, however, as

something superior to what he found elsewhere, and his efforts were

directed mainly to purifying the national faith, especially from

idolatry. It was at his instigation that the practice of widow-burning

was abolished (in 1829) by the British. He was finally ostracized from

home as a schismatic, and retired to Calcutta, uniting about him a

small body of Hindus and Jains, and there established a sort of church

or sect, the [=A]tm[=i]ya Sabh[=a],'spiritual society' (1816), which

met at his house, but eventually was crushed by the hostility of the

orthodox priests. He finally adopted a kind of Broad-church

Christianity or Unitarianism, and in 1820, in his 'Precepts of Jesus'

and in one of his later works, admits that the simple moral code of

the New Testament and the doctrines of Christ were the best that he

knew. He never, however, abjured caste; and his adoption of

Christianity, of course, did not include the dogma of the trinity:

"Whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of

the Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of

polytheism" (Final Appeal). Founded by him, the first theistic church

was organized in 1828 at Calcutta, and formally opened in 1830 as the

Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; ('the Congregation of God'). In doing this he

wished it to be understood that he was not founding a new sect, but a

pure monotheistic worship. The only creed was a confession of faith in

the unity of God. For himself, he abandoned pantheism, adopted the

belief in a final judgment, in miracles, and in Christ as the 'Founder

of true religion.' He died in 1833 in England. His successor,

Debendran[=a]th T[=a]gore,[108] was not appointed leader of the

Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; till much later; after he had founded a church of

his own ('the Truth-teaching Society'), which lasted for twenty years

(1839-1859), before it was united with the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j. In the

meantime Debendran[=a]th become a member of the latter society (1841).

He established the covenant of the Sam[=a]j, a vow taken by every

member to lead holy lives, to abstain from idolatry, to worship no

created object, but only God, the One without a second,[109] the

Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, the Giver of Emancipation.

The church was newly organized in 1844 with a regularly appointed

president and minister, and with the administration of the oath to

each believer. This is the [=A]di Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, the First

Congregation, in distinction from the schism which soon took place.

The first quarrel in this church was due to a difference of opinion in

regard to the authority of the Vedas. Some members rejected them,

others maintained their infallibility; while between these extremes

lay various other opinions, some members questioning the infallibility

of the Vedas but maintaining their authority. By a majority vote it

was eventually decided that the Vedas (and Upanishads) were not

infallible.

In the meantime in other provinces rival Sam[=a]jas had been formed,

and by 1850 there were several of these broad-minded Congregations,

all trammelled by their environment, but doing their best to be

liberal.

We pause here in the compilation of the data recorded in this

paragraph to assert, independently of Professor Williams, who has

given us the historical facts, but would doubtless not wish to have

imputed to himself the following judgment which we are led to pass,

that the next step of the Sam[=a]j; placed it upon the only ground

where the objects of this church can be attained, and that in the

subsequent reform of this reform, which we shall have to record below,

a backward step has been taken. For Debendran[=a]th changed the

essential character of the Sam[=a]j from pantheistic theism to pure

deism. The inner circle of the society had a narrower declaration of

faith, but in his Br[=a]hma Dharma, published about 1850,

Debendran[=a]th formulated four articles of faith, to subscribe to

which admitted any one into the Sam[=a]j. These articles read as

follows: (t) Brahma (neuter) alone existed in the beginning before the

universe; naught else existed; It [He] created all the universe. (2)

It [He] is eternal, intelligent, infinite, blissful, self-governed

(independent), without parts, just one (neuter) without a second,

all-pervading, the ruler (masculine noun) of all, refuge of all,

omniscient, omnipotent, immovable, perfect, without parallel (all

these adjectives are neuter). (3) By worship of this One alone can

bliss be obtained in the next world and in this. (4) The worship of

this (neuter) One consists in love toward this (One) and in performing

works pleasant (to this One).

This deism denies an incarnate God, scriptural authority, and the good

of rites and penance; but it teaches the efficacy of prayer and

repentance, and the belief in God as a personal Creator and Heavenly

Father.[110] Intellectual--anything but emotional--it failed to

satisfy many worshippers. And as a church it was conservative in

regard to social reforms.

In 1858 Keshub Chunder Sen, a Vishnuite by family, then but twenty,

joined the Sam[=a]j, and being clever, young, eloquent, and

cultivated, he, after the manner of the Hindus, undertook to reform

the church he had just entered, first of all by urging the abolition

of caste-restrictions. Debendran[=a]th was liberal enough to be

willing to dispense with his own thread (the caste-mark), but too

wisely conservative to demand of his co-religionists so complete a

break with tradition and social condition. For the sacred thread to

the Hindu is the sign of social respectability. Without it, he is out

of society. It binds him to all that is dearest to him. The leader of

the older Sam[=a]j; never gave up caste; the younger members in

doing so mix religion with social etiquette, and so hinder the advance

they aim at. Sen urged this and other reforms, all repugnant to the

society in which he lived, changes in the rite at the worship of

ancestors, alterations in the established ritual at birth-ceremonies

and funerals, abolition of polyandry and of child-marriages, and,

worst of all, granting permission to marry to those of different

castes. His zeal was directed especially against caste-restrictions

and child-marriages. Naturally he failed to persuade the old Sam[=a]j

to join him in these revolutionary views, to insist on which, however

sensible they seem, cannot be regarded otherwise than as indiscreet

from the point of view of one who considers men and passions. For the

Sam[=a]j, in the face of tremendous obstacles, had just secured a

foot-hold in India. Sen's headlong reforms would have smashed to

pieces the whole congregation, and left India more deeply prejudiced

than ever against free thought. Sen failed to reform the old church,

so in 1865 he, with some ardent young enthusiasts, reformed themselves

into a new church, ceremoniously organized in 1866 as the Br[=a]hma

Sam[=a]j; of India, in distinction from the Calcutta Sam[=a]j, or

[=A]di Sam[=a]j. A futile effort was made to get all the other local

congregations to join the new Sam[=a]j, the last, of course, to be the

first and head of the organization.

The new Sam[=a]j renounced caste-restrictions and Brahmanism

altogether, but it was tainted with the hysterical _bhakti_ fervor

which Sen inherited from his childhood's religion, and which (if one

may credit Williams' words) "brought the latest development of Indian

Theism into closer harmony with Christian ideas." The chief leader of

this Sam[=a]j besides Sen was his cousin Prot[=a]p Chunder Mozoomdar,

official secretary of the society. Its literary organ is the _Indian

Mirror_.

The reform of this reform of course followed before long. The new

Sam[=a]j was accused of making religion too much a matter of emotion

and excitement. Religious fervor, _bhakti_, had led to "rapturous

singing of hymns in the streets"; and to the establishment of a kind

of love-feasts ('Brahma-feasts' they were called) of prayer and

rejoicing; and, on the other hand, to undue asceticism and

self-mortification.[111] Sen himself was revered too much. One of the

most brilliant, eloquent, and fascinating of men, he was adored by his

followers--as a god! He denied that he had accepted divine honors, but

there is no doubt, as Williams insists, that his Vishnuite tendency

led him to believe himself peculiarly the recipient of divine favors.

It was charged against him that he asserted that all he did was at

God's command, and that he believed himself perennially inspired.[112]

If one add to this that he was not only divinely inspired, but that he

had the complete control of his society, it would appear to be easy to

foresee where the next reformer might strike. For Sen "was not only

bishop, priest, and deacon all in one," says Williams, "he was a Pope,

from whose decision there was no appeal." But it was not this that

caused the rupture. In 1877 this reformer, "who had denounced early

marriages as the curse of India," yielded to natural social ambition

and engaged his own young daughter to a Koch (R[=a]jbanshi) prince,

who in turn was a mere boy. The Sam[=a]j protested with all its might,

but the marriage was performed the next year, withal to the

accompaniment of idolatrous rites.[113] After this Sen became somewhat

theatrical. In 1879 he recognized (in a proclamation) God's

Motherhood--the old dogma of the female divine. In 1880 he announced,

in fervid language, that Christianity was the only true religion: "It

is Christ who rules British India, and not the British Government.

England has sent out a tremendous moral force in the life and

character of that mighty prophet to conquer and hold this vast empire.

None but Jesus, none but Jesus, none but Jesus, ever deserved this

bright, this precious diadem, India, and Jesus shall have it....

Christ is a true Yogi." He accepts Christ, but not as God, only as

inspired saint (as says Williams). More recently, Sen proposed an

amalgamation of Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity as the true

religion.

Meanwhile the Sam[=a]j was rent by discord. Sen's opponents, the new

reformers, were unable, however, to oust the brilliant leader from the

presidency. Consequently they established a new church, intended to be

a General Congregation, the fourth development (1878) of the Br[=a]hma

Sam[=a]j. And so the fight has gone on ever since. At the present day

there are more than a hundred deistic churches, in which the

devotional exercises consist in part of readings from the Vedas,

Bible, Kur[=a]n, and Avesta. The [=A]rya Sam[=a]j is one of the most

important of the later churches, some of which endeavor to obtain

undefiled religion by uniting into one faith what seems best in all;

others, by returning to the Vedas and clearing them of what they think

to be later corruptions of those originally pure scriptures. Of the

latter sort is the [=A]rya Sam[=a]j. Its leader, Day[=a]nanda, claims

that the Vedas are a true revelation. The last reformer of which we

have knowledge is a bright young high-caste Hindu of upper India, who

is about to found a 'world-religion,' for which task he is now making

preliminary studies. He has visited this country, and recently told us

that, if he had time, he could easily convert America. But his first

duty lies, of course, in the reformation of India's reformations,

especially of the Sam[=a]jas!

The difficulty with which all these reformers and re-reformers have to

contend is pitifully clear. Their broad ideas have no fitting

environment. Their leaders and thinkers may continue to preach deism,

and among their equals they will be heard and understood. They are,

however, not content with this. They must form churches. But a church

implies in every case an unnatural and therefore dangerous growth,

caused by the union either of inferior minds (attracted by eloquence,

but unable to think) with those that are not on the same plane, or of

ambitious zealots with reluctant conservatists. Many join the church

who are not qualified to appreciate the leader's work. They overload

the founder's deism with the sectarian theism from which they have not

really freed themselves. On the other hand, younger men, who have been

educated in English colleges and are imbued with the spirit of

practical reform, enter the church to use it as an instrument for

social progress. So the church is divided, theists and reformers both

being at odds with the original deists; and the founder is lucky if he

escapes being deified by one party and being looked upon by the other

as too dull.[114]

India is no more prepared as a whole for the reception of the liberal

views of the Sam[=a]j; than was the negro for the right to vote.

Centuries of higher preliminary education are needed before the people

at large renounce their ancestral, their natural faith. A few earnest

men may preach deism; the people will remain polytheists and

pantheists for many generations. Then, again, the Sam[=a]jas have to

contend not only with the national predisposition, but with every

heretical sect, and, besides these, with the orthodox church. But thus

far their chief foe is, after all, their own heart as opposed to their

head. As long as deistic leaders are deified by their followers, and

regard themselves as peculiarly inspired, they will preach in vain.

Nor can they with impunity favor the substitution of emotion for ideas

in a land where religious emotion leads downwards as surely as falls a

stone that is thrown.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: In the following we keep to the practice we

have adopted in the early part of the work, giving

anglicized words without distinction of vowel-length, and

anglicizing as far as possible, writing thus S[=a]nkhya but

Sankhyan, Ved[=a]nta but Vedantist. In modern proper names

we have adopted in each case the most familiar form.]

[Footnote 2: Rig Veda, II. 12. Compare X. 121. We omit some

of the verses.]

[Footnote 3: See note, p. 20, above.]

[Footnote 4: Metaphor from earthly fire-making; cloud and

cliff (Ludwig); or, perhaps, heaven and earth.]

[Footnote 5: 'Made low and put in concealment' the D[=a]sa

color, _i.e._ the black barbarians, the negroes. 'Color'

might be translated 'race' (subsequently 'caste').]

[Footnote 6: D[=i]ce, _vijas_, literally 'hoppers' (and so

sometimes, interpreted as birds). The same figure occurs not

infrequently. Compare AV. iv. 16. 5, _ak[s.][=a]n iva_.

'Believe,' _çr['a]d-dhatta, i.e_., cred-(d)[=i]te, literally

'put trust.']

[Footnote 7: Sometimes rendered, "a true (laudation) if any

is true."]

[Footnote 8: viii. 100. 3-4. The penultimate verse is

literally 'the direction(s) of the order magnify me,' the

order being that of the seasons and of seasonable rites.]

[Footnote 9: Compare the 'devil-worship of Uçanas,' and the

scoffs at P[=u]shan. The next step in infidelity is denial

of a future life and of the worth of the Vedas.]

[Footnote 10: In the Buddhistic writings Indra appears as

the great popular god of the Brahmans (with Brahm[=a] as the

philosophical god).]

[Footnote 11: His body is mortal; his breaths immortal, Çat.

Br. x. 1. 4. 1; xi. 1. 2. 12.]

[Footnote 12: On these curious pocket-altars, double

triangles representing the three gods and their wives, with

Linga and Yon[=i], see JRAS. 1851, p. 71.]

[Footnote 13: In the Tantras and late Pur[=a]nas. In the

earlier Pur[=a]nas there is as yet no such formal cult.]

[Footnote 14: Embodied in the tale of Agni's advance, IS. i.

170.]

[Footnote 15: Çat Br. ix. 3.1. 18.]

[Footnote 16: On this _quasi_ deity in modern belief compare

IA. XVIII. 46. It has happened here that a fate Providence

has become supreme. Thus, too, the Mogul Buddha is realty

nothing more or less than Providence.]

[Footnote 17: 7. I. 2.]

[Footnote 18: In RV. X. 90. 9, _chandas_, songs,

incantations, imply a work of this nature.]

[Footnote 19: Unless it be distinctly _good_ magic the epic

heroes are ashamed to use magical rites. They insist on the

intent being unimpeachable.]

[Footnote 20: [=A]p. I. II. 30, 20, etc. Compare Weber,

_Omina_ p. 337, and see the Bibliography.]

[Footnote 21: T[=a]itt. S. VI. I. 1, 2, 3,

_t[=i]rthesn[=a]li._]

[Footnote 22: Compare Weber's account of the R[=a]jas[=u]ya,

p. 98; and, apropos of the Daçapeya, _ib._ 78, note; where

it is stated that _soma_-drinking for the warrior-caste is

still reflected in this (originally independent) ceremony.]

[Footnote 23: The list given above (p. 464) of the 'thrice

three names' is made eight by suppressing Kum[=a]ra, and the

'eight names' are to-day the usual number.]

[Footnote 24: Ç[=a]nkh. (K[=a]nsh.) Br. vi. 1.]

[Footnote 25: The Brahmanic multiple by preference is (three

and) seven (7,21,28,35), that of the Buddhist, eight. Feer,

JA., 1893, p. 113 ff., holds the Svargaparva of the epic to

be Buddhistic on account of the hells. More probably it is a

Çivaite addition. The rule does not always hold good, for

groups of seven and eight are sometimes Buddhistic and

Brahmanic, respectively.]

[Footnote 26: Leumann, _Rosaries_.]

[Footnote 27: Friederich,; JRAS. viii. 157; ix. 59. The only

established reference to Buddha on the part of Brahmanism,

with the exception of late Pur[=a]nas of uncertain date, is

after Kshemendra (1066 A.D.). Compare Holtzmann, s.

_Geschichte_, p. 103.]

[Footnote 28: _Na tat parasya sandadhy[=a]t pratik[=u]la[.m]

yad [=a]tmanas_. This is a favorite stanza in the epic, and

is imitated in later literature (Sprüche, 3253, 6578,

6593).]

[Footnote 29: Burnell in the _Indian Antiquary_, second and

following volumes; Swanston, JRAS. 1834; 1835; Germann, _Die

Kirche der Thomaschristen_.]

[Footnote 30: Above, cited from Hardy.]

[Footnote 31: Some of the multitudinous subcastes

occasionally focus about a religious principle to such an

extent as to give them almost the appearance of religious

devotees. Thus the Bhats and Ch[=a]rans are heralds and

bards with the mixed faith of so many low-caste Hindus. But

in their office of herald they have a religious pride, and,

since in the present day they are less heralds than

expressmen, they carry property with religious reverence,

and are respected in their office even by robbers; for it

this caste that do not hesitate to commit _traga_, that is,

if an agreement which they have caused to be made between

two parties is not carried out they will kill themselves and

their families, with such religious effect that the guilt

lies upon the offending party in the agreement, who expiates

it by his own life. They are regarded as a sort of divine

representative, and fed themselves to be so. A case reported

from India in this year, 1894, shows that the feeling still

exists. The herald slew his own mother in the presence of

the defaulting debtor, who thereupon slew himself as his

only expiation.]

[Footnote 32: As, for example, between the D[=a]d[=u]

Panth[=i]s and the Jains in Ajmir and Jeypur. The last was a

chief Digambara town, while Mathur[=a] (on the Jumna) was a

Çret[=a]mbara station. For a possible survival of Buddhism,

see below, p. 485, note.]

[Footnote 33: The _Sarcadarça[n.]asa[=n.]graha_ of S[=a]yana

(fourteenth century) and the _Ça[=n.]kara-vijaya,_ or

'Conquest of Çankara.']

[Footnote 34: Thus the Dabist[=a]n enumerates as actual

sects of the seventeenth century, 'moon-worshippers,'

'star-worshippers,' 'Agni-worshippers,' 'wind-worshippers,'

'water-worshippers,' 'earth-worshippers,' '_trip[=u]jas_'

(or worshippers of all the three kingdoms of nature), and

'worshippers of man' (_manu[s.]yabhakt[=a]s_), "who

recognise the being of God in man, and know nothing more

perfect than mankind" (ii. 12), a faith which, as we have

shown, is professed in the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata.]

[Footnote 35: _Religious Thought and Life_.]

[Footnote 36: The Kashmeer Çivaites claim Çankara as their

teacher. The sect of Basava started in the south, Mysore.

They have some trashy literature (legends, etc.) which they

dignify by the name of Pur[=a]nas. Bühler has given an

account of the Kashmeer school. For further details see

Barth, pp. 184, 206.]

[Footnote 37: _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p.62 ff. To this

and to the same author's _Thought and Life_, we are indebted

for many facts concerning the sects as they appear to-day,

though much in these books is said after Wilson or other

scholars, whose work is now common property, and calls for

no further acknowledgment.]

[Footnote 38: It is, perhaps, necessary to keep repeating

that Hindu monotheism does not exclude other gods which, at

the hands of the one god, are reduced to sprites, angels,

demons, etc. But it ought not to be necessary to insist on

this, for an American monotheist that believes in angels and

devils is the same sort of monotheist. The Hindu calls the

angels 'gods' or 'divinities,' but they are only attendant

hosts of the One.]

[Footnote 39: Some of the Çivaite sects are, indeed,

Buddhistic in origin, a fact which raises the question

whether Buddhism, instead of disappearing from India, was

not simply absorbed; much as Unitarianism in New England has

spent its vitality in modifying the orthodox creed. Thus the

_karma_ of Buddhism may still be working in the person of

some modern Hindu sects. See the next note below.]

[Footnote 40: Most of the Yogi jugglers are Çivaites (when

they are not Buddhistic), and to-day they share with the

(Mohammedan) fakirs the honor of being not only ascetics but

knaves. The juggler Yogi is, however, a figure of

respectable antiquity. The magical tricks practiced on the

epic heroes are doubtless a reflex of the current mesmerism,

which deceives so cleverly to-day. We have shown above a

Buddhistic strain of Mah[=a]tmaism in an early Buddhistic

tract, and Barth, p. 213, suggests a Buddhistic origin for

the K[=a]naph[=a]ts. See also Holtzmann, _loc. cit._ The

deistic Yogis of Gorakhn[=a]th's sect are respectable enough

(see an account of some of this sort in the Dabist[=a]n, II.

6), but they are of Buddhistic origin. The K[=a]naph[=a]ts

of Kutch (Danodhar) were once a celibate brotherhood. JRAS.

1839, p. 268.]

[Footnote 41: See JAOS. xi. 272. To ascribe this verse to

the 'older Manu' would be a grave slip on the part of a

Sanskrit scholar.]

[Footnote 42: i. 1. 76.]

[Footnote 43: The Dabist[=a]n, without any animus, reports

of the Ç[=a]ktas of the seventeenth century that "Çiva is,

in their opinion, _with little exception_, the highest of

the deities" (II. 7). Williams calls Ç[=a]ktaism "a mere

offshoot of Çivaism" _Religious Thought and Life_, p. 184.]

[Footnote 44: The Dabist[=a]n rather assumes as a matter of

course that a body of Yogis would kill and eat a boy of the

Mohammedan faith (II. 12); but here the author may be

prejudiced.]

[Footnote 45: The present sect of this name consists only of

a few miserable mendicants, particularly savage and filthy

(Wilson).]

[Footnote 46: All of them now represent Çakti, the female

principle. Linga-worship has also its counterpart,

Bhaga-worship (here Yoni), perhaps represented by the altar

itself. Compare the Dabist[=a]n, II. 7, on the Çivaite

interpretation of the Mohammedan altar. To Durga human

beings were always sacrificed. After mentioning a gold idol

of Durg[=a] (to whom men were sacrificed yearly), the author

adds: "Even now they sacrifice in every village of the

Kohistan of Nandapur and the country adjacent, a man of

good family" (_ib._). Durg[=a] {above, p. 416) is Vishnu's

sister.]

[Footnote 47: The sexual antithesis, so unimportant in the

earliest Aryan nature-hymns, becomes more and more

pronounced in the liturgical hymns of the Rig Veda, and may

be especially a trait of the older fire-cult in opposition

to _soma_-cult (compare RV. X. 18. 7). At any rate it is

significant that Yoni means the altar itself, and that in

the fire-cult the production of fire is represented as

resulting from the union of the male and female organs.]

[Footnote 48: Nevertheless the Brahmanic, and even the

Hinduistic, law-codes condemn all intoxicating liquors

except in religious service. To offer such drink to a man of

the lower castes, even to a Ç[=u]dra, is punishable with a

fine; but to offer intoxicating liquor to a priest is

punishable with death (Vishnu, V. 100).]

[Footnote 49: Formerly performed by the Kar[=a]ris. "The

Ç[=a]ktas hold the killing of a man to be permitted,"

Dabist[=a]n, II. 7. "Among them it is a meritorious act to

sacrifice a man," _ib_.]

[Footnote 50: Hence the name of K[=a][=n]culiyas

_[ka[=n]culi_, a woman's garment).]

[Footnote 51: This has no parallel in Vishnuism except among

some of the R[=a]dh[=a] devotees. Among the R[=a]dh[=a]

Vallabh[=i]s the vulgarities of the Çivaites are quite

equalled; and the assumption of women's attire by the

Sakh[=i] Bh[=a]vas of Benares and Bengal ushers in rites as

coarse if less bloody than those of the Çivaites.]

[Footnote 52: Of course each god of the male trinity has his

Çakti, female principle. Thus Brahm[=a]'s Çakt[=i] is

S[=a]vitr[=i] (in the epic), or Sarasvat[=i], or V[=a]c;

that of Vishnu is Çr[=i], or Lakshm[=i], or R[=a]dh[=a];

that of Çiva is Um[=a], Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], etc. Together

they make a female trinity (Barth, p. 199); So even the

Vedic gods had their (later) wives, who, as in the case of

S[=u]ry[=a], were probably only the female side of a god

conceived of as androgynous, like Praj[=a]pat[=i] in the

Brahmanic period.]

[Footnote 53: Historically, Thags, like Panj[=a]b,

Santh[=a]ls, etc, is the more correct form, but phonetically

the forms Thugs, Punj[=a]b, Sunth[=a]ls or Sonth[=a]ls, are

correct, and [=a], the indeterminate vowel (like o in

London), is generally transcribed by u or o (in Punj[=a]b,

Nep[=a]l, the [=a] is pronounced very like au, and is

sometimes written so, Punjaub, etc).]

[Footnote 54: The Jemidar, captain, gives the order to the

Buttoat, strangler, who takes the _rumal_ (yard of cotton)

with a knot tied in the left end, and, holding his right

hand a few inches further up, passes it from behind over the

victim's head. As the latter falls the strangler's hands are

crossed, and if done properly the Thugs say that "the eyes

stand out of the head and life becomes extinct, before the

body falls to the ground" (Notes on the 'Thags, Thugs, or

Thegs,' by Lieutenant Reynolds; of whom Lieutenant-Colonel

Smythe says that he knew more than any other European about

the Thugs, 1836). The Buttoat received eight annas extra for

his share. Each actor in the scene had a title; the victim

was called Rosy. For their argot see the R[=a]maseeana.]

[Footnote 55: Thugs (defined as 'knaves' by Sherwood, more

probably 'throttlers') must be distinguished from Decoits.

The latter (Elphinstone, i. 384) are irreligious gangs,

secretly bound together to sack villages. Peaceable citizens

by day, the Decoits rise at night, attack a village, slay,

torture, rob, and disappear before morning, 'melting into

the population' and resuming honest toil. When the police

are weak enough they may remain banded together; otherwise

they are ephemerally honest and nocturnally assassins. The

Thugs or Ph[=a]ns[=i]gars (_ph[=a]ns[=i]_, noose) killed no

women, invoked K[=a]li (as Jay[=i]), and attacked

individuals only, whom the decoys, called Tillais, lured

very cleverly to destruction. They never robbed without

strangling first, and always buried the victim. They used to

send a good deal of what they got to K[=a]li's temple, in a

village near Mirz[=a]pur, where the establishment of priests

was entirely supported by them. K[=a]li (or Bhav[=a]n[=i])

herself directed that victims should be strangled, not bled

(so the Thug legend). Their symbol was a pick, emblem of the

goddess, unto whom a religious ceremony was performed before

and after the murder was committed. Local small bankers

often acted as fence for them.]

[Footnote 56: This is called either

P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (Karma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]) or simply

M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a].]

[Footnote 57: Or Ç[=a]r[=i]raka-m[=i]m[=a]msa, or

Brahma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_m[=i]m[=a][=m.]sa,_ reflexion,

philosophy).]

[Footnote 58: Kapila's system, usually known as the

S[=a]nkhya.]

[Footnote 59: And attributed to Pata[=n.]jali. Compare

Deussen, _System des Ved[=a]nta,_ p. 20.]

[Footnote 60: Born In 788. But some scholars refer him to

the seventh century. See IA. xiii. 95; xvi. 41. His name, a

title of Çiva, indicates his nominal sect.]

[Footnote 61: For the meaning of Ved[=a]nta (whether 'end of

Veda,' or 'goal of Veda') compare Deussen, _loc. cit._ p. 3,

note (above, p. 253, note).]

[Footnote 62: The Supreme Spirit or All-Spirit is either

purely non-dualistic or qualifiedly non-dualistic; in the

latter event he is, says the sectary, identical with Vishnu,

who may be represented either by Krishna or R[=a]ma

(sub-sects). Pure non-duality (unconditioned _[=a]tm[=a]_)

was taught by Çankara.]

[Footnote 63: Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_..

Compare Williams, _loc. cit_. In our own view the

unsystematic Upanishads teach both doctrines (above, p. 228,

note).]

[Footnote 64: Before K[=a]m[=a]nuja it was taught by

Ç[=a]ndilya that _brahma_ (and the individual spirit) was

conditioned, a doctrine supposed to be that of the old

Bh[=a]gavatas or P[=a][.n]car[=a]tras; but this is quite

uncertain. The Ç[=a]ndilyan chapter of the Ch[=a]ndogya

Upanishad (above, p. 221) may be thus interpreted, _vis_,

that the (conditioned) individual spirit is identical with

_brahma_.]

[Footnote 65: Thibaut, _Introduction to the Ved[=a]nta

S[=u]tras_, SBE. XXXIV. p. XXXI; Deussen, _System des

Ved[=a]nta_, p.469.]

[Footnote 66: Philosophical illusion, _m[=a]n[=a]_, appears

first in late Upanishads.]

[Footnote 67: The author of the Dabist[=a]n (seventeenth

century) tells a Berkeleyan story in regard to Çankara's

doctrine of illusion. His enemies wished to test his belief

in his own philosophy; so they drove an elephant at him, on

which the philosopher ran away. "Ho!" they jeered, "Did you

not maintain that all was a mere illusion? Then an elephant

is illusion. Yet you take to flight before it." "Yes,"

replied the philosopher, "all is illusion; there was no

elephant, and there was no flight" (II. 4).]

[Footnote 68: The Sm[=a]rta (orthodox) Brahman believes, on

the other hand, that Vishnu, Çiva, and Brahm[=a] are all

mere forms of the Supreme [=A]lm[=a].]

[Footnote 69: If Mohammed were regarded as one with Allah

there would be an Occidental parallel to the Krishna and

R[=a]ma sects.]

[Footnote 70: Whether the Hindu trinitarianism derives from

the Occident or not (the former view being historically

probable, but not possible to prove) the importance of the

dogma and its place in Hindu theology is very different to

the condition of things in the Christian church. In India

trinitarianism is merely a convenience in adjusting the

claims of two heterodox sects and orthodoxy, each believer

being willing to admit that the god of the other is his own

god, only with the understanding that the last is a superior

manifestation. In late Çivaism both Vishnu and Brahm[=a] are

indeed called the 'sons of God' (Çiva). but in the sense

that they are distinctly subordinate creatures of Çiva

(JAOS. iv. 147).]

[Footnote 71: But some Hindus worship both Vishnu and Çiva

without insisting that one is higher than the other.

Moreover, there is a Mahratta sect of Vishnuites who

complacently worship Buddha (Vishnu's ninth _avatar_) as

Vi[t.]h[t.]hala or P[=a]ndura[.n]ga. These are simply

eclectic, and their god is without or with quality. Buddha

is here not a deceiver, but an instructor (JRAS. 1842, p.

66; IA. XI. 56, 149).]

[Footnote 72: The Çivaites, too, are divided on the

questions both of predestination and of free grace. The

greater body of them hold to the 'monkey doctrine'; the

Paçupatas, to the 'cat.']

[Footnote 73: Sanskrit _kal[=a]_, school

(_marka[t.]a-ny[=a]ya_ and _m rj[=a]ra-ny[=a]ya_). The

Southern school has its own Veda written in Tamil. Williams,

JRAS. xiv. 301. According to the same writer the Ten-galais

hold that Vishnu's wife is finite, created, and a mediator;

the Vada-galais, that she is infinite, and uncreated.]

[Footnote 74: All Vishnuites have the vertical sign;

Çivaites have a horizontal sign (on the forehead).]

[Footnote 75: _Proceed. AOS_. 1894, p. iii. The Vada-school

may be affected by Çivaism.]

[Footnote 76: A divine monkey appears in the Rig Veda, but

not as an object of devotion.]

[Footnote 77: The teachers of the Ramaites are generally

Brahmans, but no disciples are excluded because of their

caste. R[=a]m[=a]nuja adopted the monastic system, which

Çankara is said to have taken from the Buddhists and to have

introduced into Brahmanic priestly life. Both family priests

and cenobites are admitted into his order.]

[Footnote 78: What the Linga is to Çivaite the

Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma is to the Vishnuite (who also reveres the

_tulas[=i]_ wood). The Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma is a black pebble;

the L[=i]nga is a white pebble or glass (Williams). The

Çivaites have appropriated the _d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass as sacred

to Ganeça. Sesamum seeds and _d[=u]rv[=a]_ are, however,

Brahmanically holy. Compare Çat. Br. iv. 5-10, where

_d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass is even holier than _kuça_-grass. The

rosaries used by the sects have been the subject of a paper

by Leumann, and are described by Williams. Thirty-two or

sixty-four berries of _eleocapus ganitrus (rudr[=a]ksha_)

make the Çivaite rosary. That of the Vishnuite is made of

lotus-seeds or of _tuls[=a]_ wood in one hundred and eight

pieces.]

[Footnote 79: For an account and list of the works of

Tulas[=i]d[=a]s[=a] (Tuls[=i]d[=a]s), compare IA. xxii. 89,

122, 227. Jayadeva (twelfth century), the author of the

G[=i]ta Govinda (translated by Jones, Lassen, and Ruckert),

is sometimes reckoned falsely to the adherents of

R[=a]m[=a]nand, but he is really a Krishnaite.]

[Footnote 80: The _bhakti_ doctrine is that of the extant

Ç[=a]ndilya S[=u]tras, which make faith and not works or

knowledge a condition of salvation. They are modern, as

Cowell, in his preface to the work, has shown. Cowell here

identifies K[=a]çyapa with Ka[n.][=a]da, the V[=a]içeshika

philosopher, his school holding that the individual spirits

are infinite in number, distinct from the Supreme Spirit.]

[Footnote 81: The infant-cult is of course older than these

sects. For an account of the ritual, as well as its

intrusion into the earlier cult of the Pur[=a]nas, with the

accompanying resemblances to Madonna-cult, and the new

features (the massacre of the innocents, the birth in the

stable, the three wise men, etc.) that show borrowing from

Christianity, compare Weber's exhaustive treatise referred

to above, the _K[=r.][=s.][n.]ajanm[=a][=s.][=t.]am[=i],

Krishna's Geburtsfest_.]

[Footnote 82: Williams, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 83: 'Gosain' means shepherd, like Gop[=a]la. Some

of the sects, like the Kart[=a]bh[=a]js, recognize only the

Teacher as God. Williams states that in Bengal a fourth

member has been added to this sect-trinity. On Dancing-girls

see IA. XIII-165.]

[Footnote 84: The philosophical tenet of this sect 'pure

_adv[=a]ita_' (non-duality) distinguishes it from the

qualified duality taught by R[=a]m[=a]nuja. This is a

reversion to Çankara. The C[=a]itanya sect teaches not

absorption but individual existence in a heaven of sensuous

(sensual) pleasure.]

[Footnote 85: "In the temples where the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas

(priests) do homage to the idols men and women do homage to

the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas.... The best mode of propitiating the

god Krishna is by ministering to the sensual appetites of

his vicars upon earth. Body and soul are literally made over

to them, and women are taught to deliver up their persons to

Krishna's representatives," Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 309.]

[Footnote 86: On these sects see Wilson, Hunter (Statistical

Account), Williams, JRAS. xiv. 289. The festival verses in

honor of the Madonna are: "Honor to thee, Devak[=i], who

hast borne Krishna; may the goddess who destroys sin be

satisfied, revered by me. Mother of God art thou, Adit[=i],

destroying sin. I will honor thee as the gods honor thee,"

_etc_. (Weber, _Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i]_, p. 286). The

birth-day celebration is not confined to Krishnaites; but in

the R[=a]ma sect, though they celebrate the birth, they do

not represent the man-god as a suckling. In other respects

this feast is imitated from that of Krishna (Weber, p. 310,

note). The R[=a]macandra celebration takes place in the

spring. The birth-day of Ganeça is also celebrated by the

Çivaites (in August-September).]

[Footnote 87: He himself claimed to be an incarnate god. He

adopted the qualified non-duality of R[=a]m[=a]nuja. See

Williams' account of him and of the two great temples of the

sect, _loc. cit_.]

[Footnote 88: From Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 291 ff. The

three qualities (sometimes interpreted as activity, purity,

and indifference) are met with for the first time in the

Atharva Veda, where are found the Vedantic 'name' and 'form'

also; Muir, v. p. 309. The three qualities that condition

the idealist Vedantist's personal Lord in his causal body

are identical with those that constitute the 'nature,'

_prak[=r.]ti_, of the S[=a]nkhya dualist.]

[Footnote 89: Among the Vallabhas (above, p. 505). The

Teacher is the chief god of most of the Vallabhas (Barth, p.

235}. For the Vi[t.]h[t.]hal view of caste see 1A. XI.152.]

[Footnote 90: It is true of other sectaries also, Ramaites

and Çivaites, that the mere repetition of their god's name

is a means of salvation.]

[Footnote 91: Now chiefly in the South. The Dabist[=a]n

gives several divisions of sun-worshippers. For more details

see Barth, p. 258. Apollonius of Tyana saw a sun-temple at

Taxila, JRAS. 1859, p. 77.]

[Footnote 92: More direct than in the form of Vishnu, who at

first is merely the sun. Of the relation with Iranian

sun-worship we have spoken above.]

[Footnote 93: They brand themselves with the Vishnu-mark,

are generally high-caste, live in monasteries, and profess

celibacy. They are at most unknown in the North. They are

generally known by their founder's name, but are also called

Brahma-Samprad[=a]yins, 'Brahma-adherents.']

[Footnote 94: So the P[=a]çupata doctrine is that the

individual spirit is different to the supreme lord and also

to matter (_p[=a]ça_, the fetter that binds the individual

spirit, _paçu_, and keeps it from its Lord, _paçupat[=i]_).

The fact is that every sectary is more a monotheist than a

pantheist. Especially is this true of the Çivaite. The

supreme is to him Çiva.]

[Footnote 95: Wilson gives a full account of this sect in

the _As[=i]atick Researches_, xvi, p. 100.]

[Footnote 96: Of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s Wilson says: "It is

no part of their faith to worship any Hindu deity." A glance

at the Dabist[=a]n will preclude the possibility of claiming

much originality for the modern deism of India. This work

was written in 1645, and its Persian author describes, as a

matter of every-day occurrence, religious debates between

'Jews, Nazarines, Mussulmen, and Hindus,' who meet more to

criticise than to examine, but yet to hear explained in full

the doctrines of their opponents, in just such tourneys of

argument as we showed to be popular among the priests of the

Upanishads and epic. Speaking of the Vedas, the author says

that every one derives from them arguments in favor of his

own creed, whether it be philosophical, mystical, unitarian,

atheistic, Judaic, or Christian. Dabist[=a]n, vol. II, p.

45.]

[Footnote 97: Before election the Guru must be examined. If

the faithful are not satisfied, they may reject him. but,

having elected him, they are bound to obey him implicitly.

He can excommunicate, but he may not punish corporally. This

deification of the Guru was retained by the Sikhs, and the

office was made hereditary among them (by Arjun), till

Govind, the tenth pontiff, who left no successor, declared

that after his death the Granth (bible) should be the sole

authority of the church.]

[Footnote 98: The 'half' contributor was a woman, and hence

was not reckoned as a complete unit.]

[Footnote 99: The word Sikh means 'disciple' (of N[=a]nak).

The name the Sikhs assumed as a nation was Singhs

(_si[.m]has_), 'Lions of the Punj[=a]b.']

[Footnote 100: The 'true name,' _sat n[=a]m_, is the

appellation of God.]

[Footnote 101: JRAS. 1846, p. 43, Prinsep's compilation

(Wilson). Compare Trumpp, ib. V. 197 (1871); and

[=A]digranth, 1877.]

[Footnote 102: This sect was founded by a descendant of

N[=a]nak.]

[Footnote 103: It was not till Mohammedan persecution

influenced them that the religious Sikhs of N[=a]nak became

the political haters and fighters of Govind.]

[Footnote 104: It is said that Govind sacrificed to Durg[=a]

the life of one of his own disciples to prepare himself for

his ministry. Trumpp, [=A]digranth; Barth, p. 204. The lives

of the later Gurus will be found in Elphinstone's history

and Prinsep's sketch (a _résumé_ by Barth, p. 248 ff.).]

[Footnote 105: With some small verbal alterations.]

[Footnote 106: The conclusion of this extract shows the

narrower polemic spirit: "Pundits and Q[=a]z[=i]s are fools.

What avails it to collect a heap of books? Let your minds

freely meditate on the spirit of God. Wear not away your

lives by studying the Vedas."]

[Footnote 107: For the data of the following paragraphs on

the deistic reformers of to-day we are indebted to an

article of Professor Williams, which first appeared in the

thirteenth volume of the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society,_ and has since been published in the same author's

_Brahmanism and Hinduism._]

[Footnote 108: Born in 1818.]

[Footnote 109: _ekam[=a]tr[=a]dvit[=i]ya_ (masculine); with

this form contrast below, in the Br[=a]hma Dharma (religion)

of Debendran[=a]th, the neuter _ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_. The

only God of the first Sam[=a]j; is a person; that of the

reform is exoterically Nature.]

[Footnote 110: But, as will be noticed in the four articles

(which are in part a compilation of phrases from the

Upanishads) the personality of Brahm[=a] is not insisted on

for the outer church. For this reason, although the inner

church doubtless understands It as He, yet this neuter

should be preserved in the translation. The articles are so

drawn up as to enable any deist to subscribe (without

Vedantic belief as a condition of acceptance) to the

essential creed of the Congregation. One or two sentences in

the original will reveal at a glance the origin of the

phraseology: _brahma_ (being) _v[=a] ekam idam-agra

[=a]s[=i]t; tad ida[.m] sarvam as[r.]jal; tad eva nityam,

ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam; tasmia pr[=i]tis ...

tadup[=a]sanam_. Compare Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad: _sad_

(being) _idam agra [=a]s[=i]d ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_; and

the V[=a]jasaney[=i]-Br[=a]hmana Upanishad: _brahma v[=a]

idam-agra [=a]s[=i]t_, etc.]

[Footnote 111: It is interesting to see this fervor, or

ecstatic delirium, surviving from the time of the Rig Veda,

where already (albeit only in the latest hymns, which are

quite Brahmanic) flourishes the mad _muni:_ and fervid

ascetism ('heat,'_tapas_) begins to appear as a means of

salvation. RV. x. 109, 136.]

[Footnote 112: "I regard myself as Christ and C[=a]itanya,"

reported by Sen's own missionary as the words of the former.

Sen's disciples deny some of these assertions, but they seem

to be substantiated, and Sen's own language shows that he

claimed miraculous powers. Compare the discussions on this

point, JRAS. xiii. 281 ff.]

[Footnote 113: This was afterwards excused on the ground

that the marriage would not have been legal without these

rites. But Sen presumably was aware of this in advance. From

the performance of the rites he had the decency to absent

himself. It should be said, however, in Sen's behalf, that

the marriage itself had nothing revolting about it, and

though in consenting to it Sen violated his faith, as is

evident from the protest of the Sam[=a]j, yet was the

marriage not an extreme case of child-marriage, for both the

'children' were sixteen. Sen's own excuse (he thought excuse

necessary) was that he was inspired when he consented to the

nuptials.]

[Footnote 114: The theistic tendency in the Hindu mind is so

exaggerated that even now it is with the greatest difficulty

that the vulgar can be restrained from new idolatry. Not

only priests, but even poets are regarded as gods.

Jñ[=a]ndev and Tuk[=a]r[=a]m, the hymn-makers of the

Mahratta Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, are demi-gods to-day (IA. xi. 56.

149). A few striking examples are almost requisite to make

an Occidental reader understand against what odds the deism

of India has to contend. In 1830 an impudent boy, who could

train snakes, announced that he could also work miracles.

The boy was soon accepted as Vishnu's last _avatar_; hymns,

_abhangs_, were sung to him, and he was worshipped as a god

even after his early demise (from a snake-bite). A weaver

came soon after to the temple, where stood the boy's now

vacant shrine, and fell asleep there at night. In the

morning he was perplexed to find himself a god. The people

had accepted him as their snake-conquering god in a new

form. The poor weaver denied his divinity, but that made no

difference. In 1834 the dead boy-god was still receiving

flowers and prayers. Another case: In the eighties some

Englishmen on entering a temple were amazed to see revered

as an _avatar_ of Vishnu the brass castings of the arms of

the old India Co. This god was washed and anointed daily.

Even a statue of Buddha (with the inscription still upon it)

was revered as Vishnu. In 1880 a meteorite fell in Beh[=a]r.

In 1882 its cult was fully established, and it was

worshipped as the 'miraculous god.' A Mohammedan inscription

has also been found deified and regularly worshipped as a

god, JRAS. 1842, p. 109; 1884, pt. III, pp. I, LIX.]

* * * * *