CHAPTER XXIV

DECADENCE OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA

The theme of this chapter is sad for it is the decadence, degradation

and ultimate disappearance of Buddhism in India. The other great

religions offer no precise parallel to this phenomenon but they also

do not offer a parallel to the circumstances of Buddhism at the time

when it flourished in its native land. Mohammedanism has been able to

maintain itself in comparative isolation: up to the present day

Moslims and Christians share the same cities rather than the same

thoughts, especially when (as often) they belong to different races.

European Christianity after a few centuries of existence had to

contend with no rival of approximately equal strength, for the

struggle with Mohammedanism was chiefly military and hardly concerned

the merits of the faiths. But Buddhism never had a similarly paramount

and unchallenged position. It never attempted to extirpate its rivals.

It coexisted with a mass of popular superstition which it only gently

reprobated and with a powerful hereditary priesthood, both

intellectual and pliant, tenacious of their own ideas and yet ready to

countenance almost any other ideas as the price of ruling. Neither

Islam nor Christianity had such an adversary, and both of them and

even Judaism resemble Buddhism in having won greater success outside

their native lands than in them. Jerusalem is not an altogether

satisfactory spectacle to either Christians or Jews.[264]

Still all this does not completely explain the disappearance of

Buddhism from India. Before attempting to assign reasons, we shall do

well to review some facts and dates relating to the period of

decadence. If we take all India into consideration the period is long,

but in many, indeed in most, districts the process of decay was rapid.

In the preceding chapter I have mentioned the accounts of Indian

Buddhism which we owe to the Chinese travellers, Hsuean Chuang and

I-Ching. The latter frankly deplores the decay of the faith which he

had witnessed in his own life (_i.e._ about 650-700 A.D.) but his

travels in India were of relatively small extent and he gives less

local information than previous pilgrims. Hsuean Chuang describing

India in 629-645 A.D. is unwilling to admit the decay but his truthful

narrative lets it be seen. It is only of Bengal and the present United

Provinces that he can be said to give a favourable account, and the

prosperity of Buddhism there was largely due to the personal influence

of Harsha.[265] In central and southern India, he tells us of little

but deserted monasteries. It is clear that Buddhism was dying out but

it is not so clear that it had ever been the real religion of this

region. In many parts it did not conquer the population but so to

speak built fortresses and left garrisons. It is probable that the

Buddhism of Andhra, Kalinga and the south was represented by little

more than such outposts. They included Amaravati, where portions of

the ruins seem assignable to about 150 A.D., and Ajanta, where some of

the cave paintings are thought to be as late as the sixth century. But

of neither site can we give any continuous history. In southern India

the introduction of Buddhism took place under the auspices of Asoka

himself, though his inscriptions have as yet been found only in

northern Mysore and not in the Tamil country. The Tamil poems

Manimegalei and Silappadigaram, especially the former, represent it as

prevalent and still preserving much of its ancient simplicity. Even in

later times when it had almost completely disappeared from southern

India, occasional Buddhist temples were founded. Rajaraja endowed one

at Negapatam about 1000 A.D. In 1055 a monastery was erected at

Belgami in Mysore and a Buddhist town named Kalavati is mentioned as

existing in that state in 1533.[266] But in spite of such survivals,

even in the sixth century Buddhism could not compete in southern India

with either Jainism or Hinduism and there are no traces of its

existence in the Deccan after 1150.

For the Konkan, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Hsuean Chuang's statistics are

fairly satisfactory. But in all this region the Sammitiya sect which

apparently was nearer to Hinduism than the others was the most

important. In Ujjain Buddhism was almost extinct but in many of the

western states it lingered on, perhaps only in isolated monasteries,

until the twelfth century. Inscriptions found at Kanheri (843 and 851

A.D.), Dambal (1095 A.D.) and in Miraj (1110 A.D.) testify that grants

were made to monasteries at these late dates.[267] But further north

the faith had to endure the violence of strangers. Sind was conquered

by the Arabs in 712; Gujarat and the surrounding country were invaded

by northern tribes and such invasions were always inimical to the

prosperity of monasteries.

This is even more true of the Panjab, the frontier provinces and

Kashmir. The older invaders such as the Yueeh-chih had been favourably

disposed to Buddhism, but those who came later, such as the Huns, were

predaceous barbarians with little religion of any sort. In Hsuean

Chuang's time it was only in Udyana that Buddhism could be said to be

the religion of the people and the torrent of Mohammedan invasion

which swept continuously through these countries during the middle

ages overwhelmed all earlier religions, and even Hinduism had to

yield. In Kashmir Buddhism soon became corrupt and according to the

Rajatarangini[268] the monks began to marry as early as the sixth

century. King Lalitaditya (733-769) is credited with having built

monasteries as well as temples to the Sun, but his successors were

Sivaites.

Bengal, especially western Bengal and Bihar, was the stronghold of

decadent Buddhism, though even here hostile influences were not

absent. But about 730 A.D. a pious Buddhist named Gopala founded the

Pala dynasty and extended his power over Magadha. The Palas ruled for

about 450 years and supplied a long and devout line of defenders of

the faith. But to the east of their dominions lay the principality of

Kanauj, a state of varying size and fortunes and from the eighth

century onwards a stronghold of Brahmanic learning.

The revolution in Hinduism which definitely defeated, though it did

not annihilate Buddhism, is generally connected with the names of

Kumarila Bhatta (_c._ 750) and Sankara (_c._ 800). We know the

doctrines of these teachers, for many of their works have come down to

us, but when we enquire what was their political importance, or the

scope and extent of the movement which they championed we are

conscious (as so often) of the extraordinary vagueness of Indian

records even when the subject might appeal to religious and

philosophic minds.[269] Kumarila is said to have been a Brahman of

Bihar who abjured Buddhism for Hinduism and raged with the ardour of a

proselyte against his ancient faith. Tradition[270] represents him as

instigating King Sudhanvan to exterminate the Buddhists. But nothing

is known of this king and he cannot have had the extensive empire with

which he is credited.

Sankara was a Brahman of the south who in a short life found time to

write numerous works, to wander over India, to found a monastic order

and build four monasteries. In doctrine and discipline he was more

pliant than Kumarila and he assimilated many strong points of

Buddhism. Both these teachers are depicted as the successful heroes of

public disputations in which the interest at stake was considerable.

The vanquished had to become a disciple of the vanquisher or to

forfeit his life and, if he was the head of an institution, to

surrender its property. These accounts, though exaggerated, are

probably a florid version of what occurred and we may surmise that the

popular faith of the day was generally victorious. What violence the

rising tide of Hinduism may have wrought, it is hard to say. There is

no evidence of any general persecution of Buddhism in the sense in

which one Christian sect persecuted another in Europe. But at a rather

later date we hear that Jains were persecuted and tortured by Saiva

princes both in southern India and Gujarat, and if there were any

detailed account, epigraphic or literary, of such persecutions in the

eighth and ninth centuries, there would be no reason for doubting it.

But no details are forthcoming. Without resorting to massacre, an

anti-Buddhist king had in his power many effective methods of

hostility. He might confiscate or transfer monastic property, or

forbid his subjects to support monks. Considering the state of

Buddhism as represented by Hsuean Chuang and I-Ching it is probable

that such measures would suffice to ensure the triumph of the Brahmans

in most parts of India.

After the epoch of Sankara, the history of Indian Buddhism is

confined to the Pala kingdom. Elsewhere we hear only of isolated

grants to monasteries and similar acts of piety, often striking but

hardly worthy of mention in comparison with the enormous number of

Brahmanic inscriptions. But in the Pala kingdom[271] Buddhism, though

corrupt, was flourishing so far as the number of its adherents and

royal favour were concerned. Gopala founded the monastery of

Odontapuri or Udandapura, which according to some authorities was in

the town of Bihar. Dharmapala the second king of the dynasty (_c._ 800

A.D.) built on the north bank of the Ganges the even more celebrated

University of Vikramasila,[272] where many commentaries were composed.

It was a centre not only of tantric learning but of logic and grammar,

and is interesting as showing the connection between Bengal and Tibet.

Tibetans studied there and Sanskrit books were translated into Tibetan

within its cloisters. Dharmapala is said to have reigned sixty-four

years and to have held his court at Patna, which had fallen into decay

but now began to revive. According to Taranatha his successor Devapala

built Somapuri, conquered Orissa and waged war with the unbelievers

who had become numerous, no doubt as a result of the preaching of

Sankara. But as a rule the Palas, though they favoured Buddhism, did

not actively discourage Hinduism. They even gave grants to Hindu

temples and their prime ministers were generally Brahmans who[273]

used to erect non-Buddhist images in Buddhist shrines. The dynasty

continued through the eleventh century and in this period some

information as to the condition of Indian Buddhism is afforded by the

relations between Bengal and Tibet. After the persecution of the tenth

century Tibetan Buddhism was revived by the preaching of monks from

Bengal. Mahipala then occupied the throne (_c._ 978-1030) and during

his reign various learned men accepted invitations to Tibet. More

celebrated is the mission of Atisa, a monk of the Vikramasila

monastery, which took place about 1038. That these two missions should

have been invited and despatched shows that in the eleventh century

Bengal was a centre of Buddhist learning. Probably the numerous

Sanskrit works preserved in Tibetan translations then existed in its

monasteries. But about the same time the power of the Pala dynasty,

and with it the influence of Buddhism, were curtailed by the

establishment of the rival Sena dynasty in the eastern provinces.

Still, under Ramapala, who reigned about 1100, the great teacher

Abhayakara was an ornament of the Mahayana. Taranatha[274] says that

he corrected the text of the scriptures and that in his time there

were many Pandits and resident Bhikshus in the monasteries of

Vikramasila, Bodh-Gaya and Odontapuri.

There is thus every reason to suppose that in the twelfth century

Buddhism still nourished in Bihar, that its clergy numbered several

thousands and its learning was held in esteem. The blow which

destroyed its power was struck by a Mohammedan invasion in 1193. In

that year Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Muhammad,[275] a general of Kutb-ud-Din,

invaded Bihar with a band of only two hundred men and with amazing

audacity seized the capital, which, consisting chiefly of palaces and

monasteries, collapsed without a blow. The monks were massacred to a

man, and when the victors, who appear not to have understood what

manner of place they had captured, asked the meaning of the libraries

which they saw, no one was found capable of reading the books.[276]

It was in 1193 also that Benares was conquered by the Mohammedans. I

have found no record of the sack of the monastery at Sarnath but the

ruins are said to show traces of fire and other indications that it

was overwhelmed by some sudden disaster.

The Mohammedans had no special animus against Buddhism. They were

iconoclasts who saw merit in the destruction of images and the

slaughter of idolaters. But whereas Hinduism was spread over the

country, Buddhism was concentrated in the great monasteries and when

these were destroyed there remained nothing outside them capable of

withstanding either the violence of the Moslims or the assimilative

influence of the Brahmans. Hence Buddhism suffered far more from these

invasions than Hinduism but still vestiges of it lingered long[277]

and exist even now in Orissa. Taranatha says that the immediate result

of the Moslim conquest was the dispersal of the surviving teachers and

this may explain the sporadic occurrence of late Buddhist inscriptions

in other parts of India. He also tells us that a king named

Cangalaraja restored the ruined Buddhist temples of Bengal about 1450.

Elsewhere[278] he gives a not discouraging picture of Buddhism in the

Deccan, Gujarat and Rajputana after the Moslim conquest of Magadha but

adds that the study of magic became more and more prevalent. In the

life of Caitanya it is stated that when travelling in southern India

(about 1510 A.D.) he argued with Buddhists and confuted them,

apparently somewhere in Arcot.[279] Manuscripts preserved in Nepal

indicate that as late as the fifteenth or sixteenth century Bengali

copyists wrote out Buddhist works, and there is evidence that

Bodh-Gaya continued to be a place of pilgrimage. In 1585 it was

visited by a Nepalese named Abhaya Raja who on his return erected in

Patan a monastery imitated from what he had seen in Bengal, and in

1777 the Tashi Lama sent an embassy. But such instances prove little

as to the religion of the surrounding Hindu population, for at the

present day numerous Buddhist pilgrims, especially Burmese, frequent

the shrine. The control of the temple passed into the hands of the

Brahmans and for the ordinary Bengali Buddha became a member of

India's numerous pantheon. Pandit Haraprasad Sastri mentions a

singular poem called Buddhacaritra, completed in 1711 and celebrating

an incarnation of Buddha which apparently commenced in 1699 and was to

end in the reappearance of the golden age. But the being called Buddha

is a form of Vishnu and the work is as strange a jumble of religion

as it is of languages, being written in "a curious medley of bad

Sanskrit, bad Hindi and bad Bihari."

It is chiefly in Orissa that traces of Buddhism can still be found

within the limits of India proper. The Saraks of Baramba, Tigaria and

the adjoining parts of Cuttack describe themselves as Buddhists.[280]

Their name is the modern equivalent of Sravaka and they apparently

represent an ancient Buddhist community which has become a sectarian

caste. They have little knowledge of their religion but meet once a

year in the cave temples of Khandagiri, to worship a deity called

Buddhadeva or Caturbhuja. All their ceremonies commence with the

formula _Ahimsa parama dharma_ and they respect the temple of Puri,

which is suspected of having a Buddhist origin.

Nagendranath Vasu has published some interesting details as to the

survival of Buddhist ideas in Orissa.[281] He traces the origin of

this hardy though degraded form of Mahayanism to Ramai Pandit,[282] a

tantric Acarya of Magadha who wrote a work called Sunya Purana which

became popular. Orissa was one of the regions which offered the

longest resistance to Islam, for it did not succumb until 1568. A

period of Sivaism in the tenth and eleventh centuries is indicated by

the temples of Bhuvaneshwar and other monuments. But in the twelfth

and thirteenth centuries the reigning dynasty were worshippers of

Vishnu and built the great temples at Puri and Konarak, dedicated to

Jagannatha and Surya-narayana respectively. We do not however hear

that they persecuted Buddhism and there are reasons for thinking that

Jagannatha is a form of the Buddha[283] and that the temple at Puri

was originally a Buddhist site. It is said that it contains a gigantic

statue of the Buddha before which a wall has been built and also that

the image of Jagannatha, which is little more than a log of wood, is

really a case enclosing a Buddhist relic. King Prataparudra ({~DAGGER~} 1529)

persecuted Buddhism, which implies that at this late date its

adherents were sufficiently numerous to attract attention. Either at

the beginning of his reign or before it there flourished a group of

six poets of whom the principal were Acyutananda Dasa and Caitanya

Dasa.[284] Their works are nominally devoted to the celebration of

Krishna's praises and form the chief vernacular scripture of the

Vaishnavas in Orissa but in them Krishna, or the highest form of

the deity by whatever name he is called, is constantly identified with

Sunya or the Void, that favourite term of Mahayanist philosophy.

Passages from them are also quoted stating that in the Kali age the

followers of the Buddha must disguise themselves; that there are 3000

crypto-Buddhists hidden in various parts of Orissa, that Hari has been

incarnate in many Buddhas and that the Buddha will appear again on

earth. The phrase "I take refuge in the Buddha, in Mata Adisakti (=

Dharma) and in the Sangha" is also quoted from these works and

Caitanya Dasa describes five Vishnus, who are apparently identical

with the five Dhyani Buddhas.[285]

Taranatha states that the last king of Orissa, Mukunda Deva, who was

overthrown by the Mohammedans in 1568, was a Buddhist and founded some

temples and monasteries. In the seventeenth century, there flourished

a Buddhist poet named Mahadevadasa,[286] and the Tibetan pilgrim

Buddhagupta visited among other sites the old capital of Mayurabhanja

and saw a stupa there. It is claimed that the tribe known as Bathuris

or Bauris have always been crypto-Buddhists and have preserved their

ancient customs. They are however no credit to their religion, for one

of their principal ceremonies is hook-swinging.[287]

The doctrine of the Bathuris is called Mahima Dharma and experienced

an interesting revival in 1875.[288] A blind man named Bhima Bhoi had

a vision of the Buddha who restored his sight and bade him preach the

law. He attracted some thousands of adherents and led a band to Puri

proclaiming that his mission was to bring to light the statue of

Buddha concealed in the temple. The Raja resisted the attempt and the

followers of Bhima Bhoi were worsted in a sanguinary encounter. Since

that time they have retired to the more remote districts of Orissa and

are said to hold that the Buddha will appear again in a new

incarnation. They are also called Kumbhipatias and according to the

last census of India (1911) are hostile to Brahmans and probably

number about 25,000.

Traces of Buddhism also survive in the worship of a deity called

Dharma-Raja or Dharma-Thakur which still prevails in western and

southern Bengal.[289] Priests of this worship are usually not Brahmans

but of low caste, and Haraprasad thinks that the laity who follow it

may number "several millions." Though Dharma has come to be associated

with the goddess of smallpox and is believed even by his adorers to be

a form of Vishnu or of Siva, yet Dhyana, or meditation, forms a part

of his worship and the prayers and literature of the sect retain some

traces of his origin. Thus he is said to be highly honoured in Ceylon

and receives the epithet Sunyamurti.

A corrupt form of Buddhism still exists in Nepal.[290] This country

when first heard of was in the hands of the Nevars who have preserved

some traditions of a migration from the north and are akin to the

Tibetans in race and language, though like many non-Aryan tribes they

have endeavoured to invent for themselves a Hindu pedigree. Buddhism

was introduced under Asoka. As Indian influence was strong and

communication with Tirhut and Bengal easy, it is probable that

Buddhism in Nepal reflected the phases which it underwent in Bengal. A

Nepalese inscription of the seventh century gives a list of shrines of

which seven are Sivaite, six Buddhist and four Vishnuite.[291] After

that date it was more successful in maintaining itself, for it did not

suffer from Mohammedan attacks and was less exposed to the

assimilative influence of Brahmanism. That influence however, though

operating in a foreign country and on people not bred among Brahmanic

traditions, was nevertheless strong. In 1324 the king of Tirhut, being

expelled thence by Mohammedans, seized the throne of Nepal and brought

with him many learned Brahmans. His dynasty was not permanent but

later in the fourteenth century a subsequent ruler, Jayasthiti,

organized society and religion in consultation with the Brahman

immigrants. The followers of the two religions were arranged in

parallel divisions, a group of Buddhists classified according to

occupation corresponding to each Hindu caste, and appropriate rules

and ceremonies were prescribed for the different sections. The code

then established is still in force in essentials and Nepal, being

intellectually the pupil of India, has continued to receive such new

ideas as appeared in the plains of Bengal. When these ascended to the

mountain valleys they were adopted, with free modification of old and

new material alike, by both Buddhists and Hindus, but as both sects

were geographically isolated, each tended to resemble the other more

than either resembled normal Buddhism or Hinduism. Naturally the new

ideas were mainly Brahmanic and Buddhism had no chance of being

fortified by an importation of even moderately orthodox doctrine. In

the fourteenth century arose the community of wandering ascetics

called Nathas who were reverenced by Hindus and Buddhists alike. They

rejected the observances of both creeds but often combined their

doctrines and, though disavowed by the Brahmans, exercised a

considerable influence among the lower castes. Some of the peculiar

deities of Nepal, such as Matsyendranath, have attributes traceable to

these wanderers. In 1769 Nepal was conquered by the Gurkhas. This

tribe seems related to the Tibetan stock, as are the Nevars, but it

had long been Hinduized and claimed a Rajput ancestry. Thus Gurkha

rule has favoured and accelerated the hinduizing of Nepalese Buddhism.

Since the time of Hodgson the worship of the Adi-Buddha, or an

original divine Buddha practically equivalent to God, has been often

described as characteristic of Nepalese religion and such a worship

undoubtedly exists. But recent accounts indicate that it is not

prominent and also that it can hardly be considered a distinct type of

monotheistic Buddhism. The idea that the five Dhyani-Buddhas are

emanations or manifestations of a single primordial Buddha-spirit is a

natural development of Mahayanist ideas, but no definite statement of

it earlier than the Kalacakra literature is forthcoming, though many

earlier works point towards it.[292] In modern Nepal the chief temple

of the Adi-Buddha is on the hill of Svayambhu (the self-existent) near

Katmandu. According to a legend preserved in the Svayambhu Purana, a

special divine manifestation occurred in ancient times on an adjoining

lake; a miraculous lotus arose on its surface, bearing an image, over

which a Caitya was subsequently erected. The shrine is greatly

venerated but this Adi-Buddha, or Svayambhu, does not differ

essentially from other miraculous images in India which are said not

to consist of ordinary matter but to embody in some special way the

nature of a deity. The religion of Nepal is less remarkable for new

developments of Buddhism than for the singular fusion of Buddhism with

Hinduism which it presents and which helps us to understand what must

have been the last phase in Bengal.

The Nepalese Brahmans tolerate Buddhism. The Nepala-mahatmya says that

to worship Buddha is to worship Siva, and the Svayambhu Purana returns

the compliment by recommending the worship of Pasupati.[293] The

official itinerary of the Hindu pilgrim includes Svayambhu, where he

adores Buddha under that name. More often the two religions adore the

same image under different names: what is Avalokita to the one is

Mahakala to the other. Durga is explained as being the incarnation of

the Prajna-paramita and she is even identified with the Adi-Buddha.

The Nepalese pantheon like the Tibetan contains three elements, often

united in modern legends: firstly aboriginal deities, such as Nagas

and other nature spirits: secondly definitely Buddhist deities or

Bodhisattvas of whom Manjusri receives the most honour: thirdly Hindu

deities such as Ganesa and Krishna. The popular deity

Matsyendranath appears to combine all three elements in his own

person.

Modern accounts of Nepal leave the impression that even corrupt

Buddhism is in a bad way, yet the number of religious establishments

is considerable. Celibacy is not observed by their inmates, who are

called banras (bandyas). On entering the order the novice takes the

ancient vows but after four days he returns to his tutor, confesses

that they are too hard for him and is absolved from his obligations.

The classes known as Bhikshus and Gubharjus officiate as priests, the

latter being the higher order. The principal ceremony is the offering

of melted butter. The more learned Gubharjus receive the title of

Vajracarya[294] and have the sole right of officiating at marriages

and funerals.

There is little learning. The oldest scriptures in use are the

so-called nine Dharmas.[295] Hodgson describes these works as much

venerated and Rajendralal Mitra has analysed them, but Sylvain Levi

heard little of them in 1898, though he mentions the recitation of the

Prajna-paramita. The Svayambhu Purana is an account of the

manifestation of the Adi-Buddha written in the style of those portions

of the Brahmanic Puranas which treat of the glories of some sacred

place. In its present form it can hardly be earlier than the sixteenth

century A.D. The Nepala-mahatmya is a similar work which, though of

Brahmanic origin, puts Buddha, Vishnu and Siva on the same footing and

identifies the first with Krishna. The Vagvati-mahatmya[296] on the

other hand is strictly Sivaite and ignores Buddha's claims to worship.

The Vamsavali, or Chronicle of Nepal, written in the Gurkha language

(Parbatiya) is also largely occupied with an account of sacred sites

and buildings and exists in two versions, one Buddhist, the other

Brahmanical.

But let us return to the decadence of Buddhism in India. It is plain

that persecution was not its main cause nor even very important among

the accessory causes. The available records contain clearer statements

about the persecution of Jainism than of Buddhism but no doubt the

latter came in for some rough handling, though not enough to

annihilate a vigorous sect. Great numbers of monasteries in the north

were demolished by the Huns and a similar catastrophe brought about

the collapse of the Church in Bihar. But this last incident cannot be

called religious persecution, for Muhammad did not even know what he

was destroying. Buddhism did not arouse more animosity than other

Indian religions: the significant feature is that when its temples and

monasteries were demolished it did not live on in the hearts of the

people, as did Hinduism with all its faults.

The relation between the laity and the Church in Buddhism is curious

and has had serious consequences for both good and evil. The layman

"takes refuge" in the Buddha, his law and his church but does not

swear exclusive allegiance: to follow supplementary observances is not

treasonable, provided they are not in themselves objectionable. The

Buddha prescribed no ceremonies for births, deaths and marriages and

apparently expected the laity to continue in the observance of such

rites as were in use. To-day in China and Japan the good layman is

little more than one who pays more attention to Buddhism than to other

faiths. This charitable pliancy had much to do with the victories of

Buddhism in the Far East, where it had to struggle against strong

prejudices and could hardly have made its way if it had been

intolerant of local deities. But in India we see the disadvantages of

the omission to make the laity members of a special corporation and

the survival of the Jains, who do form such a corporation, is a clear

object lesson. Social life in India tends to combine men in castes or

in communities which if not castes in the technical sense have much

the same character. Such communities have great vitality so long as

they maintain their peculiar usages, but when they cease to do so they

soon disintegrate and are reabsorbed. Buddhism from the first never

took the form of a corporation. The special community which it

instituted was the sangha or body of monks. Otherwise, it aimed not

at founding a sect but at including all the world as lay believers on

easy terms. This principle worked well so long as the faith was in the

ascendent but its effect was disastrous when decline began. The line

dividing Buddhist laymen from ordinary Hindus became less and less

marked: distinctive teaching was found only in the monasteries: these

became poorly recruited and as they were gradually deserted or

destroyed by Mohammedans the religion of the Buddha disappeared from

his native land.

Even in the monasteries the doctrine taught bore a closer resemblance

to Hinduism than to the preaching of Gotama and it is this absence of

the protestant spirit, this pliant adaptability to the ideas of each

age, which caused Indian Buddhism to lose its individuality and

separate existence. In some localities its disappearance and

absorption were preceded by a monstrous phase, known as Tantrism or

Saktism, in which the worst elements of Hinduism, those which would

have been most repulsive to Gotama, made an unnatural alliance with

his church.

I treat of Tantrism and Saktism in another chapter. The original

meaning of Tantra as applied to literary compositions is a simplified

manual.[297] Thus we hear of Vishnuite Tantras and in this sense there

is a real similarity between Buddhist and tantric teaching, for both

set aside Brahmanic tradition as needlessly complicated and both

profess to preach a simple and practical road to salvation. But in

Hinduism and Buddhism alike such words as Tantra and tantric acquire a

special sense and imply the worship of the divine energy in a female

form called by many names such as Kali in the former, Tara in the

latter. This worship which in my opinion should be called Saktism

rather than Tantrism combines many elements: ancient, savage

superstitions as well as ingenious but fanciful speculation, but its

essence is always magic. It attempts to attain by magical or

sacramental formulae and acts not only prosperity and power but

salvation, nirvana and union with the supreme spirit. Some of its

sects practise secret immoral rites. It is sad to confess that

degenerate Buddhism did not remain uncorrupted by such abuses.

It is always a difficult and speculative task to trace the early

stages of new movements in Indian religion, but it is clear that by

the eighth century and perhaps earlier the Buddhism of Bihar and

Bengal had fallen a prey to this influence. Apparently the public

ritual in the Viharas remained unchanged and the usual language about

_nirvana_ and _sunyata_ was not discarded, but it was taught that

those who followed a certain curriculum could obtain salvation by

magical methods. To enter this curriculum it was necessary to have a

qualified teacher and to receive from him initiation or baptism

(abhisheka). Of the subsequent rites the most important is to evoke

one of the many Buddhas or Bodhisattvas recognized by the Mahayana and

identify oneself with him.[298] He who wishes to do this is often

called a sadhaka or magician but his achievements, like many Indian

miracles, are due to self-hypnotization. He is directed to repair to a

lonely place and offer worship there with flowers and prayers. To this

office succeed prolonged exercises in meditation which do not depart

much from the ancient canon since they include the four

Brahma-viharas. Their object is to suppress thought and leave the mind

empty. Then the sadhaka fills this void with the image of some

Bodhisattva, for instance Avalokita. This he does by uttering mystic

syllables called bija or seed, because they are supposed to germinate

and grow into the figures which he wishes to produce. In this way he

imagines that he sees the emblems of the Bodhisattva spring up round

him one by one and finally he himself assumes the shape of Avalokita

and becomes one with him. Something similar still exists in Tibet

where every Lama chooses a tutelary deity or Yi-dam whom he summons in

visible form after meditation and fasting.[299] Though this procedure

when set forth methodically in a mediaeval manual seems an absurd

travesty of Buddhism, yet it has links with the early faith. It is

admitted in the Pitakas that certain forms of meditation[300] lead to

union with Brahma and it is no great change to make them lead to union

with other supernatural beings. Still we are not here breathing the

atmosphere of the Pitakas. The object is not to share Brahma's heaven

but to become temporarily identified with a deity, and this is not a

byway of religion but the high road.

But there is a further stage of degradation. I have already mentioned

that various Bodhisattvas are represented as accompanied by a female

deity, particularly Avalokita by Tara. The mythological and

metaphysical ideas which have grown up round Siva and Durga also

attached themselves to these couples. The Buddha or Bodhisattva is

represented as enjoying nirvana because he is united to his spouse,

and to the three bodies already enumerated is added a fourth, the body

of perfect bliss.[301] Sometimes this idea merely leads to further

developments of the practices described above. Thus the devotee may

imagine that he enters into Tara as an embryo and is born of her as a

Buddha.[302] More often the argument is that since the bliss of the

Buddha consists in union with Tara, nirvana can be obtained by sexual

union here, and we find many of the tantric wizards represented as

accompanied by female companions. The adept should avoid all action

but he is beyond good and evil and the dangerous doctrine that he can

do evil with impunity, which the more respectable sects repudiate, is

expressly taught. The sage is not defiled by passion but conquers

passion by passion: he should commit every infamy: he should rob, lie

and kill Buddhas.[303] These crazy precepts are probably little more

than a speculative application to the moral sphere of the doctrine

that all things are non-existent and hence equivalent. But though

tantrists did not go about robbing and murdering so freely as their

principles allowed, there is some evidence that in the period of

decadence the morality of the Bhikshus had fallen into great

discredit. Thus in the allegorical Vishnuite drama called

Prabodhacandrodaya and written at Kalanjar near the end of the

eleventh century Buddhists and Jains are represented as succumbing to

the temptations of inebriety and voluptuousness.

It is necessary to mention this phase of decadence but no good purpose

would be served by dwelling further on the absurd and often disgusting

prescriptions of such works as the Tathagata-guhyaka. If the European

reader is inclined to condemn unreservedly a religion which even in

decrepitude could find place for such monstrosities, he should

remember that the aberrations of Indian religion are due not to its

inherent depravity, but to its universality. In Europe those who

follow disreputable occupations rarely suppose that they have anything

to do with the Church. In India, robbers, murderers, gamblers,

prostitutes, and maniacs all have their appropriate gods, and had the

Marquis de Sade been a Hindu he would probably have founded a new

tantric sect. But though the details of Saktism are an unprofitable

study, it is of some importance to ascertain when it first invaded

Buddhism and to what extent it superseded older ideas.

Some critics[304] seem to imply--for their statements are not very

explicit--that Saktism formed part if not of the teaching of the

Buddha, at least of the medley of beliefs held by his disciples. But I

see no proof that Saktist beliefs--that is to say erotic mysticism

founded on the worship of goddesses--were prevalent in Magadha or

Kosala before the Christian era. Although Siri, the goddess of luck,

is mentioned in the Pitakas, the popular deities whom they bring on

the scene are almost exclusively masculine.[305] And though in the

older Brahmanic books there are passages which might easily become

tantric, yet the transition is not made and the important truths of

religion are kept distinct from unclean rites and thoughts. The

Brihad-aranyaka contains a chapter which hardly admits of

translation but the object of the practices inculcated is simply to

ensure the birth of a son. The same work (not without analogies in the

ecstatic utterances of Christian saints) boldly compares union with

the Atman to the bliss of one who is embraced by a beloved wife, but

this is a mere illustration and there is no hint of the doctrine that

the goal of the religious life is obtainable by _maithuna_. Still such

passages, though innocent in themselves, make it easy to see how

degrading superstitions found an easy entrance into the noblest

edifices of Indian thought and possibly some heresies condemned in the

Kathavatthu[306] indicate that even at this early date the Buddhist

Church was contaminated by erotic fancies. But, if so, there is no

evidence that such malpractices were widespread. The appendices to the

Lotus[307] show that the worship of a many-named goddess, invoked as a

defender of the faith, was beginning to be a recognized feature of

Buddhism. But they contain no indications of left-handed Tantrism and

the best proof that it did not become prevalent until much later is

afforded by the narratives of the three Chinese pilgrims who all

describe the condition of religion in India and notice anything which

they thought singular or reprehensible. Fa-Hsien does not mention the

worship of any female deity,[308] nor does the Life of Vasubandhu, but

Asanga appears to allude to Saktism in one passage.[309] Hsuean Chuang

mentions images of Tara but without hinting at tantric ritual, nor

does I-Ching allude to it, nor does the evidence of art and

inscriptions attest its existence. It may have been known as a form of

popular superstition and even have been practised by individual

Bhikshus, but the silence of I-Ching makes it improbable that it was

then countenanced in the schools of Magadha. He complains[310] of

those who neglect the Vinaya and "devote their whole attention to the

doctrine of nothingness," but he says not a word about tantric

abuses.[311]

The change probably occurred in the next half century[312] for

Padma-Sambhava, the founder of Lamaism who is said to have resided in

Gaya and Nalanda and to have arrived in Tibet in 747 A.D., is

represented by tradition as a tantric wizard, and about the same time

translations of Tantras begin to appear in Chinese. The translations

of the sixth and seventh centuries, including those of I-Ching,

comprise a considerable though not preponderant number of Dharanis.

After the seventh century these became very numerous and several

Tantras were also translated.[313] The inference seems to be that

early in the eighth century Indian Buddhists officially recognized

Tantrism.

Tantric Buddhism was due to the mixture of Mahayanist teaching with

aboriginal superstitions absorbed through the medium of Hinduism,

though in some cases there may have been direct contact and mutual

influence between Mahayanism and aboriginal beliefs. But as a rule

what happened was that aboriginal deities were identified with Hindu

deities and Buddhism had not sufficient independence to keep its own

pantheon distinct, so that Vairocana and Tara received most of the

attributes, brahmanic or barbarous, given to Siva or Kali. The worship

of the goddesses, described in their Hinduized form as Durga, Kali,

etc., though found in most parts of India was specially prevalent in

the sub-himalayan districts both east and west. Now Padma-Sambhava was

a native of Udyana or Swat and Taranatha represents the chief

Tantrists[314] as coming from there or visiting it. Hsuean Chuang[315]

tells us that the inhabitants were devout Mahayanists but specially

expert in magic and exorcism. He also describes no less than four

sacred places in it where the Buddha in previous births gave his

flesh, blood or bones for the good of others. Have we here in a

Buddhist form some ancient legend of dismemberment like that told of

Sati in Assam? Of Kashmir he says that its religion was a mixture of

Buddhism with other beliefs.[316] These are precisely the conditions

most favourable to the growth of Tantrism and though the bulk of the

population are now Mohammedans, witchcraft and sorcery are still

rampant. Among the Hindu Kashmiris[317] the most prevalent religion

has always been the worship of Siva, especially in the form

representing him as half male, half female. This cult is not far from

Saktism and many allusions[318] in the Rajatarangini indicate that

left-hand worship was known, though the author satirizes it as a

corruption. He also several times mentions[319] Matri-cakras, that is

circles sacred to the Mothers or tantric goddesses. In Nepal and Tibet

tantric Buddhism is fully developed but these countries have received

so much from India that they exhibit not a parallel growth, but late

Indian Tantrism as imported ready-made from Bengal. It is here that we

come nearest to the origins of Tantrism, for though the same beliefs

may have flourished in Udyana and Kashmir they did not spread much in

the Panjab or Hindustan, where their progress was hindered at first by

a healthy and vigorous Hinduism and subsequently by Mohammedan

invasions. But from 700 to 1197 A.D. Bengal was remote alike from the

main currents of Indian religion and from foreign raids: little Aryan

thought or learning leavened the local superstitions which were

infecting and stifling decadent Buddhism. Hsuean Chuang informs us that

Bhaskaravarma king of Kamarupa[320] attended the fetes celebrated by

Harsha in 644 A.D. and inscriptions found at Tezpur indicate that

kings with Hindu names reigned in Assam about 800 A.D. This is

agreeable to the supposition that an amalgamation of Sivaism and

aboriginal religion may have been in formation about 700 A.D. and have

influenced Buddhism.

In Bihar from the eighth century onwards the influence of Tantrism was

powerful and disastrous. The best information about this epoch is

still to be found in Taranatha, in spite of his defects.

He makes the interesting statement that in the reign of Gopala who was

a Buddhist, although his ministers were not (730-740 A.D.), the

Buddhists wished their religious buildings to be kept separate from

Hindu temples but that, in spite of protests, life-sized images of

Hindu deities were erected in them.[321] The ritual too was affected,

for we hear several times of burnt offerings[322] and how Bodhibhadra,

one of the later professors of Vikramasila, was learned in the mystic

lore of both Buddhists and Brahmans. Nalanda and the other viharas

continued to be seats of learning and not merely monasteries, and for

some time there was a regular succession of teachers. Taranatha gives

us to understand that there were many students and authors but that

sorcery occupied an increasingly important position. Of most teachers

we are told that they saw some deity, such as Avalokita or Tara. The

deity was summoned by the rites already described[323] and the object

of the performer was to obtain magical powers or siddhi. The

successful sorcerer was known as siddha, and we hear of 84

mahasiddhas, still celebrated in Tibet, who extend from Rahulabhadra

Nagarjuna to the thirteenth century. Many of them bear names which

appear not to be Indian.

The topics treated of in the Tantras are divided into Kriya (ritual),

Carya (apparently corresponding to Vinaya), Yoga, and Anuttara-yoga.

Sometimes the first three are contrasted with the fourth and sometimes

the first two are described as lower, the third and fourth as higher.

But the Anuttara-yoga is always considered the highest and most

mysterious.[324] Taranatha says[325] that the Tantras began to appear

simultaneously with the Mahayana sutras but adds that the

Anuttara-yoga tantras appeared gradually.[326] He also observes that

the Acarya Ananda-garbha[327] did much to spread them in Magadha. It

is not until a late period of the Pala dynasty that he mentions the

Kalacakra which is the most extravagant form of Buddhist Tantrism.

This accords with other statements to the effect that the Kalacakra

tantra was introduced in 965 A.D. from Sambhala, a mysterious country

in Central Asia. This system is said to be Vishnuite rather than

Sivaite. It specially patronizes the cult of the mystic Buddhas such

as Kalacakra and Heruka, all of whom appear to be regarded as forms of

Adi-Buddha or the primordial Buddha essence. The Siddha named Pito is

also described as the author of this doctrine,[328] which had less

importance in India than in Tibet.

On the other hand Taranatha gives us the names of several doctors of

the Vinaya who flourished under the Pala dynasty. Even as late as the

reign of Ramapala (? 1080-1120) we hear that the Hinayanists were

numerous. In the reign of Dharmapala (_c_. 800 A.D.) some of them

broke up the great silver image of Heruka at Bodh-Gaya and burnt the

books of Mantras.[329] These instances show that the older Buddhism

was not entirely overwhelmed by Tantrism[330] though perhaps it was

kept alive more by pilgrims than by local sentiment. Thus the Chinese

inscriptions of Bodh-Gaya though they speak at length of the three

bodies of Buddha show no signs of Tantrism. It would appear that the

worship celebrated in the holy places of Magadha preserved a

respectable side until the end. In the same way although Tantrism is

strong in the literature of the Lamas, none of the many descriptions

of Tibet indicate that there is anything scandalous in the externals

of religion. Probably in Tibet, Nepal and mediaeval Magadha alike the

existence of disgraceful tantric literature does not indicate such

widespread depravity as might be supposed. But of its putrefying

influence in corrupting the minds of those who ought to have preserved

the pure faith there can be no doubt. More than any other form of

mixed belief it obliterated essential differences, for Buddhist

Tantrism and Sivaite Tantrism are merely two varieties of Tantrism.

What is happening at Bodh-Gaya at present[331] illustrates how

Buddhism disappeared from India. The abbot of a neighbouring Sivaite

monastery who claims the temple and grounds does not wish, as a

Mohammedan might, to destroy the building or even to efface Buddhist

emblems. He wishes to supervise the whole establishment and the visits

of pilgrims, as well as to place on the images of Buddha Hindu

sectarian marks and other ornaments. Hindu pilgrims are still taken by

their guides to venerate the Bodhi tree and, but for the presence of

foreign pilgrims, no casual observer would suppose the spot to be

anything but a Hindu temple of unusual construction. The same process

went a step further in many shrines which had not the same celebrity

and effaced all traces and memory of Buddhism.

At the present day the Buddha is recognized by the Brahmans as an

incarnation of Vishnu,[332] though the recognition is often qualified

by the statement that Vishnu assumed this form in order to mislead the

wicked who threatened to become too powerful if they knew the true

method of attaining superhuman powers. But he is rarely worshipped _in

propria persona_.[333] As a rule Buddhist images and emblems are

ascribed to Vishnu or Siva, according to sectarian preferences, but

in spite of fusion some lingering sense of original animosity

prevents Gotama from receiving even such respect as is accorded to

incarnations like Parasu-rama. At Bodh-Gaya I have been told that

Hindu pilgrims are taken by their guides to venerate the Bodhi-tree

but not the images of Buddha.

Yet in reviewing the disappearance of Buddhism from India we must

remember that it was absorbed not expelled. The result of the mixture

is justly called Hinduism, yet both in usages and beliefs it has taken

over much that is Buddhist and without Buddhism it would never have

assumed its present shape. To Buddhist influence are due for instance

the rejection by most sects of animal sacrifices: the doctrine of the

sanctity of animal life: monastic institutions and the ecclesiastical

discipline found in the Dravidian regions. We may trace the same

influence with more or less certainty in the philosophy of Sankara

and outside the purely religious sphere in the development of Indian

logic. These and similar points are dealt with in more detail in other

parts of this work and I need not dwell on them here.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 264: Written before the war.]

[Footnote 265: Even at Kanauj, the scene of Harsha's pious

festivities, there were 100 Buddhist monasteries but 200 Deva

temples.]

[Footnote 266: Rice, _Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions_, p.

203.]

[Footnote 267: See the note by Buehler in _Journ. Pali Text Soc._ 1896,

p. 108.]

[Footnote 268: Rajatarangini, III. 12.]

[Footnote 269: See for the supposed persecution of Buddhism in India,

_J.P.T.S._ 1896, pp. 87-92 and 107-111 and _J.R.A.S._ 1898, pp.

208-9.]

[Footnote 270: As contained in the Sankara-dig-vijaya ascribed to

Madhava and the Sankara-vijaya ascribed to Anandagiri.]

[Footnote 271: Taranatha in his twenty-eighth and following chapters

gives an account, unfortunately very confused, of the condition of

Buddhism under the Pala dynasty. See also B.K. Sarkar, _Folklore

Element in Hindu Culture_, chap. XII, in which there are many

interesting statements but not sufficient references.]

[Footnote 272: See Vidyabhusana's _Mediaeval School of Indian Logic_,

p. 150, for an account of this monastery which was perhaps at the

modern Parthaghata. I have found no account of what happened to

Nalanda in this period but it seems to have disappeared as a seat of

learning.]

[Footnote 273: See Taranatha, chap. XXVIII.]

[Footnote 274: Chap. XXXVI. It is interesting to notice that even at

this late period he speaks of Hinayanists in Bengal.]

[Footnote 275: Often called Muhammad Bakhtyar but Bakhtyar seems to

have been really his father's name.]

[Footnote 276: Raverty, _Tabat-i-Nasiri_, p. 552. "It was discovered

that the whole of that fortress and city was a college and in the

Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar."]

[Footnote 277: Many of them have been collected by Pandit Haraprasad

Sastri in _Jour. As. Soc._ Bengal, 1895, pp. 55 ff. and in his

_Discovery of living Buddhism in Bengal_, Calcutta, 1897.]

[Footnote 278: Chap. XL _ad fin._ Is the Ramacandra whom he mentions

the last Yadava King (about 1314)? Taranatha speaks of his son.]

[Footnote 279: Caitanya-caritamrita, chap. VII, transl. by Jadunath

Sarkar, p. 85. This biography was written in 1582 by Krishnadas.

Caitanya died in 1533.]

[Footnote 280: _Census of India_, 1901: vol. VI. Bengal, pp. 427-430.]

[Footnote 281: _The Archaeological Survey of Mayurabhanj_ (no date?

1911), vol. I. pp. cv-cclxiii. The part containing an account of

Buddhism in Orissa is also printed separately with the title _Modern

Buddhism_, 1911.]

[Footnote 282: For Ramai Pandit see Dinesh Chandra Sen, _Hist. Bengali

Language and Lit._ pp. 30-37, and also B.K. Sarkar, _Folklore Element

in Hindu Culture_, p. 192, and elsewhere. He appears to have been born

at the end of the tenth century and though the Sunya Purana has been

re-edited and interpolated parts of it are said to be in very old

Bengali.]

[Footnote 283: Nagendranath Vasu quotes a couplet from the Mahabharata

of the poet Saraladasa: "I pay my humble respects to the incarnation

of Buddha who in the form of Buddha dwells in the Nilacala, _i.e._

Puri." The Imperial Gazetteer of India (s.v. Puri Town) states that in

modern representations of Vishnu's ten avataras, the ninth, or

Buddhavatara, is sometimes represented by Jagannatha.]

[Footnote 284: I give the dates or the authority of Narandra Nath

while thinking that they may be somewhat too early. The two authors

named wrote the Sunya Samhita and Nirguna Mahatmya respectively.]

[Footnote 285: _l.c._ clxxvi ff., ccxix-ccxxiii, ccxxxi.]

[Footnote 286: Author of a poem called Dharmagita.]

[Footnote 287: _l.c._ cxvi ff. and ccxxxii.]

[Footnote 288: _l.c._ ccxxxiv ff.]

[Footnote 289: See Haraprasad Sastri, _l.c._ He gives a curious

account of one of his temples in Calcutta. See also B.K. Sarkar,

_Folklore Element in Hindu Culture_ for the decadence of Buddhism in

Bengal and its survival in degenerate forms.]

[Footnote 290: See B.H. Hodgson, _Essays on the languages, literature

and religion of Nepal and Tibet_, 1874. For the religion of Nepal see

also Wright, _History of Nepal_, 1877; C. Bendall, _Journal of

Literary and Archaeological Research in Nepal_, 1886; Rajendralal

Mitra, _Sanskrit Buddhist literature of Nepal_; and especially S.

Levi, _Le Nepal_, 3 vols. 1905-8.]

[Footnote 291: S. Levi in _J.A._ II. 1904, p. 225. He gives the date

as 627.]

[Footnote 292: The doctrine of the Adi-Buddha is fully stated in the

metrical version of the Karanda-vyuha which appears to be a later

paraphrase of the prose edition. See Winternitz, _Gesch. Ind. Lit_.

II. i. 238.]

[Footnote 293: Compare the fusion of Sivaism and Buddhism in Java.]

[Footnote 294: Or Vajracarya-arhat-bhikshu-buddha, which in itself

shows what a medley Nepalese Buddhism has become.]

[Footnote 295: See above chap. XX. for some account of these works.]

[Footnote 296: Dedicated to the sacred river Vagvati or Bagmati.]

[Footnote 297: Hardly any Buddhist Tantras have been edited in Europe.

See Bendall, _Subhashita-sangraha_ for a collection of extracts (also

published in _Museon_, 1905), and De la Vallee Poussin, _Bouddhisme,

Etudes el Materiaux. Id._ Pancakrama, 1896.

While this book was going through the press I received the Tibetan

Tantra called Shrichakrasambhara (Avalon's Tantric Texts, vol. VII)

with introduction by A. Avalon, but have not been able to make use of

it.]

[Footnote 298: See Foucher, _Iconographie bouddhique_, pp. 8 ff. De la

Vallee Poussin, _Bouddhisme, Etudes et Materiaux_, pp. 213 ff. For

Japanese tantric ceremonies see the Si-Do-In-Dzon in the _Annales du

Musee Guimet_, vol. VIII.]

[Footnote 299: In ancient Egypt also the Kher heb or magician-priest

claimed the power of becoming various gods. See Budge, _Osiris_, II.

170 and Wiedemann, _Magic im alten Aegypten_, 13 ff.]

[Footnote 300: The Brahma-viharas. _E.g._ Dig. Nik. XIII.]

[Footnote 301: Mahasukhakaya or vajrakaya.]

[Footnote 302: De la Vallee Poussin, _Bouddhisme, Etudes et

Materiaux_, p. 153.]

[Footnote 303: See _Subhashita-sangraha_ edited by Bendall. Part II. pp.

29 ff. especially p. 41. Parasvaharanam karyam paradaranishevanam

Vaktavyam canritam nityam sarvabuddhamsca ghatayet. See also

Tathagata-guhyaka in Rajendralal Mitra's _Sanskrit Literature in Nepal_,

pp. 261-264.]

[Footnote 304: For instance De la Vallee Poussin in his _Bouddhisme,

Etudes et Materiaux_, 1896. In his later work, _Bouddhisme, Opinions

sur l'histoire de la dogmatique_, he modifies his earlier views.]

[Footnote 305: See Dig. Nik. XX. and XXXII.]

[Footnote 306: Kathav. XXIII. 1 and 2.]

[Footnote 307: These appendices are later additions to the original

text but they were translated into Chinese in the third century. Among

the oldest Sanskrit MSS. from Japan is the Ushnisha-vijaya-dharani

and there is a goddess with a similar name. But the Dharani is not

Saktist. See text in Anec. Oxon. Aryan series.]

[Footnote 308: He speaks of Kwan-shih-yin but this is probably the

male Avalokita.]

[Footnote 309: Mahayana-sutralankara, IX. 46. Of course there may be

many other allusions in yet unedited works of Asanga but it is

noticeable that this allusion to _maithuna_ is only made in passing

and is not connected with the essence of his teaching.]

[Footnote 310: Transl. Takakusu, p. 51.]

[Footnote 311: Taranatha, chap. XXII seems also to assign a late

origin to the Tantras though his remarks are neither clear nor

consistent with what he says in other passages. He is doubtless right

in suggesting that tantric rites were practised surreptitiously before

they were recognized openly.]

[Footnote 312: It is about this time too that we hear of Tantrism in

Hinduism. In the drama Malati and Madhava (_c_. 730 A.D.) the heroine

is kidnapped and is about to be sacrificed to the goddess Canda when

she is rescued.]

[Footnote 313: See the latter part of Appendix II in Nanjio's

Catalogue.]

[Footnote 314: _E.g._ Lalitavajra, Lilavajra, Buddhasanti, Ratnavajra.

Taranatha also (tr. Schiefner, p. 264) speaks of Tantras "Welche aus

Udyana gebracht und nie in Indien gewesen sind." It is also

noticeable, as Gruenwedel has pointed out, that many of the siddhas or

sorcerers bear names which have no meaning in Aryan languages:

Bir-va-pa, Na-ro-pa, Lui-pa, etc. A curious late tradition represents

Saktism as coming from China. See a quotation from the Mahacinatantra

in the _Archaeological Survey of Mayurabhanj_, p. xiv. Either China is

here used loosely for some country north of the Himalayas or the story

is pure fancy, for with rare exceptions (for instance the Lamaism of

the Yuean dynasty) the Chinese seem to have rejected Saktist works or

even to have expurgated them, _e.g._ the Tathagata-guhyaka.]

[Footnote 315: His account of Udyana and Kashmir will be found in

Watters, chapters VII and VIII.]

[Footnote 316: Traces of Buddhism still exist, for according to Buehler

the Nilamata Purana orders the image of Buddha to be worshipped on

Vaisakha 15 to the accompaniment of recitations by Buddhist ascetics.]

[Footnote 317: For notices of Kashmirian religion see Stein's

translation of the Rajatarangini and Buehler, _Tour in Search of

Sanskrit manuscripts. J. Bomb. A.S._ 1877.]

[Footnote 318: VI. 11-13, VII. 278-280, 295, 523.]

[Footnote 319: I. 122, 335, 348: III. 99, V. 55.]

[Footnote 320: Also called Kumara.]

[Footnote 321: Similarly statues of Mahadevi are found in Jain temples

now, _i.e._ in Gujarat.]

[Footnote 322: This very unbuddhist practice seems to have penetrated

even to Japan. Burnt offerings form part of the ritual in the temple

of Narita.]

[Footnote 323: See for instance the account of how Kamalarakshita

summoned Yamari.]

[Footnote 324: So too the Samhitas of the Vaishnavas and the Agamas

of the Saivas are said to consist of four quarters teaching Jnana,

Yoga, Kriya and Carya respectively. See Schrader, _Introd. to

Pancaratra_, p. 22. Sometimes five classes of Tantras are enumerated

which are perhaps all subdivisions of the Anuttara-yoga, namely

Guhyasamaja, Mayajala, Buddhasammayoga, Candraguhyatilaka,

Manjusrikrodha. See Taranatha (Schiefner), p. 221.]

[Footnote 325: Chap. XLIII. But this seems hardly consistent with his

other statements.]

[Footnote 326: The Lamas in Tibet have a similar theory of progressive

tantric revelation. See Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, pp. 56, 57.]

[Footnote 327: In the reign of Mahipala, 978-1030 A.D.]

[Footnote 328: Taranatha, p. 275. For the whole subject see Gruenwedel,

_Mythologie des Buddhismus_, pp. 41-2 and my chapters on Tibet below.]

[Footnote 329: Schiefner (transl. Taranatha, p. 221) describes these

Sravakas or Hinayanists as "Saindhavas welche Cravakas aus Simhala

u.s.w. waren." They are apparently the same as the Saindhava-cravakas

often mentioned by Taranatha. Are they Hinayanists from Sindh where

the Sammitiya school was prevalent? See also Pag Sam Jon Zang, pp.

cxix, 114 and 134 where Sarat Chandra Das explains Sendha-pa as a

brahmanical sect.]

[Footnote 330: The curious story (Taranatha, p. 206) in which a

Buddhist at first refuses on religious grounds to take part in the

evocation of a demon seems also to hint at a disapproval of magic.]

[Footnote 331: This passage was written about 1910. In the curious

temple at Gaya called Bishnupad the chief object of veneration is a

foot-like mark. Such impressions are venerated in many parts of the

world as Buddha's feet and it seems probable, considering the

locality, that this footprint was attributed to Buddha before it was

transferred to Vishnu.]

[Footnote 332: There are no very early references to this Avatara. It

is mentioned in some of the Puranas (_e.g._ Bhagavata and Agni) and by

Kshemendra.]

[Footnote 333: But see the instances quoted above from Kashmir and

Nepal.]

BOOK V

HINDUISM

The present book deals with Hinduism and includes the period just

treated in Book IV. In many epochs the same mythological and

metaphysical ideas appear in a double form, Brahmanic and Buddhist,

and it is hard to say which form is the earlier.

Any work which like the present adopts a geographical and historical

treatment is bound to make Buddhism seem more important than Hinduism

and rightly, for the conversion and transformation of China, Japan and

many other countries are a series of exploits of great moment for the

history not merely of religion but of civilization. Yet when I think

of the antiquity, variety and vitality of Hinduism in India--no small

sphere--the nine chapters which follow seem very inadequate. I can

only urge that though it would be easy to fill an encyclopaedia with

accounts of Indian beliefs and practices, yet there is often great

similarity under superficial differences: the main lines of thought

are less numerous than they seem to be at first sight and they tend to

converge.

CHAPTER XXV

SIVA AND VISHNU

1

The striking difference between the earlier and later phases of Indian

religious belief, between the Vedic hymns, Brahmanas, Upanishads and

their accessory treatises on the one hand, and the epics, Puranas,

Tantras and later literature on the other, is due chiefly to the

predominance in the latter of the great gods Siva and Vishnu, with

the attendant features of sectarian worship and personal devotion to a

particular deity. The difference is not wholly chronological, for late

writers sometimes take the Vedic standpoint and ignore the worship of

these deities, but still their prominence in literature, and probably

in popular mythology, is posterior to the Vedic period. The change

created by their appearance is not merely the addition of two imposing

figures to an already ample pantheon; it is a revolution which might

be described as the introduction of a new religion, except that it

does not come as the enemy or destroyer of the old. The worship of the

new deities grows up peacefully in the midst of the ancient rites;

they receive the homage of the same population and the ministrations

of the same priests. The transition is obscured but also was

facilitated by the strength of Buddhism during the period when it

occurred. The Brahmans, confronted by this formidable adversary, were

disposed to favour any popular religious movement which they could

adapt to their interests.

When the Hindu revival sets in under the Guptas, and Buddhism begins

to decline, we find that a change has taken place which must have

begun several centuries before, though our imperfect chronology does

not permit us to date it. Whereas the Vedic sacrificers propitiated

all the gods impartially and regarded ritual as a sacred science

giving power over nature, the worshipper of the later deities is

generally sectarian and often emotional. He selects one for his

adoration, and this selected deity becomes not merely a great god

among others but a gigantic cosmical figure in whom centre the

philosophy, poetry and passion of his devotees. He is almost God in

the European sense, but still Indian deities, though they may have a

monopoly of adoration in their own sects, are never entirely similar

to Jehovah or Allah. They are at once more mythical, more human and

more philosophical, since they are conceived of not as creators and

rulers external to the world, but as forces manifesting themselves in

nature. An exuberant mythology bestows on them monstrous forms,

celestial residences, wives and offspring: they make occasional

appearances in this world as men and animals; they act under the

influence of passions which if titanic, are but human feelings

magnified. The philosopher accommodates them to his system by saying

that Vishnu or Siva is the form which the Supreme Spirit assumes as

Lord of the visible universe, a form which is real only in the same

sense that the visible world itself is real.

Vishnu and Rudra are known even to the Rig Veda but as deities of no

special eminence. It is only after the Vedic age that they became,

each for his own worshippers, undisputed Lords of the Universe. A

limiting date to the antiquity of Sivaism and Vishnuism, as their

cults may be called, is furnished by Buddhist literature, at any rate

for north-eastern India. The Pali Pitakas frequently[334] introduce

popular deities, but give no prominence to Vishnu and Siva. They are

apparently mentioned under the names of Venhu and Isana, but are not

differentiated from a host of spirits now forgotten. The Pitakas have

no prejudices in the matter of deities and their object is to

represent the most powerful of them as admitting their inferiority to

the Buddha. If Siva and Vishnu are not put forward in the same way as

Brahma and Indra, the inference seems clear: it had not occurred to

anyone that they were particularly important.

The suttas of the Digha Nikaya in which these lists of deities occur

were perhaps composed before 300 B.C.[335] About that date

Megasthenes, the Greek envoy at Pataliputra, describes two Indian

deities under the names of Dionysus and Herakles. They are generally

identified with Krishna and Siva. It might be difficult to deduce

this identity from an analysis of each description and different

authorities have identified both Siva and Krishna with Dionysus, but

the fact remains that a somewhat superficial foreign observer was

impressed with the idea that the Hindus worshipped two great gods. He

would hardly have derived this idea from the Vedic pantheon, and it is

not clear to what gods he can refer if not to Siva and Vishnu. It

thus seems probable that these two cults took shape about the fourth

century B.C. Their apparently sudden appearance is due to their

popular character and to the absence of any record in art. The

statuary and carving of the Asokan period and immediately succeeding

centuries is exclusively Buddhist. No temples or images remain to

illustrate the first growth of Hinduism (as the later form of Indian

religion is commonly styled) out of the earlier Brahmanism. Literature

(on which we are dependent for our information) takes little account

of the early career of popular gods before they win the recognition of

the priesthood and aristocracy, but when that recognition is once

obtained they appear in all their majesty and without any hint that

their honours are recent.

As already mentioned, we have evidence that in the fifth or sixth

century before Christ the Vedic or Brahmanic religion was not the only

form of worship and philosophy in India. There were popular deities

and rites to which the Brahmans were not opposed and which they

countenanced when it suited them. What takes place in India to-day

took place then. When some aboriginal deity becomes important owing to

the prosperity of the tribe or locality with which he is connected, he

is recognized by the Brahmans and admitted to their pantheon, perhaps

as the son or incarnation of some personage more generally accepted as

divine. The prestige of the Brahmans is sufficient to make such

recognition an honour, but it is also their interest and millennial

habit to secure control of every important religious movement and to

incorporate rather than suppress. And this incorporation is more than

mere recognition: the parvenu god borrows something from the manners

and attributes of the olympian society to which he is introduced. The

greater he grows, the more considerable is the process of fusion and

borrowing. Hindu philosophy ever seeks for the one amongst the many

and popular thought, in a more confused way, pursues the same goal. It

combines and identifies its deities, feeling dimly that taken singly

they are too partial to be truly divine, or it piles attributes upon

them striving to make each an adequate divine whole.

Among the processes which have contributed to form Vishnu and Siva we must

reckon the invasions which entered India from the north-west.[336] In

Bactria and Sogdiana there met and were combined the art and religious

ideas of Greece and Persia, and whatever elements were imported by the

Yueeh-chih and other tribes who came from the Chinese frontier. The

personalities of Vishnu and Siva need not be ascribed to foreign

influence. The ruder invaders took kindly to the worship of Siva, but there

is no proof that they introduced it. But Persian and Graeco-Bactrian

influence favoured the creation of more definite deities, more personal and

more pictorial. The gods of the Vedic hymns are vague and indistinct: the

Supreme Being of the Upanishads altogether impersonal, but Mithra and

Apollo, though divine in their majesty, are human in their persons and in

the appeal they make to humanity. The influence of these foreign

conceptions and especially of their representation in art is best seen in

Indian Buddhism. Hinduism has not so ancient an artistic record and

therefore the Graeco-Bactrian influence on it is less obvious, for the

sculpture of the Gupta period does not seem due to this inspiration.

Neither in outward form nor in character do Vishnu and Siva show much more

resemblance to Apollo and Mithra than to the Vedic gods. Their exuberant,

fantastic shapes, their many heads and arms, are a symbol of their complex

and multiple attributes. They are not restricted by the limits of

personality but are great polymorphic forces, not to be indicated by the

limits of one human shape.[337]

2

Though alike in their grandeur and multiplicity, Vishnu and Siva are

not otherwise similar. In their completely developed forms they

represent two ways of looking at the world. The main ideas of the

Vaishnavas are human and emotional. The deity saves and loves: he

asks for a worship of love. He appears in human incarnations and is

known as well or better by these incarnations than in his original

form. But in Sivaism the main current of thought is scientific and

philosophic rather than emotional.[338] This statement may seem

strange if one thinks of the wild rites and legends connected with

Siva and his spouse. Nevertheless the fundamental conception of

Sivaism, the cosmic force which changes and in changing both destroys

and reproduces, is strictly scientific and contrasts with the human,

pathetic, loving sentiments of Vishnuism. And scandalous as the

worship of the generative principle may become, the potency of this

impulse in the world scheme cannot be denied. Agreeably to his

character of a force rather than an emotion Siva does not become

incarnate[339] as a popular hero and saviour like Rama or Krishna,

but he assumes various supernatural forms for special purposes. Both

worships, despite their differences, show characteristics which are

common to most phases of Indian religion. Both seek for deliverance

from transmigration and are penetrated with a sense of the sorrow

inherent in human and animal life: both develop or adopt philosophical

doctrines which rise high above the level usually attained by popular

beliefs, and both have erotic aspects in which they fall below the

standard of morality usually professed by important sects whether in

Asia or Europe.

The name Siva is euphemistic. It means propitious and, like Eumenides,

is used as a deprecating and complimentary title for the god of

terrors. It is not his earliest designation and does not occur as a

proper name in the Rig Veda where he is known as Rudra, a word of

disputed derivation, but probably meaning the roarer. Comparatively

few hymns are addressed to Rudra, but he is clearly distinguished from

the other Vedic gods. Whereas they are cheerful and benevolent

figures, he is maleficent and terrible: they are gods of the heaven

but he is a god of the earth. He is the "man-slayer" and the sender of

disease, but if he restrains these activities he can give safety and

health. "Slay us not, for thou art gracious," and so the Destroyer

comes to be the Gracious One.[340] It has been suggested that the name

Siva is connected with the Tamil word _civappu_ red and also that

Rudra means not the roarer but the red or shining one. These

etymologies seem to me possible but not proved. But Rudra is different

in character from the other gods of the Rig Veda. It would be rash to

say that the Aryan invaders of India brought with them no god of this

sort but it is probable that this element in their pantheon increased

as they gradually united in blood and ideas with the Dravidian

population. But we know nothing of the beliefs of the Dravidians at

this remote period. We only know that in later ages emotional

religion, finding expression as so-called devil-dancing in its lower

and as mystical poetry in its higher phases, was prevalent among them.

The White Yajur Veda[341] contains a celebrated prayer known as the

Satarudriya addressed to Rudra or the Rudras, for the power invoked

seems to be now many and now one. This deity, who is described by a

long string of epithets, receives the name of Sankara (afterwards a

well-known epithet of Siva) and is blue-necked. He is begged to be

_Siva_ or propitious, but the word is an epithet, not a proper name.

He haunts mountains and deserted, uncanny places: he is the patron of

violent and lawless men, of soldiers and robbers (the two are

evidently considered much the same), of thieves, cheats and

pilferers,[342] but also of craftsmen and huntsmen and is himself "an

observant merchant": he is the lord of hosts of spirits, "ill-formed

and of all forms." But he is also a great cosmic force who "dwells in

flowing streams and in billows and in tranquil waters and in rivers

and on islands ... and at the roots of trees ...": who "exists in

incantations, in punishments, in prosperity, in the soil, in the

threshing-floor ... in the woods and in the bushes, in sound and in

echo ... in young grass and in foam ... in gravel and in streams ... in

green things and in dry things.... Reverence to the leaf and to him

who is in the fall of the leaf, the threatener, the slayer, the vexer

and the afflicter." Here we see how an evil and disreputable god, the

patron of low castes and violent occupations, becomes associated with

the uncanny forces of nature and is on the way to become an

All-God.[343]

Rudra is frequently mentioned in the Atharva Veda. He is conceived

much as in the Satarudriya, and is the lord of spirits and of animals.

"For thee the beasts of the wood, the deer, swans and various winged

birds are placed in the forest: thy living creatures exist in the

waters: for thee the celestial waters flow. Thou shootest at the

monsters of the ocean, and there is to thee nothing far or near."[344]

These passages show that the main conceptions out of which the

character of the later Siva is built existed in Vedic times. The Rudra

of the Yajur and Atharva Vedas is not Brahmanic: he is not the god of

priests and orderly ritual, but of wild people and places. But he is

not a petty provincial demon who afflicts rustics and their cattle.

Though there is some hesitation between one Rudra and many Rudras, the

destructive forces are unified in thought and the destroyer is not

opposed to creation as a devil or as the principle of evil, but with

profounder insight is recognized as the Lord and Law of all living

things.

But though the outline of Siva is found in Vedic writings, later

centuries added new features to his cult. Chief among these is the

worship of a column known as the Linga, the emblem under which he is

now most commonly adored. It is a phallic symbol though usually decent

in appearance. The Vedas do not countenance this worship and it is not

clear that it was even known to them.[345] It is first enjoined in the

Mahabharata and there only in two passages[346] which appear to be

late additions. The inference seems to be that it was accepted as part

of Hinduism just about the time that our edition of the Mahabharata

was compiled.[347] The old theory that it was borrowed from aboriginal

and especially from Dravidian tribes[348] is now discredited. In the

first place the instances cited of phallic worship among aboriginal

tribes are not particularly numerous or striking. Secondly, linga

worship, though prevalent in the south, is not confined to it, but

flourishes in all parts of India, even in Assam and Nepal. Thirdly, it

is not connected with low castes, with orgies, with obscene or

bloodthirsty rites or with anything which can be called un-Aryan. It

forms part of the private devotions of the strictest Brahmans, and

despite the significance of the emblem, the worship offered to it is

perfectly decorous.[349] The evidence thus suggests that this cultus

grew up among Brahmanical Hindus in the early centuries of our era.

The idea that there was something divine in virility and generation

already existed. The choice of the symbol--the stone pillar--may have

been influenced by two circumstances. Firstly, the Buddhist veneration

of stupas, especially miniature stupas, must have made familiar the

idea that a cone or column is a religious emblem,[350] and secondly

the linga may be compared to the carved pillars or stone standards

erected in honour of Vishnu. Some lingas are carved and bear one or

four faces, thus entirely losing any phallic appearance. The wide

extension of this cult, though its origin seems late, is remarkable.

Something similar may be seen in the worship of Ganesa: the first

records of it are even later, but it is now universal in India.

It may seem strange that a religion whose outward ceremonies though

unassuming and modest consist chiefly of the worship of the linga,

should draw its adherents largely from the educated classes and be

under no moral or social stigma. Yet as an idea, as a philosophy,

Sivaism possesses truth and force. It gives the best picture which

humanity has drawn of the Lord of this world, not indeed of the ideal

to which the saint aspires, nor of the fancies with which hope and

emotion people the spheres behind the veil, but of the force which

rules the Universe as it is, which reproduces and destroys, and in

performing one of these acts necessarily performs the other, seeing

that both are but aspects of change. For all animal and human

existence[351] is the product of sexual desire: it is but the

temporary and transitory form of a force having neither beginning nor

end but continually manifesting itself in individuals who must have a

beginning and an end. This force, to which European taste bids us

refer with such reticence, is the true creator of the world. Not only

is it unceasingly performing the central miracle of producing new

lives but it accompanies it by unnumbered accessory miracles, which

provide the new born child with nourishment and make lowly organisms

care for their young as if they were gifted with human intelligence.

But the Creator is also the Destroyer, not in anger but by the very

nature of his activity. When the series of changes culminates in a

crisis and an individual breaks up, we see death and destruction, but

in reality they occur throughout the process of growth. The egg is

destroyed when the chicken is hatched: the embryo ceases to exist when

the child is born; when the man comes into being, the child is no

more. And for change, improvement and progress death is as necessary

as birth. A world of immortals would be a static world.

When once the figure of Siva has taken definite shape, attributes and

epithets are lavished on it in profusion. He is the great ascetic, for

asceticism in India means power, and Siva is the personification of

the powers of nature. He may alternate strangely between austerities

and wild debauch, but the sentimentality of some Krishnaite sects is

alien to him. He is a magician, the lord of troops of spirits, and

thus draws into his circle all the old animistic worship. But he is

also identified with Time (Mahakala) and Death (Mrityu) and as

presiding over procreation he is Ardhanaresvara, half man, half woman.

Stories are invented or adapted to account for his various attributes,

and he is provided with a divine family. He dwells on Mount Kailasa:

he has three eyes: above the central one is the crescent of the moon

and the stream of the Ganges descends from his braided hair: his

throat is blue and encircled by a serpent and a necklace of skulls. In

his hands he carries a three-pronged trident and a drum. But the

effigy or description varies, for Siva is adored under many forms. He

is Mahadeva, the Great God, Hara the Seizer, Bhairava the terrible

one, Pasupati, the Lord of cattle, that is of human souls who are

compared to beasts. Local gods and heroes are identified with him.

Thus Gor Baba,[352] said to be a deified ghost of the aboriginal

races, reappears as Goresvara and is counted a form of Siva, as is

also Khandoba or Khande Rao, a deity connected with dogs. Ganesa, "the

Lord of Hosts," the God who removes obstacles and is represented with

an elephant's head and accompanied by a rat, is recognized as Siva's

son. Another son is Skanda or Kartikeya, the God of War, a great deity

in Ceylon and southern India. But more important both for the

absorption of aboriginal cults and for its influence on speculation

and morality is the part played by Siva's wife or female counterpart.

The worship of goddesses, though found in many sects, is specially

connected with Sivaism. A figure analogous to the Madonna, the kind

and compassionate goddess who helps and pities all, appears in later

Buddhism but for some reason this train of thought has not been usual

in India. Lakshmi, Sarasvati and Sita are benevolent, but they hold no

great position in popular esteem,[353] and the being who attracts

millions of worshippers under such names as Kali, Durga, or Mahadevi,

though she has many forms and aspects, is most commonly represented as

a terrible goddess who demands offerings of blood. The worship of this

goddess or goddesses, for it is hard to say if she is one or many, is

treated of in a separate chapter. Though in shrines dedicated to Siva

his female counterpart or energy (Sakti) also receives recognition,

yet she is revered as the spouse of her lord to whom honour is

primarily due. But in Saktist worship adoration is offered to the

Sakti as being the form in which his power is made manifest or even as

the essential Godhead.

3

Let us now pass on to Vishnu. Though not one of the great gods of the

Veda, he is mentioned fairly often and with respect. Indian

commentators and comparative mythologists agree that he is a solar

deity. His chief exploit is that he took (or perhaps in the earlier

version habitually takes) three strides. This was originally a

description of the sun's progress across the firmament but grew into a

myth which relates that when the earth was conquered by demons,

Vishnu became incarnate as a dwarf and induced the demon king to

promise him as much space as he could measure in three steps. Then,

appearing in his true form, he strode across earth and heaven and

recovered the world for mankind. His special character as the

Preserver is already outlined in the Veda. He is always benevolent: he

took his three steps for the good of men: he established and preserves

the heavens and earth. But he is not the principal solar deity of the

Rig Veda: Surya, Savitri and Pushan receive more invocations. Though

one hymn says that no one knows the limits of his greatness, other

passages show that he has no pre-eminence, and even in the Mahabharata

and the Vishnu-Purana itself he is numbered among the Adityas or

sons of Aditi. In the Brahmanas, he is somewhat more important than

in the Rig Veda,[354] though he has not yet attained to any position

like that which he afterwards occupies.

Just as for Siva, so for Vishnu we have no clear record of the steps

by which he advanced from a modest rank to the position of having but

one rival in the popular esteem. But the lines on which the change

took place are clear. Even in his own Church, Vishnu himself claims

comparatively little attention. He is not a force like Siva that makes

and mars, but a benevolent and retiring personality who keeps things

as they are. His worship, as distinguished from that of his

incarnations, is not conspicuous in modern India, especially in the

north. In the south he is less overshadowed by Krishna, and many

great temples have been erected in his honour. In Travancore, which is

formally dedicated to him as his special domain, he is adored under

the name of Padmanabha. But his real claim to reverence, his appeal to

the Indian heart, is due to the fact that certain deified human

heroes, particularly Rama and Krishna, are identified with him.

Deification is common in India.[355] It exists to the present day and

even defunct Europeans do not escape its operation. In modern times,

when the idea of reincarnation had become familiar, eminent men like

Caitanya or Vallabhacarya were declared after their death to be

embodiments of Krishna without more ado, but in earlier ages the

process was probably double. First of all the departed hero became a

powerful ghost or deity in his own right, and then this deity was

identified with a Brahmanic god. Many examples prove that a remarkable

man receives worship after death quite apart from any idea of

incarnation.

The incarnations of Vishnu are most commonly given as ten[356] but

are not all of the same character. The first five, namely, the Fish,

Tortoise, Boar, Man-Lion and Dwarf, are mythical, and due to his

identification with supernatural creatures playing a benevolent role

in legends with which he had originally no connection. The sixth,

however, Parasu-rama or Rama with the axe, may contain historical

elements. He is represented as a militant Brahman who in the second

age of the world exterminated the Kshatriyas, and after reclaiming

Malabar from the sea, settled it with Brahmans. This legend clearly

refers to a struggle for supremacy between the two upper castes,

though we may doubt if the triumphs attributed to the priestly

champion have any foundation in fact. The Ramayana[357] contains a

singular account of a contest between this Rama and the greater hero

of the same name in which Parasu-rama admits the other's superiority.

That is to say an epic edited under priestly supervision relates how

the hero-god of the warriors vanquishes the hero-god of the priests,

and this hero-god of the warriors is then worshipped by common

consent as the greater divinity, but under priestly patronage. The

tenacity and vitality of the Brahmans enabled them ultimately to lead

the conqueror captive, and Ramacandra became a champion of Brahmanism

as much as Parasu-rama.

Very interesting too is the ninth avatara (to leave for a moment the

strict numerical order) or Buddha.[358] The reason assigned in

Brahmanic literature for Vishnu's appearance in this character is

that he wished to mislead the enemies of the gods by false teaching,

or that out of compassion for animals he preached the abolition of

Vedic sacrifices. Neither explanation is very plausible and it is

pretty clear that in the period when degenerate Buddhism offered no

objection to deification and mythology, the Brahmans sanctioned the

worship of the Buddha under their auspices. But they did so only in a

half-hearted way. The Buddha was so important a personage that he had

to be explained by the intervention, kindly or hostile, of a

deity.[359]

In his tenth incarnation or Kalki,[360] which has yet to take place,

Vishnu will appear as a Messiah, a conception possibly influenced by

Persian ideas. Here, where we are in the realm of pure imagination, we

see clearly what the signs of his avataras are supposed to be. His

mission is to sweep away the wicked and to ensure the triumph of the

pious, but he comes as a warrior and a horseman, not as a teacher, and

if he protects the good he does so by destroying evil. He has thus all

the attributes of a Kshatriya hero, and that is as a matter of fact

the real character of the two most important avataras to which we now

turn, Rama and Krishna.

Rama, often distinguished as Ramacandra, is usually treated as the

seventh incarnation and anterior to Krishna, for he was born in the

second age of this rapidly deteriorating world, whereas Krishna did

not appear until the third. But his deification is later than that of

Krishna and probably an imitation of it. He was the son of

Dasaratha, King of Ayodhya or Oudh, but was driven into banishment by

a palace intrigue. He married Sita, daughter of the King of Mithila.

She was carried off by Ravana, the demon tyrant of Ceylon, and Rama

re-captured her with the aid of Hanuman, King of the Monkeys, and his

hosts.[361] Is there any kernel of history in this story? An

examination of Hindu legends suggests that they usually preserve names

and genealogies correctly but distort facts, and fantastically combine

independent narratives. Rama was a semi-divine hero in the tales of

ancient Oudh, based on a real personality, and Ceylon was colonized by

Indians of Aryan speech.[362] But can we assume that a king of Oudh

really led an expedition to the far south, with the aid of ape-like

aborigines? It is doubtful, and the narrative of the Ramayana reads

like poetic invention rather than distorted history. And yet, what can

have prompted the legend except the occurrence of some such

expedition? In Rama's wife Sita, seem to be combined an agricultural

goddess and a heroine of ancient romance, embodying the Hindu ideal of

the true wife.

We have no record of the steps by which Rama and Krishna were

deified, although in different parts of the epic they are presented in

very different aspects, sometimes as little more than human, sometimes

as nothing less than the Supreme Deity. But it can hardly be doubted

that this deification owes something to the example of Buddhism. It

may be said that the development of both Buddhism and Hinduism in the

centuries immediately preceding and following our era gives parallel

manifestations of the same popular tendency to deify great men. This

is true, but the non-Buddhist forms of Indian religion while not

objecting to deification did not particularly encourage it. But in

this period, Buddhism and Jainism were powerful: both of them

sanctioned the veneration of great teachers and, as they did not

recognize sacrifice or adoration of gods, this veneration became the

basis of their ceremonies and easily passed into worship. The

Buddhists are not responsible for the introduction of deification, but

the fact that it was to some extent the basis of their public

ceremonies must have gone far to make the worship of Rama and

Krishna seem natural.

It is commonly said that whereas the whole divine nature of Vishnu

was embodied in Krishna, Rama was only a partial incarnation. Half

the god's essence took human form in him, the other half being

distributed among his brothers. Krishna is a greater figure in

popular esteem and receives the exclusive devotion of more

worshippers. The name of Rama commands the reverence of most Hindus,

and has a place in their prayers, but his figure has not been invested

with the attributes (often of dubious moral value) which most attract

sectarian devotion. His worship combines easily with the adoration of

other deities. The great temple of Ramesvaram on Adam's Bridge is

dedicated not to Rama himself but to the linga which he erected there,

and Tulsi Das, the author of the Hindi Ramayana, while invoking Rama

as the Supreme Lord and redeemer of the world, emphatically

states[363] that his worship is not antagonistic to that of Siva.

No inscriptions nor ancient references testify to the worship of Rama

before our era and in the subsequent centuries two phases can be

distinguished. First, Rama is a great hero, an incarnation of Vishnu

for a particular purpose and analogous to the Vamana or any other

avatara: deserving as such of all respect but still not the object of

any special cult. This is the view taken of Rama in the Mahabharata,

the Puranas, the Raghuvamsa, and those parts of the Ramayana which

go beyond it are probably late additions.[364] But secondly Rama

becomes for his worshippers the supreme deity. Ramanuja (on the

Vedanta sutras, II. 42) mentions him and Krishna as two great

incarnations in which the supreme being became manifest, and since

Krishna was certainly worshipped at this period as identical with

the All-God, it would appear that Rama held the same position. Yet it

was not until the fourteenth or fifteenth century that he became for

many sects the central and ultimate divine figure.

In the more liberal sects the worship of Rama passes easily into

theism and it is the direct parent of the Kabirpanth and Sikhism, but

unlike Krishnaism it does not lead to erotic excess. Rama

personifies the ideal of chivalry, Sita of chastity. Less edifying

forms of worship may attract more attention, but it must not be

supposed that Rama is relegated to the penumbra of philosophic

thought. If anything so multiplex as Hinduism can be said to have a

watchword, it is the cry, Ram, Ram. The story of his adventures has

travelled even further than the hero himself, and is known not only

from Kashmir to Cape Comorin but from Bombay to Java and Indo-China

where it is a common subject of art. In India the Ramayana is a

favourite recitation among all classes, and dramatized versions of

various episodes are performed as religious plays. Though two late

Upanishads, the Ramapurvatapaniya and Ramauttaratapaniya extol Rama as

the Supreme Being, there is no Ramapurana. The fact is significant,

as showing that his worship did not possess precisely those features

of priestly sectarianism which mark the Puranas and perhaps that it

is later than the Puranas. But it has inspired a large literature,

more truly popular than anything that the Puranas contain. Thus we

have the Sanskrit Ramayana itself, the Hindi Ramayana, the Tamil

Ramayana of Kamban, and works like the Adhyatma-Ramayana and

Yoga-Vasishtha-Ramayana.[365] Of all these, the Ramayana of Tulsi

Das is specially remarkable and I shall speak of it later at some

length.

4

Krishna, the other great incarnation of Vishnu, is one of the most

conspicuous figures in the Indian pantheon, but his historical origin

remains obscure. The word which means black or dark blue occurs in the

Rig Veda as the name of an otherwise unknown person. In the Chandogya

Upanishad,[366] Krishna, the son of Devaki, is mentioned as having

been instructed by the sage Ghora of the Angirasa clan, and it is

probably implied that Krishna too belonged to that clan.[367] Later

sectarian writers never quote this verse, but their silence may be due

to the fact that the Upanishad does not refer to Krishna as if he

were a deity, and merely says that he received from Ghora instruction

after which he never thirsted again. The purport of it was that the

sacrifice may be performed without rites, the various parts being

typified by ordinary human actions, such as hunger, eating, laughter,

liberality, righteousness, etc. This doctrine has some resemblance to

Buddhist language[368] and if this Krishna is really the ancient

hero out of whom the later deity was evolved, there may be an allusion

to some simple form of worship which rejected ceremonial and was

practised by the tribes to whom Krishna belonged. I shall recur to

the question of these tribes and the Bhagavata sect below, but in this

section I am concerned with the personality of Krishna.

Vasudeva is a well-known name of Krishna and a sutra of

Panini,[369] especially if taken in conjunction with the comment of

Patanjali, appears to assert that it is not a clan name but the name

of a god. If so Vasudeva must have been recognized as a god in the

fourth century B.C. He is mentioned in inscriptions which appear to

date from about the second century B.C.[370] and in the last book of

the Taittiriya Aranyaka,[371] which however is a later addition of

uncertain date.

The name Krishna occurs in Buddhist writings in the form Kanha,

phonetically equivalent to Krishna. In the Digha Nikaya[372] we hear

of the clan of the Kanhayanas (= Karshnayanas) and of one Kanha who

became a great sage. This person may be the Krishna of the Rig

Veda, but there is no proof that he is the same as our Krishna.

The Ghata-Jataka (No. 454) gives an account of Krishna's childhood

and subsequent exploits which in many points corresponds with the

Brahmanic legends of his life and contains several familiar incidents

and names, such as Vasudeva, Baladeva, Kamsa. Yet it presents many

peculiarities and is either an independent version or a

misrepresentation of a popular story that had wandered far from its

home. Jain tradition also shows that these tales were popular and were

worked up into different forms, for the Jains have an elaborate system

of ancient patriarchs which includes Vasudevas and Baladevas.

Krishna is the ninth of the Black Vasudevas[373] and is connected

with Dvaravati or Dvaraka. He will become the twelfth tirthankara of

the next world-period and a similar position will be attained by

Devaki, Rohini, Baladeva and Javakumara, all members of his family.

This is a striking proof of the popularity of the Krishna legend

outside the Brahmanic religion.

No references to Krishna except the above have been found in the

earlier Upanishads and Sutras. He is not mentioned in Manu but in one

aspect or another he is the principal figure in the Mahabharata, yet

not exactly the hero. The Ramayana would have no plot without Rama,

but the story of the Mahabharata would not lose its unity if Krishna

were omitted. He takes the side of the Pandavas, and is sometimes a

chief sometimes a god but he is not essential to the action of the

epic.

The legend represents him as the son of Vasudeva, who belonged to the

Sattvata sept[374] of the Yadava tribe, and of his wife Devaki. It had

been predicted to Kamsa, king of Mathura (Muttra), that one of her

sons would kill him. He therefore slew her first six children: the

seventh, Balarama, who is often counted as an incarnation of Vishnu,

was transferred by divine intervention to the womb of Rohini.

Krishna, the eighth, escaped by more natural methods. His father was

able to give him into the charge of Nanda, a herdsman, and his wife

Yasoda who brought him up at Gokula and Vrindavana. Here his youth was

passed in sporting with the Gopis or milk-maids, of whom he is said to

have married a thousand. He had time, however, to perform acts of

heroism, and after killing Kamsa, he transported the inhabitants of

Mathura to the city of Dvaraka which he had built on the coast of

Gujarat. He became king of the Yadavas and continued his mission of

clearing the earth of tyrants and monsters. In the struggle between

the Pandavas and the sons of Dhritarashtra he championed the cause

of the former, and after the conclusion of the war retired to Dvaraka.

Internecine conflict broke out among the Yadavas and annihilated the

race. Krishna himself withdrew to the forest and was killed by a

hunter called Jaras (old age) who shot him supposing him to be a deer.

In the Mahabharata and several Puranas this bare outline is distended

with a plethora of miraculous incident remarkable even in Indian

literature, and almost all possible forms of divine and human activity

are attributed to this many-sided figure. We may indeed suspect that

his personality is dual even in the simplest form of the legend for

the scene changes from Mathura to Dvaraka, and his character is not

quite the same in the two regions. It is probable that an ancient

military hero of the west has been combined with a deity or perhaps

more than one deity. The pile of story, sentiment and theology which

ages have heaped up round Krishna's name, represents him in three

principal aspects. Firstly, he is a warrior who destroys the powers of

evil. Secondly, he is associated with love in all its forms, ranging

from amorous sport to the love of God in the most spiritual and

mystical sense. Thirdly, he is not only a deity, but he actually

becomes God in the European and also in the pantheistic acceptation of

the word, and is the centre of a philosophic theology.

The first of these aspects is clearly the oldest and it is here, if

anywhere, that we may hope to find some fragments of history. But the

embellishments of poets and story-tellers have been so many that we

can only point to features which may indicate a substratum of fact.

In the legend, Krishna assists the Pandavas against the Kauravas.

Now many think that the Pandavas represent a second and later

immigration of Aryans into India, composed of tribes who had halted in

the Himalayas and perhaps acquired some of the customs of the

inhabitants, including polyandry, for the five Pandavas had one wife

in common between them. Also, the meaning of the name Krishna,

black, suggests that he was a chief of some non-Aryan tribe. It is,

therefore, possible that one source of the Krishna myth is that a

body of invading Aryans, described in the legend as the Pandavas,

who had not exactly the same laws and beliefs as those already

established in Hindustan, were aided by a powerful aboriginal chief,

just as the Sisodias in Rajputana were aided by the Bhils. It is

possible too that Krishna's tribe may have come from Kabul or other

mountainous districts of the north west, although one of the most

definite points in the legend is his connection with the coast town of

Dvaraka. The fortifications of this town and the fruitless efforts of

the demon king, Salva, to conquer it by seige are described in the

Mahabharata,[375] but the narrative is surrounded by an atmosphere of

magic and miracle rather than of history.[376]

Though it would not be reasonable to pick out the less fantastic parts

of the Krishna legend and interpret them as history, yet we may

fairly attach significance to the fact that many episodes represent

him as in conflict with Brahmanic institutions and hardly maintaining

the position of Vishnu incarnate.[377] Thus he plunders Indra's

garden and defeats the gods who attempt to resist him. He fights with

Siva and Skanda. He burns Benares and all its inhabitants. Yet he is

called Upendra, which, whatever other explanations sectarian ingenuity

may invent, can hardly mean anything but the Lesser Indra, and he

fills the humble post of Arjuna's charioteer. His kinsmen seem to have

been of little repute, for part of his mission was to destroy his own

clan and after presiding over its annihilation in internecine strife,

he was slain himself. In all this we see dimly the figure of some

aboriginal hero who, though ultimately canonized, represented a force

not in complete harmony with Brahmanic civilization. The figure has

also many solar attributes but these need not mean that its origin is

to be sought in a sun myth, but rather that, as many early deities

were forms of the sun, solar attributes came to be a natural part of

divinity and were ascribed to the deified Krishna just as they were

to the deified Buddha.[378]

Some authors hold that the historical Krishna was a teacher, similar

to Zarathustra, and that though of the military class he was chiefly

occupied in founding or supporting what was afterwards known as the

religion of the Bhagavatas, a theistic system inculcating the worship

of one God, called Bhagavat, and perhaps identical with the Sun. It is

probable that Krishna the hero was connected with the worship of a

special deity, but I see no evidence that he was primarily a

teacher.[379] In the earlier legends he is a man of arms: in the later

he is not one who devotes his life to teaching but a forceful

personage who explains the nature of God and the universe at the most

unexpected moments. Now the founders of religions such as Mahavira and

Buddha preserve their character as teachers even in legend and do not

accumulate miscellaneous heroic exploits. Similarly modern founders of

sects, like Caitanya, though revered as incarnations, still retain

their historical attributes. But on the other hand many men of action

have been deified not because they taught anything but because they

seemed to be more than human forces. Rama is a classical example of

such deification and many local deities can be shown to be warriors,

bandits and hunters whose powers inspired respect. It is said that

there is a disposition in the Bombay Presidency to deify the Maratha

leader Sivaji.[380]

In his second aspect, Krishna is a pastoral deity, sporting among

nymphs and cattle. It is possible that this Krishna is in his origin

distinct from the violent and tragic hero of Dvaraka. The two

characters have little in common, except their lawlessness, and the

date and locality of the two cycles of legend are different. But the

death of Kamsa which is one of the oldest incidents in the story (for

it is mentioned in the Mahabhashya[381]) belongs to both and Kamsa is

consistently connected with Muttra. The Mahabharata is mainly

concerned with Krishna the warrior: the few allusions in it to the

freaks of the pastoral Krishna occur in passages suspected of being

late interpolations and, even if they are genuine, show that little

attention was paid to his youth. But in later works, the relative

importance is reversed and the figure of the amorous herdsman almost

banishes the warrior. We can trace the growth of this figure in the

sculptures of the sixth century, in the Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas

and the Gita-govinda (written about 1170). Even later is the worship

of Radha, Krishna's mistress, as a portion of the deity, who is

supposed to have divided himself into male and female halves.[382] The

birth and adventures of the pastoral Krishna are located in the land

of Braj, the district round Muttra and among the tribe of the Abhiras,

but the warlike Krishna is connected with the west, although his

exploits extend to the Ganges valley.[383] The Abhiras, now called

Ahirs, were nomadic herdsmen who came from the west and their

movements between Kathiawar and Muttra may have something to do with

the double location of the Krishna legend.

Both archaeology and historical notices tell us something of the

history of Muttra. It was a great Buddhist and Jain centre, as the

statues and viharas found there attest. Ptolemy calls it the city of

the gods. Fa-Hsien (400 A.D.) describes it as Buddhist, but that faith

was declining at the time of Hsuean Chuang's visit (c. 630 A.D.). The

sculptural remains also indicate the presence of Graeco-Bactrian

influence. We need not therefore feel surprise if we find in the

religious thought of Muttra elements traceable to Greece, Persia or

Central Asia. Some claim that Christianity should be reckoned among

these elements and I shall discuss the question elsewhere. Here I will

only say that such ideas as were common to Christianity and to the

religions of Greece and western Asia probably did penetrate to India

by the northern route, but of specifically Christian ideas I see no

proof. It is true that the pastoral Krishna is unlike all earlier

Indian deities, but then no close parallel to him can be adduced from

elsewhere, and, take him as a whole, he is a decidedly un-christian

figure. The resemblance to Christianity consists in the worship of a

divine child, together with his mother. But this feature is absent in

the New Testament and seems to have been borrowed from paganism by

Christianity.

The legends of Muttra show even clearer traces than those already

quoted of hostility between Krishna and Brahmanism. He forbids the

worship of Indra,[384] and when Indra in anger sends down a deluge of

rain, he protects the country by holding up over it the hill of

Goburdhan, which is still one of the great centres of pilgrimage.[385]

The language which the Vishnu Purana attributes to him is extremely

remarkable. He interrupts a sacrifice which his fosterfather is

offering to Indra and says, "We have neither fields nor houses: we

wander about happily wherever we list, travelling in our waggons. What

have we to do with Indra? Cattle and mountains are (our) gods.

Brahmans offer worship with prayer: cultivators of the earth adore

their landmarks but we who tend our herds in the forests and mountains

should worship them and our kine."