This passage suggests that Krishna represents a tribe of highland

nomads who worshipped mountains and cattle and came to terms with the

Brahmanic ritual only after a struggle. The worship of mountain

spirits is common in Central Asia, but I do not know of any evidence

for cattle-worship in those regions. Clemens of Alexandria,[386]

writing at the end of the second century A.D., tells us that the

Indians worshipped Herakles and Pan. The pastoral Krishna has

considerable resemblance to Pan or a Faun, but no representations of

such beings are recorded from Graeco-Indian sculptures. Several Bacchic

groups have however been discovered in Gandhara and also at

Muttra[387] and Megasthenes recognized Dionysus in some Indian deity.

Though the Bacchic revels and mysteries do not explain the pastoral

element in the Krishna legend, they offer a parallel to some of its

other features, such as the dancing and the crowd of women, and I am

inclined to think that such Greek ideas may have germinated and proved

fruitful in Muttra. The Greek king Menander is said to have occupied

the city (c. 155 B.C.), and the sculptures found there indicate that

Greek artistic forms were used to express Indian ideas. There may have

been a similar fusion in religion.

In any case, Buddhism was predominant in Muttra for several centuries.

It no doubt forbade the animal sacrifices of the Brahmans and favoured

milder rites. It may even offer some explanation for the frivolous

character of much in the Krishna legend.[388] Most Brahmanic

deities, extraordinary as their conduct often is, are serious and

imposing. But Buddhism claimed for itself the serious side of religion

and while it tolerated local godlings treated them as fairies or

elves. It was perhaps while Krishna was a humble rustic deity of

this sort, with no claim to represent the Almighty, that there first

gathered round him the cycle of light love-stories which has clung to

him ever since. In the hands of the Brahmans his worship has undergone

the strangest variations which touch the highest and lowest planes of

Hinduism, but the Muttra legend still retains its special note of

pastoral romance, and exhibits Krishna in two principal characters,

as the divine child and as the divine lover. The mysteries of birth

and of sexual union are congenial topics to Hindu theology, but in

the cult of Muttra we are not concerned with reproduction as a world

force, but simply with childhood and love as emotional manifestations

of the deity. The same ideas occur in Christianity, and even in the

Gospels Christ is compared to a bridegroom, but the Krishna legend

is far more gross and naive.

The infant Krishna is commonly adored in the form known as Makhan

Chor or the Butter Thief.[389] This represents him as a crawling child

holding out one hand full of curds or butter which he has stolen. We

speak of idolizing a child, and when Hindu women worship this image

they are unconsciously generalizing the process and worshipping

childhood, its wayward pranks as well as its loveable simplicity, and

though it is hard for a man to think of the freaks of the butter thief

as a manifestation of divinity, yet clearly there is an analogy

between these childish escapades and the caprices of mature deities,

which are respectfully described as mysteries. If one admits the

worship of the Bambino, it is not unreasonable to include in it

admiration of his rogueries, and the tender playfulness which is

permitted to enter into this cult appeals profoundly to Indian women.

Images of the Makhan Chor are sold by thousands in the streets of

Muttra.

Even more popular is the image known as Kanhaya, which represents the

god as a young man playing the flute as he stands in a careless

attitude, which has something of Hellenic grace. Krishna in this

form is the beloved of the Gopis, or milk-maids, of the land of Braj,

and the spouse of Radha, though she had no monopoly of him. The

stories of his frolics with these damsels and the rites instituted in

memory thereof have brought his worship into merited discredit.

Krishnaism offers the most extensive manifestation to be found in the

world of what W. James calls the theopathic condition as illustrated

by nuns like Marguerite Marie Alacoque, Saint Gertrude and the more

distinguished Saint Theresa. "To be loved by God and loved by him to

distraction (jusqu'a la folie), Margaret melted away with love at the

thought of such a thing.... She said to God, 'Hold back, my God, these

torrents which overwhelm me or else enlarge my capacity for their

reception'."[390] These are not the words of the Gita-govinda or the

Prem Sagar, as might be supposed, but of a Catholic Bishop describing

the transports of Sister Marguerite Marie, and they illustrate the

temper of Krishna's worshippers. But the verses of the Marathi poet,

Tukaram, who lived about 1600 A.D. and sang the praises of Krishna,

rise above this sentimentality though he uses the language of love. In

a letter to Sivaji, who desired to see him, he wrote, "As a chaste

wife longs only to see her lord, such am I to Vitthala.[391] All the

world is to me Vitthala and nothing else: thee also I behold in

him." He also wrote elsewhere, "he that taketh the unprotected to his

heart and doeth to a servant the same kindness as to his own children,

is assuredly the image of God." More recently Ramakrishna, whose

sayings breathe a wide intelligence as well as a wide charity, has

given this religion of love an expression which, if somewhat too

sexual to be perfectly in accordance with western taste, is nearly

related to emotional Christianity. "A true lover sees his god as his

nearest and dearest relative" he writes, "just as the shepherd women

of Vrindavana saw in Krishna not the Lord of the Universe but their

own beloved.... The knowledge of God may be likened to a man, while

the love of God is like a woman. Knowledge has entry only up to the

outer rooms of God, and no one can enter into the inner mysteries of

God save a lover.... Knowledge and love of God are ultimately one and

the same. There is no difference between pure knowledge and pure

love."[392]

These extracts show how Krishna as the object of the soul's desire

assumes the place of the Supreme Being or God. But this surprising

transformation[393] is not specially connected with the pastoral and

erotic Krishna: the best known and most thorough-going exposition of

his divinity is found in the Bhagavad-gita, which represents him as

being in his human aspect, a warrior and the charioteer of Arjuna.

Probably some seventy-five millions to-day worship Krishna,

especially under the name of Hari, as God in the pantheistic sense and

naturally the more his identity with the supreme spirit is emphasized,

the dimmer grow the legendary features which mark the hero of Muttra

and Dvaraka, and the human element in him is reduced to this very

important point that the tie uniting him to his worshippers is one of

sentiment and affection.

In the following chapters I shall treat of this worship when

describing the various sects which practise it. A question of some

importance for the history of Krishna's deification is the meaning

of the name Vasudeva. One explanation makes it a patronymic, son of

Vasudeva, and supposes that when this prince Vasudeva was deified his

name, like Rama, was transferred to the deity. The other regards

Vasudeva as a name for the deity used by the Sattvata clan and

supposes that when Krishna was deified this already well-known

divine name was bestowed on him. There is much to be said for this

latter theory. As we have seen the Jains give the title Vasudeva to a

series of supermen, and a remarkable legend states[394] that a king

called Paundraka who pretended to be a deity used the title Vasudeva

and ordered Krishna to cease using it, for which impertinence he was

slain. This clearly implies that the title was something which could

be detached from Krishna and not a mere patronymic. Indian writings

countenance both etymologies of the word. As the name of the deity

they derive it from _vas_ to dwell, he in whom all things abide and

who abides in all.[395]

5

Siva and Vishnu are not in their nature different from other Indian

ideas, high or low. They are the offspring of philosophic and poetic

minds playing with a luxuriant popular mythology. But even in the

epics they have already become fixed points in a flux of changing

fancies and serve as receptacles in which the most diverse notions are

collected and stored. Nearly all philosophy and superstition finds its

place in Hinduism by being connected with one or both of them. The two

worships are not characteristic of different periods: they coexist

when they first become known to us as they do at the present day and

in essential doctrines they are much alike. We have no name for this

curious double theism in which each party describes its own deity as

the supreme god or All-god, yet without denying the god of the other.

Something similar might be produced in Christianity if different

Churches were avowedly to worship different persons of the Trinity.

Siva and Vishnu are sometimes contrasted and occasionally their

worshippers quarrel.[396] But the general inclination is rather to

make the two figures approximate by bestowing the same attributes on

both. A deity must be able to satisfy emotional devotion: hence the

Tamil Sivaite says of Siva the destroyer, "one should worship in

supreme love him who does kindness to the soul." But then the feature

in the world which most impresses the Hindu is the constant change and

destruction, and this must find a place in the All-god. Hence the

sportive kindly Krishna comes to be declared the destroyer of the

worlds.[397] It is as if in some vast Dravidian temple one wandered

through two corridors differently ornamented and assigned to the

priests of different rites but both leading to the same image. Hence

it is not surprising to find that there is actually a deity--if indeed

the term is suitable, but European vocabularies hardly provide one

which meets the case--called Harihara (or Sankara-Narayana), that is

Siva and Vishnu combined. The Harivamsa contains a hymn addressed to

him: fairly ancient sculptures attest the prevalence of his worship in

the Deccan, especially at Badami, he was once the chief deity of

Camboja and he is still popular in south India. Here besides being

worshipped under his own name he has undergone a singular

transformation and has probably been amalgamated with some aboriginal

deity. Under the designation of Ayenar (said to be a corruption of

Harihara) he is extensively worshipped as a village god and reputed to

be the son of Siva and Vishnu, the latter having kindly assumed the

form of a woman to effect his birth.

Another form of this inclination to combine and unite the various

manifestations of the Divine is the tendency to worship groups of

gods, a practice as old as the Vedas. Thus many temples are dedicated

to a group of five, namely, Siva, Vishnu, Durga, Ganesa and the Sun

and it is stated that every Hindu worships these five deities in his

daily prayers.[398] The Trimurti, or figure of Brahma, Siva and

Vishnu, illustrates the worship of groups. Its importance has

sometimes been over-estimated by Europeans from an idea that it

corresponded to the Christian Trinity, but in reality this triad is

late and has little significance. No stress is laid on the idea of

three in one and the number of persons can be increased. The

Brahma-vaivarta Purana for instance adds Krishna to Brahma, Siva

and Vishnu. The union of three personalities is merely a way of

summing up the chief attributes of the All-God. Thus the Vishnu

Purana[399] extols Vishnu as being "Hiranyagarbha, Hari and

Sankara (_i.e._ Brahma, Vishnu and Siva), the creator, preserver and

destroyer," but in another passage as him who is "Brahma, Isvara and

spirit (Pums), who with the three Gunas (qualities of matter) is the

cause of creation, preservation and destruction...." The origin of the

triad, so far as it has any doctrinal or philosophical meaning, is

probably to be sought in the personification of the three Gunas.[400]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 334: See especially Dig. Nik. XX. and XXXII.]

[Footnote 335: But the lists may be pieces of folk-lore older than the

suttas in which they are incorporated.]

[Footnote 336: The Dionysus of Megasthenes is a deity who comes from

the west with an army that suffers from the heat of the plains. If we

could be certain that he meant Siva by Dionysus this would be valuable

evidence. But he clearly misunderstood many things in Indian religion.

Greek legends connected Dionysus with India and the East.]

[Footnote 337: Macdonell seems to me correct in saying (_J.R.A.S._

1915, p. 125) that one reason why Indian deities have many arms is

that they may be able to carry the various symbols by which they are

characterized. Another reason is that worship is usually accompanied

by dhyana, that is forming a mental image of the deity as described in

a particular text. _E.g._ the worshipper repeats a mantra which

describes a deity in language which was originally metaphorical as

having many heads and arms and at the same time he ought to make a

mental image of such a figure.]

[Footnote 338: But some forms of Sivaism in southern India come even

nearer to emotional Christianity than does Vishnuism.]

[Footnote 339: I cannot discover that any alleged avatara of Siva has

now or has had formerly any importance, but the Vayu, Linga and Kurma

Purana give lists of such incarnations, as does also the Catechism of

the Shaiva religion translated by Foulkes. But Indian sects have a

strong tendency to ascribe all possible achievements and attributes to

their gods. The mere fact that Vishnu becomes incarnate incites the

ardent Sivaite to say that his god can do the same. A curious instance

of this rivalry is found in the story that Siva manifested himself as

Sarabha-murti in order to curb the ferocity of Vishnu when incarnate

in the Man Lion (see Gopinatha Rao, _Hindu Icon_. p. 45). Siva often

appears in a special form, not necessarily human, for a special

purpose (_e.g._ Virabhadra) and some tantric Buddhas seem to be

imitations of these apparitions. There is a strong element of Sivaism

borrowed from Bengal in the mythology of Tibet and Mongolia, where

such personages as Hevajra, Samvara, and Mahakala have a considerable

importance under the strange title of Buddhas.]

[Footnote 340: The passage from one epithet to the other is very plain

in _R.V._ I. 114.]

[Footnote 341: Book XVI.]

[Footnote 342: In the play Mricchakatika or The Clay Cart (probably

of the sixth century A.D.) a burglar invokes Kartikeya, the son of

Siva, who is said to have taught different styles of house-breaking.]

[Footnote 343: A similarly strange collocation of attributes is found

in Daksha's hymn to Siva. Mahabharata, XII. Sec. 285.]

[Footnote 344: Atharva, V. xi. 2. 24.]

[Footnote 345: It is not certain if the Sisnadevah whom Indra is

asked to destroy in Rig. V. VII. 21. 5 and X. 99. 3 are priapic

demons or worshippers of the phallus.]

[Footnote 346: VII. secs. 202, 203, and XIII. sec. 14.]

[Footnote 347: The inscriptions of Camboja and Champa seem to be the

best proof of the antiquity of Linga worship. A Cambojan inscription

of about 550 A.D. records the dedication of a linga and the worship

must have taken some time to reach Camboja from India. Some lingas

discovered in India are said to be anterior to the Christian era.]

[Footnote 348: See F. Kittel, _Ueber den Ursprung der Linga Kultus_,

and Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 261.]

[Footnote 349: As is also its appearance, as a rule. But there are

exceptions to this. Some Hindus deny that the Linga is a phallic

emblem. It is hardly possible to maintain this thesis in view of such

passages as Mahabh. XIII. 14 and the innumerable figures in which

there are both a linga and a Yoni. But it is true that in its later

forms the worship is purged of all grossness and that in its earlier

forms the symbol adored was often a stupa-like column or a pillar with

figures on it.]

[Footnote 350: Such scenes as the relief from Amaravati figured in

Gruenwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, p. 29, fig. 8, might easily be

supposed to represent the worship of the linga, and some of Asoka's

pillars have been worshipped as lingas in later times.]

[Footnote 351: But not of course the soul which, according to the

general Indian idea, exists before and continues after the life of the

body.]

[Footnote 352: Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern

India_, I. 84; II. 219.]

[Footnote 353: They are however of some importance in Vishnuite

theology. For instance according to the school of Ramanuja it is the

Sakti (Sri) who reveals the true doctrine to mankind. Vishnu is often

said to have three consorts, Sri, Bhu and Lila.]

[Footnote 354: _E.g._ Sat. Brah. I. 2. 5. See also the strange legend

_Ib._ XI. 1. 1 where Vishnu is described as the best of the gods but

is eaten by Indra. He is frequently (_e.g._ in the Sata Brah) stated to

be identical with the sacrifice, and this was probably one of the

reasons for his becoming prominent.]

[Footnote 355: See many modern examples in Crooke, _Popular Religion

and Folk Lore of Northern India_, chap. IV. and _Census of India_,

1901, vol. VI. _Bengal_, pp. 196-8, where are described various

deified heroes who are adored in Bengal, such as Goveiya (a bandit),

Sailesh, Karikh, Larik, Amar Singh, and Gobind Raut (a slayer of

tigers). Compare too the worship of Gopi Nath and Zinda Kaliana in the

Panjab as described in _Census of India_, 1901, vol. XVII. pp. 118-9.]

[Footnote 356: The Bhagavata Purana (I. iii.) and the Bhaktamala (see

_J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 621 ff.) give longer lists of 22 and 26, and the

Pancaratra gives 39. See Ahirbudhnya Samhita, V. 50-55.]

[Footnote 357: Book I, cantos 74-76.]

[Footnote 358: A parallel phenomenon is the belief found in Bali, that

Buddha is Siva's brother.]

[Footnote 359: For Brahmanic ideas about Buddha see Vishnu Purana,

III. 18. The Bhagavata Purana, I. 3. 24 seems to make the Buddha

incarnation future. It also counts Kapila and Rishabha, apparently

identical with the founder of the Sankhya and the first Jain saint, as

incarnations. The Padma Purana seems to ascribe not only Buddhism but

the Maya doctrine of Sankara to delusions deliberately inspired by

gods. I have not been able to find the passage in the printed edition

of the Purana but it is quoted in Sanskrit by Aufrecht, _Cat. Cod.

Bib. Bodl._ p. 14, and Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, p. 198.]

[Footnote 360: See Norman in _Trans. Third Int. Congress of

Religions_, II. p. 85. In the _Ind. Ant._ 1918, p. 145 Jayaswal tries

to prove that Kalki is a historical personage and identical with King

Yasodharman of Central India (about A.D. 500) and that the idea of his

being a _future_ saviour is late. This theory offers difficulties, for

firstly there is no proof that the passages of the Mahabharata which

mention Kalki (III. 190, 13101; III. 191, 13111: XII. 340, 12968) are

additions later than Yasodharman and secondly if Kalki was first a

historical figure and then projected into the future we should expect

to hear that he will _come again_, but such language is not quoted. On

the other hand it seems quite likely (1) that there was an old

tradition about a future saviour called Kalki, (2) that Yasodharman

after defeating the Huns assumed the role, (3) and that when it was

found that the golden age had not recommenced he was forgotten (as

many pseudo-Messiahs have been) and Kalki again became a hope for the

future. Vincent Smith (_Hist. of India_, ed. III. p. 320) intimates

that Yasodharman performed considerable exploits but was inordinately

boastful.]

[Footnote 361: Another version of the story which omits the expedition

to Lanka and makes Sita the sister of Rama is found in the Dasaratha

Jataka (641).]

[Footnote 362: But this colonization is attributed by tradition to

Vijaya, not Rama.]

[Footnote 363: See especially book VI. p. 67, in Growse's

_Translation._]

[Footnote 364: See Muir's _Sanskrit Texts_, vol. IV. especially pp.

441-491.]

[Footnote 365: Ekanatha, who lived in the sixteenth century, calls the

Adhyatma R. a modern work. See Bhandarkar, _Vaishn. and Saivism_, page

48. The Yoga-Vasishtha R. purports to be instruction given by

Vasishtha to Rama who wishes to abandon the world. Its date is

uncertain but it is quoted by authors of the fourteenth century. It is

very popular, especially in south India, where an abridgment in Tamil

called Jnana-Vasishtha is much read. Its doctrine appears to be

Vedantist with a good deal of Buddhist philosophy. Salvation is never

to think that pleasures and pains are "mine."]

[Footnote 366: Chand. Up. III. 17.6]

[Footnote 367: The Kaush. Brahm. says that Krishna was an Angirasa

XXX. g. The Anukramani says that the Krishna of Rig Veda, VIII. 74

was an Angirasa. For Ghora Angirasa "the dread descendent of the

Angirases" see Macdonell and Keith, _Vedic Index_, s.v.]

[Footnote 368: _E.g._ Dig. Nik. V. The Pancaratra expressly states

that Yoga is worship of the heart and self-sacrifice, being thus a

counterpart of the external sacrifice (bahyayaga).]

[Footnote 369: Pan. IV. 3. 98, _Vasudevarjunabhyam vun._ See

Bhandarkar, _Vaishnavism and Saivism_, p. 3 and _J.R.A.S._ 1910, p.

168. Sutra 95, just above, appears to point to _bhakti_, faith or

devotion, felt for this Vasudeva.]

[Footnote 370: Especially the Besnagar column. See Rapson, _Ancient

India_, p. 156 and various articles in _J.R.A.S._ 1909-10.]

[Footnote 371: X. i, vi.]

[Footnote 372: III. i. 23, Ularo so Kanho isi ahosi. But this may

refer to the Rishi mentioned in _R.V._ VIII. 74 who has not

necessarily anything to do with the god Krishna.]

[Footnote 373: See Hemacandra Abhidhanacintamani, Ed. Boehtlingk and

Rien, p. 128, and Barnett's translation of the _Antagada Dasao_, pp.

13-15 and 67-82.]

[Footnote 374: Apparently the same as the Vrishnis.]

[Footnote 375: III. XV.]

[Footnote 376: It would seem that the temple of Dvaraka was built

between the composition of the narrative in the Mahabharata and of the

Vishnu Purana, for while the former says the whole town was

destroyed by the sea, the latter excepts the temple and says that

whoever visits it is freed from all his sins. See Wilson, _Vishnu

Purana_, V. p. 155.]

[Footnote 377: A most curious chapter of the Vishnu Purana (IV. 13)

contains a vindication of Krishna's character and a picture of old

tribal life.]

[Footnote 378: Neither can I agree with some scholars that Krishna

is mainly and primarily a deity of vegetation. All Indian ideas about

the Universe and God emphasize the interaction of life and death,

growth and decay, spring and winter. Krishna is undoubtedly

associated with life, growth and generation, but so is Siva the

destroyer, or rather the transmuter. The account in the Mahabhashya

(on Pan. III. 1. 26) of the masque representing the slaughter of

Kamsa by Krishna is surely a slight foundation for the theory that

Krishna was a nature god. It might be easily argued that Christ is a

vegetation spirit, for not only is Easter a spring festival but there

are numerous allusions to sowing and harvest in the Gospels and Paul

illustrates the resurrection by the germination of corn. It is a

mistake to seek for uniformity in the history of religion. There were

in ancient times different types of mind which invented different

kinds of gods, just as now professors invent different theories about

gods.]

[Footnote 379: The Krishna of the Chandogya Upanishad _receives_

instruction but it is not said that he was himself a teacher.]

[Footnote 380: Hopkins, _India Old and New_, p. 105.]

[Footnote 381: Bhandarkar. Allusions to Krishna in Mahabhashya,

_Ind. Ant._ 1874, p. 14. For the pastoral Krishna see Bhandarkar,

_Vaishnavism and Saivism_, chap. IX.]

[Footnote 382: The divinity of Radha is taught specially in the

Brahma-vaivarta Purana and the Narada pancaratra, also called

Jnanamritasara. She is also described in the Gopala-tapaniya

Upanishad of unknown date.]

[Footnote 383: But Kamsa appears in both series of legends, _i.e._, in

the Ghata-Jataka which contains no hint of the pastoral legends but is

a variant of the story of the warlike Krishna.]

[Footnote 384: Vishnu Purana, V. 10, 11 from which the quotations in

the text are taken. Much of it is repeated in the Harivamsa. See for

instance H. 3808.]

[Footnote 385: The Muttra cycle of legends cannot be very late for the

inscription of Glai Lomor in Champa (811 A.D.) speaks of Narayana

holding up Goburdhan and a Cambojan inscription of Prea Eynkosey (970

A.D.) speaks of the banks of the Yamuna where Krishna sported. These

legends must have been prevalent in India some time before they

travelled so far. Some of them are depicted on a pillar found at

Mandor and possibly referable to the fourth century A.D. See _Arch.

Survey Ind._ 1905-1906, p. 135.]

[Footnote 386: Strom, III. 194. See M'Crindle, _Ancient India_, p.

183.]

[Footnote 387: Vincent Smith, _Fine Art in India_, pp. 134-138.]

[Footnote 388: In the Sutta-nipata Mara, the Evil One is called

Kanha, the phonetic equivalent of Krishna in Prakrit. Can it be

that Mara and his daughters have anything to do with Krishna and the

Gopis?]

[Footnote 389: Compare the Greek stories of the infant Hermes who

steals Apollo's cattle and invents the lyre. Compare too, as having a

general resemblance to fantastic Indian legends, the story of young

Hephaestus.]

[Footnote 390: Mgr. Bongard, _Histoire de la Bienheureuse Marguerite

Marie_. Quoted by W. James, _Varieties of Religious Experience_, p.

343.]

[Footnote 391: Vitthal or Vittoba is a local deity of Pandharpur

in the Deccan (perhaps a deified Brahman of the place) now identified

with Krishna.]

[Footnote 392: _Life and Sayings of Ramakrishna_. Trans. F. Max

Mueller, pp. 137-8. The English poet Crashaw makes free use of

religious metaphors drawn from love and even Francis Thompson

represents God as the lover of the Soul, _e.g._ in his poem _Any

Saint._]

[Footnote 393: Though surprising, it can be paralleled in modern times

for Kabir (_c._ 1400) was identified by his later followers with the

supreme spirit.]

[Footnote 394: Mahabhar. Sabhap. XIV. Vishnu Pur. v. xxxiv. The name

also occurs in the Taittiriya Aranyaka (i. 31) a work of moderate if

not great antiquity Nazayanaya vidmahe Vasudevaya dhimahi.]

[Footnote 395: See. Vishnu Pur. VI. V. See also Wilson, _Vishnu

Purana_, I. pp. 2 and 17.]

[Footnote 396: Thus the Saura Purana inveighs against the Madhva sect

(XXXVIII.-XL.) and calls Vishnu the servant of Siva: a Puranic legal

work called the Vriddha-Harita-Samhita is said to contain a polemic

against Siva. Occasionally we hear of collisions between the followers

of Vishnu and Siva or the desecration of temples by hostile fanatics.

But such conflicts take place most often not between widely different

sects but between subdivisions of the same sect, _e.g._, Tengalais and

Vadagalais. It would seem too that at present most Hindus of the

higher castes avoid ostentatious membership of the modern sects, and

though they may practise special devotion to either Vishnu or Siva,

yet they visit the temples of both deities when they go on

pilgrimages. Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in his _Hindu Castes and

Sects_ says (p. 364) that aristocratic Brahmans usually keep in their

private chapels both a salagram representing Vishnu and emblems

representing Siva and his spouse. Hence different observers vary in

their estimates of the importance of sectarian divisions, some holding

that sect is the essence of modern Hinduism and others that most

educated Hindus do not worship a sectarian deity. The Kurma Purana,

Part I. chap. XXII. contains some curious rules as to what deities

should be worshipped by the various classes of men and spirits.]

[Footnote 397: Bhag.-gita, XL. 23-34.]

[Footnote 398: See Srisa Chandra Vasu, _Daily practice of the Hindus_,

p. 118.]

[Footnote 399: II. 1 and I. 1.]

[Footnote 400: See Maitrayana Up. V. 2. It is highly probable that

the celebrated image at Elephanta is not a Trimurti at all but a

Mahesamurti of Siva. See Gopinatha Rao, _Hindu Iconog._ II. 382.]

CHAPTER XXVI

FEATURES OF HINDUISM: RITUAL, CASTE, SECT, FAITH

1

In the last chapter I traced the growth of the great gods Siva and

Vishnu. The prominence of these figures is one of the marks which

distinguish the later phase of Indian religion from the earlier. But

it is also distinguished by various practices, institutions and

beliefs, which are more or less connected with the new deities. Such

are a new ritual, the elaboration of the caste system, the growth of

sects, and the tendency to make devotion to a particular deity the

essence of religion. In the present chapter I shall say something of

these phenomena.

Hinduism has often and justly been compared to a jungle. As in the

jungle every particle of soil seems to put forth its spirit in

vegetable life and plants grow on plants, creepers and parasites on

their more stalwart brethren, so in India art, commerce, warfare and

crime, every human interest and aspiration seek for a manifestation in

religion, and since men and women of all classes and occupations, all

stages of education and civilization, have contributed to Hinduism,

much of it seems low, foolish and even immoral. The jungle is not a

park or garden. Whatever can grow in it, does grow. The Brahmans are

not gardeners but forest officers. To attempt a history or description

of Indian creeds seems an enterprise as vast, hopeless and pathless as

a general account of European politics. As for many centuries the life

of Europe has expressed itself in politics, so for even longer ages

the life of India, which has more inhabitants than western

Europe,[401] has found expression in religion, speculation and

philosophy, and has left of all this thought a voluminous record,

mighty in bulk if wanting in dates and events. And why should it

chronicle them? The truly religious mind does not care for the history

of religion, just as among us the scientific mind does not dwell on

the history of science.

Yet in spite of their exuberance Hinduism and the jungle have

considerable uniformity. Here and there in a tropical forest some

well-grown tree or brilliant flower attracts attention, but the

general impression left on the traveller by the vegetation as he

passes through it mile after mile is infinite repetition as well as

infinite luxuriance. And so in Hinduism. A monograph on one god or one

teacher is an interesting study. But if we continue the experiment,

different gods and different teachers are found to be much the same.

We can write about Vishnuism and Sivaism as if they were different

religions and this, though incomplete, is not incorrect. But in their

higher phases both show much the same excellences and when degraded

both lead to much the same abuses, except that the worship of Vishnu

does not allow animal sacrifices. This is true even of externals. In

the temples of Madura, Poona and Benares, the deities, the rites, the

doctrines, the race of the worshippers and the architecture are all

different, yet the impression of uniformity is strong. In spite of

divergences the religion is the same in all three places: it smacks of

the soil and nothing like it can be found outside India.

Hinduism is an unusual combination of animism and pantheism, which are

commonly regarded as the extremes of savage and of philosophic belief.

In India both may be found separately but frequently they are combined

in startling juxtaposition. The same person who worships Vishnu as

identical with the universe also worships him in the form of a pebble

or plant.[402] The average Hindu, who cannot live permanently in the

altitudes of pantheistic thought, regards his gods as great natural

forces, akin to the mighty rivers which he also worships, irresistible

and often beneficent but also capricious and destructive. Whereas

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all identify the moral law with the

will and conduct of the deity, in Hinduism this is not completely

admitted in practice, though a library might be filled with the

beautiful things that have been said about man and God. The outward

forms of Indian religion are pagan after the fashion of the ancient

world, a fashion which has in most lands passed away. But whereas in

the fourth century A.D. European paganism, despite the efforts of

anti-Christian eclectics, proved inelastic and incapable of satisfying

new religious cravings, this did not happen in India. The bottles of

Hinduism have always proved capable of holding all the wine poured

into them. When a new sentiment takes possession of men's souls, such

as love, repentance, or the sense of sin, some deity of many shapes

and sympathies straightway adapts himself to the needs of his

worshippers. And yet in so doing the deity, though he enlarges

himself, does not change, and the result is that we often meet with

strange anachronisms, as if Jephthah should listen appreciatively to

the Sermon on the Mount and then sacrifice his daughter to Christ.

Many Hindu temples are served by dancing girls who are admittedly

prostitutes,[403] an institution which takes us back to the cultus of

Corinth and Babylon and is without parallel in any nation on

approximately the same level of civilization. Only British law

prevents widows from being burned with their dead husbands, though

even in the Vedic age the custom had been discontinued as

barbarous.[404] But for the same legislation, human sacrifice would

probably be common. What the gods do and what their worshippers do in

their service cannot according to Hindu opinion be judged by ordinary

laws of right and wrong. The god is supra-moral: the worshipper when

he enters the temple leaves conventionality outside.

Yet it is unfair to represent Hinduism as characterized by licence and

cruelty. Such tendencies are counterbalanced by the strength and

prevalence of ideas based on renunciation and self-effacement. All

desire, all attachment to the world is an evil; all self-assertion is

wrong. Hinduism is constantly in extremes: sometimes it exults in the

dances of Krishna or the destructive fury of Kali: more often it

struggles for release from the transitory and for union with the

permanent and real by self-denial or rather self-negation, which aims

at the total suppression of both pleasure and pain. This is on the

whole its dominant note.

In the records accessible to us the transition from Brahmanism--that

is, the religion of the Vedas and Brahmanas--to Hinduism does not

appear as direct but as masked by Buddhism. We see Buddhism grow at

the expense of Brahmanism. We are then conscious that it becomes

profoundly modified under the influence of new ideas. We see it decay

and the religion of the Brahmans emerge victorious. But that religion

is not what it was when Buddhism first arose, and is henceforth

generally known as Hinduism. The materials for studying the period in

which the change occurred--say 400 B.C. to 400 A.D.--are not scanty,

but they do not facilitate chronological investigation. Art and

architecture are mainly Buddhist until the Gupta period (c. 320 A.D.)

and literature, though plentiful, is undated. The Mahabharata and

Ramayana must have been edited in the course of these 800 years, but

they consist of different strata and it is not easy to separate and

arrange them without assuming what we want to prove. From 400 B.C. (if

not from an earlier date) onwards there grew up a great volume of epic

poetry, founded on popular ballads, telling the stories of Rama and

the Pandavas.[405] It was distinct from the canonical literatures of

both Brahmans and Buddhists, but though it was not in its essential

character religious, yet so general in India is the interest in

religion that whole theological treatises were incorporated in these

stories without loss, in Indian opinion, to the interest of the

narrative. If at the present day a congregation is seen in a Hindu

temple listening to a recitation, the text which is being chanted will

often prove to be part of the Mahabharata. Such a ceremony is not due

to forgetfulness of the Veda but is a repetition of what happened long

before our era when rhapsodists strung together popular narratives and

popular theology. Such theology cannot be rigidly separated from

Brahmanism and Buddhism. It grew up under their influence and accepted

their simpler ideas. But it brought with it popular beliefs which did

not strictly speaking belong to either system. By attacking the main

Brahmanic doctrines the Buddhists gave the popular religion its

opportunity. For instance, they condemned animal sacrifices and

derided the idea that trained priests and complicated rites are

necessary. This did not destroy the influence of the Brahmans but it

disposed them to admit that the Vedic sacrifices are not the only

means of salvation and to authorize other rites and beliefs. It was

about this time, too, that a series of invasions began to pour into

India from the north-west. It may be hard to distinguish between the

foreign beliefs which they introduced and the Indian beliefs which

they accepted and modified. But it is clear that their general effect

was to upset traditional ideas associated with a ritual and learning

which required lifelong study.

2

It has been well said[406] that Buddhism did not waste away in India

until rival sects had appropriated from it everything they could make

use of. Perhaps Hinduism had an even stronger doctrinal influence on

Buddhism. The deification of the Buddha, the invention of Bodhisattvas

who are equivalent to gods and the extraordinary alliance between late

Buddhism and Sivaism, are all instances of the general Indian view

overcoming the special Buddhist view. But Buddhism is closely

connected with the theory of incarnations and the development of the

Advaita philosophy, and in the externals of religion, in rites,

ceremonies and institutions, its influence was great and lasting. We

may take first the doctrine of Ahimsa, non-injury, or in other words

the sanctity of animal life. This beautiful doctrine, the glory of

India, if not invented by the Buddha at least arose in schools which

were not Brahmanic and were related to the Jain and Buddhist

movements. It formed no part of the Vedic religion in which sacrifice

often meant butchery. But in Hinduism, it meets with extensive though

not universal acceptance. With the Vaishnavas it is an article of

faith nor do the worshippers of Siva usually propitiate him with

animal sacrifices, though these are offered by the Saktas and also by

the small class of Brahmans who still preserve the Vedic ritual.[407]

Hardly any Hindus habitually eat meat and most abhor it, especially

beef. Yet beef-eating seems to have been permitted in Vedic times and

even when parts of the Mahabharata were composed.

Apart from animal sacrifices Buddhism was the main agent in effecting

a mighty revolution in worship and ritual. One is tempted to regard

the change as total and complete, but such wide assertions are rarely

true in India: customs and institutions are not swept away by

reformers but are cut down like the grass and like the grass grow up

again. They sometimes die out but they are rarely destroyed. The Vedic

sacrifices are still occasionally offered,[408] but for many centuries

have been almost entirely superseded by another form of worship

associated with temples and the veneration of images. This must have

become the dominant form of Hindu cultus in the first few centuries of

our era and probably earlier. It is one of the ironies of fate that

the Buddha and his followers should be responsible for the growth of

image worship, but it seems to be true. He laughed at sacrifices and

left to his disciples only two forms of religious exercise, sermons

and meditation. For Indian monks, this was perhaps sufficient, but the

laity craved for some outward form of worship. This was soon found in

the respect shown to the memory of the Buddha and the relics of his

body, although Hinduism never took kindly to relic worship. We hear

too of Cetiyas. In the Pitakas this word means a popular shrine

unconnected with either Buddhist or Brahmanic ceremonial, sometimes

perhaps merely a sacred tree or stone, probably honoured by such

simple rites as decorating it with paint or flowers. A little later,

in Buddhist times, the Cetiya became a cenotaph or reliquary,

generally located near a monastery and surrounded by a passage for

reverential circumambulation.

Allusions in the Pitakas also indicate that then as now there were

fairs. The early Buddhists thought that though such gatherings were

not edifying they might be made so. They erected sacred buildings near

a monastery, and held festivals so that people might collect together,

visit a holy place, and hear sermons. In the earliest known

sanctuaries, the funeral monument (for we can scarcely doubt that this

is the origin of the stupa)[409] has already assumed the conventional

form known as Dagoba, consisting of a dome and chest of relics, with a

spire at the top, the whole surrounded by railings or a colonnade, but

though the carving is lavish, no figure of the Buddha himself is to be

seen. He is represented by a symbol such as a footprint, wheel, or

tree. But in the later school of sculpture known as Gandhara or

Graeco-Buddhist he is frequently shown in a full length portrait. This

difference is remarkable. It is easy to say that in the older school

the Buddha was not depicted out of reverence, but less easy to see why

such delineation should have shocked an Indian. But at any rate there

is no difficulty in understanding that Greeks or artists influenced by

Greeks would think it obvious and proper to make an effigy of their

principal hero.

In these shrines we have if not the origin of the Hindu temple, at any

rate a parallel development more nearly allied to it than anything in

the Vedic religion.[410] For the Buddhist shrine was a monument built

over a receptacle containing relics and the essential feature of Hindu

temples is a cell containing an image or emblem and generally

surmounted by a tower. The surrounding courts and corridors may assume

gigantic proportions, but the central shrine is never large. Images

had no place in the Vedic sacrifices and those now worshipped in

temples are generally small and rude, and sometimes (as at

Bhuvaneshwar and Srirangam) the deity is represented by a block or

carved stone which cannot be moved, and may have been honoured as a

sacred rock long before the name of Vishnu or Siva was known in those

regions.[411] The conspicuous statues often found outside the shrine

are not generally worshipped and are merely ornaments. Buddhism did

not create the type of ritual now used in Hindu temples, yet it

contributed towards it, for it attacked the old Brahmanic sacrifices,

it countenanced the idea that particular places and objects are holy,

and it encouraged the use of images. It is strange that these

widespread ideas should find no place in the Vedic religion, but even

now-a-days whenever the old Vedic sacrifices are celebrated they are

uncontaminated by the temple ceremonial. More than this, the priests

or Pujaris who officiate in temples are not always Brahmans and they

rarely enjoy much consideration.[412] This curious and marked feature

may be connected with the inveterate Indian feeling that, though it is

well to multiply rites and rules for neophytes, no great respect is

due to men occupied with mere ceremonial. But it also testifies to a

dim consciousness that modern temples and their ceremonies have little

to do with the thoughts and mode of life which made the Brahmans a

force in India. In many ways the Brahmans dissociate themselves from

popular religion. Those of good family will not perform religious

rites for Sudras and treat the Brahmans who do so as inferiors.[413]

The simplest ceremonial in use at the present day is that employed in

some Sivaite temples. It consists in placing leaves on the linga and

pouring holy water over it. These rites, which may be descended from

prehistoric stone worship, are generally accompanied by the reading of

a Purana. But the commonest form of temple ritual consists in treating

the image or symbol as an honoured human being.[414] It is awakened,

bathed, dressed and put to bed at the close of day. Meals are served

to it at the usual hours. The food thus offered is called _prasad_ (or

favour) and is eaten by the devout. Once or twice a day the god holds

a levee and on festivals he is carried in procession. These ceremonies

are specially characteristic of the worship of Krishna whose images

receive all the endearments lavished on a pet child. But they are also

used in the temples of Siva and Parvati, and no less than twenty-two

of them are performed in the course of the day at the temple of

Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa. It is clear that the spirit of these rites is

very different from that which inspires public worship in other

civilized countries at the present day. They are not congregational or

didactic, though if any of the faithful are in the temple at the time

of the god's levee it is proper for them to enter and salute him.

Neither do they recall the magical ceremonies of the Vedic

sacrifices.[415] The waving of lights (arati) before the god and the

burning of incense are almost the only acts suggestive of

ecclesiastical ritual. The rest consists in treating a symbol or image

as if it were a living thing capable of enjoying simple physical

pleasures. Here there are two strata. We have really ancient rites,

such as the anointing or ornamenting of stones and offerings of food

in sacred places. In this class too we may reckon the sacrifice of

goats (and formerly of human beings) to Kali.[416] But on the other

hand the growing idea of Bhakti, that is faith or devotion, imported a

sentimental element and the worshipper endeavoured to pet, caress and

amuse the deity.

It is hard to see anything either healthy or artistic in this

emotional ritual. The low and foolish character of many temple

ceremonies disgusts even appreciative foreigners, but these services

are not the whole of Hindu worship. All Hindus perform in the course

of the day numerous acts of private devotion varying according to

sect, and a pious man is not dependent on the temple like a Catholic

on his church. Indian life is largely occupied with these private,

intimate, individual observances, hardly noticeable as ceremonies and

concerned with such things as dressing, ablution and the preparation

of food.

The monastic institutions of India seem due to Buddhism. There were

wandering monks before the Buddha's time, but the practice of founding

establishments where they could reside permanently, originated in his

order. There appears to be no record of Hindu (as opposed to Buddhist)

monasteries before the time of Sankara in the ninth century, though

there must have been places where the learned congregated or where

wandering ascetics could lodge. Sankara perceived the advantage of

the cenobitic life for organizing religion and founded a number of

maths or colleges. Subsequent religious leaders imitated him. At the

present day these institutions are common, yet it is clear that the

wandering spirit is strong in Hindus and that they do not take to

monastic discipline and fixed residence as readily as Tibetans and

Burmese. A math is not so much a convent as the abode of a teacher.

His pupils frequent it and may become semi-resident: aged pilgrims may

make it their last home, but the inmates are not a permanent body

following a fixed rule like the monks of a Vihara. The Sattras of

Assam, however, are true monasteries (though even there vows and

monastic costume are unknown) and so are the establishments of the

Swaminarayana sect at Ahmedabad and Wartal.

3

The vast and complicated organization of caste is mainly a post-Vedic

growth and in the Buddha's time was only in the making.[417] His order

was open to all classes alike, but this does not imply that he was

adverse to caste, so far as it then prevailed, or denied that men are

divided into categories determined by their deeds in other births. But

on the whole the influence of Buddhism was unfavourable to caste,

especially to the pretensions of the Brahmans, and an extant polemic

against caste is ascribed (though doubtfully) to Asvaghosha.[418] On

the other hand, though caste is in its origin the expression of a

social rather than of a religious tendency, the whole institution and

mechanism have long been supported and exploited by the Brahmans. Few

of them would dispute the proposition that a man cannot be a Hindu

unless he belongs to a caste. The reason of this support is

undisguised, namely, that they are the first and chief caste. They

make their own position a matter of religion and claim the power of

purifying and rehabilitating those who have lost caste but they do not

usually interfere with the rules of other castes or excommunicate

those who break them.[419] That is the business of the Pancayat or

caste council.

Sometimes religion and caste are in opposition, for many modern

religious leaders have begun by declaring that among believers there

are no social distinctions. This is true not only of teachers whose

orthodoxy is dubious, such as Nanak, the founder of the Sikhs, and

Basava, the founder of the Lingayats,[420] but also of Vallabhacarya

and Caitanya. But in nearly all cases caste reasserts itself. The

religious teachers of the sect receive extravagant respect and form a

body apart. This phenomenon, which recurs in nearly all communities,

shows how the Brahmans established their position. At the same time

social distinctions make themselves felt among the laity, and those

who claim to be of good position dissociate themselves from those of

lower birth. The sect ends by observing caste on ordinary occasions,

and it is only in some temples (such as that of Jagannath at

Puri)[421] that the worshippers mix and eat a sacred meal together.

Sometimes, however, the sect which renounces caste becomes itself a

caste. Thus, the Sikhs have become almost a nation and other modern

castes arising out of sects are the Atiths, who are Sivaites, the

Saraks, who appear to have been originally Buddhists, and the

Baishnabs (Vaishnavas), a name commonly given in Bengal to those

followers of Caitanya who persist in the original rule of disregarding

caste regulations within the sect, and hence now form a separate

community. But as a rule sect and caste are not co-extensive and the

caste is not a religious corporation. Thus the different subdivisions

of the Baniyas belong to different sects and even in the same

subdivision there is no religious uniformity.[422]

Caste in its later developments is so complex and irregular, that it

is impossible to summarize it in a formula or explain it as the

development of one principle. In the earliest form known two

principles are already in operation. We have first racial distinction.

The three upper castes represent the invading Aryans, the fourth the

races whom they found in India. In the modern system of caste, race is

not a strong factor. Many who claim to be Brahmans and Kshatriyas have

no Aryan blood, but still the Aryan element is strongest in the

highest castes and decreases as we descend the social scale and also

decreases in the higher castes in proportion as we move from the

north-west to the east and south. But secondly in the three upper

castes the dividing principle, as reported in the earliest accounts,

is not race but occupation. We find in most Aryan countries a division

into nobles and people, but in India these two classes become three,

the priests having been able to assume a prominence unknown elsewhere

and to stamp on literature their claim to the highest rank. This claim

was probably never admitted in practice so completely as the priests

desired. It was certainly disputed in Buddhist times and I have myself

heard a young Rajput say that the Brahmans falsified the Epics so as

to give themselves the first place.

It is not necessary for our purpose to describe the details of the

modern caste system. Its effect on Indian religion has been

considerable, for it created the social atmosphere in which the

various beliefs grew up and it has furnished the Brahmans with the

means of establishing their authority. But many religious reformers

preached that in religion caste does not exist--that there is neither

Jew nor Gentile in the language of another creed--and though the

application of this theory is never complete, the imperfection is the

result not of religious opposition but of social pressure. Hindu life

is permeated by the instinct that society must be divided into

communities having some common interest and refusing to intermarry or

eat with other communities. The long list of modern castes hardly

bears even a theoretical relation to the four classes of Vedic

times.[423] Numerous subdivisions with exclusive rules as to

intermarriage and eating have arisen among the Brahmans and the

strength of this fissiparous instinct is seen among the Mohammedans

who nominally have no caste but yet are divided into groups with much

the same restrictions.

This remarkable tendency to form exclusive corporations is perhaps

correlated with the absence of political life in India. Such ideas as

nationality, citizenship, allegiance to a certain prince, patriotic

feelings for a certain territory are rarer and vaguer than elsewhere,

and yet the Hindu is dependent on his fellows and does not like to

stand alone. So finding little satisfaction in the city or state he

clings the more tenaciously to smaller corporations. These have no one

character: they are not founded on any one logical principle but

merely on the need felt by people who have something in common to

associate together. Many are based on tribal divisions; some, such as

the Marathas and Newars, may be said to be nationalities. In many the

bond of union is occupation, in a few it is sectarian religion. We can

still observe how members of a caste who migrate from their original

residence tend to form an entirely new caste, and how intertribal

marriages among the aborigines create new tribes.

4

Sect[424] must not be confounded with caste. Hindu sects are of many

kinds; some, if not militant, are at least exceedingly self-confident.

Others are so gentle in stating their views that they might be called

schools rather than sects, were the word not too intellectual. The

notion that any creed or code can be _quod semper, quod ubique, quod

ab omnibus_, is less prevalent than in Europe and even the Veda,

though it is the eternal word, is admitted to exist in several

recensions. Hinduism is possible as a creed only to those who select.

In its literal sense it means simply all the beliefs and rites

recognized in India, too multifarious and inconsistent for the most

hospitable and addled brain to hold. But the Hindus, who are as loth

to abolish queer beliefs and practices as they are to take animal

life, are also the most determined seekers after a satisfying form of

religion. Brahmanic ritual and Buddhist monasticism demand the

dedication of a life. Not everyone can afford that, but the sect is

open to all. It attempts to sort out of the chaos of mythology and

superstition something which all can understand and all may find

useful. It selects some aspect of Hinduism and makes the best of it.

Sects usually start by preaching theism and equality in the sight of

God, but in a few generations mythology and social distinctions creep

in. Hence though the prevalence of sect is undoubtedly a feature of

modern Hinduism it is also intelligible that some observers should

assert that most Hindus belong to the same general religion and that

only the minority are definitely sectarian. The sectarian tendency is

stronger in Vishnuism than in Sivaism. The latter has produced some

definite sects, as, for instance, Lingayats, but is not like Vishnuism

split up into a number of Churches each founded by a human teacher and

provided by him with a special creed.

Most Indian sects are in their origin theistic, that is to say, they

take a particular deity and identify him with the Supreme Being. But

the pantheistic tendency does not disappear. Popular religion

naturally desires a personal deity. But it is significant that the

personal deity frequently assumes pantheistic attributes and is

declared to be both the world and the human soul. The best known sects

arose after Islam had entered India and some of them, such as the

Sikhs, show a blending of Hindu and Moslem ideas. But if Mohammedan

influence favoured the formation of corporations pledged to worship

one particular deity, it acted less by introducing something new than

by quickening a line of thought already existing. The Bhagavad-gita is

as complete an exposition of sectarian pantheism as any utterances

posterior to Mohammedanism.

The characteristic doctrine of sectarian Hinduism is _bhakti_, faith

or devotion. The older word _sraddha_, which is found in the Vedas, is

less emotional for it means simply belief in the existence of a deity,

whereas _bhakti_ can often be rendered by love. It is passionate,

self-oblivious devotion to a deity who in return (though many would

say there is no bartering) bestows his grace (_prasada_ or

_anugraha_). St. Augustine in defining faith says: "Quid est credere

in Deum? credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, et

ejus membris incorporari."[425] This is an excellent paraphrase of

_bhakti_ and the words have an oriental ring which is not quite that

of the New Testament. Though the doctrine of _bhakti_ marks the

beginning of a new epoch in Hinduism it is not necessary to regard it

as an importation or due to Christianity. About the time of the

Christian era there was felt in many countries a craving for a gentler

and more emotional worship and though the history of Bhaktism is

obscure, Indian literature shows plainly how it may be a development

of native ideas. Its first great text-book is the Bhagavad-gita, but

it is also mentioned in the last verse of the Svetasvatara Upanishad

and Panini appears to allude to _bhakti_ felt for[426] Vasudeva. The

Katha Upanishad[427] contains the following passage:

"That Atman cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding nor by

much learning. He whom the Atman chooses, by him the Atman can be

gained. The Atman chooses him as his own." Here we have not the idea

of faith or love, but we have the negative statement that the Atman is

not won by knowledge and the positive statement that this Atman

chooses his own. In the Rig Veda[428] there is a poem put into the

mouth of Vac or speech, containing such sentiments as "I give wealth

to him who gives sacrifice.... I am that through which one eats,

breathes, sees, and hears.... Him that I love I make strong, to be a

priest, a seer, a sage." This reads like an ancient preliminary study

for the Bhagavad-gita. Like Krishna the deity claims to be in all

and, like him, to reward her votaries. It is true that the "Come unto

me" is not distinctly expressed, but it is surely struggling for

expression.[429] Again, in the Kaushitaki Upanishad (III. 1 and 2)

Indra says to Pratardana, who had asked him for a boon, "Know me only:

that is, what I deem most beneficial to man, that he should know

me.... He who meditates on me as life and immortality gains his full

life in this world and in heaven immortality." Here the relation of

the devotee to the deity is purely intellectual not emotional, but the

idea that intellectual devotion directed to a particular deity will be

rewarded is clearly present. In the Rig Veda this same Indra is

called a deliverer and advocate; a friend, a brother and a father;

even a father and mother in one. Here the worshipper does not talk of

_bhakti_ because he does not analyze his feelings, but clearly these

phrases are inspired by affectionate devotion.

Nor is the spirit of _bhakti_ absent from Buddhism. The severe

doctrine of the older schools declares that the Buddha is simply a

teacher and that every man must save himself. But since the teacher is

the source of the knowledge which saves, it is natural to feel for him

grateful and affectionate devotion. This sentiment permeates the two

books of poems called Thera and Therigatha and sometimes finds clear

expression.[430] In the commentary on the Dhammapada[431] the doctrine

of salvation by devotion is affirmed in its extreme form, namely that

a dying man who has faith in the Buddha will be reborn in heaven. But

this commentary is not of early date and the doctrine quoted is

probably an instance of the Hinayana borrowing the attractive features

of the Mahayana. The sutras about Amitabha's paradise, which were

composed about the time of the Christian era and owe something to

Persian though not to Christian influence, preach faith in Amitabha as

the whole of religion. They who believe in him and call on his name

will go to heaven.

When bhakti was once accepted as a part of Indian religion, it was

erected into a principle, analogous or superior to knowledge and was

defined in Sutras[432] similar to those of the Sankhya and Vedanta.

But its importance in philosophy is small, whereas its power as an

impulse in popular religion has been enormous. To estimate its moral

and intellectual value is difficult, for like so much in Hinduism it

offers the sharpest contrasts. Its obvious manifestations may seem to

be acts of devotion which cannot be commended ethically and belief in

puerile stories: yet we find that this offensive trash continually

turns into gems of religious thought unsurpassed in the annals of

Buddhism and Christianity.

The doctrine of bhakti is common to both Vishnuites and Sivaites. It

is perhaps in general estimation associated with the former more than

with the latter, but this is because the Bhagavad-gita and various

forms of devotion to Krishna are well known, whereas the Tamil

literature of Dravidian Sivaism is ignored by many European scholars.

One might be inclined to suppose that the emotional faith sprang up

first in the worship of Vishnu, for the milder god seems a natural

object for love, whereas Siva has to undergo a certain transformation

before he can evoke such feelings. But there is no evidence that this

is the historical development of the bhakti sentiment, and if the

Bhagavad-gita is emphatic in enjoining the worship of Krishna only,

the Svetasvatara and Maitrayaniya Upanishads favour Siva, and he is

abundantly extolled in many parts of the Mahabharata. Here, as so

often, exact chronology fails us in the early history of these sects,

but it is clear that the practice of worshipping Siva and Vishnu, as

being each by himself all-sufficient, cannot have begun much later

than the Christian era and may have begun considerably earlier, even

though people did not call themselves Saivas or Vaishnavas.

Bhakti is often associated with the doctrine of the playfulness of

God. This idea--so strange to Europe[433]--may have its roots partly

in the odd non-moral attributes of some early deities. Thus the Rudra

of the Satarudriya hymn is a queer character and a trickster. But it

soon takes a philosophical tinge and is used to explain the creation

and working of the universe which is regarded not as an example of

capricious, ironical, inscrutable action, but rather as manifesting

easy, joyous movement and the exuberant rhythm of a dance executed for

its own sake. The European can hardly imagine a sensible person doing

anything without an object: he thinks it almost profane to ascribe

motiveless action to the Creator: he racks his brain to discover any

purpose in creation which is morally worthy and moderately in accord

with the facts of experience. But he can find none. The Hindu, on the

contrary, argues that God being complete and perfect cannot be

actuated by aims or motives, for all such impulses imply a desire to

obtain something, whereas a perfect and complete being is one which by

its very definition needs neither change nor addition. Therefore,

whatever activity is ascribed to the creator must not be thought of as

calculating, purposeful endeavour, but as spontaneous, exultant

movement, needing and admitting no explanation, and analogous to sport

and play rather than to the proceedings of prudent people. This view

of the divine activity is expounded by so serious a writer as Sankara

in his commentary on the Vedanta Sutras, and it also finds

mythological expression in numerous popular legends. The Tamil

Puranas describe the sixty-four miracles of Siva as his amusements:

his laughter and joyous movements brighten all things, and the street

minstrels sing "He sports in the world. He sports in the soul."[434]

He is supposed to dance in the Golden Hall of the temple at

Chidambaram and something of the old legends of the Satarudriya hangs

about such popular titles as the Deceiver and the Maniac (_Kalvar_)

and the stories of his going about disguised and visiting his

worshippers in the form of a mendicant. The idea of sport and

playfulness is also prominent in Vishnuism. It is a striking feature

in the cultus of both the infant and the youthful Krishna, but I

have not found it recorded in the severer worship of Rama.

Another feature of Hindu sects is the extravagant respect paid to

Gurus or teachers. The sanctity of the Guru is an old conviction in

India. By common consent he is entitled to absolute obedience and

offences against him are heinous crimes. But in sectarian literature

there appears a new claim, namely, that the Guru in some way is or

represents the god whose worship he teaches. If the deity is thought

of primarily as a saviour, the Guru is said to deliver from suffering

and hell: if he requires surrender and sacrifice, then person and

possessions must be dedicated to the Guru. Membership of a sect can

be attained only by initiation at the hands of a Guru who can teach a

special mantra or formula of which each sect has its own. In some of

the more modern sects the Guru need not be a Brahman, but if he cannot

be venerated for his caste, the deficiency is compensated by the

respect which he receives as a repository of oral teaching. The

scriptural basis of many sects is dubious and even when it exists,

many of the devout (especially women) have not the inclination or

ability to read and therefore take their religion from the lips of the

Guru, who thus becomes an oracle and source of truth. In Bengal, the

family Guru is a regular institution in respectable castes. In many

sects the founder or other prominent saint is described as an

incarnation and receives veneration after death.[435]

This veneration or deification of the Guru is found in most sects and

assumes as extreme a form among the Saivas as among the Vaishnavas.

The Saiva Siddhanta teaches that divine instruction can be received

only from one who is both god and man, and that the true Guru is an

incarnation of Siva. Thus the works of Manikka-Vacagar and Umapati

speak of Siva coming to his devotees in the form of the Guru. In the

sects that worship Krishna the Gurus are frequently called Gosain

(Goswami).[436] Sometimes they are members of a particular family, as

among the Vallabhacaryas. In other sects there is no hereditary

principle and even a Sudra is eligible as Guru.

One other feature of Sectarian Hinduism must be mentioned. It may be

described as Tantrism or, in one of its aspects, as the later Yoga and

is a combination of practices and theories which have their roots in

the old literature and began to form a connected doctrine at least as

early as the eighth century A.D. Some of its principal ideas are as

follows: (i) Letters and syllables (and also their written forms and

diagrams) have a potent influence both for the human organism and for

the universe. This idea is found in the early Upanishads[437] and is

fully developed in the later Sectarian Upanishads. (ii) The human

organism is a miniature copy of the universe.[438] It contains many

lines or channels (nadi) along which the nerve force moves and also

nervous centres distributed from the hips to the head, (iii) In the

lowest centre resides a force identical with the force which creates

the universe.[439] When by processes which are partly physical it is

roused and made to ascend to the highest centre, emancipation and

bliss are obtained. (iv) There is a mysterious connection between the

process of cosmic evolution and sound, especially the sacred sound

_Om._

These ideas are developed most thoroughly in Saktist works, but are by

no means peculiar to them. They are found in the Pancaratra and the

later Puranas and have influenced almost all modern sects, although

those which are based on emotional devotion are naturally less

inclined to favour physical and magical means of obtaining salvation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 401: The population of India (about 315 millions) is larger

than that of Europe without Russia.]

[Footnote 402: But compare the English poet

"Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the crannies,

... but if I could understand

What you are, root and all, and all in all

I should know what God and man is."]

[Footnote 403: Efforts are now being made by Hindus to suppress this

institution.]

[Footnote 404: In the Vedic funeral ceremonies the wife lies down by

her dead husband and is called back to the world of the living which

points to an earlier form of the rite where she died with him. But

even at this period, those who did not follow the Vedic customs may

have killed widows with their husbands (see too Ath. Veda, XII. 3),

and later, the invaders from Central Asia probably reinforced the

usage. The much-abused Tantras forbid it.]

[Footnote 405: For the history of the Ramayana and Mahabharata and

the dates assignable to the different periods of growth, see

Winternitz, _Gesch. Ind. Lit._ vol. I. p. 403 and p. 439. Also

Hopkins' _Great Epic of India_, p. 397. The two poems had assumed

something like their present form in the second and fourth centuries

A.D. respectively. These are probably the latest dates for any

substantial additions or alterations and there is considerable

evidence that poems called Bharata and Ramayana were well known early

in the Christian era. Thus in Asvaghosha's Sutralankara (story XXIV)

they are mentioned as warlike poems inculcating unbuddhist views. The

Ramayana is mentioned in the Mahavibhasha and was known to Vasubandhu

(_J.R.A.S._ 1907, p. 99). A Cambojan inscription dating from the first

years of the seventh century records arrangements made for the

recitation of the Ramayana, Purana and complete (asesha) Bharata,

which implies that they were known in India considerably earlier. See

Barth, _Inscrip. Sanscrites de Cambodge_, pp. 29-31. The Mahabharata

itself admits that it is the result of gradual growth for in the

opening section it says that the Bharata consists of 8,800 verses,

24,000 verses and 100,000 verses.]

[Footnote 406: Hardy, _Indische Religionsgeschichte_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 407: But some of these latter sacrifice images made of dough

instead of living animals.]

[Footnote 408: It is said that the Agnishtoma was performed in Benares

in 1898, and in the last few years I am told that one or two Vedic

sacrifices have been offered annually in various parts of southern

India. I have myself seen the sites where such sacrifices were offered

in 1908-9 in Mysore city and in Chidambaram, and in 1912 at Wei near

Poona. The most usual form of sacrifice now-a-days is said to be the

Vajapeya. Much Vedic ritual is still preserved in the domestic life of

the Nambathiri and other Brahmans of southern India. See Cochin,

_Tribes and Castes_, and Thurston, _Castes and Tribes of southern

India._]

[Footnote 409: The outline of a stupa may be due to imitation of

houses constructed with curved bamboos as Vincent Smith contends

(_History of Fine Art_, p. 17). But this is compatible with the view

that stone buildings with this curved outline had come to be used

specially as funeral monuments before Buddhism popularized in India

and all Eastern Asia the architectural form called stupa.]

[Footnote 410: The temple of Aihole near Badami seems to be a

connecting link between a Buddhist stupa with a pradakshina path and

a Hindu shrine.]

[Footnote 411: In most temples (at least in southern India) there are

two images: the _mula-vigraha_ which is of stone and fixed in the

sanctuary, and the _utsava-vigraha_ which is smaller, made of metal

and carried in processions.]

[Footnote 412: Thus Bhattacharya (_Hindu Castes and Sects_, p. 127)

enumerates eleven classes of Brahmans, who "have a very low status on

account of their being connected with the great public shrines," and

adds that mere residence in a place of pilgrimage for a few

generations tends to lower the status of a Brahmanic family.]

[Footnote 413: Thus in Bengal there is a special class, the Barna

Brahmans, who perform religious rites for the lower castes, and are

divided into six classes according to the castes to whom they

minister. Other Brahmans will not eat or intermarry with them or even

take water from them.]

[Footnote 414: This is extraordinarily like the temple ritual of the

ancient Egyptians. For some account of the construction and ritual of

south Indian temples see Richards in _J. of Mythic Soc_. 1919, pp.

158-107.]

[Footnote 415: But Vedic mantras are used in these ceremonies. The

libations of water or other liquids are said to be accompanied by the

mantras recited at the Soma sacrifice.]

[Footnote 416: At these sacrifices there is no elaborate ritual or

suggestion of symbolism. The animal is beheaded and the inference is

that Kali likes it. Similarly simple is the offering of coco-nuts to

Kali. The worshipper gives a nut to the pujari who splits it in two

with an axe, spills the milk and hands back half the nut to the

worshipper. This is the sort of primitive offering that might be made

to an African fetish.]

[Footnote 417: See especially the Ambattha Sutta (Dig. Nik. 3) and

Rhys Davids's introduction.]

[Footnote 418: See Weber, _Die Vajrasuchi_ and Nanjio, Catal. No.

1303. In Ceylon at the present day only members of the higher castes

can become Bhikkhus.]

[Footnote 419: But it is said that in Southern India serious questions

of caste are reported to the abbot of the Sringeri monastery for his

decision.]

[Footnote 420: The modern Lingayats demur to the statement that their

founder rejected caste.]

[Footnote 421: So too in the cakras of the Saktists all castes are

equal during the performance of the ceremony.]

[Footnote 422: Some (Khandelwals, Dasa Srimalis and Palliwals) include

both Jains and Vaishnavas: the Agarwals are mostly Vaishnavas but some

of them are Jains and some worship Siva and Kali. Jogendra Nath

Bhattacharya, _Hindu Castes and Sects_, pp. 205 ff.]

[Footnote 423: The names used are not the same. The four Vedic castes

are called _Varna_: the hundreds of modern castes are called _Jati._]

[Footnote 424: Sampradaya seems to be the ordinary Sanskrit word for

sectarian doctrine. It means traditional teaching transmitted from one

teacher to another.]

[Footnote 425: I am discussing elsewhere the possible debt which

Christianity and Hinduism may owe to one another.]

[Footnote 426: Panini, IV. 3. 95-98.]

[Footnote 427: Katha Up. I. 1. 2, 23.]

[Footnote 428: R.V. X. 125.]

[Footnote 429: Compare too the hymns of the R.V. to Varuna as a

rudimentary expression of Bhakti from the worshipper's point of view.]

[Footnote 430: _E.g._ Theragatha, 818-841 and 1231-1245.]

[Footnote 431: I. 2.]

[Footnote 432: They are called the Sandilya Sutras and appear to be

not older than about the twelfth century A.D., but the tradition which

connects them with the School of Sandilya may be just, for the

teaching of this sage (Chandog. Up. III. 14) lays stress on will and

belief. Ramanuja (Sribhashya, II. 2. 43) refers to Sandilya as the

alleged author of the Pancaratra. There are other Bhakti sutras called

Naradiya and ascribed to Narada, published and translated in _The

Sacred Books of the Hindus_, No. 23. They consist of 84 short

aphorisms. Raj. Mitra in his notices of Sanskrit MSS. describes a

great number of modern works dealing with Bhakti.]

[Footnote 433: Yet it is found in Francis Thompson's poem called _Any

Saint_

So best

God loves to jest

With children small, a freak

Of heavenly hide and seek

Fit

For thy wayward wit.]

[Footnote 434: Pope, _The History of Manikka-Vacagar_, p. 23. For the

64 sports of Siva see Siddhanta Dipika, vol. IX.]

[Footnote 435: _E.g._ Ramanuja, Nammarvar, Basava.]

[Footnote 436: Apparently meaning "possessor of cows," and originally

a title of the youthful Krishna. It is also interpreted as meaning

Lord of the Vedas or Lord of his own senses.]

[Footnote 437: _E.g._ the beginning of the Chand. Up. about the syllable

_Om._ See too the last section of the Aitareya Aran. The Yoga

Upanishads analyse and explain _Om_ and some Vishnuite Upanishads

(Nrisimha and Ramata-paniya) enlarge on the subject of letters and

diagrams.]

[Footnote 438: The same idea pervades the old literature in a slightly

different form. The parts of the sacrifice are constantly identified

with parts of the universe or of the human body.]

[Footnote 439: The cakras are mentioned in Act V of Malati and Madhava

written early in the eighth century. The doctrine of the nadis occurs

in the older Upanishads (_e.g._ Chand. and Maitrayana) in a rudimentary

form.]

CHAPTER XXVII

THE EVOLUTION OF HINDUISM. BHAGAVATAS AND PASUPATAS

1

India is a literary country and naturally so great a change as the

transformation of the old religion into theistic sects preaching

salvation by devotion to a particular deity found expression in a long

and copious literature. This literature supplements and supersedes the

Vedic treatises but without impairing their theoretical authority,

and, since it cannot compare with them in antiquity and has not the

same historic interest, it has received little attention from

Indianists until the present century. But in spite of its defects it

is of the highest importance for an understanding of medieval and

contemporary Hinduism. Much of it is avowedly based on the principle

that in this degenerate age the Veda is difficult to understand,[440]

and that therefore God in His mercy has revealed other texts

containing a clear compendium of doctrine. Thus the great Vishnuite

doctor Ramanuja states authoritatively "The incontrovertible fact then

is as follows: The Lord who is known from the Vedanta texts ...

recognising that the Vedas are difficult to fathom by all beings other

than himself ... with a view to enable his devotees to grasp the true

meaning of the Vedas, himself composed the Pancaratra-Sastra."[441]

This later sectarian literature falls into several divisions.

A. Certain episodes of the Mahabharata. The most celebrated of these

is the Bhagavad-gita, which is probably anterior to the Christian era.

Though it is incorporated in the Epic it is frequently spoken of as an

independent work. Later and less celebrated but greatly esteemed by

Vishnuites is the latter part of book XII, commonly known as

Narayaniya.[442] Both these episodes and others[443] are closely

analogous to metrical Upanishads. The Mahabharata even styles itself

(I. 261) the Veda of Krishna (Karshna).

The Ramayana does not contain religious episodes comparable to those

mentioned but the story has more than once been re-written in a religious

and philosophic form. Of such versions the Adhyatma-Ramayana[444] and

Yoga-vasishtha-Ramayana are very popular.

B. Though the Puranas[445] are not at all alike, most of them show

clear affinity both as literature and as religious thought to the

various strata of the Mahabharata, and to the Law Books, especially

the metrical code of Manu. These all represent a form of orthodoxy

which while admitting much that is not found in the Veda is still

Brahmanic and traditionalist. The older Puranas (_e.g._ Matsya, Vayu,

Markandeya, Vishnu), or at least the older parts of them, are the

literary expression of that Hindu reaction which gained political

power with the accession of the Gupta dynasty. They are less

definitely sectarian than later works such as the Narada and Linga

Puranas, yet all are more or less sectarian.

The most influential Purana is the Bhagavata, one of the great

scriptures for all sects which worship Krishna. It is said to have

been translated into every language of India and forty versions in

Bengali alone are mentioned.[446] It was probably composed in the

eighth or ninth century.[447] A free translation of the tenth book

into Hindi, called the Prem Sagar or Ocean of Love, is greatly revered

in northern India.[448] Other sectarian Puranas are frequently read

at temple services. Besides the eighteen great Puranas there are many

others, and in south India at any rate they were sometimes composed in

the vernacular, as for instance the Periya Purana (_c._ 1100 A.D.).

These vernacular Puranas seem to be collections of strangely

fantastic fairy tales.

C. The word Tantra originally meant a manual giving the essentials of

a subject but later usage tends to restrict it to works, whether Hindu

or Buddhist, inculcating the worship of Siva's spouse. But there are

exceptions to this restriction: the Panca-tantra is a collection of

stories and the Lakshmi-tantra is a Vishnuite work.[449]

The fact is that a whole class of Sanskrit religious literature is

described by the titles Tantra, Agama and Samhita,[450] which taken

in a wide sense are practically synonymous, though usage is inclined

to apply the first specially to Saktist works, the second to Sivaite

and the third to Vishnuite. The common character of all these

productions is that they do not attempt to combine Vedic rites and

ideas with sectarian worship, but boldly state that, since the

prescriptions of the Veda are too hard for this age, some generous

deity has revealed an easier teaching. This teaching naturally varies

in detail, but it usually comprises devotion to some special form of

the godhead and also a special ceremonial, which commences with

initiation and includes the use of mystic formulae, letters and

diagrams. Tantras, Agamas and Samhitas all treat of their

subject-matter in four divisions[451] the first of which relates to

the great problems of philosophy, the second to the discipline

necessary for uniting the self and God; the third and fourth to

ceremonial.

These works have another feature in common, namely that they are

little known except to those Hindus who use them for religious

purposes and are probably not very anxious to see them published.

Though they are numerous, few of them have been printed and those few

have not been much studied by European scholars. I shall say something

more about them below in treating of the various sects. Some are of

respectable antiquity but it is also clear that modern texts pass

under ancient names. The Pancaratram and Pasupatam which are Vishnuite

and Sivaite Samhitas are mentioned in the Mahabharata, and some

extant Vishnuite Samhitas were perhaps composed in the fourth century

A.D.[452] Ramanuja as quoted above states that the Pancaratra-sastra

(apparently the same as the Pancaratra-tantra which he also mentions)

was composed by Vasudeva himself and also cites as scripture the

Sattvata, Paushkara and Parama Samhitas. In the same context he

speaks of the Mahabharata as Bharata-Samhita and the whole passage is

interesting as being a statement by a high authority of the reasons

for accepting a non-Vedic work like the Pancaratra as revealed

scripture.

As already indicated European usage makes the words Tantra, Tantrism

and tantric refer to the worship of goddesses. It would be better to

describe this literature and worship as Saktism and to use Tantrism

for a tendency in doctrine and ceremonial which otherwise has no

special name. I have been informed by Tamil Pandits that at the

present day the ritual in some temples is smarta or according to

Smriti, but in the majority according to the Agamas or tantric. The

former which is followed by many well-known shrines (for instance in

Benares and in the great temples of south India) conforms to the

precepts of the Puranas, especially on festival days. The officiants

require no special initiation and burnt offerings are presented. But

the Agamic ritual can be performed only by priests who have received

initiation, burnt offerings rarely form part of the ceremony and

vernacular hymns are freely used.[453]

Such hymns however as well as processions and other forms of worship

which appeal directly to the religious emotions are certainly not

tantric. Tantrism is a species of religious magic, differing from the

Vedic sacrifices in method rather than principle.[454] For all that,

it sets aside the old rites and announces itself as the new

dispensation for this age. Among its principal features are the

following. The Tantras are a scripture for all, and lay little stress

on caste: the texts and the ritual which they teach can be understood

only after initiation and with the aid of a teacher: the ritual

consists largely in the correct use of spells, magical or sacramental

syllables and letters, diagrams and gestures: its object is less to

beseech than to compel the god to come to the worshipper: another

object is to unite the worshipper to the god and in fact transform him

into the god: man is a microcosm corresponding to the macrocosm or

universe: the spheres and currents of the universe are copied in

miniature in the human body and the same powers rule the same parts in

the greater and the lesser scheme. Such ideas are widely disseminated

in almost all modern sects,[455] though without forming their

essential doctrine, but I must repeat that to say all sects are

tantric does not mean that they are all Saktist. But Saktist sects

are fundamentally and thoroughly tantric in their theory and

practice.

D. Besides the Sanskrit books mentioned above numerous vernacular

works, especially collections of hymns, are accepted as authoritative

by various sects, and almost every language has scriptures of its own.

In the south two Tamil hymnals, the Devaram of the Sivaites and

Nalayira Prabandham of the Vishnuites, are recited in temples and are

boldly stated to be revelations equivalent to the Veda. In northern

India may be mentioned the Hindi Ramayana of Tulsi Das, which is

almost universally venerated, the Bhaktamala of Nabha Das,[456] the

Sur-sagar of Surdas and the Prem Sagar. In Assam the Nam Gosha of

Madhab Deb is honoured with the same homage as a sacred image. The

awkwardness of admitting direct inspiration in late times is avoided

by the theory of spiritual descent, that is to say of doctrinal

transmission from teacher to teacher, the divine revelation having

been made to the original teacher at a discreetly remote epoch.

2

In considering the evolution of modern Hinduism out of the old Vedic

religion, three of the many factors responsible for this huge and

complicated result deserve special attention. The first is the unusual

intensity and prevalence of the religious temperament. This has a

double effect, both conservative and alterative: ancient customs

receive an unreasonable respect: they are not abolished for their

immorality or absurdity; but since real interest implies some measure

of constructive power, there is a constant growth of new ideas and

reinterpretations resulting in inconsistent combinations. The second

is the absence of hierarchy and discipline. The guiding principle of

the Brahmans has always been not so much that they have a particular

creed to enforce, as that whatever is the creed of India they must be

its ministers. Naturally every priest is the champion of his own god

or rite, and such zeal may lead to occasional conflicts. But though

the antithesis between the ritualism of the older Brahmanism and the

faith or philosophy of Sivaism and Vishnuism may remind us of the

differences between the Catholic Church and Protestant reformers, yet

historically there is no resemblance in the development of the

antithesis. To some extent Hinduism showed a united front against

Buddhism, but the older Brahmanism had no organization which enabled

it to stand as a separate Church in opposition to movements which it

disliked. The third factor is the deeply rooted idea, which reappears

at frequent intervals from the time of the Upanishads until to-day,

that rules and rites and even creeds are somehow part of the lower and

temporal order of things which the soul should transcend and leave

behind. This idea tinges the whole of Indian philosophy and

continually crops up in practice. The founder of a strange sect who

declares that nothing is necessary but faith in a particular deity and

that all ceremonies and caste observances are superfluous is not in

the popular esteem a subverter of Hinduism.

The history of both Sivaism and Vishnuism illustrates these features.

Siva begins as a wild deity of non-moral attributes. As the religious

sense develops he is not rejected like the less reputable deities of

the Jews and Arabs but remains and collects round himself other

strange wild ideas which in time are made philosophical but not

ethical. The rites of the new religion are, if not antagonistic, at

least alternative to the ancient sacrifices, yet far from being

forbidden they are performed by Brahmans and modern Indian writers

describe Siva as peculiarly the Brahman's god. Finally the Sivaite

schools of the Tamil country reject in successive stages the grosser

and more formal elements until there remains nothing but an ecstatic

and mystical monotheism. Similarly among the Vishnuites Krishna is

the centre of legends which have even less of conventional morality.

Yet out of them arises a doctrine that the love of God is the one

thing needful so similar to Christian teaching that many have supposed

it must be borrowed.

The first clear accounts of the worship of Siva and Vishnu are

contained in the epics and indicate the existence of sectarian

religion, that is to say of exclusive devotion to one or other deity.

But there is also a tendency to find a place for both, a tendency

which culminates in the composite deity Sankara Narayana already

mentioned. Many of the Puranas[457] reflect this view and praise the

two deities impartially. The Mahabharata not unfrequently does the

same but the general impression left by this poem is that the various

parts of which it consists have been composed or revised in a

sectarian spirit. The body of the work is a narrative of exploits in

which the hero Krishna plays a great part but revised so as to make

him appear often as a deity and sometimes as the Supreme Spirit. But

much of the didactic matter which has been added, particularly books

XII and XIII, breathes an equally distinct Sivaite spirit and in the

parts where Krishna is treated as a mere hero, the principal god

appears to be not Vishnu but Siva.

The Mahabharata and Puranas contain legends which, though obscure,

refer to conflicts of the worshippers of Siva with those who offered

Vedic sacrifices as well as with the votaries of Vishnu, and to a

subsequent reconciliation and blending of the various cults. Among

these is the well-known story of Daksha's sacrifice to which Siva was

not invited. Enraged at the omission he violently breaks up the

sacrifice either in person or through a being whom he creates for the

purpose, assaults the officiants and the gods who are present, and is

pacified by receiving a share. Similarly we hear[458] that he once

seized a victim at a sacrifice and that the gods in fear allotted to

him the choicest portion of the offerings. These stories indicate that

at one time Brahmans did not countenance his worship and he is even

represented as saying to his wife that according to rule (dharmatah)

he has no share in the sacrifice.[459] Possibly human victims were

immolated in his honour, as they were in Kali's until recently, for in

the Mahabharata[460] it is related how Krishna expostulated with

Jarasandha who proposed to offer to Siva a sacrifice of captive kings.

In the Vishnu-Purana, Krishna fights with Siva and burns Benares.

But by the time that the Mahabharata was put together these quarrels

were not in an acute stage. In several passages[461] Krishna is made

to worship Siva as the Supreme Spirit and in others[462] vice versa

Siva celebrates the glory of Krishna. Vishnuites do not disbelieve

in Siva but they regard him as a god of this world, whereas their own

deity is cosmic and universal. Many Vishnuite works[463] are said to

be revealed by Siva who acts as an intermediary between us and higher

spheres.

3

In the following sections I shall endeavour to relate the beginnings

of sectarianism. The sects which are now most important are relatively

modern and arose in the twelfth century or later, but the sectarian

spirit can be traced back several centuries before our era. By

sectarians I mean worshippers of Siva or Vishnu who were neither in

complete sympathy with the ancient Brahmanism nor yet excommunicated

by it and who had new texts and rites to replace or at least

supplement the Vedas and the Vedic sacrifices. It is probable that the

different types of early Indian religion had originally different

geographical spheres. Brahmanism flourished in what we call the United

Provinces: Buddhism arose in the regions to the east of this district

and both Vishnuism and Sivaism are first heard of in the west.

The earliest sect of which we have any record is that of the

Bhagavatas, who were or became Vishnuite. At a date which it is

impossible to fix but considerably before the epoch of Panini, a

tribe named the Yadavas occupied the country between Muttra and the

shores of Gujarat. Sects of this tribe were called Vrishni and

Sattvata. The latter name has passed into theology. Krishna belonged

to this sect and it is probable that this name Vasudeva was not

originally a patronymic but the name of a deity worshipped by it. The

hero Krishna was identified with this god and subsequently when the

Brahmans wished to bring this powerful sect within the pale of

orthodoxy both were identified with Vishnu. In the Mahabharata[464]

the rule or ritual (vidhi) of the Sattvatas is treated as equivalent

to that of the Bhagavatas and a work called the Sattvata Samhita is

still extant. Bhagavata appears to be the most general name of the

sect or sects and means simply _of the Lord_ (Bhagavat), that is

worshippers of the one Lord.[465] Their religion is also called

Ekantika dharma, or the religion with one object, that is

monotheism.[466]

A considerable literature grew up in this school and the principal

treatise is often spoken of as Pancaratra because it was revealed by

Narayana during five nights.[467] The name however appears to be

strictly speaking applicable to a system or body of doctrine and the

usual term for the books in which this system is expounded is

Samhita. All previous discussions and speculations about these works,

of which little was known until recently, are superseded by Schrader's

publication of the Ahirbudhnya Samhita, which appears to be

representative of its class.[468] The names of over two hundred are

cited and of these more than thirty are known to be extant in MS.[469]

The majority were composed in north-western India but the Pancaratra

doctrine spread to the Dravidian countries and new Samhitas were

produced there, the chief of which, the Isvara Samhita, can hardly be

later than 800 A.D.[470] Of the older works Schrader thinks that the

Ahirbudhnya was written in Kashmir[471] between 300 and 800 A.D. and

perhaps as early as the fourth century. It mentions the Sattvata and

Jayakhya, which must therefore be older.

The most remarkable feature of this literature is its elaborate

doctrine of evolution and emanation from the Deity, the world process

being conceived in the usual Hindu fashion as an alternation of

production and destruction. A distinction is drawn between pure and

gross creation. What we commonly call the Universe is bounded by the

shell of the cosmic egg and there are innumerable such eggs, each with

its own heavens and its own tutelary deities such as Brahma and Siva

who are sharply distinguished from Vishnu. But beyond this multitude

of worlds are more mysterious and spiritual spheres, the highest

heaven or Vaikuntha wherein dwells God in his highest form (Para)

with his Saktis,[472] certain archangels and liberated souls.

Evolution commences when at the end of the cosmic night the Sakti of

Vishnu[473] is differentiated from her Lord and assumes the two forms

of Force and Matter.[474] He as differentiated from her is Vasudeva a

personal deity with six attributes[475] and is the first emanation, or

Vyuha, of the ineffable godhead. From him proceeds Sankarshana, from

Sankarshana Pradyumna, and from Pradyumna Aniruddha. These three

Vyuhas take part in creation but also correspond to or preside over

certain aspects of human personality, namely Sankarshana to the soul

that animates all beings, Pradyumna to intelligence and Aniruddha to

individuality. Strange to say these seem to be the names of

distinguished personages in the Sattvata or Vrishni clan.[476] Mere

deification occurs in many countries but the transformation of heroes

into metaphysical or psychological terms could hardly have happened

outside India. Next to the Vyuhas come twelve sub-Vyuhas, among whom

is Narayana,[477] and thirty-nine Avataras. All these beings are

outside the cosmic eggs and our gross creation. As a prelude to this

last there takes place the evolution of the aggregates or sources from

which individual souls and matter are drawn, of space and of time, and

finally of the elements, the process as described seeming to follow an

older form of the Sankhya philosophy than that known to us. The task

of human souls is to attain liberation, but though the language of the

Samhitas is not entirely consistent, the older view is that they

become like to God, not that they are absorbed in him.[478]

Thus it is not incorrect to say that the Bhagavata religion is

monotheistic and recognizes a creator of souls. Indeed Sankara[479]

condemns it on the very ground that it makes individual souls

originate from Vasudeva, in which case since they have an origin they

must also have an end. But Ramanuja in replying to this criticism

seems to depart from the older view, for he says that the Supreme

Being voluntarily abides in four forms which include the soul, mind

and the principle of individuality. This, if not Pantheism, is very

different from European monotheism.[480]

The history of these Bhagavatas, Pancaratras or worshippers of Vishnu

must have begun several centuries before our era, for there are

allusions to them in Panini and the Niddesa.[481] The names of

Vasudeva and Sankarshana occur in old inscriptions[482] and the Greek

Heliodoros calls himself a Bhagavata on the column found at Besnagar

and supposed to date from the first part of the second century B.C.

The Pancaratra was not Brahmanic in origin[483] and the form of the

Sankhya philosophy from which it borrowed was also un-Brahmanic. It

seems to have grown up in north-western India in the centuries when

Iranian influence was strong and may owe to Zoroastrianism the

doctrine of the Vyuhas which finds a parallel in the relation of Ahura

Mazda to Spenta Mainyu, his Holy Spirit, and in the Fravashis. It is

also remarkable that God is credited with six attributes comparable

with the six Amesha Spentas. In other ways the Pancaratra seems to

have some connection with late Buddhism. Though it lays little stress

on the worship of goddesses, yet all the Vyuhas and Avataras are

provided with Saktis, like the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of tantric

Buddhism, and in the period of quiescence which follows on the

dissolution of the Universe Vishnu is described under the name of

Sunya or the void. It attaches great importance to the _Cakra_, the

wheel or discus which denotes Vishnu's will to be,[484] to evolve and

maintain the universe, and it may have contributed some ideas to the

very late form of Buddhism called Kalacakra. This very word is used in

the Ahirbudhnya Samhita as the name of one of the many wheels engaged

in the work of evolution.

Though the Pancaratra is connected with Krishna in its origin, it

gives no prominence to devotion to him under that name as do modern

sects and it knows nothing of the pastoral Krishna.[485] It

recommends the worship of the four Vyuhas[486] presiding over the four

quarters in much the same way that late Buddhism adores the four Jinas

depicted in somewhat similar forms. Similarly the Sivaites say that

Siva has five faces, namely Isana or Sadasiva (the highest,

undifferentiated form of the deity) at the top and below Vamadeva,

Aghora, Tatpurusha, and Sadyojata, presiding respectively over the

north, south, east and west. It is thus clear that in the early

centuries of our era (or perhaps even before it) there was a tendency

in Vishnuism, Sivaism and Mahayanist Buddhism alike to represent the

ineffable godhead as manifested in four aspects somewhat more

intelligible to human minds and producing in their turn many inferior

manifestations. Possibly the theory originated among the

Vishnuites,[487] but as often happened in India it was adopted by

their opponents. None of these theories are of much importance as

living beliefs at the present day but their influence can be seen in

iconography.

As a sect the Pancaratras seem to have been a subdivision of the

Bhagavatas and probably at the present day many Vishnuites would

accept the second name but not the first. The Pancaratra is studied at

only a few places in southern India but its doctrines permeate the

popular work called Bhaktamala and in view of the express approbation

of Ramanuja and other authorities it can hardly be repudiated by the

Sri-Vaishnavas. Bhagavata is sometimes used in the south as a name

for Smartas who practise Vedic rites and worship both Siva and

Vishnu.[488]

4

In these early times there were strenuous theological struggles now

forgotten, though they have left their traces in the legends which

tell how the title of Krishna and others to divine honours was

challenged. Amalgamation was the usual method of conciliation.

Several gods grew sufficiently important to become in the eyes of

their worshippers the supreme spirit and at least four were united in

the deity of the Bhagavatas, namely, Vasudeva, Krishna, Vishnu and

Narayana. Of the first three I have spoken already. Narayana never

became like Vishnu and Krishna a great mythological figure, but in

the late Vedic period he is a personification of the primaeval waters

from which all things sprang or of the spirit which moved in

them.[489] From this he easily became the supreme spirit who animates

all the universe and the name was probably acceptable to those who

desired a purer and simpler worship because it was connected with

comparatively few legends. But there is some confusion in its use, for

it is applied not only to the supreme being but to a double

incarnation of him called Nara-Narayana, and images of the pair may

still be seen in Vishnuite temples. They are said to have revealed the

true doctrine to Narada and are invoked at the beginning of each book

of the Mahabharata.[490] One of the main theses of the Narayaniya[491]

is the identity of Narayana and Vasudeva, the former being a Brahmanic,

the latter a non-Brahmanic name for the Deity.

The celebrated Bhagavad-gita[492] which is still held in such respect

that, like the New Testament or Koran, it is used in law courts for

the administration of oaths, is an early scripture of the Bhagavata

sect. In it the doctrines of Krishna's divinity, the power of faith

and the efficacy of grace are fully established. It is declared to be

too hard for flesh and blood to find by meditation their way to the

eternal imperceptible spirit, whereas Krishna comes straightway to

those who make him their sole desire. "Set thy heart on me, become my

devotee, sacrifice to me and worship thou me. Then shalt thou come to

me. Truly I declare to thee thou art dear to me. Leave all (other)

religious duties and come to me as thy sole refuge. I will deliver

thee from thy sins. Sorrow not." But the evolution of Sankarshana,

etc., is not mentioned. The poem has perhaps been re-edited and

interpolated several times but the strata can hardly be distinguished,

for the whole work, if not exactly paradoxical, is eclectic and

continually argues that what is apparently highest is not best for a

particular person. The Hindus generally regard the contemplative life

as the highest, but the Bhagavad-gita is insistent in enjoining

unselfish action: it admits that the supreme reality cannot be grasped

by the mind or expressed in speech, but it recommends the worship of a

personal deity. Even the older parts of the poem appear to be

considerably later than Buddhism. But its mythology, if not Vedic, is

also hardly Puranic and it knows nothing of the legends about the

pastoral Krishna. It presupposes the Sankhya and Yoga, though in

what stage of development it is hard to say, and in many respects its

style resembles the later Upanishads. I should suppose that it assumed

its present form about the time of the Christian era, rather before

than after, and I do not think it owes anything to direct Christian

influence. In its original form it may have been considerably older.