Chapter XI: The Popular Brahmanic Faith (1)

For a long time after the Vedic age there is little that gives one an insight into the views of the people. It may be presumed, since the orthodox systems never dispensed with the established cult, that the form of the old Vedic creed was kept intact. Yet, since the real belief changed, and the cult became more and more the practice of a formality, it becomes necessary to seek, apart from the inherited ritual, the faith which formed the actual religion of the people. Inasmuch as this phase of Hindu belief has scarcely been touched upon elsewhere, it may be well to state more fully the object of the present chapter.

We have shown above that the theology of the Vedic period had resulted, before its close, in a form of pantheism, which was accompanied, as is attested by the Atharva Veda, with a demonology and witch-craft religion, the latter presumably of high antiquity. Immediately after this come the esoteric Br[=a]hmanas, in which the gods are, more or less, figures in the eyes of the priests, and the form of a Father-god rises into chief prominence, being sometimes regarded as the creative force, but at all times as the moral authority in the world. At the end of this period, however, and probably even before this period ended, there is for the first time, in the Upanishads, a new religion, that, in some regards, is esoteric. Hitherto the secrets of religious mysteries had been treated as hidden priestly wisdom, not to be revealed. But, for the most part, this wisdom is really nonsense; and when it is said in the Br[=a]hmanas, at the end of a bit of theological mystery, that it is a secret, or that 'the gods love that which is secret,' one is not persuaded by the examples given that this esoteric knowledge is intellectually valuable. But with the Upanishads there comes the antithesis of inherited belief and right belief. The latter is public property, though it is not taught carelessly. The student is not initiated into the higher wisdom till he is drilled in the lower. The most unexpected characters appear in the rôle of instructors of priests, namely, women, kings, and members of the third caste, whose deeper wisdom is promulgated oftentimes as something quite new, and sometimes is whispered in secret. Pantheism, _sams[=a]ra_,[1] and the eternal bliss of the individual spirit when eventually it is freed from further transmigration,--these three fundamental traits of the new religion are discussed in such a way as to show that they had no hold upon the general public, but they were the intellectual wealth of a few. Some of the Upanishads hide behind a veil of mystery; yet many of them, as Windisch has said, are, in a way, popular; that is, they are intended for a general public, not for priests alone. This is especially the case with the pantheistic Upanishads in their more pronounced form. But still it is only the very wise that can accept the teaching. It is not the faith of the people.

Epic literature, which is the next living literature of the Brahmans, after the Upanishads, takes one, in a trice, from the beginnings of a formal pantheism, to a pantheism already disintegrated by the newer worship of sectaries. Here the impersonal _[=a]tm[=a]_, or nameless Lord, is not only an anthropomorphic Çiva, as in the late Upanishads, where the philosophic _brahma_ is equated with a long recognized type of divinity, but _[=a]tm[=a]_ is identified with the figure of a theomorphic man.

Is there, then, nothing with which to bridge this gulf?

In our opinion the religion of the law-books, as a legitimate phase of Hindu religion, has been too much ignored. The religion of Upanishad and Ved[=a]nta, with its attractive analogies with modern speculation, has been taken as illustrative of the religion of a vast period, to the discrediting of the belief represented in the manuals of law. To these certainly the name of literature can scarcely be applied, but in their rapport with ordinary life they will be found more apt than are the profounder speculations of the philosophers to reflect the religious belief taught to the masses and accepted by them.

The study of these books casts a broad light upon that interval between the Vedic and epic periods wherein it is customary to imagine religion as being, in the main, cult or philosophy. Nor does the interest cease with the yield of necessarily scanty yet very significant facts in regard to eschatological and cosmogonic views. The gods themselves are not what they are in the rites of the cunning priests or in the dogmas of the sages. In the Hindu law there is a reversion to Vedic belief; or rather not a reversion, but here one sees again, through the froth of rites and the murk of philosophy, the under-stream of faith that still flows from the old fount, if somewhat discolored, and waters the heart of the people.

At just what time was elaborated the stupendous system of rites, which are already traditional in the Br[=a]hmanas, can never be known. Some of these rites have to do with special ceremonies, such as the royal inauguration, some are stated _soma_-sacrifices.[2] Opposed to these _soma_-feasts is the simpler and older fire-cult, which persists in the house-rituals. All of these together make up a sightly array of sacrifices.[3] The _soma_-ritual is developed in the Br[=a]hmanas. But with this class of works there must have been from ancient times another which treated of the fire-ritual, and of which the more modern representatives are the extant S[=u]tras. It is with S[=u]tras that legal literature begins, but these differ from the ritualistic S[=u]tras. Yet both are full of religious meat. In these collections, even in the more special, there is no arrangement that corresponds to western ideas of order. In a completed code, for example, there is a rough distribution of subjects under different heads, but the attempt is only tentative, and each work presents the appearance of a heterogeneous mass of regulations and laws, from which one must pick out the law for which he is seeking. The earlier legal works were in prose; the later evolved codes, of which there is a large number, in metre. It is in these two classes of house-ritual and law-ritual, which together constitute what is called Smriti, tradition-ritual (in distinction from the so-called Çruti, revelation-ritual), that one may expect to find the religion of the time; not as inculcated by the promoters of mystery, nor yet as disclosed by the philosopher, but as taught (through the priest) to the people, and as accepted by them for their daily guidance in matters of every-day observance. We glance first at the religious observances, for here, as in the case of the great sacrifices, a detailed examination would be of no more value than a collective impression; unless, indeed, one were hunting for folk-lore superstitions, of which we can treat now only in the mass. It is sufficient to understand that, according to the house-ritual (_g[r.]hya-s[=u]tra_) and the law-ritual (_dharma-s[=u]tra_, and _dharma-ç[=a]stra_),[4] for every change in life there was an appropriate ceremony and a religious observance; for every day, oblations (three at least); for every fortnight and season, a sacrifice. Religious formulae were said over the child yet unborn. From the moment of birth he was surrounded with observances.[5] At such and such a time the child's head was shaved; he was taken out to look at the sun; made to eat from a golden spoon; invested with the sacred cord, etc, etc. When grown up, a certain number of years were passed with a Guru, or tutor, who taught the boy his Veda; and to whom he acted as body-servant (a study and office often cut short in the case of Aryans who were not priests). Of the sacraments alone, such as the observances to which we have just alluded, there are no less than forty according to Gautama's laws (the name-rite, eating-rite, etc.). The pious householder who had once set up his own fire, that is, got married, must have spent most of his time, if he followed directions, in attending to some religious ceremony. He had several little rites to attend to even before he might say his prayers in the morning; and since even to-day most of these personal regulations are dutifully observed, one may assume that in the full power of Brahmanhood they were very straitly enforced.[6]

It is, therefore, important to know what these works, so closely in touch with the general public, have to say in regard to religion. What they inculcate will be the popular theology of completed Brahmanism. For these books are intended to give instruction to all the Aryan castes, and, though this instruction filtrates through the hands of the priest, one may be sure that the understanding between king and priest was such as to make the code the real norm of justice and arbiter of religious opinions. For instance, when one reads that the king is a prime divinity, and that, _quid pro quo_, the priest may be banished, but never may be punished corporally by the king, because the former is a still greater divinity, it may be taken for granted that such was received opinion. When we come to take up the Hinduism of the epic we shall point out that that work contains a religion more popular even than that of the legal literature, for one knows that this latter phase of religion was at first not taught at all, but grew up in the face of opposition. But for the present, before the rise of epic 'Hinduism,' and before taking up the heretical writings, it is a great gain to be able to scan a side of religion that may be called popular in so far as it evidently is the faith which not only was taught to the masses, but which, as is universally assumed in the law, the masses accept; whereas philosophers alone accept the _[=a]tm[=a]_ religion of the Upanishads, and the Br[=a]hmanas are not intended for the public at all, but only for initiated priests.

What, then, is the religious belief and the moral position of the Hindu law-books? In how far has philosophy affected public religion, and in what way has a reconciliation been affected between the contradictory beliefs in regard to the gods; in regard to the value of works on the one hand, and of knowledge on the other; in regard to hell as a means of punishment for sin on the one hand, and reincarnation (_sams[=a]ra_) on the other; in regard to heaven as a reward of good deeds on the one hand, and absorption into God on the other; in regard to a personal creator on the one hand, and a First Cause without personal attributes on the other?

For the philosophical treatises are known and referred to in the early codes; so that, although the completed systems post-dated the S[=u]tras, the cosmical and theological speculations of the earlier Upanishads were familiar to the authors of the legal systems.

The first general impression produced by a perusal of the law-books is that the popular religion has remained unaffected by philosophy. And this is correct in so far as that it must be put first in describing the codes, which, in the main, in keeping the ancient observances, reflect the inherited faith. When, therefore, one says that pantheism[7] succeeded polytheism in India, he must qualify the assertion. The philosophers are pantheists, but what of the vulgar? Do they give up polytheism; are they inclined to do so, or are they taught to do so? No. For there is no formal abatement in the rigor of the older creed. Whatever the wise man thought, and whatever in his philosophy was the instruction which he imparted to his peers, when he dealt with the world about him he taught his intellectual inferiors a scarcely modified form of the creed of their fathers. How in his own mind this wise man reconciled the two sets of opinion has been shown above. The works of sacrifice, with all the inherited belief implied by them, were for him preparatory studies. The elasticity of his philosophy admitted the whole world of gods, as a temporary reality, into his pantheistic scheme. It was, therefore, neither the hypocrisy of the Roman augur, nor the fear of results that in his teaching held him to the inheritance he had received. Gods, ghosts, demons, and consequently sacrifices, rites, ordeals, and formulae were not incongruous with his philosophical opinions. He himself believed in these spiritual powers and in the usefulness of serving them. It is true that he believed in their eventual doom, but so far as man was concerned they were practically real. There was, therefore, not only no reason why the sage should not inculcate the old rites, but there was every reason why he should. Especially in the case of pious but ignorant people, whose wisdom was not yet developed to a full appreciation of divine relativity, was it incumbent on him to keep them, the lower castes, to the one religion that they could comprehend.

It is thus that the apparent inconsistency in exoteric and esoteric beliefs explains itself. For the two are not contradictory. They do not exclude each other. Hindu pantheism includes polytheism with its attendant patrolatry, demonology, and consequent ritualism.[8]

With rare exceptions it was only the grosser religion that the vulgar could understand; it was only this that they were taught and believed.

Thus the old Vedic gods are revered and worshipped by name. The Sun, Indra, and all the divinities embalmed in ritual, are placated and 'satiated' with offerings, just as they had been satiated from time immemorial. But no hint is given that this is a form; or that the Vedic gods are of less account than they had been. Moreover, it is not in the inherited formulae of the ritual alone that this view is upheld. To be sure, when philosophical speculation is introduced, the Father-god comes to the fore; Brahm[=a][9] sits aloft, indulgently advising his children, as he does in the intermediate stage of the Br[=a]hmanas; and _[=a]tm[=a] (brahma)_ too is recognized to be the real being of Brahm[=a], as in the Upanishads.[10] But none of this touches the practice of the common law, where the ordinary man is admonished to fear Yama's hell and Varuna's bonds, as he would have been admonished before the philosopher grew wiser than the Vedic seers. Only personified Right, Dharma, takes his seat with shadowy Brahm[=a] among the other gods.[11]

What is the speech which the judge on the bench is ordered to repeat to the witnesses? Thus says the law-giver Manu: "When the witnesses are collected together in the court, in the presence of the plaintiff and defendant, the (Brahman) judge should call upon them to speak, kindly addressing them in the following manner: 'Whatever you know has been done in this affair ... declare it all. A witness who in testifying speaks the truth reaches the worlds where all is plenty ... such testimony is honored by Brahm[=a]. One who in testifying speaks an untruth is, all unwilling, bound fast by the cords of Varuna,[12] till an hundred births are passed.' ... (Then, speaking to one witness): 'Spirit (soul) is the witness for the Spirit, and the Spirit is likewise the refuge of the Spirit. Despise not, therefore, thine own spirit (or soul), the highest witness of man. Verily, the wicked think 'no one sees us,' but the gods are looking at them, and also the person within (conscience). _Dyaus, Earth, the Waters_, (the person in the) heart, _Moon, Sun, Fire, Yama, Wind, Night, the twin Twilights_, and Dharma know the conduct of all corporeal beings.... Although, O good man, thou regardest thyself, thinking, 'I am alone,' yet the holy one (saint) who sees the evil and the good, stands ever in thy heart. It is in truth god Yama, the son of Vivasvant, who resideth in thy heart; if thou beest not at variance with him (thou needest) not (to) go to the Ganges and to the (holy land of) the Kurus (to be purified).'"

Here there is no abatement in Vedic polytheism, although it is circled round with a thin mist from later teachings. In the same way the ordinary man is taught that at death his spirit (soul) will pass as a manikin out of his body and go to Yama to be judged; while the feasts to the Manes, of course, imply always the belief in the individual activity of dead ancestors. Such expressions as 'The seven daughters of Varuna' (_sapta v[=a]ru[n.][=i]r im[=a]s,_ [=A]çv. _Grih. S_. 2. 3. 3) show that even in detail the old views are still retained. There is no advance, except in superstitions,[13] on the main features of the old religion. So the same old fear of words is found, resulting in new euphemisms. One must not say 'scull,' _kap[=a]la_, but call it _bhag[=a]la_, 'lucky' (Gaut. 9. 21); a factor in the making of African languages also, according to modern travellers. Images of the gods are now over-recognized by the priest, for they must be revered like the gods themselves (_ib_. 12; P[=a]r. _Grih. S_. 3. 14. 8. etc.). Among the developed objects of the cult serpents now occupy a prominent place. They are mentioned as worshipful in the Br[=a]hmanas. In the S[=u]tra period offerings are made to snakes of earth, air, and heaven; the serpents are 'satiated' along with gods, plants, demons, etc. (Ç[=a][.n]kh. 4. 9. 3; 15. 4; [=A]çv. 2. 1. 9; 3. 4. 1; P[=a]rask. 2. 14. 9) and blood is poured out to them ([=A]çv. 4. 8. 27.).[14] But other later divinities than those of the earliest Veda, such as Wealth (Kubera), and Dharma, have crept into the ritual. With the Vedic gods appears as a divinity in Kh[=a]d. 1. 5. 31 the love-god K[=a]ma, of the Atharvan; while on the other hand Rudra the beast-lord (Paçupati, Lord of Cattle), the 'kindly' Çiva, appears as 'great god,' whose names are Çankara, Prish[=a]taka, Bhava, Çarva, Ugra, Iç[=a]na (Lord); who has all names and greatness, while he yet is described in the words of the older text as 'the god that desires to kill' ([=A]çv. 2. 2. 2; 4. 8. 9, 19,[15] 29, 32; _[=A]it. Br_. 3. 34). On the other hand Vishnu is also adored, and that in connection with the [Greek: logos], or V[=a]c (_ib_. 3. 3. 4). Quite in Upanishad manner--for it is necessary to show that these were then really known--is the formula 'thou art a student of _pr[=a][n.]a_ (Breath,) and art given over to Ka' (_ib_. 1. 20. 8.), or _'whom?'_ In [=A]çval[=a]yana no Upanishads are given in the list of literature, which includes the 'Eulogies of men,' Itih[=a]sas, Pur[=a]nas, and even the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata (3. 3. 1; 4. 4). But in 1. 13. 1, _Upanishad-rites_ (and that of a very domestic nature) are recognized, which would corroborate the explanation of Upanishad given above, as being at first a subsidiary work, dealing with minor points.[16] Something of the sciolism of the Upanishads seems to lie in the prayer that of the four paths on which walk the gods the mortal may be led in that which bestows 'freedom from death' (P[=a]r. 3. 1. 2); and many of the teachers famous in the Upanishads are now revered by name like gods ([=A]çv. 3. 4. 4, etc.).

On turning from these domestic S[=u]tras to the legal S[=u]tras it becomes evident that the pantheistic doctrine of the Upanishads, and in part the Upanishads themselves, were already familiar to the law-makers, and that they influenced, in some degree, the doctrines of the law, despite the retention of the older forms. Not only is _sams[=a]ra_ the accepted doctrine, but the _[=a]tm[=a]_, as if in a veritable Upanishad, is the object of religious devotion. Here, however, this quest is permitted only to the ascetic, who presumably has performed all ritualistic duties and passed through the stadia that legally precede his own.

Of all the legal S[=u]tra-writers Gautama is oldest, and perhaps is pre-buddhistic. Turning to his work one notices first that the M[=i]m[=a]msist is omitted in the list of learned men (28. 49);[17] but since the Upanishads and Ved[=a]nta are expressly mentioned, it is evident that the author of even the oldest S[=u]tra was acquainted with whatever then corresponded to these works.[18] The opposed teaching of hell versus _sams[=a]ra_ is found in Gautama. But there is rather an interesting attempt to unite them. Ordinarily it is to hell and heaven that reference is made, _e.g_., 'the one that knows the law obtains the heavenly world' (28. 52); 'if one speak untruth to a teacher, even in thought, even in respect to little things, he slays seven men after and before him' (seven descendants and seven ancestors, 23. 31). So in the case of witnesses: 'heaven (is the fruit) for speaking the truth; otherwise hell' (13. 7); 'for stealing (land) hell' (is the punishment, _ib_. 17). Now and then comes the philosophical doctrine: 'one does not fall from the world of Brahm[=a]' (9. 74); 'one enters into union and into the same world with Brahm[=a]' (8. 25).

But in 21. 4-6 there occurs the following statement: 'To be an outcast is to be deprived of the works of the twice-born, and hereafter to be deprived of happiness; this some (call) hell.' It is evident here that the expression _asiddhis_ (deprivation of success or happiness) is placed optionally beside _naraka_ (hell) as the view of one set of theologians compared with that of another; 'lack of obtaining success, _i.e_., reward' stands parallel to 'hell.' In the same chapter, where Manu says that he who assaults a Brahman "obtains hell for one hundred years" (M. xi. 207), Gautama (21. 20) says "for one hundred years, lack of heaven" (_asvargyam_), which may mean hell or the deprivation of the result of merit, _i.e_., one hundred years will be deducted from his heavenly life. In this case not a new and better birth but heaven is assumed to be the reward of good acts. Now if one turns to 11. 29-30 he finds both views combined. In the parallel passage in [=A]pastamba only better or worse re-births are promised as a reward for good or evil (2. 5. 11. 10-11); but here it is said: "The castes and orders that remain by their duty, having died, having enjoyed the fruits of their acts, with the remnant of their (merit) obtain re-birth, having an excellent country, caste, and family; having long life, learning, good conduct, wealth, happiness, and wisdom. They of different sort are destroyed in various ways." Here, heavenly joys (such as are implied by _ni[h.]çreyasam_ in 26) are to be enjoyed first, and a good birth afterwards, and by implication one probably has to interpret the next sentence to mean 'they are sent to hell and then re-born in various low births.' This, too, is Manu's rule (below). At this time the sacred places which purify are in great vogue, and in Gautama a list of them is given (19. 14), viz.: "all mountains, all rivers, holy pools, places of pilgrimage (_i.e_., river-fords, _tirth[=a]ni_), homes of saints, cow-pens, and altars." Of these the _tirthas_ are particularly interesting, as they later become of great importance, thousands of verses in the epic being devoted to their enumeration and praise.

Gautama says also that ascetics, according to some teachers, need not be householders first (3. 1), and that the Brahman ascetic stays at home during the rainy season, like the heretic monks (_ib_. 13). If one examine the relative importance of the forms and spirit of religion as taught in this, the oldest _dharma-s[=u]tra_,[19] he will be impressed at first with the tremendous weight laid on the former as compared with the latter. But, as was said apropos of the Brahmanic literature, one errs who fails to appreciate the fact that these works are intended not to give a summary of religious conduct, but to inculcate ceremonial rules. Of the more importance, therefore, is the occasional pause which is made to insist, beyond peradventure, on the superiority of moral rules. A very good instance of this is found in Gautama. He has a list of venial sins. Since lying is one of the most heinous offences to a Hindu lawgiver, and the penances are severe, all the treatises state formally that an untruth uttered in fun, or when one is in danger, or an oath of the sort implied by Plato: [Greek: _aphrodision orkon ou phasin einai_],--all these are venial, and so are lies told to benefit a (holy) cow, or to aid a priest; or told from religious motives of any sort without self-interest. This is almost the only example of looseness in morals as taught in the law. But the following case shows most plainly the importance of morality as opposed to formal righteousness. After all the forty sacraments (to which allusion was made above), have been recounted, there are given 'eight good qualities of the soul,' viz., mercy, forbearance, freedom from envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from greed and from covetousness. Then follows: "He that has (performed) the forty sacraments but has not the eight good qualities enters not into union with Brahm[=a], nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a].[20] But he that has (performed) only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good qualities enters into union with Brahm[=a], and into the heaven of Brahm[=a]." This is as near to heresy as pre-buddhistic Brahmanism permitted itself to come.

In the later legal S[=u]tra of the northern Vasistha[21] occurs a rule which, while it distinctly explains what is meant by liberality, viz., gifts to a priest, also recognizes the 'heavenly reward': "If gifts are given to a man that does not know the Veda the divinities are not satisfied" (3. 8). In the same work (6. 1) 'destruction' is the fate of the sinner that lives without observance of good custom; yet is it said in the same chapter (27): "If a twice-born man dies with the food of a Ç[=u]dra (lowest caste) in his belly, he would become a village pig, or he is born again in that (Ç[=u]dra's) family"; and, in respect to sons begotten when he has in him such food: "Of whom the food, of him are these sons; and he himself would not mount to heaven ... he does not find the upward path" (29, 28). In _ib_. 8. 17 the Brahman that observes all the rules 'does not fall from _brahmaloka,' i.e_., the locality of Brahm[=a]. Further, in 10. 4: "Let (an ascetic) do away with all (sacrificial) works; but let him not do away with one thing, the Veda; for from doing away with the Veda (one becomes) a Ç[=u]dra." But, in the same chapter: "Let (the ascetic) live at the end of a village, in a temple ('god's house'), in a deserted house, or at the root of a tree; there in his mind studying the knowledge (of the _[=a]tm[=a]_) ... so they cite (verses): 'Sure is the freedom from re-birth in the case of one that lives in the wood with passions subdued ... and meditates on the supreme spirit' ... Let him not be confined to any custom ... and in regard to this (freedom from worldly pursuits) they cite these verses: 'There is no salvation (literally 'release') for a philologist (_na çabdaç[=a]str[=a]bhiratasya mokshas_), nor for one that delights in catching (men) in the world, nor for one addicted to food and dress, nor for one pleased with a fine house. By means of prodigies, omens, astrology, palmistry, teaching, and talking let him not seek alms ... he best knows salvation who (cares for naught)' ... (such are the verses). Let him neither harm nor do good to anything.... Avoidance of disagreeable conduct, jealousy, presumption, selfishness, lack of belief, lack of uprightness, self-praise, blame of others, harm, greed, distraction, wrath, and envy, is a rule that applies to all the stadia of life. The Brahman that is pure, and wears the girdle, and carries the gourd in his hand, and avoids the food of low castes fails not of obtaining the world of Brahm[=a]" (_ib_. 10. 18 ff.). Yama, the Manes, and evil spirits (_asuras_) are referred to in the following chapter (20, 25); and hell in the same chapter is declared to be the portion of such ascetics as will not eat meat when requested to do so at a feast to the Manes or gods (11. 34),--rather an interesting verse, for in Manu's code the corresponding threat is that, instead of going to hell 'for as long, _i.e_., as many years, as the beast has hairs,' as here, one shall experience 'twenty-one rebirths,' _i.e_., the hell-doctrine in terms of _sams[=a]ra_; while the same image occurs in Manu in the form 'he that slaughters beasts unlawfully obtains as many rebirths as there are hairs on the beast' (v. 35. 38). The passive attitude sometimes ascribed to the Manes is denied; they rejoice over a virtuous descendant (11. 41); a bad one deprives them of the heaven they stand in (16. 36). The authorities on morals are here, as elsewhere, Manu and other seers, the Vedas, and the Father-god, who with Yama gives directions to man in regard to lawful food, etc. (14. 30). The moral side of the code, apart from ritual impurities, is given, as usual, by a list of good and bad qualities (above), while formal laws in regard to theft, murder (especially of a priest), adultery and drunkenness (20. 44; i. 20), with violation of caste-regulations by intercourse with outcasts, are 'great crimes.' Though older than [=A]pastamba, who mentions the P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a], Vasistha, too, knows the Ved[=a]nta (3. 17), and the M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_vikalpin--tarkin_, 3. 20, M. XII. 111).

From the S[=u]tras of B[=a]udh[=a]yana's probably southern school something of additional interest is to be gained. Here 'darkness' takes the place of hell (2. 3. 5. 9), which, however, by a citation is explained (in 2. 2. 3. 34) as 'Yama's hall.' A verse is cited to show that the greatest sin is lack of faith (1. 5. 10. 6) and not going to heaven is the reward of folly (_ib_. 7); while the reward of virtue is to live in heaven for long (4. 8. 7). The same freedom in regard to ascetics as occurs in other S[=u]tra works is to be found in this author, not in the more suspicious final chapters, but in that part of the work which is accepted as oldest,[22] and agrees with the data found in the Br[=a]hmanas, where the pre-buddhistic monk is called Bhikshu, 'beggar/or Sanny[=a]sin 'he that renounces,' just as these terms are employed in the heretical writings. As among the Jains (and Buddhists), the Brahmanic ascetic carries a few simple utensils, and wanders about from house to house and village to village, begging food. Some authorities (among the Brahmans) say that one may become an ascetic as soon as he has completed his study, though ordinarily this may be done only after passing through the householder stadium. On becoming an ascetic the beggar takes the vow not to injure any living thing (B[=a]udh. II.10.17.2. 11, 29), exactly as the Jain ascetic takes the vow of non-injury. More than this, as will be seen below, the details of the Brahman ascetic's vows are almost identical with those of the Jain ascetic. He vows not to injure living beings, not to lie, not to steal, to be continent, to be liberal; with the five minor vows, not to get angry, to obey the Teacher, not to be rash, to be cleanly and pure in eating.[23] To this ascetic order in the Brahman priesthood may be traced the origin of the heretical monks. Even in the Br[=a]hmanas occur the termini technici of the Buddhist priesthood, notably the Çramana or ascetic monk, and the word _buddha_, 'awakened' (_pratibudh_). The 'four orders' are those enumerated as the householder, student, ascetic, and forest-hermit. If one live in all four orders according to rule, and be serene, he will come to peace, that is, salvation ([=A]pastamba, 2. 9. 21. I, 2).

According to this later legal writer, who belongs to Southern India,[24] it is only after one has passed through all the preceding stadia that he may give up works (sacrifice, etc.) and devote himself to seeking the [=a]tm[=a],'wandering about, without caring for earth or heaven, renouncing truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain' (_ib_. 10, 13). There follows this passage one significant of the opposition between purely Upanishad-ideas and those of the law-givers: 'Acquirement of peace (salvation) depends, it is said, on knowledge; this is opposed by the codes. If on knowledge (depended) acquirement of peace, even here (in this world) one would escape grief' (_ib._ 14-16). Further, in describing the forest-hermit's austerities (_ib._ 23. 4 ff.), verses from a Pur[=a]na are cited which are virtually Upanishadic: 'The eight and eighty thousand seers who desired offspring (went) south on Aryaman's path, and obtained (as their reward) graves; (but) the eight and eighty thousand who did not desire offspring (went) north on Aryaman's path and make for themselves immortality,' that is to say 'abandon desire for offspring; and of the two paths (which, as the commentator observes, are mentioned in the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad), that which gives immortality instead of death (graves) will be yours.' It is admitted that such ascetics have miraculous powers; but the law-maker emphatically protests in the following S[=u]tra against the supposition that a rule which stands opposed to the received rites (marriage, sacrifice, etc.) is of any power, and asserts that for the future life an endless reward ('fruit'), called in revelation 'heavenly,' is appointed (_ib._ 8-11). The next chapter, however, limits, as it were, this dogma, for it is stated that immortality is the re-birth of one's self in the body of one's son, and a verse is cited: 'Thou procreatest progeny, and that's thy immortality, O mortal,' with other verses, which teach that sons that attend to the Vedic rites magnify the fame and heaven of their ancestors, who 'live in heaven until the destruction of creation' _([=a] bh[=u]tasamptav[=a]t_, 2. 9. 24. 5), But 'according to the Bhavishyat-Pur[=a]na' after this destruction of creation 'they exist again in heaven as the cause of seed' (_ib._) 6. And then follows a quotation from the Father-god: 'We live with those people who do these (following) things: (attend to) the three Vedas, live as students, create children, sacrifice to the Manes, do penance, make sacrifice to the gods, practice liberality; he that extols anything else becomes air (or dust) and perishes' (_ib._) 8; and further: 'only they that commit sin perish' (not their ancestors).

The animus of this whole passage is apparent. The law-maker has to contend with them that would reject the necessity of following in order the traditional stadia of a priest's life; that imagine that by becoming ascetics without first having passed through the preliminary stadia they can by knowledge alone attain the bliss that is obtained by union with _brahma_ (or Brahm[=a]). In other words the jurist has to contend with a trait eminently anti-Brahmanistic, even Buddhistic. He denies this value of knowledge, and therewith shows that what he wishes to have inculcated is a belief in the temporary personal existence of the Manes; in heaven till the end of the world-order; and the annihilation of the wicked; while he has a confused or mixed opinion in regard to one's own personal immortality, believing on the one hand that there is a future existence in heaven with the gods, and on the other (rather a materialistic view) that immortality is nothing but continued existence in the person of one's descendants, who are virtually one's self in another body: _dehatvam ev[=a]'nyat,_ "only the body is different" (_ib_) 2. As to cosmogony it is stated to be (not the emanation of an _[=a]tm[=a]_) but the "emission (creation) of the Father-god and of the seers" (the latter being visible as stars, _ib_. 13, 14). In this there is plainly a received popular opinion, which reflects the Vedic and Brahmanic stage, and is opposed to the philosophical views of the Upanishads, in other words of the first Vedantic philosophy; while it is mixed up with the late doctrine of the cataclysms, which ruin each succeeding^ creation. The equal annihilation of the wicked (_dhvamsanti_) and unorthodox (_dhvamsate_) is to be noticed. They are here subject neither to hell nor to rebirth, but they "become dust and perish" (_ib_. 8. 9).

Throughout the whole legal literature one will find this same antithesis of views in regard to the fate of good and bad, although it is seldom that annihilation is predicated of the latter. Usually hell or rebirth are their fate--two views, which no one can really reconcile. They are put side by side; exactly as in priestly discussion in India and Europe it still remains an unsettled question as to when the soul becomes immortal.[25] Occidental experience teaches how easy it is for such views to stand together unattacked, although they are the object of speculation. This passage is perhaps, historically, the most satisfactory (as it is philosophically unsatisfactory) that can be cited in answer to the questions that were posed above. But from other parts of legal literature a few more statements may be culled, to illustrate still further the lack of uniformity not only in popular belief, but in the teaching provided for the public. First from the same work of [=A]pastamba, in 2. 11. 29. 9-10 it is said that if a witness in court perjure himself he shall be punished by the king, "and further, in passing to the next world, hell" (is his portion); whereas "(the reward) for truth is heaven, and praise on the part of all creatures." Now, let one compare first _ib_. 2. 5. 11. 10-11: "Men of low castes are reborn in higher castes in successive births, and men of high castes in low castes, if they respectively perform and neglect their duties." And then this Vedantic passage of the same author (1. 8. 22 ff.): "Let one (as penance for sin) devote himself to the Yoga (mental discipline) which has to do with the highest _[=a]tm[=a]_ ... Nothing is known higher than the acquisition of _[=a]tm[=a]_. We shall (now) cite some _[=a]tm[=a]_-acquisition-verses, viz.: All living creatures (are) the citadel of him that rests in secret, the indestructible one, the immaculate one. Immortal they that devote themselves to the moveless one who has a movable dwelling ... the great one whose body is light, universal, free ... the eternal (part) in all creatures, the wise, immortal, unchanging one, limbless, voiceless, formless, touchless, purest, the highest goal. He that everywhere devotes himself to Him (_[=a]tm[=a]_ as Lord), and always lives accordingly; that by virtue of Yoga recognizes Him, the subtile one, shall rejoice in the top of heaven ... He, _[=a]tm[=a],_ comprehends all, embraces all, more subtile than a lotus-thread and huger than the earth ... From him are created all bodies; he is the root, he the Everlasting, the Eternal One."

This discipline it will be observed is enjoined as penance and to get rid of faults, that is, to subdue the passions. As the same chapter contains a list of the faults which are to be overcome before one "arrives at peace" (salvation) they may be cited here: "Anger, joy, wrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lying, over-eating, calumny, envy, sexual desire, and hate, lack of studying _[=a]tm[=a],_ lack of Yoga--the destruction of these (faults) is based on Yoga" (mental concentration). On the other hand: "He that devotes himself, in accordance with the law, to avoiding anger, joy, wrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lies, over-eating, calumny and envy; and practices liberality, renunciation, uprightness, kindness, subduing (of the passions), self-control; and is at peace with all creatures; and practices Yoga; and acts in an [=A]ryan (noble) way; and does not hurt anything; and has contentment--qualities which, it is agreed, appertain to all the (four) stadia--he becomes _s[=a]rvag[=a]min" (ib._ 23.6), that is 'one belonging to the all-pervading' (All-soul). There appears to be a contradiction between the former passage, where Yoga is enjoined on ascetics alone; and this, where Yoga is part of the discipline of all four stadia. But what was in the author's mind was probably that all these vices and moral virtues are enumerated as such for all; and he slips in mental concentration as a virtue for the ascetic, meaning to include all the virtues he knows.

A few further illustrations from that special code which has won for itself a preeminent name, 'the law-book of Manu,'[26] will give in epitome the popular religion as taught to the masses; withal even better than this is taught in the S[=u]tras. For Father Manu's law-book, as the Hindus call it, is a popular Ç[=a]stra or metrical[27] composite of law and religion, which reflects the opinion of Brahmanism in its geographical stronghold, whereas the S[=u]tras emanate from various localities, north and south. To Manu there is but one Holy Land, the Kurus' plain and the region round-about it (near Delhi).

The work takes us forward in time beyond even the latest S[=u]tras, but the content is such as to show that formal Brahmanism in this latest stage still keeps to its old norm and to Brahmanic models.

It deserves therefore to be examined with care from several points of view if one would escape from the belief of the philosopher to the more general teaching. In this popular religion all morality is conditioned by the castes,[28] which is true also to a certain degree of the earlier Sutras, but the evil fruit of this plant is not there quite so ripe as it is in the later code. The enormity of all crimes depends on who commits them, and against whom they are committed. The three upper castes alone have religious privileges. The lowest caste, outcasts, women, and diseased persons are not allowed to hear the holy texts or take part in ceremonies.[29] As to the rites, they are the inherited ones, sacrifices to gods, offerings to Manes and spirits, and all the ceremonies of house and individual, as explained above; with especial and very minute rules of observance for each of the four stadia of a priest's life.[30] There is no hint in any of this of the importance of the knowledge of the _[=a]tm[=a]._ But in their proper place the rules of morality and the higher philosophical views are taught. The doctrine of re-birth is formally stated, and the attainment of the world of Brahm[=a] _(brahma)_ by union of ceremonies and knowledge is inculcated. The ascetic should seek, by meditation, to go to Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_) for when he is utterly indifferent, then, both here and after death, he gains everlasting happiness. Therefore he should study the Vedas, but especially the teachings in regard to the Supreme Spirit, and the Upanishads; studying the Ved[=a]nta is a regular part of his final discipline (VI, 74-94). In another part of the work the distinction made in the Upanishads is upheld, that religious acts are of two sorts, one designed to procure bliss, and cause a good man to reach equality with the gods; the other performed without selfish motive; by which latter "even the five elements are overcome," that is, the absorption into _brahma_ is effected. For "among all virtuous acts the knowledge of the spirit, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is highest; through this is obtained even immortality. One that sees spirit in all things and all things in spirit sacrifices to spirit and enters Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_)" "The spirit (or self) is all divinities; the All is based on spirit." And in Upanishadic vein the Person is then proclaimed as lord of gods, whom "some call fire, some call Manu, some call Indra, some call air, and some call eternal _brahma._" But though this be the view of the closing verses, yet in the beginning of the work is this Person represented as being produced from a First Cause. It would be out of place here to analyse the conflicting philosophical views of the Manu code. Even his commentators are uncertain whether he belonged to the pantheistic Ved[=a]nta or dualistic S[=a]nkhya school. For them that believe in no Manu the solution is simpler. Although Manu is usually called a Puranic Sankhyan, yet are both schools represented, and that without regard to incongruous teaching. Manu is no more Sankhyan than Vedantic. Indeed in the main part of the work the teaching is clearly more Vedantic. But it suffices here to point out that the _[=a]tm[=a]_-philosophy and religion is not ignored; it is taught as essential. Nevertheless, it is not taught in such a way as to indicate that it is requisite for the vulgar. On the contrary, it is only when one becomes an ascetic that he is told to devote himself to the pursuit of the knowledge of _[=a]tm[=a]_. In one passage there is evidence that two replies were given to this fundamental question in regard to works and knowledge. For after enumerating a list of good acts, among which are knowledge and Vedic ceremonies, it is asked which among them most tends to deliverance. The answer is vital. Or it should be, but it is given in an ambiguous form (xii. 85-6): "Amid all these acts the knowledge of self, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is the highest, for it produces immortality. Amid all these acts the one most productive of happiness, both after death and in this life, is the Vedic ceremony."

Knowledge gives real immortality; rites give temporary bliss. The Upanishads teach that the latter is lower than the former, but each answers the question. There were two answers, and Manu gives both. That is the secret of many discrepancies in Hindu rules. The law-giver cannot admit absolutely and once for all that the Vedic ceremony is of no abiding use, as it can be of no use to one that accepts the higher teaching. He keeps it as a training and allows only the ascetic to be a philosopher indeed. But at the same time he gives as a sort of peroration to his treatise some 'elegant extracts' from philosophical works, which he believes theoretically, although practically he will not allow them to influence his ritualism. He is a true Brahman priest.

It is this that is always so annoying in Brahmanic philosophy. For the slavery of tradition is everywhere. Not only does the ritualist, while admitting the force of the philosopher's reasons, remain by Vedic tradition, and in consequence refuse to supplant 'revelation' with the higher wisdom and better religion, which he sees while he will not follow it; but even the philosopher must needs be 'orthodox,' and, since the scriptures themselves are self-contradictory, he is obliged to use his energies not in discovering truth, but in reconciling his ancestors' dogmas, in order to the creation of a philosophical system which shall agree with everything that has been said in the Vedas and Upanishads. When one sees what subtlety and logical acumen these philosophers possessed, he is moved to wonder what might have been the outcome had their minds been as free as those of more liberal Hellas. But unfortunately they were bound to argue within limits, and were as much handicapped in the race of thought as were they that had to conform to the teachings of Rome. For though India had no church, it had an inquisitorial priestly caste, and the unbeliever was an outcast. What is said of custom is true of faith: "Let one walk in the path of good men, the path in which his father walked, in which his grandfathers walked; walking in that path one does no wrong" (Manu iv. 178). Real philosophy, unhampered by tradition, is found only among the heretics and in the sects of a later time.

The gods of old are accepted by the orthodox as a matter of course, although theoretically they are born of the All-god, who is without the need of ceremonial rites. To the other castes the active and most terrible deity is represented as being the priest himself. He not only symbolizes the fire-god, to whom is offered the sacrifice, but he actually is the divinity in person. Hence there is no greater merit than in giving gifts to priests. As to eschatology, opinions are not contrasted any more. They are put side by side. In morality truth, purity, and harmlessness are chiefly inculcated. But the last (ascribed by some scholars to Buddhistic influence) is not permitted to interfere with animal sacrifices.

Some of the rules for the life of a householder will show in brief the moral excellence and theoretical uncertainty of Manu's law-code. The following extracts are from the fourth, the Ten Commandments from the sixth, and the description of the hells (twenty-two in all)[31] from the fourth and twelfth books of Manu's code. These rules may be accepted as a true reflexion of what was taught to the people by stringent Brahmanism as yet holding aloof from Hinduism.

A householder must live without giving any pain (to living creatures). He must perform daily the ceremonies ordained in the Veda. In this way he obtains heaven. Let him never neglect the offerings to seers, gods, spirits (sprites), men, and Manes. Some offer sacrifice only in their organs of sense (not in external offerings); some by knowledge alone. Let him not explain law and rites to the Ç[=u]dra (slave) caste; if he does so, he sinks into the hell Boundless. Let him not take presents from an avaricious king who disobeys the law-codes; if he does so, he goes to twenty-one hells (called Darkness, Dense-darkness, Frightful, Hell, Thread of Death, Great Hell, Burning, Place of Spikes, Frying-pan, River of Hell, etc., etc., etc.). Let him never despise a warrior, a snake, or a priest. Let him never despise himself. Let him say what is true and what is agreeable, but not disagreeable truth or agreeable false-hood. Let him not dispute with anybody, but let him say 'very well.' Let him not insult anybody. Remembering his former births, and studying the Veda again and again, he gets endless happiness. Let him avoid unbelief and censure of the Vedas, reviling of gods, hatred, pride, anger, and cruelty. He that even threatens a priest will go to the hell Darkness for one hundred years; if he strikes him he will be born in twenty-one sinful rebirths (according to another passage in the eleventh book he goes to hell for a thousand years for the latter offence). Priests rule the world of gods. But deceitful, hypocritical priests go to hell. Let the householder give gifts, and he will be rewarded. One that gives a garment gets a place in the moon; a giver of grain gets eternal happiness; a giver of the Veda gets union with Brahm[=a] (_brahma_; these gifts, of course, are all to priests). He that gives respectfully and he that receives respectfully go to heaven; otherwise both go to hell. Let him, without giving pain to any creature, slowly pile up virtue, as does an ant its house, that he may have a companion in the next world. For after death neither father, nor mother, nor son, nor wife, nor relations are his companions; his virtue alone remains with him. The relations leave the dead body, but its virtue follows the spirit: with his virtue as his companion he will traverse the darkness that is hard to cross; and virtue will lead him to the other world with a luminous form and ethereal body. A priest that makes low connections is reborn as a slave. The Father-god permits a priest to accept alms even from a bad man. For fifteen years the Manes refuse to accept food from one that despises a free gift. A priest that sins should be punished (that is, mulcted, a priest may not be punished corporally), more than an ordinary man, for the greater the wisdom the greater the offence. They that commit the Five Great Sins live many years in hells, and afterwards obtain vile births; the slayer of a priest becomes in turn a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, etc, etc. A priest that drinks intoxicating liquor becomes various insects, one after another. A priest that steals becomes a spider, snake, etc, etc. By repeating sinful acts men are reborn in painful and base births, and are hurled about in hells; where are sword-leaved trees, etc, and where they are eaten, burned, spitted, and boiled; and they receive births in despicable wombs; rebirth to age, sorrow, and unquenchable death. But to secure supreme bliss a priest must study the Veda, practice austerity, seek knowledge, subdue the senses, abstain from injury, and serve his Teacher. Which of these gives highest bliss? The knowledge of the spirit is the highest and foremost, for it gives immortality. The performance of Vedic ceremonies is the most productive of happiness here and hereafter. The Ten Commandments for the twice-born are: Contentment, patience, self-control, not to steal, purity, control of passions, devotion (or wisdom), knowledge, truthfulness, and freedom from anger. These are concisely summarized again in the following: 'Manu declared the condensed rule of duty for (all) the four castes to be: not to injure a living thing; to speak the truth; not to steal; to be pure; to control the passions' (VI. 92; X. 63). The 'non-injury' rule does not apply, of course, to sacrifice (_ib_. III. 268). In the epic the commandments are given sometimes as ten, sometimes as eight.