Chapter XV: Hinduism (continued).--Vishnu and çiva (2)

Associated, again, with Skanda are the spirits or 'mothers,' which afflict people. The belief in mother-gods is old, but its epic form is new. The exactness and detail in regard to these beautiful monsters show at least a real belief, which, as one on a lower plane besides the higher religion, cannot be passed over without notice. As in other lands, people are 'possessed' by evil spirits, called possessors or seizers (_grahas_). These are Skanda's demons,[42] and are both male and female. Until one reaches the age of sixteen he is liable to be possessed by one group of 'seizers,' who must be worshipped in proper form that their wrath may be averted. Others menace mortals from the age of sixteen to seventy. After that only the fever-demon is to be feared. Imps of this sort are of three kinds. One kind indulge only in mischievous sport: another kind lead one to gluttony; the third kind are devoted to lust. They are known as Piç[=a]cas, Yakshas, etc., and when they seize a person he goes mad. They are to be kept at bay by self-restraint and moderation (III. 230. 43-56). In IX. 46 and III. 226 the 'mothers' are described. They are witches, and live in cross-roads, cemeteries, and mountains. They may be of Dravidian origin, and in their epic form, at any rate, are a late intrusion.[43]

Just before the Divine Song begins, the knight who is about to become, illuminated or 'disillusioned' offers a prayer to the terrible goddess Durg[=a], also one of the new, popular, and horrible forms of divine manifestation. In this hymn, VI. 23, Durg[=a] (Um[=a], P[=a]rvat[=i], K[=a]li, etc.) is addressed as "leader of the armies of the blessed, the dweller in Mandara, the youthful woman, K[=a]li, wife of Çiva, she who is red, black, variegated; the savior, the giver of gifts, K[=a]ty[=a]yan[=i], the great benefactress, the terrible one, the victorious one, victory itself ... Um[=a], the slayer of demons,"[44] and the usual identification and theft of epithets then follows: "O thou who art the Vedas, who art Revelation, who art virtue, J[=a]tavedasi, ... thou art _brahma_ among the sciences, thou art the sleep of incorporate beings, the mother of Skanda, the blessed one, Durg[=a] ... thou art the mother of the Vedas and Ved[=a]nta ... thou art sleep, illusion, modesty, happiness ... thou art satisfaction, growth, contentment, light, the increaser of moon and sun."

Turning from these later parasites,[45] which live on their parent gods and yet tend to reduce them, we now revert to that happiness hereafter to which looks forward the epic knight that has not been tempted to 'renounce' desire. In pantheistic passages he is what the later remodeller makes him. But enough of old belief remains to show that the warrior really cared a great deal more for heaven than he did for absorption. As to the cause of events, as was said above, it is Fate. Repeatedly is heard the lament, "Fate (impersonal) is the highest thing, fie on vain human effort." The knight confesses with his lips to a belief in the new doctrine of absorption, but at heart he is a fatalist. And his aim is to die on the field of battle, that he may go thence directly to the heaven that awaits the good and the brave.[46] Out of a long description of this heaven a few extracts here selected will show what the good knight anticipates:

"Upward goes the path that leads to gods; it is inhabited by
them that have sacrificed and have done penance. Unbelieving
persons and untruthful persons do not enter there; only they
that have duteous souls, that have conquered self, and
heroes that bear the marks of battle. There sit the seers
and gods, there are shining, self-illumined worlds, made of
light, resplendent. And in this heaven there is neither
hunger, nor thirst, nor weariness, nor cold, nor heat, nor
fear; nothing that is terrible is there, nothing unclean;
but pleasing sights, and sounds, and smells. There is no
care there, nor age, nor work, nor sorrow. Such is the
heaven that is the reward of good acts. Above this is
Brahm[=a]'s world, where sit the seers and the three and
thirty gods," etc.

Over against this array of advantages stands the one great "fault of heaven," which is stated almost in the words of "nessun maggior dolore," "the thought (when one lives again on the lower plane) of former happiness in the higher life is terrible grief" (vs. 30), _i.e_., this heaven will pass away at the end of the world-period, when the Eternal draws all in to himself again (iii. 261); and the thought that one has been in heaven, while now he is (re-born) on earth, is a sorrow greater than the joy given by heaven.[47] One is reminded by the epic description of heaven of that poet of the Upanishads who describes his heavenly bliss as consisting in the fact that in that world "there is neither snow nor sorrow." The later version is only an amplification. Even with the assurance that the "fault of heaven" is the disappointment of being dropped to earth again in a new birth, the ordinary mortal is more averse from the bliss of absorption than from the pleasure of heaven. And in truth, except to one very weary of his lot in life, it must be confessed that the religion here shown in all its bearings is one eminently pleasant to believe. Its gist, in a word, is this: "If you feel able to endure it, the best thing to do is to study the plan of the universe, and then conform to it. By severe mental discipline you can attain to this knowledge, and for reward you will be immortally united with God." To this the sectarian adds: "Or believe in my god and the result will be the same." But both philosopher and sectarian continue: "If, however, you do not want to be united with the Supreme Spirit so soon as this, then be virtuous and devout, or simply be brave if you are a warrior; do whatever the rules of morality and caste-custom bid you do, and you will go to heaven for thousands of ages; at the end of which time you will be re-born in a fine family on earth, and may again decide whether to repeat the process of gaining heaven or to join God and become absorbed into the World-Spirit at once." There were probably many that chose rather to repeat their agreeable earthly experience, with an interlude of heaven after each death, than to make the renunciation of earth and heaven, and be absorbed once for all into the All-god.

The doctrine of 'the ages'[48] is so necessary to a true understanding of the rotative immortality offered as a substitute for the higher bliss of absorption (that is, genuine immortality), that an account of the teaching in this regard will not be out of place. The somewhat puzzling distinction between the happy life of them that fail to desire absorption, and yet are religious men, and the blissful life of those people that do attain absorption, is at once explained by a clear understanding of the duration of the time of the gods' own life and of the divine heaven. Whereas the Greek notion of four ages includes within the four all time, all the four ages of the Hindu are only a fraction of time. Starting at any one point of eternity, there is, according to the Hindu belief, a preliminary 'dawn' of a new cycle of ages. This dawn lasts four hundred years, and is then followed by the real age (the first of four), which lasts four thousand years, and has again a twilight ending of four hundred years in addition. This first is the Krita age, corresponding to the classical Golden Age. Its characteristics are, that in it everything is perfect; right eternal now exists in full power. In this age there are neither gods nor demons (D[=a]navas, Gandharvas, Yakshas, R[=a]kshas, Serpents), neither buying nor selling. By a _lucus a non_ the derivation of the name Krita is _k[r.]tam eva na kartavyam, i.e_., with a pun, it is called the '_sacred_ age' because there are no _sacrifices_ in that age. No S[=a]ma Veda, Rig Yeda, or Yajur Veda exist as distinct Vedas.[49] There is no mortal work. Fruit comes by meditation; the only duty is renunciation. Disease, lack of mental power, moral defects (such as pride and hate) do not exist; the highest course of the ascetic Yogis is universally _brahma (paramakam_). In this age come into existence the Brahman, Kshatriya, V[=a]içya, Ç[=u]dra, _i.e_., the distinct castes of priest, warrior, husbandman, and slave; all with their special marks, and all delighted with their proper occupations. Yet have all the castes like occupations, like refuge, practice, and knowledge. They are joined to the one god (_eka deva_), and have but one _mantra_ in their religious rites. Their duties are distinct, but they follow only one Veda and one rule. The four orders (of the time of life) are duly observed; men do not desire the fruit of their action, and so they obtain the highest course, _i.e_., salvation by absorption into _brahma_. In this age the 'three attributes' (or qualities) are unknown. After this age follows the dawn of the second age, called Tret[=a], lasting three hundred years, then the real age of Tret[=a], three thousand years, followed by the twilight of three hundred years. The characteristics of this age are, that men are devout; that great sacrifices begin (_sattram pravartate_); that Virtue decreases by one quarter; that all the various rites are produced, together with the attainment of salvation through working for that end, by means of sacrifice and generosity; that every one does his duty and performs asceticism. The next age, Dv[=a]para, is introduced by a dawn of two hundred years, being itself two thousand years in duration, and it closes with a twilight of two hundred years. Half of Virtue fails to appear in this age, that is, the general virtue of the world is diminished by a half ('the Bull of Justice stands on two legs'). The Veda is now subdivided into four. Instead of every one having one Veda, four Vedas exist, but some people know only three, or two, or one, or are even Veda-less (_an[r.]cas_). Ceremonies become manifold, because the treatises on duty are subdivided(!). The attribute of passion influences people, and it is with this that they perform asceticism and are generous (not with disinterestedness). Few (_kaçcit_) are settled in truth; ignorance of the one Veda causes a multiplication of Vedas (_i.e_., as Veda means 'knowledge,' the Vedas result from ignorance of the essential knowledge). Disease and sin make penance necessary. People sacrifice only to gain heaven. After this age and its twilight are past begins the Kali, last of the four ages, with a dawn of one hundred, a course of one thousand, and a subsequent twilight of one hundred years. This is the present sinful age, when there is no real religion, when the Vedas are ignored, and the castes are confused, when _itis_ (distresses of every form) are rife; when Virtue has only one leg left to stand upon. The believer in Krishna as Vishnu, besides this universal description, says that the Supreme Lord in the Krita age is 'white' (pure); in the Tret[=a] age, 'red'; in the Dv[=a]para age, 'yellow'; in the Kali age, 'black, _i.e_., Vishnu is Krishna, which means 'black.'[50] This cycle of ages always repeats itself anew. Now, since the twelve thousand years of these ages, with their dawns and twilights, are but one of countless cycles, when the Kali age and its twilight have brought all things into a miserable state, the universe is re-absorbed into the Supreme Spirit. There is then a universal (apparent) destruction, _pralaya_, of everything, first by fire and then by a general flood. Seven suns appear in heaven, and what they fail to burn is consumed by the great fire called Samvartaka (really a manifestation of Vishnu), which sweeps the world and leaves only ashes; then follows a flood which completes the annihilation. Thereafter follows a period equal to one thousand cycles (of twelve thousand years each), which is called 'Brahm[=a]'s night,' for during these twelve million years Brahm[=a] sleeps; and the new Krita age begins again "when Brahm[=a] wakes up" (iii. 188. 29, 69; 189. 42).[51] All the gods are destroyed in the universal destruction, that is, re-absorbed into the All-god, for there is no such thing as annihilation, either of spirit or of matter (which is illusion). Consequently the gods' heaven and the spirits of good men in that heaven are also re-absorbed into that Supreme, to be re-born in the new age. This is what is meant by the constant harping on quasi-immortality. Righteousness, sacrifice, bravery, will bring man to heaven, but, though he joins the gods, with them he is destroyed. They and he, after millions of years, will be re-born in the new heaven and the new earth. To escape this eventual re-birth one must desire absorption into the Supreme, not annihilation, but unity with God, so that one remains untouched by the new order at the end of Brahm[=a]'s 'day.' There are, of course, not lacking views of them that, taking the precept grossly, give a less dignified appearance to the teaching, and, in fact, upset its real intent. Thus, in the very same Puranic passage from which is taken the description above (III. 188), it is said that a seer, who miraculously outlived the universal destruction of one cycle, was kindly swallowed by Vishnu, and that, on entering his stomach (the absorption idea in Puranic coarseness), he saw everything which had been destroyed, mountains, rivers, cities, the four castes engaged in their duties, etc. In other words, only transference of locality has taken place. But this account reads almost like a satire.

One of the most striking features of the Hindu religions, as they have been traced thus far, is the identification of right with light, and wrong with darkness. We have referred to it several times already. In the Vedic age the deities are luminous, while the demons and the abode of the wicked generally are of darkness. This view, usually considered Iranian and Zoroastrian, is as radically, if not so emphatically, Indic. It might be said, indeed, that it is more deeply implanted in the worship of the Hindus than in that of the Iranians, inasmuch as the latter religion enunciates and promulgates the doctrine, while the former assumes it. All deeds of sin are deeds of darkness, _tamas_. The devils live underground in darkness; the hells are below earth and are gloom lighted only by torture-flames.

The development of devil-worship (the side-scenes in the theatre of Çivaism) introduces devils of another sort, but the general effect remains. The fire-priest Bhrigu says: "Untruth is a form of darkness, and by darkness one is brought to hell (downwards); veiled in darkness one sees not the light. Light is heaven, they say, and darkness is hell," xii. 190. 2-3. This antithesis of evil as darkness, good as light, is too native to India to admit of the suggestion that it might have been borrowed. But an isolated and curious Puranic chapter of the epic appears to have direct reference to the Persian religion. All Hindu gods have sacrifices, even Çiva the 'destroyer of sacrifice.' Now in iii. 220, after a preliminary account of the _p[a]ñcajanya_ fire (vs. 5 ff.) there is given a list of 'gods that destroy sacrifice,' _dev[=a]s yajñamu[s.]as,_ fifteen in number, who 'stand here' on earth and 'steal' the sacrifice. They extend over the five peoples in three divisions of five each. The first and third group contain names compounded with Bh[=i]ma and S[=u]ra respectively; while the third group is that of Sumitra, Mitravan, Mitrajña, Mitravardhana, Mitradharman. There are others without the _mitra_ (vs. 10). The appellation _dev[=a]s_ seems to take them out of connection with Çiva's demoniac troops, and the persistency of _mitra_ would look as if these 'gods' were of Iranian origin. There may have been (as are possibly the modern S[=a]uras) believers in the Persian religion already long established among the Hindus.

The question will naturally present itself whether in the religious _olla podrida_ known as the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata there are distinct allusions to Buddhism, and, if so, in how far the doctrines of this sect may have influenced the orthodox religion. Buddhism does not appear to have attacked or to have attracted the 'holy land,' whence, indeed, according to law, heretics are 'banished.' But its influence of course must have embraced this country, and it is only a question of in how far epic Brahmanism has accepted it. At a later period Hinduism, as has been observed, calmly accepts Buddha as an _avatar_ of Vishnu. Holtzmann, who is inclined to attribute a good deal to Buddhism, sees signs of it even in the personal characteristics of the epic heroes, and believes the whole poem to have been more or less affected by anti-Buddhistic feeling. If this were so one would have to give over to Buddhism much also of the humanitarianism to be found in the moral precepts that are so thickly strewn through the various books. In our opinion these signs-manual of Buddhism are not sufficiently evident to support Holtzmann's opinion for the whole poem, and it is to be noted that the most taking evidence is drawn from the latest parts of the work. It is just here that we think it necessary to draw the line, for while much of late date has been added in earlier books, yet in the books which one may call wholly late additions appear the strongest indications of Buddhistic influence.[52] A great deal of the Book of Peace is Puranic, the book as a whole is a Vishnuite addition further enlarged by Çivaite interpolation. The following book is, again, an offset to the Book of Peace, and is as distinctly Çivaite in its conception as is the Book of Peace Vishnuite.[53] It is here, in these latest additions, which scarcely deserve to be ranked with the real epic, that are found the most palpable touches of Buddhism. They stand to the epic proper as stands to them the Genealogy of Vishnu, a further addition which has almost as much claim to be called 'part of the epic' as have the books just mentioned, only that it is more evidently the product of a later age, and represents the Krishna-Vishnu sect in its glory after the epic was completed. Nevertheless, even in these books much that is suspected of being Buddhistic may be Brahmanic; and in any concrete case a decision, one way or the other, is scarcely to be made on objective grounds. Still more is this the case in earlier books. Thus, for instance, Holtzmann is sure that a conversation of a slave and a priest in the third book is Buddhistic because the man of low caste would not venture to instruct a Brahman.[54] But it is a command emphasized throughout the later Brahmanism that one must take refuge in the ship that saves; and in passages not suspected of Buddhistic tendency Bh[=i]shma takes up this point, and lays down the rule that, no matter to which caste a man belongs, his teaching if salutary is to be accepted. It is even said in one passage of the Book of Peace that one ought to learn of a slave, and in another that all the four castes ought to hear the Veda read:[55] "Let him get instruction even from a Ç[=u]dra if he can thereby attain to salvation"; and again: "Putting the Brahman first, let the four castes hear (the Veda); for this (giving first place to the priest) is (the rule in) reading the Veda."[56] And in many places are found instructions given by low-caste men. It may be claimed that every case which resembles Buddhistic teaching is drawn from Buddhism, but this would be to claim more than could be established. Moreover, just as the non-injury doctrine is prior to Buddhism and yet is a mark of Buddhistic teaching, so between the two religions there are many points of similarity which may be admitted without compromising the genuineness of the Brahmanic teaching. For Buddhism in its morality is anything but original.[57]

Another bit of instruction from the Book of Peace illustrates the attitude of the slave just referred to. In sharp contrast to what one would expect from a Buddhist, this slave, who is a hunter, claims that he is justified in keeping on with his murderous occupation because it is his caste-occupation; whereas, as a Buddhist he ought to have renounced it if he thought it sinful, without regard to the caste-rule. The Book of Peace lays it down as a rule that the giving up of caste-occupation is meritorious if the occupation in itself is iniquitous, but it hedges on the question to the extent of saying that, no matter whether the occupation be sinful or not, if it is an inherited occupation a man does not do wrong to adhere to it. This is liberal Brahmanism. The rule reads as follows: "Actors, liquor-dealers, butchers, and other such sinners are not justified in following such occupations, _if they are not born to the profession (i.e_., if they are born to it they are justified in following their inherited occupation). Yet if one has inherited such a profession it is a noble thing to renounce it."[58]

The marks of Buddhistic influence on which we would lay greater stress are found not in the fact that Mudgala refuses heaven (iii. 261. 43), or other incidents that may be due as well to Brahmanism as to Buddhism, but in such passages of the pseudo-epical Book of Peace as for example the _dharmyas panth[=a]s_ of xii. 322. 10-13; the conversation of the female beggar, _bhikshuk[=i]_, with the king in 321. 7, 168; the _buddha_ of 289. 45; the Buddhistic phraseology of 167. 46; the remark of the harlot Pingal[=a] in 174. 60: _pratibuddh[=a] 'smi j[=a]g[r.]mi_ (I am 'awakened' to a sense of sin and knowledge of holiness), and the like phrase in 177. 22: _pratibuddho 'smi_.[59] Of especial importance is the shibboleth Nirv[=a]na which is often used in the epic. There seems, indeed, to be a subtile connection between Çivaism and Buddhism. Buddhism rejects pantheism, Çivaism is essentially monotheism. Both were really religions of the lower classes. It is true that the latter was affected and practiced by those of high rank, but its strength lay with the masses. Thus while Vishnuism appealed to the contemplative and philosophical (R[=a]maism), as well as to the easy-going middle classes (Krishinaism), Çivaism with its dirty asceticism, its orgies and Bacchanalian revels, its devils and horrors generally, although combined with a more ancient philosophy, appealed chiefly to the magic-monger and the vulgar. So it is that one finds, as one of his titles in the thirteenth book, that Çiva is 'the giver of Nirv[=a]na,' (xiii. 16. 15). But if one examines the use of this word in other parts of the epic he will see that it has not the true Buddhistic sense except in its literal physical application as when the _nirv[=a][n.]a_ (extinguishing) of a lamp, iv. 22. 22, is spoken of; or the _nirv[=a][n.]a_ of duties (in the Pañcar[=a]tra 'Upanishad,' xii. 340. 67). On the other hand, in sections where the context shows that this must be the case, Nirv[=a]na is the equivalent of 'highest bliss' or 'highest _brahma_,' the same with the felicity thus named in older works. This, for instance, is the case in xii. 21. 17; 26. 16, where Nirv[=a]na cannot mean extinction but absorption, _i.e_., the 'blowing out' of the individual flame (spirit) of life, only that it may become one with the universal spirit. In another passage it is directly equated with _sukham brahma_ in the same way (_ib_. 189. 17). If now one turn to the employment of this word in the third book he will find the case to be the same. When the king reproaches his queen for her atheistic opinions in iii. 31. 26 he says that if there were no reward for good deeds hereafter "people would not seek Nirv[=a]na," just as he speaks of heaven ('immortality') and hell, _ib_. 20 and 19, not meaning thereby extinction but absorption. So after a description of that third heaven wherein is Vishnu, when one reads that Mudgala "attained that highest eternal bliss the sign of which is Nirv[=a]na" (iii. 261. 47), he can only suppose that the word means here absorption into _brahma_ or union with Vishnu. In fact Nirv[=a]na is already a word of which the sense has been subjected to attrition enough to make it synonymous with 'bliss.' Thus "the gods attained Nirv[=a]na by means of Vishnu's greatness" (iii. 201. 22); and a thirsty man "after drinking water attained Nirv[=a]na," _i.e_., the drink made him happy (_ib_. 126. 16). One may best compare the Jain Nirv[=a]na of happiness.

While, therefore, Buddhism seems to have left many manifest traces[60] in the later epic the weight of its influence on the early epic may well be questioned. The moral harangues of the earlier books show nothing more than is consistent with that Brahmanism which has made its way unaided through the greater humanitarianism of the earlier Upanishads. At the same time it is right to say that since the poem is composed after Buddha's time there is no historical certainty in regard to the inner connection of belief and morality (as expounded in the epic) with Buddhism. Buddhism, though at a distance, environed epic Brahmanism, and may well have influenced it. The objective proofs for or against this are not, however, decisive.

Whether Christianity has affected the epic is another question that can be answered (and then doubtfully) only by drawing a line between epic and pseudo-epic. And in this regard the Harivança legends of Krishna are to be grouped with the pseudo-epic, of which they are the legitimate if late continuation. Again one must separate teaching from legend. To the Divine Song belong sentiments and phrases that have been ascribed to Christian influence. Definitive assurance in this regard is an impossibility. When Vishnu says (as is said also in the Upanishads) "I am the letter A," one may, and probably will, decide that this is or is not an imitation of "I am alpha," strictly in accordance with his preconceived opinions. There are absolutely no historical data to go upon. One may say with tolerable certainty that the Divine Song as a whole is antique, prior to Christianity. But it is as unmistakably interpolated and altered. The doctrine of _bhakti_, faithful love as a means of salvation, cannot be much older than the Song, for it is found only in the latest Upanishads (as shown by comparing them with those undoubtedly old). But on the other hand the _pras[=a]da_ doctrine (of special grace) belongs to a much earlier literature, and there is no reason why the whole theory with its startling resemblance to the doctrine of grace, and its insistence on personal affection for the Lord should not have been self-evolved. The old omnipotence of inherited knowledge stops with the Upanishads, To their authors the Vedas are but a means. They desired wisdom, not knowledge. They postulated the desire for the Supreme Spirit as the true wisdom. From this it is but a step to yearning and love for the Supreme. That step is made in the Divine Song. It is recognized by early Buddhism as a Brahmanic trait. Is it necessarily imported from Christianity? The proof is certainly lacking. Nor, to one accustomed to the middle literature of Hindu religion, is the phraseology so strikingly unique as would appear to be the case. Taken all in all, the teaching of Christianity certainly may be suspected, but it cannot be shown to exist in the Divine Song.

Quite different is the case with the miraculous matter that grew up about the infant Krishna. But here one is out of the epic and dealing with the latest literature in regard to the man-god. This distinction cannot be too much insisted upon, for to point first to the teaching of the Divine Song and then to the Krishna legends as equally reflecting Christianity is to mix up two periods as distinct as periods can be established in Hindu literature. And the result of the whole investigation shows that the proofs of borrowing are as different as these periods. The inner Christianity thought to be copied by the re-writer of the Divine Song is doubtful in the last degree. The outer Christianity reflected in the Puranic legends of Krishna is as palpable as it is shocking. Shocking, for here not only are miracles treated grotesquely, but everything that is meant spiritually in the Occident is interpreted physically and carnally. The love of the Bridegroom is sensual; the brides of God are drunken dancing girls.

The 'coincidences,' as some scholars marvellously regard them, between the legends of Christ and Krishna are too extraordinary to be accepted as such. They are direct importations, not accidental coincidences. Whatever is most marvellous in the accounts of Christianity finds itself here reproduced in Krishnaism. It is not in the doctrine of _avatars_, which resembles the doctrine of the Incarnation,[61] it is in the totality of legends connected with Krishna that one is forced to see Christian influence. The scenes of the nativity, the adoration of the magi, the miracles during the Saviour's childhood, the transfiguration, and other stories of Christ are reproduced with astonishing similarity. One may add to this the Christmas festival, where Krishna is born in a stable, and the use of certain church-utensils in the temple-service. Weber has proved by collecting and explaining these 'coincidences,'[62] that there must be identity of origin. It remains only to ask from which side is the borrowing? Considering how late are these Krishna legends in India[63] there can be no doubt that the Hindu borrowed the tales, but not the name; for the last assumption is quite improbable because Krishna (=Christ?) is native enough, and Vishnu is as old as the Rig Veda. That these tales are of secondary importance, as they are of late origin, is a matter of course. They are excrescences upon real Vishnuism (Krishnaism) and the result of anthropomorphizing in its fullest extent the image of the man-god, who is represented in the epic as the incarnation of the Supreme Spirit. The doctrine of the incarnation is thoroughly Indic. It is Buddhistic as well as Brahmanic, and precedes Vishnuism as it does Christianity. The legends are another matter. Here one has to assume direct contact with the Occident.[64] But while agreeing with Weber and disagreeing with Barth in the determination of the relation of this secondary matter, we are unable to agree with Weber in his conclusions in regard to the one passage in the pseudo-epic that is supposed by him[65] to refer to a visit to a Christian church in Alexandria. This is the famous episode of the White Island, which, to be sure, occurs in so late a portion of the Book of Peace (xii. 337. 20 ff) that it might well be what Weber describes it as being. But to us it appears to contain no allusion at all to Christianity. The account in brief is as follows: Three priests with the insignificant names "First, Second, Third,"[66] go to the far North (_diç uttar[=a]_) where, in the "Sea of Milk," they find an Albion called 'White Island,' perhaps regarded as one of the seven or thirteen 'islands,' of which earth consists; and there Vishnu is worshipped as the one god by white men of extraordinary physical characteristics.

The fact that the 'one god' is already a hackneyed phrase of philosophy; that there is no resemblance to a trinitarian god; that the hymn sung to this one god contains no trace of Christian influence, but is on the other hand thoroughly native in tone and phraseology, being as follows: "Victory to thee, thou god with lotus-eyes; Reverence to thee, thou creator of all things; Reverence be to thee, O Vishnu;[67] thou Great Person; first-born one"; all these facts indicate that if the White-islanders are indeed to be regarded as foreigners worshipping a strange god, that god is strictly monotheistic and not trinitarian. Weber lays stress on the expression 'first-born,' which he thinks refers to Christ; but the epithet is old (Vedic), and is common, and means no more than 'primal deity.'

There is much that appears to be foreign in the epic. This passage seems rather to be a recollection of some shrine where monotheism without Christianity was acknowledged. On the other hand, even in the pseudo-epic, there is much apparently borrowed which yet is altogether native to Brahmanic land and sect. It is not in any passage which is proved to be of foreign origin that one reads of the boy of twelve years who entered among the wise men and confuted their reasoning (above, p. 382). It is not of course due to Christian influence that the great 'saint of the stake' is taken by the 'king's men,' is crucified (or literally impaled) among thieves, and lives so long that the guard go and tell the king of the miracle;[68] nor is it necessary to assume that everything elevated is borrowed. "When I revile, I revile not again," sounds indeed like an echo of Christian teaching, but how thoroughly Hindu is the reason. "For I know that self-control is the door of immortality." And in the same breath, with a connection of meaning patent only when one regards the whole not as borrowed but as native, follow the words that we have ventured to put upon the title-page of this volume, as the highest and at the same time the truest expression of a religion that in bringing the gods to men raised man to equally with God--"This is a holy mystery which I declare unto you: There is nothing nobler than humanity."[69]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: He appears in different complete
manifestations, while Vishnu appears only in part, as a
'descent,' _avatar, i.e_., Vishnu is incarnate, Çiva appears
whole.]

[Footnote 2: The original story perhaps antedates the
Brahmanic Brahm[=a]. But, for all one knows, when the poem
was first written Brahm[=a] was already decadent as chief
god. In that case two strata of religious belief have been
formally super-imposed, Vishnuism and Çivaism.]

[Footnote 3: While agreeing with Telang that the original
G[=i]t[=a] is an old poem, we cannot subscribe to his
argument (SBE. VIII. p. 19) that the priority of the
S[=a]man over the Rig Veda is evidence of antiquity; still
less to the argument, p. 21, from the castes.]

[Footnote 4: Compare Manu, i. 7: "He the subtile,
indiscernible, eternal, inconceivable One, who makes all
creatures."]

[Footnote 5: Possibly the original opening of another poem.]

[Footnote 6: The _avatars_ of Vishnu are meant. The very
knight to whom he speaks is later regarded (in South India)
as incarnate god, and today is worshipped as an _avatar_ of
Vishnu. The idea of the 'birth-stories' of the Buddhists is
thought by some scholars to have been connected historically
with the _avatars_ of Vishnu.]

[Footnote 7: This is one of the notes struck in the later
Upanishads, the doctrine of 'special grace,' originating
perhaps still earlier in the V[=a]c hymn (see above).]

[Footnote 8: That is, one that also has no desires may act
(without desiring the fruit of action.)]

[Footnote 9: This is a S[=a]nkhya division.]

[Footnote 10: This cleverly contrived or profound
universality of Vishnuism is one of the greatest obstacles
to missionary effort. The Vishnuite will accept Christ, but
as a form of Vishnu, as here explained. Compare below: "Even
they that sacrifice to other gods really sacrifice to Me."]

[Footnote 11: Prakriti (_prak[r.]t[=i]_), nature; the term
belongs to the S[=a]nkhya philosophy, which recognizes
nature as distinct from spirit, a duality, opposed to
_adv[=a]ita_, the non-duality of the Ved[=a]nta system,
where the S[=a]nkhya 'nature' is represented by
_m[=a]y[=a]_, 'illusion.' Otherwise the word Prakrit is the
'natural,' vulgar dialect, opposed to Sanskrit, the refined,
'put-together' language.]

[Footnote 12: Saints, literally 'the successful ones.']

[Footnote 13: Alluding to the later derivation of Yama from
_yam_, control.]

[Footnote 14: "The letter A," as in the Upanishads (see
above, p. 226).]

[Footnote 15: Compare a parallel list of diadochoi in xii.
349. 51.]

[Footnote 16: One of the Jaina traits of the epic,
_brahm[=a]di[s.]u t[r.]u[=a]nte[s.]u bh[=u]te[s.]u
parivartate_, in distinction from the Buddhistic
metempsychosis, which stops short of plants. But perhaps it
is rather borrowed from the B[.r]ahman by the Jain, for
there is a formal acknowledgment that _sth[=a]var[=a]s_
'stationary things,' have part in metempsychosis, Manu, xii.
42, although in the distribution that follows this is almost
ignored (vs. 58).]

[Footnote 17: It is rather difficult to compress the list
into this number. Some of the names are perhaps later
additions.]

[Footnote 18: In contrast one may note the frequent boast
that a king 'fears not even the gods,' _e.g._, i. 199. 1.]

[Footnote 19: Later there are twenty-one worlds analogous lo
the twenty-one hells.]

[Footnote 20: Elsewhere, oh the other hand, the islands are
four or seven, the earlier view.]

[Footnote 21: iii. 142. The boar-shape of Vishnu is a
favorite one, as is the dwarf-incarnation. Compare
V[=a]mana, V[=a]manaka, Vishnupada, in the list of holy
watering-places (iii. 83). Many of Vishnu's acts are simply
transferred from Brahm[=a], to whom they belonged in older
tales. Compare above, p.215.]

[Footnote 22: In i. 197, Praj[=a]pati the Father-god, is the
highest god, to whom Indra, as usual, runs for help. Çiva
appears as a higher god, and drives Indra into a hole, where
he sees five former Indras; and finally Vishnu comes on to
the stage as the highest of all, "the infinite,
inconceivable, eternal, the All in endless forms." Brahm[=a]
is invoked now and then in a perfunctory way, but no one
really expects him to do anything. He has done his work,
made the castes, the sacrifice, and (occasionally)
everything. And he will do this again when the new aeon
begins. But for this aeon his work is accomplished.]

[Footnote 23: Thus in XII. 785. 165: "Neither Brahm[=a] nor
Vishnu is capable of understanding the greatness of Çiva."]

[Footnote 24: Or "three eyes."]

[Footnote 25: Compare III. 39. 77: "The destroyer of
Daksha's sacrifice." Compare the same epithet in the hymn to
Çiva, X. 7. 3, after which appear the devils who serve Çiva.
Such devils, in the following, feast on the dead upon the
field of battle, though, when left to themselves, 'midnight
is the hour when the demons swarm,' III. 11. 4 and 33. In X.
18 and XIII. 161 Çiva's act is described in full.]

[Footnote 26: Çiva, called Bhava, Çarva, the trident-holder,
the Lord ([=I]ç[=a]na), Çankara, the Great God, etc.,
generally appears at his best where the epic is at its
worst, the interpolations being more flagrant than in the
case of Vishnuite eulogies. The most devout worshipper of
Vishnu is represented as an adherent of Çiva, as invoking
him for help after fighting with him. He is "invincible
before the three worlds." He is the sun; his blood is ashes.
All the gods, with Brahm[=a] at their head, revere him. He
has three heads, three faces, six arms (compare iii. 39. 74
ff.; 83. 125); though other passages give him more.]

[Footnote 27: Çiva has as sign the bull: Vishnu, the boar.]

[Footnote 28: ZDMG. xxxviii. pp. 197, 200.]

[Footnote 29: _Lit. u. Cultur_, p. 461.]

[Footnote 30: Holtzmann now says (in _Neunzehn Bücher_, p.
198) that the whole episode which terminates with Baladeva's
visit an addition to the original. Holtzmann's monograph on
Brahm[=a] is in ZDMG. xxxviii. 167.]

[Footnote 31: A good example is that of the two visions of
Arjuna, first the vision of Vishnu, then another vision of
Çiva, whom Arjuna and Vishnu visit (vii. 80).]

[Footnote 32: Çankara and Çiva mean almost the same; 'giver
of blessings' and 'prospering' (or 'kindly'), respectively.]

[Footnote 33: _Brahma[n.]as sumahotsavas_ (compare the
commentator). The _sam[=a]ja_ of Brahm[=a] may be explained
by that of Çiva mentioned in the same place and described
elsewhere (iv. 13. 14 ff.; i. 164. 20).]

[Footnote 34: Not _sleeping_, Vishnu, despite _svapimi_,
does not slumber; he only muses.]

[Footnote 35: Man (divine) and god human, but N[=a]r[=a]yana
is a new name of Vishnu, and the two are reckoned as two
inseparable seers (divinities).]

[Footnote 36: This is the only really trinitarian passage in
the epic. In i. 1. 32; xiii. 16. 15, the belief may be
indicated, but not certainly, as it is in Hariv. 10,662. See
on this point Holtzroann, ZDMG. xxxviii. p. 204. In xiv. 54.
14 the form is V[=i]shnu, Brahm[=a], Indra.]

[Footnote 37: Compare 339. 114, "thou art
_pañcamah[=a]kalpa_." The commentator gives the names of
five sects, S[=a]ura, Ç[=a]kta, G[=a]neça, Ç[=a]iva,
Vaishnava. The 'five times,' implied in Pañcak[=a]ta, he
says are day, night, month, seasons, and year (_ib_. 66). In
340. 117 (which chapter is Pancar[=a]tric), Brahm[=a] "knows
that Vishnu is superior."]

[Footnote 38: V[=a]j. S. xvi. 1-66; T[=a]itt. S. iv. 5.
1-11.]

[Footnote 39: Çiva has no ordinary sacrifice: he is (as
above) in general a destroyer of sacrifice, _i.e_., of Vedic
sacrifice; but as Paçupati, "Lord of beasts," he claims the
bloody sacrifice of the first beast, man.]

[Footnote 40: The usual opinion is that phallic worship was
a trait of southern tribes foisted upon northern Çivaism.
Philosophically Çivaism is first monotheistic and then
pantheistic, To-day it is nominally pantheistic but really
it is dualistic.]

[Footnote 41: There are indications in this passage of some
sectarian feeling, and the fear of partisan warfare (229);
in regard to which we add from Muir and Holtzmann the
passage XII. 343. 121, where is symbolized a peaceful issue
of war between Vishnuism and Çivaism.]

[Footnote 42: Grahas are also planets, but in this cult they
are not astrological, as show their names.]

[Footnote 43: They are possibly old, as Weber thinks, but
they seem to have nothing in common with the ancient female
divinities.]

[Footnote 44: Compare another hymn to Durg[=a] in IV. 6. 5
ff. (late). Durgi was probably an independent local deity,
subsequently regarded as Çiva's female side. She plays a
great rôle, under various names, in the 'revived'
literature, as do the love-god and Ganeça. In both hymns she
is 'Vishnu's sister,' and in IV. 6 a 'pure virgin.']

[Footnote 45: One comparatively new god deserves a passing
mention, Dharma's son, K[=a]ma, the (Grecian?) love-god,
'the mind-shaker,' 'the limbless one,' whose arrows are like
those of Cupid (I. 66. 32; 171. 34; III. 46. 2). He is an
adventitious addition to the epic. His later name of Ananga
occurs in XII. 59. 91. In I. 71. 41 and 171. 40 he is
Manmatha. The Atharvan god also has darts, III. 25, a mark
of this latest Veda.]

[Footnote 46: Compare ii. 22. 18: "Great holiness, great
glory, penance, death in battle, these are each respectively
productive of heaven; the last alone is a sure cause."]

[Footnote 47: This description and the sentiments are quite
late. The same sort of heaven (without the philosophical
bitterness, with which compare above, p. 229) is, however,
found in other passages, somewhat augmented with nymphs and
facile goddesses.]

[Footnote 48: This doctrine is supposed by some scholars to
be due to outside influence, but the doubt is not
substantiated, and even in the Rig Veda one passage appears
to refer to it. Doubtless, however, the later expanded view,
with its complicated reckonings, may have been touched by
foreign influence.]

[Footnote 49: _Na [=a]san s[=a]ma-[r.]g-yajur-varn[=a]s_. In
xii. 342. 8 the order is Rik-Yajus-Atharvan-S[=a]man. The
habit of putting S[=a]man instead of Rik at the head of the
Vedas is still kept in the late litany to Çiva, who is "the
S[=a]man among the Vedas" meaning, of course, the first and
best. In the same place, "Çiva is the Itih[=a]sa" epic
(xiii. 14. 323; and _ib_. 17. 78, 91), for the epic
outweighs all the Vedas in its own estimation.]

[Footnote 50: iii. 149. 14; 188. 22; 189. 32; probably with
a recollection of the colors of the four castes, white, red,
yellow, black. According to xii. 233. 32, there is no
sacrifice in the Krita age, but, beginning with the Tret[=a]
age, there is a general diffusion of sacrifice in the
Dv[=a]para age. In another passage of the same book it is
said that marriage laws arose in the Dv[=a]para age (207. 38
ff.).]

[Footnote 51: The teaching varies somewhat in the allotment
of years. See Manu, I. 67.]

[Footnote 52: Weber thinks, on the other hand, that the
parties represent respectively, Çiva and Vishuu worship,
_Ind. St_. i. 206.]

[Footnote 53: This book also is closely in touch with the
later Pur[=a]nas. For instance, Citragupta, Yama's
secretary, is known only to the books of the pseudo-epic,
the Vishnu Pur[=a]na, the Padma Pur[=a]na, etc.]

[Footnote 54: _Neunzehn Bücher_, p. 86.]

[Footnote 55: The epic does not care much for castes in some
passages. In one such it is said that members of all castes
become priests when they go across the Gomal, iii. 84. 48.]

[Footnote 56: xii. 319. 87 ff. _(pr[=a]pya j[=n][=a]nam_ ...
_ç[=u]dr[=a]d api_); xii. 328. 49 (_çr[=a]vayee caturo
var[n.][=a]n_). The epic regards itself as more than
equivalent (_adhikam)_ to the four Vedas, i. 1. 272.]

[Footnote 57: Some ascribe the _sams[=a]ra_ doctrine to
Buddhistic influence--a thesis supported only by the fact
that this occurs in late Brahmanic passages and Upanishads.
But the assumption that Upanishads do not precede Buddha is
scarcely tenable. The Katha, according to Weber (_Sits.
Berl. Ak._ 1890, p. 930), is late (Christian!): according to
Oldenberg and Whitney, early (_Buddha_, p. 56; _Proc. AOS._
May, 1886).]

[Footnote 58: xii. 295. 5-6.]

[Footnote 59: Noteworthy is the fact that parts of the
Çivaite thirteenth book seem to be most Buddhistic (ch. i.;
143. 48, etc.), and monotheistic (16. 12 ff.): though the
White Islanders are made Vishnuite in the twelfth. Compare
Holtzmann, _ad. loc_.]

[Footnote 60: Nirv[=a]na, loosely used; termini technici;
possibly the evils of the fourth age; the mention of
(Buddhist) temples, etc.]

[Footnote 61: On this point we agree neither with Weber, who
regards the _avatars_ as an imitation of the Incarnation
(_Ind. St._ ii. p. 169), nor with Schroeder, who (_Literatur
und Cultur_, p. 330) would derive the notion from the
birth-stories of Buddha. In our opinion the _avatar_-theory
is older than either and is often only an assimilation of
outlying totem-gods to the Brahman's god, or as in the case
of the flood-story the necessary belief that the 'fish' must
have been the god of the race. Some of these _avatars_ are
Brahmanic, presumably pre-Buddhistic.]

[Footnote 62: Krishna's Geburtsfest (_janm[=a][s.]tam[=i]),_
1867.]

[Footnote 63: Since they do not appear till after the real
epic we date them tentatively as arising after 600 A.D. Most
of them are in still later Pur[=a]nas.]

[Footnote 64: Incidental rapport with the Greeks has been
pointed out in other instances; the _surang[=a]_, a mine, of
the late tale in i. 148. 12, etc (_Ind. St._ ii. p. 395),
has been equated with syrinx; Skanda with Alexander, etc. It
is needless to say that each of these is only a guess in
etymology. But Greek influence is perceptible in the Greek
soldiers and names of (Greek) kings that are found in the
epic.]

[Footnote 65: _Ind. St._ i. 423; ii. 169. Weber believes
that little is native to India which resembles Christianity
in the way of theology; lore of God, special grace,
monotheism, all to him are stolen. We regret that we must
disagree with him in these instances.]

[Footnote 66: Ekata, Dvita, Trita. A Dvita appears as early
as the Rig Veda. Ekata is an analogous formation and is old
also.]

[Footnote 67: Hrish[=i]keça is 'lord of senses,' a common
epithet of Vishnu (Krishna).]

[Footnote 68: i. 107. 1 ff. The spirits of the dead come to
him and comfort him in the shape of birds--an old trait,
compare B[=a]udh. Dh. Ç[=a]st. ii. 8. 14. 10; Çat. Br. vi.
1. 1. 2.]

[Footnote 69: xii. 300. 20.]

* * * * *