Chapter XVII: Modern Hindu Sects.1 (1)

Although the faith of India seems to have completed a circle, landing at last in a polytheism as gross as was that of the Vedic age, yet is this a delusive aspect, as will appear if one survey the course of the higher intellectual life of the people, ignoring, as is right, the invariable factor introduced by the base imaginings of the vulgar. The greater spirituality has always expressed itself in independent movement, and voiced itself in terms of revolution. But in reality each change has been one of evolution. To trace back to the Vedic period the origin of Hindu sectarianism would, indeed, be a nice task for a fine scholar, but it would not be temerarious to attempt it. We have failed of our purpose if we have not already impressed upon the reader's mind the truth that the progress of Brahmanic theology (in distinction from demonology) has been one journey, made with rests and halts, it is true, and even with digressions from the straight path; but without abatement of intent, and without permanent change of direction. Nor can one judge otherwise even when he stands before so humiliating an exhibition of groundling bigotry as is presented by some of the religious sects of the present day. The world of lower organisms survives the ascent of the higher. There is always undergrowth; but before the fall of a great tree its seeds sprout, withal in the very soil of the weedy thicket below. So out of the rank garden of Hindu superstitions arise, one after another, lofty trees of an old seed, which is ever renewed, and which cultivation has gradually improved.

We have shown, especially in the chapters on the Atharva Veda and on Hinduism, as revealed in epic poetry, how constant in India is the relation between these two growths. If surprised at the height of early Hindu thought, one is yet more astonished at the permanence of the inferior life which flourishes beneath the shady protection of the superior. Even here one may follow the metaphor, for the humbler life below is often a condition of the grander growth above.

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

To INDRA.[2]

He who, just born, with thought endowed, the foremost,
Himself a god hemmed in the gods with power;
Before whose breath, and at whose manhood's greatness,
The two worlds trembled; he, ye folk, is Indra.

He who the earth made firm as it was shaking,
And made repose the forward tottering mountains;
Who measured wide the inter-space aerial,
And heaven established; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who slew the dragon, loosed the rivers seven,
And drove from Vala's hiding place the cattle;[3]
Who fire between the two stones[4] hath engendered,
Conqueror in conflicts; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who all things here, things changeable, created;
Who lowered and put to naught the barbarous color,[5]
And, like victorious gambler, took as winnings
His foe's prosperity; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Whom, awful, they (yet) ask about: 'where is he?'
And speak thus of him, saying, 'he exists not'--
He makes like dice[6] his foe's prosperity vanish;
Believe on him; and he, ye folk, is Indra.

In whose direction horses are and cattle;
In whose, the hosts (of war) and all the chariots;
Who hath both S[=u]rya and the Dawn engendered,
The Waters' leader; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Both heaven and earth do bow themselves before him,
And at his breath the mountains are affrighted;
Who bolt in arms is seen, the _soma_-drinker,
And bolt in hand; ('tis) he, ye folk, is Indra.

Who helps the _soma_-presser, (_soma_)-cooker,
The praiser (helps), and him that active serveth;
Of whom the increase _brahma_ is and _soma_,
And his this offering; he, ye folk, is Indra.

Here _brahma_, which word already in the Yajur Veda has taken to itself the later philosophical signification, is merely prayer, the meaning which in the Rig Veda is universal.

The note struck in this hymn is not unique:

(THE POET.)

Eager for booty proffer your laudation
To Indra; truth (is he),[7] if truth existeth;
'Indra is not,' so speaketh this and that one;
'Who him hath seen? To whom shall we give praises?'

(THE GOD.)

I am, O singer, he; look here upon me;
All creatures born do I surpass in greatness.
Me well-directed sacrifices nourish,
Destructive I destroy existent beings.[8]

These are not pleas in behalf of a new god. It is not the mere god of physical phenomena who is here doubted and defended. It is the god that in the last stage of the Rig Veda is become the Creator and Destroyer, and, in the light of a completed pantheism, is grown too great to retain his personality. With such a protest begins the great revolt that is the sign of an inner evolution extending through the Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads. Indra, like other gods,[9] is held by the rite; to the vulgar he is still the great god;[10] to the philosopher, a name. The populace respect him, and sacerdotalism conserves him, that same crafty, priestly power, which already at the close of the Rig Vedic period dares to say that only the king who is subject to the priest is sure of himself, and a little later that killing a priest is the only real murder. We have shown above how the real divinity of the gods was diminished even at the hands of the priests that needed them for the rites and baksheesh, which was the goal of their piety. Even Praj[=a]pati, the Father-god, their own creation, is mortal as well as immortal.[11] We have shown, also, how difficult it must have been to release the reason from the formal band of the rite. Socially it was impossible to do so. He that was not initiated was excommunicated, an outcast. But, on the other hand, the great sacrifices gradually fell over from their own weight. Cumbersome and costly, they were replaced by proxy works of piety; _vidh[=a]nas_ were established that obviated the real rite; just as to-day, 'pocket altars' take the place of real altars.[12] There was a gradual intrusion of the Hindu cult; popular features began to obtain; the sacrifice was made to embrace in its workings the whole family of the sacrificer (instead of its effect being confined to him alone, as was the earlier form); and finally village celebrations became more general than those of the individual. Slowly Hinduism built itself a ritual,[13] which overpowered the Brahmanic rite. Then, again, behind the geographical advance of Brahmanism[14] lay a people more and more prone to diverge from the true cult (from the Brahmanic point of view). In the latter part of the great Br[=a]hmana[15] there is already a distrust of the Indus tribes, which marks the breaking up of Aryan unity; not that breaking up into political division which is seen even in the Rig Veda, where Aryan fights against Aryan as well as against the barbarian, but the more serious dismemberment caused by the hates of priests, for here there was no reconciliation.

The cynical scepticism of the Brahmanic ritualists, as well as the divergence of opinions in regard to this or that sacrificial pettiness, shows that even where there was overt union there was covert discord, the disagreement of schools, and the difference of faith. But all this does but reflect the greater difference in speculation and theology which was forming above the heads of the ritualistic bigots. For it is not without reason that the Upanishads are more or less awkwardly laid in as the top-stone on the liturgical edifice. They belong to the time but they are of it only in part. Yet to dissociate the mass of Brahmanic priestlings from the Upanishad thinkers, as if the latter were altogether members of a new era, would be to lose the true historical perspective. The vigor of protest against the received belief continues from the Rig Veda to Buddha, from Buddha till to-day.

The Vedic cult absorbed a good deal of Hinduism, for instance the worship of Fate,[16] just as Hinduism absorbed a good deal of Vedic cult. Nor were the popular works obnoxious to the priest. In the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad[17] the Itih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas (fore-runners of the epic) are already reckoned as a fifth Veda, being recognized as a Veda almost as soon as was the Atharvan,[18] which even in Manu is still called merely 'texts of Atharvan and Angiras' (where texts of Bhrigu might as well have been added). Just as the latter work is formally recognized, and the use of its magical formulas, if employed for a good purpose, is enjoined in epic[19] and law (_e.g._ Manu, xi. 33), so the Hinduistic rites crept gradually into the foreground, pushing back the _soma_-cult. Idols are formally recognized as venerable by the law-makers;[20] even before their day the 'holy pool,' which we have shown to be so important to Hinduism, is accepted by Brahmanism.[21] Something, too, of the former's catholicity is apparent in the cult at an early date, only to be suppressed afterwards. Thus in [=A]it. Br. II. 19, the slave's son shares the sacrifice; and the slave drinks _soma_ in one of the half-Brahmanical, half-popular festivals.[22] Whether human sacrifice, sanctioned by some modern sects, is aught but pure Hinduism, Çivaism, as affected by the cult of the wild-tribes, it is hard to say. At any rate, such sacrifices in the Brahmanic world were obsolete long before one finds them in Hinduism. Of Buddhistic, Brahmanic, and Hinduistic reciprocity we have spoken already, but we may add one curious fact, namely, that the Buddhism of Çivaism is marked by its holy numbers. The Brahmanic Rudra with eight names[23] and eight forms[24] is clearly Çivaite, and the numbers are as clearly Buddhistic[25] Thus, as Feer has shown, Buddhist hells are eight, sixteen, etc, while the Brahmanic hells are seven, twenty-one, etc. Again, the use of the rosary was originally Çivaite, not Buddhisttc;[26] and Buddha in Bali, where they live amicably side by side, is regarded as Çiva's brother.[27]

Two things result from this interlocking of sectarian Brahmanism with other sects. First, it is impossible to say in how far each influenced the other; and, again, the antiquity of special ideas is rendered doubtful. A Brahmanic idea can pretty safely be allotted to its first period, because the literature is large enough to permit the assumption that it will appear in literature not much later than it obtains. But a sectarian idea may go back centuries before it is permanently formulated, as, for example, the doctrine of special grace in a modern sect.

One more point must be noticed before we proceed to review the sects of to-day. Hindu morality, the ethical tone of the modern sects, is older than the special forms of Hindu viciousness which have been received into the cult. A negative altruism (beyond which Brahmanism never got) is characteristic of the Hindu sects. But this is already embodied in the golden rule, as it is thus formulated in the epic 'Compendium of Duty':

Not that to others should one do
Which he himself objecteth to.
This is man's duty in one word;
All other rules may be ignored.[28]

The same is true of the 'Ten Commandments' of one of the modern sects. It is one of the strong proofs that Christian morals did not have much effect upon early Hinduism, that, although the Christian Church of St. Thomas, as is well established, was in Malabar as early as 522,[29] and Christians were in the North in the seventh century, yet no trace of the active Christian benevolence, in place of this abstention from injury, finds its way into the epic or Pur[=a]nas. But an active altruism permeates Buddhism, and one reads in the birth-stories even of a saviour Buddha, not the Buddha of love, M[=a]itreya, who was to be the next Buddha on earth, but of that M[=a]itrakanyaka, who left heaven and came to earth that he might redeem the sins of others.[30]

Whether there is any special touch between the older sects and those of modern days[31] that have their headquarters in the same districts is a question which we have endeavored to investigate, but we have found nothing to substantiate such an opinion. Buddhism retired, too early to have influence on the sects of to-day, and between Jainism and the same sects there does not seem to be any peculiar rapport even where the sect is seated in a Jain stronghold.[35]] The Jains occupy, generally speaking, the Northwest (and South), while the Buddhists were located in the Northeast and South. So Çivaism may be loosely located as popular in the Northeast and South, while Vishnuism has its habitat rather in the jain centres of the Northwest (and South).

We have mentioned in the preceding chapter the sects of a few centuries ago, as these have been described in Brahmanic literature.[33] The importance, and even the existence of some of the sects, described in the _Conquest of Çankara_, has been questioned, and the opinion has been expressed that, since they are described only to be exposed as heretical, they may have been creations of fancy, imaginary sects; the refutation of their principles being a _tour de force_ on the part of the Brahmanic savant, who shows his acumen by imagining a sect and then discountenancing it. It does not, indeed, seem to us very probable that communities were ever formed as 'Agnis' or 'Yamas,' etc, but on the other hand, we think it is more likely that sects have gone to pieces without leaving any trace than that those enumerated, explained, and criticised should have been mere fancies.[46]] Moreover, in the case of some of these sects there are still survivors, so that _a fortiori_ one may presume the others to have existed also, if not as sects or communities, yet as bodies professing faith in Indra or Yama, etc. The sects with which we have to deal now are chiefly those of this century, but many of these can claim a definite antiquity of several centuries at least. They have been described by Wilson in his famous _Sketch_, and, in special cases, more recently and more fully by Williams' and other writers.

THE ÇIVAITES.

While the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic background, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day simply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the former comprising the R[=a]ma sects, and the latter most of the Krishnaites. On the other hand, in Çivaism one must distinguish quite sharply in time between the different sects that go by Çiva's name. If one look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most degraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any philosophy, and that idealistic Çivaism is a remnant of the past. But he will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old Vedantic aspects of Çivaism. On the contrary, wherever Çivaism is pantheistic it is a Çivaism which obtains only in certain ancient schools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders who have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard Çiva merely as a name for the One God. It is necessary, therefore, as it is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between the beliefs of the vulgar and the learned. For from the earliest period the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter, but at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.

The older S[=a]nkhya form of Çivaism was still found among the P[=a]çupatas,'adherents of the Lord' (Paçupati) and Maheçvaras ('adherents of the great Lord'), who are mentioned in the epic and in inscriptions of the fifth century. In the ninth century there was a purely philosophical Çivaism which is Vedantic. But neither in the fact (which is by no means a certainty) that Çankara accepted Çiva as the name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic Çivaite philosophy of Kashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely idealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Som[=a]nanda, is there any trace of a popular religion. Çiva is here the pantheistic god, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired schoolmen. On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in the twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if Çivaite, only nominally Vedantic. Thus what philosophy the Jangamas professedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not pantheistic) disciples of Çiva's priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha), who taught Çiva-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the Linga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India under the name of Jangamas, 'vagrants,' or Ling[=a]yits, 'phallus-wearers,' are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic mysticism. So in the case of the Tridandins, the Daçan[=a]mis, and other sects attributed to Çivaism, as well as the Sm[=a]rtas (orthodox Brahmans) who professed Çivaism. According to Wilson the Tridandins (whose triple, _tri_, staff, _da[n.][d.]i_, indicates control of word, thought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the R[=a]m[=a]nuja sect, though some of them claim to be Vedantic Çivaites. Nominally Çivaite are also the Southern 'Saints,' Sittars (Sanskrit Siddhas), but these are a modern sect whose religion has been taught them by Islam, or possibly by Christianity.[36] The extreme North and South are the districts where Çivaism as a popular religion has, or had, its firmest hold, and it is for this reason that the higher religions which obtain in these districts are given to Çiva. But in reality they simply take Çiva, the great god of the neighborhood, in order to have a name for their monotheistic god, exactly as missionaries among the American Indians pray to the Great Spirit, to adapt themselves to their audience's comprehension. In India, as in this country, they that proselyte would prefer to use their own terminology, but they wisely use that of their hearers.

We find no evidence to prove that there were ever really sectarian Çivaites who did not from the beginning practice brutal rites, or else soon become ascetics of the lowest and most despicable sort. For philosophical Çivaites were never sectaries. They cared little whether the All-god or One they argued about was called Vishnu or Çiva. But whenever one finds a true Çivaite devotee, that is, a man that will not worship Vishnu but holds fast to Çiva as the only manifestation of the supreme divinity, he will notice that such an one quickly becomes obscene, brutal, prone to bloodshed, apt for any disgusting practice, intellectually void, and morally beneath contempt. If the Çivaite be an ascetic his asceticism will be the result either of his lack of intelligence (as in the case of the sects to be described immediately) or of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who will save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the case with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no better than Çivaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites, exclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal, haters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually admirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are to-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really Vishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never been the case with real Çivaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed out, Çivaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The Çivaite needs for his cult only a phallus pebble, _bilva_ leaves and water. The Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for _leitourgiai_. But Çivaism is cheap because Çivaites are poor, the dregs of society; it is not adopted because it is cheap.

We think, therefore, that to describe Çivaism as indifferently pantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been pantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because Çiva at that time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual sects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical relation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we shall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of the mutual relations between Çivaites and Vishnuites in the past.

Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. Çivaism, Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure Çivaism has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian expressions, but also in the Brahmanic Çivaism of the early epic, and in the Çivaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the literature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-Çivaism which starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work Çiva's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for the masses, it at once gives up Çiva and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping Çiva, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism. Çivaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]

On the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic (tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism. Now Vishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox (Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic pantheism. The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox. It was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya. The marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the epic. It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this heterodox Vishnuism became possible. Vishnuism was soon rescued from the dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression of pantheism. But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his _alter ego_, and in the epic the two are finally one All-god. Vedantic philosopliy continued to present Vishnu rather than Çiva as its All-god, until to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system. But with Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of the All-god. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while R[=a]ma is the god of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a pantheistic god; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually reverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more affected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more prone, by whatever sectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens that Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic god than is R[=a]ma. Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the line not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and unintelligent people. For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done for Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard resembles Çivaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent (though wealthy) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god, without much more thought of his being an All-god _avatar_ than is spent by the ordinary Çivaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism which has been foisted upon Çiva.

But we must now give an account of the low sectaries, the miracle-mongers, jugglers,[40] and ascetic whimsicalities, which together stand under the phallic standard of Çivaism. Ancient and recent observers enumerate a sad list of them. The devotees of the 'highest bird' are a low set of ascetics, who live on voluntary alms, the result of their affectation of extreme penance. The [=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to lower them again. The [=A]k[=a]çamukhas, 'Sky-facers,' hold their faces toward the sky till the muscles stiffen, and they live thus always. The Nakhls, 'Nail' ascetics, allow their nails to grow through their clenched hands, which unfits them for work (but they are all too religiously lazy to work), and makes it necessary for the credulous faithful to support them. Some of these, like the K[=a]naph[=a]ts, 'Ear-splitters,' who pierce the ear with heavy rings, have been respectable Yogis in the past, but most of them have lost what sense their philosophic founders attached to the sign, and keep only the latter as their religion. Some, such as the [=U]kharas and S[=u]kharas, appear to have no distinctive features, all of them being the 'refuse of beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength of nudity, and subdue their passions literally with lock and key. The 'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[=u]daras and K[=a]p[=a]likas, are distinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The former, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by name since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas both show that very likely others among these wretches are but the residue of ancient Çivaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps Buddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, Çiva apparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself, and he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the resemblance of a decent god.

There is a well-known verse, not in Manu, but attributed to him (and for that reason quite a modern forgery),[41] which declares that Çambhu (Çiva) is the god of priests; Vishnu, the god of warriors; Brahm[=a], the god of the V[=a]içyas (farmers and traders); and Ganeça, the god of slaves. It is, on the contrary, Çiva himself, not his son Ganeça, who is the 'god of low people' in the early literature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a god of priests till he is carefully made over by the latter. Nowadays some Brahmans profess the Çivaite faith, but they are Vishnuite if really sectarian.

No Brahman, for instance, will serve at a Çiva shrine, except possibly at Benares, where among more than an hundred shrines to Çiva and his family, Vishnu has but one; and though he will occasionally perform service even in a heretic Jain temple he will not lower himself to worship the Linga. Nor is it true that Çiva is a patron of literature. Like Ganeça, his son, Çiva may upset everything if he be not properly placated, and consequently there is, at the beginning of every enterprise (among others, literary enterprises) in the Renaissance literature, but never in the works of religion or law or in any but modern profane literature, an invocation to Çiva. But he is no more a patron of literature than is Ganeça, or in other words, Çivaism is not more literary than is Ganeçaism. In a literary country no religion is so illiterate as Çivaism, no writings are so inane as are those in his honor. There is no poem, no religious literary monument, no Pur[=a]na even, dedicated to Çiva, that has any literary merit. All that is readable in sectarian literature, the best Pur[=a]nas, the Divine Song, the sectarian R[=a]m[=a]yana, come from Vishnuism. Çivaism has nothing to compare with this, except in the works of them that pretend to be Çivaites but are really not sectaries, like the Sittars and the author of the Çvet[=a]çvatara. Çiva as a 'patron of literature' takes just the place taken by Ganeça in the present beginning of the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata. Vy[=a]sa has here composed the poem[42] but Ganeça is invoked as Vighneça, 'Lord of difficulties,' to help the poet write it out. Vy[=a]sa does the intellectual work and Ganeça performs the manual labor. Vishnuism, in a word, is the only cultivated (native) sectarian religion of India; and the orthodox cult, in that it is Vedantic, lies nearer to Vishnuism than to Çivaism. Why then does one find Çiva invoked by philosophy? Because monotheism in distinction from pantheism was the belief of the wise in the first centuries after the Christian era, till the genius of Çankara definitively raised pantheism in alliance with orthodoxy to be the more esteemed; and because Çiva alone, when the choice lay between him and Vishnu, could be selected as the One God. For Vishnuism was now merged with Krishnaism, a new vulgar cult, and Çiva was an old and venerated god, long since a member of the Brahmanic pantheon. The connection between Çivaism and the S[=a]nkhya system gave it a more respectable and archaic appearance in the eyes of the conservative Brahman, while the original asceticism of Çiva undoubtedly appealed much more to Brahmanic feeling than did the sentimentalism of the Vishnuite. In the extreme North, in the ninth century, philosophy and Çivaism are nominally allied, but really sectarian Çivaism was the cult of the lowest, not of the highest classes. Many of the professed Çivaites are to-day tending to Vedantism, which is the proper philosophy of the Vishnuite; and the Çivaite sects are waning before the Vishnuite power, not only in the middle North, where the mass of the population is devoted to Vishnu, but even in Çiva's later provinces in the extreme South. The social distribution of the sectaries in the Middle Ages was such that one may assign older Vishnuism to the middle classes, and Çivaism to the highest on its philosophical and decently ascetic side, but to the lowest on its phallic and magical side.

But none of the Çivaite sects we have mentioned, imbecile as appear to be the impostors that represent them, are equal in despicable traits to the Ç[=a]ktas. These worshippers of the androgynous Çiva (or of Çakti, the female principle alone), do, indeed, include some Vishnuites among themselves, but they are originally and prevailingly Çivaite.[43] Blood-offerings and human sacrifices are a modern and an ancient Trait of Çiva-worship;[44] and the hill-tribes of the Vindhya and the classical drama show that the cult of Aghor[=i] is a Çivaite manifestation which is at once old and derived from un-Aryan sources. Aghor[=i] and all female monsters naturally associate with Çiva, who is their intellectual and moral counterpart. The older Aghoris exacted human sacrifice in honor of Devi, P[=a]rvat[=i], the wife of Çiva.[2] The adoration of the female side of a god is as old as the Rig Veda, but Çivaism has combined this cult with features probably derived from other independent local cults, such as that of P[=a]rvat[=i], the 'mountain goddess.' They are all united in the person of Çiva's wife of many names, the 'great goddess,' Mah[=a]dev[=i], the 'hard' Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], Um[=a], etc.[45] And it is to this ferocious she-monster that the most abject homage of the Çivaites is paid. So great is the terror inspired by Durg[=a] that they that are not Çivaites at all yet join in her festival; for which purpose, apparently, she is dubbed Vishnu's 'sister.' But it is not blood-guiltiness alone which is laid at the door of this cult. The sectarian religions have an exoteric and an esoteric side, the religion of the 'right hand' and of the 'left hand.' It is the latter (to which belong many that deny the fact) wherein centre the abominations of Çivaism; in less degree, those of Vishnuism also. Obscenity is the soul of this cult. Bestiality equalled only by the orgies of the Indic savages among the hill-tribes is the form of this 'religion.'[47] It is screened by an Orphic philosophy, for is not Nature or Illusion the female side of the Divine Male? It is screened again by religious fervor, for it is pious profligacy that prompts the rites. It is induced practically by an initial carousal and drunkenness; and this is antique, for even the old _soma_-feasts were to a great extent drunken revels, and the gods have got drunk from the time of the Vedas[48] to do their greatest deeds. But in practice, Çakti-worship, when unveiled, amounts to this, that men and women of the same class and family indulge in a Bacchanalian orgy, and that, as they proceed, they give themselves over to every excess which liquor and lust can prompt. A description of the different rites would be to reduplicate an account of indecencies, of which the least vile is too esoteric to sketch faithfully. Vaguely to outline one such religious festival will suffice. A naked woman, the wife of the chief priest, sits in the middle of the 'holy circle.' She represents Durg[=a], the divine female principle. The Bacchic orgy begins with hard drinking. Çiva as Bh[=a]irava, 'the dreadful,' has his human counterpart also, who must then and there pair with the impersonated Durg[=a]. The worship proper consists in the repetition of meaningless _mantra_ syllables and yells; the worship improper, in indulgence in 'wine and women' (particularly enjoined in the rite-books called Tantras). Human sacrifice at these rites is said to be extinct at the present day.[49]

But blood-lust is appeased by the hacking of their own bodies. Garments are cast in a heap. Lots are drawn for the women's garments[50] by the men. With her whose clothes he gets each man continues the debauch, inviting incest in addition to all other excess.[51]

The older Vishnuite sects (P[=a][=n]car[=a]tras, etc.) may have had some of this filth in their make-up; but mass for mass the practices are characteristic of Çivaism and not of Vishnuism.[52] Especially Çivaite, however, is the 'mother worship,' to which reference was made in the chapter on epic Hinduism. These 'mothers' are guardian goddesses, or fiends of disease, etc. One may not claim that all Ç[=a]ktas are Çivaites, but how small a part of Vishnuism is occupied with Çakti-worship can be estimated only by surveying the whole body of worshippers of that name.

We cannot leave the lust and murder of modern Çivaism without speaking of still another sect which hangs upon the heels of K[=a]l[=i], that of the Thugs. It may, indeed, be questioned whether Çiva should be responsible for the doings of his spouse, K[=a]l[=i]. But like seeks like, and there is every historical justification in making out Çiva to be as bad as the company he keeps. Durg[=a] and K[=a]l[=i] are not vainly looked upon as Çiva's female side. So that a sect like the Thugs,[53] which worshipped K[=a]li, may, it is true, be taken out of the Çivaite sects, but only if one will split Çivaism in two and reproduce the original condition, wherein Çiva was one monster and K[=a]li was another; which is scarcely possible after the two have for centuries been looked upon as identical. With this in mind it may be granted that the Thugs payed reverence to K[=a]li, rather than to her lord. Moreover, many of them were Mohammedans; but, for our purpose, the significant fact is that when the Thugs were Hindus they were K[=a]li-Çivaites. And we believe that these secret murderers, strange as it seems, originated in a reformatory movement. As is well known, it was a religious principle with them not to spill blood.[54] They always throttled. They were, of course, when they first became known m 1799 (Sherwood's account), nothing but robbers and murderers. But, like the other Çivaite monstrosities, they regarded their work as a religious act, and always invoked K[=a]li if they were Hindus. We think it probable, therefore, that the sect originated among the K[=a]li-worshippers as a protest against blood-letting. Admitting that robbery is under Çiva's protection (Çiva is 'god of robbers'), and that K[=a]li wanted victims, a sect probably claimed that the victims should be throttled, and not bled. Not that this was necessarily a new reform. There is every reason to suppose that most of Çiva's females are aboriginal wild-tribe divinities. Now among these savages one sees at times a distinct refusal to bleed human victims. Thuggery may then have been the claim of an old conservative party, who wished to keep up the traditional throttling; though this is pure speculation, for, at the time when the sect became exposed, this means of death was merely the safest way to kill. They insisted always on being called Thugs, and scorned the name of thief. They were suppressed by 1840. Reynolds describes them as "mostly men of mild and unobtrusive manners, possessing a cheerful disposition."[55]

THE VISHNUITE SECTS.

There is a formal idealistic Çivaism, as we have shown, and there was once a dualistic Vishnuism; but in general the Vishnuite is an idealist. To comprehend the quarrels among the sects of this religion, however, it will be necessary to examine the radical philosophical differences of their founders, for one passes, in going from modern Çivaism to Vishnuism, out of ignorant superstition into philosophical religion, of which many even of the weaker traits are but recent Hinduistic effeminacy substituted for an older manly thinking.

The complex of Vishnuite sects presents at first rather a confused appearance, but we think that we can make the whole body separate itself clearly enough into its component parts, if the reader will pause at the threshold and before entering the edifice look at the foundation and the outer plan of Vedantic philosophy.

At the beginning of Colebrooke's essays on Hindu philosophy he thus describes four of the recognized systems: "The two M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]s... are emphatically orthodox. The prior one, _p[=u]rva_[56] which has J[=a]imini for its founder, teaches the art of reasoning, with the express view of aiding the interpretation of the Vedas. The latter, _uttara_[57] commonly called Ved[=a]nta, and attributed to Vy[=a]sa (or B[=a]dar[=a]yana), deduces from the text of the Indian scriptures a refined psychology, which goes to a denial of a material world. A different philosophical system, partly heterodox, and partly conformable to the established Hindu creed, is the S[=a]nkhya; of which also, as of the preceding, there are two schools; one usually known by that name,[58] the other commonly termed Yoga."[59]

The eldest of these systems, as we have already had occasion to state, is the dualistic S[=a]nkhya. It was still highly esteemed in the ninth century, the time of the great Vedantist, Çankara.[60] A theistic form of this atheistic philosophy is called the Puranic S[=a]nkhya, and Pata[.n]jali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the dualistic S[=a]nkhya stands the Ved[=a]nta,[61] based on the Upanishads that teach the identity of spirit and matter.

As representative of the metaphysics of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems respectively stand in general the two great religions of India. The former, as we have shown, is still potent in the great Song of the epic, and its principles are essentially those of early Çivaism. The latter, especially in its sectarian interpretation, with which we have now to deal, has become the great religion o£ India. But there are two sectarian interpretations of Vishnu, and two philosophical interpretations of the All-spirit in its relation to the individual soul or spirit.[62] Again the individual spirit of man either enjoys after death immortal happiness, as a being distinct from the All-spirit; or the _jiva_, individual spirit, is absorbed into the All-spirit (losing all individuality, but still conscious of happiness); or the individual spirit is absorbed into an All-spirit that has no happiness or affection of any kind.

Now the strict philosophy of the Ved[=a]nta adopts the last view _in toto_. The individual spirit (soul, self) becomes one with the universal Spirit, losing individuality and consciousness, for the universal Spirit itself is not affected by any quality or condition. A creative force without attributes, this is the All-spirit of Çankara and of the strict Vedantist. To Çankara the Creator was but a phase of the All-spirit, and the former's immortality ended with his creation; in other words, there is no immortal Creator, only an immortal creative power.

In the twelfth century arose another great leader of thought, R[=a]m[=a]nuja. He disputed the correctness of Çankara's interpretation of Vedantic principles. It is maintained by some that Çankara's interpretation is really correct, but for our purpose that is neither here nor there.[63] Çankara's _brahma_ is the one and only being, pure being, or pure thought. Thought is not an attribute of _brahma_, it is _brahma_. Opposed to this pure being (thought) stands _m[=a]y[=a]_, illusion, the material cause of the seen world. It is neither being nor not-being; it is the cause of the appearance of things, in that it is associated with _brahma_, and in so far only is _brahma_ rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each individual is _brahma_; the finite part is _m[=a]y[=a]._ Thus B[=a]dar[=a]yana (author of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras) says that the individual is only illusion.

R[=a]m[=a]nuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a _brahma_ that is not only universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme conscious and willing God. Far from being devoid of attributes, like Çankara's _brahma_, the _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja has all attributes, chief of which is thought or intelligence. The Lord contains in himself the elements of that plurality which Çankara regards as illusion. As contrasted with the dualistic S[=a]nkhya phiiosophy both of these systems inculcate monism. But according to Çankara all difference is illusion; while according to R[=a]m[=a]nuja _brahma_ is not homogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is truly manifested. Çankara's _m[=a]y[=a]_ is R[=a]m[=a]nuja's body of _(brahma)_ the Lord. Çankara's personal god exists only by collusion with illusion, and hence is illusory. The _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja is a personal god, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world. Moreover, from an eschatological point of view, Çankara explains salvation, the release from re-birth, _sams[=a]ra_, as complete union with this unqualified _brahma_, consequently as loss of individuality as well as loss of happiness. But R[=a]m[=a]nuja defines salvation as the departure from earth forever of the individual spirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].

R[=a]m[=a]nuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the present time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a personal god to be loved or feared, the hope of bliss hereafter. In its essential features it is a very old belief, far older than the philosophy which formulates it[66]. Thus, after the hard saying "fools desire heaven," this desire reasserted itself, and under R[=a]m[=a]nuja's genial interpretation of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras the pious man was enabled to build up his cheerful hope again, withal on the basis of a logic as difficult to controvert as was that of Çankara himself[67].

Thus far the product of Vedantism is deism. But now with two steps one arrives at the inner portal of sectarianism. First, if _brahma_ is a personal god, which of the gods is he, this personal All-spirit? As a general thing the Vedantist answers, 'he is Vishnu'; and adds, 'Vishnu, who embraces as their superior those other gods, Çiva, and Brahm[=a].' But the sectary is not content with making the All-god one with Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna, some say as R[=a]ma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to the All-spirit deist, may be illustrated most clearly by comparison with Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal god as the absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power is a personal god, Jehovah; again, Jehovah may or may not be regarded as one with Christ. The minuter ramifications of the Christian church then correspond to the sub-sects of Krishnaism or Ramaism.[69]

The Occidental and Oriental conceptions of the trinity are, however, not identical. For in India the trinity, from the Vishnuite point of view, is an amalgamation of Çiva and Brahm[=a] with Vishnu, irrespective of the question whether Vishnu be manifest in Krishna or not; while the Christian trinity amalgamates the form that corresponds to Vishnu with the one that corresponds to Krishna.[70] To the orthodox Brahman, on the other hand, as Williams has very well put it, Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is himself only an incarnation, that is, a form, of God.

Having now explained the two principal divisions of the modern sects, we can lead the reader into the church of Vishnu. It is a church of two great parties, each being variously subdivided. Of these two parties the Krishnaites are intellectually the weaker, and hence numerically the stronger. All Krishnaites, of course, identify the man-god Krishna with Vishnu, and their sub-sects revert to various teachers, of whom the larger number are of comparatively recent date, although as a body the Krishnaites may claim an antiquity as great, if not greater, than that of the Ramaites.

But the latter party, in their various sub-sects, all claim as their founder either R[=a]m[=a]nuja himself or one of his followers; and since, if the claim be granted, the R[=a]ma sects do but continue his work, we shall begin by following out the result of his teaching as it was interpreted by his disciples; especially since the Krishnaites have left to the Ramaites most of the philosophizing of the church, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the moralities and immoralities of their more practical religion. As a matter of fact, the Ramaites to-day are less religious than philosophical, while in the case of the Krishnaites, with some reservations, the contrary may be said to be the case.

THE RAMAITES.

Since the chief characteristic of growth among Hindu sectaries is a sort of segmentation, like that which conditions the development of amoebas and other lower organisms, it is a forgone conclusion that the Ramaites, having formed one body apart from the Krishnaites, will immediately split up again into smaller segments. It is also a foregone conclusion, since one is really dealing here with human types, that these smaller segments will mutually hate and despise each other much more than they hate their common adversaries. Just as, in old times, a Calvinist hated a Lutheran more than he did a Russian Christian (for he understood his quarrel better), so a 'cat-doctrine' Ramaite hates a 'monkey-doctrine' Ramaite far more than he hates a Krishnaite, while with a Çivaite he often has an amicable union; although the Krishnaite belittles the Ramaite's manifestation of Vishnu, and the Çivaite belittles Vishnu himself.[71]

The chief point of difference theologically between the Ramaites is the one just mentioned. The adherents of the 'cat-doctrine' teach that God saves man as a cat takes up its kitten, without free-will on the part of the latter. The monkey-doctrinaires teach that man, in order to be saved, must reach out to their God (R[=a]ma, who is Vishnu, who, again, is All-god, that is, _brahma_), and embrace their God as a monkey does its mother.[72] The resemblance to the Occidental sects here becomes still more interesting. But we have given an earlier example of the doctrine of free grace from the epic, and can now only locate the modern sects that still argue the question. The 'monkey' Ramaites are a sect of the North (_vada_), and hence are called Vada-galais;[73] the 'cat' or Calvinistic Ramaites of the South (_ten_), are called Ten-galais. Outwardly these sects differ in having diverse _mantras_, greetings, dress, and especially in the forehead-signs, which show whether the 'mark of Vishnu' shall represent (Vadagal belief) one or (Tengal) two feet of the god (expressed by vertical lines[74] painted fresh daily on the forehead). The Ten-galais, according to a recent account, are the more numerous and the more materialistic.[75]

All the Ramaites, on the other hand, hold that (1) the deity is not devoid of qualities; (2) Vishnu is the deity and should be worshipped with Lakshm[=i], his wife; (3) R[=a]ma is the human _avatar_ of Vishnu; (4) R[=a]m[=a]nuja and all the great teachers since his day are also _avatars_ of Vishnu.

In upper India, about the Ganges, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's disciple, R[=a]m[=a]nand (fifth in descent), who lived in the fourteenth century, has more followers than has the founder. His disciples worship the divine ape, Hanuman[76] (conspicuous in both epics), as well as R[=a]ma. They are called 'the liberated,' Avadh[=u]tas, but whether because they are freed from caste-restrictions,[77] or from the strict rules of eating enjoined by R[=a]m[=a]nuja, is doubtful. R[=a]m[=a]nand himself had in turn twelve disciples. Of these the most famaous is Kab[=i]r, whose followers, the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s (sect), are widely spread, and of whom no less a person than N[=a]nak, the Sikh, claimed to be a successor. But it will be more convenient to describe the Sikhs hereafter. Of R[=a]m[=a]nand's other disciples that founded sects may be mentioned Kil, whose sectaries, the Kh[=a]kis, of Oude, unite successfully R[=a]ma-worship, Hanuman-worship, and Çivaite fashions (thus presenting a mixture like that of the southern M[=a]dhvas, who unite the images of Çiva and Vishnu). The R[=a]s D[=a]sa sect, again, owes to its founder the black Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma pebble, an object of reverent awe, which gives rise to a sort of sub-cult subsequently imitated by others.[78] Another widely-spread sect which claim R[=a]m[=a]nand as their founder's teacher is that of the D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s. This branch also of the Ramaites we shall more appropriately discuss under the head of deism (below). Finally, we have to mention, as an outcome of the R[=a]m[=a]nand faith, the modern R[=a]m[=a]yana, Ramcaritmanas, the new bible of the sect, composed in the sixteenth century by Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa ('slave of Vishnu'),the greatest of modern Hindu poets. What the Divine Song and the Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na are to the Krishnaite, the older (epic) R[=a]m[=a]yana of V[=a]lm[=i]ki and Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa's new poem (of the same name) are to the Ramaite.[79]

THE KRISHNAITES.

There are two great sects that worship Vishnu as especially manifested in the human form of Krishna. But, as distinguished from the philosophical Ramaite, the Krishnaite is not satisfied with a declaration of faith in the man-god, and in fact his chief cult is of the child-god Krishna, the B[=a]la Gop[=a]la or Infant Shepherd. This recalls the older Krishna (of the Harivança), whose sporting with the milk-maids is a favorite topic in later Krishnaite literature. As a formulated cult, consisting for the most part of observances based on the mystic side of affection for the personal saver of man (the _bhakti_ principle of 'devotion,' erotically expanded[80]), this worship obtains both among C[=a]itanyas and Vallabhas, sects that arose in the sixteenth century.[81]

C[=a]itanya, born in Bengal in 1485, of whom it is fabled that wise men came and gave homage to him while he was yet a child, was active in Bengal and Orissa, where his sect (named after him) is one of the most important at the present day. C[=a]itanya preached a practical as well as a theoretical reform. He taught the equality of all worshippers of whatever caste, and the religious virtue of marriage. At the present day caste-feeling and religious profession are somewhat at variance. But a compromise is affected. While in the temple the high-caste C[=a]itanyas regard their lowly co-religionists as equals; when out of it they become again arrogantly high-caste, Making a virtue of marriage instead of celibacy caused the sect to become popular with the middle and lower classes, but its adherents are usually drawn from the dregs of the populace.[82] The principle of love for God (that is, for Krishna) is especially dwelt upon by C[=a]itanya. The devotee should feel such affection as is felt by a young man for a girl. To exercise or inspire this rapt and mystic devotion, recourse is had to singing, dancing. and other familiar means of arousing religious fervor. If the dancing devotee swoons it is a sign that God accepts his love. At the present day C[=a]itanya himself is regarded as the incarnate deity. He and his two chief disciples, who (like all Gosains, religious Teachers) are divine, form a little sub-trinity for the sect.[83] This sect, like so many others, began as a reform, only to become worse than its rivals.

Vallabha or Vallabh[=a]e[=a]rya, 'Teacher Vallabha,' was also of the sixteenth century, but his sect belongs especially to the Northwest, while the sphere of C[=a]itanya's influence was in the Northeast. He lived near the Ganges, is said to have been a scholar, and wrote a commentary on the early life of Krishna in the tenth book of the Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na, and on the Divine Song. In Bombay and Kutch his disciples are most numerous, the Epicureans of Vishnuism. For their precept is 'eat and enjoy.' No mortification of the senses is allowed. Human love typifies divine love.[84] The teachers acquired great renown and power, assuming and maintaining the haughty title of _mah[=a] r[=a]jas_ ('great kings'). They are as gods, and command absolutely their devotees.[85] Here the worship of the Infant Krishna reaches its greatest height (or depth). The image of the infant god is daily clothed, bathed, anointed, and worshipped. Religious exercises have more or less of an erotic tendency, and here, if anywhere, as one may learn from Wilson, Williams, and other modern writers on this sect, there are almost as great excesses as are committed among the Çivaite sects. As a sect it is an odd combination of sensual worship and theological speculation, for they have considerable sectarian literature. The most renowned festival of the Infant Krishna is the celebration of the stable-birth of Krishna and of the Madonna (bearing him on her breast), but this we have discussed already. Besides this the Jagann[=a]th procession in Bengal and Orissa, and the great autumnal picnic called the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra, are famous occasions for displaying Krishnaite, or, indeed, general Vishnuite zeal. At the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra assemble musicians, dancers, jugglers, and other joy-creating additions to the religious feast, the ostensible reason for which is the commemoration of Krishna's dances with the milk-maids. The devotees belong chiefly to the wealthy middle classes. These low sects worship Krishna with R[=a]dh[=a] (his mistress, instead of Lakshm[=i], Vishnu's wife). Here, too, as Krishnaites rather than as Vishnuites, are found the 'left-hand' worshippers of the female power.[86]