Chapter XVII: Modern Hindu Sects.1 (2)

This sensual corruption of Vishnuism, which is really not Vishnuism but simple Krishnaism, led to two prominent reforms within the fold. Among the Vallabhas arose in protest the Caran D[=a]s[=i]s, who have taken from the M[=a]dhvas of the South their Ten Commandments (against lying, reviling, harsh speech, idle talk, theft, adultery, injury to life, imagining evil, hate, and pride); and evolved for themselves the tenet that faith without works is dead. The same protest was made against the Vallabhas by Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. He was born about 1780 near Lucknow, and advocated a return to Vallabha's purer faith, which had been corrupted. Probably most of the older reformers have had much the same career as had Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. Exalted by the people, who were persuaded by his mesmeric eloquence, he soon became a political figure, a martyr of persecution, a triumphant victor, and then an ascetic, living in seclusion; whence he emerged occasionally to go on tours "like a bishop visiting his diocese" (Williams). He is worshipped as a god.[87] The sect numbers to-day a quarter of a million, some being celibate clergy, some householders.

In contrast to Vishnuism the following points are characteristic of orthodox Brahmanism (Çankara's Vedantism): The orthodox believe that there is one spirit in three forms, co-eternal impersonal essences--being, knowledge, and joy. When it wills it becomes personal, exists in the object, knows, rejoices, associating itself with illusion. In this state it has three corporeal forms, causal, subtile, gross. With the causal body (identified with illusion, ignorance) it becomes the Supreme Lord, that is, the totality of dreamless human spirits. With the subtile form it becomes the golden seed, or thread-spirit (dreaming spirits); with the gross form it becomes V[=i]r[=a]j, V[=a]içv[=a]nara, the waking spirit. The lowest state is that of being wide awake. The personal god (Brahm[=a], Vishnu, Çiva, of the sectaries) is this it as influenced by the three qualities, _rajas, sattva, tamas_ (passion, truth, and ignorance), respectively. Three essences, three corporeal forms, and three qualities constitute, therefore, the threefold trinity of the orthodox, who are called Sm[=a]rtas, they that 'hold to tradition.'[88] What the sectary rejects, namely, the scriptures (Veda and Upanishads, etc.) and the caste system, that the orthodox retains; what the sectary holds, namely, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's qualified non-duality, and absolute godhead in Çiva or Krishna, that the orthodox rejects (although he may receive the sectary's god into his pantheon). Some of the sects still keep respect for caste, excusing their respect on the ground that "it is well enough for God to ignore social distinctions, but not for man." But caste-distinctions are generally ignored, or there is positive hate of the Brahman. In antithesis to the orthodox, the sectaries all hold one other important tenet. From the idea of _bhakti_, faith or devotion, was developed that of love for Krishna, and then (as an indication of devotion) the confession of the name of the Lord as a means of grace. Hence, on the one hand, the meaningless repetition of the sect's special _kirttan_ or liturgies, and _mantra,_ or religious formula; the devotion, demanded by the priest, of _man, tan, dhan_ (mind, body,[89] and property); and finally, the whole theory of death-bed confessions. Sinner or heretic, if one die at last with Krishna's name upon the lips he will be saved.[90]

Of the sub-divisions of the sub-sects that we have described, the numbers often run into scores. But either their differences are based on indifferent matters of detail in the cult and religious practice; or the new sect is distinguished from the old simply by its endeavor to make for greater holiness or purity as sub-reformers of older sects. For all the sects appear to begin as reformers, and later to split up in the process of re-reformation.

Two general classes of devotees, besides these, remain to be spoken of. The Sanny[=a]sin, 'renouncer,' was of old a Brahman ascetic. Nowadays, according to Wilson, he is generally a Çivaite mendicant. But any sect may have its Sanny[=a]sins, as it may have its V[=a]ir[=a]gins, 'passionless ones'; although the latter name generally applies to the Vishnuite ascetics of the South.

Apart from all these sects, and in many ways most remarkable, are the sun-worshippers. All over India the sun was (and is) worshipped, either directly (as to-day by the Sauras),[91] or as an incarnate deity in the form of the priest Nimba-[=a]ditya, who is said to have arrested the sun's course at one time and to be the sun's representative on earth. Both Puranic authority and inscriptional evidence attest this more direct[92] continuance of the old Vedic cult. Some of the finest old temples of India, both North and South, were dedicated to the sun.

DEISTIC REFORMING SECTS.

We have just referred to one or two reforming sects that still hold to the sectarian deity. Among these the M[=a]dhvas, founded by (Madhva) [=A]nandat[=i]rtha, are less Krishnaite or R[=a]maite than Vishnuite,[93] and less Vishnuite than deist in general; so much so that Williams declares they must have got their precepts from Christianity, though this is open to Barth's objection that the reforming deistic sects are so located as to make it more probable that they derive from Mohammedanism. Madhva was born about 1200 on the western coast, and opposed Çankara's pantheistic doctrine of non-duality. He taught that the supreme spirit is essentially different to matter and to the individual spirit.[94] He of course denied absorption, and, though a Vishnuite, clearly belonged in spirit to the older school before Vishnuism became so closely connected with Ved[=a]nta doctrines. It is the same Sankhyan Vishnuism that one sees in the Divine Song, that is, duality, and a continuation of Ç[=a]ndilya's ancient heresy.[95]

Here ends the course of India's native religions. From a thousand years B.C. to as many years after she is practically uninfluenced by foreign doctrine, save in externals.

It is of course permissible to separate the reforming sects of the last few decades from the older reformers; but since we see both in their aim and in their foreign sources (amalgamation with cis-Indic belief) only a logical if not an historical continuance of the older deists, we prefer to treat of them all as factors of one whole; and, from a broader point of view, as successors to the still older pantheistic and unitarian reformers who first predicated a supreme spirit as _ens realissimum_, when still surrounded by the clouds of primitive polytheism. Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u], the two most important of the more modern reformers, we have named above as nominal adherents of the R[=a]m[=a]nand sect. But neither was really a sectarian Vishnuite.[96] Kab[=i]r, probably of the beginning of the fifteenth century, the most famous of R[=a]m[=a]nand's disciples, has as religious descendants the sect of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s. But no less an organization than that of the Sikhs look back to him, pretending to be his followers. The religious tenets of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s may be described as those of unsectarian Unitarians. They conform to no rites or _mantras_. Kab[=i]r assailed all idolatry, ridiculed the authority of all scriptures, broke with Pundit and with Mohammedan, taught that outer form is of no consequence, and that only the 'inner man' is of importance. These Panth[=i]s are found in the South, but are located chiefly in and about Benares, in Bengal in the East, and in Bombay in the West. There are said to be twelve divisions of them. Kab[=i]r assailed idolatry, but alas! Discipline requires subordination. The Guru, Teacher, must be obeyed. It was not long before he who rejected idolatry became himself a deity. And in fact, every Teacher, Guru, of the sect was an absolute master of thought, and was revered as a god.[97]

In the fifteenth century, near Laho[.r]e, was born N[=a]nak (1469), who is the nominal founder of the Sikhs, a body which, as N[=a]nak claimed, was a sect embodying the religion of Kab[=i]r himself, of whom he claimed to be a follower. The Granth, or bible of the Sikhs, was first compiled by the pontiff Arjun, in the sixteenth century. Besides the portions written by N[=a]nak and Arjun himself, there were collected into it extracts from the works of 'twelve and a half' other contributors to the volume, Kab[=i]r, R[=a]m[=a]nand, etc.[98] This Granth was subsequently called the [=A]digranth, or First Book, to distinguish it from the later, enlarged, collection of several books, one of which was written by Guru Govind, the tenth Sikh pontiff. The change from a religious body to a church militant and political body was made by this Govind in the eighteenth century.[99] The religious sect settled in the Punj[=a]b, became wealthy, excited the greed of the government, was persecuted, rose in revolt, triumphed, and eventually ruled the province. One of the first to precipitate the uprising was the above-mentioned Arjun (fourth pontiff after N[=a]nak). He played the king, was accused of rebellion, imprisoned, and probably killed by the Mohammedans. The Sikhs flew to arms, and from this time on they were perforce little more than robbers and plunderers. Govind made the final change in organization, and, so to speak, at one blow created a nation, for the church at his hands was converted into the united militant body called Kh[=a]ls[=a] under the Guru as pontiff-king, with a 'council of chiefs.' They were vowed to hate the Mohammedan and Hindu. All caste-distinctions were abrogated. Govind instituted the worship of Steel and Book (sword and bible). His orders were: "If you meet a Mohammedan, kill him; if you meet a Hindu, beat and plunder him." The Sikhs invoked the 'Creator' as 'highest lord,' either in the form of Vishnu or R[=a]ma. Their founder, N[=a]nak, kept, however, the Hindu traditions in regard to rites. He was a travelled merchant, and is said to have been in Arabia. As an example of the Sikh bible may serve the following extracts, translated from the original dialect by Trumpp and Prinsep respectively:

_From Trumpp_:

True is the Lord, of a true name,
But the import of (this) language is Infinite.
They say and beg, give, give!
The Liberal gives presents.
What may again be put before (him)
By which his court may be seen?
What word may be spoken by the mouth,
Which having heard he may bestow love?
Early reflect on the greatness of the True Name.[100]
From his beneficence comes clothing,
From his look the gate of salvation.
N[=a]nak (says): Thus it is known,
That he himself is altogether truthful.

_From Prinsep_:

Thou art the Lord, to thee be praise;
All life is with thee.
Thou art my parents; I, thy child.
All happiness is from thy mercy.
No one knows God.

Highest Lord among the highest,
Of all that is thou art the regulator,
And all that is from thee obeys thy will,
Thy movements, thy pleasure; thou alone knowest.
N[=a]nak, thy slave is a free-will offering unto thee.[101]

The religious side of this organization remained under the name of Ud[=a]sis,[102] or Nirmalas ('spotless ones'). The [=A]digranth was extended by other additions, such as that of Govind (above), and now constitutes a large heterogeneous collection of hymns and moral rules. Seven sub-sects of the religious body were developed in course of time. The military body has a well-known history. They were complete masters of the Punj[=a]b in 1764, and remained there as an independent race till that province was occupied by the British in 1848. Both Kab[=i]r and his follower N[=a]nak were essentially reformers. They sought for a religion which should rest on the common truths of Hinduism and Mohammedanism.[103] As a matter of form the political party of Govind, the Govind Singhs, or Simhis, worshipped the Hindu gods, and they showed respect for the Brahman priests for a long while; but they rejected the Vedas and caste--the two most essential features of orthodoxy.[104]

D[=a]d[=u], the second great reformer, who shows Mohammedan influence quite as plainly as does Kab[=i]r, also claimed R[=a]m[=a]nand as his teacher. The sects that revert to D[=a]d[=u], D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s, now number more than half an hundred. Some of the votaries are soldiers; some are mendicants. The founder lived about the end of the sixteenth century. The outward practices of the sects differ somewhat from those of other sects. Like Persians, they expose their dead. They are found about [=A]jm[=i]r and other districts of the North, in the seats of the Jains. Their faith and reformatory tendency may be illustrated by the following extract, as translated by Wilson:[105]

"He is my God who maketh all things perfect. O foolish one, God is not far from you. He is near you. God's power is always with you. Whatever is to be is God's will. What will be will be. Therefore, long not for grief or joy, because by seeking the one you may find the other. All things are sweet to them that love God. I am satisfied with this, that happiness is in proportion to devotion. O God, Thou who art truth, grant me contentment, love, devotion, and faith.... Sit ye with humility at the feet of God, and rid yourselves of the sickness of your bodies. From the wickedness of the body there is much to fear, because all sins enter into it. Therefore, let your dwelling be with the fearless, and direct yourselves toward the light of God. For there neither sword nor poison have power to destroy, and sin cannot enter. The greatest wisdom is in preventing your minds from being influenced by bad passions, and in meditating upon the One God. Afford help also to the poor stranger. Meditate on Him by whom all things were made."[106]

This tradition of reform is maintained by others without intermission down to the present century, and the M[=a]dhvas and Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana, of whom we have spoken above as being more directly connected with sectarian bodies, are, in fact, scarcely more concerned with the tenets of the latter than were Kab[=i]r and D[=a]d[=u]. Thus the seventeenth century sees the rising of the B[=a]b[=a]l[=a]ls and S[=a]dhus; and the eighteenth, of the Satn[=a]mis, 'worshippers of the true name,' who, with other minor bodies, such as the N[=a]ngi Panthis, founded by Dedr[=a]j in this century, are really pure deists, although some of them, like the Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, claim to be followers of Kab[=i]r. And so they are, in spirit at least.

THE DEISM OF TO-DAY.[107]

And thus one arrives at modern deism, not as the result of new influences emanating from Christian teaching, but rather as the legitimate successor of that deism which became almost monotheistic in the first centuries after our era, and has ever since varied with various reformers between two beliefs, inclining now to the pantheistic, now to the unitarian conception, as the respective reformers were influenced by Ved[=a]nta or S[=a]nkhya (later Mohammedan) doctrine.

The first of the great modern reformers is R[=a]mmohun Roy, who was born in 1772, the son of a high-caste Krishnaite Brahman. He studied Persian and Arabic literature at Patna, the centre of Indic Mohammedan learning. When a mere boy, he composed a tract against idolatry which caused him to be banished from home. He lived at Benares, the stronghold of Brahmanism, and afterwards in Tibet, the centre of Buddhism. "From his earliest years," says Williams, "he displayed an eagerness to become an unbiassed student of all the religions of the globe." He read the Vedas, the P[=a]li Buddhist works, the Kur[=a]n, and the Old Testament in the original; and in later years even studied Greek that he might properly understand the New Testament. The scholastic philosophy of the Hindus appeared to him, however, as something superior to what he found elsewhere, and his efforts were directed mainly to purifying the national faith, especially from idolatry. It was at his instigation that the practice of widow-burning was abolished (in 1829) by the British. He was finally ostracized from home as a schismatic, and retired to Calcutta, uniting about him a small body of Hindus and Jains, and there established a sort of church or sect, the [=A]tm[=i]ya Sabh[=a],'spiritual society' (1816), which met at his house, but eventually was crushed by the hostility of the orthodox priests. He finally adopted a kind of Broad-church Christianity or Unitarianism, and in 1820, in his 'Precepts of Jesus' and in one of his later works, admits that the simple moral code of the New Testament and the doctrines of Christ were the best that he knew. He never, however, abjured caste; and his adoption of Christianity, of course, did not include the dogma of the trinity: "Whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of the Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of polytheism" (Final Appeal). Founded by him, the first theistic church was organized in 1828 at Calcutta, and formally opened in 1830 as the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; ('the Congregation of God'). In doing this he wished it to be understood that he was not founding a new sect, but a pure monotheistic worship. The only creed was a confession of faith in the unity of God. For himself, he abandoned pantheism, adopted the belief in a final judgment, in miracles, and in Christ as the 'Founder of true religion.' He died in 1833 in England. His successor, Debendran[=a]th T[=a]gore,[108] was not appointed leader of the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; till much later; after he had founded a church of his own ('the Truth-teaching Society'), which lasted for twenty years (1839-1859), before it was united with the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j. In the meantime Debendran[=a]th become a member of the latter society (1841). He established the covenant of the Sam[=a]j, a vow taken by every member to lead holy lives, to abstain from idolatry, to worship no created object, but only God, the One without a second,[109] the Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, the Giver of Emancipation.

The church was newly organized in 1844 with a regularly appointed president and minister, and with the administration of the oath to each believer. This is the [=A]di Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j, the First Congregation, in distinction from the schism which soon took place. The first quarrel in this church was due to a difference of opinion in regard to the authority of the Vedas. Some members rejected them, others maintained their infallibility; while between these extremes lay various other opinions, some members questioning the infallibility of the Vedas but maintaining their authority. By a majority vote it was eventually decided that the Vedas (and Upanishads) were not infallible.

In the meantime in other provinces rival Sam[=a]jas had been formed, and by 1850 there were several of these broad-minded Congregations, all trammelled by their environment, but doing their best to be liberal.

We pause here in the compilation of the data recorded in this paragraph to assert, independently of Professor Williams, who has given us the historical facts, but would doubtless not wish to have imputed to himself the following judgment which we are led to pass, that the next step of the Sam[=a]j; placed it upon the only ground where the objects of this church can be attained, and that in the subsequent reform of this reform, which we shall have to record below, a backward step has been taken. For Debendran[=a]th changed the essential character of the Sam[=a]j from pantheistic theism to pure deism. The inner circle of the society had a narrower declaration of faith, but in his Br[=a]hma Dharma, published about 1850, Debendran[=a]th formulated four articles of faith, to subscribe to which admitted any one into the Sam[=a]j. These articles read as follows: (t) Brahma (neuter) alone existed in the beginning before the universe; naught else existed; It [He] created all the universe. (2) It [He] is eternal, intelligent, infinite, blissful, self-governed (independent), without parts, just one (neuter) without a second, all-pervading, the ruler (masculine noun) of all, refuge of all, omniscient, omnipotent, immovable, perfect, without parallel (all these adjectives are neuter). (3) By worship of this One alone can bliss be obtained in the next world and in this. (4) The worship of this (neuter) One consists in love toward this (One) and in performing works pleasant (to this One).

This deism denies an incarnate God, scriptural authority, and the good of rites and penance; but it teaches the efficacy of prayer and repentance, and the belief in God as a personal Creator and Heavenly Father.[110] Intellectual--anything but emotional--it failed to satisfy many worshippers. And as a church it was conservative in regard to social reforms.

In 1858 Keshub Chunder Sen, a Vishnuite by family, then but twenty, joined the Sam[=a]j, and being clever, young, eloquent, and cultivated, he, after the manner of the Hindus, undertook to reform the church he had just entered, first of all by urging the abolition of caste-restrictions. Debendran[=a]th was liberal enough to be willing to dispense with his own thread (the caste-mark), but too wisely conservative to demand of his co-religionists so complete a break with tradition and social condition. For the sacred thread to the Hindu is the sign of social respectability. Without it, he is out of society. It binds him to all that is dearest to him. The leader of the older Sam[=a]j; never gave up caste; the younger members in doing so mix religion with social etiquette, and so hinder the advance they aim at. Sen urged this and other reforms, all repugnant to the society in which he lived, changes in the rite at the worship of ancestors, alterations in the established ritual at birth-ceremonies and funerals, abolition of polyandry and of child-marriages, and, worst of all, granting permission to marry to those of different castes. His zeal was directed especially against caste-restrictions and child-marriages. Naturally he failed to persuade the old Sam[=a]j to join him in these revolutionary views, to insist on which, however sensible they seem, cannot be regarded otherwise than as indiscreet from the point of view of one who considers men and passions. For the Sam[=a]j, in the face of tremendous obstacles, had just secured a foot-hold in India. Sen's headlong reforms would have smashed to pieces the whole congregation, and left India more deeply prejudiced than ever against free thought. Sen failed to reform the old church, so in 1865 he, with some ardent young enthusiasts, reformed themselves into a new church, ceremoniously organized in 1866 as the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j; of India, in distinction from the Calcutta Sam[=a]j, or [=A]di Sam[=a]j. A futile effort was made to get all the other local congregations to join the new Sam[=a]j, the last, of course, to be the first and head of the organization.

The new Sam[=a]j renounced caste-restrictions and Brahmanism altogether, but it was tainted with the hysterical _bhakti_ fervor which Sen inherited from his childhood's religion, and which (if one may credit Williams' words) "brought the latest development of Indian Theism into closer harmony with Christian ideas." The chief leader of this Sam[=a]j besides Sen was his cousin Prot[=a]p Chunder Mozoomdar, official secretary of the society. Its literary organ is the _Indian Mirror_.

The reform of this reform of course followed before long. The new Sam[=a]j was accused of making religion too much a matter of emotion and excitement. Religious fervor, _bhakti_, had led to "rapturous singing of hymns in the streets"; and to the establishment of a kind of love-feasts ('Brahma-feasts' they were called) of prayer and rejoicing; and, on the other hand, to undue asceticism and self-mortification.[111] Sen himself was revered too much. One of the most brilliant, eloquent, and fascinating of men, he was adored by his followers--as a god! He denied that he had accepted divine honors, but there is no doubt, as Williams insists, that his Vishnuite tendency led him to believe himself peculiarly the recipient of divine favors. It was charged against him that he asserted that all he did was at God's command, and that he believed himself perennially inspired.[112] If one add to this that he was not only divinely inspired, but that he had the complete control of his society, it would appear to be easy to foresee where the next reformer might strike. For Sen "was not only bishop, priest, and deacon all in one," says Williams, "he was a Pope, from whose decision there was no appeal." But it was not this that caused the rupture. In 1877 this reformer, "who had denounced early marriages as the curse of India," yielded to natural social ambition and engaged his own young daughter to a Koch (R[=a]jbanshi) prince, who in turn was a mere boy. The Sam[=a]j protested with all its might, but the marriage was performed the next year, withal to the accompaniment of idolatrous rites.[113] After this Sen became somewhat theatrical. In 1879 he recognized (in a proclamation) God's Motherhood--the old dogma of the female divine. In 1880 he announced, in fervid language, that Christianity was the only true religion: "It is Christ who rules British India, and not the British Government. England has sent out a tremendous moral force in the life and character of that mighty prophet to conquer and hold this vast empire. None but Jesus, none but Jesus, none but Jesus, ever deserved this bright, this precious diadem, India, and Jesus shall have it.... Christ is a true Yogi." He accepts Christ, but not as God, only as inspired saint (as says Williams). More recently, Sen proposed an amalgamation of Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity as the true religion.

Meanwhile the Sam[=a]j was rent by discord. Sen's opponents, the new reformers, were unable, however, to oust the brilliant leader from the presidency. Consequently they established a new church, intended to be a General Congregation, the fourth development (1878) of the Br[=a]hma Sam[=a]j. And so the fight has gone on ever since. At the present day there are more than a hundred deistic churches, in which the devotional exercises consist in part of readings from the Vedas, Bible, Kur[=a]n, and Avesta. The [=A]rya Sam[=a]j is one of the most important of the later churches, some of which endeavor to obtain undefiled religion by uniting into one faith what seems best in all; others, by returning to the Vedas and clearing them of what they think to be later corruptions of those originally pure scriptures. Of the latter sort is the [=A]rya Sam[=a]j. Its leader, Day[=a]nanda, claims that the Vedas are a true revelation. The last reformer of which we have knowledge is a bright young high-caste Hindu of upper India, who is about to found a 'world-religion,' for which task he is now making preliminary studies. He has visited this country, and recently told us that, if he had time, he could easily convert America. But his first duty lies, of course, in the reformation of India's reformations, especially of the Sam[=a]jas!

The difficulty with which all these reformers and re-reformers have to contend is pitifully clear. Their broad ideas have no fitting environment. Their leaders and thinkers may continue to preach deism, and among their equals they will be heard and understood. They are, however, not content with this. They must form churches. But a church implies in every case an unnatural and therefore dangerous growth, caused by the union either of inferior minds (attracted by eloquence, but unable to think) with those that are not on the same plane, or of ambitious zealots with reluctant conservatists. Many join the church who are not qualified to appreciate the leader's work. They overload the founder's deism with the sectarian theism from which they have not really freed themselves. On the other hand, younger men, who have been educated in English colleges and are imbued with the spirit of practical reform, enter the church to use it as an instrument for social progress. So the church is divided, theists and reformers both being at odds with the original deists; and the founder is lucky if he escapes being deified by one party and being looked upon by the other as too dull.[114]

India is no more prepared as a whole for the reception of the liberal views of the Sam[=a]j; than was the negro for the right to vote. Centuries of higher preliminary education are needed before the people at large renounce their ancestral, their natural faith. A few earnest men may preach deism; the people will remain polytheists and pantheists for many generations. Then, again, the Sam[=a]jas have to contend not only with the national predisposition, but with every heretical sect, and, besides these, with the orthodox church. But thus far their chief foe is, after all, their own heart as opposed to their head. As long as deistic leaders are deified by their followers, and regard themselves as peculiarly inspired, they will preach in vain. Nor can they with impunity favor the substitution of emotion for ideas in a land where religious emotion leads downwards as surely as falls a stone that is thrown.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: In the following we keep to the practice we
have adopted in the early part of the work, giving
anglicized words without distinction of vowel-length, and
anglicizing as far as possible, writing thus S[=a]nkhya but
Sankhyan, Ved[=a]nta but Vedantist. In modern proper names
we have adopted in each case the most familiar form.]

[Footnote 2: Rig Veda, II. 12. Compare X. 121. We omit some
of the verses.]

[Footnote 3: See note, p. 20, above.]

[Footnote 4: Metaphor from earthly fire-making; cloud and
cliff (Ludwig); or, perhaps, heaven and earth.]

[Footnote 5: 'Made low and put in concealment' the D[=a]sa
color, _i.e._ the black barbarians, the negroes. 'Color'
might be translated 'race' (subsequently 'caste').]

[Footnote 6: D[=i]ce, _vijas_, literally 'hoppers' (and so
sometimes, interpreted as birds). The same figure occurs not
infrequently. Compare AV. iv. 16. 5, _ak[s.][=a]n iva_.
'Believe,' _çr['a]d-dhatta, i.e_., cred-(d)[=i]te, literally
'put trust.']

[Footnote 7: Sometimes rendered, "a true (laudation) if any
is true."]

[Footnote 8: viii. 100. 3-4. The penultimate verse is
literally 'the direction(s) of the order magnify me,' the
order being that of the seasons and of seasonable rites.]

[Footnote 9: Compare the 'devil-worship of Uçanas,' and the
scoffs at P[=u]shan. The next step in infidelity is denial
of a future life and of the worth of the Vedas.]

[Footnote 10: In the Buddhistic writings Indra appears as
the great popular god of the Brahmans (with Brahm[=a] as the
philosophical god).]

[Footnote 11: His body is mortal; his breaths immortal, Çat.
Br. x. 1. 4. 1; xi. 1. 2. 12.]

[Footnote 12: On these curious pocket-altars, double
triangles representing the three gods and their wives, with
Linga and Yon[=i], see JRAS. 1851, p. 71.]

[Footnote 13: In the Tantras and late Pur[=a]nas. In the
earlier Pur[=a]nas there is as yet no such formal cult.]

[Footnote 14: Embodied in the tale of Agni's advance, IS. i.
170.]

[Footnote 15: Çat Br. ix. 3.1. 18.]

[Footnote 16: On this _quasi_ deity in modern belief compare
IA. XVIII. 46. It has happened here that a fate Providence
has become supreme. Thus, too, the Mogul Buddha is realty
nothing more or less than Providence.]

[Footnote 17: 7. I. 2.]

[Footnote 18: In RV. X. 90. 9, _chandas_, songs,
incantations, imply a work of this nature.]

[Footnote 19: Unless it be distinctly _good_ magic the epic
heroes are ashamed to use magical rites. They insist on the
intent being unimpeachable.]

[Footnote 20: [=A]p. I. II. 30, 20, etc. Compare Weber,
_Omina_ p. 337, and see the Bibliography.]

[Footnote 21: T[=a]itt. S. VI. I. 1, 2, 3,
_t[=i]rthesn[=a]li._]

[Footnote 22: Compare Weber's account of the R[=a]jas[=u]ya,
p. 98; and, apropos of the Daçapeya, _ib._ 78, note; where
it is stated that _soma_-drinking for the warrior-caste is
still reflected in this (originally independent) ceremony.]

[Footnote 23: The list given above (p. 464) of the 'thrice
three names' is made eight by suppressing Kum[=a]ra, and the
'eight names' are to-day the usual number.]

[Footnote 24: Ç[=a]nkh. (K[=a]nsh.) Br. vi. 1.]

[Footnote 25: The Brahmanic multiple by preference is (three
and) seven (7,21,28,35), that of the Buddhist, eight. Feer,
JA., 1893, p. 113 ff., holds the Svargaparva of the epic to
be Buddhistic on account of the hells. More probably it is a
Çivaite addition. The rule does not always hold good, for
groups of seven and eight are sometimes Buddhistic and
Brahmanic, respectively.]

[Footnote 26: Leumann, _Rosaries_.]

[Footnote 27: Friederich,; JRAS. viii. 157; ix. 59. The only
established reference to Buddha on the part of Brahmanism,
with the exception of late Pur[=a]nas of uncertain date, is
after Kshemendra (1066 A.D.). Compare Holtzmann, s.
_Geschichte_, p. 103.]

[Footnote 28: _Na tat parasya sandadhy[=a]t pratik[=u]la[.m]
yad [=a]tmanas_. This is a favorite stanza in the epic, and
is imitated in later literature (Sprüche, 3253, 6578,
6593).]

[Footnote 29: Burnell in the _Indian Antiquary_, second and
following volumes; Swanston, JRAS. 1834; 1835; Germann, _Die
Kirche der Thomaschristen_.]

[Footnote 30: Above, cited from Hardy.]

[Footnote 31: Some of the multitudinous subcastes
occasionally focus about a religious principle to such an
extent as to give them almost the appearance of religious
devotees. Thus the Bhats and Ch[=a]rans are heralds and
bards with the mixed faith of so many low-caste Hindus. But
in their office of herald they have a religious pride, and,
since in the present day they are less heralds than
expressmen, they carry property with religious reverence,
and are respected in their office even by robbers; for it
this caste that do not hesitate to commit _traga_, that is,
if an agreement which they have caused to be made between
two parties is not carried out they will kill themselves and
their families, with such religious effect that the guilt
lies upon the offending party in the agreement, who expiates
it by his own life. They are regarded as a sort of divine
representative, and fed themselves to be so. A case reported
from India in this year, 1894, shows that the feeling still
exists. The herald slew his own mother in the presence of
the defaulting debtor, who thereupon slew himself as his
only expiation.]

[Footnote 32: As, for example, between the D[=a]d[=u]
Panth[=i]s and the Jains in Ajmir and Jeypur. The last was a
chief Digambara town, while Mathur[=a] (on the Jumna) was a
Çret[=a]mbara station. For a possible survival of Buddhism,
see below, p. 485, note.]

[Footnote 33: The _Sarcadarça[n.]asa[=n.]graha_ of S[=a]yana
(fourteenth century) and the _Ça[=n.]kara-vijaya,_ or
'Conquest of Çankara.']

[Footnote 34: Thus the Dabist[=a]n enumerates as actual
sects of the seventeenth century, 'moon-worshippers,'
'star-worshippers,' 'Agni-worshippers,' 'wind-worshippers,'
'water-worshippers,' 'earth-worshippers,' '_trip[=u]jas_'
(or worshippers of all the three kingdoms of nature), and
'worshippers of man' (_manu[s.]yabhakt[=a]s_), "who
recognise the being of God in man, and know nothing more
perfect than mankind" (ii. 12), a faith which, as we have
shown, is professed in the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata.]

[Footnote 35: _Religious Thought and Life_.]

[Footnote 36: The Kashmeer Çivaites claim Çankara as their
teacher. The sect of Basava started in the south, Mysore.
They have some trashy literature (legends, etc.) which they
dignify by the name of Pur[=a]nas. Bühler has given an
account of the Kashmeer school. For further details see
Barth, pp. 184, 206.]

[Footnote 37: _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p.62 ff. To this
and to the same author's _Thought and Life_, we are indebted
for many facts concerning the sects as they appear to-day,
though much in these books is said after Wilson or other
scholars, whose work is now common property, and calls for
no further acknowledgment.]

[Footnote 38: It is, perhaps, necessary to keep repeating
that Hindu monotheism does not exclude other gods which, at
the hands of the one god, are reduced to sprites, angels,
demons, etc. But it ought not to be necessary to insist on
this, for an American monotheist that believes in angels and
devils is the same sort of monotheist. The Hindu calls the
angels 'gods' or 'divinities,' but they are only attendant
hosts of the One.]

[Footnote 39: Some of the Çivaite sects are, indeed,
Buddhistic in origin, a fact which raises the question
whether Buddhism, instead of disappearing from India, was
not simply absorbed; much as Unitarianism in New England has
spent its vitality in modifying the orthodox creed. Thus the
_karma_ of Buddhism may still be working in the person of
some modern Hindu sects. See the next note below.]

[Footnote 40: Most of the Yogi jugglers are Çivaites (when
they are not Buddhistic), and to-day they share with the
(Mohammedan) fakirs the honor of being not only ascetics but
knaves. The juggler Yogi is, however, a figure of
respectable antiquity. The magical tricks practiced on the
epic heroes are doubtless a reflex of the current mesmerism,
which deceives so cleverly to-day. We have shown above a
Buddhistic strain of Mah[=a]tmaism in an early Buddhistic
tract, and Barth, p. 213, suggests a Buddhistic origin for
the K[=a]naph[=a]ts. See also Holtzmann, _loc. cit._ The
deistic Yogis of Gorakhn[=a]th's sect are respectable enough
(see an account of some of this sort in the Dabist[=a]n, II.
6), but they are of Buddhistic origin. The K[=a]naph[=a]ts
of Kutch (Danodhar) were once a celibate brotherhood. JRAS.
1839, p. 268.]

[Footnote 41: See JAOS. xi. 272. To ascribe this verse to
the 'older Manu' would be a grave slip on the part of a
Sanskrit scholar.]

[Footnote 42: i. 1. 76.]

[Footnote 43: The Dabist[=a]n, without any animus, reports
of the Ç[=a]ktas of the seventeenth century that "Çiva is,
in their opinion, _with little exception_, the highest of
the deities" (II. 7). Williams calls Ç[=a]ktaism "a mere
offshoot of Çivaism" _Religious Thought and Life_, p. 184.]

[Footnote 44: The Dabist[=a]n rather assumes as a matter of
course that a body of Yogis would kill and eat a boy of the
Mohammedan faith (II. 12); but here the author may be
prejudiced.]

[Footnote 45: The present sect of this name consists only of
a few miserable mendicants, particularly savage and filthy
(Wilson).]

[Footnote 46: All of them now represent Çakti, the female
principle. Linga-worship has also its counterpart,
Bhaga-worship (here Yoni), perhaps represented by the altar
itself. Compare the Dabist[=a]n, II. 7, on the Çivaite
interpretation of the Mohammedan altar. To Durga human
beings were always sacrificed. After mentioning a gold idol
of Durg[=a] (to whom men were sacrificed yearly), the author
adds: "Even now they sacrifice in every village of the
Kohistan of Nandapur and the country adjacent, a man of
good family" (_ib._). Durg[=a] {above, p. 416) is Vishnu's
sister.]

[Footnote 47: The sexual antithesis, so unimportant in the
earliest Aryan nature-hymns, becomes more and more
pronounced in the liturgical hymns of the Rig Veda, and may
be especially a trait of the older fire-cult in opposition
to _soma_-cult (compare RV. X. 18. 7). At any rate it is
significant that Yoni means the altar itself, and that in
the fire-cult the production of fire is represented as
resulting from the union of the male and female organs.]

[Footnote 48: Nevertheless the Brahmanic, and even the
Hinduistic, law-codes condemn all intoxicating liquors
except in religious service. To offer such drink to a man of
the lower castes, even to a Ç[=u]dra, is punishable with a
fine; but to offer intoxicating liquor to a priest is
punishable with death (Vishnu, V. 100).]

[Footnote 49: Formerly performed by the Kar[=a]ris. "The
Ç[=a]ktas hold the killing of a man to be permitted,"
Dabist[=a]n, II. 7. "Among them it is a meritorious act to
sacrifice a man," _ib_.]

[Footnote 50: Hence the name of K[=a][=n]culiyas
_[ka[=n]culi_, a woman's garment).]

[Footnote 51: This has no parallel in Vishnuism except among
some of the R[=a]dh[=a] devotees. Among the R[=a]dh[=a]
Vallabh[=i]s the vulgarities of the Çivaites are quite
equalled; and the assumption of women's attire by the
Sakh[=i] Bh[=a]vas of Benares and Bengal ushers in rites as
coarse if less bloody than those of the Çivaites.]

[Footnote 52: Of course each god of the male trinity has his
Çakti, female principle. Thus Brahm[=a]'s Çakt[=i] is
S[=a]vitr[=i] (in the epic), or Sarasvat[=i], or V[=a]c;
that of Vishnu is Çr[=i], or Lakshm[=i], or R[=a]dh[=a];
that of Çiva is Um[=a], Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], etc. Together
they make a female trinity (Barth, p. 199); So even the
Vedic gods had their (later) wives, who, as in the case of
S[=u]ry[=a], were probably only the female side of a god
conceived of as androgynous, like Praj[=a]pat[=i] in the
Brahmanic period.]

[Footnote 53: Historically, Thags, like Panj[=a]b,
Santh[=a]ls, etc, is the more correct form, but phonetically
the forms Thugs, Punj[=a]b, Sunth[=a]ls or Sonth[=a]ls, are
correct, and [=a], the indeterminate vowel (like o in
London), is generally transcribed by u or o (in Punj[=a]b,
Nep[=a]l, the [=a] is pronounced very like au, and is
sometimes written so, Punjaub, etc).]

[Footnote 54: The Jemidar, captain, gives the order to the
Buttoat, strangler, who takes the _rumal_ (yard of cotton)
with a knot tied in the left end, and, holding his right
hand a few inches further up, passes it from behind over the
victim's head. As the latter falls the strangler's hands are
crossed, and if done properly the Thugs say that "the eyes
stand out of the head and life becomes extinct, before the
body falls to the ground" (Notes on the 'Thags, Thugs, or
Thegs,' by Lieutenant Reynolds; of whom Lieutenant-Colonel
Smythe says that he knew more than any other European about
the Thugs, 1836). The Buttoat received eight annas extra for
his share. Each actor in the scene had a title; the victim
was called Rosy. For their argot see the R[=a]maseeana.]

[Footnote 55: Thugs (defined as 'knaves' by Sherwood, more
probably 'throttlers') must be distinguished from Decoits.
The latter (Elphinstone, i. 384) are irreligious gangs,
secretly bound together to sack villages. Peaceable citizens
by day, the Decoits rise at night, attack a village, slay,
torture, rob, and disappear before morning, 'melting into
the population' and resuming honest toil. When the police
are weak enough they may remain banded together; otherwise
they are ephemerally honest and nocturnally assassins. The
Thugs or Ph[=a]ns[=i]gars (_ph[=a]ns[=i]_, noose) killed no
women, invoked K[=a]li (as Jay[=i]), and attacked
individuals only, whom the decoys, called Tillais, lured
very cleverly to destruction. They never robbed without
strangling first, and always buried the victim. They used to
send a good deal of what they got to K[=a]li's temple, in a
village near Mirz[=a]pur, where the establishment of priests
was entirely supported by them. K[=a]li (or Bhav[=a]n[=i])
herself directed that victims should be strangled, not bled
(so the Thug legend). Their symbol was a pick, emblem of the
goddess, unto whom a religious ceremony was performed before
and after the murder was committed. Local small bankers
often acted as fence for them.]

[Footnote 56: This is called either
P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (Karma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]) or simply
M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a].]

[Footnote 57: Or Ç[=a]r[=i]raka-m[=i]m[=a]msa, or
Brahma-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_m[=i]m[=a][=m.]sa,_ reflexion,
philosophy).]

[Footnote 58: Kapila's system, usually known as the
S[=a]nkhya.]

[Footnote 59: And attributed to Pata[=n.]jali. Compare
Deussen, _System des Ved[=a]nta,_ p. 20.]

[Footnote 60: Born In 788. But some scholars refer him to
the seventh century. See IA. xiii. 95; xvi. 41. His name, a
title of Çiva, indicates his nominal sect.]

[Footnote 61: For the meaning of Ved[=a]nta (whether 'end of
Veda,' or 'goal of Veda') compare Deussen, _loc. cit._ p. 3,
note (above, p. 253, note).]

[Footnote 62: The Supreme Spirit or All-Spirit is either
purely non-dualistic or qualifiedly non-dualistic; in the
latter event he is, says the sectary, identical with Vishnu,
who may be represented either by Krishna or R[=a]ma
(sub-sects). Pure non-duality (unconditioned _[=a]tm[=a]_)
was taught by Çankara.]

[Footnote 63: Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_..
Compare Williams, _loc. cit_. In our own view the
unsystematic Upanishads teach both doctrines (above, p. 228,
note).]

[Footnote 64: Before K[=a]m[=a]nuja it was taught by
Ç[=a]ndilya that _brahma_ (and the individual spirit) was
conditioned, a doctrine supposed to be that of the old
Bh[=a]gavatas or P[=a][.n]car[=a]tras; but this is quite
uncertain. The Ç[=a]ndilyan chapter of the Ch[=a]ndogya
Upanishad (above, p. 221) may be thus interpreted, _vis_,
that the (conditioned) individual spirit is identical with
_brahma_.]

[Footnote 65: Thibaut, _Introduction to the Ved[=a]nta
S[=u]tras_, SBE. XXXIV. p. XXXI; Deussen, _System des
Ved[=a]nta_, p.469.]

[Footnote 66: Philosophical illusion, _m[=a]n[=a]_, appears
first in late Upanishads.]

[Footnote 67: The author of the Dabist[=a]n (seventeenth
century) tells a Berkeleyan story in regard to Çankara's
doctrine of illusion. His enemies wished to test his belief
in his own philosophy; so they drove an elephant at him, on
which the philosopher ran away. "Ho!" they jeered, "Did you
not maintain that all was a mere illusion? Then an elephant
is illusion. Yet you take to flight before it." "Yes,"
replied the philosopher, "all is illusion; there was no
elephant, and there was no flight" (II. 4).]

[Footnote 68: The Sm[=a]rta (orthodox) Brahman believes, on
the other hand, that Vishnu, Çiva, and Brahm[=a] are all
mere forms of the Supreme [=A]lm[=a].]

[Footnote 69: If Mohammed were regarded as one with Allah
there would be an Occidental parallel to the Krishna and
R[=a]ma sects.]

[Footnote 70: Whether the Hindu trinitarianism derives from
the Occident or not (the former view being historically
probable, but not possible to prove) the importance of the
dogma and its place in Hindu theology is very different to
the condition of things in the Christian church. In India
trinitarianism is merely a convenience in adjusting the
claims of two heterodox sects and orthodoxy, each believer
being willing to admit that the god of the other is his own
god, only with the understanding that the last is a superior
manifestation. In late Çivaism both Vishnu and Brahm[=a] are
indeed called the 'sons of God' (Çiva). but in the sense
that they are distinctly subordinate creatures of Çiva
(JAOS. iv. 147).]

[Footnote 71: But some Hindus worship both Vishnu and Çiva
without insisting that one is higher than the other.
Moreover, there is a Mahratta sect of Vishnuites who
complacently worship Buddha (Vishnu's ninth _avatar_) as
Vi[t.]h[t.]hala or P[=a]ndura[.n]ga. These are simply
eclectic, and their god is without or with quality. Buddha
is here not a deceiver, but an instructor (JRAS. 1842, p.
66; IA. XI. 56, 149).]

[Footnote 72: The Çivaites, too, are divided on the
questions both of predestination and of free grace. The
greater body of them hold to the 'monkey doctrine'; the
Paçupatas, to the 'cat.']

[Footnote 73: Sanskrit _kal[=a]_, school
(_marka[t.]a-ny[=a]ya_ and _m rj[=a]ra-ny[=a]ya_). The
Southern school has its own Veda written in Tamil. Williams,
JRAS. xiv. 301. According to the same writer the Ten-galais
hold that Vishnu's wife is finite, created, and a mediator;
the Vada-galais, that she is infinite, and uncreated.]

[Footnote 74: All Vishnuites have the vertical sign;
Çivaites have a horizontal sign (on the forehead).]

[Footnote 75: _Proceed. AOS_. 1894, p. iii. The Vada-school
may be affected by Çivaism.]

[Footnote 76: A divine monkey appears in the Rig Veda, but
not as an object of devotion.]

[Footnote 77: The teachers of the Ramaites are generally
Brahmans, but no disciples are excluded because of their
caste. R[=a]m[=a]nuja adopted the monastic system, which
Çankara is said to have taken from the Buddhists and to have
introduced into Brahmanic priestly life. Both family priests
and cenobites are admitted into his order.]

[Footnote 78: What the Linga is to Çivaite the
Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma is to the Vishnuite (who also reveres the
_tulas[=i]_ wood). The Ç[=a]lagr[=a]ma is a black pebble;
the L[=i]nga is a white pebble or glass (Williams). The
Çivaites have appropriated the _d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass as sacred
to Ganeça. Sesamum seeds and _d[=u]rv[=a]_ are, however,
Brahmanically holy. Compare Çat. Br. iv. 5-10, where
_d[=u]rv[=a]_ grass is even holier than _kuça_-grass. The
rosaries used by the sects have been the subject of a paper
by Leumann, and are described by Williams. Thirty-two or
sixty-four berries of _eleocapus ganitrus (rudr[=a]ksha_)
make the Çivaite rosary. That of the Vishnuite is made of
lotus-seeds or of _tuls[=a]_ wood in one hundred and eight
pieces.]

[Footnote 79: For an account and list of the works of
Tulas[=i]d[=a]s[=a] (Tuls[=i]d[=a]s), compare IA. xxii. 89,
122, 227. Jayadeva (twelfth century), the author of the
G[=i]ta Govinda (translated by Jones, Lassen, and Ruckert),
is sometimes reckoned falsely to the adherents of
R[=a]m[=a]nand, but he is really a Krishnaite.]

[Footnote 80: The _bhakti_ doctrine is that of the extant
Ç[=a]ndilya S[=u]tras, which make faith and not works or
knowledge a condition of salvation. They are modern, as
Cowell, in his preface to the work, has shown. Cowell here
identifies K[=a]çyapa with Ka[n.][=a]da, the V[=a]içeshika
philosopher, his school holding that the individual spirits
are infinite in number, distinct from the Supreme Spirit.]

[Footnote 81: The infant-cult is of course older than these
sects. For an account of the ritual, as well as its
intrusion into the earlier cult of the Pur[=a]nas, with the
accompanying resemblances to Madonna-cult, and the new
features (the massacre of the innocents, the birth in the
stable, the three wise men, etc.) that show borrowing from
Christianity, compare Weber's exhaustive treatise referred
to above, the _K[=r.][=s.][n.]ajanm[=a][=s.][=t.]am[=i],
Krishna's Geburtsfest_.]

[Footnote 82: Williams, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 83: 'Gosain' means shepherd, like Gop[=a]la. Some
of the sects, like the Kart[=a]bh[=a]js, recognize only the
Teacher as God. Williams states that in Bengal a fourth
member has been added to this sect-trinity. On Dancing-girls
see IA. XIII-165.]

[Footnote 84: The philosophical tenet of this sect 'pure
_adv[=a]ita_' (non-duality) distinguishes it from the
qualified duality taught by R[=a]m[=a]nuja. This is a
reversion to Çankara. The C[=a]itanya sect teaches not
absorption but individual existence in a heaven of sensuous
(sensual) pleasure.]

[Footnote 85: "In the temples where the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas
(priests) do homage to the idols men and women do homage to
the Mah[=a]r[=a]jas.... The best mode of propitiating the
god Krishna is by ministering to the sensual appetites of
his vicars upon earth. Body and soul are literally made over
to them, and women are taught to deliver up their persons to
Krishna's representatives," Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 309.]

[Footnote 86: On these sects see Wilson, Hunter (Statistical
Account), Williams, JRAS. xiv. 289. The festival verses in
honor of the Madonna are: "Honor to thee, Devak[=i], who
hast borne Krishna; may the goddess who destroys sin be
satisfied, revered by me. Mother of God art thou, Adit[=i],
destroying sin. I will honor thee as the gods honor thee,"
_etc_. (Weber, _Janm[=a][s.][t.]am[=i]_, p. 286). The
birth-day celebration is not confined to Krishnaites; but in
the R[=a]ma sect, though they celebrate the birth, they do
not represent the man-god as a suckling. In other respects
this feast is imitated from that of Krishna (Weber, p. 310,
note). The R[=a]macandra celebration takes place in the
spring. The birth-day of Ganeça is also celebrated by the
Çivaites (in August-September).]

[Footnote 87: He himself claimed to be an incarnate god. He
adopted the qualified non-duality of R[=a]m[=a]nuja. See
Williams' account of him and of the two great temples of the
sect, _loc. cit_.]

[Footnote 88: From Williams, _loc. cit_. p. 291 ff. The
three qualities (sometimes interpreted as activity, purity,
and indifference) are met with for the first time in the
Atharva Veda, where are found the Vedantic 'name' and 'form'
also; Muir, v. p. 309. The three qualities that condition
the idealist Vedantist's personal Lord in his causal body
are identical with those that constitute the 'nature,'
_prak[=r.]ti_, of the S[=a]nkhya dualist.]

[Footnote 89: Among the Vallabhas (above, p. 505). The
Teacher is the chief god of most of the Vallabhas (Barth, p.
235}. For the Vi[t.]h[t.]hal view of caste see 1A. XI.152.]

[Footnote 90: It is true of other sectaries also, Ramaites
and Çivaites, that the mere repetition of their god's name
is a means of salvation.]

[Footnote 91: Now chiefly in the South. The Dabist[=a]n
gives several divisions of sun-worshippers. For more details
see Barth, p. 258. Apollonius of Tyana saw a sun-temple at
Taxila, JRAS. 1859, p. 77.]

[Footnote 92: More direct than in the form of Vishnu, who at
first is merely the sun. Of the relation with Iranian
sun-worship we have spoken above.]

[Footnote 93: They brand themselves with the Vishnu-mark,
are generally high-caste, live in monasteries, and profess
celibacy. They are at most unknown in the North. They are
generally known by their founder's name, but are also called
Brahma-Samprad[=a]yins, 'Brahma-adherents.']

[Footnote 94: So the P[=a]çupata doctrine is that the
individual spirit is different to the supreme lord and also
to matter (_p[=a]ça_, the fetter that binds the individual
spirit, _paçu_, and keeps it from its Lord, _paçupat[=i]_).
The fact is that every sectary is more a monotheist than a
pantheist. Especially is this true of the Çivaite. The
supreme is to him Çiva.]

[Footnote 95: Wilson gives a full account of this sect in
the _As[=i]atick Researches_, xvi, p. 100.]

[Footnote 96: Of the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s Wilson says: "It is
no part of their faith to worship any Hindu deity." A glance
at the Dabist[=a]n will preclude the possibility of claiming
much originality for the modern deism of India. This work
was written in 1645, and its Persian author describes, as a
matter of every-day occurrence, religious debates between
'Jews, Nazarines, Mussulmen, and Hindus,' who meet more to
criticise than to examine, but yet to hear explained in full
the doctrines of their opponents, in just such tourneys of
argument as we showed to be popular among the priests of the
Upanishads and epic. Speaking of the Vedas, the author says
that every one derives from them arguments in favor of his
own creed, whether it be philosophical, mystical, unitarian,
atheistic, Judaic, or Christian. Dabist[=a]n, vol. II, p.
45.]

[Footnote 97: Before election the Guru must be examined. If
the faithful are not satisfied, they may reject him. but,
having elected him, they are bound to obey him implicitly.
He can excommunicate, but he may not punish corporally. This
deification of the Guru was retained by the Sikhs, and the
office was made hereditary among them (by Arjun), till
Govind, the tenth pontiff, who left no successor, declared
that after his death the Granth (bible) should be the sole
authority of the church.]

[Footnote 98: The 'half' contributor was a woman, and hence
was not reckoned as a complete unit.]