Chapter XVII: Modern Hindu Sects.1 (3)

[Footnote 99: The word Sikh means 'disciple' (of N[=a]nak).
The name the Sikhs assumed as a nation was Singhs
(_si[.m]has_), 'Lions of the Punj[=a]b.']

[Footnote 100: The 'true name,' _sat n[=a]m_, is the
appellation of God.]

[Footnote 101: JRAS. 1846, p. 43, Prinsep's compilation
(Wilson). Compare Trumpp, ib. V. 197 (1871); and
[=A]digranth, 1877.]

[Footnote 102: This sect was founded by a descendant of
N[=a]nak.]

[Footnote 103: It was not till Mohammedan persecution
influenced them that the religious Sikhs of N[=a]nak became
the political haters and fighters of Govind.]

[Footnote 104: It is said that Govind sacrificed to Durg[=a]
the life of one of his own disciples to prepare himself for
his ministry. Trumpp, [=A]digranth; Barth, p. 204. The lives
of the later Gurus will be found in Elphinstone's history
and Prinsep's sketch (a _résumé_ by Barth, p. 248 ff.).]

[Footnote 105: With some small verbal alterations.]

[Footnote 106: The conclusion of this extract shows the
narrower polemic spirit: "Pundits and Q[=a]z[=i]s are fools.
What avails it to collect a heap of books? Let your minds
freely meditate on the spirit of God. Wear not away your
lives by studying the Vedas."]

[Footnote 107: For the data of the following paragraphs on
the deistic reformers of to-day we are indebted to an
article of Professor Williams, which first appeared in the
thirteenth volume of the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society,_ and has since been published in the same author's
_Brahmanism and Hinduism._]

[Footnote 108: Born in 1818.]

[Footnote 109: _ekam[=a]tr[=a]dvit[=i]ya_ (masculine); with
this form contrast below, in the Br[=a]hma Dharma (religion)
of Debendran[=a]th, the neuter _ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_. The
only God of the first Sam[=a]j; is a person; that of the
reform is exoterically Nature.]

[Footnote 110: But, as will be noticed in the four articles
(which are in part a compilation of phrases from the
Upanishads) the personality of Brahm[=a] is not insisted on
for the outer church. For this reason, although the inner
church doubtless understands It as He, yet this neuter
should be preserved in the translation. The articles are so
drawn up as to enable any deist to subscribe (without
Vedantic belief as a condition of acceptance) to the
essential creed of the Congregation. One or two sentences in
the original will reveal at a glance the origin of the
phraseology: _brahma_ (being) _v[=a] ekam idam-agra
[=a]s[=i]t; tad ida[.m] sarvam as[r.]jal; tad eva nityam,
ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam; tasmia pr[=i]tis ...
tadup[=a]sanam_. Compare Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad: _sad_
(being) _idam agra [=a]s[=i]d ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam_; and
the V[=a]jasaney[=i]-Br[=a]hmana Upanishad: _brahma v[=a]
idam-agra [=a]s[=i]t_, etc.]

[Footnote 111: It is interesting to see this fervor, or
ecstatic delirium, surviving from the time of the Rig Veda,
where already (albeit only in the latest hymns, which are
quite Brahmanic) flourishes the mad _muni:_ and fervid
ascetism ('heat,'_tapas_) begins to appear as a means of
salvation. RV. x. 109, 136.]

[Footnote 112: "I regard myself as Christ and C[=a]itanya,"
reported by Sen's own missionary as the words of the former.
Sen's disciples deny some of these assertions, but they seem
to be substantiated, and Sen's own language shows that he
claimed miraculous powers. Compare the discussions on this
point, JRAS. xiii. 281 ff.]

[Footnote 113: This was afterwards excused on the ground
that the marriage would not have been legal without these
rites. But Sen presumably was aware of this in advance. From
the performance of the rites he had the decency to absent
himself. It should be said, however, in Sen's behalf, that
the marriage itself had nothing revolting about it, and
though in consenting to it Sen violated his faith, as is
evident from the protest of the Sam[=a]j, yet was the
marriage not an extreme case of child-marriage, for both the
'children' were sixteen. Sen's own excuse (he thought excuse
necessary) was that he was inspired when he consented to the
nuptials.]

[Footnote 114: The theistic tendency in the Hindu mind is so
exaggerated that even now it is with the greatest difficulty
that the vulgar can be restrained from new idolatry. Not
only priests, but even poets are regarded as gods.
Jñ[=a]ndev and Tuk[=a]r[=a]m, the hymn-makers of the
Mahratta Vi[t.]h[t.]hals, are demi-gods to-day (IA. xi. 56.
149). A few striking examples are almost requisite to make
an Occidental reader understand against what odds the deism
of India has to contend. In 1830 an impudent boy, who could
train snakes, announced that he could also work miracles.
The boy was soon accepted as Vishnu's last _avatar_; hymns,
_abhangs_, were sung to him, and he was worshipped as a god
even after his early demise (from a snake-bite). A weaver
came soon after to the temple, where stood the boy's now
vacant shrine, and fell asleep there at night. In the
morning he was perplexed to find himself a god. The people
had accepted him as their snake-conquering god in a new
form. The poor weaver denied his divinity, but that made no
difference. In 1834 the dead boy-god was still receiving
flowers and prayers. Another case: In the eighties some
Englishmen on entering a temple were amazed to see revered
as an _avatar_ of Vishnu the brass castings of the arms of
the old India Co. This god was washed and anointed daily.
Even a statue of Buddha (with the inscription still upon it)
was revered as Vishnu. In 1880 a meteorite fell in Beh[=a]r.
In 1882 its cult was fully established, and it was
worshipped as the 'miraculous god.' A Mohammedan inscription
has also been found deified and regularly worshipped as a
god, JRAS. 1842, p. 109; 1884, pt. III, pp. I, LIX.]

* * * * *