The Religions of India Part 21

[Footnote 25: [Greek: o de chalkeos asphales aien edos menei ouranos], Pind. N. vi. 5; compare Preller[4], p.40.]

[Footnote 26: Wahrscheinlich sind Uranos und Kronos erst aus dem Culte des Zeus abstrahirt worden. Preller[4], p. 43.]

[Footnote 27: When Aryan deities are decadent, Trita, Mitra, etc.]

[Footnote 28: Spiegel holds that the whole idea of future punishment is derived from Persia (_Eranische Altherthumskunde_, I. p. 458), but his point of view is naturally prejudiced. The allusion to the supposed Babylonian coin, _man[=a]_, in RV. VIII. 78. 2, would indicate that the relation with Babylon is one of trade, as with Aegypt. The account of the flood may be drawn thence, so may the story of Deucalion, but both Hindu and h.e.l.lenic versions may be as native as is that of the American redskins.]

[Footnote 29: IV. 17. 17.]

[Footnote 30: _loc. cit._ pp. 70, 480.]

CHAPTER IX.

BRAHMANISM.

Besides the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda there are two others, called respectively the S[=a]ma Veda and the Yajur Veda.[1] The former consists of a small collection of verses, which are taken chiefly from the eighth and ninth books of the Rig Veda, and are arranged for singing. It has a few more verses than are contained in the corresponding parts of the Rik, but the whole is of no added importance from the present point of view. It is of course made entirely for the ritual. Also made for the ritual is the Yajur Veda, the Veda of sacrificial formulae. But this Veda is far more important.

With it one is brought into a new land, and into a world of ideas that are strange to the Rik. The period represented by it is a sort of bridge between the Rik and the Br[=a]hmanas. The Yajus is later than Rik or Atharvan, belonging in its entirety more to the age of the liturgy than to the older Vedic era. With the Br[=a]hmanas not only is the tone changed from that of the Rig Veda; the whole moral atmosphere is now surcharged with hocus-pocus, mysticism, religiosity, instead of the cheerful, real religion which, however formal, is the soul of the Rik. In the Br[=a]hmanas there is no freshness, no poetry. There is in some regards a more scrupulous outward morality, but for the rest there is only cynicism, bigotry, and dullness. It is true that each of these traits may be found in certain parts of the Rig Veda, but it is not true that they represent there the spirit of the age, as they do in the Brahmanic period. Of this Brahmanic stoa, to which we now turn, the Yajur Veda forms the fitting entrance. Here the priest is as much lord as he is in the Br[=a]hmanas. Here the sacrifice is only the act, the sacrificial forms (_yajus_), without the spirit.

In distinction from the verse-Veda (the Rik), the Yajur Veda contains the special formulae which the priest that attends to the erection of the altar has to speak, with explanatory remarks added thereto. This of course stamps the collection as mechanical; but the wonder is that this collection, with the similar Br[=a]hmana scriptures that follow it, should be the only new literature which centuries have to show.[2]

As explanatory of the sacrifice there is found, indeed, a good deal of legendary stuff, which sometimes has a literary character. But nothing is for itself; everything is for the correct performance of the sacrifice.[3]

The geographical centre is now changed, and instead of the Punj[=a]b, the 'middle district' becomes the seat of culture. Nor is there much difference between the district to which can be referred the rise of the Yajur Veda and that of the Br[=a]hmanas. No less altered is the religion. All is now symbolical, and the G.o.ds, though in general they are the G.o.ds of the Rig Veda, are not the same as of old. The priests have become G.o.ds. The old appellation of 'spirit,' _asura_, is confined to evil spirits. There is no longer any such 'henotheism' as that of the Rig Veda. The Father-G.o.d, 'lord of beings,' or simply 'the father,' is the chief G.o.d. The last thought of the Rig Veda is the first thought of the Yajur Veda. Other changes have taken place. The demiG.o.ds of the older period, the water-nymphs of the Rik, here become seductive G.o.ddesses, whose increase of power in this art agrees with the decline of the warrior spirit that is shown too in the whole mode of thinking. Most important is the gradual rise of Vishnu and the first appearance of civa. Here _brahma_, which in the Rik has the meaning 'prayer' alone, is no longer mere prayer, but, as in later literature, holiness. In short, before the Br[=a]hmanas are reached they are perceptible in the near distance, in the Veda of Formulae, the Yajus;[4] for between the Yajur Veda and the Br[=a]hmanas there is no essential difference. The latter consist of explanations of the sacrificial liturgy, interspersed with legends, bits of history, philosophical explanations, and other matter more or less related to the subject. They are completed by the Forest Books, [=A]ranyakas, which contain the speculations of the later theosophy, the Upanishads (below). It is with the Yajur Veda and its nearly related literature, the Br[=a]hmanas, that Brahmanism really begins. Of these latter the most important in age and content are the Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig Veda and Yajur Veda), called [=A]itareya and cata-patha, the former representing the western district, the latter, in great part, a more eastern region.

Although the 'Northerners' are still respectfully referred to, yet, as we have just said, the people among whom arose the Br[=a]hmanas are not settled in the Punj[=a]b, but in the country called the 'middle district,' round about the modern Delhi. For the most part the Punj[=a]b is abandoned; or rather, the literature of this period does not emanate from the Aryans that remained in the Punj[=a]b, but from the still emigrating descendants of the old Vedic people that used to live there. Some stay behind and keep the older practices, not in all regards looked upon as orthodox by their more advanced brethren, who have pushed east and now live in the country called the land of the Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las.[5] They are spread farther east, along the banks of the Jumna and Ganges, south of Nep[=a]l; while some are still about and south of the holy Kurukshetra or 'plain of Kurus.' East of the middle district the Kosalas and Videhas form, in opposition to the Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las, the second great tribe (Tirh[=u]t). There are now two sets of 'Seven Rivers,' and the holiness of the western group is perceptibly lessened. Here for the first time are found the _Vr[=a]tya_-hymns, intended to initiate into the Brahmanic order Aryans who have not conformed to it, and speak a dialectic language.[6] From the point of view of language and geography, no less than from that of the social and spiritual conditions, it is evident that quite a period has elapsed since the body of the Rig Veda was composed. The revealed texts are now ancient storehouses of wisdom.

Religion has apparently become a form; in some regards it is a farce.

"There are two kinds of G.o.ds; for the G.o.ds are G.o.ds, and priests that are learned in the Veda and teach it are human G.o.ds." This sentence, from one of the most important Hindu prose works,[7] is the key to the religion of the period which it represents; and it is fitly followed by the further statement, that like sacrifice to the G.o.ds are the fees paid to the human G.o.ds the priests.[8] Yet with this dictum, so important for the understanding of the religion of the age, must be joined another, if one would do that age full justice: 'The sacrifice is like a ship sailing heavenward; if there be a sinful priest in it, that one priest would make it sink' (_cat. Br_. IV. 2. 5. 10). For although the time is one in which ritualism had, indeed, become more important than religion, and the priest more important than the G.o.ds, yet is there no lack of reverential feeling, nor is morality regarded as unimportant. The first impression, however, which is gained from the literature of this period is that the sacrifice is all in all; that the endless details of its course, and the petty questions in regard to its arrangement, are not only the princ.i.p.al objects of care and of chief moment, but even of so cardinal importance that the whole religious spirit swings upon them. But such is not altogether the case. It is the truth, yet is it not the whole truth, that in these Br[=a]hmanas religion is an appearance, not a reality. The sacrifice is indeed represented to be the only door to prosperity on earth and to future bliss; but there is a quiet yet persistent belief that at bottom a moral and religious life is quite as essential as are the ritualistic observances with which worship is accompanied.

To describe Brahmanism as implying a religion that is purely one of ceremonies, one composed entirely of observances, is therefore not altogether correct. In reading a liturgical work it must not be forgotten for what the work was intended. If its object be simply to inculcate a special rite, one cannot demand that it should show breadth of view or elevation of sentiment. Composed of observances every work must be of which the aim is to explain observances. In point of fact, religion (faith and moral behavior) is here a.s.sumed, and so entirely is it taken for granted that a statement emphasizing the necessity of G.o.dliness is seldom found.

Nevertheless, having called attention to the religious spirit that lies latent in the pedantic Br[=a]hmanas, we are willing to admit that the age is overcast, not only with a thick cloud of ritualism, but also with an unpleasant mask of phariseeism. There cannot have been quite so much attention paid to the outside of the platter without neglect of the inside. And it is true that the priests of this period strive more for the completion of their rites than for the perfection of themselves. It is true, also, that occasionally there is a revolting contempt for those people who are not of especial service to the priest. There are now two G.o.dlike aristocrats, the priest and the n.o.ble. The 'people' are regarded as only fit to be the "food of the n.o.bility." In the symbolical language of the time the bricks of the altar, which are consecrated, are the warrior caste; the fillings, in the s.p.a.ce between the bricks, are not consecrated; and these "fillers of s.p.a.ce" are "the people" (_cat. Br_. VI. 1. 2. 25).

Yet is religion in these books not dead, but sleeping; to wake again in the Upanishads with a fuller spiritual life than is found in any other pre-Christian system. Although the subject matter of the Br[=a]hmanas is the cult, yet are there found in them numerous legends, moral teachings, philosophical fancies, historical items, etymologies and other advent.i.tious matter, all of which are helpful in giving a better understanding of the intelligence of the people to whom is due all the extant literature of the period. Long citations from these ritualistic productions would have a certain value, in showing in native form the character of the works, but they would make unendurable reading; and we have thought it better to arrange the multifarious contents of the chief Br[=a]hmanas in a sort of order, although it is difficult always to decide where theology ends and moral teachings begin, the two are here so interwoven.

BRAHMANIC THEOLOGY AND THE SACRIFICE.

While in general the pantheon of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda is that of the Br[=a]hmanas, some of the older G.o.ds are now reduced in importance, and, on the other hand, as in the Yajur Veda, some G.o.ds are seen to be growing in importance. 'Time,' deified in the Atharvan, is a great G.o.d, but beside him still stand the old rustic divinities; and chrematheism, which antedates even the Rig Veda, is still recognized. To the 'ploughshare' and the 'plough' the Rig Veda has an hymn (IV. 57. 5-8), and so the ritual gives them a cake at the sacrifice (_cun[=a]c[=i]rya, cat. Br._ II. 6. 3. 5). The number of the G.o.ds, in the Rig Veda estimated as thirty-three, or, at the end of this period, as thousands, remains as doubtful as ever; but, in general, all groups of deities become greater in number. Thus, in TS.

I. 4. 11. 1, the Rudras alone are counted as thirty-three instead of eleven; and, _ib._ V. 5. 2. 5, the eight Vasus become three hundred and thirty-three; but it is elsewhere hinted that the number of the G.o.ds stands in the same relation to that of men as that in which men stand to the beasts; that is, there are not quite so many G.o.ds as men (_cat. Br._ II. 3. 2. 18).

Of more importance than the addition of new deities is the subdivision of the old. As one finds in Greece a [Greek: Zeus katachthonios]

beside a [Greek: Zeus xenios], so in the Yajur Veda and Br[=a]hmanas are found (an extreme instance) hail 'to K[=a]ya,' and hail 'to Kasm[=a]i,' that is, the G.o.d Ka is differentiated into two divinities, according as he is declined as a noun or as a p.r.o.noun; for this is the G.o.d "Who?" as the dull Br[=a]hmanas interpreted that verse of the Rig Veda which asks 'to whom (which, as) G.o.d shall we offer sacrifice?'

(M[=a]it. S. III. 12. 5.) But ordinarily one divinity like Agni is subdivided, according to his functions, as 'lord of food,' 'lord of prayer,' etc.[9]

In the Br[=a]hmanas different names are given to the chief G.o.d, but he is most often called the Father-G.o.d (Praj[=a]pati, 'lord of creatures,' or the Father, _pit[=a]_). His earlier Vedic type is Brihaspati, the lord of strength, and, from another point of view, the All-G.o.d.[10] The other G.o.ds fall into various groups, the most significant being the triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun.[11] Not much weight is to be laid on the theological speculations of the time as indicative of primitive conceptions, although they may occasionally hit true. For out of the number of inane fancies it is reasonable to suppose that some might coincide with historic facts. Thus the All-G.o.ds of the Rig Veda, by implication, are of later origin than the other G.o.ds, and this, very likely, was the case; but it is a mere guess on the part of the priest. The _catapatha_, III. 6. 1. 28, speaks of the All-G.o.ds as G.o.ds that gained immortality on a certain occasion, _i.e._, became immortal like other G.o.ds. So the [=A]dityas go to heaven before the Angirasas (_[=A][=i]t. Br_. IV. 17), but this has no such historical importance as some scholars are inclined to think. The lesser G.o.ds are in part carefully grouped and numbered, in a manner somewhat contradictory to what must have been the earlier belief. Thus the 'three kinds of G.o.ds' are now Vasus, of earth, Rudras, of air, and [=A]dityas, of sky, and the daily offerings are divided between them; the morning offering belonging only to the Vasus, the mid-day one only to (Indra and) the Rudras, the third to the [=A]dityas with the Vasus and Rudras together.[12] Again, the morning and mid-day pressing belong to the G.o.ds alone, and strict rule is observed in distinguishing their portion from that of the Manes (_cat. Br_. IV. 4. 22). The difference of s.e.x is quite ignored, so that the 'universal Agni' is identified with (mother) earth; as is also, once or twice, P[=u]shan (_ib._ III. 8. 5. 4; 2. 4. 19; II. 5.

4. 7). As the 'progenitor,' Agni facilitates connubial union, and is called "the head G.o.d, the progenitor among G.o.ds, the lord of beings"

(_ib._ III. 4. 3. 4; III. 9. 1. 6). P[=u]shan is interpreted to mean cattle, and Brihaspati is the priestly caste (_ib_. III. 9. 1. 10 ff.). The base of comparison is usually easy to find. 'The earth nourishes,' and 'P[=u]shan nourishes,' hence Pushan is the earth; or 'the earth belongs to all' and Agni is called 'belonging to all'

(universal), hence the two are identified. The All-G.o.ds, merely on account of their name, are now the All; Aditi is the 'unbounded' earth (_ib_. III. 9. 1. 13; IV. 1. 1. 23; i. 1. 4. 5; III. 2. 3. 6). Agni represents all the G.o.ds, and he is the dearest, the closest, and the surest of all the G.o.ds (_ib_. I. 6. 2. 8 ff.). It is said that man on earth fathers the fire (that is, protects it), and when he dies the fire that he has made his son on earth becomes his father, causing him to be reborn in heaven (_ib_. II. 3. 3. 3-5; VI. 1. 2. 26).

The wives of the G.o.ds _(dev[=a]n[=a]m patn[=i]r yajati)_, occasionally mentioned in the Rig Veda, have now an established place and cult apart from that of the G.o.ds (_ib_. I. 9. 2. 11). The fire on the hearth is G.o.d Agni in person, and is not a divine or mystic type; but he is prayed to as a heavenly friend. Some of these traits are old, but they are exaggerated as compared with the more ancient theology.

When one goes on a journey or returns from one, 'even if a king were in his house' he should not greet him till he makes homage to his hearth-fires, either with spoken words or with silent obeisance. For Agni and Praj[=a]pati are one, they are son and father (_ib_. II. 4.

1. 3, 10; VI. 1. 2. 26). The G.o.ds have mystic names, and these 'who will dare to speak?' Thus, Indra's mystic name is Arjuna (_ib_. II. 1.

2. 11). In the early period of the Rig Veda the priest dares to speak.

The pantheism of the end of the Rig Veda is here decided and plain-spoken, as it is in the Atharvan. As it burns brightly or not the fire is in turn identified with different G.o.ds, Rudra, Varuna, Indra, and Mitra (_ib_. II. 3. 2. 9 ff.). Agni is all the G.o.ds and the G.o.ds are in men (_ib_. III. 1. 3. 1; 4. 1. 19; II. 3. 2. 1: Indra and King Yama dwell in men). And, again, the Father (Praj[=a]pati) is the All; he is the year of twelve months and five seasons(_ib_. I. 3. 5.

10). Then follows a characteristic bit. Seventeen verses are to be recited to correspond to the 'seventeenfold' Praj[=a]pati. But 'some say' twenty-one verses; and he may recite twenty-one, for if 'the three worlds' are added to the above seventeen one gets twenty, and the sun (_ya esa tapati_) makes the twenty-first! As to the number of worlds, it is said (_ib_. I. 2. 4. 11, 20-21) that there are three worlds, and possibly a fourth.

Soma is now the moon, but as being one half of Vritra, the evil demon.

The other half became the belly of creatures (_ib_. I. 6. 3. 17).

Slightly different is the statement that Soma was Vritra, IV. 2. 5.

15. In _[=A]it. Br._ I. 27, King Soma is bought of the Gandharvas by V[=a]c, 'speech,' as a cow.[13] With phases of the moon Indra and Agni are identified. One is the deity of the new; the other, of the full moon; while Mitra is the waning, and Varuna the waxing moon (_cat.

Br._ II. 4. 4. 17-18). This opposition of deities is more fully expressed in the attempt to make ant.i.thetic the relations of the G.o.ds and the Manes, thus: 'The G.o.ds are represented by spring, summer, and rains; the Fathers, by autumn, winter, and the dewy season; the G.o.ds, by the waxing; the Fathers, by the waning moon; the G.o.ds, by day; the Fathers, by night; the G.o.ds, by morning; the Fathers, by afternoon'

(_cat. Br._ II. 1.-31; _ib_. II. 4. 2. 1. ff.: 'The sun is the light of the G.o.ds; the moon, of the Fathers; fire, of men'). Between morning and afternoon, as representative of G.o.ds and Manes respectively, stands midday, which, according to the same authority (II. 4. 2. 8), represents men. The pa.s.sage first cited continues thus: 'The seasons are G.o.ds and Fathers; G.o.ds are immortal; the Fathers are mortal.' In regard to the relation between spring and the other seasons, the fifth section of this pa.s.sage may be compared: 'Spring is the priesthood; summer, the warrior-caste; the rains are the (_vic_) people.'[14]

Among the conspicuous divine forms of this period is the Queen of Serpents, whose verses are chanted over fire; but she is the earth, according to some pa.s.sages (_[=A]it. Br._. V. 23; _cat. Br._ II. 1. 4.

30; IV. 6. 9. 17). In their divine origin there is, indeed, according to the theology now current, no difference between the powers of light and of darkness, between the G.o.ds and the 'spirits,' _asuras, i.e._, evil spirits. Many tales begin with the formula: 'The G.o.ds and evil spirits, both born of the Father-G.o.d' (_cat. Br._ I. 2. 4. 8). Weber thinks that this implies close acquaintance with Persian worship, a sort of t.i.t-for-tat; for the Hindu would in that case call the holy spirit, _ahura_, of the Persian a devil, just as the Persian makes an evil spirit, _daeva_, out of the Hindu G.o.d, _deva_. But the relations between Hindu and Persian in this period are still very uncertain. It is interesting to follow out some of the Brahmanic legends, if only to see what was the conception of the evil spirits. In one such theological legend the G.o.ds and the (evil) spirits, both being sons of the Father-G.o.d, inherited from him, respectively, mind and speech; hence the G.o.ds got the sacrifice and heaven, while the evil spirits got this earth. Again, the two entered on the inheritance of their father in time, and so the G.o.ds have the waxing moon, and the evil spirits, the waning moon (_ib._ III 2. 1. 18; I. 7. 2. 22).

But what these Asuras or (evil) spirits really are may be read easily from the texts. The G.o.ds are the spirits of light; the Asuras are the spirits of darkness. Therewith is indissolubly connected the idea that sin and darkness are of the same nature. So one reads that when the sun rises it frees itself 'from darkness, from sin,' as a snake from its slough (_ib._ II. 3. I. 6). And in another pa.s.sage it is said that darkness and illusion were given to the Asuras as their portion by the Father-G.o.d _(ib._ II. 4. 2. 5). With this may be compared also the frequent grouping of The Asuras or Rakshas with darkness (_e.g., ib._ III. 8. 2. 15; IV. 3. 4. 21). As to the nature of the G.o.ds the evidence is contradictory. Both G.o.ds and evil spirits were originally soulless and mortal. Agni (Fire) alone was immortal, and it was only through him that the others continued to live. They became immortal by putting in their inmost being the holy (immortal) fire (_ib._ II. 2.

2. 8). On the other hand, it is said that Agni was originally without brightness; and Indra, identified with the sun, was originally dark (_ib._ IV. 5.4.3; III. 4. 2. 15). The belief in an originally human condition of the G.o.ds (even the Father-G.o.d was originally mortal) is exemplified in a further pa.s.sage, where it is said that the G.o.ds used to live on earth, but they grew tired of man's endless pet.i.tions and fled; also in another place, where it is stated that the G.o.ds used to drink together with men visibly, but now they do so invisibly (_ib_.

II. 3. 4. 4; III. 6. 2. 26). How did such G.o.ds obtain their supremacy?

The answer is simple, 'by sacrifice' (_cat. Br_. III. 1. 4. 3; _[=A]it. Br_. II. I. I). So now they live by sacrifice: 'The sun would not rise if the priest did not make sacrifice' (_cat. Br_. II. 3. 1.

5). Even the order of things would change if the order of ceremonial were varied: Night would be eternal if the priests did so and so; the months would not pa.s.s, one following the other, if the priests walked out or entered together, etc. (_ib._ IV. 3. 1. 9-10). It is by a knowledge of the Vedas that one conquers all things, and the sacrifice is part and application of this knowledge, which in one pa.s.sage is thus reconditely subdivided: 'Threefold is knowledge, the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, and the S[=a]ma Veda.[15] The Rig Veda, _i.e_., the verses sung, are the earth; the Yajus is air; the S[=a]man is the sky.

He conquers earth, air, and sky respectively by these three Vedas. The Rik and S[=a]man are Indra and are speech; the Yajus is Vishnu and mind' (_ib._ IV. 6. 7. 1 ff.). An item follows that touches on a modern philosophical question. Apropos of speech and mind: 'Where speech (alone) existed everything was accomplished and known; but where mind (alone) existed nothing was accomplished or known' (_ib._ I. 4. 4. 3-4, 7). Mind and speech are male and female, and as yoke-fellows bear sacrificed to the G.o.ds; to be compared is the interesting dispute between mind and speech (_ib._ 5. 8). As dependent as is man on what is given by the G.o.ds, so dependent are the G.o.ds on what is offered to them by men (_T[=a]itt. Br._ II. 2. 7. 3; _cat.

Br._ I. 2. 5. 24). Even the G.o.ds are now not native to heaven. They win heaven by sacrifice, by metres, etc. (_cat. Br._ IV. 3. 2. 5).

What, then, is the sacrifice? A means to enter into the G.o.dhead of the G.o.ds, and even to control the G.o.ds; a ceremony where every word was pregnant with consequences;[16] every movement momentous. There are indications, however, that the priests themselves understood that much in the ceremonial was pure hocus-pocus, and not of such importance as it was reputed to be. But such faint traces as survive of a freer spirit objecting to ceremonial absurdities only mark more clearly the level plain of unintelligent superst.i.tion which was the feeding-ground of the ordinary priests.

Some of the cases of revolted common-sense are worth citing.

Conspicuous as an authority on the sacrifice, and at the same time as a somewhat recalcitrant priest, is Y[=a]j[.n]avalkya, author and critic, one of the greatest names in Hindu ecclesiastical history. It was he who, apropos of the new rule in ethics, so strongly insisted upon after the Vedic age and already beginning to obtain, the rule that no one should eat the flesh of the (sacred) cow ('Let no one eat beef.... Whoever eats it would be reborn (on earth) as a man of ill fame') said bluntly: 'As for me I eat (beef) if it is good (firm).[17]

It certainly required courage to say this, with the especial warning against beef, the meat of an animal peculiarly holy (_cat. Br._ III.

I. 2. 21). It was, again, Y[=a]jnavalkya (_cat. Br_., I. 3. I. 26), who protested against the priests' new demand that the benefit of the sacrifice should accrue in part to the priest; whereas it had previously been understood that not the sacrificial priest but the sacrificer (the worshipper, the man who hired the priest and paid the expenses) got all the benefit of the ceremony. Against the priests'

novel and unjustifiable claim Y[=a]jnavalkya exclaims: 'How can people have faith in this? Whatever be the blessing for which the priests pray, this blessing is for the worshipper (sacrificer) alone.[18] It was Y[=a]jnavalkya, too, who reb.u.t.ted some new superst.i.tion involving the sacrificer's wife, with the sneer, 'who cares whether the wife,'

etc. (_kas tad [=a]driyeta, ib._ 21). These protestations are navely recorded, though it is once suggested that in some of his utterances Y[=a]jnavalkya was not in earnest (_ib._ IV. 2. 1. 7). The high mind of this great priest is contrasted with the mundane views of his contemporaries in the prayers of himself and of another priest; for it is recorded that whereas Y[=a]jnavalkya's prayer to the Sun was 'give me light' (or 'glory,' _varco me dehi_), that of [=A]upoditeya was 'give me cows' (_ib_. I. 9. 3. 16). The chronicler adds, after citing these prayers, that one obtains whatever he prays for, either illumination or wealth.[19] Y[=a]jnavalkya, however, is not the only protestant. In another pa.s.sage, _ib_. ii. 6. 3. 14-17, the sacrificer is told to shave his head all around, so as to be like the sun; this will ensure his being able to 'consume (his foes) on all sides like the sun,' and it is added: But [=A]suri said, 'What on earth has it to do with his head? Let him not shave.'[20]

'Eternal holiness' is won by him that offers the sacrifice of the seasons. Characteristic is the explanation, 'for such an one wins the year, and a year is a complete whole, and a complete whole is indestructible (eternal); hence his holiness is indestructible, and he thereby becomes a part of a year and goes to the G.o.ds; but as there is no destruction in the G.o.ds, his holiness is therefore indestructible'

(_ib._ ii. 6. 3. 1).

Not only a man's self but also his Manes are benefited by means of sacrifice.[21] He gives the Manes pleasure with his offering, but he also raises their estate, and sends them up to live in a higher world.[22] The cosmological position of the Manes are the _av[=a]ntaradicas_, that is, between the four quarters; though, according to some, there are three kinds of them, _soma_-Manes, sacrifice-Manes (Manes of the sacrificial straw), and the burnt, _i.e_., the spirits of those that have been consumed in fire. They are, again, identified with the seasons, and are expressly mentioned as the guardians of houses, so that the Brahmanic Manes are at once Penates, Lares, and Manes.[23]

The sacrifice is by no means meant as an aid to the acquirement of heavenly bliss alone. Many of the great sacrifices are for the gaining of good things on earth. In one pa.s.sage there is described a ceremony, the result of which is to be that the warrior, who is the sacrificer, may say to a man of the people "fetch out and give me your store"

(_ib._ i. 3. 2. 15; iv. 3. 3. 10). Everybody sacrifices, even the beasts erect altars and fires![24] That one should sacrifice without the ulterior motive of gain is unknown. Brahmanic India knows no thank-offering. Ordinarily the gain is represented as a compensating gift from the divinity, whom the sacrificer pleases with his sacrifice. Very plainly is this expressed. "He offers the sacrifice to the G.o.d with this text: 'Do thou give to me (and) I (will) give to thee; do thou bestow on me (and) I (will) bestow on thee'" (_V[=a]j.

S._ iii. 50; _cat. Br_. ii. 5. 3. 19). But other ends are accomplished. By the sacrifice he may injure his enemy, but in offering it, if he leaves too much over, that part accrues to the good of his foe (_cat. Br_. i. 2. 1.7; 9. 1. 18).

The sacrifice is throughout symbolical. The sacrificial straw represents the world; the metre used represents all living creatures, etc.,--a symbolism frequently suggested by a mere pun, but often as ridiculously expounded without such aid. The altar's measure is the measure of metres. The cord of regeneration (badge of the twice-born, the holy cord of the high castes) is triple, because food is threefold, or because the father and mother with the child make three (_cat. Br._ iii. 5. 1. 7 ff.; 2. 1. 12); the _jagati_ metre contains the living world, because this is called _jagat_ (_ib._ i. 8. 2. 11).