The Religions of India Part 28

Of all the legal S[=u]tra-writers Gautama is oldest, and perhaps is pre-buddhistic. Turning to his work one notices first that the M[=i]m[=a]msist is omitted in the list of learned men (28. 49);[17]

but since the Upanishads and Ved[=a]nta are expressly mentioned, it is evident that the author of even the oldest S[=u]tra was acquainted with whatever then corresponded to these works.[18] The opposed teaching of h.e.l.l versus _sams[=a]ra_ is found in Gautama. But there is rather an interesting attempt to unite them. Ordinarily it is to h.e.l.l and heaven that reference is made, _e.g_., 'the one that knows the law obtains the heavenly world' (28. 52); 'if one speak untruth to a teacher, even in thought, even in respect to little things, he slays seven men after and before him' (seven descendants and seven ancestors, 23. 31). So in the case of witnesses: 'heaven (is the fruit) for speaking the truth; otherwise h.e.l.l' (13. 7); 'for stealing (land) h.e.l.l' (is the punishment, _ib_. 17). Now and then comes the philosophical doctrine: 'one does not fall from the world of Brahm[=a]' (9. 74); 'one enters into union and into the same world with Brahm[=a]' (8. 25).

But in 21. 4-6 there occurs the following statement: 'To be an outcast is to be deprived of the works of the twice-born, and hereafter to be deprived of happiness; this some (call) h.e.l.l.' It is evident here that the expression _asiddhis_ (deprivation of success or happiness) is placed optionally beside _naraka_ (h.e.l.l) as the view of one set of theologians compared with that of another; 'lack of obtaining success, _i.e_., reward' stands parallel to 'h.e.l.l.' In the same chapter, where Manu says that he who a.s.saults a Brahman "obtains h.e.l.l for one hundred years" (M. xi. 207), Gautama (21. 20) says "for one hundred years, lack of heaven" (_asvargyam_), which may mean h.e.l.l or the deprivation of the result of merit, _i.e_., one hundred years will be deducted from his heavenly life. In this case not a new and better birth but heaven is a.s.sumed to be the reward of good acts. Now if one turns to 11. 29-30 he finds both views combined. In the parallel pa.s.sage in [=A]pastamba only better or worse re-births are promised as a reward for good or evil (2. 5. 11. 10-11); but here it is said: "The castes and orders that remain by their duty, having died, having enjoyed the fruits of their acts, with the remnant of their (merit) obtain re-birth, having an excellent country, caste, and family; having long life, learning, good conduct, wealth, happiness, and wisdom. They of different sort are destroyed in various ways." Here, heavenly joys (such as are implied by _ni[h.]creyasam_ in 26) are to be enjoyed first, and a good birth afterwards, and by implication one probably has to interpret the next sentence to mean 'they are sent to h.e.l.l and then re-born in various low births.' This, too, is Manu's rule (below). At this time the sacred places which purify are in great vogue, and in Gautama a list of them is given (19. 14), viz.: "all mountains, all rivers, holy pools, places of pilgrimage (_i.e_., river-fords, _tirth[=a]ni_), homes of saints, cow-pens, and altars."

Of these the _tirthas_ are particularly interesting, as they later become of great importance, thousands of verses in the epic being devoted to their enumeration and praise.

Gautama says also that ascetics, according to some teachers, need not be householders first (3. 1), and that the Brahman ascetic stays at home during the rainy season, like the heretic monks (_ib_. 13). If one examine the relative importance of the forms and spirit of religion as taught in this, the oldest _dharma-s[=u]tra_,[19] he will be impressed at first with the tremendous weight laid on the former as compared with the latter. But, as was said apropos of the Brahmanic literature, one errs who fails to appreciate the fact that these works are intended not to give a summary of religious conduct, but to inculcate ceremonial rules. Of the more importance, therefore, is the occasional pause which is made to insist, beyond peradventure, on the superiority of moral rules. A very good instance of this is found in Gautama. He has a list of venial sins. Since lying is one of the most heinous offences to a Hindu lawgiver, and the penances are severe, all the treatises state formally that an untruth uttered in fun, or when one is in danger, or an oath of the sort implied by Plato: [Greek: _aphrodision orkon ou phasin einai_],--all these are venial, and so are lies told to benefit a (holy) cow, or to aid a priest; or told from religious motives of any sort without self-interest. This is almost the only example of looseness in morals as taught in the law.

But the following case shows most plainly the importance of morality as opposed to formal righteousness. After all the forty sacraments (to which allusion was made above), have been recounted, there are given 'eight good qualities of the soul,' viz., mercy, forbearance, freedom from envy, purity, calmness, correct behavior, freedom from greed and from covetousness. Then follows: "He that has (performed) the forty sacraments but has not the eight good qualities enters not into union with Brahm[=a], nor into the heaven of Brahm[=a].[20] But he that has (performed) only a part of the forty sacraments and has the eight good qualities enters into union with Brahm[=a], and into the heaven of Brahm[=a]." This is as near to heresy as pre-buddhistic Brahmanism permitted itself to come.

In the later legal S[=u]tra of the northern Vasistha[21] occurs a rule which, while it distinctly explains what is meant by liberality, viz., gifts to a priest, also recognizes the 'heavenly reward': "If gifts are given to a man that does not know the Veda the divinities are not satisfied" (3. 8). In the same work (6. 1) 'destruction' is the fate of the sinner that lives without observance of good custom; yet is it said in the same chapter (27): "If a twice-born man dies with the food of a c[=u]dra (lowest caste) in his belly, he would become a village pig, or he is born again in that (c[=u]dra's) family"; and, in respect to sons begotten when he has in him such food: "Of whom the food, of him are these sons; and he himself would not mount to heaven ... he does not find the upward path" (29, 28). In _ib_. 8. 17 the Brahman that observes all the rules 'does not fall from _brahmaloka,' i.e_., the locality of Brahm[=a]. Further, in 10. 4: "Let (an ascetic) do away with all (sacrificial) works; but let him not do away with one thing, the Veda; for from doing away with the Veda (one becomes) a c[=u]dra." But, in the same chapter: "Let (the ascetic) live at the end of a village, in a temple ('G.o.d's house'), in a deserted house, or at the root of a tree; there in his mind studying the knowledge (of the _[=a]tm[=a]_) ... so they cite (verses): 'Sure is the freedom from re-birth in the case of one that lives in the wood with pa.s.sions subdued ... and meditates on the supreme spirit' ... Let him not be confined to any custom ... and in regard to this (freedom from worldly pursuits) they cite these verses: 'There is no salvation (literally 'release') for a philologist (_na cabdac[=a]str[=a]bhiratasya mokshas_), nor for one that delights in catching (men) in the world, nor for one addicted to food and dress, nor for one pleased with a fine house. By means of prodigies, omens, astrology, palmistry, teaching, and talking let him not seek alms ... he best knows salvation who (cares for naught)' ... (such are the verses). Let him neither harm nor do good to anything.... Avoidance of disagreeable conduct, jealousy, presumption, selfishness, lack of belief, lack of uprightness, self-praise, blame of others, harm, greed, distraction, wrath, and envy, is a rule that applies to all the stadia of life. The Brahman that is pure, and wears the girdle, and carries the gourd in his hand, and avoids the food of low castes fails not of obtaining the world of Brahm[=a]" (_ib_. 10. 18 ff.). Yama, the Manes, and evil spirits (_asuras_) are referred to in the following chapter (20, 25); and h.e.l.l in the same chapter is declared to be the portion of such ascetics as will not eat meat when requested to do so at a feast to the Manes or G.o.ds (11. 34),--rather an interesting verse, for in Manu's code the corresponding threat is that, instead of going to h.e.l.l 'for as long, _i.e_., as many years, as the beast has hairs,' as here, one shall experience 'twenty-one rebirths,' _i.e_., the h.e.l.l-doctrine in terms of _sams[=a]ra_; while the same image occurs in Manu in the form 'he that slaughters beasts unlawfully obtains as many rebirths as there are hairs on the beast' (v. 35. 38). The pa.s.sive att.i.tude sometimes ascribed to the Manes is denied; they rejoice over a virtuous descendant (11. 41); a bad one deprives them of the heaven they stand in (16. 36). The authorities on morals are here, as elsewhere, Manu and other seers, the Vedas, and the Father-G.o.d, who with Yama gives directions to man in regard to lawful food, etc. (14.

30). The moral side of the code, apart from ritual impurities, is given, as usual, by a list of good and bad qualities (above), while formal laws in regard to theft, murder (especially of a priest), adultery and drunkenness (20. 44; i. 20), with violation of caste-regulations by intercourse with outcasts, are 'great crimes.' Though older than [=A]pastamba, who mentions the P[=u]rva-m[=i]m[=a]ms[=a], Vasistha, too, knows the Ved[=a]nta (3.

17), and the M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a] (_vikalpin--tarkin_, 3. 20, M. XII.

111).

From the S[=u]tras of B[=a]udh[=a]yana's probably southern school something of additional interest is to be gained. Here 'darkness'

takes the place of h.e.l.l (2. 3. 5. 9), which, however, by a citation is explained (in 2. 2. 3. 34) as 'Yama's hall.' A verse is cited to show that the greatest sin is lack of faith (1. 5. 10. 6) and not going to heaven is the reward of folly (_ib_. 7); while the reward of virtue is to live in heaven for long (4. 8. 7). The same freedom in regard to ascetics as occurs in other S[=u]tra works is to be found in this author, not in the more suspicious final chapters, but in that part of the work which is accepted as oldest,[22] and agrees with the data found in the Br[=a]hmanas, where the pre-buddhistic monk is called Bhikshu, 'beggar/or Sanny[=a]sin 'he that renounces,' just as these terms are employed in the heretical writings. As among the Jains (and Buddhists), the Brahmanic ascetic carries a few simple utensils, and wanders about from house to house and village to village, begging food. Some authorities (among the Brahmans) say that one may become an ascetic as soon as he has completed his study, though ordinarily this may be done only after pa.s.sing through the householder stadium. On becoming an ascetic the beggar takes the vow not to injure any living thing (B[=a]udh. II.10.17.2. 11, 29), exactly as the Jain ascetic takes the vow of non-injury. More than this, as will be seen below, the details of the Brahman ascetic's vows are almost identical with those of the Jain ascetic. He vows not to injure living beings, not to lie, not to steal, to be continent, to be liberal; with the five minor vows, not to get angry, to obey the Teacher, not to be rash, to be cleanly and pure in eating.[23] To this ascetic order in the Brahman priesthood may be traced the origin of the heretical monks. Even in the Br[=a]hmanas occur the termini technici of the Buddhist priesthood, notably the cramana or ascetic monk, and the word _buddha_, 'awakened' (_pratibudh_). The 'four orders' are those enumerated as the householder, student, ascetic, and forest-hermit. If one live in all four orders according to rule, and be serene, he will come to peace, that is, salvation ([=A]pastamba, 2. 9. 21. I, 2).

According to this later legal writer, who belongs to Southern India,[24] it is only after one has pa.s.sed through all the preceding stadia that he may give up works (sacrifice, etc.) and devote himself to seeking the [=a]tm[=a],'wandering about, without caring for earth or heaven, renouncing truth and falsehood, pleasure and pain' (_ib_.

10, 13). There follows this pa.s.sage one significant of the opposition between purely Upanishad-ideas and those of the law-givers: 'Acquirement of peace (salvation) depends, it is said, on knowledge; this is opposed by the codes. If on knowledge (depended) acquirement of peace, even here (in this world) one would escape grief' (_ib._ 14-16). Further, in describing the forest-hermit's austerities (_ib._ 23. 4 ff.), verses from a Pur[=a]na are cited which are virtually Upanishadic: 'The eight and eighty thousand seers who desired offspring (went) south on Aryaman's path, and obtained (as their reward) graves; (but) the eight and eighty thousand who did not desire offspring (went) north on Aryaman's path and make for themselves immortality,' that is to say 'abandon desire for offspring; and of the two paths (which, as the commentator observes, are mentioned in the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad), that which gives immortality instead of death (graves) will be yours.' It is admitted that such ascetics have miraculous powers; but the law-maker emphatically protests in the following S[=u]tra against the supposition that a rule which stands opposed to the received rites (marriage, sacrifice, etc.) is of any power, and a.s.serts that for the future life an endless reward ('fruit'), called in revelation 'heavenly,' is appointed (_ib._ 8-11).

The next chapter, however, limits, as it were, this dogma, for it is stated that immortality is the re-birth of one's self in the body of one's son, and a verse is cited: 'Thou procreatest progeny, and that's thy immortality, O mortal,' with other verses, which teach that sons that attend to the Vedic rites magnify the fame and heaven of their ancestors, who 'live in heaven until the destruction of creation'

_([=a] bh[=u]tasamptav[=a]t_, 2. 9. 24. 5), But 'according to the Bhavishyat-Pur[=a]na' after this destruction of creation 'they exist again in heaven as the cause of seed' (_ib._) 6. And then follows a quotation from the Father-G.o.d: 'We live with those people who do these (following) things: (attend to) the three Vedas, live as students, create children, sacrifice to the Manes, do penance, make sacrifice to the G.o.ds, practice liberality; he that extols anything else becomes air (or dust) and perishes' (_ib._) 8; and further: 'only they that commit sin perish' (not their ancestors).

The animus of this whole pa.s.sage is apparent. The law-maker has to contend with them that would reject the necessity of following in order the traditional stadia of a priest's life; that imagine that by becoming ascetics without first having pa.s.sed through the preliminary stadia they can by knowledge alone attain the bliss that is obtained by union with _brahma_ (or Brahm[=a]). In other words the jurist has to contend with a trait eminently anti-Brahmanistic, even Buddhistic.

He denies this value of knowledge, and therewith shows that what he wishes to have inculcated is a belief in the temporary personal existence of the Manes; in heaven till the end of the world-order; and the annihilation of the wicked; while he has a confused or mixed opinion in regard to one's own personal immortality, believing on the one hand that there is a future existence in heaven with the G.o.ds, and on the other (rather a materialistic view) that immortality is nothing but continued existence in the person of one's descendants, who are virtually one's self in another body: _dehatvam ev[=a]'nyat,_ "only the body is different" (_ib_) 2. As to cosmogony it is stated to be (not the emanation of an _[=a]tm[=a]_) but the "emission (creation) of the Father-G.o.d and of the seers" (the latter being visible as stars, _ib_. 13, 14). In this there is plainly a received popular opinion, which reflects the Vedic and Brahmanic stage, and is opposed to the philosophical views of the Upanishads, in other words of the first Vedantic philosophy; while it is mixed up with the late doctrine of the cataclysms, which ruin each succeeding^ creation. The equal annihilation of the wicked (_dhvamsanti_) and unorthodox (_dhvamsate_) is to be noticed. They are here subject neither to h.e.l.l nor to rebirth, but they "become dust and perish" (_ib_. 8. 9).

Throughout the whole legal literature one will find this same ant.i.thesis of views in regard to the fate of good and bad, although it is seldom that annihilation is predicated of the latter. Usually h.e.l.l or rebirth are their fate--two views, which no one can really reconcile. They are put side by side; exactly as in priestly discussion in India and Europe it still remains an unsettled question as to when the soul becomes immortal.[25] Occidental experience teaches how easy it is for such views to stand together unattacked, although they are the object of speculation. This pa.s.sage is perhaps, historically, the most satisfactory (as it is philosophically unsatisfactory) that can be cited in answer to the questions that were posed above. But from other parts of legal literature a few more statements may be culled, to ill.u.s.trate still further the lack of uniformity not only in popular belief, but in the teaching provided for the public. First from the same work of [=A]pastamba, in 2. 11.

29. 9-10 it is said that if a witness in court perjure himself he shall be punished by the king, "and further, in pa.s.sing to the next world, h.e.l.l" (is his portion); whereas "(the reward) for truth is heaven, and praise on the part of all creatures." Now, let one compare first _ib_. 2. 5. 11. 10-11: "Men of low castes are reborn in higher castes in successive births, and men of high castes in low castes, if they respectively perform and neglect their duties." And then this Vedantic pa.s.sage of the same author (1. 8. 22 ff.): "Let one (as penance for sin) devote himself to the Yoga (mental discipline) which has to do with the highest _[=a]tm[=a]_ ... Nothing is known higher than the acquisition of _[=a]tm[=a]_. We shall (now) cite some _[=a]tm[=a]_-acquisition-verses, viz.: All living creatures (are) the citadel of him that rests in secret, the indestructible one, the immaculate one. Immortal they that devote themselves to the moveless one who has a movable dwelling ... the great one whose body is light, universal, free ... the eternal (part) in all creatures, the wise, immortal, unchanging one, limbless, voiceless, formless, touchless, purest, the highest goal. He that everywhere devotes himself to Him (_[=a]tm[=a]_ as Lord), and always lives accordingly; that by virtue of Yoga recognizes Him, the subtile one, shall rejoice in the top of heaven ... He, _[=a]tm[=a],_ comprehends all, embraces all, more subtile than a lotus-thread and huger than the earth ... From him are created all bodies; he is the root, he the Everlasting, the Eternal One."

This discipline it will be observed is enjoined as penance and to get rid of faults, that is, to subdue the pa.s.sions. As the same chapter contains a list of the faults which are to be overcome before one "arrives at peace" (salvation) they may be cited here: "Anger, joy, wrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lying, over-eating, calumny, envy, s.e.xual desire, and hate, lack of studying _[=a]tm[=a],_ lack of Yoga--the destruction of these (faults) is based on Yoga"

(mental concentration). On the other hand: "He that devotes himself, in accordance with the law, to avoiding anger, joy, wrath, greed, distraction, injury, threats, lies, over-eating, calumny and envy; and practices liberality, renunciation, uprightness, kindness, subduing (of the pa.s.sions), self-control; and is at peace with all creatures; and practices Yoga; and acts in an [=A]ryan (n.o.ble) way; and does not hurt anything; and has contentment--qualities which, it is agreed, appertain to all the (four) stadia--he becomes _s[=a]rvag[=a]min"

(ib._ 23.6), that is 'one belonging to the all-pervading' (All-soul).

There appears to be a contradiction between the former pa.s.sage, where Yoga is enjoined on ascetics alone; and this, where Yoga is part of the discipline of all four stadia. But what was in the author's mind was probably that all these vices and moral virtues are enumerated as such for all; and he slips in mental concentration as a virtue for the ascetic, meaning to include all the virtues he knows.

A few further ill.u.s.trations from that special code which has won for itself a preeminent name, 'the law-book of Manu,'[26] will give in epitome the popular religion as taught to the ma.s.ses; withal even better than this is taught in the S[=u]tras. For Father Manu's law-book, as the Hindus call it, is a popular c[=a]stra or metrical[27]

composite of law and religion, which reflects the opinion of Brahmanism in its geographical stronghold, whereas the S[=u]tras emanate from various localities, north and south. To Manu there is but one Holy Land, the Kurus' plain and the region round-about it (near Delhi).

The work takes us forward in time beyond even the latest S[=u]tras, but the content is such as to show that formal Brahmanism in this latest stage still keeps to its old norm and to Brahmanic models.

It deserves therefore to be examined with care from several points of view if one would escape from the belief of the philosopher to the more general teaching. In this popular religion all morality is conditioned by the castes,[28] which is true also to a certain degree of the earlier Sutras, but the evil fruit of this plant is not there quite so ripe as it is in the later code. The enormity of all crimes depends on who commits them, and against whom they are committed. The three upper castes alone have religious privileges. The lowest caste, outcasts, women, and diseased persons are not allowed to hear the holy texts or take part in ceremonies.[29] As to the rites, they are the inherited ones, sacrifices to G.o.ds, offerings to Manes and spirits, and all the ceremonies of house and individual, as explained above; with especial and very minute rules of observance for each of the four stadia of a priest's life.[30] There is no hint in any of this of the importance of the knowledge of the _[=a]tm[=a]._ But in their proper place the rules of morality and the higher philosophical views are taught. The doctrine of re-birth is formally stated, and the attainment of the world of Brahm[=a] _(brahma)_ by union of ceremonies and knowledge is inculcated. The ascetic should seek, by meditation, to go to Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_) for when he is utterly indifferent, then, both here and after death, he gains everlasting happiness.

Therefore he should study the Vedas, but especially the teachings in regard to the Supreme Spirit, and the Upanishads; studying the Ved[=a]nta is a regular part of his final discipline (VI, 74-94). In another part of the work the distinction made in the Upanishads is upheld, that religious acts are of two sorts, one designed to procure bliss, and cause a good man to reach equality with the G.o.ds; the other performed without selfish motive; by which latter "even the five elements are overcome," that is, the absorption into _brahma_ is effected. For "among all virtuous acts the knowledge of the spirit, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is highest; through this is obtained even immortality.

One that sees spirit in all things and all things in spirit sacrifices to spirit and enters Brahm[=a] (or _brahma_)" "The spirit (or self) is all divinities; the All is based on spirit." And in Upanishadic vein the Person is then proclaimed as lord of G.o.ds, whom "some call fire, some call Manu, some call Indra, some call air, and some call eternal _brahma._" But though this be the view of the closing verses, yet in the beginning of the work is this Person represented as being produced from a First Cause. It would be out of place here to a.n.a.lyse the conflicting philosophical views of the Manu code. Even his commentators are uncertain whether he belonged to the pantheistic Ved[=a]nta or dualistic S[=a]nkhya school. For them that believe in no Manu the solution is simpler. Although Manu is usually called a Puranic Sankhyan, yet are both schools represented, and that without regard to incongruous teaching. Manu is no more Sankhyan than Vedantic. Indeed in the main part of the work the teaching is clearly more Vedantic. But it suffices here to point out that the _[=a]tm[=a]_-philosophy and religion is not ignored; it is taught as essential. Nevertheless, it is not taught in such a way as to indicate that it is requisite for the vulgar. On the contrary, it is only when one becomes an ascetic that he is told to devote himself to the pursuit of the knowledge of _[=a]tm[=a]_. In one pa.s.sage there is evidence that two replies were given to this fundamental question in regard to works and knowledge. For after enumerating a list of good acts, among which are knowledge and Vedic ceremonies, it is asked which among them most tends to deliverance. The answer is vital. Or it should be, but it is given in an ambiguous form (xii. 85-6): "Amid all these acts the knowledge of self, _[=a]tm[=a],_ is the highest, for it produces immortality. Amid all these acts the one most productive of happiness, both after death and in this life, is the Vedic ceremony."

Knowledge gives real immortality; rites give temporary bliss. The Upanishads teach that the latter is lower than the former, but each answers the question. There were two answers, and Manu gives both.

That is the secret of many discrepancies in Hindu rules. The law-giver cannot admit absolutely and once for all that the Vedic ceremony is of no abiding use, as it can be of no use to one that accepts the higher teaching. He keeps it as a training and allows only the ascetic to be a philosopher indeed. But at the same time he gives as a sort of peroration to his treatise some 'elegant extracts' from philosophical works, which he believes theoretically, although practically he will not allow them to influence his ritualism. He is a true Brahman priest.

It is this that is always so annoying in Brahmanic philosophy. For the slavery of tradition is everywhere. Not only does the ritualist, while admitting the force of the philosopher's reasons, remain by Vedic tradition, and in consequence refuse to supplant 'revelation' with the higher wisdom and better religion, which he sees while he will not follow it; but even the philosopher must needs be 'orthodox,' and, since the scriptures themselves are self-contradictory, he is obliged to use his energies not in discovering truth, but in reconciling his ancestors' dogmas, in order to the creation of a philosophical system which shall agree with everything that has been said in the Vedas and Upanishads. When one sees what subtlety and logical ac.u.men these philosophers possessed, he is moved to wonder what might have been the outcome had their minds been as free as those of more liberal h.e.l.las.

But unfortunately they were bound to argue within limits, and were as much handicapped in the race of thought as were they that had to conform to the teachings of Rome. For though India had no church, it had an inquisitorial priestly caste, and the unbeliever was an outcast. What is said of custom is true of faith: "Let one walk in the path of good men, the path in which his father walked, in which his grandfathers walked; walking in that path one does no wrong" (Manu iv.

178). Real philosophy, unhampered by tradition, is found only among the heretics and in the sects of a later time.

The G.o.ds of old are accepted by the orthodox as a matter of course, although theoretically they are born of the All-G.o.d, who is without the need of ceremonial rites. To the other castes the active and most terrible deity is represented as being the priest himself. He not only symbolizes the fire-G.o.d, to whom is offered the sacrifice, but he actually is the divinity in person. Hence there is no greater merit than in giving gifts to priests. As to eschatology, opinions are not contrasted any more. They are put side by side. In morality truth, purity, and harmlessness are chiefly inculcated. But the last (ascribed by some scholars to Buddhistic influence) is not permitted to interfere with animal sacrifices.

Some of the rules for the life of a householder will show in brief the moral excellence and theoretical uncertainty of Manu's law-code. The following extracts are from the fourth, the Ten Commandments from the sixth, and the description of the h.e.l.ls (twenty-two in all)[31] from the fourth and twelfth books of Manu's code. These rules may be accepted as a true reflexion of what was taught to the people by stringent Brahmanism as yet holding aloof from Hinduism.

A householder must live without giving any pain (to living creatures).

He must perform daily the ceremonies ordained in the Veda. In this way he obtains heaven. Let him never neglect the offerings to seers, G.o.ds, spirits (sprites), men, and Manes. Some offer sacrifice only in their organs of sense (not in external offerings); some by knowledge alone.

Let him not explain law and rites to the c[=u]dra (slave) caste; if he does so, he sinks into the h.e.l.l Boundless. Let him not take presents from an avaricious king who disobeys the law-codes; if he does so, he goes to twenty-one h.e.l.ls (called Darkness, Dense-darkness, Frightful, h.e.l.l, Thread of Death, Great h.e.l.l, Burning, Place of Spikes, Frying-pan, River of h.e.l.l, etc., etc., etc.). Let him never despise a warrior, a snake, or a priest. Let him never despise himself. Let him say what is true and what is agreeable, but not disagreeable truth or agreeable false-hood. Let him not dispute with anybody, but let him say 'very well.' Let him not insult anybody. Remembering his former births, and studying the Veda again and again, he gets endless happiness. Let him avoid unbelief and censure of the Vedas, reviling of G.o.ds, hatred, pride, anger, and cruelty. He that even threatens a priest will go to the h.e.l.l Darkness for one hundred years; if he strikes him he will be born in twenty-one sinful rebirths (according to another pa.s.sage in the eleventh book he goes to h.e.l.l for a thousand years for the latter offence). Priests rule the world of G.o.ds. But deceitful, hypocritical priests go to h.e.l.l. Let the householder give gifts, and he will be rewarded. One that gives a garment gets a place in the moon; a giver of grain gets eternal happiness; a giver of the Veda gets union with Brahm[=a] (_brahma_; these gifts, of course, are all to priests). He that gives respectfully and he that receives respectfully go to heaven; otherwise both go to h.e.l.l. Let him, without giving pain to any creature, slowly pile up virtue, as does an ant its house, that he may have a companion in the next world. For after death neither father, nor mother, nor son, nor wife, nor relations are his companions; his virtue alone remains with him. The relations leave the dead body, but its virtue follows the spirit: with his virtue as his companion he will traverse the darkness that is hard to cross; and virtue will lead him to the other world with a luminous form and ethereal body. A priest that makes low connections is reborn as a slave. The Father-G.o.d permits a priest to accept alms even from a bad man. For fifteen years the Manes refuse to accept food from one that despises a free gift. A priest that sins should be punished (that is, mulcted, a priest may not be punished corporally), more than an ordinary man, for the greater the wisdom the greater the offence. They that commit the Five Great Sins live many years in h.e.l.ls, and afterwards obtain vile births; the slayer of a priest becomes in turn a dog, a pig, an a.s.s, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, etc, etc. A priest that drinks intoxicating liquor becomes various insects, one after another. A priest that steals becomes a spider, snake, etc, etc.

By repeating sinful acts men are reborn in painful and base births, and are hurled about in h.e.l.ls; where are sword-leaved trees, etc, and where they are eaten, burned, spitted, and boiled; and they receive births in despicable wombs; rebirth to age, sorrow, and unquenchable death. But to secure supreme bliss a priest must study the Veda, practice austerity, seek knowledge, subdue the senses, abstain from injury, and serve his Teacher. Which of these gives highest bliss? The knowledge of the spirit is the highest and foremost, for it gives immortality. The performance of Vedic ceremonies is the most productive of happiness here and hereafter. The Ten Commandments for the twice-born are: Contentment, patience, self-control, not to steal, purity, control of pa.s.sions, devotion (or wisdom), knowledge, truthfulness, and freedom from anger. These are concisely summarized again in the following: 'Manu declared the condensed rule of duty for (all) the four castes to be: not to injure a living thing; to speak the truth; not to steal; to be pure; to control the pa.s.sions' (VI. 92; X. 63). The 'non-injury' rule does not apply, of course, to sacrifice (_ib_. III. 268). In the epic the commandments are given sometimes as ten, sometimes as eight.

In order to give a completed exposition of Brahmanism we have pa.s.sed beyond the period of the great heresies, to which we must soon revert.

But, before leaving the present division of the subject, we select from the ma.s.s of Brahmanic domestic rites, the details of which offer in general little that is worth noting, two or three ceremonies which possess a more human interest, the marriage rite, the funeral rite, and those strange trials, known among so many other peoples, the ordeals. We sketch these briefly, wishing merely to ill.u.s.trate the religious side of each ceremony, as it appears in one or more of its features.

THE MARRIAGE RITE.

Traces of exogamy may be suspected in the bridegroom's driving off with his bride, but no such custom, of course, is recognized in the law. On the contrary, the groom is supposed to belong to the same village, and special rites are enjoined 'if he be from another village.' But again, in the early rule there is no trace of that taint of family which the totem-scholars of to-day cite so loosely from Hindu law. The girl is not precluded because she belongs to the same family within certain degrees. The only restriction in the House-rituals is that she shall have had "on the mother's and father's side" wise, pious, and honorable ancestors for ten generations ([=A]cvl. I. 5). Then comes the legal restriction, which some scholars call 'primitive,' that the wife must not be too nearly related. The girl has her own ordeal (not generally mentioned among ordeals!): The wooer that thus selects his bride (this he does if one has not been found already either by his parents or by his own inclination) makes eight b.a.l.l.s of earth and calls on the girl to choose one ('may she get that to which she is born'). If she select a ball made from the earth of a field that bears two crops, she (or her child) will be rich in grain; if from the cow-stall, rich in cattle; if from the place of sacrifice, G.o.dly; if from a pool that does not dry, gifted; if from the gambler's court, devoted to gambling; if from cross-roads, unfaithful; if from a barren field, poor in grain; if from the burying-ground, destructful of her husband. There are several forms of making a choice, but we confine ourselves to the marriage.[32] In village-life the bridegroom is escorted to the girl's house by young women who tease him. The bridegroom presents presents to the bride, and receives a cow. The bridegroom takes the bride's hand, saying 'I take thy hand for weal' (Rig Veda, X. 85. 36), and leads her to a certain stone, on which she steps first with the right foot (toe).

Then three times they circ.u.mambulate the fire, keeping it to the right, an old Aryan custom for many rites, as in the _deisel_ of the Kelts; the bride herself offering grain in the fire, and the groom repeating more Vedic verses. They then take together the seven solemn steps (with verses),[33] and so they are married. The groom, if of another village, now drives away with the bride, and has ready Vedic verses for every stage of the journey. After sun-down the groom points out the north star, and admonishes the bride to be no less constant and faithful. Three or twelve days they remain chaste, some say one night; others say, only if he be from another village. The new husband must now see to the house-fire, which he keeps ever burning, the sign of his being a householder.

THE FUNERAL CEREMONY.

Roth has an article in the Journal of the German Oriental Society (VIII. 467) which is at once a description of one of the funeral hymns o the Rig Veda (X. 18) with the later ritual, and a criticism of the bearing of the latter on the former.[34] He shows here that the ritual, so far from having induced the hymn, totally changes it. The hymn was written for a burial ceremony. The later ritual knows only cremation. The ritual, therefore, forces the hymn into its service, and makes it a cremation-hymn. This is a very good (though very extreme) example of the difference in age between the early hymns of the Rig Veda and the more modern ritual. Muller, _ib_. IX. p. I (_sic_), has given a thorough account of the later ritual and ritualistic paraphernalia. We confine ourselves here to the older ceremony.

The scene of the Vedic hymn is as follows: The friends and relatives stand about the corpse of a married man. By the side of the corpse sits the widow. The hymn begins: "Depart, O Death, upon some other pathway, upon thy path, which differs from the path of G.o.ds ... harm not our children, nor our heroes.... These living ones are separated from the dead; successful today was our call to the G.o.ds. (This man is dead, but) _we_ go back to dancing and to laughter, extending further our still lengthened lives." Then the priest puts a stone between the dead and living: "I set up a wall for the living, may no one of these come to this goal; may they live an hundred full harvests, and hide death with this stone...."

The matrons a.s.sembled are now bid to advance without tears, and make their offerings to the fire, while the widow is separated from the corpse of her husband and told to enter again into the world of the living. The priest removes the dead warrior's bow from his hand: "Let the women, not widows, advance with the ointment and holy b.u.t.ter; and without tears, happy, adorned, let them, to begin with, mount to the altar (verse 7, p. 274, below). Raise thyself, woman, to the world of the living; his breath is gone by whom thou liest; come hither; of the taker of thy hand (in marriage), of thy wooer thou art become the wife[35] (verse 8). I take the bow from the hand of the dead for our (own) lordship, glory, and strength." Then he addresses the dead: "Thou art there, and we are here; we will slay every foe and every attacker (with the power got from thee). Go thou now to Mother Earth, who is wide opened, favorable, a wool-soft maiden to the good man; may she guard thee from the lap of destruction. Open, O earth, be not oppressive to him; let him enter easily; may he fasten close to thee.

Cover him like a mother, who wraps her child in her garment. Roomy and firm be the earth, supported by a thousand pillars; from this time on thou (man) hast thy home and happiness yonder; may a sure place remain to him forever. I make firm the earth about thee; may I not be harmed in laying the clod here; may the fathers hold this pillar for thee, and Yama make thee a home yonder."

In the Atharva Veda mention is made of a coffin, but none is noticed here.

Hillebrandt (_loc. cit_. xl. 711) has made it probable that the eighth verse belongs to a still older ritual, according to which this verse is one for human sacrifice, which is here ignored, though the text is kept.[36] 'Just so the later ritual keeps all this text, but twists it into a crematory rite. For in the later period only young children are buried. Of burial there was nothing for adults but the collection of bones and ashes. At this time too the ritual consists of three parts, cremation, collection of ashes, expiation. How are these to be reconciled with this hymn? Very simply. The rite is described and verses from the hymn are injected into it without the slightest logical connection. That is the essence of all the Brahmanic ritualism. The later rite is as follows: Three altars are erected, northwest, southwest, and southeast of a mound of earth. In the fourth corner is the corpse; at whose feet, the widow. The brother of the dead man, or an old servant, takes the widow's hand and causes her to rise while the priest says "Raise thyself, woman, to the world of the living." Then follows the removal of the bow; or the breaking of it, in the case of a slave. The body is now burned, while the priest says "These living ones are separated from the dead"; and the mourners depart without looking around, and must at once perform their ablutions of l.u.s.tration. After a time the collection of bones is made with the verse "Go thou now to Mother Earth" and "Open, O earth." Dust is flung on the bones with the words "Roomy and firm be the earth"; and the skull is laid on top with the verse "I make firm the earth about thee." In other words the original hymn is fitted to the ritual only by displacement of verses from their proper order and by a forced application of the words. After all this comes the ceremony of expiation with the use of the verse "I set up a wall" without application of any sort. Further ceremonies, with further senseless use of other verses, follow in course of time. These are all explained minutely in the essay of Roth, whose clear demonstration of the modernness of the ritual, as compared with the antiquity of the hymn should be read complete.

The seventh verse (above) has a special literature of its own, since the words "let them, to begin with, mount the altar," have been changed by the advocates of _suttee_, widow-burning, to mean 'to the place of fire'; which change, however, is quite recent. The burning of widows begins rather late in India, and probably was confined at first to the pet wife of royal persons. It was then claimed as an honor by the first wife, and eventually without real authority, and in fact against early law, became the rule and sign of a devoted wife. The practice was abolished by the English in 1829; but, considering the widow's present horrible existence, it is questionable whether it would not be a mercy to her and to her family to restore the right of dying and the hope of heaven, in the place of the living death and actual h.e.l.l on earth in which she is entombed to-day.

ORDEALS.[37]

Fire and water are the means employed in India to test guilt in the earlier period. Then comes the oath with judgment indicated by subsequent misfortune. All other forms of ordeals are first recognized in late law-books. We speak first of the ordeals that have been thought to be primitive Aryan. The Fire-ordeal: (1) Seven fig-leaves are tied seven times upon the hands after rice has been rubbed upon the palms; and the judge then lays a red-hot ball upon them; the accused, or the judge himself, invoking the G.o.d (Fire) to indicate the innocence or the guilt of the accused. The latter then walks a certain distance, 'slowly through seven circles, each circle sixteen fingers broad, and the s.p.a.ce between the circles being of the same extent,'

according to some jurists; but other dimensions, and eight or nine circles are given by other authorities. If the accused drop the ball he must repeat the test. The burning of the hands indicates guilt. The Teutonic laws give a different measurement, and state that the hand is to be sealed for three days (ma.n.u.s sub sigillo triduum tegatur) before inspection. This sealing for three days is paralleled by modern Indic practice, but not by ancient law. In Greece there is the simple [Greek: _mudrous airein cheroin_] (Ant. 264) to be compared. The German sealing of the hand is not reported till the ninth century.[38]

(2) Walking on Fire: There is no ordeal in India to correspond to the Teutonic walking over six, nine, or twelve hot ploughshares. To lick a hot ploughshare, to sit on or handle hot iron, and to take a short walk over coals is _late_ Indic. The German practice also according to Schlagintweit "war erst in spaterer Zeit aufgekommen."[39]

(3) Walking through Fire: This is a Teutonic ordeal, and (like the conflict-ordeal) an Indic custom not formally legalized. The accused walks directly into the fire. So [Greek: _pur dierpein] (loc. cit_.).

Water-ordeals: (1) May better be reckoned to fire-ordeals. The innocent plunges his hand into boiling water and fetches out a stone (Anglo-Saxon law) or a coin (Indic law) without injury to his hand.

Sometimes (in both practices) the plunge alone is demanded. The depth to which the hand must be inserted is defined by Hindu jurists.

(2) The Floating-ordeal. The victim is cast into water. If he floats he is guilty; if he drowns he is innocent. According to some Indic authorities an arrow is shot off at the moment the accused is dropped into the water, and a 'swift runner' goes after and fetches it back.

"If at his return he find the body of the accused still under water, the latter shall be declared to be innocent."[40] According to Kaegi this ordeal would appear to be unknown in Europe before the ninth century. In both countries Water (in India, Varuna) is invoked not to keep the body of a guilty man but to reject it (make it float).

Food-ordeal: Some Hindu law-books prescribe that in the case of suspected theft the accused shall eat consecrated rice. If the gums be not hurt, no blood appear on spitting, and the man do not tremble, he will be innocent. This is also a Teutonic test, but it is to be observed that the older laws in India do not mention it.