The Religions of India Part 36

XI. For the following see Fausboll, _ib_. vol. X.]

[Footnote 49: After one enters on the stream of holiness there are only seven more possible births on earth, with one in heaven; then he becomes _arhat_, venerable, perfected, and enters Nirv[=a]na.]

[Footnote 50: Compare the fairies and spirits in _ib_. v.

10; and in i. 31, 'give gifts to the G.o.ds.']

[Footnote 51: We agree with Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp.

111, 207, that Buddha himself was an atheist; but to the statement that Nirv[=a]na was the "extinction of that sinful, grasping condition of mind and heart which would otherwise be the cause of renewed individual existences"

should in our opinion be added "and therewith the extinction of individuality." Compare Rhys Davids' _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 253.]

[Footnote 52: Compare the definition of an 'outcast' in the _Vasala-sutta_: "He that gets angry and feels hatred, a wicked man, a hypocrite, he that embraces wrong views and is deceitful, such an one is an outcast, and he that has no compa.s.sion for living things."]

[Footnote 53: Compare _ib_. 5. 36: "In due course he spoke, of charity, morality, heaven, pleasure, and the advantage of renunciation."]

[Footnote 54: See especially the _Nandaman., Paramatthaka, M[=a]gandiya_, and _Suddhatthaka Suttas_, translated by Fausboll, SBE. vol. X.]

[Footnote 55: Fausboll, in SBE. vol. X, Suttanip[=a]ta.]

[Footnote 56: The distinction between the Northern and Southern doctrine is indicated by the terms 'Great Vehicle'

and 'Little Vehicle' respectively, the former the works of N[=a]g[=a]rjuna's school (see below).]

[Footnote 57: As M[=a]itrakanyaka Buddha came once to earth "to redeem the sins of men."]

[Footnote 58: Of historic interest is the rapport between Brahmanic, Jain. and Buddhist tales. A case of this sort has been carefully worked out by Leumann, _Die Legende von Citta und Sambh[=u]ta_, WZKM. v. III; vi. 1.]

[Footnote 59: "The G.o.ds who were worshipped as true divinities in India have been rendered false ... by my zeal"; inscription cited by Barth, p. 135. But Ac.o.ka was a very tolerant prince. Barth's notion of Buddhistic persecution can hardly be correct.]

[Footnote 60: Koppen, _Die Religion des Buddha_, p. 198.]

[Footnote 61: Not to be confused with the seventeen heresies and sixty-three different philosophical systems in the church itself.]

[Footnote 62: For more details see Barth, _loc. cit_., p.

130 ff. According to tradition Buddhism was introduced into Tibet in the fourth century, A.D., the first missionaries coming from Nep[=a]l (Rockhill, p. 210).]

[Footnote 63: Barth justly discredits the tale of Buddhism having been persecuted out of India. In this sketch of later Buddhism we can but follow this author's admirable summary of the causes of Buddhistic decline, especially agreeing with him in a.s.signing the first place to the torpidity of the later church in matters of religion. It was become a great machine, its spiritual enthusiasm had been exhausted; it had nothing poetical or beautiful save the legend of Buddha, and this had lost its freshness; for Buddha was now, in fact, only a grinning idol.]

[Footnote 64: Here are developed fully the stories of h.e.l.ls, angels, and all supernatural paraphernalia, together with theism, idolatry, and the completed monastic system; magic, fable, absurd calculations in regard to nothings, and spiritual emptiness.]

[Footnote 65: At the same time the Ceylon canon was fixed by the commentary of Buddhaghosha.]

[Footnote 66: Later it follows the mystical school. Both schools have been affected by Brahmanism. The Great Vehicle, founded by N[=a]g[=a]rjuna, was recognized at a fourth council in Kashmeer about the time of the Christian era.

Compare Koppen, p. 199.]

[Footnote 67: On the Lamaistic hierarchy and system of succession see Mayers, JRAS. IV. 284.]

[Footnote 68: For the same reason we do not enter upon the outer form of Buddhism as expressed in demonology, snake-worship (JRAS. xii. 286) and symbolism (_ib_. OS.

xiii. 71, 114).]

[Footnote 69: SBE. vol. x, part ii, p. 3.]

[Footnote 70: Dhammapada (Franke, ZDMG. xlvi, 731). In Sanskrit one has _dharmapatha_ with the same sense. The text in the main is as translated by Muller, separately, 1872, and in SBE., voL x. It was translated by Weber, _Streifen_.

i. 112, in 1860.]

[Footnote 71: That is, they die no more; they are free from the chain; they enter Nirv[=a]na.]

[Footnote 72: Buddha's words on becoming Buddha.]

[Footnote 73: It is to be observed that transmigration into animal forms is scarcely recognized by Buddha. He a.s.sumes only men and superior beings as subjects of _Karma_. Compare Rhys Davids' _Lectures_, pp. 105,107. To the same scholar is due the statement that he was the first to recognize the true meaning of Nirv[=a]na, 'extinction (not of soul but) of l.u.s.t, anger, and ignorance.' For divisions of Buddhist literature other than the Tripitaka the same author's _Hibbert Lectures_ may be consulted (see also Muller, SBE.

X, Introduction, p. i).]

CHAPTER XIV.

EARLY HINDUISM.

While the great heresies that we have been describing were agitating the eastern part of India,[1] the old home of Brahmanism in the West remained true, in name if not in fact, to the ancient faith. But in reality changes almost as great as those of the formal heresies were taking place at the core of Brahmanism itself, which, no longer able to be the religion of a few clans, was now engaged in the gigantic task of remodelling and a.s.similating the indigenous beliefs and religious practices of its new environment. This was not a conscious act on the part of Brahmanism. At first it was undertaken almost unwittingly, and it was accomplished later not without repugnance. But to perform this task was the condition of continued existence.

Brahmanism had to expand, or shrink, wither, and die.

For a thousand years almost the only source of information in regard to this new growth is contained in the epic poetry of the time, with the help of a few additional facts from the law, and some side light from inscriptions. It is here that Vishnuism and civaism are found as fully developed sectarian beliefs, accepted by Brahmanism with more or less distrust, and in more or less fulness of faith. It is to the epic that one must turn to study the budding and gradual flowering of the modern religions, which have cast strict orthodoxy into the shade.

Of the two epics, one, the R[=a]m[=a]yana,[2] has become the Old Testament of the Ramaite Vishnuites of the present day. The Bh[=a]rata,[3] on the other hand, is scriptural for all sects, because it is more universal. The former epic, in its present form, is what the Hindus call an 'art-poem,' and in its finish, its exclusively romantic style, and its total lack of nervous dramatic power, it is probably, as the Hindus claim, the work of one man, V[=a]lm[=i]ki, who took the ancient legends of Eastern India and moulded them into a stupid sectarian poem. On the other hand, the Bh[=a]rata is of no one hand, either in origin or in final redaction; nor is it of one sect; nor has it apparently been thoroughly affected, as has the R[=a]m[=a]yana, by Buddhistic influences. Moreover, in the huge conglomeration of stirring adventure, legend, myth, history, and superst.i.tion which goes to make up the great epic there is contained a far truer picture of the vulgar custom, belief, and religion of the time than the too polished composition of V[=a]lm[=i]ki is able to afford, despite the fact that the latter also has many popular elements welded into it. There are, in fact, only two national works in India, only two works which, withal, not in their entirety, but in their nucleus, after one has stripped each of its priestly toggery, reflect dimly the heart of the people, not the cleverness of one man, or the pedantry of schools. For a few Vedic hymns and a few Bh[=a]rata scenes make all the literature, with perhaps the exception of some fables, that is not markedly dogmatic, pedantic, or 'artificial.'[4]

So true is this that even in the case of the R[=a]m[=a]yana one never feels that he is getting from it the genuine belief of the people, but only that form of popular belief which V[=a]lm[=i]ki has chosen to let stand in his version of the old tale. The great epic is heroic, V[=a]lm[=i]ki's poem is romantic; the former is real, the latter is artificial; and the religious gleaning from each corresponds to this distinction.[5]

Ths Bh[=a]rata, like other Hindu works, is of uncertain date, but it was completed as a 'Great Bh[=a]rata' by the end of the sixth century A.D., and the characters of the story are mentioned, as well known, by P[=a]nini, whose work probably belongs to the fourth century B.C.

Furthermore, Dio Chrysostomos, probably citing from Megasthenes, refers to it; and the latter authority describes the worship of the chief G.o.ds of the epic; while the work is named in one of the domestic S[=u]tras, and a verse is cited from it in the legal Sutra of B[=a]udh[=a]yana.[6] On the other hand, in its latest growth it is on a par with the earlier Pur[=a]nas, but it is not quite so advanced in sectarianism as even the oldest of these writings. It may, then, be reckoned as tolerably certain that the beginnings of the epic date from the fourth or fifth century before the Christian era, and that it was quite a respectable work by the time that era began; after which it continued to grow for five centuries more.[7] Its religious importance can scarcely be overestimated. In 600 A.D., far away from its native home, in Cambodia, it was encircled with a temple, and an endowment was made by the king providing for the daily recitation of the poem. Its legal verses are authoritative; its religion is to-day that of India as a whole. The latest large additions to it were, as we think, the Book of Laws, the Book of Peace, and the genealogy of Vishnu, which together form a sort of pseudo-epic. But portions of other books, notably the first, fourth, and seventh, are probably almost as recent as are the more palpable interpolations.

The Bh[=a]rata (or the epic [Greek: _kat exochen_] gives us our first view of Hinduism in its sectarian developments. But no less does it show us a changing Brahmanism. The most typical change in the Brahmanism of this period, which covers all that time called by Muller the era of the Renaissance, and ends with the pedantically piquant literature of the drama,[8] is the abnormal growth of the ascetic religious exercise. Older Brahmanism, like the sects, admitted Yogis and ascetics of various kinds, but their aim was to attain oneness with G.o.d; and 'union' (with G.o.d) is the _yoga_ (Latin _jugum_ has the same origin) which they sought. But it was not long before the starved ascetic, with his wild appearance and great reputation for sanct.i.ty, inspired an awe which, in the unscrupulous, was easily turned to advantage. The Yogi became more or less of a charlatan, more or less of a juggler. Nor was this all. Yoga-practices began to take precedence before other religious practices. In the Br[=a]hmanas it is the sacrifice that is G.o.d-compelling; but in the epic, although sacrifice has its place, yet when miraculous power is exerted, it is due chiefly to Yoga concentration, or to the equally general use of formulae; not formulae as part of a sacrifice, but as in themselves potent; and mysterious _mantras_, used by priest and warrior alike, serve every end of magic.[9] Apart from acquisition of power, this Yoga-training is, moreover, all that is needful from the point of view of righteousness. Physical prowess here is the one thing admirable. To stand for years on one leg, to be eaten by ants, to be in every way an ascetic of the most stoical sort, is the truest religion. Such an ascetic has no ordinary rules of morality. In fact, his practices are most peculiar, for to seduce young women is one of his commonest occupations; and in his anger to cause an injury to his foes is one of the ends for which he toils. The G.o.ds are nothing to him. They are puppets whom he makes shake and tremble at will. As portrayed in the epic, in terms of common sense, the Muni (silent saint) is a morose[10] and very vulgar-minded old man, who seeks to intimidate others by a show of miraculous power. In the matter of penances those of the law are extended beyond all bounds. The caste-restrictions are of the closest, and the most heinous crime is to commit an offence against caste-order. On the other hand, the greatest merit is to give gifts to priests. This had already proceeded far enough, as was indicated by a pa.s.sage cited above from Manu. But in the epic the greed and capacity of the priest exceeds all imaginable limits. He takes whatever he can get and asks for more. He has, by his own showing, scarcely one estimable trait. Avarice, cupidity, sensuality, gluttony, love of finery, effeminacy, meanness, and pride--everything charged against him by the Buddhist--are his most marked characteristics. He appears, however, to be worse than he always was.

For nothing is plainer, from this very epic, than that the priests, although united as a caste, were sharply distinguished in their lives.

The ascetic described above represents the fourth period of the priestly life. Below these stood (apart from students)[11] hermits and householders. The householders, or such of them as the epic unfortunately is busied with, the royal priests, seem to be those that are in reality priests only in name. In the king's palace, his constant advisors, his most unscrupulous upholders in wickedness, they gave themselves up to quest of wealth and power. But one would err if he thus dismissed them all. There were others that had no preferment, who lived in quiet content in their own houses, and deserved none of the opprobrium rightly bestowed upon their hypocritical brothers. The hermits, too, appear to have been a mild and inoffensive race, not presuming too much on their caste-privileges.

To offset rapaciousness there are tomes of morality of the purest sort. Even in the later additions to the epic one reads: "Away with gifts; receiving gifts is sinful. The silkworm dies of its wealth"

(xii. 330. 29). One should compare, again, the exalted verse (Buddhistic in tone) of _ib_. 321. 47: "The red garment, the vow of silence, the three-fold staff, the water-pot--these only lead astray; they do not make for salvation." There were doubtless good and bad priests, but the peculiarity of the epic priest, rapacious and l.u.s.tful, is that he glories in his sins.

The chief objects of worship (except for the influence of the sectarian religions) were priests, Manes, and, for form's sake, the Vedic G.o.ds. These G.o.ds, with the addition of the Hindu Plutus (Kubera, the G.o.d of riches), are now called the eight 'world-guardians,' viz., Indra, Yama, Varuna, Kubera, Agni, S[=u]rya, V[=a]yu, Soma, and are usually simple and shadowy subordinates of the greater new G.o.ds.

In the shifting of religious opinion and in the development of theological conceptions what difference can be traced between the same G.o.ds as worshipped in the Veda and as worshipped in the epic? Although the Vedic divinities have been twice superseded, once by the Father-G.o.d and again by the _[=a]tm[=a]_, Lord, they still remain adorable and adored, active in many ways, though pa.s.sive before the great All-G.o.d. It is, indeed, extremely difficult, owing to the superstruction of sectarian belief, to get down to the foundation-religion of the epic. The best one can do is to see in what way the old G.o.ds differ, as represented in the poem, from their older selves of the Rig Veda. From this point of view alone, and entirely irrespective of the sects, manifold changes will be seen to have taken place. Great Soma is no more. Soma is there, the moon, but the glory of the Vedic Soma has departed. His lunar representative is of little importance. Agni, too, is changed. As Fire in the Rig Veda is not only the altar-fire, but also common, every-day fire, so, too, in the epic this G.o.d is the material flame, and as such even performs his greatest deeds for his worshippers. He takes on every form, even becoming a priest, and a dove. He remains the priest of the G.o.ds, but his day of action in war is over. He no longer wins battles. But he burns down a forest to aid his party. For the Vedic G.o.ds are now but weak partizans of the combatants. In the sectarian parts of the epic Agni is only a puppet. His new representative, Skanda, is the chief battle-G.o.d, a name almost unknown before. He himself is either the son of Vishnu or a form of civa. He is the All-G.o.d, the _[=a]tm[=a]_. It is he who burns the world when the time shall have come for the general destruction.

The high and mighty Varuna of the Rig Veda is no longer great. He is no longer serene. He descends and fights on earth. Indra, too, battles with Vritra as of old, but he is quite anthropomorphic, and of no marked value in the contest of heroes. Not only this, but all the G.o.ds together are represented as weaker than a good hero, not to speak of a priestly ascetic. In a word, the G.o.ds are believed in, but with what a belief! They no longer, as natural powers, inspire special respect.

Their nature-origin is for the most part lost. They are thoroughly anthropomorphic. Even S[=u]rya, the sun, in action if not in laudation, is often more man than G.o.d. This gives a strange effect to the epic battle-scenes as compared with those of Homer. Unless Vishnu is active on the field the action is essentially human. No great G.o.d or G.o.ddess stands ready to save the fainting warrior. He fights and falls alone. Save for the caresses and plaudits of the half-G.o.ds, the most that the Vedic G.o.ds can do is to wipe away the sweat from the hero's brow.[12] The All-G.o.d does not take the place of the band of watchful and helpful G.o.ds pictured by Homer. Vishnu fights on the field; he saves only his proteges, and much as a mortal warrior would do it. But the Vedic G.o.ds hang like a mist upon the edge of battle, and are all but idle spectators of the scene. Abstractions, as well as the All-G.o.d, have routed them, and Dharma or Duty is a greater G.o.d than Indra. But there is an older side to this, as we shall presently show. On the moral side the heroes of the epic profess great belief in the power and awfulness of this G.o.d Duty. And so far as go rules of chivalry, they are theoretically moral. Practically they are savage, and their religion does not interfere with their brutal barbarity. The tendency to cite divine instances of sin as excuse for committing it is, however, rebuked: "One should neither practice nor blame the (wrong) acts of G.o.ds and seers," xii. 292. 17-18.

From an eschatological point of view it is most difficult to get back of the statements made by the priestly composers,[13] who, in their various reeditings of the epic, uniformly have given the pantheistic goal as that in which the characters believe. But it is evident that the warriors were not much affected by this doctrine. To them there was one law of righteousness exceeding all others--to die on the field of battle. And for such as did so, over and over again is the a.s.surance given that 'happiness in Indra's heaven' is their reward.

And probably a true note is struck in this reiterated promise. To the ma.s.s of the vulgar, union with _brahma_ would have been no attractive end.