The Religions of India Part 48

Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. civaism, Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure civaism has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian expressions, but also in the Brahmanic civaism of the early epic, and in the civaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the literature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-civaism which starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work civa's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for the ma.s.ses, it at once gives up civa and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping civa, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism.

civaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]

On the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic (tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism. Now Vishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox (Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic pantheism. The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox.

It was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya.

The marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the epic. It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this heterodox Vishnuism became possible. Vishnuism was soon rescued from the dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression of pantheism. But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his _alter ego_, and in the epic the two are finally one All-G.o.d. Vedantic philosopliy continued to present Vishnu rather than civa as its All-G.o.d, until to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system. But with Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of the All-G.o.d. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while R[=a]ma is the G.o.d of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a pantheistic G.o.d; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually reverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more affected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more p.r.o.ne, by whatever sectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens that Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic G.o.d than is R[=a]ma. Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the line not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and unintelligent people. For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done for Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard resembles civaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent (though wealthy) cla.s.ses, who revere Krishna as their one pet G.o.d, without much more thought of his being an All-G.o.d _avatar_ than is spent by the ordinary civaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism which has been foisted upon civa.

But we must now give an account of the low sectaries, the miracle-mongers, jugglers,[40] and ascetic whimsicalities, which together stand under the phallic standard of civaism. Ancient and recent observers enumerate a sad list of them. The devotees of the 'highest bird' are a low set of ascetics, who live on voluntary alms, the result of their affectation of extreme penance. The [=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to lower them again. The [=A]k[=a]camukhas, 'Sky-facers,' hold their faces toward the sky till the muscles stiffen, and they live thus always. The Nakhls, 'Nail' ascetics, allow their nails to grow through their clenched hands, which unfits them for work (but they are all too religiously lazy to work), and makes it necessary for the credulous faithful to support them. Some of these, like the K[=a]naph[=a]ts, 'Ear-splitters,' who pierce the ear with heavy rings, have been respectable Yogis in the past, but most of them have lost what sense their philosophic founders attached to the sign, and keep only the latter as their religion. Some, such as the [=U]kharas and S[=u]kharas, appear to have no distinctive features, all of them being the 'refuse of beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength of nudity, and subdue their pa.s.sions literally with lock and key. The 'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[=u]daras and K[=a]p[=a]likas, are distinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The former, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by name since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas both show that very likely others among these wretches are but the residue of ancient civaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps Buddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, civa apparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself, and he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the resemblance of a decent G.o.d.

There is a well-known verse, not in Manu, but attributed to him (and for that reason quite a modern forgery),[41] which declares that cambhu (civa) is the G.o.d of priests; Vishnu, the G.o.d of warriors; Brahm[=a], the G.o.d of the V[=a]icyas (farmers and traders); and Ganeca, the G.o.d of slaves. It is, on the contrary, civa himself, not his son Ganeca, who is the 'G.o.d of low people' in the early literature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a G.o.d of priests till he is carefully made over by the latter. Nowadays some Brahmans profess the civaite faith, but they are Vishnuite if really sectarian.

No Brahman, for instance, will serve at a civa shrine, except possibly at Benares, where among more than an hundred shrines to civa and his family, Vishnu has but one; and though he will occasionally perform service even in a heretic Jain temple he will not lower himself to worship the Linga. Nor is it true that civa is a patron of literature.

Like Ganeca, his son, civa may upset everything if he be not properly placated, and consequently there is, at the beginning of every enterprise (among others, literary enterprises) in the Renaissance literature, but never in the works of religion or law or in any but modern profane literature, an invocation to civa. But he is no more a patron of literature than is Ganeca, or in other words, civaism is not more literary than is Ganecaism. In a literary country no religion is so illiterate as civaism, no writings are so inane as are those in his honor. There is no poem, no religious literary monument, no Pur[=a]na even, dedicated to civa, that has any literary merit. All that is readable in sectarian literature, the best Pur[=a]nas, the Divine Song, the sectarian R[=a]m[=a]yana, come from Vishnuism. civaism has nothing to compare with this, except in the works of them that pretend to be civaites but are really not sectaries, like the Sittars and the author of the cvet[=a]cvatara. civa as a 'patron of literature' takes just the place taken by Ganeca in the present beginning of the Mah[=a]bh[=a]rata. Vy[=a]sa has here composed the poem[42] but Ganeca is invoked as Vighneca, 'Lord of difficulties,' to help the poet write it out. Vy[=a]sa does the intellectual work and Ganeca performs the manual labor. Vishnuism, in a word, is the only cultivated (native) sectarian religion of India; and the orthodox cult, in that it is Vedantic, lies nearer to Vishnuism than to civaism. Why then does one find civa invoked by philosophy? Because monotheism in distinction from pantheism was the belief of the wise in the first centuries after the Christian era, till the genius of cankara definitively raised pantheism in alliance with orthodoxy to be the more esteemed; and because civa alone, when the choice lay between him and Vishnu, could be selected as the One G.o.d. For Vishnuism was now merged with Krishnaism, a new vulgar cult, and civa was an old and venerated G.o.d, long since a member of the Brahmanic pantheon. The connection between civaism and the S[=a]nkhya system gave it a more respectable and archaic appearance in the eyes of the conservative Brahman, while the original asceticism of civa undoubtedly appealed much more to Brahmanic feeling than did the sentimentalism of the Vishnuite. In the extreme North, in the ninth century, philosophy and civaism are nominally allied, but really sectarian civaism was the cult of the lowest, not of the highest cla.s.ses. Many of the professed civaites are to-day tending to Vedantism, which is the proper philosophy of the Vishnuite; and the civaite sects are waning before the Vishnuite power, not only in the middle North, where the ma.s.s of the population is devoted to Vishnu, but even in civa's later provinces in the extreme South. The social distribution of the sectaries in the Middle Ages was such that one may a.s.sign older Vishnuism to the middle cla.s.ses, and civaism to the highest on its philosophical and decently ascetic side, but to the lowest on its phallic and magical side.

But none of the civaite sects we have mentioned, imbecile as appear to be the impostors that represent them, are equal in despicable traits to the c[=a]ktas. These worshippers of the androgynous civa (or of cakti, the female principle alone), do, indeed, include some Vishnuites among themselves, but they are originally and prevailingly civaite.[43] Blood-offerings and human sacrifices are a modern and an ancient Trait of civa-worship;[44] and the hill-tribes of the Vindhya and the cla.s.sical drama show that the cult of Aghor[=i] is a civaite manifestation which is at once old and derived from un-Aryan sources.

Aghor[=i] and all female monsters naturally a.s.sociate with civa, who is their intellectual and moral counterpart. The older Aghoris exacted human sacrifice in honor of Devi, P[=a]rvat[=i], the wife of civa.[2]

The adoration of the female side of a G.o.d is as old as the Rig Veda, but civaism has combined this cult with features probably derived from other independent local cults, such as that of P[=a]rvat[=i], the 'mountain G.o.ddess.' They are all united in the person of civa's wife of many names, the 'great G.o.ddess,' Mah[=a]dev[=i], the 'hard'

Durg[=a], K[=a]l[=i], Um[=a], etc.[45] And it is to this ferocious she-monster that the most abject homage of the civaites is paid. So great is the terror inspired by Durg[=a] that they that are not civaites at all yet join in her festival; for which purpose, apparently, she is dubbed Vishnu's 'sister.' But it is not blood-guiltiness alone which is laid at the door of this cult. The sectarian religions have an exoteric and an esoteric side, the religion of the 'right hand' and of the 'left hand.' It is the latter (to which belong many that deny the fact) wherein centre the abominations of civaism; in less degree, those of Vishnuism also.

Obscenity is the soul of this cult. b.e.s.t.i.a.lity equalled only by the orgies of the Indic savages among the hill-tribes is the form of this 'religion.'[47] It is screened by an Orphic philosophy, for is not Nature or Illusion the female side of the Divine Male? It is screened again by religious fervor, for it is pious profligacy that prompts the rites. It is induced practically by an initial carousal and drunkenness; and this is antique, for even the old _soma_-feasts were to a great extent drunken revels, and the G.o.ds have got drunk from the time of the Vedas[48] to do their greatest deeds. But in practice, cakti-worship, when unveiled, amounts to this, that men and women of the same cla.s.s and family indulge in a Baccha.n.a.lian orgy, and that, as they proceed, they give themselves over to every excess which liquor and l.u.s.t can prompt. A description of the different rites would be to reduplicate an account of indecencies, of which the least vile is too esoteric to sketch faithfully. Vaguely to outline one such religious festival will suffice. A naked woman, the wife of the chief priest, sits in the middle of the 'holy circle.' She represents Durg[=a], the divine female principle. The Bacchic orgy begins with hard drinking.

civa as Bh[=a]irava, 'the dreadful,' has his human counterpart also, who must then and there pair with the impersonated Durg[=a]. The worship proper consists in the repet.i.tion of meaningless _mantra_ syllables and yells; the worship improper, in indulgence in 'wine and women' (particularly enjoined in the rite-books called Tantras). Human sacrifice at these rites is said to be extinct at the present day.[49]

But blood-l.u.s.t is appeased by the hacking of their own bodies.

Garments are cast in a heap. Lots are drawn for the women's garments[50] by the men. With her whose clothes he gets each man continues the debauch, inviting incest in addition to all other excess.[51]

The older Vishnuite sects (P[=a][=n]car[=a]tras, etc.) may have had some of this filth in their make-up; but ma.s.s for ma.s.s the practices are characteristic of civaism and not of Vishnuism.[52] Especially civaite, however, is the 'mother worship,' to which reference was made in the chapter on epic Hinduism. These 'mothers' are guardian G.o.ddesses, or fiends of disease, etc. One may not claim that all c[=a]ktas are civaites, but how small a part of Vishnuism is occupied with cakti-worship can be estimated only by surveying the whole body of worshippers of that name.

We cannot leave the l.u.s.t and murder of modern civaism without speaking of still another sect which hangs upon the heels of K[=a]l[=i], that of the Thugs. It may, indeed, be questioned whether civa should be responsible for the doings of his spouse, K[=a]l[=i]. But like seeks like, and there is every historical justification in making out civa to be as bad as the company he keeps. Durg[=a] and K[=a]l[=i] are not vainly looked upon as civa's female side. So that a sect like the Thugs,[53] which worshipped K[=a]li, may, it is true, be taken out of the civaite sects, but only if one will split civaism in two and reproduce the original condition, wherein civa was one monster and K[=a]li was another; which is scarcely possible after the two have for centuries been looked upon as identical. With this in mind it may be granted that the Thugs payed reverence to K[=a]li, rather than to her lord. Moreover, many of them were Mohammedans; but, for our purpose, the significant fact is that when the Thugs were Hindus they were K[=a]li-civaites. And we believe that these secret murderers, strange as it seems, originated in a reformatory movement. As is well known, it was a religious principle with them not to spill blood.[54] They always throttled. They were, of course, when they first became known m 1799 (Sherwood's account), nothing but robbers and murderers. But, like the other civaite monstrosities, they regarded their work as a religious act, and always invoked K[=a]li if they were Hindus. We think it probable, therefore, that the sect originated among the K[=a]li-worshippers as a protest against blood-letting. Admitting that robbery is under civa's protection (civa is 'G.o.d of robbers'), and that K[=a]li wanted victims, a sect probably claimed that the victims should be throttled, and not bled. Not that this was necessarily a new reform. There is every reason to suppose that most of civa's females are aboriginal wild-tribe divinities. Now among these savages one sees at times a distinct refusal to bleed human victims. Thuggery may then have been the claim of an old conservative party, who wished to keep up the traditional throttling; though this is pure speculation, for, at the time when the sect became exposed, this means of death was merely the safest way to kill. They insisted always on being called Thugs, and scorned the name of thief. They were suppressed by 1840.

Reynolds describes them as "mostly men of mild and un.o.btrusive manners, possessing a cheerful disposition."[55]

THE VISHNUITE SECTS.

There is a formal idealistic civaism, as we have shown, and there was once a dualistic Vishnuism; but in general the Vishnuite is an idealist. To comprehend the quarrels among the sects of this religion, however, it will be necessary to examine the radical philosophical differences of their founders, for one pa.s.ses, in going from modern civaism to Vishnuism, out of ignorant superst.i.tion into philosophical religion, of which many even of the weaker traits are but recent Hinduistic effeminacy subst.i.tuted for an older manly thinking.

The complex of Vishnuite sects presents at first rather a confused appearance, but we think that we can make the whole body separate itself clearly enough into its component parts, if the reader will pause at the threshold and before entering the edifice look at the foundation and the outer plan of Vedantic philosophy.

At the beginning of Colebrooke's essays on Hindu philosophy he thus describes four of the recognized systems: "The two M[=i]m[=a]ms[=a]s... are emphatically orthodox. The prior one, _p[=u]rva_[56] which has J[=a]imini for its founder, teaches the art of reasoning, with the express view of aiding the interpretation of the Vedas. The latter, _uttara_[57] commonly called Ved[=a]nta, and attributed to Vy[=a]sa (or B[=a]dar[=a]yana), deduces from the text of the Indian scriptures a refined psychology, which goes to a denial of a material world. A different philosophical system, partly heterodox, and partly conformable to the established Hindu creed, is the S[=a]nkhya; of which also, as of the preceding, there are two schools; one usually known by that name,[58] the other commonly termed Yoga."[59]

The eldest of these systems, as we have already had occasion to state, is the dualistic S[=a]nkhya. It was still highly esteemed in the ninth century, the time of the great Vedantist, cankara.[60] A theistic form of this atheistic philosophy is called the Puranic S[=a]nkhya, and Pata[.n]jali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the dualistic S[=a]nkhya stands the Ved[=a]nta,[61] based on the Upanishads that teach the ident.i.ty of spirit and matter.

As representative of the metaphysics of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems respectively stand in general the two great religions of India. The former, as we have shown, is still potent in the great Song of the epic, and its principles are essentially those of early civaism. The latter, especially in its sectarian interpretation, with which we have now to deal, has become the great religion o India. But there are two sectarian interpretations of Vishnu, and two philosophical interpretations of the All-spirit in its relation to the individual soul or spirit.[62] Again the individual spirit of man either enjoys after death immortal happiness, as a being distinct from the All-spirit; or the _jiva_, individual spirit, is absorbed into the All-spirit (losing all individuality, but still conscious of happiness); or the individual spirit is absorbed into an All-spirit that has no happiness or affection of any kind.

Now the strict philosophy of the Ved[=a]nta adopts the last view _in toto_. The individual spirit (soul, self) becomes one with the universal Spirit, losing individuality and consciousness, for the universal Spirit itself is not affected by any quality or condition. A creative force without attributes, this is the All-spirit of cankara and of the strict Vedantist. To cankara the Creator was but a phase of the All-spirit, and the former's immortality ended with his creation; in other words, there is no immortal Creator, only an immortal creative power.

In the twelfth century arose another great leader of thought, R[=a]m[=a]nuja. He disputed the correctness of cankara's interpretation of Vedantic principles. It is maintained by some that cankara's interpretation is really correct, but for our purpose that is neither here nor there.[63] cankara's _brahma_ is the one and only being, pure being, or pure thought. Thought is not an attribute of _brahma_, it is _brahma_. Opposed to this pure being (thought) stands _m[=a]y[=a]_, illusion, the material cause of the seen world. It is neither being nor not-being; it is the cause of the appearance of things, in that it is a.s.sociated with _brahma_, and in so far only is _brahma_ rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each individual is _brahma_; the finite part is _m[=a]y[=a]._ Thus B[=a]dar[=a]yana (author of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras) says that the individual is only illusion.

R[=a]m[=a]nuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a _brahma_ that is not only universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme conscious and willing G.o.d. Far from being devoid of attributes, like cankara's _brahma_, the _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja has all attributes, chief of which is thought or intelligence. The Lord contains in himself the elements of that plurality which cankara regards as illusion. As contrasted with the dualistic S[=a]nkhya phiiosophy both of these systems inculcate monism. But according to cankara all difference is illusion; while according to R[=a]m[=a]nuja _brahma_ is not h.o.m.ogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is truly manifested. cankara's _m[=a]y[=a]_ is R[=a]m[=a]nuja's body of _(brahma)_ the Lord. cankara's personal G.o.d exists only by collusion with illusion, and hence is illusory. The _brahma_ of R[=a]m[=a]nuja is a personal G.o.d, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world.

Moreover, from an eschatological point of view, cankara explains salvation, the release from re-birth, _sams[=a]ra_, as complete union with this unqualified _brahma_, consequently as loss of individuality as well as loss of happiness. But R[=a]m[=a]nuja defines salvation as the departure from earth forever of the individual spirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].

R[=a]m[=a]nuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the present time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a personal G.o.d to be loved or feared, the hope of bliss hereafter. In its essential features it is a very old belief, far older than the philosophy which formulates it[66]. Thus, after the hard saying "fools desire heaven," this desire rea.s.serted itself, and under R[=a]m[=a]nuja's genial interpretation of the Ved[=a]nta S[=u]tras the pious man was enabled to build up his cheerful hope again, withal on the basis of a logic as difficult to controvert as was that of cankara himself[67].

Thus far the product of Vedantism is deism. But now with two steps one arrives at the inner portal of sectarianism. First, if _brahma_ is a personal G.o.d, which of the G.o.ds is he, this personal All-spirit? As a general thing the Vedantist answers, 'he is Vishnu'; and adds, 'Vishnu, who embraces as their superior those other G.o.ds, civa, and Brahm[=a].' But the sectary is not content with making the All-G.o.d one with Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna, some say as R[=a]ma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to the All-spirit deist, may be ill.u.s.trated most clearly by comparison with Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal G.o.d as the absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power is a personal G.o.d, Jehovah; again, Jehovah may or may not be regarded as one with Christ. The minuter ramifications of the Christian church then correspond to the sub-sects of Krishnaism or Ramaism.[69]

The Occidental and Oriental conceptions of the trinity are, however, not identical. For in India the trinity, from the Vishnuite point of view, is an amalgamation of civa and Brahm[=a] with Vishnu, irrespective of the question whether Vishnu be manifest in Krishna or not; while the Christian trinity amalgamates the form that corresponds to Vishnu with the one that corresponds to Krishna.[70] To the orthodox Brahman, on the other hand, as Williams has very well put it, Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is himself only an incarnation, that is, a form, of G.o.d.

Having now explained the two princ.i.p.al divisions of the modern sects, we can lead the reader into the church of Vishnu. It is a church of two great parties, each being variously subdivided. Of these two parties the Krishnaites are intellectually the weaker, and hence numerically the stronger. All Krishnaites, of course, identify the man-G.o.d Krishna with Vishnu, and their sub-sects revert to various teachers, of whom the larger number are of comparatively recent date, although as a body the Krishnaites may claim an antiquity as great, if not greater, than that of the Ramaites.

But the latter party, in their various sub-sects, all claim as their founder either R[=a]m[=a]nuja himself or one of his followers; and since, if the claim be granted, the R[=a]ma sects do but continue his work, we shall begin by following out the result of his teaching as it was interpreted by his disciples; especially since the Krishnaites have left to the Ramaites most of the philosophizing of the church, and devoted themselves more exclusively to the moralities and immoralities of their more practical religion. As a matter of fact, the Ramaites to-day are less religious than philosophical, while in the case of the Krishnaites, with some reservations, the contrary may be said to be the case.

THE RAMAITES.

Since the chief characteristic of growth among Hindu sectaries is a sort of segmentation, like that which conditions the development of amoebas and other lower organisms, it is a forgone conclusion that the Ramaites, having formed one body apart from the Krishnaites, will immediately split up again into smaller segments. It is also a foregone conclusion, since one is really dealing here with human types, that these smaller segments will mutually hate and despise each other much more than they hate their common adversaries. Just as, in old times, a Calvinist hated a Lutheran more than he did a Russian Christian (for he understood his quarrel better), so a 'cat-doctrine'

Ramaite hates a 'monkey-doctrine' Ramaite far more than he hates a Krishnaite, while with a civaite he often has an amicable union; although the Krishnaite belittles the Ramaite's manifestation of Vishnu, and the civaite belittles Vishnu himself.[71]

The chief point of difference theologically between the Ramaites is the one just mentioned. The adherents of the 'cat-doctrine' teach that G.o.d saves man as a cat takes up its kitten, without free-will on the part of the latter. The monkey-doctrinaires teach that man, in order to be saved, must reach out to their G.o.d (R[=a]ma, who is Vishnu, who, again, is All-G.o.d, that is, _brahma_), and embrace their G.o.d as a monkey does its mother.[72] The resemblance to the Occidental sects here becomes still more interesting. But we have given an earlier example of the doctrine of free grace from the epic, and can now only locate the modern sects that still argue the question. The 'monkey'

Ramaites are a sect of the North (_vada_), and hence are called Vada-galais;[73] the 'cat' or Calvinistic Ramaites of the South (_ten_), are called Ten-galais. Outwardly these sects differ in having diverse _mantras_, greetings, dress, and especially in the forehead-signs, which show whether the 'mark of Vishnu' shall represent (Vadagal belief) one or (Tengal) two feet of the G.o.d (expressed by vertical lines[74] painted fresh daily on the forehead).

The Ten-galais, according to a recent account, are the more numerous and the more materialistic.[75]

All the Ramaites, on the other hand, hold that (1) the deity is not devoid of qualities; (2) Vishnu is the deity and should be worshipped with Lakshm[=i], his wife; (3) R[=a]ma is the human _avatar_ of Vishnu; (4) R[=a]m[=a]nuja and all the great teachers since his day are also _avatars_ of Vishnu.

In upper India, about the Ganges, R[=a]m[=a]nuja's disciple, R[=a]m[=a]nand (fifth in descent), who lived in the fourteenth century, has more followers than has the founder. His disciples worship the divine ape, Hanuman[76] (conspicuous in both epics), as well as R[=a]ma. They are called 'the liberated,' Avadh[=u]tas, but whether because they are freed from caste-restrictions,[77] or from the strict rules of eating enjoined by R[=a]m[=a]nuja, is doubtful.

R[=a]m[=a]nand himself had in turn twelve disciples. Of these the most famaous is Kab[=i]r, whose followers, the Kab[=i]r Panth[=i]s (sect), are widely spread, and of whom no less a person than N[=a]nak, the Sikh, claimed to be a successor. But it will be more convenient to describe the Sikhs hereafter. Of R[=a]m[=a]nand's other disciples that founded sects may be mentioned Kil, whose sectaries, the Kh[=a]kis, of Oude, unite successfully R[=a]ma-worship, Hanuman-worship, and civaite fashions (thus presenting a mixture like that of the southern M[=a]dhvas, who unite the images of civa and Vishnu). The R[=a]s D[=a]sa sect, again, owes to its founder the black c[=a]lagr[=a]ma pebble, an object of reverent awe, which gives rise to a sort of sub-cult subsequently imitated by others.[78] Another widely-spread sect which claim R[=a]m[=a]nand as their founder's teacher is that of the D[=a]d[=u] Panth[=i]s. This branch also of the Ramaites we shall more appropriately discuss under the head of deism (below). Finally, we have to mention, as an outcome of the R[=a]m[=a]nand faith, the modern R[=a]m[=a]yana, Ramcaritmanas, the new bible of the sect, composed in the sixteenth century by Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa ('slave of Vishnu'),the greatest of modern Hindu poets. What the Divine Song and the Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na are to the Krishnaite, the older (epic) R[=a]m[=a]yana of V[=a]lm[=i]ki and Tulas[=i]d[=a]sa's new poem (of the same name) are to the Ramaite.[79]

THE KRISHNAITES.

There are two great sects that worship Vishnu as especially manifested in the human form of Krishna. But, as distinguished from the philosophical Ramaite, the Krishnaite is not satisfied with a declaration of faith in the man-G.o.d, and in fact his chief cult is of the child-G.o.d Krishna, the B[=a]la Gop[=a]la or Infant Shepherd. This recalls the older Krishna (of the Harivanca), whose sporting with the milk-maids is a favorite topic in later Krishnaite literature. As a formulated cult, consisting for the most part of observances based on the mystic side of affection for the personal saver of man (the _bhakti_ principle of 'devotion,' erotically expanded[80]), this worship obtains both among C[=a]itanyas and Vallabhas, sects that arose in the sixteenth century.[81]

C[=a]itanya, born in Bengal in 1485, of whom it is fabled that wise men came and gave homage to him while he was yet a child, was active in Bengal and Orissa, where his sect (named after him) is one of the most important at the present day. C[=a]itanya preached a practical as well as a theoretical reform. He taught the equality of all worshippers of whatever caste, and the religious virtue of marriage.

At the present day caste-feeling and religious profession are somewhat at variance. But a compromise is affected. While in the temple the high-caste C[=a]itanyas regard their lowly co-religionists as equals; when out of it they become again arrogantly high-caste, Making a virtue of marriage instead of celibacy caused the sect to become popular with the middle and lower cla.s.ses, but its adherents are usually drawn from the dregs of the populace.[82] The principle of love for G.o.d (that is, for Krishna) is especially dwelt upon by C[=a]itanya. The devotee should feel such affection as is felt by a young man for a girl. To exercise or inspire this rapt and mystic devotion, recourse is had to singing, dancing. and other familiar means of arousing religious fervor. If the dancing devotee swoons it is a sign that G.o.d accepts his love. At the present day C[=a]itanya himself is regarded as the incarnate deity. He and his two chief disciples, who (like all Gosains, religious Teachers) are divine, form a little sub-trinity for the sect.[83] This sect, like so many others, began as a reform, only to become worse than its rivals.

Vallabha or Vallabh[=a]e[=a]rya, 'Teacher Vallabha,' was also of the sixteenth century, but his sect belongs especially to the Northwest, while the sphere of C[=a]itanya's influence was in the Northeast. He lived near the Ganges, is said to have been a scholar, and wrote a commentary on the early life of Krishna in the tenth book of the Bh[=a]gavata Pur[=a]na, and on the Divine Song. In Bombay and Kutch his disciples are most numerous, the Epicureans of Vishnuism. For their precept is 'eat and enjoy.' No mortification of the senses is allowed. Human love typifies divine love.[84] The teachers acquired great renown and power, a.s.suming and maintaining the haughty t.i.tle of _mah[=a] r[=a]jas_ ('great kings').

They are as G.o.ds, and command absolutely their devotees.[85] Here the worship of the Infant Krishna reaches its greatest height (or depth).

The image of the infant G.o.d is daily clothed, bathed, anointed, and worshipped. Religious exercises have more or less of an erotic tendency, and here, if anywhere, as one may learn from Wilson, Williams, and other modern writers on this sect, there are almost as great excesses as are committed among the civaite sects. As a sect it is an odd combination of sensual worship and theological speculation, for they have considerable sectarian literature. The most renowned festival of the Infant Krishna is the celebration of the stable-birth of Krishna and of the Madonna (bearing him on her breast), but this we have discussed already. Besides this the Jagann[=a]th procession in Bengal and Orissa, and the great autumnal picnic called the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra, are famous occasions for displaying Krishnaite, or, indeed, general Vishnuite zeal. At the R[=a]s Y[=a]tra a.s.semble musicians, dancers, jugglers, and other joy-creating additions to the religious feast, the ostensible reason for which is the commemoration of Krishna's dances with the milk-maids. The devotees belong chiefly to the wealthy middle cla.s.ses. These low sects worship Krishna with R[=a]dh[=a] (his mistress, instead of Lakshm[=i], Vishnu's wife).

Here, too, as Krishnaites rather than as Vishnuites, are found the 'left-hand' worshippers of the female power.[86]

This sensual corruption of Vishnuism, which is really not Vishnuism but simple Krishnaism, led to two prominent reforms within the fold.

Among the Vallabhas arose in protest the Caran D[=a]s[=i]s, who have taken from the M[=a]dhvas of the South their Ten Commandments (against lying, reviling, harsh speech, idle talk, theft, adultery, injury to life, imagining evil, hate, and pride); and evolved for themselves the tenet that faith without works is dead. The same protest was made against the Vallabhas by Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. He was born about 1780 near Lucknow, and advocated a return to Vallabha's purer faith, which had been corrupted. Probably most of the older reformers have had much the same career as had Sv[=a]mi N[=a]r[=a]yana. Exalted by the people, who were persuaded by his mesmeric eloquence, he soon became a political figure, a martyr of persecution, a triumphant victor, and then an ascetic, living in seclusion; whence he emerged occasionally to go on tours "like a bishop visiting his diocese"

(Williams). He is worshipped as a G.o.d.[87] The sect numbers to-day a quarter of a million, some being celibate clergy, some householders.

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

Sinner or heretic, if one die at last with Krishna's name upon the lips he will be saved.[90]

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

Two general cla.s.ses of devotees, besides these, remain to be spoken of. The Sanny[=a]sin, 'renouncer,' was of old a Brahman ascetic.

Nowadays, according to Wilson, he is generally a civaite mendicant.