Sānkhya here means the philosophy of religion; Yoga is the philosophical state of mind, serene indifference, religious sang-froid the practical result of a belief in the Sānkhya doctrine of the indestructibility of the spirit. In the following there is Vedantic teaching, as well as Sankhyan in the stricter sense.

On the warrior's asking for an explanation of this state of equipoise, the Deity gives illustrations of the balanced mind that is free from all attachments, serene, emancipated from desires, self-controlled, and perfectly tranquil. As the knight is astonished and confused at the contradiction, action and inactivity both being urged upon him, the Deity replies that there is a twofold law, that of Sānkhyas consisting in knowledge-devotion, and that of Yogis in action-devotion. Idleness is not freedom from action. Freedom from attachment must be united with the accomplishment of such acts as should be performed. The deluded think that they themselves perform acts, but acts are not done by the spirit (self); they are done only by nature's qualities (this is Sānkhya doctrine). "One should know the relation between the individual and Supreme Spirit, and with tranquil mind perform good acts. Let the deluded ones be, who are erroneously attached to action. The wise man should not cause those of imperfect knowledge to be unsettled in their faith, but he should himself not be attached to action. Each man should perform his own (caste) duties. One's own duty ill done is better than doing well another man's work."

The knight now asks what causes one to sin. The Deity answers: "Love and hate; for from love is born hate; and from anger, ignorance in regard to right and wrong; whence comes lack of reason, and consequently destruction. The knowledge of a man is enwrapped with desire as is fire with smoke. Great are the senses; greater, the mind; greater still, the understanding; greatest of all is 'That'" (brahma; as above in the Chāndogya). The Deity begins again:[5] "This system of devotion I declared to Vivasvant (the sun); Vivasvant declared it to Manu, and Manu to kingly seers." (The same origin is claimed for itself in Manu's lawbook.) The knight objects, not yet knowing that Krishna is the All-god: "How did'st thou declare it first? thy birth is later than the sun's." To whom the Deity: "Many are my births, and I know them all; many too are thine, but thou knowest them not; unborn and Lord of all creatures I assume phenomena, and am born by the illusion of the spirit. Whenever there is lack of righteousness, and wrong arises, then I emit (create) myself.[6] I am born age after age for the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the sake of establishing righteousness. Whoso really believes in this my divine birth and work, he, when he has abandoned his body, enters no second birth, but enters Me. Many there are who, from Me arising, on Me relying, purified by the penance of knowledge, with all affections, fear, and anger gone, enter into my being. As they approach Me so I serve them.[7] Men in all ways follow after my path. Some desire the success that is of action, and worship gods; for success that is born of action is speedy in the world of men. Know Me as the maker of the four castes, know Me as the unending one and not the maker. Action stains Me not, for in the fruit of action I have no desire. He that thus knows Me is not bound by acts.[8] So he that has no attachment is not bound by acts. His acts become naught. Brahma is the oblation, and with brahma is it offered; brahma is in the fire, and by brahma is the oblation made. Sacrifices are of many kinds, but he that sacrifices with knowledge offers the best sacrifice. He that has faith has knowledge; he that has knowledge obtains peace. He that has no knowledge and no faith, whose soul is one of doubt, is destroyed. Action does not destroy him that has renounced action by means of indifference. Of the two, renunciation of action and indifference, though both give bliss, indifference in action is better than renunciation of action. Children, not Pundits, proclaim Sānkhya and Yoga to be distinct. He that is devoted to either alone finds the reward of both. Renunciation without Yoga is a thing hard to get; united with Yoga the seer enters brahma. ... He is the renouncer and the devotee who does the acts that ought to be done without relying on the reward of action, not he that performs no acts and builds no sacrificial fires. Through his self (spirit) let one raise one's self. Conquer self by self (spirit). He is the best man who is indifferent to external things, who with equal mind sees (his spirit) self in everything and everything in self (God as the Spirit). Such an one obtains the highest bliss, brahma. Whoso sees Me in all and all in Me I am not destroyed for him, and he is not destroyed for Me."

The knight now asks how it fares with a good man who is not equal to the discipline of Yoga, and cannot free himself entirely from attachment. Does he go to destruction like a cloud that is rent, failing on the path that leads to brahma? The Deity replies: "Neither in this world nor in the beyond is he destroyed. He that acts virtuously does not enter an evil state. He obtains the heaven that belongs to the doers of good, and after living there countless summers is reborn on earth in the family of pure and renowned men, or of pious devotees. There he receives the knowledge he had in a former body, and then strives further for perfection. After many births he reaches perfection and the highest course (union with brahma). There are but few that strive for perfection, and of them only one here and there truly knows Me. Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, understanding, and egoism (self-consciousness)—so is my nature divided into eight parts.[9] But learn now my higher nature, for this is my lower one. My higher nature is alive, and by it this world is supported. I am the creator and destroyer of all the world. Higher than I is nothing. On Me the universe is woven like pearls upon a thread. Taste am I, light am I of moon and sun, the mystic syllable Ōm (ăŭm), sound in space, manliness in men; I am smell and radiance; I am life and heat. Know Me as the eternal seed of all beings. I am the understanding of them that have understanding, the radiance of the radiant ones. Of the strong I am the force, devoid of love and passion; and I am love, not opposed to virtue. Know all beings to be from Me alone, whether they have the quality of goodness, of passion, or of darkness (the three 'qualities' or conditions of all things). I am not in them; but they are in Me. Me, the inexhaustible, beyond them, the world knows not, for it is confused by these three qualities (conditions); and hard to overcome is the divine illusion which envelops Me, while it arises from the qualities. Only they pass through this illusion who come to Me alone. Wicked men, whose knowledge is taken away by illusion, relying on a devilish (demoniac) condition, do not come to Me. They that have not the highest knowledge worship various divinities; but whatever be the form that any one worships with faith I make his faith steady. He obtains his desires in worshipping that divinity, although they are really bestowed upon him by Me.[10] But the fruit of these men, in that they have little wisdom, has its end. He that sacrifices to (lesser) gods goes to those gods; but they that worship Me come to Me. I know the things that were, that are, and are to be; but Me no one knoweth, for I am enveloped in illusion. I am the supreme being, the supreme godhead, the supreme sacrifice, the Supreme Spirit, brahma."

The knight asks "What is brahma, the Supreme Spirit, the supreme being, the supreme sacrifice?" The Deity: "The supreme, the indestructible, is called brahma. Its personal existence is Supreme Spirit (self). Destructible existence is supreme being (all except ātmā). The Person is the supreme godhead. I myself am the supreme sacrifice in this body."

Then follow statements like those in the Upanishads and in Manu, describing a day of brahma as a thousand ages; worlds are renewed; they that go to the gods find an end of their happiness with the end of their world; but they that go to the indestructible brahma, the Deity, the entity that is not destroyed when all else is destroyed, never again return. There are two roads (as in the Upanishads above), one, the northern road leading to brahma; one, the southern road to the moon, leading back to earth. At the end of a period of time all beings reenter the divine nature (Prakriti[11]), and at the beginning of the next period the Deity emits them again and again (they being without volition) by the volition of his nature. "Through Me, who am the superintendent, nature gives birth to all things, and for that cause the world turns about. They of demoniac nature recognize me not; they of god-like nature, knowing Me as the inexhaustible source, worship Me. I am the universal Father, the Vedas, the goal, the upholder, the Lord, the superintendent, the home, the asylum, the friend. I am the inexhaustible seed. I am immortality and death. I am being and not-being. I am the sacrifice and he that offers it. Even they that, with faith, sacrifice to other gods, even they (really) sacrifice to Me. To them that ever are devout and worship Me with love (faith), I give the attainment of the knowledge by which they come to Me" (again the doctrine of special grace). "I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all created things. I am Vishnu among sun-gods; the moon among the stars; Indra among the (Vedic) gods; the Sāman among the Vedas; among the senses, mind; among created beings, consciousness; among the Rudras I am Civa (Cankara); among army-leaders I am Skanda; among the great sages I am Bhrigu (who reveals Manu's code); among the Siddhas[12] I am Kapila the Muni.... I am the love that begets; I am the chief (Vāsuki and Ananta) among the serpents; and among them that live in water I am Varuna; among the Manes I am Aryaman; and I am Yama among controllers;[13] among demons I am Prahlāda ...; I am Rāma; I am the Ganges. I am among all sciences the highest science (that in regard to the Supreme Spirit); I am the word of the speakers; I am the letter A among the letters, and the compound of union among the compounds.[14] I am indestructible time and I am the Creator. I am the death that seizes all and I am the origin of things to be. I am glory, fortune, speech, memory, wisdom, constancy, and mercy.... I am the punishment of the punisher and the polity of them that would win victory. I am silence. I am knowledge. There is no end of my divine manifestations."

The knight now asks to see the real form of the deity, which was revealed to him. "If in heaven the glory of a thousand suns should appear at once, such would be his glory."

After this comes the real animus of the Divine Song in its present shape. The believer that has faith in this Vishnu is even better than the devotee who finds brahma by knowledge.

The philosophy of knowledge (which here is anything but Vedantic) is now communicated to the knight, in the course of which the distinction between nature and spirit is explained: "Nature, Prakriti, and spirit, Purusha (person), are both without beginning. All changes and qualities spring from nature. Nature is said to be the cause of the body's and the senses' activity. Spirit is the cause of enjoyment (appreciation) of pleasure and pain; for the Spirit, standing in nature, appreciates the nature-born qualities. The cause of the Spirit's re-birth is its connection with the qualities, (This is Sānkhya doctrine, and the same with that propounded above in regard to activity.) The Supreme Spirit is the Support and great Lord of all, the ātmā, while brahma (=prakriti) is the womb in which I place My seed, and from that is the origin of all things. The great brahma is the womb, and I am the seed-giving father of all the forms which come into being. The three 'qualities' (conditions, attributes), goodness, passion, and darkness, are born of nature and bind the inexhaustible incorporate (Spirit) in the body. The quality (or attribute) of goodness binds the soul with pleasure and knowledge; that of passion (activity), with desire and action; that of darkness (dulness), with ignorance. One that has the attribute of goodness chiefly goes after death to the highest heaven; one that has chiefly passion is born again among men of action; one that has chiefly darkness is born among the ignorant. One that sees that these attributes are the only agents, one that knows what is higher than the attributes, enters into my being. The incorporate spirit that has passed above the three attributes (the origin of bodies), being released from birth, death, age, and pain, obtains immortality. To pass above these attributes one must become indifferent to all change, be undisturbed by anything, and worship Me with devotion.... I am to be learned from all the Vedas; I made the Vedānta; I alone know the Vedas. There are two persons in the world, one destructible and one indestructible; the destructible one is all created things; the indestructible one is called the Unchanging one. But there is still a third highest person, called the Supreme Spirit, who, pervading the three worlds, supports them, the inexhaustible Lord. Inasmuch as I surpass the destructible and am higher than the indestructible, therefore am I known in the world and in the Veda as the Highest Person."

The references to the Sānkhyas, or Sānkhya-Yogas, are not yet exhausted. There is another in a following chapter (vi. 18. 13) which some scholiasts say refers to the Vedānta-system, though this is in direct contradiction to the text. But the extracts already given suffice to show how vague and uncertain are, on the whole, the philosophical views on which depends the Divine Song. Until the end of these citations one hears only of nature and spirit, the two that have no beginning, but here one finds the Supreme Spirit, which is as distinct from the indestructible one as from the destructible. Moreover, 'nature' is in one place represented as from the beginning distinct from spirit and entirely apart from it, and in another it is only a transient phase. The delusion (illusion) which in one passage is all that exists apart from the Supreme Spirit is itself given up in favor of the Sānkhya Prakriti, with which one must imagine it to be identified, although from the text itself it cannot be identical. In a word, exactly as in Manu, there are different philosophical conceptions, united without any logical basis for their union. The 'system' is in general that of the Sānkhya-Yogas, but there is much which is purely Vedānta. The Sānkhya system is taught elsewhere as a means of salvation, perhaps always as the deistic Yoga (i. 75. 7: "He taught them the Sankhya-knowledge as salvation"). It is further noticeable that although Krishna (Vishnu) is the ostensible speaker, there is scarcely anything to indicate that the poem was originally composed even for Vishnu. The Divine Song was probably, as we have said, a late Upanishad, which afterwards was expanded and put into Vishnu's mouth. The Sānkhya portions have been redressed as far as possible and to the illusion doctrine is given the chief place. But the Song remains, like the Upanishads themselves, and like Manu, an ill-assorted cabinet of primitive philosophical opinions. On the religious side it is a matter of comparative indifference whether that which is not the spirit is a delusive output of the spirit or indestructible matter. In either case the Spirit is the goal of the spirit. In this personal pantheism absorption is taught but not death. Immortality is still the reward that is offered to the believer that is wise, to the wise that believes. Knowledge and faith are the means of obtaining this immortality; but, whereas in the older Upanishads only wisdom is necessary (wisdom that implies morality), here as much stress, if not more, is laid upon faith, the natural mark of all sectarian pantheism.

Despite its occasional power and mystic exaltation, the Divine Song in its present state as a poetical production is unsatisfactory. The same thing is said over and over again, and the contradictions in phraseology and in meaning are as numerous as the repetitions, so that one is not surprised to find it described as "the wonderful song, which causes the hair to stand on end." The different meanings given to the same words are indicative of its patchwork origin, which again would help to explain its philosophical inconsistencies. It was probably composed, as it stands, before there was any formal Vedānta system; and in its original shape without doubt it precedes the formal Sānkhya; though both philosophies existed long before they were systematized or reduced to Sutra form. One has not to imagine them as systems originally distinct and opposed. They rather grew out of a gradual intensification of the opposition involved in the conception of Prakriti (nature) and Māyā (illusion), some regarding these as identical, others insisting that the latter was not sufficient to explain nature. The first philosophy (and philosophical religion) concerned itself less with the relation of matter to mind (in modern parlance) than with the relation of the individual self (spirit) to the Supreme Spirit. Different explanations of the relation of matter to this Supreme Spirit were long held tentatively by philosophers, who would probably have said that either the Sānkhya or Vedānta might be true, but that this was not the chief question. Later came the differentiation of the schools, based mainly on a question that was at first one of secondary importance. In another part of the epic Krishna himself is represented as the victim of 'illusion' (iii. 21. 30) on the field of battle.

The doctrine of the Bhagavad Gītā, the Divine Song, is by no means isolated. It is found in many other passages of the epic, besides being imitated in the Anugītā of the pseudo-epic. To one of these passages it is worth while to turn, because of the form in which this wisdom is enunciated. The passage immediately following this teaching is also of great interest. Of the few Vedic deities that receive hymnal homage chief is the sun, or, in his other form, Agni. The special form of Agni has been spoken of above. He is identified with the All in some late passages, and gives aid to his followers, although not in battle. It will have been noticed in the Divine Song that Vishnu asserts that the Song was proclaimed to the sun, who in turn delivers it through Manu to the king-seers, the sun being especially the kingly god.[15] In the third book there is an hymn to the sun, in which this god is addressed almost in the terms of the Divine Song, and immediately preceding is the doctrine just alluded to. After the explanation is given that re-birth affects creatures and causes them to be born in earth, air, or water, the changes of metempsychosis here including the vegetable world as well as the animal and divine worlds,[16] the very essence of the Divine Song is given as "Vedic word," viz., kuru karma tyajeti ca, "Perform and quit acts," i.e., do what you ought to do, but without regard to the reward of action (iii. 2. 72, 74). There is an eightfold path of duty, as in Buddhism, but here it consists in sacrifice, study, liberality, and penance; truth, mercy, self-control, and lack of greed. As the result of practicing the first four, one goes on the course that leads to the Manes; as the result of practicing the last four, one goes on the course that leads to the gods. But in practicing any virtues one should practice them without expectation of reward (abhimāna, arriere pensee). The Yogi, the devotee, who renounces the fruit of everything, is the greatest man; his powers are miraculous.

There follows (with the same light inconsistency to be found in the Divine Song) the appeal for action and the exhortation to pray to the sun for success in what is desired. For it is explained that the sun is the father of all creation. The sun draws up clouds with his heat, and his energy, being transmuted into water, with the help of the moon, is distilled into plants as rain, and in this way the food that man eats is full of solar energy, and man and all that live by food must regard the sun as their father. Preliminary to the hymn to the sun is given a list of his hundred and eight names,[17] among which are to be noticed: Aryaman, Soma, Indra, Yama, Brahmā, Vishnu, Civa, Death, Time, Creator, the Endless One, Kapila, the Unborn One, the Person (Purusha; with which are to be compared the names of Vishnu in the Divine Song), the All-maker, Varuna, the Grandfather, the Door of Heaven, etc. And then the Hymn to the Sun (iii. 3. 36 ff.):[18] "Thou, O Sun, of creatures art the eye; the spirit of all that have embodied form; thou art the source of all created things; thou art the custom of them that make sacrifice; thou art the goal of the Sānkhyas and the hope of the Yogis; the course of all that seek deliverance ... Thou art worshipped by all; the three and thirty gods(!) worship thee, etc.... I think that in all the seven worlds[19] and all the brahma-worlds there is nothing which is superior to the sun. Other beings there are, both powerful and great, but they have no such glory as the sun's. Father of light, all beings rest in thee; O Lord of light, all things, all elements are in thee. The disc of Vishnu was fashioned by the All-maker (one of the sun's names!) with thy glory. Over all the earth, with its thirteen islands, thou shinest with thy kine (rays)....[20] Thou art the beginning and the end of a day of Brahmā.... They call thee Indra; thou art Rudra, Vishnu, the Father-god, Fire, the subtile mind; thou art the Lord, and thou, eternal brahma."

There is here also a very significant admixture of Vedic and Upanishadic religion.

In Krishna, who in the Upanishads is known already by his own and his mother's name, pantheism is made personal according to the teaching of one sect. But while the whole epic is in evidence for the spuriousness of the claim of Krishna to be regarded as incarnate Vishnu (God), there is scarcely a trace in the original epic of the older view in regard to Vishnu himself. Thus in one passage he is called "the younger brother of Indra" (iii. 12. 25). But, since Indra is at no time the chief god of the epic, and the chapter in which occurs this expression is devoted to extolling Krishna-Vishnu as the All-god, the words appear to be intended rather to identify Krishna with Vishnu, who in the Rig Veda is inferior to Indra, than to detract from Vishnu's glory. The passage is cited below.

What now is the relation of Vishnu-Krishna to the other divinities? Vishnuite and Civaite, each cries out that his god includes the other, but there is no current identity of Brahmā, Vishnu, Civa as three co-equal representations of one God. For example, in iii. 189. 5, one reads: "I am Vishnu, I am Brahmā, and I am Civa," but one cannot read into this any trinitarian doctrine whatever, for in context the passage reads as a whole: "I am Nārāyana, I am Creator and Destroyer,

I am Vishnu, I am Brahmā, I am Indra, the master-god, I am king Kubera, Yama, Civa, Soma, Kacyapa, and also the Father-god." Again, Vishnu says that the Father-god, or grandparent of the gods, is 'one-half of my body," and does not mention Civa (iii. 189. 39). Thus, also, the hymn to Civa in iii. 39. 76 ff. is addressed "to Civa having the form of Vishnu, to Vishnu having the form of Civa, to the three-eyed god, to Carva, the trident-holder, the sun, Ganeca," but with no mention of Brahmā. The three gods, Brahmā, Vishnu, Civa, however, are sometimes grouped together (but not as a trinity) in late passages, in contrast to Indra, e.g., ix. 53. 26. There are many hymns to Vishnu and Civa, where each is without beginning, the God, the uncreated Creator. It is only when the later period, looking back on the respective claims of the sects, identifies each god with the other, and both with their predecessor, that one gets even the notion of a trinity. Even for this later view of the pseudo-epic only one passage will be found (cited below).

The part of Brahmā in the epic is most distinctly in process of subordination to the sectarian gods. He is holy and eternal, but not omniscient, though wise. As was shown above, he works at the will of Vishnu. He is one with Vishnu only in the sense that all is one with the All-god. When Vishnu 'raises the earth' as a boar, Brahmā tells the gods to go to him.[21] He councils the gods. His heaven is above Indra's, but he is really only an intermediary divinity, a passive activity, if the paradox may be allowed. Not like Indra (to whom he is superior) does he fight with All-gods, or do any great act of his own will. He is a shadowy, fatherly, beneficent advisor to the gods, his children; but all his activity is due to Vishnu. This, of course, is from the point of view of the Vishnuite.

But there is no Brahmāite to modify the impression. There existed no strong Brahmā sect as there were Vishnu and Civa sects. Brahmā is in his place merely because to the preceding age he was the highest god; for the epic regards Creator, Prajāpati, Pitāmaha, Brahmā as synonymous.[22] The abstract brahma, which in the Upanishads is the same with the Supreme Spirit, was called personally Brahmā, and this Brahmā is now the Brahmanic Father-god. The sects could never get rid of a god whose being was rooted alike in the preceding philosophy and in the popular conception of a Father-god. Each age of thought takes the most advanced views of the preceding age as its axioms. The Veda taught gods; the Brāhmanas taught a Father-god above the gods; the Upanishads taught a Supreme Godhead of which this Father-god was the active manifestation. The sects taught that their heroes were incarnations of this Supreme, but they carried with them the older pantheon as well, and, with the pantheon, its earlier and later heads, Indra and Brahmā. Consequently each sect admits that Brahmā is greater than the older Vedic gods, but, while naturally it identifies its special incarnation first with its most powerful opponent, and thus, so to speak, absorbs its rival, it identifies this incarnation with Brahmā only as being chief of lesser divinities, not as being a rival. One may represent the attitude of a Krishna-worshipper in the epic somewhat in this way: "Krishna is a modern incarnation of Vishnu, the form which is taken in this age by the Supreme Lord. You who worship Civa should know that your Civa is really my Krishna, and the chief point is to recognize my Krishna as the Supreme Lord. The man Krishna is the Supreme Lord in human form. Of course, as such, being the One God in whom are all things and beings, he is also all the gods known by names which designate his special functions. Thus he is the head of the gods, the Father-god, as our ancestors called him, Brahmā; and he is all the gods known by still older names, who are the children of the secondary creator, Brahmā, viz., Agni, Indra, Sūrya, etc. All gods are active manifestations of the Supreme God called Vishnu, who is born on earth to-day as Krishna." And the Civaite says: "Civa is the manifestation of the All-god," and repeats what the Vishnuite says, substituting Civa for Vishnu,[23] but with the difference already explained, namely, that the Civa-sect has no incarnation to which to point, as has the Vishnuite. Civa is modified Rudra, and both are old god-names. Later, however, the Civaite has also his incarnate god. As an example of later Civa-worship may be taken Vishnu's own hymn to this god in vii. 80. 54 ff.: "Reverence to Bhava, Carva, Rudra (Civa), the bestower of gifts, the lord of cattle, the terrible, great, fearful, god of three wives;[24] to him who is peace, the Lord, the slayer of sacrifices (makhaghna)[25] ... to the blue-necked god; to the inventor (or author) ... to truth; to the red god, to the snake, to the unconquerable one, to the blue-haired one, to the trident-holder; ... to the inconceivable one ... to him whose sign is the bull; ... to the creator of all, who pervades all, who is worshipped by all, Lord of all, Carva, Cankara, Civa, ... who has a thousand heads a thousand arms, and death, a thousand eyes and legs, whose acts are innumerable." In vii. 201. 71, Civa is the unborn Lord, inconceivable, the soul of action, the unmoved one; and he that knows Civa as the self of self, as the unknowable one, goes to brahma-bliss. This also is late Civaism in pantheistic form. In other words, everything said of Vishnu must be repeated for Civa.[26]

As an example of the position of the lowest member of the later trinity and his very subordinate place, may be cited a passage from the preceding book of the epic. According to the story in vi. 65. 42 ff., the seers were all engaged in worshipping Brahmā, as the highest divinity they knew, when he suddenly began to worship "the Person (Spirit), the highest Lord"; and Brahmā then lauds Vishnu as such: "Thou art the god of the universe, the All-god, Vāsudeva (Krishna). Therefore I worship thee as the divinity; thou, whose soul is devotion. Victory to thee, great god of all; thou takest satisfaction in that which benefits the world.... Lord of lords of all, thou out of whose navel springs the lotus, and whose eyes are large; Lord of the things that were, that are, that are to be; O dear one, self-born of the self-born ... O great snake, O boar,[27] O thou the first one, thou who dwellest in all, endless one, known as brahma, everlasting origin of all beings ... destroyer of the worlds! Thy feet are the earth ... heaven is thy head ... I, Brahmā, am thy form ... Sun and moon are thy eyes ... Gods and all beings were by me created on earth, but they owe their origin to thy goodness." Then the creation of Vishnu through Pradyumna as a form of the deity is described, "and Vishnu (Aniruddha) created me, Brahmā, the upholder of the worlds; so am I made of Vishnu; I am caused only by thee."

While Brahmā is represented here as identical with Vishnu he is at the same time a distinctly inferior personality, created by Vishnu for the purpose of creating worlds, a factor of inferior godliness to that of the World-Spirit, Krishna-Vishnu.

It had been stated by Holtzmann[28] that Brahmā sometimes appears in the epic as a god superior to Vishnu, and on the strength of this L. von Schroeder has put the date of the early epic between the seventh and fourth centuries B.C, because at that time Brahmā was the chief god.[29] von Schroeder rather exaggerates Holtzmann's results, and asserts that "in the original form of the poem Brahmā appears throughout as the highest and most revered god, while the worship of Vishnu and Civa as great gods is apparently a later intrusion" (loc. cit.). This asseveration will have to be taken cum grano. Had von Schroeder said 'pantheistic gods' he would have been correct in this regard, but we think that both Vishnu and Civa were great gods, equal, if not superior to Brahmā, when the epic proper began. And, moreover, when one speaks of the original form of the poem he cannot mean the pseudo-epic or the ancient legends which have been woven into the epic, themselves of earlier date. No one means by the 'early epic' the tales of Agastya, of the creation of Death, of the making of ambrosia, but the story of the war in its earliest shape; for the epic poem must have begun with its own subject-matter. Now it is not true that Brahmā is regarded 'throughout' the early poem as a chief god at all. If one investigate the cases where Vishnu or Civa appears 'below' Brahmā he will see, in almost every case that Holtzmann has registered, that this condition of affairs is recorded not in the epic proper but in the Brahmanic portions of the pseudo-epic, or in ancient legends alone. Thus in the story of the winning of ambrosia, of Agastya drinking ocean, and of Rāma, Brahmā appears to be above Vishnu, and also in some extracts from the pseudo-epic. For the real epic we know of but two cases that can be put into this category, and neither is sufficient to support the hypothesis built upon it.

For Krishna, when he ingeniously plots to have Bhīma slay Jarāsandha, is said to have renounced killing Jarāsandha himself, 'putting Brahmā's injunction before him' (ii. 22. 36), i.e. recalling Brahmā's admonition that only Bhīima was fated to slay the foe. And when Krishna and Sātyaki salute Krishna's elder brother they do so (for being an elder brother Baladeva is Krishna's Guru) respectfully, 'just as Indra and Upendra salute Brahmā the lord of devas' (ix. 34. 18). Upendra is Indra's younger brother, i.e., Vishnu (above). But these passages are scanty proof for the statement that Brahmā appears throughout the early epic as the highest god;[30] nor is there even so much evidence as this in the case of Civa. Here, too, it is in the tale of the churning of ocean, of Sunda and Upasunda, of the creation of the death-power, and in late didactic (Brahmanic) passages, where Brahmā makes Civa to destroy earth and Civa is born of Brahmā, and only in such tales, or extracts from the Book of Peace, etc, that Brahmā appears as superior. In all other cases, in the real action of the epic, he is subordinate to Vishnu and Civa whenever he is compared with them. When he is not compared he appears, of course, as the great old Father-god who creates and foresees, but even here he is not untouched by passion, he is not all-knowing, and his role as Creator is one that, with the allotment of duties among the gods, does not make him the highest god. All the old gods are great till greater appear on the scene. There is scarcely a supreme Brahmā in the epic itself, but there is a great Brahmā, and a greater (older) than the sectarian gods in the old Brahmanic legends, while the old Brahmanhood reasserts itself sporadically in the Cānti, etc, and tells how the sectarian gods became supreme, how they quarrelled and laid the strife.

Since the adjustment of the relations between the persons of the later trinity is one of the most important questions in the theology of the completed epic, it will be necessary to go a little further afield and see what the latest books, which hitherto we have refrained as much as possible from citing, have to say on the subject. As it seems to be true that it was felt necessary by the Civaite to offset the laud of Vishnu by antithetic laud of Civa,[31] so after the completion of the Book of Peace, itself a late addition to the epic, and one that is markedly Vishnuitic, there was, before the Genealogy of Vishnu, an antithetic Book of Law, which is as markedly Civaitic. In these books one finds the climax of sectarianism, in so far as it is represented by the epic; although in earlier books isolated passages of late addition are sporadically to be found which have much the same nature. Everywhere in these last additions Brahmā is on a plane which is as much lower than that of the Supreme God as it is higher than that of Indra. Thus in viii. 33. 45, Indra takes refuge with Brahmā, but Brahmā turns for help to Civa (Bhava, Sthānu, Jishnu, etc.) with a hymn sung by the gods and seers. Then comes a description of Cankara's[32] (Civa's) war-car, with its metaphorical arms, where Vishnu is the point of Civa's arrow (which consists of Vishnu, Soma, Agni), and of this war-car Brahmā himself is the charioteer (ib. 34. 76). With customary inconsistency, however, when Civa wishes his son to be exalted he prostrates himself before Brahmā, who then gives this youth (kumāra), called Kārtikeya, the 'generalship' over all beings (sāināpatyam, ix. 44. 43-49). There is even a 'celebration of Brahmā,' a sort of harvest festival, shared, as the text tells, by all the castes; and it must have been something like the religious games of the Greeks, for it was celebrated by athletic contests.[33] Brahmā, as the old independent creator, sometimes keeps his place, transmitting posterity through his 'seven mind-born sons,' the great seers (iii. 133; xii. 166. 11 ff.). But Brahmā himself is born either in the golden egg, as a secondary growth (as in xii. 312. 1-7), or, as is usually the case, he is born in the lotus which springs from the navel of musing[34] Vishnu (iii. 203. 14). In this passage Brahmā has four faces (Vedas) and four forms, caturmūrtis (15), and this epithet in other sections is transferred to Vishnu. Thus in vii. 29. 26, Vishnu(Vishu in the original) says caturmūrtir aham, "I have four forms," but he never says trimūrtir aham ('I have three forms'). There is one passage, however, that makes for a belief in a trinity. It stands in contrast to the various Vishnuite hymns, one of which may well be reviewed as an example of the regular Vishnuite laudation affected by the Krishna sect (iii. 12. 21 ff.): "Krishna is Vishnu, Brahmā, Soma, the Sun, Right, the Creator ('founder'), Yama, Fire, Wind, Civa, Time, Space, Earth, and the cardinal points. Thou, Krishna, art the Creator ('emitter'); thou, chief of gods, didst worship the highest; thou, Vishnu called, becamest Indra's younger brother, entering into sonship with Aditi; as a child with three steps thou didst fill the sky, space, and earth, and pass in glory.... At the end of the age thou returnest all things into thyself. At the beginning of the age Brahmā was born from thy lotus-navel as the venerable preceptor of all things (the same epithet is in vs. 22 applied to Vishnu himself); and Civa sprang from thy angry forehead when the demons would kill him (Brahmā); both are born of thee, in whom is the universe." The following verses (45 ff.) are like those of the Divine Song: "Thou, Knight Arjuna, art the soul of Krishna; thou art mine alone and thine alone am I; they that are mine are thine; he that hates thee hates Me, and he that is for thee, is for Me; thou art Nara ('man') and I am Nārāyana ('whose home is on the waters,' god);[35] we are the same, there is no difference between us." Again, like the Divine Song in the following verses (51-54) is the expression 'the sacrifice and he that sacrifices,' etc, together with the statement that Vishnu plays 'like a boy with playthings,' with the crowds of gods, Brahmā, Civa, Indra, etc. The passage opposed to this, and to other identifications of Vishnu with many gods, is one of the most flagrant interpolations in the epic. If there be anything that the Supreme God in Civaite or Vishnuite form does not do it is to extol at length, without obvious reason, his rivals' acts and incarnations, Yet in this clumsy passage just such an extended laudation of Vishnu is put into the mouth of Civa. In fact, iii. 272, from 30 to 76, is an interpretation of the most naive sort, and it is here that we find the approach to the later trimūrti (trinity): "Having the form of Brahmā he creates; having a human body (as Krishna) he protects, in the nature of Civa he would destroy—these are the three appearances or conditions (avasthās) of the Father-god". (Prajāpati).[36] This comes after an account of the four-faced lotus-born Brahmā, who, seeing the world a void, emitted his sons, the seers, mind-born, like to himself (now nine in number), who in turn begot all beings, including men (vss. 44-47). If, on the other hand, one take the later sectarian account of Vishnu (for the above is more in honor of Krishna the man-god than of Vishnu, the form of the Supreme God), he will see that even in the pseudo-epic the summit of the theological conceptions is the emphasis not of trinity or of multifariousness but of unity. According to the text the Pāncakālajnas are the same with the Vishnuite sect called Pāncarātras, and these are most emphatically ekāntinas, i.e., Unitarians (xii. 336; 337. 46; 339. 66-67).[37] In this same passage 341. 106, Vishnu is again caturmūrtidhṛt, 'the bearer of four forms,' an entirely different conception of him (below). So that even in this most advanced sectarian literature there is no real threefoldness of the Supreme as one in three. In the following chapter (xii. 335. 1 ff.) there is a passage like the great Ka hymn of the Rig Veda, 'whom as god shall one worship?' The sages say to Vishnu: "All men worship thee; to whom dost thou offer worship?" and he says, 'to the Eternal Spirit.' The conception of the functions of Brahmā and Civa in relation to Vishnu is plainly shown in xii. 342. 19: "Brahmā and Civa create and destroy at the will of Vishnu; they are born of his grace and his anger." In regard to Civa himself, his nature and place in Vishnuism have been sufficiently explained. The worship of this god is referred to 'Vedic texts' (the cata-rudriyam, vii. 202. 120);[38] Vishnu is made to adore the terrible god (ib. 201. 69) who appears as a mad ascetic, a wild rover, a monster, a satire on man and gods, though he piously carries a rosary, and has other late traits in his personal appearance.[39] The strength of Civaism lay in the eumenidean (Civa is 'prospering,' 'kindly') euphemism and fear alike, which shrank in speech and mind from the object of fear. But this religion in the epic had a firmer hold than that of fear. It was essentially phallic in its outward form (VII. 201. 93-96), and as such was deeply rooted in the religious conscience of a people to whom one may venture perhaps to ascribe such a form of worship even in the time of the Rig Veda, although the signs thereof in great part have been suppressed. This may be doubted,[40] indeed, for the earlier age; but there is no question that epic Civaism, like Civaism to-day, is dependent wholly on phallic worship (XIII. 14. 230 ff.). It is the parallel of Bacchic rites and orgies, as well as of the worship of the demons in distinction from that of good powers. Civa represents the ascetic, dark, awful, bloody side of religion: Vishnu, the gracious, calm, hopeful, loving side; the former is fearful, mysterious, demoniac; the latter is joyful, erotic, divine. In their later developments it is not surprising to see that Vishnuism, in the form of Krishnaism, becomes more and more erotic, while Civaism becomes more and more ghastly and ghoulish. Wild and varied as are the beliefs of the epic, there is space but to show a few more characteristic sides of its theology—a phase that may seem questionable, yet, since the devout Hindu believes the teachings of the epic, they must all to him constitute one theology, although it was gradually amalgamated out of different creeds.

In connection with Civa stands, closely united, his son, Ganeca, "leader of troops," still worshipped as one of the popular gods, and the battle-god, Skanda, the son first of Agni then of Civa, the conqueror of the demons, dānavas, and later representative of Indra, with whom the epic identifies him. For it is Skanda that is the real battle-god of the later epic; though in its original form Indra was still the warrior's refuge, as attests the stereotyped phraseology. In III. 225-232 honor and praise are ascribed to Skanda in much the same language with that used to portray his father, Civa. "The god of a thousand arms, the Lord of all, the creator of gods and demons" are phrases used in his eulogy. He too has a list of names; his nurse is the "maiden of the red (bloody) sea," called Lohītāyanī. His terrible appearance and fearful acts make him the equal of Civa.[41] His sign is a kukkuṭa, cock; ib. 229. 33.

Associated, again, with Skanda are the spirits or 'mothers,' which afflict people. The belief in mother-gods is old, but its epic form is new. The exactness and detail in regard to these beautiful monsters show at least a real belief, which, as one on a lower plane besides the higher religion, cannot be passed over without notice. As in other lands, people are 'possessed' by evil spirits, called possessors or seizers (grahas). These are Skanda's demons,[42] and are both male and female. Until one reaches the age of sixteen he is liable to be possessed by one group of 'seizers,' who must be worshipped in proper form that their wrath may be averted. Others menace mortals from the age of sixteen to seventy. After that only the fever-demon is to be feared. Imps of this sort are of three kinds. One kind indulge only in mischievous sport: another kind lead one to gluttony; the third kind are devoted to lust. They are known as Picācas, Yakshas, etc., and when they seize a person he goes mad. They are to be kept at bay by self-restraint and moderation (III. 230. 43-56). In IX. 46 and III. 226 the 'mothers' are described. They are witches, and live in cross-roads, cemeteries, and mountains. They may be of Dravidian origin, and in their epic form, at any rate, are a late intrusion.[43]

Just before the Divine Song begins, the knight who is about to become, illuminated or 'disillusioned' offers a prayer to the terrible goddess Durgā, also one of the new, popular, and horrible forms of divine manifestation. In this hymn, VI. 23, Durgā (Umā, Pārvatī, Kāli, etc.) is addressed as "leader of the armies of the blessed, the dweller in Mandara, the youthful woman, Kāli, wife of Civa, she who is red, black, variegated; the savior, the giver of gifts, Kātyāyanī, the great benefactress, the terrible one, the victorious one, victory itself ... Umā, the slayer of demons,"[44] and the usual identification and theft of epithets then follows: "O thou who art the Vedas, who art Revelation, who art virtue, Jātavedasi, ... thou art brahma among the sciences, thou art the sleep of incorporate beings, the mother of Skanda, the blessed one, Durgā ... thou art the mother of the Vedas and Vedānta ... thou art sleep, illusion, modesty, happiness ... thou art satisfaction, growth, contentment, light, the increaser of moon and sun."

Turning from these later parasites,[45] which live on their parent gods and yet tend to reduce them, we now revert to that happiness hereafter to which looks forward the epic knight that has not been tempted to 'renounce' desire. In pantheistic passages he is what the later remodeller makes him. But enough of old belief remains to show that the warrior really cared a great deal more for heaven than he did for absorption. As to the cause of events, as was said above, it is Fate. Repeatedly is heard the lament, "Fate (impersonal) is the highest thing, fie on vain human effort." The knight confesses with his lips to a belief in the new doctrine of absorption, but at heart he is a fatalist. And his aim is to die on the field of battle, that he may go thence directly to the heaven that awaits the good and the brave.[46] Out of a long description of this heaven a few extracts here selected will show what the good knight anticipates:

"Upward goes the path that leads to gods; it is inhabited by them that have sacrificed and have done penance. Unbelieving persons and untruthful persons do not enter there; only they that have duteous souls, that have conquered self, and heroes that bear the marks of battle. There sit the seers and gods, there are shining, self-illumined worlds, made of light, resplendent. And in this heaven there is neither hunger, nor thirst, nor weariness, nor cold, nor heat, nor fear; nothing that is terrible is there, nothing unclean; but pleasing sights, and sounds, and smells. There is no care there, nor age, nor work, nor sorrow. Such is the heaven that is the reward of good acts. Above this is Brahmā's world, where sit the seers and the three and thirty gods," etc.

Over against this array of advantages stands the one great "fault of heaven," which is stated almost in the words of "nessun maggior dolore," "the thought (when one lives again on the lower plane) of former happiness in the higher life is terrible grief" (vs. 30), i.e., this heaven will pass away at the end of the world-period, when the Eternal draws all in to himself again (iii. 261); and the thought that one has been in heaven, while now he is (re-born) on earth, is a sorrow greater than the joy given by heaven.[47] One is reminded by the epic description of heaven of that poet of the Upanishads who describes his heavenly bliss as consisting in the fact that in that world "there is neither snow nor sorrow." The later version is only an amplification. Even with the assurance that the "fault of heaven" is the disappointment of being dropped to earth again in a new birth, the ordinary mortal is more averse from the bliss of absorption than from the pleasure of heaven. And in truth, except to one very weary of his lot in life, it must be confessed that the religion here shown in all its bearings is one eminently pleasant to believe. Its gist, in a word, is this: "If you feel able to endure it, the best thing to do is to study the plan of the universe, and then conform to it. By severe mental discipline you can attain to this knowledge, and for reward you will be immortally united with God." To this the sectarian adds: "Or believe in my god and the result will be the same." But both philosopher and sectarian continue: "If, however, you do not want to be united with the Supreme Spirit so soon as this, then be virtuous and devout, or simply be brave if you are a warrior; do whatever the rules of morality and caste-custom bid you do, and you will go to heaven for thousands of ages; at the end of which time you will be re-born in a fine family on earth, and may again decide whether to repeat the process of gaining heaven or to join God and become absorbed into the World-Spirit at once." There were probably many that chose rather to repeat their agreeable earthly experience, with an interlude of heaven after each death, than to make the renunciation of earth and heaven, and be absorbed once for all into the All-god.

The doctrine of 'the ages'[48] is so necessary to a true understanding of the rotative immortality offered as a substitute for the higher bliss of absorption (that is, genuine immortality), that an account of the teaching in this regard will not be out of place. The somewhat puzzling distinction between the happy life of them that fail to desire absorption, and yet are religious men, and the blissful life of those people that do attain absorption, is at once explained by a clear understanding of the duration of the time of the gods' own life and of the divine heaven. Whereas the Greek notion of four ages includes within the four all time, all the four ages of the Hindu are only a fraction of time. Starting at any one point of eternity, there is, according to the Hindu belief, a preliminary 'dawn' of a new cycle of ages. This dawn lasts four hundred years, and is then followed by the real age (the first of four), which lasts four thousand years, and has again a twilight ending of four hundred years in addition. This first is the Krita age, corresponding to the classical Golden Age. Its characteristics are, that in it everything is perfect; right eternal now exists in full power. In this age there are neither gods nor demons (Dānavas, Gandharvas, Yakshas, Rākshas, Serpents), neither buying nor selling. By a lucus a non the derivation of the name Krita is kṛtam eva na kartavyam, i.e., with a pun, it is called the 'sacred age' because there are no sacrifices in that age. No Sāma Veda, Rig Yeda, or Yajur Veda exist as distinct Vedas.[49] There is no mortal work. Fruit comes by meditation; the only duty is renunciation. Disease, lack of mental power, moral defects (such as pride and hate) do not exist; the highest course of the ascetic Yogis is universally brahma (paramakam). In this age come into existence the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vāicya, Cūdra, i.e., the distinct castes of priest, warrior, husbandman, and slave; all with their special marks, and all delighted with their proper occupations. Yet have all the castes like occupations, like refuge, practice, and knowledge. They are joined to the one god (eka deva), and have but one mantra in their religious rites. Their duties are distinct, but they follow only one Veda and one rule. The four orders (of the time of life) are duly observed; men do not desire the fruit of their action, and so they obtain the highest course, i.e., salvation by absorption into brahma. In this age the 'three attributes' (or qualities) are unknown. After this age follows the dawn of the second age, called Tretā, lasting three hundred years, then the real age of Tretā, three thousand years, followed by the twilight of three hundred years. The characteristics of this age are, that men are devout; that great sacrifices begin (sattram pravartate); that Virtue decreases by one quarter; that all the various rites are produced, together with the attainment of salvation through working for that end, by means of sacrifice and generosity; that every one does his duty and performs asceticism. The next age, Dvāpara, is introduced by a dawn of two hundred years, being itself two thousand years in duration, and it closes with a twilight of two hundred years. Half of Virtue fails to appear in this age, that is, the general virtue of the world is diminished by a half ('the Bull of Justice stands on two legs'). The Veda is now subdivided into four. Instead of every one having one Veda, four Vedas exist, but some people know only three, or two, or one, or are even Veda-less (anṛcas). Ceremonies become manifold, because the treatises on duty are subdivided(!). The attribute of passion influences people, and it is with this that they perform asceticism and are generous (not with disinterestedness). Few (kaccit) are settled in truth; ignorance of the one Veda causes a multiplication of Vedas (i.e., as Veda means 'knowledge,' the Vedas result from ignorance of the essential knowledge). Disease and sin make penance necessary. People sacrifice only to gain heaven. After this age and its twilight are past begins the Kali, last of the four ages, with a dawn of one hundred, a course of one thousand, and a subsequent twilight of one hundred years. This is the present sinful age, when there is no real religion, when the Vedas are ignored, and the castes are confused, when itis (distresses of every form) are rife; when Virtue has only one leg left to stand upon. The believer in Krishna as Vishnu, besides this universal description, says that the Supreme Lord in the Krita age is 'white' (pure); in the Tretā age, 'red'; in the Dvāpara age, 'yellow'; in the Kali age, 'black, i.e., Vishnu is Krishna, which means 'black.'[50] This cycle of ages always repeats itself anew. Now, since the twelve thousand years of these ages, with their dawns and twilights, are but one of countless cycles, when the Kali age and its twilight have brought all things into a miserable state, the universe is re-absorbed into the Supreme Spirit. There is then a universal (apparent) destruction, pralaya, of everything, first by fire and then by a general flood. Seven suns appear in heaven, and what they fail to burn is consumed by the great fire called Samvartaka (really a manifestation of Vishnu), which sweeps the world and leaves only ashes; then follows a flood which completes the annihilation. Thereafter follows a period equal to one thousand cycles (of twelve thousand years each), which is called 'Brahmā's night,' for during these twelve million years Brahmā sleeps; and the new Krita age begins again "when Brahmā wakes up" (iii. 188. 29, 69; 189. 42).[51] All the gods are destroyed in the universal destruction, that is, re-absorbed into the All-god, for there is no such thing as annihilation, either of spirit or of matter (which is illusion). Consequently the gods' heaven and the spirits of good men in that heaven are also re-absorbed into that Supreme, to be re-born in the new age. This is what is meant by the constant harping on quasi-immortality. Righteousness, sacrifice, bravery, will bring man to heaven, but, though he joins the gods, with them he is destroyed. They and he, after millions of years, will be re-born in the new heaven and the new earth. To escape this eventual re-birth one must desire absorption into the Supreme, not annihilation, but unity with God, so that one remains untouched by the new order at the end of Brahmā's 'day.' There are, of course, not lacking views of them that, taking the precept grossly, give a less dignified appearance to the teaching, and, in fact, upset its real intent. Thus, in the very same Puranic passage from which is taken the description above (III. 188), it is said that a seer, who miraculously outlived the universal destruction of one cycle, was kindly swallowed by Vishnu, and that, on entering his stomach (the absorption idea in Puranic coarseness), he saw everything which had been destroyed, mountains, rivers, cities, the four castes engaged in their duties, etc. In other words, only transference of locality has taken place. But this account reads almost like a satire.

One of the most striking features of the Hindu religions, as they have been traced thus far, is the identification of right with light, and wrong with darkness. We have referred to it several times already. In the Vedic age the deities are luminous, while the demons and the abode of the wicked generally are of darkness. This view, usually considered Iranian and Zoroastrian, is as radically, if not so emphatically, Indic. It might be said, indeed, that it is more deeply implanted in the worship of the Hindus than in that of the Iranians, inasmuch as the latter religion enunciates and promulgates the doctrine, while the former assumes it. All deeds of sin are deeds of darkness, tamas. The devils live underground in darkness; the hells are below earth and are gloom lighted only by torture-flames.

The development of devil-worship (the side-scenes in the theatre of Civaism) introduces devils of another sort, but the general effect remains. The fire-priest Bhrigu says: "Untruth is a form of darkness, and by darkness one is brought to hell (downwards); veiled in darkness one sees not the light. Light is heaven, they say, and darkness is hell," xii. 190. 2-3. This antithesis of evil as darkness, good as light, is too native to India to admit of the suggestion that it might have been borrowed. But an isolated and curious Puranic chapter of the epic appears to have direct reference to the Persian religion. All Hindu gods have sacrifices, even Civa the 'destroyer of sacrifice.' Now in iii. 220, after a preliminary account of the p[a]ncajanya fire (vs. 5 ff.) there is given a list of 'gods that destroy sacrifice,' devās yajnamuṣas, fifteen in number, who 'stand here' on earth and 'steal' the sacrifice. They extend over the five peoples in three divisions of five each. The first and third group contain names compounded with Bhīma and Sūra respectively; while the third group is that of Sumitra, Mitravan, Mitrajna, Mitravardhana, Mitradharman. There are others without the mitra (vs. 10). The appellation devās seems to take them out of connection with Civa's demoniac troops, and the persistency of mitra would look as if these 'gods' were of Iranian origin. There may have been (as are possibly the modern Sāuras) believers in the Persian religion already long established among the Hindus.

The question will naturally present itself whether in the religious olla podrida known as the Mahābhārata there are distinct allusions to Buddhism, and, if so, in how far the doctrines of this sect may have influenced the orthodox religion. Buddhism does not appear to have attacked or to have attracted the 'holy land,' whence, indeed, according to law, heretics are 'banished.' But its influence of course must have embraced this country, and it is only a question of in how far epic Brahmanism has accepted it. At a later period Hinduism, as has been observed, calmly accepts Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Holtzmann, who is inclined to attribute a good deal to Buddhism, sees signs of it even in the personal characteristics of the epic heroes, and believes the whole poem to have been more or less affected by anti-Buddhistic feeling. If this were so one would have to give over to Buddhism much also of the humanitarianism to be found in the moral precepts that are so thickly strewn through the various books. In our opinion these signs-manual of Buddhism are not sufficiently evident to support Holtzmann's opinion for the whole poem, and it is to be noted that the most taking evidence is drawn from the latest parts of the work. It is just here that we think it necessary to draw the line, for while much of late date has been added in earlier books, yet in the books which one may call wholly late additions appear the strongest indications of Buddhistic influence.[52] A great deal of the Book of Peace is Puranic, the book as a whole is a Vishnuite addition further enlarged by Civaite interpolation. The following book is, again, an offset to the Book of Peace, and is as distinctly Civaite in its conception as is the Book of Peace Vishnuite.[53] It is here, in these latest additions, which scarcely deserve to be ranked with the real epic, that are found the most palpable touches of Buddhism. They stand to the epic proper as stands to them the Genealogy of Vishnu, a further addition which has almost as much claim to be called 'part of the epic' as have the books just mentioned, only that it is more evidently the product of a later age, and represents the Krishna-Vishnu sect in its glory after the epic was completed. Nevertheless, even in these books much that is suspected of being Buddhistic may be Brahmanic; and in any concrete case a decision, one way or the other, is scarcely to be made on objective grounds. Still more is this the case in earlier books. Thus, for instance, Holtzmann is sure that a conversation of a slave and a priest in the third book is Buddhistic because the man of low caste would not venture to instruct a Brahman.[54] But it is a command emphasized throughout the later Brahmanism that one must take refuge in the ship that saves; and in passages not suspected of Buddhistic tendency Bhīshma takes up this point, and lays down the rule that, no matter to which caste a man belongs, his teaching if salutary is to be accepted. It is even said in one passage of the Book of Peace that one ought to learn of a slave, and in another that all the four castes ought to hear the Veda read:[55] "Let him get instruction even from a Cūdra if he can thereby attain to salvation"; and again: "Putting the Brahman first, let the four castes hear (the Veda); for this (giving first place to the priest) is (the rule in) reading the Veda."[56] And in many places are found instructions given by low-caste men. It may be claimed that every case which resembles Buddhistic teaching is drawn from Buddhism, but this would be to claim more than could be established. Moreover, just as the non-injury doctrine is prior to Buddhism and yet is a mark of Buddhistic teaching, so between the two religions there are many points of similarity which may be admitted without compromising the genuineness of the Brahmanic teaching. For Buddhism in its morality is anything but original.[57]

Another bit of instruction from the Book of Peace illustrates the attitude of the slave just referred to. In sharp contrast to what one would expect from a Buddhist, this slave, who is a hunter, claims that he is justified in keeping on with his murderous occupation because it is his caste-occupation; whereas, as a Buddhist he ought to have renounced it if he thought it sinful, without regard to the caste-rule. The Book of Peace lays it down as a rule that the giving up of caste-occupation is meritorious if the occupation in itself is iniquitous, but it hedges on the question to the extent of saying that, no matter whether the occupation be sinful or not, if it is an inherited occupation a man does not do wrong to adhere to it. This is liberal Brahmanism. The rule reads as follows: "Actors, liquor-dealers, butchers, and other such sinners are not justified in following such occupations, if they are not born to the profession (i.e., if they are born to it they are justified in following their inherited occupation). Yet if one has inherited such a profession it is a noble thing to renounce it."[58]

The marks of Buddhistic influence on which we would lay greater stress are found not in the fact that Mudgala refuses heaven (iii. 261. 43), or other incidents that may be due as well to Brahmanism as to Buddhism, but in such passages of the pseudo-epical Book of Peace as for example the dharmyas panthās of xii. 322. 10-13; the conversation of the female beggar, bhikshukī, with the king in 321. 7, 168; the buddha of 289. 45; the Buddhistic phraseology of 167. 46; the remark of the harlot Pingalā in 174. 60: pratibuddhā 'smi jāgṛmi (I am 'awakened' to a sense of sin and knowledge of holiness), and the like phrase in 177. 22: pratibuddho 'smi.[59] Of especial importance is the shibboleth Nirvāna which is often used in the epic. There seems, indeed, to be a subtile connection between Civaism and Buddhism. Buddhism rejects pantheism, Civaism is essentially monotheism. Both were really religions of the lower classes. It is true that the latter was affected and practiced by those of high rank, but its strength lay with the masses. Thus while Vishnuism appealed to the contemplative and philosophical (Rāmaism), as well as to the easy-going middle classes (Krishinaism), Civaism with its dirty asceticism, its orgies and Bacchanalian revels, its devils and horrors generally, although combined with a more ancient philosophy, appealed chiefly to the magic-monger and the vulgar. So it is that one finds, as one of his titles in the thirteenth book, that Civa is 'the giver of Nirvāna,' (xiii. 16. 15). But if one examines the use of this word in other parts of the epic he will see that it has not the true Buddhistic sense except in its literal physical application as when the nirvāṇa (extinguishing) of a lamp, iv. 22. 22, is spoken of; or the nirvāṇa of duties (in the Pancarātra 'Upanishad,' xii. 340. 67). On the other hand, in sections where the context shows that this must be the case, Nirvāna is the equivalent of 'highest bliss' or 'highest brahma,' the same with the felicity thus named in older works. This, for instance, is the case in xii. 21. 17; 26. 16, where Nirvāna cannot mean extinction but absorption, i.e., the 'blowing out' of the individual flame (spirit) of life, only that it may become one with the universal spirit. In another passage it is directly equated with sukham brahma in the same way (ib. 189. 17). If now one turn to the employment of this word in the third book he will find the case to be the same. When the king reproaches his queen for her atheistic opinions in iii. 31. 26 he says that if there were no reward for good deeds hereafter "people would not seek Nirvāna," just as he speaks of heaven ('immortality') and hell, ib. 20 and 19, not meaning thereby extinction but absorption. So after a description of that third heaven wherein is Vishnu, when one reads that Mudgala "attained that highest eternal bliss the sign of which is Nirvāna" (iii. 261. 47), he can only suppose that the word means here absorption into brahma or union with Vishnu. In fact Nirvāna is already a word of which the sense has been subjected to attrition enough to make it synonymous with 'bliss.' Thus "the gods attained Nirvāna by means of Vishnu's greatness" (iii. 201. 22); and a thirsty man "after drinking water attained Nirvāna," i.e., the drink made him happy (ib. 126. 16). One may best compare the Jain Nirvāna of happiness.

While, therefore, Buddhism seems to have left many manifest traces[60] in the later epic the weight of its influence on the early epic may well be questioned. The moral harangues of the earlier books show nothing more than is consistent with that Brahmanism which has made its way unaided through the greater humanitarianism of the earlier Upanishads. At the same time it is right to say that since the poem is composed after Buddha's time there is no historical certainty in regard to the inner connection of belief and morality (as expounded in the epic) with Buddhism. Buddhism, though at a distance, environed epic Brahmanism, and may well have influenced it. The objective proofs for or against this are not, however, decisive.

Whether Christianity has affected the epic is another question that can be answered (and then doubtfully) only by drawing a line between epic and pseudo-epic. And in this regard the Harivanca legends of Krishna are to be grouped with the pseudo-epic, of which they are the legitimate if late continuation. Again one must separate teaching from legend. To the Divine Song belong sentiments and phrases that have been ascribed to Christian influence. Definitive assurance in this regard is an impossibility. When Vishnu says (as is said also in the Upanishads) "I am the letter A," one may, and probably will, decide that this is or is not an imitation of "I am alpha," strictly in accordance with his preconceived opinions. There are absolutely no historical data to go upon. One may say with tolerable certainty that the Divine Song as a whole is antique, prior to Christianity. But it is as unmistakably interpolated and altered. The doctrine of bhakti, faithful love as a means of salvation, cannot be much older than the Song, for it is found only in the latest Upanishads (as shown by comparing them with those undoubtedly old). But on the other hand the prasāda doctrine (of special grace) belongs to a much earlier literature, and there is no reason why the whole theory with its startling resemblance to the doctrine of grace, and its insistence on personal affection for the Lord should not have been self-evolved. The old omnipotence of inherited knowledge stops with the Upanishads, To their authors the Vedas are but a means. They desired wisdom, not knowledge. They postulated the desire for the Supreme Spirit as the true wisdom. From this it is but a step to yearning and love for the Supreme. That step is made in the Divine Song. It is recognized by early Buddhism as a Brahmanic trait. Is it necessarily imported from Christianity? The proof is certainly lacking. Nor, to one accustomed to the middle literature of Hindu religion, is the phraseology so strikingly unique as would appear to be the case. Taken all in all, the teaching of Christianity certainly may be suspected, but it cannot be shown to exist in the Divine Song.

Quite different is the case with the miraculous matter that grew up about the infant Krishna. But here one is out of the epic and dealing with the latest literature in regard to the man-god. This distinction cannot be too much insisted upon, for to point first to the teaching of the Divine Song and then to the Krishna legends as equally reflecting Christianity is to mix up two periods as distinct as periods can be established in Hindu literature. And the result of the whole investigation shows that the proofs of borrowing are as different as these periods. The inner Christianity thought to be copied by the re-writer of the Divine Song is doubtful in the last degree. The outer Christianity reflected in the Puranic legends of Krishna is as palpable as it is shocking. Shocking, for here not only are miracles treated grotesquely, but everything that is meant spiritually in the Occident is interpreted physically and carnally. The love of the Bridegroom is sensual; the brides of God are drunken dancing girls.

The 'coincidences,' as some scholars marvellously regard them, between the legends of Christ and Krishna are too extraordinary to be accepted as such. They are direct importations, not accidental coincidences. Whatever is most marvellous in the accounts of Christianity finds itself here reproduced in Krishnaism. It is not in the doctrine of avatars, which resembles the doctrine of the Incarnation,[61] it is in the totality of legends connected with Krishna that one is forced to see Christian influence. The scenes of the nativity, the adoration of the magi, the miracles during the Saviour's childhood, the transfiguration, and other stories of Christ are reproduced with astonishing similarity. One may add to this the Christmas festival, where Krishna is born in a stable, and the use of certain church-utensils in the temple-service. Weber has proved by collecting and explaining these 'coincidences,'[62] that there must be identity of origin. It remains only to ask from which side is the borrowing? Considering how late are these Krishna legends in India[63] there can be no doubt that the Hindu borrowed the tales, but not the name; for the last assumption is quite improbable because Krishna (=Christ?) is native enough, and Vishnu is as old as the Rig Veda. That these tales are of secondary importance, as they are of late origin, is a matter of course. They are excrescences upon real Vishnuism (Krishnaism) and the result of anthropomorphizing in its fullest extent the image of the man-god, who is represented in the epic as the incarnation of the Supreme Spirit. The doctrine of the incarnation is thoroughly Indic. It is Buddhistic as well as Brahmanic, and precedes Vishnuism as it does Christianity. The legends are another matter. Here one has to assume direct contact with the Occident.[64] But while agreeing with Weber and disagreeing with Barth in the determination of the relation of this secondary matter, we are unable to agree with Weber in his conclusions in regard to the one passage in the pseudo-epic that is supposed by him[65] to refer to a visit to a Christian church in Alexandria. This is the famous episode of the White Island, which, to be sure, occurs in so late a portion of the Book of Peace (xii. 337. 20 ff) that it might well be what Weber describes it as being. But to us it appears to contain no allusion at all to Christianity. The account in brief is as follows: Three priests with the insignificant names "First, Second, Third,"[66] go to the far North (dic uttarā) where, in the "Sea of Milk," they find an Albion called 'White Island,' perhaps regarded as one of the seven or thirteen 'islands,' of which earth consists; and there Vishnu is worshipped as the one god by white men of extraordinary physical characteristics.

The fact that the 'one god' is already a hackneyed phrase of philosophy; that there is no resemblance to a trinitarian god; that the hymn sung to this one god contains no trace of Christian influence, but is on the other hand thoroughly native in tone and phraseology, being as follows: "Victory to thee, thou god with lotus-eyes; Reverence to thee, thou creator of all things; Reverence be to thee, O Vishnu;[67] thou Great Person; first-born one"; all these facts indicate that if the White-islanders are indeed to be regarded as foreigners worshipping a strange god, that god is strictly monotheistic and not trinitarian. Weber lays stress on the expression 'first-born,' which he thinks refers to Christ; but the epithet is old (Vedic), and is common, and means no more than 'primal deity.'

There is much that appears to be foreign in the epic. This passage seems rather to be a recollection of some shrine where monotheism without Christianity was acknowledged. On the other hand, even in the pseudo-epic, there is much apparently borrowed which yet is altogether native to Brahmanic land and sect. It is not in any passage which is proved to be of foreign origin that one reads of the boy of twelve years who entered among the wise men and confuted their reasoning (above, p. 382). It is not of course due to Christian influence that the great 'saint of the stake' is taken by the 'king's men,' is crucified (or literally impaled) among thieves, and lives so long that the guard go and tell the king of the miracle;[68] nor is it necessary to assume that everything elevated is borrowed. "When I revile, I revile not again," sounds indeed like an echo of Christian teaching, but how thoroughly Hindu is the reason. "For I know that self-control is the door of immortality." And in the same breath, with a connection of meaning patent only when one regards the whole not as borrowed but as native, follow the words that we have ventured to put upon the title-page of this volume, as the highest and at the same time the truest expression of a religion that in bringing the gods to men raised man to equally with God—"This is a holy mystery which I declare unto you: There is nothing nobler than humanity."[69]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: He appears in different complete manifestations, while Vishnu appears only in part, as a 'descent,' avatar, i.e., Vishnu is incarnate, Civa appears whole.]

[Footnote 2: The original story perhaps antedates the Brahmanic Brahmā. But, for all one knows, when the poem was first written Brahmā was already decadent as chief god. In that case two strata of religious belief have been formally super-imposed, Vishnuism and Civaism.]

[Footnote 3: While agreeing with Telang that the original Gītā is an old poem, we cannot subscribe to his argument (SBE. VIII. p. 19) that the priority of the Sāman over the Rig Veda is evidence of antiquity; still less to the argument, p. 21, from the castes.]

[Footnote 4: Compare Manu, i. 7: "He the subtile, indiscernible, eternal, inconceivable One, who makes all creatures."]

[Footnote 5: Possibly the original opening of another poem.]

[Footnote 6: The avatars of Vishnu are meant. The very knight to whom he speaks is later regarded (in South India) as incarnate god, and today is worshipped as an avatar of Vishnu. The idea of the 'birth-stories' of the Buddhists is thought by some scholars to have been connected historically with the avatars of Vishnu.]

[Footnote 7: This is one of the notes struck in the later Upanishads, the doctrine of 'special grace,' originating perhaps still earlier in the Vāc hymn (see above).]

[Footnote 8: That is, one that also has no desires may act (without desiring the fruit of action.)]

[Footnote 9: This is a Sānkhya division.]

[Footnote 10: This cleverly contrived or profound universality of Vishnuism is one of the greatest obstacles to missionary effort. The Vishnuite will accept Christ, but as a form of Vishnu, as here explained. Compare below: "Even they that sacrifice to other gods really sacrifice to Me."]

[Footnote 11: Prakriti (prakṛtī), nature; the term belongs to the Sānkhya philosophy, which recognizes nature as distinct from spirit, a duality, opposed to advāita, the non-duality of the Vedānta system, where the Sānkhya 'nature' is represented by māyā, 'illusion.' Otherwise the word Prakrit is the 'natural,' vulgar dialect, opposed to Sanskrit, the refined, 'put-together' language.]

[Footnote 12: Saints, literally 'the successful ones.']

[Footnote 13: Alluding to the later derivation of Yama from yam, control.]

[Footnote 14: "The letter A," as in the Upanishads (see above, p. 226).]

[Footnote 15: Compare a parallel list of diadochoi in xii. 349. 51.]

[Footnote 16: One of the Jaina traits of the epic, brahmādiṣu tṛuānteṣu bhūteṣu parivartate, in distinction from the Buddhistic metempsychosis, which stops short of plants. But perhaps it is rather borrowed from the Bṙahman by the Jain, for there is a formal acknowledgment that sthāvarās 'stationary things,' have part in metempsychosis, Manu, xii. 42, although in the distribution that follows this is almost ignored (vs. 58).]

[Footnote 17: It is rather difficult to compress the list into this number. Some of the names are perhaps later additions.]

[Footnote 18: In contrast one may note the frequent boast that a king 'fears not even the gods,' e.g., i. 199. 1.]

[Footnote 19: Later there are twenty-one worlds analogous lo the twenty-one hells.]

[Footnote 20: Elsewhere, oh the other hand, the islands are four or seven, the earlier view.]

[Footnote 21: iii. 142. The boar-shape of Vishnu is a favorite one, as is the dwarf-incarnation. Compare Vāmana, Vāmanaka, Vishnupada, in the list of holy watering-places (iii. 83). Many of Vishnu's acts are simply transferred from Brahmā, to whom they belonged in older tales. Compare above, p.215.]

[Footnote 22: In i. 197, Prajāpati the Father-god, is the highest god, to whom Indra, as usual, runs for help. Civa appears as a higher god, and drives Indra into a hole, where he sees five former Indras; and finally Vishnu comes on to the stage as the highest of all, "the infinite, inconceivable, eternal, the All in endless forms." Brahmā is invoked now and then in a perfunctory way, but no one really expects him to do anything. He has done his work, made the castes, the sacrifice, and (occasionally) everything. And he will do this again when the new aeon begins. But for this aeon his work is accomplished.]

[Footnote 23: Thus in XII. 785. 165: "Neither Brahmā nor Vishnu is capable of understanding the greatness of Civa."]

[Footnote 24: Or "three eyes."]

[Footnote 25: Compare III. 39. 77: "The destroyer of Daksha's sacrifice." Compare the same epithet in the hymn to Civa, X. 7. 3, after which appear the devils who serve Civa. Such devils, in the following, feast on the dead upon the field of battle, though, when left to themselves, 'midnight is the hour when the demons swarm,' III. 11. 4 and 33. In X. 18 and XIII. 161 Civa's act is described in full.]

[Footnote 26: Civa, called Bhava, Carva, the trident-holder, the Lord (Īcāna), Cankara, the Great God, etc., generally appears at his best where the epic is at its worst, the interpolations being more flagrant than in the case of Vishnuite eulogies. The most devout worshipper of Vishnu is represented as an adherent of Civa, as invoking him for help after fighting with him. He is "invincible before the three worlds." He is the sun; his blood is ashes. All the gods, with Brahmā at their head, revere him. He has three heads, three faces, six arms (compare iii. 39. 74 ff.; 83. 125); though other passages give him more.]

[Footnote 27: Civa has as sign the bull: Vishnu, the boar.]

[Footnote 28: ZDMG. xxxviii. pp. 197, 200.]

[Footnote 29: Lit. u. Cultur, p. 461.]

[Footnote 30: Holtzmann now says (in Neunzehn Buecher, p. 198) that the whole episode which terminates with Baladeva's visit an addition to the original. Holtzmann's monograph on Brahmā is in ZDMG. xxxviii. 167.]

[Footnote 31: A good example is that of the two visions of Arjuna, first the vision of Vishnu, then another vision of Civa, whom Arjuna and Vishnu visit (vii. 80).]

[Footnote 32: Cankara and Civa mean almost the same; 'giver of blessings' and 'prospering' (or 'kindly'), respectively.]

[Footnote 33: Brahmaṇas sumahotsavas (compare the commentator). The samāja of Brahmā may be explained by that of Civa mentioned in the same place and described elsewhere (iv. 13. 14 ff.; i. 164. 20).]

[Footnote 34: Not sleeping, Vishnu, despite svapimi, does not slumber; he only muses.]

[Footnote 35: Man (divine) and god human, but Nārāyana is a new name of Vishnu, and the two are reckoned as two inseparable seers (divinities).]

[Footnote 36: This is the only really trinitarian passage in the epic. In i. 1. 32; xiii. 16. 15, the belief may be indicated, but not certainly, as it is in Hariv. 10,662. See on this point Holtzroann, ZDMG. xxxviii. p. 204. In xiv. 54. 14 the form is Vīshnu, Brahmā, Indra.]

[Footnote 37: Compare 339. 114, "thou art pancamahākalpa." The commentator gives the names of five sects, Sāura, Cākta, Gāneca, Cāiva, Vaishnava. The 'five times,' implied in Pancakāta, he says are day, night, month, seasons, and year (ib. 66). In 340. 117 (which chapter is Pancarātric), Brahmā "knows that Vishnu is superior."]

[Footnote 38: Vāj. S. xvi. 1-66; Tāitt. S. iv. 5. 1-11.]

[Footnote 39: Civa has no ordinary sacrifice: he is (as above) in general a destroyer of sacrifice, i.e., of Vedic sacrifice; but as Pacupati, "Lord of beasts," he claims the bloody sacrifice of the first beast, man.]

[Footnote 40: The usual opinion is that phallic worship was a trait of southern tribes foisted upon northern Civaism. Philosophically Civaism is first monotheistic and then pantheistic, To-day it is nominally pantheistic but really it is dualistic.]

[Footnote 41: There are indications in this passage of some sectarian feeling, and the fear of partisan warfare (229); in regard to which we add from Muir and Holtzmann the passage XII. 343. 121, where is symbolized a peaceful issue of war between Vishnuism and Civaism.]

[Footnote 42: Grahas are also planets, but in this cult they are not astrological, as show their names.]

[Footnote 43: They are possibly old, as Weber thinks, but they seem to have nothing in common with the ancient female divinities.]

[Footnote 44: Compare another hymn to Durgā in IV. 6. 5 ff. (late). Durgi was probably an independent local deity, subsequently regarded as Civa's female side. She plays a great role, under various names, in the 'revived' literature, as do the love-god and Ganeca. In both hymns she is 'Vishnu's sister,' and in IV. 6 a 'pure virgin.']

[Footnote 45: One comparatively new god deserves a passing mention, Dharma's son, Kāma, the (Grecian?) love-god, 'the mind-shaker,' 'the limbless one,' whose arrows are like those of Cupid (I. 66. 32; 171. 34; III. 46. 2). He is an adventitious addition to the epic. His later name of Ananga occurs in XII. 59. 91. In I. 71. 41 and 171. 40 he is Manmatha. The Atharvan god also has darts, III. 25, a mark of this latest Veda.]

[Footnote 46: Compare ii. 22. 18: "Great holiness, great glory, penance, death in battle, these are each respectively productive of heaven; the last alone is a sure cause."]

[Footnote 47: This description and the sentiments are quite late. The same sort of heaven (without the philosophical bitterness, with which compare above, p. 229) is, however, found in other passages, somewhat augmented with nymphs and facile goddesses.]

[Footnote 48: This doctrine is supposed by some scholars to be due to outside influence, but the doubt is not substantiated, and even in the Rig Veda one passage appears to refer to it. Doubtless, however, the later expanded view, with its complicated reckonings, may have been touched by foreign influence.]

[Footnote 49: Na āsan sāma-ṛg-yajur-varnās. In xii. 342. 8 the order is Rik-Yajus-Atharvan-Sāman. The habit of putting Sāman instead of Rik at the head of the Vedas is still kept in the late litany to Civa, who is "the Sāman among the Vedas" meaning, of course, the first and best. In the same place, "Civa is the Itihāsa" epic (xiii. 14. 323; and ib. 17. 78, 91), for the epic outweighs all the Vedas in its own estimation.]

[Footnote 50: iii. 149. 14; 188. 22; 189. 32; probably with a recollection of the colors of the four castes, white, red, yellow, black. According to xii. 233. 32, there is no sacrifice in the Krita age, but, beginning with the Tretā age, there is a general diffusion of sacrifice in the Dvāpara age. In another passage of the same book it is said that marriage laws arose in the Dvāpara age (207. 38 ff.).]

[Footnote 51: The teaching varies somewhat in the allotment of years. See Manu, I. 67.]

[Footnote 52: Weber thinks, on the other hand, that the parties represent respectively, Civa and Vishuu worship, Ind. St. i. 206.]

[Footnote 53: This book also is closely in touch with the later Purānas. For instance, Citragupta, Yama's secretary, is known only to the books of the pseudo-epic, the Vishnu Purāna, the Padma Purāna, etc.]

[Footnote 54: Neunzehn Buecher, p. 86.]

[Footnote 55: The epic does not care much for castes in some passages. In one such it is said that members of all castes become priests when they go across the Gomal, iii. 84. 48.]

[Footnote 56: xii. 319. 87 ff. (prāpya jnānam ... cūdrād api); xii. 328. 49 (crāvayee caturo varṇān). The epic regards itself as more than equivalent (adhikam) to the four Vedas, i. 1. 272.]

[Footnote 57: Some ascribe the samsāra doctrine to Buddhistic influence—a thesis supported only by the fact that this occurs in late Brahmanic passages and Upanishads. But the assumption that Upanishads do not precede Buddha is scarcely tenable. The Katha, according to Weber (Sits. Berl. Ak. 1890, p. 930), is late (Christian!): according to Oldenberg and Whitney, early (Buddha, p. 56; Proc. AOS. May, 1886).]

[Footnote 58: xii. 295. 5-6.]

[Footnote 59: Noteworthy is the fact that parts of the Civaite thirteenth book seem to be most Buddhistic (ch. i.; 143. 48, etc.), and monotheistic (16. 12 ff.): though the White Islanders are made Vishnuite in the twelfth. Compare Holtzmann, ad. loc.]

[Footnote 60: Nirvāna, loosely used; termini technici; possibly the evils of the fourth age; the mention of (Buddhist) temples, etc.]

[Footnote 61: On this point we agree neither with Weber, who regards the avatars as an imitation of the Incarnation (Ind. St. ii. p. 169), nor with Schroeder, who (Literatur und Cultur, p. 330) would derive the notion from the birth-stories of Buddha. In our opinion the avatar-theory is older than either and is often only an assimilation of outlying totem-gods to the Brahman's god, or as in the case of the flood-story the necessary belief that the 'fish' must have been the god of the race. Some of these avatars are Brahmanic, presumably pre-Buddhistic.]

[Footnote 62: Krishna's Geburtsfest (janmāṣtamī), 1867.]

[Footnote 63: Since they do not appear till after the real epic we date them tentatively as arising after 600 A.D. Most of them are in still later Purānas.]

[Footnote 64: Incidental rapport with the Greeks has been pointed out in other instances; the surangā, a mine, of the late tale in i. 148. 12, etc (Ind. St. ii. p. 395), has been equated with syrinx; Skanda with Alexander, etc. It is needless to say that each of these is only a guess in etymology. But Greek influence is perceptible in the Greek soldiers and names of (Greek) kings that are found in the epic.]

[Footnote 65: Ind. St. i. 423; ii. 169. Weber believes that little is native to India which resembles Christianity in the way of theology; lore of God, special grace, monotheism, all to him are stolen. We regret that we must disagree with him in these instances.]

[Footnote 66: Ekata, Dvita, Trita. A Dvita appears as early as the Rig Veda. Ekata is an analogous formation and is old also.]

[Footnote 67: Hrishīkeca is 'lord of senses,' a common epithet of Vishnu (Krishna).]

[Footnote 68: i. 107. 1 ff. The spirits of the dead come to him and comfort him in the shape of birds—an old trait, compare Bāudh. Dh. Cāst. ii. 8. 14. 10; Cat. Br. vi. 1. 1. 2.]

[Footnote 69: xii. 300. 20.]

* * * * *



CHAPTER XVI.

THE PURĀNAS.—EARLY SECTS, FESTIVALS, THE TRINITY.

Archaeologia, 'ancient lore,' is the meaning of Purāna (purāna, 'old'). The religious period represented by the extant writings of this class is that which immediately follows the completion of the epic.[1] These works, although they contain no real history, yet reflect history very plainly, and since the advent and initial progress of Puranic Hinduism, with its various cults, is contemporary with important political changes, it will be necessary briefly to consider the circumstances in which arose these new creeds, for they were destined to become in the future the controlling force in the development of Hindu religion.