Two things result from this interlocking of sectarian Brahmanism with other sects. First, it is impossible to say in how far each influenced the other; and, again, the antiquity of special ideas is rendered doubtful. A Brahmanic idea can pretty safely be allotted to its first period, because the literature is large enough to permit the assumption that it will appear in literature not much later than it obtains. But a sectarian idea may go back centuries before it is permanently formulated, as, for example, the doctrine of special grace in a modern sect.

One more point must be noticed before we proceed to review the sects of to-day. Hindu morality, the ethical tone of the modern sects, is older than the special forms of Hindu viciousness which have been received into the cult. A negative altruism (beyond which Brahmanism never got) is characteristic of the Hindu sects. But this is already embodied in the golden rule, as it is thus formulated in the epic 'Compendium of Duty':

Not that to others should one do Which he himself objecteth to. This is man's duty in one word; All other rules may be ignored.[28]

The same is true of the 'Ten Commandments' of one of the modern sects. It is one of the strong proofs that Christian morals did not have much effect upon early Hinduism, that, although the Christian Church of St. Thomas, as is well established, was in Malabar as early as 522,[29] and Christians were in the North in the seventh century, yet no trace of the active Christian benevolence, in place of this abstention from injury, finds its way into the epic or Purānas. But an active altruism permeates Buddhism, and one reads in the birth-stories even of a saviour Buddha, not the Buddha of love, Māitreya, who was to be the next Buddha on earth, but of that Māitrakanyaka, who left heaven and came to earth that he might redeem the sins of others.[30]

Whether there is any special touch between the older sects and those of modern days[31] that have their headquarters in the same districts is a question which we have endeavored to investigate, but we have found nothing to substantiate such an opinion. Buddhism retired, too early to have influence on the sects of to-day, and between Jainism and the same sects there does not seem to be any peculiar rapport even where the sect is seated in a Jain stronghold.[35]] The Jains occupy, generally speaking, the Northwest (and South), while the Buddhists were located in the Northeast and South. So Civaism may be loosely located as popular in the Northeast and South, while Vishnuism has its habitat rather in the jain centres of the Northwest (and South).

We have mentioned in the preceding chapter the sects of a few centuries ago, as these have been described in Brahmanic literature.[33] The importance, and even the existence of some of the sects, described in the Conquest of Cankara, has been questioned, and the opinion has been expressed that, since they are described only to be exposed as heretical, they may have been creations of fancy, imaginary sects; the refutation of their principles being a tour de force on the part of the Brahmanic savant, who shows his acumen by imagining a sect and then discountenancing it. It does not, indeed, seem to us very probable that communities were ever formed as 'Agnis' or 'Yamas,' etc, but on the other hand, we think it is more likely that sects have gone to pieces without leaving any trace than that those enumerated, explained, and criticised should have been mere fancies.[46]] Moreover, in the case of some of these sects there are still survivors, so that a fortiori one may presume the others to have existed also, if not as sects or communities, yet as bodies professing faith in Indra or Yama, etc. The sects with which we have to deal now are chiefly those of this century, but many of these can claim a definite antiquity of several centuries at least. They have been described by Wilson in his famous Sketch, and, in special cases, more recently and more fully by Williams' and other writers.

THE CIVAITES.

While the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic background, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day simply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the former comprising the Rāma sects, and the latter most of the Krishnaites. On the other hand, in Civaism one must distinguish quite sharply in time between the different sects that go by Civa's name. If one look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most degraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any philosophy, and that idealistic Civaism is a remnant of the past. But he will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old Vedantic aspects of Civaism. On the contrary, wherever Civaism is pantheistic it is a Civaism which obtains only in certain ancient schools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders who have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard Civa merely as a name for the One God. It is necessary, therefore, as it is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between the beliefs of the vulgar and the learned. For from the earliest period the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter, but at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.

The older Sānkhya form of Civaism was still found among the Pācupatas,'adherents of the Lord' (Pacupati) and Mahecvaras ('adherents of the great Lord'), who are mentioned in the epic and in inscriptions of the fifth century. In the ninth century there was a purely philosophical Civaism which is Vedantic. But neither in the fact (which is by no means a certainty) that Cankara accepted Civa as the name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic Civaite philosophy of Kashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely idealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Somānanda, is there any trace of a popular religion. Civa is here the pantheistic god, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired schoolmen. On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in the twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if Civaite, only nominally Vedantic. Thus what philosophy the Jangamas professedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not pantheistic) disciples of Civa's priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha), who taught Civa-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the Linga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India under the name of Jangamas, 'vagrants,' or Lingāyits, 'phallus-wearers,' are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic mysticism. So in the case of the Tridandins, the Dacanāmis, and other sects attributed to Civaism, as well as the Smārtas (orthodox Brahmans) who professed Civaism. According to Wilson the Tridandins (whose triple, tri, staff, daṇḍi, indicates control of word, thought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the Rāmānuja sect, though some of them claim to be Vedantic Civaites. Nominally Civaite are also the Southern 'Saints,' Sittars (Sanskrit Siddhas), but these are a modern sect whose religion has been taught them by Islam, or possibly by Christianity.[36] The extreme North and South are the districts where Civaism as a popular religion has, or had, its firmest hold, and it is for this reason that the higher religions which obtain in these districts are given to Civa. But in reality they simply take Civa, the great god of the neighborhood, in order to have a name for their monotheistic god, exactly as missionaries among the American Indians pray to the Great Spirit, to adapt themselves to their audience's comprehension. In India, as in this country, they that proselyte would prefer to use their own terminology, but they wisely use that of their hearers.

We find no evidence to prove that there were ever really sectarian Civaites who did not from the beginning practice brutal rites, or else soon become ascetics of the lowest and most despicable sort. For philosophical Civaites were never sectaries. They cared little whether the All-god or One they argued about was called Vishnu or Civa. But whenever one finds a true Civaite devotee, that is, a man that will not worship Vishnu but holds fast to Civa as the only manifestation of the supreme divinity, he will notice that such an one quickly becomes obscene, brutal, prone to bloodshed, apt for any disgusting practice, intellectually void, and morally beneath contempt. If the Civaite be an ascetic his asceticism will be the result either of his lack of intelligence (as in the case of the sects to be described immediately) or of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who will save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the case with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no better than Civaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites, exclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal, haters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually admirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are to-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really Vishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never been the case with real Civaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed out, Civaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The Civaite needs for his cult only a phallus pebble, bilva leaves and water. The Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for leitourgiai. But Civaism is cheap because Civaites are poor, the dregs of society; it is not adopted because it is cheap.

We think, therefore, that to describe Civaism as indifferently pantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been pantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because Civa at that time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual sects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical relation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we shall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of the mutual relations between Civaites and Vishnuites in the past.

Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression of the Sānkhya and Vedānta systems of philosophy. Civaism, Krishnaism, and Rāmaism 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 masses, 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 Sānkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic Sānkhya. 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-god. Vedantic philosopliy continued to present Vishnu rather than Civa as its All-god, until to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Vedānta system. But with Vishnu have risen Krishna and Rāma as still further types of the All-god. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while Rāma is the god of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a pantheistic god; 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 prone, 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 god than is Rāma. 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) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god, without much more thought of his being an All-god 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 Ūrdhvabāhus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to lower them again. The Ākācamukhas, '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 Kānaphāts, '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 Ūkharas and Sūkharas, 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 passions literally with lock and key. The 'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' Gūdaras and Kāpālikas, 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 Kānaphāts and Kāpālikas 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 god.

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 god of priests; Vishnu, the god of warriors; Brahmā, the god of the Vāicyas (farmers and traders); and Ganeca, the god of slaves. It is, on the contrary, Civa himself, not his son Ganeca, who is the 'god of low people' in the early literature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a god 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 Purāna even, dedicated to Civa, that has any literary merit. All that is readable in sectarian literature, the best Purānas, the Divine Song, the sectarian Rāmāyana, 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 Cvetācvatara. Civa as a 'patron of literature' takes just the place taken by Ganeca in the present beginning of the Mahābhārata. Vyāsa has here composed the poem[42] but Ganeca is invoked as Vighneca, 'Lord of difficulties,' to help the poet write it out. Vyāsa 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 God. For Vishnuism was now merged with Krishnaism, a new vulgar cult, and Civa was an old and venerated god, long since a member of the Brahmanic pantheon. The connection between Civaism and the Sānkhya 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 classes. 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 mass 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 assign older Vishnuism to the middle classes, 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 Cāktas. 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 classical drama show that the cult of Aghorī is a Civaite manifestation which is at once old and derived from un-Aryan sources. Aghorī and all female monsters naturally associate with Civa, who is their intellectual and moral counterpart. The older Aghoris exacted human sacrifice in honor of Devi, Pārvatī, the wife of Civa.[2] The adoration of the female side of a god 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 Pārvatī, the 'mountain goddess.' They are all united in the person of Civa's wife of many names, the 'great goddess,' Mahādevī, the 'hard' Durgā, Kālī, Umā, 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 Durgā 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. Bestiality 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 gods 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 class and family indulge in a Bacchanalian orgy, and that, as they proceed, they give themselves over to every excess which liquor and lust 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 Durgā, the divine female principle. The Bacchic orgy begins with hard drinking. Civa as Bhāirava, 'the dreadful,' has his human counterpart also, who must then and there pair with the impersonated Durgā. The worship proper consists in the repetition 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-lust 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 (Pāncarātras, etc.) may have had some of this filth in their make-up; but mass for mass 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 goddesses, or fiends of disease, etc. One may not claim that all Cāktas 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 lust and murder of modern Civaism without speaking of still another sect which hangs upon the heels of Kālī, that of the Thugs. It may, indeed, be questioned whether Civa should be responsible for the doings of his spouse, Kālī. But like seeks like, and there is every historical justification in making out Civa to be as bad as the company he keeps. Durgā and Kālī are not vainly looked upon as Civa's female side. So that a sect like the Thugs,[53] which worshipped Kāli, 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 Kāli 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 Kāli, 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 Kāli-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 Kāli if they were Hindus. We think it probable, therefore, that the sect originated among the Kāli-worshippers as a protest against blood-letting. Admitting that robbery is under Civa's protection (Civa is 'god of robbers'), and that Kāli 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 unobtrusive 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 passes, in going from modern Civaism to Vishnuism, out of ignorant superstition into philosophical religion, of which many even of the weaker traits are but recent Hinduistic effeminacy substituted 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 Mīmāmsās... are emphatically orthodox. The prior one, pūrva[56] which has Jāimini 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 Vedānta, and attributed to Vyāsa (or Bādarāyana), 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 Sānkhya; 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 Sānkhya. 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 Sānkhya, and Pataṅjali's Yoga is thoroughly theistic. Radically opposed to the dualistic Sānkhya stands the Vedānta,[61] based on the Upanishads that teach the identity of spirit and matter.

As representative of the metaphysics of the Sānkhya and Vedānta 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 oL 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 Vedānta 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, Rāmānuja. 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 māyā, 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 associated with brahma, and in so far only is brahma rightly the Lord. The infinite part of each individual is brahma; the finite part is māyā. Thus Bādarāyana (author of the Vedānta Sūtras) says that the individual is only illusion.

Rāmānuja[64], on the other hand, teaches a brahma that is not only universal, but is the universal personal Lord, a supreme conscious and willing God. Far from being devoid of attributes, like Cankara's brahma, the brahma of Rāmānuja 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 Sānkhya phiiosophy both of these systems inculcate monism. But according to Cankara all difference is illusion; while according to Rāmānuja brahma is not homogeneous, but in the diversity of the world about us he is truly manifested. Cankara's māyā is Rāmānuja's body of (brahma) the Lord. Cankara's personal god exists only by collusion with illusion, and hence is illusory. The brahma of Rāmānuja is a personal god, the omnipotent, omniscient, Lord of a real world. Moreover, from an eschatological point of view, Cankara explains salvation, the release from re-birth, samsāra, as complete union with this unqualified brahma, consequently as loss of individuality as well as loss of happiness. But Rāmānuja defines salvation as the departure from earth forever of the individual spirit, which enters a heaven where it will enjoy perennial bliss[65].

Rāmānuja's doctrine inspires the sectarian pantheism of the present time. In this there is a metaphysical basis of conduct, a personal god 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 reasserted itself, and under Rāmānuja's genial interpretation of the Vedānta Sūtras 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 god, which of the gods 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 gods, Civa, and Brahmā.' But the sectary is not content with making the All-god one with Vishnu. Vishnu was manifested in the flesh, some say as Krishna, some say as Rāma[68]. The relation of sectary to Vishnuite, and to the All-spirit deist, may be illustrated most clearly by comparison with Occidental religions. One may not acknowledge any personal god as the absolute Supreme Power; again, one may say that this Supreme Power is a personal god, 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 Brahmā 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 God.

Having now explained the two principal 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-god 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 Rāmānuja himself or one of his followers; and since, if the claim be granted, the Rāma 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 God 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 God (Rāma, who is Vishnu, who, again, is All-god, that is, brahma), and embrace their God 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 god (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 Lakshmī, his wife; (3) Rāma is the human avatar of Vishnu; (4) Rāmānuja and all the great teachers since his day are also avatars of Vishnu.

In upper India, about the Ganges, Rāmānuja's disciple, Rāmānand (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 Rāma. They are called 'the liberated,' Avadhūtas, but whether because they are freed from caste-restrictions,[77] or from the strict rules of eating enjoined by Rāmānuja, is doubtful. Rāmānand himself had in turn twelve disciples. Of these the most famaous is Kabīr, whose followers, the Kabīr Panthīs (sect), are widely spread, and of whom no less a person than Nānak, the Sikh, claimed to be a successor. But it will be more convenient to describe the Sikhs hereafter. Of Rāmānand's other disciples that founded sects may be mentioned Kil, whose sectaries, the Khākis, of Oude, unite successfully Rāma-worship, Hanuman-worship, and Civaite fashions (thus presenting a mixture like that of the southern Mādhvas, who unite the images of Civa and Vishnu). The Rās Dāsa sect, again, owes to its founder the black Cālagrāma 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 Rāmānand as their founder's teacher is that of the Dādū Panthīs. 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 Rāmānand faith, the modern Rāmāyana, Ramcaritmanas, the new bible of the sect, composed in the sixteenth century by Tulasīdāsa ('slave of Vishnu'),the greatest of modern Hindu poets. What the Divine Song and the Bhāgavata Purāna are to the Krishnaite, the older (epic) Rāmāyana of Vālmīki and Tulasīdāsa'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-god, and in fact his chief cult is of the child-god Krishna, the Bāla Gopāla 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 Cāitanyas and Vallabhas, sects that arose in the sixteenth century.[81]

Cāitanya, 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. Cāitanya 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 Cāitanyas 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 classes, but its adherents are usually drawn from the dregs of the populace.[82] The principle of love for God (that is, for Krishna) is especially dwelt upon by Cāitanya. 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 God accepts his love. At the present day Cāitanya 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 Vallabhāeārya, 'Teacher Vallabha,' was also of the sixteenth century, but his sect belongs especially to the Northwest, while the sphere of Cāitanya'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 Bhāgavata Purāna, 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, assuming and maintaining the haughty title of mahā rājas ('great kings'). They are as gods, and command absolutely their devotees.[85] Here the worship of the Infant Krishna reaches its greatest height (or depth). The image of the infant god 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 Jagannāth procession in Bengal and Orissa, and the great autumnal picnic called the Rās Yātra, are famous occasions for displaying Krishnaite, or, indeed, general Vishnuite zeal. At the Rās Yātra assemble 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 classes. These low sects worship Krishna with Rādhā (his mistress, instead of Lakshmī, 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 Dāsīs, who have taken from the Mādhvas 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 Svāmi Nārāyana. 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 Svāmi Nārāyana. 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 god.[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, associating 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 Vīrāj, Vāicvānara, the waking spirit. The lowest state is that of being wide awake. The personal god (Brahmā, Vishnu, Civa, of the sectaries) is this it as influenced by the three qualities, rajas, sattva, tamas (passion, truth, and ignorance), respectively. Three essences, three corporeal forms, and three qualities constitute, therefore, the threefold trinity of the orthodox, who are called Smārtas, 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, Rāmānuja's qualified non-duality, and absolute godhead in Civa or Krishna, that the orthodox rejects (although he may receive the sectary's god into his pantheon). Some of the sects still keep respect for caste, excusing their respect on the ground that "it is well enough for God to ignore social distinctions, but not for man." But caste-distinctions are generally ignored, or there is positive hate of the Brahman. In antithesis 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 repetition 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 classes of devotees, besides these, remain to be spoken of. The Sannyāsin, 'renouncer,' was of old a Brahman ascetic. Nowadays, according to Wilson, he is generally a Civaite mendicant. But any sect may have its Sannyāsins, as it may have its Vāirāgins, 'passionless ones'; although the latter name generally applies to the Vishnuite ascetics of the South.

Apart from all these sects, and in many ways most remarkable, are the sun-worshippers. All over India the sun was (and is) worshipped, either directly (as to-day by the Sauras),[91] or as an incarnate deity in the form of the priest Nimba-āditya, who is said to have arrested the sun's course at one time and to be the sun's representative on earth. Both Puranic authority and inscriptional evidence attest this more direct[92] continuance of the old Vedic cult. Some of the finest old temples of India, both North and South, were dedicated to the sun.

DEISTIC REFORMING SECTS.

We have just referred to one or two reforming sects that still hold to the sectarian deity. Among these the Mādhvas, founded by (Madhva) Ānandatīrtha, are less Krishnaite or Rāmaite than Vishnuite,[93] and less Vishnuite than deist in general; so much so that Williams declares they must have got their precepts from Christianity, though this is open to Barth's objection that the reforming deistic sects are so located as to make it more probable that they derive from Mohammedanism. Madhva was born about 1200 on the western coast, and opposed Cankara's pantheistic doctrine of non-duality. He taught that the supreme spirit is essentially different to matter and to the individual spirit.[94] He of course denied absorption, and, though a Vishnuite, clearly belonged in spirit to the older school before Vishnuism became so closely connected with Vedānta doctrines. It is the same Sankhyan Vishnuism that one sees in the Divine Song, that is, duality, and a continuation of Cāndilya's ancient heresy.[95]

Here ends the course of India's native religions. From a thousand years B.C. to as many years after she is practically uninfluenced by foreign doctrine, save in externals.

It is of course permissible to separate the reforming sects of the last few decades from the older reformers; but since we see both in their aim and in their foreign sources (amalgamation with cis-Indic belief) only a logical if not an historical continuance of the older deists, we prefer to treat of them all as factors of one whole; and, from a broader point of view, as successors to the still older pantheistic and unitarian reformers who first predicated a supreme spirit as ens realissimum, when still surrounded by the clouds of primitive polytheism. Kabīr and Dādū, the two most important of the more modern reformers, we have named above as nominal adherents of the Rāmānand sect. But neither was really a sectarian Vishnuite.[96] Kabīr, probably of the beginning of the fifteenth century, the most famous of Rāmānand's disciples, has as religious descendants the sect of the Kabīr Panthīs. But no less an organization than that of the Sikhs look back to him, pretending to be his followers. The religious tenets of the Kabīr Panthīs may be described as those of unsectarian Unitarians. They conform to no rites or mantras. Kabīr assailed all idolatry, ridiculed the authority of all scriptures, broke with Pundit and with Mohammedan, taught that outer form is of no consequence, and that only the 'inner man' is of importance. These Panthīs are found in the South, but are located chiefly in and about Benares, in Bengal in the East, and in Bombay in the West. There are said to be twelve divisions of them. Kabīr assailed idolatry, but alas! Discipline requires subordination. The Guru, Teacher, must be obeyed. It was not long before he who rejected idolatry became himself a deity. And in fact, every Teacher, Guru, of the sect was an absolute master of thought, and was revered as a god.[97]

In the fifteenth century, near Lahoṙe, was born Nānak (1469), who is the nominal founder of the Sikhs, a body which, as Nānak claimed, was a sect embodying the religion of Kabīr himself, of whom he claimed to be a follower. The Granth, or bible of the Sikhs, was first compiled by the pontiff Arjun, in the sixteenth century. Besides the portions written by Nānak and Arjun himself, there were collected into it extracts from the works of 'twelve and a half' other contributors to the volume, Kabīr, Rāmānand, etc.[98] This Granth was subsequently called the Ādigranth, or First Book, to distinguish it from the later, enlarged, collection of several books, one of which was written by Guru Govind, the tenth Sikh pontiff. The change from a religious body to a church militant and political body was made by this Govind in the eighteenth century.[99] The religious sect settled in the Punjāb, became wealthy, excited the greed of the government, was persecuted, rose in revolt, triumphed, and eventually ruled the province. One of the first to precipitate the uprising was the above-mentioned Arjun (fourth pontiff after Nānak). He played the king, was accused of rebellion, imprisoned, and probably killed by the Mohammedans. The Sikhs flew to arms, and from this time on they were perforce little more than robbers and plunderers. Govind made the final change in organization, and, so to speak, at one blow created a nation, for the church at his hands was converted into the united militant body called Khālsā under the Guru as pontiff-king, with a 'council of chiefs.' They were vowed to hate the Mohammedan and Hindu. All caste-distinctions were abrogated. Govind instituted the worship of Steel and Book (sword and bible). His orders were: "If you meet a Mohammedan, kill him; if you meet a Hindu, beat and plunder him." The Sikhs invoked the 'Creator' as 'highest lord,' either in the form of Vishnu or Rāma. Their founder, Nānak, kept, however, the Hindu traditions in regard to rites. He was a travelled merchant, and is said to have been in Arabia. As an example of the Sikh bible may serve the following extracts, translated from the original dialect by Trumpp and Prinsep respectively:

From Trumpp:

True is the Lord, of a true name, But the import of (this) language is Infinite. They say and beg, give, give! The Liberal gives presents. What may again be put before (him) By which his court may be seen? What word may be spoken by the mouth, Which having heard he may bestow love? Early reflect on the greatness of the True Name.[100] From his beneficence comes clothing, From his look the gate of salvation. Nānak (says): Thus it is known, That he himself is altogether truthful.

From Prinsep:

Thou art the Lord, to thee be praise; All life is with thee. Thou art my parents; I, thy child. All happiness is from thy mercy. No one knows God.

Highest Lord among the highest, Of all that is thou art the regulator, And all that is from thee obeys thy will, Thy movements, thy pleasure; thou alone knowest. Nānak, thy slave is a free-will offering unto thee.[101]

The religious side of this organization remained under the name of Udāsis,[102] or Nirmalas ('spotless ones'). The Ādigranth was extended by other additions, such as that of Govind (above), and now constitutes a large heterogeneous collection of hymns and moral rules. Seven sub-sects of the religious body were developed in course of time. The military body has a well-known history. They were complete masters of the Punjāb in 1764, and remained there as an independent race till that province was occupied by the British in 1848. Both Kabīr and his follower Nānak were essentially reformers. They sought for a religion which should rest on the common truths of Hinduism and Mohammedanism.[103] As a matter of form the political party of Govind, the Govind Singhs, or Simhis, worshipped the Hindu gods, and they showed respect for the Brahman priests for a long while; but they rejected the Vedas and caste—the two most essential features of orthodoxy.[104]

Dādū, the second great reformer, who shows Mohammedan influence quite as plainly as does Kabīr, also claimed Rāmānand as his teacher. The sects that revert to Dādū, Dādū Panthīs, now number more than half an hundred. Some of the votaries are soldiers; some are mendicants. The founder lived about the end of the sixteenth century. The outward practices of the sects differ somewhat from those of other sects. Like Persians, they expose their dead. They are found about Ājmīr and other districts of the North, in the seats of the Jains. Their faith and reformatory tendency may be illustrated by the following extract, as translated by Wilson:[105]

"He is my God who maketh all things perfect. O foolish one, God is not far from you. He is near you. God's power is always with you. Whatever is to be is God's will. What will be will be. Therefore, long not for grief or joy, because by seeking the one you may find the other. All things are sweet to them that love God. I am satisfied with this, that happiness is in proportion to devotion. O God, Thou who art truth, grant me contentment, love, devotion, and faith.... Sit ye with humility at the feet of God, and rid yourselves of the sickness of your bodies. From the wickedness of the body there is much to fear, because all sins enter into it. Therefore, let your dwelling be with the fearless, and direct yourselves toward the light of God. For there neither sword nor poison have power to destroy, and sin cannot enter. The greatest wisdom is in preventing your minds from being influenced by bad passions, and in meditating upon the One God. Afford help also to the poor stranger. Meditate on Him by whom all things were made."[106]

This tradition of reform is maintained by others without intermission down to the present century, and the Mādhvas and Svāmi Nārāyana, of whom we have spoken above as being more directly connected with sectarian bodies, are, in fact, scarcely more concerned with the tenets of the latter than were Kabīr and Dādū. Thus the seventeenth century sees the rising of the Bābālāls and Sādhus; and the eighteenth, of the Satnāmis, 'worshippers of the true name,' who, with other minor bodies, such as the Nāngi Panthis, founded by Dedrāj in this century, are really pure deists, although some of them, like the Viṭhṭhals, claim to be followers of Kabīr. And so they are, in spirit at least.

THE DEISM OF TO-DAY.[107]

And thus one arrives at modern deism, not as the result of new influences emanating from Christian teaching, but rather as the legitimate successor of that deism which became almost monotheistic in the first centuries after our era, and has ever since varied with various reformers between two beliefs, inclining now to the pantheistic, now to the unitarian conception, as the respective reformers were influenced by Vedānta or Sānkhya (later Mohammedan) doctrine.

The first of the great modern reformers is Rāmmohun Roy, who was born in 1772, the son of a high-caste Krishnaite Brahman. He studied Persian and Arabic literature at Patna, the centre of Indic Mohammedan learning. When a mere boy, he composed a tract against idolatry which caused him to be banished from home. He lived at Benares, the stronghold of Brahmanism, and afterwards in Tibet, the centre of Buddhism. "From his earliest years," says Williams, "he displayed an eagerness to become an unbiassed student of all the religions of the globe." He read the Vedas, the Pāli Buddhist works, the Kurān, and the Old Testament in the original; and in later years even studied Greek that he might properly understand the New Testament. The scholastic philosophy of the Hindus appeared to him, however, as something superior to what he found elsewhere, and his efforts were directed mainly to purifying the national faith, especially from idolatry. It was at his instigation that the practice of widow-burning was abolished (in 1829) by the British. He was finally ostracized from home as a schismatic, and retired to Calcutta, uniting about him a small body of Hindus and Jains, and there established a sort of church or sect, the Ātmīya Sabhā,'spiritual society' (1816), which met at his house, but eventually was crushed by the hostility of the orthodox priests. He finally adopted a kind of Broad-church Christianity or Unitarianism, and in 1820, in his 'Precepts of Jesus' and in one of his later works, admits that the simple moral code of the New Testament and the doctrines of Christ were the best that he knew. He never, however, abjured caste; and his adoption of Christianity, of course, did not include the dogma of the trinity: "Whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of the Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of polytheism" (Final Appeal). Founded by him, the first theistic church was organized in 1828 at Calcutta, and formally opened in 1830 as the Brāhma Samāj; ('the Congregation of God'). In doing this he wished it to be understood that he was not founding a new sect, but a pure monotheistic worship. The only creed was a confession of faith in the unity of God. For himself, he abandoned pantheism, adopted the belief in a final judgment, in miracles, and in Christ as the 'Founder of true religion.' He died in 1833 in England. His successor, Debendranāth Tāgore,[108] was not appointed leader of the Brāhma Samāj; till much later; after he had founded a church of his own ('the Truth-teaching Society'), which lasted for twenty years (1839-1859), before it was united with the Brāhma Samāj. In the meantime Debendranāth become a member of the latter society (1841). He established the covenant of the Samāj, a vow taken by every member to lead holy lives, to abstain from idolatry, to worship no created object, but only God, the One without a second,[109] the Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, the Giver of Emancipation.

The church was newly organized in 1844 with a regularly appointed president and minister, and with the administration of the oath to each believer. This is the Ādi Brāhma Samāj, the First Congregation, in distinction from the schism which soon took place. The first quarrel in this church was due to a difference of opinion in regard to the authority of the Vedas. Some members rejected them, others maintained their infallibility; while between these extremes lay various other opinions, some members questioning the infallibility of the Vedas but maintaining their authority. By a majority vote it was eventually decided that the Vedas (and Upanishads) were not infallible.

In the meantime in other provinces rival Samājas had been formed, and by 1850 there were several of these broad-minded Congregations, all trammelled by their environment, but doing their best to be liberal.

We pause here in the compilation of the data recorded in this paragraph to assert, independently of Professor Williams, who has given us the historical facts, but would doubtless not wish to have imputed to himself the following judgment which we are led to pass, that the next step of the Samāj; placed it upon the only ground where the objects of this church can be attained, and that in the subsequent reform of this reform, which we shall have to record below, a backward step has been taken. For Debendranāth changed the essential character of the Samāj from pantheistic theism to pure deism. The inner circle of the society had a narrower declaration of faith, but in his Brāhma Dharma, published about 1850, Debendranāth formulated four articles of faith, to subscribe to which admitted any one into the Samāj. These articles read as follows: (t) Brahma (neuter) alone existed in the beginning before the universe; naught else existed; It [He] created all the universe. (2) It [He] is eternal, intelligent, infinite, blissful, self-governed (independent), without parts, just one (neuter) without a second, all-pervading, the ruler (masculine noun) of all, refuge of all, omniscient, omnipotent, immovable, perfect, without parallel (all these adjectives are neuter). (3) By worship of this One alone can bliss be obtained in the next world and in this. (4) The worship of this (neuter) One consists in love toward this (One) and in performing works pleasant (to this One).

This deism denies an incarnate God, scriptural authority, and the good of rites and penance; but it teaches the efficacy of prayer and repentance, and the belief in God as a personal Creator and Heavenly Father.[110] Intellectual—anything but emotional—it failed to satisfy many worshippers. And as a church it was conservative in regard to social reforms.

In 1858 Keshub Chunder Sen, a Vishnuite by family, then but twenty, joined the Samāj, and being clever, young, eloquent, and cultivated, he, after the manner of the Hindus, undertook to reform the church he had just entered, first of all by urging the abolition of caste-restrictions. Debendranāth was liberal enough to be willing to dispense with his own thread (the caste-mark), but too wisely conservative to demand of his co-religionists so complete a break with tradition and social condition. For the sacred thread to the Hindu is the sign of social respectability. Without it, he is out of society. It binds him to all that is dearest to him. The leader of the older Samāj; never gave up caste; the younger members in doing so mix religion with social etiquette, and so hinder the advance they aim at. Sen urged this and other reforms, all repugnant to the society in which he lived, changes in the rite at the worship of ancestors, alterations in the established ritual at birth-ceremonies and funerals, abolition of polyandry and of child-marriages, and, worst of all, granting permission to marry to those of different castes. His zeal was directed especially against caste-restrictions and child-marriages. Naturally he failed to persuade the old Samāj to join him in these revolutionary views, to insist on which, however sensible they seem, cannot be regarded otherwise than as indiscreet from the point of view of one who considers men and passions. For the Samāj, in the face of tremendous obstacles, had just secured a foot-hold in India. Sen's headlong reforms would have smashed to pieces the whole congregation, and left India more deeply prejudiced than ever against free thought. Sen failed to reform the old church, so in 1865 he, with some ardent young enthusiasts, reformed themselves into a new church, ceremoniously organized in 1866 as the Brāhma Samāj; of India, in distinction from the Calcutta Samāj, or Ādi Samāj. A futile effort was made to get all the other local congregations to join the new Samāj, the last, of course, to be the first and head of the organization.

The new Samāj renounced caste-restrictions and Brahmanism altogether, but it was tainted with the hysterical bhakti fervor which Sen inherited from his childhood's religion, and which (if one may credit Williams' words) "brought the latest development of Indian Theism into closer harmony with Christian ideas." The chief leader of this Samāj besides Sen was his cousin Protāp Chunder Mozoomdar, official secretary of the society. Its literary organ is the Indian Mirror.

The reform of this reform of course followed before long. The new Samāj was accused of making religion too much a matter of emotion and excitement. Religious fervor, bhakti, had led to "rapturous singing of hymns in the streets"; and to the establishment of a kind of love-feasts ('Brahma-feasts' they were called) of prayer and rejoicing; and, on the other hand, to undue asceticism and self-mortification.[111] Sen himself was revered too much. One of the most brilliant, eloquent, and fascinating of men, he was adored by his followers—as a god! He denied that he had accepted divine honors, but there is no doubt, as Williams insists, that his Vishnuite tendency led him to believe himself peculiarly the recipient of divine favors. It was charged against him that he asserted that all he did was at God's command, and that he believed himself perennially inspired.[112] If one add to this that he was not only divinely inspired, but that he had the complete control of his society, it would appear to be easy to foresee where the next reformer might strike. For Sen "was not only bishop, priest, and deacon all in one," says Williams, "he was a Pope, from whose decision there was no appeal." But it was not this that caused the rupture. In 1877 this reformer, "who had denounced early marriages as the curse of India," yielded to natural social ambition and engaged his own young daughter to a Koch (Rājbanshi) prince, who in turn was a mere boy. The Samāj protested with all its might, but the marriage was performed the next year, withal to the accompaniment of idolatrous rites.[113] After this Sen became somewhat theatrical. In 1879 he recognized (in a proclamation) God's Motherhood—the old dogma of the female divine. In 1880 he announced, in fervid language, that Christianity was the only true religion: "It is Christ who rules British India, and not the British Government. England has sent out a tremendous moral force in the life and character of that mighty prophet to conquer and hold this vast empire. None but Jesus, none but Jesus, none but Jesus, ever deserved this bright, this precious diadem, India, and Jesus shall have it.... Christ is a true Yogi." He accepts Christ, but not as God, only as inspired saint (as says Williams). More recently, Sen proposed an amalgamation of Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity as the true religion.

Meanwhile the Samāj was rent by discord. Sen's opponents, the new reformers, were unable, however, to oust the brilliant leader from the presidency. Consequently they established a new church, intended to be a General Congregation, the fourth development (1878) of the Brāhma Samāj. And so the fight has gone on ever since. At the present day there are more than a hundred deistic churches, in which the devotional exercises consist in part of readings from the Vedas, Bible, Kurān, and Avesta. The Ārya Samāj is one of the most important of the later churches, some of which endeavor to obtain undefiled religion by uniting into one faith what seems best in all; others, by returning to the Vedas and clearing them of what they think to be later corruptions of those originally pure scriptures. Of the latter sort is the Ārya Samāj. Its leader, Dayānanda, claims that the Vedas are a true revelation. The last reformer of which we have knowledge is a bright young high-caste Hindu of upper India, who is about to found a 'world-religion,' for which task he is now making preliminary studies. He has visited this country, and recently told us that, if he had time, he could easily convert America. But his first duty lies, of course, in the reformation of India's reformations, especially of the Samājas!

The difficulty with which all these reformers and re-reformers have to contend is pitifully clear. Their broad ideas have no fitting environment. Their leaders and thinkers may continue to preach deism, and among their equals they will be heard and understood. They are, however, not content with this. They must form churches. But a church implies in every case an unnatural and therefore dangerous growth, caused by the union either of inferior minds (attracted by eloquence, but unable to think) with those that are not on the same plane, or of ambitious zealots with reluctant conservatists. Many join the church who are not qualified to appreciate the leader's work. They overload the founder's deism with the sectarian theism from which they have not really freed themselves. On the other hand, younger men, who have been educated in English colleges and are imbued with the spirit of practical reform, enter the church to use it as an instrument for social progress. So the church is divided, theists and reformers both being at odds with the original deists; and the founder is lucky if he escapes being deified by one party and being looked upon by the other as too dull.[114]

India is no more prepared as a whole for the reception of the liberal views of the Samāj; than was the negro for the right to vote. Centuries of higher preliminary education are needed before the people at large renounce their ancestral, their natural faith. A few earnest men may preach deism; the people will remain polytheists and pantheists for many generations. Then, again, the Samājas have to contend not only with the national predisposition, but with every heretical sect, and, besides these, with the orthodox church. But thus far their chief foe is, after all, their own heart as opposed to their head. As long as deistic leaders are deified by their followers, and regard themselves as peculiarly inspired, they will preach in vain. Nor can they with impunity favor the substitution of emotion for ideas in a land where religious emotion leads downwards as surely as falls a stone that is thrown.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: In the following we keep to the practice we have adopted in the early part of the work, giving anglicized words without distinction of vowel-length, and anglicizing as far as possible, writing thus Sānkhya but Sankhyan, Vedānta but Vedantist. In modern proper names we have adopted in each case the most familiar form.]

[Footnote 2: Rig Veda, II. 12. Compare X. 121. We omit some of the verses.]

[Footnote 3: See note, p. 20, above.]

[Footnote 4: Metaphor from earthly fire-making; cloud and cliff (Ludwig); or, perhaps, heaven and earth.]

[Footnote 5: 'Made low and put in concealment' the Dāsa color, i.e. the black barbarians, the negroes. 'Color' might be translated 'race' (subsequently 'caste').]

[Footnote 6: Dīce, vijas, literally 'hoppers' (and so sometimes, interpreted as birds). The same figure occurs not infrequently. Compare AV. iv. 16. 5, akṣān iva. 'Believe,' crád-dhatta, i.e., cred-(d)īte, literally 'put trust.']

[Footnote 7: Sometimes rendered, "a true (laudation) if any is true."]

[Footnote 8: viii. 100. 3-4. The penultimate verse is literally 'the direction(s) of the order magnify me,' the order being that of the seasons and of seasonable rites.]

[Footnote 9: Compare the 'devil-worship of Ucanas,' and the scoffs at Pūshan. The next step in infidelity is denial of a future life and of the worth of the Vedas.]

[Footnote 10: In the Buddhistic writings Indra appears as the great popular god of the Brahmans (with Brahmā as the philosophical god).]

[Footnote 11: His body is mortal; his breaths immortal, Cat. Br. x. 1. 4. 1; xi. 1. 2. 12.]

[Footnote 12: On these curious pocket-altars, double triangles representing the three gods and their wives, with Linga and Yonī, see JRAS. 1851, p. 71.]

[Footnote 13: In the Tantras and late Purānas. In the earlier Purānas there is as yet no such formal cult.]

[Footnote 14: Embodied in the tale of Agni's advance, IS. i. 170.]

[Footnote 15: Cat Br. ix. 3.1. 18.]

[Footnote 16: On this quasi deity in modern belief compare IA. XVIII. 46. It has happened here that a fate Providence has become supreme. Thus, too, the Mogul Buddha is realty nothing more or less than Providence.]

[Footnote 17: 7. I. 2.]

[Footnote 18: In RV. X. 90. 9, chandas, songs, incantations, imply a work of this nature.]

[Footnote 19: Unless it be distinctly good magic the epic heroes are ashamed to use magical rites. They insist on the intent being unimpeachable.]

[Footnote 20: Āp. I. II. 30, 20, etc. Compare Weber, Omina p. 337, and see the Bibliography.]

[Footnote 21: Tāitt. S. VI. I. 1, 2, 3, tīrthesnāli.]

[Footnote 22: Compare Weber's account of the Rājasūya, p. 98; and, apropos of the Dacapeya, ib. 78, note; where it is stated that soma-drinking for the warrior-caste is still reflected in this (originally independent) ceremony.]

[Footnote 23: The list given above (p. 464) of the 'thrice three names' is made eight by suppressing Kumāra, and the 'eight names' are to-day the usual number.]

[Footnote 24: Cānkh. (Kānsh.) Br. vi. 1.]

[Footnote 25: The Brahmanic multiple by preference is (three and) seven (7,21,28,35), that of the Buddhist, eight. Feer, JA., 1893, p. 113 ff., holds the Svargaparva of the epic to be Buddhistic on account of the hells. More probably it is a Civaite addition. The rule does not always hold good, for groups of seven and eight are sometimes Buddhistic and Brahmanic, respectively.]

[Footnote 26: Leumann, Rosaries.]

[Footnote 27: Friederich,; JRAS. viii. 157; ix. 59. The only established reference to Buddha on the part of Brahmanism, with the exception of late Purānas of uncertain date, is after Kshemendra (1066 A.D.). Compare Holtzmann, s. Geschichte, p. 103.]

[Footnote 28: Na tat parasya sandadhyāt pratikūlaṁ yad ātmanas. This is a favorite stanza in the epic, and is imitated in later literature (Sprueche, 3253, 6578, 6593).]

[Footnote 29: Burnell in the Indian Antiquary, second and following volumes; Swanston, JRAS. 1834; 1835; Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen.]

[Footnote 30: Above, cited from Hardy.]

[Footnote 31: Some of the multitudinous subcastes occasionally focus about a religious principle to such an extent as to give them almost the appearance of religious devotees. Thus the Bhats and Chārans are heralds and bards with the mixed faith of so many low-caste Hindus. But in their office of herald they have a religious pride, and, since in the present day they are less heralds than expressmen, they carry property with religious reverence, and are respected in their office even by robbers; for it this caste that do not hesitate to commit traga, that is, if an agreement which they have caused to be made between two parties is not carried out they will kill themselves and their families, with such religious effect that the guilt lies upon the offending party in the agreement, who expiates it by his own life. They are regarded as a sort of divine representative, and fed themselves to be so. A case reported from India in this year, 1894, shows that the feeling still exists. The herald slew his own mother in the presence of the defaulting debtor, who thereupon slew himself as his only expiation.]

[Footnote 32: As, for example, between the Dādū Panthīs and the Jains in Ajmir and Jeypur. The last was a chief Digambara town, while Mathurā (on the Jumna) was a Cretāmbara station. For a possible survival of Buddhism, see below, p. 485, note.]

[Footnote 33: The Sarcadarcaṇasa[=n.]graha of Sāyana (fourteenth century) and the Ca[=n.]kara-vijaya, or 'Conquest of Cankara.']

[Footnote 34: Thus the Dabistān enumerates as actual sects of the seventeenth century, 'moon-worshippers,' 'star-worshippers,' 'Agni-worshippers,' 'wind-worshippers,' 'water-worshippers,' 'earth-worshippers,' 'tripūjas' (or worshippers of all the three kingdoms of nature), and 'worshippers of man' (manuṣyabhaktās), "who recognise the being of God in man, and know nothing more perfect than mankind" (ii. 12), a faith which, as we have shown, is professed in the Mahābhārata.]

[Footnote 35: Religious Thought and Life.]

[Footnote 36: The Kashmeer Civaites claim Cankara as their teacher. The sect of Basava started in the south, Mysore. They have some trashy literature (legends, etc.) which they dignify by the name of Purānas. Buehler has given an account of the Kashmeer school. For further details see Barth, pp. 184, 206.]

[Footnote 37: Brahmanism and Hinduism, p.62 ff. To this and to the same author's Thought and Life, we are indebted for many facts concerning the sects as they appear to-day, though much in these books is said after Wilson or other scholars, whose work is now common property, and calls for no further acknowledgment.]

[Footnote 38: It is, perhaps, necessary to keep repeating that Hindu monotheism does not exclude other gods which, at the hands of the one god, are reduced to sprites, angels, demons, etc. But it ought not to be necessary to insist on this, for an American monotheist that believes in angels and devils is the same sort of monotheist. The Hindu calls the angels 'gods' or 'divinities,' but they are only attendant hosts of the One.]

[Footnote 39: Some of the Civaite sects are, indeed, Buddhistic in origin, a fact which raises the question whether Buddhism, instead of disappearing from India, was not simply absorbed; much as Unitarianism in New England has spent its vitality in modifying the orthodox creed. Thus the karma of Buddhism may still be working in the person of some modern Hindu sects. See the next note below.]

[Footnote 40: Most of the Yogi jugglers are Civaites (when they are not Buddhistic), and to-day they share with the (Mohammedan) fakirs the honor of being not only ascetics but knaves. The juggler Yogi is, however, a figure of respectable antiquity. The magical tricks practiced on the epic heroes are doubtless a reflex of the current mesmerism, which deceives so cleverly to-day. We have shown above a Buddhistic strain of Mahātmaism in an early Buddhistic tract, and Barth, p. 213, suggests a Buddhistic origin for the Kānaphāts. See also Holtzmann, loc. cit. The deistic Yogis of Gorakhnāth's sect are respectable enough (see an account of some of this sort in the Dabistān, II. 6), but they are of Buddhistic origin. The Kānaphāts of Kutch (Danodhar) were once a celibate brotherhood. JRAS. 1839, p. 268.]

[Footnote 41: See JAOS. xi. 272. To ascribe this verse to the 'older Manu' would be a grave slip on the part of a Sanskrit scholar.]

[Footnote 42: i. 1. 76.]

[Footnote 43: The Dabistān, without any animus, reports of the Cāktas of the seventeenth century that "Civa is, in their opinion, with little exception, the highest of the deities" (II. 7). Williams calls Cāktaism "a mere offshoot of Civaism" Religious Thought and Life, p. 184.]

[Footnote 44: The Dabistān rather assumes as a matter of course that a body of Yogis would kill and eat a boy of the Mohammedan faith (II. 12); but here the author may be prejudiced.]

[Footnote 45: The present sect of this name consists only of a few miserable mendicants, particularly savage and filthy (Wilson).]

[Footnote 46: All of them now represent Cakti, the female principle. Linga-worship has also its counterpart, Bhaga-worship (here Yoni), perhaps represented by the altar itself. Compare the Dabistān, II. 7, on the Civaite interpretation of the Mohammedan altar. To Durga human beings were always sacrificed. After mentioning a gold idol of Durgā (to whom men were sacrificed yearly), the author adds: "Even now they sacrifice in every village of the Kohistan of Nandapur and the country adjacent, a man of good family" (ib.). Durgā {above, p. 416) is Vishnu's sister.]

[Footnote 47: The sexual antithesis, so unimportant in the earliest Aryan nature-hymns, becomes more and more pronounced in the liturgical hymns of the Rig Veda, and may be especially a trait of the older fire-cult in opposition to soma-cult (compare RV. X. 18. 7). At any rate it is significant that Yoni means the altar itself, and that in the fire-cult the production of fire is represented as resulting from the union of the male and female organs.]

[Footnote 48: Nevertheless the Brahmanic, and even the Hinduistic, law-codes condemn all intoxicating liquors except in religious service. To offer such drink to a man of the lower castes, even to a Cūdra, is punishable with a fine; but to offer intoxicating liquor to a priest is punishable with death (Vishnu, V. 100).]

[Footnote 49: Formerly performed by the Karāris. "The Cāktas hold the killing of a man to be permitted," Dabistān, II. 7. "Among them it is a meritorious act to sacrifice a man," ib.]

[Footnote 50: Hence the name of Kānculiyas [kanculi, a woman's garment).]

[Footnote 51: This has no parallel in Vishnuism except among some of the Rādhā devotees. Among the Rādhā Vallabhīs the vulgarities of the Civaites are quite equalled; and the assumption of women's attire by the Sakhī Bhāvas of Benares and Bengal ushers in rites as coarse if less bloody than those of the Civaites.]

[Footnote 52: Of course each god of the male trinity has his Cakti, female principle. Thus Brahmā's Caktī is Sāvitrī (in the epic), or Sarasvatī, or Vāc; that of Vishnu is Crī, or Lakshmī, or Rādhā; that of Civa is Umā, Durgā, Kālī, etc. Together they make a female trinity (Barth, p. 199); So even the Vedic gods had their (later) wives, who, as in the case of Sūryā, were probably only the female side of a god conceived of as androgynous, like Prajāpatī in the Brahmanic period.]

[Footnote 53: Historically, Thags, like Panjāb, Santhāls, etc, is the more correct form, but phonetically the forms Thugs, Punjāb, Sunthāls or Sonthāls, are correct, and ā, the indeterminate vowel (like o in London), is generally transcribed by u or o (in Punjāb, Nepāl, the ā is pronounced very like au, and is sometimes written so, Punjaub, etc).]