The wives of the gods (devānām patnīr yajati), occasionally mentioned in the Rig Veda, have now an established place and cult apart from that of the gods (ib. I. 9. 2. 11). The fire on the hearth is god Agni in person, and is not a divine or mystic type; but he is prayed to as a heavenly friend. Some of these traits are old, but they are exaggerated as compared with the more ancient theology. When one goes on a journey or returns from one, 'even if a king were in his house' he should not greet him till he makes homage to his hearth-fires, either with spoken words or with silent obeisance. For Agni and Prajāpati are one, they are son and father (ib. II. 4. 1. 3, 10; VI. 1. 2. 26). The gods have mystic names, and these 'who will dare to speak?' Thus, Indra's mystic name is Arjuna (ib. II. 1. 2. 11). In the early period of the Rig Veda the priest dares to speak. The pantheism of the end of the Rig Veda is here decided and plain-spoken, as it is in the Atharvan. As it burns brightly or not the fire is in turn identified with different gods, Rudra, Varuna, Indra, and Mitra (ib. II. 3. 2. 9 ff.). Agni is all the gods and the gods are in men (ib. III. 1. 3. 1; 4. 1. 19; II. 3. 2. 1: Indra and King Yama dwell in men). And, again, the Father (Prajāpati) is the All; he is the year of twelve months and five seasons(ib. I. 3. 5. 10). Then follows a characteristic bit. Seventeen verses are to be recited to correspond to the 'seventeenfold' Prajāpati. But 'some say' twenty-one verses; and he may recite twenty-one, for if 'the three worlds' are added to the above seventeen one gets twenty, and the sun (ya esa tapati) makes the twenty-first! As to the number of worlds, it is said (ib. I. 2. 4. 11, 20-21) that there are three worlds, and possibly a fourth.

Soma is now the moon, but as being one half of Vritra, the evil demon. The other half became the belly of creatures (ib. I. 6. 3. 17). Slightly different is the statement that Soma was Vritra, IV. 2. 5. 15. In Āit. Br. I. 27, King Soma is bought of the Gandharvas by Vāc, 'speech,' as a cow.[13] With phases of the moon Indra and Agni are identified. One is the deity of the new; the other, of the full moon; while Mitra is the waning, and Varuna the waxing moon (Cat. Br. II. 4. 4. 17-18). This opposition of deities is more fully expressed in the attempt to make antithetic the relations of the gods and the Manes, thus: 'The gods are represented by spring, summer, and rains; the Fathers, by autumn, winter, and the dewy season; the gods, by the waxing; the Fathers, by the waning moon; the gods, by day; the Fathers, by night; the gods, by morning; the Fathers, by afternoon' (Cat. Br. II. 1.-31; ib. II. 4. 2. 1. ff.: 'The sun is the light of the gods; the moon, of the Fathers; fire, of men'). Between morning and afternoon, as representative of gods and Manes respectively, stands midday, which, according to the same authority (II. 4. 2. 8), represents men. The passage first cited continues thus: 'The seasons are gods and Fathers; gods are immortal; the Fathers are mortal.' In regard to the relation between spring and the other seasons, the fifth section of this passage may be compared: 'Spring is the priesthood; summer, the warrior-caste; the rains are the (vic) people.'[14]

Among the conspicuous divine forms of this period is the Queen of Serpents, whose verses are chanted over fire; but she is the earth, according to some passages (Āit. Br.. V. 23; Cat. Br. II. 1. 4. 30; IV. 6. 9. 17). In their divine origin there is, indeed, according to the theology now current, no difference between the powers of light and of darkness, between the gods and the 'spirits,' asuras, i.e., evil spirits. Many tales begin with the formula: 'The gods and evil spirits, both born of the Father-god' (Cat. Br. I. 2. 4. 8). Weber thinks that this implies close acquaintance with Persian worship, a sort of tit-for-tat; for the Hindu would in that case call the holy spirit, ahura, of the Persian a devil, just as the Persian makes an evil spirit, daeva, out of the Hindu god, deva. But the relations between Hindu and Persian in this period are still very uncertain. It is interesting to follow out some of the Brahmanic legends, if only to see what was the conception of the evil spirits. In one such theological legend the gods and the (evil) spirits, both being sons of the Father-god, inherited from him, respectively, mind and speech; hence the gods got the sacrifice and heaven, while the evil spirits got this earth. Again, the two entered on the inheritance of their father in time, and so the gods have the waxing moon, and the evil spirits, the waning moon (ib. III 2. 1. 18; I. 7. 2. 22).

But what these Asuras or (evil) spirits really are may be read easily from the texts. The gods are the spirits of light; the Asuras are the spirits of darkness. Therewith is indissolubly connected the idea that sin and darkness are of the same nature. So one reads that when the sun rises it frees itself 'from darkness, from sin,' as a snake from its slough (ib. II. 3. I. 6). And in another passage it is said that darkness and illusion were given to the Asuras as their portion by the Father-god (ib. II. 4. 2. 5). With this may be compared also the frequent grouping of The Asuras or Rakshas with darkness (e.g., ib. III. 8. 2. 15; IV. 3. 4. 21). As to the nature of the gods the evidence is contradictory. Both gods and evil spirits were originally soulless and mortal. Agni (Fire) alone was immortal, and it was only through him that the others continued to live. They became immortal by putting in their inmost being the holy (immortal) fire (ib. II. 2. 2. 8). On the other hand, it is said that Agni was originally without brightness; and Indra, identified with the sun, was originally dark (ib. IV. 5.4.3; III. 4. 2. 15). The belief in an originally human condition of the gods (even the Father-god was originally mortal) is exemplified in a further passage, where it is said that the gods used to live on earth, but they grew tired of man's endless petitions and fled; also in another place, where it is stated that the gods used to drink together with men visibly, but now they do so invisibly (ib. II. 3. 4. 4; III. 6. 2. 26). How did such gods obtain their supremacy? The answer is simple, 'by sacrifice' (Cat. Br. III. 1. 4. 3; Āit. Br. II. I. I). So now they live by sacrifice: 'The sun would not rise if the priest did not make sacrifice' (Cat. Br. II. 3. 1. 5). Even the order of things would change if the order of ceremonial were varied: Night would be eternal if the priests did so and so; the months would not pass, one following the other, if the priests walked out or entered together, etc. (ib. IV. 3. 1. 9-10). It is by a knowledge of the Vedas that one conquers all things, and the sacrifice is part and application of this knowledge, which in one passage is thus reconditely subdivided: 'Threefold is knowledge, the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, and the Sāma Veda.[15] The Rig Veda, i.e., the verses sung, are the earth; the Yajus is air; the Sāman is the sky. He conquers earth, air, and sky respectively by these three Vedas. The Rik and Sāman are Indra and are speech; the Yajus is Vishnu and mind' (ib. IV. 6. 7. 1 ff.). An item follows that touches on a modern philosophical question. Apropos of speech and mind: 'Where speech (alone) existed everything was accomplished and known; but where mind (alone) existed nothing was accomplished or known' (ib. I. 4. 4. 3-4, 7). Mind and speech are male and female, and as yoke-fellows bear sacrificed to the gods; to be compared is the interesting dispute between mind and speech (ib. 5. 8). As dependent as is man on what is given by the gods, so dependent are the gods on what is offered to them by men (Tāitt. Br. II. 2. 7. 3; Cat. Br. I. 2. 5. 24). Even the gods are now not native to heaven. They win heaven by sacrifice, by metres, etc. (Cat. Br. IV. 3. 2. 5).

What, then, is the sacrifice? A means to enter into the godhead of the gods, and even to control the gods; a ceremony where every word was pregnant with consequences;[16] every movement momentous. There are indications, however, that the priests themselves understood that much in the ceremonial was pure hocus-pocus, and not of such importance as it was reputed to be. But such faint traces as survive of a freer spirit objecting to ceremonial absurdities only mark more clearly the level plain of unintelligent superstition which was the feeding-ground of the ordinary priests.

Some of the cases of revolted common-sense are worth citing. Conspicuous as an authority on the sacrifice, and at the same time as a somewhat recalcitrant priest, is Yājṅavalkya, author and critic, one of the greatest names in Hindu ecclesiastical history. It was he who, apropos of the new rule in ethics, so strongly insisted upon after the Vedic age and already beginning to obtain, the rule that no one should eat the flesh of the (sacred) cow ('Let no one eat beef.... Whoever eats it would be reborn (on earth) as a man of ill fame') said bluntly: 'As for me I eat (beef) if it is good (firm).[17] It certainly required courage to say this, with the especial warning against beef, the meat of an animal peculiarly holy (Cat. Br. III. I. 2. 21). It was, again, Yājnavalkya (Cat. Br., I. 3. I. 26), who protested against the priests' new demand that the benefit of the sacrifice should accrue in part to the priest; whereas it had previously been understood that not the sacrificial priest but the sacrificer (the worshipper, the man who hired the priest and paid the expenses) got all the benefit of the ceremony. Against the priests' novel and unjustifiable claim Yājnavalkya exclaims: 'How can people have faith in this? Whatever be the blessing for which the priests pray, this blessing is for the worshipper (sacrificer) alone.[18] It was Yājnavalkya, too, who rebutted some new superstition involving the sacrificer's wife, with the sneer, 'who cares whether the wife,' etc. (kas tad ādriyeta, ib. 21). These protestations are naively recorded, though it is once suggested that in some of his utterances Yājnavalkya was not in earnest (ib. IV. 2. 1. 7). The high mind of this great priest is contrasted with the mundane views of his contemporaries in the prayers of himself and of another priest; for it is recorded that whereas Yājnavalkya's prayer to the Sun was 'give me light' (or 'glory,' varco me dehi), that of Āupoditeya was 'give me cows' (ib. I. 9. 3. 16). The chronicler adds, after citing these prayers, that one obtains whatever he prays for, either illumination or wealth.[19] Yājnavalkya, however, is not the only protestant. In another passage, ib. ii. 6. 3. 14-17, the sacrificer is told to shave his head all around, so as to be like the sun; this will ensure his being able to 'consume (his foes) on all sides like the sun,' and it is added: But Āsuri said, 'What on earth has it to do with his head? Let him not shave.'[20]

'Eternal holiness' is won by him that offers the sacrifice of the seasons. Characteristic is the explanation, 'for such an one wins the year, and a year is a complete whole, and a complete whole is indestructible (eternal); hence his holiness is indestructible, and he thereby becomes a part of a year and goes to the gods; but as there is no destruction in the gods, his holiness is therefore indestructible' (ib. ii. 6. 3. 1).

Not only a man's self but also his Manes are benefited by means of sacrifice.[21] He gives the Manes pleasure with his offering, but he also raises their estate, and sends them up to live in a higher world.[22] The cosmological position of the Manes are the avāntaradicas, that is, between the four quarters; though, according to some, there are three kinds of them, soma-Manes, sacrifice-Manes (Manes of the sacrificial straw), and the burnt, i.e., the spirits of those that have been consumed in fire. They are, again, identified with the seasons, and are expressly mentioned as the guardians of houses, so that the Brahmanic Manes are at once Penates, Lares, and Manes.[23]

The sacrifice is by no means meant as an aid to the acquirement of heavenly bliss alone. Many of the great sacrifices are for the gaining of good things on earth. In one passage there is described a ceremony, the result of which is to be that the warrior, who is the sacrificer, may say to a man of the people "fetch out and give me your store" (ib. i. 3. 2. 15; iv. 3. 3. 10). Everybody sacrifices, even the beasts erect altars and fires![24] That one should sacrifice without the ulterior motive of gain is unknown. Brahmanic India knows no thank-offering. Ordinarily the gain is represented as a compensating gift from the divinity, whom the sacrificer pleases with his sacrifice. Very plainly is this expressed. "He offers the sacrifice to the god with this text: 'Do thou give to me (and) I (will) give to thee; do thou bestow on me (and) I (will) bestow on thee'" (Vāj. S. iii. 50; Cat. Br. ii. 5. 3. 19). But other ends are accomplished. By the sacrifice he may injure his enemy, but in offering it, if he leaves too much over, that part accrues to the good of his foe (Cat. Br. i. 2. 1.7; 9. 1. 18).

The sacrifice is throughout symbolical. The sacrificial straw represents the world; the metre used represents all living creatures, etc.,—a symbolism frequently suggested by a mere pun, but often as ridiculously expounded without such aid. The altar's measure is the measure of metres. The cord of regeneration (badge of the twice-born, the holy cord of the high castes) is triple, because food is threefold, or because the father and mother with the child make three (Cat. Br. iii. 5. 1. 7 ff.; 2. 1. 12); the jagati metre contains the living world, because this is called jagat (ib. i. 8. 2. 11).

Out of the varied mass of rules, speculations, and fancies, a few of general character may find place here, that the reader may gain a collective impression of the religious literature of the time.

The fee for the sacrifice is mentioned in one place as one thousand cows. These must be presented in groups of three hundred and thirty-three each, three times, with an odd one of three colors. This is on account of the holy character of the numeral three. 'But Āsuri (apparently fearful that this rule would limit the fee) said "he may give more"' (Cat. Br. iv. 5. 8. 14). As to the fee, the rules are precise and their propounders are unblushing. The priest performs the sacrifice for the fee alone, and it must consist of valuable garments, kine, horses,[25] or gold—when each is to be given is carefully stated. Gold is coveted most, for this is 'immortality,' 'the seed of Agni,' and therefore peculiarly agreeable to the pious priest.[26] For his greed, which goes so far that he proclaims that he who gives a thousand kine obtains all things of heaven (ib. iv. 5. 1. 11), the priest has good precept to cite, for the gods of heaven, in all the tales told of them, ever demand a reward from each other when they help their neighbor-gods. Nay, even the gods require a witness and a vow, lest they injure each other. Discord arose among them when once they performed the guest-offering; they divided into different parties, Agni with the Vasus, Soma with the Rudras, Varuna with the Ādityas, and Indra with the Maruts. But with discord came weakness, and the evil spirits got the better of them. So they made a covenant with each other, and took Wind as witness that they would not deceive each other. This famous covenant of the gods is the prototype of that significant covenant made by the priest, that he would not, while pretending to beseech } good for the sacrificer,[27] secretly do him harm (as he could by altering the ceremonial).[28] The theory of the fee, in so far as it affects the sacrifices, is that the gods, the Manes, and men all exist by what is sacrificed. Even the gods seek rewards; hence the priests do the same.[29] The sacrificer sacrifices to get a place in devaloka (the world of the gods). The sacrifice goes up to the world of gods, and after it goes the fee which the sacrificer (the patron) gives; the sacrificer follows by catching hold of the fee given to the priests (ib.. i. 9. 3. 1). It is to be noted, moreover, that sacrificing for a fee is recognized as a profession. The work (sacrifice is work, 'work is sacrifice,' it is somewhere said) is regarded as a matter of business. There are three means of livelihood occasionally referred to, telling stories, singing songs, and reciting the Veda at a sacrifice (Cat. Br. iii. 2. 4. 16).

As an example of the absurdities given as 'the ways of knowledge' (absurdities which are necessary to know in order to a full understanding of the mental state under consideration) may be cited Cat. Br. iv. 5. 8. 11, where it is said that if the sacrificial cow goes east the sacrificer wins a good world hereafter; if north, he becomes more glorious on earth; if west, rich in people and crops; if south, he dies; 'such are the ways of knowledge.' In the same spirit it is said that the sun rises east because the priest repeats certain verses (Āit. Br. i. 7. 4). No little stress is laid on geographical position. The east is the quarter of the gods; the north, of men; the south, of the dead (Manes; Cat. Br. i. 2. 5. 17); while the west is the region of snakes, according to ib. iii. 1. 1. 7. On account of the godly nature of the east ("from the east came the gods westward to men," ib. ii. 6. 1. 11) the sacrificial building, like occidental churches, is built east and west, not north and south. The cardinal points are elsewhere given to certain gods; thus the north is Rudra's.[30]

It has been said that the theological ideas are not clear. This was inevitable, owing to the tendency to identify various divinities. Especially noticeable is the identification of new or local gods with others better accredited, Rudra and Agni, etc. Rudra is the god of cattle, and when the other gods went to heaven by means of sacrifice he remained on earth; his local names are Carva, Bhava, 'Beast-lord,' Rudra, Agni (Cat. Br. i. 7. 3. 8; Māit. S. i. 6. 6). Indra is the Vasu of the gods. The gods are occasionally thirty-four in number, eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Ādityas, heaven and earth, and Prajāpati as the thirty-fourth; but this Prajāpati is the All and Everything (Cat. Br. i. 6. 4. 2; iv. 5. 7. 2 ff.). Of these gods, who at first were all alike and good, three became superior, Agni, Indra, and Sūrya. But, again, the Sun is death, and Agni is head of all the gods. Moreover, the Sun is now Indra; the Manes are the seasons, and Varuna, too, is the seasons, as being the year (Cat. Br. iv. 5. 4. 1; i. 6. 4. 18; iv. 4. 5. 18). Aditi, as we have said, is the Earth; the fee for an offering to her is a cow. Why? Because Earth is a cow and Aditi is Earth; Earth is a mother and a cow is a mother. Hence the fee is a cow.[31]

The tales of the gods, for the most part, are foolish. But they show well what conception the priests had of their divinities.

Man's original skin was put by the gods upon the cow; hence a cow runs away from a man because she thinks he is trying to get back his skin. The gods cluster about at an oblation, each crying out 'My name,' i.e., each is anxious to get it. The gods, with the evil spirits—'both sons of the Father'—attract to themselves the plants; Varuna gets the barley by a pun. They build castles to defend themselves from the evil spirits. Five gods are picked out as worthy of offerings: Aditi, Speech, Agni, Soma, the Sun (five, because the seasons are five and the regions are five). Indra and Wind have a dispute of possession; Prajāpati, the Father, decides it. The heavenly singers, called the Gandharvas, recited the Veda to entice (the divine female) Speech to come to them; while the gods, for the same purpose, created the lute, and sang and played to her. She came to the gods; hence the weakness of women in regard to such things. Indra is the god of sacrifice; the stake of the sacrifice is Vishnu's; Vāyu (Wind) is the leader of beasts; Bhaga is blind;[32] Pūshan (because he eats mush) is toothless. The gods run a race to see who shall get first to the sacrifice, and Indra and Agni win; they are the warrior-caste among the gods, and the All-gods are the people (vicve, vic.). Yet, again, the Maruts are the people, and Varuna is the warrior-caste; and, again, Soma is the warrior-caste. The Father-god first created birds, then reptiles and snakes. As these all died he created mammalia; these survived because they had food in themselves; hence the Vedic poet says 'three generations have passed away.'[33]

Varuna is now quite the god of night and god of purification, as a water-god. Water is the 'essence (sap) of immortality,' and the bath of purification at the end of the sacrifice (avabhṛtha) stands in direct relation to Varuna. The formula to be repeated is: "With the gods' help may I wash out sin against the gods; with the help of men the sin against men" (Cat. Br. iv. 4. 3. 15; ii. 5. 2. 47). Mitra and Varuna are, respectively, intelligence and will, priest and warrior; and while the former may exist without the latter, the latter cannot live without the former, 'but they are perfect only when they cooeperate' (ib. iv. 1. 4. 1).

Of the divine legends some are old, some new. One speaks of the sacrifice as having been at first human, subsequently changing to beast sacrifice, eventually to a rice offering, which last now represents the original sacrificial animal, man.[34] Famous, too, is the legend of the flood and Father Manu's escape from it (Cat. Br. i. 8. 1. 1 ff.). Again, the Vedic myth is retold, recounting the rape of soma by the metrical equivalent of fire (Tāitt. Br. i. 1. 3. 10; Cat. Br. i. 8. 2. 10). Another tale takes up anew the old story of Cupid and Psyche (Purūravas and Urvacī); and another that of the Hindu Prometheus story, wherein Mātaricvan fetches fire from heaven, and gives it to mortals (Tāitt. Br. iii. 2. 3. 2; Cat. Br. xi. 5. 1. 1; i. 7. 1. 11).[35]

Interesting, also, is the tale of Vishnu having been a dwarf, and the tortoise avatar, not of Vishnu, but of Prajāpati; also the attempt of the evil spirits to climb to heaven, and the trick with which Indra outwitted them.[36] For it is noticeable that the evil spirits are as strong by nature as are the gods, and it is only by craft that the latter prevail.[37]

Seldom are the tales of the gods indecent. The story of Prajāpati's incest with his daughter is a remnant of nature worship which survives, in more or less anthropomorphic form, from the time of the Rig Veda (x. 61.) to that of mediaeval literature,[38] and is found in full in the epic, as in the Brahmanic period; but the story always ends with the horror of the gods at the act.[39]

Old legends are varied. The victory over Vritra is now expounded thus: Indra, who slays Vritra, is the sun. Vritra is the moon, who swims into the sun's mouth on the night of the new moon. The sun rises after swallowing him, and the moon is invisible because he is swallowed ("he who knows this swallows his foes"). The sun vomits out the moon, and the latter is then seen in the west, and increases again, to serve the sun as food. In another passage it is said that when the moon is invisible he is hiding in plants and waters (Cat. Br. i. 6. 3. 17; 4. 18-20).

BRAHMANIC RELIGION.

When the sacrifice is completed the priest returns, as it were, to earth, and becomes human. He formally puts off his sacrificial vow, and rehabilitates himself with humanity, saying, "I am even he that I am."[40] As such a man, through service to the gods become a divine offering, and no longer human, was doubtless considered the creature that first served as the sacrificial animal. Despite protestant legends such as that just recorded, despite formal disclaimers, human sacrifice existed long after the period of the Rig Veda, where it is alluded to; a period when even old men are exposed to die.[41] The anaddhāpurusha is not a fiction; for that, on certain occasions, instead of this 'man of straw' a real victim was offered, is shown by the ritual manuals and by Brahmanic texts.[42] Thus, in Cat. Br. vi. 2. 1. 18: "He kills a man first.... The cord that holds the man is the longest." It is noteworthy that also among the American Indians the death of a human victim by fire was regarded as a religious ceremony, and that, just as in India the man to be sacrificed was allowed almost all his desires for a year, so the victim of the Indian was first greeted as brother and presented with gifts, even with a wife.[43]

But this, the terrible barbaric side of religious worship, is now distinctly yielding to a more humane religion. The 'barley ewe'[44] is taking the place of a bloodier offering. It has been urged that the humanity[45] and the accompanying silliness of the Brahmanic period as compared with the more robust character of the earlier age are due to the weakening and softening effects of the climate. But we doubt whether the climate of the Punjāb differs as much from that of Delhi and Patna as does the character of the Rig Veda from that of the Brāhmanas. We shall protest again when we come to the subject of Buddhism against the too great influence which has been claimed for climate. Politics and society, in our opinion, had more to do with altering the religions of India than had a higher temperature and miasma. As a result of ease and sloth—for the Brahmans are now the divine pampered servants of established kings, not the energetic peers of a changing population of warriors—the priests had lost the inspiration that came from action; they now made no new hymns; they only formulated new rules of sacrifice. They became intellectually debauched and altogether weakened in character. Synchronous with this universal degradation and lack of fibre, is found the occasional substitution of barley and rice sacrifices for those of blood; and it may be that a sort of selfish charity was at work here, and the priest saved the beast to spare himself. But there is no very early evidence of a humane view of sacrifice influencing the priests.

The Brahman is no Jain. One must read far to hear a note of the approaching ahimsā doctrine of 'non-injury.' At most one finds a contemptuous allusion, as in a pitying strain, to the poor plants and animals that follow after man in reaping some sacrificial benefit from a ceremony.[46] It does not seem to us that a recognized respect for animal life or kindness to dumb creatures lies at the root of proxy sacrifice, though it doubtless came in play. But still less does it appear probable that, as is often said, aversion to beast-sacrifice is due to the doctrine of karma, and re-birth in animal form. The karma notion begins to appear in the Brahmanas, but not in the samsāra shape of transmigration. It was surely not because the Hindu was afraid of eating his deceased grandmother that he first abstained from meat. For, long after the doctrine of karma and samsāra[47] is established, animal sacrifices are not only permitted but enjoined; and the epic characters shoot deer and even eat cows. We think, in short, that the change began as a sumptuary measure only. In the case of human sacrifice there is doubtless a civilized repugnance to the act, which is clearly seen in many passages where the slaughter of man is made purely symbolical. The only wonder is that it should have obtained so long after the age of the Rig Veda. But like the stone knife of sacrifice among the Romans it is received custom, and hard to do away with, for priests are conservative. Human sacrifice must have been peculiarly horrible from the fact that the sacrificer not only had to kill the man but to eat him, as is attested by the formal statement of the liturgical works.[48] But in the case of other animals (there are five sacrificial animals, of which man is first) we think it was a question of expense on the part of the laity. When the soma became rare and expensive, substitutes were permitted and enjoined. So with the great sacrifices. The priests had built up a great complex of forms, where at every turn fees were demanded. The whole expense, falling on the one individual to whose benefit accrued the sacrifice, must have been enormous; in the case of ordinary people impossible. But the priests then permitted the sacrifice of substitutes, for their fees still remained; and even in the case of human sacrifice some such caution may have worked, for ordinarily it cost 'one thousand cattle' to buy a man to be sacrificed. A proof of this lies in the fact that animal sacrifices were not forbidden at any time, only smaller (cheaper) animals took the place of cattle. In the completed Brahmanic code the rule is that animals ought not to be killed except at sacrifice, and practically the smaller creatures were substituted for cattle, just as the latter had gradually taken the place of the old horse (and man) sacrifice.

If advancing civilization results in an agreeable change of morality in many regards, it is yet accompanied with wretched traits in others. The whole silliness of superstition exceeds belief. Because Bhāllabheya once broke his arm on changing the metre of certain formulae, it is evident to the priest that it is wrong to trifle with received metres, and hence "let no one do this hereafter." There is a compensation on reading such trash in the thought that all this superstition has kept for us a carefully preserved text, but that is an accident of priestly foolishness, and the priest can be credited only with the folly. Why is 'horse-grass' used in the sacrifice? Because the sacrifice once ran away and "became a horse." Again one is thankful for the historical side-light on the horse-sacrifice; but the witlessness of the unconscious historian can but bring him into contempt.[49] Charms that are said against one are of course cast out by other charms. If one is not prosperous with one name he takes another. If the cart creaks at the sacrifice it is the voice of evil spirits; and a formula must avert the omen. Soma-husks are liable to turn into snakes; a formula must avert this catastrophe. Everything done at the sacrifice is godly; ergo, everything human is to be done in an inhuman manner, and, since in human practice one cuts his left finger-nails first and combs the left side of the beard first, at the sacrifice he must cut nails and beard first on the other side, for "whatever is human at a sacrifice is useless" (vyṛddhain vāi tad yajnasya yad mānuṣam). Of religious puns we have given instances already. Agni says: "prop me on the propper for that is proper" (hita), etc, etc.[50] One of these examples of depraved superstition is of a more dangerous nature. The effect of the sacrifice is covert as well as overt.

The word is as potent as the act. Consequently if the sacrificer during the sacrifice merely mutter the words "let such an one die," he must die; for the sacrifice is holy, godly; the words are divine, and cannot be frustrated (Cat. Br. iii. 1. 4. 1; iv. 1. 1. 26).

All this superstition would be pardonable if it were primitive. But that it comes long after the Vedic poets have sung reveals a continuance of stupidity which is marvellous. Doubtless those same poets were just as superstitious, but one would think that with all the great literature behind them, and the thoughts of the philosophers just rising among them, these later priests might show a higher level of intelligence. But in this regard they are to India what were the monks of mediaeval times to Europe.

We turn now to the ethical side of religion. But, before leaving the sacrifice, one point should be explained clearly. The Hindu sacrifice can be performed only by the priest, and he must be of the highest caste. No other might or could perform it. For he alone understood the ancient texts, which to the laity were already only half intelligible. Again, as Barth has pointed out, the Hindu sacrifice is performed only for one individual or his family. It was an expensive rite (for the gaining of one object), addressed to many gods for the benefit of one man. To offset this, however, one must remember that there were popular fetes and sacrifices of a more general nature, to which many were invited and in which even the lower castes took part; and these were also of remote antiquity.

Already current in the Brāhmanas is the phrase 'man's debts.' Either three or four of such moral obligations were recognized, debts to the gods, to the seers, to the Manes, and to men. Whoever pays these debts, it is said, has discharged all his duties, and by him all is obtained, all is won. And what are these duties? To the gods he owes sacrifices; to the seers, study of the Vedas; to the Manes, offspring; to man, hospitality (Cat. Br. i. 7. 2. 1 ff.; in Tāitt. Br. vi. 3. 10. 5, the last fails). Translated into modern equivalents this means that man must have faith and good works. But more really is demanded than is stated here. First and foremost is the duty of truthfulness. Agni is the lord of vows among the gods (RV. viii. 11. 1; Cat. Br. iii. 2. 2. 24), and speech is a divinity (Sarasvatī is personified speech, Cat. Br. iii. 1. 4. 9, etc). Truth is a religious as well as moral duty. "This (All) is two-fold, there is no third; all is either truth or untruth; now truth alone is the gods (satyam eva devās) and untruth is man."[51] Moreover, "one law the gods observe, truth" (Cat. Br. i. 1.1. 4; iii. 3. 2. 2; 4. 2. 8). There is another passage upon this subject: "To serve the sacred fire means truth; he who speaks truth feeds the fire; he who speaks lies pours water on it; in the one case he strengthens his vital (spiritual) energy, and becomes better; in the other he weakens it and becomes worse" (ib. ii. 2. 2. 19). The second sin, expressly named and reprobated as such, is adultery. This is a sin against Varuna.[52] In connection with this there is an interesting passage implying a priestly confessional. At the sacrifice the sacrificer's wife is formally asked by the priest whether she is faithful to her husband. She is asked this that she may not sacrifice with guilt on her soul, for "when confessed the guilt becomes less."[53] If it is asked what other moral virtues are especially inculcated besides truth and purity the answer is that the acts commonly cited as self-evidently sins are murder, theft, and abortion; incidentally, gluttony, anger, and procrastination.[54]

As to the moral virtue of observing days, certain times are allowed and certain times are not allowed for worldly acts. But every day is in part a holy-day to the Hindu. The list of virtues is about the same, therefore, as that of the decalogue—the worship of the right divinity; the observance of certain seasons for prayer and sacrifice; honor to the parents; abstinence from theft, murder, adultery. Envy alone is omitted.[55]

What eschatological conceptions are strewn through the literature of this era are vague and often contradictory. The souls of the departed are at one time spoken of as the stars (Tāitt. S. v. 4. 1. 3.); at another, as uniting with gods and living in the world of the gods (Cal. Br.. ii. 6. 4. 8).

The principle of karma if not the theory, is already known, but the very thing that the completed philosopher abhors is looked upon as a blessing, viz., rebirth, body and all, even on earth.[56] Thus in one passage, as a reward for knowing some divine mystery (as often happens, this mystery is of little importance, only that 'spring is born again out of winter'), the savant is to be 'born again in this world' (punar ha vā 'asmin loke bhavati, Cat. Br. i. 5. 3. 14). The esoteric wisdom is here the transfer of the doctrine of metempsychosis to spring. Man has no hope of immortal life (on earth);[57] but, by establishing the holy fires, and especially by establishing in his inmost soul the immortal element of fire, he lives the full desirable length of life (ib. ii. 2. 2. 14. To the later sage, length of life is undesirable). But in yonder world, where the sun itself is death, the soul dies again and again. All those on the other side of the sun, the gods, are immortal; but all those on this side are exposed to this death. When the sun wishes, he draws out the vitality of any one, and then that one dies; not once, but, being drawn up by the sun, which is death, into the very realm of death (how different to the conception of the sun in the Rig Veda!) he dies over and over again.[58] But in another passage it is said that when the sacrificer is consecrated he 'becomes one of the deities'; and one even finds the doctrine that one obtains 'union with Brahmā,' which is quite in the strain of the Upanishads; but here such a saying can refer only to the upper castes, for "the gods talk only to the upper castes" (Cal. Br.. xi. 4. 4. 1; iii. 1. 1. 8-10). The dead man is elsewhere represented as going to heaven 'with his whole body,' and, according to one passage, when he gets to the next world his good and evil are weighed in a balance. There are, then, quite diverse views in regard to the fate of a man after death, and not less various are the opinions in regard to his reward and punishment. According to the common belief the dead, on leaving this world, pass between two fires, agnicikhe raging on either side of his path. These fires burn the one that ought to be burned (the wicked), and let the good pass by. Then the spirit (or the man himself in body) is represented as going up on one of two paths. Either he goes to the Manes on a path which, according to later teaching, passes southeast through the moon, or he goes northeast (the gods' direction) to the sun, which is his 'course and stay.' In the same chapter one is informed that the rays of the sun are the good (dead), and that every brightest light is the Father-god. The general conception here is that the sun or the stars are the destination of the pious. On the other hand it is said that one will enjoy the fruit of his acts here on earth, in a new birth; or that he will 'go to the next world'; or that he will suffer for his sins in hell. The last is told in legendary form, and appears to us to be not an early view retained in folk-lore, but a late modification of an old legend. Varuna sends his son Bhrigu to hell to find out what happens after death, and he finds people suffering torture, and, again, avenging themselves on those that have wronged them. But, despite the resemblance between this and Grecian myth, the fact that in the whole compass of the Rik (in the Atharvan perhaps in v. 19) there is not the slightest allusion to torture in hell, precludes, to our mind, the possibility of this phase having been an ancient inherited belief.[59]

Annihilation or a life in under darkness is the first (Rik) hell. The general antithesis of light (as good) and darkness (as bad) is here plainly revealed again. Sometimes a little variation occurs. Thus, according to Cat. Br. vi. 5. 4. 8, the stars are women-souls, perhaps, as elsewhere, men also. The converse notion that darkness is the abode of evil appears at a very early date: "Indra brought down the heathen, dasyus, into the lowest darkness," it is said in the Atharva Veda (ix. 2. 17).[60]

In the later part of the great 'Brāhmana of the hundred paths' there seems to be a more modern view inculcated in regard to the fate of the dead. Thus, in vi. 1. 2. 36, the opinion of 'some,' that the fire on the altar is to bear the worshipper to the sky, is objected to, and it is explained that he becomes immortal; which antithesis is in purely Upanishadic style, as will be seen below.

BRAHMANIC THEORIES OF CREATION.

In Vedic polytheism, with its strain of pantheism, the act of creating the world[61] is variously attributed to different gods. At the end of this period theosophy invented the god of the golden germ, the great Person (known also by other titles), who is the one (pantheistic) god, in whom all things are contained, and who himself is contain in even the smallest thing. The Atharvan transfers the same idea in its delineation of the pantheistic image to Varuna, that Varuna who is the seas and yet is contained "in the drop of water" (iv. 16), a Varuna as different to the Varuna of the Rik as is the Atharvan Indra to his older prototype. Philosophically the Rik, at its close, declares that "desire is the seed of mind," and that "being arises from not-being."

In the Brāhmanas the creator is the All-god in more anthropomorphic form. The Father-god, Prajāpati, or Brahmā (personal equivalent of brahma) is not only the father of gods, men, and devils, but he is the All. This Father-god of universal sovereignty, Brahmā, remains to the end the personal creator. It is he who will serve as creator for the Puranic Sānkhya philosophy, and even after the rise of the Hindu sects he will still be regarded in this light, although his activity will be conditioned by the will of Vishnu or Civa. In pure philosophy there will be an abstract First Cause; but as there is no religion in the acknowledgment of a First Cause, this too will soon be anthropomorphized.

The Brāhmanas themselves present no clear picture of creation. All the accounts of a personal creator are based merely on anthropomorphized versions of the text 'desire is the seed.' Prajāpati wishes offspring, and creates. There is, on the other hand, a philosophy of creation which reverts to the tale of the 'golden germ.'[62] The world was at first water; thereon floated a cosmic golden egg (the principle of fire). Out of this came Spirit that desired; and by desire he begat the worlds and all things. It is improbable that in this somewhat Orphic mystery there lies any pre-Vedic myth. The notion comes up first in the golden germ and egg-born bird (sun) of the Rik. It is not specially Aryan, and is found even among the American Indians.[63] It is this Spirit with which the Father-god is identified. But guess-work philosophy then asks what upheld this god, and answers that a support upheld all things. So Support becomes a god in his turn, and, since he must reach through time and space, this Support, Skambha, becomes the All-god also; and to him as to a great divinity the Atharvan sings some of its wildest strains. When once speculation is set going in the Brāhmanas, the result of its travel is to land its followers in intellectual chaos.[64] The gods create the Father-god in one passage, and in another the Father-god creates the gods. The Father creates the waters, whence rises the golden egg. But, again, the waters create the egg, and out of the egg is born the Father. A farrago of contradictions is all that these tales amount to, nor are they redeemed even by a poetical garb.[65]

In the period immediately following the Brāhmanas, or toward the end of the Brahmanic period, as one will, there is a famous distinction made between the gods. Some gods, it is said, are spirit-gods; some are work-gods. They are born of spirit and of works, respectively. The difference, however, is not essential, but functional; so that one may conclude from this authority, the Nirukta (a grammatical and epexigetical work), that all the gods have a like nature; and that the spirit-gods, who are the older, differ only in lack of specific functions from the work-gods. A not uninteresting debate follows this passage in regard to the true nature of the gods. Some people say they are anthropomorphic; others deny this. "And certainly what is seen of the gods is not anthropomorphic; for example, the sun, the earth, etc."[66] In such a period of theological advance it is matter of indifference to which of a group of gods, all essentially one, is laid the task of creation. And, indeed, from the Vedic period until the completed systems of philosophy, all creation to the philosopher is but emanation; and stories of specific acts of creation are not regarded by him as detracting from the creative faculty of the First Cause. The actual creator is for him the factor and agent of the real god. On the other hand, the vulgar worshipper of every era believed only in reproduction on the part of an anthropomorphic god; and that god's own origin he satisfactorily explained by the myth of the golden egg. The view depended in each case not on the age but on the man.

If in these many pages devoted to the Brāhmanas we have produced the impression that the religious literature of this period is a confused jumble, where unite descriptions of ceremonies, formulae, mysticism, superstitions, and all the output of active bigotry; an olla podrida which contains, indeed, odds and ends of sound morality, while it presents, on the whole, a sad view of the latter-day saints, who devoted their lives to making it what it is; we have offered a fairly correct view of the age and its priests, and the rather dreary series of illustrations will not have been collected in vain. We have given, however, no notion at all of the chief object of this class of writings, the liturgical details of the sacrifices themselves. Even a resume of one comparatively short ceremony would be so long and tedious that the explication of the intricate formalities would scarcely be a sufficient reward. With Hillebrandt's patient analysis of the New-and Full-Moon sacrifice,[67] of which a sketch is given by von Schroeder in his Literatur und Cultur, the curious reader will be able to satisfy himself that a minute description of these ceremonies would do little to further his knowledge of the religion, when once he grasps the fact that the sacrifice is but show. Symbolism without folk-lore, only with the imbecile imaginings of a daft mysticism, is the soul of it; and its outer form is a certain number of formulae, mechanical movements, oblations, and slaughterings.

But we ought not to close the account of the era without giving counter-illustrations of the legendary aspect of this religion; for which purpose we select two of the best-known tales, one from the end of the Brāhmana that is called the Āitareya; the other from the beginning of the Catapatha; the former in abstract, the latter in full.

THE SACRIFICE OF DOGSTAIL (Āit. Br. vii. 13).

Hariccandra, a king born in the great race of Ikshvāku, had no son. A sage told him what blessings are his who has a son: 'He that has no son has no place in the world; in the person of a son a man is reborn, a second self is begotten.' Then the king desired a son, and the sage instructed him to pray to Varuna for one, and to offer to sacrifice him to the god. This he did, and a son, Rohita, at last was born to him. God Varuna demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'He is not fit to be sacrificed, so young as he is; wait till he is ten days old.' The god waited ten days, and demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth come.' The god waited, and then demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth fall out'; and when the god had waited, and again demanded the sacrifice, the father said: 'Wait till his new teeth come.' But, when his teeth were come and he was demanded, the father said: 'A warrior is not fit to be sacrificed till he has received his armor' (i.e., until he is knighted). So the god waited till the boy had received his armor, and then he demanded the sacrifice. Thereupon, the king called his son, and said unto him: 'I will sacrifice thee to the god who gave thee to me.' But the son said, 'No, no,' and took his bow and fled into the desert. Then Varuna caused the king to be afflicted with dropsy.[68] When Rohita heard of this he was about to return, but Indra, disguised as a priest, met him, and said: 'Wander on, for the foot of a wanderer is like a flower; his spirit grows, and reaps fruit, and all his sins are forgiven in the fatigue of wandering.'[69] So Rohita, thinking that a priest had commanded him, wandered; and every year, as he would return, Indra met him, and told him still to wander. On one of these occasions Indra inspires him to continue on his journey by telling him that the krita was now auspicious; using the names of dice afterwards applied to the four ages.[70] Finally, after six years, Rohita resolved to purchase a substitute for sacrifice. He meets a starving seer, and offers to buy one of his sons (to serve as sacrifice), the price to be one hundred cows. The seer has three sons, and agrees to the bargain; but "the father said, 'Do not take the oldest,' and the mother said, 'Do not take the youngest,' so Rohita took the middle son, Dogstail." Varuna immediately agrees to this substitution of Dogstail for Rohita, "since a priest is of more value than a warrior."

The sacrifice is made ready, and Vicvāmitra (the Vedic seer) is the officiating priest. But no one would bind the boy to the post. 'If thou wilt give me another hundred cows I will bind him,' says the father of Dogstail. But then no one would kill the boy. 'If thou wilt give me another hundred cows I will kill him,' says the father. The Āpri verses[71] are said, and the fire is carried around the boy. He is about to be slain. Then Dogstail prays to 'the first of gods,' the Father-god, for protection. But the Father-god tells him to pray to Agni, 'the nearest of the gods.' Agni sends him to another, and he to another, till at last, when the boy has prayed to all the gods, including the All-gods, his fetters drop off; Hariccandra's dropsy ceases, and all ends well.[72] Only, when the avaricious father demands his son back, he is refused, and Vicvāmitra adopts the boy, even dispossessing his own protesting sons. For fifty of the latter agree to the exaltation of Dogstail; but fifty revolt, and are cursed by Vicvāmitra, that their sons' sons should become barbarians, the Andhras, Pundras, Cabaras, Pulindas, and Mūtibas, savage races (of this time), one of which can be located on the southeast coast. The conclusion, and the matter that follows close on this tale, is significant of the time, and of the priest's authority. For it is said that 'if a king hears this story he is made free of sin,' but he can hear it only from a priest, who is to be rewarded for telling it by a gift of one thousand cows, and other rich goods.

The matter following, to which we have alluded, is the use of sacrificial formulae to defeat the king's foes, the description of a royal inauguration, and, at this ceremony, the oath which the king has to swear ere the priest will anoint him (he is anointed with milk, honey, butter, and water, 'for water is immortality'): "I swear that thou mayst take from me whatever good works I do to the day of my death, together with my life and children, if ever I should do thee harm."[73]

When the priest is secretly told how he may ruin the king by a false invocation at the sacrifice, and the king is made to swear that if ever he hurts the priest the latter may rob him of earthly and heavenly felicity, the respective positions of the two, and the contrast between this era and that of the early hymns, become strikingly evident. It is not from such an age as this that one can explain the spirit of the Rig Veda.

The next selection is the famous story of the flood, which we translate literally in its older form.[74] The object of the legend in the Brāhmana is to explain the importance of the Idā (or Ilā) ceremony, which is identified with Idā, Manu's daughter.

"In the morning they brought water to Manu to wash with, even as they bring it to-day to wash hands with. While he was washing a fish came into his hands. The fish said, 'Keep me, and I will save thee.' 'What wilt thou save me from?' 'A flood will sweep away all creatures on earth. I will save thee from that.' 'How am I to keep thee?' 'As long as we are small,' said he (the fish), 'we are subject to much destruction; fish eats fish. Thou shalt keep me first in a jar. When I outgrow that, thou shalt dig a hole, and keep me in it. When I outgrow that, thou shalt take me down to the sea, for there I shall be beyond destruction.'

"It soon became a (great horned fish called a) jhasha, for this grows the largest, and then it said: 'The flood will come this summer (or in such a year). Look out for (or worship) me, and build a ship. When the flood rises, enter into the ship, and I will save thee.' After he had kept it he took it down to the sea. And the same summer (year) as the fish had told him he looked out for (or worshipped) the fish; and built a ship. And when the flood rose he entered into the ship. Then up swam the fish, and Manu tied the ship's rope to the horn of the fish; and thus he sailed swiftly up toward the mountain of the north. 'I have saved thee' said he (the fish). 'Fasten the ship to a tree. But let not the water leave thee stranded while thou art on the mountain (top). Descend slowly as the water goes down.' So he descended slowly, and that descent of the mountain of the north is called the 'Descent of Manu.' The flood then swept off all the creatures of the earth, and Manu here remained alone. Desirous of posterity, he worshipped and performed austerities. While he was performing a sacrifice, he offered up in the waters clarified butter, sour milk, whey and curds. Out of these in a year was produced a woman. She arose when she was solid, and clarified butter collected where she trod. Mitra and Varuna met her, and said: 'Who art thou?' 'Manu's daughter,' said she. 'Say ours,' said they. 'No,' said she; 'I am my father's.' They wanted part in her. She agreed to this, and she did not agree; but she went by them and came to Manu. Said Manu: 'Who art thou?' 'Thy daughter,' said she. 'How my daughter, glorious woman?' She said: 'Thou hast begotten me of the offering, which thou madest in the water, clarified butter, sour milk, whey, and curds. I am a blessing; use me at the sacrifice. If thou usest me at the sacrifice, thou shalt become rich in children and cattle. Whatever blessing thou invokest through me, all shall be granted to thee.' So he used her as the blessing in the middle of the sacrifice. For what is between the introductory and final offerings is the middle of the sacrifice. With her he went on worshipping and performing austerities, wishing for offspring. Through her he begot the race of men on earth, the race of Manu; and whatever the blessing he invoked through her, all was granted unto him.

"Now she is the same with the Idā ceremony; and whoever, knowing this, performs sacrifice with the Idā, he begets the race that Manu generated; and whatever blessing he invokes through her, all is granted unto him."

There is one of the earliest avatar stories in this tale. Later writers, of course, identify the fish with Brahmā and with Vishnu. In other early Brāhmanas the avatars of a god as a tortoise and a boar were known long before they were appropriated by the Vishnuites.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: In Āit. Br. I. 22, there is an unexplained antithesis of Rik, Yajus, Sāman, Veda, and Brahma; where the commentator takes Veda to be Atharva Veda. The priests, belonging respectively to the first three Vedas, are for the Rig Veda, the Hotar priest, who recites; for the Sāman, the Udgātar, 'the singer'; for the Yājus, the Adhvaryu, who attends to the erection of the altar, etc. Compare Mueller, ASL. p. 468.]

[Footnote 2: It is the only literature of its time except (an important exception) those fore-runners of later Sūtra and epic which one may suppose to be in process of formation long before they come to the front.]

[Footnote 3: There are several schools of this Veda, of which the chief are the Vājasaneyi, or 'White Yajus,' collection; the Tāittirīya collection; and the Māitrāyanī collection; the first named being the latest though the most popular, the last two being the foremost representatives of the 'Black Yajus.']

[Footnote 4: The different traits here recorded are given with many illustrative examples by Schroeder, in his Literatur und Cultur, p. 90 ff.]

[Footnote 5: Compare Weber, Ind. Streifen, II. 197.]

[Footnote 6: Weber, Lit. p. 73.]

[Footnote 7: The Cata-patha Brāhmana (or "Brāmana of the hundred paths") II. 2. 2. 6; 4.3.14.]

[Footnote 8: The chief family priest, it is said in the Cat. Br. II. 4. 4. 5, is a man of great influence. Sometimes one priest becomes religious head of two clans (an extraordinary event, however; only one name is reported) and then how exalted is his position. Probably, as in the later age of the drama, the chief priest often at the same time practically prime minister. It is said in another part of the same book that although the whole earth is divine, yet it is the priest that makes holy the place of sacrifice (III. 1. 1. 4). In this period murder is defined as killing a priest; other cases are not called murder. Weber, IS. X. 66.]

[Footnote 9: Barth, loc. cit. p. 42.]

[Footnote 10: He has analogy with Agni in being made of 'seven persons (males),' Cat. Br. X. 2. 2. 1.]

[Footnote 11: Compare Māit. S. IV. 2. 12, 'sons of Prajāpati, Agni, Vāyu, Sūrya.']

[Footnote 12: Cat. Br. I. 3. 4. 12; IV. 3. 5. 1.]

[Footnote 13: Interesting is the fact that only priests may eat sacrificial food and drink soma at this period. When even the king should drink soma, he is made to drink some transubstantiated liquor which, the priests inform him, has been 'made into soma' for him by magic, for the latter is too holy for any warrior really to drink (VII. 19; VIII. 20). But in the more popular feasts there are indications that this rule is often broken. Compare Weber, Rājasūya p. 98.]

[Footnote 14: For the relations of the different castes at this period, see Weber, in the tenth volume of the Indische Studien.]

[Footnote 15: The Atharvan is not yet recognized as a Veda.]

[Footnote 16: And even the pronunciation of a word or the accent is fateful. The famous godly example of this is where Tvashtar, the artificer, in anger mispronounced indra-catru as indracatru, whereby the meaning was changed from 'conqueror of Indra' to 'Indra-conquered,' with unexpected result (Cat. Br. I. 6. 3. 8; Tāitt. S. II. 4. 12. 1).]

[Footnote 17: The word is aṁsala, strong, or 'from the shoulder' (?). In III. 4. 1. 2 one cooks an ox or a goat for a very distinguished guest, as a sort of guest-sacrifice. So the guest is called 'cow-killer' (Weber, Ved. Beitraege, p. 36).]

[Footnote 18: Compare ib. I. 9. 1. 21, "let the priest not say 'guard me (or us),' but 'guard this worshipper (sacrificer),' for if he says 'me' he induces no blessing at all; the blessing is not for the priest, but for the sacrificer." In both passages, most emphatically, yajamānasyāiva, 'for the sacrificer alone.']

[Footnote 19: Yaṁ kāmaṁ kāmayate so 'smāi kāmaḥ samṛdhyate.]

[Footnote 20: Āsuri's name as a theologian is important, since the Sānkhya philosophy is intimately connected with him; if this Āsuri be not another man with the same name (compare Weber, Lit. p. 152).]

[Footnote 21: The regular sacrifices to the Manes are daily and monthly; funerals and 'faith-feasts,' crāddha, are occasional additions.]

[Footnote 22: Each generation of Manes rises to a better (higher) state if the offerings continue. As a matter of ceremonial this means that the remoter generations of fathers are put indefinitely far off, while the immediate predecessors of a man are the real beneficiaries; they climb up to the sky on the offering.]

[Footnote 23: Compare Cat. Br. i. 8. 1. 40; ii. 6. 1. 3, 7, 10, 42; ii. 4. 2. 24; v. 5. 4. 28.]

[Footnote 24: This passage (ib. ii. 1. 2. 7) is preceded by a typical argument for setting up the fires under the Pleiades, the wives of the Great Bear stars. He may do or he may not do so—the reasons contradict each other, and all of them are incredibly silly.]

[Footnote 25: This last fee is not so common. For an oblation to Sūrya the fee is a white horse or a white bull; either of them representing the proper form of the sun (Cat. Br. ii. 6. 3. 9); but another authority specifies twelve oxen and a plough (Tāitt. S. i. 8. 7).]

[Footnote 26: Cat. Br. ii. 1. 1. 3; 2. 3. 28; iv. 3. 4. 14; 5. 1. 15; four kinds of fees, ib. iv. 3. 4. 6, 7, 24 ff. (Milk is also 'Agni's seed,' ib. ii. 2. 4. 15).]

[Footnote 27: Yet in Āit. Br. iii. 19, the priest is coolly informed how he may be able to slay his patron by making a little change in the invocations. Elsewhere such conduct is reprobated.]

[Footnote 28: For other covenants, see the epic (chapter on Hinduism).]

[Footnote 29: Cat. Br. iii. 4. 2. 1 ff.; iii. 6. 2. 25; iv. 3. 3. 3; iv. 4.1.17; 6. 6. 3; 7. 6, etc.; iii. 8. 2. 27; 3. 26; Āit. Br.. i. 24.]

[Footnote 30: ib. ii. 6. 2. 5. Here Rudra (compare Civa and Hekate of the cross-roads) is said to go upon 'cross-roads'; so that his sacrifice is on cross-roads—one of the new teachings since the time of the Rig Veda. Rudra's sister, Ambikā, ib. 9, is another new creation, the genius of autumnal sickness.]

[Footnote 31: Cat. Br. ii. 2. 1. 21. How much non-serious fancy there may be here it is difficult to determine. It seems impossible that such as follows can have been meant in earnest: "The sacrifice, prayāja, is victory, jaya, because yaja = jaya. With this knowledge one gets the victory over his rivals" (ib. i. 5. 3. 3, 10).]

[Footnote 32: Although Bhaga is here (Cat. Br. i. 7. 4. 6-7, endho bhagas) interpreted as the Sun, he is evidently the same with Good Luck [Greek: typhlhos ghar ho Elohhytos] or wealth.]

[Footnote 33: Cat. Br. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18; iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3 ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2. 4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4. 6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV. viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of Brahmā, the god from the priest, and this from brahmā, prayer. The first step is brahma—force, power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahmā, the one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahmā of gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified brahma, the personal Brahmā as god, called also Father-god (Prajāpati) or simply The Father (pitā).]

[Footnote 33: Cat. Br. iii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; l. 1. 2. 18; iii. 6. 1. 8 ff.; ii. 5. 2. 1; iv. 2. 1. 11; iii. 4.4. 3 ff.; 2. 3. 6-12, 13-14; iv. 5. 5. 12; 1.3. 13 ff.; iii. 2. 4. 5-6; 3. 2. 8; 7. 1. 17; iv. 2. 5. 17; 4. 1. 15; i. 7. 4. 6-7; ii. 4. 3. 4 ff.; li. 5.2.34; 5. 1. 12; 5. 1. 1 ff.; RV. viii. 104. 14. The reader must distinguish, in the name of Brahmā, the god from the priest, and this from brahmā, prayer. The first step is brahma—force, power, prayer; then this is, as a masculine Brahmā, the one who prays, that is, prayer, the Brahman priest, as, in the Rig Veda, x. 141. 3. Brihaspati is the 'Brahmā of gods.' The next (Brahmanic) step is deified brahma, the personal Brahmā as god, called also Father-god (Prajāpati) or simply The Father (pitā).]

[Footnote 34: Compare Māit. S iii. 10. 2; Āit. Br. ii. 8; Cat. Br. i. 2. 3. 5; vi. 2. 1. 39; 3. 1. 24; ii. 5. 2. 16, a ram and ewe 'made of barley.' On human sacrifices, compare Mueller, ASL. p. 419; Weber. ZDMG. xviii. 262 (see the Bibliography); Streifen, i.54.]

[Footnote 35: Weber has translated some of these legends. Ind. Streifen, i. 9 ff.]

[Footnote 36: Tāitt. Br. iii. 2. 9. 7; Cat. Br. i. 2. 5. 5; ii. 1. 2. 13 ff.; vii. 5. 1. 6.]

[Footnote 37: Compare Māit. S. i. 9. 8; Cat. Br. i. 6. 1. 1 ff. The seasons desert the gods, and the demons thrive. In Cat. Br. i. 5. 4. 6-11, the Asuras and Indra contend with numbers.]

[Footnote 38: Mueller, ASL. p. 529.]

[Footnote 39: Māit. S. iv. 2. 12; Cat. Br. i. 7. 4. 1; ii. 1. 2. 9; vi. 1. 3. 8; Āit. Br. iii. 33. Compare Muir, OST. iv. p. 45. At a later period there are frequently found indecent tales of the gods, and the Brāhmanas themselves are vulgar enough, but they exhibit no special lubricity on the part of the priests.]

[Footnote 40: Idam aham ya evā smi so asmi, Cat. Br. i. 1. 1. 6; 9. 3. 23.]

[Footnote 41: RV. viii. 51. 2; Zimmer, loc. cit. p. 328.]

[Footnote 42: Compare Weber, Episch. in Vedisch. Ritual, p. 777 (and above). The man who is slaughtered must be neither a priest nor a slave, but a warrior or a man of the third caste (Weber, loc. cit. above).]

[Footnote 43: Le Mercier, 1637, ap. Parkman, loc. cit. p. 80. The current notion that the American Indian burns his victims at the stake merely for pleasure is not incorrect. He frequently did so, as he does so to-day, but in the seventeenth century this act often is part of a religious ceremony. He probably would have burned his captive, anyway, but he gladly utilized his pleasure as a means of propitiating his gods. In India it was just the other way.]

[Footnote 44: Substitutes of metal or of earthen victims are also mentioned.]

[Footnote 45: That the Vedic rite of killing the sacrificial beast (by beating and smothering) was very cruel may be seen in the description, Āit. Br. ii. 6.]

[Footnote 46: Cat. Br. i. 5. 2. 4.]

[Footnote 47: Samsāra is transmigration; karma, 'act,' implies that the change of abode is conditioned by the acts of a former life. Each may exclude the other; but in common parlance each implies the other.]

[Footnote 48: Weber, Indischt Streifen, i. p. 72.]

[Footnote 49: Cat. Br. i. 7. 3. 19: iii. 4. 1. 17.]

[Footnote 50: Caf. Br. iii. 5. 4. 10; 6. 2. 24; 5. 3. 17 (compare 6. 4. 23-24; 3. 4. 11; 2. 1. 12); iii. 1. 2. 4; 3. 14; i. 7. 2. 9; vi. 1. 2. 14. The change of name is interesting. There is a remark in another part of the same work to the effect that when a man prospers in life they give his name also to his son, grandson, and to his father and grandfather (vi. 1. 2. 13). On the other hand, it was the custom of the Indian kings in later ages to assume the names of their prosperous grandfathers (JRAS. iv. 85).]

[Footnote 51: Were it not for the first clause it would be more natural to render the original 'The gods are truth alone, and men are untruth.']

[Footnote 52: In Cat. Br. ii. 4. 2. 5-6 it is said that the Father-god gives certain rules of eating to gods, Manes, men, and beasts: "Neither gods, Manes, nor beasts transgress the Father's law, only some men do."]

[Footnote 53: Cat. Br. ii. 5. 2. 20. Varuna seizes on her paramour, when she confesses. Tȧitt. Br. i. 6. 5. 2. The guilt confessed becomes less "because it thereby becomes truth" (right).]

[Footnote 54: See Cat. Br.. ii. 4. 2. 6; 4. 1. 14; 1. 3. 9; 3. 1. 28: "Who knows man's morrow? Then let one not procrastinate." "Today is self, this alone is certain, uncertain is the morrow."]

[Footnote 55: Some little rules are interesting. The Pythagorean abstinence from māṣās, beans, for instance, is enjoined; though this rule is opposed by Barku Vārshna, Cat. Br. i. 1. 1. 10, on the ground that no offering to the gods is made of beans; "hence he said 'cook beans for me.'"]

[Footnote 56: Animals may represent gods. "The bull is a form of Indra," and so if the bull can be made to roar (Cat. Br. ii. 5. 3. 18), then one may know that Indra is come to the sacrifice. "Man is born into (whatever) world is made (by his acts in a previous existence)," is a short formula (Cat. Br.. vi. 2. 2. 27), which represents the karma doctrine in its essential principle, though the 'world' is here not this world, but the next. Compare Weber, ZDMG. ix. 237 ff.; Muir, OST. v. 314 ff.]

[Footnote 57: Though youth may be restored to him by the Acvins, Cat. Br.. iv. i. 5. 1 ff. Here the Horsemen are identified with Heaven and Earth (16).]

[Footnote 58: Cal. Br. ii. 3. 3. 7. Apropos of the Brahmanic sun it may be mentioned that, according to Ait. Br. iii. 44, the sun never really sets. "People think that he sets, but in truth he only turns round after reaching the end of the day, and makes night below, day above; and when they think he rises in the morning, he having come to the end of the night, turns round, and makes day below, night above. He never really sets. Whoever knows this of him, that he never sets, obtains union and likeness of form with the sun, and the same abode as the sun's." Compare Muir, OST. v. 521. This may be the real reason why the Rig Veda speaks of a dark and light sun.]

[Footnote 59: Cat. Br.. i. 4. 3. 11-22 ('The sinner shall suffer and go quickly to yonder world'); xi. 6. 1 (compare Weber, loc. cit. p. 20 ff.; ZDMG. ix. 237), the Bhrigu story, of which a more modern form is found in the Upanishad period. For the course of the sun, the fires on either side of the way, the departure to heaven 'with the whole body,' compare Cat. Br. i. 9. 3. 2-15; iv. 5. 1. 1; vi. 6. 2. 4; xi. 2. 7. 33; Weber, loc. cit.: Muir, loc. cit. v. p. 314. Not to have all one's bones in the next world is a disgrace, as Muir says, and for that reason they are collected at burial. Compare the custom as described by the French missionaries here. The American Indian has to have all his bones for future use, and the burying of the skeleton is an annual religious ceremony.]

[Footnote 60: Compare RV. iv. 28. 4: 'Thou Indra madest lowest the heathen.' Weber has shown, loc. cit., that the general notion of the Brāhmanas is that all are born again in the next world, where they are rewarded or punished according as they are good or bad; whereas in the Rig Veda the good rejoice in heaven, and the bad are annihilated. This general view is to be modified, however, by such side-theories as those just mentioned, that the good (or wise) may be reborn on earth, or be united with gods, or become sunlight or stars (the latter are 'watery' to the Hindu, and this may explain the statement that the soul is 'in the midst of waters').]

[Footnote 61: There is in this age no notion of the repeated creations found in later literature. On the contrary, it is expressly said in the Rig Veda, vi. 48. 22, that heaven and earth are created but once: "Only once was heaven created, only once was earth created," Zimmer, AIL. 408.]

[Footnote 62: When the principle of life is explained it is in terms of sun or fire. Thus Prajāpati, Lord of beings, or Father-god, is first an epithet of Savitar, RV. iv. 53. 2; and the golden germ must be fire.]

[Footnote 63: Schoolcraft, Historical and Statistical Information, i. 32. As examples of the many passages where 'water is the beginning' may be cited Cat. Br. vi. 7. 1. 17; xi. 1. 6. 1. The sun, born as Aditi's eighth son, is the bird, 'egg-born,' RV. x. 72. 8.]

[Footnote 64: Among the new curators of Atharvan origin are, for instance, the sun under the name of Rohita, Desire (Love), etc., etc.]

[Footnote 65: Illustrations of these contradictions may be found in plenty apud Muir iv. p. 20 ff.]

[Footnote 66: Nirukta, vii. 4; Muir, loc. cit. p. 131 and v. 17.]

[Footnote 67: Neu-und Vollmonds Opfer, 1880. The Dīkshā, or initiation, has been described by Lindner; the Rājasūya and Vajapeya, by Weber.]

[Footnote 68: The water-sickness already imputed to this god in the Rig Veda. This tale and that of Bhrigu (referred to above) show an ancient trait in the position of Varuna, as chief god.]

[Footnote 69: This is the germ of the pilgrimage doctrine (see below).]

[Footnote 70: Perhaps (M. ix. 301) interpolated; or the first allusion to the Four Ages.]

[Footnote 71: These (compare afri, 'blessing,' in the Avesta) are verses in the Rig Veda introducing the sacrifice. They are meant as propitiations, and appear to be an ancient part of the ritual.]

[Footnote 72: A group of hymns in the first book of the Rig Veda are attributed to Dogstail. At any rate, they do allude to him, and so prove a moderate antiquity (probably the middle period of the Rik) for the tale. The name, in Sanskrit Cunascepa, has been ingeniously starred by Weber as Cynosoura; the last part of each compound having the same meaning, and the first part being even phonetically the same cunas, [Greek: kunhos].]

[Footnote 73: Ait. Br. viii. 10, 15, 20.]

[Footnote 74: The epic has a later version. This earlier form is found in Cat. Br. i. 8. 1. For the story of the flood among the American Indians compare Schoolcraft (Historical and Statistical Information), i. 17.]

* * * * *



CHAPTER X.

BRAHMANIC PANTHEISM.—THE UPANISHADS.

In the Vedic hymns man fears the gods, and imagines God. In the Brāhmanas man subdues the gods, and fears God. In the Upanishads man ignores the gods, and becomes God.[1]

Such in a word is the theosophic relations between the three periods represented by the first Vedic Collection, the ritualistic Brāhmanas, and the philosophical treatises called Upanishads. Yet if one took these three strata of thought to be quite independent of each other he would go amiss. Rather is it true that the Brāhmanas logically continue what the hymns begin; that the Upanishads logically carry on the thought of the Brāhmanas. And more, for in the oldest Upanishads are traits that connect this class of writings (if they were written) directly, and even closely with the Vedic hymns themselves; so that one may safely assume that the time of the first Upanishads is not much posterior to that of the latest additions made to the Vedic collections, though this indicates only that these additions were composed at a much later period than is generally supposed.[2] In India no literary period subsides with the rise of its eventually 'succeeding' period. All the works overlap. Parts of the Brāhmanas succeed, sometimes with the addition of whole books, their proper literary successors, the Upanishads. Vedic hymns are composed in the Brahmanic period.[3] The prose Sūtras, which, in general, are earlier, sometimes post-date metrical Cāstra-rules. Thus it is highly probable that, whereas the Upanishads began before the time of Buddha, the Catapatha Brāhmana (if not others of this class) continued to within two or three centuries of our era; that the legal Sūtras were, therefore, contemporary with part of the Brāhmanic period;[4] and that, in short, the end of the Vedic period is so knit with the beginning of the Brāhmanic, while the Brāhmanic period is so knit with the rise of the Upanishads, Sūtras, epics, and Buddhism, that one cannot say of any one: 'this is later,' 'this is earlier'; but each must be taken only for a phase of indefinitely dated thought, exhibited on certain lines. It must also be remembered that by the same class of works a wide geographical area may be represented; by the Brāhmanas, west and east; by the Sūtras, north and south; by the Vedic poems, northwest and east to Benares (AV.); by the epics, all India, centred about the holy middle land near Delhi.

The meaning of Upanishad as used in the compositions themselves, is either, as it is used to-day, the title of a philosophical work; that of knowledge derived from esoteric teaching; or the esoteric teaching itself. Thus brahma upanishad is the secret doctrine of brahma, and 'whoever follows this upanishad' means whoever follows this doctrine. This seems, however, to be a meaning derived from the nature of the Upanishads themselves, and we are almost inclined to think that the true significance of the word was originally that in which alone occurs, in the early period, the combination upa-ni-ṣad, and this is purely external: "he makes the common people upa-ni-sādin," i.e., 'sitting below' or 'subject,' it is said in Cat. Br. ix. 4. 3. 3 (from the literal meaning of 'sitting below').[5] Instead, therefore, of seeing in upanīsad, Upanishad, the idea of a session, of pupils sitting down to hear instruction (the prepositions and verb are never used in this sense), it may be that the Upanishads were at first subsidiary works of the ritualistic Brāhmanas contained in the Āranyakas or Forest Books, that is, appendices to the Brāhmana, ostensibly intended for the use of pious forest-hermits (who had passed beyond the need of sacrifice); and this, in point of fact, is just what they were; till their growth resulted in their becoming an independent branch of literature. The usual explanation of 'Upanishad,' however, is that it represents the instruction given to the pupil 'sitting under' the teacher.

Although at present between two and three hundred Upanishads are known, at least by name, to exist, yet scarcely a dozen appear to be of great antiquity. Some of these are integral parts of Brāhmanas, and apparently were added to the ritualistic works at an early period.[6]

While man's chief effort in the Brahmanic period seems to be by sacrifice and penance to attain happiness hereafter, and to get the upper hand of divine powers; while he recognizes a God, who, though supreme, has yet, like the priest himself, attained his supremacy by sacrifice and penance; while he dreams of a life hereafter in heavenly worlds, in the realm of light, though hardly seeking to avoid a continuation of earthly re-births; nevertheless he frees himself at times from ritualistic observances sufficiently to continue the questioning asked by his Vedic ancestors, and to wonder whither his immortal part is definitively going, and whether that spirit of his will live independently, or be united with some higher power, such as the sun or Brahmā.

The philosophical writings called Upanishads[7] take up this question in earnest, but the answer is already assured, and the philosophers, or poets, of this period seek less to prove the truth than to expound it. The soul of man will not only join a heavenly Power. It is part of that Power. Man's spirit (self) is the world-spirit. And what is this? While all the Upanishads are at one in answering the first question, they are not at one in the method by which they arrive at the same result. There is no systematic philosophy; but a tentative, and more or less dogmatic, logic. In regard to the second question they are still less at one; but in general their answer is that the world-spirit is All, and everything is a part of It or Him. Yet, whether that All is personal or impersonal, and what is the relation between spirit and matter, this is still an unsettled point.

The methods and results of this half-philosophical literature will most easily be understood by a few examples. But, before these are given, it will be necessary to emphasize the colloquial and scrappy nature of the teaching. Legend, parable, ritualistic absurdities, belief in gods, denial of gods, belief in heaven, denial of heaven, are all mingled, and for a purpose. For some men are able, and some are unable, to receive the true light of knowledge. But man's fate depends on his knowledge. The wise man becomes hereafter what his knowledge has prepared him to be. Not every spirit is fitted for immortality, but only the spirit of them that have wisely desired it, or, rather, not desired it; for every desire must have been extinguished before one is fitted for this end. Hence, with advancing belief in absorption and pantheism, there still lingers, and not as a mere superfluity, the use of sacrifice and penance. Rites and the paraphernalia of religion are essential till one learns that they are unessential. Desire will be gratified till one learns that the most desirable thing is lack of desire. But so long as one desires even the lack of desire he is still in the fetters of desire. The way is long to the extinction of emotion, but its attainment results in happiness that is greater than delight; in peace that surpasses joy.

In the exposition of this doctrine the old gods are retained as figures. They are not real gods. But they are existent forms of God. They are portions of the absolute, a form of the Eternal, even as man is a form of the same. Absolute being, again, is described as anthropomorphic. 'This is that' under a certain form. Incessantly made is the attempt to explain the identity of the absolute with phenomena. The power brahma, which is originally applied to prayer, is now taken as absolute being, and this, again, must be equated with the personal spirit (ego, self, ātmā). One finds himself back in the age of Vedic speculation when he reads of prayer (or penance) and power as one. For, as was shown above, the Rig Veda already recognizes that prayer is power. There the word for power, brahma, is used only as equivalent of prayer, and Brihaspati or Brahmanaspati is literally the 'god of power,' as he is interpreted by the priests. The significance of the other great word of this period, namely ātmā, is not at all uncertain, but to translate it is difficult. It is breath, spirit, self, soul. Yet, since in its original sense it corresponds to spiritus (comparable to athmen), the word spirit, which also signifies the real person, perhaps represents it best. We shall then render brahma and ātmā by the absolute and the ego or spirit, respectively; or leave them, which is perhaps the best way, in their native form. The physical breath, prāna, is occasionally used just like ātmā. Thus it is said that all the gods are one god, and this is prāna, identical with brahma (Brihad Āranyaka Upanishad, 3.9.9); or prāna is so used as to be the same with spirit, though, on the other hand, 'breath is born of spirit' (Pracna Up. 3.3), just as in the Rig Veda (above) it is said that all comes from the breath of God.

One of the most instructive of the older Upanishads is the Chāndogya. A sketch of its doctrines will give a clearer idea of Upanishad philosophy than a chapter of disconnected excerpts:

All this (universe) is brahma. Man has intelligent force (or will). He, after death, will exist in accordance with his will in life. This spirit in (my) heart is that mind-making, breath-bodied, light-formed, truth-thoughted, ether-spirited One, of whom are all works, all desires, all smells, and all tastes; who comprehends the universe, who speaks not and is not moved; smaller than a rice-corn, smaller than a mustard-seed, ... greater than earth, greater than heaven. This (universal being) is my ego, spirit, and is brahma, force (absolute being). After death I shall enter into him (3.14).[8] This all is breath (==spirit in 3.15.4).

After this epitome of pantheism follows a ritualistic bit:

Man is sacrifice. Four and twenty years are the morning libation; the next four and forty, the mid-day libation; the next eight and forty, the evening libation. The son of Itarā, knowing this, lived one hundred and sixteen years. He who knows this lives one hundred and sixteen years (3.16).

Then, for the abolition of all sacrifice, follows a chapter which explains that man may sacrifice symbolically, so that, for example, gifts to the priests (a necessary adjunct of a real sacrifice) here become penance, liberality, rectitude, non-injury, truth-speaking (ib. 17. 4). There follows then the identification of brahma with mind, sun, breath, cardinal points, ether, etc, even puns being brought into requisition, Ka is Kha and Kha is Ka (4. 10. 5);[9] earth, fire, food, sun, water, stars, man, are brahma, and brahma is the man seen in the moon (4. 12. I). And now comes the identity of the impersonal brahma with the personal spirit. The man seen in the eye is the spirit; this is the immortal, unfearing brahma (4. 15. I = 8. 7. 4). He that knows this goes after death to light, thence to day, thence to the light moon, thence to the season, thence to the year, thence to the sun, thence to the moon, thence to lightning; thus he becomes divine, and enters brahma. They that go on this path of the gods that conducts to brahma do not return to human conditions (ib. 15. 6).