The Religions of India / Handbooks on the History of Religions, Volume 1, Edited by Morris Jastrow

by Edward Washburn Hopkins

CHAPTER IX.

BRAHMANISM.

Besides the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda there are two others, called respectively the S[=a]ma Veda and the Yajur Veda.[1] The former consists of a small collection of verses, which are taken chiefly from the eighth and ninth books of the Rig Veda, and are arranged for singing. It has a few more verses than are contained in the corresponding parts of the Rik, but the whole is of no added importance from the present point of view. It is of course made entirely for the ritual. Also made for the ritual is the Yajur Veda, the Veda of sacrificial formulae. But this Veda is far more important. With it one is brought into a new land, and into a world of ideas that are strange to the Rik. The period represented by it is a sort of bridge between the Rik and the Br[=a]hmanas. The Yajus is later than Rik or Atharvan, belonging in its entirety more to the age of the liturgy than to the older Vedic era. With the Br[=a]hmanas not only is the tone changed from that of the Rig Veda; the whole moral atmosphere is now surcharged with hocus-pocus, mysticism, religiosity, instead of the cheerful, real religion which, however formal, is the soul of the Rik. In the Br[=a]hmanas there is no freshness, no poetry. There is in some regards a more scrupulous outward morality, but for the rest there is only cynicism, bigotry, and dullness. It is true that each of these traits may be found in certain parts of the Rig Veda, but it is not true that they represent there the spirit of the age, as they do in the Brahmanic period. Of this Brahmanic stoa, to which we now turn, the Yajur Veda forms the fitting entrance. Here the priest is as much lord as he is in the Br[=a]hmanas. Here the sacrifice is only the act, the sacrificial forms (yajus), without the spirit.

In distinction from the verse-Veda (the Rik), the Yajur Veda contains the special formulae which the priest that attends to the erection of the altar has to speak, with explanatory remarks added thereto. This of course stamps the collection as mechanical; but the wonder is that this collection, with the similar Br[=a]hmana scriptures that follow it, should be the only new literature which centuries have to show.[2] As explanatory of the sacrifice there is found, indeed, a good deal of legendary stuff, which sometimes has a literary character. But nothing is for itself; everything is for the correct performance of the sacrifice.[3]

The geographical centre is now changed, and instead of the Punj[=a]b, the 'middle district' becomes the seat of culture. Nor is there much difference between the district to which can be referred the rise of the Yajur Veda and that of the Br[=a]hmanas. No less altered is the religion. All is now symbolical, and the gods, though in general they are the gods of the Rig Veda, are not the same as of old. The priests have become gods. The old appellation of 'spirit,' asura, is confined to evil spirits. There is no longer any such 'henotheism' as that of the Rig Veda. The Father-god, 'lord of beings,' or simply 'the father,' is the chief god. The last thought of the Rig Veda is the first thought of the Yajur Veda. Other changes have taken place. The demigods of the older period, the water-nymphs of the Rik, here become seductive goddesses, whose increase of power in this art agrees with the decline of the warrior spirit that is shown too in the whole mode of thinking. Most important is the gradual rise of Vishnu and the first appearance of Çiva. Here brahma, which in the Rik has the meaning 'prayer' alone, is no longer mere prayer, but, as in later literature, holiness. In short, before the Br[=a]hmanas are reached they are perceptible in the near distance, in the Veda of Formulae, the Yajus;[4] for between the Yajur Veda and the Br[=a]hmanas there is no essential difference. The latter consist of explanations of the sacrificial liturgy, interspersed with legends, bits of history, philosophical explanations, and other matter more or less related to the subject. They are completed by the Forest Books, [=A]ranyakas, which contain the speculations of the later theosophy, the Upanishads (below). It is with the Yajur Veda and its nearly related literature, the Br[=a]hmanas, that Brahmanism really begins. Of these latter the most important in age and content are the Br[=a]hmanas (of the Rig Veda and Yajur Veda), called [=A]itareya and Çata-patha, the former representing the western district, the latter, in great part, a more eastern region.

Although the 'Northerners' are still respectfully referred to, yet, as we have just said, the people among whom arose the Br[=a]hmanas are not settled in the Punj[=a]b, but in the country called the 'middle district,' round about the modern Delhi. For the most part the Punj[=a]b is abandoned; or rather, the literature of this period does not emanate from the Aryans that remained in the Punj[=a]b, but from the still emigrating descendants of the old Vedic people that used to live there. Some stay behind and keep the older practices, not in all regards looked upon as orthodox by their more advanced brethren, who have pushed east and now live in the country called the land of the Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las.[5] They are spread farther east, along the banks of the Jumna and Ganges, south of Nep[=a]l; while some are still about and south of the holy Kurukshetra or 'plain of Kurus.' East of the middle district the Kosalas and Videhas form, in opposition to the Kurus and Pa[.n]c[=a]las, the second great tribe (Tirh[=u]t). There are now two sets of 'Seven Rivers,' and the holiness of the western group is perceptibly lessened. Here for the first time are found the Vr[=a]tya-hymns, intended to initiate into the Brahmanic order Aryans who have not conformed to it, and speak a dialectic language.[6] From the point of view of language and geography, no less than from that of the social and spiritual conditions, it is evident that quite a period has elapsed since the body of the Rig Veda was composed. The revealed texts are now ancient storehouses of wisdom. Religion has apparently become a form; in some regards it is a farce.

"There are two kinds of gods; for the gods are gods, and priests that are learned in the Veda and teach it are human gods." This sentence, from one of the most important Hindu prose works,[7] is the key to the religion of the period which it represents; and it is fitly followed by the further statement, that like sacrifice to the gods are the fees paid to the human gods the priests.[8] Yet with this dictum, so important for the understanding of the religion of the age, must be joined another, if one would do that age full justice: 'The sacrifice is like a ship sailing heavenward; if there be a sinful priest in it, that one priest would make it sink' (Çat. Br. IV. 2. 5. 10). For although the time is one in which ritualism had, indeed, become more important than religion, and the priest more important than the gods, yet is there no lack of reverential feeling, nor is morality regarded as unimportant. The first impression, however, which is gained from the literature of this period is that the sacrifice is all in all; that the endless details of its course, and the petty questions in regard to its arrangement, are not only the principal objects of care and of chief moment, but even of so cardinal importance that the whole religious spirit swings upon them. But such is not altogether the case. It is the truth, yet is it not the whole truth, that in these Br[=a]hmanas religion is an appearance, not a reality. The sacrifice is indeed represented to be the only door to prosperity on earth and to future bliss; but there is a quiet yet persistent belief that at bottom a moral and religious life is quite as essential as are the ritualistic observances with which worship is accompanied.

To describe Brahmanism as implying a religion that is purely one of ceremonies, one composed entirely of observances, is therefore not altogether correct. In reading a liturgical work it must not be forgotten for what the work was intended. If its object be simply to inculcate a special rite, one cannot demand that it should show breadth of view or elevation of sentiment. Composed of observances every work must be of which the aim is to explain observances. In point of fact, religion (faith and moral behavior) is here assumed, and so entirely is it taken for granted that a statement emphasizing the necessity of godliness is seldom found.

Nevertheless, having called attention to the religious spirit that lies latent in the pedantic Br[=a]hmanas, we are willing to admit that the age is overcast, not only with a thick cloud of ritualism, but also with an unpleasant mask of phariseeism. There cannot have been quite so much attention paid to the outside of the platter without neglect of the inside. And it is true that the priests of this period strive more for the completion of their rites than for the perfection of themselves. It is true, also, that occasionally there is a revolting contempt for those people who are not of especial service to the priest. There are now two godlike aristocrats, the priest and the noble. The 'people' are regarded as only fit to be the "food of the nobility." In the symbolical language of the time the bricks of the altar, which are consecrated, are the warrior caste; the fillings, in the space between the bricks, are not consecrated; and these "fillers of space" are "the people" (Çat. Br. VI. 1. 2. 25). Yet is religion in these books not dead, but sleeping; to wake again in the Upanishads with a fuller spiritual life than is found in any other pre-Christian system. Although the subject matter of the Br[=a]hmanas is the cult, yet are there found in them numerous legends, moral teachings, philosophical fancies, historical items, etymologies and other adventitious matter, all of which are helpful in giving a better understanding of the intelligence of the people to whom is due all the extant literature of the period. Long citations from these ritualistic productions would have a certain value, in showing in native form the character of the works, but they would make unendurable reading; and we have thought it better to arrange the multifarious contents of the chief Br[=a]hmanas in a sort of order, although it is difficult always to decide where theology ends and moral teachings begin, the two are here so interwoven.

BRAHMANIC THEOLOGY AND THE SACRIFICE.

While in general the pantheon of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda is that of the Br[=a]hmanas, some of the older gods are now reduced in importance, and, on the other hand, as in the Yajur Veda, some gods are seen to be growing in importance. 'Time,' deified in the Atharvan, is a great god, but beside him still stand the old rustic divinities; and chrematheism, which antedates even the Rig Veda, is still recognized. To the 'ploughshare' and the 'plough' the Rig Veda has an hymn (IV. 57. 5-8), and so the ritual gives them a cake at the sacrifice (Çun[=a]ç[=i]rya, Çat. Br. II. 6. 3. 5). The number of the gods, in the Rig Veda estimated as thirty-three, or, at the end of this period, as thousands, remains as doubtful as ever; but, in general, all groups of deities become greater in number. Thus, in TS. I. 4. 11. 1, the Rudras alone are counted as thirty-three instead of eleven; and, ib. V. 5. 2. 5, the eight Vasus become three hundred and thirty-three; but it is elsewhere hinted that the number of the gods stands in the same relation to that of men as that in which men stand to the beasts; that is, there are not quite so many gods as men (Çat. Br. II. 3. 2. 18).

Of more importance than the addition of new deities is the subdivision of the old. As one finds in Greece a [Greek: Zeus katachthonios] beside a [Greek: Zeus xenios], so in the Yajur Veda and Br[=a]hmanas are found (an extreme instance) hail 'to K[=a]ya,' and hail 'to Kasm[=a]i,' that is, the god Ka is differentiated into two divinities, according as he is declined as a noun or as a pronoun; for this is the god "Who?" as the dull Br[=a]hmanas interpreted that verse of the Rig Veda which asks 'to whom (which, as) god shall we offer sacrifice?' (M[=a]it. S. III. 12. 5.) But ordinarily one divinity like Agni is subdivided, according to his functions, as 'lord of food,' 'lord of prayer,' etc.[9]

In the Br[=a]hmanas different names are given to the chief god, but he is most often called the Father-god (Praj[=a]pati, 'lord of creatures,' or the Father, pit[=a]). His earlier Vedic type is Brihaspati, the lord of strength, and, from another point of view, the All-god.[10] The other gods fall into various groups, the most significant being the triad of Fire, Wind, and Sun.[11] Not much weight is to be laid on the theological speculations of the time as indicative of primitive conceptions, although they may occasionally hit true. For out of the number of inane fancies it is reasonable to suppose that some might coincide with historic facts. Thus the All-gods of the Rig Veda, by implication, are of later origin than the other gods, and this, very likely, was the case; but it is a mere guess on the part of the priest. The Çatapatha, III. 6. 1. 28, speaks of the All-gods as gods that gained immortality on a certain occasion, i.e., became immortal like other gods. So the [=A]dityas go to heaven before the Angirasas ([=A][=i]t. Br. IV. 17), but this has no such historical importance as some scholars are inclined to think. The lesser gods are in part carefully grouped and numbered, in a manner somewhat contradictory to what must have been the earlier belief. Thus the 'three kinds of gods' are now Vasus, of earth, Rudras, of air, and [=A]dityas, of sky, and the daily offerings are divided between them; the morning offering belonging only to the Vasus, the mid-day one only to (Indra and) the Rudras, the third to the [=A]dityas with the Vasus and Rudras together.[12] Again, the morning and mid-day pressing belong to the gods alone, and strict rule is observed in distinguishing their portion from that of the Manes (Çat. Br. IV. 4. 22). The difference of sex is quite ignored, so that the 'universal Agni' is identified with (mother) earth; as is also, once or twice, P[=u]shan (ib. III. 8. 5. 4; 2. 4. 19; II. 5. 4. 7). As the 'progenitor,' Agni facilitates connubial union, and is called "the head god, the progenitor among gods, the lord of beings" (ib. III. 4. 3. 4; III. 9. 1. 6). P[=u]shan is interpreted to mean cattle, and Brihaspati is the priestly caste (ib. III. 9. 1. 10 ff.). The base of comparison is usually easy to find. 'The earth nourishes,' and 'P[=u]shan nourishes,' hence Pushan is the earth; or 'the earth belongs to all' and Agni is called 'belonging to all' (universal), hence the two are identified. The All-gods, merely on account of their name, are now the All; Aditi is the 'unbounded' earth (ib. III. 9. 1. 13; IV. 1. 1. 23; i. 1. 4. 5; III. 2. 3. 6). Agni represents all the gods, and he is the dearest, the closest, and the surest of all the gods (ib. I. 6. 2. 8 ff.). It is said that man on earth fathers the fire (that is, protects it), and when he dies the fire that he has made his son on earth becomes his father, causing him to be reborn in heaven (ib. II. 3. 3. 3-5; VI. 1. 2. 26).

The wives of the gods (dev[=a]n[=a]m patn[=i]r 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 Praj[=a]pati 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 (Praj[=a]pati) 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' Praj[=a]pati. 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 [=A]it. Br. I. 27, King Soma is bought of the Gandharvas by V[=a]c, '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 (Çat. 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' (Çat. 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 (viç) 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 ([=A]it. Br.. V. 23; Çat. 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' (Çat. 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 contradictóry. 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' (Çat. Br. III. 1. 4. 3; [=A]it. Br. II. I. I). So now they live by sacrifice: 'The sun would not rise if the priest did not make sacrifice' (Çat. 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 S[=a]ma Veda.[15] The Rig Veda, i.e., the verses sung, are the earth; the Yajus is air; the S[=a]man is the sky. He conquers earth, air, and sky respectively by these three Vedas. The Rik and S[=a]man 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 (T[=a]itt. Br. II. 2. 7. 3; Çat. Br. I. 2. 5. 24). Even the gods are now not native to heaven. They win heaven by sacrifice, by metres, etc. (Çat. 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 Y[=a]j[.n]avalkya, 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 (Çat. Br. III. I. 2. 21). It was, again, Y[=a]jñavalkya (Çat. 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 Y[=a]jñavalkya 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 Y[=a]jñavalkya, too, who rebutted some new superstition involving the sacrificer's wife, with the sneer, 'who cares whether the wife,' etc. (kas tad [=a]driyeta, ib. 21). These protestations are naïvely recorded, though it is once suggested that in some of his utterances Y[=a]jñavalkya 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 Y[=a]jñavalkya's prayer to the Sun was 'give me light' (or 'glory,' varco me dehi), that of [=A]upoditeya 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] Y[=a]jñavalkya, 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 [=A]suri 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 av[=a]ntaradiças, 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'" (V[=a]j. S. iii. 50; Çat. 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 (Çat. 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 (Çat. 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 [=A]suri (apparently fearful that this rule would limit the fee) said "he may give more"' (Çat. 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 [=A]dityas, 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 (Çat. 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 Çat. 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 ([=A]it. 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; Çat. 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 Çarva, Bhava, 'Beast-lord,' Rudra, Agni (Çat. Br. i. 7. 3. 8; M[=a]it. S. i. 6. 6). Indra is the Vasu of the gods. The gods are occasionally thirty-four in number, eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve [=A]dityas, heaven and earth, and Praj[=a]pati as the thirty-fourth; but this Praj[=a]pati is the All and Everything (Çat. 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 S[=u]rya. 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 (Çat. 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; Praj[=a]pati, 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; V[=a]yu (Wind) is the leader of beasts; Bhaga is blind;[32] P[=u]shan (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 (viçve, viç.). 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 (avabh[r.]tha) 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" (Çat. 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 coöperate' (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 (Çat. Br. i. 8. 1. 1 ff.). Again, the Vedic myth is retold, recounting the rape of soma by the metrical equivalent of fire (T[=a]itt. Br. i. 1. 3. 10; Çat. Br. i. 8. 2. 10). Another tale takes up anew the old story of Cupid and Psyche (Pur[=u]ravas and Urvaç[=i]); and another that of the Hindu Prometheus story, wherein M[=a]tariçvan fetches fire from heaven, and gives it to mortals (T[=a]itt. Br. iii. 2. 3. 2; Çat. 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 Praj[=a]pati; 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 Praj[=a]pati'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 (Çat. 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 anaddh[=a]purusha 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 Çat. 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 Punj[=a]b differs as much from that of Delhi and Patna as does the character of the Rig Veda from that of the Br[=a]hmanas. 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 ahims[=a] 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 sams[=a]ra 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 sams[=a]ra[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 Bh[=a]llabheya 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" (vy[r.]ddhain v[=a]i tad yajñasya yad m[=a]nu[s.]am). 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 (Çat. 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 fêtes 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 Br[=a]hmanas 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 (Çat. Br. i. 7. 2. 1 ff.; in T[=a]itt. 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; Çat. Br. iii. 2. 2. 24), and speech is a divinity (Sarasvat[=i] is personified speech, Çat. 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 dev[=a]s) and untruth is man."[51] Moreover, "one law the gods observe, truth" (Çat. 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 (T[=a]itt. S. v. 4. 1. 3.); at another, as uniting with gods and living in the world of the gods (Çal. 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 v[=a] 'asmin loke bhavati, Çat. 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 Brahm[=a],' 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" (Çal. 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, agniçikhe 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 Çat. 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 'Br[=a]hmana 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 Br[=a]hmanas the creator is the All-god in more anthropomorphic form. The Father-god, Praj[=a]pati, or Brahm[=a] (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, Brahm[=a], remains to the end the personal creator. It is he who will serve as creator for the Puranic S[=a]nkhya 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 Çiva. 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 Br[=a]hmanas 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.' Praj[=a]pati 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 Br[=a]hmanas, 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 Br[=a]hmanas, 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 Br[=a]hmanas 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 résumé 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 Br[=a]hmana that is called the [=A]itareya; the other from the beginning of the Çatapatha; the former in abstract, the latter in full.

THE SACRIFICE OF DOGSTAIL ([=A]it. Br. vii. 13).

Hariçcandra, a king born in the great race of Ikshv[=a]ku, 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 Viçv[=a]mitra (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 [=A]pri 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; Hariçcandra's dropsy ceases, and all ends well.[72] Only, when the avaricious father demands his son back, he is refused, and Viçv[=a]mitra 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 Viçv[=a]mitra, that their sons' sons should become barbarians, the Andhras, Pundras, Çabaras, Pulindas, and M[=u]tibas, 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 Br[=a]hmana is to explain the importance of the Id[=a] (or Il[=a]) ceremony, which is identified with Id[=a], 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 Id[=a] ceremony; and whoever, knowing this, performs sacrifice with the Id[=a], 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 Brahm[=a] and with Vishnu. In other early Br[=a]hmanas the avatars of a god as a tortoise and a boar were known long before they were appropriated by the Vishnuites.

* * * * *