Eager for booty proffer your laudation
To Indra; truth (is he),[7] if truth existeth;
'Indra is not,' so speaketh this and that one;
'Who him hath seen? To whom shall we give praises?'
(THE GOD.)
I am, O singer, he; look here upon me;
All creatures born do I surpass in greatness.
Me well-directed sacrifices nourish,
Destructive I destroy existent beings.[8]
These are not pleas in behalf of a new god. It is not the mere god of physical phenomena who is here doubted and defended. It is the god that in the last stage of the Rig Veda is become the Creator and Destroyer, and, in the light of a completed pantheism, is grown too great to retain his personality. With such a protest begins the great revolt that is the sign of an inner evolution extending through the Br[=a]hmanas and Upanishads. Indra, like other gods,[9] is held by the rite; to the vulgar he is still the great god;[10] to the philosopher, a name. The populace respect him, and sacerdotalism conserves him, that same crafty, priestly power, which already at the close of the Rig Vedic period dares to say that only the king who is subject to the priest is sure of himself, and a little later that killing a priest is the only real murder. We have shown above how the real divinity of the gods was diminished even at the hands of the priests that needed them for the rites and baksheesh, which was the goal of their piety. Even Praj[=a]pati, the Father-god, their own creation, is mortal as well as immortal.[11] We have shown, also, how difficult it must have been to release the reason from the formal band of the rite. Socially it was impossible to do so. He that was not initiated was excommunicated, an outcast. But, on the other hand, the great sacrifices gradually fell over from their own weight. Cumbersome and costly, they were replaced by proxy works of piety; vidh[=a]nas were established that obviated the real rite; just as to-day, 'pocket altars' take the place of real altars.[12] There was a gradual intrusion of the Hindu cult; popular features began to obtain; the sacrifice was made to embrace in its workings the whole family of the sacrificer (instead of its effect being confined to him alone, as was the earlier form); and finally village celebrations became more general than those of the individual. Slowly Hinduism built itself a ritual,[13] which overpowered the Brahmanic rite. Then, again, behind the geographical advance of Brahmanism[14] lay a people more and more prone to diverge from the true cult (from the Brahmanic point of view). In the latter part of the great Br[=a]hmana[15] there is already a distrust of the Indus tribes, which marks the breaking up of Aryan unity; not that breaking up into political division which is seen even in the Rig Veda, where Aryan fights against Aryan as well as against the barbarian, but the more serious dismemberment caused by the hates of priests, for here there was no reconciliation.
The cynical scepticism of the Brahmanic ritualists, as well as the divergence of opinions in regard to this or that sacrificial pettiness, shows that even where there was overt union there was covert discord, the disagreement of schools, and the difference of faith. But all this does but reflect the greater difference in speculation and theology which was forming above the heads of the ritualistic bigots. For it is not without reason that the Upanishads are more or less awkwardly laid in as the top-stone on the liturgical edifice. They belong to the time but they are of it only in part. Yet to dissociate the mass of Brahmanic priestlings from the Upanishad thinkers, as if the latter were altogether members of a new era, would be to lose the true historical perspective. The vigor of protest against the received belief continues from the Rig Veda to Buddha, from Buddha till to-day.
The Vedic cult absorbed a good deal of Hinduism, for instance the worship of Fate,[16] just as Hinduism absorbed a good deal of Vedic cult. Nor were the popular works obnoxious to the priest. In the Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad[17] the Itih[=a]sas and Pur[=a]nas (fore-runners of the epic) are already reckoned as a fifth Veda, being recognized as a Veda almost as soon as was the Atharvan,[18] which even in Manu is still called merely 'texts of Atharvan and Angiras' (where texts of Bhrigu might as well have been added). Just as the latter work is formally recognized, and the use of its magical formulas, if employed for a good purpose, is enjoined in epic[19] and law (e.g. Manu, xi. 33), so the Hinduistic rites crept gradually into the foreground, pushing back the soma-cult. Idols are formally recognized as venerable by the law-makers;[20] even before their day the 'holy pool,' which we have shown to be so important to Hinduism, is accepted by Brahmanism.[21] Something, too, of the former's catholicity is apparent in the cult at an early date, only to be suppressed afterwards. Thus in [=A]it. Br. II. 19, the slave's son shares the sacrifice; and the slave drinks soma in one of the half-Brahmanical, half-popular festivals.[22] Whether human sacrifice, sanctioned by some modern sects, is aught but pure Hinduism, Çivaism, as affected by the cult of the wild-tribes, it is hard to say. At any rate, such sacrifices in the Brahmanic world were obsolete long before one finds them in Hinduism. Of Buddhistic, Brahmanic, and Hinduistic reciprocity we have spoken already, but we may add one curious fact, namely, that the Buddhism of Çivaism is marked by its holy numbers. The Brahmanic Rudra with eight names[23] and eight forms[24] is clearly Çivaite, and the numbers are as clearly Buddhistic[25] Thus, as Feer has shown, Buddhist hells are eight, sixteen, etc, while the Brahmanic hells are seven, twenty-one, etc. Again, the use of the rosary was originally Çivaite, not Buddhisttc;[26] and Buddha in Bali, where they live amicably side by side, is regarded as Çiva's brother.[27]
Two things result from this interlocking of sectarian Brahmanism with other sects. First, it is impossible to say in how far each influenced the other; and, again, the antiquity of special ideas is rendered doubtful. A Brahmanic idea can pretty safely be allotted to its first period, because the literature is large enough to permit the assumption that it will appear in literature not much later than it obtains. But a sectarian idea may go back centuries before it is permanently formulated, as, for example, the doctrine of special grace in a modern sect.
One more point must be noticed before we proceed to review the sects of to-day. Hindu morality, the ethical tone of the modern sects, is older than the special forms of Hindu viciousness which have been received into the cult. A negative altruism (beyond which Brahmanism never got) is characteristic of the Hindu sects. But this is already embodied in the golden rule, as it is thus formulated in the epic 'Compendium of Duty':
Not that to others should one do
Which he himself objecteth to.
This is man's duty in one word;
All other rules may be ignored.[28]
The same is true of the 'Ten Commandments' of one of the modern sects. It is one of the strong proofs that Christian morals did not have much effect upon early Hinduism, that, although the Christian Church of St. Thomas, as is well established, was in Malabar as early as 522,[29] and Christians were in the North in the seventh century, yet no trace of the active Christian benevolence, in place of this abstention from injury, finds its way into the epic or Pur[=a]nas. But an active altruism permeates Buddhism, and one reads in the birth-stories even of a saviour Buddha, not the Buddha of love, M[=a]itreya, who was to be the next Buddha on earth, but of that M[=a]itrakanyaka, who left heaven and came to earth that he might redeem the sins of others.[30]