Whether there is any special touch between the older sects and those of modern days[31] that have their headquarters in the same districts is a question which we have endeavored to investigate, but we have found nothing to substantiate such an opinion. Buddhism retired, too early to have influence on the sects of to-day, and between Jainism and the same sects there does not seem to be any peculiar rapport even where the sect is seated in a Jain stronghold.[35] The Jains occupy, generally speaking, the Northwest (and South), while the Buddhists were located in the Northeast and South. So Çivaism may be loosely located as popular in the Northeast and South, while Vishnuism has its habitat rather in the jain centres of the Northwest (and South).
We have mentioned in the preceding chapter the sects of a few centuries ago, as these have been described in Brahmanic literature.[33] The importance, and even the existence of some of the sects, described in the Conquest of Çankara, has been questioned, and the opinion has been expressed that, since they are described only to be exposed as heretical, they may have been creations of fancy, imaginary sects; the refutation of their principles being a tour de force on the part of the Brahmanic savant, who shows his acumen by imagining a sect and then discountenancing it. It does not, indeed, seem to us very probable that communities were ever formed as 'Agnis' or 'Yamas,' etc, but on the other hand, we think it is more likely that sects have gone to pieces without leaving any trace than that those enumerated, explained, and criticised should have been mere fancies.[46] Moreover, in the case of some of these sects there are still survivors, so that a fortiori one may presume the others to have existed also, if not as sects or communities, yet as bodies professing faith in Indra or Yama, etc. The sects with which we have to deal now are chiefly those of this century, but many of these can claim a definite antiquity of several centuries at least. They have been described by Wilson in his famous Sketch, and, in special cases, more recently and more fully by Williams' and other writers.
THE ÇIVAITES.
While the Vishnuites have a dualistic, as well as idealistic background, they are at present Vedantic, and may be divided to-day simply into intelligent and unintelligent adherents of pantheism, the former comprising the R[=a]ma sects, and the latter most of the Krishnaites. On the other hand, in Çivaism one must distinguish quite sharply in time between the different sects that go by Çiva's name. If one look at the sects of modern times he will find that the most degraded are dualistic, in so far as they may be said to have any philosophy, and that idealistic Çivaism is a remnant of the past. But he will not find a pronounced sectarianism in any of these old Vedantic aspects of Çivaism. On the contrary, wherever Çivaism is pantheistic it is a Çivaism which obtains only in certain ancient schools of philosophy; where it is monotheistic it is among leaders who have been influenced by the modern teaching of Islam, and regard Çiva merely as a name for the One God. It is necessary, therefore, as it is everywhere in India, to draw as sharp a line as possible between the beliefs of the vulgar and the learned. For from the earliest period the former accepted perfunctorily the teaching of the latter, but at heart and in cult they remained true to their own lights.
The older S[=a]nkhya form of Çivaism was still found among the P[=a]çupatas,'adherents of the Lord' (Paçupati) and Maheçvaras ('adherents of the great Lord'), who are mentioned in the epic and in inscriptions of the fifth century. In the ninth century there was a purely philosophical Çivaism which is Vedantic. But neither in the fact (which is by no means a certainty) that Çankara accepted Çiva as the name of the All-god, nor in the scholastic Çivaite philosophy of Kashmeer, which in the next two centuries was developed into a purely idealistic system at the hands of Abhinavagupta and Som[=a]nanda, is there any trace of a popular religion. Çiva is here the pantheistic god, but he is conceived as such only by a coterie of retired schoolmen. On the other hand, the popular religions which spring up in the twelfth century are, if Vedantic, chiefly Vishnuite, or, if Çivaite, only nominally Vedantic. Thus what philosophy the Jangamas professedly have is Vedantic, but in fact they are deistic (not pantheistic) disciples of Çiva's priest, Basava (Sanskrit Vrishabha), who taught Çiva-worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the Linga (phallus); while his adherents, who are spread over all India under the name of Jangamas, 'vagrants,' or Ling[=a]yits, 'phallus-wearers,' are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic mysticism. So in the case of the Tridandins, the Daçan[=a]mis, and other sects attributed to Çivaism, as well as the Sm[=a]rtas (orthodox Brahmans) who professed Çivaism. According to Wilson the Tridandins (whose triple, tri, staff, da[n.][d.]i, indicates control of word, thought, and deed) are Southern Vishnuites of the R[=a]m[=a]nuja sect, though some of them claim to be Vedantic Çivaites. Nominally Çivaite are also the Southern 'Saints,' Sittars (Sanskrit Siddhas), but these are a modern sect whose religion has been taught them by Islam, or possibly by Christianity.[36] The extreme North and South are the districts where Çivaism as a popular religion has, or had, its firmest hold, and it is for this reason that the higher religions which obtain in these districts are given to Çiva. But in reality they simply take Çiva, the great god of the neighborhood, in order to have a name for their monotheistic god, exactly as missionaries among the American Indians pray to the Great Spirit, to adapt themselves to their audience's comprehension. In India, as in this country, they that proselyte would prefer to use their own terminology, but they wisely use that of their hearers.
We find no evidence to prove that there were ever really sectarian Çivaites who did not from the beginning practice brutal rites, or else soon become ascetics of the lowest and most despicable sort. For philosophical Çivaites were never sectaries. They cared little whether the All-god or One they argued about was called Vishnu or Çiva. But whenever one finds a true Çivaite devotee, that is, a man that will not worship Vishnu but holds fast to Çiva as the only manifestation of the supreme divinity, he will notice that such an one quickly becomes obscene, brutal, prone to bloodshed, apt for any disgusting practice, intellectually void, and morally beneath contempt. If the Çivaite be an ascetic his asceticism will be the result either of his lack of intelligence (as in the case of the sects to be described immediately) or of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who will save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the case with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no better than Çivaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites, exclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal, haters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually admirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are to-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really Vishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never been the case with real Çivaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed out, Çivaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The Çivaite needs for his cult only a phallus pebble, bilva leaves and water. The Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for leitourgiai. But Çivaism is cheap because Çivaites are poor, the dregs of society; it is not adopted because it is cheap.
We think, therefore, that to describe Çivaism as indifferently pantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been pantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because Çiva at that time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual sects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical relation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we shall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of the mutual relations between Çivaites and Vishnuites in the past.
Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. Çivaism, Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure Çivaism has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian expressions, but also in the Brahmanic Çivaism of the early epic, and in the Çivaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the literature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-Çivaism which starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work Çiva's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for the masses, it at once gives up Çiva and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping Çiva, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form of sectarian ascetism. Çivaism is, therefore, fundamentally non-Vedantic, and Unitarian.[39]
On the other hand, while Krishnaism and Ramaism begin as deistic (tribal) cults, they are soon absorbed into Brahmanic Vishnuism. Now Vishnuism is essentially Brahmanistic, and the only orthodox (Brahmanic) system is that which holds to the completion of Vedic pantheism. The first systematic philosophy, however, was not orthodox. It was the S[=a]nkhya, which peeps out in the dualism of the oldest distinctly philosophical works, and lingers in the Puranic S[=a]nkhya. The marks of this dualism we have shown in the Divine Song of the epic. It is by means of it that Krishnaism as an expression of this heterodox Vishnuism became possible. Vishnuism was soon rescued from the dualists, and became again what it was originally, an expression of pantheism. But Vishnu carried Krishna with him as his alter ego, and in the epic the two are finally one All-god. Vedantic philosopliy continued to present Vishnu rather than Çiva as its All-god, until to-day Vishnuism is the sectarian aspect of the Ved[=a]nta system. But with Vishnu have risen Krishna and R[=a]ma as still further types of the All-god. Thus it is that Vishnuism, whether as Krishnaism or as Ramaism, is to-day a pantheistic religion. But, while R[=a]ma is the god of the philosophical sects, and, therefore, is almost entirely a pantheistic god; Krishna, who was always a plebeian, is continually reverting, so to speak, to himself; that is to say, he is more affected by the vulgar, and as the vulgar are more prone, by whatever sectarian name they call themselves, to worship one idol, it happens that Krishna in the eyes of his following is less of a pantheistic god than is R[=a]ma. Here again, therefore, it is necessary to draw the line not so much between names of sects as between intelligent and unintelligent people. For Krishnaism, despite all that has been done for Krishna by the philosophers of his church, in this regard resembles Çivaism, that it represents the religion of unintelligent (though wealthy) classes, who revere Krishna as their one pet god, without much more thought of his being an All-god avatar than is spent by the ordinary Çivaite on the purely nominal trinitarianism which has been foisted upon Çiva.
But we must now give an account of the low sectaries, the miracle-mongers, jugglers,[40] and ascetic whimsicalities, which together stand under the phallic standard of Çivaism. Ancient and recent observers enumerate a sad list of them. The devotees of the 'highest bird' are a low set of ascetics, who live on voluntary alms, the result of their affectation of extreme penance. The [=U]rdhvab[=a]hus, 'Up-arms,' raise their arms till they are unable to lower them again. The [=A]k[=a]çamukhas, 'Sky-facers,' hold their faces toward the sky till the muscles stiffen, and they live thus always. The Nakhls, 'Nail' ascetics, allow their nails to grow through their clenched hands, which unfits them for work (but they are all too religiously lazy to work), and makes it necessary for the credulous faithful to support them. Some of these, like the K[=a]naph[=a]ts, 'Ear-splitters,' who pierce the ear with heavy rings, have been respectable Yogis in the past, but most of them have lost what sense their philosophic founders attached to the sign, and keep only the latter as their religion. Some, such as the [=U]kharas and S[=u]kharas, appear to have no distinctive features, all of them being the 'refuse of beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength of nudity, and subdue their passions literally with lock and key. The 'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[=u]daras and K[=a]p[=a]likas, are distinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The former, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by name since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas both show that very likely others among these wretches are but the residue of ancient Çivaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps Buddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, Çiva apparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself, and he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the resemblance of a decent god.