The Religions of India Part 22

Out of the varied ma.s.s 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"' (_cat. Br._ iv. 5. 8. 14). As to the fee, the rules are precise and their propounders are unblus.h.i.+ng. 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 G.o.ds of heaven, in all the tales told of them, ever demand a reward from each other when they help their neighbor-G.o.ds. Nay, even the G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, the Manes, and men all exist by what is sacrificed. Even the G.o.ds seek rewards; hence the priests do the same.[29] The sacrificer sacrifices to get a place in _devaloka_ (the world of the G.o.ds). The sacrifice goes up to the world of G.o.ds, 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 _([=A]it. Br_. i. 7. 4). No little stress is laid on geographical position. The east is the quarter of the G.o.ds; 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 G.o.dly nature of the east ("from the east came the G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds; 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 G.o.ds with others better accredited, Rudra and Agni, etc. Rudra is the G.o.d of cattle, and when the other G.o.ds 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; M[=a]it. S. i. 6. 6). Indra is the Vasu of the G.o.ds. The G.o.ds 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 (_cat. Br_. i. 6. 4. 2; iv. 5. 7. 2 ff.). Of these G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds. 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 G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds upon the cow; hence a cow runs away from a man because she thinks he is trying to get back his skin.

The G.o.ds cl.u.s.ter about at an oblation, each crying out 'My name,'

_i.e._, each is anxious to get it. The G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, for the same purpose, created the lute, and sang and played to her. She came to the G.o.ds; hence the weakness of women in regard to such things.

Indra is the G.o.d 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 G.o.ds run a race to see who shall get first to the sacrifice, and Indra and Agni win; they are the warrior-caste among the G.o.ds, and the All-G.o.ds 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-G.o.d 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 pa.s.sed away.'[33]

Varuna is now quite the G.o.d of night and G.o.d of purification, as a water-G.o.d. 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 G.o.ds' help may I wash out sin against the G.o.ds; 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 cooperate' (_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 (_T[=a]itt. Br_. i. 1. 3.

10; _cat. Br_. i. 8. 2. 10). Another tale takes up anew the old story of Cupid and Psyche (Pur[=u]ravas and Urvac[=i]); and another that of the Hindu Prometheus story, wherein M[=a]taricvan fetches fire from heaven, and gives it to mortals (_T[=a]itt. 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 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 G.o.ds, and it is only by craft that the latter prevail.[37]

Seldom are the tales of the G.o.ds indecent. The story of Praj[=a]pati's incest with his daughter is a remnant of nature wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.ds 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.ds 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 _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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 subst.i.tution 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 pa.s.sages 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, subst.i.tutes 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 subst.i.tutes, 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 subst.i.tuted 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 superst.i.tion 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 superst.i.tion 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-gra.s.s' 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 G.o.dly; _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 yajnasya 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 superst.i.tion 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, G.o.dly; the words are divine, and cannot be frustrated (_cat. Br_. iii. 1. 4. 1; iv. 1. 1. 26).

All this superst.i.tion 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 superst.i.tious, 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 G.o.ds 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 Br[=a]hmanas is the phrase 'man's debts.'

Either three or four of such moral obligations were recognized, debts to the G.o.ds, 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 G.o.ds 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 _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 G.o.ds (RV.

viii. 11. 1; _cat. Br_. iii. 2. 2. 24), and speech is a divinity (Sarasvat[=i] 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 G.o.ds (_satyam eva dev[=a]s_) and untruth is man."[51] Moreover, "one law the G.o.ds observe, truth" (_cat. Br_. i. 1.1. 4; iii. 3. 2. 2; 4. 2. 8). There is another pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.ds and living in the world of the G.o.ds _(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 pa.s.sage, 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, 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 establis.h.i.+ng the holy fires, and especially by establis.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.ds, 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.ds 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 pa.s.sage, 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, pa.s.s 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 pa.s.s 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, pa.s.ses southeast through the moon, or he goes northeast (the G.o.ds' 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-G.o.d. 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 h.e.l.l. 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 h.e.l.l 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 compa.s.s of the Rik (in the Atharvan perhaps in v. 19) there is not the slightest allusion to torture in h.e.l.l, 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) h.e.l.l. The general ant.i.thesis 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 '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 wors.h.i.+pper to the sky, is objected to, and it is explained that he becomes immortal; which ant.i.thesis 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 G.o.ds. At the end of this period theosophy invented the G.o.d of the golden germ, the great Person (known also by other t.i.tles), who is the one (pantheistic) G.o.d, 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-G.o.d in more anthropomorphic form. The Father-G.o.d, Praj[=a]pati, or Brahm[=a] (personal equivalent of _brahma_) is not only the father of G.o.ds, men, and devils, but he is the All. This Father-G.o.d 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 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 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-G.o.d is identified. But guess-work philosophy then asks what upheld this G.o.d, and answers that a support upheld all things. So Support becomes a G.o.d in his turn, and, since he must reach through time and s.p.a.ce, this Support, Skambha, becomes the All-G.o.d 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 G.o.ds create the Father-G.o.d in one pa.s.sage, and in another the Father-G.o.d creates the G.o.ds. 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 G.o.ds. Some G.o.ds, it is said, are spirit-G.o.ds; some are work-G.o.ds. 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 G.o.ds have a like nature; and that the spirit-G.o.ds, who are the older, differ only in lack of specific functions from the work-G.o.ds. A not uninteresting debate follows this pa.s.sage in regard to the true nature of the G.o.ds.

Some people say they are anthropomorphic; others deny this. "And certainly what is seen of the G.o.ds 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 G.o.ds, 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 G.o.d. On the other hand, the vulgar wors.h.i.+pper of every era believed only in reproduction on the part of an anthropomorphic G.o.d; and that G.o.d'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, superst.i.tions, 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 ill.u.s.trations will not have been collected in vain. We have given, however, no notion at all of the chief object of this cla.s.s 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 a.n.a.lysis 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-ill.u.s.trations 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 catapatha; the former in abstract, the latter in full.

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

Hariccandra, 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 G.o.d. This he did, and a son, Rohita, at last was born to him. G.o.d 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 G.o.d waited ten days, and demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth come.' The G.o.d waited, and then demanded the sacrifice. But the king said: 'Wait till his teeth fall out'; and when the G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 subst.i.tute 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 subst.i.tution of Dogstail for Rohita, "since a priest is of more value than a warrior."

The sacrifice is made ready, and Vicv[=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.