FOOTNOTES:

From all antiquity, as has been already observed, the Indians were greatly given to magic. It was the mysterious secret of the worship, the power of the rightly-offered prayer, which exercised compulsion on the gods. Out of this power grew their Brahmanaspati, and then Brahman. Consequently, the Brahmans ascribed the greatest efficacy to the severities of asceticism, the annihilation of the body. The sacrifice of sensual enjoyment was more meritorious and powerful than all other sacrifices. Was it not this devotion, this mortification, this concentration, which annihilated the unholy part in men? Did not a man by these means approach the holy nature of Brahman—did he not thus draw into himself Brahman and its power? The Brahmans were convinced that great penances and absorption into Brahman conferred a supernatural power and a command over nature; and imparted to the penitent a superhuman and even superdivine power, like that of Brahman. The Indians invariably transferred the new point of view to the past. The past was with them a mirror of the present, and therefore the ancient priests who were supposed to have sung the hymns of the Veda, the mythical ancestors of the leading priestly families,were not only patterns of Brahmanic wisdom, but also great ascetics, examples of energetic penances. By such penances these ancient saints, the Maharshis,i. e.the great sages as they were now called, had obtained power over men and gods, and even creative force. Hence in the order of beings the seven or ten great saints received the place nearest to Brahman, above the gods—a change which was rendered easier to the Brahmans because passages in the Rigveda spoke of the "ancient-born sages" as illuminated, as seers and friends of the gods.[366]With the Brahmans the force of asceticism was so preponderant, and absorbed the divine nature to such a degree, that it was soon regarded by them as the highest divine potency; in their view the gods and Brahman itself exercised creative power only by virtue of ascetic concentration on self, and severe penances. The theory of creation was modified from this point of view. Creation was not any longer the act of the ancient gods, though they are praised as creators in the Veda; it no longer took place by the emanation of being out of Brahman. According to the analogy of the asceticism of the Brahmans, the gods and the personal Brahman who proceeded out of the impersonal Brahman must have rendered themselves capable of creation by penance, and gained their peculiar power in this way. In the black Yajurveda we are told: "This world was at first water; in this moved the lord of creation, who had become air. Then he formed the earth and created the gods. The gods said: How can we form creatures? He replied: As I formed you by the glow of my meditation (tapas), so do ye seek in deep meditation the means of bringing forth creatures."[367]The introduction to the bookof the law goes further still in the theory of creation given above. When Brahman had proceeded from the egg (p. 197), he subjects himself to severe penance and so creates Manu. Then Manu begins the most severe exercises, and by them creates the ten great sages, and seven new Manus. The ten great saints, the lords of creatures, on their part bring all created things into being. By the force of their penances they create the gods and their different heavens, then the other saints who possess unbounded power, the spirits of the earth (Yakshas), the giants (Rakshasas), and the evil spirits (Asuras), the blood-suckers (Piçachas), the serpent spirits (Nagas), the heavenly genii (the Gandharvas and Apsarasas), and the spirits of the ancestors; after them the thunder, the lightning, and the clouds, the wild animals, and last of all the whole mass of creatures living and lifeless.[368]According to this theory, Brahman has only given the impulse to creation; it is completed by the penances of Manu and the other saints. The gods are deposed, and the Brahmans, through their forefathers, the great saints, become the authors of the gods and the world, the sovereign lords of creation. The Brahman, learned or not, such is the teaching of the book of the law, is always a mighty deity, just as fire, whether consecrated or not, is always a mighty deity. Creation belongs to the Brahman, and consequently all property is his; it is by his magnanimity that the rest of the orders enjoy the goods of this world. Who would venture to injure a Brahman, by whose sacrifice the gods live and the world exists? Any one who harms a Brahman will be at once annihilated by the power of his curse; even a king who ventureson such a thing will perish with his army and their armour by the word of a Brahman.[369]

The schools of the Brahmans sought to establish their ritual beyond the power of doubt, to understand the Veda in its interpretation, as well as in its etymology and grammar; they raised the centre of their ethics, their asceticism, high above the gods of the Veda, and they also attempted to embody their views and their whole system in the poems of their Epos. The pre-eminence of their order must have been established even in the ancient times; even then the Brahmans must have stood far above the Kshatriyas; and the princes and heroes, of whom the Epos told us, must have been patterns of reverence towards the Brahmans; they must have walked in the paths which the theory of the Brahmans subsequently prescribed. In this feeling the Brahmans proceeded to revise the Epos. In contradiction to the ancient poem the princes of the Pandus were placed in the best light, and, so far as was possible, were made eager worshippers or obedient pupils of the Brahmans.

We have already pointed out what an opposition the Brahmans had invented between Vasishtha and Viçvamitra from a few hints given by the Rigveda; how from this point of view, Viçvamitra is made into a Kshatriya, in order to be able to point out from the example of his ruin as a Kshatriya in opposition to Vasishtha the superiority of the Brahmans over the Kshatriyas. But the Veda contains hymns by Viçvamitra; he belonged, like Vasishtha, to the great saints; the one no less than the other was the progenitor of an ancient and eminent branch of the Brahmans. Hence the Kshatriya Viçvamitra must be changedagain into a Brahman, and this could only be done by penances of the most severe kind. As the most powerful effects were attributed to these penances, the Kuçikas and the other races derived from Viçvamitra were indemnified for the previous defeat of Viçvamitra when he was still a Kshatriya. The description of the feeble conflict of the Kshatriya against the Brahman, of the prince against the Rishi, the marvellous exaltation of the Kshatriya and the prince by submission to the Brahman law and severe penances, are here set forth in the utmost detail and inserted in the Epos. King Viçvamitra had ruled over the earth for several thousand years. On one occasion he came with his warriors to the abode of Vasishtha in the forest, who hospitably received and entertained him and his army. Vasishtha possessed a marvellous cow—a wishing cow—which brought forth whatever Vasishtha desired; she produced food and drink for Viçvamitra and his army. This cow Viçvamitra wished to possess, and offered 100,000 ordinary cows in exchange. It was a jewel, he said, and the king has a right to all jewels found in his country; hence the cow belonged of right to him, a deduction which is not contrary to certain rules in the book of the law. Vasishtha refuses to part with the cow; and Viçvamitra resolves to take her by force from the saint. The cow urges her master to resist; wide and powerful as Viçvamitra's rule may be, he is not more mighty than Vasishtha is; the wise praise not the might of the warriors, the power of the Brahmans is greater. Instead of the means of subsistence, with the production of which she has hitherto been contented, she now brings forth different armies from the different parts of her body; and when these are conquered by the warriors of Viçvamitra, she goes on producingnew armies till the host of the king is destroyed. Then the hundred sons of Viçvamitra filled with rage rush on Vasishtha; but the saint consumes them by the flame of meditation which proceeds from his mouth. Viçvamitra acknowledges with shame the superiority of the Brahman over the Kshatriya; he resolves to overcome Vasishtha by penances. He goes into the forest, stands on his toes for one hundred years, lives on air only, and in this way acquires the possession of heavenly arms. With these he hastens to the settlement of Vasishtha; sets it on fire by the heavenly arrows, and then hurls a fiery weapon at the Brahman. Vasishtha cries aloud: "Vile Kshatriya, now will I show thee what the strength of a warrior is!" and with his staff easily wards off even the arms of the gods. With no better success Viçvamitra throws the toils of Varuna, and even Brahman's dreadful weapons against Vasishtha, who beats them away with his staff, "which burned like a second sceptre of Yama." With sighs Viçvamitra acknowledges that the might of kings and warriors is nothing, that only the Brahmans possess true power, and now attempts by severe penances to elevate himself to be a Brahman. He proceeds to the south, and undergoes the severest mortifications. After a thousand years of penance Brahman allows him the rank of a wise king. But he wishes to be a Brahman, and therefore begins his penances over again. Triçanku, the son of Prithu, the pious king of the Koçalas (p. 149), had bidden his priest Vasishtha exalt him with his living body to heaven by a great sacrifice. Vasishtha declares that this is impossible. Triçanku repairs to Viçvamitra, who offers the sacrifice. But the gods do not descend to the sacrificial meal. Then Viçvamitra in anger seizes the ladle, and says to Triçanku: "By my own power I will exalt youto heaven. Receive the power of sanctity which I have gained by my penances. I have certainly earned some reward for them." Triçanku at once rose to heaven; but Indra refused him admittance, and Triçanku began to sink again. In anger Viçvamitra begins to found another heaven in the south, new gods and new stars. Then the gods humbly entreat the saint to desist from conveying Triçanku into heaven, but Viçvamitra had given his promise to Triçanku; he must keep his word, and the gods must receive Triçanku. Then Viçvamitra repairs to the west in order to begin further penances. After a thousand years Brahman hails him as a sage. But Viçvamitra is resolved to be a Brahman. He begins his penances once more, but is disturbed by the sight of an Apsarasa, whom he sees bathing in the lake of Pushkara, and for ten years he lies in her toils. Disgusted at his weakness Viçvamitra repairs to the northern mountain, and there again undergoes yet severer penances for a thousand years. Brahman now greets him as a great sage; but Viçvamitra wishes to have the incomparable title of a wise Brahman. This Brahman refuses because he has not yet fully mastered his sensual desires. New penances begin; Viçvamitra raises his arms aloft, stands on one leg, remains immovable as a post, feeds on nothing but air, is surrounded in the hot season by four fires, and in the cold by water, etc.—all which goes on for a thousand years. The gods are alarmed at the power which Viçvamitra obtains by such penances, and Indra sends the Apsarasa Rambha to seduce the penitent. Viçvamitra resists, but allows himself to be transported with rage, and turns the nymph into a stone. But anger also belongs to the sensual man, and must be subdued. He leaves the Himalayas, repairs to the east, and thereresolves to perform the most severe penance; he will not speak a word, and this penance he performs for a thousand years, standing on one leg like a statue. The gods now beseech Brahman to make Viçvamitra a Brahman, otherwise by the power of his penances he will bring the three worlds to destruction; soon would the sun be quenched before the majesty of the penitent. Brahman consents; all the gods go to Viçvamitra, pay him homage and salute him: "Hail, wise Brahman!" Vasishtha hears of this new dignity of Viçvamitra, and both now stand on the same footing. This narrative teaches us not only that the power of the gods was nothing as against the Brahmans, but also that it was easier to exercise compulsion upon the gods, to create new gods and new stars, than for any one to attain the rank of a Brahman who had been born as a Kshatriya.[370]

Like Viçvamitra the heroes of antiquity were thought to have obtained divine power by their penances. An episode, inserted by the Brahmans into the Mahabharata, tells us how Arjuna, when the Pandus had been banished into the forest after the second game of dice at Hastinapura, practises severe penances on the Himavat, in order to obtain the weapons of the gods for the conflict against the Kurus. Indra sends his chariot in order to convey him to heaven, and there, in the heaven of Indra, everything shines with apeculiar splendour. Here are the gods, the heroes fallen in battle, sages and penitents by hundreds, who have attained to the height of Indra, but not, as yet, to Brahman. Instead of the blowing winds, his old companions in the fight, Indra is now surrounded by troops of the Gandharvas, the heavenly musicians, and by the Apsarasas. The gods and saints greet Arjuna to the sound of shells and drums, and, as servants, wash his feet and mouth. Indra sits like the king of the Indians under the yellow umbrella, with a golden staff in his hands; he gives his bow to Arjuna; Yama, Varuna, and Kuvera (p. 160) also give him their weapons. Thus armed, Arjuna subdues in the first place the Danavas, the sons of Danu (the evil spirits of darkness and drought), whom Indra himself cannot overcome. For this object Indra gives him his chariot, which is now yoked with ten thousand yellow horses, and harness impenetrable as the air. Beyond the sea Arjuna comes upon the hosts of the Danavas. They cover him with missiles, and then contend with magic arts, with rain of stones and water and storms, and shroud everything in darkness. Arjuna is victorious, though the Danavas, at last changed into mountains, throw themselves upon him; and thus, as is expressly said, he surpasses the achievements of Indra. Indra's conflicts with the demons are transferred to Arjuna. We see to what an extent the soaring fancy of the Brahmans has crushed and distorted by these extravagances the simple and beautiful conception of Indra in conflict with Vritra and Atri, the poetry of the ancient myth of Indra's battle in the storm[371](p. 48).

It was a marvellous world which the imagination of the Brahmans had created. The gay pictures, excited and nourished in the mind of the Indians by thenature of the Ganges valley, became reflected in more and more distorted and peculiar forms in the legends and wonders of the great saints and heroes of the ancient time. The gods and spirits are perpetually interfering in the life and actions of men. The saints without intermission convulsed the sky, and played at will with the laws of nature. The more the desire for the marvellous was satisfied, the stronger it became. In order to go beyond what had been already achieved brighter colours must be laid on; the power of the imagination must be excited more vigorously, so as to enchain once more the over-excited and wearied spirit. Thus, for the Indians, the boundaries of heaven and earth gradually disappeared; the world of gods and that of men became confounded in a formless chaos. The arrangement of the orders was of divine origin; the gradations of being reached from the world-soul, through the saints, the gods and spirits, down to plants and animals. The earth was peopled with wandering souls; sacrifice, asceticism, and meditation set man free not only from the impurity of sin, but also from the laws of nature. They gave him powers transcending nature, which raised him above the earth and the gods, secured divine power for him, and carried him back to the origin and essence of all things.

However fantastic this structure, the positive basis of it was supposed to be revelation or the Veda. Extensive as the commentaries became owing to the rivalry of the schools, vast as were the accumulations of ritual and legends, of verbal explanations and sentences of the saints—the main questions became only the more obscure. What saint was qualified to decide? Which school taught the correct doctrine? By whom and in what way was the Veda revealed? Were the words or the sense of the poems decisive? How werethe undeniable contradictions, the opposition between various passages, to be removed? In order to obtain a firm footing the Brahmans found themselves invariably driven back to the idea of the world-soul. If in the interpretation of the words and the meaning of the Veda, in the effort to smoothe down the contradictions between them, and the necessity of finding a consistent mode of explanation and proof, the Indian acuteness and delicate power of distinction grew into a hair-splitting division of words and ideas, into the most minute and complicated logic, the conception of the world-soul, the theories of the creation, impelled them, on the other hand, to explain the whole life of the world from one source, and to compass it with one measure.

Forced as they were in these two directions, they were unavoidably brought at last to attempt to establish the theory independently, to construct Brahman and the world out of their nature and ideas. In all advanced stages of rational thought, fancy, or its reverse-side, abstraction, has seldom omitted to reflect the whole world as an organised unity in the brain of man, and to bring the oppressive multitude of things under some general conceptions and points of view. In the schools of the Brahmans it was the formal side of these philosophical efforts, the method of inquiry and investigation, in connection with the sacred scriptures, religious traditions, and the attempts to fix the interpretation of them, which was specially developed. On the other hand, the anchorites in the forest opposed these efforts from the opposite direction with the combined body of religious conceptions, with their views of Brahman. The highest object of the eremite was meditation, absorption in Brahman. The more uniform their own lives, the stiller the life aroundthem, the greater the ferment in their minds. When these penitents were weary of the world of gods and marvels which occupied their dreams, when the endless multitude of bright pictures confounded their senses, they turned to the central conception of the world-soul, and attempted to think of this more deeply, acutely, comprehensively, to see the connection of Brahman and the world more clearly, and explain it more distinctly. As the fancy, and consequently the abstracting power of the Indians, was always superior to the power of division, and remained the basis of their view of the world, their constructive speculation, which was occupied with the contents of their religious conceptions, surpasses their powers of formal thought. The latter had indeed no other office than to arrange and organise the pictures supplied by the former.

The attempt to construct a world on general principles was neither peculiarly bold nor peculiarly new. The way was prepared by the idea of the world-soul as the origin and essence of the gods and the world, and the path was opened for a constructive philosophy, developing the world out of ideas and thoughts by this abstract single deity existing beside and above the plurality of mythological forms, the exaltation of the saints above the gods, and the consequent degradation of the latter, the perpetual suspension of the natural order of things by the transcendental and mystical world of the gods and saints, the removal of the boundaries between heaven and earth, and the constant confusion of the two worlds. After this, there was nothing remarkable in putting abstract ideas in the place of the gods, and removing entirely the distinction between the transcendental world and the world of sense. In fact, the philosophy of the Indians is, in the first instance, nothing butthe dogmatism of the Brahmans translated into abstractions—nothing but scholasticism, and their philosophical ethics no less than their religious require the liberation from the body.

Like all the productions of the Indian mind, with the exception of the Veda, the philosophical systems of the Indians, which arose in the seventh and sixth centuryB.C., are no longer before us in their original shape. We only possess them in a pointed compendious form which could not have been obtained without long labours, many revisions and reconstructions—and which is in reality of quite recent date. We are not in a position to ascertain the previous or intermediate stages through which the Brahmans passed before they brought their system to a close; here, as everywhere in India, the later forms have completely absorbed their predecessors, the fathers are lost in the children. Hence we can only guess at the original form of these philosophical systems. Still the order of succession, and the essential contents, are fixed not only on internal evidence—by the unalterable progress of development, which cannot be passed over—but also by the fragments of genuine old Indian philosophy contained in the system of Buddha, and in their turn presupposing the existence of certain ideas and points of view.[372]

The oldest system of the Indians contains much more theology than philosophy. In part proceeding from the sacred scriptures and the traditional side ofreligion, it is an explanation of the Veda; in part it is an attempt to found a dogma on a basis of its own, on philosophical construction. In this sense, regarded as exegetical theology brought to a close by philosophical proof of dogma, this system is denoted by the name Vedanta,i. e.end or object of the Veda. Combined with the portion explanatory of the Veda, it is also called Mimansa,i. e.inquiry; and the section which expounds the ceremonial side of religion bears the name of the first or work-investigation—Karma-mimansa; the speculative part is called Uttara-mimansa (metaphysics), or Brahma-mimansa,i. e.investigation of Brahman. The method of the first part, the investigation of works, is obviously taken from the requirements of the situation at the moment, and the process common in the schools of the Brahmans; the object was to establish a definite kind of interpretation for explanation and exegesis, and the development of dogma from the passages in the Veda. On the consideration of a subject follows the doubt or the contradiction, which has been or can be raised on the other side. The contradiction is met by refutation on counter-grounds. This negative proof is followed by positive proof, that the view of the opponents is in itself untenable and worthless, and last comes the final proof of the thesis maintained by demonstration that it agrees with the whole system. In this manner we find philosophy treating first the authority of revealed scriptures, the Veda, then the relation of tradition to it, the statements of the sages, the commentary on the revelation. Then the variations and coincidences of revelation and their inner connection are developed, and so the system passes on to the explanation of the Veda. It is shown that all passages in the Veda point directly or indirectly tothe one Brahman. At certain passages it is shown how a part of these plainly and another part obscurely refer to Brahman, though even the latter refer to it as a being worthy of divine reverence; another part of the passages in the Veda point to Brahman as something beyond our knowledge. The contradictions between the passages in the Veda are proved to be only apparent. These explanations of the passages in the Veda are followed by the doctrine of good works, as the means of salvation, which are either external, like the observation of the ceremonial, the laws of purification, or internal like the quieting and taming of the senses, the hearing and understanding of revelation, and the acknowledgment of Brahman.[373]

The other part of the system, the Vedanta, leaves out of sight the difficult task of proving the idea of Brahman from the Veda, and bringing the two into harmony; it attempts to derive the existence and nature of Brahman from the idea. Brahman—such is the line of argument in the Vedanta—is the one eternal, self-existent essence, unalterable and unchangeable. It developes into the world, and is thus creative and created. As milk curdles, as water becomes snow and ice, Brahman congeals into matter. It becomes first ether, then air, then fire, then water, and then from water it becomes earth. From these elements arise the finer and coarser bodies, with which the souls of the gods, spirits, men and animals are clothed. These souls go forth from Brahman like sparks from a crackling fire—a metaphor common in the book of the law—they are of one essence withBrahman, and parts of the great world-soul. This soul is in the world, but also outside and above it; to it must everything return, for all that is not Brahman is impure, without foundation, and perishable.

In this view there lies a contradiction which could not escape the keen penetration of a reflective spirit. Brahman is intended to be not only the intellectual but also the material basis of the world. It is regarded as absolutely non-material, eternal, and unchangeable, and yet the material, changeable world is to rise out of it; the sensible out of the non-sensible and the material out of the immaterial. In order to remove this dualism and contradiction which the orthodox doctrine introduced into Brahman, the speculation of the Brahmans seized upon a means which if simple was certainly bold: they denied the whole sensible world; they allowed matter to be lost in Brahman. There is only one Being; this is the highest soul (paramatman, p. 131), and besides this there is nothing: what seems to exist beyond this is mere illusion. The world,i. e.matter, does not exist, but only seems to exist, and the cause of this illusion is Maya or deception. Of this the sensible world is a product, like the reflection of the moon in water, and the mirage in the desert. Nature is nothing but the play of illusion, appearing in splendour and then disappearing. It is deception and nothing else which presents various forms to men, where there is only unity without distinction. The movement and action of living beings is not caused by the sparks of Brahman dwelling in them—for Brahman is consistently regarded as single and at rest—but by the bodies and senses, which being of themselves appearance and deception, adopt and reflect the deception of Maya. By this appearance the soul of man is kept in darkness,i. e.in the belief that the external world exists,and the man is subject to the emotions of pain and joy. In his actions man is determined by appearance and by the perception arising out of appearance. In truth Brahman alone exists. It is only deception which allows the soul to believe that it has a separate existence, or that the perceptible world exists, or that there is an existent manifold world. This deceptive appearance of the world, which seems to darken the pure Brahman as the clouds darken the brightness of the sun, must be removed by the investigation which teaches us the truth, that the only existing being is the highest being, the world-soul. In this way the delusion of a multiform world disappears. As the sunlight dispels mists, true knowledge dispels ignorance, and destroys the glamour of Maya. This knowledge is the way to liberation and the highest salvation. The liberation of men from appearance, from the senses and the world of the sense, from the emotions arising from these, is the knowledge that this world of the senses does not exist, that the soul of a man is not separated from the highest soul. Thus man finds the direct path from the sensible world, the body and separate existence, to Brahman, by active thought which penetrates deception. The sage declares: "It is not so, it is not so;" he knows that the highest soul is all, and that he himself is Brahman. Recognising himself as the eternal, changeless Brahman, he passes into the world-soul; he who knows Brahman reposes in it beyond reach of error. As the rivers flowing to the ocean disappear in it, losing their names and form, so the man of knowledge liberated from his name and his form passes into the highest eternal spirit. He who knows this highest Brahman is freed from trouble and sin; from the bonds of the body and theeye; he is lost in Brahman, and becomes himself Brahman.[374]

We cannot but acknowledge the capacity of the Indians for philosophic speculations, and the vigour of thought which for the first time in history maintained the thesis that our senses deceive us; that all which surrounds us is appearance and deception—which denies the whole world of things, and in opposition to the evidence of the tangible and actual world, boldly sets up the inward capacity of knowledge, as a criterion against which the evidence of the senses is not to be taken into consideration. For a long time the actual world had been resolved into the transcendental world of gods and saints; this is now contracted into a simple substance, beyond and besides which nothing exists but appearance. Instead of the appearance of the sensible world, in which there is no being, there exists one real being, the one invisible world-soul, which allows the corporeal world to arise into appearance from it like airy bladders, and then again to sink back whence it came. This universal deity is conceived as a being at rest; its activity and development into a sensible world is only apparent. It is a Pantheism which annihilates the world; matter and nature are completely absorbed by the world-soul, are plunged and buried in it; the soul of a man is a being only apparently separated from the world-soul. From these notions the mission of a man becomes clear. He must turn from appearance; he must unite with the world-soul by recognising the fact that all perceptions and emotions come from the world ofphenomena, and therefore do not really exist; he must rise to the conception that only Brahman exists, and that man is Brahman. If from an ancient period the Indians were of opinion that they could draw down the gods to men by the holy spirit ruling in their prayers and sacrifices—if the mortification of the flesh in penances can give divine power and force to men—their philosophy is no more than consistent, when by recognising the worthlessness of sensible existence it allows Brahman to wake in the human spirit, and thus re-establishes the unity of man with Brahman.

The system of the Vedanta carried out the idea of Brahman so consistently that the entire actual existence of the world is thus annihilated. When once interest in speculation had been aroused, the reaction against positions of this kind was inevitable. The reality of actual things, the existence of matter, the certainty of the individual existence, must be defended against such a doctrine. On these factors was founded a new system, of which the founder in the tradition of the Brahmans is called the Rishi Kapila. The name Sankhya given to this system means "enumeration," "consideration." It maintains that reason alone is in a position to lead man to a right view, to truth and liberation.[375]It also exhibits the boldness arising from the fanciful nature of the Indians; and as the Vedanta took up a position on the idea of Brahman in order to wrest the world from its foundations, the Sankhya system stands on the idea of thesoul (purusha) and of nature or matter (prakriti, pradhana). These two alone have existed from the beginning, uncreated and eternal. Nature is uncreated and eternal, creative and without cognition; the soul is also uncreated and eternal; it is not creative but has cognition. All that exists is the effect of a cause. The effect is limited in time and extension, subject to change, and can be resolved into its origin,i. e.into its cause. As every effect supposes a cause, every product supposes a producing force, every limited an unlimited. If the limited or product is pursued from cause to cause, there results the unlimited, eternal, creative,i. e.producing, nature as the first cause of all that is produced and limited. But beside nature there exists a second first cause. Nature is blind,i. e.without cognition; "light cannot arise out of darkness," intelligence cannot be the effect of nature. The cause of intelligence is the soul, which though completely distinct from nature exists beside it. Nature is eternal and one; the soul is also eternal, but manifold. Were the soul one, it could not feel pain in one man at the same time that it feels joy in another. The soul exists as the plurality of individual souls; these existed from the beginning, and are eternal beside nature. But they also entered into nature from the beginning. Their first case is the primeval body (linga), which consists essentially of "I-making" (ahankara),i. e.individualisation, and the primeval elements; the second material body consists of the five coarse elements of ether, air, light, water, earth. Neither the soul nor the primeval body dies, but only the material body.[376]The primeval body accompanies the soul through all its migrations; the material body is created anew at the regenerations,i. e.the soul and the primeval body are constantly clothed anew with new materials. The soul itself is uncreated, unchangeable amidst all mutations, and eternal, but it does not carry the consciousness of itself from one body to another. The soul is not creative; it exercises no influence on nature; it is only perceptive, observant, cognising, only a witness of nature. Nature is illumined by the proximity of the soul, and the soul gives witness of nature; nature takes its light from the soul, just as a white crystal appears red in the proximity of a red substance.[377]

The object of human life is to obtain liberation from the fetters of the body which bind the soul. The office of true knowledge is to set the soul free from the body, from nature. Man must grasp the difference of the soul and the body; he must understand that beside the body and nature, the soul is a completely self-existent being. The union of the soul and the body is nothing but deception, error, appearance. "In truth, the soul is neither bound nor free, nor a wanderer; nature alone is bound or free or migratory."[378]The soul seems to be bound to nature, but is not so. This appearance must be removed; the soul must recognise that it is not nature. When the soul has once penetrated nature it turns from it, and nature turns from the soul. The "unveiling of the spirit" from the case of nature is the liberation of the soul; by knowledge "release is brought about; by its opposite bondage."[379]By conceiving the absolute independence of the soul, man sets himself free from nature and his body; the idea of this independence is release. With this idea the man of knowledge surrenders his body; he is no longer affected or disturbed by it; even though his natural life continues, he looks on the body only "as on the movement of the wheel by virtue of the impulse once communicated to it."[380]

In spite of the sharp contrast in which the doctrine of Kapila stands to the system of the Vedanta, it works, in the last resort, with analogous factors, only it applies them differently. The soul and nature were put in the place of Brahman and Maya. Instead of the one intelligent principle, which the Vedanta establishes in the world-soul, Kapila maintains the plurality of individual spirits. In the Vedanta, it is true, nature exists as an illusion only: still it is a factor, which though it is also appearance, is nevertheless an existence, and in the last resort exists in Brahman; it has ever to be overcome anew, and thus in this system of unity, the basis is really a dualism. In the Sankhya doctrine nature is actually and materially existent; but the intelligent principle has to discover that this actually existent matter is, in truth, not existent for it, and cannot fetter the soul. If in the orthodox system the illusion of nature is to be annihilated by the free passage of the individual into Brahman, the doctrine of Kapila requires in the same way that man should rise to the idea that he is not nature, that the body is not his being, that he is not matter; it requires that man should be consciousof his freedom from nature, that he should return to his independence, in the same way as the Vedanta requires the absorption into Brahman. Then in the one case, as in the other, the individual escapes the restless movement of the world. In both systems the connection of the spirits and nature is only apparent, and the power of this deception in the spirit is removed by knowledge. Both proceed from the idea of an eternal being, self-contained, at rest, unmoved, self-sufficient; this the Vedanta ascribes to Brahman, while the Sankhya explains it as the nature of the soul. Nevertheless there is an important difference. In the Sankhya the intellectual principle is not the divine world-soul, which permits everything to emanate from itself and return to itself; it is the individual self, and besides this and material nature there is no real being, no real essence. If in the Vedanta liberation is the identification with the world-soul or the Godhead, liberation in the Sankhya is the retirement of the soul into itself. According to the Vedanta the liberated man says, I am Brahman; according to the Sankhya, I am not body nor nature.[381]

In the certainty of conviction which the Sankhya doctrine opposed to the orthodox system, in the clearness with which it drew out the consequences of its point of view, in the boldness of scepticism concerning the gods and revelation, in the courage with which it protested against the regulations of the priests, and the whole religious tradition of the people, lies its importance. By following the rules of the Veda, so said the adherents of this philosophy, no peace can be obtained; the means prescribed by the Veda are neither pure nor of sufficient efficacy. How could it be a pure act to shed blood?—how could sacrifices and ceremonies be of sufficient force? If they really conferred the blessing of heaven, it could only be for a short time; the blessing would merely last till the soul assumed a new body. Temporal means could not give any eternal liberation from evil. The adherents of Kapila explained the gods, including Brahman, to be souls, not much distinguished from the souls of men; the more advanced denied their existence altogether. There was no supreme soul, they said, and no god. Even if there were a god, he must either be free from the world, or connected with it. He cannot be free, for in that case nothing would move him to creation, and if he were connected with the world he would be limited by it, and could not be omniscient.[382]Thus not only were the whole doctrine of Brahman and the whole system of gods overthrown, but the authority of the Veda was annihilated on which the Brahmans founded their belief no less than the worship by sacrifice, and with it all revelation, all the positive basis of religious life. The doctrine of Kapila found adherents. From orthodox scholasticism the Indian philosophy very rapidly arrived at rationalism and scepticism, though the latter, like the correct system, moved in scholastic forms and ended with an unsolved dualism.

While in this manner one constructive system superseded the other, the formal side of knowledge did not remain without a keen and penetrating examination. The objects and means of knowledge were tested; men occupied themselves with fixing the categories of the idea, of doubt, of contradiction, of fallacies, of false generalisation, and conversion; andat last inquiries were made into the syllogism and the members of it, and more especially into the categories of cause and effect. Researches of this kind quickly grew into a system, the Nyaya or logic, which chiefly used the results of the theory of knowledge to establish the authority of the Veda, and overthrow the arguments brought against the revelation of it.[383]In themselves, at any rate in the late form in which we have them, the logical researches of the Indians are scarcely behind the similar works of modern times in the acuteness and subtilty of their categories.

In the period between the years 800 and 600B.C.the valley of the Ganges must have been filled with the stir of intellectual life. No doubt the times were long past when the ancient hymns of the Veda were sung at the place of sacrifice, when the poems of victory and the heroic deeds of men—the Epos in its original form—were recited at the courts of princes or the banquets of the military nobility—the Kshatriyas. The contest of the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas was also over; the Brahmans had not only gained currency for their teaching in the sphere of religion and the state, but had already developed it to its consequences. They put before the princes and the people the canon of correct life, of purity, of sins and penalties, of punishments beyond the grave and regenerations, and held up the true law to the state. They revised the Epos from their point of view; they established the ritual, they justified every declaration and every ordinance in it from the Veda, the sacred history; they explained the words and the sense of the Veda; they went beyond the opposition of schools and authorities to independent examination of the idea of Brahman, of the causes and connection of the world, and to speculative philosophy.They have so far succeeded that no nation has devoted its interest and power to religion to the same degree as the Indians. The longer they lingered in the magic world of gods and spirits, into which they were plunged by the sacrifices, legends, and doctrines of the Brahmans, the more familiar they became with these dreams, the more passive must they have grown to the actual and prosaic connection of things, the more indifferent to the processes going on in the world of reality. Hence in the end the Indians knew more of the world of the gods than of the things of the earth; they lived in the next world rather than in this. The world of fancy became their fatherland, and heaven was their home. The more immutable the limits of the castes, the heavier the taxation of the state, the greater the caprice of the officers, the less the space left for the will or act of the individual, the more uniform the life,—the more did the people become accustomed to seek their fears and hopes in the kingdom of fancies and dreams, in the world to come. Excluded from action in the state, the Indians turned the more eagerly to the questions of worship and dogma; for that was the only sphere in which movement found nothing to check it, and the separation of the people into a number of tribes, the mutual exclusiveness of the castes and local communities limited the common feeling of the nation on the Ganges to the faith which they all acknowledged.

FOOTNOTES:[345]Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 2, 80.[346]M. Müller, "Hist. Anc. Skt. Lit." p. 469 ff.[347]"Rigveda," 1, 162, according to M. Müller's translation,loc. cit.p. 553 ff.[348]"Çatapatha-Brahmana," 13, 3, 1, 1, in M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 37 ff.[349]"Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 1, 11 ff. A. Weber, "Vorles." s. 1262.[350]"Vishnu-Purana," ed. Wilson, p. 470, 471. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 22, 319, 346, 963, 1001.[351]M. Müller has placed the period of the origin of the Brahmanas in the period from 800 to 600B.C.—very successfully, so far as I can see. The collection of the Atharvan will belong to the end of this period, but not merely on the internal ground of the increase in the ceremonial brought about with and through the Brahmanas. The book of the law consistently cites the triple Veda; the sutras of the Buddhists and the Epos as consistently cite four. That the magic formulas of Atharvan and Angiras are quoted in Manu 11, 33, and not those of the Atharvaveda, seems also to prove that the latter collection was not made when the citations were written. Cp. A. Weber, "Vorl." s. 1652.[352]"Rigveda," 10, 9, 5-7.[353]"Atharvaveda," 5, 19, 2, 1-5.[354]Darmesteter, "Haurvatat," p. 74.[355]"Atharvaveda," 2, 9.[356]"Atharvaveda," 1, 25, 2, 8, quoted by Grohmann in Weber's "Ind. Stud." 9, 391, 403, 406 ff. If Takman is called Deva, this is due to the connection in which he is placed with Varuna. Varuna sends diseases as punishments, dropsy, as a water-god, but fever also, and thus Takman can be called the son of Varuna.[357]"Rigveda," 1, 50, 11, 12; 10, 97.[358]Kuhn in his "Zeitschrift f. v. s." 13, 140 ff., where the coincidence of the German language is pointed out.[359]M. Müller, "Hist. Anc. Skt. Lit." p. 230 ff.; 245 ff. A. Weber, "Vorles." s. 482.[360]Burnouf, "Introduction," p. 456. M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 305. Lassen,loc. cit.22, 474.[361]In the Brahmanas we only find traces of a quinquennial or sexennial cycle. A. Weber, in "Z. D. M. G." 15, 132. The worship of the Nakshatras, or houses of the moon,i. e.the division of the sky into 27 (later 28) parts by means of certain constellations as marks, is first found in a developed form in Buddha's time, as is proved by Burnouf and A. Weber ("Abh. d. Berl. Akad.," 1861, s. 320). Weber does not believe in the Indian origin of these stations of the moon; he regards them as Semitic, and borrowed from Babylonia,loc. cit.s. 363. The inquiry at what time these marks for the course of the moon according to the position of the stars were made astronomical has led to various results. Biot regards the year 2357B.C.as the earliest point (the original number of 24 stations was increased to 28 about the year 1100B.C.). A. Weber thinks that the period between 1472 and 536B.C.is the space within which the observation of the Jyotisha was fixed ("Studien," 2, 240, 413, 414. "Abh. d. Berl. Akad." 1860, s. 284; 1861, s. 354, 364), and shows that the use of these houses of the moon in China, in the order usual there, cannot be proved before 250B.C.The Chinese order corresponds to the latest Indian arrangement of the Nakshatras, cf. "Ind. Stud." 9, 424 ff., whereas the length given in the Jyotisha for the longest and shortest day, suits the position of Babylon,loc. cit.1861, s. 361. The Veda knows the Nakshatras as stars but not as stations of the moon, though they are known as the latter in the Brahmanas. The Vedic names of several of the gods who preside over the stations (Aryaman, Bhaga, etc.) prove a tolerably ancient origin for the Nakshatras. The civic computation of time among the Buddhists is founded on them. Hence we may assume that this division of the sky was perhaps current among the Indians in the tenth centuryB.C.[362]A. Weber, in "Abh. d. Berl. Akad." 1861, s. 291.[363]Manu, 3, 162; 6, 50.[364]A. Weber, "Vorl." s. 224 ff. The first traces of astrology in the strict sense besides the mention in the book of the law are found in the sutras of the Buddhists,e. g.in Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 140, 141, if we do not prefer the accounts of the Greeks to those legends which were written in Magadhi (Pali) the native language of Magadha, and the central Ganges in general, and have come down in the form which they received in the middle of the third centuryB.C., but also contain fragments of far greater antiquity. In any case, preference must be given to the simple sutras (Burn.loc. cit.p. 232), and these lay great stress on the astrology and soothsaying of the Brahmans. After this we meet with numerous traces of astrology in the Epos; but the law-book of Yajnavalkya is the first to command the worship of planets.[365]M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 109 ff.[366]Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 245 ff.[367]A. Weber, "Indische Studien," 9, 2, 72, 74.[368]Manu, 1, 33-40, 61, ff.[369]Manu, 9, 31-34; 313-322.[370]"Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 1, 51-65. In this extended form this episode may, it is true, have first arisen at a much later time, as is shown by the mention of Vishnu and Çiva, and the Yavanas (Greeks). If in spite of these additions which are not important, I confidently place it at this date, I do so because the importance of the penitent and his power over the gods, the creation of beings by the penance of saints,i. e.the degradation of the gods, must be placed before the appearance of Buddha. This is the essential hypothesis for the religion which the doctrine of Buddha found in existence. In the Mahabharata this legend is told more briefly. Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 196 ff.[371]A. Weber, "Ind. Stud." 1, 414.[372]The Sankhya system, which Buddha found in existence, presupposes the Vedanta system. The latter system must therefore have been in existence before Buddha; Roer, "Lecture on the Sankhya Philosophy," Calcutta, 1854, p. 19. The Vedanta is expressly mentioned in Manu, 2, 160, as belonging to the study of the Veda. The names Mimansa and Nyaya are also mentioned in Manu, but only in the final part, which is very loosely connected with the whole (12, 109, 111).[373]Colebrooke, "Miscellaneous Essays," 1, 325 ff. M. Müller, "Beiträge zur Kenntniss der indischen Philosophie" in Z. D. M. G. 6, 6, 7.[374]Colebrooke, "Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society," II, 1. Vans Kennedy, "Asiatic Journal," 1839, p. 441 ff. Köppen, "Religion des Buddha," s. 57 ff. Wuttke, "Geschichte des Heidenthums," 2, 257, 281, 399[375]It is in the later Upanishads that we first find the doctrine of Kapila called by the name Sankhya, Weber, "Vorles." s. 212; "Ind. Stud." 9, 17. As with the Vedanta system, so also with the Sankhya: in the Sankhya-Karika we have only a very late and compressed exposition in 72 çlokas; but as Buddhism is founded on this system we are more certain about the earlier form of it than in the case of the Vedanta.[376]Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 511.[377]Roer, "Lecture," p. 15; Köppen, "Religion des Buddha," s. 65.[378]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 63.[379]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 44. Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 520, 522.[380]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 67. By the side of this keen scepticism the system of the Sankhya allows the gradation of creatures as fixed by the Brahmans to remain, and the migration of souls with some slight modifications. The lowest stage is formed by the minerals; above these are the plants, reptiles, birds, wild animals, domestic animals. These are followed by men in the order of the castes; and then come the regenerations in the form of demons, Piçachas, Rakshasas, Yakshas and Gandharvas; and last in the form of Indra, Soma, Prajapati, Brahman. Barthelemy St. Hilaire, "sur le Sankhya," p. 286.[381]Köppen,loc. cit.s. 69.[382]Roer, "Lecture on the Sankhya Phil." p. 14; "Introduction to the Çvetaçvatara-upanishad," p. 36; cf. "Sankhya-Karika," çl. 53-55. Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 133 ff.[383]Muir,loc. cit.3, 108 ff.

[345]Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 2, 80.

[346]M. Müller, "Hist. Anc. Skt. Lit." p. 469 ff.

[347]"Rigveda," 1, 162, according to M. Müller's translation,loc. cit.p. 553 ff.

[348]"Çatapatha-Brahmana," 13, 3, 1, 1, in M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 37 ff.

[349]"Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 1, 11 ff. A. Weber, "Vorles." s. 1262.

[350]"Vishnu-Purana," ed. Wilson, p. 470, 471. Lassen, "Ind. Alterth." 22, 319, 346, 963, 1001.

[351]M. Müller has placed the period of the origin of the Brahmanas in the period from 800 to 600B.C.—very successfully, so far as I can see. The collection of the Atharvan will belong to the end of this period, but not merely on the internal ground of the increase in the ceremonial brought about with and through the Brahmanas. The book of the law consistently cites the triple Veda; the sutras of the Buddhists and the Epos as consistently cite four. That the magic formulas of Atharvan and Angiras are quoted in Manu 11, 33, and not those of the Atharvaveda, seems also to prove that the latter collection was not made when the citations were written. Cp. A. Weber, "Vorl." s. 1652.

[352]"Rigveda," 10, 9, 5-7.

[353]"Atharvaveda," 5, 19, 2, 1-5.

[354]Darmesteter, "Haurvatat," p. 74.

[355]"Atharvaveda," 2, 9.

[356]"Atharvaveda," 1, 25, 2, 8, quoted by Grohmann in Weber's "Ind. Stud." 9, 391, 403, 406 ff. If Takman is called Deva, this is due to the connection in which he is placed with Varuna. Varuna sends diseases as punishments, dropsy, as a water-god, but fever also, and thus Takman can be called the son of Varuna.

[357]"Rigveda," 1, 50, 11, 12; 10, 97.

[358]Kuhn in his "Zeitschrift f. v. s." 13, 140 ff., where the coincidence of the German language is pointed out.

[359]M. Müller, "Hist. Anc. Skt. Lit." p. 230 ff.; 245 ff. A. Weber, "Vorles." s. 482.

[360]Burnouf, "Introduction," p. 456. M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 305. Lassen,loc. cit.22, 474.

[361]In the Brahmanas we only find traces of a quinquennial or sexennial cycle. A. Weber, in "Z. D. M. G." 15, 132. The worship of the Nakshatras, or houses of the moon,i. e.the division of the sky into 27 (later 28) parts by means of certain constellations as marks, is first found in a developed form in Buddha's time, as is proved by Burnouf and A. Weber ("Abh. d. Berl. Akad.," 1861, s. 320). Weber does not believe in the Indian origin of these stations of the moon; he regards them as Semitic, and borrowed from Babylonia,loc. cit.s. 363. The inquiry at what time these marks for the course of the moon according to the position of the stars were made astronomical has led to various results. Biot regards the year 2357B.C.as the earliest point (the original number of 24 stations was increased to 28 about the year 1100B.C.). A. Weber thinks that the period between 1472 and 536B.C.is the space within which the observation of the Jyotisha was fixed ("Studien," 2, 240, 413, 414. "Abh. d. Berl. Akad." 1860, s. 284; 1861, s. 354, 364), and shows that the use of these houses of the moon in China, in the order usual there, cannot be proved before 250B.C.The Chinese order corresponds to the latest Indian arrangement of the Nakshatras, cf. "Ind. Stud." 9, 424 ff., whereas the length given in the Jyotisha for the longest and shortest day, suits the position of Babylon,loc. cit.1861, s. 361. The Veda knows the Nakshatras as stars but not as stations of the moon, though they are known as the latter in the Brahmanas. The Vedic names of several of the gods who preside over the stations (Aryaman, Bhaga, etc.) prove a tolerably ancient origin for the Nakshatras. The civic computation of time among the Buddhists is founded on them. Hence we may assume that this division of the sky was perhaps current among the Indians in the tenth centuryB.C.

[362]A. Weber, in "Abh. d. Berl. Akad." 1861, s. 291.

[363]Manu, 3, 162; 6, 50.

[364]A. Weber, "Vorl." s. 224 ff. The first traces of astrology in the strict sense besides the mention in the book of the law are found in the sutras of the Buddhists,e. g.in Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 140, 141, if we do not prefer the accounts of the Greeks to those legends which were written in Magadhi (Pali) the native language of Magadha, and the central Ganges in general, and have come down in the form which they received in the middle of the third centuryB.C., but also contain fragments of far greater antiquity. In any case, preference must be given to the simple sutras (Burn.loc. cit.p. 232), and these lay great stress on the astrology and soothsaying of the Brahmans. After this we meet with numerous traces of astrology in the Epos; but the law-book of Yajnavalkya is the first to command the worship of planets.

[365]M. Müller,loc. cit.p. 109 ff.

[366]Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 245 ff.

[367]A. Weber, "Indische Studien," 9, 2, 72, 74.

[368]Manu, 1, 33-40, 61, ff.

[369]Manu, 9, 31-34; 313-322.

[370]"Ramayana," ed. Schlegel, 1, 51-65. In this extended form this episode may, it is true, have first arisen at a much later time, as is shown by the mention of Vishnu and Çiva, and the Yavanas (Greeks). If in spite of these additions which are not important, I confidently place it at this date, I do so because the importance of the penitent and his power over the gods, the creation of beings by the penance of saints,i. e.the degradation of the gods, must be placed before the appearance of Buddha. This is the essential hypothesis for the religion which the doctrine of Buddha found in existence. In the Mahabharata this legend is told more briefly. Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 196 ff.

[371]A. Weber, "Ind. Stud." 1, 414.

[372]The Sankhya system, which Buddha found in existence, presupposes the Vedanta system. The latter system must therefore have been in existence before Buddha; Roer, "Lecture on the Sankhya Philosophy," Calcutta, 1854, p. 19. The Vedanta is expressly mentioned in Manu, 2, 160, as belonging to the study of the Veda. The names Mimansa and Nyaya are also mentioned in Manu, but only in the final part, which is very loosely connected with the whole (12, 109, 111).

[373]Colebrooke, "Miscellaneous Essays," 1, 325 ff. M. Müller, "Beiträge zur Kenntniss der indischen Philosophie" in Z. D. M. G. 6, 6, 7.

[374]Colebrooke, "Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society," II, 1. Vans Kennedy, "Asiatic Journal," 1839, p. 441 ff. Köppen, "Religion des Buddha," s. 57 ff. Wuttke, "Geschichte des Heidenthums," 2, 257, 281, 399

[375]It is in the later Upanishads that we first find the doctrine of Kapila called by the name Sankhya, Weber, "Vorles." s. 212; "Ind. Stud." 9, 17. As with the Vedanta system, so also with the Sankhya: in the Sankhya-Karika we have only a very late and compressed exposition in 72 çlokas; but as Buddhism is founded on this system we are more certain about the earlier form of it than in the case of the Vedanta.

[376]Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 511.

[377]Roer, "Lecture," p. 15; Köppen, "Religion des Buddha," s. 65.

[378]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 63.

[379]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 44. Burnouf,loc. cit.p. 520, 522.

[380]"Sankhya-Karika," çl. 67. By the side of this keen scepticism the system of the Sankhya allows the gradation of creatures as fixed by the Brahmans to remain, and the migration of souls with some slight modifications. The lowest stage is formed by the minerals; above these are the plants, reptiles, birds, wild animals, domestic animals. These are followed by men in the order of the castes; and then come the regenerations in the form of demons, Piçachas, Rakshasas, Yakshas and Gandharvas; and last in the form of Indra, Soma, Prajapati, Brahman. Barthelemy St. Hilaire, "sur le Sankhya," p. 286.

[381]Köppen,loc. cit.s. 69.

[382]Roer, "Lecture on the Sankhya Phil." p. 14; "Introduction to the Çvetaçvatara-upanishad," p. 36; cf. "Sankhya-Karika," çl. 53-55. Muir, "Sanskrit Texts," 3, 133 ff.

[383]Muir,loc. cit.3, 108 ff.

Back to Index Next