Page images

ally expected, that the doctrines in question would have been attributed to'S'ukra, the preceptor of the demons, rather than to Brihaspati, the preceptor of the gods; and plausible grounds for such an adjudication might have been found in the singular passage at the end of the Chhandogya Upanishad. There we read, that Indra among the gods and Virochana among the Asuras or demons, went to Prajaipati to learn the knowledge of the Soul, and that Virochaua acquiesced without further inquiry in the exoteric doctrine of the _Self. “ He, Virochana, with a. feeling of satisfaction, repaired to the Asuras, and unto them imparted this instruction, ‘Self alone is adorable; in this world Self alone should be served ; by adoring and serving one’s self, both this and the other world may be attained.’ Therefore thenceforward the Asuras give no alms, have no faith in good works, and ofiiciate at no sacrifice; hence are they called Asuras. This is their Upanishad. Their dead are besmeared with aromatics and adorned with ornaments and costly raiment, and they think that thereby they-will overcome this region and that.” Tradition, however, gives a diflerent origin; and just as Vishnu is said to have assumed his ninth avatar as Buddha. to destroy the daityas, so B1_'ihaspati is described as promulgating his system to overthrow the pre. eminence of the sons of Raji.

The legend is given with more or less detail in the Vishnu and Matsya Pur5.nas.* I subjoin the following abridgement of it from the Harivansa (chapter 28).

, A’yus, the son of Purfiravas of the lunar dynasty, had five sons, Nahusha, Vriddhas'arman, Rambha, Raji and Anenas, of whom Raji had five hundred sons. A great war was going on between the devas and asuras, and Brahma had foretold victory to that side which was espoused by Raji. The two parties claim his aid,1' but on his demanding to be made an Indra as his reward, the demons refused, saying, “Our Indra is Prahrfida.” The gods on the other hand accept the proposed condition, and Raji accordingly conquers their enemies and becomes during his lifetime their Indra. On Raji’s death, his 500 sons seize the inheritance, and Indra is unable to prevail against them. In the extremity of his distress he is repre-_

=1!‘ The latter makes Brihaspati teach the Jaina doctrine. 1: Raji was descended by his father from Soma, but by his mother from Swan bh“nu, a dénava.


sented as going to Brihaspati and bcggingfor a piece of' the sacred Purodais'a though it were only the size of a jujuhe fruit, to support his fainting strength, just as Aristophanes represents the gods coming to Peisthetaerus when the walls of Nephelococcygia interrupted "the smoke of the sacrifices. Brihaspati in compassion promises to aid him in recovering his lost dominion, and for this purpose he invented a new system of atheistical doctrines, “ A practical S’astra of atheism‘, utterly hostile to religion, most subtile of logical systems, and beguiling the hearts of the wicked, though such as could never please the mind of the truly virtuous.” This new S’ aistra of Brihaspati easily deluded the minds of the young princes, and they soon lost all their merit and fell from their ‘pride of place,’ and Indra regained his throne. .

The earliest mention which I have found of the word Ndstika (nihilist,) or its derivatives is in the Maitrziyani Upanishad (3rd book, § 5) where Ncisti/cg/a is enumerated as one of the effects of the quality of darkness.* Nzistika a.ndlVéslik_ya occur several times in Mann. In the "Raiméyana we have an allusion to nastikas in ch. 109 (Schlege1'sed), of the Ayodhyé Kzinda, where Raina censures Jzibzili for advising him to break his father’s vow and return to his capital. =‘

“ I blame that deed of my father that he chose as his priest one so unstable-minded as thee,——wandcring to ruin with such opinions, a. very atheist (Néstika) astray from the path of religion. .

“ As is the thief, so too is the Bauddha; and know that the Nas‘tika is equal to them. Therefore the sage whom men most hold in awe, will not speak face to face with the Nzistil<a.1“”

We find 1V/rstika as well as dstika in the Purohitagana attached to Pzir_1ini’s grammar. I have already mentioned that Charvzika ap

' Buddhist, or materialist, opinions seem alluded to in such passages as Chhandogya Upanishad, VI. 2, 1, &c. 1' There is a variation in Schlegel’s text and that of the late Calcutta edition.

The former has 7-ffiflffi ‘G2 Uiflf-[312 $]S=|I?|'f; the latter has flqi[a'fl,-, and the Sehol. explains the S’loka thus ;

3% §swm=Jrmf‘t Hm %I1Z3'{ as: {Fe ates vrifsrsi swim‘ awr’=IIa" Wei rI=:i§ I111‘: fatal Frriirwfiiwwwiwa: smfir iirtsq '<‘\<If*-fir‘ Y3" twin Eqsrniwrwwéfiw fiwmfir %rta1q| fs Fwwfiw "WW wivrruvfzv-are ‘(Iii %rtH€*=r zssfizgi vzsssrfir w= H firtais <‘l'~'1= <=Is*3u§a 5 @131 main flrfaiisfugfir wmrq urewlwmifqa aW”l‘?rR1§1= I gswmia; Qsrseiil msuirrsfw HF§§@= enfzfvr em‘ I .

pears as a demon in the Mahabharata, and he is there described as killed by the curses of some Brahmans of Yudhishthira’s party.

Some authorities say that Brihaspati taught his doctrines to his disciple Charvéka, but if we may judge by the occasional quotations, the so-called Brihaspati-s'éstra must have been from ancient times the text-book of the sect. No copy is now known to exist,* but we have quite enough extant in the form of quotations to enable us to judge of the character of the work. Its author, like Lucretius among the Romans or Omar Khayyém among the Persians, was strong to overthrow,—he could ridicule the absurdities of superstition, but he was blind to the religious instincts which underlie them,—and hence they are, all alike, men

—when faith had fall'n asleep,
Who heard a voice ‘ believe no more,’

And heard an ever-breaking shore
That tumbled in the godless deep.

Of course if we look at these blind gropings of bewildered humanity simply in themselves, they can have nothing to teach or even interest us ; but it is not so, if we consider them in relation to the history of the human mind. The Chérvaka doctrines, and in fact, all such purely negative systems, may be regarded from three separate points of view, and it is as seen under these several aspects that they present such widely varying characters. If we only look at them so far as they deny the deepest instincts of our nature, we can but turn from them in disgust and horror,—the belief in God and in the soul’s immor. tality are not the results of logical inference, but the very postulates of human thought, and we deny our own humanity if we choose to question them. Again, so far as these sceptical systems only uttered a protest against the superstitions of their age, we may regard them not only with pity but with mournful interest. But so far as they express the negative side of philosophy, they may even claim our most serious attention, for they help us to remember those natural limitations and defects of the human mind, which we are so apt to forget in the excitement of new discoveries. Are they not in fact

is Since writing this paper we have received the third part of V0]. XIX. of the Royal Asiatic Society's Journal, which contains a paper by Mr. Muir on the fragments of Brihaspati as compared with similar passages in the Ramayana and Vishnu Puréna. He there states that Dr. Hall had in vain searched for any copy of these Barhaspatya S’lokas. We may well despair of their being ever found, if even the discoverer of the Bharatiya S’éstru has failed to find any trace.

the necessary shadow that the human mind flings as it advances,-the slave set to warn the conqueror in the triumphal procession P

WVe now proceed to give a literal translation of’s account of the system from the Sarva-dars'ana Sangraha.

The Ohcirvrika doctrine.

\Ve have said in our preliminary invocation “ salutation to S'iva, the abode of eternal knowledge, the storehouse of supreme felicity,” but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such anotion has been utterly abolished by Charvéka, the crest-gem of the atheistical school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Chfirvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain,

While life is yours, live joyously,
None can escape Death’s searching eye;

When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall we o'er again return?

The mass of men, in accordance with the S'astras of policy and enjoyment* considering wealth and desire the only ends of man, and denying the existence of any thing belonging to a future world, are found to follow only the doctrine of Chérvéka. Hence another name for that school is Lolrayata,—a name well accordant with the thing signified.1'

In this school the four elements, earth, &c., are the original principles, -—from these alone when transformed into the body, intelligence is produced, just as the inebriating power is developed from the mixing

of certain ingredients; and when these are destroyed, intelligence at once perishes also. They quote the S'ruti for this (Brihad A'raI_1y. Up. II. 4. 12.), “ springing forth from these elements, itself solid knowledge, it is destroyed when they are destroyed,—after death no

' See Dr. Hall’s preface to the Vésavadattsi, p. 11.

f “ S'ankara, Bhéskaru, and other commentators name the Loluiyatikas, and these appear to be a branch of the Sect of Chérvéka” (Oolebrooke). Lokéyuta may be etymologically analysed as ‘prevalent in the world‘ (lo/ca, and ¢i_z/ata). Laukéyatiku occurs in Pfi1_1ini’s ukthagana.

I Kigiwa is explained as “ a drug or seed used to produce fermentation in the manufacture of spirits from sugar, bassia, &c.” Colebrooke quotes from S'ankara: “'.|.‘he faculty of thought results from a modification of the aggregate elements in like manner as sugar with a ferment and other ingredients becomes an inebriating liquor; and as betel, areca, lime and extract of catechu chewed together, have an exhilarating property not found in those substances severally."

intelligence reniains.”* Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished by the attribute of intelligence, since there is no evidence for any soul distinct from the body, as such cannot be proved, since this school holds that perception is the only source of knowledge and does not allow inference, &c.

The only end of man is enjoyment produced by sensual pleasures. N01‘ may you say that such cannot be called the end of man as they are always mixed with some kind of pain,—because it is our wisdom to enjoy the pure pleasure as far as we can, and to avoid the pain which inevitably accompanies it; just as the man who desires fish, takes the fish with their scales and bones, and having taken as many as he wants, desists ; or just as the man who desires rice, takes the rice, straw and all, and having taken as much as he wants, desists. It is not therefore for us, through a fear of pain, to reject the pleasure which our nature instinctively recognises as congenial. Men do not refrain from sowing rice, because forsooth there are wild animals to devour it ; nor do they refuse to set the cooking-pots on the fire, because forsooth there are beggars to pester us for a share of the contents. If any one were so timid as to forsake a visible pleasure, he would indeed be foolish like a beast, as has been said by the poet,

The pleasure which arises to men from contact with sensible objects

Is to be relinquished as accompanied by pain,—-such is the reasoning of fools ;

The berries of paddy, rich with the finest white grains,

What man, seeking his true interest, would fling away, because covered with

husk and dust H

If you object, that, if there be no such thing as happiness in a future world, then how will men of . experienced wisdom engage in the agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of money and bodily fatigue P—-your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary, since the agnihotra, &c., are only useful‘ as means of livelihood, for the Veda is tainted by the three faults of nntruth, self-contradiction and tautology ,1 then


* Of course S’ankara, in his commentary, gives a very different interpretation,

applying it to the cessation of individual existence when the knowledge of the Supreme is once attained. Of. S’ubm'a’s Comm. Jaimini Suit. i. i. 5.

1' I take qua as here equal to qE§§3___Cf. Atharva V. xi. 3, 5. wqr; smut mir15$?! 1-‘i‘IU=I~‘I‘~§I,\TI=. I See Nyayn Sutras, II. 57.

« PreviousContinue »