Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/517

 the reckoning seems to have taken over this initial day from the Marāṭhā Sūr-san (see below). The Fasli years of Madras originally began at the Karka-saṁkrānti, the nominal summer solstice: under the British government, the commencement of them was first fixed to 12th July, on which day the saṁkrānti was then usually occurring; but it was afterwards changed to 1st July as a more convenient date. The years of the Bombay and Madras Fasli have no division of their own into months, fortnights, &c.; the year is always used along with one or other of the real Hindu reckonings, and the details are cited according to that reckoning.

Another offshoot of the Hijra era, but one of earlier date and not belonging to the class of Fasli reckonings, is found, in the Marāṭhā country, in the Sūr-san or Shahūr-san, “the year of months,” also known as Arabī-san, “the Arab year.” This reckoning, which is met with chiefly in old sanads or

charters, appears to have branched off in or closely about the Hijra year 745, which ran from 15th May, 1344, to 3rd May,  1345; but the exact circumstance in which it originated is not known. The years of this reckoning begin, like those of the Bombay Fasli, with the entrance of the sun into the nakshatra Mṛigaśiras, which now occurs on 6th or 7th June; but the months and days are those of the Hijra year. The Sūr-san year 1301 began in 1900; and so the reckoning has an apparent initial point in 600. A peculiarity attending this reckoning is that, whatever may be the vernacular of a clerk, he uses the Arabic numeral words in reading out the year; and the same words are given alongside of the figures in the Hindu almanacs.

—The Hindu astronomy had already begun to attract attention before the close of the 18th century. The investigation, however, of the calendar and the eras, along with the verification of dates, was started by Warren, whose Kala Sankalita was published in 1825. The inquiry was carried on by Prinsep in his Useful Tables (1834–1836), by Cowasjee Patell in his Chronology (1866), and by Cunningham in his Book of Indian Eras (1883). But Warren’s processes, though mostly giving accurate results, were lengthy and troublesome; and calculations made on the lines laid down by his successors gave results which might or might not be correct, and could only be cited as approximate results. The exact calculation of Hindu dates by easy processes was started by Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, in an article published in the Indian Antiquary, vol. 16 (1887). This was succeeded by methods and tables devised by Jacobi, which were published in the next volume of the same journal. There then followed several contributions in the same line by other scholars, some for exact, others for closely approximate, results, and some valuable articles by Kielhorn on some of the principal Hindu eras and other reckonings, which were published in the same journal, vols. 17 (1888) to 26 (1897). And the treatment of the matter culminated for the time being in the publication, in 1896, of Sewell and Dikshit’s Indian Calendar, which contains an appendix by Schram on eclipses of the sun in India, and was supplemented in 1898 by Sewell’s Eclipses of the Moon in India. The present article is based on the above-mentioned and various detached writings, supplemented by original research. For the exact calculation of Hindu dates and the determination of the European equivalents of them, use may be made either of Sewell and Dikshit’s works mentioned above, or of the improved tables by Jacobi which were published in the Epigraphia Indica, vols. 1 and 2 (1892–1894).

 HINDUISM, a term generally employed to comprehend the social institutions, past and present, of the Hindus who form the great majority of the people of India; as well as the multitudinous crop of their religious beliefs which has grown up, in the course of many centuries, on the foundation of the Brahmanical scriptures. The actual proportion of the total population of India (294 millions) included under the name of “Hindus” has been computed in the census report for 1901 at something like 70% (206 millions); the remaining 30% being made up partly of the followers of foreign creeds, such as Mahommedans, Parsees, Christians and Jews, partly of the votaries of indigenous forms of belief which have at various times separated from the main stock, and developed into independent systems, such as Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism; and partly of isolated hill and jungle tribes, such as the Santals, Bhils (Bhilla) and Kols, whose crude animistic tendencies have hitherto kept them, either wholly or for the most part, outside the pale of the Brahmanical community. The name “Hindu” itself is of foreign origin, being derived from the Persians, by whom the river Sindhu was called Hindhu, a name subsequently applied to the inhabitants of that frontier district, and gradually extended over the upper and middle reaches of the Gangetic valley, whence this whole tract of country between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountains, west of Bengal, came to be called by the foreign conquerors “Hindustan,” or the abode of the Hindus; whilst the native writers called it “Aryavarta,” or the abode of the Aryas.

But whilst, in its more comprehensive acceptation, the term Hinduism would thus range over the entire historical development of Brahmanical India, it is also not infrequently used in a narrower sense, as denoting more especially the modern phase of Indian social and religious institutions—from the earlier centuries of the Christian era down to our own days—as distinguished from the period dominated by the authoritative doctrine of pantheistic belief, formulated by the speculative theologians during the centuries immediately succeeding the Vedic period (see ). In this its more restricted sense the term may thus practically be taken to apply to the later bewildering variety of popular sectarian forms of belief, with its social concomitant, the fully developed caste-system. But, though one may at times find it convenient to speak of “Brahmanism and Hinduism,” it must be clearly understood that the distinction implied in the combination of these terms is an extremely vague one, especially from the chronological point of view. The following considerations will probably make this clear.

The characteristic tenet of orthodox Brahmanism consists in the conception of an absolute, all-embracing spirit, the Brahma (neutr.), being the one and only reality, itself unconditioned, and the original cause and ultimate goal of all individual souls (jīva, i.e. living things).

Coupled with this abstract conception are two other doctrines, viz. first, the transmigration of souls (saṁsāra), regarded by Indian thinkers as the necessary complement of a belief in the essential sameness of all the various spiritual units, however contaminated, to a greater or less degree, they may be by their material embodiment; and in their ultimate re-union with the Paramātman, or Supreme Self; and second, the assumption of a triple manifestation of the ceaseless working of that Absolute Spirit as a creative, conservative and destructive principle, represented respectively by the divine personalities of Brahma (masc.), Vishṇu and Śiva, forming the Trimūrti or Triad. As regards this latter, purely exoteric, doctrine, there can be little doubt of its owing its origin to considerations of theological expediency, as being calculated to supply a sufficiently wide formula of belief for general acceptance; and the very fact of this divine triad including the two principal deities of the later sectarian worship, Vishṇu and Śiva, goes far to show that these two gods at all events must have been already in those early days favourite objects of popular adoration to an extent sufficient to preclude their being ignored by a diplomatic priesthood bent upon the formulation of a common creed. Thus, so far from sectarianism being a mere modern development of Brahmanism, it actually goes back to beyond the formulation of the Brahmanical creed. Nay, when, on analysing the functions and attributes of those two divine figures, each of them is found to be but a compound of several previously recognized deities, sectarian worship may well be traced right up to the Vedic age. That the theory of the triple manifestation of the deity was indeed only a compromise between Brahmanical aspirations and popular worship, probably largely influenced by the traditional sanctity of the number three, is sufficiently clear from the fact that, whilst Brahma, the creator, and at the same time the very embodiment of Brahmanical class pride, has practically remained a mere figurehead in the actual worship of the people, Śiva, on the other hand, so far from being merely the destroyer, is also the unmistakable representative of generative and reproductive power in nature. In fact, Brahma, having performed his legitimate part in the mundane evolution by his original creation of the universe, has retired into the background, being, as it were, looked upon as functus officio, like a venerable figure of a former generation, whence in epic poetry he is commonly styled pitāmaha, “the grandsire.” But despite the artificial character of the Trimūrti, it has retained to this day at least its theoretical validity in orthodox Hinduism, whilst it has also undoubtedly exercised considerable influence in shaping sectarian belief, in promoting feelings of toleration towards the claims