Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 4.djvu/251

Rh supreme, The pantheistic doctrine which forms the foundation of the Brahmauical belief found its earliest systematic exposition in the Mlmansa philosophy, Inas much as its tenets were supposed to be in perfect harmony with the sacred scriptures, the Mlmansa was regarded as the only true orthodox school of philosophy. It divided itself into two parts or branches, viz., the Purva- (prior) or Karma- (work) Mlmansa, the practical, and, no doubt, older school of Jaimini, which propounds a system of reasoning with a view of facilitating the correct interpreta tion of tho Veda ; and the Uttara- (latter) or Brahma- Mlmdnsd, or commonly called Vedanta (conclusion of the Veda), the metaphysical system ascribed to Vyasa, which professes to supply a complete exposition of the theological doctrines advanced in the Veda, especially in its speculative portions, the Upanishads. But other dartanas, or philo sophical systems, were started, which, though admitted into the pale of orthodoxy, were yet considered as not altogether compatible with a belief in the revealed character of the scriptures. These were the Sankhya school, founded by Kapila, with its more modern branch, the theistic Yoga of Patanjali; and the dialectic Nyaya of Gotama, with the atomistic Vaiseshika of Kanada. The time at which these several schools originated is still very uncertain ; but it is highly probable that at least the two Mlmdnsds and the Sankhya preceded Buddhism. The Vedanta seemed to be unable satisfactorily to account for the origin of matter, the existence of which its followers in later times found themselves compelled altogether to deny, and to de clare to be a mere illusion (mayo) produced by imperfect knowledge of the soul. Kapila cut the knot by proclaiming the eternal existence of a material principle, unconscious, but endowed with volition in regard to its own develop ment ; from it all matter had emanated, and into it it would ultimately resolve itself. He called it Pradhdna, (&quot;principal&quot; thing) or mula-Prakriti (&quot;original nature&quot;). By the side of this plastic element he recognizes the exist ence of a primary spiritual essence (atman, &quot; soul,&quot; or purusha, &quot; person &quot;), which is not one but manifold, and has from all beginning entered into matter. It is in itself unintelligent ; but being in the first place indued with a subtile body termed the &quot; great one &quot; (mahat), which con sists of intelligence (luddhi), and is the first emanation of plastic nature, it thereby receives the faculty of knowing. A. being composed only of these elements is the Sankhya deity which is thus partly material, its subtile body (buddhi) being the secondary source of all further develop ments. The immediate production of the intellectual principle is the ahankara (&quot;I-making,&quot; i.e., egotism, self- consciousness), which, combined with the spiritual element, constitutes the intelligent, self-conscious, individual soul, In this way Kapila derives all that exists from twenty- five principles (including the two primary essences), per fect knowledge of which qualifies the soul for emancipa tion from its connection with matter, the source of all pain. By predicating volition of the spiritual prin ciple and withholding it from matter, the eternal exist ence of which he likewise recognized, Patanjali became the founder of the theistic (sesvara) Sankhya (i.e., the system with a god, frara) ; whereas Kapila s doctrine was termed nirlSvara. atheistical. The Nyaya, including the Vaiseshika, on the other hand, represents the universe as having emanated from nine primary substances, five of them viz., earth, water, light, air, and mind (manas) existing eternally in the form of atoms ; three (ether, time, and place) being one and infinite ; and soul (atman) being either one and infinite as the supreme spirit, the omniscient Lord (idvara), or manifold in the shape of the vital spirit of animate beings (jlvdtmaii). The teachings of these masters, especially those of Kapila, were thus decidedly antagonistic to the doctrine of an omnipotent creator of the world on which the Brfihma- nical system was based. So far, however, from acknow ledging their heterodoxy, they never failed to fall back on the Veda, as the revealed source of religious belief, to establish the truth of their theories; and so much had liberty of speculative thought become a matter of tradition and necessity, that no attempt seems ever to have been made by the leading theological party to put down such heretical doctrines, so long as the sacred character of the privileges of their caste was not openly called in question. Yet internal dissensions on such cardinal points of belief could not but weaken the authority of the hierarchical body ; and as they spread beyond the narrow bounds of Brahmanical schools, it wanted but a man of moral and intellectual powers, and untrammelled with class prejudices, to render them fatal to priestly pretensions. Such a man arose in the person of a &dki/a, prince of Kapilavastu, Gautama, the founder of Buddhism (about the 5th or Gth century B.C.) Had it only been for the philoso phical tenets of Buddha, they need scarcely have caused, and probably did not cause, any great uneasiness to the orthodox theologians, He did, indeed, go one step be yond Kapila, by altogether denying the existence of the soul as a substance, and admitting only certain intellectual faculties as attributes of the body, perishable with it. Yet the conception which Buddha substituted for the trans- migratory soul, viz., that of karma (&quot; deed &quot;), as the sum total of the individual s good and bad actions, being the determinative element of the form of his future existence, might have been treated like any other speculative theory, but for the practical conclusions he drew from it. Buddha recognized the institution of caste, and accounted for the social inequalities attending on it as being the effects of karma in former existences. On the other hand he alto gether denied the revealed character of the Veda and the efficacy of the Brahmanical ceremonies deduced from it, and rejected the claims of the sacerdotal class to be the repositaries and divinely appointed teachers of socred knowledge. That Buddha never questioned the truth of the Brahmanical theory of transmigration shows that this early product of speculative thought had become firmly rooted in the Hindu mind as a point of belief amounting to a moral conviction. To the Hindu philosopher this doctrine seemed to account satisfactorily for the apparent essential similarity of the vital element in all animate beings, no less than for what elsewhere has led honest and logical thinkers to the stern dogma of predestination. The belief in eternal bliss or punishment, as the just recom pense of man s actions during this brief term of human life, which their less reflective forefathers had at one time held, appeared to them to involve a moral impossibility. The equality of all men, which Buddha preached with regard to the final goal, the nirvana, or extinction of karma and thereby of all future existence and pain, and that goal to be reached, not by the performance of penance and sacrificial worship, but by practising virtue, could not fail to be acceptable to many people. It would be out of place here to dwell on the rapid progress and internal development of the new doctrine. Suffice it to say that, owing no doubt greatly to the sympathizing patronage of ruling princes, Buddhism appears to have been the state religion in most parts of India during the early centuries of our era. To what extent it became the actual creed of the body of &quot; the people it will probably be impossible ever to ascertain. One of the chief effects it produced on the worship of the old gods was the rapid decline of the authority of the orthodox Brahmanical dogma, and a considerable develop ment of sectarianism. Among the great variety of deities of the pantheon, Siva, Vit/inii, and Parratibnvc since claimed 