Page:The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis II 1921 3-4.djvu/62

 I»

I-

i

y 316 OWEN BERKELEY-HILL

I

I Mahabharatas — it must have been put together in a thousand

f golden ages, and its perfection constructed with millions of swargas

[ (heavens), and it seemed watched over by crores (1 crore is equal

to 10,000,000) of tutelary royal deities'.

The fourth phase of Brahmanism according to Monier Williams * may be called the Nomistic or Preceptive phase. It represents the period in Indian religious history when the BrahiYians compiled codes of law for the co-ordination of its different castes and for the regulation of everyday domestic life. It is especially note- worthy that the introduction of these codes which promulgated drastically and pedantically ordinances in regard to every act of a man's domestic life was accompanied by an increase of laxity and liberty in. regard to all forms of religious belief The reason for this is not very difficult to see. The three principle codes, the Manava Dharmasutra, the Yajnavalkya and the Parasara, embodied ideas that offered much greater facilities not only for sublimation of anal-erotic impulses but for the formation of barriers against such impulses. The most important of these three codes was the Manava Dharmasutra, more usually known as the Law of Manu. It deals pre-eminently with the subject of conduct. The word Dharma means that which is obligatory and is thus similar to the Latin religio. The tliree codes combine to form a kind of bible and as such are mirrors of Indian domestic customs.

Ernest Jones ^ remarks ; 'It is astounding how many tasks and performances can symbohse in the unconscious the act of defaecation, and thus have the mental attitude towards them influenced by the anal-erotic character traits when these are present. Three classes of actions are particularly prone to become affected in this way. First, tasks where there is a special sense of duty or of "oughtness" ^ attached, therefore especially moral tasks. Much of the pathologically

intolerant insistence on the absolute necessity of doing certain things in exactly the "right" way is derived from this source. The person has an overwhelming sense of "mustness" which brooks of no argument and renders him quite incapable of taking any sort of detached or objective view of the matter ; there is only one side to the question, and it is not open to any discussion at all.'

We have already noted (p. 312) how tliis sense of 'oughtness' as

• Monier Williams: op. cit, ° Ernest Jones: op. cit.