Page:The Mythology of the Aryan Nations.djvu/377

Rh on the mythical idea of this deity, and perhaps none on the mythology chap. of any other people,

As the supreme spirit, whose ten Avatars or Incarnations are among the later developements of Hindu theology, Vishnu is associated or identified not only with Siva or Mahadeva, but with Rama in the Ramayana, and with Krishna in the Mahabharata. But the Ma- hadeva, with whom he is thus identified, is himself only Varuna or Dyaus, under another name. " He is Rudra, he is Siva, he is Agni, he is Saiva, the all-conquering; he is Indra, he is Vayu, he is the Asvins, he is the lightning, he is the moon, he is Iswara, he is Surya, he is Varuna, he is time, he is death the ender ; he is darkness, and night, and the days; he is the months and the half-months of the seasons, the morning and evening twilight, and the year." Krishna, again, is said to be sometimes a partial, sometimes a perfect manifestation of that god; but the phrases in which Krishna is spoken of are as indefinite and elastic as those which speak of Agni, Indra, or Vishnu. In some passages Krishna is simply a son of Devaki. But as Vishnu is also Brahma, so is Krishna also the supreme deity. Elsewhere it is said that Brahma and Mahadeva themselves proceed from Krishna, who again identifies himself with Rudra, although in other passages Rudra is described as mightier; and in each case commentators, as we might expect, are ready with the reasons which reconcile the seem- ing inconsistency. Like Vishnu, Krishna rises to greater importance in later times, and in far more abundant measure. The popular affections were more and more fixed on the bright god who was born in a cave, at whose birth the exulting devas sang in the heavens, whose life was sought by a cruel tyrant, and who, like Zeus or Herakles, had many loves in many lands.

In this later theology the idea which regarded the sun as the generator of all life left the attributes of Vishnu by comparison in the shade; and the emblem thus especially associated with this worship of deity marks a singular stage in the history of religion. If the subject is one which must be approached with the utmost caution, it is also one in which we are especially bound not to evade or misrepresent the facts. If the form of faith, or rather it should be said, of worship, with which we have now to deal, has prevailed in all lands and still prevails amongst a large majority of mankind, it becomes our duty to trace fairly, to the best of our power, its origin and growth, and to