or even greater than those which once divided and still distinguish the whole continent of Europe. The spirited Hindustani, the martial Sikh, the ambitious Marathi, the proud Rajput, the hardy Gurkha', the calculating Bengāli, the busy Telugu, the active Tamil, the patient Pariah differ inter se as much as or more than the vivacious Celt, the stubborn Saxon, the energetic Norman, the submissive Slave, the enterprising Englishman, and the haughty Spaniard.

Many causes have combined to produce these distinctions. Difference of climate has had its effect in modifying character. Contact with the aboriginal races and with Muhammadans and Europeans has operated differently in different parts of India. Even in districts where the Hindus are called by one name and speak one dialect they are broken up into separate classes, divided from each other by barriers of castes far more difficult to pass than the social distinctions of Europe. This separation constitutes, in point of fact, an essential doctrine of their religion. The growth of the Indian caste system is perhaps the most remarkable feature in the history of this extraordinary people. Caste as a social institution, meaning thereby conventional rules which separate the grades of society, exists of course in all countries. In England, caste, in this sense, exerts no slight authority. But with us caste. is not a religious institution. On the contrary, our religion, though it permits differences of rank, teaches us that such differences are to be laid aside in the worship of God, and that in His sight all men are equal. Very different is the caste of the Hindus. The Hindu theory, according to Manu (see p. 240), is that the Deity regards men as unequal, that he created distinct kinds of men, ast he created varieties of birds or beasts: that Brahmans, Kshatriyas,

1 The word Gurkha for Gorkha-a contraction of the Sanskrit Goraksha-means 'cow-keeper.' The aborigines of Nepal are mostly of the Bhot or Tibetan family, and are therefore Buddhists; but tribes of Hindus immigrated into this mountainous region at different periods within memory, and obtained the sovereignty of the country. They were probably of the cowherd caste from the adjacent country of Oudh and from the district below the hills, known as Gorakhpur. The tutelary deity of Nepal is a form of Siva, denominated Gorakhnath, whose priests are Yogis, and the same sect and worship had formerly equal predominance at Gorakhpur.'-Asiatic Researches, vol. xvii. p. 189.

Vaisyas, and Sūdras are born and must remain (at least in each separate existence) distinct from each other; and that to force any Hindu to break the rules of caste is to force him to sin against God, and against nature. It is true, that the endless rules of caste in India principally hinge upon three points of mere social economy and order: 1. food and its preparation', 2. intermarriage, and 3. professional pursuits; but among a religious people, who regard these rules as sacred ordinances of their religion, an offence against any one of them becomes a great crime. It is a remarkable fact, that the jails in India often contain hardened criminals, who have fallen in our estimation to the lowest depths of infamy, but who, priding themselves on the punctilious observance of caste, have not lost one iota of their own self-respect, and would resent with indignation any attempt to force them to eat food prepared by the most virtuous person, if inferior to themselves in the social scale.

A full account of the origin and development of caste of the strictness of its rules, and of the power it still exerts as a religious rather than as a social institution-will be found at p. 218, p. 231, &c. Moreover, for a description of the rise of Buddhism and its influence in the opposite direction the reader must refer to p. 53, &c. It remains to point out that the very nature of the Hindu religious

1 The preparation of food is quite as vital a point as eating together. Food prepared by a person of inferior caste causes defilement. Some castes cook with their shoes on: but most Hindus would abhor food thus prepared, because leather causes defilement. Food cooked on board a boat or ship is supposed to destroy caste; thus, a boat proceeding down the Ganges sometimes stops to allow native passengers to cook their food on shore; perhaps, because wood is regarded as a conductor of defilement. It cannot, of course, be said that the rules of caste are confined to these three points. A Hindu's ideas about unclean animals are very capricious. He dreads the approach of a fowl to his house or person, as a source of contamination; but he does not mind ducks. Happily caste can no longer hold its own against necessity and advantage-against railroads and scientific inventions. (See the quotation at bottom of p. 219.) 2 See the note on the mixed castes, p. 218, and p. 232 with note. 3 It is the restriction of employments caused by caste which necessitates a large establishment of servants. The man who dresses hair feels himself degraded by cleaning clothes, and one who brushes a coat will on no account consent to sweep a room; while another who waits at table will on no consideration be induced to carry an umbrella.

creed has been the source of great diversities among the people of India.

Every religion worthy of the name may be said to develope itself in three principal directions: 1. that of faith, 2. that of works and ritual, 3. that of doctrine or dogmatic knowledge; to one or other of which prominence is given according to peculiarities of mental bias or temperament. I have endeavoured to show at pp. 36 and 327–329 that the first two lines of development represent a religious exoteric or popular side, while the third exhibits its esoteric aspect, and is the only exponent of its more profound meaning.

Nothing can possibly be more simple than esoteric Hinduism. It is a creed which may be expressed by the two words—spiritual Pantheism (see p. 36). A pantheistic creed of this kind is the simplest of all beliefs, because it teaches that nothing really exists but the one Universal Spirit; that the soul of each individual is identical with that Spirit, and that every man's highest aim should be to get rid for ever of doing, having, and being, and devote himself to profound contemplation, with a view to such spiritual knowledge as shall deliver him from the mere illusion of separate existence, and force upon him the conviction that he is himself part of the one Being constituting the Universe.

On the other hand, nothing can be more devoid of simplicity, nothing more multiform and capable of divergence into endless ramifications than the exoteric and popular side of the same creed. This apparent gulf between esoteric and exoteric Hinduism is bridged over by the simple substitution of the word emanation for identification.

Popular Hinduism supposes that God may for his own purposes amuse himself by illusory appearances; in other words, that he may manifest himself variously, as light does in the rainbow, and that all visible and material objects, including superior gods (isa, isvara, adhisa), secondary gods (deva), demons (daitya), demi-gods, good and evil spirits, human beings, and animals, are emanations from him, and for a time exist separately from him, though ultimately to be reabsorbed into their source. Both these aspects of Hinduism are fully explained at pp. 36 and 323-336 of the following Lectures. From the explanations there given, the multiform character and singular expansibility of the Hindu religious creed will be understood.

Starting from the Veda, it ends by appearing to embrace something

from all religions, and to present phases suited to all minds1. It has its spiritual and its material aspect, its esoteric and exoteric, its subjective and objective, its pure and its impure. It is at once vaguely pantheistic, severely monotheistic, grossly polytheistic, and coldly atheistic. It has a side for the practical, another for the devotional, and another for the speculative. Those who rest in ceremonial observances find it all-satisfying; those who deny the efficacy of works, and make faith the one thing needful, need not wander from its pale; those who delight in meditating on the nature of God and man, the relation of matter to spirit, the mystery of separate existence, and the origin of evil, may here indulge their love of speculation. And this capacity for almost endless expansion and variety causes almost endless sectarian divisions even among those who worship the same favourite deity. And these differences are enhanced by the close intertwining of religion with social distinctions. The higher classes are supposed capable of a higher form of religion than the lower, the educated than the uneducated, men than women; just as the religions of Muhammadans and Christians are held (like their complexions) to be most suited to their peculiar constitutions, circumstances, and nationalities.

In unison with its variable character, the religious belief of the Hindus has really no single succinct designation. We sometimes call it Hinduism and sometimes Brahmanism, but these are not names recognized by the natives.

If, then, such great diversities of race, spoken dialect, character, social organization, and religious belief exist among a teeming population, spread over an extent of territory so vast that almost every variety of soil, climate, and physical feature may be found there represented, the question fairly arises-How is it possible for us Englishmen, in the face of such differences, to gain any really satisfactory knowledge of the people committed to our rule? Only one key to this difficulty exists. Happily India, though it has at least twenty spoken languages (p. xxix), has but one sacred and learned language

It is on this principle, I suppose, that Sir Mungoldas Nathooboy, K. S. I., of Bombay, is reported to have once argued with a zealous raw missionary that Hindūs being Christians by nature needed not to be converted; adding, 'But I thank God that you English were converted to Christianity, or you would by this time have eaten up the world to the bone.'

and one literature, accepted and revered by all adherents of Hinduism alike, however diverse in race, dialect, rank, and creed. That language is Sanskrit, and that literature is Sanskrit literature-the repository of Veda, or knowledge' in its widest sense; the vehicle. of Hindu theology, philosophy, law, and mythology; the one guide to the intricacies and contradictions of Hinduism; the one bond of sympathy, which, like an electric chain, connects Hindus of opposite characters in every district of India. Happily, too, the most important and interesting parts of that literature are now accessible. to all, both in the original and in good translations.

And here let me explain that the name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into the peculiar language (bhasha) of the Aryan immigrants who settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjāb and its outlying districts (Sapta Sindhavasin Zand Hapta Hendu). The most suitable name for the original language thus moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (=Sindhū-i), its principal later development being called Hindi 1, just as the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England was called AngloSaxon. But very soon that happened in India which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken language, when once its general form and character had been settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by the unlearned. In India, however, from the greater exclusiveness of the educated few, the greater ignorance of the masses, and the desire of a proud priesthood to keep the key of knowledge in their own possession, this separation became more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified. Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded only as a

1 It may be thought by some that this dialect was nearly identical with the language of the Vedic hymns, and the latter often gives genuine Prākṛit forms (as kuta for krita); but even Vedic Sanskrit presents great elaboration scarcely compatible with the notion of its being a simple original dialect (for example, in the use of complicated grammatical forms like Intensives); and Panini, in distinguishing between the common language and the Vedic, uses the term Bhāshā in contradistinction to Chandas (the Veda).