obeyed, though it is not said that he adopted their entire system. So Buddha in the Mahavanso is said to have met with doctors of reason, whose ideas of religion were similar to his own, though not in all points identical. Buddha gave a great impulse to the system of the ancient Munis, and new modelled it, so as to make it pass for one of his own invention among foreigners; and this is exactly the light in which Gritsamada and Tripurásura are exhibited in relation to the Munis of Pushpaka Vana.

The legend of Devántaka and Narántaka, with which the second part of the Purána commences, is so similar to that of Gritsamada and Tripurasura in their performance of Anushthán, their victory over Indra, and devotion to the supreme Ganesa, that it does not seem to require any separate remark; though it furnishes additional proof of the oneness of Buddhism and the Asur system, and leads to the same conclusion as that at which we have arrived from the consideration of the former part of the work.

ART, XVII.-The Ante-Brahmanical Religion of the Hindus. By the REV. DR. STEVENSON.

[Read March 15, 1845.]

It is a matter of no small difficulty to give a general view of the Religion of India, and so to arrange the different Deities composing the Hindu Pantheon, as to place before the student of Hindu Mythology a connected and harmonious system of the religious belief of the natives of Hindustan. Brahmá for example is styled the Creator of the Universe, and yet almost totally disregarded, not even a single temple being erected to his honour, although creation is one of the chief grounds of religious worship. Vishnu in the system stands forth as the Preserver, but in the eye of his votaries consisting of myriads in every part of the country, the world owes its origin, as well as its preservation to him; and Siva, though systematic writers tell us he is to be regarded as the author of Destruction, and the third God of the Hindu Triad, is worshipped by millions as the Supreme God, the Preserver as well as the Destroyer, the Imparter equally with the Taker away of life. Again, no small proportion of the Hindu nation ascribe the origin of the system of the Universe to a female divinity, whom they consider the Mother of all the Gods, and to whom also they attribute a principal share in its government. In regard to the rites and ceremonies by which the objects of their veneration should be served, there is an equal diversity of sentiment among the Hindus. Some think it wrong to offer to a deity any thing that has ever been possessed of life, while, on the other hand, others hold by the maxim that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, or reconciliation with God. To endeavour then, as some both among Hindus and Europeans have attempted, to combine all these contradictory positions into one harmonious system, can never gain the approbation of the rational inquirer. The present Hindu religion must be considered not as one system, but as a congeries of parts derived from several systems, and we may as soon look for order and consistency in it, as in the iceberg where trees carried down by the mountain torrents, polar bears which had gone out to sea in search of their prey, and the amphibious seal, had all been hemmed in by the irresistible power of congelation, and united with the frozen liquid in the formation of one heterogeneous mass.

It is necessary, therefore, that we should remember that there are

ANTE-BRAHMANICAL RELIGION OF THE HINDUS. 331

three different systems of religious belief which have contributed to the formation of modern Hinduism. The System of the ancient Brahmans, the Buddhistical System, and the rude idolatrous worship which, previous to the extensive propagation of either of the above Systems, prevailed among the Aboriginal inhabitants of India, in order that we may have a true and exact notion of what is now called the Hindu religion. From the Brahmanical system, as developed in the Sanhitás and Brahmanas of the Vedas, we have among the Brahmans, the daily and periodical readings of the Vedas, the preservation of the sacred fire, and its accompanying worship, and the adoration of Vishnu as a deity of great power and influence. From the Buddhistical system is derived the tenderness of animal life, a thing foreign to the Vedas, in which hymns are appointed to be sung even at the sacrifice of the Sacred Cow. Hinduism owes, if not the invention of the principles of its metaphysics, at least much assistance in their development and culture, to Buddhism. The great principles in all the ancient systems are the same;-the importance ascribed to Swabháva or Nature, the Metempsychosis, and Final Absorption,these are common to Buddhism and Brahmanism, notwithstanding their respective peculiarities; and the disputes of the respective adherents of the two systems have tended to bring them farther into greater prominence. The worship of Jagannatha in Orissa, and of Vithoba at Pundherpur, where the distinction of caste is laid aside for the time, are both derived, as I have elsewhere shown, from a Buddhistical source. But the modern system of Hinduism seems after all to have been mainly addebted to local superstitions, prevalent among the aboriginal tribes, which I have called the Ante-Brahmanical religion of the Hindus in former papers.

Under this head I think we must class the worship of Siva, especially under the form of the Linga, which now so extensively prevails among the Hindus. Siva is usually styled Iśvara or Supreme God, Mahadeva or Great God, or distinguished by some other name indicating pre-eminence. As Siva has in modern times been patronized by a great proportion of the Brahmans, and been celebrated in a majority of the Puránas, it may seem rather hardy to assert that he has no place in the original Brahmanical Theogony, and is no better than an upstart, introduced into the system from the rude and unconnected superstitions of the Barbarians, among whom the Brahmans introduced civilization and literature. The following considerations however will, I think, convince every impartial person, capable of forming an opinion on the subject, that this is really the case.

The notion of a triad of Gods, of which in the modern system

Siva forms one essential element, is altogether unauthorized by the ancient Hymns of the Rig and Sáma Vedas, the only undoubted composition of the ancient Rishis, and unimpeachable authorities in regard to the opinions of the ancient Brahmans. I do not insist upon Brahmá, Vishnu, and Siva never there being found united by name as emanating from the primeval Divinity, but on the fact that no three gods are there represented as flowing immediately from Deity. Such a triad, indeed, forms a part of the Egyptian Theogony, where Osiris, Isis, and Horus, or perhaps more correctly Amoun-ra, Amounneu, and Sevek-ra form a triad of gods. The Buddhists, too, have a triad, the Chinese also have one, and even the Greeks and Romans had their Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, sons of Saturn, among whom the government of the world was divided. But on looking into the Vedas we find Agni, Váyu, Indra, Mitra, and Soma, the deified Fire, Wind, Firmament, Sun, and Moon, all frequently highly extolled, but never arranged in a Triad System. The only thing of the kind that appears in the Vedas, and which may not improbably be a remnant of a doctrine, which seems to have existed in very ancient times, and with more or less corruption to have been embodied in the religions of the most ancient nations of the world, is the three sacrificial fires, which are necessary for the performance of the most sacred Brahmanical rites. In the Somayága and Jyotishtoma for example, three fires, Dakshinágni, Ahavaníya, Gárhapatya, one at each end, and one in the centre, joined by a serpentine line, are lighted up for the performance of the sacrifice. It is the same god Agni, however, under different aspects that is supposed to reside in them all; in one, as the vivifying heat that supports the world, and which resides chiefly in the southern regions; in another, as the sacred flame that licks up the sacrifice, and forwards it to the gods; and, in the third, as that guardian fire which ever burns in the house, and cherishes the family of the sacrificer. This was the Trinity of the ancient Brahmans, and not a triad of gods derived from one Great Spirit, exercising various functions in the production and administration of the affairs of the universe, the form that it has been made to assume in the modern system. The presumption then that lies in favour of the existence of Siva in the ancient system of the Brahmans, as one of that triad, of which one is the Creator, another the Preserver, a third the Destroyer, is entirely obviated, as this forms no part of the ancient Brahmanical system.

Farther, Siva is not named at all in the ancient Hymns of the Veda, and therefore we have no evidence that such a deity was worshipped by the ancient Brahmans, but on the contrary, since all the

gods are invited to partake of their sacrifice, and all of any notoriety separately and frequently called on by name, it could never have happened that so great a god as Mahadeva could have been overlooked, if he had been known to the Brahmans. I know that it will at once be objected to this statement, that Siva is the Rudra of the Vedas, and therefore frequently invoked under that name. The first time that the word Rudra occurs in the Vedas, is in the 10th Rich of the IV. Sukta of the VI. Anuvaka of the First Book of the Rik. The third and fourth Suktas are an address made by Súnah Sepa to Agni.

In every one of the twenty-three verses of which they consist, Agni is directly addressed except in the 4th Rich of the IIIrd Sukta, where Varúna, Mitra, and Aryama, three of the Adityas, are invoked. In the Rich preceding the 10th, and in the one that follows Agni is specifically invoked, and the Commentator Sáyana Acharya, without any hesitation applies the 10th also to the same divinity, paraphrasing बोध by बोध्यमानाग्ने and translating रुद्राय by क्रूराय, making it an epithet of Agni. The same verse is again introduced into the second Dasata of the 1st Part of the Sáma Veda at the 5th Rich, in a collection of verses in praise of Agni; showing that Vyása, or whoever arranged these verses, here considered the two as identical. And in the IXth Prapathaka, Rich 3, of the IInd Part, Agni is again identified with Rudra in a way that cannot be be mistaken. After quoting the same verse, there is immediately added, "May he, the Mighty One who cannot be measured, known by his smoky ensign, the all-joyous divinity, satisfy our desires in respect to solemn rites, and supplies of food." Yet, although Rudra in those instances must be held as identified with Agni, Agni cannot be identified with the Siva of the Puranas. Siva is better known by no characteristic than by his having five heads, and hence called Panchánana, as Brahmá is by his having four; and Agni is as distinctly characterised by his having seven heads, and hence has acquired the name of Sapta Sírsha. Here are besides several passages in the Vedas where Rudra cannot well be identified with Agni, and the Rudras are generally regarded as a subordinate class of divinities ; thus for example, Agni is on one occasion called on "to bring Indra with the Vasus, Brahat with the Adityas, and Rudra with the Rudras" to the sacrifice, which could not be said, if Rudra and Agni were the same deity. (Rik. Ashtaka V. Varga 13.) Indeed, we are forced to acknowledge that most of the Rishis followed a different legend from that adopted by Súnah Sépa in the above mentioned