Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol I. (of 3) by Charles Eliot

C >> Charles Eliot >> Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol I. (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41

The fall of the Guptas was brought about by another invasion of
barbarians known as Hunas, Ephthalites[119] or White Huns and apparently
a branch of the Huns who invaded Europe. This branch remained behind in
Asia and occupied northern Persia. They invaded India first in 455, and
were repulsed, but returned about 490 in greater force and overthrew the
Guptas. Their kings Toramana and Mihiragula were masters of northern
India till 540 and had their local capital at Sialkot in the Panjab,
though their headquarters were rather in Bamyin and Balkh. The cruelties
of Mihiragula provoked a coalition of Hindu princes. The Huns were
driven to the north and about 565 A.D. their destruction was completed
by the allied forces of the Persians and Turks. Though they founded no
permanent states their invasion was important, for many of them together
with kindred tribes such as the Gurjaras (Gujars) remained behind when
their political power broke up and, like the Sakas and Kushans before
them, contributed to form the population of north-western India,
especially the Rajput clans.

The defeat of the Huns was followed by another period of obscurity, but
at the beginning of the seventh century Harsha (606-647 A.D.), a prince
of Thanesar, founded after thirty-five years of warfare a state which
though it did not outlast his own life emulated for a time the
dimensions and prosperity of the Gupta Empire. We gather from the
account of the Chinese pilgrim Hsuean Chuang, who visited his court at
Kanauj, that the kings of Bengal, Assam and Ujjain were his vassals but
that the Panjab, Sind and Kashmir were independent. Kalinga, to the
south of Bengal, was depopulated but Harsha was not able to subdue
Pulakesin II, the Calukya king of the Deccan.

Let us now turn for a moment to the history of the south. It is even
more obscure both in events and chronology than that of the north, but
we must not think of the Dravidian countries as uninhabited or
barbarous. Even the classical writers of Europe had some knowledge of
them. King Pandion (Pandya) sent a mission to Augustus in 20 B.C.[120]
Pliny[121] speaks of Modura (Madura) and Ptolemy also mentions this town
with about forty others. It is said[122] that there was a temple
dedicated to Augustus at Muziris, identified with Cranganore. From an
early period the extreme south of the peninsula was divided into three
states known as the Pandya, Cera and Cola kingdoms[123]. The first
corresponded to the districts of Madura and Tinnevelly. Cera or Kerala
lay on the west coast in the modern Travancore. The Cola country
included Tanjore, Trichinopoly, Madras, with the greater part of Mysore.
From the sixth to the eighth century A.D. a fourth power was important,
namely the Pallavas, who apparently came from the north of the Madras
Presidency. They had their capital at Conjeevaram and were generally at
war with the three kingdoms. Their king, Narasimha-Varman (625-645 A.D.)
ruled over part of the Deccan and most of the Cola country but after
about 750 they declined, whereas the Colas grew stronger and Rajaraja
(985-1018) whose dominions included the Madras Presidency and Mysore
made them the paramount power in southern India, which position they
retained until the thirteenth century.

As already mentioned, the Deccan was ruled by the Andhras from 220 B.C.
to 236 A.D., but for the next three centuries nothing is known of its
history until the rise of the Calukya dynasty at Vatapi (Badami) in
Bijapur. Pulakesin II of this dynasty (608-642), a contemporary of
Harsha, was for some time successful in creating a rival Empire which
extended from Gujarat to Madras, and his power was so considerable that
he exchanged embassies with Khusru II, King of Persia, as is depicted in
the frescoes of Ajanta. But in 642 he was defeated and slain by the
Pallavas.

With the death of Pulakesin and Harsha begins what has been called the
Rajput period, extending from about 650 to 1000 A.D. and characterized
by the existence of numerous kingdoms ruled by dynasties nominally
Hindu, but often descended from northern invaders or non-Hindu
aboriginal tribes. Among them may be mentioned the following:

1. Kanauj or Pancala. This kingdom passed through troublous times after
the death of Harsha but from about 840 to 910 A.D. under Bhoja (or
Mihira) and his son, it became the principal power in northern India,
extending from Bihar to Sind. In the twelfth century it again became
important under the Gaharwar dynasty.

2. Kanauj was often at war with the Palas of Bengal, a line of Buddhist
kings which began about 730 A.D. Dharmapala (c. 800 A.D.) was
sufficiently powerful to depose the king of Kanauj. Subsequently the
eastern portion of the Pala kingdom separated itself under a rival
dynasty known as the Senas.

3. The districts to the south of the Jumna known as Jejakabhukti
(Bundelkhand) and Cedi (nearly equivalent to our Central Provinces) were
governed by two dynasties known as Candels and Kalacuris. The former are
thought to have been originally Gonds. They were great builders and
constructed among other monuments the temples of Khajarao. Kirtivarman
Chandel (1049-1100) greatly extended their territories. He was a patron
of learning and the allegorical drama Prabodhacandrodaya was produced at
his court.

4. The Paramara (Pawar) dynasty of Malwa were likewise celebrated as
patrons of literature and kings Munja (974-995) and Bhoja (1018-1060)
were authors as well as successful warriors.

5. Though the Calukyas of Vatapi were temporarily crushed by the
Pallavas their power was re-established in 655 and continued for a
century. The Eastern Calukyas, another branch of the same family,
established themselves in Vengi between the Kistna and Godaveri. Here
they ruled from 609 to 1070 first as viceroys of the Western Calukyas
and then as an independent power till they were absorbed by the Colas.
Yet another branch settled in Gujarat.

6. The Calukyas of Vatapi were overthrown by the Rashtrakutas who were
masters of the Deccan from about 750 to 972, and reigned first at Nasik
and then at Manyakheta (Malkhed). Krishna I of this dynasty excavated
the Kailasa temple at Ellora (c. 760) but many of his successors were
Jains. During the ninth century the Rashtrakutas seem to have ruled over
most of western India from Malwa to the Tungabhadra.

7. The Rashtrakutas collapsed before a revival of the Calukya dynasty
which reappears from 993 to 1190 as the Calukyas of Kalyani (in the
Nizam's dominions). The end of this dynasty was partly due to the
usurpation of a Jain named Bijjala in whose reign the sect of the
Lingayats arose.

We must now turn to an event of great historical importance although its
details are not relevant to the subject of this book, namely the
Mohammedan conquest. Three periods in it may be recognized. First, the
conquest of Sind in 712 A.D. by the Arabs, who held it till the eleventh
century but without disturbing or influencing India beyond their
immediate neighbourhood. Secondly, the period of invasions and dynasties
which are commonly called Turki (c. 1000-1526 A.D.). The progress of
Islam in Central Asia coincided with the advance to the west and south
of vigorous tribes known as Turks or Mongols, and by giving them a
religious and legal discipline admirably suited to their stage of
civilization, it greatly increased their political efficiency. The
Moslim invaders of India started from principalities founded by these
tribes near the north-western frontier with a military population of
mixed blood and a veneer of Perso-Arabic civilization, and apart from
the greater invasions, there were incursions and settlements of Turkis,
Afghans and Mongols. The whole period was troublous and distracted. The
third period was more significant and relatively stable. Baber, a
Turkish prince of Fergana, captured Delhi in 1526 and founded the power
of the Mughals, which during the seventeenth century deserved the name
of the Indian Empire.

The first serious Moslim incursions were those of Mahmud of Ghazni, who
between 997 and 1030 made many raids in which he sacked Kanauj, Muttra,
Somnath and many other places but without acquiring them as permanent
possessions. Only the Panjab became a Moslim province. In 1150 the
rulers of Ghor, a vassal principality near Herat, revolted against
Ghazni and occupied its territory, whence the chieftain commonly called
Muhammad of Ghor descended on India and subdued Hindustan as well as the
Panjab (1175-1206). One of his slaves named Kutb-ud-Din Ibak became his
general and viceroy and, when Muhammad died, founded at Delhi the
dynasty known as Slave Sultans. They were succeeded by the Khilji
Sultans (1290-1318) the most celebrated of whom was the capable but
ferocious Ala-ud-Din and these again by the Tughlak dynasty. Muhammad
Adil, the second of this line, attempted to move the capital from Delhi
to Daulatabad in the Deccan. In 1398 northern India was convulsed by the
invasion of Timur who only remained a few months but sacked Delhi with
terrible carnage. Many years of confusion followed, and a dynasty known
as the Saiyids ruled in greatly diminished territories. But in 1451
arose the Lodi or Afghan dynasty which held the Panjab, Hindustan and
Bundelkhand until the advent of the Mughals. These five royal houses do
not represent successive invasions from the west. Their founders, though
of diverse origin, were all leaders engaged in the troubled politics of
northern India, and they all reigned at Delhi, round which a tradition
of Empire thus grew up. But the succession was disputed in almost every
case; out of thirty-four kings twelve came to a violent end and not one
deserved to be called Emperor of India. They were confronted by a double
array of rivals, firstly Hindu states which were at no period all
reduced to subjection, and, secondly, independent Mohammedan states, for
the governors in the more distant provinces threw off their allegiance
and proclaimed themselves sovereigns. Thus Bengal from the time of its
first conquest by Muhammad Bakhtyar had only a nominal connection with
Delhi and declared itself independent in 1338. When Timur upset the
Tughlak dynasty, the states of Jaunpur, Gujarat, Malwa and Khandesh
became separate kingdoms and remained so until the time of Akbar. In the
south one of Muhammad Adil's generals founded the Bahmani dynasty which
for about a century (1374-1482) ruled the Deccan from sea to sea. It
then split up into five sultanates with capitals at Bidar, Bijapur,
Golkonda, Ahmadnagar and Elichpur.

In the twelfth century, the Hindu states were not quite the same as
those noticed for the previous period. Kanauj and Gujarat were the most
important. The Palas and Senas ruled in Bengal, the Tomaras at Delhi,
the Chohans in Ajmer and subsequently in Delhi too. The Mohammedans
conquered all these states at the end of the twelfth century. Their
advance was naturally less rapid towards the south. In the Deccan the
old Hindu dynasties had been replaced by the Hoysalas (c. 1117-1310
A.D.) and the Yadavas (1180-1309 A.D.) with capitals at Halebid and
Daulatabad respectively. Both were destroyed by Malik Kafur, the slave
general of Sultan Ala-ud-Din, but the spirit of the Deccan was not
broken and within a few years the brothers Bukka and Harihara founded
the state of Vijayanagar, "the never-to-be-forgotten Empire" as a native
scholar has aptly termed it, which for more than two centuries was the
centre of Hindu political power. The imposing ruins of its capital may
still be seen at Hampi on the Tungabhadra and its possessions comprised
everything to the south of this, and, at times, also territory to the
north, for throughout its existence it was engaged in warfare with the
Bahmani dynasty or the five sultanates. Among its rulers the most
notable was Krishnadeva (1509-1529) but the arrogance and weakness of
his successors provoked the five Moslim Sultans to form a coalition.
They collected an immense army, defeated the troops of Vijayanagar at
the battle of Talikota and sacked the city (1565).

In two other districts the Hindus were able to retain political
independence until the time of Akbar, namely Orissa and Rajputana. In
the former the best known name is Anantavarman Colaganga (1076-1147) who
built the temple of Jagannath at Puri, established the Eastern Ganga
dynasty and ruled from the Godaveri to the Ganges. The Mohammedans never
occupied Rajputana, and though they captured the principal fortresses,
they did not retain them. The State of Mewar can even boast that it
never made any but a nominal and honourable submission to the Sultans of
Delhi. Akbar incorporated the Rajputs in his Empire and by his
considerate treatment secured their support.

The history of the Mughals may be divided into three periods. In the
first Baber acquired (1526 A.D.) the dominions of the Lodi dynasty as
well as Jaunpur, but his death was followed by a troubled interval and
it was not till the second period (1556-1707) comprising the reigns of
Akbar, Jehangir, Shah Jehan and Aurungzeb that the Empire was securely
established. Akbar made himself master of practically all India north of
the Godaveri and his liberal policy did much to conciliate his Hindu
subjects. He abolished the poll tax levied from non-Moslims and the tax
on pilgrimages. The reform of revenue administration was entrusted to an
orthodox Hindu, Todar Mall. Among the Emperor's personal friends were
Brahmans and Rajputs, and the principal Hindu states (except Mewar) sent
daughters to his harem. In religion he was eclectic and loved to hear
theological argument. Towards the end of his life he adopted many Hindu
usages and founded a new religion which held as one of its principal
tenets that Akbar was God's Viceregent. His successors, Jehangir and
Shah Jehan, were also tolerant of Hinduism, but Aurungzeb was a
fanatical Moslim and though he extended his rule over all India except
the extreme south, he alienated the affection of his Hindu subjects by
reimposing the poll tax and destroying many temples. The Rajputs, Sikhs
and Marathas all rebelled and after his death the Empire entered into
the third period in which it rapidly disintegrated. Hindu states, like
the Maratha confederacy and Rajputana, asserted themselves. Mohammedan
governors declared their independence in Oudh, Bengal, the Nizam's
dominions and elsewhere: Persians and Afghans raided the Panjab: French
and English contended for the possession of southern India.

It would be outside the purpose of this book even to outline the
establishment of British authority, but I may mention that direct
European influence began to be felt in the sixteenth century, for Vasco
da Gama arrived in Calicut in 1498 and Goa was a Portuguese possession
from 1510 onwards. Nor can we linger over the fortunes of the Marathas
who took the place of Vijayanagar as the Hindu opposition to
Mohammedanism. They are, however, important for us in so far as they
show that even in matters political the long Moslim domination had not
broken the spirit of the Hindus. About 1660 a chieftain named Sivaji,
who was not merely a successful soldier but something of a fanatic with
a belief in his divine mission, founded a kingdom in the western Ghats
and, like the Sikh leaders, almost created a nation, for it does not
appear that before his time the word Maratha (Maharashtra) had any
special ethnic significance. After half a century the power of his
successors passed into the hands of their Brahman ministers, known as
Peshwas, who became the heads of a confederacy of Maratha chiefs,
including the Rajas of Gwalior, Berar and Orissa, Indore and Baroda.
About 1760 the Marathas were practically masters of India and though the
Mughal Emperor nominally ruled at Delhi, he was under their tutelage.
They had a chance of reviving the glories of Asoka and the Guptas, but,
even apart from the intervention of Europeans, they were distracted by
jealousy and quarrels.

CHAPTER III

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIAN RELIGION

1

In the first chapter we enquired whether there are any religious ideas
common to Eastern Asia as a whole and found that they amount to little
more than a background of nature worship and ancestor worship almost
universally present behind the official creeds. Also the conception of a
religious system and its relation to beliefs which do not fall within it
are not quite the same in these countries as in Europe, so that the
inhabitants sometimes follow more than one religion.

Let us now examine the characteristics common to Indian creeds. They are
numerous and striking. A prolonged study of the multitudinous sects in
which Indian religion manifests itself makes the enquirer feel the truth
of its own thesis that plurality is an illusion and only the one
substratum real. Still there are divergent lines of thought, the most
important of which are Hinduism and Buddhism. Though decadent Buddhism
differed little from the sects which surrounded it, early Buddhism did
offer a decided contrast to the Brahmanic schools in its theories as to
human nature as well as in ignoring tradition and sacerdotalism. We may
argue that Buddhism is merely Vaishnavism or Saivism in travelling
dress, but its rejection of Brahmanic authority is of capital
importance. It is one of the reasons for its success outside India and
its disappearance in India meant that it could not maintain this
attitude. Yet many features of Buddhism are due to the fact that
Hinduism, and not Islam or Christianity, was the national expression of
religion in India and also many features of Hinduism may be explained by
the existence of this once vigorous antagonist.

Hinduism[124] has striking peculiarities which distinguish it from
Christianity, Islam and even from Buddhism. It recognizes no one master
and all unifying principles known to other creeds seem here to be
absent. Yet its unity and vitality are clear and depend chiefly on its
association with the Brahman caste. We cannot here consider the complex
details of the modern caste system but this seems the place to examine
the position of the Brahmans, for, from the dawn of Sanskrit literature
until now, they have claimed to be the guides of India in all matters
intellectual and religious and this persistent claim, though often
disputed, has had a great measure of success.

The institution of caste is social rather than religious and has grown
gradually: we know for instance that in the time of the Buddha it had
not attained to anything like its present complexity and rigidity. Its
origin is explicable if we imagine that the Indo-Aryans were an invading
people with an unusual interest in religion. The Kshatriyas and Vaisyas
mark the distinction between the warriors or nobles and the plebs which
is found in other Aryan communities, and the natives whom the Aryans
conquered formed a separate class, recognized as inferior to all the
conquerors. This might have happened in any country. The special feature
of India is the numerical, social and intellectual strength of the
priestly caste. It is true that in reading Sanskrit literature we must
remember that most of it is the work of Brahmans and discount their
proclivity to glorify the priesthood, but still it is clear that in
India the sacerdotal families acquired a position without parallel
elsewhere and influenced its whole social and political history. In most
countries powerful priesthoods are closely connected with the Government
under which they flourish and support the secular authority. As a result
of this alliance, kings and the upper classes generally profess and
protect orthodoxy, and revolutionary movements in religion generally
come from below. But in ancient India though the priests were glad
enough to side with the kings, the nobles during many centuries were not
ready to give up thinking for themselves. The Hindu's capacity for
veneration and the small inclination of the Brahmans to exercise direct
government prevented revolts against sacerdotal tyranny from assuming
the proportions we should expect, but whereas in many countries history
records the attempts of priests to become kings, the position is here
reversed. The national proclivity towards all that is religious,
metaphysical, intellectual and speculative made all agree in regarding
the man of knowledge who has the secret of intercourse with the other
world as the highest type. The priests tended to become a hereditary
guild possessed of a secret professional knowledge. The warrior caste
disputed this monopoly and sought with less learning but not inferior
vigour to obtain the same powers. They had some success during a
considerable period, for Buddhism, Jainism and other sects all had their
origin in the military aristocracy and had it remained purely Hindu, it
would perhaps have continued the contest. But it was partly destroyed by
Turanian invaders and partly amalgamated with them, so that in 500 A.D.
whereas the Brahmans were in race and temperament very much what they
were in 500 B.C. the Kshatriyas were different. It is interesting to see
how this continuity of race brought triumph to the Brahmans in the
theological sphere. At one time the Buddhists and even the Jains seemed
to be competitors for the first place, but there are now hardly any
Indian Buddhists in India[125] and less than a million and a half of
Jains, whereas Hinduism has more than 217 million adherents. The power
of persistence and resistance displayed by the priestly caste is largely
due to the fact that they were householders not collected in temples or
monasteries but distributed over the country in villages, intensely
occupied with the things of the mind and soul, but living a simple
family life. The long succession of invasions which swept over northern
India destroyed temples, broke up monasteries and annihilated dynasties,
but their destructive force had less effect on these communities of
theologians whose influence depended not on institutions or organization
but on their hereditary aptitudes. Though the modern Brahmans are not
pure in race, still the continuity of blood and tradition is greater
among them than in the royal families of India. Many of these belong to
districts which were formerly without the pale of Hinduism: many more
are the descendants of the northern hordes who century after century
invaded India: few can bring forward any good evidence of Kshatriya
descent. Hence in India kings have never attained a national and
representative position like the Emperors of China and Japan or even the
Sultans of Turkey. They were never considered as the high priests of the
land or a quasi-divine epitome of the national qualities: the people
tended to regard them as powerful and almost superhuman beings, but
somewhat divorced from the moral standard and ideals of their subjects.
In early times there was indeed the idea of a universal Emperor, the
Cakravartin, analogous to the Messiah but, by a characteristic turn of
thought, he was thought of less as a deliverer than as a type of
superman, recurring at intervals. But monarchs who even approximated to
this type were rare, and some of the greatest of them were in early ages
Buddhists and in later Mohammedans, so that they had not the support of
the priesthood and as time went on it became less and less possible to
imagine all India rendering sympathetic homage to one sovereign.

In the midst of a perturbed flux of dynasties, usually short lived,
often alien, only occasionally commanding the affection and respect of
the population, the Brahmans have maintained for at least two
millenniums and a half their predominant position as an intellectual
aristocracy. They are an aristocracy, for they boldly profess to be by
birth better than other men. Although it is probable that many clans
have entered the privileged order without genealogical warrant, yet in
all cases birth is claimed[126]. And though the Brahmans have
aristocratic faults, such as unreasonable pride of birth, still
throughout their long history they have produced in every age men of
intelligence, learning and true piety, in numbers sufficient to make
their claims to superiority seem reasonable. In all ages they have been
sensual, ambitious and avaricious, but in all ages penetrated by the
conviction that desire is a plague and gratification unsatisfying. It is
the intelligent sensualist and politician who are bound to learn that
passion and office are vanity.

A Brahman is not necessarily a priest. Although they have continually
and on the whole successfully claimed a monopoly of sacred science, yet
at the present day many follow secular callings and probably this was so
in early periods. And though many rites can be performed by Brahmans
only, yet by a distinction which it is difficult for Europeans to grasp,
the priests of temples are not necessarily and, in many places, not
usually Brahmans. The reason perhaps is that the easy and superstitious
worship offered in temples is considered trivial and almost degrading in
comparison with the elaborate ceremonial and subtle speculation which
ought to occupy a Brahman's life.