hand to the work. The contrast between orthodoxy and such bodies as the Brahma Samaj or the Arya Samaj in this regard is very striking, and very significant: there is no spontaneous living energy in the orthodox community. Then, thinking Hindus all over the country disapprove very seriously of the reactionary character of its teaching. The editor of the Indian Social Reformer, referring to the fact that the Mahāmaṇḍala wishes to uphold the old rule, that no Hindu may cross the sea, comments severely on the unhealthy character of the whole propaganda;1 while the Leader of Allahabad says:

We receive from time to time papers relating to the internal strife in the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal with the request that we should express our opinion on the merits of the personal controversies that have been going on. We are sorry we must decline the courteous invitation. To our mind the best that could happen to the country, the Hindu community and the Mahamandal itself is that that organization should decree its own abolition. It is so very reactionary in its religious and social tendencies and activities that far from promoting the wellbeing and advancement of the community, it does a lot of harm - whenever it does anything at all, that is to say. Its members are so wealthy and influential that if they are so minded they can make themselves a powerful help to progress. But the misfortune and mischief is that they do not.2

The Mahamandala stands above all things for the defence of the whole of Hinduism, the Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Religion, as they call it. The foundation of such an organization is in itself almost a portent. Hinduism has never in the course of its whole history been a single organization. It has been a natural growth, springing up and spreading like the grass, the flowers and the forests of India. No one has ever been able to count its sects, or to

classify its multitudes of wandering ascetics. Nor until now has the Hindu ever felt the need of union for defence. Apologetic against Jains and Buddhists one does find in the ancient literature; and there are frequent references to persecution also; but these things were left to philosophers and kings: the ordinary Hindu went his way unheeding. How great then is the pressure of the modern spirit and of Christian criticism to-day!

It is also worthy of notice that, although the purpose of the organization is to defend and maintain the ancient religion unchanged, the modern spirit shows itself in much of the work of the Association. First of all, like every other modern religious movement in India, the Mahāmaṇḍala finds itself driven to set forth the Hindu system as the religion for all mankind. To defend a religion which is but the religion of the Hindus is felt to be impossible for the modern mind. Hence we have the extraordinary spectacle of this organization, created for the express purpose of defending the religion which in all its own sacred books is expressly restricted to the four highest castes - Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Śūdras, — making the following declaration :

But the Sanatan Dharma is not marked by any such spirit of narrowness or exclusiveness. It is not a particular creed promising salvation to its followers alone; it is the universal Dharma for all mankind.1

Again, in all the sacred literature of Hinduism the rule is laid down that the Vedas must not be made known to any one except initiated members of the three twice-born castes, Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. No woman, and no Sūdra may hear the sacred words, not to speak of Outcastes and foreigners. This rule may be found thou1 Mahāmaṇḍal Magazine, vol. I, no. 1, p. 8.

Y

V

sands of times in all the great books, legal and philosophical. In the earliest of Hindu law-books we read:

If a Śūdra listens intentionally to a recitation of the Veda, his ears shall be filled with some molten tin or lac. If he recites Veda texts, his tongue shall be cut out. If he remembers them, his body shall be split in twain.1

Yet this most orthodox movement, backed by the heads of all the greatest Hindu sects, sells copies of any part of the Vedas to any one who cares to buy them, and encourages their study, no matter what a man's caste may be.2 Clearly, the freedom as well as the universality of Christianity is working with irresistible force within the very citadel of Hinduism.

Perhaps the most striking evidence of the working of the leaven that has yet appeared is a paper which occurs in the first number of the official organ of the movement, The Mahamandal Magazine. It is a clear, well-written, forcible paper by Professor Phani Bhusan Adhikari, M.A., on The Need of a Critical History of Hinduism. The following quotations from this article will show where this thoughtful defender of orthodox Hinduism stands; but the paper as a whole is most significant and well worth study:

But Hinduism has erred too much on the side of its catholicity. Its philosophy has made it unpractical, as every philosophy does its adherents. What would have otherwise been an excellent virtue has proved to be a pernicious vice. Hinduism is unpractical, and who knows to what extent the unpractical nature of the Hindu character may have been due to the catholicity of its religious spirit? In adopting everything within itself, it does not appear to have made a selection between the useful and the useless; and in cases where this selection has been of the useful, it is reluctant to give up what, once so useful, has now become not only useless but positively injurious. . . . 2 See above, p. 318.

1 Gautama Dharmasūtra, XII, 4-6.

Now, if we take a somewhat wide survey of what popularly goes by the name of Hinduism (and Hinduism is now too much popular), we find that it consists mostly in the observance of certain practices, the meaning of the use of which is hardly known to or can be explained even by those who pose as authorities on the religion.

Those who have eyes to see will observe that the present-day Hinduism of the popular type consists in the scrupulous performance of certain rites and the unquestioning maintenance of certain forms the meaning of which is almost unknown. It is these which under the name of Sanatana Dharma is the all of popular Hinduism. . .

...

For permanent results of a beneficial nature, some other method of action has become desirable to adopt. The method that suggests itself for the purpose is historical and critical (although both go hand-in-hand in a subject like religion). This is the method which has been found highly useful in preserving the essentials of Christianity.

The Hindu nation is passing now through what may be called a transition-period. The situation is very critical. There are signs all around of a break with the old which has been found to be effete and in some cases positively unhealthy for the life of the nation in the present altered conditions. . .

What is wanted is a band of scholars forming an association with a common object. .

7. THE ALL-INDIA SUDDHI SABHA

In the nineties a movement arose in the Panjab for readmitting to the Hindu community people who had passed over to other faiths. Since a Hindu becomes impure through embracing another religion, the method adopted is to subject those who return to a purifying ceremony. Hence the name Suddhi Sabhā, purification society. At a later date other provinces formed similar organizations; and now there is an All-India Suddhi Sabha, which holds

1 Ranade, Essays, 164. Census of India, 1911, vol. I, 128.

an annual Conference. In 1913 the Conference was held at Karachi in the Christmas holidays. The Arya Samaj still take a large share in the work; but other bodies, and notably the Prarthanā Samāj, are interested.

8. THE JAINS

The Jain system arose within Hinduism in the sixth century B.C., a little before Buddhism; and, like Buddhism, broke away from the parent faith at an early date and became a distinct religion. It is, like Buddhism, an atheistic system. The supreme religious aim of the system is to free the soul from matter. Its chief doctrine is that there are souls in every particle of earth, air, water and fire, as well as in men, animals and plants; and its first ethical precept is, Do not destroy life. In consequence, the Jain has to obey many rules in order to avoid taking life in any of its forms. Another of the original beliefs is that the endurance of austerities is a great help towards salvation. From the very beginning, the community was divided into monks and laymen, the former alone subjecting themselves to the severest discipline. In Jainism the Tirthakaras hold the place which the Buddhas hold in Buddhism. By the Christian era the Jains, like the Buddhists, had begun to use idols. Images of the Tirthakaras are worshipped in their temples.

The above brief account of the rise of Jainism is drawn from the writings of Western scholars who have studied the original authorities. But there is a group of scholarly Jains who do not accept these statements. Their account of the history runs as follows:

The Jain system was founded in Ayodhyā untold ages ago by Rishabha. It was reformed by Pārsvanath in the eighth century. The last reformer, Mahāvīra, rose in the sixth century. Jainism has been a rival of Hinduism from the beginning.