it a fabrication of superstition and fetichism.
Thess are the questions which every earnest
defender of utilitarianism, who recognises the
immorality of flesh-eating, is called upon to
furnish answer to.
If the question is susceptible of proof, and
there is no reason why it should not be so, if
the usefulness of every object in the world is
not a mere sound void of meaning, if the bear-
ing of all objects on the happiness of man is
testified by universal experience, there is no
difficulty in the recognition of the influence,
good or bad, of flesh -eating on human happi-
ness. And this amounts to a proof which the
question is susceptible of.
Taking the case of kine, goat and sheep,
and all milk-bearing animals, the question is
reduced to mere mathematical calculations on
some experimental data.
Given the length of time, a milk-bearing
animal capable of providing with milk — a.
Given the average quantity of milk furnished
every day— •&.
Given the quantity of food for an average
man for one time — c.
The utility of those animals measured in
the number of men fed is
c
c ,
WISDOM OF a HE RISHIS 351
Given the measure of the generative powers
of the animal — d.
The series of utilisation is a series of geometri-
, . c l.^ r a b a b d
cal progression of the lorm
a b d 2 a b d 3 . Tj,.
c , c , '
How many men would be fed by the flesh
of the animal? If i^; be the weight of the animal,
the maximum utilisation is measured by —
c
Qj b
which is considerably smaller than-
c
In the case of ox€n, horses, camels, etc, we
have only to substitute the measure ofproduc-
tive or useful industrial powers, instead of the
measure of given milk.
From these computations it is concluded
that a cow, with her newborn calves and oxen,
benefits 4,10,440 men against 80 who will be
profited by the flesh merely ; a goat benefits
25,920 against 20. For the accuracy of these
computations, we would refer our readers to
the admirable minute details in Gokaruna-
Nidhi of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati. If bene-
fitting 3,10,440 against 80, or 25920 against 20,
is moral; if ( supposing argument from anology
to be valid) the food of monkeys and bunders is
more the food of men than that of lions and
wolves if there exist the slightest feelings in
WISDOM OF THE RISHIS 352
man, imperatively inducing him to desire the
happiness of his inferior animals, not to speak of
the physiological effects of flesh-eating, not to
speak of the courage of Vegetarian nations of
antiquity and of modern times (allowing for
other circumstances beside this); if then flesh -
eating is prejudicial to the interests of individuals,,
and to the interests of society; if usefulness is
a test of the morality or immorality of the
action, the decision is decidedly against it
(flesh-eatiug), and it is positively imperative,
that the custum should be checked. If, however,,
we consider the question in conjunction with
that vexed question of social science — the ques-
tion of the law of population that there is a ten-
dency in human race to increase in number be-
yond what the agricultural limits of the land
allow and that the greatest misery of this world
is caused by the unchecked operation of this-
law; a new weight is added to the question, and'
probably a provisional, but partial, solution of
the question is effected.
CRITICAL
CRITICISM
ON
MONIER WILLIAMS' "INDIAN WISDOM.'*
INTRODUCTION
We have mentioned the Preface, the Intro-
d action and the Review of the Vedas. We now
come to the Brahmanas and the Upnishads.
The very ancient theological and religious
records also find a place here. They occupy 21
pages. Then come the Six Schools of Philosophy
the Nyaya, the Samkhya, the Vaisheshika,
the Yoga, thePurva Mimamsa and the Vedanta
schools. This chapter runs through 78 pages.
Then we come to Jainism and Bhagvad Gita.
Bhagwad Gita has been, with great truth,
styled the eclectic school of philosophy, ( and
why not so ? ) the Samkhya Marga, the Yoga
Marga and the Bhakti Marga, the three royal
roads to salvation, are equally recognised. This
occupies 28 pages. We come now to the Vedan-
gas, — Shikhsha, Vyakarna, Nirukta, Chhanda
and Jyotish,— alphabet, grammar, etymology,
prosody and astronomy. This occupies 40 pages.
Then come the Smritis; they occupy 114 pages.
* The Manuscript, about 3 pages, is missing except
these last few words: — "consisting of the author's remarks
aptly interspersed by long quotations and translations
from other authors.
WISDOM OF THE RISHIS 357
Manu and Yajnavalkya Smritis are thoroughly
reviewed. The author is at home here. He is
pleased to find matter of condemnation in
Manu and Ya^navalkya. We come, then to, Ra-
mayana and Mahabharta. Bulky as these books
are, a bulk of 140 pages of the book is devoted
to these epic poems. The later dramas, Puranas,
etc^ only deserve a passing notice. They occupy
70 pages. The following is the summary; —
PAGES
Preface and Introduction .... 48
Vedas .... 26
Brahmanas and Upanishads .... 21
Six Schools of Philosophy .... 78
Jainism and Eclecticism .... 28
Rhetoric, Grammar and Astronomj'40
Smritis .... 114
Epics ( Ramayana and
Mahabharta) .... 140
Puranas and Dramas .... 70
Alphabetical Index .... 23
Total .... 588
It is evident, then, that the author is obvi-
ously a man of vast study, of wide information
and possessed of encyclopedic knowledge, at
least in so far as Samskrita goes. It is well for
us to avail of the information that can be de-
rived from such a source, as such chances are
not often to be found, they are exceptional
and very rare. The more we proceed with the
358 WfSDQM OF THE RISHIS
review of the book, the more impatient we be-
come to learn the scope and the contents of the
book. This information T shall now no longer
withhold from you. I proceed directly to the
scope, the aims and objects of the book.
Says Piofessor Monier Williams at page 3
of his Preface : —
"The present volume attempts to supply a
want, the existence of which has been impress-
ed upon my mind by an inquir}^ often address-
ed to me as Boden Professor : — Is it possible to
obtain from any one book a good general idea
of the character and contents of Sanskrit
literature ?"
Further on, he says : —
''Its pages are also intended to subserve a
further object. They aim at imparting to edu-
cated Englishmen, by means of translations
and explanations of portions of the sacred and
philosophical literature of India, an insight in-
to the mind, habits of thought, and customs of
the Hindus, as well as a correct knowledge of
a system of belief and practice which has cons-
tantly prevailed for at least 3,000 years and
still continues to exist as one of the principal
religion of the non-Christian world/'
Then, on page 36 of the Introduction, we
have : —
''It is one of the aims, then, of the following
pages to indicate the points of contrast between
WISDOM OF THE BISHIS 3o9
Christianity and the three chief /a7
the worhl, as they are represented in India." —
(Please mark the world false).
Then on page 38 of the Introduction, we
have : —
**It seems to me, then, that in comparing
together these four systems — Christianity,
Islam, Brahmanism and Buddhism — the crucial
test of the possession of that absolute divine
truth which can belong to only one of the four,
and which —if supernaturally communicated by
the common Father of mankind for the good of
all His creatures — must be intended to prevail
everywhere, ought to lie in the answer to two
questions : 1st. — What is the ultimate object
at which each aims ? Secondly.-l^y what means
and by what agency is this aim to be accomp-
lished ?",
It is clear, then, the objects of the book
are : —
1. — In one book to give a general idea of
the character and contents of Samskrita
literature.
II. — To draw for Englishmen a picture of
our manners, habits, customs, institutions and
beliefs, not a distorted picture, a misrepresenta- â–
tiou, but a true one, for the picture is to be
drawn by means of translations and explana-
tions of portions of our sacred literature !
III.- — To indicate the points of community
between Christian and other non-Christian
religions.
WISDOM OV THE RISHIS 360
IV. — That Islam, Buddhism and Brahmanism
(mark the last) are the three false religions of
the world — or that Christianity is the only
true religion.
V. — That taking Christianity, Brahmanism,
Islam and Buddhism, the possession of absolute
divine truth can only belong to one of the four.
VI. — That the absolute divine truth as super-
naturally communicated by the common Father
of mankind (remember this truth is Christianity)
is one that is intended to prevail everywhere.
VII. — Tihsit firstly this absolute truth is the
only religion, that gives a correct answer to the
question, what is the ultimate object or aim ?
And secondly that this absolute truth or Christi-
anity alone gives the true scheme by which the
common end or object of all is to be accomp-
lished.
How far the last four articles of Professor
Monier Williams' claims are right will just
appear in the secjuel.
A brief sketch of the answer to the first arti-
cle has already been given in an enumeration
of the book. Let me only point out that the
four books, esteemed only next to the Vedas,
and generally called the Upa- Vedas, find no
mention anywhere throughout the list. It is
especially upon the subject-matter of these books
that a true estimate of Indian and occidental
civilization can be formed by comparison. These
36 I WISDOM OF THE EISHIS
four books are the Artha Veda, the Dhanur
Veda, the Ayur Veda and the Gandharva Veda.
The Artha Veda is the Upa-Veda thdit deals with
applied Mechanics, Engineering, Perspection,
Practical Arts (Chemical and Physical), and
Geology. The Ayur Veda is the U pa-Veda that
deals with Surgery, Botany, Physiological
Chemistry, Anatomy, Physiology, Materia
Medica aud Chemistry and cure of poison. The
Gandharva Veda is the U pa-Veda of Music or
fine arts, whereas the Dhanur Veda is the science
of Martial appliances, instruments and tactics.
The second article, important as it is, will
only be estimated at its due worth, in the pro-
gress of these reviews. In the course of these
reviews it will be shown how far Professor
Williams misrepresents or otherwise, or rightly
translates or mistranslates, gives genuine expla-
nations or forged ones of portions of our sacred
literature.
Tl.e third article shall be reviewed fully at
the end of the whole course of these reviews.
We come now to the subject-matter of the
Introduction.
It deals with four points. Firstly, it gives a
sketch of the past and present condition. The
main portion consists of a geographical, political
and historical sketch of the past condition of
India as imagined by the so-called historians and
philologists to be true. All this ^'s foreign to the
362 W ISDOM OF THE RISHIS
purpose of my review. One point, however, is
worth pointing out. It is where lie gives his
own remarks on caste system.
This is what he says at p. 24 of his Intro-
duction : —
"Even in districts where the Hindus are
called by one name and speak one dialect they
are broken into separate classes divided from
each other by barriers of caste far more diffi-
cult to pass than social distinctions of Europe,"
etc; etc. '*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, a
social institution, meaning thereby convention-
al 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 wor-
ship of God, and that in His sight all men are
equal. Very different is the caste of the Hindus,
The Hindu believes that the Deity regards men
as unequal, that he created distinct kinds of
men as he created varieties of birds or beasts;
that Brahmanas, Kashatriyas, Vaishyas and
S^iudras are born and must remain distinct
WISDOM OF THE RISHIS 363
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^
Professor Monier Williams, then, points
out that caste rules in India hinge upon: — (I),
Preparation of food; (2), Inter-marriage; (3),
Professional pursuit. Had the Boden Professor
professed to base these remarks upon personal
observations or accounts of India as given by
various writers on the subject, we would have
nothing to add, but the Boden Professor re-
gards the sacred Sanskrita literature to be the
only key to *'the satisfactory knowledge of the
people committed to our ( he means his or his
nation's) rule," He says: —
''Happily India, though it has at least
twenty distinct dialects, has but one sacred and
learned languages and one literature, accepted
and revered by all adherents of Hinduism alike,
however diverse in race, dialect, rank and
creed."
And it is upon the sacrec? Sanskrita literature
of India that he bases his remarks. Let us see
how far they are correct. The Professor
asserts : —
1. — That caste system in India is a religious
institution, whereas it is only a social institxi-
tion in England. It is good for our brothers to
note down the confession that there is caste
system in England.
364 WISDOM OF THE RISHIS
II. — That according to Christianity, all
people are alike to God, but in Brahmanism,
the Deity regards men as unequal, or
III. — That Brahmanas, Kashatriyas and
Vaishyas are bor7i; and
IV. — That only people of the same caste cat
together, intermarry ai;id pursue the same pro-
fessional pursuits; these three being the tests
of caste.
With regard to the second point, that
according to doctrines of Brahmanism God re-
gards men as unequal. I quote the 2nd Mantra
of 26th Adhj^aya of Yajur Veda : —
Which means, "I (God) have given word ( Re-
velation) which is the word of salvation for all
people, Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas,
Shudras, and even Ati Shudras. Therefore,
regard no one as unequal among yourselves,
but try to be lovei by all wise people, to distri-
bute gifts among a//, and a] ways desire the
well-being of all.''
The Mantra is very clear, and I have quot-
ed it to show that the position assumed by the
Boden Professor is groundless. We come now
to his assertion that caste is a religious institu-
tion and not a social one in India Now, an
WISDOM OF THE BISHIT 365
institution is called a religious one when dis-
tinctions of the institution are maintained on
the ground that they are obligatory by reli-
gion, but ail distinctions maintained on the
ground of differences of wealth, learning and
industry are social distinctions.
Let us read Manu : — fq"5fi^f ^R^ ^q'^S'^T*
cT'fT^: II This means that the ground of distinc-
tion among Brahmanas is from the point of
learning, that among Kshtriyas is on account
of physical prowess, and that among Vaishyas
is on the ground of wealth and possessions,that
among Shudras alone does birth distinction
exist. Lest Moni'er William may mistake
my sense and the sense of Manu and assert on
the face of these quotations that Brahmanas,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are horii, let me
again quote Manu : —
^^% f5r?][|y^lTT§^'^ I which means that Shud-
ras can become Brahmanas and Brahmanas
Shudras and so with Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
Again says Manu, ^'*i?TT ^m^ ^?: '^'^^KT
^^^i§;^: II All people are born Shudras, but by
m^\K or by virtue of 5?TT^iT^5f-+?-frir' their
acquisitions and accomplishments, become
Bravhminas, Kshatrij^as ^ffrrrr ^f^^r, etc.
Tile fourth poiition taken up by Monier
Wi i la m^ is that eating together, inter-marriage
366 WISDOM OF THE BISHIS
and similarity of pursuits define a caste. Among
these three, the second only deserves considera-
tion. For, if similarity of pursuits be any
element, it might be as reasonable for Monier
Williams to regard all Professors of Schools
and Colleges in England to belong to one caste.
The same remark applies to food and drink.
Eating and drinking together is absolutely
prohibited in Manu not only for people of diffe-
rent castes, but for all individuals alike.
Says Manu : ^f^^cj ^?Tf^f?I!rl fTT^J^'^cf
Let no one eat from the same dish with
any one else, let none overfeed himself and
walk out after dinner without a hand-wash.
This point, therefore, is entirely out of ques-
tion. What now remains is the question of
inter-marriages. We will here again quote from
Manu :—
5llxTRlffTflr: ^3: fPJT^ ^KJ: I ^fq" ^T^T ^^^^ m =^
'^m^T'flJT: ir<^ll This means that the best form
of first marriage is that in which the male and
female are of the same cT^tj or what is wrongly
called caste, but a Shudra woman should only
marry a Shudra, a Vaishya woman a Vishya or
Shudra. The Kshatriya should marry a ^^tt ^ViJ
^f^^Tonly, and the Brahmana any.
367 WISDOM OF THE RISHIS
This shows that a ^K^\^ or Vaishya woman
marrying a Brahmana is allowable and so for
others. Professor Monier Williams asserted that
caste system in India is a religious institution,
but it is a social one in England. We have
proved that caste system is not a religious
institution, but a social one as it is everywhere.
He asserted that in Brahmanic religion Deity
regards all men as unequal, but we have proved
that He does not. He asserted that Brahmanas,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are born. We have
proved that they are not, but Shudras are. And
lastly he asserted that similarity of professions,
inter-marriage and eating together are the
characteristics of a caste. We have shown that
they are not. We leave now this point which
is peculiarly illustrative of the unrivalled learn-
ing of the Professor, and come to the second
part of his Inroduction on the religion of the
Hindus.
He says that there are .3 points of view
from which any religion may be looked at— (1),
faith; (2), work or ritual; (3), doctrines or dog-
matic knowledge. He calls the 1st two, faith
and work or ritual, the exoteric side of religion;
and doctrines, or dogmatic knowledge, the
esoteric side of religion. After laying down this
distinction, he says that, viewed from an eso-
teric point of view, the Hindu religon is Pan-
theism. He says :—
368 WISDOM or the eishis
**It (Hindu religion) teaches that nothing
really exists but the 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, aud devote himself to profound contem-
plation with a view^ to obtain such spiritual
knowledge as should 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."
Wo shall see how far our Boden Professor
of Sanskrita is right in these assertions. He says
that Hindu religion teaches : —
I. — That nothing but the Universal Spirit
exists.
II. — That each iiidividual is identical with
this Spirit.
III. — That every man's aim should be to get
rid of doing, having and being.
IV. — That each soul should free himself
from being in his separate existence.
V. — That each soul is part of the one Being
constituting the Universe.
Let us now examine these five propositions.
His first proposition is that nothing but the
Universal Spirit exists.
I quote here from an Upanishad : —
369 WISDOM OF THE E1SHI3
^^ iT^ ^g^WT^sg^^ 5ig;R^;?t ^TfifltTiT JPT^S-^: II
The meaning is that "God, matter and
human soa]s, these are the three eternal sub-
stances, ever uncreated. The eternal human
souls onjoy the eternal matter while involved
in material existence. Whereas, the third eter-
nal substance, God, exisj:s for ever, but is
neither involved in material existence, nor en
joys the material world.', Here it is said that
not universal spirit alone exists, but matter
-and human souls also exist coeternally. If more
evidence were required on this head, it would
be easy to quote many other very clear passages,
but I believe the above is clear enough.
Williams' second proposition is that each
individual is identical with the Universal Spirit.
Here, let me quote from Brihadarannyaka
Upanishad : — ^ ^Rtrf?! f^^55TI^fT^5'^^^?Trc?TT
Says Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi in answer to
her question, ''0 Maitreyi the Universal Spirit
who pervades even the human soul but is
distinct from the human soul, whom ignorant
human soul does not know, who resides in the
innermost of the human soul, who is distinct
from human soul but witnesses the actions of
human soul and awards or punishes him, yes,
370 WISDOM OF TPE RISHIS
He, even He, the Universal Spirit, is immortal
and also pervades thee."
Williams' third proposition respecting:
Brahmanical religion is that it teaches every
man the duty of getting rid of all doing, being
and having. I quote here from the 40th Chapter
of the Yajur Veda : —
^pif^^sf^ ^ W>^ r^^^ ^i II This means, that
each soul should desire to live for 100 years or
more, spending his life in doing actions, always
performing good deeds. Thus alone, and not
otherwise, is freedom from sin and pain possi-
ble. The purport is that the doing of action or
good deeds is the first essential.
Williams' fourth proposition is that each
should free himself from the delusion of sepa-
rate existence. I need not answer this, as it is
clear that, believing God to be distinct from
the sou], the idea of separate existence is not
delusion, and if this be not a delusion, it is not
a proper object to get rid of.
The fifth assertion is that each soul is a
part of the Being consisting the Universe. If
anything need be said upon this head, it will
suffice to say that not in one Mantra but in
innumerable Mantras of Upnishads, the Uni-
versal Spirit is regarded as one ichole without
form, body or parts, '^^^ or indivisible. Since
God has no parts, it is merely absurd to believe
WISDOM OF THE RISHIS 371
that human souls can be parts of the Universal
Spirit that is incapable of being divided into parts
Then, in order tu reconcile this pantheistic
view, which does not admit of any necessity of
faith, i^ork or ritual, with the existence of faiths,
innumerable works or rituals in India, Williams
forges a fallacious reasoning which is called in
Sanskrita logic by the technical name ckhal.
He says that believing God to be identical with
human souls the Hindus were led to believe
that human souls had only emanated from
God. English language and English brain may,
perhaps, be capable of confounding identity
with emanation, but, unless a clear proof of it
is given, I am not in a position to say anything
respecting the justification of Williams'position.
I now come to the 3rd part of the Intro-
duction, i.e., the one respecting the Languages
of India^
Says Monier Williams : —
"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 con-
tact with the dialects of aboriginal races who
preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted
into the peculiar language (ft/ms^a) of the Aryan
immigrants who settled in the neighbourhood
372 WISDOM OF THE KISHIS
of the seven rivers of the Punjab and its out-
lying districts ( Sapta Sindhavas — in Zend
Hapta Hendu). The most suitable name for
the original language thus moulded into the
speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i ( = Sindu-i), its
principal later development being called Hindi,*
just as the Low German dialect of the Angles
and Saxons,when modified in Britain was called
Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in
India which has come to pass in all the 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 various-
ly 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