Forlong - Rivers of Life

276
Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Man in all Lands.
Voltaire, ‘lead us to suppose that a ceremony’ (like the worship of Priapus), ‘which appears to us so
infamous, could only be invented by licentiousness; but it is impossible to believe that depravity of man-
ners would ever have led among any people to the establishment of religious ceremonies. It is probable,
on the contrary, that this custom was first introduced in times of simplicity,—that the first thought was
to honor the deity in the symbol of life which it has given us; such a ceremony may have excited
licentiousness among youths, and have appeared ridiculous to men of education in more refined, more
corrupt, and more enlightened times,’ but it never has its origins in such feelings. Besides, vicious propensities
have, in India, been everywhere and at all times most emphatically denounced, and there is no
creed known in this country which does not condemn it as hateful. It is out of the question, therefore,
to suppose that a general prevalence of vice would of itself, without the authority of priests and scriptures
, suffice to lead to the defilement of holy temples.”
This author confirms what I had written regarding Sivaik lore long before I saw
his work on Orissa, viz., that India did not receive it with her far north Aryan immigrants.
He says:—
“Exception might also be taken to Sivaism being reckoned as a Hindoo form of worship, the opinion
among European Orientalists being in favour of its non-Aryan or Tamulian origin. The question is of
great importance in connection with the history of the structures which form the subject of this
essay. . . . .
“The pro and contra of the question may be argued with equal force. On the one hand appar-
ently, the most incontrovertible arguments might be called from the Hindu Sutras, to prove the non-
Aryan origin of Sivaism, often from works which are avowedly intended to glorify and promote that
form of worship. While on the other, equally strong reasons might be adduced to show that it formed
a part and parcel of the Brahminical orders from a very remote period in the history of man, and was
one of the earliest objects of human faith even in the most ancient seats of civilization.
“The arguments in favour of the non-Aryan theory may be enumerated under the following eight
heads:—
1st. Vedic denunciation of phallic worship.
2nd. Denunciation in the Smritis.
3rd. Numerical inferiority.
4th. Unholy character of the offerings to Siva.
5th. Prohibition to build temples of Siva within the limits of towns and villages.
6th. Anti-Vedic character of Siva’s chief worshippers.
7th. The shape of Siva.
8th. The disreputable character of Siva.”
He sees the same god in “Roodra the destroyer,” in “Roodra the male principle
of Nature,” and in the later name of Siva, and shows that this faith was dominant alike
among Shemitic and Turanian, and, he might have added, Aryan races. He says:—
“In the cults of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, it was all pervading, and it
seems to have passed from some of them to Europe, and found a footing among the early Aryan
races of that continent. The myth of Rudra got currency among them some little time after, and its
trace still exists in the names of various places, such as Rhodes, Rhodenachar, Rodenburg, Rodentheri,
Rottenburg, Rottenfel, Rhode, Rolte, and Rathburg, in Germany; Rutland, Ruthwel, and Ruthin in
England; Rot, Rotholet, and Rotnoe in Norway. The colossus of Rhodes was probably no other than
a gigantic figure of that Rudra;”
which, however, assumes what I cannot grant, that Phallic cult sprang from Roodra.
I hold that it is coëval with sexual desires in every land, and that owing to the early
civilisation of India we only have here cognisance of it earlier than we have in other
centres of pre-historic races. The learned Baboo is very sound in what he says as to