Forlong - Rivers of Life
Forlong - Rivers of Life Forlong - Rivers of Life
546 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Man in all Lands. origin of Indian faiths. Man, I think, grew upwards from the earth to heaven, not like the drop of the Banian tree, from heaven to earth. 1 The old root was the first growth, and only after it attained to a considerable maturity did it throw down bright tendrils, fed by the riches of the aerial light, which had imparted to them warmth and moisture. Thus I think that earth-born men were probably man’s first Gods, and that around a god-like hero his posterity wove a subtle garment of all he loved, respected, and feared, and that when such great man—probably truly great—died, the fancy of the race idealized him still more, and added to his many good traits those loveable and creative energies which they held to be truly god-like. Thus a real Brahma or Abram became a Patriarch, a Creator, a Demi-God, and finally a God. Man must have his personal God, as Europe, Arabia, and China, nay, every sect exemplifies; and perhaps Brahmanism would not have vanquished Boodhism, had it not received Boodha into its incarnations. The Indian student finds the forma- tion of Gods constantly going on around him, of which I shall hereafter give some striking examples; yet it may never again be that a Brahma, Siva or Krishna will rise on the horizon of futurity, for education, accurate record, and critical times have spoilt all chances of this. Mr. A. C. Lyall, 2 an accomplished writer of wide and practical experience of Indian religions, in a Review which I only saw as this was going to press, bears me out, I see, in the above, telling us how Gods and incarnations are made and altered, until the rude image of the aborigine, nay, his deified pig, in time becomes under due teaching, an incarnation of Vishnoo himself. “The nature God,” he says, “condenses into man and is precipitated upon earth; the man-god more often refines and evaporates into a deity up in the skies. . . . . Where the waters of earth end and those of the sky begin, one cannot tell precisely, . . . . nor in the religion after it has formed.” If the races of the Peloponnesus and Italy revelled in tales of Lukanthropy, and punnings upon Leukos and Lukos, so Skands said, their Light-god Odin had wolfish attendants, and these also do the faiths of India teach to this hour. The Hindoo, says Mr Lyall, “by no means looks forward to meeting his Gods in some future world and singing their praises, . . . . he desires absorption or extinction.” He often brings his gods back to earth, deified, but to be worshipped in a way he can comprehend; and in no faith is this so fully adopted as the Jain, nor so coarsely as that of some aborigines like the Gonds of Central India. In all this the intellectual amongst them principally contribute, just as did our own Christian priests of what we now call our “dark ages.” Nothing so attracts the priestly mind as the manufacture of stories regarding the Incarnation, his friends, relatives, and saints;; and we see Indian priests thus continually weaving mysteries and metaphors, and dilating on their wondrous “facts,” or explaining these to learned doubters as “mere allegories.” Priests, says Mr Lyall, “call a man the embodiment of a God, and encourage their people to 1 The shoots of the Banian tree are constantly noticed in Eastern sacred literature. 2 Bengal Civil Service—Fortnightly for Sept. 1875.
Ancestor Worship. turn men into gods, and are reluctant to allow that their gods are men.” India has not yet arrived at that stage when morality in its gods or religions is essential to a firm belief in the divine inspiration of them; this is a high stand-point which was not reached even in the belief accorded to a Christ or Mahomed. Miracles, bold assertion, and perseverance, have created and sustained most Faiths, and success has been to the faithful full proof of Divine origin, although we must grant that the honest, meek, thoughtful and long-suffering Boodha, and philosophic Confucius, desired only to present their teachings to men for what they were intrinsically and morally worth, and not beeause they taught them. How different in the Christian and Moslem world— there a blind, unreasoning belief is demanded as a proof of Faith, doubters are told that they live in a world of mysteries; that all is miracle, and “what we know not now we shall know hereafter”—assertions suitable to any and all faiths. Mr. Lyall emphatically asserts that the religions of Asia have been formed “by deifing authentic men,” and not “by impersonating natural phenomena.” Yet this does not go to the root of the matter. I willingly grant that “Siva the ascetic” or “Roodra the fierce,” may be deified men, but not so Linga-jee and Maha-deva, not their equivalents, IAO, El, or Jahveh, by whom Siva and Jupiter, if they were men, were symbolized. Moses, Romulus or Quirinus, with rod and Quiris or javelin in hand, may have existed, indeed we may almost assert did exist, but they were divine because of the symbol of God which they were commanded to take in their hand and go forth with to do the bidding of their God, or Gods. 1 This Rod or Lingam then was no man or deified man, but the creative emblem—the first and real God, and the carrier was merely the decent blind—a mere object or instrument for displaying the emblem or God. We are everywhere told, as I show elsewhere, that it was the object put in the hand which denoted the deity; and not the corpus vile. The king without phallic crown and mace, and unless duly anointed as the Linga ist is no king, and can be treated as other men; but with these, he stands like Moses, “instead of God,” whether in the presence of Pharaoh or on the mountain top; 2 hence we have to study these objects mostly, and not the mere puppet-carriers, and minutely search for the esoteric meaning and etymological roots, if we would successfully get to the meaning and purposes of the exoteric object, king, god, or faith. It is quite true also, as I think Max Müller somewhere says, that “a general agreement has of late years been arrived at by most students of mythology, that all mythological explanations must rest on a sound etymological basis,” but we are not quite agreed as to the “bases.” It is explained that Jahveh or J h v h, is IAW, that from Toth we have Theus, Deus, &c., but this leaves us pretty much us we were; we want to know the root, i.e., origin or cause of I and A, or of O. T. D, &c..; for in faiths these are the real roots and “bases.” After getting these, our etymological structures may rise, and be of vast service to us, but without these we are building solely on imagination, and the greater our structure, the pro- 1 Exod. iv. 17-20, vii. 9, 10; Num. xvii. 6, &c. 2 Exod. iv, 16, xvii. 9. 547
- Page 548 and 549: 496 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 550 and 551: 498 T = O = R = S = TORS 400 A = 6
- Page 552 and 553: 500 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 554 and 555: 502 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 556 and 557: 504 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 558 and 559: 506 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 560 and 561: 508 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 562 and 563: 510 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 564 and 565: 512 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 566 and 567: 514 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 568 and 569: 516 Fig 189—KEY AND LUNAR SCEPTRE
- Page 570 and 571: 518 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 572 and 573: 520 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 574 and 575: 522 Fig. 191.—VENUS WITH APPLE. F
- Page 576 and 577: 524 Abraham, say 1900 B.C. Samuel ,
- Page 578 and 579: 526 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 580 and 581: 528 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 582 and 583: 530 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 584 and 585: 532 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 586 and 587: 534 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 588 and 589: 536 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 590 and 591: 538 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 592 and 593: 540 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 594 and 595: 542 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 596 and 597: 544 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 600 and 601: 548 Rivers of Life, or Faiths of Ma
- Page 602 and 603: 550 Animals, worship of, 9, 21, 27,
- Page 604 and 605: 552 Cave, common birthplace, 82; mo
- Page 606 and 607: 554 Enlightener, 165 Enlivener, 132
- Page 608 and 609: 556 in, 167; household lingams in,
- Page 610 and 611: 558 Love, star of, 72; goddess of,
- Page 612 and 613: 560 Pala-tine, 194, 259, 279, 296,
- Page 614 and 615: 562 Sasanian, King, 100 Satan, 94,
- Page 616 and 617: 564 64; phallo-worship, enquiry as
- Page 618: EDITORIAL NOTE TO THE ELECTRONIC ED
546<br />
<strong>Rivers</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Life</strong>, or Faiths <strong>of</strong> Man in all Lands.<br />
origin <strong>of</strong> Indian faiths. Man, I think, grew upwards from the earth to heaven, not like<br />
the drop <strong>of</strong> the Banian tree, from heaven to earth. 1 The old root was the first growth,<br />
and only after it attained to a considerable maturity did it throw down bright tendrils,<br />
fed by the riches <strong>of</strong> the aerial light, which had imparted to them warmth and moisture.<br />
Thus I think that earth-born men were probably man’s first Gods, and that around a<br />
god-like hero his posterity wove a subtle garment <strong>of</strong> all he loved, respected, and<br />
feared, and that when such great man—probably truly great—died, the fancy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
race idealized him still more, and added to his many good traits those loveable and<br />
creative energies which they held to be truly god-like. Thus a real Brahma or Abram<br />
became a Patriarch, a Creator, a Demi-God, and finally a God.<br />
Man must have his personal God, as Europe, Arabia, and China, nay, every sect<br />
exemplifies; and perhaps Brahmanism would not have vanquished Boodhism, had<br />
it not received Boodha into its incarnations. The Indian student finds the forma-<br />
tion <strong>of</strong> Gods constantly going on around him, <strong>of</strong> which I shall hereafter give some<br />
striking examples; yet it may never again be that a Brahma, Siva or Krishna will<br />
rise on the horizon <strong>of</strong> futurity, for education, accurate record, and critical times have<br />
spoilt all chances <strong>of</strong> this. Mr. A. C. Lyall, 2 an accomplished writer <strong>of</strong> wide and practical<br />
experience <strong>of</strong> Indian religions, in a Review which I only saw as this was going to press,<br />
bears me out, I see, in the above, telling us how Gods and incarnations are made and<br />
altered, until the rude image <strong>of</strong> the aborigine, nay, his deified pig, in time becomes<br />
under due teaching, an incarnation <strong>of</strong> Vishnoo himself. “The nature God,” he says,<br />
“condenses into man and is precipitated upon earth; the man-god more <strong>of</strong>ten refines<br />
and evaporates into a deity up in the skies. . . . . Where the waters <strong>of</strong> earth end<br />
and those <strong>of</strong> the sky begin, one cannot tell precisely, . . . . nor in the religion after<br />
it has formed.” If the races <strong>of</strong> the Peloponnesus and Italy revelled in tales <strong>of</strong><br />
Lukanthropy, and punnings upon Leukos and Lukos, so Skands said, their Light-god<br />
Odin had wolfish attendants, and these also do the faiths <strong>of</strong> India teach to this hour.<br />
The Hindoo, says Mr Lyall, “by no means looks forward to meeting his Gods in<br />
some future world and singing their praises, . . . . he desires absorption or extinction.”<br />
He <strong>of</strong>ten brings his gods back to earth, deified, but to be worshipped in a way he can<br />
comprehend; and in no faith is this so fully adopted as the Jain, nor so coarsely as<br />
that <strong>of</strong> some aborigines like the Gonds <strong>of</strong> Central India. In all this the intellectual<br />
amongst them principally contribute, just as did our own Christian priests <strong>of</strong> what we<br />
now call our “dark ages.” Nothing so attracts the priestly mind as the manufacture<br />
<strong>of</strong> stories regarding the Incarnation, his friends, relatives, and saints;; and we see Indian<br />
priests thus continually weaving mysteries and metaphors, and dilating on their wondrous<br />
“facts,” or explaining these to learned doubters as “mere allegories.” Priests,<br />
says Mr Lyall, “call a man the embodiment <strong>of</strong> a God, and encourage their people to<br />
1 The shoots <strong>of</strong> the Banian tree are constantly noticed in Eastern sacred literature.<br />
2 Bengal Civil Service—Fortnightly for Sept. 1875.