of the inspired law-giver, having for their ultimate aim the salvation of the soul, that is, its escape from the "path of generation," the practice of morality is a matter of secondary consideration.1 So far as a particular line of conduct may be useful for aiding in the attainment of that salvation it is desirable, but if the same end can be attained in another way, it is not necessary. Viewed in this light, morality becomes merely a matter of expediency, and it is not surprising therefore that the Hindus exhibit few traces of any fixed principle of moral conduct. Bishop Heber declared that he had " never met with a race of men whose standard of morality is so low, who feel so little apparent shame in being detected in a falsehood, or so little interest in the sufferings of a neighbour, not being of their own caste or family; whose ordinary and familiar conversation is so licentious; or, in the wilder and more lawless districts, who shed blood with so little repugnance.' This is consistent, however, with the fact that the Hindus are, according to their light, highly religious. In some sense, indeed, the want of morality depends on the strength of the religious spirit; for the gods of such a people as the Hindus will exhibit little concern with the conduct of man towards his fellows, so long as their own requirements are attended to; and the performance of religious rites will be considered much more. efficacious for the attainment of salvation than a moral life. This opinion agrees with the remark made by Dubois, that "offences, imaginary or of small account, are menaced with endless punishment after death by the directors of the popular faith; whilst adulterers, perjurers, robbers, and other real offenders are absolved by

"2

1 As to this question, considered in relation to the altruistic virtues, see supra, vol. i. p. 473.

2

op. cit., vol. iii. p. 355.

the Brahmans of their actual crimes, for selfish objects, and assured of a recompense after death which should pertain exclusively to virtue." 1 On the other hand, actions of the most trivial kind, and even blasphemy itself, may under favourable circumstances, become efficacious for securing salvation. A Brahman who pursued a dog four times round a temple of Siva, and then killed it at the gate with one blow of a cudgel, not only obtained the pardon of his sins, but admission to the paradise of Siva. The pronouncing, although not in a blasphemous way, of the divine name Narayana secured for a great sinner entrance to the paradise of Vishnu. Bathing in sacred rivers and pools is thought to have the power of cleansing from all sins and impurities, a benefit which may, however, be obtained at home by simply thinking of the sacred water while performing the ordinary purifying ablutions. Pilgrimages to celebrated temples, or to other places considered holy in the popular imagination, and the view of the summit of certain sacred mountains are equally efficacious. The repeating of the Mantras, or forms of prayer, the thinking upon Vishnu, and even the mere sight of a Guru, or spiritual teacher, have the same effect. The most extraordinary mode of purification is that known as the Panchakaryam, or the "five things" proceeding from the body of the cow, namely, milk, butter, curd, dung, and urine. Whoever drinks this mixture will obtain the "remission of all sins committed with a perfect knowledge." Finally, some places are of themselves so sacred that the mere fact of dying within their precincts is sufficient to ensure salvation, quite irrespective of the

1 op.

"2

p. 426.

cit., 2 Dubois, op. cit., p. 124 seq. The purification by cow's urine was known also to the ancient Persians, and is practised by the modern Parsees. See Tavernier, "Travels in Persia," p. 167.

character of the person himself.

Thus, even outcasts and infidels dying at Benares are supposed to be certain of happiness in another world.1

Morality thus occupying so secondary a place in the mind of the Hindu, it is not surprising that he should often act as though he were entirely devoid of moral principle. Nor would such a conclusion be far wrong. In the life of the Hindu, custom would appear to be that by which everything is tried, and whatever this allows, however gross, is performed without hesitation.2 The tendency to perpetuate trades and occupations in particular families, which is intimately connected with the modern phase of the caste system,3 aids in the formation of hereditary habits which give evidence of a very low condition of moral culture. Thus the princes of the Calaris exercised the profession of robbers as a birthright, and although this was well known, and indeed was openly admitted by them, the tribe was considered one of the most distinguished among the Sudras of Madura. Even murder was, until a comparatively recent period, and probably is still, practised as a regular, if not an hereditary calling. Strange to say, thuggi was supposed to be presided over by a divinity, the goddess Bhavani, who in return for her protection required that the murderous sacrifices offered to her should be accompanied by certain prescribed ceremonies."

Facts such as these undoubtedly support the opinion that the Hindus have but slight knowledge of what we regard as morality, and it is confirmed by other pheno1 Sherring's "Sacred City of the Hindus," p. 175.

2 The influence of custom is referred to by Dubois, op. cit., p. 183 seq.

3 As to the modern "professional" caste, see Max Müller's "Chips," vol. ii. p. 325.

4 Dubois, op. cit., p. 3.

5 As to the Thuggs and robber tribes of India, see supra, p. 113 seq., and authorities there cited.

mena. Reference has already been made to the wide extension, until recently, of the practice of infanticide.1 This was sometimes accompanied by the exhibition of heartless cruelty, and as such must be referred to the influence of gross superstition. In the northern districts of Bengal, infants who refused the mother's breast and declined in health, were thought to be under the influence of an evil spirit, and were sometimes exposed for three days in a basket hung on a tree, and usually they were dead at the end of that period. The practice of abortion was also at one time extremely prevalent; chiefly among widows, who were not allowed to marry, but it was not confined to them.3

2

4

It was not, however, with the destruction of infant life merely, that the Hindus were chargeable. Mr Ward declares that private murder was practised among them to a dreadful extent, and that cases of secret poisoning, especially in the houses of the rich, were numerous. Inconsistent as this charge is with the humane character often ascribed to the Hindus, it is undoubtedly confirmed by the testimony of Bishop Heber. This writer states that murders of a cowardly and premeditated kind were very frequent among the Bengalese. They were chiefly of women, killed through jealousy, and children murdered for the value of their ornaments.5 Bishop Heber refers to a horrible case of the burning alive of an old woman by her husband and children with the object of bringing a curse on a piece of land, the ownership of which was in dispute, and he adds, "the truth is, so very little value do these people set on their own lives, that we cannot wonder at their caring so little for the life of another; the cases of suicide which come before me, double those

2

of suttees; men, and still more, women, throw themselves down wells, or drink poison, for apparently the slightest reasons, generally out of some quarrel, and in order that their blood may lie at their enemy's door.1 Dubois also refers to this self-murder by women, which he ascribes chiefly to family discord, but he says that homicide and suicide are held in particular horror by all the Hindus, and are less frequent among them than with many other peoples. This may be true of the natives of Southern India, of whom the Abbé more especially speaks, but, on the other hand, they are said to be very revengeful. When their passions are aroused by some real or fancied injury, they will brood over it, if necessary, for years, and when opportunity offers, will not hesitate to take the life of the offender, or, should the iujury have been caused by a European, and he cannot be found, on some other member of his class.3

4

The Hindus would seem to have thought as little of appropriating the property of another as, down to a recent period, they did of taking his life. Bishop Heber affirmed that the besetting sins of Bengal were theft, forgery, and house-breaking, and those of Hindostan violent affrays, murders, and highway robberies. In the Doab, the people were still "of lawless and violent habits, containing many professional thieves, and many mercenary soldiers," who were ready at any time to become thieves. The inhabitants of Oude, the Robillas, and the Rajpoots, all meet with the same condemnation, as being given to robbery, either with or without violence." The natives of Southern India are probably less prone to such conduct than those of Hindostan, and it is of the

1

5

op. cit., vol. i. p. 352.

3 Do., p. 195; Bevan, op. cit., vol. i. p. 146.

4 op. cit., vol. i. p. 294.

6 Do., vol. ii. pp. 64, 138, 494.