LETTER XI. HINDUISM. EXAMINATION OF ITS EVIDENCES. MY DEAR YOUNG FRIEND, It will be useful to employ some time in comparing the evidences of Christianity with those of the three other great systems of religion which exist in this country, viz. Hinduism, Pársíism and Muhammadanism. Let us commence with Hinduism. We divided the chief evidences in favour of Christianity into external and internal,-and the division is equally applicable to the evidences of all religions. External Evidence. We commence, then, by asking: What is the external evidence in favour of Hinduism? Ir answering that question, we have first to decide what Hinduism is. In examining any religion whatever, the first inquiry must be, What is the religion,-and then comes the question, Is the religion true. What, then, is the system which we call Hinduism? The answer is far from easy. The Hinduism of Bengal or Madras is not the same as the Hinduism of Bombay; the systems even of neighbouring provinces, such as Kánnadá and Maháráshtra, are not quite the same; the Hinduism of the Brahmans is very different from the Hinduism of the Kunbís or Kolís. The best answer to the question is this: Genuine Hinduism is that which is contained in the Shastras. The Shastras are books supposed by the Hindus to be divinely inspired; and LET. XI.] AGE OF THE SHASTRAS. 103 what is not in them may be held to be but local or temporary. The next question is, What are the Shástras? The general answer to this would be; The four Vedas, the six philosophical Shastras, and the eighteen Puranas. There are many Sanskrit works which are not included among these; but the writings now enumerated are the peculiarly sacred and accredited books of the Hindus. We shall examine these books in the same manner as we examined the Bible. First, then, let us inquire into their antiquity. I. The age of the Hindu sacred books. Shástras. It is exceedingly difficult to determine the date of any Age of the of the Hindu Shástras. Learned men have repeatedly endeavoured to fix the age of the most important of them; but their widely different conclusions leave us in much uncertainty on the whole subject. The Vedas have been supposed by some to be perhaps as old as the fourteenth century before Christ; but others equally learned, have believed them to be scarcely older than the seventh century before Christ. Here is a difference of 700 years. The age of the Puránas is also uncertain; on the whole, it is probable that the most ancient of them may be about one thousand years old (having been probably composed about the eighth or ninth century after Christ),and the most recent ones, only four or five hundred years old. On the age of the six philosophical Shastras it is also exceedingly difficult to decide. Thus, although we are certain that some of them (such as the Vedas) are very ancient, we are left in exceeding uncertainty as to the dates of the Hindu sacred books.* On the whole the following dates may be held as approximation to the truth on this very perplexing subject. The Hymns (or Sanhitá) of the Rig Veda were collected about 1,200 or 1,300 years B. C. The Brahmana of the Rig Veda was written 700 or 800 B. C. Are the nuine? I is difficult to determine whether they are nearly the same as when they were first composed. Shastras ge- Probably, the Vedas have been very little altered, at least for a very long period. Still, even in the Vedas, alterations of an important kind seem to have been introduced at some time. Nearly the entire Sáma Veda is found in the Rig Veda; but the readings of the two differ very considerably. Learned men have discussed the question whether, in these cases, the text of the Rig Veda, or that of the Sáma, is the older and more genuine.* In like manner much of the Atharva Veda is in the Rig Veda; but the deviations of the former from the latter are so important, that a learned writer calls them "capricious inversions and alterations."† ed. The Puranas certainly have been greatly corrupt- Kapila, one of the earliest phlosophers, 600 or 700 B. C., Heroic poems (Rámáyana, Mahábhárata.) 200 or 300 B. C. The Puránas are still later. Prof. Wilson thinks that the Vishnu Purána was composed about the middle of the eleventh century after Christ. (See Wilson's Vishnu Purána, p, lxxii.) The Bhagavat Purána is later; perhaps five or six centuries old. But on this question it is desirable that we keep in mind the statement of Prof. Wilson: "In dealing with Hindu chronology, we have no trust worthy landmarks, no fixed eras, no comparative history to guide us. In proposing the dates, therefore, nothing more than conjecture is intended; and it may be very wide of the truth." (Wilson's Rig Veda, p. xlviii.) Most of the dates given above agree with those of Professor Wilson. If they be in any case erroneous, the error probably lies in our ascribing too high an antiquity to the books. * Benfey's Sáma Veda. Introduction. Dr. R. Roth "On the Literature and History of the Veda." Puránas, of which those which we now have, are but the partial and adulterated representations."* In that case, the real Puránas are irrecoverably lost, and those we now possess are spurious imitations. A Purána frequently gives statements as to the size and contents of the various other Puranas, but these accounts are often quite irreconcilable with each other. Thus it is utterly absurd to talk of the genuineness of the Puranas. No man can be sure that he has the right text; in fact, every man may be pretty sure that he has it not. One very interesting circumstance respecting the Christian Scriptures is the fact of their having been translated at an early period into various languages. (See above, Letter III.) We have seen that we can establish both their antiquity and their genuineness by means of these translations. But we have nothing of the same kind in the case of the Hindu sacred writings. It was not till the time of the Emperor Akbar that any of them were translated into a foreign language;-in Akbar's time, some of them were rendered into Persian. None of these versions is 300 years old,-whereas the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was prepared more than 2,100 years ago. III. With regard to the general credibility of the history contained in the Hindu Shastras. Are the Shás- It is not supported by external evidence. tras credible? 1. We know nothing of the character and intentions of the writers, except what may be gathered from their compositions, nothing of their situation or circumstances,nothing as to the publication of their works, and the persons by whom, and the manner in which, these were received. 2. No testimony in their favour can be adduced from the writers of other countries. * Vishnu Purána, p. iv., The facts related in the Puránas (which profess to give us history) are not corroborated by those They are inconsistent with Greek writers who describe the invasion Greek writings; of India by Alexander the Great, and the transactions subsequent to that event. A Greek kingdom long existed in Bactria, on the conAnd the Bac- fines of India,-but with its known history trian history; the Puranas do not agree. We have also some Chinese works relating to India,And with Chi- but the accounts which they contain of Innese writings; dia frequently oppose the statements of the Puránas. The Musalmans have had some connexion with India from the end of the seventh century of the Christian era, and exceedingly close connexion from the time of Mah And with Mu- mud of Ghazní in the end of the tenth. salmán writings; But the Musalman writers do not corroborate the assertions of the Puránas, several of which were composed after the Musalmáns had invaded India. It is not here meant that there are no facts mentioned in the Puránas which are not mentioned in foreign writers. But the points in which foreign writers contradict the Puránas are far more numerous than those in which they agree with them. And with ex ments. 3. Again, as to monumental evidence. There are many inscriptions on rocks in various parts of isting monu- India,-there are pictures in caves,—there are vast numbers of coins found both in India and the adjacent countries (particularly around Cabul). It is often absolutely impossible to reconcile the statements of the Puranas with what is inscribed on those rocks, plates, caves, and coins. So much is this the case, that every Orientalist speaks of the Puránas as containing not real history, but mythology, that is to say, fable. 4. The same thing is true of the Ramayana and Ma |