DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.636#0063
Nomistic Brahmanism. 51
gratified!" Hence, though to you we appear Polytheists,
we are really Monotheists. Nor are we Pantheists in your
sense of the term. Only our deepest thinkers look beyond
the personal God to the impersonal Spirit which underlies
everything. We educated Brahmans are practically Theists.'
Even the Rig-veda asserts that the gods are one Being under
different names (I. 164. 46; VIII. 58. %).
Nomistic Brahmanism.
The fourth phase of Brahmanism, like the third, probably
had its origin in the need of organized resistance to the growth
of rationalistic thought and liberal opinions. It may be called
Nomistic Brahmanism, because it represents that period in
Indian religious history when the Brahmans composed codes
of law {smriti-sastra, dharma-sastrd) and laid down precise
rules for the constitution of the Hindu social fabric, for the
due co-ordination of its different orders, and for the regulation
of every-day domestic life.
Indeed, in proportion to the laxity and liberty allowed by
Brahmanism in regard to all forms of religious and philoso-
phical thought, is the unbending rigidity of the rules and
ordinances by which every act of a man's social and domestic
life is fettered and controlled.
These rules are contained in three principal codes—(1) the
code of Manu; (2) that of Yajfiavalkya; (3) that of Parasara.
The first is held to be the most sacred of the three, and is
certainly one of the most remarkable literary works that the
world has ever produced. It was originally a mere local
code, embodying rules and precepts—perhaps by different
authors, some of whom may have lived in the fifth century
B.C., or even earlier. It was current among a particular
tribe of Brahmans called Manavas, who probably occupied
part of the North-western region between the rivers Sarasvati
and Drishadvati. The name of the real author of this re-
markable work (the present form of which is now held to be
E %
gratified!" Hence, though to you we appear Polytheists,
we are really Monotheists. Nor are we Pantheists in your
sense of the term. Only our deepest thinkers look beyond
the personal God to the impersonal Spirit which underlies
everything. We educated Brahmans are practically Theists.'
Even the Rig-veda asserts that the gods are one Being under
different names (I. 164. 46; VIII. 58. %).
Nomistic Brahmanism.
The fourth phase of Brahmanism, like the third, probably
had its origin in the need of organized resistance to the growth
of rationalistic thought and liberal opinions. It may be called
Nomistic Brahmanism, because it represents that period in
Indian religious history when the Brahmans composed codes
of law {smriti-sastra, dharma-sastrd) and laid down precise
rules for the constitution of the Hindu social fabric, for the
due co-ordination of its different orders, and for the regulation
of every-day domestic life.
Indeed, in proportion to the laxity and liberty allowed by
Brahmanism in regard to all forms of religious and philoso-
phical thought, is the unbending rigidity of the rules and
ordinances by which every act of a man's social and domestic
life is fettered and controlled.
These rules are contained in three principal codes—(1) the
code of Manu; (2) that of Yajfiavalkya; (3) that of Parasara.
The first is held to be the most sacred of the three, and is
certainly one of the most remarkable literary works that the
world has ever produced. It was originally a mere local
code, embodying rules and precepts—perhaps by different
authors, some of whom may have lived in the fifth century
B.C., or even earlier. It was current among a particular
tribe of Brahmans called Manavas, who probably occupied
part of the North-western region between the rivers Sarasvati
and Drishadvati. The name of the real author of this re-
markable work (the present form of which is now held to be
E %