________________
beggars' (Wilson). Others claim virtue on the strength of nudity, and subdue their passions literally with lock and key. The 'Potmen,' the 'Skull-men,' G[ru]daras and K[=a]p[ra]likas, are distinguished, as their names imply, only by their vessels. The former, however, are the remnant of a once thoughtful sect known by name since the sixth century, and K[=a]naph[=a]ts and K[=a]p[=a]likas both show that very likely others among these wretches are but the residue of ancient Çivaite sects, who began as philosophers (perhaps Buddhists), and became only ascetic and thus degraded; for, Çiva apparently has no power to make his worshippers better than himself, and he is a dirty monster, now and then galvanized into the resemblance of a decent god.
There is a well-known verse, not in Manu, but attributed to him (and for that reason quite a modern forgery),[41] which declares that Sambhu (Çiva) is the god of priests; Vishnu, the god of warriors; Brahm[=a), the god of the V[=a]içyas (farmers and traders); and Ganeça, the god of slaves. It is, on the contrary, Çiva himself, not his son Ganeça, who is the 'god of low people' in the early literature. It is he who 'destroys sacrifice,' and is anything but a god of priests till he is carefully made over by the latter. Nowadays some Brahmans profess the Çivaite faith, but they are Vishnuite if really sectarian.
No Brahman, for instance, will serve at a Çiva shrine, except possibly at Benares, where among more than an hundred shrines to Çiva and his family, Vishnu has but one; and though he will occasionally perform service even in a heretic Jain temple he will not lower himself to worship the Linga. Nor is it true that Çiva is a patron of literature. Like Ganeça, his son, Çiva may upset everything if he be not properly placated, and consequently there is, at the beginning of every enterprise (among others, literary enterprises) in the Renaissance literature, but never in the works of religion or law or in any but modern profane literature, an invocation to Çiva. But he is no more a patron of literature than is Ganeça, or in other words, Çivaism is not more literary than is Ganeçaism. In a literary country no religion is so illiterate as Çivaism, no writings are so inane as are those in his honor. There is no poem, no religious literary monument, no Pur[=a]na even, dedicated to Çiva, that has any literary merit. All that is readable in sectarian literature, the best Pur[=a]nas, the Divine Song, the sectarian
