The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s1.34

v2.c40.s1.34

Now it is always difficult to believe in the sudden evolution of new doctrines, actually associated in the name with the conception of the absolute of the Brahman class, by circles, whose duty was presumably to wield the weapons of war, and who at any rate failed to retain the control of these doctrines: it is absolutely certain that the Upaniṣads, as we have them, are not the work of warriors, that they were handed down by priests, and that, if the warrior class originated these doctrines, they failed to continue the interest they had shown in them.¹ Stress must also be laid as against the supporters of the theory on the divergent views taken by them of the real work done by the Kṣatriyas. To Garbe they appear to have revolted from the sacrifice, and to have introduced a monist philosophy, centring in the idea of the Brahman—presumably appropriated by them, with a curious sense of humour, from their rivals. The doctrine of Karman is expressly claimed as theirs, so that they must be held, while adopting a monist philosophy, to have insisted on the importance of morality. On the other hand, the Brahmans were forced to adopt this Kṣatriya view by the pressure of public opinion, which compelled them to adopt it into their own system. This, frankly, appears a very curious conception; it is remarkable that the public should insist on a philosophic monism, when we remember that throughout Indian history we find every form of worship pursued with a painful eagerness and precision, and when we remember also how little popular opinion anywhere insists on a strict monism, especially one which empties life of any reality. A further difficulty arises when we find that the Kṣatriyas are credited by Garbe² with the creation of the Sāṁkhya philosophy as a revolt against prevailing views; apparently one set of Kṣatriyas operated against another, and, as he accepts Kṣatriya doctrines as the basis of Buddhism, we find that the great schism in Indian views was that of one Kṣatriya view against another. Hertel,³ again, who accepts the doctrine of the Kṣatriya origin of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads, ignores the fact that the doctrine of Karman is their chief claim, and insists instead that they were rationalists who depersonalized the old gods, substituting in lieu the idea of nature powers—called by them *faute de mieux*, through the poverty of language of the time, deities, and whose philosophy was essentially a monism atheistic, materialistic, and morally indifferent. Judged on this basis it may be doubted if the praise lavished on the Kṣatriyas at the expense of the Brahmans would have exactly been acceptable to them.