THE ORIGIN OF THEOSOPHY 491 



what the author of the Savitri had in view, but his Indian commen- 

 tators, both ancient and modern, are at one in believing that he 

 rose from nature up to nature's god, and adored that sublime lumin- 

 ary which is visible only to the eye of reason, and not the planet we 

 daily see in its course." Katyayana, in his Index to the Rig- Veda 

 (the so-called Anukramani), after reducing all the gods of the Veda 

 to three types, to Agni (fire and light on earth), to Vayu (air or wind 

 in the atmosphere) , and to Surya (sun in the sky) , proceeds still far- 

 ther to assert that there is only one deity, namely the "Great Self" 

 (mahan atma), and some say that he is the Sun, or that the Sun is 

 he." Similarly Yaska in the Nirukta. 



I am afraid that Professor Garbe has worked himself into the 

 state of mind that there is only one kind. of good Brahman, namely, 

 a dead Brahman, to paraphrase a saying about that other Indian, 

 the American Indian. Selfishness, foolishness, bigotry, and cruelty 

 galore the marks of these some Brahmans have left in their com- 

 positions, foolishly as behoves knaves. But there were Brahmans 

 and Brahmans. The older Upanishads, written in the exact language 

 and style of the so-called prose Brahmana texts, figuring, indeed, as 

 parts of these compositions, joining their speculations closely to their 

 ritualistic mysticism, were composed by Brahmans who had risen 

 to the conviction that not "the way of works" lies the salvation that 

 is knowledge. Countless Brahmanical names crowd these texts: 

 Naciketas, and Qvetaketu; Gargya and Yajnavalkya, and many 

 others. Even the wives of great Brahmans participate in these 

 spiritual tourneys, and occasionally rise to a subtler appreciation 

 than their lords of the mystery of the world and the riddle of existence. 



Professor Garbe has been attracted to his position by the interest- 

 ing fact that the Upanishads narrate on several occasions that the 

 knowledge of the ultimate philosophy was in the keeping of men of 

 royal caste, and that these taught their knowledge to Brahmans. 

 This is put in such a way that the Brahman, after having aired his 

 own stock of theosophy, "lays down" before the king's superior 

 insight. The king is then represented as graciously bestowing his 

 saving knowledge upon the Brahman. Once or twice, however, the 

 king turns braggart, and mars his act of generosity by claiming 

 that the warrior caste are the real thing, and that they alone in all 

 the world are able to illumine these profound and obscure matters. 

 I doubt whether this justifies us in regarding the warrior caste 

 as the spiritual saviors of India. In the first place the very texts 

 which narrate these exploits of the Kshatriyas are unquestionably 

 Brahmanic. Would the arrogance and selfishness of the Brahmans 

 have allowed them to preserve and propagate facts calculated to 

 injure permanently their own standing? Surely not. 



The situation is somewhat as follows: There never was a time in 



