special forms of
asceticism. These powers are sometimes treated as mere magic and
spiritually worthless but their reality is not questioned.

2

We have now said something of two aspects of Indian religion--ritual and
asceticism--and must pass on to the third, namely, knowledge or
philosophy. Its importance was recognized by the severest ritualists.
They admitted it as a supplement and crown to the life of ceremonial
observances and in the public estimation it came to be reputed an
alternative or superior road to salvation. Respect and desire for
knowledge are even more intimately a part of Hindu mentality than a
proclivity to asceticism or ritual. The sacrifice itself must be
understood as well as offered. He who _knows_ the meaning of this or
that observance obtains his desires[166].

Nor did the Brahmans resent criticism and discussion. India has always
loved theological argument: it is the national passion. The early
Upanishads relate without disapproval how kings such as Ajatasatru of
Kasi, Pravahana Jaivali and Asvapati Kaikeya imparted to learned
Brahmans philosophical and theological knowledge previously unknown to
them[167] and even women like Gargi and Maitreyi took part in
theological discussions. Obviously knowledge in the sense of
philosophical speculation commended itself to religiously disposed
persons in the non-sacerdotal castes for the same reason as asceticism.
Whatever difficulties it might offer, it was more accessible than the
learning which could be acquired only under a Brahman teacher, although
the Brahmans in the interests of the sacerdotal caste maintained that
philosophy like ritual was a secret to be imparted, not a result to be
won by independent thought.

Again and again the Upanishads insist that the more profound doctrines
must not be communicated to any but a son or an accredited pupil and
also that no one can think them out for himself[168], yet the older ones
admit in such stories as those mentioned that the impulse towards
speculation came in early periods, as it did in the time of the Buddha,
largely from outside the priestly clans and was adopted rather than
initiated by them. But in justice to the Brahmans we must admit that
they have rarely--or at any rate much less frequently than other
sacerdotal corporations--shown hostility to new ideas and then chiefly
when such ideas (like those of Buddhism) implied that the rites by which
they gained their living were worthless. Oth