ibed immediately)
or of his cunning, for he knows that there are plenty of people who
will save him the trouble of earning a living. Now this is not the
case with the Vishnuites. To be sure there are Vishnuites that are no
better than Civaites, but there are also strict Vishnuites,
exclusively devotees of Vishnu, who are and remain pure, not brutal,
haters of bloodshed, apt for no disgusting practices, intellectually
admirable, and morally above reproach. In other words, there are
to-day great numbers of Vishnuites who continue to be really
Vishnuites, and yet are really intelligent and moral. This has never
been the case with real Civaites. Again, as Willams[37] has pointed
out, Civaism is a cheap religion; Krishnaism is costly. The Civaite
needs for his cult only a phallus pebble, _bilva_ leaves and water.
The Krishnaite is expected to pay heavily for _leitourgiai_. But
Civaism is cheap because Civaites are poor, the dregs of society; it
is not adopted because it is cheap.

We think, therefore, that to describe Civaism as indifferently
pantheistic or dualistic, and to argue that it must have been
pantheistic a few centuries after the Christian era because Civa at
that time in scholastic philosophy and among certain intellectual
sects was regarded as the one god, tends to obscure the historical
relation of the sects. Without further argumentation on this point, we
shall explain what in our view is necessary to a true understanding of
the mutual relations between Civaites and Vishnuites in the past.

Monotheism[38] and pantheism are respectively the religious expression
of the S[=a]nkhya and Ved[=a]nta systems of philosophy. Civaism,
Krishnaism, and R[=a]maism are all originally deistic. Pure Civaism
has remained so to this day, not only in all its popular sectarian
expressions, but also in the Brahmanic Civaism of the early epic, and
in the Civaism which expresses itself in the adoration-formulae of the
literature of the Renaissance. But there is a pseudo-Civaism which
starts up from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, and tries to work
Civa's name into a pantheistic system of philosophy. Every such
attempt, however, and all of them are the reflex of the growing
importance of Vedantic ideas, fails as such to produce a religion. If
the movement becomes popular and develops into a religious system for
the masses, it at once gives up Civa and takes up Vishnu, or, keeping
Civa, it drops pantheism and becomes a low form o