magine that by
becoming ascetics without first having passed through the preliminary
stadia they can by knowledge alone attain the bliss that is obtained
by union with _brahma_ (or Brahm[=a]). In other words the jurist has
to contend with a trait eminently anti-Brahmanistic, even Buddhistic.
He denies this value of knowledge, and therewith shows that what he
wishes to have inculcated is a belief in the temporary personal
existence of the Manes; in heaven till the end of the world-order; and
the annihilation of the wicked; while he has a confused or mixed
opinion in regard to one's own personal immortality, believing on the
one hand that there is a future existence in heaven with the gods, and
on the other (rather a materialistic view) that immortality is nothing
but continued existence in the person of one's descendants, who are
virtually one's self in another body: _dehatvam ev[=a]'nyat,_ "only
the body is different" (_ib_) 2. As to cosmogony it is stated to be
(not the emanation of an _[=a]tm[=a]_) but the "emission (creation) of
the Father-god and of the seers" (the latter being visible as stars,
_ib_. 13, 14). In this there is plainly a received popular opinion,
which reflects the Vedic and Brahmanic stage, and is opposed to the
philosophical views of the Upanishads, in other words of the first
Vedantic philosophy; while it is mixed up with the late doctrine of
the cataclysms, which ruin each succeeding^ creation. The equal
annihilation of the wicked (_dhvamsanti_) and unorthodox (_dhvamsate_)
is to be noticed. They are here subject neither to hell nor to
rebirth, but they "become dust and perish" (_ib_. 8. 9).

Throughout the whole legal literature one will find this same
antithesis of views in regard to the fate of good and bad, although it
is seldom that annihilation is predicated of the latter. Usually hell
or rebirth are their fate--two views, which no one can really
reconcile. They are put side by side; exactly as in priestly
discussion in India and Europe it still remains an unsettled question
as to when the soul becomes immortal.[25] Occidental experience
teaches how easy it is for such views to stand together unattacked,
although they are the object of speculation. This passage is perhaps,
historically, the most satisfactory (as it is philosophically
unsatisfactory) that can be cited in answer to the questions that were
posed above. But from other parts of legal literature a few more
statements may be cull