in the Mahabharata and there only in two passages[346] which appear to be late additions.  The inference seems to be that it was accepted as part of Hinduism just about the time that our edition of the Mahabharata was compiled.[347] The old theory that it was borrowed from aboriginal and especially from Dravidian tribes[348] is now discredited.  In the first place the instances cited of phallic worship among aboriginal tribes are not particularly numerous or striking.  Secondly, linga worship, though prevalent in the south, is not confined to it, but flourishes in all parts of India, even in Assam and Nepal.  Thirdly, it is not connected with low castes, with orgies, with obscene or bloodthirsty rites or with anything which can be called un-Aryan.  It forms part of the private devotions of the strictest Brahmans, and despite the significance of the emblem, the worship offered to it is perfectly decorous.[349] The evidence thus suggests that this cultus grew up among Brahmanical Hindus in the early centuries of our era.  The idea that there was something divine in virility and generation already existed.  The choice of the symbol—­the stone pillar—­may have been influenced by two circumstances.  Firstly, the Buddhist veneration of stupas, especially miniature stupas, must have made familiar the idea that a cone or column is a religious emblem,[350] and secondly the linga may be compared to the carved pillars or stone standards erected in honour of Vishnu.  Some lingas are carved and bear one or four faces, thus entirely losing any phallic appearance.  The wide extension of this cult, though its origin seems late, is remarkable.  Something similar may be seen in the worship of Ganesa:  the first records of it are even later, but it is now universal in India.

It may seem strange that a religion whose outward ceremonies though unassuming and modest consist chiefly of the worship of the linga, should draw its adherents largely from the educated classes and be under no moral or social stigma.  Yet as an idea, as a philosophy, Sivaism possesses truth and force.  It gives the best picture which humanity has drawn of the Lord of this world, not indeed of the ideal to which the saint aspires, nor of the fancies with which hope and emotion people the spheres behind the veil, but of the force which rules the Universe as it is, which reproduces and destroys, and in performing one of these acts necessarily performs the other, seeing that both are but aspects of change.  For all animal and human existence[351] is the product of sexual desire:  it is but the temporary and transitory form of a force having neither beginning nor end but continually manifesting itself in individuals who must have a beginning and an end.  This force, to which European taste bids us refer with such reticence, is the true creator of the world.  Not only is it unceasingly performing the central miracle of producing new lives but it accompanies it by unnumbered accessory miracles, which provide the new born child with nourishment