But for the present, before the rise of epic 'Hinduism,' and before taking up the heretical writings, it is a great gain to be able to scan a side of religion that may be called popular in so far as it evidently is the faith which not only was taught to the masses, but which, as is universally assumed in the law, the masses accept; whereas philosophers alone accept the _[=a]tm[=a]_ religion of the Upanishads, and the Br[=a]hmanas are not intended for the public at all, but only for initiated priests.
What, then, is the religious belief and the moral position of the Hindu law-books?
In how far has philosophy affected public religion, and in what way has a reconciliation been affected between the contradictory beliefs in regard to the gods; in regard to the value of works on the one hand, and of knowledge on the other; in regard to hell as a means of punishment for sin on the one hand, and reincarnation (_sams[=a]ra_) on the other; in regard to heaven as a reward of good deeds on the one hand, and absorption into God on the other; in regard to a personal creator on the one hand, and a First Cause without personal attributes on the other?
For the philosophical treatises are known and referred to in the early codes; so that, although the completed systems post-dated the S[=u]tras, the cosmical and theological speculations of the earlier Upanishads were familiar to the authors of the legal systems.
The first general impression produced by a perusal of the law-books is that the popular religion has remained unaffected by philosophy.

And this is correct in so far as that it must be put first in describing the codes, which, in the main, in keeping the ancient observances, reflect the inherited faith.

When, therefore, one says that pantheism[7] succeeded polytheism in India, he must qualify the assertion.

The philosophers are pantheists, but what of the vulgar?
Do they give up polytheism; are they inclined to do so, or are they taught to do so?
No.

For there is no formal abatement in the rigor of the older creed.