The unity in regard to law and morals, which the book of the law sought to establish throughout all the regions of India, between the Vindhyas and Himalayas, was never carried out to this extent. Indeed, the book itself is wanting in unity owing to the gradual accumulation of different strata in it, and the various rules which it contains for the same circle of life. Nor did it even attempt to remove the usages of Brahmavarta, or the customs of "the good" in general. In other points its requirements were pitched much too high, and were too ideal for princes and judges to feel bound by them, directly and immediately, or to guide their conduct by such rules, though on the whole they regarded the book as a standard. Even on the Ganges some districts resisted the law of the Brahmans, and took their law from their old customs,[345] while on the other hand, in the land of the Indus, only a few regions followed the development attained in the life of the emigrants on the Yamuna and the Ganges; in these the elevation of the priestly order, the reform of religion, and the exclusiveness of the castes were very fitfully carried out. They clung obstinately to the older forms of Indian life, and submitted but partially to the reaction which the land of the Ganges exercised on the ancient home of the race. In other nations and ages the priests have turned their attention to the past history of their states, and have recorded their fortunes, but on the Ganges the victory of the priests threw the past entirely aside, and established the Brahmanic system as the religion existing from the beginning. Why should the Brahmans trouble themselves with the deeds of ancient kings and heroes? These could only attract their attention in so far as the action of the gods was seen in them, or when they could be asked to prove that the power of the Brahmans had been from the first greater than the power of the kings and the Kshatriyas. Or need the Brahmans write the history of their own order? From this point of view that order had always been what it now was; it formed no organised corporation, no centralised system; the only points that could come into question were the acts of the great saints, the ancestors of the Brahman class, or the claim and advantage of being descended from this or that priest of the old time. Ought the Brahmans to inquire into the laws of nature? In their view the life of nature was as little independent, as little founded on laws of its own, as the life and actions of men. Nature was absorbed into the world-soul; the efficacy of sacrifices and penalties could, in the opinion of the Brahmans, remove the laws of nature at any moment. Where the order of the moral and physical world is broken and subdued at will by the supernatural, no account can be made of the actions of men, or the facts of nature, of history or natural science; theology and things divine are the only possible subjects of study.