India's Problem, Krishna or Christ Part 5

The two faiths differ essentially.

1. In their Initial Conceptions.

Their starting points are almost antipodal. This will seem evident when we study their views:

(_a_) In reference to religion itself. Christianity is briefly and beautifully explained by its Founder (Luke 15) as a divine method of seeking and saving the lost. It is the expression of the Father's love yearning for the return, and seeking the complete salvation, of the son.

It is primarily and pervasively a "Thus saith the Lord"-a revelation from G.o.d manward. Hinduism on the other hand has been the embodiment of man's aspirations after G.o.d. Wonderfully pathetic, beautiful and elevating these aspirations have been at times; and doubtless guided at points by Him whom they so ardently sought. They perhaps represent the highest reach of the soul in its self-propelled flight towards its Maker. It is true that orthodox Hindus variously describe the Vedas as eternal, as a direct emanation from Brahma and as a divine ent.i.ty in themselves. They const.i.tute the "Sruti"-"the directly heard" message of G.o.d to man. But the authors of the Upanishads, which are a part of _Sruti_, absolve man from the necessity of accepting the four Vedas and propound a way of salvation entirely separate from, and independent of, vedic prayers and ritual. The direct influence of the Vedas upon religious life and ritual in India today is practically _nil_; while that of the Upanishads, which are the _fons et origo_ of the all-potent philosophy, is felt in every Hindu life, however humble.

This aspect of the two faiths is not unexpected when we remember:

(_b_) Their very dissimilar conceptions of G.o.d. The monotheism of the one and the pantheism of the other are clear and uncompromising. They have stood for many centuries as representatives, to the world, of these very dissimilar beliefs. Christianity inherited from Judaism its pa.s.sion for monotheism, and brings the "G.o.d of Israel" very near to our race as the infinitely loving Father. It has not only emphasized His personality but reveals, with incomparable power and tenderness, His supreme interest in our race and His loving purpose concerning it.

On the other hand Hinduism derived its highest wisdom and deepest convictions concerning the Divine Being from the ancient ris.h.i.+s through the Upanishads. There they accepted, once for all, the doctrine of the Brahm (neuter)-the one pa.s.sionless, immovable, unsearchable, ineffable Being who, without a second, stands as the source and embodiment of all real being.

Barth truly remarks that "this is the most imposing and subtle of the systems of ontology yet known in the history of philosophy." This inscrutable Being is the only _real_ existence, all else being illusion projected by ignorance. This doctrine of ident.i.ty or nonduality (_advaitha_) lies at the foundation of all their religious thinking. This Being which is devoid of qualities (_nirguna_), because incomprehensible to man, can be of no comfort to him. In this respect the Hindu is an agnostic of a profound type.

For this mystical philosophy one word of praise is eminently due. It is not to be confounded with that species of Western pantheism which is rank materialism-making G.o.d and the material universe convertible terms. Sir William Jones emphasized this difference-the difference between a system which, in all that it sees, sees G.o.d alone, and that which acknowledges no G.o.d beyond what it sees. One is the bulwark of materialism; the other its most uncompromising enemy. Whatever the defects of this philosophy of the Upanishads it must be confessed to be deeply spiritual.

And yet in this very effort to conserve the spiritual and transcendental character of Brahm the Aryan sage has covered Him with the dark robe of mysticism and pushed Him into a far off realm beyond human ken.

So that the only intimations which man has of Him are confessedly false projection of ignorance. For all practical purposes this hypothetical deity-for the very existence of Brahm is only a.s.sumed as a working hypothesis by the theosophist-is a nonent.i.ty to the wors.h.i.+pper. How can a being lend itself to a devout soul in wors.h.i.+p when it is rigidly devoid of every quality that can inspire or attract the soul? This very fact has led the ordinary Hindu to seek and develop something else as an object of his devotion. Hence the polytheism of Brahmanism. Let it not be supposed that there is any antagonism between their pantheism and their polytheism. One is the natural offspring of the other. The numberless G.o.ds which today are supposed to preside over the destiny of the people, are but emanations, the so-called "play" of Brahm. Properly speaking they are neither supreme nor possessed of truly divine attributes. Even the Hindu Triad-Brahma (masculine gender), Vishnu and Siva-are but manifestations of the delight of the eternal Soul to invest itself with qualities (_guna_). These three G.o.ds are no more real existences than are the myriad other children of illusion (_maya_) and ignorance (_avidya_) which const.i.tute the universe.

And as they had their existence, so will they find their dissolution, in the fiat of the Supreme Soul. India finds polytheism no more satisfying than it does pantheism. There is no more a.s.surance of comfort in wors.h.i.+pping 330,000,000 G.o.ds, whose mult.i.tude not only bewilders but also carries in itself refutation to the claim of any one to be supreme, than there is in the yearning after an absolute, ineffable Being which cruelly evades human thought and definition. It is no wonder therefore that the growth of the Hindu pantheon is constant, and both follows, and bears testimony to, the craving of the human soul for a G.o.d who can satisfy its wants and realize its deepest longings.

(_c_) Their theories of the universe are also divergent. According to the Bible the outer world is the creation, by G.o.d, out of nothing. To the Brahman of all times the idea of pure creation has seemed absurd. _Ex nihilo nihil fit_ is an axiom of all their philosophies. Whether it be the Vedantin who tells us that the material universe is the result of Brahm invested with illusion, or the Sankya philosopher who attributes it to _prakriti_-the power of nature; or the Veisas.h.i.+ka sage who traces it to eternal atoms; they all practically posit that it is eternal.

Of course the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing does not, as the Hindu too often a.s.sumes, maintain that the universe is a result without a cause; for it teaches that G.o.d Himself, by the exercise of His sovereign will and omnipotence, is an all-adequate cause to all created things.

If the Vedantin claims that creation is impossible, how can he at the same time believe that ideas have from time to time sprung up in the mind of Brahm, which ideas themselves have put on illusion and appear to human ignorance as the universe? It is, to say the least, no easier for him, with his conception of Brahm, to account for the origin of such ideas than it is for the Christian to trace the source of the material universe to an all-wise and omnipotent G.o.d. Nor does the Sankya philosopher, by practically denying G.o.d and positing the eternal existence of souls and _prakriti_, remove half the difficulties that he creates.

(_d_) Again, the teachings of the two faiths concerning man are no less divergent. In the Bible man is represented as a son of G.o.d. He is fallen indeed, but with a trace, even in his degradation, of his Father's lineaments. We follow him in his willful rebellion against his Father; he plunges into the lowest depths of sin. But we still recognise in him the promise of infinite and eternal possibilities of spiritual expansion and happiness. Indeed we find at work a divinely benevolent scheme through which he is to be ultimately exalted to heavenly places in Christ Jesus and made the heir of infinite bliss.

On the other hand, Hindu Shastras represent man as mere illusion-the poor plaything of the absolute One. For man to a.s.sume and to declare his own real existence is, they say, but the raving of his ignorance (_avidya_).

To the practical Western mind it seems almost impossible that a philosopher should be so lost in his philosophy as to aver that he, the thinker and father of his philosophy, has no _real_ existence-is only illusion, concerning which real existence can only be a.s.sumed for practical purposes. What must be said of the philosophy begotten by such an illusive being? Shall it not also be doomed to vanish with him into the nothingness whence he came and which he now really is, if he only knew it?

Sir Monier Williams aptly remarks,-"Common sense tells an Englishman that he really exists himself and that everything he sees around him really exists also. He cannot abandon these two primary convictions. Not so the Hindu Vedantist. Dualism is his bugbear, and common sense, when it maintains any kind of real duality, either the separate independent existence of a man's own spirit and of G.o.d's spirit, or of spirit and matter, is guilty of gross deception."

Another conception regards the human soul (_jivatma_) as a part of the Supreme Soul. This theory adds small comfort or dignity to it when we remember that this whole of which it is declared a part is an intangible, unattractive Being-devoid of all qualities (_nirguna_). If the soul existed from eternity as a part of the divine Soul and will ultimately resume that interrupted existence, what value, ethical or otherwise, can be attached to that bondage of manhood which was thrust upon the soul (or was it voluntarily a.s.sumed?)? This part of deity called individual soul certainly cannot be improved by its human conditions; and the question is not-"How soon can I pa.s.s through this slough of despond," but, "why was I thrust into it at all? Was it a mere sacred whim (_tiruvileiadal_) of Brahm?"

Moreover this view of human "self," or soul, carries one out too far into the sea of transcendental metaphysics to be of any practical use, religiously. We know something of man-this strange compound of soul and body-and we are deeply interested in his history and destiny; the more deeply because we are included in this category.

But who knows of the eternal soul-that part of the absolute-separate from human conditions and apart from all experiences of men? Is it not simply the dream of the philosopher, a convenient a.s.sumption to satisfy the needs of an impractical ontology? To magnify the soul apart from human life, and to interpret human life as the self's lowest degradation and something which is to be shaken off as quickly as possible, can hardly be sound philosophy, and is certainly bad theology. It simply reduces this life into an irremedial evil, with no moral significance or spiritual value.

This leads us to the second point of contrast:-

2. Their Ultimate Aim or Goal.

What do these two religions promise to do for those who embrace them? The work which Christianity proposes to itself is difficult and glorious. It takes fallen, sin-sodden, man and leads him out into a new life of holiness; it opens out to him a long and broad vista of life with an ever-enlarging, blissful, activity. Christ said that He came into the world that men might have life and have it abundantly. He came not only to save the lost but also to develop all the grand possibilities of the soul to their utmost, and to launch the human bark upon a voyage of everlasting life, which means unceasing growth in all its n.o.blest qualities, activities and enjoyments.

Hindu philosophy and faith, on the other hand, unite in commanding that human endowments be starved, qualities suppressed, activity of all kinds stayed, ambition and every other desire, even the n.o.blest and purest, quenched. All the essential elements of life itself are to be mortified that the soul may, unhampered by its own entanglement, reach that consummation which is supposed to be final. And what is it? Who can tell?

The Aryan philosopher himself stands mute in its presence. All that we can predicate of it is not life and happiness, according to any standard of human experience known or imagined. The idea that the individual soul will finally sink into and blend with the Absolute Being as a drop of water returns to and mingles with its mother ocean may seem plausible to the philosopher; but of such an hypothetical existence we know absolutely nothing and can expect nothing that would inspire hope and kindle ambition.

In Hinduism there are heavens many and not a few h.e.l.ls. But unlike the places of reward and punishment connected with Christianity, they represent nothing final. They are more like the purgatory of the Catholics, and represent only steps in the progress of the soul towards emanc.i.p.ation.

Concerning the general view of human life, its import and outcome, the two faiths are antipodal. Christianity is brightly optimistic. The future of every Christian is to be as the sun s.h.i.+ning more and more until the perfect day. Unceasing progress and eternal expansion are held out before him. His is an heritage that will abide and will resound in an ever increasing anthem of praise throughout time and eternity. Nothing can occur hereafter to rob him of that crown of glory which is the gift of G.o.d and which is to result in likeness to Him.

Hinduism, on the other hand, is essentially pessimistic. It teaches that human life is totally and irremediably evil. Every power of the soul must be exercised in the endeavour to shake off this terrible burden of separate human existence and escape all the conditions of this life. That is the only relief possible. To the Hindu the question so often discussed in Christian lands-"Is life worth living?"-has no interest, since it has but one answer possible. And even if the Indian sage forgets his present conditions and pessimism long enough to gaze down the long and dismal vista of numberless births to the final consummation (_Sayujya_)-the final union with G.o.d-he finds in that nothing which the Christian does not discover in tenfold richness and beauty in the Bible. To be partaker of the Divine Nature is a blessed reality to the Christian without his forfeiting, in the least, the dignity of self-ident.i.ty and the glory of separate personal consciousness. To have the "life hid with Christ in G.o.d"; to be able triumphantly to exclaim-"I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"; to experience the blessedness and power of abiding in Christ and to realize the answer to Christ's own prayer to the Father-"that they also may be in us"-all this is the joy and hope of the Christian in a manner and to a degree utterly impossible to the Hindu whose union with the supreme spirit is the loss and end of self, including all those faculties which are capable of enjoyment.

Looking from another standpoint, we perceive that the aim of the religion of Christ is the banis.h.i.+ng of sin from the life and the establis.h.i.+ng of character. Sin is the dark background of Christianity. It explains its origin and reveals its universality. Its whole concern is with the emanc.i.p.ation of man from the presence and power of sin. To the Vedantin, on the other hand, sin, in the Christian sense of it, is an impossibility.

Where G.o.d is all and all is G.o.d there can be no separate will to antagonize the divine will. Monism necessarily, in the last a.n.a.lysis, carries every act and motive back to the supreme Will and establishes an all-inclusive necessitarianism which is fatal to human freedom; and it therefore excludes sin as an act of rebellion against G.o.d. Much is made of sin, so called, in the Hindu system, as we shall presently see; but nowhere is more care needed than here that we may distinguish between ideas conveyed by this word in these two faiths. In Christianity the ethical character of sin is emphasized. It is described as a thing of moral obliquity and spiritual darkness. According to the Upanishads the only defect of man is an intellectual one. He is in bondage to ignorance.

Plato made ignorance the chief source of moral evil and proposed philosophy as a remedy for the malady. The Vedantin differs from the Greek philosopher only in his more absolute condemnation of (_avidya_) ignorance as the mother of all human ills. Remove this-let a man attain unto a true knowledge of self, of the fact that he has no _real_ separate existence and is one with the Supreme Soul-and he becomes thereby qualified for his emanc.i.p.ation and ends his long cycle of births. Moreover, in the polytheism of the Puranas and in the laws and customs of Manu sin generally means only ceremonial defilement and the violation of customs and usages.

Hinduism, therefore, has never addressed itself to the task of helping man as a _sinner_-of regenerating his heart, of establis.h.i.+ng within him that beautiful thing known in Christian lands and philosophies as a well rounded, symmetrical and perfect character. For many reasons and in many ways it has aimed at a very different consummation in man from that consistently sought by Christ and His religion.

3. The Agency and Means Recognized and Appealed to by those Faiths Respectively.

By what power and instrumentality are the above ends to be sought and attained? They will be, doubtless, quite as divergent as the aims themselves were found to be.

In Christianity G.o.d Himself is the agent who works out its scheme of salvation. He entered, through infinite condescension, into human life and relations in the Incarnation. He wrought, in the days of His flesh, the redemption of our race-a work which finds its climax in His atoning death.

In the person of the Holy Spirit He is working and bringing to full fruition, in the hearts and lives of men, the redemption which He wrought.

Into this, man enters not as an efficient cause of his own redemption. He cannot atone for his past, nor has he the a.s.surance within himself for the future. Hence the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit of G.o.d which becomes in him a source of peace, of power and of hope. Yet, in this divine work, man is neither pa.s.sive nor apathetic. In the exercise of saving faith he not only appropriates the works and gifts of G.o.d but also enters into full and active harmony and cooperation with G.o.d in his own regeneration and salvation. So that the Apostle Paul aptly urges the Philippian Christians (Phil. 2:12) to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is G.o.d which worketh in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

How different is the picture presented to us by the Hindu Shastras of the means of human redemption-a picture, however, consonant with the aims which they have set before themselves to accomplish for man. The first and all-present fact of this faith is the terrible loneliness and isolation of man in the great struggle of life. His destiny is in his own hands, and he must fight single-handed against a thousand odds in the awful battle for emanc.i.p.ation.

_Karma_ is the word used to express this thought which has possessed the Hindu mind from the earliest days to the present. This word may be translated "works," and means the acts by which the soul determines its own destiny. In Vedic times the all-powerful works were sacrifice and ritual. In the Upanishads they are meditation and self-mortification.

Today they are ceremonial, with works of charity, self-renunciation or religious mendicancy generally added.

In pre-Buddhistic days sacrifice abounded in Brahmanism; and it grew to such proportions that the revolt headed by Gautama and incarnated in Buddhism became universal. But vicariousness was largely wanting as an element in, and as a cause of, their sacrifices. They were rather offered with a view to nourish the G.o.ds and as a means of acquiring power. He who sacrificed a hundred horses was said to gain thereby even larger power than Indra himself possessed-a power which enabled him to dethrone this G.o.d of the heavens. Such was the power said to inhere in sacrifice that the G.o.ds themselves combined to prevent men from the practice lest they should rise to larger power than themselves! With the triumph and subsequent absorption of Buddhism into Brahmanism the latter abandoned its sacrifices and accepted the Buddhistic emphasis upon _Karma_, and doomed every soul to the tread-mill of its own destiny. To every human word, deed or thought, however insignificant, there is fruit which must be eaten by the soul.

It is claimed for this doctrine that it well emphasizes the conservation of moral force. Christianity also conserves, to the last, moral force; not however by insisting upon man bearing himself the whole burden, but by enabling him to cast the burden upon the Lord who graciously offers to bear the load of human guilt belonging to every soul.

Another word in India which is synonymous with large power and merit is _Yoga_. It is inculcated in the _Yoga_ philosophy and is supposed to stand for a high mental discipline which speedily qualifies one for absorption into the Deity. It is manifested in the form of abstract meditation and austerity-an austerity embodied in asceticism and self-mortification. From early times this method has been held high in honour, and today is universally esteemed as the most powerful and speedy boat wherewith to cross the sullen stream of human existence. The grand object of _Yoga_ is to teach how to concentrate the mind-an object based upon the idea that the great and sole need of man is not moral and spiritual regeneration, but more light, _i.e._, a clear, intellectual apprehension of things. Not only is this basis of philosophy false in supposing that such intellectual gymnastics can finally exalt and save a soul, it is also radically defective in its general rules and practical results. No one who has studied the childish rules which are prescribed to the Yogis, or has observed in India many of even the better type of Yogis can fail to be impressed with the degradation to mind and morals which is indissolubly connected with it. Barth's observation on the processes of _Yoga_ is eminently true. "Conscientiously observed," he says, "they can only issue in folly and idiocy; and it is, in fact, under the image of a fool or an idiot that the wise man is often delineated for us in the _Puranas_ for instance."(9)

Meditation upon the Divine Being and upon self is a supreme duty inculcated by Christianity. Here G.o.d is a Personality upon whom the mind can be centred and find rest and exaltation. The self also is conceived as a being with a separate and infinitely high destiny marked out before it.

Concentrated thought, deep emotion and lofty purpose, in view of these objects, is supremely profitable. But what is there left worthy of thought for the Vedantist _Yogi_ when the Divine Being is the unknowable and the Yogi himself the deluded child of (_Maya_) illusion and (_avidya_) ignorance-those twin enemies to all true and worthy knowledge? It cannot be elevating to detach the mind from things worldly and attach it to nothing!

Incarnation, as we have seen above, has in later times become a popular doctrine in India. The _avatars_ ("descents") of members of the Hindu pantheon, especially of Vishnu, the second member of the Triad, wield a large influence in the religious life of the ma.s.ses. Yet the doctrines should, by no means, be regarded as identical or even similar in Hinduism and Christianity. It should be remembered that in Hinduism it is believed and magnified by those who also hold the law of _Karma_ as supreme. There is hardly a Vaishnavite and Krishnaolater who does not believe firmly that his destiny is writ large upon his forehead-that nothing that this or any G.o.d may do can affect his _adrishta_ which is that felt but unseen power working out the _Karma vivaka_, or fruition of works, done by him in former births. This belief directly antagonizes incarnation from the Christian standpoint, where it appears as G.o.d's mighty instrument of grace to man. Not so from the Hindu standpoint. The incarnations of Vishnu are referred to in their _Shastras_ "as consequences of deeds which the G.o.d himself had performed. One was the fruit of sins he had committed; another of a curse which had been p.r.o.nounced upon him." And yet they are doubtless frequently referred to as undertaken with a view to benefit and help our race. If such was their intention it is difficult to see how that benefit could be any other than racial and temporary; for there is no intimation in any of them of its being a means for the spiritual uplifting, or moral regeneration, of one human soul.