|
IX
What then are the common religious and philosophical ideas to which I have referred ?. As in the case of the terms " Civilization" and " Progress," so very varying and sometimes vague notions are held as to the meaning of the word " Religion." In its most fundamental sense Religion is the recognition that the world is an Order or Cosmos of which each man is a part and to which he stands in a definitely established relation; together with action based on and consistent with; such recognition and in harmony with the whole cosmic activity. The religious man is thus he who feels that he is bound in Varying ways to all being; just as the irreligious man is he who egoistically considers everything from the stand point of his limited self and its interests, without regard for his fellows or the world at large. The essentially irreligious character of such an attitude is shown by the fact that if it were adopted by all it would lead to the negation of Cosmos that is Chaos. For the same reason all religions are agreed in condemning selfishness and in holding that in its widest sense it is the root of all sin and crime (Adharma). These acts are wrong conduct on the part of the individual limited self (Jiva) productive of suffering. The Vedanta goes further, holding that all ignorant notion (Avidya) of such a self, whether issuing in good or bad action leading to happiness or pain, binds to the world of birth and death (Sangsara). According to the ideas here discussed this Order or Cosmos, that is existence according to Dharma the Universal Law, is not conceived as arbitrarily produced and governed by some merely extra-cosmic God. The order or Dharma is inherent in, and manifested by, all beings and denotes their true nature and qualities; in fact that which constitutes them what they are. Morality is the true nature of man. The general Dharma (Samanya Dharma) is thus the universal law, just as the particular Dharma (Vishesha Dharma) varies with, and is peculiar to, each class of being.
To this general concept the common faith of India adds others. The universe is held to be rooted in desire for enjoyment in the world of form; that is desire which seeks for itself the fruits of its actions. Desire manifests in action (Karma) which may be either good (Dharma) or bad (Adharma). Desire governed by Dharma is legitimate on the path of worldly enjoyment (Pravritti Marga). Man's three ends are then Law (Dharma) Desire (Kama) and the Means (Artha) by which lawful desires may be given Effect. These are known as the Trivarga of the Purushartha. But desire should be controlled lest it stray into sin: and so that man may become more and more the master of himself. Those who seek the fourth Purushartha or Liberation (Moksha) and are oh the path of Renunciation (Nivritta Marga) generally live lives of increasing asceticism. Both kinds of action bind the individual soul: (Jiva) to the world of forms: and necessarily so, because those souls which desire embodied life get it, whether its activity in such life be good or bad. But Whilst action with desire (Sakama Karma) whether good or bad binds to the universe of form which as such are the worlds of birth and death; yet there is this difference between the two that good action leads to happiness and bad action to suffering ; not merely, if at all, in this birth, but (since the soul survives physical death) in future states of happiness and suffering and in future births on earth. For, according -to views accepted throughout India, the soul is not born once only but many times both in the past and future; the conditions under which it manifests on earth being (according to the general law of cause or effect) the result of actions (Karma) of previous births; just as present actions are-the cause of conditions in future births. These multiple reincarnations are called Sangsara or " Wandering " in the Worlds of birth and death. The law of Karma is the law of auction according to which man has made himself what he is and makes himself what he will be ; being thus the master of his destiny in the Sangsara and having the power to transcend it. The world, as being limited, is transitory and liable to suffering. There is however a state of Eternal blissful unchanging Peace beyond all words and understanding called Libertion or Moksha or Nirvana, which is own as the fourth end and aim of man (Purushartha). This can be realised by the practice of morality, acquisition of purity of mind through spiritual discipline (Sadhana) and by direct knowledge Aparoksha Jnana). There is thus a moral law (Dharma) which, in its essentials, is the "me as that held by all other peoples. Man is enjoined to follow that law; the sanction of morality being ensuing sorrow happiness and the necessity of right action as a preliminary condition of direct and Eternal Spiritual Experience. (Moksha) the universe thus exists for a moral purpose, namely as providing a field upon which man suffers and enjoys the fruit of his actions and wherein man may attain his supreme end which is liberation from the suffering worlds of form (Moksha) and thus the attainment of eternal Bliss. True civilization consists in the upholding of Dharma as the individual and general good and the fostering of spiritual progress so that, with justice to all beings, the immediate and ultimate ends of Humanity may be attained.
The aforegoing statement very shortly expresses the General Indian Religion or Bhârata Dharma. Excluding Religions foreign to India such as the Semitic Mahomedanism, and Christianity, and Persian Zoroastrianism, the three chief Branches of Indian Religion are Brahm-anism or "Hinduism" (to use a popular term) Buddhism (now practically displaced, except- through its influence, in the land of its birth) and Jainism. As Professor Rhys Davids has said "Gautama's whole training Was Brahmanical. Buddhism is the product of Hinduism. He probably deemed himself to be the most perfect exponent of the spirit as distinct from the letter of the ancient faith." He was a Yogi who taught the principles of the Janakanda; given to meditation, laying Stress on the destruction of the thirst for worldly things and on compassion (Karuna) for all beings, just as Krishna does in the Bhagavadgita. It is noteworthy here that he is an incarnation (Avatara) of the Hindu Religion and that his Avatara succeeds that of Shri Krishna. He taught Dharma, Karma, Sangsara, deliverance from Avidya in Nirvana, practised Dhyana and experienced Samadhi. Buddhism is not, as this Professor says, atheistic; though possibly owing to the later developments of Buddhism which Shangkaracharyya combated, his Avatara was said in Puranic limes to have been for the purpose of Misleading and destroying men. Nor is Jainism " atheistic." Its first Tirthankara Rishabdeva is said in the Bhagavata Parana to have been an Avatara of Vishnu;"and the 22nd Arhat of the Jainas, Shri Neminatha is, I am told, described as a cousin of Shri Krishna. As regards the Jainas and the Vedanta I may refer my readers to the address of the President-elect of the Syadvad Jaina Mahamandala in December 1903.
The General Indian Religion or Bhârata Dharma is the doctrine and practice upon which all these three brandies are agreed that is the Doctrines of Dharma, Karma, Sangsara, Purushartha, Pravritti, and Nivritti Marga and their implications above stated, as also what Mr. Archer calls "Asceticism" and "Pessimism," the true meaning of which however is stated later.
The divisions of the general Bhârata Dharma as Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Jainism have other doctrines and practices peculiar to themselves and are each (particularly the first) subdivided again into various Schools and Sects with peculiarities of their own. As it is not possible to speak in terms of all these varieties of Indian belief I write from the standpoint of those worshippers of the Brahmanical Braneh of the Bhârata Dharma who are Shaktas. Like all other Indian Schools they accept the common principles of the Bhârata Dharma and present on this basis a particular version of the monistic (Advaitavada) Vedanta of the Brahmanical branch of the Bhârata Dharma.
Though Mr. Archer's understanding of the subject is incorrect he has rightly seized upon Karma, Reincarnation or Sangsara and the theories and practices which he balls " Pessimism " and " Asceticism" as fundamental doctrines of the general Indian religion; though he of course adds that " they are not symptoms of high spirituality or idealism in the people which has evolved and lived upon them." To refute all his statements on these matters, this short essay would not suffice. I am only here Poncerned (and that only in a very general way) with the notion that these doctrines and practices are the cause of the generally " barbarous " condition of the country; that they are not the foundations of a " pure or oral" religion; and that they Have so moulded the Indian mind for evil that
before this country can be admitted into the circle of independent peoples it must throw over these principles and adopt something more wholesome and rational in their stead. For owing to these doctrines and the Vedanta the Indian people are said to lack will-power, to be deficient in energetic dominant personality ; to be without desire and power to " progress;" to have a weak grip on life which is deemed of no value; to be dreamers holding the world to be unreal and cowardly fugitives from it.
Philosophically speaking the charge of " Pessimism " amounts to this. The Hindu, like the true Christian, says that the world is a passing thing and still more so is his life therein. However fortunate that life may be for a few, it is for the body of men mingled with suffering. For some it is practically little but suffering. Therefore perfect lasting happiness cannot be had in the world. Both of these are obvious facts of present experience. But all men seek happiness. Some Westerns in modern times have thought that it is possible to abolish unhappiness, sin, crime, and disease and to make the world an Earthly Paradise. May it be so. The Hindu believes that in the recurring cycles of time there is a perfect age or Satya Yuga along with imperfect and evil ages. But he (whether rightly or wrongly) does not believe it to be possible that the world can be made perfect as regards all beings at one and the same time for all the length of its existence. And if it could, he asks what then ? For he denies that any form of material or intellectual happiness can suffice to stay man's longing for that Eternal state of Bliss which is his true inner nature and is theologically called God. If this be Pessimism then all the great religions are pessimist. But he is also like the Christian optimistic. For both say that there is a release from suffering and an Eternal Peace. It is true that in the degree that Europe has become " modern " and " progressive" it has ceased to be Christian, either in the Church sense, or in that of Christ himself whose Yoga doctrines taught that true and lasting Bliss is only to be had in the union of the world in his Christ-Nature and of both in the "Father." In truth much of this Europe is not honest with itself and is not Christian at all, how ever much it may use the name. Nevertheless it has never been said that Europe was pessimistic until it took to these new ideas within the last half century. England in particular was once called "Merry England." But when? Before the "Reformation " when the ideas which Hindus hold in this matters, as also as regards "Asceticism," were fully dominant. But there is in fact a great deal of sadness in India. Any people who are inherently great and have achieved much but have fallen and are subject to foreign rule must be sad. If they were not they would be ignoble. And then they are materially miserable through poverty and disease. Probably few English readers are aware that as I write this there are over 30,000 deaths a week from plague and over 10,000 deaths from malaria, not to count other diseases, such as diabetes and consumption which is in the towns commencing its ravages. We speak of the mortality on the battle front. But what of this ? Again the country is very very poor. A large part of it never know what it is to be sufficiently fed. Everywhere there is a lack of food. Though it is of course possible that there is a strain of melancholy native-to the Indian as to other highly sensitive peoples, it is to the material circumstances we must first look rather than to philosophical theories of " Pessimism." Literary men moreover are often apt to take " bookish " views " Pessimistic " utterances are to be found in both Indian and Christian literature. They do not necessarily represent the outlook of all the persons whose race has produced them. The Catholic Liturgy speaks of man weeping and wailing in this " Vale of Tears " as it calls the world; a pessimistic utterance if there ever was one. Nevertheless one may see in the Churches prosperous sleek men and worldly women reciting these words about the " Vale of tears" and then going home to enjoy life thoroughly; commencing with a Sunday lunch with the customary round, or sirloin of beef, horse-radish sauce and Yorkshire pudding. Whatever their Scriptures may say, they find the " Vale of Tears " to be a happy one which they are loathe to leave. Death sorely tests the sincerity of those who hymn their desire to meet their God. Many would defer this visit. There is not the same amount of material happiness in India. But many doubtless are not too greatly depressed by the melancholy sayings of their Scriptures if they know of them. The vital impulse is nearly always everywhere insurgent in some degree against these sad reflections. As a matter of fact Hindus hold that the world is a duality (Dvanda) of both good and evil. When it is spoken of as evil, this is relative to heavenly and eternal bliss. If the evil aspect of the universe is sometimes emphasized it as with the view to stimulate man towards sustained effort to win his ultimate end and not to tarry on a way fraught with dangers.
Mr. Archer then demands whether there is any token of spiritual genius in "Asceticism." That depends of course on our point of view. It does not accord with his theory that India should learn to " want more wants;" nor Where it is adopted will commercialism do " big -business." Most will agree, in theory at least, that desires should be controlled because, without some restraint, the strength of natural passion is like to lead to sin and crime particularly when we fan the flame of desire by " wanting more wants." Ordinarily however Asceticism is understood rather as referring to more rigorous control amounting to austerity (Tapas) positive self denial, and mortification of the flesh ; sometimes associated with the notion that the carnal and material world is evil. As regards the last the world is what we make it, as the old Buddhist Krishnacharyyapada said. The nature of Asceticism varies according to the degree of its practice and the reason for it. Hinduism requires a certain amount of Asceticism even for those living in the world, such as occasional fasting, just as the Catholic Church does. Neither are excessive. Those however upon the path of renunciation are naturally given to stricter, though not irrational, Asceticism, whilst some (such as a class of Hathayogls and others) have pushed their practices to great extremes. The same happened in the West in the early days of Christianity and the Catholic middle ages. Professor Hopkins the American Orientalist, who writes superciliously of Indian religion says that Asceticism is not part of Christianity.. This extraordinary statement about what I suppose is his own religion, or which at any rate ought to be known to him, is a gauge of the value of his opinions on the religions of India. Jesus has said in His Yoga doctrine that men should leave all, follow him and take up the cross of self denial. So far from " wanting more wants they are not to lay up the treasure " which moth and worm corrupt;" they are not to save for the morrow, but to be " as the lilies of the field ; who toil not neither do they spin." And so we find hundreds of men and women, who in the belief that they were following Him, abandoned the world and practised extreme austerity; Simon Stylites standing oh a pillar, Hein-rich Suzo torturing himself throughout the years, Joseph Labre keeping himself dirty and verminous, and the Blessed Lidwine of Schiedam drinking the water mixed with blood, pus, and scales of skin with which she had washed the limbs of lepers and other suffering diseased. In all this exaggeration one can discover the usual western coarsening of the teachings of Jesus. Mr. Archer brings up "the filthy and disgusting creatures daubed with ashes" and so forth. As a matter of fact most of these are quite clean, the ashes being applied after the morning bath. Some classes of religious mendicants seem to outward view dirty; and a number of persons exhibit a doubtful, when not fraudulent, "Asceticism" for ha'pence. Some are truly spiritual men. Mr. Archer misunderstands the doctrine of detachment when he says it is not profound at all (what Indian doctrine is so to him ?), but "merely the exaggeration of a common and somewhat pussillanimous rule of prurience which is " anti-social" "incompatible with rational ethics" "hedging against destiny" and the like. As in so many other matters he is here beyond his depth. Detachment does not necessarily mean remaining away from the world but is compatible with every action therein, including all forms of social service. It means that what is done is so accomplished without selfish purpose and not for the fruit. A man who does good because it will be advertised, because he will profit by it, because he will get social credit, or because he will go to heaven is not superior to him who does all this detachedly for goods sake and without hope of gain for himself. Even those who, like the western monk, leave the world do so because of their dispassion (Vairagya) and not because-according to a Western notion and in Bookmakers language they are "hedging" on anything. Seeing that men are of varying worth and animated by various motives it would be hazardous to deny that some of these may have been actuated by fear of the world or other weak motive. When all is said the instances of true and rigorous Asceticism anywhere are rare. Man is so prone to pleasure and fearful of pain that we need not worry ourselves over the thought that the world is in danger from asceticism. It was never less so than in the present age. Let us however encourage the simplification of life even at the cost of running counter to the traders philosophy. Let us look at the matter broadly and freely and then we shall see that as a matter of fact there is no religion which more justly and logically balances the claims of the life of the world and the life of spirit as does Hinduism. Its principles are opposed to all false Asceticism. This is seen in the Purushartha, the Ashramas, and the distinction of life upon the two paths of enjoyment (Pravritti Marga) and renuncia tion (Nivritti Marga). The Trivarga of the first are Morality (Dharma) moral desire (Kama) and the means (Artha), namely wealth and so forth, by which lawful desires may be lawfully realized. Man in the world is encouraged to seek all these. In the first two Ashramas life was lived as the continent student (Brahmacharyya) and as the married householder (Grihastha). Save rare exceptions all were called upon to marry. The fourth Purushartha is Liberation (Moksha) to which man is exclusively bent in the subsequent forest life (Vanaprastha) and as the mendicant (Bhikshu), who, without ought of his own, sought union with the Source of all. In the first two stages man was on the path of enjoyment; that is lawful enjoyment worshipping God; in the last two when household duties were done and commencing old age wended to death, entry was made on the path of renunciation and union was sought not with Spirit as embodied in the universe but as transcending it. This was the round of life for all, except for a few highly developed souls who might enter the path of renunciation at once without first going through the stage of the householder. How supremely beautiful and balanced this ancient ideal was, none can know but those who have studied it and fathomed the profound principles on which it rested ; principles which harmonised the World and God in one whole. This glory has to-day largely passed like others. Nevertheless it remains a wonderful vision which only a truly civilized people could have seen and practised.
This blending of worldly life free from " asceticism " with its underlying Source is also profoundly effected in the Shakta consciousness of the unity of the Activity of Forms and of the Formless Peace from Whose Power (Shakti) they issue. As the Kularnava Tantra says, Yoga and worldly enjoyment are then one (Yogo bhogayate) and the world itself is made the seat of liberation (Mokshayate Sangsara). What modern western doctrine surpasses this in which man is taught that he need not flee the world for therein he may, in himself, harmonize the Ultimate Reality and Its Appearance ? - For such, one's country and one's family, and the whole world are but forms of the Mother-Power (Shakti) and service of them is service and worship of Her. This doctrine is a marvellous synthesis of the conflict between Spirit and Body. Then when all is realised as the Supreme Consciousness, desire therefor is burnt out. Without ascetic rigour it has passed away. The statement that Indian doctrine is "a flat negation of the value of life " is flat nonsense. Life is supremely valuable both as the finite expression of the Infinite Being from which it comes and as affording the opportunity (the only one) through which man may reach It. Over and over again the Scriptures speak of the value of human birth which is so hard to get (Durlabha) and which man has only attained after millions of births of upward striving. Constantly does it warn him to avail himself of this opportunity to work himself higher, for otherwise he becomes a "self-killer." Life has value both in itself and as the stairs Sopana) up which man mounts to his end.
It is therefore of course real. Like many critics of Indian beliefs Mr. Archer talks foolishly of Reality. The Indian (we are told) does not believe in the " reality of the world." In fact he is said to be only artistic at the cost of the betrayal of the principles for which India stands. Mr. Archer apparently therefore thinks it would be dangerous to trust the Hindu with so real a thing. He might not take it seriously to the danger of himself and others-Through his " fatalistic " doctrine of Karma he would not have the will to set things right; and his "asceticism" and " pessimism" might tell him not to bother himself any further with the matter. Is it necessary to say that the world produces the same sense of. reality in an Indian mind as it does in. any other? And Indian philosophers too notwithstanding their "enervating meta-physic " give common sense their support. Of the three standards Nyaya-vaisheshikai Sankhya, and Vedanta, the first two expressly contend for the reality of the world. But it is also " real" in the Vedantic schools, in one of which only (the so-called Mayavada Vedanta) we hear speak of the " unreal " world. But in what sense ?
The term "real" must be understood according to its definition. Whilst to others a thing may be real although it changes, in this form of Vedanta the truly real is that which was, which is, and which will be, changeless in all these " three times." And this is God only, " as it was in the beginning as it is, and as it ever will be world without end," to borrow Christian parlance. When therefore it says that the world is not "real" it means in this sense; but not in any other. It is real to us whilst it lasts and its material cause or Maya Shakti is an unexplainable (Anirvachaniya) mystery which, whilst not real, is also not unreal. The Western also admits that some day this universe must pass. Shangkara the great Vedantic doctor of this school expressly refutes the idealism of those Buddhists who were alleged to deny the reality of the objective world, saying (as he does) that the outside world is everywhit as real as the inner mind which perceives it. Both are the creation of the Lord (Ishvara) and exist as a real parallelism on our plane and as an apparent dichotomy of that supreme Consciousness in which there is neither without nor within. It is doubtless said that the world is a " Dream " : but to whom ? Not to man in the waking state, but to the Lord, the projection of whose Consciousness as Divine Imagination (Srishtikalpana) it is. But no school is so philosophically fallacious as to hold that there can be an object without there being some Consciousness to perceive it.
Lastly there are the doctrines of Karma and Sangsara, which missionaries commonly regard as their greatest obstacle in the way of the Christianisation of India and which Mr. Archer has discovered to be also a political obstacle. Other English writers with solicitude for the welfare of this country also deplore the alleged ill-effects of the doctrines of Indian philosophy on the Indian people; and some few of the latter, re-echo these lamentations. These doctrines are said to be one of the causes of the enfeeblement of will, absence of energy and disinclination for " progress" which stands in the way of the full application of the principles of Western political " Liberalism" which appears to be Mr. Archer's creed.
The doctrines are, it seems, a chief cause of their indolent notion that " life is a shoreless expanse in which generations rise and fall as helplessly and purposelessly as waves in mid ocean, the individual life being everywhere dwarfed and depreciated" to cite Mr. Archer's words. Moreover the acceptance of these doctrines is one of those things which convince him that India is not spiritual. These theories he says are "shallow" and the second in particular is " an untutored savage fancy borrowed probably from aboriginal tribes." " The theory is an empty one and there is little proof of spiritual genius in having evolved it (the aboriginal authorship is momentarily forgotten) and still less in having clung to it for three thousand years." This implies some considerable obstinacy in the Indian people. I am sure of this, that they would only be too glad if the doctrine could be shown to be untrue, for the thinking and spiritually minded among them have a horror of repeated birth in the suffering worlds. What however they would say is :— " Show and prove to me any truer doctrine than mine." Their reason compels them to reject the theories which Christianity or other creeds and persons offer them. Nor, Whether their theory be right or wrong, are they foolish in this refusal. The philosopher Haume, and if I remember rightly Cudworth also, considered the re-incarnation doctrine the most rational theory of immortality. For is Professor William Knight wrote " Pre-existence (a doctrine which assumes several forms) has fewer difficulties to face than the rival hypotheses." I am not here concerned to establish its truth, or to refute the errors of Mr. Archer and others as regards it. It may be admitted that it has its difficulties. And what theory has not ? Indians whose doctrines are criticised would do well if they asked their critics to state their own theories first, in which case it may be found that they involve still greater difficulties. Cardinal Newman, an admittedly subtle mind, said in his Apologia that there was not a Christian dogma which was not infested with intellectual difficulties, and that speaking for himself he could not solve any of them. Theories with such abundance of difficulty cannot, it will be said, be rational. It may seem, even to those who are not its -adherents, certain that there is a deep truth underlying this doctrine, whether or not its Indian form of Karma and Sangsara fully, and in every respect, correctly expresses it. Further it is obvious to any impartial thinker that from the point of view of reason there are less difficulties in the Indian doctrine than in any other. But whether the theories are true or not they are certainly not "shallow." Professor William Knight says that "if we could legitimately determine any question of belief by the number of its adherents the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus would apply to metempsychosis more fully than to any other." Once practically the whole civilized world embraced it, as the greater number (nearly two-thirds) of the Earth's peoples now do. It has been known since the dawn of history and has been held by both primitive peoples and the highly learned. Whilst the doctrine seems to be a native and ineradicable growth of the oriental world, it appears since the spread of Christianity rather as scattered instances in the Western world. It is said to have been held by the ancient Egyptians, (though this is disputed) by some of the Greeks notably by Empedocles, Pythagoras, Plato and the Neoplato-piists, and was taught in the Mysteries; it was also held by some of the Latins, and by the Gauls, the Druids, and followers of the Edda. It occurs in primitive Christianity ; such as (to take a notable instance) in Origen. In fact some contend that the Christian Gospels when rightly interpreted assume it. (See " Reincarnation in the new Testament" by J. M. Pryse). It appears sporadically again in Europe in the Middle Ages. What however resisted this belief was the Semitic Judaism (I do not speak of the Kabbalists) and its two Semitic offshoots, Christianity and Mohamedanism. Christianity an (historically) aggressive and persecuting religion either largely drove it out of Europe or prevented its adoption there. Mohammedanism worked with the same effect in those parts of Asia which underwent its influence. Nevertheless in Europe the doctrine has never entirely disappeared and in recent times has gained a number of adherents. Those who are unaware of the extent to which the re-incarnation doctrine has received approval or adoption from Western thinkers should read Mr. E. D. Walker's book on "Reincarnation;" itself based on the larger standard treatise of the Revd. W. R. Alger, " A critical history of the doctrine of a future life." Amongst those who have held or written favourably of this " shallow " theory may be counted the grand Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno burnt alive by the Church as a heretic; the German philosophers, Schelling, Fichte (younger) Leibnitz, Schopenhauer, and the great poets and writers Goethe, Herder, Lessing; the English Christian Platonist Dr. Henry More and others ; and the philosophers Cudworth and Hume ; the French and English scientists Flammarion, Figuier, Brewster; and the Modern Christian Theologians Julius Muller, Dorner, Ernesti, Ruckert, Edward Beecher and W. R. Alger. There are many others whose names may be found in the works cited as also large numbers of poets, the Seers of their race. A recent work is that of the metaphysician Professor McTaggart who in his Essay on Pre-Existence argues that the Immortality of the Soul involves its pre-existence. The case of the Revd. W. R. Alger is remarkable. In the first Edition of his Work (1860) he characterised the theory as a "plausible delusion unworthy of credence." But after fifteen years of study he, though starting with this uufavourable conclusion and with all the natural prepossessions of a Christian clergyman, gave in the last edition (1878) the final result of his ripest investigations in endorsing and advocating the doctrine.
Mr. Archer's allegation of its " shallowness " is only one, amongst many, instances of the unreasoning prejudices with which he judges this country's beliefs. Not to mention other great names, let us take that of the world-renowned Buddha only.. Neither he nor they were " untutored savages" or shallow thinkers which they must have been if they adopted and preached what was in fact a "shallow" theory.
Neither however this nor some other Western critics understand these doctrines : since they have not sufficiently studied the principles on which they rest. For the Karma doctrine is distinctly metaphysical. It is not a mere empirical generalization but has a strong rational basis. It is not to be identified as some Western writers do with the physical law of causality. The gist of the criticisms made is that it is opposed to the freedom of the will and to morality. Both these statements are as wrong as any can be.
All Western Idealists, as does Brahma-nism, posit a Self unchanged in the midst of Its changing experiences. Therefore the Kartta (Doer) the Karma (action done) and the fruit or result of the action (Phala) must be distinguished. Karma being distinct from the Kartta cannot dominate the latter. That is the Self is not co-ordinate with, but distinguished from, the action it determines. We may compare in this connection Kant's distinction between what the calls the Intelligible and Empirical characters. The Self is in fact according To Indian notions as free as it is according to Western Indeterminism. To talk as some do of the " inexorable " or " fatalistic" raw of Karma, as though it reduced man
to a machine, is to have misunderstood the elements of the subject. All Indian schools admit the possibility of liberation. If Karma were inexorable how could it be possible to gain liberation? Liberation is thus the proof of man's essential freedom. What however the doctrine says is that when man does an action he must take the consequences (Phala) of it and this whether he remembers it or not. Lack of knowledge or memory, for instance, of an injury suffered by a child at the moment of birth does not prevent the consequences of injury ensuing. If through precedent actions our present condition is unfavourable, we are called upon to make good Karma to maintain our moral state and lay the seed of future good conditions. And though this may be in cases difficult owing to the load of evil results we carry, it is not impossible ; for the Self which performs the action remains always free. In the same way it is said in Christianity that however unfortunate be the conditions in which, according to* this theory, a man is placed at birth, through no antecedent action of his own, he has yet sufficient free will to surmount by its exercise all temptations. So far than from Karma being fatalistic it is the doctrine according to which man is master of his destiny. He has made himself what he is and makes himself what he will be, notwithstanding unfortunate conditions which are due to his previous actions and which, according to the Christian theory, have no cause but the arbitrary, and in its result, (as the Hindu would say) unjust will of God.
Leaving this point, it is sometimes said that the ethics of the Karma doctrine fail to draw that vital distinction which exists-between good and bad action. This also is quite wrong. Wholly unselfish good action (Nishkama Karma) does not bind, and with true spiritual knowledge leads to liberation. Selfish, though good, action, that is action done with desire for fruit (Sakama Karma) leads to happiness in this world and in Heaven. Action which is both selfish and bad leads to suffering in this world and in Hell. There is thus the most emphatic distinction between all three. What Hinduism says is that liberation from the world cannot be had, even by good actions, if done with the desire to get benefit for oneself in the world. How can a man be free of the world who binds himself by his desires to it ? As long as man has any selfish, even though legitimate desire he cannot attain the highest state. It has been also charged that there is no room in the doctrine for social service and philanthropy. This is possibly based on an erroneous interpretation by some Indians who, like some Christians, are ignorant of the true meaning of their Scripture. Thus it is said that it is no use to alleviate the lot of a suffering man because he is working out his Karma and this would be to interfere with the operation of Karma. But how does the objector know this ? Is he the Dispenser of Fruits so as to know what has been awarded? Because a man's bad Karma has brought upon him suffering, it does not follow that it is to be unmitigated suffering. It in fact may be his Karma to suffer subject to certain relief. Moreover, and this is the principal point, a man who refuses help to others, whether for such. reasons or otherwise, stores up bad Karma for himself. Instead therefore of putting forward futile objections let him devote himself to social service and philanthropy. The principles of the Vedanta which accepts the Karma doctrine require this; or he who serves another serves the Self. The Vedanta gives the most profoundly assed reasons for all charity and brotherli-ness. Dealing with this absurd charge that the Vedanta is defective in morals Dr. Deussen says " the fact is nevertheless that the highest and purest morality is the immediate consequence of the Vedanta. The Gospels fix quite correctly as the highest law of morality ' Love your neighhour as yourself.' But why should I do so, since by the order of nature I feel pain and pleasure only in myself and not in my Neighbour ? The answer is not in the Bible but it is in the Veda in the great formula
'That thou art' (Tat tvam asi) which gives, in three words, metaphysics and morals together." So it is said Paropakaro hi paromo dharmah (" To do good to others is the highest religion.") It is true that in Hinduism as in Catholicism numbers have left the world. Perhaps, as an Indian friend of mine has said, it was Shangkara-charyya who gave a predominantly ascetic and other-worldly character to conduct, wishing by his Maths to preserve the teaching of Hinduism against the incoming Moslems. I think we may go further back and find the cause in Buddhism which stressed one side of that which is more balanced in Brahmanism. For my part I do not admit that the true Indian recluse or the true Catholic Monk or Nun are useless. The objection is too materialistic. All humanity is raised in their persons which shed a spiritual influence upon the striving world around them. Nevertheless there is nothing antisocial in the Vedanta as such, nor in the Gita the "cream of the Upanishads" which teaches the doctrine of selfless action in the world. So too the essentially practical Shakta version of Vedanta holds that " the world is the seat of liberation." The truth is that this and other difficulties are largely " discovered" simply because those who raise them have wished to find them.
Let us now leave philosophy and look at the facts. Are the Indian people wholly inactive and without will or hope? What is this political movement in India which has roused Mr. Archer to write his book ?" What are the "social reform " movements which Mr. Archer and others approve ; some perhaps because activity is thus, in part at least, drawn off from what they think to be inconvenient political directions. What are the movements (retrograde as he and they would call them) manifested by the Brahmanism which still to his disgust " rears its head ?" What are the religious movements to restore and revivify Hindu religion which he calls " aggressive anti-rationalism," though Hinduism in its essentials is one of the most rational of religions?
Some will say that this activity is due to Christianity, others that it is due to Western secular influences. If so the Karma doctrine, in the case of those who still uphold it, has not stood in the way. But still more strange is it that long before Western influences were at work in this country, and for thousands of years, India has lived and now survives under the load of this supposed soul-deadening, will-weakening anti-social -doctrine of Karma and Sangsara and still obstinately (as Mr. Archer complains) "raises its head." Whence has it drawn the strength to do so ? Notwithstanding this alleged lack of volition it is evidently difficult to destroy Her resolution to be Herself. Another Western journalist has offered the " explanation " that " Hinduism has endured because it had failed." Others will think that it is not necessary to have recourse to senseless paradox, and that the attention of these writers has been given to " progress " in the common Western and material sense and even to hustle, fuss and self advertisement, rather than to the strong; silent will, and unobstrusive action, which have sustained this country throughout the ages. |
