|
X
Brahmanism which is to-day in India the most important branch of the Bhârata Dharma is based on Veda and is sub-divided into several sects who interpret the Vaidic texts in differing ways, worship God under particular aspects, and whose rituals in some respects vary. There are, as I have often elsewhere pointed out, matters of substantial agreement; nevertheless there are others of difference such as (for example) the identity or otherwise of the individual and supreme Spirit, with consequential differences as to the nature of the state of liberation (Moksha). Some of these differences hardly affect the question here discussed but there are others of importance in this matter, in so far as, whilst all forms of Hindu belief provide an answer to the criticisms which have been made against them, it may be contended (as I do) that the form I here shortly describe meets them more strongly and effectively than others.
India has appreciated, as one of her people has said, the "dignity of objective facts " and daily sensuous experience. She would have been very silly if she had not done so ; nor do such facts allow themselves to be ignored. But experience is not limited,according to Indian notions,to sense-experience. There is spiritual experience which is recorded in the Veda and which has been attained in varying degree by the spiritually wise. This as authority (Shabda Pramana) is the proof of supersensible (Atindriya) truths. These truths, though not attainable by the reason alone, are not inconsistent with it. For as man is made of a piece, what is irrational cannot be spiritually true. No country has placed greater reliance on reason than India has none. "A reasonable saying should be accepted even from a boy."
The Tantras of the Shakta agama accepting and based on the Vedantic texts teach identity of the individual (Jivatma) and Supreme Spirit (Paramatma) and proclaim that "All this (the world) is verily Brahman," though in a different manner from those who hold that the universe is Maya in the sense in which that term is used in the transcendental Paramarthika) section of Shangkara-charyya's interpretation of Vedanta. I have explained this and other technicalities elsewhere. Here I very shortly deal with the matter from its practical aspect as constituting the principles On which Indian civilization is based. For that civilization has a religious basis, vises a spiritual aim and organises society so that this end may be attained. For this reason it is necessary to enquire into matters which may seem alien to the subject to an English reader. Indian thought always touches the root of things.
According to Shakta teaching, the Universe is a manifestation of the Power (Shakti) of the Supreme Consciousness or Self which is theologically called Shiva "the good and auspicious" or God, who in His aspect of manifestation of Power is known as the Great Devi, or Divine Mother of all. The two are one. Conseiousness (Shaktiman) and Its power are one. They are twin aspects of the One: Shiva being the static changeless aspect of Spirit or consciousness and Shakti being the kinetic or changing aspect of Consciousness, in which it veils and negates Its infinity into finite forms. For creation is the negation (Nishedha vyapararupa Shaktih) or limitation of the infinite All (Puirna). The Infinite Consciousness thus finitises Itself. He and Her, or Consciousness and Its Power, as transcendentally resting in Themselves, (Svarupa-vishranti) are the Perfect or Ideal Universe, the formless state of" supremely blissful Love (niratishaya premas-padatvam, anandatvam) in which the Self experiences its Self (in Whom the whole universe is) as pure consciousness. Consciousness manifests through its Power, that is, It presents Itself to itself as the limited universe. This manifestation is due to the ripening in consciousness of the subconscious impressions (Sangskara) left by past experiences and which evolve into mind and matter of present worldly experience. This is the imperfect and finite universe of forms in which Shiva, without loss of His own natural and changeless Beatitude, enjoys and suffers as man and all other sentient being. God though of His own nature blissful, yet as and through man suffers and enjoys. Consciousness or Spirit involves Itself in. matter and then gradually evolves Itself therefrom. This process is the Evolution of forms through plant, animal and human bodies, which in greater and greater degree admit of the manifestation of Consciousness or the immanent Shiva. The difference between man and animal is not of kind but degree. But with man entrance is made into the world of conscious morality. Shiva is thus the Soul of the World and the world is Himself as Power (Shakti). Man who is spirit, mind and body is divine. He is divine not only as spirit but as mind and body. For these are divine power, there being none other. Man is a " little Brahma Spheroid" (Kshudra-brahmanda) that is, microcosm. Everything which is outside is within him. As the Vishvasara Tantra says : " What is here is there. What is not here is nowhere" ("Yadihasti tadanyatra Yannehasti natat kvachit). There is no need to throw ones eyes into the heavens to find God or Shiva. Man as spirit is God. Man as mind and body is the Power (Shakti) of God. Man is thus God and His Power. As God's power man and the universe are real. The world is real though it changes and does not last for ever. The world is the experience of Shiva in the form of all beings and His experience is never unreal. Effort is real. Effort is possible because man is the free master of his destiny. There Is no fatalism. Man has made himself what he is, and he will be what he now makes himself. What is to be the manner of his striving? It must be according to morality (Dharma) with a view to make good Karma and with the consciousness (in the highest) that man is one with the Active Spirit in its form as the universe. To those who have this outlook (Virabhava) on life, every physical function and thought is a religious rite (Yajna). Every being or thing is the great Mother in that form. Whilst life should be lived with simplicity and restraint, there is no need of asceticism, though those who really wish for it may adopt it. Thus, whilst in some forms of ritual there is fasting before worship, it is said that Kalika is angry with those who thus worship her. " For if Shiva and Jiva are one, why give pain to Jiva ?" There is no need to renounce anything except ill-thinking and ill-doing which bring ill-fruit. For what can man renounce when all things and beings are seen to be the Mother? To renounce them with such consciousness is to renounce Her. To cherish wife and children, to feel for and help fellow-man, to serve one's country or race is to serve and worship Her. The service of them is service of the Self. What is the end of effort? Full self-realisation as Spirit vehicled by mind and matter so that man is truly in conformity and harmony with the active immanenf Shiva and the developing world-process; and then the realisation of man's final end in unity with the formless and transcendent Spirit thus gaining final liberation from the world of forms. True progress is the gradual release of Spirit from the bondage in which It has been seemingly involved. True civilization is the organisation of society, so that the individual man and his community may attain his and its immediate and final end that is " enjoyment and liberation (Bhukti and Mukti). For the general good was the object of the Indian social organization. And the community has governed itself. There is in this doctrine itself no depressing Pessimism for Ananda or Bliss is seen in all ; there is no asceticism for those who feel no call therefor, since the doctrine is one of enjoyment (Bhoga). There is no Fatalism or lack of will, for man is known to be master of his destiny and alone responsible for his past and "future. It cannot be charged with being "Anti-social" for life is fully lived in the world in the knowledge that man and his fellows and all beings are kindred expressions of the one Mother-Self. No grander and all inclusive doctrine has been taught.
In another book of Mr. Archer, criticising Mr. H. G. Wells " God the Invisible King," he says that the latter " has come a good deal in contact with Indian religiosity;" and that " this craving for something to worship points to an almost uncanny recrudescence of the spirit of Asia in a fine European intelligence." He adds " It is possible that an epidemic of Asiatic religiosity may be one of the sequels of the war." He says " It has sometimes seemed to me that the one great advantage of Western Christianity lies in the fact that nobody very seriously believes in it. ' Nobody ' is not a mathematically accurate expression, but it is quite in the line of the truth. You have to go to Asia to find out what religion is. If you cannot get so far, Russia will serve as a half way house: but to study religion on its native health...... you must go to India. I cannot believe that anywhere between Suez and Singapore there exists that healthy Godlessness that lack of any real effective dependence of any outward power which is so common in and around all Christian Churches. In the land of Om anything like freedom of the spirit is probably very rare and very difficult. The difference does not arise from any lesser stringency in the claims of Christianity to spiritual dominion but rather 1 imagine from a deep-rooted divergence in racial heredity. We Western Aryans have behind us the serene and splendid rationalism of Greece and Rome.. We are accustomed from childhood to the knowledge that our civilization was founded by two mighty aristocracies of intellect to whom the religions of their day were, as they are to us, nothing but more or less graceful fairy tales. We know that many of the greatest men the world ever saw while phrasing their relation to the Deus absconditus in various ways were utterly free from that penitential supplicatory abjectness which is the mark of Asian salvationism. And though, of course, the conscious filiation to Greece and Rome is rare, the habit of mind which holds up its head in the world and feels no childish craving to cling to the skirts of a God is not rare at all." This very interesting passage invites a lengthy comment, the more so that with much of the attitude here revealed many a Western will have a fellow-feeling. All classicists will salute the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome, and it is in the English temperament to dislike all abjectness,. religious or otherwise. But I must pass on with the observation that Mr. Archer has here again misunderstood his subject. Many of his criticisms on Mr. Well's " Veiled Being " and " God-King " are effective, but will not be so as applied to the logically developed metaphysical Indian concept of Ishvara and Para-brahman which are the supposed sources of Mr. Well's theory. If, however Mr. Archer understood the highest thought of India, he would know that it teaches that man is not dependent on any outward extra-cosmic, power but on himself and Self ; that it as completely affirms as any other doctrine the claims of reason and the freedom of the human spirit, and that it is " utterly free of any penitential supplicatory abjectness." If such a charge can be made at all, it is against Christianity and those kindred forms of Indian dualistic beliefs which make man a supplicant before, and dependent on, some Power which is not himself. In fact, the Christian charge against these high doctrines is that they are not penitential or supplicatory but err through that blasphemous overweening pride which makes man himself (in his essence) Divinity. Mr. Wells speaks of him who has not accepted his " God-King " as a "masterless man." "But is it really," Mr. Archer asks " to our Western sense, a misfortune to be a masterless man ? If any one is irked by that condition, the Roman Catholic Church holds wide its doors for him." According to Shakta Vedanta, man is his own master. The self makes homage to the Self. World-enjoyment is the self's and Liberation is Its peaceful nature. The heroic-man (Vira) does not flee from the world through fear of it. His doctrine is not anti-social, for life is fully lived in the world in the knowledge that all men and all other beings are kindred expressions of the one Mother-Self. Nor does he cling to any other than the Self. He holds the world in his grasp and wrests from it its Secret. There is no fatalism or lack of will, for man is known to be the master of his destiny and alone responsible for his past and future. Escaping from all the unconscious driftings of an Humanity which has not yet realised itself, he is the illumined master of himself whether developing all his powers on earth or seeking liberation therefrom at his will.
But the " Rationalist" may say that all this is only the metaphysical dreaming of the Indian people. Well, what do Mr. Archer and those of his way of thinking offer them in its stead ? They are " to want more wants " and at the same time to cultivate " higher mundane ideals." Why ? Let us suppose that, as is not unlikely, man in. the process of " wanting more wants " should turn from " higher mundane ideals " and elect for the more popular lower mundanities for which Western civilization offers so luxuriant a provision. It is then said " Appeal should be made to loyalty to Humankind" with a capital letter. But what is Humankind that we should be loyal to it ? Since the first men fell from natural harmony they have been each others enemy, except where religion has taught them better. Mr. Archer says that all that is needed is "to kindle a sentiment (one might almost say) to awaken an instinct of loyalty to something higher than our personal and family interest: something not ourselves that makes for or rather demands righteousness." He here perilously approaches the contemned metaphysic. What is this "something?" How does a " something " demand ? If it does, why call it " something ?" How do we know that it exists? What warrant has Mr. Archer for this affirmation and, in particular, that it is not ourselves ? Why not suppose that it is the conscious Higher Self? What is it that it should make a demand and why does it do so ? Why should we obey the demand and what will happen if we do not ? All such half-baked thinking ill-qualifies for a criticism of the great Philosophies of India which say that there is a Supreme Spirit who is manifested by all beings bound by righteousness (Dharma) as the Law of their nature and that there is an ordered and just universe. It is this Supreme Spirit which, one with the Inner Self of man, is higher than the personal interests which are the expressions of the limitations in which Self binds itself through Its power. Loyalty to Humankind is called for, because it is the manifestation of the one Spirit which is in and manifests as all men. Its sanction is the happiness and suffering which follow in harmony with, or resistance to, the world-order and therefore world-peace which is a reflection of the Serene Ground of all that is. What is the proof of all this ? The world experience of every man who knows that ill action leads to suffering; and the higher spiritual experience which is had by those who are Masters of our Race and Incarnations of the Soul of me World. |
