Christianity as Bhakti Marga

Tuts book has grown steadily during the last six years. The first draft of it was submitted to Oxford University in 1922 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the title ‘The Mysticism of Hindu Bhakti Literature especially in its relation to the Mysticism of the Fourth Gospel.’ During the three years I spent in Europe writing the thesis I had the generous counsel and stimulating direction of Canon B. H. Streeter; Dr. J. N. Farquhar and Professor Rudolf Otto encouraged me to see them constantly and to discuss my thesis with them. Every time I passed through London during the vacations I saw Baron Fredrich von Higel and sometimes corresponded with him. These opportunities for meeting him were very inspiring. It was my intention to dedicate this book to him but now I must be content with dedicating it to his memory. Mrs, Herman, whose help I constantly received while I was in England, is no longer living. On my return to India I spent considerable time making further study of the subject and rewriting the thesis so that it might be of help to a wider circle of readers. In the present form of the book there is more emphasis on the Johannine writings and all allusions to Hindu Bhakti literature are only brought in to elucidate by comparison or by contrast the teaching of the Fourth Evangelist. The substance of the book has been repeated as courses of lectures in Calcutta, Bangalore, Madras, Madura, Vellore and Tirupattur. To the many friends who heard these lectures and helped me with their criticism I am much indebted. The Rev. G. S. Marris and the Rev. J. Passmore have kindly read through the book and have offered several important suggestions,

Miss D. J. Stephen has worked through my manuscript with much patience suggesting innumerable corrections in style and in thought. I am much indebted to her. Of Indian scholars I have to acknowledge receiving help from Professor S. Radhakrishnan, Swami Vedachellam, Sriman A. Govindachari Swamin and Pandit V. Krishnamachariar. Though these scholars have not agreed with many of the things I have said, they have pointed out inaccuracies in my account of Hinduism and have enabled me to correct them. My wife has helped me through all the stages of the preparation of this book in several ways and my series of acknowledgements would be incomplete without a reference to her co-operation. To other friends who have helped me at different times I should like here to express my sincere thanks,

As this book is ready for publication my sense of its inadequacy only becomes more acute. In this volume, I have been mainly concerned with clearing the ground. In a subsequent volume, which will be issued soon, I hope to deal with some of the deeper issues involved in the Johannine writings.

A SECOND edition of this book has been called for and I have taken the opportunity to revise it carefully. The Rev. M. Sanjiva Rao has kindly read through the book and suggested several corrections. The Rev. G. Y. Martyn has prepared an Index to all the references in the Johannine writings. Iam thankful to both these friends for their help. A brief Glossary has been added and the General Index enlarged.

IN attempting to understand how Christianity is likely to relate itself in the coming years to Indian thought and become a living force in the country, I am inclined to think that it will lay much emphasis on mystic experience, Ke ~ One line of evidence for this is that in studying India’s sacred writings one is impressed by the fact that their outstanding characteristic is their emphasis on the mystical life, which has really kindled the imagination of our people and has been more popular in India than anywhere else. In many diverse ways— fervent, daring, fantastic, sober—has this life been lived in India. Whether it is such profound writings as the Upanisads that we are studying or the devout hymns of the Bhaktas, we feel that the burden of their thought is mystic union, though it assumes different forms with different writers.

Concerned as I am in this book more particularly with Bhakti Literature, I may say that while there are other profound spiritual experiences described in it, such as one’s conviction of God’s abundant grace, of His purification of the soul, of release from births and deaths, they are either directly and significantly related to the enjoyment of mystic union or considered as of minor importance. The importance of mystic union in Bhakti Literature is clear from the abundant references to it, some full and others brief. There is scarcely a page which does not speak of mystic union. The deepest interests of a man may, not infrequently, be judged from the fact that he not only often speaks of them, but that as soon as he begins to speak of them, he betrays a new emotion, his face puts on a new glow. So it is with the Bhaktas. And they speak often of mystic union with such genuine feeling and warmth. When they describe it, their words often become filled with a new power; and their imagination, always alert, becomes still keener and weaves its fancies with a new vigour. And there is a further fact which indicates the commanding importance of the experience of mystic union in Bhakti Literature. Often when not speaking directly of mystic union, the Bhaktas speak of God, adore His goodness, worship Him with bowed heads and clasped hands and in all possible ways seek to establish a relation with Him which, in due course, will grow into mystic union. So does a woman deeply in love. Even when not meeting her beloved, she thinks and dreams of him by day and night, treasures his portrait, and follows in her imagination his many movements. It is correct, then, to state that the vital experience of the Bhaktas is that of mystic union, and that the other elements in their spiritual life are either related to it or are not of much significance.

The other line of evidence is furnished by the strong leanings of some Indian Christians towards the mystical aspects of Christianity. The doctrine of the indwelling ‘Christ appeals to them with special force. As if by instinct they are drawn to the Gospel of John, the Imitation of Christ-and, to come to modern books, the devotional writings of Andrew Murray. The demands which such a life lived in Christ makes for prayer and meditation meet with a hearty response from them. With sure grasp they realize the existence of a higher world of spiritual reality, not to be reached by our normal avenues of knowledge, but clear as daylight to the gaze of the seer. The peace and joy which such a life of fellowship with God kindles in the soul awaken the best in them.

Sadhu Sundar Singh shows in a remarkable way the attraction which Indian Christians feel for Mysticism. In his heredity and training are deeply ingrained many of the finer elements of Indian Mysticism, and he lives on John’s Gospel assimilating its teaching into his very life. He is not a student of biblical criticism or exegesis. But he has, what is more important, a real insight into the mind of Christ. Loving Christ with fervour, seeking to abide in Him and to bear fruit, he has undoubtedly gained a real understanding of the ‘Gospel. His public teaching, his habits, even the inarticulate impulses and motives of his life, all constitute a living commentary on the Gospel. Speaking of Augustine, Westcott says: ‘His ignorance of Greek constantly betrays him into the adoption of a false sense of the words, but his genius no less frequently enables him to enter with the fullest insight into the thought of a passage which may escape the verbal interpreter.’ ' For a somewhat similar reason weight ought to be attached to the intuitive insight of a religious genius like Sundar Singh into the real nature and importance of the Johannine Mysticism.

It may be asked however: What about the hundreds of Christians in India to-day who are enjoying a real Christian experience but to whom a reference to the mystical side of Christianity would probably convey little or no meaning? It is surprising how many people effectively adopt theological formulae from others and even derive benefit from them. ‘There are Christians. in India whose theology has little or no relation to the Indian ways of thinking. To say that their religious. experience is a sham would be certainly uncharitable and probably untrue. They have assimilated certain interpretations of Christianity and are having certain Christian experiences. Theology they have; religious experience they have; but these are not living and fresh. If they were living, their theology, though often nebulous, would have a distinctive note and their religious experience would possess deeper reality. At present, it is theology which very largely produces. experience: that is, the experience is moulded in the religious belief accepted from outside. But if experience could precede theology, then not being tramelled by any preconceived notions of what ought to be felt and done, it would grow spontaneously, enriching itself in innumerable ways. Theology, being an intellectual statement of such living experience, would

1B. F. Westcott, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, London, 1919: p. xcv.

then possess a power and genuineness all its own. Indian Christians who have spent many happy years in the interpretations of Christianity that have not regarded the supreme importance of mystic experience in religion, and who have therefore failed to take cognizance of what has been for centuries the dominant note of religious life in India, have not had a false experience, but, it may well be surmised, they have had a Shallow experience. If they had thought for themselves, seeking to incorporate into their life and thought the best elements in their heredity as well as in their environment, they would no doubt have had a much deeper Christian experience.

Observing then, on the one hand, that the trend of religious thought in India has been mystical and, on the other, that Indian Christians are drawn to mystical Christianity, I am led to think that in India the ‘Christianity of the future will be largely mystical.

A distinguished thinker and missionary with a long experience in India strongly protests in a letter to me against any attempt to interpret Christianity as being mystical. ‘I myself,’ he says in the course of the

letter, ‘am in the habit of using the term “‘Mysticism’”’ in a perfectly definite sense—the sense in which it is used, e.g., by Royce in his Gifford Lectures and by the Ritschlians in their constant polemic against it as un- ‘Christian. I understand by Mysticism that tendency of thought of which the Védantic Zat tvam asi is the consistent logical outcome. There is a good deal of such Mysticism in medieval and later Christian piety, but I question whether there is any of it in John. Such Mysticism I myself regard as un-Christian. I do not mean that the piety which expresses itself by means of thought of this tendency is not deeply Christian: but I mean that in so far as such piety uses thought of the mystical type, it is using an alien instrument which must tend to its owninjury. Why do Hindus so appreciate a book like The Imitation of Christ? My answer is: because in these books there is little or nothing distinctively Christian. The /mtation leaves me cold because, in spite of the living religion of which it is full, I find in it nothing of the unique outlook on life and God which was distinctive of Jesus and which binds me to Him.’ This letter puts in

vigorous language a criticism of Mysticism urged by some keen Christian thinkers and worthy of careful consideration.

By Mysticism, however, I mean the type of religious. life which emphasizes the communion of the human soul with a personal God.* So stated, the word Mysticism might seem to indicate the heart of all religious experience, but as a matter of fact, the word is used to indicate not so much the heart of all religious. experience, aS one particular type of that experience. To distinguish between that type of religious experience and other types is most difficult.

Among other types of religious experience may be mentioned the ethical. By the ethical type in Christia-

1 For a large collection of definitions of Mysticism with a nity, to take a concrete exampie, I refer to the teaching which emphasizes right living as the distinguishing mark of every real Christian. Christians who follow such teaching would be the first to acknowledge that this right living is really based upon the believer’s relation to Christ. They do not ignore the fact that such a life of character ultimately derives its origin from a life lived in Christ. But their emphasis seems to be rather on the outward result and visible expression of such intimate relationship than on the relationship itself. Such Christians are apt to extol the Sermon on the Mount. They do recognize that there is close connection in thought between the Sermon on the Mount and the Farewell Discourses recorded in the Fourth Gospel. They do not by ‘any means reject the wonderful teaching recorded in the latter. They recognize the basic significance of this teaching for a life of such ethical perfection as they themselves teach. But they seem more interested in extolling the importance and significance of the Sermon on the Mount than that of the Farewell Discourses.

By distinguishing between the mystical type of Christianity and the ethical type of Christianity, I do not at all imply that mystical Christianity is not ethical. That, too, values highly a life of character: none values character more highly than the Christian mystic whose writing we study in the Fourth Gospel. But it emphasizes more the life in Christ, stating that from such a life sound-morals and right conduct must necessarily flow. The difference between the mystical and the other types of Christianity is then, I think, largely a difference

-of emphasis. All Christians regard the communion of the bhakta with Christ as a fundamental religious experience, but Christians who are mystical by temperament and training regard this fellowship with a deeper reverence than others and strive for it with more patient toil.

Much of the confusion of thought about Mysticism arises from confounding it with some of its consequences. Mysticism may often lead to a way of looking at the universe and at life which might be called symbolism. The man who is eager to come into contact with the living God naturally sees in the material universe indications of His presence. The sun, the moon, the stars, the flowers of the field, the birds of the air—all these speak to him of the God in them. Such symbolism easily tends to negate itself, to cease to be symbolism, the moment that which is considered a symbol is regarded as a reality. Then symbolism becomes pantheism. Life and matter in all their manifold forms come to be regarded not as indicating God but as being God. The transition seems to take place easily and naturally. Symbolism is thus the earlier and pantheism the later stage of Mysticism. They do not always follow Mysticism, nor are they an integral part of Mysticism but sometimes they are so considered; this leads to much confusion of thought.

Again, Mysticism emphasizes the heart as the seat of vital religious experience. God is not understood by us as the result of careful thought but rather as the object of love and devotion on our part. We do not argue and reason about matters of the Spirit but see them, feel them, experience them. In its central ‘contention that real religious experience takes place in the heart, Mysticism is not wrong. The intellect may and should make clear the implications of religious experience but the religious experience itself is not produced by speculation. We love God and eujoy Him with our hearts. But feeling might easily degenerate into dangerous emotion. To say that mystical experience depends largely on feeling is one thing: to say that mystical experience is feeling is quite another.

The man who has the conviction that real spiritual experience is not a matter of the intellect but a matter of the heart develops certain characteristic ways of approaching the Divine. Prayer, in the sense of petition, with its expression of needs and the strong desire to have them met by God, he neglects. Such petition he regards as of the earth. It is too noisy and insistent. Meditation on the attributes of God he lays aside as being too much the work of the intellect. But he seeks to silence his soul so that he might hear God. Such contemplation in which the soul lies quiescent and communes with the living Christ has the support in the experience of many of the finest Christian souls. Mystics of the Christian Church have spoken of the meditation in which the mind thinks deliberately as being on a lower plane than the contemplation in which it empties itself and waits divine teaching. Ifa man believes that he hears God better in the silence of his soul and that his grasp of spiritual things grows surer with his increasingly complete absorption in contemplation, he is likely to neglect study. He is also likely to neglect action. The busy life of doing good ceases to have the attraction of the quiet life of contemplation in which his soul comes to be filled with the flood of Divine light. To some, however, such a state of quiescence is an inexplicable mystery; they regard it as a meaningless vacancy.

The discipline which is needed to quiet the mind makes the mystic strong. Take the man who trains his body by carefully regulated and abundant exercise. What feats of strength hedisplays! The heavy weights he lifts, the unusual flexibility with which he bends his body and moves his muscles, the enormous strain and fatigue he can stand, all astonish a man of ordinary strength. Because he has devoted time and energy to ths training of his body, he is able to do things beyond the normal man. Just so, the man who prepares himself for communion with the living God by much discipline and concentration, develops certain abnorma! psychical and physical powers. His body comes to be under the influence of his soul. If he is artistic by nature, he may see visions. Mysticism may often give rise to such abnormal phenomena, but these are not its. sum and substance.

‘It is notorious,’ says Baron F. von Higel, ‘ that there not only exists a Mysticism that is pantheistic and which consciously angrily rejects any and all personality in the Divine, but that this Mysticism has. been, upon the whole, the more prevalent type of

Mysticism and that the Mysticism of person itself easily tends to the Mysticism of person lost in, resolved into, thing. Mysticism is indeed a term which covers a more or less distinctly pantheistic and a more or less.

consistently personalist outlook.’ The Mysticism of the Bhaktas is that with ‘a more or less consistently personalist outlook.’. They strive after, and often attain, close intimacy with a personal God. They are not, however, always able to regard the object of their experience as a personal being. In supremely baffling and critical moments, the mind struggling for adequate expression, they utter thoughts of God’s all-in-all-ness in the universe which seem out of harmony with the idea of the personal God, generally the trend of their teaching. That He is regarded as a person is evident from the abundant descriptions of His appearance which occur in their writings, and, what is more to the point, from the full realization of the fact that He possesses qualities such as love, joy and truth and that His dealings with men are determined by these qualities. But, at the same time, He is described as being, on the one hand, these qualities themselves, love, joy, truth and, on the other, as being the various phenomena which we call nature. This fact should be remembered as a necessary qualification to the statement that the Mysticism described in these pages is of a personalist character.

Nor are the Bhaktas always able to maintain the separateness of their own personality. There occur in their life certain transcendental, though apparently

1In a letter to the author brief, moments when the personal intimacy becomes a sense of identity and they feel themselves one with the Lord whom they love. In the Bhaktas, the feeling of oneness is not permanent but temporary, felt in an hour of exaltation. The identity is not one of substance but of person. The mystic is not resolved into a thing but has himself become the person whom he has loved. Not a philosophic conviction of the oneness of his substance with that of the Divine Being, but love has wrought what to him is the Supreme experience. God has lovingly and graciously come into him and filled him so fully that his self has become included in the Divine Self, love acquiescing in the inclusion. Outwardly, he lives and sings and acts, and men call him Nammalvar or Chaitanya, but inwardly he is no longer Nammalvar or Chaitanya. It is the Divine Self in him which inspires his thoughts and fits them into moving and melodious verse. He does not cease to exist, for does he not live and sing? But the source of these activities is not he himself but the God in him.