The Search After Reality: Thoughts on Hinduism, Buddhism, Muhammadanism and Christianity

i. In order to- settle their intellectual difficulties, Plato, the Egyptians and the Hindus have all held theories, differing only in detail, of the transmigration of souls. If, as Hinduism teaches, we admit that there are 8,400,000 rebirths, then the difficulties are increased instead of being solved. For example, take a leper, or a man born blind. If he is suffering for the sins committed in some former life, then he should have been informed about the sin that he is being punished for, otherwise the object of his punishment is not attained. For the aim of punishment is that the guilty may be warned, so that in future he may live a better life. But if he is ignorant of the reason of his punishment, then instead of taking warning, and improving his life, he will grumble and consider himself ‘ not guilty ’, and blame God. In ordinary life no judge will pronounce sentence on a guilty man without telling him of his crime. Then how can the Judge of Judges punish a sinner without telling him about his sins?

Also, if we say that God gives neither punishment nor reward, but that each man’s evil or good deeds bring their own retribution or reward (karma), then the man ought to be made aware of the balance of his good or evil dqeds, otherwise karma will be like the materialists’ blind force, which shoots off chance shots without aim or object.

2. If we think of the doctrine of the Transmigration of the Soul as a true explanation of life’s problems, then we must believe in the Eternity of the Soul; and most Hindus do indeed hold the view that God, Soul and Matter are eternal. That the Soul is not eternal may be stated as a syllogism of the Nyaya philosophy, thus:

(i.) If the Soul is eternal it is infinite in Time, so its knowledge and power, like God’s, must be infinite;

(ii.) For if it is infinite in one attribute, it must also be infinite in all other attributes.

(iii.) It is unthinkable and impossible for it to be infinite in one attribute and finite in all others.

(iv.) From experience we know that our human attributes are finite;

(v.) Therefore the Soul is also finite in Time.

If the Soul is really eternal, and, from

Eternity till now has not been able to obtain salvation or freedom from Transmigration or Illusion, then what hope can there be for. its obtaining salvation in the future? It seems evident therefore that the soul must remain unsaved to all eternity.

3. When men who have lived sinful lives return to earth for rebirth, they will be born as men of low caste, as animals, or even as insects or plants.

Three main views are held about what happens to the soul at the end of each earthly existence.

(a) There is the view of those who hold The Way of Works (Karma marga), who say that the soul goes either to the heaven of the gods or to the moon ( pitr/ok), which is the heaven of the fathers, until the accumulated merit of its good deeds # has been exhausted, when it returns to earth, and-is again involved in Transmigration (Bhagavad Gita, ix. 21).

(b) There is the view of those who hold The Way of Devotion (Bhakti marga), that the soul is bound to the cycle of Trans- migration, but seeks liberation, or absorption in God, by love and devotion to Him.

(c) There is the view of those who hold The Way of Knowledge ( Jndna ipdrga). Here the soul, having obtained enlightenment or * knowledge ’ ( jndna), goes to the heaven of Brahma, and is there reabsorbed into the Universal Spirit (Brahma), and is not again reborn in the same individuality on earth.

If a prisoner were told that, because of some good deed, he could be king for a few days, and that after that he would have to return to his wretched prison, how could he be happy during his time as king, when the dread of the suffering of his coming imprisonment would be with him all the time? In the same way we may ask, What good or what joy can the soul get from a temporary stay in the heaven of the gods, when dread of a return to earth and its evils is always present?

If, through being holy and pure, a man gains the heaven of the gods, then what can happen there to cause all his merit to be swept away, and to force him again to return from heaven? If he is perfect and holy enough to enter heaven, then why is it that everything that he has gained, with so much toil and pain, will be trampled in the dust again, and he himself be turned out of heaven? Or, having reached that holy place, will he commit sin there that will necessitate his having to come back to earth again?

When amid untold difficulties on this earth he was able to make such progress in goodness as to enable him to enter heaven, then, while living in fellowship with the gods, would it not be easier for him to advance still further in holiness, and, instead of coming back, to stay there for ever?

And when, from the efforts made in this brief life, he has attained to goodness of character and of life, then living in the holy fellowship and perfect environment of heaven, could he not remain perfect for ever? for it would be easier to continue unto perfection there than amid the difficulties and evil influences of the world. If this is not possible, then instead of this being Salvation and heaven it will be merely deceit and hell.

jSalvation is emancipation (moksa) from Birth and Death and the Cycle of Rebirth by reabsorption into Brahma. | Let us illus-i trate it thus: A man, by the sweat of his browand unremitting toil, had become rich, but just when he had obtained his ambition, and was prepared to enjoy the luxuries that his money could buy, his wealth was stolen and he himself murdered. Would you call this Salvation or Destruction?

How true are the words of Mr. Bose:

“ Hindu Philosophy begins with a recognition of human sorrow, goes out in vain in quest of a proper remedy, and ultimately arrives at annihilation as the goal where human misery terminates only in extinction of life.”

i. In the story told in the opening verses of the Bhagavad Gfta, when Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra saw his relations and dear ones arrayed against him, he refused to fight, and said, “ I covet not kingdom, nor wealth, nor honour. It is better that I should die, by their hands than that I should slaughter my own people and be branded as a sinner.”

But Krishna persuaded him to fight, saying, “ Do not grieve. A soul neither dies, nor can it be slain, nor can it be burned.” In the sentiments of these verses, does it not appear that Arjuna shows a higher sympathy and love than Krishna does?

Perhaps some one will say that Krishna incited Arjuna to fight for the sweeping away of tyranny and injustice, and for establishing right and justice. To this there are two answers. First, that the weapons of love are more effective than bow and arrows and the sword; and second, if $iis is all Illusion, then he who allowed it to exist could have made it disappear, and could have manifested Reality without the need of fighting. More especially is this so in the case of an incarnation like Krishna, who ought to have restrained Arjuna from fighting and killing, for “All are one Brahma ”, and it was not possible that he should fight with himself!

2. Some consider Krishna and Christ to be either one and the same person, or at least equal to one another; but if we carefully consider their lives and teaching we see in them a whole world of difference. Krishna encouraged Arjuna to fight and kill, but Christ taught His disciples, “ Love your enemies, and pray for those that despitefully use you and when hasty tempered Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, Christ touched it, and immediately the wound was healed (Luke xxii. 50; John xviii. 10-11). In His life Christ gave a practical demonstration and noble example of the teaching on love and non-violence, which He gave in the Sermon on the Mount and in many other of His discourses.

3. Krishna said, “To save the good and to destroy sinners I am born from age to age ” (Gfta, iv. 8). Jesus, on the other hand, came to save sinners (Matt, ix. 13; Lukexix. 10). What need was there to save the good and righteous, for already they had ensured Salvation for themselves by their good works {karma)} But there certainly was a great need of saving sinners; for all mankind are sinners.

It is useless, therefore, to look to Krishna for Salvation, for he has declared that in all his appearances in the world, he comes to destroy sinners rather than to save them. This shows the necessity of seeking Salvation from Christ, Who came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. i. 1 5).

4. In the Bhagavad Gita the attempt has been made to reconcile the Sankhya, Yoga and Vedanta systems of philosophy with the doctrine of Bhakti (devotion), and evidence is not lacking that it was now and again influenced by the teaching of St. John’s Gospel; as, for example, the words “ You in me and I in you ” are found in both John xiv. 20 and Giti, ix. 29.

Then among ascetics and devotees the

Togi is considered to be worthy of the highest honour of all. But it is the defect of the Yoga system that in samddhi (meditation), as the Yogi sits in a set posture,, with breath restrained and eyes fixed on the tip of his nose (Gita, vi. 13), he frequently falls into a state of trance, in which he sees a topsyturvy world in which, instead of his being able to find the truth, he is in danger of being deceived. Would it not be better for him to fix his attention on God rather than on the tip of his own nose?

5. In Europe I was often asked the question, How is it that, century after century, Hinduism continues to maintain its hold on Indians if it is not suitable for their needs? There are two reasons. First, the educated and intellectual have found some consolation in some philosophical system of Hinduism, like the V edanta, and they have become so immeshed in it that they have not been able to see beyond it; and second, the bonds of the caste organisation have so obstructed the religious freedom of the great mass of Hindus, that they have not b # een able to break away from them.

But in these days many 'reforms and changes ace taking place within Hinduism, because Indians are coming into contact with the peoples and philosophies of all lands; and especially because they are feeling the influence of the religious and ethical teaching of the Christian Gospel. God alone can foresee what will be the fate of Hinduism in India. It is possible that its increasing failure to meet the religious needs of India will cause it to pass away, even as Buddhism has already done.

The founder of Buddhism was Sakyamuni Gautama. As a child he was called Sidhartha, but after receiving * enlightenment ’ he was called Buddha. Sidhartha was born in the sixth century b.c. in the palace of Rajah Sidhodan, near the foot of the Nepalese Himalayas.

When twenty-nine years of age he renounced the world, and spent six years in asceticism and meditation under a Bo tree at Gaya. Then, having received enlightenment, he began to teach his system of religion, and, after teaching for forty-five years, died at the age of eighty.

Buddhism cannot really be, called.a religion, because in it there is nothing abotjt God, Who is the foundation and life of all religion. It is a combination of morality and agnos-, ticism, and.the influence of Hinduism has to some extent coloured its teachings as well. Thus we find in it the doctrine of Transmigration and the Law of Rewards and Retributions (Karma), and, in a different form, the doctrine of Salvation and extinction (Nirvana). But, unlike Hinduism, it does not contain incompatible doctrines, as that there are three eternal Realities — Soul, Matter and Brahma; or that God is both without attribute or nirguna, and possessed of attributes or saguna.

i. At the age of twenty-nine a son was born to Sidhartha, and, filled with joy, his father ordered a chariot and sent him for a drive in the gardens, that he might show his joy to all. While driving along, they saw by the roadside a frail old man, then a sick man, and then the body of a dead man. He was much amoved by the thought that all will, sooner or later, have to pass through these states. A little further on he saw a fakir ( bhtksu) sitting under a tree, and his coachman told him that this fakir, having found the world full of sorrow and suffering, had renounced it. This produced a still greater effect on Sidhartha’s mind, and, pondering about it all, he determined that he too would renounce the world. That night he drove to the borders of his father’s kingdom, and, stripping himself of his royal robes, he sent them back with the chariot to his father. Then, on foot, and clothed in the robe of a religious devotee, he set off for Gaya.

On arriving there he began the practice of austerities, and continued them for six years, until, worn out by the severity of his practices, he swooned. When he recovered consciousness the Enlightenment came to him, that nothing was to be gained by austerities, nor by the mere enjoyment of luxuries, but that one must take The,Middle Way between them.

2. After he had been thus enlightened, he' went on to. Bendres to preach his doctrines! On the road he saw a naked fakir, called Upaka, who asked Buddha, “ Friend, who art thou?” Buddha answered, “All-conquering have I now become. Mine is all wisdom. No teacher have I. 1 My equal nowhere can be found in all the worlds of God and man. There is no one to rival me. I have attained Nirvana.”

3. Had Buddha not been influenced by the religious nature and environment of India, he would have been simply a materialistic philosopher; but, influenced by the religions around him, he became a moral teacher. Although an intellectual man, he could not by pure thought comprehend the

1 I think that the reason why he did not go to the fakir in the garden was lest some one should say that he had been the fakir’s disciple- My opinion is that if Buddha had conversed with that fakir, then he might have been saved from his years of austerity, and from agnosticism, and been helped back to the worship of God. —

Being of God. He could not admit a God himself, nor could he teach others about Him. But he was compelled by the God-given law of his inner nature and conscience to give moral teaching. As other sages and recluses who wished to solve all life’s problems by their intellects and invented methods had failed, so Buddha got no enlightenment from austerities and meditation beyond a few philosophical and moral ideas. Hence seekers after truth must, without man-made rules, humbly open their hearts to God, because only through prayer can men find God and satisfy the deepest longings of their spiritual natures.

4. The Buddhist Scriptures, especially the Trifitaka, the most sacred of them all, teach that the personality and being of the soul is not everlasting. It may be compared to a river in which the drops of water are always changing, or to fire which is the product of the burning of sticks, j So the soul is born from the combination of the elements, and again, like a fire, is extinguished.] Existence js a perpetual dreamless sleep. Some move- ment arouses the soul, and it awaken^ to life, but only for a short time.

In the universe there is a universal law of* causation ijj operation, and because of this all that is appears and again vanishes.

In Buddhism natural law itself takes the place of God, and beyond this no sort of Divine personality exists. Hence Buddhists neither pray nor know the meaning of prayer nor of its benefits. As a well-known Buddhist missionary, who was a delegate at the Chicago Parliament of Religions, once said, “ Buddhism... looks to no god or gods, and asks for no extraneous help.... Prayer is useless, for what is required is effort. The time spent on prayer is lost.”

5. Buddha, being kind by nature, taught, that all sorts of men, beasts and living \ creatures should be.treated with love and jkindness. We have an example of his moral (teaching. Once his son Rahula asked, “ What are good and evil, and virtue and vice? ” Buddha replied, “ Evil and vice is that which will cause injury to you or to others.. Do not do it. Good and virtue is that which will be profitable to you and to others. Do “it.”

6. The question therefore rises, If in Buddhism there is neither God nor hope of a future life and happiness, then how was it that it made such progress in India?

(a) People were attracted to it by Buddha’s renunciation of his kingdom and of his life of luxury. 1 There is the example of Rajah Pukkusathi of Taxila in Kashmir (now in the Punjab). "Without having even seen Buddha, but after having heard about him from Rajah Bimbisara, he was so impressed that he too followed his example in giving up his kingdom and becoming a fakir or bhiksu.

( b) Many in those days, who had no better philosophy, found relief in the negations of Buddhism, and becamq its adherents.

(e) Buddha’s teaching against caste exclusiveness, idol worship, and the claims of preeminence made by Brahmans, attracted many, i especially of those who wished to be free from the arrogance of the Brahman’s assumptions.

( d) The great and powerful king ^.soka made determined efforts to spread Buddhism -within his kingdom, and in this hd succeeded.

Yet in spjte of all this, the agnosticism of the Buddhist teaching could not appeal permanently to the religious instincts of the people of India; and its hold steadily declined, till to-day, except among a few admirers of Buddha’s personality, it has ceased to exist as a living religious faith in the land of its birth.

The idea expressed a few years ago by a Buddhist writer, that the decline of Buddhism began with the raids of Mahmud of Guzni on India, is surely far fetched; for why, then, was not the Hindu religion destroyed together with Buddhism? Were the Muhammadans enemies of the Buddhists only, and not of the Hindus, who were the greater idolaters?