Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol I. (of 3) by Charles Eliot

C >> Charles Eliot >> Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol I. (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41

The older Upanishads hint at a doctrine analogous to that of Kant,
namely that man is bound and conditioned in so far as he is a part of
the world of phenomena but free in so far as the self within him is
identical with the divine self which is the creator of all bonds and
conditions. Thus the Kaushitaki Upanishad says, "He it is who causes the
man whom he will lead upwards from these worlds to do good works and He
it is who causes the man whom he will lead downwards to do evil works.
He is the guardian of the world, He is the ruler of the world, He is the
Lord of the world and He is myself." Here the last words destroy the
apparent determinism of the first part of the sentence. And similarly
the Chandogya Upanishad says, "They who depart hence without having
known the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in
all worlds. But they who depart hence after knowing the Self and those
true desires, for them there is freedom in all worlds[70]."

Early Buddhist literature asserts uncompromisingly that every state of
consciousness has a cause and in one of his earliest discourses the
Buddha argues that the Skandhas, including mental states, cannot be the
Self because we have not free will to make them exactly what we
choose[71]. But throughout his ethical teaching it is I think assumed
that, subject to the law of karma, conscious action is equivalent to
spontaneous action. Good mental states can be made to grow and bad
mental states to decrease until the stage is reached when the saint
knows that he is free. It may perhaps be thought that the early
Buddhists did not realize the consequences of applying their doctrine of
causation to psychology and hence never faced the possibility of
determinism. But determinism, fatalism, and the uselessness of effort
formed part of the paradoxical teaching of Makkhali Gosala reported in
the Pitakas and therefore well known. If neither the Jains nor the
Buddhists allowed themselves to be embarrassed by such denials of free
will, the inference is that in some matters at least the Hindus had
strong common sense and declined to accept any view which takes away
from man the responsibility and lordship of his own soul.

19. _The Origin of Evil_

The reader will have gathered from what precedes that Hinduism has
little room for the Devil[72]. Buddhism being essentially an ethical
system recognizes the importance of the Tempter or Mara, but still Mara
is not an evil spirit who has spoilt a good world. In Hinduism, whether
pantheistic or polytheistic, there is even less disposition to personify
evil in one figure, and most Indian religious systems are disposed to
think of the imperfections of the world as suffering rather than as sin.

Yet the existence of evil is the chief reason for the existence of
religion, at least of such religions as promise salvation, and the
explanation of evil is the chief problem of all religions and
philosophies, and the problem which they all alike are conspicuously
unsuccessful in solving. I can assign no reason for rejecting as
untenable the idea that the ultimate reality may be a duality--a good and
an evil spirit--or even a plurality[73], but still it is unthinkable for
me and I believe for most minds. If there are two ultimate beings,
either they must be complementary and necessary one to the other, in
which case it seems to me more correct to describe them as two aspects
of one being, or if they are quite separate, my mind postulates (but I
do not know why) a third being who is the cause of them both.

The problem of evil is not quite the same for Indian and European
pantheists. The European pantheist holds that since God is all things or
in all things, evil is only something viewed out of due perspective:
that the world would be seen to be perfect, if it could be seen as a
whole, or that evil will be eliminated in the course of development. But
he cannot explain why the partial view of the world which human beings
are obliged to take shows the existence of obvious evil. The Hindus
think that it is possible and better for the soul to leave the vain show
of the world and find peace in union with God. They are therefore not
concerned to prove that the world is good, although they cannot explain
why God allows it to exist. The Upanishads contain some myths and
parables about the introduction of evil but they do not say that a
naturally good world was spoilt[74]. They rather imply that increasing
complexity involves the increase of evil as well as of good. This is
also the ground thought of the Agganna Sutta, the Buddhist Genesis (Dig.
Nik. XXVII.).

I think that the substance of much Indian pantheism--late Buddhist as
well as Brahmanic--is that the world, the soul and God (the three terms
being practically the same) have two modes of existence: one of repose
and bliss, the other of struggle and trouble. Of these the first mode is
the better and it is only by mistake[75] that the eternal spirit adopts
the latter. But both the mistake and the correction of it are being
eternally repeated. Such a formulation of the Advaita philosophy would
no doubt be regarded in India as wholly unorthodox. Yet orthodoxy admits
that the existence of the world is due to the coexistence of Maya
(illusion) with Brahman (spirit) and also states that the task of the
soul is to pass beyond Maya to Brahman. If this is so, there is either a
real duality (Brahman and Maya) or else Maya is an aspect of Brahman,
but an aspect which the soul should transcend and avoid, and for whose
existence no reason whatever is given. The more theistic forms of Indian
religion, whether Sivaite or Vishnuite, tend to regard individual souls
and matter as eternal. By the help of God souls can obtain release from
matter. But here again there is no explanation why the soul is
contaminated by matter or ignorance.

It is clearly illogical to condemn the Infinite as bad or a mistake.
Buddhism is perhaps sometimes open to this charge because on account of
its exceedingly cautious language about nirvana it fails to set it up as
a reality contrasted with the world of suffering. But many varieties of
Indian religion do emphatically point to the infinite reality behind and
beyond Maya. It is only Maya which is unsatisfactory because it is
partial.

Another attempt to make the Universe intelligible regards it as an
eternal rhythm playing and pulsing outwards from spirit to matter
(pravritti) and then backwards and inwards from matter to spirit
(nirvritti). This idea seems implied by Sankara's view that creation is
similar to the sportive impulses of exuberant youth and the
Bhagavad-gita is familiar with _pravritti_ and _nirvritti_, but the
double character of the rhythm is emphasized most clearly in Sakta
treatises. Ordinary Hinduism concentrates its attention on the process
of liberation and return to Brahman, but the Tantras recognize and
consecrate both movements, the outward throbbing stream of energy and
enjoyment (bhukti) and the calm returning flow of liberation and peace.
Both are happiness, but the wise understand that the active outward
movement is right and happy only up to a certain point and under certain
restrictions.

That great poet Tulsi Das hints at an explanation of the creation or of
God's expansion of himself which will perhaps commend itself to
Europeans more than most Indian ideas, namely that the bliss enjoyed by
God and the souls whom he loves is greater than the bliss of solitary
divinity[76].

20. _Church and State_

I will now turn to another point, namely the relations of Church and
State. These are simplest in Buddhism, which teaches that the truth is
one, that all men ought to follow it and that all good kings should
honour and encourage it. This is also the Christian position but
Buddhism has almost always been tolerant and has hardly ever
countenanced the doctrine that error should be suppressed by force[77].
Buddhism does not claim to cover the whole field of religion as
understood in Europe: if people like to propitiate spirits in the hope
of obtaining wealth and crops, it permits them to do so. In Japan and
Tibet Buddhism has played a more secular role than in other countries,
analogous to the struggles of the mediaeval European church for temporal
authority. In Japan the great monasteries very nearly became the chief
military as well as the chief political power and this danger was
averted only by the destruction of Hieizan and other large
establishments in the sixteenth century. What was prevented in Japan did
actually happen in Tibet, for the monasteries became stronger than any
of the competing secular factions and the principal sect set up an
ecclesiastical government singularly like the Papacy. In southern
countries, such as Burma and Ceylon, Buddhism made no attempt to
interfere in politics. This aloofness is particularly remarkable in Siam
and Camboja, where state festivals are usually conducted by Brahmans not
by Buddhist ecclesiastics. In Siam, as formerly in Burma, the king being
a Buddhist is in some ways the head of the Church. He may reform lax
discipline or incorrect observances, but apparently not of his own
authority but merely as an executive power enforcing the opinion of the
higher clergy.

Buddhism and Hinduism both have the idea that the monk or priest is a
person who in virtue of ordination or birth lives on a higher level than
others. He may teach and do good but irrespective of that it is the duty
of the laity to support the priesthood. This doctrine is preached by
Hinduism in a stronger form than by Buddhism. The intellectual
superiority of the Brahmans as a caste was sufficiently real to ensure
its acceptance and in politics they had the good sense to rule by
serving, to be ministers and not kings. In theory and to a considerable
extent in practice, the Brahmans and their gods are not an _imperium in
imperio_ but an _imperium super imperium_. The position was possible
only because, unlike the Papacy and unlike the Lamas of Tibet, they had
no Pope and no hierarchy. They produced no a'Beckets or Hildebrands and
no Inquisition. They did not quarrel with science but monopolized it.

In India kings are expected to maintain the priesthood and the temples
yet Hinduism rarely assumes the form of a state religion[78] nor does it
admit, as state religions generally have to admit, that the secular arm
has a co-ordinate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. Yet it affects
every department of social life and a Hindu who breaks with it loses his
social status. Hindu deities are rarely tribal gods like Athene of
Athens or the gods of Mr Kipling and the German Emperor. There are
thousands of shrines specially favoured by a divine presence but the
worshippers think of that presence not as the protector of a race or
city but as a special manifestation of a universal though often
invisible power. The conquests of Mohammedans and Christians are not
interpreted as meaning that the gods of Hinduism have succumbed to alien
deities.

The views prevalent in China and Japan as to the relations of Church and
State are almost the antipodes of those described. In those countries it
is the hardly dissembled theory of the official world that religion is a
department of government and that there should be regulations for gods
and worship, just as there are for ministers and etiquette. If we say
that religion is identified with the government in Tibet and forms an
_imperium super imperium_ in India, we may compare its position in the
Far East to native states under British rule. There is no interference
with creeds provided they respect ethical and social conventions:
interesting doctrines and rites are appreciated: the Government accepts
and rewards the loyal co-operation of the Buddhist and Taoist
priesthoods but maintains the right to restrict their activity should it
take a wrong political turn or should an excessive increase in the
number of monks seem a public danger. The Chinese Imperial Government
successfully claimed the strangest powers of ecclesiastical discipline,
since it promoted and degraded not only priests but deities. In both
China and Japan there has often been a strong current of feeling in the
official classes against Buddhism but on the other hand it often had the
support of both emperors and people, and princes not infrequently joined
the clergy, especially when it was desirable for them to live in
retirement. Confucianism and Shintoism, which are ethical and ceremonial
rather than doctrinal, have been in the past to some extent a law to the
governments of China and Japan, or more accurately an aspect of those
governments. But for many centuries Far Eastern statesmen have rarely
regarded Buddhism and Taoism as more than interesting and legitimate
activities, to be encouraged and regulated like educational and
scientific institutions.

21. _Public Worship and Ceremonial_

In no point does Hinduism differ from western religions more than in its
public worship and, in spite of much that is striking and interesting,
the comparison is not to the advantage of India. It is true that temple
worship is not so important for the Hindus as Church services are for
the Christian. They set more store on home ceremonies and on
contemplation. Still the temples of India are so numerous, so
conspicuous and so crowded that the religion which maintains them must
to some extent be judged by them.

At any rate they avoid the faults of public worship in the west. The
practice of arranging the congregation in seats for which they pay seems
to me more irreligious than the slovenliness of the heathen and makes
the whole performance resemble a very dull concert.

Protestant services are in the main modelled on the ritual of the
synagogue. They are meetings of the laity at which the scriptures are
read, prayers offered, sermons preached and benedictions pronounced. The
clergy play a principal but not exclusive part. The rites of the Roman
and Eastern Churches have borrowed much from pagan ceremonial but still
they have not wholly departed from the traditions of the synagogue.
These have also served as a model for Mohammedan ritual which differs
from the Jewish in little but its almost military regularity.

But with all this the ordinary ritual of Hindu temples[79] has nothing
in common. It derives from another origin and follows other lines. The
temple is regarded as the court of a prince and the daily ceremonies are
the attendance of his courtiers on him. He must be awakened, fed, amused
and finally put to bed. This conception of ritual prevailed in Egypt but
in India there is no trace of it in Vedic literature and perhaps it did
not come into fashion until Gupta times. Although the laity may be
present and salute the god, such worship cannot be called
congregational. Yet in other ways a Hindu temple may provide as much
popular worship as a Nonconformist chapel. In the corridors will
generally be found readers surrounded by an attentive crowd to whom they
recite and expound the Mahabharata or some other sacred text. At
festivals and times of pilgrimage the precincts are thronged by a crowd
of worshippers the like of which is hardly to be seen in Europe,
worshippers not only devout but fired with an enthusiasm which bursts
into a mighty chorus of welcome when the image of the god is brought
forth from the inner shrine.

The earlier forms of Buddhist ceremonial are of the synagogue type
(though in no way derived from Jewish sources) for, though there is no
prayer, they consist chiefly of confession, preaching and reading the
scriptures. But this puritanic severity could not be popular and the
veneration of images and relics was soon added to the ritual. The former
was adopted by Buddhism earlier than by the Brahmans. The latter, though
a conspicuous feature of Buddhism in all lands, is almost unknown to
Hinduism. In their later developments Buddhist and Christian ceremonies
show an extraordinary resemblance due in my opinion chiefly to
convergence, though I do not entirely exclude mutual influence. Both
Buddhism and Roman Catholicism accepted pagan ritual with some
reservations and refinements. The worship has for its object an image or
a shrine containing a relic which is placed in a conspicuous position at
the end of the hall of worship[80]. Animal sacrifices are rejected but
offerings of flowers, lights and incense are permitted, as well as the
singing of hymns. It is not altogether strange if Buddhist and Catholic
rituals starting from the same elements ended by producing similar
scenic effects.

Yet though the scenic effect may be similar, there is often a difference
in the nature of the rite. Direct invocations are not wanting in Tibetan
and Far Eastern Buddhism but many services consist not of prayers but of
the recitation of scripture by which merit is acquired. This merit is
then formally transferred by the officiants to some special object, such
as the peace of the dead or the prosperity of a living suppliant.

The later phases of both Hinduism and Buddhism are permeated by what is
called Tantrism[81], that is to say the endeavour to attain spiritual
ends by ritual acts such as gestures and the repetition of formulae.
These expedients are dangerous and may become puerile, but those who
ridicule them often forget that they may be termed sacramental with as
much propriety as magical and are in fact based on the same theory as
the sacraments of the Catholic Church. When a child is made eligible for
salvation by sprinkling with water, by the sign of the cross and by the
mantra "In the Name of the Father," etc., or when the divine spirit is
localized in bread and wine and worshipped, these rites are closely
analogous to tantric ceremonial.

The Buddhist temples of the Far East are in original intention copies of
Indian edifices and in the larger establishments there is a daily
routine of services performed by resident monks. But the management of
religious foundations in these countries has been much influenced by old
pagan usages as to temples and worship which show an interesting
resemblance to the customs of classical antiquity but have little in
common with Buddhist or Christian ideas. A Chinese municipal temple is a
public building dedicated to a spirit or departed worthy. If sacrifices
are offered in it, they are not likely to take place more than three or
four times a year. Private persons may go there to obtain luck by
burning a little incense or still more frequently to divine the future:
public meetings and theatrical performances may be held there, but
anything like a congregational service is rare. Just so in ancient Rome
a temple might be used for a meeting of the Senate or for funeral games.

22. _The Worship of the Reproductive Forces_

One aspect of Indian religions is so singular that it demands notice,
although it is difficult to discuss. I mean the worship of the
generative forces. The cult of a god, or more often of a goddess, who
personifies the reproductive and also the destructive powers of nature
(for it is not only in India that the two activities are seen to be
akin) existed in many countries. It was prominent in Babylonia and Asia
Minor, less prominent but still distinctly present in Egypt and in many
cases was accompanied by hysterical and immoral rites, by mutilations of
the body and offerings of blood. But in most countries such deities and
rites are a matter of ancient history: they decayed as civilization
grew: in China and Japan, as formerly in Greece and Rome, they are not
an important constituent of religion. It is only in India and to some
extent in Tibet, which has been influenced by India, that they have
remained unabashed until modern times.

If it is right to regard with veneration the great forces of nature,
fire, sun and water, a similar feeling towards the reproductive force
cannot be unphilosophic or immoral. Nor does the idea that the supreme
deity is a mother rather than a father, though startling, contain
anything unseemly. Yet it is an undoubted fact that all the great
religions except Hinduism, though they may admit a Goddess of
Mercy--Kuan-yin or the Madonna--agree in rejecting essentially sexual
deities. Modern Europe is probably prudish to excess, but the general
practice of mankind testifies that words and acts too nearly connected
with sexual things cannot be safely permitted in the temple. This remark
would indeed be superfluous were it not that many millions of our Hindu
fellow-citizens are of a contrary opinion.

Such practices prevail chiefly among the Saktas in Bengal and Assam but
similar licence is permitted (though the theoretical justification and
theological setting are different) in some Vishnuite sects. Both are
reprobated by the majority of respectable Hindus, but both find educated
and able apologists. And though it may be admitted that worship of the
linga may exist without bad effects, moral or intellectual, yet I think
that these effects make themselves felt so soon as a sect becomes
distinctly erotic. Anyone who visits two such different localities as
Kamakhya in Assam and Gokul near Muttra must be struck with the total
absence in the shrines of anything that can be called beautiful, solemn
or even terrible. The general impression is of something diseased,
unclean and undignified. The figure of the Great Goddess of life and
death might have fired[82] the invention of artists but as a matter of
fact her worship has paralyzed their hands and brains.

Nor can I give much praise to the Tantras as literature[83]. It is true
that, as some authors point out, they contain fine sayings about God and
the soul. But in India such things form part of the common literary
stock and do not entitle the author to the praise which he would win
elsewhere, unless his language or thoughts show originality. Such
originality I have not found in those Tantras which are accessible. The
magical and erotic parts may have the melancholy distinction of being
unlike other works but the philosophical and theological sections could
have been produced by any Hindu who had studied these branches of Indian
literature.

23. _Hinduism in Practice_

After reviewing the characteristics of a religion it is natural to ask
what is its effect on those who profess it. Buddhism, Christianity and
Islam offer materials for answering such a question, since they are not
racial religions. In historical times they have been accepted by peoples
who did not profess them previously and we can estimate the consequences
of such changes. But Hinduism has racial or geographical limits. It
proselytizes, but hardly outside the Indian area: it is difficult to
distinguish it from Indian custom, as the gospel is distinguished from
the practice of Europe: it is superfluous to enquire what would be its
effect on other countries, since it shows no desire to impose itself on
them and they none to accept it. It is, like Shinto in Japan, not a
religion which has moulded the national character but the national
character finding expression in religion. Shinto and Hinduism are also
alike in perpetuating ancient beliefs and practices which seem
anachronisms but otherwise they are very different, for many races and
languages have contributed their thoughts and hopes to the ocean of
Hinduism and they all had an interest in speculation and mysticism
unknown to the Japanese.

The fact that Hinduism is something larger and more comprehensive than
what we call a religion is one reason why it contains much of dubious
moral value. It is analogous not to Christianity but to European
civilization which produces side by side philanthropy and the horrors of
war, or to science which has given us the blessings of surgery and the
curse of explosives. There is a deep-rooted idea in India that a man's
daily life must be accompanied by religious observances and regulated by
a religious code, by no means of universal application but still
suitable to his particular class. An immoral occupation need not be
irreligious: it simply requires gods of a special character. Hence we
find Thugs killing and robbing their victims in the name of Kali. But
though the Hindu is not at ease unless his customs are sanctioned by his
religion, yet religion in the wider sense is not bound by custom, for
the founders of many sects have declared that before God there is no
caste. A Hindu may devote himself to religion and abandon the world with
all its conventions, but if like most men he prefers to live in the
world, it is his duty to follow the customs and usages sanctioned for
his class and occupation. Thus as Sister Nivedita has shown in her
beautiful writings, cooking, washing and all the humble round of
domestic life become one long ritual of purification and prayer in which
the entertainment of a guest stands out as a great sacrifice. But though
religion may thus give beauty and holiness to common things, yet
inasmuch as it sanctifies what it finds rather than prescribes what
should be, it must bear the blame for foolish and even injurious
customs. Child marriages have nothing to do with the creed of Hinduism,
yet many Hindus, especially Hindu women, would feel it irreligious, as
well as a social disgrace, to let a daughter become adult without being
married.