A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

The Reconciliation of Races and Religions

T >> Thomas Kelly Cheyne >> The Reconciliation of Races and Religions




'Only love is motion and rest in one. Our heart ever changes its place
till it finds love, and then it has its rest....

'In this wonderful festival of creation, this great ceremony of
self-sacrifice of God, the lover constantly gives himself up to gain
himself in love....

'In love, at one of its poles you find the personal, and at the other
the impersonal.' [Footnote: Tagore, _Sadhana_ (1913), p. 114.]

I do not think this has been excelled by any modern Christian teacher,
though the vivid originality of the Buddha's and of St. Paul's
descriptions of love cannot be denied. The subject, however, is too
many-sided for me to attempt to describe it here. Suffice it to say
that the men of the coming religion will be distinguished by an
intelligent and yet intense altruistic affection--the new-born love.

2 and 3. Joy and Peace. These are fundamental qualities in religion,
and especially, it is said, in those forms of religion which appear to
centre in incarnations. This statement, however, is open to
criticism. It matters but little how we attain to joy and peace, as
long as we do attain to them. Christians have not surpassed the joy
and peace produced by the best and safest methods of the Indian and
Persian sages.

I would not belittle the tranquil and serene joy of the Christian
saint, but I cannot see that this is superior to the same joy as it is
exhibited in the Psalms of the Brethren or the Sisters in the
Buddhistic Order. Nothing is more remarkable in these songs than the
way in which joy and tranquillity are interfused. So it is with God,
whose creation is the production of tranquillity and utter joy, and so
it is with godlike men--men such as St. Francis of Assisi in the West
and the poet-seers of the Upanishads in the East. All these are at
once joyous and serene. As Tagore says, 'Joy without the play of joy
is no joy; play without activity is no play.' [Footnote: Tagore,
_Sadhana_ (1913), p. 131.] And how can he act to advantage who
is perturbed in mind? In the coming religion all our actions will be
joyous and tranquil. Meantime, transitionally, we have much need both
of long-suffering [Footnote: This quality is finely described in
chap. vi. of _The Path of Light_ (Wisdom of the East series).]
and of courage; 'quit you like men, be strong.' (I write in August
1914.)


REFORM OF ISLAM

And what as to Islam? Is any fusion between this and the other great
religions possible? A fusion between Islam and Christianity can only
be effected if first of all these two religions (mutually so
repugnant) are reformed. Thinking Muslims will more and more come to
see that the position assigned by Muhammad to himself and to the
Kur'an implies that he had a thoroughly unhistorical mind. In other
words he made those exclusive and uncompromising claims under a
misconception. There were true apostles or prophets, both speakers and
writers, between the generally accepted date of the ministry of Jesus
and that of the appearance of Muhammad, and these true prophets were
men of far greater intellectual grasp than the Arabian merchant.

Muslim readers ought therefore to feel it no sacrilege if I advocate
the correction of what has thus been mistakenly said. Muhammad was
one of the prophets, not _the_ prophet (who is virtually = the
Logos), and the Kur'an is only adapted for Arabian tribes, not for
all nations of the world.

One of the points in the exhibition of which the Arabian Bible is most
imperfect is the love of God, i.e. the very point in which the
Sufi classical poets are most admirable, though indeed an Arabian
poetess, who died 135 Hij., expresses herself already in the most
thrilling tones. [Footnote: Von Kremer's _Herrschende Ideen des
Islams_, pp. 64, etc.]

Perhaps one might be content, so far as the Kur'an is concerned,
with a selection of Suras, supplemented by extracts from other
religious classics of Islam. I have often thought that we want both a
Catholic Christian lectionary and a Catholic prayer-book. To compile
this would be the work not of a prophet, but of a band of
interpreters. An exacting work which would be its own reward, and
would promote, more perhaps than anything else, the reformation and
ultimate blending of the different religions.

Meantime no persecution should be allowed in the reformed Islamic
lands. Thankful as we may be for the Christian and Bahaite heroism
generated by a persecuting fanaticism, we may well wish that it might
be called forth otherwise. Heroic was the imprisonment and death of
Captain Conolly (in Bukhara), but heroic also are the lives of many
who have spent long years in unhealthy climates, to civilize and
moralize those who need their help.


SYNTHESIS OF RELIGIONS

'There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all,
and in all.'

These words in the first instance express the synthesis of Judaism and
Oriental pantheism, but may be applied to the future synthesis of
Islam and Hinduism, and of both conjointly with Christianity. And the
subjects to which I shall briefly refer are the exclusiveness of the
claims of Christ and of Muhammad, and of Christ's Church and of
Muhammad's, the image-worship of the Hindus and the excessive
development of mythology in Hinduism. With the lamented Sister
Nivedita I hold that, in India, in proportion as the two faiths pass
into higher phases, the easier it becomes for the one faith to be
brought into a synthesis combined with the other.

Sufism, for instance, is, in the opinion of most, 'a Muhammadan
sect.' It must, at any rate, be admitted to have passed through
several stages, but there is, I think, little to add to fully
developed Sufism to make it an ideal synthesis of Islam and
Hinduism. That little, however, is important. How can the Hindu
accept the claim either of Christ or of Muhammad to be the sole gate
to the mansions of knowledge?

The most popular of the Hindu Scriptures expressly provides for a
succession of _avatârs_; how, indeed, could the Eternal Wisdom
have limited Himself to raising up a single representative of
Messiahship. For were not Sakya Muni, Kabir and his disciple Nanak,
Chaitanya, the Tamil poets (to whom Dr. Pope has devoted himself)
Messiahs for parts of India, and Nisiran for Japan, not to speak here
of Islamic countries?

It is true, the exclusive claim of Christ (I assume that they are
adequately proved) is not expressly incorporated into the Creeds, so
that by mentally recasting the Christian can rid himself of his
burden. And a time must surely come when, by the common consent of the
Muslim world the reference to Muhammad in the brief creed of the
Muslim will be removed. For such a removal would be no disparagement
to the prophet, who had, of necessity, a thoroughly unhistorical mind
(p. 193).

The 'one true Church' corresponds of course with the one true
God. Hinduism, which would willingly accept the one, would as
naturally accept the other also, as a great far-spreading caste. There
are in fact already monotheistic castes in Hinduism.

As for image-worship, the Muslims should not plume themselves too much
on their abhorrence of it, considering the immemorial cult of the
Black Stone at Mecca. If a conference of Vedantists and Muslims could
be held, it would appear that the former regarded image-worship (not
idolatry) [Footnote: Idols and images are not the same thing; the
image is, or should be, symbolic. So, at least, I venture to define
it.] simply as a provisional concession to the ignorant masses, who
will not perhaps always remain so ignorant. So, then, Image-worship
and its attendant Mythology have naturally become intertwined with
high and holy associations. Thus that delicate poetess Mrs. Naidu (by
birth a Parsi) writes:

Who serves her household in fruitful pride,
And worships the gods at her husband's side.

I do not see, therefore, why we Christians (who have a good deal of
myth in our religion) should object to a fusion with Islam and
Hinduism on the grounds mentioned above. Only I do desire that both
the Hindu and the Christian myths should be treated symbolically. On
this (so far as the former are concerned) I agree with Keshab Chandra
Sen in the last phase of his incomplete religious development. That
the myths of Hinduism require sifting, cannot, I am sure, be denied.

From myths to image-worship is an easy step. What is the meaning of
the latter? The late Sister Nivedita may help us to find an
answer. She tells us that when travelling ascetics go through the
villages, and pause to receive alms, they are in the habit of
conversing on religious matters with the good woman of the house, and
that thus even a bookless villager comes to understand the truth about
images. We cannot think, however, that all will be equally receptive,
calling to mind that even in our own country multitudes of people
substitute an unrealized doctrine about Christ for Christ Himself
(i.e. convert Christ into a church doctrine), while others
invoke Christ, with or without the saints, in place of God.

Considering that Christendom is to a large extent composed of
image-worshippers, why should there not be a synthesis between
Hinduism and Islam on the one hand, and Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and
Christianity on the other? The differences between these great
religions are certainly not slight. But when we get behind the forms,
may we not hope to find some grains of the truth? I venture,
therefore, to maintain the position occupied above as that to which
Indian religious reformers must ultimately come.

I do not deny that Mr. Farquhar has made a very good fight against
this view. The process of the production of an image is, to us, a
strange one. It is enough to mention the existence of a rite of the
bringing of life into the idol which marks the end of that
process. But there are many very educated Hindus who reject with scorn
the view that the idol has really been made divine, and the passage
quoted by Mr. Farquhar (p. 335) from Vivekananda [Footnote: Sister
Nivedita's teacher. ] seems to me conclusive in favour of the symbol
theory.

It would certainly be an aesthetic loss if these artistic symbols
disappeared. But the most precious jewel would still remain, the Being
who is in Himself unknowable, but who is manifested in the Divine
Logos or Sofia and in a less degree in the prophets and Messiahs.


INCARNATIONS

There are some traces both in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel
of a Docetic view of the Lord's Person, in other words that His
humanity was illusory, just as, in the Old Testament, the humanity of
celestial beings is illusory. The Hindus, however, are much more sure
of this. The reality of an incarnation would be unworthy of a
God. And, strange as it may appear to us, this Docetic theory involves
no pain or disappointment for the believer, who does but amuse himself
with the sports [Footnote: See quotation from the poet Tulsi Das in
Farquhar, _The Crown of Hinduism_, p. 431.] of his Patron. At
the same time he is very careful not to take the God as a moral
example; the result of this would be disastrous. The _avatâr_ is
super-moral. [Footnote: See Farquhar, p. 434.]

What, then, was the object of the _avatâr_? Not simply to
amuse. It was, firstly, to win the heart of the worshipper, and
secondly, to communicate that knowledge in which is eternal life.

And what is to be done, in the imminent sifting of Scriptures and
Traditions, with these stories? They must be rewritten, just as, I
venture to think, the original story of the God-man Jesus was
rewritten by being blended with the fragments of a biography of a
great and good early Jewish teacher. The work will be hard, but Sister
Nivedita and Miss Anthon have begun it. It must be taken as a part of
the larger undertaking of a selection of rewritten myths.

Is Baha-'ullah an _avatâr_? There has no doubt been a tendency
to worship him. But this tendency need not be harmful to sanity of
intellect. There are various degrees of divinity. Baha-'ullah's
degree maybe compared to St. Paul's. Both these spiritual heroes were
conscious of their superiority to ordinary believers; at the same time
their highest wish was that their disciples might learn to be as they
were themselves. Every one is the temple of the holy (divine) Spirit,
and this Spirit-element must be deserving of worship. It is probable
that the Western training of the objectors is the cause of the
opposition in India to some of the forms of honour lavished, in spite
of his dissuasion, on Keshab Chandra Sen. [Footnote: _Life and
Teachings of Keshub Chunder Sen_, pp. III ff.]


IS JESUS UNIQUE?

One who has 'learned Christ' from his earliest years finds a
difficulty in treating the subject at the head of this section. 'The
disciple is not above his Master,' and when the Master is so far
removed from the ordinary--is, in fact, the regenerator of society and
of the individual,--such a discussion seems almost more than the human
mind can undertake. And yet the subject has to be faced, and if Paul
'learned' a purely ideal Christ, deeply tinged with the colours of
mythology, why should not we follow Paul's example, imitating a Christ
who put on human form, and lived and died for men as their Saviour and
Redeemer? Why should we not go even beyond Paul, and honour God by
assuming a number of Christs, among whom--if we approach the subject
impartially--would be Socrates, Zarathustra, Gautama the Buddha, as
well as Jesus the Christ?

Why, indeed, should we not? If we consider that we honour God by
assuming that every nation contains righteous men, accepted of God,
why should we not complete our theory by assuming that every nation
also possesses prophetic (in some cases more than prophetic)
revealers? Some rather lax historical students may take a different
view, and insist that we have a trustworthy tradition of the life of
Jesus, and that 'if in that historical figure I cannot see God, then I
am without God in the world.' [Footnote: Leslie Johnston, _Some
Alternatives to Jesus Christ_, p. 199.] It is, however, abundantly
established by criticism that most of what is contained even in the
Synoptic Gospels is liable to the utmost doubt, and that what may
reasonably be accepted is by no means capable of use as the basis of a
doctrine of Incarnation. I do not, therefore, see why the Life of
Jesus should be a barrier to the reconciliation of Christianity and
Hinduism. Both religions in their incarnation theories are, as we
shall see (taking Christianity in its primitive form), frankly
Docetic, both assume a fervent love for the manifesting God on the
part of the worshipper. I cannot, however, bring myself to believe
that there was anything, even in the most primitive form of the life
of the God-man Jesus, comparable to the _unmoral_ story of the
life of Krishna. Small wonder that many of the Vaishnavas prefer the
_avatâr_ of Rama.

It will be seen, therefore, that it is impossible to discuss the
historical character of the Life of Jesus without soon passing into
the subject of His uniqueness. It is usual to suppose that Jesus,
being a historical figure, must also be unique, and an Oxford
theologian remarks that 'we see the Spirit in the Church always
turning backwards to the historical revelation and drawing only thence
the inspiration to reproduce it.' [Footnote: Leslie Johnston,
_op. cit._ pp. 200 f.] He thinks that for the Christian
consciousness there can be only one Christ, and finds this to be
supported by a critical reading of the text of the Gospels. Only one
Christ! But was not the Buddha so far above his contemporaries and
successors that he came to be virtually deified? How is not this
uniqueness? It is true, Christianity has, thus far, been intolerant of
other religions, which contrasts with the 'easy tolerance' of Buddhism
and Hinduism and, as the author may wish to add, of Bahaism. But is
the Christian intolerance a worthy element of character? Is it
consistent with the Beatitude pronounced (if it was pronounced) by
Jesus on the meek? May we not, with Mr. L. Johnston's namesake, fitly
say, 'Such notions as these are a survival from the bad old days'?
[Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 306.]


THE SPIRIT OF GOD

Another very special jewel of Christianity is the doctrine of _the
Spirit_. The term, which etymologically means 'wind,' and in
Gen. i. 2 and Isa. xl. 13 appears to be a fragment of a certain
divine name, anciently appropriated to the Creator and Preserver of
the world, was later employed for the God who is immanent in
believers, and who is continually bringing them into conformity with
the divine model. With the Brahmaist theologian, P.C. Mozoomdar, I
venture to think that none of the old divine names is adequately
suggestive of the functions of the Spirit. The Spirit's work is, in
fact, nothing short of re-creation; His creative functions are called
into exercise on the appearance of a new cosmic cycle, which includes
the regeneration of souls.

I greatly fear that not enough homage has been rendered to the Spirit
in this important aspect. And yet the doctrine is uniquely precious
because of the great results which have already, in the ethical and
intellectual spheres, proceeded from it, and of the still greater ones
which faith descries in the future. We have, I fear, not yet done
justice to the spiritual capacities with which we are endowed. I will
therefore take leave to add, following Mozoomdar, that no name is so
fit for the indwelling God as Living Presence. [Footnote: Mozoomdar,
_The Spirit of God_ (1898), p. 64.] His gift to man is life, and
He Himself is Fullness of Life. The idea therefore of God, in the myth
of the Dying and Reviving Saviour, is, from one point of view,
imperfect. At any rate it is a more constant help to think of God as
full, not of any more meagre satisfaction at His works, but of the
most intense joy.

Let us, then, join our Indian brethren in worshipping God the
Spirit. In honouring the Spirit we honour Jesus, the mythical and yet
real incarnate God. The Muhammadans call Jesus _ruhu'llah_,
'the Spirit of God,' and the early Bahais followed them. One of the
latter addressed these striking words to a traveller from Cambridge:
'You (i.e. the Christian Church) are to-day the Manifestation
of Jesus; you are the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit; nay, did you but
realize it, you are God.' [Footnote: E.G. Browne, _A Year among the
Persians_, p. 492.] I fear that this may go too far for some, but
it is only a step in advance of our Master, St. Paul. If we do not yet
fully realize our blessedness, let us make it our chief aim to do
so. How God's Spirit can be dwelling in us and we in Him, is a
mystery, but we may hope to get nearer and nearer to its meaning, and
see that it is no _Maya_, no illusion. As an illustration of the
mystery I will quote this from one of Vivekananda's lectures.
[Footnote: _Jnana Yoga_, p. 154.]

'Young men of Lahore, raise once more that wonderful banner of
Advaita, for on no other ground can you have that all-embracing love,
until you see that the same Lord is present in the same manner
everywhere; unfurl that banner of love. "Arise, awake, and stop not
till the goal is reached." Arise, arise once more, for nothing can be
done without renunciation. If you want to help others, your own little
self must go.... At the present time there are men who give up the
world to help their own salvation. Throw away everything, even your
own salvation, and go and help others.'


CHINESE AND JAPANESE RELIGION

It is much to be wished that Western influence on China may not be
exerted in the wrong way, i.e. by an indiscriminate destruction
of religious tradition. Hitherto the three religions of
China--Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism--have been regarded as
forming one organism, and as equally necessary to the national
culture. Now, however, there is a danger that this hereditary union
may cease, and that, in their disunited state, the three cults may be
destined in course of time to disappear and perish. Shall they give
place to dogmatic Christianity or, among the most cultured class, to
agnosticism? Would it not be better to work for the retention at any
rate of Buddhism and Confucianism in a purified form? My own wish
would be that the religious-ethical principles of Buddhism should be
applied to the details of civic righteousness. The work could only be
done by a school, but by the co-operation of young and old it could be
done.

Taoism, however, is doomed, unless some scientifically trained scholar
(perhaps a Buddhist) will take the trouble to sift the grain from the
chaff. As Mr. Johnston tells us, [Footnote: _Buddhist China_, p. 12.]
the opening of every new school synchronizes with the closing of a
Taoist temple, and the priests of the cult are not only despised by
others, but are coming to despise themselves. Lao-Tze, however, has
still his students, and accretions can hardly be altogether avoided.
Chinese Buddhism, too, has accretions, both philosophic and religious,
and unless cleared of these, we cannot hope that Buddhism will take
its right place in the China of the future. Suzuki, however, in his
admirable _Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism_, has recognized and
expounded (as I at least think) the truest Buddhism, and it is upon
him I chiefly rely in my statements in the present work.

There is no accretion, however, in the next point which I shall
mention. The noble altruism of the Buddhism of China and Japan must at
no price be rejected from the future religion of those countries, but
rather be adopted as a model by us Western Christians. Now there are
three respects in which (among others) the Chinese and Japanese may
set us an example. Firstly, their freedom from self, and even from
pre-occupying thoughts of personal salvation. Secondly, the
perception that in the Divine Manifestation there must be a feminine
element (_das ewig-weibliche_). And thirdly, the possibility of
vicarious moral action. On the first, I need only remark that one of
those legends of Sakya Muni, which are so full of moral meaning, is
beautified by this selflessness. On the second, that Kuan-yin or
Kwannon, though formerly a god, [Footnote: 'God' and 'Goddess' are of
course unsuitable. Read _pusa_.] the son of the Buddha Amitâbha, is
now regarded as a goddess, 'the All-compassionate, Uncreated Saviour,
the Royal Bodhisat, who (like the Madonna) hears the cries of the
world.' [Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, pp. 101, 273.]

But it is the third point which chiefly concerns us here because of
the great spiritual comfort which it conveys. It is the possibility of
doing good in the name of some beloved friend or relative and to 'turn
over' (_parimarta_) one's _karma_ to this friend. The extent to which
this idea is pressed may, to some, be bewildering. Even the bliss of
Nirvana is to be rejected that the moral and physical sufferings of
the multitude may be relieved. This is one of the many ways in which
the Living Presence is manifested.


GOD-MAN

_Tablet of Ishrakat_ (p. 5).--Praise be to God who manifested the
Point and sent forth from it the knowledge of what was and is
(i.e. all things); who made it (the Point) the Herald in His
Name, the Precursor to His Most Great Manifestation, by which the
nerves of nations have quivered with fear and the Light has risen from
the horizon of the world. Verily it is that Point which God hath made
to be a Sea of Light for the sincere among His servants, and a ball of
fire for the deniers among His creations and the impious among His
people.--This shows that Baha-'ullah did not regard the so-called
Bab as a mere forerunner.

The want of a surely attested life, or extract from a life, of a
God-man will be more and more acutely felt. There is only one such
life; it is that of Baha-'ullah. Through Him, therefore, let us pray
in this twentieth century amidst the manifold difficulties which beset
our social and political reconstructions; let Him be the prince-angel
who conveys our petitions to the Most High. The standpoint of
Immanence, however, suggests a higher and a deeper view. Does a friend
need to ask a favour of a friend? Are we not in Baha'ullah ('the Glory
of God'), and is not He in God? Therefore, 'ye shall ask what ye will,
and it shall be done unto you' (John xv. 7). Far be it that we should
even seem to disparage the Lord Jesus, but the horizon of His early
worshippers is too narrow for us to follow them, and the critical
difficulties are insuperable. The mirage of the ideal Christ is all
that remains, when these obstacles have been allowed for.

We read much about God-men in the narratives of the Old Testament,
where the name attached to a manifestation of God in human semblance
is 'malak Yahwè (Jehovah)' or 'malak Elohim'--a name of uncertain
meaning which I have endeavoured to explain more correctly elsewhere.
In the New Testament too there is a large Docetic element. Apparently
a supernatural Being walks about on earth--His name is Jesus of
Nazareth, or simply Jesus, or with a deifying prefix 'Lord' and a
regal appendix 'Christ.' He has doubtless a heavenly message to
individuals, but He has also one to the great social body. Christ,
says Mr. Holley, is a perfect revelation for the individual, but not
for the social organism. This is correct if we lay stress on the
qualifying word 'perfect,' especially if we hold that St. Paul has the
credit of having expanded and enriched the somewhat meagre
representation of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. It must be conceded
that Baha-'ullah had a greater opportunity than Christ of lifting both
His own and other peoples to a higher plane, but the ideal of both was
the same.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.