Chapter 9

THE RELIGIONS OF INDIA.

India is the mother of religions. No other land has been so prolific in religious thought or has founded faiths which have commanded the allegiance of so large a portion of the human race. While the Aryans of the West have been content to borrow their faith from the Hebrews; Indo-Aryans have produced the most wonderful and mighty ethnic religion (Brahmanism) and also one of the three great missionary religions of the world (Buddhism). A third of the human race today cling with devotion to these two products of the fertility of the mind, and the spirituality of the heart, of India.

India’s toleration for other religions has been marked. For twelve centuries she has been the asylum of Zoroastrianism. Nearly nine-tenths of the followers of that ancient cult of Persia found and still enjoy a hospitable home in India. There are more of the narrow, bigoted followers of Mohammed among these tolerant people than are found in any other land—even in the wide domains of the Sultan. Christians also have lived, practically unmolested, in this great land almost from Apostolic days.

Thus not a few of the great Faiths of the world are at present represented, and are struggling either for existence or dominance, in the land of the Vedas.

The principal faiths of the land, with their adherents, were as follows, according to census of 1891:

Hindu 207,731,727 Sikh 1,907,838 Jain 1,416,638 Buddhist(5) 7,131,361 Parsee 89,904 Mohammedan 57,231,164 Jewish 17,000 Christian(6) 2,284,000

Let us consider these faiths briefly. It will be seen that Christianity has, as its followers, only one per cent. of the whole population of the land.

(_a_) Judaism.

The Jewish Community in India numbers only 17,000; these are found mostly in Bombay and Poonah. Perhaps the most interesting colony of them is that on the west coast in Cochin. I had the pleasure of visiting them in 1897. There are 1,500 of them divided into two sections—the White, and the Black Jews. There is a marked racial difference between the two. The Blacks were originally the slaves of the Whites as is shown by their historical documents. It is not known when the Whites came to India. Some think that they fled there during the Jewish exile. More likely they came upon the dispersion during the first century of our era. The purity of their blood and the remarkable fairness of their complexion indicate that the settlement has been from time to time reenforced from northwestern countries. They are an exceedingly conservative people; and in their two synagogues, they conduct their worship perhaps more like the Jews of twenty centuries ago than do any other representatives of that race today. The day-school connected with the White Synagogue closely resembles the little school which our Lord attended at Nazareth.

(_b_) Mohammedanism.

About one-fifth of the whole population of that land is connected with the religion of the great prophet of Arabia. This is a number largely in excess of the whole Mohammedan population of Turkey. It is very suggestive that this faith finds larger growth under the peaceable protection of the Indian, than under the semi-barbarism of the Moslem, government.

This religion was carried into India in 711 A. D. at the point of the sword; and its establishment and success for centuries was owing to the same method. This community is not evenly distributed all over India; for, more than one-third of it is found in Bengal alone, where it furnishes the majority of the population. More than one-half of the adherents of this faith in India are converts from Hinduism. These were gathered in former centuries when the Mohammedan power was dominant, and when to be a member of any other faith than Islam was regarded as a disability. The Mohammedans of the country are, on the whole, physically more sturdy and vigorous than their neighbours. Government, in its treatment of the people, has to conciliate and regard with favour this class more than the Hindus who are four times their number. They possess a great deal of religious bigotry which is intrenched behind their dense ignorance. There is a no more ignorant element than this in the population of India; only six per cent. of the men are able to read and hardly any of the women; and they seem, even today, to have a positive aversion to the schoolhouse. Mohammedanism had, during the days of its dominance, considerable influence in the land; but it did very little to improve the material, moral or religious condition of the people; and it is a significant fact that, comparing today the adherents of Islam in India, with those of Hinduism, the latter are found not inferior in life, morals and aspirations to the followers of the prophet.

The converts gathered from Mohammedanism by Christianity are few, though not so few as ordinarily represented. In North India encouraging success has been achieved by missions for this class. But in South India, where their numbers are fewer, efforts in their behalf have not been so well organised and have produced smaller results. It is a hard task to reach and to move this class, owing not only to the important truth of monotheism, which they hold with great enthusiasm, but also because of the supreme ignorance which blinds them equally to the weakness of their own, and to the excellence of the Christian, faith.

(_c_) Parseeism.

This faith has had adherents in India for eleven centuries. Driven out by Mohammedanism from their home in Persia, the Parsees found refuge in India. There are only 100,000 of these followers of Zoroaster in the world. 90,000 of them are in India; and nearly all of these reside in Bombay and its vicinity. Their faith, Zoroastrianism, is the purest of ethnic religions. It has preserved its ancient integrity and high tone much better than its sister faith, Brahmanism. Among the members of this religion are found men possessed of great enterprise, much wealth, the spirit of progress and of philanthropy and culture. They give high honour and position to their women, and in all matters of civilization are considerably in advance of even the best class of Hindus.

This religion, though from the same source with Brahmanism, has fundamental differences of doctrine from that faith. None is more marked or significant than its Dualism as contrasted with the Pantheism of its sister faith. The problem of the origin of evil has found these two diverse interpretations and these have had a large influence in shaping the characters, respectively, of these two great ethnic religions.

Besides the far-off common source of these two religions, indicated by the earliest names and character of their deities, there is hardly any bond of fellowship in doctrine, worship or observance between the fire worshipping Parsee and the Hindu idolater. And though these Parsees have, for more than a millennium, made India their home, they have kept themselves apart from the people of the land and are still as truly foreigners in the land of their adoption as are the English residents.

(_d_) Buddhism.

This religion is a child of India; its founder, Gautama, was the product of that land, and, next to our Lord Himself, is the greatest among the founders of religions. Buddhism arose as a reaction, twenty-five centuries ago, against the excesses of Brahmanism. It flourished wonderfully for a few centuries, and at the time when Christ was on earth, had gained supremacy over the old faith and had become the State religion in India. Owing to the Brahmanic revival, in the eighth century of our era, Buddhism was in its turn, driven out of the land, and has found refuge in Ceylon and in more eastern countries from that time until the present. Since then it has been almost entirely without followers in India proper. Of the British India possessions Burma is the only place where it is the popular faith today.

Still it is not without much influence in the land of its birth. For, Brahmanism overcame its rival faith in India only by adopting some of its most fundamental contentions and teachings. Indeed, modern Hinduism is largely a blending of the Brahmanism of old with its supplanter, Buddhism. The abundant sacrifices which Brahmanism offered were entirely abolished in deference to Buddhistic sensibilities. The doctrine of transmigration, through Buddhism, received new emphasis; and kindness to all living creatures was extolled to a supreme virtue. As a climax to this attitude of conciliation Hinduism finally adopted the Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. Thus, by the irony of history, Gautama, the Buddha, found a place in the pantheon of the religion which he gave his life to overthrow; and today many of the leading aspects of the life and teaching of the Hindus may be traced, either in source or in emphasis, to his religion.

(_e_) Jainism.

This religion is an offshoot, or the India remnant, of Buddhism. It perhaps represents that element among the followers of the Buddha who declined to be absorbed into the revived and transformed Brahmanic faith. Through the many centuries of their existence as a sect they have spurned every approach of the Brahmans and have largely stood for Buddhistic teaching and observances. They have differed little from Buddhists in their beliefs; for they deny the authority of the Hindu Vedas, disregard sacrifices, cultivate a high morality, believe strongly in transmigration and reverence life in all its forms. And yet, strangely enough, many of the priests of their temples are Brahmans and they place Hindu idols close to their shrines. They differ from the Buddhists chiefly in their objects of worship and in their ritual. They have a mythology of their own—a mythology of saints rather than of gods. These saints, or “Jaina,” (the “victorious ones”—those who have attained perfection through self-victory and discipline) are worshipped, and furnish an inspiration to all the devotees of that faith.

The Jains, like the Parsees, are found mostly in Bombay and are a wealthy community, usually engaged in banking and commerce. They are noted for their charity, and their philanthropy is largely directed towards helping the poor among them and for maintaining hospitals for animals.

(_f_) Sikhism.

This religion, if we may so denominate it, was founded by Nanak Shah in the fifteenth century. Nanak Shah was apparently an admirer, if not a follower, of Kabir, the Hindu reformer who established a sect which was essentially a compromise between Hinduism and Mohammedanism. This is the chief characteristic of Sikhism. It eschewed the polytheism and idolatry of Hinduism. It taught the unity of the Godhead, abolished caste, and enforced a high type of morality. It has, however, subsequently fallen under the blighting influence of surrounding Hinduism and has lost much of its distinctive excellence. So that, according to the census report of 1891, “distinction between Sikhs and the rest of the Brahmanic community is mainly ritualistic.... The only trustworthy method of distinguishing this creed was to ask if the person in question repudiated the services of the barber and the tobacconist; for the precepts most strictly enforced nowadays (by the Sikhs) are that the hair of the head and face must never be cut, and that smoking is a habit to be avoided.”

However manifestly the Sikh religion is going the common way of all the new faiths and religious revolts of India—the way of reabsorption into Hinduism—it has done much to create and foster a strong national feeling. Sikhs were cruelly persecuted by the then ruling Mohammedans. But the overthrow of the Moghul Empire gave the Sikhs territorial power and they possessed the only remaining political organization in the Punjab. So that, at the advent of the British, the Sikhs were a mighty power to be dealt with. They became the great power of North India; and during the Indian mutiny their loyalty to the British Raj was its salvation. At present the Sikh nation, warlike and valiant as ever, furnishes, perhaps, the most stalwart and invincible contingent for the Indian Army.

(_g_) Hinduism.

This is the religion of three-fourths of all the inhabitants of India and of nine-tenths of all those who are there reached by missionaries.

What is Hinduism? It is a mixture of Brahmanism, Buddhism and Devil-worship. As we have seen, the supplanting faith of Buddha was finally absorbed, so far as India was concerned, into the old faith. When, later on, the Brahmans moved towards the southern part of the peninsula they entered the region occupied by, and largely given over to, demonolatry. According to its wont Brahmanism, as modified by Buddhism, sought not to overthrow the primitive cult of the people, but to absorb it. Thus, in South India today, more than three-fourths of the people are devil worshippers. And yet, with their demons, they have been accepted into the higher faith of the Aryan; and, according to their mood and preference, give themselves to the worship of Hindu gods or village demons. Worshipping in pure Hindu temples is to that people but a pastime, a mere holiday diversion; while the appeasing of the demons at their village shrines and under old trees in their hamlets is the most serious concern of their life. And yet all of them are regarded, and rightly regarded, as Hindus. Indeed, in the Hinduism of today, especially as found in South India, can be found living amicably together and without any apparent sense of incongruity or conflict the lowest type of fetishism, an ardent devil-worship, an engrossing ceremonialism, a worship of the higher Brahmanical deities, a thoroughgoing pantheism and a pure theism. I have witnessed in our district, side by side, a hideous fetish, a gross idol of a local demon, an image of Vishnu who is the best of Brahmanical gods, while in an adjacent hamlet lived families who belonged to none of these cults but who gave themselves to a belief in, and practice of, a vague theism which is farther removed from the fetishism of their neighbours than is their religion from the highest type of Christian teaching.

Thus Hinduism may be viewed as an immense cloth of many colours; which colours have been patched together without any reference to harmony or consistency. In other words, that religion is a big mass of mutually inconsistent and undigested beliefs, practices and ceremonies. It has not only mutually antagonistic philosophies, it has also three different ways of salvation, 330,000,000 gods and as many laws and customs which, though binding as the laws of the Medes and Persians, are nevertheless, absolutely wanting in consistency and in unity of purpose and teaching. In the words of Sir Alfred Lyall,—“The general character of Indian religion is that it is unlimited and comprehensive, up to the point of confusion; it is a boundless sea of divine beliefs and practices; it encourages the worship of innumerable gods by an infinite variety of rites; it permits every doctrine to be taught, every kind of mystery to be imagined, any sort of theory to be held as to the inner nature and visible operation of the divine power.”

It has been the wont of Brahmanism not to directly antagonize and overthrow the old and the opposing cults, but rather to absorb them. Note here its fundamental contrast with Christianity. It meets its rival with a smile of appreciation, then seeks to fraternize with it, after which it approves and appropriates and finally absorbs it.

In the Madura District of South India, where I have lived, the Brahmans, upon their first arrival, found all the people given to the worship of their village demons. They said to them, practically,—“We do not wish to deprive you of your devil shrines and images and worship. We will take the leading demons which you worship and marry them to our great gods and then give to them a place in our pantheon and a part in our worship. Come ye also with them and we will welcome you into our temples and faith.” Thus “Meenatchi,” the old and the principal demoness of the primitive cult of that region, was married to the great god Siva and became the presiding goddess of the great Hindu temple of Madura; and all her old worshippers followed her into the new faith of Hinduism. So all those people are Hindus today. And yet they have not abated one jot of their interest in and practice of their demonolatry.

That which may be regarded as the more strictly Brahmanical development and manifestation of Hinduism is divided, at present, into two great cults. These are Saivism, or the worship of Siva, and Vaishnavism, or the worship of Vishnu. These two cults, while not mutually antagonistic, are nevertheless entirely separate—their devotees, respectively, being satisfied with their own god and his incarnation and manifestations.

The first god of the Hindu triad (Brahma, Vishnu and Siva)—has practically no shrines among Hindus today. His worship has been largely transferred to his so-called sons, the Brahmans; and Siva has, in the main, absorbed all his functions as creator. As it is only Vishnu, the preserver, and Siva, the destroyer and recreator that have anything to do with men, the Hindus devote themselves to these two only. Siva is the “great god,” the austere and terrible one whom the people fear. He is known chiefly through his phallic emblem, the _linga_, which emphasizes his creative activity. Vishnu is the benign god who has resorted to many incarnations whereby he might free the world of demons who were worrying and destroying our race. Siva has many manifestations; Vishnu alone has “descents” or incarnations, some of which were in brute, and some in human, form.

These two cults obtain universally throughout India. Vaishnavism (the worship of Vishnu) has many popular sects which wield extensive influence throughout the country. The one established by Vallabha-Swami, in the sixteenth century, is a worship of Krishna and is given to the indulgence of the passions and is characterised by gross licentiousness.

The sect founded by Chaitanya in the fourteenth century is one of the most celebrated, and is very popular in Bengal. It subordinates everything to faith (_bhakti_) even making this more important than caste. Contemplation, rather than ritual, was Chaitanya’s pathway to salvation and he gave supreme value to the virtue of obedience to the “guru” or religious guide.

In South India the cult of the religious reformer, Ramanuja, who flourished in the twelfth century, has extensive popularity. He was a man of great thought, and his special type of Vedantic philosophy is much in vogue today. He proclaimed the unity of God under the name of Vishnu. He received converts from every caste. It is an interesting fact that nearly all, in the long list of religious reformers in India, took a position of hostility to the caste system. But it is also significant that none of these reform movements has persisted through the centuries in that attitude, but has fallen into line with orthodox Hinduism in absolute submission to the caste demon.

“_Sakti_” worship has also attained great influence and extensive predominance in many parts of India. This is the worship of the _Sakti_ or the female half of the great deities of the land. The _Saktar_ preëminently worship _Kali_, the goddess of blood, and the other consorts of Siva. It is a worship of power (“_Sakti_” means energy or power), and usually power of the maleficent type. It is perhaps the lowest form of Hinduism and easily lends itself to a gratification of the lowest passions of men. This _tantric_ cult (the _tantras_ are the sacred books of the Saktar) is the only one in modern Hinduism which indulges in bloody sacrifices—_Kali_ and her sisters being satisfied by blood as by nothing else. This attests the non-Aryan origin and character of this worship, inasmuch as Brahmanism, since the days of Buddha, abjures all bloody sacrifice.

Let it not be supposed, however, from the above remarks, about the multiform and self-contradictory character of the amorphous thing called Hinduism, that it is therefore impossible for us to understand and measure its nature and power. For Brahmanism, through all ages, has not been without a definite tendency, an underlying philosophy and pervasive fundamental beliefs. It is indeed more a congeries of faiths than a simple religion, like Christianity. And yet, amid all its hosts of contradictions and ways of salvation and sects and cults there have sounded, as a diapason through all the centuries, the fundamental teachings of Vedantism. A few doctrines such as pantheism, transmigration, “karma,” “bhakti” and final absorption into the Supreme Soul are all but universally held by the people of all sects and divisions, however much at variance with these their peculiar beliefs may seem to be.

The prominent staple of Hindu religious thinking in all ages has doubtless been Vedantism—that subtle form of pantheism which has charmed and bewildered not a few of the great minds of the Occident also. The paramount influence of this philosophy upon all religious thought and life in India is unmistakable today, as it has been through the centuries. Of this Max Müller says,—“If the people of India can be said to have now any system of religion at all ... it is to be found in the Vedanta philosophy, the leading tenets of which are known to some extent in every village.... Nothing will extinguish that ancient spirit of Vedantism which is breathed by every Hindu from his earliest youth, and pervades, in various forms, even the prayers of the idolater, the speculations of the philosopher, and the proverbs of the beggar.”

We may therefore, without hesitation, so far as Hinduism is concerned regard as philosophic Hinduism those basal doctrines and their corollaries which, from the earliest days, have been the stock in trade of all Indo-Aryan thinkers and at the same time the source and solvent of all the mysteries of their faith.

By a study of these one may easily reach the heart of Hindus and of Hinduism and can weigh and measure the forces which enter into their religious life and thinking, and can compare them with the teachings and institutions of Christianity.

This study will bring a twofold blessing to Christians of the West, especially to missionaries who have given themselves to the regeneration of India. It will give them a larger degree of respect for that great people of the East and a new appreciation for Hindu thought and religious speculation. We of the West have been imbued with too much of an intellectual arrogance and a spirit of contempt for “the benighted Hindu.” Even if we ever learned, we certainly have too easily forgotten, that many, many centuries ago—when our ancestors were grovelling in the lowest depths of primitive savagery—the rishis of India were engaged in perhaps the highest self-propelled flights of religious speculation the world has ever known and were working out a philosophy, or more correctly a system of ontology, which is today the wonder and admiration of Western savants.

I argue for a study of those teachings which, though hoary with age, are today all-important as the foundation upon which the many-aisled temple of Hinduism is built and (if I may change the figure) as the cement which binds the whole structure together.

A few years ago it was generally thought that Brahmanism was little else than the insane ravings of well-meaning, but unguided, or, worse still, misguided, denizens of darkness; the whole literature was considered a mass of intellectual and moral rubbish. How much the verdict of Western scholars upon this subject has changed during the last quarter of a century I need not mention. All men who have investigated the subject give today unstinted praise to the heart and intellect of those sages who produced much of the ancient religious literature of India. They will not endorse the statement of the great German philosopher who exclaimed, “In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life—it will be the solace of my death.” And yet many claim that its truths are numerous and spiritually helpful. Hopkins writes(7):—“The sincerity, the fearless search of the Indic Sages for truth, their loftiness of thinking, all these will affect the religious student of every clime and age, though the fancied result of their thinking may pass without effect over a modern mind.” And Barth truly remarks(8):—“The religion of India has not only given birth to Buddhism and produced, to its own credit, a code of precepts which is not inferior to any other; but in the poetry which they have inspired there is at times a delicacy and bloom of moral sentiment which the Western world has never seen outside of Christianity. Nowhere else, perhaps, do we meet with an equal wealth of fine sentences.” Of their intellectual acumen Dr. Matheson says: “It is not too much to say that the mind of the West, with all its undoubted impulses towards the progress of humanity, has never exhibited such an intense amount of intellectual force as is to be found in the religious speculations of India.... These have been the cradle of all Western speculations; and wheresoever the European mind has risen into heights of philosophy, it has done so because the Brahman has been the pioneer. There is no intellectual problem in the West which had not its earliest discussion in the East; and there is no modern solution of that problem which will not be found anticipated in the East.” These words of the Scotch divine are doubtless strong; too strong, I think. And yet they may be serviceable, if they warn us against that proneness to depreciate the intellectual value and serious purpose of the religious books of that land. It is worse than useless to confidently descant upon the errors, inconsistencies, the follies and absurdities of these writings without acknowledging at the same time the profound thought, the deep spiritual yearning and the sublime poetic beauty, which characterize some portions.

In this connection the question of the origin of Hinduism is important.

It was formerly laid down as a postulate of the Christian’s belief that Hinduism is of the devil; and that, coming from below, it must be shunned as a study and denounced root and branch as a thing purely satanic. This theory has entirely given way to a more rational belief. The question whether the truths of Hinduism, with those of other ethnic religions, have filtered down from some primitive revelation and are the relics of a vanishing faith, divinely communicated to some of the earliest members of our race; or whether God has directly, from time to time, guided the thoughts and answered the deep yearnings of the soul of the Indo-Aryan, is one which is still discussed. But modern scholarship is practically of one voice in maintaining that God hath not left Himself without witness among the many nations of the earth,—a witness that has indeed been comparatively feeble—a revelation that is dim and starlike as compared with the noonday brightness of the Sun of Righteousness in the Christian religion. The day has come when the Christian must accept and believe that God has been dealing directly with this people through the many centuries of their history, leading them to important truths, even though their evil hearts and worse lives have caused them, in many cases, to “change the truth of God into a lie and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator.” Many of the truths which are imbedded in the religion of that land find their solution in no other hypothesis than this.

This study of Hinduism will also lead us to realize the important truth of the many points of contact between that faith and our own. A knowledge of their sympathies cannot be of less importance than that of their antipathies. And this knowledge is indispensable to the Christian worker in India as it gives a new and a most direct way of approach to the Hindu heart, and a fresh and all-potent argument with them in behalf of Christianity.

This process also best illustrates the method and Spirit of Christ. Dr. Robson aptly remarks that “while no religion has done more to overthrow other religions than Christianity, no religious teacher has said less against other religions than Christ. We have from Him only one short saying condemning the Gentiles’ aim in life, but not even one reflecting on the gods they believed in, or the worship they paid them. Was not this because He came not to destroy but to fulfill?”

I can refer to only a few of these common points and belief in the two faiths.

(_a_) Incarnation.

These are the only two faiths which have exalted, to primal importance, this doctrine. In Christianity it is basal, and in later Brahmanism, or Hinduism, it has overshadowed nearly every other teaching. In a sense the all-pervasive pantheism of Brahmanism made a certain form of incarnation a necessity from the earliest days. The ancient Aryans could not rest satisfied with the Unknown and the Absolute of their Vedantism; so they speedily began to erect for their evergrowing pantheon an endless procession of emanations. But it was, probably, the phenomenal success of Gautama, and especially the posthumous influence of his life and example, that opened the eyes of the Brahmans and suggested to them the supreme need of an _avatar_ (“descent”), for the popularizing of their faith. And thus originated that vast system of descents, or incarnations, which have multiplied so greatly and developed so grotesquely all over the land. The common ground furnished by this doctrine to the two faiths is not adequately appreciated. This truth of incarnation, in its fundamental doctrinal bearing upon Hinduism, and in the strengthening of its hold, even until the present, upon the popular imagination and affection, should not go for nought in the mind of Christian critics, because of the content of the multitudinous descents, which is mostly grotesque, debasing and repulsive. They forget that the Christian doctrine of incarnation furnishes, perhaps, the best leverage with which the Christian missionary is to overturn the faith of that people, simply because the doctrine itself has been so popularized, even if debased, in India for many centuries. Christ should be none the less, yea the more, welcome to that land because the most popular god of the Hindu pantheon (Krishna) is also the leading incarnation of Vishnu.

(_b_) Vicarious Atonement.

In Christianity this is second in importance only to the doctrine of incarnation. In Brahmanism also it has maintained, from the first, a position of cardinal importance. In pre-Buddhistic days this found expression in sacrifices that were probably more numerous and more precious than those offered by any other people. This is partly shown by the fact that words used for sacrifice are more numerous in the Sanskrit than even in the Hebrew language. It is true that their idea of sacrifice, both as to its import and object, was different from ours or from that of the Israelites; and indeed their own ideas also varied at different times. Under the influence of Buddhism, sacrifice, as such, was practically abandoned; but the idea of atonement for sin, which was underlying them, they practically carried over into the doctrine of transmigration. For, however stiffly they contend that, through metempsychosis, the doctrine of _karma_ is realized and every soul atones for its own sin, it nevertheless remains true that the element of consciousness separates the person who sinned from him who suffers; and one becomes the involuntary atoner and the other the atoned for.

(_c_) Spirituality.

It may, to some, seem absurd to bring the two faiths into anything but the relationship of contrast in this particular, when it is remembered that we are confronted daily by a Hinduism which is as grossly formal, materialistic and sensual as any religion known in any land. But it is unnecessary to remind us of the fact that the literature of the faith of this people is, in some respects, far removed from the low life and ritual of the present day; and in no greater respect than in this which we are now considering. All students recognize in many writings, vedic and post-vedic, profound seriousness and a sometimes strange depth of spiritual apprehension coupled with an other-worldliness which, to the western mind, seems absurdly impractical. Indeed, the naturally mystical bent of the Hindu mind has been regarded, and, doubtless, rightly regarded, as one of the chief obstacles to a true and easy understanding of much that is in their sacred writings by the too practical Westerner. We should not be blind to the lofty height of spiritual thought which we occasionally, and the deep spiritual yearning which we frequently, are permitted to witness in their books. In evidence of this we need only to refer to the powerful hold which the _yoga_ system of philosophy and life has upon them. An intense meditativeness, a devotional ecstasy and an insight of true heavenly wisdom is the ideal of life to which the Hindu has been called from time very remote.

(_d_) Eschatology.

In Hinduism, as in Christianity, man is directed to look to a judgment-seat and a system of rewards and punishments in the world to come. While this doctrine again, in its development and detail, differs essentially from that of the Christian faith, it is well to call attention to it as a point of contact. It breathes the spirit of _karma_, which, in its retributive power, has been compared by some to the doctrine of heredity, and by others, to that of fate. _Karma_ demands the full future fruition of every act done in the body; and many re-births, with intervals of keener suffering and bliss in numerous hells and heavens, are the countless steps in the doleful fugue of emancipation—a process which is enough to appall any but the patient, stolid soul of a Hindu. And yet this weary detail of a very long and sisyphean effort to shake off this mortal coil and to enter into rest is worthy of the missionary’s attention, as it represents, perhaps, the most elaborate system of eschatology outside of the New Testament. It is also ethical in its character, and in its fundamental principles has chords which harmonize with those of the Christian doctrine.

(_e_) The Doctrine of Faith.

This doctrine maintains that, by devotion to a personal god, salvation is achieved. This idea separates this doctrine from, and apparently antagonizes, the prevailing philosophy of the land—Vedantism. This cult of _Bhakti_ is connected with Krishnaolatry, which is the worship of the most unworthy and licentious god of the Hindu pantheon.

Of Vaishnavism, or the worship of Vishnu, in which the _bhakti_, or faith, doctrine prevails, Sir Monier Williams remarks:—“Notwithstanding the gross polytheistic superstitions and hideous idolatry to which it gives rise, it is the only Hindu system worthy of being called a religion. At all events it must be admitted that it has more common ground with Christianity than any other form of non-Christian faiths.” The basal truth of _bhakti_—that of supreme attachment to, or faith in, a personal god—could not fail of rousing within the devout lofty and stirring emotion. _Bhaktar_, _i.e._, those who have given themselves absolutely to this doctrine and make it the motive and inspiration of their lives, are oblivious to all other bonds, abjuring among themselves even caste and all its demands, and proclaiming the true oneness of the brotherhood of the faith among all the devotees of the same god.

Thus we have today a large and vigorous class of Hindus who have subordinated every doctrine and practice of their religion to that of faith, or _bhakti_. I believe, with not a few illustrious scholars, that this doctrine traces its origin to Christianity. Like everything else which Hinduism had absorbed, it has been considerably transmuted in the process. It has been necessarily and greatly affected and degraded by the character of the gods who have been its objects. It has been debased by contact with idolatry and error, with superstition and sensuality. And yet we trace its lineaments to its lofty, divine origin, and hesitate not to say that it furnishes a common ground of a fundamental truth of which Christian missionaries have not yet sufficiently availed themselves in their work for this people.

Hindus have also done not a little thinking in the elaboration of the doctrine of salvation. In their discussion as to the relative potency of divine grace and human agency in the salvation of man they became divided into two antagonistic schools, corresponding, very closely, to the Calvinistic and Arminian, among Christians—the _Tengaliar_ maintaining the “cat theory” and the _Vadagaliar_ the “monkey theory”; so called because one party holds that, just as the cat saves her kitten by seizing and carrying it away bodily, so God seizes and saves man without his own effort. This is the doctrine of absolute grace. The other party insists that the relation of the young monkey to its mother, whereby its rescue from trouble depends upon its own grasp, best represents the process of salvation in which man’s coöperation is necessary.

They have also developed the doctrine of growth in grace sometimes in a very instructive way. The spiritual development from _saloka_ (in the same world with God) to _sāmīpa_ (in the divine presence) thence to _sārūpa_ (in the divine image) and finally to _sāyujya_ (complete identity with the divine Being) bears, in some respects, a striking resemblance to the teaching of St. Paul, where he writes that Jesus was “made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

In like manner they teach that, for the attainment of beatitude, it is necessary to pass through five stages—(1) that of _sānti_, quiet repose or calm and contemplative piety; (2) that of _dāsya_, the slave state—the surrender of the whole will to God; (3) that of _sakhya_, or friendship; (4) that of _vātsalya_, or filial affection; and (5) that of _mādhurya_, or supreme, all-absorbing love.

I must refer briefly to only one other illustration of the probable influence of our religion upon the faith of India, and that is in its teaching on eschatology. The illustration is drawn from the tenth incarnation, _Kalki avatār_, of Vishnu. This incarnation is to take place hereafter, when Vishnu will come, at the close of the present _Kali yuga_, or iron age, and put an end to these growing evil times, destroying with them all the wicked and ushering in the new era of righteousness (_Satya yuga_) upon the earth. For this great work of the restoration and the renovation of all creation, he is to come seated upon a white horse with a drawn sword, blazing like a comet. Hindus at present look forward to this new incarnation as their future deliverer, when the sorrows and the depravity of this present, shall be swallowed up in the glories and joys of the future, age. The striking thing about this teaching is not the hope which it inculcates for the future; for that is practically a part of the Hindu conception of the succession of the ages of their time system. According to this the present era must yield to the coming good _yuga_, which must, in its turn, give way to the ages of lesser good and of evil, which again will go and come in their ever-changing cycle. What seems remarkable is the _form_ in which this idea is here clothed. The coming of the Deliverer upon a _Kalki_—a white horse—with his great message of universal destruction and deliverance, brings directly to our memory the Bible prophecy of Rev. 6:2; 19:11-16, and also brings us into touch with the belief of many Christians today as to the appearance and the work of the Son of Man at the great day of His Second Coming.

The question arises as to how this _avatar_ originated. It evidently seems to be an afterthought and of no ancient date among the series of Vishnu’s descents. And following the ninth, or Buddha, _avatar_, which was clearly intended as a bait to Buddhists, and as a frank and full compromise with that hitherto supplanting and hostile faith, it seems natural to suppose that this tenth also came in the same way and with the same spirit as a palm leaf to another religion, even our own, whose prophetic words about the second coming of Christ could be so easily appropriated and so harmlessly adopted into the Hindu system. It thus introduced into their faith an element of future glory and triumph which the religion had not formerly possessed. Indeed this very element of aggression and conquest is one of the signs of its Western origin and Christian source.