Ten Great Religions Part 11

The solution of the second problem is the same in all three systems. It is by knowledge that the soul is emanc.i.p.ated from body or matter or nature.

Worship is inadequate, though not to be despised. Action is injurious rather than beneficial, for it implies desire. Only knowledge can lead to entire rest and peace.

According to all three systems, the transmigration of the soul through different bodies is an evil resulting from desire. As long as the soul wishes anything, it will continue to migrate and to suffer. When it gathers itself up into calm insight, it ceases to wander and finds repose.

The _Vedanta_ or _Mimansa_ is supposed to be referred to in Manu.[67]

_Mimansa_ means "searching." In its logical forms it adopts the method so common among the scholastics, in first stating the question, then giving the objection, after that the reply to the objection, and lastly the conclusion. The first part of the Mimansa relates to worship and the ceremonies and ritual of the Veda. The second part teaches the doctrine of Brahma. Brahma is the one, eternal, absolute, unchangeable Being. He unfolds into the universe as Creator and Created. He becomes first ether, then air, then fire, then water, then earth. From these five elements all bodily existence proceeds. Souls are sparks from the central fire of Brahma, separated for a time, to be absorbed again at last.

Brahma, in his highest form as Para-Brahm, stands for the Absolute Being.

The following extract from the Sama-Veda (after Haug's translation) expresses this: "The generation of Brahma was before all ages, unfolding himself evermore in a beautiful glory; everything which is highest and everything which is deepest belongs to him. Being and Not-Being are unveiled through Brahma."

The following pa.s.sage is from a Upanishad, translated by Windischmann:--

"How can any one teach concerning Brahma? he is neither the known nor the unknown. That which cannot be expressed by words, but through which all expression comes, this I know to be Brahma. That which cannot be thought by the mind, but by which all thinking comes, this I know is Brahma. That which cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eye sees, is Brahma. If thou thinkest that thou canst know it, then in truth thou knowest it very little. To whom it is unknown, he knows it; but to whom it is known, he knows it not."

This also is from Windischmann, from the Kathaka Upanishad: "One cannot attain to it through the word, through the mind, or through the eye. It is only reached by him who says, 'It is! It is!' He perceives it in its essence. Its essence appears when one perceives it as it is."

The old German expression _Istigkeit_, according to Bunsen, corresponds to this. This also is the name of Jehovah as given to Moses from the burning bush: "And G.o.d said unto Moses, I AM THE I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The idea is that G.o.d alone really exists, and that the root of all being is in him. This is expressed in another Upanishad: "HE WHO EXISTS is the root of all creatures; he WHO EXISTS is their foundation, and in him they rest."

In the Vedanta philosophy this speculative pantheism is carried further.

Thus speaks Sankara, the chief teacher of the Vedanta philosophy ("Colebrooke's Essays"): "I am the great Brahma, eternal, pure, free, one, constant, happy, existing without end. He who ceases to contemplate other things, who retires into solitude, annihilates his desires, and subjects his pa.s.sions, he understands that Spirit is the One and the Eternal. The wise man annihilates all sensible things in spiritual things, and contemplates that one Spirit who resembles pure s.p.a.ce. Brahma is without size, quality, character, or division."

According to this philosophy (says Bunsen) the world is the Not-Being. It is, says Sankara, "appearance without Being; it is like the deception of a dream." "The soul itself," he adds, "has no actual being."

There is an essay on Vedantism in a book published in Calcutta, 1854, by a young Hindoo, Shoshee Chunder Dutt, which describes the creation as proceeding from Maya, in this way: "Dissatisfied with his own solitude, Brahma feels a desire to create worlds, and then the volition ceases so far as he is concerned, and he sinks again into his apathetic happiness, while the desire, thus willed into existence, a.s.sumes an active character.

It becomes Maya, and by this was the universe created, without exertion on the part of Brahma. This pa.s.sing wish of Brahma carried, however, no reality with it. And the creation proceeding from it is only an illusion.

There is only one absolute Unity really existing, and existing without plurality. But he is like one asleep. Krishna, in the Gita, says: 'These works (the universe) confine not me, for I am like one who sitteth aloof uninterested in them all.' The universe is therefore all illusion, holding a position between something and nothing. It is real as an illusion, but unreal as being. It is not true, because it has no essence; but not false, because its existence, even as illusion, is from G.o.d. The Vedanta declares: 'From the highest state of Brahma to the lowest condition of a straw, all things are delusion.'" Chunder Dutt, however, contradicts Bunsen's a.s.sertion that the soul also is an illusion according to the Vedanta. "The soul," he says, "is not subject to birth or death, but is in its substance, from Brahma himself." The truth seems to be that the Vedanta regards the individuation of the soul as from Maya and illusive, but the substance of the soul is from Brahma, and destined to be absorbed into him. As the body of man is to be resolved into its material elements, so the soul of man is to be resolved into Brahma. This substance of the soul is neither born nor dies, nor is it a thing of which it can be said, "It was, is, or shall be." In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjun that he and the other princes of the world "never were not."[68]

The Vedantist philosopher, however, though he considers all souls as emanations from G.o.d, does not believe that all of them will return into G.o.d at death. Those only who have obtained a knowledge of G.o.d are rewarded by absorption, but the rest continue to migrate from body to body so long as they remain unqualified for the same. "The knower of G.o.d becomes G.o.d."

This union with the Deity is the total loss of personal ident.i.ty, and is the attainment of the highest bliss, in which are no grades and from which is no return. This absorption comes not from good works or penances, for these confine the soul and do not liberate it. "The confinement of fetters is the same whether the chain be of gold or iron." "The knowledge which realizes that everything is Brahm alone liberates the soul. It annuls the effect both of our virtues and vices. We traverse thereby both merit and demerit, the heart's knot is broken, all doubts are split, and all our works perish. Only by perfect abstraction, not merely from the senses, but also from the thinking intellect and by remaining in the knowing intellect, does the devotee become identified with Brahm. He then remains as pure gla.s.s when the shadow has left it. He lives dest.i.tute of pa.s.sions and affections. He lives sinless; for as water wets not the leaf of the lotus, so sin touches not him who knows G.o.d." He stands in no further need of virtue, for "of what use can be a winnowing fan when the sweet southern wind is blowing." His meditations are of this sort: "I am Brahm, I am life. I am everlasting, perfect, self-existent, undivided, joyful."

If therefore, according to this system, knowledge alone unites the soul to G.o.d, the question comes, Of what use are acts of virtue, penances, sacrifices, worship? The answer is, that they effect a happy transmigration from the lower forms of bodily life to higher ones. They do not accomplish the great end, which is absorption and escape from Maya, but they prepare the way for it by causing one to be born in a higher condition.

The second system of philosophy, the Sankhya of Kapila, is founded not on one principle, like the Vedanta, but on two. According to the seventy aphorisms, Nature is one of these principles. It is uncreated and eternal.

It is one, active, creating, non-intelligent. The other of the two principles, also uncreated and eternal, is Soul, or rather Souls. Souls are many, pa.s.sive, not creative, intelligent, and in all things the opposite to Nature. But from the union of the two all the visible universe proceeds, according to the law of cause and effect.

G.o.d not being recognized in this system, it is often called atheism. Its argument, to show that no one perfect being could create the universe, is this. Desire implies want, or imperfection. Accordingly, if G.o.d desired to create, he would be unable to do so; if he was able, he would not desire to do it. In neither case, therefore, could G.o.d have created the universe.

The G.o.ds are spoken of by the usual names, Brahma, Indra, etc., but are all finite beings, belonging to the order of human souls, though superior.

Every soul is clothed in two bodies,--the interior original body, the individualizing force, which is eternal as itself and accompanies it through all its migrations; and the material, secondary body, made of the five elements, ether, air, fire, water, and earth. The original body is subtile and spiritual. It is the office of Nature to liberate the Soul.

Nature is not what we perceive by the senses, but an invisible plastic principle behind, which must be known by the intellect. As the Soul ascends by goodness, it is freed by knowledge. The final result of this emanc.i.p.ation is the certainty of non-existence,--"neither I am, nor is aught mine, nor do I exist,"--which seems to be the same result as that of Hegel, Being = Not-Being. Two or three of the aphorisms of the Karika are as follows:--

"LIX. As a dancer, having exhibited herself to the spectator, desists from the dance, so does Nature desist, having manifested herself to the Soul."

"LX. Generous Nature, endued with qualities, does by manifold means accomplish, without benefit (to herself), the wish of ungrateful Soul, devoid of qualities."

"LXI. Nothing, in my opinion, is more gentle than Nature; once aware of having been seen, she does not again expose herself to the gaze of Soul."

"LXVI. Soul desists, because it has seen Nature. Nature desists, because she has been seen. In their (mere) union there is no motive for creation."

Accordingly, the result of knowledge is to put an end to creation, and to leave the Soul emanc.i.p.ated from desire, from change, from the material body, in a state which is Being, but not Existence (_esse,_ not _existere_; Seyn, not Da-seyn).

This Sankhya philosophy becomes of great importance, when we consider that it was the undoubted source of Buddhism. This doctrine which we have been describing was the basis of Buddhism.[69]

M. Cousin has called it the sensualism of India,[70] but certainly without propriety. It is as purely ideal a doctrine as that of the Vedas. Its two eternal principles are both ideal. The plastic force which is one of them, Kapila distinctly declares cannot be perceived by the senses.[71] Soul, the other eternal and uncreated principle, who "is witness, solitary, bystander, spectator, and pa.s.sive,"[72] is not only spiritual itself, but is clothed with a spiritual body, within the material body. In fact, the Karika declares the material universe to be the result of the contact of the Soul with Nature, and consists in chains with which Nature binds herself, for the purpose (unconscious) of delivering the Soul. When by a process of knowledge the Soul looks through these, and perceives the ultimate principle beyond, the material universe ceases, and both Soul and Nature are emanc.i.p.ated.[73]

One of the definitions of the Karika will call to mind the fourfold division of the universe by the great thinker of the ninth century, Erigena. In his work, pe?? f?se?? e??s?? he a.s.serts that there is, (1.) A Nature which creates and is not created. (2.) A Nature which is created and creates. (3.) A Nature which is created and does not create. (4.) A Nature which neither creates nor is created. So Kapila (Karika, 3) says, "Nature, the root of all things, is productive but not a production. Seven principles are productions and productive. Sixteen are productions but not productive. Soul is neither a production nor productive."

Mr. Muir (Sanskrit Texts, Part III. p. 96) quotes the following pa.s.sages in proof of the antiquity of Kapila, and the respect paid to his doctrine in very early times:--

_Svet. Upanishad._ "The G.o.d who superintends every mode of production and all forms, who formerly nourished with various knowledge his son Kapila the rishi, and beheld him at his birth."

"_Bhagavat Purana_ (I. 3, 10) makes Kapila an incarnation of Vischnu.

In his fifth incarnation, in the form of Kapila, he declared to Asuri the Sankhya which defines the collection of principles.

"_Bhagavat Purana_ (IX. 8, 12) relates that Kapila, being attacked by the sons of King Sangara, destroyed them with fire which issued from his body. But the author of the Purana denies that this was done in _anger_. 'How could the sage, by whom the strong ship of the Sankhya was launched, on which the man seeking emanc.i.p.ation crosses the ocean of existence, entertain the distinction of friend and foe'?"

The Sankhya system is also frequently mentioned in the Mahabarata.

The Nyaya system differs from that of Kapila, by a.s.suming a third eternal and indestructible principle as the basis of matter, namely, _Atoms_. It also a.s.sumes the existence of a Supreme Soul, Brahma, who is almighty and allwise. It agrees with Kapila in making all souls eternal, and distinct from body. Its evil to be overcome is the same, namely, transmigration; and its method of release is the same, namely _Buddh_, or knowledge. It is a more dialectic system than the others, and is rather of the nature of a logic than a philosophy.

Mr. Banerjea, in his Dialogues on the Hindu philosophy, considers the Buddhists' system as closely resembling the Nyaya system. He regards the Buddhist Nirvana as equivalent to the emanc.i.p.ation of the Nyaya system.

Apavarga, or emanc.i.p.ation, is declared in this philosophy to be final deliverance from pain, birth, activity, fault, and false notions. Even so the Pali doctrinal books speak of Nirvana as an exemption from old age, disease, and death. In it desire, anger, and ignorance are consumed by the fire of knowledge. Here all selfish distinctions of mine and thine, all evil thoughts, all slander and jealousy, are cut down by the weapon of knowledge. Here we have an experience of immortality which is cessation of all trouble and perfect felicity.[74]

-- 7. Origin of the Hindoo Triad.

There had gradually grown up among the people a worship founded on that of the ancient Vedas. In the West of India, the G.o.d RUDRA, mentioned in the Vedic hymns, had been transformed into Siva. In the Rig-Veda Rudra is sometimes the name for Agni.[75] He is described as father of the winds.

He is the same as Maha-deva. He is fierce and beneficent at once. He presides over medicinal plants. According to Weber (Indische Stud., II.

19) he is the Storm-G.o.d. The same view is taken by Professor Whitney.[76]

But his worship gradually extended, until, under the name of Siva, the Destroyer, he became one of the princ.i.p.al deities of India. Meantime, in the valley of the Ganges, a similar devotion had grown up for the Vedic G.o.d VISCHNU, who in like manner had been promoted to the chief rank in the Hindoo Pantheon. He had been elevated to the character of a Friend and Protector, gifted with mild attributes, and worshipped as the life of Nature. By accepting the popular worship, the Brahmans were able to oppose Buddhism with success.

We have no doubt that the Hindoo Triad came from the effort of the Brahmans to unite all India in one worship, and it may for a time have succeeded. Images of the Trimurtti, or three-faced G.o.d, are frequent in India, and this is still the object of Brahmanical worship. But beside this practical motive, the tendency of thought is always toward a triad of law, force, or elemental substance, as the best explanation of the universe. Hence there have been Triads in so many religions: in Egypt, of _Osiris_ the Creator, _Typhon_ the Destroyer, and _Horus_ the Preserver; in Persia, of _Ormazd_ the Creator, _Ahriman_ the Destroyer, and _Mithra_ the Restorer; in Buddhism, of _Buddha_ the Divine Man, _Dharmma_ the Word, and _Sangha_ the Communion of Saints. Simple monotheism does not long satisfy the speculative intellect, because, though it accounts for the harmonies of creation, it leaves its discords unexplained. But a dualism of opposing forces is found still more unsatisfactory, for the world does not appear to be such a scene of utter warfare and discord as this. So the mind comes to accept a Triad, in which the unities of life and growth proceed from one element, the antagonisms from a second, and the higher harmonies of reconciled oppositions from a third. The Brahmanical Triad arose in the same way.[77]

Thus grew up, from amid the spiritual pantheism into which all Hindoo religion seemed to have settled, another system, that of the Trimurtti, or Divine Triad; the Indian Trinity of _Brahma, Vischnu_, and _Siva_. This Triad expresses the unity of Creation, Destruction, and Restoration. A foundation for this already existed in a Vedic saying, that the highest being exists in three states, that of creation, continuance, and destruction.

Neither of these three supreme deities of Brahmanism held any high rank in the Vedas. Siva (civa) does not appear therein at all, nor, according to La.s.sen, is Brahma mentioned in the Vedic hymns, but first in a Upanishad.

Vischnu is spoken of in the Rig-Veda, but always as one of the names for the sun. He is the Sun-G.o.d. His three steps are sunrise, noon, and sunset.

He is mentioned as one of the sons of Aditi; he is called the "wide-stepping," "measurer of the world," "the strong," "the deliverer,"

"renewer of life," "who sets in motion the revolutions of time," "a protector," "preserving the highest heaven." Evidently he begins his career in this mythology as the sun.

BRAHMA, at first a word meaning prayer and devotion, becomes in the laws of Manu the primal G.o.d, first-born of the creation, from the self-existent being, in the form of a golden egg. He became the creator of all things by the power of prayer. In the struggle for ascendency which took place between the priests and the warriors, Brahma naturally became the deity of the former. But, meantime, as we have seen, the worship of Vischnu had been extending itself in one region and that of Siva in another. Then took place those mysterious wars between the kings of the Solar and Lunar races, of which the great epics contain all that we know. And at the close of these wars a compromise was apparently accepted, by which Brahma, Vischnu, and Siva were united in one supreme G.o.d, as creator, preserver, and destroyer, all in one.

It is almost certain that this Hindoo Triad was the result of an ingenious and successful attempt, on the part of the Brahmans, to unite all cla.s.ses of worshippers in India against the Buddhists. In this sense the Brahmans edited anew the Mahabharata, inserting in that epic pa.s.sages extolling Vischnu in the form of Krishna. The Greek accounts of India which followed the invasion of Alexander speak of the worship of Hercules as prevalent in the East, and by Hercules they apparently mean the G.o.d Krishna.[78]

The struggle between the Brahmans and Buddhists lasted during nine centuries (from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1400), ending with the total expulsion of Buddhism, and the triumphant establishment of the Triad, as the worship of India.[79]