Читать книгу India's Problem, Krishna or Christ - John P. Jones - Страница 25

Table of Contents

These are not a few, and they aid in presenting the two faiths in bold relief.

(a) Their attitude towards the individual and Society. Nowhere are they more antipodal to each other than here. Christianity is preëminently a faith which exalts the individual. It presents, with marked clearness, his rights and responsibilities. His [pg 107] liberty of thought, of belief and of action, is fundamentally sacred and to be conserved at all hazards.

Hinduism is the staunchest foe of individual freedom. It concedes no right to the individual which others are bound to respect. It has erected above the individual, and in such a way as to overshadow him entirely, the stupendous caste system. And it has subordinated his every right and privilege to the whim of this demon caste. Man is its abject slave—cannot swerve one inch from its dictates; and these reach down to the smallest detail of his life. If the vast majority of the members of a caste were high in their morals and strict in their integrity and pure in their beliefs, the aid to a higher life which this system might render to the individual would, in small part, compensate for its destruction of his manly independence. But caste discipline directs itself to petty forms and observances and to the perpetuation of mean jealousies rather than to the development of character.

In India alone is caste a religious institution. The Brahman merged the individual in the corporate body, thus perfecting his bondage; and he set class against class to prevent the lower from rising and to make national union impossible. Men were said to have been created differently even as different kinds of animals; to bring them together is as unnatural as it is sinful.

Thus, every man within the pale of this religion has his social, as his religious, status fixed unchangeably for him before his birth; and woe be to him who tries to shake off this bondage, or even in a small degree to kick against the pricks. No better [pg 108] system than this has been devised under heaven to rob man of his birthright of independence and self-respect. And the population of India bears, in its character and conduct, ample testimony to the truth of this statement.

(b) Connected closely with this is another aspect.

The religion of Jesus fosters progress. Not only do we behold Christian nations the most progressive, we also find that as this faith obtains in its purity, so do its votaries enjoy the large spirit and results of progress, both in religion, science, the arts and in civilization. In India, on the other hand, conservatism is a fetish and custom a divine law of conduct. In the West the question asked, as men approach a certain line of action, is whether it be reasonable? Among Hindus the invariable inquiry is—is it customary?—did our forefathers practice it? This again is the legitimate product of the caste system. It conserves and deifies the past. It never tolerates a question as to the wisdom of the ancients. The code of Manu, which is the source and supreme authority for this system, has done more to stereotype and degrade social and religious life in India than has any other code in all the history of other lands.

(c) Another marked feature of the religion of Jesus is its exclusiveness. It claims to be the only way of salvation. Not that it is unwilling to acknowledge the truths which are found in other faiths. While it recognizes such, it maintains that they are but broken lights of the Truth which it presents in all its full-orbed glory. It reveals Christ as the fulfillment of the good and pious of all nations, and His revelation as the realization of all truth [pg 109] wherever found. But as a means of salvation it stands alone, and will brook no rivalry nor accept divided homage.

In Hinduism, on the other hand, we see tolerance incarnate. It is true that the caste system lends itself readily to intolerance, that some of the most refined and cruel forms of persecution are conducted by it against Christians today. Yet in itself this faith has a genius for toleration. It does not go out of its way to attack other faiths. On the contrary it generally reaches forward the flag of truce and peace to them. It willingly appropriates much of their teaching and ritual. It placed in its pantheon its arch-enemy, Buddha, and has dignified many of the demons of the primitive cult of South India in the same way. And herein lie the subtle power and supreme danger which inhere in it to other faiths.

(d) It must also be remembered that the faith of India is an ethnic faith, with no ambition to reach to other peoples beyond that peninsula. This faith has a hundred ways of expelling and excommunicating its members and only one doubtful door by which it may receive outsiders, namely, by the formation of a new caste.

Christianity, on the other hand, is preëminently a missionary religion. It claims to be the universal faith. The last commandment of the Lord upon earth and the first work of the Holy Spirit upon His descent was to propagate the faith and to carry it to many lands and peoples. Hinduism is conserved by its social organism of caste; Christianity, by its leavening influence upon all that comes in contact with it, and the outreaching power of its life within.

[pg 110]

(e) Another difference is observable in the fact that while Christianity is always held as a system of saving truth to be believed, Hinduism, in its acceptance, does not involve the necessary belief of any doctrine or system of doctrine. It is well understood that a man of any belief, or of no belief, may be a genuine and orthodox Hindu provided he observes caste rules and ceremonies. It has been more than once insisted upon that a man may accept Christ as his Saviour and His religion as his firm belief and still remain a Hindu if he only submit to the demands of caste. Not a few Hindus are trying to live up to this strange dual system today! And I fear some native Christians have not got rid of the same delusion.

(f) There is also a marked difference in the moral standards of the two faiths. In a certain sense the moral code of Brahmanism, at its best, is lofty if not perfect. It enjoins a man not to lie, not to steal, not injure another, to be just, brave, hospitable and self-controlled. Some savage races inculcate, with more or less severity, the same moral lessons. But to Hindus as to savages these injunctions have represented the moral code; and whoever, among them, attains unto these, mostly negative, virtues, is deemed worthy of praise. In a sense the ten commandments communicated through Moses, obtain among Christians and are enjoined upon them today. But they, rather than represent the Christian's ideal, indicate only the low water mark of his moral requirements. To say of a Christian gentleman today that he does not steal, or does not lie, is rather an insult than a compliment, since it assumes that he possesses only what is now considered a very elementary [pg 111] form of morality, such as the lower classes and children are supposed to practice. It is only as we follow Jesus Christ and sublimate this code in love (Matt. 22:37–40) that we rise to the full significance and divine content of morality. The Christian code rests not in negation, but commands a life of outgoing, active love. A lofty altruism must permeate his every act and give colouring to his whole life. Christ not only introduced and emphasized this golden rule; He taught that it was absolutely necessary (John 12:25; Matt. 5:44).

To the Hindu, on the other hand, the lex talionis is a law of life still enforced. See, e.g., Vishnu Purana 5:19. He never thinks nor is he commanded by his religion to think, of aught but outward conformity to a moral code which is altogether inadequate to keep, direct and inspire him in life. This difficulty is, of course, enhanced when we remember that in the whole realm of Hindu life—whether it be of gods or of men—there is no one who looms up as a perfect example. It is therefore little wonder that in India today morality is at so low an ebb and that even the code which prevails there is so sadly and universally violated.

Hopkins aptly remarks in this connection: “This Christian ideal of today, which makes fair-mindedness, liberality of thought, and altruism the respective representatives of the savage virtues of manual honesty, truth-speaking and hospitality, is just what is lacking in the more primitive ideal formulated in the code of savages and of Brahman alike. … In India all the factors of the modern code are entirely lacking at the time when the old code was first [pg 112] completely formulated. Liberality of thought comes in with the era of the Upanishads; but it is a restricted freedom. Altruism is unknown to pure Brahmanism.”