So much may be learned from Buddhism, and it were much only to know that such a religion existed twenty-four centuries ago. But in what, from a wider point of view, lies the importance of the study of Hindu religions? Not, we venture to think, in their face value for the religious or philosophical life of the Occident, but in the revelation, which is made by this study, of the origin and growth of theistic ideas in one land; in the light these cast by analogy on the origin of such ideas elsewhere; in the prodigious significance of the religious factor in the development of a race, as exhibited in this instance; in the inspiring review of that development as it is seen through successive ages in the loftiest aspirations of a great people; and finally in the lesson taught by the intellectual and religious fate of them among that people that have substituted, like the Brahman ritualist, form for spirit; like the Vedantist, ideas for ideals; like the sectary, emotion for morality. But greatest, if woeful, is the lesson taught by that phase of Buddhism, which has developed into Lamaism and its kindred cults. For here one learns how few are they that can endure to be wise, how inaccessible to the masses is the height on which sits the sage, how unpalatable to the vulgar is a religion without credulity.
Ever since Cotton Mather took up a collection to convert the Hindus,[38] Americans have felt a great interest in missionary labor in India. Under the just and beneficent rule of the British the Hindus to-day are no longer plundered and murdered in the way they once were; nor is there now so striking a contrast between the invader's precept and example as obtained when India first made the acquaintance of Christian militants.
The slight progress of the missionaries, who for centuries have been working among the Hindus, is, perhaps, justified in view of this painful contrast. In its earlier stages there can be no doubt that all such progress was thereby impeded. But it is cause for encouragement, rather than for dismay, that the slowness of Christian advance is in part historically explicable, sad as is the explanation. For against what odds had not the early missionaries to struggle! Not the heathen, but the Christian, barred the way against Christianity. Four hundred years ago the Portuguese descended upon the Hindus, cross and sword in hand. For a whole century these victorious immigrants, with unheard-of cruelty and tyranny, cheated, stripped, and slaughtered the natives. After them came the Dutch, but, Dutch or Portuguese, it was the same. For it was merely another century, during which a new band of Christians hesitated at no crime or outrage, at no meanness or barbarity, which should win them power in India. In 1758 the Dutch were conquered by the English, who, becoming now the chief standard-bearers of the Christian church, committed, Under Varisittart, more offences against decency, honor, honesty, and humanity than is pleasant for believer or unbeliever to record; and, when their own theft had brought revolt, knew no better way to impress the Hindu with the power of Christianity than to revive the Mogul horror and slay. (in their victims' fearful belief) both soul and body alike by shooting their captives from the cannon's mouth. Such was Christian example. It is no wonder that the Christian precept ('thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself') was uttered in vain, or that the faith it epitomized was rejected. The hand stole and killed; the mouth said, 'I love you.' The Hindu understood theft and murder, but it took him some time to learn English. One may hope that this is now forgotten, for the Hindu has not the historical mind. But all this must be remembered when the expenditures of Christianity are weighed with its receipts.[39]
In coming to the end of the long course of Hindu religious thought, it is almost inevitable that one should ask what is the present effect of missionary effort upon this people, and what, again, will eventually be the direction which the native religious sense, so strongly implanted in this folk, will take, whether aided or not by influence from without.
Although it is no part of our purpose to examine into the workings of that honest zeal which has succeeded in planting so many stations up the Indic coast, there are yet some obvious truths which, in the light of religious history, should be an assistance to all whose work lies in making Hindu converts. To compile these truths from this history will not be otiose. In the first place, Christian dogma was formally introduced into South India in the sixth century; it was known in the North in the seventh, and possibly long before this; it was the topic of debate by educated Hindus in the sixteenth and seventeenth. It has helped to mould the Hindus' own most intellectual sects; and, either through the influence of Christian or native teaching, or that of both, have been created not only the Northern monotheistic schools, but also the strict unitarianism of the later Southern sects, whose scriptures, for at least some centuries, have inculcated the purest morality and simplest monotheistic creed in language of the most elevated character.[40] In the second place, the Hindu sectary has interwoven with his doctrine of pantheism that of the trinity. In the third place, the orthodox Brahman recognizes in the cult of Christianity, as that cult is expressed, for instance, in Christmas festivities, one that is characteristic, in outward form and inner belief, of a native heterodox sect. In the fourth place, the Hindu sectary believes that the native expression of trinitarian dogma, faith-doctrine, child-god worship, and madonna-worship takes historical precedence over that of Christianity; and the orthodox Hindu believes the same of his completed code of lofty moral teachings. Vishnuism is, again, so catholic that it will accept Christ as an avatar of Vishnu, but not as an exclusive manifestation of God. In the fifth place, the Hindu doctors are very well educated, and often very clever, both delighting in debate and acute in argument It follows, if we may draw the obvious inference, that, to attack orthodox Brahmanism, or even heterodox Hinduism, requires much logical ability as well as learning, and that the best thing a missionary can do in India, if he be not conscious of possessing both these requisites, is to let the native scholars alone.
But native scholars make but a small part of the population, and among the uneducated and 'depressed' classes there is plenty for the missionary to do. Here, too, where caste is hated because these classes suffer from it, there is more effect in preaching equality and the brotherly love of Christianity, doctrines abhorrent to the social aristocrats, and not favored even by the middle classes. But what here opposes Christian efforts is the splendid system of devotion, the magnificent fêtes, the gorgeous shows, and the tickling ritualism, which please and overawe the fancy of the native, who is apt to desire for himself a pageant of religion, not to speak of a visible god in idol form; while from his religious teacher he demands either an asceticism which is no part of the Christian faith, or a leadership in sensuous and sensual worship.
What will be the result of proselytizing zeal among these variegated masses?[41] Evidently this depends on where and how it is exercised. The orthodox theologian will not give up his inherited faith for one that to him is on a par with a schismatic heresy, or take dogmatic instruction from a level which he regards as intellectually below his own. From the Sam[=a]jas no present help will come to the missionary; for, while they have already accepted the spirit of Christianity, liberal Hindus reject the Christian creed.[42] At a later day they will join hands with the missionary, perhaps, but not before the latter is prepared to say: There is but one God, and many are his prophets.
There remain such of the higher classes as can be induced to prefer undogmatic Christianity to polytheism, and the lowest class, which may be persuaded by acts of kindness to accept the dogmas with which these are accompanied. It is with this class that the missionary has succeeded best. In other cases his success has been in inverse ratio to the amount of his dogmatic teaching. And this we believe to be the key to the second problem. For, if one examine the maze of India's tangled creeds, he will be surprised to find that, though dogmatic Christianity has its Indic representative, there yet is no indigenous representative of undogmatic Christianity. For a god in human form is worshipped, and a trinity is revered; but this is not Christianity. Love of man is preached; but this is not Christianity. Love of God and faith in his earthly incarnation is taught; but this, again, is not Christianity. No sect has ever formulated as an original doctrine Christ's two indissoluble commandments, on which hang all the law and the prophets.
It would seem, therefore, that to inculcate active kindness, simple morality, and the simplest creed were the most persuasive means of converting the Hindu, if the teacher unite with this a practical affection, without venturing upon ratiocination, and without seeking to attract by display, which at best cannot compete with native pageants.[43] Moreover, on the basis of undogmatic teaching, the missionary even now can unite with the Sam[=a]j and Sittar church, neither of which is of indigenous origin, though both are native in their secondary growth. For it is significant that it is the Christian union of morality and altruism which has appealed to each of these religious bodies, and which each of them has made its own. In insisting upon a strict morality the Christian missionary will be supported by the purest creeds of India itself, by Brahmanism, unsectarian Hinduism, the Jain heretics, and many others, all of whom either taught the same morality before Christianity existed, or developed it without Christian aid. The strength of Christian teaching lies in uniting with this the practical altruism which was taught by Christ. In her own religions there is no hope for India, and her best minds have renounced them. The body of Hinduism is corrupt, its soul is evil. As for Brahmanism—the Brahmanism that produced the Upanishads—the spirit is departed, and the form that remains is dead. But a new spirit, the spirit of progress and of education, will prevail at last. When it rules it will undo the bonds of caste and do away with low superstition. Then India also will be free to accept, as the creed of her new religion, Christ's words, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself.' But to educate India up to this point will take many centuries, even more, perhaps, than will be needed to educate in the same degree Europe and America.[44]
* * * * *