To assert the doctrine of the efficacy of faith is obviously the special object of the Gita; but, with the conciliatory spirit of Hinduism, it is inculcated without too great a rupture with the orthodox notions in respect to those time-honoured props and refuges of the pious Hindu,—the Vedas and Yogaism. Both these are, however, shorn of a good deal of their importance by comparison with the new mode of attaining heaven and final emancipation—through faith in Krishna.
Though the caste-system is strongly upheld in the “Bhagavatgita,” and the practices of the Yogis sanctioned, many of the most liberal and lofty sentiments find expression in this highly remarkable poem; as when Krishna says: “Whatever form (of godhead or myself) any worshipper desireth to worship with faith, that faith of his unto that form I render steady. Endued with that faith he payeth his adoration to that (form) and obtaineth from that all his desires, since all those are ordained by me. The fruits, however, of those persons endued with little intelligence are perishable. They that worship the divinities go to the divinities, while they that worship me come even to me.” Again: “Even those devotees who, endued with faith, worship other godheads, even they, O son of Kunti, worship me alone, though irregularly.” And in another place: “In whatever manner men come to me in the self-same manner do I accept them.” Krishna also says: “I am alike to all creatures, there is none hateful to me, none dear. They, however, that worship me with reverence are in me and I also am in them.”
In this serene and lofty impartiality of sentiment the unknown author of the “Gita” has reached a level of generous and noble theology not to be surpassed and probably never before expressed. But, alas! it was impossible for him to stand alone upon this giddy height of calm philosophy, and he descends to a lower plain of sympathetic insight when his Krishna declares, that “there are two kinds of created beings in this world, viz., the godlike and the demoniac. These latter are impure, given over to their desires, and unholy, asserting that the universe is void of truth and guiding principle, and even without a ruler. Wedded to vanity, power, pride, lust and wrath, these revilers hate me in their own bodies and those of others. Those haters (of me), cruel, the vilest among men and unholy, I hurl continually down into demoniac wombs. Coming into demoniac wombs, deluded birth after birth, they, O son of Kunti, without attaining to me, go down to the vilest state.”
In regard to divine incarnation, which is an old accepted idea in Hinduism, Krishna says: “Many births of mine have passed away, O Arjuna, as also of thine; those all I know, but thou dost not, O chastiser of foes! Though I am unborn and of essence that knoweth no deterioration, though (I am) the lord of creatures; still, relying on my own (material) nature, I take birth by my own (powers) of illusion. Whensoever, O Bharata, loss of piety occurreth and the rise of impiety, on those occasions do I create myself. For the protection of the righteous, for also the destruction of evil-doers, for the sake of establishing piety, I am born age after age.”
Whether the author of the “Bhagavatgita” borrowed ideas from Christianity or not, this, at least, is certain, that Krishna-worship is a comparatively new phase of Hinduism; that its doctrine of salvation or final emancipation by faith is also comparatively new; and that the tendency of this doctrine of faith, as taught in the “Gita,” is to wean men from rites and ceremonies, and to discourage them from the practice of Yoga.
But since it seems to be a characteristic of each successive stage of Hinduism to keep on amicable terms with those that have preceded it, the “Gita” endeavours to lead men to more doctrine of faith in Krishna, without more disparagement of orthodox ideas and practices than appeared absolutely necessary for the object in view—hence the qualified approval of Vedic rites and of Yogaism which we find in this treatise.
Of the “Bhagavatgita,” which has been extolled as a complete system of Indian religious philosophy, this brief note will, I believe, give a sufficient idea.[119] It is, as regards Hinduism, an eclectic system upon which has been grafted a new principle, the doctrine of salvation by faith, which may or may not be of foreign origin. Its lofty ideas and transcendental philosophy appeal with subtle force to the higher feelings of the thoughtful Hindu. I have known a clever young student of the “Gita” so powerfully affected by its teaching as to lose mental balance to the extent of believing himself to be Arjuna. When this hallucination passed away his one burning desire was to retire from the world in order to live the life of the Rishis of old.
For my own part I leave this highest attainment of Indian religious philosophy with mingled feelings of admiration and sadness.
In every nation men have allowed their speculative imaginations to play around the great mystery of the Universe. The author of the “Gita” has dreamed his dream as well as the others; and, like Plato[120] and the rest, has presented as a solution of the grand problem of existence his own fancies and his own guess-work. And these dreams, fancies and guesses—labelled theology or philosophy as the case may be—have been accepted as eternal verities and passed down from generation to generation, only to be superseded, in their turn, by other equally substantial fancies, equally irrefragable verities.
In leaving the “Gita,” however, let us at least admit that the Indian poet’s dream was not deficient in nobility of sentiment and grandeur of conception.