CHAPTER II

RELIGION AND RELIGIONS
“A creature,” says Thomus Huxley, ‘is the resultant of two tendencies; the one, morpho- logical ; the other, physiological.”
This may be true about the physical constitution of every living thing, but this biological law does not explain the mysterious constitution of the human mind. What is it ? What it is made of ?
Man, defines Logic, is a rational animal. True, but this, we think, is not the chief distinction of man that constitutes his main differentia from other species of animals.' If Rationality does not mean mere arguing faculty but intelligence, then it is shared by all living beings more or less ;—some in greater degrees, while others in smaller degrees. Nay more, such intelligence as is necessary for the main- tenance of life is to be found even in the vegitable kingdom. Trees and plants send their roots in that direction of the soil that contains greater degree of sap and more nutrient elements.” Thus, reason is not sole monopoly of: man, though undoubtedly he possesses it in a prepondering degree.
1 Cf ‘Intellect is not the sole faculty possessed by the human Ego—. Lord Balfour F &.S. Cheism and Thought,
2 Vide Herbert Spencer's ‘Psychology’ and ‘First Principles.’
ee) But there is something more in man that is not to be found in other animals or in the vegetable kingdom. His morality, aesthetics and imagination have raised him from the level of brute creation. These are the true differentia of man. His reason has helped him to develop these rare qualities that have widened the gulf between man and other animals. Look to a wild savage whose aesthetic sentiments, imagination and morality are of the lowest order, his difference with other higher animals will surely appear to be less striking. He betrays only that amount of intelligence that is necessary for a living creature just for the maintenance of life but hardly more. His reason, ‘like other animal instincts, is employed only for his survival in the struggle for existence. Thus the dis- tinction and difference between man in the lowest stage of evolutionary progress and higher animals are less prominent, To designate animal intelli- “gence as a mere blind instinct is but a dogmatic assumption without any strict logical proof. It is pointed out that animals are incapable of detecting any deception practised on them; as Addison, in his Spectator, has said that a hen’ will sit upon an egg-shaped piece of chalk , as she would do to hatch her real eggs. Now, detection of deception depends upon degrees of intelligence and alertness. Man also is subject to deception; even the cleverest men are sometimes deceived. Intelligence of ant is quite astonishing ; and how can one say it is a mere blind instinct, whereas the intelligence of a wild Bushman is real intelligence per se. This is only an instance of supreme vanity of man about his own omniscience. The universe is perme- ated by Divine intelligence, and there is nothing outside it. It is the same Spirit that sleeps in stones, dreams in animals and is awake in man. Again, reason in men themselves varies from vanishing point to superhuman intellect. Difference between a Sankara and an ordinary man is,
2
ce 2D)
we think, more wide than between man and animals. If-connotatioh of man does not denote only men like Plato or Kalidas, or Newton or Shakespeare, reason, we think, is not the sole distinctive feature of man; it is not the only differentia that distinguishes species man from the genus animals If, however, reason means only mathematical reasoning, which is not at all necessary in the struggle for existence, then, ofcourse, it is the sole distinctive feature of man, but this is found only in the higher stages of civilisation, of which the wild savages have not the least notion. Therefore, to call man merely a rational animal is like Plato’s original definition of man, is to call him a featherless biped, which provoked Diogenes to exhibit to his pupils a roasted cock as Plato’s man. Man has other attributes which are absent in all other animals, and they are really the special features of man. The most fundamental distinction and _ difference between man and other animals, we _ think, lies in the religious instinct of man. Man is a religious animal. This particular feature of the human mind is not be foundin any other animal. Even the lowest savage hasa religion of his own. No man has yet been discovered without some sort of religious belief, barring the exceptions thatare found inthe higher stages of intellectual development, who call themselves Agnostics. But even the Agnostic themselves may be said to possess a religion of negation,—a sort of religious faith with them—to ignore all religions. .
Now, this universal religious instinct is implanted in every human heart; nay more, it has played a very important part in the develop- ment of human civilisation and culture, and it will continue to doso in the advancement of human progress and welfare, and also in moulding the future destiny of man.
Oath)
“There is a gap in the human heart,” says Romanes, “which nothing but God can fill,” This universal religious instinct which is present in every human heart,unless it is smothered by one’s training or deliberate efforts, or by a particular mode of life, constitute the true basis of all religions from the lowest to that of the highest order, for the cardinal feature of all religions is, in essence, one and the same. Futting aside all learned definitions of religion, religion may very briefly be defined asthe worship of a Superior Power, either from veneration, or from love, or from fear for avoiding evils in life. With the lowest savage, religion is a religion of fear, and the Superior Power is to him very often. a malicious spirit which is to be propitiated for avoiding danger or distress.
But as man advances in civlisation, that Superior Power is no more an evil spirit or a malicious fiend, but that Superior Power is to him the Creator and Governor of this universe, and he worships his Creator with veneration and love. The more and more a man advances in education and culture, the higher and higher becomes his religious concept. He then recognises in his Creator not only an awe-inspiring majesticity, but infinite goodness and love ; thus religion, at the last stage, becomes a religion of veneration and love,— love for God and love for all. Yet, in one sense, the root of all religions is one and the same, whether it is gross animism or the highest form of a profoundly philosophical creed, i.e, it is the adoration of a Superior Power that lies at bottom of all religious creeds, even if you wish to designate, with Herbert Spencer, that Superior Power as an Inscrutable Power manifested through nature. The Tantras call this Superior Power Sakti, the exact Sanskrit synonym for power.
1 Vide Sit E, B. Taylors’s Primitive culture
Chae 8)
Though the essence of all religions is one and the same, but ‘the form’ of religion are many. And this must necessarily be, as there is difference between man and man in temperament, education, imagination, culture and taste. As there are different stages of civilisation so there are different stages of religion, As people differ from one another in their ideals about different things, so they differ also about their religious ideals. The religious ideal or the religious concept of one man is bound to be different from that of another, because two men are not of one idendical mind, or of identical imagination and taste, hence there is need for different creeds, and different forms of religion. The Hindus recognised this funda- mental psychological truth, therefore, they allowed greatest freedom in matters of religion, for to a Hindu, religion is not a mere philo- sophical creed, a thing of profession only, but it is very intimately connected with a man’s daily life and practice. Mr. MHavell in speaking of the religious faith of the Hindus, has very rightly observed that to a Hindu, “Religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypofhesis of human conduct, adopted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life,’’ Therefore, a Hindu hates no creed, no form of religion. but holds every religion in respect. He knows that every form of religion, observed with devotion and faith, helps its votary to attain spiritual advancement and virtue. All roads lead to Rome, allforms of religion ulti- mately lead to God, Lord Sreekrishna himself has declared in the Gita; ‘In whatsoever manner men come to me, in the self-same manner do I accept them.’
Men brought under the same religious per- suasion, and even under the same social institution, may have a great deal of similarity in their religious ideals or religious concepts, but it cannot be said
f
Vaalhn)
that every man there has identically the same concept of religion or of God. It must differ according to one’s temperament, education, imagination and taste. Hence, utmost catholicity of view is necessary, but it can nowhere be found save in Hinduism, and among no other people except the Hindus. ‘““The word exclusion’, declares Swami Vivekananda, in his classical address in the Parliament of Religion at Chicago, “is untran slatable in Sanskrit.’
A Hindu recognises the necessity of different forms of religion and never tries to impose one uncompromising creed upon all alike. He even makes allowance for superstions in matters of religious faith, for even that may help a man in the attainment of greater moral perfection or spiritual bliss. On this point we can not express ourselves better than in the words of an illustaious writer, and we make no apology for quoting his remarks in extenso.
“Superstitions appeal to our hopes as well as to our fears. They often meet and gratify the inmost longing of the heart. They offer certain- ties when reason can only afford possibilities or probabilities. They supply conceptions on which the imagination loves to dwell, They sometimes even impart a new sanction to moral truths. Creating wants which they alone can quell, they often become essential elements of happiness, and their consoling efficacy is most felt in the languid or troubled hours when it is most needed. We owe more to our illusions than to our knowledge. The imagination which is altogether ‘constructive, probably contributes more to our happiness than the reason, which in the sphere of speculation is mainly critical and destructive. The rude charm which inthe hour of danger or distress the savage clasps so confidently to his breast, the sacred picture which is believed to
ee Oe
shed a hallowing and protecting influence over the poor man’s cottage, can bestow a more real consolation in the darkest hour of human suffering than can be afforded by the grandest theories of philosophy. The first desire of the heart is to find something on which to lean. Happiness is a condition of feeling, not a condition of circum- stances, and to common minds are of its first essentials is the exclusion of painful and harassing doubt. A system of belief may be false, super- stitious, and reactionary, may yet be conducive to human happiness, if it furnishes great multitudes of men with what they believe to be. a key to the universe, if it consoles them in those seasons of agonising bereavement when consolations of enlightened reason are but empty words, if it supports their feeble and tottering minds in the gloomy hours of sickness and of approaching death. A credulous .and superstitious nature may be degraded, but in many cases where superstition does not assume a persecuting or apalling form, itis not unhappy, and degradation, apart from unhappiness, can have no place in utilitarian ethics. No error can be more grave than to imagine that when a critical spirit is abroad the pleasant beliefs will all remain, and the painful ones alone will perish. To introduce into the mind the consciousness of ignorance and the pangs of doubt is to inflict or endure much suffering, which may even survive the period of transition. ‘Why is it’, said Luther’s wife, looking sadly back upon the sensuous creed which she had left, that in our old faith we prayed so often and so warmly, and that our prayers are now so few and so cold ?’ ”
—History of European Morals
yy William Edward Hartpole Lecky We need not dilate any further on it.
Bens)
We have shown that the sole distinction between man and animals does not consist so much in his reason as in his religious instinct, it is the latter that distinguishes man from the rest of creation. Man is a religious animal. Bentham says: that Nature has placed man under the government of two great mistresses, Pleasure and Pain. But this is not the whole truth, there is a strong emotion in man apart from that of mere pleasure and pain. It is his religious feeling or religious fervour that very often sets at naught one’s instinct for pleasure or fear of pain. Religion is very often pursued independent of all considerations of pleasure and pain. At least,in the higher stages of religion, religion is pursued not for mere pleasure, nor from fear for avoiding pain, it is pur- sued for its own sake. Like duty for duty’s sake, religion is followed for religion’s sake. It is only in the lower forms of religion, which in Sanskrit is known as Sakama Dharma, that religion is practised for love of reward, both in this world and in the next. In lowest forms of religion, it is pursued in order to avoid danger, distress, pain and suffering, and its non-observance is dreaded by the savage, for he thinks that if he fails to propitiate the evil spirit sthey will commit immense mischief to him. But in the higher phases of religion, or Niskama Dharma, religion is pursued for religion's sake, virtue is practised for virtue’s sake, neither for happiness, nor for reward nor from fear. Now, whatever kind of religion a man might have, it is a vital part of his existence that influences his life and actions either for good or for evil.
Religion is thus not only a very distinctive feature of human life, but it plays perhaps the most important role in moulding the life of an individual as well as the life and history of a nation. The history of a nation, in one sense, is the history
(e168)
of its religious creed that ever modifies its political creed and ‘social organisation, unless religion be only a conventional article of social custom, as we find in most of the European coun- tries, where Christianity exists only in name. Nay more, every profound human feeling possesses a religious tint that ultimately leads to religion itself.
Now, once you admit the necessity of religion, which can never be denied without ignoring the broad facts of human life and society, you will have to logically admit the necessity of different forms of religion, suited to different temperaments and to different kinds and different stages of culture, though all religions are at bottom one, 1.e.the wor-_ ship of a Superior Power. Thewild savage that in superstitious fear bows down to his stocks and stones, and the civilised man that kneels down in veneration and love before the altar of God, are, infact, obeying the dictation of the same primitive religious instinct implanted in every human heart, that differentiates and distinguishes man from other creatures.