CHAPTER IV

PHILOSOPHY OF WORSHIP
We have already seen that man is essentially a religious animal. It is his religious instinct,
more than his reason, that distinguishes man from
the rest of the creation. In every man, there is an element of religious belief that manifests itself in various ,forms, from the lowest animism to the highest philosophical religious creed, and
we have also remarked that the essence of all reli-
gions is at bottom one, though its expressions vary in various creeds. A man normally feels the necessity of religion, the, necessity for believing in something, unless this instinct is forcibly smothered either by training or by habit. This instinctive craving for believing in something is not merely a passive or idletrait in human nature, but a very strong motive-force, and in some people, a supreme urge in life—that governs most of their actions and moulds them to be what they are. In short, this religious instinct lies at the very root of one’s conduct and character. It is, in
fact, the master-principle of human life.
Now, this religious instinct fiinds its - most
prominent expression in the form of religious
worship, found in every form of religion, from the crude worship. of stocks and stones up to
solemn prayer, or calm philosophical contempla-
tion of God. In other words, worship is inseparable from religion. There can not be any kind
‘of religion, without worship, apart from an
: (F362)
t abstract philosophical speculation which is, ofcourse, no religion at all. Forms of worship differ according to our religious concept,— accord. ing to its crudity or sublimity, The necessity of wor- ship is recognised by all religions, without which religion remains, at best, as an idle belief, merely a thing of profession. It should be noted here that there are very few theoritical atheists but most of us are practical, atheists, because, for want of worship religion becomes «an idle drapery of the mind Absence of worship, and laxity in worship undermine the religious __ belief which we profess to hold. In truth, there cannot be any religion without worship. They are conjoined like matter and force. They are not only cor-related but co-existent. Hence, worship, though its form may vary in thousand and one ways, is the prime expression of a religious belief. Something like what once Lord Salisbury, one of the famous Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, remarked that a religion is inseparable from its dogmas. A particular form of worship is_ certainly a dogma of a particular religion. Thus it is clear that worship is the most essential part of religion which without’ the element of worship may be characterised in Coleridge’s words, ‘You believe you believe.” Yes nothing more than a sheer idle belief. But true religious belief is dynamical in its effect and its dynamical energy is imparted by worship. It is worship, or spiritual exercise, that keeps a religion alive and prevents it from sinking into a dead formula of religion or a lifeless belief. A cold philosophical creed is not religion, It is neither solacing, nor inspiring. It is worship that ennobles the mind, enriches the heart with spiritual wealth, and beautifies life with tender graces. Naymore, its value is even greater; it enhances our concen- tration and devotion and helps us to realise the glory of God, and like all moral discipline, it
ieo7s’)
contributes to the perfection of the soul which is the goal of every higher religion, as it is indispensable for ultimate emancipation. The poet is perfectly right in saying.
‘More things are wrought by prayer Than this world dreams of’’—Tennyson
There is a_sacreligeous writing on the gate of the Krimilin Palace of Moscow in Soviet, Russia which purports tomean, “Religion is the opium of the people.’ In one sense, even this highly. disparaging and heretic remark holds true of reli- gion. Opium and its products are the greatest remedy for excrutiating physical pain. The anodyne effect of this drug is well known even from the most ancient time. Likewise, religion is the highest remedy for all mental afflictions, for all tribulations of the heart. It is the only remedy that can minister to “a mind diseased, pluck from memory the rooted sorrow and raze out the written troubles of the brain.’’ The Gita too, therefore, says that even a little of religion may save a man from great fear.
We have already remarked that the true soul of religion consists in practice, in other words, in worship. We should also remember this incontrovertible fact, that though the lofty philosophy of the Vedas and the Upanishadas lies at the root of the highest forms of Hinduism, such as, Saivism, Saktaism and Vaish- navism, yet neither Saivism, nor Sakta religion, nor Vaishnavism is identically one with the metaphysical doctrines of the Vedas and Upanishads, and its reason is obvious. Vedanta, in its uncopromising Advaita form, declares :- “Soham”; “Tattwamasi’; ‘“‘Ayamatma Brahma’”’ ; ‘““Aham Brahmasmi.”’ i.e—I am He ; Thou art He ; The Soul is Brahma ; I am Brahma.
. (38.4)
The great Sankara has also. declared Sivoham, Sivoham. Now, the vital principle of religion consists in worship whfch can not be consistent with absolute Monism. Religion and religious worship imply at least a conditional Dualism. ~The devotee never identifies himself with his Deity. There is always a conscious difference between the votary and the Deity. We donot know, nor have we ever heard where in religious practice, or worship, the devotee identifies himselfwith his Deity, We find the greatest sages and the greatest saints all over the world, from the earlist time till now, absorbed in meditation and contemplation of their Deity and engaged in worship or prayer, This fully demonstrates that. in religion and in its practical application, the devotee always thinks himself lesser than his Deity with whom he wants to be united at the end. Philosophy may establish identity between man and God, but religion is not pure philosophy, it is something more. Even at the most casual and superpicial glance the vital difference between philosophy and religion will be detected. Highly emotional and strong conative elements that constitute the vital breath of a living religion, are entirely absent from philosophy, though all higher religions are based upon different schools of philosophy.
Even the great Sankara, the upholder of the highest form of Monism, is found engaged in worshipping his Deity. His great hymns of glory in honour of Siva and Sakti testify to the undeni- able fact that in religion and religious worship, we must put aside an uncompromising Monism and assume, at least, a conditional Dualism. We do not know if- one can worship his own soul, because it is identical with Brahma. Such an instance has not yet been found, though, ofcourse, self-realisation is the highest fruit of religion and it is the goal of all the higher forms of Hindu reli-
uo.
gion, because it is by knowing the our own Soul we can know Brahma or God. Raja Ram Mohan Roy who revived Advaitism of Sankara, held that even for a spiritually emancipated man, God remains an object of worship to him, because Brahma is gteater than man. Maharshi Devendra nath Tagore, the illustrious father of Rabindra Nath Tagore, vehemently opposed absolute Monism that obliterates all difference between God and man.
True, Il am He, but I am not quite identical with Him. Even the Upanishadas make this clear.
“As tiny sparks emerge from a blazing fire, so from that Parmatma (the Universal Soul) all lives, all the worlds, all the gods and all creatures are evolved
Vrihadaranyaka eee:
Lord Sree Krishna also says in the Gita A part of mine exist in the living world as eternal life. Gita 15-1.
Ofcourse, Brahma or the Eternal Soul of the universe is indivisible. The finite soul is a part of the infinite soul, but that the finite soul is imprisioned in time and space, ‘“‘Man”’, says carlyle, is the symbol of eternity imprisoned in time.” Just as empty space of the sky and that within a pot, are the-same, so are Brahma and the finite soul, declare the Hindu Shastras :—
“Akacamekam Yatha Ghatadishu Prithag ~Bhavet’’. But religion implies and interprets this ~Monism that I am not identical with Him, but
only a part of Him; a tiny buffle in the Ocean of light that rises from the breast of the Ocean and bursts on it.
The Manduka Upanishad also declares this: -As thousands of sparks of the same nature are
( 40 )
emitted by a well-ignited fire, so from that imperishable Purusha (Brahma) diverse creatures are evolved and dissolved in him.
Manduka 2-1-1.
Thus the greatness of God is obvious. In other words, that I am not identical with God, is the fundamental axiom of religion. Religion implies the existence of a Superior Being, greater than its votary. Every form of religion implies some form of dualism, though ultimately it may merge ‘into the highest monism. In this sense, what Dean Inge has said is right :—
“God is the beginning of religion and the end of philosophy, and the beginning and the end are one.” —QOutspoken Essays.
I am He, nodoubt, because there is nothing but God, there is nothing outside God ; the very creation is: a. mode. of . Brahma,, the universe lies in him yet the universe is not God. Hindu philosophy does not end in Pantheism, but in Panentheism, Brahma, or God, in Hindu philosophy ‘s both immanent and transcendent. It seams tous, the height of impertinence to declare that I am the Absolute. It is against this _uncompro- mising monism which identifies the devotee with the Deity to be one and the same that Siva tells Parvati in the Padma Puran :—In the Kaliyoga (the Iron age) I have created false Shastra (religious scripture ) by upholding the theory of Maya. This is known as covert Bouddha doctrine : in other words, such a theory is, in fact, Bouddha doctrine in disguise
Mayavadamasachhastram Prachhannam Bouddhaumchyate Mayava Vihitam Devi Kalan Brahmana murttina. Padma Puran,
(aaie)
Once more let us make ourselves clear that I am He inthe sense as has been used in the Vrihadaranyaka and the Manduka Upanishad : ‘Tama spark like a thousand other sparks emitted by a blazing fire’. A spark is undoubtedly of the same nature and of same quality with the blazing fire itself, but far lesser than the blazing fire, the origin of the spark. Thus, the difference between a purely monistic philosophical theory and a teligious creed is quite obivious. We need not expatiate upon it any more.
Again, the difference between a purely philo- © sophical creed and religion is immense. Religion is rich with emotional elements, whereas philosophy is absolutely devoid of them; where philosophy leaves us cold, it is religious faith that buoys up our depress- ed soul, inspires it with hope and quickens it with love. It is religion that upholds the drooping spirit, that uplifts the mind from the mire of impurity, chastens our life and checks our lower desires. It is religious ardour that has richly contributed to the melody of the ministrels songs, and inspired the artists to put forth their best. It is not cold philosophy, but religion, that has contri- buted to the wealth of poetry, painting, music, sculpture, architecture, and to all noble and tender qualities of the heart. It has inspired the hero to lay down his life cheerfully for his faith, it has spurred chivalrous feelings and gallantry in the knight ; naymore, it has taught the common people to bear patiently all ills and sufferings of life and to look forward to a better and brighter state of things in future. It has taught man not to think this world to be the “be-all and end all’ of every thing. It has changed man’s angle of vision and his attitude towards the world and thereby has greatly modified his concept about life and the goal of his earthly existence. Again, it is reli- gion that inculcates a spirit of sacrifice. It requires
6
C42.)
sacrifice of our selfish‘ interests for higher good and for the welfare of the world. All that is low, sordid or mean should be sacrificed for our spiritual bliss. It is religion that supplies the true motive of altruism,and not any thing else. No system of philosophy, however high, has been able to effect even one hundredth part of what religion has achieved in the world.
Again. Philosophy is statical, whereas religion is quite dynamical in its potentiality. It had inspired inthe past men to noblest actions, as well as to cruel persecutions in countries and among people where there were no catholicity of views and toleration for another’s belief and it will continue to do so in future,
We need not dwell upon this point any more. The difference between religion and a pure and simple philosophical doctrine is quite patent.
We have already said that it is worship, whatever might be its form, that so richly contributes te the emotional and volitional elements of religion. It is worship that renders a religious faith sacred, the most distinctive feature that distin- guishes it from all other _ secular beliefs. This sacredness of a religious faith is the most important element. This renders ‘‘the religious objects as the sacred and the corresponding religious attitude as consisting in such manifesta- tions of feeling, thought and action in regard to the sacred as is held to conduce to the welfare of the community or to that of individuals as mem- bers of the community.”
Now, what is meant by “Sacred”? Its meaning differs in different religions. It may mean what is purifying and conducive to spiritual welfare, or it may mean what is secret or mysterious. Again, what is sacred to me, may be an abomination to you, or quite an indifferent thing to another.
( 43)
Please mark the sentence “‘as is held to conduce to the welfare of the community or to that of individuals as members of the community”. This is exactly, in purport, the import of the Sanskrit term Dharma, that is religion that preserves all cretures from harm and contributes to their welfare.
Now, we have already remarked that it is worship that keeps a religion alive. The Tantric creed, like the Vadas, lays great stress upon the forms of worship which are calculated to contri- bute greatly to our spiritual welfare and moral perfection.
Jaimini’s Mimansa system of philosophy enjoins that religion consists in the performance of rites and ritual prescribed in the Vedas (chodana Laksmanartha Dharma ); likewise, the Tantras lay vety great stress upon certain prescribed forms of worship which are calculated to promote one’s spiritual welfare and enhance concentration of mind and devotional ardour, and are also designed to deve- lop psychic powers, will-force and strength of mind which are necessary for self restraint under great temptations. The Tantras thus speak of some Yogic Sadhanas ( modes of worship and prayer) that will bestow on the devotee great yogic and occult powers and will lead him to higher spiritual plane. The question that naturally arises is : Is this true? The answer is given in the most affirmative form by the great Yogins and the Sannyasins, whose occult powers are as established facts as any other undeniable fact of nature. Any ounce of fact is better than a pound of theory. Here, the Tantras are at one with Patanjali’s Yoga Darsan which speaks of practical Sadhanas. Practise them and you will acquire great yogic powers. You cannot deny the truth of these propositions without practising them. They require practice, they cannot be proved or disproved-by
44)
t
theoritical discussions. The great Yogins and Sannyasins of India are the living evidence of their truth, and one cannot ignore or deny incontrover- tible facts. Likewise, you cannot deny the efficacy of Tantric Sadhana and Tantric worship without following them. The fe of Ramkrishna Paramhansa of our time will show to what a great spiritual height a man can rise by Tantric Sadhana and also what great and wonderful occult or yogic powers can be attained by it. A tree is known by its fruit. We shall speak about some of these Tantric Sadhana or rites | and rituals, known as the occult secrets of the Tantras. One thing should, however, be noted that Sadhana or Yoga is not peculiar to the Tantric religion. Yoga or Sadhana is to be found in every system of higher Hindu religion. It is common to the Saivas, Saktas and Vaishnavas, though it predominates in a preponder- ing degree in the Tantric form of worship. Occult powers are attained by the development of higher spiritual powers by Sadhana or Yoga. You can not. deny the existence of a thing, that does really exist, by any jugglery of words. The Tantras, like the Yoga Darsan of Patanjali, deal with practical things and they stand above all formal literary criticism. No logical claptrap can assail them. You are to prove or disprove their truths by practising them. Swedenberg might aave been the only mystic in Europe but there are hundreds and thousands of Swedenbergs among the Indians who ever live in close com- munion with the Deity, and whose occult powers naturally result from Yoga or Sadhana. Call them mystics, if you like, but mysticism, in strict sense, isa phenomenon of highly developed religion. “Individualistic in character, it is the out- come of a longing for intimate communion with the Divine.” This definition of mysticism given in the Encyclopaedia Britanica is, in essence, exactly
vay
( 45 )
the same that we come across in Patanjali’s Yoga Darsan and in the Tantras; it is the result of close and ardent communion of the devotee with his Deity, which awakens dormant psychic powers in the devotee. We shall deal with it later on, The power is in you, it is in every human being, but it lies dormant. It is by religious practice, by Yoga and Sadhana you are to awaken it.’ It does not come from outside.but lies in us. Culture and practice with pure spiritual fervour and religious ardour are necessary to make its latent potentialities patent and active. We shall now proceed with the fundamental philosophy of Tantric religion.
CHAFTER V FUNDAMENTAL CREED OF THE TANTRAS,
Dr. Martineau after long and_ elaborate discussions of good many learned philosophical theories about religion came to the conclusion that religion requires a Personal God for worship ; Impersonal God cannot be worshipped.’ The great philcsophical scholar was not acquainted with the Upanishads and Hindu philosophy, or he could have seen that thousands of years ago, the great Indian sages had realised this truth and put it forth in the clearmost language, and what is more, and put it on amore profound philosophical basis.
God is an inscrutible power. He is neither this nor that. He, She and It are equally applicable to God, for God is devoid of all attributes ; in fact, He is beyond the conception of our mind; we cannot think of anything which has no form, no attribute, no action whatsoever, whichis eternal
1 In this connection the reader may read Maurice Materlinck’s, Nobel Laureate, drama. ‘Monna Vana’ and see how subconscious powers can work wonder.
: ( 46 )
and infinite and devoid of all material and mental attributes. The Upanishads declare that He is beyond our thought, beyond our conception. We cannot have an idea of attributeless Brahma. He is beyond the reach of words, of mind and of vision—“Naiva Vacha Na Manaca Praptim Cakyo Na Chakshusa”— Katha Upanishad 3/12.
So also declares the Taittariaya. Yata Vacha Nivartante Aprapya Manasa Saha
Whence speech with mind comes back baffled i.e. He is beyond our conception and is indescri- bable. Yet the Vedas and the Upanishads do not ~endin Agnosticism. They are full of living faith and devotional ardour, no where else we find deeper religious fervour. The great sages knew the limitations of human intellect, they were fully acquainted with the psychology of the human mind, They knew that in order to think of God, we must impute attributes to Him, God must be rendered an object capable of apprehension by the human mind, and this we can do only by our inference and imagination. God, in order to be an object of human conception, can not be an Attributeless, Impersonal Spirit,—Eternal and Infinite,—of which we can form no-adequate idea whatsoever. Such a God is beyond the realisation of the human mind. All learned attempts to express the Eternal and Infinite God remain but idle expressions—‘Words, words, words’ having no. significance whatsoever. ‘The word”’, says Prof. Tiel, “must become Flesh in order to get admission into human heart.” The Eternal, Infinite, Indeferminate, Brahma, devoid of all names,
1 Vide Dr. Martineau's Philosophy of Religion.
° The Sanskrit word Brahma is untranslatable in English, Iswara can be translated by the term God, for God, in Christian Theology, is what Iswara is in Hindu Philosophy, i. e. a Personal God with attributes,
Cros)
forms and attributes is beyond human conception. So also says the great German poet, Goethe, in his Faust :
“Who dare express Him ?’— Faust Part,’S¢e. X V1
Here we are limited by our anthropomorphic idea. The great sages of ancient India knew this metaphysical truth thousands of years ago, they, therefore, have declared that we cannot think of Brahma but of Iswara or Brahma with attributes. Brahma is not merely attributeless, He is, again, full of attributes. And what are His attributes ? All the attributes that we find in the universe are His attributes, because the whole creation is but a mode of Brahma. Everything is God, there is nothing outside God ; hence Brahma is both attributeless as well as full of attributes. They are but the two modes of Brahma, ‘‘Parancha Aparancha Brahma” (Prasna 5.2). The great Sankaracharyya following the ancient Rishis says, Brahma is known in two aspects ; as attributeless and with attributes. This conception of Brahma with attributes is known as Iswara, or God, as the creator. supporter and destroyer of the creation.
“Saguna Nirguna Vishnu’. So also says the Vishnu Puran
He is Maheswara—‘‘Tamicwaranam Paramam Maheswaram.”’
This idea of a creator, supporter, a moral governor of the creation and also the final cause of destruction is what find also in the Tantras.
‘He is without modification, and self-supporting. He is without difference, above attributes,—the Witness of every thing, the Soul of all,—seeing all that is, and endowed with divine powers. He lies hidden in every being and is eternal and all-
( 48 )
pervading. He, it is, that manifests organ as well as attributes; although Himself is without any organ. He is above all the worlds and is their cause. He is beyond the reach of speech or thought, knowing everything. He knoweth this universe but none knoweth Him.” The Mahanirvan Tantram Ch. II. V. 35-37.
Again, it further says :—“He is the cause of our beings, the cause of all creatures, He is the sole Supreme Lord and by virtue of His having brought every object into being, He is Brahma and known among the people as the Creator. And it is on account of His so willing that, O Goddess, Vishnu is the Preserver and myself am the Destroyer of the universe, and the guardian gods of the worlds, with Indra at their head, are all under His swary.
Ibid Chap. II. Verses 30—41
Thus -the Tantras are at. one with. the Upanishads in philosophy and in spirit, yet it is wrongly held by many that the Tantras differ from the Vedas andthe Upanishads. The only difference of the Tantras with the Vedas and Upanishads liesin their prescribed forms of worship and in rites. and rituals. Now, Iswara of the Upanishads is the Mahasakti of the Tantras.
It is obvious that we can worship only a Personal God, and not Eternal and Infinite Brahma, devoid of all forms and _ atributes. Human mind loves to dwell upon the glory of God which consists in imputing the highest possible perfection of all the great and noble qualities that we find around us. It is not possible to impute any attribute of which we have no idea or knowledge. He is the Fountainhead of all that is good and noble ; Heis Truth, Good and Beauty—‘“Satyam Siva Sundaram.” We are never contented by limit- ing the attributes of God. God has created man after his own image, says the Bible, we know not how far
( 49 )
this statement is true, but it is quite evident that man has created God after hisown mind. Behind this. Biblical statement, however, lies hidden an anthropomorphic idea of God. God, accor- ding to this view, is a mighty Superman. But neither Hindu philosophy, nor Hindu theology asserts such an idea of God, though both Hindu philosophy and Hindu theology recognise the psychological necessity of thinking of and wor- shipping God with attributes, and it is also evident that man is apt to think of God in human form endowed with divine powers. There is hardly any escape from this psychological fact.
Now, the question that naturally suggests itself what kind of Personal God are we to worship ? Can the conception of this personal God be one and the same for all men alike ? Herein lies the immortal glory of the Hindu Shastras, they did ‘not insist upon one stereotyped idea of the Supreme Deity for all alike. This Personal God has found various expressions in various forms in the Hindu Scriptures that might suit different peoples’ education, temperament, imagination and culture. It is the same Deity who is Vishnu to you, Siva to me, Sakti toanother. Wherein lies the real difference about our conception of God, but in our own mind? It is only about our own ideas and concepts that we fight and wrangle with one another and declare that ours one is the best.
However, we have seen that that the Tantras, in spirit and in their fundamental doctrines, are at one with the Vedasand the Upanishads. Therefore, the famous commentator of Manu, the great Sanskrit scholar, Kalluka Bhatta rightly says : “There are two classes of Sruti, Vedic and Tantric’ The eternal truth of-religion is immutable and it remains unchanged even the midst of diverse changes of its forms through different ages and through different circumstances.
7
¢ 60 )
From low to high doth disolution climb, And sink from high to low, along a scale
Of awful notes, whose concord shall not fail,
A musical but melancholy chime,
Which they can hear who meddle not with crime, Nor avarice, nor over anxious care.
Truth fails not ; but her outward forms that bear The longest date do melt like frosty rime,
That in the morning whitened hill and plane And is no more ; drop like the tower sublime Of yesterday, which royally did wear.
His crown of weeds, but could not even sustain Some casual shout that broke the silent air,
Or the unimaginable touch of Time.”
— Wordsworth.
The above-quoted words of the poet we should remember when we judge of a religious creed. The test lies in its truth. We _ should sift its outward form and see whether its essence is based upon truth or not. Human reason can not pry deeper than that. Our religious creed depends more upon our hopes and imagination than upon anything else. We are not always worshippers of reason. It is our hope for some- thing better in future that urges us towards our goal. We may be right, we may be wrong, but hope that springs eternal in human breast lies at the root of all religious creeds. We may blunder, we may bungle with our life, we may be misled by our own ideas and ideals, but still we hope that every- thing will be righted at the end, every wrong will be redressed and every error rectified. It lies at the root of our devotion and faith, It fills us with ardent fervour. It kindles our imagination and warms our heart. It is hope that carries us forwarc and that leads us through troubles and _ tribulation: of life. The poet is perfectly right when, unde the shadow of deep sorrow, he utters ;—
CroL*)
“Oh yet we trust that somehow good Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will, Defects of doubt and taints of blood :
That nothing walks with aimless feet : That not one life shall be destroy’d
Or cast as rubbish to the void ;
When God hath made the pile complete ;
That not a worm‘is cloven in vain; That not a moth with vain desire Is shrivell’d in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another’s gain.
Behold we know not anything ;
I can but trust that good shall fall At last—-far off—at last, to all, And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream ; but what am I? An infant crying in the night ;
An infant crying for the light ; And with no language but a cry.”
—In Memoriam.
This also holds good of our religious belief This hope and belief in the ultimate good after sore disappointments and sufferings is the motive force that carry us along the path of duty,—the path of virtue and raise us from all dejection and despair. When light fails, when there is none to lead us, when all appeals for help become ‘a cry in
wilderness, when we sink under doubts and despair, it is belief that everything will be righted at the end, that sustains and ‘upholds our droopiug spirit and fills us with enthusiasm, hope and courage to face the grim ordeals of life. It is here that religion holds its triumph over all and every other thing. There is nothing else that is so inspiring, so healing and so consoling in our sore moments of afflictions
( 52.)
and troubles as religion. And the Tantras lay great stress upon this element of religion.
CHAPTER—VI THE DEITY OF THE TANTRAS
We have already said that the essence of religion consists in worship, and worship requires a Personal God. We have also seen that there can not be one and the same Personal God for all, even professing the same religion, for its concept must vary according to ones temperament, imagination, education and culture; may more, ‘even after one’s inclinations and tastes.
The common idea of a Personal God among the people is that of an . Almighty Governor of the universe, who is kind to His devotees, the Distributor of rewards and punishments to men after their death ; and one generally thinks of Him as the Sovereign Lord of the universe, holding His royal court in the blissful region of heaven! Thousands of angels wait upon Him, This is what even the great poet Milton thought of God :
—‘‘His state
Is kingly ; thousands at his bidding speed, And post o’er land and ocean without rest, They also serve Him who stand and wait.
This is, after all, a magnified picture of a mighty, earthly king. It is, at bottom, an anthropomorphic, idea of God. It is our ‘concept or image that we deify and instal as Godhead: We can hardly get rid of our own shadow, however much we may try. But what is the real image of God? Is God a magnified and a glorified human being? Surely not. It is the creation of our mind, and one man’s concept
Ge5ax-)
differs from that of another, though there may be great similarity between the two. There are men who can not think of a youthful God, but only of a God quite venerable in age and wisdom ! This is, ofcourse, due to our own limitations of imagination and intellect. Itis we that impute different qualities or attributes to God, just to think of Him, to pray to Him and to meditate upon His glory. Ofcourse, all the attributes are the attributes of God, for everything is God, there is nothing outside God. Primary and Secondary qualities are but a mode of Divine manifesta- tion. Hence all the attributes that we see around us and all that wecan imagine or infer to exist are the attributes of God. God is, therefore, both attributeless and full of attributes, declare the Hindu Shastras.
“Saguna Nirguna Vishnu.”’
The great sage Sankaracharyya says: Dwirupam Hi Brahma Avagamyate, Namrupabhedopadhi Vicishtam, Tad Viparitancha Sarvopadhivarjitan.”’ —Brahma has two forms—one, with name and form, and the other, devoid of all forms and names.
In the Upanishads, the distrinction between attributeless Brahma and Brahma with attributes has been expressed by the use of Neuter and Musculine genders. Attributeless Brahma is grammatically designated by the Neuter gender and Iswara or Brahma with attributes by the Masculine gender.
“Santi Ubhaya linga Crutaya BrahmaVishaya.”
Thus also the Vrihad Arnyaka declares :— “Dwevava Brahmanarupe Murttam Chamurttam, Murttam Chamintam cha, Sthitam cha, Yat cha, Sat chaslat cha. ;
Brahma has two aspects, manifested and unmanifested, perishable and imperishable, with
( 4 )
motion and devoid of motion, both with attributes and without attributes.” Since Brahma is both with attributes and devoid of them, one is at liberty to have a Personal God after his own liking. One generally thinks of God like what he or she reveres most, or considers to be the highest, or the most glorious, or the most perfect. Now, the Hindu Shastras make the greatest allowance in this matter. One’s concept is as good as that of another, because all our concepts about God, however high, must necessarily be inadequate.’ This cardinal truth was realised by the great sages of India. What reasonable objection may you have if my idea of God differs from that of yours? Yet, this has been the prime cause of all religious strifes and even of sanguinary wars !
The Hindu Shastras, again, differ in one import- ant feature from the scriptures of other religions ; they declare that God is not an object of fear but of love. One should not only revere and adore God, but also love Him as his own nearest and dearest one. Fear of God, so common in other forms of religion, is not countenanced by the Hindu Shastras. There is no such phrase as God-fearing man in Sanskrit. One should love God and adore Him with veneration and _ love but not from fear. Hence, the Hindus always sought to establish a closer and nearer relation between God and man,—between the devotee and the Deity. There is a degree of respectful distance between the master and the servant, but the relation is far closer between the father and the son. Now, God should be the dearest object of love, and man should (at least, he is at liberty) to think of God what he considers to be dearest to him. Among the Hindus, there- fore, the relation between God and man is not
1 The great French writer Juberthas also said in this sense : God is God because He stands above proof,
Goon.)
steriotypedly fixed for all alike. Iam quite at liberty to think of Him asI like. Yoshada loved _ Sreekrishna as her son ; the cowherd boys, as their Friend; the Vraja Gopis, as their Lover. And, they were perfectly right like the man who adores God as the Almighty Governor of the universe,— though it must be admitted that in the last- mentioned conception there is more element of awe than of love.
Now, the Tantras, emphasise the Motherhood of God. To many people such a concept will appear to be sacreligeous, because they have been taught to look upon God as a Male Being, as Master or Lord. But is it not equally absurd and illogical to assign a_ particularly definite sex to God? Who can determine it? Eternal and Infinite Brahma is formless and sexless; again, all forms are His forms, all sexes are His and have been evolved from Him. Heis both the Mother and the Father of the universe. The whole creation is an act of emergence from Brahma, call that Brahma Father or Mother as you like; :i,e. think of Brahma in the form of what you love most and revere most. The Tantras have preferred to repre- sent Eternal Brahma, as the Eternal Mother of the universe. And why? The reason is quite obvious. Mother is dearer to the child than the father ; again, it is mother who loves more and cares more for the child than the father. Who can deny +this ? The whole animal world bears most eloquent testimony to this incontrovertible fact, to the superiority of mother’s love over all others’ love. The Tantras hold up the Supreme Deity as the Eternal Mother of the universe, for there is nothing more sacred, more deep and more disinterested than mother’s love. God’s love for the creation is like mother’s love, only more deep, more pure and more disinterested. This concept of the Motherhood of God is as good and as
( 56)
logical as that of FatKerhood, for He is both the Father and the Mother of the universe.
The Tantras, again, explain the act of creation on the analogy of sexual creation in nature. And it is true that we can not generally conceive any other mode of creation :—even in the Hermaphrodites the same process goes on. The Tantras, therefore, explains creation as the result of union between Purushand Prakriti, The Gita also, in Chap. XVI Verse 25, supports this view. In the Hindu Shastras, this union between Purusha and Prakriti has been symbolically represented by the image of Ardhanariswara or Haragouri. And Purusha and Prakriti are Siva and Sakti of the Tantras, ofcourse quite different from the Purusha and Prikriti of the Sankhya Philosophy and we have already discussed that point. Thus the only difference between pure Saivism and Sakta creed lies merely on the predominance of Siva in Saivism, and that of Sakti in the Sakta creed. Now. the philosophy underlying the Sakta creed may be very briefly put.
God and the universe are inseparable, because they are, at bottom, one andthe same. One can not be taken away from the other. The creation is a mode of Divine manifestation, but this manifestation appears to us in a Dualistic form, in whatever name we may like to designate it. In purely scientific nomenclature, the whole universe appears in the forms of matter and force. There is no matter without force, and no force without matter. And what we practically notice is the play of several forces or different kinds of energy that have brought the universe into existence and govern all material phenomena of the universe. In other words, we find certain Elements and certain kinds of Energy that bring about all material phenomena. of the universe. We donot know how they themselves have come into existence,
€5A> )
nor even their real nature. All that we know about them is how they work; in other words, their laws of operation. We can at best describe. them but can not account for them, i.e. we know’ not the reason why they behave in such and such manner.
The different kinds of energy that we find working in nature are Light, Electricity, Magne- tism, Chemical energy, Heat and Motion. But science has proved that they are but different expressions of One great energy, for a particular energy can be converted into another form of energy, as heat into light; magnetism into electricity. This is, in scientific terminology, known as correlation of forces. Thus, all these different kinds of energy are but the different modes of expression of One great, supreme energy.
Science has, again, proved that all the different elements which were so long held to be immutably fixed in nature, are but the modifications of One gteat element, known as Protyle ; as we find that the elément Radium ultimately changes into the element Lead. All the elements can, ultimately, be resolved into Protones, Positrones etc., which are identically the same in every element. Now, neti- ther we know the origin of Energy nor the origin of the Elements. Again, there is no element absolutely devoid of energy, nor we meet with’ an energy without some sort of matter. In otherwords, matter and energy are inseparable and their ultimate origin is unknown to us. This is what is known in the Tantras as the union between Purusha and Prakriti, or between Siva and Sakti. According to the Upanishads the visible universe is a mode of Divine manifestation, hence it isinseparable from Brahma. So what we desig- nate as. matter or energy is nothing but a mode of Divine manifestation, or Leela. Hence there is nothing dead or inert in nature, but everything
8
. ( 58)
is living and endued with energy. Sir Jagadish Bose’s wonderful experiments demonstrate this great truth, long realised by the great Hindu seers of old. God and His energy are inseparable, and what we designate as physical energy is nothing but Divine energy. There is no other energy besides Divine energy. And this is what the Gita also declares that, the light of the sun andof the moon is His energy :
“Vadadityagatam Tejo Jagatbhasatehkhilam Yacchadramasi Yacchagnau Tat tejo Vidhi
Mamakam”’ 15:12
The energy that in the sun lightens the world and the energy that is in the moon and in fire, know that to be mine energy.—Gita Chap. XV. Verse 12.
Since, we can never separate God from His energy, we can not. separate Siva from Sakti. Again, it is God with attributes that we worship; nay more, our adoration is mostly due to his Divine attributes; in other words, we worship. God for His Divine attributes than for anything else. To be more explicit, we worship God, because He is almighty, ominscient, omnipresent, merciful, etc. Again, it is these Divine attributes that impress upon our mind the greatness of God, and we worship Him for that greatness. Thus, these Divine attributes play a very important part in our religious belief. Now, what are attributes but so many manifesta- tions of energy ? Thus, Divine energy and its acknow- ledgement constitute the chief element in religious worship, and, we have already remarked that, worship is the lifespirit of religion that keeps it alive. If this be true, the Tantras are perfectly right in giving prominence to the worship of Sakti. Itis through the manifestation of certain
(S598 )2
attributes that we come to know the existence of a thing. What has no manifestation has no existence to us. Likewise, it is through the manifestation of Divine energy in the universe that we come to know the existence of God, and this energy is but a mode of manifestation of Brahma. Now, this Energy is’ Sakti of the Tantras. Who can, therefore, accuse him who worships Brahma as Sakti? The Sakta worships Brahma as Sakti, or as He appears through the manifestation of His Divine energy, which has. been designated and conceived in the Tantras as the Mahasakti. If a Personal God be the necessary requisite of religious _ worship, God with His Divine energy or attributes, (which alone reveal to us His existence), conceived as Mahasakti, or the Fountain head of all energy and attributes, is, perhaps, the most profound philo- sophical concept of Brahma, than what we generally meet with in other concepts about God.
It is Divine energy that makes us aware of the existence of God, it. is Divine energy that appears as Divine intelligence in the great Teleological design of the creation.' Thus the Tantric conception of the Supreme Deity is, rather, a very apt symbolical representation of Brahma with His Divine energy, that has brought the visible universe into existence, that governs, upholds and sustains it, which pas been classified and specified by science as the great Laws of Nature. Thus, Cosmic energy is the most
1There has recently been published a very valuable book in English under the name of the Great Design, It contains highly thoughtful contributions of several eminent scientists, philosophers and men of letters. There, the world famous Mathematician and Scientist Sir James Jeams has observed that the very constitution and working of the universe demonstrate the prominence of :Mind over Matter i.e. an intelligent design is more than amply evident. Science no longer regards the creation asa matter of mere accident, a casual product of primordial matter,
; (¢ 60°)
t
tangible thing that at once captures our wayward attention and fills our mind with an overwhelm- ingly oppressive emotion of deep awe and wonder ! How: insignificant is man! To what a vanishing dot our earth dwindles in the vast abyss of space ! What countless vistas of time are involved in the formation of the visible universe! Who amongst . us can conceive the Eternal and Infinite, in whom all the worlds exist like beads of pearls ina pearl necklace ; i. e, who is transcendent of the vast uni- verse itself ? The Sakta bows down trembling with © deep veneration and awe and relieves himself of the oppressive and stupifying emotion by exclaiming with devotion and love, Mother! Mother! Oh Great Mother!’ Inspite of all awe-inspiring majesticity and grandeur, mother’s love is always assuring to the child, and it always protects and delivers the child from all fear and feelings of distress. Who has the audacity to laugh at the devotee who, in profound devotion and love, prostrates himself before the image of the Divine Mother,—the creator, the preserver, and _ the destroyer of the universe? The ‘inscrutible Power manifested through nature, is Sakti, This Power is Brahma, devoid of all names and forms, and one is at full liberty to think of this Supreme Power inany form he or she likes. No image of the Eternal and the Infinite is possible. but Viswarupa, om the cosmic image of God, with the whole universe lying in Him. Our concept of the Eternal and Infinite Brahma must be limited by the limitations of our imagination and intellect. Therefore, the devotee is fully justified in worship- ping God in whatever form he likes.
It won’t be out of place to mention that the world-famous orator and preacher and the founder of the New Mission Church of Brahma Religion, Keshab Chandra Sen, whose name isa household word among the educated Indians and who was one
(61 )
of the most jealous supporters of Brahma religion, which took its birth by way of protest against idolatry, (as the Protestantism rose against the excesses of Roman Catholicism and _ papacy), sometimes meditated upon the Motherhood of God, and invoked the Supreme Deity as Mother. There is a prayer of Keshab Chandra in Bengali, wherein he prays to God, asa Sakta prays to Sakti, repeatedly calling God as Mother with deep emotion and devotional ardour: “Come Mother, come Mother ! Ah Mother! make me mad. Oh, what delicious wine is being served at Thy place! The prayer not only reminds one instantly of Ram- prosad and Ramkrishna Paramhansa (with whom Keshab Chandra came in close touch in the closing years of his life and whom Keshab Chandra held in the greatest regard and esteem) but even the very words seem to be theirs! Keshab Chandra was deeply imbued with the devotional ardour and love of a true Sakta, worshipping God as the great Divine Mother, Sakti! Thus, all distinctions and differences in all forms of worship, and between all sectarian creeds vanish away in devotional ardour and love. Ramkrishna Paramhansa found joy and solace in every form of religion, and he discovered the fundamental unity of all reli- gions in the midst of their great diversities.
Now, there isa more subtle and higher process in the Hindu Shastras than worship, for realising Nirguna Brahma i. e. Impersonal and Indeterminate God, devoid of all forms and names. This consists in realising Brahma by the realisation of our own
soul. I am (Cogito ergo sum); I live, I exist, is an incontrovertible truth, but what is this myste- rious I? I say, I am not well; my mind is Badii seit is. samy . house. -hé,is my son, ‘etc: etc. What is this I? Do I mean my body? Do I mean my mind ? Then, how can I say My mind is sad? It is the mysterious Self
( 627+) t or Ego which is both consciously and uncon- sciously referred to in thought and_ speech. Now, what is the real nature of this Self or Soul? . The Hindu Shastras declare that 1am He ; a spark from the blazing Fire, a bubble in the Ocean of light. I am indeed a spark, I am indeed a bubble, yet I am of the same nature with the ‘blazing Fire’ and with ‘the Ocean of light’,—lesser no doubt, but of the same quality, I am like the empty space enclosed in a small jar or pitcher, but the same with the vast empty space of the universe, and when the jar will be broken, it will be one with the empty space of the universe. The great Hindu sages, therefore, have laid foremost stress upon the Realisation of Soul. By realising my own Soul, I shall realise Brahma. But how this Soul can be? realised? There is’ no. short cut to iG It is the most arduous thing and the highest achievement in human life. For this, utmost moral and spiritual discipline, devotion, meditation and prayer are necessary. It can be realised only by Yoga and by nothing else, for which only one in a million is found to be fit. But the Hindu Shastras also declare that by worshipping Brahma with attributes i.e. Saguna Iswara, with devotional faith and love, and by self-control and knowledge, one can gradually attain knowledge of Brahma. Ofcourse, there is no royal road to it, and he that succeeds, attains the highest emanci- pation which is the ultimate goal of . Hindu religion, that is to be one with God, or to be merged into Brahma. Since this is not meant for the people in general, since it is the most difficult thing to achieve, since it is beyond our ordinary capacity and power, there is need for worship and prayer ; there is need for a Personal God to love and worship, and to concentrate our mind upon Him. Herein lies the _ logical justification of idolatry. It is wrong to hold that we can do away with all forms of idolatry from our
C7.)
religion. Why the Church is sacred to the Christians ? If God be omnipresent, and if He be present in every object, then every place is equally sacred as the church. Hence, Carlyle is right when he says that no religion is possible without idolatry. Ofcourse, this does not mean that idol-worship is a necessary factor of religion ; yet, since I do not worship any idol, have I the tight to hate an idolator or to persecute him ? An idolator too worships the same God whom he invokes in his idol. It is a wrong belief among the non-Hindus that the Hindus worship idols. Nothing can be more removed from truth than this. It is Brahma, the Eternal and Infinite Brahma, that one worships in his idol, with whom he becomes one in his mind and not the idol itself. Whether such worship is efficacious or not, that depends upon one’s devotional ardour and faith. It has been enjoined in the Hindu Shastras that the votary by placing a flower on his head, should think himself as the Deity that he is going to worship. Now, in such worship, Ramkrishna Paramhansab ecame so much absorbed in meditation and thought that he very often forgot all differences between the Deity and his ownself ; soon many a occasion, when Ram- krishna was engaged in worshipping his Deity— the Goddess Kali—he lost all consciousness of any difference between him and Kali and appropriated all the articles of worship himself !
Thus, every form of worship, every form of reli- gious creed may be conducive to the highest spiritual bliss, if observed with devotional ardour, sincere faith and love. Ramkrishna used to:say there are as many paths (to God) as many as there are views (i.e. creeds). Religion, in this sense, does not consist in any particular, prescribed form of faith, but in devotion and love which one possess
for God.