RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY IN INDIA
Discussing religion with Indians. Their illustrations from
Nature. Want of applicability. Access to the King of kings.
Moral maxims for an ascetic. Misapplication of the word
"religion." Observance of caste easy. Caste often broken in
private. Brahmin schoolboy asking for water. The mischievous
village boy.
People with missionary aspirations have hesitated to volunteer for
Indian work because they felt that they were not competent to grapple
with the acute intellects and subtle philosophy of Indian thinkers. It
is commonly said that the acutest intellects in India are to be found
amongst the Brahmins of Poona City. A tolerably wide acquaintance
amongst them would lead one to say that the would-be missionary's
fears are groundless. The real difficulty of controversy with Indians,
so far as it may be expedient to embark in it at all, which is
doubtful, is that their arguments are often so discursive, their
reasoning so childish, their illustrations so comically beside the
mark, that it is scarcely possible to deal with them seriously.
They are particularly fond of illustrations drawn from Nature, and
they always regard the illustration as a conclusive answer to an
argument. If you point out its want of applicability, they reply by at
once giving another illustration equally inapplicable. For instance,
the broad-minded modern Indian argues that all religions ultimately
lead to God, and so that they are all equally good; and he gives as
his illustrative proof, that many rivers starting from a variety of
sources eventually empty themselves into the sea. And he looks upon
this, not merely as an illustration, but as a clinching argument
against which nothing can be said. But if you demur he will put the
case in the reverse order, and he will say that just as in Poona City
there are many tanks, but the water which supplies them all comes from
the great reservoir many miles away, so the various forms of religion
found in different countries came originally from the same source, and
are therefore identical.
A Hindu, defending the multiplicity of gods, said to me that of course
there was only one Supreme Being, but that he was too great to be
approached by ordinary mortals, and that it was through the lesser
deities that man had access to him. To make this clear, he used the
following illustration. He said that if a man had a grievance he could
not go direct to the emperor and state his case, but he must begin by
approaching the district collector, and ultimately his petition might
reach the ears of the emperor. Happily this illustration gave the
opportunity to say that in the Kingdom of Christ the poorest outcast,
or the little child, can have direct and immediate access to the King
of kings, whose ears are always open to the prayers of all His people.
Moral maxims, such as they are, are often put into the same
illustrative form. The following maxims are for the guidance of an
ascetic:--
"As the uncomplaining earth suffers injuries and affronts without any
sign of resentment, so should the ascetic be unperturbed by any
ill-treatment and indignities he may be subjected to.
"Into the serene sky ascend the glad sounds of mirth, the fierce roar
of battle, the beating of drums, and the clash of swords; but it
retains none of them; the ascetic in the midst of the turmoil of life
should, in like manner, retain no impression of the events about him,
be they joyous or mournful.
"As the pure flame feeds indiscriminately on all sorts of fuel, the
living timber of the forest as well as the refuse of the dung-heap, so
ought the ascetic to accept willingly whatever food is given to him,
never reflecting on its value, nor whether it is stale or fresh."[2]
[Footnote 2: Oman, _The Ascetics of India_, p. 158.]
The reader will be able to judge for himself how far the application
of these illustrations is calculated to help a man in his religious
aspirations towards asceticism.
The fact that Hinduism is a religion which still has a great hold upon
the majority of the people of India may be partly explained by the
shallowness of the Indian mind, which was referred to in the last
chapter. If there had been greater depth of feeling, and keener
perception of what the soul needs, the Hindu religion could never have
held its ground for so long. In spite of what many writers say about
Hinduism permeating every corner of domestic life, which is true in a
sense, it does not mean that "religion," as we understand the word,
permeates the Indian household. In an article in the _Fortnightly_ of
September 1909, an educated Hindu, Mr. P. Vencatarao by name, writing
on the subject, "Why I am not a Christian," after stating amongst
other things that "Hinduism has no fundamental dogmas," goes on to
say: "Hinduism is much more a matter of social intercourse and
domestic life than of religion in the proper sense of the word." And
that is perfectly true.
It is a particularly easy religion to follow. The moral code is left
undefined, and for the child depends upon the individual
characteristics of the members of the household in which he grows up.
The only clear rule of life which the Hindu possesses is concerning
the observance of caste. That is to say, he must never take food or
drink which has been in any way contaminated by the touch of a caste
lower than his own, and marriage may only be contracted within the
limits of his own caste. This rule he observes strictly, at any rate
in public, from the earliest childhood onwards. But it conveys no
moral obligation. On the contrary, it tends to self-esteem and
selfishness. Nor does it often cause any serious inconvenience. Or
when it does, as for instance when travelling, the exigences of modern
life have brought about a number of small concessions to the
strictness of the rule concerning food and drink, so that the
inconveniences have been mitigated or removed.
Numbers of Hindus break their caste rules in private. More than once a
high-caste visitor in the verandah, when he was alone, has asked me
for a drink of water; and there is no breach of caste so heinous as to
take water from the hand of a Christian. Now and then a Hindu lad will
display such an audacious courage in religious matters that it
partakes rather of the nature of a boyish freak. Several big Brahmin
lads, most of them being about sixteen or seventeen years old, had
been visiting the Mission-house rather frequently and showed a good
deal of interest in Christianity. One of them, when sitting in the
verandah, suddenly said to one of the Fathers: "Could I have a drink
of water?" The Father replied that he would fetch him the water if he
wished. The lad said: "Bring it, please"; and when the glass of water
was brought, he drunk it in the presence of his companions, and thus
deliberately and publicly breaking his caste. Unless he had been
prepared to follow his action up in some definite way, it had no
particular use; but it was not for us to suggest scruples. It need
scarcely be added that the visits from that particular group of lads
ceased, and it was long afterwards that, meeting the perpetrator of
this rash act in the road, I asked him what penalties he had had to
undergo for what he had done. He denied that any results followed, but
the cessation of his visits gave the lie to this assertion.
[Illustration: NIRARI BHOSLE.]
One of the village boys, who is endowed with a strong spirit of
mischief, implored me to cut off his pigtail in order that he might
have the fun of seeing his mother's horror when he returned without
it. But as he had no present intention of becoming a Christian, and it
would have made a row to no purpose, I refused to be an accomplice to
his mischief.