PART V_The Reconciliation of Races and Religions

A SERIES OF ILLUSTRATIVE STUDIES BEARING ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

A SERIES OF ILLUSTRATIVE STUDIES BEARING ON COMPARITIVE RELIGION

EIGHTEEN (OR, WITH THE BĀB, NINETEEN) LETTERS OF THE LIVING OF THE

FIRST UNITY

The Letters of the Living were the most faithful and most gifted of

the disciples of the so-called Gate or Point. See _Traveller's

Narrative_, Introd. p. xvi.

Babu'l Bāb.

A. Muḥammad Hasan, his brother.

A. Muḥammad Baghir, his nephew.

A. Mulla Ali Bustani.

Janabe Mulla Khodabacksh Qutshani.

Janabe Hasan Bajastani.

Janabe A. Sayyid Hussain Yardi.

Janabe Mirza Muḥammad Ruzi Khan.

Janabe Sayyïd Hindi.

Janabe Mulla Maḥmud Khoyï.

Janabe Mulla Jalil Urumiyi.

Janabe Mulla Muḥammad Abdul Maraghaï.

Janabe Mulla Baghir Tabrizi.

Janabe Mulla Yusif Ardabili.

Mirza Hadi, son of Mirza Abdu'l Wahab Qazwini.

Janabe Mirza Muḥammad 'Ali Qazwini.

Janabi Tahirah.

Hazrati Quddus.

TITLES OF THE BĀB, ETC.

There is a puzzling variation in the claims of 'Ali

Muḥammad. Originally he represented himself as the Gate of the City

of Knowledge, or--which is virtually the same thing--as the Gate

leading to the invisible twelfth Imâm who was also regarded as the

Essence of Divine Wisdom. It was this Imâm who was destined as

Ḳa'im (he who is to arise) to bring the whole world by force into

subjection to the true God. Now there was one person who was obviously

far better suited than 'Ali Muḥammad (the Bāb) to carry out the

programme for the Ḳa'im, and that was Hazrat-i'-Ḳuddus (to whom I

have devoted a separate section). For some time, therefore, before the

death of Ḳuddus, 'Ali Muḥammad abstained from writing or speaking

_ex cathedra_, as the returned Ḳa'im; he was probably called

'the Point.' After the death of this heroic personage, however, he

undoubtedly resumed his previous position.

On this matter Mr. Leslie Johnston remarks that the alternation of the

two characters in the same person is as foreign to Christ's thought as

it is essential to the Bāb's. [Footnote: _Some Alternatives to

Jesus Christ_, p. 117.] This is perfectly true. The divine-human

Being called the Messiah has assumed human form; the only development

of which he is capable is self-realization. The Imāmate is little

more than a function, but the Messiahship is held by a person, not as

a mere function, but as a part of his nature. This is not an unfair

criticism. The alternation seems to me, as well as to Mr. Johnston,

psychologically impossible. But all the more importance attaches to

the sublime figure of Baha-'ullah, who realized his oneness with God,

and whose forerunner is like unto him (the Bāb).

The following utterance of the Bāb is deserving of consideration:

'Then, verily, if God manifested one like thee, he would inherit the

cause from God, the One, the Unique. But if he doth not appear, then

know that verily God hath not willed that he should make himself

known. Leave the cause, then, to him, the educator of you all, and of

the whole world.'

The reference to Baha-'ullah is unmistakable. He is 'one like thee,'

i.e. Ezel's near kinsman, and is a consummate educator, and

God's Manifestation.

Another point is also important. The Bāb expressed a wish that his

widow should not marry again. Ṣubḥ-i-Ezel, however, who was not,

even in theory, a monogamist, lost no time in taking the lady for a

wife. He cannot have been the Bāb's successor.

LETTER OF ONE EXPECTING MARTYRDOM

[Footnote: The letter is addressed to a brother.]

'He is the Compassionate [_superscription_]. O thou who art my

Ḳibla! My condition, thanks to God, has no fault, and "to every

difficulty succeedeth ease." You have written that this matter has no

end. What matter, then, has any end? We, at least, have no discontent

in this matter; nay, rather we are unable sufficiently to express our

thanks for this favour. The end of this matter is to be slain in the

way of God, and O! what happiness is this! The will of God will come

to pass with regard to His servants, neither can human plans avert the

Divine decree. What God wishes comes to pass, and there is no power

and no strength, but in God. O thou who art my Ḳibla! the end of the

world is death: "every soul tastes of death." If the appointed fate

which God (mighty and glorious is He) hath decreed overtake me, then

God is the guardian of my family, and thou art mine executor: behave

in such wise as is pleasing to God, and pardon whatever has proceeded

from me which may seem lacking in courtesy, or contrary to the respect

due from juniors: and seek pardon for me from all those of my

household, and commit me to God. God is my portion, and how good is He

as a guardian!'

THE BAHAI VIEW OF RELIGION

The practical purpose of the Revelation of Baha-'ullah is thus

described on authority:

To unite all the races of the world in perfect harmony, which can only

be done, in my opinion, on a religious basis.

Warfare must be abolished, and international difficulties be settled

by a Council of Arbitration. This may require further consideration.

It is commanded that every one should practise some trade, art, or

profession. Work done in a faithful spirit of service is accepted as

an act of worship.

Mendicity is strictly forbidden, but work must be provided for all. A

brilliant anticipation!

There is to be no priesthood apart from the laity. Early Christianity

and Buddhism both ratify this. Teachers and investigators would, of

course, always be wanted.

The practice of Asceticism, living the hermit life or in secluded

communities, is prohibited.

Monogamy is enjoined. Baha-'ullah, no doubt, had two wives. This was

'for the hardness of men's hearts'; he desired the spread of monogamy.

Education for all, boys and girls equally, is commanded as a religious

duty--the childless should educate a child.

The equality of men and women is asserted.

A universal language as a means of international communication is to

be formed. Abdul Baha is much in favour of _Esperanto_, the noble

inventor of which sets all other inventors a worthy example of

unselfishness.

Gambling, the use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage, the taking of

opium, cruelty to animals and slavery, are forbidden.

A certain portion of a man's income must be devoted to charity. The

administration of charitable funds, the provision for widows and for

the sick and disabled, the education and care of orphans, will be

arranged and managed by elected Councils.

THE NEW DISPENSATION

The contrast between the Old and the New is well exemplified in the

contrasting lives of Rammohan Roy, Debendranath Tagore, and Keshab

Chandra Sen. As an Indian writer says: 'The sweep of the New

Dispensation is broader than the Brahmo Samaj. The whole religious

world is in the grasp of a great purpose which, in its fresh unfolding

of the new age, we call the New Dispensation. The New Dispensation is

not a local phenomenon; it is not confined to Calcutta or to India;

our Brotherhood is but one body whose thought it functions to-day; it

is not topographical, it is operative in all the world-religions.'

[Footnote: Cp. Auguste Sabatier on the _Religion of the Spirit_,

and Mozoomdar's work on the same subject.]

'No full account has yet been given to the New Brotherhood's work and

experiences during that period. Men of various ranks came, drawn

together by the magnetic personality of the man they loved, knowing he

loved them all with a larger love; his leadership was one of love, and

they caught the contagion of his conviction.... And so, if I were to

write at length, I could cite one illustration after another of

transformed lives--lives charged with a new spirit shown in the work

achieved, the sufferings borne, the persecutions accepted, deep

spiritual gladness experienced in the midst of pain, the fellowship

with God realized day after day' (Benoyendra Nath Sen, _The Spirit

of the New Dispensation_). The test of a religion is its capacity

for producing noble men and women.

MANIFESTATION

God Himself in His inmost essence cannot be either imagined or

comprehended, cannot be named. But in some measure He can be known by

His Manifestations, chief among whom is that Heavenly Being known

variously as Michael, the Son of man, the Logos, and Sofia. These

names are only concessions to the weakness of the people. This

Heavenly Being is sometimes spoken of allusively as the Face or Name,

the Gate and the Point (of Knowledge). See p. 174.

The Manifestations may also be called Manifesters or Revealers. They

make God known to the human folk so far as this can be done by

Mirrors, and especially (as Tagore has most beautifully shown) in His

inexhaustible love. They need not have the learning of the schools.

They would mistake their office if they ever interfered with

discoveries or problems of criticism or of science.

The Bāb announced that he himself owed nothing to any earthly

teacher. A heavenly teacher, however, if he touched the subject, would

surely have taught the Bāb better Arabic. It is a psychological

problem how the Bāb can lay so much stress on his 'signs' (ayât) or

verses as decisive of the claims of a prophet. One is tempted to

surmise that in the Bāb's Arabic work there has been collaboration.

What constitutes 'signs' or verses? Prof. Browne gives this answer:

[Footnote: E. G. Browne, _JRAS_, 1889, p. 155.] 'Eloquence of

diction, rapidity of utterance, knowledge unacquired by study, claim

to divine origin, power to affect and control the minds of men.' I do

not myself see how the possession of an Arabic which some people think

very poor and others put down to the help of an amanuensis, can be

brought within the range of Messianic lore. It is spiritual truth that

we look for from the Bāb. Secular wisdom, including the knowledge of

languages, we turn over to the company of trained scholars.

Spiritual truth, then, is the domain of the prophets of Bahaism. A

prophet who steps aside from the region in which he is at home is

fallible like other men. Even in the sphere of exposition of sacred

texts the greatest of prophets is liable to err. In this way I am

bound to say that Baha-'ullah himself has made mistakes, and can we be

surprised that the almost equally venerated Abdul Baha has made many

slips? It is necessary to make this pronouncement, lest possible

friends should be converted into seeming enemies. The claim of

infallibility has done harm enough already in the Roman Church!

Baha-'ullah may no doubt be invoked on the other side. This is the

absolutely correct statement of his son Abdul Baha. 'He (Baha-'ullah)

entered into a Covenant and Testament with the people. He appointed a

Centre of the Covenant, He wrote with his own pen ... appointing him

the Expounder of the Book.' [Footnote: _Star of the West_, 1913,

p. 238.] But Baha-'ullah is as little to be followed on questions of

philology as Jesus Christ, who is not a manifester of science but of

heavenly lore. The question of Sinlessness I postpone.

GREAT MANIFESTATION; WHEN?

I do not myself think that the interval of nineteen years for the

Great Manifestation was meant by the Bāb to be taken literally. The

number 19 may be merely a conventional sacred number and have no

historical significance. I am therefore not to be shaken by a

reference to these words of the Bāb, quoted in substance by Mirza

Abu'l Fazl, that after nine years all good will come to his followers,

or by the Mirza's comment that it was nine years after the Bāb's

Declaration that Baha-'ullah gathered together the Bābīs at

Baghdad, and began to teach them, and that at the end of the

nineteenth year from the Declaration of the Bāb, Baha-'ullah

declared his Manifestation.

Another difficulty arises. The Bāb does not always say the same

thing. There are passages of the Persian Bayan which imply an interval

between his own theophany and the next parallel to that which

separated his own theophany from Muḥammad's. He says, for instance,

in _Waḥid_ II. Bāb 17, according to Professor Browne,

'If he [whom God shall manifest] shall appear in the number of Ghiyath

(1511) and all shall enter in, not one shall remain in the Fire. If He

tarry [until the number of] Mustaghath (2001), all shall enter in, not

one shall remain in the Fire.' [Footnote: _History of the

Bābīs, edited by E. G. Browne; Introd. p. xxvi. _Traveller's

Narrative_ (Browne), Introd. p. xvii. ]

I quote next from _Waḥid_ III. Bāb 15:--

'None knoweth [the time of] the Manifestation save God: whenever it

takes place, all must believe and must render thanks to God, although

it is hoped of His Grace that He will come ere [the number of]

Mustaghath, and will raise up the Word of God on his part. And the

Proof is only a sign [or verse], and His very Existence proves Him,

since all also is known by Him, while He cannot be known by what is

below Him. Glorious is God above that which they ascribe to Him.'

[Footnote: _History of the Bābīs_, Introd. p. xxx.]

Elsewhere (vii. 9), we are told vaguely that the Advent of the

Promised One will be sudden, like that of the Point or Bāb (iv. 10);

it is an element of the great Oriental myth of the winding-up of the

old cycle and the opening of a new. [Footnote: Cheyne, _Mines of

Isaiah Re-explored_, Index, 'Myth.']

A Bahai scholar furnishes me with another passage--

'God knoweth in what age He will manifest him. But from the springing

(beginning) of the manifestation to its head (perfection) are nineteen

years.' [Footnote: Bayan, _Waḥid_, III., chap. iii.]

This implies a preparation period of nineteen years, and if we take

this statement with a parallel one, we can, I think, have no doubt

that the Bāb expected the assumption, not immediate however, of the

reins of government by the Promised One. The parallel statement is as

follows, according to the same Bahai scholar.

'God only knoweth his age. But the time of his proclamation after mine

is the number Waḥid (=19, cabbalistically), and whenever he cometh

during this period, accept him.' [Footnote: Bayan, _Brit. Mus. Text_,

p. 151.]

Another passage may be quoted by the kindness of Mirza 'Ali Akbar. It

shows that the Bāb has doubts whether the Great Manifestation will

occur in the lifetime of Baha-'ullah and Ṣubḥ-i-Ezel (one or other

of whom is addressed by the Bāb in this letter). The following words

are an extract:--

'And if God hath not manifested His greatness in thy days, then act in

accordance with that which hath descended (i.e. been revealed),

and never change a word in the verses of God.

'This is the order of God in the Sublime Book; ordain in accordance

with that which hath descended, and never change the orders of God,

that men may not make variations in God's religion.'

NON-FINALITY OF REVELATION

Not less important than the question of the Bāb's appointment of his

successor is that of his own view of the finality or non-finality of

his revelation. The Bayan does not leave this in uncertainty. The

Ḳur'an of the Bābīs expressly states that a new Manifestation

takes place whenever there is a call for it (ii. 9, vi. 13);

successive revelations are like the same sun arising day after day

(iv. 12, vii. 15, viii. 1). The Bāb's believers therefore are not

confined to a revelation constantly becoming less and less applicable

to the spiritual wants of the present age. And very large

discretionary powers are vested in 'Him whom He will make manifest,'

extending even to the abrogation of the commands of the Bayan

(iii. 3).

EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND BAHAISM AND BUDDHISM

The comparisons sometimes drawn between the history of nascent

Christianity and that of early Bahaism are somewhat misleading. 'Ali

Muḥammad of Shiraz was more than a mere forerunner of the Promised

Saviour; he was not merely John the Baptist--he was the Messiah,

All-wise and Almighty, himself. True, he was of a humble mind, and

recognized that what he might ordain would not necessarily be suitable

for a less transitional age, but the same may be said--if our written

records may be trusted--of Jesus Christ. For Jesus was partly his own

forerunner, and antiquated his own words.

It is no doubt a singular coincidence that both 'Ali Muḥammad and

Jesus Christ are reported to have addressed these words to a disciple:

'To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' But if the Crucifixion is

unhistorical--and there is, I fear, considerable probability that it

is--what is the value of this coincidence?

More important is it that both in early Christianity and in early

Bahaism we find a conspicuous personage who succeeds in disengaging

the faith from its particularistic envelope. In neither case is this

personage a man of high culture or worldly position. [Footnote:

Leslie Johnston's phraseology (_Some Alternatives to Jesus

Christ_, p. 114) appears to need revision.] This, I say, is most

important. Paul and Baha-'ullah may both be said to have transformed

their respective religions. Yet there is a difference between

them. Baha-'ullah and his son Abdul-Baha after him were personal

centres of the new covenant; Paul was not.

This may perhaps suffice for the parallels--partly real, partly

supposed--between early Christianity and early Bahaism. I will now

refer to an important parallel between the development of Christianity

and that of Buddhism. It is possible to deny that the Christianity of

Augustine [Footnote: Professor Anesaki of Tokio regards Augustine as

the Christian Nagarjuna.] deserves its name, on the ground of the

wide interval which exists between his religious doctrines and the

beliefs of Jesus Christ. Similarly, one may venture to deny that the

Mahâyâna developments of Buddhism are genuine products of the

religion because they contain some elements derived from other Indian

systems. In both cases, however, grave injustice would be done by any

such assumption. It is idle 'to question the historical value of an

organism which is now full of vitality and active in all its

functions, and to treat it like an archaeological object, dug out from

the depths of the earth, or like a piece of bric-à-brac, discovered

in the ruins of an ancient royal palace. Mahâyânaism is not an

object of historical curiosity. Its vitality and activity concern us

in our daily life. It is a great spiritual organism. What does it

matter, then, whether or not Mahâyânaism is the genuine teaching of

the Buddha?' [Footnote: Suzuki, _Outlines of Mahâyâna

Buddhism_, p. 15.] The parallel between the developments of these

two great religions is unmistakable. We Christians insist--and rightly

so--on the 'genuineness' of our own religion in spite of the numerous

elements unknown to its 'Founder.' The northern Buddhism is equally

'genuine,' being equally true to the spirit of the Buddha.

It is said that Christianity, as a historical religion, contrasts with

the most advanced Buddhism. But really it is no loss to the Buddhist

Fraternity if the historical element in the life of the Buddha has

retired into the background. A cultured Buddhist of the northern

section could not indeed admit that he has thrust the history of

Gautama entirely aside, but he would affirm that his religion was more

philosophical and practically valuable than that of his southern

brothers, inasmuch as it transcended the boundary of history. In a

theological treatise called _Chin-kuang-ming_ we read as follows:

'It would be easier to count every drop of water in the ocean, or

every grain of matter that composes a vast mountain than to reckon the

duration of the life of Buddha.' 'That is to say, Buddha's life does

not belong to the time-series: Buddha is the "I Am" who is above

time.' [Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 114.] And is

not the Christ of Christendom above the world of time and space?

Lastly, must not both Christians and Buddhists admit that among the

Christs or Buddhas the most godlike are those embodied in narratives

as Jesus and Gautama?

WESTERN AND EASTERN RELIGION

Religion, as conceived by most Christians of the West, is very

different from the religion of India. Three-quarters of it (as Matthew

Arnold says) has to do with conduct; it is a code with a very positive

and keen divine sanction. Few of its adherents, indeed, have any idea

of the true position of morality, and that the code of Christian

ethics expresses barely one half of the religious idea. The other half

(or even more) is expressed in assurances of holy men that God dwells

within us, or even that we are God. A true morality helps us to

realize this--morality is not to be tied up and labelled, but is

identical with the cosmic as well as individual principle of Love.

Sin (i.e. an unloving disposition) is to be avoided because it

blurs the outlines of the Divine Form reflected, however dimly, in

each of us.

There are, no doubt, a heaven where virtue is rewarded, and a hell

where vice is punished, for the unphilosophical minds of the

vulgar. But the only reward worthy of a lover of God is to get nearer

and nearer to Him. Till the indescribable goal (Nirvana) is reached,

we must be content with realizing. This is much easier to a Hindu than

to an Englishman, because the former has a constant sense of that

unseen power which pervades and transcends the universe. I do not

understand how Indian seekers after truth can hurry and strive about

sublunary matters. Surely they ought to feel 'that this tangible

world, with its chatter of right and wrong, subserves the intangible.'

Hard as it must be for the adherents of such different principles to

understand each other, it is not, I venture to think, impossible. And,

as at once an Anglican Christian and an adopted Brahmaist, I make the

attempt to bring East and West religiously together.

RELIGIOUS TEACHERS OF THE EAST

The greatest religious teachers and reformers who have appeared in

recent times are (if I am not much mistaken) Baha-'ullah the Persian

and Keshab Chandra Sen the Indian. The one began by being a reformer

of the Muḥammadan society or church, the other by acting in the same

capacity for the Indian community and more especially for the Brahmo

Samaj--a very imperfect and loosely organized religious society or

church founded by Rammohan Roy. By a natural evolution the objects of

both reformers were enlarged; both became the founders of

world-churches, though circumstances prevented the extension of the

Brotherhood of the New Dispensation beyond the limits of India.

In both cases a doubt has arisen in the minds of some spectators

whether the reformers have anything to offer which has not already

been given by the Hebrew prophets and by the finest efflorescence of

these--Jesus Christ. I am bound to express the opinion that they have.

Just as the author of the Fourth Gospel looks forward to results of

the Dispensation of the Spirit which will outdo those of the Ministry

of Jesus (John xiv. 12), so we may confidently look forward to

disclosures of truth and of depths upon depths of character which will

far surpass anything that could, in the Nearer or Further East, have

been imagined before the time of Baha-'ullah.

I do not say that Baha-'ullah is unique or that His revelations are

final. There will be other Messiahs after Him, nor is the race of the

prophets extinct. The supposition of finality is treason to the ever

active, ever creative Spirit of Truth. But till we have already

entered upon a new aeon, we shall have to look back in a special

degree to the prophets who introduced our own aeon, Baha-'ullah and

Keshab Chandra Sen, whose common object is the spiritual unification

of all peoples. For it is plain that this union of peoples can only be

obtained through the influence of prophetic personages, those of the

past as well as those of the present.

QUALITIES OF THE MEN OF THE COMING RELIGION (Gal. v. 22)

1. Love. What is love? Let Rabindranath Tagore tell us.

'In love all the contradictions of existence merge themselves and are

lost. Only in love are unity and duality not at variance. Love must be

one and two at the same time.

'Only love is motion and rest in one. Our heart ever changes its place

till it finds love, and then it has its rest....

'In this wonderful festival of creation, this great ceremony of

self-sacrifice of God, the lover constantly gives himself up to gain

himself in love....

'In love, at one of its poles you find the personal, and at the other

the impersonal.' [Footnote: Tagore, _Sadhana_ (1913), p. 114.]

I do not think this has been excelled by any modern Christian teacher,

though the vivid originality of the Buddha's and of St. Paul's

descriptions of love cannot be denied. The subject, however, is too

many-sided for me to attempt to describe it here. Suffice it to say

that the men of the coming religion will be distinguished by an

intelligent and yet intense altruistic affection--the new-born love.

2 and 3. Joy and Peace. These are fundamental qualities in religion,

and especially, it is said, in those forms of religion which appear to

centre in incarnations. This statement, however, is open to

criticism. It matters but little how we attain to joy and peace, as

long as we do attain to them. Christians have not surpassed the joy

and peace produced by the best and safest methods of the Indian and

Persian sages.

I would not belittle the tranquil and serene joy of the Christian

saint, but I cannot see that this is superior to the same joy as it is

exhibited in the Psalms of the Brethren or the Sisters in the

Buddhistic Order. Nothing is more remarkable in these songs than the

way in which joy and tranquillity are interfused. So it is with God,

whose creation is the production of tranquillity and utter joy, and so

it is with godlike men--men such as St. Francis of Assisi in the West

and the poet-seers of the Upanishads in the East. All these are at

once joyous and serene. As Tagore says, 'Joy without the play of joy

is no joy; play without activity is no play.' [Footnote: Tagore,

_Sadhana_ (1913), p. 131.] And how can he act to advantage who

is perturbed in mind? In the coming religion all our actions will be

joyous and tranquil. Meantime, transitionally, we have much need both

of long-suffering [Footnote: This quality is finely described in

chap. vi. of _The Path of Light_ (Wisdom of the East series).]

and of courage; 'quit you like men, be strong.' (I write in August

1914.)

REFORM OF ISLAM

And what as to Islam? Is any fusion between this and the other great

religions possible? A fusion between Islam and Christianity can only

be effected if first of all these two religions (mutually so

repugnant) are reformed. Thinking Muslims will more and more come to

see that the position assigned by Muḥammad to himself and to the

Ḳur'an implies that he had a thoroughly unhistorical mind. In other

words he made those exclusive and uncompromising claims under a

misconception. There were true apostles or prophets, both speakers and

writers, between the generally accepted date of the ministry of Jesus

and that of the appearance of Muḥammad, and these true prophets were

men of far greater intellectual grasp than the Arabian merchant.

Muslim readers ought therefore to feel it no sacrilege if I advocate

the correction of what has thus been mistakenly said. Muḥammad was

one of the prophets, not _the_ prophet (who is virtually = the

Logos), and the Ḳur'an is only adapted for Arabian tribes, not for

all nations of the world.

One of the points in the exhibition of which the Arabian Bible is most

imperfect is the love of God, i.e. the very point in which the

Ṣufi classical poets are most admirable, though indeed an Arabian

poetess, who died 135 Hij., expresses herself already in the most

thrilling tones. [Footnote: Von Kremer's _Herrschende Ideen des

Islams_, pp. 64, etc.]

Perhaps one might be content, so far as the Ḳur'an is concerned,

with a selection of Suras, supplemented by extracts from other

religious classics of Islam. I have often thought that we want both a

Catholic Christian lectionary and a Catholic prayer-book. To compile

this would be the work not of a prophet, but of a band of

interpreters. An exacting work which would be its own reward, and

would promote, more perhaps than anything else, the reformation and

ultimate blending of the different religions.

Meantime no persecution should be allowed in the reformed Islamic

lands. Thankful as we may be for the Christian and Bahaite heroism

generated by a persecuting fanaticism, we may well wish that it might

be called forth otherwise. Heroic was the imprisonment and death of

Captain Conolly (in Bukhara), but heroic also are the lives of many

who have spent long years in unhealthy climates, to civilize and

moralize those who need their help.

SYNTHESIS OF RELIGIONS

'There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all,

and in all.'

These words in the first instance express the synthesis of Judaism and

Oriental pantheism, but may be applied to the future synthesis of

Islam and Hinduism, and of both conjointly with Christianity. And the

subjects to which I shall briefly refer are the exclusiveness of the

claims of Christ and of Muḥammad, and of Christ's Church and of

Muḥammad's, the image-worship of the Hindus and the excessive

development of mythology in Hinduism. With the lamented Sister

Nivedita I hold that, in India, in proportion as the two faiths pass

into higher phases, the easier it becomes for the one faith to be

brought into a synthesis combined with the other.

Ṣufism, for instance, is, in the opinion of most, 'a Muḥammadan

sect.' It must, at any rate, be admitted to have passed through

several stages, but there is, I think, little to add to fully

developed Ṣufism to make it an ideal synthesis of Islam and

Hinduism. That little, however, is important. How can the Hindu

accept the claim either of Christ or of Muḥammad to be the sole gate

to the mansions of knowledge?

The most popular of the Hindu Scriptures expressly provides for a

succession of _avatârs_; how, indeed, could the Eternal Wisdom

have limited Himself to raising up a single representative of

Messiahship. For were not Sakya Muni, Kabir and his disciple Nanak,

Chaitanya, the Tamil poets (to whom Dr. Pope has devoted himself)

Messiahs for parts of India, and Nisiran for Japan, not to speak here

of Islamic countries?

It is true, the exclusive claim of Christ (I assume that they are

adequately proved) is not expressly incorporated into the Creeds, so

that by mentally recasting the Christian can rid himself of his

burden. And a time must surely come when, by the common consent of the

Muslim world the reference to Muḥammad in the brief creed of the

Muslim will be removed. For such a removal would be no disparagement

to the prophet, who had, of necessity, a thoroughly unhistorical mind

(p. 193).

The 'one true Church' corresponds of course with the one true

God. Hinduism, which would willingly accept the one, would as

naturally accept the other also, as a great far-spreading caste. There

are in fact already monotheistic castes in Hinduism.

As for image-worship, the Muslims should not plume themselves too much

on their abhorrence of it, considering the immemorial cult of the

Black Stone at Mecca. If a conference of Vedantists and Muslims could

be held, it would appear that the former regarded image-worship (not

idolatry) [Footnote: Idols and images are not the same thing; the

image is, or should be, symbolic. So, at least, I venture to define

it.] simply as a provisional concession to the ignorant masses, who

will not perhaps always remain so ignorant. So, then, Image-worship

and its attendant Mythology have naturally become intertwined with

high and holy associations. Thus that delicate poetess Mrs. Naidu (by

birth a Parsi) writes:

Who serves her household in fruitful pride,

And worships the gods at her husband's side.

I do not see, therefore, why we Christians (who have a good deal of

myth in our religion) should object to a fusion with Islam and

Hinduism on the grounds mentioned above. Only I do desire that both

the Hindu and the Christian myths should be treated symbolically. On

this (so far as the former are concerned) I agree with Keshab Chandra

Sen in the last phase of his incomplete religious development. That

the myths of Hinduism require sifting, cannot, I am sure, be denied.

From myths to image-worship is an easy step. What is the meaning of

the latter? The late Sister Nivedita may help us to find an

answer. She tells us that when travelling ascetics go through the

villages, and pause to receive alms, they are in the habit of

conversing on religious matters with the good woman of the house, and

that thus even a bookless villager comes to understand the truth about

images. We cannot think, however, that all will be equally receptive,

calling to mind that even in our own country multitudes of people

substitute an unrealized doctrine about Christ for Christ Himself

(i.e. convert Christ into a church doctrine), while others

invoke Christ, with or without the saints, in place of God.

Considering that Christendom is to a large extent composed of

image-worshippers, why should there not be a synthesis between

Hinduism and Islam on the one hand, and Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and

Christianity on the other? The differences between these great

religions are certainly not slight. But when we get behind the forms,

may we not hope to find some grains of the truth? I venture,

therefore, to maintain the position occupied above as that to which

Indian religious reformers must ultimately come.

I do not deny that Mr. Farquhar has made a very good fight against

this view. The process of the production of an image is, to us, a

strange one. It is enough to mention the existence of a rite of the

bringing of life into the idol which marks the end of that

process. But there are many very educated Hindus who reject with scorn

the view that the idol has really been made divine, and the passage

quoted by Mr. Farquhar (p. 335) from Vivekananda [Footnote: Sister

Nivedita's teacher. ] seems to me conclusive in favour of the symbol

theory.

It would certainly be an aesthetic loss if these artistic symbols

disappeared. But the most precious jewel would still remain, the Being

who is in Himself unknowable, but who is manifested in the Divine

Logos or Sofia and in a less degree in the prophets and Messiahs.

INCARNATIONS

There are some traces both in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel

of a Docetic view of the Lord's Person, in other words that His

humanity was illusory, just as, in the Old Testament, the humanity of

celestial beings is illusory. The Hindus, however, are much more sure

of this. The reality of an incarnation would be unworthy of a

God. And, strange as it may appear to us, this Docetic theory involves

no pain or disappointment for the believer, who does but amuse himself

with the sports [Footnote: See quotation from the poet Tulsi Das in

Farquhar, _The Crown of Hinduism_, p. 431.] of his Patron. At

the same time he is very careful not to take the God as a moral

example; the result of this would be disastrous. The _avatâr_ is

super-moral. [Footnote: See Farquhar, p. 434.]

What, then, was the object of the _avatâr_? Not simply to

amuse. It was, firstly, to win the heart of the worshipper, and

secondly, to communicate that knowledge in which is eternal life.

And what is to be done, in the imminent sifting of Scriptures and

Traditions, with these stories? They must be rewritten, just as, I

venture to think, the original story of the God-man Jesus was

rewritten by being blended with the fragments of a biography of a

great and good early Jewish teacher. The work will be hard, but Sister

Nivedita and Miss Anthon have begun it. It must be taken as a part of

the larger undertaking of a selection of rewritten myths.

Is Baha-'ullah an _avatâr_? There has no doubt been a tendency

to worship him. But this tendency need not be harmful to sanity of

intellect. There are various degrees of divinity. Baha-'ullah's

degree maybe compared to St. Paul's. Both these spiritual heroes were

conscious of their superiority to ordinary believers; at the same time

their highest wish was that their disciples might learn to be as they

were themselves. Every one is the temple of the holy (divine) Spirit,

and this Spirit-element must be deserving of worship. It is probable

that the Western training of the objectors is the cause of the

opposition in India to some of the forms of honour lavished, in spite

of his dissuasion, on Keshab Chandra Sen. [Footnote: _Life and

Teachings of Keshub Chunder Sen_, pp. III ff.]

IS JESUS UNIQUE?

One who has 'learned Christ' from his earliest years finds a

difficulty in treating the subject at the head of this section. 'The

disciple is not above his Master,' and when the Master is so far

removed from the ordinary--is, in fact, the regenerator of society and

of the individual,--such a discussion seems almost more than the human

mind can undertake. And yet the subject has to be faced, and if Paul

'learned' a purely ideal Christ, deeply tinged with the colours of

mythology, why should not we follow Paul's example, imitating a Christ

who put on human form, and lived and died for men as their Saviour and

Redeemer? Why should we not go even beyond Paul, and honour God by

assuming a number of Christs, among whom--if we approach the subject

impartially--would be Socrates, Zarathustra, Gautama the Buddha, as

well as Jesus the Christ?

Why, indeed, should we not? If we consider that we honour God by

assuming that every nation contains righteous men, accepted of God,

why should we not complete our theory by assuming that every nation

also possesses prophetic (in some cases more than prophetic)

revealers? Some rather lax historical students may take a different

view, and insist that we have a trustworthy tradition of the life of

Jesus, and that 'if in that historical figure I cannot see God, then I

am without God in the world.' [Footnote: Leslie Johnston, _Some

Alternatives to Jesus Christ_, p. 199.] It is, however, abundantly

established by criticism that most of what is contained even in the

Synoptic Gospels is liable to the utmost doubt, and that what may

reasonably be accepted is by no means capable of use as the basis of a

doctrine of Incarnation. I do not, therefore, see why the Life of

Jesus should be a barrier to the reconciliation of Christianity and

Hinduism. Both religions in their incarnation theories are, as we

shall see (taking Christianity in its primitive form), frankly

Docetic, both assume a fervent love for the manifesting God on the

part of the worshipper. I cannot, however, bring myself to believe

that there was anything, even in the most primitive form of the life

of the God-man Jesus, comparable to the _unmoral_ story of the

life of Krishna. Small wonder that many of the Vaishnavas prefer the

_avatâr_ of Rama.

It will be seen, therefore, that it is impossible to discuss the

historical character of the Life of Jesus without soon passing into

the subject of His uniqueness. It is usual to suppose that Jesus,

being a historical figure, must also be unique, and an Oxford

theologian remarks that 'we see the Spirit in the Church always

turning backwards to the historical revelation and drawing only thence

the inspiration to reproduce it.' [Footnote: Leslie Johnston,

_op. cit._ pp. 200 f.] He thinks that for the Christian

consciousness there can be only one Christ, and finds this to be

supported by a critical reading of the text of the Gospels. Only one

Christ! But was not the Buddha so far above his contemporaries and

successors that he came to be virtually deified? How is not this

uniqueness? It is true, Christianity has, thus far, been intolerant of

other religions, which contrasts with the 'easy tolerance' of Buddhism

and Hinduism and, as the author may wish to add, of Bahaism. But is

the Christian intolerance a worthy element of character? Is it

consistent with the Beatitude pronounced (if it was pronounced) by

Jesus on the meek? May we not, with Mr. L. Johnston's namesake, fitly

say, 'Such notions as these are a survival from the bad old days'?

[Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 306.]

THE SPIRIT OF GOD

Another very special jewel of Christianity is the doctrine of _the

Spirit_. The term, which etymologically means 'wind,' and in

Gen. i. 2 and Isa. xl. 13 appears to be a fragment of a certain

divine name, anciently appropriated to the Creator and Preserver of

the world, was later employed for the God who is immanent in

believers, and who is continually bringing them into conformity with

the divine model. With the Brahmaist theologian, P.C. Mozoomdar, I

venture to think that none of the old divine names is adequately

suggestive of the functions of the Spirit. The Spirit's work is, in

fact, nothing short of re-creation; His creative functions are called

into exercise on the appearance of a new cosmic cycle, which includes

the regeneration of souls.

I greatly fear that not enough homage has been rendered to the Spirit

in this important aspect. And yet the doctrine is uniquely precious

because of the great results which have already, in the ethical and

intellectual spheres, proceeded from it, and of the still greater ones

which faith descries in the future. We have, I fear, not yet done

justice to the spiritual capacities with which we are endowed. I will

therefore take leave to add, following Mozoomdar, that no name is so

fit for the indwelling God as Living Presence. [Footnote: Mozoomdar,

_The Spirit of God_ (1898), p. 64.] His gift to man is life, and

He Himself is Fullness of Life. The idea therefore of God, in the myth

of the Dying and Reviving Saviour, is, from one point of view,

imperfect. At any rate it is a more constant help to think of God as

full, not of any more meagre satisfaction at His works, but of the

most intense joy.

Let us, then, join our Indian brethren in worshipping God the

Spirit. In honouring the Spirit we honour Jesus, the mythical and yet

real incarnate God. The Muḥammadans call Jesus _ruḥu'llah_,

'the Spirit of God,' and the early Bahais followed them. One of the

latter addressed these striking words to a traveller from Cambridge:

'You (i.e. the Christian Church) are to-day the Manifestation

of Jesus; you are the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit; nay, did you but

realize it, you are God.' [Footnote: E.G. Browne, _A Year among the

Persians_, p. 492.] I fear that this may go too far for some, but

it is only a step in advance of our Master, St. Paul. If we do not yet

fully realize our blessedness, let us make it our chief aim to do

so. How God's Spirit can be dwelling in us and we in Him, is a

mystery, but we may hope to get nearer and nearer to its meaning, and

see that it is no _Maya_, no illusion. As an illustration of the

mystery I will quote this from one of Vivekananda's lectures.

[Footnote: _Jnana Yoga_, p. 154.]

'Young men of Lahore, raise once more that wonderful banner of

Advaita, for on no other ground can you have that all-embracing love,

until you see that the same Lord is present in the same manner

everywhere; unfurl that banner of love. "Arise, awake, and stop not

till the goal is reached." Arise, arise once more, for nothing can be

done without renunciation. If you want to help others, your own little

self must go.... At the present time there are men who give up the

world to help their own salvation. Throw away everything, even your

own salvation, and go and help others.'

CHINESE AND JAPANESE RELIGION

It is much to be wished that Western influence on China may not be

exerted in the wrong way, i.e. by an indiscriminate destruction

of religious tradition. Hitherto the three religions of

China--Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism--have been regarded as

forming one organism, and as equally necessary to the national

culture. Now, however, there is a danger that this hereditary union

may cease, and that, in their disunited state, the three cults may be

destined in course of time to disappear and perish. Shall they give

place to dogmatic Christianity or, among the most cultured class, to

agnosticism? Would it not be better to work for the retention at any

rate of Buddhism and Confucianism in a purified form? My own wish

would be that the religious-ethical principles of Buddhism should be

applied to the details of civic righteousness. The work could only be

done by a school, but by the co-operation of young and old it could be

done.

Taoism, however, is doomed, unless some scientifically trained scholar

(perhaps a Buddhist) will take the trouble to sift the grain from the

chaff. As Mr. Johnston tells us, [Footnote: _Buddhist China_,

p. 12.] the opening of every new school synchronizes with the closing

of a Taoist temple, and the priests of the cult are not only despised

by others, but are coming to despise themselves. Lao-Tze, however, has

still his students, and accretions can hardly be altogether

avoided. Chinese Buddhism, too, has accretions, both philosophic and

religious, and unless cleared of these, we cannot hope that Buddhism

will take its right place in the China of the future. Suzuki, however,

in his admirable _Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism_, has

recognized and expounded (as I at least think) the truest Buddhism,

and it is upon him I chiefly rely in my statements in the present

work.

There is no accretion, however, in the next point which I shall

mention. The noble altruism of the Buddhism of China and Japan must at

no price be rejected from the future religion of those countries, but

rather be adopted as a model by us Western Christians. Now there are

three respects in which (among others) the Chinese and Japanese may

set us an example. Firstly, their freedom from self, and even from

pre-occupying thoughts of personal salvation. Secondly, the

perception that in the Divine Manifestation there must be a feminine

element (_das ewig-weibliche_). And thirdly, the possibility of

vicarious moral action. On the first, I need only remark that one of

those legends of Sakya Muni, which are so full of moral meaning, is

beautified by this selflessness. On the second, that Kuan-yin or

Kwannon, though formerly a god, [Footnote: 'God' and 'Goddess' are of

course unsuitable. Read _pusa_.] the son of the Buddha Amitâbha,

is now regarded as a goddess, 'the All-compassionate, Uncreated

Saviour, the Royal Bodhisat, who (like the Madonna) hears the cries of

the world.' [Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, pp. 101,

273.]

But it is the third point which chiefly concerns us here because of

the great spiritual comfort which it conveys. It is the possibility of

doing good in the name of some beloved friend or relative and to 'turn

over' (_parimarta_) one's _karma_ to this friend. The extent

to which this idea is pressed may, to some, be bewildering. Even the

bliss of Nirvana is to be rejected that the moral and physical

sufferings of the multitude may be relieved. This is one of the many

ways in which the Living Presence is manifested.

GOD-MAN

_Tablet of Ishrakat_ (p. 5).--Praise be to God who manifested the

Point and sent forth from it the knowledge of what was and is

(i.e. all things); who made it (the Point) the Herald in His

Name, the Precursor to His Most Great Manifestation, by which the

nerves of nations have quivered with fear and the Light has risen from

the horizon of the world. Verily it is that Point which God hath made

to be a Sea of Light for the sincere among His servants, and a ball of

fire for the deniers among His creations and the impious among His

people.--This shows that Baha-'ullah did not regard the so-called

Bāb as a mere forerunner.

The want of a surely attested life, or extract from a life, of a

God-man will be more and more acutely felt. There is only one such

life; it is that of Baha-'ullah. Through Him, therefore, let us pray

in this twentieth century amidst the manifold difficulties which beset

our social and political reconstructions; let Him be the prince-angel

who conveys our petitions to the Most High. The standpoint of

Immanence, however, suggests a higher and a deeper view. Does a friend

need to ask a favour of a friend? Are we not in Baha'ullah ('the Glory

of God'), and is not He in God? Therefore, 'ye shall ask what ye will,

and it shall be done unto you' (John xv. 7). Far be it that we should

even seem to disparage the Lord Jesus, but the horizon of His early

worshippers is too narrow for us to follow them, and the critical

difficulties are insuperable. The mirage of the ideal Christ is all

that remains, when these obstacles have been allowed for.

We read much about God-men in the narratives of the Old Testament,

where the name attached to a manifestation of God in human semblance

is 'malak Yahwè (Jehovah)' or 'malak Elohim'--a name of uncertain

meaning which I have endeavoured to explain more correctly elsewhere.

In the New Testament too there is a large Docetic element. Apparently

a supernatural Being walks about on earth--His name is Jesus of

Nazareth, or simply Jesus, or with a deifying prefix 'Lord' and a

regal appendix 'Christ.' He has doubtless a heavenly message to

individuals, but He has also one to the great social body. Christ,

says Mr. Holley, is a perfect revelation for the individual, but not

for the social organism. This is correct if we lay stress on the

qualifying word 'perfect,' especially if we hold that St. Paul has the

credit of having expanded and enriched the somewhat meagre

representation of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. It must be conceded

that Baha-'ullah had a greater opportunity than Christ of lifting both

His own and other peoples to a higher plane, but the ideal of both was

the same.

Baha-'ullah and Christ, therefore, were both 'images of God';

[Footnote: Bousset, _Kyrios-Christos_, p. 144. Christ is the

'image of God' (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15); or simply 'the image'

(Rom. viii. 29).] God is the God of the human people as well as of

individual men, so too is the God of whom Baha-'ullah is the

reflection or image. Only, we must admit that Baha-'ullah had the

advantage of centuries more of evolution, and that he had also perhaps