Here is the complete, simplified rewrite of the text you provided. It is written in clear, modern English, and I have made sure to keep every single argument, detail, quote, and footnote from the original text without summarizing it.
A Defence of Hindoo Theism
(Footnote: This essay was published in reply to a letter that appeared in the Madras Courier in December 1816, under the signature of Sankara Sastri. That letter was an attack on Raja Ram Mohun Roy's "Abridgment of the Vedant," his Preface to the translation of the Ishopanishad, and his Introduction to the Cenopanishad. — Editor)
Before I attempt to reply to the observations made by the learned gentleman (who signs himself Sankara Sastri) in his December 26th letter to the Editor of the Madras Courier, I must express my disappointment. I am disappointed to receive controversial remarks on Hindu theology from a learned Brahmin written in a foreign language (English). It is the standard, invariable practice for natives from all provinces of Hindustan to hold discussions on these subjects in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the shared learned language common to all of us, and naturally, people are expected to express their ideas with perfect accuracy and much greater ease in Sanskrit than in any foreign tongue.
The learned gentleman cannot claim that he used English because he wanted to appeal to public opinion; a translation from Sanskrit into English published later would have served that exact same purpose perfectly. Because this way of proceeding is highly irregular, I strongly suspect that the letter in question was actually written by an English gentleman. I suppose this Englishman’s "liberality" motivated him to try and write an apology defending even the absurd idol worship practiced by his fellow human beings.
If my suspicion is correct, I congratulate that English gentleman on his progress in learning about the sublime doctrines of the Vedant. However, I must take the liberty of begging him that, in the future, he consults the original texts written about these doctrines, rather than relying on second-hand information handed to him by anyone else.
The Titles of "Discoverer" and "Reformer"
The learned gentleman starts his letter by objecting to the terms discoverer and reformer, which the Editor of the Calcutta Gazette kindly used to describe me. The gentleman states:
"People with limited understanding, who were not able to comprehend the system of worshipping the invisible Being, adopted false doctrines. Because of this, they confused weak minds in ancient times. However, proper punishment was inflicted on those heretics, and true religion was firmly established throughout India by the Reverend Sankaracharya and his disciples. Yet, Sankaracharya and his disciples never pretended to 'reform' or 'discover' these doctrines, nor did they ever assume the titles of reformer or discoverer."
In response to this: In none of my writings, and in none of my verbal discussions, have I ever pretended to "reform" or "discover" the doctrines of the unity of God. I have never assumed the title of reformer or discoverer. Far from assuming such titles, I have argued in every single book I have ever published that the doctrine of the unity of God is actually the real, original Hinduism. It is the religion practiced by our ancient ancestors, and it is still well known today by many learned Brahmins.
Please allow me to repeat a few passages from my previous works to prove this:
From the Introduction to the Abridgment of the Vedant: "Therefore, to vindicate my own faith and the faith of our forefathers, I have been trying for some time to convince my countrymen of the true meaning of our sacred books. I want to prove that my departure from modern customs does not deserve the harsh insults that some thoughtless people have thrown at me."
From another part of that same Introduction: "This is an attempt to translate an abridgment of the Vedant into English. By doing this, I hope to prove to my European friends that the superstitious practices that deform the Hindu religion have absolutely nothing to do with the pure spirit of its original dictates."
From the Introduction to the Cenopanishad: "I trust this work will explain to my countrymen the real spirit of the Hindu scriptures—which is simply the declaration of the unity of God—and help correct the false ideas that have become popular regarding what these scriptures actually teach."
From the Preface of the Ishopanishad: "Many learned Brahmins are perfectly aware of how absurd idol worship is, and they are already well informed about the pure method of divine worship."
I hope that reviewing these passages will finally convince the learned gentleman that I have never, ever claimed the title of "reformer" or "discoverer" regarding the doctrines of the unity of God.
However, it is very possible that when the Editor of the Calcutta Gazette read my translations, he noticed that the current, degraded system of idol worship among Hindus completely contradicts the true spirit of their own scriptures. Because of this, the Editor may have assumed that the true contents of these scriptures had been entirely forgotten and lost to history. He may have mistakenly thought that I was the very first person to point out the absurdity of idol worship and to promote the pure worship ordained by the Vedas, Smritis, and Puranas. Combining this idea with the fact that he saw many Hindus (unjustly) stigmatizing me as an "innovator," it is completely natural that he was misled into calling me a "discoverer" and "reformer."
The Availability of the Scriptures
Secondly, the learned gentleman states:
"There are an immense number of books—including Vedas, Shastras, Puranas, Agamas, Tantras, Sutras, and Itihasas, plus countless commentaries compiled by famous ancient and modern theologians—regarding the doctrine of worshipping the invisible Being. These books are not just in Sanskrit; they have been translated into Prakrit, Telugu, Tamil, Gujarati, Hindustani, Marathi, and Kannada. They have been studied since ancient times by a huge part of the Hindu nation who are attached to the Adwaitum (non-dualistic) faith."
As far as this statement is accurate, it actually supports my own argument! It proves that the doctrine of worshipping the invisible Supreme Spirit is unanimously taught by all the Hindu Shastras. However, this fact naturally leads to a severe criticism of the selfish Brahmin teachers. Even though they know that every Shastra unanimously commands pure worship, they constantly promote and encourage idol worship as much as they possibly can. Why? Because they want to maintain the god-like titles they arrogantly claim for themselves, and because they make a massive amount of money from the countless rituals and festivals associated with idol worship.
I must point out, however, that I am not aware of any existing translation of the Vedas into the modern languages of Hindustan. That is exactly why I took it upon myself to translate the Vedant, the Cenopanishad (from the Sama Veda), the Ishopanishad (from the Yajur Veda), and other texts into Bengali. Before my translations, no one except highly educated scholars among my countrymen knew what was actually inside these books.
The Value of Translations
Thirdly, the learned gentleman states that some people completely reject translations of the scriptures into common, vulgar languages. He gives the following reason for this rejection:
"If the reader doubts the truth of the principles explained in the translation, the divine knowledge he just acquired becomes a 'doubtful faith.' That doubt cannot be removed unless he goes back and compares the translation with the original text. In that case, the knowledge he acquires from the original text becomes superior, which makes his initial study of the translation completely useless and just causes him to do the same work twice."
In response: When a person who is fluent in a foreign language translates a book into his native language, and that translation is then reviewed and approved by many other native speakers who are also fluent in that foreign language, I believe the translation can be trusted by both ordinary people and highly educated scholars as a satisfactory interpretation of the original work.
I am certainly not claiming that there is no room to doubt the accuracy of a translation. Even in the original texts, an author's meaning is often ambiguous, especially in a language like Sanskrit where almost every single sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways. However, if we accept the rule that the mere possibility of an error means we must withhold all trust in a translation, it would destroy our belief in almost everything. It would not only destroy our belief in translations of the Vedant, but it would also destroy all the information we have about foreign history and theology, which we only know through translations. If we followed this rule, we would either have to learn every single language spoken by every nation in the world just to study their history and religion, or we would have to accept knowing absolutely nothing about any country other than our own.
The learned gentleman gives a second reason why people object to translations: he claims that "reading the scripture in the vulgar (common) languages is prohibited by the Puranas."
I have never seen a single text in any Purana that forbids explaining the scriptures in the common language. In fact, the Puranas frequently allow and encourage this practice! I will repeat a declaration from the Shiva Dharma (which was also quoted by the great scholar Raghunandan):
"A man is entitled to be called a spiritual father if he can interpret the teachings according to the understanding of his pupils—whether he does this through Sanskrit, through the vulgar languages, or by means of the current, everyday language of the country."
Furthermore, in every part of Hindustan, all Sanskrit professors who teach beginners the Vedas, Puranas, and other Shastras always interpret them using the common languages. This is especially true of the spiritual fathers when they are explaining the specific parts of the Vedas and Puranas that allegorically introduce multiple gods and idol worship—because those are the exact doctrines that bring them the most worldly profit.
The Necessity of Rituals
Fourthly, the learned gentleman states:
"The first part of the Veda prescribes the exact way to perform yagam (sacrifices) and give danum (alms). It also discusses penance, fasting, and worshipping the physical incarnations the Supreme Deity has taken on earth for divine purposes. The Vedas affirm that if a person performs these ceremonies without desiring any worldly rewards (forsaking their fruits), these ceremonies serve as mental exercises and mental purifications that are absolutely necessary to obtain the knowledge of the divine nature."
I—along with the Vedas, the Vedant, Manu (the first and greatest Hindu lawmaker), and the highly celebrated Sankaracharya—completely deny the claim that these ceremonies are necessary to obtain knowledge of the divine nature.
The Vedant positively declares this in Chapter 3, Section 4, Text 36:
"A man may acquire the true knowledge of God even without observing the rules and ritual rites prescribed by the Veda for his specific social class. We find stories in the Veda of many people who completely neglected ceremonial rites because they were perpetually focused on adoring the Supreme Being, and they successfully acquired true knowledge of the Supreme Spirit."
The Veda also says: "Many learned, true believers never worshipped fire, nor did they worship any celestial gods through the use of fire."
Furthermore, the Vedant asserts in Chapter 3, Section 3, Text 1:
"The worship authorized by all the Vedas is exactly one. Directions for the worship of the only Supreme Being are invariably found throughout the Veda, and the epithets used for the Supreme and Omnipresent Being generally imply God alone."
Manu, whom I have quoted elsewhere, declares the exact same thing in Chapter 12, Text 92:
"Even if the chief of the twice-born (Brahmins) neglects the ceremonial rites mentioned in the Shastra, he must remain diligent in attaining a knowledge of God, in controlling his physical senses, and in repeating the Veda."
Again, Manu says in Chapter 4, Texts 23 and 24:
"Some men constantly sacrifice their breath into their speech by only speaking to instruct others about God alone. Others sacrifice their speech into their breath when they meditate in total silence. By employing their speech and breath in this way, they perceive the imperishable, eternal fruit of a sacrificial offering. Other Brahmins incessantly perform only these kinds of spiritual sacrifices, because they see with the eye of divine learning that true scriptural knowledge is the actual root of every ceremonial observance."
Manu also declares in Chapter 2, Text 84:
"All physical rites ordained in the Veda, including oblations to fire and solemn sacrifices, will eventually pass away. But the syllable 'Om' is declared to be that which passes not away. It is called Akshara (imperishable) because it is the ultimate symbol of God, the Lord of all created beings."
The Difficulty of Knowing God
Fifthly, the learned gentleman states: "The difficulty of attaining a perfect knowledge of the Invisible and Almighty Spirit is obvious from the preceding verses."
I agree with him entirely on this point. Attaining a perfect knowledge of the true nature of the Godhead is certainly difficult, and in fact, it is probably impossible. I will confidently say this: to a person possessed of common sense and free from prejudice, it is not very difficult to comprehend that the Almighty Being exists within His creations in nature. However, it is incredibly difficult to understand how artificial images can simultaneously possess both human and divine natures—yet idolaters constantly claim their idols possess both. Strangely, they believe that physical objects constructed by human hands can, through a few ceremonies, be magically converted into the Creator of the universe.
The Use of Music and Dancing in Worship
Sixthly, the learned gentleman objects to our practice of introducing songs into our worship, even though our songs only express the specific doctrines of monotheism (the belief in one God). He says:
"Holding meetings, playing music, singing songs, and dancing are all considered carnal pleasures. Therefore, they are not ordained by the scripture as a method of 'mental purification.'"
I completely agree that the practice of dancing during divine worship is not ordained by the scripture. Because of this, dancing was never introduced into our worship. The Calcutta Gazette's mention of dancing* must have been the result of the Editor receiving bad information.
(Footnote: The statement in the Calcutta Gazette quoted by Sankar Sastri was as follows: "We understand that on all the great Hindu festivals, the Friendly Society† established by him holds meetings. These meetings are held not only so its members can stay away from the idolatrous ceremonies of their countrymen, but also to renew and strengthen their own faith in the purer doctrines they affirm are established in the Vedas. At these meetings, they have music and dancing, just like their more superstitious brethren; but their songs are all expressive of the peculiar tenets of the Monotheists." — Editor)
(†Footnote: This refers to the well-known Atmiya Sabha. — Editor)
However, regarding the propriety of introducing monotheistic songs into divine worship, I must refer the gentleman to texts 114 and 115 of the third chapter of Yajnavalkya. In these texts, Yajnavalkya authorizes not only the use of scriptural music during divine contemplation, but also the use of songs composed by ordinary, common people. Furthermore, it is obvious that any interesting idea will make a much deeper impression on the mind when it is delivered through musical verses rather than just through normal conversation.
Science and the Vedas
Seventhly, the learned gentleman says:
"All the Brahmins in this peninsula study the exact same Vedas that are read in other parts of the country. However, I do not remember ever reading or hearing about a Veda treating subjects like astronomy, medicine, or arms. Astronomy is an Angam (a supplementary branch) of the Veda, but medicine and arms are taught in completely separate Shastras."
In answer to this, I beg to refer the gentleman to the following text from the Nirvana:
"While the Vedas discuss planets, botany, austere religious duties, arms, rites, the natural consequences of actions, and several other subjects, they are ultimately purified by their underlying teaching of the doctrines of the Supreme Spirit."
I also refer him to the final section of the Mahanirvana Agama.
After reading these texts, I trust he will be convinced that the Vedas do indeed treat subjects like astronomy, medicine, and arms, as well as morality and natural philosophy. In fact, all the arts and sciences that are detailed in other Shastras were originally introduced by the Vedas themselves. (See also Manu, Chapter 12, verses 97 and 98). Of course, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that modern Brahmins completely neglect the scientific parts of the Veda, choosing instead to practice and enthusiastically promote only the parts that deal with rituals and festivals. They do this because those specific parts are the source of their worldly profits and the foundation of their supposed divinity.
Reconciling Contradictions in the Vedas
Eighthly, the learned gentleman criticizes a statement I made in my Introduction to the Cenopanishad. My statement was:
"If we do not allow the explanations given by the Veda itself, and by its celebrated commentator Vyasa, to reconcile the passages that seem to contradict each other—such as the passages that declare the unity of the invisible Supreme Being versus the passages that describe a plurality of independent, visible gods—then I am afraid the entire work must be stripped of its authority and considered completely unintelligible."
Regarding this statement, the learned gentleman remarked:
"To say the least about this passage, Ram Mohun Roy appears just as willing to abandon the scripture of his religion as he is to defend it."
However, in that paragraph, I was simply applying basic logic to limit the situation to two possible conclusions: Either we must admit that the explanations provided by the Veda and its commentators successfully reconcile the apparent contradictions between different passages, or we must not admit it.
If we choose the second option (not admitting it), then we must naturally conclude that the Veda contradicts itself and is therefore completely unintelligible. But drawing that conclusion goes directly against the faith of every single type of Hindu! Therefore, logically, they must admit the first option: that these explanations do indeed successfully reconcile the seeming contradictions between the different chapters of the Vedas.
Worship Prescribed to the Human Race
Ninthly, the learned gentleman says:
"The worship of God's attributes and incarnations under various physical representations, using consecrated objects, is prescribed by the scripture to the human race as a form of mental exercise," etc.
I absolutely cannot admit that worshipping these attributes using physical representations and consecrated objects was prescribed by the Veda to the entire human race. The Shastra only commands this kind of physical worship for people who are mentally incapable of raising their minds to comprehend an invisible Supreme Being.
I quoted several authorities to prove this assertion in my Preface to the Ishopanishad, and I will repeat one or two of them here:
"The vulgar (uneducated) look for their God in water; men with slightly more knowledge look for Him in the celestial bodies; the deeply ignorant look for Him in wood, bricks, and stones; but learned men find Him in the Universal Soul."
"Therefore, corresponding to the different powers and qualities, numerous physical figures have been invented specifically for the benefit of those who do not possess sufficient understanding."
Please allow me to ask a question here: Does every Muslim in Turkey and Arabia (from the highest official to the lowest citizen), every Protestant Christian in Europe, and many followers of Kabir and Nanak worship God without the help of consecrated physical objects? If they do, then how can we possibly assume that the entire human race is incapable of adoring the Supreme Being without resorting to the childish practice of using visible, physical objects?
Are God's Attributes Separate from God?
Tenthly, the learned gentleman believes that the attributes of God exist separately and distinctly from God Himself. He compares the relationship between God and His attributes to a king and his ministers, saying:
"If a person wants to visit an earthly prince, he must first be introduced by the prince's ministers... In the exact same way, the grace of God must be obtained through the grace of worshipping His attributes."
I am extremely sorry to find that his opinion completely contradicts all the Vedant doctrines as interpreted by the highly revered Sankaracharya. These doctrines are rooted in true Adwaita (non-duality). They affirm that God has absolutely no "second" being that possesses eternal existence—neither a being of the same nature as Him, nor a being of a different nature. There is no second, eternal entity that could even be called a "part" of Him or a "quality" of His.
As stated in the 16th text of the 2nd section of the 3rd chapter: "The Veda has declared the Supreme Being to be pure understanding." The Veda says: "God is real existence, wisdom, and eternity."
The Veda frequently uses titles like Existent, Wise, and Eternal to describe the Supreme Existence. The reason the Veda uses these titles is because it initially speaks about God using human concepts. Because human minds naturally view a "quality" as something separate from a "person," the Veda uses these words just to make it easier for us to comprehend the concept.
If we assume, as the learned gentleman asserts, that these attributes are actually separate, distinct existences, then we logically have to conclude that they are either eternal or non-eternal.
If they are eternal: This means there are multiple beings (the attributes) that possess eternal duration just like God Himself. This idea instantly destroys the very foundation of all the Vedant doctrines regarding the absolute unity of the Supreme Being.
If they are non-eternal: If the power and attributes of God are not eternal, then we are forced to believe that God's fundamental nature is capable of changing. If His nature can change, then He is not eternal. Believing that God is not eternal is a very significant step toward pure atheism.
These are the obvious and incredibly dangerous consequences of the learned gentleman's doctrine that the attributes of the Supreme Being are distinct, separate existences. I am completely at a loss to understand how the learned gentleman can declare that the attributes of a pure and perfect Supreme Being actually exist separately and independently.
I am completely at a loss to understand how the learned gentleman can declare that the attributes of a pure and perfect Supreme Being actually exist separately and independently (meaning they exist in actual reality, not just as allegories or symbols), especially when the Puranas describe these attributes as being so sensual and completely lacking in morality.
For example, the creating attribute (Brahma) is described in one story as attempting to rape his own daughter. The protecting attribute (Vishnu) is described in another story as fraudulently violating the chastity of a woman named Brinda just so he could kill her husband. The destroying attribute (Shiva) is said to have had a criminal, deeply inappropriate relationship with Mohini, completely ignoring all basic decency. Any reader of the Puranas is familiar with a thousand similar examples.
I would be very obliged if the learned gentleman could explain how contemplating these kinds of events—which the worshippers of these attributes constantly recount, even during their sermons—can possibly purify the mind, promote morality, or lead to eternal happiness.
Furthermore, even though the learned gentleman argues in this section that these attributes are separate existences, in another part of his letter, he seems to view them as parts of the Supreme Being. He says: "If one part of the ocean is adored, the entire ocean is adored." I am at a loss to understand how he plans to reconcile this obvious contradiction.
I must also point out here that his comparison—comparing the relationship between God and His attributes to a king and his ministers—is completely inconsistent with the actual faith practiced by Hindus today. Modern Hindus do not view these objects of worship merely as "instruments" or stepping stones to help them eventually contemplate the true God of nature. Instead, they view these idols as completely independent gods. However absurd it may be, they attribute almighty power to each individual idol and claim that each idol deserves to be worshipped solely for its own sake.
The Scriptural Rejection of Idol Worship
Eleventhly, the learned gentleman is dissatisfied with the objections I raised in my translation against worshipping these fictional representations. He remarks:
"The objections to worshipping the attributes are not satisfactorily stated by the author."
To answer this, I will repeat the following authoritative texts, which I hope will serve my purpose. The Veda makes the following declarations:
"He who worships any God other than the Supreme Being, and thinks that he himself is distinct from and inferior to that God, knows absolutely nothing. He is considered to be nothing more than a domestic beast owned by these gods."
"Even achieving a state as high as the god Brahma does not afford real, true bliss."
"Adore God alone."
"None but the Supreme Being is to be worshipped; a wise man should adore absolutely nothing except Him."
I will also repeat this text from the Vedant:
"When the Veda declares that people who worship the celestial gods are simply 'food' for those gods, it is an allegorical expression. It simply means that these worshippers provide comfort to the celestial gods, just as food provides comfort to mankind. A person who has no faith in the Supreme Being is rendered completely subject to these lesser gods. The Veda affirms this."
Furthermore, the highly revered Sankaracharya frequently declared in his commentaries (Bhasya) on the Ishopanishad and other texts that the state of the celestial gods is actually the state of demons.
I could add a thousand other authoritative quotes to this list. However, if the learned gentleman requires more practical reasons to object to Hindu idol worship, I can easily give him countless examples. There are many ceremonies instituted under the excuse of "honoring the all-perfect Author of Nature" that actually completely destroy every basic principle of morality.
The Immorality of Idol Worship
I will begin with Krishna, who is the most adored of all the physical incarnations and has an exceedingly large number of devotees. Worshipping him involves setting up his image or picture alongside one or more females, and contemplating his history and behavior. What is that history? It includes him murdering a female named Putana; forcing a large number of married and unmarried women to stand completely naked in front of him; debauching those women and several others, causing deadly heartbreak to their husbands and relatives; and annoying these women by violating the basic laws of cleanliness, along with other acts of the same nature.
The grossness of his worship does not stop there. His devotees frequently roleplay as Krishna and his female companions (just like European actors on a stage), dancing with indecent gestures and singing songs about his sexual conquests and debaucheries.
It is impossible to explain in language fit for the public eye exactly how Mahadeva (Shiva, the destroying attribute) is worshipped by the majority of Hindus. It is enough to say that the worship is entirely consistent with the deeply indecent nature of the physical image most commonly used to adore him. The stories about him that his devotees read in the Tantras are so vile that, if they were told about a normal human man, they would deeply offend the ears of even the most abandoned, immoral people of either sex.
The worship of Kali includes human sacrifices, the drinking of wine, criminal sexual intercourse, and highly licentious songs. While the practice of human sacrifice is mostly extinct, it is believed that human victims are still offered in some remote parts of the country. However, debauchery universally forms the main part of the worship practiced by her followers. The Nigam and other Tantras will easily satisfy any reader about the horrible doctrines followed by the worshippers of Shiva and Kali. The modes of worship for almost all the inferior, lesser deities are pretty much exactly the same.
I have now fully explained the true nature of the worship that most Hindus adopt to please these allegorical attributes, which directly opposes the pure divine worship commanded by the Vedas. Having done this, I strongly hope that the learned gentleman—who ranks even innocent monotheistic songs as "carnal pleasures" and rejects them from worship—will no longer stand up to defend the worship of these separate, independent attributes and incarnations.
On the Nature of Christ
Twelfthly, the learned gentleman says:
"The Saviour (meaning Christ) should be considered a personification of the mercy and kindness of God—and I mean an actual personification, not an allegorical one."
From the little knowledge I have acquired about the beliefs of Christians and anti-Christians, I thought there were only three prevailing opinions regarding the nature of Christ:
Some consider him to be the expounder of God's laws and the mediator between God and man.
Many consider him to be one of the three mysterious persons of the Godhead (the Trinity).
Others, such as the Jews, say he was merely a human man.
If I am not mistaken, considering Christ to be a literal "personification of the mercy of God" is a brand new doctrine in Christianity! However, discussing that is not relevant to our current subject. I must point out, though, that the learned gentleman's opinion—that Christ is a personification of God's mercy—is exactly the same opinion that Muslims have held for over a thousand years regarding Muhammad, whom they call "the mercy of God upon all His creatures."
Conclusion
In the conclusion of his observations, the learned gentleman states that he has decided to leave the "doctrines of pure allegory" entirely to me. It would have been much more just and accurate if he had also left pure allegory to the Vedas themselves. The Vedas clearly declare: "Appellations (names) and figures of all kinds are simply human innovations." The Vedas allegorically represent God as the physical universe, saying: "Fire is His head, the sun and the moon are His two eyes," etc. The Vedas also represent all internal human qualities using different earthly objects as symbols.
He should also have left pure allegory to the great sage Vyasa, who strictly followed the Vedas in using these figurative representations, and to Sankaracharya, who heavily utilized allegory in his commentaries on the Vedant and the Upanishads.
Comments
Post a Comment