Answer of a Hindoo to the Question:
"Why Do You Frequent a Unitarian Place of Worship Instead of the Numerously Attended Established Churches?"
I. Because the prayers read, the worship offered, and the sermons preached in the Unitarian place of worship remind me of the infinitely wise Ruler of this infinite universe, without ascribing to Him fellow-creators or co-operators who are supposedly equal in power and other attributes, which is what Churchmen do. My plain understanding can easily comprehend the idea of "fellow-creatures." However, my mind is completely incapable of forming a notion of one or more fellow-creatures where each one is equally possessed of omnipotence (infinite power) and omnipresence (being everywhere at once).
II. Because Unitarian prayer, worship, and preaching constantly put me in mind of the beneficial design kept in view by the wise and benevolent Author of everything. They remind me how God organized the members of the animal body—such as bones, veins, vessels, and limbs—and how He prepared the manifold necessaries of life for our maintenance. I see these things as absolute proofs of His gratuitous blessing and free grace. In those established Churches, however, God is declared to have refused mercy and salvation to mankind until innocent blood was offered to Him to appease His wrath!
III. Because the Unitarian mode of worship exhibits how that infinite and Supreme Author has intentionally stationed the heavenly bodies in systematic order, making them capable of producing and nourishing all the animal and vegetable objects under His divine control. In those established Churches, however, that infinite Being is represented as occupying a tiny space in this limited world, lying in an even smaller space in the womb of a virgin, being subject to the physical control of his parents (even if only for a season), and daily performing various basic animal bodily functions.
IV. Because I already feel completely weary of the doctrine of the "Man-God" or "God-Man"* that is so frequently taught by the Brahmins in pursuance of their corrupt traditions. Hearing the exact same doctrine of a Man-God—even if it is being preached by another body of priests who are better dressed, better provided for, and eminently elevated by virtue of having conquered us—cannot effectually excite any anxiety or curiosity in me to listen to it.
*(Footnote: Manu, Dattatreya, Ram, etc., etc., etc.)
V. Because I expressed intense disgust when I heard the incredible story from the Brahmins that God appeared in the physical form of a party-colored kite to accomplish certain purposes. Because I maintain that exact same reverence for the Divine Being, I must be excused for completely disbelieving a very similar doctrine held forth in those established Churches: the claim that God appeared on another occasion in the physical, bodily shape of a dove! I find it amazing to observe that people who deny the existence of God are stigmatized with the hateful term "atheist," while others are highly respected even though they do not hesitate—under the protective shield of "religion"—to bring the Deity into total ridicule by representing Him in the physical form of a common bird.
VI. Because, having been taught in schools where the doctrine of the Incarnations of a two-fold or even a three-fold* nature has been solemnly preached, I perceive absolutely no novelty in the idea of a two-fold nature (divine and human) as it is entertained and expressed in those established Churches.
*(Footnote: Narasimha, the mixed nature of man, lion, and God.)
VII. Because in those established Churches, the Holy Ghost is represented as the very God Himself, rather than just the miraculous power of the Deity. At the same time, the language applied in those Churches to this specific person of the Godhead—such as "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" and "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee"*—fully corresponds to the exact words and ideas used to describe the deities in Western and Eastern heathen mythologies! Consequently, this language must be deeply offensive to the feelings of anyone who ascribes absolute purity and perfection to God.
*(Footnote: The Virgin Mary.)
VIII. Because the doctrine of the Trinity inculcated in those established Churches—consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost—is defensible only on the plea of "mystery." On the other hand, the Trinity preached to us by the Brahmins is clearly a representation of the three principal attributes of the Deity, understood in a purely allegorical sense, and therefore it does deserve at least some momentary attention. A mind that rejects the Brahminical Trinity as a production of the fancy cannot reasonably be expected to adopt the Christian Trinity!
IX. Because Unitarians reject polytheism (the worship of multiple gods) and idolatry under every single sophistical modification, and thereby firmly discountenance all the evil consequences that result from them.
X. Because Unitarians believe, profess, and inculcate the doctrine of the absolute divine unity. This is a doctrine which I find firmly maintained both by the Christian Scriptures and by our own most ancient writings, commonly called the Vedas.
Such are my reasons for attending the Unitarian place of worship instead of the established Churches.
(Signed) CHANDRA SEKHAR DEV.*
*(Footnote: This was actually written by Raja Ram Mohun Roy, even though he put the name of his disciple Chandra Sekhar Dev as the author, exactly as he did on many other occasions. We have the direct authority of Babu Chandra Sekhar Dev himself confirming this statement. — Editor)
Translation of a Sanskrit Tract on Different Modes of Worship*
(Footnote: As will appear from the title page, this was published by "A Friend of the Author." Both the 'Friend' and the 'Author'—Shiva Prasad Sharma—were evidently pseudonyms for Ram Mohun Roy himself. — Editor)
Query.
In some Shastras, many authorities are found clearly enjoining worship by means of physical idols. However, in other Shastras, there are passages strongly dissuading people from such worship. Because doubts have arisen from this contradiction, may the learned please remove them?
(Signed) Ramdhun Sharma.
Reply.
In answer to the subject of this query, the decision given in the Bhagavata (which is considered the essence of all the Shastras) by the great and worshipful Saint Vyasa—who had a thorough and perfect knowledge of all the Vedas—seems sufficient to remove these doubts entirely.
According to the commentary (gloss) of Shridhara, Vyasa's decision is as follows:
"Man shall worship Me, the Lord of the Universe, by means of an image or any other physical form. He should do this during his intervals of leisure from performing the ritual observances prescribed for his specific social class, until he becomes conscious that I actually dwell in all living beings."
The worshipful and revered Shridhara comments on this text, adding:
"This verse shows that worship by means of an idol or any other physical form is not absolutely useless. It also shows that as long as a man is subjected to worshipping by means of idols, he is also still subjected to performing the ritual observances prescribed to his own social class."
This passage clearly limits the time period during which idol worship is appropriate, and it clearly explains what ritual practices must accompany it.
Vyasa then proceeds:
"Further, man shall direct his worship to Me—who, by residing in the heart, dwells in all living creatures—by giving charity to the needy, by showing honor to others, by friendship, and by an equal regard to all."*
(Footnote on Spiritual Devotion:)
Spiritual Devotion is of two kinds.
The first kind (Non-Dualistic) consists in meditating on the idea that the soul is of divine origin. A continuation of such meditation is believed to have a tendency to rescue the soul from all human feelings and passions. By doing this, the soul is ultimately brought back to its original divine perfection, which far surpasses both human search and description. This is the state commonly called "absorption." Because devotees who adhere to this mode of devotion are considered naturally incapable of committing any moral or social crime, they are absolutely not subjected to the precepts or prohibitions found in the Shastras.
The second kind of devotion (Dualistic) consists in believing that the Deity possesses all the attributes of perfection, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, etc., and that the individual sentient human soul—in its present state of material, physical connection—is completely separate from, and dependent on, the Deity. Besides this, the practice of charity, etc., as mentioned in the text above, are actively enjoined on the performers of this mode of devotion as their required religious duties. After death, this specific class of devotees enjoys eternal beatitude in the highest heaven as existences who remain separate from the Deity and from each other. (Meanwhile, worshippers who simply use physical forms or idols, as the Vedant affirms, will enjoy only temporary bliss.)
(Author's Note): From what I have noticed regarding these two different kinds of notions entertained about spiritual devotion, the reader will perceive the reason why a teacher of spiritual knowledge is sometimes justified in speaking of the Deity in the first person ("I"), in reference to the assumed divine nature of his own soul; although later in the exact same discourse, he might again treat of God in the third person ("He"), in reference to the present separated and subordinate state of the soul.
Vyasa continues his thought in six and a half verses, starting with the following verse: "Animate objects are preferable to inanimate objects," etc., and ending with the following sentence:
"The man to whom these four duties (charity, honor, friendship, equal regard) are prescribed in the above text shall mentally do reverence to and profess much respect for all creatures, according to the different degrees of excellence visible in them."
Vyasa then concludes:
"Man shall respect them by observing that the all-powerful Lord is actively in their heart, watching over their soul."*
(Footnote on the Lord in the heart:)
"Two birds, cohabitant and coessential (sharing the same essence), reside unitedly in one single tree, which is the physical body. One of them (the human soul) consumes the variously tasted fruits of its earthly actions. But the other (God), without partaking of the fruits, simply witnesses all events." (Mundaka Upanishad, Chapter 3).
"God, as being resplendent and most proximate (closest) to all creatures, is styled the operator in the heart." (Mundaka Upanishad, Section 2).
Hence, the author himself clearly explains that the command to observe an "equal regard to all" creatures (as directed in the verse above) is made strictly in reference to the fact that they are all equally related to the Divine Spirit. It is not in reference to their physical qualities or individual identities.
Therefore, it logically follows that the passages commanding worship by means of physical forms, and the passages actively dissuading from such worship, should simply be applied separately to different people, depending entirely on which of those different sentiments they currently entertain.*
(Footnote comparing this to Christianity/Judaism:)
Under the Christian dispensation, worship through physical matter seems to be completely unauthorized. As stated in John 4:21: "The hour cometh when ye shall, neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father, etc." And in verse 23: "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth, etc." However, in the older Judaic religion, such physical worship was explicitly sanctioned, as appears from the Books of Leviticus and others, and is even acknowledged from the above-quoted verses of the Gospel of John.
Comments
Post a Comment