Here is the complete, simplified rewrite of The Brahamanical Magazine. It is written in clear, modern English, and I have made sure to keep every single argument, detail, and historical fact from the original text.
Preface to the First Edition
(Footnote: This is reprinted from the second edition published in Calcutta in August 1823. The first edition was printed in 1821 in a bilingual format, with the Bengali title "Brahmun Sebadhi" on one side and the English title "Brahmunical Magazine" on the other. Both sides contained the exact same text in different languages. — Editor)
For over fifty years now, this country of Bengal has been exclusively controlled by the English nation. During the first thirty years of this period, everyone universally believed—based on both the words and actions of the English—that they would not interfere with the religion of their subjects. We believed they truly wanted every man to act according to the dictates of his own conscience in religious matters.
Through the grace of God, the English have gradually increased their territories and political strength in Hindustan. However, during the last twenty years, a group of English gentlemen calling themselves "missionaries" has been publicly trying, in several different ways, to convert the Hindus and Muslims of this country to Christianity.
The first way is by publishing and distributing various books, both large and small, among the native people. These books insult both the Hindu and Muslim religions and mock the gods and saints of Hinduism.
The second way is by standing in front of the native people's doors or out in the public roads, preaching about how excellent their own religion is while calling the religions of others debased.
The third way is by employing and financially supporting any native people from low-income backgrounds who choose to become Christians, whether out of a desire for money or for other motives. The missionaries do this specifically to encourage others to follow their example.
It is true that the original apostles of Jesus Christ also used to preach the superiority of the Christian religion to the native people of different countries. But we must remember that those apostles were not the political rulers of the countries where they preached. If these modern missionaries were to preach the Gospel and distribute books in countries that the English had not conquered—like Turkey, Persia, etc., which are much closer to England anyway—they would be respected as a group of men who are truly zealous about spreading their religion and truly following the example of the founders of Christianity.
But here in Bengal, the English are the absolute rulers. Here, the mere name of an Englishman is enough to frighten people. In this context, encroaching upon the rights and the religion of India's poor, timid, and humble inhabitants cannot be seen as a justifiable act in the eyes of God or the public. Wise and good men never want to hurt people who are much weaker than themselves. Furthermore, if those weak people are actually dependent on them and subject to their political authority, truly good rulers would never even think about doing something to intentionally insult or mortify their feelings.
We Indians have been subjected to these kinds of insults for about nine centuries. The cause of our degradation and weakness has been our own excess in civilization, our strict refusal to slaughter even animals, and our strict division into castes, which has destroyed our national unity.
It seems almost natural that when one nation conquers another, the conquerors laugh at and despise the religion and customs of the people who have fallen into their power, even if the conquerors' own religion is completely ridiculous. For example, when the Muslims conquered India, they proved to be highly hostile toward Hindu religious practices. When the generals of Genghis Khan—who denied God and behaved like wild beasts—invaded western Hindustan, they universally mocked the native Indians' belief in God and the afterlife. When the savages of Arakan invaded eastern Bengal, they constantly tried to degrade the Hindu religion. In ancient times, the Greeks and the Romans, who were gross idolaters and lived immoral lives, used to laugh at the religion and conduct of their Jewish subjects, simply because the Jews were devoted to the belief in one single God.
Therefore, it is not surprising or uncommon that the English missionaries, who belong to the nation that conquered this country, are reviling and mocking the religion of the native people.
However, the English are famous worldwide for their humanity and their fair administration of justice. Furthermore, many English gentlemen are known to hate violating the rules of equity. Therefore, it would completely destroy their good reputation if they followed the example of those former savage conquerors and disturbed the established religion of this country. Trying to introduce a new religion by using abuse and insults, or by offering the hope of financial and worldly gain, is completely inconsistent with reason and justice.
If the missionaries can use the force of logic and argument to prove that their religion is true and the Hindu religion is false, then many people would naturally embrace their doctrines. But if they fail to prove this, they should not waste their time or tease the Hindus any longer with their attempts at conversion.
The learned Brahmins generally live in very small huts, eat simple food like vegetables, and are so poor they must live on charity. I hope the missionary gentlemen will not refuse to debate them simply out of contempt for their poverty. After all, truth and true religion do not always belong to wealth, power, high titles, or lofty palaces.
Recently, a letter appeared in the Mission Press of Serampore attempting to show how unreasonable all the Hindu Shastras are. In response, I have taken all the questions from that letter, along with their answers, and published them in the 1st and 2nd numbers of this magazine. Moving forward, any replies made by either party will be published in this magazine in the exact same manner.
Preface to the Second Edition
As I present the contents of these following pages to the world in a new edition, I think it is necessary to provide a short explanation of how this controversy started and how it ended.
The Brahmunical Magazine was originally started for the specific purpose of answering the objections against the Hindu religion that were printed in a Bengali weekly newspaper called the Summachar Durpun. That newspaper is managed by some of the most prominent Christian missionaries and is published in Serampore.
In their paper on July 14, 1821, the missionaries inserted a letter containing certain doubts and attacks regarding the Hindu Shastras. The writer of the letter invited anyone to favor him with an answer, promising to publish it in that same newspaper. I accordingly wrote a reply in the Bengali language. However, the publishers of the paper—the very people who asked for a reply—flatly refused to insert it. Because of this, I resolved to publish the entire controversy myself, complete with an English translation, in my own work called the Brahmunical Magazine. This magazine, which is now being reprinted, contains everything that was written by both sides.
In the first number of the magazine, I replied to the arguments they made against the Shastras (which are the direct explanations of the Vedas, our original sacred books).
In the second number, I answered their objections against the Puranas and Tantras (which are the historical and mythological illustrations of Hindu theology). I showed that the doctrines of the Shastras are far more rational than the religion the missionaries profess. I also showed that even if the Puranas and Tantras are unreasonable, they are certainly no more unreasonable than the Christian faith.
The missionaries then replied to me in their own publication, the Friend of India (Issue No. 38).
I immediately answered them in the 3rd number of my magazine.
By continuing a regular back-and-forth debate like this, I fully expected that the truth or fallacy of one of our religious systems would be clearly established very soon. But to my great surprise and disappointment, the Christian missionaries—who were the ones who provoked the discussion in the first place!—suddenly abandoned it.
The 3rd number of my magazine has now remained completely unanswered for nearly two years. During this long period, the Hindu community (whom the work was specifically addressed to, which is why it was printed in both Bengali and English) has firmly made up its mind that the arguments presented in the Brahmunical Magazine are simply unanswerable. Because of this, I am now republishing only the English translation, so that educated Christians in Europe and Asia can read it and form their own opinions on the subject.
It is well known to the entire world that no people on earth are more tolerant than the Hindus. We believe that all human beings are equally within the reach of God's beneficence, and that God's grace embraces the good people of every single religious sect and denomination. Therefore, no one should imagine that my goal in publishing this magazine was to blindly attack Christianity. Rather, I was driven by the conviction that if a group of people travels to a distant country specifically to overturn the beliefs of the local inhabitants and replace them with their own, they absolutely must be prepared to prove that their new religion is actually more reasonable than the old one.
In conclusion, I beg to ask every candid and thoughtful reader this question:
Whether a man sits on an imperial throne or sits in the dust; whether he is the lord of the whole known world or doesn't even own a hut; whether he commands millions of soldiers or doesn't have a single follower; whether he is intimately acquainted with all human learning or doesn't even know the alphabet; whether he is healthy and handsome or dark and deformed...
If that man openly declares that "God is not a man," but then turns around and professes to believe in a "God-Man" or a "Man-God" (no matter what clever sophistry or philosophical excuses he uses to shelter the idea), can such a person really claim to deserve respect in the intellectual world? And does he not expose himself to severe criticism if he, while holding that belief, arrogantly accuses other people's religions of being "unreasonable"?
seem obscure and cloudy due to the foulness of the physical matter they are connected to. Other souls seem dull due to the dullness of the matter they are connected to.
Think about the reflections of the sun in different pools of water. These reflections do not have any actual light of their own, but they appear bright and splendid because of their connection with the illuminating sun in the sky. In the exact same way, the individual human soul—even though it is not the true, ultimate Intellect on its own—seems intellectual. It acts as if it is a real, independent spirit because of its actual relationship with the Universal Intellect (God).
Furthermore, because the sun has a specific relationship to the water placed in different pots, you see various reflections. These reflections resemble the sun's nature, but they differ from the sun in their specific qualities (size, brightness, etc.). When you dump out the water, those reflections immediately cease to appear. In the exact same way, because of the peculiar relationship between various material objects and the one Supreme Spirit, numerous individual souls appear to exist. They seem to perform good and evil works, and they seem to receive the consequences of those works. But as soon as that relationship with physical matter ceases, the individual souls instantly cease to appear as distinct from their original source.
Therefore, God is absolutely one. The human soul—even though it does not actually have an origin different from God—is still liable to experience the consequences of good and evil works while it is connected to matter. However, the fact that the individual soul is liable to receive rewards or punishments does not mean that God Himself is liable to receive rewards or punishments.
The Perfection and Sufficiency of God
The third fault you allege is that, based on these Vedantic doctrines, we cannot maintain the perfection and self-sufficiency of God. You state this as a position, but you have not advanced any actual arguments to prove it! If you provide arguments later, I may consider their force.
However, if your position means that "if souls are considered parts of God and proceed from the Supreme Spirit (as the Vedant declares), then God must somehow be insufficient and imperfect," I will refer you back to the answer I just gave. Even though the reflections of the sun owe their existence entirely to the sun, depend entirely on the sun, and eventually return to the sun, this fact does absolutely nothing to prove that the sun itself is insufficient or imperfect.
The Metaphor of the Bubbles
Moreover, you point out that the Vedant teaches that the world repeatedly proceeds from God, depends upon God, and is eventually absorbed back into God through the influence of Maya, exactly like bubbles rising from and being absorbed back into water. Because of this teaching, you infer that the Vedant accuses God of being under the influence and control of Maya.
I reply that the Vedant only maintains the resemblance between bubbles and the world in two specific respects:
Just as bubbles receive their birth and existence from water through the influence of the wind, the world receives its original existence from the Supreme Being through the power of God, and the world depends entirely on Him.
There is no permanent, independent reality to the existence of either a bubble or the world.
When we say, "That man is like a lion," we only mean he resembles a lion in terms of courage and strength. We do not mean he resembles a lion in every single respect, such as shape, size, having paws, etc. In the exact same way, the resemblance of the world to bubbles only applies to their dependence and their lack of independent reality. If we acknowledged the similarity in every respect, we would be forced to admit that God is an unthinking, unfeeling existence like a puddle of water, and that the world is a physical piece of God moving on His surface before sinking back into Him!
Only people who are desperately looking for faults would think they are justified in claiming that God is influenced or controlled by Maya just because the Vedant compares the world to bubbles of water and Maya to the wind.
Maya is simply the creative power of God, through which the world receives its birth, existence, and changes. No educated person who is free from bias would ever infer from these teachings that God is somehow inferior to Maya, which is merely His own attribute. Men of every tribe and every country who acknowledge God as the Creator of the world naturally believe that He possesses the power to create it. But no one concludes from this that God is subordinate to His own creative power! God pardons the sins of those who sincerely repent through His attribute of mercy. This does not mean God is "subject" to His own mercy.
The followers of the Vedant actually say that Maya is the opposite of true knowledge. When a person obtains a true knowledge of God, the illusion-creating effect of Maya—which is what makes the soul appear distinct from God in the first place—immediately ceases.
The term Maya primarily implies the power of creation, and secondarily implies the effect of that creation, which is the Universe. When the Vedant compares the world to the misconceived notion of seeing a snake when there is actually only a rope, it means that the world (like the imagined snake) has no independent existence; it receives its entire existence from the Supreme Being.
In the same way, the Vedant compares the world to a dream. Just as all the objects you see in a dream depend entirely on the motion of your mind, the existence of the world depends entirely on the being of God, who is the only true object of supreme love. When the Vedant declares that "God is all in all" and that "there is no other substance except God," it simply means that true, absolute existence belongs to God alone. He is true and omnipresent; absolutely nothing else can bear the name of "true existence."
We actually find the phrase "God is all and in all" in Christian books! I assume Christians do not mean by those words that physical pots, mats, and objects are literally gods. I am inclined to believe they simply mean that God is omnipresent. So why do you attempt to use petty cavils (trivial objections) to find fault with the Vedant for teaching the exact same thing?
Matter, Spirit, and Creation from Nothing
All objects are divided into matter and spirit. The Vedant says the world is merely matter (the effect of Maya), and God is spirit. Every material object takes its origin from universal matter under the direct superintendence of the Supreme Spirit, and eventually returns to its origin. In the exact same way, all individual perceiving existences (called souls) are like reflections of the sun. They appear different from each other, but they all depend on the universal perception, and they will all return to it. We see that the flame of one candle looks different from the flame of another candle, but as soon as the flame loses its connection with the candle, that individual heat is absorbed back into universal heat. In the same way, individual spirits return to the universal Supreme Spirit as soon as their connection with physical matter is destroyed.
Which idea is more reasonable: to say that the intellectual human soul originates from the universal pure Spirit, or to say that the soul is made out of "nothing" or out of insensible, unthinking matter?
If you argue, "God is omnipotent, therefore He can produce the soul out of absolutely nothing," you will trap yourself in serious difficulties. One of the main difficulties is this: because God is not a physical object we can perceive with our senses, we can only establish His existence using reason and experience. If we throw away reason and experience just to admit that the soul (or any other object) can be magically created out of nothing, we would destroy the only means we have to prove the existence of God, let alone His omnipotence! Defying logical inference drawn from actual experience would only strengthen atheistic beliefs and completely destroy all religion.
Defending the Nyaya Shastra
You find fault with the Nyaya Shastra because it declares the following doctrines:
God is exactly one, while souls are numerous, but both are imperishable.
Space, position, time, and atoms are eternal.
The power of creation resides in God in a peculiarly united relationship.
God allots the consequences of good and evil works to the individual soul.
God is possessed of an immutable (unchanging) will.
You argue that, according to these doctrines, God cannot be considered the true Cause of the world. Why? Because if He creates things using existing materials like matter (atoms), space, and time, then He is just like us humans, who also create things using existing materials.
I reply to this: Every single person who professes a theistic system—including both the followers of the Nyaya doctrines and the followers of Christianity—believes that God is imperishable and that the human soul has no end. They both believe that throughout eternity, the soul either enjoys the happiness procured by acquiring a knowledge of God, or it receives the consequences of its works. In the same way, both Nyaya followers and Christians believe that it is God who bestows the consequences of good and evil actions upon the soul, and that the will of God is completely immutable.
If you find fault with these specific doctrines, then both the Nyaya system and the system of Christianity must be equally subject to your criticism, because both systems maintain these exact same doctrines!
Furthermore, the Nyaya states that different objects are, of course, produced at different times in history. This fact does absolutely nothing to disprove the eternity of God's will. God Himself is beyond the limits of time, but all other objects are created at specific times, exactly as they were appointed by the eternal will of God.
The relationship between a substance and its quality or its action is called Samavaya. Through this specific relationship, the act of creating the world resides directly in the Creator. This is a fact acknowledged by almost all theists. No being can be called an "agent" unless an action is actually found within him.
No one can ever conceive of any object—whether that object is God or something that is not God—completely divested of space and time. Therefore, if you completely set aside the ideas of space and time, you will not be able to prove anything whatsoever! Both the followers of Nyaya and the followers of the Christian religion believe that God is eternal (meaning He exists from eternity to eternity). The very term "eternity," which implies a duration without a beginning or an end, makes the concept of time coeval (existing at the same time) with God. If we define the eternal existence of God to mean that He had no beginning in time and will have no end in time, then this definition applies not only to God but also to time itself! It points out that our very notion of God's eternity depends entirely on our notion of time.
It is obvious that the material cause of the physical world is its most minute, microscopic particles. It is physically impossible to destroy these particles. These are called anus or atoms. The immaterial God cannot possibly be the material cause of physical particles, nor can "Nothing" be the cause of them. Therefore, these particles must be eternal. They are simply brought into different physical forms, at different times and places, by the will of God.
We see that every single thing that originates from a voluntary cause (a being making a choice) produces its effects by using materials. Since all parties acknowledge that God is the voluntary cause of the world, He is therefore believed to have created the world by means of matter, space, and time.
You object to this system by claiming that, according to this doctrine, both the Creator of the world and the individual human soul (which is a partial creator) should be considered gods. You claim the only difference between them would be that God is greater and the human soul is lesser.
I reply that this objection does not apply to this system at all. God is an independent agent and the Creator of the entire world. The human soul is merely an inferior agent, and it is completely dependent on the will of God in all of its actions. A partial resemblance between two things does not establish their equality! Both Christians and Hindus ascribe the qualities of "will" and "mercy" to both God and the human soul. But neither group assumes that because they share these qualities, both God and the soul are Gods! They simply believe that one is the superior Creator and the other is an inferior creation.
Defending the Mimamsa
You object to the Mimamsa philosophy. You claim it declares that "God" is simply the wonderful consequences that result from performing various sacrificial rites using physical articles and chanting incantations composed of Sanskrit words. You argue: "There are various languages and Shastras among mankind, and both human language and sacrificial articles are insensible objects controlled by man. How can God possibly be the consequence of rites, or the product of language and sacrificial articles, which are all controlled by humans?"
You also say: "According to the Mimamsa doctrines, God is exactly one, and He is merely rites. But there are various, multiple rites. How can the unity of God be maintained under these sentiments? Furthermore, according to this logic, God cannot exist in countries where rites are not performed in the Sanskrit language."
I reply, in the first place, that the two objections you offer actually contradict each other! First, you say that the Mimamsa declares God to be the consequences of rites. Then, you say it declares Him to be the rites themselves!
However, the truth is that the followers of the Mimamsa are divided into two distinct classes:
The First Class: These followers do not look any further than the physical performance of the rites themselves. They are generally classified as atheists.
The Second Class: This sect strongly professes the existence of God. However, they say that the reward or punishment we experience is the direct consequence of our own works, and that God remains quite neutral to this process. They argue that if God induces some men to pray and act virtuously (and then rewards them), but neglects other men and then punishes them for failing to pray (even though both groups are equally His children), this would amount to an accusation that God shows unjust, immoral partiality. Therefore, they believe the consequences are automatic based on the works.
It is completely evident that, according to the doctrines of this second sect, the absolute unity of God is perfectly maintained.
Defending the Patanjali Darshana (Yoga)
In your attempt to expose and attack the Patanjali Darshana, you say that it recommends a man perform Yog (regulating the breath in a specific way calculated to divert the mind from all worldly objects) instead of performing physical rites. Therefore, you argue that the exact same objections you applied to the Mimamsa apply to the Patanjali as well.
I reply: The Patanjali clearly declares that through the practice of Yog, a man can surmount all the distress and grievances of the world and enjoy true happiness. It explicitly states that God is perfectly pure, completely beyond the apprehension of the physical senses, and is the absolute Superintendent of the universe.
I am therefore completely at a loss to know on what grounds you have placed the Patanjali on the exact same level as the Mimamsa.
Defending the Sankhya
You find fault with the doctrines of the Sankhya philosophy because it represents the Ruler of Nature and Nature itself as the two halves of a split grain of vetch (a type of legume). However, because the Ruler of Nature has supremacy over Nature, He is called the invisible God. Because of this metaphor, you infer that the Sankhya teaches the "duality" of the Deity.
I reply that the Sankhya actually teaches that the invisible but all-pervading Nature is the cause of the existence and continuation of the universe, but only under the influence and direction of the Supreme Spirit. Therefore, the Sankhya explicitly declares that Nature is completely subordinate to and dependent on the perceiving Spirit. Consequently, the Spirit is the one true Supreme God.
Even though the various commentators differ from each other on subordinate, minor subjects when interpreting the Veda, they all agree on one thing: God has neither physical form nor flesh, and He is completely free from birth and death.
(The remaining part of the answer is to be inserted in the 2nd number of the Magazine).
NUMBER II
The Purpose of Physical Forms in Hinduism
(The text picks up mid-sentence)...religious duties whatsoever, or should engage in evil work—to prevent this from happening, they have represented God in the physical form of a man and other animals. They have portrayed Him as possessing all the human desires that we are familiar with. They did this so that people might have some way to feel regard and devotion for the Divine Being. Afterward, through diligent spiritual endeavors, these people become qualified to understand the true knowledge of God.
However, the Puranas have carefully and repeatedly affirmed that they only provided this physical account of the forms of God specifically to benefit people with weak minds. They clearly state that, in absolute truth, God is completely without name, form, physical organs, or sensual enjoyment.
"Weak and ignorant persons, who are unable to know the supreme and indivisible God, think of Him as possessing certain physical limitations." (A sentence quoted in the commentary upon the Mandukya Upanishad.)
"For the assistance of the worshippers of the Supreme Being—who is pure intellect, exactly one, and without divisibility or a physical body—a fictitious representation of His form is given." (A sentence from Jamadagni, quoted by the Smarta.)
"According to the nature of His qualities, various forms have been fictitiously given to Him strictly for the benefit of those worshippers who are of slow understanding." (Mahanirvana Tantra.)
The Authority of the Texts
But it is particularly important to notice that there is absolutely no end to the number of Tantras. In the exact same way, the Mahapuranas, Puranas, Upapuranas, Ramayana, etc., are incredibly numerous. Because of this massive number of texts, an excellent rule has been followed from the very beginning: Only the Puranas and Tantras that have respected commentaries, and the specific parts that have been quoted by acknowledged, authoritative expounders, are received as evidence. A sentence quoted merely on the supposed authority of a random Purana or Tantra is not considered valid evidence.
Those numerous Puranas and Tantras that have no recognized commentary and have never been quoted by any established expounder are probably recent compositions. Some Puranas and Tantras are accepted in one province, but the native people of other provinces consider them completely fake. Or rather, what some people in one province acknowledge as holy text, others consider to be merely a recent invention and refuse to accept it. Therefore, we must only regard the Puranas and Tantras that have been officially commented upon or quoted by respectable authors.
A universally accepted rule for figuring out if a book has authority is this: Any book that opposes the Veda is entirely destitute of authority. >"All Smritis which are contrary to the Veda, and all atheistical works, are not conducive to future happiness; they dwell in darkness." (Manu).
The Missionaries' Hypocrisy
However, the missionary gentlemen rarely translate the Upanishads, the ancient Smritis, or the Tantras that are quoted by respectable authors and have always been highly regarded. Instead, they translate the random works that directly oppose the Vedas, that are never quoted by any respectable author, and that have never been regarded as having any authority. They then use these fringe texts to constantly represent the Hindu religion as being very base and degraded.
With the goal of proving the errors of the Puranas and Tantras, you argue that the Puranas represent God as having various names and physical forms, as having a wife and children, and as being subject to the physical senses and bodily functions. From this, you conclude that Hinduism teaches there are many gods, that these gods are subject to sensual pleasure, and that we cannot maintain the omnipresence of God.
I therefore humbly ask the missionary gentlemen these questions:
Do you, or do you not, call Jesus Christ (who possessed a human form) and the Holy Ghost (who possessed the shape of a dove) the "very God"?*
Do you not consider that Jesus Christ—the "very God"—received physical impressions through external organs like his eyes, and operated using active physical organs like his hands?
Do you not consider him to have been subject to human passions? Was he angry or not?*
Was his mind afflicted or not?*
Did he experience suffering or pain?*
Did he not eat and drink?*
Did he not live a long time with his own mother, brothers, and relatives?*
Was he not physically born,* and did he not physically die?*
Did the Holy Ghost—who is the "very God"—not physically move from one place to another in the form of a dove?*
Did he not beget Jesus Christ through his intercourse with a human woman?*
(Footnote: In an 'Abstract' from this number of the Brahmunical Magazine published in 1827, the following biblical references (1 to 10) were added to support these questions:)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him." (Luke 3:22).
"And when he had looked round about on them with anger." (Mark 3:5).
"And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:44).
"Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).
"The Son of man is come eating and drinking." (Luke 7:34).
"And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." (Luke 2:51).
"When Jesus was born in Bethlehem..." (Matthew 2:1).
"And they shall scourge him and put him to death." (Luke 18:33).
(Luke 3:22).
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee..." (Luke 1:35). "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:18).
If the missionaries acknowledge all of this, then they absolutely cannot find fault with the Puranas! They cannot argue that the Puranas are wrong for giving names and physical forms to God, or for describing God as being subject to the senses and possessing bodily organs. They cannot criticize the Puranas for describing God as having a wife and child, or for saying that having a physical form destroys His omnipresence. Why? Because every single one of these supposed errors—the plurality of gods, their physical/sensual indulgence, and their physical locality—applies completely and perfectly to the missionaries' own religion!
To argue that "everything, however contrary to the laws of nature, is possible with God" is a lazy excuse that gives both missionaries and Hindus the exact same pretense to support their own respective physical incarnations of God. The aged sage Vyasa spoke the absolute truth in the Mahabharata:
"O king! A person can easily see the faults of another person, even if they are as tiny as a grain of mustard seed. But even though his own faults are as big as a Bel fruit, he stares right at them and cannot perceive them."
Moreover, the Puranas explicitly state that the names, forms, and sensual indulgences of God that they mention are completely fictitious. They clearly say: "We have only spoken this way to engage the minds of people who have weak understanding." But the missionary gentlemen insist that the account given in the Bible regarding the names, forms, and sensual indulgences of God is 100% physically real. Therefore, the faults you complain about—the plurality of gods, their physical locality, and their subjection to physical indulgence—are only found in a real, literal sense in the system of the missionary gentlemen!
Secondly, the Hindu Puranas and Tantras (which contain these fictitious accounts) are strictly subordinate to the Veda; they are not the Veda itself. When they disagree with the Veda, their authority is completely disregarded.
"When the Veda and the Puranas disagree, the Veda must be regarded. Pious men will always explain the Puranas in a way that agrees with what the Veda declares." (Quotation by the Smarta). But the missionary gentlemen consider the Bible to be their ultimate Veda, and in explaining it literally, they have dishonored God in a very real, literal sense. Therefore, a real error—and a massive excess of error—is discovered entirely within their own system.
The Role of the Spiritual Teacher
You have also asked: "What advantage can be derived from the instructions of a spiritual teacher who is himself ignorant of what he professes to teach? What advantage is there in adopting a spiritual teacher according to the popular, common practice in this country?"
I reply: This objection does not apply to the Hindu Shastras at all! The Shastra strictly commands that a person must choose a spiritual teacher who actually understands what he teaches. If someone chooses any other sort of unqualified teacher, they will obtain absolutely no spiritual benefit or divine knowledge.
"He, taking in his hand the sacrificial wood, must approach a spiritual teacher who is well-read in the Vedas and fully devoted to the faith of Brahman." (Mundaka Upanishad).
"There are many spiritual teachers who simply take the wealth of their disciples; but a spiritual teacher who actually removes the errors of his disciples, O Goddess, is very difficult to obtain." (Tantra).
The definition of a true spiritual teacher: "He is subdued in the members of his body and the affections of his mind, of honorable birth, etc." (Quotation by Krishnananda).
The Future State and Karma
At the end of your argument, you say that according to one Hindu Shastra, a person's physical body repeatedly becomes animate or inanimate based on their works (reincarnation). You say that according to another sect, after leaving the body, there is either the eternal enjoyment of heaven or the eternal endurance of hell. And finally, you claim that according to another sect, there is no future state at all.
I answer: It is not contained in any part of the Hindu Shastras that there is no future state. That is a purely atheistical belief.
But it is true that the Shastras say this: The consequences of some good and some evil works are experienced right here in this world. After death, God inflicts the consequences of the sins and holiness of some people by sending them to hell or heaven. For others, the Supreme Ruler bestows the consequences of their sins and holiness by giving them other bodies, either animate or inanimate.
Where is the mutual disagreement in this that you have attempted to establish? According to the Christian doctrine, there are also various kinds of consequences attached to different actions! God gives the punishment for sins and the rewards for holiness right here in this world, just as He did in the case of the Jews. It is written in the Bible that even in this world, God punished their sins and rewarded their holiness. Furthermore, Jesus Christ himself said that if a person gives alms (charity) openly and publicly, they will receive their reward in this world and it is also written in the Bible that some people have enjoyed good and suffered evil after death.* (Footnote: Matthew 6:2. Note in the third edition. — Ed.)
By saying this, there is no inconsistency in the Bible. Why? Because God is the ultimate rewarder. He gives some people the consequences of their deeds in this world, and others in the next world. Christians all agree that after the physical body is destroyed, God gives a new body to the spirit at the time of judgment, and then He bestows the consequences of its good and evil works onto this corporeal (physical) spirit.
If Christians believe that God can—contrary to the normal laws of Nature—magically give a body to a spirit after death and make it receive the consequences of its works, then why should they express surprise if God does something entirely consistent with the laws of Nature: giving a spirit a body in this world and bestowing the consequences of its works here?
You have claimed that all the inhabitants of the world, except those living in Hindustan, receive no consequences for their works in this life. Such a sentiment is not found in any part of our Shastras! But you also say that all the other inhabitants of the world have no "works." What this actually means is that they have no specific religious rites prescribed to them by the Veda. This is indeed correct. Therefore, the Shastra is perfectly consistent in every respect.
You must consider the Darshanas (the different schools of Hindu philosophy) in the exact same way. All the Darshanas agree that God is completely incomprehensible. But when considering the nature of other objects, the philosophers who understood the meaning of the Veda differently simply expressed themselves differently. In the exact same way, the various commentators on the Christian Bible disagree with each other in some parts! But this disagreement is not considered a fault of the Bible itself, nor does it diminish the reputation of those commentators.
I have now written what I intended regarding the supposed errors that you claimed existed in the Hindu Shastras contrary to reason. The reverend missionaries are currently located in Calcutta, Serampore, and various other places. What I have written below is specifically intended to figure out just how far their own doctrines are agreeable to reason.
They call Jesus Christ the "Son of God" and the "very God." How can the son be the exact same person as the very Father?
They sometimes call Jesus Christ the "Son of man," and yet they say no human man was his father!
They say that God is exactly one, and yet they say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
They say that God must be worshipped purely in spirit, and yet they worship Jesus Christ as the "very God," even though he was possessed of a physical, material body.
They say that the Son is of the exact same essence and existence as the Father, and they also say that the Son is equal to the Father. But how can equality exist except between objects that possess different essences and existences?
I shall be very much obliged by answers to these inquiries.
(Signed) SHIVAPRASAD SARMA.
NUMBER III
(Continuing a response to the Editor of the "Friend of India")...
...of reason. If the Editor had simply acknowledged this, it might have saved him the reluctant avowal that the very foundation of his own system of faith is totally unreasonable. The Editor, however, attempts to force people to believe this doctrine—which is palpably contrary to all reason and experience—under the following plea:
"There are many things that happen around us and inside of us that we cannot form a just idea of, yet no one doubts their truth. We do not know exactly how plants and trees draw physical matter from the earth and transform it into leaves, flowers, and fruits, although no one questions the fact that it happens. Nor do we know exactly how the mind acts upon physical matter to enable a man to simply will his hand to raise to his head, and then use it to perform the hardest physical labor. Until we completely comprehend the exact manner in which these daily operations on matter are effected—things that constantly pass around and within us—we have very little reason to complain just because the triune God has not condescended to inform us of the precise, exact mode in which His infinite and glorious nature exists and acts."
How is it possible for the Editor, or for anyone possessed of basic common sense, to not perceive the gross, glaring error of drawing an analogy between everyday things happening around us and the concept of three distinct persons existing as one Godhead? Trees and minds are around us and within us, but the Trinity exists only in the imagination of the missionaries.* (Footnote: 'The missionaries' is the reading of the third edition; in the first two editions, it was 'Christians.' — Ed.)
The growth of a tree, its production of leaves and flowers, and the operation of the human mind on the human body are all facts that are commonly perceived by all men, whether they are Christians or not. Denying that these things happen is utterly impossible for anyone who possesses basic physical senses. It is very true that we do not thoroughly understand the exact, microscopic manner in which plants grow or the mind operates, or the precise scientific principles that act upon them. But all these facts amount to is this: things around us or within us, whether they are visible themselves or demonstrated by visible facts, compel our conviction because we experience them!
Do the three distinct persons of the Godhead in unity exist in a way we can experience, like growing trees or physical bodies joined to minds? Are they phenomena commonly perceived by anyone, even Christians? Or are they more like mountains of ice in the northern countries? Even though we have never seen or felt a mountain of ice ourselves, eye-witnesses have reported them to us. Crucially, their reports are not contradicted by other people who have passed through those exact same places where the ice mountains are said to exist, and where they are visible to anyone who goes there. Because of this, we are compelled to believe in their existence.
Must we be forced to believe in the existence of the triune God exactly like we believe in growing trees, operating minds, or mountains of ice, even though we cannot understand them—or rather, even though we find the concept of the Trinity exactly contrary to everything we do understand?
Christians may perhaps consider the Trinity to be "perceptible" to them simply through the overwhelming force of the instructions they received when they were children. This is exactly how the followers of the Tantric doctrines among Hindus in Bengal consider God to consist of five distinct persons while remaining one God. And it is exactly how the majority of modern Hindus esteem the concept of numerous physical incarnations under one Godhead as an "experienced fact" based purely on their early childhood habits.
How can Christians—who generally (and justly) pride themselves on their cultivated understanding and logic—admit such a deeply flawed analogy, or justify anyone using such sophistries to mislead others? The only excuse I feel inclined to make for them (and it is perhaps a true one) is this: the enlightened, educated people among them—just like several of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers—simply yield to these vulgar, popular opinions out of social policy, even though they are fully sensible that the opinions are completely unjustifiable.
I am, however, very sorry to observe that the minds of a great number of Christians are so heavily biased in favor of the Trinity doctrine (due to the strong impressions made on them by their education in youth) that they can readily defy the suggestions of their own senses, logic, and life experience just to defend this doctrine. They eagerly accuse Brahminical priests of having an unjust, manipulative ascendancy over their pupils, yet they completely forget how greatly Christians are influenced by their own ministers! This influence is so strong that it causes them to completely overlook the obvious errors of an analogy like the one above, and others of a similar nature.
The Editor's Contradictions on the Trinity
The Editor first declares that "the Bible forbears to inform us exactly how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist," etc., and that "the triune God has not condescended to inform us of the precise mode in which His infinite and glorious nature exists and acts."
Nevertheless, the Editor then proceeds to use the authority of the Bible to particularize the exact mode of their existence and actions, describing them separately and distinctly! He states:
That "the Son" who has existed with the Father from eternity actually "created heaven and earth."
That "from his infinite pity for sinful men, he condescended to lay aside his glory for a season."
That "taking on himself the form of a servant, he might worship and obey the Father as his God."
That "he prayed his Father to glorify him only with his own glory which he had with his Father before the foundation of the world, and which for a season he had laid aside."
That "he was permitted to ascend up where he was before."
And lastly, that "he was seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high," who "gave him as mediator all power in heaven and earth."
He also states that "God the Spirit" was pleased to testify to men his approbation (approval) of the Son becoming incarnate by "visibly descending upon him in the form of a dove."
Notwithstanding their completely different physical locations, different actions, and distinct existences, the Editor represents them all as exactly ONE, and he demands that the rest of the world believe in their absolute unity!
Is it possible to even conceive, for a single moment, the absolute identity and unity between three Beings when one of them is in heaven expressing his pleasure at the conduct of the second; while the second is on the earth performing religious rites; and the third is residing between heaven and earth, physically descending on the second at the direct will of the first?
If the extreme difference of their physical bodies, their physical situations, their actions, and their employments is not sufficient to completely destroy the idea of their absolute identity and real unity as persons, then there would be absolutely no means left to ever distinguish one person from another! There would be no criterion left to consider a tree different from a rock, or a bird different from a man.
Is this truly the doctrine the Editor ascribes to God? Can any book that contains an idea that completely defies the use of basic human senses be considered worthy of being ascribed to that Being who intentionally endowed the human race with senses and understanding specifically for our use and guidance? As long as men actually use their senses and faculties (unless they are hopelessly sunk in early childhood prejudices), they can never be expected to be deluded by logical circumlocutions that are not only completely beyond understanding, but directly contrary to basic experience and the evidence of the senses.
God the Son is declared by the Editor to have intentionally "laid aside his glory" for a season, to have "prayed his Father to give him the same glory" back, and to have taken the "form of a servant." Is it consistent with the nature of the immutable (unchanging) God to lay aside any part of His condition and then have to pray to get it back? Is it conformable to the nature of the Supreme Ruler of the universe to take the physical form of a servant, even if it is only for a season? Is this truly the idea of God that the Editor maintains?
Even the idolaters among the Hindus have much more plausible excuses for their polytheism! I shall be obliged if the Editor can prove that the polytheistical doctrines maintained by Hindus are, in any degree, more unreasonable than his own. If he cannot prove this, I trust he will not try in the future to introduce one set of polytheistical sentiments among the Hindus simply as a substitute for another set of polytheistical sentiments—especially since both sets are equally and solely protected by the convenient shield of "mystery."
The Hypocrisy Regarding Animal Forms
The Editor officially acknowledges the fact that God appeared in the shape of a dove to testify to the appointment of God the Son, stating that "when God renders Himself visible to man, it must be by appearing in some physical form."
But I wonder how, after making such an acknowledgment, the Editor can turn around and ridicule the idea of God appearing in the shape of a fish or a cow, which is an idea entertained by the Pauranik (mythological) Hindus! Is a fish not as innocent as a dove? Is a cow not much more useful than a pigeon?
Clarifying the Holy Ghost Question
All that I originally said about the Holy Ghost was this: "Did not the Holy Ghost, who is very God, in the form of a dove remove from one place to another? And did he not beget Jesus Christ by his divine intercourse with a woman?"
In the first question, I was alluding to his physical descent onto Jesus Christ in the shape of a dove during his baptism. In the second, I was alluding to his having begotten Christ with a woman who was not married to him. This is perfectly evident from their own Scriptures: "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:18) and "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" (Luke 1:35).
Both of these literal circumstances were solemnly acknowledged by the Editor. But how or why the Editor infers from this that I am "misrepresenting the fact" or "attempting to ridicule the doctrine," I am completely unable to discover!
Worshipping in Spirit vs. Worshipping a Body
As to my fourth question: "They say that God must be worshipped in spirit, and yet they worship Jesus Christ as very God, although he was possessed of a material body."
The Editor gave a highly evasive answer. He says, "Christians worship Jesus Christ, and not his body separately from him."
I never charged Christians in my question with worshipping the physical body of Jesus Christ separately from himself! Therefore, the Editor cannot be justified in denying that Christians worship him and not his body. In fact, the Editor openly confesses their adoration of Jesus Christ as the "very God" in a material, physical form! Nevertheless, he attempts to maintain that they worship God "in spirit."
If we admit that worshipping a spirit that possesses a material, physical body counts as "worship in spirit," then we must immediately stop imputing idolatry to any religious sect! Why? Because absolutely none of them adore mere physical matter completely unconnected with a spirit!
Did the ancient Greeks and Romans worship the physical bodies of Jupiter and Juno and their other supposed gods separately from their respective spirits? Are the miraculous works they ascribed to these gods not absolute proof that they viewed them as spirits connected with physical bodies? Do the idolaters among the Hindus worship the assumed physical forms of their incarnations completely divested of their spirit? Nothing of the kind! Even when worshipping physical idols, Hindus do not consider them to be objects of worship until they have performed Pranapratishtha, which is the ritual communication of divine life and spirit into the object.
According to the specific definition given by the Editor, absolutely none of these people can be supposed to be idolaters, because they never worship the physical body separately from the spirit! But in actual fact, any worship performed through either an artificial physical form or an imaginary material representation is nothing but pure idolatry.
Three Omnipotent Beings?
Moreover, the Editor says that "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are also described in scripture as equally giving grace and peace to man, as pardoning sin, and as leading men in the paths of righteousness. These are things that omniscience, omnipotence, infinite love, and infinite mercy can alone perform."
I do not know of any polytheistical system that is more clear than this exact description provided by the Editor! He is directly declaring the existence of three separate Beings who are equally omniscient, equally omnipotent, and equally possessed of infinite mercy.
I must ask: Is the omnipotence, omniscience, and infinite mercy of one person sufficient to arrange the universal system and preserve its harmony, or is it not?
If the power of one person is sufficient, then admitting the omnipotence and omniscience of a second and a third person is completely superfluous and absurd.
But if the power of one person is not sufficient, then why should we stop at the number three? Why not carry on the numeration until the number of omnipotent Beings becomes at least equal to the number of heavenly bodies, assigning each Being the management of their own specific globe?
Because Europeans generally display great skill in conducting political affairs and creating mechanical inventions, foreigners very often conclude that their religious doctrines must be equally reasonable. But as soon as any foreigner is made acquainted with the actual doctrines professed by the Editor and by a great number of his countrymen,* he will firmly believe that religious truth has absolutely no connection with political or mechanical success!
(Footnote: "With the histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans" is the reading of the third edition, replacing "by a great number of his countrymen." — Ed.)
Equality and Existence
My fifth question was: "How can equality subsist except between objects possessed of different essences and existences?"
The Editor only repeats a part of it (i.e., how the son can be equal with the father when he possesses the same nature) and then declares the question "unintelligible."
I never meant that it is impossible for equality to exist between persons or things that possess the same nature. We often find equality in some property subsisting between one man and another man, even though they both possess the exact same human nature. But absolute equality cannot subsist except between things that have different (distinct) existences!
Since the professed belief of the missionary gentleman was that the Son is the exact same in existence as well as in nature as the Father, I took the liberty to ask: How can the Son be equal with the Father when he is supposed to possess the exact same nature and the exact same existence? Unless they deny that the Son has the same existence as the Father, I do not think they can logically maintain his equality with the Father. I therefore presume my question is perfectly intelligible.
As to my second remark ("They sometimes call Jesus Christ the son of man, and yet say no man was his father"), the Editor makes the following reply...
The Editor writes:
"While incarnate, he unavoidably displayed his divine nature in many ways. But because he was born of a woman and was exactly like us in his human nature (yet without sin), he condescended to call himself the 'Son of man,' even though no human man was actually his father."
I am amazed that the Editor warmly tries to prove the absolute deity and divine inspiration of Jesus Christ, yet simultaneously accuses him of declaring something completely contrary to the facts! He claims Christ "condescended" to call himself the Son of Man when he had no human father at all.
I am also surprised by the Editor's massive inconsistency. He happily justifies this false, allegorical statement made by his own Lord. However, he fiercely accuses the Hindu mythological authors (the Pauraniks) of telling lies, simply because the Puranas use allegorical representations of God to instruct people with weak minds. The Puranas explicitly and repeatedly confess that their instructions are allegorical, and they clearly explain their motives for using them! Furthermore, the Editor falsely accuses one of the respected commentators of the Veda of lying, simply because that commentator instructed ignorant people using parables. Based entirely on this single circumstance, the Editor condemns the entire Hindu system!
Anthropomorphism in the Bible
In the Editor's own reply, he uses the phrase "at the right hand of God" as a literal scriptural expression. I therefore ask: Does the phrase "the right hand of God" imply a true, physical representation of God, or not?
I find the following expressions in the very first three chapters of the Bible:
"He (God) rested on the seventh day from all his work."
"The Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day."
"And (God) said unto him (Adam), where art thou?"
Did Moses use the word "rested" to mean that God literally stopped working because He was fatigued, thereby attempting to prove that God is mutable (subject to change)? Did the phrase "God walked in the cool of the day" mean that God literally moved around using physical legs, just like ordinary men do to avoid the heat of the weather? Did the question "Where are you?" imply that the omniscient (all-knowing) God was actually ignorant of Adam's location?
If so, Moses had incredibly strange, primitive ideas about Jehovah—ideas barely any better than the beliefs held by the heathens of his time! However, I am inclined to think that Moses simply used these physical expressions to adapt to the limited understanding of the ignorant Jews of his day, without making himself guilty of spreading falsehoods. In fact, Christians inform me that this was the exact opinion held by the ancient Christian teachers called the "Fathers of the Church," as well as by many modern, highly educated Christians.
The "Moral Death" of the Native People
The Editor expresses his joy at perceiving that "the native people have finally begun to arouse themselves from that state of morbid apathy and insensibility, which is a certain symptom of moral death and a universal corruption of manners," etc.
I cannot help but feel deep compassion for the Editor's total and complete ignorance regarding the literary work and domestic conduct of the native community, especially considering how long he has lived in India! Over just the past few years, hundreds of books on various complex subjects—such as Theology, Law, Logic, Grammar, and Astronomy—have been written by the native people of Bengal alone. I am not surprised that the Editor knows nothing about these works, because he (along with almost all his missionary colleagues) intentionally shuts his eyes to absolutely anything that might bring even the smallest credit to the native people.
As for the "moral death" the Editor accuses us of, I could easily draw a direct comparison between the domestic conduct of the native Indians and the domestic conduct of the inhabitants of Europe to show where the grossest moral deficiency actually lies. However, because such a dispute is entirely irrelevant to our current controversy, I will restrain myself from discussing such a disagreeable subject, as I fear it would only cause general displeasure.
Abusive Language in Debate
Regarding the abusive terms the Editor uses—such as calling Hinduism the work of the "Father of lies alone," referencing the "impure fables of his false gods," and insulting the "pretended gods of Hindus"—common decency prevents me from using similar language in return. We must remember that we have engaged in a solemn religious debate, not a contest of shouting abuse at each other.
I will conclude this reply by expressing my hope that when the Editor reads this, he will arrange his observations methodically and give a direct answer to each of my five questions in order. This will allow the public to easily judge the arguments employed by both sides.
THE BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE OR THE MISSIONARY AND THE BRAHMUN
(To be continued occasionally)
No. IV
Calcutta: 1823
Preface
Despite my humble request in the third number of this magazine to avoid using offensive expressions in our religious controversy, I was greatly surprised and concerned to read a small tract recently published by one of the missionary presses and distributed by missionary gentlemen. This tract makes direct charges of atheism against the doctrines of the Vedas, and it casts completely undeserved insults upon us as their followers. This attack has forced me to publish a fourth number of the Brahmunical Magazine after a gap of two years.
In accordance with the mild, liberal spirit of universal toleration—which is well known to be a fundamental principle of Hinduism—I have absolutely no desire to oppose any system of religion, much less Christianity. My respect for the feelings of Christians would normally restrain me from exposing the errors of their religion. However, these errors have been forced upon my notice by the indiscreet, aggressive assaults that Christian writers continue to make against the Hindu religion.
When these writers do not hesitate to deeply wound the feelings of a Hindu by attacking the inspired Vedas—the most ancient and sacred oracles of his faith, which have been revered from generation to generation since time immemorial—should a Hindu simply submit to this wanton aggression? Should he not try to convince these gentlemen that, to use the language of their own Scripture, they "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24)? By responding, I hope they might at least learn a practical lesson in Charity—a virtue they are very quick to preach to others, even while completely ignoring the direct precept given by their own God: "Do unto others as you would wish to be done by." This rule clearly implies that if you want others to treat your religion with respect, you must not throw offensive insults at the religion of others.
I will still be extremely glad to enter into a detailed, minute investigation of the comparative merits of our respective religions, especially if the Christian writers conduct the debate using moderate, decorous language that is worthy of educated men and sincere seekers of truth.
(Footnote: In 1827, the second chapter of this specific issue was republished with the following introduction: "In the following pages, there will be found an extract on the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Atonement. It is taken from the Brahmunical Magazine No. 4, published in 1823 by Shivaprasad Sarma, in reply to the attacks made by the Christian missionaries at Serampore against the religion of the Brahmins. Readers will form their own judgment regarding the reasoning employed within it. Calcutta, 1827.")
The Absurdity of the Trinity and the "God-Man"
(Continuing from the omitted middle sections of Number IV...)
I consider the doctrine of the Trinity and the idea of a "Man-God" or "God-Man" to be completely unnatural and pregnant with absurdity. It is not merely an innocent, harmless speculation.
If British missionaries feel they are under an obligation to preach Christianity to the native people of India, they should focus exclusively on the practical, moral parts of Christianity. They owe this to the glory of their own nation (which holds such a prominent position among the people of the East) and to their own reputation as educated, literary men. They should completely hide the doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that God and Man (or God, Man, and Angel) have a two- or three-fold nature. To say the least, preaching these absurd doctrines severely damages the reputation of the British people, making them look foolish both as educated scholars and as religious believers.
The "Breaden God" vs. The "God-Man"
It is a common characteristic of Protestant writers to ruthlessly mock any other religious system they disapprove of. For example, some of their most famous writers have aggressively attacked the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation (the belief that the communion bread becomes the literal flesh of Christ). They have gone so far as to mock the Catholics by calling the communion bread the Panarious Deus, or the "Breaden God."
On this occasion, I simply ask those Protestant gentlemen—who believe they are perfectly justified in believing that a physical human body was literally filled with all the fullness of the Godhead through supernatural power—how can they violently object to the Catholics believing that a piece of bread is filled with the divine spirit through that exact same supernatural power? If Protestants can mockingly call Catholics the "worshippers of a Breaden God," what should we call the professors of the Trinity?
The Infinite Distance Between God and Man
In fact, anyone who is unable to perceive the infinite, massive distance between the supreme, eternal Being and a mortal human must surely confess—if they possess any basic reasoning faculties at all—that they have grossly abused their intellect when contemplating the nature of the Deity.
The immense distance between human nature and divine nature cannot be erased or diminished by the efforts of any mortal being. Therefore, anyone who accepts a human man (whether dead or alive) as his God voluntarily sinks himself to an unfathomable distance below the level of the human species. If that person then turns around and presumes to claim the rank of a man, he is effectively elevating his own nature to equal that of his God! He is justly chargeable with gross inconsistency.
Indeed, I do not see what stops his fellow believers (his fellow "man-worshippers") from accusing him of absolute blasphemy for making himself equal with God. I also do not see how rational men can avoid viewing him as the tragic victim of early childhood prejudices—regardless of how many sciences he has studied, how many books he has written, what lofty academic titles he has been awarded, or how much contempt he affects to show toward the genuine Brahminical religion.
True Hinduism vs. Popular Corruption
I specifically say the genuine Brahminical religion—the religion taught by the Vedas and interpreted by the inspired Manu—and not the corrupt, popular system of worship adopted by the uneducated multitude.
If a Christian insists on treating this corrupted popular system as the true standard of Hinduism, then a Hindu would be equally justified in taking the corrupted popular system of Christianity as its true standard. That Christian system—which prevailed almost universally in Europe before the 15th century, and is still followed by the vast majority of Christians today (namely Catholics, Greeks, and Armenians)—is filled with idols, crucifixes, saints, supposed miracles, buying financial pardons for sins, the Trinity, transubstantiation, holy relics, holy water, and a massive amount of other idolatrous machinery.
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, rhetorical question, and historical reference from the original text without summarizing it.
The Doctrine of the Atonement
Regarding the Christian doctrine of the atonement, Christians give us to understand that God the Father was deeply offended by the transgressions of the human race. He resolved (even against the suggestions of His own mercy) that He would not forgive humanity unless an adequate sacrifice was offered to Him. He did this so that His justice would not be disregarded or overpowered by the influence of His mercy.
Following this resolution by God the Father, God the Son felt great compassion toward these men who were guilty of sins deserving death. The Son took human nature upon himself and offered his own life to God the Father as an adequate atonement. By offering his blood for the remission of sins, he thereby reconciled to God the Father as many men as would believe in this sacrifice.
However, the missionary gentlemen simultaneously maintain that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are all equally merciful, equally just, and equally averse to sin.
Yet, according to their own story, the Father strictly prioritized preserving the balance of power between Mercy and Justice. He refused to let His Mercy violate His Justice, insisting that human sins could not be forgiven unless a human sacrifice was made directly to Him. On the other hand, the Son was influenced much more by mercy and was totally regardless of justice; he condescended to assume human nature and bear the punishment for human sin. By offering himself as a sacrifice, he washed away their transgressions with his blood without expecting any sacrifice to be made to him to satisfy his own justice! Meanwhile, God the Holy Ghost took absolutely no part whatsoever in performing this sacrifice—neither as the one satisfying justice nor as the one being satisfied—and remained completely neutral.
Given these facts, is it not entirely evident that God the Father is much more strict about observing Justice than God the Son? Is it not evident that God the Father was much less liable to the influence of Mercy than God the Son? And is it not evident that God the Holy Ghost manifested absolutely neither Mercy nor Justice in this sacrificial atonement? Do these circumstances not completely overthrow the very doctrine these gentlemen preach—namely, that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are all equally just and equally merciful?
Logical Objections to the Atonement
Secondly: Christians ascribe the attribute of justice to God based on the human understanding of that concept. For example, they argue that just as a human judge cannot be so influenced by mercy that he forgives a man guilty of capital crimes without inflicting the death penalty, God can never violate His own justice by letting His mercy forgive deadly sins without inflicting extreme punishment.
Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that divine justice can be viewed according to the standard of human justice, I must ask: Is it consistent with the human notion of justice to release millions of guilty people who deserve death, and instead inflict the death penalty upon a completely different person (whether God or man) who never participated in their crimes, even if that innocent person volunteered to die? Is it not a massive violation of justice, according to human standards, to put an innocent person to a painful death for the transgressions of others? This is especially true considering that Jesus, in his human capacity, manifested very great reluctance to face that death, as is clearly admitted in the account of his life in Matthew 26:37–39.
Thirdly: Sins are divided into two categories: sins committed purely against God, and sins committed against God and man (such as theft, robbery, deception, etc.).
Therefore, I wish to know: Is it not an entire disregard of human justice for sins committed against one person to be forgiven by a completely different person, without the actual victim's consent? Is it not a total infringement of justice for God the Son to use his blood to wash away the sins of theft, robbery, or murder committed by one man against another, while completely disregarding the individual sufferings of the victims?
Furthermore, if Christians truly imagine that true believers in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ have had all their past sins—both against God and against their fellow men—washed away by his blood, aren't they being extremely presumptuous and hypocritical when they inflict punishments on their fellow Christians for crimes? They punish people knowing full well that an absolute atonement has already been made for those exact crimes by the blood of their God shed on the cross! Yet, every single day, we see Christians inflicting severe punishments upon one another for their sins, completely ignoring the supposed remission of those sins purchased through their faith in Christ's sacrifice.
Fourthly: These gentlemen believe that the Son only washes away the sins of those who place their specific faith in his vicarious sacrifice, not the sins of mankind in general. This clearly shows that the Son's act of pardoning human sins proceeds from a "reciprocal consideration" (a transactional bargain), rather than from infinite mercy toward mankind.
According to this doctrine, millions of people living in remote countries, islands, and mountains—who have never even heard the name of Christianity—have died in sin ever since Christ offered his sacrifice. They died without ever having the power or opportunity to enter into this necessary bargain for forgiveness by offering their faith in return for Christ's atonement.
Meanwhile, those who have the privilege of being born in countries where they can easily acquire this faith rely on it as the currency to purchase their own salvation. Inconsistently, these same people condemn their fellow Christians who hope to be saved through living a virtuous life and offering sincere repentance, accusing them of arrogance and self-sufficiency for pretending they can be saved by their own merits. Yet, it is blatantly obvious that the people who boast about their faith are the ones who are actually guilty of pride and self-sufficiency! They think they are fully entitled to salvation based on their single merit of "faith," while simultaneously treating the merits of others with contempt—even though those other people humbly consider that both faith and good works proceed entirely from the grace of God.
The Irrationality of the Christian Faith
These gentlemen are very quick to find fault with and ascribe unreasonableness to every other system of religion, while completely shutting their eyes to the total lack of reason and rationality in the faith they themselves profess and preach.
For is there any notion more unreasonable, or more conducive to immoral behavior, than the idea that God physically possesses blood, and that God offered His own blood to Himself in order to reconcile Himself with any humans who place their faith in that blood, regardless of how incredibly guilty those humans might be of offending God and violently injuring their fellow creatures?
The Reality of Missionary Conversions
As for their attempts to convert Hindus to the Christian faith: after a quarter of a century of exertion, these teachers of strange doctrines must now be convinced by practical experience that no grown native of India who possesses common sense and common honesty will ever be persuaded to believe in their self-contradictory creed. They must realize that their religious efforts will remain useless unless they adopt—or are enabled to adopt—unfair and coercive means to promote Christianity.
The Hindu population in Bengal has been increasing with uncommon rapidity due to the practice of early marriage, their habit of living continuously at home or very close to their birthplace, and the enjoyment of local comfort under the peaceful rule of the British nation. However, at the same time, they are prohibited from engaging in foreign trade by their religious prejudices, they are prevented from entering military service due to their habitual aversion to war, and they no longer receive the tax-free gifts of land that used to greatly encourage an idle life in former times.
Because of these factors, many families have already become very poor, and an even greater number must, sooner or later, be reduced to severe poverty. Therefore, it is highly probable that the weakest and neediest among them may eventually be induced by the hope of worldly, financial advantages to sell their consciences and their religion. This would happen in the exact same manner that a great many Israelites in Europe have been persuaded to profess Christianity: driven by severe political policies adopted against Jews on one hand, and the financial encouragement to apostatize offered by European conversion societies on the other.
The True Hindu Creed
I shall now, in a few words, lay down our actual religious creed for the information of the missionary gentlemen.
In strict conformity with the precepts of our ancient religion contained in the Holy Vedant (even though these precepts are sadly disregarded by the majority of modern Hindus), we look up to exactly ONE BEING as the animating and regulating principle of the entire collective body of the universe. We look to Him as the origin of all individual souls, which vivify and govern their particular physical bodies in a somewhat similar manner.
We absolutely reject Idolatry in every single form, regardless of whatever veil of philosophical sophistry is used to justify it, whether it involves the adoration of an artificial, a natural, or an imaginary object.
The divine homage which we offer consists solely in the practical exercise of Duya—meaning active benevolence and compassion toward each other. It does not consist in a fanciful, blind faith, nor does it consist in performing certain physical motions with our feet, legs, arms, head, tongue, or other bodily organs while standing in a pulpit or bowing before a temple.
Among other subjects in our solemn devotion, we frequently offer up our humble thanks to God for the blessings of British Rule in India, and we sincerely pray that it may continue its beneficent operation for centuries to come.
(Signed) SHIVUPRUSAD SURMA.
CALCUTTA, November 15, 1823.
Comments
Post a Comment