Hinduism?
Krishnaji on Hinduism
We reproduce the following paragraph from the writings of Mr. J. Krishnamurthi in the New India, which is reprinted in Miss. Mayo’s “Slaves of the Gods” as a sort of an introduction to the book. This gives in a nutshell the characteristic features of the present day Hinduism. The writer’s definition of caste, we hope, will serve as an eye opener to the Varnashramites of the type of Pandit Malaviya.
“We have a splendid spiritual heritage; but it has grown stale and profitless through the lack of the one thing which alone can keep any tradition fresh and profitable; and that is the spirit of real affection and consideration for others. The most potent survivals from our immemorial past are now what – crystallized cruelties and selfishness, infant marriage, the heartless restrictions which we place on widows, our treatment of women, generally the whole system of untouchablity, what are these but matters in which the dead weight of custom has crushed out of us the ordinary decent feelings which should sweeten and harmonize the life of human beings? And what is caste itself but a system of organized selfishness….These and many similar things are our heritage today; and it is under the weight of this heritage that we are groaning.”
Revolt, 30 June 1929
Well done Krishnaji!
We have been closely following the later developments of Mr. J. Krishnamurthi of the Theosophical Society. His recent speeches and writings show a fresher mind and a broader outlook. He goes at a more rapid space with the current of progress than before. He has realized that “Today is richer than yesterday, more full, more lovely but only the wise, the thoughtful, the free of heart, realise the beauty of that” He is looking upon life not in a way in which it was expected of him by his followers and admirers. We understand that he has announced the dissolution of the Theosophical Order of the Star of the East on the ground “that the interests of the world in Truth could not be roused by proseletysing through organisations”. It is indeed a matter for gratification that he has made the timely announcement that truth cannot be arrived at by organized associations or religions. He has begun to feel the greater importance of Truth than high sounding names of organizations. Whether the order of the East is permanently dissolved or not we are certain it would serve the purpose which it is intended to.
Revolt, 11 August 1929
Order of the Star: Why Abolished?
Some light on Mr. J. Krishnamurthi’s sudden decision to dissolve the Order of the Star of the East is thrown by the following passage in the last Bulletin of that Order.
“No religion, sect or society holds the Truth. The moment you organize thought, it becomes a religion and it is dead… . You are all so much concerned with the helping of another. It is a lovely thing… just to help another; but… your influence is tyrannous. You want every one to be of a particular kind and that is why you have all these religions, these acts of morality… Organizations purely for business and other necessities are essential; organizations for spiritual purposes, for increasing membership or systematizing thought, are of no value… Most men struggle in the search for truth and this struggle ends when they join a religious movement. What is essential is the understanding of life, and this one does not necessarily gain by joining a society… Most people seek comfort in an organization or church and hence their effort to understand life stops when they join a society… It is useless to try to establish order and harmony in the world through groups and organisations while the individuals themselves are chastic (sic), inharmonious and disturbed”.
Revolt, 18 August 1929
Religion in Danger?
Ever since the beginning of humanity whether it is from ape or stone, there must have been differences of opinion between man and man. And naturally there should have been as many opinions in the world as there were human beings. This generalization is not only applicable to the past, but it holds good even now. Differences of opinion, for the most part, exist not about points of fact, but always about the interpretations of the individual. For example, there is the un-common commodity commonly called common-sense which determines by the perception of the senses, that a stone is a stone, and nothing else. Individuals may disagree as to the use of the material, and everyone has the liberty to hold a different opinion as to the use of the stone, until he is convinced of his error. But if the individual takes the liberty of calling a stone, something else, and if he sticks to it with a firm resolve, then he is generally called by his neighbours, a madman. If he invokes the help of god in his protest against the opinions of his neighbours he finds himself within the four walls of a dark room.
That is just the case that we are experiencing today in the so-called cultured world of the 20th century. Commonsense tells every man or woman that religion is not any commodity dropped from the high heavens. It tells that religion is merely a code of laws enacted by a certain community of human beings, for the purpose of leading a peaceful life in this mundane world. This is a point of fact which every school-boy knows, and a fact, over which differences of opinion ought not to exist, as far as people claim to be six-sensed animals. If under any circumstances, an individual disagrees as to the human origin of religion, he has set down either as a fool or as a hypocrite. Granting this then as an indisputable fact, religious differences and opinions spring from the respective capacities of the individual’s understanding and interpretation. And Aristotle has wisely observed that “man is a warring animal.” And the animal takes religion also as one of the reasons to war with his brother which itself goes to prove that the “All merciful God” could not have created so very diversifying religions, and thus set His own creations one against the other.
“‘The cultured world”, and especially our country which is world-famous for its “ancient enlightening civilization”, raises a loud cry, of “religion in danger” in this advanced age. And there is an enormous waste of the precious time in the short span of human life, over this futile cry. Human energy has to be spent upon these irresponsible and havoc (sic) working elements, who cry “religion in danger”. History tells us that many religions have died a premature death, and experience also tells us that many are dying little by little; which again goes to prove that religion is only man made. Other religions of the world except ours are rapidly changing to suit the present day culture and civilization. The speedy progress of humanity cannot be checked by means of any rigid commandments of religion. And the world has realized in recent years that religion is the opium of life. That is the reason why the tendency of the people is rather towards the abolition of religions than rigid adherence to them.
The condition in India is however quite different. Here is a religion, whose name is not found in any of the so called religious books of the “Hindus” and whose sole credit lies in its undeterminable origin and time. But many of its followers say that the Vedas is the authority for their religion. The Vedas is again hypocritically said to be written in a language delivered by the Almighty Himself. It is supposed to be written in an unspoken dead language, which should be heard and read only by a divine-descended population of 3% of the “Hindus”. 97% of the population are given the appellation of “Sudras,” which means “either slaves or sons of Brahmins’ concubines”. If these “Sudras” make bold to read the Vedas, their tongues are to be cut off; if they hear the Vedas, their ears are to be filled with molten lead; if they keep any portion of the Vedas in their heart (?) their hearts are to be blown.
But happily under the present Raj, Max Mullers have defied the orders, and their tongues are safe! We can understand something if the Brahmins cry that “Hinduism is in danger”. For it is an accepted fact that Hinduism is nothing but pure, unsullied Brahminism. All the definitions of Hinduism tell the same truth. And the actual working of the religion corroborates the statement. But what we fail to understand is the reasons for the Non-Brahmins’ cry of “religion in danger.” Let the Non Brahmins pause for a moment and think leisurely what is their position in Hinduism. Let them not blindly follow the footsteps of the “bhoosuras”. Let them clearly understand what is the bedrock upon which Hinduism is built. It is also to be noted that all other minor religions in India, whether it is Saivaism, Vaishnavism, or any Ism, are the offshoots of Brahminism (Hinduism.) This is an irrefutable truth which can be justified by the non-existence of authoritative texts without the influence of Brahminism. And no one can deny that Brahminism is founded on Varanashrama Dharma, which has divided our people into four castes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. The second and the third kinds are said to have disappeared before the “Kaliyuga” and the first and the last alone are said to exist now. The first is the face-born, and the last is the “feet born” The latter, in its turn, is again divided into thousands of sub-castes, each fighting for its superiority of birth. Thus we see that Varnashrama, the basis of Hinduism is the real cause of the multifarious divisions into which 97% of the population have been shattered.
Now we ask, whose religion is in danger? If the present day civilization threatens Hinduism with destruction, what does it matter to those who are denied any privilege in the same religion? It has become the fashion of orthodoxy to raise the cry of “religion in danger,” whenever any attempt is made to introduce reforms in society and our people also quite unwittingly join the chorus without knowing that they are bringing down ruin upon themselves. The “bhoosuras,” raise this cry only when their interests are at stake. When it is a question of all people using temples, tanks, roads and other public resorts, or stopping all rites and ceremonials, or doing away with the caste system, then religion is certainly in danger. But on the other hand if it is a matter of the Brahmins sailing to foreign lands, or learning a “mlecha” tongue or sending girls to schools and colleges, or serving under a “heathen”, then there is no danger for religion. It is only the fashion of the times.
We are pained to see that our people do not realize their situation. The “salt of the land” is notorious for its mud-slinging practices, and it has a glorious record behind it of having destroyed Buddhism in the land of its birth. It has a brilliant record of hypocrisy of having defeated the attempts of many social reformers in introducing innovations in religion and society. The slogan of “Religion in Danger” has stood them in good stead in their heartless endeavours. And we are sorry to note that history is repeating itself. Jainism, Buddhism, and other reformed religions received a severe blow at the hands of the Brahmins, for the mere fault of leveling up the Castes. It is enough if there is an aim at the destruction of Varanashrama. The ire of the face-born is roused, and there is the inevitable cry of “religion in danger”. For, it is the only nourishment upon which Brahminism lives. When once it is destroyed, woe unto the 3%! That is the reason why caste has corroded even into Christianity in India. Evidently, there is the symptom of the beginning of its ruin also.
If India still allows itself to be carried away by the canine qualities of orthodoxy, there is no salvation in the near future. Unless we make use of the foreign Raj to establish a new order of things, conducive to the formation of a healthier society both mentally and physically, we are sure to be trodden underneath the iron heels of orthodoxy, when Swaraj, or the Raj of the “Suttee” and “impalement” comes into being. We desire to warn our people of the impending danger of lending ears to the cry of “religion in danger”. Will the people wake up to this roguish rigmarole?
Revolt, 22 May 1929
Hinduism Cannot Perish?
“However hard the Islamic and Christian Missionaries may strive, Hinduism will not die. For its philosophy gives it a unique place in the needs of the Human race” writes Hari Charan Muzumdar in Prabhuddha Bharata.
We wish to inform the writer that the 7 crores of Muslims and 50 lakhs of Christians in India have not been imported from Arabia and Jerusalem. We appreciate the robust optimism of the writer, but we cannot refrain from referring to the 7 crores of ‘untouchables’ who though included by our optimistic writer, among Hindus, do not enjoy any of the privileges that is ordinarily enjoyed by humanity. Hindu philosophy may have a unique place among the philosophies of other religion but, philosophy, in itself comes only when the stomach is full. A Hari Charan may be satisfied with Hindu philosophy, but it does not feed the millions of downtrodden brethren. It may be unique – but it does not prevent the obstacles that are responsible for the pitiful existence of millions of widowed sisters. The uniqueness of the Hindu philosophy may be a pastime for the Sanatanists and Vedantists, to be argued and debated upon, but it is of little worth to the toiling millions. Whereas the greatness of the philosophies of other religions lie in their absorption of greater strength, the greatness of Hindu philosophy lies in its assenine patience in everything. Without being content with the mere uniqueness of the philosophy let the writer
Revolt, 7 July 1929
“Kindness to Animals” in India (By Mr. Bhagat Ram)
When we find that here in this country such customs as Sattee, female infanticide enforced widowhood, compulsory child marriages, Devadasi and untouchability have existed for centuries and been sanctioned and even enforced by the orthodox religious leaders; when hatred has been fostered between the higher and lower castes; then, amidst such conditions, what opportunity or hope is there of establishing a Society on firm footing to teach Kindness to Animals. From a long experience extending over 20 years, the writer blushes to confess that the public mind here is calloused, and instead of giving a sympathetic hearing, they more often than not ridicule the idea of showing any zeal in the cause of saving animals from cruel treatment.
If we study Indian history, we find only one man, Asoka, the famous Buddhist King who because of his Buddhist religion showed great interest in this cause, and who established homes for old animals where they could live and die in peace. Except this great king we find no more such examples. Besides, we can find no institution here where one can keep an animal in its old age by making a small contribution, as a sort of pension after a life of hard work. The only sort of institution toward keeping animals we find here is the Gaushala. In such a land, where the cow is worshipped, one might expect to find the highest example of mercy and kindness to animals in the Gaushala. But alas! These institutions have rather a bad reputation in most places for cruel treatment of animals therein. If a Gaushala is made to accommodate 50 cows, it probably contains two hundred. Arrangements for watering and feeding the animals are often notoriously bad. Cleanliness is conspicuous by its absence. And the care-takers themselves usually consume a greater share of the money which the public gives toward keeping the animals, while the unfortunate animals eke out a miserable and pitiful existence until a merciful death frees them from such a fate.
If one goes through the bazaar in any city and notices the animals passing along, he will often see oxen with great sores on their necks from the heavy and often ill-fitting yokes. He will see poor weak donkeys, with their crooked age’s skin, being cruelly beaten to further duration when they seem about to fall from hunger and exhaustion. He will often see oxen with their tails cruelly twisted until they are broken off in the middle. Such twisting is the common method here of driving the poor animals. Think of the torture they must gently endure. Have a more (sic) glance at the cow-hides of animals slaughtered here, and you will be fully convinced of how terrible cruelties were perpetrated upon them. The very appearance of the hides cut and torn in man’s places will indicate the number of wounds that they had got on their backs, through cruel treatment by their heartless drivers.
Oftentimes, Gauwallas (native dairymen) secretly feed horse-dung to cows in order to get more milk. Another despicable practice is that of milching the female buffalo by a ‘Phunka.” Though here is a law against it, still the public remains apathetic. The bullock-carts are overloaded. The shopkeeper wants his stores brought cheaply, and do not care what cruelty is shown to animals in bringing the stores to his shop. Yet this is a land which prized itself on its proverbial mercy.
It is a still more pitiful spectacle to find here and there some aged decrepit working animals turned out from their homes after a life of faithful service, to wander about on the streets finding food as best they can, eating filthy refuse and drinking sewage, until death in mercy releases them from such an existence. A man, who is so regardless of his co-working animal in its old age, cannot feel much compassion for distress of his own species.
Another common practice of cruelty is found in the custom of keeping parrots in the home. The parrot is named “Ganga Ram” and our people think that by calling the parrot by the name of “Ganga Ram,” they are worshipping their gods more suitably. The poor parrot is kept in a cage for life, often hung in a smoky room, day and night; or exposed to the cruel extremities of weather.
Such daily scenes of cruelty and indifference to suffering cannot but reflect seriously upon the plastic minds of our children. We have no regular routine of teaching Kindness to Animals in schools, except an occasional story or two included in the Government Readers. Indian leaders know of such conditions and practices, but they have ordinarily remained apathetic. When have they ever lifted their voice against such cruelty to animals? When have they written books on this subject? When and where have they realized more fully their privilege and opportunity in connection with this cause of teaching Kindness to Animals? How sad it is to admit that from among so many leaders and saints, we found only one of them who occasionally gave some thought to the cause of animals. Perhaps the others feel that whatever was needed to be done, the enlightened Buddha and Mahavir did once for all, and noting needs to be done now by us.
Again, on the occasion of our great festivals (Dasssara and Dewali), thousands upon thousands of goats are sacrificed yearly, before the goddess, Kali, in the name of Hindu religion. Besides, many of our Jain brethren, who because of their religious teaching seem to be so zealous in their efforts to save even an ant or tiny bug from suffering, build wonderful places for themselves to enjoy, but they seldom give a though to providing a comfortable stall even for the cow whose milk they enjoy twice a day. Some of them buy an expensive cow, for say Rs.150 to supply milk to the household: but it is forced to live in filth and drink from stinking drains along the road-side, so that after 3 or 4 months the cow is worth perhaps one-third of the original price. By this, one can imagine what condition prevails in the Gaushala where the management has not even concern which one naturally has for his own property to stimulate attention to the animal’s plight.
Again, a common practice of charity which is often performed here as a religious duty, is that of taking a handful of ata (wheat flour) to throw somewhere along the road-side to feed the insects. When the insects gather to feed, they are crushed mostly beneath the feet of passers-by, or birds gather there to eat them.
In comparison to this, we find among our western brethren – whom the average Hindu once reproached as Melaich (cruel people), and from whose touch one often becomes unclean so that he must bathe before touching food – many splendid works of Mercy like the following:
There are many institutions and societies well established, in which many people are doing honorary service for the cause of Kindness to Animals. Thousands of papers and books are being published there to propagate this work. Many hospitals for animals are endowed through the generosity of wealthy patrons. Thousands of men give their old animals a pension, so that they may pass their old age in care and comfort. Laws are in force and are enforced, so that animals in a weak or wounded condition cannot be worked without punishment to the owners.
In 1910, Hon. Mrs. Charlton came out from England to work here (in India) for the cause of “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,” and accomplished a great deal by her zeal and self-sacrificing work in this cause. She visited numerous hill stations, addressed many meetings, interviewed many leading persons and officials, and achieved some results by her noble efforts in the relief of poor hard working animals. One such result was to prevent tonga-horse from making double journeys in a single day on the hill roads.
In short, our people generally blinded by tradition and custom have become hardened to the cruelties practiced upon beasts of burden from constant association. An average European who sees an animal in wounded condition but still being cruelly toadied or beaten, will stop to protect; while an Indian passes by without noticing the cruel treatment. Further, when the public mind is so indifferent to such suffering all around, what can one expect for the cause of poor Depressed Classes or for the uplift of Women? The prevention of cruelty to animals is not a popular cause here. Our Hindu leaders know this, and so they generally avoid the subject. Many persons to gain popularity follow blindly the ways of the convention leader; praising the old customs and superstitions, and scrupulously avoiding any mention of the evils prevalent today or the long-needed reforms which are now being pressed for certain classes and the women population.
The strangest thing is that charity in this land does not proceed, as a rule, on the basis of the work or cause, but the name of the leader who makes the appeal. Thus practical sympathy is created by appeal to religion, or caste, or relation, or motive to please the influential man who is making the appeal.
But, for all that, sympathetic hearts should not fail to do something that can be done. The cause is a sacred one. Every effort in its behalf is only a part of our moral duty to man and beast.
Revolt, 10 November 1929
