HISTORY OF THE ARYAN RACE

HISTORY OF THE ARYAN RACE [A Jnâna-Yoga class delivered in London, England, on Thursday morning, May 7, 1896, and recorded by Mr. Josiah J. Goodwin] I have told you how I would divide the subject into four Yogas, but, as the bearing of all these various Yogas is the same — the goal they want to arrive at is the same . I had better begin with the philosophical portion: the Jnana- Yoga. Jnâna means knowledge, and, before going into the principles of the Vedanta philosophy, I think it is necessary to sketch in a few words the origin and the beginning and the development,the historical portion of that system. Most of you are now familiar with the words Arya and Aryan, and many things have been written on these words. About a century ago there was an English judge in Bengal, Sir William Jones. In India, you know, there are Mohammedans and Hindus. The Hindus were the original people, and the Mohammedans came and conquered them and ruled over them for seven hundred years. There have been many other conquests in India; and whenever there is a new conquest, the criminal laws of the country are changed. The criminal law is always the law of the conquering nation, but the civil law remains the same. So when the English conquered India, they changed the criminal law; but the civil law remained. The judges, however, were Englishmen and did not know the language of the country in which the civil laws were written, and so they had to take the help of interpreters, lawyers of India, and so on. And when any question about Indian law arose, these scholars would be referred to. One of these judges, Sir William Jones, was a very ripe scholar, and he wanted to go to the fountain-head himself, to take up the language himself and study it, instead of relying upon these interpreters who, for instance, might be bribed to give any verdict. So he began to study the law of the Gentoos, as the Hindus were called. Gentoo is probably a form of the word gentile, used by the Portuguese and Spaniards,or "heathen", as you call it now. When the judge began to translate some of the books into English, he found that it was veryhard to translate them correctly into English at first hand. What was his surprise when he found that if he translated them first into Latin, and next into English, it was much easier. Then he found in translating that a large number of Sanskrit words were almost the same as in Latin. It was he who introduced the study of Sanskrit to the Europeans. Then as the Germans were rising in scholarship as well as the French they took up the language and began to study it. With their tremendous power of analysis, the Germans found that there was a similarity between Sanskrit and all the European languages. Among the ancient languages, Greek was the nearest to it in resemblance. Later, it was found that there was a language called Lithuanian, spoken somewhere on the shores of the Baltic,an independent kingdom at that time and unconnected with Russia. The language of the Lithuanians is strikingly similar to Sanskrit. Some of the Lithuanian sentences are less changed from Sanskrit forms than the northern Indian languages. Thus it was found that there is an intimate connection between all the various languages spoken in Europe and the two Asiatic languages,Persian and Sanskrit. Many theories are built upon it as to how this connection came. Theories were built up every day, and every day smashed. There is no knowing where it is going to stop. Then came the theory that there was one race in ancient times who called themselves Aryans. They found in Sanskrit literature that there was a people who spoke Sanskrit and called themselves Aryans, and this is mentioned also in Persian literature. Thus they founded the theory that there was in ancient times a nation [of people] who called themselves Aryans and who spoke Sanskrit and lived in Central Asia. This nation, they said, broke into several branches and migrated to Europe and Persia; and wherever they went, they took their own languages. German, Greek and French are but remnants of an old tongue, and Sanskrit is the most highly developed of these languages. These are theories and have not been proved yet; they are mere conjectures and guesses. Many difficulties come in the way for instance, how the Indians are dark and the Europeans are fair. Even within the same nations speaking these languages,in England itself,there are many with yellow hair and many with black. Thus there are many questions which have not yet been settled. But this is certain, that all the nations of Europe except the Basques, the Hungarians, the Tartars and the [Finns?] (Vide Complete Works, VIII.),excepting these, all the Europeans, all the northern Indians and the Persians speak branches of the same language. Vast masses of literature are existing in all these Aryan tongues: in Greek, in Latin, in modern European languages,German, English, French,in ancient Persian, in modern Persian and in Sanskrit. But in the first place, Sanskrit literature alone is a very big mass. Although, perhaps, three-fourths of it has been destroyed and lost through successive invasions, yet, I think, the sum total of the amount of literature in Sanskrit would outbalance any three or four European languages taken together, in number of books. No one knows how many books are there yet and where they are, because it is the most ancient of all these Aryan languages. And that branch of the Aryan race which spoke the Sanskrit language was the first to become civilized and the first to begin to write books and literature. So they went on for thousands of years. How many thousands of years they wrote no one knows. There are various guesses, from 3000 B.C. to 8000 B.C.,but all of these dates are more or less uncertain. Each man in writing about these ancient books and dates is first of all prejudiced by his earlier education, then by his religion, then by his nationality. If a Mohammedan writes about the Hindus, anything that does not glorify his own religion he very scrupulously pushes to one side. So with the Christians,you can see that with your own writers. In the last ten years your literature has become more respectable. So long as they [the Christians] had full play, they wrote in English and were safe from Hindu criticism. But, within the last twenty years, the Hindus have begun writing in English, so they are more careful. And you will find that the tone has quite changed within the last ten or twenty years. Another curiosity about the Sanskrit literature is that it, like any other language, has undergone many changes. Taking all the literature in these various Aryan languages,the Greek or the Latin or all these others,we find that all the European branches were of very recent date. The Greek came much later,a mere child in comparison with the Egyptian or the Babylonian. The Egyptians and the Babylonians, of course, are not Aryans. They are separate races, and their civilizations antedate all the European civilization. But with the exception of the ancient Egyptians, they were almost coeval [with the Aryans]; in some accounts, they were even earlier. Yet in Egyptian literature, there are certain things to be accounted for,the introduction of the Indian lotus on old temples, the lotus Gangetic. It is well known that this only grows in India. Then there are the references to the land of Punt. Although very great attempts have been made to fix that land of Punt on the Arabs, it is very uncertain. And then there are the references to the monkeys and sandalwood of southern India,only to be found there. The Jews were of a much later date than the Greek Aryans. Only one branch of the Semitic race of Babylon and this nondescript,unknowable race,the Egyptians,were much older than the Aryans, except the Hindus. So this Sanskrit has undergone very much change as a matter of course, having been spoken and written through thousands of years. It necessarily follows that in other Aryan languages, as in Greek and Roman, the literature must be of much later date than Sanskrit. Not only so, but there is this peculiarity, that of all regular books that we have in the world, the oldest are in Sanskrit,and that is the mass of literature called the Vedas. There are very ancient pieces in the Babylonian or Egyptian literature, but they cannot be called literature or books, but just a few notes, a short letter, a few words, and so on. But as finished, cultured literature, the Vedas are the oldest. These Vedas were written in the peculiar archaic Sanskrit, and for a long time even today,it is thought by many European antiquarians that these Vedas were not written, but were handed down by father to son, learned by rote, and thus preserved. Within the last few years, opinion is veering round, and they are beginning to think that they must have been written in most ancient times.Of course they have to make theories in this way. Theory after theory will have to be built up and destroyed until we reach truth. This is quite natural. But when the subject is Indian or Egyptian, the Christian philosophers rush in to make theories; while if the subject is nearer home, they think twice first. That is why they fail so much and have to keep on making fresh theories every five years. But this much is true, that this mass of literature, whether written or not, was conveyed and, not only that, but is at the present day conveyed by word of mouth. This is thought to be holy. You find in every nation when a new idea, a new form, a new discovery or invention comes in, the old things are not brushed aside all at once, but are relegated to the religion of holiness. The ancient Hindus used to write on palm leaves and birch bark; and when paper was invented they did not throw aside all the palm leaves, but used to consider writing on palm leaves and birch bark holy. So with the Jews,they used to write only on parchment, and parchment is now used for writing in their temples. So you find when new customs come in, the old ones become holy. So this form of transmitting the literature of the Vedas from teacher to disciple by word of mouth, although antiquated and almost useless now, has become holy. The student may refresh his memory by books, but has to learn by word of mouth of a teacher. A great many modifications will always gather round such a fact to make its holiness more rational, but this is the law. These Vedas are a vast mass of literature by themselves. That is to say, in those ancient times, in every country, religion was the first ideal to spring out of the heart of man, and all the secular knowledge that men got was made over to religion. Secondly, people who deal with religion and in later times came to be called priests, being the first thinkers of every nation, not only thought about religious subjects, but secular matters also; and, as such, all knowledge was confined to them. These masses of knowledge,both secular and religious,will always be gathered together and made into a vast mass of literature. In much later times, this is the case. For instance, in studying the Bible of the Jews, we find the same thing. The Talmud contained a vast mass of information on all subjects and so did the Pentateuch. In the same way, the Vedas give information on various subjects. They have come together and form one book. And in later times, when other subjects were separated from religion ,when astronomy and astrology were taken out of religion, these subjects, being connected with the Vedas and being ancient, were considered very holy. Almost the largest portion of the Vedas has been lost. The priests who carried it down to posterity were divided into so many families; and, accordingly, the Vedas were divided into so many parts. Each part was allotted to a family. The rituals, the ceremonies, the customs, the worship of that family were to be obtained from that [respective] portion of the Vedas. They preserved it and performed all the ceremonies according to that. In course of time, [some of] these families became extinct; and with them, their portion of the Vedas was lost, if these old accounts be true. Some of you know that the Vedas are divided into four parts. One is called the Rig-Veda, another Yajur-Veda, another Sâma-Veda, and the fourth Atharva-Veda. Each one of these, again, was divided into many branches. For instance, the Sama-Veda had one thousand branches, of which only about five or six remain; the rest are all lost. So with the others. The Rig-Veda had 108, of which only one remains; and the rest are all lost. Then [there were] these various invasions. India has been the one country to which every nation that has become strong wants to go and conquer,it being reputed to be very rich. The wealth of the people had become a fable, even in the most ancient history. [Many foreign invaders] rushed to become wealthy in India and conquered the country. Every one of these invasions destroyed one or more of these families, burned many libraries and houses. And when that was so, much literature was lost. It is only within the last few years that ideas have begun to spring up about the retention of these various religions and books. Before that, mankind had to suffer all this pillaging and breaking down. Most stupendous creations of art were lost forever. Wonderful buildings,where, from a few bits of remnants now in India, it can be imagined how wonderful they were,are completely gone. . . . [The fanatical belief of many of these invaders into India is] that those who do not belong to their sect have no right to live. They will go to a place where the fire will never be quenched when they die; in this life they are only fit to be made into slaves or murdered; and that they have only the right to live as slaves to "the true believers", but never as free men. So in this way, when these waves burst upon India, everything was submerged. Books and literature and civilization went down. But there is vitality in that race which is unique in the history of humanity, and perhaps that vitality comes from non-resistance. Non-resistance is the greatest strength. In meekness and mildness lies the greatest strength. In suffering is greater strength than in doing. In resisting one's own passions is far higher strength than in hurting others. And that has been the watchword of the race through all its difficulties, its misfortunes and its prosperity. It is the only nation that never went beyond its frontiers to cut the throats of its neighbours. It is a glorious thing. It makes me rather patriotic to think I am born a Hindu, a descendant of the only race that never went out to hurt anyone, and whose only action upon humanity has been giving and enlightening and purifying and teaching, but never robbing. Three-quarters of the wealth of the world has come out of India, and does even now. The commerce of India has been the turning point, the pivot, of the history of the world. Whatever nation got it became powerful and civilized. The Greeks got it and became the mighty Greeks; the Romans got it and became the mighty Romans. Even in the days of the Phoenicians it was so. After the fall of Rome, the Genoese and the Venetians got it. And then the Arabs rose and created a wall between Venice and India; and in the struggle to find a new way there, America was discovered. That is how America was discovered; and the original people of America were called Indians, or "Injuns", for that reason. Even the Dutch got it,and the barbarians,and the English and they became the most powerful nation on earth. And the next nation that gets it will immediately be the most powerful. Think of all this mass of energy that our nation displays, where does it get it? In India, they are the producers and you are the enjoyers, no doubt. They produced this ,the patient, toiling millions of Hindus under the whip and slavery of everyone. Even the missionaries, who stand up to curse the millions of India, have been fattened upon the work of these millions, and they do not know how it has been done. Upon their blood the history of the world has been turning since we know history, and will have to turn for thousands of years more. What is the benefit? It gives that nation strength. They are, as it were, an example. They must suffer and stand up through all, fighting for the truths of religion, as a signpost, a beacon, tell unto mankind that it is much higher not to resist, much higher to suffer, that if life be the goal, as even their conquerors will admit, we are the only race that can be called immortal, that can never be killed. (Vide Complete Works, IV.) Where are the Greeks today, they whose armies marched over the whole world? Gone, thousands of years, nobody knows where. Vanished, as soon as the barbarians of the north came and attacked them. Where are the mighty Romans, whose cohorts came and trampled the face of the earth? Where are they today? Gone, vanished like the morning dew, and left behind in the march. But here are the Hindus,three hundred million strong. And think of the fertility of the race! They can increase more than the whole world can kill them. This is the vitality of the race. Although not belonging very much to our subject, I wanted to bring these things before you. Generally the uneducated minds, the vulgar minds of every nation, like the vulgar mobs in every big city, cannot grasp, cannot see, cannot understand, any fine movement. The causes, the real movements in this world of ours, are very fine; it is only the effects that are gross and muscular. The mind is the real cause of this body, the fine movements behind. The body is the gross, the external. But everyone sees the body; very few see the mind. So with everything; the masses, the brutal, ignorant masses of every race, see a triumphant procession, stampeding horses, arms and cannonades, and these they understand. But those fine, gentle workings that are going on behind,it is only the philosopher, the highly cultivated man or woman, that can understand. To return to our Vedanta, I have said that the Sanskrit in which the Vedas were written is not the same Sanskrit in which books were written about a thousand years later than the Vedas,the books that you read in your translations of poets and other classical writers of India. The Sanskrit of the Vedas was very simple, archaic in its composition, and possibly it was a spoken language. But the Sanskrit that we have now was never a spoken language, at least for the last three thousand years. Curiously enough, the vast mass of literature was written in a language which was dead, covering a period of three thousand years. Dramas and novels were written in this dead language. And all the time it was not spoken in the homes; it was only the language of the learned. Even in the time of Buddha, which was about 560 years before the Christian era, we find that Sanskrit had ceased to be a spoken language. Some of his disciples wanted to teach in Sanskrit, but the master studiously refused. He wanted to teach in the language [of the people], because he said he was the prophet of the people. And that is how it has come about that the Buddhistic literature is in Pali, which was the vernacular of that time. This vast mass of literature,the Vedas,we find in three groups. The first group is the Samhitâs, a collection of hymns. The second group is called the Brâhmanas, or the [group dealing with different kinds of] sacrifice. The word Brahmana [by usage] means [what is achieved by means of] the sacrifice. And the other group is called the Upanishads (sittings, lectures, philosophic books). Again, the first two parts together,the hymns and the rituals,are called the Karmakânda, the work portion; and the second, or philosophic portion (the Upanishads), is called the Jnânakânda, the knowledge portion. This is the same word as your English word knowledge and the Greek word gnos,just as you have the word in agnostic, and so on. The first portion is a collection of hymns in praise of certain gods, as Agni, fire; Mitra, the sun; and so forth. They are praised and oblations are offered to them. I have said these hymns are to the gods. I have used the word gods until I make you familiar with the Sanskrit word Deva, because the word gods is very misleading. These Devas mean the "bright ones", and gods in India are less persons than positions. For instance, Indra and Agni are not names of particular persons, but particular posts in this universe. There is the post of President, the presiding post over certain elements, the presiding post over certain worlds, and so forth. According to these theologians, you and I, most of us, probably have been some of these gods several times. It is only temporarily that a soul can fill one of these positions. And after his time is over, he gives way; another soul is raised from this world by good works and takes that position, he becomes [for example] Agni. In reading Sanskrit philosophy or theology, people always get bothered by the changing of these gods. But this is the theory , that they are names of positions, that all souls will have to fill them again and again; and these gods, when the soul has attained to that position, can help mankind. So gifts and praise are offered to them. How this idea came to the Aryans we do not know, but in the earliest portion of the Rig-Veda we find this idea perfected and completed. Behind and beyond all these Devas and men and animals and worlds is the Ruler of this universe, Ishvara,somewhat similar to what in the New Testament is called God the Creator, Preserver, the Ruler of this universe. These Devas are not to be confused with Ishvara at all, but in the English language you have the same word for both. You use the word God in the singular and the plural. But the gods are the bright ones,the Devas,and God is Ishvara. This we find even in the oldest portions of the Vedas. Another peculiarity is that this Ishvara, this God, is manifesting Himself in all these various forms of bright ones. This idea, that the same God manifests Himself in various forms, is a very rudimentary idea of the Vedas, even in the oldest portions. There was a time when a sort of monotheistic idea entered the Vedas, but it was very quickly rejected. As we go on, perhaps you will agree with me that it was very good that it was rejected. So we find in these oldest portions of the Samhitas that there were these various Devas,[being praised as] the manifestations of someone very much higher than they [had left] behind, so that sometimes each one of them was taken up and adjectives piled on it and at last it was said, "You are the God of the universe". Then such passages as this occurred: "I am God, worshipped as the fire", and so forth. "It is the One; sages call Him variously." "He is that one existence; the sages call Him by various names." This I ask you to remember, because this is the turning point, the key-note of all thought that India has produced," He is that One Being; sages call Him variously." All Hindu philosophy,either theistic or atheistic or monotheistic, dualistic or nondualistic,has that as the core, the centre. And by thousands of years of culture in the race, it is impossible for the Hindu race to go [away from] that idea. That germ became a big tree; and that is why there was never a religious persecution in India, at least by the Hindus. That explains their liberality and welcome to any religion from any part of the world which came to settle there. That is how, even at the present day, Indian Rajas go and perform Mohammedan ceremonies and enter Mohammedan mosques, although [some] Mohammedans took the first opportunity to kill a number of "the heathens". "He is the One Being; sages call Him variously." There have been two theories advanced in modern times with regard to the growth of religions. The one is the tribal theory; the other is the spirit theory. The tribal theory is that humanity in its savage state remains divided into many small tribes. Each tribe has a god of its own,or sometimes the same god divided into many forms, as the god of this city came to that city, and so on; Jehovah of this city and of such-and-such mountain [came to such-and-such city or mountain]. When the tribes came together, one of them became strong. Take the case of the Jews. They were divided into so many tribes, and each tribe had a god called either Baal or Moloch which in your Old Testament is translated as "the Lord". There was the Moloch of this state and that state, of this mountain and that mountain, and there was the Moloch of the chest, who used to live in a chest. This latter tribe became strong and conquered the surrounding tribes and became triumphant. So that Moloch was proclaimed the greatest of all Molochs. "Thou art the Java [?] of the Molochs. Thou art the ruler of all the Baals and Molochs." Yet the chest remained. So this idea was obtained from tribal gods. There is the other theory of Spiritualism, that religion begins with the worship of ancestors. Ancestor worship was among the Egyptians, among the Babylonians, among many other races,the Hindus, the Christians. There is not one form of religion among which there has not been this ancestor worship in some form or other. Before that they thought that this body had a double inside it and that when this body dies the double gets out and lives so long as this body exists. The double becomes very hungry or thirsty, wants food or drink, and wants to enjoy the good things of this world. So he [the double] comes to get food; and if he does not get it, he will injure even his own children. So long as the body is preserved the double will live. Naturally the first attempt, as we see, was to preserve the body, mummify the body, so that the body will live forever. So with the Babylonians was this sort of spirit worship. Later on as the nations advanced, the cruel forms died out and better forms remained. Some place was given to that which is called heaven, and they placed food here so that it might reach the double there. Even now the pious Hindus must, one day a year at least, place food for their ancestors. And the day they leave off [this habit] will be a sorry day for the ancestors. So you also find this ancestor worship to be one cause of religion. There are in modern times philosophers who advance the theory that this has been the root of all religions. There are others who advance the theory that the root of all religions was the tribal assimilation of gods into one. Among the Jews of the Old Testament you do not find any mention of soul. It is only in the Talmud that it is found. They got it from the Alexandrians, and the Alexandrians from the Hindus,just as the Talmud had [developed] later on the idea of transmigration of the soul. But the old Jews had grand ideas of God. The God of the Jews developed into the Great God, the Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Merciful, and all this came to them from the Hindus, but not through the idea of the soul. So Spiritualism could not have played any part in that, because how could the man who did not believe in any soul after death have anything to do with Spiritualism? On the other hand, in the oldest portion of the Vedas, there is very little of Spiritualism, if anything at all. These Devas [of the Vedas] were not [related to Spiritualism],although later on they became so; and this idea of Someone behind them, of whom they were manifestations, is in the oldest parts. Another idea is that when the body dies, the soul [which] is immortal remains beatified. The very oldest Aryan literature —whether German or Greek,has this idea of soul. The idea of soul has come from the Hindus. Two people have given all the religion to the world,the Hindus and the Jews. But it is only with the Hindus that the idea of soul comes at first, and that was shared by the Aryan races. The peculiarity you find is that the Semitic races and the Egyptians try to preserve the dead bodies, while the Aryans try to destroy them. The Greeks, the Germans, the Romans,your ancestors before they became Christians,used to burn the dead. It was only when Charlemagne made you Christians with the sword,and when you refused, [he] cut off a few hundred heads, and the rest jumped into the water,that burying came here. You see at once the metaphysical significance of burning the dead. The burying of the dead (Preserving the dead by the burying of the body.) can only remain when there is no idea of the soul, and the body is all. At best there came the idea later on that this very body will have no other lease of life, after so many years, mummies will come out and begin to walk the streets again. But with the Aryans the idea was from the first that the soul is not the body, but would live on. There are some old hymns in the Rig-Veda: when the bodies are burnt they say, "Take him gently, purify him, give him a bright body, take him to the land where the fathers live,wherethere is no more sorrow and where thereis joy forever". (Rig-Veda 10.16.4.) It is curious that though in modern times many hideous and cruel forms of religion crept into India, there is one peculiar idea that divides the Aryan from all other races of the world: that their religion, in the Hindu form, accepted this Indra as one [with the Ultimate Reality]. Three-quarters of the mythology of the Vedas is the same as that of the Greeks; only the old gods became saints in the new religion. But they were originally the gods of the Samhitas. One other peculiarity we remark, that it is a cheerful, joyful, at times almost hilarious religion; there is not a bit of pessimism in it. The earth is beautiful, the heavens are beautiful, life is immortal. Even after death they get a still more beautiful body, which has none of the imperfections of this body, and they go to live with the gods and enjoy heaven forever. On the other hand, with the Semitic races, the very first inception of religion was one of horror. A man crouched in his little house for fear. All round his house were those doubles. The family ancestors of the Jews were there, ready to pounce upon anybody and tear him to pieces if bloody sacrifices were not given to them. Even when you find that this [double] idea coagulated into one — "Thou art the Elohim of the Jews, Thou art the Elo[him] of the [Babylonians?]"*,even then the idea of sacrifice remained. The idea of sacrifice in India was not with this first portion. But in the next portion we find the same idea in India too, in the Brahmanas. The idea of sacrifice was originally simply giving food [to the gods], but gradually it was raised and raised until it became a sacrifice to God. Philosophy came in to mystify it still more and to spin webs of logic round it. Bloody sacrifices came into vogue. Somewhere we read that three hundred bullocks have been roasted, or the gods are smelling the sacrifices and becoming very glad. Then all sorts of mystical notions got about,how the sacrifice was to be made in the form of a tri-angle or a square, a triangle within a square, a pentagon, and all sorts of figures. But the great benefit was the evolution of geometry. When they had to make all these figures, and it was laid down strictly how many bricks should be used, and how they should be laid, and how big they should be, naturally geometry came [into being]. The Egyptians evolved geometry [by] their [irrigation],[they] made canals to take the Nile water inside their fields,and the Hindus, by their altars. Now there is another particular difference between the idea of sacrifice in India and [that] of the Jews. The real meaning of sacrifice is worship, a form of worship by oblations. At first it was simply giving food to the bright ones, or the higher beings. They had gross food just as we have. Later on philosophy stepped in and the idea came that they, being higher beings, could not eat the same food as we do. Their bodies are made of finer particles. Our bodies cannot pass through a wall; theirs find no resistance in gross material. As such, they cannot be expected to eat in the same gross way as we do. [Some parts of the transcription of the remaining portion of this lecture, recorded by Mr. J. J. Goodwin, were found in a severely damaged condition. Hence we have reproduced below only the legible fragments as they appeared in the original.] . . . "O Indra, I offer you this oblation. O Agni, I offer you this oblation." The answer is that these words have a mystical power in Sanskrit. And when a man, in a certain state of mind, pronounces these words, he sets in motion a set of psychological causes, and these causes produce a certain effect. That is the evolution of thought. To make it clearer, suppose a man was childless and wanted a son. He worshipped Indra, and if he got a son he said Indra gave him the son. Later on they said Indra did not exist. Who, then, gave him the son? The whole thing is a matter of cause and effect. . . .. . . They said it was not giving the gods food, but simply laying my sins upon the head of another victim. "My sins go upon the goat's head, and, if the goat be killed, my sins are forgiven." That idea of sacrifice of the Jews never entered India, and perhaps that has saved us many a pang, many a trouble. Human nature is selfish, and the vast majority of men and women weak; and to teach vicarious sacrifice makes us more and more weak. Every child is taught that he is nothing until the poor fellow becomes hypnotized into nothing. He goes in search of somebody to cling onto, and never thinks of clinging to himself. . . . (Vide Complete Works, VIII for similar ideas.) >>

THE IDEAL OF A UNIVERSAL RELIGION

THE IDEAL OF A UNIVERSAL RELIGION
HOW IT MUST EMBRACE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MINDS AND METHODS
Wheresoever our senses reach, or whatsoever our minds imagine, we find
therein the action and reaction of two forces, the one counteracting the other and
causing the constant play of the mixed phenomena that we see around us, and of
those which we feel in our minds. In the external world, the action of these
opposite forces is expressing itself as attraction and repulsion, or as centripetal
and centrifugal forces; and in the internal, as love and hatred, good and evil. We
repel some things, we attract others. We are attracted by one, we are repelled by
another. Many times in our lives we find that without any reason whatsoever we
are, as it were, attracted towards certain persons; at other times, similarly, we
are repelled by others. This is patent to all, and the higher the field of action, the
more potent, the more remarkable, are the influences of these opposite forces.
Religion is the highest plane of human thought and life, and herein we find that
the workings of these two forces have been most marked. The intensest love
that humanity has ever known has come from religion, and the most diabolical
hatred that humanity has known has also come from religion. The noblest words
of peace that the world has ever heard have come from men on the religious
plane, and the bitterest denunciation that the world has ever known has been
uttered by religious men. The higher the object of any religion and the finer its
organisation, he more remarkable are its activities. No other human motive has
deluged the world with blood so much as religion; at the same time, nothing has
brought into existence so many hospitals and asylums for the poor; no other
human influence has taken such care, not only of humanity, but also of the
lowest of animals, as religion has done. Nothing makes us so cruel as religion,
and nothing makes us so tender as religion. This has been so in the past, and
will also, in all probability, be so in the future. Yet out of the midst of this din
and turmoil, this strife and struggle, this hatred and jealousy of religions and
sects, there have arisen, from time to time, potent voices, drowning all this noise
— making themselves heard from pole to pole, as it were — proclaiming peace
and harmony. Will it ever come?
Is it possible that there should ever reign unbroken harmony in this plane of mighty religious struggle. The world is exercised in the latter part of this
century by the question of harmony; in society, various plans are being
proposed, and attempts are made to carry them into practice; but we know how
difficult it is to do so. People find that it is almost impossible to mitigate the
fury of the struggle of life, to tone down the tremendous nervous tension that is
in man. Now, if it is so difficult to bring harmony and peace to the physical
plane of life — the external, gross, and outward side of it — then a thousand
times more difficult is it to bring peace and harmony to rule over the internal
nature of man. I would ask you for the time being to come out of the network of
words. We have all been hearing from childhood of such things as love, peace,
charity, equality, and universal brotherhood; but they have become to us mere
words without meaning, words which we repeat like parrots, and it has become
quite natural for us to do so. We cannot help it. Great souls, who first felt these
great ideas in their hearts, manufactured these words; and at that time many
understood their meaning. Later on, ignorant people have taken up those words
to play with them and made religion a mere play upon words, and not a thing to
be carried into practice. It becomes "my father's religion", "our nation's
religion", "our country's religion", and so forth. It becomes only a phase of
patriotism to profess any religion, and patriotism is always partial. To bring
harmony into religion must always be difficult. Yet we will consider this
problem of the harmony of religions.
We see that in every religion there are three parts — I mean in every great and
recognised religion. First, there is the philosophy which presents the whole
scope of that religion, setting forth its basic principles, the goal and the means
of reaching it. The second part is mythology, which is philosophy made
concrete. It consists of legends relating to the lives of men, or of supernatural
beings, and so forth. It is the abstractions of philosophy concretised in the more
or less imaginary lives of men and supernatural beings. The third part is the
ritual. This is still more concrete and is made up of forms and ceremonies,
various physical attitudes, flowers and incense, and many other things, that
appeal to the senses. In these consists the ritual. You will find that all
recognised religions have these three elements. Some lay more stress on one,
some on another. Let us now take into consideration the first part, philosophy. Is
there one universal philosophy? Not yet. Each religion brings out its own
doctrines and insists upon them as being the only true ones. And not only does it do that, but it thinks that he who does not believe in them must go to some
horrible place. Some will even draw the sword to compel others to believe as
they do. This is not through wickedness, but through a particular disease of the
human brain called fanaticism. They are very sincere, these fanatics, the most
sincere of human beings; but they are quite as irresponsible as other lunatics in
the world. This disease of fanaticism is one of the most dangerous of all
diseases. All the wickedness of human nature is roused by it. Anger is stirred
up, nerves are strung high, and human beings become like tigers.
Is there any mythological similarity, is there any mythological harmony, any
universal mythology accepted by all religions? Certainly not. All religions have
their own mythology, only each of them says, "My stories are not mere myths."
Let us try to understand the question by illustration. I simply mean to illustrate,
I do not mean criticism of any religion. The Christian believes that God took the
shape of a dove and came down to earth; to him this is history, and not
mythology. The Hindu believes that God is manifested in the cow. Christians
say that to believe so is mere mythology, and not history, that it is superstition.
The Jews think that if an image be made in the form of a box, or a chest, with an
angel on either side, then it may be placed in the Holy of Holies; it is sacred to
Jehovah; but if the image be made in the form of a beautiful man or woman,
they say, "This is a horrible idol; break it down! " This is our unity in
mythology! If a man stands up and says, "My prophet did such and such a
wonderful thing", others will say, "That is only superstition", but at the same
time they say that their own prophet did still more wonderful things, which they
hold to be historical. Nobody in the world, as far as I have seen, is able to make
out the fine distinction between history and mythology, as it exists in the brains
of these persons. All such stories, to whatever religion they may belong, are
really mythological, mixed up occasionally, it may be with, a little history.
Next come the rituals. One sect has one particular form of ritual and thinks that
that is holy, while the rituals of another sect are simply arrant superstition. If
one sect worships a peculiar sort of symbol, another sect says, "Oh, it is
horrible!" Take, for instance, a general form of symbol. The phallus symbol is
certainly a sexual symbol, but gradually that aspect of it has been forgotten, and
it stands now as a symbol of the Creator. Those nations which have this as their
symbol never think of it as the phallus; it is just a symbol, and there it ends. But a man from another race or creed sees in it nothing but the phallus, and begins
to condemn it; yet at the same time he may be doing something which to the so-
called phallic worshippers appears most horrible. Let me take two points for
illustration, the phallus symbol and the sacrament of the Christians. To the
Christians the phallus is horrible, and to the Hindus the Christian sacrament is
horrible. They say that the Christian sacrament, the killing of a man and the
eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood to get the good qualities of that
man, is cannibalism. This is what some of the savage tribes do; if a man is
brave, they kill him and eat his heart, because they think that it will give them
the qualities of courage and bravery possessed by that man. Even such a devout
Christian as Sir John Lubbock admits this and says that the origin of this
Christian symbol is in this savage idea. The Christians, of course, do not admit
this view of its origin; and what it may imply never comes to their mind. It
stands for holy things, and that is all they want to know. So even in rituals there
is no universal symbol, which can command general recognition and
acceptance. Where then is any universality? How is it possible then to have a
universal form of religion? That, however, already exists. And let us see what it
is.
We all hear about universal brotherhood, and how societies stand up especially
to preach this. I remember an old story. In India, taking wine is considered very
bad. There were two brothers who wished, one night, to drink wine secretly; and
their uncle, who was a very orthodox man was sleeping in a room quite close to
theirs. So, before they began to drink, they said to each other, "We must be very
silent, or uncle will wake up." When they were drinking, they continued
repeating to each other "Silence! Uncle will wake up", each trying to shout the
other down. And, as the shouting increased, the uncle woke up, came into the
room, and discovered the whole thing. Now, we all shout like these drunken
men," Universal brotherhood! We are all equal, therefore let us make a sect." As
soon as you make a sect you protest against equality, and equality is no more.
Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in
reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the
brotherhood; he will more likely have his throat cut. Christians talk of universal
brotherhood; but anyone who is not a Christian must go to that place where he
will be eternally barbecued.
And so we go on in this world in our search after universal brotherhood and
equality. When you hear such talk in the world, I would ask you to be a little
reticent, to take care of yourselves, for, behind all this talk is often the intensest
selfishness. "In the winter sometimes a thunder-cloud comes up; it roars and
roars, but it does not rain; but in the rainy season the clouds speak not, but
deluge the world with water." So those who are really workers, and really feel
at heart the universal brotherhood of man, do not talk much, do not make little
sects for universal brotherhood; but their acts, their movements, their whole life,
show out clearly that they in truth possess the feeling of brotherhood for
mankind, that they have love and sympathy for all. They do not speak, they do
and they live. This world is too full of blustering talk. We want a little more
earnest work, and less talk.
So far we see that it is hard to find any universal features in regard to religion,
and yet we know that they exist. We are all human beings, but are we all equal?
Certainly not. Who says we are equal? Only the lunatic. Are we all equal in our
brains, in our powers, in our bodies? One man is stronger than another, one man
has more brain power than another. If we are all equal, why is there this
inequality? Who made it? We. Because we have more or less powers, more or
less brain, more or less physical strength, it must make a difference between us.
Yet we know that the doctrine of equality appeals to our heart. We are all
human beings; but some are men, and some are women. Here is a black man,
there is a white man; but all are men, all belong to one humanity. Various are
our faces; I see no two alike, yet we are all human beings. Where is this one
humanity? I find a man or a woman, either dark or fair; and among all these
faces I know that there is an abstract humanity which is common to all. I may
not find it when I try to grasp it, to sense it, and to actualise it, yet I know for
certain that it is there. If I am sure of anything, it is of this humanity which is
common to us all. It is through this generalised entity that I see you as a man or
a woman. So it is with this universal religion, which runs through all the various
religions of the world in the form of God; it must and does exist through
eternity. "I am the thread that runs through all these pearls," and each pearl is a
religion or even a sect thereof. Such are the different pearls, and the Lord is the
thread that runs through all of them; only the majority of mankind are entirely unconscious of it.
Unity in variety is the plan of the universe. We are all men, and yet we are all
distinct from one another. As a part of humanity I am one with you, and as Mr.
So-and-so I am different from you. As a man you are separate from the woman;
as a human being you are one with the woman. As a man you are separate from
the animal, but as living beings, man, woman, animal, and plant are all one; and
as existence, you are one with the whole universe. That universal existence is
God, the ultimate Unity in the universe. In Him we are all one. At the same
time, in manifestation, these differences must always remain. In our work, in
our energies, as they are being manifested outside, these differences must
always remain. We find then that if by the idea of a universal religion it is meant
that one set of doctrines should be believed in by all mankind it is wholly
impossible. It can never be, there can never be a time when all faces will be the
same. Again, if we expect that there will be one universal mythology, that is
also impossible; it cannot be. Neither can there be one universal ritual. Such a
state of things can never come into existence; if it ever did, the world would be
destroyed, because variety is the first principle of life. What makes us formed
beings? Differentiation. Perfect balance would be our destruction. Suppose the
amount of heat in this room, the tendency of which is towards equal and perfect
diffusion, gets that kind of diffusion, then for all practical purposes that heat
will cease to be. What makes motion possible in this universe? Lost balance.
The unity of sameness can come only when this universe is destroyed, otherwise
such a thing is impossible. Not only so, it would be dangerous to have it. We
must not wish that all of us should think alike. There would then be no thought
to think. We should be all alike, as the Egyptian mummies in a museum,
looking at each other without a thought to think. It is this difference, this
differentiation, this losing of the balance between us, which is the very soul of
our progress, the soul of all our thought. This must always be.
What then do I mean by the ideal of a universal religion? I do not mean any one
universal philosophy, or any one universal mythology, or any one universal
ritual held alike by all; for I know that this world must go on working, wheel
within wheel, this intricate mass of machinery, most complex, most wonderful.
What can we do then? We can make it run smoothly, we can lessen the friction,
we can grease the wheels, as it were. How? By recognising the natural necessity
of variation. Just as we have recognised unity by our very nature, so We must learn that truth may be expressed in a hundred thousand ways, and that each of these ways is true as far as it goes. We
must learn that the same thing can be viewed from a hundred different
standpoints, and vet be the same thing. Take for instance the sun. Suppose a
man standing on the earth looks at the sun when it rises in the morning; he sees
a big ball. Suppose he starts on a journey towards the sun and takes a camera
with him, taking photographs at every stage of his journey, until he reaches the
sun. The photographs of each stage will be seen to be different from those of the
other stages; in fact, when he gets back, he brings with him so many
photographs of so many different suns, as it would appear; and yet we know that
the same sun was photographed by the man at the different stages of his
progress. Even so is it with the Lord. Through high philosophy or low, through
the most exalted mythology or the grossest, through the most refined ritualism
or arrant fetishism, every sect, every soul, every nation, every religion,
consciously or unconsciously, is struggling upward, towards God; every vision
of truth that man has, is a vision of Him and of none else. Suppose we all go
with vessels in our hands to fetch water from a lake. One has a cup, another a
jar, another a bucket, and so forth, and we all fill our vessels. The water in each
case naturally takes the form of the vessel carried by each of us. He who
brought the cup has the water in the form of a cup; he who brought the jar — his
water is in the shape of a jar, and so forth; but, in every case, water, and nothing
but water, is in the vessel. So it is in the case of religion; our minds are like
these vessels, and each one of us is trying to arrive at the realisation of God.
God is like that water filling these different vessels, and in each vessel the
vision of God comes in the form of the vessel. Yet He is One. He is God in
every case. This is the only recognition of universality that we can get.
So far it is all right theoretically. But is there any way of practically working out
this harmony in religions? We find that this recognition that all the various
views of religion are true has been very very old. Hundreds of attempts have
been made in India, in Alexandria, in Europe, in China, in Japan, in Tibet, and
lastly in America, to formulate a harmonious religious creed, to make all
religions come together in love. They have all failed, because they did not adopt
any practical plan. Many have admitted that all the religions of the world are
right, but they show no practical way of bringing them together, so as to enable
each of them to maintain its own individuality in the conflux. That plan alone is
practical, which does not destroy the individuality of any man in religion and at the same time shows him a point of union with all others. But so far, all the
plans of religious harmony that have been tried, while proposing to take in all
the various views of religion, have, in practice, tried to bind them all down to a
few doctrines, and so have produced more new sects, fighting, struggling, and
pushing against each other.
I have also my little plan. I do not know whether it will work or not, and I want
to present it to you for discussion. What is my plan? In the first place I would
ask mankind to recognise this maxim, "Do not destroy". Iconoclastic reformers
do no good to the world. Break not, pull not anything down, but build. Help, if
you can; if you cannot, fold your hands and stand by and see things go on. Do
not injure, if you cannot render help. Say not a word against any man's
convictions so far as they are sincere. Secondly, take man where he stands, and
from there give him a lift. If it be true that God is the centre of all religions, and
that each of us is moving towards Him along one of these radii, then it is certain
that all of us must reach that centre. And at the centre, where all the radii meet,
all our differences will cease; but until we reach there, differences there must
be. All these radii converge to the same centre. One, according to his nature,
travels along one of these lines, and another, along another; and if we all push
onward along our own lines, we shall surely come to the centre, because, "All
roads lead to Rome". Each of us is naturally growing and developing according
to his own nature; each will in time come to know the highest truth for after all,
men must teach themselves. What can you and I do? Do you think you can
teach even a child? You cannot. The child teaches himself. Your duty is to
afford opportunities and to remove obstacles. A plant grows. Do you make the
plant grow? Your duty is to put a hedge round it and see that no animal eats up
the plant, and there your duty ends. The plant grows of itself. So it is in regard
to the spiritual growth of every man. None can teach you; none can make a
spiritual man of you. You have to teach yourself; your growth must come from
inside.
What can an external teacher do? He can remove the obstructions a little, and
there his duty ends. Therefore help, if you can; but do not destroy. Give up all
ideas that you can make men spiritual. It is impossible. There is no other teacher
to you than your own soul. Recognise this. What comes of it? In society we see
so many different natures. There are thousands and thousands of varieties of  minds and inclinations. A thorough generalisation of them is impossible, but for
our practical purpose it is sufficient to have them characterised into four classes.
First, there is the active man, the worker; he wants to work, and there is
tremendous energy in his muscles and his nerves. His aim is to work — to build
hospitals, do charitable deeds, make streets, to plan and to organise. Then there
is the emotional man who loves the sublime and the beautiful to an excessive
degree. He loves to think of the beautiful, to enjoy the aesthetic side of nature,
and adore Love and the God of Love. He loves with his whole heart the great
souls of all times, the prophets of religions, and the Incarnations of God on
earth; he does not care whether reason can or cannot prove that Christ or
Buddha existed; he does not care for the exact date when the Sermon on the
Mount was preached, or for the exact moment of Krishna's birth; what he cares
for is their personalities, their lovable figures. Such is his ideal. This is the
nature of the lover, the emotional man. Then, there is the mystic whose mind
wants to analyse its own self, to understand the workings of the human mind,
what the forces are that are working inside, and how to know, manipulate, and
obtain control over them. This is the mystical mind. Then, there is the
philosopher who wants to weigh everything and use his intellect even beyond
the possibilities of all human philosophy.
Now a religion, to satisfy the largest proportion of mankind, must be able to
supply food for all these various types of minds; and where this capability is
wanting, the existing sects all become one-sided. Suppose you go to a sect
which preaches love and emotion. They sing and weep, and preach love. But as
soon as you say, "My friend, that is all right, but I want something stronger than
this — a little reason and philosophy; I want to understand things step by step
and more rationally", they say, "Get out"; and they not only ask you to get out
but would send you to the other place, if they could. The result is that that sect
can only help people of an emotional turn of mind. They not only do not help
others, but try to destroy them; and the most wicked part of the whole thing is
that they will not only not help others, but do not believe in their sincerity.
Again, there are philosophers who talk of the wisdom of India and the East and
use big psychological terms, fifty syllables long, but if an ordinary man like me
goes to them and says, "Can you tell me anything to make me spiritual?", the
first thing they would do would be to smile and say, "Oh, you are too far below
us in your reason. What can you understand about spirituality?" These are high up philosophers. They simply show you the door. Then there are the mystical
sects who speak all sorts of things about different planes of existence, different
states of mind, and what the power of the mind can do, and so on; and if you are
an ordinary man and say, "Show me anything good that I can do; I am not much
given to speculation; can you give me anything that will suit me?", they will
smile and say, "Listen to that fool; he knows nothing, his existence is for
nothing." And this is going on everywhere in the world. I would like to get
extreme exponents of all these different sects, and shut them up in a room, and
photograph their beautiful derisive smiles!
This is the existing condition of religion, the existing condition of things. What I
want to propagate is a religion that will be equally acceptable to all minds; it
must be equally philosophic, equally emotional, equally mystic, and equally
conducive to action. If professors from the colleges come, scientific men and
physicists, they will court reason. Let them have it as much as they want. There
will be a point beyond which they will think they cannot go, without breaking
with reason. They will say, "These ideas of God and salvation are superstitious,
guise them up! " I say, "Mr. Philosopher, this body of yours is a bigger
superstition. Give it up, don't go home to dinner or to your philosophic chair.
Give up the body, and if you cannot, cry quarter and sit down." For religion
must be able to show how to realise the philosophy that teaches us that this
world is one, that there is but one Existence in the universe. Similarly, if the
mystic comes, we must welcome him, be ready to give him the science of
mental analysis, and practically demonstrate it before him. And if emotional
people come, we must sit, laugh, and weep with them in the name of the Lord;
we must "drink the cup of love and become mad". If the energetic worker
comes, we must work with him, with all the energy that we have. And this
combination will be the ideal of the nearest approach to a universal religion.
Would to God that all men were so constituted that in their minds all these
elements of philosophy, mysticism, emotion, and of work were equally present
in full! That is the ideal, my ideal of a perfect man. Everyone who has only one
or two of these elements of character, I consider "one-sided''; and this world is
almost full of such "one-sided" men, with knowledge of that one road only in
which they move; and anything else is dangerous and horrible to them. To
become harmoniously balanced in all these four directions is my ideal of
religion. And this religion is attained by what we, in India, call Yoga — union.
To the worker, it is union between men and the whole of humanity; to the
mystic, between his lower and Higher Self; to the lover, union between himself
and the God of Love; and to the philosopher; it is the union of all existence.
This is what is meant by Yoga. This is a Sanskrit term, and these four divisions
of Yoga have in Sanskrit different names. The man who seeks after this kind of
union is called a Yogi. The worker is called the Karma-Yogi. He who seeks the
union through love is called the Bhakti-Yogi. He who seeks it through
mysticism is called the Râja-Yogi. And he who seeks it through philosophy is
called the Jnâna-Yogi So this word Yogi comprises them all.
Now first of all let me take up Râja-Yoga. What is this Raja-Yoga, this
controlling of the mind? In this country you are associating all sorts of
hobgoblins with the word Yoga, I am afraid. Therefore, I must start by telling
you that it has nothing to do with such things. No one of these Yogas gives up
reason, no one of them asks you to be hoodwinked, or to deliver your reason
into the hands of priests of any type whatsoever. No one of them asks that you
should give your allegiance to any superhuman messenger. Each one of them
tells you to cling to your reason to hold fast to it. We find in all beings three
sorts of instruments of knowledge. The first is instinct, which you find most
highly developed in animals; this is the lowest instrument of knowledge. What
is the second instrument of knowledge? Reasoning. You find that most highly
developed in man. Now in the first place, instinct is an inadequate instrument; to
animals, the sphere of action is very limited, and within that limit instinct acts.
When you come to man, you see it is largely developed into reason. The sphere
of action also has here become enlarged. Yet even reason is still very
insufficient. Reason can go only a little way and then it stops, it cannot go any
further; and if you try to push it, the result is helpless confusion, reason itself
becomes unreasonable. Logic becomes argument in a circle. Take, for instance,
the very basis of our perception, matter and force. What is matter? That which is
acted upon by force. And force? That which acts upon matter. You see the
complication, what the logicians call see-saw, one idea depending on the other,
and this again depending on that. You find a mighty barrier before reason,
beyond which reasoning cannot go; yet it always feels impatient to get into the
region of the Infinite beyond. This world, this universe which our senses feel, or
our mind thinks, is but one atom, so to say, of the Infinite, projected on to the
plane of consciousness; and within that narrow limit, defined by the network of  consciousness, works our reason, and not beyond. Therefore, there must be
some other instrument to take us beyond, and that instrument is called
inspiration. So instinct, reason, and inspiration are the three instruments of
knowledge. Instinct belongs to animals, reason to man, and inspiration to God-
men. But in all human beings are to be found, in a more or less developed
condition, the germs of all these three instruments of knowledge. To have these
mental instruments evolved, the germs must be there. And this must also be
remembered that one instrument is a development of the other, and therefore
does not contradict it. It is reason that develops into inspiration, and therefore
inspiration does not contradict reason, but fulfils it. Things which reason cannot
get at are brought to light by inspiration; and they do not contradict reason. The
old man does not contradict the child, but fulfils the child. Therefore you must
always bear in mind that the great danger lies in mistaking the lower form of
instrument to be the higher. Many times instinct is presented before the world as
inspiration, and then come all the spurious claims for the gift of prophecy. A
fool or a semi-lunatic thinks that the confusion going on in his brain is
inspiration, and he wants men to follow him. The most contradictory irrational
nonsense that has been preached in the world is simply the instinctive jargon of
confused lunatic brains trying to pass for the language of inspiration.
The first test of true teaching must be, that the teaching should not contradict
reason. And you may see that such is the basis of all these Yogas. We take the
Raja-Yoga, the psychological Yoga, the psychological way to union. It is a vast
subject, and I can only point out to you now the central idea of this Yoga. We
have but one method of acquiring knowledge. From the lowest man to the
highest Yogi, all have to use the same method; and that method is what is called
concentration. The chemist who works in his laboratory concentrates all the
powers of his mind, brings them into one focus, and throws them on the
elements; and the elements stand analysed, and thus his knowledge comes. The
astronomer has also concentrated the powers of his mind and brought them into
one focus; and he throws them on to objects through his telescope; and stars and
systems roll forward and give up their secrets to him. So it is in every case —
with the professor in his chair, the student with his book — with every man who
is working to know. You are hearing me, and if my words interest you, your
mind will become concentrated on them; and then suppose a clock strikes, you
will not hear it, on account of this concentration; and the more you are able to.

concentrate your mind, the better you will understand me; and the more I
concentrate my love and powers, the better I shall be able to give expression to
what I want to convey to you. The more this power of concentration, the more
knowledge is acquired, because this is the one and only method of acquiring
knowledge. Even the lowest shoeblack, if he gives more concentration, will
black shoes better; the cook with concentration will cook a meal all the better.
In making money, or in worshipping God, or in doing anything, the stronger the
power of concentration, the better will that thing be done. This is the one call,
the one knock, which opens the gates of nature, and lets out floods of light.
This, the power of concentration, is the only key to the treasure-house of
knowledge. The system of Raja-Yoga deals almost exclusively with this. In the
present state of our body we are so much distracted, and the mind is frittering
away its energies upon a hundred sorts of things. As soon as I try to calm my
thoughts and concentrate my mind upon any one object of knowledge,
thousands of undesired impulses rush into the brain, thousands of thoughts rush
into the mind and disturb it. How to check it and bring the mind under control is
the whole subject of study in Raja-Yoga.
Now take Karma-Yoga, the attainment of God through work. It is evident that in
society there are many persons who seem to be born for some sort of activity or
other, whose minds cannot be concentrated on the plane of thought alone, and
who have but one idea, concretised in work, visible and tangible. There must be
a science for this kind of life too. Each one of us is engaged in some work, but
the majority of us fritter away the greater portion of our energies, because we do
not know the secret of work. Karma-Yoga explains this secret and teaches
where and how to work, how to employ to the greatest advantage the largest
part of our energies in the work that is before us. But with this secret we must
take into consideration the great objection against work, namely that it causes
pain. All misery and pain come from attachment. I want to do work, I want to
do good to a human being; and it is ninety to one that that human being whom I
have helped will prove ungrateful and go against me; and the result to me is
pain. Such things deter mankind from working; and it spoils a good portion of
the work and energy of mankind, this fear of pain and misery. Karma-Yoga
teaches us how to work for work's sake, unattached, without caring who is
helped, and what for. The Karma-Yogi works because it is his nature, because
he feels that it is good for him to do so, and he has no object beyond that. His position in this world is that of a giver, and he never cares to receive anything.
He knows that he is giving, and does not ask for anything in return and,
therefore, he eludes the grasp of misery. The grasp of pain, whenever it comes,
is the result of the reaction of "attachment".
There is then the Bhakti-Yoga for the man of emotional nature, the lover. He
wants to love God, he relies upon and uses all sorts of rituals, flowers, incense,
beautiful buildings, forms and all such things. Do you mean to say they are
wrong? One fact I must tell you. It is good for you to remember, in this country
especially, that the world's great spiritual giants have all been produced only by
those religious sects which have been in possession of very rich mythology and
ritual. All sects that have attempted to worship God without any form or
ceremony have crushed without mercy everything that is beautiful and sublime
in religion. Their religion is a fanaticism at best, a dry thing. The history of the
world is a standing witness to this fact. Therefore do not decry these rituals and
mythologies. Let people have them; let those who so desire have them. Do not
exhibit that unworthy derisive smile, and say, "They are fools; let them have it."
Not so; the greatest men I have seen in my life, the most wonderfully developed
in spirituality, have all come through the discipline of these rituals. I do not hold
myself worthy to sit at their feet, and for me to criticise them! How do I know
how these ideas act upon the human minds which of them I am to accept and
which to reject? We are apt to criticise everything in the world: without
sufficient warrant. Let people have all the mythology they want, with its
beautiful inspirations; for you must always bear in mind that emotional natures
do not care for abstract definitions of the truth. God to them is something
tangible, the only thing that is real; they feel, hear, and see Him, and love Him.
Let them have their God. Your rationalist seems to them to be like the fool who,
when he saw a beautiful statue, wanted to break it to find out of what material it
was made. Bhakti-Yoga: teaches them how to love, without any ulterior
motives, loving God and loving the good because it is good to do so, not for
going to heaven, nor to get children, wealth, or anything else. It teaches them
that love itself is the highest recompense of love --- that God Himself is love. It
teaches them to pay all kinds of tribute to God as the Creator, the Omnipresent,
Omniscient, Almighty Ruler, the Father and the Mother. The highest phrase that
can express Him, the highest idea that the human mind can conceive of Him, is
that He is the God of Love. Wherever there is love, it is He. "Wherever there is any love, it is He, the Lord is present there." Where the husband kisses the wife,
He is there in the kiss; where the mother kisses the child, He is there in the kiss;
where friends clasp hands, He, the Lord, is present as the God of Love. When a
great man loves and wishes to help mankind, He is there giving freely His
bounty out of His love to mankind. Wherever the heart expands, He is there
manifested. This is what the Bhakti-Yoga teaches.
We lastly come to the Jnana-Yogi, the philosopher, the thinker, he who wants to
go beyond the visible. He is the man who is not satisfied with the little things of
this world. His idea is to go beyond the daily routine of eating, drinking, and so
on; not even the teaching of thousands of books will satisfy him. Not even all
the sciences will satisfy him; at the best, they only bring this little world before
him. What else will give him satisfaction? Not even myriads of systems of
worlds will satisfy him; they are to him but a drop in the ocean of existence. His
soul wants to go beyond all that into the very heart of being, by seeing Reality
as It is; by realising It, by being It, by becoming one with that Universal Being.
That is the philosopher. To say that God is the Father or the Mother, the Creator
of this universe, its Protector and Guide, is to him quite inadequate to express
Him. To him, God is the life of his life, the soul of his soul. God is his own Self.
Nothing else remains which is other than God. All the mortal parts of him
become pounded by the weighty strokes of philosophy and are brushed away.
What at last truly remains is God Himself.
Upon the same tree there are two birds, one on the top, the other below. The one
on the top is calm, silent, and majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one on
the lower branches, eating sweet and bitter fruits by turns, hopping from branch
to branch, is becoming happy and miserable by turns. After a time the lower
bird eats an exceptionally bitter fruit and gets disgustful and looks up and sees
the other bird, that wondrous one of golden plumage, who eats neither sweet nor
bitter fruit, who is neither happy nor miserable, but calm, Self-centred, and sees
nothing beyond his Self. The lower bird longs for this condition but soon forgets
it, and again begins to eat the fruits. In a little while, he eats another
exceptionally bitter fruit, which makes him feel miserable, and he again looks
up, and tries to get nearer to the upper bird. Once more he forgets and after a
time he looks up, and so on he goes again and again, until he comes very near to
the beautiful bird and sees the reflection of light from his plumage playing  around his own body, and he feels a change and seems to melt away; still nearer
he comes, and everything about him melts away, and at last he understands this
wonderful change. The lower bird was, as it were, only the substantial-looking
shadow, the reflection of the higher; he himself was in essence the upper bird all the time. This eating of fruits, sweet and bitter, this lower, little bird, weeping and happy by turns, was a vain chimera, a dream: all along, the real bird was there above, calm and silent, glorious and majestic, beyond grief, beyond sorrow.

The upper bird is God, the Lord of this universe; and the lower bird is the human soul, eating the sweet and bitter fruits of this world.
Now and then comes a heavy blow to the soul. For a time, he stops the eating and goes towards the unknown God, and a flood of light comes.

He thinks that this world is a vain show.
Yet again the senses drag hint down, and he begins as before to eat the sweet and bitter fruits of the world.
Again an exceptionally hard blow comes.
His heart becomes open again to divine light; thus gradually he approaches God, and as he gets nearer and nearer, he finds his old self melting away.
When he has come near enough, he sees that he is no other than God, and he exclaims,

"He whom I have described to you as the Life of this universe, as present in the atom, and in suns and moons — He is the basis of our own life, the Soul of our soul. Nay, thou art That."

This is what this Jnana-Yoga teaches.

It tells man that he is essentially divine. It shows to mankind the real unity of being, and that each one of us is the Lord God Himself, manifested on earth.

All of us, from the lowest worm that crawls under our feet to the highest beings to whom we look up with wonder and awe — all are manifestations of the same Lord.

Lastly, it is imperative that all these various Yogas should be carried out in, practice; mere theories about them will not do any good.

First we have to hear about them, then we have to think about them.

We have to reason the thoughts out, impress them on our minds, and we have to meditate on them, realise them, until at last they become our whole life.

No longer will religion remain a bundle of ideas or theories, nor an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self.

By means of intellectual assent we may today subscribe to many foolish things, and change our minds altogether tomorrow. But true religion never changes.

Religion is realisation; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be.

It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledging; it is the whole soul becoming changed into what it believes.

That is religion.

A UNIVERSAL RELIGION

THE WAY TO THE REALISATION OF
A UNIVERSAL RELIGION

(Delivered in the Universalist Church, Pasadena,
California, 28th January 1900)
No search has been dearer to the human heart than that which brings to us light
from God. No study has taken so much of human energy, whether in times past
or present, as the study of the soul, of God, and of human destiny. However
immersed we are in our daily occupations, in our ambitions, in our work, in the
midst of the greatest of our struggles, sometimes there will come a pause; the
mind stops and wants to know something beyond this world. Sometimes it
catches glimpses of a realm beyond the senses, and a struggle to get at it is the
result. Thus it has been throughout the ages, in all countries. Man has wanted to
look beyond, wanted to expand himself; and all that we call progress, evolution,
has been always measured by that one search, the search for human destiny, the
search for God.
As our social struggles are represented amongst different nations by different
social organizations, so is man's spiritual struggle represented by various
religions; and as different social organizations are constantly quarrelling, are
constantly at war with one another, so these spiritual organisations have been
constantly at war with one another, constantly quarrelling. Men belonging to a
particular social organisation claim that the right to live only belongs to them;
and so long as they can, they want to exercise that right at the cost of the weak.
We know that just now there is a fierce struggle of that sort going on in South
Africa. Similarly, each religious sect has; claimed the exclusive right to live.
And thus we find that though there is nothing that has brought to man more
blessings than religion, yet at the same time, there is nothing that has brought
more horror than religion. Nothing has made more for peace and love than
religion; nothing has engendered fiercer hatred than religion. Nothing has made
the brotherhood of man more tangible than religion; nothing has bred more
bitter enmity between man and man than religion. Nothing has built more
charitable institutions, more hospitals for men, and even for animals, than
religion; nothing has deluged the world with more blood than religion. We know, at the same time, that there has always been an undercurrent of thought;
there have been always parties of men, philosophers, students of comparative
religion who have tried and are still trying to bring about harmony in the midst
of all these jarring and discordant sects. As regards certain countries, these
attempts have succeeded, but as regards the whole world, they have failed.
There are some religions which have come down to us from the remotest
antiquity, which are imbued with the idea that all sects should be allowed to
live, that every sect has a meaning, a great idea, imbedded within itself, and,
therefore it is necessary for the good of the world and ought to be helped. In
modern times the same idea is prevailing and attempts are made from time to
time to reduce it to practice. These attempts do not always come up to our
expectations, up to the required efficiency. Nay, to our great disappointment,
we sometimes find that we are quarrelling all the more.
Now, leaving aside dogmatic study, and taking a common-sense view of the
thing, we find at the start that there is a tremendous life-power in all the great
religions of the world. Some may say that they are ignorant of this, but
ignorance is no excuse. If a man says "I do not know what is going on in the
external world, therefore things that are going on in the external world do not
exist", that man is inexcusable. Now, those of you that watch the movement of
religious thought all over the world are perfectly aware that not one of the great
religions of the world has died; not only so, each one of them is progressive.
Christians are multiplying, Mohammedans are multiplying, the Hindus are
gaining ground, and the Jews also are increasing, and by their spreading all over
the world and increasing rapidly, the fold of Judaism is constantly expanding.
Only one religion of the world — an ancient, great religion — has dwindled
away, and that is the religion of Zoroastrianism, the religion of the ancient
Persians. Under the Mohammedan conquest of Persia about a hundred thousand
of these people came and took shelter in India and some remained in ancient
Persia. Those that were in Persia, under the constant persecution of the
Mohammedans, dwindled down till there are at most only ten thousand; in India
there are about eighty thousand of them, but they do not increase. Of course,
there is an initial difficulty; they do not convert others to their religion. And
then, this handful of persons living in India, with the pernicious custom of
cousin marriage, do not multiply. With this single exception, all the great
religions are living, spreading, and increasing. We must remember that all the
great religions of the world are very ancient, not one has been formed at the
present time, and that every religion of the world owes its origin to the country
between the Ganga and the Euphrates; not one great religion has arisen in
Europe, not one in America, not one; every religion is of Asiatic origin and
belongs to that part of the world. If what the modern scientists say is true, that
the survival of the fittest is the test, these religions prove by their still living that
they are yet fit for some people. There is a reason why they should live, they
bring good to many. Look at the Mohammedans, how they are spreading in
some places in Southern Asia, and spreading like fire in Africa. The Buddhists
are spreading all over Central Asia, all the time. The Hindus, like the Jews, do
not convert others; still gradually, other races are coming within Hinduism and
adopting the manners and customs of the Hindus and falling into line with
them. Christianity, you all know, is spreading — though I am not sure that the
results are equal to the energy put forth. The Christians' attempt at propaganda
has one tremendous defect — and that is the defect of all Western institutions:
the machine consumes ninety per cent of the energy, there is too much
machinery. Preaching has always been the business of the Asiatics. The
Western people are grand in organisation, social institutions, armies,
governments, etc.; but when it comes to preaching religion, they cannot come
near the Asiatic, whose business it has been all the time, and he knows it, and
he does not use too much machinery.
This then is a fact in the present history of the human race, that all these great
religions exist and are spreading and multiplying. Now, there is a meaning,
certainly, to this; and had it been the will of an All-wise and All-merciful
Creator that one of these religions should exist and the rest should die, it would
have become a fact long, long ago. If it were a fact that only one of these
religions is true and all the rest are false, by this time it would have covered the
whole ground. But this is not so; not one has gained all the ground. All religions
sometimes advance — sometimes decline. Now, just think of this: in your own
country there are more than sixty millions of people, and only twenty-one
millions professing religions of all sorts. So it is not always progress. In every
country, probably, if the statistics are taken, you would find that religions are
sometimes progressing and sometimes going back. Sects are multiplying all the
time. If the claims of a religion that it has all the truth and God has given it all
this truth in a certain book were true, why are there so many sects? Fifty years
do not pass before there are twenty sects founded upon the same book. If God
has put all the truth in certain books, He does not give us those books in order
that we may quarrel over texts. That seems to be the fact. Why is it? Even if a
book were given by God which contained all the truth about religion, it would
not serve the purpose because nobody could understand the book. Take the
Bible, for instance, and all the sects that exist amongst Christians; each one puts
its own interpretation upon the same text, and each says that it alone
understands that text and all the rest are wrong. So with every religion. There
are many sects among the Mohammedans and among the Buddhists, and
hundreds among the Hindus. Now, I bring these facts before you in order to
show you that any attempt to bring all humanity to one method of thinking in
spiritual things has been a failure and always will be a failure. Every man that
starts a theory, even at the present day, finds that if he goes twenty miles away
from his followers, they will make twenty sects. You see that happening all the
time. You cannot make all conform to the same ideas: that is a fact, and I thank
God that it is so. I am not against any sect. I am glad that sects exist, and I only
wish they may go on multiplying more and more. Why? Simply because of this:
If you and I and all who are present here were to think exactly the same
thoughts, there would be no thoughts for us to think. We know that two or more
forces must come into collision in order to produce motion. It is the clash of
thought, the differentiation of thought, that awakes thought. Now, if we all
thought alike, we would be like Egyptian mummies in a museum looking
vacantly at one another's faces — no more than that! Whirls and eddies occur
only in a rushing, living stream. There are no whirlpools in stagnant, dead
water. When religions are dead, there will be no more sects; it will be the
perfect peace and harmony of the grave. But so long as mankind thinks, there
will be sects. Variation is the sign of life, and it must be there. I pray that they
may multiply so that at last there will be as many sects as human beings, and
each one will have his own method, his individual method of thought in
religion.
But this thing exists already. Each one of us is thinking in his own way, but his
natural course has been obstructed all the time and is still being obstructed. If
the sword is not used directly, other means will be used. Just hear what one of  the best preachers in New York says: he preaches that the Filipinos should be
conquered because that is the only way to teach Christianity to them! They are
already Catholics; but he wants to make them Presbyterians, and for this, he is
ready to lay all this terrible sin of bloodshed upon his race. How terrible! And
this man is one of the greatest preachers of this country, one of the best
informed men. Think of the state of the world when a man like that is not
ashamed to stand up and utter such arrant nonsense; and think of the state of the
world when an audience cheers him! Is this civilisation? It is the old blood-
thirstiness of the tiger, the cannibal, the savage, coming out once more under
new names, new circumstances. What else can it be? If the state of things is
such now, think of the horrors through which the world passed in olden times,
when every sect was trying by every means in its power to tear to pieces the
other sects. History shows that. The tiger in us is only asleep; it is not dead.
When opportunities come, it jumps up and, as of old, uses its claws and fangs.
Apart from the sword, apart from material weapons, there are weapons still
more terrible — contempt, social hatred, and social ostracism. Now, these are
the most terrible of all inflictions that are hurled against persons who do not
think exactly in the same way as we do. And why should everybody think just
as we do? I do not see any reason. If I am a rational man, I should be glad they
do not think just as I do. I do not want to live in a grave-like land; I want to be a
man in a world of men. Thinking beings must differ; difference is the first sign
of thought. If I am a thoughtful man, certainly I ought to like to live amongst
thoughtful persons where there are differences of opinion.
Then arises the question: How can all these varieties be true? If one thing is
true, its negation is false. How can contradictory opinions be true at the same
time? This is the question which I intend to answer. But I will first ask you: Are
all the religions of the world really contradictory? I do not mean the external
forms in which great thoughts are clad. I do not mean the different buildings,
languages, rituals, books, etc. employed in various religions, but I mean the
internal soul of every religion. Every religion has a soul behind it, and that soul
may differ from the soul of another religion; but are they contradictory? Do
they contradict or supplement each other? — that is the question. I took up the
question when I was quite a boy, and have been studying it all my life.
Thinking that my conclusion may be of some help to you, I place it before you.
I believe that they are not contradictory; they are supplementary. Each religion, as it were, takes up one part of the great universal truth, and spends its whole
force in embodying and typifying that part of the great truth. It is, therefore,
addition; not exclusion. That is the idea. System after system arises, each one
embodying a great idea, and ideals must be added to ideals. And this is the
march of humanity. Man never progresses from error to truth, but from truth to
truth, from lesser truth to higher truth — but it is never from error to truth. The
child may develop more than the father, but was the father inane? The child is
the father plus something else. If your present state of knowledge is much
greater than it was when you were a child, would you look down upon that
stage now? Will you look back and call it inanity? Why, your present stage is
the knowledge of the child plus something more.
Then, again, we also know that there may be almost contradictory points of
view of the same thing, but they will all indicate the same thing. Suppose a man
is journeying towards the sun, and as he advances he takes a photograph of the
sun at every stage. When he comes back, he has many photographs of the sun,
which he places before us. We see that not two are alike, and yet, who will deny
that all these are photographs of the same sun, from different standpoints? Take
four photographs of this church from different corners: how different they
would look, and yet they would all represent this church. In the same way, we
are all looking at truth from different standpoints, which vary according to our
birth, education, surroundings, and so on. We are viewing truth, getting as
much of it as these circumstances will permit, colouring the truth with our own
heart, understanding it with our own intellect, and grasping it with our own
mind. We can only know as much of truth as is related to us, as much of it as
we are able to receive. This makes the difference between man and man, and
occasions sometimes even contradictory ideas; yet we all belong to the same
great universal truth.
My idea, therefore, is that all these religions are different forces in the economy
of God, working for the good of mankind; and that not one can become dead,
not one can be killed. Just as you cannot kill any force in nature, so you cannot
kill any one of these spiritual forces. You have seen that each religion is living.
From time to time it may retrograde or go forward. At one time, it may be shorn
of a good many of its trappings; at another time it may be covered with all sorts
of trappings; but all the same, the soul is ever there, it can never be lost. The ideal which every religion represents is never lost, and so every religion is
intelligently on the march.
And that universal religion about which philosophers and others have dreamed
in every country already exists. It is here. As the universal brotherhood of man
is already existing, so also is universal religion. Which of you, that have
travelled far and wide, have not found brothers and sisters in every nation? I
have found them all over the world. Brotherhood already exists; only there are
numbers of persons who fail to see this and only upset it by crying for new
brotherhoods. Universal religion, too, is already existing. If the priests and other
people that have taken upon themselves the task of preaching different religions
simply cease preaching for a few moments, we shall see it is there. They are
disturbing it all the time, because it is to their interest. You see that priests in
every country are very conservative. Why is it so? There are very few priests
who lead the people; most of them are led by the people and are their slaves and
servants. If you say it is dry, they say it is so; if you say it is black, they say it is
black. If the people advance, the priests must advance. They cannot lag behind.
So, before blaming the priests — it is the fashion to blame the priest — you
ought to blame yourselves. You only get what you deserve. What would be the
fate of a priest who wants to give you new and advanced ideas and lead you
forward? His children would probably starve, and he would be clad in rags. He
is governed by the same worldly laws as you are. "If you go on," he says, "let
us march." Of course, there are exceptional souls, not cowed down by public
opinion. They see the truth and truth alone they value. Truth has got hold of
them, has got possession of them, as it were, and they cannot but march ahead.
They never look backward, and for them there are no people. God alone exists
for them, He is the Light before them, and they are following that Light.
I met a Mormon gentleman in this country, who tried to persuade me to his
faith. I said, "I have great respect for your opinions, but in certain points we do
not agree — I belong to a monastic order, and you believe in marrying many
wives. But why don't you go to India to preach?" Then he was astonished. He
said, "Why, you don't believe in any marriage at all, and we believe in
polygamy, and yet you ask me to go to your country!" I said, "Yes; my
countrymen will hear every religious thought wherever it may come from. I wish you would go to India, first, because I am a great believer in sects. Secondly, there are many men in India who are not at all satisfied with any of
the existing sects, and on account of this dissatisfaction, they will not have
anything to do with religion, and, possibly, you might get some of them." The
greater the number of sects, the more chance of people getting religion. In the
hotel, where there are all sorts of food, everyone has a chance to get his appetite
satisfied. So I want sects to multiply in every country, that more people may
have a chance to be spiritual. Do not think that people do not like religion. I do
not believe that. The preachers cannot give them what they need. The same man
that may have been branded as an atheist, as a materialist, or what not, may
meet a man who gives him the truth needed by him, and he may turn out the
most spiritual man in the community. We can eat only in our own way. For
instance, we Hindus eat with our fingers. Our fingers are suppler than yours,
you cannot use your fingers the same way. Not only the food should be
supplied, but it should be taken in your own particular way. Not only must you
have the spiritual ideas, but they must come to you according to your own
method. They must speak your own language, the language of your soul, and
then alone they will satisfy you. When the man comes who speaks my language
and gives truth in my language, I at once understand it and receive it for ever.
This is a great fact.
Now from this we see that there are various grades and types of human minds
and what a task religions take upon them! A man brings forth two or three
doctrines and claims that his religion ought to satisfy all humanity. He goes out
into the world, God's menagerie, with a little cage in hand, and says, "God and
the elephant and everybody has to go into this. Even if we have to cut the
elephant into pieces, he must go in." Again, there may be a sect with a few good
ideas. Its followers say, "All men must come in! " "But there is no room for
them." "Never mind! Cut them to pieces; get them in anyhow; if they don't get
in, why, they will be damned." No preacher, no sect, have I ever met that
pauses and asks, "Why is it that people do not listen to us?" Instead, they curse
the people and say, "The people are wicked." They never ask, "How is it that
people do not listen to my words? Why cannot I make them see the truth? Why
cannot I speak in their language? Why cannot I open their eyes?" Surely, they
ought to know better, and when they find people do not listen to them, if they
curse anybody, it should be themselves. But it is always the people's fault! They
never try to make their sect large enough to embrace every one.
Therefore we at once see why there has been so much narrow-mindedness, the
part always claiming to be the whole; the little, finite unit always laying claim
to the infinite. Think of little sects, born within a few hundred years out of
fallible human brains, making this arrogant claim of knowledge of the whole of
God's infinite truth! Think of the arrogance of it! If it shows anything, it is this,
how vain human beings are. And it is no wonder that such claims have always
failed, and, by the mercy of the Lord, are always destined to fail. In this line the
Mohammedans were the best off; every step forward was made with the sword
— the Koran in the one hand and the sword in the other: "Take the Koran, or
you must die; there is no alternative! " You know from history how phenomenal
was their success; for six hundred years nothing could resist them, and then
there came a time when they had to cry halt. So will it be with other religions if
they follow the same methods. We are such babes! We always forget human
nature. When we begin life, we think that our fate will be something
extraordinary, and nothing can make us disbelieve that. But when we grow old,
we think differently. So with religions. In their early stages, when they spread a.
little, they get the idea that they can change the minds of the whole human race
in a few years, and go on killing and massacring to make converts by force;
then they fail, and begin to understand better. We see that these sects did not
succeed in what they started out to do, which was a great blessing. Just think if
one of those fanatical sects had succeeded all over the world, where would man
be today? Now, the Lord be blessed that they did not succeed! Yet, each one
represents a great truth; each religion represents a particular excellence —
something which is its soul. There is an old story which comes to my mind:
There were some ogresses who used to kill people and do all sorts of mischief;
but they themselves could not be killed, until someone found out that their souls
were in certain birds, and so long as the birds were safe nothing could destroy
the ogresses. So, each one of us has, as it were, such a bird, where our soul is;
has an ideal, a mission to perform in life. Every human being is an embodiment
of such an ideal, such a mission. Whatever else you may lose, so long as that
ideal is not lost, and that mission is not hurt, nothing can kill you. Wealth may
come and go, misfortunes may pile mountains high, but if you have kept the
ideal entire, nothing can kill you. You may have grown old, even a hundred
years old, but if that mission is fresh and young in your heart, what can kill
you? But when that ideal is lost and that mission is hurt, nothing can save you.
All the wealth, all the pourer of the world will not save you. And what are
nations but multiplied individuals? So, each nation has a mission of its own to
perform in this harmony of races; and so long as that nation keeps to that ideal,
that nation nothing can kill; but if that nation gives up its mission in life and
goes after something else, its life becomes short, and it vanishes.
And so with religions. The fact that all these old religions are living today
proves that they must have kept that mission intact; in spite of all their
mistakes, in spite of all difficulties, in spite of all quarrels, in spite of all the
incrustation of forms and figures, the heart of every one of them is sound — it
is a throbbing, beating, living heart. They have not lost, any one of them, the
great mission they came for. And it is splendid to study that mission. Take
Mohammedanism, for instance. Christian people hate no religion in the world
so much as Mohammedanism. They think it is the very worst form of religion
that ever existed. As soon as a man becomes a Mohammedan, the whole of
Islam receives him as a brother with open arms, without making any
distinction, which no other religion does. If one of your American Indians
becomes a Mohammedan, the Sultan of Turkey would have no objection to dine
with him. If he has brains, no position is barred to him. In this country, I have
never yet seen a church where the white man and the negro can kneel side by
side to pray. Just think of that: Islam makes its followers all equal — so, that,
you see, is the peculiar excellence of Mohammedanism. In many places in the
Koran you find very sensual ideas of life. Never mind. What Mohammedanism
comes to preach to the world is this practical brotherhood of all belonging to
their faith. That is the essential part of the Mohammedan religion; and all the
other ideas about heaven and of life etc.. are not Mohammedanism. They are
accretions.
With the Hindus you will find one national idea — spirituality. In no other
religion, in no other sacred books of the world, will you find so much energy
spent in defining the idea of God. They tried to define the ideal of soul so that
no earthly touch might mar it. The spirit must be divine; and spirit understood
as spirit must not be made into a man. The same idea of unity, of the realisation
of God, the omnipresent, is preached throughout. They think it is all nonsense
to say that He lives in heaven, and all that. It is a mere human, anthropomorphic
idea. All the heaven that ever existed is now and here. One moment in infinite
time is quite as good as any other moment. If you believe in a God, you can see. Him even now. We think religion begins when you have realised something. It
is not believing in doctrines, nor giving intellectual assent, nor making
declarations. If there is a God, have you seen Him? If you say "no", then what
right have you to believe in Him? If you are in doubt whether there is a God,
why do you not struggle to see Him? Why do you not renounce the world and
spend the whole of your life for this one object? Renunciation and spirituality
are the two great ideas of India, and it is because India clings to these ideas that
all her mistakes count for so little.
With the Christians, the central idea that has been preached by them is the
same: "Watch and pray, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" — which
means, purify your minds and be ready! And that spirit never dies. You
recollect that the Christians are, even in the darkest days, even in the most
superstitious Christian countries, always trying to prepare themselves for the
coming of the Lord, by trying to help others, building hospitals, and so on. So
long as the Christians keep to that ideal, their religion lives.
Now an ideal presents itself to my mind. It may be only a dream. I do not know
whether it will ever be realised in this world, but sometimes it is better to dream
a dream, than die on hard facts. Great truths, even in a dream are good, better
than bad facts. So, let us dream a dream.
You know that there are various grades of mind. You may be a matter-of-fact,
common-sense rationalist: you do not care for forms and ceremonies; you want
intellectual, hard, ringing facts, and they alone will satisfy you. Then there are
the Puritans, the Mohammedans, who will not allow a picture or a statue in
their place of worship. Very well! But there is another man who is more artistic.
He wants a great deal of art — beauty of lines and curves, the colours, flowers,
forms; he wants candles, lights, and all the insignia and paraphernalia of ritual,
that he may see God. His mind takes God in those forms, as yours takes Him
through the intellect. Then, there is the devotional man, whose soul is crying for
God: he has no other idea but to worship God, and to praise Him. Then again,
there is the philosopher, standing outside all these, mocking at them. He thinks,
"What nonsense they are! What ideas about God!"
They may laugh at one another, but each one has a place in this world. All these  various minds, all these various types are necessary. If there ever is going to be
an ideal religion, it must be broad and large enough to supply food for all these
minds. It must supply the strength of philosophy to the philosopher, the
devotee's heart to the worshipper; to the ritualist, it will give all that the most
marvellous symbolism can convey; to the poet, it will give as much of heart as
he can take in, and other things besides. To make such a broad religion, we
shall have to go back to the time when religions began and take them all in.
Our watchword, then, will be acceptance, and not exclusion. Not only
toleration, for so-called toleration is often blasphemy, and I do not believe in it.
I believe in acceptance. Why should I tolerate? Toleration means that I think
that you are wrong and I am just allowing you to live. Is it not a blasphemy to
think that you and I are allowing others to live? I accept all religions that were
in the past, and worship with them all; I worship God with every one of them,
in whatever form they worship Him. I shall go to the mosque of the
Mohammedan; I shall enter the Christian's church and kneel before the crucifix;
I shall enter the Buddhistic temple, where I shall take refuge in Buddha and in
his Law. I shall go into the forest and sit down in meditation with the Hindu,
who is trying to see the Light which enlightens the heart of every one.
Not only shall I do all these, but I shall keep my heart open for all that may
come in the future. Is God's book finished? Or is it still a continuous revelation
going on? It is a marvellous book — these spiritual revelations of the world.

The Bible, the Vedas, the Koran, and all other sacred books are but so many pages, and an infinite number of pages remain yet to be unfolded.

I would leave it open for all of them. We stand in the present, but open ourselves to the infinite future.

We take in all that has been in the past, enjoy the light of the present, and open every window of the heart for all that will come in the future.

Salutation to all the prophets of the past, to all the great ones of the present, and to all that are to come in the future!