The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological Study — John Shaqi
The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological StudyGuyau, Jean-Marie
Religion
The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological Study
Guyau, Jean-Marie
Irreligion and sociology; Religion; Social sciences
But the Hindu mind was destined to rise at a bound above Greek
polytheism and Hebrew monotheism. It is well to see God in nature.
There lies still a step beyond: to ignore nature. A firm belief in
the reality of this world, in the value of this life, enters as an
essential element into the belief in a personal God, superior to
the world and distinct from it, like the Javeh of the Hebrews. The
distinguishing characteristic of the Hindu mind is precisely a certain
scepticism in regard to the world, a persuasion of the vanity of
nature; so that the Hindu god possesses and can possess nothing in
common with Jupiter or Javeh. He who sees no more in material force
than a play of the senses, will see no more in the power which is
supposed to direct that force than a play of the imagination; faith
in a Creator shares the fate of faith in a creation. It is in vain
for Hindu poets to vindicate _sraddhâ_ faith, for the gods. Indra in
especial, the most popular of the divinities, to whom the supreme
epithet of Visvakarman, the maker of all things, is given, is of all
others most subject to be doubted. “There is no Indra. Who has seen
him? Whom shall we praise?” (Rig. vii. 89, 3.) It is true that the
poet after these bitter words represents Indra as appearing in person,
as in the book of Job. “Here I am, O worshipper! behold me here. In
might I overcome all creatures.” But the faith of the poet and of
the thinker takes fire but for a moment; we enter into a period of
doubt which Max Müller designates by the name of adevism and which he
carefully distinguishes from atheism properly so called. And in effect
Hindus did not reject the very notion of a god, the Greek θεός;
they sought God simply back of and beyond the personal and capricious
deities that up to that time they had adored; such deities became for
them names simply, but names of some thing, of some being, unknown.
“There is only one being, although the poets call him by a thousand
names.” Buddhism itself, which came later and did no more than develop
tendencies already existing in Brahmanism, was not, in Max Müller’s
judgment, originally atheistic. Adevism was no more for India, with
some slight exceptions, than a period of transition; the Hindu mind
passed it as a step toward a higher level. And yet what anxiety, what
incertitude, is expressed in certain hymns which belong, no doubt,
to this unhappy epoch. The Vedic poets no longer glorify the sky nor
the dawn, they do not celebrate the powers of Indra, nor the wisdom
of Visvakarman and Pragâpati. They move about, as they themselves
say, “as if enveloped in mist and idle speech.” Another says: “My
ears vanish, my eyes vanish, and the light also which dwells in my
heart; my mind with its far off longing leaves me; what shall I say,
and what shall I think?... Who knows from whence this great creation
sprang? and whether it is the work of a Creator or not? The most High
Seer, that is in the highest heaven, he knows it, or perchance even
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account