CHAPTER PAGE
xii PAGE CHAPTER VI.
THE FLESH AND'THE SPIRIT
Food the support of life—Is there enmity between the flesh and the spirit? Examples from Hindu Bhakti Literature—The body and blood of Christ—The supremacy of the spirit ...
THE WITNESS OF SCRIPPURE
VII.
The value' of direct contact» with God—The function of a historical revelation—The preparation for Christ » —The right and wrong use of Scripture — The Holy.
Spirit. and His interpretation— Revelation for all
THE PURPOSE OF PRAYER
Nit:
Prayer as communion — Bhakti teaching on prayer as communion— The place of petition in DER ee necessity for intercession .
THE SENSE OF AWE
wate TX Christ is from above—The element of mystery—God is truth—The allcomprehensiveness of Christ—The need in India for emphasis on awe in religion ;
THE VALUE OF "'JNANAMARGA
< 193 The Johannine doctrine of knowledge —Knowledge and the will—Knowledge and the intellect—The significance of emphasis on the intellect and the will —Christ the Light GLOSSARY S INDEX
OF REFERENCES. TO THE
JOHANNINE. WRITINGS
GENERAL INDEX
a ele scool ie» BOS . 230
CHRISTIANITY
AS BHAKTI MARGA
CHAP LER I
INTRODUCTION
IN attempting to understand how Christianity is likely to relate itself in the coming years to Indian thought and become a living force in the country, I am inclined to think that it will lay much emphasis on mystic experience, Ke ~ One line of evidence for this is that in studying
India's sacred writings one is impressed by the fact that their outstanding characteristic is their emphasis on the mystical life, which has really kindled the imagination of our people and has been more popular in India than anywhere else.
In many diverse ways— fervent, daring, fantastic, sober—has this life been lived in India.
Whether it is such profound writings as the Upanisads that we are studying or the devout hymns of the Bhaktas, we feel that the burden of their thought is mystic union, though it assumes different forms with different writers.
Concerned as I am in this book more particularly with Bhakti Literature, I may say that while there are other profound spiritual experiences described in it,
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
such as one's conviction of God's abundant grace, of His purification of the soul, of release from births and deaths, they are either directly and significantly related to the enjoyment of mystic union or considered as of minor importance.
The importance of mystic union in Bhakti Literature is clear from the abundant references to it, some full and others brief.
There is scarcely a page which does not speak of mystic union.
The deepest interests of a man may, not infrequently, be judged from the fact that he not only often speaks of them, but that as soon as he begins to speak of them, he betrays a new emotion, his face puts on a new glow.
So it is with the Bhaktas.
And they speak often of mystic union with such genuine feeling and warmth.
When they describe it, their words often become filled with a new power; and their imagination, always alert, becomes still keener and weaves its fancies with a new vigour.
And there is a further fact which indicates the commanding importance of the experience of mystic union in Bhakti Literature.
Often when not speaking directly of mystic union, the Bhaktas speak of God, adore His goodness, worship Him with bowed heads and clasped hands and in all possible ways seek to establish a relation with Him which, in due course, will grow into mystic union.
So does a woman deeply in love.
Even when not meeting her beloved, she thinks and dreams of him by day and night, treasures his portrait, and follows in her imagination his many movements.
It is correct, then, to state that the vital experience of the Bhaktas is that of mystic union, and that the other elements in their spiritual life are either related to it or are not of much significance.
INTRODUCTION
The other line of evidence is furnished by the strong leanings of some Indian Christians towards the mystical aspects of Christianity.
The doctrine of the indwelling 'Christ appeals to them with special force.
As if by instinct they are drawn to the Gospel of John, the Imitation of Christ-and, to come to modern books, the devotional writings of Andrew Murray.
The demands which such a life lived in Christ makes for prayer and meditation meet with a hearty response from them.
With sure grasp they realize the existence of a higher world of spiritual reality, not to be reached by our normal avenues of knowledge, but clear as daylight to the gaze of the seer.
The peace and joy which such a life of fellowship with God kindles in the soul awaken the best in them.
Sadhu Sundar Singh shows in a remarkable way the attraction which Indian Christians feel for Mysticism.
In his heredity and training are deeply ingrained many of the finer elements of Indian Mysticism, and he lives on John's Gospel assimilating its teaching into his very life.
He is not a student of biblical criticism or exegesis.
But he has, what is more important, a real insight into the mind of Christ.
Loving Christ with fervour, seeking to abide in Him and to bear fruit, he has undoubtedly gained a real understanding of the 'Gospel.
His public teaching, his habits, even the inarticulate impulses and motives of his life, all constitute a living commentary on the Gospel.
Speaking of Augustine, Westcott says: 'His ignorance of Greek constantly betrays him into the adoption of a false sense of the words, but his genius no less frequently enables him to enter with the fullest insight
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
into the thought of a passage which may escape the verbal interpreter.' '
For a somewhat similar reason weight ought to be attached to the intuitive insight of a religious genius like Sundar Singh into the real nature and importance of the Johannine Mysticism.
It may be asked however: What about the hundreds of Christians in India to-day who are enjoying a real
Christian experience but to whom a reference to the mystical side of Christianity would probably convey little or no meaning ? It is surprising how many people effectively adopt theological formulae from others and even derive benefit from them.
'There are Christians. in India whose theology has little or no relation to the Indian ways of thinking.
To say that their religious. experience is a sham would be certainly uncharitable and probably untrue.
They have assimilated certain interpretations of Christianity and are having certain
Christian experiences.
Theology they have; religious experience they have; but these are not living and fresh.
If they were living, their theology, though often nebulous, would have a distinctive note and their religious experience would possess deeper reality.
At present, it is theology which very largely produces. experience: that is, the experience is moulded in the religious belief accepted from outside.
But if experience could precede theology, then not being tramelled by any preconceived notions of what ought to be felt and done, it would grow spontaneously, enriching itself in innumerable ways.
Theology, being an intellectual statement of such living experience, would 1B. F. Westcott, Zhe Gospel According to St. John, London,
1919: p. xcv.
INTRODUCTION
then possess a power and genuineness all its own.
Indian Christians who have spent many happy years in the interpretations of Christianity that have not regarded the supreme importance of mystic experience in religion, and who have therefore failed to take cognizance of what has been for centuries the dominant note of religious life in India, have not had a false experience, but, it may well be surmised, they have had a Shallow experience.
If they had thought for themselves, seeking to incorporate into their life and thought the best elements in their heredity as well as in their environment, they would no doubt have had a much deeper Christian experience.
Observing then, on the one hand, that the trend of religious thought in India has been mystical and, on the other, that Indian Christians are drawn to mystical
Christianity, I am led to think that in India the 'Christianity of the future will be largely mystical.
THE DEFINITION OF MYSTICISM
A distinguished thinker and missionary with a long experience in India strongly protests in a letter to me against any attempt to interpret Christianity as being mystical.
'I myself,' he says in the course of the letter, 'am in the habit of using the term "'Mysticism'"' in a perfectly definite sense—the sense in which it is used, e.g., by Royce in his Gifford Lectures and by the Ritschlians in their constant polemic against it as un- 'Christian.
I understand by Mysticism that tendency of thought of which the Védantic Zat tvam asi is the consistent logical outcome.
There is a good deal of
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
such Mysticism in medieval and later Christian piety, but I question whether there is any of it in John.
Such Mysticism I myself regard as un-Christian.
I do not mean that the piety which expresses itself by means of thought of this tendency is not deeply Christian: but I mean that in so far as such piety uses thought of the mystical type, it is using an alien instrument which must tend to its owninjury.
Why do Hindus so appreciate a book like The Imitation of Christ ? My answer is : because in these books there is little or nothing distinctively Christian.
The /mtation leaves me cold because, in spite of the living religion of which it is full, I find in it nothing of the unique outlook on life and God which was distinctive of Jesus and which binds me to Him.'
This letter puts in vigorous language a criticism of Mysticism urged by some keen Christian thinkers and worthy of careful consideration.
By Mysticism, however, I mean the type of religious. life which emphasizes the communion of the human soul with a personal God.* So stated, the word Mysticism might seem to indicate the heart of all religious experience, but as a matter of fact, the word is used to indicate not so much the heart of all religious. experience, aS one particular type of that experience.
To distinguish between that type of religious experience and other types is most difficult.
Among other types of religious experience may be mentioned the ethical.
By the ethical type in Christia1 For a large collection of definitions of Mysticism with a running comment. see W, R. Inge, Christian Mysticism, London,
1899 ; Appendix A.
INTRODUCTION
nity, to take a concrete exampie, I refer to the teaching which emphasizes right living as the distinguishing mark of every real Christian.
Christians who follow such teaching would be the first to acknowledge that this right living is really based upon the believer's relation to Christ.
They do not ignore the fact that such a life of character ultimately derives its origin from a life lived in Christ.
But their emphasis seems to be rather on the outward result and visible expression of such intimate relationship than on the relationship itself.
Such Christians are apt to extol the Sermon on the Mount.
They do recognize that there is close connection in thought between the Sermon on the Mount and the Farewell Discourses recorded in the Fourth Gospel.
They do not by 'any means reject the wonderful teaching recorded in the latter.
They recognize the basic significance of this teaching for a life of such ethical perfection as they themselves teach.
But they seem more interested in extolling the importance and significance of the Sermon on the Mount than that of the Farewell Discourses.
By distinguishing between the mystical type of Christianity and the ethical type of Christianity, I do not at all imply that mystical Christianity is not ethical.
That, too, values highly a life of character : none values character more highly than the Christian mystic whose writing we study in the Fourth Gospel.
But it emphasizes more the life in Christ, stating that from such a life sound-morals and right conduct must necessarily flow. The difference between the mystical and the other
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
types of Christianity is then, I think, largely a difference -of emphasis.
All Christians regard the communion of the bhakta with Christ as a fundamental religious experience, but Christians who are mystical by temperament and training regard this fellowship with a deeper reverence than others and strive for it with more patient toil.
Much of the confusion of thought about Mysticism arises from confounding it with some of its consequences.
Mysticism may often lead to a way of looking at the universe and at life which might be called symbolism.
The man who is eager to come into contact with the living God naturally sees in the material universe indications of His presence.
The sun, the moon, the stars, the flowers of the field, the birds of the air—all these speak to him of the God in them.
Such symbolism easily tends to negate itself, to cease to be symbolism, the moment that which is considered a symbol is regarded as a reality.
Then symbolism becomes pantheism.
Life and matter in all their manifold forms come to be regarded not as indicating
God but as being God.
The transition seems to take place easily and naturally.
Symbolism is thus the earlier and pantheism the later stage of Mysticism.
They do not always follow Mysticism, nor are they an integral part of Mysticism but sometimes they are so considered ; this leads to much confusion of thought.
Again, Mysticism emphasizes the heart as the seat of vital religious experience.
God is not understood by us as the result of careful thought but rather as the object of love and devotion on our part.
We do not
INTRODUCTION
"9 argue and reason about matters of the Spirit but see them, feel them, experience them.
In its central 'contention that real religious experience takes place in the heart, Mysticism is not wrong.
The intellect may and should make clear the implications of religious experience but the religious experience itself is not produced by speculation.
We love God and eujoy Him with our hearts.
But feeling might easily degenerate into dangerous emotion.
To say that mystical experience depends largely on feeling is one thing: to say that mystical experience is feeling is quite another.
The man who has the conviction that real spiritual experience is not a matter of the intellect but a matter of the heart develops certain characteristic ways of approaching the Divine.
Prayer, in the sense of petition, with its expression of needs and the strong desire to have them met by God, he neglects.
Such petition he regards as of the earth.
It is too noisy and insistent.
Meditation on the attributes of God he lays aside as being too much the work of the intellect.
But he seeks to silence his soul so that he might hear God.
Such contemplation in which the soul lies quiescent and communes with the living Christ has the support in the experience of many of the finest Christian souls.
Mystics of the Christian Church have spoken of the meditation in which the mind thinks deliberately as being on a lower plane than the contemplation in which it empties itself and waits divine teaching.
Ifa man believes that he hears God better in the silence of his soul and that his grasp of spiritual things grows surer with his increasingly complete absorption in
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
contemplation, he is likely to neglect study.
He is also likely to neglect action.
The busy life of doing good ceases to have the attraction of the quiet life of contemplation in which his soul comes to be filled with the flood of Divine light.
To some, however, such a state of quiescence is an inexplicable mystery; they regard it as a meaningless vacancy.
The discipline which is needed to quiet the mind makes the mystic strong.
Take the man who trains his body by carefully regulated and abundant exercise.
What feats of strength hedisplays!
The heavy weights he lifts, the unusual flexibility with which he bends his body and moves his muscles, the enormous strain and fatigue he can stand, all astonish a man of ordinary strength.
Because he has devoted time and energy to ths training of his body, he is able to do things beyond the normal man.
Just so, the man who prepares himself for communion with the living God by much discipline and concentration, develops certain abnorma! psychical and physical powers.
His body comes to be under the influence of his soul.
If he is artistic by nature, he may see visions.
Mysticism may often give rise to such abnormal phenomena, but these are not its. sum and substance.
Tue Mysticism oF BHAKTI LITERATURE 'It is notorious,' says Baron F. von Higel, ' that there not only exists a Mysticism that is pantheistic and which consciously angrily rejects any and all personality in the Divine, but that this Mysticism has. been, upon the whole, the more prevalent type of
INTRODUCTION
at Mysticism and that the Mysticism of person itself easily tends to the Mysticism of person lost in, resolved into, thing.
Mysticism is indeed a term which covers a more or less distinctly pantheistic and a more or less. consistently personalist outlook.'
The Mysticism of the Bhaktas is that with 'a more or less consistently personalist outlook.'
. They strive after, and often attain, close intimacy with a personal God.
They are not, however, always able to regard the object of their experience as a personal being.
In supremely baffling and critical moments, the mind struggling for adequate expression, they utter thoughts of God's all-in-all-ness in the universe which seem out of harmony with the idea of the personal God, generally the trend of their teaching.
That He is regarded as a person is evident from the abundant descriptions of His appearance which occur in their writings, and, what is more to the point, from the full realization of the fact that He possesses qualities such as love, joy and truth and that His dealings with men are determined by these qualities.
But, at the same time, He is described as being, on the one hand, these qualities themselves, love, joy, truth and, on the other, as being the various phenomena which we call nature.
This fact should be remembered as a necessary qualification to the statement that the Mysticism described in these pages is of a personalist character.
Nor are the Bhaktas always able to maintain the separateness of their own personality.
There occur in their life certain transcendental, though apparently 1In a letter to the author
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
brief, moments when the personal intimacy becomes a sense of identity and they feel themselves one with the Lord whom they love.
In the Bhaktas, the feeling of oneness is not permanent but temporary, felt in an hour of exaltation.
The identity is not one of substance but of person.
The mystic is not resolved into a thing but has himself become the person whom he has loved.
Not a philosophic conviction of the oneness of his substance with that of the Divine Being, but love has wrought what to him is the Supreme experience.
God has lovingly and graciously come into him and filled him so fully that his self has become included in the Divine Self, love acquiescing in the inclusion.
Outwardly, he lives and sings and acts, and men call him Nammalvar or Chaitanya, but inwardly he is no longer Nammalvar or Chaitanya.
It is the Divine Self in him which inspires his thoughts and fits them into moving and melodious verse.
He does not cease to exist, for does he not live and sing?
But the source of these activities is not he himself but the God in him.
THE MYSTICISM OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
Of the Fourth Gospel, we may say that while there are other doctrines in it, such as that of the Logos, of the New Birth, of the Comforter and His mission, they are viewed in their relation to mystic experience.
There is no exaggeration in saying that in the Fourth 'Gospel fellowship with God and Christ is more frequently alluded to than any other Christian
INTRODUCTION
experience, that it inspites the noblest passages of the Gospel, and that where it is not explicitly described, it is the ideal towards which the thought of the Gospel tends.
'This doctrine of a mystical union,' says Scott, 'in which the higher life flows uninterruptedly from Christ to the believer, contains the central and characteristic thought of the Fourth Gospel.' *
The experience recorded in the Fourth Gospel may be regarded as Mysticism in the same sense in which that word is used in this book—communion with a personal God.
But some of the ideas in Bhakti Literature which complicate this thought are absent here.
The all-in-all-ness of God as described in the Gospel does not come into conflict with the idea of a personal
God.
Nor is there any trace of the thought of the human self becoming part of a larger Divine Self and losing its inner life, while keeping its outer activity.
The Divine and the human selves maintain their separate personalities while enjoying the closest communion with each other.
Mystic union in the Fourth Gospel, whether of Christ with God or of the Christian with Christ, consists in carrying out God's or Christ's will to its complete fulfilment.
It is therefore transacted largely in the region of will, of character.
This teaching is not, however, easy to understand, as. there are present in it certain other ideas as well.
We commune now with Christ and now with the Father and now with both. Again, we are told with characteristic boldness that our communion with Christ is to be like His communion with the Father.
This analogy is 1 E.F. Scott, Zhe Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh 1908 ; p. 282.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
not altogether clear for we find it exceedingly difficult to understand the nature of the fellowship which exists between Him and His Father.
Full of mystery as it is, the analogy extends beyond measure the possibilities inherent in our own mystic communion with Him.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
FOR INDIAN THOUGHT
It is urged that Mysticism has run riot in India often ' with disastrous results and that it would be extremely unwise to develop those elements in Christianity which may be called mystical or to make the Gospel of St. John the main basis for an exposition of Indian
Christianity.
Mysticism, so the criticism runs, tends to live in eternity, conscious of its vastness alone and neglecting or even despising time.
It is easy to see how a mind eager to serve the eternal God and to live in His constant presence loses its sense of time.
The Fourth Gospel, however, shows how accepting the historical Christ we may live in eternity.
In it history --and metaphysics are woven together.
This correlation between time and eternity ought to prove of the greatest importance to us inIndia.
We in India have emphasized metaphysics at the expense of history and have lived in other worlds than this, absorbed in spiritual things.
Nowareaction has setin: we are keen on the present and eager to set in motion swift currents of thought which will work their way into politics.
The danger now is that, absorbed in the things which happen, we may lose sight of the profound issues in
INTRODUCTION
them.
The visible is but a dim and partial revelation of the invisible.
It is this great truth that underlies the method of interpretation adopted by the Fourth
Evangelist.
As a disciple the author of the Gospel hhad come into contact with Jesus.
He had taken careful note of His sayings and doings and had meditated on them long, so that they began to reveal to his earnest and searching soul some of their great secrets.
'The historic Jesus began to appear to him vividly as the eternal Logos.
On the one hand, John is aware of the importance of history as he reckons with a person who has appeared in time.
On the other, he fully realizes the significance of metaphysics, 'being aware of the eternal issues in time.
If it can base itself on the Fourth Gospel, Indian Christianity will, we may hope, avoid the danger of neglecting history.
Another danger of Mysticism is the identification of the human soul with the Divine.
If Mysticism be pushed too far, as suggested in the letter already quoted, it must end by considering the human soul as one with God.
This conclusion has been as a matter of fact reached by Sankara, one of India's greatest philosophers.
In a country where this tendency is strongly present, the influence of John would be all to the good.
John was considerably exercised over this problem of the relation between the human and the Divine in deep religious experience.
He seems to be quite aware of the possibility of man being metaphysically one with God but emphatically maintains the difference between God and man even in the deepest moments of religious experience.
The study
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
of the Gospel of John will, therefore, be of peculiar helpfulness to thinking people in India,
Yet another reason why Indian Christians should take full account of the Fourth Gospel is that in Mysticism all the world over there is a constant tendency to ignore the laws of morality.
The man who feels that his entire being is dominated by God comes to think that he cannot possibly go wrong; for if he can go wrong, the blame would rest not upon himself but upon the Divine Self working within him: has he not annulled his own self in order to give room to the Divine Self?
On this point too John has much that is of value to teach India.
Wholly obedient. to God as he is, he realizes that he has constantly to be on his guard against wrong doing.
For the human self is ever apt to assert itself and to do wrong ; and the Divine Self is not likely to compel it, by any definite act, nor by sheer over-mastering presence, to put am end to all possibility of wrong-doing.
Wuy EMPHASIZE THE MysTICAL ELEMENT?
Why should we seek to give prominence to the mystical element in the Fourth Gospel, deriving an impetus to such an emphasis from a study of Hindu
Bhakti Literature?
The answer to this is that in the mystical life we have a real and vivid experience of Christ.
This is, in fact, the great value of Christian Mysticism.
We have historical records of Jesus as He lived and wrought on this earth centuries ago.
We can study and ponder over these records and let their meaning soak into us.
With skilful imagination
INTRODUCTION
and patient research we can seek to understand the past and to recall to our minds the Jesus of history.
The mystic, however, does not depend only, or even mainly, upon an accumulation of historical data for his knowledge of Christ.
He probably has assimilated, in some measure consciously and in a larger measure unconsciously, the historical data that are known to his contemporaries about Christ, though unwisely he might sometimes set up as a critic of such data.
But his own pathway to the feet of Christ is different.
In prayer, in hours of devotion and ecstasy, as well as in ordinary life, he experiences the living Christ.
The barriers which lie between him and Christ cease to exist and they enter into close fellowship.
The spirit of Christ becomes multiplied and His exalted presence keeps company with men for ever.
A remarkable example of such Christian Mysticism is Paul.
As Deissmann says:
'The formula ''in Christ"? (or ''in the Lord'' and so on) occurs one hundred and sixty-four times in Paul's letters; it is really the characteristic expression of his Christianity,
It has been, in my opinion, very often and very greatly misunderstood by the, commentators; they have rationalized it; they have ignored it; under their hands it often has become a mere scrap of parchment ; they disguised its inner mystical energy, in very many cases applying to the so-called historic Jesus and to His work, regarded as finished in the past, instead of applying the formula to the present exalted Lord and to His action still going on.
'though weakened: in effect by exegesis, the formula "in Christ'' must be
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
conceived as the peculiarly Pauline expression of the Apostle's most intimate fellowship with the living spiritual Christ.' }
BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND THE FouRTH GOSPEL
The problem of Christianity in India, then, consists jn getting a real grasp of the various trends of Hindu thought, and in interpreting Christian writings like those of John bearing these constantly in mind. When this is done Christian theology in India will become genuinely Indian.
This process may also shed new light on the mind of the evangelist, light which will certainly be acceptable to the people in India and perhaps prove of much use to Christians elsewhere.
An exclusively Indian meaning need not be read into a book that was written in another land in a different environment, as is done in Sri Parananda's commentary on the Gospel* where the writer makes
John out to be a Hindu following the Saiva Siddhanta doctrine.
To do this is to go against the fundamental laws of historical criticism—a process of study which has proved so useful in our understanding of ancient texts.
What we may accept, however, is that while the Gospel was composed ina different land and ina different environment, and while its particular doctrines were determined accordingly—it is necessary to under1 Adolf Deissmann, Zhe Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul, London, 1923; pp. 171, 172, See, however, Wilhelm Herrmann, Zhe Communion of the Christian with God, \ondon,
1913, (such pages as 27-37) for an able statement of the view that Mysticism is un-Christian.
Sal 2 Sri Parananda, An Eastern Exposition of St.
John, London, 1902.
'INTRODUCTION
stand clearly the differences—yet its fundamental teaching is significantly related to the leading problems and experiences of Hindu seers. j In recent years much has been written about the 'authorship of the Gospel of John, its date, its literary character, and the influence of the then current philosophy and environment onit.
All these questions are important.
They vitally affect our understanding of the Gospel andits purport.
After a careful study of the subject, I have decided to treat the Gospel as a mystic
_ document of the early Christian Church by an immedi- --ate disciple of Jesus, whom we may call John or the Fourth Evangelist.
The same author seems also to have written the Epistles bearing the name of St. John.
I have accepted the conclusion of modern scholars that in the Fourth Gospel we have the utterances of our
Lord after they have passed through the Evangelist's brooding mind.
Browning well puts into the Evan- -gelist's mouth these words:
'Since much that at the first, in deed and word, Lay simply and sufficiently exposed, Had grown (or else my soul was grown to match,
Fed through such years, familiar with such light, Guarded and guided still to see and speak)
Of new significance and fresh result ; Wkat first were guessed as points, I now knew stars, And named them in the Gospel I have writ.' 1
It is often difficult to recognize which is our Lord's 1 A Death in the Desert.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
own teaching and which the teaching of the Evangelist. *
'Tur SIGNIFICANCE OF BHAKTI THOUGHT
When we speak of interpreting Christianity in its. relation to the spirit of India's religious genius, we have to remember that India's religious genius has expressed itself in systems of philosophy, religious practices and sacred books often most diverse.
The immediate task which Jies before Indian Christians anxious to make clear to themselves and to others the relation between the real spirit of Christianity and the real spirit of India's religious life is that of choice.
We have to decide what particular form of religious life in India is. best suited for this purpose.
As there are many types of religious thought in India, an inevitable consequence of the attempts of Christian thinkers to adjust the 1 The commentaries or books of exposition I have found helpful are, arranging the names in alphabetic order:
St. Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John, translated by John Gibb, Edinburgh, 1873.
Wilhelm Heitmuller, Das Johannes Evangelium in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, edited by Johannes Weiss, Géttingen,
1918.
H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,, Tibingen, 1911.
W. W. Peyton, The Memorabilia of Jesus, commonly cailed the Gospel of St. John, London and Edinburgh, 1892.
A, Plummer, The Gospel according to St. John, Cambridge, 1913.
R. F, Scott, Zhe Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh, 1918.
E. H. Strachan, Zhe Fourth Gospel, Its Significance and'
Environment, London, 1917.
H. Weinel, &zblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Tiib-ingen, 1921.
; B. F. Westcott, Ze Gospel according to St. John, London, 1919.
INTRODUCTION
et expression of their religious experience to the terms and ideas familiar to India would be the development of many types of Indian Christianity.
Some of these types of Indian Christianity would be more true to the real spirit of Christianity than others.
A keen Advaitin, for instance, who accepts Christianity and sincerely believes that Christianity is Advaita might offer an interpretation loudly proclaiming it to be Indian Christianity.
Indian it certainly will be but not Christianity.
"Chose who look forward to Christianity becoming indigenous in the country must not forget this danger which attends the process of relating Christianity to Hindu thought.
In this book I have chosen the Bhakti type of religious thought in India for the purpose of showing the intimate relation between the inner spirit of Christianity, and the inner spirit of India's religious thought.
This I have done for three reasons:
The type of religious experience which has expressed itself in the Bhakti writings, with its longing for union with God as well as its enjoyment of such anion, is of all the types of religious experience in India probably the nearest in affinity to Christian experience.
2. The metaphysical background lying behind Bhakti experience is also nearest in affinity to the metaphysical packground of Christianity.
Both agree in maintaining the separateness of the Divine and human personalities, however much they may be eager for union.
3, Theimmense following which Bhakti has in India is another reason.
Through popular hymns it has
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
reached and influenced great numbers of people with little or no education.
Historically also it probably started as popular devotion to idols, but it would be wrong to maintain that Bhakti is the religion of the masses only.
It has always included among its votaries. not merely millions of the common people but hundreds of India's able scholars and devoted saints.
MEANING OF BHAKTI
Generally speaking, Bhakti' is the deep, unselfish love of the whole man for God, finding its highest bliss. inunion with Him.
The main thing to remember is that.
Bhakti is love.
Often the word Bhakti has been translated into English as 'faith'.
The word ' faith ° calls up in the minds of many the one-sided idea of intellectual assent to certain facts.
Rendered ag faith, Bhakti seems to imply that the one following it has to believe in something.
Such an understanding of Bhakti does not do justice to its rich and complex meaning.
Certain facts and ideas may be accepted as true by a bhakta and may lie at the basis of his Bhakti.
But the acceptance of them is not the whole of Bhakti nor even the essence of it.
The heart of Bhakti is the strong love which such facts and ideas, accepted as true,, produce in the soul.
More often the word Bhakti has been rendered by the English word 'devotion.'
While this word is more satisfactory than faith in bringing 4 For detailed and careful accounts of Bhakti, see especially
Sir George Grierson's article on '
Bhakti Marga' in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics and Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's Vaisnavism.
Saivism and Minor Religious Systenis, Strassburg, 1913.
INTRODUCTION
wicibi.d
out the whole-hearted character of Bhakti, it seems too cold and distant effectively to convey the warm and intimate character of Bhakti.
The only English word which can adequately render Bhakti is love.
It is significant that in the Tamil Bhakti hymns, the word love is often used as a synonym for Bhakti.
Though the word Bhakti in itself has no trace of the sex element, it is not without interest that, like the English word, love, it has sometimes been used to indicate movements of the soul, though always towards God, in terms, or even in practices, in which the sex element has found an all too absorbing emphasis.
The doctrine of Bhakti has had along and varied history in India.
Often its emotional and occasionally its intellectual aspect has received emphasis.
In the Bhagavad-Gita, over the date of which there has been much controversy, but which according to the two eminent Hindu scholars, Mr. K. T. Telang* and Sir R.G.
Bhandarkar,® was written about the fourth century B.c., we find the earliest extensive teaching of the doctrine.
From the Bhagavad-Gita it appears as if Bhakti attained its importance, at least in philosophic circles, as a temperamental reaction to the severity and rigour of Yoga.
'The Yogin had started out to suppress desire, love and all feeling in general, and though these had been strangled, they had not been killed.
So inthe 1 cf. Periya Puranam, edited by Arumuga Navalar, Fifth Edition ; p. 128.
2 The BShagavad-Gita, The Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, Oxford, 1908 ; p. 34.
3 Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems; p. 13,
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
Gita Bhakti is an outlet, though a calm and sober one, for pent-up emotions.
Through such Bhakti, the devotee can attain God.
'Those who worship me with Bhakti are in me and I also in them.'* In the Giéa, Bhakti is constantly associated with action and knowledge and these three are spoken of as paths leading to God, though the first is of prime importance.
Such constant association tends to raise Bhakti from the emotional to the practical and intellectual spheres.
Between the seventh and tenth centuries A.D., the poetsingers of the Tamil land, botH Saiva and Vaisnava, contributed their warmth and fervency—the result partly of their poetic temperament and partly of their devotion
—to the development of Bhakti.
The missionary zeal, accompanying their attempts to win triumphs for their particular creeds, lent additional stimulus to the further enrichment of Bhakti.
The Bhagavata-Purana, written not later than a.p. 900 and abundant in its influence upon the Bhakti of later generations all over India, infuses still more passion into Bhakti.
' Bhakti in this work is a surging emvution which chokes the speech, makes the tears flow and the hair thrill with pleasurable excitement, and often leads to hysterical laughing and weeping by turns, to sudden fainting fits and to long trances of unconsciousness.'?
In the eleventh century A.D. came Ramanuja, who called a halt to this movement and gave Bhakti the strength and virility that comes of restraint.
1 Gila ix, 29.
2 J. N. Farquhar, Outline of the Religious Literature of India, Oxford, 1920; p, 230.
INTRODUCTION
He made it more a type of intellectual meditation, accompanied by love, but deprived of the extravagance of rapture and ecstacy.
To him itis like a 'stream of flowing oil.'* A popular life of the great teacher written in Tamil makes him, however, subject to moods of ecstaticdevotion."
In the meanwhile saints had beconie aware of the incapacity of some souls for full and strong emotion.
They desired to enjoy God in the same fervent way as the Bhaktas of the Bhagavata-Purana did, but they could not.
That led to the open teaching of the doctrine of Prapatti, or complete surrender to God, without any feeling whatever, either of joy or of sorrow, a doctrine which had already been taught® but which had been kept secret because it came into conflict with the doctrine of works which was so prominent at the time.
The movement was 4 spiral one, going around in a circle and yet finishing off at a higher point than where it began.
The Yogin had sought to eliminate feeling, but the devotee who practised Prapatti surrendered himself completely to God, so completely that he ceased to expect in himself any change of feeling whatever, for better or for worse.
It is clear then that Bhakti has been used in different senses by different schools of thought.
The meaning of the word would then depend in each case upon its context.
A careful study of the Bhakti books convinces me 1 Sri-Bhasya, 1.1. i.
2 The Lite of Ramanujacharya, translated by A, Govinda charya, 1916; p. 78.
| 3 e.g. to Ramanuja by his Guru.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
that while the heart of their teaching is spiritual and while a strong desire to love.God and to become one with Him, and often a real joy at this desire: being fulfilled, is found in the books, there is in. them a great deal of puerile mythology, cosmology and theology.
I am aware of the fact that I belong to a. different religion, with different standards ot judgement and different ideals, and that these may affect my estimate of Bhakti literature in spite of all my desire to reach a scientific and unprejudiced view.
Further, the Bhakti writings are old writings which naturally contain a good deal which strikes a modern mind as strange..
The same holds true of the writings of medieval Christian mystics, in which are found many exploded ideas of theology, eschatology, angelology and psychology.
It is necessary to dwell here upon this. general character of Bhakti literature, for otherwise it would be necessary throughout the book to make: digressions to point out the strange frame-work into which the significant and valuable spiritual ideas. here discussed are set.
These digressions would interfere with the main purpose of the book which is to show the affinity between the heart of the teaching of John and the heart of Bhakti.
It has been suggested by competent scholars that leading exponents of Bhakti like the author of theBhagavad-Gita, Manikkavacakar, Ramanuja and Kabir were influenced by Christian thought.
This book does. not proceed upon any such theory of the historical dependence of Hindu Bhakti on Christian teaching.
The data at our disposal do not make clear such a
INTRODUCTION
at dependence.
Nor is it necessary for the purpose of this book, which attempts to see what theological relation the Fourth Gospel bears to the doctrines and ideals, the wistful longings and the assured results of Hindu thought, to. accept. or reject such a theory of historical connection.
And, further I have not hesitated to emphasize, at what may seem disproportionate length, ideas which are not prominent in the Fourth
Gospel or in Bhakti, each taken by itself but which attain great importance when the two are considered together.
Such synthesis in the interests of living religion has, however, its imperfection as a scientific method as it sometimes leads to wrong proportions.
CHAP RERAIL
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
The sume came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him.
He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.
There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not, But as many as received him, to them gave he the righi to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
John i. 6-14.
The subject of our study in this and in the following chapters is the pathway to union with God, which is the goal of mystic religion.
To state such a purpose might seem to indicate that there is a distinction between the pathway and the goal, between the process of attaining and the attainment.
This distinc- ©
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
2a tion, however necessary for the sake of clearness, is not quite reai.
It is not possible to separate entirely the experience of seeking, from that of reaching, God.
The two are so closely inter-related and so often occur together that there really seems to be no distinction between them.
The illustration of the path is frequently used in this book to describe man's experience of God because it seems so natural and expressive and because it has been so largely used in India for that purpose.
But there is a grave defect init.
A road suggests the idea that the end is distant.
To reach the destiny may be a matter of several days or months, involving many difficulties.
It might be long before even the spires and turrets of the city are seen at a distance.
Not so mysiic experience.
God's revelation of himself and man's response to this revelation proceed together.
The path of the mystic quest does not wind through strange and unknown country at a distance from the city, but enters the city immediately and keeps going round it in daily sight of its wonders, though it may take some time before the heart of the city is reached.
There would always be new regions of God's love to be seen, and yet almost from the first, the soul would begin to experience God.
~ The pathway to God, whether taken by Hindu or Christian, I propose to describe as Bhakti.
It is quite evident that the approach to God as set forth in the Johannine writings has a distinctive character of its own.
By calling it Bhakti I do not imply that the Fourth Evangelist teaches exactly what thinkers in
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
India have meant by the term Bhakti.
As already pointed out, the term Bhakti has not always meant the same thing in India.
But an increasing use by Christians in India of this word and others like Antaryamin and Jivan-Mukti would show that, whatever
'the differences in the exact content of these words may be, they seek to express certain experiences which cannot but be regarded as common to Hindus and Christians.
Thereisno reason why, after realizing the subtle, and often important, differences in meaning, we should not allow ourselves to come under the spell
-of these historic words which have become attractive after long usage.
This may look like sentimental devotion, but it at once brings the discussion of Christian experience into an atmosphere with which we are familiar in India.
Even if we seem to lose in accuracy of thought, we gain in strength and vigour of appeal, though we must safeguard ourselves against this loss by frequently remembering the fact that the terms do not always mean the same thing in Christian and Hindu theology.
Tue AIM OF THE PROLOGUE
The passage from the Gospel of John which stands 'at the beginning of this chapter gives us some aspects of the Johannine teaching about Bhakti.
The passage, it will be noted, occurs in the opening verses of the Gospel, known as its prologue.
To understand the passage aright and to attach proper value to it will be possible only after we have attempted to estimate tthe significance of the prologue.
What, then, is the
THE AWAKENING OF BHARTI
meaning of the prologue and what is its relation to the rest of the Gospel?
Is it more like a gateway leading to the beautiful gardens and splendid buildings of a palace or is it rather like a tower in the palace itself? A gateway, however fine and massive, is often a thing by itself, marking but the fringes of the gardens and in no adequate proportion to the magnificence of the palace.
But it proclaims to the world that z/is the entrance to the palaee.
A tower is more closely related to the palace and, in fact, forms a part of it.
From it are seen the grounds and buildings of the palace in their exact relations.
The prologue seems to be to the 'Gospel more as its tower than as its gateway.
It does not stand by itself, a magnificent piece of writing, having no real connection with the Gospel; but as from a tower, we see rapidly and yet clearly glimpses of the many truths in the Gospel.
Thus understood the passage which forms the subject of our study in this chapter gains greatly in importance.
The prologue falls into two broad divisions, the first five verses describing the One who is to be loved and worshipped, and the next nine verses describing the way in which we should love and worship Hits"
That is, the first part deals with the Objective Seurce of religious experience and the second with the religious experience which is the result of reaching that Source
We consider here the latter part of the prologue first and not the earlier part, because at the present day we are tending—and rightly—to attach considerable importance to religious experiénce.
We all have it to some degree and can seek, however inadequately,
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
to understand it.
By understanding it we hope—with good reason—to understand the ultimate objective facts which are the basis of Religion.
But this method is not that of our Evangelist who opens his Gospel with certain profound theological statements which cannot be easily understood or accepted.
Would it not have been better if he had simply described the life and teaching of Jesus and the impression He produced. on His contemporaries, leaving us to form our own conclusions about Him?
We should then have been inevitably led to the conclusion that He was no ordinary man.
But the Fourth Evangelist does not do this.
In the course of meditation certain great truths had. become clear to him.
Such is always the result of prolonged meditation on true lines: details and separate facts disappear and in their place certain broad truths stand out with compelling power.
So when the Fourth Evangelist began to write his Gospel, these profound and significant truths naturally and spontaneously found expression at the very outset.
It was only after they were set down that he could proceed to narrate the particular facts which fed his mind and were the source of these dominant convictions.
This is confirmed by the fact that when he begins to write his First Epistle, he cannot help repeating, though in a different phraseology, the same great ideas which had become strong and clear in the course of long brooding.* It may not be good literary form for an author to begin two of his writings in almost the same way, but it is perhaps inevitable for a 1-1 John i. 1-4.
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
thinker to whom a few great truths count profoundly after prolonged meditation.
But did not the Evangelist anticipate the possible effect of such a prologue on his readers? Did he write like this because it was the most natural and spontaneous thing for him to do, or because, with an eagerness bordering on an almost impatient anxiety, he wanted his readers to be sure of the profound truths which were so important to his own mind? Of one thing we may be certain.
He was not a dogmatist who sought to force his opinions on others regardless of their point of view.
A man of such loving temperament could not have been so oblivious of the feelings of others.
The dogmatist is primarily self-centred.
His opinions count, not the opinions of others.
If his opinions hurt others, itis all to their good; what he is concerned about is the correctness of his own creed, not itseffect on others.
Wecannot imagine the Fourth Evangelist being so unconcerned about the effect of his words.
If he had really anticipated it, he might have adopted a different method.
He gave expression naturally to certain great truths which dominated his consciousness, anxious, but not witha blind, dogmatic, unfeeling anxiety, that his readers also should accept them, and perhaps not altogether aware of how his presentation of them would strike some of them.
« Jf there was any error in him, it was not the lack of sympathy which insisted on teaching unpleasant truths, whether others liked them or not, but rather an unconscious lack of imagination which failed to make clear to itself all the possible consequences of his words.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
Imagination John really had—the daring yet solid and constructive imagination, which realized clearly all the exaltation of the humble Jesus and which imparted this knowledge to others in words of immortal power.
In this sense, imagination was rarely so vigorous or soaring in its flight as in the prologue.
But it cannot be forgotten that the Fourth Gospel has been the cause of much heated controversy.
For this, not a lack of spiritual genius—about the possession of which by the Evangelist there can be no doubt-—nor an absence of the generous sympathy and love which inspires the best literature—there is plenty of evidence in his writings that he had this too—but his strange method seems to be partly responsible.
All through his writings, and particularly in the prologue, he has given expression to strong convictions with a boldness which cannot but challenge.
Men who set out to write theological treatises generally begin with the known and the accepted and proceed from them to the less known and the debatable.
But this writer guards his very entrance with flaming swords.
THE IMMANENT CHRIST
A careful study of the passage at the beginning of this chapter, reveals the fact that, according to the Evangelist, man's Bhakti is initiated by the Logos, inadequately translated in English asthe Word.
'There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.'
The light referred to here is obviously the Logos, the main theme of the prologue.
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
There is along history behind the term.
To understand what the Evangelist means by the expression, we must first study, however briefly, the course which philosophic thought has taken on the subject.
Tne Greek Philosopher, Heraclitus, who lived in the sixth century before Christ, found in the order of the universe the 'signs' of a power similar to man's reason.
This power he called the Logos.
Then came Plato who marked off rigidly the world of matter from the world of ideas.
After him, the Stoics sought to bridge the gulf between these two worlds by going back to the earlier hypothesis of Heraclitus and maintaining that the universe is entirely pervaded by an eternal reason.
It is possible for man, they contended, to rise above everything that limits him and to reach a sense of identity with the Logos which dwells in his own soul, in the souls of others, thus making fellowship with them: possible, and in the world.
Philo, the Jewish thinker, took over the main Stoic conception but combined it with other elements.
As a Jew he was eager to maintain belief in one supreme God.
But the Jewish idea of God as transcendent had resulted in a severe type of dualism with its moral and intellectual defects.
And Old Testament writers began to speak of the Word of God in more than a poetic way as creating heaven and earth and as making His will clear to His servants.
Though the personification of the Divine Word probably took place later than Philo, there was already in his time a strong tendency in that direction.
In Job and Proverbs we see Wisdom working with God in the creation of the
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
world.
The teaching of Philo regarding the Logos combined elements from Hellenic as well as from Old
Testament sources.
In Greek thought the Logos was. the immanent reason and more or less took the place of a Divine Creator.
Philo, of course, could not fully accept such a doctrine.
To him, therefore, the Logos is a means of explaining how God works in the world.
Because of this fundamental difference between the Greek and Jewish points of view, there is a certain inconsistency in Philo's teaching about the Logos, which he sometimes makes out to be only an attribute of God and at other times an independent and personal being.
The Fourth Evangelist was doubtless strongly influenced by current Greek ideas about the Logos, particularly by those of Philo.
But if he was influenced by Greek philosophy, he was loyal to Hebrew tradition as well; and his thought must have been shaped also by Old Testament ideas about Wisdom and the Word of the Lord.'
The doctrine of immanence has received emphasis in Hindu Bhakti Literature, though in a form quite different from the Greek doctrine which we have sketched. Many and emphatic are the assertions which speak of God as present zz the world and zz man as the Antaryamin.
The Bhagavad-Gita says:
"Iam seated in the heart of all and from me come memory, knowledge and reason.' "
* For an account of the doctrine of the Logos see the article on' The Logos' by Dean W.R. Inge in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
2 Gila@ xv. 15.
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
'The Lord dwells, O Arjuna, in the heart of all beings and is whirling them by His supreme power as though they were mounted on a machine.' *
Commenting on a similar passage, Ramanuja interprets it thus: 'I am seated as the soul of all beings, who constitute my body.
The soul is that which is the entire support, ruler and enjoyer of the .
'body.' ?
From these and other passages, which might easily be multiplied, it is quite clear that the doctrine of immanence forms an important element in Bhakti thought.
The explanation for this is no doubt to be found in the fact that Bhaktas seek to reconcile two different ideas, of which one is an eagerness to attain the closest possible intimacy with God, and the other, the conviction that God and man are different.
The only way in which God and man, though separate, can come into the closest possible contact is the realization of an indwelling God.
But neither an account of the Greek doctrine of the Logos, by which the Fourth Evangelist is likely to have been influenced, nor that of the Hindu doctrine of immanence with which we in India are familiar, can explain what exactly the Evangelist meant when he used the term Logos.
We have the great difficulty of dealing with an original and independent thinker who 'did not tie himself down to accuracy in fact.
This we know from the way in which he treats the material already given in the first three Gospels.
He omits certain details, adds certain other details, rearranges 1 Gilg xviii, 61.
2 Gila-Bhasya x. 20.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
incidents in a different chronological order and tells us | of new miracles.
One who is led by a sense of truth to make such changes in the narration of facts, so that they may more adequately represent truth, may be expected to take greater liberty still with the thoughts. and speculations of men.
We know that in some respects he has departed widely from such _ philosophical. teaching about the Logos as we may expect, after careful historical study, to have influenced. his thought.
While availing ourselves of as many clues as historical criticism can provide, we ought to. seek to understand his meaning in the light of his own writings.
His thoughts are intimately related ; if we can understand this relation, we shall understand their inner meaning.
THe PURPOSE OF IMMANENCE
'There was the true light,' says the Evangelist, "even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
He was in the world and the world was. made, by him and the world knew him not.'
The Fourth Evangelist seems to be concerned mainly with the immanence of Godin man.
It is that which stirs him deeply.
He would certainly not say with Kabir:
'If I say that He is within me, the universe is. ashamed.' '
'John does not despise matter as unable to contain God. His doctrine that eternal life or the life of fellow- * Songs of Kabir, Tr, by Rabindranath Tagore, New York,
1917, p. 53.
This book seems to be not an exact translation, but a free rendering,
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
ship with Christ can be attained now, while still in the body, bears witness to his conviction that the realm of matter is a possible medium for enjoying God.
Again, he says that the Logos became flesh and that He manifested Himself clearly to men.
Here we have an emphatic evidence of the fact that He recognizes the physical as an effective means of manifesting the Divine.
And yet he has not, like many mystics, : sought to see God everywhere, ina running brook or in a bronze image as much as in the heart of man.
This is because, philosophical as he is in his outlook, he feels strongly that morality is necessary in order to see God.
He seems to have a more exalted notion of the human body as a possible temple for God than of matter in general.
'And the world was made by Him.'
It will be noted that this is a repetition.
In the prologue the © assertion has already been made, 'All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that hath been made.'
Why then should this truth be repeated here? In a piece of careful argument like the prologue, the repetition cannot be taken as meaningless redundaney.
We must ask for its inner significance.
A possible interpretation is that it is meant to make more exact the statement ' He was in the world.'
The idea of His being in the world might lead to the supposition that God is the sum-total of the energy and the life inthe world.
To prevent sucha misconception the author goes on to add, 'And the world was made by Him.' To him God is Antaryamin, without, however, being exhausted in the universe.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
He exists in, and yet beyond, the world.
This interpretation fits in well with the general tenor of the Johannine teaching but not so well with this particular context.
The verse is putting forth an explanation of how the Logos was the light and yet how men did not know it.
The commentary of the Bhakti philosopher, RangaRamanuja, a follower of Ramanyja, throws out an idea which helps us to understand the meaning of the Fourth
Evangelist.
It is that He enters the created world so that men might perceive Him more clearly.
Commenting on the verse in the TZaztliviya-Upanisad, "Having created that, He then entered the same'? he says:
'If asked "' The Lord is continually pervading everything. What is this 'entrance' at the time of creation?" the answer is: ''It is the condition in which He who pervades everything, becomes fit to be known perfectly in each distinctive thing, as the calf in the womb of the cow." '* 'The illustration in the last sentence seems to mean that as the calf, already present in the cow, comes out in definite form and becomes an object of clear perception, so the world manifests clearly the Creator who dwells in it.
On this point Sankara too, whose view is generally so opposed to the Bhakti standpoint, agrees in the main with Kanga-Ramanuja.
His extensive comment on the same verse in the Upanisad, may, for the sake of clearness, be summed up thus:
As this passage in 1 Tait. Up. 2.6. 2.
? Ranga-Ramanuja, Upanisat-Prakdasikda, ad. loc.
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
the Upanisad begins with a reference to the knowledge of the Supreme One, we ought to say that its real meaning is that the Supreme One can be known only in the heart of the world.
The Supreme One has no form but shines in contact with other things.
Itis 'this shining in the hearts of individual beings which is here called ' entrance.' + The central idea of both these comments, that the aimmanence of God in creation is for the sake of clearer perception, is stimulating and offers us a clue for understanding the progress of thought in the prologue.
_ By being in the world, the Logos illumines it. We here 'see a further reason why the prologue dwells with such
'peculiar emphasis on creation.
It is not merely to 'show that Christ existed before the world was made, nor merely to show that He was the supreme Agent in creation.
Both these are important facts which should be understood before we can really understand
His exalted character.
But the emphasis in the prologue on creation is also to demonstrate the 'fact that God's purpose to reveal Himself through creation could not be realized and that, therefore, He
'had to use another and more effective means of 'making Himself known to men.
That way is the Incarnation. The Evangelist states that God is present in the world, that is the world of men, so that they may understand Him clearly.
And yet they have not understood Him clearly.
'He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him 1 Sankara- -Bhasya on the Zazt. Up. 2.6. 2.
2 cf, John i. 4; viii, 12; ix. 5; xii. 35, 36, 46.
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
not.'
This thought he repeats and emphasises further = "He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'
Because men have not understood Him, even though He is immanent in them, He has ' become flesh."
The incarnation thenis a more effective means of showing God than mere immanence..
We may be puzzled by the use of the past tense in the statement, ' He was in the world.'
Then is He not in the world still?
Is not God always immanent in man?
This difficulty, however, ceases to exist when we remember that the first thirteen verses of the prologue are meant to describe the Logos before His
Incarnation.
That is why the past tense is so largely used throughcut the passage.
Not that the author does not believe in an indwelling God now.
There is ample evidence in his writings to show that he believed in an indwelling God who operates now as before the Incarnation.
Before the Incarnation, He who was the light was Himself not properly seen and instead of illumination there was ignorance.
And so He ' became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father) full of grace and truth.'
With rare insight John identifies the historic Jesus with the immanent Logos and tells us, with a boldness. which would have shocked the philosophers of his day, that the Logos became flesh.
His distinctive
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
contribution is that he sees in Jesus the visible and concrete manifestation of the Logos.
The Logos who was with God from eternity, the Logos who created the worlds in the dim beginnings of time, the Logos who is in the world and illumines it— behold that Logos is Jesus!
The Logos, whose silent and mysterious work is as wide as the universe and as long as eternity, is none other than the Jesus whose words and deeds during His Incarnation have become the source of endless inspiration to men.
It does not seem as if the Evangelist wanted to limit this experience ot beholding His glory—an experience so very different from the ignorance of the world which cid not know Him—-to the contemporaries of Jesus.
The vision of the Logos in His glory, which is made possible by His becoming flesh, stands open to our gaze even after His earthly life is over.
The men who lived in the time of Jesus felt and experienced His presence in a peculiarly intimate way.
Theirs was the privilege of behoiding with human eyes the incarnate Logos and of having intercourse with Him in word and deed, but the Incarnation was not meant merely for them.
Such a stupendous event in the spiritual history of mankind could not have been so narrow in the sphere of its work.
In all ages men behold the Logos in the historic Jesus and in His endless presence in the hearts of men, a presence made more clear by His manifestation in time.
The love of Jesus which wins our hearts, His peace which stills the violent storms of our souls, His wisdom which teaches us the right with unerring insight,
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
His power which helps us to triumph over sin—these are the veritable characteristics of the Logos.
The immanent Logos is no stranger, of whose real nature we are ignorant, but is One of whom we know much ; for in the Jesus of history and experience we behold
His unutterable glory.
The thought that the Logos became flesh thus sheds new light on Him, bringing Him within the reach of our understanding and feeling, and on Jesus, revealing in Him a loftiness of nature
'unperceived before.
Man's RESPONSE TO GOD But if Christ is already immanent in man as a Spiritual fact, what is the real teaching of the Gospel which seems to point to Christ's abiding in us as the highest experience of religion?
This difficulty seems to be felt in the verse: 'He came unto his own and they that were his own received him not.'
If they received Him not, in what sense were they His own ?
If they were His own, they would continue to be His own whether they received Himor not.
If they become His own as a result of receiving Him, they could not have been His own before they received Him.'
The same difficulty confronts us when we are told that those who are born of God are spoken of as being given the right to become children of God.
If they are born of God they are already children of God and 1 Jn view of the general tenor of the passage, I am inclined to interpret 'His own' as all men who are begotten of God and not as the Jews only.
On this point however, see Godet: op. cit. vol. i, ; p. 352.
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
45. there would be no necessity to give them the right to. become the children of God.
Thus we have in the Gospel three lines of thought which really move in the same direction: men in whom the Logos already dwells are exhorted to abide in Him so that He may abide in them; those who are His own are expected to receive Him; those born of God are given the right to become children of God.
The paradox implied here is made clear by other passages in the Gospel.
The prologue speaks of the immanence of God in man, but the real significance of this immanence is understood only in the later chapters.
In the assertion about the indwelling Logos we see as. it were the foot-hills of a mountain range.
It is only as we get into the heart of the mountains that we can see at close range their towering peak in all its magnificence. As he goes on writing, John takes us to the heights of Christian experience and asks us. to gaze on the exalted Christ who rests in individual human hearts with majesty and love.
We shall see that in his later chapters John wants us to reach a loftier sense of immanence.
The prologue however suggests here an illustration which throws light on this difficulty.
The illustration is that of a father and hisson.
In Hebrew thought, the word 'son' indicates possession of the same character as in the expression 'sons of light', which means those who have the character of light.
The physical relation between father and son can never be changed, but the kinship between them is fully realized only when to this physical fact is added the recognition of certain moral
CHRISTIANITY AS BHAKTI MARGA
obligations and duties.
Though it is quite true that the father never ceases to be the father and the son never ceases be the son, whatever either of them may do, the relation between them is really determined by moral, just as much as by physical, facts.
Father and son are father and son only when they carry out the moral obligations consequent upon the physical kinship.
To use the phraseology of the prologue, though a man is his father's own, he has to receive his father ; though born of his father, he has to gain the right to become his son.
This embodies the important idea that every man, though indwelt by God, has to relate himself to God.
They that are His own are expected to receive Him.
The indwelling Logos does not do away with the functioning of a man's self.
It may illumine the self, quicken it into new activity and impart vigour to it, but never does away with it.
God is in all human souls in the sense that the minimum functioning of men's capacity is dependent on Him.
But all men have to attain toa full experience of the indwelling God in the sense that they have to attain to a maximum functioning of this capacity, such maximum functioning being only possible with Divine illumination and strength.
Every man who lives does so because of the God within.
But there is a good deal of difference between the inner life of an ordinary man and that of a man of God.
In the quality as well as in the intensity of his inner life, the latter stands high above the former.
His thoughts are so much nobler, his feelings are so much more exalted, his decisions are directed to ends so much higher.
Not
THE AWAKENING OF BHAKTI
merely do the activities of his mind move among nobler themes but they do so with an intenser force.
The ordinary man, on the other hand, does the minimum of living.
His mental life is more or less busy with the needs of the body. Itis within a man's power to say whether he wants the God within to function at His highest or at His lowest. The limitation is not imposed by God upon Himself but is placed upon God by man and those physical instincts and impulses for which he himself or his ancestors may be responsible.
It is man who must decide whether he will allow his mind, with whatever capacity it may have, to be fully or partially indwelt by God.
Hindu Bhaktas realize that if the God within puts an end to all human functioning, there would be no separateness of personality and consequently no rapture of Bhakti.
Bhakti arises when man, who is: not God, but in whom God dwells, seeks with eager love to attain a full experience of that God.
It is not enough to recognize the fact of the indwelling God.
Sucha realization by itself might easily Jead to the thouzht of a Being who is immanent equally in all things, inanimate as well as animate, bad as well as good.
Itis not enough to recognize that man has to make a definite effort to experience God.
Again such a recognition by itself might end in nothing more than in a stern moral discipline.
But the two doctrines must be brought together.
It must be recognized that God is already immanent in the soul and that yet man has to endeavour to make this immanence a fuller and richer spiritual experience.