VII. The Heart and the Head

A Reaction against Intellectualism

" ' Religion is a matter of heart. If we give our hearts we can understand its truth. You can find it, not through the intellect nor through the eyes, but only through depth of heart. Other lessons we have to learn from books', to know Jesus Christ does not require book knowledge, but you have to give your heart."

The antithesis of the Heart and the Head occupies very much the same position in the teaching of the Sadhu as the antithesis between Faith and Works in the teaching of St. Paul — and for essentially the same reason. To each of them his antithesis expresses, on the one hand, an affirmation of that Christocentric mysticism which is to him the essence of religion, and on the other a strong reaction against a religious philosophy from which he has emerged. To St. Paul, Faith, in this connection, is not assent to a credal proposition, but the utter devotion of the lover to the Beloved, the primal movement of the soul towards mystic union with its Lord. This same devotion, this same movement, is what the Sadhu means when he says, " Give your heart to Christ: yield yourself to Him, let Him take possession of you." " Sometimes I have tried to keep myself from sinning, but I could not overcome temptations. When I gave my heart to Jesus Christ it was quite possible." What is this but St.

141 142

Paul's doctrine that we are "justified" through faith in Jesus Christ alone?

Such difference as there is between the antithesis of St. Paul and of the Sadhu is due to the difference of the systems against which they protest. St. Paul has felt, thought out, and therefore stated, his experience in relation to a Jewish Legalism, which conceives God primarily as Transcendent and as Judge. The Sadhu feels and states his in relation to a Hindu philosophy which makes God the Universal Immanent Life. By "Works" St. Paul means a doctrine of salvation by the rigid observance of a meticulous system of rules whether ceremonial or moral. By "the Head" the Sadhu means a doctrine of salvation by knowledge. "I met a Hindu Sannyasi who said, Jnana-marga' — that is, Knowledge —'is necessary for salvation.' I told him that in order to quench thirst it is necessary to have water, it is not necessary to know that it is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. Some Hindu Sannyasis are very learned men, but they have no peace."

The doctrine of salvation by Knowledge is almost —not quite — as strongly entrenched in Hindu thought as the doctrine of salvation by works of the Law was in the Jewish system against which St. Paul reacted; and just as there were some Jews, and those not shallow souls, who could find religious contentment within and through the Law — witness the author of the one hundred and nineteenth Psalm — so it has been with Hinduism and the way of salvation through knowledge. Yet despite this, the protest of the Sadhu, like that of St. Paul, is fully justified, if we view the thing they criticize as a whole and not merely its exceptional products.

In England or America those who are interested in

143

religion at all think of it mainly in its relation to practical ethics. The last subject on which the average educated man is capable of talking with jfluency and ease is the philosophy of religion. It is quite otherwise in India. Brahminism has impressed the multitude with an elaborate cultus, it has implanted in the educated a passion for philosophical speculation. That the first thing in religion is neither ritual nor metaphysic, but a new heart, is a truism in the West. In India it is not yet so.

Of course, in a country so concerned with religion as India, there have been numerous protests against the servitude of the many to superstition and of the few to intellectualism. The very influential Bhakti school protests strongly against the dominance of intellectualism in religion. Indeed there is not a little in the Sadhu's attitude on this subject which would entirely commend itself to a devotee of Bhakti.

The Sadhu is no more an enemy of knowledge than St. Paul was an enemy of good works, but he is violently in revolt against those who would set it in the first place. "We must remember also, if we are fully to appreciate the meaning of his reiterated depreciation of the things of the head, that in India the missionary has often to face the objection that many Englishmen of ability and education, though brought up in Christianity, have in fact discarded it. Again, is it not possible that even among persons learned in theology he may have met some who yet seemed strangely blind to the weightier matters of the law!

In religion the one thing needful is a fine sense for spiritual values — the eye to see the vision and the will to follow it. And it was not the Sadhu who first made

144

the discovery that these things are sometimes hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to babes.

The Function of Intellect

Change the terminology a little, substitute for " heart" the "conative and emotional aspects of the self," and for "head" read "the reflective faculty" — and what the Sadhu has to say on the function of intellect comes very near to what some modern psychologists are teaching.

"The heart is the innermost part of our soul. It receives, as it were, wireless messages from the unseen world. The head is concerned with visible things. It is the heart that sees and feels the heart of spiritual reality. My head acquiesces in what I have seen with my heart. If I had not seen them first, my head would not have believed them. The heart is beyond the head.

" Knowledge obtained by the head does not go down below the throat. I once picked a stone out of a pool and broke it. About six or seven inches of it were wet, but inside and in the center that stone was quite dry. That stone was in the water but the water was not in the stone. It is the same with men. Some in the Christian Church know a great deal about Him, but the center of their heart is dry. Christ is not in their hearts.

"Sometimes I have been asked by lowly people of India, ' If learned men do not believe in Christianity then how can we believe? " I said: ' It is a most foolish thing to ask them. They may be specialists on the subjects on which they spend their lives, their opinion on these is of great value; but in spiritual things they may be like children — they may know nothing. The man of prayer

145

is the only one whose opinion is worth having in regard to religion. Mystics are the specialists in religion. "

"But," we asked, "how can one test the validity for others of the knowledge which the mystic obtains by direct incommunicable intuition? "

" ' From his life you can be sure that the mystic is not telling an untruth. Therefore he should be listened to. Then try and live out what he says in your own experience.

"It is foolish in religious matters to accept the judgment of scientists who have no spiritual experience. Learned men, who can find out when an eclipse of the sun will take place, may know nothing of the eclipse of sin."

The highest kind of spiritual knowledge is not attained by the mere exercise of the intellect but by the strengthening and illumining of the intellect by Christ. "The eyes have the capacity to see but they cannot see until the rays of light fall on them. So the eyes of the intellect have the capacity to see but they cannot see until the rays from the Sun of Righteousness fall on them."

Vain Inquiry

" ' One day a father took a ball of string which was all in a tangle and tried to unravel it. It took several hours for him to do so. His little son, who was observing him, took another piece of string, and tying one end to a tree made a noose at the other. Then he put the noose around his neck and contrived to hang himself, while the father was still intent on the tangle. His mother saw her son thus hanging and came running to the spot. 'Wretch!"

146

she cried. 'The child is dying. Instead of saving him you are straightening out a tangle in your string.' By that time the child was dead. Such is the result of vain inquiry. The time so spent might have been used for saving millions of perishing souls.

"Some years ago I saw a child with an onion in his hand and he was taking off its many skins one by one. He said, ' I am removing its covers of skins to see what is inside. ' I said, ' It is made of skins only. ' But he said, 'I am sure there must be something in it.' He kept on peeling the skins off until there was nojthing left. Lots of people act like that with religion. They are always asking questions, with the result that they cannot find anything of the spiritual vision.

" Some time ago I was talking to a friend of mine in India, a very clever man, a chemist. He took a cup of milk and began to analyze it. He told us that there was so much water, so much sugar, and so much of other things. He could tell us all that; but I said, 'A little child cannot analyze this milk, but he knows two things from his experience. He knows it is sweet and he knows it is making him stronger. He is getting stronger day by day. He cannot explain to you how it happens, but he knows it. But you,' I said to my friend, 'by your analyzing of it derive no benefit from it, and you spoil the milk.' This child is wiser than the chemist."

"But," we objected, "in the long run does not the chemist do good by his analysis?"

"Yes, but there are some people who do nothing but analyze their milk all the time. They never drink it.

"A man came to our Savior with a withered hand. The Savior knew his desire to be healed. He said, 'Stretch forth thy hand': the man did so, and it was

147

made whole. If he had argued he would not have been healed. He did not want to argue with his Savior. He was able to stretch forth his hand. I must do the same and believe the truth. We shall see wonderful things if we obey. "

The Moral Obstacle

Moral obtuseness, the Sadhu thinks, is often at the root of unbelief. "Many people are not able to understand and perceive spiritual truth because they are numb with sin. They are like a leper whose leg was burnt in the fire and yet who was so numb that he did not feel the pain. Eepent of your sins and ask God's forgiveness. Then you will feel Christ's presence. Christ 's presence cannot be explained. It must be felt. "

"In such cases," we asked, "how do you try and arouse people out of this numbness?" "I speak of Christ, who is the only hope for leprosy.

" 'I have seen a bridge of water over water.' Once when preaching I said this to the people. They said, 'There might be a bridge of wood or stone, but how could there be a bridge of water? ' In that part of the world they never have cold weather and have never seen the surface of a river hard frozen. That was the bridge of water over the water, but they could not understand. How can a man who has always lived in a hot country understand that there can be a bridge of water over the water? Just so those who are living in their sins are like men who never go up to the high mountains where the bridge of water over the water can be seen, and thus they cannot understand religious truth; but those who are living a life of prayer are like men who are living in cold countries, they can understand."

148

ENOWLEDGB OF CHRIST

The Sadhu frequently stresses the distinction between " knowing" Christ and "knowing about" Christ. "St. Paul said, " I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed.' He suffered many things for many years, but he was not ashamed because he knew Him in whom he believed. Nowadays there are many people who know about Jesais Christ but very few who can say, "I know whom I have believed. ' Those who are bigoted in their religion, they also 'know about' Jesus Christ, but they do not 'know' Him. To know Him and to know about Him is a great difference. St. Paul must have seen Him and heard about Him before he was converted. "When he knew about Jesus Christ he used to persecute the Christians, but when he got to know Christ he himself was persecuted.

"Last month when one of my Indian friends was shown a daffodil, he was surprised. He knew a great deal about that flower: he used to read about it for examinations, the poetry of Wordsworth told him something about daffodils, but he had never seen one and he could not recognize it when he was told. It is quite possible for many people to know a lot about Christ without knowing Him. Those who know Him will find peace and joy and happiness and salvation.

"Many souls have been saved in India, some of whom are very simple men. One man I know there is quite illiterate, but a wonderful man when he bears his witness. He used to say, 'I was a "sweeper, " but now, by His grace, I am a "son. " I know Him, because He

149

is in my heart; and if you will give your heart to Him you will know Him too. " '

A student at Oxford, a candidate for the Pass Degree, was much impressed at a meeting in which the Sadhu discoursed on these lines. He rushed off to the Head of a Theological College and said: "I agree with the Sadhu about the uselessness of getting mere knowledge. As soon as I get my B. A. I am going out as a missionary. I don't think I need any theological training." This was reported to the Sadhu, who said: "That is not what I meant. Ministers do need training. What I meant was that learning without life is dry bones." He continued: "I am not opposed to knowledge as such. Only I am raising a strong protest against the modern tendency to emphasize learning too much. Let me give you an illustration. Luther vehemently emphasized justification by faith as a protest against the Roman emphasis on works. He did not despise works altogether."

Already in New Testament times there were those who, from St. Paul's reiterated emphasis on faith, deduced that good works could be dispensed with. In his epistles we are told (II Peter iii, 16) "are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest... unto their own destruction." If by a similar reiteration of the importance of a heart's devotion to Christ, the Sadhu has laid himself open to a similar misinterpretation — he has done it in good company.