Long

life means a long period of struggle to create merit by Karma or “deeds”—a purgatorial preparation for atonement, or reconciliation with God. Thus Buddha was not heretical in his teaching as to Karma. No people are more regular and devoted in religious observances than the Hindus, none carry religion more into the daily duties of life, none are more docile, courteous, or respectful to age, to parents, to rulers, or to the learned, more faithful in domestic service—as we knew well during thirty-three years in their midst, in solitary places and in dangerous exigencies during the long trying period of the Mutiny in 1857-8. A Hindu writes in an English journal: ‘“ Hindus are superior in goodne , godline , and happine to Christians. Your poorer cla es, from Italy to Britain, and especially in towns, are infinitely more wretched, godle , vicious, degraded, and barbarous than Indians.” Perhaps he is right; but at any rate, in face of the promise to those who do justly and love mercy, it is wrong for Christians to disturb the religious beliefs of Hindus. The thoughtful Hindu, like the thoughtful Christian, pa es through the barriers of faith, and, discarding his evil gods, loves to imagine a single great and good God in whose presence he may dwell, or into whom he may be absorbed. He sees no way to approach him, or to lead others to him, except that of the rites and customs of his people. He advocates the conservative policy of not breaking with the past, for the sake of his children and for his own sake. So the most skeptikal Brahmans have often argued, in conversation with us, when we deprecated their teaching their children the old rites and dogmas which, to the parents, have become mere superstitions: “the young,” they plead, ‘“ must find out the truth by following the same paths their fathers have trodden ”—a false plea if advance in truth is ever to be made. We must, they say, be practical, and since reason does not influence the ma es they must be attracted by symbols and images of deity, by ritual, and by exciting fear and love: the devout must be comforted in trial and sorrow, and the wicked must be restrained—it is the old argument of Greek philosophers, Gnostiks, and all others who disbelieve, but do not hope that men in general should ever understand, Hinduism has never laid stre on any definite creed, or belief in a founder. It has no Christ, and no Muhammad. It relies on the teachings of many Rishis said to have been inspired, and of ancient discourses attributed to incarnate heroes, or gods, like Krishna, Thus it is ready to absorb all views, and to agree with all local cults, as did the ancient world before the three faiths claiming universality appeared. The pantheon is ever increasing, for Hinduism is e entially pan the is tik, seeing God in all things whether organic or inorganic, It permits to the rudest tribes their tutelary gods, stocks, and stones, recognising the Creator in every creative agent. But while it welcomes every attempt of man to know and serve the Unknowable One, its intelligent votaries freely acknowledge that the deity is not to be conciliated by sacrifices, nor do they believe that sins can be washed out by the merits of a Saviour, or by the interce ions of a priest. Indeed neo-Hinduism knows nothing of priest or sacrifice, but only of gifts and rites betokening penitence, or creating a pious frame of mind to which they—like Christians—think that their ordinances conduce, so reconciling us with God. They are outward and visible signs of feelings which the untutored cannot otherwise expre . To the many the image is the form actually po e ed by an indwelling divine spirit, but to the instructed it becomes only a symbol of the highest ideal that the poor nature-worshiper can grasp. Dr Pope—himself long a mi ionary—-showed that we must not suppose all Hindus to be gro idolaters. They believe that God is found wherever Avahanam (“consecration”) has been duly performed, for this is the “ bringing in” to the image, of the god whom it represents; and it is he—not the image—who is adored. Henceforth the symbol, or the idol, is ever regarded as the token of the divine presence, and is therefore enshrined, and adorned with costly jewels. This in no way differs from the ideas of Christians who use images. In the dead of night voices, they say, are heard coming from the image, or a hand of it may be sometimes extended to receive an offered flower, the devout worshiper being greeted with a smile. The offered gifts of fruit or food are, they believe, actually consumed, and in return, rich gifts are sometimes found in the worshiper’s home when he returns from the temple. Always the divinity—Siva the Ble ed—is surely there to help in time of trouble. “TI believe,” said one Hindu to Dr Pope, “all that you believe, but I also trust that he who fills and pervades... all space... condescends also to abide Q 2 with me in this form. I worship him as dwelling here.” What is this but to say as we also say— “Come to me, come to me, O my God, Come to me everywhere, Let the trees mean Thee, and the gra y sod, And the water, and the air,” The Indian hymns are full of such ideas, as Dr Pope has shown from the early Tamil literature. The sincerity and devout thought of tbe people are shown by their austerities, as are their longings for purity, and their fears of offending deities to whom they believe they owe many ble ings. 267