Reconciliation of Races and Religions — 23 – [Part V. A Series of Illustrative Studies Bearing on Comparative Religion]: Incarnations; Is Jesus Unique?; The Spirit of God.

INCARNATIONS

There are some traces both in the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel of a Docetic view of the Lord's Person, in other words that His humanity was illusory, just as, in the Old Testament, the humanity of celestial beings is illusory.

The Hindus, however, are much more sure of this.

The reality of an incarnation would be unworthy of a God.

And, strange as it may appear to us, this Docetic theory involves no pain or disappointment for the believer, who does but amuse himself with the sports [Footnote: See quotation from the poet Tulsi Das in Farquhar, _The Crown of Hinduism_, p. 431. ] of his Patron.

At the same time he is very careful not to take the God as a moral example; the result of this would be disastrous.

The _avatâr_ is super-moral.

[Footnote: See Farquhar, p. 434. ] What, then, was the object of the _avatâr_?

Not simply to amuse.

It was, firstly, to win the heart of the worshipper, and secondly, to communicate that knowledge in which is eternal life.

And what is to be done, in the imminent sifting of Scriptures and Traditions, with these stories?

They must be rewritten, just as, I venture to think, the original story of the God-man Jesus was rewritten by being blended with the fragments of a biography of a great and good early Jewish teacher.

The work will be hard, but Sister Nivedita and Miss Anthon have begun it.

It must be taken as a part of the larger undertaking of a selection of rewritten myths.

Is Baha-'ullah an _avatâr_?

There has no doubt been a tendency to worship him.

But this tendency need not be harmful to sanity of intellect.

There are various degrees of divinity.

Baha-'ullah's degree maybe compared to St. Paul's. Both these spiritual heroes were conscious of their superiority to ordinary believers; at the same time their highest wish was that their disciples might learn to be as they were themselves.

Every one is the temple of the holy (divine) Spirit, and this Spirit-element must be deserving of worship.

It is probable that the Western training of the objectors is the cause of the opposition in India to some of the forms of honour lavished, in spite of his dissuasion, on Keshab Chandra Sen. [Footnote: _Life and Teachings of Keshub Chunder Sen_, pp. III ff.

] IS JESUS UNIQUE?

One who has 'learned Christ' from his earliest years finds a difficulty in treating the subject at the head of this section.

'The disciple is not above his Master,' and when the Master is so far removed from the ordinary--is, in fact, the regenerator of society and of the individual,--such a discussion seems almost more than the human mind can undertake.

And yet the subject has to be faced, and if Paul 'learned' a purely ideal Christ, deeply tinged with the colours of mythology, why should not we follow Paul's example, imitating a Christ who put on human form, and lived and died for men as their Saviour and Redeemer?

Why should we not go even beyond Paul, and honour God by assuming a number of Christs, among whom--if we approach the subject impartially--would be Socrates, Zarathustra, Gautama the Buddha, as well as Jesus the Christ?

Why, indeed, should we not?

If we consider that we honour God by assuming that every nation contains righteous men, accepted of God, why should we not complete our theory by assuming that every nation also possesses prophetic (in some cases more than prophetic) revealers?

Some rather lax historical students may take a different view, and insist that we have a trustworthy tradition of the life of Jesus, and that 'if in that historical figure I cannot see God, then I am without God in the world.'

[Footnote: Leslie Johnston, _Some Alternatives to Jesus Christ_, p. 199. ] It is, however, abundantly established by criticism that most of what is contained even in the Synoptic Gospels is liable to the utmost doubt, and that what may reasonably be accepted is by no means capable of use as the basis of a doctrine of Incarnation.

I do not, therefore, see why the Life of Jesus should be a barrier to the reconciliation of Christianity and Hinduism.

Both religions in their incarnation theories are, as we shall see (taking Christianity in its primitive form), frankly Docetic, both assume a fervent love for the manifesting God on the part of the worshipper.

I cannot, however, bring myself to believe that there was anything, even in the most primitive form of the life of the God-man Jesus, comparable to the _unmoral_ story of the life of Krishna.

Small wonder that many of the Vaishnavas prefer the _avatâr_ of Rama.

It will be seen, therefore, that it is impossible to discuss the historical character of the Life of Jesus without soon passing into the subject of His uniqueness.

It is usual to suppose that Jesus, being a historical figure, must also be unique, and an Oxford theologian remarks that 'we see the Spirit in the Church always turning backwards to the historical revelation and drawing only thence the inspiration to reproduce it.'

[Footnote: Leslie Johnston, _op.

cit.

_ pp. 200 f. ] He thinks that for the Christian consciousness there can be only one Christ, and finds this to be supported by a critical reading of the text of the Gospels.

Only one Christ!

But was not the Buddha so far above his contemporaries and successors that he came to be virtually deified?

How is not this uniqueness?

It is true, Christianity has, thus far, been intolerant of other religions, which contrasts with the 'easy tolerance' of Buddhism and Hinduism and, as the author may wish to add, of Bahaism.

But is the Christian intolerance a worthy element of character?

Is it consistent with the Beatitude pronounced (if it was pronounced) by Jesus on the meek?

May we not, with Mr. L.

Johnston's namesake, fitly say, 'Such notions as these are a survival from the bad old days'?

[Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 306. ] THE SPIRIT OF GOD

Another very special jewel of Christianity is the doctrine of _the Spirit_.

The term, which etymologically means 'wind,' and in Gen. i.

2 and Isa.

xl.

13 appears to be a fragment of a certain divine name, anciently appropriated to the Creator and Preserver of the world, was later employed for the God who is immanent in believers, and who is continually bringing them into conformity with the divine model.

With the Brahmaist theologian, P. C.

Mozoomdar, I venture to think that none of the old divine names is adequately suggestive of the functions of the Spirit.

The Spirit's work is, in fact, nothing short of re-creation; His creative functions are called into exercise on the appearance of a new cosmic cycle, which includes the regeneration of souls.

I greatly fear that not enough homage has been rendered to the Spirit in this important aspect.

And yet the doctrine is uniquely precious because of the great results which have already, in the ethical and intellectual spheres, proceeded from it, and of the still greater ones which faith descries in the future.

We have, I fear, not yet done justice to the spiritual capacities with which we are endowed.

I will therefore take leave to add, following Mozoomdar, that no name is so fit for the indwelling God as Living Presence.

[Footnote: Mozoomdar, _The Spirit of God_ (1898), p. 64. ] His gift to man is life, and He Himself is Fullness of Life.

The idea therefore of God, in the myth of the Dying and Reviving Saviour, is, from one point of view, imperfect.

At any rate it is a more constant help to think of God as full, not of any more meagre satisfaction at His works, but of the most intense joy.

Let us, then, join our Indian brethren in worshipping God the Spirit.

In honouring the Spirit we honour Jesus, the mythical and yet real incarnate God.

The Muḥammadans call Jesus _ruḥu'llah_, 'the Spirit of God,' and the early Bahais followed them.

One of the latter addressed these striking words to a traveller from Cambridge: 'You (i. e. the Christian Church) are to-day the Manifestation of Jesus; you are the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit; nay, did you but realize it, you are God.'

[Footnote: E. G.

Browne, _A Year among the Persians_, p. 492. ] I fear that this may go too far for some, but it is only a step in advance of our Master, St. Paul.

If we do not yet fully realize our blessedness, let us make it our chief aim to do so.

How God's Spirit can be dwelling in us and we in Him, is a mystery, but we may hope to get nearer and nearer to its meaning, and see that it is no _Maya_, no illusion.

As an illustration of the mystery I will quote this from one of Vivekananda's lectures.

[Footnote: _Jnana Yoga_, p. 154. ] 'Young men of Lahore, raise once more that wonderful banner of Advaita, for on no other ground can you have that all-embracing love, until you see that the same Lord is present in the same manner everywhere; unfurl that banner of love.

"Arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached."

Arise, arise once more, for nothing can be done without renunciation.

If you want to help others, your own little self must go....

At the present time there are men who give up the world to help their own salvation.

Throw away everything, even your own salvation, and go and help others.'