XXIII
Some
may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion; some may find the
idea revolting to them and some may find it revolutionary. Let me therefore
explain my position. I do not know whether you draw a distinction between
principles and rules. But I do. Not only I make a distinction but I say that
this distinction is real and important. Rules are practical; they are habitual
ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are
intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things. Rules seek to tell an
agent just what course of action to pursue. Principles do not prescribe a
specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do tell just what to do
and how to do it. A principle, such as that of justice, supplies a main head by
reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes,
it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration
which he should bear in mind. This difference between rules and principles
makes the acts done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content.
Doing what is said to be good by virtue of a rule and doing good in the light
of a principle are two different things. The principle may be wrong but the act
is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical.
A religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible
act. To permit of this responsibility, Religion must mainly be a matter of
principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into
rules it ceases to be Religion, as it kills responsibility which is the essence
of a truly religious act. What is this Hindu Religion? Is it a set of
principles or is it a code of rules? Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in
the Vedas and the Smritis, is nothing but a mass of sacrificial,
social, political and sanitary rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is called
Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions.
Religion, in the sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to
all races, to all countries, to all times, is not to be found in them, and if
it is, it does not form the governing part of a Hindu’s life. That for a Hindu,
Dharma means commands and prohibitions is clear from the way the word Dharma is
used in Vedas and the Smritis and understood by the commentators.
The word Dharma as used in the Vedas in most cases means religious
ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimansa defines Dharma as “a
desirable goal or result that is indicated by injunctive (Vedic)
passages”. To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really
Law or at best legalized class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this code of
ordinances, as Religion. The first evil of such a code of ordinances,
misrepresented to the people as Religion, is that it tends to deprive moral
life of freedom and spontaneity and to reduce it (for the conscientious at any
rate) to a more or less anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed
rules. Under it, there is no loyalty to ideals, there is only conformity to
commands. But the worst evil of this code of ordinances is that the laws it
contains must be the same yesterday, today and forever. They are iniquitous in
that they are not the same for one class as for another. But this iniquity is
made perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations.
The objectionable part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certain persons
called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable part is that this code has
been invested with the character of finality and fixity. Happiness notoriously
varies with the conditions and circumstances of a person, as well as with the
conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case, how can
humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without being cramped and without
being crippled? I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion
must be destroyed and I say, there is nothing irreligious in working for the
destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to
tear the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as caused by misnaming this
Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of
the people of this misconception and enable them to realize that what they are
told as Religion is not Religion but that it is really Law, you will be in a
position to urge for its amendment or abolition. So long as people look upon it
as Religion they will not be ready for a change, because the idea of Religion
is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But the idea of
law is associated with the idea of change and when people come to know that
what is called Religion is really Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for
a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment