The Pilgrim

The Quarterly Bulletin of the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism

Editor: Rev. A.J. Appasamy, M. A, (Harvard) Ph.D. (Oxon.)

MANORAMA, PALAMCOTTAH

The Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism

Patron: The Metropolitan of India, Calcutta

President: Bishop BRENTON T. BADLEY, Delhi.

Vice-Presidents: Dr. A.J. APPASAMY, Palamcottah. Rev. G.H.C. ANGUS, Principal, Serampore College.

Secretary: Rev. H.H. PRESLER, Leonard Theological College, Jabalpur.

Convener, Benares Institute: Rev. R.C. DAS, Benares United City Mission, Ramkatora, Benares Cantonment.

Treasurer: Rev. S.R. HOLT, Benares United City Mission, Ramkatora, Benares Cantonment.

Committee: Mr. PAUL DAS, Dr. C.H. RICE, Rev. M. MOSES.

This Magazine Is Subsidised

While gratefully acknowledging the support of a friend some of us believe that The Pilgrim should become self-supporting. We shall not ask you for a donation, we do petition for ten minutes of your time.

Here are the facts. It costs Rs. 150 per year to place four issues in your hands. The editor is paid nothing for his services. This sum goes into printing, posting, etc. To meet these bills The Pilgrim must have at least 75 subscribers If There are 300 subscribers, the magazine could be enlarged and made far more useful.

300 subscribers can be found! He or she is a rare Christian worker who does not welcome further information about Hindus, and the subscription price is remarkably low.

We ask you to do the one thing needed. Request your stenographer to copy the following, pin the paper to your copy of The Pilgrim, and send your chaprasi with them to the Christian workers in your station. You will have helped the Cause.

Dear Christian Friends,

Did you know that the recent enlarged meeting of the Central Research Committee of the National Christian Council, held in Nagpur, passed this resolution?

“Resolved: That we commend the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism to the staffs of Christian Colleges”.

This Society aims to assist Christian workers in more effective evangelism among Hindus. The accompanying magazine comes quarterly to all members. Please look it over. Membership in the Society is an expression of interest and involves no further dues or financial obligation. There is no other magazine in India duplicating this one. If you are interested, kindly sign below and pay the chaprasi.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. MEMBER.

Rabindranath Tagore

BY THE EDITOR

The recent death of Rabindranath Tagore has removed from our midst one of the most significant figures in modern times.

There is a great deal in the religious teaching and experience of Tagore which is of interest to students of Hinduism From early life he was deeply influenced by the Vaishnava lyrics of the Bengali poets. He says: ‘Fortunately for me a collection of old lyrical poems composed by the poets of the Vaishnava sect came to my hand when I was young. I became aware of some underlying idea deep in the obvious meaning of these love poems. I felt the joy of an explorer who suddenly, discovers the key to the language lying hidden in the hieroglyphs which are beautiful in themselves’. (The Religion of Man, p. 105)

He also acknowledged his deep debt to the Upanishads and the teachings of Buddha. ‘To me the verses of the Upanishads and the teachings of Buddha have ever been things of the spirit, and therefore endowed with boundless vital growth; and I have used them, both in my own life and in my preaching, as being instinct with individual meaning for me, as for others, and awaiting their confirmation, my own special testimony, which must have its value because of its individuality’. (Sadhana, p. viii).

The Bengali lyrics of which he speaks are full of personal devotion to a personal God. Many of Tagore’s religious poems are characterised likewise by a deep devotion to a personal God. As an example we may cite the very last poem which he dictated, immediately before the operation which proved fatal:

    O pilot of my life,
    Cast loose the moorings
    Of this frail vessel,
    For before me
    Lies the vast ocean of peace.
    Comrade of mine forever,
    Take me and hold me close,
    The lode-star will shed
    Its steadfast glow
    On the never-ending path to eternity.
    O Saviour,
    Your mercy and forgiveness
    Are the inexhaustible wealth
    On which I draw
    For this my last journey.
    May the bonds of mortality melt away.
    May the vast Universe take me in its arms,
    And may it be given me
    Fearlessly to stand face to face
    Before the Great Unknown

— The Hindu, 19-8-1941

His prayer for forgiveness in a critical hour, as he stood face to face with death, is significant and should be carefully noted.

It is not easy to understand how Tagore combines the love and devotion to a personal God with his conception of God as the One Reality. ‘It is said in the Upanishad that advaitam is anantam, - “the One is Infinite”; that the advaitam ia anandam, - “the One is Love”. To give perfect expression to the One, the Infinite, through the sacrifice of self, is the object alike of our individual life and our society. (Creative Unity, p. vi.). The outlook of the Hindu Bhakta is very different indeed from that of the seer in the Upanishads The Bhakta worships with deep love and devotion a God whom he regards as his Father, Mother, Bridegroom, or Friend. All that is best in human relationships is evoked and directed towards God. The outlook in the Upanishads is largely monistic. God is conceived as the One Reality who includes in His being the entire universe with its innumerable grades of spiritual and physical existence. Once a Hindu Professor of Philosophy said to me, ’There are times when I am drawn to the worship of a personal God. These are my devotional moods. There are other times when I am led to think of God as the One Supreme Reality. These are my philosophical moments’. Tagore would probably have said the same. These two ways of thinking of God are entirely different. I fail to understand how Hindu thinkers pass from the one outlook to the other without any difficulty.

There is much in Rabindranath Tagore’s teachings which has a true Christian ring. Tagore himself was quite generous in his appreciation of the Vaishnava lyrics, the Upanishads and the teachings of Buddha, but was not willing to acknowledge any indebtedness to Christian sources. He was exceedingly sensitive in his devotion to Indian spirituality and resented a good deal the aggressive methods of missionary work in India. He went too far in his fear that if he expressed in any way his indebtedness to the life and work of Christ, missionaries would make capital of his utterances and use them in their propaganda. But we know that he owed much to Christ through the indirect influence of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who was steeped in Christian writings and of the Brahmo Samaj which he founded. Tagore was also at home in English literature which is full of Christian feeling. In these days Christian influences are all-pervasive, and it is not too much to suppose that both in India and in the Western lands which he has frequently visited, Tagore has come across many Christian ideas and practices which have determined the course of his thinking and experience.

The religious poetry which Tagore has left behind him is of very great value indeed and will help to draw hundreds of thoughtful people to communion with God for generations to come.

The Gita Doctrine of Salvation

BY J.N. RAWSON, M.A.

Professor Edgerton, in his article on the meaning of Samkhya and Yoga, says, “Philosophy in India has always been practical in its motive, and its practical motive has been religious. It professes to teach a doctrine of salvation. If it seeks the truth it is for the salvation truth is believed to bring with it.” This is specially true of the Gita.

There are broadly three types of teaching as to the way of salvation to be found in the Gita. These may be briefly summed up under the well-known heads:

1. Jnana-marga - the way of knowledge.
2. Karma-marga - the way of works.
3. Bhakti-marga - the way of faith.

(N. B. Instead of marga the Gita uses yoga in much the same sense. So Jnana-yoga means the rule of knowledge, or more fully, that method, of control through, knowledge which leads to salvation).

1. The way of knowledge. The author of the Gita found already widely prevalent two forms of doctrine re-salvation by knowledge. These he partially approved but also modified to his own third type of doctrine.

   1. The Upanishads, which were beginning to be systematised into the Vedanta, had taught that salvation comes through the knowledge that there is but one Reality behind all, Brahman, who is the Atman or Self of all, eternally perfect and complete, and that the feeling of separateness Which leads to suffering and evil is based on ignorance and delusion.

       Brahman is the Imperishable (aksara), the Supreme;
       Its being is called the Adhyatma. (supreme or
       essential Self).
   
       Whoever shall remember the Ancient Seer, the
       Director, smaller than the small (anor aniyan), Creator
       (dhator) of all, inconceivable of form, sun-coloured,
       beyond the darkness, that man at time of going hence
       goes to the supreme celestial Person.
   
       These passages are taken from the eighth Chapter, called
       Aksara-brahma-yoga and the latter passage is a mosaic of
       Katha and Svetasvatara passages

   — (e.g., K. ii, 12 and 20; S. III. 8, 20,21).

   b. The author of the Gita continually shows his connection with Samkhya thought by putting forward as one means of salvation the Samkhya doctrine of Buddha-yoga and samnyasa, i.e., the perception of the essential difference between soul and matter, and, as a practical consequence, the withdrawal from the realm of matter by cessation of all action, This whole mode of thought and its ascetic consequence is called Samkhya-yoga. (We must carefully distinguish it from the later classical Samkhya of the Samkhya-Karika which is an atheistic dualism and does not acknowledge a Supreme Purusha. The Samkhya of the Gita does, “however, teach a relative dualism which is a reaction against the over-stress on unity in some of the Upanishads”).

   c. Both these views of salvation by knowledge (i.e., the Aupanisada and the Samkhya), involving as they do ascetic withdrawal from the world of action, are opposed to the main thought of the Gita. The author does not venture to deny them. They may for some provide a way of salvation. But his own view is that knowledge, however conceived, is not an independent way of salvation but moreover, to works and faith. Moreover, the highest way of knowledge is neither the Aupanisada (Vedantic) nor the Samkhya but the realisation that Krishna is the Supreme.

       Those who know me know that Brahman, the whole
       essential Self (adhyatma)
   
       Those who worship the Imperishable, Undefinable,
       Unmanifest (Brahman), these indeed win to Me, but
       greater is the toil of those whose thoughts are fixed on
       the Unmanifest.
   
       On Me set thy mind, on Me let thy reason dwell, in
       Me shalt thou dwell hereafter, there is no doubt,

   — xi. 3,5,8

2. The way of works. The Karma-yoga of the Gita is not the old Karma-marga of orthodox Brahmanism as taught in the Karma-Kanda of the Veda (the Yajur Veda, Brahmanas and Srauta-sutras). In the old way of works emphasis was laid on the right performance of sacrifice and other ritual works, and the way of knowledge of the Upanishads arose as a protest against this external way of works. But no Upanishad protests were so scathing as the Gita which calls the Veda (in its Karma-kanda) as, “a flowery speech which fools utter.” ” As much use as there is in a tank flooded with waters, so much use is there in all the Vedas for a Brahman of wisdom.” (ii. 42, 46). It is of this old external way of works that ii. 49. Says: “Lower far is work (karma) than the method of discernment (Buddha-yoga).”

   Arjuna is puzzled by this teaching because Krishnan, while saying that discernment is more excellent, yet urges him to work. Those who taught the way of knowledge had taught that all works, even good works, fetter the soul and so must be renounced. Samnyasa therefore, or renunciation of action, was regarded as the necessary corollary of _Buddha-yoga”. And Krishnan at first rather added to the puzzle by saying, “A two-fold system was of old declared by me, that of the Samkhyas with the method of knowledge, and that of the Yogins with the method of work”. (ii. 3). And then, “Renunciation and practice of work both lead to the highest bliss, but of the two the practice of work is better”. (v. 2). But there is really no inconsistency, for the Yoga or way of works which is here contrasted with the Samkhya, or way of knowledge plus renunciation of works, is not the old way of works but something quite new, and is more accurately described as nis-kama-karma-yoga, - the doing of works without a desire for fruit or reward. As a matter of fact, the Gita explains, the Samkhya ideal of Samnyasa or complete cessation of. Action is really impossible:

       For no man ever, even for a moment, abides workless.
       Everyone is perforce made to work by the moods
       (gunas) of nature (prakrit)

   — iii. 5

   The author of the Gita taught, however, that it is not the works themselves but the desire behind them which fetters the soul. It is the delusion of egoism (ahamkara), producing desire and attachment to results which is the real obstacle.

       He whose soul is free from egoism does no slaughter,
       Though he slays these three worlds, and is not fettered.

   Moreover, such self-less performance of works from a sense of duty is much better than the ideal of ascetic renunciation from the point of view of society. In later Mauryan times the state had been greatly weakened by the large numbers of the best men who had entered monastic life, and the Gita teaching that the way of nis-kama-karma is better than Samnyasa was a call to sanity in religion. “Let him who hates not, desires not (selfishly) be known as the true renouncer (nitya-Sanyasi)” v. 3.

   A man who thus lives void of all selfish longing is said to “live under the Rule (yoga) and so is called the true yogin. The rule consists negatively in putting aside all attachment to the fruit of works, but positively in the concentration of mind on the Purushottamaa, (the Highest Person), sometimes in Upanishad fashion called adhyatma, but more often conceived more vividly and personally as Krishnan. Where such concentration and dedication of mind exists, works are said to be”laid on” Brahman or Krishnan.

       He who, in doing works, lays his works on Brahman,
       Is not defiled; as a lotus leaf is unsullied by (Water)
       water.

   — v. 10.

       Whatever work thou doest, do all as an offering to Me,
       Thus, from the bounds of work thou shalt find release,
       and come to Me.

   — ix. 28.

3. The way of faith: human bhakti answering Divine grace.

   We have said that the Gita sometimes follows the way of the current philosophies and conceives of saving knowledge abstractly as knowledge of the essential difference between purusha and prakrit (soul and matter) or knowledge of an impersonal absolute (the aksara avyakta or Brahman) Its own characteristic knowledge, however, is much more vital and personal, consisting in the recognition that the supreme power behind the universe and the author of human salvation is the Vasudeva or Krishna of the Bhagavata faith. He is conceived as a conscious, eternal, almighty being, the great Lord of the universe, supreme over prakrti, - the material world, which is his manifestation, and over finite souls. He is therefore purusha in a higher sense than other souls and is therefore called Purushottamaa. He superintends the rise, development and periodic decay of the world and all creatures are dependent on Him. His acts are solely for the sake of the universe, for He Himself has no end to attain no wish to fulfil. He superintends the samsara or cycle of rebirths, but his relation to mankind is not solely determined by the law of retribution but also by his free grace. It is this which moves him from time to time to draw near to men in human form.

       Whenever justice declines and wrong increases,
       Then, O Bharata, I create myself:
       For the protection of the righteous, the destruction of
       the wicked,
       And the establishment of Dharma, I am born from
       age to age.

   — iv. 7,8.

   The doctrine of Divine: Grace has its beginning in the Upanishads.

   The first occurrence of the word prasada is in Katha ii, 20.

       One becomes free from sorrow.
       When through the Creator's grace
       He sees the greatness of the Self.

   There is a difference of reading in the text which makes it possible for Sankara to dispute the fact that it teaches a personal God of grace. There is however no possible doubt of the meaning, when Svetasvatara iii. 20 repeats the text in the form:

       One becomes free from sorrow,
       When through the Creator's grace
       He beholds the Lord and his greatness.

   Such sayings are only rare oases in the metaphysical desert of the Upanishads. When we come to the Gita, however, that which was before exceptional becomes normal. It is true that the word “prasada”, in the sense of “grace” does not occur before the last chapter, but the whole book is full of passages like this:

       They that worship me with devotion (bhakti),
       Dwell in me and I in them:
       Even though he be a doer of great evil,
       He that worships me with undivided devotion,
       Specially becomes a righteous soul,
       And comes to lasting peace. (ix. 29-31)
   
       Have thy mind on me, thy devotion toward me
       Thus, guiding thyself, being given over to me,
       To me shalt thou come.

   — ix. 34

   As is manifest from the last passage, the doctrine of salvation by faith is the human complement to the doctrine of salvation by Divine grace. The word bhakti, meaning loving trust and devotion, comes from the root haj, to adore, from which also come the words Bhagavan, the Adorable One, the Lord, and Bhagavata, a worshipper of Bhagavan or Krishnan - Vasudeva. Its first use in the Upanishads is in the last verse of the Svetasvatara, where it is said that the teaching of the Upanishad will be manifest to that great soul who has the highest devotion to God.

   A still earlier reference to bhakti is probably that of Panini when he says that Vasudevika means one who has devotion (bhakti) to Vasudeva. It was then in connection with the Bhagavata religion that the use of the word bhakti first developed, and this was natural since that was the first religion in India which fully taught a personal God of grace. The Gita is the first and purest expression of this religion and in it, we see bhakti at its best. Later bhakti exaggerated the emotional element in religion at the expense of knowledge and works. Not so the Gita. There, as in the New Testament, loving faith, duty and knowledge, are complementary, not separate ways of salvation but one path, regarded in three ways. For without faith, which is insight into the highest values as well as trust in the incarnate God who came to express those values, there is no true knowledge, and it is through faith that social duty or morality becomes religious and finds inspiration and power.

       By bhakti he (the devotee) recognises who and what I am,
       Thus, knowing me, in truth, he speedily enters into me.
   
       Doing always all works, making his home in me,
       He attains by my grace, the everlasting, changeless abode.
   
       If thou hast thy thought on me,
       thou shalt by my grace pass over all rough ways;
       But if from the thought of "I" (ahamkara) thou hearken not,
       thou shalt be lost.

   — xvii. 55,56,57.

   In the Gita as in the New Testament, ahamkara or egoism is the root sin. It is true that sometimes in the Gita, as in the Samkhya philosophy, ahamkara is conceived as a material instrument, the cause of the illusion of self-consciousness. But normally in the Gita, and certainly in chapter eighteen, the word has an ethical meaning. It is that selfishness, that self-centredness, which is the bane of human life, and from which one is delivered by casting oneself with the utter abandon of faith and love on the grace of God, by which alone we can be saved.

   In its doctrine of salvation by grace and faith the Gita obviously approaches very close to Christianity. It is true that this impression almost of identity of teaching would be modified if we were to deal adequately with other Gita teachings, logically irreconcilable but which lie side by side with the doctrine of grace. But incomparably the greatest difference is in the character of the Divine Incarnation through which the grace is conceived as being expressed.

The Knowledge of God

BY A.J. APPASAMY

From the earliest times it has been felt in India that God is infinite and glorious and that we cannot describe Him. In the Brihad-Aranyaka-Upanishad the Rishi Yajnavalkya says of Brahman: ‘You could not see the seer of seeing. You could not think the thinker of thinking. You could not understand the understander of understanding’.¹ Though Brahman cannot be known as He is in Himself, knowledge of Him can be gleaned from the various parts of the universe. He pervades the waters, fire, wind, sun, lightning; thunder, space, law, truth, mankind and the soul. If these are observed carefully, some knowledge of Brahman who is revealed through them may be obtained. As we pass from the earlier Upanishads to the later, the conviction grows that Brahman is very different from the universe and, therefore, cannot be really known or understood. ‘Him who is hard to see, entered into the hidden, set in the secret place of the heart, dwelling in the depth, primeval’.² ‘Not by speech’ not by mind, not by sight can He be apprehended. How can He be comprehended otherwise, than by one’s saying “He is”?³ ‘Not above, not across, nor in the middle has one grasped Him. There is no likeness of Him whose name is Great Glory’.⁴ Though the ordinary person cannot understand Brahman men of insight and intuition can know Him ‘Though He is hidden in all things, that Soul shines not forth. But He is seen by subtle seers with superior subtle intellect’.⁵

In the Bhagavad Gita this idea of the incomprehensibility of God receives a further development Brahman, the unknown and the incomprehensible, becomes incarnate in human form. It is true that Brahman cannot be described except in negatives. But for the sake of the world, he becomes Krishna, Arjuna’s charioteer and takes part in the affairs of men as a human friend and comrade. The Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas also speak of the transcendent, unknowable aspect of God. They teach, however, that God may be known by His devotees. The natural avenues of sense and understanding do not help us to reach Him. But He directly reveals Himself to His devout worshippers and gives them an insight into His nature which they could not have obtained by any effort of their own.

With the growth of speculation, the incapacity of human thought to grasp the nature of the Infinite is emphasised more and more. We may be inclined to think that with the development of speculation the conviction of the incomprehensibility of God would gradually have disappeared. The speculative thinker is often daring and as he has not to check his thoughts constantly by facts like a scientist, we may well think that he would imagine that he has grasped the real nature of God. What actually happens, however, is otherwise. The speculative genius of India reaches its highest flights in Sankara’s philosophy. There the ideas of all previous thinkers about the utterly incomprehensible and indescribable nature of God take systematic form and the doctrine of God as Nirguna is taught. God in and by Himself is Nirguna; we cannot describe Him in any way. He has no qualities or attributes. All human words are wholly incapable of making known what He is. Sankara tells the story of a philosopher, Bahva. A disciple approached him and asked him to teach about Brahman. Bahva said, ‘Learn Brahman, O friend’ and became silent. The disciple repeated his request a second time. Bahva still kept silent. When his disciple repeated his request a third time, Bahva said ‘I am teaching you, and you do not understand. Silent is that Self.’⁶ This story makes it clear that Brahman cannot be really described. His nature is far beyond human thought and speech. Sankara at the same time speaks of a Saguna Brahman or Brahman with qualities. In their desire for love and worship men think of Brahman as possessing various qualities and seek, His fellowship and love. This is not actually true. Brahman in His own real nature has no love or any other quality, good or evil. It is only a false idea on the part of man to ascribe any quality to Brahman. When the veil of illusion drops off, he will realise that the real nature of Brahman cannot be grasped in any way by human thought. Ramanuja does not accept this distinction between Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. To him God is the ocean of all the gracious qualities in existence. But he, too, is influenced by the declaration in the Upanishads that Brahman cannot be seen or known. He holds strongly that the existence of God cannot be established on the ground of experience, and he refutes with his usual vigour and clarity all arguments which seek to prove the existence of God on the basis of experience.

In the eighteenth century Thayumanavar in the Tamil country sings: ⁷

    Who can His greatness guess? Who claims to know Him ?
    Mind cannot measure, nor speech reach the heights
    Where the Eternal One, Almighty Lord, is,
    Being all-blessed Bliss, Light of all lights.

We may conclude this rapid survey of Hindu thought on this subject with a story from Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and thus bring the review up to date. A father had two sons whom he sent to a Guru for spiritual instruction. They returned home after several years and greeted their father with due reverence and love. The father spoke to the elder son and said, ‘Tell me, my boy, what you have learnt of God’. The son immediately recited many verses and attempted to show off the extent of his knowledge. He then turned to the younger son and said, ‘What do you know of God?’ The younger son hung down his head and remained silent. The father was very pleased with him and said, ‘Verily, my boy, you have understood God. He is indeed unspeakable’.⁸

The teaching of the Old Testament. There is a great deal in the Old Testament about the infinite power and greatness of God, which pass man’s comprehension. In the more primitive stages of spiritual development the Old Testament writers literally believed that no man could see God and live: And he said, Thou canst not see my face for man shall not see me and live’.⁹ God in and by Himself cannot be seen by man. If under any particular circumstances, a man beholds God that man shall immediately die. The vision of God was such an awful experience that it could not but bring about physical death, the highest penalty on earth known to man. So deeply rooted was this conviction that when on certain occasions men beheld God and lived, there was real surprise and astonishment. (Exodus 24:9-11. Deuteronomy 5:24)

The book of Job is one of the most interesting books in the Old Testament. It is the work of a great thinker who grapples with the problem of suffering most earnestly and carefully. The entire book is devoted to the consideration of this one problem in all its aspects. It is not surprising that such a deep thinker as the author of the book of Job should frequently give expression to the incomprehensible character of God. ‘Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?’¹⁰ ‘Which doth great things and - unsearchable.’¹¹ ‘Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out; he is excellent in power’¹²

The psalmists were men of different types. Some of them were burdened with the sense of guilt and sin. There were others on whose lips there was always the adoration of God. There were yet others who sought to understand the nature of God. A psalmist who belongs to the last class speaks of God as one who covers himself with light as with a garment.¹³ People use garments to cover their real form. Likewise, God clothes Himself with light. Encompassed by dazzling light, His real nature cannot be seen or understood by men.

There is a wonderful vision of God recorded in the sixth chapter of Isaiah. In a pictorial form the prophet realised that he could not see God, even celestial beings had to cover their faces with their wings. In this vivid way, the awful holiness of God whom no man could understand was brought home to the prophet. Another prophet, also bearing the name of Isaiah, gives expression in noble words to the utterly exalted nature of God. ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’.¹⁴ These words sum up for all generations the utter otherness of God.

The Teaching of the New Testament. There is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New. This difference is due to the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. We read in the Gospel of St. John that on one occasion Philip, said unto him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us’. This petition of Philip may be said to echo the age - long spiritual quest of man. In all ages and in all countries devout men have earnestly sought after God. They have controlled their natural desires, passed through severe disciplines and undertaken arduous tasks in order that they might be able to see God. The vision of God has been the supreme goal of their life which has evoked their deepest feelings and called forth their most strenuous efforts. Jesus answered Philip and said, ‘Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how Father; how sayest thou, Shew us the Father?’¹⁵

Christ is the picture of God. To see God we must see Christ. God is infinite in glory and power and His nature cannot be understood or described by man But He wills to make Himself known to us and is born on this earth as a human being. He passes through all the experiences which befall men. He is hungry and thirsty. He becomes weary, and He has friends and relations who do not understand Him. In every respect, except that of sin. He is like other men. Through the human life of Jesus, we behold with marvellous clearness the love and goodness of God. Those wonderful words of His, which are found in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the Gospels, give a new insight into the nature of God. That life of constant and untiring service among the poor, the sick and the suffering reveals to men the uttermost limit to which God is prepared to go in order to help and redeem men. In Christ, we have a revelation of God, which is absolutely clear and unmistakable in its character.

We find many other passages in the Gospel of St. John setting forth the fact that God in and by Himself cannot be seen, but that through Christ we can understand and know Him. (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46) It may be supposed that after the Incarnation of Christ men would no longer dwell on the unsearchable character of God. St. Paul was the greatest devotee of Christ. He realised in his own experience the wonderful meaning of the Incarnation, and he has interpreted it in immortal words to all succeeding generations. And yet even in his writings we find echoes of the thought that God is an incomprehensible and, indescribable Being. He speaks of God as ‘dwelling in light unspeakable whom no man hath seen nor can see’.¹⁶ He says that ‘the peace of God passeth all understanding’.¹⁷ He cries out that the judgements of God cannot be known: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past tracing out. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?’¹⁸ According to St. Paul all that God has prepared for man is far beyond anything which he has experienced or even imagined. ‘Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him!’.¹⁹ We may now inquire what the significance of this teaching is We may say that the Incarnation, supreme event in the religious history of mankind as it is, does not exhaust all the riches of God. There are in Him heights and depths which are still unrevealed. Even the matchless love of Christ does not bring out fully the unlimited love of God which endures and suffers to the uttermost. Is not this what Christ Himself means when He says, ‘The Father is greater than I’.²⁰ The Incarnation does not exhaust all the wonderful love and truth and beauty in God. In the nature of God there are infinite riches which are still beyond the grasp of man. The same thought is found expressed by St. Paul when he says that in Christ ‘dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’.²¹ The last word ‘bodily’ is of great significance. It shows that in Christ there were physical limitations. His was an ordinary human body, one subject to weariness and hunger and thirst. There were many things in God which could not be expressed through this limited human body. Yes, the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, but it dwelt under the limitations of the human flesh.

Printed at the Hilal Press, Tirunelveli 9-1941