The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 4/Translation: Prose/The Paris Congress of the History of Religions
THE PARIS CONGRESS OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS[1]
In the Paris Exhibition, the Congress of the History of Religions recently
sat for several days together. At the Congress, there was no room allowed
for the discussions on the doctrines and spiritual views of any religion;
its purpose was only to inquire into the historic evolution of the different
forms of established faiths, and along with it other accompanying facts that
are incidental to it. Accordingly, the representation of the various
missionary sects of different religions and their beliefs was entirely left
out of account in this Congress. The Chicago Parliament of Religions was a
grand affair, and the representatives of many religious sects from all parts
of the world were present at it. This Congress, on the other hand, was
attended only by such scholars as devote themselves to the study of the
origin and the history of different religions. At the Chicago Parliament the
influence of the Roman Catholics was great, and they organised it with great
hopes for their sect. The Roman Catholics expected to establish their
superiority over the Protestants without much opposition; by proclaiming
their glory and strength and laying the bright side of their faith before
the assembled Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Mussulmans, and other
representatives of the world-religions and publicly exposing their weakness,
they hoped to make firm their own position. But the result proving
otherwise, the Christian world has been deplorably hopeless of the
reconciliation of the different religious systems; so the Roman Catholics
are now particularly opposed to the repetition of any such gathering. France
is a Roman Catholic country; hence in spite of the earnest wish of the
authorities, no religious congress was convened on account of the vehement
opposition on the part of the Roman Catholic world.
The Congress of the History of Religions at Paris was like the Congress of
Orientalists which is convened from time to time and at which European
scholars, versed in Sanskrit, Pali, Arabic, and other Oriental languages,
meet; only the antiquarianism of Christianity was added to this Paris
Congress.
From Asia only three Japanese Pandits were present at the Congress. From
India there was the Swami Vivekananda.
The conviction of many of the Sanskrit scholars of the West is that the
Vedic religion is the outcome of the worship of the fire, the sun, and other
awe-inspiring objects of natural phenomena.
Swami Vivekananda was invited by the Paris Congress to contradict this
conviction, and he promised to read a paper on the subject. But he could not
keep his promise on account of ill health, and with difficulty was only able
to be personally present at the Congress, where he was most warmly received
by all the Western Sanskrit scholars, whose admiration for the Swami was all
the greater as they had already gone through many of his lectures on the
Vedanta.
At the Congress, Mr. Gustav Oppert, a German Pandit, read a paper on the
origin of the Shâlagrâma-Shilâ. He traced the origin of the Shalagrama
worship to that of the emblem of the female generative principle. According
to him, the Shiva-Linga is the phallic emblem of the male and the Shalagrama
of the female generative principle. And thus he wanted to establish that the
worship of the Shiva-Linga and that of the Shalagrama — both are but the
component parts of the worship of Linga and Yoni! The Swami repudiated the
above two views and said that though he had heard of such ridiculous
explanations about the Shiva-Linga, the other theory of the Shalagrama-Shila
was quite new and strange, and seemed groundless to him.
The Swami said that the worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the
famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha,
the sacrificial post. In that hymn a description is found of the
beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said
Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. As afterwards the Yajna
(sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes, and flames, the Soma plant, and the ox
that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice gave place
to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted-hair,
his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva, and so on — just
so, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga, and was deified
to the high Devahood of Shri Shankara. In the Atharva-Veda Samhita, the
sacrificial cakes are also extolled along with the attributes of the
Brahman.
In the Linga Purâna, the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories,
meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the superiority of
Mahâdeva.
Again, there is another fact to be considered. The Buddhists used to erect
memorial topes consecrated to the memory of Buddha; and the very poor, who
were unable to build big monuments, used to express their devotion to him by
dedicating miniature substitutes for them. Similar instances are still seen
in the case of Hindu temples in Varanasi and other sacred places of India
where those, who cannot afford to build temples, dedicate very small
temple-like constructions instead. So it might be quite probable that during
the period of Buddhistic ascendancy, the rich Hindus, in imitation of the
Buddhists, used to erect something as a memorial resembling their Skambha,
and the poor in a similar manner copied them on a reduced scale, and
afterwards the miniature memorials of the poor Hindus became a new addition
to the Skambha.
One of the names of the Buddhist Stupas (memorial topes) is Dhâtu-garbha,
that is, "metal-wombed". Within the Dhatu-garbha, in small cases made of
stone, shaped like the present Shalagrama, used to be preserved the ashes,
bones, and other remains of the distinguished Buddhist Bhikshus, along with
gold, silver, and other metals. The Shalagrama-Shilas are natural stones
resembling in form these artificially-cut stone-cases of the Buddhist
Dhatu-garbha, and thus being first worshipped by the Buddhists, gradually
got into Vaishnavism, like many other forms of Buddhistic worship that found
their way into Hinduism. On the banks of the Narmadâ and in Nepal, the
Buddhistic influence lasted longer than in other parts of India; and the
remarkable coincidence that the Narmadeshvara Shiva-Linga, found on the
banks of the Narmadâ and hence so called, and the Shalagrama-Shilas of Nepal
are given preference to by the Hindus to those found elsewhere in India is a
fact that ought to be considered with respect to this point of contention.
The explanation of the Shalagrama-Shila as a phallic emblem was an imaginary
invention and, from the very beginning, beside the mark. The explanation of
the Shiva-Linga as a phallic emblem was brought forward by the most
thoughtless, and was forthcoming in India in her most degraded times, those
of the downfall of Buddhism. The filthiest Tântrika literature of Buddhism
of those times is yet largely found and practiced in Nepal and Tibet.
The Swami gave another lecture in which he dwelt on the historic evolution
of the religious ideas in India, and said that the Vedas are the common
source of Hinduism in all its varied stages, as also of Buddhism and every
other religious belief in India. The seeds of the multifarious growth of
Indian thought on religion lie buried in the Vedas. Buddhism and the rest of
India's religious thought are the outcome of the unfolding and expansion of
those seeds, and modern Hinduism also is only their developed and matured
form. With the expansion or the contraction of society, those seeds lie more
or less expanded at one place or more or less contracted at another.
He said a few words about the priority of Shri Krishna to Buddha. He also
told the Western scholars that as the histories of the royal dynasties
described in the Vishnu Purâna were by degrees being admitted as proofs
throwing light on the ways of research of the antiquarian, so, he said, the
traditions of India were all true, and desired that Western Sanskrit
scholars, instead of writing fanciful articles, should try to discover their
hidden truths.
Professor Max Müller says in one of his books that, whatever similarities
there may be, unless it be demonstrated that some one Greek knew Sanskrit,
it cannot be concluded that ancient India helped ancient Greece in any way.
But it is curious to observe that some Western savants, finding several
terms of Indian astronomy similar to those of Greek astronomy, and coming to
know that the Greeks founded a small kingdom on the borders of India, can
clearly read the help of Greece on everything Indian, on Indian literature,
Indian astronomy, Indian arithmetic. Not only so; one has been bold enough
to go so far as to declare that all Indian sciences as a rule are but echoes
of the Greek!
On a single Sanskrit Shloka —
— "The Yavanas are Mlechchhas, in them this science is established, (therefore) even they deserve worship like Rishis, . . ." — how much the Westerners have indulged their unrestrained imagination! But it remains to be shown how the above Shloka goes to prove that the Aryas were taught by the Mlechchhas. The meaning may be that the learning of the Mlechchha disciples of the Aryan teachers is praised here, only to encourage the Mlechchhas in their pursuit of the Aryan science.
Secondly, when the germ of every Aryan science is found in the Vedas and
every step of any of those sciences can be traced with exactness from the
Vedic to the present day, what is the necessity for forcing the far-fetched
suggestion of the Greek influence on them? "What is the use of going to the
hills in search of honey if it is available at home?" as a Sanskrit proverb
says.
Again, every Greek-like word of Aryan astronomy can be easily derived from
Sanskrit roots. The Swami could not understand what right the Western
scholars had to trace those words to a Greek source, thus ignoring their
direct etymology.
In the same manner, if on finding mention of the word Yavanikâ (curtain) in
the dramas of Kâlidâsa and other Indian poets, the Yâvanika (Ionian or
Greek) influence on the whole of the dramatic literature of the time is
ascertained, then one should first stop to compare whether the Aryan dramas
are at all like the Greek. Those who have studied the mode of action and
style of the dramas of both the languages must have to admit that any such
likeness, if found, is only a fancy of the obstinate dreamer, and has never
any real existence as a matter of fact. Where is that Greek chorus? The
Greek Yavanika is on one side of the stage, the Aryan diametrically on the
other. The characteristic manner of expression of the Greek drama is one
thing, that of the Aryan quite another. There is not the least likeness
between the Aryan and the Greek dramas: rather the dramas of Shakespeare
resemble to a great extent the dramas of India. So the conclusion may also
be drawn that Shakespeare is indebted to Kalidasa and other ancient Indian
dramatists for all his writings, and that the whole Western literature is
only an imitation of the Indian.
Lastly, turning Professor Max Müller's own premisses against him, it may be
said as well that until it is demonstrated that some one Hindu knew Greek
some time one ought not to talk even of Greek influence.
Likewise, to see Greek influence in Indian sculpture is also entirely
unfounded.
The Swami also said that the worship of Shri Krishna is much older than that
of Buddha, and if the Gitâ be not of the same date as the Mahâbhârata, it is
surely much earlier and by no means later. The style of language of the Gita
is the same as that of the Mahabharata. Most of the adjectives used in the
Gita to explain matters spiritual are used in the Vana and other Parvans of
the Mahabharata, respecting matters temporal. Such coincidence is impossible
without the most general and free use of those words at one and the same
time. Again, the line of thought in the Gita is the same as in the
Mahabharata; and when the Gita notices the doctrines of all the religious
sects of the time, why does it not ever mention the name of Buddhism?
In spite of the most cautious efforts of the writers subsequent to Buddha,
reference to Buddhism is not withheld and appears somewhere or other, in
some shape or other, in histories, stories, essays, and every book of the
post-Buddhistic literature. In covert or overt ways, some allusion is sure
to be met with in reference to Buddha and Buddhism. Can anyone show any such
reference in the Gita? Again, the Gita is an attempt at the reconciliation
of all religious creeds, none of which is slighted in it. Why, it remains to
be answered, is Buddhism alone denied the tender touch of the Gita-writer?
The Gita wilfully scorns none. Fear? — Of that there is a conspicuous
absence in it. The Lord Himself, being the interpreter and the establisher
of the Vedas, never hesitates to even censure Vedic rash presumptuousness if
required. Why then should He fear Buddhism?
As Western scholars devote their whole life to one Greek work, let them
likewise devote their whole life to one Sanskrit work, and much light will
flow to the world thereby. The Mahabharata especially is the most invaluable
work in Indian history; and it is not too much to say that this book has not
as yet been even properly read by the Westerners.
After the lecture, many present expressed their opinions for or against the
subject, and declared that they agreed with most of what the Swami had said,
and assured the Swami that the old days of Sanskrit Antiquarianism were past
and gone. The views of modern Sanskrit scholars were largely the same as
those of the Swami's, they said. They believed also that there was much true
history in the Puranas and the traditions of India
Lastly, the learned President, admitting all other points of the Swami's
lecture, disagreed on one point only, namely, on the contemporaneousness of
the Gita with the Mahabharata. But the only reason he adduced was that the
Western scholars were mostly of the opinion that the Gita was not a part of
the Mahabharata.
The substance of the lecture will be printed in French in the General Report
of the Congress.
- Notes
- ↑ Translated from a Paris letter written to the Udbodhana.