Boston University - HUB Yearbook (Boston, MA)

Page 27 text:

1 L THE QUEST OF THE PERFECT RELIGION. 25 ing of the object of his Worship, otherwise he is not worshipping. So the being worshipped is thinking of his worshipper, other- wise he is not receiving the worship. Here, then, is mutual simultaneous thought. Each has a place in the consciousness of the other. To this extent they possess a common consciousness. In this fellowship of mutual thought they are mutually related, by it they are vitally and personally connected. This connection may, of course, be of two kinds. If the god is angry with his worshipper, or the worshipper with his god, the relationship is one of hatred and antagonism. If, on the other hand, it is a relation of mutual inclination, -the man sin- cerely seeking to please his god, and the god sincerely seeking to bless his worshipper, it is, of course, a relationship of amity, of good fellowship, of mutual love. But all religions agree that the first of these relationships, that of enmity and estrangement, is ab- normal, one which ought not to be. All religions aim to remove or to transform such a relationship wherever it exists. It is there- fore plain that the perfect religion, if there be one, must require and make the personal relationship between the worshipper and the worshipped a relation of mutual benevolence - a relation of mutual love. Nowhere can there be a perfect religion if the man do not sincerely love his god, and if the god do not sin- cerely love his worshipper. ' Here the speaker raised a most interesting question as to degree. To what extent ought this love to go? There could be but one answer. In a perfect religion the love of the wor- shipper for the worshipped must ot' course be the strongest possible, particularly as the worshipped is himself all-perfect, and hence all-worthy of this love. X So, on the other hand, the love of the worshipped toward the worshlpper ought to be the very strongest possible. What then is thc strongest possible love which the divine can bear to the human and the human to the divine? I cannot enough regret that my limits compel me to suppress his discussion of this pregnant question. I can Only say that from point to point he carried the convictions of his vast audi- ence until he had trinmphantly demonstrated three far-reaching propositions: Q11 That the ever higher and more perfect devo- tion of a worshipper can never reach its supreme intensity until

Page 26 text:

l 24 BOSTON UNIVERSITY YEAR BOOK. perfect object of worship love and bless a perfectly sincere worshipperl After many other touching words, particularly upon the woe- ful contrast between the ideal and the actual in 1ife,' and upon the arduousncss of the struggle for virtue under every religion, he closed by submitting the following proposition for the further eoirsideration of the Convention : H Resolved, that a perfect religion will have to demand of man a perfect surrender of will and life to a perfect object of worship, and will have to promise him a perfect freedom and satisfaction in the life of goodness. A Suli from Ispahan, a Theosophist from Bombay, and vari- ous other speakers followed, all very nearly agreeing with the first, but some of them preferring a different wording of the resolution. Various amendments were proposed and discussed, until at length the followingsubstitute was offered: H Resolved, that if a perfect religion were possible to imperfect men, it would require of the worshipper a perfect devotion to a perfect god, and would demand of the perfect god a perfect ultimate beatifi- cation of the worshipper. This was unanimously and even enthusiastically adopted. Question four was now in order. The President rose and said : The fourth question reads as follows: 'In what relation must the divine object and the human sulgject stand to each other in a perfect religion? ' The discussion of this question is to be opened by one who has himself ofttimes been the recipient of divine worship, and who represents an ancient and powerful priesthood believed by millions to be a real embodiment of the one divine and eternal Spirit. I have the honor to present to the Convention the venerated head of all the sacred houses of the Brahmins in the holy city of Benares. Calm as his own imposing religion, yet keener than any who had preceded him, the Hindu addressed himself to his allotted task. For twenty minutes he held every eye and commanded every mind. How shall I give you any conception of that cap- tivating discourse? The following is but the barest thread to intimate the great truths touched upon by his master hand. He began by saying that some personal relationship between the worshipper and the worshipped was necessarily involved in the very idea of worship. In this act the worshipper is think-

Page 28 text:

5 26 BOSTON UNIVERSITY YEAR BOOK. he is ready, and even desirous, to merge his very will and 1if'e and being in the will and life and being ot' the all-perfect object of his worship. Q23 That the gracious disposition ofthe object worshipped toward the worshippcr can never reach its supreme intensity until the worshipped being is ready, and desirous, to descend from the divine form and 'mode of being and, in ah avatar of compassionate love, take on the form and the limitations of his human worshipper. That in a perfect religion the human subject and the divine object must be set in such rela- tions that it shall be possible for God to become a partaker of hnman nature, and for man in some sense to become a partaker of 'the divine nature. , Profound was the silence which followed this wonderful dis- course. The first to break it was a Professor in the Imperial University of Tokio, a man who, though of European- birth, was incomplete sympathy with the purposes of the Convention. After highly complimenting the Brahmin speaker, he said that he himselt' had long been an admiring student of India's sacred books. lVith the permission ot' the Convention he would like to recite a few lines from one ot' them, the Isa Upanishad, which seemed to'him admirably to express the true relation subsisting between the worshipping soul and the Infinite. 1-Ie then gave the following : Whate'er exists within this universe Is all to be regarded as enveloped By the great Lord, as if wrapped in a vesture. There is one only being who exists Unmoved, yet moving swifter than the mind, Who far outstrips the senses, tho' as gods They strive to reach him, who himself at rest Transcends the fleetest flight of other beingsg Who like the air supports all vital action. He moves, yet moves not, he is far, yet. near, He is within this universe. Whoe'er beholds All living creatures as in him, and him- The universal Spirit-as in all, Henceforth regards no Cl'CRl.l1l'8 with contempt. if Now here --continued the Professor--'4 here' we have the true conception admirably expressed. Because the Universal Spirit is in all things, even in the worshipper, and on the other i