PANTHEISM AND INDIA

DR. R. C. GUPTA

Head of the Department of Political Science, I. K. College, Indore

Etymologically, pantheism is the view that all is God, and that God is all, but, since thought may move either, from God to all or from all to God, it can assume two forms. If it begins with the religious belief or the philosophic faith in God as infinite and eternal reality, then the finite and temporal world is swallowed up in God, and pantheism becomes acosmism, i.e., the world is an illusion in comparison with God as reality. If it begins with the scientific conception or the poetic vision of the world as unity, then God is lost in the world, and pantheism becomes pancosmism.

Here, we are concerned with the theistic or religious conception of pantheism. The definitions of pantheism generally agree in identifying God with the world: God and the Universe are one and inseparable; all is God and God is all; nature and God are identical. So far as the terms go, such statements are acceptable, emphasizing, as they do, the oneness and the divineness of reality. Everything, however, depends upon the meaning of the notion God employed in these definitions, and on this point authorities differ. Recent naturalistic systems like Haeckel’s, which call themselves pantheistic, conceive of God as the universal substance which obeys the physical law of energy, and the ancient naturalistic philosopher Strato is frequently characterized as a pantheist, although his God is, in Cicero’s words, ‘without sense and form’. To call the world God in such cases is, however, as Schopenhauer justly declares, merely to increase the language with a superfluous synonyms for the word ‘God’.

To be true to the spirit of pantheism, we mean by it that doctrine which conceives of reality as one in essence and form, and thinks of this unity as somehow rational and divine. Hence, according to this teaching, God is an entity not separate from the world and remote from it, but in it and of it–immanent, not transcendent; everything partakes of the nature of God. The particular objects and individuals have no absolute existence of their own, but are either modes of the universal substance or parts of the divine whole. Moreover, all things arise from God by necessity; they follow inevitably from His infinite being.

It has frequently been affirmed, by none more emphatically than by A. Barth, who has done so much for the elucidation of Indian thought, that the tone and tendency of Indian conviction and belief are as a whole pantheistic. With at least equal truth the assertion might be made that India reasons upon theistic presumptions, and that her favourite philosophy reaches idealistic conclusions. Under other skies and in other lands, it might appear difficult to induce harmonious working of principles and theories so diverse. In the Indian mind they coalesce, or, if the figure be preferred, occupy different compartments without impairing the unity of the whole. The Indian merchant or peasant is a philosopher, who is generally ready to give a reason for the faith that is in him, and always eager for a debate thereon. In most instances, his views of God and the universe will be found to be pantheistic, dominated in the ultimate issue by idealistic traditions and teachings.

Indian pantheism originated in different conceptions, and aimed at satisfying different types and preconceptions of thought from the European. Historically also it has run a different course. Perhaps, the identity of name has led to an exaggerated conception of the strength of the influence which pantheistic ideas have exercised upon the outlook and character of the Indian people. In reality for all practical purposes, it has been slight. Except in the case of a few mystics, pantheism has never been the most forceful motive of action or belief; nor is it at all likely to strengthen its hold in the future.

In the hymns of the Rigveda pantheistic strain of thought is discernible from the very beginning. The rude and superficial polytheism of the popular faith failed to content the more earnest thinkers among the poets; and the response which in some instances at least was given to the search for a more satisfying creed was in the direction of unifying all gods, all existences, into one. Agni especially was the centre of this assimilating movement. The essence of fire appeared to pervade all things, and to give them warmth and being; when Agni withdrew himself, the life also vanished. All the gods accordingly are identified with Agni, and Agni himself is all the gods.¹ Three general conceptions or theories of the constitution of the universe are present to the minds of the writers–monotheism, polytheism and pantheism–and of these the pantheistic view ultimately overshadows and controls the others. Within the limits of the Rigveda the tendency to pantheism culminates in the hymn to the unknown God.

The culminating point of Indian speculation was reached in the thought of the Upanishads, and in the system of the Vedanta founded on them. That system assumed finally a pantheistic shape, and, thus, formulated, secured the assent and conviction of the great majority of the Indian people. Having failed to establish in intelligible form the mystical and metaphysical doctrine of the atman, the thinkers of the Upanishads fell back upon a modified pantheism. The universe was the created work of Brahman, who (or which) then took possession of it as pervading principle or soul (atman). The postulate of the sole reality of Brahman or the atman remained, however, inviolable–one only without a second; and pantheistic speculation therefore regarded the universe as immanent as it were in God, not conversely God immanent in the universe. The doctrine thus formulated was in direct succession with the thought of the Brahmanas and the Rigveda.

In the Mahabharata and the epic literature generally the sub-stratum of thought and belief which the writers presuppose, and on which they fall back, is pantheistic, after the manner of the Upanishads. The divine actors and heroes, however–Krishna in the Mahabharata and Rama in the Ramayana–are the objects of an intense theistic reverence and devotion; and the cross-currents of popular theism and philosophic pantheism run deep and strong. In general, in the thought and exposition of the poems as a whole the former appears to be in retreat before the vigour and persistence of pantheistic ideas. The theism, however, whether or not it is really the older stratum in this literature, is in no danger of dissolution. The conflict is most apparent in the episode of the Bhagavad Gita, where the dignity and authority of the divine Krishna have attracted to his person a fervour of monotheistic worship unequalled elsewhere in the history of India. Yet even here the interwoven strands of pantheism are so intrusive and continuous that the nature of the primitive basis upon which the poem has been built up is still regarded by scholars as doubtful. Unquestionably, however, in the epic period pantheism as a reasoned explanation of the constitution of the universe is gaining ground and commending itself to the thought and acceptance of the people.

Hence it is in what is known as Brahmanism and the philosophic Vedanta that the stronghold of pantheistic thought in India is to be found. And it is a tribute to the energy and conviction of its adherents that their doctrine has so entirely taken possession of the Indian mind. Barth’s assertion is justified that ‘India is radically pantheistic. But it would be equally correct to affirm that India is radically mystical or radically theistic. In fact, the pantheism in India is of an essentially mystical and visionary type, and lends itself to dreamy aspirations, far removed from the hard and uncompromising theorizings of the West. If carried to a logical conclusion, it finds itself in conflict both with the practical necessities of life and with ancient theistic beliefs. It compromises with both, and succeeds in living in harmony with habits and deep-seated convictions which to minds differently constituted from the Indian would appear to be fatal to its existence.

India’s popular religious systems, on the other hand, are essentially theistic in character, and constitute little to the significance or thought of pantheism. This is true for the most part of the two greatest of these faiths, Vaishnavism and Saivism, which in their varied forms share between them the allegiance of the great majority of the people. In a broad sense it is true of both Vaishnavite and Saivite that they are theist and pantheist in one, but that in the urgency of daily life the latter creed is, with rare exceptions, subservient to the former. Whatever his theory may be, the Indian regulates his conduct by the desire to propitiate the gods and to receive help from them, not by a pantheistic doctrine which confuses his personality and merges him in the great unknown. In spite of this theistic tendency of an average Hindu mind, it is however notable that an undercurrent of pantheism runs through the popular theism, and there is no antagonism between the two. Like pantheism, theism too, in the final analysis of things, upholds the philosophic faith in God as infinite and eternal reality and ultimately subscribes to the idea of unity of the world. Moreover, the theistic trends in Indian pantheism lead a majority of the Indian people to make an attempt to bring it into some kind of harmony with their moral behaviour or allow it to control their ethical habit or belief. The ruling thought and inclination of the Indian people by nature intensely religious is to seek intercourse with a personal God, to enlist His interest and goodwill on their behalf, and to satisfy what they conceive to be His moral demand. The abstract pantheism, devoid of any theistic bent, is for the most part entirely without effect on daily conduct and life and is of no use for an average man.

¹ Rigveda, V. iii–1.

Back