J.C. KUMARAPPA
There are no two human beings alike. People differ in the way they view the self-same thing. We have heard the story of the two knights who had inspected a shield. One reported it to be black; the other said it was white. The end was a mortal combat. The truth was that one side of the shield was black while the other was white. Two persons of a similarly trained scientific mind may be examining an identical phenomenon, and yet arrive at divergent conclusions. The cause of these differences is to be looked for in the imperfect human nature, preconceived theories and surrounding influences. Our inquiry is often imperfect, our examination cursory, and our conclusions only partially true. We often mistake cause for effect and vice versa. Our procedure is planned out working on existing theories coloured by our individual prejudices. Indeed, this is the basis of all scientific investigation. All the great discoveries in science have been made only by working from theories which have been uprooted as a result of the discovery. To begin with, we are animals; hence we are always subject to the influence of the environment, and we colour our ideas unconsciously. Granting we overcome all these difficulties and obtain a glimpse at truth, we have yet to impart it to others through the imperfect medium of language. If this is so in the visible material world, how much more so in the realm of thought and imagination, and where are we when we enter the domain of the spirit?
Just as man differs from man differs from man in character, imagination and angle of vision so nations also differ in their national character. Genius and its outlook on life according as it consists of a greater percentage of one kind or another, and this percentage is again in its turn governed by the natural environment. As every person is expected to bring to the altar of humanity the results of the use of the talents entrusted to him, so should every nation contribute to the commonwealth of nations its peculiar gifts.
Our God is not a lord of hosts at whose voice nations tremble, but a loving Father of individuals. He is not a God of Nations, but a Friend and Counsellor to such as love Him and to whom He reveals Himself irrespective of creed and nationality. With Him there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Greek nor Barbarian. This revelation may be perfect and complete as far as the individual is concerned, but far from being a complete revelation of the Almighty to the world at large. No more [than] a piece of glass, which has allowed a ray of sunlight to pass through it, can lay claim to have revealed the sun. Indeed, if it were a perfectly colourless plane medium, and the light entered at right angles and passed through without being refracted, the light that has come through that glass may be said to reveal the sun in the proportion that [the] ray of light bears to the intensity of the sun, which is infinitesimal.
If the medium happens to be a coloured glass, the coloured light itself may be a perfect specimen of a constituent of sunlight, but it only reveals a part of that infinitesimal part and human beings are far from being such a perfect media. The whole process is complicated if the medium happens to be a stained glass window, which comes nearest to illustrate the myriad aspects of a fertile human mind and heart.
If I may, I should like to elaborate this illustration a little further. While it is dangerous to work on illustrations too far, they serve to make one’s meaning clear, especially so when one wishes to avoid the use of technical terms.
Suppose we have a room decorated with a number of stained glass window, the resultant light in the room will be tinged with the predominant colour in the windows: If that colour be red, the light will be reddish and so on. Now imagine, if you can, an internal influence of some kind which coloured the windows, then the resultant light in the room will only reveal the aspect of white light which is peculiar to that room. Now to a person brought u in that room and accustomed to judge colour paintings under the influence of that light it would be impossible to appreciate to the same extent the same paintings in differently coloured rooms. The rooms are nations living under the influence of the revelation of their prophets who in themselves are national products. If you will present a colour painting to the best advantage to one accustomed to reddish light present it in that light, only then the effect is perfect; even under the perfect white light the revelation is imperfect relatively.
Here I should like to point out the absurdity of people who talk about the spirituality of the East and the materialism of the West, as though spirituality and materialism were absolute terms. These are only relative terms, and used as such in the above statements make them meaningless.
I hope by the above illustration, I have made clear my drift. If you will present Christ to India, so as to be appreciated to the full extent, it should be done in terms of Indian Thought and in light revealed in ancient India. This interpretation of Christ may not be of much value to the people of the West, or to anybody else other than Indians, or for the evangelization of nations as a whole, but there are Westerners with Indian minds who would find that that aspect of Christ appeals to them.
In arriving at this conclusion I have made two assumptions which require explanation. I shall enumerate them and then deal with them in their order.
Revelation in the sense of knowledge of the Infinite is not confined to the Jews only, but we should expect to find some light at least in other religions.
Revelation is a gradual process.
I shall take the second first. As far as the orthodox school is concerned I am aware I can say with the Irishman, no sooner did I open my mouth than I put my foot into it.
Revelation is a gradual process in the sense that it varies directly in proportion to the capacity of intellect and heart, and as these gradually widen and increase, so the knowledge of God increases. Suppose a highly philosophical work were to be placed before a child, what will it understand? Possibly the various letters of the alphabet may be recognised and a few monosyllabic words, but the essentials of the Book will not be understood until that child grows up to maturity. Similarly, the revelation is there, but we are not in a position to comprehend it fully. In this sense it is a gradual process. Further, I believe that revelation is personal. I am using the term not in the sense of a miraculous dictation of a book for the guidance of men, but rather in the sense of a communication from God. In this sense God reveals Himself to individuals. “No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” This argues revelation to be a growth and therefore religion also is such.
Some people classify world religions under two categories – Static and Dynamic. Of the former Mohammedanism is a good example. The whole revelation to them has come once for all through Mohammed and is contained in the Koran. While Hinduism forms a good type of the latter and has grown from nature worship to pantheism, from polytheism to henotheism and monotheism and in a sense even to atheism. This is the reason why so many Indians of contradictory schools of thought are able to base their diametrically opposed contentions on different portions of their scriptures and consider themselves in unassailable positions.
Christianity combines to a wonderful degree the essentials of both forms. While the whole Revelation has come once for all through Christ, yet we are able to understand Him more and more as we advance in spiritual growth and the revelation could be said to be growing. If Revelation were personal, what then is the use of the Bible? We might just as well ask, if the greatest thing in Science is personal research, what then is the use of studying the results of others? It affords us in the first place a commencing stock to start with, it places at our disposal the experiences of former seekers, and then it helps us to formulate our theories and plan out our method of procedure accordingly. In this way we are able to utilise the experience and knowledge gained through the centuries to the best advantage and start where others have left off. If everyone had to make a fresh start and find out all things for himself progress would be impossible and unknown, and we should be no more forward than the first person who ever started on an inquiry. Which father will begin to teach his son Mathematics with Integral Calculus; he will first teach him the numerals, then addition and subtraction and so on. If we know how to educate children gradually, is it too much wisdom to be expected of our Heavenly Father?
Revelation is not confined to Israel. A knowledge of God as revealed in the Old Testament is essential to understand Christ of the New Testament. I am not for one moment underrating the Old Testament. On the other hand, according to my contention that religion is a growth, without the Old Testament we should not be able to understand its fulfilment, namely Christ.
But it is idle talk to speak of a Chosen Nation. There is neither Greek nor Hebrew with God. God is not a woman with lapdogs. Once I told Mr. Polak that we as Indians had no claim on his sympathy, his reply was: “No, neither Indians nor Chinese have any claim on me, but the cause of the depressed demands my sympathy. My life, my all, irrespective of nationality.” If such a frail human being could show such an enormous largeness of heart as to break through the iron shackles of caste and colour, is it too much to expect where there are no such bonds or barriers of an Almighty Father whose children we all are? Is God’s love so limited that He should shut himself away from all nations and only reveal Himself to his pet nation? Indeed, this idea of chosen nation seems to point to the early stages of religious growth to the days of tribal Gods. Further, we see through the whole history of the Jews that it was not the nation as a whole that received the revelation. There again we find the personal element. It was to the prophets and indeed there was always a conflict between the prophets and the people. The people were constantly going astray and it required all the vigilance of the prophets and often their lives to hold them in their worship of the true God.
Non Hebrew nations were very often used as a channel to convey the revelation to the prophets themselves. Moses was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians and he would be a bold man who denies Moses was a better instrument in God’s hands by his education. I think it is Max Mueller who says that the “Semitic race is deficient in originality of thought and science and philosophy does does not attract them.” If this is correct, the Israelites would have formed quite an ideal medium for the unadulterated transmission of Revelation of a Personal Hold God. This is no argument against a revelation outside the Israelites, but only the fuller and purer Revelation came through the Son of David. “Put off the old man with his doings and put on the new man... Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondsman, freeman, but Christ is all in all.”
But some people fail completely to realise this and hold that what is not in the Bible is of the Devil and that all religions other than Christianity and Judaism have had no light. This would seem rather an unreasonable attitude to take up. Outside the New Testament who can show us anything more highly ethical than Kural and Thiruvasagam. If these were not from God indeed the fallen one has regained himself. “He that is not against is for us.” Is it not a blasphemy to say that God was so sectarian as to ignore the earnest quest of the ancient sages of India? What shall we do with these prophets and seers, who had sacrificed their lives and crucified their selves in the quest of the Infinite? Shall we throw them on the dust heap? Did not God order their lives? Had He no use for them? Had they not a place in His plan for Humanity? If not, God was wasteful. If so, what was His purpose? “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”
To me it seems the New Testament contains the consummation of all revelations both of the Old Testament and of the scriptures of other nations. Hinduism has its contribution to make. Its scriptures should teach us the immanency of God. Christianity as taught by the West is built up on Hellenic throught and culture. The Indian Church will have to be shaped by Hindu thought and civilisation the West reveals a God’s love for man and India man’s adoration for God. The West a seeking Saviour, India a Saviour sought. Only two aspects of the same thing helping to make one whole (C.F. Andrews: 161-164).
We have to be on our guard in using the Hindu scriptures, not to accept any dogma, only study the process of enquiry and the main lines of procedure, and use it to throw more light on the Old Testament Revelation helping to make the light a fuller light and we shall understand Christ better.
(Source: Kumarappa Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Undated handwritten script).