"It amounts to more," replied Govindan Kutti, "because I say that not only man, but also the whole world, came into existence through various elements and forces, and is attaining complete development spontaneously."
"Then in that case, when a man dies, what becomes of the spirit of life?" asked Govinda Panikkar.
"Nothing," replied Govindan Kutti Menon. "It simply becomes extinct. If you put out a lighted candle, what becomes of the flame? Surely nothing; it is simply extinguished, and so it is with the spirit of life."
"Then man has no future state! All is ended in death!" exclaimed Govinda Panikkar. "Verily, this is a creed fit only for devils! How did man become provided with hands and feet, with eyes, nose and ears? To what active forces of nature is he indebted for the perfection and symmetry of his form?"
"A most pertinent question, father," interposed Madhavan, "and with a slight modification would be precisely the question asked by a great English philosopher. Let me put it thus. Your belief, Govindan Kutti, is that the world came into existence spontaneously, and that there is no separate Creator."
"Yes," answered Govindan Kutti Menon. "I say that there is nothing to lead us to believe in an individual Creator."
"Then tell us in a few words, but clearly, the reasons for your opinion."
"It is difficult to make the matter clear in a few words," said Govindan Kutti. Menon. "You, Madhavan, have like me, read many books on the subject, and I need try and explain it briefly only to you, my brother, though I doubt if I shall succeed. I will read to you a few passages from the book, a great part of which Mr. Bradlaugh has devoted to showing up the falsity and impossibility of the account given in the Christian Scriptures as to the manner of the creation and the time it occupied. We need not, however, discuss that now. But the pith of what Wallace, Darwin and other great philosophers say concerning the origin of the world is contained in this passage:
‘The latter (Darwin) in his ‘Origin of Species’ and ‘Descent of Man’ suggests how under the laws of growth, with reproduction; inheritance almost implied by reproduction; variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life and from use and disuse; a ratio of increase so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and extinction of less improved forms; life-forms adapt themselves to the conditions around them. These life-forms, by the survival of those best suited to their environment, have, he maintains, ascended in a long gradation, becoming more and more complex as they ascend, evolving through countless generations the organs most fitted to maintain and to preserve life, modified by the conditions surrounding them, and, in their turn, modifying those conditions, and thus by a continual interaction evolving the races of animal life now existent. "
"Darwin adduces many illustrations of his theory, and there is ample proof that all the various life-forms which the world contains were not individually created by one creator. If you take some substance which has been cooled after being heated by fire or otherwise, and place it in fresh, damp earth and shut it up for four or five hours, so that all air is excluded, then when you take off the coverings you will often find it covered with myriads of tiny white worms which heave and writhe and crawl. Well, how did those myriads of worms come into existence? Were they either created then and there by God, or were they brought forth by the substance itself; or were they produced by the mutual action and reaction of certain organic causes? Again, you must have observed how a wasp seizes a white ant, or some larger insect, and places it in its nest. Then after association with the wasp for ten or fifteen days, the other insect itself becomes a wasp. If you consider these anomalous formations, you will see that one type of nature can be produced from another, and there is ample scope for thinking that in the course of countless ages everything in this world has been developed spontaneously and spontaneously undergoes decay through the mutual amalgamation and disintegration of matter. This is what Huxley, a man of great attainments, says on the subject:
‘We have gradually traced down all organic forms, or in other words, we have analysed the present condition of animated nature, until we found that each species took its origin in a form similar to that under which all the others commenced their existence. We have found the whole of the vast array of living forms, with which we are surrounded, constantly growing, increasing, decaying and disappearing; the animal constantly attracting, modifying and applying to its sustenance the matter of the vegetable kingdom which derived its support from the absorption and conversion of inorganic matter.’ And Bradlaugh’s commentary on this passage is as follows:
‘The evolution of man from lower forms of life scarcely, as yet, takes rank as a scientific truth; it is rather a grand hypothesis, which, if verified, may throw light on many problems of existence and is, at least, in analogy with the workings of nature, so far as we know them. When we first catch a glimpse of man, he is, as has been already shown, but a half-human animal dwelling in caves, disputing with his co-brutes for existence; we can trace him thence upwards to the civilized European; it seems reasonable, then, to trace him downwards also to the unintelligent life in its lowest forms, halting only when organic and inorganic blend together in the far-off yesterday."
"No one will believe that men originally lurked in caves like wild beasts," said Govinda Panikkar. "But this may have been the sort of thing they did in England, and they say, don’t they, Madhavan, that even now there are to be found men hardly removed from the brute creation?"
"Yes," answered Madhavan. "In Africa there is still a race of savages no better than wild beasts."
"Then in the primaeval period to which I referred, all mankind must have been what I described," said Govindan Kutti Menon.
"How can you be certain of that? " asked Govinda Panikkar.
"By the knowledge derived from scientific writings," replied Govindan Kutti Menon.
"What scientific writings? Do you mean the books written by the men you have named ?"
"Yes; what I told you is based on treatistes written not only by them, but also by men like them and others who are still greater philosophers."
"Well," rejoined Govinda Panikkar, "in all you have said there is only one point which has anything in common with the Hindu doctrines, and it is that several forms of existence, from the vegetable upwards, have to be passed before the human form can be reached. Taken in this sense, our system of religion teaches us that all this development of forms through successive births is ordained by God."
"Then, brother, you admit this much," said Govindan Kutti Menon.
"What do I admit?" asked Govinda Panikkar. "I never admitted and I never will admit anything you said. You said there is no God, and I will never concede that as long as I live. The creed that there is no God is monstrously false. None but fools and madmen will say that there does not exist an Almighty and Most Merciful Creator."
"I do not perceive any merciful and all-pervading Creator," replied Govindan Kutti Menon. "There, there," said Govinda Panikkar. "It is only nowadays that these atheist fellows have begun writing these books, and I am positive that in bygone ages, and now and to all future time, men have worshipped, and do worship, and will worship God in various ways. I don’t think there are more than ten of these atheists altogether, are there, Govindan Kutti?"
"There are thousands of them now," replied Govindan Kutti Menon, "but they cannot perhaps be outwardly recognized. When the people of all nations are counted, they are classified according to various religions, and in each denomination are included many atheists, but they are not specified as such. Bradlaugh says in his book that, roughly speaking, there are 405,600,000 Buddhists, 399,200,000 Christians, 204,200,000 Mahomedans, 174,200,000 Hindus, 111,000,000 Nondescript Heathens, and 5,000,000 Jews in the world, but he shows that this classification is extremely inaccurate. His opinion is that in such enlightened countries as Europe and America, a very large number of people who are in reality atheists, are wrongly returned as
Protestants or Roman Catholics, and there can be no doubt that he is right. For instance, in the census which is about to be taken in Malabar, I shall be enumerated as a Hindu, whereas in truth I am not a Hindu, and this kind of mistake is universal. Hence although the number of those who neither believe in, nor worship, God is very great, it is almost impossible to estimate it correctly,"
"This is shocking," replied Govinda Panikkar, "and all I can say is that it is one of the fruits of the perverse age."
"Then why should you distress yourself about it, brother?" asked Govindan Kutti Menon. "If the God whom you quote has ordained that men of the perverse age should become atheists, can you be surprised that we are atheists? Is there any doctrine so inconsistent as that of the Shastras of the Hindus, wherein it is stated that the destiny of every man who is born into the world is written on his head by Brahma? If this is the case, then what freedom of action can man possibly possess? ‘Thus shalt thou live; so many men shalt thou destroy; so many shalt thou save; so many sins shalt thou commit,’- such is the lot predestined, clearly and irrevocably, for each from birth, and how can man, who is so helpless in the matter, exercise free-will? He simply fulfills his destiny, and why then should he be called a sinner or reputed righteous in respect of his iniquities or virtues? In the perverse age, men think not upon God; sins abound; rain falls not in due season, and the earth is barren; purity and pollution are disregarded; Brahmins are killed; cows are slaughtered, and the lowest castes are exalted. But if every action in life is performed in accordance with the behests of fate, why, brother, should you be offended? . Are you not yourself a man of the perverse age? Are you not subject to the decrees of destiny? Oh the folly, the inconsistency of it all! The books which the Brahmins have composed for their own advancement and glorification are the only guide we possess in such matters, and simple folk have no choice but to believe the trash written therein."
"Now Govindan Kutti, you are talking sheer nonsense," said Madhavan. "If you knew anything at all about some of the valuable books which we owe to the Brahmins, you would not speak like this. Because you have studied nothing but English, and are acquainted solely with the merits of books written by Bradlaugh, Darwin, Huxley, Herbert Spencer and others, how can you say that no Hindu has ever produced a book worth reading?"
"I wonder," replied Govindan Kutti Menon "If Madhavan will say that the Bharatam, the Bhagvatam, the Ramayanam, the Skandam and other Sanskrit Puranas, which are crammed with incongruities and impossibilities, are on the same level as books written by Darwin and other great philosophers. "
"Keep to the point, Govindan Kutti, and don’t speak at random," said Madhavan. "Just think of what you are saying. The writings of Herbert Spencer and others are things of today, but some two thousand years have passed since the Vedas and other standard works on our Hindu religion were composed. English scholars have availed themselves of the knowledge which has been gained in that period, and hence they are better informed than their predecessors. I do not, however, find fault with your attacking the Hindu religion, because it seems to me that the form in which it is now practised is undoubtedly made up of unreasonable and self-contradictory dogmas, but this is the case with almost every form of religion in the world."
"If this is your opinion, Madhavan, how can you take exception to anything I have said?" asked Govindan Kutti Menon.
"Let me explain," replied Madhavan. "You said that the Sanskrit books which we Hindus possess are one and all crammed with inconsistencies and that the laity have no access to any others. But I was surprised to hear you name the Bharatam and the Bhagavatam and the Scandapuranam as instances of our philosophical works. Don’t you know better than to call these writings philosophical works ?"
"Well, are they not?" rejoined Govindan Kutti Menon. "Are they not considered standard works?"
"Exactly so, they are," rejoined Madhavan, "and so in English is Miltons’s ‘Paradise Lost’ and so are Shakespeare’s plays. But the works of Milton and Shakespeare are in a totally different class from those of Darwin and Wallace. What possible connection is there between the books in which the philosophical systems of Socrates and Seneca are expounded and the books which Milton and Shakespeare wrote? None; and there is just as little between the Sanskrit Ramayanam or Bharatam and the subject we have been discussing."
"Well, what then?" asked Govindan Kutti Menon.
"Why, I can show you that the very same atheistic creed which you expound was expounded and, to some degree, established by Hindu philosophers more than two thousand years ago," replied Madhavan.
"Surely not," exclaimed Govindan Kutti Menon.
"Patience," said Madhavan. "If you know nothing about it, don’t speak rashly but listen."
"What are you talking about, my boy?" asked Govinda Panikkar. "Do you mean to say that a sect of atheists ever existed among Hindus. ?"
"Most decidedly it did," answered Madhavan, "and does to this day. The Sankhya system introduced by the great philosopher, Kapila, was nothing but atheism. There were six schools of philosophy among the Hindus, and these were, first, the atheistical Sankhya of Kapila; secondly, the Yoga schools of Patanjali and the Bhagavadgita; thirdly the Purva Mimamsa of Jaimani; fourthly, the Vedanta or Uttara Mimamsa of Vyasa; fifthly, the Nyaya of Gautama, and sixthly, the Vaisheshika of Kanada. Among these the Sankhya school of Kapila taught atheism pure and simple."
"Impossible, you can’t mean it," said Govindan Kutti Menon.
"Impossible," echoed Govinda Panikkar, "there is no atheism in our shastras."
"There is, indeed," replied Madhavan, "but the sum total of the system, as laid down by its professors, who acknowledge only one indivisible vital energy, is that true knowledge of self is true knowledge of God. It is difficult, however, to accept these arguments, however subtle and plausible they may be, and it seems to me that no amount of discussion on this point will ever do any good. Let me translate from memory a passage in which Huxley, the same philosopher whom Govindan Kutti mentioned, expresses his opinion regarding atheism, and then, father, you must judge for yourself whether that learned man is an atheist or not. What he says is this:- ‘Of all the senseless babble I have ever had occasion to read, the demonstrations of those philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.’
"And this is the position taken up by many other European scholars besides, Huxley. They clearly reject atheism, and what we learn from the Hindu schools of philosophy is that God is a power beyond the knowledge or conception of ordinary men. There are strong proofs of the truth of this doctrine, but it is needless to consider them in detail now.
"Many refuse utterly to believe the theories concerning the origin and development of life propounded by Darwin and others in Europe and elsewhere, and my opinion is that the doctrine of atheism is destructive of all human happiness and morality. So far from thinking that any good can accrue from its introduction into the world, I fear that it will bring trouble and calamity on all. Let me first explain my reasons for this opinion, and I will then tell you what my own belief is.
"It is the duty of wise men to labor for the advantage, prosperity and welfare of their fellow subjects. Philosophers who have deeply studied the subject admit that the question whether there is, or is not, a God cannot be answered with certainty, and hence they should consider which solution of the doubt will be most beneficial to mankind. I am convinced that the mere consideration of the evils which will result, if the world is persuaded of the soundness and truth of the arguments against the existence of a deity, is sufficient to induce every sensible man to protest against the propagation of atheism. On the one hand there are many arguments in favor of the existence of God, and if, on the other, these are met, but their force is not wholly destroyed, by a disciple of atheism with an equal array of arguments against the existence of such a being, then is it not a pernicious thing to plunge m
en into misery by ruining their peace of mind? When it is seen that belief in God produces no evil, but on the contrary, good, what possible object is gained by striving to demolish that belief with arguments which are by no means free from doubt? Surely, above all the pains and penalties and infamy which are attached in this world to lying and thieving and adultery, to wickedness against fellowmen and living creatures, to sacrilege, the fear that the sinner must stand after death arraigned before the judgment seat of God, is a mighty preventive of crime, and why should you seek to remove it? If it were possible for anyone to prove by arguments in which no flaw could be found that there is no such power as God, then I would not raise my voice in dissent, but since this is impossible, why darken man’s understanding by words without knowledge?
"Science has enabled us to penetrate the mystery in which formerly the real nature, the origin, the attributes and properties of various things and substances lay hidden, but never does science teach us to deny the existence of a Supreme Power who is the great first cause of the universe. We know how steel is attracted by the magnet and, with the help of science, our knowledge leads us to many inventions, but we cannot learn from science the first cause for the properties inherent in these substances, and it is not necessary that we should. Science does not preach the doctrine that there is no God. Her task is to contrive fresh amalgamation and disintegration of matter, to search out the secret properties of various substances and their laws of change, and to bring her discoveries to perfection for the benefit of the human race and the ever increasing happiness of all living creatures, but it is no part of her province to go beyond the question of material happiness and instruct us on the happiness or nature of the human soul.
"There are the followers of Agnosticism, as it is named in English, whose grounds of belief are most reasonable and, contrasted with these, the arguments relied on by the atheists to prove that there is no God appear ridiculous and incredible. I am persuaded that belief in God and nothing else can bring about pureness of life and brotherly love, or create an abhorrence of evil, or maintain those rules and ordinances, those customs and observances which are necessary for the welfare of mankind, and I am persuaded moreover that this belief alone can afford man consolation or comfort in the unspeakable agony of death.
Indulekha Page 27