DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.636#0061
Mythological Brahmanism. 49
the most desirable as leading to complete identification with
the one universal Spirit or Self. Not that a man need aim
at immediate union with that Spirit. Such union may be
beyond his present powers. The work of liberation may be
the labour of many successive lives of the personal soul in
body after body. Nor need a man's aspirations ever rise
as high as re-absorption into the one eternal absolute im-
personal Spirit. He may simply aim at achieving union
with Brahma, Vishnu, or Siva, and become, like them, only
one degree removed from such re-absorption, and incapable
of further transmigrations (compare p. 41,11.11—20).
And here, too, lies the motive for religious worship ad-
dressed to personal gods and visible forms. For one means
of attaining liberation is by paying homage to the Supreme
Spirit as manifested in persons and objects. And, indeed, it
is a cardinal feature of the Brahmanical system, that the
Universal Spirit can never itself be directly or spiritually
worshipped, except by turning the thoughts inwards. No
shrine or temple to Brahma is to be found throughout all
India. The one eternal Spirit can only become an object of
meditation or knowledge. The Spirit is to be known by the
spirit; for he is enshrined in every man's heart; and this
internal meditation is regarded as the highest religious act,
leading as it does to perfect spiritual knowledge. In short,
the supreme Brahma is properly only an object of internal
knowledge (jneyam), never an object of external worship
(upasyam), except through secondary manifestations.
And here mark the vast difference between the Hindu and
Christian idea of a Trinity. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva have only
derived or secondary existences, but the Supreme Being may
be worshipped through the worship of these three or of any
one of the three, supposed for a time to be superior to the
others. It is even possible for the members of this trinity to
worship the One Spirit through the worship of each other,
each being in turn regarded as inferior (see p. 45).
E
the most desirable as leading to complete identification with
the one universal Spirit or Self. Not that a man need aim
at immediate union with that Spirit. Such union may be
beyond his present powers. The work of liberation may be
the labour of many successive lives of the personal soul in
body after body. Nor need a man's aspirations ever rise
as high as re-absorption into the one eternal absolute im-
personal Spirit. He may simply aim at achieving union
with Brahma, Vishnu, or Siva, and become, like them, only
one degree removed from such re-absorption, and incapable
of further transmigrations (compare p. 41,11.11—20).
And here, too, lies the motive for religious worship ad-
dressed to personal gods and visible forms. For one means
of attaining liberation is by paying homage to the Supreme
Spirit as manifested in persons and objects. And, indeed, it
is a cardinal feature of the Brahmanical system, that the
Universal Spirit can never itself be directly or spiritually
worshipped, except by turning the thoughts inwards. No
shrine or temple to Brahma is to be found throughout all
India. The one eternal Spirit can only become an object of
meditation or knowledge. The Spirit is to be known by the
spirit; for he is enshrined in every man's heart; and this
internal meditation is regarded as the highest religious act,
leading as it does to perfect spiritual knowledge. In short,
the supreme Brahma is properly only an object of internal
knowledge (jneyam), never an object of external worship
(upasyam), except through secondary manifestations.
And here mark the vast difference between the Hindu and
Christian idea of a Trinity. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva have only
derived or secondary existences, but the Supreme Being may
be worshipped through the worship of these three or of any
one of the three, supposed for a time to be superior to the
others. It is even possible for the members of this trinity to
worship the One Spirit through the worship of each other,
each being in turn regarded as inferior (see p. 45).
E