DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.636#0109
Vaishnavism. General Characteristics. 97
them. Brahmanism was simply an Indian variety of panthe-
istic philosophy. Buddhism, which was a product of Brah-
manism, and in many points very similar to Brahmanism,
gained many followers by its disregard of caste-distinctions
and its offers of deliverance from the fires of passion and
miseries of life; but, in its negations and denials of the
existence of both a Supreme and human spirit, was no
religion at all; and in this respect never commended itself
generally to the Indian mind. Saivism, though, like Vaish-
navism, it recognized the eternal personality of one Supreme
Being, was too severe and cold a system to exert exclusive
influence over the great majority of the Hindu populations.
Vaishnavism alone possesses the essential elements of a
genuine religion. For there can be no true religion without
personal devotion to a personal God—without trusting Him,
without loving Him, without praying to Him, and indeed
without obeying Him.
Who can doubt that a God of such a character was needed
for India,—a God who could satisfy the yearnings of the
heart for a religion of faith, love and prayer rather than of
knowledge and works ? Such a God was believed to be
represented by Vishnu—the God who evinced his sympathy
with mundane suffering, his interest in human affairs, and
his activity for the welfare of all created things by frequent
descents (avatara) on earth, not only in the form of men,
but of animals, and even of plants and stones.
Hence teachers arose (among whom was Sandilya the
author of the Bhakti-sutras) who insisted on the doctrine of
salvation by faith (Bhakti)—a doctrine dimly adumbrated in
portions of the Veda, and fully propounded in the Bhagavad-
gita and Bhagavata-purana.
Intense faith, then, in a personal god is the chief charac-
teristic of Vaishnavism. Of course it is merely the intensity
of this faith that distinguishes the worship of Vishnu from
that of Siva; for both Vaishnavism and Saivism agree in dis-
H
them. Brahmanism was simply an Indian variety of panthe-
istic philosophy. Buddhism, which was a product of Brah-
manism, and in many points very similar to Brahmanism,
gained many followers by its disregard of caste-distinctions
and its offers of deliverance from the fires of passion and
miseries of life; but, in its negations and denials of the
existence of both a Supreme and human spirit, was no
religion at all; and in this respect never commended itself
generally to the Indian mind. Saivism, though, like Vaish-
navism, it recognized the eternal personality of one Supreme
Being, was too severe and cold a system to exert exclusive
influence over the great majority of the Hindu populations.
Vaishnavism alone possesses the essential elements of a
genuine religion. For there can be no true religion without
personal devotion to a personal God—without trusting Him,
without loving Him, without praying to Him, and indeed
without obeying Him.
Who can doubt that a God of such a character was needed
for India,—a God who could satisfy the yearnings of the
heart for a religion of faith, love and prayer rather than of
knowledge and works ? Such a God was believed to be
represented by Vishnu—the God who evinced his sympathy
with mundane suffering, his interest in human affairs, and
his activity for the welfare of all created things by frequent
descents (avatara) on earth, not only in the form of men,
but of animals, and even of plants and stones.
Hence teachers arose (among whom was Sandilya the
author of the Bhakti-sutras) who insisted on the doctrine of
salvation by faith (Bhakti)—a doctrine dimly adumbrated in
portions of the Veda, and fully propounded in the Bhagavad-
gita and Bhagavata-purana.
Intense faith, then, in a personal god is the chief charac-
teristic of Vaishnavism. Of course it is merely the intensity
of this faith that distinguishes the worship of Vishnu from
that of Siva; for both Vaishnavism and Saivism agree in dis-
H