DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.636#0171
Vaishnavism. Theistic Sect of Kabir. 159
that he was originally a Musalman. But he never had any
sympathy with Muhammadan intolerance and exclusiveness.
It is certain that in the end he became a pupil of Ramananda
(see p. 147), and for a time a true Hindu, and, what is im-
portant to bear in mind, a true Vaishnava, who, like other
Vaishnava leaders, had much of the democratic, tolerant, and
liberal spirit of Buddhism. No wonder, then, that he laboured
to free the Vaishnava creed from the useless and senseless in-
crustations with which it had become overlaid. But he did
more than other Vaishnava reformers. He denounced all
idol-worship and taught Vaishnavism as a form of strict
monotheism. True religion, according to Kabir, meant really
nothing but devotion to one God, who is called by the name
Vishnu, or by synonyms of Vishnu such as Rama and Hari,
or even by the names current among Muhammadans. For
Kabir, in his tolerance, had no objection to regard Muham-
madans as worshipping the same God under a different name.
In this way he was the first to attempt a partial bridging
of the gulf between Hinduism and Islam. Nor did he reject
all the pantheistic ideas of Brahmanism.
We have already noted how in India all phases of religious
belief are constantly meeting and partially fusing into each
other. Polytheism is continually sliding into Monotheism,
Monotheism into Pantheism, and then again into Polytheism.
Vaishnavism and Saivism in their universal receptivity are
open to impressions from Islam; Islam, notwithstanding its
exclusiveness, is adulterated with Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Hence it happens that Vaishnavism and Saivism, however
decidedly they may insist on the separate personality of the
Godhead, are perpetually slipping back, like a broad wheel,
into the old Pantheistic rut. And Islam, however uncom-
promising its view of the Unity of the Deity, has its school
of Sufi philosophers, who hold opinions almost identical with
those of the Vedanta Pantheists. It is no matter of wonder,
therefore, that Kabir—while asserting the Unity of God, the
that he was originally a Musalman. But he never had any
sympathy with Muhammadan intolerance and exclusiveness.
It is certain that in the end he became a pupil of Ramananda
(see p. 147), and for a time a true Hindu, and, what is im-
portant to bear in mind, a true Vaishnava, who, like other
Vaishnava leaders, had much of the democratic, tolerant, and
liberal spirit of Buddhism. No wonder, then, that he laboured
to free the Vaishnava creed from the useless and senseless in-
crustations with which it had become overlaid. But he did
more than other Vaishnava reformers. He denounced all
idol-worship and taught Vaishnavism as a form of strict
monotheism. True religion, according to Kabir, meant really
nothing but devotion to one God, who is called by the name
Vishnu, or by synonyms of Vishnu such as Rama and Hari,
or even by the names current among Muhammadans. For
Kabir, in his tolerance, had no objection to regard Muham-
madans as worshipping the same God under a different name.
In this way he was the first to attempt a partial bridging
of the gulf between Hinduism and Islam. Nor did he reject
all the pantheistic ideas of Brahmanism.
We have already noted how in India all phases of religious
belief are constantly meeting and partially fusing into each
other. Polytheism is continually sliding into Monotheism,
Monotheism into Pantheism, and then again into Polytheism.
Vaishnavism and Saivism in their universal receptivity are
open to impressions from Islam; Islam, notwithstanding its
exclusiveness, is adulterated with Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Hence it happens that Vaishnavism and Saivism, however
decidedly they may insist on the separate personality of the
Godhead, are perpetually slipping back, like a broad wheel,
into the old Pantheistic rut. And Islam, however uncom-
promising its view of the Unity of the Deity, has its school
of Sufi philosophers, who hold opinions almost identical with
those of the Vedanta Pantheists. It is no matter of wonder,
therefore, that Kabir—while asserting the Unity of God, the