The necessity of Religion by Anil Bhusal

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:10:24 UTC

Of all the forces that have worked and are still working to mould (shape) the destinies (future outcomes) of the human race, none, certainly, is more potent (powerful) than that, the manifestation (appearance) of which we call religion. All social organisations have as a background, somewhere, the workings of that peculiar (distinctive) force, and the greatest cohesive (unifying) impulse ever brought into play amongst human units has been derived (originated) from this power. It is obvious to all of us that in very many cases the bonds of religion have proved stronger than the bonds of race, or climate, or even of descent (ancestry). It is a well-known fact that persons worshipping the same God, believing in the same religion, have stood by each other, with much greater strength and constancy (steadfastness), than people of merely the same descent, or even brothers. Various attempts have been made to trace the beginnings of religion. In all the ancient religions which have come down to us at the present day, we find one claim made — that they are all supernatural (beyond natural explanation), that their genesis (origin) is not, as it were, in the human brain, but that they have originated somewhere outside of it.

Questions:

According to the text, what force is considered the most potent in shaping the destinies of the human race?
How does the text describe the bonds of religion compared to the bonds of race or descent?

2

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:12:09 UTC

Two theories have gained some acceptance amongst modern scholars. One is the spirit theory of religion, the other the evolution of the idea of the Infinite (endless, limitless). One party maintains (argues) that ancestor worship is the beginning of religious ideas; the other, that religion originates in the personification (attribution of human traits) of the powers of nature. Man wants to keep up the memory of his dead relatives and thinks they are living even when the body is dissolved (disintegrated), and he wants to place food for them and, in a certain sense, to worship them. Out of that came the growth we call religion.

Questions:

What are the two main theories of religion mentioned by modern scholars?
How does the spirit theory explain the origin of religion?

3

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:13:30 UTC

Studying the ancient religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and many other races in America and elsewhere, we find very clear traces of this ancestor worship being the beginning of religion. With the ancient Egyptians, the first idea of the soul was that of a double (duplicate). Every human body contained in it another being very similar to it; and when a man died, this double went out of the body and yet lived on. But the life of the double lasted only so long as the dead body remained intact (undamaged), and that is why we find among the Egyptians so much solicitude (concern) to keep the body uninjured. And that is why they built those huge pyramids in which they preserved the bodies. For, if any portion of the external body was hurt, the double would be correspondingly injured. This is clearly ancestor worship. With the ancient Babylonians we find the same idea of the double, but with a variation (difference). The double lost all sense of love; it frightened the living to give it food and drink, and to help it in various ways. It even lost all affection for its own children and its own wife. Among the ancient Hindus also, we find traces of this ancestor worship. Among the Chinese, the basis of their religion may also be said to be ancestor worship, and it still permeates (spreads throughout) the length and breadth of that vast country. In fact, the only religion that can really be said to flourish (thrive) in China is that of ancestor worship. Thus it seems, on the one hand, a very good position is made out for those who hold the theory of ancestor worship as the beginning of religion.

Questions:

How did the ancient Egyptians view the soul and its relationship to the dead body?
Why is ancestor worship considered the primary religion in China, according to the text?

4

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:14:24 UTC

On the other hand, there are scholars who from the ancient Aryan literature show that religion originated in nature worship. Although in India we find proofs of ancestor worship everywhere, yet in the oldest records there is no trace of it whatsoever. In the Rig-Veda Samhitâ, the most ancient record of the Aryan race, we do not find any trace of it. Modern scholars think, it is the worship of nature that they find there. The human mind seems to struggle to get a peep (glimpse) behind the scenes. The dawn, the evening, the hurricane, the stupendous (extremely large) and gigantic forces of nature, its beauties, these have exercised the human mind, and it aspires to go beyond, to understand something about them. In the struggle they endow (attribute) these phenomena with personal attributes, giving them souls and bodies, sometimes beautiful, sometimes transcendent (beyond ordinary). Every attempt ends by these phenomena becoming abstractions (ideas separated from physical reality), whether personalised or not. So also it is found with the ancient Greeks; their whole mythology is simply this abstracted nature worship. So also with the ancient Germans, the Scandinavians, and all the other Aryan races. Thus, on this side, too, a very strong case has been made out, that religion has its origin in the personification of the powers of nature.

Questions:

What evidence do scholars provide to support the idea that religion originated from nature worship?
How do ancient Greeks and other Aryan races relate to nature worship according to the text?

5

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:15:08 UTC

These two views, though they seem to be contradictory (opposed), can be reconciled (made consistent) on a third basis, which, to my mind, is the real germ (origin) of religion, and that I propose to call the struggle to transcend (go beyond) the limitations of the senses. Either man goes to seek for the spirits of his ancestors, the spirits of the dead, that is, he wants to get a glimpse of what there is after the body is dissolved, or he desires to understand the power working behind the stupendous phenomena of nature. Whichever of these is the case, one thing is certain, that he tries to transcend the limitations of the senses. He cannot remain satisfied with his senses; he wants to go beyond them. The explanation need not be mysterious (difficult to understand). To me, it seems very natural that the first glimpse of religion should come through dreams. The first idea of immortality man may well get through dreams. Is that not a most wonderful state? And we know that children and untutored (uneducated) minds find very little difference between dreaming and their awakened state. What can be more natural than that they find, as natural logic, that even during the sleep state when the body is apparently dead, the mind goes on with all its intricate (complex) workings? What wonder that men will at once come to the conclusion that when this body is dissolved forever, the same working will go on?

Questions:

What is the "third basis" proposed as the origin of religion?
How does the text explain the connection between dreams and the idea of immortality?

6

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:16:09 UTC

But by this time the search had begun, and the search was inward, and man continued inquiring more deeply into the different stages of the mind and discovered higher states than either the waking or the dreaming. This state of things we find in all the organised religions of the world, called either ecstasy (overwhelming happiness) or inspiration (a sudden brilliant idea). In all organised religions, their founders, prophets, and messengers are declared to have gone into states of mind that were neither waking nor sleeping, in which they came face to face with a new series of facts relating to what is called the spiritual kingdom. They realised things there much more intensely than we realise facts around us in our waking state. Take, for instance, the religions of the Brahmins. The Vedas are said to be written by Rishis (sages or seers). These Rishis were sages who realised certain facts. The exact definition of the Sanskrit word Rishi is a Seer of Mantras — of the thoughts conveyed in the Vedic hymns. These men declared that they had realised — sensed, if that word can be used with regard to the supersensuous (beyond senses) — certain facts, and these facts they proceeded to put on record. We find the same truth declared amongst both the Jews and the Christians.

Questions:

What state of mind do founders of organised religions often experience, according to the text?
How are the Rishis in the Vedic tradition described in relation to religious knowledge?

7

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:18:43 UTC

Some exceptions may be taken in the case of the Buddhists as represented by the Southern sect. It may be asked — if the Buddhists do not believe in any God or soul, how can their religion be derived from the supersensuous state of existence? The answer to this is that even the Buddhists find an eternal moral law, and that moral law was not reasoned out in our sense of the word but Buddha found it, discovered it, in a supersensuous state. Those of you who have studied the life of Buddha even as briefly given in that beautiful poem, The Light of Asia, may remember that Buddha is represented as sitting under the Bo-tree until he reached that supersensuous state of mind. All his teachings came through this, and not through intellectual cogitations (thoughts).

Questions:

How is the moral law in Buddhism explained in relation to supersensuous states?
What role did the supersensuous state play in Buddha's teachings?

8

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:22:45 UTC

A tremendous (remarkable) statement is made by all religions; that the human mind, at certain moments, transcends (goes beyond) not only the limitations (restrictions) of the senses, but also the power of reasoning. It then comes face to face with facts which it could never have sensed, could never have reasoned out. These facts are the basis of all the religions of the world. Of course, we have the right to challenge (question) these facts, to put them to the test of reason. Nevertheless, all the existing religions of the world claim for the human mind this peculiar (unique) power of transcending the limits of the senses and the limits of reason; and this power they put forward as a statement of fact.

Questions:

According to the text, what do all religions claim about the human mind?
How do religions justify the idea that the human mind can transcend the limits of reasoning?

9

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:23:33 UTC

Apart from the consideration of the question of how far these facts claimed by religions are true, we find one characteristic common to them all. They are all abstractions (general ideas) as contrasted (compared) with the concrete (solid) discoveries of physics, for instance; and in all the highly organised religions, they take the purest form of Unit Abstraction (general concept), either in the form of an Abstracted (conceptual) Presence, as an Omnipresent (present everywhere) Being, as an Abstract Personality called God, as a Moral Law, or in the form of an Abstract Essence (basic quality) underlying (foundational to) every existence. In modern times, too, the attempts made to preach religions without appealing to the supersensuous (beyond the senses) state of the mind have had to take up the old abstractions of the Ancients and give different names to them as "Moral Law," the "Ideal Unity," and so forth, thus showing that these abstractions are not in the senses. None of us have yet seen an "Ideal Human Being," and yet we are told to believe in it. None of us have yet seen an ideally perfect man, and yet without that ideal, we cannot progress. Thus, this one fact stands out from all these different religions: there is an Ideal Unit Abstraction, which is put before us, either in the form of a Person, an Impersonal (without personal characteristics) Being, a Law, a Presence, or an Essence.

Questions:

What common characteristic is shared by all religions according to this paragraph?
Why are religions described as abstractions in contrast to physical discoveries?

10

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:24:26 UTC

Every human being, whosoever and wheresoever he may be, has an ideal of infinite (unlimited) power. Every human being has an ideal of infinite pleasure. Most of the works that we find around us, the activities displayed everywhere, are due to the struggle for this infinite power or this infinite pleasure. But a few quickly discover that although they are struggling for infinite power, it is not through the senses that it can be reached. They find out very soon that that infinite pleasure is not to be got through the senses, or, in other words, the senses are too limited, and the body is too limited, to express the Infinite. To manifest (show) the Infinite through the finite (limited) is impossible, and sooner or later, man learns to give up the attempt to express the Infinite through the finite. This giving up, this renunciation (rejection) of the attempt, is the background of ethics (moral principles). Renunciation is the very basis upon which ethics stands. There never was an ethical code preached which had not renunciation for its basis.

Questions:

What do people ultimately discover about the pursuit of infinite power and pleasure?
How is renunciation connected to the foundation of ethics?

11

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:25:10 UTC

Ethics always says, "Not I, but thou (you)." Its motto is, "Not self, but non-self." The vain (self-important) ideas of individualism, to which man clings when he is trying to find that Infinite Power or that Infinite Pleasure through the senses, have to be given up — say the laws of ethics. You have to put yourself last, and others before you. The senses say, "Myself first." Ethics says, "I must hold myself last." Thus, all codes of ethics are based upon this renunciation; destruction, not construction, of the individual on the material plane (physical world). That Infinite will never find expression upon the material plane, nor is it possible or thinkable.

Questions:

According to ethics, what must individuals do in relation to their own self-importance?
What is the relationship between ethics and the material plane?

12

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:25:45 UTC

So, man has to give up the plane of matter and rise to other spheres to seek a deeper expression of that Infinite. In this way, the various ethical laws are being moulded, but all have that one central idea: eternal (lasting forever) self-abnegation (self-denial). Perfect self-annihilation (complete destruction of self) is the ideal of ethics. People are startled if they are asked not to think of their individualities. They seem so very much afraid of losing what they call their individuality. At the same time, the same men would declare the highest ideals of ethics to be right, never for a moment thinking that the scope, the goal, the idea of all ethics is the destruction, and not the building up, of the individual.

Questions:

What is the central idea that underlies all ethical laws?
Why are people afraid of losing their individuality, according to this paragraph?

13

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:30:23 UTC

Utilitarian standards (beliefs/principles) cannot explain the ethical relations of men, for, in the first place, we cannot derive (obtain/derive) any ethical laws from considerations (thoughts/ideas) of utility (usefulness/benefit). Without the supernatural sanction (approval), as it is called, or the perception (understanding) of the superconscious (higher consciousness), as I prefer to term it, there can be no ethics. Without the struggle towards the Infinite (limitless), there can be no ideal (perfect standard). Any system that wants to bind (restrict) men down to the limits of their own societies is not able to find an explanation for the ethical laws of mankind. The Utilitarian wants us to give up the struggle after the Infinite, the reaching-out for the Supersensuous (beyond the physical senses), as impracticable (unrealistic) and absurd (ridiculous), and, in the same breath, asks us to take up ethics and do good to society. Why should we do good? Doing good is a secondary (less important) consideration. We must have an ideal. Ethics itself is not the end, but the means to the end. If the end is not there, why should we be ethical? Why should I do good to other men, and not injure (harm) them? If happiness is the goal of mankind, why should I not make myself happy and others unhappy? What prevents me?

Questions:

Why does the author believe that without the struggle towards the Infinite, there can be no ideal?
What does the author think is missing from the Utilitarian's view of ethics?

14

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:33:16 UTC

In the second place, the basis (foundation) of utility is too narrow (limited). All the current social forms and methods are derived (obtained) from society as it exists, but what right has the Utilitarian to assume that society is eternal (lasting forever)? Society did not exist ages ago, possibly will not exist ages hence (in the future). Most probably it is one of the passing stages through which we are going towards a higher evolution, and any law that is derived from society alone cannot be eternal, cannot cover the whole ground of man's nature. At best, therefore, Utilitarian theories (ideas) can only work under present social conditions. Beyond that, they have no value. But a morality (code of conduct), an ethical code, derived from religion and spirituality, has the whole of infinite man for its scope (range). It takes up the individual, but its relations are to the Infinite, and it takes up society also — because society is nothing but numbers of these individuals grouped together; and as it applies to the individual and his eternal relations, it must necessarily apply to the whole of society, in whatever condition it may be at any given time. Thus we see that there is always the necessity of spiritual religion for mankind. Man cannot always think of matter, however pleasurable it may be.

Questions:

Why does the author believe Utilitarian theories are too narrow?
According to the author, what is the importance of spiritual religion for mankind?

15

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:33:43 UTC

It has been said that too much attention to things spiritual disturbs (upsets) our practical relations in this world. As far back as in the days of the Chinese sage (wise person) Confucius, it was said, "Let us take care of this world, and then, when we have finished with this world, we will take care of the other world." It is very well that we should take care of this world. But if too much attention to the spiritual may affect (influence) a little our practical relations, too much attention to the so-called practical hurts us here and hereafter. It makes us materialistic. For man is not to regard nature as his goal, but something higher.

Questions:

What did Confucius suggest regarding the care of this world and the next?
What does the author believe happens if we focus too much on the practical aspects of life?

16

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:34:14 UTC

Man is man so long as he is struggling to rise above nature, and this nature is both internal (within oneself) and external (outside oneself). Not only does it comprise (include) the laws that govern the particles (tiny pieces) of matter outside us and in our bodies, but also the more subtle (delicate) nature within, which is, in fact, the motive power (driving force) governing the external. It is good and very grand (magnificent) to conquer external nature, but grander still to conquer our internal nature. It is grand and good to know the laws that govern the stars and planets; it is infinitely grander and better to know the laws that govern the passions (emotions), the feelings, the will, of mankind. This conquering (overcoming) of the inner man, understanding the secrets of the subtle workings that are within the human mind, and knowing its wonderful secrets, belong entirely to religion.

Questions:

What does the author believe is more important: conquering external or internal nature?
How does the author describe the role of religion in understanding the inner workings of the human mind?

17

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:34:50 UTC

Human nature — the ordinary human nature, I mean — wants to see big material facts. The ordinary man cannot understand anything that is subtle. Well has it been said that the masses (ordinary people) admire (look up to) the lion that kills a thousand lambs, never for a moment thinking that it is death to the lambs. Although a momentary triumph (victory) for the lion; because they find pleasure only in manifestations (demonstrations) of physical strength. Thus it is with the ordinary run of mankind. They understand and find pleasure in everything that is external. But in every society, there is a section whose pleasures are not in the senses, but beyond, and who now and then catch glimpses (brief views) of something higher than matter and struggle to reach it.

Questions:

Why does the author say the ordinary man finds pleasure in physical strength and material facts?
According to the author, what do some people in society strive for beyond physical pleasures?

18

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:52:17 UTC

And if we read the history of nations between the lines, we shall always find that the rise of a nation comes with an increase in the number of such men; and the fall begins when this pursuit after the Infinite (limitless), however vain (unsuccessful) Utilitarians (people who believe that the best action is the one that maximizes utility) may call it, has ceased. That is to say, the mainspring (the most important influence) of the strength of every race lies in its spirituality (religious values), and the death of that race begins the day that spirituality wanes (decreases) and materialism (belief in physical things rather than spiritual) gains ground.

Questions:

According to the text, what marks the rise and fall of a nation?
How does materialism affect a nation’s spirituality, according to the author?

18

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:54:39 UTC

Thus, apart from the solid facts and truths that we may learn from religion, apart from the comforts that we may gain from it, religion, as a science, as a study, is the greatest and healthiest exercise that the human mind can have. This pursuit of the Infinite, this struggle to grasp (understand) the Infinite, this effort to get beyond the limitations (boundaries) of the senses — out of matter, as it were — and to evolve (develop) the spiritual man — this striving (trying) day and night to make the Infinite one with our being — this struggle itself is the grandest (most magnificent) and most glorious (splendid) that man can make. Some persons find the greatest pleasure in eating. We have no right to say that they should not. Others find the greatest pleasure in possessing (owning) certain things. We have no right to say that they should not. But they also have no right to say "no" to the man who finds his highest pleasure in spiritual thought. The lower the organisation (arrangement of living things), the greater the pleasure in the senses. Very few men can eat a meal with the same gusto (enthusiasm) as a dog or a wolf. But all the pleasures of the dog or the wolf have gone, as it were, into the senses. The lower types of humanity in all nations find pleasure in the senses, while the cultured (educated) and the educated find it in thought, in philosophy, in arts and sciences. Spirituality is a still higher plane (level). The subject being infinite (without limits), that plane is the highest, and the pleasure there is the highest for those who can appreciate it. So, even on the utilitarian (practical use) ground that man is to seek for pleasure, he should cultivate (develop) religious thought, for it is the highest pleasure that exists. Thus religion, as a study, seems to me to be absolutely (completely) necessary.

Questions:

Why does the author believe the pursuit of the Infinite is the grandest struggle a person can make?
According to the author, how does spirituality compare to sensory pleasures?

19

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:55:20 UTC

We can see it in its effects. It is the greatest motive (driving) power that moves the human mind. No other ideal can put into us the same mass of energy as the spiritual. So far as human history goes, it is obvious (clear) to all of us that this has been the case and that its powers are not dead. I do not deny that men, on simply utilitarian grounds, can be very good and moral (ethical). There have been many great men in this world perfectly sound (healthy), moral, and good, simply on utilitarian grounds. But the world-movers, men who bring, as it were, a mass of magnetism (attractive power) into the world whose spirit works in hundreds and in thousands, whose life ignites others with a spiritual fire — such men, we always find, have that spiritual background. Their motive power came from religion. Religion is the greatest motive power for realising (achieving) that infinite energy which is the birthright and nature of every man. In building up character, in making for everything that is good and great, in bringing peace to others and peace to one's own self, religion is the highest motive power and, therefore, ought to be studied from that standpoint. Religion must be studied on a broader basis than formerly. All narrow limited, fighting ideas of religion have to go. All sect (groups within a religion) ideas and tribal or national ideas of religion must be given up. That each tribe or nation should have its own particular God and think that every other is wrong is a superstition (false belief) that should belong to the past. All such ideas must be abandoned (left behind).

Questions:

According to the text, what is the greatest motive power that drives the human mind?
What does the author suggest should happen to narrow, limited ideas of religion?

20

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:55:51 UTC

As the human mind broadens (expands), its spiritual steps broaden too. The time has already come when a man cannot record a thought without its reaching to all corners of the earth; by merely physical means, we have come into touch with the whole world; so the future religions of the world have to become as universal (worldwide), as wide.

Questions:

What does the author mean by the human mind broadening along with spiritual steps?
How does the author envision the future religions of the world?

22

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:56:48 UTC

The religious ideals of the future must embrace (include) all that exists in the world and is good and great, and, at the same time, have infinite scope (extent) for future development. All that was good in the past must be preserved; and the doors must be kept open for future additions to the already existing store. Religions must also be inclusive (open to everyone) and not look down with contempt (disrespect) upon one another because their particular ideals of God are different. In my life, I have seen a great many spiritual men, a great many sensible persons, who did not believe in God at all — that is to say, not in our sense of the word. Perhaps they understood God better than we can ever do. The Personal idea of God or the Impersonal (without human form), the Infinite, Moral Law, or the Ideal Man — these all have to come under the definition of religion. And when religions have become thus broadened, their power for good will have increased a hundredfold (a lot). Religions, having tremendous (huge) power in them, have often done more injury (harm) to the world than good, simply on account of their narrowness (limited view) and limitations.

Questions:

How does the author describe the religious ideals of the future?
What has caused religion to sometimes harm the world, according to the text?

23

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:58:30 UTC

Even at the present time we find many sects (groups) and societies, with almost the same ideas, fighting each other, because one does not want to set forth those ideas in precisely the same way as another. Therefore, religions will have to broaden. Religious ideas will have to become universal, vast (large), and infinite; and then alone we shall have the fullest play (development) of religion, for the power of religion has only just begun to manifest (appear) in the world. It is sometimes said that religions are dying out, that spiritual ideas are dying out of the world. To me, it seems that they have just begun to grow. The power of religion, broadened and purified, is going to penetrate (enter deeply into) every part of human life. So long as religion was in the hands of a chosen few or of a body of priests, it was in temples, churches, books, dogmas (principles), ceremonials, forms, and rituals (religious acts). But when we come to the real, spiritual, universal concept, then, and then alone, religion will become real and living; it will come into our very nature, live in our every movement, penetrate every pore (tiny hole) of our society, and be infinitely more a power for good than it has ever been before.

Questions:

According to the author, why do many sects and societies fight with each other?
How does the author envision the role of religion in the future?

24

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 11:59:06 UTC

What is needed is a fellow-feeling (mutual sympathy) between the different types of religion, seeing that they all stand or fall together, a fellow-feeling which springs from mutual esteem (respect) and mutual respect, and not the condescending (looking down on others), patronising (treating others as inferior), niggardly (ungenerous) expression of goodwill, unfortunately in vogue (popular) at the present time with many. And above all, this is needed between types of religious expression coming from the study of mental phenomena (events), unfortunately, even now laying exclusive claim (sole ownership) to the name of religion, and those expressions of religion whose heads, as it were, are penetrating more into the secrets of heaven though their feet are clinging to earth, I mean the so-called materialistic sciences.

Questions:

What does the author say is needed for different religions to stand together?
How does the author contrast religious expressions and materialistic sciences?

25

anilbhusal — 2025-02-06 12:01:17 UTC

To bring about this harmony (peace), both will have to make concessions (compromises), sometimes very large, nay (indeed) more, sometimes painful, but each will find itself the better for the sacrifice and more advanced in truth. And in the end, the knowledge which is confined (limited) within the domain (area) of time and space will meet and become one with that which is beyond them both, where the mind and senses cannot reach — the Absolute (complete), the Infinite (limitless), the One without a second.

Questions:

What does the author believe both science and religion must do to achieve harmony?
What does the author mean by "the One without a second"?