University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

What the founders of some of the living religions thought about themselves

(USC Thesis Other)

What the founders of some of the living religions thought about themselves

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WHAT THE FOUNDERS
OF SOME OF THE LIVING RELIGIONS
THOUGHT ABOUT THEMSELVES
A Thesis
'Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Religion
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Theology
W
Donald James Campbell
February 1939
UMl Number: EP65099
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Disssttaiien Pubi
UMl EP65099
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
This thesis, written by
DONALD JAMES C/MuiPRFJ.L
under the direction of Aia.. Faculty Committee,
and approved by a ll its members, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
School of Religion in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF THEOLOGY
.....
Dean
Date February.. 1939......
Faculty Committee
\trma\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION...................................... iv
I BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE.......................... 1
The birth, boyhood, and youth, of Jesus,
Mohammed, Zoroaster, Gautama, Mahavira,
Nanak, Confucius, and Lao-Tse.
II THE CALL...................................... 19
The experience or experiences which
directly or indirectly determined these
eight founders of religion in the selec
tion of the religious vocation.
Ill THOUGHT ABOUT GOD . ........................ 36
The thought of these eight founders of
religion about God as that thought
would have bearing on their concep
tion of their relation to God.
IV RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD ...................... 53
The thought of these eight founders of
religion about their relation to God.
V RELATIONSHIP WITH MEN . ............ 73
The thought of these eight founders of
religion about their relation to men.
VI PRE-EXISTENCE AND IMMORTALITY................ 94
The thought of these eight founders of
religion about their own pre-exist
ence and immortality.
VII THE FINAL DAY OF THE LORD. ............ 116
The thought of these eight founders of
religion about the part they would
ill
CHAPTER - PAGE
play in the Day of Judgement or Final
Day of the Lord.
VIII CONCLUSIONS. ..... ................... 127
BIBLIOGRAPHY......... 135
INTRODUCTION
As the cult of a religion develops the tendency to
deify the founder develops with it. This process can be
easily recognized by the student of religion. The early
sacred writings of any given religion invariably interpret
the person of the founder in simpler terms than the later
writings. As the cult of the faith develops through the
years the idea of the uniqueness of the founder and the
belief in his divinity are more and more stressed among the
faithful, and stories of miracle and supernaturalism are
accepted as fact because of the uncritical piety of the
followers. It is safe to say that none of the great world
religions is exempt from this process.
The scientific age through which mankind has passed
has brought this fact to the forefront. So much of what
was once regarded as miracle or supernatural has been ex
plained and understood on the basis of reason that some
thinking persons have come to doubt all supernaturalism.
Religion, along with other fields of life, has been
subjected to this new critical attitude. The modern person
approaches religion with an a priori distaste for and
doubt of anything which does not commend itself to his
reason. Thus some supernatural elements in religion are
explained away or glossed over as much as possible.
V
This scientific critical method applied to the history
of religions has helped to confirm the modern person in his
attitude. Through historical research, the comparing of
documents and the determining of the correct chronology of
sources, the fact that many of the supernatural elements in
the religions of the world are later additions is discovered.
Because of this the tendency on the part of students is to
reject all supernatural elements from religion as mere
interesting historical accretions which have no foundation
in fact, and to try to uncover the life of the founders and
reveal them to he men like ourselves, though with deeper
spiritual insight and ability for leadership.
This brings us to our problem. Has this scientific
spirit led people to go too far in their rejection of the
supernatural from religion? Are the earliest sources so
entirely free from the supernatural element? Did the
founders themselves have some special consciousness of
their uniqueness, their divine origin and divine mission?
It is the answer to this latter question which in
the following pages we shall try to give through a study
of what eight of the religious founders thought about
themselves.
For this study the following founders have been
chosen: Jesus, Mohammed and Zoroaster of the near east,
Gautama, Mahavira, and Nanak of India, and Confucious and
VI
Laotse of China. This list, of course, leaves out such
great religions as Hinduism, Judaism, and Shintoism. These
three, however, do not fit the purpose of this study because
their beginnings are not marked by the life and teaching of
specific founders. Rather they have grown out of the
mythology and folklore of the people^s among which they have
developed.
In gathering the material for this paper we have
endeavoured to use sources which reflect the life and thought
of the founders themselves, rather than the interpretations
which their followers have made of them. This has meant
distinguishing between early and late material both in the
sacred scriptures of the religion involved and in the trad
itions. For example, the Gospel of John is considered a
late source for a study of the life and thought of Jesus,
whereas the Gospel of Mark and the Epistles of Paul are the
earliest sources. For this study, therefore, we shall con
sider the latter two the more authentic sources. Again,
students of Mohammed believe the suras of the Koran written
in Mecca to be more reliable than those written later in
Medina. We, therefore, shall use the Meccan suras as the
best indication of Mohammed’s thought.
In the treatment of chapters it is proposed to
depant from the usual method used by writers on comparative
religion, which is to have a separate chapter for each
vi'i
founder or each religion, as in Hume’s book. The World’s
Living Religions, and Soper’s, The Religions of Mankind.
For this particular study on what the founders thought of
themselves, an interesting comparison can be made by treat
ing the stages of their thought in separate chapters. Thus
the boyhood of all will be treated in the first chapter, the
"call" of all in the second, and the thought of all about
God in the third, and so on.
The chapter titles I have chosen are as follows:
1. Birth and Early Life: a study of the boyhood and early
manhood up to the "call". 2. The Call: a study of the
experience or experiences in the life of each founder which
seem to have most convinced him of his special work.
5. Thought about God: a study of what each founder thought
about God and his nature. 4. Relationship with God: a
chapter on the founders’ own thought about their relation
ship to God. 5. Relationship with Men: a chapter on what
the founders thought about their relation to humanity.
6. Pre-Existence & Immortality; a study of what the founders
thought about their pre-existence and immortality. 7. The
Final Day of the Lord: on what each founder .thought about
his part in the end of the Y/orld or judgement day.
In this paper no attempt will be made to give a
complete biographical sketch of the life of the founders.
Our purpose is simply to call attention to certain features
viii
of their thought about themselves which we find recorded
in the most reliable sources, and which, in the interests
of liberal religion, have been all too readily overlooked.
CHAPTER I
BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE
To understand what the founders of the world’s great
religions thought about themselves something should be known
about their birth, and the environment, intellectual, social,
and religious, in which they were reared. The boy is the
father of the man. Just so, the boy’s thoughts are the seeds
from which the man’s thoughts spring and grow. A man’s
thoughts about himself have their roots in his childhood.
Unfortunately the study of the childhood of the reli
gious founders of the world is a difficult one for two
reasons. One is the scarcity of material. The childhood of
most of them is clothed in obscurity which centuries of
study have not succeeded in dispelling. The other reason
is the questionable authenticity of the material which does
exist. All great figures in the world’s history have been
surrounded by legendary mists through which it is well nigh
impossible to penetrate to the real facts. This is especially
true of the founders of the great religions, for the uncriti
cal devotion of their followers makes for ready belief in
stories of the miraculous, and their birth and childhood are
favorite subjects for these stories.
Recognizing these difficulties, we shall now turn to
the subject of this chapter, the birth and early life of
the founders of the living religions.
JESUS
The founder of Christianity, numerically the greatest
religion in the world to-day, was born about 4 B.C^ in
Bethlehem of Judea. This is the usually accepted date,
though Barton believes it may have been earlier.^
Judea at the time of his birth was a Roman province
under the rule of a Roman governor or procurator. For the
Jewish population it was a time of discontent and unrest.
Taxes were high. Rome ruled with an iron hand, and those
who rebelled against her power were suppressed often with
great cruelty.
Jesus was born of devout Jewish parents. According
to Christian tradition his birth was attended by heavenly
signs. He was born of Mary, a virgin, who, though betrothed
to Joseph, had not yet become his wife. Shepherds watching
their flocks in nearby fields were notified of the holy
event by the song of angels. They came where the babe lay
in a manger because there was no room for his parents in the
inn. There they worshipped him.
^Barton,George A., Archaeology and the Bible.
(Philadelphis: American Sunday School Union. 5th edition.
1927.) pp.504-505
3
On the same night wise men from the East were guided
by a great star to where the child lay. They, too, wor
shipped him, presenting him with gifts of gold and frankin
cense and myrrh.
' The authenticity of these miraculous birth stories
is more and more questioned by liberal Christian scholars.
They point out that the stories are not found in the earliest
Christian writings, namely Paul’s Epistles and the Gospel
of Mark, but only in the later writings of Luke and Matthew.
This is true, but certainly the birth stories have very early
tradition on their side. They were accepted and believed not
more than fifty years after the death of Jesus.
Some time after the birth of Jesus the family settled
in Nazareth of Galilee where Joseph worked at carpentry and
reared his large family. Mark’s gospel states that Jesus
had four brothers and some sisters.^
Of the time from his arrival at Nazareth until he was
about 30 years of age, we know very little. There is one
trip to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover recorded.
Jesus was IS years old, and astonished the doctors and
teachers at the temple "with his understanding and answers."
Already at this early age he seemed to have a sense of a
close relationship with God. He showed surprise when his
%ark 6:3
4
parents did not seem to understand when he tarried behind in
Jerusalem and was finally found by them in the temple "in
the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them
questions." Did they not know that he must "be in his
Farther’s house?
Nothing is known directly about his education, but in
later years he showed such a profound knowledge of the Hebrew
Scriptures, especially the Psalms and the Prophets and the
Penteteuch, it can be assumed he received and excellent train
ing in the local synagogue.
To summarize the picture, Jesus was reared in a devout
Jewish home with brothers and sisters. It was a middle class
home, not poor, and certqinly not rich. He received a good
^Luke 2:49
Hatch,William H.P., Episcopal Theological School,
Cambridge, MassachusettsPersonal letter of January 21, 1939.
"In Luke 2:49 the words toTs tûu ^^/j^^hould un
doubtedly be translated ’in my Father’s house.’ The neuter
plural article followed by a genitive is found in the sense
of "house" as early as Lysias (late 5th Cent.B.C.) and
Theocritus (3rd Cent.B.C.). This sense fits perfectly the con
text of Luke, in which the question is where Jesus was. There
is no Aramaic text of Luke in existence^fso far as is known);
but Dr.Torrey, on the basis of an-assumed. Aramaic original
renders "in my Father’s house" (The Four Gospels,p.119). Both
forms of the Old Syriac have "house". . . .the Sinaitic (i.e.
the Lewis palimpsest) reads "in my Father’s house" and the
Curetosiam has "in the Father’s house." The Peshitta reads
"in my Father’s house." The Armenian version is said to do
the same, but I darmot vouch for this because I do not read
Armenian."
5
education in the synagogue school, and doubtless learned
his father’s trade of carpentry. He grew up in Nazareth
during a time of restlessness and discontent among the
Jews. Unlike all the other founders we shall study, he never
married.^
MOHAMMED
Founder of the great religion which bears his name
and which, according to Hume has some 230 million members,
Mohammed was born in Mecca in Arabia, in 570 A.D.^ He was
the posthumous son of Abdallah of the tribe of Eoraish.
Tradition has it that the father prepared for the coming of
his son by drinking from a remarkable stream of water near
Mount Ararat which promptly disappeared after he had drunk.
During pregnancy Mohammed’s mother was guarded by an angel
and informed through heavenly sources of the coming greatness
of her son. The father died before Mohammed was born, and
for five years he was brought up by a Bedouin tribe in the
4
This conclusion, admittedly, is not based on any
definite statement in the New Testament that Jesus was not
married. There is no such statemènt. We are here accepting
the traditional Christian belief based, no doubt, on the fact
that no mention of Jesus’ marriage is made in the Christian
canonical sources. In view of the fact that other relation
ships are mentioned: father, mother, brothers and sisters, one
assumes that the even more important relationship of marriage
would have been mentioned had it existed.
^Hume,Robert E..The W o r ld ’ s Living Religions.(New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931.) p.213.
desert. His Bedouin nurse was alarmed at the strange
nervous disorders which siezed the child during this period.
His mother died shortly after his return from the
desert. Her death made a great impression on him. He never
forgot that she had been left a widow and that he was an
orphan. His later concern for widows and orphans can be
traced to this early experience.
As a boy Mohammed tended his uncle’s sheep. We can
well believe at this time he began to think about his pro
phetic work. A line in the Koran seems to indicate this,
"Verily there hath been no prophet raised up who performed
not the work of a shepherd."® When older he joined the trade
caravans which were one of the sources of Mecca’s wealth.
Travel with these caravans gave him contact with Judaism and
Christianity.
Unusually handsome, Mohammed, nevertheless, in his
youth led an exemplary life. While with the caravans he
earned the name of A1 Amin, "the trusty."
At 25 he married Khadija a wealthy widow nearly twice
his age. They had a large family, and the 25 years they
were together Mohammed took no other wife.
The nervous disorders of his childhood developed in
6
Quoted by: Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great
Religions. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955".)" p. 153.
youth a temperament inclined to melancholy, and strong
passions, which, however, were usually under control.
Of his education practically nothing is known. It
is an interesting fact that many devout Mohammedans claim
that he could neither read nor write. For them this fact
proves the completely divine origin of the Koran, the un
lettered prophet being simply the passive instrument of the
hand of God. This claim is based on a passage from the
Koran,
Thou couldSt not read any book before this; neither
couldst thou write it with thy right hand; then (if he
could) had the gainsayers justly doubted of the divine
original thereof.
This plus claim of the faithful, however, is open to
doubt. Samuel M.Zwemer claims there is evidence Mohammed
wrote letters to the governor of Alexandria inviting him to
become a Moslem.® This letter was discovered in 1275 A.H.®
and is in the possession of the sultan to-day. Though per
haps not receiving a formal education, in his travels and
early life he evidently learned at least to read and write.
Reared an orphan with no brothers or sisters, subject
to nervous disorders and melancholia, Mohammed’s childhood
and youth cannot be called normal.
'^The Koran. Sura 29:47
®Zwemer,Samuel M..Across the World of Islam. (New York.
Fleming H.Revell Co., 1929.) Chap.5.
®A.H. After Hegira. The Mohammedan Calendar.
8
ZOROASTER
Zoroastrianism is a little known religion. The follow
ers number only about 100,000 souls and are found chiefly
among the Parsees in northern India.
The founder, Zoroaster or Zaratust, was born according
to most scholars about 660 B.C. There is a wide range of
opinion, however, about his birth, some estimates putting it
as far back as 1000 B.C.
The faithful believe that Zoroaster pre-existed in
heaven as the equal of the a r c h a n g e l s Legendary history
goes back even to the birth of Dukduab his mother. The glory
of Ahura Mazda descended to the house where Zoroaster’s mother
was about to be born and filled the place with radiance. Af
ter the birth the priests persuaded the father to send the
child away to another valley. Here she met and married
Porushaspo, to be Zoroaster’s father.
When Zoroaster was born, 30 years before the end of
the ninth millenium of the universe, instead of the usual
cry at birth, he laughed and pronounced a formula which put
the demons to confusion.During childhood he was constantly
^^Hume,Robert E., The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931.) p.199.
^^Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935.) p.108
9
in danger from the ill will of the priests of the time, the
Karaps, who attempted to destroy him. He openly defied them
at the age of seven.
Like Jesus, Zoroaster as a young hoy was unusually
wise.
A great wonder became manifest owing to the powerful
intellect, cautiousness and practice of Zoroaster, when
the other children were excessively terrified at their
own stillness of speech, and the sagacity of his reply
at that childish age.
At the age of 15 he selected the sacred girdle as a
symbol of his devotion to a life of religion. He was kind
and helpful to the poor, and to animals. Contrary to the
custom of the time, vfhen his father sought a wife for him he
argued that he first wanted to see her and approve her for
himself. He was evidently a young man of unusual independence.
GAUTAMA
From the region around the eastern Mediterranean we
now turn to that most religious of all countries, India,
which gave birth to three of the religious leaders to be
studied, Gautama, Mahavira, and Nanak.
Siddharta Gautama, more commonly known as the Buddha,
"the Enlightened", the founder of Buddhism was born in 560
1?
Muller,F.Max., editor. The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884.) 47:43,45.
10
B.c. at Kapilavastu, 150 miles north of the modern city of
Benares just within the borders of the native state of Nepal.
The discovery in 1896 of a stone tablet disc marking the
birthplace of Gautama has definitely established the location.
Like Christianity, Buddhism has thrived in countries away from
its birth and now is strong in China and Japan.
The son of a local chieftan, he was born a prince of
the warrior caste. Late tradition gives many miraculous
stories about this birth. He was born from the right side of
Maya, his mother, without causing pain. Immediately he took
seven steps and announced his mission in a voice like a bull.
The faithful believe him to have been a pre-existent being
who had been incarnate before. This time he descended from
heaven as a white elephant to enter the womb of his mother,
who died seven days after his birth and proceded to the Heaven
of Indra, whither the Buddha went in later life to instruct her
in the law. Cosmic wonders occurred at his birth, among them
the sea water lost its saltiness and became sweet. One tradi-
tion claims though it was not a virgin birth, the father was
not the progenitor, his mother Maya having miraculously con
ceived after a dream in which she beheld the future Buddha.
From reliable sources we know he was the only son of a
rich Hindu rajah of the Sakya clan and was brought up in
luxury. Warren writes.
And the king procured nurses for the future Buddha,
11
women of fine figure and free from all blemish. And
so the future Buddha began to grow, surrounded by an
immense retinue, and in great splendor
When Gautama was sixteen, his father built three palaces for
him. At nineteen he was married to a neighboring princess,
and after ten years a son was born.
During these years of upbringing the father tried to
shield the young prince from all evil in life. This ignorance
of suffering and poverty and evil was to have a profound effect
upon him when ultimately he was exposed to them.
MAHAVIRA
Mahavira was the founder of Jainism, a religion of
about one million followers in India to-day. He was born the
beginning of the sixth century B.C. Hume tells us that no
attempt at a biography of the founder of this religion is
contained in its sacred scriptures.!^ Our knowledge about his
birth and early life must therefore of necessity be meagre.
He was born the second son of a petty rajah in north east
India in the town of Vesali.
As usual, later tradition has produced wonder stories
about his birth. He is believed by his followers to be of
13
Warren,Henry C., Buddhism in Translations. (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1896.) p.53.
^'^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931.) p.43.
12
supernatural origin, having lived among the gods on high and
had many incarnations before coming to the earth. Burrows
believes the story of his birth reflects a revolt against the
social and religious domination of the priestly caste. This
gives us a key to at least something about the social con
ditions of the time.
The tradition is this. When Mahavira first came to
earth he entered the womb of a woman of the Brahman (priestly)
ca^te, but later the embryo was transferred to the womb of
a woman of the warrior caste. His consideration for others
was pre-natal. In his mother’s womb he lay so still that
she believed him dead, but knowing this fear, he quivered to
let her know he was alive. At the time of his birth a "godly
lustre" was made by gods and godesses ascending and descend
ing. These rained down showers of nectar, sandal wood powder,
gold and pearls. The birth was the occasion for a community
celebration. Prisoners were released, debts cancelled, fines
and taxes remitted, and dances were given for ten days.
Like Gautama, the other Indian prince, Mahavira was
brought up in luxury. One account reads:
Mahavira was attended by five nurses: a wet nurse,
a nurse to keep him clean, one to dress him, one to
play with him, one to carry him, being transferred
from the lap of one nurse to that of another.!®
^^Muller,F.Max.,editor. The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884). 22:192,193.
13
He spent a glorious youth as a prince and at an early age
married into another princely family. He had one daughter.
The similarity between the upbringing of Mahavira and
Gautama is striking.
NANAK
From Mahavira to Nanak, the founder of Sikhism of
which there are some three million followers chiefly found
in northern India, is a period in history of over two thou
sand years, from the sixth century B.C. to the fifteenth
century A.D.
The chief sources of information about Nanak are the
extra canonical Janamsakhis, or "Life Stories". From these
we learn that Nanak was born in 1460 A.D. in Talawandi, a
village situated about 30 miles southwest of Lahore, the
capital of the Punjab. The name of this village has since
been changed to Nanakara, "Nanak’s Place."
His parents were villagers of the second caste. The
father was a farmer, and also the village accountant and a
small merchant in the employ of a Mohammedan feudal lord.
His mother was a devout Hindu.
Even a birth of this late date is not without its
miracle stories. There is a tradition that celestial music
was heard at his birth and that astrologers came to read
his horoscope and worshipped him.
14
As a child Nanak was dreamy and given to meditation and
not interested in children’s games. At five he is reported
to have conversed about the scriptures of Hinduism. In school
at seven he proved himself to be a prococious boy. To him
knowledge was mere vanity, and he urged the Hindu teacher to
know the true name of God by his mercy rather than by studying
all the Hindu Vedas. At nine, according to a late source, he
began the study of Persian, the language of some of the sacred
scriptures of Sikhism. At an early age he left school to con
sort with ascetics in the forest near his home. When being
invested with the sacred thread of Hinduism, a rite comparable
to "Confirmation" or "Joining the Church" in Christianity, he
gave instruction to the Brahman priest who was officiating as
to the spiritual significance of the sacrament.
He was a forgetful, impractical youth who would fall
asleep while watching his father’s buffalo, and much to the
letter’s annoyance he once gave money entrusted to him to
religious devotees.
At fourteen he was married by arrangement of his parent^
but he soon left his wife and went to another village where he
proved efficient and successful. Fond of music and somewhat
of a composer, he gathered around him a group of friends who
met for singing.
15
CONFUCIUS
With Nanak we leave India and turn to China, the
birthplace of Confucius and Lao-tse.
Confucius, the founder of the official religion of
China, Confucianism, was born in the state of Lu in Shantung
province in 551 B.C. The son of noble parents, he was born
at a time of great disturbance during the Chao Dynasty. The ^
central government was weak and as a consequence the many
small states were frequently at war with one another. Agri
culture was neglected and education was at low ebb, and
plague, pestilence and famine were rife in the land.
Traditions about his birth differ. One has it that
his father was an old man of 70 when he married a young
woman who soon gave birth to Confucius. The father died when
the boy was three years old. Another is that Confucius was
the youngest of 11 children, his father dying when he was
three, and that in later years he had to support all his
family by hard manual labor.
There is little knoTO of his boyhood and early educa
tion, though the fact that early in his career he became the
keeper of the state granaries and for a considerable time
devoted himself to teaching and working on a new edition of
the ancient odes and historical records, argues for a
thorough education in his boyhood and youth. A sentence in
16
the Analects reflects his eager mind, "At fifteen I had my
mind bent on learning.
Confucius married at the age of 19 and had a son.
Some traditions say a son and daughter. He was an exacting
but not a successful husband for after a short time he ceased
to live with his wife and little more is heard of her.
The simplicity of the earlier accounts of Confucius’
birth and early life would indicate their authenticity. On-
like many of the other religious founders, the miraculous
and legendary seem to be absent in them.
LAO-TSE
The other great religious founder of China is Lao-tse,
an older contemporary of Confucius. He was also the contem
porary of Zoroaster in Persia, (if the birth date of Zoroaster
as given in this chapter is accepted), Mahavira and Gautama
in India, and the great Hebrew prophets, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and the Isaiah of the Exile.
What information there is about Lao-tse’s birth and
youth comes from a very late source, the short historical
sketch by Sina Chien who wrote about 500 years after Lao-tse’s
time. From this we learn that he was born in .604 B.C. in the
province of Honan, Central China about 50 years before the
^^Confucian Analects 2:4,1 James Legge translation.
17
birth of Confucius. A German scholar. Von Richard Welhelm
differs on this point, giving the birthplace as Kuhsian in
the state of Tsch’en in the Yangtse region of South China,
and he regards this birthplace as significant in explaining
Lao-tse’s philosophy. He writes.
The circumstance that Lao-tse came out of the Chinese
culture of a southern frontier region of those days is
of great importance for the explanation of his entire
philosophy. The south has on the one hand the radical
viewpoint, on the other hand, the soft mild outlook
that we find in Lao-tse’s philosophy. Likewise the
depth of intuition which surpasses all barriers is some
what peculiar to the south in contrast to the sober
realism of the Chinese in the north.^"7
Welhelm also thinks Lao-tse’s clan name "Lao" indicates
he is descended from a distinguished family, although he
admits "Lao" may mean, as many scholars believe, "Old", so
that the name "Lao-tse" means "Old Master"
Nothing has come down to us about Lao-tse’s childhood
and youth. From the books he quoted in later life one may
gather he received a good education, and also from the fact
that he held the position of Curator of the Royal Library
under the Chow government. He was evidently married for his
descendants have been traced to the first century A.D.
From this brief account of the birth and early life of
17
Wilhelm, Von Richard, Lao-Tse und der -Taoismus.
(Stuttgart: Frommann, 1925) p.16
18
Ibid. p.15
18
these founders of the World’s great religions certain inter
esting comparisons can be drawn.
Jesus, Mohammed, Nanak, and Confucius were born and
reared among working people and themselves worked to earn a
living, Gautama and Mahavira were both sons of rajahs and
were reared in luxury, and Lao-tse was of a distinguished
and very likely wealthy family. Zoroaster’s early life is
too obscure to classify in this respect. All but Jesus were
married, Nanak and Confucius evidently unhappily for they
left their wives. Gautama’s marriage was happy though later
at his renunciation he also left his wife.
Some of them showed signs of their religious self-
consciousness at an early age. Jesus spoke of being "in his
Father’s house" at the age of 12, Zoroaster at 15 selected
the sacred girdle, at 7 Nanak, though the legend is doubtless
an exaggeration, showed signs of religious genius, and at 15
Confucius had his mind "bent on learning." Of Lao-tse’s
early life we know too little to include him here. The two
young princes, Mahavira and Gautama did not give evidence of
their religion in their early youth.
In the lives of these men can one experience or period
be selected which more than any other awakened their religious
self consciousness? Were they "called" by God to their vision
and their mission? Such "calls", or the lack of them, will
be the subject of the next chapter.
CHAPTER II
THE CALL
The idea of being "called" by Crod to any particular
occupation is foreign to our modern thinking. Two reasons
among others can be given to explain this. First, the
modern trend of a great many people, especially in our
western civilization is toward atheism. Though the western
nations, with the exception of Russia, have not officially
adopted atheism, nevertheless it is true that within these
nations a great many citizens, though still nominally
believers in God, have absolutely no recognition of God’s
active relation to human life. Naturally the thought of God
"calling" a man to a specific work is foreign to them. The
other reason can be found in the social and economic system
of our time. Only the favoured few in our industrial civi
lization can "choose" their life’s work. Most of us, through
economic necessity must take what we can get with little or
no thought as to whether we are "called" to that work or not.
This however, has not always been true. Whenever and
wherever religion has been a vital force in life, men have
felt "called" by God to certain types of work. The Anglican
Church recognizes this in its offices of instruction. The
prospective member is taught that his duty to his neighbor
20
is to"do my duty in that state of life unto which it shall
please God to call me".1
In this chapter, by a "call" is meant a more or less
definite experience occurring at a more or less definite
time in life by which a person is awakened to a sense of
vocation, and which he believes has come to him directly or
indirectly through the will of God.
Can such experiences in the lives of these founders
of the great religions be found?
JESUS
Most students of the life of Jesus agree that it was
at his baptism in the Jordan river near Jerusalem that he
came to his decision to be a religious teacher. It has been
already mentioned in the previous chapter that at the age of
twelve he showed some dawning self-consciousness of a special
mission. At that time he seemed surprised that his parents
did not know "he should be in his Father’s house’ !. This was
hardly a sense of "call" however, for nothing more is heard
of him for some 18 years when he was baptized by John the
Baptist at the age of 50. During these years he could not
have been teaching or there would certainly have been some
^The Book of Common Prayer. (New York: James Pott &
Company, 1929.) p.289
21
record of it. It is significant that the earliest of the
four gospels, Mark, begins with the baptism. That evidently
in the author’s mind was the real beginning of Jesus’ work.
That was the experience which started him on his career.
The account of the baptism is found in the three
synoptic gospels, but not in John which is admittedly a later
work. John the Baptist was drawing great crowds through his
preaching of repentance. He regarded his work as a prepara
tion for the greater work of another who would come after
him. When asked if he were the expected and long looked-for
Messiah he replied, "there cometh he that is mightier than
I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: I
indeed baptize you with water, he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire."^
In this atmosphere of expectancy Jesus was baptized.
The three accounts in the synoptic gospels differ slightly,
but the main points are the same. After Jesus came out of
the water he saw the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit in
bodily form as a dove descending upon him and a voice came
out of heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well
pleased."S
Luke 3:16
, o ^ark 1:11 Omit Tlsch. (WH.)il' (instead
ofsv w ) Tisch. Tre'g.WH.RV.îtBDLP l,13,22,53,69,Lat.Vet.
Vulg. Memph. Pesh. Gould.E.P..International Critical Commentary^
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1896. 517~pp)
22
Two of the accounts, Mark’s, the earliest, and
Matthew’s record that Jesus himself saw the dove and heard
the voice, whereas the Lukan account states it as a fact.
From the first two accounts it can be argued that Jesus alone
saw the dove and heard the voice, and, of course, this
psychological explanation is more acceptable to modern people
who eschew anything that indicates the supernatural. But how
ever explained, this fact stands out clearly, the baptism for
Jesus was a turning point in life. It was a deep religious
experience which convinced him of his unique relationship
with God and sent him immediately into the wilderness to think
through his life’s work as Messiah. It was his "call."
MOHAMMED
"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet",
This is the oft repeated creed of the Mohammedan faith. What
event or experience in Mohammed’s life convinced him of this
divine commission?
In his early life there is no indication of his future
work. After his marriage with Khadija, however, things began
to change. The wealth she possessed gave him more freedom,
more time for thought. During the first fifteen years of
their married life he often fasted and kept lonely vigils,
evidently in . . imitation of the^ Christian monks he had met
on his travels, for these religious disciplines were unknown
23
among the Arabs. It was a period of intense inner struggle
for Mohammed, his earnest search for a true religion. His
contact with the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity made
him dissatisfied with the polytheism of his own people.
An incident happened when he was 35 which probably had
some influence in suggesting a religious vocation to him.
The Kaaba, a shrine containing an ancient sacred stone at
Mecca was partially destroyed by a flood and then despoiled
by thieves. A dispute ensued between certain clans as to who
would restore the sacred stone. Finally the disputing parties
decided to take the first man who entered the gate as arbi
trator. That man was Mohammed, and they accepted his settle
ment.
A more definite "call" was received five years later.
Mohammed' was alone on a mountain near Mecca, apparently
suffering one of his spells of mental depression to which he
was subject in his youth. Here he received the revelation
from the Angel Gabriel which is recorded in the 96th Sura of
the Koran:
Recite In the name of the Lord
Who created man of a clot of blood.
Recite, the Lord is most gracious
Who taught man by means of the pen;
Taught man what he knew not.‘
Burrows believes this mention of the pen is a reference to
24
the scriptures of the Jews and Christians."^
The word "recite" in this first revelation gives the
key to Mohammed’s thought about his prophetic work. He
believed himself to be reciting only what was divinely dic
tated to him. In Arabic the participle of the verb "recite"
is "koran", "that which is recited". The sacred book of
Islam, then, the Koran, contains "that which is recited"
by the prophet of Allah.
ZOROASTER
Though verly little is known of the life of Zoroaster,
the prophet of the modern Iran, the fact that he had a "call"
is accepted by most scholars. It is interesting to note his
call, as in the case of Jesus, came to him at the age of 50.
From selections of the Zad-Sparam quoted in volume 47 of the
Sacred Books of the East we read that before receiving his
call, without permission he left his father and mother and
abandoning worldly desires, sought the person who was best
to the poor and cooperated with him in his work.
The decisive spiritual experience came shortly after
this. Standing on the bank of the river Daitih he was
given a revelation by the archangel Vohumano who ushered
"burrows, Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(Hew York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955)
25
him into the presence of Ahura Mazda (God). According to
this source Zoroaster replied when first accosted by the
archangel,
I am Zaratust of the Spitamas; among the existences
righteousness is more my desire and my wish is that I
may become aware of the will of the sacred beings, and
may practice so much righteousness as they exhibit to
me in the pure existence.
According to the Gathas, the earliest writings of
Zoroastrianism which Soper believes were ?/ritten by Zoroaster
himself,^ Ahura Mazda, when Zoroaster was brought to him, said,
"This man is found for me here who alone has hearkened to our
enunciations, Zarathustra Spitama."*^
Two years after this experience Zoroaster began preach
ing with little success at first. Only one convert was made
in ten years. Despite this, he was convinced of his "call"
and persevered, and finally won success with the conversion
of the Persian king, Vistaspa.
GAUTAMA
In the case of Gautama the Buddha the "call" seems to
^Muller.F.Max..The Sacred Books of the East. (Oxford:
The Clarenden Press, 1884) V.47:21:9
^Soper,Edmund P..The Religions of Mankind. (New York:
The Abingdon Press, 1950.) p.141
*^Yasna 29:8
26
have been spread over a period of about seven years, and to
include three parts: the renunciation, the search, and the
enlightenment. Strictly speaking his was not a "call" in
the sense of our definition. It is very doubtful that
Gautama would have recognized in his actions the prompting
of God. He was searching for peace in an evil world and
he believed he had attained it in the enlightenment.
We recall that Gautama was brought up in luxury, the
son of a rich rajah, and that his father had shielded him as
far as possible from evil. At the age of 29 this young prince
was out driving for pleasure when he saw four sights which
profoundly affected him, a decrepit old man, a loathsomely
sick man, a funeral procession with a corpse, and in marked
contrast to these, a calm religious ascetic. These first
sights of suffering and death and the contrasting peace of
religion evidently started Gautama thinking. To him, life
which contained all these possibilities for evil was vain
and he decided to renounce it all and seek peace in religion.
Besides his wealth and great inheritance he had a beautiful
wife and a newly born son. The latter he found especially
hard to leave, for his little son had already become very
dear to him. But he had made up his mind. He cut off his
hair, and assuming the garb of a monk, he went forth a penni
less wanderer in search of peace.
27
During six years following this "great renunciation"
Gautama evidently sought his peace through the religious
practices current in his time. He tried the philosophic
speculation of Hinduism, but this failing he then tried severe
asceticism, hoping that mortification of the body would bring
him the spiritual insight he sought. In this period he lived
with and studied with other ascetics. Indeed, during the
later practice of asceticism he had been so steadfast and
severe with himself that he gathered a group of admirers
around him who endeavoured to follow his example.
His departure from this group was sudden. In a starv
ing condition he fainted sway one day and his followers
believed him dead. In a short time, however, he revived and
declared to his astonished listeners that asceticism was not
the path to enlightenment and that he would leave it and seek
in some other way.
This brought him to his 55th year, and to the experience
which gave him his name "The Buddha", the "enlightenment."
He was sitting cross-legged under a bo-tree one night having
a quiet meditation when the great universal truths of
Buddhism came to him, the Four Noble Truths, including the
Noble Eightfold Path to Nirvana. Of his experience we read:
As soon as my knowledge and insight were quite clear
regarding each of these four noble truths, then did I
become certain that I had attained to the full insight
of that wisdom which is unsurpassed in the heavens or
on the earth. Immovable is the emancipation of my
26
heart. This is my last existence. There will be no
rebirth for me."8
There is a late tradition that Gautama after this
enlightenment was debating in his own mind whether or not
he would teach the people when the God Brama appeared and
spoke these words, "The law hitherto manifested has been
impure; do thou now enter the door of the immortal. Let
them hear the doctrine of the spotless one."^
MAHAVIRA
Mahavira, whose upbringing closely parallels that
of Gautama, at the age of 50 had a similar experience with
a similar reaction on his part. He too had been reared in
luxury, and up to this age had lived a normal life. The
death of his parents, however, at this time must have pro
foundly affected him. He determined to become a religious
ascetic and to follow the method of salvation taught in
Hinduism, that of mortification of the body. "I shall for
twelve years neglect my body."10
He soon put his plan into action. He began by giving
^Muller,F.Max, The Sacred Books of the East. (Oxford:
The Clarenden Press, 1884.) 11;152,155
9
Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955) p.85
^^Muller,F.Max., cit. 22:200
29
away his wealth and entered a state of homelessness vowing
to do no sinful act. He is reported to have plucked out
his hair in five handfulls.
The gods of Hinduism were overjoyed at this renun
ciation and prophesied great things for Mahavira. "Blessed
One, propogate the religion which is a blessing to all
creatures in the world."Victory, victory to thee,
gladdener of the world. 0 hero in the arena of the three
worlds gain the supreme best knowledge called Absolute.
Like Gautama he had a period of searching after this
first experience of "call". For awhile he wore clothes, but
even discarded these later and became a naked ascetic. The
sacred scriptures of Jainism report, "With supreme knowledge,
mildness, patience, control, contentment. . . .the Venerable
One meditated on himself for twelve years.
Finally in the 15th year an experience comparable to
Gautama’s "enlightenment" came to him while sitting on a
river bank. Of this experience is written:
During the thirteenth year, in a squatting position
. . . .exposing himself to the heat of the sun. . . .
with the knees high and the head low, in deep medita
tion, in the midst of abstract meditation, he reached
11
Muller, F.Max., The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884) 22:195
28:258
1 ?
Ibid. 22:265
30
Nirvana, the complete and full, the unobstructed,
infinite Absolute
As Guatama’s enlightenment had made him a Buddha, so
this experience of Mahavira’s made him a "Jain", a "con
queror" . From this word the religion takes its name.
NANAK
The Granth, the sacred scriptures of Sikhism, tells
an interesting story of the "call" of Nanak, the founder of
that religion. Nanak also was born in India, but much later
that the other founders, Gautama and Mahavira.
After leaving his wife and two children, Nanak went
to the wilderness and spent his time sitting under trees
lost in deep religious contemplation, and repeating to him
self, "I am thine, 0 Lord."
One day after bathing he disappeared in the forest
and was taken in a vision to God’s presence. Being offered
a cup of nectar, he gratefully accepted it. He then heard
God speak to him in these words,
I am with thee. I have made thee happy and also
those who shall take thy name. Go and repeat Mine
and cause others to do likewise. Abide uncontaminated
by the world. Practice the repetition of my Name,
charity, ablutions, worship, and meditation. . . .
My Name is God, the primal Brahma. And thou are the
^^uller, F. Max., The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884) 22:201
51
Divine Guru."^8 The word Guru means "Messenger".
Remaining for three days in the forest after this
experience, Nanak went home and began his new life by giving
all he had to the poor. He assumed the garb of an ascetic,
a loin cloth. It is reported that after remaining silent
for one day he made this startling announcement, "There is
no Hindu and no M u s a l m a n . " ! ® g e began his own religious
teaching as an attempt to harmonize the two great religious
systems of his time, Hinduism and Mohammedanism.
CONFUCIUS
Coming to the life of Confucius again brings an
interesting contrast to the men we have already considered
regarding their "call". It has been said that through the
Analects more details are knovm about the life of Confucius
than about any other religious founder, but there is no
evidence of any experience comparable to the experiences of
the other founders which we could call a "call." Confucius’
life seems more a logical progression. We have seen that at
an early age he had his mind set on learning. During his
life he pursued this ideal without a break. It is true that
several times he became disgusted with the corruption in the
State for which he worked and resigned his position, but
^^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.") p.86
^^Loc. cit.
52
these experiences did not bring any great change either in
his mode of living or in his thinking.
One explanation for this lack of a "call" experience
would be his conception of God. It is often said that
Confucianism is not a religion at all in the technical sense
because it lacks any real belief in God. It is more a
system of philosophy and ethics. Naturally, if there is no
belief in God there would be no sense of a call by God. It
can be shown, however, that Confucius’ conception of "Heaven"
amounts to belief in God, but this will be discussed in the
next chapter. Suffice it to say here that Confucius seems
to have had no definite experience which awakened him to a
sense of vocation.
LAO-TSE
The finding of any definite "call" experience in the
case of Lao-tse is equally difficult, and for the same reason.
He was a philosopher rather than a religious man. He was
agnostic as regards God. Burrows writes of him.
Strictly speaking Lao-tse was a philosopher rather
than a religious leader, a sage rather than a prophet,
yet his teaching has much in common with some of the
most profound ideas and most lofty ideals of the great
est religions.
17
Burrows, Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955.1 pT52
53
There is a tradition about him, however, which some
might regard as his call. He was very unhappy in his posi
tion as curator of the Royal Library under the Chow Govern
ment. It was a time of disorder and oppression. Lao-tse
resigned his position, and as the story goes, disappeared
through the gate to the northwest. Before going, however, the
gate keeper prevailed upon him to write his wisdom down. This
the Taoists believe was the origin of the Tao-Teh-King. the
sacred book of Taoism.
Von Richard Welhelm gives little credence to this
legend. He says that Lao-tse died a natural death in old age
at home and with his family around him.^®
CONCLUSIONS
Certain comparisons of these various experiences of
the "call" present themselves.
First of all there is a distinction between a positive
and negative call, that is between those who approached their
work primarily through a glorious sense of the goodness and
greatness of God and of His irresistible call to them to
interpret Him to their fellow men, and those who approached
their work primarily through a sense of the futility and evil
of life and their desire to renounce it to find peace and
18
Wilhelm, Richard, Lao-Tse und der Taoismus.
(Stuttgart: Frommann, 1925.] - p.22
34
lead others to do so. Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster, and Nanak
received calls of the former type, Gautama and Mahavira of
the latter.
Then the similarity/ of age at the time of the call
is noteworthy. We know Jesus must have been about SO at the
time of his baptisml® Mohammed was 35 at the time- of the
incident of the Kaaba stone, and five years older.when he
received his first revelation. Zoroaster was 30 when he had
his experience, and Gautama 29 when he made his great renun
ciation. At 35 he received his enlightenment. Mahavira was
30 when his parents died, the experience which seems to have
brought about his call, though not until twelve years later
did he receive his more complete revelation. Hume gives
Nanak’s age as 36 when he left his family to seek peace in
the forest. The remaining tiA^o, Confucius and Lao-tse had no
definite experience of call.
The most spiritually fruitful period, then, in the
life of these founders was the decade between the ages of SO
and 40, an interesting point for the student in the psychology
of religion to pursue further.
Still another comparison can be made in the mode of
the call, whether it took the form of a simple inner convic
tion, or whether attended by super-human objective signs.
19
Luke 3:23
35
For Jesus there were both a vision and a voice. It may be
interpreted as a purely inner experience if we are afraid
that objectivity would be admitting the supernatural. How
ever, in purely every day sense experiences the border be
tween the objective and the subjective is drawn with such
difficulty we are wise in this case not to be dogmatic one
way or the other. Mohammed’s revelation was mediated to
him through a "messenger", apparently not through a sense
of direct contact with Allah. Zoroaster combined the two.
With Gautama there is less emphasis on an objective ex
perience, no vision is seen, no voice heard, no messenger
appears. The enlightenment was the result of his own con
templation and thought. Mahavira and Nanak would both
claim objective "signs", whereas Confucius and Lao-tse were
not troubled by a call at all.
After such great experiences, what did these founders
of religion think about themselves, their relationship to
God and to humanity? Obviously what they thought about
their relationship to God will depend largely upon their con
ception of God and His nature.
CHAPTER III
THOUGHT ABOUT GOD
Obviously what a man thinks about God will determine
to a large extent what he thinks about his omn relation to
God. Whether he thinks of that relation in personal or im
personal terms will be determined by whether he believes in
a god with whom a personal or impersonal relation is possible
Naturally in this paper there will not be space or
need to give an exhaustive treatment of what each of these
founders thought about God. We shall consider here only the
thought about God which directly affects the founder’s
thought about his own relationship with God.
JESUS
The term which Jesus used most frequently as recorded
1
in the Gospel of Mark as well as the other gospels to ex
press his thought about God was "Father." This term was not
new with him. The thought of God as "Father" was familiar
in the Jewish tradition. In Jeremiah 51:9 we read of God:
"for I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my first born."
1
It is true the term "Father" as referring to God is
used much fewer times in Mark than in the other gospels, but
it occurs at least twice, Mark 13:52 and 14:56.
37
But certainly Jesus gave the term new meaning. In the
Hebrew tradition God had been the God of the nation, the
father of His chosen people as a nation. It remained for
Jesus to reveal Him as the Father of all men, as individuals,
Jews and Gentiles alike.
In Jesus’ mind this term "Father" for God meant all
that we mean by a personal God. The Hebrew mind was not
given to abstract philosophical conceptions. The Hebrew’s
God was the Creator who had created the world and them for
a divine purpose. He had chosen them as the instruments of
His will. It was He who inspired the prophets.
Jesus was a Jew. It is unthinkable that he could
have used these ancient Jewish concepts of God, while for
himself having some hidden abstract symbolic interpretation
of them•
The parable of the vineyard,^which is in Mark as well
as the other synoptic gospels, gives clearly his thought
about God. God has built the environment in which He has
placed His husbandmen for the express purpose of producing.
He is concerned about their work and sends his servants to
gather the fruit, and when the husbandmen do not respond,
he sends his son.
'Mark 12:1-12
58
In Jesus’ thought, then, God is the personal creator
of the world and mankind. He has put men here for a purpose.
He is concerned about our work. He ’ ’sends" messengers to us,
and finally His son. And to all this Jesus crowns his
thought about God with the conception of intimate, personal,
love toward men which is contained in the term "Father."
MOHAMMED
Though Mohammed’s thought about God, like that of Jesus,
is largely influenced by the Hebrew conception, for the in
fluence of the Hebrew scriptures had already penetrated into
the Arabia of his time, it is distinctly different in
emphasis. The idea of God as the personal creator of the
world and of men he accepts. In his relation to men God is
the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Producer, Maker,
Fashioner. But the emphasis is not so much on the love of
God as on the sovereign will of God. He is concerned about
and active in the affairs of men. Through the mediation of
his archangel he reveals the truth of the Koran to his
prophet. When Mohammed received this revelation he felt
called upon to go forth and preach "one Absolute God,
Creator, Potentate and Judge of the World.
^Robert E. Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951) p. 214.
39
This emphasis on the sovereign will of God is preserved
in the very name of the faith founded by Mohammed. "Islam"
means "I submit", I submit to the will of God. In the Koran
we read: "Thus God misleadeth whom He will, and whom He will
doth He guide aright.
Praise the name of thy Lord The Most High
Who Hath created and balanced all things
Who hath fixed their destinies and guideth them.^
Yet with this emphasis on sovereign will goes the
thought that God knows men as individuals, and hears their
prayers.
0 our lordI Thou truly knowest what we hide and
what we bring to light. Nought on earth or in heaven
is hidden from God. Praise be to God. My Lord is
the hearer of my p rayer.6
God knows men and hears their prayers. God is also
"with" men in the sense of being their protector. When
fleeing from Mecca with only one companion Mohammed hid in
a cave. The two narrowly escaped being caught by their
pursuers, but the prophet comforted his companion with these
words, "Be not distressed. Verily, God is with us."
One feels in Mohammed the beginning of a very genuine
religious experience and insight which might have risen to
"^The Koran. 74:34
8The Koran. 87:1-3 Revealed in Medina but accepted by
most scholars as a genuine account of an experience.
^The Koran. 14:41
^The Koran. 9:40
40
sublime heights had it not been in his later life clouded
by expediency. After the Hegira® his growth of power at
Medina went to his head and his emphasis more and more was .
not on the love of God, but on the supreme power of God as
the judge of men who demanded their obedience. The gentler
elements in his thought about God iwere certainly there at
first, but in the process of building up his own power,
often brutally and ruthlessly, they became very much sub
jected to the sterner and more war-like conception. His
God was more the war-like tribal God of the Old Testament
than the loving Father of the New.
ZOROASTER
In Zoroaster’s thought about Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord
or Lord of Wisdom) we find ourselves on more philosophical
grounds than was true of the God of Jesus and Mohammed.
Ahura Mazda is the source of light which is eternally striving
against evil which is thought of as darkness. This dualism
has persisted in Zoroastrianism and. its influence came into
Christianity through Manichaeism.
Zoroaster thought of God as primarily ethical, his
8The Hegira - the flight from Mecca from which the
iohammedan calendar dates.
41
outstanding characteristic being his righteousness*
I attribute all things to the wise Lord, the good, .
righteous, holy, resplendent, glorious, to whom be
long all good things, the world, righteousness
prevailing in the world; with whose light all brilliant
objects and the luminous globes are covered.9
We have already seen that preceding his call, the
prophet of Iran felt a strong urge to serve his fellowmen.
He sought out the person who helped the poor most and
co-operated in the work. This ethical sensitivity appar
ently coloured his thinking about God. God is the source
of wisdom, of good, of all good thoughts and deeds.
Getting away as we do with Zoroaster from all
Hebraic influence, we get away from the intensly personal
conception of God which we find in Christianity and
Mohammedanism. With Zoroaster God is not so much his
father as the father of righteousness, the father of good
purpose^O the father of rectitude.!^
Although some passages in the Yasnas might be inter
preted as meaning prayer in the Christian sense,IS still
throughout the emphasis certainly is that union with God
is achieved not directly, but through ethical living.
^Yasna 12:1
^^Yasna 51:8
l^Yasna 47:2
l%asna 45:10
42
through wisdom, righteousness and good purpose in thought,
word, and deed.
One can readily see why Zoroastrianism, though many
years older as a religion than Christianity and Mohammedan
ism, yet has far fewer members, and those confined to a
small intellectual group in the North of India known as the
Parsees. Its emphasis on God as Wisdom (the name Ahura
Mazda means Wise Lord) rather than Love, wisdom in its
nature being more impersonal than love, would not appeal
to the masses. In this it can be compared with Stocism,
which, though in many respects far superior to the Mystery
Religions of the East such as Mithraism, nevertheless
succumbed to them because the latter gave the people a God
who was approachable. So ZoroasterGod is more for the
philosophers than for the people. He lacks the personal
nearness of the God of Jesus and Mohammed.
GAUTAMA
To write on Gautama the Buddha*s thought about God
is indeed an interesting task for there is little evidence
that he believed in God at all, certainly not in the same
sense that we have found in the previous three founders.
We have seen that Gautama was born an Indian prince and
that he received his ^^call*^ or enlightenment** as a result
of disillusionment with life and the world. Streeter writes:
45
By the age of twenty-nine, though possessed of all
the good things that life could offer he became oppress
ed with a conviction of the futility of human life.
But the disillusionment which came over him was not
that of the exhausted debauchee, but of the idealist
faced by the hard facts of life.
Undoubtedly the religion of his time, a degenerate
Hinduism, contributed to this disillusionment. He took an
agnostic attitude to the many gdds of the Hindu pantheon.
He did not deny their existence, but discouraged meta
physical speculation about them as being spiritually
unprofitable. He believed these gods themselves to be subject
to karma, the wheel of life and re-birth, and this Gautama
regarded not as a good, but the supreme evil. The goal of
his faith was Nirvana, or complete non-existence, and the
man who achieved this was greater than the gods. Nirvana,
not God, played the central part in his religion.
It is possible, if we define God in the broadest
terms as the central goal of any religion, to say that
Nirvana is Gautama * s God , but to claim this would mean that
logically, Gautama had no thoughts about God, for how can
one have thoughts about that which has neither being nor
non-being?
It is interesting to note that Hume in his Treasure
T « 2
Streeter,Burnett H., The Buddha and the Christ (New
York: The Macmillan Co., 1955)"p.54
44
House of Living Religions in which he has collected selec
tions under various headings from many of the sacred
scriptures of the world lists no passages from the sacred
writings of Buddhism in the first seven chapters which
deal with the nature, worship, adoration and praise of the
one Supreme God.
We must conclude that the founder of Buddhism did
not believe in God in the accepted religious sense of the
word.
MAHAVIRA
The same is true of the founder of Jainism. "Man,
thou art thy own friendI Why wishest thou for a friend
beyond thyself?"14 is a quotation from _the sacred scrip
tures of Jainism attributed to Mahavira, the founder.
Again we read:
A monk or a nun should not say: *The god of the
sky I the god of the thunderstorm! the god of the
lightning! the god who brings the rain!.... 1^
This passage, of course, reflects a rejection of
the polytheism of Hinduism, rather than a rejection of
monotheism, but nowhere in the scriptures attributed to
14
The Sacred Books of the East, 22:3S
^^The Sacred Books of the East, 22:152
45
Mahavira do we find belief in one Supreme Being. In the
case of Mahavira as in that of Gautama, Hume-finds no
quotations from Jainism to list under the heading. One
Supreme Being.1^
Mahavira*s thought about God is in many respects
similar to that of the Buddha, though with the latter it
was more an agnostic attitude, whereas with Mahavira we
have positive denial.
We have seen that historically Mahavira preceded
the Buddha by a few years, and, like the latter, his
religious beliefs were reactions to the polytheism of the
Hinduism in which he was reared. Hume writes.
Jainism started by denying any Supreme Being in
the world. Mahavira rejected the whole current
Hindu polytheistic belief in various natural and
supernatural powers as quite superfluous. He
condemned the practice of praying to, or even talk
ing about any deity.17
Let us not think that the Buddhists and Jains of
to-day consider themselves atheists. In the introduction
of this paper we have mentioned the tendency on the part
of members of a faith to deify the founder of the faith,
and this process is clearly in evidence both in Buddhism
Hume,Robert E..Treasure-House of the Living
Religions. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952) first
chapter#
The World * s Living Religions. (New York:
Charles Scribner * s Sons, 1951.) p.48
46
and Jainism. Though these two founders did not believe
in a Supreme Being worthy of worship and to whom it was
profitable for men to pray, in each case the founder him
self has become the object of the worship and prayers of
their followers.
Mrs. Stevenson writes:
There is a strange mystery in Jainism; for though
it acknowledges no personal God, knowing him neither
as Creator, Father, or Friend, yet it will never
allow itself to be called an atheistic system. In
deed there is no more deadly insult that one could
level at a Jain than to call him a nastika or
atheist,18
But in this paper we are concerned not with the
beliefs of the followers, but with the beliefs of the
founders of religion. And in the case of Mahavira as
with the Buddha we must conclude that he did not believe
in God.
NANAK
The third of our Indian founders, Nanak, the
founder of Sikhism, as we have seen, lived much later than
his fellow founders. A contemporary of Martin Luther, he
was reared in a Hinduism already influenced by the growth
of Mohammedanism. His religion was a deliberate attempt
18
Stevenson,Mrs.Sinclair (Margaret), The Heart of
Jainism. (Oxford: Humphrey Milford,Oxford University Press
1915) p.298
47
to unite these two faiths.
With the strong monotheism we find in Islam, we are
not surprised to find Nanak a thelst. In the preamble of
the Japji, a part of the Granth, the sacred scriptures of
Sikhism, we read:
There is but One God whose name is true.
The Creator devoid of fear and enmity.
Immortal, unborn, self-existent, great and bountiful.
The True One was in the beginning.
The True One is now.
The True One also shall be.l^
He thought of God as the creator, the all powerful, the
bounteous who provides men with their sustenance and has
certain destined work for men to do. He is the all-wise and
knows the secrets of men* s hearts. He is approachable. Men
can seek his protection through prayer and worship and receive
it. Yet he is ultimately unknowable, "0 God, Thou art un
fathomable. I cannot find thy depth."
We find at least one use of the term "fatherin
Nanak*s thought about God, In his conception of God he
seems to come closer to Jesus* thought than any of the other
founders we are studying.
19
Hume,Robert E,, Treasure-House of the Living
Religions. (New York: Charles Scribner *s Sons, 1952) p.5
OA
The Sisters of the Spinning Wheel, translated by
Puran Singh. (New York: E.P.Dutton & Co.) p.105
48
Hume quotes these passages from the Granth:
The perfect compassionate God filleth every place.
He is merciful to all
And charisheth creatures in divers ways.
At the beginning and the end, God is ever our
helper.^
(He is) the Remover of sickness, sorrow and sin.'^-*-
However, despite these sublime thoughts there seems
to be some superstition in Nanak* s thought about God. We
are told that the ancient Hebrews dared not mention God* s
name because of His awful holiness. The pendulum of this
superstition swung the other way with Nanak. We have seen
in his **call" he believed himself called to repeat God* s
name with the implication that there is some special grace
in the mere repetition of the name.
However, even if we do regard this as superstition
it cannot offset the fact that Nanak* s thought about God
reaches to the sublime.
CONFUCIUS
In the previous chapter we have already seen that
Confucius, the great founder of the official religion of
China did not seem to have a * * call** to his work at any
definite time in his life. We indicated that perhaps this
PI
Hume,Robert E..Treasure-House of Living Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1932.) p.14
49
was due to his lack of belief in a God who could "call"
him. This explanation would undoubtedly be acceptable to
many scholars as it is often said that Confucius did not
found a religion, but rather a system of ethics. Potter,
though he calls Confucianism a religion says this about
the founder:
Confucius was the first Humanist. He urged men
not to depend upon supernatural beings for their
progress but to practice self-culture.^^
Despite such opinions, however, most writers see in
Confucius’ thought about Heaven something very kin to belief
in a personal God. In the introduction to Dr. James Legge’s
translation of the Chinese Classics the author writes:
It has been charged against him (Confucius) that
he ignores the personal God and but slightly recognizes
a future life. It would seem a sufficient refutation
to the first charge, that Confucius observed the
religious ceremonies which fully enough recognized the
idea. It would not be fair to charge him thus with
these words on his lips, "He who offends against Heaven
has none to whom he can pray" (Analects 8:16 and 14:13)
"But there is Heaven that knows me." Would any one
question that Heaven as here used is a proper name?
Other quotations from the Analects would seem to
indicate the truth of this position. "Heaven is going to use
your master as a bell with its wooden tongue.When
PP
Potter,Charles Francis, The Story of Religion.(Hew
York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1929.)p.182
^^Analects 3:24
50
Confucius was visiting a sick friend he is quoted as say
ing, "It is killing him. It is the appointment of Heaven,
alasl"S4 Or again in coversation he said, "Wherein I have
done improperly, may Heaven reject meI may Heaven reject
me
Despite, then, his seeming lack of a "call" from
God, Confucius certainly believed-of Heaven what the other
founders believed of God. All things originate in Heaven.
Like Paul he believed that the rulers and officials of the
land, "the powers that be" are ordained of Heaven. Heaven
is intelligent and concerned with the affairs of men.
"Great Heaven is intelligent, clear seeing, and is with you
in all your goings."S6
True, Confucius* emphasis was on morality and ethics
yet surely it was morality and ethics grounded in his belief
in the God whom he called "Heaven."
LAO-TSE
According to Van Buskirk the supreme principle in
Lao-Tse*s thought, the Tao, means "the power that realizes
24 ^ ^ _
Analects 6:8
" 6:26
26
Hume,Robert E..Treasure-House of the Living Religions
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952.) p.l5
51
d e s i g n He likens it to the "Logos" conception in Greek
thought, and thinks that Lao-tse did not believe in a
Supreme Being in the strictly religious sense.
On the other side of the question we have Hume quot
ing under the heading The One Supreme God the following
passages from the Tao-Teh-King:
How pure and still is the Supreme Being!
How deep and unfathomable
As if the honoured Ancestor of all things!
Knowing the Eternal means enlightenment.
It is only the Supreme that excels in imparting
itself to men and enabling them to achieve merit.
Taking the above passages alone one might readily say
that the "Tao" for Lao-tse is closely akin to "Heaven" of
Confucius* thought, and therefore he comes as near as his
great contemporary to a belief in God.
However, Lao-tse*s conception of the Tao precludes
much of what other founders attributed to God. The Tao
is unknowable, the eternally inactive, a principle far
beyond our conceptions of will and purpose and love; a
conception certainly more akin to the Absolute of philoso
phy than to the God of Religion as most religions regard
P7
Van Buskirk,William R., The Saviors of Mankind.
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1929.T p.10
^®Hume,Robert E..Treasure-House of the Living
Religions. (New York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1952; p.6
52
Him.
Hume writes of the Tao, "the chief religious teaching
in the Tao-Teh-King is concerning one eternal, impersonal,
mystical. Supreme B e i n g ."^9
The God of Lao-tse, then, is one with whom man can
have a relationship, but hardly one who could have a con
scious relationship with man.
In the beginning of this chapter we stated that a
man’s thought about God would naturally affect his thought
about himself and especially his thought about his own
relation to God. It is to this feature of the thought of
these founders of the great religions that we now address
ourselves.
pQ
Hume, Robert E., The World* s Living Religions .
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931) 1 . p.138
CHAPTER IV
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
What did our fotmders of religion think about their
own relationship with God?
Before answering that question we should bear in
mind the kinds of relationship possible. First there is
the teacher of men who does not regard himself as having
any particular, special relationship with God at all,-
certainly not different from that of other men. Then
there is the prophetic self-consciousness, the one who knows
himself to be a man like all other men, but who believes
himself to be inspired by God; to be "sent" by God to bring
a special message to mankind. It is the "thus saith the
Lord" self-consciousness, but he is just one prophet among
others. Then there are those who believe themselves to be
unique teachers of God’s truth. And finally there are
those who believe themselves to be mystical incarnations of
the very God Himself. They are "one with God." Into which
of these categories do these founders of religion fit?
JESOS
The tendency among the followers of any given reli
gious leader is usually to claim more for him than he
54
believed and claimed'for himself. In our introduction we
have already pointed out that this is due to the scientific
spirit of our modern time.
Dean Willard Sperry of the Harvard Theological School
can be cited as an example of this modern liberal point of
view. In the concluding chapter of his book, "Yes. But-".
he writes:
... since we (moderns) cannot be certain about his
Messianic self-consciousness, whether he had any
such self-consciousness and if so in what way he
construed it, we are well within the facts in say
ing that the whole subsequent doctrine of the
divinity of Jesus went far beyond anything that he
claimed for himself; indeed much of it the man of
Galilee would not have understood and most of it
he would have repudiated."^
H.G.Wells in his Outline of History takes the same
position. He says it is difficult to find any words actually
ascribed to Jesus in which he claims to be the Messiah or
part of the Godhead.^
To reduce Jesus to this convenient and easily explain
able position, however, is to do violence, I believe, to
many and the best of Christian sources. Traditional
Christianity has claimed for him a unique place in human
1
Sperry,Willard L., "Yes. But-" (New York: Harper &
Bros., 1931.) p.164-5
^Wells,H.G., The Outline of History. (Garden City,
New York: Garden City Publishing Co.,Inc., 1920) p.499
55
history as the Christ, the Son of God. Is this claim a plus
accretion to the faith, or is it based on Jesus’ om thought
about himself?
We have said in the chapter on the "call" that belief
in the possibility of such divine calls goes deeper than
just the evidence of the sources. It depends upon our con
ception of God, ^whether or not we believe God to be the
creator of human life and that He can and does take an active
part in guiding human history. If we do not believe that
then we approach history and religion with the a priori
conviction that they can and must be explained in purely
human terms.
But no one can understand Jesus with that approach,
for his approach to life from childhood was based on the
belief that human history can be and must be the fulfilling
the will of a Loving God. This was his thought of salva
tion both for individuals and for humanity as a whole.
We.have seen in the previous chapter, in his thought
about God that to him such a relationship between God and
men, between God and one man, was not only possible, but
natural and to be expected. God is the loving Father Creator
who is vitally concerned about the welfare of his husband
men and the integrity of their behavior. He has "sent"
servants to them and when they did not respond He "sends"
His son. Men are God’s "children". Naturally any father
56
of children would take the initiative in guiding his
children for their welfare. He would not leave them entirely
alone to work out their destiny. He would ^ something about
it. Did Jesus believe that God’s loving doing something for
men found its highest, complete, and final expression in him?
Did he believe his life and teaching and death were to re
veal God’s love, will, and purpose to God’s children?
If the meaning of life begins vfith men and their
aspirations then this is supernaturalism. If the meaning
of life begins with God, the loving Father Creator, then it
is natural,-as natural as any father doing something for the
good of his children, and the rejection of it is sub-natural
for it is the refusal to recognize the whole family. It is
the rejection of the fundamental part played by the Father -
the head of the house. Yes, given Jesus’ thought of God,
then the world would be sub-natural without the Son of God
in historyI
This is our endeavour to show that what we:shall find
Jesus’ thought about his relation to God to be follows
naturally from his thought about God. We now turn to the
sources for evidence of what he believed.
We have already mentioned the baptism experience as
the time of his "call." This experience is given the first
and so a prominent place in Mark’s gospel. The account here
tells us that Jesus heard the voice of God saying: "Thou art
57
my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Practically the
same words are recorded in Matthew and Luke. Whether others
heard the words or not makes little difference. The impor
tant point is that the experience which began Jesus’ ministry
was nut a sudden revelation of the suffering and needs of
men but of a relationship with God. His thought at that time
was not that men needed a Messiah therefore he would strive
to be one, but it was, (if I may be permitted to put words
to his thoughts) "I am God’s Son" - yes, in a unique sense,
and being God’s Son meant a special work to do. He must get
away somewhere to think through what that work was. He did -
into the wilderness.
A discussion of the Messianic conception belongs in
our next chapter but one angle of it is significant here.
Ever since the Babylonian Captivity the hope of Israel had
been increasingly placed in the coming Messiah. The idea
at first was of a conquering son of David who m^ould by force
subdue their enemies and establish the throne of David for
ever. But, as years passed and the Jews found themselves
still a subject people, first under Babylon, then the
Ptolemies, then the Romans, the hope for deliverance by a
human Messiah waned, but with its waning, the belief that
God himself would intervene for His people grew. The Divine
Son of Man of the apocalyptic Book of Daniel Is the expres-
58
Sion of this hope.^ Jesus knew and shared this hope. He
believed himself to be the fulfillment of it.
Knowing this about the Messianic expectation puts
new significance into Peter’s confession of faith at
Caesarea Phillipi, which is recorded in the synoptic gospels.
When Jesus asked his disciples, "but who say ye that I am,"
Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ,"4 and in making that
confession Peter, who also knew the Messianic hope, knew
the deeper meaning of it, Thou a.rt the Divine Son of Man
sent from God, or Thou art God’s intervention for the saving
of Israel. This confession objectifies Jesus’ own convic
tion. Others - Peter - were grasping it, - and they have to
this day.
The conviction of the Baptism experience seems to
have been repeated at the Transfiguration when again the
voice of God called him "beloved son.This incident is
also recorded in all three synoptic gospels.
But surely the crucifixion itself is the clearest
evidence that Jesus thought of himself as having a unique
relationship with God. Not the trial before Pilate but the
trial before Caiaphas was the one that sentenced him. The
Daniel 7:IS,14
^ark 8:29
SMark 9:7
59
former trial was simply a form to secure the death sentence
as the Jewish courts were deprived under Roman law of the
power to put a man to death. The charge before Pilate of
Jesus’ claim to be "King of the Jews" was given to make
him appear a political enemy of Ceasar because the high
priests knew if they charged him on the religious issue,
Pilate who stood in the Roman tradition of tolerance to the
religions of her conquered peoples, would throw the case
out of court. His real sentence was from Caiaphas when he
acknowledged himself to be the Christ, the son of the
Blessed.^ The real charge against him was blasphemy.
Would Jesus have allowed himself to be sentenced to death
on the charge if he himself had not really believed his
amazing claim? There would have been no blasphemy in claim
ing to be "just a great religious genius and teacher." The
blasphemy was that he claimed to be the very Son of God!
And the high priests knew if he claimed that among the people,
and they accepted his claim, then their day was done. And
so they had him crucified!
The cross on every church in this land - even the
Unitarian churches!- is a constant reminder to us that Jesus
thought of himself as, and claimed to be, "The Christ, the
son of the Blessed." For, had there been no such claim.
®Mark 14:61,62
60
there would have been no crucifixion•
MOHAMMED
Of Mohammed and his relationship with God or Allah,
Burrows writes:
(he was) completely convinced that he was the chosen
spokesman of God. We must remember also his restraint
in never claiming a divine nature or miraculous powers.’
If we accept this statement of Mohammed’s thought
about his relationship with God, then it is a relationship
vastly different from that which Jesus claimed. It is the
prophetic relationship - a relationship of inspiration
rather than one based on who he was. Mohammed himself re
garded his relationship with God as an entirely passive
thing. He did not embody God’s will and thoughts in his
own person. He was simply the passive mouth-piece of God.
In the Koran he describes his experience of receiving
the first revelation in these words.
By the star when it riseth your fellow erreth not,
neither hath he gone astray. Nor doth he speak his
own fancy. Verily it is no other than a revelation
that has been inspired,®
and a little further on, "And he revealed unto his servant
that which he revealed."
7
Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 19351p.161
^The Koran Sura 53
61
Mohammed certainly thought of himself as in the line
of the prophets of God - a servant of God - perhaps the
greatest of the prophets. We have already mentioned the
creed of Islam, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is
His prophet." In the belief of his followers he is coupled
with their belief in God as though he were something very
special in the line of prophets. And very likely this
creed reflects fairly accurately his own thinking on the
matter.
However, his earlier revelations reveal a greater
uncertainty than the later ones. Muir writes that after
Mohammed’s first revelation he went through a period of
doubt and despondency, sometimes even wondering if his
revelations were from God or from Satan.® During this time
he was comforted and encouraged by his faithful wife
Khadija and her cousin Waraka.
In this early period in Mecca he also recanted one
of his revelations. He was distressed because the leading
men of the community were not converted, and apparently
made a concession to them by a revelation which recognized
their goddesses. "These are exalted females whose intercess
ion verily is to be sought after." This revelation caused a
9
Muir, Sir William, The Life of Mohammed. (New and
revised edition by T.H.Weir. Edinburgh: J.Grant, 1912)
62
great furor among the faithful and he later recanted it
saying it had come from the Evil One.
Another quotation from the Koran of this Meccan
period reveals his thought about himself, "I do not say that
I have the treasures of God; nor do I know the unseen; nor
do I say, ’Verily I am an angel. . .
Mohammed’s early period of prophecy was one of
questioning his own authority.
With success at Medina, however, came more self
assurance and more authorative revelations. He became "the
Apostle of God. "Say, obey God and the Apostle.He
became the last and greatest of the prophets, the "seal of
the prophets" who had come to confirm the scriptures.
If what the religious founders believed about them
selves is any criterion of their comparative spiritual
authority, then Mohammed cannot be classed with Jesus, for
not only did he not claim the unique sonship which Jesus
claimed, he deliberately rejected it as a possibility.
Referring to Jesus, he wrote:
If the God of Mercy had a son, the first would
I be to worship him. But far be the Lord of the
Heavens and of the Earth, the Lord of the Throne,
from that which they (Christians) impute to him.^^
^^The Koran 11:33
The Koran 3:29
^^The Koran 43:81
65
Even in his rejection is an unwitting recognition of
Jesus’ superiority. "If the God of Mercy had a son, the
first would I he to worship him." Mohammed himself recog
nized that if the Christian beliefs about the Christ are
true then Christ is a being far superior to himself; a
being who would command his worship. Once he conceded the
truth of the Christian claims then he knew his relation
ship to Christ would be that of prophet to the Son of God,
of worshipper to his object of worship. Thus, granted the
truth of the claims of both, the prophet by his own con
fession would be a worshipper of the Christ.
ZOROASTER
In the Gathasl® (Songs or Psalms) of Zoroastrianism,
which are the oldest source of information about Zoroaster
and which are believed by many scholars to be the work of
the prophet h i m s e l f ,^4 found this written in connection
with his first vision when he believed himself ushered by
the archangel into the very presence of Ahura Mazda. The
15
Seventeen songs or psalms embedded in the Yasnas.
^^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions.(New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931) p.200 and
Hastings,James, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, l92^ Article "Avesta".
6é
"Wise Lord" is speaking: "This man is found for me here
who alone has hearkened to our ennunciations, Zarathustra
Spitama."1®
Already quoted in the chapter on "the call", this
passage is helpful here for it reveals in Zoroaster’s mind
a sense of special choice by God. He is the one who
"alone has hearkened." Again from the Gathas we read:
"Therefore I cry to Thee; behold it Lord! desiring helpful
grace for me, as friend bestows on friend.’ ’ ^® He was a
chosen prophet and a "friend" of the Lord’s.
Although these visions of the prophet have been
greatly enlarged upon by the later writings of the faith,
still, as Jackson^believes, they have their beginning in
the Gathas and are therefore the best evidence we have of
Zoroaster’s thought. Though there were seven visions in
all, only in the first did he believe himself to be in the
actual presence of Ahura Mazda. As with Mohammed, the
other six were mediated to him through archangels. This
may indicate a sense of the unapproachableness of God which
would be in keeping with his more philosophical conception
^^Yasnas 29:8
46:S
^"^Jackson,A.V.Williams, Zoroaster. The Prophet of
Ancient Iran. (London: The Macmillan Co., 1901) p.56ff.
65
mentioned in the previous chapter.
Yet there is one beautiful section of the Gathas
which seems to reveal an almost Christ-like sense of God’s
will being done within him. He prays to Ahura Mazda
Yea, pray thou thyself within me through these
holy powers. Ask thou thyself our questions, those
which shall be asked by us of thee.^®
Surely this should be called the Pater Noster of
Zoroaster rather than the Ahura Vairya (Yasnas 27:13)which
is usually styled so, for here indeed is beautifully ex
pressed the spirit of "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done."
Zoroaster considered himself directly commissioned
by God to preach the religion of "righteousness". If his
dates as given in the first chapter are accepted he was the
contemporary of Jeremiah, another great prophet of righteous
ness. He is well worthy of the title given him, "The
Prophet of Ancient Iran,"
GAUTAMA
We have already concluded that Gautama the Buddha did
not believe in God in the accepted religious meaning of the
word. One would not expect him, then, to have thoughts about
his relationship to God.
This seems a strange thing for a founder born among a
18
Yasnas 43:10
66
people often styled ^the most spiritual race in the world,^
the people of India. How can this be explained?
The degenerate condition of the Hinduism of his time
might be given as the reason. It has been pointed out that
he reacted against the polytheism of the people - even talk
ing about the gods to his mind was unprofitable. But Jesus,
Mohammed, and Zoroaster all reacted against and sought to
purify the corrupted religion of their time.
Again the lack of Monotheism in Hinduism might ex
plain it. But certainly the conception of Brahma, the
World Soul in Hinduism had monotheistic possibilities.
The real reason probably lies in the fact that
Gautama’s religion was one of negation - of pessimism. He
was not inspired by a glorious vision of the Great and Good
God as were Jesus, Mohammed and Zoroaster, or by the great
possibilities in men as was Confucius. He was neither
Prophet, Servant, nor Son, for there was no one to inspire
him, no one to serve, no one to call "Father.His religion
was not from God to life, thereby bringing God’s power and
hope to life despite its manifest evils. It wq.s from life-
its suffering and hopelessness - to the only hope and peace
he could see, the cessation of all desire, of life itself,
nothingness, oblivion, Nirvana.
Gautama’s faith is what happens when men lose God,
not find him. One great truth he did reveal in an unsus-
67
pecting negative way. Without God, life is nothing. And
without God, that is just what he sought. The desire for
Nirvana follows disillusionment, and disillusionment follows
loss of faith in God.
The introduction to this paper mentions the modern
tendency, born of the scientific spirit, to divest religion
of all its supernaturalism. By this is meant anything which
is explained as God’s doing in human life as opposed to
explainable human activity. In the Buddha’s thought is
found just what happens when "God’s doings" are left out or
ignored in human life - disillusionment, then the desire
for the "peace" of oblivion. For Gautama worked out his
whole system himself without claiming any divine revelation
or dependence on God. By contrasting Jesus and the Buddha
one is convinced it is the infusion of the natural with the
supernatural which gives the natural life, and the desire
for more of it. It is the infusion of man’s life with God’s
life which saves man from disillusionment and oblivion and
makes him feel at home in his environment. That is'what
God did in the life of Jesus. He infused man’s life with
His, and made men feel at home in their environment.
MAHAVIRA
The thought of Mahavira is comparable to that of the
Buddha, only more so; for, whereas the Buddha was agnostic
68
toward God - he did not know, and did not seek to know Him,
Mahavira positively denied God’s existence. As with the
Buddha, so with Mahavira, one cannot write of a relationship
which he did not believe existed.
One comment should be made here, however. The fact
that both the Buddha and Mahavira in the later development
of the religions they founded were made the deities and ob
jects of the worship of their followers, is a strikingly
significant one. Within the human soul is a fundamental
longing towards an object of worship and dependence beyond
humanity. It is ridiculous to talk of the necessity to
strip religion of the supernatural or superhuman when one of
the most fundamental characteristics of humanity is a long
ing for that which is greater than and beyond itself. Let
the very founders of the great religions themselves, as did
Gautama and Mahavira, deliberately deny a Supreme Being and
object of worship, and their followers of natural human
necessity will find the supernatural somewhereI
NANAK
The final words revealed to Nanak by God in the "call"
experience were these, "My Name is God, the primal Brahma.
And thou art the Divine Guru". "Guru" means "teacher" or
"messenger".
So far there has been a Son, prophets, and those who
69
rejected thought of a divine relationship among these
founders. With Nanak there is a new category, the divine
"teacher." Of course the teaching function was performed
by all of them, and insofar as they regarded their work as
revelation, their teaching would be "divine teaching". But
Nanak evidently thought of himself specifically as a divine
Teacher, or Guru.
And there is a distinction. Christians are wont to
point out that Jesus’ authority rests as much in what he was
as in what he taught. In fact it is often pointed out that
he taught nothing new, that all he taught can be found in
the sacred scriptures of the Jews, the Old Testament, but
that those teachings coming through what he was received a
new purity, a new emphasis, and new authority. Nanak’s
emphasis was perhaps not so much on what he was as on what
he taught.
His revelation was for a specific purpose, an attempt
to unite the two great religions of his time, Hinduism and
Mohammedanism. For this purpose he believed himself to be
a teacher "sent" from God.
As with Jesus, Mohammed, and Zoroaster, his was cer
tainly a God-centered calling. Before his great revelation
he would often repeat "I am Thine, 0 Lord." He thought of
himself in relation to God as a special teacher of divine
truth.
70
CONFUCIUS
The faith of Confucius was not a God-centered one as
was that of Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster, and Nanak. Yet it
is also not a negative faith as with Gautama and Mahavira.
In the chapter about the founders’ thought about God it was
pointed out that his conception of "Heaven" almost approxi
mates a personal God. He did not reject belief in a Supreme
Being. However, human society, rather than Heaven was the
centre of his faith.
At an early age he had his mind "bent", not on his
Father’s, or Heaven’s business, but "on learning", learning
the ancient codes of human morality. In the thought about
the "call" of the founders it was found that Confucius
apparently had no such experience to make him feel that God
had "sent" him to his work. His was the steady and natural
growth of learning. His primary interest was not to reveal
God but to teach men how to live in society at peace with
one another.
He in no way claimed a unique relationship with Heaven.
In fact one of the most attractive things about his thought
was his humility about himself. Though he urged men to
emulate the "superior man" he admitted that he himself had
not attained to that goal. Burrows quotes this passage
which is to the point, "I compile and transmit to posterity"
71
he said, "hut write not any new thing. I believe and love
the ancients."In learning I am superior to others, but
I cannot by any means exhibit the man of superior virtue in
my conduct.He goes on to enumerate in just what ways
he does not attain to the superior man.
Yet, as George Foot Moore^l points out, in 1906 an
Imperial Edict raised Confucius to the same rank with Heaven
and Earth. And this humble man, who knew his learning, but
also knew that in his life he did not attain to his own
human ideal, let alone having any unique relation with God,-
became an object of worship!
LAO-TSE
When thinking about Lao-tse’s thought about God we
concluded that his God, or the "Tao" was one with which man
could have a relationship, but hardly one which could have
a conscious relationship with man. Moore hints at that
relationship which man can have with the Tao by stating that
though Taoism is "pure irréligion" it still held the eternal
satisfaction of religion, for men could have a "mystical
joy" when they believed themselves "one with the Tao."^^
^^Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955) p.40
20
Ibid. p.45
^^oore,George Foot, The History of Religions. (Hew
York: 1915-19) Vol.l p.22
^^Ibld. p.55-56
72
He is writing here of the religion of Taoism rather than of
Lao-tse’s own thought but the sources about Lao-tse him
self are so meagre that this perhaps can serve at least to
indicate what the "Old Philosopher" may have thought.
The relationship with the Tao is a mystical, rather
than a personal one. To be "one with the Tao" is like our
expression "to be one with nature" in the Wordsworthian
sense. One does not think of Nature as being conscious of
men but men do feel sometimes mystically one with her in
spirit.
In some such mystical way Lao-tse may have thought
of his relationship with the Tao.
But as Moore also points out, this speculative mysti
cism was too much for the common mind, and Taoism soon degen
erated. Lao-tse himself became a god whose worship was
ordered by the state in 156 B. C.
A great founder of religion usually is conscious of a
two-fold relationship, a special relationship with God and
a special relationship with his fellowmen. This chapter has
dealt with the thought of some of the founders regarding the
former. The question, what did these founders think about
their relationship with their fellowmen?, will be the subject
of the next chapter.
CHAPTER V
RELATIONSHIP.WITH MEN
The great founders of religion usually come to their
work with a two-fold consciousness; a sense of special or
unique relationship with God and of a special or unique re
lationship with their fellowmen. The emphasis of one or
the other will vary with different founders, and sometimes
one or the other seems to foe left out. This chapter is
concerned with the latter part of this dual consciousness,-
what the founders thought about their relationship vfith
their fellowmen.
JE808
The terms usually used of Jesus to express this
relationship are "Christ" or "Messiah" or "Savior." Have
these terms been ascribed to him since his time, or did he
think of himself as such?
First of all, Jesus certainly knew himself to be a
man "of like passions" with all other men. The emphasis
in the last chapter on his thought about himself as "Son
of God" in no way invalidates this claim. Those who fear
loss of Jesus’ real "oneness" with men from the doctrine
of the Incarnation simply do not know the meaning of incar-
74
nation. The fourth gospel interprets it as "The Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us," and that is just what it
does mean. The making flesh was no sham or appearance.
Jesus had no sources of spiritual knowledge or foresight
not open to other men. If he did, then there was no real
incarnation. The making flesh was not complete. We may
believe Christ was made flesh through the normal channel of
human birth since Mark is our chief source of information
and he does not include the birth narratives in his gospel.
He came unto his own in the sense that he was one with our
humanity.
Yet in the thought of this man was the belief that
he was the savior of men.
The earliest Christian writings are the letters of
Paul^ to the various churches he established, and what is
their burden? The teachings and life story of his Master?
No. Paul seldom quotes the words of Jesus or tells an in
cident of his life. The glorious message of his letters
from first to last is Jesus as Savior of men. The actual
life and message pales before the fact.
Now the fact that Paul had such a clear conviction
about Jesus as the divine savior of men not more than 20
^Thought by most N.T. scholars to be written between
45 and 65 Â.D., only 20 to 40 years after death of Jesus.
75
to 40 years after the latter’s death, is strong, though
perhaps not conclusive evidence that Jesus thought about him
self in like manner. It is true such beliefs about the
divinity of a founder of religion have developed in the other
religions even when the founder himself denied their possi
bility, but this change has come many centuries after the
life of the founder. The fact that Paul was almost a con
temporary of Jesus makes it extremely unlikely that this is
true of his letters. That they reflect substantially what
Jesus thought about himself is more likely the case.
The other early source, the Gospel of Mark, is full
of Jesus’ thought about himself as Savior of Mankind, from
the time when he spoke "with authority" in the synagogue at
Capernaum to the crucifixion. In all the three Synoptic
Gospels, but treated most fully in Mark, is the story of the
disciples’ dispute as to who would be greatest in the Kingdom,
Jesus took a little child and set him in their midst and said
"Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my
name, receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me receiveth not
me, but him that sent me."^ Jesus means that through him to
God, then, is the path of salvation. Another familiar scene,
also in the three Synoptics, the authenticity of which none
^ Mark 9:37
76
would care to question, is of Christ blessing the little
children saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me^
forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God.
We would all agree that in Jesus’ mind the goal of salvation
is the Kingdom of God, but his invitation is to "come unto
me." He is the entrance to the Kingdom.
Potter, in his Story of Religion^ uses the incident of
the rich young man, with Jesus’ objection to the address
"Good Master", as an indication of his rejection of the idea
of uniqueness which has given rise to the orthodox christology.
But when one finishes reading about the incident in Mark one
finds that it really supports the other side of the question.
Having obeyed all the laws the young man was still dissatis
fied. Jesus loved him. Yes, there was one higher thing he
could do, get rid of all that bound him "and come, follow me."^
Later the disciples were discussing the incident. Who
then could be saved? Jesus says with men salvation of a rich
man is impossible, but with God all things are possible,-then
he immediately proceeds to characterize salvation as leaving
all for his sake and the gospel’s. He thought of himself
5
Mark 10:14
^Potter,Charles Francis, The Story of Religion* (New
York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1929.7 p.226
^Mark 10:21
77
as the way of this salvation only possible to Godl He
thought of himself as God’s Savior of Men.
It might be argued that Jesus thought of himself as the
savior of the Jews, only, for much of the current thought of
his time would have placed Messiah in this narrow category.
But to claim that would do violence to the whole spirit of
his life. He was in the line of the great Hebrew prophets
rather than the priests. He knew the universal vision of
Messiah’s work contained in Deutero-Isaiah.^ In Luke’s
Gospel we read:
And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up:
and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on
the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was
delivered unto him. the book of the prophet Isaiah.?
The account goes on to tell how he read a passage from Isaiah
61 which is a chapter from Deutero-Isaiah. If such was his
custom it can be assumed he knew the book and the vision of
the universal reign of God’s servant which it contains. He
knew the Servant of the Lord was to be " a light to lighten
the Gentiles." And the fact that the Christian community so
soon went beyond the bounds of Judaism is ample witness that
his followers had caught the universalism of their founder’s
^Knudson,Albert C., The Beacon Lights of Prophecy.
(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1914.) p 274ff *
7
Luke 4:16,17. There is a parallel account in Mark
6. Though the reading from Isaiah is not mentioned, the
account is substantially the same.
78
thought.
MOHAMMED
It is quite clear that Mohammed’s thought about God to
a large extent shaped his thinking about his relationship to
his fellowmen. Of course there is no thought in his mind of
claiming to be other than a man who had received revelations
from God. Certainly not at his early period in Mecca. In
fact he had great doubts sometimes of the divine source of
his revelations.® With the political success at Medina,
however, he began to claim more authority, he %ecame the
"Seal of the Prophets" and the last of the Prophets. But
always he knew himself to be a man.
But he carried his thought about God into his rela
tionships with men. He thought of God primarily in terms of
all powerful Will and Judgement. As God’s prophet he must
impose his will and judgement on his fellowmen. This he did
with amazing success after his flight to Medina. The great
est theocracy of the world’s history was built up, and after
his final capture of Mecca he became the temporal as well as
the spiritual ruler of all Arabia.
His relation to men became one of strong, though often
8
The Koran. Translated from Arabic By the Rev.J.M.
Rodwell,M.A. (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1861 ) p.5
See footnote on Fatrah.
79
cruel and ruthless political leadership which seemed to
awaken a fierce, almost fanatical loyalty in the hearts of
his followers. He is far removed from the loving Savior
about whom we have been thinking.
Perhaps the word which has given one well known name
to the religion -he founded will give a key to his relation
with men. It is the word, "resigned", a translation of
"Islam." The believer "resigns his face to God."^ This
emphasis on submission of course follows from his emphasis
on the will and judgement of God. But, unfortunately, he
more and more claimed that same submission to himself from
his followers. At first friendly to the Jews, when they
resisted he cruelly persecuted them. He led his followers
to cruel vengeance on the Meccan tribe which had forced him
to flee the city.
And his thought lacked the universalism of Jesus. It
is often said to-day that the Mohammedans practice brother
hood within their faith far more than the Christians do. A
Moslem is a brother to all other Moslems regardless of
colour or nationality. This is doubtless true and Christians
could learn from them, but it is a brotherhood of the faith,
not a brotherhood of man. The bloody history of Islam testi
fies to a marked lack of brotherly feeling toward those out-
9
The Koran 2:106
80
side the faith. This spirit, I believe, can be traced to the
spirit of the founder. He believed himself to be the chosen
prophet of an all powerful God of Will and Judgement and as
such demanded the submission, "resignation", of all believers
He had little mercy on those who opposed him. There was no
spirit of "Father, forgive them for they know not what they
do." about Mohammed. He came to men to demand submission to
an all powerful God rather than to save.
ZOROASTER
Van Buskirk presents the interesting thesis that
Zoroaster developed his great religion to combat certain
specific evils with which his countrymen were faced^^. Of
course this could be said of all the great religions.
Zoroaster is called a prophet, but he is much more
that a prophet. In a way he combines Jesus and Confucius
in his relation to men. His work among men was truly God-
centered, yet he attacked and endeavoured to right certain
practical problems. He is the Moses of Zoroastrianism,
welding a nomadic people into a settled agricultural race.
His people were suffering from corrupt Turanian rule.
He fought this by trying to convert the offenders. He also
taught his people the care of animals and agriculture. The
^^Van Buskirk, William R., The Saviors of Mankind.
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1929.7
81
seven visions already mentioned are full of the thought of
his teaching about, and control of, practical things. And
he taught his people to fight. In fact it is believed he
himself died violently at the hands of a Turanian during a
battle.
He did not think of himself, then, as purely a spirit
ual savior as did Jesus. The religious conception of salva
tion was in his thought, but he thought of his task for men
chiefly in terms of building a socie%y of righteousness
based on his belief in Ahura Mazda, the God of righteousness.
The Gathas record his reply when the archangel drew near him
and asked "And whose is thine allegiance?",^to which his
first answer was, "To the wicked would that I could be a
strong tormentor and avenger, but to the righteous may I
be a mighty help and joy."^^
It is fair to say, then, that Zoroaster thought of
himself in his relationship to men as a deliverer more than
as a savior. He endeavoured to save them, not so much from
their inward sins as did Jesus, as from poverty and oppres
sion and ignorance. The Gathas are full of promises of
doom for the corrupt priesthood of his time and for the
11
Jackson,A.V.Williams, Zoroaster. The Pronhet of
Ancient Iran. (London: The Macmillan Co., 1901.) p.152
12
"Yasnas 45:7,8.
82
cruel and corrupt Turanian overlords. We have already seen
in our first chapter how early in his life he showed a deep
concern for the sufferings of the poor by seeking out the
man who most espoused their cause and co-operating with him.
If Ahura Mazda is "The Wise Lord" and "the Father of Right
eousness" then ignorance and unrighteousness among men must
be abolished. To this task Zoroaster believed himself
called. He thought of himself as the deliverer of men pri
marily from the evils of this life. To the wicked he wanted
to be a "strong tormentor", to the righteous "a mighty help
and j oy•"
GAUTAMA
The most reliable source for the study of the thought
of Gautama the Buddha is the Tripitaka which means "Three
Baskets" of Wisdom. This is written in Pali, the dialect of
the common people in North Central India., and is commonly
referred to as the "Pali tradition."
According to this tradition when Gautama received his
"enlightenment" he was tempted to accept the "passionless
peace" of Nirvana then and there. However, the God Brahma
visited him (an occurance which seems inconsistent with his
rejection of belief in a Supreme Being and the Hindu gods
and therefore is probably a late tradition as has already
been pointed out) and reminded him of the great need of his
83
people for the salvation he had attained. He thus consented
to live for the salvation of the people.
Streeter derives an interesting contrast from this
incident between the Christ who consented to die for the
salvation of his people, and the Buddha who consented to live
for the same purpose.
Whether an authentic experience or not, this incident
probably reflects the real character of the man. As Dean
Washburn would say, the untrue story often reflects the true
man, for it reflects something true about the man which gives
rise to the stories. It is easy to reject any wonder stories
told about a founder of religion, but having done it, we have
still to explain what it is about the man that produces won
der stories,-and that is not so simple.
We have seen that Gautama’s religion started, not from
a consciousness of a special relationship with God which placed
upon him the burden of serving men in God’s name, but from
a profound disillusionment because of the suffering of life.
To free men from this suffering, this disillusionment, he
consented to live. This evil and suffering in life he ex
plained by the law of Karma, "the law of the deed." All
suffering is caused by men’s own misdeeds, either in this
IS
Streeter,Burnett H., The Buddha and the Christ.
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1933.) pp.56,57
84
life or in a former incarnation. In fact life itself, the
constant round of re-birth, is a result of misdeeds, is
subject to the law of Karma. Gautama did not think of him
self as saving men for anything, for a kingdom of God; for
life with God; for himself, or for eternal life. He thought
of his task as showing men how to save^themselves from this
law of Karma, this wheel of life, and so from suffering and
disillusionment brought on by their misdeeds. Not by mysti
cal union with him, or with a god, or by the inner operation
of a Holy Spirit were they saved, but simply by exercising
the power within themselves to rid themselves of all desire.
In relation to his fellow men, then, Gautama thought of
himself as the first to attain enlightenment^ the path to
Nirvana, and he sought to lead his fellows to the attainment
of the same goal.
Hume quotes the Buddha’s final words spoken at his
death with five hundred of his followers around him: "Behold
now brethren, decay is inherent in all component things!
Work out your own salvation with diligence!The Buddha
did not save men, he taught them how to save themselves.
MAHAVIRA
Mahavira’s thought about his relation to his fellow-
^^Hume,Robert E., The World’s Living Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1931.)pp.64,65
85
men is similar to that of the Buddha, and the aim of his
religion is for a similar goal. Nirvana. However, he took
a different path to accomplish this. Gautama, after his
great renunciation, had first tried the path of philosophic
contemplation and then of severe , asceticism, but finding
these to fail, he tried a middle path. Mahavira, on the
other hand, after the death of his parents, which we have
seen contributed to his decision for a religious vocation,
practiced severe asceticism for 12 years finally in his
13th year of renunciation attaining Nirvana. Through the
path of asceticism he had found his peace and he enjoined
it on his followers.
Mrs.Stevenson, whom Hume calls the foremost European
authority on Jainisti, points out that the Jain community was
like the Christian community during the time of the ascend
ancy of monasticism. To become a Jain monk or nun was
the highest life, but if this was not attained, then the
followers should be devout laymen and laywornen.
Regarding his thought about God it has been pointed
out that he rejected, perhaps even more than Gautama did,
belief and trust in a Supreme Being. His relation to men,
then, was that of a man, a Jain "Conqueror" who had con
quered the enslavement to the "Two Terrible Ones", Birth,
15
Stevenson, Mrs.Sinclair (Margaret), The Heart of
Jainism. (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University
Press, 1915.) p.65ff.
86
which entailed the necessity of death, and Death, which in
turn entailed the necessity of re-birth. By severe asceticism
one "conquered" or burnt out the accumulated force of Karma,
the force of one’s evil deeds, and so destroyed forever the
possibility of re-birth.
Even human love was an unnecessary attachment to which
one must become indifferent. There were no "two great com
mandments" of love for God and for one’s neighbors in
Mahavira’s thought. He showed men through asceticism how to
kill all passion, love, and desire, and so save themselves
for,-some great positive good?,-no, for nothingness.
Though Jainism has not by any means proved to be a
universal religion; it is confined to a comparatively small
group in India, Mahavira did have thoughts of the universal
character of his faith; it was to be a universal blessing.
Hume quotes from the Sacred Books of the East, "Blessed One!
Propagate the religion which is a blessing to all creatures
in the world.
NANAK
Just as the great prophet Isaiah felt himself to be
"a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people
^^Hume, Robert E., The World’s Living Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951) p.45
87
of unclean lips"^"^ when he believed himself to be in the
presence of God, so must Nanak have felt when he said "I
am a cheat in a country of cheats," or again, "I am a sinner.
Thou alone art pure.
If these words truly reflect Nanak’s thought, there
is no question that he completely identified himself with
humanity. Not only was he a man among men. He was a sinner
among sinners. We have seen, however, in the previous
chapter that he considered himself the Divine Guru or
teacher.
In marked contrast to Gautama and Mahavira, Nanak
believed and taught that salvation was something man could
not attain of his own strength. Human knowledge and wisdom
and effort without God were mere vanity. This world is
illusion; God is the source of all reality. To know God-
to be one v^ith God-that is to be saved.
To this task for the salvation and happiness of his
brothers Nanak felt himself called. What he heard from
God at the time of the revelation has already been quoted,
but bears repeating here, "I am with thee. I have made thee
happy and also those who shall take thy name. Go and repeat
17
Isaiah 6:5
18
Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935) Quoted by Burrows
from the Granth. p.186
88
mine and cause others to do likewise.
As with Zoroaster, so now with Nanak we seem to find
a special social condition which helped to stimulate his
religious teaching, the existence of two great faiths side
by side in India, Hinduism and Mohammedanism. In view of
the strife which often occurs between these two religious
groups in India today, it is undoubtedly true that the
relationship between them in Nanak’s day must have been none
too harmonious; very likely worse for they were not as used
to each other.
Nanak apparently felt himself called in the name of
the one God to unite these two groups. He approached men,
then, thinking of himself as one with them, even with their
sins, yet as a divine messenger or teacher among them and
a peace-maker.
CONFUCIUS
Confucius’ attractive humility has been mentioned.
Though he taught men to strive for the goal of the "super
ior man" he did not claim to have attained the goal him
self, indeed, he specifically confessed he had not.^^
^^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951). p.86
20
Analects 7:52 James Legge translation.
89.
In view of this it seems strange that he -should be
worshipped as a god, "one equal with Heaven, and Earth" when
he so clearly thought of himself as a man among his fellow
men, and not a superior man at that!
"A transmitter and not a maker, believing in and
loving the ancients, I venture to compare myself with our
old P’ang."^^ Confucius was primarily a scholar and a teacher,
and thus thought himself to be. His source of information
and inspiration were the ancient odes and writings of his
people. These he had studied diligently since the age of 15
when he had his mind bent on learning. His task was not to
create and bring something new to men, but to pass on what
he had learned; to use his own word, to be a "transmitter."^^
Of course, this is true of all founders of religion.
They all pass on a great deal of what they receive from the
religion of the past. This has already been pointed out in
Jesus’ teaching. But the difference is that Confucius
definitely claimed to be a transmitter, whereas most of the
others were more or less conscious of direct revelation from
God. Not what later study has revealed, but what the founder
himself thought is what concerns us here, and in contrast to
the others, Confucius regarded himself as a scholar "in
21
Analects 7:1 James Legge translation.
^^Loc.cit.
90
learning superior to other men" who could trace his sources
of information definitely to human writings he had studied,
and who believed his calling was to teach to other men vfhat
he had learned. And he was faithful to that trust. In the
Analects we read:
The Master said, ’From the man bringing his bundle
of dried flesh for my teaching upwards,’I have never
refused instruction to anyone.
As with other founders, the conditions of the China
of his time must have contributed to his thought about his
mission. With the strife and wars and corruption in office
going on the people sorely needed instruction in the gospel
of "Reciprocity" the famous negative Golden Rule of Confuci
anism, "What you do not want done to yourself do not do to
others.He was particularly concerned with the appli
cation of his principles to the State, its government and
officials, for he believed a people would be no better than
their government.
Confucius, then, thought of himself as a scholar among
his fellowmen whose task was to transmit the wisdom of the
ancients, and his concern was for the saving of the state
more than the individual.
^^Analects 7:7
^^Analects 15:23
91
LAO-TSE
Moore calls Lao-tse’s religion ’ ’pure passivity.” And
if Lao-tse were a logical follower of his own thought about
the Tao that is what it should be. For to him the Tao, which
is the supreme principle of his faith, if not the Supreme
Being, is the eternally inactive one who, nevertheless, leaves
nothing undone. Logically, then, as the proponent of Tao,
Lao-tse should have no active relationship with men at all.
And perhaps this logic of his thought does explain his tradi
tional disappearance out from the Northwest Gate.
Actually, however, he does have an active relationship
with his fellowmen. In spite of the implications of his
philosophy he apparently considers men worth teaching, or at
least worth writing a book for. There is no reliable evi
dence that he thought of himself as other than a man.
Hé was an older contemporary of Confucius and the
social conditions which affected Confucius’ thought also must
have had an effect on Lao-tse. But how differently he
reactedl Confucius attacked the problems vigorously and
courageously. Lao-tse submitted to them and preached a
beautiful, though ineffective gospel of passivity.
He seemed to have an idea that he was different from
other men, but not in a particularly constructive sense;
certainly not in the sense of the difference between savior
92
and sinners, between the divine and human. Burrows quotes
the Tao-Teh-King in this regard:
I alone seem listless and still, my desires having
yet given no indication of their presence. . . .My
mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of
chaos. . . .1 alone am different from other men.^^
His desire was to keep himself concealed and remain
unknown.
Here there is none of the passion of the prophet for
saving the souls of men. Here is none of the compelling
consciousness of a mission direct from God. Perhaps his
relationship with men is best -characterized by his own
name, Lao-tse, ”The Old Philosopher”, whose teachings were
over the heads of his people.
Some interesting distinctions are evident in this
chapter, between the founders who worked for men from a
compelling sense of a mission from God,-the God-centered
founders such as Jesus, Mohammed, and Nanak, and those who
worked from a sense of the compelling need of men, such as
Gautama and Mahavira; and Confucius and Lao-tse from a more
natural growth in knowledge. Some of the founders were
hopeful; promising to save men for a glorious positive
future; some pessimistic, considering it salvation enough to
25
Burrows,Millar, The Founders of Great Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1055.1 p.22
93
be saved from a disillusioning past. To Christians the
most significant comparison is that Jesus is the only
founder in this group who in his own thought really claimed
the divinity ascribed to them all.
CHAPTER VI
PRE-EXISTENCE AND IMMORTALITY
The question to be considered now is whether or not
these founders of religion believed themselves to have pre
existed before their earthly life, and whether or not they
believed they would exist after death in some form.
This question, especially regarding the future life,
is so often disregarded or reinterpreted to mean immortality
of influence by the extreme liberals that one might think it
played little or no part in the thought of the founders of
religion. On the contrary the idea of a future life plays
a prominent part in the thinking of most of them as the
following pages will show. This study, therefore, would not
be complete without a chapter on the subject.
JE808
The most familiar passage in the gospels to indicate
that Jesus thought of himself as a pre-existent being is
found in his discussion with the Jews about freedom recorded
in the eighth chapter of St. John’s gospel, and especially in
the text, ”Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto
you. Before Abraham was, I am”^ As has been indicated,
^St.John 8:58
95
however, this gospel is considered by most scholars^ to be
a late source, giving more an interpretation of Jesus’ thought
than the thought itself.
However, in the gospel of St.Mark, there is at least
one passage which indicates an idea of pre-existence in the
mind of Jesus. He is discussing the fact that the Scribes
say the Christ is the son of David. To prove that he, the
Christ, existed before David he quotes the 110th Psalm,
which, he believed, was written by David:^
The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right
hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of
thy feet.
He goes on to say, ’ ’ David himself calleth him Lord; and whence
is he his son?”* ^
In this passage Jesus is arguing that he, the Christ,
is the ”my Lord” to whom David, who pre-dates him in history
by many centuries, refers. He pre-existed, then, before and
at the time David lived.
2
A.E.Brooke in Peake,Arthur S., A Commentary on the
Bible. (London: T.C. & E.C.Jack, Ltd., 1929.) p.744
3
The fact that most scholars to-day reject the Davidic
authorship of this Psalm does not destroy our argument. We
are studying what Jesus thought, and quite clearly he accepted
the belief of his time which was that all the Psalms were
written by David. See A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures
edited by Charles Gore,Part III p.100 and A Commentary on the
Bible, edited by Arthur S.Peake, p.696.
4
Mark 12:36 and 12:37
96
To use an indirect source, yet surely a valid one be
cause of its nearness to Jesus’ time^ we turn for support of
the argument to the Epistles of Paul. There is no doubt about
this Apostle’s belief in the pre-existence of Jesus. He
(Jesus) was the agent in creation, (Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:16). He
is before all things. (Col. 1:17). He was ”in the form of
God” before he took upon himself ”the form of a servant.”
(Phil. 2:6,7). He was rich (i.e. in the pre-existent life
with God) before for our sakes he became poor. (2 Cor. 8:9).
He,was the mysterious angel of Jehovdawho followed, and
served the Children of Israel in their flight from Egypt.
(l Cor. 10:4).
If St.Paul' was basing his thought on "the mind of
Christ” as he claimed (l Cor. 2:16) then it can be assumed
that in Jesus’ mind were thoughts about his own pre-existence.®
We turn now to Jesus’ thought about his continued exis
tence after death. That he did believe in his own continuance
after death is a fact so familiar as to need little argument
here. The expectation of his resurrection was certainly in
his mind before it occurred. After Peter’s great confession
at Caesarea Philippi Jesus predicted the passion and the
resurrection.
^See Chapter V, p. 74.
^Porter, Frank C..The Mind of Christ in Paul. (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930y^
97
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must
suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the
chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after
three days rise again.?
This prediction appears in substantially the same form in the
other Synoptic Gospels*®
In the second prediction of the passion made while Jesus
taught his disciples, again there is also the prediction of the
resurrection; this time, however, it appears only in Mark and
Matthew.® When making his final trip to Jerusalem with his
disciples Jesus made a third prediction of the resurrection
which again is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels.^®
From these evidences of Jesus’ thought, then, one can
conclude that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection has
its counterpart in his own thought about himself.
MOHAMMED
From the study of Mohammed’ s thought about his relation
ship to God and to men it was found that though he considered
himself the greatest of the prophets, still, he thought of him
self as a man rather than as a divine being. In view of this
7
Mark 8:51
®Matt. 16;SI & Luke 9:22
~%ark 9:31. Matt. 17:22,83.
l°Mark 10:34. Matt. 20:18. Luke 18:33.
98
one would hardly expect him to believe in his own pre
existence.
Indeed, in the Koran there are specific denials of any
claim which might lead Mohammed’s followers to regard him as
pre-existent with God.
I do not say that I have the treasures of God; nor
do I know the unseen; nor do I say. Verily I am an
angel:. . . .”11
This absence of belief in his own pre-existence is in
harmony with his monotheism. It would have been unthinkable
for Mohammed to suppose that he or any other being was an
agent with God in creation as we have seen Paul thought of
Jesus. To Mohammed God was the all Supreme One who stood
alone in his power and creativity. To think of himself as
one with God from the beginning would, to him, have been a
denial of his conception of Allah, the One Supreme and all
sufficient God.
But, though he makes no claim to pre-existence, there
is no doubt in his mind about his immortality, his continued
existence as an individual after death. Time and time again
throughout the Koran he speaks of himself as "the warner”.^^
His task is to warn the people of the life to come, of the
11
The Koran 11:53
88:2, 43:50,51. 86:198-95.
99
joys of heaven for the righteous and of the fires of hell
for the damned.
This life after death for Mohammed and his faithful
followers will be no dis-embodied existence. The heaven he
pictures appeals to the sensuous desires of men:
But for the God-fearing is a blissful, abode.
Enclosed gardens and vineyards;
And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age.
And a full cup;
There shall they hear no vain discourse nor any
falsehood.IS
Eat and drink with healthy enjoyment, in recompense
for your deeds.
On couches ranged in rows shall they recline;and to
the damsels with large dark eyes will we wed them.
And fruits in abundance will we give them, and flesh
as they shall desire.
Therein shall they pass to one another the cup which
shall engender no light discourse, no motive to sin.^"^
Throughout the Koran there are many other such descrip
tions of heaven mentioning gardens with fountains and flowing
water, beautiful damsels who do not grow old, wine and food
in abundance with young men to serve the righteous, and where
there is no disputing but continued peace.
Of course many educated Mohammedans to-day claim that
these sensuous descriptions of heaven are figurative like the
Christian description of heaven in the Book of Revelation^^
13
The IKoran 78:31-35.
Ibid. 58:19-20; S8-23.
The Koran translated from Arabic by the Rev.J.M
Rodwell,M.A. (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1861) See
footnote #3, p.61
IQO
but there is little doubt Mohammed himself meant them
literally.
ZOROASTER
Belief in the pre-existence of Zoroaster is certainly
to be found in the religion which bears his name. Professor
Williams Jackson in one of the Appendices of his book gives
Dr. West’s tables of Zoroastrian chronology based on the
Millenial system of the Bundahishu. In the year B.R. 6000
(i.e. before religion - before the religion of Zoroastrian
ism.) the spiritual body of Zaratusht was framed together
and remains three*thousand years with the archangels
Turning to the Gathas, however, that portion of the
Avesta believed the oldest and probably written by Zoroaster
himself, there is no such belief expressed. Moulton points
out one line in Yasna 43, the second Gatha, which has been
interpreted as referring to a pre-existent state. ”I recog
nized Thee as the Holy One, 0 Wise Lord. . . .when I saw
Thee first at the birth of Life.” But he believes this to
be simply a reference to a vision Zoroaster had experienced
during his earthly life.^*^
16
Jackson,A.V.Williams, Zoroaster. The Prophet of
Ancient Iran. (London: The Macmillan Co., 19017) Appendix III
p.179.
17
Moulton,James H., M.A..Early Religious Poetry of
Persia. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19117) p.101
1 0 1
Thus the absence of any expression of belief in his
pre-existence by Zoroaster in the Gathas, though perhaps not
proving he had no such belief, gives, however, no reliable
grounds for asserting that he had.
On the other hand belief in immortality, as in the
Gospels and the Koran, is time and time again expressed in
the Gathas. It is one of the central themes of these poems.
The last stanza of Yasna 28 runs thus:
That by these laws I may for all eternity
The grace of Holiness preserve and the Good Mind, do
thou
Teach me, from Thine Own Soul, by Thine own mouth,
to preach
Those laws whereby the world primeval first was made.
In another Yasna, though referring to himself in the
third person, Zoroaster expresses the hope that he who has
taught others "the straight paths to blessedness" will
finally attain "to the realms where dwells Ahura.”^® He
promises his faithful followers that he will cross with them
"The Bridge of the Separa.ter. He will also be "a friend,
brother or father" to the faithful at the final judgement
day.SO
These thoughts coming from the mind of Zoroaster,
^®Yasna 43:3
46:10 '
®°Ibid. 45:11
/
1 0 2
though perhaps not stating his belief in his own resurrection
and immortality in as positive terms as are found of Jesus
in the gospels, certainly imply his continuance after death.
GAUTAMA
It has already been noted in the first chapter of this
study that the followers of the Buddha regard him as having
existed prior to his birth. The birth tradition is that he
consciously chose the parents to whom he was born. But like
the birth stories in other religions, this tradition is of
questionable authenticity.
But it is quite clear that Gautama accepted the Hindu
conception of pre-existence involved in the doctrine of re
incarnation^ a conception which differs vastly from the
Christian conception of Jesus’ pre-existence, for example.
The conception of Jesus’ pre-existence in Christianity is
bound up with the doctrine of his divinity. His pre-exis
tence is part of his uniqueness as the Son of God. It is
one way in which he differs from other men.
The pre-existence of Gautama, on the other hand, is
something which he shares with all other men. The Buddhists
a.ccepted the Hindu idea of Karma - the law of the deed. By
their deeds in life they were condemned to a constant wheel
of re-birth. In this sense all men pre-existed in some
former incarnation.
105
That Gautama believed this of himself is clear from
this passage from the Pali canon:
I, brethren, when I so desire it, can call to mind
my various states of birth: for instance, one birth,
two births, five, ten. . . .a hundred thousand births:
. .. .thus can I call to mind in si 1 their specific
details, in all their characteristics, in many various
ways, my previous states of existence.
The state of pre-existence which Gautama believed he
had had differed in no way from the kind of pre-existence he
believed possible to all men.
There has already been a preview of his thought about
immortality in the study of his beliefs about his relation
ship to men. His idea of salvation was to save men from life,
from this constant wheel of re-birth. One would naturally
assume, then, that a life after death v/ould be the last thing
Gautama would hope for.
This is not to say that the followers of the Buddha
have no hope for a future life and a heaven. Addison points
out that, especially in Hahayana Buddhism "we find a stronger
emphasis on the life beyond death. . . ."22 he also
states:'
In early Buddhism and in the schools of Hinayana which
depart less widely from the founder’s teaching heaven is
21
Some Sayings of the Buddha. translated by F.L.Woodward,
M.A. (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1925)
p. 265
22 /
Addison,James Thayer, Life Beyond Death. (Cambridge,
Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co. The Riverside Press Cambridge, 1952)
p.251.
104
never offered as the final goal of the believer. The
true end of ’The Eightfold Path’ is Nirvana - no vulgar
paradise, but a state of utter peach wherein all desire
has ceased and rebirth is at an end.23
In his own words Gautama denies any belief in a future
life, certainly when that life is thought of as a reward of
righteousness as it is in the other religions. In conversa
tion with one, Anuradha, he is recorded as saying:
. • . .since in this very life a Tathagata is not to
be regarded as existing in truth, in relity, is it proper
for you to pronounce this of him: "Friends, He who is a
Tathagata, a superman, one of the best of beings, a
winner of the highest gain, is proclaimed in other than
these four ways: ’The Tathagata comes to be after death:
He comes not to be after death: He both comes to be and
comes not to be after death: He neither comes to be nor
comes not to be after death’"? 24
Upon receiving a negative answer, Gautama closes the discussion
with these words:"Both formerly and now also, Anuradha, it is
just 111 and the ceasing of 111 that I p r o c l a i m ."25
It can be concluded that Gautama in this matter of the
future life is consistent with his conception of salvation -
ultimate release from life - and for himself does not look
for a life after death.
25
Addison,James Thayer, Life Bevond Death. (Cambridge,
Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co. The Riverside Press Cambridge,
1952.)p.250.
24
Some Savings of the Buddha. translated by F.L.Woodward,
M.A. (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1925)
p .294.
liOC » Clt #
105
MAHAVIRA
A marked similarity 2® has been noted between Mahavira’s
upbringing and teachings and those of Gautama. This similarity
continues to be evident in the subject now before us, the
thoughts of these founders on their pre-existence and immor
tality.
A contemporary of Gautama and living in the same
country, India, Mahavira also undoubtedly accepted the Hindu
belief in re-incarnation, and therefore believed in his pre
existence in the same sense as Gautama believed in his. Wo
direct quotations have been fpund from the sacred books of
Jainism to substantiate this statement, but since Mahavira’s
idea of salvation, like Gautama’s, is to be freed from the
wheel of life, it can be assumed he believed in this wheel
of life and therefore in his own former incarnations.
The account of his birth in the Akaranga Sutra gives
him pre-existence in a more unique sense.
. . . .the Venerable Ascetic Mahavira descended from
the great Vimana^f, the all-victorious and all prosperous
26
The similarity between these two religions and the
accounts of the life of the founders led some European scholars
to think that Jainism was simply the outgrowth of Buddhism and
in reality had no independent founder. Jacobi, however, in his
Introduction to Vol. XXII of the Sacred Books of the East
rejects this theory and argues for the authenticity of the
Jaina sacred books.
27
Vimanas are palaces of the gods.
106
Pushpottara. . . .where he had lived for twenty
Sagaropamas^® till the termination of his alloted length ,
of life, (divine) nature and existence (among gods).2”
It has been indicated however, that these birth stories
are later interpretations rather than accounts of fact so
that the conclusion is that Mahavira’s own thought about his
pre-existence took the simpler form of former incarnations
common to all men.
Regarding his thought about a future life there is a
strange paradox. In the doctrine of Ahimsa he taught a fana
tical respect for life. He and his orthodox followers, for
instance, would not lie down for rest without thoroughly
sweeping and cleansing the place on which they were to lie
for fear of destroying some tiny animal or plant life. Yet,
despite this fanatical respect for life in all forms, he does
not believe that a future life will be the reward for righteous
ness. Like Gautama his thought of salvation was to be "liber
ated" from life. He did not look forward to a resurrection
and future life either for himself or for his followers.
Many passages in the Jain scriptures substantiate this,
and though these sources speak of Mahavira in the third
person and therefore probably were not written by him, Jacobi
28
Sagaropama - A long period of time.
29
Muller,F.Max.,editor. The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884.] Vol.XXII p.190.
107
believes that especially in the first Book of the Akaranga
Sutra there is authentic Jain history and a genuine reflec
tion of Mahavira’s thought and teaching.®® A passage from
this source reads:
’Knowing the misery of the world’ rejecting the
connection with the world, ’the heroes go on the
great journey,’ they rise gradually; ’they do not
desire life.’ 31
In the same source we read of the liberated, those who have
attained to Jain salvation: "He is without body, without
resurrection. . . ."32 Religious suicide is recommended
for those monks who cannot bear the trials of extreme
asceticism.
When it occurs to a blessed mendicant that he suffers
pain, and cannot bear the influence of cold, he should
not try to obviate these trials but stand fast in his
own self which is endowed with all knowledge. ’For it
is better for an ascetic that he should take poison.’
Even thus he will in due time put an end to existence.®®
Not a glorious future life, but Nirvana, the ultimate
ending of existence, is the belief and hope of Mahavira for
himself and for his followers.
50
Muller,F.Max.,editor. The Sacred Books of the East.
(Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884.) Introduction to Vol.XXII.
^hbld. Vol.XXII. p.34.
®®Ibid. p.58.
^Sibld. p.68.
108
NANAK
Nanak, along with the other Indian founders studied,
accepted and believed the Hindu doctrines of Karma and the
reincarnation of souls. Thus he must have believed in his
own pre-existence in the form of previous incarnations
though I have been able to find no direct words of his which
speak of his former existences. Hume, however, quotes the
Granth to show that Hanak did accept the above mentioned
doctrines:
It is he himself soweth, and he himself eateth.
Man suffereth transmigration by God’s order.
Man, my brother, is born in the world as a result
of bad and good acts.®^
This latter sentence, of course, refers to bad and good acts
done in a former existence.
In contrast to those told about Gautama and Mahavira
the birth stories told about Nanak are restrained and do not
contain claims of any special divine pre-existence for him.
Judging from these indirect evidences it would appear
that Nanak thought of his own pre-existence only in terms of
the doctrine of the reincarnation of souls.
Regarding immortality or a life after, death, however,
Nanak departs entirely from the thought of both Gautama and
Mahavira. Many passages in the Granth indicate his belief
34
Hume, Robert E., The World’s Living Religions.
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 193l) p.104.
109
in such a future life. That a teacher born in Hindu India
could thus believe in the value of a future life doubtless
reflects the Mohammedan influence which, we have seen, had
penetrated the India of his time. But if Mohammedenism gave
him the hope of a future life it certainly did not give him
his picture of what that life would be. Nanak did not look
for the sensuous heaven of Mohammed. His is a purer, more
spiritual, future life.
By Thee informed, 0 Lord, standsth the earth.
The stars hang in space and sky is above.
Inspired by Thee are the lower regions, the
continents of men, the adepts, guides and gods.
They die not who are thus informed.®®
The path of faith, nothing can bar nor mar nor change;
they speed to Higher Regions beyond Death and decay,
unhindered on, and gain the seats of honour hereafter.®®
The Court of God separates chaff from wheat, there
shall be measured unto us our raw and ripe.
Each man shall stand alone: his own deeds shall avail
after the life of this earth.®'
The life after death to which Nanak looked forward was
not the sensuous bodily existence pictured by Mohammed, nor
the non-existence of Gautama and Mahavira, but a life based
on faith and morality, a life for those "informed of God",
a life of honour. As in the other fields of thought studied.
? c
The Sisters of the Spinning Wheel, translated by
Puran Singh. (New York: E.P.Dutton & Co.) p.85.
^®Ibld. p.84.
^'^Ibld. p.100.
110
Nanak’s thought here is more akin to that of Jesus than is
the thought of any of the others.
CONFUCIUS
The absence of claims of divinity in the thought of
Confucius has been discussed above. Consistent with this
we find no claims whatever to any form of pre-existence.
He has also been charged with lack of belief in a
future life.®® It is true there are no direct statements
in the writings of Confucius to indicate his thought about
the future life unless it is one of the passages on Sincer
ity in the Doctrine of the Mean.®®
But to conclude, because of this lack of direct
statements about belief in a future life, that Confucius did
not believe in such a life is unfair. There is his own con
fession that he accepted the ancient religion of his country,'^®
and ancestor worship was then as it is now one of the chief
features of that religion. That this ancestor worship was
58
The Chinese Classics, translated by James Legge,D.D.
(New York: John W. Lovell Co., 1870.) Introduction p.X;^
^^Doctrine of the Mean, XXVI:1 "Hence to entire sin
cerity there belongs ceaselessness.", and XXVI:5 "So large and
substantial, the individual possessing it is the coequal of
Earth. So high and brilliant, it makes him the coequal of
Heaven. So far reaching and long continuing, it makes him
infinite."
40
See CHAPTER IV. p.71.
Ill
based on the belief that the ancestors were still living
somewhere after death, there can be little doubt. Hume so
interprets it:
The condition of the dead ancestors is neither feared
nor craved. They are believed to be simply continuing
in existence, hovering close around their old abode in
the family home and around the grave ."^1
S o o t h i l l ^ 2 also sees belief in the continued existence of
souls after death in Confucianism and also states that
Confucius himself took part in the ancestor worshipjp though,
with Soper,he reminds us that Confucius was agnostic
about the future life.
The conclusion then is that though thought about a
future life certainly played very little part in the mind of
Confucius and was never held out by him as a definite hope,
still it was there to some extent in the form of his
acceptance of the traditional ancestor worship, the practice
of which he definitely commends both in the Analects^^ and
the Doctrine of the Mean."^®
^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951). p.125.
^^Soothill.W.E..The Three Religions of China. 2nd
edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925) p.176.
"^^Soper,Edmund D. .The Religions of Mankind. (New
York: The Abingdon Press, 1950.)p.222.
"^^Analects 1:9
"^^Doctrine of the Mean XIX: 6
112
LAO-TSE
In the Tao-Teh-Klng which is commonly believed to
have been written by Lao-tse himself there is no indication
whatever that the sage believed himself to have been a
pre-existent being, and only one passage (if we accept
Legge’s translation) which can be construed as indicating
belief in a future life. It is:
He who does not fail in the requirements of his
position continues long, he who dies and yet does
not perish, has longevity.^®
In his note on this passage Legge expresses his
belief that Lao-tse "believed in another life for the
individual after the present.
However, when we turn to other translations which
Hume has used in his Treasure House of Living Religions
we find that he uses several passages under the heading
of Future Life and Immortality. To quote one of them:
He who knows the Eternal Law is liberal-minded.
Possessed of the Eternal, he endures for ever. Though
46
Tao-Teh-King 33:2
"^"^Muller,F.Max., editor. The Sacred Books of the
East. (Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1884) Vol.XXXIX
p.76.
113
his body perish, yet he suffers no harm.
If one accepts this translation it would seem.that Lao-tse
did believe in a future life, though of course none of these
passages contain a definite statement of belief regarding
his own future.
Some might say that the argument based on the practice
of ancestor worship which we used to support Confucius’ belief
in life after death could be equally well used in the case of
Lao-tse. That ancestor worship existed in his time and that
he knew of the practice there can be little doubt. It has
been pointed out that he was an older contemporary of Con
fucius in whose writings the practice of ancestor worship is
definitely commended. Soothill call's the cult of the ancestor
Hume, Robert S., compiler & editor. Treasure House
of the Living Religions.(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1932) p.73 from Savings of Lao-tse translated by Giles.
Legge translates the same passage "To know that unchanging
rule is to be intelligent; not to know it leads to wild move
ments and evil issues. The knowledge of the unchanging rule
produces a (grand) capacity and forbearance, and that capa
city and forbearance lead to a community (of feeling with all
things). From this community of feeling comes a kingliness
of character; and he who is king-like goes on to be heaven
like. In that likeness to heaven he possesses the Tao.
Possessed of the Tao he endures long; and to the end of his
bodily life, is exempt from all danger of decay." S.B.E.
V.XXXIX pp59,60. In commenting on this passage Legge states
the possibility that Lao-tse here is thinking of the Tao as
a preservative against death, as Chapter 50 of the Tao-teh-
King can be interpreted. These passages, then, refer to a
magical preservative against bodily death rather than life
after death. Many Taoists have so interpreted them. (See
Hume’s quotation from De Groot in his World’s Living
Religions, p. 144.)
114
"the essential religion of China"which dates back to the
pre-historic roots of the people. This belief and practice,
then, must have been familiar to Lao-tse.
One cannot, however, in this study use the existence
of the cult to Support Lao-tse’s belief in the future life
for the simple reason that there is no mention of it in the
Tao-teh-king. There is, therefore, no direct reference by
Lao-tse himself upon which to base a conception of his
thought on the subject.
The conclusion about his belief in a future life
cannot be a definite one. If Legge’s translation of the
Tao-teh-king. is accepted, there is only one reference to
go on, and that is hardly convincing. And the available
references in other translations are too few to make a
strong ease. With Legge we can agree that very likely he
did believe in his own continuance as an individual after
death, admitting, however, that this supposition cannot be
proved from the sources.
CONCLUSIONS
The study in this chapter has revealed some interesting
comparisons. Of the eight founders Jesus is the only one who
speaks directly in the first person of his own resurrection.
49
Soothill,W.E., The Three Religions of China. 2nd
edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925.) ^.181
115
Gautama speaks in the first person of his own previous incar
nations but does not look for resurrection or a future life.
Mohammed does not claim pre-existence and though the Koran is
full of promises of heaven for the righteous he does not make
any specific claims for himself in regard to the future life.
Zoroaster’s thought seems nearer the hope of Jesus regarding
the future life, though he does not express it as a definite
fact, but rather in the form of a prayer that he may earn
immortality. Mahavira’s thought takes much the same form as
that of Gautama. Regarding pre-existence Nanak follows the
thought of Gautama and Mahavira in accepting the general
belief in former incarnations. He departs, however, from
them in his hope for a future life which he expresses as a
general reward for the righteous rather than as a specific
claim for himself. With the Chinese founders, Confucius
and Lao-tse, we are on new ground. Pre-existence does not
enter into their thought at all, and the future life, though
perhaps accepted by them as a possibility because of the
prevalence of ancestor worship in their environment, is not
stressed either for their followers or for themselves.
CHAPTER VII
THE FINAL DAY OF THE LORD
To the Jewish and Christian world the belief in a
great final Day of the Lord or Day of Judgement when the
plans of God will be finally consumated is a familiar one*
Is there such a belief in the eight religions here studied,
and if so, what part in it did the founders believe they
were destined to perform?
JESUS
The part of St.Mark’s gospel commonly referred to as
the ’ ’ Eschatological Discourse’ ^ is found in the thirteenth
chapter. Here we find Jesus’ most definite teaching about
the great Day of the Lord, the end of the world. The end
is to be preceded by the destruction of the temple, by wars
and rumors of wars, by great tribulation for the faithful,
and finally even by cosmic signs.
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun
shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her
light, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and
the powers that are in the heaven shall be shaken.1
It is then that he, the Son of Man, shall come ”in clouds
^Mark 13:24,25.
117
with great power and glory”^ and he shall send the angels
to gather in his elect from all the earth and heaven.
There are parallel passages both in Matthew^ and
Luke^ which differ slightly but contain essentially the same
elements, the destruction of the temple, the wars and rumors
of wars, the great tribulation, the cosmic signs, and finally
the coming of the Son of Man.
While discussing this eschatological discourse of
Jesus one should be aware that scholars differ on the ques
tion of its authenticity, though most agree that it has a
core at least of the genuine thought of Jesus. G.H.Turner
writing in Gore’s commentary is inclined to accept it at
face value, but E.G.Wood, the commentator on Mark for
Peake’s commentary, though he does not say the authenticity
is definitely disproved, cites the possibility that a Eewish
apocalypse has been edited, together with some genuine sayings
of Jesus, to strengthen the disheartened Christians after the
actual fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in
70 A.D.5
Mark 13:26
^Matthew 24:1-42
4
Luke 21:5-36
5
Peake, Arthur S. ,M.A. ,D..D. ,A Commentary on the Bible
(London: T.C. & E.C.Jack,Ltd., 1929) p.696.
118
When it is realized, however, that the expectation
of Christ’s second coming was a strong feature in the hope
of the early Church from the beginning,^ and that a scholar
of the calibre of Albert Schweitzer could believe it was
the strongest motivating thought behind Jesus’ actions,?
there is strong support for believing that the thirteenth
chapter of Mark does give us Jesus’ own thought.
From this thirteenth chapter of Mark one can see that
Jesus thought of himself as the Son of Man who would return
at the end of the world to gather in the faithful both on
earth and in heaven to his kingdom.
This conclusion is supported also by his reply to
Ca%has' at the trial:
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming
with the clouds of heaven.°
Though Mark does not record specific words of Jesus
claiming that he is to be the Judge of men at this final
consumation, that claim is implicit in the title. Son of
Man.^ Both in the Book of Daniel and the apocraphral Book
6
Paul’s earlier Epistles show this expectation clearly. 1st
Thessal 4:13- 5:11 2nd. Thessal. 2 : . 2
?Schweitzer,Albert, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
Translated by W.Montgomery. [London: A.& C.Black, 1910.) p.254
%ark 14:62
^.Kraeling,Carl H..Anthrouos and Son of Man. (New York.
Columbia University Press. 1927.)pp 180 & 184
119
of Enoch the Son of Man is a supernatural being having to do
with the final judgement of men. Thus, when he used the
title of himself, Jesus must also have wished to convey the
thought of judgement which the title implied.
Matthew, however, one finds that this function
of final judgement is clearly in Jesus’ mind. In Matthew’s
sequel to the eschatological discourse Jesus pictures him
self as the King who will judge and reward his servants
according to their works.^0 is one of the loveliest and
most quoted passages in the New Testament, and though not
found in our earliest source, few would dispute that it gives
us the actual thought of Jesus.
MOHAMMED
As stated above the Hebrew conception of the coming
Judgement Day or Day of the Lord was taken over by Mohammed.
In fact he conceived of himself often as a ’ ’ warner”, he who
warns the people of the Judgement to come. In a sura of the
Koran which warns of the Judgement Day to come when the un
righteous shall be sent to hell, and the righteous to heaven,
we read: ’ ’ Warn thou then; for thou are a warner only; Thou
hast no authority over them.
^^Matthew 25:31-46.
11
The Koran 88:21. See also: 51:50-51 & 26:192-
195.
120
Innumerable passages in the Koran bear the same message.
Hume estimates no less than 852 verses.
But the part Mohammed himself is to play in this Day
of Judgement is not clear in the Koran. It is true that in
the oral tradition of Islam the idea of Mohammed as the
interceder for the faithful on the great last day is devel
oped. Undoubtedly this conception has its origin in certain
passages in the Koran.
They who bear the throne and they who encircle it,
celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him,
and implore forgiveness for the believers.IS
Rodwell in his footnote interprets this as a reference to
the Cherubic beings of Scripture, and in other passages it
is the Angels who intercede. However, the oral tradition
includes the prophet himself among those who can intercede.
The conclusion then, is that Mohammed certainly looked
for the coming of a great last day, a Day of the Lord, but
that his thought about his own part in that event as ex
pressed in the Koran is too indistinct for any definite
conclusion.
ZOROASTER
Zoroaster’s belief in a final Judgement Day has been
^^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931). p.226.
^^The Koran 40:7. See also 42:3.
121
referred to* The references to it in the Gathas do not
surround this day with the great cosmic uphevals one reads
about in the Christian and Mohammedan scriptures. Here it
is thought of solely in moral and religious terms. It is
the day when right shall ultimately triumph over evil, when
truth shall forever overcome the lie. It is referred to as
’ ’The Great Consumation.”^'^
Zoroaster’s part in this Day of Judgement is clearly
defined in the Gathas. Yasna 33 begins with a reference to
him as the Judge:
According as it is with those laws that belong to
the former [i.e. earthly) life, so shall the Judge
act with most just deed towards the follower of the
Lie and the follower of Right and him whose false
things and good things balance.
His function as Judge is to present the life-works of his
faithful followers before God:
Even as he (Zarathushtra) is the Lord (aher whence
Ahura) for us to choose, so is he the Judge, according
to Rightness, he that bringeth the life-works of Good
Thought unto the Wise One, and (so) the Dominion unto
the Lord, even he whom they made shepherd of the poor.1^
On the last day he will be as friend, brother, or father to
the faithful: "Unto him shall the holy Self of the Deliverer
as Lord of the house be friend, brother or father, 0 Thou
14
Moulton^-Jam es H. .M.A. .Early Religious Poetry of
Persia. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.p.93.
’•hbld. Ü.98
16
Ibid. p.115.
122
Wise Lord.”l? This friendship will be expressed in his
crossing with them over the "Bridge of the Separater" which
Moulton describes as a bridge to heaven, wide for the
righteous but narrow as a razor’s edge for the wicked who
fall off it into hell.18
We conclude that the doctrine of the last things
played a prominent part in Zoroaster’s thought, and that he
thought of himself as playing a definite part as Judge,
friend of the faithful, conductor over the perilous Bridge
of the Séparater, and the one who would finally present the
souls of the righteous at the last day before Ahura Mazda.
GAUTAMA AND MAHAVIRA
The doctrine of the Bodhisattvas found in Mahayana
Buddhism, a later development of the faith which has depart
ed widely from the teachings of its founder, may, as
Soothilll^ suggests, be the result of Christian Messianism
influence. According to this doctrine the All-conserving
Soul of the Universe manifests Himself in the lives of
various Bodhisattvas or saviors throughout the history of
17
Yasna 45:11
^®Moulton,James H..M.A..Earlv Religious Poetry of
Persia. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.) p.71
^^Soothill»W.E..The Three Religions of China. (2nd
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 192ST) ^.104,105.
125
mankind. It is possible to see something comparable to
the second coming of Jesus in this doctrine as there will
be Bodhisattvas in the future as well as those who have
been in the past.
But Mahayana Buddhism is as Soothill points out a
late development and departs sharply from the teaching of
Gautama. We have already seen that Gautama himself did
not look for a future life either for himself or for his
followers. The absence of any conception of a great con
sumation of God’s plans in Hinayana, the earlier form of
Buddhism is, then, more consistent with Gautama’s thought.
He had no thought of a great final drama in which he would
play a part.
Mahavira can be included in this section. In his
thought he follows Gautama closely. He also has no place
for a final Day of Judgement in his teaching.
NANAK
It has been interesting to notice that Nanak departed
from Gautama and Mahavira, the other Indian founders, in his
belief in a future life. It has been suggested that this
departure may be due to Mohammedan influence. One would
expect in view of this Mohammedan influence that Nanak would
also have accepted the Mohammedan belief in a final Judgement
Day which has such a central place in the Koran. But such
124
is not the. case. There is little in the Granth which can
be interpreted as referring to a final Day of Judgement.
Hume points out this in his summary of the points of differ
ence between Sikhism and I slam.^0
However, there is one passage from the Granth quoted
in the Sisters of the Spinning Wheel which could be inter
preted as referring to a Judgement Day, though, if Hume is
right, it is evidently not so interpreted by the Sikhs
themselves. Part of it has already been quoted in the
previous chapter.
As we do here, so shall we be judged.
The Court of God separates chaff from wheat, there
shall be measured unto us our raw and. ripe.
Each man shall stand alone: his own deeds shall
avail after the life of this earth.^1
Certainly here is the idea of judgement, even the metaphor
used being that of the court room with God as the Judge,
and it is clearly a judgement after this life. It is not
stated, however, that it is a final judgement, that is, a
consumation or judging of all men at one time. And there
is no reference to any special part which Nanak himself plays
in it.
20
Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, IBSlJT p.107.
PI
The Sisters of the Spinning Wheel, translated by
Pur an Singh. (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.) p. 100.
125
The conclusion perhaps should be that Nanak did include
the idea of a judgement in his thought but it is not clear he
was thinking of a final judgement in the Christian and
Mohammedan sense. He also had no thought of a special part
which he himself was to play,
CONFUCIUS AND LAO-TSE
One would naturally not expect any thought picture of
a final Judgement Day from Confucius who was agnostic as to
the future life, and though he did not altogether repudiate
the belief he thought it unprofitable to talk about it.
Nor would one expect any final Day of the Lord in the thought
of Lao-tse whose belief in a future life at all is very much
open to question. Such is the case. There are no references
whatever either in the writings of Confucius or the Tao-teh-
king of Lao-tse which indicate that these founders believed
in a final Day of the Lord. They had no expectation of
playing a further part in the scheme of salvation beyond the
bounds of their earthly life.
CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the findings of this chapter presents
certain conclusions. The eight founders differ here per
haps more than at any other point in our study. Only three
126
of, them,• Jesus, Mohammed, and Zoroaster, give clear teaching
about a final Judgement Day. Though we recognized the
possibility that Nanak may have believed in such a Judgement
Day we found only slim evidence that he did. The other four,
Gautama, Mahavira, Confucius, and Lao-tse, we concluded, had
no thought of such a final Day of the Lord. Then of the
three who definitely included a Judgement Day in their thought
and"teaching, only two, Jesus and Zoroaster, definitely
thought of themselves as destined to play a part in that day.
CONCLUSIONS
It has not been the purpose of this thesis to try to
determine through comparison the truth or falsehood of what
any one of these eight founders of religion thought about
himself. The purpose has been, through a study of the best
and earliest sources of each religion, to find out what they
did think about themselves and their mission. It is true
certain comparisons have inevitable presented themselves
throughout the study but these have been brought out more to
show the differences betv/een their thought than to show
differences in value.
However, certain general conclusions can be drawn
from this study.
It might be suggested, for instance, that culture is
a determining factor in the religious thought of these
founders. Have we found this to be true? Certainly in the
details of their thought we have found it to be true. Jesus’
conception of God is largely a Jewish conception and his
thought about the Messiah was shaped by the Jewish prophetic
and apocalyptic writings. On the. other hand, Mohammed, a
member of a different culture, rejected to a large extent
the religious traditions of his environment and took over
those of the Jewish people. When we turn to India we find
128
another surprising fact. The thought of Gautama and
Mahavira is parallel in many features and so might be account
ed for largely on the basis of cultural inheritance. But
Nanak, the third Indian founder, departs entirely from the
tradition they established. That he lived many centuries
later than the former two and so was influenced hy Mohamme
danism as well as by Hinduism undoubtedly explains a great
deal of this difference, but the difference does show that
there is no characteristic religion for any given race.
Surely our study of Lao-tse and Confucius supports
this conclusion. Both Chinese, and nearly contemporaries,
yet how fundamentally different their religious thought is I
Confucius believed in good government and the building up
of the state, whereas Lao-tse regarded this as vain effort
and taught a religion of non-effort and passivity.
From this study it would seem that there is as much
evidence that these founders of religion departed from the
traditions of their cultural inheritance as there is that
they adhered to them. Certainly men of the same race differed
fundamentally one from the other. We conclude, then, that
at least as regards fundamentals the religious thought of
these founders is largely independent of the race and culture
to which they happened to belong.
Again it is sometimes argued that the social condi
tions under which a founder of religion lives largely
129
determine the form which his religious thinking takes. No
one would deny that there is truth in this theory. For
example, the supernatural Messianism of the Jews developed
through the years when the Jewish people were a subject race.
As their hopes for a political conquering Messiah waned
because their oppressed condition did not alter through the
years, they projected that hope to the supernatural realm
and began to look for an actual intervention from God him
self. It is clear that Jesus accepted this supernatural con
ception of his Messiahship, a conception which grew from the
oppression of his people, the social conditions of his
people. Zoroaster’s thinking is filled with the religious
significance of agriculture and the caring for live stock
because he lived and taught when his people were changing
from a nomadic to an agricultural people. Mohammed preached
the supremacy of the One God in reaction to the wars and
tribal feuds of the Arabia of his time. Nanak preached the
One Supreme God in an attempt to unite the Mohammedans and
Hindus who made up his social environment.
However, to claim that social conditions are the
determining factor in the thought of the founders of religion
is too simple. It is not supported by the facts. That each
founder has a fundamental individualism would seem to be
the more significant fact. All of them lived in times of
130
social unrest of one kind or another yet their reactions to
this fact were entirely different. Jesus saw this social
evil as sin; something foreign to a life which is God’s gift
and therefore fundamentally good. Whereas Mahavira and
Gautama saw the evils of society as inherent in life itself.
They rejected belief in God and gods and saw salvation as
release from life. Confucius, wrestling with the unrest and
political corruption of his time developed a system of ethics
which he believed had its sanction from Heaven and would, if
practiced, bring about the perfect state. Lao-tse, on the
other hand, reacting to the same unrest and corruption taught
passivity. To him the evils of society resulted from man’s
attempt to make society good. His thought is the direct
antithesis of Confucius’ thought.
The conclusion,, then, is that though certain conditions
of social unrest seem to form the environment which gives
birth to a religious founder, once he is born he interprets
and attacks that social unrest with an individualism of
thought which is better explained by the word "revelation"
than by any theory of cultural inheritance or social environ
ment.
Once the idea of revelation is accepted we depart
from the realm of science; from a closed, explainable, realm
of cause and effect, to a realm which, though it must include
and be in harmony with the truths of science, still does go
151
beyond the explainable and leave room for the mystery which
must always be inherent in the study of man’s relationship
with God.
Within this realm of mystery, this realm which,
humanly speaking, is ultimately unexplainable, must be fitted
the claims to uniqueness or divinity which some of the founders
of religion have made, and which, are supported either directly
of implicitly in the best and earliest sources. The liberal’s
wish to reduce the thought of these men about themselves to
the humanly familiar and explainable is an impossible task.
It not only leaves the fact of their tremendous influence
upon the thought of mankind inadequately accounted for, but,
it does violence to the sources from which knowledge of the
founders is derived.
We have tried throughout this study to distinguish
between the early and late sources of each religion concerned,
and to discount the latter. This having been done there is
still much material which can hardly be reconciled with this
liberal point of view.
Indeed, the study shows that belief in the divinity
of the founders of religion is not something foreign to our
humanity, but something so essentially human and natural
that it is supplied where claims of it are lacking. Gautama
and Mahavira, Confucius and Lao-tse, according to the sources
made no claims to divinity of any sort, yet, in each case.
152
their followers have worshipped them as gods. Belief in the
incarnation of God in history which is personally claimed
only by Jesus is not a doctrine opposed to the deepest in
stincts of men, but on the contrary, seems to fill a felt
need in their religious thinking.
Perhaps Jesus’ claim to uniqueness and divinity more
than anything else in his life and teaching explain the
phenomenal growth of his influence among the people of the
world. Though Christianity is six or seven centuries younger
than the other religions studied with the exception of Moham
medanism and Sikhism, yet it has more than twice as many
members as the largest of the other faithsIt can readily
be shown that ethically many of the world’s religions have
much in common, and though Christians believe Jesus has given
mankind the highest ethical standards known to men, still the
difference between his ethical teaching and the ethical teach
ing of the other founders is not enough alone to account for
his much greater influence. Emerson once said, "What you are
speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you sajrl" What Jesus
claimed to be,-what he thought about himself - is what gives
his teachings greater authority than the teachings of the other
founders and accounts to a large degree for his greater in
fluence in the world.
^Hume,Robert E..The World’s Living Religions. (New York.
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.) p.14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Addison, James Thayer, Life Beyond Death. Cambridge, Mass.:
Houghton Mifflin Co. The Riverside Press Cambridge,
1932. 309 pp.
Barton, George A, Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia:
5th edition. American Sunday School Onion. 1927.
581 pp.
The Book of Common Prayer. New York: James Pott & Company,
1929. 584 pp.
Burrows, Millar, The Founders of Great Religions. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935. 243 pp.
Burton, Ernest Dewitt and Shailer Matthews, The Life of
Christ. Revised edition. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1927. 390 pp.
The Chinese Classics, translated by James Legge, D.D. New
York: John W. Lovell Co., 1870. 219 pp.
Bakin, Frank, Getting Acquainted with the New Testament.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927. 489 pp.
Fosdick, Harry Emerson, The Modern Use of the Bible. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1934. 291 pp.
Frazer, Sir James George, The Golden Bough. London:
The Macmillan Company, 1911-15. 12 Vol.
Glover, T.R., The Influence of Christ in the Ancient World.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929. 122 pp.
Gore, Charles; Henry Leighton Gondge: Alfred Guillaume,
editors, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1928. 743 pp.
Gould, Ezra P., on Mark in International Critical Commentary.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1896. 317 pp.
Hastings, James, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923. 5 Vol.
Hastings, James, editor. Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927.
13 Vol.
155
Hodgson, Leonard, And Was Made Man. New York: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1928. 216 pp.
Hume, Robert E., The World’s Living Religions. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931. 312 pp.
• • . . , compiler & editor, Treasure-House of the Living
Religions. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932.
493 pp.
The Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whist on,
A.M. Philadelphis: Lippincott, Grambo & Co., 1850.
2 Vol.
Jackson, A.V.Williams, Zoroaster. The Prophet of Ancient Iran.
London: The Macmillan Company, 1901. 314 pp.
Knudson, Albert C., The Beacon Lights of Prophecy. New York:
The Methodist Book Concern, 1914. 281 pp.
The Koran. Translated from Arabic by the Rev. M.M. Rodwell,
M.A. Edinburgh; Williams and Norgate, 1861. 659 pp.
Kraeling, Carl H., Anthropos and Son of Man. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1927. 191 pp.
Moore, George Foot, The History of Religions. New York;
1913-19. 2 Vol. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Moulton, James H., M.A., Early Religious Poetry of Persia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. 170 pp.
Muir, Sir William, The Life of Mohammed.. New and revised
edition by T.H.Weir. Edinburgh: J.Grant, 1912.
556 pp.
Muller, F.Max., editor. The Sacred Books of the East.
V. 6, 9, 22, 39, 40, 45. Oxford: The Clarenden Press,
1884.
Peake, Arthur S., M.A.,D.D., A Commentary on the Bible.
London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, Ltd., 1929. 1014 pp.
Porter, Frank C., The Mind of Christ in Paul. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 323 pp.
Potter, Charles Francis, The Story of Religion. New York:
Simon & Schuster Inc., 1929. 627 pp.
156
Schweitzer, Albert, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
translated by W.Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black,
1910. 410 pp.
The Sisters of the Spinning Whoel, translated by Puran
Singh. New York: E.P.Dutton & Go. 179 pp.
Contains selections from the Adi Granth of Sikhism.
Some Sayings of the Buddha. translated by F.L.Woodward, M.A.
Oxford: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press,
1925. 556 pp.
Soothill, W.E., The Three Religions of China. 2nd edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925. 271 pp.
Soper, Edmund Davison. The Religions of Mankind. New York:
The Abingdon Press, 1930. 344 pp.
Sperry, Willard L., "Yes. But-" New York: Harper & Bros.,
1931. 185 pp.
Stevenson, Mrs. Sinclair (Margaret), The Heart of Jainism.
Oxford: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press,
1915. 556 pp.
Streeter, Burnett H., The Buddha and the Christ. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1933. 356 pp.
Thomas, Edward J., The Life of Buddha as Legend and History.
2nd edition. London: A.A.Khopf, 1931. 297 pp.
Van Buskirk, William R., The Saviors of Mankind. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1929. 537 pp.
Warren, Henry C., Buddhism in Translations. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1896. 520 pp.
Wells, H. G., The Outline of History. Garden City, New York:
Garden City Publishing Co.,Inc., 1920. 1171 pp.
Wilhelm, Richard, Lao-Tse und der Taoismus. Stuttgart:
Frommann, 1925. 172 pp.
Zwemer, Samuel M., Across the World of Islam. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929. 382. pp.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Prayer in the experience and thought of Saint Augustine of Hippo

PDF

The possibility of developing studies in pastoral counseling in the School of religion of the University of Southern California

PDF

The Kingdom of God in the teachings of Jesus

PDF

Concepts of the church

PDF

An inductive study of selected groups of young people's religious activities in the southwest section of Los Angeles

PDF

A mnemonic method of Bible study

PDF

A comparative study of the views of Kraemer and Tillich on the relationship of Christianity to other religions

PDF

A survey and critical evaluation of the religious ideas of Sigmund Freud with emphasis on method

PDF

Some aspects of the nature of the self in the writings of Paul Tillich

PDF

Creating a social consciousness through worship

PDF

New Testament teachings concerning divorce

PDF

Some aspects of the race problem in the social gospel

PDF

An investigation of the philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru: With particular emphasis on his philosophy of religion

PDF

Survivals of primitive beliefs in present day religions

PDF

A survey of the administrative technique of the ministers of the Southern California conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church

PDF

The influence of Sidney Rigdon upon the theology of Mormonism

PDF

The implications of the teachings of Jesus in the present social crisis

PDF

A study of the historical growth of the social emphasis in Christianity

PDF

An evaluation of the program of pastoral calling in the Southern California-Arizona Conference of the Methodist Church

PDF

An ethical evaluation of some contemporary proposals for economic and technical assistance by the United States to underdeveloped areas

Asset Metadata

Creator Campbell, D. J. (author)

Core Title What the founders of some of the living religions thought about themselves

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Theology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-169949

Unique identifier UC11311481

Identifier EP65099.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-169949 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP65099.pdf

Dmrecord 169949

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Campbell, D. J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA