Page:An Essay On Hinduism.pdf/144

neglect the rituals. If any new sampradaya should rise, which should despise the Brāhmaṇical rites of marriage and try to substitute a civil marriage, and if the members of that body should be well organized, then that sampradāya is likely to become a heterodoxy.

It may be argued that if the members of the sampradāya became separated from the general society around them, then it is not the fault of the sampradāya, but it is the fault of the society. But this argument is not sufficiently cogent. It is the duty of the founders and the followers of the new sampradāyas, of the introducers of social innovations and advocates of foreign religions to understand the nature of the society they have to deal with. In case they do not take pains to understand the nature of the society when they take a jump, and find themselves paid for the innovation by social exclusion, they must bear it without any murmur. Cursing the society around them, when there is nobody to bear the blame, as the society is unorganized, is the work of cowards, who deserve pity indeed, but not sympathy. This opinion of mine I express with special reference to the high-caste Hindus who become Christians, and to the men who talk against caste, organize a religious brotherhood or tribe of their own to "abolish caste," start new sacraments, trample the old ones, find themselves excluded from the society, and therefore complain again. Had the whole society been well organized with a central head which could do or undo things, then only would their censure of the society have been of avail; but as long as that condition does not exist, to censure "society" or even the caste system is only worthy of the ignorant. But I am sorry to say that in such an attempt are found people of all classes – from a schoolgirl of ten years to the Hindu judges of the high court.