The problem of Hindu psychology

IT was a remarkable speech which Lala Lajpat Rai delivered at the Bradlaugh Hall on Saturday evening. His observations about the mentality of the Hindu are both interesting and instructive; and, though he indulged in a good deal of plain-speaking which always characterises his utterances, he did not fail to appreciate the good points of those phases of Hindu philosophy which he had set out to criticise. “Hindus do not lack wealth, knowledge, industry, physical power or bravery,” said Lalaji, “yet they lack organisation and capacity for united action.” This, according to him, was due to the fact that “the mentality of fear, doubt and analysis has incapacitated them.” Lalaji traced the present mentality of the Hindus to the influence of the teachings of Buddha. He said: “Another incident in Hindu history was the renunciation by a Hindu prince of all worldly things for the purpose of solving the problem of death. Buddha perhaps deserves to be placed first among the great men of the world; yet it cannot be said that his teachings have proved profitable to Hindus. He, too, had practically the same problem facing him as Arjuna. The effect of his teachings on Hindus still lasted.” Lalaji said Hindu history after Buddha was rife with effects of his teachings; so also was the history of Hindu failures. Comparing Buddha’s philosophy with that of Krishna, he said: “Buddha’s philosophy is one of doubt, agnosticism, analysis. The philosophy of Krishna is one of certainly, positivism, action. While the former is of no use in a field of battle, the latter is most suited to a field of action.”