Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Four

Darrens comments on Prasad

Thank you for your comments on prasad in my paper, and for this article on Prasad. It is helps me, and I’m sure others, see the various meanings behind prasad. But I am still uncertain of one of your points: For you as a bhakta of the Lord, is prasad symbolic? You say at one point that the materials are not symbols, but at another point you seem to say that Hindu bhaktas do not see the food as bringing blessing. As you probably know, one of the questions from a Christian theology standpoint is, what happens with communion? Does the physical material bring Christ’s presence and blessing, even one important for salvation (more Roman Catholic)? Is the material symbolic but the action brings the “spiritual” presence of Christ that nourishes the believers (Reformed)? Or is everything (material and action) symbolic – not conveying Christ’s presence or blessing in any special way but reminding us of his death and resurrection and his constant presence and blessing (more Evangelical)? I am not saying the maha prasad of Hindu bhaktas does or has to fit into any of these categories, but I bring them up as examples of what “symbolic” could mean in communion.

Thank you as well for the other comments in my paper. It helps me see the unhelpful connotations of some words (compartmentalize). I take your critique of “hybrid religiosity.” I’m still working with terms and haven’t settled on them yet, so I appreciate this. But in a previous chapter I make the point that all religious traditions, and all forms of religiosity, are hybrid. This is just a historical fact, and includes all Christ-following traditions. The fallacy is that there are “pure” forms of religiosity that needs to be preserved and protected from contamination. But from a theological perspective I also argue that we need to give much more place and trust to the presence of God’s Spirit in this. Not that God’s Spirit keeps our religiosity “pure.” That isn’t his concern. Rather He keeps all things moving towards his ultimate purpose of re-creation. In so doing Christ-followers should (hopefully) be less quick to judge others, particularly Christ-follower expressions they are not familiar with. This explanation may not help you accept my use of “hybrid religiosity,” but at least know that I am not singling out one group as “hybrid” and others as “pure.”

Darren

6-4-2019

Dear Darren

Thanks for the response.  I too was bit confused how to use the word ‘symbolic’.  My point is the final one (more evangelical).  Thanks for noting it and I will make the correction. Or can you edit this article so that I can update with your edited version?

I agree with your point on ‘hybrid’.  My problem is with English.  Though I understand the word ‘hybrid’ still for my understanding about my bhakti in the Lord as a Hindu should not be considered as a hybrid of mixing Christianity and Hinduism. My bhakti is a Hindu form of expressing it as much as possible with Indian terms.  As I don’t believe in the hybrid identity as ‘Hindu Christian’ or ‘Hindu Catholic’ I try to defend our identity as ‘Hindu bhaktas’ and not a hybrid form of ‘Hindu Christian’. Anyhow I need to rework on it. Thanks.

db

 Dear Darren

Shanti!

See below the way I added this based on your comments. I am not going to mention your name. Let it remain anonymous.  Can you go through the entire article quickly so that I cleared your doubts and explained the word ‘smbolic’ properly. I removed the posting from my blog after reading your comments and revised it.  However in my revised blog post I already addressed your concern.

The new points:

@@@But I think this is easily said than understood considering various theology behind ‘communion’ service in Christianity. As one pointed out, ‘one of the questions from a Christian theology standpoint is, what happens with communion? Does the physical material bring Christ’s presence and blessing, even one important for salvation (more Roman Catholic)? Is the material symbolic but the action brings the “spiritual” presence of Christ that nourishes the believers (Reformed)? Or is everything (material and action) symbolic – not conveying Christ’s presence or blessing in any special way but reminding us of his death and resurrection and his constant presence and blessing (more Evangelical)? I am not saying the maha prasad of Hindu bhaktas does or has to fit into any of these categories, but I bring them up as examples of what “symbolic” could mean in communion.’

My understanding as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord is this: Our worship of the Lord is not symbolic.  What the Lord has done historically through his sacrifice is not symbolic.  The grace that we receive is not symbolic.  We use the local materials ‘remembering’ the grace of God through the sacrificial act of the Lord.  At the same time in our celebration of ‘maha-prasad’ we never discriminate between those who received deeksha and those who not.  We teach the bhaktas of the Lord that when we receive ‘maha-prasad’ we remember the ‘saving grace of god’ and when we allow others to receive it remains as the ‘common grace of god’ as the word ‘prasad’ means grace.  So our celebration of ‘maha-prasad’ as Hindu bhaktas won’t neatly fit into any of these Christian theological categories. @@@

Thank you for letting me read this. I largely agree with your first points on symbolism. But I don’t make the connection between this and Mahaprasad. If the materials help you remember the Lord’s grace, rather than actually transmitting it in some way, are not the materials then symbolic in some way? I sense you want to articulate an alternative to the traditional Hindu way of viewing the physical material of prasad, but without saying that Mahaprasad is simply symbolic.

One alternative that I’ve found very helpful is to focus not so much on the material, but on the practice itself. What happens when we do communion? I’ve attached an article that you may or may not find helpful. It is an older one by a Baptist theologian on baptism. See particular Section II. He wants to argue that baptism can be seen as what he calls a performative sign – that in doing baptism we are joining with God in making certain things happen. He makes a similar connection to Communion in some of his books. I think the idea could be applied to Mahaprasad. That, in some way the Lord is present and active both in the performance of the ritual and with the community that performs it. So the material itself is largely symbolic and does not convey God’s grace, but it is a part of a ritual whose performance does facilitate a special presence of the Lord.

I wonder if/how the idea of a performative act – the idea that the action itself helps accomplish something – resonates with some Hindu rituals. I think it certainly does. The danger with this theology is that it can easily become magic and mechanistic – if I do the action in the right way then God or the deity or power will do this for me. We need to avoid that. But I think there is also evidence in Scripture that God is responsive to our actions, particularly prayer and declarations of faith. Perhaps Mahaprasad is helpfully seen as a performative declaration of remembrance that God responds to and honors and blesses in some way, by faith.

Darren

Thanks Darren for this comment and it helps me to understand the performative act.  But I have few more questions to get clarity on this point. I too agree that the materials that we use are symbolic.  I think I made it clear also. That is why we use various materials that is available locally than insisting in some kind of uniformity (as done in several denominational churches in India).  We even use black tea in some areas if that is the only available material among the poor than insisting on milk.

Now one time one Austrelian missionary in a conference held back in late 1990s told that the act baptism and communion is symbolic.  In his Indian group, they also insist of not even conducting baptism or communion for the new bhaktas.  According to them all these are mere symbolic events and we need not use them as we integrate its meaning in spirit—viz., they are spiritual reality therefore no need for physical expression. Then I asked him whether the physical death of the Lord on the Cross is real or symbolic?  Is our salvation (mukti) is real or symbolic?

I think the dry intellectual understanding of spirituality in the west among some evangelicals and the needs of symbols and performative acts with materials in India is the main issue here.  If I love someone how to show it without performing it through physical act using materials?  I love my mother and want to serve her. But this I have to do it by practically looking after her using materials.

As I said is our act of worship is real or symbolic?  For me the materials that we use are immaterial for us.  I will go even to the extent of saying that they are not even symbolic but mere materials which we can use and throw. But the acts that we do are not symbolic.  Otherwise the acts of god in history will become symbolic as several liberals claim. 

Anyhow I will read the article which you sent.  I will try to integrate your points in my article and I will send it again for you to read to comment before I post in my blog.

Have you read the book Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Illinois, IVP Academic, 2008?

The following points from this book, though shared in different context might helpful for me to share my views on Maha-prasad also as performative act:

               Jesus was a metaphorical theologian.  That is, his primary method of creating meaning was through metaphor, simile, parable and dramatic action rather than through logic and reasoning. He created meaning like a dramatist and a poet rather than like a philosopher.—p. 279

In the Western tradition serious theology has almost always been constructed from ideas held together by logic.  In such a world the more intelligent the (p.279) theologian, the more abstract he or she usually becomes, and the more difficult it is for the average person to understand what is being said.  Paul works with ideas and metaphors.   In the West we have tended to emphasis his concepts and sideline his metaphors.  By so doing we have made him fit into our world of conceptual theologians.

               In contrast, the popular perception of Jesus is that of a village rustic creating folktales for fishermen and farmers.  But when examined with care, his parables are serious theology, and Jesus emerges an astute theologian. He is, as noted, primarily a metaphorical rather than a conceptual theologian.—pp. 279-80

               A metaphor communicates in ways that rational arguments cannot.  Pictures easily trump but do not replace abstract reasoning.  A powerful television image communicates meaning that a thousand words cannot express.  When used in theology to create meaning, the parable challenges the listener in ways that abstract statements of truth cannot approach.  Yet the two are often linked, and both are critical to the task of theology.—p. 280

@@@

Dear Dasan,

Shanti!

I feel very sorry to write this and also like this.  Being a leader of OM and also a pastor of a church I expected you to give some kind of response to my previous mails about the interview which you took.  Irrespective of my repeated mails, the way you keep silent really surprised me and few people who opposed to give any interview to any Christian workers or Organization proved correct by your way of ‘IGNORING’ my mails, whereas you have some responsibility and even accountability as it involves my life and story.  So I request you to drop my name from your thesis and never use my material either in your thesis or any other place.  Irrespective of this request if I come across any of the material which you collected from my interview, then I will be forced to defend my position in a different way.  I might even write in my next book the way Christians use the story of the ‘converts’ only for their selfishness not telling the whole truth, even mentioning your name and position.

Sorry for such words.  Only you forced me to write such words.

Dayanand Bharati

Dear Swamiji,

Greetings and thank you for your email.  I am really sorry about the silence that I have maintained and there is reason for that and I will mention that to you.  However, I am sorry and please forgive me.

I am not working on my thesis as fast as you may be imagining.  I am really slow due to my work.  

You have corrected and sent the copy and I have corrected all the suggestion you have made.  I gave to my professor and he felt that it is too long and I have to reduce by one fourth.  So what I will write is very short.  What I wrote and presented to my professor was in October.  Since October 2005, I have not even touched my thesis.  I will be looking at it only in May 2006.  

I thought that I will rework on that and I will send to you for final approval.  As there was nothing to show to you, I did not respond to you.  Everytime, I try to work on, I have not done any work on it.  I have been postponing.  I will not write anything without your approval.  So please wait until I work on it.

Inspite of my request, now if you still feel that I should not include you, please inform me.

I am sorry about my lack of response but that was due to non-completion of work and there is no other motive in it.  Once again I am sorry about it.  Please forgive me.  God bless us all.  with wishes of God’s blessings, Jeyaraj   

Dear Jeyaraj,

Shanti and Easter Greetings.

Now I understand the reason for lack of any kind of response from you.  But you could have at least write this before.  My only request is that without my final approval don’t publish anything about me.  God bless your work.

dayanand

Dear Madhu, Raman and Chakaravarthy,

When I received the news from Dr. Jayaraj Dasan about getting his doctorate, after congratulating him, I wrote the following mail on March 11^th 2009 and May 4^th 2009.¹

In order to remind you all, I am giving the previous mails which I wrote him in the past regarding the thesis at the end of this mail.²  Now considering his silence and lack of any response, I am not sure what further step I should take.  I will wait few more days and then I will proceed as per our collective decision.  What all I expect from him is that portion of his thesis in which he wrote about me.  If he has dropped me from his thesis I will be happy.  But if still he included me, then I would like to know what he actually wrote.  Looking forward to hear from you all.

db

Previous letters dt. March 11^th 2009 and May 4^th 2009.

1. Dear Jeyaraj

Shanti

Congratulations. 

I am not sure whether you still included your material about me?  Because according to our previous understanding, before you submit your thesis, you will send my part of your thesis for me to read.  Well, now you have submited your thesis and got the doctorate, we cannot do much.  Anyhow, if you have included anything about me and if you plan to publish it as a book, pl. let me read once again those pages about me, so that you can give correct information. 

After your thesis several new things developed in my life, which you should need to know before you publish your thesis as a book.  God bless you.

db

Dear Dr. Jayara Dasan

Shanti!

I wonder why there is no response to my previous mail dt. March 11th?  I expect some kind of response with responsibility.

Thanks

Db

2. See the first three mails in this file.

Dear Swamiji,

Thanks for these emails and your patience.  It is true that I have graduated but the assessment committee recommended that there should be some English correction.  They wanted some one in UK to do that.  However, I could not get some one to do that.  They are also charging so much of money.  In the month of April, one of my friends in Switzerland offered to help me with the correction.  So I have sent to him.  The thesis is not published yet.  When the English corrections are over, it will be sent for publication.  I wanted to send you the material after the English correction.  Due to my travel and Lent season, I did not reply to your email and that is my mistake and I apologize for that. 

I am sending the material and it is not the English corrected version.  Please send me your comments and corrections.  I appreciate your help and I apologize for my delay. 

With wishes,

Jeyaraj

@@@

Dayanand’s response to Tamisaivam’s mails.  This is sent only to Rick and not others.

Sent to Rick only:

Db’s response:

Theologians/philosophers, living in isolation from the lay people discuss, debate and argue while forming any kind of theology/philosophy (and principle) for them.  Whereas lay people not knowing all these kinds of debates are living with the reality in their day to day life.  While these theologians/philosophers endeavor to formulate such theology/philosophy on idealized interpretation on their respective (authoritative) texts (scriptures), they not only ignore but also ignorant about the struggle of the lay people for whom they claim to form such theology/philosophy (and whether their respective Scriptures actually address this issue or not is entirely debatable).  But after spending time and energy in formulating such principle (theology/philosophy) they live with their own blissful ignorance that lay people are going to receive their deliberation happily with much reverence and are going to implement in their life situation.  Thankfully not knowing all these ivory tower deliberation of their so called guardians of faith, lay people not only remain ignorant of such principles but also continue to ignore such principles (and people who form those principles) which never reflect their real life.

When, again on same old rhetorical debate on caste is done by only the fulltime workers (missionaries/theologians/church leaders/evangelicals etc.,) as an intellectual entertainment, it will remain a time pass for them to write papers and books.  And they will teach these principles again to the seminary students and evangelical workers, who in turn study to answer some questions in their examinations to pass and to get their certificate to get their job (in the Mission/Seminary/Church) but never going to ‘learn’ anything to strictly or sincerely implement in their ministry.  Or the Full Time workers already in the Mission filed will hear (won’t listen) these teachings in their ‘REFRESH’ course, but once return back to their Mission field will carry on their same old activities, as these ‘REFRESH’ course only give a break from their routine mission work than actually help them to learn new things. As this vicious cycle is going to continue ever and ever, lay people can peacefully live out their bhakti based on simple faith in the Lord who guides them in their day to day life knowing their struggle better than these ivory tower theologians/philosophers. (See below Academic research won’t accomplish much.)

This debate is like the so called Civil Society versus Politicians on Moaist violence.  None of them are directly affect by the problem and so never going to understand it.  But the people who are directly affected by this issue have to live with their struggle each day.  Of course some have to debate and come out with some solution.  But certain struggles many change their name and form and will emerge in another way.  And those who are directly involved and affected will come out with their own solution as each struggle has to come to its own logical conclusion.   In such struggle some are going to gain and others are going to loose.  Those who gained may celebrate their victory and those lost may mourn for their defeat.  But this struggle will never going to end with that particular logical conclusion that it reached.  It will re-emerge in another form and name.

But I must confess that this comparison of Moaist menace with ‘caste’ issue in side the church by the Full Time workers is not correct.  Because though the politicians and civil right groups are not directly affected by this problem, yet they are paying some kind of price for their involvement in it.  Some times politicians have to even gamble not only their future hope but present life.  Whereas these Full Time workers who debate on caste issue in side the church have nothing to pay except their ‘ego’ clash with their opponents in another Full Time Workers camp.

For me caste issue will continue both in the church and society at large.  All kinds of idealized principles arrived by ‘others’ (Western Christians or Westernized Indian Christians, some thankfully migrated to West [particularly to USA] and gave up their Indian identity for their own personal reasons but now return back to ‘serve’ the same Indians whom they have deserted once) is not going to help the common people on the ground.  And taking the fight to the so called Church at large, as if there exist such church which is going to reach some conclusion which will bound all the Christians in India is a joke.  It is like the call given to Organize the Hinduism as an organized religion like Christianity (See my short article ‘Learn to with reality’)*.  In stead, try to help those bhaktas both inside and outside the church to come in terms with their struggle on practical level.

This I have done in my life.  Both Jaya (a Brahmin girl, name changed) and Kumar (a SC, name changed) were given deeksha by me at Erode in river Kavery.  After the two days meetings, when Kumar personally asked me whether he can marry Jaya as both of them are now follow the Lord.  For this I asked, whether his parents will accept if he chooses a girl lower to his caste, he said ‘no’.  ‘Then why do you expect that Jaya’s parents will accept you as their son-in-law.  If both you and Jaya fall in love and have decided to marry without minding your parent’s objection, I won’t mind and I have no objection.  But, in our society, marriage is the responsibility of our parents and so I cannot interfere in Jaya’s parents decision’.  This does not mean that I approve caste discrimination.  Even before I become a bhakta of the Lord, I opposed in our family.  My own sister married a boy outside our caste and when the whole family opposed I alone supported them, even after their marriage for a long time.

When we (I) promote ‘Muktinath centered families with in Hindu communities’, we do it not following any principle of Megavaran (I never studied his principles) or follow any ‘People group’ strategy of any Mission.  We begin from where we are but grow together in the Lord not keeping what divides us (caste, race, class, status etc.) but celebrating what unites us (our bhakti in the Lord).  But in our pilgrimage as bhaktas of the Lord, we never try to uproot one’s identity however it is not acceptable to others.  If a person for whatever reasons want to give up her identity, we respect her personal choice, but try to inform and educate the consequence that not only she would face but her own immediate family members in the society at large.  The so called individualism at the cost of personal commitment and responsibility towards family and society is not encouraged in this land.  Like all other human concepts it (Individualism) has its own merit and demerit.  But being part of a larger community and society, we accept both the merit and demerit and try to work out to implement our new found bhakti and the values which Muktiveda demands from us.

We Indians have a love and hate relationship with Caste issue.  When we have some gain we love it and when we are adversely (that too personally) affected then we hate it.  This is true with any other kind principle with ‘dwand’ (attraction and repulsion).  Class struggle is another best example.  Race is next.  Because as Negroes are now called ‘Black Americans; and ‘Obama’ is elected as their President, race issue is not going to disappear from American society.  Two days before (June 22^nd) I saw a program in National Geography ‘Locked down’ about the prisoners in America.  As soon as a prisoner enters in jail, whether he likes it or not he has to join with his racial group.  And each group (Black Americans, White Americans, Mexico-Americans etc.) have their own nick name and no prisoner can survive without becoming the member of their particular group.  If this being the truth, any talk against racism won’t help common people who have to live with that reality in their every day life.  Try to understand and help your best than make the issue to discuss and debate as a pass time or intellectual entertainment. 

            In my book: Living Dialogue (Unpublished, even not edited) I have written one chapter on the issue of ‘Caste’.  I am willing to share some part of it, as it will clearly our position clearly, if it necessary future in this Forum.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, June 23, 2010.

* This is posted in esatsangh.  And those want to read, ask me personally and I will send it.

@@@@

After reading some of the mails in a discussion on caste, I want to record my thoughts here, though I won’t share with anyone else.  This I write in response as a lay person to the scholars who debate to form a theory/principle imagining that their endeavor will help the lay people to find solution to their problem related with caste (or any other issues).

If a Hindu (I limit my discussion only with a Hindu as I am not competent to include others like Muslims etc.) hears the gospel through any means and wants to make a commitment to follow the Lord what are the things that she should give up and receive?

I know for sure that at the minimum she should give up her faith in her Hindu gods and make a firm commitment to become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

Whether she likes it or not, she cannot understand her new found bhakti and grow in it without the fellowship of fellow bhaktas of the Lord, who could be a fellow Hindu bhakta or a ‘Christian convert’ or a traditional Christian.  Because, no one can have a private faith.   However one should have personal relationship with the Lord.

Now any progress that she could make in her bhakti depends upon from whom she is going to learn: fellow Hindu bhakta or a ‘Christian’ convert or traditional Christian.  Here we have to add one more category: Full Time Workers, from any one of these groups.  As I shared in the Chennai 2010 RF Conference, her bhakti in the Lord will depend upon whom she will allow to draw the line for her. [See my revised paper ‘Where to draw the line].

Except the Hindu bhakta of the Lord rest of the two in this group will expect a new ‘believer’ to give up all her Hindu identity and values and accept all ‘Christian’ identity and values, thinking that there actually exists any biblical ‘Christian’ identity and values which they keep ready to impose on every ‘new’ bhakta.  A ‘convert’, in order to survive among the Christians can accept such ‘Christian’ identity and values, allowing other to draw the line for her.  Whereas a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has to seriously and personally struggle to resolve several issues related to her bhakti in the Lord and her identity as a Hindu.  Of course even these so called Hindu ‘converts’ and traditional Christians never come out from many Hindu identity and values in their personal and (Christian) community life.  But they have a double standard in this.  When they become the guardian of others ‘faith’ (particularly that of a new believer) they will give all kind of idealized interpretation to the biblical views (casteless, race-less, united ) and impose them on the shoulders of the new believers whereas they won’t lift even a finger to unburden any load which they put on the back of them.  They themselves know that they are not implementing these idealized biblical interpretations both in their personal/family and church life.  However they love to create a perfect ‘convert’ to parade as a trophy as success to their ‘ministry’.

And those reformers who want to cleanse the (Indian) church from all its evil will continue to present all kinds of idealized interpretation of every Kingdom value, knowing the fact that in this evil world God allows the weeds to grow along with the paddy to be cleansed at the end and not destroy the harvest in the name of removing the weed.  But what really amuses and annoys is that neither they can communicate their idealized deliberations to the lay people nor the lay people can understand their ‘burden’. And the life will go as usual for both.  And when it is done by those reformers who left their Indian identity and become Americans (or any other nationals) for whatever good reasons and try to cleanse the Indian church, it amuses their Western (American) peer group and irritates committed Indian Christians.  And not accepted in their promised land and ignored by the people of their birth country they have live as a ‘refuge’ in their promised land and continue to make a living by pleasing some of their Western Bosses always attacking the values of their birth country as Full Time workers and will remain a permanent ‘traitors’ to the people of their birth country, as they betrayed them.  Once they gave up their Indian identity, why now they suddenly want to come and reform Indian churches and missions?  When they gave up their Indian identity they sent the message to us that they don’t want to be part of us.  This does not mean that they should not have any ‘burden’ for their birth country.  Who am I to stop them?  But when they want to come back as NRI and serve us, they should be humble than parading their arrogance.  When they deserted us (for whatever the good reasons), they have soled their ‘birth right’.  Any claim as the member of the body of Christ and belong to the Universal church, and therefore appeal to the Church at large is again an idealized demand (or regret) of their lost birth right.  Yes as a fellow bhakta of the Lord they have every right and burden to help other bhaktas anywhere in the world.  But living in their own ‘comfort zones’ what they do is only a ‘kabadi’ ministry.  Then knowing their limitation, they should be more humble than take up all the authority on their hands as a Reformer to outsiders (here a Westernized Indian Christian to the Indian bhaktas of the Lord).  And if they are not ready to understand their limitation, then they will be left alone ignored by the lay people who never need the seva of such outsiders.  Of course some other (trans continental) scholars will continue to have a debate or dialogue with them or among them, but all will remain as Intellectual Entertainment.  And we lay people will again raise the slogan: LEAVE US ALONE.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 9, 2010.

Where to Draw the lone: on some practical issues

Now coming back to the question of ‘who to draw the line’, let me share two brain storms which I wrote in March:

To the question, ‘How far we should go’ in reaching a Hindu for the Lord, my answer is: ‘you should go even to the extent of loosing your faith.  Then alone you will understand the struggle of a Hindu to become a bhakta of the Lord’.

Because what is your minimum expectation when you share the gospel with a Hindu?  You expect her to come to the ‘faith’.  But it is not enough for her to come to the ‘faith’ in the Lord, but also to your ‘particular’ denominational doctrinal faith, understanding, interpretation of the Muktiveda, the so called ‘Christian’ values, rituals, worship etc.

Now let us fix some criterion for any one to become a bhakta of the Lord, irrespective of her cultural, social and religious backgrounds (including for a nominal Christian to become a ‘born again Christian’).  To make it more understandable let us divide those criterion to some section of our life:

Social

Cultural

Sadhanas (disciplines)

Religious

Rituals

Spiritual

Ethical/Moral

Other areas: Hobbies; entertainment; social fellowship; etc.

In all this we should note the difference between ‘biblical’ views from ‘Christian views’.  Because, though most of the Christians views are based on the bible, not all the Christians views are biblical.  Most of the so called Christians views snow balled adding various western worldviews where it grew after the gospel spread to European countries.  So we should understand the clear distinction between ‘biblical’ from ‘Christian’ views.

To illustrate this point let me take one so called ‘Christian’ ritual of ‘burial’.  I often heard about ‘Christian’ burial as if the bible talks about it.  In fact the confession in most of the Creeds about the ‘burial’ of our Lord on the third day, according to me is not correct. Because, our Lord was not actually ‘buried’ on the third day.  In fact according to His Jewish custom He was never buried. 

Because Jesus never burry the way as the Christians burry their dead these days.  First they embalm the body and cover with cloths and keep in a cave.  After a year or two when the body was complete decomposed, then they will collect the bones and put them in a small stone box specially made for this purpose then burry it (actually) keep it in a small chamber specially cutout for this purpose.  In fact Lord’s body was ‘put’ inside the cave after embalmed and not ‘buried’.  I am not a Greek expert and I don’t know what exact word is used in the NT when it talks about ‘putting’ His body in the cave.

In fact even this embalming and putting inside a cave (mostly family owned caves) and collecting the bones after a year also might have been borrowed from different culture.  Before the Hebrews moved to Egypt they might have simply buried the body as we read about Abraham and Isaac burring their relatives.  Now translating the word ‘putting’ the body as ‘burial’ and then translating in other languages (Tamil ‘adakkam’) then claiming it as ‘Christian’ burial based on the bible is not correct.

In fact Muktiveda never talks about the ritual related with ‘birth, marriage and death’ and each community has its own socio-cultural method of performing them.  And try to bring them under one narrow umbrella of ‘Christian rituals’ in the name of ‘biblical’ is wrong.

Now let us try to analysis and try to understand the criterion for any one after becoming a bhakta of the Lord:

Social: Now if a Hindu hear the gospel and ready to become a bhakta of the Lord what is Muktiveda’s view about her social life?  Does she need to leave her birth community (severing her relationship with them) and join another sociological Community?  And if the Christians claim that their ‘Christian’ community is purely a spiritual entity and above other communities how many Christians themselves are ready to accept it?  And what Muktiveda talks about this issue?

Cultural: No one born in a cultural free vacuum.  Even our sociological identity is heavily marked by our particular cultural identity.  Is there any ‘Christian culture’ which a new bhakta needs to follow leaving her cultural background, views and values?  Of course all the aspect in a particular culture cannot be followed once a person becomes the bhakta of the Lord.  At the same time most of the cultural views and values has nothing to with Muktiveda’s value.  There are positive, negative and neutral values.  Now who to decide what is what and draw the line in this area?

Sadhanas: Though atheism is as old as religious faith, yet even an atheist has her own sadhanas to exercise her atheistic faith.  So, if ‘sadhana’ is interpreted and accepted as some kind of ‘discipline’ to focus through a particular (mental, moral, spiritual, ritual and religious) channel, then what kind of ‘sdhana’ could be allowed for a new bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath?

Religious: It will take lot of space and time for us to understand the very concept of ‘religion’—its origin and development.  To have some good understanding (as well as challenge) on this subject one should read ‘Heathen in His blindness’ by Balagangadhara (The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, S.N. Balagangadhara, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005.)  Now whether it is true or not we have various ‘religions’ under different names: Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc. to mention only a few.  Though most of the adherents in each religion never bothers to question about their faith as ‘religion’, yet when confronted they might say: ours is not a religion but way of life.  Even if a religion is accepted not as a way of life but related with ‘religious faith’, then what is Christian Religion?  And if Hinduism, even as a ‘Religion’ gives room for one to exercise her faith in Muktinath without leaving the label what is the necessary for one to follow ‘Christian Religion’ because of her bhakti in the Lord?  If syncretism and compromise is the main factor, does Hinduism allow ‘exclusivism’ for one to have faith in her chosen God, scripture and doctrine? Is ‘pluralism’ a pitfall or strength in Hinduism?  If ‘inclusivism’ add with ‘pluralism’ in Hinduism will swallow the ‘exclusivsim’ of Muktiveda’s claim, then how for the reality of  (denominational) ‘exclusivistic pluralism’ in Christianity in any way provide a stable foundation for one to be a bhakta of the Lord?

Ritual: Though ritual is exclusively related with religion, yet all the rituals are not ‘religious’ however they are given only in the name of religion.  Every religion developed its own religious rituals heavily borrowing from other traditions and assimilating them as part of it in the long run.  So in this area no religion can stand on its own without influencing and influenced by others.  Thankfully Muktiveda never prescribes any set of rituals to be followed uniformly every where like that of Islam.  Regarding  the ‘sacraments’ in the Muktiveda, which also differs according to the church (seven for Catholics and two for Protestants), it never prescribes a particular ‘form’ of ritual to celebrate them.  As I often say, Muktiveda never prescribes a ‘pattern’ for us to imitate but ‘principles’ for us to ‘adopt’ and ‘adapt’ according to our need and situation.  Try to impose ‘uniformity’ to avoid confusion and lack of direction (thereby become free for all) will create more ‘division’ damaging the spirit of unity that we should have in the Lord as the members of His body.  Who to decide and how to decide based on which criteria for a new bhakta to follow the Lord?

Spiritual: Thankfully we cannot exercise our faith in the Lord in isolation and no bhakta is an island.  That is why I strongly believe that we cannot celebrate ‘maha-prasad’ in isolation and minimum two bhakta should be there to celebrate it.  Either we sail together or sing together when it comes to our faith in the Lord.  At the same time, ‘every saint must learn to walk alone with the Lord’.  While we need to carry one another’s burden, we also should learn that ‘each one should carry her own burden’.  Though there is accountability to each other in the body of the Lord, yet finally we are answerable only the Lord for everything we do.  This need not be a contradiction but definitely a complement to strengthen each other.  Hinduism which insists ‘individualism’ in the area of ‘spirituality’ but not in social life can be a best antidote for the modern western concept of ‘individualism’ which unfortunately associated with Christianity.  How to approach this view in our faith in the Lord?

Ethical/Moral: In between created in the ‘image’ of God and redeemed to take part in His divine ‘nature’ (the recent study by Rick) is the fall.  The one important debate about fall is whether the ‘image’ in which we were created was lost or just marred.  However I took the position that it was marred and not completely lost. Otherwise we won’t even respond to the gospel.  One important evidence of this fact is also the universal nature of ethics in all human beings.  Like conscience ethics is common to every one as we were created in His image.

Though I am not an expert to point the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’, for me the former is the principle (theory) and the latter is the practice.  However these terms can be interchangeable (like ‘when’ and ‘while’) and could mean the same.

Though we all share a common moral conscience because of God’s image in which we were created, yet in application ethics also depends upon the socio-cultural cum religious facts in a society.  Here alone I struggle a lot.  The Muktiveda’s moral idealism based on either/or and the relativistic pluralism of Indian (Hindu) worldview which allows the ethics be adjusted according to the time, place and need.  If it remains only a personal struggle then it is left between me and God. But the way Indian Christians keep the Muktiveda’s moral idealism in theory while adhering to our Indian worldview in practice often confuses every new bhakta and convert.  However, we can struggle with clear understanding by remaining as a Hindu at the same time to uphold Muktiveda’s moral expectation than confused and discouraged by learning from Indian Christians.  For me several of our lapses are more a ‘concession’ than ‘permission’.

Other areas:

In all these criterion, we should keep one thing in mind that contextualization is not selectively use Hindu worldviews and symbols which are convenient for Christians and reject rest as unbiblical.  Of course there are several things in every worldview which are unbiblical.  But there is a different between what is unbiblical from un-Christian. 

For me a Hindu need not even attempt to contextualize the gospel.  Contextualization is a need for Christians to present the gospel both for them to understand Hindu worldview and also communicate to the Hindus.  But according to me, a Hindu should be allowed to comprehend the gospel as a Hindu and then to understand biblical views and values as a Hindu.  In this process she need not contextualize the gospel, but use her own terms, symbols and worldviews both to understand her bhakti and also express it outwardly.  Her entire context will be Hindu and not Christian.

Gurukulam, March 7, 2010

Academic research won’t accomplish much.

Scholarly study, discussion, debate and presentations are important for us to have a right kind of Indian Muktiveda theology.  But this is possible only for a true scholar who has committed his whole life for such endeavor.  Though they can do their study and research based on all available written materials (both published and unpublished), in order to keep with the demand of the changing time and need of people, they also need to keep in touch with the lay people who are professing their faith.

Leaving all those efforts taken sincerely by Christians both in the past and present, I feel that there existed and still exists a wide gap between the academic scholars and the lay people in the church.  Though most of the (appointed) Pastors too are Theological (Seminary) graduates, unfortunately for most of them, it is another kind of professional course to get certificate to get their appointment in the Church as a Pastor.  So they might have read and familiar with the terms and themes of the scholars, they are not in a position to relate them to their lay people in their congregation.  We cannot blame them for this, as the lay people themselves have no time or interested, as they have to struggle on mundane level in every day life. (To correct this mistake, a Pastor should be selected from the mandali and never be appointed from outside.  Being an organic member of his/her own mandali, s/he can well address the issue along with them.)

So, according my opinion, most of the scholarly research and writings remain buried in Theological College Libraries without serving any purpose beyond its compound.  But for us, who remain within their family and community to profess our faith in the Lord, both to share and witness these scholarly research and writing can be of great help.  Though many of us are not trained theologically (as we never believe in the Seminaries who follow their Western academic program for various reasons, however irrelevant they are to Indian situation), yet we too cannot escape from the reality of Theology even to understand our faith in our Indian terms.

But where to begin is a big question for us?  Because if we simply read and begin from scholarly work, then it demands our time and I am not sure whether it will serve our purpose.  Because though the (Christian) scholars have generously invested their time to do the research and write, most of them were done in the context of the need of the Church in its encounter with Hinduism.  So their approach is also Christian-Hindu encounter or dialogue.  So we can use the word ‘Inter-faith’ dialogue, confrontation, consultation or contribution for such Christian-Hindu encounters or dialogues.

However what we are to do to have an ‘Intra-faith’ dialogue as our identity is a movement within Hindu communities.  It is not only to have any ‘intra-faith’ dialogue but even for us to assimilate our bhakti in the Lord we need to understand our own tradition and philosophies properly.  Though we are familiar with our own Hindu terms and even liberally use them in exercising our bhakti in the Lord like: bhakti; Maha-prasad; Deeksha; Avatara, Muktiveda, etc. it is not going to be that simple to understand and assimilate without (minimum) contradiction in our knowledge on them and what they actually stand for in our Hindu world both in Text and practice.  Because from the childhood we are familiar with those words and like other members of our family we too never take them seriously.  It is all ok as long as we were not following the Lord.  Once our faith is now in Bhagavan Muktinath, though we have the right to use them, yet we cannot avoid the tension in applying those terms to understand Muktiveda for ourselves first and then to communicate as well as witness for the Lord in our home and communities.

Now those materials available written by Christian scholars can help us to have something to nothing.  But we too need to address those issues as Hindu bhaktas than borrowing them from those Christian scholars.  And the present problem that we are facing is: we are not many.  We never encourage any one to become fulltime workers so that they can spend their time both quantity and quality wise for such studies.  Though some of us are interested to read and understand those Christian and Hindu scholarly views, yet we are not theologically trained to understand the Muktiveda from those disciplines.  Above all, as all the Theological training is based on the need of Church and Christianity, those approaches won’t also helpful for us to understand Muktiveda theologically.  The only option that is left with us is to began to record our struggles and understanding as lay people and leave them behind for future generation to deal or wrestle with these issues and questions.

Above all, we never believe in forming any structured mandalies and allow each bhakta to be a part of their own family and community, our need and approach is so vast and multi-dimensional.  ‘As many souls; so many views’ is also our watch word.  In the name of ‘preserving doctrinal purity’ we cannot give even a basic doctrinal statements.  Keeping all this in mind we have to begin from where we are today than imitating any kind of Theological program or scholarly search and writing.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, March 6, 2010

Dear Dr. Devakala,

Though I saw you and your father at RF meeting held at Chennai, yet I don’t have time to talk with you further.  Dr. Ramasway (Solomon) often asked me to have a dialogue with you both. But in principle I have decided not to invest my time with Christian activists, as we have different approach in our life as Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

As I am interested in Tamil and other Indian literatures (mostly related with Scriptures) I read several Hindu scriptures (in their original) and books related with them.  After reading some important scholarly books, I am not convinced on your Thesis of Thomasic Christianity etc.  Like Fulfillment Theology (Muktinath Fullfilled the Hinduism started from Fraquarh [Crown of Hinduism] and many others (Rev. D. P. Titus: Vedic Quest Fulfilled in Lord Jesus Christ] you base your thesis on the outside reference from the Muktiveda and on the shaky assumption of Thomas visit to South and founding churches here.  I have done some study on this subject and I am not convinced on this theory of Thomas founded church etc.  And my limited but deep study on Muktiveda convinced me that both the Lord and the Gospel is unique and there is a continuity of revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament based on the ‘covenant’ promise of God.  Any other thesis that try to fit both the Lord and Gospel to accommodate wishful thinking of any individual or group by half/miss quoting and giving their own interpretation (outside textual, theological and historical context) is not convincing me.  You and others may try to prove that even Adam was a Tamilian and Tamilsaivam is nothing but a continuation of Old Testament revelation.  I know several Hindu writers try to prove the same that Siva worship was ancient one and spread worldwide and all other faiths are nothing but the off shoot of it.  The late Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Chandrasekara Swami also wrote in this line and recently several others are continue to write in this tune. (see Universalizing religions).

There is no point of further arguing on this point.  We both made up our mind.  I know I cannot convince to change your view and you cannot do the same to me.  However I wish you success in your endeavor to convince Christians and Mission to accept your views and implement in their ministry.  But my limited experience with Christians and Mission showed that they too are not interest in your thesis.  But I don’t know.  And I don’t want to challenge you to do the same with Saivite and Vaishnive lay people.  Forget VHP and other fanatics.  Forget also the marginalized Hindu scholars who love to have good holidays at the expense of Mission in the name of dialogue.  I wish success to you in your endeavor to convince lay Saivite and Vaishnavite on your thesis and make them to worship the Lord.

Regarding your discussion on ‘caste’, only other scholars who have done some ‘ORIGINAL’ research alone can comment.  However as a bhakta of the Lord, I too cannot escape from this reality, I have written about my approach to it in my unedited and unpublished book: ‘Living Dialogues’.  But at this stage I cannot share it with everyone, though I am happy to share some part of it.

Finally I have to say few words regarding my participation in the Chennai RF meeting and my relationship with Rick.  As Dr. Harris mentioned my presence with Rick during his visit to his house and also mentioning to Jason that he is backing me, I have to clear some doubts.

Many in Mission circle say that Rick influenced me to think and implement in contextualization.  But I met Rick only in 1990, where as I began to think and write about this since 1983.  While I was working with FMPB, after observing my colleagues and their approach in ministry, I began to study the bible in depth and could not agree with many of their views and approaches.  At the same time I cannot challenge or confront them as I was not only a new believer but new to the ministry and also in my understanding about Muktiveda is not deep.  So I began to read many books and also commentaries along with other books.  And I began to record my thought as brain storms under the title: ‘Where we failed; Why we failed and How we failed to Communicate the Gospel’.  This was later edited by Rick and published by ISPCK.  However I never shared even one of my thoughts or articles with my fellow missionaries or even discussed these issues with my colleagues.  Because I saw them just do the ministry as they were asked by their Organization and they never thought independently considering the need in their context.  I even wrote and composed several Tamil songs expressing my bhakti to the Lord, but I never sung them to others and strictly used for my personal sadhana.  All these I have done because of the fear of being misunderstood.

But when I first meet Rick at Bangalore in a meeting in 1991, I was bit shocked the way he agreed with me on several points. In the same way I too agreed with his sharing.  But this never encouraged me to open my heart and mind him quickly, though we began to correspond.  And he had a hard time to win my confidence as I never trusted ‘white skin’ missionaries in my life much.  It is long story to be told somewhere else.  But slowly he began to encourage me to share some of my writings with him and sought my permission to edit and publish them in his Magazine ‘TAMAT’.  Then our friendship further developed and I really liked his principle of not giving money to any Indians in the name of ministry.  And we began to exchange our views gradually.  Though we agreed on many points, yet I never agreed with him on all points.  Particularly I opposed his endeavor to form some special ministry to work among the so called high caste people group with Full Time workers.  From the beginning, after my experience among the caste Hindus in North, I strongly opposed the concept of Full Time ministry to reach the so called high caste and educated Hindus.  I always encouraged Tentmakers.  Finally I managed to influence him in this area to some extent.

However Rick alone deserves all the credit to bring out my writing in the form of books and articles.  I am not a writer but he helped me to publish some of my writings.  Though he edited all my writings, yet he never used me to share his view as one evangelical Christian always believed.  When Rick was not satisfied with my writings he will simply say, ‘re-write’.  Even when I pleaded and argued with him that I cannot do it as he wish, he won’t accept it and will say, ‘it is your project and you alone have to write’.  So he never used ‘Dayanand Bharati’ as a pen name to share his views.

And two more remarkable blessing that God gave me through Rick.  I was a book worm and read any book that come on my hand.  But without much resource and limited several ways I couldn’t get good scholarly books both on Hinduism and Muktiveda.  And he began to guide me in my readings and generously lend books from his library.  Several times he stopped me not wasting my time in reading unnecessary books and materials.  In fact together we completed several big reading projects (History of Dharmasastra, by P. V. Kane, Five volumes, eight books running around 6,000 pages is one example).  His reading skill and memory power amazed me and motivated me to do the reading in a systematic way.

Next is the personal Muktiveda adyayan (Bible studies).  Without knowing Muktiveda deeply I made several wrong comments on the Word of God.  But with much patience he not only corrected my views on several issues but also helped me to understand the Word of God (and any other Scripture) in the correct textual, theological and historical context.  He is an excellent Muktiveda teacher and those enjoyed his studies will agree with me.

As I was much blessed by Rick, though I was unwilling participated in that RF Meeting held at Chennai, yet because of him I agreed to share.  In fact I prepared two papers but shared completely different way after listening others sharing in that meeting.  Since past few years I have made up my mind not to invest my time any more with Christians, particularly with the Full Time workers to change their views and some of my immediate shishyas also requested not to ‘waste’ my time in teaching or sharing my views with Christians.  After several years of teaching among the Full Time Workers in various Organization I realized that my call is not among Christians.  That is why I told in the RF meeting to one of Sadhu Chellappa’s question (in a different context) that I don’t want the Christians/Church/Mission to know about me or us.  ‘Less Christians know about us, it is good for us’.  Even I told one evangelical Christians when he unnecessarily confronted and provoked me, ‘We don’t want your sympathy, support, money and even PRAYERS.  Leave us alone’.  As I never encourage any Full Time workers concept in our movement, we don’t need to do or write anything for promotion to raise funds from Christian circle or Missions.  That is why I was shocked and even annoyed when one Pastor directly asked me and Raman that are we part of RF and we both then there denied it.  We have nothing to do with Christiandom in any of its forms.  Our movement (which is not a church or mission) is based on three main principles: We are Hindus and bhaktas of Bhagavan Muktinath.  We will never encourage any new Hindu bhakta to become an official member of any denominational church and No FULL TIME MINSTRY, but be a WITNESS IN SECULAR situation by earning one’s own bread.

When few evangelicals challenged and question about my seva and the result I said to them, ‘I don’t want you to believe me or accept my words.  The more you people doubt me, accuse me, boycott me, ignore me and avoid me that is good for me.  We don’t have any common ground to interact or exchange any views.  Of course we too believe in the Lord.  But our kind of bhakti/faith is not acceptable to you.  And we don’t mind about it’.

This does not mean that I am completely cut off from Christian circle.  In fact some of my best (Indian) friends and shishyas are from Christians.  As they completely agree with me, I have good relationship with them.  Rick is one such good friend.

Finally I have to clear one doubt from the mind of several people. Rick never in his teaching encourages caste fanaticism.  In fact when I was sharing about these discussion with Dr. Gladwin Joseph, one of good friends of Rick loughed and said, ‘Rick would have never said that Caste is genetic.  I had a big discussion with him one time and he even said that race is not genetic.  When he is not ready to accept race as genetic how can he ever would said that caste is genetic’. 

In fact he was misunderstood by several because of my unsympathetic reaction to the criticism of few evangelicals.  In my classes among the Full Time workers I had good fight and serious argument and disagreement.  But for this Rick was backfired thinking as if he is using me to share his views.  One of his problem and limitations is that he is too humble and polite when confronting opponents whereas I was extremely aggressive.  And several times he pays the cost for my aggressiveness.  For example in the recently held RF meeting at Chennai, though I tried to be humble, yet later one of my well wisher told in person that I was bit arrogant.  When I shared this, Rick said, ‘you never showed your true color and your were extremely polite and non-aggressive this time’.  One time he was seriously misunderstood on the point of believers marrying others who do not share the same kind of bhakti in the Lord.  That is my view and I never object any of Hindu bhakta to choose her/his life partner who does not share the same kind of bhakti.  If I further share some of my convictions and methods it will shock many of you.  But several times Rick was targeted as they cannot confront me directly.  As I never mind or disturbed by the comments and criticism of Christians they don’t know what to do with me and easily target Rick, thinking that he shaped and molded me in this contextualization approach. 

The one sin that Rick committed was to edit two of my books (the third one is still pending with him and he has decided not to repeat the sin again I think).  Though he is a blessing to me in several ways, yet I can with much confidence (and bit arrogance) can say that Rick never influenced me and he knows that he cannot do it considering my nature, though he guided me in my studies both on Hinduism and Muktiveda.  One time in my personal talk with Rev. D. P. Titus at Sat-tal ashram, we were discussing on one article that came in TAMAT.  In the course of talk when I pointed out that it was written by me and not by Rick, he said that he thought Rick wrote it using my name.  Again he wrote a letter thanking Rick for writing one article in TAMAt and he sent that letter to my address. When I wrote letter to him pointing that I wrote that article and not Rick, he responded back by writing, ‘As John and Peter thought, wrote and shared in the same way, when Peter died they buried John’.  Till this day he never believes that many articles and books reviews which I wrote for TAMAT was actually written by me.

Rick thinks and writes independently and I do the same. Of course he edits my articles and papers.  Some time he directly says where I went wrong and other times he will simply give some scholarly book and will ask me to read to understand the points in right perspective.  In his recent visit, after reading few chapters in my third book: Living Dialogues, he gave me some books and asked me to read them. 

We never promote any ‘isms’ like Caste-ism, fanaticism, fundamentalism.  At the same time we celebrate certain birth rights as God allowed us to born with certain cultural, social, spiritual, rituals and ethnic identities.  But we are careful not to offend others.  WE KNOW THAT OUR FREEDOM ENDS AT THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER MAN’S NOSE.

Now I have few doubts, which I would like get cleared with the help of scholars like you.  Caste is not genetic.  But what is the position of our Constitution?  I never read our Constitution and do not know much on what our Constitution says on this issue.  As we are bound by our Constitution, is there any scope for a Hindu to declare that he does not belong to any caste?  Or as Caste is not genetic, can a so called upper caste Hindu declare herself that she choose to become an OBC or SC to get the benefit of reservation?  I specifically mention ‘Hindu’ as a ‘convert’ to Christianity no more legally belongs to her caste. 

Dayanand Bharati, July 11, 2010

If I understood correctly, the following are some of the theory put forth by Tamilsaivam group, promoted by Dr. Devakala and Dr. Alexander Harris & Co:

By Devakala:

1. Racialism came out of Castism.
2. Castism is invented by Brahminism and imposed on Dravidians. 
3. Saivism and Vaishnavism are the off shoot of St. Thomasic Christianity.

Some of the sub-points:

4. Sanskrit was not a spoken language.
5. There is no mention of caste in Sangam Tamil literatures.
6. Occupational variations are mentioned in Sangam literature but not caste system.
7. Only after the period of Aryavardha, i.e. after 7^th c.A.D, the caste stratification (Law of Manu) was devised by the Aryans.
8. It was Adi Sankara  who incorporated the principles of casteism with Saivism and Vaishnavism, through Advaita Philosophy, and had given religious sanction to the caste

stratification which in turn evolved as a caste system. [Is there any reference in any of Sankara’s Sanskrit work about Tamil Saiva and Vaishnava literatures?  If Sankara belongs to 7^th or 8^th century, then he might have heard about several Tamil religious scriptures.  And if I remember correctly, he formed his philosophy mainly based on Vedaic scriptures, Gita and Brahma sutra and he never refers or mentions any of Tamil Scriptures.  Similarly, is there any reference about Sankara in any post-Sankara Tamil Religious scriptures?  Similarly Ramanuja, though born in Tamilnadu and resided at Srirangam, knows Tamil well, but I think he too wrote his philosophy based on Vedas, Gita and Brahmasutra.  Though there were several Alvars lived before him, I am not sure whether they ever mentioned about Sankara.  Now is there any reference about caste in any of Tamil religious Scriptures before Sankara? Though I read several Tamil religious scriptures like Tiruvasagam (by Manika vacagar), Tirumandiram (Tirumular) and Periyapuranam (by Sekkizhaar) and few Vaishnavite scriptures (Astap Prabandam by Azhahiya Manavalar) and few Alvar’s songs, yet I have never done any specific study about the historical evidence of Nayanmars and Alvars.  Of course based on G.U. Pope’s translation of Tiruvacagam, I have done some study about the historical date of Manika vacagar.  My question is: do all the Alvars and Nayanmars came after Sankara or some of them were there before Sankara?  And is there any reference about caste in those Tamil scriptures of pre-Sankara?—db]

9. Saivism and Vaishnavism, the religions of the Bhakthi Movement, emerged and evolved in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language are known as ‘Hindu Religion’ after 1794 AD.
10. Saivism and Vaishnavism were emerged and evolved in Tamil land due to the mission of St.Thomas, who worked and martyred in Tamil land and Christianity that developed in Tamil land, in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1^stc.A.D. is now known as ‘Tamilar Samayam’. [I am still not convinced about St. Thomas visit to Tamil land and founding church here.—db]
11. Doctrine of Trinity

   Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)

   Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice

   Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and

  Doctrine of Salvation by Faith.

12. Aryans are foreign invaders and traders. [Read Indo-Aryan migration debate by Edwin Bryant.—db]

By Alex:

1. I am a promoter of ‘People Movement Approach’.—[I am not a Christian and I never keep any ‘mission’ approach to ‘convert’ Hindus.  So all these Christian labels are not applicable to me.—db]

2. India remained free from foreign attacks during the Rajput period except for a mild invasion of Sindh by Arabs. This invasion also proved to be ineffective due to the sudden death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the leader of the Arabs. The absence of foreign raids rendered the people lazy and uncaring of military preparations. The feeling of patriotism was getting weak and it affected the national unity. Moreover, it created a sense of superiority and pride among Indians that they were omnipotent. [This presupposes that there existed any Indian nation and patriotism to that ‘Indian’ nation.  We all know very well that only after the Independence struggle the spirit of Nationalism as Indian came to India from outside.  Even Tamil land was not one country and we had several small kingdoms like Chera, Chola, Pandiya, Pallava etc. kingdoms along with several small kings ruling small areas.—db]

3. India had no relations with the other countries of the world. It made the Indian civilization and culture to stagnate. Relations with China and the West were snapped due to political changes in Central Asia. Having been cut off from intercourse with progressive countries India could not forge ahead. [India never existed as one nation and so the lack of relationship with other countries never arises.—db]

4. It is stated by foreign travelers like Ibn-Batuta that prostitution was not considered as an evil.  There were several shortcomings in religion. People were habitual of drinking. Morality, chastity and religious contemplation had bidden adieu, and intoxication and luxury were the order of the day. The monasteries and dwelling places of monks and nuns had become the centers of immorality and luxury. [This is nothing but sweeping generalization.  Wherever man and woman lived anywhere in the world, prostitution and adultery was common among them.  And does this mean that all the Indians ever lived both in the past and present do not know anything about ethics and morality?  Forget about India, is all the references about drinking, prostitution, adultery mentioned in Old Testament points the immoral activities of non-Jews or the prophets were addressing those issues among the Jews?  Then can we say that, the Jews were habitual of drinking. Morality, chastity and religious contemplation had bidden adieu, and intoxication and luxury were the order of the day.’  ‘The monasteries and dwelling places of monks and nuns had become the centers of immorality and luxury.’—what about Christian monasteries and Parishes? –db]

5. The entire northern India was divided into small principalities. These always remained at daggers drawn with one another. The political unity of India received a great setback during this period. These small kingdoms were getting weaker all the more day by day due to their mutual conflicts. They failed to patch up their difference even at the time of foreign attacks. [Indian never remained one united nation either in the past or in the present.  Several Kashmiris don’t want to be part of us.  Several North Eastern people love to have their own land outside India.  Even the political unity of India today is at stake due to various factors.—db]

6.. Many scholars today ignorantly link the Brahmanes (or Brahmanas) with the Vedic ancestors of the modern day Brahmins and the Tevijja Sutta is typically quoted as evidence. However, lets investigate the Tevijja Sutta. First in verse 2 we see that these Brahmanas were wealthy.

–I cannot understand what he means? Whether the Vedic Brahmanes (or Brahmanas) are different from modern day Brahmins, the latter are called Brahmins now.  If the modern Brahmins ceased to be Brahmins as they fall from their varnashramadharam, every body accepts it.  In Kali everybody is a Shudra and about this Oliveele says:

…With reference to the varnas some authors assert that in the Kali there are no true Kshatriyas, while others go as far as to assert that only Sudras are left in this age.53—p.236

53. …For the belief that only Sudras exist today, see the MatsP 144.78, which says that just as there was only one varna in the Krta yuga, so there will be only one, namely Sudra, in Kali. Cf. Kane [History of Dharmasastra] 1973,III,892. — Patrick Olivelle, The Asrama system  The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution  New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.236.

And by birth all are Sudras and only by (proper) sanskaras one could become a twice-born (dwidiji). ¹ This shows that caste (even varna) is not genetic and one could enhance his caste status by doing some sanskaras.²  We can accuse that Brahmins, in order to impose their religious authority and earn money have deliberately created such rituals.  This could be true, but as a minority they cannot force the majority to follow their dictums.  But in order to get recognition in the society at large, the non-Brahmins could have also utilized the service of the Brahmins.

My point  is that caste is not genetic and in Kali it is not even profession.  Of course as all these Sastras were written by the Brahmins, they wrote keeping in mind to guide and instruct their life in reference to their relationship with others.  But These Sastras never remained arbitrary or authoritative or pan-Indian and most places it is the local custom and tradition played an important role.

1. …The theory was also current that every man is born a Sudra, who requires refinement and polish before he becomes a full-fledged Aryan: “By birth every one is a Sudra, by performing the Upanayana he is called a twice-born, by reading the Vedas he becomes a Vipra and by realizing Brahman he attains the status of a Braahmana. [Atri, 141-142]”—p.30

2.            It was, however, the symbolism of rebirth through ritual enactment of embryonic encasement in a jar, representing the womb, as was done in the Hiranyagarbha ceremony, which was widely utilised to provide religious validation to the newly begotten power of the aspiring ruling chiefs, who were otherwise not supposed to lay claim to them.  Thus, the Gorantla plate [1IA, IX, 102] and the Mattepadu plate [EI, XVII, 327] describe Aanandagotra kings, who succeeded the Saatavaahanas as rulers of a part of coastal Aandhradesa and are believed to have suudra antecedents, as being born out of a golden womb (hiranya-grabhaprasavena).  By adopting and recommending ritual practices based on such symbolisms, the Braahmanical ideologues succeeded in ingratiating themselves with the influential chiefs of foreign and tribal extraction as well creating highly lucrative sources of income for themselves.— Vijay Nath, Puranas and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective, Munshirma Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001, p.147

7..Brahman is defined by the Brahma Sutras (1.1.2) as the Omniscient, Omnipotent, all merciful Being from whom proceeds the origin of all things. To a Brahmana, Brahman is God. Also, the Jews divided their scriptures into three books, often called the TaNaK: Torah, Books of Moses; N’vi-im, Prophets; K’tuvim, Writings)

—What is reason for this comparison between the three books of the Veda and bible?  I am not sure what Dr. Haris wants to say here.  But what Brahma Sutras talks about ‘Brahman’ is not the caste name ‘Brahmin’ but the eternal being Brahman.  Because: Brahman is the Eternal God; Brahmana is the part of sruti; Brahma is the god of creation, Brahmin denotes caste.  As each author used different kind of spelling to differenciate between ‘Brahman and Brahmin’ one could be easily get confused.  Of course there are so many references which claims Brahmins (caste) are the Gods.  But all such statements should be understand in that particular context and also by comparing other parts of the same scriptures where such claim is refuted if they fall from their Varnashramadharma.

8..Regarding the three Vedas, there is nothing in the Tevijja Sutta to indicate that it refers to the Rig, Yajur and Sama, rather the opposite seems apparent.

—So what is the point? Whether this proves the non-existence of three Vedas?  Above all is it enough to refer and quote Tevijia Sutta alone to prove or disprove one’s view?

9..Monism entered India after the 8th c AD as a philosophy called Advaita developed by Adi Sankara.

—Sankara only compiled this system and it existed even before him as he himself was following his guru.—db.

10..Advaita also taught that the process of reaching the ‘all-soul’ is achieved by Reincarnation or Cycle of Birth, which is the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.

—But the concept of rebirth is even older than Sankara’s advaita.  Even Buddhist and Jains mention about it.—db

Another important fact during the Rajput period is brought out in the account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030 by Alberuni (edited by Dr. Edward C. Sachau). He states that,

“The Indian scribes are careless, and do not take pains to produce correct and well-collated copies. In consequence, the highest results of the author’s mental development are lost by their negligence, and his book becomes already in the first or second copy so full of faults, that the text appears as something entirely new, which neither a scholar nor one familiar with the subject,whether Hindu or Muslim, could any longer understand. It will sufficiently illustrate the matter if we

tell the reader that we have sometimes written down a word from the mouth of Hindus, taking the greatest pains to fix its pronunciation, and that afterwards when we repeated it to them, they had great difficulty in recognizing it.”

11..This is a clear opposite to Hiuen Tsiang’s time in the 7th c AD, when this young Chinese Buddhist scholar came to India on a mission to find authentic sacred books which he accomplished. This is an important fact since all the ancient writings of Indian thought were corrupted and our ancient history distorted to elevate the so called Aryans and degrade the inhabitants of the land, the Dravidians. Thus the land of India came under the control of the above Brahmins and Kshatriyas during the Rajput period.

—Because of one reference by Alberuni, every record were corrupted to elevate the so called Aryans. Most of the Vedic scriptures, though they were written down later, were memeriszed and several non-Indian scholars agree that they remain the same as they were composed in the past.  Above no history can be written only based on the text, but there is a long oral tradition, preserving so many literatures intact.  Then what about the regional literatures and scriptures?  Did Alberuni ever referred all the major regional literatures, particularly those committed to memory through oral tradion?—db

Let me explain this taking another example from a different context. Veliath says, after quoting Lester:

Lester [Lester, R.C.,  Ramanuja on the Yoga, The Adya Library and Research Centre, 1976, pp. xii-xiv.] speaking of the Srivaishnava Sampradaya describes image worship in the temples as one of the five matters that centrally characterized it from the thirteenth century onwards down to the present day.  He points out that there is a reference to temple worship in Ramanuja’s Gitabhashya, but mere reference without elaboration, (p.71) and no significant place is given to such worship in the mokshopaaya.  The doctrine of Arcaavatara is peculiar to Pancaraatra system.  However it must be pointed out that Ramanuja makes no reference whatsoever to the Arcaavatara though there appears to be some support for it in the Gita, and even to the Pancaraatra he refers to in one place only.[GB., Sampatkumaran, M.R., The Gita Bhasya of Ramanuja, Madras, Professor M. Rangacharya Memorial Trust, 1969,, 9.26, p.84]— Cyril Veliath S.J., The Mysticism of Ramanuja, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1993, pp. 71-72

But the worship of arcaavatara in Vaishnava temples existed even before Ramanuja.  When he reached Sri Rangam, there already existed a temple and arcavataara (idol) worship was already there.  But according to Lester image worship in the temples followed from 13^th century and to prove this he says that Ramanuja never mention about it either in Gitabhashya or mokshopaaya.  The main purpose of Ramanuja to write Gitabhashya and mokshopaaya was to establish his vishistadvaita and refute advaita (of Sankara).  So one should not expect any reference about image worship in his commentary.  Now can we come to any conclusion that image worship in temple, particularly in Vaishnava temples started only after 13^th century?

Above all, endorsing the point that Ramanuja himself participated in archa form of worship Veliath further says:

               Commenting upon the fact that Ramanuja has nowhere mentioned the concept of Arca specifically, Carman observes that it is possible because he could not find any sanction for it in the Vedas though it is quite certain that he himself participated is such worship. [Carman, J.B., The Theology of Ramanuja.  New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 181]—ibid. p. 73

So reference by Alberuni about Indian scribes should not be treated as the final about the corruption of manuscript in India.

12..Regarding Racism I have no idea.–db

Let me first give a general response to Alex and Devakala’s assumptions.  If Saivism and Vaishnavism are the off shoot of Thomasic Christianity, then we have to deny all the references about Siva and Vishnu in Vedic literature.  They might say that as Sanskrit a latter language and written records of Sanskrits are only after 150 A.D.  So all the Vedic literatures, specifically with reference to Siva and Vishnu were composed and written only after 150 A.D.  But one has to remember that Vedic scriptures were orally transmitted and only after a long time they were written.  Then how they are going to explain all the reference about Siva and Vishnu in Vedic scriptures?

Next is theology.  Saivism, in general never accepts avatara concept.  Siva would appear suddenly (theophany) but he never takes avatara.  Both Saivism and Vaishnavism accept that atman is minute part of God.  Vaishnavism believes in pantheism and God is also the material cause of creation.  If Tamilsaivam group want to say that in the original Saivism and Vaishnavism of Thomasic Christianity origin such later corruption in theology were absent and they strictly followed Muktiveda doctrine about atma, God, creation, etc. how to explain the existence of such theories even in Tamil Sangam literatures related with karma and rebirth.  See Thugluk about this dt. 23/06/10, p. 4-6; 30/06/10, p. 5-6; 07/07/10 p. 8-11.  Don’t jump immediately and say that as Sri Cho Ramaswami, the author of Thugluk is a Brahmin, he wrote like this. In fact that article was written by another Tamil scholar whose name (and caste) was revealed.

            When I become a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath, I too never liked Old Testament much and try to understand and interpret New Testament theology independent of Old Testament.  Of course I never went to any extreme of Fulfillment theology.  But I could not digest the fact that the Lord Muktinath was born as a Jew and Muktiveda faith is a continuation of Old Testament faith.  However though I read several books to understand the relationship between Old and New Testaments, however, when I got hold of N.T. Wrights’ book: What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, I was thoroughly convinced about the uniqueness of the bible and the continuation of the Covenant Promise of God revealed to the Adam and recorded through the Old Testament events and carried on and fulfilled in and through the Life of our Lord.

All other attempts to fit both the Old Testament and New Testament events, doctrines etc. in order to accommodate with some regional interest—however there are similarities in some concepts is not convincing me.  This does not mean that we should ignore the regional concepts to understand Muktiveda and our bhakti.  In fact I promote that God helps us to understand His unique revelation in Muktiveda only through our regional concepts, as we too are part of His creation.  For example the concept of Bhakti, guru are the two important concepts that helped me to understand my faith in the Lord.  For me God begins His work from where we are and slowly helps us to understand His unique revelation in Muktiveda and His plan for the entire Universe to us.  And all other attempts to limit this connecting with some regional concepts, which will contradict with the Universal message of Muktiveda is nothing but a heresy for me.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 22, 2010

—Ajoy

Now white American missionaries are asking their upper caste followers in India to establish racially segregated churches. Do you really want to promote this evil non-sense as the “beauty of Indian culture?”  If diversity is really beautiful, why not listen to a law-caste Tamil scholar? Or is it only caste-based segregation . . . and silencing of low-caste scholars . . . that appear beautiful?

You write, “All that they [Insiders] ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context.” Well, that is exactly what the priest and the Levite wanted in the parable of the Good Samaritan . . . their own space . . . distance from the oppressed.  That is what the Church in Kerala has wanted for 2,000 years. That is what led Dr. Ambedkar to reject Dr. McGavran’s gospel . . . as no Gospel for the oppressed.—Vishal.

Swamiji and Madhu,

Forgive me Swamiji and Madhu, but what respectful bull would shit like this!! with all due respect to Dr. Simon who perhaps is my father’s age.  Such `eloquent’ nonsense. Rick has a lot of patience to bear with this. Indian Christian full-timers seem to persecute the poor man. I really think Rick should just remain silent and let his written record in various books and articles speak for themself. I would not waste any time even reading or responding to the `new scholarship’ (sic) of the Devikala and nayagam duo. It is an assault on whatever residual intellect He has given me.  

I am so very glad that we do not have to contend with this anymore. We can seek refuge under the Banyan tree at the Krupa gurukulam. But i do feel the pain in empathy with Rick.

chakravarthy
Dear Ajoy,

Though I appreciate your statement, ‘All that they ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context’, yet I want to make one thing clear to you and the other Christians that we Hindu bhaktas need not ‘ask, request, plead or beg’ for any ‘social and spiritual space to work out’ our faith in our ‘specific’ context.  We, as Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath, already have our ‘legitimate and rightful (that too as our birth right) in our Hindu social and spiritual space.  Though you never mentioned what is our ‘specific context’ that is definitely not any kind of ‘Christian or church’ context of establishing any kind of ‘church’ in Indian context.

Though I am not interested to discuss, argue or even have any kind of dialogue with any Christian groups, yet as we are often misquoted as ‘insider’ movement, at least I want to clarify that one wrong impression.  Though I would have misunderstood, yet according to the evangelicals the so called ‘insider’ movement is another mission strategy and program to reach Hindus. That might be true with many Missionary Organizations, but we bhaktas never consider ourselves as an ‘insider’ movement.  We or I particularly want to avoid all kinds of Christian and Mission technical terms, slogans, formula and agendas about what all we do and live as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.

That is why I am not upset when Sri Mangalwadi accuse about Insiders asking for the social and spiritual space like that of priest and the Levites in Good Samaritan story.  One reason for me not to write in this group discussion is that, as the so called ‘insider’ movement is attacked as promoters of Brahminical caste discrimination, I never felt offended as we are not that ‘insider’ movement, though all imagined and targeted only us.  As we are very clear in our conviction that we are HINDU BHAKTAS OF BHAGAVAN MUKTINATH, we are not part of any kind of evangelical strategy or program to ‘convert’ Hindus to Christian communities with all kinds of formulas and strategies.  So, though others attacked us imagining us as ‘insider’ movement, yet as we are not that, I never felt offended or feel to defend about us.

When one evangelical Christian (Rev. D. P. Titus) once told that what we are doing is only an experiment, I said, ‘no.  We are living our life 24 x 7 as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord within our families and communities.  Those other Christians (or Hindu convert to Christianity) who can experiment various strategies can pack and walk back to their Christian situation without being affected.  But we cannot do that.  Either we have to swim or drown.  But not understanding our situation in its TOTAL context, we become easy target for some to attack and many to discuss and debate—both positively and negatively.  But we are not disturbed by this as we know that ‘they do not know what they are doing’.  That’s is why when I try to give some kind of response for any such discussion or debate about us in Christian circle, one of my shishyas (Chakaravarthy, interestingly a fifth generation Christian but now happily identify with us) request me ‘not to waste my time with Christians’.  He is not even happy for me or any of us to participate in RF or any kind of Christian meetings even to share.

That is why even though I prepared some of my responses to Dr. Devakala and others points; I have decided not to send them, as we are not in any way represent their target (insiders) groups.  That’s is why when Dr. Harris challenged me: ‘As a promoter of the ‘People Movement Approach’, it is very important that you clearly outline what facts have been presented in these books and others you have read that have convinced you otherwise on Casteism’, I didn’t respond him.  Not because I don’t have any answer to his question, but We Hindus very well recognize that caste is a serious problem and we try to resolve it in our way.  For example, in our group we never discriminate anyone based on their caste identity and treat all equally.  Few in our group even got married with other caste persons.  But we need not involve in the problem among the Christians about their problem with caste in their churches, as we don’t have any solution to their problem.  We Hindus have many problems to deal with and where is the time for us to come and involve in your Christian problems.  We are not part of any way with any thing in Christendom and naturally we need not either to convince or confuse Christians discussing their issues.

Will any Christians involve in discussing or resolving the problem among Muslims—about their sectarian fight between Shiyas and Sunnis?  However, when they are directly or indirectly affected they have every right to talk about it, but they cannot directly involve in it to solve it.  In the same way, when the Christians and their Church, if any way affected by our life as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, have every right to talk and even question us.  But branding us as ‘Promoters of People movement’ or ‘insider’ movement with all evangelical terms, if they want to drag us to have any kind of dialogue/discussion/debate etc. then we don’t want to waste our time with them.  And if the Christians also want to blame the Hindus outside their church for their caste problem inside the church, sorry still we cannot come and solve your problem.

That is why in the RF meeting, when one person raised the question that our method is affecting their church and its unity, I objected to it.  Even your pastor thought that we steal their members and encourages Hindu converts to leave their respective church and join us, I opposed it.  I never tell any Hindu convert who are already in the church to leave their church and join us.  I never believe in controlling others through any means and in the RF meeting also I told clearly that I don’t believe in doing any kind of remote controlling.  As a typical Hindu, I strongly believe, ‘as many souls so many views’.  In fact there are few people in our group who are full fledged members of their church and also involve themselves in our way of bhakti.  Though I am not personally happy about it, I never condemn or criticize them but completely accept them as they are.  In fact few years before one of my shishyas in Rewa (M.P.) asked, ‘how long can we keep away from the Christians’? I said, ‘you need not keep away from Christians any long.  You can have friendship and fellowship with them as any other human beings. In fact even if you want to become a “Christian” and join any church, I have no objection’.  Yes, I never try to control anyone through any means.  (In this context Dr. Schmidt’s article on Church control is good to read and understand the way Church as an Institute try to control its members).

I know that contradiction here is that I said I don’t want waste my time with Christians, but here I give a long reply to your short statement about our ‘social and spiritual space’.  But I write this to clear the misunderstanding about us among Christians.  As I told in the meeting (this I told to several Christians and also Hindu bhaktas), ‘less the Christians talk and discuss about us, it is good for us.’  We don’t want even become any case study for any Christians or do any research on us.  That is why I objected to your friend to come and take video of our method of worship etc.  I always turned down every invitation to appear in (Christian) T. V. show to share even the gospel to the Hindus.  Our only request to the Christians is: LEAVE US ALONE.  And if they are not ready for it, then we have to continue to IGNORE them as we do now.

Having said this I have to qualify my strong statements.  You well said that, ‘they have not expressed any grand intention of creating the perfect church in India. Nor do they have reservations in generally fellowshipping with believers of other backgrounds, though they may not be excited about doing it within the regular church format.’  And we have good fellowship and friendship with many Christians and are really blessed by them spiritually, intellectually and even financially (Dr. Chakaravarthy, whom I mentioned above, even gave money to buy the property for our Gurukulam).  We never say ‘no’ to any friendship and fellowship with other Christians who are ready to accept us as we are and never try to disturb us.  I often say, ‘let James live peacefully at Jerusalem. But when Judaizers come and disturb us, then like Paul we have to stand and fight for our rights’.  We promise not to come and disturb Christians in any way both inside and outsider their church.  But we never say no to anybody’s friendship and fellowship—Muslims, Christians, Communists, atheist etc.  That is why in our meetings, we allow even Hindus who never accepted the Lord also to come and participate.  I conducted several such meetings in which several Hindus participated and never feel offended by my sharing about the Lord.  For us, Christians are one among the others and we respect them accepting them as they are and we expect them to accept us as we are: HINDU BHAKTAS OF THE LORD.  Even though many evangelicals will never understand us, at least we want make one thing clear to them: WE ARE NOT ‘INSIDERS’ or PROMOTERS OF ‘PEOPLE MOVEMENT APPROACH’.  WE ARE HINDUS AND BHAKTAS OF BHAGAVAN MUKTINATH.  And we DON’T EXPECT ANY CHRISTIANS TO ACCEPT AND RECOGNIZE THIS.  BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR BIRTH RIGHT TO HAVE OUR OWN LEGITIMATE SPACE WITHIN OUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.  And if any Hindu question about this, we know how to deal with them.

So let others question and challenge all other ‘insider’ or ‘People movement approach’ both among the Christians and Hindu converts, but we are not part of any such Mission agenda.

Dayanand bharati.  August 17, 2010.

Dear Ajoy,

Though I am not interested in the so mythology of Thomas visit to India and forming a church in South India, yet let us assume that he actually came and converted many brahmins and others and was finally martyred by the brahmins.  Then: ‘Vedavyasa had compiled and classified the nomadic worship songs of the Aryans as Rig,Yajur,Sama and Atharva Veda. He is not an Aryan but Dravidian /Tamilian (the term ‘Dravidian’ is the twisted form of the term ‘Tamilian’). He belongs to Vedantic concept i.e. St.Thomas Christianity. He compiled and classified the Vedas in order to proclaim Vedantic concept i.e., St.Thomas Christianity to the Indians.’ (as said by Dr. Devakala). [How a Dravidian Vyasa understood the language of the nomadic Aryans—asked by Madhu].

Then Saivism and Vaishnavism founded based on the Thomasic Vedanta teaching.  Brahmins invented caste system and imposed on the Dravidians.

Well,  [I started this but realized that there is no pointing in wasting my time with such nonsense thesis.  So I have decided to give up this for the time being.—db]

When the ‘Law’ came sin was awakened.  In the same way Vishal and Alex’s legalism came in this discussion, then the caste identity of Dr. Devakala awakened.  All these days we never knew what is the caste of Dr. Devakala and we least bother about it.  But now Vishal repeatedly mentioned her from a ‘low’ caste and Dr. Devakala, who is up in arm against castism least bother to object to it and requested Vishal never give her any caste identity which they are opposing?!?

August 18, 2010. Gurukulam.

I have no problem with your sending this to Ajoy. I will copy for you what I just sent him and his reply to me.

Ajoy, I appreciate your effort to bring a Christ-like spirit into the discussions that are going on but I am afraid I see no hope of that happening and so I do not intend to respond any further. Of course I will read what is written to me but this is a fire that needs to burn out and if we provide fuel that will never happen. No amount of scholarship related to the RF position will have any impact on this discussion; I have tried that approach and it is ignored (or by Vishal labeled “Brahminical,” as if Brahmins all agree on these complex points of Indian history). Anyway I wanted to express appreciation for you and let you know that I will not be responding to this thread unless something like an honest question and discussion gets started. (There is definite evidence of good from the Chennai RF gathering despite the fiasco of this email follow-up.) Rick

Thanks Rick. Its good to know that you will be reading the emails though not responding generally. Will meet Dr. Devakala and keep you posted on the developments. On a personal front, this is also an effort to understand what people are thinking on these issues. Also an attempt to separate scholarship from rhetoric and sophistry – even if arising out of good intentions! I would perhaps write to you sometime in case I require some clarifications or insights as the discussions might get too academic at some points. May the Lord help us.

Ajoy

So he is a good Christian trying to do good things and I think your perspective below might be helpful to him, especially how silly the comment suggesting that Christians can/should give permission for others to live out their faith in community.

By the way, in my encounters with people promoting “insider” stuff in other contexts the points you raise below have regularly come up and we do not even want to use “insider” terminology any more (which I never liked or used in the first place). I would like to share your letter with some of those people, with clear instruction that it should not be quoted but is only for private information, so as to confirm what they have decided from interacting with similar situations in other contexts. Please let me know if you approve of my sharing your letter (I will remove all names) in this way.

So I think Ajoy will appreciate your comments and it might help him in his ongoing desire to communicate with these people.   Rick

@@@

Dear Swamiji

Thank you for the email. This will not be posted in any discussions.

I will read through it in detail and seek to understand what the Lord is doing.

My understanding of terms like “insider movements” etc are very elementary and recent. So its possible that I might have misunderstood the scope of its meaning. I guess the term “insider movements” are more relevant in Islamic contexts.

I do think (unlike Dr. Chakravarthy) that some contact must be retained with Christians due to our common humanity as well as our common discipleship to the same Lord. In fact, I’m think that a ‘no-contact position’ can be counterproductive and might even be unscriptural. I could be wrong on this and will wait for the Lord to guide and counsel all of us on this spiritual journey.

I will go through the article by Dr. Schimdt too. Thanks for sending it to me. I have a meeting with Dr. Devakala on Tuesday. If you have any resources that will help me for the discussions, kindly let me know.

With much regards
Ajoy

Neither caste nor race is genetic.  But let us take it for granted that Brahmins with all their craftiness invented and promoted this evils system caste directly and race indirectly on humanity to enjoy a blissful and life of plenty suppressing others, yet this ‘evil’ remain part of our collective conscience in Indians (including that of NRIs) for long time, which is used time and again for the personal agenda of a group or individual.

For example in this debate on caste, no one ever knew that Dr. Devakala is from a ‘low caste’.  But until Sri Mangalwadi suddenly championed for the rights of all those who are the victims of this ‘brahminical evil’ no one least bothered about the ‘caste’ (also gender) identity of Dr. D. K. D. Take for granted that for his own reason he want to use this forum not only to promote his ‘principle’ (ideology) of fighting for the cause of all those who are suppressed and oppressed but also set some personal score of some wounded ego began to attack not only this evil ‘principle’ (caste) but also some persons as if they are deliberately injecting this evil system inside the Indian church.  But I cannot understand why Dr. D. K. D., who always write such a long ‘reminders’ and rejoinders to make her stand very clear to uproot the evil system of caste not only from Indian church but also from India as well, kept quite accepting her ‘low caste’ identity not writing at least that no one in the RF tried to silence her because of her caste or gender identity?

This shows clearly that, however all the Indians oppose in theory against this brahminical evil conspiracy of caste, yet when it comes to their personal advantage want to use it either to get some sympathy or attack others.  When the ‘Law’ came sin was awakened.  In the same way, when the discussion on caste in this Forum degenerated as a kind of ‘legalism’ to attack ‘people’ from the discipline of highlighting principle, then this ‘evil’ of caste about individual’s identity awakened from the unconscious of those who want to settle some personal score against some individuals in stead of debating on the principle.

As usual Sri Mangalwadi or Dr. Harris will twist and turn this response to expose the ‘Brahminical conspiracy’ to deviate this discussion to attack them personally than accepting the fact that Pasidona Missiologist and HIS Brahmin followers’ agenda of injecting both brahminical caste and white man’s race in Indian church.  But they know very well  that however Brahmins pretend to be humble before others, yet they will never try to become the followers of anyone.  They will happily remain the ‘head’ to a mouse than the tail (or hair on the tail) of an elephant.  Though this is not the place to clear some doubt, yet even before I met Mr. Richard (Rick) I thought and wrote in this line of ‘Muktinath centered families’ within Hindu communities and society as back as 1983-84.  I met Rick only in 1991, but I still have my handwritten articles and papers of 1983-84 on this subject.  So I was not in need of any racialist white man to think in this line or need to become an NRI to make a living to please of white Bosses.  Whether good or bad I own personal responsibility for my principle and never want to hide behind someone else.

Finally, I never believe in the so called formula: ‘don’t attack person but principle; not people but policy’.  Because for me no principle or policy can exist or can have any meaning separated from person and people.  So when we attack any principle or policy, we directly or indirectly attack those who invented and promote those principles and policy.  And the victims of every principle and policy not only have the right to weep but also fight back against person and people who invented and promote them.  And those who invented and promote the principle and policy should try to redress the harm and injury of their principle and policy both by action and retrospection [is this a correct word?] than justifying their activities blaming someone else or something else.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, August 22, 2010.

I advise NOT sending this to Ajoy; I have not even sent your previous email yet. If you send this he will have to refer to it when he meets Devakala; if he refers to it you are in the discussion. We need to let this discussion die. My immediate reaction when I read Vishal’s foolish accusation about Dalit woman was exactly yours; I expect Ajoy noticed that also, and I suspect Devakala FELT it (if Vishal is in any way right, she HAD to feel a north Indian man saying such things). So let Ajoy raise it on his own if he wants to, or let it die. I have informed Ajoy that I am finished responding to this email thread. You decided that even before I did; let’s stay with that since we know their main goal is just to keep the fire burning, so the only way for us to prevent that is to stop providing any fuel, and we cannot expect Ajoy to refuse to draw us in if we keep commenting to him about things. So I suggest you write and thank Ajoy for his consideration in contacting you, and take your common line that these are Christian matters and it is best for you to stay out of them.

Having said that, maybe include this one paragraph from your previous email, just to alert Ajoy to this reality:

Though I appreciate your statement, ‘All that they ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context’, yet I want to make one thing clear to you and the other Christians that we Hindu bhaktas need not ‘ask, request, plead or beg’ for any ‘social and spiritual space to work out’ our faith in our ‘specific’ context.  We, as Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath, already have our ‘legitimate and rightful (that too as our birth right) in our Hindu social and spiritual space. Though you never mentioned what is our ‘specific context’ that is definitely not any kind of ‘Christian or church’ context of establishing any kind of ‘church’ in Indian context. 

Sending one paragraph out of 20 written at least will be good practice towards maun vrat; Chakravarty secretly desires you to take that step. Rick

August, 23, 2010.

Dear Swamiji

Thanks for the reveiw.  I will not be sharing it with anyone soon. If it do so, I will remove the reveiwers name.

 I have listened to Illaiah twice – once in person and the the next time on TV.

When we met him in person, he is quite a charmer, but almost completely rhetorical with no desire for objectivity. We asked him why he was not  a Christian and he answered “because nobody asked me to”. We asked him if he was willing to forgive the Brahmins. He said, “only after they have stitched chappals for the next 100 years”. He loves to play to the gallery and is quite illogical in his opinions (“Ilaiah has more in common with Christians due to the similarity with Jeremiah, Isaiah etc. Even as a joke, it was ill placed in the semi-academic setting we were in).

The next time I saw him was on TV in a panel interview regarding the Kumbh Mela. He got into a major tangle with Madhu Kishwar who seems to be journalist with a right wing leaning. He freely made unjustifiable statements like ” Only Christians spend their money on hospitals and education etc” which prompted Kishwar to say that “the missionaries have left but they have left stooges like Illaiah to continue their work”!.

Thanks
Ajoy

Thanks for sharing this information.  Though I am not talking as a Brahmin or for the Brahmin, but  cannot understand why they should ask forgiveness from others on their misinterpretation about their life and views on any aspect on life?

db

Sep. 1. 2010.

Dear Ajoy

Thank you Swamiji. I remember the question was raised amidst a discussion about the perception of “injustice” caused by the Brahmins as alleged by Ilaiah. So the issue was not about the Brahmin asking forgiveness, but about the “lower caste” person unilaterally forgiving the ones he perceived as being the oppressors. Whether that perception is justified or merely a social and popular construct is a matter to be verified independently.

Trust this clarifies.

Ajoy

Thank Ajoy.  The common human problem is that they want to easily blame others for personal short comings.  This happened historically on several points.  Several times British imperialism is blamed for several post-Independence problem in India and also with our neighbor.  Politicians are blamed by the public.  In the same way, historically Brahmins were blamed for many things for whcih they are not directly responsible.  Regarding this I can give several examples.  But as you have rightly said, it depends upon one’s perception and popular construct than verifying the matter independently and also correctly.

db

Ajoy wrote:

Dr. Devakala also asked if there was some way this group could work together in concert for the sake of our country. I’m surely its possible and obviously, that’s a question that this group needs to respond further to.

Though this question is not directly asked to me, yet I would prefer to give my response to such questions from Christians. 

We Hindu bhaktas are living our life in our cultural, social and religious (and all other) Hindu context.  As I said already, our bhakti in Muktinath is not contextualization or mission strategy to win other Hindus either for Christianity or even for the Lord.  This may shock many.  But we want to share the gospel in our natural setting by living the life as His bhakta and there never believe in the triumph evangelical slogan like ‘winning’ etc.  We wish and long for other members of our own family and community to worship the same Lord.  And we do all we could do for that, both by words and deeds.

But associating with Christians, particularly with evangelical in their approach to ‘win’ Hindus for the Lord is the hindrance for our witnessing life.  Because, as they say and believe, we are not ‘experimenting’ something as a strategy but live our very life as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.  So, all the agendas and programs of the evangelicals never helps us in any way.

For example, whether Thomas came to India or not, whether Saivam and Vaishnava sects are founded by Thomas Christians, whether Vyasa invented Sanskrit to propagate Thomasic Vedanta to the Aryans, Sankara imposed caste system among the non-Aryans etc. are not important for us.  As Hindus and with our limited practical experience with our respective sects like Saivam or Vaishnavam is more based on the family tradition than any knowledge based on the respective sectarian scriptures.  This does not mean that we do not know something about our sectarian scriptures.  We heard about many and some of us have read some of them. But all our approach to our respective sectarian scriptures is based on the concept of bhakti and not theology.

Now we came out from our respective sectarian faiths and become bhaktas of the Lord.  And in this process our bhakti in the Lord is based faith and our (limited) understanding of Muktiveda.  And both to exercise our bhakti and also to witness for the Lord in our Hindu context, all these information and theories related with Christians’ understanding and interpretation of our Indian tradition, history etc. is not going to help us much.  Because without knowing all this we came to the faith and can continue to live out our bhakti without the need of such information and theories.

But, if Dr. D.K.D and co believes that added to our faith and bhakti all the information that they provide will help to remove several errors from our life as bhakta of the Lord, we are not convinced about it.  Because even take for granted that all their information and theory is true, yet it is not going to convince our fellow Hindus to put their trust and faith in the Lord.  Because without these information we came to the faith and they too can come to the same faith without these information.  And if D.K.D. & Co. believe that their theory and information will eradicate several evils, particularly caste system among Hindus and Christians, then let them first go and reform their respective churches to come out from this evil. Then they can present their papers and thesis to the govt. and politicians who appeal to have a caste basis senses to remove caste from the society through political and legal action based on their theory.  As a digression I wonder why D.K.D. & Co. missed the great opportunity of Tamil Semmozhi Manadu held at Coimbatore to present their thesis to the wide and worldwide Tamil scholars?

Even if we tell Hindus all about Tamilsamaya’m theories they will never take it seriously.  For example, there are several stories about Jesus visit to Kashmir and learning from Indian rishish.  Then He went back to Palastine to teach what He learned from Hindu Rishis to the needs of His people.  For this they give so many proofs both from the bible and Hindu scriptures.  Are we take them seriously and began to refute by writing thesis and papers?  Many Christians just ignores such stories as mere myth and they believe that the  best way to respond to such myths is to ignore them.  And many Hindus will do the same to the myth of Thomas visit to India.  Already Swami Vivekananda found Sankara’s advaita in the saying of the Lord, ‘I and my father are one’.  For him and many of his followers this shows that Jesus learnt this advaitic concept only from Vedanta.  But fortunately, unlike Dr. D.K.D. Vivekananda never changed the dates of Jesus or Sankara to accommodate his theory of Jesus’s knowledge of Vedanta.  I cannot give any reference to this view of Vivekananda. But this is what one Vivekananda’s followers in Mahdhubani (fortunately who is not a Brahmin in North Bihar) argued with me.  And even if Dr. D. K. D. is theory is proved historically and textually, then Hindus have no problem to include Thomas as one of the other Siddhas within Hindu fold, but will never take this Thomas Vedanta seriously.

I was searching for a Guru who can answer some of my questions related with life and after a long struggle I found that Guru in Muktinath.  That is the starting for my bhakti and not through understanding of the gospel or all the doctrine related to Muktiveda or missiological approach about mission.  Now all my attempt to understand the muktiveda is based on my Hindu worldview of karma, sin, grace, mukti etc.  Who want to bother about Pre-Moody and post-Moody, Pre-Finnay or Post-Finny etc. funny issues?  This is the first time in my life as a bhakta of the Lord, I ever hear about Finny!  What we have to with Moody or Megavaran or Billy Graham.   This does not mean that I am despising them or criticizing them.  We don’t need to spend our time and energy to understand all these western missiological issues related to American context to exercise our bhati as Hindus in India.

In the same way, why should we bother whether Thomas came and established a church in Tamilnadu or not?  All these days many Christians in both Catholic and Protestant churches exercised their faith without knowing anything about Thomas and his Christianity.  All these things remained as mere academic level and lay people without bothered about this, happily exercise their faith through their respective churches.  Even those Church leaders, who know and learn some thing on such issues know very well that their lay people never need them.  And if the Indian Christians don’t need such information, then why should we invest our time to know and discuss on such issues related to the church and Christianity?

To remove several errors and evils of our Hindu society we have our own mechanism.  And any alien method is not going to help us in any way. 

Dayanand bharati, Gurukulam, September 2^nd, 2010.

Dear Dr. Ramaswamy

Shanti!

Thanks for forwarding your response to the Tamilsamayam, group discussion.  I appreciate your  clear appraisal of so many issues, yet I want to clarify one thing clear to you.  You said that what we are doing is part of any Insider Movement.  But I never consider myself and anything that we do is part of any so called Insider Movement or People Group Movement. 

Though I am not interested to discuss, argue or even have any kind of dialogue with any Christian groups, yet as we are often misquoted as ‘insider’ movement, at least I want to clarify that one wrong impression.  Though I would have misunderstood, yet according to the evangelicals the so called ‘insider’ movement is another mission strategy and program to reach Hindus. That might be true with many Missionary Organizations, but we bhaktas never consider ourselves as an ‘insider’ movement.  We or I particularly want to avoid all kinds of Christian and Mission technical terms, slogans, formula and agendas about what all we do and live as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.

As we are very clear in our conviction that we are HINDU BHAKTAS OF BHAGAVAN MUKTINATH, we are not part of any kind of evangelical strategy or program to ‘convert’ Hindus to Christian communities with all kinds of formulas and strategies.  So, though others attacked us imagining us as ‘insider’ movement, yet as we are not that, I never felt offended or feel to defend about us.

When one evangelical Christian once told that what we are doing is only an experiment, I said, ‘no.  We are living our life 24 x 7 as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord within our families and communities.  Those other Christians (or Hindu convert to Christianity) who can experiment various strategies can pack and walk back to their Christian situation without being affected.  But we cannot do that.  Either we have to swim or drown.  But not understanding our situation in its TOTAL context, we become easy target for some to attack and many to discuss and debate—both positively and negatively.  But we are not disturbed by this as we know that ‘they do not know what they are doing’.

We never say ‘no’ to any friendship and fellowship with other Christians who are ready to accept us as we are and never try to disturb us.  I often say, ‘let James live peacefully at Jerusalem. But when Judaizers come and disturb us, then like Paul we have to stand and fight for our rights’.  We promise not to come and disturb Christians in any way both inside and outsider their church.  But we never say no to anybody’s friendship and fellowship—Muslims, Christians, Communists, atheist etc.  That is why in our meetings, we allow even Hindus who never accepted the Lord also to come and participate.  I conducted several such meetings in which several Hindus participated and never feel offended by my sharing about the Lord.  For us, Christians are one among the others and we respect them accepting them as they are and we expect them to accept us as we are: HINDU BHAKTAS OF THE LORD.  Even though many evangelicals will never understand us, at least we want make one thing clear to them: WE ARE NOT ‘INSIDERS’ or PROMOTERS OF ‘PEOPLE MOVEMENT APPROACH’.  WE ARE HINDUS AND BHAKTAS OF BHAGAVAN MUKTINATH.  And we DON’T EXPECT ANY CHRISTIANS TO ACCEPT AND RECOGNIZE THIS.  BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR BIRTH RIGHT TO HAVE OUR OWN LEGITIMATE SPACE WITHIN OUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.  We don’t need to request, ask, consider and beg to any Christians about giving some space in their agenda for the Hindus.  And if any Hindu question about our claim as Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath, then we know how to deal with them.  So Christians need not worry and discuss about how to give some space for us in their agenda.  We Hindu bhaktas need any ‘Christian space’ to work out our faith in our Hindu context..

So let others question and challenge all other ‘insider’ or ‘People movement approach’ both among the Christians and Hindu converts, but we are not part of any such Mission agenda.

Though I agree with on all points, yet I have my own personal reservation on the last paragraph of your mail:

I suggest that the Hindu devotees or followers of Christ and Christian scholars meet together and have a dialogue with each other on the question of caste, mono-ethnic church, culture, contextualization and Christian fellowship   Together they should come up with statements to the world Church on the question of Christian witness in India.  I do not think that in any near future the members of Insider Movements and the Christian believers can come together in faith and fellowship. (Matt. 9:16,17)  The Christians themselves do not cross the denominational barriers to fellowship with each others.  Therefore, we cannot expect them to become part of any Christian congregation. However, the Insider Movements should not remain as exclusive groups while they have their social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context but try to have meaningful dialogue with the Christians and Hindus. (emphasis mine—db)

Though I respect and feel one in spirit with all other bhaktas of the Lord from any part of the world, yet why should we part to make any ‘statements to the world Church on the question of Christian witness in India’?  Let the Indian Christians worry about any ‘Christian witness’ in India.  As you rightly said that both the Insider Movement and we (as we are not part of any Insider Movement, I have to insist that point again and again) cannot come together in faith and fellowship with Christian believers (thanks for making this distinction very clear), we too need not join with Christians both in India and the so called World Church to make statements about ‘Christian Witness’ in India.  How many Indian Christians are know and worry about the ethnic Christians right and fight in South America, Africa and Austrelia?  Do we discuss anything about Eskimo Christians?  Even if hear and know their problem, what can we do expect praying for them (that too superficially)?  Do you think an Eskimo Christian is worried about Thomas Vedanta and the origin of Sanskrit and the Brahminical evil system of caste?  Forget Eskimos, even those Christians living in North not even heard about Thomas Christianity or his Christian Vedanta?  One of my shishyas Keshave Misra is a bhakta of the Lord.  He lives in a remote village in M. P.  And to reach his village one has to walk 11 kms from M. P. side or 6 kms. From U. P. border.  The nearest Christian presence is around 90 kms away from him.  He and his wife alone are the bhaktas of the Lord in that village.  For his faith in the Lord, his whole family was excommunicated along with his brother’s family.  It is a long story to be told elsewhere.  But does Keshave and his wife need to know all about Thomas Christianity, Vyasa’s Thomas Vedanta etc. to fight against his caste problem in his village?  What purpose such thesis are going to serve to the need of such bhaktas who are struggling in many ways in life?  Should we spend our time and energy to help them to keep their bhakti and also come forward in life or spend our time and energy with such evangelical entertainment along with the ‘ivory tower theologians’ and ‘easy chair missiologists’?

Regarding the dialogue with Christians, I tried to some extent in the past.  You yourself witnessed about it during my sharing in your ashram with Christians.  Evangelicals gather to discuss and evolve strategy to reach Hindus and sometimes they call people like us to hear our views.  When we share, in stead of understanding core issue they began to question, debate, argue and even fight with us on secondary issues which has nothing to do with the salvation or bhakti of a new believer.  But we left all those elementary things and do not want to feed milk either to the new bhaktas or to the evangelicals.  The same thing happened at Chennai RF meeting.  I refused to come and share, but as Rick compelled me and to honor our friendship, with much hesitation finally I agreed.  Thankfully though the on going discussions are not on what I shared, yet all these discussions and debates now centered on the secondary issue of ‘caste’ ‘mono-ethnic’ church, reformation etc.

Caste is a problem, but we Hindus never spend our time in debating and writing theses on this subject.  Accepting it a problem which needs solution, we pay our attention on other important issues in life.  Read my response to Dr. D. K. D’s request to Ajoy about their involvement dt. Sep. 2^nd above.

I agree with Sri Sadhu Chellappaji.  Let us be practical and not write thesis on caste problem.  Though I agree with him that inter-caste marriage can be one of the several steps to remove caste issue, I don’t think that alone is going to eradicate the problem.  Now caste based senses is almost become official and cabinet is soon going to approve it.  Suppose a so called high caste person, say Brahmin boy marries a Nadar girl, to which caste his children will belong?  Though orthodox Brahmins are not going to accept their children as Brahmins, according to the law and also for the senses to which caste the children will belong?  Why Tamilsaivam group, who are up in arm against caste system and want to eradicate this evil, keep quite on this issue?

Though I am not agreeing with everything Dr. Anbumani Ramdas says, yet I would like to quote what he says about the discrimination that exists in one form or other amidst us:

Social division and discrimination are not unique to India, nor is the practice restricted to any part of the globe. In any given society, people are invariably divided along social, religious, communal and economic parameters. Karl Marx divided society into two classes — the bourgeois (the wealthy class) and the proletariat (labourers/working class people). The slave system, the clan system, the class system are no different or less venomous than our own caste prejudices. But caste is the longest and most formidable of all forms of oppression still prevalent in the history of mankind.— What is in a name? The Hindu, Bangalore Edition, August 27^th, p. 11.

And to eradicate this formidable oppression among Indians or even South Asians writing theses, discussing in conferences and making any statement to the Church at large is not going to help anyone, except for some to have ‘intellectual entertainment’ at the cost of some Missions.  Sorry we don’t want to be part of such futile exercise.  Even spending this much time to write this response makes me feel guilt for wasting my time. But as believe in honoring personal relationship, I take time to give this strong response to your polite reply.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, September 5, 2010.

In one of his responses Vishal wrote that, ‘Avoiding such persecution (a result of transforming evils of a culture by taking up our cross) seems to be a major impulse behind the Insider Movement.’

Evangelicals always think and talk about the persecution of new converts by their family and community.  But do they think about the way their family is persecuted because of the act of conversion of their child/children from their community to Christian community?  Do they understand the pain and suffering of the family of those converts? When one Brahmin boy became Christian and his name was changed, one time he received a letter with his new Christian name c/o of his father to his home.  The post man, who never knew about this, but know all the people in that locality got confused and came and asked to the housing colony about a Christian boy but son of that Brahmin. Soon the news spread to all other houses. And finally, being humiliated by the act of their son, they have to shift even their house.  I heard this one from another person.  In Kalkotta the principle of a high school teacher has to resign her post and even they shifted their home away from Kolkotta when their daughter not only became a Christian but also married a Tamil Christian (a Nadar) boy.  But the boy’s family also didn’t accept their marriage, as the boy’s parents couldn’t get the dowry from this Brahmin convert.  Because in Tamil Nadu in Nadar community, the boys family (demand) get huge dowry.  And the new couple went to Delhi and got some job.  But soon the boy became seriously sick.  But his parents refused to come for his help.  Finally when the girl’s parents came to know about it, they rushed to help them, as they don’t want to see their daughter suffer. 

Though not in all cases, but in several cases the persecution story of new converts are exaggerated and in order to earn sympathy and some kind of benefit, several new converts cook up either persecution story or exaggerate it, hiding the fact how much their parents and siblings suffered because of their conversion to Christian community.  If a new believer has to suffer because of her/his faith, let s/he face it.  But whey should their parents and siblings should suffer because of their persecution.  I know in person, how Keshave Misra’s parents and brother family suffered along with him, when the whole family was excommunicated by the entire Brahmin community in and around their village.  Even her nice marriage was at stake.  In North they do the marriage first and only after few years will send the girl to the boy’s house known as ‘ravana’.  Keshave’s niece first marriage already completed and the entire Brahmin community put pressure on Keshave’s brother to remove him from the family, other wise they threatened to stop the ‘ravana’ by influencing the boy’s family.  It is a long story.  I too involved in giving answer to the Brahmins who gathered to question about Keshave’s bhakti in the Lord.  Even Yad Ram Patel came from Rewa to give his life story as he was part of our mandali that time.  Any how Keshave’s entire family stood together and God saved the marriage of that girl.

Most of the time the new converts are more persecuted by the church than by their family and community.  Paul Kannan, my best Christian (also evangelical) friend told this.  At Erode one church pastor was searching for a suitable boy for her daughter.  When they approached Kannan, he said, ‘why you search for ghee when you have butter at your hand?  There is a new convert in your own congregation who is also from your own community.  Whey don’t you arrange your daughter’s marriage with that boy?  For that the Pastor, particularly his wife said, ‘why should our daughter marry him and suffer?  He is a convert and came out from his home.  If our daughter got married with him, he won’t get anything from his family property and then they will depend only upon us for all kinds of need and support’.  Much shocked and irritated when Kannan confronted them by saying, ‘then why do you convert Hindus’?  And for that the Pastor family response was: ‘Our duty is only to convert but not arrange marriage for every convert’.  I know several so called high caste girls still remain single, as they cannot get proper life partner either from their community or among the Christians.  When it comes to marriage, most of the Christians want to have the social security for their children which they are sure of getting from the convert.  Now tell, who is persecuting the converts more?  Christians or their own birth family and community?

Let me complete this with one thing which Dr. Hoeffer shared in one RF regional gathering held at Varanasi (I think).  One time a missionary daughter told her parents that she has decided to become a Muslim.  Shocked by her words, they pleaded with her not to do such thing.  ‘Think about our reputation back at home and in the Church.  What we can say to our Mission board and other members there?  What will happen to our life after that’?  And the girl in response said: ‘don’t worry. I am not going to become a Muslim.  But I want to you think what you are doing with other converts’.  The missionary couple more worried about their reputation back in home, church and Mission board.  But they cannot think about the plight of the parents and family of their converts.

People like Vishal should know the whole truth about persecution before making such comments about the persecution.

Dayanand  Bharati, Gurukulam, September .

From: madhu [mailto:madhusr@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:27 PM
To: Dayanand
Cc: Chakravarthy & Sharla
Subject: Re: Tamil samayam discussions continued

Dear Swamiji

Interesting to read so many people trying to make sense of who we are. More like 4 blind men describing an elephant. It is good we have stayed away from these confusions as we have better things to do. Of course, we know from history how Manilal Parekh, R.C. Das, Upadhyaya and Tilak became victims of church pressures and as good students of history we have decided to stay away from these invitiations to battle. I think Ajoy has only weakly articulated our position and either did not want to abandon his ‘christian’ brethren or genuinelly does not know our positions well enough.

Madhu

In his latest email, Vishal, with a pseudo-humility wrote a mail to Rick ‘requesting’ him to give respond to DKD’s another remainder and also accusing Rick, the American snatching mike from a ‘low caste’ woman, not allowing her to make her points.  And in case, if Rick cannot response, then he requested someone from ‘insider to respond’.  Let me quote him:

Do American missionaries have the right to go to India and speak on this sensitive issue of caste and demand that Indians hear them but not ask any questions?  This discussion has been going on for several months now. I do not know why other “Insiders” have not explained the rationale for their strategy. They may have good reasons . . . but I am afraid that their silence (unless justified) also comes across as sheer arrogance . . . I understand their silence to mean: “we don’t care for you low-caste believers.” 

Though I am not entitled to give any response, as I am not representing any ‘Insiders’ or myself leading any ‘insider’ movement, yet, as I am often mistaken to carry out Rick’s mission agenda, I would like to give my response to DKD’s some theories.

Suppose, if we for Tamilsamaya’s theory sake agree with their thesis that Thomas came to India and established churches, converted Brahmins and finally martyred by them.  And Vaishnavism in North and Saivam in South are the off shoot of Thomas Christianity and Vyasa, a Dravidian invented Sanskrit to write the flock songs of Aryans to propagate Tahomsic Vedanta to them.  Now the question is what they want to tell to the Hindus (and to the Buddhist in case of Woolf gang’s theory of Mahayana Buddhism is the result of Thomas Christianity)? 

Will they say that the gods, Siva, Vishnu they worship is the product of Thomas Christianity and therefore they should give up their faith in those gods and should become Christians to worship Jesus? 

We all know very well how Hindus in general are good in argument without having any personal knowledge about their scripture.  Let me give an example.  On 5^th September several students from Madras Christian College along with their teachers and few other evangelicals came to Gurukulam to see me.  Two of them were talking to my mother and try to share the gospel to her in brief.  I too was listening it a bit while I was busy in my kitchen work to feed them.  After they left, my mother told me, ‘One of them said to me that they are worshiping Yesu Bhagavan and for this I said each one has his own god to worship.  For this another person said that Jesus alone went to the Father and in response I said, ‘all have to go to the Father’. Etc.  And after sharing this with a triumph look she said to me, ‘finally they have no answer to my questions and comments’.

This is the problem with the evangelicals.  Without knowing what to share and how to share, they get trapped in their approach.  For example first that person said that he is worshipping ‘Yesu bhagavan’.  Then another said that Jesus alone has gone to the Father.  Now what kind of message my mother will get?  If Jesus is bhagavan and then why he should go to the Father, who is God?  In that case, is Jesus not a bhagavan?  If Jesus is the only god, then why should he need to go to a Father who is God?  Then does Jesus is a yogi or saint who reached God the father.  In that case we all too can reach God the Father without any need of Jesus.

The problem with the evangelicals is that they tell what they know than what people are in need.  The terms ‘Father’ and ‘Jesus’ separate but one are related with theology which, if we use in our early talk with Hindus, it will not only confuse them but also make our claim very weak and irrelevant to their understanding about god.  Hindus know how to argue without any logical and use the very same logic for this purpose.  This we call in Tamil as ‘vidandavaadam’.  For example: God is love; love is blind and therefore god is blind’ is a logical ‘vidandavaadam’.  Jesus is bhagavan, but he needs to go to God the Father and there he is not God.

Now coming back to Tamilsamayam thesis: if Siva and Vishnu are the outcome of Thomas Christianity, then why should need to go back to Jesus?  Because Christianity came out from Judaism; Saivam and Vaishnavam came out of Tahomas Christianity in India and Islam in Arabian countries.  So the latter are the improvement over the former faith which should be good.  Because a tree is known by its fruit.  A good tree cannot give a bad fruit.  And if Saivam and Vaishnavam are bad, then Thomas Christianity is bad.  Or if Thomas Christianity is good, then the fruit of it viz., Saivam and Vaishnavam also should be good.  And then why should they give up the improve faith to the old ones?

Though I am not questioning their sincerity and scholarship, I would like to know how many scholarly Hindus Tamilsaivam group have so far managed to convince about their thesis and made Hindus to worship Jesus leaving Siva and Vishnu?  And how many sincere Hindus scholars they have managed to convince about this thesis?  And if they managed to ‘win’ so many Hindus to their form of Christianity, CONGRATULATIONS and God bless their ministry.

My next question is about Sanskrit.  Finding Sanskrit inscription only after 150 A.D. does not mean that Sanskrit as a language was invented only after Thomas visit to India?  Another important question which Dr. Madhusudan Rao raised was: how the Dravidan Vyasa managed to understand the language of the Aryans to know about their flock songs to write all Vedas to propagate Thomas Vedanta to them?

Take for granted that we should not depend upon only any written historical evidence about Thomas visit but should also count the oral tradition of Marthoma Christians, then the same logic is applicable to Sanskrit.

Because, most of the scholars agree with the theory that Brahmins orally transferred their vedic knowledge to the next generation. (See Gavin Flood for this), though the Vedic literatures were written in Sanskrit using ‘dev-nagari’ script.  It is also agreed among scholars that Paanini the grammarian who systemized Sanskrit wrote his grammar work around 500 B.C.  Even if Tamilsamayam group do not want to accept this, then we should know that while the script continued to change, the language most of the time remain the same, except undergoing great change.  For example, though the present day Tamilian cannot read or understand the Tamil script of pre-Sangam and post-Sangam literatures, yet one can easily understand the Tamil spoken by the same people.  So written text or inscription is not all the evidence to prove the existence of a language’s time.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, September, 22^nd 2010.

@@@

DB response to Christ Devotees by Cyril Kuttiyanikkal, CMI, Delhi, ISPCK, 2022.

In any dialogue, having strong faith and personal conviction one needs to approach other faiths while try to understand them or to comment about them.  Nothing wrong in having such strong faith or personal conviction [in one’s particular form of faith and doctrines related to it].  But one should be careful not to understand other’s faith only from their point of view.  Such approach will end up imposing one’s own particular religious/spiritual view about faith on every kind of other faiths.  But traditionally in Christianity, this is done in the name of Dialogue.  However they claim that they respect and try to understand other faiths as they are, still when they began to interpret certain facts about other’s faith their prejudice prevents them to approach the issue objectively.

Ever since print media came into existence, so many books about the life and witness about the so called converts from other faiths to Christianity were published –either as biography or autobiography.  Later when contextualization become a catch word among the Evangelicals then many books were published after sharing the witness of few converts and then analysing and approaching the challenges and opportunities for conversion from Christian point of view.  Several hundred books were written and still coming.  So whenever I read such books, though I find the same rhetorical Christian approach related to various topic, I feel frustrated when the same kind of approach is used to understand other faiths 

Recently I received one such book published by ISPCK, Delhi: Cyril Kuttiyanikkal CMI, Christ Devotees, 2022.  As I am reading this book I am marking those points which needs to be commented later.  But I would like to begin with two points here.  At the backside cover it is mentioned that, ‘The emergence of this hybrid living has brought with it several paradoxes challenging both the traditional models of ecclesial living and the Indian traditional social stratum’. 

There some truth when the author points about the ‘hybrid living’ of those converts to Christianity from other faiths.  Though most of such converts proclaim that they have ‘left’ Hinduism and entered into Christianity, as they still continue to live as Indian the social system of India forces them to lead only such a hybrid living—neither remain true Christian nor a true follower of the Lord, to remain still part of their social system, viz., for example a Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  Having said that when Indian Christianity still continue remain a ‘hybrid religion’ neither remain Indian nor remain Western, what else they can produce?  However there are several individual bhaktas who try not to live a ‘hybrid living’ both as a Christian and Hindu, try their level best to live as they are like a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, keeping away Christianity away from their personal life as much as possible.  So, though there is some truth about talking this ‘hybrid living’ by most of the converts, the hybrid Indian Christianity failed to notice the existence of an alternative group following the Lord remaining as they are.

Though there are so many points about which I can share my reflection, I find there is no more need for it.  Because already I spilled enough ink to articulate my views in other places.  And I strongly feel that there is no need to repeat them again and again when these kinds of books started to come.  However unable to restrict my temptation, here I would like to share only one such reflection from this book as the author, however sympathetic and remain honest in his approach as a strong Catholic faith that: THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHRUCH [even for God?]

The author says, ‘However, Hinduism is not able to make the theological differentiation between culture and religion as is in the case of Christianity….’—p. 8

What is the need for it in Hinduism.  As Hinduism never divides life in watertight compartments, a Hindu tries to live her life holistically as an integrated whole not separating culture from religion.  In fact there exists no such separation and where any outsider tries to point out, it shows their failure to understand the Hindu phenomena.  In fact it is very difficult to mark which one is cultural and which one is religious.  Already I have pointed out elsewhere many times.  I don’t know much about Christianity.  However I think only after the Enlightenment when the Church started to separate the ‘Church’ from the ‘State’ there came the need for such artificial differentiation between culture and religion even in Christianity.  Interestingly when I read Purvaveda {OT and also in Uttaraveda [NT]}, I cannot found any Scriptural evidence for any need to differentiate the life of the followers as ‘cultural’ and ‘religious’.  About this also as I have already discussed I don’t want to repeat them. And any catual reader of the Scripture [need not be a theologian] can this Scriptural reality.  This being the fact, when the author says that Hinduism failed to differentiate the theological difference between culture and religion.  Thank God we failed and are very happy about it. 

Another point is: ‘Understanding the Hindu view on baptism does not necessarily call for accepting their view on baptism’. –p. 13

Before making this comments, he elaborately discuss about :1.1. Baptism: A Bone of Contention in India, by pointing all the issues related to ‘baptism’ which remained and still continue to remain as a ‘Bone of Contention’. 

Space won’t permit me to quote extensively from this book where the author very clearly points out all the historical reason and developments for such ‘contention’.  But my point is this: Hindus never expect the Christians to accept ‘their’ point of view.  That is their stated clear position.  However  Christians try to help Hindus to understand the meaning and need of ‘baptism’  and also insisted [like by the author who says] ‘At the same time a community which is not initiated into the life of church through baptism cannot be called an ecclesia’ –p. 14

As there exists no salvation outside the Church for Catholics, we can understand the importance of that ritual or Sacrament [according to them] in their Christian life.  But it is too much on their part to expect Hindus to accept their point of view alone.  When the Christians fail to understand the Hindu point of view and proclaim that there is no need to accept their view, it is equally true for the Hindus to agree their point of view.  As long as ‘Baptism’ remains as an instrument to convert people from one sociological group to another in the name of God and Gospel, it will continue to remain ‘A Bond of Contention’.  And both Hindus who oppose this Christian practice to proselyte others to their religion and Christians insisted it as a Sacrament required for church life have to live with this Indian reality.  When Christianity and their colonial agents British introduced so many unnecessary issues in the name of God and Gospel, Mission and Church it is too much for us to expect them to correct their mistake—however they might try to justify from their point of view.  For example as the author has pointed out how the Indian Personal that exists no other part in the world which divided Indians based on religious communities like Hindu, Christian and Muslims, unless we Indians—irrespective of our personal [religious] faiths, raise above such dividing forces there is no much hope to solve this issue.

@@@

DB response to Rebecca Lewis

Db’s response to Rebecca Lewis’ paper: The Integrity of the Gospel and Insider Movements, 3-27-2010.  See the file, Papers (which are read by DB) for this articles.

I have to thank Rebecca Lewis for this wonderful paper making it clear not only the Power of the Gospel but also the rightful place of every bhakta from any background in the Kingdom of God.  Yes the gospel alone has the power to transform a person and this is my personal experience.  All other missiological methods can present some reform principles only to change the outward practices for a time being to accommodate the concerns and irritations of ‘orthodox’ and traditionalists’ view about any cultural, social and religious system but they will never ‘transform’ any individual as the gospel does.

We Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, experience this in our movement. We never discriminate any one based on their caste or any other (economic, status etc.) identity.  We, even never object to them get married cross-caste wise based on their personal choice.  But when anyone, in order to accommodate their personal wishes, particular related with marriage try to use the ‘gospel’ then we warn them not to do. Because for me, the gospel remains transcended away from out petty and personal interpretation to twist and turn it to accommodate our selfish needs.  It has the power to transform the individual and to work through her/him in her family and community.  But we never believe that the same gospel has to power to change the so called evils and unwanted practices in any family and community that is not acceptable to us (based on our own interpretation of what is evil etc.) through that individual bhakta’s selfish interpretation on the power of the gospel to transform every system of the world.  For example, a new bhakta may not accept the importance of caste, but if s/he wants to marry some one else other than of her/his caste against the wishes of her/his family in the name of her/his ‘faith’ in the Lord, then it is wrong and such move will never bring the ‘reformation’ or ‘transformation’ in that family and community (against the so called evil of caste).  On the other hand it will further irritate and close her/his family to understand and see the ‘power’ of the gospel which can bring transformation in individual’s life.  If that boy or girl wants to marry anyone other than her/his caste purely based on her/his personal choice (the so called love marriage), let s/he do it based on her/his personal likes and dislikes.  Inter caste marriages are happening in so many Hindu families from time in memorial and ‘faith’ was never come an issue their.  But when some Christians try to impose inter caste marriage for a new believer as a mark of their faith, then it become another form of legalism and external work than expressing any change in heart.  Then we call this a ‘different kind of gospel’ which neither the Lord nor Paul every preached.

We accept others as they are.  When we gather together for worship and fellowship, we never discriminate any one based on any criteria like caste, economic, status, gender etc.  We cook together, eat together.  But when it comes to the social, cultural, religious and other issues related to the family and community of an individual believer, we never interfere, unless it leads to any compromise of the gospel and lead to any kind of syncretism in that individuals’ faith in the Lord.  We believe that through that individual believer’s transformed life, God can work slowly and steadily to remove all the evils that are against His Kingdom values.  But we never jump to any conclusion that several of the cultural, social and even religious views and values, which are not acceptable to us based on our own interpretation of the gospel, in others family and community as unbiblical and against the Kingdom value.  Here we try to understand with and through that individual about her/his worldview of her/his family community but we never jump to condemn any of it based on our personal interpretation bible.  Even those worldviews which we think are definitely against the Kingdom value, we try to change struggling along with that individual believer than extracting her/him in the name of saving or protecting her/his faith.  By doing so, we work against God who wants to bring changes in that families and communities through the transformed life of the individual believers.  By extracting such individuals and make them to join in Christian communities (note the plural) and their churches, we not only add to the already existing problem in the Christian communities and Churches but also make that individual believer to leave one evil to choose another evil and make her/him a burden to the Christian communities and churches and a betrayer to her/his own family and community.  Then s/he remain another proselyte than a transformed bhakta of the Lord.

Dayanand Bharati, August 27, 2010.  Gurukulam.

Dear Swamiji

Thanks for the reveiw.  I will not be sharing it with anyone soon. If it do so, I will remove the reveiwers name.

 I have listened to Illaiah twice – once in person and the the next time on TV.

When we met him in person, he is quite a charmer, but almost completely rhetorical with no desire for objectivity. We asked him why he was not  a Christian and he answered “because nobody asked me to”. We asked him if he was willing to forgive the Brahmins. He said, “only after they have stitched chappals for the next 100 years”. He loves to play to the gallery and is quite illogical in his opinions (“Ilaiah has more in common with Christians due to the similarity with Jeremiah, Isaiah etc. Even as a joke, it was ill placed in the semi-academic setting we were in).

The next time I saw him was on TV in a panel interview regarding the Kumbh Mela. He got into a major tangle with Madhu Kishwar who seems to be journalist with a right wing leaning. He freely made unjustifiable statements like ” Only Christians spend their money on hospitals and education etc” which prompted Kishwar to say that “the missionaries have left but they have left stooges like Illaiah to continue their work”!.

Thanks
Ajoy

Thanks for sharing this information.  Though I am not talking as a Brahmin or for the Brahmin, but  cannot understand why they should ask forgiveness from others on their misinterpretation about their life and views on any aspect on life?

db

 Sep. 1. 2010.

@@@

Dayanand

Dharma Deepika (January-June 2003) pp. 81-85

Review Essay

Ramesh Khatry

Living Water and Indian Bowl

(Ramesh Khatry, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Association for Theological Education in Nepal, Nepal.)

Sadhu Sundar Singh’s famous phrase has given the title for Bharati’s book. I sympathize with Bharati’s quest for indigenous Indian Christianity; though he does not call himself a “Christian” (p 162); and I am not sure if he would even recognise “Indian Christianity”. He argues that the term “Christian” was derogatory one, initiated in Antioch (Acts 11 :26). Bharati calls himself a “bhakta of Christ”. By so doing, he is following Bishop A. J. Appaswamy and others (Dharma Deepika, Jan-June 2002, pp 19f, 47f, henceforth “DD”).

A convert from Hinduism to Christ can agree with most of the minor suggestions Bharati offers-for example, the use of Indian musical instruments in worship, “tatastu” for “amen,” preaching sitting down (which I have implemented myself while preaching in my church, mainly because Jesus himself sat while teaching -see Mt. 5:1, 13:1, 15:29, 26:55), use of cremation as the funeral rite, and regarding idol worship positively as the first step in the past towards finding the true God. Bharati’s criticisms of Mar Thoma-initiated missions and ashrams finds a soft chord in me because such a church founded in Kathmandu until the early 1970s had services only in English; and has yet to hand over leadership to Nepali, qualified Christians. Bharati confesses that his walk as a bhakta of Christ has proved difficult to his family members, especially his brother who has not talked to him for the “last 20 years” (p.127). Bharati can support what he has written from his past experiences.

I disagree with his suggestion that we should use “bhagawan” for God. At least in the Nepali dictionary produced by the Royal Nepal Academy, the word “bhag” also means “the female sexual organ”; thus “bhagawan”, the master or owner of such. The Nepal Bible Society in the 1970s rightly refused to use this word for God for this very reason.

There are other more serious reasons for disagreement. Thus in its present form, I can only rename the book, “Indian Bowls with Holes”.

My response:

–I am not a Sanskrit scholar.  But based on my limited (traditional) experience, several (or most of the words) in Sanskrit have several meaning and they change according to the context.  The Royal Nepal Academy is right for deriving the meaning for ‘bhag’ as ‘female sexual organ’.  But the word ‘bhagavan’ does not mean ‘the master or owner of such female sexual organ.  Because Khatry first forget to note that the derivative is only for ‘female sexual organ’ and not for ‘male sexual organ’.  That is why Nirad Chaudri is right is saying that bhaga ‘literally means a woman who has bhaga’.¹ *  Hence Bhagavati which stands generally for Durga also could mean in erotic text a woman with female organ.2  But this is first time I learnt from Khatry that once philology specifically means a derivative in feminine  gender (that too in erotic texts), we can apply it meaning just for our own convenience sake to male also.  But as far as my knowledge goes in certain languages like Hindi, Sanskrit (also I think in Greek as well) the structure of the sentence changes according to the gender of the subject.  Instead of limiting his reference only to the Royal Nepal Academy dictionary (however nationalistic he might be), he should refer others scholarly works as well.  If Khatry and Nepal Bible Society object to the word Bhagavan, let them listen what Jan Gonda says about ‘Lord’:

               In the languages of the Christian peoples of the West the ecclesiastical use of words for “lord, master etc.” is often based on loan translations.  Our “Lord” goes back ultimately to the Jewish substitution of Bebr. adonaai—which was also used to denote a lord of a people, a house, a slave, a husband, a king, a god in the polytheistic sense—“the Lord”, which was faithfully rendered in the Septuagint bykurioV [kurios], one of those terms which was, at a later period, adopted by the Christians, who “in einem polemischen Parallelismus”, borrowed a terminology which had also been adopted in Caesar-worship (pantokratwr {pantokratwr} “almighty”, which was, however, also used of the god Hermes and of the Lord of the Old Testament; swthr {swter} “saviour”, which was also applied, by Pindarus and others, to Zeus and other gods, to Egyptian rulers, to the God of the Jews, etc.).¹²  The Greek kurioV [kurios] was followed by Lat. dominus, which served as a model for It. Signore, Fr. Seigneur etc.  Some words of this category became restricted to the religious use, as Rum.  Domn (< dominus), Lith. Viespats—which corresponds to Skt. vispati—“lord of the house, tribe, people”—Russ. Gospod’.  These facts show that also in the West the same terms were, at least for some time, applied to ordinary human beings, gods, rulers, and God….— J. Gonda, Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, p.132

12 E. Lohmeyer, Christuskult und Kaiserkult (Tubingen, 1919); see also K.M. Setton, Christian attitude towards the Emperor in the 4^th century, Thesis (New York, 1941). 

“Bowls” and not “Bowl”

The reader cannot clearly grasp the “bowl” that Bharati is trying to discover. More correctly, he should refer to “bowls” as the Indian society is not monolithic by any means, nor is Hinduism. Bharati gives passing reference to Muslims, which makes one wonder if he is including them also in his “bowl”. But then, he ignores a lot of other Indian religious groups.  So for the sake of clarity, I will concentrate on the Hindu milieu, which receives better representation by the plural term “bowls” (c.f. R. Hedlund, DD, p.19).

My response:

–I have no problem in giving the title as ‘Bowls’ to ‘Bowl’.  But the problem is that Christians in general (both Indian and West) hardly recognize the plurality in life.  Particularly evangelicals always believe in exclusivism they would hardly understand any pluralism.  As a Hindu and Indian I never believe in monolithic Indian society or faith.  But in an academic atmosphere when you give a tile to represent the overall picture of a concept or worldview when we use any word in singular form it doesn’t mean that we insist on any monolithic view.  Even when we say American or European in singular way, we do recognize the pluralism in practical way.  If one begins to involve in hair splitting analysis on certain general title there would be no end.  However as a theologian and an academic scholar he can entertain himself in such hair splitting analysis but we lay people simply understand the plurality even in such monolithic expression.

            In Living water my aim is not to discuss about every individual religious group.  In this book my aim is to give some general principle which could be used not exactly as I suggest but according to the need of their context.  That’s why I made a passing reference to Muslim.  But not referring what I said in the book shows how selective is Dr. Khatry is quoting from the book:

Most of the issues, which we are dealing with in this book, have a limited context of ‘sharing the gospel among the so called high caste and educated Indians’ and so are not applicable to all.  We are not giving any uniform formulae but some basic principles which are needed yet must be contextualized according to the particular situation, keeping the fact in mind that thankfully the Bible never gives us a pattern to follow but principles to adopt. (p.)

For this book to make the impact Bharati desires, he has to first plug the holes.

My response:

–every interpretation, examination and review is going to make several holes.  If I begin to plug the holes which Dr. Khatry tries to make, finally neither there will be any ‘Indian’ nor ‘Bowl’ to give.  Respecting his right to make any amount of holes, I would still prefer to keep my Indian Bowl—of course welcoming any genuine, relevant and sober analysis without any ‘Christian’ prejudice.

Hole 1- Generalisations

Bharati claims he is not a theologian, and finds little use for the present day seminary education. His friend Dr. K. B. Rokaya, of Nepal, who provides the foreword to this book has his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, and serves as a lay pastor. The generalisations both make begin right from the foreword. Rokaya laments that after “nearly two thousand years of existence, Christians in India are still a minority” (xi, xiv). The reason he cites? ” …Not listening to the voices of prophetic leaders like Brahmabandab Upadhyay and R. C. Das.”

The growth of the Church in any country has much to do with evangelism, mission efforts, revivals, and church policies led of the Holy Spirit. Despite the efforts of missiologists to find general formulae for Church growth, no one has come up with such a formula that can apply to all situations. Thank God, the Holy Spirit still has the monopoly on Church growth; otherwise, missiologists could patent their findings and become billionaires.

The Indigenous Church is one of the means God can use, but not the only one. How would Rokaya account for the fact that the Church among Jesus’ own people, the Jews, to whom Christ was the best indigenous preacher, still remains minute? Similarly, Paul, who used every indigenous method to win people to Christ (1 Cor. 9:20), would be shocked to see how tiny the Church in his main area of work, Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), remains today. (One missionary working there estimated that about 200 Christians worship in the whole country.) In spite of the fact that great advocates of indigenous Christianity like Lal Bihari Dey, Keshab Chandra Sen, Krishna Mohan Banerjea and Brahmabandhab Upadhyay worked in Bengal, “the Church in Bengal remains small” (Hedlund, DD, p. 26). The Roman Catholics in Nepal have adopted a lot of Hindu practices in their worship (most are Pelagian and universalist in theology), thus suffered a lot less; and yet remain significantly fewer in number than their Protestant counterparts.

Perhaps (and this is a humble guess), one of reasons why the church in India remains small is the lack of mission. Though St. Thomas himself brought the Gospel to South India, real mission work by Indian Christians began only in the mid-1900s. To both Bharati and Rokaya, my reply is that an indigenous Church is highly preferable, but is only one of the means at God’s disposal for the expansion of his Church in any country.

My response:

–I never claim that Indigenous Church is the only means God can use for any Church growth.  In fact I am not at all interested in the so called Church (actually denominational) growth.  And mostly what is happening even through the missiologists’ general formulae for Church growth, only resulted in Church Swelling in India.  It is amusing to listen from a Theologian like Dr. Khatry to learn how church remains minute in every corner of the world (among the Jews, Asia Minor, Bengal, etc.)  But he forgets the fact the real church (the true body of Christ) always going to remain minute even in the so called Christian Nations.  He never understood the Sprit in which Dr. Rohaya laments about the Christian minority in India.  If he said it in the context of numerical strength, then Dr. Khatry also has to lament about the ‘Christian minority’ in the entire world comparing with the non-Christian majority in the entire world.  Tell me in one country in which Christians are in majority.  If the Catholic refuse to accept Protestants as real Christians and one denomination refuses to accept another denomination as true Christians among the Protestants every single Christian group is a minority even in the so called Christian countries.  I wonder how a Theologian like Dr. Khatry could take such certain statements and concepts literarily.

Bharati blames the western missionaries who came to India for most of the present-day evils in the Indian Church. However, one can only repeat Hudson Taylor’s remark that “My way of doing it is better than your way of not doing it.” At least the western missionaries did something when the Church in South India from St Thomas’ days slept. Bible translations can be the first step towards an indigenous Church, and western missionaries in India pioneered this. They certainly made mistakes (Bharati cites Alexander Duff’s derogatory remarks on the native Christians), but who doesn’t?

My response:

—what a fine way to explain ‘who doesn’t do mistake.  As Sri Arun Jatly (our Commerce minister) in his recent statement at the end of WTO ministerial Conference said, ‘a good declaration is ideal, bad declaration should be avoided.  But no declaration is better than a bad declaration’.  Though I don’t know in which context Taylor made the remark, I would prefer (when it comes dealing some thing for others not much knowing or willing to know about them—as most of the time the missionaries have done—)not doing it rather than doing it in a wrong way.  No one underestimate the missionaries’ contribution.  But Dr. Khatry conveniently blames me forgetting what I told in the given context.  Let me again quote what I said in the book:

Simply exalting the western missionaries (because of their skin) and what all they have done irrespective of the negative side of their behaviour only shows our hypocrisy.  See what kind of Christianity they have created in India – peculiar in the whole world.  Whenever I touch the area of western missionaries, immediately it is the Indian Christians who get annoyed.  But I do not blame all the missionaries for all problems.  Several of them were sincere and poured down their lives for God’s sake in this country.  I bow before their commitment and zeal which I myself lack in several areas.  But more than a few of them harmed the cause of Christ in this nation and some of them wantonly and deliberately so.  Many lay people from poor backgrounds came as simple evangelicals to share the gospel (not just to preach) and always remained humble and helped the people to come forward both spiritually and socially; yet even these were not without their blind spots.  But others came with pride of empire and imposed western ecclesiastical structures over which they presided in unbiblical hierarchies. 

From my own limited reading of Vishal Mangalwadi (whose two books I have reviewed for DD), I have come to learn that the western missionaries remained separate from the British Raj, right from the day when William Carey had to settle down in the Danish colony of Serampore rather than Calcutta, the main British adminstrative centre. Though Carey certainly used the British parliament for the abolition of suttee, the custom of throwing male babies to the crocodiles in the Hooghly River, etc., he did not engage in Bible translation or evangelism at the behest of the British Raj. Thus, I fail to understa Bharati’s wielding the axe against Mangalwadi. Yes, the British Raj did a lot of wrong; but why lump together the missionaries with it?

My Response:

–History judges not simply what you have done and not done but how far you have lived up to your principle and ideology without compromising with it.  When it comes to the British Raj, what the missionaries do not agree with the Raj is not the question in the history, but on what they agreed with all the atrocities done by the Raj.  Even after Jalian Vallbah massacre, after keeping a long silence, finally the missionaries only told that what the Raj has done was ‘un-Christian’.  Why only refer to Carry who was not even allowed to enter in the East Indian territory.  Think about all those missionaries who happy allied with the British Raj to further their case of the expansion of their respective denominational Kingdom.  Immediately I cannot give reference to those books which deals with this topic.  But if Dr. Khatry wants I can give.

Hole 2- Incredible Examples

Bharati has every right to exaggerate to make his point. However, some of the examples he gives stretch the imagination too far, simply evoking sarcastic smiles.  To do him justice, I have to quote. He took this incident from Insight magazine, October 1996.

” A missionary couple working among Hindus had the joy of expecting a child. When the wife went for her medical check up, the local lady doctor asked whether they would like to abort the baby …The same incident was repeated for all the three children they had. ..There was no social evil involved, just miscommunication. As the missionary’s wife did not wear sindhur; bindi, bangles or mangalyam, the signs of a married woman in India, the doctor thought that they were living together without marriage. So …she offered to help them procure an abortion” (pp. 117-118).

A Nepali Christian lady, quite active in the ministry, reading this remarked that present day “modern” Hindu women both in Nepal and India have stopped wearing most, if not all, of the marriage signs. So are we to conclude any such woman is living out of wedlock? Can she not be a “liberated woman” or a spinster? After reading pages 117-118, my own response was. ..What a stupid lady doctor! All her years of secular and medical education, probably in English, did not teach her that people from other parts of the country (world) do have different marriage-related customs? I live in a Hindu village and certainly its inhabitants show much more insight than in the incident that Insight magazine describes and Bharati approvingly quotes.

The second incident in Bharati’s own words, “When I met Rokaya in person he even said that ‘at the time of the Holi festival when all our neighbours are joyfully playing colours, our children sat inside the house and saw it with tears in their eyes. We could not send them out to play because immediately it would be reported in our church and severe action would be taken.’” Again, Bharati has accepted this quite uncritically from the only Nepali Christian he evidently interviewed -surprising in light of the fact that he is quite discerning in his use of Roland Allen’s works.

Even if a Nepali Christian were to believe all that Rokaya told Bharati, my response is -Why couldn’t Rokaya and family organise a Holj “knock-out” in his home and compound? Besides, children are more innovative, not suffering from some of the inhibitions of adults. Didn’t they watch television instead? What “severe actions” can the church take on throwing colours, which, at least for children, has absolutely no religious connotations?

The Nepali press is rife with pros and cons of the Holi festival before and during the season. Some want to ban it because of the eve-teasing and the throwing of colours at schoolgirls in uniform. However, I myself have seen girls squirting colours, and enjoying Holi as much as any mischievous Iad. Certainly, Holi gives opportunity once in the year for us all to become fools; and this is great for mental health. So, my request to Pastor Rokaya now is -Please organise Holi in your church and invite us too

My Response:

–If some of the examples that I gave stretch the imagination too far and simply evoking sarcastic smiles, what Dr. Khatry try to explain it becomes mere joke without any sense.  It is true that ‘present day “modern” Hindu women both in Nepal and India have stopped wearing most, if not all, of the marriage signs. So are we to conclude any such woman is living out of wedlock? Can she not be a “liberated woman” or a spinster?

When we discuss certain issues which is common to all (here marital symbol) what few do as an exception is not the issue.  Marital symbol changes community to community in India.  What is a marital symbol in South is not in the North.  But the context in which I was discussing the issues was how even a cultural and social symbol was wrongly treated by the (Indian) Christians.  And as an example I quoted from Insight.  The question here is not the women are ‘liberated’ or not from such marital symbols.  Even to say what the modern Hindus do with their symbols is not the question.  But without having any proper understanding how the Indian Christians because of the wrong teaching given by their past missionaries read everything in Hindu society from their religious point of view and create unnecessary problem for a new convert.  Both that doctor in the Insight and myself have proper ‘insight’ in understanding the issue.  Because in her place or society what does it mean for a woman without marital symbol need not be uniform all over India or Nepal.  Without understanding the central message in that illustration Dr. Khatry, like a typical Christians lacks proper ‘insight’ not only the issues related to the Hindu society but what all I discuss in the book.  I would urge him again to read the entire book in the given context and don not make a general criticism out of context. 

Hole 3- Questionable Exegesis

Bharati confesses that he is not a theologian. His attempts at exegesis (or non-exegesis) prove that he is not a commentator as well. So, one can ask why he does not accept the interpretation of Bible verses done by other scholars. After all, only truth derived from proper exegesis of the Scriptures can stand.

My response:

–let me CHALLENGE Dr. Khatry to show which is the ‘proper exegesis of the Scripture’ acceptable and agreeable to all given by any theologian under the Sun.  Let me quote one example out of context.  In my recent travel I had a long dialogue with a Muslim.  In one context he said, ‘whatever you say, at least we Muslims and Christians believe in One Scripture.  But Hindus don’t have any scripture to claim as their Scripture.  Irrespective of the diversity there is basic unity in our faith.  For this I told, ‘This shows your weakness also.  You all say One God, One Scripture and One Baptism, One Church etc.  But in your practical life you have various interpretations even on this One categories.  Of course the Christians always claim ‘Unity not Uniformity’.  But they neither have unity nor uniformity.  Whereas we Hindus accept the reality of Pluralism in every areas of life.  So we naturally accept other’s point of view as genuine and never disapprove them.  Where as you Muslims not only accept non-Muslims but refuse to accept other Muslims also who do not agree with your particular point of view on God, Scripture etc.  This is also true with Christians. 

Arguing that for children to obey their parents is a biblical command, Bharati draws the conclusion that “When the parents of a believer arrange a marriage with an unbeliever, the boy/girl has to obey them” (p 128). Then he continues, “Quoting 2 Cor. 6:14-15 is of no use here. First note that in the whole book of 2 Corinthians Paul nowhere deals with marriage and so these verses cannot be directly applied to this area.” I If Bharati were to have his way, most Nepali Christians I know could have never followed Christ in the first place because their non-Christians parents would not have allowed them. What happens when the commands of parents or higher authorities clash with those of the Bible? “Parents first!” is Bharati’s reply. Peter and John answer differently, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey your parents rather than God” (Acts 4:19).

My response:

–by stretching Acts 4:19 Dr. Khatry established without any dispute that he is the best and only Theologian to give proper exegesis on the Scripture.  But a non-theologian like me won’t quote the scripture to prove one point from another context.  Both Peter and John would be happy not to study any theology under Khatry.

Let us go back to 2 Corinthians 6:14-15. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (NIV)

I note that all the commentators (P. E. Hughes, M. J. Harris, C. Kruse, Matthew Henry, R. P. Martin, besides those in different one-volume Bible commentary series I have read) agree. Primarily these verses describe a close relationship between believers and non-believers. This could be idol worship in the temple, starting a business together, or just friendship. If the verses can refer to such relationships, certainly they apply to marriage, which is the closest of all human partnerships possible. Besides, 2 Corinthians comes after 1 Corinthians (one letter in between may have existed), no doubt to further clarify what Paul said stated in the first epistle. In 1 Corinthian 7: 1 0-16, Paul has already dwelt on marriage. He does not have to repeat that in his second letter. Any person writing letters in succession presumes on what he has already written. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 deals with all deep personal relationships with unbelievers. Marriage is certainly one of them.

My response:

–while Dr. Khatry as a theologian deals every issue on theoretical (or theological) level, we take guidance on practical issues from the bible.  And thankfully Paul is also helping in this way only.  Of course we can imagine and insert any issue which we want in such exegesis on 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 and a theologian like Khatry has the academic approval also with him.  So we have to agree with his imagination all about the letter written in succession etc.  But any ordinary person, if he wants to point out any particular point in mind, at least would have hinted that already he has dealt about in the previous letter.  Above all as per limited knowledge as a lay person, Paul in every letter deals with a particular issue which is brought before him or which he encountered.  Of course in some places he has to state some general principle which could include various other issues.  But whether or not he had marriage in 2 Cor. 6:14-16 is mere assumption.  Even if we take it for granted if any Christian like Dr. Khatry is very strict in marriage between believer and unbeliever, then 90% Christian marriage in the Church is a marriage of convenience than conviction. 

By rejecting 2 Corinthians 6: 14-15, Bharati does quite an “unindigenous” thing -follow mainly western theologians who prepare a canon within the canon, and like Marcion of the second century, “cut away Bible verses that do not suit their views. More recently, F. Delitzsch, A. von Harnack and F.C. Baur did the same. Besides placing the Petrine churches against the Pauline through a strange exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1, Baur assigns late dates to most New Testament books; and thus proves their lack of authenticity and irrelevance. These scholars certainly created ripples during their lives, but their selective exegesis did not stand the test of time. I say this seriously because Bharati can make a very positive contribution only if he bases his views on correct interpretation. I would like him to succeed.

–I confess with all humility that I can never give any correct interpretation to the Scripture because I am student learning only from theologian like him.  When one theologian cut the exegesis of another theologian we have to eternally wait for the correct interpretation. So I request Dr. Khatry to give the correct interpretation which will be agreed by all.  But let me give my practical interpretation from Living Water itself:

Finally let me note that in personal talks several believers have accepted the fact that in marriage, faith does not help much as marriage is something both husband and wife have to work out based on human relationship. Of course in a believer’s life his/her faith will help him/her to co-operate more, but in spite of their faith marriage is something to be worked out based on mutual commitment, love and respect. That is why in spite of their faith several believers’ marriages ended in divorce. Above all, if ‘faith’ is the only criteria in a believer’s marriage, then most of the marriages arranged among the traditional Christians are unbiblical, since in most cases marriage is arranged based on their own convenience (based on caste, etc.) rather than on faith. The familiar A,B,C,D of Christian marriage is: A for ability, B for beauty, C for caste, D for dowry, E for education,  F for family and finally G for God (often not the faith in God of a ‘born again believer’ but simply having faith in their ‘Christian God’ is enough). Of course one mistake cannot justify another mistake, but before trying to remove the ‘speck’ from another’s eye one should try to remove the ‘plank’ from one’s own (Matt. 7:5 ). So instead of judging a Hindu Christ bhakta’s marriage they should have a proper understanding about their own situation, equally accepting their own plight in this area.

Hole 4- Bhakta of Christ Denomination

With biting sarcasm, Bharati nicknames some of the different Christian denominations and churches that exist in India. We do not get any idea of the congregation to which he belongs. However, one can only guess that he is a “free lancer” or “church sampler” or founder of a new order. Against Roland Allen who advocates taking converts to existing churches, Bharati argues that bhaktas of Christ should start their own worship-assemblies. Tired as I am of the innumerable denominations and church groups already in existence, I can only gasp at the fact that Bharati is making the same mistake he decries-starting another denomination. In this, he would do well to follow the example of Sundar Singh, who did not establish his own church.

My response:

–neither I met Dr. Khatry nor I know about his tiredness with innumerable denominations.  But let me take this opportunity to declare my statement of faith.  I will never start any new denomination nor would encourage any one to do so.  What all I strive to do with other Hindu Mukteswar (Jesus) bhaktas is to form Mukteswar centred families and communities within Hindu societies.  In this endeavor I (or we) never claim that we do no mistake.  We do and learn not only from our mistake but also from other sincere Christians who with much empathy understanding our struggle point our mistakes.  I believe in the Universal Body of Christ.  I also believe in the local visible churches irrespective of her mistakes, weakness and problems.  No one is claiming a perfect visible church on earth (except some fanatics and I found one such person in one of my visit to Khatmandu who claimed that the church which he attends is the perfect one).  Such visible churches are also God’s purpose in one way for the wider world and society. Even several visible churches function as shock absorber to several bereaved persons and families—even to non-Christians.   May God’s name be glorified through them.  But as my aim is not only to the isolated individual Hindu Mukteswar bhaktas, but also to their family and community.  I tell them and encourage them to be a witness for their family and community first.  In this pilgrimage we have to face lots of struggle and problems.  But when our burden is increased because of Christians influence and mistakes, then I have to warn to those Hindu Mukteswar bhaktas to learn from the Bible, Church history not to repeat them.  Of course we too make mistake, but we don’t want to become fools to repeat the same mistakes committed by the missionaries and church in India—unintentionally.  Regarding the mistake we commit if any one understanding our situation, with real sympathy wants to correct us, we welcome it.  But the church/denominational principle (not biblical ones), programmes, plans, agendas etc. of the church and mission is not our choice.

I could comment on other issues raised by the book -nationalism, western heritage, the world- wide nature of the church and their implications. However, too many holes will annihilate the bowls. What I have written gives a foretaste.

My response:

–all the holes which Dr. Khatry try to make does not exposes the weakness of my ‘Indian Bowl’, but only provides lots of hole to see through his narrow, one-sided, unbiblical, out of context exegesis on some issue which I dealt in this book.  In stead of remaining as mere academic theologian, if he begins to involve with real issue and people, Dr. Khatry could even use this bowls with holes to water gently the siblings to grow properly than to pour down the water at random to kill them.  So it is better have a bowl with hole than to have a broken one like denominational churches, which cannot even hold any drop of any Living Water.

I heartily recommend Bharati’s book to any Christ-bhakta who keeps on grappling with making the Gospel more relevant to her/his contemporaries. By all means, we should strive for Indian/Nepali bowls. However, in his book, Bharati should first plug at least the above-mentioned holes.

–My response:

I heartily welcome even such reviews as it helps me to understand the plight of the Christians (and magazines like DD also).  Such reviews (the previous one by Rev. Mathew and the rejoinder which I sent to DD was not yet published) also endorses my view that such Western Theological study won’t help us to serve the Lord in this country.

May God at least save the Hindu Mukteswar bhaktas from such theologians though the Christians have to bear their burden which they impose on their shoulder by sitting on the Moses thrown (Mt. 23:4 & 13)

Notes

1. Another common word in religious texts, which is also derived from the same root as bhakti, has a variety of meanings.  It is the word bhaga, which combined with the suffix van (or vat), i.e. as Bhagavan, gives the most common name for God.  Now, this word in the masculine gender (it is used also in the feminine) has at least twenty different meanings of which the most important are the following: (1) final beatitude; (2) omnipotence; (3) morality; (4) love, affection, etc.; (5) supernatural power to become small and light; (6) name of one of the Vedic Adityas; (7) prosperity; (8) desire and also absence of desire and (9) the female organ.  And just as the word Bhagavan is the most common name of God in religious literature and speech, the word bhaga and not yoni is the most common name for the female genital organ in the erotic texts.  Therefore the word Bhgavati, which is the name of Durga but literally means a woman who has bhaga, might be very differently interpreted out of its context..— Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism a religion to live by, Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1979), 1996, p.259 [Nirad babu himself agrees that the word bhagavati literally meaning a woman who has bhaga is to be consider with in the context of the text.  In erotic texts several Sanskrit words might be used as Sanskrit word has several meaning which he himself accepted.—DB]

2. Let me tell another example.  Every Brahmin Brahmachari has to seek sustenance from a  few houses for his lively hood. When he goes to the door step he has to literally say, ‘Bhagavati biksham dehi’—which means ‘O Woman give me alms.  But neither the boy nor the woman never think that he address that ‘O woman who has a female sex organ give me alms.’  The problem with academic theologian and scholar like Dr. Khatry never live on practical world.

@@

The Editor, TAMAT.                                                         May 30, 2000.

Dear Editor,

I have just received the December 1999 issue of TAMAT vol. 9, No.3.  The review article by Dayanand Bharati about Lipner’s book on Upadhyay is very interesting and thought provoking.  Such reviews on such books are very much needed for the Christian leadership in India both in the Church of India and the mission leaders who make strategies for the future church in India.

Indigenization has been a topic of debate right from the beginning of the church.  There are lots of debate on Paul’s statement in his Epistle, ‘I have become all things to all men so that I may save some.’  When Paul said became ‘all things’ he did not literally mean ‘all things’ as the core of his faith was intact in Jesus Christ, the core of the gospel was intact.  He did not compromise the core, even when he became Jew to a Jew and non-Jew to a non-Jew.  It is similar to what he said in Philippians two and verse seven, ‘…but (Jesus) emptied Himself…’  Paul did not mean here that Jesus emptied Himself of His original divinity when He took the form of a bond-servant.  Indegenisation must be treated sensitively by all especially in the present context in India as any step or form can be misinterpreted by our friends and quoted to our disadvantages.

Coming back to Upadhyay, I have been a great admirer of Bhavani from the little reading I have done about him.  But reading quotes from Lipner and Shri Bharati’s own comment about him has an interesting effect on me about Bhavani.

Bhavani was surely ‘a “poor” man caught between a rock and a hard place, a “public figure and a private person.”’  Unfortunately we do not find this tension in Paul the great hero of indegenisation and contextulisation.  He was a genuine and transparent person both within and in Public.  The tragedy of Bhavani was his own doing as a result of his intellectual foolishness.  Bhavani was probably caught in the wheels of passion to convert Indians to his (Catholic) faith.  He however, did not use his intellect which he should have drawn from the Bible.  So his passion ruled over his intellect and thus the tragedy.  It is unwise to blame the then church for what his own making. (p.1)

I also fail to see why Bhavani had problem to be a ‘patriotic Christian.’  One of the reason could be that he lived as a Catholic in faith and as a Hindu religiously (not only socially and nationally).  It is quite possible for a person to be 100% zealous for the Lord and his nation.  The problem comes when we try to find the middle road between what is truth and what is not.  Patriotism is an emotional commitment not in conflict with faith.

Having said this I would like to know Shri Bharati’s own understanding and comment about Bhavani’s vedantic Theism (p.14 of TAMAT) in the light of his double identity.  I will also be glad to know about Shri Bharati’s opinion about the ‘dark side of the truth’ when he defends Hindu religious view (p.9 of TAMAT).

One last concern for this time: Shri Bharati’s treatment about Bhavani’s ‘formative period (pp. 5 and 6 of TAMAT) seems to be indirectly points finger to the failure of the then church to guide him appropriately (Bhavani’s attempt to indegenize where western at a very fundamental level).

While it is true that we all should take seriously in attempting to teach new believers in Christ, ‘we must be careful not to leave the new babe unguarded.’  Every one carries a baggage from this background environment in the early childhood.  These are not necessarily either good or bad.  One has to filter these traits, beliefs and practices in the light of his or her new found faith.  A new believer in Christ will constantly go through the tension between the dynamics of his/her background and the challenges of the new found faith (especially during the early days after regeneration).  Once, at this stage we leave them alone to find their own solution chances are that they will get confused and many will be tempted to ‘do what seems right in their own eyes.’  This is where the church can play a vital role.  By church I mean here those who have been instrumental in the providence of God for the regeneration of the person.  I do believe in the guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit to protect this new believer, however, this Holy Spirit often times work through human instruments.  It is once again wrong to think that church always leads new believer to westernization and not christinazisation.  No doubt Bhavani found something of great value in the Catholic church but his passion of indegenisation was not biblically based and hence he moved into the dichotomy of being a religious catholic at the same time religiously Hindu instead of being a biblical Christian and truly national.

Sincerely,

Anuj Patro

Dear Anuj,                                                                   Hosur, June 24, 2000.

Thanks for your letter to the Editor of TAMAT, which I received today.  At least one person read the review article (seriously) on Lipner is the consolation, which I get after reading your letter.  Thanks for investing your time both to read and also to comment and raise few questions.  I will begin from the bottom.  Some of my words may be a bit strong and critical about the church and Christians.  Hope you will take the principle and set aside the criticism.

1. “It is once again wrong to think that church always leads new believer to westernization and not Christianisation.”

–The church in India can always lead new believers to ‘westernisation’ alone and not even to ‘Christianisation’.  It is wrong to expect the church to lead someone to that which she does not have.  It is my opinion that from the beginning the church has only a western form of Christianity at least from the story of Protestant Mission in India (of course it goes back even to Catholic mission since Xavier’s arrival—Nobili’s attempt may be an exception, which again was crushed by the never changing mechanism of the church,¹ though Nobili might have his own pet reason for such an attempt.²) Even in those so called ‘Christianisation’ what the Christians so far did–and still continue to do–is only ‘westernisation’ in the name of ‘Christianisation’.  Nothing can be ‘Christianized’, as the Bible never promotes any kind of ‘Christianism’ to be achieved.

I am tempted to quote to prove this point from a manuscript, which I read recently.  But as the author has requested not to quote from the manuscript until it is published, I have to wait.  However what I am trying to say here is that even in this attempt at ‘Christianisation’, all the time the church kept the ‘CONVENIENCES’ and ‘IDENTITY’ and ‘SECURITY’ of the Christians and expects, even put pressure on, the new ‘converts’ to adjust to survive among them.  Of course this was possible because most of the time there were mass conversions and that too from the so-called low caste and backward communities.  So when some individual ‘converts’ from the so called high caste entered the church there was no option left before him/her but to adjust himself/herself to survive among the Christians.  All his/her attempts (or even wishes) to keep some of his/her cultural and social values which are not against the bible but against those westernized churches were not allowed.  Upadhyay, N.V. Tilak and R. C. Das are best examples.  I wish you should read the book The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church by Roland Allen, who wrote some sixty or seventy years ago and clearly points this out.  (Of course I am not agreeing on certain points with Allen, in his support to the church as usual.  I have prepared a Synopsis with my comments on Allen, if you want I can send the floppy to you).

To prove my point let me quote one example, which is often raised:  Pottu (tilak) and thali (wedding chain).  Some Christians now after a lot of struggle finally say (not agree) that an orthodox Hindu woman convert can be allowed to keep the pottu if her unconverted Hindu husband insists, but as days go if that husband does not insist on pottu she can remove it.  Such issues, these Christians (who want allow the woman to keep pottu) say are between the husband and wife to decide and not the pastor or the church.  But my question is, ‘what is there even to decide?’  Any such decision is nothing but brain washing or putting indirect pressure on the woman by the congregation. Any small tragedy or problem comes in the life of such new believer, and then it will be imputed on her for not obeying God to remove the pottu.  Whereas when such tragedy or problems come in those lives who removed the pottu some other excuses will be given.  Poor new believer, taking their words as final authority in her spiritual life, she will even go against her husband/family decision and create unnecessary problem for herself and her family.  (See Living Water and Indian Bowl for further points.³)

If the problem is to be decided and settled between husband and wife there is some excuse.  But what these Christians say further shows how the Church or the present (Westernized) Indian Christians cannot even ‘Christianize’ the new converts.  For example it is always promoted by the Christians that even this concession given to a woman to wear the pottu should be a temporary one.  Once a strong ‘Christian community’ comes up, as they can provide an alternate ‘Christian culture’ then the ‘pottu’ and ‘thali’ should go!!! (No pottu, no thali etc. are considered as Christian culture—in that case all our Hindu widows are already Christians or following some Christian culture).

As there exists no Christian culture why should a new alternate cultural style in the name of ‘Christian Community’ rise?  Even if such a Christian Community rises in one locality and removes certain cultural practices (like pottu and thali) of Hindus, how their relatives living in another area are going to respond to such changes?  A Hindu society is not only restricted to local communities, but has close contact with extended families living in different places.  So such unnecessary, unbiblical changes just to please or accommodate the feelings of the fifth generation Christians will only hinder the furtherance of the gospel.  So for the sake of the gospel, and to become ‘all things to all men’, even the fifth generation Christian wives should wear the pottu.

In North India I have seen even several Muslim women keeping both sindhur and tilak.  If an alternate cultural style rises just for the sake of fashion, it is a different issue.  But in the name of gospel and Christ, what they call (removing pottu and thali) as alternate culture, it is nothing but imposing their own (Western) World views on the new converts.  It is always a tragedy in (Indian) Christianity that all the time only the new believers are expected to adjust themselves according to the conveniences (not even for some biblical conviction) of the traditional Christians, even at the cost of losing their social identity and security, just to survive among them.  Whereas following the biblical pattern of ‘becoming all things to all men’, the Christians are not ready to crucify their carnal worldviews for the sake of Christ and His Gospel.

The word ‘functional substitute’ comes to the rescue of the Christians who want to ‘Christianize’ certain cultural and social values of the converts.  But we should remember that there exist no functional substitutes for any cultural identity/values, which can be replaced by biblical values, as bible does not give any such cultural values to be given up permanently.  Even after several generations, still (Tamil) Christian women are keeping their wedding chain (tali) with a cross, substituting Hindu tali, which has more religious significance than pottu (see ‘Living Water’ for this point⁴) which has only cultural value. Whether it is a red cross (claimed as the functional substitute for round pottu) or round pottu, cultural symbols can have different form but cannot substitute one with another, which finally should or could disappear.  

Because cultural symbols are part of one’s inherited identity with a community.  If we try to replace it with another culture symbol, then we are not only imposing our values on them in the name of gospel but also depriving their very identity and existence.  Like a fascist if the Christians want to say that only their ‘Christian symbols and culture’ (which are actually western) alone are good and noble and rest of the Indian culture should go, then let them do it in the name of fascism and not in the name of God and His Gospel.  Certain cultural values have no functional substitute (whether the pottu is round or cross shape and the tali has a cross or Hindu religious symbols!)

If the Christian tali with a cross or a Hindu tali with their respective sect’s symbol (as several Hindu converts are still keeping their old Hindu tali as a sentiment), have not yet disappeared even after two hundred years of Christianity, even as a functional (religious) substitute, then why a practice with cultural value (pottu) should be removed just to accommodate the sentiments and feelings of some traditional Christians, who are not ready to have the same respect for others’ sentiments and cultural values?  Above all the new converts should carry on to keep their cultural identities, not just to win some of their relatives or for the sake of ‘contextualisation’, but as their birth right.

Even any Christian worker after having any number of years of field experience, if he is an outsider, has no right to decide on cultural values, unless he has been subjectively involved with those cultural values. Similarly we should not say, ‘let the new believers themselves decide, after a period of time.’  Because most of the time certain cultural values and identities of the natives are removed by the outside Christian worker among them because of his prejudice or by the brainwashed locals, as they were never allowed to think independently.  Never interfere in those cultural identities which have nothing to do with salvation.  Let the ‘converts’ take Christ seriously and not Christianity!  Remember that even after 200 years, they could not simply make the Christian tali to disappear.  Recently one of my friend’s relative, who are staunch Brethren, clearly told that though in their church tali is not permitted, yet she won’t allow her son to marry the girl without a tali and also a wedding chain (which means both yellow thread tali plus a gold chain as tali, which is not acceptable to the Brethren).

Let me ask you one question: what actually is ‘Christianisation’?  Does the bible or Paul who is the champion of indigenization ever recommended any ‘Christianisation’?  Please enlighten me.

2. What I said above is my answer regarding ‘guarding a new believers from his/her baggage which he/she carries from his/her background.

–With some few exceptions, I have never come across any Christian who is ready to study the ‘baggage’ of the new believers seriously so that they can guard their faith.  Keeping all the time their own ‘western baggage’ (which they call as ‘Christian baggage’) how can they even sympathize with the struggle of the new believers in their struggle with their cultural traits?  This is what all the pioneers of indigenization in India faced.  The church ‘REFUSED’ to understand their struggles—whether they are right or wrong.  Any of their attempts were crushed in the early stage itself, as the church and Christians saw a threat to their security and identity in such an attempt.  Read Lipner yourself and you will understand how his Catholic Church refused to understand Upadhyay’s attempts, though a few initially supported him. Under notes I am giving Allen’s views from his book regarding the role of teaching of the Christians to the new believers in order to guard their faith (doctrine).⁵

A sub-point here is that those few individual Christians (‘who have been instrumental in the providence of God for the regeneration of’ the new convert) may have some sympathy and try to understand him/her.  But as they too have to survive among their own church and Christian community, any of their open support to attempts at indigenization by the new believers is always challenged.  Finally to keep their security and identity such individual Christians have to go along with the Church.  Let me quote from my own life: I approached a good Christian Leader who completely agrees with me on several points, to write a Foreword to my book, Living Water and Indian Bowl.  I told him (in the presence of my friend Kannan who is a traditional Christian, but a supporter of me), ‘I can ask one of my best friends in an Organization who accepts with me to write a foreword.  But as he is a top leader of that Organization, if he even writes a forward to my book, then he will be in a big soup.  Now I don’t know any other Christian leader who can write a foreword to my book, would you please help me?’  I need not tell what kind of reply he gave.  He too gently refused my request and said, ‘I am also in the same position.  I agree with you, but cannot come out openly to support you, because of my position in Christian circle and ministry.’  Even before approaching him I requested another top Christian leader who knows my approach very well and even openly supported me in a few meetings.  When I sent a request to her, the only response I got was, ‘sorry not acceptable.’  Finally I made one more attempt with another Christian Leader—thank God he never responded to my letter.  Last year after my meeting in a reputed Christian doctor’s house, who is also a Christian leader in Chennai, he wrote one article in his newsletter supporting my views.  That is all, immediately he was backfired by his own people in the church.  There is no point in multiplying these examples. 

The church can never play ‘a vital role’ in teaching the new believers who are struggling with their baggage.  She is ready to unload those baggage to throw it away once for all—only to reload her own baggage on the new believer.  As Holy Spirit too often works through human instruments, some individual Christians who have better understanding always help us.  I am not saying that every new believer should be left alone to decide what is best for him/her in his/her struggle with his/her baggage.  I got help from such individual Christians.  But those individuals should know their own limitations first.  However they may sympathize they cannot completely understand the new believers’ struggle.  Next they should be ready to go even for a second mile like Paul: who never minding the Judaizers always stood with the new believers.  When it come to the questions of whether to keep his identity and security with the Jerusalem Christians (that too Jewish Christians) or with the new believers, unlike Peter and Barnabas, he was ready to ‘become all things to all men,’ at the cost of his security (as he was finally handed over to the authorities by his own people in the Jerusalem church).  Whereas most of the time the present day individual Christians who have some sympathy (not empathy) in the name of teaching the new believers in their struggle and filtering their cultural traits, only want to prepare them to be absorbed within the Church and Christian community, rather than stand with the new believer like Paul!

This is what happened with Upadhyay.  Few Catholic Bishops and leaders supported him, but finally they had to wash their hands as they had their own hierarchy and church mechanism to obey.  They could not come out openly to support him.  Of course Upadhyay also played some politics in his anxiety to indigenize the gospel.⁶   But he was again and again pushed to the corner—first to defend, then to offend, finally to retreat.  Read Lipner regarding your question about my ‘treatment about Bhavani’s ‘formative period’  (pp. 5 and 6 of TAMAT) which ‘seems to be indirectly points finger to the failure of the then church to guide him appropriately’.  I am not indirectly pointing.  I am directly pointing.  The problem with that review-article is that it is only a part of a big synopsis, which I prepared.  It almost became another book.  As Rick had no time to edit it, I quickly prepared a paper for our Rethinking Conference held in Varanasi in 1999.  And adding a few minimum points we put that paper as Review article in TAMAT.  However the following points (part of which already came in TAMAT review) from my synopsis will endorse my view:

His ideology in general (idealized Hinduism based on varnaasramadharma) and theology in particular (‘apologia for what he regarded as representative features of Hinduism, … and a “Hindu-Catholic” faith in terms of Advaitic philosophical theology’ [p.100]) and his attempts to indigenize his faith (the Catholic matha at Jabalpur) suffered a major set back.  ‘He was not the first to come up against an adamantine wall of ecclesiastical authority.  In his case, it sowed the seeds of bitterness against his Church as an institution and set the stage for the last, explicitly political phase of his life. For this was a decade in which he glimpsed that his great experiment of indigenization was doomed’. (p.100)

3. Regarding my, ‘own understanding and comment about Bhavani’s vedantic Theism (p.14 of TAMAT),’ I cannot understand your question properly.  Upadhyay’s struggle in keeping the double identity was between his faith as a Catholic and to remain as a Hindu.  To prove this to his Hindu world he used many means and one among them was the promoter of Vedantism (following Vivekananda, after his many attempts to indigenize the Catholic theology failed).  Before that his vedantic theism was only an attempt to develop Neo-Thomasic theology through vedantic theism. I think I mentioned this in my review.  If this does not answer your question, please write again.

4. Next: ‘about the “dark side of the truth”….

As a Hindu Christ bhakta I find some of my Hindu religious views are very useful for my faith in Christ.  For example the concept of  ‘bhakti’ helps me to surrender myself totally to the Lord, whenever some confusion comes in my mind regarding theology etc.  True bhakti never questions the faithfulness of the Lord, but totally surrenders to Him at His disposal.  Likewise the Gita’s teaching of nishkamyakarma, true renunciation, and other such values helps me to keep my faith in a meaningful way.  But every truth/faith has its own dark side because of us who keep it.  For example while Hinduism promotes true bhakti, yet in the name of bhakti blind faiths are developed in the name of tradition and superstition (this is true in every religion).  In my Tamil writing (in a small magazine) I wrote about these things.  Similarly in my second book ‘Understanding Hinduism’ I try to prove that astrology is merely a fraud by quoting from reputed Hindu scholars.  So when I defend certain Hindu religious truths, particularly from the wrong interpretations by non-Hindus, I try to be as objective as possible.

5. ‘One of the reason could be that he lived as a Catholic in faith and as a Hindu religiously (not only socially and nationally).

–I don’t thing that Upadhyay lived both ‘as a Catholic in faith and as a Hindu religiously (not only socially and nationally).’   If one gets such an impression from my review then it should be corrected.  Upadhyay followed Hindu dharma, which is not a religion.  As there are so many religions (actually sampradayas) in Hinduism, he never followed both the Catholic faith and any one of the religious faiths of Hinduism.  We should not get confused his attempt to indigenize Neo-Thomistic theology through vedantic theism.  That is not a religious faith but only his theological attempt.  His lecture on Krishna, and the Saraswati pooja which he allowed (rather instructed) his students to celebrate are not reflecting his Hindu religious faith but his interpretation, particularly in the context of nationalism about these festivals.  In his anxiety that he is a Hindu and his school is not a Catholic (or Christian) school, he might have allowed his students to celebrate Saraswati pooja.  This is my understanding after reading Lipner.  I am again quoting Lipner, which I have quoted in the review also to clear this point:

            Did Upadhyay die a Christian?  If to die as a Christian entails personally acknowledging Christ to the end as one’s divine saviour, then he seems to have died a Christian.  But if part of dying a Christian means that one must be recognized in the public forum to have lived ritually as a Christian before death, then it is doubtful if Upadhyay died a Christian.  Did he die a Hindu?  If self-ascription has a bearing on one’s answer, then he did, since he famously described himself in considered terms both as a ‘Hindu-Catholic’ and a Hindu, and never repudiated this description.  Certainly, for reasons already given, so far as the general public was concerned he died a Hindu.  I have added these comments because for some people applying religious labels to dead individuals is an important matter, as it seems to be in the case of Upadhyay.  Perhaps he died as he lived: as a Hindu and a Christian according to his own distinctive lights.  That by his life and death he has raised such an issue for serious debate can be one of his most rewarding legacies.  How narrow must our religious labels be?  How open to hyphenate religious identities should we become?  What is the scope for religious dialogue in a religio-culturally divisive world? (385)

6. ‘It is unwise to blame the then church for what was his own making’.

–already I said that his Catholic Church ought to be blamed in every way for such making of Upadhyay.  Immediately after his conversion when he became a Catholic and vehemently opposed Protestant Christianity and zealously guarded Catholic faith—then his church not only encouraged him but even promoted him as a ‘BRAHMIN CONVERT.’  But when the same zeal turned against them, they deserted him.  To say in other words, the church always crucifies the prophets while they live and later resurrects them to glorify them as the champions of indigenization.  Remember that while new believers faithfully promoted their faith in their own way among their own people, only the established church was busy with promoting all kind of heresy:

The great heresies in the early church arose not from the rapid expansion resulting from the work of these unknown teachers, but in those churches which were longest established, and where the Christians were not so busily engaged in converting the heathen round them…. The danger to the doctrine lay not in these illiterate converts on the outskirts; but at home, in places like Ephesus and Alexandria, amongst the more highly educated and philosophically minded Christians.  It was against them that she had to maintain the doctrine. (Roland Allen, p. 48)

7. ’Unfortunately we do not find this tension in Paul the great hero…. He was a genuine and transparent person both within and in Public.’

–though I too agree with you on this point, yet this comparison between Paul and Upadhyay is not correct.  Paul was a transparent person both within and in Public.  But this public is only the early Christ bhaktas of both Jews and non-Jews. We don’t know any such situation that Paul faced as Upadhyay had in his life.  Of course Paul faced several political and religious authorities in his encounter.  But all those encounters were to defend his faith in Christ.  Regarding certain sensitive issues like slavery of his time, either he kept quiet or dealt within believers’ circle (slaves ‘serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men…’—Eph. 6:7)

NOTES

1. Read ‘His Star in the East’ By Fr. A Sauliere SJ. Revised and Re-edited by Fr S Rajamanickam S.J. and also my review ‘Does end justify the means’ in TAMAT on this book.

2. Read Disputed Mission, Jesuit Experiments and Brahmanical Knowledge in Seventeenth-century India, by Ines G. Zupanov, Oxford University Press, 1999.

3. ‘Now every objective observer can see that keeping pottu (bindi, red dot) is purely cultural for a woman, while not being so for a man.  When a lady becomes a widow she loses her right to keep the bindi and sindur, but she can keep bhuti or vibhuti (ash) on her forehead, as this is indeed a “religious” symbol.  This itself proves that the former two are related to the cultural aspect.  Another clear example is that the Vaishnavite ladies have to keep both srichurnam (namam) along with sindur and bindi, but when they become widows they can still keep the namam but not the others.  Thus these are marks of marital status, not religious devotion.”— p.

4. ‘It is also worth noting that the tali or mangalyam (wedding chain) worn as a symbol of marriage even by Christian women has far stronger religious associations than pottu does.  Nowadays it is common practice during the month of March in a Tamil Brahmin’s house that all the women (except widows) observe karadayan nonbu.  That day they fast and in the evening perform puja even for their tali (mangalyam).  The religious sanction for it comes from the mythology of Satyavan-Savitri.  Even at the time of marriage some sort of ceremony is performed with the tali.  If the Christians find comfort and even have sentimental attachment with such a mangalyam and prefer to keep it, why do they entertain such an aversion towards pottu which has only cultural significance?  If Christian women feel happy with a tali will it not be an injustice if they ask new converts to remove pottu?  If they find it uncomfortable to keep pottu we understand their psychological problem which so far shaped such aversion towards it.  But they must have sympathetic understanding towards the psychology of a new believer for whom removing pottu is difficult.  So they should not compel removal, but rather should encourage them to keep it on. ‘—ibid. p.

5.  The following is my conclusion from one topic from my synopsis on Lipner:

This is a lesson which we all should take seriously in our attempt to teach new believers in Christ or help themselves to learn about the doctrine side of their faith in the formative period.  Once their thinking level and trend is shaped by any particular form of approach, however they may later try to reform it, yet cannot avoid its influence.  Specifically in the area of Faith if a man is convinced first spiritually, then emotionally however he try to remove several blind spots later by reason, yet the deep impact which he derived on spiritual and emotional level several time would create some kind of attachment with the initial experience.  This I have seen in my personal life as well in others as well.  So we can create a permanent damage if not to the Faith, but to the doctrinal aspect of a new believer the way we allow him/her to shape it in the formative period.  Though we cannot and should not completely control a believer’s thinking level, if we were put in a position to guide him/her then we should take enough care not to impose our own liking to any particular form of theology however it may pleasing or convincing us because of our understanding or attraction to it (based on its influence in our formative period).  And to help a new believer to have a spontaneous expression and expansion of his/her Faith, we should nurture his/her Faith in the natural soil of his/her native thinking which alone will help him/her to stand on his/her own leg to be fruitful in his/her life.

Of course later both the teacher and the student raising above from their subjective experience shaped by the formative influence (spiritual, emotional etc.) should test their doctrine by the objective doctrine of the Scripture, viz., the Word of God.  Agreeing with the fact that as there exists no ‘objective’ doctrine, as all the doctrines are in one sense is again mere interpretation of the Scripture, yet in stead the Word of God become the normative for our doctrine if we substitute it with any particular doctrine then we cannot avoid creating many more Upadhyay’s in the days to come also.

Now from Allen:Chapter Four.  Fear for the Doctrine.

As there is no absolute doctrine, all our claims ‘of maintaining our standard of doctrine’ (p.44) are nothing but of some of our interpretations of the Apostolic Creed.⁸ Our absolute standard is the outcome of several generations of contributions and so we cannot naturally expect all the new believers to accept that standard without wrestling with the doctrine themselves, which will in turn produce their own standard which would be relevant to their situation.  And Allen in this chapter brings to our attention this basic problem in the mission and says, ‘our standard which we maintain is something of our own age and race.  It cannot be the catholic doctrine in the sense that it is the doctrine of all the ages, of the primitive Christians as well as of us who live in this last age.'(p. 45)

Further explaining that expecting the new believers to maintain our standard of doctrine is a kind of contradiction in terms.   Allen says:

It is a question which we might well consider whether new Christians must necessarily begin at that point of development at which we happen to stand at the moment when we go to them.  It is a question of still more serious importance whether a standard of doctrine can be really maintained by an external authority as a code of laws can be enforced by a conquering government upon a subject people; or whether a standard of doctrine must not essentially be something internal, maintained by people who really do understand and believe it.  It does not seem to me that any maintenance of doctrine which does not spring voluntarily from internal convictions can properly be called a maintenance of doctrine at all.  If that is so, for us to maintain a standard of doctrine is a kind of contradiction in terms. (p. 46,)

Not only this.  By insisting on the maintenance of our standard we brainwash the people through our training. ‘Then we train the teachers.  We take children quite young and give them special training in elementary schools and high schools and theological colleges, so that they can understand our use of abstract terms and can learn at least verbally our doctrinal expressions; and these men we set over the little congregations, knowing well that in the great majority of cases they do not know enough to do more than repeat exactly what they have been taught’ (pp. 46) and the result is that the local church leaders trained by the (western or eastern) missionaries say ‘we do what we are told; but we do not understand what we are doing.’ (P.47)

            Imposing our standard of doctrine among the new believers always results in ‘sterility to revolt’, says Allen:.                                   .                       .                                   .

When I was in India some years ago I was told repeatedly that young educated Indians were saying, ‘We will not have your western creeds’, but that they very seldom had any reasoned objection to them.  As far as I could, I made enquiries for myself, and I found this to be true.  Young educated Indians said to me, ‘We will not have your Western creeds’.  But when I inquired which particular articles in the creed offended them, the only answer that I got was, ‘You have forced them upon us’.

Thus the maintenance of our standard of doctrine by external compulsion seems to proceed through sterility to revolt. (p.48)

But the tragedy is that though a few thinking, educated Indians might have objected to such external compulsion in the past, yet still to this day we have only western doctrines in the churches and seminaries; and the same are verbatim imposed by the so called indigenous mission movements even today in their mission fields.

Maintenance of doctrine is essential to keep heresies away.  But it is interesting to know how the early church acted on this need of teaching new believers and maintenance of doctrine.  Allen says:

In the early church we find a very different state of affairs.  When the Christian church was first spreading throughout the Roman Empire she certainly maintained a standard of doctrine, and that standard was not imperilled by the spontaneous activity of a multitude of Christians who were certainly not trained theologians.  These unknown missionaries taught the doctrine which they had learned, and that teaching was so far adequate that the bishops of the church did not hesitate to consecrate new converts as bishops for the new churches without giving them any long or special training in theological colleges….

The great heresies in the early church arose not from the rapid expansion resulting from the work of these unknown teachers, but in those churches which were longest established, and where the Christians were not so busily engaged in converting the heathen round them….The danger to the doctrine lay not in these illiterate converts on the outskirts; but at home, in places like Ephesus and Alexandria, amongst the more highly educated and philosophically minded Christians.  It was against them that she had to maintain the doctrine. (p. 48)

But what is happening at present in the churches?  Allowing the theologians to have their intellectual entertainment of creating new heresies, the church is expecting only the simple believers to maintain their standard of doctrine.  The following comparison by Allen is true even at the close of this century in our churches:

Now all this suggests quite a different atmosphere from that with which we are familiar.  The church of those ages was afraid of the human speculation of learned men: we are afraid of the ignorance of illiterate men.  The church then maintained the doctrine against men who were consciously innovating: we maintain the doctrine against men who may unconsciously misrepresent the truth that they have learnt.  The church then maintained the doctrine by her faith in it: we maintain our doctrine by distrusting our convert’s capacity to receive it.  The church then maintained her doctrine by thinking it so clear that any one could understand it: we maintain our doctrine by treating it as so complicated that only theologians can understand it.  Consequently, the church then was quite prepared that any man who believed in Christ should teach others what he knew of Him: we are only prepared to allow men whom we have specially trained to teach it.  When others, whom we have not specially trained, of their own spontaneous motion do teach others, we hasten to send a trained teacher to take their place.  That is, of course, exactly what the early church did not do, yet it maintained its standard of doctrine. (p.49)

Thus the danger of heresy is not lay with the lay people who keep their faith alive with fundamental elementary knowledge about the doctrine and a willingness to learn and correct themselves.  Whereas, ‘the spirit which breeds heresy is a spirit of pride which is puffed up with an undue sense of its own knowledge and is unwilling to be taught’ (p. 49), as we find mostly among the theologians of our age.

As the faith of the lay people is the true experience of heart and not mere intellectual statements of head, they receive correct teaching with joy as ‘it supplies a felt need of their spiritual experience’.  Therefore ‘in such an atmosphere Christian doctrine is in little danger, for though false or inadequate teaching, if they received such, might prevail for a time, yet the true teaching when it comes must inevitably drive out the false.’ (p.50)

Because:

As the complement of experience, doctrine renews its youth from age to age; but divorced from experience it is nothing more than the statement of an intellectual theory, and to rest in something which an intellectual process has created is to rest in that which an intellectual process can destroy.

Doctrine, accepted either as an intellectual satisfaction, or as an authoritative pronouncement, divorced from experience, has no power in itself….

It is vain to say that the doctrine was false or falsely stated, and therefore it failed.  It failed not because it was false or falsely stated, but because it was mere doctrine divorced from experience….and the preaching of that power of Christ is gospel; but the other by itself is mere doctrine, and, like all doctrine, in itself lifeless. (p.51)

Therefore allowing ‘the free expression by any convert, however illiterate, of his spiritual experience, and to teach our doctrine as the complement of that experience’ (pp. 51-52) is essential for spontaneous expansion of the church.

Some hard core church theologians in the name of maintaining a high doctrine may object to such freedom for the free expression of doctrines by the new believers fearing that ‘the church and her doctrine might be swamped, as it were, with a flood of ignorance.'(p.52)  But in fact the ‘spontaneous expansion proceeds by an expression of experience much more than by a mere intellectual instruction.  This witness of experience brings a spiritual enlightenment, and spiritual enlightenment quickens the intellectual faculties, and prepares the mind for intellectual teaching: it also brings a great readiness to receive instruction.  Consequently where there is spontaneous expansion there arise not only a multitude of witnesses to Christ’s power; but also a host of teachers, not only ready to impart teaching, but to receive it.’ (p. 52)

Though agreeing with the reason behind such fear about ‘flood of ignorance’ Allen argues:

I am not denying that where spontaneous expansion was very rapid there might be very large numbers of dangerously ignorant converts; I am not denying that the fear expressed by these men is a reasonable fear; I am only saying that it is exaggerated because their conception of Christian doctrine is too intellectual, and they are familiar only with the teaching of doctrine which restricts it to a small number of teachers trained in a western manner, with the result that they cannot conceive any  true advance in the apprehension of doctrine apart from this western intellectual education.

…In the Bible the preaching of Christ is not so purely intellectual, the apprehension of Christian doctrine is not so purely intellectual.(p.53)

On the other hand witnessing is ‘a far more true preaching of the doctrine than a long discourse on the divinity of Christ….'(p. 54)

Though proper theological training has its own value particularly to help the lay people to comprehend a minimum theology to express their faith, yet the danger of the trained mind is in no way to be minimised.  Particularly in the present day, the method of dialogue arranged by such trained-mind people in the context of pluralistic society echoes what Allen says about giving preference to secondary causes at the cost of the first cause:

…The temptation to the trained mind is to dwell on the process by which deliverance came and to forget that the deliverance really preceded the process…. Now, what distinguishes us Christians from other men is that we know the first cause; other men know secondary causes.  But when we dwell upon the secondary causes we are likely to obscure rather than to reveal the first cause.  And so instead of bearing witness to Christ we present an argument.

And the argument is never a sufficient explanation, and it is sometimes so weak that it can be easily answered.  Moreover, if we succeed by this argument in convincing our hearer, we have only succeeded in convincing him by this argument so far as this argument serves.  The moment another difficulty arises to which this argument is not applicable, he must either find another argument which will serve, or he is lost,….Thus the presentation of secondary causes too often robs Christ of His glory, and men of His salvation, while witness glorifies Christ, and sets men upon the true path. (pp54-.55)

Though there is a place for intellectual answers to any such highly thinking people, yet sharing the gospel and reasoning with doctrine are two different issues.  Because, ‘We speak as if the gospel and the doctrine, preaching Christ and preaching Christianity, were identical terms…. Christianity, the doctrine, is a system of thought and practice: preaching Christ, the gospel, is a revelation of a Person.'(p. 56) Intellectual arguments may win the mind temporarily but not the heart permanently for the Lord.  Those who give extreme importance to the maintenance of a high level of doctrine at the cost of personal relationship with Christ to whom that doctrine points may win a few proselytes to those doctrines alone.  But the danger in it is that such a proselyte ‘abandons one system of thought and practice for another; and to adopt a new system of thought and practice is not the way of salvation.  The Christian convert is a convert not to a system of doctrine but to Christ.  It is in Christ that he trusts, not in any system of doctrine or of morals….’ (p. 58)

As this is an important subject some reflections apart from Allen aren’t too large a digression here:

Some denominations seem to make their creed more important than personal faith in Christ.  Creeds have a place as they give verbal form to the doctrines of respective denominations.  And doctrines are essential as they give solid ground for one to express his beliefs.  But when doctrines, replacing personal faith and experience (which seem to be anathema and taboo in many Christian circles) become cold dogmas then it becomes another form of idolatry that has been called dogmatolatry by Raimundo Panikkar.   (‘Dogmas are necessary so long as we are intelligent beings, but we should beware of the danger of “dogmatolatry”‘.)  The main and really only purpose of theology is to help a person to verbalise and better understand his experiential knowledge of God.  So it is a mistaken notion to turn Christianity into ‘creedianity’.   But the tragedy in it is that some have limited inner experience with Christ to a particular denominational creed and doctrine and so have created a subtle idolatry rightly called dogmatolatry.

Neither Jesus Christ nor the apostles gave any kind of dogmatic formulas for us to confess.  The Bible is not a book containing some statements of faith or dogmas.   It is rather a work manual, giving practical solutions to the problems that we face in the real life – that too mostly in the context of interpersonal relationships.  The history of creedal development in western Christianity shows various valid reasoning behind at least some of the creedal statements.  But the importation of these things to India is now widely acknowledged as misguided.  Selvanayagam echoes many others when he writes that ‘Admittedly, Christian thinkers and preachers have not presented the Christian teachings in a way that would draw the attention of Hindus.  The early missionaries presented the gospel burdened with doctrines and liturgies of their own traditions in the West.’ (Dayanand Bharati, Living Water and Indian Bowl, Delhi, ISPCK,1997, p.29. The references cited are : Panikkar, Raimundo, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1981, p.54 and Selvanayagam, Israel, The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions, Bangalore, Asian Trading Corporation, 1996, p.136

6. However ‘By attributing “everything concerning” the matha to  Pelvat, Upadhyay was shielding himself and indeed exposing Pelvat’. (p.218)

@@@

Dear Rodney and Adam,

Please note that the issue in terms of Swamiji not speaking in a church is a matter of consistency. Thus a large meeting at a place where your church regularly meets is probably not a good idea. But I suspect the large meeting itself is not a good idea. You might stir up unnecessary trouble. And it is unlikely you would get a good response. Let me copy for you here some comments Chris Hale and Pete Hicks made following their visit to U or Arkansas last year.

DATE: September 24 2004

As Chris and I have traveled around the world playing bhajans with people who work among Hindus, we have found that relationship and trust are key to the openness of Hindus to the Gospel and our music.  We have spent time with people wanting to do outreach to Hindus; they have organized and publicized a concert for us expecting large numbers of Hindus to attend.  What often has happened is that very few or no Hindus have come.  The concert is attended by mainly Christians or people affiliated with the church or organization that put the concert together.  In these cases the Hindus that do attend are skeptical and guarded against another attempt to convert them.  On the other hand, those people that organize concerts who focus on relationships in the Hindu community often have quite a good turn out of non-Christians and those that come bring their families and friends.  The atmosphere, in and after those concerts, is remarkably positive and our visits have served to strengthen and build relationships rather than be ignored or distrusted by the Hindu community.  

               Because relationship is such an important part of Hindu culture, it is essential that it be the avenue through which they can be exposed to the truth of Christ. In our few days with Kevin and Cynthia Smith we have seen that there is trust between the Hindu students and them.  The first indication of this was our concert at the University coffee house.  There were about 40 people in the coffee house and of those about half were Hindu, many of whom knew Kevin.  On our last night, Kevin held the weekly meeting of Internationals at his home.  This also was well attended by Hindus.  We noticed that there was a relaxed atmosphere where the Hindus clearly felt free to be themselves and yet were still open to Christ.  By the end of the evening we were all singing, “praise his name, chant his name, the lovely name, Yeshu’s name”  in Hindi while various ones played  percussion instruments.

               The Smiths have a forum where the thoughtful consideration of the uniqueness of the gospel is a safe place.  This is essential for the ministry we do.  It is not enough just to make Hindus attracted to the gospel through worshipping Christ at a concert of ours.  They must have a place where they can actually express some of their doubts regarding his claims.  Relationships with people like the Smiths makes this possible and we are thankful for them, and pray that more are raised up.

Obviously Swamiji coming is different from an Aradhna concert, but the point on the centrality of relationships is what I want to get across. You have those relationships with many; do not put them at risk by giving the impression that you want to push your message on people. If your Hindu friends want a larger meeting for their friends to meet Swamiji, that would be wonderful. But for you to plan and prepare such a thing could very well look like “another attempt to convert them”, which would not help new people and might hurt your current relationships.

I am praying for you and for Swamiji’s time there, and wanted to put out these thoughts for your consideration.

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Rodney and Adam,
Shanti!

You plan what you think is best for me.  Don’t worry too much about ‘organizing’  anything.  Any informal meeting with any one will be fine for me.  Regarding my involvement with your church is that I don’t want to stand on the Pulpit and give any message.  But if you want me to talk with some of your church leaders I have no problem.  I hope Rick made that point very clear to you.  Looking forward my visit to your place.  Satya already sent my flight information to you.  Come and receive me at the place where we collect our luggage bags.  Rest in person.  I may call you tomorrow.  God
bless you.

dayanand

Hello,

This is Rodney, we met at the RF and soon you will be on your way to visit.  Let me first say that Adam (one of my roomates who also was at RF) and I are very thankful and excited for your visit.  I sent Satya some of my information, but i will put it here again
for you.  my number is 810-434-8439 and our address is 1000 Appian Way F302 Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858.

some encouraging things are that some of my church leadership are excited to talk to you.  for some time now we have felt of church planting to an unreached people group, and i feel the insights you can reveal would be very important at this time.  also, two of my hindu friends are also excited to meet with you and ask you questions, and even offered to get the word out to the Indian community and help plan things. adam and i are living with two of our hindu friends, and we are in the same apartment complex with many other indians, just so you are aware.  I have heard that you are not allowed to enter a church building…is that true?  our church meets in an old movie theatre…would it be better to meet somewhere on the university campus if we plan some sort of large
meeting?  i’m talking to my pastor tonight about this.

i will email you back with some more information so you know what’s happening when you come in.  things are looking good, we appreciate it, and we will see you soon.

Rod

@@@

Dear Swami,
Vanakam
I am still in the Ashram.  Dr. Deyvanayagam is conducting a seminar in the ashram from March 12 to 18.  He has got hi doctrate in defending Thirukural as Christian literature.  He follows the liberation theology.  He wants to liberate the Indin Christianity from the slavery of Europian domination and and also Hinduism from the Hinduta of RSS.  He tals about the St. Thomas Christianity is the true Dravidian religion and the Saivim and Vaishnavisam came out of the Christian principles.  If want to see him you can come
to Asram.  I spoke with him about your ministry and gave him your book.  If you want I can give your e-mail to him.  He wants to share his views with you.  Let me Know.  I leave from India on March 24 th. Solomon
—

Thanks Dr. Ramaswami,

I am fine and returned back to Mathigiri with my mother.  Please don’t give my e-mail ID to Dr. Deyvanayagam.  I cannot agree with many of his claims, particularly related with Kural and all his claims about Thomas Christianity, Saivam and Vaishnavisim.  Any person who take history and scholarship seriously has to disagree with him on many issues.  Though I am still a student, yet my limited reading is not agree with him on many issues.  What is your personal view?

Dayanand
 

@@@

Vanakkam,

Thank you for the information on virus.  I will be coming to India at the end of September and be in India for 5 months.  I want to come to your place and spend few days with you.  I want to discuss with you about teaching some courses in missiology related to India.  Let me know the best time to come there.  Ramanathan might come there with me.  I want to know your mission in India.  I know that you want to promote concept of Hindu bhakthas of Christ.  Do you conduct any meeting to present your views?  Dr Deivanayagam came to the Ashram in March and participated in the seminar.  I taped his presentation.  I will get you a copy.  There are areas you both can agree.  I have not studied his views fully.  What I do not like is his attacks on RSS and Hindu brahmanical organizations.  Of course he attacks the caste system of the Manu.  What he says about them may be true but how he says is the problem.  He says Hinduism is not Hinduta.  Hinduism of Alwars and Nayanmars is based on St.Thomas Christianity.  Some traditional Christians who hate Hinduism go back with positive attitude toward Hinduism after attending his seminar.  According to him Sivagnanabothaham is the essence of St. Thomas Christianity.  He plans to have a conference on Tamil Religion in August.

Let me know your schedule in October and November.

Ramasamy

Dear Dr. Ramasamy,

Shanti!

You know about my stand on such claim that Sivananabotham is based on St. Thomas Christianity.  At present several sincere Catholic scholars do not subscribe to the theory of Thomas visit to India.  I too personally do not believe in it.  Of course those who want to believe and base any opinion on it can do it.  But it is a shaky ground and no sincere, neutral and objective scholar will agree with such views.

I have completely read the entire Periyapuram by Sekizhar and any one who seriously study the Saiva Siddhanta will never claim that it is based on Thomas Christianity.  The same with Alwars.  Of course there are certain common theme like grace etc.  But this does not prove that Tamil saints borrowed them from Thomas Christianity.  For example, don’t kill, don’t lie etc. moral teachings are common in many parts of the world.  But this does not mean that all those teachings borrowed this moral principle from Ten Commandments.  Similarities never prove any commonality, except to think that human needs are same everywhere.

Sivajnanabodam and many of Hindu (?) Tamil scripture never have any common theme among themselves.  Even Alwars have two schools of thought.  Sivajnanabodam is a collected work and merely name of a particular philosophical/theological (siddhanta) tradition, in which we can find several contradiction.  So before constructing a theses based on commonality, we need to pay equal or some time more attention where biblical theology will never agree.  I wish you (and also Daivanayagam and many like them) should read N.T. Wright’s book: What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

You know the claim by many Hindus that Jesus came to Kashmir and learnt yoga and Vedanta from Indian Rishis and merely preached an alternative version of it to His Jewish context.  There are Hindus who claim that Hinduism is the mother of all religions which was all over the world one time.  Can we agree with them?  Many educated Hindus even want to read a Vedantic message in Muktinath’s saying: I and the Father is one.  But we know that here our Lord is not talking about any Vedantic claim of ‘atman is brahman’.  Based on isolated verses and texts of any scripture anyone can build  any kind of theory. But if we ignore textual, theological and historical context then we will end up only in ‘text torturing’ of all scriptures.  I don’t remember it whether it is Dr. Daivanayagam or some one else (like him) said that even the ‘Setu Paalam [bridge]’ is a proof to show that Adam was a Tamilian.  Because ‘Setu’ is derived from Adam’s son ‘Set’.  However, the word ‘Setu’ originally means ‘bridge’ in both Sanskrit and Hindi.  But it is obscure to construct such a theory based on words which is pronounced similarly.  The same is true with any thesis constructing certain commonality.

Regarding to your question about my ‘mission in India’, I don’t have any MISSION, COMMISSION, VISION OR OMISSION in me.  Long before I consciously removed such evangelical terms from my mind.

I am a Hindu and a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath.  Though I am a member of the body of Muktinath, I have nothing to do with organized Church or Christianity.  I want to live my life as a Hindu bhakta of Muktinath.  In this course when I come across another Hindu with similar view I would like to have fellowship with her/him.  I don’t even think that I need to give her/him any fellowship but I need her/his fellowship to enjoy and enact my bhakti in the Lord.  But I never started any movement or church or denomination or sect etc.  In such fellowship we never impose our views on others.  Each one is free to give and have fellowship.  And anyone does not feel comfortable can easily walk away.  This neither hurt or damage us, as we don’t have any kind of organizational set up.  Ours is like a website.  Several Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath gave fellowship to me and because of their own personal reasons even left me.  Though I still long their fellowship and friendship, yet I also learnt the secret that every bhakta should learn also to walk ‘ALONE’ with the Lord.  However as no human is an island, we need each other.  That is why we insist more on home based fellowship to grow in bhakti than depending upon any kind of outside support.  As we often say, our desire is Muktinath centered families in every community—including among Christians.  But this is not a vision or mission only a prayer.  And we work ‘with’ God and never work ‘for’ Him. 

But knowing my limitation, I never want to involve with Christians to enlighten them.  There are people like you who can do it more graciously than me.  So though I don’t agree with Devanayagams, yet I wish them success in all their seva for the Lord, which they think is right.  My best wishes to you also.

God less you.

Dayanand,

Gurukulam, June 14, 2008.

Before I say something about Manu’s view on caste, I want to make it clear that I am neither promoting caste system or accepting Manu’s view.  However, Manu is the most misinterpreted and misrepresented dharmasastra in recent time.  We all imagine that there exists one central (Hindu) Kingdom in India in the past in which the King, following the brahminical hierarchy strictly implemented all the rules and regulations of Manu in his kingdom!!!! 

Like Veda, while Hindus claims its authority to win a point (or argument) but paid only lip service to its authority, almost all dharmasastras, particularly Manu also received the same treatment.  If one carefully study the History of Dharmasastras, in order to prove a theory on certain customs, ritual, tradition etc. on social order latter dharmasastras often quoted Manu as the authority, at the same time knowing well that its authority was never strictly implemented in any period or part of India.  As India was not one country, and each small (or big) kingdoms were more concerned about their own affairs, no dharmasastra held any final authority for the running of the govt. or social order both by the king and people.

Like any other dharmasastra, Manu too is a systematic treaty of an idealized¹ view of a community which never was implemented or existed.  For example regarding the duty of a King what Manu’s view is well presented by the recent scholarly work on Manu by Olivelle.  In his own words:

…It appears that Manu’s narrative scheme here envisages a new king occupying a virgin territory.  He is unmarried, he has to settle the land and build a capital, and he has to organize the state apparatus.  This structure suited Manu’s purpose well, because it enabled him to discuss all the points associated with statecraft.  Real life, however, is quite another matter; most kings would gain a kingdom either through inheritance or conquest.  In either case there would be pre-existing cities, forts, and a state bureaucracy.

               In the second part, Manu changes his narrative scheme to span a single day, from the morning when the king wakes up until nightfall when he goes to bed.  Manu squeezes into a single day the description of all the duties of a king spread over 182 verses.

[Patrick Olivelle, Manu’s Cod of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford, 2006, p.13]

No one can dispute with the fact that Manu’s aim is to regain the last privilege of Brahmins due to the reform of Ashoka.  About this Ollivelle says:

               I think the socio-political environment that prompted the composition of the great epic was not too different from that of the Manava-Dharmasastra [MDh].  The time frame and the geography are more or less the same, and the authors of both works probably came from the class of educated and somewhat conservative Brahmins intent on protecting the rights and privileges of their class.  They were composed after the collapse of the Maurya empire in the 2^nd century BCE….—p.38

…Asoka was certainly a Buddhist; whether he was anti-Brahmanical is debatable.  One thing that his reforms did was to displace the Brahmin from his privileged position within the social structure.  The special relationship between the political power (ksatra) and the religious establishment (brahma) was broken….—p.38

               Reading the MDh one cannot fail to see and to feel the intensity and urgency with which the author defends Brahmanical privilege.  A major aim of Manu was to reestablish the old alliance between brahma and ksatra, an alliance that in his view would benefit both the king and the Brahmin, thereby reestablishing the Brahmin in his unique and privileged position within society….—p.39

Thus, like most of the other dharmasastras, Manu also wrote with a wishful thinking of an idealized society, where without any doubt the brahmins are given a highest position.  But such mere ‘idealization’ or ‘wishful’ thinking of an author could have created all the evils of the caste system.  If we take Ollivell’s conclusion about Manu’s time as Post Maurya empire, then the brahmins already lost their privileged position.  So how can we blame that Manu is the author of the caste system, particularly all the evils that it represents?

Above all we should remember the fact that varna system is different from caste system and it is wrong to blame anyone, particularly Brahmin as the creator of that order.  It is a basic human problem among that one feels comfort by often looking down others.  Discrimination based on caste, class, economy, power and authority is part of humanity.  When one evil is removed (for some time), it is never annihilated, but emerges in another form.  Till we reach the Further Shore, we have to accept this reality and try our level best to reach out those who were exploited by any discrimination, than merely blaming some text or idealism to explain away our present weakness.

Of course no one can agree with even such idealized vision of Manu, which favors one group of people over others in the name of birth privilege.  So I too don’t support even such idealized views of Manu.  However, when we criticize a scripture, we have to take all its context and not some points in isolation to condemn it.  Ollivelle well said that:

               In spite of all the attention, including burning, that the MDh has received over the past two centuries, the study of the text itself has been neglected.  More heat, literal and metaphorical, has been generated than light.  Until now, even a close examination of the numerous extant manuscripts of this work, manuscripts written in nine scripts and spread all over the Indian subcontinent, has not been undertaken….—ibid. p. 4

This being the case, to hide our weakness Manu became an easy scapegoat for many, particularly politicians and preachers.

Dayanand Bharati,

Gurukulam, June 15, 2008.

Notes

1. The ideology that drives Manu, I think, explains the plan of his book.  As we will see (II.2), he devotes 1034 verses (38.6%) to the discussion of the Brahmin and 971 verse (36%) to matters relating to the king; these two take up 74.8% of the entire text.  Manu’s agenda is two-fold: he wants to tell Brahmins how to behave as true Brahmins devoted to vedic learning and virtue, and he wants to tell kings how to behave as true kings, devoted to Brahmins and ruling the people justly.  For this agenda he brings the authority of no less a person than the Creator himself, who is presented as the absent author of the text.—Olleivelle, op. cit. p.41

@@@

DIALOGUE

     Dialogue is one among the several ways to share our conviction with others.  And it is somewhat sophesticated method also.  It is like injecting in a banana, without much hurig it at the same time achieving its purpose.  One truth cannot be neglected here that, while we insert the needle inside, it will be also touced by the mostiure of the banana.  Like wise, in sharing our faith in another religious-socia system, we too cannot avoid its mosturing influence on the needle of ours method.  This is only an illustration which cannot be stretched beyod its capacity.

     But whatever may be our illustration to promote the good office of a dialogue, some times we find it difficult to accept the view that No one know the Truth and in dialogue, by mutual interaction we all try to foud the Trut.  Of course, in an obstract sense, no one can know the (whole) Truth as it is.  But it is equally True that none can reach that obstract Truth from un obstrct vaccum.  However insignificant and irrelevant it may seems to others, yet each one has some kind of faith and experience of /about the Truth to some level.  And when we share our respective views, we are and will begin only from that level.

     This being the Relative Truth about the Reality, a dialogue is a common ground where our respective Relative Truths are tested in the furnac of Obsolute Truth, which may help each one of us to “know the Truth” about our Relative experience.

     Now based on such understanding, still respecting others view about Dialogue which wwe don’t agree-one common tension in a dialogue between ‘prophetic’ and ‘philosophical’ religions is the relationship between the Events and Truth.

     Generally in a `philosophical’–religio the world view about the Truth is: Truth is important not the events; principle is important not the person.  Who said is not important, but what said is important.  When it was said si not important but why it was said is importnt.  On the other hand in the `pjrophetic’ religion: Events is essential as it gives correct interpretation which makes the abstract Truth relevent for our existence.  Therefore Event is equally importnat not mere Truth.  Person is more importnat than mere principles, as he alone can give authentic interpwretation to the principle to make it relevent to our concrete experience.  And without a “WHO” the “WHAT” and without a “WHEN” mere “WHY” makes no sense to our need.

     Take one abstract principle of `ahimsa’.  Though a highest Indian ideal, yet its total concept became intelligeble after the Ganhian event–who gave the correct interpretation of it through his life.  Ahimsa paramo dharma’–(ahimsa is the highest dharma; here ahmisa does not mere non-violence propagated by Gandhiji and dharma not mere religion, but virtue)–we hear it from the ancient in India (in Mahabharata).  Even Buddhism and Jainism were founded on that principle.  Yet in common mind the noble Truth remained within the limits of not injuring others, further narrowing it down to stop killing animals alone.  Bjut the best commentary on ahimsa is: Do unto others what you would expect others to do unto you or don’t do to others what you wouldn’t wish them to do you.  Gandhiji demonstrated the principle.  At the same time, he got the inspiration of “Satyagrahin” (holder of the Truth?) from another historical person Jesus Christ, though the former refused to give a solitary throne to the latter in his life.  Now after Gandhiji, at least in India, if anyone talk about ahimsa, they can talk only about the event of a Gandhi with it not mere Principle.

     Now, in such a context, when we share about the Christ value to other fellow Hindus, we have to insist the Cross event also, without which both a Christ and a Cross will become mere obstract Truth.  A common answer from a typical Hindu, of course would be different.  Before further proceeding one thing we must keep in our mind that dividing the Hindus in two common categary as popular and philosophical Hindu is, according to my opinion and experience is artificial one.  Generally, it is only the Non-Hindus make such distinction, where as an average Hindu never claims it.  Every philosophical Hindu would observe most of the practices of a popular Hindu, like wise even an ordinary popular Hindu will take about his own philosophy.

     Generally based on their world view, several time we can hear from the Hindus that they don’t find any different from Krishna and Christ.  “What is important”, they may say,”is that God came down to our level, to show the way of salvation.  Our leveal of understanding and need was such that He has to merely Teach about that way.  Where as in His time, the understanding and need of the people was such that He has not only to Teach but also has to die on the cross.  Whether He gave the teaching in a war front or died in a violent way on a peace of wood under the Roman government is not make much different to us.  But how we take that Truth whichh they have imparted for our salvation is much more important to us”.  And those who want to criticise cross event may further go and say,”we were so matured and advanced in our spiritual and religious life–thanks be to the Vedas–that mere Teaching was enough on the part of God to impart to us.  And because of our elivated nature, we even bow before Him and worship Him as our Lord and God.  Whereas the people of Jesus time were so wretched and degraded in their spiritual and moral life (in spite of their claim as God’s selected people) that they not only refused to listen, but also put an end to Him in a violent way on a Roman Cross”.

     Now, how we are going to help them to understand that Cross value alone make Christ event authentic?  Particularly thsoe who come from west to share their faith here in India were very much confused by the attitude of an Indian towards history.  They can even come accross several people who will reject all the stories aobut Rama and Krishna, yet worship them as their personal God.

     To understand this clearly, we must have proper knowledge about the relation between an event and its interpretation.  In India, generally, mythology came first and Gods came (or even produced out of it) latter.  We can say it like this: A Truth is to be given.  And to convey it an event is either created or existing one is used.  Later the characters of that created or existing event were elevated to the level of gods and sev eral times at the cost of the very Truth as well as events.  Ramayana is the best example for this.  The aim of Valmiki is to teachh about their respective dharma to various people in a socity, viz., Raja dharma, Praja dharma, Pati dharma, Patni dharma, Mitra dharma etc.  For this either he might have ceated the events of Rama-ayana or used existing characters.  Now in the course history, the character of Rama even become a God, pushing back the event and also the Truth to some extent.  That is why the BJP even claims that they don’t bother about the historicity of Rama.  They want to build the temple at the disputed site as Rama-Sita is the cultural heritage of India.

     Now the violent death of an young man of 33 year onld on a Roman Cross is not important for the Hindus.  But what Truth or Message He and His death conveys is enogh for them to pay respect, nay even give reverence to Him.

     To resolve such a temsion we also should shook away some of our emphasis on the Cross event of historicity. The death of one Jesus on the Roman Cross is not the gospel.  But what does it mean to the people who say and interpreted it alone makes that event as a Good News, for us today.  Now, not denying the cross event, the interpretation of the early disciples of Christ alone not the gospel to me.  But how it is or my understanding and interpretatio of their experience affects my out look of life alone is the gospel to-dy to me.  He one may object that then, our experience or understanding alone become the cirteria to approve even that incident.  And anyone can have any kind of experience or interprettion (as Gandhji saw in Jesus a True Satyagrahin alone on the cros), which may again crucify the very gospel itself.  Therefore interpretation should not judge the event where as the event aloe judges our interpretation.

     Well, here again we should respect the world view of each group, from there alone even God can reveal His final Truth to them.  No one can hold all the Truth about that obstract Reality in one attempt.  God reveals in a progrressive way only.  And He in His mercy, gives a lot of allowance and concessions to the weakness of the people’s comprehension.

     In conclusion, give the Indians first the Truth and Principles of the gospel.  Then help them to understand that with out the cross event, the gospel will remain mere obstract Truth, always evading our human reason and sense.  And in such a dialogue, share from the level of your experienc or understanding about that Truth (which we would like to call as Faith).  Others may disagree with our views and let us disagree to disagree.  But we should prove that in coming to such a dialogue, our aim is not to findout the Truth, but to Test and Prove howfar the respective group or individual’s experience about the Truth is relevent in his existence.

19-02-1996,

Mahari,

Rewa

@@@
The following is the dialogue I had with Santosh Kumar Gautam of Rewa on 26 November 1994, evening 5.00 p.m  to 9.00p.m.

Santosh Kumar (SK):  Not because that we don’t know, but even after knowing, we wantonly do mistake.  And the main reason for this I think, is `selfishness’.  And as we all are think about our own needs and welfare, none is exempted from it and how to over come this, is, according to my understanding, a constant human problem.

Dayanand Bharati (DB):  Yes and this problem pre-occupied all spiritual endeavor to get rid of it.  (Then I quoted the Pandav gita slog–janami dharmam nche me nivriti…)  And various religious system created various ways and means to help a sadhaka (aspirant) to guide him in his efforts to find a solution for this.  But as far as I understood, though we cannot blame any religious system, yet we cannot stop there, as all religious systems are human endeavor, and noting wrong in it.  And the best way, as I am experiencing, is to find answer to the questions: Why should I get rid of this `selfishness’ and why I cannot do it?

  And to begin with let me try to answer the second question.  Blessed is the man who understands his own limitation first.  Just pretending that every things is right with me won’t help me locate the problem.  A good doctor is one who is diagnosis the disease properly and not one who is merely treating the symptom.  Like wise any religious or philosophical system, which is not helping us to recognise or to diagnosis the basic problem with in us, in no way help us to find the solution properly.  We all realise that we cannot help ourselves to get rid of this `selfishness’ with in us and we need some kind of out side help.  As we cannot lift ourselves by holding our ear, the same way we cannot help ourselves to over come this problem.  And use any term that you like–paap (sin), karma bhandan, maya, avidya (ignorance), etc.– yet that is the serious basic human problem.  And the GRACE of God is the only remedy for this.

S.K.:  But what is sin?  What we consider sin in one society need not be considered as sin in another society.  For example in Nagaland previously head hunting was considered as a heroic events either to get married or to become the leader of the society.  And like this we can quote hundreds of example.  Above all is it not (our) Society traditionally imposed certain dos and don’ts as sin and merits?

DB: Tradition has its own merits and demerits.  And we cannot simply get rid of our own tradition.  I am what I am to day because what my society made me based on its tradition.  And whether we agree with it or not, we all have to live with it.  And those who think that they are breaking a given existing tradition are in a sense actually creating their own new tradition.  Hence while aware of the blind systems imposed on us by the society in the name of tradition, yet we must take enough care to preserve our traditions which will help us to understand ourselves and to lead a content life.

  Regarding the sins and merits–though each society has its own lists of dos and don’t dos, yet there are certain universal principle common for whole humanity.  For example take the case of the same head hunting.  A Naga, I think cannot kill his own community member for the sake of marriage or to become a leader.  He must prove his strength by hunting the heads of other societies particularly that of his enemies.  The same way when an enemy is killed in a war then it is not a crime where as in normal time, in the society no one has the right to take the law in his own hand.  Like wise Polyandry is a norm in few communities among the Tibetans, but this is not a licence to have free sex with anyone and every one in their own community or exchanging spouses (Spouse Sweeping as we saw in India Today) to have a variety.  So, though each society  may have its own dos and don’t dos, yet there are certain universal principle applicable for whole humanity.  However the rationalistic approach to this subject would be this—what ever separates me and God is SIN or which ever pricks my own consciousness is SIN.  But the danger in keeping our own conscience as the criteria is that we several times suppress the voice of our own conscience by justifying our actions and this led to the so called `Situation Ethics’.  Here alone the norms set by the tradition helps to live a sober life.

  Considering our own basic human weakness no body can lead a perfect or holy life (and from where it came and why this basic nature is within us is a serious theological issue, which we must address to ourselves).  Most of the time we are not committing sin (here the dos and don’t of a given society) not by choice but by chance and fear of the society.  I don’t do certain things which is opposed to the norms of the society not because I don’t want to do it, but I don’t get the opportunity to do it or the fear of the society prevents me from doing it.  When I get the chance, where I need not afraid of my own society, then suppressing my own conscience I will do it.  Here alone the universal principles (like don’t kill, don’t lie, etc.) and the fear of God comes our rescue.

SK: Who is God?

DB: To be frank with you, I don’t know.  If I could experience with in the limits of my human mind and explain it in human language (which ever may be it), then He is not God at all.  Like wise God is neither masculine or feminine at the same time He is not a nutral gender or Shakti.  As Kenopanisad clearly says:

     yasyaamatam tasya matam matam yasya na veda sah

     avijnaatam vijaanataam vijnaatam avijaanataam

(To whomsoever it is not known, to him it is known: to whomsoever it is known, he does not know.  It is not understood by those who understand it; it is understood by those who do not understand it–S.Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanisads, Kena Upanisad, II.3, Oxford University Press, fifth impression 1992, p.585).

This is the conclusion that I have arrived at presented after a long search for God.  Being a rational being I find not only comfort but also convenience to believe in a PERSONAL God than some absolute `Energy’or Impersonal Concept that we found in Advaita.  But who is that God, whom I can worship, is a long and sincere search of humanity, particularly in India.  Just you imagine what kind of father you would like to have.  The one drunkard, liar, cheater etc. or one who is kind, love, gentle and ready to sacrifice himself for the welfare of others.  The same way I would like to have a God whom I can look as a father, friend etc.  At the same time mere mythological characters alone won’t satisfy mehowever we give philosophical interpretation to them.  Though there are real deep level contradictions in every God that the humanity so far believed, yet I would go for one with whom the contradiction is less and whose approaches are more rationalistic and very human.*  Above all I would like to see my God as my personal guru, who would teach me the ways that I should tread both by words and deeds.  And  as found real satisfaction in the PERSON JESUS CHRIST, I am following Him as my Sat-guru.  And this led me to become a bhakta of  Christ.  Then this pre-supposes that He become my bhagavan, as a bhakta needs a bhagavan to express his bhakti.

  Finally my understanding and approach to Jesus Christ is as my personal (sat) guru.  After studying lot of scriptures (to some extent) and thinking after God both rationally and emotionally, I found something in Him which gripped my mind so strongly that finally my “longing soul found its rest in Him”.

  Now regarding the Historicity of Jesus Christ, the doctrines about His virgin birth, death on the Cross, resurrection, Ascension, second coming, all the miracles claimed to be performed by Him–all become secondary issues for me.  Even if all these things are proved wrong, yet He will remain as my guru.  And for me my guru is my bhagavan.  And becoming my bhagavan, now I believe not only the Historicity of Jesus Christ, but all the doctrinal issues related to Him.

  I can explain this by one example.  If you are married, then for me you have got a wife as others are having.  But for you she is not just a wife in the normal sense the world understands, but she is someone very special, may be your close friend, mother, daughter, etc.  This intimate relationship that you have with your wife is your own personal experience.  And this experience won’t come not because you have married like others, but the way you cultivate your relationship with her.  And suppose if you say to your friend, ” my wife is not like other’s wives but some one very different and special”, then he will smile.  And if you sincerely love a girl and started to live with her without marriage ceremony, however she may be special to you, yet she won’t become your wife legally.  Marriage is not just a ceremony imposed by our society or tradition, but it is also related to law expressing your personal commitment to her.  If you are not legally wedded then after your death, neither that woman nor her children will get anything from your property and your children will also be called `illegitimate’.  Here your personal relationship with her based on your experience is endorsed by the society.

Like wise my personal relationship with my guru Jesus Christ is endorsed by the tradition when through deeksha I surrender to him as a bhakta.  All the example that I used and words that I expressed are also limited one and are not conveying properly my relationship with my bhagavan Iisu.

  And now my bhakti to my guru helps me to find the answer for both my question: Why should I get rid of this `selfishness’ and why I cannot do it?  To obey His commandment I have to get rid of this `selfishness’ to love and serve both God and humanity.  Though still I cannot do it up to my own expectation, yet He helps me to overcome my own egoism in several ways.  And this is not an instant remedy but a continuing process, my sadhana.  And almost all the sadhanas imparted by the Bible is more related with my inward changes within me and my attitude towards my fellow human beings, I find it more convincing to my reason than mere out ward rituals followed by me previously.

  And now to becoming a bhakta of Christ does not mean that I become a `Christian’ as understood both by the Hindus and Christians.  I am a Hindu and a bhakta of Christ.  Here the Hindus may say you cannot be a Hindu of our understanding and demands of tradition.  For this my answer would be,

“Yes, but thank God that the same tradition gives me the liberty to give my own interpretation to its norms and live naturally as a bhakta of Christ within my own community.  All the problems related with my own understanding and interpretation is artificially created both by the Christians and Hindus.  And I have convincing answer for my own conscience than to their respective theology and doctrines.  And my own tradition helps me more to live NATURALLY as a bhakta of Christ in Hindu Community than to live ARTIFICIALLY as a (western) Christian, particularly in my theology and doctrine with them.  This does not mean that I can convince both the Hindus and Christians.  But all I plead with them is LET US AGREE TO DISAGREE and try to adopt and adapt as much as possible that will be allowed by our own respective conviction and conscience to accept each other as we are”.

  Now the next questions comes (most from the Christians), “what is your attitude and relationship with rest of the theologies and issues in Hindu society”?  For this my answer would be: No society is perfect one to give up ones and opt for others, no theology is final one to condemn others and impose our own.  No claim is ultimate and final without having personal experience.  None has spiritual authority or intellectual maturity to condemn others faith.  “Does it mean that all roads lead to the same goal:.  Well, if other’s road definitely won’t help you to reach your own destiny (based on your own conviction), then give respect for the otherness of your road to them also.  If you claim that you have a `Royal Route To Heaven’, then allow them to tread the path on their own understanding and not on your terms.  NONE OF US IS BIBLICAL IF WE WANT OTHERS TO BE BIBLICAL IN `OUR OWN TERMS’1.

[The last para is my own conclusion not discussed with Santosh Kumar Gautam].

                       NOTES

Just one example: THIS IS QUOTED NOT TO CONFUSE OR TO CONTRADICT OUR CONVICTION, BUT TO SHOW THE VIEWS OF OTHERS.:

” Even in the earliest times open confession of sin was in certain cases regarded as freeing the person from sin… -ibid. p.1592

  Repentance (anutaapa).  Manu (XII.227 and 230) provides that a sinner is relieved of the consequences of sin by proclaiming his sin to people, by repentance, by austerities, by recitation of Vedic texts, by gifts in case of distress (i.e. if he is unable to undergo tapas); a man after committing a sin becomes free from it by feeling remorse and if he makes a resolve `I shall never again do so’ he is purified…MacNicol, a Scottish missionary, wrote a work (in 1915) on `Indian theism’ in which he boldly asserts, after referring to the Upanisadic doctrine of Karma, that `there is no place for repentance in the Hindu doctrine of Karma’ (p.223).  It has been shown above that confession was known in Vedic times and that repentance was valued in Dharmasaastra works either as removing sins or as making the repentant man fit for receiving expiatory rites .   The worthy missionary author probably thinks his Christian brand of remission of sins by confession and repentance better than the Upanisadic teaching.  Ancient Indian authors were not prepared to accept mere confession and repentance as enough to absolve a man of all sins.  The Biblical position that if one believes in Christ and his gospel, confesses his sins and says he repents (as required in Matthew 4.17, Mark I.15 and Luke 24.47) is very likely to engender among common men a complacent attitude about sins.  This complacent frame of mind, the ancient Dharmasaastra writers wanted to prevent and therefore, they insisted upon a good deal more than repentance and confession of sins.  They blended the old doctrine of confession and repentance with retribution viz. hell tortures and vile births.  Later Pauraanik writers approached very close to the probable attitude of common Christians that one has simply to believe in Christ as a redeemer, to confess and to take the name of God for being absolved from all sins.  MacNicol either did not (p.1593) read the relevant texts from Puraanas or he forgot them when he made the assertion noted above.

…Many who have written against this doctrine, while conceding that the Upanisadic doctrine is an ancient and serious attempt to solve the problem of injustice and evil in the world, call it a weak one and beset with difficulties.  One should like to ask, what systems of religion and philosophy are not beset with difficulties?  One may take the Christian doctrines for example.  To all non-Christians (and to several Christians also in modern times) its doctrine of original sin, its damnation of unbaptized infants, of predestination deduced from the belief that God is an Omniscient and Omnipotent Creator of heaven and earth, appear strange and unjustified.  L.T.Hobhouse in `Morals in Evolution’ part II (1906) pp. 130 ff. points out how all systems with a personal God, particularly Christianity, are best with difficulties, such as making the problem of evil urgent, eternal punishments for a great sinner in one life suggestive of a moral impossibility, the inescapable conclusion that all men, however good, that did not or could not or do not believe in Christ and are not members of the Christian Church by baptism are irrevocably doomed.  That (p.1594) Christianity is unique and that Christians are God’s chosen people are beliefs which would make God appear quite unjust and therefore some Christian writers like Prof. Toynbee in `Christianity among the religions of the world’ (Oxford Un. Press, 1958) have begun to urge that Christianity must be purged of such beliefs (pp.13 and 95).–ibid. pp.1594-95

-P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, vol.V,part.II,Ch.XXXV pp.1593-94, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, Second edition,1977.

** Several times I have read that the Old Testament God is described as a Tribal god etc. by few Hindu apologetic writers.  But I found the Old Testament God (?) is more strong in implementing `Justic and Mercy’ in the world (of the Old Testament time, if we want to limit `world’ in the narrow sense of the bible).  Only one example is suffice here:

  This conviction of Old Testament ethics that Persons matter more than things not only informs the hierarchy of serious offences and the distinguishing of capital and non-capital penalties, it also extends to the offender himself and the nature and extent of the punishment meted out.  There is a humanitarian ethos in Israelite penal law which is acknowledged by all who have compared it with contemporary ancient Near Eastern collections of law.-p.165

  And the evidence shows…slaves in Israel had more legal rights and protection than in any contemporary society.  Indeed, slaves enjoyed more explicit legal and economic security than the technically free, but landless, hired labourers and craftsman.–pp.178-79.

…Slaves were included within the religious life of the community.  They could be circumcised and partake of the Passover (Ex.12:44).  They were to be allowed to join in the feasting and rejoicing of the great festivals (Dt.16:11-14; note v.12)…be included in the weekly Sabbath rest (Ex.20:10)…-pp.179-80

  After six years of service a slave was to be given the opportunity of freedom in the seventh year…p.180

  But the most astonishingly unique slave law in the Old Testament is the law of asylum in Deuteronomy 23:15f.  A runaway slave, far from being punished or sent back, was to be given freedom of residence in a village of his choice.  The universal law of the rest of contemporary societies not only punished the runaway but laid severe penalties on anyone who harboured him.  Israel’s law not only allowed his freed, it Commanded his protection.(p.181)–Christopher JH Wright. Living as the people of God. (The relevance of O.T. ethics) IVP, 1983.

14-12-1994,

10.30 a.m.

Lucknow.ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ€;

---

yB

---

vÌtÐqØoålçjëgíeób3`—]q[‰VÜÜ

---

‰­y³vêtòqùoÿl j&gve€bW1`\1[i2Yq2VÜÜ

---

q2g3yl3vHHtQHqHo»HjìHh&gve€bW1`\1[i2Yq2VÜÜ

---

---

€úÿÿüÿÿFÿÿHÿÿÁ

---

ÿÿÃ

---

ÿÿiÿÿkÿÿ

ÿÿ

ÿÿ

---

€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð
€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

W
ÿÿY
ÿÿÍÿÿÏÿÿàÿÿâÿÿóÿÿõÿÿ1ÿÿ3ÿÿ
€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð
€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

3fÿÿ—ÿÿ™ÿÿØÿÿÚÿÿ)ÿÿ+ÿÿ^‑ÿÿ`‑ÿÿ8 ÿÿ€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð €Cð

8 : ÿÿù$ÿÿû$ÿÿ‑&ÿÿ &ÿÿË(ÿÿÍ(ÿÿô)ÿÿe-ÿÿg-ÿÿ€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð
€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

g-í0ÿÿï0ÿÿ>1ÿÿ@1ÿÿ^1ÿÿ`1ÿÿÔ1ÿÿÖ1ÿÿY2ÿÿ[2ÿÿ€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

---

€Cð€Cð

[2C:ÿÿE:ÿÿ7@ÿÿ9@ÿÿÄ@ÿÿÆ@ÿÿ&Bÿÿ(BÿÿðCÿÿòCÿÿ#€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

---

€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

òCüDÿÿþDÿÿ6Fÿÿ£Fÿÿ¥FÿÿÉHÿÿËHÿÿØHÿÿäHÿÿíHÿÿ€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð€Cð

£

\¸­þ*<5F@lHU<

---

---

q

---

è`ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ”*08/11/9612/13/94lHÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

@@@

…The biblical scholar has to discover not only the literal meaning of the text considered in its entire context, but beyond it also the spiritual meaning the divine Author has superimposed on it. The Vedic interpreter of the Jaimini school has only to determine the true meaning of the text studied in its context; there is no divine author behind it whose mind he has to explore….— Cyril B. Papali, o.c.d.,FOR A DIALOGUE WITH HINDUISM,p.41

[Is this not a problem?  When Paul wrote his letters he was just giving some direct literal meaning, unless he himself is giving some specific spiritual meaning for any other verses from the Old Testament.  But the biblical scholars by giving various ‘spiritual’ meaning to the texts created their own doctrine and imposed on people.  The origin of religion and the fall of it originated here.  When I say Paul himself gave some spiritual meaning to some OT verses I don’t mean that he formulated any particular doctrine, but to give some strong evidence from the tradition, he quoted them and I think his intension is not to give some spiritual meaning of them in the form of doctrine.—db]

@@@

Dear Swamiji,

I have a doubt. I did not find much problem in dealing when people of Hindu faith come to me for various practices they do. But when it comes to the donation for construction of Hindu temple or to conduct pooja, I do not what to say. Will you help me?

Elan

Dear Elan,                                                                       Hosur, September 3, 2002.

Thanks for asking such a good question.  This is a common problem for all those who want to ‘witness’ for the Lord around them.  The following is my answer:

What all I have said about eating prasad etc. in my book is equally apply to these problem.  When a Hindu come and ask for donation either to construct temple or for Puja (Ganesh chaturti, Vijayadasami, Holi etc.) giving or not giving is left to our conscience.  In India, every Hindu thinks that both in joy and sorrow everyone should participate.  Particularly when it comes to religious functions or rituals or work, they not only seek other’s cooperation but also think that they should allow other’s too share in the ‘punya’ (merit) of performing religious related work.  Of course now it become more and more commercial activity and some time some group collect money to misuse it*.  However in a given society where you are known to others, as a member of that society, I would rather ask you to give some token of donation.  Because I know in North India, several Hindu groups while collecting money several times ‘avoid’ asking from Muslims.  But interestingly they do not have such a prejudice against Christians.  One my friends living in Uttaranchal is well accepted by his neighbour Hindu families.  And when Ramleela and Durgapooja comes, they will come for donation and initially he was bit confused.  But when I pointed out that by asking the donation the Hindu community has not only recognized his family as a part of their society (if not belongs to the community) but they have no prejudice against his faith or religion.  And remember that every money that we give is not directly going for puja or ritual.  Of course if we take it in its totality, definitely the donation is for their religious function.  But for an average Hindu every common function—religious, social, cultural etc.—is for all and for a selected few.

So when they come and ask for the donation, it is left to your conscience as well as the group which is asking for the money.  On the other day some boys came to ask ‘donation’ for Ganesh Chaturti and my mother chased them away.  Because now a days any one and every one is coming and asking for donation and we need have some discerning spirit about this matter.  But if people living in your Campus ask for donation for some common puja or function, then it is left with your personal conviction—whether giving the donation will hinder your witness for the Lord or affect your conscience or will it help you to develop your friendship and rapport with them further.  Because, even if they come and ask for ‘religious’ function, it is more social oriented for the Hindus and they never think that by giving donation you have given up your faith in Christ or started to worship their gods.

We are paying tax to the govt.  And our Tamilnadu govt. out of our tax money, officially spend for the renovation and kumbabishegam for several temples.  Can we say no to pay tax any more or can we put condition to the govt. that our money should not be used for such purpose.  Above all some of my Christian friends who are working in the offices, factories or running business have told me that they give to such functions.  Other wise they face some problem.  Finally we can say a big ‘NO’ to them but we should not expect them to respond for our evangelical efforts to share the gospel—to come to our prayer and gospel meetings or to read the book or tract which we give to them?

Finally, if you say NO to any donation, based on your ‘religious’ faith and conviction, a Hindu won’t compel you as he respects other’s religious conviction.

Further after hearing from you.

Dayanand

The following is from my book pp.125-6.  If you have the book (Revised edition), then read the whole section on Prasad-pp.120-127

Whenever the Christians share the gospel, their main motive is to proselytize others to their ‘religion’, viz., to Christianity.  They then see their neighbours of other faiths through the prism of their own narrow perspective with all their religious prejudices and complex feelings.  Therefore when a Hindu comes and shares his prasad, even though he is without any such motive to convert others to his faith because of their guilty conscience Christians refuse it.  But his conscience is completely clear.  His aim is not to convert, but to share God’s grace only.  Even if you want to become a Hindu he neither wants you to become a Hindu nor can allow you to become a Hindu.  Because you can never ‘become’ a Hindu, but only can be ‘born’ as a Hindu.

So keeping this understanding, when a Hindu offers any kind of prasad there is no reason to refuse.  But after accepting it, when a proper relationship has been established, with much humility and love it can be made clear to him if your conviction (religious?) is actually against accepting the prasad offered to an idol.  And you can clearly show to him that the prasad that was accepted was accepted not as a prasad of god, but as a prasad (grace) of his own love.  When approaching this issue in such a positive way the Hindu himself will not bring any more prasad, because a Hindu almost invariably respects the others’ religious sentiments more than a non-Hindu does.

Now in the context in which Paul deals with the issue of food offered to idols (1 Cor. 10)  it clearly says that the criteria about deciding to receive prasad is the conscience of both sides.  Here, however, the conscience of the giver is not clearly defined; whether it refers to his giving it to convert you to his faith, etc.  And it is very difficult to predict what would have been the ‘conscience’ of the Greek pagans behind offering to his neighbour who now follows Jesus any prasad offered to his gods.  Whatever it may be, here in India we know clearly the mind or conscience of our Hindu neighbour.  Now accepting or rejecting it depends upon our conscience as well as our commitment to the Lord.  By accepting such prasad, if a Christian feels that his faith will be at stake or his commitment will be disturbed or even if he has some fear of power encounter, then he has every right to refuse it.  But in my last twenty years as a bhakta of Jesus I never faced any problem nor has my Hindu neighbour ever felt that he has won me back to his faith. 

But the question of our weak brother’s conscience is always raised.  But again the differing contexts of the New Testament and today must be fully accounted for.  The weak brother in the New Testament was one who might mix up idolatry and discipleship to Jesus on seeing my ‘enlightened’ practice of eating what was offered to idols.  But today it is invariably the problem that the ‘weak brother’ is a Christian who gets annoyed at seeing what he believes to be compromise.  Such a person is never tempted to worship idols so we need not fear causing him to stumble in the biblical sense.  He needs more understanding and we must strengthen his personal faith and commitment to the Lord rather than preventing him from building up his relationships with others.  How long he is going to remain weak?  Teach him and strengthen him and if he remains unteachable in this area then simply ignore him.

If one calls this syncretism, then we have to say that Paul himself was such a syncretist when it came to building up his relationships with the Jews.  Leaving Acts 16:3 (which seems a total contradiction to the decision taken unanimously based on the issue that Paul himself had brought before the council in Acts 15) and Acts 18:18 just take Acts 21:21-26.  What Paul has done here is what we are doing with our own people.  Here Paul’s aim is not to convince the Jewish Christians, but to win back his own unbelieving Jews.  How far he was successful is not our question.  But what we see here is his spirit of building up his relationships with his own people.  What Paul has done as a Jew is what we are doing as Hindus.  If he were here in India, he would have done the same thing.  Similarly in the other issue of circumcision he never allowed the Gentile converts to become Jews, nor stopped the Jews to remain as Jews.—from Living Water and Indian Bowl.

* Tripatiji:  That is true.  Let me tell one real story from my own life.  It happened during 1981 or 1982.  That time I was working in a factory and we got factory bus freely to go to Haridwar.  So some sixty of us went and there was our Security Officer of the factory with us.  He was a drunke d, but he warned us that we cannot drink at Haridwar, as we were going to a pilgrimage.  So when finally all the ritual and bath were finished, we counted the money and totally we all had only around thirty or fourty rupees.  But it was not enough to buy liquor to share with all outside Haridwar on our return trip.  But that Security Officer said, ‘no problem. Don’t worry I will arrange for it.’  Then he put lot of sandal paste and red tilak on his forehead, wore few rosaries (rudhrakshas) and spread the sheet under a tree and we all joined with him in singing bhajan as we also had the instruments with us.  He asked all of us to put what all the money that we had on that sheet.  Within one hour we managed to collect more than seven hundred rupees.  Because several people came and throw some money on the sheet and touched that Security baba’s feet seeking his blessing and went away.  Then with that money collected from other pilgrims and devotee of Security baba, we had a good party on our way back. [this is a part of my dialogue with Tripatiji.  Pl. don’t share this with others without my permission.  Thanks]

@@@

Dear Dr. Sunil Jayakaran,                                     Chennai, June 19, 1999.

Greetings in Jesus Name.

I thank God for the wonderful fellowship that I enjoyed with you and your group at the Ashram.  Your questions and comments helped me to think deeply learn more from the bible.  As the Key-board in my Computer developed some problem I cannot type all we discussed and sent to you as I have promised.  However I have done it now and sending along with this letter.

What all I shared with were mere brain storms and I myself found some contradiction in what all I said and even some mistakes.  So after typing our discussion from the tape recorder, I went through them and changed some points.  Rick also corrected some theological mistakes and gave proper bible references.  So you may find some of my answers get changed here in this typed script.  Still these are not my final opinion.  As I am in the process of learning, I am ready to receive any right correction.  Remember that I am a lay man and not a theologian and prone to do mistakes.

Kannan told that you have invited me to share in some meeting related with your hospital on July fourth.  But I am leaving for north tomorrow and will be back only in September first week.  Sorry I couldn’t come for that function.  However as we have planned I will visit Nagarcoil either at the end of September or first week of October and tentatively the dates would be September 24,25,26 or October 1,2,3.  If it is ok for you please confirm it writing to Erode. 

Thanks for your gift.  However as the Catridge cost more I could not buy it at Kodai.  Convey my regards to your wife and children and other friends there.  God bless you.

Yours in Christ,

Dayanand Bharati

                                    A Dialogue with Dr. Jayakaran and Dr. Jayrish

Dr. Sunil Jayakaran:  As far I understand the Bible (Immersion) Baptism is an external sign for accepting Christ on both side viz., the Christian society or the church and the individual…but Christian say that a born again Christian should have immersion baptism.  What is your opinion?

DB:  First of all we should understand that bible is written in oriental context.  As far as my knowledge goes, baptism is a non-Jewish ceremony borrowed by the Jews from the gentiles in their exile.  Particularly when any gentile wanted to become a Jew, the Jews gave baptism.  In order to give religious meaning to such conversion, the Jews might have well used the gentile’s own ceremony to initiate him/her to their faith and community.  To say in other words they used the existing ceremony of the gentile society to make him/her to understand the importance of that ceremony (this may be too much reading of my view in their practice).

            Baptism was known among various gentile societies and bible encyclopaedia will give all the details about it.¹  In the Qumram Community to which John the Baptist might have related in some way baptism was used as an initiation to include others in their Order. So neither John the Baptist or Jesus introduce any new ceremony, but only used the existing one, of course giving new meaning to it.  The first century book about the Church order called Didache talks about children baptism.  In the book of Acts we read that the Philippino jailer along with his family were baptized at midnight.  And if it was actually at midnight is it possible for Paul to arrange for any immersion baptism?

            As far as the Bible is concerned, baptism is only an outward sign and a ceremony symbolizing the inward conversion.  If we miss this point and give much importance to the mode of that ceremony then the same bible will contradict our view.  For example Corinalius first received the Holy Spirit and then he was baptized.  Can we also insist that before giving baptism one should receive the Holy Spirit with the same way as Cornalius received with external sign?

            Above all mode of ceremonies should be adjusted according to the locality.  In Siberia and in the land of Eskimos immersion is impossible—unless one has special kind of arrangements with hot water etc.  So in our movement also we don’t give much importance to the mode, but adjust according to the need of the place.

Sunil:  Some say that when Jesus Himself received immersion baptism from John, why should not others  also?

DB: It is a poor comparison. Regarding Jesus we know that he received baptism from John but it never mentions what kind of baptism he received.  Above all John was giving a baptism of repentance.  But in the case of Jesus the meaning has completely changed because he needed not receive a baptism of repentance.  So if we insist on the mode of baptism instead of its meaning then we will miss the point.  And if we insist only on the mode of baptism and not on its meaning then we have to accept that Jesus not only received immersion baptism but also a baptism of repentance.  If it is not true then this itself is a proof that in every kind of baptism only meaning is important and not the methods.   The baptism of Jesus was a sign, particularly to reveal who Jesus is to John.  Though Jesus received the same mode of baptism, which is not clearly mentioned in the bible, its meaning has completely changed for Jesus.

            Secondly we don’t know exactly the meaning which the immediate disciples of Jesus attached with baptism which they gave.  That is why in the Early Church Doctrines when it comes to the baptism it was not mainly the mode but its meaning become center of debate.2

            Finally we cannot do certain things and need not do because Jesus has done them.  Jesus died for the sin of the world on the Cross.  Can we do it?  At least can we fast forty days as Jesus has done.  And even if can fast for forty days (A Jain monk fasted for a whole year in Bangalore) is it necessary?  Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, fed 5000 with two loafs of bread.  Can we do the same?  Most of the Signs and wonders which Jesus has performed have its own purpose.  They are Signs pointing the Saviour.  So when signs and wonders become the criteria, then they will become the end in themselves at the cost of the Saviour.

            So it is a poor comparison.  Christ is unique one.  He came to the world to do certain things in an unique way which are possible only for Him.  Even washing the feet of the disciples by their guruji is an unique event.  Without understanding its spiritual meaning and teaching, if we simply follow the pattern, then that too will become a blind ritual. Now missing the meaning we can repeat the same act.  But that is not what Jesus wanted us to do.

            Paul said I came only to preach and not to baptise.  Jesus Himself never gave baptism.  That repented thief on the cross never received baptism.  Above all we don’t know what kind of baptism the disciples received?  I don’t mean the mode—but even the meaning of their baptism itself.

            So if we fail to understand the context and meaning, and take any verse as it is will deprive us to comprehend the will  of God  for us.  If we insist one thing out of context then it will contradict with another thing in the Bible.  Bible should interpret the bible.  So when we insist one thing in the bible, it should not contradict with another thing in the bible.

Sunil:  In other words, can I from my personal conviction say that Jesus does not expect me certainly to undergo immersion baptism.  Rather it is more important for me to live as a good Christian as a good doctor in the hospital, good husband to my wife, father to my children.  Can I take that this is much more important?

DB:  Definitely.  I don’t think that immersion baptism is the only criteria to prove that we are living as God expects.  What we are is much more important than what we feel, think, understand or do.  But if some one feels that such a mode of baptism will help him in h

his spiritual life, then he can go for it.  But he should never make it as the criteria for everyone.  Faith is the relationship with a Person—Jesus—rest are secondary.

Sunil:  Is there any particular verse in the Bible which specifically says that one should under go the immersion baptism to be saved or born again.

DB:  The problem with us is that any body can give any kind of interpretation to the bible.  Paul talks about baptism and the Letter to the Hebrew also talks about it.  But all these are to be understood in the given context.  What Paul says in those verse are not any particular mode of baptism.  Some time it is not baptism itself which Paul may be speaking there.  In the whole context he wants to impart some other teaching in which baptism is also mentioned.  And in our enthusiasm to insist in one particular point, we may even miss the main teaching.  So we should guard ourselves from the danger of airlifting one particular verse or single point out of context and impose our own meaning on it.

            Even in a given context Paul may talk about baptism or its importance.  But the whole context is not talking about baptism, but some other matter.  It is important for us to understand that main point and not side tracked with so many other points which may be mentioned there.  Take all the references about baptism in the bible and do a study on them.  In many places  it may not baptism as the central subject but some other thing and if we miss this we may not understand the mind of the author.

Dr. Jayrish:  What about Sabbath day?

DB:  Sabbath is just a Sabbath and there is nothing importance attached with Saturday.   First of all we should remember that Jewish people never used any name for the week days, as we use like Sun-day, Mon(moon)-day etc.  It was just the first day of the week , the second day of the week.  Even in the New Testament there is no mention of any name for the days.  After resurrection, the Jewish Sabbath lots its importance for the believers and the day of resurrection become important to them.  Sabbath means rest.  God expect you to take rest and not to worship.  I personally think that on Sabbath day the Jewish people didn’t gather to worship but it is a day of rest.  Even the Sabbath gathering in the Synagogue was a later development after the exile.  So though the NT retained several OT terms and concepts their meaning have completely changed.  But if we insist on implementing those OT concepts with the same meaning we cannot do it.  So where in the bible   God ask you to worship on Sabbath.  Above all we Hindus worship every day and not just three hours in a week in a church.  Therefore in our movements we don’t have these kinds of problem.

Sunil:…Suffering can be for two reasons, based on the bible.  One can be the consequence of sin and second one is to glorify God’s name….what is your opinion regarding suffering because of the consequence of sin.

DB:…though I too agree with these two points on suffering, I would like to add a third one.  And I give much emphasis to the third one.  As we all inherit a common human heritage, some times or most of the time suffering is the consequence of common evil done by us collectively .  An individual may not be the part of the evil done by others, but as he is part of that particular community or society, or system he/she too has to share in the suffering.  Some time an innocent person may suffer because of others mistake.  For example a person may suffer because of some sickness due to the environmental pollution done by others to which he/ she might not have contributed any thing.  This kind of suffering is neither because of his/her personal sin nor to glorify God.  As every individual is a part of a system and society he/she too has to suffer because of the common evil and here it is not a consequence of his/her sin.  As we have violated natural law and God given law collectively as human being, even innocent people have to suffer.

            Suffering because of one’s personal sin, particularly which Paul address in I Corinthians in the context of taking communion service also is to be understood with the background of that people’s world view.  Most of the letters of Paul addressed are to the gentile converts whose world views are not similar to that of the Jews.  Particularly in Greek world view like that we have in India they believe in fatalism which cannot be altered or averted.  So keeping this in mind Paul has to address such topics, of course giving his God given inspiration, but definitely going outside the Jewish world view.

            So even if a believer suffers because of his/her sin or somebody’s sin he/she can glorify God through it.  But as God does not want any one to suffer, He need not glorify His name through our suffering.  At the same time God may select few individual to participate in His suffering to glorify His name.  Or to show to the world that there is a God to suffer along with human being God may select few individuals like Paul, Mother Theresa etc.  God entrusted stewardship in our hand and when we abused nature, we have to reap the consequence.  In this case we can neither blame God or our own sin.

Sunil: But Bible talks about the suffering because of the consequence of sin, as we see in the case of David.  Is there any specific bible verse which says that suffering is because of human society as such or we are part of a civilization.

DB:  I don’t think that bible anywhere specifically says about suffering as the consequence of common heritage or part of a system and society.  But we should be careful even here.  Take for example of David’s  suffering because of his sin.  Why God has to take such a drastic action against David.  Because he was a leader to the nation which God has elected to reveal His purpose and glory, He has to punish the leader who set a bad example for others.  Though no one initially knew what David has done, yet he cannot hide it from God and that is why God sent the prophet to pronounce that punishment to David.  Even in the Church history, whenever any leader has violated God’s law, the punishment or suffering was severe than that of common people.  More we have the privilege more we have the responsibility is the principle.  Why Jews suffered more than any other race in this world?  As they violated God’s law as a chosen people they have to reap their consequence.  So we must be careful to generalize a principle which is applied to a particular person or nation.  In the case of Anneniah and Suffira God has to take such a drastic step as they set a bad example to an infant church.  God can tolerate our weakness but never our hypocrisy and particularly our sin become a stumbling black to others God has to take drastic step.  There are certain sins, according to John which leads to death and others which are not (1 Jn. 5:16).  When God was so merciful to common people He was very hard on leaders.  The woman caught in adultery was not actually set free but those people who brought her to trap Jesus were humiliated.  In a sense they were the one whom Jesus punished.  The punishment to that woman was in a different level.  In stead of punishing her physically, Christ gave a strong verdict to her telling her sin no more—which means she cannot go back to her old way.  Finding a new means to make a living to a prostitute, particularly in Jewish community, I think was not easy one.  While she too was punished for her sin privately, those Jews were publicly humiliated because of their hypocrisy.  It is easy to die one time by stone throwing than to be publicly humiliated and yet go on to live.

Sunil: What are your comments on sin descending to generation—the grand child suffer because of his/her grand parent’s sin.  This may come closer to what we discussed as inheriting a common heritage.

@@@

DB:  I think this concept of sin descending to generations in Old Testament also has its own limited context.  As God has called a nation and never gave the responsibility to one individual, their consequence also is collective.  As the responsibility was collective the consequence also was collective.  At the same time we read in Jeremiah that each one is responsible for his own sin and it won’t be passed to generation.  In these kinds of statements (which are like proverbs) certain things are given as general principles and not necessarily as absolute statements.  However most of the OT teaching has its own limited context of what God has said and done to the chosen nation.  But when it comes to the NT time, things have changed because of what Christ has done on behalf of us.  Even sin descending to generation is a curse one way but thankfully Christ has removed that curse on the cross.  Though some time we have to reap the consequence of  the sin by our parents definitely it is not necessarily any punishment passing generation after generation.  The children of a thief or a drunkard may suffer but it need not be a punishment on them.  Though God has forgiven our sins yet we have (including coming generation) to reap the consequence, as some one has well said, ‘we have the right to choose but not the consequence of our choice, they in the hands not that of our own’.

Sunil: Initially I had some doubts regarding monotheism and polytheism.  Still at certain point I thought that it is not right to say that Jesus is the only way….I read some books on this subject and nothing was convincing me.  I took part in the Taftee program which clearly says that Jesus is the only way…Christ alone had dual personality human and divine who can bridge the gap between God and man and it was very much appealing to me….But one servant of God said that  personally he has lots of respect for Guru Nanak whose teaching are very similar to that of Christ and he said that it is very difficult for him to say that a follower of Guru Nanak won’t attain salvation..  And if this was from the mouth of a learned Christian who has given up every thing to serve the Lord…I also personally believe that there might be a small group of Hindus and Muslims who have lead a very pure life before knowing Christ and I consider that God being a very just and fair person I think that He will definitely take them in His fold when it comes to the judgement day.  What are your comments

DB:  I will start from the last point.  There are several people leading wonderful life….but for me the best human life can be compared with another human life.  What is good life in one society need not good for another society.  A man who is leading a best life according to human standard is only a human criteria.  But judgement according to the bible is not based on what standard of life you are leading in this world as all human standards are fall short of God’s perfection.

The center of Paul’s gospel is the concept of righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17).  No one can be righteous in their own effort (Rom. 3:9, 20).  We never become righteous in the sight of God but Christ becomes our Righteousness (1 Cor. 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5:21).  So according to the bible the only criteria for judgement is whether one has accepted the righteousness of Jesus or not.  We cannot attain to this, it is a free gift (Rom. 5:17).   Others may not agree with this but according to the bible no good life of human righteousness is good enough, but the standard of the righteousness of Jesus is how one must compare his /her life.  People like Guru Nanak’s teaching and life may be the best one compared with other human beings.  But they are relative values.  Following their teaching a person can become better from good and best from better.  But after that—stagnation.  Whereas in Christ there is no end for sanctification, no comparison or limitation based on relative human values; it is becoming Christ like.  So even the best human life on earth can never be the perfect life for God to declare him righteous according to His standards.  Then how can we say that God will judge a small pocket of Hindus or Muslims or any one including Christians who are living a best life?  Our righteousness or life is not the criteria according to the bible for God’s judgement.  Our righteousness may be unrighteousness for others.   Of course this point of Salvation is by grace only and judgement according to our work is a difficult topic to comprehend.  Our outward life is the best sign to show that we are saved, but however best our life may be yet as it is not perfect; it is by grace only we are saved and will be saved.

            With my limited understanding I can say though the bible talks about the judgement of all, yet most places it talks about the judgement of the followers of Christ and not about outsiders.  I think the only criteria by which outsiders will be judged is according to their conscience before God.  So even the best life on earth cannot claim that their conscience was clear before God and even to them.  So we don’t know what would be their end and it is too much to speculate that good people will also be saved because of their work.   Sadhu Sundar Singh said that his mother will be in paradise with him.  Stanley Jones said that he cannot imagine a paradise without Gandhiji.  But how do they know very clearly?  While bible talks in clear cut terms about the judgement of us, it does not say about outsiders with this much clarity.

I often say that Jesus is the lowest expression of God and highest expression of human being.  If God has to come down lower He cannot come down below the level of Christ the Lord.  If man has to go up no one can cross the limit of Jesus the human.  In order to reveal Himself to the human being God came down as Christ and below that He cannot come down.  If any human being reached the highest life on earth they have never lived up to the mark of Jesus.  Gandhiji, Guru Nanak, Mother Theresa and others are definitely above us, but they all are fall short  below to Jesus.  So Christ Jesus is the highest expression of human being and the lowest expression of God; a unique dual nature that none can fully understand.  The Bible never discusses this as a speculative philosophical point, it just gives us clear evidence that He was truly and fully God and truly and fully human.

Coming to the question of personality particularly that of Jesus as both God and Man, it is very difficult to define.  He is both God and man but the technical terms which we use at present such as personality, divine person, divine-human nature are not used as we use in theology.  Jesus as one person with two natures is defined and debated throughout centuries in the church particularly by the theologians, however it is very difficult to say precisely that this is what the bible says in clear cut terms.3

Regarding monotheism and polytheism bible talks about one God.  Though bible never talks about polytheism yet in some places the concept of pantheism is implicitly felt.  Where Hinduism is concerned no two Hindus are going to agree what finally is their view.  Even their saying that there is only one god who is called by different names is a superficial saying.  It is beyond our scope to touch on this subject here.  However according to the bible no one has ever seen God but Jesus alone revealed Him.  To say in other words Jesus gave interpretation to God (John 1:18?) and Paul also says the all the fullness of God dwells in Him (Jesus).

Regarding the nature of God whether He has attribute or not and whether He is transcendent or immanent, I would rather say that God in His own Being is Nirgun and Transcendent but the moment we think about Him or talk about Him His immanence and Sargun aspects are realised.  (According to the bible God has attributes and He is both immanent and transcendent.)

To the question whether Jesus is the only way or only God.  Within the limits of the bible yes He is the only way and only one God.  But regarding the judgement of the world particularly those who led the best life according to human standard it is doubtful.  Will God accept them in His fold, I don’t know.  Those who never heard about Christ, their judgement will be based on their conscience as Romans second chapter talks about.  As no one can lead a perfect life according to the standard of God how can we come to any definite conclusion about the judgements of others?

Sunil:  Yesterday in your message you told that after death in paradise we will able to identify people.  So far I come across it is something like what Paul says in one of his epistles it is like looking through a hazy mirror where everything is gloomy and not clear.

DB:  I told in my message that according to the bible we believe a paradise with personality….Bible says that we are going to see Jesus one day face to face.  Though we do not know how we will look like but we know that we will be like Him.  What Paul talks in I Corinthians chapter 13 about hazy mirror is not about heaven or about salvation but about our present state where we walk by faith and not by sight.  We are under a process towards glorification and in that process we are now seeing about our life in paradise as if seeing through a hazy mirror.  But I think so in some other  places bible clearly talks about a personality oriented paradise.  In the story of Lazarus in the lap of Abraham, though it was a story, yet it points out a personality oriented salvation, though we do not know exactly all the details about it here.

Jayrish:  Do you believe in evil spirits?

DB:  Yes.  There are dark forces in this world.  The clear evidence is within me first.  I always find the fight between flesh and spirit within me.  If this is true how much more it is true that there are dark forces fighting against God in this world.

Jayrish:  Do you believe in exorcism and what do you think about people possessed by evil spirits?  I my self have seen a man possessed by the evil spirit of Hanuman.  When the preacher prayed and asked the spirit to leave, he cried and said that his name is Hanuman and that time that man’s face actually changed like Hanuman.  So this is a proof that Hindu gods are evil spirits.

DB:  Here I have to disagree with your terms.  Though I too believe and have seen people possessed by evil spirits, yet all the Hindu gods are not evil spirits.  Hinduism is a polytheistic religion with pantheistic belief. 

It accommodates from highest philosophy to extreme animistic belief.  So several times what people worship as god is not real gods but evil spirits or ancestors deified.  So it is wrong on our part to call those spirits as gods.  Above all about Hanuman, there is no such god called Hanuman.  It is a mythological character of Ramayana.  So for me there exist no god called Hanuman.  But to your question that you yourself have seen that the spirit possessing that man saying its name as Hanuman and even that man’s face has changed like monkey.  In order to confuse common people, the evil spirits can use any name and form in which people have faith.  So there is actually no god called Hanuman, the evil spirits can use such blind faith.   Then how can we say that Hindu gods are evil spirits.

Jayrish:…what is your opinion about the gift of the Holy Spirit….after much confusion though I have the gift of the Holy Spirit have decided not emphsis about it.  But gifted sister told me that the fruits of the Holy Spirit is for your personal spiritual life but without the gift of the Holy Spirit you cannot minister to others.  If you want to lift any one for God you cannot do that without the gift of the Holy Spirit.  What is your opinion about it.

DB:  First of all we must remember that it is not fruits of the Holy Spirit but fruit of the Holy Spirit.  Though nine fruits are mentioned there, yet they all are one with various expression.  Regarding the gift of the Holy Spirit, gift is a gift and you cannot decide what kind of gift one should give to you.  God would give that gift which He feels is important for your ministry.  Though we can ask for any specific gift, yet it is finally the will of God to decide about it. 

Jayrish:  But Paul says that you seek for greater gifts like prophecy etc.

DB:  But what is the context in which Paul talks about it.   It is about love.  At the same time it is an artificial difference to say that the Fruit of the Holy Spirit is for our personal edification and Gift of the Holy Spirit is for our ministry.  Even when Paul talks about the gifts of the Holy Spirit he also talks about love as the highest gift of the Holy Spirit.  When love is also mentioned in the fruit of the Holy Spirit how it can be a gift of the Holy Spirit.  Bible never gives any clear cut distinction that these are the only list of the gift of the Holy Spirit and these are the fruit of the Holy Spirit.  They are overlapping each other.  So we need both the gift of the Holy Spirit and fruit of the Holy Spirit for our personal edification as well minister others.

1. `BAPTISM’ was not a `Christian’ sacrament exclusively.  It was a Jewish ritual having `PAGAN’ origin:

“…In the rites of Cybele and Attis, for example, he underwent a kind of baptism in the blood of a bull (taurobolium) or a ram (criobolium), which was slain above him (Cf.Prudentius, priest. 10.1011-50)”–J.N.Delly; Early Christian Doctrines; New York, 2nd edi. 1960. p.7

“…Baptism of the dead is also found among the Mandaeans [cf., the `Book of John’] and a similar rite is mentioned on Orphic tablets [Orphicorum fragmenta, 2nd ed., Otto Kern, ed., Berlin, 1963, p. 232].

“The property of immortality is also associated with baptism in the Greek world… p.59.

“In the cult of Cybele, a baptism of blood was practiced in the rite of the Taurobolium…”-p.60.

“The liturgical use of water was common in the Jewish world.  Mosaic law imposes the performance of ablutions before ritual entry into sacred areas; likewise, it describes the chief impurities that water can erase [Nm.19:1-22; Lv.14,15,16:24-28].  Under Persian influence, rites of immersion multiplied after the exile.  Some prophets saw in the requirement of physical purity a sign of the necessity of inner and spiritual purification [Ez. 36:25-28]. The Essenes linked the pouring forth of the divine life in man to purification by baptism in flowing water.  They practiced a baptism of initiation that brought the neophyte into the community at Qumran after a year’s probation.  However, the rite did not produce any magical effects, for, as the Manual of Discipline asserts, a pure heart was necessary for the bath to be effective, and an impure man who receives it merely soils the sanctified water [Manual of Discipline 6:16-17,6:21]”–p.60–Michel Meslin [Translated from French by Jeffrey C.Haight and Annie S. Mahler];  Baptism, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION; Mircea Eliade [editor in chief], vol 2., 1987; pp. 59-63. Macmillian Publishing Company; New York.

BAPTISM

            The early view, therefore, like the Pauline, would seem to be that baptism itself is the vehicle for conveying the Spirit to believers; in all this period we nowhere come across any clear pointers to the existence of a separate rite, such as unction or the laying on of hands, appropriated to this purpose.  It is true that in one passage, making an obvious allusion to Acts 8,17, Irenaeus betrays his recognition that the Spirit had been bestowed by the imposition of the apostle’s hands, but even here there is no hint that the contemporary Church was familiar with any such practice…— — J.N.D. Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, Second Edition, 1960; Harper & Row, Pub. New York,  p.195

…Tertullian carries us a stage further.  Baptism, he holds, is necessary to salvation; following Christ’s example, we are born in the water, and can only be saved by remaining in it.  It is administered to children, although he personally prefers that it should be postponed until they reach years of discretion..ibid., p.209

(Cyril of Jerusalem describes)…Just as the water cleanses the body, the Holy Spirit seals [sphragidzei- sfragizei) the soul.  This sealing takes place at the very momet of baptism (the passages cited link it directly with the immersion), and as a result of it the baptized person enjoys the presence of the Holy Spirit.—ibid., p.429

…As Augustine expresses it, `Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted’.  Not that it should be supposed that baptism safeguards the baptized Christian from sinning in the future.  Towards the end of the fourth century the heretic Jovinian argued this thesis, contending that once baptized a man could no longer be tempted by the Devil to sin.  It fell to Jerome to refute him…—ibid., p.429

            The widespread diffusion of infant baptism inevitably called for a rationale.  As we have seen, the Greek fathers were reluctant to attribute sin, at any rate in the sense of guilt, to newly born children.  Gregory of Nazianzus, who discussed the problem, gave as a good reason for their being baptized the desirability of their being sanctified and dedicated to the Spirit from earliest infancy; he stressed the importance of their being initiated and receiving the `seal’.  In the West Ambrose judged baptism necessary for infants, not as relieving them of inherited guilt, but as opening the kingdom of heaven to them; and Pelagius, as we saw, adopted a similar line….Thus for Augustine any child born into the world was polluted with sin, and baptism was the indispensable means to its abolition.  Jerome echoed his ideas…—ibid., p.430

…The fathers, it would seem, were greatly confused about the manner in which Christians received the Spirit, and echoes of the older doctrine are to be found side by side with the new.  Athanasius, for example, maintains that the Spirit is granted to those who believe and are reborn in the bath of regeneration;….According to Theodore, we obtain the gift of the Holy  Spirit at the same time as we receive baptism, for it is He Who regenerates us and is the first-fruits of our perfection.  Augustine similarly states that `the Holy Spirit dwells, without their knowledge, in baptized infants’…—ibid., pp.430-31

3.         In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers, we all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin; begotten from the Father before the ages as regards His Godhead, and in the last days, the same,  because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Marry, the Thetokos, as regards His manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in tow natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person]and one hupostasis[no English equivalent] –not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old and Jesus Christ Himself have taught us about Him and the creed of our fathers has handed down.—ibid., pp.339-340

@@@

Vanakkam,

Dear Swamy,

I am happy to hear the stones removed and you contributed to the local festival.  Your patience and efforts finally helped to remove the stone.

I am also facing a stone in my family.  My son and future daughter-in law are planning their wedding ceremony.  She wants to keep both the Christian and Hindu ceremony together.  We like the cultural elments from Hindu ceremony.  However, my wife resists the idea of having Agni and Ganesh pooja as part of the ceremony.  The girl, although a secular Hindu, wants to respect and please her mother.  I do not know how to resolve this.  Explain to me the nature and the importance of this pooja.

Solomon

Dear Dr. Ramaswamy,

Shanti!

I understand the tension that you face now not only to accommodate the expectation of your future daughter-in-law but also the demands of your wife too. 

Ganpathi puja is performed before commencing any event as he removes all kinds of hurdles to perform that event.  So every Hindu, however secular they are would prefer to do this puja first.  Even some of our scientist before going to the office to launch rockets, will break some coconuts on the way to a Pilliar temple. 

As most of the wedding rituals are based on Vedic norm, however the exact mantras were not much used in many Hindu weddings, yet Agni is considered as the witness as well the gate way to take all kinds of sacrifices offered to various deities.  However a Hindu might not remember all these details, yet because of tradition, she would like to continue it.

So the best option for you to first go for a secular marriage in a Register Office.  Then arrange for a clear church wedding and then allow the girl to do a Hindu wedding as per her tradition at her place, to which you all need not go.  This is the way Raman’s parents conducted the wedding of their last son in UAS.  As he married a white American girl, first a church wedding was performed.  Then Raman’s parents arranged a Hindu priest to conduct a paccka Brahminical wedding for the boy and girl, in which none of the girls relatives participated.

Regarding your son, he has to give some concession, as he already began to give as he decided to marry a Hindu girl.

Grace be with you

db

@@@