anima naturaliter Christiana

anima naturaliter Christiana

…to the literature which is regarded by them {Indian people} all as a part of their own sacred scriptures, I find in this also passages of such deep spiritual beauty and moral insight, that I have found myself constantly saying— ‘This is nothing else than Christian’.  It must be remembered in this connection, that the very greatest of all these passages are historically dated many centuries before the birth of Christ.  Therefore, it is not possible to say about them, that they were drawn directly or indirectly from the teaching contained in the New Testament.  For in their case at any rate, the New Testament had not been written when they were composed. —p. 219

This is the main problem with people of other faiths always comparing their faith either in an affirmative or negative way.  For example, most of the Christians will call people of other faiths as ‘non-Christians’ in a negative way.  They forgot the fact that people following other religions never call the Christians as ‘non-something’.  I am not sure whether even Muslims ever call others as ‘non-Muslims’ though they call others as ‘kafirs’,¹ though several scholars while writing about Islam used the word ‘non-Muslims’.  BETTER CALL PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE AND NOT WHAT THEY ARE NOT. Or don’t do as Andrew has done, while appreciating the teachings in other faiths, branding them compared with their Christian faith.  Why should any teaching, could not be as it is as teaching from Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. and should be ‘nothing else than Christian’.  Even if a liberal like C.F. Andrews held such a view, what to say about others who uphold exclusive claims about their faith and doctrine.  Anyhow Andrews used a better term, than to call Hindu scriptures as ‘demonic’ and from the devil as some of the fundamentalist among Christian’s brand Hindu Scriptures.  Of course, Andrews was not the first to use such terms. Back in the history …even Tertullian, the Latin-speaking African, used the words ‘naturally Christian soul’ about the so-called non-Christians:

…even Tertullian, the Latin-speaking African, who was otherwise not seldom harsh and narrow-minded in his outlook, could write about the ‘anima naturaliter Christiana’ {‘naturally Christian soul’} among those who were not Christians. (p.221) This one phrase of his writings has remained, down the centuries, as a current coin among mankind, while much else that he wrote may well be forgotten.” (ibid. pp. 221-222). 

Though Andrews appreciates such terms thinking that it is a positive attitude towards the people of other faiths, still people of other faiths won’t have similar appreciation about such statements, either by Andrews or Tertullian as they never beg for such a ‘Christian charity’.  Considering people of other faiths, to appreciate their own noble qualities as ‘naturally Christian soul’ is nothing but a derogatory term with a condescending spirit always upholding the view that one’s religious doctrine is higher than others.

Of course, we cannot blame the non-Hindus [the term that should not be used for them] alone in this regard.  I have read books by Hindus in which it is pointed out how the Bible derived its teaching only from Hindu scriptures.  One time I read in a book by a Hindu in which he tries to prove how all the 66 books in the Bible got their source only in Hindu Scripture.  [I have that reference with me, but I cannot immediately locate it]. Even some went to the extent of saying that Jesus came to India [particularly to Kashmir {May be for holidays or retreat in a cool place} and learnt from Hindu rishish and munis and went and preached in his place.

I can multiply such examples.  In similar a vein, I have read a few Christian books claiming Tiruvalluvar was at least influenced by the Gospel brought by Thomas to South India; the Gita borrowed its bhakti concept from the Uttara Veda (NT), Adamic faith was started in India, and the worst was one author trying to prove that Adam was Tamilian.  There is another group in the name of Tamil Samayam claiming that both Saivam and Vaishnavism is the offshoot of Tahomasic Christianity.  They have their own website and those who are interested to learn more about them can find information there. 

There are several common features in human history throughout the world which were mostly indigenous and influenced by neighboring and other cultures.  In the course of history which is original and which is the borrowed idea is very difficult to judge.  So better accept and respect the precepts and tenants of every faith and Scripture for its own merit than comparing with other faiths and Scriptures.  Similarity² in thought and acts doesn’t mean that they should be branded with our name and terms [as Andrews have used].  Hunger is a common experience for all living beings but the way of cooking differs from place to place.  Family is fundamental for social life but how it was organized and lived out is not the same everywhere.  Also note that similar such spiritual and moral teachings are found in all the religions of the world, as the basic needs of human beings are the same everywhere.

Accepting others as they alone show one’s maturity in life.

DB

31-01-2023.

Notes

1.. …They {Muslims} used this term to distinguish between themselves as believers (or “holders of faith”) and native (or Hindavi) unbelievers (kafirs). This term, both in Arabic and in Persian, was also used to distinguish Muslims from India-those who were called Hindavi – from Muslims who came from other parts of the Islamic world….— Robert E Frykenbberg, Constructions of Hinduism: at the Nexus of History and Religion. (First published in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1993, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 523-550), Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2009. p. 4

‘…Unlike the historians of the sultanate period, the Arab travellers refer to the non-Muslims as zimmis and not as kafirs (infidels).’ {S. M. Ikram, Muslim Civilization in India (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1964) p. 17}….— Arvind Sharma, The Ruler’s Gaze: A study of British Rule over India from a Saidian Perspective, Noida, HarperCollins Publishers, 2017, p. 269

2 F. Lorinser in Die Bhagavad-Gita: Ubersetzt und Erlautert from 1869 suggested the following similarities in Gita and Bible teachings:

John 3.3=BG 9.31; John 14.21=BG 7.17; John 14.6=BG 9.18; John 6.57=BG 6.30; John17.23=BG 6.29; Revelation 1.8=BG 6.29; Matthew 9.2=BG 18.66; Romans 14.23=BG 17.28.  (from S. R. Sastri 1993, 65)