Reflections:
The best topic with which to begin in order to understand Warren and Hooker’s (mis)understanding of Hinduism is their discussion of Hinduism itself. This is reflected throughout their letters. Though Hooker came to India, moved among common people, and learnt Sanskrit and Hindi, his and Warren’s understanding is still more academic in nature as they try to analyse their understanding from their religious and theological perspectives. So I will begin with Hinduism based on their letters in a chronological order. I have to quote the full text. Otherwise my response won’t make sense. Considering the language I cannot simply paraphrase their thoughts in my own words. This will completely distort their thoughts. So there is no other option but to give the whole text on which I would like to share my reflection.
Hinduism:
Warren: …He {Raimundo Panikkar}… so profoundly confident that Christ is the Universal Saviour & Lord, that he cannot put Hinduism as a ‘Way’ of life & thinking outside the realms of Christ’s Saviourhood & Lordship. I think that if one thinks of Hinduism as a ‘Way of life & thought’ & not primarily as a religion this may be a way forward. As he says there is no Orthodoxy in Hinduism only an orthopraxy,3 i.e. Each man accepts his karma & works at his dharma….(Letter 88 15 October 1966)—p. 206
3 See Panikkar, 1981, 12.—notes, 134, p. 206
DB’s Reflection: The problem is that when Hindus are not sure what Hinduism is, all the outsiders finally give their definition based on their own ideals and ideas. Panikkar is not the last authority to decide what Hinduism is. In his response about Panikkar Hooker wrote:
…He {Raimundo Panikar} said he believes that our task is not to try and convert Hindus, but to convert Hinduism, ‘to go with it into this death of the old mythology, to try to show Hindus a way in which they can still believe in their myths, and in doing so help them to meet the risen Christ.’ (Hooker Letter 2 December 1973)—p. 334
Db’s Reflection: Very poor understanding about Hinduism and Hindus. But Christians cannot (mis)understand more than this. See below by Warren:
…I find myself a little mistrustful of talk about ‘converting Hinduism’. I know this is his favourite line and it is paralleled by quite a lot of R C thinking at the moment. But what does it add up to? ‘Hinduism’ is a social and religious complex. As such time may modify it in one direction or another. By all means let us share with Hindus ‘in the death of their mythology’ tho’ how a non-Hindu does that I’m not sure but the encounter with the risen Christ is something inescapably personal and it involves discipleship. Whether discipleship and the re-mythologizing of myths are compatible I would not know….
…Raymond is (a) philosopher (b) an academic moving all the time at real academic level…A Philosopher is concerned ultimately to bring all thought into a unity therefore you mustn’t only read JUNG but other writers. Nonsense!!! If you were a philosopher you could wear a philosopher’s armour and go out to meet the Goliaths of Hindu philosophy. (p.335) But it was David with a simpler apparatus who dealt with Goliath. It could happen again! I am not asking you to press analogies, but challenging dear Raymond’s non-sequiturs to his approval of your analysis.– (Letter 433 12 December 1973).—pp. 335-36
Warren: …There is a sense in which, so I would guess, contemporary Hinduism can only be understood in terms of its ‘reaction to Islam and Christianity, just as the Hinduism of say the last 500 AD was in a substantial degree created by reaction from Buddhism. And the reaction was two-fold (a) a withdrawal into itself and a consequent rejection of the challenge, and (b) an unconscious response to the challenge by significant modifications. Do you think there is something in that? (Letter 209 22 March 1969)—p. 233
Hooker: …Hinduism in the north can only be properly understood against the background of its continuing grappling with the fact of Muslim presence….(Hooker to Warren 10 June 1971)—p. 267
DB’s Reflection: This ‘Hindu reaction to other faiths’ is only a textual Hinduism not the popular Hinduism. Viewing Hinduism only from a textual perspective will never help outsiders to understand the Hindu phenomena in its various facets. The relationship of Hinduism with other faiths is a very complex one. Any analysis of it based on the text alone won’t do full justice. A large section of Hindus lived neither withdrawing nor responding to them. Several scholars have documented it well (Gaeffke 1984, Ramaswamy, 2014, Stietencor, 2005, Bece, 2008, Hawley, 2015 Bayly, 1992.) It is beyond the scope of this paper to quote some important points and comments from other scholars. Whether common Hindus have any grappling with Muslims or not, religious leaders, theologians and politicians do. The dichotomy between North and South in relationship to Islam again shows the subjective experience of Hooker.
Hooker: …Such measure of success as I have, and the desire to do better, come directly from my faith in Christ. So far as I can tell no other faith gives its adherents a comparable passion, indeed I have yet to meet a single Hindu or Muslim who believes that there is another world to look at. Everything outside his own faith – and sometimes things within it – is rejected and often hated, certainly it is not worthy of understanding. (Hooker to Warren 17 July 1969)—p. 242
DB’s Reflection: It is not the concept of ‘worthy of understanding’ which cause Hindus’ and Muslims’ indifference to other religions. At least the Hindus think that as Mahabharata says,4 what all the other faiths are teaching and claiming is already in their religion. So there is no NEED to understand about other faiths. However, only a few evangelicals have this ‘passion’ to understand other faiths like Hooker. Most of the (Indian) Christians in general and evangelicals in particular never have that passion. In fact they not only ‘rejected’ but ‘often hate’ Hinduism. So claiming that Christian faith ‘gives its adherents a comparable passion’ is an over-exaggeration. Even Ziegenbalg was rebuked by his Halle professor and told not to waste his time in learning about Hinduism.5 Evangelical Christians always talk about the all sufficiency of Muktiveda, which is indeed a true doctrine when properly understood. One evangelical pastor in the north once said to me, ‘by reading all these books on Hinduism, you are wasting your time. All we need is to read the Bible properly and preach the gospel’.
Back in early 1990, I was invited to teach on Hinduism in an Evangelical Missionary Training Centre. After several days of classes, one day I went to the library to refer to a particular sloka in the Bhagavadgita. After searching in the books on Hinduism, as I couldn’t find a copy of the Bhagavadgita, I approached the Librarian to help me to get one. But to my surprise and dismay, he said that they don’t have the Gita in their library. And they are training students to reach Hindus. In those days the cost of the Gita was not even one rupee and one can get a copy anywhere in the bus-stand or railway station book shops. This is the condition of Evangelical’s interest to know and learn about Hinduism in India. –db
4 …whatever about Dharma, Artha and Kama, that is contained in this Bharata, may be met with elsewhere; but whatever is not in it, is not to be found anywhere. [Vaishampayana to Janamejaya].— Dutt, 1988, ADI PARVA, Ch. 62. p.83
5 ‘…When the early Protestant Tranquebar missionary, Ziegenbalg, sent home a thesis on Hindu beliefs and practices, his Halle professor told him “not to waste his time with studying pagan nonsense”’{Frank, Lucknow, p. 7. }
Warren: …This idea that the symbol in everything is very interesting & also goes a very long way into much Indian thinking. Is this the key to interpreting Idolatry – the idol is the symbol. If that is so then our understanding of the Biblical attitude towards idolatry maybe clarified thus – There is only One God, one term of reference in the Universe. And all truth & goodness & righteousness are in him. Idolatry is isolating a truth, a goodness, a moral quality, & by isolating it, distorting it. Idolatry encourages the belief in many terms of reference. And this makes for spiritual insecurity. Does that make sense? India’s philosophers get round it by insisting that all Symbols point to the ONE. But (p.242) in the process, so it seems to me, they lose all real sense of the Personal, of the real I – Though relationship of God & Man. There, I’m only feeling my way, prompted by your report of Satya Vir’s talk.(Letter 229 23 July 1969)—pp. 242-43
DB’s Reflection: Not only idols as symbols but the entire Hinduism upholds the ‘belief in many terms of reference’ to understand that one eternal Truth—which even need not be God according to many Hindus. Polytheism is the mainstream Hindu reality. All the talk about Monotheism in Hinduism is nothing but elitist Hindu response6 to outsiders’ criticism to polytheism.7 Since pluralism is the Hindu reality, trying to understand and interpret it with the basic tenets of other faiths like Christianity and Islam won’t help outsiders to understand this. Mere textual information and understanding is not enough. Even the so-called interaction and dialogue with Hindus, particularly by an outsider, cannot help them understand this. Because in such talk or dialogue, the Hindus know with whom they are talking. We will see more on idol worship in a separate heading.
6 …Since the nineteenth century Hindu thinkers such as Rammohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, Radhakrishnan, and others have been appropriating in varying degrees and ways the Enlightenment conception of religion. For example, like Muller, Dayanada Saraswati privileges the Veda as the only authentic text of Hindus, and he rejects image worship and constructs a pristine form of Hinduism based on the Veda. But unlike Muller who treats the Veda as an infantile document, Dayananda Saraswati projects the Veda as rational and scientific and thereby claims a superior status for it. Since the so-called Hindu renaissance there has been a tendency to construct Vedanta as the religion of Hindus, in response to Western critiques of Hinduism. In doing so, Hindus as replicating orientalist affirmations of Vedanta as the essence of Hinduism.— .( Rajah , 2017:140)
7 …Both orientalists ( William Jones and Max Muller) and missionaries (William Ward and J. N. Farquhar) adopt a textualized approach to Hinduism, each one presenting Hinduism from his differing theological stance…..It is particularly through the prism of biblical monotheism that orientalists and missionaries interpret and evaluate Hinduism. Jones situates Hinduism within the biblical time-framework and thus asserts the primacy of biblical revelation. Whereas Jones finds in Hinduism a distorted version of biblical monotheism, Muller locates in it an infantile monotheism which has yet to grow into full maturity. For William Ward, Hinduism is devoid of a living monotheistic god and therefore has no salvific value. Jones views Hinduism in the light of the Mosaic view of history as recorded in genesis, and Muller adopts an evolutionary approach, but both scholars, in different ways, use Protestant monotheism as a yardstick for evaluating Hinduism. As with Muller, Farquhar, too, subscribes to an evolutionary view of religion which holds Christianity as the fulfilment of Hinduism….( Rajah , 2017:139)
Hooker: …Again and again speakers used the phrases “these people set before us the road on which we must tread.” They contrasted the virtues of these folk with the blatant failings of present day society. But these were all domestic and family virtues, and I saw clearly what I had so often read about Hinduism, that there is no sense of obligation to anyone beyond the family and caste circle. (Hooker to Warren 4 October 1969).—p. 248
DB’s Reflection: This is the Christian problem of not reading and understanding Hindu society as a whole. There are enough epigraphic evidences where kings and others donate land and money to serve food to the travelers and poor. Till the recent past several rich people donated lands for the construction of public schools and hospital. A typical Hindu is expected to do five great sacrifice each day (panchamaha–yagna)8 taking care of fellow human beings and animals by feeding them. Of course, they have done it and still are doing it both to earn merit (punya) and get rid of past karmas, as the Christians are doing it with an agenda of conversion. There are few real exceptions but in general Christian charity is ‘either to convert or to the converts’. And the real tragedy now is that most of those Christian charitable works started with real love and concern for the poor and needy have now become commercial institutions about which Sudhakar aptly says:
Hospitals, schools, and orphanages as institutions of service in Christ’s name were begun during the colonial era and these were also centres of Christian propaganda.9 It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans.(Sudhakar p. 169, emphasis by db]
But for a typical Hindu, charity begins at home. In any religious discourse (attended by Hooker at Bareily), the speakers in general used to rebuke people falling down from the ideals which were set by their forefathers. It is like a preacher giving exhortations or warnings from the pulpit in any church service. But taking such rebukes as ‘failings of present day society’ and passing such remarks shows the Christian’s superiority complex and condescension of other people. However, note that:
…Even the Jesuits, behind their general attitude of superiority and condescension, occasionally praised the mass feeding of the poor that was practised both in temples and by princes and magnates….(Buffett, p. 191)
Some may say that Hindu charity is given only to earn merit and primarily as part of a religious act, since large portions of lands were given only to the temples and Brahmins (as Brahmadeyas). There is some truth in it, but all the evidence from the texts, epigraphic evidences and other records show how charity is not only a Christian prerogative. Below I am giving only a few references and I need not add my own comments on each point as they speak for themselves.) However it is worth noting as someone well said that: generosity and compassion are a common human impulse. My guess is that it grows out of the experience of dependence in the family. Religions simply codify what is already there in the human experience:
…Medhaatithi on Manu IV.5 says that when a person makes a gift through compassion, it is not the dana and pratigraha spoken of by the sastra; just as when a man gives instruction as to what is beneficial he does not care to see what the caste of the person to be benefited by the advice is, so a gift made through compassion is made irrespective of caste; and that when non-brahmanas reduced to a helpless condition take what is given by others, it cannot be said that they are assuming to themselves the livelihood by pratigraha which is a peculiar means of livelihood for brahmanas.(Kane, 1962-75, Vol. I Part. 116.)
Without being puffed up and engaging in japa without others seeing it is infinite. Devala says ‘sacrifice, gift and study lose their power and perish by being declared to others, by boasting about them or by repenting of having done them. Therefore one should not without good reason [such as protecting a gift etc.] proclaim one’s meritorious act…’Certain things when offered voluntarily by a person with his own hand must be accepted and not spurned even by one who does not ordinarily accept gifts…-ibid. Vol. II. Part. II. Ch.XXV. Daana. p. 849)
The texts took care to set limits to a man’s generosity. After emphasizing in very eloquent language the obligation to share one’s possessions, however meagre, with others, Veda-Vyaasa [IV.30-31] inculcate the doctrine that charity begins at home.[p.850]…In this Brhaspati only echoes what Manu says [XI.9-10] ‘the charity of him who has wealth enough to make gifts to strangers, when his own people live a life of misery, is only a false initiation of dharma [and not the true dharma], it is at first like honey but will taste like poison [later]. Whatever a man does for his welfare in the next world by stinting those whom he is bound to maintain, results in unhappiness to him while living and also after death’. The Anusaasana parva [37.2-3] declares that if one makes a gift stinting one’s servants, he makes himself a sinner, even though one may say that one would give whatever any one begs for [compare Luke VI.30 ‘give to every man that asketh of thee’…-ibid. Vol. II. Part. II. Ch. XXV. pp.850-51.
…In the many hymns of the Rg Veda addressed to Agni, the divine friend, we also come across a few texts that express in a very vivid manner the beauty of liberality, of sharing with others, especially with the needy, the urge to extend the circle of friendliness and unity outside the limited family group.10 (Panikkar, 1989: 833)
8 These food transactions are codified in the five great sacrifices (mahayajna) that are closely associated with the householder. Except for the sacrifice to the Vedic seers consisting of reciting the Veda, all these involve the offering of food: to gods, to ancestors, to human beings, and to all beings (bali offerings to bhutas). The householder thus stands at the center of these cycles of food transactions. Vasistha 8.14-8.16) calls the householder the best of the four asramas, because “as all living beings live dependent on their mothers, so all mendicants live dependent on the householder.” {Olivelle, 2000}— (Olivelle p. 194)
9 The missionary schools started increasingly to impart education through English in smaller towns as well, as they saw “English education as the most opportune way to reach the influential upper and ‘middling’ classes among whom they hoped to find native converts who might help in carrying Christian faith to the masses” (McCully, Bruce T. 1940. English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, New York: Columbia University Press (reprint1966) Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1966:38 based on missionary sources). In other words, the missionaries had a Downward Filtration Theory of their own for dissemination of Christian faith. (Anamalai, op.cit. p. 135)
10 Cf. VII.46;56; Cf. also AV IX,6, where hospitality offered to a guest is highly praised and is considered as important as the offering of sacrifice, each act of hospitality being shown to correspond to one of the sacrificial acts.
…A charitable gift given to a need person yields the utmost benefit. If it is given after entreaties it yields only half the benefit. (Shastri, 2002:92)
All sorts of charitable gifts recommended by the sages do not merit even a sixteenth part of the gift of protection to a living being.—ibid. Rudra-Samhita, Section V, Yuddha Khanda 5:24, p.828
…In order to escape from sin, a high-caste man must both be insulated from dangerous power and be generous and compassionate.10a The native system produces two dilemmas. First, no matter how one tries, he cannot entirely insulate himself from taint. Second, a man must be generous and compassionate in addition to being insulated from taint. Many in the past have written on the restrictions one must observe to attain respectability in South Indian society. What has not been sufficiently emphasized is the corollary of this doctrine: a man must also be compassionate, generous, and a crosser of boundaries to be accorded respect. (Hart, 1999: 128)
10a Some will argue that there is no conflict between the need to insulate oneself from taint and the moral imperative to be generous and compassionate. To take such a position is, I feel, to misunderstand the importance attributed to generosity in South India. Generosity means not only distributing wealth to the less fortunate, but eating with them as well. It is significant that eating is both the most dangerous act one does every day and the act which, more than anything else, one must share with others.—Notes, 15. p.128
…We should not be deceived by the usual translations of our dictionaries: “donation, gift, liberality”, because the modern meanings attached to these words do not coincide with the sense of dana– in traditional India. Gift-giving among us has become so exclusively a social ceremonial among friends and relatives and liberality so much associated with charity that we are apt to overlook their other aspects (p.208)….. It is in many cases the ceremonial setting which lends property and its transfer their social worth…. It somehow produces rich returns for the donor,10b for instance because the power ( a concept not rarely identical with wealth) and the prestige of a donor and the pride of the group to which he belongs often depended largely on his ability to maintain a reputation for generosity.10c(Gonda, 1985: 208-09)
10b It is however not true, as has often been contended, that the acceptance of a gift invariably binds the recipient to return something of equal or greater value.—Notes, 38, p.209
10c See e.g. R. Firth, Primitive economics of the New Zealand Maori (1929), passim. Among North-West American Indians honour comes not from the possession of wealth but from giving it away. In New Guinea a man gains status in his group not by possessing an object but because he has once possessed it….—Notes, 39, p.209
… The eulogy of the gift of food contained in RV. 10.117—compare especially st. 6 mogham annam vindate apracetaah satyam braviimi vadha it sa tasya/ naaryamanam pusyati no sakhaayam kevalaagho bhavati kevalaadi, from which it appears that the possessions of the man who does not give are his ruin and that “he who takes food alone eats nothing but sin”—is the basis of the later teaching of Bhagavat Gita. 3,13 bhunjate te tv agham paapaa ye pacanty aatmakaaranaat “those however are wicked and eat sin, who cook for their own sakes”; Manu 3, 118 agham sa kevalam bhunkte yah pacaty aatmakaaranaat, ViDh. (= VisnuSmrit) 67, 43)….—ibid. Gonda, p.216
…An important corollary is the notion that the merit of a grant is passed from king to king; that is, the current ruler, whoever he may be, enjoys the benefit of grants made in the past. He thus has no reason to (p.84) disturb earlier grants or confiscate land already given. Copper-plate charters show that these ideas were remarkably widespread by the fifth century. In the Vakataka grants of Pravarasena II (circa CE 419?-55), the following lines were used repeatedly.10d
And on this point two verses sung by Vyasa should be taken as authoritative:
The giver of land rejoices in heaven for sixty thousand years (but) he who confiscates (granted land) and he who assents (to such action) shall reside in hell for that period! Whosoever confiscates land that has been given, whether by himself or by another, he incurs the guilt of the slayer of a hundred thousand cows! (Willis, 2009: pp. 84-85)
10d J. F. Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 3 (Calcutta, 1888): 247 Llines 39-41); V. V. Mirashi, Inscriptions of the Vaakaatakas, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. 5. Ootacamund, (1963): 29.—Notes, 18, p. 276
….It was under British rule that temple property passed into the hands of corrupt pujaris and mahants. Even worse, the colonial state and courts had legalized their claims to property and wealth belonging to the ‘Hindu public’. [Devottar Sampatti, 338. Also see Akshaykumar Bandhopadhyaya, ‘Hindu Dharm, Uska Sharir Aur Atma’, Kalyan, August 1944, p. 1118.]…..—ibid. p. 126
Hooker: …For the first time, I found Hinduism attractive. It is of course a domestic religion and one need I think to see it in its homes rather than in its temples… (Hooker to Warren, 4 October 1969)— Graham Kings, Christianity Connected: Hindus, Muslims and the World in the Letters of Max Warren and Roger Hooker, New Delhi, 2002, Indian Edition, ISPCK, 2017. p. 249
DB’s Reflection: Finally, he found out the truth.–db
Hooker: …What is becoming abundantly clear is that God or the gods have no will which they are concerned to make effective among men. It is this which makes Hinduism so concerned with the salvation of the individual and so relatively unconcerned about God. At least I think this is so. I don’t think any Hindu could meaningfully pray ‘Thy will be done’. (Hooker to Warren, 3 January 1970). P. 257
DB’s Reflection: Hinduism is ‘dharma’ centred and not ‘god’ centred. God(s) can help if their help is sought by a devotee to work out her salvation. But they need not be troubled if one chooses not to trouble them. The will of God is not there in Hinduism whereas even gods are subjected to karma and dharma. Closer to the ‘will of god’ in Christianity is fatalism in Hinduism on which even gods have no control. However, in bhakti tradition gods can overcome any kind of hurdle in a bhaktas life.—db
Hooker: …But for the Hindu, the truth is never at stake, in fact one wonder if truth ever really means anything since everything can be true at the same time! (Hooker to Warren, 3 January 1970)—p. 258
DB’s Reflection: Truth, like dharma, is always relative to the Hindus and I think the same to everyone in this world. Still I cannot understand what actually this TRUTH is? 11 For example after completing his teaching at Gurukulam when the student leaves, the teacher in parting advice tells him: satyam vada; dharmam chara—speak the truth and follow the dharma. But this truth is not defined and each one should consider it in relation to a given time. Christianity is ‘god centred’, whereas Hinduism is ‘dharma’ centred which is always relative; so is truth.
So when it comes to the understanding of the truth in Hinduism, we should also remember its various contexts:
…There are three meanings of the word truth; metaphysically it means the reality (Sat) or substance, the first principle which holds the earth and has been identified with rta as a cosmic principle (Rig Veda. I.152, I; X.85.1) ….With the raise of the Brahmanas {part of Vedas} and when ‘sacrifices’ became the only means to attain salvation ‘truth’ received a new meaning and religiously it came to mean the exact performance of the sacrifice and the recitation of mantras12 … for Valmiki, truth was a moral virtue. Therefore, he says, ‘Satyam hi paramam dharmam’ {Truth alone is the highest one} (Ayodhya Kanda, 14:7). (Khan, 1965: 204) (My translation)
11 In the Bible, Truth is not an intellectual agreement. As indicated, in the Old Testament it is integrity. In the New Testament, it is a relationship with Christ. From both of these, right actions will ensue. In regard to the relativism of truth, one must always tell the truth, but not necessarily all the truth. One needs to make a judgment on what is helpful. (Anonymous)
12 …Satya in the Brahmanas does not refer to any moral principle but it simply means the right performance or conduct of sacrifice, i.e., according to the rules, and the right recitation of the Mantras. (Khan, 1965, pp. 31-32)
I think like ahimsa which is always understood as not-killing or not doing any (physical) harm, truth is understood as not telling any lie. But as far as I know, Truth is not just telling the facts as facts. Sometimes telling the facts in a different way is required. This is called a white lie. I still cannot understand; what is the Muktivedic view on Truth? Merely quoting ‘say yes to yes and no to no; rest is from the evil one’ is not what telling the Truth means in Indian context. ‘Truth is not something that can be done in a package and learned in a formula. Communication on any truth that matters can only be indirect, and it can be apprehended only by a process which is more than merely intellectual’, says Stephen Neill (p.254)
Regarding the Muktivedic teaching on Truth Keener says:
The Greek concept of truth emphasized reality; the Old Testament word translated ‘truth’ had more to do with integrity or faithfulness to one’s word or character. Jewish thought characterized God as the Truth, so Jesus’ hearers should realize that he refers specifically to God’s truth in the Jewish sense. (Keener, 1993, JOHN, 8:32 p.286)
… ‘Truth’ in Old Testament and Jewish tradition was God’s covenant integrity; the concept was much more abstract to Greek ears and perhaps impractical to many Romans.—ibid. JOHN, 18:36-38a. p.309
‘No lie’ includes theological lies, i.e., false doctrine (3:9; 1 Jn. 2:22). Truth telling was important in ancient ethics, although it could be suspended even in the Bible to save life (e.g., Ex 1:19-20; Jer 38:25-27).—ibid. REVELATION, 14:5. p. 800 (emphasis added)
Klostermaier further explains this:
What is Truth? Pilate the politician asked when Christ stood before him, claiming to be witness to Truth. (Jn. 18:37) As a man who knew the backstage of imperial politics, who had to compromise often enough with the powerful of the locality, and of the day in order to keep his own position, and to make his career, he was virtually certain that there was no truth as such. For him it was a matter of political expediency to call one of two statements true and its opposite untrue. It all depends on your standpoint. The worldly-wise man knows that men and their words can be used and manipulated to serve one’s ends which one conveniently then calls truth. (Klostermaier, 1986: 17)
…Jesus Christ says about himself: ‘I am the Truth…’ (Jn. 14:6) that truth is not a mere theory, or an opinion about something or nothing, it is a liberating power. ‘Know the Truth and the Truth will make you free.’ (Jn. 8:32)—ibid. p. 19
…The Truth that liberates is not the objective truth of the uninvolved observer but the Truth which is. It requires, and brings about a radical change in one’s life. Man normally clings to his ‘illusions’ because he is motivated by selfish desires and passions, by fears and all kinds of negative reactions. A selfish man cannot reach Truth, nor can a man under the influence of passions or fear. The Truth which our sages mean is not more of information about things—it is becoming and being real.”—ibid. p. 21
And this suspension of telling a truth (see Keener above) in order to save (innocent?!?) life becomes more the important point in arguing about Truth in India. Even Valluvar who claims to be the top most teacher giving ethical teachings says that even telling a lie becomes truth: Even untruth has the stamp of truthfulness/ If it brings good sans harmfulness (Even a harmless lie can be considered as truth when it brings benevolent results.)(Kural, 292, Rajaram, 2009: 60.)
Mahabharata and Manu echo the same reality:
— (Santi parva.329.13.287.19),’speaking the truth is the proper thing; but rather than truth, speak that which will lead to the welfare of all; because, that in which the highest welfare of all; consists is in my opinion the real Truth’ (Narada to Suka).—Tilak, 1986:46)
(Santi parva.109.15.16–Bhiisma to Yudhisthira)) ‘if you can escape without speaking, then do not speak under any circumstances; but if it is necessary to speak, or if by not speaking you may rouse suspicion in the mind (of another), then, telling a lie has been found, after mature deliberation, to be much better than speaking the truth…’—ibid. p.47
(Adiparva .82.16; see also Santi parva.109 and Manu 8.110)—‘There is no sin in speaking the untruth on the following five occasions, namely, if in jock or while speaking with woman or at the time of marriage, or if your life is in danger, or for protecting your own property’–ibid.p.51
‘Whenever the death of a Sudra, of a Vaisya, of a Ksatriya, or of a Brahmana would be caused by a declaration of the truth, a falsehood may be spoken, for such a falsehood is preferable to truth’. (Manu XIII.104) (Khan, 1965:142)
In Indian worldview there exists no absolute truths and when it is related to ethics, the relative nature of truth is emphasized as we note in Valmiki Ramayana:
…through the different characters Valmiki wishes to prove that there are no eternal or absolute truths or standards of moral judgments. This does not mean that Valmikian subjectivity of moral standards is a mere whim of one’s mind, or that Valmiki in the guise of this relativity of Dharma, preached moral laxity. What he means to convey is that ‘rightness’ together with ‘goodness’ and ‘utility’ from a harmonious whole and a standard of moral judgement, to single out any one of these and look upon it as an eternal guide would tend to subversion. For the sake of ‘rightness’, ‘goodness’ and ‘utility’ should not be sacrificed, but, on the other hand, it would be proper if ‘rightness’ is sacrificed for the sake of ‘goodness’ or ‘utility’.
Another point we must note is that in these very perplexing moral situations, Rama and Sita do not take refuge in the ‘authority’ but use their reason and try to do what is best under the given circumstances, i.e., when the voice of authority failed to guide them, they found conscience to be the best guide.—ibid. Khan, p. 143
This complexity of the relative nature of truth in saving the creatures is the biggest moral dilemma for many. There is a story in the Mahabharata. When thieves chased a person, he hid from them. And Kausika who was performing tapasya noted it. Then that man requested Kausika not to tell the thieves. When the thieves came searching for that man and asked Kausika, in order to not tell a lie he told them where that person was hiding. The man was caught and killed and Kausika went to hell because of that act. And according to Matilal:
… Kausika had actually four choices open to him. He could (i) tell a lie, (ii) remain silent, (iii), courageously tell the bandits that he would not help them; and (iv) tell the truth (which he did). He would have saved an innocent life, if he followed any one of the first three choices… …For, according to some philosophers today, the moral claim is a claim that cannot be avoided even by eliminating desires. If he had eliminated his desire for heaven, he would have lied to save innocent lives, for that would then have been his moral obligation. (Matilal, 2002:31)
And it is worth reading what Matilal says further about it:
…It was said by Krsna that, according to him, saving the lives of the creatures should get the highest priority (praaninaam avadhas taata sarvajyaay perjuraan mato mama, Mahabharata, 8.249.20 cr. Ed.). He clearly ranked the value of saving a life higher than telling the truth. Here Krsna clearly deviated from Kant, or even from the ideal that was sometimes upheld by Rama in the Ramayana. In other words, anachronistically speaking, Rama was more Kantian. But I believe Krsna’s ethics had a concern for a richer scheme of values, moral or non-moral, presupposing a very complex societal and familial structure. It also envisions a society when saving innocent lives has a higher priority. (p. 30)
When Kant asserted that truth-telling should unconditionally get the highest priority, it is interesting to note that an example was cited which was similar to the Kausika story of Krsna. A contemporary French philosopher criticized it and said that if a murderer had been chasing a person who had taken shelter in the house of a moral agent; it would not be the obligation of the agent to tell the truth to the murderer. Kant, in reply, argued that truth-telling would be an unconditional obligation, and, therefore, the contingency of the situation should not affect it at all. Kant, however, made some comments in the appendix of his Critique of Practical Reason which are worth mentioning. Kant argued that truth-telling, in that case, would not necessarily lead to murder. For it might not have been easy for the murderer to locate the person who was hiding. Or the victim might have fled by the back door. Or, when the murderer would be searching for the victim, the police or other neighbours might rush in as a group to stop the murderer and arrest him. These remarks of Kant are of interest to us, for they show that even a great philosopher like Kant was trying to find a way out of the tight corner which had arisen as the combined result of his rigid ethical principle and sound logical reason.—ibid. P. 31
Thus:
‘since every civilisation has a particular understanding of truth, the question as to what truth is becomes of greatest importance.’… (p. 95) The underlying principle, according to the Mahabharata, is: ‘What is truth only formally in speech, is not necessarily truth; one should discriminate between truth and untruth with regard to their effect.’
But relativism might easily degenerate into opportunism, into unprincipled self-seeking, where what was palpably wrong would be sought to be justified on one ground or another, in bad faith. It was for this reason that the Mahabharata had subjected the relativity of ethical norms to a larger context of reverence for life. (Badrinath, 1993:95, 96-97)
Finally we cannot close any discussion on Truth without mentioning Gandhi as he is the champion of upholding the truth as he is called ‘satyagrahi’ (holder of the truth) for whom truth is nothing but ahimsa. At the same time, he also preferred violence over cowardliness:
My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is Ahimsa, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain….( Gandhi, 1983: 453)
…First, he insisted on the need to act on the truth as it appears in the now. To support that argument, he would cite Confucius: “To know what is right and not to do it is cowardice.” It is very important to remember that for Gandhi, truth was not abstract but concrete. In other words, truth always implied right…. (Sharma, 2013: 192)
…he preferred violence to cowardice. Thus, although he insisted on the need to fight injustice nonviolently, 13 he also insisted on the need to fight injustice in any way possible if nonviolence was not possible for that person. This strand in Gandhi’s life and thought enables us to view in a new light the baffling tendency on the part of some of his otherwise sober admires to divinize him….—ibid. p. 202
13 Meeting in Wardha from 6 July to 14 July 1942, the Working Committee discussed a resolution demanding the termination of British rule in India. If the demand were not met, a civil disobedience movement would be launched. The following days found Gandhi in an unusually militant mood. He was certain that the ‘Allies are in for defeat this time if they do not do this initial act of justice [granting (p.270) India freedom]’. ‘We are betraying a woeful cowardice,’ he declared. ‘I do not mind the blood-bath in which Europe is plunged.’51 This did not mean he endorsed violence, though. Nor did it imply any softening of his stance towards Japanese aggression. ‘India as an independent Power’, he insisted, ‘wants to play … a decisive part in favour of the Allies.’52 All the same, ‘some form of conflict was inevitable to bring home the truth to the British mind’.53— Srinath Raghavan, India’s WAR: The Making of Modern South Asia, 1939-1945, Gurgaon, Allen Lane, 2016. pp. 270-71 [51, 52, 53. Needs to be documented from Raghavan.—db]
Hooker: …in the village all giving for weddings etc. is done on a karma-like basis. If I give you ten rupees and three yards of cloth when someone in the family gets married you will note it in a book and when someone in my family gets married you will give me ten rupees and three yard of cloth. In such a society the idea of Grace in a gift is unintelligible; perhaps it can only become intelligible over a long period of years. Words are part of the problem, but I would want to press the issue a lot further than words. (Hooker to Warren, 17 January 1970).—p. 260
DB’s Reflection: This shows the poor understanding about Hindus where what is practiced on a social level is compared and contrasted with the doctrine of karma and grace. It is true that in most Indian societies gifts are given and returned back on the same measure. But there is no uniformity in this also. Not every Hindu will follow this practice. And no Hindu keeps the doctrine of ‘karma’ while exchanging gifts in any function. But this is a poor comparison and thinking about the doctrines of ‘karma and grace’. Like ‘karma’ there is also a strong place for grace in Hinduism. This is at least true in the bhakti tradition. ‘Avan arulala avan thal vanankgi’ (worshipping his feet through his grace) says Manika Vachkar in Tiruvasagam. I can give lots of quotes and references about Grace in Hinduism. But as we often note, various sampradayas hold various kinds of interpretation and even the same Hindu will hold different views according to her circumstance and need. The division in Srivaishnava as ‘cat school’ and ‘monkey school’ (Vadakalai and Thenkalai) is based on their interpretation of grace. I am not going to give any reference for this. If one searches the Internet, they will get volumes and volumes of information on this subject.—db
Hooker: … a magazine, a monthly called Sarita, is intensely critical of traditional Hinduism; the weapons of its criticism are ridicule – for which of course the short story or lampoon is an ideal medium – and moral protest. I am going to make the point that while we must acknowledge the Unknown Christ of Hinduism we must also recognise the Unknown Christ of the protest against Hinduism….(Hooker to Warren 31 July 1971).—p. 269
DB’s Reflection: Poor Hooker. That might be the first such magazine that he came across. But such a critical voice against tradition is not new to Hindus. But as usual he too became a victim to the idea of finding the Unknown Christ in every kind of Hinduism.—db
Warren: It is once we start looking at the Lord’s Prayer & what it implies for us who pray that we become aware of the demands which it makes upon us, demands which no other religion even not take sin seriously. Hinduism does not take history seriously, with all the real agony that means. Buddhism is infatuated with education as a way of escape whereas real enlightenment means involvements (as, indeed, the best Buddhists after Buddha began to glimpse in their belief in the really good man forgoing Nirvana in order to go on serving mankind). And secular Humanism is simply playing with ethics without attempting to find a norm by which to judge them. Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography {Russel1967-1969) demonstrates that beyond all disputing. (Letter 317 19 December 1971)—p. 282
DB’s Reflection: From my school days I have been interested in history and read mostly historical novels. But my question is: What is history? Is history actual information of events or the subjective interpretation of those events by the authors of those records? In my understanding, all the history is nothing but the subjective interpretation of the records. Forget about the past history. Even the events that are happening today in front of our eyes will become history the next day. But what we see through our own eyes personally, or which we view through visual media or read through printed media, becomes history the next day as an interpreted record. This being the reality, why should we accept others’ subjective interpretation alone as the authentic history? Above all Christians’ view on history is always from their religious point of view. Why should others accept it as the only way to approach history? Hindu’s view on history is completely different. Once history is nothing but other’s interpretation based on the events, then whose history or which history becomes authentic one? We can say a lot about it. But I limit my temptation to quote only from a few Scholar’s view to help us to understand this clearly:
The cloudiness surrounding this issue may result from overly narrow understandings of what Hindu views of time and history really are…The real issue is not whether history ‘is significant,’ but rather how history matters. There is no reason to believe that history always matters the same way in the Hindu tradition. Consider the Western world, which has produced Hegel, Marx, and Toynbee, and accepts such disparate accounts of the world’s origin as those of Genesis and the big-bang cosmology. This is a cultural universe that has no single theory of (p.108) history. Why must we assume, then, that there is a single, basic Hindu account of how time passes or what history means? If there is evidence for distinctive tendencies in Hindu historical cosmology (and I hope to show there is), this does not mean there is consensus on everything. One of the most notable features of Hinduism has always been the adaptability of some of its most basic concepts and symbols. The same is true of Hindu historical cosmology. It is not a single view, but a range of possible views, in which different ideas can be handled differently for different purposes. (Babb, 1986:108-09)
…The historian or ethnographer is a special type of storyteller, the history teller (or histor), who weaves “facts” into the fabric of a narrative. Therefore, historical accounts have to be justified by evidence or admitted as speculative and, in the latter instance, defended with good reasoning. This concern with evidence and the logical justification of speculation is what gives “truth-value” to historical and ethnographic descriptions as against fiction and other purely invented genres. Hence the paradox: verisimilitude is simply impossible in history or ethnography, but it is entirely possible in fictional narratives, where the messiness of “truth” is no impediment to storytelling. (Obeyesekere, 2006:193)
Klinger: The pre-Vedic sacrifices are events in history and therefore to be understood historically, in the sense of a real life-and-death contest. They are an archaic history, but archaic history is also genuine history, although it is not dated precisely…. In any case, ‘dating’ and ‘datability’ must not be equated with ‘historical’ because there is a history that is not datable, which is factual and can be of constitutive importance for the foundation of religion. (Oberhammer, 1997:113)
Heesterman: Historicity, historical interest, does exist in Hinduism. In addition, Hindu thinking need not always be cyclical, since what is cyclical can co-exist with a linear conception of time. Of course uniqueness can only be formulated historically. (Muller 2007: 87)
Oberhammer: …If one goes a step further, one has to admit that as a Christian of the 20th century one never reaches the historical Jesus, but only the faith in Jesus as it has been handed down. Thus, should the historical fact be so central, the question arises, what 20th century people can do with their faith under such circumstances. Was salvation not also attained by the contemporaries of Jesus through their faith? Merely ‘standing beside’ the historical Jesus, as a fact, is not yet a special salvific event; on the contrary, it can turn into judgment and become fatal. As far as this is concerned, one could imagine that an analysis of myth and mythicizing transcendence and existence could really pave the way towards speaking on the same level with Hindu religious traditions. (ibid. Muller: p. 100)
Schaeffler: Attending the lecture, I had certain difficulties in relating the terms ‘nature’ and ‘history’ to Biblical usage. For both are not Biblical terms and it would be hard to translate them into Hebrew. On the other hand, the Biblical message obviously has an essential part in the fact that, in the course of the tradition, such terms could develop and perhaps also be defined. But this is again something different from saying that the Bible, in one way or another, speaks of ‘nature’ and ‘history.’ Hence, these terms should not be claimed directly as Biblical usage or concepts, although the Biblical language gave rise to the later development of the concept of ‘history and its explicit distinction from the concept of ‘nature.’(ibid. Klinger: 227)
…Ethnography and folklore, rather than archival history, became the preferred methods for studying the so-called true history of the people….— Partha Chattterjee, Introduction: History in the Vernacular, pp. 1-24, in p. 16, History in the Vernaculr, ed. Raziuddin Aquil & Partha Chatterjee, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2008), Third impression 2015
Warren: …In so far as baptism, in India, had come to signify a move from one communal setting to another, and not essentially an incorporation in Christ, is it something which ought to be sought for at all except where quite independently of the communal aspect it is a deliberated choice, and the entering of the Christian community be seen as wholly secondary. Is there something to be said for a Koinonia of Christian within Hindu Society (which no doubt means Hinduism) a Koinonia which if really inspired by Christ could indeed revolutionise the Hinduism from within, it would most certainly have revolutionary effect on Christianity in India – not, of necessity, leading to syncretism at al. How far can the Christian as a Tertium Gens14 demonstrate the Teritum without coming out of the communal shell? I know the orthodox answers, but I’m wondering how valid they are. Or is all this thinking really responding to the absorptive capacity of Hinduism which accepts everyone and everything so long as the communal fabric is not disturbed? Is there a point at which for the sake of the community the fabric must be disturbed?—(Letter 388 23 February 1973)
14 Latin phrase for ‘third race’ (originally between Jews and Gentiles).—Notes, 439p. 312
DB’s Reflection: You thought is ahead of your time Dr. Warren. Congratulations. But there is no need for a separate Tertium Gens within Hindu society, as the social fabric of Hinduism well accommodates separate sampradays or individuals without compromising their/her bhakti in the Lord.—db
Hooker: …The twentieth century is forcing upon Hinduism (and other religions) questions which they have not had to face before, questions to which they may see Jesus Christ as part of a relevant answer. This is only to be expected because contemporary history is in large measure a result of the ferment caused in Asian societies, directly or indirectly, by the preaching of the Gospel. Hinduism is now being compelled to grapple with the meaning of history and the significance of persons. Categories such as judgement, responsibility and purpose are now relevant. These words are all central to Christian theology, but they are not important, indeed their equivalents are not to be found, in traditional Hinduism.
This approach has a danger and an advantage. The danger is that one may be tempted to attribute all that is good and creative in the contemporary ferment to the Gospel, and this is to succumb to a new and subtler form of imperialism. The advantage is that one can ask the question of what God is doing on the broadest possible scale, outside the bounds of traditional religion. One can ask what he is doing in movements which may be overtly anti-religions. Indeed the question becomes not ‘What is God doing in other religions?’ but rather ‘What is he doing among other men?’ Yet the question has a certain inbuilt limitation, for it asks what God is doing to other religions or other men by means of what is coming to them from outside themselves and their traditions. Thus this approach does not bring me to the point of asking what God has done and is doing through the scriptures, doctrines, devotion, saints and prophets of other faiths quite apart from the direct or indirect influence of the Gospel upon them. (Hooker Letter 30 June 1973)—p. 320
DB’s Reflection: again a Christian Missionary rhetoric seeing some outward challenges which Hinduism faced through reformation. No doubt that the Missionary impact on Reformation was real and brought some changes.15 But this is not the first challenge that Hinduism or Indian society ever faced. From Vedic time down the ages India faced many challenges which forced Hinduism to adapt and adapt to so many new forms. But while accepting the changes it never gave up its old forms and concepts (theology). Viewing Hinduism only from a few Christian theological categories will never help an outsider to understand and assess the change and continuity in Hinduism. I wish Hooker should live now to see the way Hinduism easily adapts to the need and demand of the time which technology forced upon it. Missionaries always found some consolation in assessing Hinduism in these terms, but beyond it they never understood the Hindu reality as it is. In fact the challenge that Christianity is now facing in western countries is more severe than what Hinduism faces from outside. Approaching any religion only based on certain theological categories won’t help anyone to understand it and face the new challenges. That is why while Hinduism managed to survive to keep its core of change and continuity, Christianity in several parts of the world is dying a slow death.–db
15 Strictly speaking there is no finis to anything in history. There is always a moving on. The last word on the ‘Raj’ will not be written for centuries. But it played a part in Indian development. (Warren, Letter 561 9 September 1976)—p. 380
Hooker: … Hindus seem to me to display a completely lack of curiosity, children are encouraged not to enquire but to conform…. (Hooker Letter to Edward Hulmes, copied to Warren, 30 May 1975).—p. 354
DB’s Reflection:—On which area? Only in family tradition, but there also freedom is given.—db
Hooker: …I am coming increasingly to feel that to describe bhakti as personal devotion as opposed to impersonal monism, is a vast over-simplification. I do not think one can make an equation between personal devotion in Christianity and in Hinduism. Even in Christianity the word personal surely needs a lot of explication…. (p.356) Then too I am coming to see that the two virtues which bhakti commends are loving devotion of a very emotional kind – people are always swooning in Tulsi Das – and obedience e.g. to the king, to one’s father, to one’s guru or elder brother. None of these is about action, devotion, ‘stepping out’ like Abraham…. (Hooker Letter 20 July 1975)—pp. 356-57
DB’s Reflection: I cannot understand this clearly. But there are so many stories (whether historical or mythology) in which so many bhaktas ‘stepped out’ exactly like, and some time even more than, Abraham did. In the Periyapuranam (by Sekizhar)16 one can find the story of Siruththonada Nayanar who killed and cooked his only son when Siva appeared as a sannyasi of ferocious sect and asked Nayanar for the meat of an only child (3710 ff.) Siva not only demanded that the parents should cook the meat, but also that the father should sit with him to eat it. Another devotee Kotpuliyur Nayanar (4142 to 4145) even kills all his relatives who consumed the paddy which was kept aside for Siva to offer as Prasad, not even sparing an infant when requested by his relatives. One can read the complete stories by searching the Internet in English. As Hooker is not aware of these stories from other languages, he made such comments comparing bhakti with Abraham.—db
16 Periya Puranam, 2000
Warren: …And it is no use his arguing that mortification, asceticism, the life of the Sadhu is the way. The ordinary man cannot follow that path in practice, whatever the theory of the stages of life. God made most men very ordinary and the way of salvation must be the way by which the very ordinary can be saved. Isn’t the real peril of philosophising that it argues that a man can think himself right with God?
All this is terribly elementary. But it always seems to me that Hinduism is preoccupied with unanswerable questions whereas Christ’s yoke is ‘simple’ – not simplistic! We are to follow. How to follow will always test our fidelity in thought as well as action. But it is a profound Christian conviction that the answers are found ambulando17 and not in sheer thinking….The Hindu is preoccupied with the question ‘Who am I?’ The Muslim, the Jew and the Christian asks ‘What must I do?’ The latter can become mere activism and legalism. But that is its perversion. (p.360)
This seems to me to bear on what you say about Philosophy. Tho’ I wonder if you are right in saying ‘Christianity perpetually remains a faith in search of a philosophy.’ So much depends on how you define philosophy. Have we not to come back ever and again to the ordinary man? And must not our definition of philosophy be judged by its adequacy for the ordinary man? (Letter 503 13 August 1975).—pp. 360-61
17 Latin word meaning ‘in walking’ i.e. ‘as you follow the path of action’.—Notes, 541, p. 360
DB’s Reflection: Not every Hindu is ‘preoccupied with the question ‘Who am I’? That is the interest of a philosopher or an ordinary Hindu who is in a philosophic mood in life (most of the time struck with suffering and tragedies). An ordinary Hindu is oriented to karma and dharma and has never minded the ways these were analysed and interpreted by the (Hindu) philosophers. However perverted Christianity seemed, most of the time converts who became ‘Christian’ were attracted by its activism. Only some high-powered Christian think-tank groups and now few Hindu bhaktas of the Lord are preoccupied with philosophy. And though some simple Hindu bhaktas of the Lord (like me) enjoy reading such ‘philosophical entertainment of these think-tank groups’, we try to live with simple bhakti in the Lord.–db
Hooker: Hinduism is changing and it is part of my duty to help it to change in a Christian direction. For example, that scholar whom I quoted is probable, under God, doing a better job where he is than he would be if he were baptised and therefore rejected by his own community. Again, I know a number of very liberal Hindus in this city who have a deep respect for Christ and Christianity. They have a social conscience and want to see Hinduism reformed. I see my task as one of encouragement to them in what they are doing, because the further they see into what the service of humanity really means the nearer they will come to Christ. This group asked me to speak about Christianity to them a few months ago and want me to speak again. One of them has asked me to write an article on ‘service’ for his Hindi Language news-sheet. (Hooker Letter 29 November 1975: Letter to John Ward: An ‘Apologia’ For His Missionary Work.)—p. 367 {John Ward was Education Secretary of Church Mission Society}
DB’s Reflection:-Service of humanity is not a new concept in Hinduism. Taking care of fellow human beings, including the animal kingdom and natural world is part of the Hindu worldview (as nara and bhuta yajnas in five great sacrifices which a Hindu is expected to perform everyday). The word ‘liberal Hindus’ is used with a Christian understanding of ‘liberal and orthodox’. Every Hindu is both liberal and orthodox simultaneously. Such branding of the people of other faiths from one’s religious point of view, particularly Hindus won’t do full justice. In general, a common Hindu is ‘orthodox’ in her personal life and views regarding her faith and orthopraxy, whereas she will be equally liberal in her attitude and approach to other’s faith and orthopraxy. Of course, there are sectarian followers who remain very ‘fundamental’ in their understanding and approach to the people of other sampradayas (like Sri Vaishnavas, Veera Saivas). Still they too will uphold ‘henotheism’18 rather than extreme monotheism, accepting the validity and reality of other deities and faiths subordinated to Vishu.
So if people like Hooker think that it is their divine duty to help Hinduism to change in a Christian direction, they will soon be disillusioned. If every reformer is considered as doing a better job ‘under God’ of reforming Hinduism and thereby need not be ‘converted to Christianity’ and ‘therefore rejected by his own community’, there is no need for evangelism in India. Making a Hindu a better Hindu and a Buddhist a better Buddhist is not evangelism. And there is no point in writing ‘I believe in the Great Commission’ (Warren, 1976). By saying this I am not contradicting myself. Evangelism demands bring people to the obedience to the authority of the Lordship of Muktinath. And one can do this even remaining as a Hindu like me. But what Hooker promotes is nothing but ‘niceianity’.19–db
18 ….the development of the concept of the uniqueness of God may be traced in the Hebrew Scriptures from ‘henotheism’ (our God is one God among many gods) 18a into ‘monotheism’ (there is, in fact, only one God)….—Kings, op. cit. p. 157
18a Max Muller (in his studies on the Vedas) coined the term ‘henotheism’ to mean the worship of, and devotion to, one God, while allowing that other gods exist. It is interesting to note, in the present discussion concerning the Old Testament and mission, that this term entered biblical studies via the study of Hinduism.—Notes, 31, p. 157
19 But dialogues have dangers. Evangelisation is not mutual listening but direct proclamation of the good news. The positive presentation of the Gospel should not, therefore, be lost sight of.—(Sudhakar. Op. Cit. p. 187)
Hooker: …There was a real ‘confrontation, though not I think a meeting of minds, between the traditionalists and the modernisers.@ It was absolutely fascinating listening and was further evidence for the ferment going on in contemporary Hinduism and of its shift in a Christian direction…. (Hooker Letter 4 April 1976. New Philosophies in the Indian Tradition).—p. 373
@Speakers in the four day seminar at the Sanskrit University at Varanasi.
DB’s Reflection: Again an evangelical rhetoric about Hinduisms shift in a Christian direction. The ‘confrontation between traditionalists and the modernisers’ in Hinduism is not new and it is part of change and continuity in Hinduism. But reading any ‘shift in Christian direction’ is the traditional ‘evangelical’ reading about any and all such ‘shifts’ not only in Hinduism but all other religions. Unless they come out from such ‘reading’, they are not going to understand Hinduism.—db
Hooker: …Is the orthodox version of Hinduism really true to the tradition or is it a later distortion imposed on it? In the church today we (p.378) assume that much of Christendom and the medieval dogmatic system were in fact distortions. ‘Back to the human Jesus’, yet Giri is concerned to defend his tradition, can this defence be ultimately sustained? This raises the question of criteria, who has the right to say how the tradition should be interpreted? For me, the historical method is my starting point because for me the heart of faith is an historical event, but for the Hindu an experience which has no connection with history lies at the heart. It is no doubt useful to apply the historical method to the Hindu scriptures, but this cannot take me to the heart of their meaning. Giri also made the valid point that western scholars ought to ask how Hindus themselves interpret their own writings and not impose their own external and alien norms. Much western scholarship in the 19th century was purely rationalistic and perhaps Giri confuses his valid criticism of that with the strictly neutral (?) methods of e.g. archaeology, philology etc. which are surely merely tools….(Hooker Letter 15 August 1976, Three Key Conversations in One Week {at Varanasi}).—p. 379
DB’s Reflection: Like orthopraxy, orthodoxy also is a change and continuity phenomena in Hinduism. For most Hindus, tradition is what is handed over by a particular family which also is subjected to change as per the demands of the time. Even orthodoxy in theological tradition is not limited to what the original authors propounded in their writings, but was shaped by how tradition was commented and interpreted by the followers down through the centuries. Advaita of Sankar is the best example for this. There was no unanimity in its interpretation among Sankara’s followers throughout history. We need not talk about the modern scholarly interpretation of it. Under the topic ‘contextualization’, I have given so many references about it. See below under ‘contextualization’.
Warren: Giri – Here you were on a very different wicket – the real Orthodox Hindu His defence of the Vedas is the same as the Muslim’s defence of the Qur’an and of all Christians who want to feel safe on a rock which will not be eroded by criticism.
There is, of course, a truth that one can only understand a faith from inside it. But this does not apply to the ‘documents’. A critical approach to the Vedas will not destroy Hinduism any more than a critical approach to the Qur’an will destroy Islam. Both faiths may well find its members far stronger when they put their faith in the Living Word and not the Written Word. How they will discern the Living Word and undo that semblance we cannot tell. But part of our task is to try to show that no harm can come to truth by putting it to the test. (p.379)
Giri had a shrewd judgement on Max Muller’s advice to Missionaries. What enormous barriers there are to trust and understanding? I wonder how far you are still an object of real suspicion to some of the teachers in the Sanskrit University. Surely you must be. (Letter 559 26 August 1976)—pp. 379-380.
DB’s Reflection: No it also applies to the ‘documents’. Because how that document was translated and interpreted by outsiders also needs to be considered in understanding the faith of others. When the Veda and other scriptures are interpreted in various ways by the great acharyas of Vedanta (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Nimbarka and Vallabha and others), what to say about any outsiders? Every critical approach is subjective and insiders will only see that kind of subjectiveness in such attempts. This is also a historical fact. The way the Sanskrit texts were translated differently by different people proves this. Even this is true within Hinduism. The way Veda was translated by Sayana, Orientalists, Missionaries, Indians like Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Arvind etc. are the best examples for this. Just one example is sufficed here:
One turns therefore to another text of Hinduism, perhaps as well-known as the Vedas, namely the Ramayana. Its critical edition contains the following verses:
Pathandvijo vaagrsabhatvamiiyaat
Syaatksatriyo bhuumipatitvamiiyaat
Vanikjanah panyaphalatvamiiyaat
Janas’ca suudro’pi mahatvamiiyaat (p.138)
Robert P. Goldman translates the verse as follows:
A brahman who reads it becomes eloquent, a kshatriya becomes a lord of the earth, a vaisya acquires profit from his gods, and even a lowly sudra achieves greatness.{Goldman, 1984, p. 126,}
Anyone familiar with Sanskrit, even perhaps at an elementary level, will note that there is no word in the Sanskrit text which corresponds to the word lolwly. In other words, the tendency to accentuate the difference between the sudra and the other varnas seems to be so deeply ingrained that it even affects the literal translation of a Sanskrit text. Its use here almost seems like a carry-over from a similar description by A.L. Basham: ‘There was no caste of slaves; though the Arthasastra declares that servitude is not in the nature of the Aryan (in which the humble sudra is explicitly included), an individual of any class might in certain circumstances become a slave, although most slaves were no doubt of low caste’.{Basham, 1999, p. 241}20 Here A.L. Basham characterizes the sudra as humble without any apparent need to do so because the Arthasastra again refers only to the sudra, not to the humble sudra. {Sharma, 2017, 138-39. Italics original}
20 A. L. Basham, op. Cit., p. 152, emphasis added (by the author).—Notes, 12, p. 359
Hooker: …the fact that the Hindu outlook starts not with the moral imperative as theist apologetic normally does, but with the search for permanent happiness in a world of sorrow and pain. The starting point to a large extent conditions the conclusions. Also there is the fact that the Hindu ideal is the harmony of opposites. Sanskrit dramatic theory is based on this, which is why there are no tragedies. The Hindu mind moves from the particular to the general, where alone it is most happy. This has implications for the Hindu experience. (Hooker Letter 31 October 1976)—p. 382
DB’s Reflection: Too simplistic. I am not sure whether a common Hindu like me ever understood about our experience moving from particular to the general. There might be some truth even in this. Both the Hindu’s apologetic defense and the other’s critique are all text based analysis. All such analysis about us by outsiders that use some technical terms, like ‘moral imperative,’ ‘permanent happiness,’ ‘particular to the general,’ looks too artificial and too simplistic to me. I also confess that I don’t understand these terms in their western understanding and as categories to evaluate people. If moral imperative means ‘obedience and discipleship’ such concept is there in various sampradayas like Sri Vaishnavism and some Tantric sects.—db
Leave a Reply