When a Hindu gives Prasad of any deity, a Christian (particularly an evangelical) is expected to refuse to accept it. Giving reason for this, in general, they say that if a Hindu gives a laddu by saying that it is a good sweet, accept it with thanks. But if she says that it is the Prasad of Balaji, then don’t accept it because of her conscious worship of Balaji.
This is correct from their evangelical perspective and we have to agree with it. But they view the attitude of that Hindu (friend or relative or neighbor who is in good terms with you alone will give you that laddu) from their own (doctrinal) perspective. They refuse to see it from the Hindu point of view:
- When a Hindu devotee gives any Prasad of any deity, she is very clear in her conscience that when you accept it, she does not expect you to compromise your faith in your god. She never expects or will even accept that by accepting it you are even agreeing with her faith. She knows that you are not ‘ok’ with her faith in her god and she does not depend upon your ‘ok’ or not ‘ok’ to hold her faith in her god. She also does not think that by accepting Prasad, you are giving up your faith in your god and now become a bhakta of Balaji. And even if you want to give up your faith in your god and want to follow her deity, most of the time she will say ‘no’ to it. She will say, ‘your god is good for you. My god is good for me. So you need not give up your faith in your god and begin to worship my god.’ At the same time, she will be pleased if you insist on following her god by giving up your faith in the Lord.
- When she is very clear in her conscience then why does she want to give that Prasad to you? Because she is your friend. And when you accept it, you are acknowledging her love for you and not her faith. A Hindu who is not on good terms with anyone, particularly to an enemy will never share the Prasad with them.
- Even because of her conscience, if you say ‘no’ she will magnanimously say ‘ok’ and will never insist. But the question is, have you ever said that you are not accepting that Prasad only because of ‘HER CONSCIOUS’ and not because of ‘YOUR CONSCIOUS’? If you say, what would be her response? She will definitely say that, ‘I am clear in my conscience. I don’t want you to agree with my faith (and I don’t even want your approval for my faith), or acknowledge my god or give up your faith or even expect you to compromise your faith.’ But most of the time the evangelicals never give any explanation to their Hindu friends particularly about their so called ‘CONSCIOUS’ but will politely say that their ‘OUR FAITH WON’T ALLOW US TO ACCEPT THE PRASAD OF OTHER GODS’. And a sincere Hindu respecting your stand for your faith will happily acknowledge such faith and won’t insist on giving any Prasad. Because even among various Hindu sampradayas one sect won’t allow its followers to accept the Prasad of another sect.@ For example, a staunch Srivaishnava won’t eat the Prasad of any Saiva deity.
- When a Hindu distributes Prasad of her deity, she never asks about your faith or even thinks about it. She is under an obligation to share the ‘grace’ (Prasad) of her deity with others and cannot take back all of them with her. Before distributing her Prasad, she won’t even ask what your faith is or which religion you belong to. Her consciousness is very clear—share the grace of God with others. Now accepting or rejecting is left to you.
- But the question is: is it because of your faith that you refuse to receive the prasad? Or fear that the devil will attack you if you accept the Prasad? Or God will punish you as you have compromised your faith by accepting Prasad from a Hindu? If you say ‘no’ to Prasad for any of these reasons, then you have to question such faith in the Lord. EVEN YOU HAVE TO QUESTION THIS KIND OF GOD! If your god does not have power to protect you from the attack of the devil as you have taken Prasad, then who is more powerful? Or if your god is going to punish you because you took Prasad and compromised with your faith, then how much more he or she has to punish the way you are compromising your faith in all other areas of your life? If nothing is going to separate you from the Love of God, then why a small laddu from Balaji will separate you from the same love?
- Now think about such a scenario. After refusing to accept her Prasad, when you invite her to come to your church or Christmas Party, what would be her reaction and response?
.Most of the time she will never say that ‘I won’t come as you refuse to accept the Prasad which I gave’. She will accept the invitation for two reasons: to honor you and celebrate your friendship and also to enjoy good Christmas cakes—which she won’t normally get other times. Whatever might be your CONSCIOUS or even INTENTION—which a discerning Hindu knows very well, she will accept the invitation. She might even know your intention behind that invention—to share the gospel! Hindus are not as naïve as you think.
- This leads to the next question of (spiritual) ethics. When you invite any of your Hindu friends or acquaintances for any Christmas party or even for a meal or cup of tea only with a HIDDEN AGENDA OF SHARING THE GOSPEL then how far is that ethically correct? You try to EXPLOIT your friendship for your vested interest and not honoring and celebrating the friendship just for the sake of it. Even your friendship is Pseudo one. Your friend is merely an ‘object’ or ‘target’ for you. You may hide it behind your evangelical call and burden by saying that you are expected to share the good news in both ‘season and out of season’. And you have every right to do it. Then why not honestly and openly tell your Hindu friend or acquaintance that you have invited her for the party or meal or tea only to ‘share the gospel’ to her or for a dialogue? Why not give her a choice to decide whether to accept your invitation or not, but try to exploit her relationship with you for your Agenda. This is what the Missionaries have done in the past. When they distributed food material for famine hit people, before giving it, they ‘COMPELLED THEM TO SIT AND LISTEN TO THEIR PREACHING’. This is OUTRIGHT HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATION. Even today in most of the Mission Hospitals in the OPD section, the patients and their relatives (who brought them for treatment) are ‘FORCED TO LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL’ preached by the PAID evangelist. Can you deny this? If love and service is your real motive then do it silently not IMPOSING YOUR FAITH ON THEM. If motivated by some evangelical urge to make any contact or acquaintance or friends and then use them for your Agenda by engaging in KABADIC KABADY evangelism or HIT and RUN evangelism or TOURIST evangelism needs to be questioned and challenged by everyone. Note what Sudhakar says about such service by Mission:
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. It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans. [emphasis added]— Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007.p. 169
My next point is the so-called ‘CONSCIOUS’ of the Hindu friend or neighbor. From where they get this point? Again from Paul’s teaching in Corinthians. But what is the context there? The first context is in I Cor. 8: 9-13which talks about eating the meat which is served in temple premises in Corinthian city where free meal (with meat) is available in the temple. If my understanding is correct here Paul is not talking about ‘buying’ the meat sold in the market which is coming from the temple sacrifice. So the buyer and seller know where it is coming from. But here the context is taking a free meal served in the temple premises with mutton-biryani. Just for the sake of the conscience of the weak brother/sister in the Lord or in your mandali, resist your temptation for a free biryani served in the temple. But I will even object to such a suggestion by Paul.
Just stretch your imagination a bit and bring to the Indian context. We know that free meals are served in (many) Hindu temples known as ‘annadhana(m)’. Who will go and eat there? Only the Hindus or in our context a Hindu bhakta of the Lord who knows very well that idol is nothing and every good is a gift from God (I Cor. 8: 4-6). Now another Hindu bhakta sees it. And she is weak in her faith. And if she too is tempted to eat that free temple meal, how should the first Hindu bhakta respond? If I were there, I would ask that weak brother to join and enjoy the meal. Then I will, denying a nap after a good meal, will give proper teaching to that weak brother about what Paul says in I Cor. 8: 4-6. Above all being a fellow Hindu, she already knows about the temple free meal which she too enjoyed in the past.
The next scenario of the weak brother is a traditional Christian from his church. And here the question is what to do because of the weakness of that traditional Christian from the same church? If I were there I would tell him to come out from his weakness and study the Word of God properly rather than merely listening to the three point regular sermon from the pulpit week after week and continue to remain weak in his faith and conscious—generations after generations. Even after a few generations as a Christian if that Christian refused to listen to or understand the Word of God, then I will allow him to continue to remain in his weakness. Because even after several generations if he cannot become strong both in his faith and conscience, someone one like me, a recent ‘convert’ can never help him to become strong. Let him continue to live in his weakness and use it as a victim card. But I won’t budge and become a victim to such blackmail. Remember this context of ‘conscious’ about eating a temple meal should not be the criteria to refuse to receive the Prasad from your Hindu friend or neighbor.
The next scenario is in I Cor. 10: 19 to 30, specifically in verse 28. Here the context is not about giving a temple to Prasad (Balaji Laddu in our case) but about being invited for a meal by a host. Before giving my view on this let us listen to Bailey,{Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic,} the Middle Eastern Scholar says about it. Though it is a bit long, it is still worth reading as it is. First I will quote only the relevant topics for our discussion. Rest I will give in the appendix:
…Paul created a multicultural church, and he urges his readers to care for the interests of “the other” (believer or nonbeliever), setting aside their own interests.
The opening lines of each of these two cameos are related in a special way. Cameo 1 sets out general principles while cameo 7 offers applications of those principles. We can almost hear the conversation between Paul and his readers. It is as if they are engaged in the following dialogue:
Paul As a general principle (cameo 1 {10:23}) can say, “All things are lawful to me but they are not all helpful. Nor do all things build up.”
Paul’s readers Can you give us a general sense as to how to apply these two principles?
Paul Yes, I can (cameo 7 {10:32-33}). Let us look at the two parts of what I have just said.
Regarding being helpful, don’t offend Jews, Greeks or the church of God. You gain nothing by offending people. It makes them angry, and they become entrenched in their opposing views. Giving offense is simply not helpful.
As for building up, when you do not offend you have the opportunity to commend your message of salvation, and in the process build up the community at large. You need to also build up the believing community internally. Work to build up, not tear down. (p. 287) […]
In cameo 7 Paul sets a high standard. He is engaged in evangelism and his theological goal is clear. But his method is also clear. The standard is: Give no offense to Jews, Greeks or to the church. For him there will be no public attacks on the faith of others. Critical analysis, yes, attacks—no! While writing to Christians, he does not hide the fact that the gods of the “the Gentiles” do not exist and that their worship brings them into fellowship with demons. As noted, archaeology has identified Greek shrines in Corinth dedicated to the worship of twelve different gods. But there is no attack on any of these idols, their sacred books, their temples or their priests. When lecturing on Mars Hill (Acts 17: 22-31) Paul found common ground between his message and respected Greek authors. In Paul’s ministry, tolerance, open-mindedness and respect flowed together with critical analysis and non-apologetic evangelism. To update Paul’s directive into the twenty-first century, we could say, “Give no offense to Jews or to Muslims or to the church of God. Do not seek your own advantage, but theirs—and at the appropriate time, in a respectful and culturally sensitive way, bear witness to the Christian story without apology.” This directive is clear, yet Paul leaves the reader with a further question.
The second semantic envelope in this homily (cameos 2, 6) is also remarkable. The two matching cameos are seen together in figure 3.3(3).
2.. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market
Without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, EAT
and everything in it.” ALL Is the Lord’s
_
6 31 So, whether you eat or drink,
or whatever you do, EAT
do all to the glory of God. In All—Glorify God
Figure 3.6(3). Cameos 2 and 6 (I Cor 10: 25-26, 31)
These two cameos unite around the topic of “eating and the divine.” Cameo 2 tells the reader: All meat sold in the marketplace belongs to God, not to the idols, because the entire earth is the Lord’s. This affirmation must have been hugely liberating for Paul’s readers. Imagine a new Greek Christian entering the meat market in Corinth with great inner turmoil and wondering, “If this meat was offered to Asclepius, the god of health, it must belong to him. And if I buy it and eat it, will Asclepius make me sick because I no longer worship him?” “No,” answers Paul—“it all belongs to the one Lord who created all things” (cameo 2). Such fears are groundless. So if you eat it or do not eat it—give all glory to God alone (cameo 6) and do not be afraid. (p.289) {Food Offered to Idols. Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}(italics original)—ibid. pp.287-89
As is common the climax of the homily appears in the center (cameo 40, where love is prominent.) Paul indirectly tells his readers, “Your rights and your freedom are not the only components in this discussion. What about love?” We do not know if the informant whispering in the ear of the Christian guest is the unbelieving host showing consideration to his guest, or a fellow Christian who happens to be present at the banquet. In either case, what should the Christian guest do when he or she is specifically informed at the banquet about the pagan origins of the meat? [emphasis added by DB]
To paraphrase Paul’s directive he seems to be telling his readers,
If you are invited to a meal in an unbeliever’s home and someone quietly informs you that the meat is “idol food,” out of your love for the informant, who is trying to be sensitive to what he thinks are your feelings, don’t eat the meat. Your freedom should be tempered by love. {Food Offered to Idols. Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. p. 290}
I don’t need to add many more words to explain further as Bailey presented a clear picture. But let me begin with the question here. This is what Bailey says, ‘We do not know if the informant whispering in the ear of the Christian guest is the unbelieving host showing consideration to his guest, or a fellow Christian who happens to be present at the banquet.’
So we actually don’t know who is the informant who has whispered about the meat? Now my question to Bailey keeping only Indian context is: what is the purpose of INVITING A GUEST for a meal? If you tell something or behave in a certain way which will stop him from participating in the meal it is not only considered as showing disrespect to the guest but also a sin which will wipe out all the merit of the host. This we can read from the story of Nachiketas in Katha Upanishad where Yama come forward to give three boons to Nachiketas as he stayed three nights in his house without food as Yama was not in the house& Leave the Upanishad, even an ordinary Indian knows that a guest must be respected and treated well. The main purpose of inviting the guest is to feed him well. Then why should the host or someone else whisper in the ear of the guest to warn him about the meat! Does he not know that this will prevent him taking the meal? In an ordinary home, the parents will warn their children and other members to behave properly with the guest. Particularly when food is served, no one should say anything which will irritate the guest or the family member who is eating will stop and get up in the middle. In fact, this will bring humiliation to the host more than to the guest. When the father rebukes the child or children on anything while she or they eat, the mother will rebuke the husband not to ‘scold’ while they are eating. And which host, even a Christian host will whisper in the ear of the guest about the origin of the meat which will prevent the guest from eating the meal which in the end will become an embarrassing situation for the host? And why not inform the guest before sending the invitation about the origin of the meat for him to decide about accepting the invitation or not?
Next is that in the Corinthian context—both the guest and host know from where the meat is coming. So there is no need to warn the guest about it. Even if the informant is not the host but someone else who is invited for the banquet, the guest already knows about the origin of the meat. Most of the meat sold in the market in Corinthians is coming from the temple sacrifice. Even if we take for granted that considering the ‘conscience’ of the guest the host bought it from another place, which might be very expensive, then what is the need to warn about it? In case if the informant is not the host but another person also invited for the banquet, who actually does not know that the host bought the meat from another place and still warns the guest about it by ‘WHISPERING’ before checking with the host, what any sensible guest will do? He will either think that this informant is a trouble maker or came only to humiliate the host.
So how can we make any remark based on such imagination? So let me also imagine. The guest is a recent convert who became ‘Sam’ from ‘Shyam’ and the host is his close friend or relative, still a Hindu known as Ram. But Ram’s wife is famous for making delicious biryani which everyone likes. But the previous night Ram and his wife had a small quarrel. So in order to take revenge on her husband, she prepared a tastier biryani but very limited one. When Ram asked about it, she said that she has run out of other masalas so she cannot make more than that and promised that another day she will make still tastier biryani for him, but at present let them feed only the guest. But both Sam and Ram were close friends. So when Ram’s wife before serving the biryani told Sam that Ram has a stomach problem therefore he cannot eat that biriyani today. Knowing this trap, when she went to the kitchen Ram whispered about the origin of the meat to Sam thinking that this will stop him taking that biryani alone which he can take later. But knowing his trick, Sam with a smile said to Ram, ‘arye yar. I know about the quarrel between you and your wife. Don’t try to cheat me. We know both from where the meat is coming. So your whisper won’t work and I thought of requesting your wife to serve a bit so as not to disappoint you. But now I am going to join her and we both won’t allow you to taste even a spoon of biryani’. Then both of them were laughing and bringing the biryani. Ram’s wife also laughed and showed some mercy to her husband by giving his share.
The next one is joining the pagan worship. Here the context is not receiving Prasad from your Hindu friend or accepting an invitation for a meal from your host, but voluntarily and consciously participating in the idol worship having some faith in it. If a ‘convert’ or ‘Hindu bhakta of the Lord’ or even a traditional Christian deliberately makes a choice to participate in an idol worship with an intention to receive the blessing from that deity then we need to question his bhakti in the Lord. But it is a fact that not only new converts and several Hindu bhaktas but even traditional Christian do this. So we have no two opinions in opposing such conflicting faith. But what if a Hindu bhakta who is living with his family is invited to a family puja or visit to the temple of the family deity (kula devata)? If his family members already knew about his bhakti in the Lord, by refusing to participate the Hindu bhakta is not going to take any stand for the Lord for his faith. They already knew that he is now worshiping only Muktinath. But he participates in the ritual and puja to show solidarity with the family as a member of the family. In case his family members do not know about his faith, still by refusing to join he is not going to take any stand for the Lord. His absence will become more of a problem and questioned by all. But his presence will be ignored as he too will be one among the crowd and no one is going to watch whether he is sincerely and honestly participating in the puja and taking part in all the rituals. Even if he sincerely takes part or just ignores some of them, nobody is going to mind about it. Because in several such family pujas or rituals, we can see that several members of the family will often walk out to talk with someone on phone or to receive others or busy in some other work. What is important and required is his presence. Your absence will draw more attention but your presence will be often ignored.
Before further proceeding let me give a recent incident that happened in my life. When I visited my sister’s family in 2023 October, that Saturday they arranged a worship for Venkatajalapati [Balaji] as part of their family tradition, inviting their daughter’s family also. Before taking the final aarati, my brother-in-law took a plate with red and white color sandal paste with a stick and put the mark of ‘U’ known as ‘Namam’ in Tami. Interestingly they are Shivites, but like all other smarta Brahmins, they worship all deities. But he never came to me offering the plate for me to apply on my forehead [as his senior and also a sannyasi he cannot put it on my forehead]. Suppose if he were to bring it to me, without any hesitation I would have applied the Namam on my forehead showing my solidarity with them as part of my sister’s family. Similarly at the end, after taking the aarati, he never brought the flame to me to receive it. Whereas he took the plate to all other family members. My nephew, his wife, niece and her husband along with my sister and two grandchildren were there. None of them asked why that courtesy was not shown to me. Because they all know well about my bhakti in Muktinath, as they as a family [before my niece and nephew were married] participated in several of my annual meetings held at Kodaikanal where we conducted regular meetings to the Hindu bhaktas to which we will invite all our family members. On the other hand, in order to show my solidarity with the family, I didn’t jump to take the Namam or aarati in order to show my magnanimity of accommodating other’s freedom of expression. Because they neither need my magnanimity for them to have their freedom to worship their gods in their home nor I need to demonstrate that I become ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN now. I remained what I am as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord and lived my life naturally in our family as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord not to behave artificially. But the climax is that, when they were serving the food, they brought the table on which all the food that was offered to Balaji as Prasad and served them only to me not even taking little from it for them. I without any hesitation or denying it [as extra ghee was poured on the sweet Pongal before offering it to Balaji] and enjoyed that special treat as they reserved it for their special senior family member.
Now what about a ‘Convert’ or a ‘traditional Christian’ for some reasons forced to participate in such pujas (like Ayudha puja [vishwakarma puja] in the office during Navratri) or inauguration of an office or company etc. Others know about his faith. Even if he actively participates in the puja and joins in the ritual and finally even receives the Prasad, no one is going to think that now he gave up his Christian faith and become a Hindu.
Here I stop. I will give the rest of Bailey’s note with my comments within the text in red color.
Notes
@…A staunch member of a sect might attend a ritual or ceremony in the home of a relative, friend or neighbor belonging to another sect, or in the home of a non-sectarian, but s/he is more likely to be an onlooker rather than a participant. S/he might accept prasad in her/his hand at the end of the ritual, but will not eat it; giving it away rather to another person, usually a child or a servant, or to a cow.4 The leaders of almost every sect instruct its members to show respect to gods and goddesses of other sects, but never to seek refuge (aashraya, sharana) in any of them.— A. M. Shah. The Structure of Indian Society: then and now. New Delhi, Routledge, 2010. p. 82
- While referring to the distinction between Shaivism and Vaishnavism in his Coorg book, [M.N.] Srinivas (Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1952:184, n1) notes that the orthodox followers of the one do not generally go to the temples of the other. Similarly, Beteille (Andre, Social Organisation of Temples in a Tanjore Village. History of Religions 5 (1): 74-92. 1965) reports how, in the Tamil village of his study, the orthodox Shri Vaishnava Brahmans worship Vishnu alone, and do not associate themselves with the worship of Shiva and Kali. However, they seem to show some courtesy to the latter. [Milton] Singer (When a Great Tradition Modernizes: An Anthropological Approach to Indian Civilization. Delhi: Vikas. 1972:48) reports how his Brahman friend’s mother in Madras did not allow a ‘non-dualist’ Brahman into her kitchen, since her own family belonged to a ‘qualified dualist’ sect. [Saurabh] Dube and [Ishita Banerjee] Dube (‘Specters of conversion: Transformation of Caste and Sect in India’, in Rowena Robinson and Sathianathan Clarke (eds). Religious Conversion in India, pp. 195-202. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2003:238) report at some length the case of Nirmalprabha, daughter of a family belonging to the Mahima sect in Orissa: when she refused to accept the prasad brought by her mother-in-law from the Jagannath temple in Puri, she faced serious consequences.—p. 82
& Naciketas story from Katha Upanishad:
As a very fire a Brahmana guest enters into houses and (the people) do him this peace-offering; bring water, O Son of the Sun!.7
Hope and expectation, friendship and joy, sacrifices and good works, sons, cattle and all are taken away from a person of little understanding in whose house a Brahmana remains unfed.8
‘Since thou, a venerable guest, hast stayed in my house without food for three nights, I make obeisance to thee, O Brahmana. May it be well with me. Therefore, in return, chose thou three gifts.—Katha Upanishad, I. 1. 7-9, S. Radhakrishnan, tr. Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1953), Fifth impression 1992, pp. 597-98
Appendix: The entire notes from Bailey:
I will post this separately
Leave a Reply