The following reflections I received on the article ‘Prasad Problem’ Part Two from BR from Chennai. I first sent a rough draft to him. But here I am going to add more points for my personal use in future. So those who read this response can ignore the entire article, as it is nothing but another rhetorical argument by me.
From BR:
I loved the part when you said about temple visits “The absence is felt more than the presence of the Bhakta” – very true
Also Swamiji, the context of Corinth superimposed on Hindus by itself is a far stretch – Corinth was known for its cult prostitution in temples – it was a worship meal and immoral act of revelry that was knit together. to take this and apply it to Hindu temples is a very far application
The references to “demons” is more to do with the expression of worship that was particularly true about Corinth
Paul never used this in Mars hill (which is also referenced in your blog) so if ever Paul wrote to the church in Athens and we discover some fragments in future, we would surely be surprised at his approach
the sermon on Mars hill and his reference to the “altar to the unknown God” has its roots in Greek history
and the verses that he uses in Acts 17 “In him we live and have our being” and ” we are his offspring” are poems of Epimendis and a para from the invocation of Zeus – a Greek God.
so if ever there was a letter written to Athenian church (hope we find some fragment sometime in future) Im sure it would never have any reference to OT passages but to their own context as it was a purely Gentile church unlike Corinth / Ephesus which had a mix of Jew + Gentile
17-4-2024, Chennai
BR: Also Swamiji, the context of Corinth superimposed on Hindus by itself is a far stretch – Corinth was known for its cult prostitution in temples – it was a worship meal and immoral act of revelry that was knit together. to take this and apply it to Hindu temples is a very far application
The references to “demons” is more to do with the expression of worship that was particularly true about Corinth
My Response: Thanks BR taking time to read and send the feedback on a few points. I rarely receive such feedback.
You are correct. The Corinthian context was superimposed on Hindus’ is a ‘far stretch’. And this is exactly my point. As per my habit, I will take so many words to explain my points—even several times would go beyond the subject.
Devil’s Advocate:
Before that I would like to begin from ‘demonic’ worship in Corinth. Here I am playing DEVIL’S ADVOCATE. After all he too someone to present his views? One man’s fetish is another man’s God. What one thinks as ‘demonic’ in another’s faith expression could be their felt need. Of course this does not mean that I support occult practices like ‘temple prostitution’. Though like many others, [like moral policing] I oppose such immoral activities in the name of rituals, that too in a temple. But even this ‘moral and immoral’ is relative and what looks immoral at one time in one society could be considered as part of their life, particularly related to felt needs.
First of all, can we call the sexual act in the ritual in a temple as ‘Prostitution’? Because in several religious traditions it is part of ‘ritual’ and not practicing ‘prostitution’ during the religious ritual. Of course, in several cases actual prostitutes were hired for this purpose. So those sex rituals in Corinthian should not be called ‘Ritual prostitution’. Similar acts of performing sex in ritual is also part in Indian religious tradition, still practiced by some Left Hand Tantrics called ‘Maithun’ in the famous Fives of their sect.1
According to several [Indian as well Western] scholars in Ashvamedha Yajna the Chief Queen has to have sex with the slaughtered horse. According to ….. even actual sex was performed in a closed area by Brahmacharis with hired Prostitute.2 Of course several Hindu apologetics refuted and claimed them as mere symbolic acts and not actually practiced.
Similarly, women were dedicated to the temple as ‘Deva Dasis’ = slave to the Lord. Till the recent past this practice was upheld in few famous Indian temples and now completely came to an end. Though they were sexually exploited by priests and temple patterns, still they were not called ‘Prostitutes’.
Another important aspect to note in this regard is erotic sculptures that one could find in most of the temples in India. Even they are openly displayed sexual acts for everyone to see. I came to know that in one famous temple, near to the garbhagriha [sanctum] there is such sculpture on both sides of the pillars. Because in ancient societies fertility cultic practices are considered as part of the ecological cycle as open and excessive fertility cultic practices would increase production. But now no one would put such sculptures in any modern temples constructed now. As a digression I would like to point out that in the early 1930s and 1940s kissing scenes were quite common in Indian films. But only when Western Puritanism invaded the Indian moral atmosphere through reformers, such open displays of romance in films were stopped. Now it went to the other extreme about which I need not even mention here.
One abnormal practice, now almost disappeared, is ‘canibalism’. I don’t know its complete history. But till the early part of 20th century, among some tribes in Papua New Guinea this was practiced. And according to Palki Sharma Upadhyaya, [the leading journalist in her program Vantage, 19-4-2024, in CNN IBN] said that it was practiced ‘to show respect to their ancestors whose body was consumed after their death’. [When President Biden mentioned that during the first World War, when his uncle Biden died in an air crash in that area, his body couldn’t be found as it was cannibalized by some tribes there. Of course, Sharma refuted this charge]. No civilized society would approve of it. But as it was part of their tradition to show respect, however cannibalism looked abnormal to us, it was part of their felt need that time.
So, like Sevanand [Paul], though I too would oppose such immoral practices, still I won’t judge other’s faith expression from my point of view. Because it is in the Mukti Veda or told by the authors of it, we need not endorse their view, however we accept it as part of Word of God.
Having said this, if animal sacrifice is ‘demonic’ Sevanand and several others, then what to say about all the animal sacrifices in Purva Veda [Old Testament]. As I often said, ‘one man’s blind faith is another man’s philosophy; and one man’s philosophy is another man’s blind faith’. If animal sacrifices and other related rituals are blind faiths expressed through physical acts, then abstract philosophies are blind faith through speculation and buddhi. Here I stop my role as the Devil’s Advocate.
Stretching the Context:
Coming to ‘over stretching one context in another’ what Sevanand says about ‘things offered to idols in two parts, as Baily himself clearly pointed out. First is about the participation in such rituals in temples. Next is eating food that is served before one not asking questions about its origin.
But this is what several scholars and evangelicals have done when criticizing accepting Prasad. What is offered in the temple as Prasad is one thing. What a bhakta eats when invited for a meal, particularly on festival occasions is another thing. But my question is: what a Hindu bhakta, who still remains as part of her family, should do when she has to eat food served to her on every festival. She knows very well, without anyone to whisper in her ears about it, that every food that is served, particularly main items like rice, sweet etc. were already ‘offered’ to the family deity in the puja room and now served. Could she simply reject and refuse to eat because they are prasad now? Or should she now select those items which were not offered to the deity, like ‘Rasam, Sambar, papad, pickle’ etc. Or should she insist on making separate rice, sweet, vada etc., which were not offered to the deities? How she has to negotiate in her own home where she was born and brought up, which alone contributed to her physical body.
Suppose she takes a clear STAND FOR THE LORD tell her family that she won’t eat those items and insist cooking separately, what if her mother says: ‘Ok. The blood, bone, marrow and other parts of your body were sustained and nourished so far only by this Prasad. Then do one thing, at least now transplant your ‘HINDU BLOOD’ to ‘CHIRISTIAN BLOOD’. Hope I managed to communicate what I mean.
Still remaining sensitive to other’s religious faiths, I have done this exactly. When I lived in Mathigiri, during Pongal, I would prepare Sweet Pongal to distribute to my Muslim and Christian neighbours. And I will tell them clearly that this is not offered by mother to her deities and therefore this is not Prasad. I will prepare ‘Payasam’ [keer in Hindi] for her to offer to her deities. And knowing other’s religious sensitivity she also used to cooperate with me, never insisting on offering the Sweet Pongal also to her Bhagavan. With a smile my Muslim neighbor would say, even if it is no problem for him. Because when he invites me for a special annual ritual in his home [to which he won’t invite any other non-Muslims] I will not only participate in the ritual but also will accept fruits that are displayed in that ritual along with other cooked items like poodi, payasma etc. After the story is narrated for that particular ritual, the invited Imam will offer them all to God and pray for the entire family and also for me. But I will accept only fruit, and my Muslim neighbor remaining sensitive to my taboo of eating in a House where non-veg, particularly beef is cooked, would never request to take any of the cooked food which are kept in the same puja. When I visit rural Nepal to a Bhakta’s house who received Deeksha from me, he will clearly instruct his wife not to offer those items that would be served to me to her family deity. Though I would never have objected to it. But before I reach his home, he would have given the instruction and will give information about it to me while serving the food. But I gave the same answer as my Muslim neighbor.
In India, in most shops, not now in big Malls and Department stores, but mostly in other [grocery shops] when the shop is opened the owner will light the lamp and incense stick and offer everything in the shop to the deity for a good business and start the business even expecting a lucky customer to buy the first thing known as ‘boni’ in Tamil. Now what a ‘Christian’ has to do now? Does she buy anything from such a shop? I can stretch this illustration to many areas in life, like travelling in the bus or taxi where the driver pray to the image in front of him for safe travel [now the driver is under the protection of his deity and we in both their hands for safe travel?], eating in a Hindu hotel where little food sale would be offered to the deity as well thrown to the birds, particularly for Crows, farmers doing puja before sowing and after harvesting [ even offering animal sacrifice in few areas, thereby everything produced now becomes ‘offered things’ in one way their deities] etc. That’s why Sevanand in the same letter to Corinthians says that while keeping away the immoral people at a distance in the mandali that he never means to cut all our fellowship and relationship with everyone whom we think as immoral or unethical or worshipping any other deities in our interaction with them in the society.
Regarding the Prasad coming from the temple, as I shared before a Hindu would distribute in public places without enquiring or bothering about your faith. It is left to the individual to receive it or not. While bringing her back to home, she would share it with only those with whom she has good relationships and never to her neighbors and relatives with whom her relationship is estranged. So when she brings the Temple Prasad, it is left to your personal conscience, whereas her aim is not to convert you to her faith or make you deny your bhakti in the Lord or put you in an embarrassing situation. At this point she is very clear. In case if you gently refuse pointing out that your faith does not allow it, she will highly respect and would never insist on giving. But it might strain your mutual relationship and she might react in the same way to your invitation to your feasts during your festivals.
This actually happened in two places shared by the very parents who went through that kind of reaction. In their neighborhood, some of the Hindus perform what is known as ‘kanya puja’ [virgin worship] where they will select a few little girls below ten years of age and decorate them with new clothes and flowers and offer several sweets and food to them and take arati to worship them. In this case, though the Christian converts from Hindu families initially allowed their daughter to participate, later they refused to send due to the peer pressure from their church as they objected to sending a ‘Christian girl’ for a Hindu worship to be treated as a deity. But this resulted in a complete boycott of their entire family, including their children to have social fellowship with them. Finally, this resulted in them to change their house to some other area, after learning a good lesson. This story takes place in two places [Ambala and Varanasi]. Fortunately, they were living in a rented house. Imagine if it were their own house and forced to live in it with a social boycott by their neighbors. I don’t know what the ‘converts’ told their Hindu neighbors. Whatever it might be, instead of ‘building’ up they simply tore down their friendship and fellowship with their neighbors in the name of TAKING A STAND FOR THE LORD. Either they should have stopped sending them for the first time, explaining their beliefs. But behaving like this—sending and then stopping will hurt the neighbors and they might even take it as an INSULT to their puja and deities.
Everything that was shared by the Hindus to their neighbors need not strictly be Prasad, though that name is often used. For example during Diwali sweets were exchanged. And all know well that most of them were bought from the shops to distribute as they cannot make that much sweet at home to distribute to their relatives and friends. Interestingly, the same sweet boxes will go a merry round to several houses as a single home cannot consume all the sweets or buy so much to distribute during festivals. Here also the same principle is used: only distributed to those with whom they have cordial relationships. If you can accept that Diwali sweet [as you have shared your Christmas cake and other sweets with them] because of your friendly relationship with them, so is with the Prasad coming from temple and other worships. Still it is left to your individual choice and conscience. I have seen several Hindus and others accepting it but giving them to their servants later. And those who brought them also know about this, but as they do the same, they never mind what you have done after receiving it. The crucial point is: Do you accept their love and affection or not.
Corinthian Context:
We actually don’t know what happened in Corinthian in which two separate incidents were discussed in that letter: 1. Participating in cultic rituals in temples Eating in a restaurant attached to the temple or invited in any home—believer or not. For my clarity let me again quote what Baily gives as a summary of this section:
This is how a Christian can live in a non-Christian society. As noted, Paul’s theme song throughout the essay is “Freedom and Responsibility” That responsibility (cameo 4) takes on the color of love and sensitivity.
In summary, Paul has earlier discussed
1. What about idol meat served in temple-operated restaurants? Paul’s answer is, It is acceptable if you really understand that the idols do not exist and as long as there is no one present who is still deeply unsettled about these so-called gods. [So before he enters such a restaurant should first go around to check where any other ‘unsettled’ from his family or mandali is there or not? And in case he suddenly enters when he is eating, he has to quickly pay the bill and try to leave without being noticed by him. So till the end you have to enjoy food with some tension in a temple-operated restaurant.2— Or could assure a tip to the waiter or the door keeper to give him a signal in case some ‘unsettled’ comes after he starts eating. Then he has to quickly put the money on the small plat and leave through the backdoor. But the best solution would be to get a ‘parcel’ from the hotel and go back home and enjoy it without any tension. –db]
2. What about eating and drinking in an idol worship service? Paul’s answer was, “Never! Such eating is participation in the worship of demons.” (p.291) [Because of the occultic practice of ritual sex in which you who once participated, might be again tempted to do it again. Or due to the fear of attack from evil forces in case you refuse to actively participate but would prefer to remain a silent observant, to show respect to your friend or relative who invited you to such pujas or rituals.]
In this text Paul considers two further questions. These are:
3. Can I buy this idol meat in the market and eat it at home? Paul replies by saying, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market” (cameo 2). The idols do not exist and the meat itself belongs to God—not to the idols. The whole earth is his. [Already I argued that once sold and bought it is like any other thing that is purchased and won’t remain merely a thing ‘offered to idols, at least in Indian context. See Part three and four]
4. What about a dinner party in the home of one of my unbelieving friends? Paul responds using language that is almost a direct quote from what Jesus told the seventy disciples when sent them out two by two. Both Jesus (Lk 10:8) and Paul say, “Eat whatever is set before you” (cameo 3). But if someone tells you, “This is idol meat’, out of love for the informant—don’t eat. (pp.291-92)
Now how to connect both two separate incidents related to Prasad in our context? Should we over stretch them, by mere guess work asking ‘hypothetical questions’—if the host or fellow Christian guest whispers in the ear of the chief guest about this food or its origin etc. We actually don’t know who invited who and who ‘whispered to whom’. Whoever might it be, all the three—hots, chief guest and co-guest know well from where the meat has come. And no host would say or do something that will prevent the guest eating in his house. If he is very sensitive to the new found faith of his chief guest, why bother even to cook that specific dish bought from temple offering. There were other things available in the market and leaving the very expensive one—like meat which is normally not within the reach of poor people, he could have prepared other simple items bought from the open market. If the chief guest asks what happened to the special food?, the host could have said that as he is not sure whether the meat bought from the temple offering is acceptable to him or not, he avoided it.
So Sevanand while dealing with this issue of ‘participation in cultic rituals in temple’ particularly related with immoral activities and eating served food are in two different contexts. And we should not ‘over stretch’ one over the other and try to present any uniform principle to give guidance to others, particularly based on some scholar guess as Baily has done:
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? (p.290)
Of course through his scholarly research based on his personal experience with Mediterranean culture and traditions, what Baily says has some weight for us to learn. But any theory or theology based on such assumption and scholarly guess is a bit risky for a lay person like me. This looks more like a fiction than scholarly exegesis on this topic. We know well several fictions and movies were created based on such assumptions created based on the small information available in Mukti Veda [Benher is one example].3 But it is better to avoid exegesis based on assumptions.
I can stretch my imagination about what actually didn’t happen there and create some kind of theory or theology. This is the danger in doing theology. Based on any assumption with hypothetical question and that too based on the unearthed other letters from Sevanand [as you mentioned about one written to the church in Antioch] we cannot build any theory or theology, particularly while addressing the same kind of moral or ritual dilemmas that a new ‘convert’ is facing in her society.
These two issues: participating in cultic rituals, particularly with immoral activities like ritual sex and eating food in other places are two completely different issues. And in the name of SAFEGUARDING the FAITH of the new ‘convert’ one event should not be superimposed on the other and present any systematic teaching to give guidance on what a new convert or a Hindu bhakta should do or should not do in her context. As some of the scholars and other [hyper] evangelicals [unintentionally] have done this, it is not acceptable to me.
Now coming to the crucial question in Bailey’s own words [Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic] :
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.
And
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. (p.289)
One way Sevanand is correct about ‘no offense to others’. But if Baily could include Jews and Muslims, what about Hindus in India? The answer is obvious. As a digression I want to point out one thing. Sevanand, as a Jews, remained a Jew till the end of his life. Though he confronted them often and even dusted his feet and washed his responsibility to them, still he cannot give up his concern for them to be ‘saved somehow’ to the extent that he is ready his name to be bolted out from the book of life, as Ramanuja4 has done in Tamil nadu. So as Jew if he remained sensitive to his own people how much more we do the same to our own people in India.
Here I stop. Because already I used so many words which, again I am afraid won’t communicate what I try to convey. Further hair splitting analyses point by point will further complicate my presentation as I am not a born writer or capable editor to present my view like a scholar like Bailey.
This brain storm is subjected to correction if others point out any inconsistency and contradiction in my thoughts.
Notes
1 The letter ‘M’ is considered the best among the letters, as it represents the five requisites for Tantra worship viz: Madva (wine), maamsa (flesh) Matsya (fish) Mudraa (mystical gesticulations) and Maithuna (sexual intercourse). These are variously interpreted by the right and left hand worshippers of Sakti.—ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, notes 182, p.813
2 Thus the Gavamayana reshuffles the elements of the Asvamedha, but still deploys them to similar effect. The shocking sex is displaced from the chief queen to a more appropriate female figure, the whore—but a female one would hardly expect to see on the ritual ground. The horse is gone, but the frisson of forbidden sex is produced by replacing it with the very symbol of (male) chastity, the student. The wives and their attendants are relieved of overt participation in the sexual aspects of the ritual, but sing and dance in a way that could only contribute to the atmosphere of bacchanal. What a New Year’s Eve!— Stephanie W. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife; Sacrificer’s Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India. Delhi, Oxford, 1996, pp. 96-8
3 This could be a nice theme for a comedy movie centering around a new convert eating in a temple operated restaurant, that time suddenly an ‘unsettle new believer’ enters and all that would happen between them. In his attempt to escape stumbles on a waitress and they both fall in love and he requests her to help him to escape and all other incidents with much imagination with a comedy theme would make a nice movie.
4 …Ramanuja is said to have shouted out the Dvaya mantra, exclusively meant for brahmanas, from the top of the temple tower at Tirukottiyur so that everyone, irrespective of caste status, could hear, learn, and recite it.28 Though censured by the Srivaisnava brahmana community, which included his own guru, Ramanuja was undeterred.29 This account, along with such other narratives accepted as historical reality, has been documented as a radical step taken by Ramanuja, who the writings have felt deserve to be upheld as a ‘social reformer’—a point that is overstressed considering that this narrative was not so dramatic as the modern representations would like us to believe. Interestingly, in two of the hagiographies, viz., the Divyasuricaritam, which has two long chapters on Ramanuja, and the Yatiraja Vaibhavam, which deals exclusively with Ramanuja’s life, it is not the Dvaya mantra, but the Carama sloka that Ramanuja learnt from his guru and revealed to everybody. Further, the stotras dedicated to him and the Ramanuja Nurrandadi {Nurratndadi?}, a hymnal composition that (p.15) forms a part of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham, do not mention this famous incident.— Ranjeeta Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies: Ramanuja in Tradition and History, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 15-16
28. Garuda Vahana Pandita. Divyasuricaritam. (trans. From Hindi by Pandita madhavacharya) Sampathakumaracharya and Venkatachari (eds). 1978. Bombay: Ananthacharya Research Institute,Chapter 18, sloka 2; The Yatirajavaibhavam of Andhrapurna (Life of Ramanuja) in The Indian Antiquary, A Journal of Oriental Research (1909 [1985])(, Vol. XXXVII, Sir Richard Carnac Temple (ed.), 1872-1933, Delhi: Swati Publication, sloka 58.
29 Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar. Arayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam. Tiru Krishnaswami Ayyangar (ed.), (1968), pp. 192-8; Muayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam (Vatakalai) of Tritiya Brahmatantrasvatantra Parkala Svami, Chennai: Lifco, 1968, pp. 95-6.
18-04-2024
Gurukulam
The following reflections I received on the article ‘Prasad Problem’ Part Two from BR from Chennai. I first sent a rough draft to him. But here I am going to add more points for my personal use in future. So those who read this response can ignore the entire article, as it is nothing but another rhetorical argument by me.
From BR:
I loved the part when you said about temple visits “The absence is felt more than the presence of the Bhakta” – very true
Also Swamiji, the context of Corinth superimposed on Hindus by itself is a far stretch – Corinth was known for its cult prostitution in temples – it was a worship meal and immoral act of revelry that was knit together. to take this and apply it to Hindu temples is a very far application
The references to “demons” is more to do with the expression of worship that was particularly true about Corinth
Paul never used this in Mars hill (which is also referenced in your blog) so if ever Paul wrote to the church in Athens and we discover some fragments in future, we would surely be surprised at his approach
the sermon on Mars hill and his reference to the “altar to the unknown God” has its roots in Greek history
and the verses that he uses in Acts 17 “In him we live and have our being” and ” we are his offspring” are poems of Epimendis and a para from the invocation of Zeus – a Greek God.
so if ever there was a letter written to Athenian church (hope we find some fragment sometime in future) Im sure it would never have any reference to OT passages but to their own context as it was a purely Gentile church unlike Corinth / Ephesus which had a mix of Jew + Gentile
17-4-2024, Chennai
BR: Also Swamiji, the context of Corinth superimposed on Hindus by itself is a far stretch – Corinth was known for its cult prostitution in temples – it was a worship meal and immoral act of revelry that was knit together. to take this and apply it to Hindu temples is a very far application
The references to “demons” is more to do with the expression of worship that was particularly true about Corinth
My Response: Thanks BR taking time to read and send the feedback on a few points. I rarely receive such feedback.
You are correct. The Corinthian context was superimposed on Hindus’ is a ‘far stretch’. And this is exactly my point. As per my habit, I will take so many words to explain my points—even several times would go beyond the subject.
Devil’s Advocate:
Before that I would like to begin from ‘demonic’ worship in Corinth. Here I am playing DEVIL’S ADVOCATE. After all he too someone to present his views? One man’s fetish is another man’s God. What one thinks as ‘demonic’ in another’s faith expression could be their felt need. Of course this does not mean that I support occult practices like ‘temple prostitution’. Though like many others, [like moral policing] I oppose such immoral activities in the name of rituals, that too in a temple. But even this ‘moral and immoral’ is relative and what looks immoral at one time in one society could be considered as part of their life, particularly related to felt needs.
First of all, can we call the sexual act in the ritual in a temple as ‘Prostitution’? Because in several religious traditions it is part of ‘ritual’ and not practicing ‘prostitution’ during the religious ritual. Of course, in several cases actual prostitutes were hired for this purpose. So those sex rituals in Corinthian should not be called ‘Ritual prostitution’. Similar acts of performing sex in ritual is also part in Indian religious tradition, still practiced by some Left Hand Tantrics called ‘Maithun’ in the famous Fives of their sect.1
According to several [Indian as well Western] scholars in Ashvamedha Yajna the Chief Queen has to have sex with the slaughtered horse. According to ….. even actual sex was performed in a closed area by Brahmacharis with hired Prostitute.2 Of course several Hindu apologetics refuted and claimed them as mere symbolic acts and not actually practiced.
Similarly, women were dedicated to the temple as ‘Deva Dasis’ = slave to the Lord. Till the recent past this practice was upheld in few famous Indian temples and now completely came to an end. Though they were sexually exploited by priests and temple patterns, still they were not called ‘Prostitutes’.
Another important aspect to note in this regard is erotic sculptures that one could find in most of the temples in India. Even they are openly displayed sexual acts for everyone to see. I came to know that in one famous temple, near to the garbhagriha [sanctum] there is such sculpture on both sides of the pillars. Because in ancient societies fertility cultic practices are considered as part of the ecological cycle as open and excessive fertility cultic practices would increase production. But now no one would put such sculptures in any modern temples constructed now. As a digression I would like to point out that in the early 1930s and 1940s kissing scenes were quite common in Indian films. But only when Western Puritanism invaded the Indian moral atmosphere through reformers, such open displays of romance in films were stopped. Now it went to the other extreme about which I need not even mention here.
One abnormal practice, now almost disappeared, is ‘canibalism’. I don’t know its complete history. But till the early part of 20th century, among some tribes in Papua New Guinea this was practiced. And according to Palki Sharma Upadhyaya, [the leading journalist in her program Vantage, 19-4-2024, in CNN IBN] said that it was practiced ‘to show respect to their ancestors whose body was consumed after their death’. [When President Biden mentioned that during the first World War, when his uncle Biden died in an air crash in that area, his body couldn’t be found as it was cannibalized by some tribes there. Of course, Sharma refuted this charge]. No civilized society would approve of it. But as it was part of their tradition to show respect, however cannibalism looked abnormal to us, it was part of their felt need that time.
So, like Sevanand [Paul], though I too would oppose such immoral practices, still I won’t judge other’s faith expression from my point of view. Because it is in the Mukti Veda or told by the authors of it, we need not endorse their view, however we accept it as part of Word of God.
Having said this, if animal sacrifice is ‘demonic’ Sevanand and several others, then what to say about all the animal sacrifices in Purva Veda [Old Testament]. As I often said, ‘one man’s blind faith is another man’s philosophy; and one man’s philosophy is another man’s blind faith’. If animal sacrifices and other related rituals are blind faiths expressed through physical acts, then abstract philosophies are blind faith through speculation and buddhi. Here I stop my role as the Devil’s Advocate.
Stretching the Context:
Coming to ‘over stretching one context in another’ what Sevanand says about ‘things offered to idols in two parts, as Baily himself clearly pointed out. First is about the participation in such rituals in temples. Next is eating food that is served before one not asking questions about its origin.
But this is what several scholars and evangelicals have done when criticizing accepting Prasad. What is offered in the temple as Prasad is one thing. What a bhakta eats when invited for a meal, particularly on festival occasions is another thing. But my question is: what a Hindu bhakta, who still remains as part of her family, should do when she has to eat food served to her on every festival. She knows very well, without anyone to whisper in her ears about it, that every food that is served, particularly main items like rice, sweet etc. were already ‘offered’ to the family deity in the puja room and now served. Could she simply reject and refuse to eat because they are prasad now? Or should she now select those items which were not offered to the deity, like ‘Rasam, Sambar, papad, pickle’ etc. Or should she insist on making separate rice, sweet, vada etc., which were not offered to the deities? How she has to negotiate in her own home where she was born and brought up, which alone contributed to her physical body.
Suppose she takes a clear STAND FOR THE LORD tell her family that she won’t eat those items and insist cooking separately, what if her mother says: ‘Ok. The blood, bone, marrow and other parts of your body were sustained and nourished so far only by this Prasad. Then do one thing, at least now transplant your ‘HINDU BLOOD’ to ‘CHIRISTIAN BLOOD’. Hope I managed to communicate what I mean.
Still remaining sensitive to other’s religious faiths, I have done this exactly. When I lived in Mathigiri, during Pongal, I would prepare Sweet Pongal to distribute to my Muslim and Christian neighbours. And I will tell them clearly that this is not offered by mother to her deities and therefore this is not Prasad. I will prepare ‘Payasam’ [keer in Hindi] for her to offer to her deities. And knowing other’s religious sensitivity she also used to cooperate with me, never insisting on offering the Sweet Pongal also to her Bhagavan. With a smile my Muslim neighbor would say, even if it is no problem for him. Because when he invites me for a special annual ritual in his home [to which he won’t invite any other non-Muslims] I will not only participate in the ritual but also will accept fruits that are displayed in that ritual along with other cooked items like poodi, payasma etc. After the story is narrated for that particular ritual, the invited Imam will offer them all to God and pray for the entire family and also for me. But I will accept only fruit, and my Muslim neighbor remaining sensitive to my taboo of eating in a House where non-veg, particularly beef is cooked, would never request to take any of the cooked food which are kept in the same puja. When I visit rural Nepal to a Bhakta’s house who received Deeksha from me, he will clearly instruct his wife not to offer those items that would be served to me to her family deity. Though I would never have objected to it. But before I reach his home, he would have given the instruction and will give information about it to me while serving the food. But I gave the same answer as my Muslim neighbor.
In India, in most shops, not now in big Malls and Department stores, but mostly in other [grocery shops] when the shop is opened the owner will light the lamp and incense stick and offer everything in the shop to the deity for a good business and start the business even expecting a lucky customer to buy the first thing known as ‘boni’ in Tamil. Now what a ‘Christian’ has to do now? Does she buy anything from such a shop? I can stretch this illustration to many areas in life, like travelling in the bus or taxi where the driver pray to the image in front of him for safe travel [now the driver is under the protection of his deity and we in both their hands for safe travel?], eating in a Hindu hotel where little food sale would be offered to the deity as well thrown to the birds, particularly for Crows, farmers doing puja before sowing and after harvesting [ even offering animal sacrifice in few areas, thereby everything produced now becomes ‘offered things’ in one way their deities] etc. That’s why Sevanand in the same letter to Corinthians says that while keeping away the immoral people at a distance in the mandali that he never means to cut all our fellowship and relationship with everyone whom we think as immoral or unethical or worshipping any other deities in our interaction with them in the society.
Regarding the Prasad coming from the temple, as I shared before a Hindu would distribute in public places without enquiring or bothering about your faith. It is left to the individual to receive it or not. While bringing her back to home, she would share it with only those with whom she has good relationships and never to her neighbors and relatives with whom her relationship is estranged. So when she brings the Temple Prasad, it is left to your personal conscience, whereas her aim is not to convert you to her faith or make you deny your bhakti in the Lord or put you in an embarrassing situation. At this point she is very clear. In case if you gently refuse pointing out that your faith does not allow it, she will highly respect and would never insist on giving. But it might strain your mutual relationship and she might react in the same way to your invitation to your feasts during your festivals.
This actually happened in two places shared by the very parents who went through that kind of reaction. In their neighborhood, some of the Hindus perform what is known as ‘kanya puja’ [virgin worship] where they will select a few little girls below ten years of age and decorate them with new clothes and flowers and offer several sweets and food to them and take arati to worship them. In this case, though the Christian converts from Hindu families initially allowed their daughter to participate, later they refused to send due to the peer pressure from their church as they objected to sending a ‘Christian girl’ for a Hindu worship to be treated as a deity. But this resulted in a complete boycott of their entire family, including their children to have social fellowship with them. Finally, this resulted in them to change their house to some other area, after learning a good lesson. This story takes place in two places [Ambala and Varanasi]. Fortunately, they were living in a rented house. Imagine if it were their own house and forced to live in it with a social boycott by their neighbors. I don’t know what the ‘converts’ told their Hindu neighbors. Whatever it might be, instead of ‘building’ up they simply tore down their friendship and fellowship with their neighbors in the name of TAKING A STAND FOR THE LORD. Either they should have stopped sending them for the first time, explaining their beliefs. But behaving like this—sending and then stopping will hurt the neighbors and they might even take it as an INSULT to their puja and deities.
Everything that was shared by the Hindus to their neighbors need not strictly be Prasad, though that name is often used. For example during Diwali sweets were exchanged. And all know well that most of them were bought from the shops to distribute as they cannot make that much sweet at home to distribute to their relatives and friends. Interestingly, the same sweet boxes will go a merry round to several houses as a single home cannot consume all the sweets or buy so much to distribute during festivals. Here also the same principle is used: only distributed to those with whom they have cordial relationships. If you can accept that Diwali sweet [as you have shared your Christmas cake and other sweets with them] because of your friendly relationship with them, so is with the Prasad coming from temple and other worships. Still it is left to your individual choice and conscience. I have seen several Hindus and others accepting it but giving them to their servants later. And those who brought them also know about this, but as they do the same, they never mind what you have done after receiving it. The crucial point is: Do you accept their love and affection or not.
Corinthian Context:
We actually don’t know what happened in Corinthian in which two separate incidents were discussed in that letter: 1. Participating in cultic rituals in temples Eating in a restaurant attached to the temple or invited in any home—believer or not. For my clarity let me again quote what Baily gives as a summary of this section:
This is how a Christian can live in a non-Christian society. As noted, Paul’s theme song throughout the essay is “Freedom and Responsibility” That responsibility (cameo 4) takes on the color of love and sensitivity.
In summary, Paul has earlier discussed
1. What about idol meat served in temple-operated restaurants? Paul’s answer is, It is acceptable if you really understand that the idols do not exist and as long as there is no one present who is still deeply unsettled about these so-called gods. [So before he enters such a restaurant should first go around to check where any other ‘unsettled’ from his family or mandali is there or not? And in case he suddenly enters when he is eating, he has to quickly pay the bill and try to leave without being noticed by him. So till the end you have to enjoy food with some tension in a temple-operated restaurant.2— Or could assure a tip to the waiter or the door keeper to give him a signal in case some ‘unsettled’ comes after he starts eating. Then he has to quickly put the money on the small plat and leave through the backdoor. But the best solution would be to get a ‘parcel’ from the hotel and go back home and enjoy it without any tension. –db]
2. What about eating and drinking in an idol worship service? Paul’s answer was, “Never! Such eating is participation in the worship of demons.” (p.291) [Because of the occultic practice of ritual sex in which you who once participated, might be again tempted to do it again. Or due to the fear of attack from evil forces in case you refuse to actively participate but would prefer to remain a silent observant, to show respect to your friend or relative who invited you to such pujas or rituals.]
In this text Paul considers two further questions. These are:
3. Can I buy this idol meat in the market and eat it at home? Paul replies by saying, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market” (cameo 2). The idols do not exist and the meat itself belongs to God—not to the idols. The whole earth is his. [Already I argued that once sold and bought it is like any other thing that is purchased and won’t remain merely a thing ‘offered to idols, at least in Indian context. See Part three and four]
4. What about a dinner party in the home of one of my unbelieving friends? Paul responds using language that is almost a direct quote from what Jesus told the seventy disciples when sent them out two by two. Both Jesus (Lk 10:8) and Paul say, “Eat whatever is set before you” (cameo 3). But if someone tells you, “This is idol meat’, out of love for the informant—don’t eat. (pp.291-92)
Now how to connect both two separate incidents related to Prasad in our context? Should we over stretch them, by mere guess work asking ‘hypothetical questions’—if the host or fellow Christian guest whispers in the ear of the chief guest about this food or its origin etc. We actually don’t know who invited who and who ‘whispered to whom’. Whoever might it be, all the three—hots, chief guest and co-guest know well from where the meat has come. And no host would say or do something that will prevent the guest eating in his house. If he is very sensitive to the new found faith of his chief guest, why bother even to cook that specific dish bought from temple offering. There were other things available in the market and leaving the very expensive one—like meat which is normally not within the reach of poor people, he could have prepared other simple items bought from the open market. If the chief guest asks what happened to the special food?, the host could have said that as he is not sure whether the meat bought from the temple offering is acceptable to him or not, he avoided it.
So Sevanand while dealing with this issue of ‘participation in cultic rituals in temple’ particularly related with immoral activities and eating served food are in two different contexts. And we should not ‘over stretch’ one over the other and try to present any uniform principle to give guidance to others, particularly based on some scholar guess as Baily has done:
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? (p.290)
Of course through his scholarly research based on his personal experience with Mediterranean culture and traditions, what Baily says has some weight for us to learn. But any theory or theology based on such assumption and scholarly guess is a bit risky for a lay person like me. This looks more like a fiction than scholarly exegesis on this topic. We know well several fictions and movies were created based on such assumptions created based on the small information available in Mukti Veda [Benher is one example].3 But it is better to avoid exegesis based on assumptions.
I can stretch my imagination about what actually didn’t happen there and create some kind of theory or theology. This is the danger in doing theology. Based on any assumption with hypothetical question and that too based on the unearthed other letters from Sevanand [as you mentioned about one written to the church in Antioch] we cannot build any theory or theology, particularly while addressing the same kind of moral or ritual dilemmas that a new ‘convert’ is facing in her society.
These two issues: participating in cultic rituals, particularly with immoral activities like ritual sex and eating food in other places are two completely different issues. And in the name of SAFEGUARDING the FAITH of the new ‘convert’ one event should not be superimposed on the other and present any systematic teaching to give guidance on what a new convert or a Hindu bhakta should do or should not do in her context. As some of the scholars and other [hyper] evangelicals [unintentionally] have done this, it is not acceptable to me.
Now coming to the crucial question in Bailey’s own words [Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic] :
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.
And
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. (p.289)
One way Sevanand is correct about ‘no offense to others’. But if Baily could include Jews and Muslims, what about Hindus in India? The answer is obvious. As a digression I want to point out one thing. Sevanand, as a Jews, remained a Jew till the end of his life. Though he confronted them often and even dusted his feet and washed his responsibility to them, still he cannot give up his concern for them to be ‘saved somehow’ to the extent that he is ready his name to be bolted out from the book of life, as Ramanuja4 has done in Tamil nadu. So as Jew if he remained sensitive to his own people how much more we do the same to our own people in India.
Here I stop. Because already I used so many words which, again I am afraid won’t communicate what I try to convey. Further hair splitting analyses point by point will further complicate my presentation as I am not a born writer or capable editor to present my view like a scholar like Bailey.
This brain storm is subjected to correction if others point out any inconsistency and contradiction in my thoughts.
Notes
1 The letter ‘M’ is considered the best among the letters, as it represents the five requisites for Tantra worship viz: Madva (wine), maamsa (flesh) Matsya (fish) Mudraa (mystical gesticulations) and Maithuna (sexual intercourse). These are variously interpreted by the right and left hand worshippers of Sakti.—ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, notes 182, p.813
2 Thus the Gavamayana reshuffles the elements of the Asvamedha, but still deploys them to similar effect. The shocking sex is displaced from the chief queen to a more appropriate female figure, the whore—but a female one would hardly expect to see on the ritual ground. The horse is gone, but the frisson of forbidden sex is produced by replacing it with the very symbol of (male) chastity, the student. The wives and their attendants are relieved of overt participation in the sexual aspects of the ritual, but sing and dance in a way that could only contribute to the atmosphere of bacchanal. What a New Year’s Eve!— Stephanie W. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife; Sacrificer’s Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India. Delhi, Oxford, 1996, pp. 96-8
3 This could be a nice theme for a comedy movie centering around a new convert eating in a temple operated restaurant, that time suddenly an ‘unsettle new believer’ enters and all that would happen between them. In his attempt to escape stumbles on a waitress and they both fall in love and he requests her to help him to escape and all other incidents with much imagination with a comedy theme would make a nice movie.
4 …Ramanuja is said to have shouted out the Dvaya mantra, exclusively meant for brahmanas, from the top of the temple tower at Tirukottiyur so that everyone, irrespective of caste status, could hear, learn, and recite it.28 Though censured by the Srivaisnava brahmana community, which included his own guru, Ramanuja was undeterred.29 This account, along with such other narratives accepted as historical reality, has been documented as a radical step taken by Ramanuja, who the writings have felt deserve to be upheld as a ‘social reformer’—a point that is overstressed considering that this narrative was not so dramatic as the modern representations would like us to believe. Interestingly, in two of the hagiographies, viz., the Divyasuricaritam, which has two long chapters on Ramanuja, and the Yatiraja Vaibhavam, which deals exclusively with Ramanuja’s life, it is not the Dvaya mantra, but the Carama sloka that Ramanuja learnt from his guru and revealed to everybody. Further, the stotras dedicated to him and the Ramanuja Nurrandadi {Nurratndadi?}, a hymnal composition that (p.15) forms a part of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham, do not mention this famous incident.— Ranjeeta Dutta, From Hagiographies to Biographies: Ramanuja in Tradition and History, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 15-16
28. Garuda Vahana Pandita. Divyasuricaritam. (trans. From Hindi by Pandita madhavacharya) Sampathakumaracharya and Venkatachari (eds). 1978. Bombay: Ananthacharya Research Institute,Chapter 18, sloka 2; The Yatirajavaibhavam of Andhrapurna (Life of Ramanuja) in The Indian Antiquary, A Journal of Oriental Research (1909 [1985])(, Vol. XXXVII, Sir Richard Carnac Temple (ed.), 1872-1933, Delhi: Swati Publication, sloka 58.
29 Pinbalagiya Perumal Jiyar. Arayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam. Tiru Krishnaswami Ayyangar (ed.), (1968), pp. 192-8; Muayirappati Guruparamparaprabhavam (Vatakalai) of Tritiya Brahmatantrasvatantra Parkala Svami, Chennai: Lifco, 1968, pp. 95-6.
28- 04-2024
Gurukulam
Leave a Reply