Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedaanta,K. P. Aleaz.ISPCK CTE 11, 1996
Thankfully ,”…people and communities live from the word of scripture, not from doctrines to which scriptures tend to be reduced, let alone from hermeneutical theories applied to scriptures”. (Frans Jozef van Beeck. S.J., Jonh Cardinal Cody Professor of Catholic Theology, Loyola University, back side cover of `Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment Comparative Theology’, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993). This doesn’t mean that lay people are not benefited either by the reduction of their scripture(s) into some specific doctrines or by the hermeneutical theories applied to scriptures. However the efforts of the theologians in these areas of `reduction’ and `hermenutics’ should more contribute to the common people’s understanding of their respective scripture to face all the challenges to their faith rather than confusing them. Their role become more important particularly in the context of helping new believers who found new values from the other’s scriptures while try to live within their own social and cultural contexts which are more shaped and influenced by their own native scriptures (like a Hindu Christ bhakta).
To say more specifically every Hindu Christ bhakta lives with an open tension in his commitment to Jesus based on the biblical instruction on the one hand and struggle to keep his Indian identity, not for the sake of survival but because of his birth right. So he always welcomes every new efforts of the theologians to help him both to understand his faith in Christ as well as to share it with other members of his community with the help of his native forms. But being a lay man, he needs a strong foundation to keep his faith alive amidst various struggles to survive as a Christ bhakta in his own community. And nothing but the Scripture could provide such a foundation however poor may be his hermeneutical theories applied to the Bible. And when the very foundation begins to shake, because of the reduction of the scripture in the name of doctrine and hermeneutics, then he is left with only one option of ignoring the theologians in order to keep his faith alive. Because for him all the alterations in the new house which he got should be within the limitation of the foundation and not outside of it. Any building constructed outside of the foundation, however beautiful it looks will never be safe for his survival. And in case of his faith in Christ, the Word of God which is `given’ by the apostolic tradition is the foundation. When it is challenged in the name of `importance to the hermeneutical context’ (p.90), then he would give up any alteration of the building and prefer a simple hut with a strong foundation.
Aleaz in this book in the name of creating new Indian Christian Theology based on Advaita Vedaanta (of Sankara*) not only confuses a lay man but also creates pity in his mind for such theologians. Because “Theology, to characterize it in a non-technical fashion, is distinct from the study of religion (with which it overlaps in many of its procedures) because theology is an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing. Believing theologians are (usually) members of believing communities, and have those communities as their primary audiences, whether or not the bulk of their writing is addressed to them. With their communities, they believe in some transcendent (perhaps supernatural) reality, the possibility of and (usually fact of) a normative revelation, and in the need to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation. Theologians do their work with an awareness of and concern for these beliefs, and with a desire to defend and preserve them, even if at one or another moment they may have to question, recontextualize and finally reformulate them in modes of discourse quite different from those already familiar to the community.” (Clooney, pp.4-5)
Particularly in our country where “Pluralistic Inclusivism for the relational convergence of religions”(p.90) at least in theory, has become a familiar topic, the Christ bhaktas, particularly from the so called high caste and educated communities face lots of challenges specifically “to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation”.(Clooney, pp. 4-5) Because for them following Christ is not to pass time or to involve in an intellectual entertainment (like Inter Religious Dialogue), but becomes a very necessity for their survival. In their struggle for survival within their own respective communities as Christ bhaktas, they would welcome to find an answer to the question `who is Jesus'(90) through the `hermeneutical context of India’ (p.2) Though, `numerous attempts have been made by people in every generation to answer this question’ (p.90), yet they believe that most of them are not accepted as a complete attempt, particularly those which have undermined the basic tenants of the gospel and the faith and experience of the early Christ bhaktas. And when such attempts instead of contributing to the faith of a lay man begin to confuse him as they shake the very foundation of his faith, then they become insincere.
There is a Tamil proverb which says `if the beginning is wrong the end also will be wrong’ and in this book also confusion starts from the beginning and grows as the author’s analysis of various so called Christian Vedantin’s writings. But a climactic confusion confronts the simple believer in this stunning statement:
“Our Jesulogy basically agrees with the contention of the Neo-Vedaantins that unfortunately the universal message of Jesus which comprises the ideas of the indwelling divinity, of divine grace, universal ethics, and spiritual realization was distorted by the Christian Church through fettering it in cast-iron dogmas of innate vileness of human nature, the `scape-goat’ and the `atonement’, physical resurrection and the second advent, earthly kingdom and imminence of the Day of judgement which are purely sectarian in their scope. Human sacrifice was a Jewish idea and to fit the gentle and loving Jesus into Jewish beliefs, the idea of human sacrifice in the form of atonement or as a human scapegoat, by Christianity, was really unfortunate” (p.99)
On reading this the mind becomes still (rather numb), experiencing a theological or Jesulogical advaita (better shunya or the void); the way back to normalcy of faith and experience surely lies in tossing this book aside.
Fortunately in the major portion of this book Aleaz “adopted a descriptive-analytical method executed in terms of a study of the original writings of the Christian thinkers who construct theology in the context of Advaita.” (p.3) instead of writing a whole book with his own ideas. But a lay man like me has even to doubt the author’s `hermeneutical’ interpretation of those Christian thinkers when he says that those Christian thinkers like Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, Carl Keller, K. Subba Rao, J. G. Arapura, R. V. De Smet and S. J. Samartha who “may be categorised under the Reception Model as they receive Advaita Vedaantic thought TOTALLY in their endeavour of interpreting Christian faith.” (p.199) When we read the author’s analysis of such Christian thinkers’ writings, several question arise in our mind not only about their endeavour but also in the author’s analytical interpretation. Limiting ourselves here we take K. Subba Rao alone, with whom I can easily identify as a lay man:
“…even though it is not explicitly stated by Subba Rao, it is crystal-clear that he has taken the Advaita Vedaanta as the basis to explain his experience of Jesus and everything related to Him” (p.47)
“K.Subba Rao was not a systematic theologian and what he has done in his brief writings as we have noted above is to pour out his experience of Jesus in a fragmentary and poetic way…” (p.53)
“…Perhaps Subba Rao’s thought may have to be remoulded from within the framework of authentic Sankarite thought…” (p.56)
This being the truth about the “totality” of Subba Rao’s advaitic ideology, how can we then accept that the author’s analytical interpretation of all the other Christian thinker’s views really represents their ideology? One can write several volumes based on this one book alone, but as such an endeavour is not going to bring any change in such Neo-vedantic theologian’s attitude about the biblical faith, we leave to the Christian scholars and thinkers to wrestle with Aleaz’s effort to form an Indian Christian Theology **through the Advaita Vedanta (pp. 90-109***). When the author in the name of Jesulogy creates a ‘cosmic Christ’ at the cost of the ‘historical Jesus’ (without atonement, physical resurrection etc.), a second atonement seems necessary just for the sake of such theologians.
In the major work, the author investigate three models of “Reception” (part I), “Reinterpretation” (part II) and “Rejection” (Part III) and concludes:
” Indian Christians are fortunate to be acquainted with Advaita Vedaantic experience in order that it may enrich their faith-experience. Deeper dimensions of Christian thought on God, humans and creation are manifesting through the aid of Sankara’s thought. Deeper meanings of the person and function of Jesus are emerging from within Advaita Vedaanta….the good news is that there are many Christian theologians who follow the approaches of either Pluralism or Pluralistic Inclusivism and who are able to experience the fulfilment of a preformulate Christian theology in Advaitic experience. Advaita Vedaanta makes Christian faith-experience new and refreshing.” (p.212)
But when considering the long tradition of the Advaitic Vedaanta in India, leave the Christians (who does not know anything about India’s social, cultural and religious values, as they are mostly following a Western Christianity), even the Indians are not in a position to clearly explain what Advaita really is? If we briefly trace the origin of advaita it would be like this: Sankara though the chief propagator of Advaita Vedaanta, yet he is not the founder of that school. Advaita Vedaanta has a long history tracing its beginning with Upanisads**** and Brahma Suutra (Uttara Miimaamsaa Suutra) of Baadaraayana followed by a long commentorial tradition (see Cloony also for a scholarly work). Though Upanisads never give any systemetic thought, it was Baadharaayana’s Brahma Sutra first attempted for a systemetic exegetical thesis on Upanisads. But no two Indian Vedantians (like Sankara, Raamaanuja, Madhava, Vallabha, Nimbaarka) and modern scholars are agreeing with each other regarding the siddhanta of Brahmasutra (see Ghate and my review on his book in TAMAT). Beginning from Sankara it was the commentorial tradition down to Neo-Vedantians decides the precise understanding of Advaita, which is not as easy task for the Hindus themselves. This being the truth, how for the Christians in India are ” fortunate to be acquainted with Advaita Vedaantic experience in order that it may enrich their faith-experience.” Even taking it for granted that they are blessed by the Advaitic Vedaantic experience, yet Advaita become unfortunate considering the fact it “has suffered at the hands of readers who have discussed its themes without sufficient attention to the manner in which these are inscribed in the Text” (Cloony p.38). This doesn’t mean that we have to reject Advaita’s contribution for a Indian Christian Theology. But in the name of hermenuetical intrapratation, when scholars try to REDUCE every Scripture to their own idea it is not only Advaita and theology but the very scripture will suffer at the hands of such theologians who have discussed its doctrine “without sufficient attention to the manner in which they are inscribed in the text.” Hindus are fortunate to have Advaita but Christians are unfortunate to have such theologians like Aliaz.
There are two kinds of spiritual or religious experience in this world since time in memorial–ontological and existential levels. Though both started from the existential level alone, yet by virtue (or curse) of their `Intellectual gifts’ the theologians and philosophers later not only get confused but also tried to confuse the people of existential level, while they tried to articulate their experience on `existential level’ in `ontological’ (or philosophical) level’.
Though the common man who prefers to profess his faith on `existential level’, either consciously or un-consciously try to ignore the `Theories’ of philosophers. Yet he cannot avoid their influence to some extent in his faith. But the encouraging fact in it is that in order to redeem the common man from the clutches of `theologians and philosophers’ God again and again send his bhaktas to guide his followers in the form of some `gurus’ and `acharyas’, though some of them (gurus and acharyas) later may fell from the Grace and become philosophers.
So two options are left before a bhakta (1) follow the `theologians and philosophes’ and get lost along with them in their own `intellectual forest’ or (2) continue to live on `existential level’ trusting God and keeping the faith in him seeking the company of spiritual saints. The (religious) world would become more beautiful and peaceful if God could control the minds of the philosophers by redeeming them again by his Grace
In order to make `sense to Indians’ (p.99) instead of crucifing Jesus on the cross of Sankara’s advaita, the author can create a Vivekanandalogy or Gandiology or better an Aleazeoly and declare them as `Indian Sankarite Advaityic Jesus’ and leave the poor Indian Christ bhaktas to become a Thukaram or Meeraai to follow their Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament. A second atonment of Jesus become a necessary to save these Neo-Theologians.
Notes
*.Though the title of this book is ‘Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedaanta’, Aleaz has reduced Advaita Vedaanta to that of Sankara only forgetting the fact that ‘the meaning of Advaita is inscribed in the complex whole the Text(s) its layers of text and commentary, and to this whole the thought of Sankara is only a single, albeit primary, contirbutor'(Cloony, p.32)
**If`the gospel of Jesus from India for the whole humanmity is that liberation is an ever attained fact (nityasiddhasvabhaavam)’ (p.105), then the words of St.Paul in Gal 1:6 (-10) is false. And in the name of `hermenutical context’ if every land is going to “Produce” their own gospel viz., Jesus-ology then there won’t be `one gospel, one faith (Eph.4: )in the world. `There are different religiouns, but there is only one gospel’ (Dr.Stanly Jones). And one would wonder whether any sincee practicising advaitian would agree with the author that `we….are limiting ourselves to Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta, that again to the concept of Jiiva-Brahman relation in Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta, from within which an understanding of Jesus or Jesulogy is to be constructed.’ (p.90)
***”thus we saw above a practical demonstration of an Indian dialogical theology, more specifically an Indian Dialogical Jesulogy in terms of the perspective of Pluralistic Inclusivism for the relational convergence of religions, in this case of Hinduism and Christianity. It also points to the fact that our hermeneutical context, a major factor of which is Advaita Vedaanta, decides the content or our theology. We tried to make the very content of the revelation of God in Jesus truly pluralistic by elaborating the contributions of Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta to it. There is a possibility of understanding the person of Jesus as the extrinsic denominator (upaadhi) Brahman, the name and form (naamaruupa) of Brahman, the effect (kaarya) of Brahman, as well as the reflection (aabhasa) and delimitation (ghataakaasah) of Brahman. There is also a possibility of interpreting the function of Jesus as to manifest the all-pervasive (sarvagatatvam), illuminative (jyotih) and unifying (ekikrtya) power of the Supreme Aatman, as to manifest that the Supreme Brahman as Pure Consciousness (prajnaana-ghanam) is the Witness (Saaksi) and Self of all(Sarvaatmaa) and as to manifest the eternally present (nityasiddhasvabhaavam) human liberation”. While the author uses all the categaries of advaita vedaanta for a “practical demonstration of an Indian dialogical… Jesulogy”, he never quotes a single Bible verse in the whole section relating all these catageries to have a real dialogue with biblical theology about Jesus. So it is better to call it as an “Indian monological advaitic Jesulogy”.
**** “…Advaita takes into account the presystematic and performative nature of the upanisads, and we must examine how Advaita retains and inscribes in its presentation of the upanisads the ironic, self-conscious and self-critical, upanisadic style, how it, like the upanisads, resists the reduction of texts to the presentation of already and completely achieved meanings.” (Cloony, p.44)
–Dayanand Bharati, Pune, July 1, 1997.
In order to formulate an authentic Indian Christian Thelogy, without which the universal church would be complete we must study every school of thought in India in order to help the Hindu Christ bhaktas as well as other followers of Christ in the world would be benifited.
Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedaanta,K. P. Aleaz.ISPCK CTE 11, 1996
Thankfully ,”…people and communities live from the word of scripture, not from doctrines to which scriptures tend to be reduced, let alone from hermeneutical theories applied to scriptures”. (Frans Jozef van Beeck. S.J., Jonh Cardinal Cody Professor of Catholic Theology, Loyola University, back side cover of `Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment Comparative Theology’, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993). This doesn’t mean that lay people are not benefited either by the reduction of their scripture(s) into some specific doctrines or by the hermeneutical theories applied to scriptures. However the efforts of the theologians in these areas of `reduction’ and `hermenutics’ should more contribute to the common people’s understanding of their respective scripture to face all the challenges to their faith rather than confusing them. Their role become more important particularly in the context of helping new believers who found new values from the other’s scriptures while try to live within their own social and cultural contexts which are more shaped and influenced by their own native scriptures (like a Hindu Christ bhakta).
To say more specifically every Hindu Christ bhakta lives with an open tension in his commitment to Jesus based on the biblical instruction on the one hand and struggle to keep his Indian identity, not for the sake of survival but because of his birth right. So he always welcomes every new efforts of the theologians to help him both to understand his faith in Christ as well as to share it with other members of his community with the help of his native forms. But being a lay man, he needs a strong foundation to keep his faith alive amidst various struggles to survive as a Christ bhakta in his own community. And nothing but the Scripture could provide such a foundation however poor may be his hermeneutical theories applied to the Bible. And when the very foundation begins to shake, because of the reduction of the scripture in the name of doctrine and hermeneutics, then he is left with only one option of ignoring the theologians in order to keep his faith alive. Because for him all the alterations in the new house which he got should be within the limitation of the foundation and not outside of it. Any building constructed outside of the foundation, however beautiful it looks will never be safe for his survival. And in case of his faith in Christ, the Word of God which is `given’ by the apostolic tradition is the foundation. When it is challenged in the name of `importance to the hermeneutical context’ (p.90), then he would give up any alteration of the building and prefer a simple hut with a strong foundation.
Aleaz in this book in the name of creating new Indian Christian Theology based on Advaita Vedaanta (of Sankara*) not only confuses a lay man but also creates pity in his mind for such theologians. Because “Theology, to characterize it in a non-technical fashion, is distinct from the study of religion (with which it overlaps in many of its procedures) because theology is an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing. Believing theologians are (usually) members of believing communities, and have those communities as their primary audiences, whether or not the bulk of their writing is addressed to them. With their communities, they believe in some transcendent (perhaps supernatural) reality, the possibility of and (usually fact of) a normative revelation, and in the need to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation. Theologians do their work with an awareness of and concern for these beliefs, and with a desire to defend and preserve them, even if at one or another moment they may have to question, recontextualize and finally reformulate them in modes of discourse quite different from those already familiar to the community.” (Clooney, pp.4-5)
Particularly in our country where “Pluralistic Inclusivism for the relational convergence of religions”(p.90) at least in theory, has become a familiar topic, the Christ bhaktas, particularly from the so called high caste and educated communities face lots of challenges specifically “to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation”.(Clooney, pp. 4-5) Because for them following Christ is not to pass time or to involve in an intellectual entertainment (like Inter Religious Dialogue), but becomes a very necessity for their survival. In their struggle for survival within their own respective communities as Christ bhaktas, they would welcome to find an answer to the question `who is Jesus'(90) through the `hermeneutical context of India’ (p.2) Though, `numerous attempts have been made by people in every generation to answer this question’ (p.90), yet they believe that most of them are not accepted as a complete attempt, particularly those which have undermined the basic tenants of the gospel and the faith and experience of the early Christ bhaktas. And when such attempts instead of contributing to the faith of a lay man begin to confuse him as they shake the very foundation of his faith, then they become insincere.
There is a Tamil proverb which says `if the beginning is wrong the end also will be wrong’ and in this book also confusion starts from the beginning and grows as the author’s analysis of various so called Christian Vedantin’s writings. But a climactic confusion confronts the simple believer in this stunning statement:
“Our Jesulogy basically agrees with the contention of the Neo-Vedaantins that unfortunately the universal message of Jesus which comprises the ideas of the indwelling divinity, of divine grace, universal ethics, and spiritual realization was distorted by the Christian Church through fettering it in cast-iron dogmas of innate vileness of human nature, the `scape-goat’ and the `atonement’, physical resurrection and the second advent, earthly kingdom and imminence of the Day of judgement which are purely sectarian in their scope. Human sacrifice was a Jewish idea and to fit the gentle and loving Jesus into Jewish beliefs, the idea of human sacrifice in the form of atonement or as a human scapegoat, by Christianity, was really unfortunate” (p.99)
On reading this the mind becomes still (rather numb), experiencing a theological or Jesulogical advaita (better shunya or the void); the way back to normalcy of faith and experience surely lies in tossing this book aside.
Fortunately in the major portion of this book Aleaz “adopted a descriptive-analytical method executed in terms of a study of the original writings of the Christian thinkers who construct theology in the context of Advaita.” (p.3) instead of writing a whole book with his own ideas. But a lay man like me has even to doubt the author’s `hermeneutical’ interpretation of those Christian thinkers when he says that those Christian thinkers like Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, Carl Keller, K. Subba Rao, J. G. Arapura, R. V. De Smet and S. J. Samartha who “may be categorised under the Reception Model as they receive Advaita Vedaantic thought TOTALLY in their endeavour of interpreting Christian faith.” (p.199) When we read the author’s analysis of such Christian thinkers’ writings, several question arise in our mind not only about their endeavour but also in the author’s analytical interpretation. Limiting ourselves here we take K. Subba Rao alone, with whom I can easily identify as a lay man:
“…even though it is not explicitly stated by Subba Rao, it is crystal-clear that he has taken the Advaita Vedaanta as the basis to explain his experience of Jesus and everything related to Him” (p.47)
“K.Subba Rao was not a systematic theologian and what he has done in his brief writings as we have noted above is to pour out his experience of Jesus in a fragmentary and poetic way…” (p.53)
“…Perhaps Subba Rao’s thought may have to be remoulded from within the framework of authentic Sankarite thought…” (p.56)
This being the truth about the “totality” of Subba Rao’s advaitic ideology, how can we then accept that the author’s analytical interpretation of all the other Christian thinker’s views really represents their ideology? One can write several volumes based on this one book alone, but as such an endeavour is not going to bring any change in such Neo-vedantic theologian’s attitude about the biblical faith, we leave to the Christian scholars and thinkers to wrestle with Aleaz’s effort to form an Indian Christian Theology **through the Advaita Vedanta (pp. 90-109***). When the author in the name of Jesulogy creates a ‘cosmic Christ’ at the cost of the ‘historical Jesus’ (without atonement, physical resurrection etc.), a second atonement seems necessary just for the sake of such theologians.
In the major work, the author investigate three models of “Reception” (part I), “Reinterpretation” (part II) and “Rejection” (Part III) and concludes:
” Indian Christians are fortunate to be acquainted with Advaita Vedaantic experience in order that it may enrich their faith-experience. Deeper dimensions of Christian thought on God, humans and creation are manifesting through the aid of Sankara’s thought. Deeper meanings of the person and function of Jesus are emerging from within Advaita Vedaanta….the good news is that there are many Christian theologians who follow the approaches of either Pluralism or Pluralistic Inclusivism and who are able to experience the fulfilment of a preformulate Christian theology in Advaitic experience. Advaita Vedaanta makes Christian faith-experience new and refreshing.” (p.212)
But when considering the long tradition of the Advaitic Vedaanta in India, leave the Christians (who does not know anything about India’s social, cultural and religious values, as they are mostly following a Western Christianity), even the Indians are not in a position to clearly explain what Advaita really is? If we briefly trace the origin of advaita it would be like this: Sankara though the chief propagator of Advaita Vedaanta, yet he is not the founder of that school. Advaita Vedaanta has a long history tracing its beginning with Upanisads**** and Brahma Suutra (Uttara Miimaamsaa Suutra) of Baadaraayana followed by a long commentorial tradition (see Cloony also for a scholarly work). Though Upanisads never give any systemetic thought, it was Baadharaayana’s Brahma Sutra first attempted for a systemetic exegetical thesis on Upanisads. But no two Indian Vedantians (like Sankara, Raamaanuja, Madhava, Vallabha, Nimbaarka) and modern scholars are agreeing with each other regarding the siddhanta of Brahmasutra (see Ghate and my review on his book in TAMAT). Beginning from Sankara it was the commentorial tradition down to Neo-Vedantians decides the precise understanding of Advaita, which is not as easy task for the Hindus themselves. This being the truth, how for the Christians in India are ” fortunate to be acquainted with Advaita Vedaantic experience in order that it may enrich their faith-experience.” Even taking it for granted that they are blessed by the Advaitic Vedaantic experience, yet Advaita become unfortunate considering the fact it “has suffered at the hands of readers who have discussed its themes without sufficient attention to the manner in which these are inscribed in the Text” (Cloony p.38). This doesn’t mean that we have to reject Advaita’s contribution for a Indian Christian Theology. But in the name of hermenuetical intrapratation, when scholars try to REDUCE every Scripture to their own idea it is not only Advaita and theology but the very scripture will suffer at the hands of such theologians who have discussed its doctrine “without sufficient attention to the manner in which they are inscribed in the text.” Hindus are fortunate to have Advaita but Christians are unfortunate to have such theologians like Aliaz.
There are two kinds of spiritual or religious experience in this world since time in memorial–ontological and existential levels. Though both started from the existential level alone, yet by virtue (or curse) of their `Intellectual gifts’ the theologians and philosophers later not only get confused but also tried to confuse the people of existential level, while they tried to articulate their experience on `existential level’ in `ontological’ (or philosophical) level’.
Though the common man who prefers to profess his faith on `existential level’, either consciously or un-consciously try to ignore the `Theories’ of philosophers. Yet he cannot avoid their influence to some extent in his faith. But the encouraging fact in it is that in order to redeem the common man from the clutches of `theologians and philosophers’ God again and again send his bhaktas to guide his followers in the form of some `gurus’ and `acharyas’, though some of them (gurus and acharyas) later may fell from the Grace and become philosophers.
So two options are left before a bhakta (1) follow the `theologians and philosophes’ and get lost along with them in their own `intellectual forest’ or (2) continue to live on `existential level’ trusting God and keeping the faith in him seeking the company of spiritual saints. The (religious) world would become more beautiful and peaceful if God could control the minds of the philosophers by redeeming them again by his Grace
In order to make `sense to Indians’ (p.99) instead of crucifing Jesus on the cross of Sankara’s advaita, the author can create a Vivekanandalogy or Gandiology or better an Aleazeoly and declare them as `Indian Sankarite Advaityic Jesus’ and leave the poor Indian Christ bhaktas to become a Thukaram or Meeraai to follow their Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament. A second atonment of Jesus become a necessary to save these Neo-Theologians.
Notes
*.Though the title of this book is ‘Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedaanta’, Aleaz has reduced Advaita Vedaanta to that of Sankara only forgetting the fact that ‘the meaning of Advaita is inscribed in the complex whole the Text(s) its layers of text and commentary, and to this whole the thought of Sankara is only a single, albeit primary, contirbutor'(Cloony, p.32)
**If`the gospel of Jesus from India for the whole humanmity is that liberation is an ever attained fact (nityasiddhasvabhaavam)’ (p.105), then the words of St.Paul in Gal 1:6 (-10) is false. And in the name of `hermenutical context’ if every land is going to “Produce” their own gospel viz., Jesus-ology then there won’t be `one gospel, one faith (Eph.4: )in the world. `There are different religiouns, but there is only one gospel’ (Dr.Stanly Jones). And one would wonder whether any sincee practicising advaitian would agree with the author that `we….are limiting ourselves to Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta, that again to the concept of Jiiva-Brahman relation in Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta, from within which an understanding of Jesus or Jesulogy is to be constructed.’ (p.90)
***”thus we saw above a practical demonstration of an Indian dialogical theology, more specifically an Indian Dialogical Jesulogy in terms of the perspective of Pluralistic Inclusivism for the relational convergence of religions, in this case of Hinduism and Christianity. It also points to the fact that our hermeneutical context, a major factor of which is Advaita Vedaanta, decides the content or our theology. We tried to make the very content of the revelation of God in Jesus truly pluralistic by elaborating the contributions of Sankara’s Advaita Vedaanta to it. There is a possibility of understanding the person of Jesus as the extrinsic denominator (upaadhi) Brahman, the name and form (naamaruupa) of Brahman, the effect (kaarya) of Brahman, as well as the reflection (aabhasa) and delimitation (ghataakaasah) of Brahman. There is also a possibility of interpreting the function of Jesus as to manifest the all-pervasive (sarvagatatvam), illuminative (jyotih) and unifying (ekikrtya) power of the Supreme Aatman, as to manifest that the Supreme Brahman as Pure Consciousness (prajnaana-ghanam) is the Witness (Saaksi) and Self of all(Sarvaatmaa) and as to manifest the eternally present (nityasiddhasvabhaavam) human liberation”. While the author uses all the categaries of advaita vedaanta for a “practical demonstration of an Indian dialogical… Jesulogy”, he never quotes a single Bible verse in the whole section relating all these catageries to have a real dialogue with biblical theology about Jesus. So it is better to call it as an “Indian monological advaitic Jesulogy”.
**** “…Advaita takes into account the presystematic and performative nature of the upanisads, and we must examine how Advaita retains and inscribes in its presentation of the upanisads the ironic, self-conscious and self-critical, upanisadic style, how it, like the upanisads, resists the reduction of texts to the presentation of already and completely achieved meanings.” (Cloony, p.44)
–Dayanand Bharati, Pune, July 1, 1997.
In order to formulate an authentic Indian Christian Thelogy, without which the universal church would be complete we must study every school of thought in India in order to help the Hindu Christ bhaktas as well as other followers of Christ in the world would be benifited.
Leave a Reply