The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1996
Israel Selvanayagam
Hinduism is a subject which evades the comprehension of everyone. Even professing Hindus are not in a position to explain their position as a Hindu in this life. This being the truth how much more it is difficult for any non-Hindu to understand Hinduism.
This became yet more complicated after the invention of `Hinduism’ by the non-Hindus, particularly after the beginning of the Indological studies began by the Westerners. Though we are thankful for the SINCERE efforts made by the Western scholars in the early days of such studies, began last century, more they advanced in this subject, more they complicated it. Particularly this confusion reached its peak when the Christian Missionaries made early attempts to `Understand’ Hinduism from their perspective of sharing the gospel with Hindus.
Selvanayagam in this book helps every one, particularly to the non-Hindus about such difficulties in his “Journey of Understanding Hinduism”. The one great strength of this book is that the author in no way or no where hides his tension in this journey to understand Hinduism which also “conditions” his approach to it (p.vi). Though Dr. Selvanayagam writes “as a Christian eager to dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect with Hindus” (p. iii), yet the major limitation of this book is the academic atmosphere in which most of the (philosophical ) Hinduism is approached. No doubt in it that one can “imagine” his “struggle to understand Hinduism as lived and practiced by different people” (p.23)of both the so called popular and philosophical Hindus
The Post-ayodhya scenario suddenly gave a boost to the publication industry as volumes and volumes of books are written by scholars based on Hindu Fundamentalism and emerging secularism. As any subject on Hinduism, with particular reference to modern and dialogue approach cannot avoid it (Hindu Fundamentalism, which the author graciously calls as Revivalism), naturally in this book too we find the author’s anxiety to counteract the growing menace of Religious fundamentalism almost in every chapter. Though he is not explicitly saying that he is writing this book critically remarking about resurgent Hinduism, yet that is the hidden agenda when he says, “But I increasingly feel that real dialogue is not merely scratching each other’s back but a clawing too” (p.22). But the moment we began to claw, particularly in dialogue approach, then it becomes propaganda.
The author selects three Hindu Tradition (1) The Nature of Hindu Synthesis as presented in the Bhagavadgita (pp.24-43) (2) An Ambiguous Ethical Imperative: The Meaning of Niskaama Karma in the Gita (pp.46-62) and (3) Ritual and God as parallel powers in Hindu worship (pp.64-82) (mostly based on Gita again) as “microcosmic key for attaining an overview of that macrocosmic phenomenon we call ‘Hinduism’” (Lipner, p.iii).
Though Selvanayagam presents his points both in a scholarly and logical view, yet he himself is aware that the Hindu scholars are not going to agree with his interpretation on the Dynamics of Hindu Tradition because of their view that, “any world view and any form of God was acceptable to Hindus and therefore we should not try to limit to a particular framework which is a western task”!(p.25)
Apart from the Hindu Scholars, we ourselves find it difficult to agree with Selvanayagam as he drives his conclusions keeping combating Hindu fundamentalism on one hand and academic dialogue religiosity on the other. To have an understanding of Hinduism not only each cult in popular Hinduism (p.43) but each Sampradaya (sect) should be studied separately and as no two scholars or lay man is going to agree on what actually Hinduism says, appreciating Selvanayagam’s efforts to understand it we would like to focus on the more interesting subjects of this book on Dialogue.
Like wise to the question, “is whether each religious tradition can contribute to the maintenance of mutual respect, love, partnership and understanding in a multi-religious context” (p.63) “to mobilise the awareness of people from different traditions towards developing a common ethical code” (p.62), our answer is that it is not enough to know that “The different religions have both to contribute what is distinctive and realise that there are fundamental tensions between distinctive faith frameworks and common human value” (p.62-63) in an academic atmosphere of arranging dialogue, but involving in practical dialogue with common people to educate them about the danger of fundamentalism (see p. 22 also).
Knowing the lack of interest and need on the part of Hindus (pp.108, 135) to involve in such a living dialogue on the one hand and the growing menace of religious fundamentalism on the other hand, the encouraging point in this book is the appeal by Dr. Selvanayagam to take up to challenge of involving in such dialogue by the (Protestant) Christians themselves. By sharing his personal journey of understanding Hinduism (pp.1-21) and his insights “Christian-Hindu Dialogue-Perspectives and Prospectives (pp.104-145) Dr. Selvanayagam has written a remarkable book to challenge every seriously thinking Christian.
Chapter five “Religious Pluralism: Hindu Approaches (pp.84-102) aptly serves as a fitting foundation for a Christian to understand such a need for a dialogue approach.
However, in spite of the need and call for dialogue approach (at least in an academic atmosphere), we too have to agree with the author about the sad fact that, “It is indeed disappointing that none of the Protestant Churches in India could come up with official programmes on inter-religious dialogue. This is so in spite of an enormous amount of discussion that has been initiated by the World Council of Churches and its Guidelines on Dialogue (1979)….The observable fear of Protestant Christians on dialogue is twofold. Some feel threatened that dialogue with Hindus would amount to total absorption of the faith of the little flock of Christians into the vastly broad framework of Hinduism. Others see no point of having dialogue with a religion from which they or their parents or foreparents were converted. It seems to be a tedious task to remove the phobia and muster the courage for dialogue.” (pp.114-15).
Except few limitation (like selecting few Hindu Traditions as “microcosmic key for attaining an overview of that macrocosmic phenomenon we call Hinduism [p.iii]) and academic approach (though the author claims his involvement with popular Hinduism at Parakkanvilai) this is a valuable book for those who seriously want to understand Hinduism as well as to involve in dialogue with them.
However two illustrations are suffice to point out for every outsider’s struggle to understand Hinduism from Selvanayagam’s experience, whatever may be their study of Hindu Texts and involvement with people (p.23:
First: “Then I also noticed remarkable changes in their way of presenting Hinduism by Hindu scholars. Only after my research I realised how they have tried to Christianise or Islamicise Hinduism, apparently losing self-confidence to present the distinctive nature of their religion. Similarly, Hindus in Britain, for example, are very ecumenical, placing the Saiva and Vaishnava gods together in their sanctuaries which cannot normally happen in India. Being a minority in a strange atmosphere they try to assert their common identity and defend their faith.” (p.20)
To such a criticism a Hindu scholar would say, “If any non-Hindu finds any kind of `Christianism’ or `Islamicism’ in our presentation of Hinduism is because of their approach as well as prejudice to understand Hinduism. Even if we make any such conscience efforts to `Christianise’ or `Islamicise’ is not a permission on the part of our tradition but a concession to accommodate their academic understanding in order to convey our message”.
If present day Hindu scholars attempt to convey their message is considered by the non-Hindus as `losing self-confidence’ on the part of Hindus `to present the distinctive nature of their religion’, then the same can be said to our efforts to communicate the gospel to the Hindus in Indian way as `Hinduaise’ the gospel and so `apparently losing self-confidence to present the distinctive nature of their religion”. For example the book `Krist-Gita‘ published by ISPCK can be criticised the by the Hindus on the same line, though it is a welcoming step towards contextualisation.
The main reason for such a misunderstanding among the Christian world about Hinduism is their very approach to Hinduism as another `Religion’ like Christianity, Islam etc. Where as Hinduism is a way of life, Dharma and not an organized religion like Christianity or Islam. It is beyond the scope of this review to take up such a discussion in depth. However one thing should be pointed out that the present day Christianity as a Religion with `historical-hermeneutical perspective’ is completely deviated from the `Christ-dharma‘ of the New Testament, though the former is developed on the latter.
Second: “The Paandy shrine situated just on the outskirts of Madurai, became a place of regular visit for me and my students. When I first visited I was terrified by the screaming women possessed by evil spirits and the exorcists possessed by Paandy, originally an ancestor….people sacrifice goats and cocks and enjoy a feast along with their friends and relatives around the shrine. Even the offering s of cigars and liquor are acceptable to Paandy….Interestingly, once I took Dr. Gangadaran to this place and with a great reluctance he looked at the sacrifice. He decried it saying it was inauthentic Hinduism… Since then whether more Hindus adhere to this type of Hinduism has been a question in our discussion” (p.16-17)
Now Dr. Gangadaran who is “a Saiva scholar and devotee, has been living in the Seminary campus teaching Saiva Siddhanta with in the university and in the seminary” (p.11) after living a considerable time in such a mission compound as well as involving in dialogue with Christians, he very well knows the mentality of the Christians like Dr. Selvanayagam. That is why when he saw the common people’s way of worship at Paandya temple is not convincing his dialogue approach of presenting Hinduism, decried by saying that it was inauthentic Hinduism. Either he might have said this consciously or sub-consciously to please Dr. Selvanayagam or to save his face of a philosophical Hindu before a Christian dialogue partner.
Now taking the views of such a marginalized intellectual dialogue partner, if Dr. Selvanayagam try to understand Hinduism, he will be more confused when he faces the reality of Hinduism in every day life of an average Hindu. So such a dialogue could not be the best criteria for any one to understand Hinduism, though it may help to some extent.
I remember one article that came in the Pioneer news paper of Allahabad edition by a Bengali scholar `decriding’ the animal sacrifice at Kali temple in Calcutta. After two days another Bengali wrote a letter to the editor of the same news paper criticising such an article and also justifying such sacrifices. He not only defended animal sacrifice but also came heavily on that scholar who wrote against such sacrifices.
See, both of them one opposing and another supporting one ritual aspect of Hinduism were expressing their perspectives living in their own life’s situation. Only involving with such people and having a dialogue alone will help one to understand the Hindu world views. Just living in a Mission compound or participating in any Inter-religious dialogue conference won’t help anyone to understand the `practical’ faith of Hindus.
A Hindu is an all rounder regarding his faith. He may be a follower of the philosophic as well as populr Hinduism side by side without any tension in his faith. Because Hinduism is such a vast umbrella under which everything under the sun–from highest monism to extreme animism–will find happy co-existence without any tension. We (may) call it `contradiction’ and `compromise’ but a Hindu will call it `accommodation’ and `adjustment’ to give room for every form of religious expression.
This synthetic aspect alone helps Hinduism to survive under every odd situation in the history and now over coming problems of science and technology even agreeing to become a Universal religion, giving scope for the (Western) Christians to find their `salvation’ through it.
Suppose, if I were in the situation of Dr. Gangadaran, what I would have done? Instead of `decrying’ the faith of those common people I would have said,” Though I would personally not agree with such a kind of worship, as my Saiva Siddhanta philosophy won’t accommodate such form of expression of faith, yet I won’t decry it. They are in the process of evaluation. We all have different kinds of nature and level of understanding (Gita. 3:33). However cruel and rudimentary may be their worship, I think that God in His grace would even accept it (Gita 7:21,22).@ It I will get an opportunity to develop their faith to have a sophisticated form of expression, I will try for it. But I will neither force my ideology on them nor condemn their Faith Expression”. Multi centred pluralistic inclusivism is the common Hindu ideology.
Being a Saiva Siddhantian, I’m not sure how far Dr. Gangadaran has knowledge about other Hindu Scriptures. In Gita (3:33) it is clearly stated that all created beings act according to the inclination of their respective Prakrtis (nature). Even the Jnaanin (wiseman) also acts according to the natural tendency of his Prakrti (nature). This being the case the Gita’s question is “why should we stop them?”
If Dr. Gangadaran has to condemn such a rude form of Faith Expression of common people, how he is going to justify the Tiruvilayadal (Divine sports) of Siva himself, who tested the faith of his hunter devotee Kannappar, who plucked out his eyes to replace the bleeding eyes of Siva Himself? What a cruel way of testing the faith of a bhakta? But to a bhakta like Kannanppar, it is the best way to express his devotion to his God.
God works and accepts everyone in the place where he is. Of course He provides them every opportunity to grow more in their spiritual knowledge, based upon their own world view in which they have born. Our sophisticated-philosophical frame of mind may find it difficult to accept such a rude forms of Faith Expressions. But to others our Faith Expression may look like mere `Intellectual Entertainment of Vain Talk’. The best way to understand people is try to step in their shoes and live in their own life situation. If this is not possible, at least don’t condemn their Faith because it is not agreeable to us. After all, it is not their fault to born in such a situation.
These kinds of various Faith Expressions are not only unique to Hinduism alone. I’m tempted to take Dr. Selvanayagam to Velankani and other (Roman Catholic) pilgrim centres and shrines dedicated to Saints. To such places not only the Roman Catholics and Hindus go but even Protestant Christians also visit. Though I did not visit Vellankani, I hope that around that temple also we can see various forms of Faith Expression by the Christians like shaving their heads etc. What Dr. Selvanayagam would say about it? Simply he cannot say “Oh! they are Roman Catholics”. But for others they are Christians of one brand or the other. Like wise horoscopes, cult practices including some sacrifices are common among Christians in several Latin-American countries.
Few years before, in Tamilnadu at one hill area due to heavy lightning when the bolt fall on a dry tree, one of its branch went high and fall in between the broken trunk in such a way that it looked exactly like a CROSS. When the news reached the people, hundreds of Christians rushed to that sight and I even read that the Roman Catholic Church claimed that place from the forest department to make a shrine of that tree. Like wise at Madurai one Tea vendor lit one big candle for some purpose. After some time, those melted part of the candle fall on the side of the candle forming a figure of Virgin Mary. The same day he won a lottery. That is all, that candle-Virgin Mary not only become an object of worship to several people but that man with his family become a Christian. We all know about the so called appearance of Jesus Face at Ethiopia few years back in the dust storm. Recently I read that in America suddenly the face of Virgin Mary appeared on the glass doors of a Church, where people gathered to worship. Even when Hindus claimed that Lord Ganesa drank milk, story also started to come about the drinking of milk by Jesus and Mary in other countries. We often hear about the bleeding eyes of Virgin Mary and other Saints in various Western Churches. We can go on recording all these kinds of incidents. How Dr. Selvanayagam is going to justify all these.
Blind faith, superstitions, rude form of Faith expressions are integral part of every religion. Mutual accommodation, however it looks contradictory, alone promote the peaceful co-existence of not only different religions but also different forms of Faith Expression even within a religion. Remember that religion is more in existential level to essentials. Accepting others as they are alone will help to enter a meaningful dialogue between faiths. Other wise `clawing'(p.22) is inevitable not only in Inter-religious dialogue, but also Inner-Religious dialogue.
What is the best way then to understand all well as involve in a Living Dialogue. The main problem or better stumbling block to understand other’s Faith through dialogue religiosity is that most of their approach is `Theoretical’ or mere `academic’. Those who involved in such dialogue know well that the other partner is not going to buy his theory about his religion. Though they claim that they call to create a Global Religion by evaluating a `common minimum programme’ though consensus. Though they agree that there are differences in their faith, yet in order to achieve some Universal Religion (Vasudevaka Kutumbakam – Dr. Vempany, Krishna and Christ) they call to keep away the differences and strive to reach a unity. In this process what they try to achieve is some kind of `Nice-ianity’ forgetting the fact that co-existence is possible where there is co-essence.
It doesn’t mean that Inter-Religious Dialogue is a waste. But all those who involve in it (in a scholarly level) should understand that they are not representing their religion, but only sharing their own personal views about their respective Faiths. So if any one say that “the honeymoon period of inter-faith dialogue is over” (p.23) and “feel that real dialogue is not merely scratching each other’s back but a clawing too” (p. ) cannot involve in dialogue at all. The moment we started to `claw’ other’s back then it becomes `propaganda’.
So, keeping Dr. Selvanayagam as a best case study we could say that neither dialogue nor reading (Hindu) Scriptures will help, people like him to understand Hinduism, however sincere they may be in their endeavours.
This become clear when he said that He seems to stand in between two extremes and TEMPTED to become a Hindu as well as preach to them the gospel. Because after such dialogue and study of Hinduism `objectively’ he will be only `Tempted’ to become a Hindu, but could never become a Hindu to clearly understand Hinduism. Because he knows in his heart where he stands in his endeavor to understand Hinduism.
It is not wrong to have one’s won strong conviction and standing on which try to understand other’s Faith. But in such an approach one will only be `Tempted’ to become a Hindu and that too of a Hinduism of his own understanding and interpretation. After such a dialogues and studies on Hinduism, as a Christian he might have created his own Hinduism and he is tempted to become only such a Hindu of his own Hinduism which would never help him to comprehend Hinduism.
If Dr. Selvanayagam’s interest is only to understand Hinduism to that extent of involving in dialogue with them to create one universal religion or Vasudevaka kutumbakam of Nice-ianity, then what he do at present is the proper one. On the other hand if his aim is to share his Faith with others so that he can make disciples for Christ among other Religious communities, then what he should do?
Again Paul is our best example. Imagine that Paul is in the place of Dr. Selvanayagam. If the same question is asked to him: “with this kind of involvement with the Hindu texts how steady is your Christian Commitment”, he would have answered, “In my commitment to Christ (thank God that I’m not a Christian to have a Christian Commitment) I already BECOME A HINDU to the Hindus.”
Paul never, fortunately `stood in between two extremes’. He happily BECOME ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN, to that extent that being a Orthodox Jew, he even become a `Lawless one to the Lawless one’.
The next step that Paul had done is that he never recruited more Full time workers or dialogue partners from Jerusalem Church to share his faith among the non-Jews. He made disciples among the non-Jews and allowed them to live AS THEY ARE, as non-Jews to have a LIVING DIALOGUE with their own people, as they have a better understanding of their own society, community culture and religion. Thankfully he never transplanted the non-Jews from their environment and made them `CHRISTIANS’. This is how the early church grew among the non-Jews. Both the early church history and the development of early Christian doctrines are the witnesses for this.
Since the day the church become an ORGANIZED religion with Money, Power and Authority, it gave up its commitment to Christ and took a CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT and failed in its call to have a Living Dialogue with people of other Faiths.
In this small book we didn’t promise that we are presenting the Hindu world as it is lived by the Hindus. As we took help from scientific–academic–historical, psychological, cultural, phenomenological etc. (p.13)–approaches alone, we give a brief out line on some important subjects with a CRITICAL `CHRISTIAN ‘ approach to each topic. And if this would create some kind of interest to go for a living Dialogue with others, we feel that our purpose of writing this is achieved.
Finally one word of caution is to be mentioned. To understand other’s faith one should deliberately give up his mental frame of his own religious world views. Like wise using some technical terms which are familiar to a religious system, however rich it may be cannot be applied to other’s religious views. Again let us take Dr. Selvanayagam. He says that, “Only after my research I realised how they have tried to Christianise or Islamicise Hinduism, apparently losing self-confidence to present the distinctive nature of their religion. Similarly, Hindus in Britain, for example, are very ecumenical, placing the Saiva and Vaishnava gods together in their sanctuaries which cannot normally happen in India. Being a minority in a strange atmosphere they try to assert their common identity and defend their faith”.
First of all Dr. Selvanayagam didn’t say what is mean by `Christianise or Islamicise Hinduism’. But by using a Christian technical term `ecumenical’ he shows his poor, academic and pre-conceived approach of his research on Hinduism. Already we saw about the pancayatanapuja , worship of five gods of Siva, Visnu, Durga, Ganesa and Sun by Sri Adi Samkaracarya. Even at present day (Kanchi) Samkaracarya is called as `Narayanasmriti’ (utterer of the name of Narayana). Though an advaitian and worshipper of Siva, at the end of each of his religious speech the Kanchi Samkaracarya should end his talk by saying `Narayana’. Most of the Smarta Brahmins used to worship both Siva and Visnu. Except Veera Saivas and Vaishnavas, most of the non-Brahmins is also worshiping both Siva and Vishnu all over India. In our family, though we are Saivites (Smartas) yet our family deity is Sri Venkateswara of Tirupati..
At Chidambaram both Lord Nataraja and Lord Govindaraja’s sanctuaries are situated next to each others. At Rameswaram Lord Rama worshiped Siva. Tulsi Ramayana speaks about the glory of both Rama and Siva through each other’s mouth. It is really surprising to know that Dr. Selvanayagam has to go all the way to England to understand the so called `ecumenism’ of Hindus. But if you ask my father why he is so ecumenical in his worship of both Siva and Vishnu, first he won’t understand such a technical terms and would say,” “–both Hari and Siva are one and who doesn’t know faces death.
The word `ecumenism’ can’t be applied to Hindus to understand such a Faith Expression. Christians, though have different denominations, yet have one Scripture, one Lord, one Universal Church, one common Faith etc., where Hindus do not have such common ground to become `ecumenical’ in their approach to their faith. Different Christian denominations, keeping aside for the time being the differences try to come together based on what they agree with each other and this we may call as `ecumenical’.
After sympathetically understanding in his struggle as well as tireless endeavour in understanding Hinduism both through study and dialogue, we are tempted to conclude that such an objective approach of other religin only would result in both recognized and un-recognized tension. Such a person will be naturally looked suspiciously by the Christians as they found not only his attitude, approach towards Hinduism, but also his commitment and involvement will alarm them as we found in the case of Dr. Selvanayagam himself as above.
Now what is the scope for such dialogue in the changed scenario of present struggle between the Pseudo Secularism and religious fundamentalism in India, while recognizing the valuable (academic) contribution by the Christian dialogists, yet considering the lack of interest in dialogue on the part of professing Hindus? A living dialogue by the Hindu Christ bhaktas alone will give best opportunity both to share the gospel as well as educate the lay people against the dangerous of fundamentalism of every kind.
Like Paul, the present day Christian dialogists cannot claim to become All Things to All Men, they like Dr. Selvanayagam can only be tempted to become Hindus for some time. So encouraging on one side the church to engage in dialogue on the other side like Paul, should find Hindu Christ bhaktas and send them back to their own society and community to live as Hindu Christ bhaktas both to influence and share the gospel through their life of Living Dialogue.
Notes
*Among the gods popularly worshipped the principal ones are Visnu under various names and in various avataras. Siva in his various forms, Durga, Ganesa and the Sun. The [p.716] worship of these deities (called pancayatanapuja) is said to have been popularised by the great Samkaracarya…-History of Dharmasastras, P.V.Kane. Vol. II. Part.II. Ch.XIX. Devapuja. pp.714-17.—-
—Dayanand Bharati, August 1997, Erode.
@ …If anyone else admits that he is going against his conscience in choosing the lower life, he passes judgment on himself. But if anyone apparently sees the lower life as the best, when he follows it, it is for God to judge him, not for us.– Edwyn Bevan, Symbolism and Belief, by London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1938, p.357
Leave a Reply