Adi Tamil Christians [Early Tamil Christians]
What to do with them?
Recently, I received (again) one (Tamil) message in which (again) a comparison was made between Ramayana and Muktiveda. After reading it, the only question that came to my mind was: OK. What are you going to do with such a comparison? The Hindus are not even going to read such materials, so there never comes any question of them rejecting it. The Christians in the church are not going to read it either—as they don’t know much about Hinduism, though they know well about Ramayana as they have heard a lot about it. So why, again, are some Christians, particularly from Tamil Nadu, repeatedly attempting to “dig out” some messages from Hinduism to prove their theory that there were some “aadi (early) Christians” in Tamil Nadu who were not influenced by the present Western Christians or Westernized (Indian) Christians but were “converted” by the (mythological) St. Thomas, who came to India, particularly to Tamil Nadu, to preach “Christianity” and establish churches and was martyred.1
Such a theory will help them “make a living” with some project or agenda—again, getting support from the West. If you ask who these people from the West are who are willing to support such projects in India, there are several sincere and serious evangelicals who are not happy with the current Westernized Indian Christians who oppose their “contextualization” effort to preach the “gospel” to Indians. So they need some proxies among Indian Christians who can wage their war against the (Westernized) Indian Christians to preach the “gospel” to Indians, particularly to the Hindus. For this, they are willing to support such projects by those Indian Christians who feel uncomfortable remaining part of the Westernized Indian Christians, at the same time not being happy to call themselves “Hindu bhaktas of the Lord,” but still wanting to retain their label as “Christians,” now with the new adjective “aadi Christians.”
For this, they need to dig out some messages from Hindu Scriptures and traditions to show that the current Saiva Siddhanta was nothing but a corrupt version of that (or their) “early Christianity” established by Thomas. And to reclaim their “right” over the Saiva Siddhanta, they do everything possible to present so many distorted versions of Tamil Scriptures, particularly from Saiva Siddhanta and others like the Siddhas. I already wrote about this in my previous article (Text Torturing).
But such an attempt is nothing but “synchronism to make match-ups and to integrate the separate national traditions into an overall history” (Trautmann, 2009, p. 43). Of course, what Trautmann says about “overall history” here is the “The clash of Chronologies,” which challenged the (early) biblical view of world history based on “Mosaic chronology” (p. 47). But we can take the clue and borrow Trautmann’s term of “match-ups,” which some “aadi Tamil Christians” attempt to “integrate the separate national (or Tamil) traditions into an overall Christianity minus Westernized Indian Christianity. But Hindus have no issues or problem with such Western Christianity or Westernized Indian Christians, nor the Constitution, or the Right-Wing politicians (even our present Home Minister, Sri Amit Shah, who is ready to welcome and give citizenship to any persecuted Christians from the neighboring (Islamic) countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan) or even for the liberals or for us “Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.”
We, or I personally, am not against Western Christianity or Westernized Indian Christians. If these (Westernized) Indian Christians feel comfortable in their church and tradition, why should it trouble us? They have every right as humans and also under the constitution to practice any kind and form of Christian faith in which they feel comfortable. If any “convert” is not comfortable with them, then they have to come out from them and create their own version of Christianity. But for this, they need not distort the native traditions to make a “match-up” by digging out some early Christianity based on some mythology or torturing the (Tamil Saiva Siddhanta) Scriptures or Hindu epics. What are they going to do with such distorted messages? As I mentioned, Hindus are not going to read it, and Westernized Indian Christians also have no time for it. But by such attempts, these so-called “aadi Tamil Christians” are making themselves a laughing stock before several sincere and serious religious scholars. Of course, no serious and sincere scholars are going to read this kind of material.
The present-day Christianity in India is a Western import. Most Indians have no problem with it. We accept their right to follow any tradition that they like. Those “converts” who are not comfortable with it should come out from them and accept their mistake and try to remain with their birth (social) IDENTITY as Hindus but have their personal choice to follow any kind of sadhana that suits their spiritual life (or even moral and social life). For me, the label “Christian” is the problem. You either remain a “Hindu and bhakta of the Lord” or become a “CONVERT” and join the (Westernized) Indian Church. But don’t try to create a “Hindu Christianity” (like Hindu Catholics).
But remaining as a “Hindu and bhakta of the Lord” is also not that easy. Though the origin of the “Good News” is from the Near East and more Asian than Western, still, present-day Christianity—at least in India—is a Western import. But we don’t have a problem with it. As we are not part of that Christianity, we accept and respect their faith as it is. The Jewish origin of Muktinath and Muktiveda is always going to remain a challenge for every “Hindu bhakta of the Lord.” This is a reality. Let us accept it and live with it. As (our version of) Hinduism accommodates all kinds of faith expressions without compromising its core doctrine and theology, at the same time giving our birthright to keep our IDENTITY as Hindus, we try to integrate our bhakti/faith with this “concession” which our Hindu Worldview allows. But in order to “dig out” some “match-ups,” we won’t distort any Scripture and will try to accept them in their religious, social, and cultural context. At the same time, we won’t hesitate to claim our right over our Indian Scriptures, epics as part of our tradition to read and enjoy them and use some terms and forms that will help us integrate our bhakti in the Lord without compromising our bhakti, and at the same time without distorting any Scripture.
The “good news” as understood within the framework of the Abrahamic faith has its unique doctrines that are distinct from other religious worldviews, particularly those outside the religions of the Book. However, the same “good news” can be incarnated into every culture and religious tradition, though this process is complex and requires sensitivity. While it is important to adapt native terms and forms in communicating the message, care must be taken not to offend the religious sentiments of the local population. If challenged or opposed by the natives in using their cultural expressions, it is important to assert the right to do so, especially when those expressions are part of one’s own tradition. Yet, trying to create another version of Christianity by blending it with native traditions at the expense of existing Christian communities is improper. Although many Indian Christians ignore such attempts, it remains crucial to address the impracticality of these endeavors, especially when carried out by Tamil Christians.
One early example of this “match-up” attempt comes from Sir William Jones,2 a pioneering Orientalist, as mentioned in Trautmaan.3 It’s also worth noting what Bernard S. Cohn discusses regarding the ambivalence and tension experienced by those who live between two different traditions. While modern Indian Renaissance movements aimed to “purify” Hinduism to align with European ideas of rationality, empiricism, monotheism, and individuality,4 early Tamil Christians or the modern Tamil Christian Renaissance sought to “dig out” some “match-ups” to create their version of native Christianity.
Cohn’s discussion of ambivalence highlights how modern Indian intellectuals, including figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, often felt caught between East and West. Nehru described himself as a “queer mixture” of both, belonging to neither fully, and experiencing a sense of spiritual loneliness. This ambivalence extended to religious reformers like Pratap Chandra Mazumdar, who found himself captivated by the mystic Ramakrishna, despite their vastly different backgrounds. The intellectuals of the Indian Renaissance often grappled with reconciling their admiration for Western thought with their own cultural heritage, seeking to rediscover a “golden age” in their past to counter Western cultural imperialism.5
When it comes to comparing texts like the Ramayana and the Muktiveda, the focus should not be on what is similar, but rather on the fundamental differences in the foundations of each faith.6 While many religious texts may share common themes due to the universal spiritual needs of humanity, the uniqueness of each faith lies in its mission to propagate itself as the true path to spiritual fulfillment. If the Ramayana and the Muktiveda taught the same values, why would Indians need the Muktiveda at all? Similarly, if Saiva Siddhanta were a corrupted version of “aadi Christianity” as preached by St. Thomas, why did it fail to maintain its legacy? Some Tamil Christian Renaissance thinkers argue that Tamil Brahmins corrupted the original Christianity, but such claims often involve “text torturing,” reminiscent of the Ezour Veidam controversy, where Roman Catholics attempted to create a lost Veda to argue that the original theism of the Veda had degenerated into polytheism.7
In conclusion, Francis X. Clooney’s8 advice about reading texts without attempting “reductionism”9 is particularly relevant here. He warns that a selective or reductionist approach can lead to a fragmented understanding of the text. In this light, we must avoid simplistic comparisons between Muktiveda and Ramayana that fail to respect the integrity of both scriptures. Below, I provide my translation of a Tamil message comparing Muktiveda and Ramayana, along with my comments on some points to illustrate the dangers of such shallow interpretations. While I rely on memory for these comments, I remain open to correction if proven wrong.
**Part Three**
You will be surprised to see the similarity between Ramayana and the Holy Bible. [See below for the original in Tamil. This is my translation of that message]
**Bible:** God and his bride, the Holy Church, lived happily in the Garden of Eden.
**Ramayana:** God and Sita lived happily in the forest.
–No. Though they tried to live their best in the forest, there was still a subtle sadness in their life there. Lakshmana had to keep a constant vigil, not even sleeping for a second, to guard his brother and his wife from any dangers. In the story of Ramayana, the role of Lakshmana is also very crucial. If the Old Testament was compared with Hanuman, who was Lakshmana then? Holy Spirit—who never departed the Lord?
**Bible:** God drove away Satan (from the garden) as he wanted to become equal to God.
**Ramayana:** The devil Surpanaka wanted to live with God. Therefore, God drove her away.
**Bible:** Satan planned to separate the church, the bride of God, from Him, which lived closely with God.
**Ramayana:** The devil Suparnaka planned to separate Sita from God, who lived closely with God.
**Bible:** The devil came in disguise to separate the church from God.
**Ramayana:** The devil came in disguise to separate Sita from God.
**Bible:** The church fell because of the sin of the eyes.
**Ramayana:** Sita, because of the lust of her eyes, fell into the sin of disobedience.
**Bible:** The church, the bride of God, because of her fall, got trapped in the Ten Commandments.
**Ramayana:** Sita, who fell because of her sin, got trapped in the trap of Ravana, who has ten heads.
–What a comparison between the word ‘ten’?–db
**Bible:** God went in search of his bride, the church, which was abducted because of sin.
**Ramayana:** God went in search of Sita, who fell and was imprisoned.
**Bible:** The Old Testament (Hanuman) shows that other than God, no one can save the church, the bride of God.
**Ramayana:** None can save Sita other than God. This shows the defeat of Hanuman.
–Nowhere does Ramayana say that Hanuman was defeated. In fact, he was successful in his mission to find Sita, and it was only Sita who refused to go with him carried by Hanuman on his shoulders, as she wanted Rama to come and take her back in a proper way by defeating Ravana. Sita even says to Hanuman that if she liked, she could destroy Ravana by the power of her chastity. But as it would defame her husband, she is willing to endure the ordeal at Ashoka Vana for Rama to come and release her from Ravana. So Hanuman returns to Rama with her message after setting fire in Sri Lanka. So his mission was accomplished successfully. –db
**Bible:** All the good works were defeated in the flesh.
**Ramayana:** Hanuman’s efforts in his flesh were defeated by Kumbakarna, the demon.
–Where does Ramayana say that Kumbakarna defeated Hanuman? He was still sleeping and was woken up only when the war started.–db
**Bible:** God shed his blood, died, and rose again in his endeavor of redeeming his bride, the church.
**Ramayana:** God, by shedding blood, dying, and rising again, redeemed his wife, Sita.
–Where does Ramayana say that Rama ever died in the war or shed his blood? It was only Lakshmana and others who fainted because of the Brahmastra launched by Indrajit. Only Rama laments seeing the condition of his brother. Finally, Hanuman brings the Herbal Mountain (Sanjeevani Parvat) to revive Lakshmana and others. What Muktiveda claims about shedding of blood by the Lord, his death, and resurrection cannot be compared with any blood shed by Rama in combat in a war; however, I don’t remember any such incident recorded in Ramayana. Rama dying by launching in river Sarju in Ayodhya was a later story not found in several original Ramayanas–db
**Bible:** God, after resurrection, delivered his bride, the church, from the Ten Commandments, which is mere Law.
**Ramayana:** After resurrection, God delivered Sita from the ten-headed Ravana.
–What a comparison between the resurrection of the Lord and the way Rama rescued Sita from Ravana! Did these Tamil Christians have any understanding of “resurrection” as Muktiveda talks about? Did the [Church] delivered from the Ten Commandments?]–db
But the real highlight of Ramayana is the post-Ayodhya events in which Rama abandons Sita in order to protect his honor and dharma as the king because of the rumor. He banishes Sita to the forest. Though this is not part of the original Ramayana, this story is found in various other Ramayanas (there exist several Ramayanas in India. See ‘Many Ramayanas’10). Why is this important event neglected in this comparison? So can we say that finally God will also abandon his bride, the church, in the new heaven and new earth? Or God already banished the church as she compromised with the world in many ways?
These kinds of comparisons only make Hindus laugh at such attempts by a few overzealous Christians in their attempt to contextualize the gospel. And we wonder “What to do” with such comparisons, except writing such rebuttals to expose them.
Notes
1.. India’s St. Thomases In 4 Tombs. T. K. Joseph, Chengannur, S. W. India. Pp. 178-185, in Professor P. K. Gode Commemoration volume, ed. Dr. H. L. Hariyappa and Dr. M. M. Patkar, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1960.
From about this time, ca. 400, we find writers mentioning as St. Thomas’s fields of work almost all the countries from Nubia to China, nay even Brazil, Germany and Japan. South India is found only in this augumented list, and that not before Marco Polo (1288-93), explicitly. Even the West Asian neighbour, Bishop Bar-Hebraeus (1226-86) the historian, does not mention South India, or any part of it, or the Brahmin priest, or the seashore tomb, but stands by murder on a mountain mentioned in The Acts of ca. 210, and therefore burial also on that mountain.—p. 182
It will be evident from the foregoing sections that:
(i)The earliest documents describe St Thomas the Apostle as a Christian martyr, slain with spears or lances on a mountain and buried on that mountain itself, whereas South India’s Thomas was from Marco Polo to Diogo (1288 to 1517) a Pariah-arrow killed non-martyr claimed by Muslims in Polo’s days as “a Saracen saint of their own”, and buried on the seashore.
(ii)After 15167 South India deliberately transformed its non-martyr into a martyr, and that a martyr killed in several ways, although only priest-lance-martyrdom is retained now.
(iii)Since what is admittedly real St Thomas’s skull, certified as entire, with “no part missing” has been at Ortona since 1258 from India, the skull bones found in two Mylapore tombs in 1522 and 1523 cannot be really his.
(iv)The tradition embodied in Travancore Syrian Catholica St Thomas Song “of A.D. 1601”, and in its alleged original, the contemporary St Thomas History of the first century, has not yet been proved to be genuine or authentic, or of the dates assigned to them.
Rev. Fr. H. HERAS, S.J., Director of the Bombay Historical Research Institute, says in his letter to me, dated 6th February 1953 thus: “About the tomb” (of St. Thomas, the martyr) “I am fully convinced that it has never been in Mylapore. I have stated that many times.”
Prof. LATOURETTEE, of Yale University, U.S.A., reputed church historian, says in his letter to me dated 18th October 1952 that the evidence against South India’s St. Thomases in three toms, given in my pamphlet of 22-7-1952 (sent to him, H. H. The Pope, and others) “is very convincing.”
In 1927 Dr. Sylvain LEVI, of Paris, and Dr. Jarl CHARPENTIER, of Upsala, wrote to me that all evidence is against South India. Their opinion was published that year. (Most of the details in this article are also in my book Six St. Thomas, May, 1955).—p. 185
2. See Appendix One
3 {Sir William} Jones finds the match-up he needs in the Hindu doctrine of the 10 avatars, or “descents,” of Vishnu, in which he finds the Indian flood narrative….The first three of the 10 avatars of Vishnu are especially concerned with stories of worldwide flood: the Fish, the Tortoise, and the Boar. The Fish incarnation in particular seems ready-made for identification with the biblical Flood, carrying Manu (the first human), his family, and the seven sages (rishis) in a ship (the Ark of Noah!) fastened to a horn on his head. Jones identifies Manu with Noah (distinguishing this Manu from an earlier one, the progenitor of the human race, whom he identifies with adam) and he and the seven sages with the eight humans aboard the Ark in the Bible story (Noah, his three sons, and the four wives) from who the entire human race has since been propagated.+ Jones further identifies the fourth avatar of Vishnu, Narasimha, with the biblical Nimroad, descendent of Ham; and Bali, the demon who was overcome by the fifth avatar, the Dwarf, withthe biblical Bel. The seventh incarnation, King Rama of Ayodhya, Jones identifies with the biblical Raamah, also in the line of Ham. With him begins “civil government” in India, or, as we would say, civilization. The Buddha ushers in the Kali age, and the king lists of historic figures such as Chandragupta Maurya follow thereafter. The four yugas are squeezed into the Ussherite chronology, putting the Creation at 4004 BC, rejecting the traditional figures for them, or the traditional dating of the beginning of the Kali (3102 BC). In outline, Jone’s Mosaic reading of Indian chronology may be represented as follows.
Adam Manu I Krita yuga
Noah Manu II
The Flood Fish, Tortoise, and Boar avatars
Nimrod Narasimha Treta yuga
Bel Bali (p.44)
Raamah King Rama Dvapara yuga
The Buddha Kali yuga—pp. 44-45
–Thomas R. Trautmann, The Clash of Chronologies: Ancient India in the Modern World, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2002, pp. 44-45
+ Manu was also the name given to fourteen mythological progenitors of mankind, rulers or earth, each of whom holds power for the period called a manvantara (Manu-antara), a period of 4,320,000 years or 3067,200,000 years. Because Manu Vaivasvata is the Manu of the present age, the seventh, when the brahmanas recorded the ritual of the Asvamedha, they believed that the universe had existed in some form for over 25,920,000 years (ff Macdonald and Dowson) or 18,403,200,000 years (ff Zimmer) having gone through six periods of evolution and involution, of creation and destruction. The previous period of destruction had been caused by a great flood but Manu Vaivasvata had survived that flood to become the progenitor of the human race in the seventh age. The legend of the flood was recorded in the Satapatha brahmana (I,8.1.1-6)— Naama Druby, The Sacrificial Ritual in the Satapatha Brahmana, Mothilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1981. pp.45-46.
4. A third theme related to the need to “purity” Hinduism was to make it consonant with European ideas of rationality, empiricism, monotheism and individuality. Many Bengalis by the middle of the nineteenth century saw the development of ambivalence, that they couldn’t totally integrate a purified Hinduism with Western rationality. On the one hand this led to what was perceived as hypocrisy—or as one writer put it—“There are those who believe one way and practice in another, who celebrate the puja in the morning and dine of veal cutlet and sausage in the evening.” {Kishori Chand Mitter as quoted in Lokanath Ghose, The Modern History of Chiefs, Rajas, Zamindars of Bengal (Calcutta, 1881), part I, p. 112)—Cohn, op. Cit. P. 226
5 See Appendix Two
6. …Throughout their history the several Vedanta schools defended the cognitive and moral claims of the Upanisads, argued for their own interpretation of those claims, and did not hesitate to state that divergent interpretations were in fact wrong—examples of inept reading or ill will.—p. From Anxiety to Bliss: Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Vedanta Reading of Taittiriya {Upanisad}2.1-6a, Francis X. Clooney, S. J. pp. 139-169, in, Authority, Anxiety, and CANON: Essays in Vedic Interpretation. Ed. Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 139
7 What the Ezour Veidam actually was is less significant than the use to which it was put during the Enlightenment. The Veda (in the form of the Ezour Veidam) allowed Voltaire% and {Baron de} Sainte Croix {the editor of the Ezoru Veidam} to draw a distinction between what was Vedic and post-Vedic, the later being a degenerate form of the former. Just as scripture had degenerated, so had its interpreters. A considerable portion of this early discourse surrounding the “Veda” consisted in diatribes directed against the Brahmin elite who did not instruct their people, did not themselves desire instructions, {Voltaire, Francois-Marie Arouet de, Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations. 2 vols. Paris: Garnier Freres , 1: 243-44} were mendacious and generally corrupt. Even Diderot [Denis] (under the rubric vedam) joined in such Brahmin-bashing when he asserted that the fourth Veda had been lost for a long time, to the regret of Brahmins who would have gained tremendous power had it still existed. Diderot further noted that the Vedas were held in such great respect by Brahmins that they did not wish to share copies of them with anyone, especially the Jesuits who had made great efforts to obtain them.
The polemic directed against the Brahmin clergy, engendered by the quest for the lost Veda, was inscribed within the narrative structure of the Ezour Veidam itself. That the degenerated Brahmins possessed neither their fathers’ virtues nor their knowledge is clearly articulated in the character of Biache who preaches superstition. The philosopher Chumontou rejects popular theology imparted to him by Biache. The philosopher then imparts pure wisdom and supports his teaching with Vedic citations concerning the unity of God, creation, the nature of the soul, the doctrine of suffering and reward, and the proper forms of worship.{ Rocher, Ludo, Ezourvedam: A French Veda of the 18th Century. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Bengamins, 1984, 150} The text of the Ezour Veidam, we are told by its editor, thus emphasizes how the original theism of the Veda had degenerated into polytheism.{ibid. 13}—p. 205
% The Ezour Veidam supplied Voltaire with the tolls to launch his attack. Its editor supported the contention that theism had degenerated into polytheism. The Ezour Veidam’s speculation concerning the origin of world civilization concluded with the judgment that the Indian Aryans taught the Hebrews their religion. The aim of this argument, given the Ezour Veidam’s role as a work of Catholic propaganda, is clear. In arguing the anteriority of the Indians, Voltaire questioned the authority of the Bible and in doing so contributed to the growth of historiography. Hidden behind Voltaire’s ponderous polemic lie the seeds of the modern study of comparative mythology and history of religions. Voltaire tried not to depend on secondary sources and sought his documentation in a genuine text. In each case, he was deceived. He sought European accounts he felt were exempt from prejudice, only to fall prey to glaring discrimination.31 He read those Europeans who purported to know Sanskrit but actually knew none, or had spent sufficient time in India yet were woefully ignorant of the culture.32 With such source material, Voltaire initiated the comparative study of religions by seeking to show how we owe our rituals to the Indians.33—p. 206
31. By avoiding the prejudice perpetrated by the Jesuits, he fell prey to documentation slanted by Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric, as in the case of La Croze and Niecamp.—p. 225
32. Dow and Howell knew no Sanskrit and Anquetil Duperron was surprisingly duped by the Ezour Veidam.—p. 225
33. The Ezour Veidam speaks of baptism, the immortality of the soul, metempsychosis, the identity of Abraham with Brahm (sic), and of Adam and Eve with Adimo and Procriti. The description of the creation of angels found in Holwell’s Shasta prefigures the biblical accout of Lucifer.—p.225 {Holwell, John Zephaniah, 1766. Interesting historical events relative to the Provinces of Bengal and the Empire of Indostan….As also the Mythology and Cosmogony, Fasts and Festivals of the Gentoos, followers of the Shastah, and a Dissertation on the Metamorphosis, commonly through erroneously called the Pythagorean doctrine, London: n. P.}
8 In this context Clooney’s appeal to an academic approach for a proper ‘Hindu-Christian’ studies is worth noting. See: Francis X. Clooney, SJ. The Future of Hindu-Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry, London, Routledge, 2017
9 Since wholeness of reading is intrinsic to its full argument about texts…. the selective, at least mildly reductionist contemporary reader may remain burdened with a fragmentary reception of the text and a slightly arbitrary set of arguments to be put forward.— From Anxiety to Bliss: Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Vedanta Reading of Taittiriya {Upanisad}2.1-6a, Francis X. Clooney, S. J. pp. 139-169 in Authority, Anxiety, and CANON: Essays in Vedic Interpretation. Ed. Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 156
| 10. Paula Richman, ed. Many Ramayanas The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia,UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford. © 1991 The Regents of the University of California. | ||
| *இராமாயணத்திற்கும் பரிசுத்த வேதத்திற்கும் உள்ள ஒற்றுமையை பாருங்க்கள். ஆச்சரியப் படுவீர்கள்! *பைபிள்:* தேவனும் அவருடைய திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியும் ஏதேன் தோட்டத்தில் சந்தோஷமாக வாழ்ந்து வந்தார்கள். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளும் சீதையும் ஒரு காட்டில் சந்தோஷமாக வாழ்ந்து வந்தார்கள். *பைபிள்:* சாத்தான் தேவனுக்கு நிகராக வரவேண்டும் என்று எண்ணம் கொண்டதினால் தேவன் அவனை விரட்டிவிட்டார். *இராமாயணம்:* சூர்பனகை என்ற பிசாசு கடவுயோடு இணைந்து வாழ வேண்டும் என்று எண்ணியது. கடவுள் சூர்பனகையை விரட்டியடித்தார். *பைபிள்:* கடவுளோடு நெருக்கமாக இருந்த அவருடைய மனைவியாகிய திருச்சபையை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க சாத்தான் திட்டம் தீட்டினான். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளோடு நெருக்கமாக இருந்த சீதையை பிரிக்க சூர்பனகை என்ற பிசாசு திட்டம் தீட்டியது. *பைபிள்:* திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க மாறுவேடத்தில் பிசாசு வந்தான். *இராமாயணம்:* சீதை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க மாறுவேடத்தில் பிசாசு வந்தான். *பைபிள்:* திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவி கண்களின் இச்சையினால் கீழ்படியாமை என்னும் பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்தாள். *இராமாயணம்:* சீதை கண்களின் இச்சையினால் கீழ்படியாமை என்னும் பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்தாள். *பைபிள்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்த கடவுளின் மனைவியாகிய திருச்சபை பத்துக் கட்டளையை மையமாகக் கொண்ட நியாயப்பிரமாணத்தின் பிடியில் சிக்கினாள். *இராமாயணம்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்த சீதை பத்துத் தலைக் கொண்ட இராவணனின் பிடியில் சிக்கினாள். *பைபிள்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்து சிறைப்பட்டுப்போன மனைவியாகி திருச்சபையை தேடி கடவுள் புறப்பட்டார். *இராமாயணம்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்து சிறைப்பட்டுப்போன சீதையை தேடி கடவுள் புறப்பட்டார். *பைபிள்:* கடவுளைத் தவிர வேறுயாரும் திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியை ஒருபோதும் இரட்சிக்க முடியாது என்பதை காட்டுவதுதான் பழைய ஏற்பாடு(அனுமான்). *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளைத்தவிர வேறுயாரும் சீதையை இரட்சிக்க முடியாது என்பதை காட்டுவதுதான் அனுமானின் தோல்வி. *பைபிள்:* நற்கிரியைகள் எல்லாம் மாம்சத்திடம் தோல்வியடைந்தது. *இராமாயணம்:* அனுமானின் கிரியைகள் எல்லாம் மாம்ச பூதமாகிய கும்பகர்ணனிடம் தோல்வியடைந்தது. *பைபிள்:* கடவுள் திருச்சபையாகிய தன் மனைவியை மீட்கும் போராட்டத்தில் இரத்தம் சிந்தி, மரித்து உயிர்தெழுந்தார். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுள் தன் மனைவியாகிய சீதையை மீட்கும் போராட்டத்தில் இரத்தம் சிந்தி, மரித்து, உயிர்த்தெழுந்தார். *பைபிள்:* உயிர்த்தெழுந்த பிறகு திருச்சபையாகிய அவருடைய மனைவி பத்துக் கட்டளையை மையமாகக் கொண்ட நியாயப்பிரமாணத்திடமிருந்து விடுதலைச் செய்தார். *இராமாயணம்:* உயிர்தெழுந்த பிறகு சீதையை பத்துக் தலைக்கொண்ட இராவணனிடமிருந்து விடுதலைச் செய்தார். |
Appendix One
…The missionary affirmation of the idea of a supreme God was immediately suspect; for animistic peoples who had not reached the appropriate stage, such a conception could only be a missionary invention. The charge was quite unjustified, for, on the reading of Romans 1 which most early missionaries had, there was no need to invent a High God in any non-Christian religion. They found the High God in African religion because he was there, not because their theology demanded his presence.—p. 63 [mission equal: you only brought gospel to us but God was already here]
As the evolutionist doctrine gained repute, the rival doctrine of a primitive-monotheism from which all nonbiblical religions were descended, was more clearly enunciated, and Romans 1:20 ff. was its prime source. Sir Monier Monier Williams, an influential Sanskrit scholar and himself a devout Evangelical, argued that, just because of the original monotheism behind all religions, one could expect to find fragments of truth. 32 No longer was it necessary to presuppose borrowing from Jewish sources to explain every acceptable element in non-Christian religion. At one point he went further, and declared that some of the essential doctrines of Christianity were present in germ in all religions, awaiting the development and fulfilment which only Christianity could bring. 33.—p. 63 [monotheism, fulfilment]
32 M Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, or Examples of the Religious, Philosophical and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindus (London, 1875), pp. 143f. (4th ed., p. 132 n.).
33 M. Monier Williams, Modern India and the Indians (London, 1887), p. 234.
….The great Johannes Warneck was among those who observed in paganism a memory tenuous and not understood, of the primeval revelation:
Dispassionate study of heathen religion confirms Paul’s view that heathenism is a fall from a better of God.
In early days humanity had a greater treasure of spiritual goods, but neglected its knowledge and renounced its dependence until nothing remained but a dim presentiment. Not that all saw anything as formalized as a primitive monotheism in Romans 1. A.E. Garvie, a formative influence on several important missionary writers of the twentieth century, argued that the essence of Paul’s argument had nothing to do with the origin of religions at all but simply with the “close connexion between false views of God and wrong standard of duty,” and that the Roman society of which Paul was primarily speaking had, to common knowledge, suffered a decline.36—p. 64 [Theism, fulfilment, Bible]
35 Quoted by S. M. Wemer, The influence of Animism on Islam (London, 1920). J. Warneck, The Living Forces of the Gospel (E. T. Edinburgh, n.d.), P. 98. “The heart of the heathen is like a palimpsest, the original writing of which is written over and become unseen. No one knows anything of the words of wisdom covered over there’ Andrew Lang’s theory of the High Gods, developed in opposition to the nature-myth school, took its origin from missionary and other reports. See W. Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion (E.T. London, 1935), pp. 172ff.
36. A. E. Garvie, Romans, Century Bible, ad loc.
As we have seen, Monier Williams came to retract his idea of a development of religions with Christianity as the crown; his last position stressed that a gulf-“not a mere rift across which the Christian and non-Christian may shake hands and interchange similar ideas in regard to essential truths”—lay between the Bible and the “so-called Sacred Books of the East.”
Be fair, be charitable, be Christ-like, but let there be no mistake. Let it be made absolutely clear that Christianity cannot, must not be watered down to suit the palate of either Hindu, Parsee, Confucianist, Buddhist, or Mohammedan, and that whosoever wishes to pass from the false religion to the true can never hope to do so by the rickety planks of compromise….{ E. Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society III (London, 1899), p. 304.}
He spoke to the depths. For many missionaries the practical way of expressing an attitude to the religions came to be that, while elements of good remained, the systems stood condemned.—p. 65 [religion, fulfilment] [This is almost my view though I won’t say that other’s systems are stood condemned—db]
Christian evangelists have found themselves addressing people in societies with coherent patterns of thought–within systems of belief and activity. It has been convenient to provide names like “Buddhism” and “Hinduism” to cover numbers of these systems. The validity of this process is not a theme to discuss here; but at least we should not talk as it Paul used them himself. Perhaps too much of the debate about continuity or discontinuity has been concerned with systems. As a result, we have men, each genuinely describing what he saw, producing such different interpretations of “Hinduism” as those of Duff and Farquhar. When this is introduced into the context of Romans 1, we have one party inviting all to recognize that these non—Christian religions lie manifestly under the wrath of God for their manifest deeds, and another pointing to particular persons, books or doctrines, and saying in effect (as Bishop Ryle said of the necessity of baptism by immersion for Eskimos), Let those believe it who can.
Argument about which is the correct, or the more correct, picture of “Hinduism” is beside the point in the light of Romans 1:181, for Paul’s concern here is not with systems at all, but with men. It is people who hold down the truth of unrighteousness, who do not honour God, who are given up to dishonourable passions. It is upon men, who commit ungodly and wicked deeds, that the wrath of God is revealed.
As systems, and ultimately the collective labels for systems which we call the world religions, have slipped into the place of ungodly people in the interpretation of Romans 1, so Christianity, also conceived as a system, has sometimes slipped into the place of the righteousness of God. The true system has been opposed to false systems condemned there. It has some times, but not always, been realized that “Christianity” is a term formally identical with the other labels; that it certainly covers as wide a range of phenomena as most of them; that, if the principalities and powers work within human systems, they can and do work within this one. Man-in-Christianity lies under the wrath of God just as much and for the same reasons, as Man-in-Hinduism. It was the realization of this which saved the earliest generations of the modern missionary movement from the worst sort of paternalism. Humanity was vile everywhere, not only in Ceylon. The Christian preacher had the same message of repentance and faith for the non-Christian world as he had been preaching in the Christian world; for it was not Christianity that saves, but Christ.—p. 66 [religions, Christianity, ]
…The “diatribe” form of Romans 1-2 has often been remarked, as has the indebtedness of the language to Wisdom 13-14 and its closeness to the normal, accepted Jewish polemic against idolatry….—p. 67 [bible]
[My view is: begin from where I am. But this should not be the case with others. But never first prepare a “Mission” theory either based on scripture or on our observation and interpretation based on our perspective. As many souls, so many approaches. Be prepared with all humility of your own limitation. Never try to reach out others with your preconceived notions—db]
Appendix Two
From Cohn:
This ambivalence, this view of the modern Indian between (p. 226) East and West, becomes a central them in the Renaissance view of its own culture and comes down to the recent past in the writings of men like Jawaharlal Nehru:
I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere. Perhaps my thoughts and approach to life are more akin to what is called Western than Eastern, but India clings to me, as she does to all her children, in innumerable ways; and behind me lie, somewhere in the subconscious, racial memories of a hundred, or whatever the number may be, generations of Brahmans. I cannot get rid of either that past inheritance or my recent acquisitions. They are both part of me, and, though they help me in both the East and the West, they also create in me a feeling of spiritual loneliness not only in public activities but in life itself. I am a stranger and alien in the West. I cannot be of it. But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile’s feeling. {Jawaharlal Nehru, Towards Freedom, New York, 1941), p. 353}
This theme of ambivalence was put in even more stark and personal terms by Pratap Chandra Mazumdar, a leader of the Brahmo Samaj, a religious reform movement, in 1879, after he had heard Ramakrishna, a “traditional” rustic mystic and divine:
What is there common between him and me? I, a Europeanized, cilivlized, self-centred, semi-sceptical, so-called educated reasoned, and he, a poor, illiterate, shrunken, unpolished, diseased, half-idolatrous friendless Hindu devotee? I, who have listened to Disraeli and Fawcett, Stanley and Max Muller, and a whole host of European scholars and divines; I, who am an ardent disciple and follower of Christ, a friend and admirer of liberal-minded missionaries and preachers, a devoted adherent and worker of the rationalistic Brahmo Samaj—why should I be spellbound to her him?{As quoted in L. S. S. O’Malley, ;General Survey’, in L. S. S. O’Malley, ed., Modern India and the West (New York, 1941), p. 788}
The ambivalence was tied with a discovery or rediscovery of the past. This would seem to be almost necessary in terms of the ambivalence created by a view of the culture of the present as being one that the intellectuals could not fully accept since they had incorporated an European view into their own. Following our Bengal example, if the intellectuals accepted the European based view of their present, which emphasized the aberrations of the society and its religious system, then (p. 227) they would have to reject their own culture or be hypocrites. However, if they could find in their past a “golden age” and time when their own religion and society were superior, then they could argue that Indian civilization at a point in the past was the equal of Western society and that the rebirth inherent in the idea of a Renaissance was a rebirth of their own traditions and not only a borrowing from the West. It became imperative for nineteenth and twentieth century Indians to develop a knowledge of their own past, the form of which might be couched in Western historical terms but the intent of which was often to provide a rationale to counter the pressure of Western cultural imperialism.—Cohn, 22-228.
Leave a Reply