Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Ten

Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Ten

The following Note is from Ranikhet Class with Dag & Co in July 2001.  Instead of using ‘him’ as the norm I use ‘her’ to give extra respect to feminine movement (I am kidding).

This is not a systematic teaching but rather a kind of dialogue in which one point led to another.  This only for personal and private use not to be circulated or published without my permission as it is not properly edited.—Dayanand Bharati, Ranikhet, August, 2001.

Dogmatic study of any religion and that too of Hinduism particularly is not the correct study on Hinduism.  Study of Hinduism as a religion is attempt to study about a religion which is not there.  In practice there exists a Religion called Hinduism but in theory as per the definition of religion this is not so. Westerners coined the word Hinduism in recent past while the Word Hindu might be there since long time in history.  Hinduism being a parliament of religions rather sampradayas (religious traditions).  But Hinduism is not merely a parliament of religious sampradays but also includes customs, culture, social order, behavior pattern, tradition etc.  This might be a common future of most the Religions also, as we cannot put our life in water tight compartments like culture-religion-social etc.  One culture can accommodate several faiths and one faith can have various cultural groups within it.  For example there can be a Bengali Hindu, Muslim and Christian.  Similarly there can be a Bengali Muslim, Punjabi Muslim Gujarati Muslim etc.

When we think about Religion the first thing that comes to our mind is Scripture.  Of course other things like God, worship etc. also may come to our mind.  For example if we think of Islam we can say it is a religion of Quran and Christianity of Bible.  But when we think about Hinduism which comes to our mind.  No specific Scripture.  So naturally it is not based on Creeds, dogmas and theology.  Though Veda is often claimed as the foundation of Hinduism, it is more a lip service done to the Veda and not giving the correct picture about Hinduism.  Most of the time the sectarian scripture is the one which decides the faith of a sampradaya than Veda.  For example we often hear people in North sing OM Jayajagadeeshu hare etc. in their kirtans and even at aarati time in the temple.  As far as my knowledge goes it was actually a film song sung my Latha Mangeswar.  But Hindus have no problem of singing it as a devotional song during their puja and kirtan.  Several times such a songs alone become their scripture to keep their faith alive.  A typical Hindu may not memorise Veda, Upanishad or Gita but definitely she would remember by heart several of regional songs composed in local dialects.  For example Hanuman Chalisa, Dhurga Chalisa ect. people can recite from memory.  They won’t try to understand the exact meaning of several songs (even those Sanskrit bhajans which they sing they will sing without knowing the meaning) or the theology in it.  But with emotion and bhakti they will sing those songs.  So only those common sectarian scriptures alone guides the Hindus in their spiritual and religious life not their official scriptures like Veda or Gita.

So to interact with Hindus in stead of studying Veda or Gita it is better to start from their common scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and several other devotional songs by Meerabai, Tulsidas, Surdas etc.  Not all the writers of these scriptures were scholars but simple people professing their faith.  For example Meerabai though was a queen become made after Krishna and composed several beautiful songs which dominates the minds of an average Hindu.  Of course persons like Tulsidas are very learned and might be a scholar too.  I don’t know the criterion for a scholar and learned.  Above all who wrote the song is not important for Hindu but what the song is about. For example that OM Jayagadeeshu hare.  The person who wrote it wrote it for money.  After writing it he might have written other romantic songs also for the film.  But how people take that song at present and use it is important for us to note.  So it is not Veda or Gita which guides the faith of common people.  

I say guide and not decide.  Because most of the time faith is not even decided by any scripture but only by a family tradition—how to conduct puja, perform ritual properly by using right kind of flower, things to be offered to particular god on that occasion in a particular way etc. Here we must recognise the freedom given to worship any other god apart from the family deity called kul devi/devata as well the form of worship.  While this freedom is given, yet family tradition is not given up.  A person can choose her won personal god apart from worshiping her family deity.  A woman after her marriage ought to worship the family deity of her husband, of course she can also her favourite gods too.  At the same time a woman in general cannot take her family deity along with her to her husband’s house after her marriage.  She has to leave her parents kul devata/devi as now she become part of another family.  Several times some special kind of pujas which are performed in her mother’s house cannot be performed in her husband’s house if it is not part of their tradition.  For example Varalakshmi puja.  If it is not performed in her husband’s family, she cannot also do it there, though it is performed in her mother’s house.  Similarly if a person take up a new vow or vrata which is not part of the family and some bad things happen in that family, then it will be attributed for performing that vrata or puja which is not part of family tradition.  For example my second brother used to go to Sabarimalai which was not part of our family tradition.  But after several years of regular visit, one time while he was on the vow, my eldest brother died.  So my second brother become defiled and he couldn’t go that year.  But as the death of my brother happened during the time of his vow (vrata) he completely stopped even going further to that temple in the coming years also.  Nobody put any restriction on him and if he wish he could have continued.  But once such a tragedy happened while undergoing that particular vow, he might have stopped it taking it as a negative sign violating family tradition.   While any one choose his own personal god can go on keep worshiping or stop it, whereas when it comes to the family deity, he cannot stop worshiping it.  Certain family rituals are done only to the family deity not to that personal god one’s own choice.  For example in most families after every marriage in that family, generally that family ought go to the temple of that family deity to offer puja and etc.  Whereas this need not be done to a personal god of one’s own choice.  Whatever may happen to that family, yet the family deity will be worshiped generation after generation unlike the god of personal choice (ishta devata).

So faith is mostly decided by family tradition whereas Agamic literatures and other sectarian scriptures will guide regarding rituals.  Such guidance are given both by Agamic and Dharmasastra literatures particularly dealing with domestic rituals.  Agamic¹ literatures are non-vedic scriptures giving guide lines about the construction of temple, forming of idols, various rituals associated with the consecration of those idols and mantras given to do puja to the respective deity even with sectarian affiliation.  It may include several mantras taken from Vedic literature as well as from Puranas.  It is like the Leviticus  in the OT.  The book of Leviticus only give guidance to the ritual part of Jewish worship and not guiding them in their faith.  Even I think that their faith is not even decided by Pentateuch but more by their tradition.  In this sense Hinduism is also like Catholic faith, in which tradition rather scripture plays important role.  One advantage in this is that unlike scripture (here bible) no tradition can be absolute and tradition is flexible, dynamic and accommodative.  So in Hinduism religious scripture proper means those sectarian scriptures.  Though Vedic scriptures too have religious aspects, yet they represents the collective worldviews of Hinduism including philosophical and ritualistic but non-sectarian in their orientation.  Similarly most of the time the commentaries and digests written on Vedic scriptures are to propagate a particular view of the author of those commentaries and digests to establish their siddhanta.  Naturally in this endeavor they have to refute their opponents views similarly claiming the same vedic authority.  Like wise the sectarian scriptures are to promote the importance of the doctrine of that particular sect as well as to establish the deity of that particular sect as the supreme God by refuting the doctrine of other sects as heresy.  However the later attempts by some reformers like Kabir das, Surdas, Tulsidas etc.  to reconcile the warring deities and sects to accommodated the view of the opponents paved the way to project an unified view of Hinduism.  This unity of Hinduism was much promoted during the period of modern reformation and now this theory of unity in diversity is accepted the true mark of Hinduism.

Regarding the authors of the scriptures it is very difficult to trace their identity.  However most of the Sanskrit scripture were written by the Brahmins, though several Upanishads are attributed to have Kshatriyas as their proponents.  Of course it is mere generalization to say that all the Sanskrit works were by the Brahmins.  Non-Brahmins also might have contributed to the Sanskrit scriptures (Valmiki was not a Brahmin and was a hunter).  Like wise all the regional and vernacular scriptures are not necessarily non-Brahmin as their authors (Tulsidas was a Brahmin).  But in a way we can safely say that most of the religious scriptures and other literatures were the contribution of the Brahmins as it was considered as their vocation to teach others.  So naturally writing becomes their vocation too.  Most of the Indian scriptures never bears the name of their author and a mythical Vysa was claimed to be the author of most of the important scriptures and literatures (Veda, Mahabharata even Bhagavata were attributed to him).  In general most of the Religious scriptures were collected work, edited by several authors than written by a single person.  Hindus don’t pay much attention to the authorship, literary criticism, historicity of the scriptures and even about the theology and doctrine of a particular scripture.  Obedience to the tradition without questing it is much more important than enter in to any inquiry about it is the main mark of Hinduism.  Interestingly we can trace the authors of most of the bhakti literatures.  Particularly the North Indian regional bhakti poems will bear the name of the composer almost at the last line of the song as we find in Kabirdas, Surdas, Meerabai etc. songs.  Now a days in some parts of North India, we can come across the sales of several regional literatures related with rituals and vratas in the bus stand and railway station platforms like Durga-chalisa, Hanuman-chalisa etc.

Vedic rituals are different from Aagamic.  In general Vedic ritual is related with performing yajnas (sacrifices) in a grand scale even with the participation of the entire community.  Whereas Aagamic worship is mostly sectarian and some time even personal.  Though such Vedic yajnas are not now much common, yet it didn’t disappear completely and performed in modified way.  Of course few yajnas are performed in strict Vedic pattern including animal sacrifice.  While Vedic rituals are limited to the Brahmin priest that too trained specifically for that purpose, the Aagamic rituals are opened for every one, including to women who can do the rituals without any formal training guided by the given family or sectarian tradition.  In Vedic rituals much importance is given to the correct form and procedure in conducting the yajna (correct pronunciation of mantra, building the vedic altar in proper way and even minute rules are strictly observed while performing every small ritual.  Otherwise the yajna won’t bring the expected result.  Whereas as Aagamic rituals, though provide guide lines, yet not very strict in observance of all forms.  And however imperfectly the rituals are performed sraddha (faith) in the ritual and the deity is much more importance.  Though caryaa or rules for daily life is also provided by Aagamic literatures, yet mostly it is also related with ritual purity etc. than related with ethics or moral guidelines I think.  While Vedic rituals are based on Sruti Aagamic rituals are based on Smrti literatures.  Aagamic literatures are different from Puranas and Epics.  Puranas contains mythological stories whereas Epics are like fictions may be based on some historical incidents like Mahabharata.  Once tribal and outcaste faiths were accommodate within the broad scope of Hindu rituals, their form of worship is also can be termed as Aagamic worship (only to use the technical term) of course without using any Sanskrit mantras and performed by the traditional rituals of respective communities naturally borrowing one from another.  Puranas come in between vedic scriptures and Epics.  The myths in the Puranas resolve several tension between the philosophy versus popular beliefs.  That’s why O’Flaherty says it as a ‘two way mirror’²

To the question whether a Hindu Christ bhakta can continue to worship Jesus and also carry on the family tradition of worshiping their family deity, I would say it is the crucial issue.  In principle we cannot worship the family deities.  But there are certain situations, though the boy or girl have no faith in them and even the family members know about it, yet compelled to join in the puja and to visit the temple.  Some go to accommodate the feelings of the family members at the same time making it clear to them that they have faith only in Christ.  Those who took a strong stand for Christ refused to participate thinking that their strong stand itself is a witness for Christ.  However in such a situation I told the parents of the bhaktas that while they have several gods for each function and purpose, we have one God for everything.  While they celebrate certain festivals in the name of various gods, the Hindu Christ bhakta will celebrate the same in the name of Jesus.  Of course there are certain functions or festivals which are strictly sectarian in there scope which a Hindu Christ bhakta cannot celebrate.  But to give a list of dos and don’ts is a difficult one as it depends upon the person, family and place.  In those families where the parents of the Christ bhaktas are worried about the continuation of family tradition, particularly related with the faith on the kuldevata, then I say now the kuldevata of the bhakta of Christ is Jesus Himself in which s/he cannot make any compromise.  Of course gospel always brings friction on various levels (within us and with others) which need to be resolved based on the bible and on the interpretation of her situation either by herself or by others.

There comes another question about the influence of the parents’ faith and believes on the children of the Christ bhaktas who either live with her parents or keep in touch with them often.  Naturally there is some fear and anxiety in the mind of a Christi bhakta about the teaching her children may receive from her family members who do not share the same kind of conviction in Christ like her.  For this I encourage the bhaktas to allow their children to learn slokas, mantras, songs and even rituals from her other family members.  This is the best opportunity for their children to learnt so many things about Hinduism in practical way.  But it is also a challenge for them to give equal teaching to their children from the bible through their lives—both by way of worshipping the Lord in the family as well through their witness of Him.  For example if the Christ bhaktas keep a regular family worship in which along with their children they can read the bible, sing the song and pray together.  Once their child grow old enough to sing the song and pray themselves, they might even pray for their grand parents in their struggle and need.  For example when they become sick the child can say to the grand parents, ‘don’t worry I will pray to Jesus’ and can even lay down her hand on them and began to pray.  That time the grand parents cannot stop them and even won’t feel hurt which they might feel if their own children do for them.  Such a Living Dialogue with our own family members alone will help us to communicate the gospel with our own family members in a more meaningful way which will help them to understand. 

The Christ bhakta may fear about the compromise on their part and confusion that might be created in the mind of their children.  Thank God they are children and they will learn every thing without paying any serious attention to the question of compromise or conviction.  They will learn all about the different faiths the same way they learn different languages.  We can see the way children living in a multi linguistic situation speak different languages with different people without knowing any linguistic difference among the language.  For example your sons speaks with you in Norweigian, with your neighbours in Hindi and with us in English.  But they don’t have any struggle to switch over the language often.  But Hindi and English won’t be that much perfect as Norweigian as you teach it properly to them where as they learn other languages just for the sake of communication.  Of course this is not the best illustration.  But this could help us to visualize the way children learn most of the things in their life.  Even if confusion comes in their mind, then it is good as it will give more opportunity for you to teach them which will force you to learn properly both the Bible and Hinduism (particularly that of their family tradition) to give answer to their question.  Learning—Witnessing—Teaching are three important aspect for a Hindu Christ bhakta for a proper communication of the gospel to others—including their own children and immediate family members.  They way the build up their faith in children is very important.  It has several challenges and problems for those who live with their parents and family members.  But let us face the challenge then to escape from our responsibility to communicate the gospel to our families.

To the question of joining family function particularly related to the worship and puja of the family deity, in the name of taking a stand for Christ a Christ bhakta can so no and refuse to participate.  But when she calls for her parents and other family members to join with her in her prayer to Jesus on important family occasion , her family members also might say a BIG ‘NO’ to her.  Taking a Stand for the Lord is Important but how far it will help or hinder to be a living witness for the Lord in the family situation is to be considered first.  As we don’t believe in the concept of ‘secret believer’ and all the family members of the Hindu Christ bhaktas know their conviction in Christ, a positive understanding, approach alone will help the Christ bhaktas to live as a witness for the Lord in her family.  For example one of the Christ bhakta’s father told me that his son who is reading the bible is the good among the rest of his children and he is happy as his son is reading the bible to get knowledge.  For this I said, ‘No.  He is reading the bible not to get some knowledge.  Because it contains the words and teachings of his Guru and bhagavan Jesus and in order to know and follow the teachings of his guru he is reading the bible.  Whereas he can read Gita to gain some knowledge’.  So it depends upon not only the understanding of the Christ bhakta but also of those who are teaching them.  They need more maturity and better understanding of the situation of a Christ bhakta living in her family to teach and guide her than arbitrarily imposing their normative principles for a Christ bhakta to live in her own situation.  Those who took a strong stand for Christ can neither witness nor share the gospel living within in their family circle.  What they can do is take a STRONG stand for Christ and others can say that itself a witness for the Lord.  But such a strong stand for Christ will make their family members to throw them away either physically or mentally from their family, even though some may live with them.  For me taking a stand for Christ is a negative evangelism in which the Christ bhakta cannot even utter the name of Jesus before her parents.  Whereas in those families where I encourage the Christ bhakta to have a positive witness for the Lord, I often go there, share the gospel with the other family members and even pray with them in the name of Jesus.  This is not possible in negative evangelism of taking a stand for Christ. 

One of the parents of a Christ bhakta (Raman’s father) asked me which one is good then, Bible or Gita.  For this I said, ‘there never comes a question of which one is right or wrong.  But which one you choose to grow in the spiritual life is important to consider.’  To such a question we must give answer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Because if we say bible is right then it means Gita is wrong.  Whereas if we have a clear understanding of both the Gita and the Bible and understanding their respect for their scripture (which they may not even read most of the times) we have to give a positive answer.  Suppose if the question is asked, ‘what the parents of those Christ bhaktas will think if they continue to go along with them to the temple or join in the family puja.’  For this I said, ‘it depends upon their understanding about the faith of their children.  They know that while the rest of the family is worshiping the family deities, their son or daughter is no more worshiping them but only Jesus.’  For this we must train, encourage the Hindu Christ bhakta to have regular bible reading in the family and even pray with their wife, family members and particularly with their own children.  When important family occasion comes or some decision ought to be made, then they have to tell their parents ‘let us pray to Jesus’ and should pray with them for those matters.

Negative evangelism is not limited to the extraction evangelism of separating the Christ bhaktas from their family but also giving a list of don’ts to them if they have to live with their family members.  Our don’ts list may not be relevant in her situation.  Even if we give such a list, how do you know whether she is following them strictly to the letter and spirit.  You cannot keep an eye on them all the time and they may say yes to you and do some other thing in their situation, this is what actually is happening.  Then by giving such a list we some time make the Christ bhakta to become a hypocrite as she has to pretend that she is trying to do according to the list.  Such a list will only create a guilty conscience in the mind of a Hindu Christ bhakta an in the long run they may even try to avoid us.  Previously she may not have such guilty conscience with them when she was compelled to go to the temple along with the family or stand in the puja or even spend some money for it.  But our list of don’ts will definitely create guilty conscience in her mind. If we say such guilty conscience is the work of the Holy Spirit, then I would rather say that God would give only clear conviction about the faith and not mere guilty conscience. Of course when we sin against God and men Holy Spirit will convict us by creating such guilt conscience.  Here living in her family situation a Christ bhakta through her positive witness is not denying Christ or her faith in Him.  So it is not the Holy Sprit but that list of don’ts alone create guilty conscience.  In her situation at best we can only give some guidance based on the bible but we cannot decide for her.  And while giving even the guidance a better understanding of her situation and positive attitude and approach alone will help.  Such a positive witness for the lord will never lead to backsliding in her faith.  And those who have gone back in their faith have done it not because of their positive witness but due to various other factors and one among them is improper teaching from our side.  So taking a stand for Christ is not limited only in the heart and mind in a spiritual sense and ought to be expressed in concrete life situation.  But those expressions should not close the heart and mind of her family members to listen the gospel.

Cassette Two: The study on Hinduism is much influenced by the Western perspective of Religion.  Even those Indian writers, writing about Hinduism at present cannot avoid this influence in their writing.  Though nothing wrong in this approach, yet a common Hindu is not going to understand this kind of view on his religion.  For example Dr. Vijay Nath’s book: Purana and Acculturation A Historico-Anthropological Perspective, how many common Hindus are going to view their faith from this perspective?

Generally we can find three kind of broad kinds of writing about Hinduism among the scholars.  First one is Objective—academic–scientific study by done mostly by the western scholars who never mingled with people like Max Muller.  Muller never came to India, but translated volumes of Sanskrit scriptures in English through his Sacred Books of the East volume series.  The second one is done mostly by Christian Missionaries with a Comparative approach like Farquer, K.M. Banerjea etc.  The third one is mostly written in response to these missionaries writing by Indian scholars called apologetic approach like Dr. Radhakrishnan, Prof. Kane etc.  Of course this is not the clear cut criteria of all the writings on Hinduism, but in a superficial way we can classify those writings for our understanding.  So we must be very careful in selecting any book to understand Hinduism.  It is better to read all the three kinds to have a balanced view on Hinduism.  However any such study without learning from the people will be a mere academic approach in understanding Hinduism.  Because common people are more influence by the flock aspect of their faith learnt from their own respective tradition and not necessarily by academic writings. So any reading by scholars will help us to understanding Hinduism intellectually only and completely not on the practical side.

So the best way to understand about Hinduism is to learn from the people themselves who are professing the faith.  You observe them, talk to them and even ask question about their faith and various rituals etc.  You can even point out the contradiction between their practice and scripture.  Then they will begin to give big answers without knowing anything about their scripture.  But they also equally know that you yourself don’t know much about their faith or scriptures.  So they with much confidence will tell several things without minding any contradiction.  In fact the word ‘contradiction’ is foreign to their understanding of their faith and scriptures as most of the time ‘Synthesis’ is the watchword both of their faith and scriptures.  Any how you can ask question about the role of scripture in their faith and life.  How they take their scriptures seriously in resolving several tension in the practical life? And when opportunity comes you can even compare bible’s answer to such question and learn from them about the answer they have from their faith and scriptures.  That’s why when I have opportunity to preach among them, I always touch the practical aspects of the life and relating it with the scriptures which is much welcomed by them.  At the same time we should remember that while the scholars complicated the study of Hinduism the lay people made it impossible to understand because of their ignorance and indifference to their scriptures.

The one reason for the misunderstanding about Hinduism by the scholars in their study is that they have to follow the inevitable path of systemization.  They will have a systematic approach on any subject where as most of the scriptures of Hinduism (of any religion) may not attempt to give a systematic approach except some commentaries by acharyas on various scriptures.  Of course such a systemization cannot be avoided while writing any book.  Because without keeping a framework one cannot even attempt to write a book.  That is why I often say, ‘lay people know the answer to the life problem, but they don’t ask systematic question about it.  Whereas the scholars first ask systematic question first and then try to find answer to those question from the scriptures which never attempt to give any systematic answer.  So lay people live happily with their answers and scholars struggle with their questions all the time.’  For example O’Flaherty jovially told one practical truth about the origin of evil in India: ‘…for in India the significant evil is what (p.363) happens to one, not what one does…’(The Origin of Evil in Hindu Mythology, pp.363-4).  That is why when some evil things happen to them, they may emotionally disturbed and mentally ask some question.  But people are there to console them taking refuge in fate, karma, God’s lila etc. and soon forget.  To say in other way evil and tragedy is accepted and never questioned.

Regarding the question of mercy towards the suffering people sometimes it goes both ways.  By allowing a person to suffer now will help her to get rid of some of her past Krama.  But this is only in theory I think.  Whereas people will reach out to help the suffering people in general as they think it is there duty to serve others in time of need.  Of course there is an undercurrent belief also that if you don’t help others in their need god won’t arrange the same help in your need.  Some time some help is done to earn some merit (punya), but this is generally done during the time of yaatras and some special occasion.  But when a Hindu reaches out to help others in their tragedy, it is done because it is his dharma and duty to help them and that time no doctrinal issues (earning merit or to earn god’s favor etc.) never comes to his mind.

Take for example of giving alms to a beggar.  Some will say we should not give undeserving person to encourage them to have an easy way of earning by begging.  Others may argue in opposite way.  However as per the saying in Tamil: it is a mean thing to ask anybody to give (begging).  But is it s worst thing to refuse to give even after one has asked for help (begging).  So if a begging is bad refused to give is worst.  But generally in India people won’t say no to anyone asking for some help in their need.

To any complicated question Hindus have both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers.  Sometimes in Hinduism everything is right and nothing is wrong.  If you press on one point they will jump to the other.  It is like a logical see-saw.  But in a see-saw game two persons will play.  But in Hindu doctrinal see-saw the same person will jump from one side to another arguing from any one point to silence he opponents, particularly that of any non-Hindus’ question about her faith and doctrine.  For example in recent summer meeting at Kodai, my own brother-in-law after listening me said that ‘why don’t you accept that going to the temple is a cultural thing.’  It really surprised me as I never heard a Hindu saying that going to the temple is a cultural thing.  But as he has no answer to my question regarding several blind faiths towards idol worship and etc. in order to defend his tradition and value he took the same issue from a new cultural perspective.  In him you can see a typical Hindu.  Even if they know that certain things are wrong or do not have any logical answer, they will try to defend it from a different point of view, which even may not be there.  (In my talk with Brindamataji, she herself narrated several flock stories of Kumaon hills where local heroes, even worst ones were later made as deities.  Then she said, ‘it is good in one way as the need of all people are accommodated in Hinduism’). So in way of answer to him I said that going to the temple is purely a religious ritual but dressing grandly with ornaments and silk cloths etc. is part of culture.  Going to the temple and arranging puja etc. during festivals is definitely a religious matter but the way they celebrate it may be cultural.  Take for example of Durga puja. It is done different way in different parts of the country based on the regional cultural aspects.  Ramlila is not in South India.

Similarly several times Hindus do certain rituals not only without any knowledge about the (sectarian) scripture but even without any knowledge about their faith itself.  For example Deewali has three different stories.  But only after coming to North I came to know the other stories related with Deewali.  So things are done as handed over by the family tradition without asking much question.

Of course in our general talk with Hindus they may only talk about their gods, the puja and rituals they do and about the festivals they celebrate and not necessarily any doctrinal topics like karma, rebirth.  Because it is take for granted that these things are there and what is there to talk about them.  This is also a proof that how Hinduism is a ritual oriented faith of common people than a doctrinal oriented philosophy (theology).  For example the performing of sraaddha (yearly ancestral worship).  They believe both rebirth at the same time do the sraaddha.  But they in general never think about this contradiction.  Till ten days after the death of a person, his soul will remain in the form of a ghost (preta) and on tenth day after doing the pinda pradana (rice ball offering) in which his soul will be joined with his ancestors he will become a pitru (ancestar).  And one is expected to do the sraaddha every year not only for his father but even for his grand father.  At the same time they believe that after death the soul takes another birth according to the karma.  But they never thinks about the contradiction but go on holding both the views.  That’s why in general they never discuss these kinds of doctrinal issues.

Dag: Can we keep the tilak of sandal paste after we do the puja in the office even in your absence and can we come out without removing it?  What people will think about it?  Because when you are here and do puja you gave tilak and we keep it.  But in your absence can we do the same thing?  Will people be offended or find it strange?

DB: You can do it even in my absence.  A Sannyasi is not suppose to do puja and it is the job of a priest.  Any how you too can keep the sandal paste after the puja and initially people find it strange but they won’t be offended.  Even if they ask you can say, ‘Though we worship Jesus, we like to worship Him in Indian way of doing puja while we live in India.’  And people will definitely appreciate it and never be offended by it.  But my request is don’t do it just for the sake of contextualisation.  Do it another form of worshiping the Lord.  It should not be strategy but it should a natural way of worshiping Jesus according to the cultural aspects other than your tradition.

Dharma: meaning of dharma.  Hinduism is varnaashramadharma.

When a woman’s husband who become a Sannyasi dies, she won’t be called a widow and she need not remove all her marital symbols like sindur, mangalyam (wedding chain) etc.  Similarly a woman who is separated from her husband not divorced, but if they live separately, and if the husband dies, she is not under an obligation to remove her marital symbol also.  Of course there may be some exception.  Only a woman who is living with her husband, after his death only with some kind of formal ritual alone she can remove her marital symbols.  But as a Sannyasi won’t receive any such final rites his wife too cannot remove her marital symbol with proper formal ritual.  The case is the same with those women who are separated from their husband.  So not only to become a wife but also to become a widow some rituals are ought to be performed.  That is why those women’s husband who get lost by some means (either in war, or in travel etc.), cannot become a widow until a confirmed death news about her husband is reached her and a proper final rite is performed for him by his son or relative.  I also heard that a seven year period will be given to trace out the lost person or give a chance him to come back.  If no news of him reaches within that seven years, then assuming that he is dead a final rite will be performed for him and then his wife will become a widow.  A sannyasi before his deeksha does his own final rites and therefore he won’t receive any final rite or ritual after his death.

Question: Why the name Hindu came and why not the word Indian is used then, if geographical identity is the criteria to decide who is a Hindu?

DB:  Because the word ‘Indian’ is an English word which is used for the word Hindu.  In English we can address ourselves as ‘Indians’ but when we address ourselves in Hindi or Urdhu or in Sanskrit then we are ‘Hindustanis’ and not ‘Industanis’.  While ‘Bharat’ is ‘India’ and ‘Bharati’ is Indian, yet it is not in common use to identify the Indian in her own native terms.  For example all the South Indians are called by the North Indian as ‘Madarasi’.  But a Keralite is not a ‘Madarasi’ nor an ‘Andraite’.  But this is the why North Indian address the whole South Indian.  Interestingly the word ‘Madras’ is not a Tamil word.  It is either a derived word from Urdu (Madarasa) or perverted English word.  Since people use it to identify a whole section of Indian in that word, it is not easy to change it overnight.

Regarding the orthodoxy we should remember that there is nothing ‘orthodoxy’ in a strict sense in Hinduism.  Hinduism being a dynamic and all inclusive religion, though the word ‘orthodoxy’ is used to refer to any traditional value or ideology including theology, there will be always some exceptions and there will be enough space to accept new views.  Take for example a typical (Paramahamsa) Sanyasi is not supposed to do any puja to idol.  But in practice the concept of vyavaharika (practical or mundane) gives place even for a Sannyasi to do puja, as performed by Sankaracharyas.

In this class lot of questions were asked about who is a Sannyasi.  What is a difference between a Sannyasi and Sadhu or baba.  The following would be a overall summary of what we discussed:  Sannyasa belongs to the forth order in the life.  There are two theories about Sannyasi.  The first is that the moment one feels mentally detached from the world (not because of some frustration, particularly based on strained relationship with wife etc.) one can become a Sannyasi.  In those exception case a ritual itself is not needed.  But in the second view, one, after completing his family responsibility, after seeing his grandchildren, with the permission of his wife and family, can become a Sannyasi.  Though the latter theory came much later, yet from time in memory Sannyasis (munis) were in India.  However it was Sri Sankara, following the practice of Buddhism and Jainism made it as an institution.  He started the Dasanaami (Ten Named) Order in which mostly Brahmins and other high caste Sannyasis were initiated.  He also created Naga baba Order in order to protect the Sannaysis from attack as well as to serve the Swamis.  Till before two century the Naga babas were supposed to carry even Sannyasi in Palki on their shoulders, but they rebelled this and broke away from such tradition.

There are four orders or division among the Sannyasis also: Kutikachas, bhutakachas, Hansa and Parama Hansa.  The first two are in general among the non-brahmins and the latter two among the high caste sanyasis.  The first two order babas can wear their jenuve (thread), can be attached with a temple, cook food by their hand, do muurthy puja and stay in one place.  Whereas the later two cannot do any of these things.  Particularly they cannot cook their food in fire and only should accept food by begging, that too only in first seven houses.  If they cannot get in the first house, they can go for the second.  After seven houses, if they didn’t get food, then that day they should fast and can take next day alone.  They also should eat only one time in a day that too not in a plate but only in Hand (karathala bikshaha—Bhajagovindam) and should dwell only under a tree, or rock, or cave etc., viz., they should not reside under any constructed building (tharutala vaasaha—Bhajagovindam).  They cannot even stay more than three days in one place.  But this rule not is strictly implemented and at present even the main order of Sankara (all the five mathas) have well established monastries and even travel by A/C cars—of course this is kali yug.

People in general call those sannyasis as Swamiji who are bit elite, educated, belongs to a recognized monastic order like Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, Dasanami Order.  On the other hand those tantric sannyasis are addressed as babas—who in general may have matted hair, smear ash on the whole body.  Go only with a lion cloth or even nacked, smoke ganja etc.  But there is no strict rule in it.  Some time Swamijis also will be addressed babas.  Generally some of the babas, particularly those young boys whom we can see with them in their group (it is also important to note that in general these babas always travel as a group, where as the Sanyasis will go alone) become babas not because of their own choice but because of some other reason.  Some times even children are stolen by the babas in order to make them as their chelas.  Those children lost in melas were also end up with some baba order or those boys run away from home will join them.  So one can find all kinds of Sannyasis and babas in India.  Of course it is difficult to probe each case, in general we can find all kinds of people among sannyasis—including drug addicts, drug traffickers, murderers(who want to escape from police and law).  I still remember when I was a boy, there came a baba performing great yajna declaring eating only the ash of the fire.  After some forty days of his stay and performance of yajna, he was finally arrested by police, because he murdered someone and was on his run under the grab of a sannyasi.  There are women sannyaasin too, though in theory a woman is not to become a sannyasi.  Though we read about the wives of Rishis, they were not sannyasinis as the Rishisis themselves were not sannyasis.  But from the time of Buddha, he allowed the woman order in his monastry system.  Probably from that time onwards women too were become sannyasis.

The main thing that attract one to become a Sannyasi particularly that of a baba is Power.  In Hinduism Power plays a important role in religious and even in spiritual life.  All the Pujas and vratas are performed in order to gain some kind of power.  Power is particularly in need to control every thing—even god himself/herself.  But a Sannyasi through his austerity achieves that easily (of course after a difficult and hard tapasya).  That’s why people have some kind of reverence and also fear for the Sannyasis.  They won’t take the risk of provoking him to be cursed.  Brahmins also have the same power by virtue of their birth.  Even gods are afraid of such a power and always try to prevent them to gain such power through their tapasya.  Whether or not a Sannyasi has that power, generally people automatically give that power to them and that’s why it become an attractive vocation for some to make a easy living too.  People always like to be respected and command/dominate.  This a Sannyasi can do easily.  He need not obey anyone(including god) except his/her own guru. A saffron dress or a matted hair or long beard with an appearance of a sannyasi or baba is enough to earn the reverence, respect or fear of the people.  As a Sannyasi need not bow before others, he can even demand food or material from others.  A true Brahmin and Sannyasi has every right to ask biksha (this is not begging).  In a true sense a typical Brahmin and Sannyasi should live only on what they receive as biksha.  Such a status, attached with some imagined power, either really attained or bestowed by people make several people to become a sannyasi.  But all those who become sannyasi have never done because of this reason.  A true sannyasi should be more humble than anyone else.  As estranged sannyasi or a tapasvi who uses his accumulated power to show his power has to under go severe penance to regain his last power.  At the same time a true tapasvi can transmit his power for the well being or to rescue some one else too.  These are mythological stories of course.

The taantric babas are called agorpantis, vaman pantis.  They will wear even black dress or live nakedly.  They will perform so many rituals which look abomination—like eating human flesh from the dead body, drinking their own urine and eating their own stool, sacrificing animals, even human beings.  They will also perform ritual sex with some women, even as a group.  In order to control their sense they will either stand on one leg, or lift their one hand for several years, or lay down only on thorn or nail bed, even tie big sandal bag in their penis etc.  But in general such taantric pratices are objected, but common people will have still some fear of these people and when they visit villages to perform some ritual, they will demand material and money, which people will give out of fear.

Now coming back to Hinduism:  Common people’s faith is decided not by Veda or Gita or Upanishads, but by mythological stories given in sectarian puranas as well by family tradition.  To know this faith they need not read all puranas or scripture related with their sect.  They hear the stories from the childhood through their parents, or in drama, film, T.V. series, through Ramlila etc.  They many not be familiar with all the details, but they will in general know the over all stories.  Epics are not puranas.  Epics may be based on historical facts which were exaggerated.  While Puranas are sectarian in their scope, Epics are mostly based on history or even we can call them secular stories using religious stories.  It is encyclopaediatic in nature.  It will contain social, moral, spiritual, dharmic and so many other matters.  Though Valmiki Ramayana is also an epic, original Ramayana is not sectarian Purana promoting Rama as the god.  But in later other regional variations like Tulsiramayana, they might look like sectarian scripture.  But as the epics were more used to impart all kinds of teaching among Hindus, they become more popular than Puranas.  However epics are older than Puranas and later Puranas also borrowed several stories from the epics.  But both developed side by side also, at least Mahabharata is not a work of a single author and it was more an edited work with various additions time and again.  Hinduism being a religion of evolution and adoption with a synthetic in nature, new things will be added and some old things may also die naturally.  For example several vedic gods like Varuna, Indra, Agni etc. who were so prominent one time were now either reduced as mere deities or even remain only in scripture and those insignificant deities like Vishnu, Rudra were later gained more importance.  Similarly so many other gods, concepts were also borrowed from outside the Aryan society and integrated as part of their own system.  Temple and idol worship is the best example for this.  Because of this dynamic nature, Hinduism remains as an on going process.  That’s why such religions like Buddhism and Jainism, because of their lack of this dynamic nature either ebbed away from India or become part of Hinduism.  That’s why I use the illustration of a round which is always growing still remaining as a circle never loosing its connection with the centre axe.  There will be no one answer to any particular religious question.  Take for example the origin of Evil.  One answer will be that in order to uphold the validity of dharma god allowed adharma (evil).  Another answer will be that our own past karmas are the reason for the present evil.  Bhakti schools will say that it is a lila of god.  In order to show his grace god allowed evil.  One sect will blame for the evil to the god of another sect.  Some time evil is treated as co-eternal with good or god.  If there is a good then there should be an evil to make the good to look like good.  A negative is essential to make the ‘positive’ positive.

In common people’s life most of the time either their fate or karma is blamed for the evil that happens in their life.  Why a husband become drunken.  It is the fate of the wife.  Why he is beating her.  That’s due to her karma and it is written in her fate that such one should be her husband.  But people several times won’t logically think why he is beating her?  She might be provoked him beyond his tolerance!  Some times, particularly woman, in order to win sympathy of her relatives, friends and neighbors will make her husband behave rudely with her like beating her etc.  What a man can do in maximum to show his anger.  He can beat his wife.  But if s woman wants she can drive her husband made even for six months.  Husband may act like an earthquake, with outburst beating his wife.  But wife will react like after shocks.  While earthquakes create sudden pain after shocks will drive you made.  When a husband beat his wife, his neighbors, friends or relatives will definitely interfere and separate them. Hindus won’t remain indifferent to any fight or quarrel.  Even unknown people will step in to stop a fight between two people.  But after that most of the time it was the husband who has to feel the burnt of his violence in her reaction.  Of course I am not minimizing the suffering of women.  But what I want to show is that it is not always a one sided story as projected by human right groups.  Because in a male dominated society woman will get sympathy easily and not an affected man.  Even sometimes the male prestige won’t allow him to accept that he is being persecuted mentally, even physically by his wife sometimes.  There is a joke which came in Readers Digest.  In a divorce case the Judge told the husband that he cannot tolerate the one who deserts his wife.  For this the husband told the Judge, ‘Lord! You don’t know that woman.  I am not a deserter.  Only a refugee.!’  A husband may shout and use physical violence, whereas a woman equally knows how to fix her husband.  Don’t think that only women are in the receiving end.  I am not ready to believe it.  You can commonly observe that sometimes women refuse to eat for a day or two when she is upset.  She may even cook and feed her husband silently, but herself won’t take food.  This is done to win the sympathy of the people.  You can also see in India that people and leaders suddenly go on fast to bent the will of their opponents and win easy support from the mass.  Jayalalita sat in dharna along with fast in her previous regime to draw the attention of the central govt. on Kaveri river dispute.  Even Atalji went one time to bent the govt. on some issue.  It is an easy weapon which Indian generally use to mentally harass their opponents.  So in human relationship in India it is not only karma and fate but even psychology also has its own share.  But everything is given a religious color.

This synthetic nature of religion and life of people allowed them to deal the life’s problem from many angle.  While in Western and particularly in Christian religion, as there is one answer to human problem (sin) people who are not satisfied with it go the counseling centres.  Whereas such a counseling clinic are new to India and people have their ready made answer available in religion.  Of course people will always share their personal problem to a Sanyasi or to their gurus and seek guidance and advice.  Still the advice they seek is more of ritual remedies than moral or spiritual one.  In order to remove particular problem what kind of prayascita or santi (appeasement) is to be performed either to the deity or to the planets.  Or they will seek counsel from astrologer and palm readers.  As their religious worldview gives some kind of answer to their suffering they take life’s suffering boldly.  To say in other way for every problem related with social, political economical etc. issues they have religious answer.  The answer may be in politics or economics, but that too will be given only in the name of religion.  Why Jayalalita again came to power.  It is because of her good time or Karunanidi’s bad time or even Tamilians bad time.  So ‘either or the other’ analytical approach is not accepted in India but ‘both and also’ is the answer.

Suppose a woman is killed in road accident the general theory would be that it is written on her head that she should die in such a way.  When major accidents happen in which several people are killed, while now a days judicial inquiry is ordered, in general the relatives of the deceased person will take refuge in karma or fate.  A drunken driver or a bad road or a damaged bridge may be the actual reason for the accident and not necessarily the karma.  At the same time karma is not used to decide everything also.  For example a criminal cannot say that it is written in karma that she should kill her victim or blame the fate of her victim that it is written that she should die in that way.  Then the Judge also may give the verdict in the same line by saying, ‘it is also written in your or my karma that I should give you a capital punishment’.  There is a mythology in India that Yama the lord of death won’t accept the blame to take any life and he will always use some incident like accident, decease etc. as an excuse to take the life away.  That’s why proper final rites won’t be done to those who have committed suicide as she took her life away before the appointed time.  And her soul will wander in the form of a ghost till the appointed time to leave this earth.  It is also important to remember that most of the time this karma and fate is used to console the affected person and not to defend the person who caused some damage to others.

So understanding Hinduism is not an easy thing.  While most of the written materials try to give a systematic teaching on Hinduism on subject wise, people never live on that systematic way but only on existential way.  But this shouldn’t discourage us to take pain to understand Hindus.  We can take help from written sources (books), but try to understand Hinduism based on the people who are living in actual life situation.  So a negative approach won’t be good.  For example few Christian missionaries read all about Hinduism to refute their faith and believes so that they can prepare them to receive the gospel truth.  But it never worked out.  Because most of the studies are done in academic atmosphere.  If they try to prove one doctrine wrong from one point of view Hindus will have another point of view to give to you as the answer.

Question: Some scholars say that there is no redemptive analogy in Hinduism which we could bridge with the biblical analogy.

DB:  The problem in such observation is that these scholars have done some study only on the theological and doctrinal aspect of on Hinduism, that too might be written from western perspective.  For most of the early western and that too Christian scholars everything in Hinduism is advaita.  But they forget to look in to the mythology and puranas.  Almost all the Purana stories have a redemptive base:  in order to save either the bhakta or the world god took the avatara.  Once common people’s faith is guided by the mythological and Puranic stories, why these Christian scholars are searching it for in philosophical writings about which people have little or no understanding at all.  Even those who hunt for a redemptive analogy in Hindu philosophy should understand that in a simplified way we can say that in Hindu philosophy salvation is possible only through proper knowledge.  And to attain that knowledge one can strive through karma, bhakti or jnana (knowledge).  So we should not try to understand other’s scripture and worldview based on our own theological perspective.  Then it will mislead both.  Above all what is the salvation itself is to be considered before we search for any redemptive analogy in Hinduism.  Salvation in Hinduism is bit complicated and all comprehensive.  Though the overall concept is to break the chain of samsara—birth and death, yet each sect has its own doctrine regarding the salvation.  In vedic time the very concept of salvation itself was absent.  Living a hundred full happy year and then go to heaven and enjoy the same life indefinitely is the worldview of Vedic time.  But the way it changed gradually in the course of Hindu thought and finally shaped and heavily influenced by the bhakti school of thought is to be considered.  To hunt for a single redemptive analogy like that we find in the bible is therefore impossible in Hinduism.  Above all as sin is not a theological problem but only a moral and ethical issue, any redemption from sin is not necessarily for the Hindus.  In fact there is no theory of the fall of wo/man but only fall of god.  So only god need to be redeemed from his fall and not wo/men.  It is true in one sense that there is no redemptive analogy in Hinduism because there is no fall of wo/men also in Hinduism.

If at one has to take any redemption analogy in Hinduism it is only find in the concept of having a son who can redeem his parents from the hell called ‘put’.  A putra (put-tra) is one who tarati (crosses away) from the hell called ‘put’.  That’s why while living a Hindu won’t worry much about her sin and salvation.  But after her death her relatives will see that they will do every ritual to make sure that the deceased person has gone to heaven.  A son has to do proper final rites for his father particularly for two reason—one to save him from the hell called ‘put’ and also for the sake of the society.  Otherwise his other family members will say what kind of a son is he that who denied proper final rites for his parents.  At the same time while they are still alive Hindus will believe in doing some prayascita (propitiation) for their sin, doing various religious activities like going to pilgrimage etc. to remove sin.  In Bhakti school total surrender to god and remaining a sincere bhakta will remove all kinds of sin.  Of course one can find lot of contradiction in such believes.  But the Hindus will say that there is no contradiction here but they are only different means to attain salvation.  Let us do what we can do and let others (like the son) do what they can do and finally god will do what He ought to do to a bhakta.  In bhakti confession of sin is not just remove some guilty conscience for a Hindu, but it itself is a kind of prayascita.

Karma is more a binding concept regarding redemption and salvation and not sin.  If sin is the only criteria for salvation in Hinduism then it will become an individualistic religious faith—in the sense that if I confess my sins and resolve not to do it again and god is there to redeem her from her sins etc.  Where as Hinduism is a corporate faith in the sense that while an individual should do what she can do to remove her karma, yet it depends upon proper rites performed by the son.  That’s why the Hindus are more worried about the mundane affairs and look forward god to give all kinds of help to solve so many practical problem then to worry about sin and salvation.  All the good karmas done by one as well all the ritual karmas performed by the son will take care of the salvation process.  Of course in bhakti schools, bhakti over rules all kinds of other theology and will give salvation in spite of the binding of karma and sin.  But the Hindus never find any contradiction in all these various philosophies but look them only as various means to get rid of karma.

One cannot avoid karma and its effects in this life.  Life is to be lived in its fullness with all kinds of legitimate enjoyments.  While Moksha is the best ideal among the four aims of live called purushartas, yet dharma, artha and kama are not rejected.  So while life is lived in its totality karma and its results cannot be avoided.  Sannyasa which in theory proposes an easy way to get rid of karma and its effects is not accepted or practised by all.  Gita’s nishkaamyakarma (desireless work) which won’t bind with the results of karma is an ideal which is philosophically discussed, quoted in defence but never put in to practice.  One can see the obituary in paper the same verse from Gita is quoted or a defeated political leader quote the same verse to explain her defeat in the election (‘I have done my duty without any attachment for power of position).  While living doing the karma either to lead a normal life or for the lokasamkrha (welfare of the world by a victorious politician in election—got mandate to serve the people) is the aim of life.  Interestingly Valmiki Ramayana never mentions Moksha but only the other three aims of life.  In vedic concept going to heaven that too based on one’s own merits through karma is mentioned.  Some scholars are of the view that only after Buddhist time the concept of Moksha entered in Hindu philosophical system via Upanishads.  That is why some western scholar’s criticism on Hinduism that Hinduism is not a world denying religion as claimed by Hindus but only a world-affirming religion.  Based on the Vedantic philosophy and only based their study on it they only came to that conclusion and not the general public.  Of course few Indian scholars too coming under the western influence projected such a view based on the same Vedantic view as the only concept of Hinduism.  But Hindus themselves never hold this view.  To say in theory, which is not clearly articulated but such a concept is commonly accepted is that, the life in this world is given to workout your own salvation through a proper life lived based on dharma, artha and kama.  Do your duty, earn wealth to perform your duty and in that course enjoy the life in a legitimate way and strive for Moksha.  So Hindus keeps a reasonable balance in their view of life.  They never go to one extreme.  But western scholars studying Hinduism from one point of view have such wrong ideas as either Hinduism is a world affirming or world denying religion.

Dharma should not be confused with righteousness.  I don’t think that no Hindu ever thing that she is righteous.  They may claim a perfect sinless soul within them but not a sinless life or conscience.  I think there is the concept of ‘punyavaan’—dharmic in the sense of a upright man in other’s eyes, one is generous, upright, modest, doing his duties properly etc.  But not ‘righteous’ in one’s own eye.  Because in this Kali yug no one can be perfect as Dharma stands on one leg.  In Treta yug Dharma stood on four legs, in Kreta on three and in Dwapara on two.  So as dharma itself degenerated no one can be righteous even if they want to be.

Questifon: It is like the Bible saying that at the end of the age righteousness will decrease and in Parousia everything will be restored.  So can we compare this concept of Hinduism with it also.

DB: May be.  As the Golden Age theory promises again the restoration of dharma back its original status.  But the ‘end of the age’ theory in the Bible is going to be a one time event whereas in Hinduism it will be a cyclical process without any end.  May be the world Golden Age itself was a part of Indian Reformation response to the western criticism on Hinduism—once in Vedic age we were perfect etc.  But the over all view of the Hindus is that the present Kali age is full of evil and things will be restored back to its original status at the beginning of another cycle, which will again go down and will come back.  This is a cyclical process.  So the concept of TIME which not only create and influence but also solve various problem in its own TIME.  Even several Christ bhaktas as well traditional Christian believers talk about bad TIME in their life—a concept independent of God Himself.  Of course God will help in that bad TIME but TIME ‘kala’ itself is a independent entity in the worldviews of Indians—irrespective of their faith in any religion.  The concept of one more avatara which will come at the end of Kali yuga to destroy all adharma and restore back to Golden age is also there.  Regarding the time of Kali yuga, some have try to calculate it at the death of Krishna after Mahabharata war and on his death Kali enters and it was some time around 3500 BC.  Some base this calculation based on astronomy and others based on mythology or the genealogy recorded in Puranas.

Question:  Once in a hotel I saw a saying like this: The Grace of Shiva and the Kingdom of God.  I think this is due to some Christian influence they use such words like ‘Grace’ ‘Kingdom of God’, etc.

DB:  Regarding the concept of ‘Grace’ is there in Hinduism both in Vaishnava and Saiva sects.  Particularly the Saiva Siddhanta found in Tamilnadu is based on the concept of Grace of Shiva.  It goes to the extent of saying that one cannot even worship the Lord with out His Grace: avan arulale avan taal vanangi (in Sivapuranam by Manikkavacagar).  This concept of bhakti based on Grace started only in South India (Tamilnadu) and further moved to North.  There is a Sanskrit sloka in Naradha bhakti sutra which says that bhakti born in South, brought up in Karnataka and given marriage in North (in Vrindhavan).  The word ‘Kingdom of God’ might be borrowed from Christian world.  There is some kind of Christian influence, particularly since last two hundred years and with the spirit of adoptation a Hindu won’t mind to accept any word or concept which will useful to express her bhakti or spirituality.

Question: Then what is the difference between Grace and Mercy in Hinduism.

DB:  I think a Hindu won’t go in details about the technicality of difference in word.  Of course that a philosopher will definitely do.  But the bhakti school started as an independent thought—of course borrowing from other Hindu philosophies as well influencing them—side by side with other thoughts.  We must always remember the fact that studying or understanding Hinduism in a chronological way is importance for our understanding only and it is not that way the various concepts developed in Hinduism.  One thought influencing the other, there were several parallel thought developed side by side.  In Biblical sense we can say Mercy deals with what I have done and Grace deals with what I am (used by Rev. John Stott in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount entitled as ‘Christian Counter Culture’—I think).  But an ordinary Hindu will take both the word on the same level.

Question:  If according to Hinduism nothing is destroyed then how to justify the population increase.

DB:  The question itself has the answer.  As nothing is destroyed, they will only change the forms.  If you burnt some thing, then it become ash.  The ash gets dissolved in water and evaporate to the ether.  Then it will mingle with rain water and come back to the word.  It will be absorbed by the plants in the form of mineral.  When the plant or its product is consumed by a man, then it enters in his seed which when planted in the womb of a woman come back as human being.  This kind of cycle goes on for ever.  So if there is an increase in human population then there is a decrease in animal, planet, ameba etc. world.  In one school of thought nothing increase and nothing decreases in Brahmanda (Cosmos) and Prakriti is co-enteral with God.  Any how they are more complicated and a way to explain away some complicated questions in an easy way.

Question: Is there any concept of timing in between births?

DB:  Yes and it is very complicated one.  In theory after death the soul remain as a preta (ghost) and on the tenth day with proper rituals the soul is joined with the ancestors and become Pitru (anscestor).  But it is interesting to note that it is only said for a male.  Of course for woman also the same kind of ritual is performed but whether she will be joined with his husband or not is the question.  For example those woman who died before their husband cannot be joined with their husband’s soul.  Anyhow how the departed soul takes birth again is very complicated and I have quoted from ‘Karma and Rebirth’ in ‘Understanding Hinduism’ about this.  While so many theories were written and recorded in scriptures common people never bothered about this and live according to the family tradition.  One advantage in Hinduism is anybody can hold any theory and that is true for her.  There ends the matter.  If you refute and try to prove her theory as wrong they have another point of view to prove that you are wrong in understanding their religion.

Qeuestion: Can we talk to Hindus about going to heaven as we believe in our Christian faith.

DB:  It is bit complicated.  While the Hindus believe in Heaven and Hell and also believes that all the deceased family members have gone to heaven, it is better not talk about the promise of heaven through Jesus at least in the first encounter.  Tell how Jesus have removed all their past karmas on the Cross through His death (even from good karmas) and will help you to come out from the cycle of Samsara.  Personally I talk how Jesus helps you to come out or over come all the struggles in this world.  Salvation is there, forgiveness of sin is there, yet I would rather prefer to start from where people are struggling in their felt need.  For this some time I am branded as a liberal.  Yet I will address to the basic issue like their struggle in keeping good relationship with others etc.  ‘Why cannot you love your neighbour, serve others? It is because of your sinful nature.  Once Christ is ready to forgive your sin and helps to give you victory over your sinful nature, then you can mend your relationship and think of serving others.  That itself is part of salvation which begins on this earth itself.  Forgiving others’ sin and offence towards us is the first precondition for God to forgive us and bless us.  Christ has both demonstrated this through His death on the Cross.’  I will begin from there.  So when I talk with anyone, I will first start from their need and will never share an objective gospel—we are sinners, God sent Christ to die for our sins etc.

Origin of Hinduism:  Hinduism as Sanatana dharma is an on going, dynamic religion.  Because new faiths, cults, avataras even gods will be added in the religious Hinduism—of course always presented as the continuation of the past, only revived or reminded by the new avatara or faith.  While in Christianity new revelation and interpretation is possible on some minimum creed, doctrine and theology there exist no such permanent creed or doctrine in Hinduism.  Of course there are certain theology like Sankara’s advaita, Ramanuja’s visistadvaita etc.  But it is not binding anyone to call herself as a Hindu.  Of course sectarian faith always insist in the orthodoxy of their sectarian theology.  But it is the job of the acharyas to explain and interpret to the need of common people.  Even those orthodox theology will be transformed in the form of simple rituals for the common people.

From the arrival of Aryans we can say that the Historic Religious Hinduism started.  I have dealt with the controversy about Aryan invasion etc. in the book.  Though we cannot precisely fix the date of Aryans arrival, it was somewhere around 3500 or 4000 BC.  However it depends upon which group saying this.  The Hindutva groups even denies the Aryan’s arrival and those who accept the arrival theory may even place the date to some 5000 or even 10000 years before.  While scholars debate over these issues, common people have no time for such extravagance.  However from the available recorded evidences (particularly from the Buddhist sources) we can safely speculate the beginning of Hinduism.  But it is not exclusively an Aryan faith, but an amalgamation of various faiths with the main Aryan ones gave birth to the Religious Hinduism.  The assimilative nature of Aryans helped the other faiths to preserve their originality as a sect within Hinduism.  At the same time the Word Aryan has more racial connotation than religious.  Aryan means ‘Noble’ and anariyan means ‘un-noble’.  It is like the Roman calling non-Romans as Pagan and Jews calling the non-Jews as gentiles.  But while integrating other people’s faith and community within the Aryan fold, of course they always maintained the claim of their (racial) superiority.  But it is wrong to say that the Aryans deliberately introduced the racial hierarchy.  Because according to some scholars Aryans only exploited the already existing social grades and asserted their superior position both through their ritual and military advantage over others.  [due to the cassette fault I could not further type from this cassette—DB].  We have to accept the complaints of the suppressed people viz., Dalits against the so called high caste people.  At the same time we have to remember that these so called low caste people also supres other caste people whom they consider as lower to them.  We can find in Tamilnadu a Devar and Vanniar fighting against the Dalits, whereas the Brahmin considers both of them lower to their caste status.  It is easy to blame the so called high caste people particularly Brahmins that they alone created such caste discrimination and also influenced one caste to look down the other.  Racialism and castism is there among every people under the sun in one form or the other.  Instead of addressing the problem we waste time and energy blaming each other.

From Cassette Five: Sin can be removed even by the name of god, even pronounced by accident.  The greater importance given to the Name of God to remove sin is developed by the sectarian bhakti cults.  Even there are several stories where even a worst sinner when heard the name of god by accident went to the abode of that god.  But we should not go in to the details of such stories.  The central theme of that story is to glorify the importance of the Name of God.  It doesn’t mean that morality is not part of religion.  A great moral and ethical standards are also expected as well as a precondition to attain salvation.  But in Bhakti cults, in order to give importance to the value of the name of their particular sect, such stories were used.  At the same time we cannot separate the personality of that name from name.  In India every name bears the personality of that person.  That’s why mostly in India in general people give name to their children after consulting with the Pandits (among Tamil Brahmin this is not in practice).  In Japa (uttering the name of god) a Hindu merely repeat the name of her personal god.  This of course is to purify her mind as well as part of her sadhana.  But I don’t think that they don’t have the concept like the Tibetian Buddhism of moving the prayer wheel to get rid of their sins.  Even the Tibetian visiting Mount Kailash believes that going one round of Kailasha will remove the sin of one birth and going three or some more number rounds will remove all the sins of all the past lives (this I saw in National Graphic programme on Mt. Kailasha).  Some time Hindus do japa to earn merit.  It was a common practice among Hindus to write the name of Rama one crorer time and I myself have written several thousands time I think as an young boy as per the order given by the then Kanchi Sankaracharya.  I also heard that all those written papers were collected and stored.  I know a babaji in Rewa, who, while talking with us will continue to write Sri Ram, minimum one thousand and eight time in a day.  That’s why ashtajam (twenty four hours) repetition the name of god, particularly that of Rama is performed in every important temple and sometimes even household function.  At Ayodya since last forty years and more a continuous akanda (broad) kirtan of Nama of Rama is going on without any gap.  Some time rich business people will hire people to perform it for their sake in the temple for one whole year.  There may be only three or four persons at time sitting doing the kirtan and people will come in turn to keep it going on.  This is quite familiar only in North.  It is done both to remove sin as well as earn merit.  Why they put loud speaker while doing such astajam kritan?  More people they help to hear the Name of God more they will earn merit.  The same is the concept for the construction of new temples all the time.  By decentralizing the presence of the deity you are helping the local people also to have darshan of the god and there by you will earn merit.  In India constructing and performing kumbabishagam (consecration of new or renewed old temple) is considered as very meritorious one.

The Name of God has its own power not only to heal also to protect from evil spirits.  Particularly doing japa of Gayatri mantra is famous and now even non-Brahmins who are not suppose to utter vedic mantras are begin to do Gayatri japas.  Brahmins in general believe that the Gayatri japa will bring radiance to their face and even my father always claimed by saying why a Brahmin look different from others?  Because he has Gayatri mantra with him!  When some one suddenly wakeup because of some nightmare, immediately people utter the name of god and will ask her to utter the same to remove the fear.  Even some Christians also believe such power in repeating the name of Jesus.  One time in Bihar while I was sick and suffering from malaria, I was murmuring ‘amma’ because of body pain.  One of my colleagues said, don’t say ‘amma’ ‘amma’, but say ‘Jesus’ and that will cure you and strengthen you. I still remember that in the early days of my life as a Christ bhakta, while I was studying in Bethel near Salem in Tamilnadu, in some Sundays I went to the near by forest area and sat quietly in some lonely place and chanted the name of Jesus like a mantra: Om Namah Kristaya.  This I repeated several hundred times each Sunday that it began to echo in my mind in the whole week while I was in the class or in the bath room or in the library even while I was sleeping I could hear the same mantra my mind repeating on which I have control.  Then I realized that it is not a good practice and it took several months to come out of it.    But such a practice is much encouraged by Hindus and considered it as the best form of meditation as you can constantly remember the name of God.  This is called japa (chanting the name of god).  In such japa the mind will be controlled by the sound and word of that name and even you will loose control over your mind to make it to stop it.  I find that this is dangerous, as instead of meditating on God as a Person and develop relationship with Him based on bhakti using our mind and reason, mind will be controlled merely by a sound which become meaningless after sometime as it will become merely a routine.  But some Tantric sect gives importance to such chanting the name of God.  Several stages and technical terms are also given about the advance one makes in such chanting.  Hearing a particular sound (like tinkling of a bell), experiencing some kind of ecstatic feeling are also described.  That’s why later sects gave the status of mantra to the Name of their deity.  The very Name of Rama and Krishna are considered as mantra.  Any word which helps you to get some power or mystical experience or even mere ecstatic feeling are also considered as mantras.  In most cases such mantras are given by a guru in the initiation of the shishya.  The guru will give a mantra which he thinks will good for that particular person.  In most cases it is the name of the particular deity in that sect like ‘Om namo Narayana’, ‘Om namah Sivaya’, ‘Sivaya namah’, ‘Sita Ram’, ‘Hare hare Krishna hare’, ‘Radeshyam’ etc. Of course a guru won’t easily initiate any one as his shisya.  Like wise you cannot choose your guru only guru will accept you as his shisya when he thinks that he is qualified to be his shishya.  A shishya need not become a Sanyasi.  Like wise all the gurus are not Sannyasis and several family people are gurus for so many people.  Some times some Priest will come and initiate with due ritual in some japa for a person (mostly for ladies).  He won’t mind whether you are qualified or not.  He will do anything for some fees.  But such a power behind the name of god is both benevolence as well as menevolence in Hinduism.  That’s why certain name of deities cannot be pronounced.  Rudra is one such a name.  I don’t know any Hindu ever had the name of Rudra as a personal name.  But some such ferocious deities will also be elevated as supreme god in Hinduism like done with Ganesa.  Vignesha means the Lord of obstacle.  But now he become the supreme god and there was once a separate sect called Ganapathyam.  Several forest spirits from tribal origin were later integrated within Hindu Pantheon.  Ganesa was also one such forest spirit (see in Understanding Hinduism from more information).  Hinduism accommodates highest philosophy and extreme animism without any contradiction and even in one’ woman’s faith you can find both these extremes.  Though animistic faiths were integrated within Hinduism, those Hindus who profess such a faith won’t call their faith as animistic.  My mother every day draws various diagrams of chakras of Tantric cults and will write some syllable like ‘om’ ‘hrim’ ‘srim’.  But she doesn’t know that they are Tantric cult practices.  Once it is integrated in their ritual practice, their origin is never questioned.  The worship of ‘lingam’ is the best example.  This phallic symbol was definitely has its origin from aborigines.  [Tribals are different from aborigines I think.  Aborigine may the native people of a particular forest or hill, mostly earning their food by hunting, not settled down with a proper house and remain away from Hindu influence.  On the other hand tribes might be sophisticated (or domesticated) aborigine, living in one place with proper settlement even taking agriculture as the main source of earning food). But no Hindu attaches that kind of animism with linga worship.  So Hindu woman may talk philosophically about her faith but observe all kinds of animistic and tantric cult practices in her daily rituals as well bound by various superstitions, omens.  They may talk in sophisticated terms about their faith but the sophistication won’t be there in their practice.

Puranas played an important role in integrating so many non-brahmincal faiths.  For this several mytheological stories were created.  Even the genealogy of certain tribals were traced back to some vedic Rishis in order to give authenticity of integrating their faith within Hindu fold.  Some times several  mythological stories were taken from the folk stories of tribals to help them to feel at home within Hindu religious frame.  This helped Brahmins to communicate their worldviews through those purana stories borrowed from tribal origin.  However whether or the Brahmins were successful in Arianizing the tribals or not, they successfully tribalized the Ariyan faith and communities.  To say in other words the Brahmins started in sprit and ended in flesh.  But tracing all the animistic influence in Hinduism is difficult task. In a synthetic faith it is very difficult to trace out who borrowed from whom, whereas in syncretism one can to some extent trace it clearly.  However among samskars, like birth, marriage and death, are performed on vedic line even using vedic mantras among Brahmins and some other high castes.  In other religious rituals lots of animistic and tantric elements penetrated and even Puranic mantras are used. This is also a point for us to remember that in a strict Aryan community (mostly Brahmins) the major samskaras are performed only with vedic mantras whereas in other common Hindu communities (including some high caste people) they may be performed with Pauranic mantras.  So in their social related sanskars rituals are still performed in vedi line (vedic [samhita] religion is mostly earthly oriented also).  Whereas the present day religious life of Hindus, even that of Brahmins, is very much influenced by Puranic faith which has integrated with it so many non-Aryan believes, rituals and even gods and goddesses.  One can even find among the Aryan high caste communities—both Brahmin and non-Brahmin, having some forest or village local deity as their family deity, to whom a Brahmin priest cannot even perform puja.

Scriptures: I have dealt about Scripture with some basic details in the book.  Veda holds the final authority. Four division—Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishads.  There are four vedas:Rik, Yaju, Saman and Atharvana.  The last one is not accepted as authoritative by South Indian Brahmins as it contains mantras for magic, healing, spells ward of evil spirits etc. The first three are one and the same.  See the book for more details about the meaning and other information on Veda.  However Upanishads got more importance than other parts of Vedas.  Most of the Indian philosophies claim their source only from Upanishads and most of the acharyas wrote commentaries only to Upanishads.  Of course Sayanacharya (who is identified by some as Madhava) wrote a commentary on entire veda. Upanishad is also known as Vedanta which means end of veda.  The main teaching in Upanishads is the relationship between Atman—Brahman.  It is also a part of Cannon.  The prominence of Upanishads can be understand by the fact that even sectarian scriptures also named after Upanishad.  Gita which is a Smrti also called as Upanishad and a traditional sloka in Gita which is not part of Gita says that Gita is the essence of all Upanishads.  However some scholars say that Gita should be understood in the context of Mahabharata which talks mostly on dharma and not in the context of Upanishads.  Of course Gita borrows several mantras from Upanishad, but its theme goes along with Mahabharata than Upanishads.  Nirad Chaudhuri also mentions about an Allah Upanishad.  There are more than one hundred Upanishads including some sectarian Upanishad but only around 16 are considered important Upanishads.  Sri Sankara wrote commentaries only on these 16 Upanishads, but some scholars not agree on this and mentions only commentaries on four Upanishads by Sankara.

Smrti means that which remembered and this covers all non-Vedic scriptures.  Refer the book for a brief sketch on Smrti.  Even the two epics, all the Puranas, all the Dharmasastra works, philosophical works etc. come under smrti.  However each sect will claim its sectarian scripture as the veda of that sects.  The philosophical works are in fact theological works.  It is not like western philosophy which is more secular in nature.  In India philosophy is called darshan and they are theological works.  The smrti works are not limited to religious works, but include grammar, linguistic, etymology, social rules and code of contacts and even teaching on armor, medicine etc.  However some learning like medicine, music and armor are also called by Veda like Ayurveda(medicine knowledge), Gandarvaveda (music knowledge), dhanurveda (armor knowledge) etc.  The linguistic and etymology are important for a proper understanding of vedic scriptures that’s why grammar etc. are also included in smrti.  These are also called Vedanga which means limb of veda as they help to understand the veda properly.  Much importance is given to tradition in smrti.  Smrti is not static but they are dynamic.  They are limited by region, time, people etc.  While new smrtis were written according to the need of the local people some old smrtis were also removed from usage.  Like amendments made in constitution smrits also made several changes according to the need of the people.  While nothing could be add to the Sruti smrti are changeable.  Smrti is not authoritative.  When there is a dispute between Vedic (Sruti) and Smrti on any matter, Sruti holds the final authority.  But this is also not strictly implemented because most of the people do not know what the Sruti says and several sectarian smrtis are treated equally with Veda so they hold the final authority for them.  While people will keep a copy of Ramayana in their home Mahabharata won’t be there as it mainly talks about the dispute between cousin brothers.  At same time some may keep Gita in their house which is a portion of Mahabharata and the context of Gita is also war.  But the prominence that it got as the scripture of Hindus, people don’t mind about the context of war.  Of course how many will read or try to understand it a big question.   Similarly if they know that an elderly person of the family is going to die soon, then they will even arrange the reading of Gita in the house by a Pandit that to near the dying man so that s/he can listen God’s words in her time of death.  Of course the writer of Gita’s intention is not this.  But people created such tradition so that while living a person read the Gita or not at least at time of death let her listen the mantras.  Like wise while people will read Sundarakanda and Balakanda of Ramayana in the home, they won’t read Aranyakanda (forest portion) Yuddakanda (war portion).  Those portions of a scripture which deals with dispute, death, war, sorrow won’t be read in the house.  At the same time those portions dealing with marriage and happy things in life will be read.  To get a good husband girls will do some puja and read some good portions of the epic like Sundarakanda.  Similarly pregnant woman will expected to read or hear stories and auspicious portion of epics.  They believe that the baby in stomach will grow spiritually if those portions of the scriptures are read or heard by them. In general pregnant woman will receive good attention and people will see to it that she is always happy.  That’s why in South India before delivery pregnant woman will be sent to their mother’s house but not in all the parts of North India.  In North baby will born in husband house and after delivery they will send her with the new baby to her mother’s house.  These are related with superstition and blind faith.  Similarly Puranas will be read only in public and Purana stories will be narrated by Pauranikas or the story tellers.  Silence is kept in general while Puranas were recited.  Epics are different from Puranas. Epics are legendary long stories, not sectarian scriptures, more secular in nature also may contain some historical events told in a story form.  They contain good ethical and moral teachings also instruction given to a King how to rule and family man how to run his family etc.  Though Valmiki Ramayana is the story about Rama, yet Valmiki Ramayana is not a sectarian scripture.  Of course Puranas borrowed these stories and materials and ideas from Epics and used them for their purpose.  And Puranas are definitely mythical in their nature and scope.

Learning in India in ancient time was done not by keeping a written notes before them but memorizing by heart little by little.  Of course written materials were also used. But in general religious scriptures particularly those vedic and Puranic mantras used in rituals were memorized by specially trained Priest for a period of Seven and more years.  Still this tradition is going on in India in Vedapadashala.  Of course since long time correct pronunciation of the mantra gain much importance to know the meaning and at present meaning is not at all considered important but doing the puja with right way using correct mantras.  But there are several Sanskrit Scholars who know the meaning of the mantras but they need not be priests.  In this Kaliyuga knowing the meaning of the mantra is not important but even chanted correctly without knowing the meaning it will bring its own fruit as mantras themselves have power.

Several smrtis and most of the scripture and several Puranas don’t bear the name of the author of composer.  Vyasa a mythical character is assigned with most of the scripture including veda, Mahabharata.  But most of the works were not done by one person and later additions were always there.  For example Mahabharata is like an encyclopaedia in which any one can add anything she likes.  There is a saying about Mahabharata that whatever is not found in Mahabahara cannot be found elsewhere also.  As addition are a common thing with scripture (except veda) we can also found regional variations in smrti writings.  There are various Ramayanas.  Some time one Purana will borrow everything from another and will add few more chapter and create another Purana in different name.  There existed no copy right if it is copied rightly.  Copying scriptures are always a problem everywhere in the world.  We have various MSS for the Bible.  Though Muslims claim Quran as not corrupted one, yet I read somewhere that one time there were several variations in Quran also and in one time all the Islamic religious lead ers gathered and decided to keep only one Manuscript as authentic one and burnt rest of them.  How far it is true or not I don’t know.  Muslims will definitely deny this.

Interestingly most of the Tamil Scriptures bear the name of the author or tradition clearly traced the author of a particular work.  Like wise several later work like Tulsi Ramayana and other such works we can pin point the name of the author.  Regarding the literary criticism in India is like pealing the anion.  Till the end you won’t find the seed but it will only bring tears in your eyes—which of course will clean your eyes at least.  Regarding the teaching of the Scriptures not only that of Hinduism but every other religious scriptures Hindus have one theory in mind: Truth is important not the event; Principle is important not the Person; Why it is said is important and not when; what is said is important and not Who.  The same is the concept of avatara.  God came down is important whether He came down to die on the Cross or only to give moral teaching or to fight for righteousness and uphold dharma or drank poison (by Siva) etc. are not important.  Each avatara accomplished a particular mission according to the need of the people.  It was need of the people that time living in Palastine and that’s why Christ has to die for them.  But the Person Jesus is not important and the principle in it that God came down and died for men is important.  It depict the sacrifice done by God to human being.  But it is not necessary that the same God has to die everywhere and He came down as Rama and Krishna also to give teaching or good things to human beings.  In this sense all religion are one and the same all gurus and acharyas are one and the same.  They gave teaching according to the need of the people in that time.  Every religion talks about sacrifice in one form or the other—either by God or Great Men.  One need was so bad that He has to die for them and for another mere teaching or giving some knowledge was enough for them to attain mukti. While God is one and the same it was people who divided them.  In North India we can see a writing in Hindi which is:  Hindu Sikh Muslim, Yesaai bhatliya bhagavan ko—Hindus, Sikh, Muslim and Christians have divided God among themselves.

Question: Can we then say that all the blind faiths, superstitions etc. among the caste Hindus are coming from this animistic believes—like evil spirit etc. and the rituals performed to ward off their evil effect?  The tribes and aborigines have such kind of rituals to ward of evil spirits or harming animals and they go round a particular tree or a stone and tie something on the branch of a tree etc.?

DB:  Yes I think.  Because the tribes have their own territorial area from which they won’t cross or go beyond for hunting.  If one tribe crosses to another tribes are for hunting or collecting food there will be fight among them.  Even fishermen in South India haav their own territorial boundaries in big lake and sea and one village cannot go for fishing in another’s area.  Of course these rules and faith are mingled with economy and animistic believes.  Even animals have this practice among them.  The same concept they kept for the power of their deity.  A particular deity has power only within that territory.  And anyone live there or cross that area has to do some rituals to ward off the angry of that deity or evil spirit.  That’s why one tribe won’t go into another tribal’s territory.  And even some tribes won’t even go outside of their territory because of the fear of incurring the angry of their deity or spirit for crossing their boundary.  I have seen my aunt worship the family deity first before leaving from her village to another place.  Then she will worship the Ganesha temple which is at the end of the street.   Finally before boarding the bus or crossing the village boundary she will salute all the guardian deities of the eight direction to protect her house and property.

Even in ancient world, including the biblical world, wars among the Kings are considered the war among the regional deities.  And one king who wins the other will either destroy their temple and idols or carry them away as a mark of his god’s victory over that god.  So all these believes, mostly borrowed from tribes crept into Hindu faith, once the Aryans attempted to integrate the tribes and shudras within their social fold.  That’s why some pilgrim centres are found in remote areas, which were once belonged to the tribes.  Of course this integration was practised both ways.  While the Aryans tried to bring some powerful tribes within their own social fold, some tribal leaders themselves voluntarily attempted to enter the Aryan social order to get a vertical mobility in the caste or social order.  By performing certain rituals several Tribal and Shudra kings become Kshatriyas.  What is now happening in some parts of the world because of economic and social reason, the same thing happened in India also for social, political, economic and ritual reason.  Now several migrating people from third world and Latin American countries prefer to become ‘Americans’ because of the vertical mobility in their identity among other nations of the world.

Question: You said that ‘linga’ as a phallic symbol has tribal origin now become the symbol of Shiva in Hinduism.  Is there any evidence for this in Hindu Scriptures.

DB: Yes. But in order to give religious sanction several mythological stories were created, particularly in Puranas and become the Scriptural evidence.  For example take the worship of Shiva as linga.  The following quotes are taken from the book ‘The Origin of Evil in Hindu Mythology’ by O’Flaherty, will help us to understand this fact more clearly:

…After beheading Brahmaa [the four headed Creator deity], Siva entered the Pine Forest disguised as a naked beggar; the sages’ wives fell in love with him and the jealous sages cursed him to be casstated; his phallus wrought havoc among them until they placated him and he taught them to worship the linga… [O’Flaherty, Hindu Myths.  A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. Harmondsworth,1975, pp. 141-149; Asceticism and Eroticism in the Mythology of Siva, Oxford, 1973, pp. 172-209.]—302

…One anomalous Sanskrit text of this group is not part of the Pine Forest corpus:

One day when the sage Atri was performing asceticism with his wife Anasuuyaa, Brahmaa, Vishnu and Siva came to him and offered him a boon.  When Atri continued to meditate, the three gods went to Anasuuyaa; Siva had his linga in his hand, Vishnu was full of erotic feeling, and Brahmaa, beside himself with desire, said, “Make love to me or I will die.”  When she heard this coarse speech, Anasuuyaa made no reply, for, although she feared the anger of the gods, she was true to her husband.  But the three gods were overcome by (p.302) delusion, and they raped her by force.  Then she became angry, and she cursed Siva to be worshipped as a linga, Brahmaa to be worshipped as a head, and Vishnu to be worshipped as feet, in order to ridicule them all, and she cursed them all to be reborn as her sons.  Because of this, Siva was born as Durvaasa. [Bhavisya Purana, 3.4.17.67-78, O’Flaherty, 1975, Hindu Myths.  A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. Harmondsworth, pp. 53-55.].—pp.302-3

            A rather loose variation of the Dubois version of the myth was narrated recently by a Brahmin in Benares;

Siva had been discovered in bed with his wife Durga by Brahma, Vishnu and other gods.  He had been so drunk that he had not thought it necessary to stop.  The majority, all except Vishnu and a few of the broader-minded, thought them nasty and brutish and said so. Siva and Durga died of shame in the position in which they were discovered; but before they expired Siva expressed the wish that mankind should worship the act manifest in the form which he now took to himself, the lingam. [Newby, Dric. Slowly Down the Ganges, New York, 1966,p. 39]—p.306

 But when we read these kinds of stories, we also should remember that a common Hindu who worship linga as Shiva never attaches any kind of phalic symbolism with linga—even some of them might be know these stories in Purana.  Because fertilitic cult is a part in Hindu worship and they never consider it wrong to have kama derived from sexual pleasure is wrong.  Of course the common view that sex is sin etc. were become popular because of the renunciation aspect attached with the order of Sannya.  But in normal Hindu life sex is not considered as sin, though it involves physical impurity and several ritual purification is prescribed for the couple to perform it after intercourse.  And it is strictly prohibited for a bachelor and a sannyasi and sever penance are prescribed for these two group in case of their involvement in such act.  Even for family people there are several restriction and rules and regulation given regarding approaching one’s wife for sex.  It is a big and different subject.  At the same time in Tantric cult ritual sex is allowed, but this is widely condemned by an average Hindu.  However in ritual sex is not considered as lust and even Kali is portrayed as standing naked on Shiva and it never raises any kind of lust in a devotee’s mind.  Fertilitic cult is part of Hindu worship and it is not considered as wrong though it is restricted only for few trntrics.  For example of Rasa Lila of Krishna with Gopis.  Krishna actually had sexual relationship with Gopis who were the wives of other men.  Even I heard that some hundred years before the lay followers of some Vaishnava sect in North actually performed this Rasa Lila in which after some bhajan and kirtan in their ecstatic mood the couple engaged in sex that too freely with any man with any woman within that group. Even when the Goswamis visited their shiyas’ homes, the spouse of the family man was sent to him to have sex, as he is the very embodiment or avatara of Krishna.  Of course such stories were now denied by the followers of those sects.  But such act of Krishna with the wives of other women is philosophically explained and common people are even warned that what is allowed for god is not allowed for men.  Because what is considered as immoral among human is not applied in the realm of gods.³

Question: What is your response for the miracle performed by some priests or magician in curing the sickness?

DB:  Yes.  Common people believe in it and a good number of magicians and even Sadhus are flourishing on this business.  One can even see that such healing are actually happening.  But I explain it in this way: if sickness can be cured by mere miracle then what is the need for doctors and hospitals.  Even Bhutabarti Sai baba who is said to perform so many miracles has to keep a big hospital to treat patience.  Among Hindus they will go to the doctor as well to this magicians (called ojas in Hindi) for healing.  In South India you can see several Hindus, even the Brahmins taking their children to the Dargas where the Muslim will ward off the evil spirit which causes such sickness or evil eye.  This is common among every religion.  When the doctor starts the treatment they will try to cure the sickness gradually and never aim to perform any immediate miracle through their treatment or medicine.  So the medicine given by the doctor began to work slowly.  Mean while disturbed by nthe suffering of the child or relative people rush to the magicians to perform some ritual for healing.  In most of the cases they won’t first go to the magicians but to the doctors and after a day or two or even after a week, they finally go to the magicians, as the expected cure does not happen immediately by the medication of the doctor immediately.  Mean while the medicine slowly done its work and by the time the magician perform the ritual there is a coincidence of cure provided by the slow working medicine.  But people will give credit to the power of that magician and not to the treatment given by the doctor.  In most cases the cure provided by the magicians has more effect on the psychology of the relative of the sick person than on the very sick person herself.  Some time the in built natural resistance power within our body system will also do the miracle slowly—but it will also be attributed to that magician or baba or a healer.  At the same time we should also accept the fact that God can heal using human being as the instrument—whoever that person may be.  A typical evangelical will say that that kind of healing not performed by the official evangelical healer is done by the devil to cheat people and divert their attention from true God.  But I don’t believe in such theory.  Because for me with a sincere heart and in a desperate situation when people pray to God—to any god, in His mercy He will cure people.  He gives what people demand according to their pravrti (nature, personality).  If every good thing in this world is coming from God and devil never desire the welfare of human being then how can he heal and give relief to the suffering of the people?  Though I too once believed and even preached that ‘devil always gives the good things and takes the best from people—good is the desire of the people, best is their salvation.’  But now I changed my view that devil never gives any good thing to people in any form and God in His Common Grace provide all the good things in the world—whether people recognize His Common Grace or not.  As Rev. John Stott said: God’s Common Grace is for all but His Saving Grace is for those who seek salvation.  He provides rain and makes the sun to shine for all—both for good and bad.  So when people pray to this Universal god with sincere heart (called by Hindus as Bhagavan without any identity with any sectarian god), He in His Grace and Mercy gives them what they demand.  What we demand from God depends upon our nature (pravrti) and we cannot restrict God’s hand in bestowing good things to people, even if it is not sought in the name of Jesus.  This is a very complicated subject.  Where devil can cheat people is that in stead of recognizing this blessing from God, they may give all the credit either to human beings or a shrine or a baba.  Devil can never give any good things to any one.  But he can divert the attention of people from God to other things.  This rationalistic explanation is not important for the people who are actually suffering.  For them in that situation of suffering the very magician or doctor himself is the god.  Hindus live on existential level not on theological level—and this is true for every lay people in all the religion anywhere in the world.  Only we have the struggle in our mind between god and devil and not the common people.  For them even a devil is the god provided if their felt needs are met.

Dag: what I believe is that devil by giving temporary healing, diverts the mind of people from god and later bring them to his bondage permanently. So in this sense devil by using magicians, evil magic etc. can perform miracle and heal people.  And the occult practices are in true sense worshiping devil and not true god.

Now coming back to Hinduism, we have seen Hinduism is all inclusive one.  Even the Sramanas (Buddhism and Jainism) who opposed vedic religion were latter integrated within the fold of Hinduism.  Even in several Puranas included Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu replacing Krishna.  Though at present the Neo-Buddhism started mainly as a political and social reasons by Dr. Ambedkar, yet the common Buddhists and Jains worship all kinds of Hindu pantheons.  On theological level, the scholars agree that Hinduism is not one faith or sampradaya.  What they expect as unity in Hinduism is on social level and not on theological level.  However the attempt made by VHP and Sangh Parivar to form a unified Hinduism is again a political and cultural Hindutva agenda.  At the same time we have to accept the reality that while the unity on social level is not happened because of caste discrimination, at least a superficial thinking is current among Hindus that all the religions (including non-Hindu ones) are one and the same.  Of course the concept of ishtadevata (choice of personal god) may give some space to understand that Hinduism gives freedom regarding to faith and even sampradaya—you can worship any god of your choice, even follow any sect within Hinduism as per your choice.  But what it expected from you is to follow your dharma in general and varnadharma (caste) dharma particularly on sociological issues—like marriage particularly.  So the Hindu dharma allows two or more sects or sampradayas co-exist without any problem.  This co-existence is not on theological level as common people are not much worried about theology, but on sadhana, ritual etc. level.  To say in short: Hinduism is multi-centred, pluralistic inclusivism.  Multi-centred: centred around Rama, Siva etc., Pluralism: all faith and sampradayas are legitimate, inclusivims: accept others religious view, even that of the other their faith and theology as correct one.  Even there is a place for Jesus.  Particularly in Ramakrishna (RK) cult Jesus is worshipped on equal level that of RK.  Of course they are officially now not Hindus.  This they (RK Mission) have done because of economic reason.  As a minority community will get subsidy to run education Institution, the RK Mission also declared themselves as not Hindus.  But most of their lay followers in India never considered themselves as non- Hindus.  Sometimes in North India this trick is even done by Hindus.  They will run a school in Christian name like St. Xaviour school or College etc. but most of the staffs and even the owner of the school will be a Hindu.  They will keep a Christian as the Principal or some Correspondent to get recognition among people and even some time use them to get subsidy from the govt.  So commercialism compromises with conviction. But in general few Hindus are even ready worship Jesus along with other gods but not to give up their dharma as Hindus.

Question: What is mean by avatar?

DB: Avatara is descent.  Particularly avatara concept is important in Vaishnavism in which Vishnu takes various avataras in order to uphold dharma or religion or Veda or to save a devotee etc.  Though avatara is not the correct word for Incarnation, but it is the closest concept that comes very near to Incarnation.  Theologically there is lot of difference between avatara of Vishnu from the Incarnation of Jesus.  First thing is avataras are so many.  It is not limited only with Vaishnavism and to Vishnu.  Of course Saivism in a strict sense never talks about avatara of Siva but only his appearance (as svarupa) that too suddenly to full fill certain mission.  But even human beings who, are great gurus and acharyas are considered as avataras.  In avatara a part of divine essence took avatara (descent from higher plan to a lower plan) for a particular period for a particular purpose either in the form of human being or animal form.  Each avatara has its own particular mission to accomplish.  Even some time once the mission of that particular avatara is accomplished, the avatara continue to live as an ordinary human being-like Rama and Krishna.  Some avataras are bound by certain concept and need not be universal.  For example the avatara of Krishna is to uphold dharma.  But in a strict sense this dharma is varnasramadharma.  In order to save the Arya dharma from varnasamkrha (mingle of various varnas) Krishna took avatara—however this is easily explained away by Hindus. Vamana [dwarf] avatara is to subdue the demon king Bali.  Matsaya [fish] avatara is to rescue Vedas from some demons, who took them away and hide in deep ocean.  So these avataras are clearly sectarian in their scope and not universal.  To say in other words while avararas are universal (as any body can be termed as an avatara) the purpose of avatara is not universal.On the other hand as we claim Incarnation is not universal, but its purpose is universal and not bound by cultural, social or particular tradition.

            Hindus will also called Jesus as an avatara as they don’t understand the biblical concept of Incarnation which means ‘enflushed’. I too  used the word avatara even calling Him as a ‘Kaliyuga avtara’, theologically it is wrong.  But that is the closest word which would communicate the meaning to some extent.  That’s why I qualify it with the word ‘Purna-avatara’ which means ‘Full avatara’.  Of course sometimes Rama and Krishna are also called as ‘Purna-avatara’.  Rest of the avataras are amsha avatara—means partial avatara, which means only a part of divine essence become avatara whereas both Rama and Krishna are the full essence of Vishnu.  Though this may not agree with the theology of avatara, who bothers about theology.  Anybody can give any kind of interpretation and explanation to make one’s own deity as the Supreme God.  This view is upheld uniformly by every sampradaya in Hinduism.  So they too view our claim as Jesus as Full avatara as a claim of Christian sect or religion and nothing wrong in it.  But they will deny any claim of exclusiveness as the only and unique avatara.  As we don’t have any other better word which comes closer to Incarnation, we have to use it and further develop our concept of the Uniqueness of Jesus particularly in the purpose of His avatara.

Question: what is the different between Istadevata and kuldevata.

DB:  Istadevata is a god or deity of your own choice, which you can change.  Whereas kuldevata is the family deity, which you cannot change or stop worshipping.  Whichever god or deity you may worship according to your choice, you must join in the family puja performed for the kuldevata, whether you have faith in it or not.  The faith or worship in kuldevata is traditional one and goes on generation after generation.  There is freedom when it comes to ritual and spirituality.  Whereas regarding social issues and family tradition, one does not have that much freedom.  So in observing ‘sadhana dharm’ one has the freedom whereas in observing ‘samagic dharm’ one does not enjoy any kind of immunity.  Interestingly all those options regarding ritual and spirituality is coming from Purana, mythology or sectarian affiliation.  Whereas the sanskar related with society like birth, marriage and death rituals are mostly coming from vedic tradition.  That’s why these kinds of sanskars comes under social usages and not under ritual options. 

For example a man and woman can never live together as husband and wife in India and society won’t approve such relationship.  Of course in big cities now a days, following western way of life some try to live together without marriage.  But we have to remember that it will not only their relationship with their family but also will affect their family’s reputation back in village or in small town.  As Hindu communities are in one sense extended families living in various parts and what one person or family does will affect their relationship with their immediate family and other families in their communities.  That’s why a boys or girls marriage can be stopped even by their relatives.  To say in other words without out the consent and approval of the community arranging marriage is not that much easy.  Exceptions in big cities should not be the criteria to judge this community control over individuals.  Even the whole Royal Family in Nepal was massacred because of family’s disapproval for the marriage against family desire.

Question: Is it possible for a foreigner to become a Hindu?

DB: In a strict sense no one can become a Hindu but one should born as a Hindu.  Of course there were few exceptions in high level, like Dr. Anne Besant who become a Hindu.  But in ordinary level one cannot become a Hindu.  As Hindu identity is based on Caste and not on religious faith. To which caste a foreigner would be assigned in Hindu society is she becomes a Hindu?  Because of her white skin she won’t be considered as Brahmin.  Among the orthodox circle, still the foreigners are considered as melachas (ceremonially impure pure, particularly as they eat beef).  In some Hindu Ashrams and almost in every Hindu temple no foreigner will be allowed to enter.  You can even see notice board stating ‘Non-Hindus are not allowed’ in some temples and for Hindus all the foreigners are non-Hindus.  Even those foreigner who claim to become a convert to Hinduism or worshipping any deity, in general won’t be allowed to go inside Hindu temple.  Of course now these days several Hindu Ashrams allow such people because of the income they can generate through such foreigners.  But still the Hindu community never treats them as Hindus.  Even those foreigners who become converts to Hindu faith are not considered as Hindus in social sense.  Because in Hindu society conversion means changing your community allegiance from one community to another community not necessarily from one faith to another or from one god to another.  And Hinduism in principle doesn’t approve such conversion from community to community.  That’s why conversion to Christianity or Islam is not considered as conversion of one’s own personal faith in god or sect, but from one community to another community.

Question: if you celebrate Dewali is it a social or religious festival.

DB: It could be both.  No Hindu is going to celebrate Christmas.  At the same time if foreigners join with a Hindu in celebrating Dewali the Hindus have no objection to it as festivals and rituals are optional and not binding based on community identity.  But a foreigner cannot put jenuve or the thread as it has community identity and not religious.  Similarly a Hindu Christ bhakta can celebrate Dwali, Holi, Raksha bandan and can even do puja (worship) on those days to Jesus.  However which is cultural, which is religion and which is social is very difficult to mark in Hinduism as they are overlapping with each other.  And no outsider has any right to decide which is which for a Hindu Christ bhakta living in another community or society.

Question: How many generations it will take for a non-Hindu to become a Hindu as you have mentioned about marriage between the caste will deprive their caste identity.

DB: Such restriction are limited only among the caste identity and not as Hindu identity.  For example if a Brahmin girl marries a non-Brahmin boy, the children are considered as chandala or worst than untouchable.  Even after any number of generation the children can never become Brahimns.  Whereas, if a Brahmin boy marries a non-Brahmin girl, then after few generation (depending upon the caste of the girl) they can become again Brahmins.  The same rule is also applied to those who changed their profession based on caste.  But now these days the caste identity based on profession is slowly disappearing.  In general whichever may be the caste and religion of the father, that will be the caste and religion of the children.  But the children of a Brahmin father through a non-Brahmin mother won’t be considered as Brahmin in strict sense, yet they can keep their caste title and identity in certificate.  But no Brahminical caste ritual, particularly that of jenuve (thread ceremony) will never be performed for their children.  And in marriage also such children will rarely get another Brahmin boy or girl as their life partner.  Even a foreign man marrying an Indian woman, their children will never be considered as Hindus.  Whereas a Indian man who is a Hindu marries a foreign woman, their children will be considered still as Hindus.

Spirit of Hinduism: Veda holds the final authority.  But this is merely a lip service.  God is one. Though each Hindu has his own personal and family deities, yet they have the concept of one Impersonal Bhagavan who is not identified with any god or deity.  They will pray to this god, bless you in the name of that unknown Bhagavan.  In spite of the polytheism still they hold to this belief of ‘One God alone’.  All the other gods are mere manifestation of that one unknown and unknowable god.  Even that unknown god will be only a masculine gender and without any attribute.  He may be a personality-less, personal God as a Person.  They will take about a ‘Nirguna Brahmna’, but that Nirguna Brahman will be in general a Masculine.  In order to support this they will even quote a Rig Vedic mantara: ekam sad vipra bhaguda vadanti’ which means ‘Truth is One but sages calls it in different Name’.  Of course according to some scholars this is not the real meaning according to the exegetical meaning of that mantra in that context.  Even some sectarian slokas also talk about this concept.  ‘Aakasat patitam toyam yada gachati saagaram; sarvadevah namaskaarma Keshavam prati gachati.’  As all the water from sky reaches ocean, all the worship of various gods only reaches Keshava.  Even Krishna in Gita talks in same line, ‘yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah sradayaarcitimichati; tasya tasya chalaam sradamm tameva vidadhaamyaham.’ (7:21)—which ever god a devotee worships with faith, I alone establishes their faith in that gods’, says Krishna.  It implies that whichever god one may worship, finally they are worshipping Krishna alone.  Such sectarian claim is unique for every sect claiming that all the worship of various deities and gods are done only to the god of that sect in different form.  So a sectarian Hindu will even say that your worship of Jesus is nothing but worship of either that unknown god in Him or worship of her sectarian god in the form of Jesus.  That’s why they will say, that all the religions are one and the same and all the gods are one and the same. Remember the pluralistic approach as we saw above.

This god takes avatara, not remaining a distant spectator but involves with the affairs of the world.  Avatara is not limited with god alone but even great saints and gurus are also considered as the avatara of a particular deity.  Sri Sankara as the avatara of Siva himself, Madhava as that of Vayu, even Ramakrishna is considered as the avatara but not any particular god but embodiment of all gods and faiths under the sun.  They will quote Gita’s sloka of Vishnu claiming take avatara in every yuga to uphold dharma and each avatara or great saint and guru is interpreted as the avatara to uphold the sanatana dharma.  Even after several hundred years Gandhiji will be also considered as an avatara.  Of course this avatara concept is strictly limited to Vaishnava tradition, but there also the number of avatara is varying according to Puranas.  In some list Krishna is replaced by Buddha.  Even some one who is considered as a heretic in one Purana is depicted as the avatara of Vishnu in another Purana.  Some sectarian Purana will potraite a heretic as the avatara of the rivalry god as per the command of that sectarian god to delude people to go away from the path of dharma.  For example some puranas says that Siva deluded people as per the command of Vishnu.  Or Buddha is considered as the avatara of Vishnu in order to delude people to abandon vedic dharma etc.  Even one deity or god who fought with Vishnu in one Purana will be treated as the very avatara of Vishnu in another Purana.  These may be the deities of Tribes and aborigines who were integrated later in some puranas as the avatara of Vishnu which were reviled as enemies of Vishnu in earlier puranas.  Once the Brahmins saw that the faith in those rivalry gods cannot be removed from the minds of the people, later they were made as the very avatara of Vishnu.  When the Brahmins socially and theologically fought with other faiths, other’s gods and deities were potraid as enemies or heretics.  But when they saw that they cannot by this means remove those deities, then integrated them by making them as avatara of Vishnu.  The case might be with the human beings depicted as avataras.  For example Kapila who was supposed to be the author of Sankhya philosophy is considered as the heretic in some puranas, whereas in others he himself was the very avatara of Vishnu.  So avatara concept is very complicated but strictly sectarian in its scope.  Siva never took avatara but manifested in human form for a particular mission.  It is interesting to note that some 20 years before one cannot see a photo or calender a baby Siva.  But copying the bala (infant)Krishna and Bala Rama—the infant and child Krishna and Rama, several such pictures are started to come and Hindus never think about these things but will happily will worship that Bala-Siva and even may create stories to accommodate such new development.

Question: Can we then call Christ as a svarupa or manifestation than avatara?

DB:  That’s an interesting idea.  But the problem with god manifesting suddenly in his svarupa will also suddenly disappear after that particular work is finished.  But that was not the case with Jesus.  So we cannot call Incarnation as ‘manifestation’.  One good point in avatara is that God has concern for the welfare of the human being, particularly that of his devotees.  And he takes avatara in order to help and save them and actively take part in human affairs.

Regarding the attribute of God we must remember that the personality of God is not like that of ours.  God is love we say but we can understand the word ‘love’ by its opposite to what is not love.  Our temperament is reciprocal whereas God’s love or mercy or justice is not reciprocal.  He never loves us not because we love him.  He shows mercy to us not because we are very good or deserves his mercy.  He uphold justice not because to demonstrate our righteousness.  His love, mercy, justice are not conditioned by circumstance or reciprocal.  God is a Person. But that Person doesn’t mean to have temperament like that of human beings.  That’s why the Nirgun Brahman without any attribute could be still be a Person.  When we say God as a Person it doesn’t mean god with some temperament and character (called guna—attribute) but a God of relationship. Of course God has attribute also, but that alone is not the deciding criteria about God as a Person.  In our relationship with God we can only understand Him through the concept of gunas or attribute like love, mercy, grace and justice of God.  But this doesn’t mean that God cannot be equally a Nirgun (attribute less) one.  Even the avatara concept is based on this concept that because of his love for humanity or for the sake of his devotee he took avatara.  Even the concept of devsha bhakti—devotion of hatred also demonstrate that it our relationship which decides the attribute of God.  God alone allowed hatred towards him in the mind of some of his enemies so that they will only think about him all the time and finally will be saved because of their constant thought about him.  So finally what is important in bhakti is not the form of emotion but only relationship with god.  Either because love, hate, desire, lust etc. one should have relationship with god and he will save them finally according to their relationship towards him.  Our relationship limits or creates a God with attribute.  But these attributes never limits God within in space, time, temperament and character of human understanding.  Of course this is not uniformly accepted by all in Hinduism.  But this is the way they easily explain away heresy and even enmity with god.

Question: What is ‘salvation’ in Hindi.

DB: Mukti, Moksh, Uddhar are three words come to my mind.  Though all the three may have the same meaning, yet it is better use the word ‘Mukti’ to moksha.  Because I think that ‘Mukti’ presupposes a God who gives deliverance.  Whereas moksha is also possible in advaitic or Budduhist concept of ‘Nirvana’ where the need of a god is not essential.  Jesus can be called as ‘Muktinath’ ‘Mukteswar’, ‘Muktidata’.  In Bruce Willson’s book ‘Bruchco’ we come across that when bible was translated among the Motilovinan’s language no ‘Greek’ or ‘Hebrew’ word for name like ‘Moses’, ‘Jesus’, Abraham etc., from the bible was used.  What does that name means in their language for those names/character alone was used.  For example if they were Hindi speaking people their bible would say, ‘When Muktidhata was waling, the Deeksha denevala said “behold the lamp of god”’.   So in stead of the Word Jesus it is replaced with Muktidata etc.  At the same time Hindus have also god like ‘Mukteswar’ which means ‘the Lord of Mukti’.  But I don’t know whether they have ‘Muktidata’ for any god.  Of course those Indian words which we want to use to communicate has their own religious and theological background.  While we should be cautious to use them, what else is the option with us to come closer to those words?  I would rather prefer to use Indian words to Greek or Hebrew Word.  Of course the Word ‘Jesus’ is much more important.  Because replacing it with any other word like ‘Bhagavan’ ‘Muktidata’ etc. won’t immediately convey what does mean the word ‘Jesus’ to us to the Hindus.  But our understanding of certain words and meaning attached with it has its own cultural and historical tradition.  Because of the presence of Christians already in this country, the Word Jesus as a noun with its meaning as the saviour become familiar to us.  But that was not the case with Motilivinians.  At the same time we should remember that introduction of certain new words like ‘Muktidata’ will take even five hundred years to get the meaning ‘Jesus’ in Indian mind.  And I would prefer to give that much time for the name gain this new identity in India to use the same old ‘Hebrew’ name ‘Jesus.’  However we cannot deny or ignore the historical context of that name attached with a Religion called ‘Christianity’ and in India particularly with that of British rule.  Even if we replace ‘muktidata’ for Jesus, still it will be attached with a Western religion called Christianity in India.  But this doesn’t mean that we should attempt to use the right Indian word for bible names as Bruce Olson used at Molitovians.  At the same time, because of the meaning attached with the name of Jesus in the context of western Christianity, unless God reveals the real meaning in the heart and mind of people our methods of changing some technical terms won’t be of much help.  But as I said, it will take time to gain the true meaning of the gospel.  Even it may take five hundred years to take shape what all I wanted to do. I may not live that long (and don’t want also to live that long).  But let us begin in a small way and God won’t despise such small beginning and will give fruit in His own time.  Introducing new ideas, concepts, terms are challenging, critical, difficult.  But it doesn’t mean that because of these challenges I should give up.  I will do my part allowing God to His part slowly but steadily.

Dream and Vision: There should be some difference between dream and vision I think.  Personally I believe that God deals each one according to her own mental and intellectual background.  I don’t believe in dreams and mostly think they are simply sub-conscience events or imagination coming in our mind while we sleep.  I personally believe proper understanding the word of God is important and enough for God to reveal Himself to us.  But this doesn’t mean that those who believe in dream, vision, miracle are inferior in their faith and my importance given to knowledge and reason is superior.  Before God there is no such gradation and all are one before Him.  But He deals with each one according to their own level of understanding.

Cross: Bhagavan Iisu kruus kii mahaa yajna me apne aapko ek aahuudi kar diya (aadhdi ke ruup may de diya)—Jesus offered Himself as the aahudi on the great yajna which He performed on the Cross.  Aahudi means something thrown in fire as a full sacrifice.  It is like the burnt offering in OT.

Grace and Mercy: Grace is Krupa or Anugrah.  Mercy is daya.; Reconciliation: mel-milap; Sin—Paap.  There are several words for sin in Sanskrit and Hindi but in general people understand the word paap. ⁴  Heaven = svarg, but this is only a temporary place and every dead person will be addressed as ‘svargiiya Mukund Dube’ etc.

Though sin also has a place in Hinduism, yet salvation is considered mainly as deliverance from samsara or the cycle of rebirth.  For Hindus as ‘atman’ is a minute part of God (mamivaamsha—part of me, says Krishna in Gita) no sin is attached with it.  At the same time a person’s personality is in his aham or ego.  Human psyche is divided as senses—mind—budhi—aham—atma.  Some time they use the word ‘man’ for mind also.  Buddhi is not the brain but intellectual capacity which is also the seat of ego or aham. Removing the aham is the main aim of philosophy particularly in Bhakti school of thought.  Mind, buddhi and aham together is my Person, the ‘I’ which is not ‘ataman’.  The atman is pure and even without any attribute.  When we say ‘I’ or ‘I am’ then it is not ataman but only my Person.  Atamn because of ignorance (avidya) think itself that ‘I’ then it is bound and through knowledge when that ignorance is removed and ataman realises its pure nature then it is deliverance.  Of course this is more or like advaitic theology.  And various theological school explains this in different ways.  However in general the Sankhya concept of atman (purusha) is different from prakriti (nature) is accepted and mind, budhi, aham, ego ‘I’ all are within the domain of prakriti and not part of Purusha or atman.  These words mind, budhi, aham are translated in different way in different languages.  Mind is the one, which decides with reason.  Buddhi or intellect is my aham or ‘I’ which is the seat of thinking.  When I become angry it comes from my ‘I’ and that time my discerning spirit or mind is not working.  After the out burst when I began to analyze result of my anger, that time mind using reason evaluate the consequence of my anger which disturbs my ‘I’ or aham.  This too is a simplified explanation, which is not clear.  Mind and buddhi over laps each other. 

A thought—desire—imagination—consent—doing it—finally justifying it can help us to understand this role or mind and buddhi.  (It is interesting to note that when people talk about ‘man’ or mind they will touch their physical heart and not brain; where as when they talk about intellect or buddhi they won’t touch the physical brain in our skul but only the corner of the forehead in our face). Thought comes in my buddhi and desire may come both in my buddhi and mind, and my mind imagines about it and give consent to go ahead with it.  Then it uses senses (both external organ and inner sense like ‘eye’ and ‘sight’ ‘ear’ and ‘hearing’) to do it and finally it is both my mind and buddhi justify my action.  Still it is a complicated analyses.  But without ataman all these are dead and have no life in them.  At death senses, mind, buddhi is finished but the ataman or spirit remains alive, carrying along with the consequence of karma with it.  But in common language ‘buddhi’ is also used for mind.  ‘Don’t you have buddhi before doing it’,  ‘use your buddhi’, people say.  Here it is not aham but mind.  ‘man karab ho gaya’. There ‘man’ is mind.  For insane person they will say, ‘uska mata tiik nahi hai’, it means mind which is also the buddhi.  The insane people are called ‘mental patience’ and not ‘buddhi patience’.  Like wise heart or hrdai is also used for mind.  ‘man me shanti or hrday me shanti’ they use.  But these are beyond clear cut explanation or understanding. 

Though aham is the person or ego, when in theology it is used by saying ‘aham brahmaasmi—I am the Brahman’, then it is not ego but the spirit or ataman.  What is used in philosophy and theology is understood differently in common usage.  But removing or breaking the ego or aham or ‘I’ is considered very important.  When Paul says, ‘it is no more “I” but Christ lives in me’, here the ‘I’ is the aham or ego which is removed and replaced by Christ.  Though technical terms used in the bible is influenced both by Hebrew and Greek thoughts and technical terms, it comes bit closer to Oriental concept and helps us to understand it in a better way.  For example I think to myself, if I have to chose between mythology and history, I would choose history to mythology.  But if the validity of history questioned then I would prefer to be an advaitian to sectarian.  Advaitian in the sense that God alone exist and I will try to understand Him removing my ignorance and to become one with Him removing my aham.

My mind, buddhi and ego is shaped according to the karma of my past life.  To say in other words, after my death, my atman become a subtle body (sukshama sarira) carrying along with it the result of my karma and in another birth will create that kind of body as per the result of my karma (stuhla sarira or gross body) and enter in it to live to dispose that karma.  Even my present birth is shaped and decided by my past karma and ataman being pure one, only carries the result of that karma.  It only bears the burden of the karma but never produces it.  But who or when the first karma started is not questioned in Hinduism (like how or why sin entered in God’s Good creation).  Here the dualistic concept of Sankhya philosophy is generally accepted in which Prakrti (nature) and Purusha (ataman) is co-eternal to each other. So a person can do sin in her mind, buddhi but not in atama.  When a Hindu talk about sin she means sin done by work as well in mind and aham.  So it is wrong to say that the concept of sin is not in Hinduism.  It is there right from vedic time.  We can find several references to the concept of sin in various Sanskrit literatures as well as regional poems.  But what sin here is not sin in principle in my ataman but sin as a principle in my aham, mind, person.  Sin is in my inner being, in my pravrti (nature)—either because of my past karma or because of Kaliyug etc.  But this sin in principle is not in ataman but only in my aham or ‘I’.  Sin affects or decides my karma and the atman alone affected by the karma, which is the result of both sin and good work.  We can in a simplified manner say that karma is the result of sin and atman is affected by that karma.  But this dividing human psyche is not easily in Oriental concepts.  It is not easy in the bible also.  For example ‘heart’ in the bible is strictly speaking ‘kidney’, mind as the conscience.  Soul includes body, soul, mind, heart etc.  But when it comes to the Greek world from which also the bible borrowed technical terms then it is different from Hebrew words.  And spirit with small ‘s’ can be said atman in Hinduism.

So mukti is deliverance from the cycle of samsara which results because of my karma.  That’s why I say that Jesus removed all your past karma through His death on the Cross.  Any bad Karma or sin which I do now is forgiven by Him (this concept is very familiar in Bhaki  schools where god will forgive any kind of sin) and the result of all good karma goes to Him alone as I am only doing what I am expected to do as a slave or servant to my Lord.  All the credits go to Him and my spirit won’t be affected by the fruit of my good karmas.  So Jesus gives mukti to my spirit from my karma.  This concept comes closer to the nishkaamyakarma (desire-less karma) of Gita, where we are expected to do our duty and not seek the fruit of it.  However bible also talks about karma in the sense that each one will be rewarded according to her karma.

Heaven—svarg.  But this svarg though commonly used by Hindus to denote the place of all those died reaches, yet it is not a permanent place.  It is like paradise which is only means ‘garden’ in the New Testament language.  So it is better use ‘moksh’. Of course already we saw that ‘mukti’ is better than ‘moksh’.  But it is in the context of salvation.  When talk about heaven better use the word ‘moksh’ to ‘svarg’.  ‘Bhagavan Ishu moksh pradan kartahai or detahai—Bhagavan Jesus gives moksha’.  Of course some Hindi translation says ‘Bhagavan Ishu apanesaat svarg le jata hai—Bhagavan Jesus takes along with him to svarg’.  ‘aag tum meresaat svargame rahoge—to day you will be with me in svarg’.  But I would rather prefer ‘moksha’ in these contexts to svarg.  But the concept of ‘eternal life’ which Jesus promises won’t be easily understood by a Hindu.  Though mukti gives some kind of eternal life in the sense of not coming back again in the cycle of samsara, it is better talk about how Jesus breaks the chain of samsara first.  Various bhakti schools promises eternal life always in the presence of the god of that sect.  I still remember the post man (Sri Saligram Chowdhari) in Madhubani, a vaishnavite, who always liked to talk with me about the ‘vaikunt of Jesus’ where we will be in His presence all the time and he will even began to meditate on it whenever I share about the eternal life with Jesus.  But he never become a bhakta of Christ but always liked to meditate about the ‘vaikunt of Jesus’.  This vaikunt can be given by Jesus or Vishnu.  It is like healing camps in which people will come to receive healing from Jesus but need not accept Him as their God.   So better begin from ‘salvation’ to ‘eternal life’.  In bible also ‘salvation’ has various meaning. Jesus delivering people from sickness, demon possession, even saving the disciples by stopping the storm all are salvation in the bible. Salvation is not simply the eternal life after death, but all kinds of deliverance in this life itself.  Better not begin from theology but from the felt need of the people as done both by Jesus and Paul.  In Indian context, ‘why salvation should not be a deliverance from sansara and only from sin?’  Unless a proper Indian theology on bible is written the Christian or Bible theology will never become complete.

Narak for hell.  Puranas give very colorful picture about hell.  It is a terrible place.  There are fourteen worlds altogether seven up seven down.  There are several grades of hell also according to the sin committed and punishment deserves by each one.

Resurrection—punarustaan.  But ‘mrutunjai’ is a best word which means ‘victory over death’.  Of course it does not convey the meaning of resurrection.  But the concept of resurrection is not in Hinduism.  Dead were brought back to life, but this is not in the resurrection in the bible.  There are certain concepts in the bible which are unique and when we talk about them, we can only use those words which may come closer to that meaning and not exactly convey it.  But we have to workout from that which comes closer to the original meaning to exactly translating the word in another language.  So ‘punarustan’ may be a literal translation of resurrection but it could also mean coming back to life from death in the same body and not in the transformed body in which Jesus resurrected.  They may not understand all bible concepts, but we have to make them to understand.

Forgiveness—kshamaa.  Maaf is a Urdhu word.

Fall—Hindus don’t have the concept of fall of man.  So if we have to talk ‘fall’ then we have to talk about the fall of god and not that of man.  However the moral degradation is called by a word ‘patan’—patan ho gaya—fall down morally.  Patit is derived from it, which means one who has fall down, which is also called sinner.

Pavan—holy, pure.

Bhagavan maanav jati keliye bali huvaa—Bhagavan Jesus become a sacrifice for men kind. Maanav is men kind.  Manushya means man.

When we share the gospel Hindus may think or take it that we are sharing about our faith or even story of our god.  They may not be offended or won’t think that we are sharing the gospel for them to be received by them.  As they have several stories and rituals to tell about their gods, they will think that this is a story about our god Jesus.  Rama and Krishna are for us and Jesus is for you is, their general thinking.  99% of common people have no time to think life in theological terms but only on existential level of how to earn money and take care of family.  But when we share the gospel we think that it is the existential need of people where as in strict sense it is more a theological or philosophical point of view for a Hindu.  They have interest and respect for philosophy but it is more a leisurely religious talk and not an important matter to survive in this world or even in the next world.  So we have to teach them and not merely preach.  That’s the difference between a priest and acharya.  A priest will merely do the ritual and won’t be bothered about the spiritual life of the people.  Whereas an acharya is expected to teach and not do much ritual worship to people.

Question: What is the most interesting thing in Jesus for the Hindus.

DB:  Seva.  The way Jesus has done service to the poor and needy and also stood with suppressed and fought for justice are some of the points, which attracts the Hindus much.  Even most of the Hindus as irritated by the preaching of the gospel by Christians but appreciate the service they are doing to the poor and needy.  But the service which we can do, need not be limited only with some social service.  We can listen and share their problem.  We can pray for them.  For example no Hindu will say to her suffering neighbour or relative that she will pray or praying for them.  Whereas we can still sincerely not only pray but also pray with them and assure them to pray for their problem.  No Hindu will say ‘no’ to your prayer even in the Name of Jesus.  So instead of starting from Adam and apple, sin and snake it is better to start from prayer, concern, listening etc.  Sit and pray with them.  No Hindu will ever say an extempore–oral, verbal prayer along with her people.  They will do puja, special archana and even yajna for the welfare of a person or for a cause but will never sit and pray with them (when Vajpaijee was undergoing knee operation, special pujas and even yajna was performed for his recovery).  Don’t start to pray immediately with them.  First say I am praying for you.  And after they become good friends or acquaintance, when they make regular visit, tell them that you were praying for that particular concern in their life.  And after some talk when they were about to go, then call them to join with you in prayer for their concern or problem.  It doesn’t mean that you should not share the gospel.  When opportunity comes and if you feel that you should share, do it.  But as an outsider, better talk less, listen more, open heart and mind to people. Show that you have concern for them.  Be a shock absorber and a kind of counselors who are ready to listen and not to spread the news as a gossip.  Never pray for their personal problem with others or share with others.  In order to avoid any gossip or to avoid any embarrassment people will even tell lie.  So when we develop good rapport, then alone will people open their heart and mind to us.  Winning their confidence is much more importance than to win them one time for Jesus and loose them always.  You should know your limitation in India.  Even if you share the gospel other Hindus will only think that you too are telling some stories about your god. Like their Ramayana you have Kristayana.  Narayan Vaman Tilak even wrote one Kristayana in Marati which was completed by his wife Lakshmi Tilak after his death.  Ayana means the path in which one went.  Rama-ayana, Krista-ayana.  Nara-ayana = Narayana, means he who walks the way of Man.

                                                Notes

1. ‘ The term aagama, “scripture,” is often used to denote all writings considered revealed by the Hindus.  More specifically, the term is used in connection with non-Vedic scriptures considered to be revelation by particular Hindu sects (p.65)….They normally consist of four parts: jnaana or knowledge, yoga or concentration, kriyaa or rituals, and caryaa or rules for daily life.’–Klaus K. Klostermaier,  A Survey of Hinduism, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1990,  –p.65-66

2.  ‘Philosophy supplies the vocabulary with which the problems can be stated; myth begins from the premises of philosophy but is then driven by a commonsense logic which discards the more elaborate solutions of the Vedaantins and seeks a more direct answer, an answer illuminated by the “coarse” ritual imagery which philosophy scorns. Myth is a two-way mirror in which ritual and philosophy may regard one another.  It is the moment when people normally caught up in everyday banalities are suddenly (perhaps because of some personal upheaval) confronted with problems that they have hitherto left to the bickerings of the philosophers; and it is the moment when philosophers, too, come to terms with the darker, flesh-and-blood aspects of their abstract inquiries.’—Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980, p. 9

3. The following points from the book, ‘The Origin of Evil in Hindu Mythology’, by O’Flaherty ibid. will help us to understand this fact:

            Certain theologians were able to justify the heretical behavior of their sects by referring to the heretical behavior of their gods: “What the gods do and what the worshippers do in their service cannot according to Hindu opinion be judged by ordinary laws of right and wrong.  The god is supra-moral; the worshipper when he enters the temple leaves conventionality outside.” [Eliot, Sir Charles, Hinduism and Buddhism, 3 vols. London, 1921, II, 168]  The more orthodox view holds that the gods alone are supre-moral, but the “left-hand” sects maintain the validity of imitation and hold the “released” worshipper equally unbound by the morality of svadharma.  This view, though of special benefit to the esoteric sects, is obviously supported by the social atmosphere of orthodox Hinduism, which is so thoroughly conditioned to the idea that there are natural divisions between men, that what is appropriate for the elect (the Brahmin) is not appropriate to the Suudra, that “quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.”  The hierarchy of morality thus serves both to support and to challenge the doctrine of imitation, depending on the status of the mortals involved in the action.  The gods rank above mankind, and are therefore not to be imitated, but the “enlightened man” (and sometimes the Brahmin) also ranks above mankind and may behave immorally without suffering the consequences of his action.

            The doctrine of imitation was more often rejected and criticized for abuses it encouraged than accepted as dogma…–p.289

…Whatever the laws of the actions of the gods, they do not apply to man; Brahmaa’s incest is justified by the statement that the ways of divine beings can be known only the gods, not by men, who should not talk about them [Matsya 4.3-5].  Thus, for one reason or another, men were not supposed to imitate the evil behavior of the gods.  The Saivas who tried to justify their excesses by saying that they were merely copying their god became the object of satire and disapproval [Mattavilaasaprahasana of Mahendravarma,.  TSS (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series), no. 50. Trivandrum, 1917and Karpuuramanjarii of Raajasekhara. Ed. Sten Konow. Trans. Charles Lanman. HOS (Harvard Oriental Series), no.4, Cambridge, 1901].  The wicked Kali complains about this double standard when he says to the gods, “Let Brahmaa sport with any girl, and you amuse yourselves with celestial nymphs, but Kali must live in celibacy.  You preach dharma and yet you do things that one can hardly bear to hear about,” [Naisadhacarita of Sriiarsa, Ed. Jiiaananda Vidyaasaagara, Calcutta, 1875-76,7.122-123] and Prahlaada makes a similar accusation of hypocrisy against the Hindu gods.

            The gods are said to commit serious sins in order “to awaken people to a sense of the dangers of adharma” [Rajagopalachari,C, Raamaayana, 5^th ed. Bombay, 1965,p. 40]—that is, as a negative moral example.  The divine extremes of Tantrism are considered suitable only for people at the extremes of the moral scale—the gods and truly enlightened sages, on the one hand, and the degraded mortals of the Kali Age, on the other.  The usual justification for Tantric practice—that the enlightened man may achieve salvation by the very acts that cause common men to burn in hell [Eliade, Mircea, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Bollingen Series, vol. 56, New York, 1958, p. 263]—was often explicitly cited and rejected.  Thus, when Siva is criticized, Naarada remarks,

“If {Paarvatii} be married to Sankara, everyone will regard even those faults as virtues… the sun and fire devour all sorts of food, but no one blames them for it.  Though both pure and impure water flow in the Ganga, no one calls the river foul.  The powerful, sire, can do no wrong, like the sun and the fire and the Ganga.  But if any stupid man, wise in his own conceits, would do as they do, he falls into hell and stays there for an aeon.  Can the creature be compared to God?” [Daas, Tulsii, The Holy Lake of the Acts of Raama {Raamacaritamaanasa }. Trans. W.D.Ph. Hill, London, 1952, pp. 37-38].

Similarly, it is said (in explaining why Krsna’s adultery cannot be taken as license for men to do the same) that Rudra alone may drink poison unharmed, just as no blame is imputed to fire, which consumes all fuel [Bhaagavata 10.33.30-31]…–p.290

4. Sin (paataka) is a word that belongs to the terminology of religion rather than to that of Ethics.  It is very difficult to define sin.  In a general way it may be said that it is an act which is regarded as a willful rebellion against or disobedience of some law supposed to be laid down by God or Revelation; it is opposition to the will of God manifested in an authoritative work or at least failure to abide by the regulations contained therein.—P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Pone, Ch. I. Sins, expiation and the residual consequences of sins. vol. IV. p.1.

The sages of the Rgveda were acutely conscious of sin or guilt and pray to the gods, particularly to Varuna and the Adityas, for forgiveness and for being freed from the consequences of sin.  In this connection they employ numerous words such as aagas, enas, agha, durita, duskrta, durgdha, amhas...-ibid. p. 5.

  The word ‘durita‘ is sometimes used in the sense of sin…-ibid. p.7

…The word `paapa‘ generally occurs in the Rg. in the sense of `sinner’ (Rig Veda.VIII.61.11, X.10.12,IV.5.5) or `sinful’ or `evil’ (Rg.X.108.6, X.164.5,I.129.11).  In Rg.VII.32.18, VII.94.3, VIII.19.26 `paapatva‘ occurs and appears to mean `sinfulness’.  In the Brahmanas `paapam’ (neuter) occurs in the sense of `sin’ as in Satapata Brahman. XI.2.7.19; vide also Ait.Br.33.5.  In the Upanisads `paapam‘ means `sin’ (e.g. in Taitreya Upanishad, .II.9, Chandogya Upaishad IV.14.3).  Certain important modifications of the doctrine about sin and Karma were introduced in the Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita.-ibid. p.8