Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Nine

Latest message was:
Dear Friends,
om Kristave’ namah:
Once again I feel blessed to have such companions, even at a distance. I must admit to carrying some anger on this subject, about believers chanting or meditating, because I was taught it was wrong. I was dragged into church when someone should have given me the gospel and let me develop my own expression of faith. This “Christianization” caused an enormous amount of pain.

Nowadays I am ready to accept mantras, kirtan, even the Gayatri. Devote it all to the Lord Jesus, and jaya Bhagwan. Believers are free! We are not under the law, but under grace.

The evangelical community you speak of is very concerned about chanting and yoga, but (in the USA) they have a 60% divorce rate and their women dress, to put it mildly, immodestly. A study by Christianity Today suggests that 30% of pastors use pornography! So they allow fornication, but not meditation.

But we can sing Sanskrit praise to Yeshu, we can meditate on his name, and it doesn’t have to be “Scriptural”. Offering flowers to the Lord is not Scriptural. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”.

We know that moksha is freedom, and Mukteshvara is the Savior. May he bless you all.
Yogi John (Swami, if you offer another name I will honor it.)

Latest message was:
I fully agree with Swami Muktananda’s concern to be faithful to the Bible, but I think there is a fallacy in his quest for the “real” interpretation of Hindu phenomena. Pretty much everything you touch in Hinduism will have a variety of meanings depending on which type of Hindu you are dealing with, and the last thing we should claim is the authority to arbitrate and decide who is most right.

There is similar plurality in Christianity as well, but the range is certainly wider in Hindu traditions. The best things we pick up from Hindu traditions will have a darker side somewhere and we cannot be paralysed by that. (Remember the dark sides even of “el” and “theos”, the chosen OT and NT names for God.)

Let me post now something I sent to Chris as part of the private discussion that sparked this broader discussion. You will note that the Gayatri mantra translation below is the same as Muktanandji refers to from Matridham Ashram, which is no surprise as they also are using the Raymond Panikkar translation.

Regarding the Gayatri Mantra translation, I gave one with a brief explanation in the Rethinking Hindu Ministry booklet first article:

Daily still, at the break of dawn across modern India, Hindus can be seen joining their unbroken succession of ancestors praying the Gayatri mantra:

“We meditate upon the glorious splendor of the Vivifier divine. May he himself illumine our minds!”

This is a prayer to the Sun, or to the Sun-god, or to God as symbolized in the sun (depending on one’s interpretation; the translation here from Raimundo Panikkar’s Mantramanjari favors the last).

Using this will certainly be controversial with some people. In practice I am not sure how many Hindus would use it as a prayer and how many would use it as a meaningless mystic formula as with om. Perhaps a simple compromise would solve the problem, which would be for you to give a brief explanation and your interpretation before you sing it. This could be very pro-Hindu (three possible interpretations; one that it is blatant sun worship, but this is suggesting that the Vedic seers were really pretty lacking in insight; another that there is a sun God and a moon God, also not giving a lot of credit to the seers; probably best is to think that the seers understood there is an invisible God behind all the powerful mysteries of life, and it is that hidden and supreme God that is truly being addressed through the symbol of the created powers. Of course always closing humbly that you are not an expert and others may disagree but this anyway is your understanding in singing the mantra.) It would be pretty hard for a believer to object to this, I think.

I am ready to be corrected but it seems to me that from our biblical perspective there is little if any meditation on gayatri mantra, etc. The mantra is a tool rather than a subject for meditation. I could see the gayatri being used as a daily reminder of God, but the content is not really suitable for meditation in the biblical sense, certainly not compared to meditation on biblical revelation. Swami Dayanand confirms that this mostly is not thought about. OM bhur bhuva svaha is certainly in that category; this is a mystic chant, not a contentful phrase to meditate on. This is touching one of the phobias of western evangelicalism, which is why I want to comment. A deliberate goal to empty the mind and enter an altered state of consciousness cannot be considered biblical, so using mantra or japa to this end would seem to me inappropriate. But Ps. 31 clearly refers to an individual stilling their soul; soul here surely is the whole person, including the mind (it is definitely! not atman, something deeper than the mind and personality). So there is a clear biblical mandate for quieting a too active mind, although no techniques for this are suggested. That rhythmic breathing can assist one in quieting the mind seems to me neither surprising nor threatening; there should be no problem with yoga at this stage of things. Mantra and japa are similarly useful in quieting the soul, and to this end can and should be encouraged; the use of om would certainly be included here, although I think in these things we want to speak against superstitious views of power being related to chanting such formulas. [Perhaps Yogi John could share with us his thoughts on this line in light of many years of yogic involvement.]

We had a Pentecostal Brahmin family visit our bhajan group in Chennai and the elderly man asked a question. He was struggling with reading the Bible but found great peace in taking some Bible verses from Benny Hinn books (!) and writing them out over and over. I suspected he was being “persecuted” by his quite high-powered wife since he was not doing his required duty of daily Bible reading, so I said his japa of writing Bible verses over and over was certainly an acceptable expression of devotion and meditation. But that was for this old man; if his college-age son had said he was doing such things I would have had to take a bit of a different approach, still affirming japa but pointing out the need for study of Bible and Hinduism etc. etc. That is how I currently view things, anyway.

Latest message was:
Swamiji, Chris, and everyone,
You are all so beautiful! I realize that I’m not really in the loop because I don’t live in India, and my concerns are not exactly the same as yours.

However, I thank you for letting me be part of this Forum. As I have said before, it is very lonely for a believing yogi in the USA. You people are like friends, and the information you share is very useful to my life and teaching here. Where else would I find a discussion on the use of OM by believers? Or where would I have access to Indian Christian music? I would be very obliged if someone could tell me where to get recordings of Yeshu kirtans.

I’m going to a local kirtan meeting Wednesday night, and it will be all “Hare Krshna” and “Om namah Shivaaya”. I love the music, but I wish they would sing to the Lord. But I look to evangelize these people, so there I go. Please pray for me.
om namah Kristaaya
Yogi John

Latest message was:
Chris Ji, thanks for posting this very significant and relevant topic as discussion for the month and Swami Ji I want to thank you deeply for informing us so well regarding the Gayatri Mantra; it’s meaning, history and significance. Thanks to you I now have a much better understanding. I too would like to make a small contribution to this discussion. When I went to Matridham ashram I chanted with the others the Gayatri Mantra because of my ignorance. The meaning of the Gayatri Mantra given in the Matridham Book is as follows:
Om! We meditate upon the glorious splendour of the Vivifier Divine
May he himself illumine our minds!
Even though I didn’t know what Vivifier really meant I felt that according to this translation there is made no mention of any deities names and it seems to indicate worship to the Divine Creator therefore it is OK to chant it.

However, when I checked in the Eng translation of the Rig Veda “The Hymns of the Rgveda by Ralph T.H. Griffith” I found a completely different meaning. RgV 3.62.10 is translated as follows:
May we attain that excellent glory of Savitar the God:
So may he stimulate our prayers
The footnotes reads as follows:
This stanza is the Savitree, the Gayatree par excellence, the celebrated verse of the Vedas which forms part of the daily devotions of the Brahmans, and was first made known to Eng readers by Sir W Jone’s translation of a paraphrastic interpretation; he renders it, Let us adore the supremacy of the divine sun, the godhead who illuminates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understanding aright in our progress towards his holy seat – Wilson. See Rgveda Sanhita, Vol 3 p 111

The Divine Life Society uses this translation of Gayatree Mantra in “Gems of Prayers by Sri Swami Sivananda”
Let us meditate on Isvara and His glory, who has created this universe, who is fit to be worshipped, who is the remover of all sins and ignorance. May He enlighten our intelect.

It would seem that different sects choose a meaning which makes them feel comfortable or for it to be what they think or want it to mean without respect for the real meaning. Using “The Students Sanskrit English Dictionary – Vaman Shivram Apte”
The meaning of saavitra is 1. Belonging to the sun. 2. Descended from the sun, belonging to the solar dynasty of kings. 3. Accompanied by the Gayatree to mean 1. The sun. 2. An embroyo or foetus. 3. A Brahmana. 4. An ephithet of Siva. 5. Of Karna. The sacrificial thread (so called because the repetition of the Gayatri forms a principal part of the ceremony of putting on the sacred thread.
The meaning of saavitree is 1. A ray of light. 2. Name of a celebrated verse of the Rgveda so called because it is addressed to the sun. 3. The ceremony of investiture with the sacred thread.
The meaning of gaayatree is 1. Vedic metre of 24 syllables; Gaayatree chhandsaamaham Bhag. Gita 10.35. 2. Name of a very sacred verse repeated by every Brahmana at his sandhya (morning and evening devotions) and on other occasions also.

As Bhaktas of Sadguru Yeeshu we need to be very careful as to what we adopt from the Hindu scriptures. Use only that which we are very sure of being part of and being in unity with the whole Biblical revelation. In Chris’ “Naam Liyo Re” CD/cassette the very first track is a chanting of a mantra. (“Na tatra sooryo bhaati….sarva midam vibhaati” Kat Up 2.2.15) At first I was unable to chant it because I didn’t know what it meant. However, when I did find out it’s meaning I was ecstatic to find something so beautiful in the Kath Upanishad which is part of the whole Biblical revelation. It thereafter became a very significant part of my satsangs. Unless we don’t have a deep conviction that what we are singing isn’t part of the whole Biblical revelation we should refrain from doing so until we have further revelation.

Chris Ji, as a public figure who is worshipping publicly you are invoking in others a response to worship. The duty of any man (men and women) Yeeshu bhakta or not, is to invoke in others a response to worship the Divine Creator of all creatures and objects. If we have the slightest doubt in our minds that this may not be worship to the Divine Creator and it may be worship to a thing created by Him such as the sun etc, then we shouldn’t do so. As Bhaktas of Sadguru Yeeshu we even more so should seek to direct all our worship of the Divine Creator through Sadguru Yeeshu.
Swami Muktanand
Dear friends,

Shanti!

I never thought that ‘Gayatri’ would lead to such lively discussion through this Forum. I appreciate all your contribution. Before further saying something about chanting Gayatir, let me share one of my experiences.

When I become the bhaktas of the Lord and was in a Bible Institute, I used to go for weekend day to a near by remote area and spend several hours sitting alone to meditate. As I was not trained in any proper meditation system, I developed one for myself. As there was none to disturb me, I will loudly began to chant ‘Om namah Christaya’! Then slowly I will reduced the sound and began to chant it simply murmuring, then after some time, I will began to concentrate the entire mantra and allow my mind to record both the meaning and the chanting. Then I will become silent and allow my mind to chant it. It was a bliss time for me to sit quietly for more than one or two hours allowing my mind to chant. But when I began to come to my senses and walk back to the Institute, I began to notice that even though I was thinking other matters, my mind was continuously changing the same mantra. Then when I went to bed that night, I could feel the same experience till I get me sleep. But the more interesting part is that next day from the early morning I could hear again my mind was repeating the same chant. I tried to calm and control my mind by diverting it on other matters (I talked with others, do my class work and go to my classes). But all the time my mind was chanting the same mantra. Even in the classes when the teacher was teaching, I will listen and take notes, but in my subconscious mind I heard the same chant. It continued for several days. Not know what to do or to whom I shall share this (as I was with strong evangelical people, I was not dare to share this even), next week also I went to the same place and practiced the same thing. But this time, I need not even began to chant loudly, but once I closed my eyes and took few deep breath and practiced pranayama (inhaling and releasing the breath as we do when we were performing sandyavandanam every day), then my mind began to chant and I was enjoying the bliss.

But at the same time I realized that there is some danger in allowing it to continue. Because now instead of I controlling my mind, my mind began to control me (atman, ahm? Personality?) As I couldn’t seek anybody’s advice those days, then I felt that there is no point of repeating merely the name of the Lord—in whichever form it might be. Though it helped me to forget myself for some time and enjoy some kind of bliss, yet I realized that it is too dangerous to open our mind to some other experience in which I have no control. So I stopped that kind of practice.

Now, whether we can chant any mantra or Name of the Lord in any language is left to the individual and her mental makeup. However if we began to practice it as a group, there is always the advantage of not allowing our mind to control us. Such a group meditation will help each one to develop some kind of concentration. For the best way to develop any kind of meditation is from Phil. 4:8. At the same time singing the name of the Lord and using it in bhajan form is more blissful. I have seen in few Christian worship meetings that they go on singing the same line or word in English (even led by Chris), the leader encouraging and giving call to everyone to raise up their voice to sing the same line or words again and again in English (or Hindi). So what is wrong in it if we use Sanskrit? Of course I am not pushing this language on everyone. But as a musical language, those who can sing some bhajans or chant some mantras (don’t’ me afraid of the word ‘mantra’ itself), that will give some kind of blissful union with our Lord during the time of worship. When I sing Upadhyaya’s Sanskrit bhajan ‘upcita cira cinmukurita’, I merge myself in that song (as I know the meaning as well). It helps me in my personal worship.

Regarding gayatri, I have no objection if anyone feels to use it personally. But I am not chanting it, because there are beautiful slokas and mantras in Sanskrit about the Lord which we could use. Though Gayatri gained its glory and importance, for me yet it is one among the thousands of mantras from Veda. I personally think that its importance lies not only its meaning but also because it is in Sanskrit. However if a person like Chris singing bhajans among Hindus, he can use it part of his bhajans. But in our personal meditation, we have several other bhajans and mantras, we don’t need it. Today I got one software to record my voice in the Computer itself. Soon I thought of recording few Sanskrit slokas and bhajans and copy them in CD. Of course if we could get good musicians to sing it with proper music that will appeal to the mass. But my purpose is to help a bhaktas like Yogi John. Yet in all it, our worship should be always in Truth and Spirit not mere mechanical seeking only some blissful experience without developing any meaningful relationship with the Lord to know His will and to do the same in every day life.

One important aspect in popular Hinduism is the value of `NAME’ of their respective gods. Tulsi Das in his Ramayana says, “Without `Name’ one cannot have knowledge about the `Image’ as `Image’ is under the control of the `Name’.¹ Even if mere `Name’ is remembered without seeing His `Image’, then that `Image’ will appear with special love in the heart.² And in between `nirgun‘ [with out attribute] and `sagun’[with attribute] `Name’ bears witness³ and according to my deliberations `Name’ is higher than these two.⁴ Rama gave salvation only to a few of his servants like Sabari and Jatayu, but through His `Name’ countless sinners are being saved”.⁵

We too can make use of the importance of the Name Jesus than seeking His vision. But we must be careful with their practice of `namavali‘, in which they repeat merely the `Name’ of their gods without any conscious control over the mind in meditating on the Personality behind the `Name’. Such a `namavali‘ will lead to the power encounter as we won’t have any control over our mind.

Notes

Tulsi Ramayana (Hindi), Gita Press, Gorakpur, Translation is mine: 1. I.20.2b; 2. I.20.3b; 3. I,20.4b; 4. I,22.1b. 5. I,24.

The following was updated in the latest Rethinking Forum Discussion of the Month.

Latest message was:
I am entering into this discussion late though i have kept up with it via RF emails. Let me share some personal experience and story to begin.

I began to notice those spiritual looking in traditional dress dressed in yellow with little carts selling books and pamphlets blasting a song on a tape player… OM bhur bhuvah…! It seemed to me another bhakti cult similar to Hare Krishna and imagine my surprise when the house I moved into has a Gayatri Ashram right behind it. Every morning waking to these sounds of ancient India without fail. As I chatted with those near to my house I realised that chanting the scripture itself was supposed to give liberation and even if it did not take immediate effect the person felt very peaceful while chanting. Personally it seems very boring to me to do naamjaapa and chanting the same sloka over and over but I am sure there are others who would disagree. I feel there is a unique contribution with extempore prayer that we Yishubhakts have with our guruji and this must be highlighted and in guru-chela relationship new yishubhakts need to recognise the powerful anubhav of direct !
experiantial converstion with the divine. However to chant Gayatri Mantra or not or for that matter to say \’Lord\’s prayer\’ without doing what it says seems like drinking mothers milk compared to the joy of embracing Sadguru Yishu with our own words or in silent communion with him. I feel that it is great to start a time of prayer with this chant or discuss the Sun of Righteousness or other bridge topics with friends and neighbours but in the end I concur with Swami DB that there are so many other beutiful chants and even those waiting to be written within our friends and bhaktas.

My response:

This is not my specific response to this thought, but my view on the so called ‘extempore’ prayer. I too am, like few others, not much interested in ‘reading’ any prayer (as we find in Anglican churches) or merely repeating any mantra or even songs. However one time in my life, I took a research on my own ‘extempore’ prayers and also observed such prayers by others. Interestingly most of the time these so called extempore prayers are in one sense repeating the same words and vocabularies and even the same prayers, only with few changed prayer points. I even observed that few even begin their ‘extempore’ prayer with same formula and form and end in similar manner. So, while I too ‘believe’ in spontaneous prayers, yet there nothing in our life which is not mechanical and often repeated. Our food, dress, hobby, work and even people with whom we live are the same. So merely ‘reading’ or ‘chanting’ any prayer or mantra/sloka has its own disadvantage, the so called ‘extempore’ prayer has its own weakness. So in any kind of sadhana, we have to keep a conscious relationship with the Lord. Then only the outward form could help us to communicate with our Lord and worship Him in Truth and Spirit.

dayanand

@@@

Great Commission

Jay

Hello Swamiji, Namesthe

This is Jay ( Surendar’s Friend from Chennai )

Missed out the chance to meet you while you were here in Chennai couple of weeks back.

Hope you and Patima are doing good.

Regarding this article of yours about the Gospel , I got curious and wanted to know where does the “Great commission” as mentioned in the last chapter of Matthew fit into “Hindu” scope and if there is any parallel to this in Hinduism .

Regards,
Jay

20-4-15 Every concept in one (religious) tradition won’t neatly fit in another tradition. The concept of ‘Great Commission’ is there in every faith. Otherwise all would have following the same faith/ theology/ philosophy/doctrine from time in memorial. This is my critic’ on Balagangadhara (see Unethical Interference in the blog). This is very true in Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya.

Though every bhakta is to do her part in fulfilling the Great Commission, all are not called to do it in one format. Each bhakta is called to do her part faithfully leaving rest with God. But the tragedy is that Great Commission is interpreted as ‘converting’ people from one religious community to another. Even in this the conversion is not limited to personal faith but sociological dimension. And Christianity, at least in India promotes ‘conversion’ from one sociological community to another. Even in this they are not making any improvement and progress in those issues which they blame that is in Hindu society—for example, caste. To say in other words, people are called to change the camp without giving up what they find wrong in our society. And the converts too, thinking that they are escaping from the ‘devil’, jump in deep see, without anyone there to rescue them.

And the Hindu/Indian approach is this: giving personal freedom to choose any sadhana (spiritual discipline) that will help one to make progress in her spiritual aspiration according to her aptitude. It demands to carryout one’s personal dharma inspired by the result of that personal sadhana. Let me explain this in my own way. Now becoming a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I need to do my dharma (social duty) as per the teaching of my Guru and Acharya Muktinath. For this I have to stay back where I born than simply shifting the camp and blaming others about all the shortcoming and failures. Through my personal life, seva, sadhana I have to do my part in fulfilling the Great Commission. And there God will use me as per the gifts that I received from Him as well which I received as inheritance.

Plain reading of the (religious) text without thinking what is the intentions behind in its teaching leads to several blind faith. In this Great Commission ‘Go and preach the Gospel and Make disciple’, Christians take the two words ‘preach’ and ‘make’ seriously forgetting the crucial aspect ‘disciples’. When Muktiveda itself allows a Hindu to become a bhakta or disciple to the Lord but remain in her birth family and community (I Cor. 7:17ff.), what the Christian doing in the name of Great Commission is what the Lord said in Mt. 23:15.

Though I have my reservation about the ‘illegitimate interference’ yet I agree with Gangadhara about ‘proselytization’. For me ‘witnessing’ about the transformation that I received by the Lord is not any ‘illegitimate interference’@ as I never persuade anyone through coercion to change their religious tradition. And to annoy the Christian I would say that even keeping my Hindu religious tradition as the frame I can live as a bhakta of the Lord. Pluralism being the Hindu/Indian reality, our Hindu religious tradition is broad enough to accommodate any kind of faith expression. At the same time, this pluralism never demands or expects any sampradaya to compromise or become syncretistic in doctrinal issues. Allowing doctrinal/theological exclusivism, it provides inclusivism within its religious tradition. To my dismay what I see in Christianity is pluralistic excluvism. Dismissing every other ‘denomination’ as heretic, it accommodate all kinds of denomination within one tradition in the name of Christianity. So in pluralistic inclusivism (viz., Hinduism) one can openly and proudly remain a ‘witness’ for her faith and bhakti. Whereas in pluralistic excluvism (viz., Christianity) ‘proselytization’ is promoted in the name of Great Commission.

According to my understanding Gospel introduces new values and respect old truths that helps me to do my dharma as a Hindu. Great Commission is centered on the noun ‘disciple’ than verb ‘preach and make’.

22-4-15

Notes

@. The Semitic self-description contains a universal truth claim, which gives rise to a dynamic of proselytization. When the biblical God reveals His plan, it covers the whole of humankind. Those who receive this revelation should try to convert the others into accepting the message in this divine self-disclosure. That is, proselytizing is an intrinsic drive of Islam and Christianity. The pagan view, on the contrary, implies that every ‘religion’ is a tradition—that is, a specific set of ancestral practices—characterizing a human community. The traditions are upheld not because they contain some exclusive truth binding the believer to God, but because they make some community into a community. Any attempt at interfering with the tradition of a community from the outside will be seen as illegitimate, since all traditions are part of the human quest for truth….— S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India studies, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012, p. 209

Swamiji – Namaskaram…:)

Thank you for the detailed reply. Really really Appreciate.

1) Missed the chance of meeting you when you were here in Chennai. Hope to see you soon ..

2) Read that note about you visit to the neighborhood Muslim family. Our God is an awesome God..

Regarding your reply..

Yes, the true interpretation of the Great Commission will be to live out the life according to your Dharma in the community where you are and through that let people see the light in you and give glory to the Paramapita in Heaven.

Now, having said that, we are talking of two different dispensations. The early Apostles whom Mukthinath “sent” saying GO..were sent out from Jerusalem in Judea, Samarai and all the other parts of the world…Yes, they were carrying their own tradition and values, however, when they meet people from different faith they naturally did not erase the culture but introduced Mukthinath/esuhava/maseeh/parameshwar/dev/allah in different forms. Things went wrong as the objectives changed. Imagine if Peter denied to enter Cornileus house because his tradition did not allow him to do so, we would not have been saved then. Sevanand would never have gone to gentiles. Jesus would never have spoken to the Samaratian women. It is always the quest for the right faith as the syerophonecian women had.

I remember the verse from Isiah – “how can we listen unless somebody tells us, how can somebody tell unless they are sent… “…Its not just about “preaching” but living as true disciple always showing Mukthinath in and through you and always ready to show/tell about the Mukthinath in you…because he is always with you…

Also, Swamiji, your mention about Mukthinath as Guru ( spiritual teacher ) and Aacharya ( teacher/leader ) is understandably very contextual, however the emphasis of Mukthiveda for Mukthinath is about the Mukthigiver and him being the only way and truth and life. Is that verse contextual of Jews alone and not of the world? why do we have a subdued emphasis of that in Hindu culture.

–the very word that I (we) use ‘Muktinath’ means ‘Lord/Master of mukti’. In my personal journey I found my guru in Muktinath. And according to our tradition, the guru who removed the darkness becomes both my Acharya and Bhagavan. There is no subdued emphasis in order to accommodate to our culture. The Samaritan woman too understood the Lord gradually. Read any commentary on this point of Muktinath encounter with Samaritan woman.

The ‘only’ way is bit complex. Christian often quote that verse out of context—that too in comparative theology with other faiths. But the context is not about the exclusive claim that the Lord is the only way. It will take many pages for me to explain this. But you better ask your own teachers on this point.

Your point of I Cor 7:17 – Agreed. However, down in verse 21 same Sevanand would say – ” Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able to also become free , rather do that”.

–ask your church leader what this entire section in ! Cor. Means. I don’t need to explain that to you. If you have time read: Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic

A Hindu tradition does not permit sadhana without taking bath – I would be much freer talking to Mukthinath from my bed and doing meditation. I am a Hindu and if I do that , will I be wrong just because I am not following the tradition of my ancestors.I can take all the good things , but would want to leave all the meaningless rituals that were followed by my ancestors.

This shows how poor is your understanding about both ‘Hindus’ and ‘Hinduism’. Most of the Hindus when they get up from the bed, the first thing that they would do is to see their palm. Because all the presiding deities are dwelling on each finger. Several people will take the name of their God—both when they get up from the bed and when the go to bed. Is this not a sadhana. The ritual purity like taking bath is prescribed for hygienic and common good of all. Only when ritual activities are involved taking bath etc. are more strictly followed (here too exceptions are there). But when it comes to sadhana no one need to observe such outward activities of purity and pollution. It is interesting to note that such bodily purity is also recommended in Muktiveda in Hebrew 10:22 (Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.—Heb. 10:22). We can find several reference about washing the hands and feet of the priest and other before entering to the tabernacle and temple. Above all Parasara dharma sastra says, ‘in emergency one need not follow all the rule and regulations regarding achara (tradition). When everything is normal, then one should follow them.’ So when a rule is given, there will be always exception and exemption. Let me finally say one thing about Christian sadhna. According to the Christian tradition (not muktivedic) before taking communion one should both confess her sins. Though one would do it before receiving the communion, you know that several people in the church are unworthy to receive it considering their life—which is known to everyone in the church. But they will go and receive communion—as part of ritual. Even a Pastor or others cannot stop it. So critiquing a particular aspect of a religion, without having proper understanding about it won’t help to anyone.

You mentioned about ” God will use me according to my Gifts “

The passage in I Corinthians about gits is certainly not contextual but doctrinal. He says Gifts are given to benefit the body of Christ.

Body of christ = Church ( actual meaning , not building ) , ecclesia ( assembly ) or the gathering of the Bhakthas in a building.

-The problem with Christians is that they can only read ‘doctrine’ on everything. If you read that what I say about ‘gift’ is contextual then it is not my problem. Our entire life as bhakta of the Lord is lived in the context of mandali. I often say that we don’t have a private bhakti/faith or private God. We are living, moving and our being is as a mandali—living and serving for each other. So every gift is exercised in this context of mandali to serve each other and also to serve others outside mandali. Let me quote here what I shared in another article:

–Sadhana is both personal and for others. Through Sadhana we equip ourselves to become the worthy vessel in the hands of God for Him to use us for His kingdom. For us any kind of sadhana is not to earn merit or favor from God but qualifying ourselves to become a useful vessel in the hands of God. Keeping others interest is not idealism, but that is the dharma for every bhakta. But for this one should know how to love oneself so that she knows how to love others too. Loving oneself is not selfishness but to understand and experience to know what does it mean to love others. The way we serve our parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, others in the world and finally other bhaktas in the mandali is not mere obligation (dharma) or compulsion but that too should become a (kind) of sadhana so that we can teach others (at least in our mandali) how to measure the expectation of God from His bhakta.

Hindus do all these. But sometime (or most of the time) it is either to earn merit or to remove past karma (sin). Of course we Hindus also do our obligation to our parents and others as part of our dharma (or social pressure or the consequence of sin of omission) and a bhakta of Muktinath has to do it as part of her personal sadhana as well as equipping herself to become a worthy vessel to be used by God. Of course I add that if we do it joyfully, we will never consider it a burden.

One more point I want to emphasis. When we equip ourselves as worthy vessel, we are not automatically qualified to be used by God. Equipping ourselves is our responsibility but using us or not; when to use and how to use is left to God.

For me, sin is: anything that separates me from the Lord. It is keeping oneself at the center and worshiping oneself. And any kind of sadhana keeping personal interest also will separate us from the Lord. But every bhakta has to live everyday with the tension that she is a saved sinner and struggling saint as she has to fight against her selfishness which makes her to worship herself. Loving oneself to know how to love others is different from worshiping oneself replacing the Lord in life.

The write of Hebrews puts the emphasis on Gathering –

Hebrews 10:23 – Let us hold fast eh confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful , 24, let us consider how to stimulate one another in love and good works, 25, not forsaking out own assembling together..

The Gathering is converted in Building and the place is called Church. However, lets not throw the baby with the water. Fellowship of bhakthas is what Mukthinath wanted , and he still wants that. And in such fellowships , one to one, one to two and one to many, Parameshwar will allow your gifts to be used and bless you with gifts from others.

–the same old rhetoric from the Christians about the need of ‘coming together’ for fellowship. We never deny it. But ‘coming together should not become a ‘Watery togetherness’. I have observed that Christians, particularly emphasizing ‘gathering in a building’ as fellowship. This is distorting the word ‘fellowship’. In fellowship each person should know each other—her need, struggle, aspirations etc. And the person who is in fellowship with her will step in to provide it. In the original gathering in the early mandali fellowship was not mere ‘watery togetherness’ but knowing each other personally.

We have fellowship in our mandali. But physical presence is missing a lot. But we use other means to provide fellowship to other bhaktas—as much as they allow us to serve them. We step in their life—when we are allowed to do and do our best. We never believe fellowship just for the so called ‘spiritual’ need, but involve with the entire life of that bhakta, where we can step I, not crossing the lakshman reka.

These are some of my random thoughts. Please feel free to correct me if you have time. Otherwise no problem.

HL .R ( Rajesh ) was here in Suren’s house last Sunday. Guess they had a good time of fellowship.

Hope Amma is doing well health wise. My Respect and regards to her.

Regards,

Jay

27-4-15

Sorry already I sent my response to Jay and I received his response too. I will read it and forward to you all.

In stead of only I am responding, what others would like to share on this issue.?

28-4-15

Dear Jay

Shanti!

Thanks for your kind mail, in spite of my ‘Church’ bashing response to your few question. First I failed to notice the last sentence of your mail: ‘These are some of my random thoughts. Please feel free to correct me if you have time. Otherwise no problem. ‘So as usual I prepared a long response taking point by point. But I am not happy again with my response, because I am too critical, however I am convinced that I have given a correct response to your several misunderstanding about Hinduism and interpreting Muktiveda out of context.

However, I have firm policy not to spend my time responding to Christians. Because I find no use in it—both for me and to the Christians. Above all, as you too is not serious about receiving my response, as you clearly stated, ‘OTHER NO PROBLEM’, I have decided not to send it, because again it will further lead to further question and answers for which I have no time.

To be frank with you, I stopped answering many such questions by Christians. In the past too few Christians, who want to learn asked similar questions on various issues? My only response to them was, ‘you have leaders, teachers, prophets, preachers’ in your church. Better ask these questions to them and learn from them.’

I am saying not to escape from my responsibility or I am unable to respond such questions. But based on my past experience the one question that came to my mind was, ‘what is the use’. They may agree, but they are going to be in their church and do the same thing for what they are programmed by the church. Even if they want to do something to understand and reach out Hindus, their ‘commitment’ to the church (membership) will never allow them to do.

‘We don’t know much about Hinduism and contextualization. To learn about them, we want to ask question to you’, could be the genuine response from people like you. But I think that I have written enough to address all these questions in my two books (Living Water and Indian Bowl [LW] & Understanding Hinduism [UH]). For example, to address your question about the ‘ritual purity by Hindus’ I have mentioned about apad-dharma and Hindus seeing the palm after getting from the bed, already in UH. But not reading these book seriously (just browsing) if Christians ask the same old questions I say to them, ‘sorry I have not time for you’. Above all in this Internet world, you type any question on Hinduism and do the search, you will get hundreds of answers.

To your question about ‘fellowship’ I have dealt in LW. I also wrote on Tamil poem about this which one can found in my blog. So I spent enough time to address our issues to the Christians in the past. But after seeing that no tangible result, I have decided not to invest my time with them again. Nothing personal. I have much pending work to catch and new works are always coming—as many Hindu bhaktas are asking serious questions related to our bhakti to live out in our context. I need to write to them.

So my humble request to you and other Christians is PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. If you cannot learn from your church and teachers, you are not going to learn it from us too. Because already they know that something is wrong with their approach to the Hindus. They know where they went wrong. But in order to address their guilty conscience sometime they will call me to listen then say, ‘he is wrong’. I have enough ‘ENTERTAINED to quench the evangelical urge of several Christians’. But hardly had they had change or going to change. AS LONG AS YOU ARE GOING TO REMAIN A CHRISTIANS YOU WILL NEVER LEARN OR UNDERSTAND US. Kabadi evangelism also won’t help much. The issues that we are facing and struggling is our issue which a Christian cannot understand. And we don’t have much time to address our own need. That is why I request Christians to spare us/me to serve them again and again—addressing rhetorical questions and giving the same kind of answer. One example is suffice here. If I remember correctly, I think you wrote one mail in the past after reading my article ‘Why Only Muktinath’ in the blog. There I pointed about the wrong interpretation of Muktivedic verses (Jn. 14:6 & Acts. 4:12) for the exclusive exclaims that the Lord is the only way to salvation. So you already know about my view on this subject. But again you are asking the same question here.

So what I can say about it. I think all such questions asked by the Christians are not to know about contextualization or about Hinduism. It is their ‘Christian concerns’. They don’t want to give up their safety and security in their organized religion, denominational church and sociological community. And in raising all such questions they express their worry about those issues which threaten their security and identity. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not blaming them. They have every right to have their own identity and security. I am not questioning them or challenging. Even I plead for their right. It is their birth right and no ‘convert’ has any right to demand them to adjust for her/him to survive among them. But all my request is, as you have your concerns and worries, we too have our own. When we have enough work to address all our issues, why you expect us to address your concerns and worries?

I hope you are not offended by my response. As an individual I love you and respect you. But your ‘CHRISTIAN approach’ to our issue won’t help you to find the answers which you are seeking (or expecting) from us to solve your evangelical problem.

We moved and try to move to a completely new scenario. Christians are perplexed, annoyed and very much concerned about this and also about us. But my request to them is—LEAVE US ALONE. With the help of God, we will resolve our issues as a Hindu Muktinath mandali. If you are really concerned, then come and join us as a Hindu bhakta and wrestle with us, accepting all the challenges. Or continue to do what you think is correct to reach out Hindus. We are not going to come and stop you or question you. But don’t seek answers to your CHRISTAN problem to understand us.

If still my words hurt, my sincere apology to you.

28-4-15

The following response was not sent to Jay. See the mail above.

I have so much pending work for which I do not have time. So I request you to ask these genuine questions someone in your church or group, who can give the answers to you.

28-4-15

your mention about Mukthinath as Guru ( spiritual teacher ) and Aacharya ( teacher/leader ) is understandably very contextual, however the emphasis of Mukthiveda for Mukthinath is about the Mukthigiver and him being the only way and truth and life. Is that verse contextual of Jews alone and not of the world? why do we have a subdued emphasis of that in Hindu culture.

–ask your church leader what this entire section in 1 Cor. means. I don’t need to explain that to you. If you have time read: Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic

You mentioned about ” God will use me according to my Gifts ” The passage in I Corinthians about gifts is certainly not contextual but doctrinal. He says Gifts are given to benefit the body of Christ. Body of christ = Church ( actual meaning , not building ) , ecclesia ( assembly ) or the gathering of the Bhakthas in a building.

The write of Hebrews puts the emphasis on Gathering -Hebrews 10:23 – Let us hold fast eh confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful , 24, let us consider how to stimulate one another in love and good works, 25, not forsaking out own assembling together..

Thanks Jay for your kind response. I am willing to response to genuine questions and concerns, but for rhetorical questions, I don’t have time.

30-4-15

@@@

Dear Swamiji:

We’ll pray for your good meeting with the embassy tomorrow in Delhi.

I wanted to give another bit of encouragement to you.

You may remember Mike at the Gruhashantipuja, who was videoing with his camcorder. In the past, he had also brought a professional camera and a cameraman to some previous functions. He’s actually a professional filmmaker.

Mike had asked a somewhat secular young Hindu woman, probably in her lat 30’s who had lived abroad and was assisting him, to do a little “cosmetic” editing to what he recorded at our place. Mike told me that she did very little actual editing on it, but watched it over and over and remarked something to the effect of, “Now here’s a swamiji that actually is making some sense.”

I shared with Mike that I think a lot of good could come out of producing a short series of devotional programs for TV with you teaching on some relevant topics. The program could also provide a platform for your most recent book as a follow-up. It also might include some nice bhajans produced as music videos, and also possibly some traditional interpretive dance either as part of the music videos or as separate segments. Mike really liked the idea.

I’m not in a position yet to formally propose that we do this, but I’m again encouraged that it could be very much appreciated by many people, here and abroad.

So, just a thought I’d like to consider that I hope makes your smile a little brighter.

Do let me know next time you’re back in Bangalore. I’d like to talk with you about a good friend of mine who very much wants to meet with you in Colorado.

Shanti,

Jim

Dear Ava and Jim,

Shanti!

Thanks for your encouraging words. To confess one fact, which most won’t believe is that I am bit shy for any public appearance—though several times I have overconfident and high self esteem about myself. At the same time I am willing to serve the Lord in any form which will help other bhaktas of the Lord and bring glory and honour to His name. So how about producing short series of devotional programs for our personal use and not for public broadcasting? Because as I not a Sanskrit scholar, I have several doubts regarding the meaning and grammar as well the correct pronouncing of some slokas and mantras. Next is my language problem. Apart from Tamil, I cannot speak correctly in any other language. I can manage, but it is too much for me to speak for public program. So keeping all these limitations in mind, I am willing to produce some ‘Life Cycle events’ and short devotional series for our private use, which we can use for our ministry. Welcome your opinion.

Can I have a copy of the CD of your Gruhashanti puja? Thanks.

dayanand

@@@

Half full or half empty?

‘Syncretism’ and ‘Compromise’ are the two weapons that are often used against the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord. According to those, who attack them using that weapons they failed to live a ‘textualized and idealised version ‘of their Christianity. According to them the life of a Hindu bhakta always remains ‘half empty’, though, they acknowledge that somehow the Hindu bhakta though began with ‘spirit’ ended in ‘flesh’.

Particularly I use the case study of ‘Naaman’ to encourage those Hindu bhaktas who were forced to stoop down when they have to live with their birth families instead of leaving it and joining ‘Christian community. One time at Rewa (in M.P. India, back in 1993) when I told the Hindu bhaktas that God knows our situation better than others (Christians). So never allow them to create any guilty conscious in them by saying that they are ‘compromising’ their bhakti and live a life of ‘syncretism’. When they conveyed this message to their Christian well wisher, her response was, ‘those who wants to stand with the kings to keep their materialistic status and position has to stoop down before other deities. But we who want to stand for the Lord will give up such materialistic status and position and ready to take up the Cross and follow him’. And my response to her, through the Hindu bhaktas (I never met her personally) is that ‘she sees only a half empty glass’ and pointed out all the inconsistencies of carrying the cross of the Lord for the sake of taking a stand for the Lord in their personal and church life.

Well, one mistake cannot justify another one. However, I found not only very encouraging but very important exposition on the story of Naaman from N. T. Wright which is worth reading as it is. Though I have already shared about the Naaman story from different perspective quoting from Kenneth Bailey [Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Illinois, IVP Academic, 2008, p. 164. Also see my article ‘Faith and Festivals’ in the blog], what Wright says helps us to understand how to approach this story. However he also has a message to the Christians who see only an half empty glass in the life of a bhakta:

…Once again, I think Naaman’s glass is half full, not half empty. If Daniel had shrunk back and worshipped the King of Babylon, his would have been half empty….— N T Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. (England, SPCK, 1994) New Delhi, ISPCK, Indian edition 2015, Ch 10 The Mind Renewed, p. 66

Before sharing verbatim from Write, it is worth noting what this word ‘syncretism’¹ actually stands for. About this Hatcher says:

While there is something attractive about granting to syncretism the widest possible descriptive applicability, it might almost be argued that in doing so we rob the concept of its meaning. After all, if it is used to describe the process of encounter and synthesis through which all religions grow and change, then to speak of religious syncretism is something of a tautology.4 One is pleased to find that the author of the entry on “Syncretism” in The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion arrives at a similar verdict, concluding, “In view of the fact that no historically known religion has begun in a vacuum but has instead readily drawn on valuable aspects of existent traditions in which its members found meaning, one must conclude that the term at this time has little taxonomic value (Smith, Jonathan Z., ed. The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. 1995: 1043).—Brian A. Hatcher, Eclecticism and Modern Hindu Discourse, New York. Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 7

To return back to Wright:

…Some people think when they become Christians that they are now perfect; that it’s possible to live a pure spiritual life, uncomplicated by the old realities. But that’s not straight thinking: it’s just a new version of crooked thinking. Rather, when (p. 67) someone comes to embrace the love of God in Jesus, or rather to be embraced by that love, they must begin to see that they are regularly and habitually bowing down in the house of Rimmon at several points in their everyday life.

…It’s no good trying to pretend we aren’t compromised; we are. Nor is it any good imagining that we can cut the knot of those compromises all at once. We have to think straight about what we’re doing, and own up to the compromises, which at the moment we can’t seem to avoid….

The good news is that he does. Did Elisha say to Naaman: ‘You’re a half-hearted compromiser, you want your bread buttered on both sides at once, you’re talking out of both corners of your mouth’? No. He said, ‘God in peace.’ That is the word of God to those who are starting to bring their thinking about God and the world into the straight line that flows from the revelation of the saving love of God in Christ. It is the word of God to those who are starting to follow Jesus, and want to do so more and more. It is the word of God to those whose glass is half full.

That is why we say, as part of the regular Lord’s Prayer, ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ If Jesus had expected us never to compromise again, he wouldn’t have put that clause into the prayer. The key thing is, to recognize again and again that we need to pray it, and to pray it from the heart – and to go on working out how to eliminate those compromises bit by bit from our lives….Our minds are to be renewed; we can’t be content with the old patterns any more. We may still have to live with the old (p.68) world, but woe betide us if we are at ease in it, because it is still fatally possible that the glass might be half empty instead of half full. –Wright, op. Cit. pp. 67-69

Of all the religions in the world, considering its history, Christianity (from its origin in Judaism) is the most syncretistic faith, if we take the standard meaning given by the Christians who criticise Hindu bhaktas of the Lord. The way various religious words, symbols and rituals borrowed from wide variety of religions which it encountered throughout the history proves this. As several scholarly studies are available on this I need not repeat them here.

However to have more understanding about this term ‘Syncretism’ I am, as usual quoting from other sources in notes.

Dayanand Bharati

15-03-2019

Notes

1.. …Although “syncretism” in modern English usage refers to the merging of religions or philosophies that are properly separate, the original Greek term synkretismos used by Plutarch meant something different. It referred to a custom of people on the isle of Crete to overcome local feuds and to form a sacred alliance in order to withstand foreign aggression {Jan Assmann, “Translating Gods.” In The Translatability of Cultures, edited by Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, 25-36. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 1996. 34}….— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 190

‘Syncretism’ as a technical term is always arbitrary. In theology and comparative religions it has often been used as a classificatory term for a variety of phenomena. It is used with either negative, neutral, or sometimes (p.90) positive connotation for phenomena otherwise called mixing, assimilation, inculturation, integration, inclusivism, or synthesis. Any meeting of cultures or religions different from each other sets free a dynamic process of assimilation and reassertion of identity. Conversion or explicit assurance of one’s religious identity is embedded into this process; they are aspects of it, but they do not govern and rarely dominate it. Similarly, religious pluralism of any degree sets free processes of syncretism and anti-syncretism as well…— Heinz Werner Wessler, Idolatry, Syncretism, and Anti-syncretism in Hindu Reform Movements of the Nineteenth Century, pp. 76-97, in Gwilym Bece, (ed.) Colonialism Modernity and Religious Identities: Religious Reforms Movements in South Asia, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 90-91

Detecting syncretism in the South Asian context of intellectual theology cannot mean simply an application of a classificatory scheme that was developed in another context, namely the ancient near east and in relation to the historic epoch of Hellenism. South Asian syncretism, if it exists, cannot be without repercussions on the theoretical model itself. The term syncretism, which was often used to categorize developments in the history of Hinduism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, may ultimately turn out to be misleading….—ibid. Heinz Werner Wessler, Idolatry, Syncretism, and Anti-syncretism in Hindu Reform Movements of the Nineteenth Century, pp. 76-97, in p. 91

…it is already difficult to translate the term ‘syncretism’ into an Indian language,³² and equally difficult to explain the Western conceptualization in Hindi, Gujarati, or Bengali, avoiding superficial communalist misunderstandings.—ibid. Heinz Werner Wessler, Idolatry, Syncretism, and Anti-syncretism in Hindu Reform Movements of the Nineteenth Century, pp. 76-97, in p. 92

32 Syncretism is difficult to translate into a Sanskrit neologism. My informants with Hindi-speaking background suggest dharmamishran or panthmishran, both far from being easily intelligible. Raghu Veer’s famous dictionary (Raghu Vira, A Comprehensive English-Hindi Dictionary of Governmental and Educational Words and Phrase, New Delhi, 1960, 2^nd ed. 1960) of technical terms does not contain ‘syncretism’, neither do the common dictionaries from European language into Hindi.—p. 95

@@@

Hari bol!

I thank you, Chakravarthy, very much for your effort. However I have to thank your anonymous sannyasi-friend even more. His letter was very deep and gave me a whole new perspective of God-consiousness. His mercy is very sweet and the nectar of his letter was just as sweet as the lotusfeet of the vaisnavas.

I apologize you both for having showed such lack of respect and understanding of Jesus in my first letter. Now I see Jesus as a very important figure to receive Krsna’s mercy. Altough not the only one, a very, very important one. If a vaisnava hasn’t heard of the beauty of Jesus he has wasted his ears.

God bless you.

Dear Sharala and Gladwin, March 4, 2001.

This is my response to Ms Immonen’s e-mail to you. First you both read and in case of any confusion and contradiction first ask me. Sharala can edit and correct the grammar mistakes. Please do not mention my name or give my e-mail address to her. Simply say like this: As I don’t have much knowledge about Hinduism and Hindu Scriptures, I have requested one Swamiji in India, who is a bhakta of Yesu (but not a Christian in ‘dogmatic’ sense). If you want any clarification on the answer which he gave, please again write to me. Note that as Swamiji travels a lot, it may take some time to give response to any of your questions.’

Rick thinks he can escape from such persecution by an American girl. As I am sending this entire writing, he has to read and give his comments and any changes, if necessary. Otherwise we will send him as the Bible teacher to Hare Rama Hare Krishna Movement.

Dayanand.

The photo identity Card problem drags. Now they say that the dates may be any time between 8^th to 12^th. So my Bangalore visit depends upon the Photo Identity Card.

Dear Swamiji,
Hope this finds you well.
We are looking forward to seeing you when you come next. Here is a letter responding to Gladwin’s website, that he thought you might like to see. He is at a loss as to how to answer this girl.
–Sharla
From: Liisa Immonen <liisa.immonen@kolumbus.fi>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:42 AM
Subject: Hari bol!

Sri Sri Guru Yesu Jayatah!

(please ignore my terrible English, hopefully you don’t misunderstand any part of my letter.)

I found the basic idea of your site interesting. I myself am a representator of God and God only, but seemingly I have been a Krsna-bhakta for 5 years of the 15 years I’ve lived within this body. I have been deeply on the subject of Sri Yesu, his teachings and the similarity they share with Veda. First of all I ended up rejecting the Old Testament, which I found quite rotten and contrary to the God I love. The Bhagavat Purana teaches how Avatars, sad-Gurus and other merciful incarnations teach according to time, place and circumstances. Therefore one should not lower himself to the primitive level of fanatical fundamentalism which many christians have adapted (of which they can’t be blamed though, as their Bible alone does not always satisfy one’s hunger for answers) when it comes to metaphors Yesu used. For example ‘Satan’. I find Satan quite identical with maya, though some people for some reason believe that this ‘Satan’ is personal in itself. We, who are on top of materialistic speculations like this, know however that ‘Satan’ is only one of God’s external energies and posesses no personality if separated from it’s source.
I do not see Christ as a very important figure when it comes to finding God.

“I am the light of the world; you that follow me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life ….
I am the resurrection and the life; you that believes in me though you be dead, yet shall you live; and whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die”

Very beautiful. These words however could have been said by any pure sad-Guru. The Vedas say, that the eight mystical perfections form only a small part of the might of the pure bhakta, not to mention the ten secondary mystical perfections such as tri-kala jnatvam: knowing the three stages of time, past, present and future perfectly, and dura-sravana-darsanam: the power to see and hear things happening in very distant place (even other lokas).

Our beloved om visnupad Srila Babaji Tirtha Puri Maharaja said in a class: “The Veda-mantras say: yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. When a bhakta sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his meditation, or when he sees the Lord personally face to face, he becomes aware of everything in this universe. Truly, nothing is unknown to him. Everything in this material world becomes fully known to a bhakta has seen the Lord. Equally, when we come face to face with a pure bhakta who has seen Krsna, it is equal to seeing Krsna himself face to face, because the sad-Guru is a direct, fully authorized representative of Krsna. Therefore, following a pure bhakta means following God himself.

The Guru is not God, but yet he is God…”

It is important to acknowledge Yesu was the only sad-Guru in Israel at the time! Of course he said such a thing. But I myself do not believe He ment that people should follow the fictious teachings of an alleged follower of Him such as Apostol Paul and on the light of what Paul said, neglect what Jesus said (I am referring to modern Christianity, you understand). Neither do I think Yesu expected people to follow dogmatically and blindly his very simplistic and partial teachings 2000 years after His departure. He probably knew that this is Kali-Yuga, and everything distorts. His teachings have distorted. He teached for example selibacy, pro-spiritual/anti-materialmindedness, many things that resemble the ideal of the sannyasi. Yesu was a sannyasi.

I have so many things to say, but please answer my letter, for I have interest in these topics. And please ignore my inability to express my opinions in perfect English, and my young age.

SING ALOUD!
HARI HARI! MUKUNDA MURARI!
HARE KRSNA HARE RAMA!!!!

Response

The question which this young lady has raised can be approached on two level: (1) in an academic, historical-theological context and (2) based on Faith (which may include our own blind faith refusing to see the historical and textual contexts of the respective Scripture) based on mere tradition (which can give any kind of interpretation according to one’s convenience).

Having said this let see some answers to the points which she has raised:

I myself am a representator of God and God only

–Though I highly respect her experience as the ‘representator’ of God and God only, yet a true bhakta can only say that she/he can never represent God. Of course one can quote various scriptures and giving their own interpretation to prove their position either as ‘the representator’ of God, a humble devotee recognizing her/his limitation, yet thanking God for the privilege to be His/Her bhakta. I leave it to the conscience and personal experience of the individual.

‘I have been deeply on the subject of Sri Yesu, his teachings and the similarity they share with Veda.’

–Though one can find any kind of similarity between the ethical and spiritual teaching of any great Gurus and Achariyas, yet ignoring their historical and textual context will only give a superficial ‘similarity’ forgetting the basic (theological) differences among them. It will take several pages to point out the differences between the ‘Historical’ ‘Theological’ and ‘Traditional’ contexts between the Teaching of Yesu and Veda. However to say in an oversimplified way, while there is some kind of continuty in the teaching of Jesus found in the New Testament and its relation with Old Testament, regarding the teaching of Veda is always a ‘generalization’. Because what the Samhita (hymn) portion of the Veda says differs from that of Brahmana (the ritual portion as we can say). And the Upanishads which forms the end of the Veda (known as Vedanta) gives different kind of teaching. Of course those who want to maintain an orthodox view of the entire Scirpture of the Veda can find a non-contradictory single and unifying teaching in the Veda, yet any sincere student of the (Hindu) Vedas has to agree that there is no uniform, systematic teaching in the entire Veda which can be compared or contrasted with the Scripture of other Faith. Because in the Vedic literature itself one can find ‘Other Faiths’ as Hinduism is a Parliament of Religion amalgamating various (conflicting) faiths under one umbrella.

‘First of all I ended up rejecting the Old Testament, which I found quite rotten and contrary to the God I love.’

–Anyone who forget to understand the Historical Context of Old Testament will only come to such a conclusion. It is true that Old Testament standing in its own context as the Book of the Jews is not giving the correct picture of a God whom we expect as loving one. Here too we have to understand that even in the Old Testament, all its teaching about God is, in its given Historical context is Universal and He is not showing any favouritism to Israel at the cost of His role as the God of the Universe. A secular Jew can even say that God’s love and care for the non-Jews are much more greater than His love and concern towards them. As he selected them to reveal His Universal Plan, He naturally expected more responsibility from His Chosen people. When they failed, instead of showing any special favouritism, He punished them more severely. God’s dealing with the Gentiles (Non-Jews) is more gentle than with the Jews.

Regarding the Old Testament we must remember that it gives a one way window to the religious and faith of one particular people. Naturally everything recorded in the Old Testament is ‘Of the Jews, for the Jews and by the Jews.’ So in order to understand the teachings of the Old Testament we have to see it through the New Testament, which gives the correct interpretation and final fulfillment to it. I would rather recommend a book by Christopher JH Wright: ‘Living as the People of God’, to understand the main teachings of the Old Testament. However, one who has deep understanding of the teaching of both Old Testament and New Testament can say that God in the Old Testament is more gentle and kind than in the New Testament. For example it is very easy to observe the Ten Commandments and claim to be righteous before God and men. But it is very difficult to live as per the Sermon On the Mount. God’s expectation on the basis of New Testament is very difficult to keep both on moral/spiritual and social context than that of Old Testament.

‘The Bhagavat Purana teaches how Avatars, sad-Gurus and other merciful incarnations teach according to time, place and circumstances.’

–Here I beg the pardon of this lady, as some of my words may hurt her feelings. But as a sincere student of Scripture, I have to tell the truth, however bitter it may be. Any teaching which is limited by the ‘time, place and circumstances’ cannot be an universal teaching which anybody can follow irrespective of the ‘time, place and circumstance’. That is why I found the Teachings of Yesu is universal.

Though a digression I would like to point out how the teaching of Jesus is Universal for me. In Christ anybody can find His Salvation and Spiritual life and it is not reserved or prohibited for a particular class or caste or community by birth or profession. In Sri Sankara’s teaching, (forget the untouchables) except a Brahmin, that too who can become a Sannyasi, mukti is not possible.¹ Even , ‘…According to the Bhagavata-purana I.4.25 the purpose of the composition of the Mahabharata was this that as the Veda cannot be learnt by women, sudras and brahmanas who are so only by birth [and do not study] the sage Vyasa took compassion on them and composed the Mahabharata for their benefit. The same must be deemed to be the purpose of the composition of the puranas…(Kane, Vol. III, Ch.XXXIII. Customs and Dharmasastra Works. p. 872). Even to day I know (which don’t want to mention here) that at least few strict Monastic Order Acharyas never accept any Westerners as Hindus and still consider them as melachas (ceremonially impure ones). Even in several Hindu Temple one can find the board outside the main sanctury that ‘Non-Hindus’ are not permitted inside. But Jesus never excluded any one. His call is for every one, ‘All who are tired and heavily burdened…….’, are welcomed to His presence.

I am not sure whether this young lady herself read the entire Bhagavat Purana or not. Even if she has read it, which translation and which interpretation also decides her understanding of this great Vaishnavite Purana. In order to understand the teaching of the Bhagavat Purana, any sincere student of the Scripture should read other related Puranas, at least belong to that particular sampradaya (sect, here Vaishnavism). Each Puran has its own limited context of sectarian affiliation. So Bhagavat Puran never teaches that all the avatars and sad-gurus are ‘merciful incarnations’. In order to uphold the Supremacy of Vishu or Krshna it reviles the teachers and even gods of other sects. This is an universal nature of every sectarian scriptures in Hinduism. Let us take the great Sad-guru of Buddha. The following points taken verbatim from O’Flaherty (The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, University of California Press, Berkeley. Paperback Edition, (1976) 1980) will show my point clearly:

The Buddha avatar may represent an attempt by orthodox Brahminism to slander the Buddhists by identifying them with the demons: “We may have in this conflict of the orthodox divinities and heretical Daityas some covert a allusion to political troubles, growing out of religious difference, and the final predominance of Brahmianism” [Wilson, Horace Hayman, The Vishnu Purana, 3^rd ed. London, 1840, p.272].. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the Buddha incarnation, accomplishing the delusion is supported by the fact that the Buddha incarnation, accomplishing the delusion of the demons, is said in many texts to be followed by the avatar of Kalkin, exterminating the heretics and barbarians of the Kali Age; these myths presuppose a political situation in the pre-Gupta period (precisely when the myth of the Buddha avatar first appears), when orthodox Brahmins were fighting a desperate battle on two fronts, against foreign invaders and a thriving Buddhist community at home.—p.200

…And so the Bhaagavata Puraana and other texts simply assert that Vishnu will be born as Buddha at the beginning of the Kali Age; the mantle of incarnation passes directly from Krishna to the Buddha

The Vishnu Puraana, the first text to describe the Buddha avatar…. [Vishnu Purana,With the comm. Of Sridhara. Ed. Sitaramadasonkaranatha. Calcutta, 1972, 4.24.98]. Vishnu as Buddha creates the barbarians and heretics whom he earlier (in terms of actual cult development) destroyed as Kalkin. Or, from the viewpoint of the texts, Vishnu first becomes the Buddha to destroy the demons and make them into heretics and then becomes Kalkin to destroy both heretics and barbarians. These two avatars appear together in most Puraanas, where their tasks are explicitly related and even confused. Vishnu became the Buddha and created Buddhists and other heretics; at the end of the Kali Age, Kalkin will suppress the barbarians and establish dharma; he will return to heaven, and the Golden Age will begin [Agni Puraana, ASS (Aanandaasrama Sanskrit Series) no. 41, Poona, 1957,16.5-10]…–p. 201

I have included several scholarly quotes about the Nature of the Puranas in general in the Appendix I so that one can come to her/his own conclusion about the teachings of Purana before forming any personal conviction about spiritual life.

5. Therefore one should not lower himself to the primitive level of fanatical fundamentalism which many Christians have adapted (of which they can’t be blamed though, as their Bible alone does not always satisfy one’s hunger for answers) when it comes to metaphors Yesu used. For example ‘Satan’. I find Satan quite identical with maya, though some people for some reason believe that this ‘Satan’ is personal in itself. We, who are on top of materialistic speculations like this, know however that ‘Satan’ is only one of God’s external energies and posesses no personality if separated from it’s source.

–‘Primitive level of fundamentalism’ is an integral part of every religion. Neither Christianity as a Religion nor Hinduism as a Religion (where as both are not Religion but Way of life, which is forgotten basically) are (no need to mention about Islam) exempted from this general rule. Each sectarian faith, particularly in reviling the faith of other Sampradaya (sects) in Hinduism is equally or more ‘fanatical fundamentalism’. As living in America and following a particular Sampradaya (sect) that to propagated and interpreted by the exported Swamijis, this young lady’s understanding about the sectarian fight and fanatical fundamentalism ought to be limited. So here I leave it as it is and if she particularly wants to know about this ‘fanatical fundamentalism’ of sectarian faiths in Hinduism, I can give reference in future.

Regarding identifying ‘Satan’ with ‘maya’ depends upon one’s own understanding and interpretation of ‘maya’ itself. The word ‘maya’ has differently understood and interpreted in various sects of Hinduism. What is maya for an Advaitin (particularly in Sankara’s school) is different for a Vaishnavites. However in most of the sects ‘maya’ is not only an external energy but also a ‘Person’ in her/itself as this ‘external energy’ of the god is often personified as the consort of that particular deity. For example ‘Sakti’ the wife of Siva is also called ‘maya’ in that (their) sect(s). No professing Hindu thinks that this ‘Sakti’ of Siva is only an external energy but also a Person, even a Superior deity to that of Siva. Like wise Sri (Lakshmi) is the energy of Vishnu, who is also ‘a person’ and not mere external energy. Above all if ‘maya’ is the external energy of a God, who is a Person, then He alone holds responsible for the consequences of all that this ‘maya’ has created—either it is Satan or deceptive power or magic trick or God’s way to delude people for the sake of his play of pleasure (which is called Liila). Though I too agree that this subject ‘maya’ and ‘Satan’ is a complicated one, it is equally too simple to say what Bible and Hindu (Sectarian) Scriptures talk about maya. And to give any one particular definition and holding on it depends upon one’s own personal understanding and interpretation and need not be the universal concept or theology. See Appendix II on maya.

‘Bible alone does not always satisfy one’s hunger for answers…’

–No Scripture itself is an end in giving satisfaction for one’s hunger for answers. And if one particular scripture gives a definite answer for any hunger for intellectual or spiritual, then it is dead one. The beauty with the Biblical teachings is that it allows for ‘growth’ and ‘expansion’ as it is not limited to the circumstance and time. Those Scriptures which gives the spiritual teachings in the form of some external laws, then it can give satisfactory answers. Because once you observed the prescribed Law you have fulfilled the demand of the Scripture and satisfied. This gives no space for growth and expansion. Where as bible gives spiritual Principles and its demands growth which is a continuos process. This is theologically called ‘sanctification’. There is no end in spiritual growth and when one feels that she/he has reached the peak, another stands very near her/him to be achieved. The moment one feels satisfied in her/his spiritual hunger, that is the end of her/his spiritual life itself.

‘I do not see Christ as a very important figure when it comes to finding God.’

–This I leave to her personal conviction and experience. I searched for a sad-guru who will show me the path that will lead me to find God and true spiritual life. And after long search I found that in Jesus Christ. This doesn’t mean that I became a ‘Christian’. I am still a Hindu and will remain one till the end as Hinduism is not a Religion but a dharma which gives freedom for everyone to find out that sadhana (spiritual discipline) which will suit for her/him to find the way for God. Above all according to the Bible, it is God who reaches us and not we for the God. As Yesu Himself said, ‘It is not you but I who found (chosen) you.’ (Jn. 15:16). The same bible endorses that Salvation is by Grace of God through our faith (Eph. 2:8-9). The only Karma which a bhakta can do in receiving that Grace is to patiently wait for the Grace of God to reach her/him. This I have done after my search for a True Guru to show me the Correct Way, Real Truth and Meaningful Life. And when I patiently waited for the Grace of God to reach me (without any effort on my part to find God through Christ), He revealed it to me. So for me Yesu is not only the important figure but also the only important figure to find God. This is my conviction with which others may not agree. So we have to respect others conviction, however we disagree with each other.

“I am the light of the world; you that follow me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life ….
I am the resurrection and the life; you that believes in me though you be dead, yet shall you live; and whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die”

Very beautiful. These words however could have been said by any pure sad-Guru. The Vedas say, that the eight mystical perfections form only a small part of the might of the pure bhakta, not to mention the ten secondary mystical perfections such as tri-kala jnatvam: knowing the three stages of time, past, present and future perfectly, and dura-sravana-darsanam: the power to see and hear things happening in very distant place (even other lokas).

–Sorry if again offend this young lady. This is the problem with most of the lay people, who simply accept the interpretation of others, particularly that of their presepter. She simply says ‘The Vedas say’. But I would like to know which part of the Veda says about this ‘eight mystical perfections….(even other lokas). Because any concept or verses from any part of any Scripture has its own context. It is mere generalization to claim that ‘This is what Veda says.’ Those who take the authority of their respective Religious Scripture seriously cannot make any superficial generalization. So I can give my answer to this point only when she is able to give the reference of the Veda from where she is quoting this concept of ‘mystical perfection’.

‘Our beloved om visnupad Srila Babaji Tirtha Puri Maharaja said in a class: “The Veda-mantras say: yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. When a bhakta sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his meditation, or when he sees the Lord personally face to face, he becomes aware of everything in this universe. Truly, nothing is unknown to him. Everything in this material world becomes fully known to a bhakta has seen the Lord. Equally, when we come face to face with a pure bhakta who has seen Krsna, it is equal to seeing Krsna himself face to face, because the sad-Guru is a direct, fully authorized representative of Krsna. Therefore, following a pure bhakta means following God himself.’

–The same is the problem as I have mentioned above. Though I highly respect Puri Maharaj, this Veda mantra, ‘Yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati’, never talks about seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead in one’s meditation. If it is from any Upanishad, then most probably the context would be about ‘Knowledge’ (Jyana). Without knowing the context and reference this verse can be translated based on the language as: Whomever (Yasmin) Knows (vijnate) Everything become known to her/him (Sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati). Most probably the context might me about the Ultimate knowledge about one’s own Atman. Having said this what all this young lady says about seeing face to face God/Krishna in meditation etc. again is her personal conviction. But my only request to her is before quoting or giving any interpretation of any Scriptural reference (here the Vedic mantra), if she is sincere and honest in finding the true spirituality, she should take all the effort and pain to understand the Scriptural reference in the given context, and not simply accept any kind of interpretation (or translation) given by any one, however Great that person may be.

‘The Guru is not God, but yet he is God…’

–I am not sure whether this is from your web sight quote or her own words. However as no one can see God or understand spirituality without a Sad-guru, He Himself become one’s God as He removes the darkness within and gives the spiritual light. Both the Bible and so many (Sectarian) Hindu Scriptures say that ‘no one can see God; no one has ever seen God’. So sad-guru is the one who shows the way to God. For me, as I found that sad-guru in Yesu, now He Himself become that God whom I want to know.

It is important to acknowledge Yesu was the only sad-Guru in Israel at the time!Of course he said such a thing. But I myself do not believe He ment that people should follow the fictious teachings of an alleged follower of Him such as Apostol Paul and on the light of what Paul said, neglect what Jesus said (I am referring to modern Christianity, you understand). Neither do I think Yesu expected people to follow dogmatically and blindly his very simplistic and partial teachings 2000 years after His departure.He probably knew that this is Kali-Yuga, and everything distorts. His teachings have distorted. He teached for example selibacy, pro-spiritual/anti-materialmindedness, many things
that resemble the ideal of the sannyasi. Yesu was a sannyasi.

–Again to believe and follow the teachings of Jesus depends upon the Grace that one receives from Him to understand Him and accept His teaching. Regarding the ‘fictious teaching of Paul’, if one closely reads all his writings, one need not suffer this much either to propagate or to follow Yesu. If Paul’s life and teaching is ‘fictious’ how much more we have to say about all the ‘Puranas’ in India. This I say not to hurt her. I sympathetically understands her struggle with the docmatic Christianity (what I call as Churchianity, which I never follow).

Neither Jesus nor any Greater Teacher expects any one to follow their teaching in a ‘dogmatic’ way. This is the problem with every Guru. What He taught and transmitted was gradually become some kind of ‘dogmatic’ formulas, mostly done by the followers of that Guru, who created some ‘Religion’ out of the teaching of that Guru. Neither Jesus nor His disciples ever gave any ‘doctrinal formula’ for us to confess or follow. However we must acknowledge one fact that, in our understanding and interpreting the teaching of the Guru, we cannot avoid neither theology nor doctrines. Theology is the technical term used for the inner experience with God and doctrine is the outward verbal expression of that experience in Human terms. This doesn’t mean that we can limit that experience to any particular theology and doctrine, however relevant and useful they may be.

Regarding the concept of Kali-yuga I will explain below. However it is not because of Kali-yuga that Jesus’ teachings are distorted, but because of one’s own prejudice and limited understanding. For example what this young lady says about the teaching about ‘celibacy’, ‘pro-spiritual’ are one sided understanding of Jesus’ teaching. John, the disciple of Jesus says that all that is done and said by Jesus are not recorded (Jn. 21:25). His immediately disciples recorded what they felt as useful and understood that they have recorded in the Gospels. It is true that Jesus’ teachings are ‘pro-spiritual’ and ‘anti—materialmindedness’, but this doesn’t mean He taught everything as a ‘Sanyasi’. Of course He is a Sannyasi, if we want to understand His life in Indian term. But if one takes the efforts to understand the teaching of Jesus one can see the ‘wholistic’ approach for the entire life of men kind.

Kali-yuga and my conclusion:

The four so called yugas’ are not actually some kind of strict historical periods but only ‘concepts’. Scholars like P.V. Kane make it very clear that it is only a mind set up:

The theory of yugas, manvantaras and kalpas with their fabulous numbers of years and harrowing descriptions of pralaya, appears unreal, bizarre and called up by sheer fancy. But underlying it there is the idea of timelessness of the universe, though from time to time it evolves, gradually declines and perishes, only to reappear in perfection after a cosmic night. There is also the hankering after Reality and pursuit of different ideals. It enshrines the ideas that humanity embarks on a certain goal, pursues it with great efforts and, after achieving some success, gives up that goal and the way that was thought to lead to it and pursues some other goal for aeons in the hope that at some distant date it will be able to evolve and (p.695) construct a perfect society….—Kane, vol. V, Part I, pp. 695-96

And regarding this concept of Yuga see the Notes given below in Appendix III.

Now take it for granted that we are living in the so called Kali-Yuga in which every thing that is good and noble is distorted. If the teachings of Jesus is distorted because of Kali-yuga and is irrelevant, how much more the teaching of other Great Figures in Hinduism like Krishna and Rama. Forget Rama, who came in Tretaa Yuga, what about Krishna who came in Dvaapara yuga? If ‘Yesu was the only sad-Guru in Israel at the time!’, then Krishna for Dvaapara and Rama for Tretaa and not for this Kali yuga. And again if neither ‘Yesu expected people to follow dogmatically and blindly his very simplistic and partial teachings 2000 years after His departure,’ how can we believe that the Krishna too will expect us to follow His teaching which He gave in Dvaapara Yuga. Kane says, ‘…there were several views about the date of the beginning of the Kaliyuga. The exact starting point on the above computation was Friday, 18th February 3102 B.C…’ (Vol III, Ch. XXXIV. Kalivarjya, p. 896). So if Jesus’ teaching before 2000 years is irrelevant how much more any teaching in other Yugas which mythologically existed before 3102 BC?

One more point, according to the words of this young lady, ‘The Bhagavat Purana teaches how Avatars, sad-Gurus and other merciful incarnations teach according to time, place and circumstances.’ [Again reference is not given about this teaching in Bhagavat Purana]. If she takes the words of Bhagavat Purana as authentic and seriously, then she has to confess that except Kalkin avatara which is suppose to come all other avataras of any God in Hinduism is irrelevant in this Kali-Yuga? And according to Hindu mythologies, at the end of Dvaapara Yuga everything in this universe (or world) is destroyed by flood and nothing escaped from destruction. Forget about Rama’s birth place at Ayodhya, how about Dvaraka and Mathura? How all the teachings and writings that existed before the pralaya came to us? To quote Kane again:

…Some modern writers (like Dr.Daftari) think that in ancient times there was an Indian institution of public functionaries called Manu and the Saptarsis, whose function was to legislate and promulgate the Vedas. With great respect to the erudite scholar, I disagree with him. The extant Purana passages are less than 2000 years old, while the present Vaivasvata Manvantara started several millions of years ago and even Kaliyuga in which we are deemed to live started in 3102 B.C. Besides, there is a dissolution of the world at each day of Brahma, if one is to rely on the Pauranik accounts. How could a tradition of the several Manus survive such pralaya? A rationalistic interpretation requires that all this that is stated in the Puranas is mere conjecture and imagination and that one cannot safely build theories about the governance of society in ancient times on the accounts contained in Puranas…-ibid. Vol. V, Part I, Ch.XIX. p. 693.

What Kane says about the governance of society in ancient times on the accounts contained in Puranas is equally applies to ‘All Other’ teachings found in Purana.

Faith is beyond reason. But it also depends upon based on the Scripture of respective Sampradaya (sect) which is handed over by the Tradition. Of course no tradition is perfect and each generation needs to go back to the source (Scripture of their respective faith) to have a clear understanding about their faith. Though faith is beyond reason, it doesn’t mean that it should be non-rationalistic. God gave us mind to use. So instead of accepting the interpretation of others, it is better for us to try to understand the Scripture of our respective faith. Otherwise simply accepting others words as the final and authentic, such people like this young lady can some time may win an argument and be satisfied than to know the Truth and follow God, outside sectarian affiliation.

Om Namo Kristaya namaha! Om Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!

Notes

1. Sankara presents a simple, stark version of the Miimaamsaa argument that suudras are to be excluded, simply because the Veda excludes them:

The suudra has no competence, since he cannot study the Veda; for one becomes competent regarding things spoken of in the Vedas after one has studied the Vedas and known these things from them. But there can be no study of the Veda by a suudra, for study of the Veda presupposes investiture with the sacred thread, which is restricted to the three castes.(Uttara Miimaamsaa Suutra, I.3.34)

–Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993, p. 138

Appendix A on Purana

…According to the Bhagavata-purana I.4.25 the purpose of the composition of the Mahabharata was this that as the Veda cannot be learnt by women, sudras and brahmanas who are so only by birth [and do not study] the sage Vyasa took compassion on them and composed the Mahabharata for their benefit. The same must be deemed to be the purpose of the composition of the puranas…Gradually the Puranas became very popular in the course of centuries, some of the original rites prescribed by the Veda and the early smrtis went out of vogue and new modes of worship and rites provided by the Puranas came into general observance…-P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Vol, III, Ch.XXXIII. Customs and Dharmasastra Works. p. 872.

…the respect for the puranas carried away late medieval writers so far that relying on some prophetic passages in the puranas about the disappearance of four varnas in the Kali age and the subsistence of only brahmanas and sudras therein, they denied the existence of ksatriyas and vaisyas in the Kali age, in spite of the fact, that all smrtis [like Manu, Yaj. Parasara] and many commentaries [including the Mitaksara] hold that the four varnas exist in the Kali age.–ibid. Ch.XXXIII. p. 873.

…None of the extant Puranas can claim to be older than the 3rd or 4th century A.D….Many of the (p.622) legends contained in the puranas were meant for the entertainment of common people, just as even in these days millions in Western countries read with relish detective stories and crime club fiction. Some pauranic legends had a serious purpose in view viz emphasizing religious or philosophical dogma or moral values and standards and were clothed in a supernatural garb to make them striking and effective. Only a few legends have some historical basis, but the latter is evidently smothered in a mass of exaggerations and prejudices for or against a hero, or a caste, class, tribe or family. It is hardly fair to draw far-reaching historical conclusions from heterogeneous materials in the puranas about the conditions of things that prevailed several hundreds or thousand of years before they were compiled…-ibid. vol IV. Ch. XIII. pp. 622-23.

…One feels that tracing a verse to its origin is often as difficult as finding a pin in a haystack. The author or authors of Puranas often wrote like modern advertisers of medicines, toilet articles etc…-ibid. vol.V. part.I. Ch.XIII. p.254.

…the Puranas played a substantial role in bringing (p.913) about the decline and disappearance of Buddhism by emphasizing and assimilating some of the principles and doctrines of Buddha such as ahimsa, by accepting Buddha himself as an avatara of Visnu, by adopting vegetarianism as a high form of austerity, by making use of monasteries and asceticism as stated in such smrtis as those of Manu and Yaj.—ibid., Vol V, Part II, Ch.XXIV.pp. 913-14.

In their zeal for the spread of the cult of bhakti the Puranas are sometimes guilty of gross exaggeration…-ibid. p.971.

Puranas again are not religious books. They contain the stories of creation and re-creation, the genealogies of kings, the descriptions of the earth, of the world-periods and their various regents, etc. But once more the Vaishnavites and the Saivites used them purposes of religious propaganda by interpolating them with their mythology…– Editors R.De Smet and J. Neuner ,Religious Hinduism, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997, Chapter 1. General Historical Survey: Part I (B.C.1200-A.D.700) (P.Johanns), p.40

Appendix II on ‘Maya’

According to Monier Williams myaã comes from the root maa-maaiti (or miyate) which means to measure. Though Radhakrishnan accepts maa as the root, he gives meanings such as to form, to build, or to have the capacity to produce forms. Earlier it meant art, wisdom, extraordinary power, etc., though later on the meanings of unreality, trick, deception were added to it. Vaisnavites consider maya as one of the nine saktis of Lord Visnu. According to Radhakrishnana, “The creative power by which God fashions the universe is called yoga-maya“, and this definition of maya does justice to a great extent to this concept in the BG.–Krsna And Christ, Ishanand Vempeny, S.J. Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand,1988, p.120

…It has been said that the English word “craft” denotes fairly well the ambivalence of maya, a power that, being derived from a certain uncommon knowledge, can be used either for good or for bad purposes; thus it is an intelligent power or a cunning shrewdness.* This power appears to be detachable from the one to whom (p.508) it belongs, so that it may be used for different purposes, both good and bad. It has indeed both a personal and cosmic character. No wonder that, since power tends to corrupt, even this greatest power of the Gods is corrupted not only in its usage by them but also in the very conception of its meaning, so that later on maya came to mean the power of deception and delusion.

*Fn.(Indra defeats by his own maya the maya of the demons {cf.RV I,11,7; V,31,7} but sorcerers also use maya {RV VII,104,24}, and men of evil power are called mÁõãyin {RV I,39,2}. Indra is purumÁõãya, having much maya {RV VI,18,12}. The Maruts {RV V,63,6}, Agni{RV III,27, 7; V,2,9} and Soma {RV IX,83,3} all use maya)-Raimundo Panikkar, The Vedic Experience, Second ed.1989, All India Books, Pondicherry, The Merciful Lord, pp.508-09

The most obvious etymology, put forward by the first generation of Orientalists, is today once again considered to be the most likely, i.e, the root maa-, to measure, to build, to construct. There is a connection here with the Greek metis, insight, shrewdness, cunning, advice, craft. It has also been related to the Greek mimos, imitator, and the Latin mirus, wonderful. In Avestan there is a word maayu, skilful, clever, and there are cognate Indo-European words meaning to nod, to indicate by a sign, to deceive, swindle, lie, enchant. Another proposed etymology is from the root man-, to think, while yet other translations give “change”, “creative act”.–ibid. Fn.no:122, p.508

it is necessary to make a two-fold distinction between one and the same Maya, by looking upon maya as the cause of the ‘perceptible Isvara’ springing out of the Parabrahman, and ‘avidyaa‘ as the cause of the ‘Jiiva’ springing out of the Parabrahman…–B.G.Tilak, (Tr. by A.S.Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya; Tilak Brothers; Poona; Seventh Edition, 1986. p.289

Appendix III on ‘Yuga’

…Though the general tendency was to say that Dharma progressively declines in each of the four yugas, yet this idea was not universal. The Mahabharata and the Manusmrit state [in IX.301] that conditions described about the four yugas are not immutably fixed parts of Time, but it is the ruler [who by conducting himself properly] can create the conditions of even Krtayuga in what common people call Kaliyuga…–P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol.I, Part.I, 31. The Manusmrti., p.319.

From the Mahabharata [SÁõãnti 59.], Manu [I.81], Naarada [I.1-2], Brhaspati and the Puranas it is clear that they all believed in the existence of an ideally perfect community in the dim past followed by gradual degeneracy and decline in morals, health and length of life. But they also believed that a cycle of decline would be followed in the far distant future [p.885] by another of moral perfection. The only pity is that all works that are extant think that they are in the midst of a very sinful age and there is not a single work which thinks that the era of perfection may dawn in the very near future.—ibid, vol. III, Ch. XXXIV. Kalivarjya,pp. 885-86.

…even up to the times of the latest period of Vedic literature [i.e. Upanisads] the words Krta, Tretaa, Dvaapara and Kali were used in the sense of throws of dice in gambling and that it is very doubtful whether they were used in the sense of different ages of the world…Even in the Vedanga Jyotisa [of Rg.] the word yuga is used in the sense of a period of five years…-ibid. p. 888.

…From the Epigrapic evidence it may be said that the theory of yugas and kalpas had begun to take shape at least in the 4th or 3rd century B.C. and that in the first centuries of the Christian era it had been fully developed. It must have gone through several stages in the course of its development…-ibid. p. 890

…Manu IX.301 and 302, however, indicate that the yugas are not watertight parts of Time. It is the king who can by his conduct introduce the characteristics of one yuga into another. Medhaatithi on Manu IX.301 explains that the king should not be misled into thinking that Kali is a historical part of Time and that he [the king] cannot therefore be Kali or Krta, but that it is the king’s way of conducting himself that will produce the conditions of the several yugas among his people…-ibid. p. 892

None of these works enables us to furnish a satisfactory explanation about the rise of this system of Kalpas, Manvantaras and Yugas. Pargiter (in AIHT p.175) thinks that the division into four ages had a historical basis. That may or may not be so. But what historical explanation can be offered about manvantaras and kalpas is not stated anywhere. The theory of yugas concerned only Bharatavarsa as stated in several Puranas. All these works contain the same general features but there are many divergences in details….—ibid, vol. V, part I, p. 688

@@@

Dear Dr Solomon,

Greetings. I’m disappointed to see Alex Harris’ message to the World Church. Please do not publish this tract. It could do more harm than good. McGavran himself was opposed to caste, and believed in conversion to Christ (redemption) as the first step toward abolition of caste. If others have misused the so-called people group approach, it is better to deal directly (face to face) with the persons and institutions concerned.

Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

Roger Hedlund

Dear Brother Solomon,

I am not competent to comment on certain assertions in this paper re the history of Hinduism and caste system. No doubt, the British used the caste system to their advantage. But to say that caste system “did not take root till the onset of the British” seems exaggerated. These debates I will leave to historians. And for our present purposes, these may not be so relevant. The fact is caste dynamics are strong in our context where we are called to preach the gospel and establish churches.

The charge made against the Church Growth concept of homogenous unit principle is nothing new.

The basic problem, in my opinion, is that what was meant to be a principle of mission strategy is made into an ideal – the way church ought to be. We cannot deny that h.u.p. has solidified caste feelings. This was not the intention of Dr McGavran. He was only thinking in terms of mission strategy.

All of us, I hope, will agree that a caste-based church (or a church based on any type of cultural exclusivism) is essentially idolatrous and falls far short of the inclusive community of the NT. It is tragic that some who applied Church Growth strategies were too eager to “exploit” caste dynamics for the sake of mission. Such a pragmatic approach to mission is a basic problem with Church Growth theology in general. However, it is not fair to accuse Church Growth of intentionally promoting casteism.

From my own ministry I have come to the conclusion that strategies based on caste or other principles may be provisionally necessary, but the goal has to be intentionally to establish multi-ethnic or inclusive communities. This is an application of “all things to all men” of the NT. Paul would bring himself “down” to the level of sinful structures in society in order to win them and to break those very structures. Similarly, I think it is justifiable that an approach, for example, to Brahmins must initially at least be on terms that would be acceptable to Brahmins. But if there is a prior commitment to establishing a Brahmin church that perpetuates untouchability and other evils, we have betrayed the gospel of Christ that has reconciliation and justice at its centre.

So, in short, recognize caste as a factor to be considered in forming a strategy, but from the beginning preach the gospel that destroys caste.

Mohan Chacko

Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Dehra Dun, India

Dear Dr. Hedlund, Thank you for your message addressed to Dr. Solomon. I concur with you. Online messages have a way of landing in the wrong hands which could result in serious repercussions for God’s community of believers. So good to see your name in my mailbox again. I’ve lost track of your ministry in the recent years. Are you still in India? I recall with pleasure meeting you at Sat Dal in the late 1980’s and discussing issues of mutual interests. Thank you for your contribution to God’s mission in India. Blessings, Melchi Melchizedek M. Ponniah, Ph.D. Department of Communication Andrews University Berrien Springs, MI 49103 (269) 471-3162

We must affirm caste as unique cultural and in some cases geographic communities that we should celebrate and not deny. A brahmin cannot but remain a brahmin, so does a nadar. We affirm the need for caste-based marriages as first choice as God’s means for nurturing Godly families. We also affirm based on God’s revelation in nature and His word that in a deeper, complementary bio-cultural reality `He created them male and female’ and even that were told dissolves in Eternity. However, Dalit communities that find their traditional identifiers a reminder of their oppressive past, must be free to change their names. Just some thoughts on a debate that starts with the wrong assumptions about caste and dumps the baby with the bath water. In this liberated belief about caste, race and one’s identity happy and content to belong to the Nadar community – have to be careful to die to a certain kind of pride when it raises its head.

Chakravarthy

Thanks for your thoughts, Chakravarthyji. There is a story behind this which is a meeting just on Monday night with Alex Harris here at USCWM where he simply did not want to listen at all and posed as a great scholar. It was quite sad and his presentation could be so much better is he would have only listened a little bit and made some adjustments. I can’t think anyone will take him very seriously even though many will agree with his anti-caste stance. But his theories are quite absurd so best to ignore, and the caste questions can be dealt with in response to more sensible people. Dalits are free to change their names, but will only really be free when they can celebrate their community identity rather than run from it, and in Christ that should happen. If the underlying issue/emotion is “we can’t celebrate our community identity so we won’t let you celebrate yours either,” we are certainly not in the realm of the kingdom of God. Rick

Rajeshji,

The stature of dalits in our country and that of the African-American in the US have some similarities in past social experience though dissimilar in contexts and history. When certain castes were destined only to doing the most menial of tasks such as clean my great grandfather’s dry open toilets i do not think it is fair or just to ask them to retain a name that has historically meant a shameful existence defined by the more powerful communities. It is similar to the situation where the Chinese who toiled on the railroads going West in the US could not own land, had to stay in designated areas, nor get married to the person of their choice because those in power decided so Or that Blacks were to be property to be bought and sold as slaves. If due to my destined vocation my family is labelled untouchables (permanently ritually impure with all its consequent implications) and do not have access to the common village well and have to drink in separate cups and sit on the ground I think they have a right to change their names and their destinies. Thanks to the modern democratic nation states, the framer of the Indian constitution was a dalit, we have a speaker that is a dalit and presidents that were dalit. Today I can enter pretty much any temple as a Hindu from any community. What is incredible is that Hinduism with its supposedly rigid social rules determining caste has in a mere 60 years allowed and encouraged so much positive change in society. The `Christian’ west took a lot longer to give up slavery and or racial apartheid. They all justified it from the Book!

It is interesting that the nadars also legally changed their names from shanars which probably had a shameful connotation. Even today other communities in the deep South will use Shanar as a derogative term to call Nadars. so 150 years back the community leaders felt it necessary to move the British ruled courts to bring about a change in their name and in some way a symbolic act of stating that we will shape who we are and what we will be. That freedom to change is God given and is a birthright and this is embedded in the American constitution as M Luther’s tellingly uses in his I have a dream speech.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

In America Negroes have moved on to being called Blacks to the current African-American! the Right to self determination.

The Kingdom of God is as much about breaking human structures and chains of injustice as about turning the other cheek in sacrificing one’s right in obedience to God. There is a time for everything.

His Kingdom is here and it will advance justice and love towards its destined convergence to its fullness when Christ returns.

God bless and good night

Chakravarthy

Theologians/philosophers, living in isolation from the lay people discuss, debate and argue while forming any kind of theology/philosophy (and principle) for them. Whereas lay people not knowing all these kinds of debates live with the reality in their day to day life. While these theologians/philosophers endeavor to formulate such theology/philosophy on idealized interpretation on their respective (authoritative) texts (scriptures), they not only ignore but also ignorant about the struggle of the lay people for whom they claim to form such theology/philosophy (and whether their respective Scriptures actually address this issue or not is entirely debatable). But after spending their time and energy in formulating such principle (theology/philosophy) they live with their own blissful ignorance that lay people are going to receive their deliberation happily with much reverence and are going to implement in their life situation. Thankfully not knowing all these ivory tower deliberation of their so called guardians of faith, lay people not only remain ignorant of such principles but also continue to ignore such principles (and people who form those principles) which never reflect their real life.

When such debate again on same old rhetorical debate on caste is done by only the fulltime workers (missionaries/theologians/church leaders/evangelicals etc.,) as an intellectual entertainment, it will remain a time pass for them to write papers and books. And they will teach these principles again to the seminary students and evangelical workers, who in turn study to answer some questions in their examinations to pass and to get their certificate to get their job (in the Mission/Seminary/Church) but never going to ‘learn’ anything to strictly or sincerely implement in their ministry. As this vicious cycle is going to continue ever and ever, lay people can peacefully live out their bhakti based on simple faith in the Lord who guides them in their day to day life knowing their struggle better than these ivory tower theologians/philosophers

This debate is like the so called Civil Society versus Politicians on Moaist violence. None of them are directly affect by the problem and so never going to understand it. But the people who are directly affected by this issue have to live with their struggle each day. Of course some have to debate and come out with some solution. But certain struggles many change their name and form and will emerge in another way. And those who are directly involved and affected will come out with their own solution as each struggle has to come to its own logical conclusion. In such struggle some are going to gain and others are going to loose. Those who gained may celebrate their victory and those lost may mourn for their defeat. But this struggle will never going to end with that particular logical conclusion that it reached. It will re-emerge in another form and name.

But I must confess that this comparison of Moaist menace with ‘caste’ issue in side the church by the Full Time workers is not correct. Because though the politicians and civil right groups are not directly affected by this problem, yet they are paying some kind of price for their involvement in it. Some times politicians have to even gamble not only their future hope but present life. Whereas these Full Time workers who debate on caste issue in side the church have nothing to pay except their ‘ego’ clash with their opponents in the same Full Time Workers camp.

For me caste issue will continue both in the church and society at large. All kinds of idealized principles arrived by ‘others’ (Western Christians or Westernized Indian Christians, some thankfully migrated to West [particularly to USA] and gave up their Indian identity for their own personal reasons but now return back to ‘serve’ the same Indians whom they have deserted once) is not going to help the common people on the ground. And taking the fight to the so called Church at large, as if there exists such church which is going to reach some conclusion which will bound all the Christians in India is a joke. It is like the call given to Organize the Hinduism as an organized religion like Christianity (See my short article ‘Learn to with reality’)*. In stead, try to help those bhaktas both inside and outside the church to come in terms with their struggle on practical level.

This I have done in my life. Both Jaya (a Brahmin girl, name changed) and Kumar (a SC, name changed) were given deeksha by me at Erode in river Kaveiry. After the two days meetings, when Kumar personally asked me now he is willing to marry Jaya as both of them are now follow the Lord. For this I asked, whether his parents will accept if he chooses a girl lower to his caste, he said ‘no’. ‘Then why do you expect that Jaya’s parents will accept you as their son-in-law. If both you and Jaya fall in love and have decided to marry without minding your parents objection, I won’t mind and I have no objection. But, in our society, marriage is the responsibility of our parents and so I cannot interfere in Jaya’s parents decision’. This does not mean that I approve caste discrimination. Even before I become a bhakta of the Lord, I opposed in our family. My own sister married a boy outside our caste and when the whole family opposed I alone supported them, even after their marriage for a long time.

When we (I) promote ‘Muktinath centered families with in Hindu communities’, we do it not following any principle of Megavaran (I never studied his principles) or follow any ‘People group’ strategy of any Mission. We begin from where we are but grow together in the Lord no keeping what divides us (caste, race, class, status etc.) but celebrating what unites us (our bhakti in the Lord). But in our pilgrimage as bhaktas of the Lord, we never try to uproot one’s identity however it is not acceptable to others. If a person for whatever reasons want to give up her identity, we respect her personal choice, but try to inform and educate her the consequence that not only she would face but her own immediate family members in the society at large. The so called individualism at the cost of personal commitment and responsibility towards family and society is not encouraged in this land. Like all other human concepts it has its own merit and demerit. But being part of a larger community and society, we accept both the merit and demerit and try to work out to implement our new found bhakti and the values which Muktiveda demands from us.

We Indians have a love and hate relationship with Caste issue. When we have some gain we love it and when we are adversely (that too personally) affected then we hate it. This is true with any other kind principle with ‘dwand’ (attraction and repulsion). Class struggle is another best example. Race is next. Because Negroes are now called as ‘black Americans; and ‘Obama’ is elected as their President race issue is not going to disappear from American society. Two days before (June 22^nd) I saw a program in National Geography ‘Locked down’ about the prisoners in America. As soon as a prisoner enters in jail, whether he likes it or not he has to join with his racial group. And each group (Black Americans, White Americans, Mexico-Americans etc.) have their own nick name and no prisoner can survive without becoming the member of their particular group. If this being the truth, any talk against racism won’t help common people who have to live with that reality in their every day life. Try to understand and help your best than make the issue to discuss and debate as a pass time or intellectual entertainment.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, June 23, 2010.

* This is posted in esatsangh.

@@@@

After reading Rick’s response to Devakala, I want to record my thoughts here, though I won’t share with anyone else. This I write in response as a lay person to the scholars who debate to form a theory/principle imagining that their endeavor will help the lay people to find solution to their problem related with caste (or any other issues).

If a Hindu (I limit my discussion only with a Hindu as I am not competent to include others like Muslims etc.) hears the gospel through any means and wants to make a commitment to follow the Lord what are the things that she should give up and receive?

I know for sure that at the minimum she should give up her faith in her Hindu gods and make a firm commitment to become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

Whether she likes it or not, she cannot understand her new found bhakti and grow in it without the fellowship of fellow bhaktas of the Lord, who could be a fellow Hindu bhakta or a ‘Christian convert’ or a traditional Christian. Because, no one can have private faith. However one should have personal relationship with the Lord.

Now any progress that she could make in her bhakti depends upon from whom she is going to learn: fellow Hindu bhakta or a ‘Christian’ convert or traditional Christian. Here we have to add one more category: Full Time Workers, from any one of these groups. As I shared in the Chennai 2010 RF Conference, her bhakti in the Lord will depend upon whom she will allow to draw the line for her. [See my revised paper ‘Where to draw the line].

Except the Hindu bhakta of the Lord rest of the two in this group will expect a new ‘believer’ to give up all her Hindu identity and values and accept all ‘Christian’ identity and values, thinking that there actually exists any biblical ‘Christian’ identity and values which they keep ready to impose on every ‘new’ bhakta. A ‘convert’, in order to survive among the Christians can accept such ‘Christian’ identity and values, allowing other to draw the line for her. Whereas a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has to seriously and personally struggle to resolve several issues related to her bhakti in the Lord and her identity as a Hindu. Of course even these so called Hindu ‘converts’ and traditional Christians never come out from many Hindu identity and values in their personal and (Christian) community life. But they have a double standard in this. When they become the guardian of the ‘faith’ of the new believers they will give all kind of idealized interpretation to the biblical views (casteless, race-less, united ) and impose them on the shoulders of the new believers whereas they won’t lift even a finger to unburden any load which they put on the back of them. They themselves know that they are not implementing these idealized biblical interpretations both in their personal/family and church life. However they love to form a perfect ‘convert’ to parade as a trophy as success to their ‘ministry’.

And those reformers who want to cleanse the (Indian) church from all its evil will continue to present all kinds of idealized interpretation of every Kingdom value, knowing the fact that in this evil world God allows the weed to grow along with the paddy to be cleansed at the end and not destroy the harvest in the name of removing the weed. But what really amuses and annoys is that neither they can communicate their idealized deliberations to the lay people nor the lay people can understand their ‘burden’. And the life will as usual for both. And when it is done by those reformers who left their Indian identity and become Americans (or any other nationals) for whatever their good reasons to cleanse the Indian church, it amuses their Western (American) peer group and irritates committed Indian Christians. Once they gave up their Indian identity, why now they suddenly want to come and reform Indian churches and missions? When they gave up their Indian identity they sent the message to us that they don’t want to be part of us. This does not mean that they should not have any ‘burden’ for their birth country. Who am I to stop them? But when they want to come back as NRI and serve us, they should be humble than parading their arrogance. When they deserted us (for whatever the good reasons), they have soled their ‘birth right’. Any claim as the member of the body of Christ and belong to the Universal church is again an idealized demand of their lost birth right. Yes as a fellow bhakta of the Lord they have every right and burden to help other bhaktas anywhere in the world. But living in their own ‘comfort zones’ what they do is only a ‘kabadi’ ministry. Then knowing their limitation, they should be more humble than take up all the authority on their hands as a Reformer to outsiders (here an Westernized Indian Christian to the Indian bhaktas of the Lord). And if they are not ready to understand their limitation, then they will be left alone ignored by the lay people who never need the seva of such outsiders. Of course some other (trans continental) scholars will continue to have a debate or dialogue with them or among them, but all will remain as Intellectual Entertainment. And we lay people will again raise the slogan: LEAVE US ALONE.

Now coming back to the question of ‘who to draw the line’, I have written about it in ‘Where to draw the line’ and read it.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 9, 2010

Dear Dr. Devakala,

Though I saw you and your father at RF meeting held at Chennai, yet I don’t have time to talk with you further. Dr. Ramasway (Solomon) often asked me to have a dialogue with you both. But in principle I have decided not to invest my time with Christian activities, as we have different approach in our life as Hindu bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath.

I never read any of your books or articles and have intention to read also. But I born as a Hindu that too a stanch Saivite. From my school days I am interested in Tamil literatures and in my library I have good collections of several Tamil literatures. I have read entire Tiruvasagam (by Manikavacagar), part of Thevaaram, the complete Periyapuram, entire Tirumoolar, The entire Tiruvartupa by Vallalar, several Sangam literatures (I just completed Natrinai and Kurunthogai and have other poems with me which I am reading gradually); I have also read Pilliap Perumal Iyangars’ ‘Ashtap prabandam’ and have complete volumes of Nalayira Divyaprabandam, which I will soon begin to read. These are only some of the Tamil literatures that I name and I have read many other literatures. All this I read in their originals.

Like wise I like Tamil very much and if any Tamilians talk in English I become upset and rebuke them. If any Tamil bhaktas of the Lord pray in English I rebuke them and demand them to pray in Tamil. I even named my dogs and cats only with Tamil names. Like wise though I don’t know Sanskrit perfectly, I have some workable knowledge and read many Sanskrit Literatures in English Translation and also several Hindi literatures in original as I know Hindi better than Sanskrit.

Well, the main reason to share all this is not to parade my knowledge but to say that some conclusion that I arrived about the Gospel, Muktiveda and Muktinath is not borrowed from secondary source. I am not a scholar but a student of literatures and enjoy reading several scholarly works. But when some one challenges me to interact with scholars, I retreat because of my limitations. I am not academically trained person so I don’t know all the technicalities to involve in any dialogue with scholars.

As I am interested in Tamil and other Indian literatures (mostly related with Scriptures) I also read several books related with Muktiveda. After reading some important scholarly books, I am not convinced on your Thesis of Thomasic Christianity etc. Like Fulfillment Theology (Muktinath Fullfilled the Hinduism started from Fraquarh [Crown of Hinduism] and many others (Rev. D. P. Titus: Vedic Quest Fulfilled in Lord Jesus Christ] you base your thesis on the outside reference from the Muktiveda. But my limited but deep study on Muktiveda convinced me that both the Lord and the Gospel is unique and there is a continuity of revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament based on the ‘covenant’ promise of God. Any other thesis that try to fit both the Lord and Gospel to accommodate wishful thinking of any individual or group by half quoting and giving their own interpretation (outside textual, theological and historical context) is not convincing me.

@@@

Dear Nancy and Paul,

Thanks for sharing the John translation. The following is my comments:

We use ‘muktived’ for ‘bible’
As you know, we use ‘Muktinath’ (this I prefer to ‘Mukteswar’) to Jesus
John is translated in Tamil Catholic bible some 150 years before as ‘Arulappar’ which means ‘arul = grace’ and ‘appar’ is a Tamil word for saints. So in Hindi could we use ‘krupa daas’ or ‘dayadaas’?
In verse 6. it should be ‘naamak’ not ‘namak’.
For John the Baptist, instead of using the word, ‘guru yohaan’, can we use ‘acharya dayadaas’?. Let us keep the word ‘guru’ for Muktinath only. Though we could still differentiate between ‘sad-guru’ and ‘guru’, better use ‘acharya’ (teacher) for Yohan. In verse 29 you use the word ‘guru Yesu’.
Why the word ‘Moses’? Can you find Hindi or Sanskrit equivalent for all the biblical characters? Or, if you still prefer to keep ‘Moses’ (should be ‘Moshe’? or ‘Mose’ (sha or sa in Hindi?), is it possible to add ‘Rishi Moses’ (Mose rishi), according Indian tradition, it was Rishi who received the vedic revelation. Remember, Rishi is not a sannyasi, but family people.
verse. 19: ‘dharmacharya’ for ‘dharmaguru’.
verse. 24: ‘Pharisi dharmik pant’, ‘dharmik’ is not good here. ‘math’(not Matt which means monastery, but ‘math’ which means ‘view’ particularly related to ‘religious view’ or ‘religious opinion’. Dharmik literarily means ‘righteousness’ in Hindi. Definitely it won’t apply to ‘Pharisee sect’. So better use ‘pharisi math’.
verse 35. (I think) The word ‘John the Baptist’ was used in the bible to differentiate him from John the apostle. But we need not literarily translate it as ‘deeksha guru yohan’. But to differentiate him from John the apostle, can we use ‘acharya’ (who can also give deeksha according to Indian tradition) for John Baptist and bhakt or daas for the apostle?
verse 42. ‘paaras’ is it Indian meaning for the name of Simon or typing mistake for ‘patras’ which in Hindi means ‘rock’. I hope you know the difference between ‘Paaras’ and ‘Patras’.
In the help box, for jal deeksha you said that when one comes out of water he receives ‘paap rahit naya jeevan’ (new life without sin). I don’t think baptism ever symbolizes a ‘new life without sin’. This may give wrong impression that all those who received deeksha are living a life without sin. Better change is, ‘once he comes out of water, gets strength to fight against sin’ (jal ke uuper aatha hai to paap se laduneka saamarth praapta kartahai). Typing error for ‘aata’.

I read chapter one. For chapter two I will give later.

Chapter Three:

Vs. 1. ‘dharmik sabha’.—I don’t know Hindi better than Raman and others. But It should not be ‘dharmik sabha’. Note in verse 11 the correct word ‘pant’ is used. So in stead of ‘dharmik sabha’ some other word will be relevant.

Vs. 3. ‘dharm-yug’ is good word.

Chapter Four

Vs. 20. ‘mount Gerizam’. But why ‘mount’ is used as it is in Devanagiri? Better use ‘pahad’. In Text help, you have mentioned it as ‘parvat’.

@@@

If you feel this e-newsletter reached you in error and/or wish to be removed from the list please email back with the word ‘REMOVE’ in the subject line.

The Indian Kettle
e-news.April.2007

Family page: www.indiankettle.blogspot.com

Work page: www.hindustudy.com

Happy Easter?

Most people are not aware that Easter was a pagan Teutonic (i.e. German) goddess worshipped in the Spring, especially at sunrise. Is that a reason to avoid celebrating our Lord’s victory over death on the cross or is it an effort of bridging understanding from one culture to another about Christ?

Indeed, we think about these issues as we just are recovering from the aftermath of Holi. Holi is the traditional Spring festival for Northern India and is arrived at after burning the evil goddess (or demoness depending on your orientation) Holika (who has a boon that makes her impervious to being killed by fire) and the redemption of the true bhakta, or devotee, Prahlad who was not burned in the end as her boon transfered to him by the grace of the Almighty. These are both represented as images in a giant bonfire with burns out by the following morning. People then return home to get ready for the day of water and colour which begins with much eating of sweets and thandai (special liquid preparations) flavoured with bhang, a local stimulant, and ‘playing Holi’. Later in the afternoon and evening after bathing and donning white clothes people venture out and greet neighbours, relatives and friends by applying coloured tika (marks) to the forehead, shouts of ‘Holi Mubharak Ho, Holi Mangalmay Ho’ ring out and triple rounds of hugs (for the men) then more sweets.

We abstained from the intoxicants but utilised the occasion as a Hindu ‘Easter’ and shared the story of our Sadguru and his pure actions on our behalf. As our Guru and Master went to the Roman cross for the redemption of the WHOLE world.

Indeed, another strange tale the ends not with his death but his resurrection and victory over the evil one!

Jeremy, Arasi & Arjun

15 April, 2007

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what’s free from AOL at AOL.com.

@@@

Dayanandji, I have copied here a comment from a man I met at a big
conference a few months ago; he sent this to the RF and Jamie forwarded it
to me. He wants to come to some of our RF conference in June in Portland and
I will be replying to him about that. I do not remember meeting him and he
writes to H L Richard; but he clearly is supportive of our efforts, so to
clear up his one doubt can only be useful. His email address is at the end
of this excerpt from his email. RH

In our conversation in St. Louis I mentioned one section of an earlier
edition of Living Water and Indian Bowl that I was troubled by.
Unfortunately at the time I spoke with you, I couldn’t recall exactly what
Dayanand Bharati had written, but I have since found the passage. In the
appendix D where Mr. Bharati reviews Roland Allen’s book, The Spontaneous
Expansion of the Church (a truly amazing book), he wrote, “Health, education
and other basic needs of the people are the government’s responsibility, not
missions’. And in those areas both the church and mission should not invest
their time and resources as in the past.” (pp. 241-242) The remark is in
reference to Allen’s criticism of missions that overly involve themselves in
education and other social works and use financial resources in ways that
actually hinder the expansion of the church. Bharati’s comment seems to
encourage throwing the baby out with the bath water. Use of finances is a
very sensitive issue and there have been many mistakes made in the past (and
present for that matter). However to say that the basic needs of the people
are the government’s responsibility seems to revert to the bifurcation of
the spiritual and physical which has so greatly influenced evangelicalism
during the past century. Jesus responded to the basic needs of people with
great compassion. The proclamation of the good news of the Kingdom involved
both word and deed. Jesus’ response to the basic needs of people was not a
secondary ministry. Rather it was an integral part of the proclamation. I
believe that as followers of Jesus, if we focus only on the spiritual aspect
of people’s live, we are in effect truncating the Gospel.

When the newer version of Bharati’s book published by William Carey
Library came out, I was relieved to find that this section was removed. As
a result I purchased many copies and distributed them among our workers in
Asia. I feel that this is a very significant book that can greatly help all
of those who are ministering to people of other religions.

If there is any way possible I hope to be able to see you sometime during
the Rethinking Forum in Portland in June.

Blessings,
David Husby
davronna@yhb.att.ne.jp

David and Ronna Husby
Asia Regional Coordinators
Evangelical Covenant Church
1-19-10 Shinkawa cho Higashi Kurume shi
Tokyo, Japan 203-0013

Dear Rick,

Shanti!

I never knew that in the William Carey copy the previous point on missions’ responsibility on health, education etc. are removed. I never read the William Carey copy. Anyhow my comment should be taken of what the mission has done and still doing in Indian context.

My view still is that in a democratic country, the primary needs of the people should be met by the govt. If the govt. fails, the church and mission can join with the public to force the govt. to look in the need of the people. But the involvement of the church and mission in such areas, if inevitable then should be done without any ulterior motive. For the witness of the gospel and to share the Kingdom value, if Missions wants to engage in primary needs, then I have no issue. But when such services become a means to ‘convert’ others, then it should be avoided. Exploiting anybody’s weakness to fulfill one’s personal agenda is sin against god and humanity. I consider it even as a crime. Charity should be done with a spirit of charity, not with any business like transaction.

This is one aspect of Hindu charity too. Though all the Hindu charity is not done with any ulterior motive, yet one of the main reasons to do charity is to earn some merit or to get rid of some sin. Most of the Hindus are viewing all the Christian charity from this perspective. And if we want to show the difference, then it should be done with the true spirit of charity, which according to me is selfless service to the people without any expectation. Such charity will become a witness for the gospel and Kingdom value. But when the same charity is done with some evangelical motive, then it becomes a business.

All the past experiments of mission keeping the evangelical agenda miserably failed in India. Most of the Mission schools and hospitals still stand a witness for this. Except few exceptions most of the mission schools and hospitals now become commercial centers. The Vellore CMC college is the best example.

Regarding the schools, the present story of Mission schools are miserable one. In the name of ‘religious minority’ most of the Mission schools get subsidy from the govt. So my point that the primary need of the people should be met by the govt. is partially working there. But what the Mission schools are even doing through such educational Institute? They exploit the public money to serve their own need. In most cases they do not serve the people keeping their need but exploiting the govt. because of their religious minority status. That’s why Ramakrishna Mission also went to court to declare that they are not Hindus but minorities to get concessions from the govt. The Lingayats are claiming the same. As you know about these problems, I need not highlight any more.

The way the church and mission serve their own need exactly on communal line needs to be addressed here. Almost all the minority schools (here I address only Christian schools) get govt. aid. So, as I have pointed out, it is the govt. which is taking care of the need of education through the missions also. But the truth behind the Missions schools is disturbing one. Because, using that govt. aid, it serves only the need of its own community on priority base. In general, govt. cannot interfere in the administration of any aided school. And exploiting this along with their minority status, what the church do is nothing but business. Almost all the staffs in a Christian schools are Christians. There are few exception. Govt. pays the salary to the teachers. But the appointment of the teachers are done by the church administrative board. And in this process unqualified teachers are appointed because of influence and corruption.

Let me give an illustration. I know one Christian boy, who is not good in studies. However, with much struggle he completed his M.A. with minimum marks and managed to get a job in a private school first as an English teacher. He cannot speak in English fluently and also can write properly. When his father retired from the mission school, using his influence and also paying ‘bribe’ he managed to get that job for his son. This still goes in many Mission schools. Now think about the students to whom he is going to teach English. In what way the church is serving the people through their mission work. At present through such institutions they create employment opportunity for their own community people. So as I often say, the Christian charity and full time ministry serve to solve the unemployment problem in their own community, but never serve the people.

Yet this is also done on denominational basis. Let me again take one example. At Trichy, my birth place, there are colleges and High schools on communal line. National college is for Hindus, particularly for the Brahmins, St. Joseph college is for the Catholics; Bishop Hebert college for the Protestants and Jamal Muhamad college for the Muslims. Of course all the students and staffs in these colleges are not exclusively Hindus (Brahmins), Catholics, Protestant or Muslims. But they give priority in appointment and selection of the students on the communal basis.

A sub-illustration will highlight this plight of communal based schools and other institution in India. In National college, if a Brahmin student come forward to wear a tuft and only dothi (a typical Tamilian dress), then he need not pay any fee till he complete his studies. In my street when I studied in the same college one of my senior studied in the college with tuft and wearing the dothi. But soon after he completed the studies, he got the teaching job in the same college and immediately he removed his tuft and began to wear pants. Who is to be blamed for this? I won’t condemn that student. He was not a hypocrite, but he was forced by the strange rules of that college. By exploiting the poverty of that student the college mocked the custom of the Hindus (Brahmins). They could have helped poor students from the same community without imposing any special dress code on the religious line.

The reason for me to share this is to show how the church imitating the other communities mock the very gospel. In such an Indian context, all the public service to the people should be done by the govt. directly and not through any communal based institution. I don’t know whether in any other part of the world, Christian charity is done by exploiting the minority status getting the benefit from the govt. If you go to Bihar, you will find several Christian schools run by the Hindus. There will be one Christian principal or correspondent appointed to receive the minority benefit from the govt. to run the school. They will name the school with Christian names like: St. Mary’s English School; St. Joseph’s Public school etc. But in such institutions Christians become partners to the Hindus to exploit the govt. to get the land for the school at subsided rate.

Another important point is that the very aim for which the Mission schools started now completely failed and become commercial centers. Most of the Christian schools—in order to maintain their standard of education and result only admit people from rich and educated background. My shishya, Naval Kishore Singh, and a Christ bhakta in Madhubani (North Bihar) donated his land to the Mission to start a school to help the poor students in his village. But with in two years, all the rich and high caste students filled the school leaving no room for the poor people to send their children. Naval felt very sad and told me, ‘if I know that this would happen, I would have never encouraged them to start a school’. The school was started to give free education first. Then they began to charge monthly fee. Next they compelled the students to wear uniform. When the poor people cannot afford them, their children were dropped and students from the rich family were admitted.

There is no point of multiplying the examples to show the present condition of Missionary work through their charity. There are genuine exception. But in most cases they started in sprit and ended in flesh. And from the Hindu point of understanding, every charity done by the Mission is viewed as ‘either to convert or to the convert’. In such a scenario, I hold my view that it is govt.’s responsibility not that of missions to meet the primary needs of the people.

Regarding the bifurcation of the spiritual and physical, I am not an expert on what the bible says. However our Lord ask to render what belongs to god to god and what belongs to Caesar to Caesar. Though we cannot bifurcate human life, yet for administration and functional need, it should be bifurcated. Otherwise we will neither serve the spiritual need nor serve the physical. Of course our Lord healed people, fed them, but they came naturally as part of his mission but not to attract other’s attention or to influence them to get their support or following.

I have no problem if the Church and Mission want to serve the people catering to their physical need. But they need to be done more as a natural witness for the gospel and not a means or programme with some agenda. When Mother Theresa was criticized that instead of giving fishing rod to the people she is feeding them with fish, she commented, ‘my people are so weak to hold that fishing rod. So let me feed them to give strength to hold it. Then you people give the fishing rod for them to make a living’. Such service is a witness for the Gospel without any ulterior motive—however the right wing Hindu suspect her very motive.

Of course, ‘The proclamation of the good news of the Kingdom involved both word and deed.’ I may be wrong but the ‘deed’ here in the proclamation of the Kingdom is not doing charity but ‘do what you preach; preach what you could practice’, as our Lord says, ‘those who do and preach these things will be greater’ in the Kingdom of god (Mt. 5:19).

Regarding Husby’s view that

Jesus responded to the basic needs of people with great compassion. Jesus’ response to the basic needs of people was not a secondary ministry. Rather it was an integral part of the proclamation. I believe that as followers of Jesus, if we focus only on the spiritual aspect of people’s live, we are in effect truncating the Gospel.

I completely agree with him. But in stead of taking the principle if we began to imitate the patterns as they are we will fail. A holistic approach is essential. But when it comes to the physical needs of the people, some ground reality should caution us not to insist doing the charity as a means to achieve some personal goal.

Last but not least, the true meaning of charity is: ‘Throwing a bone to the dog is not charity, but sharing in the same bone when you are as hungry as the dog.’ In most cases Christians are making a living out of charity work. If $ 1,000 is received for charity, only $ 100 or even less is reaching the people. Rest are spent on Mission for some to lead a luxurious life and many to make a living.

Many individual Christians and Hindus are serving the people without any expectation or recognition. When the Hindus involve in such service they never use the name of any god or their religion, but keep other’s need purely on compassionate ground. But when the Church and Mission do the same in the name of god and gospel, then Hindus questions such service.

Dayanand

Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Nine

Oh hi there 👋 It’s nice to meet you.

Oh hi there 👋It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive my new blog posts by email.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.