The man who attains this divinity is free because he is above nature. Nothing can disturb his peace of mind 1. Attaining this perfection is the aim of all the Religion of this world so there is no difference.– Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission,

–Salvation which is the aim of Manava Dharma is self realization of Atman in the spirit by the Grace of God (not by Sadhana). Through mind one can comprehend it, but its experience is beyond mind. As Salvation is realization in the spirit, the person who attained it may be disturbed in mind as long as he is in this world for some time. But as he is assured of his salvation, the Joy in his spirit won’t be disturbed (phil 4:4,7,12-13). If we think that the evidence of salvation is the peace of mind, then we are keeping it in a lower level-because even an atheist through Yoga, meditation, self-will can get peace of mind. It is merely a psychological phenonmina, where as salvation is the Joy of knowing God and Known by God in our spirit.—db [Written in early 90s]

“The fact is that these words Jnana, vidya and their analogues often carry an ambivalent meaning in the Scriptures. They may signify the awakening beyond all thought, and also the increasingly pure forms of knowledge which follow each other in the mind as it searches for this definitive experience; they can even mean the fruit of this experience itself in its impact upon the mind.

There is no question that meditation, at least when it is parctised with a view to interior silence, can be a peculiarly effective means of quietening the mind. However in itself it can only bear fruit at the level at which it is practiced, namely, the psychological. It, as the Upanishad says, the level (loka) of the atman is not one peculiar to itself, but rather underlies all the levels of being, then it can be found at whatever levels one may start form. But when one attempts to tie it down to one particular level-even to that of the none-mental and the supersensory-then one has simple mistaken a substitute, or one of its images, for the atman itself. ‘Tapas means the setting on one side of all desires, of all pleasures of sense, and the exclusive concentration on pure being. Without question meditation helps towards this, but the freedom form thinking which it aims, have value only as contributing to the attainment of the simplicity of being. All too often, however the man who meditates congratulates himself on his experiences and on his suspension of thought. But when one has reached silence, how it is possible still to know this? for to know it means to say so, and anything said breaks the silence”-from ‘THE FURTHER SHORE ‘-by Abhishiktananda, I.S.P.C.K. Delhi., pp.64-65

@@@

Mukti for all

As salvation and reconciliation of gentiles is mentioned in our scripture, do the texts of other faiths mention Mukthi Margam for all people

Sureka

23-11-23

Except Abrahamic faiths, all other faiths assure Mukti, if not in this birth, in future births. I don’t know much about Zoroastrianism.

Better avoid the word ‘gentiles’.

24-11-23

@@@

This morning I called Mani Iyer to remind him about returning Raman’s money. With much discouragement he said that he will arrange within in a month to return the amount. Few days before I rebuked him to taking too much advantage. After that I again invited him to come for the Rethinking Conference to be held on July 17^th at Bangalore (I even promised to pay the fair). But with much depression he said, ‘No. I am not in a mood to come anywhere. I am much discouraged these days. I almost lost my faith after seeing all our family problem’. Then I said as he is alone, he is facing this kind of depression and that’s why he should come once in a while to our meetings. ‘No. Leave me alone. It is something between me and God. I don’t want to come anywhere. I will soon arrange for the money,’ was his response.

As I don’t want to give any further advice, I closed my talk. He tries to blame both God and his situation for some of the problems which he himself created and for some which he is no way responsible. For example, when he began to spend money on Computer course and even bought one Computer, I warned him that he is wasting both his time and money. Both he and his wife were living in a dream world of getting some job outside India to earn lots of money. But I told him that at this age without any previous experience in Computer field, he won’t get his dream job. ‘So many qualified young people are available to serve. Considering your age, better you be satisfied and plan your life accordingly instead of wasting time and money on such project, I advised him. But he never listened. Similarly Anandi also spent considerable amount of money in doing post graduate course to get some teaching job.

The way he spent money is a big story for all of us to learn. Just give any product on installment pay, they will buy. One time, before his marriage he bought one big refrigerator of family size for around 25,000 which finally he has to dispose for half prize.

Next his family problems for which are he is not responsible: His youngest brother Vital (Victor) became a drunkard and was to be admitted in some rehabilitant hospital. He almost born as an impotent and is living without any job with his another brother. Gopal Mani’s second elder brother lost his wife recently (without any child). His another brother, who claims himself as a strong believer is now keeping his servant as a mistress. His eldest brother has some knee problem and his mother also become sick. So Mani now attributes all this to God. Now his in-laws are living with him and they often say to Anandi that as Mani’s family deserted their family deity (kuladeva), all these problems are coming and persuade her to force Mani to worship that deity again.

During his previous two visits I also discussed all this with him. But again and again he wants to blame God alone for all his personal failures. Even for all the loan and surety which he gave for someone’s loan, he even said, ‘why God allowed such things in my life’? No amount of my answers ever convinced him.

I share this with you not to expose his personal and family problem. But how to people like Mani. In our small movement we face one problem or the other. These are not new, but with limited human resource I feel helpless to deal such problem. Thank God that I am not alone and at least you are there for me to share these concerns with you. I have no answers but we have to pray more.

Vimala called on the other day. Her brother died in heart attack (which I don’t believe. He might have committed suicide or died due to excess drinking habit). Gopu left her and the children and try to get the divorce so that he can marry that Christian girl from Vijayavada. Vimala is living with her parents and they are taking care of the need. According to Vimala Gopu managed to get around 4 lakh from Paul Singh (in USA) to do some business. Now as she is living with her parents I cannot involve. Let us pray.

Dayanand

My neck problem some times reappears. Not much work in the Computer. Sharala suggested to get one voice typing programme. Any one has any idea about this? ISPCK will publish the 3^rd edition of Living Water and they sent the proof for some correction. Can I ask for some royalty?

Dr. Sangita Mani a retired Professor serving in Seventh Day Adventist Insititute in Pune is now a days interacting with me. He saw me several times, but one day in the bus stop came to talk with me. He read my book. He has a Phd. In phonetics. He also has a M.A. Tamil, Sociology and other qualification. He read my book and very much impressed. He was an agnostic cum atheist once and now slowly turning to the Lord and he sought my help to experience Christ Experience in his life also. He is a traditional Christian. This evening he had a long talk with me and requested me to give him some project to do—like translating Living Water in Tamil or some other work. Very good English and Tamil knowledge he has. He is also a good reader and very gentle in his spirit.

To day I went to Gurukulam to see the foundation work. The main building and side one is progressing. Within a week or ten days the contractor may complete the work. We need money.

Mathigiri, June 28, 2004.

@@@

Dayanand

To day I went to Gurukulam to see the foundation work. The main building and side one is progressing. Within a week or ten days the contractor may complete the work. We need money.

Mathigiri, June 28, 2004.

@@@

§Vô]m ( ) Gu\ RûXl©p £X Lô¬VeLû[dÏ±jÕ ClúTô Sôm TôodLl

úTô¡uú\ôm. §Vô]m GuTÕ U]ûR JÚØLlTÓjÕRp. ARôYÕ JÚ Lô¬Vj

ûRdÏ±jÕ ùR°YôL, ¾oUô]UôL £k§jRp GuTÕ ùTôÚs. B]ôp §Vô]m

GuTÕ GkR JÚ Lô¬VjûR Ï±jÕ úVô£jRôÛm ùNnRôÛm LY]UôL ùNnRpG]dùLôiPôÛm, Sm Sôh¥p CfùNôp ùTÚmTôÛm BuÁLdl T«t£dLô]

JÚ ùNVXôLúY LÚRlTÓ¡u\Õ. CkR §Vô]m GuTÕ ùNôp úVôLôlVôNj§pØd¡VUô] JÚ LhPUôÏm.

úVôLlT«t£ Gu\ ùNôp ùTôÕYôL YZd¡p CÚkRôÛm A§Ûm CWiÓ

YûLVô] Ød¡VUô] úVôLeLs EiÓ. TRgN úVôLNôj§Wj§p ùNôpXl ThÓs[ úVôLm GuTÕ JÚ®Rj§p NÃW-U]lT«t£Lû[ Ød¡VUôLd

ùLôiPÕ. CûR BuÁLlT«t£dÏ TVuTÓj§dùLôiPôÛm, CÕ

BuÁLjûR A¥lTûPVôLdùLôiPÕ ApX. Ut\ JÚØd¡VUô] úVôLm

¸ûR«Ûm, LúPô ET²`j§Ûm ùNôpXlTÓ¡u\ ‘AjVôjªd’ ApXÕ BuÁL

úVôLUôÏm.

TRgN úVôLNôj§Wj§p §Vô]m GuTÕ U]jûR ãuVlTÓjRÛdLô] Y¯ Øû\Ls AxPôeL úVôLUôL ùNôpXl ThÓs[Õ. CRu Cß§d LhPm

GuTÕ NUô§¨ûXûV AûPYÕ. Ak¨ûX«p BuUô (×Úx) CVtûL«ÚkÕ

(lÚLo§) ©¬kÕ ‘ûLYpV’ ¨ûXûV AûPYÕ. Ak¨ûX«p BuUô

ãuVj§p Ru²p Rôú] GpXô®RUô] UôßTôÓLÞdÏm (CÚ¨ûXLs–

jYkj) AlTôtThÓ CÚdÏm ¨ûX. Ak¨ûXúV Ød§ G] AkR Nôj§Wj§p ùNôpXlTÓ¡u\Õ. Ak¨ûXûV AûPkRYoLÞdÏ TX Aà`UôVUô]

£j§Ls ¡hÓm Gußm, B]ôp AYtû\ GYo Ru ÑVSXeLÞdLôLl TVu

TÓjÕ¡u\ôoLú[ô AYoLs RôeLs AûPkR Ød§ûV CZkÕ ÁQÓm

lÚLo§«u YûX«p ALlTÓYôoLs G]Üm GfN¬dLlThÓs[]o. CkR

úVôLl T«t£«p Cû\Y²u AÚú[ô, ÕûQúVô úRûY«pûX.

úRûYlTÓTYoLs úYiÓUô]ôp ©\ùTôÚhLÞdÏlT§XôL Cû\Yû]

§Vô]l ùTôÚ[ôL TVuTÓj§d ùLôs[Xôm, B]ôp ARu©\Ï Cû\Y²u

TeÏ ApXÕ ER® AkR NUô§ ¨ûXûV AûPjúRûY«pûX.

B]ôp ¸ûR, LúPôT²`j Utßm ûT©p á\lThÓs[ §Vô]j§u Ød¡VúSôdLm CkR ‘ûLYpV’ ¨ûXûV AûPYÕ ApX. CYtßs á\lThÓs[

§Vô]j§u Ød¡V CXdÏ Cû\YàPu CWiP\dLXlTÕ GuTúR. CkR

CWiP\dLXjRp GuTÕ áP Td§«u JÚ EfN LhPúU R®\ AÕúY Ød§ ¨ûXVô¡®PôÕ. Ï±lTôL ¸ûR«Ûm ûT©Ûm CkR Ød§ GuTÕ Cû\Yu Ru LÚûQ«]ôp SUdÏ AÚsYúRVu± Sm ØVt£«]ôp AûPYÕ ApX

G]dáß¡u\]. G]úY §Vô]m GuTÕ AjVôªd/BuÁL úVôLj§p

CqÜX¡p CkR NÃWj§p YôÝmúTôúR Td§«u EfNLhPUôL Cû\YàPu

Ju±d LXd¡u\ JÚ AàTYjûR AûPYRtLô] JÚ BuÁLl T«t£VôÏm.

G]úY §Vô]m GuTÕ U]ûR JÚØLl TÓj Sôm GÓjÕdùLôsÞm JÚ

T«t£úV. C§p TRgN úVôLNôj§Wj§p á\lThÓs[ Øû\

®gOô]Ã§Vô] JÚ®R U]lT«t£úV. CÕ ªLÜm L¥]Uô]Õ UhÓUpX, ªLÜm BTjRô]Õ áP. A§p á\lThÓs[ TX NÃW (BN]eLs) Utßm ÑYôNl T«t£Lû[ N¬Vô] B£¬V¬PªÚkÕ Ltß N¬VôL ùNnVô®hPôp TX®RUô]

NÃW Utßm U] úSônLû[d áP HtlTÓjÕm. Hù]u\ôp CRuØd¡V

úSôdLúU U]ûR/êû[ûV ( ) ãuVlTÓjÕYúR. AúRNUVm ‘ûLYpV’

¨ûXûV Ï±dúLô[ôLd ùLôs[ôUp NÃWjûRÙm, U]ûRÙm LhÓlTôÓPu

ûYdL £X BN]m Utßm ÑYôNTl T«t£Lû[ N¬Vô] B£¬VoL°PªÚkÕ

Ltß GYo úYiÓUô]ôÛm ùNnVXôm.

BuÁLj§p SôhPm ùLôiPYoLs CkR ©¬ÜLû[ N¬VôLl ×¬kÕ

ùLôs[ôUp TX Øû\ §Vô]m ùNn¡uú\ôm B]ôp U]dLhÓlTôÓ Utßm

U]YûU Cuàm ¡ûPdL®pûXúV G]d ÏZlTj§p TX YûLVô] §Vô]¨XVeLs Utßm CVdLeL°p LXkÕ ùLôiÓ HUôt\m AûPYúRôÓ U]dÏZlTØm AûPkÕ ×§Õ ×§Rô] BNôuLs, NuVô£Ls, CVdLeLû[ úR¥

K¥dùLôiúP CÚd¡u\ôoLs.

TRgN úVôLNôj§WjûR A¥lTûPVôLd ùLôiÓ CVeÏm úVôL ¨ûXVeLs RYWô]ûY G] Sôu á\®pûX. B]ôp AûRÙm BuÁL úVôLjûRÙm

NmTkRm CpXôUp RYWô] Øû\«p CûQdÏm úTôÕ ÏZlTúU ªgÑm.

TRgN úVôLØû\«p á\lThÓs[ BN]eLû[Ùm, ÑYôNlT«t£ûVÙm

N¬VôdL LtßdùLôiÓ BuÁL úVôLj§Ûm TVuTÓjRXôm. B]ôp BuÁL úVôLj§u Ød¡V CXdÏ CjRLV T«t£LsêXm U]dLhÓlTôÓ, YûU

ùTßYÕ UhÓm ApX. B]ôp ARu Ød¡V úSôdLúU NuUôoL ùS±Ls

êXm BuÁLj§p Y[okÕ EVoYô] Td§ ùS±ûV AûPYÕ GuTúR.

G]úY §Vô]m GuTÕ U]ûR JÚØdlTÓjR Sôm GÓjÕdùLôsÞm

ØVt£VôL CÚkRôÛm AÕ BuÁL úVôLj§p U]ûR ãuVlTÓjÕ¡u\

Øû\VpX. CmØû\«p CkR U] JÚØLlTÓjÕ¡u\ T«t£«p CWiÓ

LhPeLs A¥lTûPVô]ûY. ARu A¥lTûP úSôdLm EVokR Td§ ùS±ûVAûPYÕ.

ØRpLhPUôL, BuÁL úVôLj§p Øuú]\ SUdÏs CÚdÏm, Cû\YàdÏ

HtLôR, BuÁLj§p Øuú]\ RûPVôn Es[ ÏQeLû[ T¥lT¥VôL,

Cû\Y²u LÚûQûVd ùLôiÓm, N¬Vô] TdRoL°u Id¡Vj§u êXØm

¿dÏYRôÏm. CÕ Sm YôrSôs Cß§YûW ùRôPo£VôL ùNnV úYi¥VÕ.

HúRô JÚLôXLhPj§p Sôm éWQ ÏQYôuL[ôL Uô±®húPôm G] Gi¦ ¨ßj§®Ó¡u\ ùNVp ApX. B]ôp Sm U]§p úRûYVt\ Lô¬VeLû[

¿dÏm úTôÕ AûR ¨WkRWUôL LôVôL ûYj§ÚdLØ¥VôÕ. AkR

ùYt±PjRûR N¬Vô] BuÁL £kRû]Lû[d ùLôiÓ ¨Wl×YÕ CWiPôYÕLhPUôÏm. CkR CWiÓLhPeLÞm ùRôPokÕ SûPùT\úYi¥V ùNVpLs.

CkR CWiÓ LhPeL°Ûm T«t£ SûPùTÚm JúW CPm U]úU!

SmûU BuÁL úVôLj§p Øuú]\®PôUp RÓlTÕm U]úU ARtÏ ERÜYÕmU]úU! ‘Sm BuUôúY/U]úU SUdÏ SiTu; AÕúY SUdÏ G§¬ G]

Ck¨ûXûV ¸ûR AZLôL GÓjÕfùNôp¡u\Õ. CûRdÏ±jÕ Cû\Yu

CúVÑ ClT¥d áß¡u\ôo:

U²RÚdÏ Esú[«ÚkÕ YÚYúR AYoLû[j ¾hÓlTÓjÕm. Hú]²p U²R Es[j§ÛÚkúR ®TfNôWm, úY£jR]m, L[Ü, ùLôûX, úTWôûN, ¾fùNVp,

YgNLm, LôUùY±, ùTô\ôûU, T¯l×ûW, ùNÚdÏ, U§úLÓ B¡VYtû\f

ùNnVj çiÓm ¾V GiQeLs ùY°YÚ¡u\]. ¾V]Yô¡V CûY

Aû]jÕm Es[j§ÚkÕ YkÕ U²RûWj ¾hÓlTÓjÕ¡u\] (UôtÏ 7:22-23)

G]úY BuÁL úVôLj§p ØRp LhPm ÏlûTLû[ ¿d¡ U]ûR çnûUl

TÓjÕYÕ. B]ôp JÚTôj§WjûR LôùNnÕ ûYjRôÛm AÕ ùYßûUVôn

CÚdLôUp Sm LiLÞdÏl ×XTPôR Lôtß A§p ¨Wm×YÕ úTôX, ¾ûULû[ ¿d¡ Sm U]ûR LôVôdÏm úTôÕ AûR ¨WkRWUôL ã²VUôL ûYj§ÚdLÜmØ¥VôÕ. AûR NuUôoL ùS±Ls, BuÁL £kRû] Utßm Cû\Yû]lTt±V

GiQeL[ôp ¨WkRWUôL ¨Wl©dùLôiúP CÚdLúYiÓm. CûRdÏ±jÕ

úYRm ClT¥dáß¡u\Õ:

EiûUVô]ûY GûYúVô, Li¦VUô]ûY GûYúVô, úSoûUVô]ûY

GûYúVô, çnûUVô]ûY GûYúVô, ®ÚmTjRdLûY GûYúVô, TôWôhÓRtÏ±VûY GûYúVô, StTi×ûPVûY GûYúVô, úTôtßRtÏ¬VûY GûYúVô,

AYtû\úV U]j§p ¨û]jÕd ùLôi¥ÚeLs. (©l©Vo 4:8)

CqYôß U]ûR ¨\l×¡u\ Lô¬Vj§tLôLjRôu Sôm TX®RUô] BuÁLd

Lô¬VeLû[ ùNnÕ YÚ¡uú\ôm. CûRjRôu ‘NôR]ô’ G] AûZd¡uú\ôm.

CqYôß U]ûR JÚØLlTÓjÕYRtLôLjRôu Sôm éû_ ùNnRp, Õ§lTôPp

LsTôÓRp, BuÁL ùNôtùTô¯ÜLû[d úLhPp, T_û], Nj-Ne ØRVYtû\HtTôÓùNnRp, ¾oRVôj§ûW úTôu\Ytû\ ùNn¡uú\ôm. CûYùVpXôm

U]ûR JÚØLlTÓjR ùNn¡u\ T«t£Ls. B]ôp Sôm úUúX TôojRT¥

Juû\ÁiÓm ¨û]ÜùLôs[ úYi¥VÕ Gu]ùYu\ôp CjRûLV U]

JÚØLlTÓjÕ¡u\ BuÁLlT«t£Lú[ SUdÏ Ød§ûVjRWôÕ. CûRdÏ±jÕ ®úYLãPôU¦ (NeLWôfNô¬VWôp GÝRlThPRôLd LÚRlTÓYÕ) Gu]

áß¡u\Õ Gu\ôp:

(£jR NjRúVj LoU S YvÕ ETXlRúV; YvÕo³j§ ®NôúWQ S ¡g£j

LoUúLô¥©) U]jûR ÑjRlTÓjR UhÓúU (BuÁd) LoUeLs ùNnVlTÓ¡u\]Ød§ AûPYRtÏ ApX; (BuÁL) BWôn£Vôp UhÓúU Ød§ AûPVØ¥Ùm,

úLô¥dLQd¡p LoUeLs ùNnY§u êXm ApX.

G]úY Sôm Au\ôPm ùNn¡u\ BuÁLl T«t£Ls Sm U]ûR ÑjRlTÓj§

AûR JÚØLlTÓjRúYi¥úV. A§p §Vô]m GuTÕ Sm U]ûR

Cû\Yû]lTt±V £kRû]Ls, NuUôoL Lô¬VeLs êXm Sm U]ûR

ùRôPokÕ ¨\l©dùLôiúP CÚlTRtLôLúY. BuÁL úVôLj§p §Vô]j§u A¥lTûP úSôdLm CÕúY. C§p NuUôoL ùS±Ls Aû]jÕ úVôLlT«t£

Utßm Sp YôrLûLdÏl ùTôÕYô]RôÏm. B]ôp BuÁL úVôLj§p

U]jûR Cû\Yû]lTt±V £kûRLs êXm ¨û\dÏm úTôÕ AkR

Cû\Yû]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]m SUdÏ AY£Vm. G]úY N¬Vô] Cû\Yû]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]m CkR §Vô]j§tÏ ªLÜm AY£Vm. CeÏ Sôu N¬Vô] Cû\Yu G]d áßmúTôÕ ùTônVô] Cû\Yu CÚd¡u\ô]ô G]d úLs®

CVtûLVôL GZdáÓm. CûRlTt± CeÏ Sôm A§LUôL BWôV úSWªpXô®hPôÛm JÚ A¥lTPûP EiûUûV A±kÕ ùLôsYÕ ªL AY£Vm. SôúU

LtTû]ùNnÕ EiPôd¡d ùLôiP ùRnYeLû[lTt±V A±Üm AúR

LtTû]«u A[®uT¥úV AûUÙm. G]úY §Vô]m GuTÕ N¬Vô]

Cû\Yû]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]jRôp Sm U]ûR ùRôPokÕ ¨\l×YúR.

CRtÏ ERYúY Aû]jÕ BuÁLl T«t£Lû[ SômúUtùLôs¡uú\ôm. CkR BuÁLl T«t£Lú[ SUdÏ Cû\Yû]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]jûRj RSÕ®PôÕ.CûRÙm Sôm U]§p ùLôs[úYiÓm.

JÚSôQVj§tÏ CÚTdLm CÚlTÕ úTôp BuÁL úVôLj§p §Vô]m JÚTdLmGu\ôp ù_Tm/©WôojRû] UßTdLm BÏm. ©WôojRû] GuTÕ Sôm

Cû\Yú]ôÓ U]m®hÓ úTÑYRôÏm. ùTÚmTôÛm ù_Tm GuTÕ Cû\Y²u

SôUjûR ùRôPokÕ EfN¬jÕdùLôiúP CÚjRp GuTÕ ApX. ùTôÕYôL

SôUù_Tm Gu\ùTV¬p SUdÏ CxPUô] ùRnYj§u ùTVûW Ï±l©hP

Gi¦dûL ùNôpYÕ GuTÕ TWYXôL YZdLj§p CÚkÕ YÚ¡u\Õ. B]ôpN¬Vô] Cû\Yû]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]jûR AûPÙm úTôÕ U] JÚØLl

Tôh¥tLôL ApXÕ U] JÚØLlTôhÓPuáP ùRnYj§u ùTVûW ùYßm YôojûRL[ôp ùNôpYÕ GuTÕ ©WôojRû] BLôÕ. CdLÚRûR £Xo UßjÕ, TX BRôWeLû[dá± RY±úVô, N¬Vô] Oô]m CpXôUúXô, Cuàm ùYßl©]ôpáP (£ÑTôXû]lúTôp) Cû\Yu ùTVûW á±]ôp Ød§ AûPVXôm G]

Yô§PdáÓm. Sm©dûLÙPu Cû\Yu ùTVûWdá±dùLôiúP CÚkRôp áP Ød§ AûPVXôm G] Yô§ÓTYoLÞdÏ Sôu áßm T§p: ‘EeLs Sm©dûL«u T¥úV EeLÞdÏ Cû\Yu AÚs×¬VhÓm GuTúR’. B]ôp Guû]l ùTôßjRYûW Cû\Y²u ÏQjûR, RuûUûV A±VôUp, SôúU Y[ojÕdùLôiP (êP)Sm©dûL«u A¥lTûP«p ùYßm YôojûRL[ôp Cû\Y²u ùTVûWùNôpdùLôiúP CÚlTÕ ù_Tm ApXÕ ©WôojRû] BLôÕ. CûRdÏ±jÕCû\Yu CúVÑ áßmúTôÕ:

Gu £jRj§u T¥ YôZôUp/ùNnVôUp ùYßm YôojûRL[ôp Guû] úSôd¡

‘Cû\Yú], Cû\Yú] GuTYu JÚLôÛm Gu (BuÁL) CWôw´VjûR AûPVUôhPôu

G]úY ù_Tm GuTÕ Cû\YàPu úTÑYÕ §Vô]m GuTÕ ARtLô]BVjRm.CûY«WiÓúU SmYôrdûL«p ùRôPokÕ SPdLúYi¥V T«t£Ls. C§p

Ød¡V TeLôtßYÕ U]m. AûR JÚØLlTÓj§ BuÁLj§p Øuú]ßYÕ GuTúR BuÁL úVôLm. G]úY U]YûU GuTÕ U]ûR APd¡ ãuV ¨ûX«pùLôiÓYÚYRpX. C§p §Vô]Øm ©WôojRû]Ùm JúW SôQVj§u CÚ

TdLeLs. N¬Vô] §Vô]m N¬Vô] ©WôojRû]dÏ Y¯YÏdÏm N¬Vô]

©WôojRû] N¬Vô] §Vô]jûR ùY°lTÓjÕm.

B]ôp CûR ùNôpYÕ GqY[Ü G°úRô ARuT¥ LûP©¥jÕ Øuú]ßYÕ AqY[Ü G°RpX. U]m ªLÜm NgNXUô]Õ. AûR YNlTÓjÕYÕ GuTÕ

AqY[Ü G°Rô] Lô¬Vm ApX. CRtÏ Eß§Vô] ¾oUô]Øm N¬Vô]

CûP®PôR T«t£Ùm AY£Vm. ARpRôu Ao_÷]u ‘U]m ªLÜm NgNXUôLCÚd¡u\úR ¡Úx, Lôtû\dáP YNlTÓj§®PXôm úTôp CÚd¡u\Õ

Bp ªLÜm YûUVô] CkR US]ûR YNlTÓjÕYÕ ªLÜm L¥]UôL Es[úR” G]d úLhÏm úTôÕ ¡ÚxQu áß¡uu:

Bm U]m ªLÜm NgNXUô]Õ, ªLÜm YûUVô]Õ. Bp AûR ûYWôd¡Vj§Ûm (®PôØVt£«Ûm) T«t£«ÛmRôu AûR YNlTÓjR Ø¥Vm.

CjRûLV T«t£Ùm ®PôØVt£Ùm Cû\Y]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]Øm CpXôUpùYßUú] CVk§WL§VôL Cû\Y²u ùTVûW ù_Tm Gu\ ùTV¬p EfN¬jÕdùLôiúP CÚlT§p U]YûUúVô §Vô]úUô ûLáPôÕ. ARpRôu

LÀoNôLl ClT¥dáß¡uo:

ûL«úX Es[ ù_TUôXûV ùYßUú] EÚhÓ¡un, ¸ûR, UaôTôWRm

úTôu\Ytû\Ùm T¥d¡un. APØhPôú[ CÚRVjûR ÑjRmTiUp

ùYßUú] ©WNeLm TiÔYRôp Gu] TVu?

G]úY §Vô]m GuTÕ U]ûR JÚØLlTÓjR úYi¥ úRYVt\ £kR]L[

¿d¡ Cû\Y]lTt±V £kR]L°p U]ûR ¨Wl×YÕ. ùYßm BuÁL

èpL[ T¥lT§p UhÓm Cû\Y]lTt±V £kR] YkÕ®PôÕ. AûY

úYiÓUôp Sm A±ûYY[oLXôm. Bp AjRûLV èpX±ÜUhÓm

ùUnOô]jûR A°jÕ Ød§ûV A°dLôÕ. CûRd Ï±jÕ NeLWôfNô¬Vôo

áß¡uo:

Cû\Y]lúTôtß Cû\Y]lúTôtß êPU]úU. Eu Ak§LôXm YÚmúTôÕ ¿T¥jR CXdLQØm, ®VôdVô]Øm Eu]LôlTôt\ ERYôÕ.

G]úY Rô]m, RoUm, ¾ojRVôj§ûW, éû_ úTôu\ûY U]ûR ÑjRlTÓjR

úYi¥ Sôm ùNn¡u\ BuÁLlT«t£Lú[Vu±, AûYúV N¬Vô] Oô]jûR

RkÕ®PôÕ. G]úY §Vô]j§tÏ úYi¥VÕ Cû\Y]lTt±V N¬Vô] Oô]m.úUúX Sôm TôojRT¥ ‘U]ûR ÑjRTÓjRúYi¥úV (BuÁLd) LoUeLs ùNnVlTÓ¡u\]’. CûR NeLWo ªL AZLôL ClT¥ T_úLô®kRj§p áß¡uo:

LeLôNôLWm YûW ¾ojR Vôj§ûW ùNn¡un, ªLÜm A§LUô] ®WReL[

LûP©¥d¡un, Rô]eL[Ùm RôWô[Uôn ùNn¡un. Bp èßØûW

©\kRôÛm N¬Vô] Oô]m CpXôUp Ød§ ¡ûPdLôÕ Guß GpXô NUVeLÞmáß¡u\].

AÓjRT¥VôL §Vô]j§u UßTdLUô¡V ù_TjûRdÏ±jÕ Cuàm Ntß

®YWUôL LôiúTôm. Cû\YàPu úTÑYÕ ù_Tm. ùYßm YôojûRL[

EfN¬lTÕ ù_TUpX. Cû\YàPu úTNdá¥V CkR ù_Tm Cû\Y] A±kÕùLôiÓ úTÑmúTôÕUhÓúU TVu Es[RôL CÚdÏm. NôRôWQUôL Ut\

U²RoL°Pm Sôm úTÑmúTôÕ AYoL°u ÏQjûR A±kÕ úTNúYiÓm. AÕUhÓUpX Sôm úTÑYÕm AYoLÞdÏ ×¬VúYiÓm. CpXô®hPôp Sôm E[ßYRôL AYoLs ¨]lTôoLs. Bp Cû\YàPu Sôm ÏZkûRûVlúTôp

úT£Ûm AYu Sm U]ûR A±kÕùLôsYôu GuTRtLôL, Sôm GûRl

úT£Ûm AÕ ù_TUô¡®PôÕ. Sôm GûRdúLhPôÛm Cû\Yu RWúYiÓm

GuTÕ JÚ TdR²u GiQUôL CÚkRôp, R]dÏ Ht\Yôß AkR TdRu YôZúYiÓm G] Cû\Yu ®Úm×YÕ CkR ù_Tj§u A¥lTûPVôÏm. G]úY

§Vô]jûRlúTôXúY ù_Tj§Ûm, ù_©dÏmØu Gu]lTt±V A±Üm

(RÏ§Ùm) Cû\Y]lTt±V Oô]Øm AY£Vm.

úUtùLôiÓ ù_TjûRlTt± LôiTRtÏ ØuTôL JÚ LÚjûRÙm ¨]Ü

ùLôs[ úYiÓm. Cû\Y]lTt±V A±Ü G]d áßmúTôÕ èpL°u

Yô«XôL Gu A±®uêXm Cû\Y²u ØÝjRuûUûVÙm Sôu EQoÕ

ùLô[YÕ GuTÕ CeÏ ùTôÚ[pX. Hù]up Cû\Y²u ØÝjRuûU

ûVÙm GYÚm GdLôÛm Ru £±V A±®p ×¬kÕùLôs[Ø¥VôÕ. Cû\Y]lTt± A±kÕùLôsYÕ GuTÕ Cû\Yu Ru LÚQ«p Rôú] ØuYkÕ

CVtûL, U]Nôh£ Utßm Uû\Ls êXm Ru]lTt± ùY°lTÓj§Ùs[

Lô¬VeL[ Sôu ®[e¡ HtßdùLôsÞm Gu RÏ§úV CkR A±YôÏm. Hu

Gup Cû\Y]lTt± Øtßm EQokRYoLs GYßm CXo. ‘LiPYo ®iP§pX; ®iPYo LiP§pX GuTúR’, Cû\Y²u EiûUVô] ¨X. CûRdÏ±jÕ ®®Vm: úL© S RÚxPa; úL© S RÚxVxN (JÚYÚm Li¥WôRYÚm, LôQdáPôRYÚm 1 ¾úUôúRÙ 6:16) G]dáß¡u\Õ. G]úYRôu

U²RoL[ôL CÚkÕ ùLôiÓ £Xo Ru]jRôú] ‘SôuRôu AkR úR®, CkR ùRnYm ApXÕ AY¬u ©W§¨§, ApXÕ Nd§’ G]dáßYùRpXôm HUôtß

úYX. U²Ru LPÜ°u vRô]jûR GÓdL Ø¥VôÕ. Hù]up Ru]úV

ùRnYm ApXÕ AY¬u Nd§ G]dá±dùLôsTY¬u EiûUVô] RuûU,

ÏQm, Ït\m GpXôm SUdÏjùR¬Ùm. SmûUlúTôXúY GpXô®R RuûUÙm

¨û\kR U²RoL[ Sôm ùRnYUôL Tô®lTÕ AkR Cû\YàdÏ G§WôL Sôm

ùNnÙm UôùTÚm Ït\UôÏm.

@@@

Dear Meena and Palani, Varanasi, October 16, 2003.

Shanti!

As I promised to write back, I am trying to answer only few of the issues, which you have raised in your previous e-mail.

First regarding the baptism:

Are you under any pressure–either from Christian/church or your own conscience? I would rather recommend to wait till Meena herself is sure about it. Even if you want to her to take baptism, then who is going to give her? Any form of baptism given by the church means that officially your wife becomes a ‘Christian’. This also means that she has consciously and officially ‘left’ her Hindu family and community but also officially joined a ‘Christian Community’. If that is what you also think, then contemplate what already wrote about First Generation Christian:

a ‘Christian Convert’ who and is quick to become a ‘First Generation Christian’, will only end up in producing a Second Generation Nominal Christians–enhancing only the biological growth (rather swelling) of the local (denominational) church and increase the Christian population than remaining a faithful witness for the Lord in the expansion of His Kingdom among her/his own family and community. We in our group never attempt to start one more Christian Denomination in another name or form. What we are attempting to create is Christ Centred Families among the Hindu/Muslim Communities and this could be possible only through individual commitment and a common cause.

On the other hand if you want her to take Deeksha, let us do it also in our Indian
Way. I gave deeksha to few, but all that is done only in Indian way and in not one incident we communicated the message that the person who took the deeksha left his Hindu family and community. For example when I gave deeksha to Prasad, it was not only arranged in one of his family occasion (house warming ceremony) but also with the approval of his Hindu parents and his father also spent the money for that. We gave deeksha in the presence of all his relatives where he openly confessed to follow Bhagavan Jesus (Mukteswar) remaining as a Hindu Christ Bhakta. Why cannot we also do the same for Meena when you come next time to India? That will be a witness also for the Lord among your own family. Instead of creating any kind of ‘fear’ in her mind, better allow her make her own decision.

Regarding participating Diwali and receiving blessing from your elders, it is a big subject but if you have my book I have dealt with it somehow. Personally I feel that God won’t say that you should not receive any kind of blessing even from your Hindu parents. You know well that when our elders blesses they don’t specifically use the word ‘May Shiva bless or Vishnu bless you’. Generally they give some blessing or in the name of Bhagavan, Kadavul or God. Definitely they are not keeping our Lord in their mind, but most of the Hindu when bless one use a common name God. About this Nirad C. Chaudhuri says,

The one God to which I am referring here is a Hindu form of the Christian and Islamic. The most common name under which he is referred to is Bhagavan. Though he is a personal God, he is never thought of or spoken about as an anthropomorphic God in a physical form. Actually, no physical form is ever assigned to him, though he is a full anthropomorphic psychic entity. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is personified compassion and justice at the time.

The Hindus always turn to him when they are in trouble, in all their sorrows and suffering, but never when prosperous. They would say to others: God will show you mercy, God will judge your actions, or God will not allow this. No particular, individualized, anthropomorphic god of the old Hindu pantheon ever fulfilled this role with any Hindu. To the other gods of Hinduism, even when thought of as a supreme god, the Hindus looked with some confidence based on his right to ask for divine help, since through worship he was performing his part of the contract and giving the god his quid pro quo. But to this God, Bhagavan, he appealed when he was wholly without any resource, yet he did so with complete faith in his mercy.

Nevertheless, this Bhagavan has never been worshipped, nor has he even been an object of regular prayer. St. Paul said to the Athenians that He whom they worshipped as the Unknown God was being proclaimed to them by him. To the Hindus this Unknown God was fully known, but never worshipped. In the whole religious literature of the Hindus there is no discussion of the nature of this God. Yet in one sense this undiscussed God is the only real God of Hindu faith.– Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By, Delhi, Oxford University Press, (1979), 1996, p. 149

So when you go to your in-law’s house without any hesitation accept the blessing. Regarding the ‘vibhuti’ (ash)–no doubt it is sectarian in its symbol. But by saying ‘NO’, we are definitely NOTwitnessing for the Lord, rather denying their love and concern for us. In such situation it is not permission but concession due to human weakness. As God knows our heart and situation He is not going to curse or punish us. As much as possible we have to avoid every form of ‘idol’ worship and anything related with it. But it is a subtle issue. If possible you can also explain them that your bhakti to Christ does not allow you to participate in such ritual and most of the time our relatives never insist or impose their ritual on us. They are more generous than others. Writing in the Chinese context of Singapore Chuch Lowe says,

…To preserve the peace in subsequent years, many mothers will set aside specific portions before offering the rest to the ancestors, so that Christian family members can join the feast without fear of contamination. Ironically, this characterizes the Christian as confrontational and unfilial, and forces the shenist into the role of peace-maker. This inverts Paul’s evangelistic strategy. Instead of the Christian becoming all things to all people in order to save some (I Cor. 9:22), the shenist must flex to accommodate Christian family members. Moreover, in a culture that values filial devotion above all ethical values, shenist parents are forced into a subordinate role. On top of it all, to secularists, Christian abstinence often comes across as superstitious.–Honoring God and Family, A Christian Response to Idol Food in Chinese Popular Religion, Bangalore, Theological Book Trust, 2001, p.266

Of course in this book Lowe is not agreeing with our principle in most places. So I am selectively quote him only to push my point. It is better yourself read the book and come to your own conclusion. You can order this book from Rick. Though this book is written in Chinese context, several of their rituals are similar that we find in our Hindu communities. At the same time there are several distinction and here I don’t want to go in detail comparing all of them. But this one point I am sure that a Hindu never cling to any idol as the only form of God. Every Hindu is an idol worshipper, but s/he can easily set aside it and worship a Nameless formless God without any ritual as well. As I don’t know your family situation, I leave it to your conscience to decide. But always remember one fact that One Quick in the wrong direction then we have to invest our whole life to correct it. This is particularly important not to close the heart and minds of our own people to listen the gospel in the name of our Zeal for the Lord.

dayanand

@@@

namesta swamiji,

how are you. After a long gap i am writing you a mail.Yesterday i went to a crafts fair with Anjali and Sham. i am remembering you since then. last time we met at their residence and you asked me either to attend your discourse or to go the play.

i donot know what will happen. i am losing my concentration span.Help me how can i maintain it.i need it for my exams.When i sit for studies i am becoming restless.i have realised that i try to remember and do all unnessary repetitive household works and not my studies.i am doing so much pranayam but still i am not able control my mind for more than 2 or three hours.

It might not be directly related with your discourses but this is how i can implement it in my daily life.

girish.

Dear Girish,

Shanti!

First of all, when we approach any problem in life, we have to remember and accept the fact that there is no ‘short cut’ and easy ‘ready made’ solution. Next, we need patience—first of all with us.

The fact is that mind is fickle and it is very difficult to control. It seems that our (Indian) tradition often tells about ‘control’ of mind. Where as, I feel that instead of try to control our mind, we should learn how to discipline it. Of course both could be one, yet technically few prescribe some easy remedies–like doing pranayama or doing some asanas or attend some Yoga class. By telling this I don’t mean that asanas or Yoga is easy methods. What I mean is that these could not be easy solution. Any discipline needs perseverance, guidance and patience.

Now coming to concentration. Unless we develop a personal interest in any thing, we won’t do it with much enthusiasm and concentration. For example I like to do cross stitch and carpet making. As I have some interest, whenever I do it, I do with much concentration. Though I cannot make a perfect work, yet I try to finish the work with some satisfaction. The same way, you have to develop interest in your studies. You should not try to do it as a ‘duty’ or ‘means’ or ‘burden’, but with real interest to acquire knowledge. Most of the students study their subject only keeping the examination. Then the very study becomes a burden and problem. In stead if you develop a genuine interest, naturally you will find yourself concentrating the subject with much joy and easy.

Next step is not to strain our mind beyond what it can accept in a given time. Try to relax now and then. Discussing the subject which you have studies with another person will also help you to develop concentration. These are some technique related to study and not with mind ‘discipline’ or ‘concentration’.

The last one is share your problem with others. Already you have done it by sharing your personal problem with me. Most of the time, the tension that comes because of our failure will disappear once we share it with others. I do pray for you, at it also helps a lot for us to resolve several problems on which we do not have control.

Hope some of the points which I shared will help you to think about your situation. I assure my regular prayer for your studies. How is your mother? Convey my regards to her.

God bless you

Dayanand

Mathigiri, February 22, 2005.

@@@

Dear Rod,

Shanti!

Do you remember what I said to Arun when I was with you about my views about the modern (global gurus) and in particular reference with Mata Amritanandamayi, to whom Arun follows? I told him that in spite of all their claim about promoting spirituality and instant nirvana, yet when they accumulate wealth and involve in too much of social service, then in the long run, it will lead to the power struggle among their followers. This happened in the past and will continue in the future too. Though I don’t want to read too much about the recent incident that happened at Mata’s ashram in Kollam ashram, (a man armed with a knife attempted to attack the Mataji, but was prevented by her devotees on August 16^th, 2005), yet The Times of India (Bangalore edition, p. 1, August 23, 2005) says, ‘…There are suggestions about a power struggle taking place within the ashram with a coterie trying to “monopolise the Mata”. In the past, the activities of certain brahmacharis had come under the scanner. One of them was based at the mission’s ashram at Nerul in Navi Mumbai.’

Don’t discuss about this with Arun. But this I share to you so that you can keep in mind in your future dialogue with any followers of any gurus. Religious institutions when accumulate property, it leads to authority and corruption. No one religion is exempted from this.

dayanand

@@@

Swamiji,
Sadar Charan Sparsh.
Hope you are doing well. I write this email to seek permission from you to
write to you more often about the dilemmas and questions that refuse to
vacate my mind and are wastefully gnawing at me. Will it be alright to disturb you with my personal queries?

Pranam and regards,
Pooja (do I need to add ‘Ashish’s wife’?)

Dear Pooja,

Shanti!

What a joy and privilege to receive a mail from you. By my limited talk and acquaintance with you, I know you are a special girl (or woman?). I appreciate your courage to marry someone of your heart, even though there are some differences of opinions about life between you because of your different worldviews. I will be at your service to give some of my thoughts to any of your queries, though I may not competent to address all your issues. Please feel free and send your questions. We all need each other to share our thoughts, burdens, insights not only to relieve our mind but also to learn from each other. Therefore, I am looking forward to learn from you.

Regarding your question about adding ‘Ashish’s wife’? I will come later. Take care.

dayanand

Swami ji,

Sadar Charan Sparsh.

How are you? You must have been wondering at my vanishing act after I took a quick permission from you to pose my queries.

In fact I was giving myself and my impulse time in order to achieve objectivity. First of all, I would like to share (haven’t got a chance to share this with anyone actually as I hardly have any friend) that I am extremely happy to be with Ashish. I knew him for so long and so well, yet the “husband” facet is a lovely surprise. I feel blessed to be with him.

The process of settling down, so far, has been quite energy and time consuming as the set up in this house is quite different from the set-up I was used to. Household chores are sometimes fun and sometimes irksome so I have started taking the “housewifely responsibilty” in my stride now :-).

But there remains a question unresolved and when I am faced with it, it jars my life. I don’t know how to explain it but I will try… there is hardly any room for questioning each others faith or value system between the two of us (Ashish and me). But when it comes to the immediate family… I am pushed to the corner. I shall share some incidents below that made me feel uncomfortable and at loss of words. I would need a suggestion as to how I should handle such situations.

1. Soon after our marriage, the festival of Diwali descended and my mother-in-law took me to the market. She bought three dozen candles and said that she was going to donate it to the Church. Not a single candle was lit at home and that wasn’t an issue with me. But I fail to understand the timing of that particular shopping.

2. Then one day I was generally discussing with my mother-in-law about a family friend ( a young Hindu woman) who has been detected with advanced stage of cancer. Her response was that those who are not “believers” are often met with such fate. I was very upset.

3. As Ashish and I were planning to do things for Christmas (in our excitement and busy scehdule we did not share plans with the family though) I was scolded badly by my mother-in-law who said “nobody is looking forward to Christmas in this house!”

4. I generally like to read before going to the bed. It varies from literary novels to news magazines, sometimes even newspaper. My sister-in-law called me and asked why I don’t pick up the religious literature (journals like Atma Darshan in particular that we have subscribed to). She laughed at my habit of reading “novels”.

5 One unfortunate day of family discord, Ashish and I also picked up an argument and in an utter fit of anger I blurted: “What’s my fault? The fact that I am a Hindu!” He shot back: “Pack your bag and get out from this house.” I later understood the effect of my words that forced him to say such a thing.

Sorry for such a long mail. But I don’t want to carry these issues on mind for long. Reply at your convenience.

Regards and Pranam,

Pooja

Dear Pooja,

Shanti!

I mean it. I can clearly understand your feelings, emotions and needs as you try your best to adopt and adapt the new situation. However, I would like to begin from the point no. 5. Sorry to say this: I am shocked to hear such words from Ashish. If this were not a personal letter between us, I would have called him immediately and rebuked him. What he said was cent percent nonsense and in my view a kind of domestic violence against woman. This is my feeling, I highly respect your love for your husband, and I wish and pray that this should continue until the end of your life.

Whatever might be the reason, he has no right to say such words. I seek your pardon on behalf of men who think that they can say anything against women. Nevertheless, you rightly pointed out, it is not only the effect of your words, but the particular word ‘Hindu’. I personally feel that you are mentally not yet ready to accept the fact that you married a boy who does not share your faith. However, it will take time, even too much time than what you think normally will take to adjust your life in this new situation.

You need lots of patience. Nevertheless, you have to understand that unlike we Hindus, the Christians, particularly a family whose identity is not only based on their faith but their membership in a church and Christian community has to adjust more both in their mind and in social relationship. You don’t know how the people in the church would react and view your in-laws as their only son married a ‘non-believer’. Sorry for that term. I hate it, as all Hindus have their own faith and therefore they are not ‘non-believers’. But this is how the Christians always call others, like the Muslims calling others as ‘kafirs’.

Our identity as Hindus is more social and not based on faith. To say in other words while we have a collective samajic dharma, our sadhana dharma is personal. On the other hand, though the bible does not endorse, at least in India, the Christian identity is faith based community. Therefore, most of the Christians social interaction is limited with their own faith community (however nominal they might be in their faith). Of course they will have some relationship with non-Christians (sorry for this word also, as I don’t like that word ‘non-Christians’, as we are Hindus and not ‘non-Christians’), yet their community need and identity is mostly met within their church identity. Whereas we Hindus, keeping our faith personal, without any identity crisis mingle with all kinds of people. So there won’t be any feeling of embracement when a Hindu marries some one from other faith. As Hindus are more worried about status and caste than with faith.

This tension in Christian families where one of its members, particularly if the daughter-in-law is from other faith, then they have to face lots of criticism within their community. They may not openly say that, but through their action, reaction, mannerism etc. they will show this. You can understand if a low status Hindu is married with another status person. Of course, this status is common to every community in India. But I am using it only as an illustration to highlight my point.

So, whenever any difference of opinion emerges in your family, never try to defend your position or right based on religion viz. as a Hindu. You should try to develop your relationship more based on human need than that of religious identity. If you understand what I try to say to your point on 5, then you will get the answer to the other points from 1 to 4.

Regarding your mother-in-law’s response to your friends’ cancer, this is the way a typical Christian reacts to others suffering. They forget the fact even many believers—even strong believers in Christ also die with chronic deceases. I don’t know much about Ashish’s mother’s personal faith. However, as they view everything in the life related only with their faith, you cannot except any better understanding on their part about human suffering on different level.

Regarding the Diwali candle purchase, you have to understand her inner tension. I am not sure whether you still remember our talk in the car while we were waiting for Goutam to return. It is their home first and particularly all these years it is your mother-in-law who virtually ruled the home. Now when you step in, that too from a different background, she will use every accession to ascertain her control on every small matter in the family. Sorry to say. I am not talking about your mother-in-law in particular. But this is what I have observed in many homes. Once the daughter-in-law arrives, some kind of insecurity comes in the minds of most of the mother-in-laws. When you will become a mother-in-law, you too will understand this. It is not necessary that all have to live under one roof. Even those boys who live separately after their marriage, yet mother-in-law’s have the same kind of feeling. Once they see their grand children, their attention now shifts to the future generation, leaving some space for the daughter-in-law to have her rightful place. Better, you try to give your mother-in-law her grandchildren. Now you can understand why your mother-in-law scolded about Christmas purchase too. Now my mother stays with me and she expects me to even share who called me over phone or with whom I talked. Being a mother, she still feels that she is the head of the family and she needs to know what is happening in this house, though I am living single. If this were the demand of a sannyasi’s mother, how much more your mother-in-law would expect from you both?

You will slowly learn to understand certain worldview of the Christians—particularly those who think that they are born again Christians. For them apart from the bible, nothing is there worth to read. Of course, such sweeping generalization is wrong. However, if you were married in a nominal Christian house or in a Catholic house, your adjustment would be more easy. But some Protestant Christians’ worldview never allows them to see the life in its totality. However, I have to add one main point here. The bible never endorses their view and these are their own particular religio-community tradition, which their church imposes on them.

So you need patience, even you have to give up your sense of individualism to some extent for the sake of peace, harmony and co-operation in the house. This doesn’t mean that you have to give up your ‘INDIVIDUALITY’, which contributes a lot. As a modern young woman, you have to become more of an Indian to learn to live together than insisting on your individualism.

I am not sure whether this long response gives some answer to your points. However, I am praying for you. Finally one small note. If both husband and wife stand united, nothing can separate them and they will have immense strength to face all kinds of hurdles in the world. But if they allow even a small crack to come in their relationship, even if the whole world supports them, they will fail in all areas. So your first priority as a wife and Ashsish as husband is to see that you stand united in your life.

God bless you.

Dayanand

Pooja,

The following I wrote in my response to your first mail. But due to some reasons I didn’t sent it. However I am sending this now. Remember that I wrote this in the context of your question: do I need to add ‘Ashish’s wife’?. This is not part of my response to your present mail.

You don’t need to add ‘Ashish’s wife’. However, let me begin our dialogue from here. As a traditionalist, giving much importance to human values and relationship, I will say that by identifying yourself as Ashish’s wife, you are only enriching that boy and not loosing any of your personal identity as a woman. Both a man and woman become complete when they united in body, mind and spirit. No other relationship except the wife-husband fulfills that for human beings. Wife and husband relationship is complementary and not competitive one dominating the other. One is incomplete without the other. Both are one except biological differences. Of course, some traditions (almost all the traditions in the world) make woman stronger within her, because she has to co-ordinate many relationship in a family. Otherwise, without the one the other is incomplete.

Particularly our Indian tradition gives much respect to woman, though in practical life it suppresses them at worst. For example, Mahabharata says: “The home is not the house, they say, but the housewife”—na grham grham ity aahu grhii grham ucyate.1 That is why in our tradition a wife is termed as ‘dharma patini’ but not the husband, as dharma (duty) is entrusted in her hand. Even in our common talk, a husband will call his wife as the family but not the wife about her husband. Suppose if Ashish works in Bangalore, then if he returns to Chandigarh to bring you to Bangalore, he will say I am going to bring my ‘family’ (parivaar). However, you will never say my family is at Bangalore, but you might say my husband is at Bangalore.

In India, a person’s identity is always in relationship with others. Like in the west, no person is recognized as an individual. For example in our Indian neighborhood, several times parents were called as ‘Munna ka pappa, Rena ki mamma’ (Muna’s father, Rena’s mother) etc. In India a person is always is a father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter only, not an isolated individual. In the west, unknown person will never be called ‘uncle, auntie, didi, bhaiya’ etc. Even in Indian TV advertisement, unknown person is addressed as ‘didi’ (elder sister) or uncle. My Norwegian friend’s grand child call me ‘dayanand’ but here in India, every elderly person is addressed as ‘grand paa or grand maa’.

Few years before at Kodaikkanal in one meeting, as I don’t know the name of a woman, I addressed her as Mrs. Jeyakaran. Immediately she corrected me by saying, ‘Please call me what I am and not by what I am not. I have a name and I am not Mrs. Jeyakaran.’ In the same way, another girl, whom I know very well, who is also, a doctor always displays her name as Dr. Poonam Nayar. Where as her husband is from a different community (not a Nayar). As a joke, I told her, ‘you don’t want to keep your husband’s identity. I accept it, but why do you want to keep your father’s identity then? Why cannot you be simply Dr. Poonam?

Now it left to you to identify yourself with your man, to have his real identity in the society as a husband. While I respect personal freedom of individuals, yet individualism as it is violates several human rights.

That’s all for the time being.

Dayanand

Mathigiri, March 2, 2007. 11.45 pm.

1. RV 10.85.36. Again at 3.53.4 the RV states: “Wife is the true home”—jaayed astam. The MBh (12.144.66) echoes the same thought: “The home is not the house, they say, but the housewife”—na grham grham ity aahu grhii grham ucyate.— Patrick Olivelle, The Asrama system The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, Fn. 32, p.41

Swamiji,

Sadar Charan Sparsh.

Thank you so much. Your elaborate response answered all my questions. I do understand that I have to develop a relationship based on human need and that I have always believed in and followed. As far as religious identity goes, if I haven’t read the Bible, I haven’t read the Geeta, the Ramyana, the Vedas or the Upanishads too. I know I should have by now.

Similarly, I have not been a very “Temple frequenting” person. In fact, my number of visits to the Church has far exceeded my trips to a Temple in the last couple of years. And here I am not saying all this with a proud secular hint or an atheist attitude. I share a special bond with God (and not GODS, as Hindus are believed to have). My relationship with Him is unbroken and constant without the demarcations of Him being Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Ganesha… or whoever!

I may have been born in an upper caste Hindu Brahmin family but I was never introduced to God as His privileged or superior being who by virtue of being a Brahmin was automatically placed in priestly category. My first meeting with God was through prayer not idol worship. Even after quarter of a century (I must have been four or five years old), I can still feel that first warm embrace of strength that emanates only from prayer as I clung to my grandfather’s legs while he was praying. My grandfather simply used to close his eyes, fold hands and pray whenever and wherever he felt like… (he had his morning and sandhya routine also which included rituals and idol worship of course) but I was always deeply intrigued by his sudden desire to connect happily with God amid all the hustle bustle around him. I also remember being very very fascinated by the line “main sewak tum Swami” in ‘Jagdish Hare Aarti’. It almost defined what I was looking for… the protocol of the relationship between God and I.

Initially out of part curiosity and part ‘role model’ following I too started my dialogue with God. And interestingly I never sought anything but strength from God for many many years. And I got ample in return which saw me through many weak times. I was the bravest girl I believed. Well into teens and towards adulthood, the focus of my prayer shifted from strength to seeking solidarity as I saw my family coming apart. I only sought strength and clarity for my folks. Countless ups ands downs criss-crossed life, situations changed drastically showing very good and very bad times simultaneously, death too visited our house twice showing its fiercest face. I stretched my emotional endurance too far, almost bordering on anxiety and insanity. But nothing went really out of control because God was always by my side.

And then began a completely new dialogue with God. In fact, no dialogue at all! I began to think about God as much as I could without really seeking anything. Now I meditate, try and be with him, not as often, but stilll… Frankly the only thing I look forward to now is my life with Him the way He wants it to be.

I shared all this with you because I wanted to. Nobody had ever showed any interest in knowing my idea of faith. Maybe because I never tried to. I always feared what would I say if Ashish asked me, “okay you believe in God. But who – Shiv, Vishnu, Krishna…?” I know my assumption is baseless and it is basically my hesitation to crystallize the “Faceless and nameless” God I pray to.
By the way (please excuse me for being straightforward) you write “We Hindus” or “the Christians”… I am confused… do you want to side me… or do you actually know the art of living one way of life and practicing another way in faith? Sorry if I am being intrusive.

Regards and Pranam,

Pooja

Dear Pooja,

Shanti!

Thanks for sharing your pilgrimage with god all through your life. As god knows how to deal with each one of us, there is no point in making any comment on your experience. I respect it; appreciate and thank god for it.

To your lost point of ‘We Hindus’ or ‘the Christians’, I like the way you asked the question straightforwardly. Let me ask one thing? When you address me ‘swamiji’, what kind of thought you have in your mind? Do you think this vocation that I have as a single man and as a sannyasi is for the sake of ‘art of living’ or to say in another way to ‘make a living’?

I have born as a Hindu. Therefore, I am identifying with you as a fellow Hindu. However, my faith is bhagavan Muktinath, whom the Christians call as ‘Jesus Christ’. Nevertheless, I never became a Christian to be a bhakta of him. However, as a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath, several times I interact, confront the Christians. However, I want to be very careful in my identity. That is why I have to call the Christians as ‘the Christians’—the ‘other’ for me.

Of course, I understand your doubt or confusion in this regard. It will take time for you to understand our struggle to have our legitimate place in our family and community as the bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath as a fellow Hindu with our cultural and social identity. Therefore, it is neither an art of living or practicing another way in faith, but this is our pilgrimage in god, as he gave us the privilege to be born as a Hindu and found our guru in Lord Muktinath.

God bless you.

dayanand

@@@

When I met Rameswar Reddy along with his wife and mother-in-law on October 1, 2003 at Hydrabad, he asked, ‘why several attempt to indigenise the gospel and church failed’? For this I said:

Those who attempted to indigenise the gospel (and the church) most of the time toiled remaining within the Church or Mission. They thought that a changed church/mission could reach the Hindus. But most of them never supported or encouraged much by the church or missions. And few who were initially supported finally deserted by the very same church or Missions. So we do not have time and energy to repeat the same methods (or mistakes).

But what we (I) attempt to indigenise the gospel will take much time more than what we expect. It may even take several hundred years to receive reorganization as ‘Hindu Christ bhaktas’. So we need patience and perseverance. We have to do our part faithfully and pass this vision to the next generation.

For this also we need certain personal commitment. For example in our movement also when we arrange or organize some meeting, each one should try to participate because of their own personal commitment and interest towards the principle. As almost everyone involved in our movement are witnessing only in Secular situation, each one may have their own genuine excuses why they cannot participate. But that’s is the challenge. Because we do not gather often to have regular fellowship. Several individuals in our movement are a single witness in her/his family. As we don’t keep regular weekly fellowship for worship, study and prayer, whenever we get opportunity to meet together we should make every efforts to participate. Otherwise those individuals who need constant encouragement will gradually loose their vision to be a witness to her/his own family.

I don’t want anyone to participate in such meeting because of me. Then we cannot make any progress as it will remain again One man operated Corporation. On personal basis, each one of us has genuine reason why we cannot do certain things for the common cause. But if each one is going to count only his personal gain or loss, in the end it will not only affect the individual but ultimately the movement. Already several causalities have occurred and we don’t have the luxury to continue it.

What we try to do as Hindu Christ Bhaktas, each one should have some personal commitment. They should do certain things not for any individual but for the Principle. No one as a Person is not IMPORTANT. We as a group the PRINCIPLE IS IMPORTANT and for this every individual should make a personal commitment.

Another thought that came to my mind on 14th October at Varanasi is that those who want to have ‘the best of the both world’ can never identify with the struggle of anyone (as we already discussed about this in my previous mail in e-bhaktas). At the same time after struggling a lot if any single Christ bhakta in a Hindu/Muslim (etc.) family decided to become a ‘Christian Convert’ and is quick to become a ‘First Generation Christian’, will only end up in producing a Second Generation Nominal Christians–enhancing only the biological growth (rather swelling) of the local (denominational) church and increase the Christian population than remaining a faithful witness for the Lord in the expansion of His Kingdom among her/his own family and community. We in our group never attempt to start one more Christian Denomination in another name or form. What we are attempting to create is Christ Centred Families among the Hindu/Muslim Communities and this could be possible only through individual commitment and a common cause.

@@@@

@@@

Dear Shahi, Hosur, July 31, 2000.

Shanti!

Thanks for your letter and I am very happy about the partition matter ended smoothly. I am praying for the salary matter, which is affecting several thousand families. I am also praying for Babuj’s and Mataji’s health. Now racer operations are performed without any pain or strain for Piles and I think it will be available at Bhopal also. Better arrange for that for Babuji which is easy and done quickly without any problem or side effect.

Regarding Lallan, I feel very sorry for him. What I share may be equally true for us also

Spirituality is not an easy thing. More we grow in it, more obstacles will come on our ways. But these obstacles are not problems in themselves but only a process to make us matured. It is like pruning a plant, which is painful, but ‘Pruning is always a painful process towards perfection.’

But the main thing that we have to keep in mind in following the Lord is not for what we will ‘get’ but what we will ‘become’. The aim of God is to make us more matured and this will result in making good to better and best to better. Still this best is not an end in itself but an ongoing process called ‘sanctification.’ Once we are justified by our faith before God through our Lord, then God’s aim is to make us perfect through several processes. But those who are worldly, only want to follow the Lord for what they can ‘get’ and not to become ‘good, better and best’. Without God’s help and faith in Him one may even obtain all he wants in this world through his hard work and effort, but to become perfect we need His Grace and Mercy. So we follow Our Lord not to get something in this world but to ‘become’ as He expects us. Of course if seek the Kingdom of God and his dharma (righteousness) then what all necessary for us to survive, God will definitely provide. But our main reason for following the Lord is not to get something but become as He expects.

In this spiritual life the main hurdle that we all have to face is ourselves. Most of the time we create the problems, which are facing on our way in our progress in the spiritual life—because of our temperament, personality and character. So this ‘self-realization’, I mean knowing our temperament and character will help us to guard ourselves against all the complaint which we make against others and God for most the problem which we create.

God will help those who want to help themselves first. But in this help which we have to do for ourselves we have to keep in mind that it is His grace and mercy that will strengthen in all efforts to help ourselves. For example God will show the shortcoming in our temperament and character but we have to deal with it sincerely and seriously so that we can remove those hurdles to grow in spiritual life.

For this we need fellowship with true believers called ‘Satsangh’. But however we may have true fellowship, yet that itself will not guarantee our progress. This Satsangh will help us to learn and test our own nature, but we have to ‘work out our own salvation’, with God’s help. Remember that all our fellowship and friendship has there own limitation. For example we have to live 24 hours in a day with our family members and people in the world. Real test is there and not in our fellowship where we can pretend or feel exalted as if we are supernatural saints. But when we rub shoulders with people, our true nature, temperament and character will reveal about us. So it is mere excuse that we don’t have fellowship. This doesn’t mean that I am not giving importance for the Satsangh. We all need it, but we cannot blame other things for our lack of progress in spiritual life.

Coming back to Lallan, he is often defeated by the circumstances because of his temperament. As you know him better than me, I need not point out all his shortcomings. But main problem in his life is lack of single-mindedness in any work that he wants to do. His unstable mind often creates problem in his life. If he were stick to one work, or business definitely he might have made some progress. But all these years he was doing every kind of work not staying in one area properly. He become a learner of all and master of none. Now if he lost his faith in the Lord, it is not going to help him any way. He may believe in every God now, but this also will not help him. He may even get several things for his life, but still that won’t help. Unless we keep our aim ‘to become’ good, better and best rather than ‘getting something’ for our survival, God cannot help us in any way.

All the people are surviving one way or the other in this world. But that alone is not our aim. Unless this distinction is realized by us, all our efforts to progress in this life we won’t make any difference from others. This does not mean that we have to compare ourselves with others in all the walk of our life—spiritual or material (this is a real temptation for all of us). There is no comparison for our progress in the spiritual life. We all are unique before God and we ourselves are our own comparison and not others—not even our Lord Jesus. As Nara-Hari (Man-God) He is unique in every way. In His human form He showed the way for us as human being. But being a Perfect Human we cannot compare ourselves with Him and even the most saintly man/woman can ever claim that he/she become like Jesus. But as God, He can guide us, strengthen us and give His grace in our struggle with ourselves.

The lesson that we should learn from Lallan and others is that still we are following the Lord because of His Grace. In every walk of our life we will have similar temptation to give up our faith in the Lord. But those who are not defeated by the circumstances, one’s personality, temperament and character alone can make a study progress in this walk with our Lord. I am not comparing us with Lallan. All I say is that while we feel sorry for him, we have to pray for him and if possible try to give him more fellowship and love of the Lord through our service to him, but we must fight all kinds of temptations to give up that struggle with ourselves in this spiritual life.

Hope my language (the way of writing) is not confusing you. Would you please translate this also in Hindi as you have done previous one? I like your Hindi and I have typed it from your letter and keeping in the computer to take copy to give other shisyas in North India. Thank you.

May the Lord who is able to keep us in Him help us in our pilgrimage to walk with Him.

My love and regards to all of your family members.

Yours in the Lord,

Dayanand Bharati

Copy to Keshave.

@@@

Pluralism upheld and exclusivism defended.

This morning Velukudi Kannan, while giving his teaching on Gita (7:22), (he gives regular teaching on Gita in Podigai channel, morning 6.30 am to 7.00 am), clearly explained the pluralism in Hinduism at the same time defending the exclusivism of his sectarianism. Of course you can understand this verse only in the context of 7:21

Whatever celestial form a devotee (craving for some worldly object) chooses to worship with reverence, I stabilize the faith of that particular devotee in that very form.-7:21

Endowed with such faith he worships that particular deity and obtains through him without doubt his desired enjoyments as ordained by Myself.-7:22

–Pointing out clearly Velukudi Kannan said that, in order to help people to have faith in shashtras and Vedas (which only points to Vishnu) and not to become atheist, Krishna allow them to have faith in other deities even craving for worldly desire. But when they soon realize that it is not that particular deity which they worship, but only Krishna himself grand their desire through it. Once that realization comes, they will have faith in Krishna only. To support his teaching he also quoted several Azhvar (Tamil) songs. However he was very careful while naming those deities (Varuna, Indra, Kubera etc.) and never took the name of ‘Siva’ etc. Because many of his audience are worshipers of Siva also and so he cannot include Siva as one among the deities through whom it is Krishna alone finally acts. He even mentioned that by worshipping deities like Indra there is no guarantee that their bhakti will yield the desired result, because such deities like Indra also will die at the end of the Pralaya (Brahman’s sleep). It is important to note that in the present Hinduism, Varuna, Indra and Kubera are not worshipped by all.

So, as I often say, pluralism is the fundamental doctrine in Hinduism, in which each sect has its own right to claim exclusivism.

Dayanand, gurukulam, April 15, 2008

@@@

Reclaiming the Real Hinduism

Dear Swamiji,
My Dad sent this, and I thought you might find it interesting.
Sharala

Reclaiming the Real Hinduism

By Vijay Rana
Source: Free Press Journal

The first time I was forced to declare myself as a devout Hindu was when I approached one of the finest schools in London for the admission of my daughter. It was a school governed by the Church of England. The admission criteria gave preference to Protestants followed by Catholics and other faiths. We had to declare on the admission form how often our family visited our place of worship-in our case a temple– daily, weekly, monthly or occasionally. The form had to be endorsed by the temple priest.

So we went to a nearby Hindu temple. ‘I haven’t seen you before,’ the priest virtually growled at me. ‘Yes we don’t come very often,’ I replied. I was duly admonished on being a reluctant Hindu. The priest lectured me on the advantages of regular temple visits. He reluctantly signed the form, putting a tick in the last category of occasional visitors. That’s how I was declared to a devout Hindus. That day a vital part of my Hinduism was taken away from me-my freedom to be a Hindu without going to the temple.

Until now I had freedom to pray, where I wanted. I had freedom to choose among the numerous Hindu gods. I had freedom to argue for and against the prescribed beliefs. I had freedom to study, or even not to study, the sacred books and there were many of them–Vedas, Upanishads, Gita or Ramayana. I wasn’t prepared to surrender these freedoms and follow the priest, whose knowledge and wisdom seemed suspect. No, I am not a scholar of Hinduism. Yes, I understand its basic tenets. As a kid I had a pretty good religious rearing or to be more precise, a Hindu upbringing. My grandfather, Nana, never taught me the lessons of Hinduism. He never forced me to cram the sacred books. I imitated him with great pleasure. I followed him with curiosity. Amidst this great joy somewhere
within me a seed was sown-the seed of Hinduism.

My Nana’s day began with the chants of: ‘Servey bhavantu sukhinah, servey santu niramaya…’ (May all living being be happy and free from fear.’) Then I didn’t understand the relevance of these lines, but I understand now. When rampaging mobs, chanting the name of my Lord Rama, kill innocent women and children. I say, ‘No! That’s not the Hinduism I was taught. My Hinduism promised to ensure freedom from fear, not for Hindus alone but for all living being.’

The Hinduism I knew was a compassionate creed, a set of values caring for all the living being, including plants and animals. Forty years ago, while on his morning walk my grandfather would take a little packet of sugar and feed the ants on the way. I was never allowed to pluck green leaves, as it would injure plants. I was admonished if I tried to climb a tree in the evening. I was told that sleeping trees were not supposed to be disturbed. ‘Vaishnav jana to tene
kahiye, je peer paraayi jaane re.’ (True believers are those who feel the pain of others.’), Nana would often sing. That was the Hinduism I was taught.

Gandhi’s tolerance was written on his heart. Untouchability, he despised. Social equality, he espoused. We kids were not allowed to abuse or even order family servants. We were asked to call our sweeper, Anand mama and our barber Chokhe mama. They were parts of our family. Benevolence, generosity, compassion were the central traits of his mental make up. That was the Hinduism I grew up with. Hinduism devoid of all kinds of hatred.

Even though I didn’t understand a single word, I hung around him when he read Gita. Today I understand what he used to read-Krishna’s description of a perfect human being: ‘He who does not entertain hatred toward any being, who is friendly and ever compassionate, free from egoism, even tempered in pain and pleasure, is dear to me.
‘He who behaves alike to foe and friend; who is even-poised in honour and dishonour; who is even tempered in cold and heat, happiness and sorrow-that man is dear to me.’

That was the Hinduism that echoes in my years. The Hinduism of Ramchndra Paramhans or Ashok Singhal is alien to me. The sword wielding, slogan shouting and hate spewing Karsevaks terrorise me, a Hindu, too. No, I am not prepared to accept them as protectors of Hinduism. No, I am not prepared to accept the VHP and Bajrang Dal as
champions of Hinduism. Yes, I would welcome a Rama temple in Ayodhya, a temple of compassion and social harmony. I do not need a temple made with the shilas of hatred, a temple that is cemented by communal
intolerance. I am in no rush. I can wait till courts come up with an acceptable answer. I can wait till
Hindus and Muslims come to a sensible compromise.

Let no one make mistake–strife is the path of sure destruction and peace is the inevitable precondition of progress and prosperity. I remember, the day of my Nana often ended with Shanti Paath:

Peace in Haven, peace in space, peace on earth, peace on water, peace in the woods and vegetation-Oh god give me the peace that is found in all these places. Peace, Peace, Peace.

In a democratic, forward-looking, modern, 21st century India the hijacking of Hinduism must not be
allowed. Let sane and sensible Hindus speak. Let us reclaim the real Hinduism.

Tell us what you think about this article

Dear Sharala, Hosur, March 24, 2002.

Vijay Rana is right in his/her statement that a True Hindu should not allow Hinduism to be hijacked by Hindu fundamentalists with a clear political agenda in their mind. But the problem is if Hinduism is hijacked we can negotiate with the kidnappers and even come forward to pay some ransom to pacify their wrath or need and redeem Hinduism. Whereas in stead of hijacking Hinduism these Hindu fundamentalists are systematically manipulating common people’s mind using every means—media, politics, religious sentiment etc. The problem in our fight (if at all we lay Hindus are ready to fight) with religious fundamentalists is that while the Muslims (in spite of the differences among them) are articulating their concern with one voice, most of the Hindus remain indifferent to what is happening around them. They will only raise the issue to their mind first and voice their worry a bit only when they are personally affected—like that of Rana him/herself.

When Rana faced the problem of getting some certificate from a temple priest and rebuked by him for their lack of regular attendance to the temple then alone s/he awakened to the problem in Hinduism and the loss of his/her freedom. Of course this I say not to criticise him/her. At least this provided an opportunity for him/her to voice his/her concern.

Going back to the first issue of obtaining a certificate from the temple priest, this is a problem created by the Organised religion called ‘Christianity’. In most of the cases, a Christian life is centred and even tied with his/her Church agenda. Particularly in West where religion is organized and not society one’s identity and need is met only by keeping a regular membership with the Church. It is like a Lions or Rotary Club membership. Of course in these Clubs at least the membership is identified with prestige in the society. Whereas in Christianity it is the question of survival. For hatch (birth), match (marriage) and dispatch (death) an average Christian has to depend upon the mercy of the Church and the pastor. His/her spiritual life and commitment to Christ is not at all an issue in such organized church and religion, whereas regular membership–attendance as well as paying regularly for the membership fees etc.—alone considered as the sign of a genuine Christian. For example in several main line churches in Tamilnadu a member cannot give his/her vote for any election for the Church Committee, Board etc., unless s/he first paid the membership fee of the church, attended minimum Communion services next. In some cases regular attendance also excused provided the membership fee is paid regularly to keep the name in the Church record. And naturally any school run by such Church Institution want to help their respective Church’s grip on the people by asking them to provide certificate of regular attendance as shared by Rana, ‘We had to declare on the admission form how often our family visited our place of worship-in our case a temple– daily, weekly, monthly or occasionally. The form had to be endorsed by the temple priest.’

Whereas in Hinduism as the society and community is organized and not the religion, no Hindu live at the mercy of a priest. If at all they have to depend upon a priest’s help without which they can do away easily is funeral rite. For that also no priest can exercise any authority or threaten to boycott. If one priest is not ready to perform another will be ready to do it for a good sum of money. But in Rana’s situation, as he/she lives in a country where religion is Organised, the grip of the Church and Christianity as an organized religion spread to other communities outside the church also. Naturally s/he has to become a victim as s/he has to survive in that situation. The West which talks too much on individual freedom, human right etc., in the name of Religious freedom refuse to interfere in such atrocity of a Religious Institution. Interestingly in India no school run even by a Church will ask such certificate I think. Even if any School demand any such certificate, the concerned parent can even go the court to remove such condition by the school.

Regarding the temple priest who rebuked Rana, knowing the opportunity provided by an Organized Religion called Christianity and by its institution ‘Church’, he too wants to take advantage of his new role and authority provided by the church. Secretly he might be even rejoicing to get such power and authority which his own Hindu religion and community never gave him. Or he might have rebuked Rana for the lake of regular attendance that deprived him of few pennies or Pound (paise or money) which Rana, out of religious sentiment has to put on the offering plat that too voluntarily. This collection from the plate is not ‘mere’ extra income to a Hindu Temple priest. I don’t know the situation in England Hindu Temple. But in India and particularly in South India, though a Temple priest will receive some regular monthly or annual support from the temple, it wont’ be enough for him to meet his ends and he has to depend upon the mercy and generosity of the devotees visiting the temple. But in India no temple priest can rebuke any devotee for not attending the temple pujas, as his service is not required for a Hindu to survive in his life as well as Hinduism as a religion or civilization never provide any extra-social authority to any priest as we found in the case of Church and Christianity. Though Rana has inherited and learnt some spiritual values from his/her family (from Nana), yet living in a country in which the society and community (even the govt., as the Church of England, which is the Official Religious Institution in England) gave all authority to a man made Institution, s/he too has to learn the art of ‘survival for the fittest’. Here the ‘fitness’ comes not from the inner strength derived based upon the spirituality inherited from family background, but artificially provided by any man made Institution—government, religious institution, political party etc. Hope Rana’s cry may awaken to the common Hindus to respond for every kind of religious tyranny imposed on them either by fundamentalists or religious Institution. In the case of VHP also, in India it not only politicise religion but attempts to Institutionalise it.¹

Rest what Rana shared about VHP, Bajrang Dal and a Temple at Ayodhya every common Hindu will agree with him/her, provided if at all they ever think about such issues in their daily life, until they are personally affected. In today’s news I heard that both the Hindu and Muslim communities at Ayodhya requested all the political parties to keep away from them so that they can lead a normal life. In Gujarat, after Gorda incident one political leader want to close one of the refugees camps (in which most of the riot victims live) arguing that there is every danger for them to be attacked as they are surrounded by several strong Hindu communities. But the people at the camp said that they feel more secured surrounded by caring Hindu communities (one man even told that one of the milk man, who is a Hindu even provided him a phone to use for his needs) than going back to their own place which is isolated as Muslim place, which could become an easy target for the anti-social forces. Though after Independence and three wars with Pakistan and constant militants attack on India from Pakistan naturally create a ‘communal hatred as a Hindu social consciousness’, this so called ‘social consciousness’ is not wide spread all over India. Thankfully all the communal rites remain limited in Gujarat alone after Godra incident. If one really trace out the reason for it that the on going communal tension is more kept alive by anti-social elements and vested political parties than by Hindus and Muslims themselves.

What is the urgent requirement for a peaceful life for common people everywhere in the world is the freedom from Religious Institutions and narrow-minded politicians. Where there is every possibility for the latter to be corrected or rejected by the same common people and gain their freedom, the tyranny of Organized Religious Institution cannot be easily removed by the same people who are victimized such Institution. Thankfully we Indian Hindus are escaped from that tyranny and we wish the same freedom for every people in the world.

Dayanand Bharati

Notes

1. “The Hindu nationalist identity which developed from this logic still seemed to show little fidelity to Hinduism in so far as it meant borrowing features from the Other which were foreign to it, such as a centralisd church-like structure or proselytism. Swami Chinmayananda admitted as much explicitly:

I know that religious organisation is against the very principle of Hinduism, but we have to move with the time. We seem to have entered today all over the world, in every walk of life, in every field of endeavour into an age of organisation. You cannot send a rocket up without an organisation. If disorganised, there is no strength, no vitality. Therefore, in the spiritual field, even though the individuals proceed forward and develop, if religion wants to serve the society, it also has to get organised. (Swami Chinmayanandji, ‘Why you should work for Vishwa Hindu Parishad’ in Shraddhanjali Smarika, New Delhi: Vishva Hindu Parishad, [n.d.] p.69(Hindi)”— Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s With a New Afterword, Penguin Books, 1999. p. 202

@@@

“It was their [Ariyans] religion that gave birth to the glorious culture of the Hindus”- Swami Nirvedananda, HINDUISM AT A GLANCE, Remakrishan Mission,p.15.[I am not sure whether this is Swami Nirvedananda’s own words or he is quoting someone else.—db]¹

1. No Religion is the origin of any one particular culture. Where as a culture most of the time gave birth to its own Religions. And as culture is the origin of Religion, it has great influence in that given Religion and some cases both culture and Religion cannot be distinguished sharply.

Most of the Missionary Religions were influenced by the culture where they spread their religion. eg. Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

When the Ariyans took their Religion in South India, their religion was greatly influenced both by Dravidian culture and Religion. The Ariyans brought with them only Vedic Religion; It is the Dravidian influence that gave birth to the philosophical sects like Advitha, Vishitadvaita and Dvaita, which latter influenced the entire Hinduism. (For future research work. Why these three schools of philosophies had their origin in south Indian alone. What was the influence of Dravidian religions and culture on the Ariyan Religion?) Even up to this day we can find visible distinction between North and South in their culture and Religions idea and practice in the Hindu fold. [This was written more than Ten years before around early 90s.—db]

@@@

Don’t study too many things, it is nothing but mere strain of words Brh. Up. 4.4.21b.

Dear Sharmaji, October 1, 1996,

Delihi.

Hope my remembrance with you. We met briefly at M\s Munshiram Manoharlal Pub. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi on September 28, 1996, where we had a lively discussion on, what Swami Vivekanand calls as “Text Torturing”.

Before I bring to your kind attention about the wrong translation of few Valmiki Ramayana’s slokas by M\s Gita Press, Ghorakpur, on which we discussed, here I whole heartedly appreciate the wonderful service which they are rendering to our land by providing Scriptures on subsided rate. I have high respect and regard for them. At the same time, as a student I am also interested in understanding the right meaning of the text, both by correct translation and interpretation.

The one problem with scholars is that they have the ability to mislead lay people like me, who have no easy access with various translation and interpretation along with the knowledge of the classic languages like Sanskrit and Greek. As a student of Scriptures, I uphold one strong conviction that we must remain honest to the text, however our doctrine may contradict with the right translation and interpretation.

Now coming to Valmike Ramayana: Sri Valmiki presents Sri Rama as a kshatriya, who upheld Dharma in all through his life. One interesting point in Valmiki Ramayana is the word “Dharma”, which almost appears in every chapter. We can, to some extent safely say that the main purpose of Valmiki Ramayana is to guide the people to uphold their respective dharma in their lives. We can come across beautiful teachings on dharma of Raja, Praja (citizen), Pita (father), Putra (son), Pati (husband), Patni (wife), Mitra (friend) etc. However one thing we should remember that the word “Dharma” in Sanskrit as well as in Pali is not “Religion”, as commonly translated. It generally means, “…privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct as a member of the Aryan Community, as a member of one of the castes, as a person in a particular stage of life. It is in this sense that the ws, while translating those slokas of Valmiki Ramayana, where it clearly states that Sri Rama ate non-veg., food, not remaining honest to the text, wrongly translated them. As Gita Press promotes Vaishnavism, it may find it difficult to present Rama as a non-vegitarian to the common people. But this they could have very well explain by giving some foot notes, than wrongly translating the text to mislead common people. However I have to take my words back that The Gita Press completely omitted those slokas. I read a Hindi translation of Valmiki Ramayana few years before and I don’t exactly remember the Publishers. It may be from Mathura or Lucknow Publishers and I regret for making such a statement. However, still my point on Gita Press on wrong translation stands and two examples are suffice here:

“…The two (Rama and Lakshmana) then killed there four great beasts, including a boar, a white-footed antelope, a spotted antelope and a great deer- and taking the flesh with them, went with all speed, since they were hungry, to the foot of the forest tree, there to spend the night”. (N. Raghunathan, Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam, Madras, Vigneswara Publishing House, 1981, Vol. I, Ayoodhyaa Kanda, Canto LII, The Crossing of the Ganga, p. 291)

The following one from Sundara Kanda should be understood in its given context. When Sitaji asks Hanumanji about the welfare of Sri Rama, then the latter while telling the condition of Sri Rama says that since Sitaji was missing Sri Rama has lost interest in eveything like eating, sleeping ect. and in that context Hanumanji says:

“Raghava eats no flesh, he drinks no mead; in the fifth watch of the day he partakes of the prescribed fare produced from forest produce.–with his mind wholly absorbed in thoughts of you,….Wholly given to brooding and grieving, and helpless in the grip of longing, he thinks of nothing else.” (Raghunathan, op.cit. Vol.II, Sundara Kaanda, Canto XXXVI, He gives her Rama’s signet ring. p.428)

As the texts and translations themselves speak, here I have nothing to add. I am not forcing my view on you, at the same time I am not going to bother whether you agree with me or not.

Before closing I would briefly comment on Sri Sankara’s and Sri Ramanuja’s mutual disagreement on which also we discussed on the same day. According to you both the acharyas never disagreed in their point of view and while Sri Sankara insisting more on knowledge (jnana) for salvation Sri Ramanuja upheld bhakti for the same. All the disagreement that we find in their doctrine is done only by their followers. But a careful reader of the commentaries written by both the acharyas on various Scriptures will clearly show how they are refuting their opponents view categorically in order to prove their own point. And in this process, in order to press their point, both of them several times never remained honest to the text as well as to the context. Sri Sankara in order to prove his advaitic sidhanta, superimposed his own interpretation, where there is no scope for it in that particular text and Ramanuja had done the same to prove his sidhanta (end of the truth) of Visistadvaita. This is an universal problem in every religion when in comes to interpreting their respective Scriptures, which led to the formation of various denominations and sects within that particular religion. Let me take one example from Gita itself:

Here, Sri Sankara in order to prove his advaita doctrine divide the word “Anadimatparam” as “anadimat + param”, stating that the atman (soul) is eternal. Whereas Sri Ramanuja as “anadi + matparam” claiming Sri Krishna as eternal one. And considering the context Sri Ramanuja’s interpretation is more authentic than of Sri Sankara. Like wise in Gita 3:42 while Sri Sankara interprets ” ” as atman, Ramanuja as “sin” and again considering the context (in way of answering Arjuna’s question in 3:36, Sri Krishna talks on the nature of sin) Ramanuja comes more close to the text than Sankara. One moord seems to be used in the well-known exhortation to the pupil contained in the Taittiriya Upanisad (I.1.1) ‘speak the truth, practise (your own) dharma etc….’” (P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1974, Vol. I, Part I. pp. 3-4)

Now, Sri Rama being a Kshatriya, I find no problem if he were a Non-vegetarian. Being a king he might have eaten non-veg., foods as Valmiki Ramayana in few places clearly shows. This won’t disturb my respect for Sri Rama in any way. In our country even Brahmins ate and still are eating non-veg. food in some parts of our land like Maitili Brahmins in Bihar and Bengali Brahmins. In our Vedas and Dharma Sastras there are plenty of reference to prove this. According to Kane, even a Sanyasi is expected to eat meet in a sradha, where he is invited to take food where non-veg foods were offered. If you wants to the references from various Scriptures and Dharmasastras, I am willing to give them.

This being the case, M/s Gita Presre from Upanisad. In Katha Upnishad I.ii.20, while Sri Sankara interprets “Dhatu Prasad” as the grace of one’s own atman, Gita Press (rightly) interprets it as:

Of course one has to agree that Sri Sankara’s interpretation on Upanisads is more reliable as Upanisads come very close to his doctrine of advaita. If you want more information on Sankara’s miss-leading interpretation, I am will give the details. This does not mean that I am blaming Sri Sankara or any acharya. They are the product of their own time as we are of our own. Yet history will judge us not based on the circumstances of our time which shaped our ideology but on our integrity.

While paying reverence to the acharyas, a true disciple won’t hesitate to point out his mistakes as Mahabharata rightly says:

“…that punishment should follow even in the case of a guru who has become conceited, who fails to distinguish between what is proper to be done or is improper and takes to a bad course of conduct”. –Shanti.,, 57. 6-7, also vide Udyogaparva 178. 47-48, Aadiparva 140. 54 and the Santi 140. 48 (Kane. op. cit. Vol.I, Part. I, Chap. 14, The Arthasaastra of Kautilya. Fn. 154k. p.161)

Here I close. The intention of writing all this is not to hurt your sentimental attachment towards a particular doctrine (sidhanta) or Institution (e.g. Gita Press) or acharya. But TRUTH is too precious and we can’t see it being misused for our vested interest.

There is an interesting story in Tiruvilayadal Puranam (The Lila of Siva) in Tamil. Once, in order to test the integrity and scholarship of Nakiirar a devotee of Siva, a great Tamil poet in the dharbar of Senbaga Pandiyan at Madurai, Siva himself confront him by composing a Tamil song. When it was brought before the King in the presence of Tamil Sangam, Nakiirar as the head of that Sangam oppose it by pointing out the mistake in it. Then an interesting argument starts between Siva and Nakiirar and finally estranged by the argument put forward by Nakiirar, Siva threatens him by showing his third eye. That time Nakiirar says, “Even if you open your third eye and burn me, I will proclaim that you are wrong”. Finally Nakiirar was burnt down by Siva, but later restored to life as he was pleased by the integrity of Nakiirar as the latter come forward even to oppose his favourite deity the Siva himself in order to uphold the Truth. Let us be proud of such a rich heritage of our country.

!!Om Shanti!!

Yours sincerely,

(DAYANAND BHARATI)

@@@

Does Advaita holds the view that God is both the efficient and material cause? I am bit confused about it. I think in ‘Understanding Hinduism’ I have mentioned that according to Advaita God is only the efficient cause
and not material. If this is wrong one then I have to correct it with
proper reference. As an expert in Classical Hinduism, you can give answer
to this point.
<

You should be ashamed to ask me such a question. Without brahmin birth and
upanayana how can I understand Sankara? I have checked Lott’s Vedantic
Approaches to God and concluded from reading him that Shankara on creation
is too confusing to summarize in any neat sentence. Here is what
Chandradhar Sharma writes:

Shankara maintains Brahma-kaarana-vaada as he recognizes that Brahman is
the cause of the world. But his theory is calle Brahma-vivarta-vaada
because it takes the world to be only a phenomenal appearacne of Brahman.
Shankara is opposed to Brahma-parinaama-vaada. For him, the world is
neither a real creation by Brahman nora real modification of Brahman. (pg.
261-262)

My judgement would be that Brahman is NOT the material cause, but the
reason WHY he/it is not the material cause is a completely different reason
than why God in Chrisitan ex nihilo teaching is not the material cause.
But I am not even a philsopher let alone not a Brahmin and not a dvij.

Here is my letter and your re Malti; I think I should not send you her
letters.

Dear Malti,

I have read and reread your letter with a great deal of sadness and pain,
but never anything close to feeling disgusted with you. Nor do I in any way
think that you might be beyond redemption, and you do not need to ask
forgiveness for writing your honest experiences and feelings.

You asked me if I have ever been at as low a point in Christ as you are,
and the answer to that is “no, I have not”. I was betrayed by friends
within the past year in a way that remains very painful, and it confirmed
my growing conviction that the system of Christian work in India is
fundamentally flawed and I should no longer participate in that system but
work at new, truly non- and post- colonial patterns. You obviously have
also been a victim of this systemic rot in “Christian” India.

As for “Christian” America, you should sometime read the Francis Schaeffer
book “Death in the City”. It is primarily a study of Jeremiah and he
shows, I think definitively, that Israel in Jeremiah’s time could not be
blessed by God as they had turned from God, and likewise the modern western
world is daily under the wrath of God. The “God bless America” theology
and feeling of most American churches/Christians is much closer to
blasphemy than anything you have written to me. You can find sincere New
Testament discipleship to Jesus in the western world, no doubt about that;
but there is much taking of the name of Jesus that is superficial,
cultural, emotional escapism, etc. etc. Only God can (and will) judge what
is true and what is false in American (and every other type of) Christian
faith; but no one will disagree that Christianity in America is very sick.

But I do not expect this to be of much comfort to you. And I do not really
have any insight at all into what God might be trying to teach you through
this. You might never know. One of my favourite books is “No Graven
Image” by Elizabeth Elliot; it is a novel but it is based on her own
experience of investing years of her life to reach an unreached S. American
tribal group only to have her one key contact die and all of her laborious
translation work diasappear with a stolen suitcase (this was before the
days of computers!). She never did understand why it happened. (She is
famous for her two books on her husband who died around age 30 trying to
reach another S. American tribe, which later did come to Christ through her
own work; but this story of failure is a better and more profound book in
my opinion. She has another book, a biography of a famous S. American
leader (he was from US) that with shocking honesty portrays the pretence
and failure in that man’s life; once when I met her I asked the response to
and impact of that book, and she said “very little”.)

I am rambling; Malti, if you would permit I would like to share briefly
about your struggles with Dayanandji, or even share your whole letter. I
have never probed for details but I know that after a few years in Christ
he gave it all up and went back to the secular world. One man stayed in
touch with him and brought him back to Christ. Whether he would think his
story would help you or what he might want to share I do not know, and I
will not share with him unless you permit me to. (He happens to be here at
the moment, arriving this afternoon from Bangalore and leaving back there
tomorrow night; we have about 30 people gathering tomorrow evening and
asked him to come and join with us and give a discourse.)

Continue to be honest, be faithful to what you know is true, speak from
your heart to God. Notice Jeremiah 20:7, and also 17-18. You will no
doubt read the verses in between where he rises up to great faith; but that
mental faith does not win over his feelings and so the bitter cry of vss.
17-18 closes the section. There are other similar cases of such honesty
with God in the Bible, and I do not see that you have moved at all outside
of these things.

Malti, if I can help in any way please let me know. I know I can pray and
I am praying and our friends here to help Arun are also praying for you. I
wish I could do more and if any way you see that I can, please let me know
what it is. Maybe you should read the rest of that Philip Yancey book
also; I have not read any books by him so I cannot myself recommend it, but
if the first chapter fit your situation perhaps the rest will also be
applicable.

Know that we are your friends whatever transpires.

In grace,

Rick

P.S. I will share your letter with Clare but our house is terrribly hectic
these days and I am not sure when she will get to read it. I wanted to
finish this and send off this morning but it is now 10:30 at night when I
finally finish.

Dear Rick,

I read Malti’s letter and your response to her and her reply back. What I
am going to share won’t be systematic but mere brain storm. Before
starting I want to warn Malti that some of my words may hurt her, but I
don’t mean it. As I share some Truths as objective principles, when one
take it personally he/she may feel targeted and feel hurt. But one thing
is sure, most of the so called ‘converts’ from non-Christian background, go
through Malti’s experience one time in their life and she is not exclusive
one. Most of her struggles and experiences I too had in my life. That’s
why I can understand her struggle and in way of response I would like to
share my experience too.

Pruning is always a painful process towards perfection. If I expect God
should show His love and care for me ONLY through human being, then He can
also has to PRUNE me towards perfection only through them. He is not going
to either love me or correct me through some objective Principles but only
through human beings. So most of the struggles that we face in our life
because of human beings or in our relationship with them are the practical
side of God’s objective principles implemented in our lives.

Having said this, whenever I feel that someone hurt or deserted me, then I
feel that God allowed that situation in my life to realize about the same
thing which I might have by mistake/ unintentionally done to others. To
say in other words, unless we go through such experience we may not even
realize other’s struggle in the same area. For example like Malti some one
may have the same struggle. But if God wants use Malti as the correct
person to console and comfort them, then He should allow Malti to undergo
such struggle in her own life FIRST so that she can properly feel the
affected person’s pain.

I can understand Malti’s struggle because most of the pain which she
mentioned happened to me also. I was deserted by friends, I too was abused
physically (not sexually), in my tight finance situation, I helped some
Christians who misused my help. Even one Full Time Christian Missionary
borrowed Rs. 300 some fifteen years before with a promise to return (those
days that Rs. 300 is like 30,000 at present to me) which he is still doing.
Another Pastor borrowed Rs. 1,000 in 1990 which he never returned. I can
quote several such examples. Even because I am a Single man, several time
people, that too believers and full time workers joked and mocked about my
IMPOTENCY before others. Even one Pastor’s wife, in front of her husband
and other friends of mine told, ‘Swamiji didn’t marry because he is a
hijada (enouche)’. The way I felt hurt because my life as a Single man
become an object of joke for others (that too for the so called believers
and Full time workers, who on the other hand should encourage and
strengthen me to press forward in my vocation as a Single man) not only
discouraged me, but also created some kind of hatred towards them. But the
shocking truth in it that later I came to know through another Christian
that in fact that Pastor’s wife had some infactuation towards me and wanted
to have sex with me. He even said to me, ‘like Joseph you are running
away from a good opportunity to enjoy her. If I were in your place, I
would have enjoyed her several time. By her look and talk I know she wants
to have ‘it’ with you. Why don’t you use the opportunity. Don’t think
that you are sinning against God and her husband. In fact you are helping
in her physical and mental struggle. You don’t know about woman. When
they are burn with lust, unless they find fulfillment, they won’t find
peace and rest’. The tragedy in it is that the same Christian who gave the
counsel, abused several woman and he even blackmailed me to help in his
plan to encroach a piece of land in that Christian Ashram. When I refused
to help him to translate his Hindi letter in English and then type it so
that he can send them to Press and Govt. authorities to create problem to
the Ashram, he said,’ I will go and tell every one that you are a Homosex
and even approached me to have sex with me. You are wandering nackdely in
the Ashram. You have secreat relationship with that Pastor’s wife etc.’
Just you imagine, living alone for my personal studies on Hindu Scriptures
in that Ashram, without anyone to comfort or encourage me (in the Ashram
that time apart from me, only that Pastor’s family, that Christian doctor
were living. The servants will come during the day time and will leave in
the evening) I struggle a lot emotionally and mentally. Finally I left
that Ashram and moved to another place as I want to safe guard my
reputation as well as to escape from that woman also. I was also abused
physically. You know the pain which Yadram gave to me. I served him and
many of my shishyas and other friends like a servant. I cooked, washed,
cleaned and like a menial servant I served them. But in response they
further abused me. I never expected them to appreciate or recognize my so
called ‘serventhood’. I thought that as a bhakta of Christ it is my moral
responsibility to serve other than seeking service from them. But more I
served they took advantage of it and only extracted more work from me.
When we have some clash due to our personalities, they always accused me as
dominating, arrogant, individualistic etc., and never remember the way I
tried to tame my ‘individualistic and arrogant’ nature by serving them.
Those time, though I feel hurt, I realized that they are the God sent
guardians of my soul, as Courie Ten Boom once said (I think in ‘Not Good if
detached’) that our critics are the unpaid guardians of our soul.

It really shocked me initially to think that how the so called believers in
Christ can do what they blame the pagan and non-Christians are doing. Then
when years passed I realized that every human problem is universal, whether
one is a born again believer in Christ or a pagan. But the only comfort
and hope in Christ is that I am not alone in my struggle and like a
hypocrite I need not cover or explain away or even justify my mistakes and
sins in the name of ‘kalahi, karmahi yeswar par hi mitya dosh lagayen’
(They falsely accuse either time (Kali yug, no one will be perfect), or
karma or even God-Tulsidas). Apart from God, Jesus as a fellow human being
and some true friends as fellow bhaktas of Christ are ready to share in my
struggle and burden.

We may think that the Hindu and Muslim friends and relatives of ours are
more honest and faithful in their dealing with life situation. But I don’t
believe in such comparison. I live more with Hindus and very less with
Christians. I am still a Hindu and not a Christian (in sociological
sense). At the same time all the hypocrasy in their life is no way
different from others. But they have one legitimate excuse: all are like
that, where as we Christ bhaktas cannot universalize human problem. It
doesn’t mean that we are perfect or can become perfect over night. We are
saved sinners and struggling saints. Yes we too are struggling in the same
areas, but we have no excuse to legitimatize our sins. Whereas all the
honesty that we find in others is our mental projection of comparing one
value with another value. Though most of the ethical and moral values are
universal in their scope, yet in interpreting and implementation their
value change according to the spiritual or religious faith and conviction
that one has (or the group that have). But the uniqueness that I find in
Jesus and the Bible is that the Value He (and the Bible) gives is more
radical and never allows any kind of excuse on our part to justify our
weakness and failures. Both the Bible and Jesus never calls for any
‘Reformation’ of our rotten values or system, but gives a call for
‘Regeneration’. This is possible as both the bible and Jesus introduces
NEW VALUES which is not in our system or value. That is why Dr.
Radhakrishnan once said that John the Baptist was a Reformer where as
Christ is a Regenerator. It will take several words to give all the
example from the Bible. But one things is more enough to prove my point.

Take for example of Bhagavadgita. It is an excellent religious book. But
for me all the though in it is was the result of one individual thinking
and meditating various human issues and the answer that he found, which he
shared through the character of Krishna. Whereas all the answers which the
Bible gives for our human problems are not the result of one individual
sitting ‘alone’ think, meditating on those issues. Most of the writings of
the Bible are the result of collective thinking and collective
responsibility. Rather bible is a book ‘of the people for the people and
by the people’ and not by one individual. Take example the letters of
Paul. They were not a product of Paul’s mental projection or
contemplation, but practical answers to the struggling people to profess
their faith in the concreate life situation. He most of the time wrote in
‘Response’ to the questions, struggles and issues of the Christ bhaktas and
never gave some objective, universal, theological principle. Of course in
most of his epistles there is always doctrinal issues first discussed and
based on them he gave practical guidance. But even those doctrinal issues
which he wrote in his epistles are first came from the specific context of
life situation of the bhaktas of Christ lived and struggled. He never
FIRST ‘IMAGINED’ any ‘theological issues’ and ‘moral problems’ and then
gave doctrinal and practical response. To say in other words, most of the
biblical doctrine and theology is the result of human struggle and
situation than absolute religious/spiritual universal formulas. Rather
bible is a work manual dealing with the relationship between God and Men
and between men and men. Whereas though most of the Hindu Scriptures (even
Quran) are excellent book, yet they are the result of few individuals
thinking independently on human problems (of course Dharmasastras are code
of contact written to give practical guidance for the day to day life of
an Aryan (that too a twice born-and specificall to a Brahmin) in his
relationship with others, hence are not Sruti but only Smrtis).

Several times I feel that those sins and moral lapses which I find in
others are only a mental let out for me to excuse my own sins and moral
lapses. In order to escape from my own mental torture about my moral
lapses and sins, I ‘imagine’ the same in others, particularly in other
believers so that I can find some mental solace in it. This may not be
others experience, but there is always this human weakness in everyone from
which we should try to guard ourselves. We have some problems within us,
let us face them courageously and with the help of Jesus let us try to
overcome them.

Here alone the Person Jesus become more important to me than an Universal
Father God. You know Rick that I am a student of Hindu Scripture from the
age of 14 and still consider myself only as a Student of every Scripture.
But my spiritual struggle in my life started when I cannot accept or
understand the concept of Universal God. He is there. But I was searching
for a Human guru who can help me to understand all my struggle as a fellow
human being. Those few Hindu guru’s whom I thought as my model felt that
they are projected as above average human being and passed or transcended
all mundane human struggle or deified by their followers as supra-human
being or even Paramahamsa or avatara. So I couldn’t find that guru whom I
was searching. But when I read New Testament and other theological books
related with my faith in Christ, it is more His down to earth humanity that
touched me deeply. I can find in Him all the struggles and pains and
disappointment which I face on this earth-whether coming from fellow human
beings, or believers or even from myself. I always tell others that you
can find a similar God of bible in every other religion, but you cannot
find a guru like Jesus no where. One I found that guru I least bothered
anymore about God. Yes it is true. I don’t want God anymore. Once I
found my guru in Jesus, He Himself become that Bhagavan to me. Because His
struggles are worst than mine. He was deserted by His mother, brothers,
relatives, friends, religious leaders, by the law upholding Roman
government, by his own disciples and finally by God. I have written few
poems in Tamil on this and if Malti can read Tamil I can send them through
you to her. Without having sinful nature he suffered like a sinner. Here
I am not talking theology. At least both the bible and secular history
accept one fact that he suffered as an innocent man for others. Whereas if
I suffer in every way, I suffer as a sinful man. So I have my confidence
in that suffering Jesus and not in the Universal God. And in spite of all
my struggles with myself and others, I can never desert Him as He never
disowns me.

Here I abruptly stops. Remember that what all I shared are mere brain
storms and not systemetic answer to Malti’s questions and issues which she
has raised. I am not sure whether my brainstorm gives some answer to her
question, but as my experience I hope she can feel that she is not alone in
her struggle and I promise to pray for her.

Dayanand Bharati,
Chennai, May 12, 2001

@@@

Dear Srikant,

Shanti!

Hope Hari is doing fine and soon I will call him. We discussed the same points, which have done at Bangalore (as well as at your home with you). In one of the previous mails I asked to summarise what all we discussed on Roman 12: 1 & 2. So better you summarise and post in-group mail. Some points that come to my mind are:

We should do Spiritual worship. For this we should offer ourselves as a ‘Living Sacrifice’. In this context we discussed what does it mean by a ‘Living Sacrifice’. –What we offered through our whole being so for the Lord become ash on the alter and so each day we have to offer ourselves as a ‘Living Sacrifice’. But this is also possible only when our mind is transformed. Mere reformation of our life won’t help us. Because one can reform her/his life by using or reinterpreting the same age old values in her/his life, which is coming from her/his family and community/society. But to transform one’s mind, one needs New Values which may not be in her/his old value system. At the same time we may thing that our mind is now transformed by following a list of ‘do-s’ and ‘don’t do-s’. So not to be misled by any such list we should test and approve what is the will of God for our lives. This is the subtle test as each one can interpret the will of God according to her/his own convenience. And one test to know whether our mind is transformed so that we can test and approve the will of God is not to follow the pattern of the world. For this we should not be confirmed to the Image of the world. Not to confirm to the image of the world does not mean that we should not dress, eat, and enjoy certain legitimate pleasure of the life. It is rather we should not allow the world to mould us. Each individual has her/his own value in life. But a Mukteswar bhakta should always strive to have Our Lord’s Value in our lives. And for any reason we should not allow others to shape us according to their values. In this process some times we should even give up our legitimate right for the sake of upholding God’s value in our lives.

Only those who have a minimum understanding of this message in the first two verses can take the next steps to follow the rest of the instruction, which Swamiji Paul gives further in this chapter.

@@@

Response to a book (I think this is Sita Ram Goael’s Christian Ashramas adoption and adapting Hindu Dharma, Voice of India.

The following one is written on 22/04/1992 from Badokar, in Rewa while I was staying with Rajendar Diwedi. I would have never written many things that I wrote here now (in 2009). But I leave them as it is to show what was my thinking in those years.–db

I clearly understand the way you try to defend Hinduism by attacking Churchianity. As I started to read your book, several thoughts are just flowing in my mind. At this early stage I cannot do full justice to share my views. However I am compled to write (or record) the thoughts that are coming now. All these thoughts may not relevant and after finishing the reading, I may have even to change several of my views.

Before I begin, I have to confess my limitations. First I am not a ‘scholar’ like you (all who involved) in these kinds of apologetics. I am just a student that too in the school of life, based on personal experience. Though I personally accept the authority of scriptures and religion, in the sphere of religious teaching and guidance, yet when it comes to the area of personal spiritual life, I won’t simply (or blindly) accept. The AUTHORITY of Scripture or religion as it is. Here I don’t want to share my views regarding the role of any scripture an d religion, leading a person in his spiritual life and its final goal of salvation as it is beyond the scope of my present task of sharing my views in response to your book.

The second problem is the limitation of my language. However I will try my best.

I enjoy the way you attack Churchianity. Though I am also tempted to do the same thing on both Churchianity and Brahminism which you call Hinduism—yet considering my present position as a bhakta of Christ, yet try to remain what I am because of the religio-socio-cultural influences in which I was born and brought up. Here the question is not to remain loyal and faithful to the religion-tradition-society in which I was born and brought up, because, even as a Youngman at the age of 16 onwards, I strongly believed in individual freedom, when I was neither influenced or contaminated by what you call as ‘western thought’. Because ‘no one ever lived above his creed’. And for me spirituality is a person matter which none should avoid by blaming the religion or society.

However you try, you cannot understand my views because your views are coming from your observations objectively about both Christianity and Christ, where as my views are not mere observation but my personal experience and participation by virtue of personal faith in Christ—thank God not in Churchianity as well as my privilege to born in a Brahmin family.

Here neither you nor the Christians could really understand the mental agony that we (I mean people like me who want to remain sanatanis and yet want to follow Christ for their spiritual life) undergo in our lives. But this agony is only in my mind (reasoning) and not in my spirit as the bhakta of Christ.

The real struggle starts when I try to assimilate the new truth that I received in Christ and try to live up to it by remaining what I am. The problem never raises when it is a matter of personal devotion to Christ alone, but when I started to share—neither to convince not to ‘convert’ other to my fold, but make others to understand my stand as the follower of Christ and try to remain what I am—a Hindu bhakta of Christ.

On one side the Christians have rejected us by saying that we are sycrtising the gospel ad want to remain loyal to Hinduism. On the other side Hindus have rejected us considering us as betrayers and traitors of their faith, society and even country.

So what is the solution? Have we to start another ‘cult’ either within Hinduism or Christianity? Or have we to become a ‘convert’ in the sense (mis)understood both by Hindus and Christians and should we become a ‘Christian’? Or the present solution what some Christians ‘as Hindu-Christian’ is acceptable, first to us (me) and then to both religions?

I am ot a scholar to bring forth all kinds of arguments based on scriptures, history and volumes of books written by all scholars. But from my personal experience first as an individual facing the reality of life alone, then as the member of a particular family, then society and finally to the nation, I have to share my views.

Whether you all agree or not, all your cry to safeguard your religion and tradition (here I mean both Hinduism and Christianity etc.) by attacking others clearly exposes your inner bankrupt as well as your vested interest to safeguard your personal position within a given society and religion.

Do you think that your efforts to safeguard your personal interest is going to yield any solid fruit—that too the way you wish?

First my question is, if one religion alone holds the final truth or reality ad none else, then why should it afraid to face the challenges that it may encounter from others, in whichever from it may come?

Your answer to this question would be that your efforts are not to safe guard the truth or reality (which needed not be saved by any) or not even your religion, but to safeguard the innocent people who would become a easy victim of others trick or fraud. But none can cheat others-however innocent they might be, for a long time and the Truth will come out one day openly. And that is what is happening at present both in Hinduism and Christianity.

In the name of religion, the Brahmins, by virtue of (but at the same time to their shame) their intelligence used all the tricks to cheat others in their own religious system to keep up their position. In the same way by virtue of their singleminded purpose, backed by wealth, power and other resources (at the same time to their shame) the Christians use all the tricks to cheat others to keep their own interest. There are rare exceptions on both side and our discussion is not based on them.

Fortunately for them (Christians) and unfortunately for you, not only the western rule and influence, but even the improved worldwide communication, making a global village, now none can cheat others within their own religion or by other religions.

I don’t know how far you are rubbing shoulders with common people in our country. Starting from Brahmins and up to the Tribes there is a growing awareness, which could never be stoped by any amount of your efforts—using all the skills and resources at your disposal. Now even in our religion and tradition, we are forced to rewite not only our (religious) constitution and creeds, but even the very scripture according to the demand of the changes in the entire world and particularly in our country. Otherwise people have decided to reject the very religion and tradition which is keeping them in suppression all through these centuries.

The same truth is applicable to Christians also. By virtue of the universality of the gospel of Christ—they need only to change their religious constitution, creeds. Otherwise, they may convert people of other faith to their ‘religion’, but the leakage from their own religion will be that much that any amount of their efforts to achieve their end will never be successful. This doesn’t mean that I wish success in their efforts of proselyting. No. On the other hand I too oppose all their tricks to ‘convert’ others to their religion.

I have several things to say regarding the change that is taking place in our country. But to a scholar like you, I, who is just a student in the school of life need not enlighten anything.

Only one example is just enough. While I was sharing ‘the gospel’ to a group of the so called backward class people who are strict followers of Ambedkar, I insisted the need to remain as Hindus (not even calling themselves as ‘Hindu-Christians) etc, one young graduate said, ‘this you say because you are a Brahmin and you came in the disguise of a Christian ti ompose your Brahminism again in another form. We have nothing to do with Hinduism and we all want to come out of its clutches, which suppressed and deprived our rights even to live as human beigns all through these centuries. You can no more make us fools, etc.’

Now I wish some scholars from the opposite side of you should give proper answer to your attack which is right one. Yet as I am not a Christian in the sense both claimed by the Church and you—I am not bound to give answers to all your attacks, particularly on the activities of Mission. However in order get clarification and solution to my problem, I am forced to ask few questions to you.

In my personal conviction I am a Bhakta of Christ and no amount of any one’s effort to give up my faith won’t yield any result. I would rather give up my life than to deny my faith in Christ. Now standing on this conviction, I have to live as a normal human being.

So in my first step to worship my Lord, what kind of sadhana I should follow. Have I to sing English hymns which though have deep menaing, but yet as I cannot either understand the music (what they call as notes) or feel like singing to worship the Lord? Similarly in my personal prayers what kind of words should I use? To be more specific, I am by ethnic a Tamilian. But unfortunately both in R.C. and Protestant they so far following a special Tamil which I criticize as ‘Pulpit Tami’. Only a traditional Christian (or respective denomination) can feel at home with it and even after the follower of Christ since last 12 years, I find it difficult to accept their language to use in my personal prayer and worship.

Now as per your word in page. Viii & ix from ‘what is the way out … Hindu Christian’, can I worship the Lord in the music and form in which I could feel at home or not? Your attack on Christians is completely justifiable—if they use indigenize method ‘only’ to convert the Hindus by villly nilly to their relgion so that finally they can destroy our Indian culture. On the other hand, in order to make room for the new bhaktas (or converts to use your terms) to feel at home, if they try to indigenize their worship, theology etc., then can we call their efforts as ‘casting coveteous glances before mounting a marauding expedition’ (p.xv).

But as I already shared, our struggle is that the ‘brainwashed, westernized’ traditional Christians within the church (whom I call as Pharisees) strongly object my views to allow us to live in our own culture inviornment. They are not ready to accept us until we are conformed to their ‘image’ and not that of Christ. Though milk is rich and liquid yet a fish cannot survive in it, we naturally want to remain in our own water—rejecting their views. So we find a welcoming change in the idea of indigenization which is coming only in a very small level that too from one branch of Churchiantiy viz., R.C.

If you say, you cannot remain in your own culture worshipping an alien god, then I need not pointout the way “your” Hinduism (not mine please note down) accepted all kinds of other alien gods starting from vedic time till modern time without soberly thinking about the theological contraditction that had involved in it. (Please read the book ‘Salvation in Hinduism’ by Kolstiremire)/

I think that your attack on Christianity (on pp. VII & ix ‘From What is the way to …Hindu-Christian) is more applicable to us Ariyans—the way we converted the natives to our faith by both adapting and adopting—by using everything—brain, power and wealth—than what they try, but couldn’t even start in a proper way at present. [read the book: Puraanas and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective. Vijay Nath, Munshirma Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001.] And I (we) not only welcome but also pray all success in their efforts of Indigenization so that they themselves will become not as Hindu-Christians, but completely Hindus yet remain as Christ bhaktas.

Regarding your comments, ‘the only alien way which does not seem to call for Indigenisation is the finance of the mission’—at least they are honest in both accepting and using the funds that they received for ear marked purposes both ffrom abroad and India. Whereas (I only heard but if you approach the churches they too would give you the list) the way several Hindu Mission receive fund in the name of social welfare etc.. and misuse the same in promoting their own cult in India. And if they stop that flow of fund from outside India, many such Hindu mission cannot function even for one month in India.

The last paragraph of Chap. (III in preface (P. x) and particularly the last three lines, ‘by and large…at stake’—is ore applicable to you than to the Christians. As your jobs, position and privileges as the dominating, even suppressing High caste people are at stake, you are raising such a voice against the. It is not they who keep a ‘long face’-believe me, as I have observed them more close remaining in the inner circle, where you cannot penetrate, but are both sincer and honest completely Trusting the same Holdy Spirit (which you are mocking) to give them success and that is what they are getting now a days.

All the efforts of Christians, penetrating every society in India brings two fold success to them. One is that several people are turning to Christ from every walk of life from every society. And second is that, though several people are not ready to become ‘Christians’ are clearly and complete secularized and are not ready to bow before your ‘lables’ which can hoodwink Hindus into believing that they are remaining in a rich socio-religio-culture of ancient India.

@@@@

23/04/1992.

Both in my mind and spirit as I remain a strict Hindu and in my personal conviction (have we to say it as ‘religious’ conviction?) I remain a bhakta of Christ. When I find many problems in the super (outer) structure of both religions, I am tempted not only to attack on them but even feel depressed in my mind. At the same time, removing the super-structure, when I penetrate deeper on spiritual plan, I find satisfaction in both

This doesn’t mean that I can successfully bring unity between these two religions at their core. Because I am well aware of the deep, uncompromising and un-compramisable thological differences in both religious. For me those who try to compromise the basic tenants of both religions (particularly on theological level) in order to convice the opponents have no personal conviction in their respective faith.

At the same time I agree with you, who won’t accept that one cannot claim to be a Hindu by denying its authority on him. But as I already mentioned, I won’t simply accept the authority of any religion or scripture based on others interpretation and definition for them. So I need not accept your definition of Hinduism either.

I am well aware of the fact that one cannot simply despise or ignore both tradition and society much easily as they give us our identity. And so I too cannot claim to be a Hindu not accepting the interpretation of the tradition and society in which I was born and brought up. Then where lies the solution for this problem. Either I have to give up my individual right and dance according to the tunes of the society or I have to continue my struggle and ready to pay the cost for it.

But I am not ready to accept the so called solution of ‘Hindu-Christian’. I am not afraid of the term ‘Christian’ but as it has lost its original (biblical) meaning I don’t want to brand myself as a Christian. Elsewhere I briefly mentioned our (my) struggle (see ‘Struggle for existence) about which I would come later here also.

Either deny Christ and become a ‘Hindu’ (of our definition” or deny Hinduism and declare yourself as a ‘Christian’—is the voice coming from both sides. But for me, ‘deny both of them and remain what you are’ is the best solution.

I would happily identify myself with the Christians, particularly in India (but with which group is a difficult question to answer not only for me but also for them too)—provided if they are ready to allow us to worship and express our faith in Christ in Indian way rather than accept the authority of their Western predecessors. I know it is very difficult to correct them, because, as I observed, so far the westernized Indian Christians are the most unteachable people in the whole world (The Pharisees of Indian Churches).

Whereas we find a sympathetic understanding in the minds of Hindus and are ready to accept us, even with our new found faith in Christ. And that is why we naturally tempted to take refuge in our ‘hostile home’ than in a ‘suspecting-of course friendly neighbor’. Because we find our struggle less at least in the area of keeping our personal faith in Christ in our home than the way we are indirectly forced to confirm to the image of our neighbors (Christians)

As I need my security in my home as well as the fellowship of my neighbors in so many ways (don’t give your own interpretation to this word ‘fellowship’), I have to restrict my temptation to criticize both of them beyond their limitation. However when we are forced, we won’t hesitate to point out both their mistakes accepting any challenge at any cost. After all ‘nothing can separate us from the love of Christ’.

However regarding the Missions’ efforts to ‘liberate’ both the Tribes and backward class people (the suppressed one whom you would call as depressed one—ref. N.N. 1. p. xivi), I have to agree with them (Christians). This doesn’t mean that I am accepting the Roman Catholics method of conversion. But a time has come for them to get their freedom and right to live as normal human beings first. Your Hinduism won’t give this right for them. What they deserve and which was deprived to them so far. No amount of your claim that you yourself is striving for this won’t satisfy them (the suppressed people) first, about which I will come later.

Neither your claim and call for Social justice and equality, nor Gandhiji’s struggle to remove untouchability won’t yield any sympathetic response from them any more. They now clearly understood that all your call for social justice would remain only on paper level or in the conference reports (here quote about the Allahabad Hindu Conference report recorded in Unknown Christ) and as you have criminated Gandhism in every sphere and particularly his struggle to remove untouchability along with him on Jan 30^th , 1948, they have decided to achieve it without your ‘pep talk or pem pomprous phrases’ (p. x). And using the opportunity and with real motive to give them their right to live as normal human beings the Mission are now engaged in it. You may call it conversion whereas they call it liberation.

No one is ready, particularly from the suppressed people, to subscribe your cry and call to brand them as Hindus (ref. page. Xxxvi. FnN.2). If you want to brand them as Hindus because of their geographical identity as Indians I am in total agreement withy you. But if you want to make them Hindus according to your traditional interpretation of Hinduism (accepting the authority of Vedas, Brahmins and not eating cow meat etc.), they never were Hindus.

But you may not accept my view. You will definitely quote for and wide from various sources about the recent development among the high caste people (and more in your group and movement) in their efforts to remove this misunderstanding from the non-Aryans mind.

Recently while I was talking on those lines with a Guptaji, he pointed out how one group called Panduranga Sastri from Bombay came to their area to propagate Gita’s teaching. Among them one was a Sudhra and the leader of that group even publically acknowledged that they won’t treat him as a Sudhra and will take meal together (even prepared by him) during their tour. But once, they return back to their respective homes, they will strictly follow the caste restriction of their society. I also come across several Vaishnava sampradayas, particularly (only) in North where they take meal with everyone in their temple and meetings. But in everyday life, particularly in rural areas, such artificially accepting of each other irrespective of caste distinction is not followed.

Now turning to some specific points from your book I would like to give some kind of answer both supporting and objecting your views. But most of my answers are coming from my personal study, observation and as I don’t have enough resources, lI cannot give clear references to all my views.

‘Why Christianity….its ways’—p.vi.

To comment on your words, ‘its own merits’—I have to agree with you that Christianity has no merits of its own. Like Aryan religion, it also adopted various culture and philosophies with which it encountered in its earlier expansion00without compromising in its basic theology. To say in other words, the unchanging gospel without compromising in its basic convction, just adopted other culture and philosophies. But except rare exception that too in a very insignificant way, like its arrival to Indian about 5^th century A.D., it remained in European captivity. But when European Missionaries went to all corners of the earth carrying both the gospel as well as their own cultural and traditional (even political) values, because of their adamant and so called prestige considered their socio-cultural (and political) aspects as the merit of Christianity and started to impose it on others. (See The Bible and The Flag, by Brian Stanley, Leicester, Apollos, 1990 for a balanced view on this subject).

I don’t know much about the Greek and Rome philosophy, culture and religion. But my common sense refuse to buy the idea that the church first ‘secularised Greek culture by closing pagan schools, destroying pagan temples and prohibiting pagan rites’ and then ‘philosophy was separated from what had a religio-philosophic unity’ (p.xi). If at all it happened, it might have happened only after Constaint the great became a Christian. But before him, both the church history and secular records show the way the early Christians had to pay a high cost even to remain as Christians. Those first three centuries of Christians faced all kinds of opposition because of the ‘gospel’. [But I should read ‘The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, S.N. Balagangadhara, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005’ to know several facts of early Church failures. Of course ‘The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark, Harper San Francisco An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 1977’ would give some point to support my view.—db.]

With my limited knowledge on various religions of the world, I could say one thing that no other religion stood this much of criticism, trial and test like Christianity starting from the first century Gnosticism down to modern communism. This is purely because of the merit of the unchanging gospel. Including Christianity as a religion there are many religions, but there is only one gospel.

But when it came to India, because of the European Missionaries imperialistic attitude, it has to face a severe challenge as the missionaries tried to impose their culture and then gospel on the people. As they failed to understand the socio-cultural aspect of India, they failed. Whatever may be their failures, yet the Gospel, because of its uniqueness, now delivered from the western clutches started to make inroads inside our society and religion.

‘In fact the doctrine is never mentioned in this context…flawless.’ (p.viii)

I think that no two denominations agree with each other in the matter of doctrine. One denomination always says that the other denomination’s doctrine is unbiblical and there by even their faith is not genuine. Tht is why even the idea of ecumenism and call to work together, irrespective of basic doctrinal differences are strongly opposed by some fundamental or orthodox evangelicals (e.g. John Stoot and his book ‘Christ the Controversialsi). So the major issue in indigenization is not about the ‘flawless’ (p.viii) Christian doctrine but the universal and unchanging gospel of Christ.

As most of the denominations, at the interest of their respective denomination—over emphasized the importance and flawlessness of their own doctrine, ‘one searches in vain for a single line in the voluminous literature of Indigenisation (as well as all other Christian works in every area) which tries to examine the character of Christian doctrine vis-à-vis what the Hindus expect from a religion.’ (p.vii). That is why the 20,8800 (p.79) denominations with their respective doctrine look worse then the pantheistic view of Hindusim and become a polytheistic religion. Confession of respective denomination’s deoctrien by its members are more emphasized than the personal faith in Christ. The Free will Baptist (American Origin, Barelli branch) in their convention spent more time to teach ‘their’ doctrine and emphasized that, ‘when others asked about your religion, even, you must say that I am a ‘Free Will Baptist” Christian’ and not just as Christian. In their book ‘Paap ki Shama’ in the introduction it says, ‘in order to propagate the Lutheran Christian doctrine to the Hindus etc’, it says and not to preach the gospel of Christ.

That is why every new convert is more confused—if at all he is a sober thinker—when the need for faith is shifted to the doctrinal creed from Christ. It is more emphasized to have faith in the ‘doctrine of faith’ than on the personal experience on Christ. That is why I call Christianity as ‘Creedianity’.

It doesn’t mean that doctrine is not important. It provides a base for one to understand his faith in human terms as well as to confess his faith to others. But when doctrine tries to put the people within a frame work, denying their freedom to assimilate their new found faith in terms and forms through which they can do it in better way, then it become a mere idol worship. The freedom of individual’s inner spirit based on their personal experience is altogether denied in some denominations and some times severely warned as ‘dangerous’ one. And when it comes to the Church of Rome, there never comes the question of even to think outside the church ‘tradition’. Only recently their members are allowed even to read the bible, of course strictly keeping the right and authority to interpret and expound in the hands of the church authority. That is why Fr. Bee himself has to surrender before Rome in all his answers to the question of Swami Devananda and even in his consent for publication, he more tries to defend his cause before the Catholic Church and Vatican than to stand on clear cut conviction based on his personal experience.

Of course one (we) must understand their plight also. Unless their freedom of expression also not squarely fit within the frame of their respective denomination doctrine, their words not only be rejected but even their survival within the denomination would be in danger.

Though Hinduism also emphasis ‘faith’ on the words of Guru, yet inner freedom based on personal experience is never denied. (Gita)

We cannot altogether accept your statement that ‘the very word “experience” has been foreign to Christian parlac (p.1, in introduction), as several individuals have stressed the need for it (Experience that counts by Sanders, Swami Abhishiktanand etc.) and even evangelicals and the extremists among them (called Pentecostals also insist on it, yet mostly they would allow anyone even to express his experience only with the frame work of their respective doctrine only. And this made others (particularly Hindus) to think that, ‘Christianity has always aimed at inculcating or imposing blind beliefs, the blinder the belief the better’ (p. 1 in Introduction) [Refer my paper ‘Anubhava as Pramana].

Thus, in stead of serving as a base (or means) to the end of assimilating the faith in their own religio-cultural forms and terms, when the doctrine itself become an end, then Christian ‘assumed that (their respective) doctrine has been and remains perfectly lfawless’ (viii) and none should question it.

But I think that you have dither deliberately or by over look identify the gospel with doctrine in the whole range of Indigenious literature as you immediately quote Fr. Bede’s statement ‘these facts..’ Where the word gospel not doctrine is used by him.

‘What is the way out?….Hindu Christians’ (pp. viii & ix)

If indigenization is only a means to attain their end viz., to destroy Indian culture and to impose westernizd Churchianity, I am the first person to oppose it. Whereas if its aim is to help the genuine Indian bhaktas of Christ, even from Muslim background, to feel at home in their worship etc., I wish complete success to their efforts. But the way you raise the alarm against it makes me to raise my brows. Believe me, I know the westernized Indian Christians. However few Western Missionaries like Fr. Bede cry, they won’t comeout from their own world. As they were cut off from the rest of the Indian society both socially and culturally, they neither know our Indian culture nor know their adopted culture peoperly. Bhey became permanent bafoons making others (both Hindus in India and westerners) to laugh the way they try to ape their western predecessors. They feel really spiritual only when they sing English hymns in their worship, pray, share and even conduct everything only in English. For them Indigenization is not only unspiritual but even unhuman. Their western counterparts (like Fr. Bede and few others) try their level best to educate them the need for indigenization, but they would prefer to be semi Indo-westerner. They are like the Turkey try to imitate the peacock while spreading their feathers. Even those who have to do all their religious activities in their local language and not in English, still prefer to do them in western ways. Though there are few exceptions, no church in India is supporting the cause of Indianization. And even if ‘the entire approach is instrumental and cynical’ (p.xiv), yet you can dismiss the whole business of indigenization ‘with the contempt it deserves or laughed out as ludicrous’ and need not worry about ‘the massive finance and the giant apparatus which the Christian mission in India has at its disposal’ (p.xiv). Because the Indian Christians have decided to oppose every possible way as they feels threatened for their very security and Identity in any attempt of Indianisation. Even one Pastor told me when I was sharing about the need of indianization, ‘Indiginisation is nothing but Brahminsation and Sanskritisation of the church and we will never yield to this’.

24-04-1992.

‘In Short, Christianity has to be presented as an indigenous faith’ (p.viii)

If I have to give a simple answer to this view is: No. Eventhough I never agree with several unbiblical strategies, particularly followed by the Roman Catholics both in India and elsewhere, neither the Churchn nor the Misions and even those who share their faith with others remaining outside both the churchand Missionnever presented Christianity as an indigenous faith. Of course very few like De’ Nobili etc. surely have done such mistakes. But none present Christianity as an Indigenous faith.

At the same time ‘NO FAITH IS INDIGENOUS’ in India. In your zeal to protect as well as project the ‘all sufficient Sanatana Dharma’ you may say it as indigenous and thriving in our country since several milania. Several Indian scholars like Balgangathar Tilak (Artic Home of Arians) and undisputable archalogical evidences prove the existence of other faiths and fusing of new faiths from outside in India. If you reject their view, then we have every right not to accept your theory either. And I am not bound to prove my argument either too, because none can convince an un-teachable person.

If all those faiths those that came from outside and those rose new in the past added beauty to the beauty of that ‘mosaic’ (p.14). One more new faith won’t do any harm. If Sanatana Dhama is what you claim to be eternal, nothing can destroy it. ‘Yes we too ready to accept the challenge provided if it comes in its original form not in Indian form to cheat innocent people and “boneless vedantians”’ is your objection.

Before coming to the ‘form’ I have to point out that wherever the gospel went, it never destroyed all the good aspects in those cultures and religion and it not only preserved it but also encouraged to grow. But none can avoid the change that would automatically takes place because of any new faith or culture. One living example that comes to my mind is the change that took place both in good and bad ways after the Aryan invasion over Dravidian culture. Up to 3^rd century A.D. we don’t find any Aryan influence in Tamil literature like Tirukkural etc, but after that no pure Tamil literature could ever come because of the influence of Aryans’s Sanskrit. Though the Ariyan’s faith and culture added beauty to that existing Dravidian culture, yet it also has done several damage in many areas—particularly in Social order. One good example is caste system. Like wise in their encounter with gospel several faiths and cultures underwent several changes by preserving, fusing, changing both in positive and negative ways. Of course one cannot deny the fact that church, backed by power and money has done some irrecoverable damage to several beautiful cultures in the name of religion—which neither they nor me (or us) want to justify. Sin is sin whoever done by which ever means to whatever area.

At the same time, we must remember that several ancient civilizations met a natural death even before the Christian era began like Babilonian, Assyrian, Egypt civilizations. You may be ‘convinced that Christianity’s advent is one of the great disasters in the history of mankind’ (p.49), where as I consider it is God’s greatest gift to mankind. We both may write several pages bringing the negative side of every Religion in the world. But now as we are living in a global village you cannot set fire to your neighbors house without both damaging yours and then stand for a trial before the panchayat.

Now coming to you objection on the ‘Hindu form’ (And so on the literature…Hindu forms.p.ix)

Gospel never has its own form. But virtue of its universality, it can present to others in their own form through which they can understand and assimilate its contribution for their growth in every area. Of course , if the motive of the church and Mission is wrong one, then for a long tiem they cannot cheat themselves and others. First the fire of the gospel itself would burn all their false-hood as that happened in case of De Nobili. WE need not repeat here the way the church in the past has done the irrecoverable damage by misusing the forms. If they continue to do, then you and we are here to expose their fraud. We too have everything at our disposal as they have, to defend our cause and culture and Dharma (not religion).

Hinduism both in its Aryan and non-Aryan forms used several forms of others in the course of its expansion in India and abroad. It also used the art of adaptation and adaptation. Only after Saramanas, the Brahmins, that too in order to keep their position (and struggle for existence) suddenly became vegetarians and started to change the sacrificial forms of worship, assimilating new forms within its fold.

25/04-1992.

‘The fulfillment will be when converts to Christianity proclaim with complete confidence that they are Hindu Christians’ (p.ix)

The major stumbling block for Dr. Ambedkar along with his followers to were the internal rivalry among denominations to buy him as whole sale for their respective cults within Churchianity. However they talk about ‘unity, not uniformity’ and justify all their 20,800 (p.79) denominatins in the words of Dr. Barrett in his World Christian Encyclopaedia (Oxford, 1982) as, ‘far more difficult for hostile regims to comprehend the phenomenon of Christianity in order to control it, suppress it or eradicate it’ (pp.79-80). We see in it neither unity nore uniformity, but various herises and cults. That is why when the traditional Christians christicise that by calling yourself as a Hindu and yet to want to follow Christ, you want to start a new heresy or cult either within Christianityor Hinduism. For this our reply is, ‘as many souls so many views’ is the policy of Sanatana Dharma and so it is not a problem within our dharma and whe it comes to your religion one more new cult won’t do any damage but only will add one more face to ‘confuse the enemy’ (p.79).

Which Christianity we should follow R.C. or the various shops that is opened within Protestants not agreeing with each other in their doctrine? Above all we want to really worship with Indian Christians, provided if e find one such. All we have in India is Methodist (British origin) or Free Methodist (American Origin) or American Baptist or Free Will Baptist, German Luitharans, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Jacobites and Mushrooms of innumerable Pentecostals who are living in their world? Even in those so called Indian churches like Bhaktasingh Assembly etc. you won’t find nothing Indian in their worship or theology. There one can fid Greek philosophy, German theology, Roman Administration, European culture and Jewish rituals, custums and traditions and nothing Indian either in theology or form of worship. And this beign the case, we would prefer to be Hindus and follow Christ, following N.T. ‘principles’ and not ‘patters’in our worship and forming our own theology and doctrine. We know our position is very dangerous and risky as we won’t be accepted either here or there. But to be become a Christian is easy, but to be His Disciple is very costly. A Christian live for several conveniences but a disciple lives for his conviction. And ‘great people cherishes conviction and small people entertains opinions’. Convenience may cost nothing or little suffocation, but conviction will cost very high price, even our life. So we are not ready to call ourselves even as Hindu-Christians. If any Hindu fanatics object us then it is their problem and we are no way bound to convince them and we would rather prefer to be a bhakta of Christ with in Sanatana Dharma which permits even Charavakas and Buddhism and call ourselves Hindus. Of course the word ‘Hinduism’ is not a term which any religion in India applies to itself, but is something which the Europeans have invented. This word was meant to designate the religion of the Hindus. Unfortunately the people who invented this concept did not know enough about Hindus. They discovered too late that the Hindus have many religions. Hinduism is considered as one of the great world religions. Today we realize, though we find it difficult to admit that the Hindu religion is a plant which has artificially cultivated by European scholars, a plant which is much too beautiful to be thrown away; still, it is an artifical plant, in nature it does not exist’ (Heinrich von Stietoncton, Professor of Indology and Comparative Religion at the University of Tubingen, quoted by Fr. Hans Staffner, S.J. in his book: Jesus Christ and Hindu Community (p.95)

‘The only alien way…. The Mission’ (p. ix)

At least they are honest in using the earmarked fund for the very purpose for which they receive it either from abroad or India. Except few petty business men among them, most of them, particularly in Organizational and church level they cannot misuse one fund for another purpose. If the fund is for proselytation then it is only for that and if it is for social work, then it is only for that. Of course they may use their so called social service to buy the poor people for their faith—that we all know very well.

Where as (I only heard but if you approach the churches, they too would give you the big list) several Hindu Missions receive lots of fund in the name of social service etc. and misuse them to promote their own cults. Leave the foreign fund, at least the Christians are not running Ratyatras and collect lot of money from the innocent people in the name of God to promise to give him a new shelter—which they themselves intend to built or they could ever built for which there was no account and all the money was misused for the election purpose by your political wings called BJP. There is a Tamil proverb which says, ‘Iyata pattu ilichadam pitalai’= the bronze laughed seeing the led. (Bronze shines when it is washed or polished, but it laughed on seeing the dust that covered on the led which could be easily dusted out).

Even if they, as a confession and repentance, wind up all their Missinary Apparatus as per you advice (or plea) ‘in the interest of justice and fare’ (p.94) or as ‘an energetic Hindu renaissance has turned wariness into open challenge to Christian conversion, with results yet to be seen’ (p.18) decided to pack and go to invest elsewhere in the world then, neither our govt. nor your Hinduism have no source to replace both in the area of finance and men power to replace many of their work among us in India. First prepare yourself to replace in all the fields of their social activities.

If you don’t want their Faith to come here, then don’t ‘welcome them to give selfishly to desist from all expansionism….’(p.22). Even a pure charity won’t go without leaving its effects on the people who receive it. Your militant resurgence wont’ impress people much, where as even their charity done purely without any motive of proselytizing wins lot of sympathy and it protects them from all your attack on them. So people also want to see ‘action, right action, not words’ (p.50) from you also including in the area of social service. At least if you now start, within one or two centuries you may replace them. Because recently on my travel I was talking with the Director of Social Service (something like that and I don’t ask her specifically, she is a Tamil Brahmin lady, serving in Kanpur). During the course of our talk she said, ‘here as well as every where in India the Hindus come forward only to give money that too not continuously for some social work but none want to come for the service as the Christians do. That is why I cannot Organize anything successfully here, particularly in North.

‘The solution to the problem … working at today’ p.x.

As I already stated all the efforts of the Christian theologians, historians, sociologists, artists and musicians is not to ‘invent spurious labels’ to ‘hood wink Hindus’ but first to express their conviction and experience in the way they assimilated because of their background. Here I mean also those native Christians. Of course as your attack is mostly on the so called ‘Missionaries’ who try to ape Hindus by adopting and adapting. But if their sole aim is to sell their ‘old’ product under new label, then people are not ready to be fooled. On the other hand, as I understood by observing them very closely, their aim is not to ‘cheat’ the Hindus mostly, but to ‘encourage the native Christians to remain in their own culture and social environment so that they their converts) need not ape the Westerners.

One good example is the same Fr. Bede. Though I don’t know much about him personally, yet based on my personal observation during my stay at Shantivan for one week and my personal talk with him for half an hour (take it from diary and quote) with him personally, he has no such intension to ‘hoodwinks Hindus into believing that they are purchasing a brand new product’—because during one morning worship he even criticised St. Paul’s attack on Romans based on his epistle to the Romans chapter two. He was not ready to support Paulo’s view of Roman culture as one of corrupted. One North Indian who was staying there and assisting in the ashram work even consider Fr. Bede as his guru and take part even in Communion service—but not baptized or proselytized by Fr. Bede, and remaining a strict Hindu

‘The record leaves no doubt … pagan rites’ (p.xi

Both culture and religion is the integral part of human’s inner personal experience. No outside force, in which ever form it may come, can every destroy them all in a sudden. In all their encounter between any two or more culture or religions, both the positive and negative aspects will influence the other and the weak one would naturally either submit or merge with the strong.

As both culture and religion are not some abstract theories but inner disposition of living people. So the extent they exercise influence over the people will be determind only in their encounter with their counter part from other people.

The Helenistic influence also secularized the Jewish culture to the extent that after th invasion of Alexander the Great by 3^rd B.C. and the out come was the Liberal sect of Jewish Religion called Saducees.

The same way the church, though coming out from the Jewish background never remained Jewish in all its forms. It assimilated the good (biblical) aspects and the gospel naturally clensed the Greek culture from its crude religious practices.

Of course in course of time, as church become mere Creedianity and because of the Latin (or European) Captivity become stagnant and even started to force her tradition and European culture on others.

Dialogue with Hindus to be edited Part Three

Reclaiming the Real Hinduism

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.