Dialogue with Hindus to be edited Part Two

Hindu, Christians & Confusion

India’s Latest Census: Hindus, Christians & Confusion

September 10, 2015 by Padma Kuppa 3 Comments

As most people of Indian origin know, “American Born Confused Desi” – an ABCD – is a special phrase used to refer to a rather “neither here nor there” mentality that we Indian Americans might have acquired while growing up in America, with parents who are immigrants from India trying to provide an “Indian” environment at home. My parents went a step farther – they moved the family back to India when I was in high school, so that I could have a first hand experience of what it means to be Indian. What I really imbibed from India, particularly during college, was its pluralism. I had friends of different faiths, sampradayas, languages – all living together, freely expressing, practicing and even sharing their faith – without any intent to convert or claim superiority of one faith over another. Looking back at the number of times my Catholic roommate and I went to each others’ houses of worship, my Muslim friend and I visited each other’s homes on our respective holy days, or our Christian neighbors and my family exchanged traditional sweets for Diwali and Christmas,  those years in India – and subsequent visits – allowed me to understand what livingreligious pluralism actually is.

Being in America and particularly a Hindu in America, I have found that being grounded in pluralism helps me balance the various aspects of my identity – not just Indian or American, but being a mother, a wife, a daughter, a community member, an employee, an activist and so on. The Hindu belief that God has many forms, yet is essentially One, the formless Divine, has helped me find peace – and the rich spiritual practices found within the various Hindu sampradayas with their ancient philosophy have been essential to find a way out of the confusion that can come with being an ABCD. I confidently self-identify as a Hindu, and often prefer it to identifying as Indian, something not as common among my Indian immigrant peers.

So when I heard the news about India’s recent census and the resulting social media buzz,  I was rather bemused. The Indian Census Bureau just released numbers from its Official Census in 2011, showing a continuing decline in the proportion of Hindus: people identifying themselves as Hindu dropped to 79.79% from 80.46% ten years earlier, which was at about 83% in 1991.  While the percentage of Muslims in the population rose from 14.23% from 13.42%, the numbers overall caused a stir within the Indian diaspora community.

Academician and fellow Telugu, Vamsee Juluri was moved by the Indian Census towrite about American Hindus and their challenges. Aseem Shukla, my fellow Board member at the Hindu American Foundation, shared a Wall Street Journal article, with the encomium that its interactive feature was the best summary of the issue he had seen, praise that we at the Foundation often can’t offer Western journalists. A college classmate sent me an email of surprise that the proportion of Christians was so low, at 2.3%, given the number of churches we have seen pop up in small villages on our visits to our spiritual homeland over the last 25 years.  And yet friend another and I exchanged emails about John Dayal, an Indian Christian political activist, and how Twitter was all abuzz with his comments that Indian Christians underreported themselves – comments that justify duplicitousness.

Saying one is a Hindu on Census forms ensures receipt of government-provided benefits called reservations, given to certain underprivileged communities. If the same individual goes to Christian missionary organization, they often receive further aid if they identify as Christian. That this happens has been documented in other parts of the world: Guyanese Hindus called themselves “Christian” to get access to hospitals and schools, but continued holding on to their faith at home, as explained here by Murali Balaji, a scholar and voice from HAF.  A study from those at the Lausanne Movement, where they find “it difficult to accept the census as authoritative” reports that the actual number of Christians was 4.8%-5.8% as far back as 2010.

So if the numbers of Christians in India are underreported, I wonder if it is Indian Christians who are confused. I am proud to say I am a Hindu – are they not proud to say they are Christian?  True acceptance of Christ comes with it certain expectations of the heart and mind – including acknowledgement that they are followers of Christ and have left Hinduism behind. Or have they?

DB Response: I agree with the author that Christians who become ‘convert’ should not hesitate to disown their ‘Christian identity’ just for the sake of receiving some social benefits. But in this too many due to economic pressure have to make this compromise, as one Catholic Father in a Conference said that many in their congregation remain ‘Hindu’ in their certificate whereas they remain ‘Christian’ in their church register.  As the church failed to address the economic needs of the converts, which is also impossible and the govt. failed to address the socio-religious needs of the people, particularly the so called ‘suppressed’ people, which of course also impossible, those converts from economically weak and socially oppressed are forced to do this.  And my personal opinion in this is that all are victims in this and nobody can be blamed—as instant and one time solution to complex human issues and needs cannot be arrived by any kind of one time action by any individual or group (or govt.)   The solution to such issues will evolve than invented by any one individual or group all in a sudden.

The issue Kuppa raises is a limited issue which address to the converts.  But those who want to keep their Hindu identity and follow the Lord need not give up their identity or couldn’t do it because of these issues which the Church and Christianity in Indian or anywhere else face.

Having said this, I wonder what the criteria are or what are the criterions which decide one’s Hindu identity?

If one claims ‘culture’ as the criteria, we all know there exists on uniform so called Hindu culture anywhere in the world.  For example Dravidian, tribal etc. cultures need not be called as Hindu culture—though there is the scope for Dravidian/tribal culture accommodating different kinds of faith in it.  Similarly the so called Hinduism can give room and scope for Dravidian/tribal culture is part of it. The same is the case with ‘tradition’.

If we keep ‘geography’ as the criteria for Hindu culture, then identifying Hindu India (Bharat) is a big problem.  According to orthodox view only the central India is considered as true Bharata and Brahmins are warned not to set their foot in Kalinga, Vanga and Anga etc.  Rejecting orthodoxy if we consider the Indian sub-continent as a whole, then the present India miss some major part missing part of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.  So which part of Indian sub-continent should be considered as Hindu India?

Even the sampradaya identity won’t help one to claim the Hindu identity.  The same is the case with scripture.  For example if Veda is claimed to be essential for Hindu identity, then most of the tribes, even the so called ‘Hindu tribes’ cannot be called Hindus, as most of them neither heard about Vedas nor accept its authority.  ***Leave the tribes, even there are several sampradayas and (relisious/spiritual) traditions within Hinduism, which never recognize the authority of Veda. On the other hand they vehimentally condemn it, like that we see in Tamil Siddha tradition. The following information provided by Prof. Ganapati is suffice here to prove this

…A Veda is like a finger pointing at the moon of liberation; it would be a calamity if one took the finger for the moon. Siddhas want us to be free from the fixist slumber or unrealized description of truth. A description can never in itself transmit experience….— T. N. Ganapathy, Tamil Siddhas, New Delhi, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1993, p. 16

…In order to jolt people out of their intellectual rut and their conventional thinking, the Tamil Siddhas have vehemently criticized the Puranas, the Vedas and the various other sastras¹¹….—ibid. p. 192

11. Valmigar says that puranas have been invented for earning one’s livelihood (verse 8); he also calls Vedanta as figments of language (ibid.).  Agasthiyar Jnanam-3 speaks of how Vyasa’s Mahabharatam is also a story (verse3).  Agappeyccittar warns  people not to recite the Vedas thinking that they have known the truth through them (verse 90).  Valaichami wants us to throw away the ‘philosophical dustbins’ and to plug the ‘hole’ (of ignorance) created by the Vedas (verse 146).  Sivavakkiyar ridicules that the Vedas are of no avail at the time of our last breath (verse 13).—ibid. p. 200***

But the interesting fact is that those Hindus living outside India, due to their identity crises have to raise similar issue to keep alive their issues as the focus of any Hindu discussion both in and out India. But we Hindus who live in India do not have time nor have any interest to know or address their issues as we have our own to handle. But the way the NRI launch this kind of ‘native invasion’ on us won’t solve their problem or earn our sympathy to understand or address their issue—as they, for their own GOOD reason opted to EXCHANGE their INDIAN identity, about which we never raise any question.  As we believe in Fundamental Human Right, we never condemn them or question their motive to ‘EXCHAGE’ their BIRTH RIGHT for some comforts and benefits.  But we prefer to be here and struggle with other fellow Indians to face our identity crises for which we never expect or going to accept any solutions from these kinds of Diaspora Hindus as most of them still remain the Washer-man’s dog which neither belongs to the river side or to the house as the Hindi proverb clearly paints their situation: dobi ka kutta na raha gar ka yaa ghat ka.

Finally, who to decide for any Hindu to keep her birth identity as a Hindu and have her own preference to follow any kind of sadhana that suits to her personal spiritual need.  Religious heads have neither the right nor the Constitution.  Sitting on Moses throne these ABCDs and other Diaspora Hindu Fundamentalists take their own authority to decide about our identity and need in India. 

Next is, what is there to proudly to claim any one identity as their own considering the fact that so many atrocities are done in the name of that ‘identity’—whether religion, ethnic, culture, tradition or nation.  For example more blood was shed in the name of God and religion than by all other violence in human history.  Then where is the hope for to have any pride to claim that particular religious identity as one’ own. Of course this is a philosophical question, whereas many are ready to give their life to defend their religion as Colton rightly said: Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it. – Colton {unknown source}

The same is the case with every identity which one way or other shed blood in order to preserve that particular identity.   For example ethnic identity cleanses others to have their own in a particular country or place.  Tamilians shed blood in the name of Tamil language identity and even created a ‘Hindi Arakki’ (Hindi demon).  So those who understand this reality will remain humble even claiming their identity than bragging about it.

The issue with such people like Kuppas is that never try to understand the struggle of common people on ground level, they will rise elitist intellectual objective questions and give their own impracticable solutions to them—as they have time and source to have such intellectual entertainment.  Though not related to this brain storm, see my article ‘Native Invasion’ in my blog on the same subject.

Db.

Mathigiri, 27-4-16

@@@

When any principle or ideology is attacked from every side, the question is not how best it could defend its principle or ideology based on mere conviction or faith of its adherence alone is not enough.  But how far its values could transcend various limitations and become universal in its scope alone will decide about its authenticity.   This small thought came to me when I read this comment by Badrinath:

…a belief in God as the creator of the universe, a central revelation of God, a messenger of that revelation, a central book containing the life and the sayings of that messenger of God, a central code of commandments, a corpus of ecclesiastical laws to regulate opinions and behaviour in the light of these, and a hierarchy of priesthood to supervise that regulation and control.  These are the common, though in their specific contents very different, elements of what are described as the historical religions of the world.— Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, p.39

While this criticism is true for Christianity as a historical religion, yet neo-vedantians could claim that their doctrine, transcending all the limitations became universal in its scope.  This claim would conveniently hijack all the historical and hermeneutical interpretation of its doctrine.  One best advantage that the neo-vedantians have is that they can easily ignore all the historical developments and interpretations of its theology and give new ones according to the need of the time.  But no one can hide or avoid history and its influence even on such interpretations.

               In the very depths of his being man carries the three primeval impulses of seeking pleasure, acquisition and violence.  There are no gods or demons outside; we all carry them within us….— Chaturvedi Badrinath, Dharma, India and the World Order, Saint Andrew Press, Pahl-Rugenstein, 1993, p.65

Christianity, at least the bible focuses on this primeval impulses so it can be claimed primeval in its scope than historic.—db

Mathigiri, May 11, 2004.

@@@

Hari bol!

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

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

God bless you.

Dear Sharala and Gladwin,                                                     March 4, 2001.

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

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

Dayanand.

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

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

Sri Sri Guru Yesu Jayatah!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

1. I myself am a representator of God and God only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• “I am the light of the world; you that follow me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life ….
  I am the resurrection and the life;  you that believes in me though you be dead,  yet shall you live; and whosoever lives and believes in me shall never die”
  
  Very beautiful. These words however could have been said by any pure sad-Guru. The Vedas say, that the eight mystical perfections form only a small part of the might of the pure bhakta, not to mention the ten secondary mystical perfections such as tri-kala jnatvam: knowing the three stages of time, past, present and future perfectly, and dura-sravana-darsanam: the power to see and hear things happening in very distant place (even other lokas).
  
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Kali-yuga and my conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                            Notes

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

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

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

                                    Appendix A  on Purana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                Appendix II on ‘Maya’

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

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

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

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

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

                                                Appendix III on ‘Yuga’

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@@

When I read a work like that of Balgangadhara (Heathen in his blindness), particularly attacking Christianity, which developed as a religion based on right kind of  ‘doctrine’ against the background of paganism which it opposed which believed in following ‘tradition’, including that of religious tradition, without having any particular religious faith, I try to reason out my bhakti in Bhagavan Muktinath.

Agreeing with the author most of his points on religion, I would like to begin from here when he says:

Discussions about other religions are mostly conducted within the framework of Christian theology.  Almost all the concepts that I have come across reflect this: ‘prophetic’, ‘sacramental’ and ‘revelatory’ religions; ‘liturgy’, ‘worship’, ‘sacrament’; ‘eschatology’, ‘soteriology’; ‘sacred’, ‘profane’, ‘God’ and ‘Devil’; ‘transcendent’, ‘immanent’, ‘holy’ and ‘absolute’; ‘faith’, ‘piety’, ‘blasphemy’; ‘apocalyptic’, ‘salvation’ and ‘sin’; and so on and so forth.

               As anybody will recognise, these groups of concepts form a cluster and, together, pick out practices: directly they pick out linguistic practices of a community of believers (and not merely that of the researchers), and indirectly refer to the cultural practices of a community with a history.  The issue is not so much about the meaning of specific words.  In the absence of a background set of beliefs, is it possible to pick out what they are referring to, something, which is constituted as a ‘totality’ due to the interrelationship between these concepts?….(p.228)

Though Christians might be wrong in their approach to understand other traditions, through their ‘theological’ concepts, when I began to search for my need of a guru to find some answers to my question, I never began with any of the above listed `concepts’.  However I began from the one known concept of my own tradition viz. ‘guru’ or the need of a guru.  Irrespective of their specific approach in sharing the gospel with me (worship of false god, idol, sin, heaven, hell, salvation etc.), neither I understood the bible (not Christianity as a religion) nor any of their Christians theology through such theological concepts.  However, I have to confess here that once I became a bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath, in my approach to understand the bible and ‘Christianity’ as a religion, all these theological concepts were systematically presented to me.  But my need for a guru never met through any of these ‘theological concepts’ but some of the specific (or isolated) teaching of the bible (or sayings of the bible) which I understood according to the concepts with which I was familiar.

Leaving God here, (whom I think used my particular cultural and spiritual tradition to found answer to my question in and through my guru), as a normal human being, I can understand any (new) thought with some concepts with which I was familiar.  In the same way, however limited they are, the Christians also can use only those (religious) concepts with which they are familiar.  However I too would like to blame the Christians for all their failures to understand and present the biblical teaching in the native concepts, yet I too have a responsibility when I allowed them to present their views without questioning them.  Here we may say that Christian in the past (also in the present) ‘exploited’ people’ ignorance.  But I am not ready to accept this view, because in the survival art no human being is too ‘ignorant’ to blame others alone denying her personal responsibility.  According to me only infants and insane people alone can be exempted from personal responsibility for all kinds of exploitation against them.  Even those ‘ignorant’ tribes and other backward people according to our level of measuring progress, still have the right to go back to their own tradition denying any ‘religious’ concepts which they feel is imposed on them.  And according to my understanding bible never deny that right to one individual or group, though it warns about the consequence for all such act (technically known as ‘back sliding’ in Christianity).

Dayanand Bharati, Chidembaram, February 4, 20008.

Christianity which came in the Roman world, created it as a  ‘religion’ in its encounter of ‘paganism’, which followed ‘tradition’, including that of ritual (or read as ‘religious) practices of their ancestors without having any faith in it.  While Jews and Romans had their own (ancestral) tradition, without having any of such their own tradition, the early Christians insisted theirs as the true religion by making correct understanding and practicing of ‘doctrine’ as the test of a true religion. 

In the light of what I have said, it is evident that those who had no tradition would have been accused of atheism.  Such indeed was the criticism leveled against the Christians by the pagans.  That is, as the pagans of that period saw it, the early Christians were ‘atheists’ lacking religion….—ibid. p.46

We can now see the challenge the Christians faced: they were not Jews; nor were they Romans.  The Christians could not see themselves as a people with a history, a tradition, a language—that is, they could not trace themselves back to any particular people. The Jews could; the Romans could; even the Egyptians who worshipped “cats, crocodiles, serpents, asps and dogs” could.  However, the Christians alone could not.  They had to show that Christianity was a religio even though their enemies accused them of not being a traditio.  That they set out do.

               During its first five centuries, writer after writer from the Christian Church tried to establish the antiquity of Christianity….—ibid. p.47

               There are two things of crucial importance to the Christian apologetics regarding the antiquity of Christianity.  The first is the question itself.  The pagans challenged the Christians to show that they followed ancient, and hence venerated, customs and practices of their forefathers.  The Jews had met this challenge by arguing not only that Moses was ‘older’ than Homer, but also that, and this is crucial, they were faithful to this ancient custom.  In contrast, the Christians, when they appropriated the Jewish apology, transformed the very question: instead of showing that they were true to ancestral practice, they argued that their doctrines were ancient and therefore true.—ibid. p.48 [When others expected faithful following of ancestral practice, the Christians showed the importance of correct doctrine but not any ancestral practice—db]

…but I do want to draw your attention to the conclusion of the discussion: the Christians saw their religion as the fulfillment of Judaism.  They alone were the followers of the true message of the scriptures.  As Ignatius of Antioch, the Apostolic Father, formulated the thought in The Epistle to the Magnesians, …

…[In Christianity], every other race and tongue that confesses a belief in God has now been comprehended. (Maxwell Staniforth, (Trans.). Early Christian Writers: The Apostolic Fathers.  Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.  p. 90)—ibid. p.50

…Christians claimed exemption from following the traditions of the cities because all of them were wrong.

               How could they show this?  Only by opposing their beliefs—that is, their theology—to the prevalent practices.  Thus, a fundamental shift was wrought: religion was countered to tradition.—ibid. p.51

               We are now in a better position to understand what was entailed by the Christian transformation of the pagan question.  Christianity was ancient not because it was the practice of any nation, but because of its doctrines.  It was religio precisely because it was not traditio.  No wonder, pagans had difficulties in understanding this alien growth.—ibid. p.53

…The criticism of the Roman intellectuals did not challenge tradition, it merely restrained superstitio; that is, it functioned as a constraint on the excesses of human practice.  The tradition handed down was not to be supplanted by ‘reason’ but to be held in check whenever contemporary practices threatened to run wild.

               What Christianity did then—and was to repeat centuries later during the Reformation—was to criticize practices by criticizing beliefs.  That is to say, it postulated a link between practices and beliefs.  A link of a type that (I claim) was unknown in Antiquity: practices express or embody the beliefs that human beings entertain.  In this manner, Christianity further reduced religio to ‘religion.’  The former became a variant of the latter: paganism was an expression of a set of false or corrupt beliefs.—ibid. p.53

As we have seen above, the Christians claimed that their religion followed the most ancient of all doctrines.  The Jews as well as all other nations on earth had anticipated the coming of Christ.  By saying this, the Christians began the process of constructing the history of humanity itself. In appropriating the Old Testament, they also appropriated the past of humankind.  The Old Testament was not just the past of humanity as the Jews envisaged it, but a true chronicle of events on earth.  The real or imaginary past of the Jews became the framework for describing the history of humanity.

…Let me recount the simplest version of a story that was to masquerade as nothing less than human history.  There was once a religion, the true and universal one, which was the divine gift to all humankind.  A sense or spark of divinity is installed in all races (and individuals) of humanity by the creator God himself.  During the course of human history, this sense did not quite erode as it was corrupted.  Idolatry and worship of the Devil—the false God and his minions—were to be the lot of humankind until God spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and led their tribe back onto the true path.  I cannot tell you with any great certainty what has happened since then: the Jewish, the Christian and the Islamic religions are yet to arrive at a consensus.

               Irrespective of whether there is a consensus or not, two aspects of this story are important.  We have already come across the first aspect: the ‘best’ among the pagans, by anticipating and preparing the advent of the Gospels, were now a part of the world history as the Christians wrote it.  The second aspect is this: within the broad framework of the Christian (including Old Testament) philosophy of history, the religio of the Romans became the prototypical false religion of humankind. (p.57)

               How could this be?  The Old Testament story was pressed into service here as well, not merely to explain the ‘errors’ of the gentiles but also to give them a permanent place within the Christian philosophy of history.  The pagans were seduced into accepting false beliefs as true.  Seduced by whom or what?  By the Devil and his machinations, of course.  The Devil and his minions tempt people into worshipping the false god, namely, himself.  After all, that is why the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob made His appearance in the Arabian Desert.  Consequently, the Roman deities were absorbed into the Christian framework as ‘demons’ and their worship was nothing but idolatry….—ibid. pp.56-57

…the antiquity of a custom was no authority in so far as religion was concerned [as claimed by Romans].  Consequently, all the pagan cults, with their multitude of practices, ceremonies and rituals, all these others, became mere exemplifications of another religion—the false one, which worshipped the prince of darkness.—ibid. p.58

               If religion has to do with practicing the true doctrine, then there can only be one avenue, because there can only be one true doctrine.  Everything that deviates from it can only be false.  That is what the Christians maintained.

               When looked at this way, we can see something un-Hellenic about the ‘Hellenisation’ of Christianity.  Christianity and Judaism felt compelled to do what their religious rivals, the cults, never did.  The pagan religions were part of the very same Hellenic milieu in which Christianity grew.  Yet, it was the latter and not the pagan cults that developed a theology to justify practices.  Pagans never felt compelled, even when under attack, to develop a theology of the Isis cult, a kerygma of the Sibylline oracles or whatever else.—p.58            

               An inevitable outcome of this transformation of the question—and the shift in both the reference and meaning of religio—is a parallel shift in the reference and the meaning of traditio.  By the time Christianity had a bite, there were already disputes and discussions about the apostolic tradition itself.  Here, ‘tradition’ referred to the line and process of transmission of the messages by the Apostolic Fathers.  The Gnostic tendency within the Christian religion fed itself precisely on this pivotal issue: was there a ‘truer’ doctrine, which the Apostolic Fathers entrusted only to a select group?  Consequently, when one talks of the Catholic, Christian, or even the apostolic tradition, the reference is to the transmission of some or another set of doctrines.—ibid. p. 60

@@@

Sri Cho Ramaswami, the author of Tamil political-satyrical weekly magazine and also a political critic, parliamentarian, actor, lawyer, author of several books, drams began to write a new topic in his weekly magazine entitled ‘Hindu maha samudiram’ (The Hindu Ocean).  After a three weeks of introduction, in the first chapter he concludes, accepting the view held by late Sankaracharya of Kanchi Sri Chandrasekara Saraswati Swamiji (known in Tamil as Maha Periyava) that in the ancient past Hinduism (though not with the same name but in its form) was the single religion which existed all over the world.  To prove this he quotes several religious and ritual practices which existed in several parts of the world, exactly resembling its Hindu form (even using the same terms like ‘Siva dance by aborigines in Australia even drawing the third eye of Siva on their forehead and also from Egypt, Madagascar, Peru,).  In conclusion he says:

Historians and rationalist may say that ‘All these interesting information are only superficial examples; but based on these we cannot claim that at the beginning only Hinduism existed and it pervaded the entire world’.  But they have no evidence to prove their view.  And they refuse to accept those few evidences because that is convenient for their debate.

The same way, for those who have faith it is convenient to accept these evidences.  If denying (all these evidences) is convenient for those who reject this view, then why not those who have faith in this view should not accept it?  I am one such who accepts this view. (Thuglak Tamil Weekly, 9-2-05, p.22)  [my translation]

Dayanand:

Several times we try to defend a concept not because it deserves such a defense but because of our inability to accept the disappointment as its folly is exposed by others.  As it is a dear concept, we then try to defend it for our consolation—ignoring the genuine questions and challenges raised by its opponents using the eternal weapon of ‘Faith’.

Madhu:

Cho Ramaswami is merely following the method of hindu nationalists who assert the supremacy of Hindusim. This approach, if i have understood Inden and others, was the manner in which patriotic hindus reacted to
virulent attacks by missionaries and western scholars on hindus and their culture. Such a brand of nationalism is no longer relevant but some continue to live in fools paradise. It is so untypical of hindus
to marshal evidences to authenticate their beliefs. In fact no religion can claim universality of the kind that Cho is claiming for hinduism. In mimicking extravagant claims of christians a few hindus have defeated them in their own game. Do we not hear about miracle festivals arranged by hindus?  Dayanand:

Agreeing with Madhu about the nationalistic approach by some Hindus to assert the supremacy of Hinduism, we have also to remember one fact that these kinds of people selectively use the very evidences produced by the western scholars to support their view.  Not only that, they most of the time use the very same western method of approaching, analyzing, interpreting religion, which they claim not doing full justice to Hinduism.  Above all their views are not representing the whole Hindus or Indians but only the elitist point of view at the cost of common people’s understanding and approach.

After Sankarachary’s episode, suddenly some Hindus began to feel that such incidents shake the very foundation of Hinduism.  Some anti-brahminical movements, using this opportunity began to attack such brahminical-Hinduism.  Cho though a seasoned writer and intellect, yet could write more objectively and soberly.  However, we have to wait and see how he is going to write further. 

Finding few idols of Vinayaka in some countries, the use of the word ‘Siva’ by some other people like that of Australian aboriginals do not prove the universality of Hinduism.  But to people like Cho (and also to Gurumurthy) anything said by late Sankaracharya (Paramacharya) is undisputed divine word (all his saying appeared in book form with the very same title: Daivattin kural [The voice of God]).  Soon or after Cho’s writing, definitely some from the Dravida Kazhagam will write criticizing his views.  And both the camps are misleading the common people to some extent.

Regarding the miracle healing performed by Hindus, in today’s Times of India, Bangalore, February 11, 2005, on p. 6 the following verdict came:

‘Faith healing not allowed’. 

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that no person or organization can claim constitutional validity for “faith healing” citing the right to freedom of religion and right ot protection of life. 

      Justice Sunil Ambawani, while making the observation, said that both the rights are distinct from each and other and do not overlap.

He also said that right to protection of life, which also entails the right to medical treatment, is regulated by a specific legislation and hence nobody can claim the right to curements through the power of faith as a fundamental right.

      The order was on a complaint filed by one Santosh Saxena, a resident of the city, who had alleged that Ajay Pratap Singh who had set up an organization called Lal Mahendra Shiv Shakti Seva Samiti was offering faith-healing to the indisposed for a fee of Rs. 30.

The court restrained Singh and the organization from holding faith-healing congregations and also stealing power, using loud-speakers and public parks for the purpose, as had been alleged by the complainant.

Dayanand wrote:

Blessed is the man who does not read all the materials that published—especially in the field of religion and politics.  Particularly, as anyone can write any thing on Hinduism—each claiming right in her own eyes—now it became a profession and entertainment, in Tamilnadu.  Each week new books are coming to the market on various topics on Hinduism.  Now Sri Cho Ramaswami, the M.P., Journalist, author, Lawyer, political satirist, columnist, critic, actor, and orator wants to contribute to enlighten on Hinduism—specially to lay people. 

In general, Sri Ramaswami is an honest, humble, outspoken, loyal, trustworthy, independent, straightforward person, yet the way he gives some of his own interpretation might make several sincere objective scholars on Hinduism to raise their eyebrows.  Of course, he has his own circle of scholars supporting his views on Hinduism.  Nevertheless, however he would like to remain unprejudiced, yet he too has his own gray areas in this series of writing entitled: Hindu Ocean, in order to defend, expound, and promote a Universal Hinduism—, which would compatible to the Sangh Parivar Nationalism.

When you have your own media and audience to accept your views, it is easy to write anything as per your view.  Particularly the Tamil Brahmin had a long history behind them, by virtue of their control over media, to shape the public opinion to some extent—specifically among the educated middle class people.* While scholars (who might willing to read such writings by Sri Ramaswami) find some amusement, innocent (uneducated and lower middle class, remain ignorant of such debates) educated middle class might be influenced by his writings.  So some one should challenge some of his interpretation on Hinduism.  However, who to tie the bell to the cat?  Though I am tempted to raise few questions, yet neither I have time nor do I have resource.  Of course, Sri Ramaswami is known for not changing his views because others do not agree with him.  But someone should tell him and his audience that all his writing on ‘Hindu Ocean’ is does not represent any form of Hinduism, but it is the another creation of Neo-Hinduism keeping a particular ideology to promote.

Notes

*. The following extract from ‘Hinduism Reconsidered’ will highlight this point.  I know most of you won’t have time or interest to read this.  But if you spend some time, you will be immensely benefited by Frykenberg’s analysis.–Dayanand

Robert Eric Frykenberg, THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN ‘HINDUISM’ AS A CONCEPT AND AS AN INSTITUTION: A REAPPRAISAL WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SOUTH INDIA,

§Ú úNô WôUNôª AYoLs

B£¬Vo, Õd[d.

CkÕ URj§tÏ(?) Es[ Ød¡V ùTXú] AÕ Ruàs TX UôßThP, Ø\iTôPô] LÚjÕLÞdÏm CPm A°jÕ TuØL Sm©dûLûV (pluralistic faith) Y[ojRÕRôu. B]ôp JÚØLlThP, TÏjR±®]ôp UhÓm ùR°ÜTÓjRdá¥V ‘קV CkÕ URjûR’ (Neo-Hinduism) Øu]² úRºVYô§Ls 19-Bm èt\ôiÓØRúX Aû]jÕ Ck§VoLsÁÕm ‘CkÕ URm’ Gu\ ‘UR Sm©dûL’ (Faith Community) êXm §¦dL BWm©jRôoLs.  ReLs T¦Ùm ARu JÚ ùRôPof£úV.  GÝR JÚ Tj§¬dûLÙm, Sm LÚjÕdLû[ AlT¥úV BoYØPu HtÏm YôNLoLÞm CÚdÏm YûW EeLû[l úTôu\YoLs ‘CkÕ URm’ Tt± GûRúYiÓUô]ôÛm GÝRXôm.

RVô]kj TôW§

The strength of Hinduism is that accommodating various contradicting views developed a pluralistic faith.  But since 19^th century several nationalistic writers try to impose on every Indian an unified Neo-Hinduism which could be explained through rationalistic interpretation, as a religion (faith community).¹  Your writing is only a continuation of the same trend.  As long as we have a media (magazine) under our control and a ready made receptive audience to our view, people like you can write anything on Hinduism.

Dayanand bharati

1. Just one example:

               Another aspect worth mentioning here is that Aurobindo Ghosh and others were anxious to bypass and to exclude the issue of social antagonisms and class-struggle in India.  While in the past the Hindu teaching karma served to justify social differences not infrequently, now the approach to the social question was modified in a way.  With the advent of a more progressive historical situation now the “Vedantic message of equality” was more intensively advanced (Gosh, The unhindoo spirit of caste rigidity.  In Bande Mataram (weekly), Calcutta,  22.9.1907), where the allegedly egalitarian rationale of Hinduism found its expression.  This approach served to mask social contradictions.  In this way it had become possible to stand up for reforms in the Hindu society and at the same time to praise the traditional system as exemplary for the world. This trend became especially visible at the example of the caste system that was possible to be criticized in its present-day degenerate form, while at the same time the restoration to its original, allegedly ideal state was propagated in the form of the varna-system.—

Horst Kruger, HINDUISM AND NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT IN INDIA, in Hinduism Reconsidered, edited by Gunther D. Sontheimer and Hermann Kulke, New Delhi, Manohar Publications, (1989) 1991 p.90

@@@

Rajesh and Swamiji,

I thought you’d be interested in this notice from today’s (5/12//05) “Hindu Press Int’l.” e-bulletin.  It advertises the attempt of their journal “Hinduism Today” to utilize the propaganda/education techniques used so successfully by Pentecostals.

God bless.

Herb

HPI E-Bulletin:

KAUAI, HAWAII, May 12, 2005: Hinduism Today is putting together an 

educational insight piece on Lord Ganesha for the next issue of the 

magazine. The insight will likely be titled “My Friend Lord Ganesha.” 

We want to show how Lord Ganesha is integral to the life of Hindus. One 

section will comprise testimonies from Hindus telling their personal 

experience with the beloved elephant-faced Deity. If you have such a 

testimony that you would like to share with the readers of HT, please 

send it to “source.” We especially hope to receive testimonies from 

children, but all are welcome. Examples are how Ganesha has answered 

your prayers, your experience of Ganesha during pilgrimage, vivid 

dreams or visions. We may reprint the Insight as an teaching resource. 

Please help make this an eternal source of upliftment and spiritual 

education.

@@@

Dear Barka,

Shanti!

Immediately after the programme to day (February 25, 2006, NDTV, 10-11 pm; about Jesika’s murder case), I came to write this letter.  I too shed tears along with Sabina (Jesika’s sister).  By bringing this issue to the public debate, NDTV has already passed the best judgment on that boy who has done this crime.

Yes!  Our judicial system can help him to escape.  Now he and his entire family have no place to hide their face in this country.  If that boy was punished and sent to jail, we common people would have never even remembered about this.  To be honest, for us a Jasika and others is nothing.  In addition, if that boy were punished, we would have forgotten the entire issue, as it would be one among several crimes done and punished.  By using his money, power and authority, though he cheated the judicial system, no other punishment would be this much worst that now he and his entire family are receiving by the entire country.  Even a death sentence would be very easy and light considering the present shame and humiliation Manu and his entire family are facing. 

Tell Sabina that we stand with her in giving all kinds of mental and moral support to fight to come to a logical conclusion of this trial.  However also tell her that Manu and his entire family already received the highest punishment, as NDTV brought this case before the public.  Whether or not Manu will be punished in future or not by the law of the land, already he is punished and in a worst way.  This should console her and look forward to fight for those who suffer like her silently.  This is the best time for her to start a Fund in Jasika’s name and try to help such poor victims, who have no face or voice to fight back the corrupt system in India.

Swami Dayanand Bharati

Dear bhaktas of the Lord,

Shanti1

Some of you might have seen NDTV’s programme to fight for justice on Jesika Lal’s murder case.  They are launching a campaign to mobilize public opinion and support for this cause.  Pl. send your support through SMS or e-mail at feedback@ndtv.com

I hope Madhu can help about sending SMS, as I don’t know to which number you need to send it.  This fight is do justice and oppose corruption in police investigation.  Pl. forward this mail to your other friends to send their support to NDTV. Thanks.

Dayanand

NB. A short message like: ‘We support your cause on Jesika Lal’s case’ is enough.

@@@

Chips From An Indic Workshop
Does the Bhagavadgita advocate war and violence?-Prof. Arvind Sarma, McGill University, MLBD Newsletter December 2002, p.16.
   It is easy to see how the Bhagavadgita may give rise to such an impression.  First of all, its setting points in that direction.  It is revealed while the opposing forces are poised ready for battle.  Second, Arjuna does not want to engage in combat but is ultimately persuaded to do so.  The  Bhagavadgita starts with Arujna too dejected to fight and ends as soon as Arjuna’s spirits have been revived.  Third, one of the arguments which Krsna uses to urge Arjuna to fight appeals to the fact that Arjuna is a ksatriya and it is his duty to fight.  And finally, when Krsna displays his cosmic form, not only a violent apocalypse is disclosed, but Krsna therein also tells Arujna that he has himself made short work of Arjuna’s enemies, who have in effect already been killed by Krsna (XI.33).  That is, he should formally finish the job.  Obviously then the Bhagavadgita seems to advocate war and violence.

    If one examines the context closely, one realizes that war has almost commenced.  So the real issue is not whether war is good or bad but what is the duty of the warrior when war has as good as commenced.  It is this question which the Bhagavadgita answers.  It does not sit in judgement on whether war is right or wrong.  That question does not fit its case.  And its answer is that once the battle has commenced it is the duty of a soldier to fight.  One cannot become a conscientious objector after one has been mobilized.  So to ask whether the Gita advocates war or not is to ask the wrong question about it.

    It is well known that Krsna himself went on a peace mission to the Kauravas, in one last-ditch effort to avoid the war.  He went as an ambassador whose person was held inviolable, otherwise it is impossible to negotiate.  And what did Duryodhana do?  Duryodhana tried to apprehend Krsna; Krishna assumed his cosmic form and broke loose.  Many are aware of Krsna’s theophany in the Bhagavadgita, fewer are aware of Krsna’s theophany in the Kuru court.  Let it be remembered that the first theophany of Krsna is in the context of a peace mission; when that mission fails and war breaks out, then the occasion for the better-known but second theophany presents itself.

    Finally, the Mahabharata was not just a war, it was a just war.  It was when Duryodhana ‘needled’ the Pandavas, challenged the Pandavas that he would not let them have even as much land as the point of a needle without a fight, that the Pandavas had to join issue with the Kauravas, to assert their legitimate right to the throne.  The choice one was left with was that of letting injustice triumph over justice. If the Bhagavadgita, one
insists, advocates war despite the evidence adduced above, then let it be remembered that a just war is involved.  The Bhagavadgita does advocate that we fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!

A Response:

Added to this, if Arjuna refuses to fight for a just case, then he would set a bad example for people not to do their legitimate duty.  Above all, his refusal to fight that just war would justify the wrong done by Duryodhana. If Arjuna had allowed the ruler (King) not to uphold dharma, naturally it will lead people also to follow the ruler’s way (arasan
yevazhi kudigal avazhi-citizens follow the path of the ruler– as the Tamil proverb says) thereby he would incur the sin of misleading common people not to uphold dharma in their life.

However I do not agree with the author’s view that ‘The Bhagavadgita does advocate that we fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!’  Because sometimes in life we have to give up our right, not fighting our enemy and resign to the will of God or to the law of the land. Tirukkural, the famous Tamil poem says ‘How shall a man punish them that have injured him?  Let him do them a good turn and make them ashamed in their hearts (32:4).’  The Bible also endorses this view by saying; ‘don’t do evil to evil but overcome evil by doing good’ (Romans 12:21).  In the life of Jesus we see an example for this.  When He was arrested and falsely accused He refuse to fight for His right and resigned to the will of God (1 Pet. 2:23).  That’s why He could even forgive His offenders
while hanging on the Cross (Lk. 23:34).

We see the same example in the life of Arujna also.  King (Dridarashtara father of Duriyodana) refused to do justice and keep silence when his son refuse to return back to the Pandava’s their kingdom as per the condition; then the Pandavas first tried to settle the issue through peaceful negotiation.  And Krsna himself become the mediator.  But when the King because of his love for his son closed his eyes (already he was blind by birth) and his son refused to listen the counsel of his elders, then alone the Pandavas
resolved to fight for the just cause.  When the ruler (law) of the land refuses to do justice, then it is the duty of the mass to rise against such tyrannical rule (of law).  Because here it is not any ‘personal right’ of the Pandavas that is at stake, but truly dharma itself, which everyone should adhere to for the smooth functioning of society.  Again we see the same in the life of Jesus. While He refused to fight for His ‘right’, He was not hesitant to take the whip and chase the money lenders and illegal merchants from the courtyard of the Jerusalem temple, as they were corrupting the worship of God.  

The reason for these comments is that ‘we fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!’ might be misinterpreted and may promote personal ‘violence’ to fight for one’s own right. This kind of wrong interpretation of ‘fighting for one’s own right’ is the main cause of fundamentalism and terrorism in this world. And I think that neither Gita
nor Mahabharata or any other Scripture would support for such violence.  So the Pandavas fought not for their right but to  uphold the dharma of doing justice and promoting the rule of law even at the cost of fighting against their own kith and kin and even the King.

It is better to give up one’s right for the sake of peace and common good. But if such passive ahimsa gives hope for the promotion of adharma and injustice, then one has to fight for his right.  Otherwise it will set a wrong example for people to follow the dictum of miscreants who will uphold their law of ‘might is right’.  So, fighting all the time for one’s own right will only promote disharmony and disunity among people.  And even our right should come under the scrutiny of dharma, law and justice.  Otherwise even a wrong cause might be promoted as right, instigating ‘fighting alone is our right’.

Dayanand Bharati,
Mathigiri (Hosur), January 14, 2003.

@@@

Identity crisis of any kind (like cultural, social, ethnical, economic etc.) could create some kind of insecurity in the minds of the people.  This could be more visible in any emerging new world society, where people from different nations try to (re-)adjust their life in a new country.  Then to ward of this feeling of insecurity, leaders create some kind of one imagined ‘other’ to fight to provide the security and identity to their own people.  This imagined ‘other’ could be other cultural, social, ethnic, religious, economic and etc. groups.  And the elitist among the leaders instead of targeting some specific people group, they could easily create an ‘ideology’ to fight to avoid direct confrontation from the ‘other’.  This they would do on two levels: giving a call for immediate reformation among their own and warning the danger of allowing the ‘other’ to spoil them, particularly the new generation which will bear the burden¹ of the identity crisis more than their elders.

This is what I feel when I read your report in the recent ‘Report from a Hindu Conference’ in your RF News letter no. 15.  Now I started to read: Hindu Diaspora, by T.S. Rukmani, New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001, which I think will endorse my view. 

Notes:

1. ‘…The concern for the young Hindus is how to effect a reasonable compromise between not being totally bowled over by the American society and also not to be complete strangers in a new land by eschewing all that is western’.—Rukmani, op. cit. Introduction,  p. xviii

@@@

Identity question

Hello Swamiji,   I had been having some interesting conversations with a close friend of mine – Prabhu (who is now in Denmark).  He had some very serious questions about Hindu identity and i tried answering to the best of my knowledge.   His main question was “how is hinduism defined”? (Is there any one-line answer for this which is accurate 🙂 ) and what does it mean to have a “Hindu identity” ? It will be great if you can sound this right as i did not want to give him any misguiding principles.    I can even include him on the mails, so that we can have e-mail conversations on this… He would definitely be very interested. Please do let me know your thoughts…..    Prabhu Gopalakrishnan: For Hindus, there is definitely no straight identity based on rituals or traditions. My derision towards the term ‘religion’ also is closely related to this aspect. Boxing and labeling a diverse set of beliefs is impossible while it is so much more easily possible for the ’Abrahamic’ religions. Their whole methodology of ‘top down’ or ‘one book down’ approach is very well suited for a very clear identity. Reversing the gaze or doing a purva paksh, we notice that this single aspect is what helps them achieve a semblance of respectability when approaching naïve civilizations. Reverse take: We should definitely carve an identity…but not carve it on their platform. We cannot and should not carve it on the basis of traditions or number of Gods or rituals. Just because they are too diverse and in the process of carving a single identity, we would invariably alienate the not-so-well-represented. We should carve an identity on the basis of values…on the basis of ‘Dharma’ which is something which will “never” overlap with the Abrahamic religions. I have had a few conversations with Christians/Atheists here in Denmark and predominantly the one question they ask is “If you as a Hindu believe in multiple Gods, then you should also believe in Christianism”. At first, it was a conundrum but after some introspection and reading up .. mainly Malhotra and a couple of others… my reply now is that  “I would definitely believe in any religion which accepts the possibility of another religion being completely equal … in other words.. if your religion said Christ was not the ONLY savior, then I would definitely believe in it”. This puts them off mostly but some come around to accepting the fact and also leads to serious soul-searching for them. \srikanth.

Dear Srikant and Gopalakrishnan

Shanti!

Prabhu is hundred per cent correct about his view on Hindu identity and also the Christians’ (wrong) approach about the identity of others (religious and non-religious).  Both traditionally and historically Christians had such a wrong view, from which they cannot come out.  So for me we need not even think about our identity on their terms or anybody’s term.

At the same time, living on this earth, no one can claim to live in a ‘no man’s land’.  And the first criteria that decides the identity in modern time is not one’s value, principle, religion, culture etc. but Law (or Constitution).  So we Hindus should begin from there viz. what our Constitution says about our identity.  As lots of informations are available about this, so I need not give them here.

Regarding the ‘value’ which should give our identity as a principle, that too is very evasive.  What ‘dharma’ is a contested question and developing a Hindu identity, though good and reasonable one, yet very evasive one as Yudhishtira himself says:

tarko’pratisthah srutayo vibhinnaah; naiko rsir yasya vacah pramaanam | 

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhaayaam; mahaajano yena gaatah sa panthaah||

Inferential logic is uncertain, i.e. it is such that it will give birth to various inferences according to different degrees of keenness of intelligence in men; the srutis, that is, the precepts, of the Vedas, are all mutually conflicting; and, as regards the smrtis, there is not a single Rishi whose precept we can look upon as more authoritative than that of others.  Well, if we seek the fundamental principle of this (worldly) dharma, it is lost in darkness, that is to say, it is such as cannot be understood by a man of ordinary intelligence.  Therefore, the path which have been followed by venerable^@ persons is the path of dharma.] { B.G. Tilak, Tr. by A. S. Sukthankar: Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya,seventh edn., Poona, 1986,}

@ Prof. Sharma’s comments on this word ‘venerablepersons’ will help us to understand this concept in its right context:

…The word mahaajana can mean either (1) a great person or (2) a great number of persons.  Although the first sense is the obvious one, tradition, in this context, favours the second sense, an understanding which is surprisingly logical.  If it has already been asserted that the sages, who were great persons, differ among themselves, then how does the great man, the mahaanjana, help us overcome the dilemma?  The point then is that if contradiction is to be avoided, as in a previous line the sages, who are or were presumably great persons, are declared to be at odds regarding (p.19) dharma, the sense of a ‘great number of persons’ must be favoured.  To put the matter succinctly: consensus is the arbiter of dharma.

               …this is how P.V.Kane translates the term.  He renders the entire verse as follows (from a text in which the first line read tarko ‘pratistah):

rationalization is unstable, Vedas are in conflict with each other, there is no single sage whose opinion is held to be authoritative (by all, the truth about Dharma is enveloped in a cave (i.e. it cannot be clearly discerned) and that therefore the path to be followed) is the one followed by the great mass of people. [History of Dharmasastra, vol. V, pt. II, pp. 1271.]

He also points out that Sankara has employed the word in this sense in his gloss on Brahmasutra iv.2.7.  In fact Nilakantha, in the sixteenth century, in his commentary on this verse takes it clearly in this sense; for he glosses it as bahujanasammatamityarthah.  The late Professor B.K. Matilal tentatively offered the sense as an open possibility, which is my unhesitating choice also.— Arvind Sharma, Hinduism for our Times, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001, pp.19-20

After quoting from the scholars, my personal view is that a common Hindu least bothers about all kinds of hair spliting analysis of words and concepts.  She lives the life as it comes, based on the value set by her family, (caste) community and society.  So however theoretically we argue over the identity of a Hindu (based on one’s own ideology), yet for me the right question of our identity is not ‘What Hinduism is’ but ‘Who a Hindu is’?  Then:

A Hindu is a member of a particular community irrespective her faith.  If I understood our Constitution vaguly, that too endorses this view along with the practical identity of Hindus.

This is the Hindu reality in India.  When I say ‘in India’, I have to recognize the same diaspora Hindus (now) have to workout their identity in a different context, recognizing the fact that their diasporic identity cannot be universal or ‘pan-Hindu’.

In this post-modern context, any universal claim needs to be questioned, at the same time no local context could remain an island of its own not influenced by some universal views.

I know my response raises more questions than giving a specific answer to Krishnan’s view.  But not get lost in so many sub-point:

I agree with Krishnan’s view about Hindu identity, but wants to qualify that he too began to think Hindu identity based on his response to Christian view and not independently as he is keeping his social and cultural roots back in home.  The movement we keep ‘the Other’ here the Christians as the purva-pakshin, then we will end up giving a wrong answer to the right question about our identity.

Having shared my initial view, I have few questions on Prabhu’s comments:

We should carve an identity on the basis of values…on the basis of ‘Dharma’ which is something which will “never” overlap with the Abrahamic religions.—Prabhu

Though life cannot be compartmentalized (as social, cultural, religious etc. at least for a Hindu then) what is the ‘value’ which he means here?

On what basis he says that ‘dharma will ‘never’ overlap with the Abrahamic religions?–db

“I would definitely believe in any religion which accepts the possibility of another religion being completely equal—Prabhu

Does Hinduism accept the possibility of another religion being completely equal?  No two Hindu sampradhyas accepts each other equal.  This is true with deities too.–db

Rest after hearing from others comments.

Db. Gurukulam. 25-02-2013

@@@

Brother  J     ,                        May 1996,

                                        Delhi.

     Many thanks for your letter of the 7th.

     Your are my senior in every sense.  And I have known you as one of finest men I have met.   I will never get into an argument with you.  I have only one question to ask.

     Can you tell me of a way in which one could criticize an ideology without being accused of creating hatred towards the adherents of that ideology?  Or has history ever known an ideology which has not been misused by people who are prone to do so?

     God knows, I have never regarded Muslim and Christians in India as other than my own people.  On the human level I make no distinctions between Hindus and Non-Hindus.  I have known as many good people among Muslims and Christians as I have known bad ones among Hindus.  But I cannot stop making a distinction between Sanatana Dharma on the one hand, and the biblical doctrine on the other.  And it does leave me amazed that adherents of doctrines which divide the human family on the basis of belief, came down upon me as the sinner, simply because I hold these doctrines as unwarranted and undesirable.  The exercise is tantamount to a doctor being denounced for diagnosing a disease.

Regards,

Sd. SRG.

Note: Sri SRG is a Hindu fundamentalist.  He has written several books and articles against Non-Hindus.  Now, what would be your response to such a question which he is raising above.  I gave one, but would like to know your opinion before I share my response with you.  Take your own time to answer but not all the time under the Sun.  Thank you.

Dayanand Bharati.

                Is Ideology Absolute One?

     When we criticize an ideology “objectively”, without holding any personal prejudice, both towards the ideology as well as its adherents, then there is less chance for one to hate the adherents of that ideology.  On the other hand, if we criticize that ideology “subjectively”, then we criticize that ideology not for its own merit or de-merit, but we do criticize it, un-consciously comparing with our won ideology which may not agree with it.  Then one cannot avoid the hidden hatred towards the followers of that ideology, because without any followers, the very ideology will lose its meaning and may even disappear.  Then all our statement (while criticizing any ideology subjectively comparing with one’s own) that we are only attacking the “principle” not “people”, “policy” not the “person” holds no value, as the followers of those ideology (whom we unconsciously hate) will easily read our mind in-between the lines in such statements.

     For example, almost all the Hindus in India (may be with few exception like SRG) entertain an unconscious hatred towards Muslims in general and Pakistan in particular as rightly observed by Khan, “Even now when I met another Indian, immediately, and not at all unconsciously, I mark that he is a Hindu and I am sure he does the same with me–that I am a Muslim.  So I came to sense that behind all our comradely relations there was among the Hindus an underlying recollected anger at having suffered centuries of Muslim rule.  It was in the Hindu collective unconscious, as Carl Jung would have call it.  It was how the Hindu looked upon his contemporary Muslim, making the latter a symbol of bygone oppressors and vandals among the Muslim rulers.” (Ansar Hussain Khan, The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent, Orient Longman Limited, Hyderabad, 1995, p.2). 

     Though a Hindu may claim that while he is criticizing any policy of Islam/Pakistan, he is criticizing only “objectively”, without any hatred towards the people.  But the fact in it is that being an ordinary human being he cannot avoid or raise above his social-cultural-religious background which alone shaped his conscience first and ideology next.  Where as a non-Indian can criticize the same Islam/Pakistan “objectively”, without any prejudice as his cultural-social-religious (political) backgrounds will help him to see only the merit and de-merits of Islam/Pakistan.  Even though the Christian in India some time have joined with the Muslims in the name of ‘protecting the minorities interest”, yet I think that they too have such an attitude towards Pakistan at least, if not against Islam as we Hindus have.

     So, to avoid such misunderstanding, one must first boldly face his own prejudice, which reduces one’s won vision to see the TRUTH as it is.  And if one really wants to uphold TRUTH (Satyamevajayate) then he must humble himself before that absolute TRUTH itself.  “True speech and false speech run a race against each other.  Soma protects out of the two what is true and what is very straight forward and strikes down what is false”. (P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II, Part. I, Ch. I. Saamaanya-dharma, Fn.7, p.4).  Otherwise,  while he attacks other’s ideology “subjectively” in order to defend his, then he will only tell half-truth, which destroys.  And while criticizing other’s ideology “objectively” claiming that he is not entertaining any hatred towards the adherents of that ideology, yet approach it with some prejudice, then he will not tell the whole truth, which will disappoint.  But a honest person, who wants to be consistent and true to himself at least, will raise above his own situation and circumstances of cultural-social-religious-political and will uphold the TRUTH at any cost.  But where to find such a person as “Humankind cannot bear very much reality” (T.S.Eliot, Four Quarters, London: Faber & Faber, 1949, quoted by Khan, op.cit. p.7)

     Love units and doctrine divides.  This is a common problem not only in the religious world, but among the upholders of any ideology (e.g. Communism).

     One may claim that, “on the human level”, one does not distinguish between Hindu and Non-Hindu, Muslim and non-Muslim, Christian and Non-Christian, Communist and Non-Communist etc.  But our experience as well as the human history show clearly that we distinguish as no two ideology agree with each other and hence the adherents of those ideologies also.  Otherwise how we are going to justify all the wars and suppression human history.

     Except few exceptions like expansion and invasion, most of the wars were fought not only on the basis of “objective” differences on ideology, but “subjective” distinction of the adherents of the two.  The best way to overcome such tension is to accept our inherent nature which does make distinction between people on the basis of caste, race and religion and try to over come it by the Grace of God.

     On September 26, 1996, when I was returning from Agra at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway station I boarded the town bus.  After few minutes a Muslim also get in and as the place next to me was remain vacant, he sat there.  Immediately my body, even out of my own control moved more towards the window in order to avoid any physical contact with that Muslim. There my body co-operating with my sub-conscience, which had an inherent tendency of hatred towards Muslims made the distinction.  But, as my mind/vivek/conscience immediately pricked me, because of the working of the Holy Spirit within me, then I forced my body to relax so that I can over come my inherent nature which makes such distinctions.   It doesn’t mean that I voluntarily moved towards that Muslim so that I can allow my body even to touch him.  No, I didn’t do so, but I forced my mind to relax to raise above such a situation with the help of God.

     It is very easy to criticize the religions of Prophetic (Islam and Christianity) “which divide the human family on the basis of belief” (generally both Islam and Christianity, particularly the evangelicals in the latter, easily call the people of the other faiths as un-believers, while claiming themselves as believers), forgetting the fact that our Sanatana Dharma does the same, particularly among its own adherents on the basis of caste in the name of karma doctrine.  Here one may objectively discuss the merits and de-merits of caste system which divide people, that too inhumanly, yet the subjective experience of Sanatanies is that even an objective doctrine of karma makes a distinction “on the human level”.  Above all is it possible even to compare Sanatana Dharma, which is not a religion holding any particular ideology but promote dharma alone in the lives of its adherents in order to achieve the purushartas of dharma, artha, kama and moksha and providing various ideologies according to the need of the people for the same purpose with other faiths which have a particular ideology.  This is only a question.

     It does leave one amazed that the adherents of doctrines who are prone to diagnoses the disease of others in order to treat them often perish themselves as they refuse to under go to the same kind of diagnoses at least by themselves.  The only solution left for them is either allow others to diagnoses your disease or perish in your own sin (Matt. 7:1-5; Rom. 2:1, 19-22).

Dayanand Bharati,

Delhi, September 29, 1996.

@@@

My dialogue with Kumar Sivam’s parents is usual one, yet it is worth to record.  When I reached his house, after introduction his parents didn’t show any interest even to talk with me.  Just we had some talk that’s all and as I don’t know what else can I do, began to look for some books.  Kumar was busy with one of his phone interviews and his wife went out for other work (as she cannot understand Tamil, she left us alone to talk freely in Tamil also).  However around 11.30 Kumars’ mother keeping a copy of ‘Living Water and Indian Bowl’ asked me whether I’m following both Christianity and Hinduism.

I said ‘NO” and continued to give my regular answer to such questions—I am a Hindu and bhakta of Christ.  If they are 100 per cent Hindus, then  I am 150 per cent Hindu.  Then I explained about samajic and sadhana dharma and how both the bible and Hinduism keep similar view about one following her samajic dharma while choosing one’s one sadhana dharma.  Then I also talked about the need of a guru, not merely following certain family tradition and religious ritual cannot satisfy spiritual needs.  The need for knowledge—the need of a guru to give that knowledge—how to find a true guru or how a guru would find us—our response when a guru reaches us—what is that ‘knowledge’ which this guru Jesus gives—sin (karma, maya, bandan etc.) and need of liberation etc.

After sharing all these often quoting from Hindu scriptures, finally I asked her what is her view about Kumar’s faith in Christ.  For this she said, ‘I thought that I should have done something more to teach about Hinduism.  In our home we never do much puja or rituals.’

When she mentioned about Kumar ‘leaving’ Hinduism for ‘THAT’, I specifically asked her, what does that ‘THAT’ means.  And she said ‘Christianity’.

For this I said, ‘this is the common mistake done both by Christians and Hindus.  Christians failed to communicate and Hindus failed to understand.  To her another question, ‘what is lacking in Hinduism that he found them newly in Christianity,’ I said, ‘it is not founding something new, but the very Hinduism—through its scriptures, tradition, community prepared me to found a guru and though him the Truth about God and man.’  Of course this is the common argument raised by every Hindu.

Finally I told her that she need not entertain any more guilty conscience that she could have done something more which would have prevented her son to become a Christian.  But her upbrining prepared him to receive the Truth and also urged them to seek it before it is too late.  I also said that postponing the quest for mukti to some future birth is not good and quoted few scriptures in support for this.

Before my talk with Kumar’s mother, in my talk with his father, who has not interest in books or reading or even in spiritual matter, I said, ‘in spite of having Veda, Gita and dharma we become bad to worst and there is no honesty and integrity either in our personal life or in our public life.  Whereas western people, though all are not Christians but atheist, materialist and secularist, have relatively better integrity and honesty both in private and public life.  This he too agreed.  Finally I prayed and we went for lunch.

Dayanand, Mathigiri, April 12, 2006.

Swamiji,

    Do trust that your eye appointment went well and that you have a diagnosis and way to cure. Appreciate you spending the time with my parents and I do believe that the Lord help you make a very positive impact on my parents. My mother especially was impressed by your desire to live with the family in every day situations. Her typical idea of a ‘sanyasi’ is someone that has ‘renounced’ worldly life, but that can be viewed as ‘escapism’ and ‘shirking’ of one’s family duties by the rest of the family. It often causes resentment. My mother had questions on what comprises the ‘puja’ that is conducted and to which God do we conduct puja. I had a chance to spend another half an hour with her and share about the elements of Communion and it being the most sacred, ancient and solemn tradition from which a follower of Christ proclaims the sacrificial death of our Lord, draws power from Him for forgiveness of our sins, rejuvenation and strength for righteous living. I shared with her about how the Lord Jesus before he was betrayed washed the feet of his disciples as a model of humility and described the bread and wine and what they will symbolize after his death.

    I have a couple of thoughts on the part about western society living with higher levels of honesty and integrity even when they are atheists and secular.

1. Even though they may outwardly claim that they are atheist or secular, perhaps they have been raised for several generations with the Bible as a foundation and have therefore absorbed those values. The values of honesty and integrity when you put them in light of eternity make sense. But if you think this present life on earth is all there is (which should be what atheists or secularists adhere to) then I see no point in being honest. The only motivation for being honest is the repercussions being caught doing something that you can be punished for. Otherwise ‘situational ethics’ will take over. I will live for today. Eat, drink and be merry. Get away with as many things as you can.

2. The other point I have is – honesty and integrity truly find their match in a place like India. I feel it is easy to live by those values in a place like the US or parts of Europe where population sizes are reasonable and opportunities abound. However, in a place like India where even for every small opportunities there are 20 people competing it really becomes a test of ones values. The temptation to cut corners is huge if it means beating the 19 people to get that opportunity.

Looking forward to your visit on Easter.

Shanthi,

Kumar

@@@

Dear Dayanandji:

I came across the following article by an Indologist Jakob De Roover
from Belgium.In there he presents a scenario of Indians adjusting
themselves in  a predominantly Christian society and goes on to
analyze the Christian life versus Hindu paganism.My understanding of
the Christian theology is ZERO except that it is based on the
teachings of Jesus Christ compared to your scholarly studies.As a
result I could follow Roover’s thesis to only a small extent.

May be at your convenience you may enlighten me an NRI.

Namaskaram-Kanak


 FACING THE CHALLENGE OF AMERICAN PLURALISM ON THE FUTURE OF THE NRI COMMUNITY   Jakob De Roover
  Research Centre
  Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap
  Ghent University, Belgium
  In years to come, the Indian community in the U.S. will face a
major challenge from American pluralism. This is the first time a
powerful community of pagans has to be accommodated within the
American society. The NRI community is well-educated, well-to-do and
proud of its cultural traditions. At the same time, the
representation of the Indian traditions in the U.S. educational
system shows a pathetic level of understanding. I will argue that
recent events like the California textbook controversy point to a
profound problem: the American model of pluralism is unable to
accommodate these pagan traditions. This is the case, because its
structure has emerged from a co-existence of Protestant
denominations. Maximally, the resulting model could encompass other
variants of the religions of the book: Catholicism, Judaism and
Islam. Incorporating the pagan traditions of India, however, will
require a fundamental rethinking of American pluralism.
  The Structure of American Pluralism
  Although it aspires neutrality towards all religions, the American
model of pluralism is deeply religious in nature. The model takes its
basic structure from Protestant Christianity. It combines specific
notions of ‘religion’, ‘God’ and ‘church’ with a set of
principles on toleration, equality and religious liberty all of
which derive from a particular theology.
  The predicament faced by early American society was relatively
simple: how does one build a viable state when the subjects are
devotees of a variety of Christian denominations? Since so many of
the migrants were members of religious groups persecuted in Europe,
no one church could ever dominate colonial America. After the
revolution, the established churches that had existed in some states
were soon compelled to give up their entanglement with state
authority. They could no longer dismiss other groups as dissenters.
Hence, the need and opportunity to create a new political system also
involved a difficulty: how to house Presbyterians and ‘Papists’,
Mennonites and Moravians, Anglicans and Baptists, Deists and Quakers,
etc. without alienating any of these citizens?
  The American solution drew heavily on the political thought of
early modern Europe. The political thought in question, in its turn,
was a sophisticated expression of a strand within the Protestant
Reformation that also gave shape to American culture. Take John
Locke’s theory of toleration. This theory was often invoked in
revolutionary America, because it endorsed certain principles: the
separation of civil and religious society; the voluntary nature of
churches; and the liberty of conscience and worship, except where it
poses a threat to civil society. These principles reproduced central
notions of Reformation theology. More particularly, they built on the
common belief that human existence is divided into a temporal or
civil sphere, where all individuals ought to submit themselves to
political authority, and a spiritual or religious sphere, where God
alone could rule. Since this belief was part of the Protestant common
sense of early America, the political principles that built on it
would acquire the same status without much difficulty.
  What happened in the decades and centuries after the American
revolution could be characterized as a secularization of this
theological framework. This secularization, however, did not result
in the emancipation of rational values from Christianity or the
extension of secular tenets to humanity. Rather, it constituted the
diffusion ‘ and in many cases, the imposition’ of Christian
principles in a secular guise. Instead of defending this hypothesis
in terms of historical evidence, I will indicate some of its
consequences with regards to the nature of American pluralism: the
basic properties of this model make sense only for (and to) the
biblical religions.
  1. Intrinsic to the American model is a specific notion of
religion. In its original theological form, religion was seen as the
duty and right of all human beings to worship their Creator in such a
manner as they see fit. This Creator is none other than the biblical
God: an eternal person without a body, who exists outside the
universe and whose will creates and governs that same universe.
Today, this notion of religion has become more abstract and less
clear, but essentially religion is still viewed as the worship of
God. The traditions of those people who do not follow any of the
religions of the book are viewed as attempts to worship the same God.
  True, liberal Americans have tried to open up this biblical notion
of God so as to include the many pagan deities. To this end, they
invoke the concept of polytheism. However, the conceptual opposition
between monotheism and polytheism has a hitch. ‘Theism’ derives
from the Greek word ‘theos’, commonly translated as ‘god’.
The question, then, is to which object the ‘theos’ in
‘mono-theism’ and ‘poly-theism’ refers. If it refers to
‘God’ (the biblical god), the creator of the universe and the
sovereign of the world, what does it mean to speak of ‘Gods’ in
the plural? Multiple creators of the universe and multiple sovereigns
of the world? Hardly. The ‘gods’ of the ‘polytheism’ then,
must necessarily refer to entities other than ‘God’, who is the
Lord of the cosmos by virtue of being its creator. What kind of other
‘gods’ could there be? One possibility is that the many deities
of the pagan traditions are false gods. That is, these deities are
falsely believed by the pagans to be the governing forces behind
natural events, while in reality ‘God’ (the biblical god) is the
only sovereign of the universe. This is the classical story of
biblical theology. In other words, the concept of polytheism makes
sense only within a biblical framework.
  The notion of religion of American pluralism has other important
properties. It gives a central place to doctrine. That is, different
religions are viewed as different sets of doctrines or beliefs. These
doctrines are conceived as propositions about the nature of God (or
gods), about His (or their) relation to humanity, and about the
correct way of worshipping Him (or them). The practices of different
religions are viewed as embodiments of doctrines: the followers of
each religion strive to worship God (or gods) as its doctrine
prescribes. Since they are propositions about the world, these
doctrines also make competing truth claims.
  2. The American model also entails a particular conception of
churches or religious groups. These churches or religious groups are
supposed to be united around the doctrines of some or another
religion (or denomination). That is, the members of a church or
religious group share core beliefs about God, His will and about
human nature. Because of these shared beliefs, one individual or body
can represent all other members of the church. They are given the
authority to do so by the other members, because of theological
proficiency or other capacities. In some cases, these individuals
have the authority to represent others, because the doctrines of the
religion in question impart them with this authority.
  But this is allowed by the legal model of American pluralism only
in so far as the members of this church voluntarily subscribe to the
doctrines and to the religious authority of the clergy. In other
words, a church is a voluntary association and cannot be coercive in
nature. At all times, every member possesses the right to exit. Any
group of members can leave its original church and set up a new one.
One is not born into a religion, but rather chooses to become part of
it, when one reaches the age of religious consent.
  All churches or religious groups should respect the division
between political and religious society or the separation of church
and state. That is, they ought not to aspire establishment or the
status of state church. Neither should they attempt to interfere
directly in state policy. At the same time, they also should not
expect the state to intervene in any of their internal organizational
matters. Each church or religious group ought to respect the
doctrines and practices of other religions. In the public sphere,
they should treat the other churches or communities as their equals,
even if they consider these rivals to be theologically misguided.
They ought to respect the religious liberty of the members of other
churches or religious groups and should never prevent the latter from
worshipping God.
  3. The various normative principles of the American model make
sense because they presuppose and build on these notions of religion,
God and church. Firstly, the principle of toleration presupposes that
there is something to be tolerated. That is, only where different
religions are conceived as competing doctrines, does the question of
toleration emerge. From this perspective, the differences between
religions indeed become matters to be tolerated, since they
correspond to different doctrines or beliefs whose truth is
contested.
  Second, the principle of state neutrality also derives its
importance from this understanding of religion as a question of
truth. The different denominations or religious groups in society
each hold a different set of doctrines to be true. Since the state
ought to represent all of these groups impartially, it cannot
subscribe to the truth of any of these doctrines. It should take a
neutral position, which allows it to play the role of an impartial
arbiter in the case of religious conflicts. In so far as the worship
of each religious group is taken to embody its doctrines, the state
should also not promote any one mode of worship over others. It ought
never to interfere in any form of worship or religious practice,
unless public order is at stake.
  Third, the principle of religious liberty would lose its
significance in the absence of this conception of religion. Each
religion takes itself to be the correct worship of God, since it
holds the true doctrine. It is of the utmost significance to the
members of a denomination to worship God in the way prescribed by
their religion, because their salvation depends on this. Since God
alone can judge and rule in the realm of religion, each human being
ought to be left free in that realm. Religion is a matter between
each believer and God. Therefore, religious liberty is an inviolable
right of all citizens.
  Finally, all churches or religious groups should be equal in the
eyes of the state. This also depends on the notion that a church is
united around a common set of beliefs and therefore it can be
represented by an individual or a body to whom has been given the
authority to do so. Since the state cannot take a position on the
matter of religious truth, public education should represent all
religions equally, namely, as their followers want them to be
represented. The textbooks and teachers of state schools should not
disrespect the teachings of any religion or openly show signs of
favor or disfavor. It is the duty and role of the representatives of
each religious community to see to it that this principle of equality
is not violated.
  This model of pluralism make perfect historical sense: it addresses
the problems that will always emerge where Protestant denominations
co-exist. While each denomination believes itself to possess
religious truth, all of them share a common understanding of
religion, God and church. Together with a shared theological
framework, the persistence of religious diversity compels them to
endorse certain normative principles: toleration, state neutrality,
religious liberty and the equality of churches in the public sphere.
Since Roman Catholicism shares the same notion of God and religion,
its followers are able to make sense of these principles. Once they
agree to renounce the political authority of the pope and the
coercive nature of the church, Catholics can be accommodated in this
model without much difficulty. Mutatis mutandis, the same goes for
Jews and Muslims. They might not endorse all of the above principles,
but they can fit into the American model of pluralism, because their
religions correspond to its basic theological structure.
Historically, this is precisely what has happened during the
formation of American pluralism.
  The Nature of Pagan Traditions
  What happens when pagans enter the picture? Let us take the Hindu
traditions as the example.
  1. First of all, the Hindu traditions do not fit into the notion of
religion of the American model. They do not in any way revolve around
the duty and right of all human beings to worship their Creator. The
concept of God (the way the Bible ‘conceives’ of this entity) is
completely alien to them. Some theologians and scholars of India have
undertaken clumsy attempts to argue that the Hindu traditions are
aware of this God. They have tried to translate ‘Brahman’ as
‘God’ and see in these traditions a misguided attempt to worship
the biblical god. The notion of polytheism reproduces the same view.
In reality, however, the notion of God is absent in the Hindu
traditions: there is no eternal person, whose will has created and
governs the universe and who has revealed His true will to sections
of humanity.
  Another problem is that the central place of doctrine in religion
is as alien to the Hindu traditions. These traditions do not in any
way revolve around propositions about the nature of gods or about
their relation to humanity. There are no ‘doctrines’ here. There
are many stories about the devatas and their interaction with human
and other beings. There are all types of ritual practices or pujas.
There is a variety of adhyatmic and other traditions that intend to
help different types of human beings to become happy. These include
instructions for action that may help certain individuals to attain
happiness. But the validity of these instructions depends on the
extent to which they are helpful to an individual. Therefore, they
should not be mistaken for doctrines, which can be either true or
false. Naturally, Christian theologians and western scholars have
done precisely that: the only way for them to make sense of these
traditions is to construe them as doctrines. Needless to say, many
Indian scholars reproduce these unintelligible ideas as though they
are parrots.
  2. Consequently, a second mismatch occurs with the notion of church
or religious group of the American model of pluralism. Since the
Hindu traditions are not united around a core set of beliefs accepted
by all followers, there is no one individual or body who can speak
for all others. The question of religious authority is irrelevant
here. Naturally, there are individuals who are highly respected
because of their proficiency in a particular tradition or because of
the distance they have covered on the route to happiness. These
persons might speak for some tradition, but this is more like the way
an excellent researcher speaks for a scientific domain than like the
cleric representing his church. That is, the authority of the teacher
of a tradition depends on several aspects: the extent to which his or
her instructions help other people to progress on the route to
happiness; the quality of his or her thought, speech, art, ritual
performance; the level at which it resonates with others; etc. The
authority of these individuals to represent a tradition can be
challenged at any time, because it is not embedded in a shared set of
doctrines or a fixed religious authority.
  Given the nature of these traditions, the norm that churches or
religious groups should be voluntary associations has no
significance. They cannot but be voluntary. An individual joins a
tradition and remains a follower only to the extent this tradition
and its teachers are able to help him or her and satisfy adhyatmic
and other dimensions. At all times, individuals can leave a tradition
and look for other teachers and instructions that appeal more to
them. From this perspective, insisting that a religious association
ought to be voluntary generates only puzzlement or amusement.
  3. Generally, the normative principles of American pluralism fail
to make sense to these pagan traditions. The principle of toleration
is comical at best. Try telling a Hindu that she ought to tolerate
the fact that her neighbor does puja to another deva, that he has
another ishta devata, or that he belongs to a different adhyatmic
tradition. Since the Hindu traditions do not embody doctrines that
can be either true or false, there is nothing to be tolerated.
Different kinds of people have different ishta devatas, belong to
different traditions and participate in different practices. That is
how it has always been. Difference is not problematic here.
Therefore, there is no question of toleration.
  The neutrality of the state and the issue of separating politics
and religion are more complex. The Hindu traditions revolve around
the goal shared by all human beings: to become happy. They offer
different roads and routes that appeal to different kinds of human
beings. From their perspective, the only aim of politics is to create
the conditions in which people can strive for and attain the goal of
happiness. Therefore, the principle of state neutrality is as
insignificant and unintelligible as that of toleration: it would be
ridiculous for the state to impose one particular tradition on all
its subjects, since the variety of inclinations and capacities among
human beings necessitates a diversity of routes to look for and
attain happiness. Such traditions do not claim truth for their
routes, but let the validity of a route depend on the extent to which
it works for an individual. Therefore, imposing one tradition is not
a reasonable option.

  It must be obvious by now that the principle of religious liberty
becomes absurd in this context. In the absence of competing truth
claims, what sense does it make to preach that all individuals ought
to be left free to practice their own traditions? How would Hindus
react if one tells them that they should not prevent their neighbor
from doing puja to Ganesha instead of Krishna or from praying to
Shirdi Sai Baba instead of Jesus Christ? The same sense of puzzlement
and disbelief would return. It is true though that the rise of
Hindutva in India has given a new significance to this issue. Should
Muslims and Christians be free to propagate their religions as the
only true ones and that all human beings ought to convert to Islam or
Christianity? This question is important, but irrelevant to the
problems of American pluralism. Therefore, it will not be discussed
here.
  The tenet that all religious groups should be treated as equals by
the state and its educational system is perhaps the most relevant
from the perspective of the Hindu traditions. These traditions have
been depicted negatively in American textbooks and in higher
education. The reasons are simple: Americans have viewed the Hindu
traditions through the only perspective they have on religion and
tradition, viz., that of the biblical framework. Therefore, these
traditions cannot but be represented as pale and erring variants of
biblical religion. In the explicitly theological view, they are false
religions, idolatry or worship of the devil; in the eyes of its
secularized alternative, they are ‘polytheism’ or ‘Hinduism’.
The result is the same: the pagan traditions of India are transformed
into inferior variants of Christianity.
  The trouble is that the only way in which the American model of
pluralism allows the Hindus to challenge this depiction presupposes
the same theological framework. That is, the notions of religion and
church of American pluralism compel the Hindu traditions to represent
themselves as variants of biblical religion. They have to appoint
individuals or bodies that represent all other members; they have to
inform the American educational system about the true teachings of
Hinduism; they need to make their traditions respectable in the eyes
of American Protestants and their secularized brethren. The
consequence is that the NRI community is compelled to cooperate in
the transformation of its traditions into inferior variants of the
religions of the book. But this takes us to the next question: what
challenge confronts American pluralism and the NRI community?
  The Challenge of the NRI Community
  The structure of American pluralism and the nature of the Hindu
traditions give rise to two options. These options present themselves
as routes that can be traveled by the NRI community in the coming
years. On the one hand, the pagan traditions of India could renounce
their true nature and transform themselves into variants of biblical
religion. Then they will soon fit in as well in the American model of
pluralism as the Jews and Muslims. On the other hand, these pagan
traditions can remain true to their nature and explicitly represent
themselves as completely different from the religions of the book.
Then they will turn into a major challenge to American pluralism: the
very structure of this model will require rethinking in order to
accommodate the Hindu traditions.
  Currently, the NRI community is succumbing to the first option. It
has accepted the American model of pluralism as the structure to
which it should adapt itself. This could be seen very clearly in the
California textbook controversy. A limited number of foundations have
been appointed (or have appointed themselves) as the representatives
of the Hindu traditions in the U.S.: the Hindu American Foundation
and the Vedic Foundation are most prominent. These foundations play
according to the rules of the notions of church and religion that are
intrinsic to American pluralism. They challenge the unfair portrayal
of the Hindu traditions in the American educational system. But they
do so in a manner which advances the transformation of these
traditions into inferior variants of Christianity. They intend to
present the true doctrines of Hinduism and do so by making it look
respectable to American Protestants. That is, the many devatas are
transformed into different ways of worshiping the one true God.
Hinduism becomes a proper monotheistic faith. A variety of pagan
Indian traditions are excluded because they are embarrassing to the
sanitized biblical model of American pluralism. These Hindu
foundations have become the representatives of the ‘Hindu church’
in America: they will decide the true nature of the Hindu traditions
for the American public. The way they are going, however, they will
end up with a secularized variant of the old biblical understanding
of the Hindu traditions as false religion.
  We have to be fair to these foundations: they confront an extremely
difficult task. During the last four centuries, the dominant way of
describing the pagan traditions of India has conformed to the
Christian framework of the West. The missionaries and travelers
transmitted the ‘facts’ about these pagan traditions to the
European common sense. But these facts were already framed within
Christian theology: there had to be religion in India; these
religions would worship many (false) gods rather than the one true
God; these religions would be founded in a set of beliefs about these
gods and their relation to humanity; the practices of worship would
embody these doctrines; etc. The scholars and human sciences of
Europe took these Christian theological descriptions as the basic
material of their theorizing. Later, Americans reproduced the same
assumptions and images. The result is ‘Hinduism’ ‘ the religion
of the Hindus. Tragically, colonialism had the Indian pagans adopt
this description of their own traditions. Today their intellectuals
and educated layers also believe this ‘Hinduism’ exists.
Consequently, the NRI community understands the predicament it
confronts in a particular way: how should this religion of Hinduism
be represented fairly and accurately in the American public sphere
and educational system?
  If the American NRI community desires to remain true to the nature
of its cultural traditions and travel the second route, the first
thing it will have to realize is that this is a flagrant
misunderstanding of its predicament. Its real quandary is this: how
to break out of the straitjacket in which American pluralism and its
theological structure have imprisoned the pagan traditions of India?
  This straitjacket has a long history. It is the framework through
which the western culture has always looked at other cultures. It is
the paradigm that still sustains the dominant human sciences of today
and their understanding of nonwestern cultures. It effectively
transforms the Hindu traditions into pallid variants of biblical
religion. In case the NRI community decides to opt for the second
route, it will require an alternative framework to approach its own
cultural traditions. Such an alternative framework will study the
pagan traditions of India in a different way. Some of the properties
of these traditions have been reviewed in the previous section: they
are instructions for action rather than doctrines; they offer a
variety of routes to the human aim of happiness; the diversity of
stories, practices, traditions, teachers and deities is intrinsic to
their nature; etc. If the NRI community wants to avoid transforming
its traditions into variants of biblical religion, it needs to
promote and support such alternative approaches to the study of its
cultural traditions.
  Now is the time for the NRI community to choose its leadership
carefully. It needs people who are aware of the depth of the
problems. Otherwise, it will succumb to the demands of American
pluralism. It will waste its energy on irrelevant concerns borrowed
from Christianity: ‘Who speaks for Hinduism?’; ‘Who has the
authority to represent our religion?’; ‘Should only insiders be
allowed to do so?’; ‘What are the true teachings of Hinduism?’
Events like the California textbook controversy indicate that the NRI
community is at a crucial juncture: either it will become a driving
force behind the rejuvenation of the Indian culture and her
traditions; or it will repeat the mistakes of three-hundred years of
colonialism. In the last century, we have seen the endpoints of the
latter route: a growing fanaticism in Indian society; intellectually
superficial movements; the threat of bankruptcy of an entire culture.
The other route promises to allow the NRI community to play its role:
become a rich and vibrant challenge to American pluralism. Not so
that pluralism and tolerance might disappear from the American
society but so that a pluralism, worthy of its name and liberated
from the biblical straitjacket, might come into existence. Perhaps it
is time we explore this route’

Response by Db:

We Indian know one mantra: Survival.  Rest is not important for us.  For the sake of survival, we will sacrifice anything—our faith, tradition, ideology etc.  If my understanding of the author is correct, he challenges the NRI in America, not to use the same mantra, again to survive in the American model of pluralism, which is based on its biblical theology and church doctrines. 

We too have pluralism here in India.  According to it, ‘live and let live’ is the main thing.  However, our pluralism is not based on any kind of religious values, but on dharmic principles.  Keeping religion as private one, we operate pluralism in social sphere.  In the olden days, varnashradharma helped the people to co-operate collectively for the smooth function of pluralism.  In the present independent India, as secularism almost challenges this concept of varnashramadharma, democracy through politics (actually through its number game) pretends to be the guardian of that pluralism.  If the NRIs in the USA are challenged by the American pluralism, we Indians are facing the challenge of political power, not knowing how to readjust ourselves for the survival based on pluralism.

Now the NRIs in USA, though I cannot understand their problem in their perspective, now keep their religious heritage as the point of survival, as they cannot use the old social value of varnashramadharma.  Being minorities in number, they have no political power as we have in India.  Therefore, they take the weapon of religion to accommodate them for the sake of survival in American kind of pluralism.  This is inevitable, as our Hindu religious system never gave any ideology to rise above the situation and not to compromise with that conviction.  Our ideology is mostly based on social values (samajic dharma) with which most of the Indians would never compromise.  This could be proved by the fact of caste based political parties and organizations and unions to survive.  Now we Indians are one wherever we might live and we have one eternal mantra: survival.  As we use samajic dharma values to survive here in India, the NRI’s use religion for the sake of the same thing. 

If unity and not uniformity is the ideology of Christianity/Church; then ‘unity in diversity’ is that of Hinduism.  While the Church can define what that ‘unity’ is, we Hindus cannot say precisely what that ‘unity’ which we claim.  Because of our pluralistic relativism in our worldview, the ‘unity’ that we claim is not only artificial, but also our western version of defining our civilization in their terms.

Still, if we can use one criterion to define this ‘unity’ (in diversity) is the sociological aspect, which helped Indian civilization to survive all these centuries.  As I often say, our identity is not religious but social.  According to me, a Hindu is one who belongs to a particular community irrespective of his faith (not only in religion, but also on any kind of ideology).

Now the NRIs in USA, as cannot use any more this sociological factor to define what Hinduism is or who a Hindu is, they, in order to have their rightful place in the pluralistic trend in America, uses a religious category, that too borrowed from the Church to have their identity.  If I understood the article by Jakob De Roover, he challenges the NRIs to contribute to the American pluralism not in their Church terms, but exploring some alternative categories.  Here his question is very valid one when he asks, ‘Should only insiders be allowed to do so?’  If I understood his question in the context, he even suggests that a sincere and serious Indologist, even if s/he is not a Hindu or Indian, should be allowed to present the ‘true teaching of Hinduism’. 

However, my only question is what is that ‘true teaching of Hinduism’?  If we believe and promote our eternal mantra of ‘unity in diversity’, then there never exists any one true teaching in Hinduism.  Therefore, the only solution that comes in my mind is to agree the complexity and diversity of our civilization, and never try to explain it in other’s categories.  What Prof. Arvind Sharma (McGill University), shares in any ‘attempt to describe’ Hinduism ‘in terms of categories foreign to it’ is worth to note:

To try to understand what we do not know in terms of what we do know is an epistemological temptation to which everyone is subject but it must ultimately yield to an attempt to understand what we wish to know on its own terms’. [Are the Hindus a Chosen People?, Chips from an Indic Workshop, Motilal Banarsidass Newsletter, March 2007, p.16].

Kanakji, I am not sure whether my explanation make sense to you or not.  The ‘unity’ in Christianity is based on their theology: belief in one god, one book, one faith, one baptism, one church (as the body of Christ and not a building or denomination).  All these are religious categories and not social.  Without any change in any society of its sociological values, these categories can be incorporated without much tension.  Whereas our Hindu identity is sociological based on caste.  Now American pluralism based on its religious categories, now forces NRI Hindus to define their place in their system using similar categories, which never existed in Hinduism.

That’s all what I can understand.  Nevertheless, how to deal with such challenge is left to the NRIs.  As I am sharing my view, one question comes in my mind, which I thought of asking to some NRIs.

Many Indians left India—for whatever reason might be.  Several of them even became Americans.  Even though they still have the right to call themselves ‘Hindus’, why they want to call themselves as NRI?  Why they feel shy to call themselves Americans, even after procuring citizenship by renouncing their Indian Nationality?  It really confuses me if an American Hindu still calls himself/herself as Non Residential Indian.  The Indian identity is definitely not religious but nation.  Once they have abandoned that nationality, why they still want to keep that identity.  I think one easy solution for the above problem mentioned by Roover is not to call themselves anymore NRI but American Hindus and work from their to find their place in the present American pluralism

dayanand

I met few Gujaratis living in London.  Most of them are from Kenya and few from India.  But hardly they ever used the word NRI, though they are very particular that they are Gujus and Hindus.  Similarly I know a South African Hindu living in Varanasi.  He is my shishya.  He is emotionally attached with Hinduism and India.  But he never call himself an NRI.  He is conscious that he is a South African with an Indian origin.  Finally, what NRI actually means?  If it is Non Residential Indians, then it includes NRI Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc., apart from Hindus.  If this is true, then why NRI problems is only a Hindu(ism) problem in America?

dayanand

Dear Professor De Roover:

Greetings.

I am an NRI in USA since 1966 and I read with great interest your article “FACING THE CHALLENGE OF AMERICAN PLURALISM ON THE FUTURE OF THE NRI COMMUNITY “

I forwarded it to a number of my Anglo-Saxon American friends and NRIs for their responses.

I shall start with my observations followed by three of a number of other responses.

My thoughts:

One common problem we all had with your use of the descriptor ‘Pagan(s)”.Starting with the dictionary meaning “Heathernish;Idolatry” Hindu umbrella has recognized a large gamut of worship forms under two groups of  worships (i)Sagun -idol or image your pick,and (ii) Nirgun-Manas Puja ,meditation/contemplation. I will stop here because itself is a major topic of discussion on some other occasion.

With all its theology, I consider Sanatan Dharm as a culture which promotes a way of life laced with religious trappings.Hinduism is a preferred term to Hindu Religion.The descriptor Arya denotes a cultured being and Aryavart is a land of cultured beings.

USA by now has over 200 Hindu temples of which 39 belong to the Bochasan group of the Swaminarayan faith.They all are thriving well.

I did have the problem with the word ‘pagan’.

In its simplest connotation, the descriptor does not leave anybody

alone for worshiping an image, an idol (subtle differences as per the scholars) or a symbol

such as

 (1)Christians for sign of Cross or Mother Mary’s statue;

 (2)Buddhists for Buddha’s body parts and Stupas;

 (3)Jews for Moses plates of 10 Commandments; and

 (4)the Muslims for the stone of Kaba.

A retired NRI Journalist  responded

I continued thinking about the “Pagans” in America until I fell asleep.

So long as we, the Pagans, discard what is not right in our historical heritage, and adopt what is that is compatible with Nature’s Laws, I think we shall survive and outlast the non-“pagans”. In fact it will be a great opportunity to take over the technological advances the non- Pagans have made and have become a part of our life. But this type of deep thinking needs serious group conversations . You know, I do feel that my cultural advantages should not be lost in the process of embracing the Anglo-Saxon ways of life and thought , because it will harm them too. Like entirely giving up breast feeding. Over a period of time, the breasts will fall off, and children will ingest the virtues of the empty Formula tins !! We already see the effects

A retired American lawyer responded,

“I see the problem more as a cultural one than a religious one. To a much lesser extent, Catholicism experienced difficulty in obtaining acceptance in the US, because Catholic culture, although Christian, differed from the prevailing Protestant one. Indeed, the Protestant ethic, Calvinism, is at the very root of the American philosophy, capitalism.”

A  professor of  Political Science responded,

“I was very interested in the author’s use of the word “pagan” and “paganism.” While that word was used during the era of colonialism to refer to other than Christian religions it is almost never used that way today.

When it is used, it is sometimes employed to denote reprehensible behavior. Thus, in an Indian context it might once have referred to the sanctioned death of young widows at their husband’s funeral or the now rare practice of infant sacrifice for religious purposes.

In contemporary usage we might use the term to refer to the “pagan” beheading of journalists for religious reasons or the “pagan” profits accruing to millionaires who profit from war and the deaths of thousands. Many Christians would have no trouble referring to the “pagans” in Hollywood who produce obscene movies, even though they come out of a Christian background.

The author, very familiar with Indian religion and culture, is less familiar with current Christian internationalism. While many Americans might identify with his definition of American pluralism, Christian internationalists, familiar with the value orientations of many faiths and philosophies, have a far more open view of what pluralism entails.

Using a concept I have referred to in several of my lectures, bi-cultural people, from both Christian communities and the Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) will be both more open and accepting of different ways of dealing with values and culture than their brothers and sisters who are mono-cultural.

Perhaps instead of proceeding with the two options suggested by the author, 1) of accepting the Christian basis of American pluralism or 2) holding fast to the Hindu religious and cultural traditions we might propose a third option. That would be to move beyond the enculturation of values, be they American or Indian, and, in dialog, compare the values which can address the dilemmas of our peoples and our world.”

Regards,

Kanak Ravel      Portland,OR

Dear Kanakji,

Shanti!

Thanks for sending your and other’s response to Dr. Roover’s article.  I too wrote my response, but I am not sure whether I understood Roover’s article in its context.  Soon I will send my response to you.

db

Sorry it took me so long to get to this. The article was very interesting and very well argued and mostly an excellent analysis. And I think your response is fine. Who is this Kanak and how well do you know him? It is very possible that he will have a negative emotional response to the article using the term “pagan” and I am very surprised that this scholar decided this was the right term to use. At least he should have had a footnote about this; surely just the use of this term is another example of pushing Hindu matters into a Christian framework, and pushing them into a very negative framework as well! Perhaps in such a short article the author cannot be blamed for an inadequate presentation of “Hinduism” but what he writes really does come up short. He clearly suggests that brahman is the key concept; but surely that is a bookish concept, making him guilty of Protestantizing Hinduism by seeking concepts in books. And is there really NOTHING in “Hinduism” that relates to the Creator God? He seems to suggest this but it seems a pretty absurd suggestion. But whether or not you should pick up these kinds of points with Kanakji I cannot know.   RH

In my recent correspondence with the Belgian Indologist Professor Jakob De Roover the issue of traditional negative connotations of the word ‘Pagan’ came up.His response was quite at variance with the traditional negativity associated with its usage.

As an anthropologist he is trying to reestablish it with some respectability.This may interest some of you and amuse some,so here is what he wrote-Kanak:

“Dear Kanakji,

Yes, I am aware that the word “pagan” created these types of problems (of its negativity).

In our research programme, we have begun to use it in a positive way, to acknowledge that the cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome, contemporary India and China are completely different from the Christian West and from Islam.

 We no longer regard it as derogatory, but rather as a neutral or even a positive term, since it indicates that an Aristotle and a Shankaracharya are closer to each other than an Aristotle and a Thomas Aquinas, for instance.

 Given the unproductive problems it has created when I used it in my India-Forum piece, however, I see that the world still takes it to be a negative term. It will take time before our attitude to be proud of paganism and of the way in which “pagan” cultures are different from Semitic ones will become a dominant attitude.

Yours, Jakob “

@@@

Kanak on Karma

Thank you Dayanandji:

I also have a question about the Fruits of action.
I state it as follows:

“Performing any Karma is based on causal relationship by definition and all the

    human activities are  dictated by it.

All the main stream theological traditions have accepted it and also 
the modern science(Newton’s Third law of Motion states:    

“The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite  and collinear”)

The twin engine of “Expectation (અપેક્ષા) / Motivation (પ્રયોજન ?)”  
drives the Karmic cycle.

Even the Divine action of  establishing  અધર્મ  by ધર્મ , follows the same  dictum.  

So it raises the question how valid is selfless action (નિષ્કામ કર્મ) ?

Does it not look like an oxymoron? Its prerequisites are the same “Expectation/Motivation”.

I very much value the concept with the caveat that using discretion (વિવેક) one chooses

one option from a variety of courses of action and have gumption of accepting the outcome.

As a corollary, propagate this cycle until you get the desired result including ‘Liberation (મોક્ષ)

which is just another phase of eternal existence. 

Net net, if you consider existence (અસ્મિતા)  in any dimension to be  infinite then in its dynamic phase it is Karmic in nature  (કર્માધિન). ” 

Respectfully- Kanak

@@@

Dayanandji:

Namaskaram

How do you interpret  “मनूष्य यत्न, ईश्वर क्रुपा” (Manushya Yatna,Ishvar Kripa)

Thanks

Regards-Kanak

Dear Kanakji,

Shanti!

With two small words, you asked a profound question.  As your guruji already gave a practical answer, I have nothing to add.  However, let me share my view.

Again, sorry to say, the context of the text decides the interpretation of these words.  Because the word ‘grace’ is very much used in the context of bhakti.  In a strict sense as a bhakta depends upon the grace of god, all his ‘efforts’ are not to please him to earn his grace. However, the result of the grace is demonstrated through the efforts in a bhakta’s life in various ways.  Grace demonstrates the love of god, which he bestows to an undeserving person.  When god shows his grace, he never set any precondition.  However, in responding to the grace a devotee do certain works to reflect that grace in his life as well as to detain the grace, now he has to work (yatna karma).

Therefore, work or effort (yatna) in the context of bhakti is the effect of grace helping a bhakta to do something to reflect and to maintain.  It never is a cause so that my work or effort can bring god’s grace.

As you know well in Vaishnava tradition about the debate between the cat and monkey school, this two concepts of grace and effort always clashed in philosophy.  Regarding the grace of god, it is said that if god takes nine steps then you have to take the tenth to receive it.  For this, another person said that I am so weak even to take that tenth step that god took even that step to reach me.  One time a bhakta and god were walking on the seashore enjoying the fellowship.  When the bhakta turned back, he saw two pairs of footsteps and he was very happy about it.  Nevertheless, after some time, when he turned and saw there was only one pair of steps.  He felt very sad that without telling him, god disappeared.  However, god continued to walk with him.  Then when the bhakta questioned why there is only one pair of steps, god said, ‘you became very tired.  Therefore, I lifted you up in my hand.  The two steps, which you see, are mine and not yours’.

I am the one who trusts grace more than any efforts.  Even to take that ninth step we need god’s grace.  For me the only effort or karma a bhakta can do is to wait patiently for god to show his grace to him.  Once received, his only effort is not to loose it.  A team, which won a cup, need not again to play to win but to detain it.  The same is with grace and effort.  In this sense, I like the bible words:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do

 (Ephesians 2:22)

Krupayaa paree paahi Murare (Lord save me by your grace) says Bhajagovindam.  Tamil Saiva saints say: (One can) worship him only by his grace (Manikavasagar).  Appar says: Your duty is to uphold me and my duty is to serve you.

Finally, Yatna (efforts) without grace reflects the karmakanda of Veda, where gods are bound by the karma, as karma itself, done properly will bring its own fruit or force gods to bestow the desired result.  So efforts in the context of grace is the effect of grace where as in other context is a cause and even an end in itself.

Db

Sorry, for a long answer to such a short but profound words.

Dear Dayanandji:

Thank you very much for your alternate viewpoint. I have been pondering about the Bhakti phenomenon in human life for many years and have not gone beyond accepting it as a leap of faith and that it is a part of our natural subjectivity. Either it is there or not. Our on traditions have offered many many live examples and have praised it in volumes.

Your observations has added an extra dimension in my understanding. Hopefully at some point in time, ‘Aha’ would take place and everything would fall in place

Namaskaram-Kanak

 

@@@

Dear Dr. Hoeffer,

Thanks for sending few papers from Hinduism Today.  I too heard a bit about Swami Balagandharanatha [Rajiv Malik (Delhi), Karnataka’s Revival: How one gifted leader has transformed his state’s educational, social and religious landscape, Hinduism Today, July-Sep. 2005, pp. 18-27.]  Though he is doing a wonderful service to Hindu community, yet I have some personal reservation for Sannyasis involving too much social and educational service. 

Most of such sevas, started by the gurus create immense problem in the next generation.  The main problem with such work by religious institutions is that too much money and authority finally end with a single person.  The founder might be careful to exercise such power.  However once he passes away and when the second generation people takes the leadership, then ‘power struggle’ begins. And in several cases in the long run such institutions become very commercial and even corrupt.  Particularly when some of the close family relatives of the Swamiji work for the institution, automatically get unrecognized authority, which he most of the time misuse for his/her vested interest.  The recent case of Kanchi Matt (whatever might be the political motive of Jayalalita) is one best example.  Though I wish success for any such endeavor, yet I am not very much impressed such service.  Above all, such magazines like Hinduism Today [like several Christian promotional reports] want to promote and glorify the service of such people, never even hinting any problems such institutions are facing.  So it is more promotional and propaganda then actually presenting a case without any bias. 

Dayanand

It is interesting to note that while such revival is claimed in Karnataka, it is in 4^th place in the corruption index released by Transparency International.  And Justice N. Venkatachala, the head of Lok Ayukta says, ‘We should’ve been No. 1, not No. 4’.—The Times of India, July 2, 2005, p.1  [Tamilnadu is in 9^th place and Bihar as usual tops the list].

@@@

Dear bhaktas of the Lord,

Often we start some kind of study, discussion etc. After initial enthusiasm and response, it dies a natural death.  No problem.  We need not do any systematic study.  But such random topic and brain storms will help us to face several issues which we are facing in life.  The following one is my question and Ravi’s response.  He is an educated and young man.  He is not very modern and believes in traditional values.  Read yourself his response, and if someone will respond, then from there we can continue our discussion.

dayanand

Is it possible for us to live as per the demands of the scripture, tradition and society.  If yes then how far, if no, then what is the alternative.—Dayanand Bharati.

For this question, Ravi, Prasad’s cousin from Salem prepared the following response for the Kodai meeting held in May 2004.

Yes.  People always raise questions about the meaning of existence.

Anyone interested in spiritual advancement will seek to know the purpose of life.

Youngesters often raise queries, why should I, why should one do a particular thing in a specific manner only often such queries end up in a logical consistency in seeking to know the ultimate truth.

In order to know the truth he should know the demands of the scriptures the tradition and society.

A man should not just eat, sleep, but lead a purposeful life.  The desire for material things ought to be reversed.  Instead one should strive for liberation.  How do you liberate from the material things.  To know what to do with one’s life.

People often raise question that how do we know that god created everything.  The answer is god is responsible for creating all that for which we are not responsible.  The scriptures act as an answer for the questions that any seeker has, one what we should know, and two what we should do.

The best example of this Ravana though knew all the Vedas and was a pious man.  But the he was the man who brought cruelty which the teachings did not pronounce and he even is not taken with good names. [What Ravi means is that in spite of knowing Veda, Ravana acted in evil way and his name is associated with his evil deeds and not with his knowledge—db].

If we follow the injunctions which are in the scriptures, life would be beautiful.  It is not always easy to do so.  How man should lead a meaningful life, it is enough if we start small things.  Like learning short verses and reciting them with diligence and faith.  For, god’s grace and man’s efforts are the two wheels which work in tandem in one’s spiritual journey.

The scriptures are like the do’s and don’ts of our life and if they are followed with strict discipline life becomes rosy.

What is the use of man roaming without an aim.  He won’t reach anywhere.

The scriptures the traditions are those which teach like simple things—respecting elders, follow the rules of life and these are positive step stones for success. The scriptures are like foundation of a building on which our life stands.

To lead a peaceful life:

A man should not even hurt others, even by words. By indulging in rude words, one’s nature become rude.  The sensitivity is lost and one has no control on his speech.  Just think–every one can break down something or other, but how many can build it up.

Numerous people, are born, they live and die a wasteful life of not having achieved anything.  But some people accompany an incarnation of god which the scriptures teach .  Have faith in god well that itself is a sadhanai [accomplishment]. The less you get attached to the world the more you enjoy peace of mind.

You can as one question that why do all people do not have faith in god and god being the almighty does not make them have faith in him. The maya here is that he keeps them ignorant of himself saying that they are happy enough, let them be so.

Water always flows down that is its property, but the sun rays suck it up to the sky, so the mind always naturally tends downwards and suffers and you turn yourself to the teachings of the scriptures the mercy of the almighty turns it upwards.

It is difficult to live as per the scriptures.  People ask what we can do?  We say god is everywhere and if we feel we do not have a rapport with god directly.  Then it is advisable to have a direct relation with holy men.  These people are those born to guide others. Though you may feel that they talk differently, it is the truth of moksha is there.  In a branch you may see that there is a white bird, red bird and a blue one.  To but when all of them make sound you call it chirping and you do not call only one as chirping and the others yelling.

1. Take it for truth that god does exist.
2. that this world is nothing but his own manifestation.
3. He is the creator, the sustainer, the destroyer of this world.
4. Not an iota of space is devoid of god.
5. He is the order of paramount.
6. His divine will is supreme.
7. But for his will, earth will crumble to pieces, water will dry up, wind will stop, the sun shall not rise, the moon shall not shine, the rain shall stop, the crops shall not grow, men, animals and creatures will perish.  The world would be no more.
8. So with the tongue you have chant his name, with the ears hear his glory, with the eyes see his manifestations.  Waste no time in trifles, human body, god’s gift is seldom obtained.
9. Treat others in the way you with they should treat you.
10. Inflicting pain on others by body, mind and speech is sin.  The reverse is merit and goodness.
11. Avoid sins if you want happiness and peace of mind.
12. Do not draw comparisons between yourself and others.  Each what he deserves.
13. Rejoice at others happiness.
14. Let your life serve as lesson to others.
15. Help the poor, feed the hungry and afford shelter to the homeless.  God assumes diverse forms and there is no knowing when and in what form he will appear before you and beg.  So do not be harsh to a beggar do not give vent to anger but remain silent if you are not inclined to give him.
16. Do not worry about others sin. You should mind yourself and keep it taintless pure.
17. Only he suffers who does a wicked act.  Why should others worry about it.
18. Let people slander you, blame you, abuse you.  If they [you] will answer them not, their slander blame or abuse has bore no holes on your physical body, can inflict no injury on you.
19. None can escape its predestined course, howsoever he may take it merily or grumblingly
20. Truth is your best friend.  It will save you lot of worries, will give you joy and piece of mind and what is important that god ever helps and even serves the truthful.

You say you have sorrow, did Sita did not have sorrow in Ramayana.  Did not Krishna make Radha’s life miserable.  Kamsa made even the father and mother of Krishn’s life miserable.  But when they take the name of the god and the misery is gone.  It acts an an example.  That even in scriptures man can find sorrow and the ways of coming out from them.

You can lead a purposeful life by taking an initiation from a guru.   Why do you take initiation though you may be true bakth of the god but your body becomes purified by the hidden meaning of spiritual power is imparted on the disciple and vice versa.  Then only a man can understand the spiritual instruction.

Why does this scriptures come into being.  It just that because man has forget god and so god takes a human avathar and shows the way of living.

When a man sees defects in others the first results is that his mind is polluted.  What does he gains in finding fault in others.  He hurts himself by that.  Forgiving is divine.

The minds conditions is always wavering and very painful to contain it.  The mind is always swept alternately by hope and despair, smiles and tears but if one can get a spiritual guide the spiritual guide pushes your mind above the level.  Even after initiation some one feels that his mind is not controlled.  Keep trying and trying in your meditation and may be one day you would get your mind free of the wavering.

Egotism is like a cloud that keeps god hidden from our sight.  If by the mercy of the guru egotism vanishes god is seen in his full glory.

How many doctors die saying that they will cure patients.  How many astrologers die forecasting the death of others.  How many soldiers have died after killing many people.  How many autocratic kings had lived as if they have no death.  They have died their natural death.  How many kingdoms have perished.  Every one has to die one day or other.  A man has to go to ashes one day.  Between birth and death you live a life that is true to yourself, others and as per the scriptures society and tradition.  And this at least will lead you a name forever.

Ravi

I personally agree with Ravi’s perspective on how to progress in spiritual life. The disagreements are few and unimportant.  How can anyone disagree with these principles outlined by Ravi as I understand them: knowledge of scripture is necessary but not sufficient (eg. Ravana).  Faith should be accompanied by actions as we read in the book of James.  Liberation from materialism is essential. (1 Jn. 2-15-17)  God’ grace and human effort go together. One should persevere and not give up Faith is a crucial faculty Fellowship (i am unable to find a better word) with fellow disciples and spiritual gurus (teachers) are important God is the basis for everything  Spiritual power is vital to grasp and follow the truths of scripture.

madhu
Ravi is not a Christ bhaktas, but a typical Hindu of our (or any) time.

db

Since Ravi has a good grasp on “how to progress in spiritual life”, how would we introduce him to Christ?  (I also generally agree with his points, though I’m not sure I would say the disagreements are unimportant.  But then Swamiji might say my “evangelical agenda” is kicking in here  🙂

Jai Mukteshwar!  
Meena

The perspective of Ravi and if tweaked a little can be made more consistent with our understanding. This goes to show that it is easy to construct a spiritual model, consistent with the bible, from the countless hindu texts and traditions through careful selection of
themes and ignoring undesirable elements. This is what Ravi has done.  So christians are barking the wrong tree when they attack hindu scriptures and traditions. Highlighting carefully picked themes is common in all the religions and can probably be justified. For
example, how many of us would wish to discuss passages in the old testament that call for wiping out entire populace with infants and animals also included in the list. We are simply unaware of the situation that existed then and it is right for us to be quiet then to
offer explanations. The list can get uncomfortably long. Likewise it is claimed that in islam women are accorded higher statues but we know the problems.

But as Ravi has himself acknowledged without spiritual power it is not possible to live out spirituality although one may have constructed a nearly perfect system. We don’t have to look further than the example of christianity itself. The faith is spiritually rich but is not reflected in the people.

So we come to understand that a religious system or philosophy cannot bring moksha. Ravi is aware that his system cannot save him and if his ishtadevata or gurus can provide him with the spiritual power to attain moksha it is good for him. But we have Mukteshware who we know has conquered death and by his krupa has given us the gift of moksha. But do our lives show that we are indeed true recipients of this krupa? This is what Ravi and others should see in us. There is no future in wrestling with propositonal truth like christians do as people are craving for reality. Let us hope and pray that we will be channels of His krupa.

madhu

Ask any one to give a talk or write a paper about spirituality.  They give their best.  Sometimes, people like Ravi share their view, not merely to give their best but also their inner longing or (as well) their struggle.  However for me, very high level spiritual talk or writing is an ideal for which few strive (narrow gate?).  But sit and talk with the same person outside the group, particularly touching those high ideas and how s/he has realized or implementing, one will hear different story.

I know Ravi to some extent.  Like Shashi Kiran (of Phoenix, I will share my dialogue with him later), they too are longing to find their guru.  After sharing their ideology and struggle their one question is how to find a true guru—as per their expectation.  They read and attend several sat-sangh.  Even they try several gurus.  But few alone satisfy them.  So when I talk with them, I too share my experience of searching for a true (sat) guru and how I found him in Muktinath.  Some times I even confront when they claim to have achieved their ideology.  However, I do it not for the sake of argument or confrontation, but only to help them to realize that they need not share merely to convince me or themselves. 

So to Meena’s question ‘how to introduce Jesus to such people’, my response is have empathy with their struggle and try to help them even away from our kicking evangelical agenda.  I feel that real compassion in our heart will help us to share deep from within, where people will see that we have real interest in them and want to help them without any kind of our personal agenda.  To say in other words, their need comes my priority and not any kind of my agendas.  So when my agenda disappears, I least bother about the result.  Even I won’t worry whether they should follow Jesus or not.  I will do my part with sincere heart and real compassion for them.  Then I will leave rest with God.

I too worked in an organization and I know how the planning meetings, proposals targets several times hang behind our mind and conscience when we ‘work’ among others to share the gospel.  But we have to come out from such conscience first to free ourselves to enjoy the joy of sharing the Lord with others.  In stead of worrying too much of their salvation, I will enjoy the sat-sangh (with even one person) about sharing the gospel.  When people see the joy in us when we share our pilgrimage with them, which we will never let to be hijacked by any kind of evangelical agendas, then they might show further interest to hear from us.  Sometime we will sow, some one will water and some other will reap.  But we should sow with joy, least bother about the harvest.  That’s God’s fruit and He knows how and when to harvest.  [Oh God when I am going to learn to write precisely?]

Here I close.

dayanand

Having deep empathy and compassion for others, as Swamiji said, and being channels of His krupa, as Madhuji said, is of course the most excellent way re. 1 Cor 13.  I was thinking of Madhu’s remark, that Ravi’s understanding, if tweaked  just a little, could easily become aligned with our biblical  understanding.  But tweaking their (Ravi and others like him)  perception just a little, usually takes many years, if not a lifetime. 
How many of us have been able to shift our parents and other family members’ understanding so that it agrees with our biblical faith after all the years that we have been following Muktinath?   People like Ravi are so near, and yet so far.

As to being a part of agencies and theirl agendas, I was thinking that if I hadn’t joined an agency, I would not be here and doing what I am doing now.  This is the tension I live with – I know that my being a part of an agency is a hindrance in many ways to my witness here, and I long to be able to free from it.  At the same time, the reason I plough
ahead against all the odds, and am able to live in this second most expensive city in the world, is because I am enabled by the agency.  Although in a big sense it is my work, yet God has taught me to love these people, show deep empathy and compassion to them and be a channel of God’s grace to them.  I often think that I would never have chosen
them to be my friends and neighbors; they are not ‘my kind’ of people and I don’t have much in common with most of them other than that we belong to the same language group.  But I believe God has used the agency to motivate me to show His love to them and speak the good news to them.  Of course I have been richly blessed in my spiritual journey and in my life by being here, as this work / life  has forced me to run to God, often in despair, aware of my limitations and uselessness without His power.  And God has shown me how much my friends and neighbors have to offer to me and to teach me.  Without them my life would’ve been very poor indeed.

Meena

Dear Meena,

Shanti!

This is my personal letter to you.  If you wish, you can then share in e-bhaktas. 

Whatever may be the our life situation a true bhaktas will accept it as the will of God.  If God has different plan and purpose, He will move and change it accordingly.  For example in my case, I know very well (because of my temperament and bit of Brahminical arrogancy, that I cannot survive in any kind of organization or Institution.  But God give grace to people like you, who are humble enough to work with others happily.  In my life I saw the hands of God moving me away, in spite of my efforts to join or continue in some kind of institution.  So you or any one need to regret or compare with others.  Every place is a holy place provided we stand with God.  Several times people like you are a real challenge for me—how you people are ready to submit yourselves to some kind of authority.  One inherent problem in a sannyasi’s life is that he never have any human authority or never accepts it.  But in the KG, we need submission to someone.  Thankfully, I have a committed group within our e-bhaktas to whom I am answerable and accountable.  This I voluntarily accepted upon me to discipline myself.  But in your case, as a family person, you need the support of an organization—not merely to help you monetarily, but also to struggle with you in every other area.  So thank God that there are people who give you the freedom for you to serve the Lord.  In any way if my words hurt your feelings, forgive me.  I don’t mean to hurt you or anyone who serve the Lord through some agency.  That’s is God’s plan in their life.  I know that one need more humbleness to submit to an agency than to remain the so called Independent worker.  I never believe in the so called Independent workers.  When I was serving in FMPB, I used to say my co-workers and even in one big meeting that as long as we serve through an agency we should remain loyal to it.  Otherwise both the agency and we cannot survive.  So take courage and thank god for your agency. 

What all I share sometimes is only a principle which need to be qualified with a particular context.  Sweeping generalization is unhealthy.  So I understand your context very well and appreciate your submission to some leaders.  God bless you.

dayanand