Vedic Bridge
Like you I have an inner longing for peace and truth. I have been reading the ancient Hindu Mantra, the Gayatri Mantra and I have found the light that all seekers of truth desire. May I share with you what I have discovered?
I am impressed with the Gayatri Mantra because the Gayatri Mantra is one of the oldest and most highly revered mantras in Hinduism.
Gayatri Mantra
Oh God! You are the Giver of Life,
Remover of pain and sorrow,
The Bestower of happiness,
Oh! Creator of the Universe,
May we receive your supreme sin-destroying light, [where is the word ‘sin-destroying’ has suddenly come here—db]
May you guide our intellect in the right direction.
Our common desire is to really know God, and we desire union with Creator God. I have found how we can receive this supreme sin-detroying light. I have experienced this!
In the ancient times wise men, seekers of the truth from the east followed an ancient star in quest for divine awakening of the mind and soul. They were led to Jesus. Jesus is the supreme sin-destroying light.
[We don’t know what exactly was their purpose to follow the star. It could be a ‘quest for divine awakening of the mind and soul. But in general in Hindu mythology such guidance if followed to fulfill certain rituals and pilgrimage. Though it is a good speculation, yet we are not sure from where exactly they came and followed the star.–]
In the Bible we find:
John 1:1-9 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it. There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.
God Desires to give true light to all men
This passage in the Bible speaks of Jesus. He was and is the true Light and God’s desire is for each of us to have the sin-destroying light of Jesus Christ.
John bore witness to the light. His role was like the role of the Guru. The guru points the way from darkness to light. The meaning of guru is Gu-darkness, Ru-light, the one who leads you from darkness to light. The ancient Rishis (holy men) would have no problem believing that Jesus fulfilled this longing for supreme sin-destroying light. This is what they were waiting for, the sin-destroying light of Jesus.
We all need the sin-destroying light.
Why do we need a sin-destroying light? It is because we have sin in our life. This same sin problem mentioned in the Garatri mantra is confirmed in the Bible. In Rom 3:23 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. –Sin problem is neither mentioned nor confirmed in Gayatri.–db
You may have made a promise to your mother and not kept that promise. That is sin that separates us from God. We all need a sin-destroying light because we all sin. Our sin will keep us from a relationship with God.
God is holy and punishes sin and his punishment for sin is death. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
We need a sin-destroying light because we are walking in darkness. John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke again to them, saying, I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
God’s sin-destroying light comes through the cross of Jesus Christ.
Jesus took on that death we deserve when he died on the cross for us. Jesus died on the cross to take us from darkness to light.
2Co 4:6 For it is God who said, “Out of darkness Light shall shine;” who shone in our hearts to give the brightness of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Jesus conquered darkness, sin and death through his resurrection. Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.
We receive God’s light by Believing in Jesus
God calls us to believe in Jesus to have God’s light.
Jesus Said, John 12:46 I have come as a Light into the world, so that whoever believes on Me should not remain in darkness.
Joh 12:36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light so that you may become sons of Light. Jesus spoke these things and departed.
Jesus died for us that we may go from darkness to light. But we must believe in Jesus, trust in him with all our heart, for Jesus death on the cross to count for us.
Does this make sense to you?
Would you like to experience this light right now?
You can receive Jesus right now and experience the sin-destroying light and union with God in your life right now.
Oh Creator God, I know that you desire for me to have union with you and walk in the light. I acknowledge right now I am walking in darkness because of my sins. I am sorry for these wrongs, and now I want to turn away from walking in darkness and from my past sinful life. Please forgive me, and lead me from walking in darkness to light. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive. I invite Jesus to come into my heart to be my true light and to guide my intellect in the right direction and be the Lord of my life. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.”
If you sincerely prayed this prayer you have union with God through Jesus Christ and you have received the sin-destroying light.
You want to continue to walk in the light. One way you can do this is to start by reading the Satya Marga (gospel of John). Also you should share with your friends and family that you have received the Light of the World, Jesus Christ.
________________________________________________
Note:
The roots of the Gayatri Mantra go all the way back to ancient Hindu text the Rig Veda (iii, 62, 10) which was written in Sanskrit about 2500 to 3500 years ago,. The Gayatri mantra is found in all the four Vedas.
I think this is the paper prepared by Brad Beaman.–db
Db’s comments
Prof. Kane, who is the authority on Hindu Scripture gives the following meaning and comments on Gayatri:
Gayatri: It literally means ‘we contemplate that esteemed [longed for] refulgence [glory] of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects [or actions]’ [p.302]…Why the Gayatri verse [Rg.III.62.10] came to be famous it is difficult to say. Its fame was probably due to its grand simplicity and to its adaptability to an idealistic conception of the world as emanating from an all-pervading Intelligence…- P.V.Kane. History of Dharmasastra, Vol.II. Part.I. Ch. VII. Upanayana and the Gayatri. pp. 302-303.
As far as my knowledge goes there is no mention of sin-destroying light’ anywhere mentioned in Gayatri.
The meaning of Gayatri is:
Gayatri: Literally ‘protector of whoever speaks or sings it’….—India Mystica (CD) Glossary
The word Gaayatrii means that which saves the reciter from downfall….— ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes, Vidyesvarasamhitaa, 15:16, p.93
@@@
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:02:54 -0500
Subject: Do you know Victor Chaudhury?
From: chrisdhale@gmail.com
To: rick@uscihs.com; dayanand_bharati@hotmail.com
Swami ji, Rick,
Do you know Victor Choudhrie? His letter below is rather intriquing,
Chris
I am forwarding a letter written by Dr.Victor Choudhrie;
India is now in for a very difficult period as Christians are being attacked and over one thousand churches have been destroyed in places even in south India where just a short while back this level of violence was unimaginable. The signs are that things are going to get worse.
The churches are reacting in different ways such as taking protest rallies etc but none is seriously studying the root causes for it. We can thank God for the persecution because there has never been so much unity among the churches in India.
Hindu religion is a religion of unequals. There is huge gap in its utterances and its acts. Every time a low caste person converts to Christianity he becomes equal which is a challenge to the might and authority of the high castes.
Reformation of Hindu religion is not possible as it entails annihilating the caste system which will result in the annihilation of Hindu religion itself. Christianity which preaches and practices equality, is a direct threat to the high castes. To maintain their hegemony the high casts will do everything possible in power to restrict the growth and multiplication of Christianity. This is reality which the church must be ready to face. Caste and religion are strong drivers of mentalities. No amount of appealing to the government will be of much help as the ruling class is mostly high caste Hindu, regardless of their political affiliation.
On the other hand we Christians have also made many mistakes. Most Christians come from Dalit background and suffer from grass hopper syndrome. Most Christians have grown in mission compounds and have an isolationist ghetto mentality. They have very little if any relationships with the secular world. Most of the churches attacked are visible churches with a cross on the top. Many house churches have also been attacked because they are boisterous with loud music, quite unlike the New testament model.
The Dang district of Gujarat is an interesting model. Here the majority of the tribals have become Christians with little fracture with their non–Christian neighbors. The Hindus tired to break it by burning 68 bamboo churches back in 1998. Then the Gujarat government spent millions to reconvert them and utterly failed. I went and found out that when these tribal’s build their bamboo churches, which are fairly large in size, which can accommodate as many as 200 or more people, they first call a meeting of the whole village, with the village council elders presiding, who are often non-Christians and ask their permission to build the church building. Not only they get the permission but also the goodwill. Every one makes a contribution in cash or kind and even labor in building the church. Most Sundays and other meetings, most of the village will be participating regardless of their religious affiliation. This is truly a community church.
Since Hindu religion cannot be reformed, the Dalits have only one choice that is convert to attain freedom from the oppressive and dehumanizing caste system.
However the church has many options.
1.To carry on as it is and remain irrelevant.
2.To continue to convert and suffer persecution.
3.Metamorphose back into New Testament model but this requires getting rid of all the trappings which we call church such as the clergy, the buildings, the large crowds and the rituals. It also requires empowering the layman for priesthood of all believers and going under the radar like the Chinese church and multiply until significant segment of the population is converted.
4. The real solution is to take the bull by the horn and convert high caste Brahmins, the perpetrators of crime. Brahmins constitute only 5% of the population but influence 90% of the government, administration, politics, business, banks, media, police and of course religion. This is not as difficult as it sounds. The problem is that the church is so seeped in Western culture that it requires a complete paradigm shift in the way we do church.
Our limited experience (500 immersions this year) shows that the high caste Brahmins are the easiest fish to catch provided you have the right tools to tackle them. We will be glad to help anyone who wants to seriously take up this challenge.
I still have to work out the details and the logistics, but the Lord is burdening me with the vision to take this up as my preferred ministry in the coming days and develop a network throughout India and beyond.
I will need a lot of prayers and practical support to achieve this.
Shalom,
V.
—— End of Forwarded Message
How fun is this? IMing with Windows Live Messenger just got better.
@@@
This is to send to Devakala
Universalizing religions
From ‘Why apologetics’ in ‘Living Dialogues’, Dayanand Bharati, unpublished and unedited book.
The influence of Western oriented studies on Hinduism has created a new trend of apologetic writings by Hindu scholars to face the challenge of the criticism. Of course the so-called apologetic writings of one’s point of view, particularly related with the doctrinal aspect of one’s faith, is not new to India. However, they were more theological in nature. But the so called scientific studies of texts (linguistic, historical, comparative etc.)have put a new challenge to the Hindu scholars as they have to defend their views from various kinds of criticism.2 In this endeavor, several sincere scholars have emerged, accepting the problems in several areas and at the same time pointing out the differences between Indian and Western methods of writing and preserving texts. Here we need not dwell on this subject, as several such studies are available for us to read. Pfof. Kane’s monumental work, The History of Dharmasastra is the best example.
If Eastern Religions contributed to the Enlightenment movement in the west, Orientalism has greatly influenced Hindu apologetics. In order to prove the ‘scientific’ ‘rationalistic’ and ‘universalistic’ nature of Hinduism, several Hindu apologetists were quick to write borrowing a Western frame of reference (influenced by Enlighten movement). The so called Neo-Hinduism has its origin from this. Championed by Swami Vivekananda, followed by Dr. Radhakrishnan several modern day scholars, in order to make Hinduism sensible to everyone, used everything that came in to their disposal invented by Westerners like archeology, etymology, philology, theology etc.(please see appendix after the notes in this chapter). I still remember how the late Kanchi Sankarachariay, Jagadguru (teacher of the world) Sri Chandrasekara Saraswati Swamiji, claimed the universality of Siva worship in several parts of the world, by using some archeological evidence which superficially provided some similarities based on strange evidences.
In the post-Enlightenment Europe when the scientific and rationalistic questions arose challenging the ‘biblical version of history’ tracing a common ancestry in Noah and the idea of ‘one human race speaking one language’ before the construction the city of Babel, led to the ‘Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’,3 the Indian apologetic writers were ready to take advantage of a similar claim to prove the universality of Hinduism in other forms everywhere in the world. I still remember as a young man how many in our circle would enthusiastically share how the Europeans borrowed (actually stole) several of our Vedic theories to invent modern scientific things like electricity, radio, airplane etc. I also remember how my brother would explain to us that even before the Wright brothers invented the airplane, how Rama took Sita back to Ayodhya in “Pushpa Vimanam”. The word “Vimanam” in Tamil now means airplane. That was enough for us to believe that Westerners had secretly stolen our Vedic technique to easily invent things because they had the other facilities to make them. Even today, we can hear such things among common people with which my inquiring mind refuses to agree.
Now days, this trend to universalize Hinduism claiming everything in its scripture, particularly in Veda is nothing but science and Mathematics has again became popular (like Vedic science, Vedic Mathematics etc.). For example, as our ancient ‘Rishis were great scientists’4 they didn’t write the Ramayana just to tell a story about Rama or impart moral teachings, but it was written to preserve their scientific knowledge in a coded language. ‘Thus the title Raamaayanah itself holds the possibility of acquiring an altogether different meaning other than that of the story of Raama and Raavanah!5 For example,
‘Raa’ in Sanskrit means, ‘heat, speed or sun’, (Incidentally, ‘Raa’ is the name of the Sun God in Egypt!). ‘Maa’ means ‘measurement’. ‘Ayana’ means ‘lateral motion’ as indicated by the words ‘Utthara-ayana’ and ‘Dhakshina-ayana’. Together, ‘Raamaayana’ may thus mean ‘measurement of sun’s later motions’.6
And there is no need to wonder about the single race theory of Europe based on the biblical version of history, but we have our Indian version of it too viz.,‘ the Bharathiya people were of one single race’. And you want any proof for this, here it is:
The ancient heritage of the Tamizhs [Tamil] dates back to around 8000 years before today. Those days our brave forefathers colonized lands in far away Mesopotamia, Egypt, South Africa and parts of Western Europe and further extended their cultural contacts in South East Asian islands and in the East up to China and Japan.
There is evidence that the ancient Cholhas [The Tamil kings] discovered South America, long before Columbus did and that the Inca Sun Worshippers of Peru are none but the descendants of our Cholha ancestors (vide Neelakanta Sastri—History of South India, and M. Monohan’s Cholhas in America). The Incas have their temple of Sun god in Cizo (Peru) much like the one in Konaarak in Orissa built by the Holhas. The Cholha chieftains (Incas) of America styled themselves as ‘Raghukula Maanickam’. This shows that they belonged to the Raghuvamsa of Sri Raama whose ancestor Sibi Chakravarthi is well described in ancient Thamizh literature as the Cholha king Chembian. This takes us to the very significant inference that the ancestors of Dhasaratha were the ancestors of the Thamizhs. One other ancestor of Sri Raama, Musu Kunthan, is none other than the Musa Kuntha Cholha in ancient Thamizh history. Musa Kunthan’s reign was during the 2nd Thamizh Sangam period.
The Matsya and Vishnupuraanhas refer to Sri Raama as belonging to the Thamizh clan of Cholahs who in fact belonged to the Surya Kula dynasty. Sri Raama knew both the languages Thamizh and Sanskrit. (Ancient India edited by Dr. N. Mahalingam, 1998, pp. 35-36).7
This does not mean that Raama was a Thamizhan and lived in South India, but he ‘lived and ruled Ayodhya in North India’. But ‘he belonged to the Cholha dynasty. All of these demonstrably strengthen our dictum that the Bharathiya people were of one single race.’8
Sri PVN Murthy, the author of this book told me in person that Valmiki, the author of Sanskrit Ramayana, was the world’s pioneer astronomer and the entire Ramayana is nothing but a work on astronomy in a coded language. It is not only Sanskrit, but also almost every script in Tamil is also written in a coded language, full of science and astronomy. Once his Vedic Science Institute is established, he will open a new University, including special subjects to decode the Vedic and Tamil languages to show to the world all the scientific and astronomical knowledge in Indian scripture. But don’t think that he is a narrow minded Indian only referring to the Veda and Sanskrit works or a fanatic Tamilian mentioning Tamil works to prove his theory. His horizon covers the entire world because he has a fervent desire. In his own words:
to thoroughly investigate the ancient literature—not only Indian but also of other nations—like Vedhic Scriptures, Thamizh Sangam Literature, The Holy Bible, The Holy Koraan, Confucianism, Thaosim, etc. I felt that it was possible that all of them might have references to ancient history, ethical codes, and science and technology if interpreted properly. If decoded, the results would enlighten us about the knowledge existing in the associated periods and possibly an entirely new face of science.9
If anyone thinks that I have merely cooked up some story to prove my view, then read the following accounts from a scholar like Edwin Bryant from his book.
There are southern Tamil-centric myths of origin that are just as creative as some of the Aryan-centered ones from the North. Thus, Purnalingam Pillai (1963) describes the original land of Tamilaham, which included the lost continent of Le Muria, the “cradle of civilization.”” This was submerged after a deluge, rending asunder Australia, China, and Africa (all supposedly proven by geological science). The survivors fled in crafts or on foot to North India, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and other regions. Accordingly, “in its widest sense, Tamilaham at present lies all the world over, wherever the enterprising Tamils have found their home” (5). Pillai finds evidence of this everywhere. According to him, there are lingas in Saint Paul’s Cathedral; indeed, due to the “many semblences and traces of Saivism … in every nook and corner of England, it is impossible to think of England as anything else except a Saivite country.” As for the Tamils, they “were the sons of Tamilaham itself. They were indigenous” (18-19). In fact, “history finds the Tamils in their present abode long before the Romans conquered Egypt or Christ was born in Bethlehem, before Porus met the Greek or Darius lost his crown; before Plato wrote his Dialogues and Solomon made his songs” (33).10
… Self-styled historian and ardent Hindu P.N. Oak, *for example, has his own unique way of resolving the Hindutva problem as it relates to the Muslims. According to Oak (1984):
Allah is a Hindu God and the Kaba a Hindu temple. Evidence is also available indicating that prophet Mohammed Himself was born a Hindu and that when He chose to break away from the family’s Hindu tradition and heritage and declare himself a prophet, the joint Hindu family broke up in an internecine feud and Hazrat Mohammad’s own uncle had to lay down his life fighting to save Hinduism…. That means that like Buddha, Mahavira, Jaina and the ten Sikh Gurus, Hazrat Mohommad was yet another prophet which Hinduism gave to the world. Like the other reformers, Mohammad reiterated some of the basic values of Hinduism. (Oak, 1984, 310-313)
….there are many serious and sober scholars who sincerely feel that the Aryan migration theory is not supported by the available data. Their input on this issue should not be stereotyped or cursorily dismissed by associating it with positions, often encountered in India, such as that of Oak.—11
*. Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj Mahal was originally a Siva temple. Oak’s books attempt to argue that everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a greater India. His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature; for example, (Oak, p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since “ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe looked across the English channel and called the British isles ‘Anguli’ (‘sthan’ or ‘desh’) i.e. a finger-size, finger-length land. If one imagines Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent Great Britain appears to be ‘anguli’ namely the (extended) finger” (Oak 1984, 842). I was informed by a professor of history at Jawarhal Lal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views. Oak’s insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Europe. Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered Eastern traditions within a biblical narrative by suggesting etymologies such as Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah.—12
Common Hindus have no time or access to enjoy the entertainment of reading such accounts as those above. However, if someone tells them these things with some seriousness, they will believe it and will proudly use it in their discussions without any need to check for accurate evidence.13 In most cases, on such accounts, mere hear say (sun suni ki bath in Hindi) is more than enough. Particularly if these views have come from some Swamijis like Kanchi Sankaracharya, then it is proof of the authenticity of the information (in fact the book which contains all of his speeches is titled ‘Daivattin Kural’—The voice of God). All of these discussions and debates have nothing to do with their (personal) faith of their respective gods. So while serious scholars like P.V. Kane have made considerable contributions to Hindu apologetics, writers like the Purnalingams, Oaks and Murthys are also taken seriously. Of course similar kinds of writings both scholarly and amusing are common in Christianity too. I need not quote from such works as most of the readers of this book might be familiar with them.
Notes:
2. Prof. Arvind Sharma’s writings in MLBD, ‘Chips from an Indic Workshop’ are the best recent examples. For example, the explaining away of some Upanisadic passages, which sanction the husband to beat his wife, he after explaining the ‘moksa or spiritual dharma’ and ‘saadhaarana dharmas’ says:
Thus the Upanisadic passages cited above fall out the Vedantic ken. It is important for readers to realize that unlike the Western religions, revelation in the Hindu scriptures is only to be held revealing in relation to moksa and dharma. To paraphrase Sankara: Even if a hundred Vedic scriptural passages stated that one should beat one’s wife they will have to be disregarded, for they would be dealing with social practices and not metaphysical reality and its moral universe, the proper domain of scripture. (italics original).— Chips from an Indic Workshop, On Wife-Beating and Ordeals in the Upanisads, Arvind Sharma, MLBD Newsletter, July 2006, p. 16,
3. A favorable, ‘theme, even when stripped of its biblical trappings, was to remain thoroughly imprinted in European consciousness until well into the twentieth century’, Edwin Bryant from his book: The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition.p.16
4. PVN Murthy, Raamaayanha Rahasya, First book of the series “The Original Secrets”, A VEDSRI Publication, Hosur, 2004, p.47
5. ibid. p.48
6. ibid. p.48
7. ibid. pp.50-51, the author, though mentions others books from which he quotes, yet not giving the publishing details.
8. ibid. p.52
9. ibid. p.225
10. Bryant, op. cit, notes, 5, p. 343
11. ibid. p.273
12. ibid. notes 6, pp.343-44
13. One of my shishyas, Vishnu Sankar is highly educated and works in the IT profession in the Central govt. service. When he sent Oak’s theory on Taj Mahal as a Siva Temple also proved by the BBC, then I have to explain other problems related with such theories. If a highly educated person like Sankar can be influenced by such theories, we need not talk about common people with less education.
@@@
The dialogue that held at Bangalore on August 18th evening finally ended as usual in argument. Tennant’s presentation on Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya’s life followed by some questions and discussion. In this context the UTC man (a professor?) raised the point that Upadhyaya was easily carried out by every wind in his life. To say in other words he was unstable in his principle and often changed his views as per the influence he encountered in his life. For this Tennant said that we should judge a person in his own context in which he lived. During the time of Upadhyaya, particularly in Bengal all kinds of thoughts were flowing from the West. And one has to consider them to judge Upadhyaya.
Agreeing on this point I would rather say that Upadhyaya was never allowed to stick to his principle and further to think and develop in those areas. His attempts to indigenise theology by his writings as well his attempt to indigenise Christianity and mission work by starting an Ashram was ruthlessly suppressed by his own church, which he defended on several levels vigorously. To say in other words, Upadhyaya became a victim to the Seminary trained theologians. Tennant said that Upadhyaya was a popular but very influential writer but not a properly trained theologian. Granted. Accepting all the shortcomings in him, yet later Upadhyaya was claimed by the same seminary trained theologians as the ‘Father of Indian Christian Theology’. I have yet to come across any Seminary trained Indian Christian (either from traditional Christian background or new convert) ever attained that status because of his Theological Training! Only a lay preacher Sadhu Sundar Sing was called as the ‘bleeding Apostle of India’ and not any Seminary Trained Theologian!
When the discussion turned to the topic of any indegenous movements further spreading, I said that in stead of allowing such native movements further to gain strength and spread it is curbed by the Institutionalized Church, Mission and Seminaries. All these extra biblical Western Institutions, in the name of supporting or teaching or doing some research prey over such movements to provide opportunity to make a living for some Indian Christians. Take for an example of Nepal. When the door was closed for the gospel the local church grew by the work of lay people, in spite of political suppression and persecution. But once the door was opened every form of Christian Institutions are now preying on the Nepali church. In such a situation no indigeneous movement is possible. Pastors and lay people are bought and resold by every denominational mission Organizations. Because of their economic condition the Nepali Pastors and lay people are tempted. And only the Christian Institutions (Church, mission and Seminaries, with the support from West) alone causing this ‘little’ one to stumble. Owe unto to those who cause the little one to stumble. It is better to tie stones on their neck and drown them in the sea,’ says the Lord. However strong a believer may be, when he is tempted particularly in those areas where he is struggling, where is the opportunity for him to develop a method which is suitable to him to profess his faith and share with others? If you really want to see any indigeneous movement to flourish either you become part of that movement or keep your hands off.
By saying this I am not dividing the body of Christ. We welcome any correction from other believers from any where in the world even to the extent of rebuking us by saying, ‘who deprived you foolish Hindu Christ bhaktas from the grace of God’, if we go astray from the apostolic message (not necessarily from the so called Apostolic tradition—on which also a discussion was held). But to say this you should come to us like Paul and not like Peter or Barnabas. Our attitude towards the Institutionalized Western Church, Mission and Seminaries is this:
Let James live peacefully at Jerusalem. But if Judaizers come and trouble us, then we have to stand and fight. This time we don’t need a Paul to warn us to be ‘beware of the dogs’, as we have learnt from several Paul’s to warn our own people to safe guard them from the programmes and plans of the Christian agents. If you want to correct us, first become part of us. Otherwise keep away from us. But never ‘USE’ us to full fill your Christian agendas. To say in other words don’t use us to make a living. I hope that we are correct at least in this as per the apostolic message/tradition.
We are not against Institutionalized Western Churches, Missions and Seminaries. They have a role to play to serve their own Christian communities. If these western Christian Institutions are not there, half of the Indian Christian population will face severe unemployment problem. So the Western Christian Institutions are a blessing in disguise to our Indian society in one way. They not only provide job opportunity to considerable percentage of Indian Christians but also help our Indian economy to buildup foreign exchange reserve considerably.
Leaving the Dalit issue which the UTC man raised and received a deserving answer from Tennanent [there is no point of recording it as we all are familiar of those issues like ‘suppressive Sanskrit language, oppressive brahminical influence etc.] at least the dialogue gave me an opportunity to spell out my mind clearly. To this extent, in spite of my cynicism, it is successful one.
Dayanand
Bangalore, August 2002.
@@@
When I met Rameswar Reddy along with his wife and mother-in-law on October 1, 2003 at Hydrabad, he asked, ‘why several attempt to indigenise the gospel and church failed’? For this I said:
Those who attempted to indigenise the gospel (and the church) most of the time toiled remaining within the Church or Mission. They thought that a changed church/mission could reach the Hindus. But most of them never supported or encouraged much by the church or missions. And few who were initially supported finally deserted by the very same church or Missions. So we do not have time and energy to repeat the same methods (or mistakes).
But what we (I) attempt to indigenise the gospel will take much time more than what we expect. It may even take several hundred years to receive reorganization as ‘Hindu Christ bhaktas’. So we need patience and perseverance. We have to do our part faithfully and pass this vision to the next generation.
For this also we need certain personal commitment. For example in our movement also when we arrange or organize some meeting, each one should try to participate because of their own personal commitment and interest towards the principle. As almost everyone involved in our movement are witnessing only in Secular situation, each one may have their own genuine excuses why they cannot participate. But that’s is the challenge. Because we do not gather often to have regular fellowship. Several individuals in our movement are a single witness in her/his family. As we don’t keep regular weekly fellowship for worship, study and prayer, whenever we get opportunity to meet together we should make every efforts to participate. Otherwise those individuals who need constant encouragement will gradually loose their vision to be a witness to her/his own family.
I don’t want anyone to participate in such meeting because of me. Then we cannot make any progress as it will remain again One man operated Corporation. On personal basis, each one of us has genuine reason why we cannot do certain things for the common cause. But if each one is going to count only his personal gain or loss, in the end it will not only affect the individual but ultimately the movement. Already several causalities have occurred and we don’t have the luxury to continue it.
What we try to do as Hindu Christ Bhaktas, each one should have some personal commitment. They should do certain things not for any individual but for the Principle. No one as a Person is not IMPORTANT. We as a group the PRINCIPLE IS IMPORTANT and for this every individual should make a personal commitment.
Another thought that came to my mind on 14th October at Varanasi is that those who want to have ‘the best of the both world’ can never identify with the struggle of anyone (as we already discussed about this in my previous mail in e-bhaktas). At the same time after struggling a lot if any single Christ bhakta in a Hindu/Muslim (etc.) family decided to become a ‘Christian Convert’ and is quick to become a ‘First Generation Christian’, will only end up in producing a Second Generation Nominal Christians–enhancing only the biological growth (rather swelling) of the local (denominational) church and increase the Christian population than remaining a faithful witness for the Lord in the expansion of His Kingdom among her/his own family and community. We in our group never attempt to start one more Christian Denomination in another name or form. What we are attempting to create is Christ Centred Families among the Hindu/Muslim Communities and this could be possible only through individual commitment and a common cause.
@@@
Dear Swami Ji,
Thanks for your email.
I want to ask you a question, as I am preparing to teach. What do you think the main reason is that the gospel has spread so little/had so little effect in India, even after having it here for 2000 years? In other countries (like in europe) we have seen that the gospel took had effect much faster.
Was it THomas who brought the gospel to India, is it proven?
Great if you find time to answer.
Thanks,
Sindre
Dear Sindre,
Shanti!
It is a simple question, but no comprehensive and easy answer could be found. However one of the main reasons, which I already pointed in Living Water is that the missionaries brought an organized religion and try to impose in an organized society and it never matched.
The another important reason according to my understanding is that in stead of allowing the gospel to be incarnated in Indian cultural and social conditions, the missionaries insisted in replacing both the culture and society. But the alternative which they gave is not biblical but their own respective ones (western culture and society’s view).
The next reason could be that instead of the gospel do its transformation in natural way, the missionaries insisted in reformation by introducing certain western values, which are good for them, but never accepted in Indian worldview—like removing caste, poverty, education, etc.
The centralized religious authority is promoted at the cost of spontaneous spiritual movements. The church and Bishops were promoted as spiritual authorities. In India spiritual authority is recognized and not imposed in the name of religion.
Gospel never preached and spread by the lay people, but by some religious professionals viz., evangelists, missionaries, who were paid for that job. But in India the spread of sectarian faith was done by lay people and no one is appointed and paid by any agencies. So the evangelical activities are viewed as a job or some business by common people.
New converts were often removed from their family and community and made pastors and evangelists to work in some other place. This deprived the witness in their own family and community. On the other hand, it further alienated them from the gospel, once the converts married a ‘Christian’ girl/boy.
Negative evangelism by the early missionaries condemning Hindu religious views also closed the doors for a intellectual dialogue.
Lack of communication is another major reason. The language, music, worship form etc. never appealed to the Hindu audience. While condemning certain cultural, social and even religious symbols as demonic, what the missionaries introduced (or replaced) were never perceived by the Hindus as divine.
The missionaries never trusted the converts to give responsibility and administration of the church and mission. And when they left, the converts continued to look towards west for all kinds of support. While the native converts and leaders had to struggle to reach top position in the church and missions, by virtue of their skin and nation, the new missionaries came from the west were appointed their boss, who crippled the spirit of the natives to do their work spontaneously and voluntarily. Unfortunately this trend still continues in several organizations. The south Indian missionaries are doing the same in North India too.
I hope these points were enough to take several hours of classes.
Regarding Thomas bringing the gospel in India is not a proven history. But the Catholic are not ready to accept it. Mythologies gain more importance than proved historical facts in religious world. Thomas mythology is one such. Personally I don’t believe in that mythology.
db
@@@
Dear Swamiji!
Hope everything is well with you! We are fine here, but very busy these days with many things – just like Martha!
We are looking forward to your visit in November, but unfortunately I will not be here during your visit. I’m going for a 3 week trip to the US in November, leaving Ranikhet on 19th November, and flying out the same night. I’ll be back around 10th December. The rest of the team will be here and Vetvik and Goldie will make the programme for you. You’ll probably stay with the Mangolies, but Vetvik will confirm that detail.
There is one issue that we would like to share with you, which we would like to talk with you when you arrive in November. It is not a secret at such, but we prefer that you don’t use it as a “bad” example and tell everyone what to not do!
The fact is that we did some mistakes this summer, which could have had some consequences for us, but God kept his hand upon us, so the “damage” was limited! As you read this, please don’t judge us too hard – we really tried our best bur for various reasons things went wrong..
As you know Leela is working with some ladies doing some IG project. This is going really well, and in July it completed 1 year. They are sharing and praying for the needs of the ladies every Monday morning, and that has been well received.
In June Swami Muktanand came to have a series of Satsangs with us, and the ladies connected with him very well. We have not seen that kind of response before, and Muktanand did a wonderful job of sharing with them and other ladies as well. We also had a satsang for the men and that went well too.
When all this happened, both Leela and I was out travelling for some period, and we also had a lot of other things we were involved with. Due to this and many other factors, we basically moved ahead too fast, without fullly being able to establshi the true extent of the ladies openness. Since Swami M was also leaving, we pushed forward with a challenge to follow Sadguru, and even though the initial response were very positive, it backfired on us the day Swami was leaving. Basically we gave the challenge too early, we misjudged their openness and we also did not realise enough the situation these ladies are living in. They are all bahus, and therefore doesn’t have the authority in the family to make the kind of decision we put before them. Our big mistake was to give them a strong, spesific challenge, which they were in no position to relate to or act upon. We could have challenged them in a way that would have been more fruitful and positive, but because of our mistake they reacted towards us and are now more closed and apprehensive.
It will take me too long time to explain everything that happened and all the aspects, but that is not the point of this e-mail. I’m not even expecting you to respond – we know all the mistakes we did this summmer, and the main point is just to inform you what happened, and then hopefully we can spend some time with you in November to talk more around the things that happened and the issues involved. A lot of deep, good and challenging questions came up as we were evaluating what happened this summer, so we are in a good process of learning from this.
Afterward, when the backclash had happened, I kind of pinched my arm in disbelief that we could do these kind of mistakes, but they were fueled by many things, and like I mentioned above, there was a quite unique openness and interest from the ladies, and it really looked like things were starting to happen locally! So, in our excitement we did many mistakes…….
We know you will scold us, and we deserve it! But still it was done with a deep desire for the Kingdom and after an enourmous amount of prayer and laying the foundation.
Things were very tense for a few days, but are much much better now. Basically things are back to normal, but the ladies are still apprehensive about our message so we are going very slowly forward…
I’m sad that I will miss you in November, but I know the others will appreciate talking to you about the happenings of this summmer!
with love from your humble chela
Vijay P.
Dear Lone and Dag, Ingrid-Sindre, Ellan-John,
Shanti!—I mean it. Let the grace and shanty of the Lord ‘which passes all kinds of understanding guard your heart and mind in Jesus Christ’. Ultimately, as we all surrounded to the Lord, He allows us to do some mistakes to learn more. Above all when such mistakes were done by others, my only thought was, ‘God used/allowed them for others to learn without paying the cost’. Because if the same mistakes were done the others, they might not have the inner strength, courage, prayer and support to face the consequence’ So realizing their limitation (or weakness) God sacrificed some one more stronger to do the mistake so that the weak one can learn the lesson without paying the cost.
This is what happened in your situation also. So irrespective of what we have done, yet God is in control. There is no point of being disturbed too much in your mind and spirit. Some time we don’t learn the lesson easily and then God has to teach it bit harsh way. Ultimately we have to see the future and not all the time and weep over our part in God’s disciplining process. So still you have every reason to thank God that He taught a lesson which otherwise you would have learnt from others, so that in future you can with much clarity and personal conviction can warn others not to do the same mistake. YOU SIMPLY PAID THE COST FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS.
When I heard from Linda that some interesting developments are taking place after Muktanand’s visit to Ranikhet, I was bit doubtful about it. Yet I didn’t shared or asked any one about it. But what I doubted finally happened. Now I am not worrying about the ladies or the damage that happened but more about you all. None of you should be discourage but thank God that He allowed you all to learn personally. Don’t give it up. Soon those ladies also would forget, as most of the time people don’t show much interest in spirituality. But this might have spread some kinds of news in the entire Ranikhet. Don’t worry, I will handle it if someone raises the issue or accuse any one of you to me. I will began to pray for this particular issue and won’t share with anyone. You all pray for me so that my visit also would help to clarify certain question and further open for me to share the gospel.
May be all the things work only for good for those who love the Lord. We all were bit slow and were hiding to some extent in the past. Now God also wants to break that slow process and bring in public His confrontation with devil. After all devil also has his part to play and God has to confront him too. Let me share one personal example from my side:
When I was visiting Keshave’s village for several years, generally we never shared about the gospel openly and people don’t know much about our (Keshave’s and mine) conviction openly. Finally after several years, when we planned to construct the ashram and even after Keshave’s family allotted the land and things were developing rapidly, one RSS man from Rewa happened to visit Keshave’s village. Then when some of the local people with much enthusiasm were sharing about a Swamiji from Madaras is going to build an ashram and move here to serve people he slowly enquired about it. Already he learnt a bit about Keshav’e faith through his friend Mohan and Keashve and other bhaktas from Rewa also know that RSS man. But that man, made a big issue and warned people that I am none but a Muslim and try to convert people to Islam. If they allow me to come permanently all the boys of the village will become Muslim and will forced to eat beef, their wives will be deserted and they will be married with some other woman etc.
To make the story short—the entire village gathered and after Keshave refused to deny either the Lord or his fellowship with me, he along with his whole family were excommunicated. The entire family paid very heavy price for it for a long period of more than five years. But it opened the opportunity for me and Keshave to become very openly for the gospel and without rushing or pushing, but with much humility, love, care and concern began to share our faith openly whenever opportunity came. Keshave in particular, with much patience lived as a witness for the Lord. After nearly five years, most of his friends, who because of excommunication stopped talking to him, began to realize their mistakes and violating the excommunication rule, began to have fellowship with him. Now that excommunication has no effect at all, and in fact the immediate neighbors insisted to the govt. authorities that Keshave alone should make as the teacher to the govt. schools which was opened for them in his immediate neighborhood.
So God works both ways. He want to teach a lesson to us and also confronting the evil power, want to create a situation where we will have more open opportunities to share the gospel. Don’t give up your hope. Let us continue to pray and work with God for the transformation of Kumaon people through the gospel.
Anyhow you all need to be punished for it. And now the only punishment that I would prefer to give you all is to read one important book: Christianity in Culture—A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective’ by Charles H. Kraft. This book belongs to Brain but you can buy the copy when you go to USA. Tell all your team that I am praying for all of them individually. Take care and be encouraged in the Lord that He gives His peace and not what the world gives. Though we are in the world we for not for the world. And naturally we inherit His peace.
Let His Shanti abide with you all in day to day life.
dayanand
@@@
Having Christian friends
When Mohan Kumar came to see me (on 24th November) along with Mahesh and another American (David), he raised several issues and accused me on several matters. One important point that he had against me is that without providing any proper alternative for the Hindu Christ bhaktas to have proper fellowship for them to share their struggles in life as well as grow in their faith, I left them ‘alone’. Not only this, I also prevent them NOT to have any kind of fellowship or friendship with other Christians. And if they dare to do then I even said to them that I won’t have any kind of fellowship or relationship with them. He quoted himself and Prasad as victims of my policy.
For this I said to him that I never in my life said to any Hindu Christ bhaktas that they should not have any kind of friendship or fellowship with other Christians. What all I said to them is this: If your friendship and fellowship with Christians inside the church as a fellow member of a particular church (therefore as a Christian) will enhance you to lead a good and perfect life in the Lord as well as to grow in your faith and be a witness to your family and community, then I have no problem in it. But your membership in any church and fellowship with other Christian inside the church is going to give some kind of misunderstanding to your family members, then think about seriously. You cannot call your self as a Hindu Christ bhakta and claim to have membership and fellowship with other Christians inside the church. You cannot ride on both the boat at the same time. (As we have discussed such topic several times there is no point of repeating all of them here).
Giving fellowship to all the Hindu Christ bhaktas is not only a challenge but also a problem with which we are struggling a lot. But can they get real fellowship in the Church with other Christians who can understand their home situation properly? Of course in their life as followers of Christ as well as member of their Hindu family, every Hindu Christ bhaktas are going to face several problems, questions and challenges. And to help them in all this they need fellowship not only to listen but also to counsel them properly and pray with them. But when such Hindu Christ bhaktas share any kind of their struggle and problem with other Christians in the Church, then without knowing his/her background and Hindu home situation, the Christians with their limited knowledge (as well as worldview) are going to further complicated his/her life. In stead of help him/her to understand their own situation and be a witness for the Lord, they will encourage such new believers to ‘obey the Lord’ than the parents. In all this they will only listen ONE SIDE STORY of the new believer and they will never take pain to listen their parents’ point of view. Some time they will even glorify the stand that the new believer took against his or her parents’ as ‘taking a stand for Christ’ and will even say that they are being persecuted by their own family for their faith in the Lord.
However he/she may be a saint and have deep spiritual life and faith in the Lord, when it come to share their struggle which they are facing in their home, because of their basic nature as a sinful man, every Hindu Christ bhakta is not going to share the whole Truth. I have seen that several times they will even exaggerate their struggle in their home in order to win the sympathy of the Christian. And in order to keep their hold on him as his/her spiritual guide, sometime these Christians will also never inquire the ‘whole truth’ about the new believer’s story. But are they really persecuted by their own family members because of their faith in ‘Christ’? Several times a new believer faces lots of problem not because he/she is not obeying the Lord but obeying the extra biblical agendas of the Christians which have noting to do with their faith. And generally Christians glorify this obedience as the true obedience of the new believer to Lord. Of course I cannot make a sweeping generalization. There are several individual Christians who are helping such Hindu Christ bhaktas outside the church not only to grow in their faith and spiritual life but also as a witness of the Lord in their own home situation. I bow before them and thank for them to God.
Every Hindu Christ bhakta accepting the challenge to remain in his family and community as a witness for the Lord is going to face lots of problem related with several customs, traditions, rituals, values of their own family and community. But in most of them, to go along with their family and community they need not disobey the Lord or violate the biblical principles. At the same time definitely the Christian community or the church with which the new believer involved have several struggles and questions about the Hindu Christ bhakta’s family customs, traditions, values etc. and some of them are genuine also. But most of the time they oppose all those points not because they are unbiblical but because they are unacceptable to them based on their Christian Community worldviews. In those situations those Christians have no other alternative but to counsel the new believer to take a ‘strong stand’ against their family and community. But can they really provide a home for every new believer? Can they substitute their parents in the life of every Hindu Christ bhaktas?
Only in such situation I warn every Hindu Christ bhakta to think twice before accepting the counsel of such kind of Christians who cannot understand his/her situation properly. I am not against any Hindu Christ bhakta to have fellowship outside the church with any Christian to grow in their faith. But here too every Hindu Christ bhakta should have the discerning spirit to choose such fellowship. I know that I or some one like me cannot give regular fellowship to those Hindu Christ bhaktas. At this stage we are very few and even in this situation we find it difficult to give proper fellowship and regular teaching to the new believers. But I (we) accept our limitation, struggle. We encourage every Hindu Christ bhaktas to learn some time to walk ‘alone’ in the Lord. In few situations like that of Keshave and Srikant, even if they wish to have fellowship with any other Christian it is not that much easy for them. For example Kashave has to travel not less than 100 kms. apart from walking six kilo meter even to get conveyance to go to such places. Then what we are going to do for them. Is it possible for me to go spend all my time only with them? I visit, I write and call over phone and encourage them as much as possible. Of course there occurred few causalities. But even in those cases it is not the lack of fellowship and teaching but lack of real commitment and real faith added with personality problem that led to such tragedy. For example Kasheve living all alone in the village while remain strong in the faith as well as in his witness for the Lord, whereas Lallan, even living in town where he can have any kind of fellowship with Christians (about whom he knows well), gradually slipping away from the faith. But if one sit and talk with Lallan then they will know that this happened not because of lack of fellowship or teaching but because of his temperament and personality problem.
By saying this I don’t want to escape from my responsibility. I too struggle. As a Single person how much I can travel, how much can teach, write and counsel. Even though I don’t have correct solution with me, at least I warn every Hindu Christ bhakta to think twice before they choose the fellowship and teaching of any Christian. I never said them not have any kind of fellowship with other Christians or threaten them that I will stop my fellowship with them if they keep their friendship and fellowship with other Christians. I am not such a fool to dictate terms and conditions for others and they are not children or illiterate to ‘obey’ my orders. But what I say to them is that knowing my limitation I don’t have time to involve with their Christian friends and fellowships, particularly those kind who try to convert every Hindu Christ bhaktas to their brand of Christianity. ‘If you like to have fellowship with them go ahead and God bless you. But if such fellowship is going to make your relationship with your family and community more difficult and complicated, then think about it. If you want to leave your Hindu family and community and become a ‘Christian’ of everybody’s understanding (both that of Christians and Hindus), I have no problem in it—though I will feel sad about it. But if you call yourself as a Hindu Christ bhakta, then you have to struggle a lot—more than any Christian or converted Christian. And in this struggle you are not alone and we few people are ready to share your burden as we too have the same kind of struggle,’ is my answer. Because such new believers expect me to come to their home and share the gospel with their parents, where as they will do everything to alienate their parents and family members from Christ. And even if I go to their home, most of my time is wasted in answering their parents’ question about all the ‘Christian activity and attitude’ of their children than sharing the gospel. And some time I have to sit and weep with them and console them for the loss of their own children to ‘Christianity’ and not necessarily to Christ.
At least I know one or two cases where those new believers who want to have all kinds of fellowship with Christians in the church as well as try to relate themselves with their family become more ‘an angle in the street and devil in their house.’ They love, obey and even ready to serve their Christians friends and community joyfully and similingly but not ready to do the same to their own family and community. The worst part in it that in the name of leaving unbelievers and to have fellowship only with believers they virtually deserted their parents and family and have no real love for them any more. If at all they help their parents or family it is done because of guilty conscience or just as a duty (some time because of the fear of society as well). But they lack genuine love and concern for their own parents and other family members. Does such attitude, behavior and relationship is biblical? Is this Our Lord expects from every Hindu Christ bhakta? Let our own conscience judge us first.
Bangalore, November 25, 2002.
@@@
What to do with them
Recently I received (again) one (Tamil) message in which (again) a comparison was made between Ramayana and Muktiveda (Bible). After reading it the only question that came in my mind was: OK. What you are going to do with such comparison? The Hindus are not going even read such materials. So there never comes any question of they going to reject it. The Christians in the church are not going to read—as they don’t know much about Hinduism, though they know well about Ramayana as they heard a lot about it. So why again some Christians, particularly from Tamilnadu are again and again attempting to “dig out” some messages from Hinduism to prove their theory that there were some “aadi (early) Christians” in Tamilnadu who were not influenced by the present Western Christians or Westernized (Indian) Christians but were “converted” by the (mythological) St. Thomas who came to India, particularly to Tamilnadu to preach “Christianity” and established Church(s) and was martyred.1 Such theory will make them to “make a living” with some project or agenda—again getting support from the West. If you ask who are these people from the West who are willing to support such projected in India? There are several sincere and serious evangelicals who are not happy with the current Westernized Indian Christians who oppose their “contextualization” effort to preach the “gospel” to Indians. So they need some proxies among Indian Christians who can do their war against the (westernized) Indian Christians to preach the “gospel” to Indians, particularly to the Hindus. For this they are willing to support such projects to those Indian Christians who feel uncomfortable to remain part of the Westernized Indian Christians, at the same time are not happy to call themselves as “Hindu bhaktas of the Lord”, but still want to retain their label as “Christians” now with the new adjective “aadi Christians”.
For this they need to dig out some messages from Hindu Scriptures and traditions to show that the current Saiva Siddhanta was nothing but the corrupt version of that (or their) “early Christianity” established by Thomas. And to reclaim their “right” over the Saiva Siddhanta they do everything that is possible to present so many distorted versions of Tamil Scriptures, particularly from Saiva Siddhanta and others like Siddhas. Already I wrote about it in my previous article (Text Torturing)
But such attempt is nothing but “synchronisms to make the match-ups and to integrate the separate national traditions into an overall history” (Trautmann, 2009, p. 43). Of course what Trautmann says about “overall history” here is the “The clash of Chronologies” which challenged the (early) biblical view of world history based on “Mosaic chronology” (p. 47). But we can take the clue and borrow Trautmann’s term of “match-ups” which some “aadi Tamil Christians” attempt to “integrate the separate national (or Tamil) traditions into an overall Christianity minus Westernized Indian Christianity. But Hindus have no issues or problem with such Western Christianity or Westernized Indian Christians, nor the Constitution, or the Right Wing politicians (even our present Home Minister Sri Amit Shah, who is ready to welcome and give citizenship to any persecuted Christians from the neighbouring (Islamic) countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan) or even for the liberals or for us “Hindu bhaktas of the Lord”.
We or I personally I am not against to that Western Christianity or Westernized Indian Christians. If these (Westernized) Indian Christians feel comfort in their church and tradition why it should trouble us? They have every right as human and also under constitution to practice any kind and form of Christian faith in which they feel comfort. If any “convert” is not comfortable with them, then they have to come out from them and create their own version of Christianity. But for this they need not distort the native traditions to make a “match-ups” by digging out some early Christianity based on some mythology or torturing the (Tamil Saiva Siddhanta) Scriptures or Hindu epics. What they are going to with such distorted messages? As I mentioned Hindus are not going to read it, Westernized Indian Christians also have no time for it. But by such attempts by these so called “aadi Tamil Christians” are making themselves as laughing stock before several sincere and serious religious scholars. Of course no serious and sincere scholars are going to read this kind of materials.
The present day Christianity in India is a Western import. Most of the Indians have no problem with it. We accept their right to follow any tradition that they like. Those “converts” who are not comfortable with it, should come out from them and accept their mistake and try to remain with their birth (social) IDENTITY as Hindus but having their personal choice to follow any kind of sadhana which suits for their spiritual life (or even moral and social life). For me the label “Christian” is the problem. You either remain a “Hindu and bhakta of the Lord” or become a “CONVERT” and join the (Westernized) Indian Church. But don’t try to create a “Hindu Christianity” (like Hindu Catholics).
But remaining as a “Hindu and bhakta of the Lord” is also not that much easy. Though the origin of the “Good News” is from the Near Eastern and more Asian than Western, still the present day Christianity—at least in India is a Western import. But we don’t have problem with it. As we are not part of that Christianity, we accept and respect their faith as it is. The Jewish origin of Muktinath and Muktiveda always going to remain as a challenge for every “Hindu bhakta of the Lord”. This is a reality. Let us accept it and live with it. As (our version of) Hinduism accommodates all kinds of faith expression not compromising with its core doctrine and theology at the same time give our birth right to keep our IDENTITY as Hindus we try to integrate our bhakti/faith with this “concession” which our Hindu Worldview allows. But in order to “dig out” some “match-ups” we won’t distort any Scripture and will try to accept them in their religious, social and cultural context. At the same time we won’t hesitate to claim our right over our Indian Scriptures, epics as part of our tradition to read and enjoy them and use some terms and forms which will help us to integrate our bhakti in the Lord not compromising our bhakti at the same time not distorting any Scripture.
For me the “good news” has its origin in Abrahamic faith. It has its own unique doctrines which cannot be easily “matched” with other religious worldviews (other than the religions of Books). Anyhow the same “Good News” can be allowed to INCARNATE in every culture and (religious) tradition, which is not that much an easy process. While borrowing or using Natives terms and forms we should be careful not to hurt the religious sentiments of the natives. At the same time when the same natives challenge or oppose us to use those terms and forms, we should humbly point out our birth right as we still remain part of our own tradition with the concession which it provides. But try to dig out some “match-ups” to create another version of Christianity at the cost of the professing (Indian) Christians is improper one. Though several Indian Christians also ignoring such attempts, still playing the devil’s advocate we have to point out the improbability in such attempt by these Tamil Christians.
In the notes I am going to quote one such early “match-ups” attempt by Sir William Jones, the pioneering Orientalist from Trautmaan.2 However I would like to quote what Bernard S. Cohn talks about the ambivalence and tension for many who has to live between two different traditions. Of course those “modern Indian Renaissances’” aim was to “purity” Hinduism to make to consonant with European ideas of rationality, empiricism, monotheism and individuality” 3 (Bernard S. Cohn, An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays, New Delhi, (1987), 2012, p.226). But the aim of the “early Tamil Christians” or “modern Tamil Christian Renaissances” is to “dig out” some “match-ups” to create their own Native Christianity.
From Cohn:
This ambivalence, this view of the modern Indian between (p. 226) East and West, becomes a central them in the Renaissance view of its own culture and comes down to the recent past in the writings of men like Jawaharlal Nehru:
I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere. Perhaps my thoughts and approach to life are more akin to what is called Western than Eastern, but India clings to me, as she does to all her children, in innumerable ways; and behind me lie, somewhere in the subconscious, racial memories of a hundred, or whatever the number may be, generations of Brahmans. I cannot get rid of either that past inheritance or my recent acquisitions. They are both part of me, and, though they help me in both the East and the West, they also create in me a feeling of spiritual loneliness not only in public activities but in life itself. I am a stranger and alien in the West. I cannot be of it. But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile’s feeling. {Jawaharlal Nehru, Towards Freedom, New York, 1941), p. 353}
This theme of ambivalence was put in even more stark and personal terms by Pratap Chandra Mazumdar, a leader of the Brahmo Samaj, a religious reform movement, in 1879, after he had heard Ramakrishna, a “traditional” rustic mystic and divine:
What is there common between him and me? I, a Europeanized, cilivlized, self-centred, semi-sceptical, so-called educated reasoned, and he, a poor, illiterate, shrunken, unpolished, diseased, half-idolatrous friendless Hindu devotee? I, who have listened to Disraeli and Fawcett, Stanley and Max Muller, and a whole host of European scholars and divines; I, who am an ardent disciple and follower of Christ, a friend and admirer of liberal-minded missionaries and preachers, a devoted adherent and worker of the rationalistic Brahmo Samaj—why should I be spellbound to her him?{As quoted in L. S. S. O’Malley, ;General Survey’, in L. S. S. O’Malley, ed., Modern India and the West (New York, 1941), p. 788}
The ambivalence was tied with a discovery or rediscovery of the past. This would seem to be almost necessary in terms of the ambivalence created by a view of the culture of the present as being one that the intellectuals could not fully accept since they had incorporated an European view into their own. Following our Bengal example, if the intellectuals accepted the European based view of their present, which emphasized the aberrations of the society and its religious system, then (p. 227) they would have to reject their own culture or be hypocrites. However, if they could find in their past a “golden age” and time when their own religion and society were superior, then they could argue that Indian civilization at a point in the past was the equal of Western society and that the rebirth inherent in the idea of a Renaissance was a rebirth of their own traditions and not only a borrowing from the West. It became imperative for nineteenth and twentieth century Indians to develop a knowledge of their own past, the form of which might be couched in Western historical terms but the intent of which was often to provide a rationale to counter the pressure of Western cultural imperialism.—Cohn, 22-228.
Regarding the comparison with Ramayana and Muktiveda, what is similar is not the question, but where we differ is the basic of every faith.4 If we began to compare the Scripture(s) of one faith with another, definitely we can find so many common themes, as the religious and spiritual need of human have some common resemblances. But what stands “unique” is the origin of “mission” by every faith to propagate it as the only authentic faith which might help everyone under the sun to meet their spiritual aspirations. Otherwise why one need to promote to follow any alien faith or Scripture(s) thinking or seeing that her own native faith or Scripture(s) miss something which now she found in it?
If Ramayana and Muktiveda teach the same spiritual and moral values why we Indians need Muktiveda anymore? If the Saiva Siddhanta was the corrupt version of “aadi Christianity” propagated by St. Thomas why it failed to continue its legacy and get lost which now these “Tamil Christian Renaissance” try to recover. Of course they have their own theory also for this. It was the “cunning (Tamil) Brahmins who corrupted the original and pure aadi Christianity preached by Thomas by creating Saiva Siddhanta”. To prove this they will go to any extent of doing “Text torturing”. This reminds me the famous story of Ezour Veidam controversy which the Roman Catholics created in the name of the lost Veda to show how the “original theism of the Veda had degenerated into polytheism”.5
It is worth to conclude this paper by quoting Clooney’s advice about reading any text without attempting “reductionism”:
Since wholeness of reading is intrinsic to its full argument about texts…. the selective, at least mildly reductionist contemporary reader may remain burdened with a fragmentary reception of the text and a slightly arbitrary set of arguments to be put forward.— From Anxiety to Bliss: Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Vedanta Reading of Taittiriya {Upanisad}2.1-6a, Francis X. Clooney, S. J. pp. 139-169 in Authority, Anxiety, and CANON: Essays in Vedic Interpretation. Ed. Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 156
And here is one such attempt of “reductionism” by few Christians. The following is my translation of the Tamil message of a comparison between Muktiveda and Ramayana which was sent to me. I gave my comments under few points to expose such shallow understanding of both Muktiveda and Ramayana which we need to avoid if we want remain honest to every Scriptures in our attempt in interpreting them. Considering the time involved in tracing all the references from Ramayana I am giving my comments based on my memory. I will stand corrected if I am proved wrong about my comments:
| You will be surprised to see the similarity between Ramayana and the Holy Bible. Bible: God and his bride the Holy Church lived happily in the garden of Eden. –There was no concept of church in Eden before fall. Even Adam was compared with the Lord and not with the church in Muktiveda–db Ramayana: God and Sita lived happily in the forest –No. Though they tried to live their best in the forest, still there was a subtle sadness in their life there. Lakshmana has to keep a constant vigil not even sleeping for a second to guard his brother and his wife from any dangers. In the story of Ramayana the role of Lakshmana is also very crucial. If Old Testament was compared with Hanuman who was Lakshmana then? Holy Spirit—who never departed the Lord? Bible: God drove away the Satan (from the garden) as he wanted to become equal to god. Ramayana: The devil Surpanaka wanted to live with God. Therefore god driven away her. Bible: Satan planned to separate the church, the bride of god from him which lived closely with god. Ramayana: The devil Suparnka planned to separate Sita from god who lived closely with god. Bible: Devil came in disguise the separate the church from god Ramayana: The devil came in disguise to separate Sita from god Bible: The church fell down because of the sin of the eyes Ramayana: Sita because of the lust of her eyes fell down in the sin of disobedience Bible: Church the bride of god, because of her fall, get trapped in Ten Commandments Ramayana: Sita who fell because of her sin get trapped in the trap of Ravana who has ten heads –What a comparison between the word ‘ten’?–db Bible: God went in search for his bride the church which was abducted because of sin. Ramayana: God went in search for Sita who fell and was imprisoned . Bible: The Old Testament (Hanuman) shows that other than god no one can save the church the bride of god Ramayana: None can save Sita other than god shows the defeat of Hanuman –No where Ramayana says that Hanuman was defeated. In fact he was successful in his Mission to find Sita and it was only Sita who refused to go with him carried by Hanuman on his shoulders as she wanted Rama to come and take her back in a proper way by defeating Ravana. Sita even says to Hanuman that if she likes she can destroy Ravana by the power of her chastity. But as it will defame her husband, she is willing to endure the ordeal at Ashoka vana for Rama to come and release her from Ravana. So Hanuman returns back to Rama with her message after setting fire in Sri Lanka. So his mission was accomplished successfully. –db Bible: All the good works were get defeated in the flesh Ramayana: Hanuman’s all efforts in his flesh were get defeated in the Kumbakarna the Demon –Where Ramayana says that Kumbakarna defeated Hanuman? He was still sleeping and was woken up only when the war started.–db Bible: God shed his blood, died and rose again in his endeavour of redeeming his bride the church Ramayana: God by shedding blood, dying and rose again in his effort to redeem his wife Sita –Where Ramayana says that Rama ever died in the war or shed his blood? It was only Lakshmana and others fainted because of the Brahmastra launched by Indrajit. Only Rama laments seeing the condition of his brother. Finally Hanuman brings the Herbal Mountain (Sanjeevparvad) to revive Lakshmana and others. What Muktiveda claims about shedding of blood by the Lord, his death and resurrection cannot be compared with any blood shed by Rama in a combat in a war, however I don’t remember any such incident recorded in Ramayana. –db Bible: God, after resurrection delivered his wife the church from Ten Commandments which is mere Law. |
Ramayana: After resurrection (god) delivered Sita from the Ten headed Ravana
–what a comparison about the resurrection of the Lord and the way Rama rescued Sita from Ravana? Did this Tamil Christians have any understanding about “resurrection” which Muktiveda talks?–db
But the real high light of Ramayana is the post-Ayodhya events in which Rama abandons Sita in order to protect his honour and dharma as the king because of the rumour. He banishes Sita to the forest. Though this is not part of original Ramayana, still this story is found in various other Ramayanas (there exists several Ramayanas in India. See ‘Many Ramayanas’6). Why this important event is neglected in this comparison? So can we say that finally god also will abandon his bride the church in the new heaven and new earth?
These kinds of comparison only make Hindus to laugh at such attempts by few overzealous Christians in their attempt to contextualize the gospel. And we wonder “What to do” with such comparisons, except writing such rebuttal to expose them.
Notes
1.. India’s St. Thomases In 4 Tombs. T. K. Joseph, Chengannur, S. W. India. Pp. 178-185, in Professor P. K. Gode Commemoration volume, ed. Dr. H. L. Hariyappa and Dr. M. M. Patkar, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1960.
From about this time, ca. 400, we find writers mentioning as St. Thomas’s fields of work almost all the countries from Nubia to China, nay even Brazil, Germany and Japan. South India is found only in this augumented list, and that not before Marco Polo (1288-93), explicitly. Even the West Asian neighbour, Bishop Bar-Hebraeus (1226-86) the historian, does not mention South India, or any part of it, or the Brahmin priest, or the seashore tomb, but stands by murder on a mountain mentioned in The Acts of ca. 210, and therefore burial also on that mountain.—p. 182
It will be evident from the foregoing sections that:
(i)The earliest documents describe St Thomas the Apostle as a Christian martyr, slain with spears or lances on a mountain and buried on that mountain itself, whereas South India’s Thomas was from Marco Polo to Diogo (1288 to 1517) a Pariah-arrow killed non-martyr claimed by Muslims in Polo’s days as “a Saracen saint of their own”, and buried on the seashore.
(ii)After 15167 South India deliberately transformed its non-martyr into a martyr, and that a martyr killed in several ways, although only priest-lance-martyrdom is retained now.
(iii)Since what is admittedly real St Thomas’s skull, certified as entire, with “no part missing” has been at Ortona since 1258 from India, the skull bones found in two Mylapore tombs in 1522 and 1523 cannot be really his.
(iv)The tradition embodied in Travancore Syrian Catholica St Thomas Song “of A.D. 1601”, and in its alleged original, the contemporary St Thomas History of the first century, has not yet been proved to be genuine or authentic, or of the dates assigned to them.
Rev. Fr. H. HERAS, S.J., Director of the Bombay Historical Research Institute, says in his letter to me, dated 6th February 1953 thus: “About the tomb” (of St. Thomas, the martyr) “I am fully convinced that it has never been in Mylapore. I have stated that many times.”
Prof. LATOURETTEE, of Yale University, U.S.A., reputed church historian, says in his letter to me dated 18th October 1952 that the evidence against South India’s St. Thomases in three toms, given in my pamphlet of 22-7-1952 (sent to him, H. H. The Pope, and others) “is very convincing.”
In 1927 Dr. Sylvain LEVI, of Paris, and Dr. Jarl CHARPENTIER, of Upsala, wrote to me that all evidence is against South India. Their opinion was published that year. (Most of the details in this article are also in my book Six St. Thomas, May, 1955).—p. 185
2.. {Sir William} Jones finds the match-up he needs in the Hindu doctrine of the 10 avatars, or “descents,” of Vishnu, in which he finds the Indian flood narrative….The first three of the 10 avatars of Vishnu are especially concerned with stories of worldwide flood: the Fish, the Tortoise, and the Boar. The Fish incarnation in particular seems ready-made for identification with the biblical Flood, carrying Manu (the first human), his family, and the seven sages (rishis) in a ship (the Ark of Noah!) fastened to a horn on his head. Jones identifies Manu with Noah (distinguishing this Manu from an earlier one, the progenitor of the human race, whom he identifies with adam) and he and the seven sages with the eight humans aboard the Ark in the Bible story (Noah, his three sons, and the four wives) from who the entire human race has since been propagated.+ Jones further identifies the fourth avatar of Vishnu, Narasimha, with the biblical Nimroad, descendent of Ham; and Bali, the demon who was overcome by the fifth avatar, the Dwarf, withthe biblical Bel. The seventh incarnation, King Rama of Ayodhya, Jones identifies with the biblical Raamah, also in the line of Ham. With him begins “civil government” in India, or, as we would say, civilization. The Buddha ushers in the Kali age, and the king lists of historic figures such as Chandragupta Maurya follow thereafter. The four yugas are squeezed into the Ussherite chronology, putting the Creation at 4004 BC, rejecting the traditional figures for them, or the traditional dating of the beginning of the Kali (3102 BC). In outline, Jone’s Mosaic reading of Indian chronology may be represented as follows.
Adam Manu I Krita yuga
Noah Manu II
The Flood Fish, Tortoise, and Boar avatars
Nimrod Narasimha Treta yuga
Bel Bali (p.44)
Raamah King Rama Dvapara yuga
The Buddha Kali yuga—pp. 44-45
–Thomas R. Trautmann, The Clash of Chronologies: Ancient India in the Modern World, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2002, pp. 44-45
+ Manu was also the name given to fourteen mythological progenitors of mankind, rulers or earth, each of whom holds power for the period called a manvantara (Manu-antara), a period of 4,320,000 years or 3067,200,000 years. Because Manu Vaivasvata is the Manu of the present age, the seventh, when the brahmanas recorded the ritual of the Asvamedha, they believed that the universe had existed in some form for over 25,920,000 years (ff Macdonald and Dowson) or 18,403,200,000 years (ff Zimmer) having gone through six periods of evolution and involution, of creation and destruction. The previous period of destruction had been caused by a great flood but Manu Vaivasvata had survived that flood to become the progenitor of the human race in the seventh age. The legend of the flood was recorded in the Satapatha brahmana (I,8.1.1-6)— Naama Druby, The Sacrificial Ritual in the Satapatha Brahmana, Mothilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1981. pp.45-46.
3.. A third theme related to the need to “purity” Hinduism was to make it consonant with European ideas of rationality, empiricism, monotheism and individuality. Many Bengalis by the middle of the nineteenth century saw the development of ambivalence, that they couldn’t totally integrate a purified Hinduism with Western rationality. On the one hand this led to what was perceived as hypocrisy—or as one writer put it—“There are those who believe one way and practice in another, who celebrate the puja in the morning and dine of veal cutlet and sausage in the evening.” {Kishori Chand Mitter as quoted in Lokanath Ghose, The Modern History of Chiefs, Rajas, Zamindars of Bengal (Calcutta, 1881), part I, p. 112)—Cohn, op. Cit. P. 226
4.. …Throughout their history the several Vedanta schools defended the cognitive and moral claims of the Upanisads, argued for their own interpretation of those claims, and did not hesitate to state that divergent interpretations were in fact wrong—examples of inept reading or ill will.—p. From Anxiety to Bliss: Argument, Care, and Responsibility in the Vedanta Reading of Taittiriya {Upanisad}2.1-6a, Francis X. Clooney, S. J. pp. 139-169, in, Authority, Anxiety, and CANON: Essays in Vedic Interpretation. Ed. Laurie L. Patton, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1994. p. 139
5 What the Ezour Veidam actually was is less significant than the use to which it was put during the Enlightenment. The Veda (in the form of the Ezour Veidam) allowed Voltaire% and {Baron de} Sainte Croix {the editor of the Ezoru Veidam} to draw a distinction between what was Vedic and post-Vedic, the later being a degenerate form of the former. Just as scripture had degenerated, so had its interpreters. A considerable portion of this early discourse surrounding the “Veda” consisted in diatribes directed against the Brahmin elite who did not instruct their people, did not themselves desire instructions, {Voltaire, Francois-Marie Arouet de, Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations. 2 vols. Paris: Garnier Freres , 1: 243-44} were mendacious and generally corrupt. Even Diderot [Denis] (under the rubric vedam) joined in such Brahmin-bashing when he asserted that the fourth Veda had been lost for a long time, to the regret of Brahmins who would have gained tremendous power had it still existed. Diderot further noted that the Vedas were held in such great respect by Brahmins that they did not wish to share copies of them with anyone, especially the Jesuits who had made great efforts to obtain them.
The polemic directed against the Brahmin clergy, engendered by the quest for the lost Veda, was inscribed within the narrative structure of the Ezour Veidam itself. That the degenerated Brahmins possessed neither their fathers’ virtues nor their knowledge is clearly articulated in the character of Biache who preaches superstition. The philosopher Chumontou rejects popular theology imparted to him by Biache. The philosopher then imparts pure wisdom and supports his teaching with Vedic citations concerning the unity of God, creation, the nature of the soul, the doctrine of suffering and reward, and the proper forms of worship.{ Rocher, Ludo, Ezourvedam: A French Veda of the 18th Century. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Bengamins, 1984, 150} The text of the Ezour Veidam, we are told by its editor, thus emphasizes how the original theism of the Veda had degenerated into polytheism.{ibid. 13}—p. 205
% The Ezour Veidam supplied Voltaire with the tolls to launch his attack. Its editor supported the contention that theism had degenerated into polytheism. The Ezour Veidam’s speculation concerning the origin of world civilization concluded with the judgment that the Indian Aryans taught the Hebrews their religion. The aim of this argument, given the Ezour Veidam’s role as a work of Catholic propaganda, is clear. In arguing the anteriority of the Indians, Voltaire questioned the authority of the Bible and in doing so contributed to the growth of historiography. Hidden behind Voltaire’s ponderous polemic lie the seeds of the modern study of comparative mythology and history of religions. Voltaire tried not to depend on secondary sources and sought his documentation in a genuine text. In each case, he was deceived. He sought European accounts he felt were exempt from prejudice, only to fall prey to glaring discrimination.31 He read those Europeans who purported to know Sanskrit but actually knew none, or had spent sufficient time in India yet were woefully ignorant of the culture.32 With such source material, Voltaire initiated the comparative study of religions by seeking to show how we owe our rituals to the Indians.33—p. 206
31. By avoiding the prejudice perpetrated by the Jesuits, he fell prey to documentation slanted by Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric, as in the case of La Croze and Niecamp.—p. 225
32. Dow and Howell knew no Sanskrit and Anquetil Duperron was surprisingly duped by the Ezour Veidam.—p. 225
33. The Ezour Veidam speaks of baptism, the immortality of the soul, metempsychosis, the identity of Abraham with Brahm (sic), and of Adam and Eve with Adimo and Procriti. The description of the creation of angels found in Holwell’s Shasta prefigures the biblical accout of Lucifer.—p.225 {Holwell, John Zephaniah, 1766. Interesting historical events relative to the Provinces of Bengal and the Empire of Indostan….As also the Mythology and Cosmogony, Fasts and Festivals of the Gentoos, followers of the Shastah, and a Dissertation on the Metamorphosis, commonly through erroneously called the Pythagorean doctrine, London: n. P.}
| 6.. Paula Richman, ed. Many Ramayanas The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia,UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford. © 1991 The Regents of the University of California. | ||
| *இராமாயணத்திற்கும் பரிசுத்த வேதத்திற்கும் உள்ள ஒற்றுமையை பாருங்க்கள். ஆச்சரியப் படுவீர்கள்! *பைபிள்:* தேவனும் அவருடைய திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியும் ஏதேன் தோட்டத்தில் சந்தோஷமாக வாழ்ந்து வந்தார்கள். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளும் சீதையும் ஒரு காட்டில் சந்தோஷமாக வாழ்ந்து வந்தார்கள். *பைபிள்:* சாத்தான் தேவனுக்கு நிகராக வரவேண்டும் என்று எண்ணம் கொண்டதினால் தேவன் அவனை விரட்டிவிட்டார். *இராமாயணம்:* சூர்பனகை என்ற பிசாசு கடவுயோடு இணைந்து வாழ வேண்டும் என்று எண்ணியது. கடவுள் சூர்பனகையை விரட்டியடித்தார். *பைபிள்:* கடவுளோடு நெருக்கமாக இருந்த அவருடைய மனைவியாகிய திருச்சபையை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க சாத்தான் திட்டம் தீட்டினான். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளோடு நெருக்கமாக இருந்த சீதையை பிரிக்க சூர்பனகை என்ற பிசாசு திட்டம் தீட்டியது. *பைபிள்:* திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க மாறுவேடத்தில் பிசாசு வந்தான். *இராமாயணம்:* சீதை கடவுளிடமிருந்து பிரிக்க மாறுவேடத்தில் பிசாசு வந்தான். *பைபிள்:* திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவி கண்களின் இச்சையினால் கீழ்படியாமை என்னும் பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்தாள். *இராமாயணம்:* சீதை கண்களின் இச்சையினால் கீழ்படியாமை என்னும் பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்தாள். *பைபிள்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்த கடவுளின் மனைவியாகிய திருச்சபை பத்துக் கட்டளையை மையமாகக் கொண்ட நியாயப்பிரமாணத்தின் பிடியில் சிக்கினாள். *இராமாயணம்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்த சீதை பத்துத் தலைக் கொண்ட இராவணனின் பிடியில் சிக்கினாள். *பைபிள்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்து சிறைப்பட்டுப்போன மனைவியாகி திருச்சபையை தேடி கடவுள் புறப்பட்டார். *இராமாயணம்:* பாவத்தில் வீழ்ந்து சிறைப்பட்டுப்போன சீதையை தேடி கடவுள் புறப்பட்டார். *பைபிள்:* கடவுளைத் தவிர வேறுயாரும் திருச்சபையாகிய மனைவியை ஒருபோதும் இரட்சிக்க முடியாது என்பதை காட்டுவதுதான் பழைய ஏற்பாடு(அனுமான்). *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுளைத்தவிர வேறுயாரும் சீதையை இரட்சிக்க முடியாது என்பதை காட்டுவதுதான் அனுமானின் தோல்வி. *பைபிள்:* நற்கிரியைகள் எல்லாம் மாம்சத்திடம் தோல்வியடைந்தது. *இராமாயணம்:* அனுமானின் கிரியைகள் எல்லாம் மாம்ச பூதமாகிய கும்பகர்ணனிடம் தோல்வியடைந்தது. *பைபிள்:* கடவுள் திருச்சபையாகிய தன் மனைவியை மீட்கும் போராட்டத்தில் இரத்தம் சிந்தி, மரித்து உயிர்தெழுந்தார். *இராமாயணம்:* கடவுள் தன் மனைவியாகிய சீதையை மீட்கும் போராட்டத்தில் இரத்தம் சிந்தி, மரித்து, உயிர்த்தெழுந்தார். *பைபிள்:* உயிர்த்தெழுந்த பிறகு திருச்சபையாகிய அவருடைய மனைவி பத்துக் கட்டளையை மையமாகக் கொண்ட நியாயப்பிரமாணத்திடமிருந்து விடுதலைச் செய்தார். *இராமாயணம்:* உயிர்தெழுந்த பிறகு சீதையை பத்துக் தலைக்கொண்ட இராவணனிடமிருந்து விடுதலைச் செய்தார். |
@@@
With Dag: From my diary of September 21, 1998.
In all my talk with Dag’s contacts though I didn’t share the gospel directly, whenever opportunity comes I used to talk about my faith in Christ and from the bible also. Dag and Lone have a good understanding of their call and limitations also. Both of them almost agree with me in my principle. Being here with a tourist visa, they too are very careful about their dealing with others. Dag told me, “In the past as several attempts have failed to reach the high caste people, we want to try other approach. As we want to reach only the targeted group we keep away from traditional Christians, Muslims and other low caste people. Likewise we know that God has sent us to prepare only a ground and build a bridge. As we cannot set a model for this Kumani people, people like you alone can reach them and our role is to prepare the ground for it my making friendship with them.”
One good example of Lone-Dag about their role is that Dag even took his Brahmin neighbour to a Hindu temple as he promised to take them there after he buy a car. “Others won’t agree with this. But I know that taking to their temple won’t keep them away from Jesus.” I too said that we need not worry about what other Christians say about us. “Let a person accept or deny Christ only with an understanding about salvation. Till then we should not only condemn their faith but also should respect it. If a person refuse to follow Christ even after some understanding, we should still respect his freedom of choice. We can pray for him, but we should not condemn him.”
@@@
Dear Swami ji,
I have been thinking a lot about things and had to bounce some things off you regarding work and ask some questions.
My first question is in a land like India in which there is dharmic way for EVERYTHING in life except faith where it seems everyone is free, is it right to say that one can bind followers of Christ with dharmic rules? I think i understand you to believe that nothing of dharma matters at all in Christ, so therefore why not follow all the dharma rules so as to reach our brethren more smoothly. AM i right to understand that this is why you are following so many dharmic rules? Or do you actually feel that the dharmic rules are biblical. let me give a most practical example from the wedding. AT the haldi lagana, clearly you were not in favour of muktanand joining in that because of the fact that Hindus do not believe it is auspicious for a swami to take part in such a function. Yet he did so freely of his own accord because of our friendship and his desire to take part and bless me in that way. I know that you , in your wisdom, as his guru, gave him the freedom to make his own decision in this. But i want to know more about this in your view. Should we show our freedom in Christ by binding ourselves to all the rules of dharmic life or should we show our freedom in christ by always being ready to make exception to the rules where love and the Holy Spirit prompt us to do so.
I would treasure your thoughts on this issue as it has been on my mind. The reason being, that I as a mix of cultures and dharmas, mostly western as far as obligation is concerned and therefore mostly free to do as I please, found it much easier to say to you, “we want to have things this and this way.” I understood from you that because we are foreigner christians and not hindus that you were willing to let that be the case and so you gave us a lot of freedom to adjust things in our wedding. I remember one of those things was the whole section on giving advice to the groom. You had mentioned and I think Rick that it was something utterly not done in the actual service but because we wanted it you were doing it. But in the end, it was one of the most precious times of the wedding in terms of intimate contact of my elders with me in advice giving.
My question is, will Christ-bhaktas from Hindu background be encouraged to utilize similar freedom to alter dharmic rules according to Lord’s guidance or will they be compelled to follow them because “that is how things have always been done”
What do you think?
Once again, how can I express how glad sarah and I are that you guided those who conducted our wedding service., It has been a source of continual joy as we have looked at pictures and video. At the moment we do not own a DVD of this production to give you but as soon as Sebi or Hemendra have something ready we will be sure to get you a copy,
much love,
Chris
do you actually feel that the dharmic rules are biblical.—Chris
To answer to this question one has to understand what does it mean ‘dharmic’? As the word ‘dharma’ has various meanings which changes according to the context, we cannot claim that ‘dharmic’ is strictly biblical. At the same time the bible does not hesitate to give so many dharmic rules for us to follow. Limiting myself to your question, ‘Should we show our freedom in Christ by binding ourselves to all the rules of dharmic life or should we show our freedom in Christ by always being ready to make exception to the rules where love and the Holy Spirit prompt us to do so’, let me take your own example of ‘haldi lagana’.
In Christ we are free to the (man made—sorry Sarah, I cannot say ‘woman made’) Laws but at the same time we are not free to do anything in the name of that freedom. Read I Cor. 9. I objected to come and take part in that ‘haldi’ programme because of the presence of those young Hindu friends of Muktanand. Even I asked one of them, ‘is it possible (permissible) for a Sannyasi to apply haldi on the bride groom’ and he said ‘no’. As a friend, Mukta has every right to participate in that joyous function, yet as a Sannyasi, he has to accept certain limitation because of the vocation which he voluntarily chose. Even if he cannot keep away, in stead of touching you and applying the ‘haldi’, he could have done it different way, by sprinkling the haldi water on you and finally throwing some haldi rice and bless you. However as I respect his individuality and freedom in Christ I even didn’t suggested those things as I don’t want to give some dos and don’t for him to follow as a Sannyasi.
It is important to note that though I refuse to touch you on the previous evening, yet on the morning of your wedding day, I am the first person to give you a BIG HUG as only your two friends and Mukta was there. It is worst considering that I who refused to touch you the previous evening was ready to give you a big hug! Here you may ask, ‘so one can break one’s won principles according to convenience’? But here breaking the rules is not a violation to the principle but only an accommodation to the human weakness. It is like divorce—which is not permitted by God is allowed by the Law as a concession to human (huwoman?) weakness. At the same time I have to accept that this permission versus prohibition is a big subject and each scripture and society debate in a different way (Mahabharata is the best book on this subject).
But the context changes when the same rules is imposed on a Christ bhaktas because of tradition, which she (I have decided to give up he and him as much as possible—not to please Sarah, but to accommodate the woman’s demand of using both he and she. We man are ready to give up even our right to mention ‘he’ and so the change.) cannot choose on her own choice (as that of Mukta’s choice to become a Sannyasi). There we can think about the freedom that she has in Christ to break certain dharmic rules. But what is allowed for a common (lay) person is not allowed for those who have taken certain conscience decision (and also vow) to give up certain rights. Let me take another example. You know Kannan and Saradha (whom you met at Lucknow and also at Agra). He persuaded me several times to get married, even though he knew that I choose to live ‘Single’. So finally when he continued the topic I asked him to talk about this to Prasad, my shishya. Prasad said, ‘No chance! I cannot think of my guruji get married! What others will think about it?’ His concern is not merely the mocks and jokes which he and others have to face from their family and relatives once I got married. But the Hindu dharmic rule is that once you took a vow not to marry and became a Sannyasi, if you get married then you are not only breaking your vow, but any child born after that will become ‘chandalas’ (out caste). So I am free, yet I cannot use that freedom.
When I refuse to participate in the ‘haldi’ programme, I broke the same ‘dharmic rule’ by conducting the marriage of course in proxy. This I have done because of my love for you. Till the last day I don’t want to conduct it but sit in a corner. But as I felt that Narendrar is not picking up what I expected from him. Then I realized that without much prior experience, he cannot make it a joyful event. So I decided to break the ‘dharmic rule’ for the sake of you and Sarah and conducted the marriage. I could have asked Mukta to be the MC. But in the eleventh hour with all the work he has to do and the way he became tired already, I know that I cannot prepare him also for that role. So I broke the rule just for the sake of Sarah and You. This I have done in two other occasions also in recent time. In April end I conducted one house warming ceremony and also conducted a pre-marriage ritual for a bhaktas. As the person whom I arranged to conduct couldn’t come because of election duty, I had to do it. So I never keep any rigid law—particularly when it comes to others need. But when it comes to my own values, I have to say a big ‘NO’ to certain things, as it will or may send some wrong message to others.
The freedom that I gave you ‘to adjust things in’ your wedding is another example. That evening the elderly lady (your Varanasi friend’s mother or grand mother) came to me and said in Hindi ‘aap sab kuch vidivat karaaya bahut badiya lagaa’ (you have done everything according to the rule/tradition and it was very nice). But I have broken certain rules in order to accommodate Sarah’s sentiment (which is very difficult on my part to yielding to the demand of a woman). But Hindus never take even the dharmic rule to its strict implementation but only to the spirit and not the ritual.
Though you enjoyed all the counsel given by the elders, I never expected that they all would take that much time to share! Particularly I was amazed by the time the men took to give you counsel to wives (whom I think talked less first time in their life that too to a man and before their husbands)! May be the men got the first opportunity to talk boldly or warn you before their wives about the consequence of marriage without being interfered or threatened. May be they knew that it is the only place where their wife’s won’t interfere while they talk, because,’ The woman who interrupts very often when a man speaks is either a married or a spinster’. Any how as you enjoyed it, I too enjoyed it and used that time to request to Fr. Anil Dev to lead us in some bhajans. So, all went well as you prayed, in spite of my rigidity on certain things.
Finally to your question: ‘will Christ-bhaktas from Hindu background be encouraged to utilize similar freedom to alter dharmic rules according to Lord’s guidance or will they be compelled to follow them because “that is how things have always been done”’, my response is the dharmic rules both in the bible and Hindu civilization is rigid as PRINCIPLES but flexible in PRACTICE.
Dayanand
Mathigiri, June 3, 2004.
Would you give your permission for me to share your question and my response to our group discussion in e-bhaktas?
Dear Swami ji
Forgive my late reply to your incredible answer to my email. I wrote that email in between weddings! (another dharmic rule broken?) and then got busy with the second wedding which was very much western affair,. INTerestingly because i was more involved in arranging and working out practical details of the Indian wedding i found it more difficult to be emotionally involved, but sarah on the other hand cried a lot during the wedding in india., But here in canada while she was in charge of most of the practical arrangements and i was more relaxed it was my turn to cry during the ceremony.
Any way, thank you so much for this email, You cannot imagine how much it has helped me and assured me of things that were no doubt confusing me,. You have explained it very clearly and i am in no doubt on this matter for the present.
Thank you for your love Swami ji. YOu have shown with it deeply and we are forever grateful.
Love
chris and sarah (we kept laughing at all your interjections of feminist language which by the way is not at all an issue for sarah as she is an artist and fully understands that language cannot always accomodate equality or it may be at the expense of artistic phrasing and poetry)
Yes go ahead and share my question and your response,
meanwhile let me ask another question.
You will understand that my pilgrimage into a deeper affinityh with the Christ bhakta friends of mine in Varanasi, which began with your visits to Lucknow many years ago, has been very slow in coming. I stuck to bhajans and bhajans alone and was fairly unwilling to participate in other things unless they made sense musically to me! What strange priorities! I am an artist more than a thinker and evaluator.
But since I am not only an artist but also my life is seen by many in the public arena all over the world, I certainly need to have reasons for any decision i make,
here is the most practical question i am facing at the moment in my ministry. On one side i am being requested to consider singing more songs from the general repertoire known by most hindus such as Om jaya jagdish, and Guyatri mantra. I have resisted doing so as much as possible up to this point because the key to my bhakti is that my heart is clear and that my focus is always Yeshu and because I did not grow up with these songs and words there is not the emotional connection in myself while singing, and also I have a hard time realizing what it is I am singing because the words are mostly or all sanskrit. So if I sing it publicly it is for the sake of some in the Audience, and i am uncomfortable with this approach because people are always telling me, “we see that YOU are worshipping and so we are led into worship” If I change this attitude and begin to sing what I am asked to sing for popularity sake or for any other reason besides my own desire to draw nearer to my Lord, will i not lose this blessing as well as this response to those who worship with me, that they “see that I am worshipping and so are drawn to worship also”
That is the first thing,
The second thing is specifically on the Gayatri mantra. i am seeking a translation but so far could find it,
i realize Om bhur bhuva svaha is an incantation to the earth, sky and water (am I right? ) basically all the creation? And that Tat Savitur is praise to the Sun? but then the last line I do not understand. I realize that when Hindus sing or listen to it, they are not worried what is the meaning as such because they simply believe, “this is powerful scripture which can bring blessing, I believe this by faith and so I chant it, and I don’t need to know the specific meaning” But i don’t believe that mindless repetition or that even a mindful repetition of something which calms my spirit through continuous repetition is the thing for me to do as a Christ bhakta. For me, if I meditate or chant something over and over again, it should be something from his lips, or from inspired Scripture in the Bible, or if it is from some other source other than bible it should have clear unity with the Bible medition approach., Personally i am concerned about the worship in this mantra, although it is not to any particular God it seems.. Can you help on this point.
Finally, i have heard from someone who is not part of Christ bhaktas that Hanuman chalisa is also used by a Christ bhakta. I do not know if this is true, but it is hard for me to imagine that this is true, and if it is true is this something you would encourage? i do not know what is in the hanuman chalisa, or whether perhaps it is sung with some words substituted, but it concerns me and I thought i would ask you,
with love,
Chris
—– Original Message —–
From: Dayanand Bharati
To: chris hale
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: thanks
Thanks for your response. The following is only a joke:
Shara wept on the day of your marriage seeing your laugh by thinking, ‘this boy is laughing without knowing the reality of the marriage.’ So out of pity she wept for you. Now in your western marriage you wept not with emotion but realizing the burden of marriage and in her turn she laughed as she saw how she predicted correctly about your laugh at your marriage in Varanasi.
Can I share your question and my response with some of my friends?
God bless your life and waiting eagerly to hear the happy news.
db
—– Original Message —–
From: chris hale
To: Dayanand Bharati
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: thanks
Dayanand
Mathigiri, June 3, 2004.
Would you give your permission for me to share your question and my response to our group discussion in e-bhaktas?
Yes go ahead and share my question and your response,
meanwhile let me ask another question.
You will understand that my pilgrimage into a deeper affinityh with the Christ bhakta friends of mine in Varanasi, which began with your visits to Lucknow many years ago, has been very slow in coming. I stuck to bhajans and bhajans alone and was fairly unwilling to participate in other things unless they made sense musically to me! What strange priorities! I am an artist more than a thinker and evaluator.
But since I am not only an artist but also my life is seen by many in the public arena all over the world, I certainly need to have reasons for any decision i make,
here is the most practical question i am facing at the moment in my ministry. On one side i am being requested to consider singing more songs from the general repertoire known by most hindus such as Om jaya jagdish, and Guyatri mantra. I have resisted doing so as much as possible up to this point because the key to my bhakti is that my heart is clear and that my focus is always Yeshu and because I did not grow up with these songs and words there is not the emotional connection in myself while singing, and also I have a hard time realizing what it is I am singing because the words are mostly or all sanskrit. So if I sing it publicly it is for the sake of some in the Audience, and i am uncomfortable with this approach because people are always telling me, “we see that YOU are worshipping and so we are led into worship” If I change this attitude and begin to sing what I am asked to sing for popularity sake or for any other reason besides my own desire to draw nearer to my Lord, will i not lose this blessing as well as this response to those who worship with me, that they “see that I am worshipping and so are drawn to worship also”
That is the first thing,
The second thing is specifically on the Gayatri mantra. i am seeking a translation but so far could find it,
i realize Om bhur bhuva svaha is an incantation to the earth, sky and water (am I right? ) basically all the creation? And that Tat Savitur is praise to the Sun? but then the last line I do not understand. I realize that when Hindus sing or listen to it, they are not worried what is the meaning as such because they simply believe, “this is powerful scripture which can bring blessing, I believe this by faith and so I chant it, and I don’t need to know the specific meaning” But i don’t believe that mindless repetition or that even a mindful repetition of something which calms my spirit through continuous repetition is the thing for me to do as a Christ bhakta. For me, if I meditate or chant something over and over again, it should be something from his lips, or from inspired Scripture in the Bible, or if it is from some other source other than bible it should have clear unity with the Bible medition approach., Personally i am concerned about the worship in this mantra, although it is not to any particular God it seems.. Can you help on this point.
Finally, i have heard from someone who is not part of Christ bhaktas that Hanuman chalisa is also used by a Christ bhakta. I do not know if this is true, but it is hard for me to imagine that this is true, and if it is true is this something you would encourage? i do not know what is in the hanuman chalisa, or whether perhaps it is sung with some words substituted, but it concerns me and I thought i would ask you,
with love,
Chris
—– Original Message —–
From: Dayanand Bharati
To: chris hale
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: thanks
Thanks for your response. The following is only a joke:
Shara wept on the day of your marriage seeing your laugh by thinking, ‘this boy is laughing without knowing the reality of the marriage.’ So out of pity she wept for you. Now in your western marriage you wept not with emotion but realizing the burden of marriage and in her turn she laughed as she saw how she predicted correctly about your laugh at your marriage in Varanasi.
Can I share your question and my response with some of my friends?
God bless your life and waiting eagerly to hear the happy news.
db let me ask another question
You will understand that my pilgrimage into a deeper affinityh with the Christ bhakta friends of mine in Varanasi, which began with your visits to Lucknow many years ago, has been very slow in coming. I stuck to bhajans and bhajans alone and was fairly unwilling to participate in other things unless they made sense musically to me! What strange priorities! I am an artist more than a thinker and evaluator.
But since I am not only an artist but also my life is seen by many in the public arena all over the world, I certainly need to have reasons for any decision i make,
here is the most practical question i am facing at the moment in my ministry. On one side i am being requested to consider singing more songs from the general repertoire known by most hindus such as Om jaya jagdish, and Guyatri mantra. I have resisted doing so as much as possible up to this point because the key to my bhakti is that my heart is clear and that my focus is always Yeshu and because I did not grow up with these songs and words there is not the emotional connection in myself while singing, and also I have a hard time realizing what it is I am singing because the words are mostly or all sanskrit. So if I sing it publicly it is for the sake of some in the Audience, and i am uncomfortable with this approach because people are always telling me, “we see that YOU are worshipping and so we are led into worship” If I change this attitude and begin to sing what I am asked to sing for popularity sake or for any other reason besides my own desire to draw nearer to my Lord, will i not lose this blessing as well as this response to those who worship with me, that they “see that I am worshipping and so are drawn to worship also”
That is the first thing,
The second thing is specifically on the Gayatri mantra. i am seeking a translation but so far could find it,
i realize Om bhur bhuva svaha is an incantation to the earth, sky and water (am I right? ) basically all the creation? And that Tat Savitur is praise to the Sun? but then the last line I do not understand. I realize that when Hindus sing or listen to it, they are not worried what is the meaning as such because they simply believe, “this is powerful scripture which can bring blessing, I believe this by faith and so I chant it, and I don’t need to know the specific meaning” But i don’t believe that mindless repetition or that even a mindful repetition of something which calms my spirit through continuous repetition is the thing for me to do as a Christ bhakta. For me, if I meditate or chant something over and over again, it should be something from his lips, or from inspired Scripture in the Bible, or if it is from some other source other than bible it should have clear unity with the Bible medition approach., Personally i am concerned about the worship in this mantra, although it is not to any particular God it seems.. Can you help on this point.
Finally, i have heard from someone who is not part of Christ bhaktas that Hanuman chalisa is also used by a Christ bhakta. I do not know if this is true, but it is hard for me to imagine that this is true, and if it is true is this something you would encourage? i do not know what is in the hanuman chalisa, or whether perhaps it is sung with some words substituted, but it concerns me and I thought i would ask you,
with love,
Chris
Dear Chris,
Shanti!
Let me begin with your last question: I don’t know which Christ bhaktas are using Hanuman chalisa. But no one in our group use it. However Talwarji produced one ‘Christ Chalisa’, using all the New Testament verses and prayers. Some one might be confused with the ‘Christ Chalisa’ with ‘Hanuman Chalisa’. Still Christ Chalisa was distributed by OM (Lucknow) and I don’t have even one copy with me.
Regarding Gayatri the following are some points which I have in my file:
Gayatri: It literally means ‘we contemplate that esteemed [longed for] refulgence [glory] of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects [or actions]’ [p.302]…Why the Gayatri verse [Rg.III.62.10] came to be famous it is difficult to say. Its fame was probably due to its grand simplicity and to its adaptability to an idealistic conception of the world as emanating from an all-pervading Intelligence…- P.V.Kane. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. II. Part.I. Ch. VII. Upanayana and the Gayatri. pp. 302-303.
The word Gaayatrii means that which saves the reciter from downfall….— ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes, Vidyesvarasamhitaa, 15:16, p.93
According to one school of Siva-cult, the sixteen-syllabled formula known as Sivagaayatrii is the following:vaamadevaaya dhimihii dhiyo yo n pracodayaat–ibid. notes 140, 1304
After thinking thus the intelligent devotee shall perform the Japa of Gayatri the primordial goddess comprising three metrical feet. She is unborn and the bestower of brahminhood.—ibid. KAILASAASAMHITAA, 13:57, p.1728
The gayatri mantra (Rig. III.62.10) is recited by Brahmins as a part of their everyday sandhyavandanam worship, and is directed to the Sun. Originally it is a Vedic metre (gayatra) of Samaveda along with rathantara metre. This mantra literally means, “we contemplate that esteemed (longed for) refulgence (glory) of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects (or actions)”. However, later a separate goddess “Gayatri” was created and the mantra was attributed to her also.1
Originally gayatri is one of the several metres used in Veda and other Sanskrit works. In general any mantra which has eight words is called gayatri metre. The Original gayatri (Rig Veda III.62:10) has only eight words in it: tat savitur varneyam bargo devasya demihi diyoyonap prachodayat. But the latter three words: Bhur bhuvas svaha is latter added to it, once this mantra gained some special importance. As you know in Hinduism additions and developments are done without much thinking about the context and theology. So actually gayatri is addressed towards Sun. But in which sense in Vedic time the Sun is addressed is a big question. If natural elements were personified (as several scholars claim) in Vedic time, then Sun is also personified as a deity and this mantra could be addressed to Sun as a God. Or if Sun as the source of energy and life, then it was addressed also to enlighten ones mind. However at present it is used as a divine mantra which has some merit and power in itself.
In a strict sense this gayatri can be chanted only by a Brahmins and not by everyone. However once Hindus become part of global community, even in India at present gayatri is used by non-brahmins also. But I am not using it either for meditation or prayer. However in Matridam ashram, even Fr. Anildev is using it. When I was talking about this one time, he told that a Brahmin with whom he was talking even said to Fr. Anil dev that as each sect has its own gayatri mantra (for example Siva gayatri) why not you also create your own Chritian or Jesus gayatri? For this Anil dev said, ‘I am happy with the present gayatri itself and why we need a separate sectarian gayatri?’ Even today at Matridham ashram gayatri is chanted in every worship.
I personally feel that you don’t need to use it or chant it in your bhajans. But how to avoid when the audience request you to chant it? The following way you can avoid it. You simply say like this:
Though I respect your request to chant the famous gayatri to worship with you all, yet I also want to respect some strict Orthodox Hindu system. As I visited India and lived there, I heard that only Brahmins are allowed to chant the gayatri. Of course now even non-Brahmins are also chanting it. Yet as I am not a Hindu and even considered as a meleecha (ceremonially impure one) by the Orthodox people, I don’t want to offend them. Above all I also heard that unless every vedic mantra is chanted with a specific metrical form and with correct pronunciation it won’t has its effect. I have no problem in singing Sanskrit bhajans and other common slokas, but as I don’t want to offend even one Orthodox Hindu living either in India or any where in the world by using their sacred Vedic mantras, I beg your pardon for not chanting that glorious mantra.
There are beautiful mantras written by several Jesuit fathers. We also used few in your marriage. Particularly I like Upadhyayas two Sanskrit bhajans. However chanting the Sanskrit with a musical form is bit different from Hindi bhajans. Most of the North Indians even chant Sanskrit like Hindi, but Sanskrit pronunciation is bit different from Hindi. I hope you have my cassette which I sent through Rick with Upadhyaya’s Vande sacchidanandam. You can also learn few slokas which are beautiful and composed by Christian fathers. I will select few and record them for you and when we meet next time, we can sit together for one hour—it is enough for you to learn as you know Hindi better than me.
But there are other common Hindi bhajans like Om Jaya jagadeeshu hare. No particular name of god or deity name is used in it. Now a days the same song is used using various deities names like Shiva, Ganga etc. called ‘Siva Aarati, Ganga Aarati’ etc. We use Jaya jagadeeshu hare in our pujas. There are several common Hindi bhajans without using any gods name: tume hi mata pita tume ho, itana shakti hame de do data, tu pyaar ka sagar hai etc. I have few cassettes with me. Muktanand also have few. For example I added three more stanzas to ‘tume hi mata pita tume ho’ and now we using it in our pujas.
Regarding your question:
So if I sing it publicly it is for the sake of some in the Audience, and i am uncomfortable with this approach because people are always telling me, “we see that YOU are worshipping and so we are led into worship” If I change this attitude and begin to sing what I am asked to sing for popularity sake or for any other reason besides my own desire to draw nearer to my Lord, will i not lose this blessing as well as this response to those who worship with me, that they “see that I am worshipping and so are drawn to worship also”
My response is this:
Can we worship with others who are not sharing our form of faith? For me Yes! When I took classes at Ranikhet and conducted pujas in few houses, I know that even tough we pray to our Lord, yet they are going to keep a nameless formless God in their mind (bhagavan). But pluralism is the worldview of Hindus. So when they feel like worshiping with you, you don’t need to think that for popularity sake you need to sing. You can say, ‘I am mere instrument in your hand Lord’. Then such feeling will disappears. Of course they are drawn to worship seeing your ‘spirit to worship’. That’s the way corporate worship influences. Particularly the very purpose of Satsang is to motivate people to come closer to spiritual life. And every effort is one step further towards spiritual life. We may think that we stand in a peak and others didn’t take the first step. But in spirituality everybody’s experience is a peak for her. So when such a request is put forward to you, just you forget your audience and go deep in your spirit to worship the Lord. True worship makes one to forget even her situation and surrounding.
I hope the above points give some answer to your question. If you want further explanation, feel free to ask. My love to Sarah.
dayanand
Notes
1 In Rig Veda several metres (notes) were used to give both music and chant the mantras. Gayatra (not Gayatri) is one such metre in which there will be eight words [to say in other words from a lay man’s perspective, any vedic mantra which has eight words is called ‘gayatra metre’]. The Gayatri Mantra which is now become famous has only eight words [tat savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi diyoyonah prachodayat]. But now three more words (prefixed by Om): ‘bhoor bhuvah swah’, were not part of the original mantra in Rig Veda. So originally Gayatra is only a vedic meter. But in latter development this mantra is depicted as a goddess ‘Gayatri’ sitting on a lotus with ten hands. However this mantra is addressed to ‘Savitur’ which is Sun. Thus the famous gayatri mantra(Rig. III.62.10)is recited by Brahmins as a part of their everyday sandhyavandanam worship, and is directed to the Sun. Originally it is a vedic metre (gayatra)of Samaveda along with Rathantara metre. Commenting on this mantra Prof. Kane says, ‘It literally means “we contemplate that esteemed [longed for] refulgence [glory] of the divine Savitr who may inspire our intellects [or actions]” [p.302]…Why the Gayatri verse [Rg.III.62.10] came to be famous it is difficult to say. Its fame was probably due to its grand simplicity and to its adaptability to an idealistic conception of the world as emanating from an all-pervading Intelligence….’—History of Dharmasastras, Vol.II. Part.I. Ch. VII. Upanayana and the Gayatri. pp. 302-303. However, later a separate goddess ‘Gayatri’ was created and the mantra was attributed to her also.
From: “Rick” <rick@uscihs.com>
Subject: Re: on various issues
Received: 8/12/2004 5:23:23 AM
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your response below. It looks like Ashish made his own mess but I wonder if the freedom and lack of identification with any particular community might have aided him in straying into that marriage.
I fully understand your mother’s position although I expect it will take more than a few generations before the context will change sufficiently for western kirks to be accepted, and by then those kirks will probably have died or changed. On our last stint in Nepal I stayed out of Nepali matters, saying the differences from India were large enough that there needed to be significant adaptation, and definitely the colonial heritage is a major factor. Also the shallowness of much Nepali “Hinduism”. But Mark Pickett is convinced that this is a rather desperate need in Nepal, and my convictions are stronger now than they were then.
I wanted to follow up with a few further thoughts on the gayatri etc. Dayanandji kindly sent me what you wrote to him and his reply (in response to my asking him to comment on what I had sent to you). I think this material should be made accessible to RF people. I think even this is a good discussion of the month topic. May I edit your question to DB and his reply, and then edit my reply to you and comments following into reflections on DB’s response and post this on the site (all stuff on Ashish and your mother etc. would be removed)? Perhaps others will have perspectives and questions as well.
My further thoughts relate to meditation and japa. I am ready to be corrected but it seems to me that from our biblical perspective there is little meditation on gayatri mantra etc. The mantra is a tool rather than a subject for meditation. I could see the gayatri being used as a daily reminder of God, but the content is not really suitable for meditation in the biblical sense, certainly not compared to meditation on biblical revelation. And DB confirms that it mostly is not thought about. OM bhur bhuva svaha is certainly in that category; this is a mystic chant, not a contentful phrase to meditate on. This is touching one of the phobias of western evangelicalism, which is why I thought to comment. A deliberate goal to empty the mind and enter an altered state of consciousness cannot be considered biblical, so using mantra or japa to this end would seem to me inappropriate. But Ps. 31 clearly refers to an individual stilling their soul; soul here surely is the whole person, including the mind (it is definitely not atman, something deeper than the mind and personality). So there is a clear biblical mandate for quieting a too active mind, although no techniques for this are suggested. That rhythmic breathing can assist one in quieting the mind seems to me neither surprising nor threatening; there should be no problem with yoga at this stage of things. Mantra and japa are similarly useful in quieting the soul, and to this end can and should be encouraged; the use of om would certainly be included here, although I think in these things we want to speak against superstitious views of power being related to chanting such formulas.
We had a Pentecostal Brahmin family visit our bhajan group in Chennai and the elderly man asked a question. He was struggling with reading the Bible but found great peace in taking some Bible verses from Benny Hinn books (!) and writing them out over and over. I suspected he was being “persecuted” by his quite high-powered wife since he was not doing his required duty of daily Bible reading, so I said his japa of writing Bible verses over and over was certainly an acceptable expression of devotion and meditation. But that was for this old man; if his college-age son had said he was doing such things I would have had to take a bit of a different approach, still affirming japa but pointing out the need for study of Bible and Hinduism etc. etc. That is how I currently view things, anyway.
Let me know if you have further thoughts on this, but also if you are happy to share some of this wider; I will send you my editing for your approval if you prefer. RH
—– Original Message —–
From: Chris hale
To: rick@uscihs.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: on various issues
Thanks so much for this. I am up at my parents and brother and family are here before they return to Ky-stan. my mom read Gora and then J-C and the hin community and is having some really good conversations with me. Because of her background in nepali situation she is keen to point out that there will be numerous situations among H people that are completly unlike what is described and fought for in the RF. I think we all agree, but the trouble is that because the RF is presenting something quite forcefully and
convincingly and because in this presentation other approaches are often condemned quite ruthlessly, folks like my mom feel it their duty to defend the other ways in the contexts in which they have seen them work. FOr now she just feels that INdia must be such a different place than nepal and she feels this is largely due to the colonial resentment in India that did not touch nepal. She feels that for the most part it is not contexualization of worship and culture that the Hins are waiting for as such to come into
faith in C but it is a work of the HS that is waiting to bring in a situation where colonial resentment is let go of, perhaps (and i am thinking now, in fact i am putting words in her mouth for most of this!) and in a future generation there will be such a different world culture that contextualization will take on hugely new meanings than they do now.
thanks for the notes on guyatri (in fact the popular versions i have heard sung sing the guyatri with the added OM Bhur bhuva swaha as a prefix) I appreciate your way and dayananads who also wrote to me of possibly using it. I sang it in a home in England of one of my main supporters who was currently housing three delhi/punjab students working at the BBC research center. we sang it together over and over and over, and then concluded with Subha Shaam Lun yeshu tera naam. It was a LOVELY evening.
That’s it for now,
Chris
@@@
With Ajit. From my diary of February 14, 1999. Varanasi.
Ajit is from South Africa around 40 years old and a friend of Joe. He has read my book. So he wanted to ask e few more questions and some advice in what should be his next step. His main question was: How far we can to in the effort of contextualization. And where we have to draw the line.
Before that question came he said that he attended Pandit Dharmprakah meeting here at Varanasi and read his testimony. So often interfering in his talk I asked few questions and that time I asked how many caste Hindus turned for Sharmaji’s meeting? “Though the meeting was arranged to share the gospel to Hindus, most of the people who turned out were mostly Christians”, he responded.
“This is the main issue here,” I continued. “As my senior, I respect Sharmaji. But now as he ‘become’ a ‘Christian’—naturally, according to the Hindus, Christians have invited some ‘Hindu Convert’ to propagate their ‘Religion’ so that they can ‘win’ some more Hindus to their Religion to increase the number of ‘Christian Community’. Then naturally you cannot expect more Hindus to come to such meeting and only Christian will come. Above all Sharmaji preaches like a typical Christian preacher quoting the name of the book of the bible including the number the verse, like John 3:16, Psalms 51:2 etc., which a Hindu is not going to understand.. Of course one can justify the success of such meeting that at least one or two sincere seekers from Hindu turned up. But these are the repeated stories happening again and again in the Missions and Churches. A caste Hindu may even listen the words of a tradition Christian knowing whom he is listening but will with much resentment will only hear the message of a ‘Hindu Convert’ any more in India.”. I also said in our talk that if you ask a Hindu he may not be in a position to explain his feeling in clear cut technical terms as I used, but this is what is his feeling in general.
When Ajit said that he read Sharmaji’s testimony, I asked, “Do you think that any educated Hindu will be much impressed by such testimony.?”. Ajit after thinking for a while said, “Yes I think so. Sharmaji talks a lot about the love he received from his parents and the love of Jesus etc.”
“But”, I continued, “He is addressing mainly to the Western Christians in America. He made it clear that now he become a Christian. He also thank for the Church in which he was sharing that testimony in America. Now whatever the message he ‘would’ like to communicate, by using such Christian words, he already ‘communicated’ to the Hindu reader that what kind f Christian he has become. I have respect for Sharmaji as my senior and fellow human being, but I consider that such a testimony won’t impress a thinking Hindu.”
Regarding to his question of how far we can go I said: I have not much to say on this except what I have already told in my book. But first you have to remove the so called line which you have drawn in your mind. These are artificial, theoretical line which some Western Missiologians like Hasselgrave can draw for others, keeping their own security in mind. But people like us (Ajit is not from a Christian family) cannot sit on the fence and can go to the other side according to our convenience of one feet, three feet, five or ten feet and come back to our safety to call others to join our group. You have to go to that extent where your faith will not only be challenged but also will be challenged to that point of loosing it. Like divers we cannot launch in deep water expedition (as we saw in National Geographic and Discovery channels) keeping our safe robe around our waist and can be pulled back to safety whenever we feel some kind of suffocation or danger of getting lost. We have to cut that robe first and should launch and either we have to search or perish.
I didn’t loose my faith in Christ even though I completely merge with my own people. I believe that neither Hindu culture, tradition, values also will separate me from the love of Christ. Above all as Jesus has promised that no one can snatch His disciple from His hand, even though I have to workout my salvation with much fear and trembling, yet I cling to His promise more for my survival among my own people than any missiological technicals.
There is no point of going as far as we feel safe. A Hindu should see that we allowed his values even to challenge our faith but still we hold it. Then alone he will find some real value in our faith. On the other hand just involving in kabadi evangelism is not going to help any more. This is the main point I shared. Of course we talked other matters in between, but they all are regular one which I have dealt else where already.
@@@
Leave a Reply