Dialogue with Christians to be revised Part Nineteen

TAMAT Vol. 8 No.1  April 1998.

“Do we want to use such a cumbersome word as “Christ-dharma”?  Is there such a thing?  Is it Christ’s moral demands?  Surely “dharma” is so culturally embedded as to not have a pan-cultural use.  What I’m saying is that surely Christ’s dharma was Jewish not Christian.  Did I miss something?

The paragraph on p13  beginning with “Now Dr G., instead…” is confusing.  I think you are saying he should have said that IF HE WAS BEING CONSISTENT WITH HIS OWN POSITION.  It comes over a bit like that is what you would  have liked him to say.”—Mark

Etymologically¹ the word dharma means “dharayati asau sa dharma“²(whichever upholds is dharma).  the root word for dharma is ‘dir’ which means “upholding”.  Though culture is also included in dharma it is an all embracing concept.  I quote Kane who is an authority on Hinduism:

“…It is very difficult to say what the exact meaning of the word dharma was in the most ancient period of the Vedic language.  The word is clearly derived from root dhr [to uphold, to support, to nourish].  In a few passages, the word appears to be used in the sense of ‘upholder or supporter or sustainer’ as in Rg.I.187.1 and X.92.2…In most cases the meaning of dharman is ‘religious ordinances or rites’ as in Rg.I.22.18. V.26.6, VIII.43.24,IX.64.1 etc…–P.V.Kane., History of Dharmasastra, Vol.I. Part.I. 1. Meaning of Dharma, p.1

…the word dharma passed through several transitions of meaning and…ultimately its most prominent significance came to be ‘the privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct as a member of the Aaryan community, as a member of one of the castes, as a person in a particular stage of life.’  It is in this sense that the word seems to be used in the well-known exhortation to the pupil contained in the Taittiriya upanisad [I.11] ‘speak the truth, practise [your own] dharma etc.’  It is in the same sense that the Bhagavadgita uses the word dharma in the oft-quoted verse “svadharme nidhanam sreyah.” [dying while performing one’s own caste duty is better] The word is employed in this sense in the dharmasastra literature…–ibid. Vol.I. Part.I. Ch.1. Meaning of Dharma. p.3-4. ” *

In this sense we can very well talk about a Christ-dharma.  Though culturally and socially He was a Jew, yet by His own authority He gave new ORDER, VALUE and unlike other religious teachers of His time He spoke with His own authority.  I heard the following lines once: “We are not propagating Religion but promoting the Righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ”.  Here the word “Righteousness” though means “dharmikta” (3aimRKta) in common use it can be used as “dharm” as we found in the Hindi bible “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness….”(NIV) is translated as “prme+vr ka raj AOr 3mR ko `ojo” . .  More after Rick’s response.

Regarding Dr. Gangadaran, my point is that just to please a Christian dialogue partner (may be my imagination) or to save his face as a Saivasiddhantian before a Christian, who without understanding the multi centred inclusive pluralistic world view of a common Hindu try to embarrass his Hindu dialogue partner when took him to the Paandy shrine, shouldn’t have decried their practice.

Rest after hearing from you

Dayanand

1.            Etymologies are not always helpful guides to the meanings of words in actual use.  Indeed, even the Indian hermeneutical tradition considered the conventional meaning of a word to have greater force than any meaning that may be derived from its etymology.³…—p. 8

3. Compare ruudhir yogam apaharati—”the conventional meaning ousts the etymological” and ruudhir yogaad baliiyasii—”the conventional meaning has greater force than the etymologial” Cf. MK 6, 3327; MNP 98– Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system, The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution,  New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993.

MK: Miimaamsaa Kosa;  MNP: Aapadeva, Miimaamsaanyaayaprakaasa

2              Hans. Staffner, S.J., Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community, Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1988, p.88

*…The word dharma comes from the Sanskrit root dhr, which means `to support’, `to undergird’, `to establish’.  Dharma, then, is that which `bears up’ in some way or other.  In some contexts, e.g. the social or civic, the word could well be translated by `law’, but not in others…Dharma can have physical, moral, social and religious connotations, depending on context.  Dharma is that which properly undergirds or establishes something from a certain point of view, prescriptively and/or descriptively.  In fact, one often finds that this semantic ambivalence gives an elusive meaning to the term.–Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. p.86

dhaaranaad dharmamityaahur dharmo dhaarayate prajaah |

yat syaad dhaarana sanyuk’am sa dharma iti niscayah ||

(Krsna in Karnaparva 69.59) “the word Dharma comes from the root dhr i.e., to hold or uphold, and all human beings are held together by dharma.  That by which the holding together (of all human beings) takes place is dharma“.–B.G.Tilak, (Tr. by A.S.Sukthankar:   Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya; Tilak Brothers; Poona; Seventh Edition, 1986. p.90

@@@

            Twenty years later, at the podium during the inauguration of the Indian Archaeological Society’s annual meeting, it was announced that Sandor Bokonyi, a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world’s leading horse specialists, who happened to be passing through Delhi after a conference, had verified that the bones were, indeed, of the domesticated Equus caballus…. Sharma, vindicated, received two minutes of applause from the entire assembly (Sharma 1992-93, 30); there now seemed to be no doubt about the horse at Surkotada.  Sharma comments on this validation:

This was the saddest day for me as the thought flashed in my mind that my findings had to wait two decades for recognition, until a man from another continent came, examined the material and declared that “Sharma was right.”  When will we imbibe intellectual courage not to look across borders for approval?  The historians are still worse, they feel it is an attempt on the part of the “rightists” to prove that the Aryans did not come to India from outside her boundaries.(30)

This poignant statement reveals two significant dimensions to the Aryan problem.  Sharma’s comments afford us a glimpse at the political tension underlying even as innocuous a piece of data as a horse’s molar.  Second, and (only) partly as a corollary of the emotionalism that the Aryan problem generates in India, many Indian scholars still value the opinion of a Western scholar more than that of their compatriots.— Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition, p.172

The above point I am sending to share one thought that often comes in my mind.  And there is a reason for that this.  One of the bhaktas who still believes in going to the church was struggling a lot in his marriage matter.  Finally he accepted my counsel and allowed his parents to find a girl.  By the grace of God they found a girl and every one was happy.  When he shared the happy news to me, he also mentioned that he went and talked about this proposal to his pastor and graciously he also gave his consent (as the girl is not a follower of the Lord).  From his point of view this is a clear indication that God’s approval was also in this arrangement.  Though I was not offended, yet a small thought came to my mind on that day.  Why should we expect that other’s should ‘recognize’ our way of following the Lord?  The same way whenever any new ‘convert’ after having my acquaintance, through mutual (Christian) friends seeks my counsel and guidance, will even consider to think in that line only after my counsel is recognized or endorsed either (mostly) by a white man or some Christians?  Of course they have to check my advice and shouldn’t take it as it is.  Similarly they have every right to go back to their ‘mentors’ to consult after every serious reflection of my counsel.  But what surprises me is that my counsel is accepted as authentic one not because it is biblical or reasonable (rationalistic?) but it is endorsed by a foreigner first, if not at least by a Christian.  Don’t we have the Spirit of the Lord with us to follow Him as we are?

Dayanand, Mathigiri, January 21, 2003. 

@@@

To                                                        July 26, 1999, Ranikhet (camp) U.P., India.

Prof. Patrick Ollivelle,

Dear Sir,

Greeting from Himalayas!

Recently I read your book ‘The Aasrma System’ and enjoyed it at the most.   I am writing this letter to thank you personally for your valuable contribution to the Indological study, particularly in this difficult area of aasrama system.  I have already read your book ‘Indian Sadhus’ and was much benefited by it.  I do not know how to express my feelings to you.  You are a blessing to the Indological study.  May God give you long life and sound health to contribute more to this field.  Here with I am sending my review on your book.  Compare to you, as a lay man I tried my level best to understand and express my view on this book.  Kindly bear with me for the shortcomings.

The main purpose of this letter is to seek your guidance to understand Prof. Kane’s objection to the point that: ‘ksatriyas or kings were the pioneers in brahmavidyaa cannot be accepted as correct.’  But in your book you have quoted Prof. Duessen and seem to agree with him.  Of course you have said it only as a story (‘these stories of kings teaching new doctrines to Brahmins.’ (p. 61).  As you have mentioned about Kane in few places in your book, I am sure that you too aware of this objection by Kane.  Now my question is who is correct—Duessen or Kane.  And one more point—why didn’t you mention Kane’s objection to Duessen at least in a footnote?  Being a Scholar you might have some reason for this.  If I find favour in your sight please help me to understand this problem. Here below I am quoting you and Kane:

…Many scholars have long argued that the major upanisadic doctrines were the product of the nobility.  The Upanisads themselves present several doctrines as known only to the nobility and record many instances when kings became teachers of Brahmins, inverting the established ritual patters.  Deussen articulates this position clearly:

We are forced to conclude, if not with absolute certainty, yet with a very high degree of probability, that as a matter of fact the doctrine of the Aatman, standing as it did in such sharp contrast to all the principles of the Vedic ritual, though the original conception may have been due to Braahmans, was taken up and cultivated primarily not in Braahman but in Kshatriya circles, and  was first adopted by the former in later times. ( Olivelle, p. 61)

‘Study [of Vedas].  It has been already stated [p.38] that braahmana and learning had become indissolubly connected even in early Vedic periods.  We see in the Satapatha Br. and in the Upanisads that certain kings had attained eminence as philosophers or students of brahma-vidyaa and then even learned braahmanas came to them as pupils…[Br.Up.II.1; IV.2.1; Chan.Up.V.3,11] From this it may be inferred that some ksatriyas at least spent a good deal of time in the study of religious and philosophical doctrines.  The conclusion222 that is sometimes drawn by certain writers that ksatriyas or kings were the pioneers in brahmavidyaa cannot be accepted as correct….-Kane,  Vol.II. Part.I.Ch.III.Study of Vedas. pp.105-107.

Fn.222: Vide Deussen’s ‘Das System des Vedanta’, 1883, [pp.18-19] ‘the real cherisher of those thoughts was originally the caste of the ksatriyas, rather than the caste of the priests.  Over and over again we come across the situation that the braahmana asks the ksatriya for information’ and Deussen refers only to six passages [Br.Up. II.1, VI.2, Ch.Up.V.3 and V.11 and Kausiitaki Up.I.1 and IV.1].  Vide also ‘Philosophy of  the Upanishads'[translated by Geden, 1905, pp.17-19].  In the first place these are too few passages out of the vast Upanisad literature to found the sweeping generalisation in which the German savant indulges.  In the second place in Br.Up.II.1 and Kausiitaki Up. IV. there is no statement that brahmavidyaa was known only to ksatriyas; on the contrary Ajaatsatru expresses surprise that a braahmana should approach a ksatriys for the expounding of brahmavidyaa and says that this is opposed to the natural [or usual] order of affairs.  This shows that Ajaatasatru was an exception and that braahmanas usually taught brahmavidyaa.  In Kausiitaki I.1 and Ch.Up.V.11 all that is narrated is that Gautama Svetaketu learnt from Citra Gaargyaayani and certain srotriyas like Aupamanyava learnt Vaisvanaravidyaa from Asvapati Kaikeya.  But nothing is said here about brahmavidyaa being first known to ksatriyas only.  In Br.Up.VI.2 and Ch.Up. V.11 it is no doubt stated that ‘this Vidyaa‘ was not known to any braahmana till then; but ‘this vidyaa‘ does not mean the whole of the philosophy of brahma, but only that particular doctrine which bears the name of pancaagnividyaa.  This vidyaa no doubt propounds the doctrine of transmigration in a figurative and somewhat picturesque way.  But that doctrine is elsewhere elaborated by braahmanas like Yaajnavalkya to the braahmanas in king Janaka’s court and to Janaka himself [vide Br.Up.III.2.13 and IV.4.3-4].  Nor can it be said that the doctrine of transmigration was not at all known before the Upanisads.  The same [p.106] views are echoed by Sri R.G. Bhandarkar in ‘Vehand-lungen des VII Internationalen Orientalisten Congress zu Wine [Arische Sec. pp. 108-9] and in ‘Vaisnavism and saivism’ p.9 ‘Ksatriyas engaged themselves in active speculation on religious matters about the time of the Upanisads and are mentioned as the original possessors of the new knowledge’, and the learned Doctor refers only to Ch.Up.V.3 and V.11. It may be stated that Hopkins [in ‘Ethics of India’ 1924 p.63], Barth [Religions of India p.65] and Vedic Index [vol.II p.206] do not subscribe to these views of Deussen and Bhandarkar.—Kane, Vol. II. Part.I. Ch.III. Fn. 222. pp.106-07.

Yours sincerely,                       Swami Dayanand Bharati,

                                                  7-9, V.O.C. Street,

                                                   Surampatti,

                                                    ERODE—post,

Dayanand Bharati                     Tamilnadu, South India-638 009.

@@@

Dear Annan,

The following is my very long response to the short two questions.  If you have time, first read and if you are convinced that you can share with them, then send.  Thanks.

db

See attachment.

Questions by LTJ Contacts.

Hi Rita,

I had the good fortune to attend a workshop by L.T. Jeyachandran (also
copied on this mail), yesterday, at Bandra.

I was able to briefly speak with him about the issues you have raised in the
2 questions below, and he suggested getting in touch with someone he knows,
who is best equipped to throw light on these. L.T was kind enough to say
that he would get you in touch with/forward the questions to this person.

Also, a book was mentioned, that I must confess, the title eludes me right
now. Maybe it was ‘Living Waters in an Open Bowl’?

Thank you so much to L. T.  for this, and for the enriching and
thought-provoking experience that we all had yesterday.

God Bless, Rita,

Elaine

—————————- Forwarded message ———-
From: Rita Mathew <ritzmath1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:01:52 -0500
Subject: Two Questions
To: “E. D’Sa” <elaine.dsa@gmail.com>

Hello Elaine,

Here are the two questions:

1. What do you think about the perspective of Thomas Ashley-Farrard, a
Christian Minister and Vedic Scholar, who advocates the use of Sanskrit
mantras for spiritual healing in his books, Healing Power and Chakra Mantra?
What are your thoughts on the interpretation of Ganesh principle as an
explanation for being ‘born again’?  Shiva principle for transformation from
death to eternal life by liberating us from the constraints of sin, and
leading us to light.

2. In his book, Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell addresses the concepts of
‘born again’, death and resurrection, and argues that human beings are born
with a capacity to be saved.  Unlike the emphasis placed by some Christian
churches on salvation brought about by the Divine who remains an external
phenomenon, Campbell suggests that salvation is an internal
self-realization.  Campbell argues that the error of placing the Divine as
external to the human experience comes from abandoning the Divine Feminine
 (Devi in Hindu mythology, Mother Mary in Catholicism).

I  agree with Campbell that we are equipped to overcome the limitations of
our physical body and the constraints of time-space which create a dual
reality.  Prayer, Meditation, physical maturation, living in community, are
some of the paths that we can follow to reach self-realization that we are
individual and yet part of a community.
Breaking bread during communion and the emphasis on koinonia or community
reflects the mystery of life.  Myths endeavor to make sense of this mystery,
wherein lies the power of myths.

Much love, and thank you for staying in touch.

Blessings,

Rita

Sanskrit
mantras for spiritual healing—question.

          I am responding without reading the book: Healing Power and Chakra Mantra by Thomas Ashley-Farrard,  So my response is general one, divided on three section: ‘mantra’; ‘spiritual’ and ‘healing’.

          Leaving all the scholarly interpretation on ‘mantra’ (see below notes)¹, born in a Brahmin family, my understanding from a lay man’s perspective is that it is related with some esoteric power which could bring benefit if one utter it properly with due ritual purity.  Of course in a strict sense ‘mantra’ can be chanted only after initiation, yet later several kinds of Sanskrit slokas also gained that status, which opened the scope for all to get the benefit, including woman.  However ritual purity is still considered as an essential part to get its full effect.

          However modern Hinduism tries to include the rights of every caste to  claim all its spiritual and ritual activities, yet traditionally, mantra belong to the exclusive right (property) of Brahmins alone.  About this Krishna says in Mahabharata: ‘daivaadiinam jagatsarvam. Mantraadiinam tudaivadam; tanmantram braahmanaadiinam, braahmanaa mama devataa’ which means, ‘the entire world belongs to god, god belongs to mantra, that mantra belongs to Brahmins, (therefore) Brahmins are my gods.²

          My understanding of ‘spirituality’ after I become a bhakta of Muktinath (Jesus) is centered on my relationship with God which should reflect in my relationship with others—including to God’s creation.  Whereas in Hinduism such relationship  though important, yet even proper orthopraxy is considered as part of spirituality in which mantra plays a great role.  But merely calling the name of the Lord or reciting the verses from Muktiveda (Bible) can never replace the right relationship with God and man, which is central to spirituality.  As per my observation, in several Hindus’ life, even without having this right relationship with God and man, one can claim to be spiritual by merely chanting mantra or following the rituals in strict prescribed tradition. (One personal question: What actually spirituality mean according to Muktiveda?)

          Two days before a Brahmin boy, whom I know well called me to get more information to learn Sanskrit so that he can chant mantras to get rid of his mental sickness.  After giving the information, I said to him, ‘your mental sickness is related more with your attitude in your relationship with others.  Unless you address that issue first, merely chanting some mantras is not going to help you much in healing your sickness.  Later I talked to his mother also and she too agreed with me on this.

          Having said this, I am not entirely disposing that chanting mantras with proper concentration has no effect on our mind.  As a ‘sadhana’ it can help us to have concentration.  But there is a danger involved in it also.  This I faced in the early years of my bhakti in the Lord.  I used to go to some lonely place when I was studying in a Bible Institute and spend several hours just chanting my own mantra as ‘Om namo bhagavate Yesudevaya namaha’ (I salute O Lord Jesus).  But once I return back, initially I enjoyed the way the same mantra was again and again echoing within me (or in my mind).  But after few days, even if I try, I cannot stop that echo and it began to control me while I was awake, or in the class and even when I was sleeping.  Then I realized the danger and abandoned that practice and it took another kind of sadhana (of prayer etc.) to get rid of that control over me.  Because, though initially it gave me some concentration in my sadhana and some kind of mental joy, finally it began to control me.  Because, as per my understanding of the Word of God, my bhakti should help me to give right kind of relationship with God and others than having some kind of esoteric mental satisfaction based on my sadhana.

          Of course Hinduism too, equal importance is given to know the meaning of the mantra while chanting it.  However, based on my understanding as a Hindu (both in the past and now), in the practice, particularly for healing, it merely remain as (quick) process of giving some kind of mental control, than knowing the meaning of the mantra as well as help it to have correct knowledge about God,.  In fact, I have another question about mantra.  Whether any Vedic or other mantras really help us to have right kind of knowledge about God.  Yes certain great mahavakyas like ‘Tatvam asi’ (You are That) aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman {not Brahmin})’ is pointed as guiding in this direction.  But in strict vedantic tradition such knowledge about God or Brahman is more to have my personal mukti—with or without the help and need of a God.  The Vaishnavite (vedantic) tradition might argue that this is what those maha vakyas actually points.  However, common people not knowing or minding very much about what the vedantic tradition say, approach mantras for personal purpose to gain more Shakti or heal some sickness etc.  This is a big subject which could be addressed when counter questions and objections are addressed in depth.

          So the approach of a Vedic scholar like Thomas Ashley-Farrard could be more academic and even scientific.  But without reading the book, I cannot say more on it.

Ganesh principle as an explanation for being ‘born again’?  Shiva principle for transformation from death to eternal life by liberating us from the constraints of sin, and leading us to light.—question.

          Not knowing the context of this question, again I have to give general answer.

          The concept of ‘born again’ is absent in Hindu worldview, unless it is related with initiation based on ritual or community.  In Tantric tradition through proper deeksha one could claim to be born again in that Tantric community through ritual.  In community, after initiation only—like thread ceremony to a Brahmin boy and amirt chakna to a Sikh, he could become a full-fledged member of that community.  (Read, Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Samskaras:  Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, (Second Revised Edition, 1969), Reprint, 1987 on this subject).

          Without knowing what is Ganapathi or Shiva principle that is discussed in the book or elsewhere from which this above question is raised, I cannot say more on it specifically.  However my survey on Ganapathi and Saivism could help us to understand about their origin and role in Hinduism in Understanding Hinduism.  If you are interested I can send them.

          If I understand ‘Ganesh principle’  and ‘Shiva principle’ as tatva (doctrine?), then how far we can take their tatva anything related with Muktivedic principle of ‘born again’, ‘transformation from death to eternal life’, ‘liberation from sin’, ‘leading to light’?  According to my understanding any simplistic comparison from selected views from Hindu sampradaya with Muktivea won’t do full justice both to Hindu doctrines and Muktiveda too.  Hinduism being ‘multi centered, pluralistic inclusivism’, anything and everything that one want to impose any particular doctrine or view will have easy accommodation.  But when it comes to Muktiveda and Muktinath, anything divorcing from the Purva Vedci (Old Testament) doctrine to accommodate to a ‘Universal Christ or a hidden Christ’ will be a distortion according to my understanding.  Here I would like to recommend two books to understand Salvation in Hindu sampradayas, which could help us to know about salvation in theistic traditions and also in Muktiveda.

Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984.

The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. N. T. Wright, Illinois, IVP Academic. 1999.

(along with this, another book by Wright will help us more understand on this point: N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997)

salvation is an internal self-realization… the error of placing the Divine as
external to the human experience comes from abandoning the Divine Feminine.—Question.

          Again my response is without reading Campbell’s book.  However what is quoted from the question, one can easily assume that this view is both an advaitic Vedanta concept mingling with the Shakti sampradaya where Divine mother is considered as the origin and foundation for creation.  In Advaitic Vedanta also this Shakti could be inferred with ‘maya’ concept.   Such vedantic view of salvation comparing it with Muktiveda is not new.  However when we use any theological concept and terms from Hindu worldview, we need to consider their context not only in a particular text but also how it was carried and shaped with various interpretation given by the commentators by various acharyas.  In fact, no Hindu text itself could be claimed to project one particular theological point of view and it was rather shaped and decided by leading acharyas of various schools of thought like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, Vallabha and Nimbarka to name the leading ones.

          Though various interpretation on Muktiveda also lead to similar diverse theological concept and various denominations based on them, yet, except rare cases, no denominational doctrine can create any doctrine exclusively based on one particular book or text or verse in Muktiveda rejecting the other parts of whole Muktiveda.  Whereas, while paying lip service to Veda and marginalizing (if not totally rejecting) many important Vedic scriptures Hindu acharyas have the liberty to form their own theology. Thus this ‘self-realization’ ‘divine as part of human inner experience’ etc., however important in a particular Hindu doctrine could be, they need not represent a pan-Hindu view which could be super imposed on Muktivedic doctrine.  Even this self-realization and ‘inner divine’ experience could be extracted with careful theological formation from Muktiveda by a theologian trained in the discipline.  Even using Indian/Hindu theological terms after giving explaining their use in Muktivedic context would be possible remaining faithful both to Muktiveda and also to Hindu world view.  But this need special call and proper training in theology and good knowledge of Hindu scripture.  Though we need not agree with all their views, yet few books by Christian Theologian could help one to begin in this direction.

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

Francis X. Clooney, S.J.,  Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.

Klaus K. Klostermaier;  Indian Theology in Dialogue, CLS, Madras [Chennai], 1986.

Richard Fox Young, Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit Sources On Anti-Christian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India, Vienna, 1981 (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi)

          This is my initial response.  I know many of my thoughts are not going to address the questions asked.  Feel free to question, if my English is not communicating properly.  Thanks.

Db. Gurukulam, February 9, 2012

1. …Mantras are not magic formulas, nor are they merely logical sentences; they connect, in a very special way, the objective and subjective aspects of reality…–R.Panikkar, The Vedic Experience. The Gayatri. p.39.

…The word “mantra” means that which has been thought or known or that which is privately–or even secretly by initiation [diksa]–transmitted and which possesses power to liberate…-ibid. p. 39.

  It is a characteristic belief of religious Hindus that the power of the Sanskritic Word is encapsulated in the mantra.  This term has a disputed etymology, with complex history, meaning and application.  But in Hindu religion it is pervasive and of central importance.  The term is often explained as deriving from some word meaning to save, e.g. trr, to pass over, float, and trai, to protect, rescue.  Man has to do with the mind, so laconically the man-tra is a rescuing or protecting mental instrument of some kind.  But in the multifarious Hindu family of religions, the types, efficacies and uses of mantras in this capacity are manifold, even within a particular tradition…–Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. p. 52.

            As regards the term itself, the Sanskrit noun mantra derives from the verbal root MAN, which means to think, but in the sense of an intentional, active form of thought.  To this root is added the suffix tra, which is used to form words denoting an instrument, a faculty, or a function.  A mantra, therefore, is etymologically a means or an instrument of thought…. Later, and especially in the Tantric theory of mantra, the mantrasaastra, the suffix tra was related to the verbal root TRAI, to save, mantras being therefore seen as a form of thought leading to salvation….—Mantra.  Andre Padoux, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003,  p.478

… The Arthasastra says that sowing is to be accompanied by the uttering of appropriate mantras. From ancient times, mantras were used for medical and magical purposes. The Ayurveda prescribes the use of amulets inscribed with mantras to protect children from illnesses caused by demons. Mantras were used also in veterinary medicine: ….Mantras were also used in the administration of the state, not only to propitiate the deity that protects the kingdom but also to increase the wealth and power of the king, to support his armies in battle, and so forth. A minister, in Sanskrit, is called mantrin, not only as a counsellor (root MANTR) to the king, but also as being able to use mantras for political ends.  Such uses are, in fact, more tantric than srauta or  smaarta….—ibid. p.483

…If the initiate does not seek merely liberation (moksa), if he is not what is called a mumuksu, but intends to attain particular powers (siddhis), or enjoy particular mundane or supramundane rewards, an intent denoted by the Sanskrit root SIDDH, he is (p.488) a bhubuksu, a seeker of bhukti, and more specifically, if he receives the proper diiksa, a saadhaka, The mantra he has received (after its compatibility -its amsa-with him has been carefully checked) must then be mastered by means of a specific and often long and complex process of worship called mantrasaadhana during which it will be treated as a deity to be honored and propitiated so that it will eventually bring this saadhaka all he desires….—ibid. p.489

The mantras of the Rig Veda which are also….are supposed to invoke the gods to ensure success in battle, grant long life, avert droughts, secure good pastures and keep all evil at bay.  Or they are simply thanksgiving….— India Mystica, Mantra, ibid. p.2

What do you think? What is the good of reading those books, repeating them mechanically? People are repeating, repeating, repeating — they don’t even know the meaning of what they are repeating. I listen to the devotional music every morning — not that I’m interested in that or anything; because I am here and the radio is there, I tune in. Those devotional songs — what are they? Do they know the meaning of those things they are singing? It is pornography, I am sorry to say — really, it is pornography. I have come to the conclusion that the composers of all those stotras (verses) were sex-starved people, so they externalized it and put it on the goddess. They do not leave out even one part of the anatomy of the woman in those stotras. I am not condemning. – Remembering U.G. Krishnamurti, Compiled from conversations in India and Switzerland, 1973 to 1976 (author name, publisher, year is not mentioned.  This is from website I think.  As I read in the Computer, the page number is based on the format in the Computer.), pp.93-94

2. [an alternative translation could be ‘the entire world is under the control of god; god is under the control of mantra, mantra is under the control of Brahmins (therefore) that Brahmins are my gods.] [This is from V.M. Gopalakrishnamacharyar, Kambaramayana, (Tamil)  Ayodya kand, notes in p. 83, Vol. 2, Chennai, Uma Publications, 2006. No reference is given from Mahabharata.  My own translation in English].

@@@

Raksha Bandhan As a converted christian can you still tie a raksha bandhan for your hindu and christian brothers. It is about love but the origine was hindu gods. ushasd

| Quote Reply

As far as my knowledge goes there is no religious origin behind Raksha bandhan.  In fact (as I heard) it started only after the Muslim rule in North.  In order to protect (a weak) King, in general his wife will send Raki to another strong Hindu King through her family priest (called prohit).  And once the (strong) King accepts it, then he has to protect the King even by giving his life.  In most cases the widow of a King, who now takes the responsibility of the Kingdom (as the prince may be a little boy) sent the Raki to another (Rajput) King.  I never read anything about its origin in Hindu gods.  Even if we come across any such origin in Hindu mythology, we must remember that in Hinduism every custom and tradition is given, taught and passed over only in the name of religion (or god).  So it is not only Raki but every single Hindu custom and tradition have some kind of link with religion as a Hindu life is not divide in water tight compartments like religious-cultural—social etc.

Dayanand

@@@

Dear Uncle, Ranikhet, June 26, 1999.

Greetings in Jesus Name!

Thanks for your comments for the recent book reviews in TAMAT April 1999.  During my recent visit to Chennai Rick showed your letter to me and was laughing and said, ‘So Rev. Titus thinks that I am writing book reviews using your name’, because in your letter you thanked him for his (?) two book reviews: The Ashram System by Patrick Olivelle and another on George David’s book’

Then I told Rick, ‘Yes Titus Uncles thinks that you are using my name to write some book reviews.  In my last visit to Sat-tal Ashram in September 1998, when I met him he said, “They know how to handle books in TAMAT”.  That time I told Uncle that I too write some book reviews in it.  For this he responded by saying, “Oh, it is you who writes.  But I thought that Rick is writing using your name”.  “Why should he use my name to write”, was my response then.’

For this Rick said, ‘Already I have one pen-name and why I need another one.’

The main purpose of writing this letter is to thank you for your encouraging comments for my book reviews even though you are still not ready to recognize that we INDIANS too can write good book reviews, articles and other things and not necessarily only a Westerner or a white man.  This shows the slave mentality of Indian Christians not to recognize Indian’s contribution to the Kingdom of God and even if they know this they want to give all the credit only to a westerner.  Of course this spirit is not at all new and that is why Sitaram Goel in his book ‘Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma’ commented that those Indian pioneers who championed for the cause of indigenisation were never recognized while they were alive and worst that all their contribution was credited to westerners.  But after their death now the church is resurrecting them as the champion of indigenisation.  Sri Goel is talking about Brahmabahdhab Upadhyay, Sadhu Sunder Singh and Palani Andi in his book.  And your letter is endorsing what Goel has written. 

One more final but important thing, as far as my knowledge goes Rick didn’t even read the book ‘The Ashrama System’ and how can he, even using my name could ever write any review for that book—unless the westerners have the brain to write reviews even without reading any book!

Anyhow thanks for your encouraging comments.  I know that my letter is bit strong but the Indian Christian mind won’t understand soft voices.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Dayanand Bharati.

Rev. Titurs response:

July 222, 199.                                   P.O. Bhowali, Dist, Nainital, U.P.-263-132.

Dear Brother Dayananda!

Thanks you for that good letter of June the 26th, which I received yesterday.

I’m sorry for the “sin of presumption” on my part, in not acknowledging the TAMAT article where it belonged.  I stand corrected.

In my childhood I read a story, of twin brothers who were alike in many ways.  They thought alike, they wrote alike.  Many people did not recognise which was which.  And one day when Peter died, the people by mistake buried brother John!  My error was something like that.  I would gladly transfer to you whatever I wrote to our friend.

Reading scholarly book reviews is of immense help to people like me who cannot afford to possess the costly actual books.  Then where we timely need, we can try to reach it.

Keep on—God bless you!

Very sincerely yours,

D.P. Titus.

@@@

Send the link to the chanting and also hoefer paper

Obstacle to God.

We all heard about others creating hurdles/obstacle for others.  Several times we also create obstacles for ourselves.  In Hinduism even God creates ‘obstacle’ as the Lord of Vigna viz., Vigna + Ishwar [Ganapathi] creates obstacle for so many reaching heaven so that it won’t be overcrowded.  But have you ever heard about a Hindu ‘Convert’ creating ‘OBSTACLE’ even to God [of Muktiveda].  If not read the following article and my response to it.

My response:  

To begin with a positive note, I agree with the author that it should be ‘Shu’ and not ‘Su’.  This could be a typo error which I failed to notice.

Next is the mistake that the author has pointed out, he technically separated the word  as Shukla + Ambara+ dharam.  But my purpose of sending that sloka to a few bhaktas on their request to use it in the ritual is to help them to pronounce it as it is commonly pronounced as ‘Shuklam + Bharadaram’.   

But as far as I know no one would chant this mantra as the author has rightly divided the sentence: ‘Shuklambaradaram’ as ‘Shukla + Ambara+ dharam’.  I have sent the link of one such chanting and listen carefully as it is pronounced as ‘Shukam + baradharam’ and not ‘Shukla Ambara Dharam’.

Unlike the author who is privileged to have a Sanskrit Pandit as father and also got the opportunity to learn Sanskrit, I never learnt Sanskrit.  All my knowledge in Sanskrit is what I learnt while listening and chanting mantras.  Most of the common Hindus, while chanting, would never think or be taught to pronounce the Mantra as per the ‘Sandvichet’ viz., separating the words.  So technically he is correct but traditionally not.  He may disagree and I agree to disagree with him.  But can even ask his father to chant this mantra and send it back to him or any other Brahmin he knows to chant.  Or ask the author to chant to know whether he would chant it as: Shukla + Ambara+ dharam or Shuklam +Bharadaram.  It is interesting to note that he even searched the meaning for the word ‘bharadaram’ on the Internet being a student of Sanskrit where it is clearly taught how several words are joined or separated as per the need of grammar, metre and chanting purpose and giving it in Appendix. 

As a Sanskritist [or having a Sanskrit Pandit as his father] whether the word ‘vishnu’ in this sloka stands for a name or attribute?  As Vishnu is used as an attribute which means one who pervades, there is no need even for me to change the word ‘Vishnum’ to ‘Mukteswaram’.  That’s why some members in our mandali even question the need to replace the names of Hindu deities in certain slokas and mantras that we use for our needs.  As almost all the names of Hindu deities depict their character [like Shiva = auspicious; Krishna = block one; Rama = pleasant one etc.] and as all these deities are part of our Indian heritage, where is any need even to replace those words and to insert Muktinath? 

As a digression, some of the members of our mandali, even went to the extent of displaying the IMAGES  of Hindu deities in Navaratri festival where nine [or seven or five] steps are arranged in the homes of Hindus [mostly in South India] where several Images of deities and other human beings, and animals are arranged.  If he calls my attempt to replace those names with Muktinath as plagiarism and even criminal in nature, then what would he say about this?  Syncretism.  But of all the religions of the world Christianity is the most syncretistic religion, outright plagiarising everything in their religion from Name, ritual, structure, theology and what not.       

For me whether Ganpathi or the Lord [thank God MV never give details of His dress code, but at least he was wearing some clothes], I as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord has every right to use this mantra with slight modification for my need.  But this is also only a concession as some Hindu bhaktas do not feel comfortable to use the original words as it is like ‘Vishnum’ in this sloka.  But those who face no such problem are freely using the original as it is.  He may have his objection but that won’t stop me from using my own Indian symbols and terms to express my bhakti in the Lord.

As a digression, any popular sloka or mantra is used in various sampradayas to address their own deities like that of the famous Gayatri Mantra or the Arati song.  Just do some research about various Gayatri mantras assigned to various deities.  Almost in every sampradaya they have their own Arati replacing the name of Jagadesh like Om Jaya Gange Ma or various Gayatri mantras.   Our tradition gives us freedom to adopt and adapt any kind of sadhana for our needs.

Then the author says, ‘Even if we ignore the fact that “bharataram” is a non-word, the first verse in the changed version is non-sensical.  It is saying, Lord Jesus, who is white and wearing white clothes has kind arms.  I can give the author of the changed version the benefit of the doubt that he is meaning to use the word “bhajam” who could mean devotion. If that was the case, it would mean something like, “Lord Jesus, who is white and wearing white clothes, has kind devotion” which is worse.’

The author, using some typo mistakes and sandvichet [dividing the words] superimposed his own IMAGINED WORD in my version and coined ‘bhajam’.  It is like putting your words in another person’s mouth to make him confess or say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  No.  Don’t read your own interpretation in technical details related to grammar.  Where is the word ‘bhajam’ in my changed version.?

Next

To begin with, though this sloka is attributed to Ganesha who is the remover of obstacles there is no mention of his name in this sloka.  Whereas the name ‘vishnu’ is mentioned clearly.  Of course this mantra is chanted before commencing any kind of ritual requesting ‘Vigneshwara’ actually Lord of Vigna viz., Lord of Obstacle.  Ganesha is not only a remover of ‘obstacles’ but also creates ‘obstacles’.  See Understanding Hinduism.

Now the author might jump to say that then it adds value to his argument that as Ganpathi also creates ‘obstacle’, then I have no right to modify and use it for the Lord as the remover of ‘obstacle’ whereas Ganapthi is also the creator of obstacles.  In that case Mukti Veda also says that it is God who binds and also heals [Deut 32: 39; Job 5:18, Hosea 6:1].  He alone predestined certain people to go to eternal hell [Roman chapter 11].  If I begin to point out all the contradictions in Mukti Veda when we interpret the text out of context then there won’t be an end to it.  This being the reality with the text what to say about theology.

Having said, now the main question for me is whether the Lord would remove the obstacle or not?  The author takes two points of ‘troubles’ and ‘suffering’ and says that the Lord has never promised to remove trouble or suffering and says: 

Even if we ignore the poor and dangerous misappropriation of the first verse, from a biblical standpoint, can we apply the second verse as (it) is:  Does Jesus say that if we meditate on him, he will ward off all obstacles.(?)  On the contrary, he said that we will have many troubles (John 16:33) but his promise is that he will be there with us to carry our burdens (Matt 11:28-30).  Peter and Paul talk about the sufferings refining us with no promise of all obstacles being removed. 2 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 3:12, Luke 14:27 to name a few.

This is nothing but a ‘dangerous misappropriation’ of theology from a biblical standpoint and trying to create his own ‘Suffering THEOLOGY’.  Let me explain:

The author conveniently quotes Jn. 16:33, but never mentions other verses in which the Lord clearly said ‘not to be troubled.’ For example, see John 14: 1; more specifically 14:27.  Take another famous verse from Matt. 11: 28-30.  He says that if we put our yoke on Him we will find rest.  Note the inconsistency in this verse: He first promises to give rest [vs. 28] and in verse 30 says ‘For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  Is His yoke really easy or light in burden?  When the disciples claim privileged position on His right and left side, He challenges them by asking, ‘Can they drink from the same cup in which He is drinking’?  Then how to interpret this verse.  Here comes what is called ‘context’, ignoring which we cannot create our own pit theology like the suffering theology by the author in which THEOLOGY IS ALSO SUFFERING.   

 When John Baptist sent his disciples to enquire about Muktinath what is the answer He gave: ‘the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.’  What is the Good News here: If you come and follow me then there will be trouble for you and you will have to suffer more?  What the suffering Jews were expecting from a Messiah?  More troubles and suffering.  And if the Lord proclaims this as ‘Good News’ even before He was crucified Jews would have stoned Him to death. 

In order to prove that as Ganpathi is the remover of ‘obstacle’ and the Lord warned us about many ‘troubles’ in this world never promising to remove any ‘obstacle’ from our life the author created a pity theology.  This is the danger in creating theology to prove another person wrong, that too far-fetched interpretation of one word or verse or mantra or shloka.

Of course the Lord talks about the narrow path and the trouble and suffering for those who have to follow Him.  This is the cost of the discipleship and not everyone is called for that.  But this is not the Kingdom of God that He promised or inaugurated.  The persecuted disciples later realized this and now added a new ‘suffering’ theology to console the suffering and persecuted early church.  This is the most dangerous area in doing theology.  Several scholars have wrestled with this specific topic [read Phillip Yancy’s few books on this subject].

Just taking one word ‘obstacle’ the author has created his own theology on the most difficult topics of ‘troubles’ in this world and ‘suffering’.  Yes the Lord removes the ‘obstacles’ by giving clear guidance when there comes challenges.  This is what Sevanand says in Philippians chapter 4 ‘The peace of God that transcends all kinds of understanding will ‘guard’ your heart and mind.  For me here the word ‘guarding’ is to protect from so many troubles by removing obstacles.

What is the actual meaning of Jesus?  One who SAVES?  Save from what?  Only [original] Sin and not from suffering and troubles?  What does the name IMMANUEL mean?  God among us?  For what purpose, to call to follow Him to suffer more as He cannot save from troubles?  Almost every religion tells us that life on this earth is full of suffering and they promise Heaven after death.  And if Muktiveda tells the same then what is the need to preach about the Good News that the Lord came to give Mukti from Sin, suffering and troubles.  Why didn’t the Lord stop only imparting some spiritual teaching and why He should go on healing the sick, feeding the hungry and raising the dead?  He even went to the extent of saying that those who visit prisoners, give food to the hungry and water to the thirsty and cloth the naked are doing the same to Him.  Why did he waste His time and energy to do all these activities to remove the suffering of the people even temporarily?

Theology is a double edged sword.  Unless one is a [relatively good] theologian, it is better let a lay person like me keep away from it.  In order to communicate the Good News, as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord I use several technical terms, symbols and even philosophy to make others understand about my bhakti in the Lord.

Though I oppose the so-called ‘Contextualization’, yet as there is no better word at present in English, I use it here.  When I shared about the Lord to my father [as he only asked me about my change of bhakti] instead of using ‘sin’ I used ‘karma’ and said, ‘Bhagavan Muktinath offered Himself as a Prayashchitta in the Maha Yagjna to get rid of my Karmas.  Because the word ‘sin’ never makes any sense to both the serious and common thinking Hindus as there is no concept of ‘Sin in principle’ in Hinduism.  But most of the Hindus talk about getting rid of ‘Karma’.  So, in order to communicate my thoughts, I used the common word with which my father was very familiar. 

Of course what Hinduism talks about Karma is entirely different from what MV talks on the same subject.  Yes, even MV talks about Karma.  But if anyone asks: How the first Karma came, then the counter [theological] question would be: ‘how evil entered in the Good creation by God?  Why should He even create Human, then allow evil or sin enter, and then make that INNOCENT MAN stumble, then curse him and then promise to redeem?  Has God done this as a timepass or divine play?  There are so many other contradictory theologies in MV [and also in every other religion] to which no one can give a correct theological answer.  Recently I received the following statement from Nepal asked by one person to the bhakta of the Lord: Why did God have to send himself down to earth to become his son to sacrifice himself to himself just to convince himself to forgive us? 

If the author had ever read the way Theology developed from the early century and continued throughout the time would have a different kind of understanding.  If my approach is Syncretistic then of all the FAITHS Christianity is the most Syncretistic Faith on this earth adapting and adopting so many things from various cultures and traditions. This even began with Jews.  It is really surprising to note that without having a proper knowledge about the way Muktiveda evolved over centuries this author suddenly talks about some absolute standard of theology as if there exists one such.  Jews borrowed so many things from the RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEWS among those who lived or moved.  The Ten Commandments were the best example.  It was verbatim borrowed from Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite and Assyrian collections.  Their circumcision, sacrifice system, rituals, even Law etc. etc. were heavily borrowed and influenced by their surrounding cultures and civilizations.  Regarding ‘integrity and plagiarism’, Christians are the worst criminals in this area.  Beginning from the apostles [using ‘Logos’ which is the eternal mind of God for ‘Word’], all the later church fathers and church tradition outright have done plagiarism.  Their Christmas, Easter Egg, Christmas Carol, Gothic church architecture, Pagan music, the very word Elohim used for God etc. etc. are nothing but out right uncredited us of other’s work activities is nothing but plagiarism, if the author calls even my original works as plagiarism.   

Take for example of the atonement of the Lord.  This theology became prominent only later in church history.  [See Dr Hoefer’s paper on this] Leaving the question about to whom the sacrifice was given: to appease God or a ransom to the devil, even the very concept of the Lord as an atonement is controversial.  He is called the Passover Lamb.  But the Passover lamb is not sacrificed for atonement and that too outside the altar or tabernacle of the temple.  If the Lord were the Passover Lamb then He cannot be the lamb slain for the sin of the world.  If He was slain for the sin of the world, then He couldn’t be the Passover Lamb.  [See my article on Sacrifice in my blog].  I am not sure whether the author heard about the way this word ‘Lamp of God slain from the beginning of the word’ in Papini New guinea as ‘behold the Pig of God which was slain from the beginning for the sin of the world’ as they never had sheep and goat in their society.

I could give so many such other controversial theology in MV. 

I never impose my views on others.  Whatever I do or write I do only for my needs.  I never expect anyone to FOLLOW me or imitate me.  Each bhakta is free to exercise her bhakti in the Lord in the natural environment in which she is born and brought up.  If the author feels that he alone is following the Lord with Truth and in a noble way thereby honoring Him, my best wishes to him.  It is interesting to note that he mentions that ‘you will know the TRUTH which will set you free’.  But not only in this verse but nowhere MV explains what this TRUTH actually is? For me this paper is nothing but a mere waste of time, even for the author.  As I don’t believe in any personal attack, I don’t want to mention this.  But like him there are several Hindu bhaktas who want to keep a double identity by remaining Hindus to their family as Hindus and ‘Christian’ to the Church.  Is this the true, noble way in honoring the Lord?  But I understand their limitations and struggle to NOT disclose their double identity to their family members.  But I remain as a Hindu need not hide my identity as a bhakta of Muktinath, however it looks dishonoring the Lord in other’s eyes.  I neither need approval or recognition from anyone.

In conclusion the author says:

“On the question of integrity, this is plagiarism.  It is a poor copy, deceptive and also criminal to do this.  My son recently wrote a song to Christ.  It was 100% his original work.  How low would we consider someone who stole his song, changed a few words and sang it to Allah or Krishna?  If they were in school doing such work, we would throw them out of the school.  If there was a way, we would press charges against them.”

Regarding his son writing a song 100 percent original, I congratulate him.  But the author has to read some of my songs that I have written [around 1500] in which I freely use MY OWN INDIAN TERMS  to express my bhakti.  As a Hindu I have every right to use any format that belongs to me in my tradition.  Because he knows one word ‘plagiarism’ he cannot accuse others for doing so.  Then what he is going to say about Brahmabandab Upadayaya who used: Sachidanandam, Sumukundam’, ‘Govindam’ etc.  In Tamil, even two hundred years before several Tamil bhaktas [or even if you want to call them as Christian Converts] used the word ‘Sivam’ ‘OM’ and so many other words as Shivam stands for attribute not a noun though it is used for Shiva.  I have written a few songs in Tamil copying the famous Songs rendered by Bharat Ratna late M. S. Subbulakshmi almost used the same tune. 

I can go on giving so many examples and illustrations to insist on my RIGHT to use ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in my Indian Tradition.  Already I have written about it in several places and there is no point in repeating them here.  I don’t need others’ permission to use them, however they might find it objectionable.  If they are not happy, they are welcome not to use it.  But others have no right to question my birth RIGHT.  Even if the Indian court tries to prohibit me to use my own symbols, terms and concepts to express my bhakti in the Lord I will do it and face the consequence but NEVER HIDE MY IDENTITY as a HINDU BHAKTA OF THE LORD.  While doing this I also know the limitation of every technical term and words, symbols and rituals that we use in our tradition.  For example  ‘prayashchitta’ is not atonement and avatara is not Incarnation.   But this is the way even the authors of Muktiveda communicated their understanding about God and the Lord using local and native words and terms knowing well their limitations. 

There exists no absolute Theology.  Even the so ‘biblical’ theology [or any other biblical concept] is completely UNBIBLICAL as they are nothing but our own interpretation SUPER IMPOSING our own thoughts and understanding.  And the author has created one such another BIBLICALLY UNBIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF SUFFERING and forcing me to undergo another kind of suffering to read and give this long unnecessary response wasting everybody’s time except the authors as he has the luxury to waste to have such entertainment which I won’t even call as Intellectual.

Finally, I have decided not to respond anymore, if the author gives any kind of response to this brain storm.  I don’t want to waste my time, particularly for those who write to please their BOSSES in their Church and Mission.

Gurukulam

20-3-2024

Notes

 This is from:

J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu , eds. Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, New York, 2006.

Biblical laws can be compared only with the Mesopotamian codes of c.2100-1700 BCE, though details of the Hittite and Assyrian codes are also relevant.  Their statuses raise questions, of course, abut the status of biblical laws in Israel, but do not provide answers.  Generally the biblical law is much more concerned with religious life and duties than what we would consider forensic.  But comparisons do yield conclusions.  The Book of the Covenant is closest to the Mesopotamian codes.  Deuteronomy and the Priestly material are more remote.  An example: laws nos. 53-5 of the Eshnunna code deal with the goring ox and parallel Exod. 21:28-32, and in part they are identically worded.  Here the Book of the Covenant is clearly based on Near Eastern traditions.  But only Hammurabi’s laws nos. 196-203 lay down the lextalionis (‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’);  previous codes prescribe fines for bodily injury.  Hammurabi was an Amorite, and the lextalionis is more suited to desert life than urban life with courts and magistrates.  Presumably both Hammurabi and the Book of the Covenant depend on the same Amorite custom.—p. 82

               Items of wording as well as literary techniques are also shared by the Old Testament and other ancient Near Eastern literature.  In 1 Sam. 9:8 and 16:9 men in addressing King David refer to themselves as ‘a dead dog’.  Exactly the same self-deprecatory expression is used in neo-Babylonian and neo-Assyrian letters to the Assyrian king.  One could dismiss this as a common phrase on everyone’s lips, but there was of course much oral literature in circulation too.  An example of a whole (p.83)

Gilgamesh Old Babylonian                                          Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9

Vorderasiatisches Museum

+ British Museum, iii. 6-14

As for you, Gilgamesh, let your belly                        Go, eat your food with rejoicing, drink

be full,                                                                              your wine with a happy heart, for God

day and night every rejoice,                                       has already accepted your deeds.

every day have pleasure.

Day and night dance and make merry.

Let your garments be clean,                                       Let your garments be white on every

Wash your head, bath in water,                 occasion,

Look at the little one who holds                 do not spare the oil on your head.

Your hand,

Let your spouse have constant pleasure  Enjoy life with the woman you love all the

In your bosom.                                                Days of your futility

This is the task of [mankind.]                                     which God has given you under the sun.

topos shared occurs in the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (c.1700 BCE) and Ecclesiastes (a post-exilic composition)….—pp. 83-84

…Plenty of Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hittite hymns and prayers survive, in which phraseology and sentiments similar to those of the (p.84) biblical psalms can be found.  Hebrew sacrificial terminology was also employed by the Phoenicians, and the Classical Greeks had a similar regimen.  The biblical proverbs are often similar to those of other ancient Near Eastern cultures.  What is different is the conception of the divine.  The polytheism of most of the ancient Near East expressed very well their conception of the physical universe as controlled by a host of independent superhuman powers.  Israelite monotheism is distinct.  Claims for Egyptian monotheism under Akhnaton, also a kind of Babylonian monotheism in some first-milliennium BCE theological texts have been taken into account, also the fairly common view that Israelite monotheism arose only in the Babylonian captivity; before then, it was rather a henotheism.  There may be some truth in these points, save for Akhnaton; but Israelite religion had the advantages in the concept of one all-powerful God.  There was no longer a whole pantheon of often divided and squabbling gods in control of the universe.  Thus moral standards in Israel have an intensity not found in Mesopotamia, Gilgamesh, as quoted above, is urged to a pure hedonism.  Ecclesiastes advises to enjoy the pleasures of life without forgetting God.  The Israelite God works in history with consistency to a predetermined goal.  Sumerian and Babylonian gods intervene in human affairs only qdhoc and often whimsically.—pp. 84-85

1:4. atonement. … Many scholars now agree, however, that “atonement” is not the best translation for the concept on either the ritual or the theological level. Perhaps most convincing is the fact that in the ritual texts the object of “atonement” is neither the sin nor the person, but a holy object connected with God’s presence, such as the ark or the altar. A second important observation is that in a number of cases this “atonement” is necessary even though no sin has been committed (for instance, the ritual impurity of women each month). For these and other reasons recent scholars have preferred “purification” or, more technically, “purgation,” as the translation. So the altar would be purged on behalf of the offerer whose sin or impurity had ritually tarnished it. The purpose was to maintain the sanctity of God’s presence in their midst. The ritual, like a disinfectant, is normally remedial, but it can be preventative. The agent is usually blood, but not always. This decontamination of the sanctuary renders the offerer clean and paves the way for his reconciliation with God. The purging of objects (including cities, houses, temples and persons) from ritual contamination or evil influence by wiping or rubbing on a substance is also known in ancient Near Eastern practice, though these are mainly magical rites.— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, LEVITICUS, p.120

Any clear understanding based on the Muktiveda is not going to be very simple in any doctrinal matter. For example, based on Walton’s comments, ‘substitution is not common in sacrifice’ (p. 53, 122-23), ‘redemption and Passover’ are notable exceptions (p. 53); animals killed in sacrifice is for purification and not for atonement (p. 120); sacrifice is rather seeking reconciliation than seeking pardon for punishment (p. 123); ‘scapegoat’ and annual sacrifice is to dispose the sin (and not seeking forgiveness?) (p. 123); sacrifices cleanse ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin and not to remove sin (p. 513); Lord’s death is not the ritual of severing an animal body in covenant (p. 668); finally as He was killed outside the temple, it does not technically represents the sacrifice done in the presence of God either in the tabernacle or temple (p. 513). But for the early bhaktas, our Lord’s death represents all of them and even goes beyond it.

@@@

Response to LTJ

Not accepting the Prasad of another sampradaya is quite common in Hinduism also.

When a Hindu gives Prasad of any deity a Christian (particularly an evangelical) is expected to refuse to accept it.  Sri LTJ says that if a Hindu gives a laddu by saying that it is a good sweet accept it with thanks.  But if she says that it is the Prasad of Balaji then doesn’t accept because of her conscious that worship of Balaji is OK.

This is correct from their evangelical perspective and we have to agree with it.  But they view the attitude of that Hindu (friend or relative or neighbor who is in good terms with you alone will give you that laddu) from their own (doctrinal) perspective.  They refuse to see it from the Hindu point of view:

1. When a Hindu devotee gives any Prasad of any deity, she is very clear in her conscious that when you accept it, she does not expect you to compromise with your faith in your god.  She never expects or will even accept that by accepting it you are even agreeing with her faith.  She knows that you are not ‘ok’ with her faith in her god and she does not depends upon your ‘ok’ or not ‘ok’ to hold her faith in her god.  She also does not think that by accepting the Prasad you are giving up your faith in your god and now become a bhakta of Balaji. And even if you want to give up your faith in your god and want to follow her deity, most of the time she will say ‘no’ to it. She will say, ‘your god is good for you. My god is good for me.  So you need not give up your faith in your god and began to worship my god.’  At the same time she will be pleased if you insist of following of her god by giving up your faith in the Lord.
2. When she is very clear in her conscious then why she wants to give that Prasad to you?  Because she is your friend. And when you accept it, you are acknowledging her love for you and not her faith.  A Hindu who is not in good terms with anyone, particularly to an enemy will never share the Prasad.  Even because of her conscious if you say ‘no’ she will magnanimously say ‘ok’ and will never insist. But the question is have you ever told that you are not accepting that Prasad only because of ‘HER CONSCIOUS’ and not because of ‘YOUR CONSCIOUS’?  If you say, what would be her response?  She will definitely say that, ‘I am clear in my conscious. I don’t want you to agree with my faith (and I don’t even want your agreement for my faith), or acknowledge my god or give up your faith or even expect you to compromise your faith.’  But most of the time the evangelicals never give any explanation to their Hindu friends particularly about their so called ‘CONSCIOUS’ but will politely say that their ‘OUR FAITH WON’T ALLOW US TO ACCEPT THE PRASAD OF OTHER GODS’.  And a sincere Hindu respecting your stand for your faith will happily acknowledge such faith and won’t insist of giving any Prasad.  Because even among various Hindu sampradayas one sect won’t allow its followers to accept the Prasad of another sect. For example a staunch Srivaishnava won’t eat the Prasad of any Saiva deity.  When a Hindu distributes Prasad of her deity, she never asks about your faith or even thinks about it. She is under an obligation to share the ‘grace’ (Prasad) of her deity with others and cannot take back all of them with her.  Before distributing her Prasad she won’t even ask what your faith is or which religion you belongs. Her conscious is very clear—share the grace of god with others.  Now accepting or rejecting is left with you.
3. But the question is, is it because of your faith that you refuse to receive the prasad?  Or fear that devil will attack you if you accept the Prasad?  Or God will punish you as you have compromised your faith by accepting the Prasad from a Hindu?  If you say ‘no’ to the Prasad for any of these reasons, then you have to question such kind of faith in the Lord. EVEN YOU HAVE TO QUESTION THIS KIND OF GOD!  If your god does not have power to protect you from the attack of the devil as you have taken Prasad, then who is more powerful?  Or if your god is going to punish you because you took Prasad and compromised with your faith, then how much more he or she has to punish the way you are compromising your faith in all other areas of your life?  If nothing is going to separate you from the Love of god, then why a small laddu from Balaji will separate you from the same love?
4. Now think about such a scenario.  After refusing to accept her Prasad, when you invite her to come to your church or Christmas Party what would be her reaction and response.  Most of the time she will never say that I won’t come as you refuse to accept the Prasad which I gave.  She will accept the invitation for two reasons: to honor you and celebrate your friendship and also to enjoy good Christmas cakes—which she won’t normally get other times.  Whatever might be your CONSCIOUS or even INTENSION—which a discerning Hindu knows very well, she will accept the invitation.  She might even know your intension behind that invention—to share the gospel!  Hindus are not that much naïve as you think.
5. This leads to the next question of (spiritual) ethics.  When you invite any of your Hindu friends or acquaintance for any Christmas party or even for a meal or cup of tea only with a HIDDEN AGENDA OF SHARING THE GOSPEL then how far that is ethically correct?  You try to EXPLOIT your friendship for your vested interest and not honoring and celebrating the friendship just for the sake of it.  Even your friendship is Pseudo one.  Your friend is merely an ‘object’ or ‘target’ for you.  You may hide it behind your evangelical call and burden by saying that you are expected to share the good news in both ‘season and out of season’.  And you have every right to it.  Then why not honestly and openly tell your Hindu friend or acquaintance that you have invited her for the party or meal or tea only to ‘share the gospel’ to her or for a dialogue?  Why not you give her a choice to decide but try to exploit her relationship with you for your Agenda. This is what the Missionaries have done in the past.  When they distributed food material for famine hit people, before giving it, they ‘COMPELLED THEM TO SIT AND LISTEN THEIR PREACHING’.  This is OUTRIGHT HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATION.  Even today in most of the Mission Hospitals in the OPD section, the patients and their relatives (who brought them for treatment) are ‘FORCED TO LISTEN THE GOSPEL’ preached by the PAID evangelist.  Can you deny this?  If love and service is your real motive then do it silently not IMPOSING YOUR FAITH ON THEM.  Of course as LTJ narrates with that Muslim group, if there develop a natural and spontaneous occasion without any agenda, you have every right to share about your faith.  But motivated by some evangelical urge making any contact or acquaintance or friends and then use them for your Agenda by engaging in KABADIC KABADY evangelism or HIT and RUN evangelism or TOURIST  evangelism needs to be questioned and challenged by everyone.  Note what Sudhakar says about such service by Mission:

Hospitals, schools, and orphanages as institutions of service in Christ’s name were begun during the colonial era and these were also centres of Christian propaganda. It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans.— Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007.p. 169

6. My  next point is the so called ‘CONSCIOUS’ of the Hindu friend or neighbor.  From where they get this point?  Again from Paul’s teaching in Corinthians.  But what is the context there?  The first context is in I Cor. 8: 9-13.  As LTJ has clearly says this context is about eating the beef which is served in temple premises in Corinthian city where free beef meal is available in the temple.  If my understanding is correct here Paul is not talking about ‘buying’ the meat sold in the market which is coming from the temple sacrifice. So the buyer and seller know from it is coming.  But here the context is taking a free meal served in the temple premises with beef briyani.  Just for the sake of the conscious of the weak brother/sister resist your temptation for a free briyani served in the temple.  But I will even object such suggestion by Paul.  Just stretch your imagination a bit and bring to the Indian context.  We know that free meal is served in (many) Hindu temples known as ‘annadhana’.  Who will go and eat there?  Only the Hindus or in our context a Hindu bhakta of the Lord who knows very well that idol is nothing and every good is a gift from God (I Cor. 8: 4-6).  Now another Hindu bhakta see it.  And she is weak in her faith.  And if she too is tempted to eat that free temple meal, how the first Hindu bhakta should respond?  If I were there, I will ask that weak brother to join and enjoy the meal. Then I will, denying a nap after a good meal will give proper teaching to that weak brother about what Paul says in I Cor. 8: 4-6.  Above all being a fellow Hindu, he already knows about the temple free meal which she too enjoyed in the past.  The next scenario of the weak brother is a traditional Christian from his church.  And here the question is what to do because of the weakness of that traditional Christian from the same church?  If I were there I will tell him to come out from his weakness and study the Word of God properly than merely listening to the three point regular sermon from the Pulpit week after week and become strong in his faith and conscious.  Even after few generations as a Christian if that Christian refused to listen or understand the word of god, then I will allow him to continue to remain in his weakness.  Because even after several generation if he cannot become strong both in his faith and conscious someone one like me a recent ‘convert’ can never help him to become strong.  Let him continue to live in his weakness and use it as a victim card.  But I won’t budge to it and become a victim to such blackmail. Remember this context of ‘conscious’ about eating a temple meal should not be the criteria to refuse to receive the Prasad from your Hindu friend or neighbor.
7. The next scenario is in I Cor. 10: 19 to 30, specifically in verse 28.  Here the context is not about giving a temple Prasad (Balaji Laddu in our case) but invited for a meal by a host.  Before giving my view on this let us listen what Bailey,{Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic,} the Middle Eastern Scholar says about it. Though it is bit log, still it is worth to read as it is.  First I will quote only the relevant for our discussion. Rest I will give in the foot notes@:

…Paul created a multicultural church, and he urges his readers to care for the interests of ”the other” (believer or nonbeliever), setting aside their own interests.

            The opening lines of each of these two cameos are related in a special way. Cameo 1 sets out general principles while cameo 7 offers applications of those principles.  We can almost hear the conversation between Paul and his readers. It is as if they are engaged in the following dialogue:

Paul     As a general principle (cameo 1 {10:23}) can say, “All things are lawful tome but they are not all helpful. Nor do all things build up.”

Paul’s readers   Can you give us a general sense as to how to apply these two principles?

Paul     Yes, I can (cameo 7 {10:32-33}).  Let us look at the two parts of what I have just said.

Regarding being helpful, don’t offend Jews, Greeks or the church of God. You gain nothing by offending people. It makes them angry, and they become entrenched in their opposing views.  Giving offense is simply not helpful.

• As for building up, when you do not offend you have the opportunity to commend your message of salvation, and in the process build up the community at large. You need to also build up the believing community internally.  Work to build up, not tear down. (p. 287) […]

In cameo 7 Paul sets a high standard. He is engaged in evangelism and his theological goal is clear.  But his method is also clear.  The standard is: Give no offense to Jews, Greeks or to the church.  For him there will be no public attacks on the faith of others.  Critical analysis, yes, attacks—no!  While writing to Christians he does not hide the fact that the gods of the “the Gentiles” do not exist and that their worship brings them into fellowship with demons. As noted, archaeology has identified Greek shrines in Corinth dedicated to the worship of twelve different gods.  But there is no attack on any of these idols, their sacred books, their temples or their priests.  When lecturing on Mars Hill (Acts 17: 22-31) Paul found common ground between his message and respected Greek authors. In Paul’s ministry, tolerance, open-mindedness and respect flowed together with critical analysis and non-apologetic evangelism. To update Paul’s directive into the twenty-first century we could say, “Give no offense to Jews or to Muslims or to the church of God. Do not seek your own advantage, but theirs—and at the appropriate time, in a respectful and culturally sensitive way, bear witness to the Christian story without apology.” This directive is clear, yet Paul leaves the reader with a further question.

            The second semantic envelope in this homily (cameos 2, 6) is also remarkable. The two matching cameos are seen together in figure 3.3(3).

2..        ²⁵ Eat whatever is sold in the meat market

                        Without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

²⁶ For “the earth is the Lord’s,                            EAT

and everything in it.”                                         ALL Is the Lord’s

_

6          ³¹ So, whether you eat or drink,

            or whatever you do,                                           EAT

            do all to the glory of God.                                  In All—Glorify God

Figure 3.6(3). Cameos 2 and 6 (I Cor 10: 25-26, 31)

These two cameos unite around the topic of “eating and the divine.”  Cameo 2 tells the reader: All meat sold in the marketplace belongs to God, not to the idols, because the entire earth is the Lord’s. This affirmation must have been hugely liberating for Paul’s readers.  Imagine a new Greek Christian entering the meat market in Corinth with great inner turmoil and wondering, “If this meat was offered to Asclepius the god of health, it must belong to him.  And if I buy it and eat it, will Asclepius make me sick because I no longer worship him?”  “No,” answers Paul—“it all belongs to the one Lord who created all things” (cameo 2). Such fears are groundless. So if you eat it or do not eat it—give all glory to God alone (cameo 6) and do not be afraid. (p.289) {Food Offered to Idols.  Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. pp.287-89

            As is common the climax of the homily appears in the center (cameo 40, where love is prominent.)  Paul indirectly tells his readers, “Your rights and your freedom are not the only components in this discussion.  What about love?”  We do not know if the informant whisperingin the ear of the Christian guest is the unbelieving host showing consideration to his guest, or a fellow Christian who happens to be present at the banquet.  In either case, what should the Christian guest do when he or she is specifically informed at the banquet about the pagan origins of the meat?[emphasis added by DB]

To paraphrase Paul’s directive he seems to be telling his readers,

If you are invited to a meal in an unbeliever’s home and someone quietly informs you that the meat is “idol food,” out of your love for the informant, who is trying to be sensitive to what he thinks are your feelings, don’t eat the meat.  Your freedom should be tempered by love. {Food Offered to Idols.  Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. p. 290

I don’t need to add many more words to explain further as Bailey presented very clear picture.  But let me begin with the question here. This is what Bailey says, ‘We do not know if the informant whisperingin the ear of the Christian guest is the unbelieving host showing consideration to his guest, or a fellow Christian who happens to be present at the banquet.’

So we actually don’t know who is the informant who has whispered about the meat? Now my question to Bailey keeping only Indian context is: what is the purpose of INVITING A GUEST  for a meal?  If you tell something or behave in certain way which will stop him in participating in the meal it is not only considered as a showing disrespect to the guest but also a sin which will wipe out all the merit of the host.  This we can read from the story of Nachiketas in Katha Upanishad where Yama come forward to give three boons to Nachiketas as he stayed three nights in his house without food as Yama was not in the house$.  Leave the Upananishad even an ordinary Indian knows that a guest must be respected and treated well. The main purpose of inviting the guest is to feed him well.  Then why the host or someone else should whisper on the ear of the guest to warn him about the meat!  Does he not know that this will prevent him taking the meal?  In an ordinary home the parents will warn their children and other members to behave properly with the host. Particularly when food is served, no one should tell or talk anything which will irritate the host or the family member who is eating will stop and get up in the middle.  In fact this will bring humiliation to the host more than to the guest.  When the father rebukes the child or children on anything while she or they eat, the mother will rebuke the husband not to ‘scold’ while they are eating.  And which host, even a Christian host will whisper on the ear of the guest about the origin of the meat which will prevent the guest to eat the meal which in the end will become an embarrassing situation for the host?  And why not inform the guest before the sending the invitation about the origin of the meat for him decide about accepting the invitation?

Next is that in the Corinthian context—both the guest and host know from where the meat is coming.  So there is no need to warn the guest about it.  Even if the informant is not the host but someone else who is invited for the banquet, the guest already knows about the origin of the meat.  Most of the meat sold in the market in Corinthians is coming from the temple sacrifice.  Even if we take for granted, that considering the ‘conscious’ of the guest the host bought it from other place, which might be very expensive, then what is the need to warn about it to the guest. In case if the informant is not the host but another person also invited for the banquet, who actually does not know that the host bought the meat from other place and still warns the guest about it by ‘WHISPERING’ before checking with the host, what any sensible guest will do?  He will either think that this informant is a trouble maker or came only to humiliate the host.

So how can we make any remark based on such imagination? So let me also imagine.  The guest is a recent convert who become ‘Sam’ from ‘Shyam’ and the host is his close friend or relative still a pagan known as Ram.  But Ram’s wife is famous for making delicious briyani which everyone likes.  But the previous night Ram and his wife had a small quarrel.  So in order to take revenge on her husband, she prepared tastier briyani but very limited one. When Ram asked about it, she told that she is run out of other masalas so she cannot make more than that and promised that another day she will make still tastier briyani for him, but at present let them feed only to the guest.  But both Shyam and Ram were close friends.  So when Ram’s wife before serve the briyani told Sam that Ram’s has stomach problem therefore he cannot eat that briyani today.  Knowing this trap, when she went to the kitchen Ram whispered about the origin of the meat to Sam thinking that this will stop him taking that briyani alone which he can take later.  But knowing his trick, Sam with a smile says to Ram, ‘arye yar.  I know about the quarrel between you and your wife.  Don’t try to cheat me.  We know both well from where the meat is coming.  So your whisper won’t work and I thought of requesting your wife to serve a bit not to disappoint you. But now I am going to join her and we both won’t allow you to taste even a spoon of briyani’. Then both of them were laughing and bringing the briyani Ram’s wife also laughed and showed some mercy to her husband by giving his share.

The next one is joining the pagan worship.  Here the context is not receiving Prasad from your Hindu friend or accepting invitation for a meal from your host, but voluntarily and consciously participating in the idol worship having some faith in it.  If a ‘convert’ or ‘Hindu bhakta of the Lord’ or even a traditional Christian deliberately make a choice to participate in an idol worship with an intension to receive the blessing from that deity then we need to question his bhakti in the Lord.  But it is a fact that not only new converts and several Hindu bhaktas but even traditional Christian do this.  So we have no two opinions in opposing such conflicting faith.  But what if a Hindu bhakta who is living with his family is invited to a family puja or visit to the temple of family deity (kula devata)?  If his family members already know about his bhakti in the Lord, by refusing to participate the Hindu bhakta is not going to take any stand for the Lord for his faith.  They already know that he is now worshiping only Muktinath.  But he participates in the ritual and puja to show solidarity with the family as a member of the family.  In case if his family members do not know about his faith, still by refusing to join he is not going to take any stand for the Lord.  His absence will become more problem and questioned by all.  But his presence will be ignored as he too will be one among the crowd and no one is going to watch whether he is sincerely and honestly participate in the puja and take part in all the ritual.  Even if sincerely takes part or just ignore some of them, nobody is going to mind about it.  Because in several such family pujas or rituals, we can see that several members of the family will often walk out to talk with someone on phone or to receive others or busy in some other work. What is important and required is his presence.  Your absence will draw more attention but your presence will be often ignored.

Now what about a ‘Convert’ or a ‘traditional Christian’ for some reason forced to participate in such pujas (like Ayuda puja [vishvakarma puja] in the office during Navaratri) or inauguration of an office or company etc.  Others know about his faith.  Even if he actively participate in the puja and joins in the ritual and finally even receive the Prasad, no one is going to think that now he gave up his Christian faith and become a Hindu. 

Here I stop. I will give the rest of Bailey’s note with my comments within the text in [] in red color.  I have written a long paper on ‘Problem with Prasad’. It needs to be edited properly.  But still I can share with you if you want to read it also.

On Redemption:

Not only LTJ but several sincere and serious evangelicals who are very sensitive to culture issues, often talk about ‘redeeming’ the certain culture and tradition for the Lord (in our country).  But not knowing proper English, still I cannot what this ‘redemption’ actually is?  If every good and best things in my culture and tradition is either my creation as I am created in the Image of God or gift from God—like coconut, oil lamp, etc. etc., what is there to be redeemed and redeemed from whom?  Are they belong to the ‘devil’ so that I need to now redeem and cleanse so that I can use to ‘GLORIFY’ the Lord!  To say in other words, suppose I am redeeming coconut and use in our maha-prasad puja.  If the evangelicals call this as ‘redeeming’ for the Lord, then what they are going to say as the coconut is continuously also used in Hindus in their pujas both at home and temple?  They are already belongs to me!  So from whom I should redeem it and why even such thought should come to me.  This is the problem with the evangelicals.  They view everything from their doctrinal point of view (here redemption) and superimpose on us. And any naïve ‘convert’ or Hindu bhakta then think that it is correct.  I will use what already belongs to me.  Others have no right—not even Hindu fundamentalists to question about. 

As a Hindu bhakta of the Lord I have my right over everything that belongs to my culture and tradition. At the same time I have to warn that in the name of ‘contextualization’ and ‘inculturalization’ Christian have no right to selectively use our symbols and other religious traditions that will serve their purpose, like displaying the symbols of Hindu deities in the window grills in their church happened in the past in a Catholic church in Bangalore, which was later removed as the Hindus objected to it.  They are correct to object to such display of our deities and symbols as mere fetish or decorative pieces.  The Hindus then rightly argued that, ‘ if you want to keep our deities keep it along with the cross on your alter or remove it.’  That is why I never like to use the emblem of ‘OM’ anywhere in our puja however we chant OM in our puja.  I am not a fan of the so called ‘contextualization’ selectively using some of the symbols and traditions that will serve their purpose and discarding others.  A Hindu bhakta need not ‘contextualize’ anything as every cultural and even religious traditions are already belongs to her. What I would prefer is Incarnational approach. Allow the gospel to incarnate in every culture and tradition to transform it from within to glorify the Creator of all.

Regarding Rethinking people warning the Hindus not to go to the church or participate in their worship this is my response:

 When you invite any Hindu or a Hindu bhakta of the Lord to your church to join the WORSHIP, do you want her to remain mere ‘OBSERVER’ or actually PARTICIPATE in the worship? If you expect her to PARTICIPATE will you or your other church members and even the priest will allow her take part in the COMMUNION also?  I don’t need to further elaborate about it.  In several churches where one denominational member is not allowed to participate in the COMMUNION, where comes the question of a Hindu bhakta of the Lord participating in it.  At the same time I respect their right not to allow others who do not share with their kind of faith expression or doctrine.  Even Hindu temples openly display the board that ‘non-Hindus are not allowed’ inside the temple!  Every religion has the right to have exclusivism when it comes to their faith and rituals. But why should I go merely to OBSERVE what you are doing? 

Now take our case.  We never discriminate anyone because of their faith. Yes even if a Hindu who does not have faith in the Lord participate in our pujas we never say no to them (in fact we invite them as several our own family members participate in it) but also distribute the maha-prasad to them. For us it is remembering the saving grace of God for others it is the common grace of God.  Christians have every right to object our practice.  But why should we heed them?  Whether we stand or fall, it is between us and the Lord.  We never invite or allow others to ‘observe’ our worship but actually participate in it.

Another question about Converts continues to live with their pagan partners.  Both LTJ and Paul is very clear in it and too agree with them.  But what I cannot understand is if the children born are cleansed because of the faith of one partner and can continue to have ‘intimate’ fellowship all through their life, how taking the Prasad of Hindu deity is going to contaminate you?  Take for example of a couple whom I know exist very well.  The wife is a ‘believer’ but not the husband. But husband has no problem with his wife’s faith. Now the children are born and they all grown up as typical Hindu as the husband told his wife not ‘impose’ her faith on them.  As her faith cleansed them already, who are they now?  Are they ‘believers’?  Definitely the Christians will say ‘no’. Then what is ‘cleansing business’ has done to them?  What actually the cleansing is?  I only ask the question not knowing the answer.  Now if a unbelieving life partner can live with her believing partner, then why not a Hindu cannot join us to worship the Lord even in participating in the maha-prasad!  Again I insist that Christians have every right not to allow others who do not share in their faith or doctrine.  Paul also clearly warn the believer not to participate in the pagan rituals. But is there any reference or even indirect hint that a non-believer should not be allowed to participate in the Christian worship including participating in Communion?  I am only asking a question here. Of course no Christian will stop any Hindu to come join in their Church Service but only they will stop them participating in the Communion. This I encountered even in my personal life. When I went to a Church in Trichy (in Nandi Koil street) to meet another Christian who came to that service, I too joined in the line to receive the Communion. But immediately I was stopped by them and told not to join in the queue. Then I left not even meeting that Christian.

Rest I agree with LTJ annan. Salvation is not going to heaven but the Lord coming back again to continue his Kingdom which he already established her on earth—where all our cultural and traditional values, arts, music etc, (including my cross stitch work) will continue to remain.  Muktiveda celebrate MATERIALITY which is a reality.  The concept of MAYA is completely alien to Muktiveda.  Let us celebrate what god has given to us allowing us to CREATE as we are CREATED IN HIS IMAGE.

This reflection is based only on the Question and Answer Session and not the main lecture.

Caste versus Tribe: I agree with LTJ that caste discrimination is a scandal in the Church.  But my question in order to preserve the original identity of the tribes if inter-tribe marriage should not be allowed, then in order to preserve their own social and cultural identity if some caste groups want to preserve their caste identity what is wrong in it? This does not mean that I support any form of caste discrimination.  Preserving the tribal identity is another kind of racialism which also need to be opposed. Notes

The entire notes from Bailey:

Bailey:

            The overall essay focuses on the question of how Christians are to live out their lives in a pagan world. Are they to accommodate to that world, and if so—to what extent?  Are they to blend in or stand apart?  The question of food offered to idols offered Paul a concrete case study for a discussion of this critical concern. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}— Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, p.229

A clear and powerful progression of thought moves through the homily {I Cor. 8:1-13}.  Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us!  If we love God, God “knows” us.

1. Knowledge, love and God. Love is more important than knowledge.  Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us!  If we love God, God “knows” us.
2. Knowledge, idols and God.  We know that idols have no existence. There is only one God who has created all things through one Lord.
3. Knowledge, your brother/sister and God.  The weak person may think that idols are real, and such a person’s conscience is defiled if he or she sees you eating meat offered to idols.
4. Knowledge, your brother/sister and Christ. This weak person is your sister or brother, and causing him or her to stumble is a failure to love and thereby a sin against Christ. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p. 232

A clear and powerful progression of thought moves through the homily {I Cor. 8:1-13}.  Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us!  If we love God, God “knows” us.

1. Knowledge, love and God. Love is more important than knowledge.  Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us!  If we love God, God “knows” us.
2. Knowledge, idols and God.  We know that idols have no existence. There is only one God who has created all things through one Lord.
3. Knowledge, your brother/sister and God.  The weak person may think that idols are real, and such a person’s conscience is defiled if he or she sees you eating meat offered to idols.
4. Knowledge, your brother/sister and Christ. This weak person is your sister or brother, and causing him or her to stumble is a failure to love and thereby a sin against Christ. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p. 232

…The sacrifices were the property of the priests of the various temples and what the priests could not eat, they sold. During the numerous feasts there was an inevitable glut in the meat market, and the price would drop accordingly. For many of the poor of the city (which certainly included at least some of the Christians) that was probably the only time they could afford to eat meat.  Furthermore, if a person didn’t ask the butcher, he or she would not know whether a particular piece of meat had been offered to an idol or not. None of the idols existed anyway, so why not enjoy some rarely affordable beef or lamb?

            In the context of a city like Corinth all of this made perfect sense.  But if reported  in Jerusalem, such a practice would sound like a trashing of the Jerusalem agreement.  Paul could have simply issued a ruling such as , “Barnabas and I agreed with the apostles in Jerusalem on this matter and I insist that our agreement be honored.  No Christian is allowed to eat meat offered to idols, and that’s final!”

            Instead of issuing a new law, Paul asks his reader to reflect on “knowledge” and “love.”  In the six lines of cameos 1-2 {8:1-3}, the words knowledge and knowing appear seven times with at least one occurrence in each line.  The words know and love occur together twice.  The last line in cameo 1 reads, “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” and cameo 2c affirms, “But if one loves God, one is known by him.”

            The two key words knowledge and love reappear in the hymn to love in 13:4.  Once again, Paul is quietly building up a list of negatives that appear when love is absent. In the process, he describes the inner working of “knowledge” on the one hand and “love” on the other.  Knowledge, by its very nature, can easily create pride and arrogance.  The one who has large amounts of knowledge can easily look down on those less informed. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p. 233

…The Corinthians who knew that idols did not exist were in grave danger of using that knowledge in a way that would tear down what Paul, with great effort, had built up. The issue of food offered to idols could easily split the church in Corinth and elsewhere into Jewish-background believers and Gentile-background believers….{Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p.234

            Paul’s context is easy to reconstruct. Temples served meals where the meat on offer had been sacrificed to one of the gods.  Even in private homes, extended family social occasions would involve meals where the “main course” was meat offered to idols.  Such meat was perhaps the only meat the family could afford. Paul presents the problem in Cameo 5{vs. 8:7}.  What about the people who were still frightened by the ever-present temples with their statues of “the gods”?  If they ate meat offered to them, were they not ingesting the god into their very lives?  “Isn’t that what happens at the celebration of the Holy Supper?” they could have asked. Or perhaps the “god” they no longer worshiped would make them sick if they ate “his meat” while refusing to worship him?  The “strong” in the community were likely insisting “these gods do not exist. This meat is ‘food for the stomach,’ and nothing more needs to be said.”.  But, what about the “weak”?

            In cameo 3 {vs. 8:4}Paul grants the validity of this argument as it was made by these “strong” believers. Idols do not exist. But here in cameo 5{vs. 8:7}, as an act of love, Paul urges his readers to refrain from opening the way back to idol worship for those who do not yet emotionally feel what their heads are telling them.  As G. G. Findlay has written, “Knowledge operating alone makes it an engine of destruction.” {“St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.”  The Expositor’s Greek Testament.  Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.  Vol. 2. New York: George H. Doran, 1900., p. 839} {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}–ibid. p.239

{emotional blackmail?  How long the weak is going to remain weak to black mail the matured one that too based on their emotional feeling.  Where is the guarantee that they will limit only with food offered to idol worship and try to blackmail on many other areas to create problem to the matured one?  And what about the ‘gospel obligation’ on the part of the matured one who try to reach out their own people?  Above all, it is not because of some ‘gospel obligation’ on our part, but as our birth right that we won’t allow others to blackmail us regarding our rights as Hindus as God helped us to born in this community.  Of course any knowledge that creates pride and condescending others is a crime, but insist to remain in ignorance is also not correct.  While the non-Jew new believer with clear understanding (knowledge) try to build up his community with social interaction—thereby accepting meal in which food offered to idol is served, the weak Jew or non-Jew new believer insist of remaining in ignorance and use it to blackmail the strong one based on sentiment.  This I call as prejudice.  Particularly the Jews, however concession shown to them, are not going to accommodate the social obligation of the non-Jews because of their religious prejudice towards the non-Jew’s religious/cultural/social views.  This is proved by the very life of Sevanand.  In stead of his constant effort to reach out them by going third mail at the cost of the non-Jew’s sentiment towards their culture and social view, never succeed.  Here I don’t want to compare the same with the traditional Indian Christians and the adjustments that the new converts are forced to made to survive among them—though I am tempted to do.  My understanding is that ignorance can be corrected through proper teaching, but prejudice can never be removed as it often stems from racial pride.  Here I feel that Sevanand also failed.  However he tried to become all things to all men, yet he remained a Jew at his core and this is also acknowledge by Bailey: see. p. 256-57, 261.  Of course he never had Jewish prejudice against the non-Jews but he allowed it among his own people giving too many concession either to get recognition for his seva among the non-Jew or try to win them for his mission.  But in the end he failed as he failed to address their prejudice and only tried to accommodate their sentiment.  Those who always use their sentiment will use the victim card to block mail others.–db ]

…It is a case of a person with a strong conscience who wants to force his ethical choices on others. On the other hand there are those who walk their own path ignoring the havoc their choice will wreak in the body of Christ. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p.240

            Paul continues, “We are no worse off if we do not eat.” {8:8}  That is, it would have been easy for those who ate idol meat to boldly affirm, “There are no idols, so there is no problem!  We the strong can eat this meat. Doing so proves the strength of our faith.”  Those same people would naturally have looked down on the “weak” who were not strong enough to eat this good, cheap food.  No, replies Paul, the one who chooses to refrain is not worse off (i.e., weak in faith) and you who eat this meat are not better off (i.e., strong in faith).  The issue has to do with love.  You the “strong” can become a stumbling block for the “weak.”  Love must influence how you sue your knowledge. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p.240

…The failure to love others in the debate over “food offered to idols” is not a little disagreement on a minor point of ethics. It is a sin against Christ, whose love was so great that he died to save. {Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13}—ibid. p. 241.

[if the strong is forcing his ethical choices on others—particularly on the weak, the weak through their ‘emotional feeling’ try to blackmail the strong.  In that scenario what should be done?  Educate the weak and make them strong.  And if they continue to want to remain in their weakness, then leave it to their choice and allow the strong move forward.—db]

            Paul first told his readers to accommodate to everyone and become “all things to all people.”  He then reflected on the Hebrew sacramental past, and his advice was “something to some people.”  That is, Christian sacraments have continuity with the Hebrew experience of the exodus. But their ethical responses to those experiences were inadequate.  Now Paul turns to the Gentile sacramental past that surrounded all of his readers.  He warns,

In a private home or in a temple-owned restaurant, eating meat offered to idols is not necessarily a problem. Joining in pagan/Gentile worship is very different!  Have nothing to do with it. In this case my judgment is—no identification is possible!  Our loyalty to Christ translates into “nothing for anyone.” {New Covenant Sacraments and Idolatry. No Identification. 1 Cor. 10:14-22}—ibid. p. 274

…Paul created a multicultural church, and he urges his readers to care for the interests of ”the other” (believer or nonbeliver), setting aside their own interests.

            The opening lines of each of these two cameos are related in a special way. Cameo 1 sets out general principles while cameo 7 offers applications of those principles.  We can almost hear the conversation between Paul and his readers. It is as if they are engaged in the following dialogue:

Paul     As a general principle (cameo 1 {10:23}) can say, “All things are lawful tome but they are not all helpful. Nor do all things build up.”

Paul’s readers   Can you give us a general sense as to how to apply these two principles?

Paul     Yes, I can (cameo 7 {10:32-33}).  Let us look at the two parts of what I have just said.

1. Regarding being helpful, don’t offend Jews, Greeks or the church of God. You gain nothing by offending people. It makes them angry, and they become entrenched in their opposing views.  Giving offense is simply not helpful.
2. As for building up, when you do not offend you have the opportunity to commend your message of salvation, and in the process build up the community at large. You need to also build up the believing community internally.  Work to build up, not tear down. (p. 287) […]

In cameo 7 Paul sets a high standard. He is engaged in evangelism and his theological goal is clear.  But his method is also clear.  The standard is: Give no offense to Jews, Greeks or to the church.  For him there will be no public attacks on the faith of others.  Critical analysis, yes, attacks—no!  While writing to Christians he does not hide the fact that the gods of the “the Gentiles” do not exist and that their worship brings them into fellowship with demons. As noted, archaeology has identified Greek shrines in Corinth dedicated to the worship of twelve different gods.  But there is no attack on any of these idols, their sacred books, their temples or their priests.  When lecturing on Mars Hill (Acts 17: 22-31) Paul found common ground between his message and respected Greek authors. In Paul’s ministry, tolerance, open-mindedness and respect flowed together with critical analysis and non-apologetic evangelism. To update Paul’s directive into the twenty-first century we could say, “Give no offense to Jews or to Muslims or to the church of God. Do not seek your own advantage, but theirs—and at the appropriate time, in a respectful and culturally sensitive way, bear witness to the Christian story without apology.” This directive is clear, yet Paul leaves the reader with a further question.

In the second essay Paul boldly instructed the Corinthians to dismiss the incestuous man. In this third essay he directs them to give “no offense to the church of God.”  How can these two texts be reconciled?  Was he not potentially offending at least a part of the church by urging the dismissal of the (p.288) offender…. It may be possible to combine these two texts by suggesting that what Paul means is, “Strive to avoid offending the conscience of anyone, and at the same time, maintain ethical standards within the body of Christ, even if that effort may require discipline in order to protect the spiritual health of the community and save the offender.”

            The second semantic envelope in this homily (cameos 2, 6) is also remarkable. The two matching cameos are seen together in figure 3.3(3).

2..        ²⁵ Eat whatever is sold in the meat market

                        Without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

²⁶ For “the earth is the Lord’s,                            EAT

and everything in it.”                                         ALL Is the Lord’s

_

6          ³¹ So, whether you eat or drink,

            or whatever you do,                                           EAT

            do all to the glory of God.                                  In All—Glorify God

Figure 3.6(3). Cameos 2 and 6 (I Cor 10: 25-26, 31)

These two cameos unite around the topic of “eating and the divine.”  Cameo 2 tells the reader: All meat sold in the marketplace belongs to God, not to the idols, because the entire earth is the Lord’s. This affirmation must have been hugely liberating for Paul’s readers.  Imagine a new Greek Christian entering the meat market in Corinth with great inner turmoil and wondering, “If this meat was offered to Asclepius the god of health, it must belong to him.  And if I buy it and eat it, will Asclepius make me sick because I no longer worship him?”  “No,” answers Paul—“it all belongs to the one Lord who created all things” (cameo 2). Such fears are groundless. So if you eat it or do not eat it—give all glory to God alone (cameo 6) and do not be afraid. (p.289) {Food Offered to Idols.  Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. pp.287-89

            As is common the climax of the homily appears in the center (cameo 40, where love is prominent.)  Paul indirectly tells his readers, “Your rights and your freedom are not the only components in this discussion.  What about love?”  We do not know if the informant whisperingin the ear of the Christian guest is the unbelieving host showing consideration to his guest, or a fellow Christian who happens to be present at the banquet.  In either case, what should the Christian guest do when he or she is specifically informed at the banquet about the pagan origins of the meat?

To paraphrase Paul’s directive he seems to be telling his readers,

If you are invited to a meal in an unbeliever’s home and someone quietly informs you that the meat is “idol food,” out of your love for the informant, who is trying to be sensitive to what he thinks are your feelings, don’t eat the meat.  Your freedom should be tempered by love. {Food Offered to Idols.  Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. p. 290

            In the opening homily (8:1-13) of essay three, Paul asked that knowledge and love be kept together.  At the close of the essay he urges the uniting of (p.290) freedom and love.  Paul is again subtly preparing the reader for the hymn to love that will appear in chapter 13.

            The uniting of freedom and sensitivity/love here in cameo 4 {10:28} is connected to cameo1 {10:23} at the beginning and cameo 7 {10:32-33} at the end. Summarizing Paul’s opening cameo he insists that “all things are lawful,  but all are not helpful or “upbuilding”.    Why is this/  Because freedom must be marinated with love (came 4 {10:28}).  At the end of the homily in cameo 7 {10:32-33}Paul teaches: Give offense to no one, seek their advantage, not your own—that they may be saved. This reflects the love admonished in the center cameo. 

            The larger question is not, what does freedom assure me (cameos 3,5 {10:27, 29b, 30}?  But rather, what does love require of me (cameo 4 {10:28, 29a}? For Paul’s readers who were accustomed to ring composition, this climatic call for sensitivity/love was unambiguous and compelling.

            As noted earlier, for many contemporary readers the order is confusing.  We are conditioned to listening to a presentation that offers:

            On the one hand:

            At home (2) and at private banquets (3) give thanks, eat what you like (5) and give glory to God (6).

            But, (alla) on the other hand::

            If someone tells you, “This is idol meat,” for his sake do not eat the meat (4).

[..]

            This is how a Christian can live in a non-Christian society.  As noted, Paul’s theme song throughout the essay is “Freedom and Responsibility” That responsibility (cameo 4) takes on the color of love and sensitivity.

In summary, Paul has earlier discussed

1. What about idol meat served in temple-operated restaurants?  Paul’s answer is, It is acceptable if you really understand that the idols do not exist and as long as there is no one present who is still deeply unsettled about these so-called gods.
2. What about eating and drinking in an idol worship service?  Paul’s answer was, “Never!  Such eating is participation in the worship of demons.” (p.291)

In this text Paul considers two further questions. These are:

3. Can I buy this idol meat in the market and eat it at home?  Paul replies by saying, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market” (cameo 2). The idols do not exist and the meat itself belongs to God—not to the idols.  The whole earth is his.
4. What about a dinner party in the home of one of my unbelieving friends?  Paul responds using language that is almost a direct quote from what Jesus told the seventy disciples when sent them out two by two.  Both Jesus (Lk 10:8) and Paul say, “Eat whatever is set before you” (cameo 3).  But if someone tells you, “This is idol meat’, out of love for the informant—don’t eat. {Food Offered to Idols.  Freedom and Responsibility (A Final Word). 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1.}—ibid. pp.291-92

Naciketas story from Katha Upanishad:

As a very fire a Brahmana guest enters into houses and (the people) do him this peace-offering; bring water, O Son of the Sun!. 7

Hope and expectation, friendship and joy, sacrifices and good works, sons, cattle and all are taken away from a person of little understanding in whose house a Brahmana remains unfed.-8

‘Since thou, a venerable guest, has stayed in my house without food for three nights, I make obeisance to thee, O Brahmana.  May it be well with me. Therefore, in return, chose thou three gifts.—Katha Upanishad, I. 1. 7-9, S. Radhakrishnan, tr. Delhi, Oxford University Press,  (1953), Fifth impression 1992, pp. 597-98

@@@

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

You must first login to the Discussion Forum site: https://kite.globalsecuresite.com/ssl/www.rethinkingforum.com/forum
and then use this link to read the complete Discussion of the Month: https://kite.globalsecuresite.com/ssl/www.rethinkingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=311

Latest message was:
I like your thoughts a lot.  These are conclusions that I’ve already arrived at, ie. regarding the use of various polluted vocabulary such as “Christian”, “conversion” etc.   The challenge that I have encounter as I relate to Hindus in N. America and on a few summer trips to India is that even if I am trying my best to use fresh and non-polluted language such as Yesu Bhakta, and referring to Yesu as a guru that one can follow and never mentioning “church” etc. Hindus seem to automatically revert to assuming that I’m talking about Christianity and church vs. Hinduism.  I deeply desire for Hindus to come to be truly Hindu disciples of Christ in their own ways outside the existing church structures but my question is this:  How can this really happen in cosmopolitan and globalized contexts such as N.American cities or even the cities of India where there is an Indian church down the street and crusade preachers preaching and publicizing “conversion to Christianity”?

Resonse:

I don’t know about N. American cities, but in India, even in cosmopolitan cities, Hindus never view the ‘church’ on the street as the place of ‘conversion’ but only as a ‘Christian Temple’, like they have several on the same streets.  Interestingly several Hindus will even sign a cross or bow their head before the church.  Similarly now most of the Hindus become familiar (or fed up with conversion preachers).  Of course healing camps attracts several Hindus, but if it is only a preaching meeting, most of the Hindus simply ignore and walk away.  Of course when we try to share the gospel some times these preaching is questioned by our own people.  So in spite of all these impediments, we have to encourage every Hindu bhaktas of the Lord to be a witness to their family and community.  Recently I asked one such to pray for me when I become very sick amidst the annual meeting, to which most of his friends and relatives (who are not the bhakts of the Lord) came.  He often feels shy to pray audibly.  But he cannot say no to me.  So in the presence of his own brother (who knows a lot about the gospel and read the NT) he prayed for me in a meaningful way.  His brother was very much impressed by that prayer.  Better encourage every bhaktas of the Lord to focus on the opportunity which God give to them than worrying about the preachers about conversion.

dayanand

Latest message was:
IDENTITY & TERMINOLOGY

Submitted by BS Nelson

It seems to me that the continued identity of the people of God with Christianity (even the very term “Christianity”) constitutes a severe “image” problem for us.

1. Following Christ is equated with Christianity and thus both presented and perceived as one religion among the several major world religions.

2. People raised in every religious system need to be converted to Christ. We bring unnecessary trouble upon ourselves when we talk about others being converted to Christianity.

3. It perpetuates one weakness of our Western (“modern”?) worldview, compartmentalization. Religion is one component of our segmented lives and doesn’t necessarily connect with other components.

Some would argue that it is extremely awkward to talk about the gospel, the Church and missions without using words like Christian and Christianity. I would agree that it is. But many of us in cross-cultural ministry and elsewhere currently try to avoid such terms, especially among non-Christian audiences. There are other ways to talk about our faith. I am not suggesting these terms be done away with entirely, but in an increasing variety of contexts the problems associated with their use outweigh the benefits.

Response by SA Morrison:

BSNelson,

I totally agree with you about this. It is a problem that I’ve pondered as of late, with little solutions. Have you come to any conclusions or insights for those of us in ministry to Hindus whether in the West or in the subcontinent?


Pesponse by BS Nelson:

Some thoughts in response to your reply to me.  Part of the solution is watching our vocabulary closely.
We have heard the following words used (and in times past used them ourselves), all of which we avoid: Christian, Christian God, Christianity, missionary, missions, convert, conversion, religion (in certain contexts)…

Our pastor in India consistently mentioned the following points with his Hindu friends when he encountered misconceptions:
-Jesus has helped me to be a better citizen of India; I pay my taxes, etc.
-Jesus dressed more like an Indian than a North American; the culture of Bible times is more like that of India than North America; Jesus was Jewish, not a White-skinned, English-speaking Westerner
-the original languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not English
-the message of Jesus Christ came to India long before it came to the USA
-you do not have to eat meat or change your name in order to follow Christ

We tried to help our friends understand that:
-our own church-going, very religious past and following Christ are distinct; my wife and I truly believed in Jesus at ages 17 and 20
-America is not a Christian nation
-no one culture or group of people has a corner on the market of truth

We tried to include the names of some of our believing friends during our conversations with Hindus, e.g. “Jagdish Sharma is a disciple of Jesus and his father was a pundit,” “We go to the same church as Verma ji goes to, the lady whom you met in the market.”

We tried to show them that “religious activity” is not just a compartment of our lives but we pray at meals, for guidance, for the healing of our friends, for the elections in Delhi, etc. We are honest at all times, not only when it is to our obvious advantage. We trust in God rather than automatically paying a bribe. These are not points for boasting and may seem obvious, but I was surprised how “compartmentalized” my “Christian life” was when I first went to India as a 32-year old.

This is all I have to say for the time being. Perhaps you can help me reflect in greater depth.
Blessings,
BS Nelson

I doubt whether merely mentioning some Hindu disciples name (Sharma and Varma) as the fellow members  of the same church will communicate what Nelson wish to share with his friends?  Because in India in general every worshiping place is associated with a particular community—Masjid with for Muslims, temple for Hindus and church for Christians.  Though he cannot stop both Sharma and Varma going to the Church, he can tell his Hindu friends that they need not even come to the church to worship Jesus.  The best option would be to encourage both Sharma and Varma to start a small house fellowship where the Hindu friends of any Christians can be encouraged to go.  Still how far in those house churches also ‘Christian’ technical terms continue to miscommunication the gospel is a big question.  At least that will give an alternative option for the Hindus to encourage to listen the message in an natural environment. 

dayanand

@@@

Rick,

I am not sure how much I can give my response to several question in RK Forum.  So I am sending the following questions and my response to them.  You your self post whichever you think is permissible in RK Forum.

Dayanand

Bible stories that are good introductory/evangelistic stories to tell Hindus. Also, what are elements to be highlighted and contextualized in telling these stories?

–often stories are told as illustration and not as the main message.  For example when I talk about worshiping God both truth and spirit, when I refer the verses Mathew 5:2324, I will tell in this way:

if you go to the temple to do puja and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave all your puja things (coconut, flowers, incense etc.) there and first go and be reconciled to your brother, then come and do your puja.

Of course we all have our particular method of telling the gospel.  For example in our recent meeting at Kodaikkanal, I was talking about the ‘dilemma’ of Arjuna in the war front (in Mahabharata and the main scene of Gita).  To be or not to be is his confusion.  After telling all about Arjuna and Gita, then I came to the bible and told about our Lord and the woman caught in adultery.  There I told that when innocent people are persecuted then the Lord came to their rescue but when He was persecuted He refuse to retaliate and even hanging on the Cross prayed God to forgive them.  So I will generally select a good theme from Hindu scripture and then relate it to the Bible and the gospel.  [In my response to Chips From An Indic Workshop: Does the Bhagavadgita advocate war and violence?—Prof. Arvind Sarma, McGill University, MLBD Newsletter December 2002, p.16. I compared Bible and Gita and those who are interested can ask me and I will send it personally].  If Rethinking Forum is interested then I can put that article there itself.]

Are all Hindus demonized?

–it depends upon your approach to Hindus.  In general all the so called  influence of evil spirit, demon possession one can find among the so called low caste and uneducated people.  The so called high caste and several educated people never believe in it.  However when facing severe problem in life, some will seek remedy through any means.  However for a healthy attitude towards Hindus, it is better to avoid such idea even.

What type of warfare should I expect when encountering the Hindu civilization?

–intellectually first.  Because even most of the time, even in one’s encounter with popular Hindus, they will try to give a philosophical answer to any serious question.  This being the case how much the so called high caste and educated people will talk philosophically.  More you read Hindu scriptures and involve with Hindu ministry more you will face intellectual encounter (Resistant Hinduism by Richard Fox Young is the best example) of all kind.  As right kind of ‘knowledge’ is the fundamental means for salvation in Hinduism (to say in a general way), one has to be ready to face intellectual warfare with Hindu civilization.

Is there any real proof that St. Thomas visited and died in South India?

I personally don’t believe in this.

If I move to India what is the most significant contribution I can make to spread the –gospel among Hindus outside the existing church?

–first become a Tentmaker.  In your raport with (educated) Hindus show that you are keenly interested to contribute something to this nation and not merely interested in proselytizing.   As much as possible keep your identity outside the established churches.  Never encourage the Hindus to go to the churches.  I recently heard one sad story from one of my friends, who met one of the senior European Missionary in one International Church Fellowship (my friend never goes except some genuine reason).  My friend asked the missionary what he is doing in that church (as the missionary often goes to the local church).  For that he said, ‘when I cannot take the new “converts” to the local church for some reason, then I bring them here’.  What a mess and poor strategy to help a Hindu follower of the Lord to grow in her/his faith?

If I move to India should my wife and I wear traditional Indian dress or western clothes? Should we eat with our right hand or use a fork and knife? How much of the new culture should we adopt versus maintaining our American identity?

–if you are going to stay in a major city among educated people and if you are going to be a tent maker, better keep your American identity as much as you want.  However it is better to adjust to some level to the new culture—for example if you sit together to eat with any Indian, don’t touch any food with your right hand which you have used to eat food.  Once you started to eat the food by your right hand, then it is defiled.  So better to take the food using your left hand.  The reason for saying this is that I have observed and even prevented several of my non-Indian friends to take food by their right hand once they begin to eat with that hand.  They learnt that using left hand while eating food is not a good manner in India.  So they use to pick up some food from their right hand while they were eating.  In India, in general woman will stand to serve so there never comes any question of taking food by left hand.  But when you sit together to eat, better use your left hand to take food or use the spoon to take food only by your left hand—even if you use fork and spoon to eat food by your right hand.  Particularly Brahmins and some other (high) caste people are very sensitive to take food with a defiled hand.

Educated and city dwelling Indians are familiar with western cloths.  However some kind of modesty is expected woman in general.  Using a fork and knife won’t be a problem.  But as I have said above don’t use your right hand to pick up food from the vessel by your right hand, once you started to eat.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thanks to samorrison for helping with the quote about C1-5 witness. For several weeks after I posted my question I was unable to access the website. And thanks to Swami Dayanand for your answer. I am located in US and hope to use my growing understanding of contextualized witness to reach Hindus here. I learn Hindi, read, mix with Indians, etc to learn all I can about India and how to best reach Hindus. Sometimes I wonder how can I possibly produce disciples who remain “Indian” (c-5) when I am not Indian. Do you know non-Indian missionaries who are doing that successfully and what advice can you give me as I try to make disciples among Hindus here?

I would like to give the following question asked by one of my friends and my response to her.  But I am not sure whether I can post all of them in Rethinking Forum.  Here it is:

Dear Swamiji,

I have missed not being at the various meetings in our city when you visited and taught the people there. ….has told me all about them and I am deeply encouraged by all that is going on.

I have a particular situation in which I need counsel from you.

Through a mutual friend (American who lives in India), I have met via telephone a lovely Indian woman who is a follower of J. She was born in America. Her parents are Hindu. She started following J when she was 14. She was afraid to tell her parents until she was a senior in high school (about 17 years old). At that time they were very angry with her for this. She became very much incorporated in the western church and held on hard to her American identity. She fell in love with a believing man, but he decided it wasn’t right for them to marry. Through the trauma of her heartbreak, she decided to get back under her parent’s authority and get to know some Indian men. (She was 30 at this point and a practicing Psychologist). She met her husband in this way. He is a Hindu man but very open to her following J. (while wanting her to be the Indian she is) His main complaint about C-tians is that they destroy the Indian culture (!)

He is a medical doctor and has a prestigious position here in the US. Her parents are leaders and main founders of the temple in their city (here in the US). They have two young sons. She loves her husband very much but feels so badly because the core of her being (her relationship with J) is not shared with him.

In the meantime she is desiring to teach her children about God and doesn’t know how to go about teaching them to be Indian while loving J. Her husband desires her to do the task of leading out in teaching the children spiritually, but she is at a loss. (This is a woman who has been a leader of Bible studies, who has spoken at women’s conferences, etc.) She wants to know how to teach her children about the ‘gita and other stories which are Indian culture, but at the same time the Bible and the truth there. Do you have suggestions which might help her?

I want to be able to help her lead out spiritually in her home, while respecting her husband. What are some ways I might encourage her to do in this role?

(I have thought of her fasting once/week for her husband; and praying regularly for the family)- what are some other things she might do?

(She doesn’t speak Kanada – her husband, his mother and her parents are all from Bangalore)

The children are at her parents right now and she knows they will go to the temple. What should/should not be permitted when they are with their grandparents in the Hindu temple?

What attitudes should she portray?

I feel like this woman could be a key to many, many others. I don’t know how to lead her in this, but God has placed me in a position where I can communicate things to her and she will try them.

Please send me any thoughts you might have on things I can do to encourage her to be the Indian and wife she is yet follow her Lord within her context.

Thank you, swamiji. I send my warmest greetings to you.

In His Care,

…………..

Dear ….

Shanti!

Thanks for asking me these questions.  To be honest with you, all I share may not help your friend as I don’t know anything about the situation in USA.  However based on my experience I would give some general opinion, which she has to adopt according to her situation (as well as need).

To begin with let her not annoyed for children worshipping along with her parents in the temple.  Raman and Bhuvana living at Chennai face similar problem.  But I told them that let their daughter (Arpita) learn all those poems, slokas etc. from his parents.  But I also encouraged them to teach simple Sanskrit poems about our Lord (as this language has a general appeal and respect among the high caste people) as well as pray with their daughter regularly.  But in the prayer also both Raman and Bhuvana use lot of Brahminical Tamil so that Raman’s parents won’t be annoyed when Arpita some times use our Lord Name with  her grand parents.

So your friend also can learn simple Sanskrit slokas about our Lord, not merely to teach her children but also to use in her prayers.  This may also help both her parents and husband to see that she too can worship the Lord in her own cultural and traditional form.

The next important thing for her is to start her own puja room.  …. an American living her at Bangalore (of course her husband is a Christian, but her in-laws are traditional church goers and they are bit upset as her children are not going to the church regularly).  Every day … morning after taking bath will light the oil lamp and keep the Bible in a special stand (about which … knows well).  She need not to keep any idol or even the photo of our Lord, but mere oil lamp, incense stick (if she likes it) and few fresh flowers every day and she can regularly do her morning and evening prayer (just lit the oil lamp, put the flower at the bottom of the lamp, lit the incense stick) by chanting the Sanskrit slokas (about the Lord) and also reading from the bible.  This will also help both her husband and parents to see that she can worship the Lord even in Indian way.  This may even open doors for her to have dialogue with them.  Encourage her to see some of the videos which … has with him of our pujas.  If you don’t have then ask … to send one.  If you want you can also ask … about her experience in doing such puja at Bangalore.

Though Hinduism is complex one and particularly those living out side India want to have a common Hindu Identity, Gita is one best scripture for them to appeal as their ‘scripture’.  So ask your friend also to read it.  But all these she should do not to please or convince her husband or parents, but with real longing to express her bhakti in the Lord in Indian way.  But reading Gita is both simple and complicated, particularly in choosing the correct translation.  To begin with I can send my Gita paper for her (as well as for you too) to have some introduction about it.  Franklin Edgerton’s translation is good one.  Or she can buy Zehner’s or Dr. Shakuntala Rao Sastri’s translation.  Or for a beginner Gita Press edition also is good.

AS … also knows, it is better not use the Name J and instead she can assimilate herself first to understand the meaning of it in India term like: ‘Muktinath’.  Before I forgot I want to know whether you are registered to the Rethinking Web site.  There you will find several interesting topics for you to read and help such people like your friend.  But you have to register for it and I can ask my friend to do it for you.  Then she, after have a clear conviction with in her about using Indian terms and Name for the Lord etc. she can also teach the same to her children.  This will also help her to communicate to her husband and parent’s about her faith and love for her own culture.  But all these things she should not do for the sake of others, but with a real inner conviction that one could be a Hindu and a bhaktas of the Muktinath.

So to begin with I would suggest her to:

1. Start her sandya (both morning and evening)puja—at least one time in the morning.  She need not keep a separate room for this.  Either in the Living room or in a convenient place (in her study room—definitely not in the bed room) or even in the kitchen (most of the Hindus in India will have their puja place in the kitchen itself).  Just a corner stand in the wall with a small oil lamp and a bible stand is enough to start.  But tell her not to light the oil lamp during her monthly period as it is considered inauspicious.  But she can stand afar from the puja stand and silently pray.

2. Learn Sanskrit slokas both for her devotional worship as well as to teach her children.

3. To begin to read Hindu scripture—better with Gita, Ramayana & Mahabharata (abbreviated ones are available easily even on CD).

I think I gave a very long answer to your enquiry.  Rest after your response.

Dayanand

@@@

Reconversion and rice Christians.

Rice Christians or real Christians

The reality of conversion, at least in mass-movements in India and the challenges now it faces in the form of re-conversion (or coming back to home) is used by the opposite parties to stall the Parliament to corner the ruling party and the Sangh parivar challenges for a debate on conversion, pushing for a bill on it.  However church might responds to this challenge, it cannot hide certain hard historical facts on this subject.

The historical reality is that most of the mass-conversion took place not keeping the spiritual need of the people alone.    Here I don’t want to blame or find fault with ‘rice Christians’, even  if they become convert only for the sake of material gain.  But the way mission handled this issue remain the same even today.

Defending any conversion in which both ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’ interests are addressed Gunnel Cederlof questions any ‘ideological (or theological) position in which the human being is divided into body and soul’.   Writing from her field research she says:

…Mass-movement converts have sometimes been accused of being ‘rice Christians’, which meant that they had converted (p.183) for material and not spiritual reasons.  They were, so to speak, not true Christians. This is a normative position, sometimes slightly moralizing. The question ‘Did they come for material or spiritual reasons?’ presupposes an ideological (or theological) position in which the human being is divided into body and soul. The underlying assumption may go even further and indicate that the mission’s responsibility covered the saving of souls, while caring for the body should be a matter for local society or the state; anything else would constitute the buying of souls. On the other hand, if the question is turned into a research question, it disregards the possibility that people may have come for both material and spiritual reasons and that they may not have divided life into two sections, one physical and the other spiritual, at all.  However, let us leave he moral aspect of this question aside and concentrate purely on the research question.—Bonds Lost, Subordination, Conflict and Mobilisation in Rural South India c. 1900-1970, New Delhi,  Manohar, 1997,pp.183-84

But with my personal experience with mission in the past I can say without any hesitation that whatever might be the motive of the ‘converts’, the mission’s  motive was not purely spiritual one but the number.  The well- known slogan of mass-movement is ‘Win the winnable while they are winnable’.  And  keeping this as their mission theology (missiology), they first convert the people and then try to pay attention both to the material and spiritual need.  But  when several went back when their material need is not met, then ignoring the warning of the Lord in Mt. 23:15 they justified their act by quoting the text, ‘narrow is the path for mukti; many were called but few were chosen (Mt. 22:14)’.

But the tragedy in such missiology is that no church or mission can take complete responsibility of the material need of one covert or many converts, and contrary to what Cederlof view ‘caring for the body should be a matter for the local society or the state’.  Because this is how a society can function in which every convert has to survive with the support and service of the larger society.  However they extracted and created separate ‘Christian’ villages and communities to safeguard the life and interest of the converts from the persecutions, soon such efforts ended in failure.  Because either before or after the conversion, all their attention to attend the material need of the people never produced the expected result as such help were done ‘EITEHR TO THE CONVERTS OR TO CONVERT’.  See, for example what Cederlof continuing her research question on this topic says:

               When converts made explicit material demands, the missionaries reacted with irritation. Among the MMS converts, the Koravar caste was often describes as pushing for material benefits.  In 1927, the Koravar in Kongunad were reported to have reconverted when the ‘material benefits of their new faith were less, and the disabilities attached thereto greater than they had expected’. {CSMA, Unsorted documents, CSM in India 1947, pp. 7-8)  In the CSM reports, the Valayar had the same  reputation…. (p.184) {CSM = Chruch of Sweden Mission}

But giving some credit to the Mission, we have also to note that ‘The overall aim with regard to the Madhari, irrespective of the outcome, can be summarized as ‘self-reliance’.  ….implies that the CSM’s distribution of resources was designed to produce a deep integration into rural relations’ (p.184).  At the same time the theology of conversion is to save the soul from hell (so spiritual) whereas the missiology  proved the fact that the they made many converts the children of hell (Mt. 23:15) double the time as Cederlof shows:

…The Valayar was a new group in which sections had decided to convert. They held a much higher social position than the Madhari and lived in ‘neat houses and move freely with all inhabitants of the village’.  Several hundreds had been admitted in that year, and three to four times as many were expected to join. But the satisfaction did not last long. Soon they became known for stealing and for illicit distilling, and Bertil Envall reports in 1948 from Palladam that the Christian Valayar had spent most of the year in Jail….Most of the Valayar converts lived around Sulur, between Coimbatore and Tiruppur, and the missionary stationed in Sulur, Jonas Ulrici, complained repeatedly about drinking, theft and quarrels among the Valayar Christians.  Villages could relapse and, occasionally, once again return to the Church.{CSMA, MBa 1952:553, p.2}. (p.185) {CSMA =Church of Sweden Mission Archives, Uppsala; MBa =Mission Board minutes appendixes (Missionsstyrelsens protokollsbilagor)}

But we have to appreciate the honest confession of Cederlof as she wrote:

               It may be concluded that, when the mission workers were faced with the immediate poverty of the Madhari and with their bonded (p.191) relationship to the landowners, they chose to go in the direction of more economic involvement…. Rather than spreading resources around@, the economic involvement was basically in the form of providing education and giving initial financial support to make people self-reliant and thereby also more independent of the Goundar landowners….When the mission workers entered the villages, their financial means may have been scarce.  Despite this, they entered as an authority having material resources which they directed towards the Madhari.—pp. 191-92

               Though  Cederlof  does not directly mention here what actually she means when wrote, ‘Rather than spreading resources around ‘, already she gave the information for us to infer this:

               The most organized form of relief distribution by the CSM took shape during the drought from 1946 to 1953.  From 1948 onwards, food was delivered from the United States, financed by the Church World Service, to the Madras State.  Bertil Envall was the District Convenor in the Coimbatore district, and it was his task to organize the distribution of the food.  According to the Government of India’s terms, these rations were to be given irrespective of caste and creed and ought therefore not have constituted any reason for conversion.  But, according to Envall, the rations may have given him a good reputation as a distributor of goods.75  However difficult to measure, the value of a good impression made on people in need should not be underestimated.

75. In India, the relief was organized by the National Christian Council, Famine Relief Committee.  TNA, FOOd, Famine Relief, G. O. 976, 28.10.1948; CSMA, MBa 1949:489, p. 5; CSMA, MBa 1952:544; Envall 1995, interview. {TNA =Tamil Nadu Archives, Madras}

The lines which I highlighted  (bold and underline) is enough for one to read in between lines what that ‘good reputation’ and ‘good impression on people’.   However the individual missionaries were humble and simple, yet the historic reality is that both the church and mission, wherever it went to spread the gospel, went with ‘an authority having material resources’ which lured the ‘people in need’ to accept their terms and condition to receive it.

I am not against any charity done by the church or mission out of compassion to the needy.  This they have done without having any ulterior motive.  Mother Therasa is the good example of this, though she is still not receive the respect that she deserves by many Indians.$ (The reason for me saying this is that Sri…..said in an interview that after he met President he said that ‘he is the first Indian to receive Noble prize for peace’.   Further adding ….said that though Mother Therasa received Noble price for peace still she was not an Indian by birth’.)

As I have already quoted many times, ‘throwing a bone to the dag is not charity….’.  Charity is not an exclusive virtue of the Christians.  Every human being has it part of her nature as she is created in the Image of God.  Regarding the charity done by the Hindus, though most of them are done to earn some merit or to get rid of sin/bad karma on practical level, the theology behind is comes under their obligation to the fellow human beings under five great sacrifices, known as ‘pancha maha yajna’.  Each Hindu is expected to take care of the fellow human beings and living beings by providing to the need of their body known as ‘nara yajna and bhuta yajna’.  So in theory at least this is prescribed and done not to earn merit or to get rid of sin/karma, but as an obligation on their part.

Whereas the theology of the Muktiveda in charity is almost come closer to it (e.g., ‘let not your right hand know what you give to the left hand’) yet the missiology of the charity is done ‘either to the convert or to convert’.   Though it was done with good intention to help.  Without further adding any point I would like to close this topic by quoting other Christians  view on this subject:

               St Paul did not convert or attempt to convert people by working miracles upon them.  He did not attract people to Christianity by offering them healing.  He did not heal on condition that they attended to his teaching.  In this he was illustrating a principle which guided the Christian Church in her administration of charity throughout the early centuries of her history.  ‘We know,’ says Professor Harnack, ‘of no cases in which Christians desired to win, or actually did win adherents by means of the charities which they dispensed.’ [Expansion of Christianity, vol. I, p. 386]

               I cannot help thinking that this is a principle which we cannot be too careful to observe.  There was a day in India when our missionaries paid a regular fee to scholars to attend our schools in order that they might receive Christian instruction.  The result was not good, and that plan has been universally abandoned.  But we still sometimes offer secular education, or medical treatment, as an inducement to people to submit themselves, or to place their children under our religious instruction or influence.  This is, in principle, precisely the same thing as paying them, though in a far less vicious form.  I cannot help thinking that the day is not far distant when we shall consider the offering of any material inducement as contrary to sound doctrine as we now consider the money payments of former days.— — Roland Allen,      Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Foreword by Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, [1962] 1989 p. 43

…Some of the foreign missionary societies could, and no doubt would, hand over the buildings and patronage to the native church, but others could not, and would not, do that, because they (p.58) hold the property for the propagation of the peculiar views held by their subscribers at home, and the trustees at home could not be sure that the native bishops would continue to hold those peculiar views whether of doctrine or ritual.  Yet it is scarcely conceivable that native churches will tolerate the interference of foreign patronage boards, and a grievous strife, material possessions are the most prolific….—ibid. pp. 58-59

               The first and most striking difference between his [Paul] and ours is that he founded ‘churches’ whilst we found ‘Mission’…. The theory is that the Mission stands at first in a sort of paternal relationship to the native Christians: then it holds a coordinate position side by side with the native organization; finally it ought to disappear and leave the native Christians as a fully organized church.  But the Mission is not the Church.  It consists of a missionary, or a number of missionaries, and their paid helpers, supported by a foreign Society.  There is thus created a sort of dual organization.  On the one hand there is the Mission with its organization; on the other is the body of native Christians, often with an organization of its own.  The one is not indeed separate from the other, but in practice they are not identified.  The natives always speak of ‘the Mission’ as something which is not their own.  The Mission represents a foreign power, and natives who work under it are servants of a foreign government.  It is an evangelistic society, and the natives tend to leave it to do the evangelistic work which properly belongs to them.  It is a model, and the natives learn simply to imitate it.  It is a wealthy body, and the natives tend to live upon it, and expect it to supply all their needs.  Finally, it becomes a rival, and the native Christians feel its presence as an annoyance, and they envy its powers; it becomes an incubus, and they groan under the weight of its domination….—ibid. p. 83

… Hindus often find Christian charity too possessive and interfering, aggressive at times, not sufficiently detached and disinterested; those who practice it are yet not poor enough in their liver or the means they use;….— ‘FOR A TRUE DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND HINDUS’, P.Fallon, S.J., in Cyril B. Papali, o.c.d., FOR A DIALOGUE WITH HINDUISM, p.129

“Daniel T. Niles, the great Sri Lankan theologian, has written of Jesus:

‘He was a true servant because He was at the mercy of those whom He came to serve….The weakness of Jesus, we His disciples must share. To serve from a position of power is not true service but beneficence.’

Niles continues:

‘One of the features of the life of the Christian community in the lands of Asia is the number of institutions of service which belong to this community. We run (p.203) schools, hospitals, orphanages, agricultural farms, etc. But, what we do not adequately realize is that these institutions are not only avenues of Christian service but are also sources of secular strength. Because of them, we can offer patronage, control employment, and sometimes make money. The result is that the rest of the community learn to
look on the Church with jealousy, sometimes with fear, and sometimes even with suspicion….The only way to build love between two people or two groups of people is to be so related to each other as to stand in need of each other. The Christian community must serve. It must also be in a position where it needs to be served….Let me say it as an aside, that, I my view one of the biggest problems to be solved in the years that lie ahead I how, Inter-Church Aid can be given and received without destroying that weakness of the churches in which lies their inherent strength.’

Niles concludes with, ‘The glory of the Lion is the glory of the Lamb.’” (“This Jesus…Whereof We Are Witnesses” Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965, pp.23-27)— Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove IL IVP Academic, 2008, pp. 203-04

Swamiji,

All through mission and church history there have been many missionaries and churchmen who have served quite altruistically.  They were simply motivated by the love of Christ for all.

In regard to the current church, I have seen much altruistic service, but I have also seen that service has often been focused on helping one’s own caste people.

The legal difficulty in passing a law on this is the definition of “enticement.”  If a person is promised peace in their heart, heaven, fellowship with God, forgiveness of sin, etc., is that enticement?

I can share two stories on this topic, one from 75 years ago and one from 15 years ago.  I asked one elderly church member once what initially drew him to convert.  He said, “I wanted to wear shoes like the missionaries.”  More recently, I asked one man who had converted along with his family.  He said, “Christian children get ahead.”  They no longer get any mission benefits.   In fact, they lose all gov’t. benefits.  Yet, they get ahead in life.  I think it is because they get new dignity, hope, and purpose in life when they follow Jesus.  They also get the support of a pastor and a community that promotes these virtues.

I recall one dedication of a chapel in a slum area.  The Hindu panchayat president spoke and also the local Muslim imam.  Both praised the presence of the chapel, saying, “Christianity has been a great blessing to the community.  Men no longer get drunk all the time, waste their money, and beat their wives.”  The church promotes these virtues among them.

God bless.

Herb
24-12-14

My comments are not about those who indulge in gross purchase of souls by hook or crook. It is more about perceptions created by genuine interactions between those who convert and the converted.

Any material assistance provided before or after conversion will be construed as ‘inducement’. Financial distress in a poor individual’s life is routine and the stigma of ‘coercion’ will always stick with missions. This is equivalent to drinking milk under a palm tree. Those involved in missions cannot escape from this slur. What is the solution? Should proselytization should be only attempted on those who do not need financial assistance? What about ‘soft’ inducements such as emotional relief, educational support etc?

In our Mandali too we selectively offer financial support either individually or through the trust to bhaktas in distress. As a trust we have not provided relief to non-bhaktas although we may have done on individual capacity. Through which lens should this be viewed?

Sevanand requested churches for financial relief for suffering fellow churches. In the midst of dealing with burning issues in the church, the financial angle is present in his letters. Are we not commanded to provide financial relief to bhaktas. Does Muktiveda teach that one’s faith is irrelevant when it comes to providing financial support?

In my view, financial or emotional or educational support (hard and soft) provided to suffering people either to change their faith or to keep them in the faith will create perceptions. Same with our bhakti. All said and done Muktinath is a foreign God however hard we try to contexualize or incarnate him in our tradition.

I am quite comfortable with our current practice of being judicious in offering support to bhaktas. We should not care about perceptions that will be created as a result.

On the article itself: It is too long and should also be sharpened. My expectation in Swamiji’s blog is that it will dissect issues and raise the level of debate. He should not be jostling with others in the market place of ideas. 

Madhu

24-12-14

Dear Dr. Hoeffer,

Shanti!

Thanks for sending the paper ‘Between the Dark and the daylight, by Dave O’Brien. Did you ever read Charles H. Kraft’s book: Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective.  I typed to share with other bhaktas of the Lord.

These days, I slowly realize the problem even to communicate certain worldview of one culture which is understood in the native language and the way it is explained in English.  For example in the article: Between the Dark and the Daylight, the author says: Many missionaries seem to have learned reverence for culture rather than respect.  This can impair missionary vision and effectiveness.

Though there is difference between ‘reverence’ and ‘respect’ those words if translated in Indian language particularly in Hindi or Tamil won’t communicate what the author tries to point out in his article.  For example in Hindi what we say as ‘aadhar, samman, maryada and in Tamil as: mariyaadai, madippu, pootrudal etc. could be used both for reverence and respect.

Though the author is specifically addressing to the missionaries, yet when a native expresses her respect for her culture, some time, it might look like ‘reverence’ to an outsider.  Whatever may be the role of a missionary in a cross cultural situation, the question is not whether s/he has reverence or respect to the native’s culture, but how far s/he helps the native to learn where to draw the line, instead of the missionary herself/himself  do it for the native.  In the name of teaching and safe guarding the new believers, sever damage has been done by the natives themselves to their culture.  Unless the missionary takes pain to learn about the local culture, it is better for her/him not to judge or teach the new believers.

In few cases, due to some fear of not to be misunderstood (not only by the new believers and seekers, but also to other with whom the missionaries rub shoulders in cross cultural situation), they may go to the extreme end of giving reverence to the culture, whereas the natives least bother about the missionaries attitude about their culture, thinking that: they are outsiders.

Having said this, I enjoyed the article and as you pointed out, it is well balanced.  I typed to share with other bhaktas of the Lord.  However I would like to know your view on the following points in the article:

               ‘Just like modern missionaries, Paul had to reject his own culture and culturally conditioned achievements as worthless to become the apostle to the Gentiles.  If the culture of Paul, Jesus, Isaiah, Elijah, Moses and the patriarchs had to be abandoned, we too must share the conviction that the only thing in which we can boast is the gospel.—p.356

–my question is: did Paul completely ‘reject his own culture and culturally conditioned achievements as worthless to become the apostle to the Gentiles.  How far one can give up one’s own culture for the sake of serving others?  No sincere bhaktas of the Lord will boast on cultural aspect and will boast in the gospel.  Here I find Kraft’s point very useful:

‘…In each case [of OT and NT] we see God starting (though not ending) where people are culturally for the sake of revealing himself to them comprehensibly.  The apparent differences between the loving God of the New Testament and the stern judgmental sacrifice-demanding God of parts of the Old Testament are not to be interpreted as indications that God changes his approach to humans every few thousand years (as some seem to imply).  They indicate, rather, that the unchanging supracultural God usually (not always) chooses to reveal himself in such a way that the members of various cultures may focus in on those aspects of God’s nature and activity most amenable to their cultural expectations as to what God should be like.  They then respond to him in faith (a supracultural requirement) expressed in ways appropriate to their cultures.’

               …Hebrew culture, for example, allows for cetain insights into the nature of God that Greek culture is not so strong on (e.g., God’s majesty).  Greek culture, on the other hand, allows for insights that Hebrew culture is not so strong on (e.g., God’s grace).— Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Charles H. Kraft, New ork, Orbis Books, (1979) 16^th Printing, 2000 p.236

As a digression and in continuity with our previous discussion about historicity, I find this very helpful.  In our Indian culture historicity is not so strong but faith and bhakti is.

‘…If culture includes learned behavior passed on from generation to generation, then culture, biblically understood, is an attempt of fallen human beings to adapt to and make sense of a fallen creation….’—p.357

–is there any ‘biblical’ understanding about any particular culture.  Why every human endeavor is considered as the creation of a fallen human being?  The fallen nature with us would tempt us to misuse even several good things that we have created.  But this does not mean that every thing that attempted by humanity is ‘to adapt to and make sense of a fallen creation’.

Thanks for sending this paper.  Do you want to me to send the typed copy of this article to you?

dayanand

Swamiji,

I’m glad you found the article useful.

It probably is too strong to say that Paul “rejected his own culture.”  What he rejected were the limitations and prejudices of his cultural upbringing.  The barriers between the Jew and the Gentile were indeed integral to the Jewish culture, and he rejected them.  In this regard, he was probably considered a retrograde Jew by the orthodox members of his culture.

In regard to the fallenness of creation, there is no doubt that much good is to be found in every culture.  These aspects are to be honored as part of God’s good creation.  Just as we see the good and bad in every fallen human, we do with every fallen culture.

God bless.

Herb