Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma: Book Review

.

Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma: Book Review

Catholic Ashrams Adopting and Adapting Hindu Dharma.

With a preface by Sita Ram Goel,Voice of India, New Delhi, 1988.

The main line of argument by the self-appointed guardians of Hinduism from the so-called resurgent Hindus is to oppose missions’ efforts to present Christianity as an “indigenous faith…disguised in Hindu forms”.

The preface by Sri Sita Ram Goel is the main part of the book and rest of the book is a commentary on this giving various case studies and statistics includding a fascinating dialogue by letters between Fr.Bede Griffiths and a Swami Devananda. 

“The Indianisation of Christianity is a serious matter” [p.4] as the mission is “casting covetous glance before mounting a marauding expedition.  What causes concern is the future of the Hindu culture once it falls into the hands of the church. The fate of Greek culture after it was taken over by the church is a grim reminder”[p.xv].

As the mission under “imperialist enterprise” failed to “make the strides it should have made by virtue of its own merits and the opportunities that came its way”[p.vi], now by the latest method called “indigenisation” which “sounds soft but is no less sinister” as it is nothing else but “is evangelisation.  It is the planting of the gospel inside another culture, another philosophy, another religion” [p.xiii].  And the call from the resurgent Hindu leaders is to oppose it as both Hindu religion and culture–which according to them are inseparable–are at stake.  And they too have the backing of the same church authority behind them giving moral support in their efforts to do so.  “If anyone in India feels that the Hindu tradition is pagan and has to be rubbed out, ignored or fought against violently, they haven’t understood what the Vatican council is trying to say” [p.12], says Fr. John Keane, Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Officer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to “Hinduism Today” magazine [p.11].

The call is given considering three main reasons:

1. Under the disguise of indigenisation they [mostly Catholics] have no right to selectively embrace,”those parts of Hindu spiritual discipline and culture which they find inspiring” [p.4].

2. “The whole business could have been dismissed with the contempt it deserves or laughed out as ludicrous but for the massive finance and the giant apparatus which the Christian mission in India has at its disposal” [p.xiv].

3. And, as “many Hindus, raised on decades of uncritical acceptance of any form of religious expression, may simply not care one way or the other”[p.4] and thereby they are not aware of the fact that “A well monied and successful missionary is regarded as a threat to the national stability”[p.9].

The rest of the book is focused to prove this by carefully presenting case studies of De Nobili, Brahmabandhab.  The dialogue between Swami Devananda and Fr.Bede Griffiths reflects their respective “sectarian” views.  However Fr. Bede finally won a moral victory by his polite reply [except one letter dt. Aug. 11th, 87] for all the un-modest attack of Swami Devananda against him.  But Fr. Bede while giving his consent for the publication of his correspondences with Devananda again pleads for his cause not because of his on his conviction’s sake but rather surrendering to the Pope.

But one can read in between the lines that the so called God-fathers of Hinduism are raising such an issue not because the stability of the nation or the Hindu culture is at stake nor because of the so-called efforts of indigenisation by the missions.  But as “their own jobs and positions and privileges are at stake”[p.x] due to the resurgency among the Non-Aryans against their domination over them.  The real threat to Hinduism is not from the other faiths but from the growing materialism in the country.  The Roman Empire fell because of its own internal struggle.  “What does pollute Hinduism, however, and really devalues it as a spiritual path, is the failure to actualise its teachings in one’s own life, the compassion and spiritual perfection or true holiness.  This goes for Christianity as well” [W.r. Teasdale writing one Bede Griffiths, originally in Indian Express [p.39].

Sri Geil tries to prove his point by carefully presenting case studies of De Nobili and Brahmabandhab.  The dialouge between Swami Devananda and Fr. Bede Griffiths reflects their respective ‘sectarian’ views.  But the beauty of it is that Devananda, himself an American [this fact is concealed in the book], challenges Fr. Bede’s right to become a sanyasi.  An American took all the authority in his hand to challenge a British and we poor Indians are ‘caught between the rock and hard place’!  However Fr. Bede finally wins a moral victory by his polite reply [except one letter dt.Aug.11th, 87] for all the un-modest attack of swami Devananda against him.  But Fr. Bede, while giving his consent for the publication of his correspondence with Devananda, pleads for his cause not only because of his conviction’s sake but also surrendering to the Pope [pg 63-640

In the final analysis the book is all in vain because no one really cares about the issue that such a hue and cry is raised over. On the one hand the so called secularised Indians have no time for such issues as the book raises, (which they consider as unnecessary secondary issues) and on the other hand the suppressed Non-Aryans are no more ready to subscribe to the idea of gathering under the banner of Hinduism.

Similarly except for rare exceptions, the people inside the Church are openly opposing the very idea of inculturalisation and are not ready to follow one like Fr. Bede.  In spite of the voice raised by various corners of Christendom since the beginning of this century for the need to present “The Living Water in Indian bowl” (to borrow the words of Sadhu Sunder Singh) yet for them the word inculturalisation is anathema.  For most of them and all the mother churches irrespective of their denominational differences up to this day remain uneasy for the “Eastern look and leanings”[p.8] by few individuals like Fr. Bede.

As far as my knowledge goes all the “theory of indigenisation” are remaining in the paper level and used by the seminarians both for their assignments as well as for examinations or used by the scholars to write books, which the common people are not bothered to read. After all the theologians like philosophers are those who try to give answers to the questions no one ever asked.

As long as the ‘creedianity’ [the worshipers of their respective denominational creeds rather than Christ] people are content to follow their respective ‘churchianity’, the resurgent Hindus can take an easy breath and can concentrate to set their own house in order.

But the people who are really caught between the “rock and hard place”  are neither the theologians nor the scholars of respective sides, but lay people, who with their simple faith and devotion try to assimilate their new found faith in Christ by remaining what they are culturally, socially and even religiously to some extent.

Leaving aside for a time about all the technical aspects of the play of words like religio-philosophy, socio-cultural etc., we lay people have a few questions to ask.

In my personal conviction I am a bhakta of Christ and no amount of any one’s efforts to get me to give up my personal faith will yield any result. I would rather give up my life than to deny my faith in Christ. Now standing on this conviction I have to live as a normal human being.

So in my first step to worship my Lord what kind of sadhana should I follow?  Have I to sing English hymns [or to sing my own songs in Western tunes as they do] which though have deep meaning, yet as I couldn’t either understand the music or feel like singing really in worshipping the Lord?  Similarly in my personal prayer what kind of words should I use?  To be more specific I am ethnically a Tamilian.  But unfortunately both in the Catholic and Protestant circle so far still they follow a special Tamil which I used to call as “pulpit Tamil”.  Only a traditional Christian alone can feel at home with it and even after being a follower of Christ since last 12 years I find it difficult to accept their language for use in my personal prayer and worship as well as composing poems.

Now as per your words in page viii & ix “What is the way out…Hindu Christian”–can I worship the Lord in the music and forms in which I could feel at home or not?  Your attack on them is completely justifiable if they use indigenous methods only to convert the Hindus by willy nilly to their respective Creedianity so that finally they can destroy our Indian culture.  On the other hand, in order to make room for the new bhaktas [or converts to use your term] to feel at home, if they try to indigenise their worship, theology etc then can we call their efforts as “casting covetous glances before mounting a marauding expedition”[p.xv]?

But our struggle is that the brainwashed westernized traditional Christians inside the church [whom I used to call as Pharisees] strongly object my views to allow us to live in our own culture environment.  They are not ready to accept us until we are conformed to their “image” and not that of Christ.  Milk though rich and liquid yet fish cannot survive in it and we naturally want to remain in our own water, rejecting their views.  So we find a welcoming change in the idea of indigenisation which is coming only in a very very small level that too from only one branch of ‘creedianity’ viz. Roman Catholics.

If you say, “you cannot remain in your own culture [even in your country] and worship an alien God”, then I need not point to the way your Hinduism [not mine please note down] accepted all kinds of other alien gods starting from Vedic time till modern time without soberly thinking about the theological contradictions that were involved in it.   

What ever may be your answer yet I am with you in your efforts to preserve the cultural heritage of our country without compromising with my personal conviction in Christ.  Because a hostile home is better and safer than a suspicious -of course friendly- neighbour.

Dayanand Bharati.

25-4-’92,

Barkhor-vill [camp].