Giving his scholarly views regarding the ‘conscience’ of a ‘Convert’ eating the meat Bailey says:
In summary, Paul has earlier discussed
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.— Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, p. 291
But when we interpret this principle to the Indian context it will completely be a contradiction.
First, I am not sure actually whether there existed any ‘temple operated’ Restaurants in Corinthian. As a Middle Eastern Scholar, I have to accept what Bailey says. But here in Indian context, once that meat ‘BOUGHT’ by the Restaurant to re-sell them as cheap food, then it won’t remain as ‘PRASAD’. Even if the Temple itself operates any hotel to sell its products as ‘food’ and not as ‘prasad’ [like that in Indian context], even then it won’t remain a Prasad.
Only when any Prasad distributed freely to other people then it would remain as the GRACE viz., ‘Prasad’ of that deity or from that pilgrim centre. Let me further explain, if I fail to communicate my views:
As I have already mentioned, as Laddu sold in Balaji temple at Tirupati is rationed, some people will buy the same ‘Thirupathi’ laddu commercially produced by others and sold in the Market in Tirupati. They will buy some of them and will distribute it, back in home, as Balaji Prasad. But if a person buys them to ‘Resell’ as Thirupathi Laddu then it will only remain the famous Tirupati Laddu as mere sweet but never as the Prasad of Balaji. I can multiply this example like Palani Panchamrtam etc. [In Tamilnadu].
In Corinthian context, even after being bought and served as a food in a ‘temple operated’ restaurant might continue to remain as the meat offered to that deity but not here in India. Let me give one real example. There is a famous hotel in Trichy in Tamilnadu [in the Main Guard Gate area, but I forgot the name now]. It is famous for its coconut Chutney, known as Salavi Chatni, which will be made only with coconut not mixing with any other things like that prepared in home or other hotels. It is possible for them because they buy all the coconuts that were broken as ‘Chatur Thengai’ to Manikka Vinayagar Temple at the foothills of Trichy Rock Fort. Coconuts broken by those devotees [in the temple premise in a special stone tub created specifically for this, who took a vow to break a certain number of coconuts, say 11 or 101 etc. when their wish is fulfilled by Vinayaga. This is a common practice in most of the Ganapathi temples in Tamilnadu, still done by many.1 The temple will bid for action and whoever pays the highest price will get it. But to that hotel, whoever goes [including non-Hindus] to enjoy that special Salavi Chattni along with hot tiffen like Idli or dosa will never consider it as Prasad of Manikka Vinayagar.
This being the Indian reality, if anyone taking the Corinthian context of eating in ‘temple operated’ restaurants, not knowing the real context and applying it to the Indian context will miss the point. Of course a ‘convert’ or any other Bhakta of the Lord is free to accept or reject any Prasad coming either from a temple or home. But as I have explained those who give will respect your religious commitment, though they might have their own reservation in their mind about it—if you fail to see their love and affection for you to share with you but only as a Prasad of that deity. But for me it is the Prasad of their affection and not that of the deity.
So what Bailey says about eating meat in a ‘temple operated’ restaurant in Corinthian could be true, but we cannot apply his explanation universally to every situation. Above all I am sure whether in ancient time actually there existed hotels and restaurants as we now know. Of course there were Inns to accommodate travelers but I am not sure about such restaurants. At least in Indian context I never come across such information.2
There were so many practices in several cultures and societies which might have completely different kinds of meaning and purpose for those people. But in the past few missionaries have made the mistake of making a Universal Missiological principle and made grave mistakes. Polygamy is one such issue. In several African Countries it was a common practice as the need for extra laborers to work in the field made it a necessity. But when they began to convert them to Christianity, several missionaries not only said no to polygamy but compelled several new converts to divorce all other wives keeping only one as legitimate. This led to poverty among the deserted wives and forced them to become prostitutes to survive.
But this has become a criminal act when it comes to Big Hunter in Canada. Here is the original account by Roland Allen:
…Take, for instance, the case of Big Hunter. Big Hunter was a chief among the Sioux who fled from the States into Canada and put themselves under the protection of the Canadian government. Presbyterian missionaries visited them and taught them, and many of them embraced the Christian teaching, and amongst these Big Hunter. He wished to become a Christian, and was told that he must put away all his wives except one. After a long struggle he at last determined to obey, but not knowing how to obey because he did not know how to arrange for his wives, he hanged them. Then he came to the missionaries and told them that he had done what they demanded. Thereupon they drove him away as a murderer, and in despair the man abandoned all hope of ever becoming a Christian, returned to his heathen gods, married two new brides, and lived as a heathen till the day of his death, in spite of the fact that his children became Christians….— Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes Which Hinder It and Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours, WS Publishers, 1997pp. 65-66
So later some missionaries realizing the mistake, changed it by allowing the new converts to keep all the wives but strictly instructed them not to marry any more.
Doing theology is a risky business and one should be careful not to create any universal Christian Theology, particularly Missiology applicable to every situation in every part of the world. Remaining sensitive to the local understanding and meaning is very much important. Of course this is what Sevanand has done. But as Roland Allen has pointed out, is it Paul’s or Ours? But are we ready to learn from him or even from other contexts before making any sweeping generalization? Anything that is sold, even after being offered to any deity, be it in temple, or home, or hotel, shop, after harvest cease to remain a Prasad in Indian context. In several temples and Gurudwaras Anadanam is done freely but never sold. Only those things freely distributed after offered to a deity would be prasad. Only when the water is poured from a conch would it be called Theertha(m) ‘holy water’, as the famous Tamil proverb says.
Gurukulam, 21-04-2024
1 In other temples, when the coconut is broken by smashing on the stone floor in front of the shrine, others standing nearby will come and pick up the broken pieces [but not by the one who has broken] to take it as Prasad. At the same time many won’t take it as some kind of ritual taboo is attached with it and only poor people and beggars will take them. Whereas a coconut offered to the main deity and broken in front of in the sanctum by the priest, half coconut will be returned to the person as Prasad and rest half the Priest will keep as part of his share {of course along with the extra money that is placed on the aarti plate by the votary].
2 Accommodating travelers for a few days in an Inn commonly known as ‘Sattiram’ in Tamil and ‘Dharma Sala’ in Hindi is present almost in every major pilgrim centre. They will provide free accommodation and food. I think this is a common practice in Middle Eastern Cultures too as we find lots of information about this in Muktiveda. I am not sure in the Good Samaritan story, when the Samaritan pays to the Innkeeper, is it for lodging that wounded person or to cover extra expenses for his treatment. Whereas in the story of Muktinath’s parents not finding a place in the Inn, one can understand that it is free of cost. In Purva Veda we find reference to strangers accommodated in their home by individuals in that city, when the former sits with his camel in the town square—sending the signal that he needs accommodation for one night on his way. Even in India, in the rural areas this practice continues, at least providing food to the strangers. If I begin to explain from my own experience then it will take further pages and there is no need for this in this article.
Giving his scholarly views regarding the ‘conscience’ of a ‘Convert’ eating the meat Bailey says:
In summary, Paul has earlier discussed
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.— Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in ! Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, p. 291
But when we interpret this principle to the Indian context it will completely be a contradiction.
First, I am not sure actually whether there existed any ‘temple operated’ Restaurants in Corinthian. As a Middle Eastern Scholar, I have to accept what Bailey says. But here in Indian context, once that meat ‘BOUGHT’ by the Restaurant to re-sell them as cheap food, then it won’t remain as ‘PRASAD’. Even if the Temple itself operates any hotel to sell its products as ‘food’ and not as ‘prasad’ [like that in Indian context], even then it won’t remain a Prasad.
Only when any Prasad distributed freely to other people then it would remain as the GRACE viz., ‘Prasad’ of that deity or from that pilgrim centre. Let me further explain, if I fail to communicate my views:
As I have already mentioned, as Laddu sold in Balaji temple at Tirupati is rationed, some people will buy the same ‘Thirupathi’ laddu commercially produced by others and sold in the Market in Tirupati. They will buy some of them and will distribute it, back in home, as Balaji Prasad. But if a person buys them to ‘Resell’ as Thirupathi Laddu then it will only remain the famous Tirupati Laddu as mere sweet but never as the Prasad of Balaji. I can multiply this example like Palani Panchamrtam etc. [In Tamilnadu].
In Corinthian context, even after being bought and served as a food in a ‘temple operated’ restaurant might continue to remain as the meat offered to that deity but not here in India. Let me give one real example. There is a famous hotel in Trichy in Tamilnadu [in the Main Guard Gate area, but I forgot the name now]. It is famous for its coconut Chutney, known as Salavi Chatni, which will be made only with coconut not mixing with any other things like that prepared in home or other hotels. It is possible for them because they buy all the coconuts that were broken as ‘Chatur Thengai’ to Manikka Vinayagar Temple at the foothills of Trichy Rock Fort. Coconuts broken by those devotees [in the temple premise in a special stone tub created specifically for this, who took a vow to break a certain number of coconuts, say 11 or 101 etc. when their wish is fulfilled by Vinayaga. This is a common practice in most of the Ganapathi temples in Tamilnadu, still done by many.1 The temple will bid for action and whoever pays the highest price will get it. But to that hotel, whoever goes [including non-Hindus] to enjoy that special Salavi Chattni along with hot tiffen like Idli or dosa will never consider it as Prasad of Manikka Vinayagar.
This being the Indian reality, if anyone taking the Corinthian context of eating in ‘temple operated’ restaurants, not knowing the real context and applying it to the Indian context will miss the point. Of course a ‘convert’ or any other Bhakta of the Lord is free to accept or reject any Prasad coming either from a temple or home. But as I have explained those who give will respect your religious commitment, though they might have their own reservation in their mind about it—if you fail to see their love and affection for you to share with you but only as a Prasad of that deity. But for me it is the Prasad of their affection and not that of the deity.
So what Bailey says about eating meat in a ‘temple operated’ restaurant in Corinthian could be true, but we cannot apply his explanation universally to every situation. Above all I am sure whether in ancient time actually there existed hotels and restaurants as we now know. Of course there were Inns to accommodate travelers but I am not sure about such restaurants. At least in Indian context I never come across such information.2
There were so many practices in several cultures and societies which might have completely different kinds of meaning and purpose for those people. But in the past few missionaries have made the mistake of making a Universal Missiological principle and made grave mistakes. Polygamy is one such issue. In several African Countries it was a common practice as the need for extra laborers to work in the field made it a necessity. But when they began to convert them to Christianity, several missionaries not only said no to polygamy but compelled several new converts to divorce all other wives keeping only one as legitimate. This led to poverty among the deserted wives and forced them to become prostitutes to survive.
But this has become a criminal act when it comes to Big Hunter in Canada. Here is the original account by Roland Allen:
…Take, for instance, the case of Big Hunter. Big Hunter was a chief among the Sioux who fled from the States into Canada and put themselves under the protection of the Canadian government. Presbyterian missionaries visited them and taught them, and many of them embraced the Christian teaching, and amongst these Big Hunter. He wished to become a Christian, and was told that he must put away all his wives except one. After a long struggle he at last determined to obey, but not knowing how to obey because he did not know how to arrange for his wives, he hanged them. Then he came to the missionaries and told them that he had done what they demanded. Thereupon they drove him away as a murderer, and in despair the man abandoned all hope of ever becoming a Christian, returned to his heathen gods, married two new brides, and lived as a heathen till the day of his death, in spite of the fact that his children became Christians….— Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes Which Hinder It and Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours, WS Publishers, 1997pp. 65-66
So later some missionaries realizing the mistake, changed it by allowing the new converts to keep all the wives but strictly instructed them not to marry any more.
Doing theology is a risky business and one should be careful not to create any universal Christian Theology, particularly Missiology applicable to every situation in every part of the world. Remaining sensitive to the local understanding and meaning is very much important. Of course this is what Sevanand has done. But as Roland Allen has pointed out, is it Paul’s or Ours? But are we ready to learn from him or even from other contexts before making any sweeping generalization? Anything that is sold, even after being offered to any deity, be it in temple, or home, or hotel, shop, after harvest cease to remain a Prasad in Indian context. In several temples and Gurudwaras Anadanam is done freely but never sold. Only those things freely distributed after offered to a deity would be prasad. Only when the water is poured from a conch would it be called Theertha(m) ‘holy water’, as the famous Tamil proverb says.
Gurukulam, 21-04-2024
1 In other temples, when the coconut is broken by smashing on the stone floor in front of the shrine, others standing nearby will come and pick up the broken pieces [but not by the one who has broken] to take it as Prasad. At the same time many won’t take it as some kind of ritual taboo is attached with it and only poor people and beggars will take them. Whereas a coconut offered to the main deity and broken in front of in the sanctum by the priest, half coconut will be returned to the person as Prasad and rest half the Priest will keep as part of his share {of course along with the extra money that is placed on the aarti plate by the votary].
2 Accommodating travelers for a few days in an Inn commonly known as ‘Sattiram’ in Tamil and ‘Dharma Sala’ in Hindi is present almost in every major pilgrim centre. They will provide free accommodation and food. I think this is a common practice in Middle Eastern Cultures too as we find lots of information about this in Muktiveda. I am not sure in the Good Samaritan story, when the Samaritan pays to the Innkeeper, is it for lodging that wounded person or to cover extra expenses for his treatment. Whereas in the story of Muktinath’s parents not finding a place in the Inn, one can understand that it is free of cost. In Purva Veda we find reference to strangers accommodated in their home by individuals in that city, when the former sits with his camel in the town square—sending the signal that he needs accommodation for one night on his way. Even in India, in the rural areas this practice continues, at least providing food to the strangers. If I begin to explain from my own experience then it will take further pages and there is no need for this in this article.
Leave a Reply