Foolish Question

Foolish Question

From a Christian: Hindu friends, please explain…when Brahma made the WHOLE EARTH, why do all Hindu gods and goddesses prefer to live in INDIA? And if the gods prefer INDIA, why do Hindus run to other countries?! And if INDIA IS GOD’S CHOICE, why does India have so many PROBLEMS?!

My response

There is a difference between anyone (including me) asking a ‘FOOLISH’ question and a FOOL asking a question. The above is the best example of the latter. The person who sent this question to me wrote, ‘Asked by a Christian man.’ Of course, who else can ask such a wonderful foolish question about Hinduism other than a Christian? By saying this, I am not denigrating all the Christians. But Hindu or Christian sometimes can ask some foolish questions about other faiths. But this Christian, by asking such foolish questions, demonstrated his knowledge about Hinduism.

In my response, I wrote back not to waste time by answering such fools. This is not a serious theological question for anyone to respond to. I too thought not to waste my time giving an answer to such questions. But as that Christian asked the question sarcastically, I changed my mind to give the same kind of sarcastic answer as a typical Hindu.

As Bharat (India) is the only punya bhumi (HOLY LAND) on earth, gods and goddesses prefer to live here. Because we Hindus believe, unlike the Christians who proclaim that ‘man is a sinner,’ that man is divine, and the atman is pure and part of God. So gods preferred to dwell among the pure and not among the sinners and chose India.

As the Christian rushed to India to preach their god to Hindus, now Hindus are running to other countries to share their gods. Now, wherever Hindus live, you can notice at least a small shrine for their gods, except, of course, in the Vatican. Even in Saudi Arabia, where Christians cannot openly construct a church, Modi managed to inaugurate a Hindu temple there.

Regarding Hindus running outside India, this Christian forgot one fact: wherever they go, in a small way, every Hindu, unlike the Indian Christians, remains a ‘Cultural Ambassador’ of India, representing its civilizational values. He also conveniently wants to forget that compared to the population of Hindus in India, the diaspora Hindus might be less than one percent all over the world. Whereas if one compares the Indian Christian population, almost 50 percent of them have already run away from India, forgetting the golden Indian saying in Sanskrit that ‘janani janmabhūmiśca svargādapi garīyasī’ = mother and motherland are greater than heaven, as they found their heaven in their promised lands—particularly America. Though we are thankful to them for reducing 50% of the Christian problem in India—a great contribution, in spite of their meager percentage in India (around 3%). True, Hindus also went outside India to make a living and seek more pleasures, but they never forget that they are Indians in every respect—both ways (good or bad).

So is there no problem in the rest of the world or in those Christian countries, and only we have problems in India?!?!? Relatively, India has fewer problems than Western Christian countries. Take the Corona pandemic and see the deaths there?! As there are thirty-three crore gods in India—an average of three gods per Hindu, they take care of them carefully. That is why the death rate is very low in India. And even those who die among the Corona-infected patients mostly died due to other health issues and not because of Corona, and also due to their past karma. Unlike in Christian America and England, where the death rate is high among ethnic minorities as they allow them to die to get rid of them, we are not allowing this to happen to any minorities. As they have a minimum of one god and a maximum of three gods (thanks to the Trinity), they cannot handle all those patients; hence, the death rate is higher in Christian countries.

Remember, even India is sending medicines for Corona to Western countries and is soon going to produce medicines and even vaccines in India for Corona. Even Christian America is importing 40% of its medicines only from India. Yesterday’s news is that one American company signed a contract with two Indian pharmaceutical companies to produce important medicine for Corona and fix the price to supply to other countries, particularly economically weaker ones.

And so, this Indian Christian also should thank Hindu gods and India for allowing him to live in this holy land. Finally, why does he still live in such a problematic country and not migrate to other great Christian countries?

14-05-2020 

To be continued

Am I attacking Christians? {Part II}

After reading this article, the natural question that might come to anybody’s mind is, ‘Why do I attack Indian Christians whenever I get an opportunity?’ But the answer is ‘NO’ if they carefully read my writings, which remain scattered in various places. In fact, I defend them and their rights. Most of the time, my problem is only with the so-called ‘Hindu converts,’ who suddenly begin to find everything glorious in Christianity and everything worst in Indian civilization. And with some unintentional ignorance, when a few Indian Christians teach them to do it, I have to ‘critique’ their approach, helping them remember that though they are Christians, they are still INDIAN Christians—of course, still remain a hybrid, unable to assimilate everything from the West, and unable to give up everything from Indian dharmic civilizational values.

One reason for this is that the form of Christianity that was imposed on them (probably unintentionally then) by the Western missionaries didn’t allow them to assimilate and accommodate the natural contradictions that are also part of any and every faith around the world. I need not point out that Christianity is the most syncretistic faith of all religions in the world (it began already in Judaism). In the course of its spread, in the name of inculturation and contextualization (whether they used these very words or not, but the spirit was there), when they tried to assimilate those native concepts, culture, and traditions to communicate ‘Christian Faith,’ they finally managed to make them part of THEIR CHRISTIAN TRADITION by removing the pagan body but keeping the pagan spirit, now putting a new CHRISTIAN BODY to make others believe that it is part of natural religion revealed by God. So wherever they went, they managed to cannibalize the native tradition to make it part of CHRISTIAN TRADITION. This helped them explain those inherent inner contradictions by using all kinds of textual and exegetical tools by theologians to make the followers feel comfortable accepting and even sometimes forgetting those contradictions.

For example, what sacrifice in Purvaveda originated in Pentateuch and the way it then developed into various shapes, forms, and meanings because of pagan influences successfully managed to make it part of Jewish theological tradition. Another that comes to mind is baptism, which is borrowed from pagan cultures by Jewish communities during the Intertestamental period, which later integrated it as if it were a natural part of Christianity. The same way the theory of Atonement, which was not so prominent among the early church but made as the center of Christian Faith, is another example in Church tradition.

Not knowing all these historical developments, when some Indian Christians and Christian converts started to attack Hinduism by asking sarcastic questions, in response, I wrote how a typical Hindu would respond with the same sarcastic spirit to pay them back in the same coin, for them to understand. But there are several sincere theologians and lay Christians who, realizing all kinds of contradictions in Christian theology and traditions, never launch such attacks on other faiths. They try to understand other faiths on their own terms and forms and then try to involve in a dialogue to communicate their Christian Faith at its best.

When single scriptures, linear history, and monotheism with exclusivism became the founding principles of a religion like the Abrahamic faiths, they had to live with the inner tension of how to accept, accommodate, and live with so many contradictions in their scripture, history, and doctrines. There, they developed their own exclusive and unique exegesis to address these contradictions, explaining them where they couldn’t be hidden or dismissed under any doctrinal framework.

But according to me, our Indian dharmic tradition, which never accepts the authority of any single scripture (where even it is claimed for the Veda, most of the time it is mere lip service), cyclical history, polytheism, and inclusivistic pluralism as part of their worldview—in which religion is only a part and not the center—accepting, accommodating, and living with contradictions is never considered a problem but accepted as a reality.

Here, following an alien god, faith, and tradition, though remains a challenge, never remains a new phenomenon (‘Let noble thoughts come from everywhere’ Rg. Veda), as from time immemorial, Indian civilization assimilated so many alien faiths, accommodating them to survive side by side with other faiths—not compromising with their core doctrine but adjusting in peripheral areas and being charitable in all. And now, being a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord, how to live my life without denigrating my worldview, and at the same time remain faithful to my bhakti, becomes a challenge. And my approach to this is not contextualization but incarnation. According to my understanding, though Christianity emerged from Judaism, still the ‘Good News about the Lord’ never remained captive to them. And when we allow it to incarnate in any tradition and culture, not annihilating the native culture, tradition, and worldview, while at the same time not diluting its core doctrine, it will emerge in a new form, becoming part of our own Hindu worldview. If one is allergic to the word ‘Hindu,’ replace it with ‘Indian,’ as there is not much difference between these words according to me.

To conclude, my approach is not to hurt others or run down the faith and tradition of others, but only to critique their approach. If some are offended, that is not my problem. And as they accuse me of having a prejudice against the Indian Christian converts and Indian Christians, I have none. And I even, on several occasions, in my various writings, support and defend them and their faith, more than even the so-called ‘Hindu converts,’ particularly the Hindutvawadis, as I find some of them are more dangerous to this nation and our civilization than those Indian Christian converts and Indian Christians.

Finally, though I am proud of my Indian civilization and culture, I am never ‘proud of myself,’ as I know my own failures, struggles, and challenges.

Of course, this will shock any traditional Christian, as I try to make even Christianity a part of Hinduism, as already some churches like Hindu Christian ones exist. No, I am not promoting this. I want Indian Christianity to remain a separate entity, as a separate religion, keeping its own worldview. And let Indian Christians have their birthright (as they are born into Christian families) to remain as they are. They do not need to change any of their Church traditions to accommodate Hindu converts. If any Hindu or anyone from another faith wants to become Christian through conversion and join the Church, let them try to become that particular denominational Christian, without demanding any concession in the name of conversion. Let them become a Roman in Rome. Similarly, let us Hindu bhaktas remain Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, accepting all the challenges in exercising our bhakti in our families and communities. As I have already said several times, “A hostile home is better than a suspecting but friendly neighbor.” And for us, the Indian Church will always remain a friendly neighbor. But in the name of their faith or religion, let Indian Christians refrain from making sarcastic attacks on Hinduism, neither knowing their Scripture and religious tradition properly nor knowing *anything* about Hinduism.

There exists no perfect worldview. Every faith and scripture has its own inherent inner contradictions. However we try to explain them with all our skill, unless we become unfaithful to the text, we cannot fully resolve them. If you have any genuine questions to ask with the purpose of learning or clearing your doubts, there is a better way to ask those questions. Real faith will help one present them in a more humble spirit, demonstrating maturity. Otherwise, every such sarcastic attack will be answered in the same spirit, demonstrating immaturity on both sides—to which I am not an exception.

**Part Three:**

**Contradiction in Scripture**

Every Scripture presents some idealistic teaching about life that cannot be implemented to the letter and spirit of the Scripture. Of course, preachers can preach that idealism to others to encourage them in the “expectation” of their Scripture. But none can implement it literally in life. Of course, there were a few exceptions who tried to implement it to the letter and spirit. Either they were hailed as saints or condemned as fanatics. Somewhere, I read that some Church fathers (or saints) literally damaged their groins to implement the spirit of the word “Enoch” in the verse. Those who followed them hailed their commitment, while others questioned such a literal interpretation of the Scripture.

According to my understanding of Muktiveda, there are so many contradictions both in verses and theology that cannot be easily resolved through any exegetical tool. But I confess that, not knowing theology, I cannot question those sincere and serious theologians who tried to iron out those contradictions through their skillful interpretation of the verses by using all the exegetical tools available to them. But my bhakti in the Lord is never going to stand or fall based solely on those theological interpretations to iron out the contradictions to present a homogenous theological unity in the Scripture. Of course, with my layperson’s understanding, I can say that there is some homogenous thread that connects the fundamental concepts of Muktiveda from Genesis to Revelation. At the same time, not every verse or book can be reconciled with the spirit of homogeneity.

Let me illustrate this. Take, for example, the creation theory: God created everything out of nothing (ex nihilo). In Hinduism, there are various creation theories that support each one’s needs and interests: God as both the material and efficient cause; God only as the efficient cause and not the material cause; creation is cyclical as nothing can be annihilated but is recycled in every kalpa, etc., etc.

For me, the question about creation is not so crucial for my bhakti in the Lord. I am not competent enough to explain this. But I keep the question of creation away from my bhakti, and it never bothers me. When someone challenges the Muktivedic creation theory, my simple response is: I don’t know. Better you ask this question to theologians or read books by Christian apologetics.

There are many such questions on doctrinal claims that were formed later by theologians. I have already shared the unresolvable question about the atonement theory: To whom was the ransom paid—to God or to the devil? And the way this question was debated throughout church history without reaching any final conclusion.

The next is: God not only forgives our sins but also forgets them, not remembering them anymore. He even puts up a sign: “No more fishing.” So when we accept that noble forgiveness from God, we need to forget our past and press forward by unloading the unnecessary burden of the past and running the race to receive the crown. Fine. Is this possible practically? Though my conscious mind forgets my past, my brain still saves data in hidden files in the subconscious mind, bringing them back when I try to correct others. Can I say that this is the work of the devil to defeat me and to question the forgiveness of God? Or is this the work of the Holy Spirit to remind me that “I am a saved sinner but a struggling saint”?

“Love covers many sins,” says another verse. Then, can I implement this literally by covering up every unethical sin and crime in a person whom I love? No is the obvious answer, but I have my own answer to such questions [be it charity, forgiving, etc.]. If it costs only you, then go to any extent to uphold any principle—be it related to morality or faith. But if it affects others to whom you are committed, then don’t do it at their expense. One example suffices here: If charity costs only my personal comforts that I have to give up to help someone else, then I have to do it at any cost as much as possible, but I cannot do that at the expense of others who depend on me, like my family. The same applies to forgiving. I can forgive someone else when I am offended, but if that is going to affect others, then I should be careful. If my forgiving affects the interests and aims of the company where I am working, then I cannot continue to forgive my subordinates’ mistakes.

Another example that comes to mind is the command of the Lord: “Let the dead bury the dead, but you follow me.” If I have to do that, then how do I explain Corban, against which the same Lord warns?

Similarly, there are many examples from Hinduism that one can quote. Particularly the Puranas, more specifically the “sthala puranas” (Puranas that belong to a particular pilgrimage or temple), which will give one kind of story that contradicts the overall doctrine of that particular sampradaya (like Shaivism or Vaishnavism). But the followers of those faiths and bhaktas of those particular deities or temples never mind those contradictions. Space won’t allow me to give illustrations.  See the Appendix.

For them, pluralism and relativism are the reality in life—including religion, which is part of life. They never try to homogenize their pluralistic traditions or Scriptures (as some modern Hindu apologetics try to do) to present an essentialized universal faith. “As many souls, so many views” is their basic doctrine.

As a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I too accept that there is pluralism and relativism in the teachings of Muktiveda. The famous concept, “The Bible interprets the Bible,” though not in the Bible, is another famous evangelical slogan that will never resolve several contradictions. Certain teachings in a specific verse are limited to the immediate context of the text and should not be compared with another verse that contradicts it. For example, “Let the dead bury the dead” and Corban, or “forgive and forget the sin.” What Sevanad wrote in Romans 7:15 to the end should not be compared with “forget the past and run the race.” Each one was written to address a different audience. Though the overall theme of Muktiveda is that God forgave our sins and never remembers them again, this does not mean that we can do the same. Particularly in our relationship with those who offended us, we can forgive but can never forget the incident. In all our future relationships with them, we will keep it as the Lakshman Rekha not to trespass the line—as the Tamil proverb says, “Burned clay won’t stick together again” (sutta manu ottadhu). You may use some quick fix to repair the crack, but whenever you handle the broken pot, you will remember that there is a hidden crack.

Muktiveda taught me one good lesson: Accept personal failures, contradictions, etc., in life. Accept your moral responsibility for your failures, not blaming someone or something else like Kala, Karma, or even God. Relativism and pluralism are the reality in life. As religion is part of your life, it is not exempt from this rule. Don’t try to brush the contradictions under the exegetical carpet to present a contradiction-free homogeneous unity that can be universalized in Muktiveda. Of course, there is a fundamental unity among all the books in it. But there are more contradictions that need to be explained and understood in the specific context rather than trying to present a contradiction-free Muktiveda.

One may even find many contradictions in this brainstorm. I accept it. Because I started with one point and used it to present some of my convictions using this rebuttal as a mere pretext. If someone points it out, I will completely agree with her/him but would like to say that I used this rebuttal to address some of my own questions that my rational mind raises about my bhakti in the Lord and faith in Muktiveda.

So my aim is not to attack Indian Christians or Christianity, but only to isolate such immature persons to help them and teach them properly to respect others’ faith, which is the TRUE MARK OF FAITH.

25-10-2020

Response

I have long advocated similarly to your view here.  The Indian Christian church is primarily a rebellion of dalits against Hindu caste oppression. They have a legitimate grievance and legitimate right to adapt a Westernized religious form in reaction.  They are wrong to object to forms of following Jesus that are different from their own.  India is a country of multitudinous varieties of religious expression.  Let that be true of devotion to Jesus, without rancour or resentment.

God bless.

Herb Hoefer

25-10-2020

Thank you for this really revealing & shedding further insights into becoming a hindu-follower of Christ. I really enjoyed it in the way it was very pointed & called for closer introspection.  

25-10-2020

Appendix

Let me use only one example. Siva’s consort Parvati is called ‘Unnamulai’ at the famous Saiva center Thiruvannamalai in Tamilnadu. The exact translation of ‘Unnamulai’ means a barren woman whose breast (specifically, nipple) was never sucked by a baby. Interestingly, many Hindus don’t pronounce this word as it is but slightly twist it to ‘Unnamalai,’ similar to ‘Annamalai,’ the name of Siva in that temple. Well, that is not the main issue here. As Parvati was cursed by other gods not to have any children, she remains barren, never feeding any child. In fact, no Hindu gods have their biological children in the original form, but they do in their incarnation, as in the case of Krishna having his various forms as sons [Pradyumna and Kamadeva]

But at Sirkazhi, another famous Saiva center near Chidambaram, one of the three famous Saiva saints, Thirujnasambandar, was actually fed by the very breast milk of Parvati when he cried due to hunger while his father was taking a bath in the temple tank. Each pilgrim center (sthala purana) has its own story, which should not be compared and contrasted to point out any contradiction. As the primordial energy, Adi Shakti, who even gives energy to Siva to act, has the capacity to bring milk from her breast to feed the crying baby. Of course, she didn’t literally allow Sambandar to suck her nipple, but collected the milk in a cup and fed him, leaving the baby and the cup next to him. When his father came from the bath and saw a few drops of the milk on the baby’s lips with a cup left next to him, he was outraged, thinking someone had defiled the Brahmin baby. When he questioned the child, the child pointed to the sky where both Siva and Parvati showed their darshan to the father, assuring him that his son was fed by the very mother of the universe.

Similarly, among the 63 Saiva Saints, many of them were not strict historical persons but characters from Puranas. It was pointed out by some serious scholars that, in order to counter the 63 Jain Tirthankaras, several of these mythological characters were included with several historical saints to complete the list of 63. But according to my understanding, most of the lay followers of the Saiva tradition are not even aware of this.

Many more such examples can be brought from the nooks and corners of Hinduism. But this never affects the bhakti of the average Hindus.